Anime and manga producers in Japan are pressing ahead with work that aims to disrupt or render inaccessible pirate sites operated by individuals based overseas.

These enforcement efforts are spearheaded by the Content Overseas Distribution Association (CODA), an anti-piracy group which counts major local rightsholders and international groups including the Motion Picture Association (MPA) among its members.

As MPA member Sony attracts attention for its continued expansion into both the manga and anime markets, including its recent interest in the acquisition of publishing giant Kadokawa, synergies between the companies will likely be in focus as the weeks unfold.

Knock-and-Talk

Earlier this month, action by CODA in Brazil deployed anti-piracy enforcement tactics used regularly by the MPA and the ACE coalition.

So-called ‘knock-and-talk’ operations begin with the not inconsiderable task of positively identifying pirate site operators and then confronting them directly, usually at their home addresses. When compared to a mailed cease-and-desist notice, similar documents served in person are designed to have a personal impact, and are often credited with presenting a tangible reality more likely to yield results.

Acting on behalf of members Toei Animation Co., Ltd., Toho Co., Ltd., and Bandai Namco Filmworks Inc., CODA’s knock-and-talk aimed to disrupt 15 pirate sites that offered Japanese content to consumers outside Japan, and deployed various measures to limit exposure to enforcement operations.

“They blocked access from Japanese IP addresses and took measures (geo-blocking) to prevent infringement from being discovered by Japanese rights holders, and released Japanese anime to Brazilian viewers with subtitles in Portuguese, the local language, and earned advertising revenue from each site,” CODA explains.

15 Sites Closed, Including 3rd Most Popular in Brazil

CODA reports that the December 4 ‘knock-and-talk’ operation resulted in the closure of 15 sites, including bakashi.tv, the third most-visited pirate anime site in Brazil. SimilarWeb traffic data indicates that in September, October, and November 2024, bakashi.tv received 6.43 million, 9.3 million, and 8.34 million visits respectively. CODA’s figures relate to the traffic of all 15 sites combined.

“The average monthly number of visits to these 15 sites over the past three months (August to October 2024) is approximately 7.95 million,” the anti-piracy group reports.

Unreported Details

While Bakashi.tv is presumably mentioned by name due to its significance, a site apparently attempting to replace it (same name, different TLD) is claiming that the site’s videos were deleted by the site’s former owner “out of spite.”

With no obvious reference to the sudden appearance of lawyers at the former owner’s home, it’s unclear whether the new site’s users have the full picture. In any event, another supposed replacement using a .to extension is being declared a fake, but what constitutes a fake these days is far from clear.

The names of the other 14 sites have not been released to the public, so it’s not possible to say whether there are 14 individual sites or 14 domains relating to an unspecified number of sites. How many operators were engaged via ‘knock-and-talk’ is also uncertain.

The table below lists all domains officially reported as ‘closed’ by CODA plus any domains we have independently confirmed as redirecting to CODA’s ‘closed’ page in recent months.

The list is likely to be incomplete and since it’s unclear what type of control CODA exercises over these domains, redirections may be subject to change.

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

In 2018, Canada’s Federal Court approved the country’s first pirate site-blocking order .

Following a complaint from major media companies Rogers, Bell and TVA, the Court ordered several major ISPs to block access to the domains and IP-addresses of pirate IPTV service GoldTV.

Site Blocking Appeals

There was little opposition from Internet providers, except for TekSavvy, which quickly announced an appeal . According to the ISP, the blocking injunction threatened the open Internet, just to advance the interests of a few powerful media conglomerates.

Canada’s Federal Court of Appeal disagreed and in 2021 it concluded that the blocking order can stay in place. According to the Court, site-blocking injunctions are an available option under the Copyright Act and they don’t violate freedom of speech or net neutrality.

Hoping to turn the tide, TekSavvy petitioned the Supreme Court to review the impact of site blocking on the open internet. However, Canada’s highest court declined to hear the case, effectively establishing Canada’s judicial site blocking route.

Blockade Evolves and Expands

The initial GoldTV blocking order was valid for two years. After that, rightsholders had to go back to court to request an extension. That happened indeed, and as time went on the blocking targets have evolved quite a bit.

After two years, none of the original domains were included in the blocking order. This is no surprise, as the original target domains were discontinued and replaced by new ones.

In 2022, the Federal Court approved the latest update, which included the domains destv.me, 905iptv.com, firtio.club, jiocdn.cc, new4k.co and zkat.me, as well as dozens of related subdomains. Most of these domains are still online today, linking to IPTV stalker portals.

Rightsholders Let Blocking Order Expire

While the blocking measures were still effective earlier this month, rightsholders Bell, Rogers, and TVA have decided not to request any further extensions. This effectively means that the blocking measures expired last weekend.

In a letter to the court, the plaintiffs state that they do not intend to further extend the duration of blocking the order. In addition, they have decided to discontinue the underlying lawsuit against the ‘unknown’ GoldTV defendants.

The media companies provide no further details on the decision, but it’s possible that the costs of keeping the blocking order intact weigh stronger than the perceived benefit. Unlike in some other countries, the rightsholders must compensate ISPs for the costs incurred.

While the GoldTV blocking measures are now discontinued, most of the targeted domains still appear to be up and running. These specific IPTV portals are not particularly popular today, but they were certainly not eradicated.

New Blocking Targets Take Priority

Rightsholders haven’t been sitting still, of course. The GoldTV case was the first test case; broader and more dynamic blocking efforts have followed since. These affect live streams of popular sporting events.

This summer, rightsholders including Bell, Fubo TV, Rogers, and The Sports Network obtained a blocking order that covers multiple sports . The organizations sought to secure a blocking order for new NBA, NHL and Premier League games, identifying three “John Doe” defendants.

Meanwhile, there is an ongoing proceeding in Canada against popular streaming site Soap2Day. The site officially shut down last year after a complaint was filed, but rightsholders could still try to obtain a blocking order to target its ‘copycats’.

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

Under U.S. law, rightsholders have an option to identify alleged copyright infringers, without directly having to file a lawsuit.

Instead, they can request a DMCA subpoena. These documents are typically signed by a court clerk and don’t require any judicial oversight.

Specifically, they allow rightsholders to obtain the personal details of anonymous alleged infringers through third-party internet services where the infringing material is shared or stored. That includes hosting companies and social media platforms.

DMCA Shortcut?

The DMCA specifies that these subpoenas don’t apply to all online services. Mere conduit providers that simply pass on bytes are typically excluded, for example. However, that didn’t stop some rightsholders from using this shortcut to request information from residential ISPs.

Drawing inspiration from the RIAA’s early efforts to identify music pirates in the early 2000s, they once again used the DMCA subpoena process to obtain the personal details of suspected copyright infringers.

While several courts effectively ruled out this option two decades ago, the more recent attempts cite fresh interpretations and conflicting case law to support the requests.

Many court clerks granted these new subpoena requests, requiring Internet providers to identify hundreds, if not thousands of alleged pirates.

Cox Successfully Intervened

Following numerous successful attempts in courts around the U.S., Internet provider Cox Communications intervened in one of these cases, defending a subscriber who objected to the handover of their information.

The ISP decided to challenge the use of DMCA subpoenas, as detailed in DMCA §512(h). Similar to the earlier opposition against the RIAA’s attempts, the ISP argued that DMCA subpoenas don’t apply to mere conduit providers, as defined under § 512(a).

Earlier this year, a district court judge in Hawaii sided with Cox. The court ruled that DMCA subpoenas don’t apply to mere conduit services, but do apply to other providers that store or link to infringing content directly. As such, the movie companies’ request for a subpoena was denied.

The rightsholders in this matter, film companies Voltage Holdings, Millennium Funding, and Capstone Studios, swiftly submitted a motion for reconsideration. This was denied as well, which prompted the filmmakers to file an appeal at the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

Filmmakers Appeal

Filed this summer, the appeal argued that the district court’s interpretation relies on dated precedents, which don’t reflect the realities of the modern Internet. The movie companies noted that ISPs do play a role in facilitating piracy, even if indirectly, and should be subject to DMCA subpoenas.

“A careful reading of the full text of 17 U.S.C. §512 leads to the unquestionable conclusion that Congress intended for DMCA subpoenas to apply to §512(a) service providers despite the contrary conclusions of Verizon and Charter,” their petition read.

Alternatively, the appeal argues that residential ISPs could also be seen as information location tools under the DMCA. These fall under §512(d), which could make an ISP subject to DMCA subpoenas.

“Cox can use measures to disable the link to the infringing material such as null routing the IP addresses, blocking the ports associated with BitTorrent activity from the subscribers’ endpoint, or filtering the BitTorrent content from the subscriber’s endpoint,” the movie companies wrote.

Cox: DMCA Subpoenas Don’t Apply, Period

This week, Cox filed its answering brief. In an 84-page-long response, the company rejects the movie companies’ theories. According to the ISP, the language of the law is clear, as Congress intended it.

Cox argues that the DMCA is complex, but it clearly states that the subpoena provision is tied to the larger “notice-and-takedown” framework. These takedowns don’t apply to conduit ISPs, therefore the DMCA subpoenas shouldn’t either.

“When it comes to conduit ISPs, there is no such thing as a DMCA-compliant notification. That is because Congress decided not to subject such ISPs to the notice-and-takedown framework at all. No DMCA notice, no DMCA subpoena.”

The movie companies may disagree with this, and can take their concerns to Congress if they wish the law to change, Cox adds.

“If Capstone thinks conduit ISPs should be subject to the notice-and-takedown framework — and are therefore proper recipients of DMCA notifications and subpoenas — it can push for that legislative change. But Congress made a different judgment when it enacted the DMCA,” the brief reads.

Information Location Tools §512(d)?

The answering brief also rejects the argument that conduit ISPs can fall under §512(d), which applies to information locations services such as search engines. ISPs can also locate information through their networks, and can potentially block or filter infringing content on their end, the argument goes.

According to Cox, this argument is completely unsupported by any DMCA-related cases that went before courts over the past decades.

“Capstone cites no case, no treatise or commentary, no snippet of legislative history that has ever even hinted at this reading of the DMCA. And the implications of sweeping conduit ISPs into subsection (d), thus subjecting them to notice-and-takedown requirements, are staggering.”

If a court decided that conduit ISPs can be subject to takedown notices, it would send shockwaves across the ISP industry. These companies would then have to block and filter content en masse, based on third-party piracy allegations.

This would effectively “upend decades of settled understanding, sending conduit ISPs across the country scrambling to create takedown-based DMCA programs that require swift denials of internet access based on a mere allegation of infringement,” Cox writes.

Going Forward

This doomsday scenario isn’t needed for copyright holders to enforce their rights, Cox notes, as they can file regular lawsuits in federal courts to obtain the identities of alleged file-sharers. This might be a more expensive route, but it’s the right path according to the ISP.

The above is just a brief overview of some of the arguments laid out in the answering brief. Much of it goes into great detail on the various aspects of the DMCA, how these apply to ISPs, and what that means for the present case.

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals will now review the arguments from both sides to decide if how the DMCA should be interpreted in this case. It’s clear, however, that the stakes are significant for all parties involved.

—

A copy of COXCOM LLC’s answering brief, filed at the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals yesterday, is available here (pdf)

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

In May, the Paris Judicial Court ordered Google, Cloudflare, and Cisco to block access to several pirate websites by poisoning their DNS .

The order compelled the tech giants to prevent users from accessing unauthorized streams of Champions League and Premier League matches.

Applicant Canal+ argued that the alternative DNS resolvers allowed people to bypass the “regular” blocking measures implemented by internet providers. In their view, DNS blocking is proportionate and necessary to prevent piracy.

Canal+ didn’t stop at this initial order. As reported last month , several follow-up orders were issued to target yet more domains, gradually expanding the scope. While that was ongoing, new proceedings against other DNS resolvers were launched as well.

Canal+ Targets Quad9 & Vercara

In a series of new court orders issued last week (full list below ), Canal+ adds Quad9 and Vercara to the list of targeted DNS resolvers.

The first two orders aim to protect soccer matches from the UEFA Champions League and the English Premier League. The third is centered around the French professional rugby union league; Top 14. This also lists Quad9 and Vercara as the main defendants, but this time alongside Google.

The recent orders were issued by the Paris Judicial Court under Article L.333-10 of the French Sports Code and mark a broadening of Canal+’s legal strategy. Despite fierce criticism from major tech companies, the French media company isn’t holding back.

Quad9 Responds to DNS Censorship

These types of blocking requests are not new to Quad9 . The Swiss non-profit DNS service was previously ordered to block piracy related domains in Germany, following an order obtained by Sony Music. Quad9 successfully appealed this blocking effort at a higher court last year.

Commenting on the French action, Quad9 describes the latest blocking order as yet more “DNS censorship”. The company believes that the ruling is based on an “absurd” application of copyright law, which has far-reaching consequences.

Tampering with DNS makes the internet less secure, the company argues. DNS providers should be seen as neutral location services, and Quad9 likens itself to a map publisher, which has no control over any of the locations it shows.

“Quad9 has no relationship with the sites listed. They are not customers, do not pay Quad9, and do not have any contractual or formal relationship with Quad9. Quad9 does not have any interaction with them other than resolving their domain names as we do with every other name on the Internet,” the company notes.

Blocks Affect Consumers Worldwide

In response to the legal pressure, Cisco decided to discontinue its OpenDNS service in France altogether. Quad9 doesn’t want to go that far, but its implementation has broad consequences, as the targeted domain names will be blocked for all customers globally.

Quad9 says its system is designed to treat every user in every country the same way. For privacy reasons, Quad9 also has no precise information about the location of its users. This is in line with European and Swiss privacy laws. Therefore, to remain in compliance, the blocking measures must be global.

“Therefore, to remain in compliance, we have to block these sites for all users, in all areas. This amounts to French law being applied globally, but if Quad9 is not in compliance it is possible for Canal+ and the French courts to seek financial penalties against Quad9.

“We will appeal this ruling, but until the courts find in favor of our arguments we must maintain the list of blocked sites,” the company adds.

Quad9 Seeks Help for Appeal

This legal battle certainly isn’t over yet. Quad9 is determined to fight against “DNS censorship” and, since it’s a non-profit organization, it requests help from the public to fund this quest.

“Quad9 needs your help if you believe that an open Internet is a worthy goal. We are a non-profit and subsist on donations and sponsorships,” the company explains.

On appeal, DNS providers will likely argue that Article L.333-10 of the French Sports Code does not apply to DNS resolvers, as they do not have a “transmission function.” Therefore, they should not be considered “intermediaries” under EU law

The Paris Court previously disagreed with this interpretation of the law, but higher courts may see things differently.

The outcome of this legal challenge could have significant implications for the future of piracy-related DNS blocking. As Canal+ continues its aggressive pursuit of DNS blocking measures, the global debate surrounding these issues is likely to intensify.

—

Copies of the three orders, released last week, are available below. We’ve included a list of all domain names included in each of these orders.

^{Premier League Order targeting Quad9 and Vercara ( pdf )}

^{aliezstream.pro, antenasport.shop, antenasports.ru, antenasports.shop, antenatv.online, antenatv.store, antennasport.ru, asportv.shop, livetv802.me, toparena.store, emb.ap1357.me, embx224539.ap1357.me, Iqwebplay.xyz, livetv807.me, cdn.livetv807.me, boxtv60.com, infinityott.com, vbn123.com.}

^{Champions League Order targeting Quad9 and Vercara ( pdf )}

^{livetv806.me, rojadirectahdenvivo.com, streamsthunder.tv, rojadirectenvivo.me, methstreams.me, antenasports.ru, asportv.shop, toparena.store, Ishunter.net, tv1337.buzz, livetv.sx, sporttuna.pro, livetv807.me, embx224539.ap1366.me, cdn.livetv807.me, locatedinfain.com, tvhd.tutvlive.info, stream 24.net, speci4leagle.com, vi.methstreams.me, klubsports.fun, weblivehdplay.ru, buddycenters.shop, olalivehdplay.ru, lqwebplay.xyz., sporttvls.com, euro2024direct.ru, librarywhispering.com, cdn.livetv808.me, watch.sporttuna.pro, sporttuna.sx, sporttuna.online, lewblivehdplay.ru.}

^{Top 14 Rugby order targeting Google, Quad9 and Vercara ( pdf )}

^{thesports1.org, livetv813.me, sportp2p.com, directatvhd.me, lshunter.net, antenasport.shop, antenasports.ru, antenasports.shop, ilovetoplay.xyz, hoca2.com, livetv814.me, cdn.livetv814.me, streamingon.org, emb.ap1357.me, livetv815.me, cdn.livetv815.me, noblockaabbddxcktb.xyz, embx222304.ap!357.me, tutvlive.info, sporttvls.com, quest4play.xyz, antenasport.online, wfzrbhp.luxevpn.xyz, smart.lionsmart.cc.}

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

After a series of completely avoidable incidents that have seen countless innocent sites blocked by Italy’s Piracy Shield blocking system, at this point is it appropriate to keep calling them ‘blunders’?

Continuing to do so might suggest acceptance that incompetence is always to blame. In reality, recent legal amendments addressed the issue of overblocking by dramatically weakening what little protection innocent sites had against becoming collateral damage.

In practical terms, rightsholders can now knowingly block innocent sites in many circumstances, with the full support of Italian law.

Piracy Shield Blocks Another CDN IP Address

In what appears to have been an attempt to prevent people from watching pirate streams of Serie A match Monza vs Udinese , a blocking ticket was filed last night at 21:19 targeting the IP address 84.17.59.117 .

The ‘winning’ ticket ( credit: Matteo Contrini )

It is beyond trivial to determine who operates that IP address, it takes less than seconds to check.

Even those with rudimentary experience and knowledge of leading providers should’ve suspected that blocking was likely to lead to collateral damage.

Targeting an IP address operated by CDN provider Datacamp and by extension BunnyCDN was almost certainly likely to lead to overblocking. Here, however, the nature of the network means an accurate assessment of how far the collateral damage might extend would not have been possible; whichever rightsholder filed the ticket, decided to block it anyway.

Blocking Hit Tech News Site DDaY.it

In the early hours of Tuesday, Italian tech news site DDaY.it revealed that the blocking of 84.17.59.117 had disrupted its ability to operate. DDaY explained that the IP address is used by the CDN service that keeps its site online and by blocking it, readers were facing timeouts and other issues.

As shown in the short clip below posted to X.com, some visitors to DDaY were redirected to a page operated by telecoms regulator AGCOM which explained the blocking by effectively branding DDaY a pirate site.

“It happens that the good guys, in order to play the good guys with martial conviction (hey, they are the good guys…), by slinging a flamethrower called Piracy Shield, end up becoming the bad guys. And “fin di bene” [greater good] cannot suffice to justify so-called collateral damage,” the news platform reported in a response this morning.

“Obviously DDAY is not the target of the block ordered by Piracy Shield and the blocked IP address is not even the main one of our site. But evidently our CDN provider has a load balancing management system that makes sure that some sessions are directed to the blocked IP, thus leading to the connection errors.”

DDay is a Long-Time Critic of Piracy Shield

As a long-time critic of the Piracy Shield system, DDaY finds itself in an inconvenient position. In Italy, opponents of Piracy Shield are often portrayed as siding with pirates, which the publication certainly does not. That the site’s voice has been silenced by the same mechanisms it has been calling out since its launch earlier this year, is not a great look.

The publication says that the IP address has now been removed from the blocklist but once again, the big question of why it was added in the first place will go unanswered. DDaY would like an apology , but history shows us they probably shouldn’t hold their breath.

“The fact that (perhaps) the reported pirate site was also blocked, cannot console us for the fact that we were hit by the provision, probably together with many other innocent sites. By doing so, those who operate under the flag of good to stop piracy, end up behaving like those pirates who dedicate themselves to taking down other people’s sites.”

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 at the time. The founders aimed to provide a home for ExtraTorrent ‘refugees’ but, over time, it transformed into much more than that.

TorrentGalaxy Downtime

In recent months, TorrentGalaxy has faced considerable downtime. The original team sold the site to new operators, which offered an explanation for the earlier ‘ maintenance ‘ issues. However, the site continues to face trouble.

Technical problems have plagued TorrentGalaxy.to for nearly a week and yesterday the site became completely unreachable. The status update domain progalaxy.me has been offline even longer. There is no maintenance message on either of these sites.

TorrentGalaxy’s owners have not informed the staffers about the reason for the downtime, nor is it clear how serious the issues are. Right now, visitors to the site will simply see a browser timeout notice, which suggests that part of its server infrastructure is disconnected.

Broken Upload Bots

At this point, downtime at a pirate site is hardly newsworthy. Due to ongoing anti-piracy efforts, websites are pulled offline every week. That said, TorrentGalaxy’s issues have a much broader impact than those at other sites.

Since the site also provides a steady flow of [TGx] releases to other torrent sites, the downtime will be noticeable there as well. This includes the popular ‘TGxGoodies’ uploader at 1337x and The Pirate Bay, whose releases stopped five days ago.

This isn’t just any other uploader either. TGxGoodies submitted close to 5,000 torrents to these sites in November, including many of the most popular releases.

As always, these types of developments are fuel for rumors, which we won’t entertain here. To the delight of rightsholders, it is clear that the public torrent ecosystem is becoming more fragile by the day, which is a trend that shows no signs of abating.

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

In October, Musi filed a lawsuit against Apple after the company removed the music streaming app from the App Store.

Filed at a California federal court, the Musi complaint states that the takedown was unjustified and accuses 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.

Apple Justifies ‘Removal’

Last month, a response was filed in court by Apple, opposing Musi’s request for a preliminary injunction. The company argues that the terms of the Apple Developer Program License Agreement (DLPA) allow the company to delist apps “at any time, with or without cause.”

While claiming neutrality in these disputes, Apple stated that multiple complaints led to its action, including legitimate concerns aired by YouTube and music industry rightsholders.

“Apple’s decision in this instance followed numerous, credible complaints alleging that the Musi app violates the legal rights of third parties,” Apple wrote to the court, mentioning complaints from various music industry parties.

Musi Sees a ‘Backchannel’ Removal Scheme

Last Friday, Musi filed a reply brief in support of its request for an injunction, countering Apple’s stance. According to the app developer, Apple isn’t as neutral as it would like the court to believe.

On the contrary, Apple allegedly engaged in private discussions with stakeholders including Google and this alleged ‘backchannel’ influenced the removal decision.

“Apple positions itself as exercising this power as a neutral party that does not favor one app developer over another, but Apple’s Opposition reveals that it used its power over the App Store as part of a larger backchannel scheme with music-industry conglomerates bent on Musi’s destruction,” Musi writes.

As an example, Musi notes that YouTube’s ‘five-word’ app store complaint was preceded by direct discussions between Apple and the music streaming platform. Musi was never involved in these discussions, and YouTube didn’t reply to Musi’s outreach after the complaint either.

Misinformation?

Apple cited numerous app disputes in its opposition brief, but Musi argues these were misrepresented to the court. For example, IFPI’s complaint expressly disavowed any claim under U.S. copyright law, Musi notes.

In addition, Apple references a 2023 complaint from Sony Music Entertainment (SME). However, that dispute didn’t come from Sony at all, but from IFPI. This was confirmed by the music company over email, as shown below.

“[W]hen Musi attempted to open a dialogue with SME, SME stated that it had no complaint, and that the complaint belonged to IFPI,” Musi writes.

A letter sent by the National Music Publishers Association (NMPA) to Apple further added to the ‘tainted backroom’ picture, as Musi highlights that it includes various false claims.

All in all, Musi contends that Apple’s decision is based on a one-sided view. This includes numerous claimed inaccuracies, as well as “hit pieces” by the press, which were allegedly commissioned by the music industry.

“Those articles signify nothing other than a one-sided press push by the same players involved in the backroom discussions with Apple, seeking to conjure up an image of support for Musi’s removal,” Musi writes.

(Note TF: These supposed hit pieces include one of our previous articles , which detailed the music industry’s plans to put pressure on the app. For the record, this article was independently written and certainly not commissioned, directed or approved by anyone else.)

‘A Damaging Backroom Deal’

If copyright concerns were the primary motivator, Apple could have taken action against the YouTube app as well, Musi notes. After all, YouTube receives an astronomical number of copyright complaints and has been involved in various copyright lawsuits.

Musi was never sued, not even by IFPI, which previously considered taking legal action. Instead, Musi was removed after a five-word complaint from YouTube, without a real opportunity to defend itself.

This, Musi argues, puts the future of its business at risk. Musi is currently missing the typical inflow of over 886,000 new users a month. In addition, a future iOS update may render the app inoperable even for current users.

All in all, Musi believes that the removal decision was not the result of a neutral review process. Therefore, the app should be reinstated through a preliminary injunction while the legal challenge unfolds.

“Apple removed the app because a select few music industry conglomerates saw the Musi app as a threat and, using unique access to Apple, engaged in backroom conversations to ensure that the Musi app could no longer compete on the platform.

“Apple’s claim to unfettered discretion is only a quest for power to operate the App Store for the benefit of a few powerful stakeholders, and at the expense of small developers—exactly what happened here. Granting Musi’s motion avoids that outcome.

—

A copy of Musi’s reply in support for the preliminary injunction is available here (pdf)

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

TorrentGalaxy has had its fair share of issues over the past few months.

Update December 9 : The troubles continue for TorrentGalaxy. After a few days with technical issues, the site is currently unreachable. Perhaps more updates or maintenance? No further information is known but the site’s owners have not informed the staff.

In June, many users feared that the site had thrown in the towel, displaying only a cryptic message that read “4ever?” to visitors. This came as a surprise, even to the site’s top staffers, who had no clue what was going on.

The site eventually returned as if nothing ever happened and resumed its operations. The purpose of the downtime was never clarified and most people forgot about it until the site went offline again in September with another cryptic message.

With the rumor mill in full swing, claims from ‘moderators’ about the site’s demise started to circulate. However, those turned out to be unfounded as the site made yet another comeback after a few days .

Meanwhile, users began noticing occasional technical issues with the site, including periods of downtime such as today. Visitors to the site currently see the following message: (site’s back on October 18)

“Site is temporarily unavailable due to automated maintenance or some mook spilling coffee in the wrong places.”

These recurring issues are unusual for TorrentGalaxy which never suffered from long stints of downtime in previous years. So, why is this happening now?

‘New Owners’

After speaking to several sources, we can now offer some broader context. Apparently, the site has changed owners recently. The initial ‘maintenance’ was presumably part of this handover and could also play a role in other recent issues.

TorrentFreak spoke to one of the TorrentGalaxy’s original founders, who confirmed the change of ownership. We tried to get in touch with the new operators to hear their side of the story, but they haven’t replied.

Takeovers of pirate sites are not uncommon, but given TorrentGalaxy’s community-driven history, this is a noteworthy event.

Finding out more details about the takeover appears impossible, however. The co-founder we spoke to claims not to have been involved in selling the site and the person who was in charge of the sale can’t be reached.

How it All Began

While we don’t know where the site is heading under its new owners, the co-founder did provide some more background on how TorrentGalaxy got started. That, by itself, is a story worth sharing.

The co-founder prefers to remain anonymous, so here we refer to them using the fictitious nickname “Genesis”. For the record, what follows is the account of one person and should be interpreted as such.

The origin story takes us back to late 2017, when ExtraTorrent had just shut down . At the time, Genesis came up with the idea to start a new torrent site. A developer was approached to code it from scratch, but the end result wasn’t satisfactory, so that initial project stranded.

During this time, many former ExtraTorrent members stayed connected, often using the chatbox of another popular torrent site, 1337x. When Genesis shared their plans for a new torrent site there, “Cameron” (another pseudonym), also a former ExtraTorrent user, offered assistance.

Both founders brought something essential to the table. Cameron had plenty of coding experience and took care of all the technical aspects. Meanwhile, Genesis helped out with the finances until the site could sustain itself though advertisements.

Within months, an idea born in a chatbox became TorrentGalaxy, which quickly built a thriving community. In just a few years, ‘TGx’ grew into one of the largest torrent sites, serving millions of visitors each month.

It was already public knowledge that former ExtraTorrent members founded the site, but this backstory adds some more color. What began as a simple chatbox conversation, triggered a transformation worthy of ‘ notorious pirate site status ‘, and the associated legal pressure that comes with it.

The reason for the site’s sale remains unknown. We understand that Genesis and Cameron are no longer in contact. Perhaps they prefer to leave the past behind, regardless of TorrentGalaxy’s future.

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

The DMCA takedown procedure may not be perfect but, for those intending to use it, there’s an unambiguous step-by-step process that’s been in place for a quarter of a century.

Needless to say, entities that deviate from the established rules can make life difficult for themselves as well as the intended recipients of takedown notices. That includes entities that attempt to use DMCA takedown notices to enforce trademark disputes, or prefer to avoid the DMCA altogether by portraying copyright complaints as something more serious.

Itch.io Taken Offline By Bogus Complaint

In a post on X.com early this morning, indie videogame storefront Itch.io said its platform had been effectively taken offline following a “bogus phishing report” that resulted in the disabling of its domain by the platform’s domain registrar.

“I kid you not, @itchiohas been taken down by @OriginalFunko because they use some trash ‘AI Powered’ Brand Protection Software called @BrandShieldltd that created some bogus Phishing report to our registrar, @iwantmyname, who ignored our response and just disabled the domain,” the company complained.

The events that led up to this disaster (at the time of writing the domain has still not been reinstated) seem to highlight an imbalance. While platforms swiftly respond to complaints, they seem far less eager to address the consequences of erroneous takedown requests.

Copyright Complaint Was ‘Upgraded’ to Fraud/Phishing

In a post on HackerNews hoping to draw attention to the situation, ‘Leafo’ from Itch.io explains the origins of the complaint. From their knowledge of the initial trigger, a DMCA complaint was the obvious mechanism to achieve the desired result. Instead, a company called BrandShield Ltd took a different approach.

“I’m the one running itch.io, so here’s some more context for you: From what I can tell, some kid made a fan page for an existing Funko Pop video game (Funko Fusion), with links to the official site and screenshots of the game,” Leafo explains.

“The BrandShield software is probably instructed to eradicate all ‘unauthorized’ use of their trademark, so they sent automated reports to our host and registrar claiming there was ‘fraud and phishing’ going on, likely to cause escalation instead of doing the expected DMCA/cease-and-desist.”

Leafo confirmed that around five to six days ago, Itch.io’s host Linode and its domain registrar iwantmyname.com, forwarded reports of the complaint. In response, Itch.io took the disputed page down with Leafo sharing his concerns with both companies, presumably over the way the problem had been addressed.

“I expressed my disappointment in my responses to both of them but told them I had removed the page and disabled the account. Linode confirmed and closed the case. iwantmyname never responded,” Leafo notes.

Domain Suspension Prevents Itch.io From Doing Business

On Sunday evening, Leafo received an alert and went on to discover an ominous status for the Itch.io domain.

“[I] noticed that the domain status had been set to ‘serverHold’ on iwantmyname’s domain panel. We have no other abuse reports from iwantmyname other than this one.

“I’m assuming no one on their end ‘closed’ the ticket, so it went into an automatic system to disable the domain after some number of days. I’ve been trying to get in touch with them via their abuse and support emails, but no response likely due to the time of day, so I decided to ‘escalate’ myself on social media.”

So Who Takes The Blame?

Despite identifying a possible failure on the part of iwantmyname, Itch.io appears to be pointing the finger of blame at BrandShield, the originator of the initial complaint.

Leafo believes that incorrectly stating that Itch.io was engaged in “fraud and phishing” was an escalation attemp to obtain a more significant result than usually available under the DMCA takedown process.

“I honestly think they’re the malicious actor in all of this. Their website, if you care: https://www.brandshield.com/,” Leafo wrote.

In these types of cases, intent can be difficult if not impossible to prove. However, if the BrandShield promotional document on the right remains current, the anti-phishing service offered by the company operates as SaaS and may allow its clients to initiate action too.

Whether the entire system was automated in this case is unclear. The type of nefarious identity-stealing phishing activity portrayed on the BrandShield website is clearly a big step up from the fan page content created by the user on Itchi.io. In any event, an incorrect enforcement tool prompted an incorrect takedown mechanism, and seems to have led to a disproportionate end result.

Google Transparency Reports

Numerous takedown notices sent previously by Brandshield to Google are available for browsing within the company’s Copyright Transparency Report. As seen here , successful takedowns are vastly outnumbered by those that fail, usually after being rejected by Google.

Without drawing any conclusions on whether the takedowns were warranted, in many cases it appears that Google refused to take action because BrandShield attempted to use the copyright takedown mechanism offered by Google to address alleged trademark infringement.

While that would be convenient, it’s impossible to send a valid DMCA takedown notice for alleged trademark infringement.

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