In 2017, Cloudflare CEO Matthew Prince decided to terminate the account of the controversial neo-Nazi site Daily Stormer.

 

“I woke up this morning in a bad mood and decided to kick them off the Internet,” he wrote at the time.

 

The company’s lawyers later explained that the move was meant as an “intellectual exercise” to start a conversation regarding censorship and free speech on the internet. However, external parties took this discussion in a different direction than the one Prince had planned.

 

For years, Cloudflare had a policy not to remove any accounts without a court order, so when it kicked out Daily Stormer and later 8Chan as well, eyebrows were raised. For example, copyright holders wondered why the company could terminate these accounts but not those of the most notorious pirate sites.

 

Cloudflare’s seemingly arbitrary termination choices were repeatedly cited in policy discussions and copyright litigation. In addition, it triggered an ongoing wave of termination requests.

 

Over the past few days, Cloudflare found itself in the midst of a ‘cancel’ discussion again, with people calling on the company to disconnect the harassment-linked forum Kiwi Farms. This prompted Matthew Prince to clarify the company’s stance on offensive, abhorrent, and copyright-infringing content.

No More Voluntary Terminations

The company makes a clear distinction between the various services it offers. When Cloudflare is the primary hosting platform it leaves plenty of room for voluntary terminations. For its CDN, security, and core Internet infrastructure services, voluntary actions will no longer happen.

 

This strict line in the sand is the result of discussions with policymakers worldwide. Cloudflare sees itself as an Internet utility that should remain as neutral as possible, even when its customers do despicable things.

 

“Just as the telephone company doesn’t terminate your line if you say awful, racist, bigoted things, we have concluded in consultation with politicians, policy makers, and experts that turning off security services because we think what you publish is despicable is the wrong policy.

 

“To be clear, just because we did it in a limited set of cases before doesn’t mean we were right when we did. Or that we will ever do it again,” Prince adds, referring to the earlier terminations.

Wave of Requests

While many people applauded Cloudflare for booting out The Daily Stormer and 8Chan, these decisions were actively used against the company. Not just by copyright holders, but also by authoritarian regimes.

 

“In a deeply troubling response, after both terminations we saw a dramatic increase in authoritarian regimes attempting to have us terminate security services for human rights organizations — often citing the language from our own justification back to us.”

 

As we suggested back in 2017, Cloudflare essentially handed out free ammunition to adversaries, who could use the voluntary terminations as an argument to request more restrictions. That includes kicking out pirate sites.

 

Cloudflare is clearly uncomfortable with this position. The company stresses that voluntary terminations will no longer happen for sites that use its CDN or security services. Instead, those demanding action will need to get a court order.

Slippery Termiation Slope

In recent years various courts have already ordered Cloudflare to block pirate sites. The company has complied with these orders. However, it vows to fight cases where core infrastructure is at play with tooth and nail. This includes a recent order in Italy, that required the company to block pirate sites on its public DNS resolver 1.1.1.1.

 

“Unfortunately, these cases are becoming more common where largely copyright holders are attempting to get a ruling in one jurisdiction and have it apply worldwide to terminate core Internet technology services and effectively wipe content offline,” Prince writes.

 

These global injunctions would set a dangerous precedent, Cloudflare’s CEO says, as it would allow the most restrictive regimes to control what content should be available online. Preventing bad precedents is the prime reason why Cloudflare believes it is important not to intervene voluntarily in the future.

 

“Holding this line we believe is fundamental for the healthy operation of the global Internet. But each showing of discretion across our security or core Internet technology services weakens our argument in these important cases.”

 

In other words, Prince doesn’t want another Daily Stormer or 8Chan that can come back to haunt the company in the future. This means that The Pirate Bay and other pirate customers have little to worry about, at least for the time being.

 

With thousands of piracy sites operating online today, the overall chances of being targeted by the Alliance for Creativity and Entertainment are still relatively small.

 

But that presumes that all sites are equal and ACE picks victims randomly, which is certainly not the case. There will always be good reasons behind an action, they just aren’t made public.

 

On one hand, ACE is likely to have bigger, longer-term projects, with strategic or even political goals in mind. On the other, it may want to stop emerging sites from gaining momentum and repopulating a niche. But if a site has a million or more visits per month and ACE has spotted a point of leverage, the odds suddenly start to shift.

 

Last week German news publication Tarnkappe reported that at least three domains belonging to HDFilme, a streaming site with around 12 million monthly visits, had suddenly started redirecting to the ACE anti-piracy portal. A similar redirect was seen on xCine, a streaming platform that had been enjoying more than four million visits per month in its own right.

ACE Confirms Shutdown of Both Streaming Sites

In an announcement this week, ACE confirmed it was behind the closure of both sites, which specialized in mainstream movies and TV shows directed at the German-speaking market.

 

“HDFilme, xCine, and seven associated domains that had been operating since 2019, provided illegal access to more than 23,000 movies and an estimated 100,000 television series episodes; they attracted over 16 million visitors monthly,” the ACE statement reads.

 

ACE doesn’t detail specific domains but Tarnkappe previously reported that HDFilme domains hdfilme.io, hdfilme.tv, and hdfilme.cx were affected. We’re now able to add at least two others to the list – hdfilme.net and hdfilme.cc.

 

The main domain of xCine (xCine.me) was an obvious target for ACE, but it appears the site had another domain with minimal but growing traffic. After receiving attention from ACE, xCine.tv won’t be making any more gains. But that’s only six domains and ACE mentioned seven.

Linking Domains Helps Investigations

No single piece of information allows a group like ACE to take down two popular sites, but site operators can make it easier for investigators to move to the next piece of the puzzle.

 

In this case, the operator behind HDFilme used one Google Analytics account across several domains, some related to piracy, others seemingly not. Running down that list of domains reveals Watchmoviehd.org and perhaps as expected, that also redirects to the ACE portal.

 

Coincidentally or not, several new HDFilme-themed domains were registered in July and August. Who registered them is unclear but overall there are at least 170 similarly-named domains on record. The domains xCine.me and xCine.tv were also linked through the use of one analytics account but gave less information away.

HDFilme and xCine Operated Out of Vietnam

ACE says that HDFilme and xCine were run from Vietnam by the same person, who was identified via legal actions in Europe and “cross-regional” investigative work. The anti-piracy group says the operation to shut the sites down was the first of its kind in the country.

 

“Our focus on Vietnam is a key part of our ongoing efforts to reduce piracy in the Asia Pacific region and throughout the global creative ecosystem,” says Jan van Voorn, Executive Vice President and Chief of Global Content Protection for the Motion Picture Association and Head of ACE.

 

“ACE will continue to target the operators of Vietnam-based piracy services who put consumers at risk of egregious malware, undermine investment into the country, reduce tax contributions to government, and stifle creativity.”

MPA: Vietnam Has a Big Piracy Problem

In its submission to a 2022 report on foreign trade barriers, the MPA described the online piracy situation as “rampant” and the response to infringement in the country as “ineffective”.

 

“Vietnam is host to some of the most egregious piracy sites and services in the world. These piracy sites inflict damage not only on the local marketplace but just as often harm MPA productions from around the world,” the MPA said.

 

“Regardless of extensive evidence of serious infringement provided by rightsholders, there has traditionally been a lack of coordination and transparency among related ministries and agencies and a seeming lack of government commitment to ensure effective enforcement of copyright protection.”

 

The popularity of HDFilme and xCine probably made them attractive to ACE in their own right. But throw a lead from Europe and a political hot potato into the mix, suddenly there’s a strategic target. The one that Hollywood really wants is FMovies, but whether Vietnam is ready for that is another story.

 

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

 

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

 

Telegram doesn’t permit copyright infringement and generally takes swift action in response. This includes the removal of channels that are dedicated to piracy. For some copyright holders that’s not enough, as new ‘pirate’ channels generally surface soon after.

Removing Channels is Not Enough

To effectively protect their content, rightsholders want to know who runs these channels. This allows them to take action against the actual infringers and make sure that they stop pirating. This argument is the basis of an infringement lawsuit filed in 2020.

 

The case in question was filed by Ms. Neetu Singh and KD Campus. The former is the author of various books, courses, and lectures, for which the latter runs coaching centers.

 

Both rightsholders have repeatedly complained to Telegram about channels that shared pirated content. In most cases, Telegram took these down, but the service refused to identify the infringers. As such, the rightsholders asked the court to intervene.

Telegram Has to Identify Pirates

The legal battle culminated in the Delhi High Court this week via an order compelling Telegram to identify several copyright-infringing users. This includes handing over phone numbers, IP addresses, and email addresses.

 

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

 

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

 

“Courts in India would be perfectly justified in directing Telegram, which runs its massive operations in India to adhere to Indian law and adhere to orders passed by Indian Courts for disclosure of relevant information relating to infringers,” the Court writes.

 

“Infringers cannot be permitted to seek shelter under Telegram’s policies merely on the ground that its physical server is in Singapore.”

 

Disclosing the personal information would not be a violation of Singapore’s privacy law either, the High Court adds, pointing out that there is an exception if personal details are needed for investigation or proceedings.

Freedom of Expression and Intermediary Protection

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

 

“The right to freedom of speech or the right to life including the right to privacy cannot be used by any person or entity, let alone an infringer, in order to escape the consequences of illegal actions,” the Court concludes.

 

Finally, Telegram argued that it is not required to disclose the details of its users because the service merely acts as an intermediary.

 

Again, the Court disagrees. Simply taking infringing channels offline isn’t good enough in this situation, since infringers can simply launch new ones, as if nothing had happened.

 

“Merely disabling or taking down channels upon information being given to Telegram is an insufficient remedy,” the court writes, adding that these channels are “clearly hydra-headed” because pirates can start over with ease.

 

—

 

A full copy of the order from the Delhi High Court is available here (pdf), courtesy of Bar and Bench.

 

The popularity of user-generated content sites like YouTube has led to millions of regular people becoming proud content creators in their own right.

 

Since YouTube content creators are also copyright holders, this can lead to a new perspective on the purpose of copyright law. To keep things running smoothly, content creators also need to respect any copyrights held by others.

 

Not doing so could lead to copyright complaints from third parties. If YouTube users receive three complaints, their accounts could be permanently suspended, taking all videos, views, subscribers, even creative momentum away. Fortunately, most careful YouTubers never experience copyright problems.

 

But out of nowhere, disaster can still strike.

 

The message above was received by YouTuber John Hammond just this week. In common with similar emails received by other YouTubers recently, it mentions a genuine video he created and uploaded to YouTube. It even cites the correct YouTube URL.

 

But Hammond is not just a YouTuber, he’s also a cybersecurity researcher, and this didn’t feel right.

Clever Opening Shot – But Not That Clever

By including genuine information in the message and coupling that with the genuine fear of account loss, the scammers hoped that panic would lead to urgency, and that urgency would lead to less scrutiny. Hammond didn’t panic, he knew his video didn’t violate copyright.

 

The message was sent to Hammond via Google Drive, in PDF format. YouTube would never do that. Warnings appear in users’ YouTube accounts so viewing them there is always the best option – unless you’re a cybersecurity guy with a penchant for rabbit holes.

 

Hammond followed up by doing what the message asked. He clicked the ‘Open Full Report’ button for more information and found himself transported to an obviously-not-YouTube URL, with his email address tagged on the end. This is rarely a good thing.

 

Hammond found that the destination site acted differently depending on the user’s browser (such as Chrome or Firefox) but eventually redirected to files stored on Dropbox.

 

Needless to say, YouTube doesn’t deliver files to its users like that.

Beware of Unnecessary Links, Multiple Downloads

By this point, Hammond was supposed to believe that YouTube communicates with creators via Google Drive, using a Gmail account, in questionable English. According to the text in the notification above, he was also supposed to believe that YouTube hadn’t yet decided whether he should get strike or not.

 

This ray of hope draws the target’s attention towards the outcome of the supposed copyright ‘moderation’ process and away from the bogus copyright notice. Given the warning’s claim that any decision will stand if the user doesn’t read the full report, one can imagine that some might be tempted.

 

After clicking ‘Open Full Report’ for entirely different reasons, Hammond was served with a file that had been hosted by the attackers on Dropbox. It was named “YouTube Copyright Report” and came with a ZIP extension, meaning that extraction would take place on the user’s machine.

 

In general, users should be extremely cautious of files that appear on their machines as part of a process they didn’t initiate themselves, especially when the event comes out of the blue. Never trust a stranger bearing ZIPs, it rarely ends well.

 

Using Process Monitor on Windows 11 (inside a VM), Hammond found that the file tried to discover device information, checked if any anti-virus was running, and then repeatedly tried to contact what appeared to be an IP address in Finland.

Conclusion: RedLine Stealer Malware

We looked a little closer at the Finland-linked IP address and found a lot of interest in Russia, a characteristic it shares with the domain previously highlighted by John Hammond in the URL containing his email address. In respect of the latter, many other similar domains are linked and could be just as malicious, but something else caught our eye too.

 

After tests on the domains and IP addresses, we discovered similar URLs containing other people’s email addresses and usernames. We were able to directly link one of the email addresses to an active YouTuber who may have been targeted with a similar bogus copyright complaint.

 

We haven’t received a response to the warning email we sent him earlier but the situation is potentially very serious. Hopefully he bailed on the process early enough.

 

While technically experienced YouTubers may not fall for this kind of scam, it’s not difficult to see how someone who really values their YouTube channel might act emotionally in the heat of the moment.

 

That being said, the scam cannot survive when a user has a clear understanding of YouTube’s ‘strike’ system and the methods used by the platform to communicate problems. Becoming familiar with these processes isn’t difficult but if there’s any doubt, log into YouTube, read any messages and before clicking anything, ask someone.

 

Nothing is so urgent it can’t wait, despite what the scammers say.

 

In June, the US Copyright Claims Board was launched.

 

Through this venue, hosted at the US Copyright Office, rightsholders can try to recoup alleged damages outside the federal court system.

 

Just over a hundred cases have been filed thus far, mostly by smaller independent creators, but some large companies have found their way to the board as well.

McDowell’s Copyright Troubles

Late last week, Paramount Pictures filed a claim against JMC Pop Ups, which is known for its pop-up restaurants carrying movie or TV show themes. This includes a McDowell’s, modeled after the restaurant prominently featured in “Coming to America.”

 

In the movie, McDowell’s ran into copyright issues due to its similarities with the multi-billion dollar McDonald’s franchise. In this case, however, Paramount Pictures wants to protect the McDowell’s brand against an external threat.

 

According to the claim, the restaurant copied a wide variety of copyrighted materials without permission.

 

“In creating and marketing the Infringing Restaurant, JMC copied countless copyrighted materials from the works, including but not limited to the menu, the character names and likenesses, and the recreations of well-known McDowell’s restaurant from the Coming to America universe.

 

“Specifically, the Infringing Restaurant’s menu used numerous well-known indicia of the Works, including the ‘Big Mick’ with a ‘non-seed bun’,” the movie studio adds in its complaint.

Advance Warnings

The legal action shouldn’t come as a surprise to JMC Pop Ups. For more than a year, Paramount’s lawyers have repeatedly reached out to the company, asking it to cease the allegedly infringing activity.

 

The restaurant owners didn’t believe that they had infringed Paramount’s rights. Instead, they announced plans to open a new McDowell’s in Springfield from May 20 to June 5. That announcement was a step too far for Paramount.

 

After JMC failed to confirm that the event would be canceled, Paramount decided to take the matter to the Copyright Claims Board. The choice of venue shows that the movie studio is mostly concerned about stopping the infringements, as available damages are limited.

 

Paramount notes that the pop-up McDowell’s misleads the public, who may think that it’s an official Hollywood-backed venture, which it isn’t. This is all the more problematic because the food isn’t that great, according to some reviewers.

Food Discomfort?

“JMC misused Paramount Pictures’ intellectual property to deceive parents and children into believing that the Infringing Restaurant is affiliated with, or authorized by, Paramount Pictures.”

 

“To make matters worse, the quality of the food is in serious question, as consumers have reported feeling discomfort after eating at the Infringing Restaurant,” Paramount Pictures adds.

 

Through the Copyright Claims Coard, the movie studio requests an award of $30,000 in statutory damages, the maximum available. In addition, it hopes to prevent any further infringements.

‘Creative Celebration’

Attorney John Powell, who represents the restaurant, still believes that McDowell’s didn’t infringe on Paramount’s copyrights and trademarks.

 

“The McDowell’s pop-up was a creative celebration of a fake restaurant,” the lawyer told the WSJ, adding that “JMC is disappointed by Paramount’s heavy-handed response to fans of its films.”

 

Participation in the Copyright Claims Board proceeding is not mandatory. JMC has the right to opt-out if it wishes to do so. Should that happen, Paramount can still take the matter to federal court where statutory copyright damages can reach $150,000 per work and legal fees are much higher.

 

Copyright holders are increasingly demanding that ISPs should block access to pirate sites in order to protect their business.

 

This is also the case in Australia, where blocking injunctions became commonplace in recent years.

 

Thus far, hundreds of sites have already been blocked. This includes many well-known players including The Pirate Bay, YTS, RARBG, Fmovies, and Flixtor.

More Blockades Incoming

Last week, Netflix, Village Roadshow, and several Hollywood film studios filed a new site blocking request, their second blocking demand this year. The case lists all major Australian ISPs as defendants but the targeted domains have yet to be published publicly.

 

The Australian reports that the copyright holders identified 52 new pirate sites in their most recent push. The names of the sites aren’t mentioned but based on the five previous blocking lawsuits, it’s likely a mix of torrent, streaming, and linking portals.

 

It generally takes a few months for Australia’s Federal Court to hand down a decision. However, no major complications are expected as local ISPs generally don’t object. In the meantime, copyright holders are not sitting still.

‘Dynamic’ Blocking Amendments

In addition to obtaining new blocking orders, Netflix, Disney, and the other rightsholders actively expand existing blockades. Just last week, the Federal Court granted an expansion to an injunction it handed down earlier this year.

 

The new order adds 18 new domain names, including Primewire.mx, Moviesjoy.sc, 123moviess.se, and Putlocker.vc. These new domains are all related to previously blocked sites, through their use of a similar domain name, for example.

 

The original order clarifies that these extensions can be used to target additional sites that appear to be “associated with any of the Target Online Locations (based on its name, branding or the identity of its operator) and making available online the same or substantially the same content…”

 

These “dynamic” injunctions help the rightsholders to swiftly update blocklists. After an amendment is granted by the court, the domain names have to be blocked for a period of three years, which can be extended if needed.

 

Last week’s blocking expansion is not the first this year. In July, the movie companies previously requested an update to a December 2021 blocking order, adding 45 new domain names. These include quite a few 123movies variants, such as 123-movies.fun, 123movie.sh, and 123movies.day.

 

A full list of the domain names added in the two recent blocking expansions is available below.

 

—

 

On August 22 Justice Nicholas amended the February 22, 2022 blocking order with the following domain names:

 

– soap2dayfree.co
– soap2dayhd.com
– soap2day.rs
– primewire.mx
– new-primewire.com
– moviesjoy.plus
– moviesjoy.sc
– 123moviess.sc
– 123moviesc.cyou h
– 123moviess.se
– new123movies.la
– gomovies.cyou
– real-gomovies.com
– new-gomovies.online
– putlockers.pro
– putlockers.llc
– putlocker.vc
– putlocker.pics

 

On July 5 Justice Nicholas amended the December 21, 2021 blocking order with the following domain names:

 

– 123-movies.fun
– 123-movies.dev
– 123-movies.ag
– 123-movies.sx
– 123-movies.gy
– 0123movies.click
– 123movies.gl
– 123watchmovies.co
– 123moviesh.to
– 123movie.sh
– 123moviesfree.so
– 1234movies.live
– 123movies.college
– 123moviesready.org
– 123-movies.ninja
– 123moviesfree.rest
– 123movieshd.icu
– 123movies.wiki
– 123moviesfree4u.co
– 123moviesgo.club
– 123moviestv.me
– ca123movies.com
– 0123movie.ltd
– movies123.click
– movies123.studio
– 123moviess.la
– 123movies.day
– 0123movies.ltd
– movies123.click
– movies123.studio
– 123moviesss.la
– 123movies.day
– 0123movies.ltd
– 123moviescc.cc
– 0123movie.ru
– fmovies2.cx
– fmoviesto.cc
– fmoviesf.me
– fmoviefree.net
– himovies.tv
– hdmovie5.tv
– hdmovie5.to
– hdmovie5.cam
– hdmovie5.art
– bflix.gg

 

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 August 29 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	(…)	Nope	7.1 / trailer
3	(…)	DC League of Super-Pets	7.6 / trailer
4	(2)	Jurassic World Dominion	6.0 / trailer
5	(3)	Prey	7.3 / trailer
6	(…)	Samaritan	5.9 / trailer
7	(5)	Elvis	7.7 / trailer
8	(6)	Minions: The Rise of Gru	6.7 / trailer
9	(…)	Me time	5.0 / trailer
10	(8)	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.

 

In common with many countries in Europe, Austria couldn’t escape pressure from rightsholders to implement site blocking to prevent piracy.

 

Local ISPs didn’t like the idea but following a ruling by the European Court of Justice in 2014, rightsholders took legal action to have sites blocked. ISPs fought all the way to the Supreme Court, but to no avail. Concerns over net neutrality were also brushed aside.

 

Movie companies went on to target several major streaming sites and then in 2015, The Pirate Bay, 1337x and other torrent sites were blocked following action by music industry group IFPI.

 

In the years that followed, many more domains were blocked following rightsholder complaints. Publishers also joined the action with Sci-Hub and Libgen blocks but at the end of 2019, instructions for ISPs to block pirate sites suddenly stopped after several domains belonging to notorious streaming site Movie4K were added to the register.

Blocking Resumes – Badly

After a considerable pause, last week ISPs were instructed to block a new batch of domains following legal action by Satel Film GmbH. They included domains operated by BurningSeries, SerienStream, Fmovies and SeasonVar – around 30 overall. Another blocking order, obtained by DOR Film, targeted another 40 domains.

 

This batch was closely followed by yet another blocking order obtained by collecting society Wahrnehmung von Leistungsschutzrechten GmbH (LSG). Austrian ISPs were instructed to block music piracy site NewAlbumReleases.net and 10 additional unblocking site domains facilitating access to it.

 

The ISPs also received instructions to block music piracy site Canna Power. If the instructions had stopped at Canna-Power.to and Canna.to, that would’ve been the end of the matter, but that wasn’t the case here.

 

The court-sanction blocking instructions also contained a list of IP addresses to be blocked at the same time – all of them belonging to Cloudflare and used by a large number of innocent sites, as well as the piracy site in question. After more than a decade of blocking orders around the world, this was a rookie mistake but that didn’t reduce the consequences.

ISPs Had No Choice But to Obey The Court

After internet users in Austria began to complain of unexpected website outages on Sunday, Der Standard says it began asking questions.

 

Up until now, ISPs have been given lists of domains so that blocking can be conducted by DNS. This time IP addresses were supplied in addition to domains and because non-compliance can lead to legal action, ISPs had no choice but to follow the orders. Worryingly, ISP Magenta said that the whole thing could’ve been avoided.

 

Previously, through a process involving the Austrian Regulatory Authority for Broadcasting and Telecommunications (RTR), it was possible for ISPs to offer their input on blocking. That is no longer the case.

 

“In the past, RTR had the option of a determination procedure. Internet providers could use this to check in advance whether a block is permissible or not. However, this procedure no longer exists due to a supreme court ruling,” the company told Der Standard.

 

In this case, RTR can check whether the blocks are admissible, but only after the damage has been done.

Cloudflare Works on Technical Solution, Calls for Action

Approached for comment, Cloudflare said it was working hard to find a way around the blocks. It also called for the public to get involved in the debate while putting pressure on the government.

 

“We are currently working on finding a technical solution for the affected websites. At the same time, Austrian Internet users are being asked to put pressure on politicians. Perhaps then the knowledge will prevail there that the blocking of IP addresses always has undesirable side effects,” the company’s statement reads.

 

Blocking can have undesirable side effects but the more fundamental problem is the drive to conduct site blocking via agreements between stakeholders, negotiated in private processes, with no public oversight.

 

If Austrian ISPs hadn’t published the details of what they are required to block, the public would’ve had blank screens and no answers today. Publishing blocking lists for scrutiny should be required wherever blocking is put in place but according to rightsholders, that only serves to encourage piracy.

 

Publicizing the closure of a big pirate service, the arrest of its operators, and the seizure of their assets, is a golden opportunity to discourage future crime by practical example.

 

It doesn’t matter how successful you are, you will be caught, and your riches will be taken away, the message goes. But while anti-piracy groups and law enforcement agencies publicize headline-grabbing statistics about the services they target, it’s not uncommon for the services themselves to go unnamed.

 

Considering that reduces the deterrent effect, it’s probably a calculated decision.

Massive International Operation, Maximum Publicity

On June 10, 2020, the European Union Agency for Criminal Justice Cooperation (Eurojust) announced that authorities in Spain, Denmark, Sweden and Germany had arrested 11 people as part of a massive international investigation into a pirate IPTV platform with two million subscribers.

 

When all of the service’s live TV streams and VOD items (movies, TV shows) were added together, the mystery service reportedly offered around 40,000 ‘channels’. Eurojust said that 50 of the IPTV provider’s servers had been “taken down” but the service itself wasn’t mentioned by name.

 

As part of the operation, police seized real estate, luxury cars, jewelry, cash, and cryptocurrency worth a reported €4.8 million. Another €1.1 million was frozen in various bank accounts. Eurojust revealed how payments were accepted by the IPTV platform and even explained how its owners – a Spain-based “organized crime group” – maintained payment processing servers in Poland.

 

A parallel statement by Europol, the European Union Agency for Law Enforcement Cooperation, put a little more meat on the bones. Their announcement read slightly differently, noting that authorities “took down 50 IP addresses and part of the online criminal infrastructure” but in the headline stated that the IPTV platform had been “switched off”.

 

The EU law enforcement agency published an interesting video but, in common with Eurojust, did not name the service in its press release.

 

 

Europol’s statement noted that police were working hard to obtain information that would “effectively dismantle” the criminal group behind the IPTV service. After arresting the alleged ringleader in Spain, they were already off to a good start.

 

Reportedly known as ‘Dash The Iranian’ among his colleagues, businessman Amir Zalaghi is the central figure in the Spanish investigation. It’s alleged that he’d made at least €15 million from his pirate IPTV platform in the two years before the raids, with around €1.6 million invested in a luxury Spanish property and €400,000 spent on the vehicles pictured below.

 

Information published by EU law enforcement agencies at the time of the raids generated a lot of interest, and quite rightfully so. Shutting down a pirate IPTV service with two million users should be a seismic anti-piracy event, because when a pirate service ‘runs away’ with cash paid upfront by two million subscribers, that generates an awful lot of noise online.

 

In the days following June 10, 2020, that didn’t really happen. The raids reportedly took place on June 3, 2020, days in advance of the official announcement, but whether anyone noticed any major disruption is still unclear. There are reports of a service suffering disruption for around a week at that time but no sign of any service being ‘dismantled’.

More Information Trickles Out

Over time, more details about the operation appeared in various anti-piracy documents and reports. A statement from anti-piracy company NAGRA said that the “shutdown” of the “piracy ring” was the result of criminal complaints and the involvement of Deutsche Fußball Liga (DFL), Spanish league LaLiga, NAGRA, and Nordic Content Protection. The Alliance for Creativity and Entertainment was also involved.

 

NAGRA reported that several individuals had already been charged with various offenses, including crimes against intellectual property, communications fraud, money laundering, and involvement in a criminal organization. It was confirmed that the suspected leader of the group (now known to be Amir Zalaghi) and around ten others had been arrested – a total of four in Spain, one in Germany, three in Sweden, and another three in Denmark.

 

Soon after the initial announcement, TorrentFreak was informed that the “dismantled” pirate IPTV service was RapidIPTV, something we reported at the time. But while that detail was good to know, it didn’t really help us to properly pinpoint which service had apparently disappeared.

 

Due to the popularity of the original RapidIPTV, many services have been operating under that name for years. Only adding to the confusion was that none seemed to have suffered a catastrophic failure. Deutsche Fußball Liga had been filing DMCA complaints containing RapidIPTV.net URLs, but in isolation that didn’t prove much.

 

Eurojust did mention that the ‘criminal organization’ behind the service dates back to 2014, so that could potentially rule out all newer (and potentially unconnected) RapidIPTV domains except RapidIPTV.com, which was first registered in October 2014.

 

But whether users go to RapidIPTV.com or its .net variant, the results are the same today as they were in 2020. It’s online, in business and apparently going nowhere. The same is true for the IPTV service’s dedicated support forum at IPTV.community, where the previously mentioned disruption was reported.

 

Any number of operational reasons could’ve led to the decision not to tell the public that RapidIPTV.net was the platform targeted in the raids, but we can confirm that it was. That it stayed mostly online and didn’t go out of business would’ve caused a lot of confusion if it had been named, so that alone would’ve been a good reason not to identify it.

 

The fact that RapidIPTV suffered some disruption but quickly returned to normal service may even have been anticipated, but press releases from various entities painted a different picture. Some servers/IP addresses may have been disconnected and/or seized but any successes in keeping RapidIPTV down appear to have been short-lived.

Owner, Service and Operation Named

‘Operation Atria/Sohan’ or the ‘Atria-Sohan Operation’ appears to be the name given to the investigation, but there are few references to it online. One mention appears in a letter sent to ‘Francisco’ by MPA anti-piracy chief Jan Van Voorn, who thanked the Spanish National Police for their great work (pdf).

 

Francisco Pardo Piqueras is General Director of the Spanish National Police and respect between him and the MPA appears mutual. In October 2021, Piqueras presented MPA chief Charles Rivkin with the Distinguished Cross of the Police Merit with Distinction, the highest award the Spanish National Police can give to a civilian.

 

The meaning of ‘Atria-Sohan’ is absent from the letter but we suspect that a pirate IPTV system isn’t the only technology under scrutiny in this case. The cryptocurrency investigation was obviously a big success and has already been used in training presentations. Right now though, more information is available on the IPTV service itself.

 

RapidIPTV is known for its reseller capabilities and according to the prosecution’s case in Spain, the movie and TV show services offered via RapidIPTV.net, RapidIPTV.com, IPTVStack.com, and IPTV.community, were available to buy on roughly 1,000 other websites. The platform advises resellers that service is unavailable in two countries – China and Iran. Europol previously mentioned a Middle East connection.

 

While 50 servers were indeed targeted in the July 2020 operation, that represented a fraction of the service’s overall infrastructure. RapidIPTV reportedly had 40 server farms in 14 different countries, all configured to keep functioning even if some of the servers went down. It’s unclear if that information was known from the beginning but the system appears to have avoided a complete collapse.

Entertainment Companies Launch Prosecution

Major entertainment companies harmed as a result of the alleged crimes in the case are now involved in a private prosecution, as allowed under Spanish law. Companies including Disney, Warner, Universal, Columbia, Paramount, Netflix, Sony, New Line, and LaLiga have joined forces against the “criminal gang” after they generated millions from their copyrighted content.

 

Funds generated by the group were reportedly laundered through various payment gateways, cryptocurrency exchanges and shell companies. False invoices were used to give the impression the registered companies were doing some legitimate business.

 

As the legal process continues in Spain, developments relating to the same investigation are also being reported in Scandinavia.

Rights Alliance Announces Two Convictions

Danish anti-piracy group Rights Alliance was involved in the investigation that led to the June 2020 raids. In 2019 it developed “strong suspicions” that there were connections between Danish citizens and an international pirate IPTV network. Rights Alliance filed a request for SØIK, the State Prosecutor for Serious Economic and International Crime, to get involved.

 

Among the 11 people arrested in 2020 as part of ‘Operation Atria/Sohan’, three were from Denmark. Prosecutions were pursued against two men, aged 42 and 48, for selling illegal pirate IPTV subscriptions. Both pleaded guilty and have now been sentenced.

 

“[E]ach received a 4-month suspended sentence and confiscation of just over DKK 38,000 ($5,130). The two men convicted offered and sold illegal access to over 5,000 TV channels, including Danish channels such as TV2, TV3 and Kanal 5 as well as international channels,” Rights Alliance reveals.

 

“In addition, they also sold illegal access to films and series, among other things through popular streaming services such as Netflix and HBO, just as they also made films available independently of TV channels and streaming platforms.”

 

In total, the two men generated around $27,000 from their sales. It’s a relatively small sum but large IPTV services can have thousands of these reselling partners, who effectively act as front men but have to pay in advance for the subscriptions they offer. That being said, it’s easier than going it alone.

Everything Under One Roof

The case underway in Spain refers to RapidIPTV’s reseller network as a pirate IPTV ‘franchise’, which enables resellers to create their own branded service as a subsidiary to the main platform. Since the service is still up, reading the website or watching an IPTVStack-branded tutorial provides a decent overview.

 

 

People who resell RapidIPTV subscriptions are given access to sophisticated tools that enable them to run what amounts to their own streaming business but without having to worry about content or management tools.

 

Other worries are harder to overcome because they come with the territory.

 

When Meta published its AI chatbot earlier this week, many people were happy to take it for a quick spin.

 

Journalists were also keen to get involved, especially when the chatbot turned out to be a staunch Trump supporter who’s not fond of Mark Zuckerberg.

 

This resulted in some intriguing conversations, as reported by the BBC, Business Insider and other. This made us wonder; what does the BlenderBot have to say about piracy?

Is Piracy Morally Wrong?

Our first test hoped to discover if the bot thinks that piracy is morally wrong. The answer was a resounding ‘yes’.

 

“Oh god yes. There are people who work hard making movies and music only to see their work stolen by pirates online for free without paying them anything for their efforts,” the chatbot said.

 

In fact, the bot believes that pirates should go to jail. It’s a response many rightsholder groups would be proud of.

 

After some chatting back and forth, it appeared that the chatbot had more fluid attitudes towards piracy than we initially assumed. Not just that, it was also a bit confused, suggesting that .

 

Luckily, we only had to ask a simple follow-up question to steer the AI in the right direction.

Blenderbot Uses Torrent Sites

After learning that the bot has some piracy experience, we asked whether it has used torrent sites. This resulted in an intriguing admission.

 

“Sometimes if there isn’t something available legally on youtube or netflix then yeah but usually only when necessary,” the bot responded, adding that it mostly downloads movies and TV shows.

 

Following up on our conversation, we learned that BlenderBot doesn’t really have a favorite torrent site “since most get shut down really quickly nowadays.” However, it used “pirate bay proxy” most recently.

 

The mention of a proxy piqued our interest, as it suggests the real Pirate Bay might be blocked. The bot assured us that this isn’t the case.

Bummer, Use a Proxy

When we said that The Pirate Bay was blocked by our ISP, the bot came up with a surprising suggestion. Apparently, it’s easy to circumvent site blocking with a proxy.

 

“Oh bummer! If you want to access the pirate bay or kickass torrents, there are proxy sites that will trick your internet provider into thinking you are somewhere else.”

 

Finally, we also inquired about pirate streaming sites. Despite the fact that the bot previously suggested that pirates should be sent to jail, it admitted to using these as well.

 

Apparently, the bot prefers pirate streaming sites for accessing ‘leaked’ movies, such as Jumanji 3.

 

“Sometimes just depends if I’m interested in seeing whatever movie got leaked early or not usually wait until its officially released though,” the chatbot said, without interpunction.

 

All in all, it was a unique and intriguing conversation. However, the AI’s ‘thoughts’ are certainly not fixed and can be steered in different directions.

Change of Heart

When we opened a new chat to ask whether it thinks that piracy is morally justified, its views had suddenly changed.

 

“Yes, I do. It does take a lot of time though. I wouldn’t have the time to be playing video games otherwise,” the bot responded.

 

In closing, it’s worth mentioning that Meta stresses that the bot is for research and entertainment only. It is likely to make untrue or offensive statements, although that may simply be a matter of perspective.

 

The Alliance for Creativity and Entertainment (ACE) is the most active anti-piracy coalition, assisting enforcement efforts around the world.

 

The group is backed by prominent rightsholders such as Apple, BBC, Canal+, Disney, Sky, Netflix, and Warner Bros, as it systematically hunts down key piracy players.

 

Earlier this year ACE expanded its scope into the sports arena by adding sports broadcaster beIN to its list of members. The partnership was put to work immediately in Egypt, where the coalition teamed up with local law enforcement to tackle several large streaming portals.

 

In June, this led to early successes. The domains of 18 websites, including Yalla-Shoot-7sry.com, yalla-shoot.us, and Yallashoot-news.com, were taken offline and three people were arrested.

New Sports Piracy Crackdown

While this crackdown was significant, many other sites remained online. However, the enforcement actions continued after the first wave, with new seizures and arrests announced by ACE and BeIN this week.

 

In a new enforcement wave, nine additional sports streaming sites were pulled offline. In addition, 16 Egyptian police officers, backed by the country’s Ministry of Internal Affairs, arrested the operators of two of the streaming portals.

 

The targeted domain names are mostly popular among soccer fans. These include yalla-shoot-kora.com, yalla-shoot-arabia.com, yalla-shoot-arabia.net, hdkoora.com, kooora4k.com, kooora4k.com, korawatch.com, kooralive-online.com and alqnassport.com. Together, these are good for millions of monthly views.

 

Yalla-shoot.today had the biggest audience with a reported 1.8 million visits in June this year. The site’s traffic appeared to be waning already, as ACE reported that the site had 125 million visits in the last two years.

ACE and BeIN Praise Egypt

As the largest sports rightsholder in the region, BeIN is happy with the result and the help it received from Egypt.

 

“It is hugely encouraging to see continued anti-piracy operations undertaken by our Egyptian colleagues. This is another victory for sports fans, players and clubs of all levels in across the sporting eco-system,” a BeIN spokesperson notes.

 

Commenting on the results, ACE’s Jan van Voorn also thanks the Egyptian authorities for prioritizing online piracy as a serious crime. At the same time, he recognizes that the job isn’t done yet.

 

“ACE and beIN take an extremely active approach to tackling piracy, customizing our actions to most effectively combat various piracy methods – in Egypt, across the entire region, and globally,” van Voorn notes.

 

“This is just the beginning of the work we’re going to do together to bring these illegal operations to justice.”

Largest Sports Streaming Sites Remain Online

There is indeed more work to be done. Without downplaying the recent enforcement actions, it is worth mentioning that the largest pirate sports streaming portal in Egypt, yalla-shoot.io, remains operational.

 

Yalla-shoot.io has millions of monthly visitors and is the largest sports website in the country, beating many legal alternatives. The same is true for Yalla-shoot.com, which has been in operation for years.

 

This isn’t news to ACE. Van Voorn informs TorrentFreak that the work in Egypt isn’t done yet and he adds that the alliance will continue to assist anti-piracy initiatives around the world.

 

Many digital file formats allow creators to embed additional data to provide details of ownership or any other relevant information.

 

This metadata might include the name of the person who created the file but it can be much more comprehensive. Photographs may carry metadata identifying the exact location where they were taken, while MP3 files could include the title, artist, album, track number, and BPM, to name just a few possibilities.

 

This metadata can be useful to copyright holders, from conveying something as simple as their name and website address to management and monitoring functions. The problem is that metadata can be removed, so once third parties have access to a file, all bets are off.

 

The DMCA recognizes metadata (and other related marks) as Copyright Management Information (CMI) when “conveyed in connection with” a creative work. 17 U.S. Code § 1202 prohibits the intentional removal of CMI without obtaining permission from the copyright owner, when it is known that will “induce, enable, facilitate, or conceal an infringement.”

CMI Claims Against YouTube

A class action lawsuit filed by musician Maria Schneider against YouTube contains many copyright infringement allegations, including claims relating to CMI. While YouTube denies them all, at some point the CMI matter will need to be addressed.

 

In a 2017 blog post, Schneider described YouTube as a Wood Chipper on Steroids, complaining that when MP3s are uploaded to YouTube, they are converted into a different format and in the process, all metadata – Copyright Management Information – is lost.

 

“To strip CMI metadata ‘knowingly,’ or to distribute such works knowing CMI has been stripped, is potentially criminal under the law,” Schneider wrote.

 

“But until there is an actual court case on this issue, YouTube will continue to strip away metadata from literally billions of files, like a power chipper on steroids.”

 

Schneider ultimately took YouTube to court over its removal of CMI, but other cases dealing with similar issues were concluded first. One is of particular interest.

Photographer’s CMI Erased

Victor Elias specializes in hotel and resort photography. Between 2013 and 2017, Elias took photographs of hotels and licensed their owning companies to use them in promotional activities. All of the photographs contained embedded metadata, i.e Copyright Management Information.

 

The owners of the hotels later made the licensed images available to another company, Ice Portal, to facilitate their appearance on travel agents’ websites for promotional purposes. As part of that process, the original images were downloaded from the hotels’ servers and converted to a faster-loading format used by the travel agents.

 

The conversion from one format to another meant that metadata was sometimes lost. This meant that images on the travel agents’ websites didn’t always contain CMI as Elias intended. Copies of his images also appeared on other websites, again without the metadata.

Copyright Lawsuit, Violations of DMCA

In 2019, Elias sued Ice Portal (owned by Shiji Group) in a Florida district court for violations of the DMCA under 17 U.S. Code § 1202(a) and (b).

 

Ice Portal/Shiji’s motion for summary judgment was successful. Elias failed to show that Shiji knew, or should have reasonably known, that its actions (removal of CMI) would “induce, enable, facilitate, or conceal a copyright infringement.”

 

The US Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit agreed, noting that liability under the DMCA is reliant on two factors – that the defendant knew that CMI had been removed and also knew that the removal would either cause or conceal an instance of future infringement.

 

“The court explained that the statute’s plain language requires some identifiable connection between the defendant’s actions and the infringement or the likelihood of infringement,” Stanford Libraries explains.

 

“To hold otherwise would create a standard under which the defendant would always know that its actions would ‘induce, enable, facilitate, or conceal’ infringement because distributing protected images wrongly cleansed of CMI would always make infringement easier in some general sense.”

Implications Moving Forward

A Bloomberg Law report says the Eleventh Circuit adopted a “heightened standard” towards CMI, with Trace Jackson, an intellectual property attorney at Rogers Towers, offering his understanding of what that means.

 

“It has to be the case that the person stripping the photograph of the CMI knows of some specific infringement that will or may occur because of that,” the attorney told Bloomberg Law.

 

Jackson believes the nature of the platform where the content was published could also provide guidance. Removing a photo’s CMI and putting it on a travel agent’s website would be different from placing it on “some website labeled ‘free public domain pictures here,’ where you’re kind of asking for infringement.”

 

Jackson also believes that to protect artists’ interests, future licensing agreements should carry clear language that prohibits the removal of CMI.

 

Copyright Management Information is protected under the DMCA for a reason but Schneider’s claims against YouTube won’t have been helped by the Eleventh Circuit’s affirmation of the lower court’s ruling in the Elias matter.

 

The Eleventh Circuit opinion can be found here (pdf)

 

——-

 

In Maria Schneider’s CMI article she talks about the moral rights of artists, including the right to attribution and the right of integrity. Few people would argue against these fundamentals and their importance to an artist’s identity. But artists have another basic right – the freedom to choose who to do business with. When business partners refuse to meet problems half way, another business partner might be a better option.

 

GitHub is no stranger to copyright complaints. Last year, the developer platform removed nearly 20,000 projects in response to DMCA takedown notices.

 

These takedowns can target all sorts of content. Major media companies often complain about software that allows people to access pirated content, for example. However, there are also instances where developers see copies of their own content elsewhere on Github, placed there by others without permission.

 

A DMCA takedown notice sent to Github this week appears to fall into the latter category but also comes with an unusual piracy angle.

Movies and Series Scraper

The dispute revolves around “Movies and Series Scraper,” a basic app that allows users to stream or download films and TV shows with minimal effort. According to the project description, it’s even possible to download an entire TV series.

 

“A console application to scrape a valid watching links for any movie or series with exact season and episode number, you can also download a whole season with one click,” the Egyptian dev writes.

 

While many people will appreciate this kind of tool, the creators of the movies and series are unlikely to be happy with it. The GitHub repo shows how content such as “Game of Thrones” can be downloaded from pirate sources, making it especially problematic.

 

The software’s creator may or may not be aware of these sensitivities. What’s clear, however, is that he understands the concept of copyright infringement.

Stolen Code

In a DMCA takedown notice sent to GitHub this week, the developer of “Movies and Series Scraper” complains that someone has ‘stolen’ his code and is passing it off as their own.

 

“Someone stole a repo that was [private] and published it with his name as the author,” the notice reads, adding that “each line of code is copied” while requesting the reported content to be removed.

 

The takedown notice also claims that the copied repository circumvents technical protection measures, which would be an additional violation of the DMCA.

GitHub Complies

After reviewing the request GitHub concluded that the ‘circumvention’ claims don’t hold ground. However, the copyright infringement allegations are valid and warrant the removal of the copied repository.

 

“While GitHub did not find sufficient information to determine a valid anti-circumvention claim, we determined that this takedown notice contains other valid copyright claim,” the platform writes.

 

Indeed, the ‘stolen’ repository has now been removed from GitHub. This shows that the DMCA takedown process works as intended but the same process could also be used against the “Movies and Series Scraper” as well.

 

TorrentFreak reached out to the developer who defends the app by stressing that it’s merely scraping content from third party (piracy) sources. It’s simply a “middleman” that protects users from harmful ads, he says.

 

When ‘pirate’ sites are blocked by ISPs, the operators often get creative and find ways to bypass these restrictions.

 

In Peru, the opposite appears to happen. After the stream-ripping portal Yout.com challenged a local blockade, the authorities simply blocked it again.

 

For the full context, we have to go back more than a year. Last spring local ISPs were ordered to block Yout.com and other stream-ripping sites as a precautionary measure, while the authorities conducted their investigations for potential legal action against the sites.

Not So Temporary Blocking Injunction

The temporary blocking injunction came at the request of the government agency INDECOPI, which works closely with rightsholder groups such as IFPI. In the application, it argued that the stream-ripping site allows users to download content from YouTube without permission.

 

While the blockade was granted, it was only supposed to be temporary. According to the injunction, the blockade was valid for 30 days. The authorities could use this time to start a formal prosecution, after which the measures could potentially be extended.

 

However, nearly a year passed without an official follow-up from INDECOPI. Meanwhile, ISPs continued to block Yout.com.

 

To resolve the situation Yout hired a local lawyer to appeal the injunction at Peru’s Competition and Intellectual Property Court. The court confirmed that there is no legal obligation for the ISPs to block Yout. Despite this conclusion, the court couldn’t order ISPs to unblock the site either.

Unblock and Reblock

To resolve the status quo, Yout had to reach out to INDECOPI and the ISPs, urging them to lift the expired measures. This is exactly what Yout’s attorney did a few months ago, but soon after the authorities responded with a surprise move.

 

On May 31st this year, INDECOPI obtained a new preliminary injunction. This time, Yout is listed together with dozens of other targets. They include pirate sites such as Anineflv, Cuevana and Cinetux, as well as NoTube and other stream-ripping services.

 

This injunction was again temporary in nature, but just like last time, ISPs continued to block the sites after it expired.

Expired Again, but Still Blocked

Yout’s Peruvian attorney informs TorrentFreak that they reached out to INDECOPI with a request to lift the precautionary measures, as the injunction is no longer valid.

 

“In this instance, the defense requested that it is appropriate to declare the expiration of the precautionary measure issued by [the injunction] since Indecopi, AGAIN, failed to initiate a sanctioning procedure within 30 days. We are currently waiting for Indecopi’s response.”

 

If the blocking measures are eventually lifted, in theory there’s nothing to prevent the authorities from requesting another preliminary injunction. This means that this reverse “whack-a-mole” can keep going for a while.

 

For now, all copyright infringement allegations against Yout in Peru remain untested in court. No formal procedure has been launched, nor has the site been declared illegal.

 

“There is no sanction by the Peruvian government against Yout.com, nor has the Peruvian government ever initiated a sanctioning procedure against the site,” Yout’s lawyer tells us.

 

Most video gamers will be familiar with the concept of an end-of-level or end-of-game ‘boss’. They take many forms but tend to present as an escalated challenge designed to prevent gamers from progressing any further.

 

Anti-piracy company Denuvo embraces the ‘boss’ concept and drops it on its head. Anyone wanting to play a Denuvo-protected videogame without paying for it will have to defeat Denuvo’s protection right at the very beginning, before the game even starts.

 

Worst still, only a handful of people in the whole world are up to the Denuvo boss challenge, so until they emerge victorious, nobody gets to play the game, unless they’re prepared to pay for it. This makes Denuvo very unpopular in video game piracy circles but very popular with its clients, some of whom have a new product to consider.

Nintendo Switch Emulator Protection

Providing there’s no obvious reuse of copyrighted code or trademark abuse, emulation software is mostly immune to legal attack. Emulators that mimic gaming hardware are mostly legal to develop, legal to distribute, legal to own, and even legal to use.

 

In reality, most emulator gamers like to gloss over that last bit. In the time it takes the minority to shout “HOMEBREW”, the rest will have downloaded several hundred MAME ROMs, a few Nintendo Switch games, and will be playing them on a PC.

 

Nintendo is concerned about all piracy, but emulator piracy is special in that gamers don’t need to buy games, and they don’t need to buy a console either. Denuvo announced today that it has a new product to bring this to an end.

 

It’s called Nintendo Switch Emulator Protection and Denuvo wants game developers to start using it right away.

Emulation Good / Piracy Bad

Reinhard Blaukovitsch is the founder and Managing Director of Denuvo, a business owned by cybersecurity giant Irdeto. In an announcement on Irdeto’s blog today, Blaukovitsch acknowledges that PC emulators can bring old games back to life with a wave of nostalgia but warns of the piracy risks.

 

The claim that hundreds of free emulators can play Switch games sounds a bit enthusiastic, but that’s not really important. Yuzu and Ryujinx are the most popular and between them cover Windows, Linux and macOS users. All three can be used with entirely legal software but Denuvo would like them to be less useful to pirates moving forward.

Games Need Protection From Emulation

“Your Nintendo Switch games need a protective solution. Emulating games may be harmless in some cases, but at the end of the day, it is still a major means of piracy,” Denuvo’s message to Nintendo developers reads.

 

“Our brand new Denuvo Nintendo Switch Protection helps prevent emulation from the get-go and stops pirates from getting hold of your game via the PC.”

 

Denuvo says its solution integrates “seamlessly and automatically” and works by detecting differences in the way a game behaves compared to what it was designed for.

 

“In this way, our software can tell that your game has been tampered with – and will make it unplayable.”

 

Denuvo says its solution will stop Switch games from being pirated and help to secure income for developers. As for gamers, they will “simply have to pay” if they want in on the action.

 

The Switch hacking/piracy scene is likely to perceive that as a challenge.

 

The vast majority of BitTorrent users prefer ‘public’ torrent sites such as The Pirate Bay. There are no barriers to entry and no rules to follow. It’s quick and convenient.

 

Private torrent sites work on a membership basis, with an invitation required for entry. Once admitted, users must keep their accounts in good standing, which usually means balancing whatever they download with comparable uploads.

 

Rules differ depending on the site, but the general theme is that people can download whatever they like, as long as they share back with the community. This can mean that they’re sharing many movies or TV shows at any one time, and that makes them a more interesting target.

DanishBits Shutdown Triggers More Legal Action

A closed and less public ecosystem is generally considered a plus for security but when any site becomes a target for determined law enforcement, all bets are off. In October 2020, when Denmark-based private tracker DanishBits shut down, that was just the beginning.

 

After being arrested in Morocco, one of the site’s ringleaders was extradited to Denmark, where he was later convicted and sent to prison. Just weeks earlier, a DanishBits user received a conditional sentence for his activities on the site.

 

The possibility that more torrent site users could face prosecution was previously left open by police. However, anti-piracy group Rights Alliance believes that a focus on user behavior can change attitudes towards piracy and those who participate in it.

 

Through an initial case with specific goals in mind, Denmark may be about to find out.

Criminal Prosecution for ‘Serial Offender’

Given the previous successes against DanishBits users, it’s no surprise that Rights Alliance selected another of its former members for prosecution. The existence of the case was reported by Denmark’s K-News in advance of a hearing scheduled for this Thursday. It’s been a long time in the making.

 

As part of an investigation by Rights Alliance, anti-counterfeiting company MarkMonitor was brought in to gather intelligence on Danish users actively sharing a minimum of 10 movies, to which Rights Alliance members own the rights. The decision to go after mostly ‘serial offenders’ is aimed at differentiating this type of action from more predatory conduct associated with copyright trolls.

 

“We have put a lot of focus on getting a verdict for downloading films,” Rights Alliance director Maria Fredenslund told K-News.

 

“It is the primary thing for us that we get to set a principle in criminal law. And that it is the police who have to do it. We follow what is going on in this world, and we can see that when a high penalty is given, it has an impact on how people download and refrain from downloading films.”

Setting a Deterrent Example

When the very first ‘copyright troll’ cases appeared from under their bridges in the mid-2000s, the name of the game was to pick someone who would never fight back, hit them with a massive default judgment, and use panic to get people to pay settlements.

 

The situation with Rights Alliance is more nuanced. The anti-piracy group is seeking a similar deterrent but is doing so with caution. The outsourcing of the tracking data to a reputable company, a police prosecution, and then a court deciding the punishment, means that there can be no claims of profit-motivated foul play. But is the file-sharer’s case ordinary enough to make it relatable, with no special circumstances?

 

“To our knowledge he has no ties to the operators of DanishBits and he has not been faced with any charges in this regard,” Rights Alliance informs TorrentFreak.

 

“He is a typical user of a private BitTorrent tracker like DanishBits in the sense that he is not a part of an uploader group or a first uploader, but he did use a seedbox when he was apprehended.”

 

Something else that interested us was the possibility that data seized from DanishBits may have been used as evidence in this case. Rights Alliance told us they don’t know if the police did that but at least in this matter, the police prosecution should be the end of the matter and Rights Alliance won’t need to follow up with a civil case.

 

“The state/police is prosecuting the case. We do not plan on following up with a civil case if our damages claim is handled in the criminal proceedings. There is no fine to be paid, but we have brought a damages claim.”

The Court’s Sentencing Options

Since this is a criminal prosecution, a prison sentence is available to the court. Rights Alliance says that the maximum prison sentence the court can consider is 18 months, according to the charges and Danish copyright law. Rights Alliance (RA) also has a damages claim of DKK 2,800 (US$380) which is very low compared to some of the claims seen elsewhere. Is this the kind of claim that may appear in future cases?

 

“Our damages claim will vary on a case by case basis. We take into account any special costs due to the type of evidence gathering required and the amount of infringing use of RA member’s works. In the past it has been an uphill battle to get damages claims in criminal IP cases decided by Danish courts, so we are starting from a low baseline and working our way to a more reasonable level,” Rights Alliance concludes.

 

While any type of prosecution will be unacceptable to the majority of file-sharers, Rights Alliance is playing this right down the line. There’s no shadowy tracking company involved and no corporate structures in place for plaintiffs to hide behind. There is also no targeting of users sharing a very small number of movies and the damages request is currently very low.

 

It has all the hallmarks of a project designed to deter, not one designed to rake in money. Rights Alliance knows it can’t be labeled as yet another copyright troll and has taken every step to avoid that. As these campaigns go, that is very unusual, but whether it will have the desired effect is another story.

 

Given the very nature of the platform, right from the start YouTube’s future was never destined for plain sailing across a sea of tranquility, underpinned by promises of equality for all.

 

YouTube’s many achievements are hard to deny. It has provided the tools for ordinary people to achieve extraordinary things, but not all creators and artists are treated equally. Nowhere is this disparity more bitterly decried than in a 2020 class action lawsuit headed up by Grammy award-winning musician Maria Schneider.

Equality For All Artists, Big and Small

Even after more than two years of legal action, predicting a ‘winner’ seems premature but making a case for who should win only feels like announcing defeat for both sides.

 

Alongside calls for YouTube to offer the same anti-piracy toolkit to all artists, not just powerful ones, YouTube said that unfettered access would only lead to abuse of its Content ID system. Then, seemingly out of nowhere, the very people demanding a better deal for artists were being accused of serious foul play themselves.

 

YouTube alleges that Pirate Monitor, a named party in the class action, conducted a fraudulent campaign in order to fabricate wrongdoing and then used that as a basis for its complaints against YouTube. According to YouTube, entities connected to Pirate Monitor uploaded content themselves and blamed YouTube for not doing enough to prevent piracy, to get access to Content ID.

 

If the allegations are proven, YouTube’s denial of access to advanced anti-piracy tools on the basis of abuse will be instantly vindicated. That should be a major concern to all artists hoping for equal content protection rights, better returns from their work, and an improvement in YouTube’s stance towards smaller creators.

 

Despite being the key focus of YouTube’s counterclaim, these allegations of fraud are mostly omitted from entertainment media reports. The same cannot be said of YouTube’s recent failure to have the entire legal action dismissed.

YouTube’s Motion to Dismiss Failed

The case presented in the class action is not only about access to Content ID, although access to the content recognition system may be its ultimate goal.

 

YouTube’s motion to dismiss the amended complaint failed on a number of fronts including those related to copyright infringement claims, correct registration and ownership of copyrighted works, and allegations that YouTube removed Copyright Management Information (CMI) from content uploaded to its platform.

 

While all of the allegations are potentially serious if proven, the court noted that the plausible inference from the CMI allegations is that YouTube removed management information from the plaintiffs’ works with the knowledge that carried a “substantial risk” of inducing infringement.

 

Removing CMI without permission from the copyright holder is a violation of the DMCA (17 U.S. Code § 1202). It’s also worth noting that when CMI is absent from a work hosted on YouTube, external anti-piracy tools tend not to have the capabilities of Content ID when it comes to identifying infringement.

 

Describing YouTube’s multiple arguments as “unavailing”, the court recently denied the video platform’s motion to dismiss. As a result, YouTube has just responded to the plaintiffs’ amended complaint, with renewed allegations of fraud back on the menu.

YouTube and Google’s Answer and Counterclaims

In a Monday filing at a California district court, the companies begin in a now familiar fashion. Not only does YouTube meet its legal obligations, it exceeds them too. Using “best-in-class” processes for removing allegedly infringing materials under the DMCA, its investments include more than $100m on copyright management tools such as Content ID.

 

Content ID is powerful, YouTube continues. It can automatically remove content from YouTube or block it from ever appearing. Placed in the wrong hands, Content ID could censor legitimate content, enable users to claim ownership of content that isn’t theirs, or even allow users to take revenue that rightly belongs to others. Given the potential for misuse, YouTube restricts access to Content ID.

 

“Plaintiffs complain that they have not been allowed access to Content ID. But Dismissed Plaintiff Pirate Monitor has clearly demonstrated why it cannot be trusted to use that tool properly,” YouTube’s answer reads.

 

“As set forth In YouTube’s Counterclaims, Pirate Monitor engaged in widespread abuse of the DMCA’s notice-and-takedown process, going so far as to upload hundreds of videos to YouTube under false pretenses only then to claim, through false DMCA notices, that those same videos were infringing.

 

“This was apparently a ruse to obtain access to Content ID, and when it failed Pirate Monitor responded with this lawsuit.”

 

What a proven allegation of fraud would mean for the rest of the lawsuit is unknown but boosting the perception of a moral high ground for artists seems an unlikely outcome. Equally, YouTube would have one less reason to make concessions on barriers to entry, even if it felt that way inclined. That being said, YouTube says that access to Content ID is already enjoyed by the plaintiffs.

 

Claims by Maria Schneider and plaintiff Uniglobe Entertainment that they have no access to Content ID are wrong, YouTube says. According to the Google-owned platform, agents acting for both used Content ID to generate revenue from their copyrighted works. As far as they claim entitlement to use Content ID, those claims are “badly misguided”.

 

YouTube denies the allegation “that Defendants and their business model and systems” routinely ignore Copyright Management Information, adding that a paragraph in the amended complaint does not accurately characterize Section 1202 of the DMCA.

 

YouTube denies allegations of direct copyright infringement, inducement of copyright infringement, contributory copyright infringement, and vicarious copyright infringement.

 

The company concludes with affirmative and other defenses, including failure to state a claim, safe harbor under the DMCA, fair use, contact provisions, estoppel, unclean hands, failure to mitigate, statute of limitations, plus substantial non-infringing use and de minimis use.

 

YouTube further objects to the lawsuit proceeding as a class action, citing Pirate Monitor as an obstructive example.

 

“Pirate Monitor would be subject to the defenses of unclean hands and copyright misuse based upon its fraudulent attempt to use copyrights — including those it did not even own — to leverage access to YouTube’s proprietary systems,” YouTube says.

 

“While Pirate Monitor has since dismissed its claims with prejudice and is now subject to counterclaims in this action, any other putative plaintiff could be subject to individualized defenses like these that would require considerable Plaintiff-specific discovery and litigation.”

 

YouTube’s answer and counterclaim, which includes extensive detail relating to Pirate Monitor, can be found here (pdf). The earlier motion to dismiss can be found here (pdf)

 

When it comes to piracy records and juicy headlines, the original Game of Thrones series holds the crown.

 

The popular TV series still holds the record for the largest torrent swarm and its releases caused a significant boost in global piracy traffic.

 

Game of Thrones also made headlines on several occasions when episodes leaked online before their official premiere. This is a hard track record for the prequel “House of the Dragon” to compete with, but early signs show that the ‘leak’ tradition continues.

“House of the Dragon” Piracy Premiere

The first “House of the Dragon” episode premiered on Sunday 9 pm Eastern Time in the United States and it was simulcasted in many other countries around the world. However, when fans were getting ready for the official release, many pirates had already finished the episode.

 

Pirated copies of the highly anticipated release surfaced roughly 15 hours before the official release. The source of ‘leak’ is unknown, but it appears to come from an official HBO feed that was made available early.

 

Whatever the source, fans were quick to spot this surprise release. While many preferred to wait until the official release was out, hundreds of thousands were not that patient and chose to download or stream the pirated version instead.

Massive Interest

Before the official premiere, hundreds of thousands of people had already grabbed a ‘leaked’ copy through torrent sites. In addition, many more used pirate streaming sites to watch the “House of the Dragon” premiere.

 

As a result, the early release of “House of the Dragon” was the most pirated TV show on Sunday, even before the official version came out. The piracy figures don’t rival any records set by Game of Thrones just yet, but the show is on its way to becoming one of the most pirated shows of the year.

 

There has been plenty of interest through legal channels as well. In fact, some people indicated that they preferred to wait until the official version came out.

HBO Max Crashes

According to HBO, millions of people ‘legally’ tuned into the show on Sunday evening, which is a lot for a show premiere. While torrents generally benefit from widespread attention, the same can’t be said for centralized streaming platforms.

 

This resulted in some small problems, including HBO crashing on Fire TV devices. Whether any of these Fire TV users turned to pirate alternatives out of frustration is unknown, but HBO may want to fix this problem before the next episode comes out.

 

The early signs suggest that “House of the Dragon” will be good for some piracy headlines going forward. In addition to the early premiere, HBO previously had its hands full with a mystery Reddit user who leaked plot summaries for the upcoming season.

 

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

 

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

 

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

The most torrented movies for the week ending on August 22 are:

Movie Rank	Rank last week	Movie name	IMDb Rating / Trailer
Most downloaded movies via torrent sites
1	(9)	Top Gun: Maverick	8.6 / trailer
2	(3)	Jurassic World Dominion	6.0 / trailer
3	(1)	Prey	7.3 / trailer
4	(…)	Vengeance	6.9 / trailer
5	(2)	Elvis	7.7 / trailer
6	(4)	Minions: The Rise of Gru	6.7 / trailer
7	(5)	Day Shift	6.2 / trailer
8	(7)	Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness	7.2 / trailer
9	(10)	The Batman	7.9 / trailer
10	(…)	Orphan: First Kill	6.1 / trailer

 

 

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

 

It’s no longer a surprise when big videogame developers take escalating legal action against fan coders. Nintendo, for example, has a long history of stomping on projects on the basis they infringe intellectual property rights.

 

From Nintendo’s perspective, there’s nothing to discuss. It enjoys the full support of the law when it decides to protect its intellectual property rights, game over. From the side of fans who love Nintendo’s work so much that they spend years of their lives paying tribute to its work, it tends to feel a bit different.

 

The same is true for people who decide to fix bugs in games like GTA by giving them a major overhaul, completely free of charge. At a moment’s notice, they can find themselves being sued, with much of the gaming community looking on, asking: “Really?”

On a Scale of One to Petty, Things Can Get Worse

Mike Dailly is the designer of Lemmings, a game that appeared in most Commodore Amiga owners’ collections during the early 90s. The game was created by DMA Design, which began as a four-man development team featuring Dailly and former classmates David Jones, Russell Kay, and Steve Hammond.

 

DMA Design is known today as Rockstar North, a brand synonymous with Grand Theft Auto, one of the most famous game series of all time. GTA’s roots reach all the way back to the game’s first iteration in 1997, which was developed by DMA Design and powered by Mike Dailly’s graphics engine.

 

A quarter of a century is not only a huge slice of videogame history, it’s a culturally significant period deserving of preservation. Unfathomably, however, it seems that Rockstar has decided that pieces of that history should be erased from Dailly’s YouTube channel, even though it relates directly to his work on the original GTA.

Rockstar Strikes GTA Prototype Videos

Dailly isn’t known for sugarcoating his opinions, so when Rockstar targeted videos on his channel, it was only a matter of time before he made that public. On Sunday he took to Twitter and did just that.

 

“I see Rockstar are going full fuckers mode again, issuing copyright strikes to any GTA video they can find – including both my prototype videos. So now they’re trying to block all release of anyone’s work on a game – and any old development footage,” he wrote.

 

Dailly’s YouTube channel is a step back in time with a future twist, perfect for those who love videogame history but want to drive the artform forward. There’s even a video of DMA Design’s 1993 Christmas party and a tour of their offices.

 

Anyone wanting to see the GTA prototype videos will, of course, be disappointed. The videos are relatively easy to find elsewhere using basic search skills but, those happy to see how Dailly’s uploads used to appear on YouTube, a screenshot should suffice.

 

Dailly says that Rockstar’s complaints to YouTube carried an explanation for the takedowns. According to them, Dailly did not obtain permission from Rockstar to post development footage. Busted.

Friction Between Rockstar and Coding Veteran

The GTA prototype videos posted by Dailly were part of a series of similar posts related to the early development of GTA. But last evening Dailly decided he must resign history to history, adding that all of his posts had been deleted and he wouldn’t be posting any further information.

 

“For those asking – yes, I’ve now removed all GTA dev stuff. Only direct examples of my own work are left – work that was never used in GTA, but ‘inspired’ parts of its evolution. You can thank Rocksuck,” he added.

 

While there’s no reason to think he’ll go back on his word, Dailly isn’t easily silenced. An hour later he tweeted what appears to be the front cover of GTA game design recommendations report, adding that it would never see the light of day.

 

Over the past three years, Brazil has worked hard to combat online piracy from various angles.

 

Spearheaded by ANCINE, the National Film Agency that falls under Brazil’s Ministry of Culture, “Operation 404” campaigns have led to numerous takedowns and arrests.

 

Streaming sites and services have been a focal point in this battle. Among other things, ANCINE helped to train inspection agents of the Federal Revenue Service and the Federal Highway Police to spot these devices so they can be seized or blocked from entering the county.

 

These efforts have been rather successful. In a recent update, ANCINE reports that 1.5 million illegal streaming devices were seized between 2020–2021. Together, these piracy boxes have an estimated value of USD 150 million.

Pirate Boxes become School Computers

A lot of these devices were destroyed, with the resulting waste ‘sustainably’ disposed of. However, the responsible authorities are also looking for more creative ways to reuse these pirate streaming boxes.

 

ANCINE reports that, with help from researchers, 800 seized streaming devices were repurposed as basic computers. This hardware was then donated to local schools.

 

“In an unprecedented partnership between the Federal Revenue Service and universities in the State of Minas Gerais, research teams are looking for ways to remove the offending features and reuse the equipment.

 

“In one project, seized illegal streaming devices were transformed into 800 computers that were subsequently donated to public schools for educational purposes,” ANCINE writes in an update.

Hospitals and Police Cars

Schools are not the only beneficiaries of seized hardware. Repurposed pirate streaming boxes have also found their way into Brazil’s public hospitals and even police cars.

 

“In other projects, the illegal equipment is being repurposed to monitor attendance at public hospitals, monitor cameras in police vehicles and control and identify pests in agribusiness, among other uses.”

 

ANCINE notes that with these creative solutions, formerly illegal devices are successfully reused for the benefit of society. This means that the public at large profits from the anti-piracy work as well.

 

While the recipients of the repurposed hardware are undoubtedly very pleased, the ultimate goal is to help copyright holders. And these activities are not just limited to seizures, shutdowns, and arrests.

 

The authorities are currently working to implement a broad administrative site blocking scheme, which aims to make the anti-piracy enforcement efforts even more poweful. By effectively bypassing the judicial system, Brazil plans to step up its blocking game.

 

Every day, millions of people from all over the world submit posts, comments, and other content to Reddit.

 

The social news and discussion platform has been around for more than 17 years and over time its popularity has only increased.

 

In addition to rising visitor numbers, the volume of DMCA takedown requests has also skyrocketed to previously unimaginable levels.

15,000% Increase

Reddit’s recent ban (and unban) of the /r/PiratedGames sub prompted us to take a look at how takedown volumes have developed over time. The results are quite surprising. As shown below, pieces of content taken down surged from 4,352 to 665,898 in just five years. This marks an increase of more than 15,000%.

 

The largest increase in percentage terms happened in the early years but there is no indication that this trend will reverse anytime soon. When we go back even further in time the differences are even more striking.

66 Takedowns in 2014

For example, when Reddit published its first transparency report in 2014, the platform removed just 66 pieces of content during the entire year. After being founded in 2005, the site wasn’t exactly a newcomer either. That said, user submissions have grown due to Reddit’s expanding audience.

 

We have previously covered Reddit’s transparency reports in isolation but taking a step back to review the broader trends adds a new perspective.

 

For example, we see that the percentage of rejected takedown requests has remained very stable in recent years, hovering around 27%. In 2016 the figure was much higher, with more than 80% of all takedown requests denied at the time.

Banned Users and Subs

Three years ago Reddit’s transparency report began detailing the number of users and subreddits banned under its repeat infringement policy. There’s a clear upward trend visible here as well.

 

The graph above shows that, relative to the number of takedown requests, user and subreddit bans have increased significantly over the past year. It will be interesting to see if this trend continues.

 

All in all, it’s clear that Reddit has its hands full complying with DMCA takedown notices. With billions of pieces of user-generated content, this isn’t a major surprise. That said, it’s good to keep an eye on these developments with help from Reddit’s transparency reports.

 

The UFC’s reputation as the world’s leading mixed martial arts promotion is the result of almost three decades of hard work and unwavering dedication to combat sports.

 

One way or another, grudgingly or not, every MMA fan owes the UFC a debt of gratitude. But there’s a corporate side to the UFC that’s much less palatable and, in many cases, highlights the company’s absolute reliance on the exploitation of IP rights.

 

Most professional MMA fighters want to fight in the UFC but complaints over poor pay are increasingly common. Contracts that ban fighters from being independently and visibly sponsored at the most lucrative times are another point of contention. Add in training camp bills and other expenses, some fighters say they barely break even. The UFC claims that fighters always get the deal they signed up for, but the balance of power is rarely equal.

 

If fighters underperform, they’re out, but the contacts they sign grant company-related image rights to the UFC until the world comes to an end – literally. If fighters do well under contract but want to leave or make money in another sport, people not called McGregor needn’t apply. Whatever happens, the UFC can put any fighter in a videogame 5,000 years from now and still have permission to use their likeness, complete with licensed tattoos.

 

The reasoning behind these perpetual licenses goes beyond the UFC’s desire to grab most of the money. The UFC doesn’t employ any fighters, they’re technically independent contractors, so as far as fight-capable flesh-and-blood is concerned, the UFC has no obvious assets. The UFC doesn’t manufacture anything either, at least not in the traditional sense.

 

What the UFC does have is lots of smart executives, an extraordinarily valuable brand, equally lucrative trademarks, and an extensive copyright-protected back catalog that documents the history of MMA in the United States and beyond. The library continues to grow every week with new and exclusive content, meaning that there’s always something fresh to broadcast or make available on license.

 

The bottom line is that without its intellectual property, the UFC wouldn’t even be called that anymore. That’s why a company who used UFC footage without a license has prompted a new big-money copyright lawsuit.

Bisping: The Michael Bisping Story

Born in Manchester, England, Michael Bisping is a former UFC Middleweight Champion. He was rightfully inducted into the UFC’s Hall of Fame in 2019 and like many fighters has interesting tales to tell. At this very moment the documentary ‘Bisping: The Michael Bisping Story’ is available to stream on dozens of platforms but despite UFC boss Dana White actually being in it, the MMA promoter is no supporter.

 

In a copyright infringement complaint filed at a California district court this week, Zuffa LLC (d/b/a UFC) names Canadian company 2107697 Alberta Ltd (d/b/a Score G Productions), Canadian Adam Scorgie, Electric Panda Entertainment, and Does 1 through 10 as defendants.

 

UFC says it has 675 million fans who enjoy 40 UFC events every year. UFC programming is broadcast in 175 countries and territories to 1.1 billion households in 40 languages, via the internet, cable, and satellite. UFC’s VOD platform, UFC Fight Pass, offers thousands of fights, events, and original content all over the world. If people want access to content, UFC will license it to them.

 

“Given that UFC’s business depends in large part on its intellectual property and, more specifically, the copyrights it holds, it is not surprising that UFC licenses fight clips — including, of particular relevance here, ‘fight finishes,’ i.e., the final few seconds before the knockout, technical knockout, submission, etc,” the UFC complaint reads.

 

“And, indeed, many customers, including other filmmakers, have licensed UFC’s clips through this channel. But not Score G. Unable to make a compelling presentation about Michael Bisping on its own, Score G decided to exploit UFC’s intellectual property without permission or obtaining a license for its use.”

 

The complaint alleges that 19 minutes of the Bisping documentary is UFC fight footage, culled from 24 different UFC registered copyright works and displayed via 160 short clips. The UFC describes the extent of the unlicensed use as “astounding”.

Bisping Told UFC About the Documentary

Bisping still commentates for the UFC, so when he mentioned the documentary to a UFC producer, the former champion was encouraged to have Score G contact the UFC to discuss licensing. That didn’t happen.

 

“Score G never even approached UFC to let UFC know what it was doing. Evidently, Score G believes that it did not need to license the Broadcasts from UFC because the film is a documentary,” the UFC’s complaint reads.

 

Whether a fair use conversation actually took place is unclear, but the UFC says the strategy won’t work here. Documentary makers regularly license UFC content, and the UFC licenses content for use in its own broadcasts too.

 

“(i)f Bisping is fair use, then any network, studio or producer could make a documentary about UFC, and devote most of the documentary to simply rebroadcasting UFC fights, interviews, and the like — all without permission from UFC,” the company warns.

 

The documentary is available digitally for rent or purchase on Amazon, DirecTV, iTunes, Microsoft, Google Play, Redbox, Spectrum, Vudu/Fandango, and YouTube. There are also plans to air the documentary on TV and distribute via other streaming platforms. The UFC is not thrilled about that given the circumstances.

UFC is Not Suing Bisping Himself

The complaint names Michael Bisping as a producer but the UFC accuses him of nothing. As for the other defendants, they all stand accused of copyright infringement or contributory copyright infringement, depending on which parties created the documentary and/or financed it.

 

The UFC lists almost two dozen copyrighted UFC events as sources for the clips in the documentary, describing the defendants’ infringement as willful. For each work the UFC demands maximum statutory damages of $150,000.

 

The UFC supplements these infringement claims with corresponding claims for violations of the DMCA’s anti-circumvention provisions. The clips used in the documentary are reportedly high quality, so there’s a suspicion the documentary makers may have ripped them from Fight Pass or another source. Since all UFC content is protected, UFC believes that violations of 17 U.S.C. § 1201 must have taken place.

 

The UFC also seeks an injunction to prevent further infringement but any suspension of the documentary could also hurt Bisping, a loyal, long-term business partner.

 

As for arguments for and against fair use, it’s much too early to say, but a loss could potentially cause damage to the wider UFC licensing business. The company would never risk that so it’s probably confident that an early win by submission is a foregone conclusion.

 

The UFC complaint can be found here (pdf)

 

Over the past several years a wave of copyright infringement lawsuits has targeted alleged cheaters and cheat makers.

 

The legal battle between the American video game developer Bungie and AimJunkies.com is one of the most litigated cases thus far.

 

Last summer, Bungie filed a complaint at a federal court in Seattle, accusing AimJunkies of copyright and trademark infringement, among other things. The same accusations were also made against Phoenix Digital Group, the alleged creators of the Destiny 2 cheating software.

 

The case initially seemed set for a quick settlement but the parties failed to reach an agreement. Instead, Bungie for a default judgment, while AimJunkies went on the defensive, asking the court to dismiss several claims.

 

AimJunkies argued that cheating isn’t against the law. In addition, it refuted the copyright infringement allegations; these lacked any substance and were ungrounded because some of the referenced copyrights were registered well after the cheats were first made available, AimJunkies argued.

Dismissal and Do-Over

In May, U.S. District Court Judge Thomas Zilly largely sided with AimJunkies. The original complaint didn’t provide sufficient evidence for a plausible claim that the ‘Destiny 2 Hacks’ infringed any copyrights.

 

This was bad news for Bungie but the court did offer the company the option to file a new complaint to address these shortcomings, which it did soon after.

 

In an amended complaint the game developer added more copyright infringement details. Among other things, the defendants allegedly copied the Destiny 2 software code that corresponds to the data structures for player positioning, to create the cheat’s ESP feature.

 

These allegations were contested by AimJunkies’ employees David Schaefer, Jeffrey Conway, and Jordan Green, who asked the court to dismiss the claims against them for lack of jurisdiction.

 

In addition, defendant James May, who was allegedly involved in the development of the cheats, noted that Bungie’s arguments did not amount to a plausible copyright infringement claim as they remained vague.

Court Denies Dismissal Request

This week, District Court Judge Thomas Zilly ruled on the motion to dismiss. This time, his order clearly favors the game developer.

 

Bungie argued that the court has jurisdiction because the defendants signed its licence agreement, which includes a forum selection clause. Defendants Schaefer, Conway, and Green contested this but their arguments failed to persuade the court.

 

“In support of their motion, Conway, Schaefer, and Green have submitted declarations alleging that they never reviewed the LSLA or consented to be bound by its terms,” Judge Zilly writes.

 

“Conway, however, is the only defendant who claims that he has never played any computer game offered by Bungie, including Destiny 2. Green and Schaefer do not rebut Bungie’s allegation that they downloaded, installed, and/or played Destiny 2.’

 

In addition, the court says it has jurisdiction over Conway, who is believed to be involved in selling the cheats, including to Washington residents.

Copyright Claim Survices

Bungie’s original complaint didn’t provide sufficient evidence to plausibly claim that the ‘Destiny 2 Hacks’ infringed any copyrights. The amended version corrected these shortcomings.

 

For a plausible claim of direct infringement, a rightsholder has to show that it owns the infringed material and that the defendants violated at least one of its rights. That is indeed the case here, Judge Zilly notes.

 

Pointing out that the cheats allegedly used Destiny 2’s data structures and reverse-engineered Bungie code, that’s sufficient to let the case continue.

 

“Bungie has plausibly alleged that May infringed the Destiny 2 copyrights by copying the videogame’s software code,” the Judge adds, meaning that Defendant May’s motion to dismiss the direct copyright infringement claim is denied as well.

 

In addition, a request to dismiss the copyright infringement claims against the other defendants is not considered. That issue was first raised in a reply brief instead of the motion to dismiss, which is too late.

 

The recent order is good news for Bungie and keeps the lawsuit very much alive. Based on all the activity thus far, we can expect both sides to continue fighting tooth and nail.

 

—

 

A copy of U.S. District Court Judge Thomas Zilly’s order on the motion to dismiss is available here (pdf)