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

 

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

 

This week we have four new entries on the list. “The Northman” is the most downloaded title.

The most torrented movies for the week ending on May 16 are:

Movie Rank	Rank last week	Movie name	IMDb Rating / Trailer
Most downloaded movies via torrent sites
1	(…)	The Northman	7.6 / trailer
2	(…)	The Lost City	6.3 / trailer
3	(4)	The Batman	8.4 / trailer
4	(3)	Uncharted	6.6 / trailer
5	(…)	Fantastic Beasts: The Secrets of Dumbledore	6.4 / trailer
6	(1)	Sonic the Hedgehog 2	6.7 / trailer
7	(…)	Morbius	5.1 / trailer
8	(2)	Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness	7.5 / trailer
9	(6)	Spider-Man: No Way Home	8.6 / trailer
10	(5)	The Bad Guys	6.9 / trailer

 

 

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

 

After researching thousands of DMCA notices and reporting on hundreds of copyright lawsuits, more often than not it takes just a few seconds or minutes to broadly establish the purpose of any action.

 

In most cases rightsholders want alleged infringement to stop and in some, they also seek compensation for their losses. When cases deviate from this format they tend to stick out.

 

When they involve the protection of copyright works that generate zero income for a rightsholder, one with a reputation for crushing dissent, a big question needs to be asked. Is this really all about copyright or is copyright just a convenient mechanism to achieve something else?

DMCA Subpoenas Are Cheap and Powerful

For years the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society, the supervising body and publisher for the Jehovah’s Witness religious group, has used the cheap DMCA subpoena process to identify anonymous people said to have infringed their copyrights, usually in music or videos. They go to court, pay less than $50, and disappear into the ether, ostensibly to protect their exclusive rights.

 

What makes these matters interesting is that Watch Tower does not commercialize its content, so the classic arguments about preventing lost sales are a non-starter. Neither does the group chase down people who share its music in a friendly way on social media or file-sharing networks. However, if critics (so-called ‘apostates’) use Watch Tower copyrighted content to challenge its authority or practices, bad things can follow.

The Attack on Kevin McFree

‘Kevin McFree’ (not his real name) is the creator of the ‘Dubtown’ series of stop-motion Lego animations that take place in a fictitious Jehovah’s Witness town. McFree utilized copyrighted material owned by Watch Tower in his productions, something that gave the religious group a leverage point to shut him down.

 

In 2018, Watch Tower filed an application for a DMCA subpoena to compel YouTube/Google to hand over his details. McFree filed a motion to quash, arguing that any use of Watch Tower material was protected under the doctrine of fair use.

 

After three years of legal dispute in that matter, in 2021 Watch Tower filed a parallel copyright infringement lawsuit against McFree for the same alleged infringements. Again, he refused to compromise his identity, an excellent decision considering what was to follow.

Big Win for McFree, No DMCA Subpoena For Watch Tower

In an opinion and order handed down in February 2022, Watch Tower’s original DMCA subpoena application was denied. The judge found that McFree’s use of Watch Tower content amounted to parody, criticism and commentary, and was therefore protected under the doctrine of fair use.

 

The killing of the DMCA subpoena meant that, at least logically, the full lawsuit had nowhere to go since McFree had done nothing wrong. But despite having a judge on record testifying to that, Watch Tower insisted that meant absolutely nothing.

 

The group demanded a trial on the merits and renewed efforts to remove McFree’s anonymity, all while knowing that he doesn’t live in the United States and lacked the financial means to properly defend the subpoena, let alone finance a multi-million dollar fair use battle.

 

So, if Watch Tower makes no money from its music and videos and would get nothing from McFree even if it had demolished him in a fair use copyright lawsuit, what did it really want?

Devine Intervention Levels The Playing Field

Copyright battles can be one-sided affairs. Deep-pocketed corporations on one side often chew up opportunist infringers on the other. If people insist on poking bears by profiting from pirated content they can’t really complain but, in McFree’s case, almost everything felt fundamentally different.

 

All allegedly-infringing videos were taken down years ago following initial Watch Tower complaints and no more were subsequently released. Even when it became clear that those videos were wrongfully terminated and Watch Tower had no case, the response was to pursue another lawsuit. Something didn’t sit right. Nothing sat right.

 

In February we pondered whether a lawyer might view McFree’s defense as being in the public interest. After reading one of our articles on the topic, attorney Paul Levy at the Public Citizen Litigation Group concluded that it was.

 

Once challenged to a fair fight, Watch Tower’s tactics began to unravel and then last week, it was suddenly all over. Documents filed with the court revealed that Watch Tower had not only agreed to dismiss the lawsuit, but to do so with prejudice, meaning that the matter can never return to court.

 

So what brought four years of legal oppression to an end?

Watch Tower Obtains DMCA Subpoenas, Never Sues

Following this important win for Paul Levy and his client, the attorney explained what went wrong for Watch Tower while confirming what we suspected all along. This was not really about copyright, it was about the usefulness of copyright law to facilitate access to something even more valuable than money – information.

 

In defending McFree, Levy pointed out that over the years Watch Tower had obtained 70 DMCA subpoenas against alleged infringers but had never followed those up with an infringement lawsuit. That cast doubt on Watch Tower’s declarations that it would only use the obtained information for the purposes of enforcing its rights under copyright law, Levy explained.

 

“But matters continued to get worse for Watch Tower, and both its inability to be straightforward in explaining its actions, including making misleading statements to the court, and the likely ulterior motives for its actions, became increasingly clear,” he wrote following the dismissal.

Watch Tower’s “Ulterior Motives”

“During the hearing, Watch Tower’s counsel made the outrageous statement that Watch Tower’s litigation strategies were confined by a lack of ‘significant funds,’ and that its approach to the litigation was guided by ‘significant economic motivations’,” Levy says.

 

“Because Watch Tower’s 990T forms are publicly available as required by law, it is a matter of public knowledge that Watch Tower has more than a billion dollars in assets. Watch Tower is fortunate that it never made this representation about limited resources in a signed document.”

 

With Watch Tower determined to press on with discovery to remove McFree’s anonymity, the religious group made a pivotal admission. What it really wanted was information that would allow it to determine the source of unpublished Watch Tower video clips that had appeared in McFree’s videos.

 

“The Watch Tower headquarters is a leaky sieve and it wants to identify the leakers. Beyond that, there may have been a massive hack of Watch Tower’s computer systems several years ago,” Levy reveals.

 

Watch Tower confirmed that it was planning to seek discovery on those issues and then offered to drop its lawsuit against McFree, on condition that he promised never to use any pre-publication Watch Tower materials in future, without obtaining consent.

 

However, citing the Supreme Court’s decision in Bartnicki v. Vopper, Levy says that McFree has every right to use leaked unpublished materials, even from a hack, providing he had nothing to do with the hacking.

 

Levy notes that the possible hack against Watch Tower could’ve been actionable under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act but the statute of limitations expired years ago.

 

“So it became apparent that Watch Tower was trying to leverage a barred copyright claim, and the threat of identifying McFree, to obtain relief and or discovery on a different subject entirely – a possible abuse of process,” Levy adds.

 

McFree rejected Watch Tower’s proposed settlement and his defense went on the offensive. Watch Tower was warned that if it continued to pursue McFree, Levy might file a document blocking it from a voluntary dismissal without prejudice, thereby locking it into litigation that it was destined to lose.

 

And then things got dark. Really, really dark.

A DMCA Subpoena Exposed Identity of Child Abuse Critic

One of the suspicions in Watch Tower cases is that exposing the identities of serving Jehovah’s Witnesses via DMCA subpoenas could lead to them being punished. However, the law says that DMCA subpoenas can only be used to protect the applicant’s copyright interests. In practice, that is impossible to enforce.

 

Levy says that during their investigations, his team discovered a 2018 DMCA subpoena that used copyright law to directly target a vehement critic who, coincidentally or not, was subsequently identified and punished by the religious group.

 

“Watch Tower succeeded in using a DMCA subpoena obtaining the identity of a previously identified blogger who specialized in attacking child abuse within the group, and Watch Tower’s refusal to report abuse to local authorities,” Levy reveals.

 

“It is quite possible that Watch Tower did not need the information it obtained under the DMCA (because this blogger’s identifying information had become available elsewhere), but even so it never sued him for copyright infringement and it never otherwise used his identity to enforce its copyright. Watch Tower had got what it wanted — revenge.”

Watch Tower Throws in the Towel

With Watch Tower still keen for YouTube/Google to identify McFree, Levy and his team waited for a notice indicating that a subpoena had been served. It never came. Instead of sending notice of service, Watch Tower sent a proposed stipulation to voluntarily dismiss the case, with each side to bear their own costs.

 

Levy’s team at Public Citizen responded by informing Watch Tower that if it wanted a guarantee that McFree would not pursue them for fees and/or abuse of process, the dismissal would need to be with prejudice. The religious group agreed.

 

The win for McFree is a welcome one but he didn’t get everything he’d hoped for.

 

According to Levy, McFree wanted a ruling that would’ve stopped Watch Tower from abusing DMCA subpoenas to intimidate future Jehovah’s Witness critics, but they avoided that by dropping his case. Nevertheless, dragging the practice out of the shadows could make it more difficult in the future.

 

“Kevin McFree deserves a great deal of credit for being willing to stick to his guns and not let Watch Tower out of the case easily. It is perhaps because of this litigation that Watch Tower has not filed any new DMCA subpoenas since we entered the case late last winter. But only the future will tell whether it has truly been deterred from future abuse,” Levy concludes.

 

The stipulation of dismissal can be found here (pdf) and Paul Levy’s excellent blog here. Public Citizen’s work can be appreciated here.

 

The cryptocurrency landscape has been hit hard this week.

 

Bitcoin is down more than 50% from its high a few months earlier and even some ‘stablecoins’ have started to disintegrate.

 

This type of volatility is not unexpected and the early adopters have already lived through a few of these crashes. This includes The Pirate Bay.

 

The notorious torrent site is somewhat of a crypto pioneer. In 2013, it was one of the first to add support for Bitcoin donations, with Litecoin and Monero following shortly after. Later on, TPB also popularized website-based mining, something that not all users were in favor of.

The PirateToken

Last year The Pirate Bay added another crypto project to its list with the launch of PirateToken (TPB). Initially, we assumed that this was some type of advertising deal for a third party, but the site swiftly reassured the public it was serious.

 

“It’s a soft launch to a new thing we want to try and we have many ideas,” the TPB team wrote, noting that the token might be useful to donate to moderators and uploaders, or to purchase VIP content.

 

“Much Ideas. Much Wow. So Great,” they added, hoping that the site’s users would hop on the bandwagon.

 

This week, exactly a year has passed since the Pirate Token went live and, thus far, the project hasn’t been particularly successful. At the time of writing the token trades for little over $1, far off the $15 high that was reached soon after it went public.

 

Needless to say, the recent crypto crash hasn’t helped but the price had already begun to tumble while Bitcoin was making new highs, so that’s not exactly an excuse.

478 Holders, 5 Transactions

The price isn’t really the biggest concern either. From what we can see, there is simply very little interest in the project. In fact, the number of people owning some TPB tokens is dropping. There are currently just 478 holders left, which is a tiny fraction of the site’s userbase.

 

These holders aren’t very active either. Over the past 30 days, there have only been five transactions.

 

Another bad sign is the fact that 99.98% of the 100,000,000 tokens are still held by the creator of the project. So while the theoretical market cap is over $100 million, the public only owns roughly $20,000 worth of TPB.

 

None of this should come as a surprise really. The token has no utility at the moment and The Pirate Bay isn’t promoting it in any way either. Yes, there is a dedicated link to the “token” page on the site, but that’s currently redirecting to the homepage.

 

Perhaps all of this will change when the TPB team spurs into action, but holders shouldn’t get their hopes up. Right now, it’s certainly not the digital pirate treasure they’d hoped for but the same can also be said for other niche tokens, including BitTorrent.

 

Given that the production of today’s videogames requires the involvement of a large number of people, preventing all information leaks is an impossible task.

 

On the flip side, today’s interconnected world has the ability to transform leaks into powerful advertising and hype, keeping message boards and social media alive with discussion of exciting new products, at zero cost to official marketing teams.

 

While much of this is good for business, there are people out there who simply can’t wait for a game to be officially released. But are those pre-release pirate downloads being advertised online the real deal or something much less attractive? In a case that began amid a number of prominent leaks, followed by a copyright complaint to YouTube, and then more aggressive legal action using the DMCA, we followed the crumbs to find out.

First Images of ‘Valorant Mobile’ Appear

On April 7, 2022, well-known mobile gaming ‘leaker’ DannyINTEL posted an image to Twitter containing what appeared to be a screenshot of Riot Games’ upcoming title ‘Valorant Mobile’. Text in the screenshot revealed that the game was being tested in China, DannyINTEL wrote.

 

This and other images were reported in several gaming publications and soon after, DannyINTEL uploaded supposed game footage to YouTube.

Copyright Complaint Targets Just One Video

Over the course of last month, additional ‘leaked’ videos were uploaded, with some listed via unofficial ‘leaking’ accounts on Twitter. Early May, a 13-minute gameplay video was uploaded to YouTube and other platforms in much higher quality but, as far as we can determine, none of these were taken down by Riot Games.

 

This suggests that the developer is happy with (or at least feels unthreatened by) the leaks. However, at least one mystery video on YouTube attracted the direct attention of Riot Games’ legal team. After being uploaded in the preceding days, on April 26 the company filed a complaint at YouTube alleging copyright infringement.

 

As the takedown notice shows, Riot Games demanded not only the removal of the video, but also any additional copies that may be uploaded in the future. Of course, DMCA takedowns aren’t particularly unusual but a couple of things stand out in this case.

 

While we can’t review the entire internet for similar removals, key sources posting ‘leaked’ content do not appear to be of interest to Riot Games since their videos remain online. Perhaps most importantly, whoever uploaded this specific video to YouTube now faces potential action after Riot’s attorneys went to court in the US to establish their identity.

Riot Games Uses Copyright Law to Unmask Uploader

In a May 6 filing at a district court in California, attorneys from Mitchell Silberberg & Knupp explained that the video previously (and quickly) taken down by YouTube back in April infringes Riot’s exclusive rights under copyright law.

 

“Specifically, it infringes Riot’s rights in its popular video game ‘Valorant’,” the attorneys said, noting that their client is the rightsholder of “numerous highly popular videogames.”

 

Even after reviewing the copyright complaint sent to YouTube and the documents filed with the court, we could find no clear indication of what the video actually contained. The video is long gone from YouTube too and as previously noted, will be taken down if it is reuploaded.

 

What we were able to determine is the title of the now-deleted video. It began with “Valorant Mobile IS HERE!” and promised gameplay video plus a tutorial on how to install Valorant Mobile on iOS and Android devices.

 

Since other gameplay videos don’t seem to be an irritant to Riot, it certainly felt like something else must be going on here, particularly given the company’s unusual interest and the fact that at least some people have been able to play an early version of the game. Did the video contain sensitive gameplay video, or did it reference a full-blown leak perhaps? Hard to say on the evidence thus far but Riot was clearly concerned about something.

 

“Riot is requesting the attached proposed subpoena that would order Google, LLC dba YouTube, LLC to disclose the identity, including the name(s), address(es), telephone number(s), and e-mail addresses(es) of the user(s) responsible for posting the content that appeared at the [YouTube URL],” Riot’s attorneys write in their DMCA subpoena application.

 

The court is yet to issue the subpoena compelling YouTube to cooperate so only time will tell how the case develops and in what direction. However, there was something else unusual about this video too.

Aggressive Promotion – Not Really a ‘Pirate’ Trait

During our research, we noticed that around April 25 the video was promoted quite aggressively on various platforms by what can be described as ‘suspicious’ social media accounts. This isn’t how straightforward videogame leaks are commonly promoted. Somewhat intrigued, we contacted Riot Games who informed us that they hadn’t used the DMCA to take down information related to any leak of Valorant Mobile, but to protect the interests of gamers.

 

“We issued the DMCA take-down notice to YouTube for [the video] uploaded on the DaillestballerPC channel for instructing viewers on how to download a phony ‘Valorant Mobile’ app from a website called AppRocky.com,” explained Dan Nabel, Riot’s Associate General Counsel.

 

We couldn’t find a fake download by that name on AppRocky when we checked but Nabel told us that Riot had been dealing with “a bad-faith situation” that posed a risk to Valorant fans.

 

“We needed to take action to protect players from potential fraud/phishing,” Nabel explained.

 

Whether Riot will be able to find out who operates the DaillestballerPC YouTube channel will remain to be seen but the account is notable for a couple of reasons. Aside from generating more than 4.6 million views in its lifetime, the channel is among the oldest on YouTube, having been created just 10 months after YouTube’s 2005 launch.

 

As it turns out, that alone doesn’t render the channel trustworthy but with millions of gamers relying on YouTube for information, Riot’s takedown will be welcomed by those who prefer skillful gaming over identity theft.

 

Riot Games’ DMCA subpoena application can be found here (1,2, pdf)

 

Earlier this week, Republican Senator Josh Hawley introduced a bill that aims to shorten the copyright term to a maximum 56 years.

 

The controversial proposal is a direct attack on Disney, which previously spoke out against the “Don’t Say Gay” law in Florida.

 

The chances of this bill passing are rather slim. The Democrats currently have a majority in the Senate and it’s unclear whether the proposal is broadly supported by Hawley’s Republican colleagues. On top of that, a 56-year copyright term is at odds with the Berne Convention.

 

Many people believe that the proposal is mostly a political stunt, one that made headlines all over the world. A few hours ago it also reached the Twitter feed of Elon Musk, the richest person on earth, who doesn’t shy away from controversy himself.

Musk’s Copyright & DMCA Critique

Responding to a Slashdot headline, Musk backs the general idea of limiting the current protections, which can last up to 120 years after the creation of a work.

 

“Current copyright law in general goes absurdly far beyond protecting the original creator,” Musk notes.

 

This type of critique on the copyright protection term isn’t new and Musk is known for floating bold statements. That said, coming from someone of his stature, it’s worth noting. The same is true for the follow-up tweet.

 

“Overzealous DMCA is a plague on humanity,” Musk wrote in a follow-up.

 

The DMCA has nothing to do with the copyright term. Instead, it largely dictates how online services should respond to copyright takedown notices. Platforms that stick to these rules will get “safe harbor” protections that shield them from liability.

 

U.S. lawmakers are currently considering updating the DMCA, potentially making the rules more strict. This includes a proposal to make it mandatory for online services to implement standard technical protection measures.

 

It’s not clear at all what Musk means by “overzealous” and how the DMCA is a “plague on humanity.” However, Musk might believe that the current law is already leading to overbroad removals.

Twitter & the DMCA

Just how serious Musk is about these comments is unknown. That said, now that he considers taking over Twitter as a business, the DMCA is certainly very relevant for him. And with the power and influence he has, copyright holders could get a little concerned.

 

Through DMCA notices, rightsholders have asked Twitter to remove millions of tweets and files from its platform in recent years. The company has to comply with the law and Musk can’t change that. However, he can rally against plans to make the DMCA more strict.

 

For now, this is all speculation and we don’t even know whether Musk is serious about this critique. Just shortly after calling out the DMCA as a plague on humanity, he oved on to condemning paper straws.

 

—

 

Update: Musk’s Twitter takeover plans are not “on hold”.

 

Disney is one of the best-known brands in the world and the owner of an impressive collection of movies and TV shows.

 

New and old releases earn the company a healthy stream of revenue, both in movie theaters and through its own movie streaming service Disney+.

 

While there is plenty of competition from other movie studios, Disney’s single biggest threat appears to be piracy. To tackle this issue, Disney’s in-house anti-piracy team works around the clock, with fresh blood coming in on a regular basis.

 

Much of the anti-piracy work falls under the “Digital Media Antipiracy Group.” This Disney department doesn’t have a dedicated web presence, aside from this pdf, but we know that the headquarters are located at the studios in Burbank, California.

 

The broader public can get an occasional glimpse of the team by looking at Disney’s job applications, where a new position just opened up.

Anti-Piracy Paralegal

The media giant wants to complement its team with a senior paralegal in the digital media anti-piracy field. This is a position with a stronger focus on the legal side, working in tandem with Disney’s lawyers.

 

“This position will be part of a team that is responsible for providing antipiracy services with a focus on combating online piracy of film, television, and live events related to Disney properties worldwide,” the job listing reads.

 

The candidate needs to have a few years of experience in a law firm or legal department. In addition, some tech-savviness will come in handy, as the job requires good insight into the ever-changing piracy landscape.

 

The job description itself is quite broad. It involves writing reports, conducting piracy research, and evaluating third-party anti-piracy partners. On top of that, the candidate also has to “review” pirate sites.

 

“Duties of this position include researching piracy technologies, websites, and apps, tracking piracy data, providing regular reports on piracy trends, evaluating prospective providers of antipiracy services and managing existing providers,” Disney writes.

 

Prospective candidates for this the paralegal position can reach out to Disney directly. And there are more anti-piracy job openings as well.

More ‘Pirate’ Jobs

Over in the UK, Disney is seeking to add an Antipiracy Analyst to the local branch of the Digital Media Antipiracy Group. This person will also research, document, and report on relevant piracy developments, all under the supervision of lawyers.

 

The ideal candidate for this role will have to “research and monitor piracy technologies, websites and apps to stay up to date on latest digital piracy methods and major happenings.”

 

Finally, for those who are not fluent in legal matters but would still like a pirate-themed job, there’s a job listing in Anaheim that may be of interest. For the Disneyland park, the company is looking for an electrician who can be called to repair circuits at the Pirates of the Caribbean attraction.

 

Laws that attempt to deter copyright infringement by punishing pirate site operators exist in most developed countries around the world.

 

Entities such as the Alliance for Creativity and Entertainment use them to take hundreds of sites and services offline, either through direct legal action or simply using the threat of it. But this is just one aspect of content protection and when pirates refuse to take their operations offline, additional tools can come into play.

 

Compelling ISPs to block subscriber access to pirate sites requires no compliance from pirate site operators but the legal process can be slow and expensive. This has led some countries to seek value via so-called ‘administrative’ blocking programs that don’t require continual legal action and authorization from the courts.

 

In Italy, site blocking is handled by telecoms regulator AGCOM but since online piracy is a moving target, new laws are required to ensure an easier, faster, and more efficient process. Information released this week outlining proposed legislation in Italy shows that through AGCOM, the country wants to take piracy blocking to the next level.

Blocking Orders and Dynamic Adaption

The basic principles behind the bills are the promotion of intellectual property to stimulate innovation, investment and creativity, and the provision of mechanisms to prevent illegal exploitation, including via electronic communication networks.

 

As before, AGCOM will have the power to restrict access to infringing content by ordering internet service providers of all kinds to implement blocking measures. The new bill envisions this being carried out by blocking the DNS resolution of domain names, and by blocking the routing of network traffic to IP addresses “without delay and in real time.”

 

In addition, AGCOM will require similar blocking measures to be applied to any other “domain name, sub-domain or any other IP address which, through any change in the name or domain extension, allows access to the same contents illegally being disseminated.”

 

In short, any orders to block pirate ‘locations’ will be dynamic in nature and will automatically adapt to any countermeasures deployed by pirate sites, without requiring any new orders.

Urgent and Precautionary Measures

In order to provide protection to ‘live’ content such as sporting events, AGCOM will have the power to order service providers and network access providers to quickly block domain names and IP addresses during transmission.

 

On top, the proposals include new measures designed to be proactive in nature, to prevent infringment before it happens.

 

At the request of rightsholders, such precautionary blocking can be notified and executed before an event takes place based on lists of domain names and IP addresses previously identified as sources of infringing content. These lists can be periodically updated by rightsholders to include new domains and IP addresses, meaning that at least in theory, pirate broadcasts can be disrupted before they even begin.

Additional Powers & Requirements

AGCOM is required to inform the public prosecutor’s office at the court of Rome of all ‘disabling measures’ and which online entities received notifications to implement them. Those entities must inform the same prosecutor of all blocking activities carried out in response to notifications and “communicate any data or information available that could allow the identification of abusive suppliers.”

 

Finally, to ensure compliance with blocking instructions, the proposals include potentially severe punishments for “anyone who fails or delays to implement” them. Unless the offense constitutes a “more serious crime”, Italy is proposing a prison term of three months to one year.

 

The basic text of the proposals (1) received unanimous joint commission support this week and will proceed to the Chamber of Deputies (lower house of parliament) followed by a vote at the Senate of the Republic (upper house).

 

Often described as the biggest case in copyright history, the so-called ‘Mega Conspiracy’ battle has been living up to its billing since 2012.

 

For at least a decade, Kim Dotcom and co-defendants Mattias Ortmann, Bram van der Kolk, and Finn Batato faced a mountain of charges in the United States, a country that has never been visited by the former.

 

More recently, however, there has been a significant shift in positions, meaning that just one of the quartet still faces being shipped there against their will.

 

Former Megaupload marketing manager Batato previously had his extradition case dropped on health grounds and yesterday Ortmann and van der Kolk revealed that they too will avoid the US justice system, despite being ruled eligible for extradition by New Zealand’s Supreme Court.

 

The men said they had reached an agreement with the New Zealand Government and the United States to face charges in New Zealand instead. Once their ‘new’ case is heard in a local court, extradition proceedings will be dropped, meaning that just one person will remain a ‘Mega Conspiracy’ fugitive according to the US.

The Fugitive Fighter & Former Friends

The charges against Ortmann and van der Kolk are believed to have been filed this week. The men say they are “similar” to those brought against them in the United States but the world will have to wait a little longer to discover exactly what they are and, crucially, what kind of plea the defendants will subsequently enter. In the meantime, Dotcom says he knows how things will play out.

 

According to the Megaupload founder, his former friends will “admit liability” and “become witnesses” against him. There is no public information to confirm these predictions but if they do turn out to be accurate, Dotcom’s case could become even more complicated than it is now.

 

Dotcom says that, unlike his co-defendants, he will never accept the injustices that all four of them have suffered so his plan is to fight on. There’s no reason to doubt that claim given Dotcom’s track record but that raises the question of what the split parties are now fighting for and what that means for their respective futures.

Uncertainty is Inevitable – But Can Be Managed

Ortmann and van der Kolk (who are on record as wanting to “move on”) no longer have to fight extradition, so in one sense they are already ahead of Dotcom. Their next challenge will be to deal with the charges against them by either mounting a full defense or admitting guilt, as Dotcom has suggested. That raises more questions.

 

In the last few hours, Dotcom said that if Ortmann and van der Kolk do admit liability, that will go against what they have argued all along, i.e none of the defendants in the “Mega Conspiracy” did anything illegal.

 

“My co-defendants don’t believe that they are criminals or members of an organized criminal group, they have said so repeatedly and that’s the truth,” Dotcom wrote.

 

Of course, the law allows defendants to change their position and in this case, it remains unclear what (if anything) they will admit liability for in a new set of charges. So what then of Dotcom’s claim that Ortmann and van der Kolk will “become witnesses” against him, potentially undermining his legal position?

 

“My co-defendants can’t help the DOJ [US Department of Justice]. We have hours of recorded conversations with them that make any testimony against me worthless. My co-defendants are aware of the recordings. I wonder if they disclosed that to the DOJ. Probably not,” Dotcom added.

 

With Ortmann and van der Kolk’s extradition battle all but over, questions are being raised over why they are in a seemingly favorable position and Dotcom is not. That should become clearer when the new charges are revealed and their official responses heard. In the meantime, Dotcom says that if they have the legal right to be put on trial in New Zealand, so should he.

A New Zealand Jury Could Be Of Interest

Dotcom claims that his co-defendants have made a “deal of convenience” but if they can have their case heard in New Zealand courts, he should have that opportunity too.

 

“My legal team may try to have my case heard in New Zealand Courts too, with a jury of New Zealanders,” Dotcom says.

 

“The difference is I would never accept any charges and I will defend myself to clear my name. If New Zealand can decide the case of my co-defendants I should have the same right.”

 

While Dotcom’s massively talented and extremely expensive legal team will explore any and all available options, the “agreement” reached by Dotcom’s colleagues with New Zealand and US authorities suggests that some kind of negotiation has taken place.

 

In New Zealand, the prosecution and defense can reach an understanding on what charges will result in a guilty plea. Actioned before trial, the prosecutor may reduce the number of charges and/or charge the defendant(s) with less serious offenses. Other implications are the reduction of costs for all parties and the securing of a conviction, something a trial cannot guarantee.

 

Appropriate sentencing is decided by the court but a guilty plea for non-violent crimes can also yield significant sentencing discounts. However, the issue with all of the above is that in Dotcom’s case, he is absolutely insistent he has done nothing wrong and won’t accept anything that doesn’t fully recognize that. It’s a tough position to incorporate into any agreement requiring quid pro quos.

 

Nevertheless, Dotcom says the shift in his co-defendants’ position means that “a new portal has opened” for his case too. That will no doubt be explored from every conceivable legal angle but in the meantime, he’s criticizing governments both at home and abroad for the very existence of his predicament.

 

“The reality is the New Zealand Govt has allowed itself to become a party to a corrupt White House conspiracy to destroy #Megaupload in exchange for Hollywood donations to the Obama and Biden 2012 re-election campaign,” he concludes.

 

Over the past decades, copyright protection terms have gradually been extended all around the world.

 

In the United States, copyrights are currently enforceable for 70 years after the author’s death. If something was made for hire, protection is available for 95 years after publication or 120 years after creation, whichever is shorter.

 

These terms were last changed in the Copyright Term Extension Act of 1998, which is also dubbed the “Mickey Mouse Protection Act”. This is a reference to Disney’s famous cartoon character, whose original copyright protections were about to expire.

New Bill Proposes to Shorten the Copyright Term

Today, more than two decades later, “Steamboat Willie” is at risk again. However, instead of extending the copyright term even further, Republican Senator Josh Hawley has just proposed a bill that would shorten it.

 

The newly introduced “Copyright Clause Restoration Act” proposes to lower the copyright term for new copyrights to 56 years. This change would also apply retroactively to companies with a market cap of over $150 billion and are part of the movie or entertainment industries.

 

The latter conditions single out the major copyright companies including Disney. This is not without reason, as the official announcement on the Senator’s website calls out the media giant as well.

 

“Senator Hawley’s bill would limit new copyright protections to 56 years and make the change retroactive for massive corporations like Disney that have been granted unnecessarily long copyright monopolies,” it reads.

Woke Politics?

The proposal to limit the copyright term is not just about encouraging creativity. It is partly motivated by Disney’s opposition to Florida’s “Don’t Say Gay” bill, which has angered many Republican lawmakers.

 

Previously, Florida Governor Ron DeSantis signed a bill that would end Disney’s tax benefits, motivated by the same reason. Commenting on his own proposal, Senator Hawley also calls out Disney for its “woke” stance.

 

“The age of Republican handouts to Big Business is over. Thanks to special copyright protections from Congress, woke corporations like Disney have earned billions while increasingly pandering to woke activists.

 

“It’s time to take away Disney’s special privileges and open up a new era of creativity and innovation,” the Senator adds.

Mickey in Danger?

The Copyright Clause Restoration Act is, without doubt, a far-reaching proposal that, if passed, could have wide-ranging implications. However, the Republicans don’t have a majority in the Senate so that seems unlikely.

 

Even if the copyright term was indeed limited, Mickey Mouse won’t enter the public domain in its entirety. All later creations of the character remain protected, including all films and other media that were created more recently.

 

That said, Disney and other major rightsholders won’t be happy with Senator Hawley’s proposal. Whether it will change their political views and comments is another matter entirely.

 

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

 

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

 

This week we have three new entries on the list. “Sonic the Hedgehog 2” is the most downloaded title.

The most torrented movies for the week ending on May 09 are:

Movie Rank	Rank last week	Movie name	IMDb Rating / Trailer
Most downloaded movies via torrent sites
1	(…)	Sonic the Hedgehog 2	6.7 / trailer
2	(…)	Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness	7.5 / trailer
3	(1)	Uncharted	6.6 / trailer
4	(2)	The Batman	8.4 / trailer
5	(…)	The Bad Guys	6.9 / trailer
6	(4)	Spider-Man: No Way Home	8.6 / trailer
7	(3)	Ambulance	6.3 / trailer
8	(6)	Moonfall	5.2 / trailer
9	(8)	Dune	8.1 / trailer
10	(back)	No Time to Die	7.3 / trailer

 

 

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

 

Adult entertainment outfit Malibu Media has often been characterized as a copyright-trolling operation.

 

The Los Angeles company, known for its popular “X-Art” brand, has gone after thousands of alleged file-sharers in U.S. courts, collecting millions of dollars in settlements.

 

Not too long ago Malibu was one of the most active anti-piracy litigants in the U.S., but in recent years this activity ground to a halt. However, there was one case that continued, and not because Malibu wanted it to.

 

The case in question started in 2018, when Malibu Media accused Mr. Mullins of downloading 11 pirated videos. The defendant fought back and contested the evidence up to the point where Malibu Media agreed to dismiss its claims, but that wasn’t enough.

 

The defense wanted to see the company’s piracy evidence but this was never presented, despite a court order. That frustrated the court, the accused subscriber, and even Malibu’s own attorney, who withdrew from the case because her client failed to comply.

Wrongfully Accused ‘Pirate’ Wins

After several back and forths, U.S. District Court Judge Thomas Durkin eventually handed a win to Mr. Mullins. Last year, the court ordered Malibu to pay $48,656.73 in costs and attorneys’ fees. When Malibu initially failed to pay, the total amount owed more than doubled to $108,271.

 

These rulings were a major win for the wrongfully accused ‘pirate’ and his legal team. In fact, it is one of the largest judgments we’ve seen in these types of cases.

 

While the defense was pleased with the outcome, recouping the money wasn’t easy. Malibu didn’t pay the required amount and on top of that, actively diverted funds that should have been used to pay these fees.

 

To recover the money owed, the defendant hired collection attorney Joseph Stewart, who obtained a restraining order that required Malibu Media and its payment processors to restrain the “X-Art.com Proceeds.”

$108k Recouped

The extra work increased the initial judgment from $48,656.73 in costs and attorneys’ fees to $108,271. After several turnover orders, the full amount was eventually recouped through payment processors Epoch and CC Bill last month.

 

“The undersigned attorney for the judgment creditor certifies and acknowledges full payment of both judgments, as well as all costs and interest,” collection attorney Joseph Stewart informed the court.

 

The defendant’s attorney, J. Curtis Edmondson is pleased with the outcome and stresses that his client should have never ended up in the situation.

 

“Malibu Media never provided any evidence that the Defendant infringed, but still claimed this was the case even after the Court ruled in the Defendant’s favor. This claim by Colette Pelissier, Malibu’s owner, after judgment was entered, was a bald-faced lie,” Edmondson tells TorrentFreak.

 

According to the attorney, Malibu’s boss has been lying since “Day 1” when she claimed that the company didn’t use the court system as the primary source to generate revenue.

 

“In the post-judgment proceedings, before Judge Durkin, it was demonstrated that very little income was from their websites and licensing. Malibu Media used the court system as their primary source of income.”

Malibu’s Boss is Disgusted

Malibu Media boss Colette Pelissier, meanwhile isn’t happy with how things went down. She doesn’t believe that the former defendant is entitled to the compensation and previously accused the denfense of “extortion” and “unjust enrichment”.

 

A few days before the full amount was paid off, Pelissier wrote another scathing letter to the court. This time, she added The Hollywood Reporter, The New Yorker, and The Chicago Sun Times as recipients as well.

 

None of these mainstream publications appear to have covered the letter, which urged the court to cancel the turnover order, with Malibu’s boss suggesting that she wasn’t properly heard.

 

“I am disgusted with Chicago’s judicial system and the citation to discover assets that they will send to anyone who needs to pay you, then make a deal with them. We have had a 10 year relationship not pay us since June.”

 

“I implore you to have that turnover order cancelled [sic] and a hearing held, where we have time to discuss the real issues,” Pelissier added.

 

Despite the letter and the outspoken critique, the turnover order wasn’t scrapped. Although Malibu refused to pay voluntarily, the payment processors used by the company restrained the funds and eventually handed them over to the defendant, effectively ending the case.

 

Pelissier informed TorrentFreak today that she believes that the court clearly made the wrong decisions in this case, which we may not have heard the last of.

 

“Mullins and Peacock’s pathetic attempts at extortion did not go unnoticed and we will be filing retaliatory litigation against ALL involved. Malibu, X-Art.com and myself want to thank all of our supporters who have stood by us for so long!” she says.

 

Pelissier plans to keep X-Art.com members informed about the matter, answering questions during live sessions on the platform. “I will be doing something super special for everyone. Down with corruption and lies. Don’t be a sheep. More later!”

 

January 2, 2022 marked the 10-year anniversary of the dramatic shutdown of Megaupload and other properties in the file-sharing and streaming empire of Kim Dotcom.

 

For much of that time, Kim Dotcom and co-defendants Mattias Ortmann, Bram van der Kolk and Finn Batato have fought extradition to the United States to face copyright infringement, racketeering and money laundering charges. Over time, however, extradition has been slowly taken off the table for most of the main defendants.

 

Former Megaupload marketing manager Batato previously had his extradition case dropped on health grounds and today it was the turn of both Ortmann and van der Kolk to reveal that they too will avoid the US justice system.

“New Zealand is Our Home Now”

In a joint statement published via Mega Limited, the New Zealand file-sharing service where Ortmann and van der Kolk now play key roles, the pair recall that after a Supreme Court decision in 2021, they were both ruled eligible for extradition to the United States.

 

Their case was referred to NZ Minister of Justice Kris Fa’afoi for a final and potentially difficult decision. The details of what happened next have not been revealed but the key outcome is that Ortmann and van der Kolk will not be extradited to the United States, albeit with significant strings attached.

 

“New Zealand is our home now and we want to stay here. The continuing uncertainty associated with the extradition case has taken a heavy toll on our lives and the time has come to move on,” their statement reads.

 

“Accordingly, we have reached an agreement with the New Zealand Government and the United States of America under which we have agreed to be charged in New Zealand for offenses similar to those we face in the United States. Once those charges are heard by the New Zealand courts, the United States will withdraw its extradition proceedings against us.”

 

Given that they are now involved in a new legal process, the pair say they will be making no further comment. The same cannot be said for Kim Dotcom, the most high-profile of the Megaupload defendants, who remains eligible for extradition and could face decades in prison in the US.

Dotcom: “Former Friends” Will Give Evidence Against Me

In a series of tweets responding to the news this morning, Kim Dotcom offered his congratulations to Ortmann and van der Kolk for avoiding the “terrible US justice system”, noting that he doesn’t blame his “former friends” and understands why they have “given up.”

 

Quite when the friendship between the men ended is unclear. They haven’t been seen in public or pictured privately together for years but Dotcom predicts they will now admit liability and help in the case against him.

 

“My co-defendants in the Megaupload copyright case, Mathias and Bram, have made a deal with the US and New Zealand Government to accept liability and to become witnesses against me. They will be charged in New Zealand and will no longer face extradition to the United States,” Dotcom writes.

 

“I’m now the last man standing in this fight and I will continue to fight because unlike my co-defendants I won’t accept the injustice we have been subjected to,” Dotcom continues.

 

“If I have to go to jail for what Megaupload users did on our site then many Big Tech CEOs are in the same boat with me.”

What Next For The Megaupload Defendants?

Dotcom has a reputation as a fighter and may yet pull several rabbits out of multiple hats to a) avoid extradition or b) pull off an extraordinary win in the United States, should he ever be sent there.

 

At this stage and after a decade of battles and tens of millions of dollars spent in his defense, nothing can be ruled out. But where once there were many diverse options for a counter-attack, opportunities seem to be narrowing.

 

By appearing to rule out any deal that would find him liable for wrongdoing either in New Zealand or the United States, Dotcom will necessarily find himself up against legal systems and successive governments that he has continuously labeled as corrupt.

 

Dotcom’s default stance is that his business was destroyed by Hollywood with vital help from President Biden so in response and over many years, Dotcom has launched personal attacks on both Biden and members of his family. The same can be said of multiple politicians in New Zealand too. According to Dotcom, he cannot get a fair trial anywhere.

 

This has undoubtedly turned Dotcom into a political hot potato, one that refuses to lie down and says he will reject any deal, even if one was offered to him. On the other hand, the positions of Ortmann and van der Kolk, who have remained largely silent for the last 10 years, are much more certain and at least relatively free from the political complications surrounding Dotcom.

 

The charges the pair will face in New Zealand are yet to be reported but if they are brought under the Copyright Act, financial penalties of up to NZ$10,000 for “every infringing copy” but not exceeding NZ$150,000 “in respect of the same transaction” are available.

 

The defendants could alternatively face up to five years in prison but if we take Dotcom’s claims at face value, a guilty plea at the earliest opportunity seems to be a foregone conclusion, so significant 25%+ reductions could apply. Add in the claim that the men are set to offer evidence against Dotcom and the fact they are not violent offenders, they could be eligible for release after serving a third of any sentence.

 

Previously, Estonian programmer Andrus Nomm, who reportedly earned $3,200 per month at Megaupload, pleaded guilty to criminal copyright infringement in the United States where sentences are usually much harsher.

 

He was sentenced to a year and a day in prison after going on record that Dotcom and his former colleagues knowingly profited from copyright infringement.

 

Tracking BitTorrent pirates is relatively easy since IP addresses are broadcasted publicly. With help from Internet providers, these addresses can then be linked to an account holder.

 

ISPs don’t hand over this data voluntarily, however; they typically require a subpoena or court order to take action.

 

In the United States, these subpoenas are obtained by filing a copyright complaint in federal court against a “John Doe” who’s known only by an IP address. Most of these cases are filed against a single person which makes it a relatively expensive process.

 

The filing fee for these cases is over $400 with no guarantees that this money will be recouped in the end. The fact that new lawsuits continue to be filed suggests that it’s worth it, but rightsholders are also trying alternative routes.

Filmmakers Target 63 IP-addresses

A few days ago, a group of film companies tied to well-known movies such as “After We Collided”, “Tesla”, “The Expendables 3” and “The Protege”, requested a DMCA subpoena at the federal court of Hawaii. The legal paperwork targets Centurylink and comes with a long list of 63 IP addresses, some of which downloaded multiple films.

 

The goal of the subpoena request isn’t to pursue a copyright claim in court, as we see with traditional BitTorrent lawsuits. Instead, the film companies will likely use the information to offer a direct settlement to the alleged pirates.

 

This is a relatively cheap shortcut as large groups of pirates can be combined in one request, for which the total filing fee is under $50. In addition, these subpoenas are not reviewed by a judge and only require a signature from the court clerk.

 

In recent years we have occasionally seen these requests pop up. Initially, these attempts failed, in part due to jurisprudence that was established following the RIAA’s mass lawsuits nearly two decades ago.

Clever but Controversial Shortcut?

The RIAA’s legal campaign was aimed to make pirates feel vulnerable so targeting large groups of file-sharers was a must. To save costs, the RIAA, therefore, used DMCA subpoenas to identify the alleged infringers.

 

ISPs were not happy with this trend and objected. They argued that DMCA subpoenas are only valid when an Internet service stores or links to the infringing content, not when they merely pass on traffic.

 

Various courts have agreed with ISPs since and effectively banned the practice in the early 2000s. If copyright holders want to go after alleged pirates, they have to file a complaint and request a regular subpoena, the message was.

 

The filmmakers who requested the subpoenas last week are aware of the jurisprudence. However, attorney Kerry Culpepper argues that the Ninth Circuit Appeals Court, which Hawaii falls under, never ruled on the ‘mere conduit’ issue in a case like this. Hence, it’s an open question.

 

In fact, the attorney argues that more recent decisions suggest that the subpoenas may apply in these instances. For example, in repeat infringer cases against ISPs such as Cox and Grande, courts have concluded that DMCA notices are valid and apply to conduit providers.

 

This argument has to be tested in court but, for now , Internet provider Centurylink doesn’t seem inclined to challenge it. This means that the personal information of the affected subscribers will be handed over to the movie companies.

Warned

While the use of DMCA subpoenas against pirating subscribers is relatively rare, the filing rate and the number or targeted subscribers is growing.

 

Earlier this year, filmmakers already requested Centurylink to hand over information on 13 alleged pirates, and not much later another DMCA subpoena targeted an additional 40 subscribers. That number has now gone up to 63.

 

For the affected subscribers the allegations shouldn’t come as a complete surprise, as they have all been targeted by piracy notifications in the past.

 

In the most recent filing, there’s one IP address that received a dozen ‘warnings’ for pirating “The Protege” in the span of a month. Another IP address received six warnings, all for different films.

 

Whether these cases will indeed lead to settlements will remain unknown. Now that the subpoena is granted, there will be no further updates through the court. However, we expect that the account holders will be asked to pay damages, ranging from a few hundreds dollars, to potentially thousands.

 

—

 

A copy of the DMCA subpoena request is available here and the issued subpoena can be found here

 

Most copyright infringement lawsuits filed by the recording industry are aimed at sites, services and individuals involved in the unlicensed online distribution of music.

 

A case that has just wrapped in Finland touches on an interesting aspect of EU copyright law in respect of simply linking to official broadcasting streams and also a key component of millions of songs – lyrics.

Man Operated Unlicensed Sites For Seven Years

Between 2013 and 2020, a man from Finland operated three websites – lyrics.fi, lyricsfi.com and nettiradio.fi. The first two sites were focused on lyrics for popular songs and had their databases populated by the site operator and the platforms’ users who submitted lyrics for editing and subsequent publishing. During the operating period the 37-year-old man (who isn’t named by the court) did not seek permission from copyright holders to reproduce and distribute lyrics.

 

The latter site, nettiradio.fi, operated as an internet radio portal. The platform allowed users to listen to the live internet broadcasts of 109 local radio channels via embedded links. These channels were not ‘pirated’ in the traditional sense, since they linked directly to the original source URLs on the broadcasters’ websites. However, visits to the defendants’ websites generated significant revenue – almost 300,000 euros according to the court.

Recording Industry Takes Action

Claims were filed against the man by 15 music and media companies including Warner Music Finland, Universal Music Publishing, Bauer Media, and Sanoma Media Finland. They believed their rights in lyrics and broadcasts had been infringed via the man’s sites and for this they demanded compensation.

 

The complaint noted that rightsholders had previously written to the man alleging infringement and advising on relevant terms of use for their content. However, this did not yield the desired results and the man and his sites continued regardless. The man refused to admit guilt and the matter was heard by a panel of three judges over three days in January 2022.

Court Finds Man Guilty of Copyright Infringment

Late last week the Länsi-Uusimaa District Court announced that the operator of the sites had been found guilty of copyright infringement. He was handed a suspended six-month prison sentence and ordered to pay 250,000 euros in compensation to the music and media companies.

 

In respect of the two sites distributing copyrighted lyrics, the Court found that the man was unable to rely on the type of limited liability protection available to online service providers due to his deeper involvement in reproduction and distribution.

 

“[T]he man had maintained his websites specializing in music lyrics in such a way that, among other things, he had been actively involved in editing the material and moderating the activities of the sites. Accordingly, the District Court held that the man had not merely acted as a platform service provider,” the Court notes.

Embedding Radio Broadcast Links Breached Copyright Law

As highlighted earlier, the audio streams made available by the defendant on his radio portal were not copied or duplicated in any way. The links to the streams were embedded in his site and linked directly to the original sources. Importantly, the original broadcast links were also published on open websites and were not restricted to registered or subscription customers.

 

This means that, under EU law, the defendant did not make the copyrighted content available to a ‘new audience’, something that many big copyright cases reference when determining liability for infringement. However, that does not mean that framing or embedding content is automatically non-infringing.

 

A 2021 ruling by the EU Court of Justice found that embedding content in a third-party website can be infringing, if rightsholders have expressed opposition to it. In this case the man was informed by the rightsholders in advance that they did not consent to this type of use.

 

Under these conditions, embedding the streaming links constituted a “communication to the public” of restricted content, a breach of EU copyright law.

 

“The man has been deemed aware of these prohibitions and has continued to act in spite of them,” the Court found, noting that the defendant reaped the benefits of his own on-site advertising instead.

 

Tackling online piracy is a complicated endeavor that often starts by identifying the operators of infringing sites and services. This is also where the first hurdles come into play.

 

Most people who pirate still keep their identities concealed. This applies to the operators of sites and services as well as their users.

 

This relative anonymity is a nuisance to anti-piracy groups, including the RIAA. While most online services refuse to voluntarily hand over user details, there are some legal tools that can help rightsholders move forward.

 

In recent years, DMCA subpoenas have proven to be particularly useful. These requests don’t require any oversight from a judge and are typically signed off by a court clerk, in order to swiftly identify online pirates.

 

The Alliance for Creativity and Entertainment regularly uses these subpoenas to get more details on domain name owners and Cloudflare users, for example, but they can be used against other online services as well.

RIAA Targets Discord Pirates

This week we spotted a subpoena request by the RIAA, filed at a federal court in the District of Columbia, requesting the personal details of alleged Discord pirates.

 

The legal paperwork reveals that the RIAA sent a takedown notice to Discord, asking it to remove several infringing files from its services. They included copies of tracks from Luther Vandross and The Stone Temple Pilots.

 

The RIAA also asked Discord to consider the “widespread and repeated infringing nature of the server operator” and to take appropriate action under its repeat infringer policy.

 

At the time of writing, the channel seems to have disappeared entirely, but it’s not clear whether Discord stepped in or its operator took action. What we do know is that the RIAA isn’t letting the alleged pirate or pirates go this easily.

Potential Legal Trouble

Through the DMCA subpoena, which was swiftly signed off by a court clerk, the anti-piracy group hopes to identify the infringers. It’s not clear what the RIAA plans to do with the information, but the channel operator could in theory face legal trouble.

 

With the subpoena in hand, the RIAA reached out to Discord, asking it to share relevant personal information.

 

“We have determined that users of your system or network have infringed our member record companies’ copyrighted sound recordings. As is stated in the attached subpoena, you are required to disclose to the RIAA information sufficient to identify the infringers.

 

“This would include the individuals’ names, physical addresses, IP addresses, telephone numbers, e-mail addresses, payment information, account updates and account history, as available,” RIAA adds.

 

Whether Discord actually has all the requested information on file is unknown. That said, the RIAA’s efforts clearly show that Discord and similar services shouldn’t be regarded as safe havens for pirates.

 

—

 

A copy of RIAA’s request for a DMCA subpoena to compel Discord to hand over information is available here (pdf)

 

Over the years, copyright holders have tried a multitude of measures to curb online piracy, with varying levels of success.

 

Site blocking has emerged as one of the preferred solutions. While blocking measures are not bulletproof, the general idea is that they pose a large enough hurdle for casual pirates to choose legal options instead.

 

The blocking approach was still relatively controversial at the start of the last decade but it’s increasingly being normalized. Dozens of countries have legal or procedural options to request blockades today.

 

Australia and the UK are among the countries that have robust site-blocking legislation in place. ISPs in both countries are required to prevent subscribers from accessing thousands of domain names, with more being added every few months.

Site Blocking in Trade Deal

Rightsholders are happy with these legal remedies and the authorities are pleased as well. In fact, site blocking language has made its way into the draft of a new free trade agreement between Australia and the UK, which is currently being finalized.

 

The inclusion of a blocking paragraph in the copyright chapter of the trade deal was high on the agenda of various copyright holder groups. Following a series of hearings and consultations, both countries settled on the following text:

 

1. Each Party shall provide that its civil judicial authorities have the authority to grant an injunction against an ISP within its territory, ordering the ISP to take action to block access to a specific online location, in cases where:

 

(a) that online location is located outside the territory of that Party; and

 

(b) the services of the ISP are used by a third party to infringe copyright or related rights in the territory of that Party.

 

2. For greater certainty, nothing in this Article precludes a Party from providing that its judicial authorities may grant an injunction to take action to block access to online locations used to infringe intellectual property rights in circumstances other than those specified in paragraph 1.

 

This paragraph doesn’t fundamentally change anything for the site-blocking regimes currently in place in the two countries. However, cementing blocking in a trade deal could impact future trade agreements with other nations.

Expanding the Anti-Piracy Toolbox

This hasn’t gone unnoticed by the Alliance for Intellectual Property, which represents rightsholder organizations such as the MPA, BPI, and the Premier League. The group repeatedly urged the UK Government to include site-blocking powers in the agreement.

 

In a recent submission to the UK Government, the Alliance once again stresses the importance of site blocking, while also hinting at broadening the current anti-piracy toolbox.

 

“It has become a hugely valuable tool in the armoury of rights holders looking to protect their IP. It is vital that the UK Government ensures the preservation of the no-fault injunctive relief regime,” the Alliance writes.

 

“We would also encourage the opening of dialogue, wherever possible, to share experience around UK practices and to encourage faster, more efficient website blocking procedures, whether through civil, criminal, administrative or voluntary means.”

Important Message for Future Agreements

The site-blocking language is already included in the latest trade deal draft but the Alliance is also looking ahead at future agreements with other countries. In this context, the blocking paragraph will send a clear message.

 

“We would therefore urge the UK Government to include reference to the site blocking legislation in the FTA with Australia as it will send an important message to future countries that we might chose [sic] to negotiate trade agreements with.”

 

The Alliance for Intellectual Property doesn’t mention any other countries by name. However, it specifically references a report from the U.S. Copyright Office where site blocking was mentioned as a potential future anti-piracy option.

 

In the same report, the Copyright Office also stressed that further research would be required on the effect and impact of a U.S. site-blocking scheme, but the idea wasn’t dismissed outright.

 

At the moment, the UK is also negotiating a new free trade deal with the US so it wouldn’t be a surprise if the blocking issue is raised there. That’s definitely something the Alliance for Intellectual Property would like to see, and the MPA and RIAA previously hinted at the same.

 

This means that, in a way, the trade agreement between Australia and the UK would be used to export site-blocking injunctions to other countries. Whether that will succeed remains a question, for now.

 

In the final season of Breaking Bad, Walt and Skyler White are seen gazing at a huge quantity of banded banknotes representing some of the unlaundered profits of a drug empire.

 

Neither really knew how much was there. Show creator Vince Gilligan later guessed at perhaps $80 or $95 million, give or take. Small change for Elon Musk perhaps but to most other people, it’s an astronomical amount of money.

 

In the case of a man from Canada, who has just asked a US court to hold him liable for massive damages relating to his sale of pirate IPTV subscriptions, it is not nearly enough. In an ideal world, the pile of cash would be six times bigger.

IPTV Pirate Sued in the United States

Three days before Christmas in 2020, broadcaster DISH Network and technology partner NagraStar got in the festive spirit by filing a lawsuit (with more than 260 exhibits attached) against Canada-resident Carlos Rocha. According to the complaint, Rocha was the controlling operator of SolTV and Stream Solutions, pirate streaming services offering DISH content in breach of the broadcaster’s rights.

 

DISH investigations revealed that Rocha had connections to SET TV, a pirate IPTV service already defeated by DISH via a separate $90 million judgment. Another IPTV service, Simply-TV, was also targeted by DISH and as part of that litigation, the broadcaster uncovered more connections to Rocha.

 

In addition to operating SolTV and Stream Solutions, DISH said that Rocha trafficked in ‘device codes’ (IPTV subscriptions) for other branded services including BimoTV, TVStreamsNow, OneStepTV, IbexTV, MagnumStreams, Prime Tyme TV, Lazer TV Streams, Griff TV, Flix Streams, and CantGetEnoughTV.

 

DISH said that encoded messages in its satellite feeds confirmed the content being offered by the services was theirs and the wrongful conduct constituted mass breaches of the Federal Communications Act (FCA). Demanding damages of $10,000 for each violation of the FCA with the potential to increase by up to $100,000 more, DISH also sought an injunction to bring Rocha’s business to an end.

 

It’s been a long wait but this week the case appears to be reaching a jackpot climax.

Defendant Asks Court to Sign $585 Million Judgment

Last week the warring parties submitted a joint notice to the court indicating that following discussion, some kind of agreement had been reached to bring the lawsuit to an end. In typical fashion, the details of the agreement weren’t made public but the parties informed the court that additional materials would soon be filed at a Florida district court.

 

As promised, an agreed motion for entry of judgment and a permanent injunction against Rocha appeared on the docket this week. It states that Rocha operated, participated in, and/or trafficked in device codes and subscriptions for various IPTV services including SolTV, SET TV, Simply-TV, BimoTV, TVStreamsNow, OneStepTV, IbexTV, MagnumStreams, Prime Tyme TV, Lazer TV Streams, Griff TV, Flix Streams, and CantGetEnoughTV.

 

No details of how many subscriptions Rocha is supposed to have sold are provided. However, it appears that the former IPTV entrepreneur has agreed to be held liable for statutory damages based on “the number of device codes linked to Defendant and/or the Unauthorized Streaming Services.” In short – a telephone number-sized judgment.

 

Describing the final amount agreed by the parties as “conservative”, the motion asks the court to hold Rocha liable for statutory damages of $585,028,500 under the Federal Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. §§ 605(a) and 605(e)(4) and to issue a permanent injunction to prevent any future conduct that might infringe on DISH’s rights.

 

Whether the court will sign off on this record-breaking judgment will become apparent in the coming days but it seems fairly likely that Rocha doesn’t have half a billion in cash lying around – even if he does have access to Walter White’s storage unit to make up the shortfall. At this point the amount could’ve been $595 billion – it’s still not getting paid.

Knowledge is Power

The requested judgment amount is of course pretty wild, not least since the entire US pirate IPTV market was worth a billion dollars in 2020. But that fails to take into account DISH’s anti-piracy strategy and the persuasive effect of mind-boggling damages on those seeking to avoid the same fate.

 

A common feature of DISH lawsuits against IPTV suppliers and similar entities is how they keep cropping up in subsequent and parallel investigations. The company likes to connect the dots and lawsuits make that possible.

 

There isn’t much public evidence detailing DISH’s settlement agreements with pirates. However, when piecing things together it’s clear that information obtained by DISH in one area (either through discovery or by defendants getting chatty as part of a settlement agreement) helps to drive new lawsuits and settlement demands against associates and/or former customers in others.

 

Unsurprisingly, Rocha’s agreed injunction requires him to keep hold of all “books, documents, files, records, or communications” plus “the identities of manufacturers, exporters, importers, dealers, or purchasers of such services and devices, or persons” related to his piracy activities.

 

Whether he still has any records or devices is unknown but if they do exist, there are companies out there who would really appreciate a quick look.

 

Documents referenced above can be found here (1,2,3,4)

 

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

 

Many proposals have come and gone, without resulting in any significant update. That could be about to change.

 

Following repeated nudges from Senators Thom Tillis and Patrick Leahy, the Copyright Office started looking into automated tools that online services can use to ensure that pirated content can’t be easily reuploaded.

 

This “takedown and staydown’ approach relies on technical protection tools, which include upload filters. This is a sensitive subject that previously generated quite a bit of pushback when the EU drafted its Copyright Directive.

 

To gauge the various options and viewpoints, the Copyright Office launched a consultation last year, which triggered a wave of objections and opposition.

New Consultation

Last week, the Office followed up with yet another consultation, asking for input on shortcomings in the current DMCA legislation and what alternatives could help to improve things.

 

As things stand, online services are allowed to implement their own upload filters, which many do. Scanning uploads for potentially copyright-infringing content isn’t mandatory but that could change in the future.

 

The consultation outline mentions several potential changes to the DMCA’s Section 512, such as online services losing their safe harbor protection if they fail to implement specific “standard technical measures” (STMs).

 

“Is the loss of the section 512 safe harbors an appropriate remedy for interfering with or failing to accommodate STMs?” the Copyright Office asks.

 

“Are there other obligations concerning STMs that ought to be required of internet service providers?” the list of questions continues.

 

Stakeholders are asked to share their views on these matters. While it is uncertain whether any measures will be made mandatory, the Copyright Office is already looking ahead.

 

For example, who gets to decide what STMs will be mandatory, and how would the rulemaking process work?

 

“What entity or entities would be best positioned to administer such a rulemaking? What should be the frequency of such a rulemaking? What would be the benefits of such a rulemaking? What would be the drawbacks of such a rulemaking?”

SMART?

According to Senators Thom Tillis and Patrick Leahy, the Copyright Office doesn’t have to look very far to find a suitable candidate to guide the rulemaking process.

 

In March, they introduced the SMART Copyright Act of 2022, which answers most of these questions outright.

 

The SMART bill requires online hosting services to implement standard technical protection measures to help combat piracy. It also clarifies that these measures should be designated by the Copyright Office, after seeking input from various experts and stakeholders.

 

In essence, the Copyright Office’s consultation can be seen as an unofficial review of the SMART bill. As such, it will likely see broad opposition from digital rights groups, with copyright holders voicing their support.

 

More details on the consultation, including all questions, are available in the Copyright Office’s official announcement published a few days ago.

 

Piracy lawsuits come in different shapes and sizes. Rightsholders can go after pirate site operators, ISPs, hosting companies, messenger apps, or CDN providers, for example.

 

Another option is to target the alleged pirates more directly in court. In those cases, they often offer a quick settlement to make the case go away.

 

These so-called “copyright trolling” efforts have been a common occurrence in countries around the world. This also applies to Canada, where many cases go unnoticed by the public at large, even when thousands of people are targeted.

Lawsuit Targets 1,282 “Ava” Pirates

Last week, we spotted a message on Reddit from someone who received some legal paperwork from the law firm Aird & Berlis. The firm works for the film company Eve Nevada, which holds rights to the film Ava.

 

“I just received a Statement of Claim today from Aird & Berlis LLP by registered mail. They are alleging I downloaded the movie Ava,” the poster writes, asking for advice on how to handle this.

 

Some suggest simply ignoring the letter while others recommend using a VPN in the future. However, the latter option not going to help now that the filmmaker’s lawyers already know who they are dealing with.

 

As it turns out, the Redditor is one of the 1,282 account holders targeted in a statement of claim filed at the Toronto federal court last year. Initially, these “Doe” defendants were only known by an IP-address.

 

The IP addresses were captured by forensic software that monitored public BitTorrent swarms sharing Ava. The rightsholder then sent a piracy notice to the associated ISP, hoping that the infringing activity would stop.

Two Advance Warnings

Apparently, that didn’t happen. And after a second notice didn’t have any effect, the IP address was added to the claim.

 

“This Second Notice indicated that the work had not been removed and that legal action may be taken as against such Defendant. The Defendant failed or refused to respond to the Second Notice and has continued his or her Unlawful Acts,” the statement of claim explained.

 

Eve Nevada eventually went ahead and obtained a Norwich Order, requiring the associated ISPs to identify the accounts linked to these IP-addresses.

 

TorrentFreak contacted Canadian ISP Teksavvy which confirmed receiving an order to identify subscribers late last year. The ISP was legally obliged to comply with this order and it informed the affected subscribers via email that their details were being shared with the film company.

 

“Simply put, we needed to comply with the court’s Order. In other words, since we were ordered to disclose your name and address to the Plaintiff,” Teksavvy wrote to the affected subscribers.

 

“Unfortunately, now that they know your name and address, the Plaintiff can use it to advance their claim against you,” the ISP added.

 

The Redditor was one of the identified account holders. After their personal details were shared, the filmmaker’s law firm eventually followed up late last month via registered mail.

 

While some people may be inclined to disregard the legal paperwork as spam, it can lead to some serious trouble. In the past, some of these cases have led to settlements of thousands of dollars, so contacting a lawyer is definitely advised.

4,006 “Hitman” Pirates Targeted Too

The Eve Nevada case is not the only one active at the moment. Earlier this year, Hitman Two Productions, which owns the rights to “The Hitman’s Wife’s Bodyguard,” filed a statement of claim targeting 4,006 IP-addresses.

 

TekSavvy informs TorrentFreak that it hasn’t been informed about a Norwich Order referencing this case yet. However, the ISP was asked to preserve several relevant notices, which it will do for a period of 12 months after they were initially sent.

 

How many of the targeted account holders will eventually end up settling is unknown. However, the statement of claim suggests that even those who didn’t share any infringing material might be held accountable for the infringements of third-parties.

 

“In this regard, the Plaintiff pleads that each Defendant possessed sufficient control over the use of his or her internet account and associated computers and internet devices such that he or she authorized, sanctioned, approved or countenanced the infringements as particularized herein, including by engaging in the Unlawful Acts.”

Unnoticed?

It is important to occasionally shine a light on these mass legal campaigns. They can target thousands of alleged pirates with a single claim, which can cause serious trouble for the people involved.

 

This particular case also highlights another potential issue. The Redditor claims that they never received any warnings from TekSavvy. Nor did this person see the email from the ISP, informing them that their personal details would be shared.

 

We don’t doubt that TekSavvy sent these emails, but it is certainly possible that the ISP had an outdated email address on file. In that case, the initial warnings over email never arrived. This should serve as a warning to keep one’s contact information updated.

 

—

 

A copy of the Statement of Claim from Eve Nevada is available here (pdf). The docket for the Hitman Two Productions case can be found here.

 

A class action lawsuit filed in 2020 by musician Maria Schneider against YouTube is showing no sign of a conclusion.

 

The complaint, which alleges mass infringement and serious deficiencies in YouTube’s copyright enforcement measures, has seen the exposure of fraud and calls from YouTube to have the whole case dismissed.

 

With the case now spanning three years, both sides are still willing to spend huge sums of money fighting their respective corners. Quite how the plaintiffs are able to match Google’s bottomless financial pit is unknown, but at times they are raising some interesting questions, some of which relate to YouTube’s DMCA safe harbor protections.

Documents Relating to YouTube’s ‘Autoplay’ Feature

Last month, counsel for Maria Schneider and the putative class filed a letter motion with US District Judge James Donato. In broad terms, it again claims that YouTube isn’t producing enough documents in a timely manner as part of discovery. Similar complaints have been made in the other direction too but this time around, the requests relate to an interesting legal theory.

 

The letter says that since October 2020, discovery requests relating to YouTube’s ‘Autoplay’ feature have resulted in the production of “less than a hundred” internal documents (including PowerPoint presentations) but no email or instant message communications. The plaintiffs want the court to compel the production of relevant documents since they relate to an important legal argument relating to YouTube’s liability for infringing content on its platform.

YouTube’s ‘Autoplay’ Feature and the DMCA’s Safe Harbor

In summary, the letter claims that when YouTube delivers videos to users that they did not specifically request, that undermines YouTube’s ‘safe harbor’ protections under the DMCA.

 

“Autoplay automatically plays videos for users without any affirmative acts by the user, i.e., no clicking of a link or selecting the next video to play, and is thus relevant to Plaintiffs’ claim that YouTube actively participates in copyright infringement and Defendants’ safe harbor defense under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (‘DMCA’), 17 U.S.C. § 512,” the letter reads.

 

“AutoPlay’s functionality establishes that YouTube algorithmically selects and controls a substantial portion of the views on its platform, including views of content that infringe on Plaintiffs’ and the putative class’s copyrights.”

 

The plaintiffs say that the ‘Autoplay’ documents are relevant to their direct, inducement, contributory, and vicarious infringement claims because they will show that when YouTube “actively selects and displays infringing videos”, the platform is more than a passive participant and benefits from the dissemination of infringing content.

 

The safe harbor provision of the DMCA requires a service provider to show that it does not “receive a financial benefit directly attributable to the infringing activity” in cases where the service provider “has the right and ability to control such activity.”

 

The plaintiffs assert that since YouTube’s Autoplay has the ability to play infringing content, the “right and ability to control” aspect is established. Autoplay generates revenue for YouTube, so it “receives a financial benefit” too.

 

“The requested documents will thus show both Defendants’ participation in and control over infringing content on the YouTube platform and the extent to which Autoplay has financially benefitted YouTube through its advertising revenues,” the letter adds.

Discovery Dispute Hinged on a Single Word

According to the plaintiffs, an agreement was reached with YouTube for it to produce documents sufficient to show its policies concerning Autoplay, “including changes and proposed changes to Autoplay policies concerning copyright and revenue considerations.” (emphasis in original).

 

They state that several months later YouTube reneged on the agreement, claiming that it had agreed to produce documents concerning changes to policies only to the extent that such changes were driven by copyright or revenue considerations, if any. On these terms, YouTube reported that it had failed to locate any such documents so could not produce them.

 

“In short, Defendants are wrongfully withholding documents that are undisputedly relevant to both Plaintiffs’ infringement claims and Defendants’ failure to qualify for DMCA safe harbor,” the letter concludes.

 

Plaintiffs’ letter to the court can be found here (pdf)

 

While many new pirate sites have a profit motive right from the start, simply getting a service up and running can be fun challenge for those with the right skills.

 

For operators with disposable income, a free-to-use site can offer all kinds of rewards other than money.

 

Building a community, meeting new friends, and doing something a little unusual can all yield rewards that money can’t buy. But the reality for most is that money doesn’t grow on trees and adulation from fans doesn’t pay website bills.

AnimeKisa – An Impractical Success Story

AnimeKisa’s domain appeared late 2018 but it took many months before it gained traction. Offering anime, Japanese animated productions that everyone seems to crave these days, the site then began to grow, with the earliest records from the Wayback Machine indicating that AnimeKisa sought to fund itself through donations.

 

“Help to keep us running Ad-Free,” the old text read, indicating a target of $150 per month and donations thus far of $60.

 

Whether that monthly target was ever reached or exceeded is unknown but in common with many similar platforms, advertising was later added to the site. In many cases, ads are enough to keep a site alive but at some point it became clear that AnimeKisa’s users would prefer not to see lots of ads, if any at all.

 

It’s a conundrum faced by many pirate sites. Despite having relatively minimal costs, sites need to generate at least some money. Since most pirates (being pirates) prefer not to pay to access ‘free’ content, advertising becomes part of the business model. But pirates tend not to like adverts either so they either block them or put pressure on sites to have them removed.

AnimeKisa Removes Advertising

According to an AnimeKisa announcement this week, it removed most ads about 18 months ago. Traffic estimates from SimilarWeb show a site in good health, with between 18 to 21 million visits per month in 2022 and a popular sub-Reddit and Discord channel for discussion. None of that could force people to donate, however.

 

“If you’ve been here since a few months ago, you probably remember us running a donation campaign. Ever since we removed ads a year and half ago (excluding third-party ones that are impossible to remove), AK’s wallet dried up, thanks to your donations we were able to extend AKs life for a few months,” the announcement reads.

 

“It has been 3 long years, it was great while it lasted, but AnimeKisa is never coming back online.”

 

The shutdown of the site appears to be controlled. Although it cannot be discounted, there is no mention of external pressure as a factor in AnimeKisa’s closure. Of course, complaints from copyright holders are a fact of life for pirate sites and AnimeKisa was no exception.

 

Over the past few months alone, entities including MX International, VIZ Media, FUNimation, Aniplex, Madman Entertainment, and Toei have all filed DMCA takedown notices with Google and will probably continue to send them, even after the platform’s demise.

AnimeKisa Clones Are Not Advised

People searching for the AnimeKisa brand on Google will find no shortage of sites with the same name but AnimeKisa’s operators advise people against using them.

 

“Copycats of AnimeKisa are out there, they are frequently infested with the worse type ads [sic]. AnimeKisa may be shutting down, but do not use bottom of the barrel copycat websites as there are much better alternatives,” they note, listing a few alternatives as much better options.

 

The ads deployed by “bottom of the barrel” pirate sites allow them to stay online but that can indeed be to the detriment of users. Ads can be blocked in many cases, of course, but that leads to less money for their operators and a decreased desire to keep them going, if at all.

 

It’s a problem that has no simple solution so will remain part of the piracy conundrum. Even when content is ‘free’, websites cost money to run.

 

People being free to share and access ideas, knowledge and opinions with their peers is a universally accepted standard for the entire human race. The big problem is that the definition of ‘free’ differs widely and is often defined by the few, not the many.

 

In online terms, true freedom is already under threat. As governments take more control over ‘their’ parts of the internet, citizens are informed that this is for the greater good, to keep their families safe and economies strong. Giving up small freedoms here….and a few others over there….are presented as insignificant sacrifices hardly worth our attention.

 

However, once these systems are in place, governments can use them to ‘protect’ citizens from dissenting opinions, unpalatable news, whistleblowing, and our ability to absorb all information, thereby reaching educated conclusions of our own. Early adopters of VPNs recognized this years ago, and as more people retain choice by using them, some governments are calling for VPNs to be restricted or even banned.

Calls for VPN Ban in India

In common with many countries worldwide, India has introduced laws to render illegal certain types of content online. It blocks thousands of websites due to copyright infringement and pornography, for example, but is now engaged in censorship to suppress political opposition in the name of national security. It even threatened to put Twitter executives in prison for refusing to censor opponents.

 

Due to the increased security and anonymity they provide, good VPN services with high standards enable people to absorb and impart information more freely. They are not a silver bullet but can be considered as part of a toolkit to unfilter internet access and restore freedoms. As a result, India’s government (and more besides) view them as a threat.

 

Last year a Parliamentary Standing Committee called for a total ban on VPNs, advising that they allow criminals to be anonymous online. The Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology was urged to force ISPs to block these encryption tools and increase online surveillance to clear any remnants.

 

While the government didn’t respond with a full ban, new directions to India’s IT sector reveal that if VPNs are to stay, the authorities will have the power to identify their users.

Security Measures for a “Safe & Trusted Internet”

The Indian Computer Emergency Response Team (CERT-In) serves as the national agency for online security. It analyzes cyber threats and can obtain logging information from service providers, intermediaries, data centers and corporate bodies. After identifying gaps in its ability to analyze ‘incidents’, CERT-In recently issued directions to companies providing internet services designed to ensure a “safe & trusted Internet” in the country.

 

While the directions focus on improved responses to security incidents, Indian authorities have also ordered all service providers, intermediaries, and data centers to enable and maintain logs. These must contain 180 days of event logging and be maintained within Indian jurisdiction for straightforward access. For other service providers the requirements are even tougher.

VPN Providers Cannot Be Anonymous, Must Carry Logs

Although caveats apply (and vary between providers), a good VPN service should be able to offer enhanced or even complete anonymity to users. Many do this, at least in part, by not carrying logs that can link a specific user to any IP address at any given time. India’s directions are designed to thwart this business model.

 

All VPN services, data centers, VPS (virtual private server) providers, and cloud services must store a laundry list of information and logs for at least five years, longer if the government chooses to change the law. The rules apply to all of the above services, but given the nature of VPN services as censorship-busting anonymity tools, they appear to be the hardest hit.

 

An email address is often sufficient when a customer signs up for a VPN service. In future, VPN providers in India will be required to obtain a customer’s real name, address, and phone number. All information provided must be validated as accurate.

 

Providers will also be required to record the user’s email address, IP address and timestamp used at the time of registration and obtain a statement of intent from the subscriber, i.e a description of what the VPN will be used for.

 

The ‘period of hire’ (times and dates) must also be logged to include every IP address allocated to and used by customers. All service providers must synchronize their clocks with specified NTP servers for uniform accuracy across the industry.

Implications for VPN Providers and Users

The full implications will become clearer over time, but the directions seem to impact VPN providers in India and, to a lesser extent, those based overseas operating servers in India.

 

Pervasive logging throughout the entire system translates to a generally hostile environment for anonymity so after consideration, some providers may be less keen to do business locally. Especially given that prison sentences are available for non-compliance.

 

The directions can be found here (pdf)

 

Despite the growing availability of legal options, online piracy remains rampant. Every day pirate sites and services are used by millions of people worldwide.

 

New data released by the UK-based piracy tracking company MUSO shows that pirate sites remain very relevant. And people have no trouble finding them either.

 

In fact, traffic to these sites is booming. During the first quarter of 2022, pirate site visits increased by more than 29% compared to a year earlier, which is good for a dazzling 52.5 billion visits.

 

Nearly half of this traffic (48%) goes to TV-related content. The publishing category takes second spot with 27%, followed by the film (12%), music (7%), and software (6%) categories.

 

The traffic increase is noticeable across all types of piracy but the publishing category stands out. Compared to the first quarter of 2021, the number of visits in this category has grown explosively. Software piracy is lagging behind, but the category still continues to grow.

 

The strong growth in the publishing category is largely driven by manga, comics or graphic novels originating from Japan. Some of the pirate sites dedicated to this ‘niche’, such as Manganato.com, attract well over 100 million ‘visits’ per month. That’s more than iconic pirate sites such as The Pirate Bay and Fmovies.to.

America First

The United States is the country that sends most visitors to pirate sites. With well over 5.7 billion ‘visits’ in the first three months of the year, the U.S. is good for more than 10% of all piracy traffic. With a 39% increase compared to last year, pirate audience growth exceeds the global average.

 

Russia and India follow at a respectable distance with just over 3 billion visits to pirate sites, followed by China and France, with 1.8 and 1.7 billion visits, respectively.

 

There is no single explanation for the apparent piracy boom. However, MUSO sees the upward trend as an alarming signal and expects that the ‘streaming wars’ and growing subscription fatigue may play a role.

 

“The continued and marked increase in piracy visits is alarming reading for the entertainment industries,” MUSO notes.

 

“MUSO would anticipate this trend to continue especially in the current climate of subscription wars for SVoD platforms combined with the economic squeeze and fast growing global inflation.”

 

With more and more subscription services and fragmentation in the entertainment industry, pirate site traffic isn’t likely to evaporate any time soon. Time will tell whether we will see yet another increase in traffic next year.

 

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

 

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

 

This week we have two new entries on the list. “The Batman” is the most downloaded title.

The most torrented movies for the week ending on May 02 are:

Movie Rank	Rank last week	Movie name	IMDb Rating / Trailer
Most downloaded movies via torrent sites
1	(2)	Uncharted	6.6 / trailer
2	(1)	The Batman	8.4 / trailer
3	(5)	Ambulance	6.3 / trailer
4	(3)	Spider-Man: No Way Home	8.6 / trailer
5	(…)	365 Days: This Day	2.6 / trailer
6	(6)	Moonfall	5.2 / trailer
7	(8)	Death on the Nile	6.5 / trailer
8	(10)	Dune	8.1 / trailer
9	(…)	Silverton Siege	5.9 / trailer
10	(back)	Turning Red	7.0 / trailer

 

 

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