Reports concerning the Russian government’s growing intolerance of VPNs, often refer to the technology or associated services as “banned” or otherwise outlawed.

While technically inaccurate, amendments to local law effectively place VPN services into two groups. The first group contains the VPN providers officially registered with the authorities. The second group contains the illegal services, whose owners haven’t yet agreed to provide the authorities with unfettered access, when that becomes necessary.

Illegal VPN services are unsurprisingly illegal to sell. Under more recent amendments, it’s also illegal to promote or encourage illegal VPN use, or provide tutorials or similar assistance to others. These are crimes punishable under law but at least for now, Russian authorities seem more likely to block offending websites, to prevent Russians from viewing illegal information.

Perpetual Blocking

Thanks to the tireless work of digital rights group Roskomsvoboda , blocking orders issued by many government departments, courts, and less easily defined entities that seem to come and go, can be accessed much more easily.

A Verstka.Media review of the blocking data published this week, found a fivefold increase in persistent site blocking in 2024, when compared to data for 2022.

For offenses related to VPNs, torrent and streaming sites, tax offenses and a myriad of other reasons, in 2024 Russia restricted access to over 523,000 infringing sites/URLs. 106,000 restrictions were lifted in the same year, Verstka’s analysis notes.

A closer look at the data reveals that telecoms regulator Roskomnadzor, which oversees most matters concerning online piracy, rogue VPNs, and site blocking in general, is only the second most prolific issuer of blocking instructions in Russia.

As the table shows, the Federal Tax Service is way out in front as the most significant contributor to the all-time blocking totals seen on the bottom line.

Image credit: reestr.rublacklist.net

Determining how many sites have been targeted due to alleged VPN offenses, is much less straightforward.

VPN Summary

To provide a basic overview here, we selected 1,200 of the most recent blocking orders with the term ‘VPN’ present in either the blocked URL or domain name, or the blocked service or platform’s trading/business name.

After filtering for any false matches and removing sites no longer live, resolving all domain names and geolocating IP addresses, we were able to produce a map.

Russia’s VPN problems – everywhere except Russia

When viewed from a deliberately obtuse angle, somewhat amusingly the map suggests that Russia’s VPN concerns were all for nothing. Apart from just a handful of blocked sites ostensibly close to the border, most of the other VPN-linked blocked sites are clearly located in Europe or the United States. Well, perhaps not, but interesting nonetheless.

If Russia had information to prove otherwise, blocking a different IP address would make much more sense.

Still operational

The revelation that those familiar with VPNs also appreciate reverse proxies, isn’t an especially big surprise. Or any surprise at all. Russia having a blocklist full of Cloudflare IP addresses is almost normal too.

The difficult part is trying to determine who emerges from this entire process having achieved anything of any value. Maybe there’s a technical basis for claiming that Russia successfully exported its VPN problem to the West. There’s certainly very little else.

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

The Artificial Intelligence boom promises unparalleled progress which, in theory, can change the fabric of society.

As startups and established tech giants explore their options, data has become the new oil in the race to develop AI. Archives of text, in particular, are key to training Large Language Models (LLMs).

Early on, many tech giants used shadow libraries to train their models. Rightsholders objected to this unauthorized use in various courts, transforming these repositories into ‘forbidden fruit’ in the U.S. and elsewhere. Such restrictions aren’t necessarily observed by all, creating an uneven playing field where developers in other countries gain an advantage.

Shadow libraries already clash with the law, but copyright holders want to make sure that governments don’t make exceptions for AI training. Getting all countries onboard could be a real challenge.

According to Anna’s Archive, one of the internet’s leading shadow libraries, there is a better solution. This is not so much a matter of choice, the site says, but a requirement for national security.

‘Overhaul Copyright Law to Protect National Security’

Shortly after we published an article on the AI “forbidden fruit” conundrum and potential consequences, site operator Anna Archivist published a call to action , stressing the need for a strong and urgent response.

“If the West wants to stay ahead in the race of LLMs, and ultimately, AGI, it needs to reconsider its position on copyright, and soon,” it reads.

Anna’s Archive is not just a passive observer in the artificial intelligence arena. Prominent AI companies including DeepSeek have used its library of books and articles to train their AI models.

The Race to Artificial General Intelligence

Anna Archivist says high-speed access to data has already been provided to 30 companies, most of which are based in China. These include LLM companies and data brokers.

While some U.S. and Western companies have become more cautious about copyright, others are forging ahead. That has the potential to create problems for the West, the shadow library’s operator says.

“Whether you agree with us or not on our moral case, this is now becoming a case of economics, and even of national security. All power blocs are building artificial super-scientists, super-hackers, and super-militaries. Freedom of information is becoming a matter of survival for these countries — even a matter of national security,” Anna Archivist writes.

The future of AI development won’t stand or fall based on access to a single shadow library. However, it’s undisputed that vast amounts of data have proven to be extremely helpful in getting LLM models to where they are now.

Concrete Copyright Proposals

Since copyright holders label Anna’s Archive a piracy haven, it comes as no surprise that the site is an advocate for copyright reform. Interestingly, however, the site’s proposals are not as extreme as one might expect.

“Our first recommendation is straightforward: shorten the copyright term. In the US, copyright is granted for 70 years after the author’s death. This is absurd. We can bring this in line with patents, which are granted for 20 years after filing,” Anna’s Archivist writes.

A reduced copyright term wouldn’t legalize Anna’s Archive, but it would elevate many more works to the public domain. At the same time, however, there will still be an advantage for those AI companies that don’t have to worry about copyright terms at all.

This leads to the second proposal. Anna’s Archive believes that countries should have copyright exceptions, or carve-outs, for the “mass-preservation and dissemination of texts.”

Exceptions shouldn’t necessarily apply to consumers, but LLM companies, libraries, and archives should be covered.

Diametrical Opposites

Especially when considering the source, these suggestions may seem radical. Yet text and data mining (TDM) exceptions already exist in current copyright law, and in countries such as Japan , carve-outs for AI have already been made.

Not surprisingly, these AI exceptions are a concern for rightsholders. A few days ago, the Digital Creators Coalition (DGA) informed the US Trade Representative that it’s against all AI-related copyright exceptions, period.

“We strongly oppose broad copyright exceptions for AI, including with respect to TDM, and reaffirm our position that its proponents have failed to demonstrate the need for such an exception,” DGA informed the USTR.

“However, some countries are actively considering, or have already adopted, TDM exceptions that fundamentally weaken copyright protection in favor of promoting AI at the expense of the American creative sector.”

This is the diametrical opposite of Anna’s Archive’s position, and likely against the wishes of many AI developers too.

While a shadow library’s calls for copyright reform seem unlikely to be considered, the AI copyright discussion isn’t over. We expect to see similar talking points in the future, also from other sources.

Anna’s Archive maintains that it will continue to operate, regardless of the legal implications.

“As for Anna’s Archive — we will continue our underground work rooted in moral conviction. Yet our greatest wish is to enter the light, and amplify our impact legally. Please reform copyright,” Anna Archivist concludes.

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

Earlier this week, various rightsholder groups submitted their recommendations for the 2025 Special 301 Report.

This annual overview, compiled by the U.S. Trade Representative, highlights countries that fail to live up to U.S. copyright protection standards.

Various groups stressed the importance of copyright protection when it comes to new AI technologies. They argued that foreign governments should be mindful of potential copyright infringements.

The Chinese government is called out, for example, for considering the introduction of a text and data mining (TDM) exception for AI. Other countries, including Japan, have already written AI exceptions into law. This raises concerns. Not just for copyright holders, but also for American tech giants.

Tech Companies & Pirate Libraries

In the United States, explicit copyright exceptions for AI learning are non-existent. On the contrary, there are several high-profile lawsuits in the U.S. where tech companies including Meta, OpenAI, and Google are accused of copyright infringement.

Rightsholders accuse these companies of training their LLMs (large language models) on content obtained from unauthorized sources, including pirate libraries. These repositories turned out to be a goldmine, as they contained a vast amount of text, free for the taking. The problem, however, is that copyright holders never gave permission to use it.

The lawsuits will ultimately determine whether the tech companies are liable for copyright infringement, linked to this and other unauthorized use, or whether ‘fair use’ is a valid defense.

It will take years before those cases are decided and, meanwhile, pirate libraries such as Z-Library, LibGen, and Anna’s Archive are off limits. In countries where the law is more lenient or opaque, this might be an entirely different story. That could create a copyright schism with potentially far-reaching consequences.

DeepSeek ♡ Anna’s Archive

This week, hundreds of new articles were published on the latest AI model released by the Chinese company DeepSeek. This model isn’t just accurate, it’s also much cheaper to run, while significantly decreasing AI development costs.

According to pundits, Deepseek poses a threat to American AI dominance and leadership. While early responses are often overblown, it shows that AI development is a serious, high stakes business.

While DeepSeek’s innovation doesn’t stem from shadow libraries, the company did use them as key input. Recent publications have been less transparent about their data sources, but an earlier paper clearly mentions a reliance on Anna’s Archive.

“We cleaned 860K English and 180K Chinese e-books from Anna’s Archive,” a DeepSeek VL paper , published last March, states.

AI Teams Work with Anna’s Archive

DeepSeek isn’t alone in this. According to Anna’s Archive, many AI teams, including those connected to large U.S. and Chinese companies, have reached out to the site, looking for fast access to data.

Anna’s Archive offers to work with AI companies in return for a generous donation or a data trade. While U.S. companies typically back off due to copyright concerns, other teams gladly work with the shadow library.

“We’ve provided about 20-30 companies/teams with our entire dataset. It’s the same data as on our torrents page, but they get access to high-speed SFTP servers.”

“Usually, this is in exchange for a large monetary donation or, on occasion, in exchange for good datasets they acquired,” ‘Anna’s Archivist’ adds, noting that all data they obtain is shared publicly.

The shadow library provided copies of several redacted emails where companies requested access. We couldn’t independently verify their authenticity, but they are worth sharing nonetheless. ‘

_{“We are a research group from REDACTED, currently focusing on large language models (LLM) and in the process of data investigation. We are very interested in the high-quality resources you offer and would like to know more about the specifics.” – Chinese company}

_{“We saw your Twitter post about the 7.5M scanned Chinese academic non-fiction book collection you are offering for LLM training if that company contributes to digitizing them via OCR. We at REDACTED have state of the art OCR technology we can leverage and would like to discuss this with you. We are happy to share sample results and open source all the results, but would likely ask to keep our code/pipeline proprietary.” – US company.}

The “Forbidden Fruit”

Faced with multi-million dollar lawsuits, large U.S. companies are no longer eager to work with Anna’s Archive. However, AI teams in other countries are less reluctant, and that creates tension.

The allure of shadow libraries for AI development is akin to the biblical forbidden fruit. Just as Adam and Eve were tempted by the tree of knowledge, AI developers are drawn to the vast troves of ‘free’ data within these unauthorized collections.

Shadow libraries, filled with pirated works, offer the potential to train powerful AI models. However, like the original forbidden fruit, these shadow libraries come with a cost, at least for some.

In the U.S., copyright laws and pressure from copyright holders, make AI companies hesitant to bite into this fruit, fearing legal repercussions. Reluctance could therefore place American AI development at a “knowledge disadvantage”.

Innovation: The AI Copyright Conundrum

Meanwhile, in countries with more lenient copyright exceptions for AI training, companies are free to indulge. They can feast on the knowledge offered by shadow libraries, potentially accelerating their AI capabilities and gaining a competitive edge.

This has the potential to create a “copyright schism,” where AI development in some countries surges ahead, fueled by readily available data, while others are held back by legal constraints.

Without offering a value judgement, or engaging in too much hyperbole, this situation raises complex questions about the balance between protecting intellectual property and fostering innovation.

Is it fair for some countries to have a knowledge advantage due to differing copyright laws? Could this lead to a global AI divide, where certain nations dominate the field due to their access to “forbidden” data?

We don’t have the answers to any of these questions. As highlighted earlier, rightsholders believe that more strict AI regulation worldwide is the answer. If AI companies want access, they can negotiate deals and pay for it.

However, the shadow library understandably has a quite different take.

“This could be a geopolitical argument for the West relaxing copyright rules. If the West wants to stay ahead in AI, archiving and distributing books should be made fully legal,” ‘Anna’s Archivist’ informs us.

—

Update February 1: Anna’s Archive published a call for copyright reform , as highlighted in this follow-up article .

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

When U.S. site-blocking proposals died alongside SOPA in 2012, major Hollywood studios and their music industry counterparts, switched up their plans a little.

A SOPA victory would’ve sent a powerful message that site-blocking is a reasonable response to infringement, and that U.S. partners overseas should follow the example. Yet even with no victory to celebrate, for more than a decade the MPA promoted site-blocking measures to any country willing to listen, anywhere in the world.

The tools envisioned by SOPA may have evaporated, but work to protect the studios’ content in Europe and beyond did not. Although it was still too soon for fresh site-blocking proposals back in the States, preparations were effectively underway already.

Where suitable legal frameworks were already in place, the studios applied experience gained from injunctions won in the UK, to explore similar options elsewhere. Successes in the EU included the countries with the largest populations; Germany, France, Italy, Spain, Netherlands, Belgium, and Sweden. With a population of just 2.8m, Lithuania also found ways to implement site-blocking, under existing law or subsequent amendments, just like all the others.

‘Global Site Blocking Strategy’

The MPA’s site-blocking work, whether conducted directly or through local partners, has been regularly reported here on TF. Whether those who opposed SOPA considered site-blocking in Europe, Australia, India, Brazil, and Thailand, as relevant to the U.S. is unclear. Preparations for an eventual U.S. return have become increasingly obvious though.

All MPA site-blocking programs worldwide are not just relevant; together they form the foundations on which the urgent need for site-blocking in the United States has been carefully built.

Under a program known as the ‘Global Site Blocking Strategy’ the MPA selects which platforms are suitable for site-blocking based on various factors and overall benefit to the site blocking mission. Other than the usual internal political issues in a handful of countries, we’re unaware of any significant setbacks.

TorrentFreak had the opportunity to view recent data which confirms that the MPA is “involved” in 44% of all blocking worldwide, alongside an additional claim that 80% of blocking involves ‘MPA Content’. One possible reason for the discrepancy is member studios taking individual action, rather than as a single group under the MPA. As the exclusive rightsholders of the world’s most valuable video content, the studios are involved by default.

Foreign Anti-Digital Piracy Act – Initial Impressions

The FADPA bill published this week isn’t especially complicated. While some countries accommodate blocking with specific legislation, many use interpretations of existing law instead. The FADPA bill is focused and mostly unambiguous; while not an endorsement of the content per se , it receives top marks for clarity.

Also worthy of mention is the headline commitment to transparency. “Courts must publish blocking orders on a publicly accessible website” and include details such as the petitioner’s name, the foreign website or online service being blocked, the date and duration of the order, and a summary of the court’s findings.

Good News First – Then the Bad News

While some are already calling for rejection of the entire bill, a transparency requirement under law could go some way to ensuring accountability, which in turn should limit or even prevent overreach. For the record, there are no signs that the MPA has ever abused its blocking powers. Unfortunately, the risk of others doing so can’t ever be ruled out, and that’s why the following needs attention.

Courts may redact sensitive information to prevent circumvention or risks to national security, personal safety, or an ongoing – law enforcement investigation.

The scope here effectively grants permission to redact all useful information from every order. The majority of all blocking takes place to counter circumvention and, since that alone indicates disrespect for the court’s authority, convincing the court to withhold information might be straightforward.

Personal safety could mean almost anything. There’s no shortage of claims that since pirate sites are dangerous, they need to be blocked, but to date nothing to suggest that blocking pirate sites is dangerous in itself. That may warrant an explanation, it’s certainly news to us.

The opportunity to redact due to an investigation is not unexpected. However, most major pirate sites are subjected to a police investigation before being placed on the Infringing Website List maintained by the UK’s Police Intellectual Property Crime Unit. Sites on the list are monitored until they’re removed, which could mean all sites of significance qualify for redactions.

No Transparency, No Accountability

The prospect of less well known rightsholders entering the blocking arena at some point is a legitimate concern. For those concerned over the potential for abuse, the only practical solution is unambiguous transparency. Even in countries where blocking orders are published for scrutiny, there are numerous ways to deny access to information.

For example, the preference for dynamic injunctions allows rightsholders to add new domains for blocking by communicating them directly to ISPs, without any need to inform the court. Instead of providing the court with a list of 30 domains, providing just one in the first instance keeps everyone in the dark, since the remaining 29 are sent directly to ISPs in a ‘dynamic’ update. This example isn’t hypothetical – it happens.

Taken as a whole, there is very little to suggest that transparency is taken seriously in the majority of countries with a blocking program. On one hand blocking is used to prevent access to sites with millions, tens of millions, or even hundreds of millions of users. On the other, IP addresses and domain names are often described as sensitive information, despite being publicly available information.

Rest assured, when a site has its domain name or IP address blocked, the operators are the first people to know. Any claim that public disclosure assists circumvention suggests that blocking those assets had no effect on site availability. By definition, blocked domains and blocked IP addresses are useless and that’s worth recording, publicly, in every single instance.

No Provision to Hold Anyone Accountable

A lack of transparency eliminates risk of being held accountable for overblocking. When those who overblock have no obligation to publicly report errors or publish information sufficient for others to discover them, anything can happen. The bill offers immunity to ISPs in key areas, which confirms the risk of liability if anything goes wrong.

Indeed, ISPs are not liable for the consequences when blocking instructions are carried out in good faith. If the ISPs are immune, the section on who does take responsibility is only notable for its absence. We’ll provide new information surrounding the bill very soon but until then, two items that give pause for thought.

As far as we can determine, this bill isn’t something the MPA came up with in isolation. More likely than not, ISPs, and other intermediaries have also been involved for some time. The provisions in place to protect their interests are extremely specific and at least to our knowledge, nothing like this exists anywhere else in the world.

To the extent that cooperation on blocking effectively amounts to a shared interest partnership, particularly when ISPs act as licensed distributors of copyrighted content subject to blocking orders, it’s possible that questions concerning data privacy may enter the equation. Many ISPs hold valuable data relevant to blocking measures, arguably no better source of information exists anywhere else.

Voting aside, this may be a deal long since done; site-blocking may be inevitable and once in place, there will be no turning back.

The bill itself is a framework for a blocking program that has undergone constant tuning, so much so that it’s now governed by a set of universal ‘best practices’ that are applicable in every country the system is deployed. A review of the paperwork reveals that to be a generally positive step. Yet if a site-blocking system exists, the likelihood it will eventually be used to censor free speech, increases exponentially.

Build it and then see who comes.

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

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

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

IFPI took the lead, calling on other music industry players and YouTube to complain to Apple as well. The mounting pressure eventually paid off.

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

Music Sues Apple over App Removal

In a complaint filed at a California federal court last October, Musi alleged that the takedown was unjustified, accusing Apple of breach of contract, among other things.

Wasting no time, Musi requested a preliminary injunction to compel Apple to reinstate the music app. While existing users still have access to the software, it’s no longer available for new users to download, which directly impacts revenue. If this continues, Musi will eventually be put out of business.

Musi argued that Apple’s decision was based on a one-sided view, leading to a “unfair” and “tainted” removal process, influenced by Apple’s alleged “backroom conversations” with key music industry players.

Apple denied any wrongdoing and pointed out that it had received complaints about Musi for a long time. Regardless, the company argued that the terms of the Apple Developer Program License Agreement (DPLA) allow the company to delist apps “at any time, with or without cause.”

Court Denies Reinstatement Request

After reviewing the arguments from both sides, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California denied the request for a preliminary injunction. This means that the app won’t be reinstated while the case is pending.

Judge Eumi K. Lee ruled that the DPLA gave Apple broad discretion to remove applications from the App Store and that Musi had not raised serious questions that Apple acted unreasonably or in bad faith when it removed the Musi app.

The court concluded that Musi’s proposed injunction would not serve the public interest. Musi did not present any compelling public interest arguments that outweigh the interests of copyright holders.

Not in the Public Interest

Notably, the court did not express an opinion on the validity of the complaints against Musi, including those from YouTube and the music companies. At this stage, however, the interests of rightsholders outweigh the potential harm suffered by Musi.

“Musi has not presented any compelling public interest to counterbalance the potential violation of third-party intellectual property right,” Judge Lee writes.

“Musi’s proposed injunction would require Apple to reinstate the Musi app; it would not confer any benefit on any developer other than Musi. Accordingly, the Court finds that a preliminary injunction is not in the public interest.”

All in all, this means that Musi remains unavailable in the App Store but the case itself is far from over. In the next round, Apple is expected to file a motion requesting the federal court to dismiss Musi’s amended complaint.

—

A copy of Judge Eumi K. Lee’s order, denying the preliminary injunction, is available here (pdf)

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

With the original Pirate Bay generation now all grown up, those few years of pirate rebellion aired on the world stage have been fading in Sweden for quite some time. On the rapidly evolving internet, such things are inevitable.

Yet, even those most dedicated to The Pirate Bay’s downfall may take a moment to consider how things were, and how that led to the almost unrecognizable piracy arena that exists today. The Pirate Bay didn’t just survive, it continues to live, but on the way the streaming revolution changed everything.

The illegal streaming platforms and IPTV services dominating the market today are an entirely different breed. There’s no desire to level the media playing field or mobilize the masses towards any kind of change. With few exceptions, interactions with users today are almost entirely on a commercial basis.

The Pirate Pay

Paying to consume pirated content used to carry a stigma, but not anymore. In Sweden, where paying for free movies would’ve been mostly considered a joke, people seem almost eager to pay and, as a result, pirate IPTV consumption has reached record levels.

A new study from Stockholm-based consulting firm Mediavision offers little, if any good news for rightsholders.

For a government under increasing pressure to tackle the issue head on, news that pirate IPTV consumption increased by 25%, in the period bridging spring and fall 2024, the situation could hardly be worse.

More New Records, So What’s The Plan?

With a population of 11 million and an average of 2.15 occupants per household, 4.4 million homes are enough for the entire population of Sweden. By the fall of 2024, Mediavision says, an estimated 700,000 of those households were subscribing to an illegal IPTV service and happily paying for the privilege.

“This is a new record level and a significant increase compared to the spring of 2024,” Mediavision notes.

The government’s response effectively rules out any specific action for at least several months. An inquiry launched at the start of 2024 to review national film policy, was originally scheduled for investigator Eva Bergquist to report back during the next few weeks.

Instead, Bergquist will continue with an investigation and analysis centered on pirate IPTV. There will be an assessment of damage to the film and TV industries, and work to determine whether there’s a need to take action against citizens who pay for illegal services.

“Investigator Eva Bergquist will analyze whether there is a need for a ban on private individuals receiving illegal IPTV and if so, what such a ban should look like in that case,” commented Minister of Culture, Parisa Liljestrand.

In 2017, the Court of Justice of the European Union confirmed that consumption of pirate streams is illegal. The suggestion that a second local ‘ban’ will achieve more than the first, already declared by Europe’s highest court, seems unlikely.

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

For a long time, pirate site blocking was regarded as a topic most U.S. politicians would rather avoid.

This lingering remnant of the SOPA debacle drove copyright holders to focus on the introduction of blocking efforts in other countries instead, mostly successfully.

Those challenging times are now more than a decade old and momentum is shifting. Today, Representative Zoe Lofgren (D-CA) introduced the Foreign Anti-Digital Piracy Act (FADPA), which paves the way for blocking injunctions targeting foreign operated pirate sites, being implemented on home soil.

A ‘New and Improved’ Pirate Site Blocking Bill

If approved, FADPA would allow copyright holders to obtain court orders requiring large Internet service providers (ISPs) and DNS resolvers to block access to pirate sites. The bill would amend existing copyright law to focus specifically on ‘foreign websites’ that are ‘primarily designed’ for copyright infringement.

The inclusion of DNS resolvers is significant. Major tech companies such as Google and Cloudflare offer DNS services internationally, raising the possibility of blocking orders having an effect worldwide. DNS providers with less than $100 million in annual revenue are excluded.

While site blocking is claimed to exist in more than 60 countries, DNS resolvers are typically not included in site blocking laws and regulations. These services have been targeted with blocking requests before but it’s certainly not standard.

Petition, Review, Block…

Every blocking order must go through a U.S. court, supported by clear evidence of copyright infringement, due process, and judicial oversight to prevent censorship. Courts must also verify that any site-blocking order does not interfere with access to lawful material before issuing an order.

In practice, a blocking request would go through a multistep process before it is issued.

_{1. Petition : A copyright owner or licensee files a petition in U.S. District Court seeking a preliminary order. The petition must identify the domain name and/or IP-address.}

_{2. Notice : The petitioner must make reasonable efforts to notify both the operator of the foreign website and the service providers identified in the petition.}

_{3. Court Review : The court reviews the petition to determine whether it meets the requirements for issuing a preliminary order, including a copyright infringement check. If the court finds the criteria have been met, a preliminary order follows.}

_{4. Opportunity to Contest : The operator of the foreign website has 30 days to appear in court and contest the preliminary order.}

_{5. Motion for Blocking Order : If the preliminary order is upheld, the petitioner can then move for a blocking order. Before issuing a blocking order, the court must determine that it will not interfere with access to non-infringing content, place a significant burden on service providers, or disserve the public interest.}

_{6. Final Order : Once the court is satisfied that the blocking order meets the requirements, it will issue the final order, and service providers will be required to implement it within 15 days.}

The bill requires all court orders to be accessible to the public, immediately after they are issued. The proposal does not prescribe any specific blocking measures, however, leaving room for service providers to determine the least intrusive methods to comply.

Praise and Critique

Rightsholders already have the option to request a blocking injunction under U.S. Copyright Law. However, these may trigger liability for the online service providers. FADPA clarifies that these are “no fault” injunctions, shielding ISPs, DNS providers, and other intermediaries from legal liability.

The bill was introduced after months of discussions and negotiations with stakeholders from the content and tech industries. Whether any specific agreement was reached is unclear, but Rep. Lofgren is pleased with the result.

“The Foreign Anti-Digital Piracy Act is a smart, targeted approach that focuses on safety and intellectual property, while simultaneously upholding due process, respecting free speech, and ensuring enforcement is narrowly focused on the actual problem at hand,” Lofgren says.

Interestingly, Lofgren was one of the lawmakers who fiercely opposed the SOPA site blocking proposal to protect the Open Internet. She sees the current bill as a proper and much needed alternative.

“Now – after working for over a year with the tech, film, and television industries – we’ve arrived at a proposal that has a remedy for copyright infringers located overseas that does not disrupt the free internet except for the infringers,” Lofgren notes.

MPA Chairman and CEO Charles Rivkin thanked Rep. Lofgren for her efforts to support the creative industry, describing the bill as an effective tool to combat offshore piracy in the United States.

Not everyone is equally enthusiastic. Consumer interest group Public Knowledge was quick to condemn the “censorious” site blocking proposal.

“Rather than attacking the problem at its source – bringing the people running overseas piracy websites to court – Congress and its allies in the entertainment industry has decided to build out a sweeping infrastructure for censorship,” says Public Knowledge’s Meredith Rose.

In the weeks and months ahead, we expect more commentary from stakeholders, including ISPs and major tech companies. While the public outrage of 13 years ago will be difficult to top, there will likely be heated discussions before FADPA goes up for a vote.

—

Update: Re:Create opposes the bill, with Executive Director Brandon Butler issuing the following statement.

“FADPA and similar ‘site-blocking’ proposals would give Big Content the internet killswitch it has sought for decades. Copyright is hotly contested and infamously easy to use as a cudgel against free speech online.”

The Copyright Alliance, meanwhile, wholeheartedly supports FADPA .

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

Founded in 2018, TorrentGalaxy has grown to become a leading player in the torrent ecosystem.

The site was launched by former members of ExtraTorrent, a popular torrent site that had just shut down. The founders of TorrentGalaxy aimed to provide a home for ExtraTorrent ‘refugees’ but, over time, it evolved into one of the leading torrent sites.

Earlier this month, the U.S. Trade Representative flagged TorrentGalaxy among the most notorious pirate sites. According to the report , the site was one of the main beneficiaries of RARBG’s shutdown in 2023.

TorrentGalaxy Troubles

While TorrentGalaxy remains online today, it has faced considerable downtime after the original team sold the site to new operators last year. This change of ownership offered an explanation for the earlier ‘ maintenance ‘ issues, but the site’s troubles didn’t end there.

Under the new ownership, TorrentGalaxy has faced repeated outages and technical hiccups. Since the site’s operators have remained quiet throughout, the cause of these difficulties remains unclear.

Last weekend, a message appeared on the site that might shed more light on the matter. Presumably posted by the site’s operators, the notice claims that TorrentGalaxy is in financial dire straits.

TorrentGalaxy Asks for Donations

After purchasing the site from its original founders relatively recently, TorrentGalaxy’s new owners claim that they’re now having trouble paying the server bills. They’re asking users to chip in by donating Bitcoin, Ethereum, or TRX.

“Hello friends, unfortunately torrentgalaxy is in financial difficulties. We ask you to make a small donation towards the server costs,” TorrentGalaxy writes.

It’s not uncommon for pirate sites to ask users for donations to pay the bills, or to otherwise plead financial hardship. These claims are impossible to verify based on the information provided, but several of the site’s users seem willing to chip in.

Crypto Rolls In…

After just a few days, TorrentGalaxy has already received nearly 90 donations, most in Bitcoin. This is good for roughly $3,000 at the current exchange rate, a healthy amount considering that the target audience consists of pirates.

For comparison, fellow torrent site The Pirate Bay typically receives an average of roughly $10 in donations per day . However, they don’t claim financial hardship or prominently ‘request’ donations.

For rightsholders, the cryptocurrency addresses will be of interest. They present potential opportunities to ‘follow the money’ by linking the addresses to actual persons or entities.

Previously, the authorities were able to seize crypto assets from pirate services that were using centralized exchanges, as opposed to self-custody wallets. While we don’t know if that’s the case here, anti-piracy groups will likely take a closer look.

Whether TorrentGalaxy’s troubles are resolved by the outpouring of generosity isn’t clear. However, history has shown that once donation drives have proven to be successful, they tend to become a recurring phenomenon.

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

Shorter theatrical windows and improved access to movies via streaming, aimed to address one of the reasons some people prefer to pirate movies rather than pay.

While no silver bullet, making movies available legally is crucial in the fight against piracy. Yet, for many years, avoiding the most obvious response to unauthorized distribution meant that the ‘recently released’ movie market was dominated by not only illicit, but mostly inferior products.

Each year, usually around late December through mid-January, the market received a quality boost that attracted pirates in their millions. ‘Screener Season’ began when predominantly DVD-based movies were sent to those whose votes have the potential to transform great movies, into Academy Award-winning movies . But all too often, things didn’t go to plan.

Basic security failures saw screener discs lost, misplaced, loaned or gifted to family members, sold on eBay, or simply stolen. Whatever their route to the internet, high-quality screeners represented direct competition for genuine products, that in many cases wouldn’t be legally on sale for months.

There’s no real doubt that screener leaks had a negative effect on sales of legitimate products, but it took years to migrate screener viewing online. Enforcement action against EVO, a piracy release group with a reputation for screener leaks, eventually coincided with the collapse and assumed permanent demise of the screener scene late 2022.

And Then Two Come Along at Once

Seeing the word SCREENER in a release title is rare these days, seeing two within minutes of each other even more so. A long time TF reader wasted no time tipping us off about two leaks last evening, in one case less than five minutes after initial release, the other in just under eight.

September 5 premiered at the 81st Venice International Film Festival late August 2024. Distributed by Paramount ( IMDb ), the movie enjoyed a limited theatrical run in the United States starting December 13, 2024, before a wider release on January 17, 2025.

Focused on the terrorist attack on the Munich Olympics in 1972, September 5 received an Academy Award nomination for Best Original Screenplay.

(Release name as an image, to avoid being flagged in a wrongful DMCA notice)

Typically distributed alongside pirate releases, the ‘NFO’ file above provides information on the nature of the screener and subsequent leak. ‘COLLECTiVE’ is the name of the group responsible for the release. The group is known for its releases on peer-to-peer networks including BitTorrent; this release appeared on the private tracker iPT and at the time, there were no reports of an earlier appearance elsewhere.

The title tag ‘WEB-DL’ is an indication that the copy was downloaded (rather than ripped) from an online source, potentially an online screener viewing platform. Paramount operates a service for precisely that purpose, but there’s no information to suggest any specific origin.

The suggestion that the source of the screener was “a friend” isn’t especially helpful in its own right, but a clear mention of Portuguese subtitles is somewhat unusual. We’ll return to that in a moment.

Welcome to the MPA

For long-time MPA member Paramount, having a screener leaked online won’t come as any surprise. For Amazon MGM Studios, which became the seventh member of the MPA last September, its most recent addition since Netflix joined in 2019, the leak of a Nickel Boys screener is something new ( IMDb ).

Nickel Boys received a Best Motion Picture – Drama nomination at the 82nd Golden Globe Awards, and a Best Picture nomination at the 97th Academy Awards.

At least potentially, this leak may be an unfortunate one-off for Amazon MGM Studios, but still one too many.

(Release name as an image, to avoid being flagged in a wrongful DMCA notice)

The ‘NFO’ file available alongside this screener release indicates that ‘COLLECTiVE’ is the group behind it. The release was first seen on private tracker iPT with no earlier appearances elsewhere, at least as far as we know.

Made available in 1080p, it’s claimed that like September 5, the Nickel Boys screener was downloaded from an online source (WEB-DL) and distributed via P2P with English subtitles.

The inclusion of ‘remuxed’ (copied without changes) Portuguese subtitles is common to the leak of September 5. However, the Nickel Boys’ English subtitles are hardcoded, meaning that the viewer can’t easily turn them off to enjoy the switchable subtitles in Portuguese.

Given the choice, it seems likely that COLLECTiVE would have made both subtitles switchable, a strong indication that the source copy had English subtitles burned in by default.

Whether that means COLLECTiVE has a specific interest in catering to a Portuguese-speaking audience remains unclear. However, it’s an interesting coincidence when one considers that EVO, the prolific screener release group mentioned earlier, is believed to have been led from Portugal , at least until its demise three years ago.

Update: COLLECTiVE informs TF that the source of these screeners is unknown to them. After receiving a tip, both were easily downloaded from the open web.

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