LaLiga Disregards Vercel’s Piracy Overblocking Outreach, Blocks it Again

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

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

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

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

Vercel Blocked Again

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

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

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

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

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

And the Bad News

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

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

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

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

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

Targeting X and Vimeo

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

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

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

Pressure builds on ISPs

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(Comment on this)

DNS Piracy Blocking Orders: Google, Cloudflare, and OpenDNS Respond Differently

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

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

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

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

OpenDNS Says Farewell

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

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

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

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

Cloudflare Complies Using ‘Alternate Mechanisms’

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

Error HTTP 451

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

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

Not Blocked

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

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

Google’s DNS Blackout

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

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

Query refused

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

Not resolved

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

Transparency is Paramount

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

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

Redirect

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

—

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

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

(Comment on this)

The Substance: Pre-Release Piracy Made People MORE Eager to Visit the Cinema

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

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

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

21,000 Liters of Blood Leak Online

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

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

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

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

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

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

Coralie Fargeat: I didn’t expect it at all

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(Comment on this)

Pirate IPTV Owner and 7 Associates “Stole TV Signals” From Bell & Rogers

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

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

Court Hears Allegations Concerning Signal Theft and Pirate IPTV

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

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

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

Grenier Advertising IPTV Boxes

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

Grenier faces ten charges linked to the theft of telecommunications services, including conspiracy, fraud, theft, and money laundering. The alleged offenses took place between June 2020 and February 2024, generating annual profits of at least CAD$2 million (US$1.4m) according to Sûreté du Québec estimates.

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

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

Seven Co-Defendants

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

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

Le Nouvelliste identifies the co-defendants as follows:

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

Are Customers at Risk of Prosecution?

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

Pirate subscriptions make legal devices illegal

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

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

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

(Comment on this)

Fmovies: Operators of World’s Largest Piracy Ring Dodge Prison

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

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

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

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

Fmovies Prosecution of Phan and Nguyen

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

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

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

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

Fmovies Defendants Dodge Prison

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

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

From the USTR report

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

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

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

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

Stunning Silence

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

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

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

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

—

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

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

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

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

(Comment on this)

DISH Sues UK Hosting Provider in $25 Million Pirate IPTV Lawsuit

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

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

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

DISH Sues Hosting Service Innetra

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

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

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

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

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

‘DMCA Notices Ignored’

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

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

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

From the complaint

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

Drawing in Pirates

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

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

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

Some of the pirate services mentioned

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

$25 Million in Damages

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

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

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

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

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

—

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

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

(Comment on this)

Trump Told to Back Pirate Site Blocking Law Instead of 100% Movie Tariffs

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

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

‘WE WANT MOVIES MADE IN AMERICA, AGAIN!’

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

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

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

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

ITIF: Here’s a Better Idea

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

‘Trump Should Demand Strong IP Protection in Tariff Negotiations’

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(Comment on this)

Musi Faked UMG Email to Stay on App Store, Apple Claims in Sanctions Motion

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

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

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

“Backchannel Scheme”

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

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

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

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

Apple Returns Fire

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

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

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

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

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

Apple: ‘Musi Impersonated UMG’

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

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

Exhibits shared by Apple show that Musi informed Apple that a complaint from UMG was resolved, citing communications with jasonmiller@umusic.solar-secure.com. Musi founder Aaron Wojnowski forwarded this email chain to Apple, which seemingly confirmed this.

Forwarded email

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

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

‘Fraudulent’

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

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

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

—-

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

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

(Comment on this)

Swedish IPTV Crackdown Tested as Users Seek Workarounds

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

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

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

Sweden’s IPTV Crackdown

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

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

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

Court Issues Broad IPTV Blocking Order

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

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

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

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

Cat and Mouse

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

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

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

NordiskIPTV message (translated)

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

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

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

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

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

(Comment on this)

Twitch Blocked For Piracy as LaLiga & ISPs Prioritize Football Over Everything

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

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

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

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

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

Three Months of Disbelief

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

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

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

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

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

Providing Transparency

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Discussion Before the Storm

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

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

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

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

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

Within Days, LaLiga Blocks Cloudflare

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

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

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

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

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

Actions Speak Louder

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

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

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

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

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

(Comment on this)

Link-Busters Reports its Three Billionth ‘Pirate’ URL to Google Search

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

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

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

Link-Busters: Breaking Takedown Records

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

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

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

Top reporting outfits (Google search)

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

Protecting Publishers in a Proxy Battle

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

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

Takedown Surge

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

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

Responses

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

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

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

Google’s Responses

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

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

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

(Comment on this)

DAZN’s New Pirate IPTV Blocking Order and its ‘Confidential’ Secret Sauce

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

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

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

Blocking in Belgium

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Proposed Measures

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

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

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

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

Confidential Pirate Trademarks

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

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

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

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

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

The Balance of Interests

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

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

The Court arrived at the following conclusions:

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

Blocking Notices

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

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

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

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

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

(Comment on this)

US: Vietnam Remains a “Piracy Haven” Despite Fmovies Crackdown

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

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

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

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

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

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

USTR: Vietnam Perceived as a Piracy Haven

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

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

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

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

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

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

Stunning Victory or Token Gesture?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

—

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

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

(Comment on this)

Pirate Site Blocks Ineffective? Telcos Call For Sanctions Against Portuguese Users

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

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

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

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

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

Portugal’s Success Promoted to Spain and France

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

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

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

Portugal Keeps on Blocking

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

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

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

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

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

Gold Standard Blocking System, Zero Mention of Blocking

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

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

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

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

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

Punishing Pirates

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

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

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

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

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

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

Uptake of Legal Services Was Impressive

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

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

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

Prices Travel in One Direction

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

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

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

More blocking?

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

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

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

(Comment on this)

Spotify Dismantles ‘SpotifyDL’ Track Download Extension via DMCA Notice

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

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

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

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

Pirates are Adversaries Now

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

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

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

Spotify Dismantles Download Browser Extension

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

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

SpotifyDL

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

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

The takedown notice

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

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

SpotifyDL No Longer Works

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

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

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

(Comment on this)

DRM-Free OnlyFans Downloads See Widevine Project Nuked From GitHub

For streaming services such as Netflix, Digital Rights Management (DRM) systems provide a level of control over the company’s most valuable assets, including movies, TV shows, and other content for consumer consumption.

DRM not only restricts access to customers authorized to consume content, it can determine when and how it’s consumed too. When all goes to plan, DRM should also prevent end users from casually copying movies and TV shows, which should result in a positive contribution towards minimizing the spread of pirated content online; at least in theory.

Widevine Everywhere

Ultimately, whether users loathe it or just hate it, DRM exists in billions of web browsers and devices. One of the most widespread is Google’s Widevine and avoiding its footprint today is almost futile. It can be found in Chrome, Firefox and similar browsers, mobile platforms such as Android, videogame consoles, plus many set-top boxes and smart TVs. At least five billion of them, most probably more.

Unsurprisingly, Widevine has been exploited and reverse engineered over the years, as evidenced by the content it’s supposed to protect ending up on pirate sites, almost without exception. In 2020, Google took action against Chrome extension Widevine L3 Decryptor, which was capable of decrypting Widevine content keys by hijacking calls to the browser’s Encrypted Media Extensions (EME).

Problems persisted throughout 2021 and 2022 with Widevine Dump but the problems haven’t gone away. The same goes for individuals and groups committed to countering Widevine, although it’s still possible to attract negative attention.

OnlyFans Targets CDRM-Project

In a DMCA takedown notice dated April 22, 2025, OnlyFans owner Fenix International Limited informs GitHub that it had “recently become aware” of repos on the platform with code “specifically designed” to circumvent Fenix’s DRM, aka Widevine.

“The identified repositories contain step-by-step instructions which are specifically designed to circumvent the DRM protections in place on OnlyFans. The repositories contain links that are ‘hard-coded’ and specifically targeted at OnlyFans,” Fenix writes.

“The coding is designed to impersonate a video player in order to decrypt and play DRM protected files, obtaining the ‘secret’ token required to play the DRM protected content. The downloaded files are then converted into an MP4 format which has the DRM protection removed.”

CDRM-Project repo before suspension

In line with its pro-developer policy when processing DMCA takedown notices, GitHub contacted the operator of the main repo and the operators of six additional forks, with an opportunity to address the complaint and avoid suspension.

For reasons that aren’t revealed, GitHub’s outreach couldn’t prevent the suspension of the entire CDRM-Project repo and all reported forks.

CDRM-Project repo is no more

GitHub requested Fenix to identify “every specific file” in the repo that it considers infringing; Fenix responded with a statement that the “entire repository is infringing” and should be removed.

Anti-Circumvention Complaint

To GitHub’s credit, when rightsholders allege violations of the DMCA’s anti-circumvention provisions, GitHub conducts its own assessment. If there is no basis for a claim, GitHub sometimes finds other copyright-related grounds, but here there is no pushback. That’s usually a sign of a complaint that stands up under intense scrutiny.

Another unusual aspect to the complaint is the Fenix response to GitHub’s request to provide the alleged infringer’s contact details, if they’re in possession of them. In most cases rightsholders say they’re unaware of those details but here, Fenix provides the details of two sets of owners and two sets of contributors.

The project is now being made available via a repo on cdm-project.com but how long that’s likely to last is unclear.

When any DRM system unnecessarily restricts access to content by design or due to inherent limitations, those who suffer the most are legitimate customers. Most have no interest in piracy, were never part of the original problem, but are responsible for the bulk of the revenue. Once DRM starts to feel like DRM, that’s where the big problems start.

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

(Comment on this)

Pirate Site Blocking Demands Shelved as Filmmakers Settle With U.S. ISP

In recent years, music and movie companies have filed several lawsuits against U.S. Internet providers, for failing to take action against pirating subscribers.

One of the main allegations is that ISPs fail to terminate the accounts of repeat infringers in “appropriate circumstances”, as the DMCA requires.

These lawsuits resulted in multi-million dollar judgments against Cox and Grande. Meanwhile, more companies are at risk too, including Frontier Communications, which emerged from bankruptcy four years ago.

Frontier vs. Movie and Music Companies

Frontier is fighting not one, but two legal battles. After the company was sued by several prominent record labels including UMG, Sony Music and Warner Music, a group of independent film companies filed a similar lawsuit.

Progress was slow in both cases but after the court denied Frontier’s motions to dismiss last year, the parties began preparing for a trial starting next week.

With damages that could run to hundreds of millions of dollars, the stakes are high. The music companies alone listed 7,758 sound recordings; based on the statutory maximum of $150,000 per willfully infringed work, that could translate to over $1 billion in damages.

The movie and music company plaintiffs separately alleged that Frontier is secondarily liable for copyright infringement because it allegedly provided internet service to known repeat infringers.

The movie companies sought additional relief, most notably a request for an injunction that was bound to pique wider interest due to a site blocking component.

Pirate Site Blocking Measures (Shelved)

In a pretrial order published last week, the parties shared their contentions in advance of the scheduled trial at the New York Bankruptcy Court. The movie companies listed their site-blocking demand as one of the key questions to be answered.

The companies argued that the domains thepiratebay.org, 1337x.to, YTS.MX and (the currently offline) torrentgalaxy.to, should be blocked.

“MCCs further request the Court grant an injunction ordering Frontier to terminate accounts of customers that have repeatedly infringed MCCs’ Works and block access on the domain name service (‘DNS’) level of foreign piracy websites thepiratebay.org, 1337x.to, YTS.MX and torrentgalaxy.to and any of their proxy websites,” the pretrial order reads.

If granted and carried through to conclusion, this would’ve been the first time that a major U.S. Internet provider had blocked pirate sites. However, not long after the joint pretrial order was published, Frontier and the movie companies announced that they were aiming to settle the case.

Movie Companies and Frontier Settle “In Principle”

Last Friday, the parties submitted a joint notice of settlement to the court, mentioning that a settlement is being finalized. As a result, the movie companies asked to be excused from the trial next week.

“Parties have arrived at a settlement in principle, which the Parties are working quickly to document and finalize. Accordingly, the Parties request that the Court excuse MCCs from participating in the trial […] to give the Parties an opportunity to effectuate their settlement and file a stipulation for dismissal,” the update reads.

The court has yet to grant this request, but it shows that the movie companies seem unlikely to participate in the trial. In fact, two of the movie companies have already finalized their settlement.

This significantly narrows the scope, since the trial will focus on the music company claims alone. Since the movie companies requested the site blocking injunctions, this request will naturally be off the table as well.

Music Companies go to Trial with Frontier

Regardless of the outcome, the music companies’ claims remain, and Frontier will have to put up a defense at trial, of which the company shared a glimpse in the pretrial order.

Among other things, the ISP plans to argue that it lacked sufficient knowledge of the infringements based on the notices sent by copyright holders. Frontier will further point out that it did not encourage or materially contribute to any infringement, emphasizing the substantial non-infringing uses of its service.

The ISP will also highlight its repeat infringer policy, which included warnings and termination of accounts when appropriate. It will argue that the policy should be sufficient for the ISP to benefit from the DMCA’s safe harbor provision.

All in all, it’s clear that the scope of the trial will be significantly reduced if the movie companies and Frontier settle. That said, with a billion dollars in potential damages still in play, significant risk remains.

—

A copy of the joint pretrial order, submitted to the New York Bankruptcy Court, is available here (pdf). The joint notice of settlement can be found here (pdf).

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

(Comment on this)

DMCA Notices Can Silence Critics But Complaints By The Public Put All at Risk

Even after years of trawling the invaluable Lumen Database, the scale of online copyright infringement today still manages to surprise week after week. And with more time spent searching, the greater the chances of the archive surfacing curiosities from years ago, or unusual items from the more recent past.

Take the bait and time has a tendency to get eaten away in journeys down various rabbit holes, and that’s a good thing. Without Lumen, censorship would undoubtedly thrive in a darker place; it already needs little encouragement.

Free* Speech (*Terms and conditions apply, YMMV)

After a spurious attempt to deindex one of our articles with a bogus copyright claim, research led us by chance down a parallel path, revealing an even greater threat to free speech and legitimate reporting.

The nature of a sizeable number of the takedown notices in question brings to mind the Lumen Database’s original name, Chilling Effects. The name was derived from the likely suppressant effect of abusive takedown notices and legal threats on free speech.

In the United States, where speaking the truth doesn’t usually amount to a crime, the scope of free speech far exceeds that available in Europe. In the Netherlands, for example, libel is a criminal offense and in the UK, the rich can launch libel action in the High Court. There, regular people can be drawn into a potentially ruinous legal quagmire, for as little as vigorously opposing one man’s assertion that his online handle is Satoshi.

Threats to Google: Censor the Govt, BBC, Guardian, Daily Mail

Working for the BBC, Guardian, or Daily Mail can provide a safety net against the potential consequences of legal threats, but immunity from receiving threats themselves doesn’t exist. In a notice addressed to Google, the company was ordered to “De-index the specified URLs” from search results within 14 days to “prevent further dissemination” of what is described as “defamatory and harmful content.”​

14 Days to Police The Internet

Published in 2022, the BBC URLs above report the details of a damning investigation involving serious neglect and abuse of children. The ‘Hansard’ URLs link to the website of the Houses of Parliament which contains transcripts of government ministers discussing the scandal. The name of the sender is redacted, but Google was threatened with an injunction and damages for simply having those links in its indexes.

Business Disputes: He Said, She Said

Another notice demands a takedown based on the Defamation Act 2013, claiming that “the publication of a statement that would cause serious harm to the reputation of a person or entity” meets the criteria for defamation. The article in question was published by the UK’s Financial Conduct Authority, warning the public against doing business with a named fraudulent company.

Takedown notices involving businesses and a maze of disputes related to the pursuit or recovery of money, are sent to Google in large numbers. Many involve allegations or denials of fraud. Some deny fraud despite documented evidence to the contrary. Others resort to vague copyright claims or indeed, anything else that might help silence the opposition. Whatever the mechanism, the legal threats persist.

All notices referenced here are listed under the same sender ID in the Lumen Database. Some have a similar format or likely common sender, others appear to be written by unconnected individuals. Some are barely understandable, others fail to identify what should be taken down; a surprising number contain no information, period.

Who’s Telling the Truth? Friendly Sender or Something Else?

Considering how many takedown notices Google receives, it does a remarkable job of getting most things right. The reality is that it can’t check every complaint or validate every backstory.

The notice below appears to be someone being a good citizen, and we definitely need more of those. On the other hand, could it be a ruse to prompt Google into taking action against the Google Drive account listed in the takedown notice? We could test out the link, but taking unnecessary risks in this climate would be pretty stupid.

The next two complaints request TikTok-related takedowns. How Google was supposed to know what was said, or who did what, let alone who’s telling the truth, is unclear. The first notice sender, who seems oblivious to the inherent difficulties, may not have given it much thought. The second knows fraud when they see it, and a bit about the legality of copyright too.

Concerned Citizens

If the takedown notice below is in some way official, presumably other avenues exist to ensure adherence to the regulations rather than de-indexing a business. The sender may be someone concerned about harmony in the trade or, at least potentially, someone with nothing better to do. In any event, it’s more work for Google.

While it’s easy to sympathize with the position some senders claim to find themselves in, deleting links to news articles isn’t going to help. An article published by a UK news website reported how a drunken family member terrified another with a knife, before battering them over the head with a radio. At the local school, the news was blamed for creating unwanted friction.

“This has gone to [sic] far and is causing grievances left right and center. I would like this delisted at the least from when you enter ‘[REDACTED] [REDACTED]’ into Google search bar,” the sender insisted.

A rambling notice reportedly sent by a person convicted of a serious crime, demanded the removal of an article reporting their sentencing. Active on social media now, having learned nothing, this matter can only be referred directly to the police.

Internet Dispute Court: Judge Google Presiding

From complaints about students using an AI service to write their assignments, to an insistence that content must be deindexed because the author “is from Estonia for God’s sake,” Google has much on its plate, including social media squabbles to preside over. Requests to remove links to Facebook pages, accounts on X, and listings on Temu, are seen as problems to be solved by silencing those who didn’t send a complaint.

One notice argued that a news story about a sportsman’s wife, who discovered that her husband was also married to someone else, should be removed because it amounts to defamation of the wife’s character.

Google also receives many takedown notices for photos uploaded to Google Maps. A cursory review of a few suggest that some images taken inside various restaurants may not have met the standard their owners’ expected.

Other notices seem to have good intentions, but appear to use drama to improve takedown odds. In one example, a potential map error becomes a hazard to public safety fueled by potential fraud and deception.

Unjustified Takedowns Remain Unacceptable (usually)

Copyright-related takedowns have their moments but from the few hundred reviewed for the above, takedowns for other reasons represent a far greater risk to the public record and associated freedom of speech.

Under the DSA, large platforms including Google are required to inform the European Commission when and why content was taken down. The scheme was available late 2023, the number of takedowns reported today is significant.

To end on a lighter note, takedowns that put the well-being of others before selfish interests, are a pleasure to read and immediately restore all faith in human nature.

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

(Comment on this)

Seekee Browser App is a Magnet for Movie, TV Show, and Anime Pirates

The internet has made video entertainment more accessible than ever before. With plenty of legal streaming services releasing new content every week, there’s no shortage of options.

While this is good news, choice brings its own difficulties. Because there are a myriad of legal options available today, paying several monthly subscription fees can become a costly endeavor. As a result, pirate streaming sites and services are thriving.

Hollywood and other copyright holders are trying to tackle this problem through enforcement. This has resulted in both large crackdowns and smaller successes, but new threats are always lurking around the corner. Sometimes they pop up in unexpected places.

A Piracy Optimized Browser?

Browser app Seekee has attracted quite a lot of attention recently, particularly on social media where people have noticed that the app is surprisingly good at accessing pirated content.

The app advertises itself as a fast and safe browser with built-in AI capabilities. While that sounds intriguing, the true appeal appears to lie in its entertainment offering, which is accessible via a single click on the “movies and series” and “animes” tabs.

Seekee

These tabs take users to an overview of trending content, which can be watched instantly. There’s no indication that Seekee hosts any of the content it links to, but videos from third-party pirated sources are conveniently organized.

In fact, trying to find links to legal alternatives is quite a challenge. When we searched for “The Last of Us”, we had to scroll down past a list of pirate sources, before the Wikipedia and IMDb entries finally appeared.

For good measure, users can also watch the offerings listed by streaming platform, including Netflix, Prime Video, and Max, but links to these official services are not presented anywhere near the top of results.

Hot Streaming

The videos we checked were being streamed from the unknown h5.swplayer.com domain and similar variants. In addition to subtitles and original audio, many videos are also available with Portuguese and Spanish audio. This may explain why the app is particularly popular in Latin America, both on social media and in the press.

Google Play & iOS App Store

When we started writing this article, the Seekee app had five million downloads in the Google Play store, most of which were added this month. However, it appears that this exposure turned out to be too much. The app was deleted without explanation, possibly following rightsholder complaints. APK versions are still floating around, however.

Five Million Users… Gone

In the iOS store, Seekee remains available for now, listed as a fast and safe browser with intelligent search, AI creation, and multimedia processing. That includes the aforementioned streaming options.

“Easily search for movies and TV resources across the entire network and get accurate and reliable results. With a massive library updated daily, you can seamlessly access entertainment anytime, anywhere,” the iOS listing reads.

Seekee in the App Store

The app is published by the Chinese company Xiji Information Technology Co., Ltd, which also has a web presence with a privacy policy and user agreement. We reached out to the company requesting additional information on its unique offering, but we didn’t hear back.

At What Cost?

Aside from copyright concerns, using new apps from unknown developers always comes with risks. In this case, the privacy policy mentions that users have to give up a lot of information, including the following selection of data;

Advertising IDs, cookies, identifiers, IP addresses, social media IDs and profile pictures, IMEI/OAID, GAID numbers, IMSI numbers, MAC addresses, serial numbers, system versions and types, ROM versions, Android versions, Android ID, Space ID, SIM card operator and region, screen display information, device model name, activation time, network operator, connection type, hardware details, sales channels, CPU data, storage info, battery usage, screen resolution, temperature, camera model, and wake/unlock frequency.

Again, that’s just a selection, there is more.

While this is a lot of data, quite a few apps list such broad data collection practices in their privacy policies, so it’s not completely out of the ordinary. Then again, it may very well explain why the app is free; the user and their data are the product.

It is hardly groundbreaking for apps like these to attract millions of users, with help from social media. However, the people who fall for the hype should be aware of the potential risks and trade-offs, especially if they are not bombarded by ads.

At the end of the day, someone is making money from the app. In this case, it’s not the people who make the films, series and anime, but some unknown people in a land far, far away.

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

(Comment on this)

Pirate CDNs Fueling 1,400 Russian Sites “Use EU & US CDN Infrastructure”

Back in 2019, Dutch anti-piracy group BREIN, alongside the Alliance for Creativity and Entertainment and Hollywood’s MPA, had reason to celebrate following a successful enforcement operation.

Their target was a CDN (Content Delivery Network) known as Moonwalk, which offered vast quantities of movies and TV shows for pirate site operators to embed in their own sites.

Services like these aren’t necessarily the cheapest option, but if time is money, having a one-stop-shop video supplier take care of pretty much everything, ads included, could certainly lighten the load for those short on time.

Moonwalk allegedly supplied content to 80% of known Russian streaming portals before it was shut down. A knock-on effect quickly claimed the scalps of other big players including HDGO and Kodik, at least for a while.

Pirate CDNs Play an Important Role Worldwide

Most visitors to popular pirate streaming sites will have watched embedded movies or TV shows that are hosted somewhere else entirely. This can be obvious when the viewer is presented with a choice of hosts, but that’s not always the case. Most streaming sites simply act as shop windows, which certainly helps with mobility when it’s time to rebrand while circumventing another round of blocking.

A new report from Russian cybersecurity firm F6 (previously Group-IB) provides an overview of the local pirate CDN market and presents some interesting findings.

One Player Dominates the Market

F6 analysts say they investigated 1,400 pirate sites to determine which CDNs are most popular in Russia. At the top of the list by some distance is the Alloha network. F6 estimates that 61% of local illegal streaming sites rely on Alloha for video content.

In our tests Alloha wasn’t readily findable in Google’s search results, despite being absent from the company’s takedown transparency report. Only when queries contained the platform’s full URL did it surface as expected; searches using Yandex, meanwhile, were much more straightforward.

Access to Alloha is granted on application, and subject to various terms and conditions.

The service states that applicants must operate their own site and must’ve had a minimum of 300 visitors per day during the previous week.

That appears to rule out brand-new sites seeking content to grow from an absolute standing start, but finding 300 visitors shouldn’t be too difficult.

Operating from an Indian domain, the Rewall service takes second place in the F6 list with 42%. In third place is Lumex with 11%, followed by the resurrected Kodik (9%), and HDVB with a modest 7% share. Since the total is over 100%, some pirates seem to be edging their bets with two or three suppliers, just in case.

Databases, Customers, Ads, Hosting

The authors of the report claim that these services usually offer massive libraries of pirated content. One unnamed service reportedly has more than 550,000 items of video listed in its database.

Overall, F6 notes that these services allow pirates to more effectively grow their sites. Advertising delivered along with video streams through the embedded player reportedly accounts for 36% of all advertising on pirate streaming sites.

Alloha player implemented on two different sites

That leaves the claim that around 1,400 streaming sites rely on these types of services for content. That sounds entirely plausible.

Finding sites behind Cloudflare can be a challenge, but at least one of these platforms prefers not to use it, which helped us to quickly identify around 600 domains linked to the service. How many are unique is another question, but the end result probably wouldn’t undermine the headline figure.

The West Should Take Piracy More Seriously, Apparently

Finally, it seems somewhat ironic that the West describes piracy in Russia as a very serious problem, yet in Russia, criticism in this case appears to run in the opposite direction. The mobility of indexing sites means that blocking in Russia descends into a game of cat and mouse, but the CDNs themselves are also considered problematic.

Instead of the CDNs being hosted in Russia, F6 notes that overseas hosting is preferred. The Netherlands, United States, Ukraine, Germany, and France are highlighted as the locations of choice, all of them more difficult for Russian authorities to block than servers hosted on home soil.

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

(Comment on this)