TorrentFreak

In a lawsuit filed at a New York court in June 2024, publishers including Cengage Learning, Macmillan Learning, Elsevier, and McGraw Hill, bemoaned Google’s ‘systemic and pervasive advertising’ of infringing copies of their copyrighted textbooks.

The complaint alleged that Google Shopping ads placed by third parties used unauthorized images of the publishers’ genuine textbooks to promote sales of pirated copies; a ‘bait-and-switch’ by Google, the publishers said.

Further allegations of infringement concerned Google search results that allegedly returned piracy-heavy results in response to searches for the publishers’ products, rendering the original content more difficult to find. The publishers also claimed that takedown notices sent to Google had little effect. Notifications identifying alleged repeat infringers didn’t result in account suspensions either.

Dismissal of Vicarious Liability Claim

In a recent motion to dismiss, Google successfully argued that the publishers’ vicarious liability claim should be dismissed due to the absence of two key elements; the right and ability to supervise the infringing conduct and a direct financial interest in the same.

Since the infringing conduct took place on third party sites, the court found that Google lacked the required ability to supervise or control, so couldn’t be held vicariously liable. The publishers’ contributory copyright infringement claim wasn’t part of Google’s motion to dismiss so that remained outstanding.

Answer to First Amended Complaint

On July 2, Google filed a comprehensive answer to the publishers’ First Amended Complaint. Addressing the contributory infringement claim, Google accepts that the plaintiffs sent notices identifying URLs that they claimed infringed their copyrights in digital works.

However, Google notes that its Shopping platform is primarily used for legal purposes, and it takes substantial steps to combat infringement, including enforcing its Terms of Service and providing the means for rightsholders to report infringing content.

The system may not be perfect but, according to Google, perfection isn’t the required standard when combating infringement. Equally, mere knowledge of abuse does not render Google a contributory infringer or liable for the actions of a minority of users who abuse Google’s products for nefarious purposes.

“Were it otherwise, countless internet platforms and product manufacturers would essentially be held strictly liable simply for offering their products to users,” Google notes.

“The facts in this case will ultimately demonstrate that Plaintiffs’ claims are meritless.”

Motion for Stay, Pending Supreme Court Decision

In a letter to the court dated July 10, counsel for Google requests a stay in the current case.

“We respectfully request that the Court stay this case pending the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Cox Communications, Inc. v. Sony Music Entertainment….which will consider the standards for (i) contributory copyright infringement and (ii) willfulness under 17 U.S.C. § 504(c),” the letter reads.

As reported last month, Cox Communications successfully petitioned the Supreme Court to review a Fourth Circuit ruling that held the ISP contributorily liable for the actions of subscribers who engaged in piracy.

Labels, including Sony and Universal, had previously secured a $1 billion verdict from a jury in Virginia. This verdict was based on Cox’s knowledge of infringement, material contribution, and a $150,000 maximum statutory damages award per work for ‘willful infringement.

Given the clear similarities to the Cox case pending at the Supreme Court, Google notes that a stay in the publishers’ lawsuit is appropriate.

Core Claims of Willful Contributory Copyright Infringement

Google believes that the Supreme Court’s decision will not only have an impact on the publishers’ lawsuit, it could potentially determine the outcome.

“The core of Plaintiffs’ case is their claim that Google is a willful contributory copyright infringer,” the motion for stay continues.

“Given the centrality of the contributory infringement claim and Plaintiffs’ intent to seek enhanced willfulness damages, the Supreme Court’s decision in Cox will have a significant, and potentially dispositive, impact on the course of this litigation.”

Identical Theory of Liability

Google goes on to cite a petition by the U.S. Solicitor General which overwhelmingly sided with Cox while urging the Supreme Court to take on the case. Google says the theory of liability in Cox is identical to the theory presented by the publishers.

“Plaintiffs’ theory of Google’s liability is identical to the plaintiffs’ theory in Cox: Plaintiffs say Google is liable for willful contributory copyright infringement because it continued to provide merchants with access to Google’s Shopping platform after receiving notices of infringement,” counsel for Google notes.

“If the Supreme Court ultimately agrees with the United States and rejects the Fourth Circuit’s rule on these issues, that would undermine—likely fatally—Plaintiffs’ theories of contributory liability and willfulness here. But regardless of what happens, the Supreme Court’s eventual decision will shape the key issues presented in this case, including questions related to the scope of relevant fact and expert discovery.”

Google believes that oral argument in the Cox matter “could be heard as early as the November sitting, with a possible decision a few months later.”

Describing a few months delay as a modest postponement that could even offer “significant economies” in the current case, Google says that the plaintiffs will not face “any meaningful prejudice” from a short delay.

Google’s Motion for Stay Pending Supreme Court’s Decision in Cox, is available here (pdf)

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

---

From TorrentFreak via this RSS feed

Unlike the speed of light in a vacuum or the infinite journey into Pi, measures to enforce copyright are subject to constant change and perpetual expansion.

As the site-blocking debate revs up in anticipation of a green light in the United States, fifteen years of global site blocking experience is poised to hit the ground running. After that, calls for further improvement and expansion are only a question of time.

Australia: A Decade of Site Blocking

Last month marked the ten-year anniversary of amendments to Australia’s Copyright Act. The Copyright Amendment (Online Infringement) Act 2015 enabled rightsholders to obtain injunctions against ISPs to compel blocking of overseas pirate sites, the same entities now targeted in the FADPA and ACPA bills.

Unfortunately, the 2015 amendments weren’t quite good enough. In 2018, further amendments expanded the threshold test for site blocking orders and extended the provision to search engines; Google began deindexing pirate sites shortly after that, marking a likely world first for Australia and a signal for other countries to follow suit.

Local movie company Village Roadshow in partnership with the usual Hollywood studios, plus Netflix, Amazon, and Apple, are responsible for the majority of blocking applications filed at Australia’s Federal Court. Targeting up to 100 or more pirate sites each, the injunctions usually name in excess of 50 local ISPs as respondents. Not only are the ISPs required to prevent subscribers from accessing the domains on the initial list, but also those subsequently identified by rightsholders as proxies or mirrors.

New Order Handed Down This Week

This week the Federal Court handed down a new blocking order in favor of Village Roadshow, Disney, Paramount, Columbia, Universal, Warner Bros., Netflix, Apple, and Viacom.

The injunction targets 35 pirate streaming sites, many operating from multiple domains, often with significant levels of traffic. The application was filed early April, so turnaround time was roughly three months.

The order is dynamic, meaning it allows additional domains to be added later when reported by rightsholders. In addition to the usual parameters, dynamic blocking in this case encompasses sites using similar domain names, similar branding, or those linked by common ownership. Used regularly in the UK, this aspect of blocking was first deployed in Australia.

Given the nature of the first few sites in the latest injunction, ‘brand blocking’ will see extensive use once again. Several of the largest switch their domain names regularly, but the one constant across all sites is their use of Cloudflare.

If any unrelated sites decide to impersonate a blocked site to get traffic, ‘brand blocking’ won’t discriminate in any way; it can and probably will block everything within its scope.

An Example for the United States?

There are many blocking mechanisms around the world, mostly encouraged, assisted or influenced by major U.S. rightsholders, European sports leagues, and/or their broadcasting partners. Different approaches, strengths, weaknesses, and various quirks are to be expected, especially when countries don’t even share a common language.

Since Australia and the United States are rumored to understand each other perfectly, would the Aussie approach (which in no small part was driven by the demands of the U.S.) be of interest if site blocking gets underway in the United States?

In many ways Australia’s approach should receive more credit than it does. Attention to detail is evident everywhere, and the Court ensures that everyone’s rights are respected, regardless of which side of the piracy battle they’re on, including those not involved at all. While nothing can prevent every blunder, a system like this can only reduce the number. If there have been any blunders in the last decade, we’re aware of exactly none.

Less Haste, More Speed?

How Australia managed to build such a robust and relatively transparent system is the product of many moving parts, but there’s no doubt that paying attention to the rights of all internet users was of critical importance. These things naturally take time and as a result, Australia’s methodical system may absorb a little too much time for those determined to rush.

It takes around 90 days to obtain a blocking order and in the interim, a lot can happen. The “online location” HydraHD listed in the new court order had roughly 4.5 million visitors in April, but just 1.3 million at the beginning of June.

Depending on visitor location, Cloudflare currently prevents access to that domain following legal action by S.R.L. The 12th Player and DAZN in Belgium (pdf). Meanwhile, the site’s alternative .cc domain is currently blocked by various vendors for allegedly spreading malware.

Moving Targets

Other things can happen too. The Australian injunction lists andyday.tv as a blocking target, which makes sense given the 12.7 million visitors the site received in April when the application was filed. Yet a month later, monthly traffic had fallen to just 1.87 million, followed by a further collapse to 653K in June.

Right now the domain doesn’t work at all, while potential replacement andyday.cc is likely to disappoint pirates. It was recently transferred to the Motion Picture Association, most likely following some type of action by the Alliance for Creativity and Entertainment.

New domains may improve a pirate site’s visibility for a while, but new domains can also be added to Australian blocking orders. Comments by the Court indicate that the process of adding new domains may take a week or two. On one hand that ensures fewer mistakes but on the other, rightsholders seem to have something quicker in mind for their automated, state-of-the-art blocking program in the U.S.

Or at least, that’s as far as we know. Those who actually know aren’t sharing the details right now.

The Federal Court order in Roadshow Films v Telstra [NSD190_2025] is available here (pdf)

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

---

From TorrentFreak via this RSS feed

Nintendo and other gaming companies are doing everything in their power to stop the public from playing pirated games.

This includes sending a steady stream of cease-and-desist notices, as well as filing lawsuits. And in some rare cases, law enforcement agencies are stepping up to help.

Feds Seize Gaming Piracy Domains

Today, the FBI seized several domain names linked to well-known game piracy websites, including NSW2U.com, Game-2u.com, Bigngame.com, and ps4pkg.com. Instead of an overview of pirated games, visitors are now greeted with a domain seizure banner.

“This domain has been seized by the Federal Bureau of Investigation in accordance with a seizure warrant issued pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §§ 2323 issued by the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia as part of a law enforcement operation and action,” the banner reads.

Seized

The action was carried out by the FBI in collaboration with the Dutch Fiscal Information and Investigation Service (FIOD). To effectively seize the domain names, the nameservers were updated to point to fbi.seized.gov, which has been used for similar interventions in the past.

The domains in question are known pirate sites and NSW2U.com was listed as a notorious pirate site by the U.S. Trade Representative at the beginning of the year, with the other three targeted domains receiving a mention as “related sites.”

From USTR’s January 2025 report

The USTR typically relies on rightsholders for input, and in this case, the Entertainment Software Association (ESA) explicitly connected these domains. In their recommendation, ESA mentioned that NSW2U links to game-2u.com, ps4pkg.com, and BigNGame.com, which also make various pirated games available.

The connection between the domains isn’t far-fetched, as some of the links were part of the navigational structure of the site. NSW2U is mainly focused on Nintendo Switch releases, and it connected visitors to the other domains that specialized in other platforms.

Pre-Release Link

According to the software association, which represents Nintendo, Sony, and Microsoft, NSW2U offered thousands of links to pirated games. These included many high-profile titles that leaked before their official release dates.

“This ‘pre-release’ piracy is particularly harmful to ESA member companies because it allows site users to download a pirated copy of a video game before consumers have the opportunity to choose to buy a lawful copy,” ESA wrote in its recommendation.

NSW2U.com

To our knowledge, none of the agencies involved has publicly confirmed or commented on the matter yet. In the past, similar seizures have resulted in arrests and indictments, as in the case of Z-Library, for example. However, this is not always the case, as last year’s StreamEast seizures took place without any additional public action.

It’s also possible that more seizures will follow in the coming hours or days. If that happens, or if any new information becomes available, we will update this article accordingly.

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

---

From TorrentFreak via this RSS feed

By offering free access to millions of ‘paywalled’ research papers, Sci-Hub is an unauthorized bastion of knowledge.

The site is used by researchers from all over the world to access papers they otherwise have a hard time accessing. For some, the site is essential to their work.

Major academic publishers such as Elsevier, Wiley, and American Chemical Society, view the site quite differently. They have taken it to court on several occasions, resulting in clear legal victories. However, Sci-Hub is still around today, and millions continue to rely on it.

Legal trouble and related friction has made it harder for the site to operate. In addition to domain name troubles, academic institutions fortified their paywalls, making it more difficult for Sci-Hub to automatically download recent papers. After Sci-Hub promised the Indian High Court not to upload new papers, there are virtually no recent papers on the site.

The lack of recent research is problematic in a field where users typically build on the works of others. Sci-Hub has lost some of its appeal among ‘pirate’ researchers but with a new plan for the “tokenomics for Open Science,” founder Alexandra Elbakyan hopes to ignite a revolution once again.

Sci-Hub Adds User Requests & Uploads

Sci-Hub traditionally never allowed its users to add papers to the site, but this has changed. Through Sci-Net, a platform for people interested in creating an openly accessible database of scientific knowledge, users can request and upload new papers and books.

If these new contributions are not in the database, they’re added to Sci-Hub’s archive, allowing the community to manually expand the availability of academic works.

The ability for outsiders to add new content will help Sci-Hub to keep its archive updated. However, given that many works are copyrighted, there are legal risks for the site’s members. They become distributors in the process, a situation no different to that found on traditional pirate sites.

While this is a significant change for Sci-Hub, the real innovation, as well as the controversy, lies in the “tokenomics” concept on which this new sharing functionality is based.

Sci-Hub’s SCI Coin

The new Sci-Net community isn’t simply catering to deviant researchers who value access to research over copyright; it also comes with its own token economy. Users who request access to paywalled content offer SCI coins, which are paid out to those who fulfill the requests.

These transactions are decentralized, with tokens transferred from user to user without a middleman. After the upload is ‘paid’ for, the copyrighted content is available to everyone who uses Sci-Hub without any additional charge, expanding Sci-Hub’s database.

“Each token will act as a small building block for a giant open knowledge database that will include any scientific article or book ever published, accessible for free to every person,” Sci-Hub notes in its tokenomics whitepaper (pdf).

Needless to say, none of this is authorized by the copyright holders.

SCI price

The Sci-Hub coin (SCI) is essentially designed as a meme coin and runs on the Solana network. The value of these coins can be highly volatile, but over the past week, SCI hovered around $0.5 per coin, with more than 2,000 holders and a planned total supply of 888,888 tokens.

Coin Concerns

Historically, pirate tokens don’t have a great track record. The Pirate Bay famously launched its own token a few years ago, but that was completely wiped out after a few months. While someone likely made money along the way, the vast majority saw their ‘investment’ disappear.

The SCI coin is different, as it comes with a detailed plan laid out in the whitepaper and a seemingly operational token economy. That is not a guarantee for success, especially since its raison d’être is grounded in copyright infringement, but there is a clear plan and vision.

SCI Coin

It’s generally healthy to approach all ‘token’ projects with criticism, and in this case Sci-Hub has had plenty of pushback too. Since most coins are controlled by Elbakyan, who also holds a healthy amount, there are concerns about a potential rug pull. In response, Sci-Hub’s founder locked part of the supply, which will be gradually released.

Elbakyan will also keep a significant token stake, which she says will be used as a donation for supporting and further developing the technical infrastructure for open knowledge. Generally speaking, the coin is not advertised as an investment but as a way to reward knowledge sharing and support open access.

Alexandra’s tweet

Requesting currently unavailable papers through Sci-Net costs at least 1 SCI token. Ironically, this means that paywalled articles might be cheaper if the token price increases too much, which brings us to the tokenomics part.

Pirate Economics?

Aside from the obvious legal issues, the token concept is interesting, but it also raises some questions.

For one, the community rewards uploaders who already have access to paywalled research, which means that all tokens would flow to a small group. Since these people already have access to paywalled content themselves, they have little incentive to spend tokens themselves.

These uploaders can donate coins or sell them, but there is no guarantee that they will. This could make the availability of coins increasingly scarce, which, as we hinted at before, can result in price hikes that make access to content overly expensive.

Another possibility is that the price of the token will tank, which also happened to a third-party Sci-Hub memecoin that wasn’t affiliated with the official site. This may result in a lack of incentive for uploaders to contribute their time and effort.

Time will tell if Sci-Hub’s plan will fare any better while withstanding further pushback from publishers going forward.

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

---

From TorrentFreak via this RSS feed

Unveiled earlier this year by Rep. Zoe Lofgren and Rep. Darrell Issa respectively, the Foreign Anti-Digital Piracy Act (FADPA) and the American Copyright Protection Act (ACPA) have underlying differences but much in common.

Both bills would enable copyright holders to request site blocking orders against foreign pirate sites, with ISPs and DNS resolvers required to prevent U.S. internet users from accessing them.

Different Bills, Same Claimed Benefits

The claimed benefits of FADPA / ACPA are simple and 100% interchangeable, likewise the stated downsides of using foreign services instead of legitimate local platforms. Overseas pirate sites ‘steal’ legitimate content, and then offer free copies to Americans via the internet, undermining business models and disrupting the legitimate market, the background goes.

Pirate sites also stand accused of involvement in malware distribution, phishing, and other scams that recognize the relative wealth of Americans, and then use various means to deprive them of it.

All pirate sites are framed as fundamentally unsafe, with site blocking measures promoted as the complete opposite. Yet in the same way that pirate sites aren’t universally dangerous, site-blocking cannot be described as universally safe either. These absolutes unhelpfully provide no room for compromise, making it more likely that the battle for and against site blocking will take place on issues of safety.

Blocking Orders, Implemented Safely

The risk of innocent sites being accidentally or even deliberately blocked (it happens), and the potential effect that could have on freedom of expression, is one of the key issues cited by opponents of site-blocking. Organized by pro-site blocking groups Information Technology and Innovation Foundation (ITIF) and the Digital Citizens Alliance (DCA), a policy forum held late last month offered discussion on that very issue.

Drawing on the best international practices, the discussion will explore how blocking orders can be implemented safely and effectively to protect intellectual property and promote legal content without threatening free expression.

Representative Darrell Issa was the first keynote speaker to address the audience. Without mentioning SOPA by name, Issa accepted that mistakes had been made but after much work, now is the right time to regain lost ground.

“We tried many years ago with a piece of legislation that was thoughtful but not fully thought out, and it died a painful death. We have sought now for almost two years to make sure that when we would reintroduce a form of judicial site blocking as we call it, that we fixed those errors, and we believe we have,” he explained.

“Will it do everything? No. But will it dramatically reduce the profitability of those who steal from things as broadly as live broadcasts to the everyday copyrighted material?”

“Pirate sites are actually relatively few but in fact have enjoyed unfettered profits in the United States. Well, dozens of countries around the world have sought and successfully found ways to limit it,” the architect of ACPA explained.

America – A ‘Soft Target’ For Pirates

Clearly aware of the difficulties ahead, Issa recalled a previous life in another trade where deterrence couldn’t prevent theft, but it was good enough.

“When I was in the private sector I made among other things car security systems and I have a quip that I’ve told people for years. Absolutely, I never stopped the stealing of a single car; I simply got the thief to steal someone else’s car,” he said.

“The fact is we are a soft target and because we are a soft target, profiteers in foreign countries including Russia, China, and formerly in Ukraine – although they were mostly Russians operating from Ukraine and other countries – have widely profited because we’re the soft target.

“That is going to stop, but it’s going to stop in a very careful and measured way. Most importantly we are not looking to fix every time somebody in an automated way says ‘Oh we’ve got one here we’ve got one there.’ We’re not looking to go to the site where somebody, thinking it was harmless, puts something up on YouTube. The DMCA has a process for that – and it is burdensome and it is time-consuming. However, it is fair on balance and for now we will leave it completely untouched.”

Live Blocking, Straight Off the Bat

At this relatively early stage, plans may not play out in line with expectations, or even play out at all. That being said, Rep. Issa said that the plan is to go after “the pervasive and profitable pirate” using dynamic blocking and for sports broadcasts, live blocking, currently the most advanced type of blocking available. Rightsholders will have to go before a judge and engage in a process, but after that automation will ensure that blocking targets can’t simply reappear.

“[W]hat will be different is the continuous ability to go back in an automated way and know that when it’s the same, even if slightly disguised pirate, you will be able to shut them down in moments. That means no longer will live broadcasts, for example, only get the order to shut down after the soccer game is over. That’s going to be a thing of the past.”

Level of Support Still Unclear

ACPA is being introduced on a bipartisan basis and Rep. Issa believes that it’s going to be mostly well appreciated. Reading between the lines, it sounds like some big ISPs in the U.S. are fully committed while others are proving more difficult and may even be excluded early on.

“We have put safeguards in, although it’s not a pilot; it starts with the cooperation and support of some of the largest ISPs, but not all of them. I do believe that they are the exceptions and in many cases they’re carved out of the first stage of this.”

Informative Panel Discussions, But Not Without Concerns

Full details of those on the panel can be found down below but overall their contributions were both clear and informative. The presence of lawyers from the Premier League and Rogers Communications was a smart move due to the type of high-level ‘live’ blocking they’re involved in, together in Canada and individually elsewhere.

On several occasions it was suggested that the models in Canada and the UK are of the type that could prove suitable for the United States.

Most of the safeguards in place to prevent overblocking in Canada are effectively a secret so weren’t revealed in any detail. However, Rogers’ secret weapon was openly discussed; when a rightsholder is also an ISP, the position offers an unrivalled birds eye view.

“[A]s an ISP and as a television distributor, understand that our prerogative is to protect the media business,” said Kristina Milbourn, Rogers’ head of litigation.

“We know how to do that, we have technical expertise that enables us to block in a very meaningful way and a very surgical way, because we certainly don’t want to imperil the internet in Canada. Happily our internet still works, so nothing is broken, but we do have tremendous insights sitting on both sides of the fence.”

Which ISPs have that kind of visibility in the U.S. and what are the safeguards, if indeed any are required?

Claims of Problem Free Blocking Challenged

After directly responding to questions from the audience, the panel faced a challenge to the general claim that site blocking is completely safe. If there are any issues, the narrative goes, they barely move the needle so aren’t really important enough to discuss. The person in the audience quite strongly disagreed.

“[W]hen I hear presentations about blocking around the world, and how there are no problems and how it doesn’t cause any issues, that hasn’t really been the experience we’ve seen in a lot of countries,” said Zaid Zaid, Cloudflare’s Head of U.S. Public Policy.

“There are a lot of problems when websites or IP addresses are blocked, there are tons of unintended consequences, tons of unintended blocking, you know, that could impact mom and pop shops, that will impact websites and American consumers etc.,” Zaid said.

“So we think that the best way to deal with the issue is more collaboration rather than trying to force various players along the internet stack to have to block things, block websites, block IP addresses etc, and I sort of would like to hear, you know, what are some of the remedies, what are some of the things that we can work on together?”

This statement was the first real opportunity to discuss blocking safety with a person claiming first-hand experience. And while Zaid wasn’t ignored, his claim that problems are widespread – global even – received not a single challenge from anyone in the room.

That no one meaningfully engaged on the very topic advertised as the basis of the event seems a little odd. After three solid months of site blocking in Spain, that made global headlines due to the systematic blocking of Cloudflare and the associated collateral damage, examples of unsafe blocking have never been more plentiful. On a pro rata basis, overblocking discussion is arguably at an all-time low.

In addition to the two keynote speakers, panelists for the event were (left to right): ITIF Associate Director Rodrigo Balbontine, DCA Executive Director Tom Galvin, Michael D. Smith, Professor of Information Technology and Public Policy at Carnegie Mellon University, lawyer Kristina Milbourn, head of litigation at Rogers Communications in Canada, and Stefan Sergot, Director of Legal – Enforcement at the Premier League.

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, filing a series of lawsuits in the United States.

DISH Sues Innetra

In May, DISH filed a copyright infringement complaint against UK hosting company ‘Innetra PC’ at a California federal court. DISH accused the company of aiding widespread copyright infringement, while largely ignoring takedown requests.

The complaint, based on IBCAP’s evidence, alleged that Innetra provides essential infrastructure for “Pirate Services”. They include Lemo TV and Kemo IPTV, which were sued by DISH earlier this year, as well as Honeybee, Xtremehd, and Caliptostreams.

DISH argued that Innetra cannot rely on safe harbor protection because it allegedly failed to respond to numerous copyright infringement notices. A notice to which it did respond indicated a refusal to comply.

The lawsuit specifically states that Innetra “possessed the means to take simple measures to stop the infringement” but “refused to take such measures, choosing instead to continue profiting.”

While Innetra is a UK company, DISH argued that the U.S. is an appropriate venue for the lawsuit, as the hosting service targeted its services towards the U.S. by, among other things, referencing the DMCA on its website.

The complaint states that Innetra is liable for contributory and vicarious copyright infringement, for which the plaintiff seeks damages that could reach $25 million. The same applies to Innnetra’s general partner, Elna Paulette Belle, who is personally listed as a defendant in the case.

Innetra Wants Case Dismissed

This week, Innetra responded to the complaint with a motion to dismiss. The company does not respond to the copyright infringement allegations in detail. Instead, it argues that the court lacks jurisdiction, as the UK company has minimal to no contacts with the United States or California.

The defendants argue that the court has neither general nor specific personal jurisdiction in this case. General jurisdiction requires “substantial” or “continuous and systematic” contacts with the U.S., but Innetra notes that its principal place of business is in the UK, while Belle is a citizen and resident of the Seychelles, with no U.S. contacts.

From the motion to dismiss

Innetra further notes that specific jurisdiction doesn’t apply either, as DISH cannot prove they “purposefully directed” or “purposefully availed” themselves of the United States, emphasizing that a plaintiff’s contacts with the defendant cannot be the sole basis for jurisdiction.

The company states that it doesn’t have any U.S. servers and just one U.S. user since its inception, whose account was active for just two months in early 2025.

The DMCA and other U.S. Links

The hosting company notes that the company’s main market is not the United States, but North Africa, Europe and Eastern Europe. It suggests that it’s services aren’t very appealing for American users due to the high latency, as its servers are all located in the Netherlands.

DISH argues in its complaint that Innetra’s FAQ specifically mentions the DMCA, which is a U.S. copyright law, but the hosting company doesn’t believe that its promise to “customers from illegitimate DMCA claims” warrants jurisdiction either.

“Addressing DMCA takedown notices does not confer personal jurisdiction and does not show that Innetra purposefully availed itself to United States Service Users. Moreover, there is nothing nefarious about stating that Innetra protects its customers from illegitimate DMCA Claims and such a statement does not imply that Innetra disregards the DMCA,” the hosting company writes in its motion to dismiss.

Innetra further argues that other website features, such as the default pricing in U.S. dollars, the availability of a U.S. phone number, and ties with American payment providers such as Visa, Mastercard, and PayPal, do not necessarily show that it purposefully targeted its services to the United States.

A UK Lawsuit?

The hosting provider doesn’t dismiss the notion of a lawsuit entirely but instead argues that the United Kingdom is a more appropriate venue. It stresses that both the U.S. and UK are signatories to the Berne Convention, which allows for reciprocal copyright protections.

“Dish may pursue its dispute in the United Kingdom where Innetra is located. Dish, however, may not force foreign defendants that lack minimum contacts with the United States, let alone California, to defend themselves in the United States,” the motion to dismiss reads.

Innetra’s general partner and director, Elna Paulette Belle, is a citizen and resident of the Seychelles and presumably favors a UK lawsuit as well.

In a declaration, Elna Paulette Belle notes that her name has changed to Elna Paulette Valentin. This is not the first name change, as she appears to have used the name Elna Paulette Lafortune in the past. These three names are publicly connected to dozens of UK companies.

The motion to dismiss is scheduled for a hearing on September 17, 2025. After that, the California federal court will decide whether the case can continue in the United States or not.

—

A copy of Innetra’s motion to dismiss, 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

While other law enforcement agencies and rightsholders can’t be ruled out, those involved in pirate IPTV in the UK should be aware of four names in particular.

A specialist unit funded in part by the private sector, the Police Intellectual Property Crime Unit (PIPCU) at City of London Police often investigates piracy of Sky TV broadcasts.

As the ultimate rightsholders of the country’s most popular football broadcasts available via Sky, the Premier League is also known for its anti-piracy operations. Likewise, the Federation Against Copyright Theft, a rights holder-funded anti-piracy group which can appear alongside any of the above at any time.

UK Raids: PIPCU Team Up With Sky

In an announcement this morning, PIPCU revealed that following an investigation into a streaming service offering Sky content illegally, last Thursday morning (July 3, 2025) PIPCU detectives executed search warrants at residential addresses near to Birmingham and a commercial address in Gloucestershire.

At one of the residential addresses in Oldbury, PIPCU says they arrested a 30-year-old man, who they believe is the operator of a thus-far unnamed IPTV service. A 32-year-old woman was also arrested at one of the addresses on suspicion of copyright offenses and receiving criminal property.

PIPCU’s press release doesn’t specifically identify the pair as a couple, nor reveal whether they were arrested at the same or different addresses. However, PIPCU says that its investigation suggests that the pair derived “significant profits” from the service.

Cheltenham Datacenter Raid

The commercial address where PIPCU executed a warrant last Thursday is reportedly a datacenter located around 50 miles south of Oldbury in Cheltenham, Gloucestershire. PIPCU hasn’t revealed its name or precise location but did post a couple of photographs taken inside to its account on X.

Presumably extracted from the rack of Supermicro servers on the right, PIPCU says that they believe the seizure of seven of those servers last Thursday “caused major disruption” to a number of pirate services, none of which are named.

Sky Thanks PIPCU

“This activity should serve as a reminder that PIPCU will pursue criminals who seek to profit from illegal streaming and disrupt their operations,” says Detective Constable Daryl Fryatt of PIPCU.

“This is a crime that diverts funds away from the creative and entertainment industries, money that supports thousands of technical and support staff. At the same time, it exposes end users to the risks of data theft, fraud and malware.”

Matt Hibbert, Group Director of Anti-Piracy at Sky, thanks PIPCU for its work protecting Sky and members of the public.

“We are extremely grateful to the Police Intellectual Property Crime Unit for taking this action against a significant pirate operation. We will continue to work alongside the police and industry partners to tackle piracy and disrupt the criminal networks behind it,” Hibbert said.

“This action helps to keep consumers safe from the serious risks that piracy can pose to devices and personal property.”

Possible Links to Previous Raid

As part of a previous operation to disrupt the supply of pirate IPTV subscriptions in the UK, last October PIPCU raided a residential address and four business addresses in the West Midlands, including a datacenter.

PIPCU withheld the name of a datacenter but using the supplied photographs, TorrentFreak was able to identify the location, the name of the company behind it, and the nature of various pieces of hardware in the images.

A closer inspection of the latest images reveals that PIPCU has blurred out potentially useful information, but there’s circumstantial evidence to suggest that the datacenter targeted last week has links to the datacenter raided last October in Wolverhampton.

Nothing further has been heard about those arrested last year but since cases often take years to reach court, that’s not unexpected.

Finally, while Sky and PIPCU highlight risks reported by Sky’s BeStreamWise anti-piracy campaign (in which PIPCU also plays a leading role), no specific allegations of fraud or identity theft were mentioned in connection with the service or services affected by last week’s operation.

In the meantime, however, one or more criminal operations not dissimilar to those described here operate perpetually via at least one datacenter in the UK, seemingly completely unhindered.

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

---

From TorrentFreak via this RSS feed

Obtaining a DMCA subpoena to identify an alleged infringer is relatively easy, fairly cheap, and doesn’t require a judge to get involved.

A case in California has already stomped all over that general theory, but how far it will be allowed to progress and where any effects will be felt, currently hang in the balance.

Subpoena Application Considered Sufficient

In an application dated June 2, 2025, the pro se applicant systematically ticks the required boxes. The aim was to obtain a DMCA subpoena under 17 U.S. Code § 512(h) to compel domain registrar Dynadot Inc. to hand over information sufficient to identify one or more alleged infringers.

To meet the requirement at 2(A), the applicant provided a DMCA takedown notice sent to an email address at the domain MyPornvid.fun. The takedown notice references four original copyright works on YouTube, and corresponding URLs on MyPornvid.fun where the applicant alleges his videos could be viewed without authorization.

This wasn’t the full scale of the alleged infringement; the notice mentions that since “numerous” other videos from the applicant’s YouTube channel were also present on the site without permission, all should be removed for breach of copyright.

Note: a) The DMCA takedown notice sent to MyPornvid.fun is dated August 21, 2023 b) Nothing appears in the application to show whether the content was taken down or not c) Out of an abundance of caution, any redactions are for reasons that will soon become clear

Information to Be Disclosed According to the Subpoena

The disclosure requests concern a single period that starts three years ago and ends at the date of the current subpoena. They relate to potential identifying information connected to Dynadot accounts (only one account is identified) used in connection with the domain mypornvid.fun, specifically:

The application concludes with the usual DMCA declarations and with that, the California court granted the subpoena. Deadline for production: June 30, 2025.

Dynadot Partially Complies

In a filing dated June 30, 2025, the applicant informs the court that Dynadot provided registration data for the person who held the domain during the period when the alleged infringement occurred (June through December 2023).

Those details include a full name, an email address, a phone number, and a physical address in Dhaka, Bangladesh.

Apparently in response to the specific request to supply “last known” address and “last known” telephone number, Dynadot handed over the details of an entity/company called Name Management Group, which appears to be the current owner of the domain.

According to public records NMG has connections to around 78,000 domains. In a recently concluded dispute with Charter Communications (pdf), the entity was represented by an agent in India and described as a ‘domain investor’.

Dynadot Declines to Disclose IP Address Logs

Whether the obtained information will prove useful is unknown, but Dynadot’s reported refusal to fully comply with disclosure of IP address logs is an issue, the applicant writes.

Dynadot is reportedly claiming protection under the “transitory communications safe harbor under the DMCA” and has stated that they “will not provide any other user data absent an applicable court order.”

The applicant does note, however, that Dynadot “will not object to this order so long as no amounts are sought against Dynadot.”

Other than that, the registrar is said to have declined to engage in any “meaningful discussion.”

Domain Registrars “Are Not Transmission ISPs”

Citing various cases including Visual Supply Company v. Khimji, Recording Indus. Ass’n of Am., Inc. v. Verizon Internet Servs., Inc., and Charter Commc’ns, Inc., Subpoena Enf’t Matter, the applicant arrives at the following conclusions:

“This Court’s explicit finding that those precedents are not applicable when dealing with domain name registrars provides direct support for rejecting Dynadot’s identical safe harbor claim. Multiple federal courts across different circuits have consistently issued and enforced § 512(h) subpoenas against domain name registrars without analyzing claimed transmission safe harbor defenses.”

Court in Illinois Granted DMCA Subpoenas Against ISPs

To emphasize his position that “domain name registrars occupy a different legal position than pure transmission ISPs,” the applicant cites a 2019 case in the Northern District of Illinois.

CME Grp. Inc. v. Nagovskiy was a trademark and copyright action in which the plaintiff reportedly requested a DMCA subpoena pursuant to 17 U.S.C. § 512(h). In response, the Court granted one, “compelling Defendants GoDaddy, OVH, and Webzilla to expeditiously disclose..[.]…information sufficient to identify Defendants.”

“If domain name registrars such as GoDaddy ‘enjoy[..] the transitory communications safe harbor under the DMCA,’ the court could not and would not have acceded to such a prayer for relief,” the applicant states.

“A Matter of Public Interest”

With those details established, the applicant asks the Court to enter “as a matter of public interest” the following order :

1. Declare that domain name registrars qualify as providers of “Information Location Tools” under 17 U.S.C. § 512(d) and are therefore subject to identification subpoenas under 17 U.S.C. § 512(h) regardless of any claimed safe harbor protections under other DMCA provisions; and

2. Based upon that determination, grant this unopposed motion and order Dynadot to provide complete compliance with the DMCA subpoena.

“[C]larification would benefit not only the instant matter, but all DMCA subpoenas issued to domain name registrars,” he adds.

Magistrate Judge Sallie Kim’s subsequent order notes the motion to compel but reminds the applicant that Dynadot has yet to file a ‘Consent or Declination’ to Magistrate Judge Jurisdiction. Until then, important matters will presumably have to wait; not so in many other proceedings active elsewhere, however.

DMCA Subpoena Everyone

The applicant in the above matter, Nima Gharavi, is the person behind the Midwest Wrestle channel on YouTube. With over 2,200 videos documenting youth wrestling matches and related content, reportedly filmed by Gharavi himself (hence the copyright claims), MidWest Wrestle has amassed an impressive 120 million views from a base of 171K subscribers.

Since at least 2024, Gharavi’s name- sometimes as an individual, sometimes together with Right Call Officials, Inc. – has appeared on a series of DMCA subpoena applications targeting videos allegedly present on the world’s largest social media platforms. Those cases include the following, all of which have a copyright focus:

Gharavi v. Tumblr, Inc (1:24-cv-12718) Gharavi v. X CORP. (3:25-mc-80004) In re DMCA Subpoena to Reddit, Inc. (4:25-mc-80002) In re DMCA Section 512(h) Subpoena to Google LLC. (4:25-mc-80164) Gharavi v. Meta Platforms (3:25-mc-80003) Gharavi v. Tumblr Inc (2:25-mc-00029) Gharavi v. X Corp. (1:25-mc-00150)

One of the lawsuits is notable for its focus on the videos and related commentary made by third parties, to which Gharavi responded with a lawsuit for libel and slander.

In Gharavi v. Flosports, Inc. (1:24-cv-01969), the defendants were sued for a series of allegations, all of which concern the nature of the youth wrestling videos posted online.

Some of those videos received millions of views, in part due to a ‘different’ audience watching on platforms other than directly on YouTube.com. A judge alludes to the nature of that audience in the introduction of his recent memorandum opinion and order (pdf).

Our coverage on TF focuses purely on copyright; in that respect, the above case mostly lies outside our niche. However, in the context of the DMCA subpoena, Dynadot’s partial refusal to comply, and the request for the court to examine matters concerning service provider safe harbor, the case presents small pieces of information that may punch above their weight.

Technical Matters, Matter

Due to the ongoing matter of the allegedly libelous speech, our focus is on a technical detail that not only transcends that dispute, but may offer guidance in the parallel DMCA subpoena matter.

If content of any kind was posted to YouTube and managed to attract a large audience beyond those who view via the YouTube.com front end, that would usually be achieved by embedding YouTube videos in third party sites. In the lawsuit against Flosports, screenshots of search engine results appear to show the videos embedded in third party sites.

The examples in the DMCA takedown notice clearly show that the URLs for the allegedly unauthorized ‘copies’ of the videos, contain the same YouTube video references contained in the originals.

That raises an important question: were these unauthorized ‘copies’ of videos ripped from YouTube, hosted elsewhere, and viewed in a player other than YouTube’s in clear breach of copyright; or were these the original videos embedded in the third-party site, streamed directly from YouTube?

If the latter is true, that raises the prospect of an admittedly objectionable audience watching fully-licensed content. If proven, the implications for the DMCA subpoena matter could be devastating.

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

---

From TorrentFreak via this RSS feed

Brazil often makes headlines for activities linked to Operation 404, an anti-piracy initiative under the Ministry of Justice and Public Security.

Best known for the mass blocking of apps in coordination with anti-piracy and law enforcement agencies around the world, the Operation 404 framework can now boast Brazil’s most significant criminal convictions linked to the supply of pirate IPTV.

Trio Sentenced at São Paulo Court

The landmark sentences were handed down June 24 at the 2nd Court of Tax Crimes, Criminal Organization, and Money Laundering. Three defendants, found guilty of money laundering offenses committed between January 1, 2017 and January 19, 2021, were identified by their initials.

The leader of the operation was identified by the initials RMDS. He was confirmed as the provider of an illicit service delivered through the MP 2.0 meuplayer.me app following a search and seizure order executed at his home. According to site snapshots, the app was available on Android and Windows desktop.

The investigation took place over a four-year period, with anti-piracy group Alianza Contra la Piratería Audiovisual (Alianza) playing a leading role. Documents seen by TorrentFreak reveal a campaign to remove the MeuPlayer app from sites including APKCombo and APKFun after hundreds of thousands of downloads.

Firearms and ammunition, numerous electronic devices, and other valuables were also seized by the authorities.

Three-Way Money Laundering

The investigation found that RMDS benefited most with the largest share of the available revenue.

More than 5,000 individual depositors sent over R$3.2 million (US$591,000) to bank accounts he controlled and various online payment platforms.

A company run by RMDS, with a name suggesting some type of hosting, was used in an attempt to conceal the source of the money. Suspicions were raised when Top Host Soluções generated disproportionately large revenues.

RMDS reportedly liked to spend money too. A Porsche Cayenne GTS was registered to his company, around R$579,000 (US$107,000) was invested in a São Paulo property, while around R$300,000 (US$55,400) was deposited into pension funds.

Transfers Back and Forth, Illegal Evidence

RMDS and his sister TMDSB were joined in the operation by an employee/mutual friend, GFL, with funds being received and also transferred between the trio.

According to a local report, 99 bank transfers were logged between RMDS and TMDSB in the period July 2017 to November 2020.

Across 7,300 transfers and cash deposits, TMDSB received over R$1 million in the same period, with around R$134,600 of the total transferred to RMDS. DPLNews describes TMDSB’s role as fundamental to the operation. Her lack of tax returns and GFL’s use of his mother’s bank account for a number of the 33 transfers, attributed to him, were also brought to the court’s attention.

Sentenced in São Paulo

Attempts by the defendants to undermine the case against them included allegations that the state court was incompetent, and the evidence was illegal and failed to show intent. The presiding judge noted that money laundering is a crime in its own right and can stand without a direct link to an underlying crime.

Judge Marcia Mayumi Okoda Oshiro sentenced the defendants at the São Paulo Court;

• RMDS – Five year prison sentence, unspecified fine • TMDSB – Five year prison sentence, unspecified fine • GFL – Four year prison sentence, unspecified fine

“This case confirms that piracy is no longer invisible or unpunished,” says anti-piracy group Alianza.

“Justice is taking action and will continue to severely punish those who violate intellectual property and public safety.”

The underlying intellectual property crimes matter is still pending.

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

---

From TorrentFreak via this RSS feed

In May 2012, Google Search expanded its transparency report with a new section solely dedicated to DMCA takedown requests.

For the first time, outsiders were able to see details of the URLs copyright holders were targeting and in what quantity.

The decision to make this information available for public scrutiny was partly triggered by a rapid increase in removal requests. This was having an impact on the “free flow of information”, according to the search engine.

10 Billion Takedowns and Beyond!

While additional transparency helped to uncover serious errors and various abuses over the years, it didn’t curb the volume. On the contrary, legitimate DMCA takedown requests against search results shot up and thenn continued to grow.

The chart below shows the increase in takedowns over the years, with a notable uptick over the past year and a half.

DMCA targeted URLs (2012-2025)

Around November of last year, Google received its 10 billionth takedown request. Less than a year later, in April, this number had already increased by another 2.3 billion, or roughly 100 million takedowns per week. After that, Google’s transparency reporting updates froze.

Transparency Report ‘Freeze’

For several months now, Google’s transparency report has been stuck at 12.3 billion reported URLs. No new information has been added since mid-April, which is a clear outlier as previous updates were typically released multiple times a week.

Stalled April 2025 data

The most recent updates in the official transparency portal are dated April 13, and the official takedown charts for senders and URLs also stop on that date.

The raw takedown statistics and details, which Google offers in bulk for academic research and related purposes, are no longer being updated either. The 9.6 gigabyte compressed archive was last updated on April 14.

Raw data not updated

It’s unlikely that Google would halt its transparency reporting efforts without good reason. Thus far, however, the company has not responded to a press inquiry we sent earlier this week, asking for more information.

What is clear is that the company hasn’t stopped its transparency efforts entirely. Google is still forwarding the DMCA notices it receives to the Lumen database, which has data as recent as yesterday.

Information [REDACTED]

As a news publication that publishes multiple articles a year on Google’s DMCA takedown effort, it would be good to see the full reporting functionality restored.

At the same time, it would also be good to know why many of the publicly shared DMCA notices have redacted rightsholders or URLs. These can make it impossible to find out what content is actually being targeted, which negates the purpose of a transparency report.

Redacted notices

In some cases the redactions also make little sense, such as the one below, where a takedown notice sent on behalf of Netflix redacted the domain of the original work as follows: n[redacted]x.com.

A representative from the Lumen database informed us that these redactions are not added at their end, so that suggests redactions are applied by Google.

All in all, Google still offers much more transparency than most online service providers. There is a delay in reporting at the moment, as well as unexplained redactions, but we hope that regular reporting will resume as usual soon, so we can look out for new multi-billion takedown milestones.

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

---

From TorrentFreak via this RSS feed

Reddit has gone head-to-head with a group of filmmakers over the past two years, aiming to protect the privacy of its users.

In three separate cases, the filmmakers subpoenaed Reddit for details of users who commented on various piracy-related topics.

The movie companies said they are not planning to go after these people in court but want to use their comments as evidence in piracy liability lawsuits against ISPs, including Frontier Communications.

Anonymous Reddit Comments as Piracy Evidence

The film companies, including Killing Link Distribution and movant Voltage Holdings, argued that the Redditors’ comments were key evidence to show that ISPs didn’t implement a suitable repeat infringer policy, and that subsequently acted as a draw for pirating subscribers.

Reddit viewed the requests as intrusive. The company repeatedly objected to the subpoena requests with federal courts agreeing on three separate occasions that the Reddit users could remain anonymous.

The film companies disagreed with these decisions and took the matter to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, requesting a reversal. However, after the underlying court case against ISP Frontier was settled a few weeks ago, this appeal was moot, with the plaintiffs requesting a dismissal.

Reddit Seeks $55k in Compensation

This week, Reddit is back in a California Federal Court, requesting compensation for the fees it incurred in successfully defending its users’ right to anonymous speech. Specifically, Reddit seeks $55,204.19 in attorneys’ fees from the film companies.

“In three separate cases now, Reddit has defeated what is essentially the same motion to compel, brought by the same group of movants, by the same counsel, seeking to enforce effectively the same unnecessary and irrelevant subpoena,” Reddit starts its motion.

The fees request only applies to the last subpoena battle. After previous courts struck down similar attempts, Reddit believes that the third subpoena request was not substantially justified. To back this up, it cites the court’s ruling, which concluded that the connection between the subpoena and the underlying lawsuit was “very, very weak” and that it would have “zero impact” on the case.

Under the federal rules, recipients of subpoenas can request to be compensated for their costs if the subpoena request was not “substantially justified”. Reddit argues that applies here.

Anti-Piracy Publicity Campaign

Additionally, Reddit argues that compensation is appropriate in this case because the subpoena request was unduly burdensome and improperly motivated. The filmmakers have already tried to get Reddit to comply with three separate requests, and it fears that these attempts may not be the last..

From Reddit’s motion

Reddit is also concerned that the filmmakers will continue to drag Reddit into similarly ‘improper’ subpoena battles, noting that these actions appear to be an “anti-piracy publicity campaign”.

The filmmakers spent substantial time and money on these subpoenas, which Reddit suggests is an attempt to publicly threaten its users and discourage them from discussing piracy on the site. That would essentially chill free speech, the motion concludes.

“Movants’ dogged pursuit of discovery litigation despite loss after loss, together with the complete irrelevance of the information sought, demonstrates their improper purpose—an attempt to chill lawful speech by Reddit’s users,” Reddit writes.

Pseudonymity is a Reddit Feature

Reddit believes that the $55,204 it spent on costs is reasonable, as the company was trying to protect an important feature of the site: the ability for users to communicate pseudonymously without requiring their legal names or addresses.

In a declaration, attorney Hayden Schottlaender of Perkins Coie LLP, who represented Reddit, notes that the 70+ hours spent on the case, were needed to properly protect Reddit’s interests.

“This level of counsel was necessary in light of the possible significant implications on Reddit’s business and users from an adverse ruling that would permit non-party discovery to unmask pseudonymous Reddit users notwithstanding their First Amendment rights to anonymous online speech,” Schottlaender writes.

From the declaration

With a proposed order for fees now on the table, the filmmakers still have the option to challenge the justification or the specific amount requested. After that, the court will have to decide whether Reddit is entitled to receive compensation.

—

A copy of Reddit’s motion for fees is available here (pdf). The cited declaration of attorney Hayden Schottlaender can be found here (pdf).

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

---

From TorrentFreak via this RSS feed

Danny Boyle and Alex Garland’s highly anticipated return to their iconic post-apocalyptic universe, ‘28 Years Later,’ has stormed the box office.

Despite a disappointing second weekend, the film crossed the $100 million revenue mark, surpassing its $60 million budget and setting a new record for the franchise.

The latest installment also resurrected interest in the two first movies. Data from Flixpatrol shows that ’28 Weeks Later’ was in the top ten of most streamed films on Netflix and Disney+ in the days following the premiere of its sequel.

Unfortunately, the same can’t be said for the original cult classic, ’28 Days Later.’ For years, the film was notoriously difficult to access legally, with rights disputes keeping it off major streaming platforms and even out of digital storefronts in recent years.

Sony Pictures eventually made the film available for digital purchase and rental in December 2024, and last month it also appeared on Pluto TV’s ad-supported streaming service in some countries. However, it’s not as widely available as the other films.

Movie Fans Turn to Pirate Sites

The lacking availability on the largest streaming services was noticed by many over the past few weeks, when demand for the film surged. Instead of buying a digital copy or watching the movie with ads, some fans opted to get a copy through pirate sites instead.

Based on a sample of torrent activity tracked by IKnow, we can report that pirated downloads of the film have surged since the premiere of ’28 Years Later’. This was good enough to make it into the list of top ten most pirated films over the past week, 23 year years after its release.

The chart below shows the daily estimated downloads for the first two films, with most interest going to the original.

Estimated torrent downloads (sample)

The numbers reflect data in the BitTorrent sample, which represents just a tiny fraction of the total interest on pirate sites. Most pirates use streaming platforms now, which can’t be tracked directly. However, these were likely good for a million streams or more.

Without causal data, it is difficult to draw strong conclusions from these findings. Then again, it makes logical sense that fewer people would pirate a film if it was available on one of the streaming services they’re already subscribed to.

Movie Pirates Go to the Movie Theater

Needless to say, rightsholders are not happy to see this increased activity on pirate sites. However, there’s also a more positive spin to these findings.

Presumably, many fans rewatch the first two films before they go to the movie theater, the majority likely to do so legally. A segment of the audience might use pirate sites to ‘catch up’ or re-engage with the franchise, before purchasing tickets for ’28 Years Later.’

This can serve as a gentle reminder that many movie pirates are also avid movie fans: they are consumers who pay for streaming services and spend money at the movie theater.

In fact, it is not unthinkable that the option to rewatch the earlier films for free motivated some people to go to the theaters. If that’s the case, one could argue that piracy increased revenues, at least in this isolated example.

—

Note: The data used in this article comes from Iknow, which tracks torrent downloads through DHT and PEX. While it may not be able to track all downloads, it’s a substantial sample. Views on streaming platforms, direct downloads, and other piracy sources can’t be measured directly. That said, we assume that the trend will be similar there.

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

---

From TorrentFreak via this RSS feed

As rightsholders in the live sports sector continue to face unprecedented levels of online piracy, Italy decided that an extraordinary challenge could only be tackled with an extraordinary response.

The ‘Piracy Shield’ blocking notification system has attracted significant criticism, although the legal and regulatory frameworks that support it, built on a theory that faster, heavier blocking will eventually solve the problem, are the real drivers behind the ongoing controversy.

Fundamental issues and legal amendments, including draft proposals published earlier this year, prompted the Computer & Communications Industry Association (CCIA) to voice its concerns at the EU Commission, highlighting significant risks to the principles of freedom of enterprise and expression.

European Commission Responds to Concerns

After several months of engagement, last month the CCIA urged the European Commission to carry out an immediate review to establish compatibility of the existing system and Italy’s draft proposals with EU law requirements.

Site-blocking within 30 minutes, limited transparency, lack of recourse for those wrongfully blocked, and new proposals potentially at odds with the Digital Services Act, could have serious consequences for the wider EU, CCIA warned.

In a letter dated June 13, 2025, Roberto Viola – the European Commission’s Director General for Communications Networks, Content and Technology – addresses Italy’s Minister of Foreign Affairs, Antonio Tajani, who is also the country’s Deputy Prime Minister.

“The Commission welcomes the efforts made by the Italian authorities in the fight against online piracy, which remains a serious concern for the creative and sports sectors across the EU,” Viola begins.

The Italian draft ‘reflects the objectives’ of the recommendations published by the Commission in 2023, which the letter suggests is another plus.

Digital Services Act

Turning to more problematic areas, Articles 8, 8-bis, 9-bis and 10 in the Italian draft are intended to meet the requirements of Article 9 of the Digital Services Act. The Commission says they fail to do so, including by falling short of “the linguistic requirements” set out in Article 9(2)(c).

However, as highlighted in the CCIA’s recent submission, the Commission also notes the following;

“[T]he DSA does not provide a legal basis for the issuing of orders by national administrative or judicial authorities, nor does it regulate the enforcement of such orders.”

The Commission adds that it “would like to remind the Italian authorities of the procedures and conditions set out in Article 9″ and invites them to “clarify these aspects in the final text of the notified draft.”

Charter of Fundamental Rights

Since site-blocking measures amount to a denial of service, restrictions should be sufficient to end or limit infringement, while taking care not to encroach on the fundamental rights of third parties. The importance of maintaining the right balance is stressed by the EC.

“The Commission would also like to emphasize that the effective tackling of illegal content must also take into due account the fundamental right to freedom of expression and information under the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU,” the letter continues, with the following excerpt from the DSA offered as guidance;

[I]n that regard, the national judicial or administrative authority, which might be a law enforcement authority, issuing the order should balance the objective that the order seeks to achieve, in accordance with the legal basis enabling its issuance, with the rights and legitimate interests of all third parties that may be affected by the order, in particular their fundamental rights under the Charter.

Blocking in 30 Mins, Blocking Blunders Assessed in 10 Days

Balancing the rights of various parties isn’t always straightforward. However, some aspects of Piracy Shield give the impression that the rights of third parties are given less than equal weight.

With 30 minute takedowns championed as essential in the fight against live sports piracy, victims of over-blocking blunders face a wait of up to 10 days before telecoms regulator AGCOM assesses the validity of their complaint.

“The Commission notes that there do not seem to be other measures available to the addressee of [a blocking order] to help prevent eventual erroneous or excessive blocking of content,” the letter notes.

“Furthermore, [..] the technical specifications of the Piracy Shield envisage unblocking procedures limited to 24 hours from reporting in the event of an error. This limitation to 24 hours does not seem, in principle, to respond to any justified need and could lead to persisting erroneous blockings not being resolved.

“In this respect, the Commission would like to invites the Italian authorities to ensure that the Piracy Shield operates with sufficient controls and safeguards to avoid overblocking and negative impact on information which is not illegal content.”

Commit to Safeguards – In Writing

Another ‘feature’ of Piracy Shield’s operations is the clarity and latitude afforded to those granted the authority to carry out blocking, versus safeguarding procedures that may receive an occasional mention but lack legal substance due to their absence from legislation.

The Commission welcomes details on safeguarding provided by Italian authorities and appears to see benefits in the measures being committed to more formally.

“The Commission therefore invite the Italian authorities to consider whether such elements could also be included in the final text. This is for example the case of the Addendum annexed to the Operating Manual of the Piracy Shield platform according to which, authorized persons are required to provide a technical report describing the methodology for obtaining evidence on the predominantly illegal nature of domain name or IP address requested to be blocked,” the letter suggests.

“Another example is the requirement for flaggers to observe the utmost diligence when submitting applications for blocking and collecting the relevant evidence and to consult the Authority in advance in cases of doubt with regard to the prevalence of illegal activities.”

Pressure on Intermediaries

While rightsholders generally believe that site-blocking measures are effective, it is just as common for intermediaries to argue that the opposite is true. A previous CCIA submission notes that blocking is easily circumvented, does not remove any infringing content from the internet, and may ultimately “serve to obscure” rather than address the root causes of piracy.

In short, targeting intermediaries isn’t the only option available, a point with which the Commission appears to agree.

“[T]he Commission notes that Recital 27 of the DSA clarifies that the problem of illegal content and activities online should not be dealt with by solely focusing on the responsibilities of providers of intermediary services online,” the letter concludes.

The EC’s letter to Antonio Tajani, Minister of Foreign Affairs, is available here (pdf)

____________________________________________

Excerpt from Recital 27: Whilst the rules on liability of providers of intermediary services set out in this Regulation concentrate on the exemption from liability of providers of intermediary services, it is important to recall that, despite the generally important role played by such providers, the problem of illegal content and activities online should not be dealt with by solely focusing on their liability and responsibilities. Where possible, third parties affected by illegal content transmitted or stored online should attempt to resolve conflicts relating to such content without involving the providers of intermediary services in question.

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

---

From TorrentFreak via this RSS feed

Last month, the EU published the fourth edition of its ‘Counterfeit and Piracy Watch List’, providing a detailed overview of piracy-linked sites and services located outside the EU.

The report covered many unlicensed IPTV services, including VolkaIPTV, GenIPTV, and King365TV, noting that these are merely the tip of the iceberg.

“There are likely to be thousands of pirate IPTV apps and services in the world. The pirate IPTV landscape is complex and difficult to penetrate because it typically involves multiple layers of restreaming and reselling,” the European Commission wrote at the time.

The EU is not wrong; it has been aware of the pirate IPTV problem for a while and actively supports research and enforcement actions to counter the threat.

Yet, despite these efforts to identify and curb illegal services, a significant vulnerability emerged closer to home. The European Commission’s own technical infrastructure was exploited to boost shady IPTV sales. That’s a serious problem.

Eurostat Website Promotes IPTV

While researching IPTV services this week, our attention was drawn to a PDF document uploaded to the Eurostat portal. Eurostat is the department at the Commission that provides high-quality statistics and data about Europe to the EU and its member states.

The document we spotted does not fall into this category. Instead, it provides an overview of the “best” IPTV services for 2025. This includes a prominent link to “get started now”, which directs visitors to portugueseiptv[.]pt.

Whether this link directs visitors to a ‘real’ IPTV service or an outright scam isn’t immediately clear, but it’s best avoided in any case.

From the PDF on Eurostat’s portal

The service promises access to a wide variety of live sports, +18,000 channels, and +98,000 VOD titles for less than $60 per year. This includes Netflix content, Disney, the Premier League, NFL, and much more. Needless to say, it sounds too good to be true.

SEO Hack

This PDF file was one of many. A quick search for more matches on Eurostat’s website revealed that several had been posted on Eurostat’s website two weeks ago, all trying to promote IPTV services.

More Eurostat Hits

This type of scam is not new. Vulnerabilities in the upload functionalities of reputable websites are often abused for pirate scams, a problem the EU has encountered before. That said, IPTV-related ‘hacks’ are relatively rare.

The goal of these PDFs is to rank high for popular search terms and phrases. This typically leads people to access the documents. Those who don’t immediately recognize these as scams might even be inclined to click the included links.

EU’s Best IPTV Services?

In this case, the PDF appeared as the first result for several key search terms and phrases, including “best IPTV providers of 2025,” as shown below.

Best IPTV providers of 2025

Making matters even more confusing, Google’s AI overview interpreted the PDF document as an official EU stance, blending the information into a response when we asked about the EU’s IPTV recommendations.

“HyperStream Plus is known for its high-speed, low-buffer service with 4K support, ViewFlex IPTV is popular for its family-friendly and international language packages, and BlueWave IPTV is praised for its stability and user-friendliness,” the response read.

Before writing up our findings, we alerted Eurostat to the problem, allowing it time to address the issue. After all, these SEO hacks are a vulnerability and a potential security risk.

This morning, Eurostat informed us that the issue was identified and quickly fixed. And indeed, the PDFs no longer appear on its website. But if history is any guide, similar hacks will undoubtedly appear on other websites.

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

---

From TorrentFreak via this RSS feed

Last summer, Cox Communications filed a petition at the U.S. Supreme Court, requesting a review of the Fourth Circuit ruling that held the company contributorily liable for pirating subscribers.

The internet provider ultimately challenged the $1 billion verdict from a Virginia jury in 2019, which went in favor of a group of major record labels, including Sony and Universal.

As Cox petitioned the Supreme Court, the music companies filed their own petition, hoping to expand the verdict. Specifically, they argued that the ISP should also be held liable for vicarious copyright infringement.

From the outset it was clear this would be a pivotal case with potentially broad consequences for many other ISPs and rightsholders dealing with similar copyright issues. After considering the arguments from both sides and the U.S. Government, the Supreme Court announced its decisions today.

Supreme Court Grants Cox’s Petition

In the latest order list released this morning, the Supreme Court grants Cox’s petition for a writ of certiorari.

By granting Cox’s petition, the Supreme Court agrees to review crucial questions surrounding contributory copyright infringement. This includes a potential re-evaluation of how ISPs are required to respond to copyright infringement notices and what an appropriate “repeat infringer policy” entails.

Specifically, Cox presented the following question to the Supreme Court:

“Did the Fourth Circuit err in holding that a service provider can be held liable […] merely because it knew that people were using certain accounts to infringe and did not terminate access, without proof that the service provider affirmatively fostered infringement or otherwise intended to promote it?”

Contributory copyright infringement requires a finding that ISPs have “knowledge” of and “materially contribute” to piracy activities. However, Cox questions whether these elements are triggered upon mere receipt of multiple piracy notices from third-party rightsholders.

In addition, Cox also raised concerns about the jury’s “willfulness” ruling, which resulted in the maximum statutory damages of $150,000 per work. The ISP countered that knowledge of subscribers’ copyright infringements is not necessarily willful, if the company did not know that its own conduct was illegal.

Key Input from U.S. Solicitor General

The highly anticipated decision comes just weeks after the U.S. Solicitor General filed an influential amicus brief, urging the Supreme Court to take precisely this path.

The Solicitor General argued that an ISP is not automatically liable for copyright infringement if it merely fails to terminate subscribers after receiving multiple notices. It warned that the Fourth Circuit’s verdict could have “broad negative implications for ISPs and their subscribers,” potentially leading to disconnections of many innocent users.

The brief also strongly argued that Cox’s actions were not “willful,” stating that “willfulness” generally requires knowledge or reckless disregard for the defendant’s own unlawful conduct, not just that of third parties.

While the reasoning of the Supreme Court is currently unknown, the decision matches the advice of the U.S. Solicitor General. This also applies to the separate cross petition filed by the record labels.

Supreme Court Denied Labels’ Petition

In the same order batch this morning, the Supreme Court denies the labels’ petition for a writ of certiorari. Again, without providing any details for its reasoning.

The record labels were seeking to hold Cox vicariously liable, arguing that it profited directly from piracy by declining to terminate repeat infringers to keep their subscription fees.

The lower court previously dismissed this claim, but the labels asked the Supreme Court to take up the issue in their own cross-petition. This request was denied.

The denial is in line with the Solicitor General’s assessment that the Fourth Circuit correctly concluded Cox did not derive a direct financial benefit from the alleged infringements, or that its stance towards piracy acted as a draw to potential customers.

The record labels previously rebuffed the U.S. Government position, characterizing it as bewildering, but that didn’t yield a result.

Path Forward

With Cox’s petition granted, the case will now be scheduled for oral arguments before the Supreme Court in the upcoming term. This highly anticipated hearing will offer both sides the opportunity to present their arguments in detail.

Needless to say, this case will continue to be watched closely by internet providers and copyright holders alike.

Today’s orders ensure that Cox’s liability for contributory infringement will be reviewed in detail. At the same time, the battle over vicarious liability, at least for now, appears to be settled in favor of ISPs.

—

A Cox spokesperson released the following statement after publication:

“We are pleased the U.S. Supreme Court has decided to address these significant copyright issues that could jeopardize internet access for all Americans and fundamentally change how internet service providers manage their networks. Today’s development supports our goal of protecting consumers, preserving open internet access, and ensuring that broadband remains a reliable resource for the communities we serve. We look forward to presenting our arguments to the Court.”

RIAA, representing the labels, released the following remark:

“We are confident that on full review of the record, the Court – like the trial and appellate courts did before it – will find that Cox’s willful failure to follow well-settled law contributed to massive infringement of the plaintiffs’ copyrights and will return the case to the trial court for final determination of damages.”

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

---

From TorrentFreak via this RSS feed

According to a recent report, two-thirds of pirate IPTV users in France have been consuming this way less than three years, suggesting a flow of new recruits, some with help from friends, others venturing out alone.

Quality and fundamental security issues aside, a device with pirate IPTV potential could cost less than $30, followed quickly by the first dilemma. Spend $10/$15 for a one-month subscription or $50 for an entire year? On one hand, there’s so much money to save, yet on the other, potentially three times that amount in losses to a predatory scammer.

Hoping to remove most of the early guesswork are suppliers offering set-top boxes at a fixed price of $200+ but with no additional costs, at least in theory. ‘Free forever’ is the premise, despite buyers already paying over the odds for both the device and the subscription. Nevertheless, not all experiences are bad, hence the number of lawsuits quietly building up against vendors.

Target Tanggula

Search for ‘Tanggula’ on YouTube or indeed most social media platforms and positive reviews are plentiful. Whether that’s due to an exceptional product or the outwards effects of a pervasive affiliate scheme, is for potential customers to decide.

In a new lawsuit filed by DISH Network and Sling TV, a California federal court will have to decide whether a Hong Kong-based company and its alleged owner violated the DMCA and the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA), when it supplied Tanggula TV boxes to 3,684 customers in the United States.

The defendants are Strongtimes International Limited (Strongtimes), a private company registered in Sheung Wan, Hong Kong, and Liu Zihong, the alleged founder, owner, and director of Strongtimes based in Shenzhen, China.

The complaint states that Strongtimes is subject to personal jurisdiction because it contracted with California corporation, WIN.IT America, Inc. The U.S. company reportedly provided inventory management and order fulfillment services related to sales of pirate boxes and subscriptions to customers in California and the wider United States.

The plaintiffs effectively refer to one device containing one subscription as “a service”. They claim that Strongtimes used WIN.IT to ship 3,684 services to addresses in the United States, of which 671 were shipped to addresses in California. In the alternative, Strongtimes is alleged to have sold 3,684 services to U.S. customers.

Records in China indicate that Strongtimes is a manufacturer of computer products and consumer electronics, and is involved in assembly of printed circuit boards.

Defendant Liu Zihong

The plaintiffs state that the Court has personal jurisdiction over Zihong as a primary participant in his company’s alleged violations of the DMCA and ECPA.

“Zihong was personally notified of his violations of the DMCA and ECPA and asked to cease and desist from selling, operating, participating in, or supporting the Services, but the Services have continued to operate. Zihong financially benefitted from the violations as the sole founder, owner, and director of Strongtimes,” DISH and Sling TV inform the Court.

The plaintiffs stress that a U.S. federal court may be the only venue where they’re able to defend their rights under the DMCA and ECPA. As non-residents, the defendants can be sued in any district and defend with “minimal” burden, the complaint notes.

Rebroadcasting Scheme

In common with many similar lawsuits, the complaint states that DISH/Sling content is protected by DRM and the defendants traffic in “services” fueled by that content, accessible to customers via Tanggula set-top boxes.

The Widevine DRM and the protection it affords is circumvented using a specially developed computer program that emulates the behavior of a reverse engineered hardware device.

The computer program tricks Sling’s Widevine DRM server to grant access and provide a channel decryption key by making the server believe the request originated from a legitimate Widevine supported device that would keep the channel decryption key secured (though in reality the request came from the computer program mimicking the reverse engineered hardware).

The complaint notes that the defendants were notified of their violations of the DMCA and ECPA and asked to cease and desist. The services continued to operate.

Claims for Relief

Count I: Violations of the DMCA, 17 U.S.C. § 1201(a)(2)

The plaintiffs state that Strongtimes violates section 1201(a)(2) by manufacturing, offering to the public, providing, or otherwise trafficking in the “services”. Each sale of the “services” constitutes a separate violation of 17 U.S.C. 1201(a)(2), for which Zihong is personally liable.

Carried out without authorization, the violations were willful, the plaintiffs add.

Count II: Violations of the DMCA, 17 U.S.C. § 1201(b)(1)

The plaintiffs claim that Strongtimes violates 17 U.S.C. 1201(b)(1) by manufacturing, offering to the public, providing, or otherwise trafficking in the “services”. Each sale of the “services” constitutes a separate violation of 17 U.S.C. S 1201(b)(1). Due to the control exercised over the company, financial benefit derived, and failure to cease and desist, Zihong is personally liable for willful infringement.

Count III: Violations of the ECPA, 18 U.S.C. §§ 2511(1)(c),(d), and 2520

Under §§ 2511(1)(c), anyone who intentionally discloses, or endeavors to disclose, the contents of any electronic communication, knowing that the information was obtained through interception, commits an offense.

Anyone who intentionally uses content knowing the information was obtained through interception, commits an offense under §§ 2511(1)(d).

The plaintiffs seek actual damages and defendants’ profits, or statutory damages of $2,500 for each violation (whichever is greater) for Counts I and II. For Count III, they request statutory damages of $100 per day for each day of violation or $10,000, whichever is greater.

As part of a broad injunction, the plaintiffs aim to take control of the defendants’ domain names.

Since late 2023, DISH and Sling lawsuits have targeted U.S.-based sellers of Tanggula devices with the following outcomes:

DISH v. Marcelino Padilla (8:24-cv-01028) – $1.25m agreed judgment (pdf) DISH v. Valenzuela (4:24-cv-00288) – $405,000 agreed judgment (pdf) DISH v. Sentry, Inc. (9:23-cv-05074) – Confidential Settlement

Finally, another device sold with the same or similar “lifetime” subscription is featured in the video below. In the current climate, it makes for compelling viewing.

The complaint targeting Strongtimes and Liu Zihong is available here (pdf)

For those likely to have noticed that the defendant’s personal details in the new complaint appear to coincide with those of one or more well-known businessmen, the complaint does not address these apparent coincidences.

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

---

From TorrentFreak via this RSS feed

With almost no exceptions, people criminally prosecuted in the UK for serious pirate IPTV offenses say that it’s an absolutely horrendous experience.

The process drags on forever, often gets worse as it does so, and due to the Proceeds of Crime Act, doesn’t necessarily end when sentences are served. Reports of multi-year sentences are supposed to act as a deterrent, but only tell half the story.

When Liverpool man Mark Brockley fled the UK rather than face trial for reselling IPTV subscriptions in 2023, that wasn’t exactly a big surprise. Nor was it likely to end well.

The Social Media Curse

According to the Police Intellectual Property Crime Unit (PIPCU) at City of London Police, their investigation was triggered by a November 2018 referral by BT Sport (now TNT).

The company had spotted a Twitter account with the username @Infinity_IPTV advertising £15 per month subscriptions, promising an all-you-can-eat bonanza of movies, TV shows and live sports.

Also available via app

Eight months later on July 24, 2019, PIPCU officers raided Brockley’s Liverpool home, seizing devices including a laptop and a mobile phone, £1,200 in cash, and evidence linking the 54-year-old to the Twitter account reported by BT.

To avoid anything self-incriminating being used in evidence at trial, Brockley offered no comment throughout his interview. In June 2021 after two years in limbo, police arrested and then charged the Liverpool man with fraud and copyright offenses.

On the plus side, Brockley was released on bail but still had to wait almost two additional years before heading to trial. Four years from arrest to trial isn’t particularly uncommon in these types of cases; some describe the waiting as a sentence in itself.

You’ll Never Take Me Alive, Coppers

How many times Brockley was absent is unclear, but after being bailed in 2021, PIPCU notes that multiple failures to appear in court led to the biggest of them all; a May 2023 criminal trial by jury conducted in Brockley’s absence.

Police believed Brockley had likely fled to France, but his exact whereabouts were unknown.

£237,000 is a considerable amount

By failing to appear at his own trial, Brockley avoided what was always likely to be a stressful experience, one with virtually no chance of success. However, a defendant not having their say in court can be damaging, mitigation may be the only hope left.

Five-Year Sentence

Brockley was accused of being part of a “pyramid selling scheme” which saw him advertise subscriptions and sell them to individuals lower down. Published on the day of his sentencing, PIPCU’s calculations on the scale of the offending reads as follows:

The unit identified that Brockley had made 5,251 sales with a total value of £237,058 from 24 October 2014 to 8 May 2019. Of these, 1,408 sales, worth a total of £50,479, made a clear reference to IPTV services, but officers from PIPCU believe that the remaining payments were also related to the sale of these services.

The court heard that Brockley’s activities caused BT to lose an estimated £3m in revenue. The distinction between revenue on one hand, and profit on the other, can become less clear when presented in the media. Revenue takes no account of costs, so while BT reportedly ‘lost’ £3m, Brockley was said to have ‘made’ or ‘pocketed’ all of his £237K revenue.

In reality he made a non-specific amount of “tens of thousands” but as his solicitor pointed out at sentencing, Brockley’s failure to appear effectively destroyed any chance of a suspended sentence. The court handed down a five-year prison sentence; that raises the prospect of every £10,000 profit earning Brockley another year behind bars.

As an opportunity for deterrent messaging with impact, this may have been overlooked.

Ladies and Gentlemen: We Got Him

In a statement this Wednesday, City of London Police revealed details of an operation to locate Brockley and bring him back to the UK to serve his sentence.

“Financial investigations revealed that Brockley had been using bank accounts based in France. Further digital inquiries eventually traced him to an apartment block in Spain. In August 2024, he was located and arrested in Girona during a coordinated operation involving the PIPCU, National Crime Agency (NCA), Europol, and Interpol,” the statement reads.

Brockley filed an appeal against his extradition back to the UK and was released on bail. Replicating his absences in the UK, he reportedly failed to appear at multiple court hearings in Spain, making him a wanted man there too.

“In a coordinated effort between UK and Spanish authorities, Brockley was eventually arrested at Barcelona Airport while attempting to board a flight to the UK last week (Friday, 20 June),” City of London Police report.

“He was remanded in custody at Heathrow Airport and will now commence his five-year sentence.”

Nature of Offending Becomes More Serious With Time

A comparison of the police statements published on May 5, 2023, (immediately post sentencing) and this week on June 25, 2025, reveal differences that not only alter the nature of Brockley’s offending but also increase the amount of revenue generated.

The screenshots below show the 2025 statement on the left and the 2023 statement on the right, with relevant paragraphs from each placed side by side for clarity (originals here and here for reference).

Immediately after sentencing, it was reported that Brockley “made” £237,000. Yet, two years later, he’s reported as having “pocketed” £300,000.

Aside from the terminology implying significantly larger profits, an additional £63,000 has been added seemingly from nowhere in 2025.

During the past two years, Brockley’s status in the illicit IPTV market also appears to have undergone a promotion.

Immediately after sentencing, Brockley was described as an “IPTV reseller” who “sold subscriptions”. Yet two years later in his absence, it’s now alleged that he “ran a subscription-based IPTV service.” These aren’t just semantics; a person who sells tickets for Disneyland does not “run a Florida-based theme park.”

Strangely, even Brockley’s reseller brand has changed: Infinity Streams versus aFINITY IPTV today. The name change is cosmetic and may have a straightforward explanation; crucially it means very little in the context of the trial.

The previous discrepancies transform Brockley from a lower-tier player to the top man in his network, and then boost revenue by more than a quarter.

_____________________________________________ A Call For Basic Transparency

Details like the above are important but not straightforward to verify independently.

Basic transparency and relevant court documents should be routinely made available to the public in the UK, at minimum when the reported outcome is a matter of public interest.

Piracy cases like these are part of the deterrent strategy in the UK; as a result, original documents should be made available publicly by default.

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

---

From TorrentFreak via this RSS feed

Over the past two decades, the VPN industry has grown spectacularly, with plenty of competition between providers.

The days when a review of VPN logging policies was a novelty are long gone.

While new VPN services launch frequently, it’s rare to see one with a truly unique technical approach. That’s why VP.net warrants a closer look. Unlike most VPN providers, it doesn’t ask users for their trust; it relies on hardware-enforced privacy instead.

Trust

When you use a VPN, your internet traffic is encrypted between your device and the VPN’s server. This is great for protecting your data from snooping on public Wi-Fi and your internet provider. However, to route your traffic to its final destination on the internet, the VPN server must decrypt it first.

At this decryption point, it’s technically possible for the VPN provider to access information about your online activity. This is common knowledge and requires that you trust your VPN. It’s also why using shady free VPN apps from unknown companies should be avoided; the user may end up being the product.

For a successful VPN service to thrive, trust, security, and privacy are paramount. Reputable VPN companies build their entire business model on trust, knowing that a breach would be catastrophic for their reputation.

But what if trust was taken out of the equation entirely? This is what VP.net promises to do, at least up to a point.

VP.net

Like most VPNs, VP.net hides your real IP-address, replacing it with the address of the server you connect to. This connection is encrypted using the popular open-source WireGuard protocol and can’t be spied on by outsiders.

What makes VP.net stand out from many regular VPNs is its special use of a technology called Intel Software Guard Extensions (SGX). SGX enclaves are private areas of memory that essentially act as a secure black box and not even the operators of the service can see what’s happening inside.

VP.net

The system within the SGX enclave is reportedly built to map user identities to temporary, anonymous tokens. This means the part of the system which knows that “User X is connected” is structurally walled off from the part that knows “someone is accessing website Y.” The design goal is that no one, not even the VPN company, can link “User X” to “Website Y.”

The use of SGX as a verifiable, hardware-enforced separation of user identity and web traffic, is a new concept for a VPN.

‘Verified Privacy’

VP.net essentially promises “verified privacy” with this technical setup. If everything works as described, it’s not technically possible for the owners of the server, typically the VPN provider, to log who is doing what and when.

The new VPN service is operated by the American company VP.NET LLC, which in turn is owned by TCP IP Inc, which holds the intellectual property rights. That includes pending patents, including one of ‘hardware-based anonymization of network addresses.”

The idea to use SGX as a privacy shield comes from Andrew Lee, the chief privacy architect at VP.net. As the founder of Private Internet Access, which he sold to Kape a few years ago, Lee has a long history in the VPN space. However, he believes this new concept is a breakthrough.

“Our zero trust solution does not require you to trust us – and that’s how it should be. Your privacy should be up to your choice – not up to some random VPN provider in some random foreign country,” Lee says.

VP.net says it cannot link traffic data to users, even if it wanted to. If a court order requested such data, the company would first scrutinize its legality but, after that, the only data it has access to are unlinked details, such as payment info and email addresses, provided by the user.

The new VPN company is led by CEO Matt Kim. The company also lists the contentious Bitcoin veterans Roger Ver and Mark Karpelès in their team, who both have had their legal issues in the past.

Novel, Secure, but Not Infallible

VP.net’s source code is open to the public. To address the challenge of showing that this open-source code is the same as the code running on their servers, VP.net relies on a key SGX feature called ‘remote attestation’.

In essence, this mechanism allows the user’s client to receive cryptographic proof from the server’s hardware, verifying that it is a genuine SGX ‘safe’ and is running the exact, untampered code that was publicly available. This shifts the trust from the company’s promise to a verifiable, hardware-backed process.

The trust through technology aspect is certainly intriguing, but no technology is infallible. The code needs to be functional and secure, as a software flaw could lead to potential security issues.

Another potential problem lies on the hardware side. Intel SGX itself is a physical product that is part of the CPU, which in turn relies on firmware. Like any piece of hardware, vulnerabilities have been discovered in SGX in the past.

VP.net is aware of this and says it actively monitors the security of its software and infrastructure, while keeping systems fully up-to-date.

Of course, the true test will be speed and transparency when responding to the next major SGX vulnerability, a scenario for which all users should be prepared.

It’s safe to say that one should never have 100% trust in any VPN solution. In this case, VP.net promises to offer an extra layer of privacy but, in the end, even the most secure systems can be breached.

That said, it is interesting to see a novel approach to the ‘no logging’ discussions. Whether this novelty will scale and be embraced more broadly remains to be seen.

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

---

From TorrentFreak via this RSS feed

Always sold at highly competitive prices that almost anyone can afford, Amazon’s Fire TV Stick has enjoyed more than a decade of success, driving millions to the company’s video and online retail platforms.

Popular all year round and at times selling out in the run-up to Christmas, the Fire TV Stick became a household brand, assisted in no small part by its Android-based operating system allowing sideloading of apps from third-party sources. With function and affordability balanced to perfection, popularity seemed almost inevitable.

Infamy, on the other hand, is more difficult to predict, much less relied upon as part of a business plan reliant on sales of licensed media and other legitimate products.

Pressure Mounts on Amazon

When enduring popularity among pirates, on whom not a single marketing penny had ever been spent, was combined with a targeted campaign in the media that successfully reached millions of pirates, Fire TV’s infamy received yet another boost.

Media reports openly linking affordable Fire TV devices with free, pirated media were intended to act as a deterrent.

In June 2023, Google searches for the term ‘Fire TV’ were at their lowest point in four years. By November 2023, searches had reached an all-time high, surpassing a peak last seen in November 2019.

Private pressure on Amazon to act eventually broke through into the public domain, with calls for the company to do something – anything – to stop Fire TV devices being used by millions of pirate users.

Amazon didn’t bow to the pressure but had it done so, any countermeasures wouldn’t have remained effective for long. Even in the event Amazon was somehow capable of delivering a crippling blow, leading to millions of Firesticks being dumped in trash cans, Chinese variants would’ve been queuing up to fill the void before the abandoned devices hit the bottom.

Whether the company’s approach will change when Fire OS gives way to the all-new Vega operating system, is still unknown. Yet in a surprise move this week, Amazon demonstrated that when the circumstances demand action, all things are possible.

Amazon Remote Disables Pirate Apps

First reported by popular YouTuber TechDoctorUK, it emerged that two piracy apps – Flix Vision and Live NetTV – were no longer welcome on Amazon devices, despite being sideloaded from third-party sources technically outside Amazon’s control.

Users with these apps already installed were given little choice; Amazon disabled both remotely with an option to follow-up with a full delete.

Apps Declared ‘Potentially Harmful’

Fire TV device users who installed the apps for the first time this week, didn’t have to wait long before Amazon stepped in with the same action and the following on-screen message:

App disabled – Uninstall potentially harmful app? App name: FLIX VISION [or Live NetTV]

This app has been disabled because it can put your device or personal data at risk. You can keep the app on your device but you will be unable to use it. To remove the app and recover storage space on your device, select ‘Uninstall’ below.

The warning from Amazon mirrors similar warnings in current anti-piracy campaigns; apps offering pirated content often contain malware or expose users to other risks including exfiltration of their personal data.

This isn’t the first time that Amazon has taken this type of action but with its targeting of two well-known piracy apps, was the action taken purely on security grounds or was piracy part of the equation?

Disabling Piracy Apps is New

Elias Saba at AFTVNews believes that targeting piracy apps is a first for Amazon. However, he’s not convinced that piracy was the main motivation behind Amazon’s decision to disable the apps.

With hundreds of piracy apps experiencing no problems, a more compelling reason must lie elsewhere. Indeed, the mechanisms allegedly used by both of these apps to generate revenue, may have been considered perfect candidates for an aggressive response.

Supported by credible evidence posted to GitHub, one of the main allegations is that while enjoying the latest movies and TV shows, users’ devices become exit nodes in a proxy network. Access to that network is apparently sold to whoever might benefit from a large supply of devices, connected to the internet via residential IP addresses, in locations all over the world.

While that sounds like a major security concern, context is everything. Residential proxy networks aren’t illegal by default; on paper they provide the means to carry out a wide range of perfectly legitimate tasks. For this reason, online virus or malware scanners are less likely to identify similar code as a threat.

Drawing a line between what is legal and what is not, often turns on whether consent was obtained first. No anti-virus or malware service offers that level of detail. In this case, the GitHub entry claims that permission isn’t obtained from users when they install the app.

That changes everything and confirms the existence of a major security risk, one with the ability to silently turn a Fire TV Stick into the world’s clunkiest media device, for which Amazon would surely face the blame.

And Then Amazon Blocks Two More Apps…

Additional reports indicate that Amazon isn’t quite finished and more apps are currently falling in much the same fashion.

Another pair of pirate apps, Blink Streamz and Ocean Streamz, have also been blocked by Amazon, Elias Saba reports. Unconfirmed reports suggest other apps are affected too but without supporting evidence, it’s hard to confirm one way or another. What any of this means from rightsholders’ perspective, if anything at all, seems to turn on the circumstances that led to the apps being disabled.

On one hand, Amazon’s interventions may have prevented greater harms being inflicted later down the line, and users should appreciate that. Yet by providing precious little detail on the nature of the threat, users won’t be able to learn from their mistakes or share knowledge on how these specific apps behaved and why they presented such risk.

Without clarity and open discussion, many people will continue to install any piracy app made available online, regardless of warnings. If there’s a genuine determination to bring those numbers down, abusive apps will have to be called out by name, in credible reports containing specific details, on a very regular basis. A nation of amateur malware experts must be preferable to a nation infected by malware.

Until then, privacy implications aside, devices under Amazon control may offer an emergency safety net and a few extra benefits. They don’t come with malware embedded direct from the factory and are less likely to have poor security by default. Unless jailbreaking becomes necessary and root the new standard.

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

---

From TorrentFreak via this RSS feed

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

There are currently two bills in the making; the Foreign Anti-Digital Piracy Act (FADPA) introduced by Representative Zoe Lofgren in February, and Representative Darrell Issa’s ‘American Copyright Protection Act’ (ACPA), which tackles the same issue from a different angle.

ACPA has yet to be formally introduced, but a draft of the framework was shared with stakeholders late May, with a request for input. While most of the back and forth takes place behind closed doors, the Re:Create Coalition and the Library Copyright Alliance (LCA) shared their critical comments publicly.

Overblocking Fears

The Library Copyright Alliance is pleased that libraries will be exempt from the blocking proposal, as they are not categorized as service providers. However, there are still concerns that the bill, as currently drafted, could lead to overblocking.

“LCA remains concerned that ACPA’s no-fault injunction structure could lead to over-blocking that could restrict access to information and thereby harm library users,” LCA writes.

The LCA notes that most cases will likely result in default judgments, as foreign sites typically unresponsive to actions filed in U.S. courts. In addition, service providers are unlikely to oppose orders on behalf of these unknown third parties.

“A service provider’s objective would be to implement the blocking in the most expedient manner possible, regardless of possible over-blocking,” LCA notes.

This predicted lack of scrutiny means that some sites may be classified as foreign piracy sites, even when they fail to meet the statutory definition.

Re:Create also raises overblocking concerns, focusing on the destabilizing impact the measures could have on the broader internet, suggesting that the potential fallout should be taken seriously.

“Advocates for site-blocking have downplayed the threat of overblocking and pooh-poohed the idea of ‘breaking the internet,’ saying that site-blocking can be achieved without threatening the integrity of the internet or lawful internet use. However, the latest research suggests site-blocking advocates may be trying to rush their idea into law before the facts can catch up to them.”

Re:Create cites an i2Coalition report which found that overblocking is widespread, especially when restrictions are applied to shared infrastructure like cloud platforms and CDNs. This is considered a potential threat to the internet’s architecture, the digital economy, and fundamental rights.

Solution in search of a problem?

Both groups mention overblocking in detail, but they also highlight separate issues. Re:Create, for example, notes that it’s not clear that site blocking is needed, questioning research that estimated a significant negative economic impact of online piracy.

“Site-blocking is a solution in search of a problem,” the group writes, citing a rebuttal from the Computer & Communications Industry Association’s Research Center, which points out several flaws in a key report that estimated $29.2 billion in lost U.S. revenues.

From Re:Create’s submission

This estimate is biased and based on flawed methodology, resulting in a multi-billion dollar figure that is “wildly out of step with previous studies that had concluded impacts from piracy were much smaller, potentially as low as zero,” Re:Create notes.

Move Site Blocking to the ITC

The LCA doesn’t mention the alleged damages, nor is it entirely against a site blocking bill. However, to prevent the risk of overblocking due to default judgments, it would like to shift the proposed forum from specific district judges to the International Trade Commission (ITC).

The library association argues that ITC judges already have expertise in intellectual property, and the ITC staff would represent the public interest, helping to prevent over-blocking.

“The staff’s ongoing involvement would help prevent over-blocking. Significantly, the ITC is equipped to order temporary relief, so it could act quickly to protect the interests of copyright owners,” LCA writes.

The idea of using the ITC as a forum to handle piracy related cases isn’t entirely new. In 2012, Rep. Issa’s proposed the OPEN Act, which would have tasked the Commission with stopping money flows to pirate sites. The bill was an alternative to SOPA and PIPA, but never passed.

A Sunsetting Clause?

The libraries also mention a novelty that, to our knowledge, has never been mentioned in public; a proposed sunsetting clause that is being considered by Rep. Issa.

“During one of the roundtables, Chairman Issa mentioned the possibility of the site-blocking legislation sunsetting after a set number of years. We favor sunsetting the legislation after five years,” LCA writes.

A sunsetting clause means that the law will automatically terminate or expire on a specific date unless Congress takes deliberate action to extend it. It is essentially a built-in expiration date for the bill, which ensures a thorough reevaluation of its impact and effectiveness in the future.

The ACPA framework is still in the discussion phase and the initial feedback shows that there may be room for improvement. This is especially true considering that these two responses are just the tip of the iceberg; there are likely others calling for more drastic enforcement too.

—

A copy of the comments shared by Re:Create can be found here (pdf) and the Library Copyright Alliance’s submission can be found here (pdf).

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

---

From TorrentFreak via this RSS feed

Over the past two years, rightsholders of all kinds have filed lawsuits against companies that develop AI models.

Most of these cases allege that AI developers used copyrighted works to train LLMs without first obtaining authorization.

Meta is among a long list of companies now being sued for this allegedly-infringing activity, including a class action lawsuit filed by authors Richard Kadrey, Sarah Silverman, and Christopher Golden. This case has a clear piracy angle, as Meta used libraries of pirated books as training material.

Meta admitted the use of these unofficial sources to train its Llama model early on. At the same time, however, the company denied the copyright infringement allegations, noting that it would rely on a fair use defense, at least in part.

Motions for Summary Judgment

In March, both parties filed motions for partial summary judgment. Meta argued that its use of copyrighted material was ‘fair’. It discussed the various fair use factors and stressed, among other things, that Meta’s alleged infringements did not cause any market harm, nor can they be seen as competition for the original works.

Meanwhile, the authors argued that the downloading of millions of books cannot be classified as fair use, since the source of the books is clearly copyright-infringing. Therefore, they argued that Meta should be held liable for direct copyright infringement.

While the summary judgment motions are partial, as they don’t cover the distribution claims (BitTorrent uploading), they are closely watched by other rightsholders and tech companies as potential sources of clarity on the fair use battle.

Meta Secures Fair Use Win

Yesterday, U.S. District Court Judge Vince Chhabria ruled on both motions, which at first sight offers a clear win for Meta. The court denied the authors’ motion to hold Meta liable for direct copyright infringement after it obtaining pirated books from shadow libraries via BitTorrent.

Judge Chhabria also granted Meta’s cross-motion for partial summary judgment, concluding that Meta’s use of the copyrighted books for LLM training indeed qualifies as fair use based on the arguments presented.

The order

The ruling centers around an evaluation of the various fair use factors, with “market harm” explicitly identified as the most important element of fair use.

The court acknowledged the transformative nature of AI training, noting that Meta’s use of the books had a “further purpose” and “different character” than the original works, as LLMs are “innovative tools that can be used to generate diverse text and perform a wide range of functions.”

No Market Harm

The authors presented two main theories of market harm, both of which the court ultimately rejected as “clear losers”.

First, the authors argued that Llama could recite significant portions of their books, thereby allowing users to access the works for free. The court found this theory unviable, citing expert testimony that Llama could not generate more than 50 words from any of the plaintiffs’ books, even with “adversarial prompting”.

Second, the plaintiffs argued that Meta’s unauthorized copying harmed the relatively new market for AI training licensing. The court dismissed this too, ruling that the harm from the loss of licensing fees is not “cognizable”.

The court also identified a third argument, which the authors didn’t pursue in great detail; market dilution. Under this theory, AI models trained on copyrighted works can generate “countless works that compete with the originals, even if those works aren’t themselves infringing,” Judge Chhabria wrote.

This market dilution or indirect substitution argument could prove to be key in AI fair use cases, Judge Chhabria stressed.

“No other use—whether it’s the creation of a single secondary work or the creation of other digital tools—has anything near the potential to flood the market with competing works the way that LLM training does,” the Judge nnotes.

“If someone bought a romance novel written by an LLM instead of a romance novel written by a human author, the LLM-generated novel is substituting for the human-written one.”

Dilution?

In this case, however, the authors provided no meaningful evidence on market dilution, relying on speculation rather than empirical data. Therefore, their motion was rejected, with the court granting Meta’s fair use motion instead.

A Warning Shot for AI Developers

Despite the clear win, the court’s ruling is a bittersweet victory for Meta. The motion only covers part of the copyright claim, as Meta’s alleged distribution of pirated books was not part of it. In addition, the ruling only applies to the thirteen named authors included in this case.

The ‘win’ doesn’t mean that the fair use defense will hold up in other AI-training copyright cases. In fact, the court hinted that Meta and others may have to get used to the idea of licensing content for this purpose.

Meta argued that a negative fair use ruling could stop AI technology in its tracks, as AI models need vast amounts of data to be trained on. However, the court dismissed this line of reasoning as ridiculous.

“The suggestion that adverse copyright rulings would stop this technology in its tracks is ridiculous,” Judge Chhabria wrote.

“These products are expected to generate billions, even trillions, of dollars for the companies that are developing them. If using copyrighted works to train the models is as necessary as the companies say, they will figure out a way to compensate copyright holders for it.”

The court ruling in favor of Meta is more the result of the authors’ failure to adequately argue the market dilution argument, rather than a clear fair use win for AI training.

Judge Chhabria stated that, given the state of the record, the court has no choice but to grant summary judgment in favor of Meta. However, it certainly doesn’t mean that similar arguments will hold up in other cases.

“As should now be clear, this ruling does not stand for the proposition that Meta’s use of copyrighted materials to train its language models is lawful. It stands only for the proposition that these plaintiffs made the wrong arguments and failed to develop a record in support of the right one,” the ruling reads.

—

A copy of the ruling, issued at the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, is available here (pdf). The court noted that Meta’s motion for summary judgment on the DMCA claim will be granted in a separate order.

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

---

From TorrentFreak via this RSS feed

Selling pirate IPTV subscriptions has always been illegal and after the EU’s top court confirmed as much in 2017, consuming unlicensed content is illegal too. Nevertheless, these offenses are typically treated differently.

Once identified, those who operate or sell access to illicit services are unlikely to get a free pass. Yet subscribers to those services have almost always walked away completely unscathed.

Limited Time For Success

The difference isn’t just about supply being more serious. Since fines and similar measures punish those directly responsible for those alleged lost sales reported so often, a successful outcome necessarily means getting those same people back on side and spending money.

Picking the right cases from which to harvest subscriber details is also important; a case concluded in Naples recently could hardly be more perfect.

Dismantling Italia TV

In December 2024, a popular IPTV supplier was shut down following an investigation by the Guardia di Finanza of Naples in collaboration with the Technological Fraud Unit of Rome. Alleged ringleader Cristian Fidato, 23, was reportedly responsible for sourcing the illegal content, with new clients onboarded by two colleagues, Ukraine-born Anatoliy Perrotta, 30, and 44-year-old Fiorino Della Corte.

The investigating judge found that Italia TV had around 6,000 subscribers, mostly in Campania in Southern Italy, but also in countries elsewhere in Europe, including Belgium, Switzerland, and Latvia. The IPTV platform’s servers were close to hand in Naples itself, at least until they were seized by the financial police and taken away for investigation.

Major Rightsholders’ Content

As a provider catering to mainstream demand, Italia TV offered content from the major Hollywood studios, Netflix, Disney+, and Amazon Prime, plus Sky and DAZN which offer live sports, including all-important Serie A football matches.

Even before the raid, investigators at the Guardia di Finanza had reportedly blocked 19 sites that worked as a redirect mechanism for Italia TV, before adding another 25+ later to finish the job. Those who previously made it through became subscribers after making payments to bank accounts in Italy and beyond.

Early estimates suggested that Cristian Fidato opened around 32 accounts, sometimes under false names including “Gennaro Maddaloni”, variously claiming to be a student supported by his parents according to one report, or self-employed according to others.

Fidato allegedly claimed to have a nine-figure income but for tax purposes, nothing was reported to the state. Over four years of operations, Italia TV packages covering movies, TV shows and live sports, were available for €80 per year, generating an estimated €850,000 in revenue.

Lots of Powerful Hardware, Neatly Arranged

Around a third of the service’s subscribers (2,000) paid using cryptocurrency, which landed in dozens of wallets, all of which were identified by law enforcement. Italia TV’s interest in crypto went further than that, however.

After the raid in 2024, descriptions of the provider’s server room and reports of a possible crypto mining operation, remained just that. The usual images of servers and other hardware weren’t part of the package released to the media, but a little digging online more than makes up for their absence.

Showcasing everything from RGB-loaded gaming PCs and multi-GPU crypto mining rigs, to sundry servers and other hardware with less obvious tasks, TikTok was the platform of choice for Italia TV’s ringleader.

While in many ways typical of operations dismantled in the past, Fidato had a disturbing sideline business running in parallel.

Investigators discovered 1,600 CSAM images and videos which Fidato had been offering separately via WhatsApp groups, reportedly for the equivalent of pocket change each. Police also found an indoor area equipped with lighting and an irrigation system used for the cultivation of cannabis.

Sentenced: Four Years and Four Months in Prison

Fidato and Anatoliy Perrotta opted to have their cases handled under the abbreviated procedure. This means that the court makes a decision based purely on evidence obtained during the preliminary investigations. Less resources are expended getting a case to trial and once there, trials are wrapped up more quickly. In return, defendants typically get a one-third discount on their sentence.

At the Neapolitan Court on June 16, preliminary investigations Judge Leda Rossetti issued the following verdict:

• Cristian Fidato: 4 years and 4 months in prison. Fined €22,000. • Anatoliy Perrotta: 1 year and four months in prison (conditional/suspended)

A third defendant who pleaded guilty at an earlier stage received a one-year prison sentence.

Whether the affected rightsholders intend to pursue Fidato and Perrotta in a civil action for damages is still unclear. The fate of subscribers, meanwhile, appears to be headed in only one direction.

Subscribers Face Administrative Fines

As promised for many months, subscribers of Italia TV are now at risk of receiving an administrative fine.

Coordinated by Deputy Prosecutor of Naples Silvio Pavia and Deputy Prosecutor Alessandro Milita, it’s being reported that an investigation carried out by the Guardia di Finanza successfully identified more than 6,000 subscribers.

A La Stampa report (paywall) claims that according to its own investigation, some fines have already been sent out with some recipients paying the amount requested. The report makes no mention of the all-important fine amount, instead citing the range expected under law; a minimum of €51.33 for a first offense up to the repeat offender maximum of €5,000.

There are no reports of unexpectedly large fines in the initial batch sent out last month to 2,282 subscribers of a different service, so it’s likely that broadly the same parameters, whatever they are, will also be applied here.

Opinion: Punishments and the Long-Term Objective

In light of Cristian Fidato’s fine of just €22,000 for running a service, the theoretical maximum of €5,000 for viewing offenses seems somewhat disproportionate. Anatoliy Perrotta’s sentence, which carries no fine at all, raises the possibility of viewers being fined more than a person directly profiting from exactly the same platform.

Nobody will relish receiving a fine in the mail, which is the entire point of sending them. However, considering the long-term goal, perceptions of fairness could come into play at some point, adding another complication to an already risky strategy of using force against former and potential customers.

To be considered a success, fines need to do just enough to turn pirates into subscribers without destroying existing goodwill; limited damage is already inevitable.

Italian football clubs and their partner broadcasters currently have no other rightsholders to hide behind, but with the authorities positioned to act as a punishment proxy, they may have already bought a little more time. But not much.

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

---

From TorrentFreak via this RSS feed

Online piracy is a global problem for copyright holders, but some threats are relatively localized.

In addition to internationally oriented sites such as The Pirate Bay, Hianime, Cineby and many others, there are also many local favorites.

Filma24

Five years ago, Filma24 was Albania’s leading pirate site, with over half of its visitors hailing from the Southeastern European country, making it one of the nation’s most popular websites.

The site’s popularity attracted the attention of the MPA’s Alliance for Creativity and Entertainment (ACE), which attempted to identify the operators through a DMCA subpoena obtained at a U.S. court.

The MPA also mentioned the pirate site in its most recent notorious markets submission to the U.S. Trade Representative. While it wasn’t mentioned as a core threat, it was noted that the IO domain registry had kept Filma24’s .io domain online, despite rightsholders’ complaints.

MPA’s USTR comments

The original site has changed domains numerous times so may not have remained under the same ownership. The Filma24 brand certainly didn’t disappear. Filma24.bike, for example, had over two million visits in March this year, half of which came from Albania.

While these numbers may not sound like much for larger pirate sites, it’s a local juggernaut. Albania only has a population of just over three million, and Filma24.bike alone was listed as the 59th most visited domain in the country. And with dozens of alternative domain names in standby mode, it was prepared for trouble.

MPA/ACE Take over Filma24 Domains

Trouble eventually arrived last weekend. Official confirmation is lacking, but over the past few days Filma24.bike began redirecting to ACE’s takedown banner. The same applies to many other Filma24 domains including filma24.app, filma24.dev, filma24-al.com, filma24.lol, filma24.name, filma24.pro, filma24.top, filma24.uno and filma24.vip.

ACE message

In addition, the Zhblloko.com domain was also taken over by the Hollywood group. This website was promoted through the Filma24 website for years and informed people how they could bypass site-blocking efforts, by changing DNS servers for example, or through a VPN service.

Upon closer inspection, we can see that the domain names in question were signed over to the Motion Picture Association, which put the redirect in place. Since all domains were signed over nearly simultaneously, the operators may have been uncovered and handed over the domains as part of some type of agreement.

New domain owner

TorrentFreak reached out to the MPA and ACE, requesting a comment on the matter, but we have yet to hear back. That said, ACE regularly takes over domain names in a similar fashion and there appears to be no court order linked to this action.

Needless to say, the shutdown comes as a disappointment to many Albanian pirates who preferred Filma24 above other sites due to the availability of local subtitles. According to an unconfirmed Reddit thread, the site was asking for donations just days before it disappeared.

Whether this will truly be the end of the Filma24 brand is highly unlikely. There are already new sites using the same name and branding, which will likely be embraced by many as if nothing ever happened. Rinse and repeat.

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

---

From TorrentFreak via this RSS feed

The High Court in Delhi, India, regularly issues site blocking orders, requiring Internet providers to block access to pirate sites.

These orders have targeted sites that stream movies and TV series, both from Hollywood and Bollywood, but also sites that specialize in pirated sports streams.

Last week we covered a new “superlative” injunction that temporarily extends blocking powers to deal with pirated cricket matches, protecting the ongoing England Tour of India. However, “dynamic+” orders are still being issued and while less advanced on paper, they can still be quite effective.

FIFA Club World Cup Piracy

In a recent complaint, broadcaster DAZN requested a blocking order against six sports streaming sites, including buffsports.me and vipbox.lc. With this action DAZN, which is available for roughly $5 per month in India, aims to protect its broadcasting rights for the FIFA Club World Cup 2025, which is currently ongoing.

The request targets nine local ISPs and five domain name registrars – 1API, NameCheap, Netim, and Tucows – all of which operate globally. The fifth company is Sarek Oy, also known as Njalla, which isn’t a typical registrar but acts as a privacy intermediary instead.

These requests are common by now and, after reviewing the evidence, the New Delhi High Court found a prima facie case of copyright infringement by the websites and granted the site blocking injunction.

From the order

“If an ex parte ad interim injunction in favor of the plaintiff is not granted, the plaintiff will likely suffer irreparable loss and injury,” Justice Saurabh Banerjee concluded.

ISPs and Domain Registrars Take Action

When presented with the order, the named ISPs and domain registrars (DNRs) must “..take steps to immediately block the said domain names associated with the defendant websites on real time basis.” That also applies to companies that are not incorporated in India.

Shared by Verdictum this week, the injunction was issued late last month and does indeed appear to be having an effect.

Aside from local ISPs blocking access to these domain names, buffsports.me, sporthd.me, and piratemedia.me are all offline. These domains all display the clientHold status code used by registrars to suspend domain names.

Defendant Websites and their Domain Name Registrars

Defendant No.WebsiteDNRSuspended?1.buffsports.me1API GmbhYes2.sporthd.meNETIMYes3.piratemedia.meNameCheap, Inc.Yes4.vipbox.lcTucows Domains Inc.No5.strimsy.topSarek OyNo6.vipstand.pmSarek OyNo

These suspensions suggest that NameCheap, 1API, and Netim have all taken action, likely in response to the Indian High Court order. The domains that were registered through Tucows and Njalla remain operational at the time of writing.

Global Reach

While this type of injunction has been granted before, the global reach of this type of Indian order is worth highlighting. The suspended domains are effectively unreachable around the world, which makes this a highly effective enforcement option.

Of course, the targeted websites can easily switch to new domains, which is typically what happens, but then rightsholders have the option to extend the scope of their request by asking registrars to block these additional domains as well.

Thus far, the pirate sports streaming problem is far from defeated. It largely remains a game of whack-a-mole, with new sites, domains, and services constantly appearing, while global calls for more effective blocking actions increase.

—

A copy of the the Delhi High Court order issued by Justice Saurabh Banerjee is available here (pdf, via)

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

---

From TorrentFreak via this RSS feed

Hot on the heels of a live sports piracy report published last month, French telecoms/audiovisual regulator Arcom has just published its comprehensive annual report for 2024.

Weighing in at over 200 pages, the report covers all aspects of Arcom’s responsibilities, for which it received a €51.3 million budget in 2024.

From regulating the entire audiovisual sector, tackling online misinformation and hateful content, ensuring the safety of women and children, to the suppression of online piracy, Arcom is certainly busy. Especially so once piracy of live sporting events has been factored in.

The Fight Against Sports Piracy

Arcom data shows that overall, consumption of cultural content and live sports from all sources has increased quite dramatically among the French.

In 2024, 48.2 million were consumers, up 6 million on figures reported for 2020. On the plus side, Arcom says that the growth largely benefits legal platforms, with 67% consuming exclusively from legal sources in 2024.

Illicit consumption is reportedly on the wane; 26% of the population consumed at least one item illegally in 2020, a figure that fell by two points to 24% in 2024.

The reduction in overall piracy rates will be considered a plus but in common with other countries, live event piracy is a significant outlier in France.

Regular streaming, direct downloading, and peer-to-peer network use are all declining; for live events, use of pirate IPTV services and social networks is heading in the opposite direction.

Unwelcome Newcomer Blamed For Big Losses

Arcom describes the phenomenon as recent; two-thirds (66%) of illegal IPTV users say they started watching less than three years ago, with just 11% of users consuming for longer than that. Estimates on losses for various parties are as significant as those reported elsewhere.

“The regulator reassessed the loss of earnings linked to the illicit consumption of audiovisual content and retransmissions of sporting events, five years after an initial estimate. The loss was estimated at €1.5 billion, or around 12% of the market, to which is added a loss of €190 million for the State in tax and social security revenue,” Arcom reports.

“The loss of revenue for the audiovisual sector alone is estimated at €1.2 billion, and for the sports sector it’s €290 million, or 15% of the revenue generated by legal sports platforms and broadcasters in 2023.”

7 Rightsholders, 14 Sporting Events, 1 Common Response

Between January 1, 2024 and December 31, 2024, Arcom says it received a total of 4,919 requests for domain name blocking, from seven sports rights holders (three broadcasters and four sports leagues) concerning fourteen sporting events.

Football dominates as expected, with blocking requested for UEFA Champions League, Ligue 1 and Ligue 2, English Premier League, German Bundesliga, Spain’s La Liga, and the World Cup. Blocking requests were also received for several rugby events, tennis tournaments including Wimbledon and Roland-Garros, the Olympic and Paralympic Games, plus motorsports Formula 1 and Moto GP.

Surprise! ‘Shock Blockades’ Boost Overall Blocking in 2024

In March 2025, the clash between Paris Saint-Germain and Marseille was notable for the enhanced blocking measures deployed to disrupt piracy. The clubs previously met in October 2024, a match where an estimated 55% of the TV audience watched via pirate streams.

For the return match, blocking was deployed in two waves an hour apart, targeting around 100 pirate services, hoping to cause as much disruption as possible by taking pirates by surprise. Arcom’s 2024 report says coup de poing operations like these were partly responsible for boosting the volume of domains blocked last year.

“Massive ‘shock block’ operations were carried out during 2024 in partnership with rights holders against IPTV services during particularly popular sporting events, notably the French Ligue 1 and Ligue 2. For example, 258 IPTV services were blocked on October 27, 2024, during the [Paris Saint-Germain and Marseille] match. As a result, the number of requests to block domain names allowing access to IPTV servers increased considerably during 2024,” Arcom reports.

Processing increasing numbers of blocking requests was streamlined last year with the introduction of a new system at Arcom.

Available since June 2024, the system automates referrals with Arcom reporting “an improvement in the processing of referrals and, consequently, an increase in the volume of blocked domain names.”

Following Arcom notifications to ISPs, overall requests for 2024 led to 3,797 ‘pirate services’ being blocked, an increase of 146% compared to 2023.

The total includes 1,769 domain names “providing access” to IPTV services, 439 domains for which public DNS resolvers such as Cloudflare and Google were also required to take action, and 1,085 domains that major search engines, most likely Google and Bing, were required to de-index from search results.

Impact of Blocking Measures

Whether blocking is effective against streaming piracy largely depends on the scope of the question. Arcom measures effectiveness based on estimates of the audience for illicit streaming platforms; if the estimated audience for those sites reduces, then that’s a clear sign that blocking works, Arcom suggests.

“Demonstrating the effectiveness of the measures to block illegal sports sites implemented since January 2022, the audience for illegal live streaming represented, on average each month in 2024, 1.6 million internet users, down 18% compared to 2023. Over a longer period, this mode of consumption has fallen by 41% compared to its peak consumption in 2021, and by 30% compared to 2018,” the report notes.

That being said, there are caveats. Arcom says that while the “effects of DNS blocking are real” it’s important to consider whether internet users have moved to other methods of access. Half of all French consumers of illicit content (57%) say they now use a VPN, while 46% say they have changed their DNS settings.

“The development of criminal uses of these tools requires research into the most relevant measures to implement, and to call on all stakeholders likely to intervene to put an end to infringement of the rights,” the regulator adds.

Graduated Response

The so-called ‘graduated response’ program to tackle piracy via peer-to-peer networks like BitTorrent, has been running in France for 15 years. The shift away from BitTorrent to streaming services was inevitable due to the simplicity of the latter, meaning that the volume of claims from rightsholders and subsequent warning notifications sent to internet users, has continued to reduce year-on-year.

Arcom also considers other factors that may have contributed to the reduction.

“The decrease is due to several factors, the effectiveness of the fight against piracy, such as the transformation of uses in terms of consumption of works on the Internet, the acceleration of the availability of legal offers during the past years, even an increasing use of circumvention solution such as VPNs,” the regulator notes.

Of the 999 legal proceedings that were brought to the attention of Arcom in 2024, 45% resulted in financial penalties (fines or equivalent) compared to 28% in 2023. Arcom says that alternatives to financial penalties may have been preferred by the prosecutor, including “citizen contributions” paid to victim support groups, for example.

The full Arcom Annual Report 2024 is available here (pdf, French)

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

---

From TorrentFreak via this RSS feed