Last December, Paramount, Universal, Warner, Columbia, Disney and Netflix sued longtime pirate streaming site PrimeWire.

The companies accused PrimeWire of encouraging site users to upload links to pirated content and facilitating access to these movies and TV shows through an organized index, in violation of copyright law.

According to the plaintiffs, VOD services such as Disney+, HBO Max, Hulu, Netflix, Paramount+ and Peacock have been harmed by the existence of PrimeWire. As a result, they demanded millions in damages for copyright infringement and later obtained a preliminary injunction.

The injunction ordered PrimeWire to cease its illegal activities and also required registrars and domain name registries to disable three PrimeWire domains. While primewire.ag was indeed suspended, the site continued operations using two others after they were transferred to a new registrar who did nothing.

The studios then ask the court for a permanent injunction which will retain the defendants and will tackle the appearance of new areas. They also sought permission to conduct findings on third-party companies linked to PrimeWire in order to make an accurate claim for damages.

PrimeWire removes all links to pirated content

Although the PrimeWire operators did not appear in court to defend themselves, they are aware of the complaint. In January, it emerged that the site was preparing for domain seizures and taking steps to overcome them. Last week, PrimeWire took further action by “relaunching” via a new domain (primewire.tf) and revealing changes to the site.

“Due to recent legal action, it is possible that the current domains may be frozen or seized. To prevent the new domain from being seized, certain changes will be made to the site to comply with possible temporary and future permanent injunctions” , indicates an announcement on the site.

PrimeWire doesn’t implicitly state what the changes are, but anyone browsing the site looking for content will quickly find that all links to pirated movies and TV shows have been removed. It’s an interesting decision under the circumstances.

If PrimeWire is set to continue without providing links to pirated content, users of the site are unlikely to stick around for long. A pirate streaming site without pirated content is really just a site, and most pirates expect little more than movie covers, IMDb ratings, and airtimes.

The big question then is whether this decision is permanent or simply designed to disrupt the granting of a functional permanent injunction.

Either way, studios have been following developments closely. In a notice filed with the court on Saturday, they insist that whether or not there is infringing content on the new domain, they are always entitled to an injunction, including against the new PrimeWire domain.

Studios Believe PrimeWire Plays Games

According to a statement from MPA anti-piracy chief Jan van Voorn, the new site operating from PrimeWire.tf is “largely identical” to previous incarnations of PrimeWire and, as of March 8, 2022, featured content at least counterfeit. However, tests carried out on March 9 revealed that the usual links to pirated content had been removed.

The court submission goes on to suggest that “[T]The removal of certain links to unauthorized streams does not necessarily mean that such streams are not currently available through primewire.tf. To support this notion, the MPA highlights two buttons labeled “Watch Now” and “Download” on the PrimeWire site that lead to another site that requires credit card information to access.

The MPA does not provide any evidence to say that it has verified the infringing content, but it’s pretty clear that the buttons actually lead to a very questionable subscription trap type platform run by an affiliate program and operated by a third party. Links to these sites appear on many pirate platforms and for those who choose to sign up, only disappointment and regret await. Especially since they rarely deliver the content they promise.

Nonetheless, the MPA has stronger claims elsewhere, including that PrimeWire still operates its “Submit a Link” system that gathers links to content that will later appear in PrimeWire’s indexes. These links are not displayed at this time, but under the law it does not necessarily matter.

Cessation of infringement does not preclude injunction

As the MPA rightly points out, removing the infringing links could be a ploy to undermine its request for a permanent injunction. Logic says that if there are no links, there is also no infringement, but that is not how things work.

The US Supreme Court has previously said that when a defendant voluntarily ceases illegal activity, it is the defendant who faces the “tremendous burden” of proving that the same type of illegal activity will not recur.

In this case, the PrimeWire operators are choosing not to appear in court, so this is arguably the worst possible basis for someone trying to convince the court of anything. Second, the MPA believes that the evasive action taken so far (new domains, etc.) is a sign of bad faith, which includes an announcement by PrimeWire that the site will “continue to operate as normal” after the domain change. .

“The defendants do not deserve the benefit of any doubt. If Defendants genuinely intend to keep links to Plaintiffs’ copyrighted works off of their new PrimeWire website, Defendants may appear, demonstrate, and seek relief in this Court,” the Court advises. MPA in court.

“That is not their intention. The defendants tried similar tactics of switching domains when their websites were blocked in other countries. All the evidence indicates that they will do the same here if the domain www .primewire.tf is not included in the injunction.Defendants will be able to restore the links as quickly as they remove them.

Modified permanent injunction and partial default

In conclusion, the MPA proposes a modified permanent injunction which covers the same ground as before but with the inclusion of primewire.tf. This basically prevents PrimeWire from infringing the rights of the studios in any way and includes a proposed order that would require PrimeWire to divest all of its domains to plaintiffs.

If PrimeWire fails to deliver them, the MPA wants the court to order associated domain registrars (and if necessary, registries) to transfer them to studios or disable them until they expire.

Documents filed by the MPA with the court can be found here (1,2,3, pdf)

House > Anti-piracy > Withdrawals and seizures >

Two of the biggest movie and TV streaming piracy sites have had their domain names suspended in recent days. Targets include Lookmovie and Cuevana3, both of which have millions of regular visitors. The suspensions, issued by the .io domain registry, are likely related to copyright issues. However, the two sites are not giving up and have quickly moved to new homes.

Over the years, pirate streaming services have eclipsed torrent sites and direct download portals in popularity.

These streaming sites are seen as a huge problem in Hollywood, which has made shutting them down a priority.

The MPA and ACE are actively trying to find out who is behind these sites, through DMCA submissions for example. However, there are also other ways to access these streaming portals. This includes pursuing their domain names.

Rights holders regularly complain to domain registries and registrars about pirate sites. Most of these companies prefer not to get involved without a court order, but sometimes we see action on this front.

Lookmovie.io and Cuevana3.io disconnect

A few days ago, the .io registry “removed” two of the biggest pirate streaming sites. Lookmovie.io and Cuevana3.io suddenly stopped resolving after their domain status was changed to “ServerHold”. The same goes for the slightly smaller Emovies.io site.

This status, set by the domain registry, effectively renders the domain unusable. Although no official explanation is available, it is reasonable to assume that this action was triggered by a copyright complaint.

TorrentFreak has contacted the .io registry, hoping to find out more, but so far we haven’t heard back.

At this point, we can only speculate on the forces behind domain suspensions. With this in mind, it should be noted that the .io registry was purchased by Afilias a few years ago, which was acquired by Donuts shortly thereafter.

The Donuts link is crucial because the MPA has a “trusted notifier” agreement with the company that allows the Hollywood group to report pirate sites, whose domains can then be suspended. The same seems to have happened to Watchsomuch and Watchseries last week.

Resilient streaming sites

Although the loss of a domain name temporarily hurts a site’s traffic, Lookmovie and Cuevana3 have no intention of throwing in the towel. In fact, Lookmovie quickly switched to lookmovie2.to and, in addition to explaining what happened, the operator took the opportunity to announce a new design.

“[The domain suspension] happened without any prior warning from our Registrar or anyone else. Whether they knew but couldn’t tell us, whether they didn’t want to tell us or whether they didn’t know, the fact remains that the field is pretty much dead,” says Lookmovie.

“The domain may be down, but we are not. We were planning to release a fresh new design of the website with new features in the next few days, but since we are already at this stage, what the heck… we have done so now on our new domain – lookmovie2.to”

Lookmovie warns its users not to fall into the trap of fake sites and other copycats. To point people in the right direction, the operator has released a list of over a dozen official backup domains, in case those are needed in the future.

Cuevana knows the drill

Similarly, Cuevana3 isn’t going anywhere either. The site would have been moved to cuevana3.me where visitors are greeted with the following message, translated from Spanish.

“Dear users, thank you all for the great support you give us on social networks, especially on Twitter. We want to ask you to add the hashtag: #Cuevana3.me so people aren’t confused with the clones. »

If the MPA and the ACE are indeed at the origin of these suspensions of domain names, it should not be surprising to see that the targeted sites take countermeasures. After all, this isn’t the first time this has happened.

Last year, ACE announced that it had shut down Cuevana. Following a cease and desist letter, 30 Cuevana-related domain names were assigned to the film industry group. However, Cuevana wasn’t completely down, as the .io domain name was still up and running and thriving.

So far, there is no indication that this mole game is about to end any time soon. At least not by looking for replaceable domain names.

House > Anti-piracy > Site blocking >

Popular feed mining site Yout.com continues to use various site blocking measures around the world. In Peru, the court agreed that ISPs are no longer required to block since the expiry of the precautionary injunction. However, ISPs have yet to lift the blockade. Meanwhile, in Spain, the Supreme Court denied hearing Yout’s appeal.

The music industry has lobbied for site blocking measures around the world, with some success.

Among the main targets are popular stream mining services. This includes Yout.com, which is operated by US developer Johnathan Nader.

Unlike many of his peers, Nader doesn’t just take those block orders while lying down. On the contrary, wherever possible, it actively challenges them in court, as we have seen in Denmark, Spain and Brazil.

The Brazilian appeal was a first success as the court lifted the ISP blockade. However, that didn’t last. When the authorities officially announced that Yout.com would be prosecuted, the blocking measures were reinstated.

Stream-Ripper blockades in Peru

In Peru, a similar problem has arisen. Last spring, local ISPs were ordered to block Yout.com and other feed-scraping sites as a precaution, while authorities conducted their investigations for possible legal action against the sites.

The temporary blocking measure came at the request of the government agency INDECOPI, which works closely with rights holder groups such as IFPI. Authorities claim that stream grabbing sites allow users to download content from YouTube without permission.

Interestingly, the content cited in the complaint is not music related. Instead, it lists shorts such as “Hair Love” and “Almost Home.”

According to the initial injunction, the blockages were to remain in place for 30 days. However, almost a year has passed and several major Peruvian ISPs are still blocking Yout.com and other sites.

Your call’

This prompted the Yout.com operator to hire a local lawyer to appeal the injunction to Peru’s Competition and Intellectual Property Tribunal. In a decision issued a few days ago, the court clarified that there is no legal obligation for ISPs to continue blocking sites.

“…to date, no complaint or sanction procedure has been initiated with regard to the work mentioned in Table 1; therefore, the Chamber finds that the disputed precautionary measure has expired,” writes the court’s Intellectual Property Chamber (translated pdf).

While this sounds like a win for Yout.com, in reality the issue is more complicated. Since the court concludes that the precautionary measure no longer applies, it cannot be appealed either.

“There is no need to rule on the appeal against the injunction pronounced in the first instance, filed by Yout LLC”, writes the court.

The problem for Yout is that ISPs still block the site, even though they are not legally required to do so. The site’s lawyer contacted both INDECOPI and the ISPs, urging them to lift the expired measures.

If ISPs choose to keep the blocks in place, Yout can potentially file a formal complaint in court. However, this will likely take months to materialize and significantly increase legal costs.

No appeal possible in Spain

In addition to the problematic situation in Peru, Yout.com also suffered a setback in Spain last week. The stream-ripper site is also blocked there, but this command was not easy to find.

Through the RIAA, Yout’s lawyers finally learned that the blockade, which also targets several other stream-rippers, was ordered by a Barcelona court following a complaint from anti-piracy group AGEDI.

Yout then filed a formal appeal in the Supreme Court of Spain. Among other things, the site objected that it was in no way involved in the blocking lawsuit.

The Supreme Court declined to hear this appeal because Yout.com is not a party to the legal proceedings. This was, ironically, one of the main reasons the appeal was filed in the first place.

According to Yout’s Spanish lawyers, there are still legal options, but they estimate the chances of successfully overturning the order at less than 1% now.

Frustrating

Speaking to TorrentFreak, Yout’s operator indicated that he was frustrated with all the legal roadblocks that keep popping up. However, it will continue to fight against these blocking measures as far as possible.

“I’m thrilled: After the RIAA informed us of legal actions and proceedings we weren’t aware of in other countries; I was able to at least show myself and defend myself,” Nader told us.

In addition to the blocking cases, Yout has also filed a lawsuit against the RIAA in the United States, hoping to have the site declared legal there. This case is still ongoing.

House > Anti-piracy >

As part of the US Trade Representative’s annual Special 301 Review, Peru provided a detailed update on its copyright enforcement plans and achievements. Peru’s intellectual property protection authority reports that it has partnered with music industry group IFPI, which will help identify and block problematic sites, including stream scraping services.

Each year, the US Trade Representative releases a new update to its Special 301 Report, highlighting countries that are failing to meet US copyright protection standards.

The annual overview is intended to motivate foreign governments to improve policy and legislation in favor of US copyright owners.

This year’s list will be released in a few weeks. One of the “nominated” countries is Peru, which is closely watched by rights holders. In response to the various questions that have been raised, the Peruvian National Institute for the Defense of Competition and the Protection of Intellectual Property (INDECOPI) sent an update of its plans and achievements to the USTR.

Peru pledges to fight online piracy

These diplomatic updates are not new. However, they can sometimes offer better insight into the collaboration between states and private organizations that usually remains behind closed doors.

This is also the case with the last letter from Peru. Responding to questions and comments from rights holders, INDECOPI informs USTR that the fight against online piracy remains a priority.

Over the past year, the government organization has asked ISPs to block several stream mining sites, for example, and those efforts will continue.

“INDECOPI will continue the monitoring and surveillance in the digital environment of suspected piracy sites for the year 2022 and will take the corresponding measures to block illegal sites that would allow the downloading of works under the modality of stream ripping, as well only with regard to the transmission of sporting events via streaming.

Collaboration with the IFPI

To ensure nothing is left to chance, INDECOPI has teamed up with global music industry group IFPI, which it describes as one of its allies in the fight against online piracy.

IFPI puts pirate sites on the Peruvian government’s radar, but it also offers training and education, so that relevant authorities can increase their anti-piracy skills.

“INDECOPI has just signed a memorandum of understanding with IFPI a few days ago […] jointly implement cooperation mechanisms, particularly in terms of training and the exchange of information for the detection […] websites, as well as mobile and desktop applications, through which allegedly unlawful acts are committed or contributed to.

Information and education

Among other things, the IFPI will share information about infringing sites with the authorities. INDECOPI can then use this information to take legal action.

Last year, the government had already requested the blocking of 17 Internet sites by ISPs. These include the FLVto.biz, Y2Mate and Yout.com stream extraction services. However, with the help of the music industry, this list is expected to grow over the coming year.

IFPI has confirmed to TorrentFreak that it has signed a cooperation agreement with the Peruvian Intellectual Property Authority. One of the main goals is to exchange intelligence on the music piracy landscape and to contribute to ongoing blocking efforts and related investigations.

It is quite common for rights holders and their representatives to be involved in site blocking proceedings, whether through legal action or administrative proceedings. However, this is the first time we’ve seen it featured as a collaboration.

In addition to IFPI, Peru has also partnered with the Spanish Ministry of Culture and Sports. The two countries will join forces to fight online piracy and other copyright infringing activities.

—

A copy of INDECOPI’s letter to USTR is available here (pdf).

House > Anti-piracy > DMCA >

Google’s voluntary anti-piracy measures have gradually expanded over the years, resulting in unique responses. When Google removes an allegedly copyright infringing URL from its search engine, it also disables advertisements on that URL. Additionally, the search engine has added a “still live/preview” tag to DMCA notices, so flagged sites can be punished more severely.

About 25 years ago, Google started its business as a simple and straightforward search engine.

The startup quickly captured a dominant market share and branched out into other businesses, including online advertising and video streaming.

Google is now a leading player in all of these markets. This brings in annual revenues of hundreds of billions of dollars, an amount that continues to grow at a rapid rate. At the same time, however, complaints from copyright owners have also increased.

To address these complaints, Google’s parent company, Alphabet, has implemented a wide variety of complementary anti-piracy measures. An overview of these technologies was recently shared with the US Copyright Office, which revealed some things we weren’t aware of.

The submission (pdf) is part of the Copyright Office’s investigation of technological copyright protection measures, which could be used as input for a new and improved version of the DMCA.

According to Google, there is no need for new legislation. The company points out that it is already taking extensive voluntary measures to combat piracy and promote a healthy internet.

Punish piracy research before release

This arsenal of anti-piracy measures includes demoting pirate sites in search results. Google started doing this ten years ago. This basically means that if Google receives a high number of takedown requests for a particular domain name, other results from the same site are also downgraded.

This system has been optimized over the years. For example, Google can now detect if a site is moving to a new domain name so that downgrade signals are carried over.

A DMCA takedown feature that is new to us is that rightsholders can now indicate whether reported content is unreleased or still in theaters. When this is the case, Google can take even stricter measures.

“[W]We’ve added an “still live/preview” tag for DMCA notices involving this category of content to improve the search demotion signal,” Google writes.

We assume that this “pre-release” flag will result in a stricter downgrade penalty, but Google does not provide further details on this.

DMCA demonetization

Another search-related metric that is new to us relates to Google’s advertising activities. When the company receives a takedown notice for an infringing URL in its search engine, the response doesn’t stop there.

If the reported site contains Google ads, these will be automatically disabled at the same time. At the same time, searches, where the reported URL appeared, will also be removed from ads.

“When a URL is removed from search following a DMCA notice, all Google ads served on that page are automatically disabled. We also will not serve ads on search that link to removed pages,” Google wrote. .

It’s interesting how a targeted takedown notice on search results automatically affects another Google product. This certainly amplifies the punishment, but it also leads to more collateral damage for misidentified URLs.

At the same time, one wonders where this integration stops. Could the next step be to block these URLs in the Chrome browser as well?

Fingerprints and hash matching

The overview shared by Google also includes other widely known anti-piracy technologies such as YouTube’s Content ID. This system handles four million complaints a day and handles 98% of all copyright issues on the video platform.

Auto-recognition tools are not exclusive to YouTube, however. Google Drive also uses hash matching to prevent public sharing of content previously flagged as infringing.

This hash match, which also takes place on YouTube, ensures that infringing content remains hidden, or at least out of public view.

This technology is not perfect. The hash filter recently flagged text files containing only a 0 or a 1 as copyright infringement. And it seems that macOS ‘.DS_Store’ files are also mistakenly flagged.

It’s safe to say that Google is in a tough spot. The company must find a balance between helping rightsholders and satisfying its customers. Most people are fine with infringing content being removed as long as it is done without collateral damage. And in recent experience, that’s easier said than done.

Public aversion to automated takedown tools also emerged from the Copyright Office consultation. This sparked thousands of responses from the public, many of which took a critical stance towards download filters and similar technologies.

House > Anti-piracy > Site blocking >

A new amendment to Greek copyright law allows domain names and IP addresses of pirate livestream sources to be blocked 24 hours before the start of an event. The legislation primarily benefits sports rights holders. So far, at least 362 domain names and 185 IP addresses have been blocked, preventing more than 100,000 people from watching pirated streams.

Blocking pirate sites was a novelty ten years ago, but today it is common practice in many countries. This is also true for Greece, where the first domains were targeted in 2018.

These blocking requests are managed by the EDPPI, a special commission of the Greek Ministry of Culture and Sports which acts on complaints from rights holders.

The Greek system is different from that of many other countries because it does not involve judicial review. This is an administrative procedure that allows copyright holders to quickly request the blocking of pirate sites, without the need for lengthy and costly legal proceedings.

Since the program began, copyright holders have submitted 46 blocking requests, targeting hundreds of domain names. This includes local pirate portals but also mainstream sites such as The Pirate Bay, 1337x and YTS.

New preventive blocks

Under the due process, a total of 485 domain names have been blocked so far. However, with the help of an amendment to Greek copyright law, it is now possible to request the blocking of “live” pirate streams as well.

The amendment grants the EDPPI the power to issue preventive live blocking orders against domain names and IP addresses that provide access to live streams, such as sporting events.

These commands are sent to local ISPs at least 24 hours before the start of a live broadcast. These providers are then required to act quickly and risk being fined for every day they fail to comply.

This new amendment was adopted a few months ago and has already given rise to various complaints. Rights holders of top sporting events such as the Champions League, Premier League, MotoGP, Formula 1, ATP and NBA.

In total, the EDDPI issued 21 live blocking orders, ordering Greek ISPs to block at least 362 domain names and 185 IP addresses. These are mainly related to streaming portals or unauthorized IPTV services.

Legal options

Visitors attempting to access one of the blocked domain names are now redirected to a personalized landing page informing them that they have been blocked by EDDPI. At the same time, visitors are encouraged to research legal alternatives.

Blocking message (automatically translated)

Legal options are available on the “Enjoy Legal” website. This is part of the EU Intellectual Property Office’s Agorateka initiative, which keeps track of all authorized digital entertainment options in Europe.

These and other anti-piracy efforts were also shared with the US Trade Representative this week. According to the Hellenic Copyright Organization, the landing page has had more than 300,000 views since its launch on December 13, 2021.

“Since then, and up to February 11, 2022, it has been viewed over 330,000 times, reaching almost 100,000 users. Note that the actual number of blocks is much higher, as the block page is not displayed in all cases,” writes the Copyright Organization.

Whether the preventive blocking efforts will be effective in limiting livestream piracy in the long term remains to be seen, but so far rightsholders and Greek authorities are pleased with the progress made.

In its annual Out-of-Cycle Review of Notorious Markets, the US Trade Representative (USTR) lists a few dozen websites suspected of being involved in piracy or counterfeiting.

The overview is largely based on input from copyright industry groups, including the RIAA and MPA, which submitted their recommendations late last year.

According to the USTR, the annual overview aims to motivate the private sector and foreign governments to reduce piracy. To that end, the list identifies sites and services that allegedly engage in, facilitate, overlook, or benefit from piracy or counterfeiting.

These targets traditionally include popular pirating portals such as well-known torrent sites and streaming portals. However, in recent years we have also seen the addition of hosting companies, advertisers, and e-commerce platforms.

Torrent sites, cyberlockers and streaming portals

The outlook for this year is again mixed. As expected, the USTR mentions torrent sites such as RARBG, RuTracker, The Pirate Bay, and 1337x. The same goes for the torrent-based streaming app Popcorn Time, which has been decimated recently.

Interestingly, the USTR writes that a person who operated a Popcorn Time app in Denmark was recently sentenced to probation in Denmark. However, this is not entirely accurate, as the person in question did not create the app, but simply linked to it.

Regular streaming sites also made the list of notorious markets with Fmovies and Cuevana as prime examples, while cyberlockers 1Fichier and Uploaded also secured their places. Additionally, video hosting service 2embed also made it to the list for the first time.

Music, games, books and science

The music industry has named several stream-rippers as notorious markets and FLVTO.biz, 2Conv.com and MP3Juices.cc are included this year. The same goes for the music download platform Newalbumreleases.net, which shares new and preview music.

Gaming companies are particularly affected by cheaters. Mpgh.net, which reportedly offers several hundred thousand free cheats to more than four million users, made the latest preview.

“The increase in unauthorized digital goods and cheat software negatively affects video game companies and consumers by unfairly modifying the game for legitimate consumers, while diverting significant revenue from video game developers and publishers,” writes the USTR.

On the publishing side, Sci-Hub and Libgen are considered two of the biggest piracy threats. The latter focuses on academic papers while the former also offers a wider selection of books, comics, audiobooks, and magazines.

IPTV Services

In recent years, IPTV services and dedicated hack boxes have continued to grow in popularity and several have entered the NML this year. These include BestbuyIPTV.store, iStar and Spider

Iraq-based IPTV services Chaloos and Shabakaty are also mentioned. As we recently reported, the latter is allegedly operated by Iraq’s largest internet provider, which is also mentioned by the USTR.

“EarthLink Telecommunications, an Iraqi company and the largest internet service provider in Iraq, is reportedly hosting a pirate IPTV service, mobile app and website called Shabakaty and is offering this service to its internet service subscribers at no additional cost,” USTR writes. .

Lodging, advertising and purchases

In addition to sites and services directly related to hacking, the USTR also uses several third-party intermediaries, including hosting companies and advertising services.

BlueAngelHost, for example, is known to describe itself as a “DMCA Ignored” hosting provider while FlokiNET allegedly does not cooperate with copyright holders and law enforcement.

Advertising-wise, RevenueHits is considered a bad actor as it is said to be one of the most popular ad networks among pirate sites.

Finally, the NML (Notorious Markets List) also includes several online services that are related to the sale of counterfeit products. These include billion dollar companies such as AliExpress, Shopee, Bukalapak and Pinduoduo.

Critical

The above is just a selection of all the notorious digital marketplaces and a full overview of all included sites and services can be found below.

A common criticism of the NML is that it is primarily based on complaints from rights holders. The USTR itself does not verify these claims in detail, despite the strong implications the report may have.

“The NML does not make findings of violations of law, nor does it reflect the U.S. government’s analysis of the general intellectual property protection and enforcement climate in countries related to the listed markets,” it said. ‘USTR.

This year, several companies have opposed a possible listing and some have done so successfully.

Advertising companies PropellerAds and PopAds successfully submitted a rebuttal after being named by the Motion Picture Association (MPA), pointing out that they have several anti-piracy measures and policies in place.

Similarly, the .IS and .TO domain name registries have also denied MPA claims that they facilitate piracy. None of them are included in the USTR’s final list of notorious markets.

….

—

A copy of the USTR Notorious Markets 2021 Overview (published yesterday) is available here (pdf). The full list of highlighted online sites/services, including those focused on counterfeiting, is as follows:

-1337x.to
-1File
-2Integrate
-Aliexpress
-Baidu Wangpan
-Bestbuyiptv.store
-Blueangelhost
-Bukalapak.com
-Chaloos
-Chomikuj.pl
-Cuevana3.io
-DHgate.com
-Dytt8.net
-Egy.best
-FlokiNET
-Flvto.biz and 2Conv.com
-Fmovies.to
-Indiamart
-Istar
-Libgen.is
-MP3juices.cc
-Mpgh.net
-Newalbumreleases.net
-Pelisplus.icu
-Phimmoi
-Pinduoduo.com
– Popcorn time
-Private layer
-Rapidgator.net
-Rarbg.at
-Revenuhits.com
-Rutracker.org
-Sci-Hub.io
-Shabakatv
-Shopee.com
-Spider
-Taobao.com
-Thepiratebay.org
-Tokopedia.com
-Downloaded.net
-VK.com
-WeChat

At the end of 2020, Senator Thom Tillis published a draft discussion of the “Digital Copyright Act” (DCA), which aims to succeed the current DMCA.

The DCA hints at sweeping changes in the way online intermediaries approach the problem of piracy. Among other things, these services should ensure that pirated content remains offline after being deleted once.

This “takedown and staydown” approach relies on technical protection tools, which include download filters. This is a sensitive topic that already received quite a bit of backlash when the EU drafted its copyright directive.

In order to assess the different options and views, the Copyright Office has launched a series of consultations on the different technical tools that can help detect and remove pirated content from online platforms.

This effort includes a public consultation where various stakeholders and members of the public were invited to share their thoughts, which they did en masse.

Thousands of comments

In total, nearly 6,000 responses were received. These include overviews of major tech platforms that already use automated takedown tools, such as Google, Microsoft and Meta Platforms.

Google, for example, provides an overview of the various technical measures it uses to combat copyright infringement. This includes hash filtering on Google Drive, demotion of pirate sites in its search engine, and YouTube’s flagship content identification system.

Many of these solutions are voluntary and go beyond what is legally required. However, Google remains critical of mandatory download filtering requirements.

“While we believe that our efforts in this space have been effective and targeted, we remain concerned about the potential impact of proposals to condition safe harbors on the implementation of any specific technical measures, in particular automated filters that would be required to operationalize a ‘notice and hold regime’, writes Google.

Effective withdrawal technique?

The consultation also elicited many responses from rights holders and anti-piracy groups, including the Motion Picture Association. According to the MPA, technical measures can be very effective if deployed correctly.

“Although cross-industry technical measures have so far not been very successful, we believe that the large-scale adoption and implementation of technical measures can greatly help to solve the problem of copyright piracy. online author,” writes MPA.

The MPA recognizes that all technology carries the risk of abuse and overcorrection, but says that these erroneous and fraudulent takedown notices are often the result of human error and intentional misuse, not the technology.

Not everyone is convinced that automated withdrawal tools are the solution. The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), for example, points out that automated filtering tools often lack important context that can make the difference between clear copyright infringement and fair use.

This concern is also largely supported by comments from the general public, which make up the majority of responses to the consultation. It’s impractical to provide a detailed summary of the thousands of responses, but from what we’ve seen the vast majority are clearly against automated filters.

Opposition to public upload filter

A cautionary comment comes from Katy Wood, who notes that automated filters are quite blunt and inefficient.

“The biggest hurdle is that any sort of automatic detection will completely lack nuance, which has been proven time and time again. The answer to copyright issues is not to strangle the internet, but to provide better legal protections to those who are robbed,” Wood writes.

The risk that automated upload filters could target legitimate content is repeated in hundreds of comments, including the examples below.

“Upload filters will only harm innocent users who use copyrighted content at a minimum under fair use, such as memes, jokes, and/or video/text reviews” , writes Aaron Sargent.

“Autofilters are a bad idea for copyrighted content because they don’t take context or identity into account,” BO says.

“No service should ever use automated filters because *they don’t work*. They remove vast amounts of 100% legal independent content, including expressive political speech that enjoys the highest level of First Amendment protection,” writes Nathanael Nerod.

“Filters are unable to take into account things like context, which forces them to regularly filter legal speech. This restricts one of our inalienable rights, the right to freedom of speech and expression” , adds Mary Weien.

Personal stories

There are also comments from people who share their personal experiences. Bruce Ryan, for example, who is approaching his fifties. He converted Super 8 films from his youth recorded by his father, now 92 years old.

The videos have been uploaded to YouTube but have not been publicly listed. However, that didn’t stop them from being flagged by the Content ID system.

“In a scene with a chaotic baseball game in my childhood, my dad narrated it over banjo background music. The filter automatically scanned this one-minute clip of a 50-plus-year-old instrument and declared that my father’s use of it in his home video was copyright infringement,” Ryan wrote.

“YouTube gave me the ability to remove *all* the audio from the clip I uploaded, which would also have removed my dad’s narration. Losing my dad’s voice would have severely diminished the joy of those old videos. personal,” he added.

Artists don’t want filters

For the sake of balance, we also sought submissions from individual artists. While there are larger groups advocating for more automated protection, the individual comments we found were also critical of download filters.

Several creators claim that tighter download controls will mainly benefit large companies, but not so much individual artists.

Cecilia Ross, who describes herself as a private artist, is among those warning that big companies have more control over what is posted online.

“From what I’ve seen, most technical measures disadvantage private content creators and rights holders. Any company can claim something as their own and it is difficult for private artists to protect their work from predatory companies,” notes Ross.

Another artist, Melissa Fitzgerald, points out that piracy is a terrible thing. However, in combating it, fair use should not be overlooked.

“The [filtering] the systems are not nuanced enough to recognize fair use. If measure[s] are enacted to further control copyright on the Internet, this will only benefit the already wealthy and powerful.

“The other outcome is that fair use will be crushed and the internet will be taken over by a few companies that are already becoming monopolies. The public domain must remain in public hands, intellectual property must be released to the world and remixed,” adds Fitzgerald.

Many other artists and creators share the same vision. The general consensus, based on the feedback we’ve seen, is that copyright protection is a good idea, but not through automated systems that primarily benefit large corporations.

Although we haven’t read the 6,000 comments in detail, the general impression we have is that the general public does not consider automatic download filters to be a good idea. But now that shouldn’t be a surprise anymore.

Homepage > Piracy >

Twenty years ago, copies of all Oscar-nominated films leaked online ahead of the official awards ceremony. Today, screeners have become a rare breed. It’s not just the result of increased anti-piracy protection. In fact, the shift to shorter release windows and streaming premieres likely had a much bigger impact.

The Oscars are the most anticipated film awards ceremony of the year, closely watched by hundreds of millions of moviegoers around the world.

It is also a special event for movie pirates. Traditionally, Oscar winners see an increase in unauthorized downloads. And in anticipation of the big day, pirated copies of reward selectors often leaked early.

From 100% to 9%

In the early 2000s, it was quite common to see filters of all Oscar contenders leaked online before the winners were announced. This has changed drastically over the years. Over the past decade, about half of all nominated films have leaked as a screener, and last year that percentage fell below 10% for the first time.

New data released by Oscar hack watcher Andy Baio suggests the downward trend is continuing. For all Oscar-nominated films this year, only three screens leaked, which tied with the all-time low of last year.

Admittedly, there are still a few weeks before the awards ceremony. However, usually all the filters are already out in February, so it’s safe to say that the downward trend is intact.

The same chart also includes another key statistic. The number of “high quality” leaks remains very high. These are HD ripped streams or Blu-Rays that are not filters. Last year, a high-quality copy of all the Oscar contenders was available before the awards, and this year 88% have already leaked.

Screeners are rates, leaks are not

This means that although filters rarely leak these days, leaks are still quite common. This can partly be explained by a radically changing film industry and the rise of streaming services.

Of all the films nominated for the 94th Academy Awards, more than half have been released on a streaming service. Netflix has a dominant position, but HBO Max and Disney+ have also contributed to this change.

When a movie is released on a streaming service, it is usually available on pirate sites the same day. These non-existent release windows are different from the months people have to wait for certain theatrical releases only.

As a result, pirates can get their hands on unauthorized copies of movies much faster. This effect is well illustrated by the median number of days between the official release of a film and a pirated leak. This number dropped after 2020.

That doesn’t mean screeners don’t exist anymore in the age of streaming. Depending on the release date, voters always need early access to a Netflix or Disney+ movie if it’s not yet on the platform.

Screener “The power of the dog”

That was also the case for “The Power of the Dog,” which topped the Oscars pack this year with 12 nominations. The film, starring Benedict Cumberbatch and Kirsten Dunst, was released on December 1, but a screen print already leaked last September.

Several other Netflix titles were also leaked early on, but none of them were nominated. These leaks are not necessarily reward filters. Information we have received from the lessor suggests they are linked to film festival screens.

Other Oscar-nominated movies that leaked screens are “Cyrano” and “Drive My Car.” These aren’t streaming versions, but this latest one has an interesting angle, as it was leaked by a group that used the “OSCAR” tag. It was prophetic, as the Japanese film received four Oscar nominations.

We expect the golden age of screeners will never return. Hackers will still release them if there isn’t high-quality copy online yet, but with shorter or no release windows, there’s simply less opportunity.

Homepage > Prosecutions > IPTV and streaming >

A Swede has been convicted for selling subscriptions to the pirate IPTV service MacIPTV. The 21-year-old served around 3,000 customers and came to the attention of local anti-piracy group Rights Alliance in 2019, prompting a police investigation and criminal prosecution.

When it comes to anti-piracy investigations and prosecutions, Sweden is perhaps best known for its work against The Pirate Bay, but in recent years a new threat has emerged.

With torrent sites remaining fairly popular, Swedish authorities have also attempted to disrupt the market for pirate IPTV subscriptions, services that allow users to access premium live TV channels (plus movies and TV shows) at a fraction of the official market rate.

Last month, a 58-year-old man was ordered to pay four Swedish TV companies more than $164,000 in damages after he was found guilty of selling illegal subscriptions to IPTV services.

Sweden can now add another conviction to the list, one with even greater damages.

MacIPTV reported to police in 2019

Working on behalf of production companies SF Studios and Nordisk Film, in September 2019 anti-piracy group Rights Alliance reported one of several entities involved in supplying pirate IPTV subscriptions to the police.

According to the anti-piracy group, in addition to other content, the service has made around 24 of the Swedish companies’ films available without permission, including “Borg v McEnroe” and Becoming Astrid (aka “Young Astrid”).

A police investigation revealed that two of the films had been pulled from the service, but with 22 remaining live, it was determined that a prosecution was warranted.

Discontinued in 2021

Rights Alliance, which has initiated numerous similar lawsuits in the past, reports that the 21-year-old was arrested at his home in early 2021.

The investigation concluded that the service provided IPTV accounts to approximately 3,000 users over a 13-month period, for which payments of SEK 2.8 million (USD 306,000) were received via PayPal and bitcoin.

During the search, police found a bitcoin wallet containing 18 bitcoins, worth US$766,584 at today’s exchange rate. Around the same time as the suspect’s last interrogation, however, it was discovered that the wallet had been emptied.

A convicted man in Sweden

The defendant’s case was heard by the Swedish Patent and Market Court, a special division of the Stockholm District Court which deals with intellectual property matters.

The man admitted to having carried out work and maintenance on MacIPTV for which he received remuneration. However, he insisted he was not in a key role on the service and believed his work was legal.

He denied copyright infringement and accounting-related offenses while naming a person he met on Telegram as the operator of the IPTV service.

The court found the man guilty of copyright infringement and also convicted him of aggravated accounting offences. He was sentenced to 140 hours of community service and was ordered to pay damages and compensation of 2.1 million Swedish kronor (about $231,000) to the heirs.

According to Rights Alliance, MacIPTV attracted customers by claiming that its activity was legal. The verdict can be appealed until February 18, 2022.