The double threat of some of the world’s largest pirate sites operating from Vietnam, yet limited opportunity to conduct robust enforcement actions to turn that situation around, remains a constant source of frustration for overseas rightsholders.

Hollywood’s opinion on what needs to be done wouldn’t be any more clear if its submissions to the USTR were written in all caps then underlined. In light of a criminal complaint against the operator of Phimmoi.net, that after much work simply vanished into the ether, overall progress has fallen well short of expectations .

Anime and manga producers based in Japan face similar challenges but with relatively few resources, at least when compared to those at Hollywood’s disposal, they hope that collaborating with partners will eventually break the impasse. News of a rapid conclusion to a rare online piracy investigation will likely be considered a plus.

Pirate Streaming Site Operators Targeted in January

News in January that police in Vietnam had arrested three men behind an illegal streaming operation was unexpected.

Information provided by the Quang Binh Provincial Police Department was soon confirmed by state-controlled media. The report said that 30-year-old Phan Ngoc Tuan, a resident of Quang Binh province, had been arrested on suspicion of operating the pirate sites bilutvt.net, tvhayh.org and animefull.net. The arrest later featured on national TV.

Authorities claimed that Tuan recruited two men, 24-year-old Ngo Quang Huy and 25-year-old Nguyen Thanh Nhan, both of Ho Chi Minh City. The men never met in person, since all duties were carried out via Telegram.

These apparently proactive arrests didn’t just lead to the men being prosecuted. Authorities demonstrated the type of speed and efficiency Hollywood has been requesting for many years. It seems that when the stars align, all things are possible.

Trio on Trial

The men faced trial at the People’s Court of Quang Binh province starting July 11, with local media confirming charges of “Infringement of copyright and related rights” under Article 225 of the Penal Code.

Information relating to the alleged crimes, outlined by the authorities back in January, featured almost identically during the trial.

The Court heard how 30-year-old Tuan began work on the sites back in 2019, aiming to distribute movies to the public, without permission from rightsholders, for the purpose of generating illegal profits from advertising. To avoid detection, Tuan reportedly bought domain names, rented virtual servers, and utilized hosting space, outside Vietnam.

Tuan went on to recruit Ngo Quang Huy and Nguyen Thanh Nhan, who were tasked with downloading, editing and distributing movies. The men were also responsible for increasing user engagement to attract advertising revenue.

Scale of Infringement

At the time of the arrests in January, police reported that Tuan had a library of 188,322 movie files, amounting to roughly 40TB of data.

During their trial, the men were accused of illegally broadcasting 57 Vietnamese and 14 ‘foreign’ films, which through advertising generated almost 2.7 billion VND (~US$106,500) over the course of the offending, slightly less than the 3 billion VND estimate from January.

After reviewing the evidence, the court sentenced the men as follows:

• Phan Ngoc Tuan: 24 months (suspended) + 2 billion VND (~US$78,800) fine.
• Ngo Quang Huy: 15 months (suspended) + 490 million VND (~US$19,300) fine.
• Nguyen Thanh Nhan: 9 months (suspended) + 184 million VND (~$US7,250) fine.

According to local media , this was the first case accepted and resolved by the Provincial People’s Court where a defendant was accused of copyright crimes.

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

Three years ago, Canada’s Federal Court of Appeal upheld the first pirate site-blocking order in the country.

The landmark decision opened the door to additional and more advanced blocking requests. Indeed, it didn’t take long before NHL broadcasters asked the court for a pirate streaming blocking order of their own.

This NHL blocking action was followed by a FIFA World Cup blocking order , which was also granted without further hassle. Following up on these successes, sports rightsholders added MLB pirates to their list of targets.

The blocking injunctions were not standalone requests. Instead, the interlocutory orders are part of lawsuits against the operators of the pirate streaming servers. On paper, the goal of the lawsuits is to pursue claims against these defendants and the blockades are a temporary measure to limit the damage these services cause.

This approach made sense, as filing a lawsuit simply for blocking purposes wasn’t common. However, after several injunctions were granted over the past three years, in April rightsholders streamlined their tactics by expanding the coverage of their blocking efforts.

New NHL, NBA and Premier League Piracy Blockade

Instead of pursuing blocking requests separately, rightsholders including Bell, Fubo TV, Rogers, and The Sports Network filed a request that covered multiple sports. The organizations sought to secure a blocking order for new NBA, NHL and Premier League games, identifying three “John Doe” defendants.

The defendants were not named but several IP addresses were identified. These appear to have been used by several piracy operations, including the publicly available pirate streaming site ‘epllive.net’ and paid subscription platforms including ‘TVSmarters’, which are mentioned by name.

Canada’s Federal Court granted the joint blocking request last Tuesday. A publicly available copy of the order has all IP addresses redacted, resulting in numerous blacked out pages.

Dynamic and Expanding

The ‘dynamic’ blocking order allows rightsholders to go back to court, to expand the list of blocked IP addresses. This helps to keep the injunction up-to-date, in the event that pirate streaming services try to circumvent the blocking measures.

Unlike the IP addresses, the ‘game windows’ and targeted games are not a secret. They cover upcoming NBA, NHL, and Premier League games, with the length varying per sport.

The NBA order remains valid until the 2025-2026 season. Coverage for pre-season and regular season games is limited to the only Canadian NBA team, the Toronto Raptors, likely due to rights issues. For the playoffs, non-Raptors games should be blocked too.

The Premier League order has no restrictions and applies to the 2023-2024 season, which has already ended, and the upcoming 2024-2025 season, yet to get underway.

The NHL blocking order appears to have come too late. According to the court documents, it covers the 2023-2024 season and the 2024 Stanley Cup. These ended before the court approved the court order.

The early expiration can be addressed, as the court order also includes the option to submit amendments to the scope of the order, without intervention from the court. This means that the NHL games for the upcoming season can be added, provided that the rights are secured.

The rightsholders requested this ‘expansion’ option because that would be more efficient than having to go back to court again and launch a separate proceeding. If a rightsholder needs more than two amendments, however, the court has to review the matter again.

Updates are not limited to NBA, NHL, or Premier League content. They can also cover different leagues or entirely different sports, as long as the requesting party has the appropriate rights.

Last-Minute Euro 2024 Piracy Blockade

The new amendment option was swiftly put to use. Just a few days after the court granted the order, an amendment request sought to expand the blocking order to cover the Euro 2024 football final, which took place yesterday.

This amendment was granted last Friday and, assuming that the targeted ISPs responded in time, were implemented before the broadcast started.

All in all, the recent orders show that rightsholders in Canada continue to optimize and streamline their blocking measures. This will undoubtedly frustrate some piracy services operating locally. That said, successfully defeating piracy remains a challenge.

—

A copy of the latest orders, as requested by the NBA, NHL, and Premier League is available here (pdf) , courtesy of Teksavvy , which shared it publicly in the interests of transparency

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

At a time when many pirate sites seem increasingly elusive, oftentimes almost transient as domains, identities, and branding, come and go, static enforcement targets are in limited supply.

The same can’t be said for internet service providers and over the past few years, several have paid a very steep price. Not for engaging in piracy per se , but for not responding aggressively enough against subscribers mostly accused of repeatedly pirating movies and music.

Just before the weekend, dozens of record labels including UMG, Warner, and Sony, filed a massive copyright infringement lawsuit against Verizon at a New York federal court. In common with previous lawsuits that accused rivals of similar inaction, Verizon Communications Inc., Verizon Services Corp., and Cellco Partnership (dba Verizon Wireless), stand accused of assisting subscribers to download and share pirated music, by not doing enough to stop them.

Can You Hear Me Now?

The labels’ complaint introduces Verizon as one of the largest ISPs in the country, one that “knowingly provides its high-speed service to a massive community of online pirates.”

Knowledge of infringement, the labels say, was established at Verizon over a period of several years during which it received “hundreds of thousands” of copyright notices, referencing instances of infringement allegedly carried out by its subscribers. The complaint cites Verizon subscribers’ persistent use of BitTorrent networks to download and share pirated music, with Verizon allegedly failing to curtail their activity.

“While Verizon is famous for its ‘Can you hear me now?’ advertising campaign, it has intentionally chosen not to listen to complaints from copyright owners. Instead of taking action in response to those infringement notices as the law requires, Verizon ignored Plaintiffs’ notices and buried its head in the sand,” the labels write.

“Undeterred, infringing subscribers identified in Plaintiffs’ notices continued to use Verizon’s services to infringe Plaintiffs’ copyrights with impunity. Meanwhile, Verizon continued to provide its high-speed service to thousands of known repeat infringers so it could continue to collect millions of dollars from them.”

Through this lawsuit, which references piracy of songs recorded by artists including The Rolling Stones, Ariana Grande, Bob Dylan, Bruno Mars, Elvis Presley, Dua Lipa, Drake, and others, the labels suggest that Verizon will have no choice but to hear them now.

“Scope of Repeat Infringement on Verizon’s Network is Staggering”

The labels claim that since early 2020, their representatives have sent more than 340,000 infringement notices to Verizon. These notifications “clearly and unambiguously” advised the ISP of its subscribers’ “blatant and systematic use of Verizon’s Internet service” to download, copy, and share the plaintiffs’ copyrighted sound recordings via BitTorrent networks.

“The scope of repeat infringement on Verizon’s network is staggering. Thousands of Verizon subscribers were the subject of 20 or more notices from Plaintiffs, and more than 500 subscribers were the subject of 100 or more notices,” the complaint claims.

“One particularly egregious Verizon subscriber was single-handedly the subject of 4,450 infringement notices from Plaintiffs alone.”

Egregious infringers

The plaintiffs state that Verizon acknowledged receipt of the notices, sent by third party vendor OpSec Online LLC, but in terms of response, chose to ignore them, “willfully blinding itself to that information and prioritizing its own profits over its legal obligations.”

The complaint makes it clear that if Verizon wanted to avoid being held liable for subscribers’ violations, termination of repeat infringers’ accounts or similar meaningful action would’ve been appropriate steps to take. Instead, it’s alleged that Verizon “routinely thumbed its nose” in response to complaints, while continuing to provide service to subscribers known to be serial infringers.

“In reality, Verizon operated its service as an attractive tool and safe haven for infringement,” the plaintiffs add, noting that Verizon derived a direct financial benefit from subscribers’ repeated infringements, by failing to take action as part of an effective repeat infringer program.

Repeat Infringer Program is Ineffective

The plaintiffs note that Verizon’s published “Copyright Infringement/Repeat Infringer Policy” prohibits subscribers from using the ISP’s systems or servers in a manner that infringes third party intellectual property rights. The policy further states that under Section 512 of the DMCA, Verizon terminates repeat infringers in “appropriate circumstances.”

One of the problems, the labels claim, is that Verizon actively attempts to thwart copyright holders’ efforts to inform the ISP of infringement.

The complaint describes Verizon’s Anti-Piracy Cooperation Program as having “onerous conditions” that require participants to pay burdensome fees for automated processes such as IP address lookups and notice forwarding. Rightsholders are further required to waive their copyright claims, indemnify Verizon, while keeping the terms of the program confidential, the labels say.

Rightsholders who prefer not to utilize this program are required to send notices via email. The labels claim these notices aren’t reviewed, processed, forwarded to subscribers, or even tracked to ensure that repeat infringers are handled in line with Verizon policy.

Given that Verizon’s response to infringement notices falls short of what the labels consider to be the threshold for avoiding liability, they predict that the consequences of the ISP’s “support of and profit from infringement are obvious and stark.”

Claims For Contributory and Vicarious copyright Infringement

Attached to the complaint, Exhibit A contains a non-exhaustive list of the plaintiffs’ copyright works allegedly infringed by Verizon’s subscribers. The document is over 400 pages long, with each track listed representing potential liability for Verizon as a willful, intentional, and purposeful contributory infringer, the complaint notes.

This inevitably leads to claims based on maximum statutory damages of $150,000 per copyrighted work infringed on Count I (contributory infringement). The statutory maximum of $150,000 per infringed work is also applied to Count II (vicarious infringement), based on the labels’ claim that Verizon derived a direct financial benefit from the direct infringements of its subscribers.

The labels’ complaint, filed at a New York federal court last Friday, can be found here (pdf)

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

Under a concept known as Released Time for Religious Instruction (RTRI), children in the United States are permitted to leave school to receive religious instruction elsewhere.

Whether an hour a day or once per week, the fact that young students are taken off-site is a component of the law.

Use of the tax-supported public school system, to finance and help spread whatever beliefs various groups may have, is disallowed under the First Amendment. To remain constitutional, RTRI takes place away from public school premises, with school teachers and authorities’ involvement limited to releasing children for instruction.

The current controversy stems from the nature of the ‘religious instruction’ children receive when not being supervised by their school or their parents. In this matter, rapidly expanding religious group LifeWise provides the instruction. However, a quest by local parents, to raise public awareness of the nature of that instruction, has led to one of their group in Indiana being sued by LifeWise for copyright infringement.

Copyright Complaint, Religious Controversy

Filed in the Northern District of Indiana (Fort Wayne Division) on July 2, 2024, plaintiff LifeWise Inc. of Indiana describes itself as a “privately funded Christian non-profit” that provides “religious instruction in traditional, character-based, Biblical teaching.” Such instruction is only provided to children after permission has been obtained from their parents and, in line with the law, instruction only takes place away from school premises, LifeWise notes.

On the website of Parents Against LifeWise , an opposition group formed to raise awareness of LifeWise and its alleged practices, the religious group is described in somewhat different terms. We’ll touch on the more serious allegations later on.

“The business model consists of a motivational ‘character-based’ school assembly where religion is hinted at but never fully addressed, followed by the invitation to join them again ‘after school’ for a more ‘gospel-centric outreach concert’. Sometimes these are held off school property at a local church but often they are held in the same place the assembly was during the school day,” the statement reads .

The basis for the lawsuit, which targets Parents Against LifeWise member Zachary Parrish, is relatively straightforward. The organization’s religious instruction program, marketed as LifeWise Academy, has a curriculum which outlines the religious instruction children receive.

In the belief that the curriculum contains information supportive of the group’s cause and in the wider public interest, it’s alleged that Parrish set out to obtain a copy. The curriculum later appeared on the Parents Against LifeWise website and on Facebook; that attracted the negative attention of LifeWise and allegations of copyright infringement. In the complaint, how the curriculum was allegedly obtained is painted as a serious matter too.

Obtaining the Curriculum

“Upon Information and belief, Mr. Parrish used unauthorized means to obtain the password-protected LifeWise Curriculum only accessible by paid employees of LifeWise who have been issued login credentials,” the allegations begin.

“Defendant Zachary Parrish posed as a LifeWise volunteer to gain access to internal LifeWise documents. Mr. Parrish published internal LifeWise documents and the entire copyrighted LifeWise Curriculum on his website [Parents Against LifeWise]. LifeWise tried multiple times to reason with Mr. Parrish to remove the LifeWise Curriculum from his Website. But Mr. Parrish refused,” the complaint notes.

At the time of writing, items from the curriculum are plainly visible in search engine results. A cursory test suggests that access to at least some of those files requires no credentials. Whether these are official uploads is unclear but even in a limited way, files are available to the public.

The LifeWise complaint puts forward its own theory to explain what motivated Parrish to obtain the curriculum. Noting that the Parents Against LifeWise Facebook group has already attracted around 2,500 members since it was created September 1, 2023, LifeWise is of the belief that “Mr. Parrish does not support LifeWise’s mission.”

“[H]is goal was to gather information and internal documents with the hope of publishing information online which might harm LifeWise’s reputation and galvanize parents to oppose local LifeWise Academy chapters in their communities,” the religious group claims.

“[A]fter submitting his fraudulent volunteer application, Mr. Parrish improperly gained access to LifeWise’s information storage systems, downloaded internal LifeWise documents, and posted them to his Website. He also improperly obtained and posted a digital copy of the entire LifeWise Curriculum.”

Complaint: Parrish Was Motivated By His Opposition

The complaint makes no mention of why any of the documents, whether allegedly sought or obtained, might have the potential to harm LifeWise’s reputation. Likewise, there’s nothing to explain how a curriculum may have the potential to “galvanize parents” against LifeWise Academy providing religious instruction to local children.

In its complaint the plaintiff makes clear that Parrish is considered an opponent who strongly objects to LifeWise’s mission. The Parents Against LifeWise website leaves no doubt that the conclusion drawn by LifeWise is 100% accurate. The opposition group claims that LifeWise Academy “is spreading Evangelical Christianity, Purity Culture, Christian Nationalism, homophobic beliefs, transphobia, and hateful rhetoric to the youngest of our children.”

The veracity of these claims plays no part in the copyright lawsuit, but they do serve to underline the only aspect of this matter upon which both the plaintiff and defendant agree; Parrish strongly opposes LifeWise’s mission to reach “every unchurched child in America.” To that background, LifeWise’s complaint alleges that Parrish’s “exploitation of the Registered Copyrighted Works” was willful and in disregard of the plaintiff’s rights.

At this point there appears to be a shift in direction. LifeWise says that on information and belief (something it has been told, that it believes is true), Parrish’s “intentional infringing conduct” was undertaken to “reap the creative benefit and value associated with the Registered Copyrighted Works” without obtaining authorization from LifeWise or incurring the costs that would entail.

Having established Parrish’s opposition to LifeWise and its religious teachings, reaping “creative benefit” from the curriculum seems quite the stretch. The allegation that licensing costs were avoided carries much more weight, however.

Parents Denied Access to the Curriculum

The Parents Against LifeWise website makes it crystal clear that formal requests to gain access to curriculum documents have repeatedly failed. The complaint itself acknowledges that while a summary of the curriculum is made available to the public, access to the full curriculum is restricted by licensing; further restrictions LifeWise may choose to impose include “the right to deny permission altogether.”

Who owns the copyrights to the curriculum and how licensing is structured, may be a point of interest for the defense. According to LifeWise, the “curriculum exists as part of a license agreement between Lifeway Publishing and LifeWise Academy.”

According to the LifeWise website, the above licensing agreement prevents it from making the curriculum available to the public. In the complaint, LifeWise states that the terms of the curriculum licensing agreement include “its exclusive use in the United States and within a classroom setting with student learners.”

This seems to suggest an extremely restrictive licensing arrangement which makes no provision for parents to make an informed decision on consent; at least based on a review of the curriculum outside the classroom setting described by LifeWise. Before moving on, it’s worth considering who holds the power in respect of this specific copyrighted work.

This Will Require Some Untangling

In its complaint, LifeWise claims to be the copyright owner of the curriculum, which provides it with control over the use of this copyrighted work and the right to file a copyright complaint.

However, the certificate of registration at the Copyright Office for the ‘LifeWise Curriculum’ states that Stand for Truth Inc. is the author, not LifeWise, Inc., the plaintiff in this case. In the complaint, LifeWise explains that Stand for Truth, Inc. was named as the author of the work on July 8, 2021, but subsequently changed its corporate name to LifeWise, Inc. on September 7, 2022.

If we are to assume that LifeWise Inc. is indeed the copyright owner, another aspect needs to be considered first. According to the complaint, the LifeWise Curriculum is actually a derivative work, i.e it is based on and contains other copyrighted content. And so it begins.

“LifeWise entered into a white label copyright licensing agreement with Lifeway Christian Resources (‘Lifeway’) to develop the LifeWise Curriculum based on Lifeway’s copyrighted Sunday school curriculum called the Gospel Project,” the complaint explains.

A white label agreement is commonly used to govern the supply of goods or services by one party, for use by another party in their course of their own business, oftentimes under their own branding.

A Completely Baffling Conclusion

If our understanding thus far is correct, a summary seems to go something like this:

Christian publishing company LifeWay owns or owned the copyright in a curriculum called the Gospel Project. Stand For Truth, Inc. obtained permission to create a derivative work called the LifeWise Curriculum, which it registered as an independent copyright work at the Copyright Office, without referencing the work it was derived from.

Stand For Truth, Inc. later became LifeWise, Inc. and now declares itself the copyright owner of the copyrighted work in suit. The restrictive licensing agreement referenced above, precludes LifeWise, the alleged copyright owner, from using the curriculum outside a classroom setting. LifeWise (the claimed copyright owner) admits in the complaint that it pays Lifeway a licensing fee for use of the curriculum under the terms of the white label agreement mentioned earlier.

This strongly suggests that LifeWise pays a licensing fee to a third party, for the privilege of obtaining strictly limited access and subsequent use of its own copyrighted work.

Parrish Will Probably Mount a Fair Use Defense

A series of documents reviewed by TorrentFreak reveal events leading up to the lawsuit and the subsequent fallout. A DMCA takedown notice filed at WordPress owner Automattic led to Parrish filing a DMCA counter notice. That required LifeWise to file a lawsuit or face the curriculum being reinstated after initially being taken down.

After the complaint was filed, Parrish quickly received an offer to settle. We don’t know what terms were offered, or if terms were even discussed. If settling this matter involves a component that requires Parrish and the wider group to stop creating awareness for their cause, we get the impression that will be of no interest.

Parrish has not directly confirmed that he will rely on a fair use defense, although that is clearly one of the options available. In general, confidence on the legal aspects is high. In respect of the group’s mission, “to shed light on LifeWise Academy and show people the truth about the organization,” determination remains rock solid.

Zach Parrish: The Group and Its Mission

“When I started learning about this program in 2021, I saw the nationwide trajectory [LifeWise] were on. I was screaming into the abyss on Reddit trying to warn people. There was no information, resource, help or support for me regarding LifeWise,” Parrish informs TorrentFreak.

“[Parents Against LifeWise co-founder] Molly Gaines and I have organized this movement to be that for other parents, teachers, and all citizens who care about the separation of church and state or the extreme Christian Nationalist agenda, because make no mistake, LifeWise is simply an arm of that much larger picture.”

Parrish pulls no punches when describing the nature of the religious group and its “very Evangelical doctrine.” Those who wish to read the opinions of Parents Against LifeWise can do so in depth on the group’s website , and on the GoFundMe page set up for legal defense .

In this matter, access to the curriculum is viewed as fundamental for parents and the wider community.

“The bottom line is if our schools are made to provide curriculum to parents, any organization that is coming in and asking parents to sign over the custodial rights of their children from the public schools to these 3rd party volunteers, the curriculum they’re teaching should also be available,” Parrish insists.

“It’s absurd to claim parents, clergy members, teachers and school admin are simply not allowed to review curriculum, and LifeWise refuses every time someone asks. They provide a 27-page sample, and this is part of their claim, my counter is that 27-pages does not cover a 12-year curriculum.”

A copy of the LifeWise complaint is available here ( pdf )

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

When Argentina won the FIFA World Cup in 2022, the entire country was watching. Many people tuned in to legal broadcasts and, at the same time, illegal streams were buzzing too.

With an audience of many millions, piracy is unquestionably popular in Argentina. Rightsholders are happy with that, but they’ve also complained about a lack of enforcement against pirate streaming services.

The tide appears to have turned recently, in part because site blocking tools are improving. Last year, local anti-piracy outfit Alianza obtained the country’s first dynamic site blocking order , requiring local ISPs to restrict access to thirty sports streaming sites.

While the blocking order had an effect, plenty of piracy alternatives remained available. This prompted Alianza to refer more sites to the local authorities, including a person of interest, who is believed to play a pivotal role.

50+ New Site Blocks, One Arrest

The Argentine Justice Department followed up on this lead and this week ordered local Internet providers to block access to more than 50 pirate sites. The sites use the popular sports streaming brands “Futbol Libre” and “Megadeportes”.

A full list of domain names hasn’t been published, but it would make sense that the most visited ones, including futbollibretv.fr, futbollibretv.pe, futbollibre.futbol and megadeportestv2.online are included.

The Megadeportes domains are of particular interest. The alleged founder and operator of a ‘ring’ of these sites was arrested in the province of Mendoza by the Specialized Prosecutor’s Unit for the Investigation of Cybercrimes , then transported 1,200 kilometers to Buenos Aires for questioning.

‘The Consultant’

The arrest is part of a criminal case and also involved a raid, during which computers and other evidence related to the crimes was seized. The unnamed suspect stands accused of violating copyright law for his part in the sports streaming operations.

The allegations against the suspect go further than simply operating streaming sites. According to Alianza President Jorge Bacaloni, the man also consulted for others, providing them with the necessary information to run their own pirate sports streaming portals.

“The defendant was engaged in supplying content and programming tools to other pirate operators, such as access codes to violate the security mechanisms implemented by the companies, used to feed their services.

“He was a kind of consultant for the administration of illegal streaming services,” Bacaloni adds in his commentary on the case.

“Kahsad’s Traces”

According to a local report from Infobae , the authorities mentioned that the suspect used the alias “Kahsad”, under which he apparently founded the “Megadeportes” pirate sites.

Somewhat unusual is the prominent mention of a free Google-hosted blog, kahsadtvonline.blogspot.com, where “illegal access” to sports streams including “Futbol Libre” was offered.

At the time of writing, this outdated blog is still online , although it doesn’t look all that advanced . In fact, there’s no sign of any new updates in recent years. The only links we see are a few basic non-functioning embeds, which could have been wiped out by Google through a takedown notice.

In our search for information we found some other “Kahsad” and “Megadeportes” traces, but these don’t provide additional clarity.

Google searches indeed link the two names together. For example, they point to a GitHub profile with 5 followers and a GitHub-hosted sports streaming site with over a million monthly visits that’s currently offline . Whether these are indeed connected to the suspect is unknown.

Perhaps more information will become available when the prosecution progresses. Local authorities are taking the piracy problem seriously and appear willing to act. Whether the effort will be sufficient to make a serious dent in pirate streaming numbers remains to be seen.

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

The name ‘Aylo’ may not sound immediately familiar but hundreds of millions of people visit its sites every month.

Formerly known as MindGeek, and Manwin before that, the company conquered the online adult market over the past decade by offering free porn to the masses.

Aylo is also the driving force behind free ‘tube’ sites such as PornHub, YouPorn, and RedTube. It also owns many adult brands, including Brazzers and Reality Kings, that charge for subscriptions.

Over the years, the company has built an impressive library of over 40,000 registered copyright works. The company’s enforcement arm MG Premium protects this content by various means; it sends millions of takedown requests per week and full-blown lawsuits often enter the equation.

The Goodporn Lawsuit

MG Premium fought a lengthy court battle against DaftSex, which it won, and earlier this year a rather bizarre lawsuit against Goodporn swung in its favor.

The Goodporn case has many interesting twists and turns, with defendants claiming to be the victims, accusing Pornhub of being the infringing party . However, after the facades fell, MG Premium came out on top, so to speak.

In February, the court awarded MG Premium $2.1 million in damages. Injunctive relief was denied, however, which meant that domain takeovers or site-blocking orders were not an option. According to the court, there was no evidence of ‘irreparable harm’.

MG Premium Wanted More

MG Premium welcomed its win over Goodporn but was disappointed by the lack of a permanent injunction. Soon after the court released its order, the adult entertainment company filed a motion to amend the default judgment, urging the court to reconsider its initial decision.

MG Premium asked the court to consider a more significant award for damages. Instead of $1,500 for each of the 1,438 works in suit, it felt that $15,000 per work would be appropriate, for a total of $21.6 million in damages.

The company also stressed that damages alone would not act as a sufficient deterrent. In fact, damages may have little impact on the defendant at all.

“Monetary damages are not an adequate remedy in this matter. Defendants have been ordered to pay fees or sanctions to Plaintiff multiple times, and have never done so,” the adult entertainment company explained.

To have the best chance of stopping the infringing activities, MG Premium asked the court to issue a permanent injunction. According to the company, there certainly is irreparable harm, as Goodporn’s domain names remained online after the judgment was issued.

Court Greenlights Domain Seizures and Site Blocking

Presented with this request for an amendment, and the defendant’s subsequent opposition to it, U.S. District Court Judge Mark C. Scarsi issued a new order this week, granting a permanent injunction.

Upon reconsideration, the Judge now acknowledges that there is indeed ‘irreparable harm’ as thousands of works continue to be shared without permission. In fact, all relevant factors weigh in MG Premium’s favor.

“Plaintiff’s evidence shows infringement of more than 50,000 videos either owned or licensed by Plaintiff,” Judge Scarsi writes.

“The scope of the injunctive relief requested in the instant motion is consistent with the injunctive relief prayed for in the first amended complaint, unlike the proposed order upon the motion for default judgment.”

This conclusion paves the way for a broad injunction that restrains the defendants from engaging in any copyright infringing activity going forward. More importantly, however, it also directs domain registrars to transfer the domains Goodporn.to and Goodporn.se domains to Aylo’s subsidiary.

The injunction also requires third-party services to block any related infringing activity for U.S. users. Those services include search engines, hosting companies, and Internet providers, as detailed below (emphasis added).

“Defendants, their agents, servants, officers, directors, employees, attorneys, privies, representatives, successors and assigns and parent and subsidiary corporations or other related entities, and any or all persons or entity acting in concert or participation with any of them, or under their direction or control, including any internet search engines, web hosting and Internet service providers, domain name registrars, domain name registries and other service or software providers are ordered, within five business days from Plaintiff’s service of the Judgment on those parties to block or use reasonable efforts to attempt to block access by United States users of the Goodporn Websites by blocking or attempting to block access to all domains, subdomains, URLs, and/or IP addresses that have as its sole or predominant purpose to enable to facilitate access to the Goodporn Websites.”

Site Blocking?

The permanent injunction is powerful and should ensure that the affected domains are no longer used to infringe. It may also come as a surprise to some, as pirate site blocking by U.S. Internet providers is rare to nonexistent.

A few months ago, there were new calls from major entertainment companies hoping to establish site blocking measures in the United States. However, those refer to non-existing ‘no-fault’ injunctions where third-party services face no liability. The Goodporn injunction, on the other hand, is targeted at services that “act in concert” with the infringing parties.

Residential Internet providers seem unlikely to welcome the injunction as it stands, but it’s still not clear that Aylo will ask for their cooperation. When we asked the company about it, we received an indirect answer.

“We take any infringement of our content and brands seriously and remain committed to protecting our intellectual property rights. We believe this amended judgment will contribute to deterring piracy and will help ensure consumers find our content through legitimate channels,” an Aylo spokesperson said.

It would make sense for Aylo to focus on taking down the domain names first, and that already appears to be happening. Goodporn.to is offline at the time of writing, and Goodporn.se will be inactive soon.

GPStatus Remains Online

The Court didn’t grant all amendments proposed by MG Premium. The damages remain unchanged at $2.1 million and the request to include the GPStatus.org domain, which broadcasts the most recent Goodporn domains, was denied as well.

“[N]either the declarations supporting the instant motion nor the broader record as the Court perceives it refer to GPStatus.org. As such, the Court declines to include the specific language regarding GPStatus.org to the extent that the website is not already covered by the injunction’s broader language,” the Court concludes.

Indeed, GPStatus.org remains online and reports that Goodporn will move to Sincity.is going forward, urging people to update their bookmarks.

“We have been informed by the Goodporn admin that their address has changed. The former addresses, Goodporn.to and Goodporn.se, will stop working soon. According to the admin, the new address is Sincity.is. Videos will fix in next 24-48 hours,” the site explains.

Obtaining an injunction as powerful as this amounts to a significant victory for Aylo and MG Premium. The measures are designed to make Goodporn more difficult to operate but it’s already clear that the ‘pirate’ site has no intention of throwing in the towel.

—

A copy of U.S. District Court Judge Mark C. Scarsi’s order to amend the default judgment against the Goodporn defendants, including the injunction relief, is available here (pdf) .

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

For less demanding pirates, a free movie, TV show, or live stream amounts to nothing more than the base media. In common with users of legal platforms, how that content made it to their screens is mostly of no concern.

Yet if ‘How It’s Made’ had an episode revealing what goes on behind the scenes to keep sites online, in the face of constant efforts to shut them down, that might be an eye-opener.

In some respects setting up a site is easier today than ever before. On the downside, pirates routinely expect more; some have become openly aggressive critics, treating pirate sites no differently than they would an underperforming retailer or airline. It’s not unusual to hear comments suggesting they will vote with their feet (but not necessarily with their wallets) should standards and overall quality fall below acceptable levels.

The fact that behind the scenes anti-piracy companies are using all available tools, to make running a site as unrewarding, frustrating, and oftentimes as unprofitable as possible, means almost nothing to the general masses. At least until everything suddenly stops working, most commonly due to some kind of blocking. At that point, nothing is more important.

Really? Haven’t these people got anything better to do? (some pirates, every week, since 1999)

Getting Paid to Watch Pirate Streams At Work?

A job listing that appeared on LinkedIn and several other sites this week offers a glimpse into pirate life from the opposing direction. The potential employer is listed as ‘Legal Forensic Tech’ which under the circumstances is probably a reference to SP Tech, the company tasked with running Italy’s Piracy Shield blocking system.

The position of ‘Super Junior Developer’ will see the successful candidate join the team to “continue the fight” against IPTV providers and web-based streaming services, offering pirated Serie A and Serie B football matches.

“During the week, [Super Junior] will be responsible for monitoring pirate streaming networks, and during the matches on weekends (3/4 weekends per month required, for a total of one hour per day, not for the whole weekend), to take them down using Piracy Shield,” the listing explains.

Getting paid to watch pirate networks all week might sound like easy money, but the importance of monitoring streams when matches aren’t being aired shouldn’t underestimated. It’s during these periods that most pirate services and their servers are logged as suppliers of infringing content and therefore subject to blocking measures.

There’s also the not insignificant task of identifying services that were previously blocked but due to circumvention, need to be blocked again.

No Special Skills or Experience Needed

There’s no question this is an important job, but information in the listing doesn’t always seem to reflect that.

The position pays a gross annual salary (known as RAL ) of €24,000 (~$26,000), considerably less than the national average of €32,500. It’s also offered on a so-called co.co.co. basis, meaning that the successful candidate won’t be considered a full employee or even self-employed, but will get to decide when work gets done.

Also of note is the employer’s emphasis on the level of experience required; specifically, it’s fine if the applicant has none whatsoever. Then, to a background of some serious blocking blunders involving Cloudflare earlier this year, there’s the matter of matching the applicant’s skill set to the expectations of their potential employer.

“We are ready and willing to teach everything there is to know about our world, all we need is someone with the grit and passion,” the listing adds.

“This experience is preparatory to becoming part of the development team of our products that automate these projects. The stack we work in is mainly Golang, Python and React, on which we will train you.”

100s of Millions At Stake vs. Piracy Shield’s Pittance?

The listing confirms that the specific project being worked on is anti-piracy software for the football league, although Piracy Shield gets a specific mention elsewhere. As a result, the company works closely with DAZN, Sky, and others involved in football match broadcasting.

“We are a very small team, very close-knit and very helpful to each other,” the listing notes, reporting a two-member ops team, two junior staff, and a coordinator.

At the head of the company there’s a CEO and two “super-seniors.” One is a forensics expert, investigator, and an expert witness. The other “deals with the development part in Go and is a former pirate.”

It’s often claimed that pirates make huge sums of money but, in the end, being a pirate doesn’t pay. Hopefully that isn’t the case here, not least since working on Piracy Shield is just part of the company’s overall business.

Interestingly, relying solely on the revenue generated by the Piracy Shield contract might not even be sustainable.

For the “adapative and evolutionary maintenance services of the Piracy Shield Platform” for a period of 12 months ending December 2024, SP TECH S.R.L. will receive roughly the same amount of money Juventus pays Dušan Vlahović for a single day’s work.

The Piracy Shield job listing can be found here

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

During an Italian Senate Committee on the future of football this week, discussions inevitably turned to the thorny issue of IPTV piracy and the first clear signs that controlling it is beyond current capabilities.

Given the rhetoric leading up to the launch of the Piracy Shield system, piracy in Italy should either be extinct or at the very least, gasping for air right now.

With neither of those scenarios playing out today, nor likely to play out anytime soon, it was only a matter of time before Europe’s “most advanced” anti-piracy system needed an upgrade. With the public purse picking up the bill , Piracy Shield 2.0 seems likely to be ready by the end of the year , but it doesn’t really matter what upgrades the system receives.

Pirates will route around it, provide it with false information, and in general, treat every attempt at denying service as an occupational hazard. Romano Righetti, Director of External and Public Affairs for DAZN, spoke about the challenges during the hearing this week and offered some detail on the company’s plan to fight back.

Attracting More Customers At the Expense of Piracy

Most large companies see benefit in attracting more customers and, for DAZN, more subscribers raises the possibility of returning a share of its revenue back into the football ecosystem. Righetti cited recent figures published by anti-piracy group FAPAV indicating that 285 million euros escapes from Serie A each year due to piracy.

“Some estimate that the number of illegal viewers could be in the order of two or three million, but it’s obviously very difficult to detect as they are illegal,” he said.

“However, it’s clear that strong action against piracy would not only benefit the treasury; obviously, revenues received under a legal regime are treated differently to those generated under an illegal one. The mechanism we have introduced could activate a virtuous circle whereby football would enjoy greater financial resources from us, although I cannot speak on behalf of our competitors, the other broadcasters.”

Righetti said that the anti-piracy legislation passed last August was a step forward, as was the launch of the new IPTV blocking system launched this year and overseen by AGCOM. Nevertheless, DAZN sees opportunities for improvement.

“The work carried out by AGCOM, through the adoption of the regulation and then the implementation of the so-called Piracy Shield platform, was another important step. However, we must take note that pirates are very sophisticated operators who know how to circumvent blocking, so for us we’re looking for the Piracy Shield platform to function more effectively,” Righetti added.

The Solution Lies Across The Atlantic

Righetti informed the Senate Committee that, at times, it may have appeared that Piracy Shield was ineffective due to malfunctions, but that assessment would be incorrect. Not only are pirates sophisticated operators, they also have access to sophisticated tools, mostly provided by American internet intermediaries.

Cloudflare wasn’t mentioned directly, but it’s been common knowledge for a while that Piracy Shield has no answer for the technical challenges posed by the company’s services. Statements from AGCOM have at times bristled with criticism, most likely due to the limitations of a system that was developed in full knowledge of what it was up against, promised the earth, yet was never likely to deliver.

Hoping to remedy the situation, Serie A took legal action against Cloudflare in May. Now DAZN outlines its own solution.

“Another important step would be to make it mandatory for so-called intermediaries of electronic communication services, which allow pirates to hide from the Piracy Shield platform through their services, to be obliged to register with this platform,” he explained.

“This would be a very important step because the services provided by these mainly American companies, have created situations where the platform becomes ineffective. Not because of the malfunctioning of the platform, but due to the level of sophistication of the services that these companies offer to pirates.”

Hit Intermediaries and Then Hit Pirate Football Fans

The proposal stated above implies that Cloudflare should be compelled, possibly by AGCOM, to participate in the Piracy Shield platform in the same way that local ISPs currently do. After plugging itself into the system, Cloudflare would be required to make itself permanently available, to receive lists of IP addresses and domains, and then block each one within 30 mins, to ensure that no Italian can access them.

As a business proposition, albeit completely one-sided, it’s difficult to imagine Cloudflare augmenting its connectivity-focused mission with a huge project that runs entirely counter to that. Presumably that’s why DAZN’s proposal suggests that participation should be mandatory – effectively the use of force.

The same approach also features in DAZN’s proposal for luring currently-pirating football fans back to the legal viewing market. Righetti says the company hopes that a memorandum of understanding, between AGCOM, the Guardia di Finanza (financial police) and the Public Prosecutor’s Office, can be signed as soon as possible, “because another very important step would be to put the Public Prosecutor’s Office in a position to prosecute not just those who offer piracy but those who buy piracy services.”

Righetti describes prosecuting pirating members of the public as “an absolutely fundamental step” towards tackling the piracy problem. To have any meaningful deterrent effect, that might need to involve the prosecution of a significant number of people, the same people who make up the pool of people from where broadcasters see great potential for growth.

Details of testimony from Sky Sport and Mediaset available here and here ( digital-news.it )

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

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

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

Anti-piracy groups around the world are actively trying to shut down these illicit operations. In Europe, Dutch anti-piracy group BREIN is at the forefront of the battle.

Catching IPTV Pirates

In 2017, BREIN booked a prominent victory at the European Court of Justice, which ruled that it’s illegal to sell devices that are pre-configured to access copyright-infringing content. This “Filmspeler” decision ended all theories that sellers of pirate streaming boxes somehow operated in a gray area.

Combined with the earlier GS Media ruling , which held that companies with a for-profit motive can’t knowingly link to copyright-infringing material, rightsholders could rely on a powerful enforcement tool.

These legal aspects are just one part of the equation. To shut down a pirate IPTV operation, one also has to know who the opponent is. And with operators often trying hard to remain anonymous, that’s not always easy.

BREIN Shuts Down and Settles with IPTVpremium

This also applied to a local IPTV vendor, IPTVpremium (presumably this one ) , which sold subscriptions that enabled access to a broad selection of TV channels, sports, and content from all major streaming platforms for just €70 annually.

The IPTV vendor tried to mask his identity but with help from anti-piracy and cybercrime outfit Irdeto, BREIN managed to identify its target. With that information in hand, BREIN chose to confront the man.

Without an intervention from the court, BREIN compelled the operator to cease his IPTV selling activities, which he did. The man also agreed to pay an undisclosed settlement fee and 7,500 euros per day if any future infringements occur.

This type of takedown is exemplary for BREIN. Instead of initiating a lengthy court case for high damages, it prefers swift action. Key in this process is that the message gets through to consumers as well.

In its press release, BREIN highlights the fact that the service was terminated effective immediately. Obviously, existing subscribers are not reimbursed, even if they bought their €70 subscription just days ago.

“Purchasing a set-top box with an illegal IPTV subscription is comparable to fencing. Every time the user turns on the box and starts watching a movie or TV series, they engage in copyright infringement and act unlawfully,” BREIN director Bastiaan van Ramshorst says.

Subscribers Notified

TorrentFreak reached out to BREIN for more details but, due to the confidential nature of the settlement, the group can’t confirm the scale of the damages or the number of active subscribers the service had.

BREIN agreed with the IPTV vendor that all subscribers, who ordered and communicated via WhatsApp, had to be notified about the shutdown and the illegal nature of the service.

The message, translated from Dutch, reads as follows:

You have an IPTV package subscription with us that provides access to evidently illegally offered television channels, movies and series.

It is established in case law that the sales of these types of IPTV packages is not allowed, and that you, the customer, violate copyright law each time you use it.

For this reason we have been summoned by BREIN to stop the sales of these illegal IPTV Packages immediately and to inform you about it.

The message doesn’t directly suggest that any users are in trouble, and we don’t expect them to be. However, BREIN likely hopes that if losing access to a paid subscription isn’t bad enough, the message will serve as an additional deterrent.

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