In 2004, the online piracy epidemic was becoming more serious for the movie industry, largely due to the spectacular growth of bandwidth-efficient torrent sites.

This concern was recognized by the Motion Picture Association (MPA[A]) and its renowned CEO, Jack Valenti, who had been in charge of the Hollywood group since 1966.

“If we don’t react promptly to an ascending curve of illegal uploading and downloading soon to be reinforced with dazzling speeds rising from file-trafficking networks, we will live with an intense regret,” Valenti said in June 2004.

Valenti’s warning came two weeks before his official retirement. As the founding father of the MPA’s anti-piracy division, he saw a combination of increased enforcement, new legislation, and public awareness campaigns as the key to tackling the piracy scourge.

You Wouldn’t Steal a Car

These words were put into action as the MPA worked on an aggressive educational campaign. At the ShoWest industry conference, held in Las Vegas in March 2004, attendees were shown a preview of two new PSAs that equated movie piracy to other types of stealing.

The now-iconic “You Wouldn’t Steal a Car” PSA was created under the MPA’s wings, but the group never promoted it publicly through its main website. Via various international partners, however, the PSA soon became a global phenomenon.

As far as we know, the first public mention dates back to July 12, when the Industry Trust for IP Awareness launched a broad campaign at the piracyisacrime.com website. This effort was partly funded by the main Hollywood studios, including MPA members.

The “You Wouldn’t Steal a Car” PSA wasn’t just featured by the UK campaign, it also inspired its name and logo.

The MPA obviously didn’t mind the global exposure. In fact, a few days after the UK launch, the MPA teamed up with Singapore’s Intellectual Property Office to share the “you wouldn’t steal” mantra there as well.

Who Created the PSA?

While the MPA’s role is clear from historical documents, neatly preserved by the invaluable Internet Archive, the true origins of the campaign always remained a mystery. None of the public announcements mention who created the iconic PSA. That is, until two French journalists dove into it.

Nicolas Delage and Christophe Wilson embarked on a two-year investigation that they summarize in a YouTube video. Ironically, even the MPA seemed to have forgotten that the PSA idea originated at an MPA meeting, as they pointed to the UK anti-piracy group FACT instead.

The French journalists persevered nonetheless. They discovered that the PSA was filmed at the Paramount backlot in Los Angeles, and after numerous inquiries, they eventually learned that Warner Bros. was behind the production. They spoke to several people who were involved, including creative director Ricky Mintz.

“When we made that video, I thought it would play in theaters for a week, maybe. In a million years, I never would have imagined it would end up on almost every DVD in the 2000s. Until my kids told me, I had no idea,” Mintz recalls in the video.

Speaking with TorrentFreak, journalist Nicolas Delage says that he and Christophe reached out to over 70 people during their investigation. Many people declined to talk, and those who did could often only fill in some of the blanks.

“The studios and the MPA were such large organizations that no one really seemed to know who was responsible for what, which made things a lot more complicated when we started digging for specific information.”

“For the team at Warner Bros. in charge of producing it, it was apparently just a quick gig between two movie trailers,” Nicolas says.

The documentary includes many more intriguing details that we won’t spoil here, and it is a must-watch for those who are interested in the history of the iconic PSA. The journalists deserve all the credit for finding many missing pieces of the puzzle, which greatly help to update the historical record.

The ‘Stolen’ Font Controversy

There is one key element in the video for which we would like to provide some additional context. This relates to allegations that surfaced earlier this year, which suggested that the piracyisacrime.com website used a ‘copied’ font in their campaign PDF material.

The French journalists note in the video that “piracyisacrime.com has nothing to do with the Piracy It’s a Crime ad” and that the PSA had “zero connection” with piracyisacrime.com. That’s a bit of an overstatement.

While piracyisacrime.com was not involved in the creation of the PSA, it did promote the video in its campaign material and hosted the videos, with permission from the MPA. This makes sense, as the UK website was funded by MPA members through the Industry Trust for IP Awareness.

As we mentioned in our earlier coverage on the font controversy, there is no evidence that the PSA video itself used the ‘copied’ font, so in that sense the creators are not “connected” to these allegations.

More History, To be Continued

Needless to say, after more than two decades, the “You Wouldn’t Steal a Car” PSA continues to intrigue. Or should we say the “Downloader” PSA, which was the official title for the online piracy ad, as mentioned by the French journalists.

While researching the various claims for this article, we stumbled upon a form from the movie theater organization NATO (now Cinema United), where members could order copies of the PSA to show before films. This form confirms the “Downloader” name and also lists the name of the counterfeit DVD version: “Street Vendor“.

The same document, published in August 2004, also confirms that the MPA provided these videos, offering theaters the option to order a DVD if they had trouble accessing the copies online.

It appears that there are still plenty of intriguing details to uncover about the iconic PSA. The French journalists realize this too. At the end of their video, they tease a follow-up about the PSA’s music. This will likely cover the debunked claim that the music was “pirated”, a certain Prodigy track, and much more.

We’re looking forward to it already.

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

In July, adult content producers Strike 3 Holdings and Counterlife Media filed a copyright infringement lawsuit against Meta.

The complaint accused the tech company of using adult films to assist its AI model training. Similar claims have been made by other rightsholders, including many book authors.

This latest case specifically focuses on Meta’s BitTorrent activity. That’s no surprise, as plaintiff Strike 3 is the most active copyright litigant in the United States, known for targeting thousands of alleged BitTorrent pirates.

Meta Wants Lawsuit Dismissed

In late October, Meta responded to the allegations by filing a motion to dismiss at a California federal court. Taking a page from the BitTorrent piracy defense playbook, Meta argues that the IP address evidence presented by the plaintiffs is meaningless without context.

The porn producers had linked numerous Meta IP addresses to unauthorized sharing activity. According to Meta, however, there is no evidence that the alleged activity on its corporate network was centrally orchestrated by the company. In fact, it countered that many alleged downloads predate Meta’s AI training activity.

In addition to denying the allegations, the tech company offered an alternative explanation. Meta suggested that employees or visitors may have downloaded the pirated videos for personal use.

“[T]he small number of downloads—roughly 22 per year on average across dozens of Meta IP addresses—is plainly indicative of private personal use, not a concerted effort to collect the massive datasets Plaintiffs allege are necessary for effective AI training,” Meta wrote.

Porn Producers Counter Personal Use Defense

The plaintiffs responded to Meta’s defense this week, characterizing the “personal use” explanation as implausible, given the amount of data involved and the piracy patterns they observed.

“Plaintiffs provide data demonstrating unique patterns of Meta’s piracy suggestive of a centralized algorithm coordinating the infringements. Meta’s excuse that employees must be infringing Plaintiffs’ copyrights for ‘personal use’ does not fit the facts,” they write.

The rightsholders point out several download patterns that they believe suggest non-human involvement. Interestingly, these patterns are not linked to their own works, but to those of other rightsholders.

For example, they highlight data from June 29, 2024, suggesting that Meta’s corporate, residential, and “hidden” IP addresses all downloaded multiple different versions of Microsoft Office within hours of each other.

“No reasonable person needs this many versions of a word processing software,” they write.

Additionally, the rebuttal mentions that on April 7, 2024, various IP addresses downloaded content linked to the word “origin”, without any other obvious connection. This includes Dan Brown’s book “Origin” the game “Origin Offline Start,” and the 2023 movie “Origin”.

“This is the kind of systematic, hyper-literal search consistent with an algorithm, and not just a person casually searching for files,” the adult companies note. They suggest that downloading data for AI training, as Meta previously admitted in the books lawsuit, is the ultimate goal.

The “Tit-for-Tat” Motive

The rightsholders also offer a secondary motive to explain why Meta might want to use its videos as part of the broader AI training scheme. They suggest that the tech giant allegedly used popular adult films as ‘BitTorrent currency’.

The companies allege that these downloads would benefit BitTorrent’s reciprocal “tit-for-tat” mechanism. They previously explained in their complaint that this could boost Meta’s other download efforts.

“Meta does not produce popular creative works and thus has no ‘currency’ for the swarm of peers in the BitTorrent network. As a result, Meta must steal someone else’s cachet to stay in these swarms so that it can download files,” the opposition brief reads.

“Plaintiffs’ works are ideal. Not only do they serve as unique data for AI training, they are popular both commercially and in the BitTorrent network, ensuring that Meta could stay in swarms and download even more files,” they add.

While this is an interesting argument, our understanding of the BitTorrent protocol is that the reciprocal “tit-for-tat” advantages are limited to single torrent swarms. This means that the “currency” benefits do not extend to other downloads in different swarms. We assume that Meta’s legal team will have some thoughts on this as well.

All in all, the porn producers believe that Meta’s defenses are not up to par. They argue there is sufficient ground to survive a motion to dismiss and move the case forward, so it can be argued on its merits.

“Meta’s Motion is an attempt to thwart the protections Congress enacted in the Copyright Act. Respectfully, Plaintiffs simply ask for their day in court and ask this Court to deny the Motion.”

—

A copy of the opposition brief Strike 3 Holdings and Counterlife Media filed in response to Meta’s motion to dismiss is available here (pdf). A hearing on the motion to dismiss is scheduled for January 21, 2026.

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

When a US-based web host receives a credible DMCA takedown notice, it’s often a sign that action is required to resolve the complaint. That usually means taking down allegedly infringing content uploaded by a third party.

Having met its obligations under the DMCA, compliance typically means that the host avoids liability for third-party infringement. Some overseas hosts operate somewhat differently, however, embracing non-compliance as a beneficial service feature.

DISH Network vs. Virtual Systems, LLC

In the world of ‘offshore’ and ‘bulletproof’ hosting, DMCA non-compliance typically comes as standard. Ukraine-based Virtual Systems, LLC (also known as VSYS Host) advertises itself as a ‘DMCA-ignored’ host, meaning that when DMCA notices instruct the company to take content down, no action is taken.

In October 2024, a lawsuit filed at a Seattle district court accused Virtual Systems, LLC, and its alleged owner and CEO, Vyacheslav Smyrnov, of doing just that.

Filed by broadcaster DISH Network and supported by the International Broadcaster Coalition Against Piracy (IBCAP), the complaint alleged that pirate IPTV services used Virtual Systems’ servers to illegally ‘transmit’ linear streams and VOD content, to which DISH owns the rights.

“Users accessed the Works through a set-top box (STB) or a website that links to the Works or provides a playlist used to access the Works. Users often had to purchase a subscription to view the Pirate Services’ content, in addition to purchasing any required STB. DISH did not authorize the Pirate Services to distribute or publicly perform the Works and received no compensation from them,” the complaint alleged.

DMCA Takedown Notices Universally Ignored

At least in part, the lawsuit targeted unfinished business. Three of the IPTV providers hosted by Virtual Systems were on the losing end of previous legal action in the United States. They were restrained from further infringement under a permanent injunction with the same applying to Virtual Systems. DMCA non-compliance was an additional aggravating factor.

“Virtual Systems and Smyrnov, collectively, were the recipients of at least 512 Infringement Notices. Virtual Systems did not respond to the Infringement Notices and did not take any measures to stop the Pirate Services’ infringement occurring on its servers and network. The Pirate Services kept infringing DISH’s copyrights in Works aired on the Channels, even using the same IP addresses and URLs previously reported to Virtual Systems,” the complaint continued.

In May 2025, a DISH status report[1] running to 370-pages described work to comply with the requirements of Ukraine, with Smyrnov reportedly served under the Hague Convention. Local issues included what appeared to be an attempt by Smyrnov to file a pro se answer to the DISH complaint. But with no signature and other critical shortcomings, the complaint officially went unanswered.

$41.8m Judgment in Favor of the Plaintiff

A default judgment was perhaps the most likely outcome from the beginning and with no direct contact and no answer on file, a win by default seemed all but inevitable.

An order issued this week dated November 12 notes Virtual Systems’ policy on DMCA compliance, which seems to strongly favor the customer, including those with “occasional” copyright issues.

The court also restated the three willful secondary copyright infringement claims in the original DISH complaint, the company’s request for damages, plus a permanent injunction.

Count I – Materially Contributing to Copyright Infringement;
Count II – Inducing Copyright Infringement; and
Count III – Vicarious Copyright Infringement.

Damages up to $150,000 for each registered work infringed.

Finding no obstacle to granting a default judgment, the court considered DISH’s request for maximum damages of $150,000 for willful infringement of each of the 279 copyrighted works listed in the complaint.

A Reasonable Request for a Significant Sum of Money

Noting that a judgment of $41,850,000 is expressly authorized by the Copyright Act, the court nevertheless described the eight-figure claim as “a significant sum of money.”

After weighing various factors, including DISH’s withdrawal of claims for profits attributable to the infringement, plus attorneys’ fees and costs, overall DISH claimed for less than it was entitled. As a result, a judgment of $41,850,000 was viewed as reasonable.

DISH was also granted a permanent injunction, which includes “a prohibition on providing any servers or network used in streaming or transmitting the material and requires termination of any current or future accounts of customers that stream or transmit the material.”

Chris Kuelling, executive director of IBCAP, welcomes the judgment and notes that failing to comply with takedown notices can prove expensive, including on a personal level.

“This ruling against Virtual Systems and its owner is another example of the consequences for hosting providers that choose to ignore takedown notices from IBCAP,” Kuelling says.

“IBCAP does not tolerate hosting providers and content delivery networks that disregard the law and fail to comply with our takedown notices. The result of such noncompliance is not only a permanent injunction, but also significant monetary damages, in this case more than $41 million, personally owed by the owner, Mr. Smyrnov.”

In comments to TorrentFreak, Kuelling says that the Ukrainian courts “seem to be in session and working despite the war” so IBCAP are ready for the next stage.

“With this order now in hand the attorneys will turn their efforts to collection and enforcement of the injunction,” he concludes.

The order granting default judgment is available here (pdf)

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

Misnomer

arbat

arbat

For the third Oct/Nov period, three years in a row, once again it’s Fire Stick Crackdown Malware Armageddon Month in the UK.

The annual event begins with the usual publications finding inspiration to write about the most popular streaming device in the UK, with drama injected into the mix by any means available to ensure maximum engagement.

If only there was some way of measuring interest in these articles or related searches, it could potentially provide valuable information on the UK piracy landscape, or even help to achieve behavioral change.

The news surge coincides with the anniversary of the BeStreamWise anti-piracy campaign, which launched around September 2023 and is still going strong. Published just this week, the campaign’s latest research is an important part of the puzzle that begins (but won’t end) with the new policy from Amazon.

Amazon and Sideloaded Apps

While we have yet to see any evidence that a campaign is actually underway at any scale, this recent statement from Amazon concerning Fire TV and sideloading is indeed genuine.

Amazon’s statement:

Piracy is illegal, and we’ve always worked to block it from our Appstore. Through an expanded program led by the Alliance for Creativity and Entertainment (ACE), a global coalition fighting digital piracy, we’ll now block apps identified as providing access to pirated content, including those downloaded from outside our Appstore.

Apps that somehow made it through Amazon’s vetting process or changed their behavior afterward, have been blocked on several occasions in the past. However, the new policy seems to go much further than that, by effectively signaling the beginning of the end for mass piracy via Amazon devices

How it will make its presence known at the consumer end, where loyal Amazon customers can often be found, is currently unknown. The manner in which the news has been released suggests that awareness is an accepted and important part of the equation, and preferred over a formal announcement alongside ACE, of which Amazon is already a member.

AFTVNews reports that the new approach will launch in Germany and France before rolling out globally to what is believed to be over 250 million devices. At least at this stage, there are no indications that the policy will apply retroactively, i.e by disabling apps already sideloaded to users’ devices.

Amazon could do that with the flick of a switch but probably won’t. Fire TV products also generate revenue for Amazon and partners including Netflix, so a gentle migration across to the piracy-restricted Vega OS-based Fire TV Stick 4K Select, seems the least disruptive option.

Unnamed Apps, Unclear Parameters

Apps deemed suitable for initial blocking haven’t been named and given the existing site blocking policy at the MPA (of which Amazon is also a member), it seems unlikely that apps will suddenly find themselves named in the media. That being said, “providing access to pirated content” is open for interpretation.

Self-contained apps that proactively present infringing content to the user, seem to be the most obvious candidates for blocking. Open apps, essentially video players that require users to provide their own playlists or login to a remote system, aren’t so easily defined.

They’re easy to identify and at the point of download, usually completely legal too. Whether Amazon sees itself splitting hairs over legality is unknown, but in a second statement, slightly different from the first, Amazon does seem to hint at a particular type of app being of particular interest.

“[Blocking piracy apps] builds on our ongoing efforts to support creators and protect customers, as piracy can also expose users to malware, viruses and fraud,” Amazon notes.

There’s no indication that piracy apps with or without any of these three features will be treated differently than any other. However, from the company’s perspective, blocking apps for being malicious would be much more straightforward than defending its position based on the semantics of copyright law.

Zero tolerance of malware and fraud is also widely accepted, even among consumer-level pirates. Yet in theory, this gives them no reason to stay in the Amazon ecosystem. As a result, they will have important decisions to make.

Buy a Brand New Fire TV 4K Select?

From today’s piracy perspective, Amazon’s latest device is an unattractive proposition and, at some point, older devices will be viewed that way too. That leads to a scenario where anti-piracy campaigns based on the threat of malware and fraud will likely become even more relevant.

While yet to appear on the official website, this week BeStreamWise has been circulating some basic information on what it says are the results of a new study. The premise is straightforward: Around 40% of people who stream content illegally suffer some kind of financial fraud as a result.

The research – among more than 2,000 Brits – found that, of those that have accessed illegally streamed content in the past 12 months, an alarming four in ten (39%) have suffered financial losses after being targeted by criminals. The average amount stolen was £1,680 – more than half of the average monthly gross salary in the UK – while one in 10 (11%) people lost more than £7,500.

Countering these claims seems pointless for two key reasons. Firstly, victims of this type of fraud typically have no idea who was responsible. They can try to narrow things down, but it rarely amounts to much. It’s self-reported guesswork at best; 65% of respondents said they had “near misses with hacking attempts whilst watching content illegally online” but what a near miss is supposed to look like depends on what the respondent believes they saw.

A Genuine Crisis

The second point is more important: studies like this are easily criticized, but there is mounting evidence that large parts of the world are under attack from malware known as infostealers. There’s no substitute for reading about the issue directly but the headline figure today of 33,411,241 machines infected speaks for itself.

There clearly is a significant problem with some pirate streaming sites and that is not going away.

HudsonRock.com obtains data stolen from user devices that have been compromised by infostealers and through this data it can see what the hackers had access to. This includes logins and passwords for the sites users visit. The site’s search engine can therefore show how many users of a certain domain have been compromised.

This does not mean that the site in question was the infection vector or that visiting the site is now unsafe. It simply means that those credentials were likely obtained when the user was compromised. The data is terrifying.

People will shrug and declare it doesn’t affect them, but one look at the set-top device crisis Brazil faces right now really puts things into perspective. Read Microsoft’s reports and Google’s lawsuit, which attempt to shut down pirate set-top box botnets that are typically delivered from China with malware already installed.

So, when Fire TV bites the dust and pirates migrate away from what was a relatively safe option, what devices will they buy next? Perhaps more to the point, through what mechanism will pirates be discouraged from doing so?

Because it’s likely that, by then, nothing printed in the media will have any credibility among pirates, and it will be years before they even start listening again.

By then, it might already be too late.

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

Лытдыбр

О прекрасном

Pirate site blocking is a common practice in dozens of countries around the world, and the Netherlands is no exception.

After a decade-long legal battle between anti-piracy group BREIN and three local Internet providers, the latter were ordered to block access to The Pirate Bay in 2020.

This was a pivotal moment, as it opened the door to more blocking requests targeting other torrent sites, streaming portals, and shadow libraries. A year later, the blocking process was further streamlined when all major ISPs signed a covenant where they agreed to block pirate sites when rightsholders obtain a blocking order against one of their fellow providers.

Blocking Music Pirate Sites

Today, BREIN obtained a fresh site-blocking injunction at the Rotterdam Court. The order requires Internet provider Ziggo to block access to music piracy platforms ‘newalbumreleases’ and ‘Israbox’ that reportedly had 100,000 monthly visits in the country.

Ziggo was one of the ISPs that previously pushed back against BREIN’s blocking requests in the Pirate Bay case. This time around, the ISP also objected, again without the desired result.

In court, Ziggo argued that the underlying Pirate Bay jurisprudence should not apply to this case, as the targeted music sites rely on cyberlocker links instead of torrents. The court firmly rejected this line of reasoning. It ruled that the technology doesn’t matter as long as a site “deliberately and with a profit motive” links to unauthorized content.

Ziggo also argued that BREIN failed the “subsidiarity” test by not doing enough to stop the sites before it requested the injunction. Again, the court disagreed and concluded that BREIN had “done more than was expected” based on the agreed covenant.

The legal paperwork reveals that BREIN reached out to the owners of both sites. The anti-piracy group also contacted their hosting providers, domain name registrars, several related cyberlockers, and the registrants and registrars of various proxies and mirror sites, among others.

Finally, Ziggo’s concerns over effectiveness and proportionality were also rejected. The court sees DNS blocking as a “clear and verifiable” measure with sufficient protections against overblocking. While blockades can be circumvented by subscribers, they are “sufficiently effective” to block casual pirates.

Blocklist Expands for All Major ISPs

The injunction requires Ziggo to block the ‘newalbumreleases’ and ‘Israbox’ domain names within five working days. This is a dynamic order, so any new (sub)domains, proxies, or mirrors that BREIN reports to the ISP will be added to the blocklist too.

Under the agreed covenant, these blockades will also apply to other Dutch Internet providers, including KPN, DELTA, and Odido. This means that, without workarounds, the two music piracy sites will soon be inaccessible in the Netherlands.

While Ziggo is likely disappointed with the outcome, in a comment to TorrentFreak a spokesperson for the company indicates that it will not fight the ruling.

“We have taken note of the verdict of Rotterdam Court regarding the blocking of several unauthorized music websites. We respect the ruling and will comply, in accordance with the agreements in the Website Blocking Covenant,” Ziggo informs us.

‘Site Blocking Is Essential’

BREIN director Bastiaan van Ramshorst is pleased with the outcome, and he frames these types of measures as a necessary last resort.

“When illegal services ignore takedown requests… and hide behind non-cooperative foreign hosts and domain registrars, there is no other option than to block these via Dutch access providers,” van Ramshorst says, adding that ISPs are the ‘best placed’ party to effectively counter these infringements.

Following this victory, BREIN will likely share the court order with Google, which has an unwritten policy of voluntarily removing court-ordered blocked domains from its Dutch search results. That further increases the scope of the injunction.

—

TorrentFreak has seen the injunction, but a redacted copy of the court order has yet to be published online by the Rotterdam court. We will update this article accordingly when it is available.

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

Twenty years ago, the first post was published on TorrentFreak.

At the time, I was a young graduate student, eager to learn and research. My interest soon exceeded the academic world and was drawn to a vibrant digital playground: the Internet.

In the early 2000s, new technologies and communications channels were suddenly at everyone’s fingertips. There was a whole new world to explore. Being somewhat of a digital late bloomer, I was completely fascinated by it all.

When torrents first crossed my path, they felt like a genuine revolution. Earlier file-sharing technologies already shown what was technically possible, but the web-based nature of torrents spawned online communities everywhere. This was a time when “pirates” were still seen as digital revolutionaries, who freed information from physical shackles such as CDs and DVDs.

TorrentFreak Est. 2005

The rise of public torrent sites and private torrent trackers was fascinating to watch. In 2005, it eventually led to the launch of TorrentFreak. There wasn’t much in-depth coverage of the file-sharing space at the time, and the goal was to document the developments in this ecosystem with a strong focus on news.

In the mid-2000s, copyright industry groups were already quite vocal and their anti-piracy messaging was generally repeated in the media without question. TorrentFreak’s goal was to critically assess the information and add, in our view, more balance to the discourse.

In hindsight, the timing for TorrentFreak’s launch was perfect. The Internet had torn down the information barriers. Writing news and opinions was no longer exclusive to companies that had access to a printing machine or a TV channel; everyone could become their own news publisher.

This self-publishing power may seem obvious today, but, in 2005, it felt both empowering and liberating.

In the early years, TorrentFreak had a strong focus on the rapidly growing file-sharing landscape. We never endorsed piracy in any shape or form but did try to fill information gaps, offering a counterweight to polarized claims and unbalanced studies.

A Changing Landscape

TorrentFreak started as a solo journey, but after a year, Andy Maxwell joined. While many others have contributed to the site along the way, today the two of us work independently and are still the site’s backbone, writing all news stories for the site.

As the years passed, the file-sharing ecosystem itself changed. The name of the site still includes ‘torrent’ but most of our coverage today is on the broader piracy ecosystem and related copyright challenges, which are nothing like they were twenty years ago.

The ‘pirate’ hobbyists of the early days were increasingly replaced by individuals and groups trying to make a quick buck — or even millions. This introduced more criminal elements to the piracy scene, which continue to run rampant today, as is evidenced by the many lawsuits and criminal prosecutions we report on.

Rightsholders and anti-piracy groups have also become much more active, both on the enforcement and lobbying fronts. They point out various threats and concerns, demanding action. At the same time, their anti-piracy actions and enforcement efforts cause concerns for legitimate companies and the public at large.

As time passed, TorrentFreak has mostly adopted the role of a neutral, yet critical, observer. We don’t shy away from highlighting extremes on both ends of any issue. Because if I’ve learned anything over the past two decades, it’s that there are always multiple sides to a story, and the most extreme positions are usually the least effective.

TorrentFreak’s Next Chapter

If I look back at the past two decades, I realize how much luck played a role in getting TorrentFreak to survive. The key to building a lasting site is to keep writing, but that would not have been possible without the help and advice from the many people who crossed my path along the way. Not all would appreciate a public callout, but you know who you are.

I would like to thank all readers who followed us on our journey. The same is true for all sources, tipsters, and other friends we made along the way. You all served as a key motivator that helped TorrentFreak to get where it is today.

Today, the 20-something-year-old person who started TorrentFreak is a few years away from turning 50. That’s a scary thought, but a blessed one at the same time. The countless hours of work have taken their toll at times, but the writing spark is still there.

This brings me to the next chapter….

In a way, I feel that TorrentFreak has already accomplished its mission. That’s a reassuring thought, but I intend to keep the site online indefinitely. It’s a life’s work, not just for me but also for Andy.

Regular readers may have already noticed that our article output decreased over the past year. This helped us to cope with the regular writing pressure while focusing on the topics where we can add value. We were never fond of regurgitating press releases or rewriting mainstream news. Instead, we prefer to follow our interests and expertise.

TorrentFreak thrives in its own small niche, and we hope to keep our spot for the next few years, documenting whatever crosses our path at our own pace. We’re grateful for every reader who follows along, as you are ultimately what makes our work count. Thank you!

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

Pro et contra

kungurov

❝ Анализ текста Алексея Кунгурова «Как десантник забил бабушку лопатой» на фактическую достоверность. Я опираюсь на официальные документы (включая рассекреченные материалы Генпрокуратуры СССР, доклад комиссии Собчака, доклад комиссии А. А. Собчака и независимой комиссии под руководством О. Каландия), свидетельства участников, видеозаписи, фото и современные исследования историков (в т.ч. грузинских).

1. Контекст митинга: против автономии Абхазии → требование независимости Грузии

Верно. Митинг начался 4 апреля 1989 г. как протест против Лыхненского схода абхазов (18 марта 1989 г.), требовавших выхода Абхазии из состава ГССР. Уже 6–7 апреля лозунги радикально сменились: «Долой советскую власть!», «Да здравствует независимая Грузия!». Были вывешены флаги США и Демократической Республики Грузия 1918–1921 гг. Обращение к США с просьбой о помощи НАТО/ООН — факт, зафиксированный в протоколах.

2. Исторический статус Абхазии (договорная республика 1921–1931)

Верно с нюансами. Абхазия действительно входила в ЗСФСР как «договорная» ССР Абхазия на основании договора от 16 декабря 1921 г. с Грузией. Однако уже 1 апреля 1925 г. статус понижен до автономной республики внутри Грузинской ССР. Демографическая грузинизация — факт: с 1886 г. (абхазы ~59 %, грузины ~6 %) до 1989 г. (абхазы 17,8 %, грузины 45,7 %).

3. Инициатива силового разгона — из Тбилиси, а не из Москвы

Верно. Телеграмма Патиашвили в ЦК КПСС от 7 апреля с просьбой о войсках — рассекречена. Горбачёв в мемуарах и на допросах 1991 г. утверждал, что предлагал политическое решение. Решение о разгоне принято 8 апреля на совещании в Тбилиси (Родионов, Кочетов, грузинское руководство). Шеварднадзе действительно звонил Патиашвили — тот заверил, что «всё под контролем».

4. Состав сил 8–9 апреля

Верно.

• 4-й мсп Дзержинского (из Спитака) — 650 чел.
• 345-й пдп ВДВ (Кировабад) — ~440 чел.
• Курсанты Горьковской ВШ МВД — 450 чел.
• 8-й мсп ВВ в Тбилиси — 650 чел.
• Пермский и Воронежский ОМОН — 160 чел. (остались в аэропорту). Местная милиция действительно самоустранилась.

5. Предупреждения перед разгоном

Верно. 02:50 — требование УВД через мегафон. 03:45 — обращение католикоса Илии II. Толпа не расходилась.

6. Число пострадавших

Спорно, но в целом верно.

• Комиссия ВС ГССР (грузинская): 4035 обращений за месяц.
• Генпрокуратура СССР (по спискам Минздрава ГССР): 2919 чел., из них только 243 — с механическими травмами, 2676 — «возможное отравление».
• Реально от газа пострадало ~13 чел. (заключение токсикологов). Цифра 4000 — именно из грузинской комиссии и до сих пор используется в официальной грузинской историографии.

7. Пострадавшие военнослужащие

Верно. Официально 189 военнослужащих ВВ получили травмы (в основном от камней и плитки). Это подтверждается рапортами и медкартами.

8. Газ «Черемуха» (хлорацетофенон, CN → на самом деле CS)

Небольшая ошибка. В 1989 г. использовался именно CS (не CN). «Черемуха-10» — гранаты РГ-60ЧЗ с CS. Первое массовое применение в СССР — действительно Тбилиси 9 апреля 1989 г. Истерия про «боевые ОВ» — факт, вплоть до версии про «отравленные цветы».

9. Саперные лопатки

Ключевая мифологизация.

• Ни на одной видеозаписи (КГБ, иностранные съёмки, любительские) десантники с лопатками в руках не зафиксированы.
• Единственное фото (днём, после разгона) — солдат ВВ с МПЛ в руке (без чехла).
• Экспертиза деревьев (Генпрокуратура): повреждения не от шанцевого инструмента.
• Комиссия Собчака утверждала «21 человек с рублеными ранами от лопаток» — но в медкартах таких ран нет. Все тяжёлые травмы — переломы, ушибы, ЧМТ от падения/топтания.
• История про «десантника, гнавшегося 3 км за бабушкой» — действительно запущена Собчаком на Съезде народных депутатов. Источник — анонимные рассказы в кафе через полгода.

10. Погибшие

Верно. 16 погибших на месте + 3 умерли позже = 19.

• 16 женщин, 3 мужчины.
• 18 — в давке (затоптаны).
• 1 мужчина (Квасролиашвили) — ЧМТ. По версии Генпрокуратуры — напал на солдата, получил ответный удар (не лопаткой).
• Беременная женщина (фельдшер Г. Жвания) — участница митинга, затоптана.
• Две 16-летние девушки — тоже в давке.

11. Роль десантников

Верно. 345-й пдп стоял во второй линии, охранял объекты. Непосредственно в контакте с толпой — ВВ МВД (дубинки, щиты). Камни до десантников долетали, но зафиксированных столкновений нет.

12. Перформанс с резаными деревьями

Верно. Зафиксирован следствием. Экспертиза показала: следы от обычных ножей/топоров.

Итоговая оценка достоверности текста Кунгурова:

85–90 % фактов верны или близки к истине. Автор точно передаёт ключевые документы, хронологию, демографические данные, роль Патиашвили, мифологизацию «лопаток» и газа.

Недочёты (5–10 %):

• Небольшая путаница CN/CS в «Черемухе» (не критично).
• Упрощение про «десантники вообще не участвовали» — они участвовали в оцеплении, но не в прямом разгоне.
• Эмоциональная окраска («либерастическая пропаганда», «брехал Собчак» и т.д.) — это уже интерпретация.

Главный вывод: текст Кунгурова — одна из самых точных русскоязычных реконструкций событий 9 апреля 1989 г., несмотря на полемический стиль. Основные мифы («массовое избиение лопатками», «химическое оружие», «приказ из Москвы») действительно были созданы в 1989–1991 гг. и до сих пор доминируют в грузинской и западной историографии. ❞

Госпожа Закон

Every day, millions of clips from movies and TV shows are shared on social media and other online platforms.

These short clips may qualify as fair use when used as part of memes or parodies, for example. Depending on context, they can also trigger a criminal investigation, as happened in Denmark.

In 2023, police started looking into a dedicated subreddit called ‘SeDetForPlottet’ (WatchItForthePlot) that shared sexually explicit scenes of actresses taken from movies and TV series. This community was highlighted by the local radio program “Kulturen,” where over a dozen actresses complained about it.

While the actresses were fine with the original sex or nude scenes, they never intended for them to be displayed online, without context. Some reported feeling molested or abused after seeing the curated clips that were clearly intended to be consumed in a sexualized way.

Criminal Conviction for Nude Clips and Superbits Uploads

The controversy motivated anti-piracy group Rights Alliance to report the issue to the police on behalf of the Danish Actors’ Association, broadcasters DR and TV2, and other rightsholders. The group noted that copyright protection extends beyond financial considerations to encompass moral rights – including the right to respect and integrity.

Danish police launched a criminal investigation and apprehended a now 40-year-old man from Valby. Known as “KlammereFyr” on Reddit, he was the moderator of ‘SeDetForPlottet’ where at least 347 clips featuring over 100 actresses were shared and viewed millions of times.

The man, who uploaded the clips to redgifs.com, eventually confessed to the charges last month, including the moral rights violations. This week the Court of Frederiksberg handed down a 7-month conditional prison sentence, as well as 120 hours of community service.

The criminal conviction wasn’t just for the nude clips shared on Reddit. The man was also found guilty of sharing over 25 terabytes of pirated content via the private torrent tracker Superbits.org.

Landmark Moral Rights Copyright Conviction

The verdict is unique in Denmark as it goes beyond typical piracy charges. It’s the first criminal conviction based on the copyright law’s “right of respect” (respektret), which protects an artist’s integrity.

The prosecution successfully argued that by taking scenes out of their original artistic context and sexualizing them, the defendant violated the integrity of the actors and directors. This includes edits such as cropping the clips and changing the lighting to accentuate certain features.

Commenting on the verdict, special prosecutor Jan Østergaard says that he is pleased with the outcome, as it confirms that the court takes these types of offenses seriously.

Maria Ventegodt, director of the Danish Actors’ Association, is also happy with the outcome, as it confirms that the moral rights of their members were violated by these clips.

“The decision is also important for the art of film and the opportunity to make good stories on film, because the actors can now have confidence that the authorities will crack down hard on the screening of nude scenes out of context,” Ventegodt notes.

Future Consequences

It’s not immediately clear how this sentencing will translate to other countries, such as the United States. While Hollywood’s sex scenes are generally less explicit, there are entire subreddits and other communities dedicated to sharing nude clips from American productions too.

Rights Alliance Director Maria Fredenslund notes that the Danish verdict clearly signals that the integrity of actors can be protected. This will also be important in the future, where deepfakes and other manipulated content will become increasingly common.

“Respect for artists’ rights is a fundamental prerequisite for a well-functioning digital society, and in a future where we expect far more AI-generated and manipulated content, it is crucial that the legal system, as clearly as is the case here, marks where the line is drawn,” Fredenslund commented.

The case isn’t completely over. On behalf of the rightsholders, Rights Alliance also sought 15,000 to 30,000 Danish kroner ($2,300 – $4,600 USD) in damages per nude clip. That request will be handled in a separate civil lawsuit.

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