TorrentFreak

Bulgarian ISPs Will Block Pirate Bay & Zamunda, But Not Before a Fight

Andy Maxwell — Sat, 03 Jun 2023 17:52:23 +0000

With torrent sites dominating the high seas of piracy in 2006, Bulgarian authorities decided to arrest Eliyan Geshev, administrator of the the country’s most popular tracker, ArenaBG.

Public uproar in Bulgaria was significant but just a day later, Geshev was a free man once again. After police provided zero evidence of any crimes being committed, a court found no grounds for Geshev’s initial arrest. Reporters who attempted to interview Geshev as he left court suddenly found themselves attacked by security guards.

In advance of Geshev being detained, the government had promised to “show no mercy” when targeting pirate site operators. In the wake of his release, Bulgarian authorities charged with tackling organized crime ordered ISPs to block ArenaBG.

Three ISPs said they would comply, others refused after declaring site-blocking “illegal.”

Site-Blocking Returns 15 Years Later

At the time, ArenaBG was hosted in the U.S. so in theory could’ve been handled there. In the end that wasn’t necessary as the blocking instructions against ArenaBG were withdrawn. In other EU countries, site-blocking plans were quietly gaining traction and would continue to do so.

Neighboring Greece approved blocking measures in 2012. Progress was dampened three years later due to constitutional concerns but today, Greece is a fully-fledged member of the EU site-blocking club, alongside its latest recruit: Bulgaria.

A decision handed down May 31, 2023 at the Sofia City Court requires three Bulgarian internet service providers to block two major torrent platforms. The names of the ISPs are unhelpfully redacted in court documents, but not so the names of the sites. Somewhat predictably, The Pirate Bay makes yet another appearance in a site-blocking action, along with Zamunda, the most popular torrent site in Bulgaria.

Recording Industry Behind The Action

The initial claim was filed in February 2020 by the Bulgarian Association of Music Producers (BAMP) with support from IFPI, the International Federation of the Phonographic Industry.

Court documents reveal that the claimants requested a dynamic injunction against the main domains of The Pirate Bay and Zamunda, plus any other domains, sub-domains, mirror and proxy sites that may facilitate access to the sites in future.

Based on claims that over 90% of the sound recordings indexed by the sites are protected by copyright and shared illegally by Bulgarian BitTorrent users, BAMP and IFPI referenced the CJEU ruling in the BREIN/ Ziggo case (C-610/15). The CJEU found that ISPs in Member States can be ordered to block access to The Pirate Bay, even though the site itself stores no infringing content.

In respect of the three unnamed ISPs, the claimants said that since they’re intermediaries whose services are used by third parties to infringe copyright, under Article 8, paragraph 3 of Directive 2001/29/EC the following applies:

Member States shall ensure that rightholders are in a position to apply for an injunction against intermediaries whose services are used by a third party to infringe a copyright or related right

In written responses filed by two of the three ISPs, BAMP and IFPI’s claims were bluntly described as “inadmissible.”

Bulgarian ISPs Fight Back

One of the ISPs, identified only as ‘N.1’ in court documents, described the claim as unfounded and inadmissible, adding that it “opposes the active legitimization of the plaintiff.” The ISP also pointed out that Bulgarian law does not recognize a claim “for blocking access to Internet sites.” As for EU law requiring Member States to ensure access to injunction applications, that would not apply here because Bulgaria hadn’t yet transposed that into national law.

Pushing back further still, the ISP disputed allegations that it enables subscribers to commit copyright infringement on the torrent sites, so therefore disputes that its subscribers use the sites to download pirated content using BitTorrent. In summary, the ISP asked for the claim to be rendered inadmissible or possibly rejected as unfounded.

The ISP identified as ‘F.1’ used the words ‘inadmissible’ and ‘baseless’ to describe the claim. The ISP said that the claim was filed for the “termination of a violation” but since the claim failed to provide any details in respect of the ISP, conducting an effective defense would be difficult. In common with ‘N.1’, the ISP ‘F.1′ asked for the claim to rendered inadmissible or rejected as groundless.

After the ISPs questioned the accuracy of translations, and the authenticity and validity of IFPI/BAMP legal documents, the Court appointed forensic experts to investigate. The details of the various findings occupy a large part of the decision, including details of a dispute related to the claimants’ standing to bring a claim and the eventual termination of claims relating to unnamed foreign music producers.

ISPs Required to Block Pirate Bay and Zamunda

The Sofia City Court ultimately decided that the ISPs must block both sites.

“[T]he defendant companies, in their capacity as providers of Internet access, should be sentenced to take action within a period of up to six months, the necessary actions to stop the illegal use by envisaging and implementing measures aimed at blocking the Internet access of its users, to the web pages on which the online file sharing platforms ‘ThePirateBay’ and ‘Zamunda’ are accessible.”

The ISPs will be able to determine their own methods of blocking to “best match their resources and capacity,” with a threshold of “at least making it difficult to carry out unauthorized visits” to The Pirate Bay and Zamunda.

Industry Groups Stay Positive

In a joint press release, the recording industry groups focused on the positives.

“We welcome the decision of the Sofia City Court, which marks a major step forward in the recorded music industry’s fight against online music piracy,” said BAMP executive director Petya Tocharova

“For the first time in Bulgaria, a court decision has been issued to block access to pirate websites, and we consider this precedent an important step in the right direction.”

Francis Moore, Chief Executive of the IFPI, said: “We welcome this decision and the impact it will have on curbing illegal access to music. Copyright infringement of any kind causes serious harm to local music ecosystems and diverts money away from those who create and invest in music.”

Whether blocking two torrent sites will have much of an impact on music piracy is unclear. Research cited in the blocking decision reported 27,000 files containing music available via The Pirate Bay and 44,000 on Zamunda. The overwhelming majority of music piracy today involves content ripped from YouTube, a site with dozens of millions tracks completely unhindered by blocking.

Measurable impact of site-blocking on piracy tends to appear when many sites are blocked at once, at least according to industry reports. That raises the prospect of numerous return visits to Bulgarian courts, in potentially adversarial circumstances, at a time when cooperation is seen as the only real solution to a very complex problem.

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

Music Pirates are Not Terrorists, Record Labels Argue in Court

Ernesto Van der Sar — Fri, 02 Jun 2023 17:02:13 +0000

Internet provider Cox Communications has been on the sharp end of several piracy lawsuits in recent years.

The biggest hit came four years ago when the Internet provider lost its legal battle against a group of major record labels.

$1 Billion Appeal

A Virginia jury held Cox liable for pirating subscribers because it failed to terminate accounts after repeated accusations, ordering the company to pay $1 billion in damages to the labels. This landmark ruling is currently under appeal.

As part of the appeal, Cox informed the court of a supplemental authority that could support its position. The case in question is Twitter vs. Taamneh, in which the U.S. Supreme Court recently held that the social media platform isn’t liable for ISIS terrorists, who used Twitter to recruit and raise funds.

The Supreme Court rejected the claim that Twitter aided-and-abetted terrorist activity, because it didn’t “consciously and culpably” participate in the illegal activity. According to Cox, the same logic applies in its case, where the ISP was held liable for the piracy activities of subscribers.

“These same aiding-and-abetting principles animate copyright law’s contributory liability doctrine, and they likewise foreclose liability here,” an attorney for Cox informed the court.

Cox argues that the Supreme Court ruling confirms that aiding-and-abetting liability only applies when parties knowingly took part in the activity. That runs contrary to the finding in its own dispute with the record labels, where “culpable expression and conduct” or “intent” were not required.

“Though Twitter arises in a different context, its reasoning applies with full force and supports reversal of the contributory infringement verdict,” Cox added.

The two cases are indeed quite different, but ultimately they are about imposing liability on third-party services. According to Cox, the Twitter terrorist ruling clearly shows that it isn’t liable for pirating subscribers, but the music companies see things differently.

Terrorists vs. Pirates

Earlier this week, the music labels responded in court, countering Cox’s arguments. They argue that the Twitter ruling doesn’t apply to their piracy dispute with Cox, as the cases are grounded in different laws.

While the music industry certainly isn’t happy with pirates, the Cox case is a copyright matter while the Twitter lawsuit fell under the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act. And for now, pirates are not categorized as terrorists.

“Twitter arose under the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act. Plaintiffs there identified ‘no duty’ under that terrorism statute requiring defendants ‘to terminate customers after discovering that the customers were using the service for illicit ends’.”

“This case arises under the Copyright Act. This Court has already held that an internet-service provider has a duty to ‘do something’ about known infringers,” the music companies ‘counsel adds.

‘Not So Passive’

After establishing the difference between pirates and terrorists, the music companies point out that Twitter wasn’t directly connected to the misconduct. The platform’s role was more passive and its connection to ISIS was more distant than Cox’s connection to its subscribers.

Cox took a more active role and materially contributed to the pirating activities, which stands no comparison to the Twitter case, plaintiffs argue.

“Cox was not so passive,” the music company counsel writes, adding that the Internet provider “set up sham policies ensuring infringement would continue.”

“Cox knew of specific instances of infringement occurring on its network, tied them to specific users, and chose not to terminate those users to avoid ‘losing revenue from paying subscribers’,” the reply brief adds.

How the court of appeal will interpret the Twitter ruling remains to be seen. With $1 billion in damages on the line, both sides will likely do everything in their power to fight this case to the bitter end, and it may ultimately find its way to the Supreme Court.

—

A copy of Cox’s letter to the court, including the referenced Supreme Court ruling can be found here (pdf). The music companies ‘reply is available here (pdf)

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

Controversial Pirate IPTV Supplier Investigated After Bell Complaint

Andy Maxwell — Fri, 02 Jun 2023 09:41:50 +0000

Rising interest in pirate IPTV services over the past several years has led to a limited number of people meeting demand while making considerable sums of money.

Technical ability, insider knowledge, and a keen eye for business all help to maximize pirate IPTV suppliers’ profits, but there can be considerable drawbacks too. The problem isn’t making big money, it’s managing to hold onto it when law enforcement agencies take an interest.

Pirate IPTV / Money Laundering Investigation

Published this week, a report from La Presse notes that as part of an investigation into IPTV piracy and money laundering, Canadian investigators from the Sûreté du Québec (SQ – Quebec Provincial Police) targeted Éric Grenier, identified by the publication as a director of companies behind streaming service, Arubox.TV.

Citing police sources, La Presse reports that the investigation began after a group of telecoms companies headed by Bell Canada filed a complaint with police alleging millions of dollars worth of damage to their businesses, attributable to the Arubox IPTV service.

In response, the Office of Criminal Assets Recovery and Money Laundering carried out five searches this week, including one at Grenier’s condo in Laval, another against an alleged accomplice in Saint-Eustache, and a third against a relative of Grenier in Brownsburg-Chatham.

As the investigation continues, police sources report that blocking orders will be requested against Grenier’s bank accounts and condo, valued at nearly $500,000.

At the time of writing, the main Arubox TV website remains online but the status of the underlying IPTV service is less clear. A Stalker login portal associated with Arubox appears functional but since logins are verified by device MAC addresses and valid subscriptions, verifying the status of the service wasn’t immediately possible.

When they sign up, Arubox subscribers are given a URL to put into their set-top boxes in order to access the service. That URL can be found on a completely separate domain that we’re informed may have links to another IPTV service. A source familiar with the situation says that the operator of the second service has connections to the first. A review of messages related to the second service indicates that its operator also received a visit from the police this week, in connection with the Grenier investigation.

Éric Grenier: Controversial and Media Friendly

As part of its own investigation, La Presse recently trawled Grenier’s Facebook account and discovered that he’s been promoting Arubox.tv since at least 2020. The image below tends to suggest he’s a fan of Formuler set-top boxes, widely considered to be among the best IPTV devices available, even if the Z8 model is a little outdated.

Grenier Advertising IPTV Boxes

This image from social media represents just the tip of a very large media iceberg that has kept Grenier in the public eye for years.

Know locally as the ‘Quebec Hugh Hefner’ due to his links with the adult industry, Grenier’s ownership of a strip club and appearances on a Canadian reality TV series sit alongside claims in the media, citing police sources, of alleged connections to a Hells Angels motorcycle club.

All of these pale into insignificance in light of a story published in the Montreal Gazette in 2014. It features a computer containing 10kgs of a highly illegal substance, the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration, 10kgs of a less-expensive replacement substance, and an alleged loss to Grenier of $500K.

No set-top boxes were involved back then but nobody wants to go too hard, too soon.

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

RARBG Shutdown is a Major Blow to the Pirate Ecosystem

Ernesto Van der Sar — Thu, 01 Jun 2023 20:31:06 +0000

Pirate sites come and go, often without being noticed by the public at large. That was certainly not the case when RARBG said its goodbyes yesterday.

The popular torrent site had millions of daily users spread across several domain names. This included the flagship .to domain which currently displays a farewell message.

After a brief intermezzo, many users simply began their search for alternatives, perhaps unaware that the effects of RARBG’s shutdown go beyond the site itself, leading to a much broader impact, including on popular ‘alternatives’.

RARBG Releases & Tracker

On the surface, RARBG looked like any other torrent site but it was one of the few platforms to release a steady stream of fresh content. All pirated movies and TV-shows come from somewhere and RARBG acted as a key bridge between scene sources and the public at large.

This content was picked up by RARBG’s bots from external sources before being posted on the site itself. ExtraTorrent’s in-house release groups worked in a similar way, including under the ‘ETTV’ label, before shutting down last year due to a lack of funds.

The absence of new releases is likely to make the overall piracy ecosystem more vulnerable. The same can also be said for RARBG’s dedicated tracker, which was also pulled offline yesterday, abruptly terminating millions of connections. And it doesn’t end there.

Torrent and Streaming Sites Feel the Pain

With another popular source of pirate movie and TV-show releases gone, the piracy supply side is shrinking. The vast majority of public torrent sites don’t have their own release channels. Instead, they relied on external parties such as RARBG.

This equally applies to direct download sites and streaming portals. While pirate streaming sites have become much bigger than their torrent peers in recent years, their movie and TV-show libraries can often be traced to torrent sources.

There are still alternative sources available, for now, but with RARBG gone the choices are more limited. This means there will be considerable pressure on the remaining suppliers, to say the least.

In addition to the typical pirate sites, RARBG links also appeared in dedicated pirate channels on platforms such as Telegram. These no longer work. The same also applies to users of software such as Sonarr, for whom RARBG was a popular source too.

From the Ashes?

The above may sound grim but it does illustrate the important position RARBG held in the piracy scene. That said, pirates have shown to be resilient in the past so there will likely be others willing to take the risk and fill the void.

Those will include copycats who will try to take over the RARBG brand. The same happened in the past with EZTV, YTS, KickassTorrents and Torrentz, with various levels of success.

Things aren’t getting any easier though. In its farewell message, RARBG summed up several reasons for shutting down. Aside from tragic personal issues, they included rising hosting costs and a decline in revenue. That’s becoming a trend too.

Inflation…

While we haven’t seen inflation mentioned as a reason to shut down a pirate site before, financial struggles are prevalent. As mentioned earlier, ETTV cited the same reason to close shop last year and others went before them.

So what about the sites that remain? Speaking with TorrentFreak, the operator of LimeTorrents mentions that the site has no plans to stop but they confirmed that rising hosting costs and low adverting revenues are indeed a real concern.

That said, inflation and other cost-related issues also work in favor of pirate sites, the site’s operator mentioned. After all, legitimate platforms such as Netflix and Disney+ cost money, while torrent sites are free and offer more content.

All in all, we can conclude that the broader piracy ecosystem has lost a key player that was much more than just another torrent site. While others could take its place, if they are willing to take the risk, the loss of RARBG is undoubtedly a considerable setback.

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

ISP’s Dynamic Injunction Fears Fail to Prevent Lookmovie & Flixtor Blocking

Andy Maxwell — Thu, 01 Jun 2023 09:00:07 +0000

After well over a decade of pushing back against pirate site blocking applications, many European ISPs now see little value in putting up a fight.

Earlier confirmation from Europe’s highest court, that site-blocking injunctions are legal when they proportionately protect third-party rights, is one of the key reasons for not contesting blocking applications today. In the Netherlands, where ISPs have a strong tradition of resisting site blocking injunctions, a recent application for a dynamic, shape-shifting blockade prompted ISP KPN into action.

Movie Companies Want to Block Lookmovie and Flixtor

In common with similar groups everywhere, Dutch anti-piracy BREIN is a proponent of site-blocking as part of an overall anti-piracy toolkit. The problem BREIN faces is a growing tendency for pirate sites to shift to new domains or receive assistance from proxy and mirror sites, in response to static site-blocking measures targeting specific domains.

Hoping to reduce infringing access to pirate streaming sites Lookmovie and Flixtor, while reducing the potential for domain switching and proxy/mirror site countermeasures, BREIN took legal action at the Court of Rotterdam in April against ISP and fiber optic network provider, KPN.

When presenting its case for the blocking of Lookmovie, BREIN explained that the platform provides free access to movies and TV shows, including some with Dutch subtitles, without any permission from copyright holders.

As the traffic statistics for just one of its domains show, the site receives millions of visitors overall according to SimilarWeb data.

BREIN notes that users who prefer not to watch ads on Lookmovie can pay a fee to avoid them, either on the site’s main domain, 13 others it also operates, or via a network of proxy and mirror sites.

BREIN’s Request For a Dynamic Injunction

BREIN’s case against Flixtor is broadly the same, with the anti-piracy company noting that the site is readily accessible from any of 11 domains and an unknown number of proxy and mirror sites.

Countering Perpetual Domain and IP Changes

To counter the growing phenomena of sites switching to domains and IP addresses not specifically mentioned in injunctions, BREIN asked KPN to comply with the terms of a dynamic injunction. When sites deploy new IP addresses, new domains or use sub-domains, dynamic injunctions are usually able to cope.

BREIN believed that as long as any proxy or mirror sites were the same or virtually the same as the originals, KPN would be ordered to prevent its customers from accessing them in the same way it can be required to block the original sites. KPN begged to differ.

KPN’s Site-Blocking Objections

The District Court of Rotterdam’s judgment notes that KPN objected to BREIN’s site-blocking application on several grounds. The ISP took the position that blocking websites is not an effective response to infringement because the infringing websites themselves remain online. As a result, internet users are free to circumvent site-blocking measures using VPNs, for example.

The Court agreed that circumvention takes place but said that isn’t an obstacle when awarding a site-blocking injunction.

“Closing access to Lookmovie and Flixtor by blocking domain names, proxies and mirrors will prevent access to the protected works through those addresses. As BREIN also acknowledges, a blockade does not completely prevent unauthorized calls from protected works, as some internet users will find detours to access blocked websites,” the judgment reads.

“It cannot be ruled out that internet users bypass blockades via VPN connections, but it is plausible that a blockade of the websites will lead to these sites no longer being accessible, at least considerably more difficult to access, for the normal internet user, as a result of which carrying out infringement becomes seriously complicated.”

The Court further noted that since BREIN requested a dynamic injunction covering new IP addresses and domain names as they appear, these alternative routes of access will also be subjected to a permanent blockade. As a result, blocking can be considered sufficiently effective overall..

Are Dynamic Injunctions Overbroad?

KPN further argued that BREIN’s blocking request was too broad, with associated costs and the risk of over-blocking increasing over time as more proxies and mirror sites are added. The ISP also complained that injunctions should be time-limited but the Court wasn’t convinced.

“KPN has been blocking domain names, mirrors and proxies for several years now, and it has not been found that implementation has led to major problems. On the contrary, BREIN has made it clear that it always sends updated lists of new domains to be blocked by e-mail to KPN, after which KPN implements the blockades within a short period, sometimes within an hour,” the judgment notes.

The suggestion here is that blocking may have been automated by KPN and since detailed checks may not be carried out, any inconvenience is minimal. In any event, KPN’s historically speedy response to blocking also helped to satisfy the Court that BREIN’s request for a blocking response in five working days wasn’t unreasonable either.

Dynamic Injunction Granted

After considering the freedom to access information and KPN’s freedom to conduct a business, the Court found that BREIN’s application is compatible with these fundamental rights.

“BREIN’s claims to block and block KPN subscribers’ access to the (sub) domain names and IP addresses through which Lookmovie and Flixtor operate or will operate are therefore granted,” the judgment reads.

BREIN believes the Court made the right decision.

“The measures requested by BREIN are judged to be reasonable; KPN’s freedom of enterprise is not unreasonably restricted. The defense that the blocking of proxies and mirrors would be too broad is also rejected: KPN has been implementing blockades for several years now and this has not led to any implementation problems,” BREIN reports.

Injunction Implications Go Beyond KPN

In October 2021, BREIN and several ISPs – KPN included – entered into an agreement known as the ‘Covenant.’ Signatory ISPs promised that when a judgment is handed down against an ISP, requiring it to block websites following an adversarial process, the other ISPs would voluntarily comply with the same decision. As a result, blocking of Lookmovie and Flixtor will be deployed across the Netherlands.

Another useful side effect for BREIN is likely to involve Google. As previously reported, when Google is presented with a court order that requires an ISP to block pirate websites, Google recognizes the injunction by voluntarily deindexing the listed domains, resulting in their complete removal from search results, in the territory where the injunction is valid.

The District Court of Rotterdam’s judgment can be found here

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

RARBG: Over 267,000 Movie & TV Show Magnet Links Appear Online

Andy Maxwell — Wed, 31 May 2023 23:43:47 +0000

The shock closure yesterday of one of the world’s oldest and most reliable torrent sites ranks as one of the biggest surprises in recent years.

Founded in 2008, RARBG had a reputation for taking the fundamentals seriously. The site offered the usual spread of movies and TV shows, available in various qualities and numerous file sizes. The site didn’t cover every single release but when trawling the archives, it certainly felt like it might.

Consistent, Organized, Predictable

RARBG also became known for consistently offering subtitles for most movie and TV show releases. Long before legal streaming services made any serious attempt, RARBG’s curation of subtitles helped the deaf enjoy films again, without any of the frustrations associated with mislabeled files and out of sync releases.

In common with other torrent sites operating publicly, most RARBG users downloaded their files and headed for the hills. For the majority, seeding was either a dirty word, one they’d never heard before, or perhaps didn’t understand. Hit-and-run rates of 98%+ showed the scale of the problem but on RARBG, a lack of public seeders rarely presented a problem.

As if by magic, a single seed would often pop up when people needed one most, meaning that incomplete torrents were a rare occurrence. At least until yesterday.

Torrented Back to Life?

With RARBG’s indexes gone and trackers offline, the file-sharing scene may never be the same again. It will continue, of course, but filling that type of gap at scale, with the same level of accessible reliability, won’t be easy to pull off.

And then there’s the not insignificant loss of RARBG’s content indexes. With releases meticulously labeled and then tagged by genre, actor, director and more, replacing something like that in the public torrent scene would take considerable effort, if anyone could summon up the motivation to even try.

In short, an otherwise ordinary Wednesday offered nothing when it began, yet still took everything away from RARBG users in the space of a few hours. Whether the middle of the week had second thoughts is unclear but a few hours ago, the keys to much of the RARBG torrent network suddenly reappeared online in an unexpected format.

Yo! Magnets!

While RARBG supplied users with .torrent files to download content via BitTorrent clients, the site also offered magnet links, accessible by clicking the magnet-shaped icons next to each release.

For those with torrent clients configured to accept magnet links, transfers took place much like regular torrents, largely because magnet links provided by RARBG received help from RARBG’s regular BitTorrent trackers.

The beauty of magnet links is that the lack of trackers when a site disappears doesn’t stop users from downloading content. Furthermore, .torrent files are bulky, unlike magnet links which are easily represented in a line of plain text. In short, regular text files can contain thousands of magnet links in a just a few kilobytes. As such, they are easily shared online.

A few hours ago two repositories appeared on GitHub with zero fanfare. Created by user ‘2004content’, the first repo labeled ‘rarbg’ contains nothing. The same can’t be said about the other.

Three Ordinary .TXT Files

The three files of interest are basic .txt files. When loaded into a capable text editor, the first file (moviesrarbg.txt) appears to contain magnet links related to RARBG movie releases; a staggering 117,233 releases overall.

The remaining pair (showsrarbg.txt and showsothers.txt) appear to contain magnet links related to TV shows and series previously released on RARBG. The first contains 12,969 magnet links but the second contains considerably more – 137,669 magnet links collectively referencing the same number of releases.

Random Text or The Real Deal?

Verifying that these magnet links are indeed what they claim to be presents two key problems. The first is the huge number of links versus sensibly available resources. The second comes with a standard reminder; downloading and sharing copyrighted content, even using a magnet link, is illegal almost everywhere.

As a result, we don’t recommend the use of the magnet links listed in the text archives, and certainly not for infringement purposes. However, through the use of a small number of specialist tools, it is possible to obtain detailed metadata from a magnet link, without downloading or sharing any of the referenced content, infringing or otherwise. For a general idea of how someone might go about that, the TorrentParts project on GitHub may be of interest, although other techniques do exist.

We can’t confirm that the text file data references the entire RARBG movie/TV show collection but with some magnet links now confirmed as referencing the material they claim to reference, it’s certainly possible that a large part of RARBG’s video indexes appear in this three file collection on GitHub.

Update: RARBG Shutdown is a Major Blow to the Pirate Ecosystem

Image credit

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

Iconic Torrent Site RARBG Shuts Down, All Content Releases Stop

Ernesto Van der Sar — Wed, 31 May 2023 11:46:03 +0000

Founded in 2008, RARBG evolved to become a key player in the torrent ecosystem.

The site didn’t only attract millions of monthly visitors from all over the globe, it was also a major release hub, bridging the gap between the Scene and the broader pirate public.

Today, the site’s fifteen year run unexpectedly came to an end. In a message posted on the site’s front page, the team says its farewells. This message has been separately confirmed by a source familiar with the matter.

RARBG cites multiple reasons behind the surprise decision, including COVID-related health problems which led to the tragic death of one of the people involved. The war between Russia and Ukraine also impacted the team, with RARBG suggesting that it had members fighting on both sides.

“The past 2 years have been very difficult for us – some of the people in our team died due to covid complications, others still suffer the side effects of it – not being able to work at all. Some are also fighting the war in Europe – ON BOTH SIDES,” the team writes.

The rising costs of operating from data centers in Europe also played their part. And with revenue having trouble keeping up with the rising costs, shutting down the site ultimately seemed the best solution.

“Inflation makes our daily expenses impossible to bare. Therefore we can no longer run this site without massive expenses that we can no longer cover out of pocket. After an unanimous vote we’ve decided that we can no longer do it.”

“We are sorry :( Bye,” the message concludes.

The shutdown also marks the end of the popular RARBG releases, many of which were shared through other pirate sites as well. These high quality releases which, aside from the early days never included CAMs, are among the most downloaded in history.

Today’s shutdown is one of the largest in the history of torrent sites. It’s also the first major closure since the 2015/2016 period, when KickassTorrents, Torrentz, and ExtraTorrent all left the scene.

Needless to say, there will be plenty of copycats who are eager to take over the RARBG brand. However, the real RARBG is no more.

—

+
Update: Over 267,000 Movie & TV Show Magnet Links Appear Online
+

Update: RARBG Shutdown is a Major Blow to the Pirate Ecosystem

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

Court Orders ISPs to Block “Spider-Man” Piracy… Before it Happens

Ernesto Van der Sar — Wed, 31 May 2023 09:17:04 +0000

In recent years, website blocking has become one of the most widely-used anti-piracy enforcement mechanisms in the world.

ISPs in several dozen countries prevent subscribers from accessing a variety of ‘pirate’ sites, often in response to a court order.

These orders often started as basic injunctions, requiring providers to block one or more domain names. Today, many courts issue dynamic injunctions too, allowing rightsholders to add new domain names or IP-addresses, without returning to court.

Dynamic blocking orders are also common in India with courts noting that the flexible approach helps to combat pirate site ‘hydras’. India is also known for another progressive site blocking strategy, one that targets piracy before it happens.

Preemptive Spider-Man Piracy Blockade

This week the Delhi High Court in New Delhi granted a site blocking order requested by Sony Pictures. This injunction aims to protect the upcoming release of “Spider-Man: Across the Spider-Verse,” which is scheduled to premiere in theaters later this week.

As far as we know, no pirated versions of the film are currently available online. Sony doesn’t mention any in its application either but expects rogue copies to appear on known pirate sites in the near future. To limit this potential piracy, these sites should be blocked, the studio argued.

The application lists 101 pirate sites including variants of The Pirate Bay, YTS, RARBG, LimeTorrents, Fmovies, Myflixer, 123movies and others. Many of these already share copies of the 2018 film “Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse” and are allegedly “in the process” of pirating the sequel too.

After reviewing the available evidence, Justice C Hari Shankar of the Delhi High Court comments as follows:

“The facts of the case as recited hereinabove indicate that the plaintiff’s copyright in the films ‘Spider-Man: Across The Spider-Verse’ and ‘Spider-Man: Into The Spider-Verse’ have/are in the process of being infringed and violated by the Defendants 1 to 101.”

Mirrors and Copies are Covered

The owners of the pirate sites were alerted to the proceeding last week but it appears that none have objected formally. As a result, Justice Shankar issued an order that prohibits the operators from making pirated copies of the Spider-Man films available to the public.

In addition, Indian Internet providers are ordered to block access to the pirate sites’ listed domain names, as well as any proxies and mirrors that may come online in the future.

“[The Internet providers] are directed to block access to the websites at S. Nos. 1 to 101, as well as any mirror/redirect/alphanumeric websites which appear to be associated with any of the said websites,” the order reads.

This leads to the intriguing situation that ISPs must block domain names, including those that have yet to be registered, to protect a film that is expected to be pirated in the future.

These types of preemptive blocking orders are not new in India. Similar ones have been issued previously and there’s little doubt that rightsholders such as Sony will request more of them in the future.

—

+
A copy of Justice C Hari Shankar’s order is available here (pdf). The full list of domain names mentioned in the order reads as follows:
+

1) flixhd.cc
+2) www6.f2movies.to
+3) www2.movieorca.com
+4) moviekids.tv
+5) moviesnation.vip
+6) allmovieshub.party
+7) 1xbetmovies.bio
+8) hdtoday.tv
+9) hdtoday.ru
+10) 0123movie.net
+II) www5.himovies.to
+I2) bflix.gg
+13) thepiratebayIO.org
+I4) thepiratebay.party
+15) thepiratebay.org
+16) m.thepiratebayO.org
+17) thepiratebay3 .to
+18) fmovies.llc
+19) fmovies.hn
+20) fmovies.ps
+21) uhdmovies.bio
+22) psa.re
+23) medeberiyas.com
+24) proxyrarbg.org
+25) rarbgdata.org
+26) rarbgmirrored.org
+27) rarbgp2p.org
+28) rarbgproxied.org
+29) rarbgto.org
+30) rarbgunblocked.org
+31) rarbggo.to
+32) myflixer.vc
+33) myflixer.center
+34) filmkio.run
+35) hurawatch.cc
+36) wwwl.attacker.tv
+37) cataz.net
+38) soap2day.id
+39) soap2day.mn
+40) soap2day-online.com
+41) ww6.soap2day.day
+42) ww7.soap2dayhd.co
+43) Putlokemew.sb
+44) putlokemew.vc
+45) putlockers9.live
+46) aiofi lm.top
+47) watchseries.id
+48) watchseries.world
+49) watchserieshd.live
+50) watchserieshd.ru
+51) 123-movies.pics
+52) 123moviesite.one
+53) arc018.com
+54) bolly4u.cafe
+55) desiremovies.lat
+56) dopebox.se
+57) emovtes.si
+58) filmywap.com.pe
+59) flixtor.id
+60) goku.sx
+61) grantorrent.bz
+62) hdencode.org
+63) hexdownload.co’~
+64) hindmoviez.wiki
+65) katmovieshd.ms
+66) limetorrents.lol
+67) losmovies.ru
+68) membedl.com
+69) mobomoviez.fun
+70) movierulzhd.wiki
+71) movies7.io
+72) moviesj oy.plus
+73) moviesmod.co.in
+74) moviestowatch.tv
+75) nkiri.com
+76) Old3.rlsbb.cc
+77) onionplay.rs
+78) primewire.id
+79) projectfreetv.space
+80) sflix.se
+81) solarmovies.win
+82) solidtorrents.to
+83) swatchseries.biz
+84) tamilvip.city
+85) terbit2l.art
+86) tfpdl.seEmail:
+87) Tgx.rs
+88) theflixer.tv
+89) themovieflix.eu.com
+90) thenetnaija.net
+91) vegamovies.chat
+92) vhmovies.to
+93) vumoo.to
+94) watchsomuch.to
+95) ww1.123moviesto.cc
+96) wwl.streamm4u.ws
+97) ww4.solarmovie.to
+98) www3.yggtorrent.do
+99) xmovies8.fun
+100) yesmovies.lat
+101) yts.rs

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

Flawless IPTV: Men Behind UK’s Largest Pirate Service Jailed For 30+ Years

Andy Maxwell — Tue, 30 May 2023 18:12:12 +0000

Operating from 2016 until 2018, the Flawless IPTV service copied subscription TV broadcasts from official (and unofficial) sources and then restreamed that content to tens of thousands of customers, at a dramatically cut down price.

For many UK football fans, Flawless granted access to the sport they love, at a price they could afford. Others viewed the service quite differently.

From the Premier League’s perspective, Flawless was a fraudulent, criminal enterprise that stole potential revenue from the country’s leading football clubs. Through its illegal participation in the subscription TV market, Flawless had a direct impact on Sky and Virgin Media subscription package sales.

More broadly, Flawless undermined the Premier League’s right to offer exclusive broadcasting licenses in the UK and that had the potential to affect how much broadcasters were prepared to pay for those licenses.

Today’s Sentencing Hearing

Following an extraordinarily deep and costly investigation, and a five-year Premier League private prosecution, five men behind the UK’s largest-ever piracy service were sentenced today at Chesterfield Justice Centre.

Mark Gould, Steven Gordon, Peter Jolley, Christopher Felvus and William Brown were sentenced to more than 30 years in prison combined. A sixth defendant, Zak Smith, did not appear in court.

In total, Flawless operated for just 22 months but still managed to generate an estimated £4.6 million in revenue. £3.7 million of that was profit, split very unequally between those sent to prison today.

Mark Gould, 36, was the driving force behind Flawless. His share of the profit was around £1.7 million. Today he received an unprecedented 11-year sentence on two counts of conspiracy to defraud and contempt of court.

Steven Gordon’s cut was significant too, roughly £1 million according to the prosecution. Two counts of conspiracy to defraud and contempt of court led to a sentence of five years and two months.

Peter Jolley’s share of the profit was reported as £773,000. He received a sentence of five years and two months, on two counts of conspiracy to defraud and money laundering.

Christopher Felvus’ share was a relatively modest £164,500. Two counts of conspiracy to defraud earned him a sentence of three years and 11 months.

William Brown made just £15,000 but after pleading not guilty and then losing his case, today he was sentenced to four years and nine months, on two counts of conspiracy to defraud.

Zak Smith appears to have made less than £5,000 from Flawless. He did not appear in court today and a warrant was issued for his arrest.

What follows are just some of the events that led to the men being sentenced today, including why Flawless was so successful, and how it all fell apart.

Flawless Won Fans By Exploiting a Restricted Market, Fraudulently

Top-tier football matches in England take place in the Premier League, a league operated by a company of the same name, owned by the clubs that play in it.

Premier League broadcasting rights cost billions, so when broadcasters like Sky and Virgin hand over their share of the cash for exclusive local rights, recouping that cash from UK football fans is reflected in costly subscription package prices.

For cash-strapped football fans in the UK, pirate IPTV providers represent choice and affordability in a market where very little exists. Subscriptions available at a fraction of the official cost are a huge draw but the elephant in the room is unavoidable.

Pirate IPTV services cost less and offer more, but that’s only because they pay nothing to rightsholders like the Premier League, while paying nothing to broadcasters whose transmissions they copy.

The end result of an aggressive Premier League private prosecution spanning five years, the sentences handed down today show that undermining corporations worth billions has the potential to end in complete catastrophe for IPTV operators. It also ends badly for football fans and the public in general.

While this was a private prosecution, the Premier League – and by extension Premier League clubs – will now recoup the costs of the investigation and prosecution from the Crown, meaning that tax paying football fans and taxpayers in general will pick up an incredibly large bill.

Flawless IPTV

Launched around August 2016, Flawless IPTV began as a three-way partnership consisting of Mark Gould, Steven Gordon, and Peter Jolley, all of whom had parted ways with another IPTV provider, known online as Overlords. Christopher Felvus, who was also active in the pirate IPTV scene, made up the quartet and for Flawless, it was game on.

In common with licensed services, pirate IPTV providers have broadly two options for reaching the market. Selling subscriptions directly to consumers makes the most money on paper but also causes the most headaches. Selling to customers via resellers makes considerably less, but in many cases a 40% cut may be considered worth it.

Flawless decided to cover both angles by selling direct from its own website and social medias, and also indirectly via a network of resellers.

With a heavy focus on Premier League content, particularly matches broadcast during the UK’s ‘3pm blackout’, Flawless and success went hand in hand. A big hit with football fans, the IPTV service went from strength to strength with a comprehensive, mostly reliable product, for just £10 per month. For a while, everything went broadly to plan.

Numerous behind-the-scenes dramas, some worthy of a TV series in their own right, kept the business on its toes in the months to come. Yet after signing up thousands of customers with no notable issues, a subscription purchased in 2017 sparked a massive criminal investigation and marked the beginning of the end for the entire service.

Charity Received Complaints

Crimestoppers, a UK charity famous for its anonymous tip lines, is said to have received complaints about Flawless in the summer of 2017. Instead of contacting the police, Crimestoppers alerted the Federation Against Copyright Theft (FACT) which led to a covert purchase of a Flawless subscription in October of the same year.

After concluding that Flawless offered streams broadcast by Sky and Virgin, among others, FACT leveraged its connections in government, law enforcement agencies, and civil authorities, calling for action to defend the Premier League’s rights.

A report to GAIN, the Government Agency Intelligence Network, led to the allocation of significant public resources. With the support of a dedicated financial investigator, a senior Trading Standards officer took over the investigation and a little over six months later, Flawless was all but finished.

Mark Gould Arrested First, Others follow

In May 2018, search warrants were executed at two addresses in London. Gould was arrested at his home in Greenwich, an apartment on the river recently purchased for £600,000 – cash.

Around a month later the authorities arrested Steven Gordon and Peter Jolley, and three weeks after that Christopher Felvus was detained. William Brown and Zak Smith were arrested early August 2018 but it would be another five months before the case was submitted to the court, and another three years before today’s sentencing.

Profitable Business, But Not For All

In total, Flawless operated for just 22 months but still managed to generate an estimated £4.6 million in revenue, £3.7 million of that in profit. As highlighted earlier, Gould is said to have made most from the operation, around £1.7 million.

William Brown made almost nothing from Flawless yet today received a sentence roughly on par with that handed to Steven Gordon, who made more than £1 million from the operation and was also held in contempt of court. In common with all of the defendants sentenced today, Brown had no previous convictions.

Warrant Issued For Arrest of Zak Smith

This curious anomaly leads us to Zak Smith, his apparent absence from court today, and a warrant for his arrest. Smith made roughly three times less than Brown, around £5,000, but was expected to receive a similar sentence today. The reasons for that are extraordinary.

The details of Smith’s involvement aren’t just interesting, they are arguably worthy of a Netflix drama series in their own right. Smith worked at anti-piracy company Friend MTS, known for working with the Premier League to ensure that pirate services are blocked by ISPs during match times.

This type of blocking is authorized by High Court injunction, the finer details of which are closely guarded secrets. Or at least that’s the usual plan. In some cases blocking programs appear suddenly ineffective, with services like Flawless operating broadly as usual, with Flawless competitors not doing anywhere near as well.

We’ll return to that story very soon and reveal how the dismantling of Flawless was interpreted as a prompt to launch more IPTV services that made even more money.

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

U.S. Govt Launches Consultation on Future Anti-Piracy Strategies

Ernesto Van der Sar — Tue, 30 May 2023 09:55:09 +0000

For many years, U.S. lawmakers have considered amending legislation so that today’s online copyright issues can be addressed more effectively.

Many proposals have come and gone, without resulting in any significant updates. Calls to change current legislation persist, however.

Before any new laws or policies are introduced, the Government typically seeks input from stakeholders. That’s also the case when planning future anti-piracy and anti-counterfeiting strategies.

Roundtable on Future Anti-Piracy Strategies

This coming October, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) will hold a roundtable on the subject, with members of the public invited to join. There are no concrete proposals at this stage but the agency is interested to hear what strategies have proven to be effective.

The office is also open to new ideas for future anti-piracy strategies. The call is quite broad and could include hot topics such as no-fault injunctions, which would allow copyright holders to more easily pursue pirate site blocking orders in the United States.

“The USPTO seeks information from interested parties regarding their observations and insights into the future of anticounterfeiting and antipiracy strategies,” the Office writes.

Quoting data from the United States Chamber of Commerce, a lobbying group operating independently of government, USPTO notes that video piracy alone causes losses of up to $115.3 billion in reduced GDP per year, as well as 560,000 lost jobs.

Broad Range of Questions

The consultation doesn’t ask for input on any specific policies or plans. Instead, stakeholders and members of the general public are asked to share their thoughts on a wide range of piracy and counterfeiting issues, including harms and dangers to the public, voluntary collaborations, and common challenges.

“Are you considering new collaborative efforts to combat counterfeiting and piracy? What factors will affect your decision? How might those future collaborations be comprised?” one of the questions reads.

Some of the Questions

The consultation and roundtable will also explore how existing laws factor into current anti-piracy measures. And perhaps more importantly, whether any improvements are needed in this area.

“Do online enforcement strategies use existing copyright laws to combat online piracy? If so, please describe in detail those activities, and provide any suggestions for maximizing these practices.”

Needless to say, the roundtable and public comments will undoubtedly result in a wide range of opposing views.

It’s no secret that rightsholders would like to have more anti-piracy tools, including site blocking and increased ISP liability in the US. However, these measures tend to trigger opposition from digital rights activists and the broader public.

—

A copy of the USPTO’s notice of the public roundtable and its request for comments is available at the Federal Register

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

Bungie’s ‘DoNotPay’ Sleuth Doubtful That Destiny 2 Cheat Lives at Copyright Office

Andy Maxwell — Mon, 29 May 2023 19:48:08 +0000

Bungie’s pursuit of people behind Destiny 2 cheat operation Elite Boss Tech, is pushing forward and showing no sign of stopping.

The lawsuit began in August 2021 with the aim of shutting down the ‘Wallhax’ cheat. By June 2022, Bungie had a $13.5 million copyright infringement damages award in hand, and suddenly cooperative defendants helping to unveil others involved in the circumvention of Bungie’s technological protection measures.

Bungie Asks Court For More Time

Earlier this month, Bungie was awarded over $16 million against a single defendant, with claims spanning copyright law, breach of contract, and civil RICO violations.

Just two days later, the court instructed Bungie to voluntarily dismiss all remaining unnamed defendants and any named defendants yet to be served. Bungie followed up with a request for the court to partially reconsider, arguing that progress is still being made in its quest to track the defendants down.

“Bungie continues its efforts to identify the unnamed Doe Defendants, and is actively seeking further information that may allow that identification, but does not have that information yet,” Bungie informed the court.

“Bungie served Eddie Tran, who is the only Named Defendant believed to reside in the United States, on February 28th, 2023,” the videogame company continued, noting that the remainder are believed to reside overseas.

On February 23, Bungie emailed each of the presumed foreign defendants with a request to waive service, with a deadline of April 13 to respond. Hoping that the defendants would eventually respond and in an effort to reduce costs, Bungie said that it didn’t immediately press ahead with service proceedings under the Hague Convention. However, it does have someone working on the case with a track record of success.

Tracking Down Anonymous Cheaters

Kathryn Tewson, a paralegal and investigator at KUSK Law in New York, rose to fame in January after a ferocious teardown of DoNotPay, a company that claims to have developed “The World’s First Robot Lawyer.” DoNotPay says its AI product provides affordable legal representation but according to Tewson, the supposed AI amounts to a document wizard dressed up in Theranos-style marketing.

Being hounded by “the world’s most tenacious paralegal” is also reality for defendants in Bungie cheat lawsuits.

In a declaration filed last week in support of Bungie’s request for more time in the Elite Boss Tech lawsuit, Tewson revealed she was the person who identified Eddie Tran and six other defendants across Europe and China.

“All of the International Defendants operate incognito under assumed names and take other steps to hide their identities and avoid detection. Because of the International Defendants’ intentional efforts to evade identification and detection, it is time-consuming and labor intensive to locate physical addresses for them sufficient to effectuate service,” Tewson informed the court.

Just One Person Answered Bungie’s Emails

One of Bungie’s emailed requests to waive service was sent by Tewson to a defendant named as Marta Magalhaes, aka MindBender, aka Bluegirl. The email contained a copy of the complaint, a reminder about the duty to avoid unnecessary expenses, and a warning that if the waiver wasn’t signed and returned, Bungie would arrange to have the summons and complaint physically served, with Magalhaes potentially picking up the bill.

A response from ‘Bruno Silva’ dated February 24 via a Gmail account said: “sorry i dont know what destiny 2 is, i dont play online games.”

Tewson responded within minutes. “Our apologies. There may have been a mistake. Can you confirm your address?”

As seen in the image below, ‘Bruno Silva’ supplied an address in Bucharest, Romania.

Widely considered the most famous road in the entire country, Calea Victoriei is a major Romanian tourist attraction. The address provided by ‘Bruno Silva’ – Calea Victoriei 118 – is the home of the Romanian Copyright Office (ORDA)

Defendant May Be Trying to Mislead

Tewson believes that the address provided by ‘Bruno Silva’ is probably false.

“Based on information received in settlement and my own investigation, I believe the information provided by defendant Magalhaes / ‘Bruno Silva’ is likely false and that the individual who responded to the email is the proper defendant in this case, and probably resides in Portugal,” Tewson informed the court.

“Bungie has issued a subpoena to Google in an effort to obtain information on Defendant Magalhaes (or Silva) sufficient to effectuate service under Fed. R. Civ. P. 4. The return date for that subpoena is June 15th.”

While it does seem highly unlikely that the defendant lives at the Romanian Copyright Office, email time stamps as they appear in correspondence suggest a time difference more closely aligned with Romania than Portugal, although other details tend to suggest the latter.

Gmail and Privacy

Exactly what information has been requested from Google isn’t unclear but in broad terms, Gmail and Google accounts in general can be a privacy nightmare for the unaware, even in the event Google refuses to hand anything over.

Simply knowing someone’s Gmail address can be the starting point for discovering their activities on other Google platforms that have nothing to do with email. In cases where users have previously contributed to certain Google platforms while unaware of the risks, those platforms can provide worrying amounts of location data.

In this case, none of that data relates to the Romanian Copyright Office.

Kathryn Tewson’s declaration & related documents available here (1,2,3,4,5, pdf)

Image Credit: Pixabay/succo

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

Yout Counters RIAA in Court, Quoting Lyrics & Highlighting YouTube’s Absence

Ernesto Van der Sar — Mon, 29 May 2023 11:01:05 +0000

At the end of 2020, the operator of one of the largest YouTube rippers took the unprecedented step of taking the music industry to court.

Yout.com’s Johnathan Nader was fed up with a bombardment of DMCA takedown requests and alleged defamatory claims. In response, he sued the RIAA, asking the federal court in Connecticut to declare his service non-infringing.

The RIAA and other music groups had been actively trying to remove so-called YouTube rippers from Google’s search results. The industry group had also prevailed in legal action against some of the sites but in its battle with Yout.com, the RIAA filed a motion to dismiss.

Last fall, the district court decided to dismiss the matter, handing a win to the RIAA. Judge Stefan Underhill ultimately concluded that Yout had failed to show that it doesn’t circumvent YouTube’s technological protection measures. That rendered Yout’s defamation and business disparagement claims moot.

Yout.com Appeal

Yout’s operator did not give up on the case and opted to appeal in the belief that YouTube rippers do not violate the DMCA. The argument received backing from the EFF and GitHub in their supporting amicus briefs.

The RIAA filed a lengthy response concluding that Yout is an “illicit stream-ripping service” that effectively allows people to “bypass YouTube’s technological restrictions” that prevent downloading of works streamed through YouTube. As such, the service violates the DMCA, a position supported by the Copyright Alliance.

One of the key issues in this dispute is whether YouTube actually implemented technological measures designed to control access to copyrighted works. In Yout’s response to the RIAA filed this weekend, the focus returns to the same thorny topic.

Yout’s reply brief stresses that this case was dismissed prematurely, even before both parties were allowed to conduct discovery. That’s problematic, as the lawsuit deals with key questions relating to the DMCA, many of which remain unanswered.

The Elephant-Sized Hole

The stream-ripper points out that rightsholders haven’t implemented any copy protection measures themselves. The RIAA argues that YouTube has but according to Yout’s lawyer, it still isn’t clear whether YouTube’s technical hurdles were intended to act as copyright protection measures.

“[RIAA] attempts to argue not only that it is entitled to rely on technology that it claims to have been put in place by YouTube, but that it makes no difference at all whether YouTube intended for the technology to limit the access to or the ability to copy the videos that are freely available on YouTube to anyone with an internet connection and a browser.”

This leaves an elephant-sized hole in the room. While the case centers around YouTube’s alleged copyright protections, which are presumably vital to the music industry, YouTube itself is notably absent. It didn’t file an amicus brief to back up the RIAA’s position, for example.

” […] one might have assumed that YouTube itself would have appeared on Appellants behalf as an amicus. That it did not leaves an elephant sized hole in the room,” Yout argues.

Yout says the RIAA is attempting to cover this “enormous hole with fig leaves.” For example, the music group argues that the DMCA says nothing about the ‘intent’ of presumed protection measures, but Yout says that assertion is incorrect and defies common sense.

You’re So Vain…

Yout also points out that the RIAA mischaracterizes its service. The music group repeatedly stresses that the site’s only purpose is to infringe the copyrights of its members, which prompted an interesting response.

“To paraphrase one of the RIAA members’ recording artists: You’re so vain, I bet you think this software’s about you,” Yout’s lawyers write, inspired by the lyrics of Carly Simon.

In a footnote, the attorneys apologize for this reference, but their message is serious. Music only represents a small fraction of the content on YouTube, they note, adding that Yout itself is merely a dumb ‘recording’ tool.

“The service provided by Yout is content-neutral, providing nothing more than a recording device that utilizes the very information that is freely and publicly available to anyone who cares to look for it, without the need to circumvent any technological measures.

“To the extent that the RIAA thinks otherwise, it should have the opportunity to prove that theory… at a trial following discovery,” Yout’s lawyers write.

Dismissal Should be Reversed

The brief further argues that many of the legal findings cited in the RIAA’s answering brief come from cases that were properly litigated; not ones that were dismissed at an early stage.

The parties in these cases had the opportunity to build a proper record, with expert testimonies and witnesses. Considering the important issues at stake and the outstanding disputes, Yout believes it should be allowed to do the same.

Based on these and other arguments, Yout says the District Court’s decision to dismiss the case was premature and should be reversed.

—

A copy of Yout’s reply in response to RIAA’s answering brief, filed at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the second circuit, is available here (pdf)

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

Top 10 Most Pirated Movies of The Week – 05/29/2023

Ernesto Van der Sar — Sun, 28 May 2023 23:09:40 +0000

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

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

This week we have three newcomers on the list. “John Wick: Chapter 4”, which came out as a high-quality pirate release, is the most downloaded title.

The most torrented movies for the week ending on May 29 are:

+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + +

+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +

Movie Rank	Rank last week	Movie name	IMDb Rating / Trailer
Most downloaded movies via torrent sites
1	(…)	John Wick: Chapter 4	8.0 / trailer
2	(1)	The Super Mario Bros. Movie	7.3 / trailer
3	(3)	Dungeons & Dragons: Honor Among Thieves	7.4 / trailer
4	(2)	Sisu	7.0 / trailer
5	(7)	Avatar: The Way of Water	7.8 / trailer
6	(5)	Ant-Man and the Wasp: Quantumania	6.4 / trailer
7	(4)	The Covenant	7.6 / trailer
8	(6)	Evil Dead Rise	6.9 / trailer
9	(…)	Fast X	6.3 / trailer
10	(…)	65	5.4 / trailer

+ +

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

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

Music Company Asks Google to Delist ‘YouTube Downloader’ Wikipedia Article

Ernesto Van der Sar — Sun, 28 May 2023 18:34:20 +0000

A few years ago, the RIAA started targeting YouTube ripping sites by sending relatively rare takedown requests to Google.

Instead of the usual DMCA copyright notices, the music group asked the search engine to remove various URLs for alleged violations of the DMCA’s anti-circumvention provision.

The delisting requests are supposed to make it harder for people to find ‘YouTube MP3 download’ sites in search results. However, the targeted sites have no intention of disappearing and actively fighting back, rotating to new URL structures.

While the RIAA kicked off the great purge, the music group has since received help from the British music group BPI. And more recently, the small French indie label Because Music also joined in on the action.

To the broader public, the label is relatively unknown, but owners of YouTube download sites are quite familiar with the outfit, as its takedown volume now exceeds that of the RIAA and BPI combined.

Music Company Targets Wikipedia Entry

Most of these takedown requests do indeed target YouTube downloaders. While the legality of these sites is subject to legal debate, YouTube owner Google generally accepts them as valid DMCA notices and removes the URLs.

Not all notices are flawless though. In the past, we have seen imposters abusing the takedown process to delist sites of competitors, for example. In addition, some notices appear to be quite broad, targeting sites that simply link to YouTube downloaders.

This week we spotted a notice, reportedly sent by Because Music, that falls into the latter category. In addition to streamripper URLs it also targets them indirectly, by going after a Wikipedia entry, for example.

The highlighted URL in the above notice lists Wikipedia’s “Comparison of YouTube downloaders” page. This overview links to sites that the music industry deems to be infringing, and Because Music asked Google to remove them from the search results.

Should Google ‘Censor’ Wikipedia?

At first glance, this may seem like an overbroad request. That said, music groups could make a case that this type of content shouldn’t be on Wikipedia at all. In that case, it might make more sense to complain to Wikipedia directly.

The same notice also links some other URLs that are at least one step removed from any potential DMCA violations.

There’s a link to a Facebook post, a page from traffic analytics company Similarweb, a Trustpilot review, and an uptime status checker. None of these sites host problematic content, but they mention or link to YouTube downloaders so should be delisted, according to the music company.

The same applies to sites that host apps. The takedown notice also lists a Chrome and Firefox addon, as well as a Softonic page that provides a list of Android and Windows-based YouTube downloaders.

Ironically, Because Music’s DMCA notice also lists a Soundcloud page that mentions Yt1s.com, likely because someone used the YouTube downloader to rip tracks that were then posted to the site.

While most of these links remain in Google’s search results, the links to Similarweb and Updownradar are no longer indexed. Whether this was done automatically or after a deliberate review is unknown. The Wikipedia page remains online.

The Big Delisting Battle Continues

Whether Google should or shouldn’t take action, is ultimately something a court would have the final say on. However, the above shows that the big delisting battle is slowly edging towards indirect takedowns.

We have to say, though, that it’s often hard to see which takedowns are real and which ones were sent by imposters. The one we highlight here was presumably sent by a French label Because Music but, according to Google, it was sent from Burundi, which seems odd.

By now, YouTube downloaders should be familiar with these delisting efforts. TorrentFreak spoke to the operator of a large number of sites, who prefers to stay anonymous. He has noticed a clear uptick in suspicious and broad requests but tries to get around them to remain in search results.

“I have quite a few sites, hundreds to be specific. It is my strategy to fight Google core updates and delistings,” the site owner explains.

“Sometimes it actually helps, when your competition disappears from Google, if even for a few hours. But these days ‘delisters’ instantly see your site coming up through ranks and delist it too,” he adds.

This doesn’t mean that the takedown notices and delistings have no effect at all. Dealing with this problem is slowly starting to take its toll. At least on some of the people that run these sites.

“I am honestly considering a different way of making money.. they are winning,” the operator says, half-jokingly.

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

A BitTorrent Client WebUI Shouldn’t Be Shared With The Entire Internet

Andy Maxwell — Sat, 27 May 2023 20:41:31 +0000

The word ‘open’ in a connected world can be something positive. Open source, for example, or open library. On other occasions the opposite can be true; unnecessary ports left open on a router springs to mind.

For millions of people using devices that appear to configure themselves, whether something is open or closed is irrelevant. If a device immediately works as promised, oftentimes that’s good enough. The problem with some internet-connected devices is that in order to immediately work in the hands of a novice, security gives way to ease of use, and that can end in disaster.

Torrent Client WebUI

Many of today’s torrent clients can be operated via a web interface, commonly known as a WebUI. A typical WebUI is accessed via a web browser, with the client’s IP address and a specified port number providing remote access.

In a LAN environment (the part of a network behind the router, such as a home) the torrent client’s web interface serves local users, i.e those with direct access to the local network, typically via Wifi. The problems begin when a torrent client’s WebUI is exposed to the wider internet. In broad terms, instead of the client being restricted to IP addresses reserved for local uses (starting 192.168.0.0 or 10.0.0.0), anyone with a web browser anywhere in the world can access the UI too.

In many cases, a WebUI can be secured with a password or by other means but when users are allowed to do that themselves, many never do, despite the warnings. That could end in disaster if the wrong person decides to let rip from the other side of the world.

Specialized Search Engines

Internet-connected devices are easily found using services such as Shodan, Censys, Fofa and Onyphe.io and those that are poorly configured are in plentiful supply.

The image above shows a WebUI for the Tixati torrent client. With zero security, everything is on full display, just as it is for the person who operates the client, whoever they might be. This means that all downloads and uploads can be browsed, including data related to those transfers, as seen below.

It can take just a couple of minutes to find hundreds of open clients. A common WebUI seen in the wild belongs to qBittorrent but the overwhelming majority are locked down, just as they should be.

That’s Not Ideal

For reasons that aren’t entirely clear, the Android torrent client ‘tTorrent‘ is quite popular in Russia.

It’s possible that people install tTorrent on always-on set-top boxes, so the latest movies are ready to go as soon as they get home from work, or the local bar. The problem here is that with an entirely exposed WebUI, people can find out what Russians are downloading.

The average Russian citizen probably won’t mind if outsiders discover their Mortal Kombat habit; they made the decision to download it, so that’s that.

But what if strangers passing by in the night had influence over content consumed locally? What if those strangers decided to utilize their control of an open WebUI to share news from the other side of the world, downloaded directly to their new friend’s Android device?

If they did, it might look a lot like this….

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

2.5 Billion Visits: ACE Targets 9anime Among Several Pirate Anime Sites

Andy Maxwell — Fri, 26 May 2023 20:40:58 +0000

In the face of legislation designed to thwart its growth, seizures, prosecutions, dozens of arrests and countless prison sentences have done little to prevent piracy.

Anti-piracy enforcement actions, including dozens by the Alliance for Creativity and Entertainment, have taken hundreds of sites out of the game. That’s a solid base for arguing that piracy volumes could’ve been much worse without so much enforcement.

The reality is that sites continue to emerge with some notable examples generating extraordinary levels of traffic, at a scale never seen before. History tells us that won’t continue indefinitely; pirate sites may come and go but Hollywood is in for the long haul – and then some.

9anime: Huge, Successful, and a Prime Target

One of the current batch of piracy behemoths is 9anime, a free streaming platform dedicated to Japanese cartoons. It currently receives in excess of 214 million visits per month, an incredible 2.5+ billion per year.

A DMCA subpoena application filed at a California court on Thursday shows that ACE has not given up on its plan to reduce 9anime’s traffic to zero. Like many times before, ACE – via the MPA – wants Cloudflare to give up information on its customers, 9anime included.

This information typically includes names, physical addresses, IP addresses,
+telephone numbers, email addresses, and payment information. However, ACE also seeks additional information relating to account updates and histories, which could help to fill in some crucial blanks when combined with intelligence obtained elsewhere.

There’s no doubt that 9anime will remain a priority enforcement target. At the time of writing the 9animetv.to domain is ranked #164 globally and with over 30% of that traffic coming from inside the United States, it represents one of the squeakiest wheels in the entire online piracy market.

Sites Under The Spotlight

Also mentioned in Thursday’s applications is allanime.to, a site offering anime, manga (Japanese comics) and associated music. The domain became popular in February and since then traffic has increased considerably, to a current level of around 4.7 million visits per month. In common with 9anime, over a third of allanime’s traffic comes from the United States, assisted by social media referrals, the majority on YouTube.

Two other anime-focused domains – animefreak.site and animet.site – also get a mention. The former receives under half a million visits per month according to SimilarWeb, with the latter apparently receiving just a couple of thousand.

With no obvious public web presence and a domain that won’t resolve, Anifastcdn.info receives no traffic at all by most accounts, but that’s certainly not the case. While the platform uses Cloudflare in the United States, its servers appear to be on the other side of the Atlantic and not that difficult to find either, certainly for an operation like ACE.

Cloud Storage

Two other platforms attracting ACE interest have more visible levels of traffic. Ninjashare.to heads the list as a growing platform; after pulling in 11.8m monthly visits in February, the cloud storage platform received 15.8 million in April.

Also mentioned in the DMCA subpoena application is rapid-cloud.co, a storage platform sporting Vidcloud branding and around 4.5 million monthly visits. According to ACE, specific content accessed via rapid-cloud actually came from betterstream.cc, which also has no obvious public web presence but does have significant traffic.

When Cloudflare hands over information to ACE, it may prove informative but there’s a reasonable chance the data won’t amount to some big reveal. But it might eventually, so as long as these and similar sites are in business, ACE can return to court again and again to obtain subpoenas just like this one, for less than $50 a pop.

It will probably continue to do that, for as long as it takes.

Image Credit: Pixabay/geralt

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

Court Orders Instagram to Expose Pirates, Boot Their Accounts, and Purge URLs

Ernesto Van der Sar — Fri, 26 May 2023 11:23:51 +0000

Similar to any other online platform that deals with user-generated content, Instagram processes copyright complaints on a daily basis.

Most of these arrive in the form of DMCA notices, in which rightsholders requests the removal of a specific image, video, or URL.

The number of removals runs in the hundreds of thousands during a typical month, without getting noticed by the public at large, but if Instagram users continue to post copyright infringing content, they risk losing their accounts.

Takedown Trouble Triggers Lawsuit

This takedown policy is widely accepted as the standard for social media services but every now and then, disputes can arise. In India, one such dispute turned into a legal battle in which the Bombay High Court issued a broad injunction earlier this month.

The lawsuit in question was filed by Applause Entertainment, the Indian company behind the TV-series “Scam 1992”. The series covers the 1992 Indian stock market scam, adapted from Debashis Basu’s book The Scam.

The TV production is licensed to Sony LIV and was a huge success. However, as often happens with popular media, pirated footage was readily available too. Not just on pirate sites, but also on otherwise legitimate social media platforms.

Applause Entertainment wasn’t happy with this pirate activity so it approached several platforms to take down infringing clips and snippets of the show. Instagram was one of the recipients but, instead of taking immediate action, the platform asked for proof of ownership.

The company responded to this correspondence with relevant ownership documents but, apparently, Instagram still wasn’t convinced. This standoff prompted Applause to take the matter to the Bombay High Court, where it requested an ex-parte injunction.

Court Issues Broad Injunction

The High Court concluded, after reviewing the evidence, that the studio does own the rights so Instagram must take action. This isn’t out of the ordinary but the court went further than simply asking the infringing posts to be removed.

As highlighted by the law blog SpicyIP, the court issued a so-called dynamic injunction, which goes much further than a simple takedown request.

In addition to removing the pirated clips, Instagram must also terminate the accounts of 33 affected users, while handing over their personal details including email addresses, phone numbers, and physical locations.

Specifically, Instagram must disclose personal user data, “including but not limited to the contact details, mobile numbers, email addresses, IP addresses and physical locations / addresses of Defendant Nos. 2 to 34.”

The injunction’s scope doesn’t stop there. In addition to removing the reported posts, Instagram must also remove other infringing URLs from its platform. This implies broader filtering and could affect other users who shared similar links. The same applies to other “rogue handles” that the users potentially used.

A Blunt Anti-Piracy Tool?

According to SpicyIP, the court appears to put Instagram users in the same category as pirate websites. Previously, the court ordered flagrantly infringing pirate sites and their ‘mirrors’ to be blocked, but social media accounts might require a different treatment.

There are no signs that the court investigated the user accounts, so it’s possible that some posts were relatively innocent. Alternatively, they may be classified as fair use.

“There is the possibility that of these defendants a few of could have been genuine social media handles that have several legitimate pieces of content, and that there was a ‘mere re-sharing’ of the content in question in one shared reel or post.

“There is also the possibility that the handles, used the ‘short audio-visual’ clippings to make Instagram reels. This could have included licensed content from other sources, or fair dealing uses,” SpicyIP adds.

The court order doesn’t go onto detail on the nature of the posts, so it’s hard to draw any strong conclusions. In any case, the High Court has shown once again that copyright infringement matters are taken rather seriously in India.

Whether Instagram plans to challenge the injunction is unknown. Telegram previously did so when it was ordered to expose alleged copyright infringers, but that challenge failed.

—

A copy of the order issued by the Bombay High Court is available here (pdf)

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

‘Trusted Flagger’ Anti-Piracy Tools Raise Concern at US Chamber of Commerce

Andy Maxwell — Thu, 25 May 2023 18:56:02 +0000

The US Chamber of Commerce 2023 International IP Index report is a pretty big read at 213 pages, but for those interested in intellectual property matters, it’s an interesting one too.

The report benchmarks the IP frameworks in 55 major economies and rates them based on how effectively they protect all kinds of intellectual property. Countries and regions with a reputation for cracking down on infringement tend to gravitate towards the top of the index but that doesn’t prevent the Chamber of Commerce from offering criticism.

European Union Criticized For Complexity

For the last two years, the European Commission has expended significant resources on two new pieces of legislation known as the Digital Markets Act (DMA) and the Digital Services Act (DSA). Their overall goal is to improve online safety and protect citizens’ fundamental rights, while ensuring that digital markets are both fair and open.

Time will tell how that all works out but for now, over-complication appears to have led to a level of frustration in the United States. The Chamber introduces the DSA as a “sprawling piece of legislation granting vast regulatory and monitoring powers” before noting the plethora of categorizations that hope to encompass all kinds of online platforms.

“The law is full of definitions and categorizations of different providers of online ‘intermediary services,’ including ‘caching, mere conduit, hosting, online platforms, very large online platforms, and very large online search engines. Some of these categories are transplanted from preexisting definitions under the E-Commerce Directive, whereas others are new,” the report notes.

“[T]hese categories are fluid, and entities may, at different moments, be one or another or a combination of these categories with differing levels of accompanying compliance and reporting responsibilities. Consequently, an entity’s legal obligation and responsibilities may change rather significantly depending on what category of service provider the entity was at a given moment.”

Trusted Flaggers Fail to Impress

Major rightsholders and some governments have been promoting the use of so-called ‘trusted flaggers’ to help tackle infringement. These entities could be companies, organizations or even an individual, but the key element is that they are trusted to make good decisions on the takedown, removal or blocking of content, directly on the platforms where content is found.

The concepts around this tend to vary, but a basic example might include a third-party acting on behalf of a rightsholder having direct access to a video platform’s panel and being allowed to flag content for deletion themselves. Trusted flaggers have been mentioned as potentially useful in rapid site-blocking actions and live stream takedowns, through to the removal of listings on social media advertising sundry infringing goods.

As the Chamber of Commerce points out, such takedown notices must be “processed and decided upon with priority and without undue delay,” but not all rightsholders have the resources to employ a trusted flagger to do their work. So what about their rights?

“[G]iven the sheer scale and volume of illegal and IP-infringing content on the internet, what will happen with notifications filed by non-trusted flaggers? Will such notices be addressed in an expeditious fashion or deprioritized by intermediaries in favor of notices filed solely by trusted flaggers?” the report asks.

“As currently drafted, that is a logical and not unlikely outcome. Furthermore, although the creation of the trusted flagger concept may help standardize and professionalize the notification process, it may also prove to be largely ineffective and, in fact, act as a barrier to effective enforcement.

“The creation of what is, in effect, an online enforcement gatekeeper adds a hurdle and layer of bureaucracy to an already elaborate enforcement process,” the report concludes.

The 2023 International IP Index report is available here

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

Pirate IPTV Data Center Raid Took Down Several Innocent Websites

Ernesto Van der Sar — Thu, 25 May 2023 10:02:19 +0000

The Internet is littered with shady IPTV services that offer a lot, for very little money.

These deals often seem too good to be true and in most cases they are; at least for those who prefer to stay on the right side of the law.

Pirate IPTV Raid

This week, Dutch fiscal police (FIOD) landed a major success in the battle against this type of piracy by shutting down one of Europe’s largest IPTV operations. This wasn’t just a random target either. The operation presumably offered its services to countless smaller IPTV sellers, which served over a million subscribers.

Little detail was released about the main defendants but authorities report that four people were arrested. The available information also suggests that GLOBE Datacenter was a key target. This makes sense as its website and network have been offline for two days now, downtime matched by the company’s Twitter feed.

Speaking with TorrentFreak, FIOD confirmed that it won’t release any names of suspects at this point. However, police say that 1,200 servers were intentionally taken offline at a data center, which was allegedly operated by one of the main suspects.

New Servers for GLOBE (via)

While IPTV raids are not rare, we seldom see an entire commercial data center taken offline in the process. This would suggest that police had information that the hardware and network were almost exclusively used to facilitate the alleged criminal activity.

Legitimate Businesses go Offline

Looking at the sites that were hosted on GLOBE’s autonomous system number (AS212708), we indeed see many IPTV-related domains and IP-addresses. These include nextiptv.org, iptvextrema.com, mercuryiptv.com and many others.

There are some clear outliers too, including local businesses such as a vacation rental park, painters, a dentist, a pedicure salon, a crane company, and a typically Dutch flower bulbs seller. These and many other sites became unreachable and are still offline today.

Unrelated flower bulbs company goes offline

Needless to say, these businesses are not suspects in any way. The sites were hosted on a shared IP-address – assigned to a smaller ‘local’ hosting company – that happened to use GLOBE’s infrastructure. Unfortunately, the damage is real.

Real Companies, Real Trouble

TorrentFreak spoke to a representative of one of the companies involved, who confirmed that its website was taken down in the raid. This understandably caused a lot of issues, as customers and clients often visit a company’s website to get in touch or make a booking.

From what we can see, the fallout is relatively contained to a few dozen domains. That said, those who are affected still have to deal with the fallout. For several companies, email accounts stopped working as well, causing more issues.

When confronted with this collateral damage, a FIOD spokesperson initially told us that unrelated sites were not supposed to be hit. We were asked us to compile a list of affected websites which we sent via email yesterday. This list actually wasn’t hard to find using public information.

One of the affected companies informed us today that they were approached by FIOD after the raid, but it’s unclear if and how the situation will be resolved. We approached FIOD for comment and received a response shortly before publication.

Fiscal Police Responds

FIOD and the prosecution service (OM) confirmed that the data center was in large part used for illegal purposes. It appears that one of the employees, a suspect in this case, also operated a hosting company for small and mid-sized companies (SMEs).

“The decision to shut down the data center in question was prompted by the fact that our investigation showed that the majority of the data center consisted of illegal (video streaming) services. On-site investigations confirmed this,” FIOD’s spokesperson says.

“One of the employees of the data center, also a suspect in the investigation, apparently had the additional function of providing IT services to SMEs. These companies are the victims of the aforementioned illegal main function of the data center, on which FIOD and OM had to act.”

The data of the innocent companies has not been seized and FIOD encourages the GLOBE employee who operated their hosting company to assist in the recovery of the affected websites.

“FIOD and OM do their best to ensure that the relevant SMEs have access to their data. The servers on which this data is stored are not seized. FIOD and OM also encourage the aforementioned employee from the data center to represent the interests of these companies,” the FIOD spokesperson said.

When hundreds of servers are taken offline it is hard to completely rule out collateral damage. The same happened when The Pirate Bay and Megaupload were raided. In this case, however, it seems that more research could have potentially prevented some of the fallout.

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