TorrentFreak

Torrent site uploaders come in various shapes and sizes. Only a few become so popular that their ‘brand’ is widely recognized by online pirates.

COLLECTiVE falls into the latter category. The uploader operating under this tag, Will1869, shared many high-profile titles, mostly films. He purportedly operated as a one-man team.

These releases appeared on major torrent sites including 1337x and the recently defunct TorrentGalaxy. COLLECTiVE reportedly ran a small torrent portal, Laidbackmanor, where these releases often appeared first.

Unlike regular release groups, which are often the origin of leaks, Will1869 (as COLLECTiVE) typically sourced his releases from elsewhere. This included cams with embedded ads that were carefully stripped before they were shared further.

UK Police Arrest Will1869, Shut Down Laidbackmanor

For a long time, COLLECTiVE uploads appeared at a steady pace, but that changed at the end of last month, when they suddenly stopped. At the same time, the Laidbackmanor site was taken offline and redirected to a GoDaddy landing page.

In the immediate wake of these events, rumors started to spread that Will1869, a.k.a. COLLECTiVE, had been arrested. This was reported by several unconfirmed sources and corroborated by a message sent through his website hours before it disappeared.

PM sent to Laidbackmanor users

After reaching out to a trusted source, who asked to remain anonymous, we can now report that UK police arrested Will1869 at the end of April. He has since been released on bail but remains under investigation.

At this point, no further information on the case is available, but we are informed that additional details are expected to be released in due course. What is clear, however, is that the arrest effectively means the end for COLLECTiVE and the associated website.

Prominent Releases

It’s unknown how the authorities eventually pinpointed Will1869, but his operation under the COLLECTiVE tag has been a high-profile target for a while, as its releases have been downloaded through pirate sites many millions of times.

In January, COLLECTiVE made headlines when two Oscar-nominated screeners started to leak across various torrent sites. The most popular releases were tagged by COLLECTiVE but Will1869 wasn’t the original source. Instead, the leaks were obtained elsewhere on the open web.

COLLECTiVE’s Nickel Boys release

These pass-through releases were typical of how COLLECTiVE operated. Instead of ripping content directly, Will1869 picked up other releases which, after some ‘improvements’, were uploaded to the public.

The arrest of Will1869 by UK police effectively puts an end to this stream of uploads.

From: TF, for the latest news on copyright battles, piracy and more.

From TorrentFreak via this RSS feed

After a decade of focusing on efforts overseas, the push for website blocking has landed back on American shores.

Domestic site blocking initiatives were shelved for over a decade in the U.S. following the SOPA backlash, but that hesitation appears to have evaporated.

With Representative Zoe Lofgren’s introduction of the Foreign Anti-Digital Piracy Act (FADPA) in February, the controversial mechanism of court-ordered blocking against foreign ‘pirate’ sites is no longer just a foreign issue. On the contrary, with more than one bill in the making, lawmakers and stakeholders are actively fleshing out the details.

MPA Spotlights Site Blocking at Senate Hearing

Thus far, most of the work on these site blocking agreements has taken place behind closed doors. We know that ISPs are involved but none have commented on the matter in public. The same is true for rightsholders who, after the massive SOPA revolt, prefer private negotiations over demands in the public spotlight.

As a pioneer of site blocking efforts around the globe, it’s no secret that the Motion Picture Association (MPA) is in favor. And indeed, at a recent hearing at the Senate Subcommittee on Intellectual Property, the MPA’s Karyn Temple reiterated the need for a U.S. site-blocking system.

The MPA’s Senior Executive Vice President explained that pirate sites generate billions of visits a year by ‘stealing’ American films and TV series. These sites are not simple hobby projects, but commercial operations run by criminal groups from foreign countries.

“They are run not by individual teens in someone’s basement, but by sophisticated foreign criminal organizations who are involved in the most heinous criminal behavior you can imagine,” Temple said.

“And they are specifically designed to target American citizens, your constituents, for their personal and financial data and to expose them to malware and identity theft,”

American consumers are specifically targeted by these sites because they are lucrative victims, Temple said. Additionally, it is of course convenient that sites are not blocked in the U.S., unlike in 55 other countries, where blocking remedies are available.

ISPs Seek Retroactive Immunity

The MPA’s testimony offers little fresh news. The group has shared similar views for several years now but this time around, it appears that progress is actually being made, albeit behind the scenes.

Democratic Senator Chris Coons, the recent recipient of an MPA Industry Champion Award, shared some new information during the hearing. He noted that “real progress” appears to have been made, while also identifying a previously undisclosed roadblock.

Discussions on potential site blocking legislation are taking place alongside a request from ISPs for both prospective and retrospective immunity. That basically boils down to a demand for an exemption on piracy liability, regardless of when any infringement took place.

“It finally feels like we’re making some real progress here on site blocking after years. One of the key roadblocks to getting a final deal is whether ISPs should benefit from immunity, both prospectively and retrospectively,” Senator Coons said.

Senator Coons

When asked to comment on the ISPs’ request, the MPA replied that this shouldn’t be much of a problem, as the immunity issue never led to any legal claims in other countries.

“ISPs have not routinely been sued for enforcing site blocking regimes. So, you know, I think in our experience, we don’t think that this is a provision that is necessary at all,” Temple replied.

U.S. Liability Lawsuits Against ISPs

Temple is right that site blocking schemes haven’t triggered a wave of lawsuits abroad, but the ISPs may have another interest in retrospective immunity when it comes to piracy liability.

While details of their exact demands are unknown, it seems plausible that ISPs are seeking to limit the existing piracy liability lawsuits, where providers are sued for not taking appropriate action against repeat infringers.

These lawsuits involve many prominent ISPs, including Verizon and Cox. The latter was previously held liable for a billion dollars in damages and the ISP recently appealed to the Supreme Court to take on the matter.

With these cases in mind, it’s understandable that ISPs would like to make sure that, if new legislation passes, they wouldn’t find themselves worse off from a liability perspective.

Finish Line in Sight?

Unfortunately, none of these site blocking ‘deal’ discussions between stakeholders are taking place in public. So, for now, we have to make do with the snippets that come out through hearings and other commentary.

That said, it’s starting to look like a U.S. site blocking scheme is closer to reality than ever before. At the hearing, Temple sounded confident that it could pass this session, which means a matter of months, not years.

“The MPA stands ready to work with you and all stakeholders to enact judicial site blocking this session. It’s time, finally, to get this legislation over the finish line,” Temple said.

—

The full video of the hearing of the U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary’s subcommittee on Intellectual Property that took place last week is available here.

From: TF, for the latest news on copyright battles, piracy and more.

From TorrentFreak via this RSS feed

Rampant piracy of live sporting events has been a hot topic in Europe for several years. Anti-piracy measures against relatively static targets have their place but preventing access to pirated live streams is much more difficult.

After calling for assistance from the European Commission, many rightsholders are hoping for new legislation to hold intermediaries more accountable. Until then, most sport-linked rightsholders continue to rely on site blocking measures.

After years of fine-tuning, courts all over Europe understand the process well and most appreciate the difficulties faced by rightsholders. Cases are commonly assessed to ensure that injunctive relief is warranted, measures requested are proportionate, and any negative effects on non-infringing third parties will be as low as practically possible.

LaLiga / Telefonica Order: Massive Overblocking

Sysadmin @jaumepons has been crunching data concerning a blocking order previously obtained by LaLiga and Telefonica to block 119 streaming sites. It was granted on the basis there would be no negative effects on internet users, but in February it became clear that hundreds, potentially thousands of innocent sites and users, were being blocked at the same time.

Appeals by Cloudflare and cybersecurity group RootedCON were dismissed by the issuing court; @jaumepons’ latest estimates published on Friday suggests those decisions came at a price.

LaLiga insists that its blocking is not indiscriminate and any overblocking is minimal. Unfortunately, even if the 2.7 million estimate was slashed to just 270, blocking two legal domains for every pirate domain isn’t proportionate and the harm inflicted is likely to be significant.

RootedCON Appeals to Constitutional Court

RootedCON previously stated it wouldn’t just stand by if nothing was done to protect internet users. With a complaint filed at Spain’s Constitutional Court, it is now making good on its word.

“At RootedCON, after 15 years promoting freedom, innovation, and critical thinking in the field of cybersecurity, we cannot stand idly by in the face of this outrage,” their statement reads.

“The measures adopted, lacking transparency, proportionality, and adequate safeguards, represent an extremely dangerous precedent for citizens’ digital rights and the Spanish technological ecosystem. We urge La Liga, the operators involved, and the judiciary to reflect on the serious impact of these types of decisions, which are more similar to the practices of authoritarian regimes of the last century than those of a modern, forward-looking democracy.”

Despite the serious nature of the ongoing controversy, until now it has generally lacked a political dimension.

The Spanish government’s only comment thus far (“We respect judicial decisions”) meets the standard every democratically elected government should strive for. The fly in the ointment is that the injunction was granted on the basis it would do no harm to third parties. As RootedCON suggests, momentum is building regardless.

“[I]n our appeal to the Constitutional Court, we request precautionary measures to curb the constant harassment suffered by both companies and users in our country, and we demand a public and technical debate in the Congress of Deputies on the limits of online control, following the initiative recently proposed by Representative Néstor Rego,” the statement concludes.

Politics Enters the Equation

Néstor Rego is a politician and a member of the Congress of Deputies of Spain. He’s the leader of the Galician Nationalist Bloc and in a statement posted to the party’s website, he calls on the government to “put a stop to the abusive and uncontrolled practices.”

“The State Government must take action on the matter given the repeated blocking of thousands of web pages because, if it does not do so, it implies an abandonment of its functions, leaving them in private hands that act for their own benefit and without control,” Rego says.

“[I]t is incomprehensible that private companies can block websites. The judicial authorization is absurd at this point, but it is not even respected, because that authorization establishes that no harm can be caused to third parties, and yes it is happening. The indiscriminate blocking by LaLiga and Movistar implies a violation of the rights of users and that is why the Government must act.”

LaLiga Responds to Complaints

During the last couple of weeks, momentum has noticeably increased among those who oppose blocking for the collateral damage it causes. Among them is José Luis Porquicho Prada, a journalist working at local news outlet Cádiz Directo.

On May 18, Prada published an article titled LaLiga blocks Cádiz Directo without evidence in its uncontrolled anti-piracy crusade, which revealed that LaLiga had started blocking cadizdirecto.com for no apparent reason. Prada reported that LaLiga was initially unresponsive so he was unable to explain that a mistake had been made.

“[C]ompletely innocent media outlets are being held accountable, without due process, without the right to defense, and without a shred of evidence. Fundamental rights enshrined in Article 24 of the Spanish Constitution, which guarantees effective judicial protection and the right to defense, are being violated,” Prada wrote as part of a polite but withering diatribe on recent events.

Response Perceived as Threatening – Then Bewildering

Late last week Prada revealed that he’d received a response via burofax, a type of secure postal service. He claims that the correspondence was presented in a “markedly threatening tone and lacking any willingness to resolve the conflict.”

Prada says it was signed by none other than LaLiga president Javier Tebas, who advised that cadizdirecto.com had been blocked because it is “hosted on an IP addresses from which intellectual property rights are repeatedly violated.”

Prada clarified that the site uses a CDN and then revealed what LaLiga expected from him. Translated from Spanish (original here), Prada explained as follows:

It transpires that Prada wasn’t the only journalist to receive similar correspondence. Political analysis outlet El Orden Mundial was also provided with legal advice.

Posting on X, El Orden Mundial director Fernando Arancón spoke of “the barbarity that is being carried out by @LaLiga with the support of the judiciary,” before suddenly adopting a “something’s coming” tone.

“[LaLiga] have lost their way and are going to eat a Streisand textbook,” Arancón predicted.

Update: Statement from LaLiga

At LALIGA, as always, we respect and comply with the legal system. And, as it could not be otherwise, we respect the decision to file an appeal for constitutional protection before the Constitutional Court. An appeal that was already announced several weeks ago and still needs to pass the admissibility phase.

It is worth recalling that, already last March, the Commercial Court No. 6 of Barcelona fully dismissed the requests for annulment filed by Cloudflare and RootedCON, among others, against the final ruling issued on 18 December 2024, finding no violation of any fundamental rights. That decision reaffirmed that the legal action taken was in accordance with the law and is supported by the current legislation on intellectual property and information society services.

Furthermore, the court order validated the procedural legality of the case, explicitly declaring that there was no “lack of guarantees” and stating that “none of the arguments put forward by the various petitioners demonstrate any actual harm, nor is any such harm identified, quantified, or supported by any proposed evidence intended to directly or indirectly establish damage as a constituent element of the claim for annulment.”

The judicial ruling is fully reasoned and lawful, and also makes it clear that the petitioners lacked standing to invoke the rights they claimed to hold.

LALIGA remains steadfast in its commitment to combating audiovisual fraud in order to protect the audiovisual rights of the competition, its sustainability and that of the football clubs, as well as the broader sports and entertainment industry.

From: TF, for the latest news on copyright battles, piracy and more.

From TorrentFreak via this RSS feed

Strike 3 Holdings is a familiar name in U.S. federal courts. As the most prolific copyright litigant, the adult entertainment company has filed over 15,000 lawsuits in federal courts.

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

Many of these cases result in private settlements and are never heard from again. Occasionally, however, a defendant decides to push back, arguing their innocence before the court. This includes defendant John R., who was sued in a Florida court last year.

‘Thousands of Pirate Downloads’

The case started as a ‘John Doe’ lawsuit, but after an IP address was linked to a Comcast account, the defendant was named. In an amended complaint, Strike 3 accused the man of sharing 25 of its copyrighted works via BitTorrent.

The complaint alleged that Strike 3’s “VXN Scan” detection software was able to download pieces of these pirated files from the IP address. In addition, the same IP address was linked to thousands of other infringements.

“Plaintiff’s Additional Evidence indicates that IP address 73.107.181.65 was used to download and distribute at least 5,595 files relating to other adult movies and mainstream media using the BitTorrent protocol during the period of infringement,” the complaint reads.

The ‘additional’ pirated files include many Star Wars related titles, a Minion movie, a Grey’s Anatomy episode, as well as albums with Halloween hits. Strike 3 doesn’t hold the rights to any of this media, but it uses the alleged downloads as circumstantial evidence to argue that the right person was identified.

Social Media Likes

Strike 3 notes that these frequent and prolonged downloads suggest that the defendant was unlikely a houseguest or passer-by. Instead, the company points out that defendant’s public social media activity “indicates strong matches” between his interests and the observed downloads.

“Defendant’s publicly available social media indicates that Defendant is a fan of Star Wars,” Strike 3 writes, adding that he is also a ‘fan’ of Minions, Grey’s Anatomy, and Halloween.

From the amended complaint

Based on these findings, Strike 3 is convinced that it identified the right defendant. However, John R. disagrees and asked the court to dismiss the case, noting that the allegations are mere speculation.

Defendant Wants Case Dismissed

The defense attorney characterized Strike 3’s evidence as an “imaginary bridge from one thought to another.” While the defendant’s social media likes may be accurate, they represent only 0.45% of the 5,595 downloads that were flagged in total.

The defense notes that this circumstantial evidence is weak, adding that there is no evidence that John R.’s devices were used to download any of the tracked files. Also, there are more people who like Halloween or the Minions.

“Therefore, all of the circumstantial evidence provided merely demonstrates a sheer possibility while there are other equally weak possibilities- like the Defendant’s wife or neighbors may like Minions, Star Wars, and Halloween,” the motion to dismiss reads.

Court: Likes Are Evidence, Case Continues

After reviewing the positions of both sides, District Court Judge Sheri Polster Chappell eventually sided with Strike 3, suggesting that the social media likes have some value at this stage of the case.

“Sure enough, Defendant’s social media shows he is a fan of Star Wars, Minions, Grey’s Anatomy, and Halloween,” the order reads, noting that this is more than mere speculation.

The order heavily cites existing jurisprudence, noting that social media interests can be used as evidence to match a defendant’s identity to BitTorrent activity. This doesn’t necessarily mean that the defendant can’t be innocent, but it’s sufficient for the case to survive a motion to dismiss.

Motion Denied

As shown above, this means the case will move forward. The defendant is instructed to file a formal answer to the complaint by the end of the month. After that, the discovery phase will start, or alternatively, potential settlement discussions.

—

A copy of Judge Sheri Polster Chappell’s order and opinion is available here (pdf)

From: TF, for the latest news on copyright battles, piracy and more.

From TorrentFreak via this RSS feed

The US Copyright Claims Board launched in 2022. Through this Copyright Office-hosted venue, rightsholders can claim damages outside the federal court system.

The board, instituted through the CASE Act, aims to make it cheaper for creators to resolve disputes. There’s no attorney required and the filing fee is limited to $100 per claim. The potential damages are capped at $30,000 and those who prefer traditional lawsuits can choose to opt-out.

Many rightsholders and related groups backed the creation of a small claims board, noting that this would help resolve copyright disputes without having to file expensive federal lawsuits. Opponents, however, feared that it could be abused by trolls and other frivolous claimants.

Now that nearly three years have passed, the Copyright Office is working on a formal review of the board’s accomplishments. In a request for comments, it asked members of the public to chime in on CCB’s effectiveness and future.

Watchdog Groups Flag CCB Problems

In response to this request, a coalition of groups including Re:Create, the American Library Association, the Association of Research Libraries, R Street, and Engine, filed a critical response. The same groups also objected to the CASE Act and warned about potential abuse by trolls.

While there hasn’t been any sign of systematic abuse of the board, the group flagged various other shortcomings. In a detailed submission, they note that the CCB costs taxpayers millions, while relatively few cases reach a final decision.

According to the groups’ analysis, the CCB has spent approximately $5.4 million in its first years of operation, while only about $75,000 has been awarded to claiming copyright holders through its decisions.

With well over 1,200 complaints, there has been no shortage of claims. However, most of these end up being dismissed and thus far the board has only reached final determinations in 35 cases, awarding little over $2,000 in damages on average.

“American taxpayers have spent around $5,500 per case to reject hundreds of frivolous claims, adjudicate the remaining 3.5%, and issue opinions awarding damages that on average amount to less than half the cost of processing the claim,” the submission states.

Claims filed

High Dismissal Rate

Aside from the money, the high dismissal rate also stands out. The board’s own statistics show that, of the 964 cases that were dismissed, 470 were deemed to be noncompliant. That includes many cases where filers failed to amend their claims upon the CCB’s request.

Another 187 claims were dismissed because no valid proof of service was filed. In 114 instances the respondent chose to opt out, while 99 claims were settled without the board’s involvement.

How claims are resolved

The groups describe the CCB as “mostly churning through non-compliant claims,” and suggest the $40 initial filing fee is too low to screen out potentially frivolous claims.

“The $40 filing fee is not high enough to deter frivolous claims. Hundreds of non-compliant claims are filed each year by claimants who disappear after a CCB Staff Attorney spends substantial time evaluating the claim and preparing a detailed Order to Amend,” the submission reads.

Concerning Number of Defaults

The groups also expressed alarm over the high proportion of default judgments. Their filing indicates that 60% of the CCB’s final determinations were default judgments, where the respondent did not participate.

This rate is dramatically higher than the typical 7% default rate for copyright cases in federal court. This could signal that the public is not familiar with the opt-out procedure yet and that they don’t understand the consequences.

In one of these cases, respondent Angel Jameson shared her “disbelief that the Board is a government tribunal” after missing the opt-out deadline. Despite her objections, the CCB awarded the claimant $4,500 in damages, rejecting a request to vacate the default judgment.

“The Jameson case suggests that it is possible for respondents to fail to opt out due to mistrust and misunderstanding of the CCB process,” the groups write.

Repeal?

Given these significant operational concerns, the coalition argues strongly against expanding the CCB’s jurisdiction or powers at this time. This would include the suggestion to enable the board to grant subpoenas.

“There is no reason to consider adding to the CCB’s docket or to its powers until it can be established that the CCB is capable of accomplishing its initial mandate,” they note.

“At present, the CCB appears to be drowning in frivolous claims, handing out a handful of default judgments to facially valid claims with only one party present, and slowly grinding away at a handful of disputed claims.”

If these concerns remain, or get worse, it may be best that Congress abolish the small claims board in its entirety, the coalition concludes.

“If these trends continue, Congress should consider repealing the CASE Act.”

—

A copy of the submission submitted by Re:Create, the Association of Research Libraries, Engine, R Street Institute, and the American Library Association is available here (pdf). Other submissions, including ones who view the CCB as more favorable, can be found here.

From: TF, for the latest news on copyright battles, piracy and more.

From TorrentFreak via this RSS feed

Article L. 333-10 of the French Sport Code enables rightsholders to request blocking measures against named pirate sites if they can demonstrate “serious and repeated infringement” of their exploitation rights.

To prevent pirate sites from being accessed on French soil, rightsholders may request that “all proportionate measures” are implemented by any online entity in a position to help. The scope of Article L. 333-10 was always meant to be broad.

The first logical targets were local ISPs which easily fell within scope. Then, when inevitable circumvention raised its head, utilizing infrastructure beyond the reach of regular ISPs, Article L. 333-10 already had that covered.

Following a Canal+ complaint, use of third party DNS resolvers at Cloudflare and Google headed to court in 2024. Both were labeled intermediaries by the Court, and under the still unstressed scope of Article L. 333-10, both were considered capable of contributing to the suppression of piracy.

Canal+ / LFP Target Major VPN Providers

Having effectively added public DNS resolvers to the French blocking machine, attention turned to the next targets. In February 2025, it emerged that Groupe Canal + and Société d’édition de Canal Plus (SECP) had filed a case in November 2024 against NordVPN, CyberGhost, ProtonVPN, ExpressVPN, and Surfshark.

The Canal companies alleged that “numerous” websites, accessible from within France, illegally streamed matches from various sporting competitions to which they hold the rights.

Since the VPNs’ subscribers were among those viewing the infringing streams, the Canal companies asked the court to compel the providers to implement “all measures likely to prevent access [to the illegal streams] from French territory,” including in all French overseas territories, “by any effective means”.

The VPN providers objected to the application on various grounds. Nord and Surfshark requested a declaration that the Canal companies lacked standing to act; as such, their application should be declared inadmissible. Proton sought a similar declaration while noting that the company lacked the ability to defend the requested blocking measures. The same assertion was made by CyberGhost and Express; all argued that Article L. 333-10 does not apply to VPN providers.

Other objections concerned jurisdiction and whether French law is compatible with EU legislation. CyberGhost and Express suggested a stay of proceedings pending a response from the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) in the Dutch case, AFS et al.

Court Rejects VPN Providers’ Objections

In its decision published Thursday, the Court found that matters concerning the CJEU would have no impact on the current case. Calls for the Canal companies’ application to be declared inadmissible due to a lack of standing, were also dismissed, while a review of the allocation of rights pertaining to the various sports competitions raised no concerns.

Arguments that the VPN providers had no standing to defend themselves, due to Article L. 333-10 of the French Sports Code being inapplicable to VPN providers, fared no better.

The court notes that Article L.333-10 does not impose any restrictions on the targeted entity, adding that VPN providers are expressly covered under the Digital Services Act.

“Blocking such a service for certain domain names means that the provider of this service prevents its users from accessing the disputed domain names when using their VPN tool. Internet users using these virtual private networks would therefore no longer be able to access the disputed sites through this intermediary,” the decision reads.

“Consequently, the defendant companies, in their capacity as providers of virtual private network services, are technical intermediaries capable of contributing to remedying the harm that Groupe Canal+, SECP and Canal+ Rights claim to have suffered.”

Blocking Order Issued

The Court’s instructions and the full list of domains can be found below.

[The Court] orders the companies Cyberghost LLC, Cyberghost Srl, Expressco services, Express technologies, Nordvpn (Netherlands), Nordvpn (Republic of Panama), Surfshark Bv, Surfshark Ltd and Proton to implement, at the latest within three days following notification of this decision, all measures necessary to prevent, until the date of the last match of the championship of the Premier League for the 2024/2025 season, currently set for May 25, 2025, access to the websites and IPTV services identified [below] as well as to the IPTV sites and services not yet identified on the date of this decision, from French territory, including in the overseas communities, departments and regions, and/or by their users based on a contract taken out in this territory, by any effective means, and in particular by blocking the following domain names and associated subdomains…..

The cost of blocking will be shared between the parties, with the details to be agreed at a later date. A request by the plaintiffs to compel the VPN providers to publish details of the case on their homepages for publicity purposes, was described as “inappropriate” and rejected by the Court.

The decision reveals that many of the domain names submitted by Canal for blocking, are already subject to blocking measures by French ISPs following notification by telecoms regulator ARCOM. Familiar brands include Footy Bite, Cric HD, Buffstreams, Futbollibre, Rojadirecta, and Crackstreams, among dozens of others. In these cases widespread piracy has already been established, but it appears that in-depth proof of infringement may not be a hard requirement.

“Since the burden of proof should not be unnecessarily complex and costly, the court cannot require the claimants to demonstrate access to the disputed IPTV sites and services by using each of the defendants’ virtual private networks, just as it does not request findings by using each of the internet service providers’ networks when a blocking is requested of them on the basis of Article L. 333-10 of the Sports Code,” the court notes.

Had comprehensive checks been carried out, questions may have been raised over the need to block pirate domains previously seized by the Alliance for Creativity and Entertainment.

Other domains from the Canal+ list below were seized by ACE during the last few days, so blocking those domains will be unnecessary too.

The decision of the Court of Paris is available here (pdf, French)

aliezstream.pro antenasport.shop antenasports.ru antenasports.shop antenatv.online antenatv.store antennasport.ru asportv.shop livetv802.me toparena.store emb.ap1357.me embx224539.ap1357.me 1.qwebplay.xyz livetv807.me cdn.livetv807.me boxtv60.com infinity-ott.com vbnl23.com footy-bite.com freesportstime.com livestreamlinks.cc crichdplayer.com crichd.sc crichd.mobi crichd.sx crichd.tv me.crichd.tv nbabite.to reddit.nbabite.to s2watch.link soccerinhd.com sportlemons.to sports-prime.com topevents.us buffsports.me buffstreams.sx vipbox.sx vipbox.bz freestreams-live.top alkooratv.onlinekora-tv.com onlinekora-tv.com futbollibre.ws kooracity.cc ok.tvkora-online.com tvkora-online.com pirlotv.football ramsportl .com roja.football rojadirectaenvivo.life rojadirectaenvivo.site rojadirectatv.at rojadirectatv.la rojadirectaz.top rojadiretta.me soccerlive.app thesport.live futbollibre.ws hesgoal.watch hesgoall .net librefutbol.su myp2p.tv myp2ptv.org myp2px.xyz partidosenvivo.gratis pirlotvenhd.org rojadirecta.org.pl rojadirectaenhd.live rojadirectaenhd.net rojadirectaenvivo.com rojadirectaenvivo.watch rojadirecta.tv rojadirectas.org rojadirectatv.at rojadirectatv.top rojadirectatvhd.site rojadirectatvs.com soccerstreams.cc soccerstreams.unblockedstream.online streameast.soccer tarjetarojaonline.org tarjetarojatv.run totalsportek.one totalsportk.org viperplay.net viperplay.online viperplayhd.com vipleague.app vipleagues.org vip-league.net livetv806.me rojadirectahdenvivo.com streamsthunder.tv rojadirectenvivo.me methstreams.me antenasports.ru asportv.shop toparena.store Ishunter.net tv1337.buzz livetv.sx sporttuna.pro livetv807.me embx224539.ap1366.me cdn.livetv807.me locatedinfain.com tvhd.tutvlive.info stream-24.net speci41eagle.com vl.methstreams.me klubsports.fun weblivehdplay.ru buddycenters.shop olalivehdplay.ru 1 qwebplay.xyz sporttvls.com eur02024direct.ru librarywhispering.com cdn.livetv808.me watch.sporttuna.pro sporttuna.sx sporttuna.online lewblivehdplay.ru viwlivehdplay.ru r365.city fmytv.com yalla-shootv.live sportlemo.net sportlemon.be antenasport.site sportlemons.tv directatvhd.me sportlemon.info koora365.io sport365.live live.esportivos.one sportlemonx.com mip2p.top bein-live.tv yalla-shoot.fun sportlemone.top sportlemont.org thedaddy.to abbasport.site h5.365streams.world stad.yallashoot.vip crickfree.org drakulatv.eu sportlemon.net footdirect.ru hdmatch.link livehd7i.live noblockaabbdd-xcktb.xyz sportp2p.com crichd.info crichd-player.top crichd. to telerium.lol rojatv.tv mundialqatar2022tv.tv hesgoal.website redditsoccerstreams.one redditsoccerstreams.watch soccerbite.net hesgoal.one cricfree.be cricfree.me cricfree.pw crickfree.net cricfrees.com crackstreams.dev ronald07.me draculastream.org drakulastream.tv drakulastream.org drakulastream.xyz drakula.top drakula.stream elitegoltv.run firstrowl.xyz thesportsl.org livetv813.me sportp2p.com directatvhd.me Ishunter.net antenasport.shop antenasports.ru antenasports.shop ilovetoplay.xyz hoca2.com livetv814.me cdn.livetv814.me streamingon.org emb.ap1357.me livetv815.me cdn.livetv815.me noblockaabbdd-xcktb.xyz embx222304.ap1357.me tutvlive.info sporttvls.com quest4play.xyz antenasport.online wfzrbhp.luxevpn.xyz smart.lionsmart.cc

From: TF, for the latest news on copyright battles, piracy and more.

From TorrentFreak via this RSS feed

A few months ago, Italy paved the way to issue fines against subscribers of pirate IPTV services.

A memorandum of understanding between the Prosecutor’s Office, Guardia di Finanza, and AGCOM, established a “collaboration protocol” where information on IPTV users would be shared between agencies.

The source of this information wasn’t made immediately clear, but it’s likely that it applies to subscriber details obtained in IPTV raids that regularly take place in the country. These databases likely hold emails and other potentially identifiable information on (former) subscribers.

With these details in hand, authorities can now approach suspected offenders. Backed by a new anti-piracy law introduced in 2023, which enables fines of up to €5,000 for repeat offenders, no time was wasted warning IPTV pirates that their time had run out. This warning was more than a veiled threat, it now appears.

2,282 Subscribers Fined

At a press conference this week, the Guardia di Finanza announced the first concrete results of intensified anti-piracy actions targeting end-users. According to the police, 2,282 pirate IPTV users were targeted with fines across Italy.

Initial fines typically start at €154, but the authorities emphasize that these will increase to €5,000 if the same offenders are caught again.

These actions mark the first effective application of Law 93/2023 against end-users, not just operators. According to local press, the subscriber details are linked to an enforcement action in Lecce, where a large IPTV operation was dismantled last October.

The authorities have made it clear that this is not a one-off event. Activities are underway to identify other pirate IPTV subscribers and three other Prosecutors’ Offices have launched investigations to identify more targets.

Piracy & Politics

In addition to these fines, Law 93/2023 also established Italy’s Piracy Shield, a system that enables swift ISP blocking of unauthorized IPTV streams.

After its launch last year, Piracy Shield was heavily criticized by opponents, particularly for several overblocking errors. However, it remains in place today and is gradually being expanded and streamlined.

The legislation is in large part tailored towards stopping pirated live-streams of football broadcasts, which is a big deal in the country. What helps in this regard is that Senator Claudio Lotito, the author and rapporteur of the anti-piracy law, is also the owner of one of the largest Italian clubs; Lazio.

Commenting on the thousands of fines, Lotito notes that there is “no more joking around”, adding that those who cross the line will face personal and financial repercussions.

Italian Football Praises Fines

The Lazio owner is not the only football boss to welcome the news. Sky reports that Luigi De Siervo, CEO of the top league Serie A, warned that “no one who commits a crime of piracy in Italy can rest easy”.

Paolo Scaroni, president of AC Milan, stressed that the country already has some of the best anti-piracy laws; it is key to put these to use.

“We have an excellent law, but it needs to be enforced. Enforcing it means punishing those who provide piracy but also those who use and buy it,” Scaroni commented.

Finally, Inter president Beppe Marotta noted that it’s time to say ‘enough’ to piracy. Instead of asking the public to stop pirating, they should feel the consequences right away.

“This law, which was passed two years ago, is now prepared to address the priorities. Using a football metaphor: if before there was a yellow card, now there is a red card. The law will help rebalance revenues and give a boost to the movement.”

Whether these fines will indeed motivate people to start paying remains to be seen. Depending on the scale of the fines, recipients may have to save up before they can start paying for legal subscriptions.

From: TF, for the latest news on copyright battles, piracy and more.

From TorrentFreak via this RSS feed

In May last year, the Paris Judicial Court ordered Google, Cloudflare, and Cisco to block access to several pirate websites by effectively poisoning their DNS.

The order, requested by Canal+, compelled the tech giants to modify their resolvers or take measures that had that effect, to prevent users from accessing unauthorized sports streams.

In the months that followed, additional rightsholders such as DAZN and beIN joined in on the action with similar requests, while more DNS providers were added as targets, including Quad9 and Vercel. Transparency is limited, however, so it can be difficult to figure out who blocks what and why.

BeIN Seeks New DNS Blocking Order

This week, a new court order appeared on our radar which stands out for numerous reasons. The order was requested by a French sister company of Qatari multinational beIN and targets public DNS resolvers provided by Cloudflare, Google, and Quad9.

BeIN’s complaint alleges that the DNS services allow the public to resolve domain names linked to sports piracy. This includes unauthorized broadcasts of the Bundesliga and the WTA Tennis tournament, for which beIN claims to be the licensed rightsholder.

Domains listed: sporttvls.com, lshunter.net, premiertv.watch, line.super-signal.com, line.protv.cc, mrc10.in, streamendous.online, techydeals.online, braveo.tv, evdtv.app, and mypanel.be.

The legal paperwork is in many regards similar to that seen in previous applications; grounded in Article L. 333-10 of the French Sports Code, rightsholders are empowered to seek court orders against any entity that can help to stop ‘serious and repeated’ sports piracy.

Court Rejects Domain Blocks Citing Insufficient Proof

Previously, the Paris Judicial Court had few reservations regarding the infringing status of targeted domain names. In this case, however, several blocking requests were denied.

According to the court, beIN failed to provide sufficient proof to warrant a blocking order under Article L. 333-10 for alleged infringing activity on sporttvls.com, lshunter.net, premiertv.watch, streamendous.online, and techydeals.online.

Insufficient evidence

To grant the requested blocking measures, the court needed to see evidence of “grave and repeated” infringements of beIN’s neighboring rights by these specific domains. In this case, the provided evidence fell short.

No Logo, No Blocking

This doesn’t mean that the websites can’t be labeled pirate sites. In fact, two of the domains were previously blocked in France for grave and repeated copyright infringement. In this case, beIN appears to have shown the wrong streams in court.

BeIN is not the exclusive rightsholder for these sporting events. For the WTA, for example, DAZN obtained broadcasting rights from the tennis tournament, which sublicensed it to beIN for the French territory. Similarly, beIN also holds derived rights to broadcast the Bundesliga in France.

This means that beIN has neighboring rights and, according to the Paris court, needs to show that streams infringing its neighboring rights are shown by the alleged pirate sites. For example, by displaying a beIN logo.

That was not the case for all domains. For example, the infringement evidence for streamendous.online and techydeals.online included broadcasts with the DAZN logo, while some WTA streams did not include a logo at all. Therefore, the court deemed this proof to be insufficient.

Cloudflare and Google Pushed Back

The court’s decision to reject these blockades came after Google and Cloudflare objected. While many of their counterarguments were rejected by the court, both companies challenged beIN’s claim that it holds exclusive broadcast rights for these streams.

The court agreed with this objection. It found that beIN’s evidence was insufficient to definitively prove its exclusive exploitation rights for the WTA Tour and Bundesliga competitions.

BeIn was allowed to continue the case based on the neighboring rights it holds. Google subsequently argued that these were not sufficiently backed up by the evidence, as the logos (or lack thereof) revealed, which is ultimately why several blocking requests were denied.

Opposition

While neither Google nor Cloudflare will be pleased with the outcome, this case shows the importance of challenging blocking requests in court, although that’s not always feasible.

Quad9: DNS Blocks are Fundamentally Wrong

Quad9 was noticeably absent and General Manager Simon Forster informs us that his company didn’t make an appearance, simply because it lacks the resources to put up a fight.

Forster highlights the challenges faced by his small Swiss non-profit organization. With a tight budget, confronting billion-euro corporations in court presents a significant hurdle for Quad9.

Despite these financial constraints, Forster notes that Quad9 will continue to resist blocking actions to the best of its ability. He clarifies that the company’s decision not to defend itself in this particular case is due to a lack of resources, rather than an unwillingness to protect its rights and those of its users.

‘Fundamentally we believe that these blocking orders are wrong,’ Forster states, emphasizing that rightsholders have alternative methods to protect their content instead of pursuing legal action against content-neutral DNS providers.

More Blocking Action Ahead?

For now, there are no signs that rightsholders are backing down from their DNS blocking requests. On the contrary, these are rapidly expanding to other countries in Europe, and in the United States they are also part of a proposed site blocking bill.

Given the opposition to recent court orders, Google and Cloudflare are expected to oppose these efforts fiercely, until all their options are exhausted.

Whether beIN plans to partially refile its blocking request with the correct logos is unknown. If they do, a move by pirate stream operators to step up logo blurring could amount to a novel type of blocking circumvention, complicating matters further.

—

A copy of the latest blocking order, issued by the Paris Judicial Court on May 2 and published by Cloudflare in the Lumen Database is available here (pdf)

From: TF, for the latest news on copyright battles, piracy and more.

From TorrentFreak via this RSS feed

On February 11, 2025, a coalition of forty media outlets took legal action in France hoping to slam the brakes on mass piracy of thousands of articles published each day.

Under the umbrella groups La Dépêche du Midi, La Montagne, Sud Ouest, Le Télégramme, Publihebdos, and La Nouvelle République du Centre, and together the “Alliance”, the publishers hoped to derail “parasitic” news platform, news.dayfr.com.

In operation since 2021, the apparently automated platform allegedly harvests the media companies’ articles. With assistance from AI, it then republishes plagiarized or obvious copies of the articles on its own portal. A regurgitation rate of between 5 and 15 articles every minute, means up to 6,000 articles are republished every day.

Investigation Reveals the Rest of the Iceberg

Days before the application was filed at the Court of Paris (Tribunal de Paris), articles appeared in French publications denouncing news.dayfr.com and its negative effects.

In an article published by Next, Jean-Marc Manach recalled holding a training session on fact-checking for a group of professional journalists. During that session, one participant apologized for taking a few moments to quickly complete and publish an article of their own.

“To illustrate why and how it was important to learn how to identify news articles and sites generated by AI (GenAI), I took the homepage of news.dayfr.com as an example,” Manach explained. “I had already identified it as the main GenAI plagiarist in French. But I didn’t expect the journalist to discover, stunned, that this site had just published a copy-paste of his article, posted online only half an hour earlier.”

A joint investigation by Libération and Next revealed that at least 1,000 similar sites churn out infringing content in much the same way. In some cases, AI ‘hallucinations’ aren’t noticed by site operators or the public, resulting in bogus automated news being taken as fact, then cited as source material for articles published on Wikipedia.

Articles reporting on the pirate news sites were reproduced by those very same sites, some with only minor cosmetic changes, as the example above shows. Other published articles were little more than elaborate fiction, yet still ended up on Google News due to the use of domains previously used by reputable resources.

Court of Paris Considers Request for Blocking

In a process that began on February 11, the plaintiffs summoned the leading ISPs in France – Bouygues Télécom, Free, Sfr, Sfr Fibre and Orange – to appear at a hearing on March 2025 before the Court of Paris. The aim was to obtain an order compelling the ISPs to block news.dayfr.com, to prevent customers from accessing plagiarized content.

The decision handed down by the Paris Court dated May 7 reveals that the ISPs – which currently block sites under a voluntary arrangement with the audiovisual industries – stopped short of offering their full cooperation.

ISP ‘Free’ sought assurances from the court that the requested measures respect the principle of proportionality and that blocking measures “would only be taken with respect to the domain name/address https://news.dayfr.xn--com-9o0a/ and would only be in force for a maximum of 12 months.

Orange said it did not oppose the measures but asked the Court to confirm that the publishers had the right to act and that blocking measures would only target the sole domain identified in the application. Sfr and Sfr Fibre questioned whether the requested measures were proportionate and “strictly necessary”.

Site Previously Assessed by Judicial Commissioner

Blocking orders of this type can only be authorized by the judicial authority, after infringement of copyright or related rights has been established. The decision refers to reports drawn up by a judicial commissioner in December 2024, which found that many articles owned by various publishers had appeared on news.dayfr.com. Any changes made to the original works were swiftly dismissed as irrelevant.

“It is clear from all of these findings that the Alliance and the publishing companies have established with sufficient proof that the disputed site allows Internet users to access protected works without the authorization of the rights holders, notwithstanding the slight modifications made to the articles reproduced on the disputed site. The infringement of copyright and related rights has been established,” the decision reads.

The decision notes that the publishing companies are entitled to request measures to protect their rights, especially when considering obstacles that prevent the site’s operator being identified, such as hosting at Cloudflare.

“These elements demonstrate the knowledge of the entirely or almost entirely illicit nature of the links present on the disputed site by the people who contribute to this dissemination and the difficulty for the authors and producers to prosecute those responsible for this site,” the Court continues.

Blocking Order Granted

Having weighed the need for blocking measures against the risk of blocking legal content, the rights of the ISPs to conduct their business, and the infringing nature of the content in question, the Court ruled in favor of the publishers.

[The Court] orders the companies Orange, Sfr, Sfr fibre, Free and Bouygues télécom to implement or have implemented, at the latest within 15 days following the service of this judgment and for a period of 18 months from the implementation of the measures ordered, all measures likely to prevent access to the site , from French territory, including in the overseas departments or regions and single collectivities as well as in the Wallis and Futuna Islands, in New Caledonia and in the French Southern and Antarctic Territories, by their subscribers based on a contract taken out in this territory, by any effective means, and in particular by blocking the domain name

Orange, Sfr, Sfr fibre, Free and Bouygues telecom are responsible for any costs incurred when implementing the blocking and in the event that the measures face circumvention, the Court will consider submissions.

The question now is whether news.dayfr.com will attempt to circumvent blocking. Two changes are clear already; all articles listed in the publisher’s application have been taken down, and a new subdomain (euro.dayfr.com) is available. Unfortunately, a more significant issue may need to be addressed.

Dayfr.com may be considered a key threat to French publishers, but there’s nothing particularly unique about the site.

Look closely enough and the site’s ‘secret sauce’ becomes evident; it uses a content management system (Mubashier) ostensibly run from the Middle East, that’s also in use on many other sites. That raises the real possibility that successfully blocking dayfr.com would give rise to replacements using the same system.

Finally, in common with similar preconfigured platforms, Mubashier-powered sites may be expected to ‘just work’ right out of the box, without customers having to put in too much effort.

That seems to be a pretty good fit when considering the intended purpose of dayfr.com; automatically grab content and then publish it with minor tweaks, if any. Masquerading as a genuine news site only serves as a distraction for other things going on in the background, including dubious SEO schemes.

Among many pages hidden from search engines are URLs that reveal a bit more about how the sites obtain content, and a few other things which may be a little more exposed than intended.

Efforts by some to offload malware seemed particularly rude, especially after spending considerable energy claiming to be ethical news sites. Of course, Cloudflare may offer some protection, but clusters of sites hosted in Germany, and right under the publishers’ noses in France, may not always have the type of cover they expected.

The Tribunal de Paris blocking order is available here (pdf, French)

From: TF, for the latest news on copyright battles, piracy and more.

From TorrentFreak via this RSS feed

Late 2022, several of the world’s largest music companies including Warner Bros. and Sony Music prevailed in their lawsuit against Internet provider Grande Communications.

The record labels accused the Astound-owned ISP of not doing enough to stop pirating subscribers. Specifically, they alleged that the company failed to terminate repeat infringers.

A Texas federal jury found Grande guilty of willful contributory copyright infringement, and the ISP was ordered to pay $47 million in damages.

The copyright infringement verdict was confirmed by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals but the lower court’s decision on how damages should be calculated was overturned. A new trial will determine the appropriate amount but in the meantime, Grande continues to protest the liability ruling.

Grande Petitions Supreme Court

Earlier this year, Grande asked the Supreme Court to intervene. The Internet provider argued that current law lacks clear standards for handling copyright infringement notices or terminating subscriber accounts.

The petition asked the Supreme Court to answer two key questions, which Grande phrased as follows:

“Whether an ISP is liable for contributory copyright infringement by (i) providing content-neutral internet access to the general public and (ii) failing to terminate that access after receiving two third-party notices alleging someone at a customer’s IP address has infringed.”

Assuming that third-party notices are valid, other questions also remain unanswered. For example, is it fair to disconnect subscribers from vital services? How many notices should trigger a disconnection when ISPs receive millions of them? And should subscribers be protected in any way?

Grande essentially argues that the DMCA, as it’s written, is too ambiguous to handle the present repeat infringer conundrum. Ideally, the law should be clarified but for now it hopes that the court can provide additional clarity.

Music Companies: Rampant Infringement

Last week, the music companies responded to Grande’s argument. In an opposition brief, they note that the questions posed by the ISP are “utterly divorced from reality” and not worth the Court’s attention.

The brief counters the ISP’s focus on subscribers for which it received two copyright infringement notices, noting that the ISP had no intention of disconnecting any subscribers, no matter how many notices they received.

The music companies contend that Grande’s situation is not a symptom of confusing laws, but a consequence of its own “egregious” policies.

“In truth, Grande had a policy to never terminate service to a customer for engaging in copyright infringement,” the music companies write.

“The trial record demonstrated that Grande knew that dozens of its users infringed more than 1,000 times—and one infringed nearly 14,000 times— annually, yet Grande did nothing in response.”

The music companies stress that Grande had no problem terminating subscribers who didn’t pay their bills. However, when rightsholders repeatedly complained about pirating subscribers, it took no action.

The DMCA clearly states that ISPs must adopt and implement a repeat infringer policy to benefit from safe harbor protection. However, according to the music companies, Grande’s policy was to keep servicing these subscribers instead.

Supreme Court or Congress?

All in all, the plaintiffs see no reason for the Supreme Court to take on this case. If Grande believes that the DMCA safe harbor definitions should be changed, it should petition lawmakers, the music companies add.

“If Grande thinks the safe harbor should be radically expanded to allow the kind of shocking disregard for copyrights it displayed, it should take that up with Congress, not this Court.”

After hearing the positions of both sides, it is now up to the Supreme Court to decide whether it will take on this case or not.

Interestingly, this is not the only repeat infringer case currently under review. Last year, Cox Communications filed a similar petition, warning that the current situation could have devastating consequences for the ISP industry and the public.

The Supreme Court previously signaled interest in the issue. While it’s yet to accept the petition, the Court requested the U.S. Solicitor General’s views, to hear what the Government thinks about the matter.

—

A copy of the music companies’ opposition brief filed at the U.S. Supreme Court is available here (pdf)

From: TF, for the latest news on copyright battles, piracy and more.

From TorrentFreak via this RSS feed

For those who had fun playing #laligagate ‘collateral damage bingo’ over the weekend, a full house meant identifying the top internet intermediaries and services, blocked by LaLiga on Friday, Saturday, and Sunday.

Most services utilize shared IP addresses, so typically the number of non-pirate sites blocked at the same time can run to hundreds of sites, potentially more. According to hayahora.futbol data, the following were targeted more than most:

24x Cloudflare IP addresses, 3x Meteverse IP addresses, 3x Twitch, 2x QUICCloud, 2x Netify, and 1x InfinityFree.

GitHub Pages, Cloudflare, and Vercel are among those targeted previously but for whom blocking at one or more ISPs inexplicably remains in place. For those tracking recent events, seeing Vercel on the list again was an unwelcome surprise.

Vercel Blocked Again

Back in April, Vercel CEO Guillermo Rauch described LaLiga’s blocking as “indiscriminate” and tantamount to an “unaccountable form of internet censorship.”

Yet, while Vercel didn’t hold back its critique, the company also pledged to contact LaLiga to see if surprise no-notice IP address blocking could be replaced by something a little more organized and substantially less blunt. Specifically, a blocking method that wouldn’t result in innocent sites being blocked at the same time.

In a post published Sunday on X, Rauch had some good news, and some bad news.

“We’ve been working with [the team at LaLiga] to ensure uninterrupted access in Spain to the @vercel global CDN,” Rauch revealed.

To help LaLiga mitigate the risk of overblocking, Gauch says the company set up an inbox which gave LaLiga direct access to its Site Reliability Engineering incident management system. This effectively meant that high priority requests could be processed swiftly, in line with LaLiga’s demands while avoiding collateral damage.

And the Bad News

“Vercel has set up a dedicated inbox for LaLiga to file reports. Sadly, they just blocked another Vercel CDN IP without using this mechanism,” Gauch wrote on Sunday.

Why LaLiga apparently chose to disregard Vercel’s overtures isn’t clear. Having the ability to avoid collateral damage and then going in the opposite direction makes little sense.

“A soccer organization should *not* have the ability to broadly block internet infrastructure access to millions of Spanish customers across major internet service providers,” Gauch continued.

“CDN providers like Vercel front millions of mission-critical websites and applications behind the IPs being blocked. Even in the situation a block is required, it can be done on a hostname basis via TLS SNI, rather than IP.

“We’re closely monitoring the situation and continue to offer our assistance to LaLiga to minimize the blast radius of these blocks and help preserve free access to the internet in Spain.”

Targeting X and Vimeo

Documenting every site affected by LaLiga blocking would be a monumental task but a few stood out over the weekend as potentially significant. Given his stance on free speech, there’s a non-zero risk of Elon Musk taking issue with X IP addresses being blocked to prevent piracy.

That being said, at least one demand from the Indian government to suspend 8,000 X accounts may have demanded Musk’s undivided attention. Threats to arrest local staff aren’t to be taken lightly.

Unfortunately, the X account that revealed the existence of the threats was itself blocked in India on Friday.

Pressure builds on ISPs

When pirate site blocking begins in most countries, it falls to local ISPs to carry out the blocks. Since ISPs are the de facto point of complaint when customers’ internet connections develop a sudden ‘fault’, they tend to shoulder a bigger reputational risk than rightsholders.

The difference in Spain, in respect of the court order behind the mayhem of the last 90 days, has two parts. Most importantly, regardless of the existence of a court order, every time a CDN IP address is added to the list by an ISP, they are well aware of the collateral damage that’s likely to cause.

After initially denying anything was wrong, ISPs’ now mention the court order more quickly, with phrasing that implies that their hands are tied.

As mentioned earlier, when an X user told Movistar that Vimeo was inaccessible due to blocking, Movistar responded by shifting the blame to the court order.

Casually reporting the blocking of a NASDAQ-listed company is in itself unusual. Arguably, however,the bigger issue concerns the crucial role played by ISPs when LaLiga and Telefonica filed the original application.

Through deals with exclusive rights holder Telefonica, the ISPs sell LaLiga TV packages so had a vested interest in the order being passed. None of the ISPs challenged the application and the fact that they were all in agreement was one of the factors that led to the judge rubber-stamping the application.

In Movistar’s case, the content is indeed currently blocked on the platform due to a court order, but it’s a court order that it a) agreed to comply with, b) stands to benefit from, and c) was requested by owner Telefonica.

Meanwhile, LaLiga president Javier Tebas appears bullish on the role played by intermediaries in the war on piracy. In a recent interview with Argentinian news outlet Clarins, he put three tech companies on notice.

“Google, Cloudflare and to a lesser extent X (the former Twitter), are necessary participants for the crime to be consumed. LaLiga is not going to stop until they go to jail and I am very stubborn,” he warned.

From: TF, for the latest news on copyright battles, piracy and more.

From TorrentFreak via this RSS feed

The frontline of online piracy liability keeps moving, and core internet infrastructure providers are increasingly finding themselves in the crosshairs.

For rightsholders, site blocking remains the go-to response in many cases. Until recently, the majority of blockades were implemented by consumer ISPs, but expanded legal efforts are now targeting standalone DNS resolvers.

Over the past year, courts in France, Italy, and Belgium have ordered OpenDNS, Cloudflare, and Google to alter their responses to certain DNS queries. Instead of leading visitors to the domains of pirate sites, the companies are required to intercept queries and redirect them elsewhere.

The main rationale for targeting public DNS resolvers is their growing use for bypassing blocking measures rolled out by Internet providers. However, the American tech companies now being targeted are not happy with the role of ‘Internet police’ and appeals of these orders are still pending.

OpenDNS Says Farewell

While these legal battles play out in court, the DNS resolvers still have to comply one way or another. This has resulted in different responses, with Cisco’s OpenDNS taking by far the most drastic action.

When OpenDNS was first ordered to block pirate sites in France, the company made a simple but drastic decision to leave the country entirely, effectively affecting all French users. Last week, it repeated this response in Belgium following a similar court order.

Instead of blocking access to more than 100 sports piracy sites, as the Belgian order requires, OpenDNS announced its departure; at least temporarily.

“Due to a court order in Belgium requiring the implementation of blocking measures to prevent access within Belgium to certain domains, the OpenDNS service is not currently available to users in Belgium,” the company said.

Cloudflare Complies Using ‘Alternate Mechanisms’

Not all DNS resolvers take such drastic measures. Cloudflare chooses to comply with court orders in its own way. Cloudflare DNS (1.1.1.1) users who try to access the targeted domains in countries where blocking orders are issued, see the following notice instead.

Error HTTP 451

Interestingly, Cloudflare maintains in its transparency report that it is not blocking content through its public DNS resolver. Instead, it points out that it uses “alternate mechanisms”.

“Given the extraterritorial effect as well as the different global approaches to DNS-based blocking, Cloudflare […] identified alternate mechanisms to comply with relevant court orders. To date, Cloudflare has not blocked content through the 1.1.1.1 Public DNS Resolver,” the company writes.

Not Blocked

The result for Cloudflare DNS users appears to be the same, however. Those who try to access the blocked domains in the applicable countries will be redirected to the HTTP 451 error.

The good news is that affected users are informed about the reason for this technical blockade via the Lumen Database. That doesn’t appear to be the case with Google.

Google’s DNS Blackout

After running tests in both Belgium and France, using various blocked domains, it’s clear that the targeted websites are no longer accessible through Google’s public DNS resolver (8.8.8.8). However, unlike Cloudflare, there is no notification whatsoever.

Instead, Google appears to simply refuse the DNS query, which means that the domain lookup is not linked to any IP address.

Query refused

While this is effective in the sense that the pirate sites are no longer available, it’s not very transparent. Users who try to access the domains will simply see a browser error, which could be caused by various DNS issues.

Not resolved

Google’s basic response is not limited to the recent Belgian court order. We observed the same query refusal for domain names that were included in French blocking orders over the past several months.

Transparency is Paramount

While the different responses from DNS resolvers are interesting, Google’s approach doesn’t make blocking efforts more transparent. These orders are still relatively new, so it’s possible that the company is working on offering more transparency in the future, but currently it only adds to the confusion.

Google’s response also appears to go against the advice of the Belgian court, which required the DNS providers to redirect users to a dedicated page, presumably to provide further detail.

Redirect

If these blocking orders are upheld by various courts, a more streamlined approach will be welcome. Interfering with DNS is a big step that can’t be taken lightly, so transparency is paramount. That’s relevant for the United States too, where a new site-blocking bill also proposes public DNS resolver blockades.

—

For context, a copy of the recent Belgian court order shared by Cloudflare is availablebhere (pdf)

From: TF, for the latest news on copyright battles, piracy and more.

From TorrentFreak via this RSS feed

If making content available to the public to consume legally is the most effective anti-piracy measure, pre-release piracy should be the most damaging form of piracy, or at least the theory goes.

The logic seems solid. When movies leak online before their intended release date, pirate copies meet consumer demand in a market that officially shouldn’t exist. A unique product unavailable to buy being distributed illegally changes everything.

From the day of the leak until theatrical windows close and streaming services open their doors, pirates offer a product that technically does not exist, in an environment where legal competition doesn’t exist either. Whether a theatrical release or straight to streaming, pre-release piracy does not discriminate.

21,000 Liters of Blood Leak Online

Arguments that legal content should be made available sooner are par for the course, but when an official release is just around the corner, disrupting a launch with last-minute upheaval would make very little sense.

This was the nightmare scenario faced by horror movie The Substance in 2024 when the movie leaked just days after its US release and ahead of its debut in several European markets. Making matters worse, the quality of the copy leaked online was excellent, providing the type of ‘direct replacement’ the industry fears most.

This new setback arrived in the wake of concerns over the movie itself, which had already affected distribution plans.

According to a Kinotico interview with director Coralie Fargeat (paywall), industry giant Universal had been expected to distribute The Substance, but that ran into trouble when the company developed a sudden bout of hemophobia. Reportedly triggered by the movie’s grand finale, which is unlikely to meet its match anytime soon, Universal’s sudden aversion to astonishing quantities of blood led to requests for Fargeat to come up with an alternative ending.

Fargeat’s refusal to compromise led to Universal walking away from distribution. Fortunately, the distribution of 21,000 liters of fake blood would still go ahead thanks to a deal with new distributor Mubi.

Then The Substance leaked online, in all its gory glory.

Coralie Fargeat: I didn’t expect it at all

“What’s happened on social media has been crazy. I didn’t expect it at all,” Fargeat admitted to Kinotico.

Word that The Substance had leaked online spread quickly, and in an explosion of memes the movie soon became a viral sensation.

“Of course, a director doesn’t like seeing her film on the internet while it’s in theaters. You want people to see it in theaters. It’s very difficult to escape that these days, no matter how hard someone tries to prevent it,” the director explained.

Yet in this case, the usual predictions of piracy leading to financial ruin were not only incorrect, they were turned comprehensively upside down. From a production budget of $18m, The Substance soon became Mubi’s highest-grossing film, generating an estimated $82 million at the box office.

“Those images they saw on social media made people even more eager to go to the theater and discover the film. They didn’t want to miss the experience of seeing it with people,” Fargeat revealed.

“Once you’ve finished your film and it’s released, the reality is that it belongs to the audience. They’re going to choose what they want to do with it. It has touched people’s hearts. There are things you can’t control, but the response online was incredible.”

The Substance undoubtedly has that je ne sais quoi in abundance, but which of its many qualities combined to transform a potentially catastrophic leak into a shot in the arm for cinema remains elusive. The director didn’t expect it, Universal obviously failed to spot it, and the millions who watched the movie may still have difficulty describing it.

But they certainly felt it, there’s little doubt about that.

From: TF, for the latest news on copyright battles, piracy and more.

From TorrentFreak via this RSS feed

On Tuesday, 52-year-old Grenier traveled from Aruba, an island off the coast of Venezuela, to Canada’s Montreal airport.

Law enforcement officers of the Sûreté du Québec (SQ – Quebec Provincial Police) escorted Grenier to the SQ police station in Shawinigan. Police had carried out an operation in February 2024 which targeted Grenier and several individuals linked to the current prosecution. Grenier, who was outside Canada at the time, avoided arrest and remained at large for more than a year.

Court Hears Allegations Concerning Signal Theft and Pirate IPTV

The warrant for Grenier’s arrest was issued as part of an investigation into the illegal acquisition and sale of TV channels distributed by Canada’s leading telecoms companies. Bell, Rogers, and Quebecor claimed their losses ran to several million Canadian dollars.

Grenier appeared at the Trois-Rivières courthouse on Wednesday. The prosecution alleges that devices supplied by Grenier provided customers with access to thousands of television channels, most if not all pirated, for a low subscription price of ~CAD$25.00 per month (US$18.00).

The authorities accuse Grenier of operating a company which in turn owned pirate IPTV service Arubox TV. As per our 2023 report, Grenier made no secret of his involvement in the IPTV market.

Grenier Advertising IPTV Boxes

Police say that Arubox TV and a linked service called Stocker IPTV provided thousands of customers, 7,000 in Quebec alone, with illegal access to more than 3,500 pirated TV channels.

Grenier faces ten charges linked to the theft of telecommunications services, including conspiracy, fraud, theft, and money laundering. The alleged offenses took place between June 2020 and February 2024, generating annual profits of at least CAD$2 million (US$14m) according to Sûreté du Québec estimates.

• Conspiracy to defraud Bell, Rogers and Quebecor • Theft of telecommunications services • Production of devices linked to illegal signal access • Trafficking in devices linked to illegal signal access • Sale of devices linked to illegal signal access • Trafficking in property obtained by crime • Theft of more than CAD$5,000 • Laundering proceeds of crime • Transfer of money linked to crime in Canada with intent to conceal/convert • Computer data ‘mischief’

Other charges concern alleged trafficking in the prescription drugs Sildenfil and Tadalafil.

Seven Co-Defendants

Grenier will remain in custody until his next court appearance. The prosecution argued against Grenier’s release and insisted that he should face trial by jury, rather than by judge alone. Grenier’s co-defendants, several of whom previously appeared in court following their arrests in 2024, have already opted for a trial by jury.

A total of seven people stand accused of various crimes in the same case.

Le Nouvelliste identifies the co-defendants as follows:

• Danick Rouleau, 39, of Saint-Eustache (alleged Stocker IPTV operator) • Sarah-Maude Grenier, 25, of Brownsburg-Chatham • Marie-Ève ​​Poliquin Karaguioules, 26, of Saint-Eustache • Éric Laforge, 44, of Gatineau • Daniel Perreault-Marcotte, 38, of Saint-Henri • Patrick Cyr, 49, of Longueuil • Christian Sabourin, 60, of Princeville

Are Customers at Risk of Prosecution?

While police have offered assurances that customers are not targets in the current criminal investigation, possession of a pirate device could be a criminal offense in its own right. Police are therefore advising affected customers to dispose of their pirate devices at recycling centers.

Pirate subscriptions make legal devices illegal

The IPTV services in question are known to have been installed on relative expensive Formuler set-top boxes. When fresh out of their packaging, these Android-based devices are perfectly legal; only the subsequent configuration for piracy purposes changes that.

A full and properly executed factory reset will remove the offending configuration, help the environment, and via legal apps installed from Google Play, provide access to legal streaming services.

From: TF, for the latest news on copyright battles, piracy and more.

From TorrentFreak via this RSS feed

Fmovies first appeared online in 2016 and rapidly escalated into a severe headache for Hollywood as an incredibly resilient pirate operation.

Despite early intelligence from the MPA‘s anti-piracy arm, ACE, pinpointing the piracy ring to Vietnam, shutting down the operation required countless hours of enforcement work and significant diplomatic efforts.

This eventually paid off last year, when Fmovies and its various sister sites, good for more than 300 million monthly visits, started to crumble. A few weeks later, ACE formally confirmed that it helped Vietnamese authorities to shut down the world’s largest piracy ring.

“The takedown of Fmovies is a stunning victory for casts, crews, writers, directors, studios, and the creative community across the globe,” MPA CEO Charles Rivkin said at the time.

Fmovies Prosecution of Phan and Nguyen

The true scope of the takedown operation may never be revealed, but it was clear that getting to this point had not been easy. The same was true for the aftermath, including the prosecution in Vietnam of two Fmovies operators; the alleged mastermind Phan Thành Công, and accomplice Nguyen Tuan Anh.

According to local authorities, the defendants came up with the Fmovies plan in 2015, after meeting at Aptech vocational school. After their arrests, both men confessed in full to their involvement with the criminal piracy ring that reportedly generated around $400,000 in ad revenue over the years.

Follow-up paperwork revealed that Phan, the lead programmer and manager, took most of the spoils, leaving Nguyen, responsible for the sites’ content, with roughly 10% of the total profits.

With these confessions, subsequent convictions seemed almost certain. However, it now transpires that this didn’t provide the ending Hollywood had hoped for.

Fmovies Defendants Dodge Prison

While no new details concerning the prosecution have appeared this year, information published in a US Trade Representative (USTR) report suggested that the two Fmovies defendants were sentenced recently. Due to the slightly odd phrasing and limited detail, we were hesitant to report immediately, but after an inquiry to the MPA, we can now confirm that the information is correct.

Both Fmovies defendants received suspended prison sentences for their roles in the Fmovies piracy ring. This means that, similar to previous convictions in Vietnam, they won’t have to serve any prison time, provided that they don’t break the law going forward.

From the USTR report

Sentencing details are not yet public, and it’s unknown whether the men are required to pay damages. The legal paperwork previously showed that they already repaid the financial “benefit” received from their crimes, which amounted to VND 406 million (approx. $15,900 total) for 30 films.

This relatively low amount, paired with the suspended sentences, must come as a disappointment to those who worked for several years to shut down the Fmovies piracy empire.

It also explains why the USTR urged Vietnam to seek prison sentences and higher monetary fines in piracy related cases going forward.

“In order to have a deterrent effect, Vietnam enforcement authorities should […] consider seeking prison sentences, monetary fines, and other criminal penalties at the higher levels that are available under Vietnamese law, in order to reflect the immense damage caused to copyright holders by these copyright infringement operations.”

Stunning Silence

The Fmovies case was watched closely by Hollywood and the U.S. authorities that also played a role in the crackdown. While the original websites remain offline today, the perceived leniency of the sentences will likely come as a major disappointment.

Thus far, there haven’t been any public statements on the sentencing; the silence speaks volumes. After securing a “stunning victory” that made headlines all over the world, the only convictions have passed quietly by. (note: see update below for a statement from ACE)

To the best of our knowledge, the Vietnamese authorities haven’t publicly mentioned the prosecution’s outcome either. The only thing we know is that it took place more than a week ago, before the USTR report came out.

That same USTR report, which strongly urges Vietnam to take tougher action against remaining pirate sites and services, also indicates that this is a diplomatically sensitive subject. Paired with the disappointing outcome for rightsholders, this may explain the stunning silence.

—

Update May 9: Following the publication of out article ACE shared the following statement.

“The Alliance for Creativity and Entertainment (ACE) hails the work of the Hanoi Police in shutting down Fmovies, once the largest streaming piracy service in the world, and applauds the Hanoi People Court’s conviction of the two operators in the Fmovies case.”

“ACE will continue working with the Vietnamese government to ensure that penalties issued to piracy operators are commensurate with the significant damage and harm caused by such illegal activities.”

From: TF, for the latest news on copyright battles, piracy and more.

From TorrentFreak via this RSS feed

As pirate IPTV services have continued to grow in recent years, TV broadcasters and distributors have intensified their efforts to combat piracy.

Pay TV provider DISH Network, in tandem with the International Broadcaster Coalition Against Piracy (IBCAP), has been particularly active on this front.

Last month, DISH filed a lawsuit against the as-yet unidentified operators of the popular ‘pirate’ streaming services Lemo TV and Kemo IPTV in a Texas federal court. This case remains pending, but is boosted by a new lawsuit targeting a hosting provider that’s allegedly linked to these and other pirate IPTV services.

DISH Sues Hosting Service Innetra

In a lawsuit filed at the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California this week, DISH accuses the UK company ‘Innetra PC’ of aiding widespread copyright infringement, while largely ignoring takedown requests.

The complaint is based on evidence gathered by IBCAP. It alleges that Innetra provides essential server and network infrastructure that enables numerous “Pirate Services” to illegally stream copyrighted content to users in the United States. This includes 22 Arabic, Hindi, and Bangla language TV channels, for which DISH holds the U.S. transmission rights.

“The scale of the Pirate Services’ direct infringement of the Works is extensive. The Pirate Services that transmitted linear streams of the Channels that aired the Works often did so 24 hours per day and 7 days per week, in some cases for several years,” the complaint reads.

Hosting companies are not automatically liable for the actions of their customers. In this case, however, DISH notes that Innetra can’t rely on safe harbor protection as it allegedly failed to properly respond to copyright infringement notices.

“Innetra possessed the means to take simple measures to stop the infringement – such as removing or disabling the infringing streams or terminating the accounts of the Pirate Services due to their repeated infringement – yet Innetra refused to take such measures, choosing instead to continue profiting from the Pirate Services’ direct infringement.”

‘DMCA Notices Ignored’

While Innetra is incorporated in the UK, DISH alleges that the company targeted its services toward the United States as well. This includes references to the DMCA, which is the only copyright law mentioned on its website.

The complaint further notes that the hosting provider appealed to customers through its alleged noncompliance with DMCA takedown notices, which is a much sought after policy by prospective pirate customers.

“Innetra deliberately attracts streaming services that violate United States copyright law, such as the Pirates Services, by promoting a policy designed to shield customers from Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) takedowns, and by keeping infringing activities online,” DISH writes.

From the complaint

The rightsholder reportedly sent hundreds of infringement notices to the hosting company, identifying specific infringing activities, IP addresses, and URLs. It only received a response to one of these, with Innetra responding that it would not comply.

Drawing in Pirates

While copyright infringement is prohibited by Innetra’s acceptable use policy, DISH alleges that the reality was different. The TV company believes that the host’s alleged DMCA-ignore policy acted as a draw for pirate IPTV services

“[T]he Pirate Services were drawn to Innetra’s servers and network because it did not stop their infringement, and the Pirate Services perceived Innetra’s servers and network as a place where infringement of the Works was tolerated because Innetra advertised them as such and many other Pirate Services did just that.”

The legal paperwork includes a list of allegedly infringing services, URLS and IP addresses that were linked to Innetra’s infrastructure. These include the aforementioned Lemo TV and Kemo IPTV, as well as Honeybee, Xtremehd, and Caliptostreams.

Some of the pirate services mentioned

There is no mention of a DMCA ignore policy on Innetra’s website, but the company’s FAQ mentions that it protects customers from illegitimate DMCA claims.

$25 Million in Damages

All in all, DISH holds Innetra liable for contributory and vicarious copyright infringement. The same applies to the company’s director, Elna Paulette Belle, who is personally listed as a defendant in the case.

The lawsuit lists 171 copyrighted works and DISH requests the maximum statutory damages for all alleged infringement, bringing the potential damages to $25,650,000.

This isn’t the first time that DISH has targeted an intermediary in a piracy-related lawsuit. The company previously sued UK-based CDN company DataCamp, which eventually settled for $3 million. In addition, there’s a lawsuit pending against Ukrainian hosting provider Virtual Systems.

Responding to the lawsuit, IBCAP boss Chris Kuelling says that the legal efforts underscore its commitment to hold non-compliant CDNs and hosting providers accountable. At the same time, he issues a stark warning to other companies in the same business.

“Innetra blatantly disregarded IBCAP’s notices to its detriment – if you are a hosting provider or CDN and disregard our repeated notices, there is a strong chance you will be sued for copyright infringement.”

—

A copy of the DISH Network complaint, filed yesterday at the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, is available here (pdf).

From: TF, for the latest news on copyright battles, piracy and more.

From TorrentFreak via this RSS feed

President Trump’s announcement on Sunday revealed his plan to save the U.S. movie industry, which according to him is “dying a very fast death.” The solution is tariff-based and most likely damaging to the major Hollywood studios.

Some media reports said the industry had been expecting the announcement. Others described the news sending shockwaves through Hollywood. The bottom line is President Trump’s belief that to prevent the movie industry’s imminent death, “any and all” movies produced in “foreign lands” will be subjected to a 100% tariff.

‘WE WANT MOVIES MADE IN AMERICA, AGAIN!’

In his Truth Social post, Trump blames the apparent demise of the industry on unspecified countries “offering all sorts of incentives” to draw filmmakers away from producing movies in the United States.

“Hollywood, and many other areas within the U.S.A., are being devastated. This is a concerted effort by other Nations and, therefore, a National Security threat,” he wrote.

“It is, in addition to everything else, messaging and propaganda!”

The job of instituting the 100% tariff falls to the Department of Commerce and the United States Trade Representative. Hollywood works closely with the latter when reporting overseas intellectual property threats and other barriers to business; in which report local tariffs are addressed remains to be seen.

ITIF: Here’s a Better Idea

The Motion Picture Association is yet to publish an official response to Trump’s rescue plan on its website but an organization that often shares the MPA’s views published a response on Tuesday.

Washington-based Information Technology and Innovation Foundation (ITIF) describes itself as the world’s leading think tank for science and technology policy. For the last few years ITIF has been closely aligned with Hollywood on the need for new legislation to counter online piracy in the United States.

Rodrigo Balbontin, associate director for trade, IP, and digital technology governance at ITIF, begins with a general cautionary statement concerning retaliatory measures.

“Tariffs on foreign movies will be the first measure to impose unprecedented tariffs on services. Thanks to its digital economy, the United States has a global trade surplus on services, including films and TV, and America’s top companies export digital services. Expanding the trade war to the digital service sector will create a retaliation risk to one of the United States’s unique advantages: American creativity, innovations, and specialized knowledge,” Balbontin’s response reads.

ITIF then suggests an alternative to the imposition of tariffs on foreign produced movies. The president should back legislation that aims to prevent foreign pirate sites from having free access to consumers in the United States, who they supply with pirated American-owned content, without the owners of that content receiving compensation from anyone.

Instead of tariffs, the Trump administration can protect America’s film industry by reinforcing copyright protection. For example, Trump’s administration should call for Congress to pass legislation to block foreign piracy websites that hurt U.S. creative industries.

This is a proven measure, authorized by at least 50 countries, that reduces piracy, increases legal content consumption, and safeguards America’s creative industry from theft.

Without considering the merits of tariffs, site-blocking in general, or the detail of the FADPA proposal, a broad view may conclude that they all share the common objective of protecting the U.S. movie industry.

Unfortunately, these approaches address different problems. While encouraging inward investment appears to be the main objective of tariffs, not even the total elimination of piracy by site blocking would prevent filmmakers from embracing financial packages unavailable on home soil.

Are Foreign Incentives Damaging the U.S. Movie Industry?

President Trump claims that foreign incentives are damaging, but whether the industry agrees is a different matter. Companies in the movie business have collectively benefited from various tax-linked schemes to the tune of billions of pounds in the UK alone. The system was overhauled recently but under the previous scheme providing FTR (Film Tax Relief), official government figures show payments growing in recent years.

The new Audio-Visual Expenditure Credit (AVEC) provides companies with a tax credit worth 34% of their UK production costs on a film or high-end TV program. A credit worth 39% of UK production costs applies to animation or children’s TV shows.

Starting April 1, 2025, companies producing film and high-end TV shows could also claim back 39% of their UK visual effects costs. Films with budgets of £15 million or less became eligible for an enhanced rate of 53%.

‘Trump Should Demand Strong IP Protection in Tariff Negotiations’

With countries all around the world reportedly negotiating with the Trump administration for better deals than those imposed on them recently, ITIF suggests that this could provide an opportunity to demand stronger protection for IP rights.

“The Trump administration should insist on stronger intellectual property protections, including copyright, with the countries that are now negotiating over the Trump tariffs,” ITIF’s response reads.

One only has to read the various reports compiled by the USTR to see that certain countries are considered problematic, with some showing little improvement year after year. Yet viewed through the prism of countries supposedly playing the role of Pied Piper, luring U.S. companies with promises of free cash, better IP protection isn’t really an issue.

Examples highlighted by industry specialists Entertainment Partners reveal that countries with lacking IP protection aren’t usually among those offering the best incentives. Terms and conditions vary but the incentives include:

• Ireland: 40% credit for indy films, 90% up front (effectively an interest-free loan). • Portugal: 30% cash refund to productions worth €2.5m+ • Spain: federal rebates of 25%-30%, regional schemes; 45%-50% rebate (Canary Islands) and 35%-70% tax credits (Basque region) • Japan: cash rebate of up to 50% of qualifying production costs, capped at $6.7 million • Saudi Arabia: 40% incentive • India: 40% of production costs reimbursed

What happens next is anyone’s guess, which in itself could deter future investment, both at home and overseas.

From: TF, for the latest news on copyright battles, piracy and more.

From TorrentFreak via this RSS feed

Last September, Apple removed popular music streaming app Musi from its App Store, affecting millions of users.

Apple’s action didn’t come as a complete surprise. Music industry groups had been trying to take Musi down for months, branding it a ‘parasitic’ app that skirts the rules.

Delisting from the App Store put the future of Musi directly at risk. The company initially hoped to resolve the matter with Apple behind closed doors, but since the tech giant was unwilling to reverse its decision, Musi took the matter to court.

“Backchannel Scheme”

Musi claimed that the App Store removal was the result of “backroom conversations” between Apple and key music industry players. The app developer alleged this was an “unfair” and “tainted” removal process designed to put it out of business.

Musi hoped for a quick reinstatement and requested a preliminary injunction to put the app back in the App Store while the lawsuit was pending. That attempt failed, however.

In January, a California federal court denied the preliminary injunction, ruling that Apple did not act unreasonably or in bad faith when it removed the app following complaints from music industry players and YouTube.

The order meant that the case would continue without Musi being available in the App Store. And a new filing submitted by Apple, shows that the company has absolutely no intention to change its mind.

Apple Returns Fire

In a motion for sanctions filed yesterday at the California court, Apple requests sanctions against Musi for false or misleading allegations, which include the remarks concerning the “backchannel scheme”.

According to Apple, discovery in this case clearly revealed that there were no backroom deals but Musi nonetheless included these claims in its amended complaint.

“[D]iscovery thoroughly disproved Musi’s baseless conspiracy theory that Apple schemed to eliminate the Musi app from the App Store to benefit ‘friends’ in the music industry,” Apple notes.

“To make matters worse, Musi attempted to give its falsehoods a veneer of truth by provisionally redacting many allegations and misrepresenting to the Court that those allegations reflected information Apple produced in discovery.”

These alleged misrepresentations are sanctionable, Apple argues. The tech giant reiterates that it received numerous complaints about Musi from various parties and dismisses the notion of a backchannel scheme.

Apple: ‘Musi Impersonated UMG’

Adding to the purported misrepresentations in the complaint, Apple adds further color by alleging that Musi previously impersonated UMG executive Jason Miller, to get reinstated in the App Store.

“Apple previously removed Musi’s app from the App Store and Musi only regained access in 2020 by fraudulently impersonating a complainant,” Apple writes.

Exhibits shared by Apple show that Musi informed Apple that a complaint from UMG was resolved, citing communications with [email protected]. Musi founder Aaron Wojnowski forwarded this email chain to Apple, which seemingly confirmed this.

Forwarded email

Follow-up communications between Apple and Universal Music painted a different picture. UMG informed Apple that the email was “fraudulent,” that Jason Miller had no record of sending it, and the email address used was not a UMG address.

“It appears that the app developer created a false email to misrepresent compliance on behalf of Universal. Therefore, the claim should not be closed and the app should be removed immediately,” UMG explained at the time.

‘Fraudulent’

Making matters worse, in July 2020 UMG informed Apple of another instance where the same fraudulent ‘Jason Miller’ email address was allegedly used to file a false copyright claim against a different app, Yokee.

Despite the alleged impersonation, Musi remained available in the App Store until last year. However, according to Apple, the alleged impersonation is further evidence of a pattern of dishonesty, which warrants sanctions.

It is now up to the court to review the evidence and decide whether it proves that Musi did indeed cross the line and if sanctions are warranted. Meanwhile, Apple’s motion to dismiss the entire case also remains pending.

—-

A copy of Apple’s memorandum supporting its motion for sanctions, filed at the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, is available here (pdf)

From: TF, for the latest news on copyright battles, piracy and more.

From TorrentFreak via this RSS feed

Originally the home of The Pirate Bay, Sweden has a long and well documented history when it comes to online piracy.

As in other countries, however, many Swedish pirates have made the switch from relatively cumbersome torrents to on-demand streaming. That includes pirate IPTV services.

According to recent estimates, some 700,000 Swedish households have access to illegal IPTV services. These subscriptions are sold at a very low cost, making them substantially cheaper than the official plans offered by local streaming services such as Viaplay.

Sweden’s IPTV Crackdown

Viaplay and other rightsholders have grown increasingly worried about this trend and these concerns have reached lawmakers too. Earlier this year, Swedish Minister of Culture, Parisa Liljestrand, said that the authorities started looking into a possible ban on viewing pirate IPTV streams.

Punishing pirate IPTV viewers en masse is a novel concept that may be difficult to roll out in practice. Legally, it may be possible, as the Court of Justice of the European Union previously ruled that consumption of pirate streams is illegal. However, since there is no public information available on who these subscribers are, tracking them down may prove challenging.

Meanwhile, rightsholders were working on a more direct approach. Earlier this year, rightsholders including Viaplay, TV4, and Discovery took legal action in court to order local ISP Telenor to block access to the popular local IPTV service NordicOne, or N1 for short.

Court Issues Broad IPTV Blocking Order

After reviewing the complaint, the Patent and Market Court in Stockholm ordered Telenor to immediately block its subscribers’ access to the NordicOne IPTV service. Failure to comply carries a potential fine of 500,000 SEK ($50,000 USD).

Skånska Dagbladet reports that the court deemed the blocking order appropriate, effective, and proportional. Telenor must block a list of specific domains associated with NordicOne, including ‘clientsportals.com’, ‘n1ip.tv’, ‘ptv.is’, and must also block any future domains used by the service upon notification.

The order against Telenor remains valid for three years and further reports suggest that it doesn’t come in isolation. According to Dagens Media, Tele2 and Tre have been ordered to implement similar blocking measures.

Through these blockades, Viaplay, Discovery and TV4 hope that IPTV subscribers will give up on their pirate habits, switching to official subscriptions instead. While some may indeed give up facing these blockades, others seek workarounds.

Cat and Mouse

Over the past days, Swedes complained bitterly about the blockades through online forums and messaging apps, while searching for workarounds. In the popular Flashback forums, for example, several people share new URLs through which they can regain access.

Others mention other known workarounds, including the use of VPN services and alternative DNS resolvers. The effectiveness of alternative DNS resolvers suggests that the blocking measures are implemented primarily through the ISPs’ DNS servers.

NordiskIPTV, likely a reseller service that was caught up in the blocking action, posted a public message pointing users to new portal URLs. Alternatively, they also mention VPNs as a workaround.

NordiskIPTV message (translated)

This cat-and-mouse game is not new; it is illustrative of the responses we have seen to blocking measures over the past fifteen years. The question now is whether Viaplay and the other rightsholders will take action in response.

The court order allows rightsholders to add additional domain names to the blocking order, but VPNs and alternative DNS providers are not covered.

Recently, rightsholders in other countries, including France, have applied for blocking orders against DNS providers such as Google and Cloudflare, and VPN providers have become a target too. Whether we will see the same in Sweden has yet to be seen.

It’s clear, however, that the blocking scope in Europe is gradually expanding. And if it’s up to some rightsholders, even web browsers should be subject to blocking orders.

From: TF, for the latest news on copyright battles, piracy and more.

From TorrentFreak via this RSS feed

Attempts to significantly downplay the scale of the piracy problems faced by major European football leagues, are simply at odds with the facts on the ground.

They’re also just as unhelpful as the staggering annual loss estimates spouted by rightsholders.

These figures have a tendency to become ‘fact’ after endless repetition, before being built upon and defended to the very last man, in blood if that becomes necessary.

Seemingly powerless to curtail piracy in any meaningful way, major European leagues are combining increasingly bitter rhetoric with threats against intermediaries, while tearing up what was left of the anti-piracy rule book.

With their backs against the wall and so much at stake, some quite reasonably argue that a new approach was desperately needed. For those caught in the crossfire, new does not mean improved. It means seemingly random websites failing to load while from the opposite direction, perfectly functioning websites receiving no visits. For some businesses, it means tens of thousands of euros in reported losses.

Three Months of Disbelief

In Spain, where a power blackout made global headlines this week, mainstream media outlets seem strangely disinterested in the deliberate blackouts inflicted on companies doing business on the internet. Cloudflare, Vercel, GitHub, Amazon, and thousands of innocent internet users and businesses, have been subjected to blocking several times each week, every week. Since February.

Under the authority of a local court order, obtained by LaLiga and Telefonica, IP addresses linked to pirate services are being blocked en masse by local ISPs. The stated aim is to prevent access to pirated live sports streams, but the same IP addresses are also used by thousands of ordinary people and businesses.

Having seen this type of crisis loom on the horizon many times before, at the beginning it seemed that LaLiga’s determination to be heard could’ve resulted in a few shared IP addresses being blocked, effectively for demonstration purposes. While not without risk, a properly calibrated shock and a small amount of panic may have been just enough to break the deadlock.

After 90 days of blocking pirates and anything else in the way, there’s no real panic; just outrage and disappointment at the lack of concern shown by the authorities to those negatively affected. Of course, everything is subject to sudden change in volatile environments; blocking Twitch IP addresses on Saturday seemed unlikely to have had a calming effect.

Yesterday’s blocking wave was once again immaculately documented by hayahora.futbol. Datta confirms that most blocking targeted IP addresses operated by United States-based companies, including Cloudflare, Vercel, and QUIC.cloud.

Providing Transparency

The service provided by hayahora.futbol records blocking in Spain that would otherwise thrive in the shadows. There is no transparency requirement under law but if there’s a case for mandatory transparency, there is no better example than this.

Vercel, which publicly confirmed it would work with LaLiga to prevent its service being blocked again, may be disappointed that at least one ISP still hasn’t deactivated its original blocks (76.76.21.142 / 66.33.60.129).

Much of the pain yesterday was shouldered by Cloudflare, as partial data obtained from Hayahoro for some of Saturday’s blocking clearly shows.

And it’s going to get worse. Much worse. In fact, escalation is underway right now. No holds barred.

After EUIPO Meetings, ‘All Firewood Thrown on The Grill’

Site Reliability Engineer Sergio Conde works at Tiny Bird Co., one of the companies whose business was suddenly interrupted following the recent blocking of Vercel IP addresses.

In common with a growing number of computer and coding experts suddenly thrown into the cruel world of pirate site blocking, he now appears to be taking a much closer interest in events playing out in his country.

Conde’s monitoring of blocking by Spain’s major ISPs today leaves little doubt that LaLiga’s priority is the protection of its soccer clubs, period.

The current crisis didn’t begin overnight, and the dangers were clearly visible. Yet in its midst, no authority – competent or otherwise – seems to have the power to end the collateral damage. That all authorities seem to lack even the basic will to encourage moderation to avoid collateral damage, is nothing short of extraordinary.

Discussion Before the Storm

A conference titled The Impact of Piracy on the Audiovisual Industry took place on January 29 at the Madrid headquarters of the Spanish Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences. In attendance to present the European Union Intellectual Property Office’s (EUIPO) latest piracy facts and figures, Harrie Temmink had only bad news for Spain.

Piracy figures are not only rising again in Spain, they’re doing so at a rate faster than seen elsewhere in Europe. Many Spaniards believe that if piracy is only for personal use, that is acceptable. As a result, around 21% admit to knowingly consuming pirated content, with a stubborn 6% vowing to always consume pirated content, no matter what.

The Digital Services Act (DSA) is expected to play a wider role in the fight against online piracy. Temmink described the Directive as one of the “greatest triumphs” in the battle against piracy and noted that it “makes all online platforms safer and more reliable for users.”

How to prevent anti-piracy work that can make all sites instantly less reliable, including those that have nothing whatsoever to do with the DSA, will probably need more time to think through. However, the issue of IP address blocking was raised during the conference by Lara Pérez-Caminha, the president of the Association of Independent Film Distributors (Adicine).

Noting that LaLiga and Movistar worked extremely hard to obtain a court order to block IP addresses to protect live sports, having something similar to protect the film industry could prove beneficial, Pérez-Caminha said.

Within Days, LaLiga Blocks Cloudflare

Days after this event for the film industry, LaLiga started a campaign that continues today; blocking IP addresses used by pirate sites that are also used by innocent parties.

On March 28, LaLiga reported that it had attended a meeting in Madrid, to “share relevant information on how the illegal distribution of sports content is carried out and how business models surrounding this criminal activity operate.” Also in attendance, representatives from the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO), and members of the European Parliament.

Any claim that those in attendance had no knowledge of events playing out in Spain fail to appreciate the depth of the EU’s influence on regulatory matters. Yet while the public announcement addressed the impact of live sports piracy and emphasized that collaboration with the EU will address the challenges ahead, the elephant in the room was nowhere to be seen, or heard.

Not only was the crisis facing ordinary members of the public and business communities never mentioned, the announcement boiled down to just two issues: protect live sports and immediately compel intermediaries to action.

No commentary addressed the importance of safeguarding the rights of citizens and other businesses in the EU.

Actions Speak Louder

It would be naive to expect a warts-and-all press release that addressed positives and potential negatives that could help or harm the fight against piracy. There’s always a need to discuss such matters in private and some things are clearly better left at the negotiating table, not aired for the entertainment of the media.

Whether the situation was mentioned, or not mentioned, is impossible to say. Arguably, that isn’t the test that matters. Whatever was said, or not said, only the actions post March 30 can demonstrate whether LaLiga felt more or less restrained by the EU, at least in the event any opinion was made clear either way.

Perhaps the issue was mentioned last week, we really don’t know.

If it was discussed at all, there was no restraining effect observed today during the Real Madrid match. That the effort appears to have been doubled over yesterday’s action, raises more questions on top of existing concerns.

From: TF, for the latest news on copyright battles, piracy and more.

From TorrentFreak via this RSS feed

Online piracy is a constant headache for copyright holders; one that’s particularly difficult to beat.

Due to those who run pirate sites often ignoring takedown requests, copyright holders also target search engines and other online platforms that inadvertently help users to find pirated content.

Search engine removals are not new and Google has documented this process for more than a decade. Initially, the company only received a few thousand removal requests per day, but this number has grown spectacularly over the years.

Link-Busters: Breaking Takedown Records

Copyright holders typically outsource this work to third-party companies that scan the web for links to pirated material. Link-Busters is one of these companies, one that has swiftly dominated the market in terms of output.

Domiciled in Amsterdam, Netherlands, Link-Busters has been in business for more than a decade. When sending a few million takedowns per year just a few years ago, it barely stood out. Today it can reach those numbers in a matter of hours.

Google’s transparency report reveals that the takedown company has just reached a new milestone after reporting its three billionth pirate URL to Google. This is up from ‘just’ one billion last July, which was already a record number for a reporting agency.

Top reporting outfits (Google search)

Today, Link-Busters is responsible for sending more than half of all takedown requests received by Google. Since the search engine started counting takedown notices in 2012, it has processed a little over 12 billion reported URLs, of which roughly a quarter appeared in the Dutch company’s requests.

Protecting Publishers in a Proxy Battle

These impressive figures stand out even more when considering that Link-Busters’ notices are largely sent on behalf of publishers. These include Penguin Random House, HarperCollins, Taylor & Francis, Hachette, all of which have been clients for many years.

The recent increase in takedown notices started to take shape in the fall of 2023, right around the time when the U.S. Government announced its criminal prosecution of Z-Library. This doesn’t appear to be a coincidence.

Takedown Surge

The Z-Library crackdown took down many of the site’s domain names, but it also spurred the launch of alternative platforms, including Anna’s Archive. And when Z-Library returned with hundreds of new domain names, each with millions of URLs, the need for enforcement action increased.

Paired with ongoing site blocking efforts, this resulted in an ongoing battle against proxies and alternative domains that continues to this day. A few weeks ago, Link-Busters was averaging more than 70 million reported URLs per week, which translates to 10 million per day.

Responses

Given this remarkable track record, we have reached out to Link-Busters on several occasions, hoping to get additional background and context on its achievements. Thus far, we’ve never received a response.

Luckily for Link-Busters, Google does respond to its takedown requests. Of all URLs reported, more than 2.6 billion were removed from Google search. Another 351 million have yet to appear in Google search, but were preemptively blacklisted.

Google refused to take down 19 million URLs (0.6%) and 21 million reported links (0.7%) were duplicates. This is a pretty decent track record in terms of accuracy.

Google’s Responses

Whether Link-Busters will continue to report a staggering number of pirate URLs will, ironically enough, largely depend on the survival rate of the pirate book libraries it targets. If these sites stop responding to the takedown efforts by launching new domains, potential targets will eventually disappear.

Thus far, however, there is no sign that Link-Busters will be out of business anytime soon.

From: TF, for the latest news on copyright battles, piracy and more.

From TorrentFreak via this RSS feed

When site-blocking is publicized by those who acquire an injunction, attention tends to be carefully drawn towards key messaging.

Being seen to take action against piracy is a public reminder to pirate sites and suppliers that rightsholders are always watching. At the top of the supply chain that’s unlikely to act as a deterrent but lower down, where resellers and the public are much more exposed, even a pause for thought could prove useful.

In broad terms, anti-piracy announcements in this context are more easily framed as regular advertising. New and improved, whatever couldn’t be wiped away last time will now meet our toughest formula yet. So capitulate now, because we are going nowhere.

Blocking in Belgium

News of yet another blocking order in Belgium early April, obtained by DAZN and 12th Player, arrived via local media. No misdirection, just facts that combined to form an interesting, credible account of progress via a new type of injunction.

Notable was a not-so-veiled warning for DNS providers. Among the few details of the order made public was confirmation that it included penalties of €100,000 per day for any DNS provider that failed to prevent access to around 100+ streaming sites. Having responded to similar orders to block DNS in France and Portugal by leaving those countries, OpenDNS left Belgium too.

The new order was described as “the first of its kind,” and a “real step forward” in the fight against piracy. But was that the work of the marketing department or a measured fact-based assessment?

Court Order RR/25/00020: Game Changer or the Same Game?

Filed on March 25, 2025, by S.R.L. The 12th Player and DAZN Limited at the Chamber of Presidential Competence in Brussels, the petition for ISP and third-party DNS blocking establishes the fundamentals on well-trodden ground.

The applicants hold the necessary rights to the content in question and to a background of rising infringement in Belgium and an alleged piracy rate nearing 50%, they requested an order to disrupt the supply of infringing content.

The subsequent order dated March 28, 2025, spends almost no time on the first group of respondents; local ISPs VOO, Orange Belgium, Proximus, Telenet, and DIGI Communications Belgium. With their cooperation already established, the Court describes how users turn to alternative DNS providers to circumvent the ISPs’ blocking measures.

[T]he Complainants rightly argue that in order for domain name blocking measures to be effective, it is essential to target not only Internet access providers, but also providers of alternative domain name resolution systems providing their services in Belgium. Legal doctrine and case law confirm that the notion of intermediary is broadly defined.

The intermediaries in question – Cloudflare, Google LLC and Google Ireland Ltd, Cisco Systems and Cisco OpenDNS – form the second category of respondents. It’s understood that Cloudflare, Google, and Cisco opposed their involvement in the petition on various grounds. The specifics are absent from the order but suffice to say, all objections against blocking were rejected.

The Proposed Measures

DAZN’s claim that the order is a “real step forward” is supported by permission from the Court to compel blocking by third party DNS services. This type of blocking has been ordered previously, notably against Cloudflare in Italy and more recently at the request of Canal+ in France, but as a mainstream tool it’s still in its infancy.

History has shown that having gained momentum in one or two key member states, measures like these spread more quickly to others in the bloc. Approval in Belgium makes that much more likely.

Belgium already has experience of so-called ‘static blocking’ against stationary targets but is a relative newcomer to the ‘dynamic blocking’ requested here. Injunctions like these bake in flexibility from the start in preparation for various pirate countermeasures.

As clarified in the order: “The aim is to target not only the domain names identified in the request, but also any domain names circumventing the blocking measures, via redirects and/or mirror sites and/or ‘copycats’. The blocking measures will therefore be regularly updated.”

Confidential Pirate Trademarks

Attention then turns to a ‘confidential’ aspect of the order dealing with the issue of blocking sites based on their appearance.

More specifically, sites that lack an individual identity of their own but gain popularity through the use of ‘pirate trademarks’, usually familiar logos and/or domains containing recognizable site names.

Already part of injunctions in countries including the UK and Australia, targeting new sites based on their use of already familiar ‘pirate’ brands, usually offering the same content, took a surprisingly long time to arrive.

An inevitable response to some piracy groups turning to mass production of sites to frustrate blocking, mitigate search engine downranking, and in some cases to usurp trust in another brand for malicious purposes, brand-based blocking can suppress a range of time-consuming irritants.

Brand-blocking wasn’t advertised as a plus by DAZN but as part of a package, it does indeed amount to another step forward.

The Balance of Interests

With events currently playing out in Spain suggesting that basic rights and freedoms exist only with caveats, faith may need to be restored in balance of interests tests.

That being said, the Court indicates “that after weighing up the interests, rights and freedoms at stake, including the general interest, the facts and, where applicable, the documents on which the applicant relies are such as to reasonably justify the provisional measures requested.”

The Court arrived at the following conclusions:

• Users are in no way deprived of access to the content concerned on legal offers; • Blocking targets are structurally infringing and do not host any legal content; • The blocking measures requested constitute a proportionate and effective response • Impact of measures limited to the violations observed

Blocking Notices

Anyone visiting one of the blocked sites within the court’s jurisdiction should be diverted to a blocking page. The page should provide information to explain why a visit to a pirate site didn’t produce the expected result.

Pirate site redirects should lead to a government website, but in some cases users may find themselves worrying about attackers instead.

How many visitors see the official piracy warning rather than a broken website is unknown; the same certificate issue has persisted for several weeks, leading to a warning that the government’s website could steal citizens’ personal information.

Those who look a little closer might notice that the server has been given a fun name to brighten visitors’ days. Or maybe it’s a cunning way to boost trademark awareness; we may never know. In any event, duties to address these issues are clearly allocated, so along with being monitored, there’s much to draw comfort from.

From: TF, for the latest news on copyright battles, piracy and more.

From TorrentFreak via this RSS feed

Following its launch in 2016, Fmovies presented a major threat to Hollywood and after years online, it was one that seemed near impossible to defeat.

The site’s operators were linked to dozens of popular pirate sites, together generating billions of visits annually.

While the MPA’s anti-piracy flagship ACE tied the operation to Vietnam early on, an effective shutdown proved to be unusually complicated. In addition to gathering intelligence, Hollywood’s diplomatic powers were required to force a breakthrough.

Last summer, these efforts paid off handsomely; or so it appeared. After the main Fmovies site fell apart in July, related streaming portals including Bflix, Aniwave, and Zorox fell like dominoes in the weeks after, with ACE taking partial credit for the closures.

The enforcement action didn’t stop there. Vietnamese authorities eventually arrested two suspects in the case; Phan Thành Công, who allegedly ran Fmovies between 2016 and 2024, and Nguyen Tuan Anh, an accomplice who allegedly uploaded 50,000 videos.

The arrests, paired with follow-up confessions by both men, appeared to be great news for Hollywood and other rightsholders. However, the question remained whether others would be deterred from operating similar piracy rings in Vietnam.

USTR: Vietnam Perceived as a Piracy Haven

Earlier this week, the Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR) published its latest Special 301 Report, highlighting countries that fail to live up to U.S. copyright protection standards. Despite the Fmovies crackdown, Vietnam remains a prime concern.

The USTR writes that Vietnam remains on its “Watch List” since there has been little or no progress on many other intellectual property concerns. At the same time, doubts remain over the effectiveness of local anti-piracy prosecutions.

The USTR highlights two successful criminal convictions last year; one against the operator of BestBuyIPTV, and another targeting the admins of Bilutv.net, Tvhayh.org, and Hiss.pro. While these convictions were rare for Vietnam, they resulted in relatively mild suspended sentences.

These prosecutions don’t appear to have sent shockwaves to other pirate site operators in the country, USTR notes, adding that Vietnam is seen as a piracy haven.

“[E]ven with recent law enforcement actions, Vietnam remains a leading source of online piracy and continues to host some of the most popular English-language copyright infringement sites and services in the world, targeting a global audience,” USTR writes.

“The operators of these sites and services are believed to operate from Vietnam in part because of the perception that the country is a haven for online piracy.”

Stunning Victory or Token Gesture?

The MPA and ACE previously characterized the Fmovies shutdown as a “stunning victory” but they too must be frustrated with the lack of change in the local piracy landscape. Just a few months ago, the MPA listed Hianime and 2embed as notorious pirate operations; both sites are believed to operate from Vietnam.

At the same time, there are serious doubts that prosecutions will lead to convictions that are sufficient to deter other pirate site operators. This includes the prospect of financial penalties that may seem low relative to the scale of the operation.

The USTR sees the challenges ahead, and it urges Vietnam to step up its enforcement game. This includes more prosecutions of pirate site operators as well as tougher punishments, including prison sentences and steep fines.

“In order to have a deterrent effect, Vietnam enforcement authorities should bring more criminal cases against significant piracy sites and consider seeking prison sentences, monetary fines, and other criminal penalties at the higher levels that are available under Vietnamese law,” USTR writes.

This recommendation must be music to the ears of the MPA and the Hollywood group did indeed welcome the USTR report.

“The MPA commends the team at USTR and its interagency partners for identifying harmful practices, combating copyright infringement in foreign markets, and renewing its commitment to countering digital piracy worldwide,” MPA CEO Charles Rivkin says.

MPA’s comments don’t mention Vietnam or the Fmovies case, however. This is understandable, as there are likely diplomatic talks in progress behind the scenes. While the U.S. has recently shown that playing offense can be one strategy to get things done, sometimes a more subtle approach can still be preferred.

—

A copy of the USTR’s full 2025 Special 301 Report is available here (pdf).

From: TF, for the latest news on copyright battles, piracy and more.

From TorrentFreak via this RSS feed

In 2015, Portugal’s General Inspectorate of Cultural Activities (IGAC) finalized an agreement hailed as a groundbreaking development in the fight against online piracy.

A multi-industry memorandum of understanding saw rightsholders, anti-piracy group MAPINET, ISP group Apritel, and DNS.pt, the organization responsible for .PT domains, team up with advertising companies and consumer groups to fight piracy – together.

Based on reports from rightsholders, MAPINET filed monthly complaints to IGAC and within 15 days, ISPs voluntarily blocked pirate sites and advertisers took measures to prevent ad placement.

The Pirate Bay had been previously blocked by court order, but with judicial oversight no longer a requirement under the voluntary program, progress was swift. Within weeks major torrent sites including KickassTorrents, ExtraTorrent, Isohunt, YTS and RARBG, were blocked, along with streaming portals Watchseries, Primewire, and many more besides.

Portugal was on a roll and impressing powerful rightsholders with its reported efficiency.

Portugal’s Success Promoted to Spain and France

In 2016, it was reported that the Portuguese model was considered so effective that Hollywood had begun promoting it to other countries, including Spain and France. After just six months, 330 sites were on the blocklist and according to rightsholders, Portugal’s program was receiving international recognition for its streamlined blocking process.

Noting a “special efficiency” based on results versus costs of litigation, visits to pirate sites had been reportedly slashed by “at least 60%” already. In 2017, a study commissioned by the then-MPAA reported that usage of the top 250 pirate sites in Portugal had decreased 9.3 percent overall, while a control group showed that the same sites enjoyed a 30.8 percent increase in usage globally.

In 2019, the MoU was amended to allow for swift blocking of pirated streams of live sporting events, meaning that Portugal had access to the full range of blocking instruments; static, dynamic, and live. New law that came into force in 2022 added regulatory authority (IGAC) to the existing voluntary program and formalized obligations for intermediaries to address removal of infringing content.

Portugal Keeps on Blocking

Our most recent view of blocking activity in Portugal dates back to last November. Since official information isn’t made available to the public, reliance is placed on third-party resources’ best estimates.

The table of around 3,000 domains blocked since 2015 at the end of this article is likely incomplete. However, in light of Apritel’s statement concerning what it claims is a disastrous piracy situation in the country, the details are important when trying to process the bigger picture.

Apritel begins by reporting on data previously published by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO); 288,000 households in Portugal access paid piracy services (including pirate IPTV) every month, and around one million citizens have at some point consumed pirated content.

“Sports content leads the way in inappropriate consumption: 48% in the EU and 54% in Portugal,” Apritel explains, referencing the percentage of the population that have consumed pirated live sports streams at least once.

The telecoms group continues with additional information sourced from EU reports and covers the now-common talking points about the nature of pirate sites; the security risks faced by the people who use them, for example. Yet the thing that stands out most is actually notable for its puzzling absence.

Gold Standard Blocking System, Zero Mention of Blocking

Depending on the occasion, site-blocking is sometimes described as “just one of the tools in a broader anti-piracy toolbox” or more often one of the most essential tools available to rightsholders, period.

Portugal is as decorated as they come in respect of site blocking; if there was an Oscar for DNS tampering, Portugal would’ve received one a decade ago. Yet when describing the dire piracy situation in the country, Apritel doesn’t mention site blocking directly at all. The closest it gets is with a comment about VPNs noting that it’s “essential that no one gets left out.”

Instead, Apritel calls for urgent reform of the “Portuguese legislative framework and current practices by the competent authorities,” based on four fundamental points.

• Raising awareness among users of the illegality and risks of piracy; • Systematically identifying/penalizing illegal exploitation of content via streaming/IPTV; • Notifying and warning consumers as a first deterrent measure; • Applying simple and swift financial sanctions to repeat offenders.

Since site-blocking measures aren’t directly addressed, to what extent they had an effect is difficult to say. That being said, it seems safe to assume that regardless of performance, a blocking program once described as the model for others to follow, simply wasn’t effective enough to prevent a new piracy crisis. If indeed the last one ever went away.

Punishing Pirates

What Portugal should do now, Apritel says, is put pirate consumers under pressure; warnings to begin, then sanctions for consumers who repeatedly don’t get the message.

“Several European countries — Germany, Spain, France, Greece, Denmark and Italy — have already implemented effective ‘Cease & Desist’ systems, with different models, which consist of formal warnings to consumers, supervised by competent authorities,” Apritel explains.

“In Portugal, this function would be the responsibility of the Inspectorate-General for Cultural Activities (IGAC), never that of electronic communications operators, as is wrongly believed. The data shows that illegal consumption per capita is significantly lower in countries that have adopted these tools. Why is this not being done here as well?”

The above caveat ‘with different models’ is worth a brief explanation. France has operated a system of warnings and sanctions for the past 15 years. Greece passed new law only recently but seems keen to start fining IPTV pirates as quickly as possible.

Italy passed new law in 2023 which supports small fines for an initial offense, increasing to 5,000 euros maximum for repeat offenders. At the time of writing, there are no reports of fines having been issued but pirate IPTV users are likely to be the first targets. Fines of around 70 euros are expected.

To our knowledge, Germany and Denmark have no comparable warning/fine systems in place for tackling piracy; what both have in common (Germany in particular) are histories of aggressive rightsholders using existing copyright law to squeeze cash settlements from the public.

Uptake of Legal Services Was Impressive

Apparently timed to coincide with the blocking of major pirate sites, in October 2015 and after a long wait, Netflix finally launched in Portugal. Estimates in 2023 suggested that around 4.5 million people in Portugal were consuming legal content from legitimate services, with Netflix easily the most popular.

The Streaming Platform Barometer – BStream – is a regular study to monitor the awareness and consumption of on-demand streaming services in Portugal. The most recent edition reported early February 2025 found that 52% of Portuguese people (15+ years old) are now consuming content via streaming platforms, the highest figure since the study began.

While this year’s figure shows a 10% increase over that reported in 2021, it represents growth over last year of just one percentage point; the market is slowing down.

Prices Travel in One Direction

When Netflix launched in Portugal in 2015, a basic single screen subscription cost €7.99 per month; two screen HD cost €9.99, and a premium plan of four screens in Ultra HD cost €11.99. That’s a lot more than the zero paid out when visiting pirate sites, so considering the millions who subsequently went legal, that’s not bad at all.

Due to the imposition of advertising and other shifts in service, direct comparisons today are less straightforward. However, the base subscription now costs €8.99, the ‘standard’ plan costs €12.99, and the ‘Premium’ plan costs €17.99, up from €15.99 at the last increase. Netflix also charges €4.99 for any additional viewers who aren’t under the same roof; when added together, the pressure appears to be on those who lightened the load by sharing the costs.

Consumers obtaining dramatic cost reductions via alternative means is apparently a concern once again. Depending on who receives the money, fines seem unlikely to increase consumers’ disposable income, or make them more receptive to industry outreach.

More blocking?

Consisting of blocking data compiled and publicly made available by sitesbloqueados.pt (offline at the time of writing), the ~3,000 domains in the table below should be considered an incomplete set. The list may also contain a relatively small number of domains blocked for reasons other than piracy. We have already removed around 300 domains blocked for gambling reasons, but we may not have identified them all.

No domains blocked in the last six months are included, and we understand that relatively few domains were added between November 2023 and November 2024

From: TF, for the latest news on copyright battles, piracy and more.

From TorrentFreak via this RSS feed

Spotify has certainly come a long way since it allowed us to hand out free invite codes to its beta launch 16 years ago.

With over 600 million monthly active users, across over 180 markets, it is now the world’s most popular music streaming service by a significant margin.

The streaming giant has always positioned itself as a competitor to pirate services, but its success also relied on pirates. In the early days, Spotify allegedly used MP3s from The Pirate Bay to populate its beta service. The notorious Swedish torrent site was instrumental in other ways too.

“If Pirate Bay had not existed or made such a mess in the market, I don’t think Spotify would have seen the light of day. You wouldn’t get the licenses you wanted,” former Sony BMG CEO Per Sundin said a few years ago.

Pirates are Adversaries Now

Today, Spotify is the largest Swedish company according to some metrics, with a market cap of more than $120 billion. The days when it flirted with pirates are long gone and the company is actively shutting down sites and services that bypass its technical restrictions.

The music service doesn’t go after general pirate sites, but focuses on services and tools that target its own product. This includes sellers of premium codes, as well as tools that allow Spotify users to download tracks into their own devices.

These are not typical pirates, as they rely on Spotify’s legal service to function. However, the streaming service clearly isn’t happy with these creative uses of its platform, and regularly sends legal takedown notices in response.

Spotify Dismantles Download Browser Extension

This week, Spotify targeted a Chrome extension that allowed users to download decrypted tracks in high-quality audio formats, including the associated metadata. Fittingly named “SpotifyDL“, it has been available though GitHub for a few months.

The extension bypassed Spotify’s “PlayPlay” DRM to tackle Spotify’s encryption. It seemed to work as intended, allowing users to download tracks, playlists, or albums with relative ease.

SpotifyDL

Spotify wasn’t happy with this and the company previously requested GitHub to remove the “un-playplay” code that was used to bypass its decryption. However, the SpotifyDL extension remained functional, until it too was targeted.

The takedown notice doesn’t go into much detail; it simply mentions that the entire repository is infringing and should therefore be removed.

The takedown notice

The repository wasn’t removed in its entirety. Before taking action, GitHub allowed developer “cycyrild” to make changes so it would no longer be deemed a problem. In response, cycyrild removed the PlayPlay source code, effectively rendering the extension useless.

“Following a DMCA Takedown Notice from Spotify, I have been forced to remove the source code for the PlayPlay CDM,” the developer writes.

SpotifyDL No Longer Works

While it is understandable that Spotify wants to protect its rights, and those of its main partners, the company’s shift in focus when it comes to ‘pirates’ is noteworthy.

Similar to Netflix and other streaming services that promised to convert pirates into paying customers, for Spotify, there’s an increasing focus on the challenge ‘pirates’ present, rather than the opportunity.

From: TF, for the latest news on copyright battles, piracy and more.

From TorrentFreak via this RSS feed