With two alleged operators of Z-Library currently defending a criminal lawsuit filed by the U.S. government, another of the world’s most recognized book piracy platforms has fresh legal problems of its own.

Library Genesis was founded in Russia around 2008, mostly offering local language scientific textbooks. After reportedly adding around 500,000 predominantly English-language books courtesy of Library.nu, ‘Libgen’ archives received another huge boost with the addition of content made available by Sci-Hub founder Alexandra Elbakyan.

Majors Publishers File Copyright Complaint Against Libgen

According to a copyright lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York late Thursday, Libgen’s collection of infringing works now consists of over six million files. At least 20,000 of those files were published by plaintiffs Cengage Learning, Inc., Bedford, Freeman & Worth Publishing Group, LLC (d/b/a Macmillan Learning, McGraw Hill LLC, and Pearson Education, Inc.) and distributed by Libgen without authorization.

“Each year, Plaintiffs publish tens of thousands of academic works, including higher education textbooks, which serve as the basis for thousands of courses in universities and colleges across the United States and are among the most popular and widely used titles in their fields,” the publishers’ complaint begins.

“Defendants operate one of the largest, most notorious, and far-reaching infringement operations in the world. ‘Library Genesis,’ or ‘Libgen’ for short, is a group of pirate websites through which a vast array of written material is illegally copied and distributed online without any authorization, and with no remuneration to copyright holders.”

Defendants in the case include DOES 1 – 50 (d/b/a Library Genesis), ‘bookwarrior’, plus a list of Libgen owned or utilized domains including cdn1.booksdl.org, jlibgen.tk, libgen.ee, libgen.fun, libgen.gs, libgen.is, libgen.lc, libgen.li, libgen.pm, libgen.rocks, libgen.rs, libgen.space, libgen.st, libgen.su, library.lol, and llhlf.com .

“Operating as an illegal ‘shadow library,’ Libgen enables users to download, for free, fiction and non-fiction books (among other types of works), including educational textbooks, instead of buying or renting lawful copies or checking them out from a legitimate library. Defendants have absolutely no legal justification for what they do and operate in complete and knowing defiance of the rule of law,” the complaint adds.

The publishers claim that the Libgen defendants intentionally hide their identities using pseudonyms such as ‘bookwarrior’ and ‘librarian.’ They also use online proxy services that conceal their identities while failing to provide any business addresses as contact information.

Libgen is Hardened to Maintain “Staggering Infringement”

Highlighting the numerous and shifting domain names through which Libgen can be accessed, the publishers’ complaint states Libgen’s operators have built in “multiple redundancies” to ensure that huge volumes of infringing content remain accessible.

“For instance, users can download infringing files from Libgen directly or through Interplanetary File Sharing (‘IPFS’) gateways that purport to facilitate faster and safer downloads and are operated by companies based in the United States,” the complaint notes.

“The current IPFS gateway companies include Cloudflare, Protocol Labs (which operates IPFS.io), and Pinata, which are all based in the United States.”

“The scale of Defendants’ infringement is staggering. Libgen maintains an enormous collection of infringing works that anyone with an internet connection can access.

“This collection consists of over 6 million files that include illegal copies of works from a diverse cross-section of the publishing industry. For Plaintiffs alone, Libgen has over 20,000 files published by Plaintiffs – none of which Plaintiffs authorized Defendants to copy or distribute.”

Not a Library, Free Access to Education “Just a Ruse”

In common with similar sites offering broadly similar services, Libgen’s stated aim is the “[c]ollection, systematization and distribution of scientific, technical and educational literature on a free and open basis.” The publishers dismiss this as “just a ruse” to account for a “massive piracy effort” that runs counter to the stated aim of copyright law.

“[T]he Sites undermine the very purpose of U.S. copyright law to ‘promote the progress of science and the useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors . . . the exclusive right to their respective writings,” the complaint states.

While Libgen and similar sites are often referred to as shadow libraries, the publishers’ complaint seeks to highlight the differences between these platforms and authorized libraries. Instead of acquiring works through channels that acknowledge and compensate the efforts of publishers and authors (i.e entities sanctioned by publishers), shadow libraries “take what is not theirs and share it widely so others can do the same.”

Libgen Causes “Financial and Creative Harm”

The complaint says that Libgen’s activities “cause serious financial and creative harm” to the plaintiffs while depriving authors of income from their creative works. By offering content for free, Libgen reportedly devalues the textbook market and according to the publishers, may even cause certain works to cease being published.

A list of ‘plaintiffs authentic works’ is provided as an attachment to the complaint. It lists 200 textbooks allegedly made available by Libgen in violation of the publishers’ rights.

Some allegdly-infringed works (full list below)

“Without Court intervention, Defendants will continue operating the Libgen Sites, causing still further harm to copyright holders, including Plaintiffs. Accordingly, Plaintiffs bring this action for injunctive relief and damages to stop and seek redress for Defendants’ knowing and willful copyright infringement.”

Defendants Unknown, Locations Unknown

The publishers’ complaint indicates that the identities of the people behind Libgen are currently unknown. Their locations are also unknown at this point, but the publishers mention “foreign locations” as the most likely candidates. Despite these difficulties, the plaintiffs claim the court has personal jurisdiction due to the Libgen sites being accessible in the United States and providing infringing copies to users in the United States “which make up a significant percentage of all visitors.”

SimilarWeb data for just one Libgen domain (libgen.is) shows almost 21% of visitors hail from the U.S. while runner-up India accounts for 7.9%. The plaintiffs say that from March through May 2023, the Libgen sites collectively received an average of nine million visitors per month from the United States.

The publishers further note that several of the Libgen domains identify a “copyright agent” that purportedly facilitates notice-and-takedowns under the DMCA. More broadly the sites rely on U.S. companies to stay online including Namecheap (domains), Cloudflare (reverse proxy), and Google for ‘search engine services.” The sites also receive donations in Bitcoin and Monero with the amount collected by one of the sites since January 1, 2023, reported as $182,540.

Copyright Infringement (17 U.S.C. § 101 et seq.)

The plaintiffs state that copying and/or distributing unauthorized copies of their works, constitutes infringement under 17 U.S.C. §§ 106(1) and 106(3) . They demand either actual or statutory damages for willful copyright infringement which in theory could reach $30,000,000.

They further request an injunction to restrain ongoing infringement, an order requiring Libgen to “deliver up for destruction” all infringing copies along with all devices used to create distribute or store them, and an order to take control of Libgen domains or have them rendered inaccessible.

After being sued by publisher Elsevier in 2015 at the same court, Libgen and the infamous Sci-Hub were ordered to shut down . While Libgen briefly disappeared , both sites ultimately ignored the decision.

The complaint and list of allegedly-infringed textbooks are available here ( 1 , 2 , pdf)

Image Credits: congerdesign / LubosHouska /Pixabay

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

Last fall, the U.S. Government temporarily took down Z-Library, one of the largest book piracy operations in the world.

The feds seized the site’s main domain names and arrested two alleged Russian operators of the site, who now find themselves at the center of a criminal investigation .

This enforcement action came as a shock to millions of Z-Library users but the shadow library eventually recovered and remains online today. That doesn’t mean that the two alleged operators are in the clear, however.

‘Home Confined’ Defendants Face Extradition

The United States is determined to extradite the defendants so they can be brought to justice there. According to the Department of Justice, the duo played a key role in the shadow library’s operation, which ultimately caused significant damage to authors and publishers.

Over the past few days, several new details have emerged on the extradition efforts. According to court records, both defendants were released from prison in January, after the Cordoba Federal Court in Argentina ruled that ‘home’ confinement at a local rental apartment is sufficient at this stage.

The same court also reviewed the extradition request in April and came to the conclusion that it was deficient. The court requested U.S. officials to provide more details on the alleged criminal actions and their victims but the information was never produced.

Instead, the extradition was approved a few weeks later, after the appellate court substituted the judge in charge. The extradition hasn’t been enforced thus far, however, as there is an appeal pending.

‘Not Fugitives’

In addition to the extradition battle in Argentina, Anton Napolsky and Valeriia Ermakova also responded to the criminal allegations in the New York federal court. The defendants submitted a motion to dismiss arguing, among other things, that the copyright infringement claims are deficient.

The U.S. prosecution opposed this motion . Besides disagreeing on the merits, United States Attorney Breon Peace argued that the defendants’ request should be denied because they are officially fugitives.

“The defendants are fugitives who have chosen to avoid the reach of this Court by remaining in Argentina. Until they submit to the jurisdiction of the United States, they have no ability to compel this Court to consider the present Motion—or any type of motion,” Peace wrote .

This week, the defendants responded with a different take on the matter. According to their attorneys, the term fugitive doesn’t apply here.

A traditional fugitive is someone who flees from the jurisdiction after committing a crime to hide from justice. In this case, the defendants were tourists in Argentina; they didn’t travel there to escape justice.

“Defendants were not in the United States at any time relevant to the Indictment and have never resided in this country. Contrary to the Government’s insinuations, at the time of their arrest they were not hiding in a remote region in Argentina, but traveling as tourists.

“Defendants are Russian nationals. Had they desired to hide from justice, they would have stayed in their native Russia, a country with no extradition treaty with the United States,” the attorneys add.

The fugitive status is important in this case, as people who flee from a jurisdiction may not be able to file a motion to dismiss. The defense argues that this argument shouldn’t apply here.

‘No U.S. Servers’

Continuing to the merits of the copyright infringement allegations, the defense stresses that there is no evidence that Napolsky and Ermakova used U.S.-based servers to store any copyrighted materials. They didn’t own any servers in the U.S. either.

“There is not a single allegation in the Superseding Indictment or the Complaint that Defendants indeed used servers located in the United States to store infringed copies of copyrighted materials,” the attorneys write.

The defendants did use Gmail and Amazon to collect donations. However, the defense notes that these companies previously operated in Russia too, and that their use of these services isn’t sufficient to establish jurisdiction.

If that logic did indeed apply, people could be subjected to the jurisdiction of a Chinese court if they make a Zoom call, the attorneys note.

“Mere use of Gmail or making purchases on Russian Amazon by Defendants are insufficient to establish U.S. domestic activity. For example, Zoom has data centers in China, and some U.S. calls used to be processed through a Chinese server.

“Finding domestic activity based on inadvertent transmission to servers in another country by third-party internet services providers would mean that a person engages in domestic activity in China when making that Zoom call.”

Anyone who uses the Internet will automatically have their traffic routed through multiple countries, according to the defense. To establish jurisdiction, there should be more substantial claims that Gmail and Amazon reference, the response argues.

What Works?

The prosecution further stresses that the indictment doesn’t list any copyrighted works the Z-Library defendants have allegedly infringed. In other words, there are no concrete pirated works listed. This is another shortcoming that warrants a dismissal.

The Government argued that it doesn’t have to detail any concrete infringements at this point, but that conclusion is wrong, according to the defense attorneys.

Based on these and a variety of other arguments, Napolsky and Ermakova ask the New York federal court to dismiss the Superseding Indictment. If that happens, the extradition proceeding will be moot too.

—

A copy of Napolsky and Ermakova’s joint reply to the U.S. opposition, in support of their motion to dismiss, is available here (pdf)

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

Over the past several years, a wave of copyright infringement lawsuits has targeted alleged cheaters and cheat makers.

Game companies have emerged as relatively swift victors in most of these cases, but that’s not a given.

The legal dispute between American video game developer Bungie and AimJunkies.com has turned into a drawn-out battle.

Two years ago, Bungie filed a complaint at a federal court in Seattle, accusing AimJunkies of copyright and trademark infringement, among other things. The same allegations were made against Phoenix Digital Group, the alleged creators of the Destiny 2 cheating software.

The case initially seemed set for a quick settlement, but the parties failed to reach an agreement. Instead, Bungie pressed on while AimJunkies went on the defensive, asking the court to dismiss several claims.

AimJunkies argued that cheating isn’t against the law . In addition, it refuted the copyright infringement allegations; these lacked any substance and were ungrounded because some of the referenced copyrights were registered well after the cheats were first made available, AimJunkies argued.

Dismissal, Counterclaim and Arbitration

Last year, U.S. District Court Judge Thomas Zilly largely sided with AimJunkies . The original complaint failed to provide sufficient evidence for a plausible claim that the ‘Destiny 2 Hacks’ infringed any copyrights.

This was bad news for Bungie but the court did offer the company the option to file a new complaint to address these shortcomings, which it did soon after .

Meanwhile, AimJunkies wasn’t sitting idly by. The cheat seller filed a countersuit , accusing Bungie of hacking when it allegedly accessed a defendant’s computer without permission. This counterclaim was eventually dismissed .

Bungie scored its first major win earlier this year in an arbitration proceeding. Judge Ronald Cox concluded that the cheaters violated the DMCA’s anti-circumvention provision and related trafficking restrictions, awarding $3.6 million in damages to the game company.

This arbitration ruling is still under appeal and with the battle being fought on multiple fronts, attention shifted back to the federal lawsuit once more, where Bungie continued its copyright and trademark claims this summer.

Bungie’s Sealed Motions for Summary Judgment

In July, the game company submitted motions for summary judgment, which remain sealed and hidden from the broader public to this day. The sealed nature of this request makes it hard to report on but a minute order issued by District Court Judge Thomas S. Zilly last week fills in some of the blanks.

Bungie hoped to resolve the dispute without a trial, arguing that it’s clear that AimJunkies infringed its copyright. The cheat seller had to copy portions of the Destiny 2 game code to create its cheat, Bungie theorized.

In an order released late last week, District Court Judge Thomas Zilly is not convinced of this logic, as there is no hard evidence that any game code was copied. And without that, there’s no ground for a plausible copyright infringement claim.

Copyright Infringement Claim

In his order, Judge Zilly cites testimony from Bungie Engineering Lead, Edward Kaiser, who stated that cheating software couldn’t function without copying portions of the Destiny 2 code. However, that argument was little more than a well-informed theory; there is no proof.

“Notably, Dr. Kaiser is not certain that Defendants copied portions of Destiny 2’s copyrighted software code to create the Aimjunkies cheat software, and he explained during his deposition that, based on the available evidence, his opinion is merely ‘the most likely conclusion’,” Judge Zilly writes.

“Defendants deny that they copied any portions of Destiny 2’s software code, and contend that a non-party developer created the Aimjunkies cheat software,” the Judge adds, concluding that the motion for summary judgment on the copyright claims is denied.

Trademark Infringement Claim

In addition to the copyright claim, Bungie also argued that AimJunkies infringed its trademark. The cheat seller did indeed use Destiny 2’s trademark to promote its cheat. However, in order to show that this use is infringing, this use has to cause “consumer confusion”.

According to Judge Zilly, AimJunkies’ use is different than that of a typical counterfeiter, who uses trademarked logos to make a product look identical the original. After all, most cheaters are well aware of the fact that cheats are not sold by the game’s makers.

In fact, Judge Zilly notes that, Bungie’s license agreement -which all legitimate players agree to- explicitly prohibits the use of cheats.

“Unlike the case Bungie cites, involving a handbag, coin purse, and wallet bearing counterfeit reproductions of an accessory designer’s registered marks, in this matter, the mark at issue was used on a product that was different in kind from the one associated with the genuine mark and that Bungie’s online and multiplayer customers had contractually agreed not to use,” Judge Zilly writes.

Based on this reasoning, Bungie’s motion for summary judgment on the trademark infringement claim is denied as well. Instead, the copyright and trademark claims will have to be presented to a jury, at trial.

‘The Day of Reckoning’

TorrentFreak reached out to Bungie for a comment on the order but the videogame company didn’t immediately reply.

Behind the scenes, the parties participated in mediation last month, but that was unsuccessful. The trial is currently scheduled to start in December but Bungie informed the court that it would like to extend this date by 120 days.

AimJunkies’ attorney Phil Mann is pleased with Judge Zilly’s decision to deny the motions for summary judgment. Instead of simply accepting Bungie’s theory, the decision is based on actual evidence, which stands in sharp contrast to the arbitration finding, Mann says.

“Unlike Arbitrator Cox, Judge Zilly is a real judge who does not simply accept whatever nonsense a large company and connected law firm puts before him,” Mann tells us.

AimJunkies believes that it has momentum now and the defendants oppose Bungie’s request to delay the trial. According to Mann, Bungie’s case is about to fall apart.

“From day one, we have known that Bungie’s case is a house of cards lacking any legal merit, and have looked forward to getting the truth before a jury. Tellingly, Bungie is now asking to delay the very trial it asked for. Take a guess as to why.

“The day of reckoning is near,” Mann concludes.

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

There’s no denying the many victories of the Alliance for Creativity and Entertainment ( ACE ) over the past few years.

The anti-piracy group, which represents the major Hollywood studios and other prominent rightsholders such as Apple, BBC, and Netflix, systematically hunts down key piracy players.

A few weeks ago, ACE claimed one of the most significant successes this year by shutting down 2Embed following negotiations with its Hanoi, Vietnam-based operator.

2Embed was one of the key services that took the pirate streaming world by storm. The site offered access to a catalog of pirate streaming links for 300,000 movies and TV shows, which could easily be embedded in any website by simply using an IMDb ID for reference.

Zoro’s Last Minute Acquisition

Right around the time 2Embed went offline, Zoro.to came out with some surprising news. With over 200 million visits the anime streaming portal was one of the largest pirate sites until last June, when it was suddenly acquired by a new team , who redirected it to Aniwatch.to.

This sudden takeover likely wasn’t a coincidence. 2Embed and Zoro.to were reportedly operated by the same person who, after ACE paid a visit to Vietnam, struck a deal with the anti-piracy alliance. And indeed, both 2Embed and Zoro.to now redirect to ACE’s ‘ Watch Legally ’ page.

This major success was tainted, however, as Zoro’s earlier redirect to Aniwatch.to was rather effective. This new streaming portal came out of nowhere and is now one of the largest piracy portals online with 277 million monthly visits in August.

ACE Goes After Aniwatch

With this new site pupping up right under the noses of MPA and ACE, it is no surprise that Aniwatch is now a priority target. And indeed, through two recent subpoenas, rightsholders are attempting try to discover who’s in charge.

Late last week, MPA requested several DMCA subpoenas at a federal court in California. These subpoenas are directed at Cloudflare and the Tonic domain registry, listing a variety of targets including Aniwatch.to.

The subpoenas were requested on behalf of ACE members with the aim of obtaining the personal details of the people who operate Aniwatch.to, Gogoanimehd.to, Myflixerz.to and several other domains.

Specifically, ACE seeks “names, physical addresses, IP addresses, telephone numbers, e-mail addresses, payment information, account updates and account histories of the users” who operate the allegedly infringing websites.

More High Traffic Sites

Aniwatch is without a doubt the biggest target, but the other sites have massive traffic levels too. Gogoanimehd.to, for example, logged more than 90 million visits last month, while Myflixerz.to came close to 60 million.

In addition to the .to domain registry, ACE also seeks the same information from Cloudflare through a DMCA subpoena. These recent subpoena requests are part of a bigger push that targets dozens of domain names, which are listed at the bottom of this article.

All in all, it’s clear that, despite the major enforcement efforts this year, ACE still has plenty of ground to cover. While it sometimes seems like a perpetual game of whack-a-mole, rightsholders hope that their perseverance will eventually pay off.

—

Below is a list of all domains targeted by MPA/ACE in a recent DMCA subpoena wave ( 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 ).

-cyberflix.me
-cuevanahd.net
-pelisflix2.team
-vizer.in
-pobretv.net
-aniwatch.to
-tugaflix.best
-diziwatch.net
-filma24.li
-filma24.gd
-kaido.to
-animez.org
-anix.to
-laroza.one
-gogoaninehd.to
-gogoanime3.net
-smashystream.com
-embed.smashystream.com
-bflix.to
-nuuuppp.store
-soap2day-online.com
-adjaranet.com
-myflixerz.to
-watchsomuch.to
-watchsomuch.tv
-noxx.to
-projectfreetv.space
-0123movie.net
-yugenanime.tv
-yugen.to
-123-movies.sb
-123-movies.zone
-primewire.li
-primewire.tf
-gowatchseries.tv
-movstreamhd.pro
-webtvguek.org
-guek.org
-privateiptvaccess.com
-iptvespana.online
-line.ottcst.org
-line.rs4ott.com
-rapidiptv.pro
-mujitv.com
-sportiumtv.com
-sixstartv.com
-upbaam.com
-vidroba.com
-vidspeeds.com
-anafasts.com
-v.aflam.news
-vod540.xyz
-sfntv.xyz
-tvhdonline.org

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

With more than 14 million digital books in its archive, Z-Library is one of the largest shadow libraries on the Internet.

What stands out even more is that the site continues to thrive; even though two of its alleged operators were arrested as part of a criminal crackdown by the United States.

These two defendants, both Russians, are currently fighting a heated extradition battle. While their involvement with Z-Library is apparent to U.S. law enforcement, they don’t appear to be crucial to the operation, since Z-Library continues to thrive.

Over the past several months, the digital library has rolled out a variety of new features. Some of these aim to make future enforcement less effective , while others focus on improving the service to users. The ultimate goal is to become a universal sharing hub for written knowledge.

Sharing Paper Books

Thus far, these endeavors were all in the digital realm. Z-Library offers ebooks and articles that can be instantly downloaded, from all over the world. However, a few months ago the site planned to go even further, by helping users to share physical copies with each other.

“Books you have read should not gather dust on your shelf – instead, they can get a second life in the hands of new readers! This helps to preserve the literary heritage and spread the knowledge and ideas contained in books to more people,” they wrote.

This is an interesting move from the site. Sharing a paper book with someone is something entirely different than offering pirated book copies online, from a legal perspective at least. But for Z-Library it all ultimately boils down to sharing stories and encouraging reading.

Z-Points in 11 Countries

A few days ago, Z-Library’s first physical libraries, known as “Z-Points”, went live. These initial locations are limited to 11 countries, including the U.S., China, and South Sudan, covering all inhabited continents.

This is just the initial phase of the project and more locations and Z-Points are expected to be added in the future.

“This project has grown beyond our initial concept of a simple book exchange and has evolved into a global library of paper books. Our ultimate goal is to connect readers worldwide and make literature accessible to everyone, regardless of location or financial constraints,” Z-Library writes.

During the first phase, Z-Library focuses on building its paper book collection. If people have books they no longer use, they can send them to the Z-Points for further processing. That includes making digital copies, if legally possible.

“There, we carefully store books, digitize them (if the laws of a particular country allow), and then send them to users and educational institutions in need,” the team explains to interested users.

Next: Direct Sharing

Later on, Z-Library also plans to add an interface where users can list their available paper books, to facilitate direct sharing between users, without the need to go through a Z-Point.

This book-sharing project is not entirely unique, of course. In many countries, there are existing free libraries that collect and donate books in local communities. Some of these are organized and promoted through the “ Little Free Library ” project.

By keeping track of the available books online, Z-Library adds an interesting element. At the same time, however, there’s also a major downside, as the sender will have to pay shipping costs.

And then there are the legal concerns. While sharing a legally purchased book with someone else isn’t a crime, Z-Library’s digital library is seen as a criminal operation by the U.S. Government, which some people may not want to be associated with.

Concerns or not, the operators of the site are steadfast in their belief that they are doing the right thing.

“We believe that books are not just pages and ink, they are portals to different worlds, ideas, and perspectives. By sharing our books, we share our knowledge, our stories, and our hearts. We invite you to join us in this venture to support a culture of reading around the world,” the team concludes.

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

Anyone who uses the internet today should already be aware that privacy is all but non-existent.

The quid pro quo for using any major online service, social networks in particular, is the surrender of extraordinary amounts of personal data.

Even regular websites can deploy dozens of trackers and trying to surface those don’t, using a search engine perhaps, makes everything several times worse. The position today is simple: accept being tracked in some way, shape, or form, or stay off the internet.

While the privacy-invading aspects of the wider internet are broadly discussed, much less attention is given to the companies that allow us to get online in the first place. Without broadband providers the internet would die but by default, all traffic generated by subscribers goes through them. There’s a much bigger conversation to be had on the role of ISPs and their handling of subscriber data but our focus here is on a very specific niche.

When ISPs and Content Providers Collide

All kinds of radical antidotes were up for discussion in the early days of file-sharing, but one often dismissed out of hand most was always destined to pose the biggest threat. In general terms, ISPs ‘owned’ the access tubes of the internet and rightsholders owned the content. Two decades later, these previously warring parties are frequently found under the same corporate roof.

Content owners exercising total control over subscriber connections isn’t yet a reality but close working relationships and shared interests with ISPs suggest travel in that general direction. In 2019, it emerged that a UK-based anti-piracy company, known for its work against pirate IPTV providers, was sharing data with one or more UK ISPs to determine subscribers’ consumption of content from various ‘pirate’ servers.

The arrangement was referenced again in October 2020 when it was revealed that traffic data from UK ISP Sky supported a successful UEFA High Court ISP blocking injunction. A year later it emerged that Sky had compiled data on high-traffic IP addresses accessed via its network to help an anti-piracy company working for the Premier League.

At this point we should highlight how this work was framed. This wasn’t Sky spying on customers’ connections via the modem in the home, we were told. This was activity at completely the other end, i.e monitoring the levels of traffic flowing inbound from the pirate servers’ IP addresses. Some might argue that any type of monitoring is unacceptable but what if UK ISPs actually had permission to do more?

Permission to Monitor Pirates?

After receiving information suggesting that other ISPs may also be collaborating in similar anti-piracy work, we requested proof to show that is indeed the case. While that is yet to surface, we were invited to consider legal documents issued by two leading UK ISPs: Sky and Virgin Media, and for comparison, BT.

These documents – customer agreements and their related privacy policies — reveal that when people sign up as customers to at least two UK ISPs, they do so on the understanding that piracy might lead to their information being shared with third-parties.

Sky Privacy Policy

Sky documentation contains several references to the protection or enforcement of its own rights, and of “any third party’s rights.” For example, in the ‘How we use it” section relating to contact details and account information, the policy contains the following:

The same declaration appears in the ‘IP Addresses & Online Identifiers’ section where Sky notes that subscriber information can be used where it has a “legitimate interest” including the protection or enforcement of its own or any third party’s rights. “This may involve analysing activity on our network to help stop unauthorized access to content or publication of or access to unlawful content,” the company notes.

As a content provider in its own right, much of the above will relate directly to Sky’s own delivery platforms and its ability to prevent unauthorized access to content under its own control. However, in the section titled “Sharing with third parties” statements become much more explicit.

“We share your personal data, such as your contact details, financial data and other information described below, with credit reference and fraud prevention agencies and other relevant parties…for the prevention and detection of crimes such as fraud, piracy and money laundering,” the section reads.

“Where we reasonably suspect that you are pirating Sky or third-party content, we may share information with other organizations with a similar legitimate interest in preventing, detecting and prosecuting piracy.”

How these policies work in practice is unknown, but they are there for a reason. That Sky subscribers effectively grant these permissions shows once again that nobody reads the small print.

Sky’s Privacy Policy is available here

Virgin Media Privacy Policy

The first mention of using customer data for anti-piracy purposes appears in section 4 of Virgin Media’s privacy policy.

“We rely on Legal Obligation and Legitimate Interests Legal Bases to use your information to ensure we comply with our legal and regulatory obligations (these are our legitimate interests),” Virgin’s policy reads.

“We use information about who you are and your use of our products and services to block unauthorized or illegitimate content on our TV platforms, respond to court proceedings and enforcement authorities, and help authorities and industry organizations with any security, fraud, anti-piracy, crime or anti-terrorism enquiries.”

In the section where Virgin declares use of customer data to “develop, manage and protect” its business, the company says it does so “to identify and prevent piracy and other crime” and to “identify threats to our network that result in TV piracy.”

The company further states that it collects information about its customers from third-party or external sources, including “fraud and anti-piracy prevention agencies.”

Virgin also has a dedicated anti-piracy relating to its own TV services.

Virgin Media’s Privacy Policy is available here

BT Privacy Policy

In contrast to competitors Sky and Virgin, explicit mentions of anti-piracy cooperation are absent from BT’s privacy policy . Elsewhere, however, BT goes into some detail on the information it collects and where that data can be used when a user is suspected of piracy.

“We keep information about how you’re using your broadband to help us understand and manage traffic flows on our network, improve our services and tell you about products you might be interested in. That includes IP addresses and other traffic data including websites you’ve visited,” the ISP reports.

“We are sometimes contacted by third parties who monitor illegal online file sharing on behalf of copyright holders. If we receive a claim that there has been illegal sharing on your broadband service, we may use your IP address to notify you. But unless we are required to by law, we will not disclose your personal information to the copyright holder or any party acting on their behalf.

While these three leading UK ISPs all see piracy as problem to be countered, from these policies it’s evident that Sky’s approach is the most uncompromising, at least on paper. How much data it shares externally is unknown but having put that intent in black and white, one has to assume that anything is possible.

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

Automattic , the company behind the popular blogging platform WordPress, receives thousands of takedown requests from copyright holders.

For several years the volume of notices continued to increase , with a peak in 2018, after which the trend slowly went in the other direction.

This week, the company published its latest WordPress.com transparency report , revealing that it processed 2,412 takedown notices during the first six months of the year. That is a significant drop compared to a year earlier when over 3,321 notices were handled.

These data only apply to the number of DMCA notices that are directed at WordPress.com services. Each of these notices can contain multiple URLs, in some cases even dozens. In future, Automattic plans to release more granular data.

Abusive and Incomplete Takedown Requests

Aside from the continued drop in takedown volume, the high rejection rate clearly stands out. Of all notices received, only 14% result in any content removals; the vast majority are rejected for a variety of reasons.

In the reported period, 77% of all notices were rejected because they were incomplete. An additional 9% was labeled as ‘abusive’ and dismissed for that reason. The remaining 14% was processed as usual.

The number of rejections is significantly higher than in the same period last year. According to Automattic, this is mostly due to more incomplete notices, which are often sent by specialized ‘removal companies’.

“Most of these incomplete notices were submitted through seemingly automated processes that are provided by content removal companies which often charge content creators to exercise their rights,” Automattic notes .

These ‘faulty’ notices also include requests to take down content that’s cached for other hosting providers, through WordPress’ Jetpack service , for example. Since WordPress is not the original host it doesn’t take action in response to these.

The high percentage of ‘faulty’ notices is a source of frustration for Automattic, which indirectly criticizes the companies that largely rely on takedown bots and automated processes.

Tumblr

Automattic also owns the blogging platform Tumblr, which it purchased in 2019. For this service, it releases a separate transparency report.

The Tumblr report shows a similar decline in DMCA takedown notices. In the first half of 2023, 2,278 takedown notices were sent to the platform, a significant drop from the 3,362 requests it received a year earlier.

A detailed breakdown shows that these DMCA notices targeted 2,369 posts and 11,146 pieces of other content. The majority of these notices, 78%, were valid and processed accordingly.

“This type of careless use of the DMCA makes it harder for platforms to efficiently process valid takedown notifications. In the past, we have highlighted similar problematic trends such as the negative impact of automated takedown notices submitted by bots,” the company writes.

All in all, the transparency reports show that the major DMCA takedown surge of a few years ago has subsided. However, Automattic stresses that it’s important to remain vigilant to ensure that content isn’t needlessly removed.

“For our part, we meticulously review each takedown notice we receive so that we can identify the validity, push back on abuse, and help our users understand their rights such as Fair Use,” Automattic writes.

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

As pirate set-top boxes, illegal IPTV services and infringement of live TV broadcasts remain key concerns for the audiovisual sector, the pressure is on to find more effective anti-piracy solutions.

Speaking with IBC last week, Sheila Cassells, Executive VP at the Audiovisual Anti-Piracy Alliance, warned that entertainment companies need to be very concerned about “any technological development” which can be used to access pirated content.

From the VCR to the iPhone, from Google Glass to today’s AI, being “very concerned” about new technology is the default position for major rightsholders and, in their position, many might feel the same. However, the focus of the conversation was on certain devices, referred to in the interview as “ISDs, Firesticks and Android apps” and their various abilities to facilitate piracy. What’s AAPA’s position there?

“At a basic level – and common to all the technical devices mentioned – AAPA would like to see the production, marketing and distribution of any device which can be used to infringe IP made illegal” – Sheila Cassells.

Careful What You Wish For

Given the vast experience of Cassells and the collective knowledge of AAPA’s members including Premier League, Sky, beIN, Canal+, and DAZN, we can assume that the statement above isn’t actually AAPA’s position, at least when taken literally. Nevertheless, it does raise some interesting questions.

Like many other people who spend too much time in front of a computer, the desk in front me here represents an Aladdin’s Cave of devices that can be used to infringe intellectual property rights. There’s a monitor that has the ability to show copyrighted images or display unlicensed movies, and is even big enough to be seen outside and generate liability for an unlicensed public performance.

There’s a vast collection of USB drives in various shapes and sizes, but only one where i’m 100% sure of the contents. In any event there must be a few terabytes of storage capacity, and all of it can be used to infringe IP rights; movies, TV shows, software, eBooks – literally nothing is safe.

As for the mobile phone, it’s an infringement machine. It has the ability to record movies in cinemas, store copies for retrieval, and then distribute them on the internet. No song is safe either; right out of the box it was able to infringe copyrights on every track ever made, in the entire history of music.

Can’t Ban All of the Things, All of the Time

The sobering truth is every tech gadget on the desk and most others in the rest of the house can be used to infringe intellectual property rights. Even the internet connection (or perhaps mostly the internet connection) can be used to infringe intellectual property rights, but it doesn’t necessarily follow that will be the use case.

So, after making a fairly basic but sensible case that there’s zero chance of making the production, marketing and distribution of ANY device which CAN be used to infringe IP made illegal, what does AAPA actually mean, and how can the problem be tackled?

In respect of the devices mentioned above (all set-top devices), Cassells references a piece of EU legislation known as the Conditional Access Directive . It dates back to 1998 and was crafted to protect TV platforms that provide content on a conditional basis, i.e customers get access to content on the condition they pay.

Complex Legislation, Boiled Down to Basics

The directive requires EU member states to prohibit an illicit device “which enables or facilitates without authority the circumvention of any technological measures designed to protect the remuneration of a legally provided service.” The directive also prohibits “all forms of advertising, direct marketing, sponsorship, sales promotion and public relations promoting such products and services.”

As is often the case in intellectual property matters, nearly everything here can be boiled down to one of the most important ingredients: intent.

If a device is designed to infringe IP rights, marketed to infringe IP rights, and infringes IP rights when in use, trying to claim the device is a neutral technology after the fact is unlikely to be successful.

Since Firesticks were mentioned, it’s clear they are not infringing by design, they aren’t marketed as such, nor do they infringe in any pre-determined way. As a result they are not illegal and cannot be described as such. However, they are absolutely capable of infringing IP rights so if some kind of middle man intervenes with software or other modifications designed to infringe IP rights, now the device is illegal, regardless of the intent of the original manufacturer.

Illegal Devices Are Already Illegal

If at this point we circle back to the beginning, there are obvious bright lines between ostensibly similar products when one is intended to infringe and the other is not.

The Filmspeler case in the Netherlands established illegality of devices when supplied configured to infringe so, logically, “the production, marketing and distribution of any device which can be used to infringe IP” is already illegal in the EU.

Cassells says that the sector is facing particular challenges tackling devices made in China because taking legal action there isn’t easy. The nature of these devices isn’t clear but if they’re designed, marketed or sold to infringe IP, the problem isn’t rendering them illegal.

In conclusion, this doesn’t sound like a problem in need of a new law. It sounds more like an enforcement issue, most likely preventing devices like these entering the EU, being distributed in the EU, and then sold in EU member states. Perhaps the only solution is to remove the incentive to buy them.

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

Two years ago, German Internet providers agreed to voluntarily block the most egregeous pirate sites.

The ISPs teamed up with copyright holders and launched the “Clearing Body for Copyright on the Internet” ( CUII ), which is in charge of handing down blocking ‘orders’.

While CUII doesn’t rely on court judgments, there is some form of oversight. When copyright holders report a pirate site, a review committee first checks whether the domain is indeed linked to a website that structurally infringes copyrights.

Targeting Structurally Infringing Sites

If a website overwhelmingly hosts or links to pirated material, the site can be nominated for a blocklist entry. This can apply to torrent sites, streaming portals, and direct download hubs, as long as piracy is front and center.

“Only clear cases of copyright infringing websites should be blocked. Examples are thepiratebay.org, kinox.to or goldesel.to,” CUII explains in the FAQ on its website .

In many countries where such measures are implemented, The Pirate Bay was indeed one of the first sites to be targeted. However, despite the explicit mention in CUII’s frequently asked questions, the infamous torrent site hasn’t yet made it onto the German blocklist.

Instead, CUII appears to prioritize websites that are predominantly targeted at local citizens. This isn’t a stated goal, but currently blocked sites such as Kinox.to, S.to, Canna.to, and Serienjunkies all fit the bill.

Filmfans.org and Serienfans.org

Earlier this week, CUII published two new blocking recommendations, Filmfans.org and Serienfans.org. These sites aren’t widely used in most parts of the world but in Germany, they have a sizable audience.

The two websites were nominated by an entertainment company whose name is redacted. The unnamed company is a member of the Motion Picture Association, however, which is a signee to the voluntary agreement.

After reviewing the application, the CUII committee concluded that both Filmfans.org and Serienfans.org can be classified as structurally infringing websites. It further confirmed that the sites are geared towards the German-speaking market.

“The application for a recommendation to block the FILMFANS.ORG website is well-founded. The Website is a structurally copyright infringing website. There is a clear copyright violation. The blocking is reasonable and proportionate,” CUII writes in its recommendation.

Before coming to CUII, the entertainment company tried to contact the operators of the site and their hosting companies, but these efforts didn’t go anywhere. This means that blocking the sites is one of the only viable options left to deal with the problem.

Following CUII’s order, all participating ISPs will block access to the domains. This typically happens through a DNS blockade.

Pirate Sites Were Prepared

While the measures will undoubtedly impact Filmfans.org and Serienfans.org, their inclusion doesn’t come as a surprise. On the contrary, the sites – which are presumably operated by the same team – have anticipated the blockade for more than a year and have advised users to take precautions.

“In Germany, more and more websites are being blocked by the ‘Copyright Clearing House on the Internet. Such a block will sooner or later also affect our pages,” a translated notice on the site reads.

“The DNS blocks can be bypassed easily, legally and free of charge. You have to change your DNS servers in the router, in the operating system, or in the browser. You can find out how this works and more information about the network blocks at cuii-sperre.info.”

The website provides a broad overview of the various blocking workarounds. And to add insult to injury, mockingly copies the design of CUII’s website as well.

Next Target: DNS Resolvers

For most of the websites previously blocked by CUII, it appears that many people do indeed appear to use these workarounds, as they continue to get plenty of German visitors.

Bs.to, for example, has more than 16 million monthly visits , of which 55% come from Germany. This must be one of the main reasons why rightsholders are trying to get DNS resolvers to block pirate sites next.

Sony Music, for example, has already obtained an injunction that requires DNS resolver Quad9 to block the popular pirate site Canna.to and its new canna-power.to domain. This request came shortly after CUII added the site to the blocklist.

Quad9 is determined to put up a fight and eventually reverse the order. However, if it ends up losing, we can expect rightsholders to target other free DNS resolvers too. And perhaps VPN providers are next on the list?

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