The Entertainment Software Association ( ESA ) has submitted its latest overview of “Notorious Markets” to the Office of the US Trade Representative (USTR).

These submissions serve as input for the USTR’s yearly overview of piracy ‘markets’ which helps to shape the Government’s global copyright enforcement agenda going forward.

The ESA, which represents video game companies including Activision Blizzard, EA, Epic Games, Nintendo, Sony, Square Enix, and Ubisoft, hopes that the interests of its members will be taken into account. In the report, the group lists various pirate sites that allow the public to download games for free.

Cyberlockers, Linking and Torrent Sites

Download sites remain a key problem for the video games industry and these exist in various forms. In the cyberlocker category 1fichier.com and megaup.net are mentioned specifically. The former has also been the target of Nintendo legal action in France.

Megaup hasn’t been sued, but ESA views the platform as a growing concern. Over the past year, the number of estimated game downloads rose 135% according to the report. While Megaup processes takedown notices, most are never followed up. Files that are taken down only disappear after a considerable delay, according to ESA.

“Megaup hosts hundreds of unauthorized copies of copyright protected video game titles and only has a 33% response rate to ESA’s takedown notices despite receiving numerous removal notices,” ESA writes.

“Linking websites that index and manage the links to content hosted on Megaup also benefit from the platform’s low compliance rate as these websites derive more traffic, and thus more advertising revenue, due to the durability of the Megaup links.”

These linking sites also remain a threat and the same applies to torrent indexers. ESA lists nsw2u.com, Game3rb.com, Solidtorrents.to, and 1337x.to in its submission. Interestingly, the game companies write that 1337x was launched in 2014, which is seven years after its actual founding date.

Cheats and Marketplaces

The game companies continue by listing various sites that offer cheats and related information. These include mpgh.net and unknowncheats.me. The latter claims to have over four million users and has been in operation for more than two decades.

“[Unknowncheats.me] offers cheats and tutorials for 100+ titles as well as information and links to anti-cheat software and how to circumvent their protocols. It does not charge for cheats, instead relying on advertisements to
generate revenue.

“All cheats are created by the community and the site encourages users to develop and distribute these illegal goods,” ESA adds.

Unauthorized marketplaces make up the final category of sites. ESA specifically mentions playerauctions.com and G2G.com, which sell in-game items such as skins, virtual game currency, and various boosting options. Both sites have millions of monthly visits, according to recent SimilarWeb estimates.

Scene Groups, Crackers and Repackers

ESA has called out many of the above-mentioned sites and services in previous submissions, but the group also points out problems that it hasn’t discussed in detail before. They include Scene release groups, crackers, and repackers.

While the game-cracking scene has been thriving for roughly four decades, the game companies describe the “warez scene” or “Scene release groups” as an “emerging” threat.

“Scene release groups facilitate commercial scale piracy by circumventing technological protection measures and ‘packaging’ illegal downloads to be more easily accessed by the general public,” ESA writes.

Scene releases are indeed a problem but ESA appears to confuse some terms. The Scene doesn’t release any content to the public; it’s actually frowned upon and contrary to their rules. There are, however, non-Scene release groups and repackers that do upload content to the public.

Whether a Scene label is appropriate or not, ESA believes that “highly skilled” crackers and repackers pose a major threat to the gaming industry.

“Especially critical to this illicit supply chain are highly skilled hackers – also known as ‘crackers’ and ‘repackers’,” ESA writes.

Crackers are typically the people who remove DRM restrictions. These can be from the Scene but others operate more openly. Regardless, ESA notes that crackers violate Section 1201 of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA).

Cracked games usually appear on Scene topsites and private or public pirate sites, through which they are distributed to the broader public. In many cases, these pirated games are then picked up by ‘repackers’, who create slimmed-down versions that are easier to distribute.

“These ‘repacked’ files are very popular with individuals with slower internet speeds and/or data limits, as they will download faster and utilize less bandwidth,” ESA writes.

ESA doesn’t mention any crackers or repackers by name but notes that information on their whereabouts and operations is often shared through websites such as cs.rin.ru.

Cryptocurrency and Malware

Finally, the game companies mention malware and use of cryptocurrencies as growing trends. Many illicit marketplaces accept payments in cryptocurrencies, which are often harder to seize or track than regular bank accounts.

“With the growth of this oftentimes nonrestricted payment system, bad actors are using cryptocurrency as a way of purchasing or selling illicit products without using regulated financial institutions,” ESA writes.

Malware can also be used to generate revenue. In some cases, bad actors monetize pirated games by automatically installing cryptocurrency miners while adware also remains a problem.

“Distributors of pirated video games often lace their downloads with these various forms of malware in order to exploit users downloading ostensibly ‘free’ games,” ESA notes.

The gaming association hopes that by pointing out these threats, some will appear on the radars of law enforcement, policymakers, and foreign governments, then dealt with via appropriate action.

—

A copy of ESA’s submission for the 2023 Special 301 Out-of-Cycle Review of Notorious Markets is available here (pdf) . An overview of the (online) threats is listed below.

Hyperlinking Websites (“Linking Sites” or “Link Sites”)
– nsw2u.com
– Game3rb.com

Hosting Websites (“Cyberlockers”)
– 1fichier.com
– megaup.ne

Torrent Indexing Websites
– 1337x.to
– Solidtorrents.to

Cheats
– unknowncheats.me
– mpgh.net

Unauthorized Online Marketplaces
– playerauctions.com
– G2G.com

Malware

Cryptocurrency

Scene Release Groups

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

Piracy release group EVO was long considered one of Hollywood’s main targets, publishing thousands of movie and TV show titles including several high-profile releases.

The piracy group repeatedly opened “screener season” by releasing leaked copies of upcoming films. These included Oscar contenders , but also several Netflix titles that originated from festival screenings.

EVO was also the first to release an early Blu-ray copy of ‘Spider-Man: No Way Home’ last year, and a high-quality copy of the blockbuster “Dune” in 2021, ahead of its official U.S. premiere.

EVO Busted

When pirates were eagerly awaiting freshly-leaked movie screeners last fall, none arrived. This was unusual in its own right and when EVO suddenly stopped publishing new content of any kind, it was clear that something was up .

From the get-go, there were rumors that the notorious group had been busted. These suspicions were eventually confirmed in March this year and, a month later, Portuguese police shared additional details on the crackdown which the authorities dubbed “Operation EVO 1.2”.

The enforcement action against EVO targeted piracy at the source. This impacted the availability of content on thousands of pirate sites which, in turn, serve many millions of users. For this reason, it’s not surprising that the EVO bust was prominently mentioned at the International IP Crime Conference in Oslo earlier this month.

The Alliance for Creativity and Entertainment (ACE) highlighted the importance of the action, describing EVO as one of the “most active pirate groups in the world” and a major threat to the industry.

ACE Awards Law Enforcers

To commemorate the achievement, ACE boss Jan Van Voorn handed awards to two units with central roles in the enforcement effort. The awards were presented on behalf of ACE members, which include the major Hollywood studios, Amazon, Netflix, and various other movie industry players.

The first recipient was the dedicated cybercrime unit of the Polícia Judiciária in Portugal ( UNC3T ), which handled a large part of the operation, including investigative work, house searches, and the arrest of EVO’s suspected leader.

The second award was handed to INTERPOL’s Illicit Markets Sub-directorate, which consists of the IP Crime and Digital Piracy unit, and the Public Health and Pharmaceutical Crime unit. This group is closely involved in INTERPOL’s Stop Online Piracy project ( I-SOP ).

On INTERPOL’s side, the EVO takedown was handled under the I-SOP project and, among other things, the international police organization helped to investigate the items that the Portuguese police collected during their raids.

“I-SOP deployed an officer to carry out analysis of the seized devices and provide a comprehensive report to authorities. Support will continue as the wider investigation progresses,” INTERPOL previously explained, while sharing the photo below.

Prosecution Pending

The awards were handed out while the prosecution of the alleged EVO leader is still ongoing. ACE informs TorrentFreak that it continues to work on the case with INTERPOL, Portuguese police, as well as the local prosecutor’s office.

There is little doubt that last year’s action had a broad impact. For one, there weren’t any notable screener releases last year, which hasn’t happened since online piracy hit the mainstream two decades ago.

It’s possible that other groups and their sources were spooked by the enforcement action against EVO. While new screener leaks may eventually appear again, the stakes are clear, if they weren’t already.

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

Kiwi Farms is an online forum with a reputation for mocking and harassing people, actions that have been linked to several tragic deaths.

In response to the barrage of negative news, several third-party providers including DreamHost, DDoS-Guard and Cloudflare have all banned the site.

These voluntary curation actions are just the tip of the iceberg. Behind the scenes, many other services refused to work with the controversial site. Hurricane Electric, a Tier 1 Internet backbone provider, reportedly refused to pass on the site’s traffic across the Internet.

It’s no surprise that companies want to distance themselves from the highly controversial forum. However, it’s a slippery slope when backbone providers start to censor speech on their own accord. Ideally, such restrictive measures should be backed by a court order.

None of the cases referenced above went before a court but Kiwi Farms and its founder Joshua Moon were sued for copyright infringement. A person who was systematically targeted through Kiwi Farms took the site and Moon to court three years ago.

Greer Sues Kiwi Farms

The copyright infringement claims were filed by Russell Greer , who was targeted by Kiwi Farms users when he sued Taylor Swift years ago. Greer wrote a book about his experiences and later recorded a song too. These copyrighted works eventually made their way back to Kiwi Farms, where pirated copies were shared by site users.

In response, Greer issued takedown notices to have his works removed from the site, but to no avail. Kiwi Farms’ Joshua Moon refused to remove the content and published the DMCA notices on the site, openly mocking the author.

These actions prompted Greer to file a complaint at a federal court in Utah, accusing Moon of contributory copyright infringement. The complaint alleged that Kiwi Farms users infringed Greer’s copyrights, that Moon was aware of this, and that he knowingly permitted these infringing activities.

Contributory Infringement Claim Fails

In a decision issued in 2021, a district court agreed that Kiwi Farms’ operator was aware of the infringing activities. However, to establish contributory liability, a defendant must “induce, cause, or materially contribute” to the activity. The court found no evidence of that and dismissed the claim.

The district court sympathized with Greer, noting that “it sounds like people on Kiwi Farms have said vile things about him and made his life miserable,” but concluded that his copyright liability claims fell short.

Greer wasn’t pleased with the outcome and appealed the ruling. This week, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit concluded that the contributory copyright claims are indeed sufficient, so the case will now return to the lower court.

The reasoning behind the court’s conclusion is interesting. For starters, the court of appeal agreed with the lower court that simply refusing to comply with a takedown notice isn’t sufficient to establish contributory copyright infringement.

“We discern no error in the district court’s explanation that contributory liability requires more than merely ‘permitting’ the infringing material to remain on the website,” the decision reads.

Court of Appeal Views Publishing as Encouragement

In this case, however, the court of appeals believes that by publishing and mocking the DMCA takedown notice in public, Kiwi Farms’ operator effectively ‘encouraged’ the site’s users to continue their copyright infringing activities.

“Mr. Greer sent repeated requests to Mr. Moon, identifying the materials on which he held the copyright, as well as where and how his rights were being infringed. Mr. Moon not only expressly refused to remove the materials, he mockingly posted the correspondence to Kiwi Farms,” the court notes.

“Under the circumstances, this is not the passive behavior of one ‘merely permitting’ infringing material to remain on his site. Rather, we conclude a reasonable inference from the facts alleged is that the reposting of the takedown notice, combined with the refusal to take down the infringing material, amounted to encouragement of Kiwi Farms users’ direct copyright infringement.”

Put differently, site operators are not liable for copyright infringement when they refuse to take action following a takedown notice. However, when they publish that same notice online, they can incur liability.

‘What a Mess’

Summarizing pages-long rulings strewn with legal nuances isn’t straightforward, but in this case the court’s findings are puzzling to legal experts too. Law professor Eric Goldman points out several issues, including a mix-up of legal doctrines and how the court’s conclusions have the potential to negatively affect takedown notice transparency.

“[T]he court seems to be saying that Moon’s inaction was OK, but Moon’s inaction + posting the takedown notice is not OK. What?” Goldman writes.

“This suggests that all contributors to Lumen have exacerbated their legal risk by providing greater transparency into the shadowy world of copyright takedown notices. That cannot be the right legal standard, and I am reasonably confident no other court would reach that conclusion. Oy, what a mess.”

Indeed, the district court ruling was great news for online services, as it confirmed that they can’t be held liable for refusing to act on a DMCA takedown notice. However, if posting that same notice publicly makes them liable, we might see less transparency going forward.

Of course, there are plenty of nuances to this case. Kiwi Farms’ operator didn’t automatically publish the takedown notice; Moon specifically selected this particular DMCA notice and openly mocked it. That ‘active’ choice may be seen as a crucial distinction.

The court of appeals ruling means that the matter will now revert to the district court for further consideration. Given the unique characteristics of the decision and its potential impact, legal experts will be following it closely.

—–

A copy of the ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit is available here (pdf)

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

Accurately predicting how, when and where the next wave of pirate sites will emerge to become the next big threat is much easier said than done.

At any point, one of several moving parts could rule a country out for a few years, or propel it straight into pole position. From rapid development of internet infrastructure to a new generation blessed with the right skills, joining the workplace at just the right time, anything is possible in the shifting sands of piracy.

The MPA accurately predicted the chances of Vietnam becoming an online piracy hotbed many years ago. Yet despite every conceivable effort, progress to disrupt sites like Fmovies and Aniwatch (formerly Zoro.to) which enjoy close to a quarter billion visits every month, progress has been slow when compared to efforts in other regions.

The current state of play features Vietnam as the home of some of the world’s most popular pirate sites, together servicing at least two billion visits each month, but potentially many more.

What Can Be Done About the Worst of the Worst?

Following a September report highlighting piracy of live sports in Vietnam , last weekend the Ministry of Information and Communications held a workshop where stakeholders discussed matters related to pirate sites.

Inevitably, notorious sports streaming sites operating under the ‘Xoi Lac’ banner received several mentions due to unusual resilience and overall share of the ‘pirate’ market. Xoi Lac has evaded every disruption measure deployed over the past five years while attracting the wrong kind of attention from rightsholders thousands of miles away.

In a recent report to the USTR, the Premier League said that it considers Xoi Lac one of the worst platforms it has ever seen.

[The Xoilac websites] are some of the most egregious the Premier League has encountered, with infringement continuing on the site despite Vietnamese authorities attempting to block access to domains associated with the service, and widespread news coverage highlighting that the sites are infringing. In total, the operators have created over 300 domains within the Xoilac family to try and avoid disruption efforts.

Pirate sites can benefit from the publicity that goes hand-in-hand with this kind of attention; as The Pirate Bay said on many occasions: “This will just give us more traffic, as always. Thanks for the free advertising.”

Becoming a household name is a considerable milestone for any website. Unfortunately, the millstones of infamy are less beneficial, harder to shake, and for those in power, an obvious potential target. When other crimes enter the mix, anything can happen.

“They Are Associated With Organized Crime”

The Premier League’s USTR submission states that Xoi Lac’s operators appear to be based in the capital, but the follow-up comment is potentially more interesting. Major overseas rightsholders claim to know the identities of the people behind several Vietnam-based sites, yet many continue to operate with apparent impunity.

“The operators of the site appear to be based in Hanoi, Vietnam and seemingly operate with little concern for enforcement action being taken against them,” the submission notes.

While that’s a major concern for rightsholders, comments made during the workshop may signal changes ahead.

“The issue of copyright infringement is associated with organized crime. For example, the Xoi Lac channel is not simply a form of live-streaming online; it is also associated with online fraud, online gambling, and loan sharking for football betting,” said Nguyen Thanh Lam, Vietnam’s Deputy Minister of Information and Communications.

Comments like these are uncommon, especially when accompanied by a commitment to fight piracy.

Ministries Combine to Form Specialized Unit

Lam told the workshop that the Ministry of Information and Communications, the Ministry of Culture, Sports and Tourism, and the Ministry of Public Security, will establish a specialized unit to tackle copyright issues.

The Minister also highlighted the need to educate the public on why they should avoid pirate sites. That raises interesting questions in itself.

Aside from the popular state-run lottery, gambling is heavily restricted in Vietnam and those caught facilitating illegal gambling can end up in prison. Loan shark-style money lending is also illegal and an aggravating factor in illegal gambling prosecutions. Those who simply participate in illegal gambling face punishment if caught, yet even that hasn’t proven much of a deterrent.

On the assumption that the Minister’s claims about Xoi Lac are true, yet people still flood to the site, it seems likely that some are borrowing money from loan sharks to participate in illegal gambling. There are few scenarios in any country where that ends well for the in-debt gambler, people know it, yet still aren’t deterred.

That raises the question of what type of messaging could possibly deter people from watching pirated football streams, when anti-gambling measures have so obviously failed. A local report suggests that messaging may receive support from the police.

“In the near future, the Ministry of Information and Communications will have a plan to discuss with the police force to launch a peak attack and suppress crime in this field,” the report concludes.

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

During the summer of 2017, French law enforcement booked a massive success with the shutdown of T411 , a popular semi-private torrent tracker with over five million registered members.

The site, which catered to a French-speaking audience, had been on the radar of rightsholders for some time. After avoiding the long arm of justice on several occasions, the curtain eventually fell.

Following news of the site’s downfall, it appeared that not all people working on the site were French. The main suspect was located in Canada and the system administrator was from Ukraine. Several French suspects were identified too, but these were mainly seen as moderators.

Today, more than six years after T411 was shut down, L’Informe reports that a Criminal Court in Rennes has handed the two main suspects custodial sentences and an unprecedented damages order of almost a quarter billion euros.

Three Years Prison and Massive Damages Award

In a landmark ruling, the court ordered the Canadian creator of the torrent site, Mr. Jolicoeur, to serve a three-year prison sentence and pay a €150,000 ($158,000) fine. The defendant wasn’t present in court and a warrant for his arrest was issued, which Canadian authorities have to follow up.

In addition, the court awarded an unprecedented €489 million ($516m) in damages to rightsholders. This is the largest damages award against pirate site operators we have ever seen. For comparison, The Pirate Bay founders had to pay damages that totaled less than seven million euros.

The amount in this case appears to be based on the total number of downloads that could be traced back to the site. The prosecution counted over 190,000 torrents, which generated more than 270 million downloads across various categories.

Films and TV series were by far the most popular, which explains why the bulk of the damages, €471 million, goes to movie industry companies including Warner, Pathé, Gaumont, UGC and Film24. The remaining €18 million is awarded to French music group SACEM.

18 Months for Ukrainian Sysop

In addition to the main suspect, the court also sentenced T411 sysop Mr. R.V., who previously shared his version of events with TorrentFreak.

R.V., who now lives in Sweden, was present at the hearings and sentenced to 18 months in prison, of which 13 are conditional. The sysop already served this time in pre-trial detention so remains free.

The court also held the sysop responsible for 30% of the damages award, more than €146 million in total. That’s pretty much a monetary life sentence, which comes as a huge disappointment.

Speaking with TorrentFreak, R.V. says that he will appeal the judgment. He describes the damages amount as abnormal and half-jokingly adds that he might as well quit his job if it’s upheld.

“I’m not going to pay it, but even if I am forced to do so, I will quit the job and live on social benefits for jobless people instead. Otherwise, I need to work 3,500 years to pay such a fine,” R.V. says.

R.V. also notes that the defense had no opportunity to challenge the calculation of the damages amount, which is something that will likely come up during the appeal.

Modest Sentences for Moderators

In addition to the site’s founder and sysop, the court also sentenced several French moderators of T411. The five defendants must pay 250 euros each to all of the listed rightsholders.

L’Informe reports that the authorities began investigating the site in 2015. They were ultimately able to identify the suspects by cross-referencing their PayPal accounts, IP-addresses, and bank details.

For rightsholders and French law enforcement, the convictions amount to a major victory, but their work is not over yet. Shortly after T411 was shut down YggTorrent took its place and, despite multiple attempts to take it offline , the site remains online today.

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

Last year, a Texas federal jury found Grande Communications liable for willful contributory copyright infringement and ordered the ISP to pay $47 million in damages to a group of record labels.

The ISP was held liable for infringing 1,403 copyrighted songs, as it failed to terminate persistent pirates’ internet access.

District Court Judge David Ezra confirmed the judgment in January. This prompted the ISP to request a do-over but that motion was ultimately declined. As a result, Grande took the matter to the appeals court.

Grande Appeals

Last month, Grande filed its opening brief in which it again argued that the lower court reached the wrong conclusion. Internet providers shouldn’t be held liable for pirating customers based on third-party allegations, the company argues.

“This appeal presents important questions of first impression in this Circuit about whether, and in what circumstances, an internet service provider may be held secondarily liable for the conduct of users of its service,” the ISP writes.

The ISP believes that it shouldn’t have to terminate Internet access this easily. This view is bolstered by a recent Supreme Court decision in favor of Twitter and other social media platforms, which held that they’re not liable for terrorist messages.

Grande is not alone in this appeal. The company is supported by several telecoms organizations, through a joint amicus curiae brief submitted by broadband association USTelecom and the the CTIA , which represents wireless providers.

Terminating Internet Access a Basic Measure?

According to Grande, the District Court went too far when it informed the jury that a provider can be found liable for contributory infringement if it didn’t take “basic measures” to terminate accounts of repeat infringers. According to Grande, this strong language lacks nuance.

The ISP notes that the ‘basic measures’ theory first emerged more than two decades ago in the Napster lawsuit. In that case, however, Napster failed to remove pirated tracks from its servers, while ISPs only pass on bits and bytes.

“The ‘simple measures’ or ‘basic measures’ theory has its roots in the Labels’ case against Napster. […] Before filing suit, the Labels notified Napster of specific infringing files available on Napster’s service, but Napster declined to remove them.”

The common feature of these cases is that the ‘simple measures’ standard has only been applied to defendants who directly control online content. That is because those defendants can readily remove or disable access to specific infringing content.

The amici support this argument while going into more detail on how Internet terminations can affect the public. They believe that Internet terminations should not be taken lightly.

‘Drastic and Overbroad’

USTelecom and CTIA point out that terminating Internet access can have a negative impact beyond the alleged wrongdoers. It could impact entire households, coffee shops, offices, schools, libraries, or hospitals. That doesn’t qualify as a “basic measure”.

“Termination thus prevents everyone — in a household, coffee shop, office, school, library, or hospital — who relies on a shared internet connection from using the internet for any purpose, whether remote work, accessing educational or health resources, seeking news or other information, or for entertainment.

“It is instead a drastic and overbroad remedy, with severe consequences for non-infringers. Yet the district court’s approach could compel internet service providers to engage in wide-scale terminations to avoid facing crippling damages, like the $1 billion judgment entered against Cox Communications,” the amici add.

These terminations take place with no judicial oversight and run contrary to the initiatives of lawmakers, who freed up billions of dollars to invest in American broadband infrastructure.

“It would also create massive disincentives for providers to invest in the new broadband networks that Congress recognizes are needed to close the digital divide,” the telecoms groups note.

Supreme Court’s Terrorist Ruling

Grande’s appeal also draws heavily on the aforementioned Twitter vs. Taamneh ruling, in which the U.S. Supreme Court recently held that the social media platforms aren’t liable for ISIS terrorists, who used their services to recruit and raise funds.

The Supreme Court rejected the claim that Twitter and others aided and abetted terrorist activity, because it didn’t “consciously and culpably” participate in the illegal activity. According to Grande, Internet providers are even further distanced from any wrongdoing.

“The pleaded allegations in Twitter are illuminating. There, the plaintiffs alleged that Twitter, Facebook, and Google allowed ISIS to upload videos and messages for public display, and that they actively delivered ISIS’s posts to other users based on those users’ information and use history.

“The social media companies failed to remove known ISIS accounts, instead letting ISIS benefit from the companies’ recommendation algorithms…”

The Supreme Court ultimately concluded that the social media companies didn’t engage in purposeful, culpable conduct. Instead, they simply offered their “infrastructure” to the parties. In addition, the Supreme Court suggested that ISPs are even further removed.

“[W]e generally do not think that internet or cell service providers incur culpability merely for providing their services to the public writ large,” the Supreme Court wrote.

The telecoms groups bring up the same case and stress that the Supreme Court ruling suggests that it was an error by the court to hold Grande liable for pirating subscribers. As such, the appeal court should overturn it.

Needless to say, the music companies will have a different take on the matter. They also made this clear when Cox brought up the Twitter ruling a few weeks ago and will likely do the same here.

—

A copy of Grande’s appeal brief can be found here (pdf) and the amicus curiae submission from USTelecom, The Broadband Association and CTIA is available here (pdf)

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

The InterPlanetary File System, more broadly known as IPFS , has been around for the past eight years.

While the name may sound otherworldly to the public at large, the peer-to-peer file storage network has a growing user base among the tech-savvy.

In short, IPFS is a decentralized network where users make files available to each other. The system makes websites censorship resistant and not vulnerable to regular hosting outages.

These advantages allow archivists, content creators, researchers, and many others to reliably distribute large volumes of data over the Internet. These same features also appeal to pirate sites, and several have actively started to embrace the technology to bypass censors.

Publishers Share IPFS Concerns

This week, IPFS was repeatedly mentioned by the Association of American Publishers ( AAP ) in its overview of the most notorious piracy markets submitted to the U.S. Trade Representative. The list includes the usual suspects, such as Z-Library, Sci-Hub and Libgen.

In addition to these main threats, the publishers say they are “increasingly concerned” with how these shadow libraries exploit IPFS to host and distribute pirated books and articles.

While it’s difficult to the stop distribution of content once it’s on IPFS, many people use gateway sites to access the content. These gateways serve as an intermediary and allow anyone to access IPFS-hosted sites without having to install dedicated software.

These gateways are helpful for those who only access IPFS content occasionally. The publishers see them as a threat, as they make the piracy angle easier too.

“Notorious piracy networks such as Libgen and Z-Library are already exploiting public gateways within the Interplanetary File System to host and distribute copyright protected content in a decentralized manner,” AAP informs the USTR.

IPFS Gateway Takedowns

The publishers recognize that IPFS technology has legal uses and that it’s intended to provide a resilient and more secure infrastructure. However, they hope that gateways are willing to address the piracy problem.

Most gateways accept copyright infringement notices. This includes Cloudflare’s version, which is one of the examples mentioned by the publishers. According to Cloudflare’s most recently published transparency report , it took more than 1,000 IPFS abuse ‘actions’ in six months.

More recent information suggests that IPFS gateways are flooded by DMCA takedown notices , which caused at least one operator to shut down their ‘fun’ project. Other gateways have disappeared recently as well, perhaps in part due to similar copyright troubles.

The publishers don’t blame the gateways directly and recognize that they accept takedown notices. Ideally, they should do more than that by preventing pirated content from being distributed through their platforms, they argue.

“While IPFS gateways are responsive to individual reports of infringement, preventing notorious piracy networks, such as Libgen, from exploiting their services would greatly improve enforcement efforts,” the publishers write.

Slippery Slope

AAP doesn’t offer any concrete suggestions but it would likely want to see these gateways actively blocking pirate sites. That might be an easy way to address the issue, but it’s also a slippery slope, particularly for a network that’s ultimately intended to be censorship-resistant.

TorrentFreak reached out to IPFS for a comment on the publishers’ remarks but the project didn’t immediately respond.

In the grander scheme, the publishers still have bigger problems to worry about for now. Many of the sites AAP flagged as “notorious markets” are still available on the open web, distributed through regular web browsers. Perhaps these will also pose a problem some day.

—

A copy of the Association of American Publishers’ notorious markets recommendation is available here (pdf) . Below, we list an overview of all the sites and services that it mentions.

Notorious Markets

– Afkebooks.com
– Alibaba (Taobao and Goofish)
– Anna’s Archive
– Avaxhome
– Libgen.rs (also libgen.is; libgen.st; library.lol; library.bz; libgen.fun – for IPFS content)
– Nitroflare.com
– Rapidgator.net
– Sci-hub.se
– Shopee
– Uploadgig.com

Other Services

Lunwenxiazai.com
Read Online Sites (e.g. Idoc.pub / full-english-books.net)
Telegram
1337 Services (Njalla)
Rogue Hosting Providers (e.g. Contabo.com / Incognet.io)

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

Last Thursday, a Danish court sentenced a 24-year old programmer from Silkeborg to 60 days probation for his role in operating the torrent tracker ShareUniversity.

The sentencing is the latest in Denmark following an unprecedented crackdown on local torrent trackers that has already resulted in more than a dozen prosecutions, with more yet to come.

The National Unit for Special Crime (NSK) reports that it’s happy with the conviction. In addition to serving the suspended prison sentence, the man must also pay 20,000 Danish kroner ($2,800) to the Rights Alliance, which represents the copyright holders.

“I am satisfied with the verdict, which rests on a thorough investigative work. The judgment emphasizes that copyright infringement is a crime that is taken seriously by the legal system,” NSK’s prosecutor Jan Østergaard says.

Thus far, the Danish courts have mostly handed down suspended prison sentences, which makes the associated press releases a little repetitive. However, the Rights Alliance , which was a driving force in the early investigations, recently decided to share additional background.

Undercover Operation

Thomas Heldrup, the anti-piracy group’s Head of Content Protection & Enforcement, has been running an undercover operation for more than half a decade. This helped the police to pinpoint many of the targets and also played a role in the most recent prosecution.

“We were undercover at ShareUniversity and based on what we gathered from this work the authorities filed the case which led to last week’s sentence,” Heldrup tells TorrentFreak.

As detailed in the Danish podcast Zetland , it all started when the Rights Alliance went undercover at the private DanishBits tracker in 2016.

Heldrup initially registered as a regular user of the tracker seven years ago. He wasn’t interested in downloading movies or music. Instead, he tried to map and follow the site’s lead figures, with the ultimate goal of identifying the main boss, MrDB.

The undercover operation meticulously followed public discussions, taking notes on the tracker’s key figures. Occasionally, some comments would reveal people’s ages or occupations, but progress was slow. It eventually took a financial problem to really get the ball rolling.

MrDB was particularly cautious and didn’t share personal details. However, when there was an issue with the site’s Bitcoin donations he swiftly put up a new payment option, so users could pay directly in Danish kroner. This patch allowed the lawyer to follow the money, which was routed to a bank in Belize.

From the Caribbean to Africa

While it’s fitting for a pirate to bank in the Caribbean, the paper trail eventually led to the tracker’s downfall. The real breakthrough came when Heldrup’s constant monitoring revealed MrDB’s real name.

It’s not clear where the name surfaced but, according to Zetland’s writeup, it was mentioned during online arguments between Danish trackers, which had a long-running rivalry. That name, combined with the information from Belize, ultimately led to the operator, who was neither in the Caribbean nor in Denmark.

In the fall of 2020, Danish authorities eventually located the then 33-year-old DanishBits operator in Morocco, where he was arrested and eventually extradited to Denmark.

Tracker Domino

The arrest marked the end of the popular tracker and the start of a crackdown, which also hit a rival tracker around the same time. In that investigation, police identified the 69-year-old operator of NordicBits, who was living in Spain.

Under questioning, the NordicBits operator admitted his involvement in the site and agreed to shut it down voluntarily. Danish authorities intended to take the operator to court, but the man was seriously ill and passed away before being prosecuted.

The prosecution of MrDB continued and he eventually received a one-year prison sentence, of which nine months were conditional. Meanwhile, other targets were lining up as well.

After DanishBits and NordicBits shut down, two smaller trackers – Asgaard and ShareUniversity – took over. These sites accepted a lot of new members but also attracted the attention of the Rights Alliance and the police, which kept up the pressure.

With help from undercover work and follow-up investigations from the authorities, the trackers folded after a few weeks , effectively decimating the local torrent tracker scene.

Several people involved with these sites, including uploaders and users, were prosecuted, with many receiving suspended prison sentences.

Undercover Lawyer Speaks

Looking back at the past few years, Thomas Heldrup is proud of what was achieved. While the undercover work was important, the active collaboration between rightsholders and the dedicated IP crime unit of the Danish police, proved to be the key to success.

“Our work usually needs to be backed up with the investigation tools that the police have at their disposal to track and disclose information about the citizens,” Heldrup tells us.

The Right Alliance could have opted to file civil cases, but that wouldn’t have been as successful. The investigative tools of the authorities are broader and the anti-piracy group also believes that it’s more appropriate for the official authorities to bring these cases to justice.

Heldrup was sometimes surprised to see how much personal information staffers and uploaders shared online. At times, they were simply too eager to share, which eventually allowed both Rights Alliance and the police to connect the dots.

“I can say that our undercover work put us in a position to map what profiles were the crucial players in running the sites and where resources at the police were best spent to bring down the sites.

“We spent a long time collecting info that, when looked at as a whole, could lead to the identification of the people who have been arrested in these cases. And yes it did come as a surprise to what extent people are willing to share info about themselves on these platforms,” Heldrup concludes.

—

An overview of the cases prosecuted thus far can be found below. The trial against several alleged operators of the Asgaard tracker is scheduled for February next year. Danish readers can hear more about the undercover operation through the Zetland podcast .

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

Over the past year, new artificial intelligence tools and services have been surfacing everywhere.

This AI boom followed the success of ChatGPT and many people believe these recent developments are just the beginning.

While entrepreneurs and the public at large are mostly focused on the new possibilities the technology offers, many copyright holders are focused on potential threats. This includes the music industry’s anti-piracy arm, the RIAA , which previously took action against a popular AI-related Discord server that was shut down last week.

Artificial intelligence also makes an appearance in the RIAA’s latest overview of foreign sites and services that present copyright and other intellectual property challenges.

Responding to a request from the Office of the US Trade Representative (USTR), the music group added “AI Vocal Cloning” as a new category in its annual overview of ‘notorious’ piracy markets.

“The year 2023 saw an eruption of unauthorized AI vocal clone services that infringe not only the rights of the artists whose voices are being cloned but also the rights of those that own the sound recordings in each underlying musical track.

“This has led to an explosion of unauthorized derivative works of our members’ sound recordings which harm sound recording artists and copyright owners,” the RIAA reports.

Voicify.ai

The music group sees vocal cloning websites as a broader problem, but mentions just one service by name; Voicify.ai . With over a million monthly visits this is one of the largest players, with subscription fees starting at $7.99 a month.

Voicify focuses on AI covers and allows users to create a new version of a track by simply adding a YouTube link and picking a voice model. The voice models mimic popular artists such as Ariana, Bruno Mars, Elvis, Eminem, and Taylor Swift, but Donald Trump and Spongebob are popular options too.

This site promotes itself as the “#1 platform for making high quality AI covers in seconds!” but the RIAA mainly sees copyright troubles with the Amazon-hosted service.

Rights of Publicity

According to the RIAA’s description, Voicify effectively stream-rips YouTube music videos. It then separates the acapella track and uses the AI voice model to alter that, after which it is added to the underlying musical bed to create the cover.

The RIAA believes that ripping YouTube tracks is a violation of the DMCA and using a voice model to create a derivative work is problematic too. On top of that, the voice models infringe the artists’ rights of publicity .

“This unauthorized activity infringes copyright as well as infringing the sound recording artist’s rights of publicity,” RIAA writes.

This ‘publicity’ right allows artists to control how their names, images, and likenesses are used in a commercial setting. That could also apply to their voices when exploited by a third party.

Evolving AI Challenges

This isn’t the first time that AI voice models have been called out. Earlier this year, Sony Music raised concerns about AI vocals and an AI-generated collaboration between ‘Drake’ and ‘The Weeknd’ was silenced over copyright concerns around the same time.

The RIAA arrived at the party early. Before the ChatGPT boom started, the music group had already signaled AI as an emerging threat . At the time, it was concerned with tools that could extract vocals or music beds, but those are old news today.

At the pace that new services are being rolled out today, Voicify might also be horribly outdated again a year from now. However, AI concerns are unlikely to dissipate anytime soon.

Traditional Piracy Threats Remain

Aside from the emerging AI threat, the RIAA remains concerned over more traditional piracy tools as well. This includes torrent sites such as The Pirate Bay and 1337x, as well as stream rippers, direct download portals, and cyberlockers.

Similarly, bulletproof hosting companies such as FlokiNET and PRQ are awarded with a “notorious” mark and the same applies to domain name privacy provider Njal.la and alternative app store Aptoid.

The RIAA’s full list of “notorious” sites and services can be found below, and the full report is available here (pdf)

—–

The cursive listings are new this year and those that were removed are crossed out. The RIAA stresses that these are mere examples as this is a non-exhaustive overview.

Stream-Ripping Sites

– ssyoutube.com
– ytmp3.nu
– mp3juices.cc
– flvto.biz and 2conv.com
– y2mate.com (and related sites yt1s.com, 9convert.com, and tomp3.cc)
– savefrom.net (and related site savef.net)
– ssyoutube.com
– Snaptube app and related domains
– tubidy.watch (tubidy.mobi, tubidy.com, tubidy.buzz, tubidy.ws9)

Music Download Sites

– newalbumreleases.net
– intmusic.net
– ak47full.com
– fakaza.com
– hiphopda.com
– bazenation.com
– itopmusicx.com
– songswave.com

BitTorrent Indexing Sites

– thepiratebay.org
– 1337x.to and mirrored at 1337x.is, 1337x.se, 1337x.st, x1337x.ws, x1337x.eu, and x1337x.se)
– rarbg.to
– torrentgalaxy.to

Cyberlockers

– zippyshare.com
– dbree.org
– rapidgator.net
– turbobit.net
– krakenfiles.com
– ddownload.com
– onlyfiles.io

Unauthorized Short Form Video Services

– likee.video
AI Based Extractors/Mixers

– acapella-extractor.com
– remove-vocals.com
– songmastr.com

AI Vocal Cloning

– voicify.ai

Additional Issues

– Bulletproof ISPS: PRQ, FlokiNET, Frantech Solutions/BuyVM/ PONYNET , DDoS Guard.
– Nigerian-Operated Infringing Sites: thenetnaija.net, trendybeatz.com, justnaija.com, 24naijamuzic.com and bazenation.com.
– Other intermediaries: Njal.la, A-Ads/Equativ, Softonic/Aptoid.

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