For more than two decades, copyright holders have sent takedown notices to ISPs to alert account holders that their connections are being used to pirate content.

 

In the past, subscribers could simply ignore these warnings if they wanted, as there were virtually no repercussions.

 

AT&T and other ISPs publicly stated that they would never disconnect customers without a court order, arguing that only a court can decide what constitutes a repeat infringement.

AT&T Disconnects Persistent Pirates

After rightsholders filed several high-profile lawsuits against ISPs, most providers revised their policies. In AT&T’s case, the ISP launched a dedicated copyright portal and began terminating the accounts of subscribers repeatedly targeted with piracy allegations.

 

AT&T doesn’t disconnect subscribers without giving them advance notice, of course. After the initial warnings, they get the chance to take steps so that future infringements are prevented. This can get pretty hands-on as it involves a mandatory educational ‘copyright tutorial‘.

 

If subscribers fail to resolve the issue, more harsh measures come into play, with a permanent disconnection as the ultimate punishment. This option is clearly laid out in the AT&T Copyright Alert Program.

 

“If multiple violations occur, AT&T will take action, which may include terminating your internet service,” the provider writes.

 

With this much on the line, most subscribers take the piracy warnings quite seriously. The ISP will be happy with that but many subscribers are less happy with how AT&T is handling things at its end.

Complaints About a Buggy Copyright Portal

Over the past few days, there have been several complaints from subscribers who can’t acknowledge that they have received piracy notices or are unable to complete the required copyright tutorial.

 

These complaints are not new. We have spotted numerous threads over the years and the issue regularly flares up. While these might be occasional technical difficulties, they are quite frustrating for people who might lose their Internet access.

 

A small selection of recent messages are listed below:

 

I’ve recently gotten an e-mail telling me about a copyright noticed and as I attempt to do the tutorial I keep getting Server Error issue so i’m unable to complete it. Do they really shut off your internet if you don’t complete it?” – User2022

 

 

“I’m told to login and go to att.com/copyright-infringement to acknowledge that I have received this alert. But when I do that there is absolutely nowhere that I can acknowledge it. Everything ends up a dead end!” – Julius

 

 

“Why can’t I access the Tutorial? Is there anyone at ATT I can talk to to get some help with this issue. The latest letter I received says they will reduce my internet access if I do not take the Tutorial.” – jimb0g

 

 

“You cant threaten to turn off my internet when your own website prevents me from doing it. I need a solution ASAP.” – FrustratedCustomer89

Recurring Problems

Most of these calls for help are not immediately answered by an AT&T employee. However, there is an ‘award-winning’ forum user named Tonydi who regularly chimes in to confirm a recurring problem.

 

“This situation keeps coming up in here over and over, literally for years. AT&T must have recently sent out a bulk mailing because all of a sudden it’s become a popular subject in the forum again,” Tonydi writes.

 

Most subscribers are reassured by his suggestion that AT&T does “absolutely nothing” after they send the scary notices. However, as we highlighted earlier, the ISP has terminated subscribers in the past, so ignoring the matter isn’t without risk.

Solution?

It’s unclear if the complaining subscribers eventually sort out the problem. In most cases, an AT&T employee eventually responds to the complaints with some advice but that doesn’t always lead to a solution.

 

For example, we spotted a response from a subscriber who was directed to call the Digital Assistance Center after the initial advice failed. This person was then sent back and forth between different customer service departments. Despite spending an hour trying to resolve the matter, the problem persisted.

 

The above clearly suggests that AT&T’s handling of piracy complaints can be quite buggy at times and could use some more attention. Especially when people are threatened with losing their Internet access.

 

We reached out to the Internet provider asking for a comment on our findings. While it didn’t go into the possible terminations, an AT&T spokesperson replied with the following statement.

 

“We take allegations of copyright infringement very seriously and are committed to helping our customers understand how to comply with the law. The online tutorial is just one of several resources we offer and customers may contact us with questions at any time.”

 

Spanish top-tier football league LaLiga is a corporate giant.

 

During the 2020/21 season, LaLiga clubs achieved revenues of almost 3.2 billion euros and with the assistance of LaLiga’s own anti-piracy division, the football group only wants to see that increase.

 

Owned by Telefónica, one of the world’s largest telecoms and internet companies, Movistar Plus+ is the largest TV subscription platform in Spain. Through sports streamer DAZN, Movistar Plus+ has a distribution deal to air LaLiga matches until 2027, and everyone involved would prefer LaLiga fans to pay for their content, not pirate it.

 

LaLiga and Movistar have previously made separate efforts to curtail piracy by going after notorious sports streaming site RojaDirecta and teaming up with the police to take down pirate IPTV suppliers. In the background, however, one of the key goals is to increase and improve ISP blocking.

LaLiga & Movistar Plus+ Win Enhanced Blocking Powers

In an announcement Thursday, Telefónica revealed that subsidiary Movistar Plus+ and LaLiga had emerged with a joint win following a lawsuit heard before the Commercial Court No. 9 of Barcelona.

 

The court heard that enhanced ISP blocking powers are necessary to protect the companies’ rights. Due to the fluid nature of pirate IPTV and other streaming services, it’s no longer sufficient to block domain names and IP addresses in the hope they will stay the same over time.

 

Instead, ISP blocking needs to be more nimble – more dynamic – and that can’t be achieved with ever-recurring visits to the court to obtain permission. The Court agreed and on July 25 handed down a decision that will allow LaLiga and Movistar Plus+ to respond in a much more timely manner.

 

Once new URLs, domains, and IP addresses of pirate services are identified as infringers of the companies’ rights, blocking of the same will take place on a weekly basis, with no need to identify the Court in advance. The new arrangement follows in the footsteps of previous blocking orders won by LaLiga.

 

“The decision will be in force until the 2024/2025 season and will begin its operation from the week of August 8, before the start of LaLiga football on August 12,” Telefónica’s statement adds.

Movistar Plus+ Victorious in Separate Lawsuit

Given that effective blocking orders need to be applied across all internet service providers, it’s no surprise that Movistar Plus+ wants local ISPs on board to protect its own content. In addition to the LaLiga deal, the subscription TV platform holds rights to UEFA competitions and has agreements with DAZN, Netflix, Disney+, and Prime Video, among others.

 

A decision handed down July 27 by the Mercantile Court number 6 of Barcelona should help Movistar Plus+ to achieve its goals. Valid for three sports seasons until the end of the football championships in the 2024/25 season, the order allows the pay TV platform to supply continuously updated pirate IPTV blocking instructions to local internet service providers.

 

“[T]he blockade must be carried out within a maximum period of three hours from the notification of new list,” Telefónica explains, adding that the list does not need to be approved by the court and covers all Movistar Plus+ content, not just football matches.

 

One Spanish telecoms company that won’t mind helping out Movistar Plus+ is Orange España. While it directly competes with Movistar, a telecoms company also owned by Telefónica, Orange recently did a deal with Telefónica to offer coverage of LaLiga and UEFA matches in Spain.

What Could Possibly Be Driving People to IPTV Piracy?

The announcement comes on the heels of a new Uswitch report revealing that Premier League fans in the UK will need to dig deep if they want to enjoy the new season on TV. After subscribing to Sky Sports, BT Sport and Amazon Prime Video to gain access to all televised matches (but not all matches played), the average cost to a fan watching all of their team’s games will be £21.93 per match.

 

“However, fans of Bournemouth, Fulham and Nottingham Forest – the three promoted sides – will be paying £35.67 per game to watch their favorite club, based on how often each team’s games are televised,” Uswitch added.

 

For perspective, users of pirate IPTV services in the UK and Spain will probably pay less than £10/€10 per month for several thousand channels, including every match and event offered by Premier League, LaLiga, Serie A, NHL, NBA, and UFC. Plus every movie and TV show, including everything Netflix, Disney+ and Prime Video has to offer.

 

Expensive TV sports packages are known to drive uptake of cheap pirate IPTV services so until something changes to make legal options more affordable, ISP blocking will attempt to frustrate fans towards legality. What blocking can’t do is put more disposable money into people’s pockets.

 

Update: List of Services to Be Blocked (via cincodias)

 

6irmz.top (IPTV)
chiletv.xyz (IPTV)
dropfile.com (IPTV)
e7b8bcf34bb8735ca8fe0dad79183299.lig.4retnec.co (IPTV)
emyb.in (IPTV)
firetvset.net (IPTV)
fjernsynet.xyz (IPTV)
fre7.flycany.me (IPTV)
full003tv.xyz (IPTV)
gioggg.net (IPTV)
golatin.online (IPTV)
huang6nis.xyz (IPTV)
sharks.com (IPTV)
magadam1.xyz (IPTV)
nitrotv.us (IPTV)
pelisyseriespty.xyz (IPTV)
santmarcta.life (IPTV)
somosvip.xyz (IPTV)
suptv-nord.com (IPTV)
tecno(IPTV).es (IPTV)
theredball.ddnsgeek.com (IPTV)
xentv.club (IPTV)
(IPTV)paratodos.app (Web / IPTV)
tvpremiumhd.tv (Web / IPTV)
bobres.co (Web / IPTV)
(IPTV)wink.com (Web / IPTV)
joker(IPTV).net (Web / IPTV)
getsportztv.com (Web / IPTV)
onetvservices.com (Web / IPTV)
1stream.top (Web Streaming)
3papahd3.icu (Web Streaming)
bdnewszh.com (Web Streaming)
cricfree.live (Web Streaming)
cricfree.top (Web Streaming)
dzeko11.net (Web Streaming)
es5.sportplus.live (Web Streaming)
freelive365.nl (Web Streaming)
hd.crichd.cx (Web Streaming)
hockeyweb.live (Web Streaming)
izlemac16.xyz (Web Streaming)
jokersecretpage.xyz (Web Streaming)
m.rojadirecta.fun (Web Streaming)
motornews.live (Web Streaming)
p2pstreams.live (Web Streaming)
pepperlive.info (Web Streaming)
socolive.pro (Web Streaming)
sportinglive.co (Web Streaming)
sportsnest.co (Web Streaming)
stakes100.xyz (Web Streaming)
techoreels.com (Web Streaming)
tezgoal.com (Web Streaming)
vipboxs.com (Web Streaming)
weakstreams.com (Web Streaming)
www.cyfostreams.com (Web Streaming)
www.hdmatch.xyz (Web Streaming)
www.ovostreams.com (Web Streaming)
www.rojadirectatvenvivo.com (Web Streaming)
www.sportnews.to (Web Streaming)
www.zdsports.org (Web Streaming)
acestream.org (BitTorrent Site)
arenavision.site (BitTorrent Site)
www.futbolgratis.workers.dev (BitTorrent Site)
explodie.org (BitTorrent Site)
open.acgtracker.com (BitTorrent Site)
open.stealth.si (BitTorrent Site)
share.camoe.cn (BitTorrent Site)
thetracker.org (BitTorrent Site)
t.nyaatracker.com (BitTorrent Site)
tracker.coppersurfer.tk (BitTorrent Site)
tracker.electro-bittorrent.pl (BitTorrent Site)
tracker.internetwarriors.net (BitTorrent Site)
tracker.tfile.co (BitTorrent Site)
tracker.tfile.me (BitTorrent Site)
tracker.tiny-vps.com (BitTorrent Site)
tracker.bittorrent.eu.org (BitTorrent Site)
tracker.tvunderground.org.ru (BitTorrent Site)
tracker.vanitycore.co (BitTorrent Site)
zephir.monocul.us (BitTorrent Site)

 

One criticism of legitimate streaming platforms such as Netflix, Disney+ and Prime Video, involves content discovery. Even if people subscribe to all three, there’s no official way to carry out a unified search and view in one app.

 

This issue isn’t unique to legal platforms. Pirate sites also have their own libraries and while they’re nowhere near as restricted as their licensed counterparts, the ability to search multiple resources from one interface is definitely considered a big plus among users.

 

It’s a problem the CloudStream app attempted to solve.

Cloudstream-3 – Open Source, No Ads

Installing piracy-focused apps is everyday work for millions of Android users but in common with any software downloaded from the internet, there can be nagging doubts that unwanted features might come as part of the package. That’s just one of the reasons that users like CloudStream-3.

 

Now in its third iteration, CloudStream-3 is free, open source, reportedly clean, and available in a couple of dozen languages. The app aggregates content from a huge number of third-party sites (more than 50 at last count – list below) including some of the web’s largest streaming platforms. FMovies, for example, has thousands of videos and tens of millions of monthly visitors, but that’s just one source out of dozens.

 

CloudStream-3 has been in development on Github under the username ‘LagradOst‘ for some time but yesterday the coding platform received a copyright infringment complaint. As a result, the CloudStream-3 repo was suspended and with it the main download link for the application’s APK file.

 

The DMCA takedown notice was sent by Kopjra S.R.L., a company specializing in online investigations and OSINT. Among its customers are Italian media giant Mediaset and broadcaster Sky, with the copyright complaint sent on the latter’s behalf.

 

“We are writing in the name and on behalf of Sky UK Limited, the exclusive owner of distribution and exploitation rights of the Sky UK channels. This IPTV App (CloudStream 3) includes illegal and unauthorized Pay Tv Sky UK tv series: Riviera,” the notice reads.

 

The complaint includes a short tutorial on how to install and use CloudStream-3 to watch episode 1 of Riviera using the streaming source ‘Trailers.to’. At just five steps long from installation to viewing, the instructions show why these apps are so popular.

Why Disclaimers Mean Almost Nothing

Like many similar apps, CloudStream-3 comes with a disclaimer, noting that any legal issues should be taken up with the sites hosting the content, not the developers of the app.

 

“CloudStream 3 does not host any content on the app, and has no control over what media is put up or taken down. CloudStream 3 functions like any other search engine, such as Google. CloudStream 3 does not host, upload or manage any videos, films or content. It simply crawls, aggregates and displays links in a convenient, user-friendly interface,” the disclaimer reads.

 

“It merely scrapes 3rd-party websites that are publicly accessible via any regular web browser. It is the responsibility of the user to avoid any actions that might violate the laws governing his/her locality. Use CloudStream 3 at your own risk.”

 

Whether Sky’s anti-piracy agent read this advice is unknown, but the reality is they can do whatever they like within the law to protect their rights. Sending a DMCA notice is just one of the options and certainly the easiest.

 

The TV episode in question can be found in less than five steps using a search engine but the overall packaging makes the app a prime target and the list of indexed sites only underlines that. The developer/s could try their luck with a DMCA counternotice but given the circumstances, that’s not exactly advisable.

 

Sky has been paying attention to Github in recent months having previously taken down CucoTV. At the moment the CloudStream-2 repo is untouched but it seems unlikely the project will try to make Github its home in future.

 

CloudStream-3 sources (recent list):

 

Akwam- -AllAnime- -AllMoviesForYou- -AnimeFlick- -AnimePahe- -AnimeWorld- -Animeflv.net- -Animekisa- -AsianLoad- -AsiaFlix- -Bflix- -Fmovies.to- -Sflix.pro- -Cinecalidad- -Cuevana- -DoramasYT- -DramaSee- -DubbedAnime- -EgyBest- -EntrePeliculasySeries- -filman.cc- -French Stream- -GogoAnime- -Kawaiifu- -HD Movies- -I Have No TV- -KDramaHood- -LookMovie- -MeloMovie- -Monoschinos- -MyCima- -9Anime- -PeliSmart- -Pelisflix- -PelisplusHD- -Pelisplus- -Pinoy-HD- -Pinoy Moviepedia- -Pinoy Movies- -Sflix.to- -Dopebox- -Solarmovie- -Seriesflix- -Soap2Day- -Tenshi.moe- -Trailers.to- -TheFlix.to- -2Embed- -VMovee- -vf-film.me- -vf-serie.org- -VidEmbed- -WatchAsian- -WatchCartoonOnline- -WCO Stream- -Zoro

 

In March of 2019, several major record labels sued Charter Communications, one of the largest Internet providers in the US with 26 million subscribers.

 

Helped by the RIAA, Capitol Records, Warner Bros, Sony Music, and other music companies accused Charter of deliberately turning a blind eye to its pirating subscribers.

 

Among other things, they argued that the ISP failed to terminate or otherwise take meaningful action against the accounts of repeat infringers, even though it was well aware of them. As such, the music companies said Charter was liable for both contributory infringement and vicarious liability.

Charter’s Piracy Troubles Grow

The lawsuit was followed by another complaint last year alleging that, despite repeated warnings, the ISP was still failing to take action against pirating subscribers. This new lawsuit covered the infringements that took place after the first case was filed.

 

“Charter has insisted on doing nothing — despite receiving thousands of notices that detailed the illegal activity of its subscribers, despite its clear legal obligation to address the widespread, illegal downloading of copyrighted works on its Internet services, and despite being sued previously by Plaintiffs for similar conduct,” the music companies wrote.

 

The stakes are high in these cases as damages can easily reach hundreds of millions of dollars. This isn’t just a theoretical figure either, as a jury previously ordered rival ISP Cox Communications to pay a billion dollars in a similar case.

 

Adding to Charter’s trouble was the fact that its daughter company Bright House Communication was also sued separately. This case was scheduled to go to trial but was settled at the last minute, as reported earlier this week.

Charter and Labels Settle Lawsuits

As it turned out, Bright House wasn’t alone in settling its dispute with the labels. Around the same time, Charter also reached an agreement with the music companies, settling both cases on undisclosed terms. This means that three high-profile piracy liability lawsuits were resolved in one week.

 

There is not much information available on the terms or the reasons for the settlements. The court filings are rather brief and simply notify the court that a deal has been reached, which is required under the court’s local rules.

 

“Pursuant to Local Civil Rule 40.2(b), the Parties hereby notify the Court that they have resolved the above-captioned action,” both parties write.

 

We reached out to Charter to find out more about the reasons for and conditions of the settlement but the company did not reply. The RIAA previously informed us that it is unable to comment on this particular matter.

 

Absent a last-minute breakthrough, it seems plausible that Bright House and Charter have agreed to pay a settlement fee to get the cases over with. However, this can’t be confirmed based on information that’s available to the public at this time.

 

If any new information surfaces, we will update this article accordingly. The settlement notifications in both Charter cases are available here (1/2).

 

Over the years, Twitch streamers have been increasingly targeted by DMCA takedowns, which can cause quite a fuss.

 

Many of these copyright complaints are legitimate, meaning that streamers use copyrighted content without permission. However, there are plenty of mistakes too.

 

This week, a group of popular Spanish-speaking streamers organized a gaming event featuring “Project Zomboid“. This is a big deal for the indie game but, unfortunately, it was partly ruined by what appears to be a false copyright claim.

Twitch Flags Copyrighted Siren

The issue was first raised by Menos Trece, who has over a million subscribers on Twitch and over two million on YouTube. After streaming Project Zomboid gameplay to tens of thousands of viewers, Twitch informed him that he had broadcasted copyright-infringing audio.

 

As it turns out, there was no problem with copyrighted music. Instead, a police or ambulance siren sound effect used in the Project Zomboid game was the culprit. This sound was claimed by an entity named “Dr. Sound Effects,” who apparently own the rights to a police car siren.

 

In response to this claim, of the stream’s audio, which is still the case to this day. Needless to say, Menos Trece wasn’t pleased with the surprise claim and the associated copyright strike.

Copyright Troll?

The Indie Stone, who develop Project Zomboid, are not happy either. The indie developers swiftly responded to the issue on Twitter, suspecting that a “copyright troll” may be the culprit.

 

“Abuse of copyright system, copyright trolls have likely copyrighted a siren sound and this is likely picked up in a ton of games. Not much we can do about it really beyond make the siren not sound like a siren any more but we’re looking into it,” the developers tweeted.

 

There is no evidence that this is a deliberate mistake. However, The Indie Stone confirmed that they own the rights to the sound effect and urged Twitch to correct the error. At the time of writing that hasn’t happened yet.

 

Menos Trece can still appeal the false claim as well, but that means sharing all sorts of private details with the streaming platform. In addition, it may open the door to a lawsuit in the US.

 

“To make a simple dispute, Twitch asks you for ALL your personal data and ‘threatens’ that you could go to court in the USA,” the popular gamer comments on Twitter.

Not The First Time

Unfortunately, these sound effect takedowns are not new. Similar problems have come up in the past with other games and Project Zomboid’s creators are familiar with it as well.

 

Earlier this year The Indie Stone reached out to Twitch, hoping to find a solution but the streaming platform wasn’t very helpful. Twitch uses the third-party filtering tool Audible Magic to spot infringements and can’t easily make changes to that. Instead, it advised affected users to challenge the takedown.

 

In other words, instead of fixing the problem, developers and streamers have to find a way to deal with it. That’s a convenient solution for Twitch, but a major frustration to the people who made the platform as popular as it is.

Avoid Sirens Please…

The Indie Stone is actually considering changing its siren sound effects to something that doesn’t sound like a siren to avoid false copyright strikes. In the meantime, they advise streamers to avoid police cars and ambulances.

 

“The Twitch copyright trolls have struck again, claiming ambulance sounds in the game – we’re looking into a streamer mode that will turn sirens into unconvincing synth sirens to stop this happening. Twitch need to have some exemption list or something.

 

“I’d stay away from police or ambulance sirens in the meantime till we get the streamer mode in,” the developers add.

 

Faced with the impossibility of filing lawsuits against every single site offering content without a license, rightsholders all over the world are now fully invested in site blocking.

 

Whether the process begins with a court injunction or utilizes an administrative framework (or both), rightsholders are causing hundreds of sites and associated domains to be blocked by ISPs every month. Those seeking a clear and panoramic view of the scale of site blocking measures will find an opaque system, one that seems designed to limit how much information is made available to the public.

 

That being said, actions that begin in court can shine some light on who is obtaining blocking orders. In France, premium TV company Canal+ has reentered the fray with what appears to be the first injunction designed to reduce piracy of Formula 1.

High Court in Paris Says ‘Oui’

New legislation in France allows rightsholders to enter an accelerated legal process that authorizes “proportionate measures” to prevent online infringement. In January, sports broadcaster beIN became the first company to obtain a blocking order protecting football rights.

 

Ongoing blocking now supports beIN, football league UEFA, and local broadcaster Canal+, with the latter now expanding its campaign to underpin the company’s new contract with Formula 1.

 

Lequipe reports that the Tribunal Judiciaire de Paris has granted a Canal+ application to render inaccessible 39 pirate sites offering unlicensed Formula 1 streams. The order covers four major French ISPs – Bouygues, Orange, Free, and SFR.

 

The order won by Canal+ is ‘dynamic’, meaning that when pirates take countermeasures with new domains, mirror sites or proxies, the Arcom regulator has the power to add new domains to the list and compel the ISPs to block them. In a sign of how quickly these updates can take place, the original order to block 39 domains has already expanded to 59 domains and probably won’t stop there.

 

Local reports indicate that the ISP blocks are DNS-based, meaning that internet users who switch to third-party DNS providers (such as Google or Cloudflare) are unaffected by the blockades. Whether the authorities will seek to close this loophole remains to be seen but at least for now, blocking is moving full steam ahead in France.

Hundreds of Domains Blocked Since January

During a press conference in April, Arcom announced that since its inception in January, 250 sports piracy sites had been blocked, together representing more than 60% of the country’s ‘pirate’ sports audience. By mid-May, the number of pirate sites blocked had swelled to around 400, a figure that includes sites blocked by court order and any additional sites reappearing to circumvent blocking.

 

Arcom says that at least 1,200 additional pirate sites have also been blocked by French ISPs resulting in dramatic falls in piracy, including a reported 77% decline in piracy of the Champions League competition.

 

Whether any of this activity will translate to consumers spending more on legitimate services remains to be seen but that’s unlikely to be a prominent feature in anti-piracy reports, at least on the same slides. Graphs tend to show how effective blocking is at preventing users from visiting blocked domains, not how effective they are at converting former pirates to paying customers.

 

In that respect, France also has additional problems of its own making that seem to fuel piracy, rather than discourage it.

 

Three years ago, several of the world’s largest music companies including Warner Bros and Sony Music sued Internet Provider Bright House Networks

 

With backing from the RIAA, the record labels accused the provider of not doing enough to stop pirating subscribers. Specifically, they alleged that the ISP failed to terminate repeat infringers.

 

Ever since the complaint was filed the parties have gone back and forth in court with various arguments and accusations. Just recently both sides requested summary judgments, hoping to start the trial with an advantage. These efforts failed and the case moved forward.

 

This week, the trial was scheduled to start in a Florida federal court. Both parties submitted their schedules and the jurors were getting ready to take their seats on the bench for up to fifteen days.

Surprise Agreement

The proceedings were initially planned to start on Monday but due to one of the plaintiffs’ attorneys testing positive for COVID-19, events were postponed until tomorrow. However, a surprise update today reveals that the entire trial has been canceled after the parties resolved their differences at the last minute.

 

“Pursuant to Local Civil Rule 3.09, the Parties hereby notify the Court that they have resolved the above-captioned action,” the parties just informed the court.

 

Neither side has made any public statements yet but this likely means that the music companies and Bright House reached a settlement behind closed doors. Details are not mentioned but, with hundreds of millions of dollars in potential damages, it wouldn’t be a surprise to learn that the settlement contains a financial element.

 

In a similar trial a few years ago, a Virginia jury ruled in favor of the music companies. This was a costly verdict, requiring Internet provider Cox Communications to pay a billion dollars in damages for its failure to terminate repeat copyright infringers.

Case Closed?

Shortly after both parties informed the court, US District Court Judge Mary Scriven dismissed the case with prejudice. This means that the lawsuit cannot be revived again in the future. Needless to say, all pending motions, hearings, and the trial itself are canceled too.

 

TorrentFreak reached out to the RIAA and the ISP to request more details on the nature of their agreement but we received no immediate responses. If we receive any additional information we will update this article accordingly.

 

While Bright House has resolved this matter, its parent company Charter Communications is still facing similar repeat infringer claims. Two separate lawsuits, filed by many of the same music companies, accuse the telecoms giant of turning a blind eye to pirating subscribers.

 

Nintendo has been tackling videogame piracy for a very long time but a lot of water has gone under the bridge since the simplicity of the SNES-based Super Wild Card.

 

These days Nintendo has multiple attack vectors to cover, from bringing down commercial groups such as Team-Xecutor to blocking sites that distribute pirated Switch ROMs.

 

As a result, the Japanese gaming giant often finds itself taking action under the DMCA but as a case from late last week shows, that isn’t necessarily straightforward. It involves so-called ‘sigpatches’, software tools that play an enabling role in defeating access controls.

Custom Firmware & Sigpatches – How We Got There

Firmware is a type of software that resides in non-volatile memory, with a PC’s BIOS chip being an obvious example. Without reliable firmware, sophisticated computers, smartphones and consoles are unable to carry out their most basic functions, including the ability to boot up.

 

From a regular customer’s perspective, firmware should be imperceptible and totally reliable. From a manufacturer’s perspective, solid firmware means control and, when that company is Nintendo, control means the prevention of piracy and repurposing of hardware. When hackers remove original firmware and replace it with their own ‘custom’ firmware (CFW) containing new features, those usually include the ability to play code that hasn’t been sanctioned by Nintendo.

 

Depending on technical ability and model owned, Nintendo Switch gamers have had numerous CFW options over the years, notably SXOS from Team Xecuter. While SXOS was popular, it was also protected by DRM. Atmosphère, on the other hand, is completely open source so can be built upon and improved over time.

So Atmosphère is a Piracy Tool? Not Quite

The philosophy of Atmosphère is easily misunderstood. On the one hand, it patches original Nintendo firmware to achieve its goals. On the other, its developers (SciresM, TuxSH, hexkyz, and fincs) don’t promote Atmosphère for piracy but present it as an educational and ‘ethical homebrew’ project.

 

Despite this, many gamers see Atmosphère as a fast pass to piracy, but it’s not that simple. Unlike SXOS, Atmosphère does not make it easy to run pirated Switch game files downloaded from the internet. Instead, users have to download additional files called signature patches (sigpatches) and load them into Atmosphère. When these components are positioned in tandem, Nintendo’s signature checks are rendered useless and unsigned code can be run on the Switch.

 

Of course, nothing in the console modding world is straightforward. It will come as no surprise that people can get in a pickle with their sigpatches due to the need to keep them regularly updated, oftentimes in response to software on their devices getting updated.

 

Downloading sigpatches can be as simple as visiting a website and downloading a new batch or using an automatic tool such as Sigpatch-Updater by ITotalJustice. But again, console modding is not straightforward – especially when Nintendo is on the prowl.

ITotalJustice Gets DMCA Treatment From Nintendo

In addition to their updater tool, ITotalJustice also had a repo on Github offering .zip files of the latest sigpatches and compatibility advice. The files were very small considering their powerful functionality and very simple to download.

 

But after a pretty free run, this particular venture on Github has been brought to an end. In a DMCA notice sent by Nintendo of America to Github, the videogame company explains why the repo infringes its copyrights.

 

“The reported repository offers and provides access to circumvention software that infringes Nintendo’s intellectual property rights. Specifically, the reported repository provides SigPatches to users,” Nintendo writes.

 

“The use of SigPatches with a modified Nintendo Switch console allows users to bypass Nintendo’s Technological Measures for downloaded digital games; specifically, SigPatches allow users to bypass the signature verification in the Game TPMs when a downloaded digital game is started.”

 

Github redacted some details from the DMCA notice but it appears that Nintendo cited a statement from a different repo (AIO-Switch-Updater) to show that sigpatches “are patches required to launch unofficial .NSPs…”, with NSPs being video game files for the Nintendo Switch.

 

“Trafficking in circumvention software, such as SigPatches, violates the Digital Millennium Copyright Act of the United States (specifically, 17 U.S.C. §1201), and infringes copyrights owned by Nintendo,” the notice concludes.

 

As the above shows, Github took the repo down in response to the DMCA notice. Interestingly, however, it seems there may have been a slight difference of opinion, not over whether the repo should be taken down for infringement, but over the specific grounds on which it should be taken down.

Do Sigpatches Breach The DMCA’s Anti-Circumvention Provisions?

“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(s).”

 

The above is a note from Github, posted together with Nintendo’s DMCA takedown notice. Nintendo’s legal team included a wall of text in the notice which lays out their claims for the removal of the sigpatches repo under 17 U.S.C. §1201. Why Github wasn’t completely convinced based on the supplied information is unknown but it’s not difficult to picture arguments for both sides.

 

Nintendo describes sigpatches as “circumvention software” and states that the distribution of sigpatches amounts to trafficking in circumvention devices, a violation of 17 U.S. Code § 1201(2).

 

Under § 1201(a)(2)(a) it could be argued that sigpatches are designed for the purpose of circumventing a technical measure controlling access to a work. Used in conjunction with Atmosphère they can indeed “avoid, bypass, remove, deactivate, or impair a technological measure, without the authority of the copyright owner.”

 

The owner in this case is Nintendo and the technical measure relates to Nintendo signature checks under ‘Horizon’, the codename for the Switch’s system software. It’s worth noting that sigpatches don’t tamper with games directly but are tools that Atmosphère is able to use. In turn, however, Atmosphère needs Nintendo code to function and that code too is protected by ‘technical measures’.

 

Under § 1201(a)(2)(b), the question is whether sigpatches have “only limited commercially significant purpose or use” other than to circumvent Nintendo’s technical measures. Sigpatches are needed to launch .NSP files, the ‘Nintendo Switch Package’ format used by Nintendo for downloaded games, so the bigger question to be argued is what else can they do, other than defeat Nintendo’s signature checks?

 

Under § 1201(a)(2)(c), there’s a question to be answered in respect of intent. Are the sigpatches being marketed for use in circumventing a technological measure that effectively controls access to Nintendo’s copyright works?

 

While these appear to be straightforward questions, the Nintendo Switch modding scene is one of organized chaos, with ad hoc groups attempting to solve all kinds of puzzles. For example, over on GBATemp there’s a discussion on how users can create their own sigpatches (so in theory there would be no ‘trafficking’) but even that process requires other acts that could have implications under the DMCA.

 

Finally, it’s worth remembering that if a recipient of a DMCA notice believes that notice was sent in error, they are entitled to file a counternotice to have the content reinstated. That raises another interesting question regarding this specific case.

 

Nintendo sent the takedown notice claiming a violation of anti-circumvention measures for which there is no counternotice provision. According to Github, however, the notice was processed on other grounds, which might mean that ITotalJustice is able to file to have the repo reinstated and then fight against Nintendo in court.

 

Of course, that’s not going to happen so it seems likely that Nintendo will keep trying to take sigpatches down and the cat-and-mouse game will continue.

 

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 one new on the list. “Jurassic World Dominion” is the most downloaded title.

The most torrented movies for the week ending on August 01 are:

Movie Rank	Rank last week	Movie name	IMDb Rating / Trailer
Most downloaded movies via torrent sites
1	(1)	Jurassic World Dominion	6.0 / trailer
2	(2)	The Gray Man	6.6 / trailer
3	(3)	Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness	7.2 / trailer
4	(…)	Paradise Highway	5.4 / trailer
5	(6)	Thor: Love and Thunder	6.9 / trailer
6	(5)	The Black Phone	7.1 / trailer
7	(4)	Lightyear	5.3 / trailer
8	(7)	The Batman	8.4 / trailer
9	(8)	Fantastic Beasts: The Secrets of Dumbledore	6.4 / trailer
10	(10)	Top Gun: Maverick	8.6 / trailer

 

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

 

Over the past year, a group of independent movie companies filed a series of lawsuits against VPN providers.

 

The makers of films such as “I Feel Pretty,” “Once Upon a Time in Venice” and “Dallas Buyers Club” accuse these services of turning a blind eye to piracy or actively promoting it.

Filmmakers Sue VeePN

VeePN has become the latest target in this legal effort. Last month, several companies accused the Ukrainian-owned VPN service of actively promoting piracy. The company was accused of advertising on torrent sites such as YTS and billing itself as a “Porcorn Time VPN.”

 

Within a few weeks, the filmmakers already obtained a restraining order that effectively froze the VPN provider’s funds at PayPal and Alipay. This far-reaching measure appears to have paid off as both parties have just informed the Virginia federal court that a settlement has been reached.

 

In a court filing last Friday, the plaintiffs write that the restraining order can be lifted and the case dismissed. While the settlement terms will remain private, a few details have been shared in public.

Settlement With Blocking Requirements

As in previous lawsuits against VPN.ht and VPN Unlimited, VeePN agreed to block BitTorrent traffic and several pirate sites. These measures only apply to the servers that are located in the United States.

 

“Defendant VeePN Corp. has agreed to use commercially reasonable efforts to block BitTorrent traffic on its servers in the United States […] and to use commercially reasonable efforts to block access from servers in the United States under Defendant’s control to the certain notorious piracy websites located outside of the United States.”

 

The legal paperwork doesn’t mention which pirate sites will be blocked. However, in previous cases, YTS, The Pirate Bay, RARBG, 1337x, and several proxies were among the targets.

 

In addition to the filmmakers, the settlement also includes the Hawaiian company ’42 Ventures’ as a beneficiary. This company is owned by anti-piracy lawyer Kerry Culpepper and is the registrant of several piracy-related trademarks, including YTS, Popcorn Time, and RARBG. These trademarks were used by VeePN without permission.

No Logging!

The settlement and associated measures are confirmed by Andrii Rozum, who is the sole shareholder of VeePN. The Ukrainian owner of the company further adds that the VPN service is not required to log any IP addresses as part of the deal.

 

“The confidential settlement agreement does not obligate VeePN to implement any kind of measures in order to store log records of the IP addresses tied to servers in the United States under VeePN’s control and retain said log records,” Rozum notes.

 

This ‘no logging’ clarification will be important for the VPN’s users, particularly because the filmmakers specifically raised concerns over the absence of logs in their original complaint.

 

In another lawsuit that was resolved last year, VPN.ht did agree to log IP-address information on its US servers. However, that company also stated that it would stop using US-based servers altogether.

 

—

 

A copy of the rightsholders’ notice to dismiss the claims against VeePN is available here (pdf)

 

Given the phenomenal rate at which pirated content is uploaded and spread online, it’s no surprise that mistakes are made by those attempting to block or take it down.

 

Even at a rate of 99% accuracy, well-intentioned takedown requests have the potential to cause damage to people that have nothing to do with piracy. Indeed, erroneous or malicious takedown and blocking requests can deny other copyright holders the ability to exercise their right to distribute copyrighted content.

 

While provisions exist in US law to punish those who abuse the system, legal action is extremely rare. A draft law tabled in Russia hopes to make denial of access to content less prevalent while also offering support to intermediaries.

Liability For Initiating Illegal Takedowns

The draft is the work of Russia’s Ministry of Economic Development and its aims are outlined in an explanatory note.

 

“A person who illegally initiates the termination of access to intellectual property in the information and telecommunications network of the Internet can be held civilly liable in the form of damages,” the note on the government portal reads.

 

The proposal relates to two articles in Russia’s Civil Code (ГК РФ) that concern intellectual property – Article 1301 (Liability for a Breach of the Exclusive Right to a Work) and Article 1311 (Liability for Infringement of the Exclusive Right to an Object of Allied Rights).

 

Both articles protect rightsholders by holding infringers liable to pay compensation. There are currently no provisions for compensation when distribution rights are denied due to illegal blocking or takedowns, so the draft law aims to fix that.

Compensation, Not Damages

Articles 1301 and 1311 of the Civil Code address infringement by requiring infringers to pay compensation to rightsholders rather than damages. The draft law applying to wrongful blocking and takedowns will take the same approach while maintaining the current compensation range of 10,000 to 5,000,000 rubles ($165 to $82,700).

 

Should the draft law be written into law, rightsholders will have the right to demand compensation in an amount to be determined by the court. The amount will vary depending on the circumstances, with flagrant or egregious violations punishable at the higher end of the scale.

 

How the courts will ultimately handle such cases remains to be seen but given the volume of wrongful takedowns, cases could potentially mount up. However, the draft law also aims to solve another problem affecting service providers.

Easier Life For Online Platforms

The DMCA requires service providers in the United States to remove content in response to a compliant takedown notification. If the takedown notice is sent in error or maliciously, a counternotice option is available. If the notice sender fails to file a lawsuit in response to a counternotice, content can be restored by the service provider without fear of liability.

 

Russian law enables exclusive licensees to send takedown notices to websites, which are required to remove the allegedly infringing content within 24 hours. Website operators can request more information from notice senders to prove ownership of content but if infringing content isn’t removed, that may go against the website owner if the matter ends up in court.

 

The draft aims to make life easier for online services by removing uncertainty when responding to a notice. When a takedown notice is sent to a service provider, a direct line on liability will connect the sender and the owner of the content. In the event that the notice is illegal and legal content is blocked or taken down, the injured party will be able to claim compensation directly from the sender.

 

Over the past decades, the entertainment industries have tried out numerous anti-piracy messages.

 

One of the most iconic videos is without doubt the “You Wouldn’t Steal a Car” campaign, which proved to be a fertile breeding ground for memes, satire, and ridicule.

 

The ‘You Wouldn’t’ video is an extreme example but anti-piracy messages on the whole often miss the mark. They tend to exaggerate losses, focus on external threats such as malware, or paint a dystopian future where cinemas go out of business and all actors lose their jobs.

 

These types of messages may work well for the top Hollywood executives but they fail to make an impact on most casual pirates. According to a new paper published by the ESSCA School of Management, there are some key behavioral insights that explain common mistakes in anti-piracy campaigns.

 

The paper titled; “Doing more with less: Behavioral insights for antipiracy messages”, lists three common errors. This includes the tendency of campaign creators to stack a combination of stronger and weaker arguments in a single campaign.

More is Not Always Better

The general assumption of many people is that, by adding more arguments, the message will be more compelling. That’s called the ‘more-is-better’ heuristic but behavioral research has shown that the opposite is often true.

 

When many arguments are presented together, the stronger ones may actually be diluted by weaker ones. So, referencing malware, fines, low quality, Internet disconnections, and losses to the industry, all while associating piracy with organized crime, is not the best idea.

 

The reduced impact of stronger and weaker arguments is also one of the reasons why the “You Wouldn’t Steal a Car” campaign didn’t work as planned, the researchers suggest.

 

“The most striking example might be the (in)famous ‘You would not steal a car’ awareness video aired in cinemas and on DVDs worldwide during the 2000s. It compared downloading a movie to various forms of stealing, including reasonably relevant ones (stealing a DVD in a store) and somewhat absurd others (stealing handbags, TVs, cars), which diluted down the message.”

Numbers and Victims

Anti-piracy campaigns can also focus too much on dry numbers without putting these into context. While these statistics are vital to the industry, the average pirate will simply gloss over them.

 

This ‘mistake’ can also be explained by behavioral psychology, which has shown that people identify more with a problem or victim if they feel some kind of personal connection. That’s often missing from anti-piracy messages.

 

The researchers show an example from the UK “Get it Right from a Genuine Site” campaign that focuses on dry statistics without a personal touch. The message reads as follows:

 

“Intellectual property industries, like film, music, television and computer software, are central to the health and stability of the UK economy. The UK’s creative industry supports around 2.8 million UK jobs each year, contributes about £18 billion in exports around the world and contributes about £10 million per hour to the UK economy.”

 

It’s worth noting that not all personal messaging is effective either. The paper mentions an Indian anti-piracy campaign where famous Bollywood actors urged people not to download films illegally, equating piracy to theft.

 

However, the Indian public probably has little sympathy for the potential “losses” incurred by these multi-millionaire actors. In fact, the anti-piracy campaign may be seen as an extra motivation to pirate.

 

“All videos starred well-known actors, whose net worth is estimated to be $22–$400 million dollars, in a country where the annual per capita income is a bit less than $2,000.

 

“This can offer to pirates a moral justification: they only steal the rich to ‘feed the poor’, a form of ‘Robin Hood effect’ that makes even more sense with some cultural or sport-related goods,” the researchers add.

Don’t Emphasize How Popular Piracy Is

Piracy is a widespread and global phenomenon. This makes it particularly problematic for copyright holders but emphasizing this issue in anti-piracy messages isn’t a good idea.

 

This is the third mistake that’s highlighted in the article. By pointing out that people are supposed to get content legally while at the same time showing that many people don’t, people might actually be encouraged to pirate.

 

Behavioral research has shown that people often prefer to follow the descriptive norm (what people do) rather than the injunctive one (what the law prescribes).

 

“Informing directly or indirectly individuals that many people pirate is counterproductive and encourages piracy by driving the targeted individuals to behave similarly. These messages provide to the would-be pirates the needed rationalization by emphasizing that ‘everyone is doing it’,” the researchers write.

Food for Thought

All in all the paper provides plenty of food for thought for anti-piracy campaigners. The overall message is to pay more attention to behavioral insights to make sure that the messaging actually works.

 

In some cases, campaigners are already incorporating this knowledge, intentionally or not. That can lead to subtle but convincing PSAs, as we have previously highlighted. The video below, on the other hand, is less likely to make an impact.

 

 

—

 

Full citation: Gilles Grolleau & Luc Meunier (2022) Doing more with less: Behavioral insights for anti-piracy messages, The Information Society, DOI: 10.1080/01972243.2022.2095683

 

Pirate IPTV services disappear on a regular basis but when SmoothStreams.tv ran into trouble mid-July, there were ominous signs that this wasn’t just a regular technical problem.

 

One early confusion was that not all of SmoothStreams’ channels had gone dark and presumably some kind of raid would’ve ensured a complete shutdown of the platform.

 

Information obtained from a number of sources pulled us in two directions. One suggested that the service was merely facing a technical hitch related to a specific supplier of streams. Another strongly suggested that SmoothStreams was already stuck in a legal quagmire.

 

Earlier this week we contacted Lomic Law, a Canadian law firm based in Toronto, asking them to confirm or deny they were representing two people we believed to be the operators of SmoothStreams. We received no response.

 

When we contacted the Alliance for Creativity and Entertainment (ACE), the anti-piracy group we’d managed to connect to the SmoothStreams shutdown, they initially responded but declined to make a statement.

 

We can now confirm that SmoothStreams (SSTV) was indeed shut down and that members and affiliates of MPA-Canada (Motion Picture Association Canada) and ACE are those responsible.

Massive Coalition of Companies Take Action

The epicenter of the legal action can be found in Canada so it’s no surprise to see Bell Media and Rogers Media heading the list of plaintiffs. Other companies involved in the action include Disney, Paramount, Columbia, Warner Bros., plus two divisions of Universal.

 

On June 17, 2022, these companies filed a statement of claim against two individuals – Marshall Macciacchera and Antonio Macciacchera (son and father respectively) – plus several companies based in Canada and elsewhere that they allegedly control.

 

The plaintiffs’ claims are straightforward. They allege that Marshall and Antonio are the owners and operators of SmoothStreams.tv and several additional platforms including live247.tv, StreamTVNow.tv and StarStreams.tv. These platforms enabled subscribers to access large volumes of live TV channels and movies, something that infringed the plaintiffs’ rights.

Plaintiffs Obtained an Injunction, Anton Piller Order

On the same day their statement of claim was filed, the plaintiffs requested an immediate hearing to obtain an interim injunction to shut SmoothStreams down.

 

They also sought an Anton Piller order, a special type of court authorization that would allow them to search premises linked to Marshall and Antonio and seize evidence, without having to give any prior warning. The same type of order was previously used against Adam Lackman, the former operator of TVAddons.

 

Obtained by the plaintiffs late June, an interim order containing an interim injunction prevents Marshall and Antonio from operating any SmoothStreams-affiliated service or similar platform. The order also requires Marshall and Antonio to shut down the entire SmoothStreams system and hand control of its infrastructure to an independent solicitor.

 

The interim order prohibits SmoothStreams and related entities from disposing of or distributing assets outside Canada. It further requires Marshall and Antonio to authorize banks and other financial entities to hand over details of their assets to the entertainment company plaintiffs.

Two Locations Targeted For Search and Seizure

The defendants were served on July 14, 2022. In Marshall’s case, two locations were targeted – his home and a commercial property in Barrie, Ontatio. Antonio was served at his home in Woodbridge, Ontario. Both were informed that any failure to comply with the terms of the order could lead to them being held in contempt of court, an offense carrying a fine or a prison sentence.

 

Late last week TorrentFreak learned that things didn’t go entirely to plan. We understand that those involved in executing the order on behalf of the plaintiffs were present at the locations for at least two days and didn’t receive full cooperation from Marshall or Antonio.

 

After refusing to read the paperwork or give his consent for the court’s interim order to be executed, the plaintiffs filed for an order to charge Antonio with contempt. The motion was granted and Antonio is now required to appear in court during August to face that charge.

 

Marshall’s compliance was reportedly mixed and that shines light on why parts of the SmoothStreams service stayed up after the execution of the order.

 

During the search, the plaintiffs’ representatives seized dozens of TV receivers and encoders, plus a number of servers believed to have been used for capturing and redistributing the infringing content available via SmoothStreams. However, when those were disconnected a few dozen streams remained up – and Marshall refused to explain why that was the case.

A Complex Network of Companies and Entities

Those familiar with SmoothStreams will already be aware that subscriptions could be purchased on a number of affiliated websites including Armhosting.ca, Starhosting.me, and Romaworks.co. Our investigations over the past two weeks found that each was operated by a separate corporate entity – Arm Hosting, Inc. (Ontario, Canada), Star Hosting Limited (Hong Kong), Roma Works Limited (Hong Kong), and Roma Works, S.A. (Panama).

 

An investigation launched in 2018 by MPA-Canada reached the same conclusions but also determined that Marshall holds directorships in Arm Hosting Inc., Star Hosting Limited, and Roma Works Limited.

 

The alleged SmoothStreams owner did provide the plaintiffs with login details for the ArmHosting.ca payment portal but stonewalled them when questioned about the financial details of both Hong Kong entities. As a result, Marshall was also charged with contempt of court.

 

During the next handful of days, both Marshall and Antonio are required by law to identify any and all third parties involved in the SmoothStreams operations. An unknown third party gained access to the SmoothStreams system during the execution of the order and there is a suspicion that a person identified as ‘Sam’ could also be involved.

How Were The SmoothStreams Operators Identified?

As indicated earlier, the plaintiffs have been investigating SmoothStreams for four years, which must have been an extremely expensive operation. There’s no doubt that every detail will have been immaculately documented and supported by necessary audit trails, which of course makes things much more laborious.

 

We have no information on that specific investigation. However, the hard reality is that despite massive efforts to maintain anonymity, the people behind SmoothStreams were not difficult for us to identify over a handful of days using readily available tools. We’ll reveal how we did that in an upcoming report.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

It’s quite unique for a ‘copyright troll’ case to be so heavily litigated. The prospect of a potential jury trial is even rarer but before the case gets that far there are some issues to resolve.

Hollywood Quality?

A few days ago, Strike 3 filed a motion asking the court to exclude an expert report from Mr. David Dickson, one of the defense witnesses. Mr. Dickson is a film director and producer who produced an expert report commenting on several claims made by Strike 3.

 

The report has little to do with copyright infringement. Instead, it relates to the purported quality of the adult movies, including a quote from the complaint which claims that the films are “produced with a Hollywood style budget and quality.”

 

Mr. Dickson counters this claim by pointing out that the budgets of Strike 3’s adult films range between $2,000 and $6,000. This is in line with other adult industry productions, but a far cry from the multi-million budgets of mainstream Hollywood productions. The films overall are on a different level too.

 

“It is fair to say that there is nothing ‘…high-end, artistic, and performer-inspiring…’ about Strike 3 movies or that the Strike 3 movies are ‘…produced with a Hollywood style budget and quality…’,” Dickson says.

Factory Line Production

The report goes on to cite the average wages of porn actors, the size of the film crew, and the originality of the scripts. Mr. Dickson even went as far as creating a table to show how the same location was used to shoot multiple films, which suggests factory line production.

 

“Unlike movies produced by the same director or the same studio, in these films I found that the same location shot was used in multiple movies. Shooting out of sequence is an industry standard technique but at this scale it suggests a factory line of production,” the report reads.

Not Original

Mr. Dickson also points out that there is little originality in the productions and doubts that the actions of the actors and actresses in these films are actually copyrightable.

 

“There is no originality in pornographic movies because the producers have landed on a formula that requires no original and creative input but can be pressed out for the same effect every time,” Mr. Dickson writes.

 

The overall theme of the expert report is that Strike 3’s films are not to be compared with Hollywood productions, as the original complaint suggests.

 

It’s not clear how the defendant plans to use this testimony but it could help to show that Strike 3’s “Hollywood style” claims are overblown. In addition, it could help mitigate potential damages, if these are awarded.

Strike 3 Disagrees

Needless to say, Strike 3 isn’t pleased with this expert report. In a filing submitted a few days ago, the company asks the Florida federal court to exclude the opinions and testimony from the evidence.

 

The adult entertainment company argues that Mr. Dickson has zero experience in the industry and that this is evident from the opinions and conclusions in the report. As such, he is not qualified to be an expert.

 

According to Strike 3, the conclusions are wrong as well. For example, a statement referring to “Hollywood industry standards” would merely refer to the video characteristics, which are 4K MP4 UHD.

 

That budgets are not comparable to Hollywood blockbusters is not disputed by Strike 3. However, the company points out that this is in part due to the length, the total number of all cast members, and the number of locations, that drive up the costs of Hollywood productions.

 

According to the adult entertainment company its content is top of the bill in the industry, as shown by the many XBIZ and AVN awards it has won.

MPA Rating?

The expert report also noted that, unlike Hollywood productions, Strike 3 never attempts to get an MPA rating for its films. However, Strike 3 notes that this would make no sense, as its films clearly aren’t intended for children.

 

“It is nonsensical for Strike 3 to seek ratings from the MPA, since all its works are universally geared towards adults. If anything, this criticism highlights again Mr. Dickson’s lack of knowledge of the adult motion picture industry,” Strike 3 notes.

 

The above is just a brief summary of the arguments from both sides and the defendant has yet to respond to Strike 3’s motion. However, it is clear that seemingly simple copyright cases can become quite complex.

Summary Judgment

In addition to the motion to exclude the expert report, both sides have also submitted motions for summary judgment in their favor. The court has yet to rule on these motions.

 

If either side is granted summary judgment there is no longer any need for a trial. At the same time, that would also end the discussion on the Hollywood-type characteristics of Strike 3’s films.

 

—

 

A copy of Strike 3’s Motion to exclude the opinions and testimony of Mr. Dickson is available here (pdf)

 

Three years ago, several of the world’s largest music companies including Warner Bros and Sony Music sued Internet Provider Bright House Networks.

 

The recording labels accused the provider of not doing enough to stop pirating subscribers. Specifically, they alleged that the ISP failed to terminate repeat infringers.

 

Since the complaint was filed both parties have gone back and forth in court with various arguments and accusations. The legal battle reached the point of going to trial next week but, before that, the court needed to rule on some outstanding issues.

Excluding Evidence From Trial

Specifically, the ISP and music companies both wanted to limit what evidence and arguments the other side can present to the jury. These ‘motions in limine‘ were submitted earlier this month and the court ruled on them in a recent order. In her decision, US District Court Judge Mary Scriven had some good and bad news for both sides.

 

As mentioned in our previous coverage, the music companies don’t want Bright House to argue that Internet access is a human right and that terminating repeat infringers is a disproportionate and unnecessary response to piracy allegations.

 

The ISP plans to argue that account terminations are only appropriate when a court has confirmed the infringing activity, instead of taking action based on third-party accusations. However, the record labels fear that this line of thought will confuse the jury.

 

Judge Scriven disagreed and denied the motion, which means that the ISP can argue that terminating people’s Internet access over piracy allegations is disproportionate. However, the company can’t freely argue that such disconnections are a human rights violation.

 

This wasn’t the only motion to be denied. The music companies also asked for an order that prohibited the ISP from arguing that it’s not liable for infringements carried out by people other than the registered subscriber. This request was denied as well. In addition, Bright House is also allowed to use the term “spying” when referring to network management tools.

No Copyright Alert System Ban

Another highly contested issue was whether Bright House can mention the anti-piracy practices of other ISPs. This includes the now-defunct Copyright Alert System (CAS) where record labels and ISPs agreed to a system where subscribers were sent escalating warnings without the requirement for any Internet terminations.

 

Bright House wants to argue that, if this “industry standard” anti-piracy practice didn’t require account terminations, it would be unfair to punish other companies for failing to do so. The music companies disagreed, however, and asked the court to exclude this line of reasoning.

 

“[Bright House] did not participate in CAS. It would unfairly prejudice Plaintiffs to allow BHN to claim that what some Plaintiffs and other ISPs agreed to in the context of a negotiated compromise supersedes BHN’s obligations under U.S. copyright law,” the wrote.

 

Again, Judge Scriven disagreed and denied the record labels’ motion. As a result, the ISP can use the Copyright Alert System argument in court.

No Mentions of Price Fixing and Artist Exploitation

There was also some positive news for the music companies. The motion to prohibit mentions of price fixing in the music industry was granted. The same is true for allegations that some smaller artists are being exploited by music companies through terrible contracts.

 

The Judge denied the ‘exploitation’ motion with a caveat. If the record labels argue during trial that they are pursuing this case to protect artists, Bright House may reference potential mistreatments.

 

Bright House also submitted several motions to exclude arguments, several of which were denied. For example, the music companies are allowed to bring up the fact that many subscribers had their accounts terminated after failing to pay their bills.

 

In addition, the music companies are also allowed to argue that throttling and port blocking can be used to hinder illegal file-sharing traffic, even if that raises net neutrality issues.

Limited Piracy Admissions

Finally, Bright House’s motion to prevent the labels from using piracy “admissions” from the ISPs subscribers were granted. Judge Scriven clarified that these can’t be used at trial unless they relate to the infringements that are part of this case.

 

Given the topics at hand and the millions in damages at stake, the upcoming trial will be a crucial one. If everything goes to plan, the outcome will be known in little over two weeks.

 

—

 

Copies of US District Court Judge Scriven’s orders on the motions in limine are available here (1,2)

 

The world of pirate streaming and IPTV services is one of intrigue. Like the internet itself, it’s a web of interconnected networks populated by devices, ad hoc groups, and individuals who can appear in one place, only to pop up in another.

 

The case of pirate IPTV entrepreneur Carlos Rocha certainly fits the profile. In December 2020, US broadcaster DISH Network and tech partner Nagrastar filed a civil suit under seal in the United States, naming Carlos Rocha plus SolTV and Stream Solutions, a pair of known IPTV brands operated by the Toronto resident.

 

Rocha also had connections to SET TV, a supplier that collapsed under the weight of a $90 million judgment in the US. He sold subscriptions to several other IPTV services too, some of which have since gone down or are close to a service that has.

 

Despite having a civil lawsuit to contemplate over Christmas lunch in 2020, what Rocha probably didn’t know is that he was also the subject of a criminal investigation in Canada.

RCMP Cybercrime Team Launch ‘Project OLoki’

In January 2020, the Cybercrime Team of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police launched ‘Project OLoki’, an investigation targeting a group of individuals running what police describe as a “large-scale” unlawful IPTV distribution service.

 

With the separate civil lawsuit in the US just six months old, on June 29, 2021, the RCMP Cybercrime Team executed a search warrant on a retail location of GaloTV, also known as Soltv – the IPTV brand referenced in the DISH complaint.

 

“The search warrant resulted in the seizure of a large number of set top boxes (used to decode and decrypt video signals) and hundreds of TV receivers and equipment used to re-broadcast video signals,” a new statement from RCMP reads.

 

Local business directories and the DISH complaint show that GaloTV/Soltv had an unassuming retail unit at 455 Rogers Road, Toronto.

 

RCMP believes that the group targeted in ‘Project OLoki’ bought legitimate access to TV content from several companies and then redistributed it to the public at a “considerable discount.”

 

It’s taken more than a year but police say that several people have now been charged for offenses relating to the unlawful obtaining and distribution of unlicensed content.

Five Individuals From Toronto

A statement from RCMP O Division (Ontario) reveals that five individuals, all from Toronto, have been charged with the same offenses, albeit to varying degrees, under Canada’s Criminal Code.

 

Manuel Da Rocha (age 67): Fraud over C$5,000 X 2 – Section 380(1)(a); Theft of Telecommunication Services – Section 326. Sell or distribute a device to obtain Telecommunication service without payment of a lawful charge – Section 327(1)

 

Carlos Da Rocha (age 29): Fraud over C$5,000 X 2 – Section 380(1)(a); Theft of Telecommunication Services – Section 326. Sell or distribute a device to obtain Telecommunication service without payment of a lawful charge – Section 327(1)

 

Carla Da Rocha (age 29): Fraud over C$5,000 – Section 380(1)(a); Theft of Telecommunication Services – Section 326. Sell or distribute a device to obtain Telecommunication service without payment of a lawful charge – Section 327(1)

 

Carlos Lopes (age 48): Fraud over C$5,000 X 2 – Section 380(1)(a); Theft of Telecommunication Services – Section 326. Sell or distribute a device to obtain Telecommunication service without payment of a lawful charge – Section 327(1)

 

Elvis Da Rocha (age 37): Fraud over C$5,000 – Section 380(1)(a); Theft of Telecommunication Services – Section 326. Sell or distribute a device to obtain Telecommunication service without payment of a lawful charge – Section 327(1)

 

Under Canada’s Criminal Code, Section 380(1)(a) carries a term of imprisonment not exceeding 14 years. Section 327 carries a term of imprisonment of not more than two years.

 

“This investigation is a great example of the RCMP’s commitment to keeping our communities safe by effectively disrupting cyber and economic crime,” says Inspector Lina Dabit, Officer in Charge, O Division Cybercrime Investigative Team.

 

The five individuals will appear at the Toronto North Ontario Court of Justice later today.

 

In May 2022, Carlos Rocha and DISH agreed to settle their differences after the Toronto man signed a settlement judgment of US$585 million.

 

When videogames first began hitting the market more than 40 years ago, budgets were low, expectations were low, and customers were easily pleased.

 

Today’s market has taken all of that and turned it on its head. Fueled by the type of budgets available to filmmakers and faced with massive competition, the videogame business abandoned its bedroom-coding roots long ago.

 

In many respects, that’s clearly a good thing but in others, not so much.

 

Today’s gamers can find the experience of dealing with corporations jarring, especially when their concerns are perceived to be less important than company profits. Most can do nothing about that if they want to keep playing games but it’s still possible for a tiny minority to make enough noise to get noticed.

Blizzless Project Breaks Gaming Shackles

After LAN gaming provided the momentum, internet gaming was the logical progression most gamers wanted. On the flip side, the logical progression for many developers was to use heightened connectivity as a way to grant or deny access to games, while controlling, squeezing, and data mining their customers.

 

All of these things and more are cited by the Blizzless Project as motivations for their recent actions.

 

Starting a few days ago, Blizzless – a group thought to be from Russia – began releasing modified versions of classic Blizzard games. Starcraft: Remastered, Warcraft III: Reforged, and Diablo II: Resurrected were all made available via the group’s Discord channel, minus the mandatory requirement for the games to maintain a connection to Battle.net.

 

“The Blizzless Project is a project to remove restrictions in the classic products of a well-known company, imposed by network binding to servers,” a Blizzless Project statement reads.

 

“Our team sees the goal in developing alternative servers to be able to use the purchased products without restrictions, without collecting personal data (telemetry) and after the termination of support.”

Team Likely to Receive Pushback From Activision Blizzard

The idea of liberating games from Battle.net certainly isn’t new. In March 1998, the emulation package ‘bnetd’ hit the StarCraft scene. Initially branded ‘StarHack’, the reverse-engineered project soon ran into trouble after receiving a cease-and-desist letter from the Software Publishers Association.

 

Developer Mark Baysinger abandoned the project later that year, but because the project was open sourced under the GNU General Public License, it lived on long enough to get sued by Blizzard. The case was an early test of the DMCA’s anti-circumvention provisions and despite support from EFF, the developers were comprehensively defeated.

 

Blizzless seem unconcerned by the case law but freeing these titles from Battle.net is just one of their many motivators.

Take Away Our Games, We Take Them Back

Among the many grievances highlighted by Blizzless, the idea that games can be bought and then taken away on a whim will be most familiar to gamers. Alongside the launch of Warcraft III: Reforged, Blizzard forced all players using the Battle.net version of Warcraft III to upgrade to the Reforged client. The company then shut down the original game’s servers.

 

Blizzless is also unhappy at the way Russian and Belarusian gamers have been treated in response to their governments’ actions in Ukraine.

 

“Events around the world have shown that access to products can be easily denied due to your nationality and where you live,” the group notes, adding that the ‘Every voice matters‘ slogan “is now nothing more than a vestige.”

 

Finally, and perhaps with an eye on how ‘bnetd’ survived longer than expected two decades ago, Blizzless says that opening up its work might be possible in the future.

 

“We plan to release some of our source code when we’re done so that the community can explore and use it,” the group says. Given the above, it would be somewhat hypocritical not to.

 

VPN services are a useful tool to protect internet users’ online privacy. In addition, they can also help to bypass geographical restrictions.

 

The latter can be helpful if people want to access the content library of a streaming service in another country. While this often goes against the terms of service, some VPNs openly advertise this feature.

Blocking Geo-Pirates

This ‘geo piracy’ issue isn’t new. Netflix famously started blocking VPN users for this very reason seven years ago and other streaming providers have taken similar measures. These countermeasures are effective but far from perfect.

 

There are various ways VPN services have managed to circumvent these blocking efforts. Most keep the technical details private, but it’s commonly known that some are using residential IP addresses as proxies, to make it look like VPN users are regular ISP subscribers.

 

These residential IP addresses are used to establish the connection with the streaming service and because they are typically not associated with a VPN, they can effectively bypass traditional blocklists.

GeoComply Blocks Residential IPs

Rightsholders and streaming providers are aware of this trick, but it’s hard to do anything about it. This week, however, cybersecurity and VPN detection service GeoComply offered a solution. The company announced an “industry-first technology” for streaming providers that “tightens the net around pirate viewers.”

 

“The new technology enhancement to GeoGuard allows streaming providers to block the growing number of VPN users who spoof their location using hijacked residential IP addresses,” the company writes in a press release.

 

GeoComply uses the term “hijacked” IP addresses, which deserves some nuance. In reality, these addresses often belong to users of free VPNs or proxies who allow their connections to be resold to third parties. This reselling right is often hidden in the fine print of terms of service agreements, which most people don’t read.

 

“Free VPN providers profit by selling hijacked residential IP addresses to the highest bidder, usually a provider of ‘undetectable’ premium VPN services. These services give subscribers the ability to spoof their location using the hijacked addresses,” GeoComply notes.

 

For example, users of the free Hola VPN service agree to have their connections used by Bright Data, which offers access to residential IP addresses to third parties. This has been going on for several years already but most users are simply not aware of it.

 

GeoComply reports that its GeoGuard service can now spot these ‘hijacked’ residential IP addresses, which should make it harder for VPN services to evade blocking measures.

 

“To combat this problem, we can now accurately detect users accessing streaming services using hijacked residential IP addresses to help uphold the territorial licensing models our customers depend on,” GeoComply’s James Clark says.

Overblocking?

According to GeoComply, an estimated 200 million internet users are the “victim of residential proxy IP abuse.” That implies that there’s a huge market for its new blocking capability but there are also downsides to consider.

 

Blocking residential IP addresses means that the unknowing ‘victims’ can also find themselves blocked by streaming services, even though they’re not doing anything wrong. This is what we previously saw when Netflix expanded its VPN blocking capability too far.

 

TorrentFreak reached out to GeoComply which informed us that its service can differentiate between VPN users who use ‘hijacked’ residential IP addresses and the actual owner of this address. While errors can never be ruled out completely, this should minimize overblocking.

 

All in all it’s clear that GeoComply takes VPN blocking very seriously. In addition to rolling out these new blocking capabilities, the company recently petitioned the US Government to make VPN detection tools a mandatory copyright protection measure under the DMCA.

 

Founded more than 16 years ago, Rojadirecta is one of the oldest and most popular linking sites for sports streaming events.

 

The site, which is operated by the Spanish company Puerto 80 Projects, has built a loyal user base over the years. At the same time, it has fought quite a few legal battles too.

 

The Spanish site famously challenged a domain seizure by the U.S. Government, with success. On its home turf, there have been some victories in court as well but, in recent years, the tide has turned.

Rojadirecta Blocked and Outlawed

Today, Rojadirecta is outlawed in Spain despite repeated appeals. In several other countries including the UK, Denmark, and Uruguay, internet service providers have been ordered to block the site.

 

After being outlawed in Spain, Rojadirecta was also taken to court in Italy by local media giant Mediaset. Italy’s largest broadcaster argued that the streaming portal facilitates mass infringement of several sports events, causing substantial damages to rightsholders.

 

The case in question was presented to the Court of Rome which reached a verdict last week. According to the court, Rojadirecta bears full responsibility for the pirating activities that take place through its site, even though the streaming activity doesn’t take place on the site itself.

Damages Award: €529,579.50

To compensate Mediaset for the damages it suffered, the court reportedly ordered Rojadirecta to pay €529,579.50 in compensation. In addition, the streaming portal must pay €24,786.00 to cover accrued interest and legal fees.

 

TorrentFreak reached out to Rojadirecta founder and operator Igor Seoane, who prefers not to comment on the matter. In the past Rojadirecta has appealed similar verdicts so it’s possible the same will happen here.

 

The information reported above all comes directly from Mediaset. However, a source who’s familiar with the defense informs us that the verdict doesn’t only bring good news for the Italian broadcaster.

Missing Details?

The Court of Rome did not grant the trademark infringement and unfair competition claims, for example. In addition, the damages are much lower than the €29 million euro Mediaset presumably requested in court. These details are not mentioned in Mediaset’s press release.

 

If we receive a copy of the full verdict we will update the article accordingly. There is no denying, however, that the legal landscape is shifting against Rojadirecta’s interests.

 

Years ago the site won two lawsuits in Spain, which declared the site as operating legally under local law. More recent court decisions are unfavorable and there could be more trouble ahead.

 

In addition to the civil lawsuits, Rojadirecta’s operator was previously arrested on suspicion of illegal activities. Following an in-depth investigation, the Spanish authorities announced a criminal prosecution which could see Seoane facing a multi-year prison sentence, as well as millions of dollars in damages.

 

There are many options for those seeking a cheap pirate IPTV package but it’s rare for any single provider to offer consistently solid streams, in decent quality, and at a fair price. HeHeStreams was one of the few to exceed expectations.

 

With a focus on MLB, NBA, NFL, and NHL content, HeHeStreams built an enthusiastic customer base so when it disappeared last year following an investigation by the Alliance for Creativity (ACE) and Motion Picture Association (MPA), obvious replacements were in short supply.

 

The same couldn’t be said about the controversy that was about to engulf HeHeStream’s owner.

HeHeStreams Settled With Hollywood, But Not the US Govt.

Under pressure from the ACE anti-piracy coalition, HeHe’s owner Joshua Streit (aka Josh Brody) accepted an offer to settle his case and move on. That involved giving up his domain names to the MPA and shutting down his site. No cash settlement was mentioned publicly but it’s likely that ACE members received financial compensation.

 

In theory that should’ve ended Streit’s legal problems but that wasn’t how things panned out. More serious problems lay ahead and were directly connected to Streit’s skills and HeHe’s unique mode of operation.

 

Traditional IPTV suppliers provide access to pirate streams by rebroadcasting captured content from their own servers. It’s bandwidth-intensive, expensive, and prone to issues. HeHeStreams eliminated most of these additional costs by using techniques to connect customers to genuine streams, offered by the sports broadcasters themselves, directly from their own servers.

 

The upsides could be found in rock-solid streams, low server costs, and many happy customers. The downsides proved more complicated for Streit.

A Criminal Investigation Was Already Underway

There are two angles on what happened next, depending on the mood, tone and lighting. Ultimately, only one mattered.

 

According to the US government, Streit emailed an MLB (Major League Baseball) employee in March 2021 to explain that he’d previously disclosed a network vulnerability in their systems (i.e a way to get streaming content without paying for it) and was disappointed by the lack of gratitude.

 

The US government says that in a follow-up email, Streit complained to MLB that other vulnerabilities he’d disclosed hadn’t been given proper attention either. An MLB executive eventually telephoned Streit and informed him that the company operated no ‘bug bounty’ style programs.

 

According to the US government, Streit then indicated that financial compensation for his security work would be appropriate under the circumstances.

 

Placed in a deliberately more favorable light for a moment, Streit’s approach to MLB could’ve been seen as an opportunity to stop operations like his from accessing MLB content from company servers. With the benefit of the doubt and weighed against much bigger savings, $150,000 might even sound like a good security consultancy opportunity.

 

In the cold light of day, Streit’s comment about being chased down on the basis of his “unauthorized access to systems” was to prove prophetic. Both MLB and the FBI framed Streit’s conduct as extortion.

US Government Indicts Joshua Streit

In October 21, the Department of Justice announced that Streit had been charged with several crimes, including one under a new law designed to reduce illegal streaming. The 30-year-old from Minnesota was charged as follows:

 

One count of knowingly accessing a protected computer in furtherance of a criminal act and for purposes of commercial advantage and private financial gain (max five years in prison). One count of knowingly accessing a protected computer in furtherance of fraud (max five years in prison), one count of wire fraud (20 years), and one count of sending interstate threats with the intent to extort (20 years).

 

A final count of illicit digital transmission, carrying a potential five-year sentence, was added for good measure. The details of that count weren’t made public but could’ve been a reference to the Protecting Lawful Streaming Act (PLSA) signed into law late 2020.

 

With such a lot on the line, Streit entered into negotiations with the government. The ins and outs of those talks aren’t for public consumption but we can reveal that a deal has been reached. It’s hard to imagine Streit being pleased with the outcome but when stuck between a rock and a hard place, something had to give.

Streit Enters Guilty Plea on a Single Count

Around June 13, 2022, Streit pleaded guilty to one count of ‘Computer Fraud – Unauthorized Access to Obtain Information From a Protected Computer’.

 

According to the charge, from around July 2017 to around July 2021, Streit intentionally accessed and attempted to access computers without authorization. As a result, he obtained information from protected computers, for the purposes of commercial advantage and private financial gain.

 

Specifically, Streit obtained unauthorized access to the online accounts of users of a website belonging to Major League Baseball and used that access to “conduct illegal streaming of sporting events” that he sold to others for a profit.

 

In advance of his sentencing on that single count, the matter of forfeiture has been settled.

$500,000 to Be Forfeited to the United States

In a consent preliminary order of forfeiture submitted to a New York district court, the single count against Streit is repeated alongside details of forfeiture pursuant to 18 U.S. Code § 1030(i).

 

The forfeiture relates to “any and all property, real or personal, constituting or derived from, any proceeds that such person obtained, directly or indirectly, as a result of the offense,” plus “any and all personal property that was used or intended to be used to commit or to facilitate the commission of the offense.”

 

According to the plea agreement reached with the US government, Streit will forfeit $500,000, an amount said to represent “the amount of proceeds traceable to the commission of the offense.”

 

Streit will also forfeit a small mountain of computer and electronics hardware seized from him in October 2021. The haul includes six Apple MacBook Pro devices, several Apple, Google, and Samsung-branded smartphones, tablets, hard drives, and other assorted storage media.

Potentially Lengthy Prison Sentence Ahead

The specific charge Streit faces relates to an offense under 18 U.S. Code § 1030 (Fraud and related activity in connection with computers) where information valued at more than $5,000 was obtained.

 

At least potentially he could face up to five years in prison. If he’d previously been convicted of a crime under § 1030, the sentence could reach ten years but we understand that’s not the case here.

 

Documents related to the charge and forfeiture can be found here (1,2, pdf)

 

There are dozens of anti-piracy groups active around the world and BREIN is one of the frontrunners.

 

The Dutch organization is mainly active in Europe where it’s responsible for taking down illicit sites and services, while also obtaining several favorable precedents.

 

In 2017, BREIN booked a prominent victory at the European Court of Justice, which ruled that it’s illegal to sell devices that are pre-configured to access copyright-infringing content. This “Filmspeler” order was the death knell for sellers of pirate streaming boxes.

 

Paired with the earlier GS Media ruling, which held that companies with a for-profit motive can’t knowingly link to copyright-infringing material, this provides a powerful enforcement tool.

GoFastIPTV.eu Chase

In the years that followed BREIN went after hundreds of pirate streaming tools and operators of IPTV services. One of the main targets was GoFastIPTV.eu, which offered unauthorized access to movies, TV shows and pay TV channels, plus more than 85,000 on-demand titles.

 

BREIN was initially unable to track down the operator through its regular private enforcement options. The paper trail went all over the world through companies in the UK and Brazil, eventually running dead at a hotel in Lisbon, Portugal.

 

There was one significant lead left, however, as the IPTV service used the Dutch Rabobank to process payments. The bank wasn’t willing to hand over the data right away, so BREIN decided to take the matter to court. Rabobank was forced to cooperate last year.

Operator Located, Settlement Reached

This information led to a breakthrough as BREIN was able to track down the IPTV operator in South America. The person initially failed to respond to communications but that changed when BREIN started legal procedures last year.

 

The anti-piracy group now reports that it has reached a conditional €70,000 settlement with the operator of the now-defunct GoFastIPTV.eu service. That carries a fine of €25,000 per day if the service is restored, as well as a €10,000 fine for each future infringement.

 

This settlement figure is relatively modest compared to what we have seen elsewhere. That said, the big achievement for BREIN is that a large illegal IPTV supplier has ceased its operations. In addition, BREIN has another court ruling in hand that will make it easier to obtain the personal details of suspected pirates.

Subscribers Lose Too

BREIN notes that its enforcement actions don’t focus on the users of IPTV services. However, these subscribers are indirectly hit as well since they lose access to the service, which is often paid months in advance.

 

“Although BREIN focuses on providers, the use of illegal services at home is also copyright infringing. When the service is taken down, customers will lose their money and their illegal access, while they usually have to pay half to a whole year in advance.”

 

For the Dutch anti-piracy group, IPTV services remain an enforcement priority. EUIPO research found that the Dutch are using these services more than all other Europeans. It’s big business too, generating hundreds of millions of euros in revenue in Europe alone.

 

Thus far, BREIN reports that it has tracked down more than 50 providers of illegal IPTV services since 2017, while shutting down over 300 sites where these subscriptions were on offer. This tally is expected to continue increase over the years to come.

 

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 one new on the list. “Jurassic World Dominion” is the most downloaded title.

The most torrented movies for the week ending on July 25 are:

Movie Rank	Rank last week	Movie name	IMDb Rating / Trailer
Most downloaded movies via torrent sites
1	(1)	Jurassic World Dominion	6.0 / trailer
2	(…)	The Gray Man	6.6 / trailer
3	(2)	Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness	7.2 / trailer
4	(3)	Lightyear	5.3 / trailer
5	(7)	The Black Phone	7.1 / trailer
6	(5)	Thor: Love and Thunder	6.9 / trailer
7	(6)	The Batman	8.4 / trailer
8	(4)	Fantastic Beasts: The Secrets of Dumbledore	6.4 / trailer
9	(8)	Everything Everywhere All at Once	8.5 / trailer
10	(9)	Top Gun: Maverick	8.6 / trailer

 

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

 

Earlier this month we reported on what initially appeared to be just another DMCA subpoena application to identify an alleged infringer.

 

The finer details are available here and relate to Christopher Boomer, the developer behind Roblox titles including Weight Lifting Simulator 2 and Muscle Legends. Boomer’s games have been viewed over two billion times but he claims to have a big piracy problem too.

 

According to Boomer’s legal team, other Roblox developers cloned Boomer’s games and are now enjoying tens of millions of downloads at their client’s expense. In an effort to bring this to an end, Boomer filed an application for a DMCA subpoena at a California court, hoping to compel Roblox to unmask the alleged infringers.

 

This could’ve been a relatively straightforward matter but the demands in the application went beyond reasonable into the realms of the absurd. Instead of targeting specific alleged infringers, it sought to identify hundreds of thousands of innocent gamers too.

 

Nevertheless, the clerk of the court signed the subpoena, and Boomer’s representatives optimistically served it on Roblox Corporation. Given the blunderbuss approach on display in the documents, that went exactly as expected.

Roblox Corporation Comprehensively Objects

In a notice of objections filed with the court late last week, Roblox begins by explaining that 10 days to produce the requested information is too short and “especially unreasonable” given that Boomer is attempting to obtain information on potentially hundreds of thousands of Roblox players, in addition to a small number of potentially infringing users.

 

Other than to prevent piracy, details on Boomer’s motivations to unmask so many Roblox users haven’t been made public. That being said, evidence of underlying disputes is not hard to find.

 

Comments posted on various Roblox communities suggest a conflict some time ago involving Roblox developers and various gaming groups. Who caused the dispute isn’t clear and most allegations lack obvious supporting evidence. One theme implies that one or more developers may have done work for which they were not compensated. Another suggests that events outside Roblox may have led to a developer’s Roblox account being banned.

 

Whatever the specifics, there’s no question that a dispute exists. Roblox Corporation does not directly address any such ‘gaming drama’ in its objections but does point out that DMCA subpoenas have one use and one use only – to deal with copyright matters, period. The company suggests that isn’t the case here.

 

“Roblox objects to the extent the requests seek information in connection with, or for the purpose of, pursuing matters unrelated to alleged copyright infringement, which is not permitted under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act’s subpoena provision 17 U.S.C. § 512(h),” Roblox says.

 

The company also complains that the subpoena demands access to documents that it either doesn’t possess or doesn’t have in its custody or control. However, Roblox says that if it does agree to hand over information, the company will perform a “reasonable search” to comply with its obligations.

Roblox Cites Recent Twitter Case on Anonymous Speakers

Boomer’s requests for information are split into three groups, the first relating to information held on people who posted allegedly infringing games to specific URLs. This might’ve been a more straightforward matter if the requests targeted alleged infringers, as required under DMCA subpoena rules. In this case, that didn’t happen.

 

Instead, the subpoena demands access to a spectrum of personal details, including IP and email addresses, phone numbers and more, in sufficient detail to identify all current and previous owners, operators, developers, and contributors to specific games. The response from Roblox suggests that a bigger battle may lie ahead.

 

Citing a recent DMCA subpoena case involving Twitter, which was thrown out by a judge after Twitter fought to protect a user’s right to anonymous speech, Roblox indicates that it too can do the same.

 

“Roblox objects to the request to unmask anonymous speakers without the provision of notice to the speakers so that they may address directly any potential concerns, First Amendment or otherwise,” Roblox informs the court, adding that the affected users have already been informed.

 

“Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, once users whose information is subject to this request have had a reasonable time to address the request, Roblox agrees to produce documents responsive to this request for any user who has not intervened in this matter, but only to the extent such information is within Roblox’s possession, custody, and/or control and is available in a producible format,” the company adds.

Hundreds of Thousands of Group Members

The second request in the DMCA subpoena requires Roblox to supply all of the personal data it holds on users who form part of certain gaming groups. Data published in our earlier article revealed that the request covers six Roblox groups containing at least 460,000 members.

 

The DMCA subpoena process places no limit on the number of people who can have their identities handed to rightsholders but certain standards must be met. Section 512(h)(3) of the DMCA provides for the disclosure of information “sufficient to identify the alleged infringer”, not information relating to anyone who may have simply been in the vicinity of an alleged infringement.

 

It’s fairly obvious that close to 460,000 users of these Roblox groups will be completely innocent of copyright infringement. The subpoena, on the other hand, attempts to draw in as many Roblox users as possible, regardless of wrongdoing, and without necessary supporting evidence.

 

“Roblox objects to this request as overbroad because it seeks a wide swath of user information that Petitioner has not established is relevant to any alleged copyright infringement, and thus the information requested does not qualify as discoverable subject matter,” Roblox writes.

 

Again, Roblox also objects to the request to unmask ‘anonymous speakers’ in this group and says that all of the users affected should be contacted so they can address any potential concerns.

Request #3 – Roblox Says No

The final demand in the subpoena requires Roblox to hand over the personal details of around 10 Roblox users who Boomer suspects of infringing his rights. The problem here is that DMCA subpoena applications need to be supported by documents showing that DMCA takedown notices were previously directed at the allegedly infringing content.

 

In respect of this set of ‘anonymous speakers’, that didn’t happen.

 

“Roblox objects to this request as overbroad because it seeks user information that Petitioner has not established is relevant to any alleged copyright infringement, and thus the information requested does not qualify as discoverable subject matter,” the company writes.

 

“Finally, to the extent information sought by this request is deemed discoverable pursuant to 17 U.S.C. § 512(h), Roblox objects to the request to unmask anonymous speakers without the provision of notice to the speakers so that they may address directly any potential concerns, First Amendment or otherwise,” the company concludes.

 

Roblox Corporation’s Notice of Objections can be found here (pdf)

 

Copyright holders send out millions of takedown notices a day, hoping to remove pirated content or making it harder to find.

 

The efficacy of the DMCA takedown process is open for debate but it certainly doesn’t help when companies flag their own websites as copyright infringing.

Sony Targets Sony

This is exactly what happened a few days ago. In a notice sent on behalf of Sony Pictures Network India, the company asks Google to remove 34 URLs from the Sony Liv platform, which is owned by Sony.

 

The notice in question was sent by the anti-piracy outfit Markscan and links to various copyrighted movies and TV shows on the streaming portal, which are presumably not pirated. In addition to the SonyLiv.com URLs, the notice also adds an IMDb link for the film “Cold Courage”.

 

It’s unclear why the Sony-owned company is targeting a Sony-owned OTT streaming service but these types of takedown notices certainly do not help to make legal content easier to find. And its not the first time either, a few months ago, the same mistake was made.

More Unfortunate Takedowns

Adding to injury is the fact that other rightsholders have also reported the Sony Liv service as a “pirate” platform. This includes takedown notices from “Shoopte Film sales,” “Multi Screen Media” and “Cricket Australia.”

 

Luckily, Google spotted most of these errors. The search engine rejected most of the takedown requests but two Sonyliv.com URLs were actually removed.

 

Sony is not the only company reporting its own website to Google. Plenty of other big companies appear to have done the same, including Warner Brothers and Walt Disney Pictures.

 

It’s worth noting that imposters have sent notices to Google in the past, claiming to represent a rightsholder but without obtaining permission. However, with the Sony Pictures’ notice, we see no sign that this is the case, suggesting that Sony may want to take a closer look at its takedown efforts.

 

When Vladimir Putin gave the order for the latest stage of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, he knew two things for sure: 1) there would be consequences but 2) they wouldn’t affect him.

 

Five months later, the consequences are indeed being felt globally, but no more acutely than in Ukraine. Tens of thousands have died, millions are now refugees, and the economy faces decades of recovery. In Russia, at least a thousand foreign firms have pulled out, there’s no access to SWIFT, and an estimated $630 billion in foreign reserve cash has been frozen.

Russia’s Cinema Industry On Life Support

Russia’s cinema industry is just one of the many casualties hanging on by a thread due to the conflict in Ukraine. With almost no lucrative entertainment left to screen after Hollywood pulled the plug, various groups began hiring idle cinema screens for their own ‘private’ pirate screenings of torrent-acquired movies.

 

Some may argue it’s reasonable to screen ‘The Batman’ in a cinema after downloading the movie from a torrent site. After all, that instantly solves the supply problem and gives the public access to movies. On the flipside, that business model effectively bypasses an entire industry built on the provision of licensed content, stability, investment, and associated employment opportunities.

 

But with no licensed content available, it’s now a race to the bottom.

 

Research suggests that the damage suffered by the cinema industry in the first six months of 2022 goes beyond that caused by the pandemic. The response from the Russian Association of Cinema Owners (AVK) was to leave UNIC, Europe’s International Union of Cinemas.

 

An AVK press release cited sanctions, Hollywood’s refusal to supply movies, and “anti-Russian rhetoric” as reasons for leaving, but no theory on what might’ve caused such a sudden breakdown in relations.

 

Meanwhile, the situation in Russia is worsening by the day. Hollywood movies represented around 70% of major releases before the studios’ mass exodus and it appears the authorities have no intention of stopping those attempting to fill the gaps with unlicensed content.

Cinema Piracy is Growing Remarkably Quickly

Back in May when pirate screenings were gaining traction, AVK called on the “entire professional film community” to protect the Russian cinema industry by standing against piracy. “We condemn the practice of illegal screening of films in Russian cinemas,” AVK said.

 

After the Russian government promised to ensure the financial security of the industry but came up with nothing, it appears that pirate screenings increased dramatically. AVK chairman Alexei Voronkov acknowledges the problem but faced with a 72% drop in revenue versus 2021 and the prospect of 50% of cinemas closing by August, he’s pragmatic if nothing else.

 

“I can’t even blame cinemas now dabbling in torrent screenings,” he told industry publication Kinometro.

 

“To date, the wave of unauthorized showing of film copies is developing exponentially and will only grow: four weeks ago, such content was shown directly in 16 cinemas, last week – 127 cinemas.”

The End

When legitimacy is displaced by a chaotic black market with no concept of added value or the means to deliver it, investors looking for a steady long-term return will probably look elsewhere. Those with money in the game right now will be preparing to lose it, move it, or cut their losses. They have no glamorous product to sell anymore, only inferior copies to hawk.

 

Pirated movies playing in cinemas is all very well when there are zero legal alternatives but when things finally start returning to normal, whenever that might be, will there be any cinemas left in Russia where genuine movies can be screened? Six months has pushed the local industry to the verge of collapse but the crisis in Ukraine seems unlikely to reach a solution in the next six years.

 

Roll the credits please….this is the worst movie ever.