The UFC, NBA and NFL are without a doubt among the most recognizable sports brands in the world.

Their events attract millions of viewers and are monetized through multi-billion dollar licensing deals and expensive PPV events.

Many sports fans are willing to pay to access these broadcasts but for some the costs involved are simply too steep. This has created a black market for pirated live streams which attract millions of users.

Slow and Ineffective DMCA Takedowns

Sports leagues and promotors are not happy with these unauthorized streams and are finding it difficult to get a grip on the problem. DMCA takedown notices are the main anti-piracy tool at their disposal but for live content they say this simply isn’t effective.

Last week, these concerns were shared with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) in response to a consultation to discuss future anti-piracy and counterfeiting strategies.

In their letter, UFC, NBA, and NFL point out that, when it comes to live sports streaming, most of the value is concentrated on the live broadcast. When it takes several hours before an online service provider (OSP) responds to a DMCA notice, that’s practically useless as the live event has already ended by then.

“Unfortunately, UFC, NBAP and NFLP’s shared experience is that many OSPs frequently take hours or even days to remove content in response to takedown notices—thus allowing infringing live content to remain online during the most anticipated moments, or even the entirety, of a UFC event or an NBA or NFL game,” they write.

As a result of these inadequate policies, live-streaming piracy continues to flourish. For the global sports industry it’s a growing problem said to be responsible for billions of dollars in lost revenues.

Expeditiously Outdated

When the DMCA was signed into law by President Bill Clinton in 1998, live streaming simply didn’t exist yet. However, the law did clarify that service providers should process takedown notices “expeditiously.”

In reality, however, the term expeditiously is not defined. According to some, responding within a few hours is sufficient, while other services believe that taking content down within a day is still quite reasonable.

These response times may still work for static content but not for live sports, UFC, NBA and NFL stress in their letter.

“It should be no surprise that the notice-and-takedown regime established by the DMCA, which was enacted before widespread internet-based livestreaming became available, is not well-suited to address the present-day particular piracy issues surrounding the infringement of live content.”

Instantaneous DMCA Takedowns

In recent years, live-streaming piracy hasn’t limited itself to dedicated pirate sites. Some use legitimate social media platforms to promote their content or abuse the live streaming capabilities of these services directly.

To tackle with this issue, the sports organizations would like to see Section 512 of the DMCA updated. Instead of taking down content ‘expeditiously,” online services should be required to respond near-instantaneously.

“[T]he requirement to ‘expeditiously’ remove infringing content means that content must be removed ‘instantaneously or near-instantaneously’ in response to a takedown request. This would be a relatively modest and non-controversial update to the DMCA that could be included in the broader reforms being considered by Congress or could be addressed separately.”

The sports organizations don’t define what “near-instantaneously” means, but this should be seconds or minutes, rather than hours.

In addition to swift takedowns, social media platforms should limit the live streaming capabilities to users that meet a certain verification threshold. This should exclude new users, or users with only a handful of followers, for example.

“Certain OSPs already impose measures like these, demonstrating that the measures are feasible, practical and important tools to reduce livestream piracy. Both of these reforms are needed,” UFC, NBA and NFL write.

This isn’t the first time that sports rightsholders have demanded action. In Europe, shorter takedown windows have been on the political agenda for years. While the European Commission hasn’t baked these into law, Italy recently adopted a 30-minute takedown window for live-streaming content.

Whether U.S. lawmakers will consider updating the DMCA has yet to be seen, but getting it on the political agenda is the first step.

—

A copy of the letter UFC, NBA and NFL sent to the United States Patent and Trademark Office is available here (pdf)

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

When a sports business journalist says he’s producing a podcast series on piracy, there’s always a risk that the end product will end up sounding like a corporate anti-piracy campaign disguised as independent reporting.

After learning of the project a few months ago, we are pleased to confirm that podcast series The Pirates vs The Premier League is out now and certified free from distracting influences.

Created by journalists Matt Cutler and Richard Gillis, the series begins with football fan Matt hoping to find a pirated live stream of a match featuring his team, Aston Villa, which isn’t being shown in the UK.

Given that the Premier League insists this is a crime (watching streams, not supporting Aston Villa), the admission sets the tone for an honest view of IPTV piracy. Matt speaks with those who supply streams, hears from fans who consume them, and with input from various experts, tries to understand the implications for the Premier League and the sport in general.

We’ll let the podcast tell its own story but a significant point emerges from the podcast in the form of a jarring omission. Contributors include fans, a close friend of a jailed IPTV pirate, an IPTV reseller, anti-piracy company Nagra, various industry analysts and fascinating input from Will Page, former Chief Economist at Spotify, to name just a few.

The Premier League, the body at the epicenter of the debate, refused to participate.

Five episodes are currently live

The podcast explores various theories on why the Premier League prefers to exclude itself from the discussion, while acknowledging the exceptional quality of the Premier League product. One of the questions relates to the cost of that product in an economic downturn and whether football’s traditional working class fans are being priced out in favor of the middle classes.

“The Premier League is a fantastic product. It’s hard to argue against that,” Matt informs TorrentFreak.

“Over the last 30 years it has taken football not just in the UK but globally to a new level of quality and entertainment, and also the clubs are doing more than ever to support grassroots and good causes. That’s only been enabled because of the investments that have come from Sky and other subscription broadcasters. But I do believe football in particular has become too expensive.

“TV is the main way most football fans watch sport; season ticket waiting lists are at an all-time high and even if you can get a ticket, you have to be able to afford it. The cost of living crisis is putting this under the spotlight and piracy in many ways democratizes football again. Yet the data also shows two-thirds of people who pirate sports broadcasts also pay for sports broadcasts legitimately.

“Fans will pay, millions just don’t currently have access to a product that delivers what they want at a price point they are willing to pay.”

Factors Beyond Price Fuel Piracy

The podcast also addresses the controversial ‘3pm blackout’ and its contribution to piracy rates. Matt believes that getting rid of the broadcasting ban would be a major step forward, as would a change of anti-piracy messaging and more consideration for those who can’t afford to follow the sport anymore.

“The blackout is a core reason why people are pirating sport in the UK and I haven’t seen any evidence that its removal will have a negative impact on grassroots football, both attendances and people playing,” Matt says.

“I’d also like to see communications changed away from ‘pirating sport might get you arrested’ to better explaining why the money being spent on media subscriptions benefits fans and the clubs they support. And who the illegitimate content lines the pockets of.

“Lastly, and maybe this is a reach but, subsidizing subscription costs for those struggling financially wouldn’t go amiss.”

The Pirates vs The Premier League is available on Spotify and Apple ( Unofficial Partner Productions )

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

Authorities and rightsholders in Brazil say there will be no let up in their battle against all aspects of the illegal TV market. From pirate IPTV services and non-certified set-top boxes, to illegal streaming websites and pirate apps, all will face continued disruption.

Brazil’s National Film Agency (Ancine) and local telecoms regulator Anatel (National Telecommunications Agency) announced a new anti-piracy partnership earlier this year, with the latter championing blocking measures as a key tool for bringing piracy under control.

Technical Measures Play to Pirates’ Strengths

While rightsholders believe that blocking can be effective at reducing piracy rates, as a technical response it actually plays to the strengths of tech-savvy pirates. Where rightsholders’ currently hold an advantage is the general lack of technical ability at the mainstream consumer end of the market. No longer just geeks, many of today’s IPTV pirates fix cars, conduct plastic surgery, or handle tax affairs for a living. They watch TV to relax so anything that prevents that needs to be handled by someone else.

With that in mind, it was interesting to read comments from the Brazilian Association of Pay Television (ABTA) in a Teletime report published earlier this month. In response to IP address blocking deployed by the authorities, pirate set-top boxes now have VPN services built in or come ready configured to use public DNS services, rather than the poisoned ones provided by ISPs.

It’s unlikely this took ABTA by surprise. In the UK, where blocking is over a decade old and on some ISPs cannot be defeated by a simple change of DNS, it’s now fairly standard for pre-configured subscription IPTV boxes to arrive with a pre-configured VPN. This does nothing to make the very casual user more tech-savvy but does allow blocks to be easily circumvented by those who are.

Blocking the Unblockers

The problem in Brazil and elsewhere is that the companies requesting ISP blocking don’t like to see it being circumvented. ABTA legal director Jonas Antunes said that if VPN services and public DNS providers like Google fail to comply with Anatel’s blocking instructions, the government will have to address the issue.

“The main difficulty in combating piracy today is not in the telecommunications networks, but in a layer above,” Antunes told Teletime.

While that may indeed be part of the puzzle, ultimately the issue always returns to the internet. Following the realization that governments and rightsholders lack real control online, the usual response is to point fingers at powerful internet companies and demand that they find a solution.

During the first day of the PAYTV Forum in São Paulo earlier this week, Anatel’s Moisés Moreira kept that tradition alive.

“One of Them Starts With a G”

According to event sponsor Teletime, Moreira told the forum that there has been very little assistance from Big Tech when it comes to tackling the illegal distribution of content online.

“We want them [the big platforms] to help us block IPs. That’s what we need to be more successful,” Moreira said. “There are giants, I will not mention their names – one of them starts with G – that we have notified.”

It’s difficult to gauge how Google might react without knowing the specifics of the proposals and the implications for hundreds of unknown moving parts. Historically, it would’ve been a pretty safe bet for rightsholders to go home with absolutely nothing but attitudes do seem to be changing at Google.

Whether that includes immediate compliance with ultimatums is unknown, but history shows that compliance with any measure leads to further demands to comply with another.

“I have already determined a period of one week for them to manifest themselves and if that does not happen, we will escalate the enforcement, even judicialization by the agency. There’s nothing left to wait for, so we’re going to be more rigorous,” Moreira informed the forum.

Image credit: Mohamed_hassan /Pixabay

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

Amazon is not just the largest e-commerce retailer, the company also has a significant copyright portfolio.

In recent years the company has increased its anti-piracy efforts, both individually and as a member of the Alliance for Creativity and Entertainment ( ACE ).

The company does all it can to protect popular titles such as The Lord of the Rings: The Rings of Power, The Boys, and The Peripheral, which are typically pirated shortly after their release. The main focus of these anti-piracy efforts is on pirate streaming and download portals, but it doesn’t end there.

Amazon Sues Pirate DVD Stores

This week, Amazon Technologies filed a lawsuit against several websites that sell pirated DVDs disguised as official releases. While these pirated discs are no longer as popular as they were 20 years ago, they remain a problem, especially when illicit copies are sold as the real deal.

In a complaint filed at a California federal court, Amazon accuses seven websites of selling pirated discs. These sites, including dvdshelf.com.au, dvds.trade, and dvdwholesale.co.uk, are presumably operated by the same group, using a variety of companies.

For the public at large, it may not be immediately obvious that these discs are pirated. However, since Amazon doesn’t produce or sell DVDs for these Prime Video series, there is no doubt that they are created from illicit sources.

“Defendants’ scheme to exploit the worldwide recognition of the Amazon Series is straightforward and blatant through their Piracy Websites, Defendants openly sell pirated and infringing DVDs containing unauthorized copies of the Amazon Series.

“To date, Amazon has not released for sale or distribution the Amazon Series on DVD, and instead exclusively distributes such content via its streaming-video-on-demand platform, Amazon Prime Video,” the complaint clarifies.

The piracy operation consists of at least seven websites and these all remain online today. According to Amazon, the sites ship to customers in the U.S. and abroad, twenty-four hours a day, seven days a week, resulting in mass copyright infringement.

Test Purchases

Before going to court, investigators conducted more than twenty test purchases of pirated DVDs. After these orders arrived, Amazon sent the discs to the Motion Picture Association which independently confirmed that they were all pirated.

These illegal sales don’t just hurt Amazon and other entertainment companies, people who buy the DVDs are victims too. While the cheap price tags are perhaps too good to be true, some people believe that these are official DVDs. The reviews, however, show that the quality isn’t always up to par.

“For instance, a customer left a one-star review of DVD Shelf’s website in 2021 stating that despite the company’s ‘claim[] to only sell genuine products,’ the customer found the DVDs were ‘of EXTREMELY poor quality’ and are ‘absolutely pirated copies,’ with, among other issues, episodes missing, sync problems, editing issues, and faulty discs.” Amazon writes.

The complaint lists Yangchun Zhang as a key suspect. This person presumably resides in China and obtained the ‘DVD Shelf’ trademark in Australia. In addition, Zhang is also listed as the registrant of several of the domain names involved.

Damages and Injunction

The complaint accuses Zhang and the others of both copyright and trademark infringement. Through the lawsuit, Amazon hopes to recoup damages, which can run in the millions of dollars.

Another key priority is to shut the sites down and Amazon asks the court for an injunction to stop all infringing activity.

In these types of cases, the defendants are not always responsive. For this reason, Amazon requests an injunction that requires domain registrars and related companies to hand over the stores’ domain names. At the same time, payment providers such as PayPal should freeze all funds, to pay off potential damages in the future.

The lawsuit was driven by Amazon’s Counterfeit Crimes Unit and the team’s director Kebharu Smith notes that they will continue to crack down on similar operations.

“The actions from this global ring of fraudsters not only negatively impacts rightsholders such as Amazon and affected entertainment companies, it also directly impacts the deceived customers, who thought they were receiving the real thing,” Smith says.

“Whether the attempted fraud is within the Amazon store or outside of it, we will continue to pursue bad actors wherever they operate.”

—

A copy of the complaint, filed by Amazon Technologies at the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, is available here (pdf) .

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

ISP blocking injunctions that aim to prevent regular internet users from accessing pirate sites are heavily utilized by the largest media companies.

Early targets included pirate sites offering movie and TV shows but today the emphasis is on preventing access to live TV streams, sports broadcasts in particular. Since live streams are more challenging to block than static websites, courts appear keen to give rightsholders additional flexibility and in many cases, subject them to limited oversight.

LaLiga & Movistar Plus+ Blocking in Spain

Hoping to restrict access to sites and services offering pirated live TV streams, Spanish top-tier football league LaLiga and Telefónica-owned Movistar Plus+ previously obtained permission from the courts to implement ISP blocking. In 2022, Telefónica persuaded a judge to compel ISPs to block IPTV streaming servers within three hours of notification.

As reported this week by local tech news site Bandaancha , until now the sites and services to be blocked by ISPs had not been publicly disclosed. After the site obtained and then published a list of almost 80 domains subject to blocking, at least in part that’s no longer the case.

Where they remain live, the majority of the domains on the list either directly relate to illegal IPTV services (streaming or sales portals), or are clearly web-based illegal streaming websites. However, a significant number of domains are categorized as ‘torrent’ and due to their very nature, are rarely linked to live sports stream piracy, one significant exception aside.

Blocking Ace Stream

The first domain in the torrent category is acestream.org, the home of the Ace Stream streaming client. The inclusion of this domain on Spain’s block list has been known for some time and is considered controversial. The domain offers no copyrighted content and while some users of the Ace Stream client use the software for infringing purposes, Ace Stream’s developers insist that their software is content neutral and entirely legal .

Also on the list is www.futbolgratis.workers.dev, a URL that acknowledges Telefónica blocking before redirecting to another domain. Since its stated purpose is to offer Ace Stream links that in turn link to illegal live streams, justification for blocking is much more obvious than for acestream.org.

6explodie.org Can’t Be Blocked – Explodie.org Should Not Be Blocked

Who’s actually responsible for the error isn’t clear but 6explodie.org should not be on a piracy blocklist or reported as being on one; the domain doesn’t exist and has never been registered. The most likely explanation is that the domain intended for blocking is explodie.org but that opens up an even bigger can of worms.

Explodie.org is operated by developer Jacob Taylor who, among other things, is an advocate of net neutrality . Taylor operates a public BitTorrent tracker ( OpenTracker ) that anyone is free to use and, more importantly, also responds to DMCA takedown notices.

There are strong indications that explodie.org is indeed being blocked across Spain. It’s a measure usually reserved for the most egregious piracy platforms but in this case, Taylor’s entire personal website ( which is clearly not a pirate site ) appears to have been censored regardless.

Public BitTorrent Trackers

Other currently active public BitTorrent trackers on the list include open.acgtracker.com , open.stealth.si and internetwarriors.net , but the grounds for their inclusion are unclear.

These sites offer no content indexes, i.e. people can’t browse around looking for something suitable to download. Indeed, it’s not even possible to download a .torrent file from any of these services, let alone any actual content. These trackers merely coordinate connections of torrent transfers from third-party sources.

Such wholesale blocking of services that have entirely legal uses raises questions of what amounts to a proportionate response under EU law, or whether those in control of blocking are even encouraged to consider those concepts anymore.

Finally, it should be pointed out that by their very nature, the majority of the domains on the list are prime candidates for blocking. Some appear to have gone offline or moved to other domains, but many make their purposes quite clear.

Overall, instances of questionable or even wrongful blocking seem low, but that’s obviously going to be the case when transparency is virtually nil.

The list of domains as reported by Bandaancha.eu :

6irmz.top
chiletv.xyz
dropfile.com
e7b8bcf34bb8735ca0da79183299.lig4retnec.co
emyb.in
firetvset.net
fjernsynet.xyz
fre7.flycany.me
full003tv.xyz
gioggg.net
golatin.online
huang6nis.xyz
iptvsharks.com
magadam1.xyz
mega1005002877313670.xyz
nitroty.us
pelisyseriespty.xyz
santmarcta.life
somosvip.xyz
suptv-nord.com
tecnoiptv.es
theredball.ddnsgeek.com
xenty.club
iptvforall.app
tvpremiumhd.tv
bobres.co
iptvwink.com
jokeriptv.net
getsportztv.com
onetvservices.com
1stream.top
3papahd3.icu
bdnewsch.com
cricfree.live
cricfree.top
dreko11.net
en5.sportplus.live
freelive365.nl
hd.crichd.cx
hockeyweb.live
izlemac16.xyz
jokersecretpage.xyz
m.rojadirecta.fun
motornews.live
p2pstreams.live
pepperlive.info
socolive.pro
sportinglive.co
sportsnest.co
stakes100.xyz
techoreels.com
tezgoal.com
vipboxs.com
weakstreams.com
www.cyfostreams.com
www.hdmatch.xyz
ovostreams.com
www.rojadirectatenvivo.com
www.sportnews.to
zdsports.org
acestream.org
arenavision.site
www.futbolgratis.workers.dev
6explodie.org
open.acgtracker.com
open.stealth.si
share.camoe.cn
thetracker.org
t.nya.atracker.com
tracker.coppersurfer.tk
tracker-electro-torrent.pl
internetwarriors.net
tracker.tfile.co
tracker.tfile.me
tracker.tiny-vps.com
tracker.toment.eu.org
tracker.tvunderground.org.ru
tracker.vanitycore.co

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

On July 23, 2023, the High Court in Auckland, New Zealand, put a company called Bitcache Limited into liquidation.

Founded on July 28, 2016, Bitcache Limited was the legal entity behind Kim Dotcom’s Bitcache, an upcoming blockchain/crypto solution set to revolutionize the utility of Bitcoin through the introduction of cost-effective microtransactions. That was more than seven years ago; almost a lifetime in whatever unit crypto-years are measured in these days.

The Greatest Thing Since Sliced Bread

During the summer of 2016, Kim Dotcom was teasing fresh information about the imminent debut of Megaupload 2.0. Set to launch in January 2017, every file transfer on the platform would be linked to a bitcoin transaction, taking “decentralization, anonymity & encryption to the next level. A nightmare for those who want to mass surveil & censor,” Dotcom said.

The technology making all of this possible was Dotcom’s groundbreaking Bitcache; unseen in public but allegedly capable of eliminating all blockchain limitations.

“Nobody will upload to any other cloud after Megaupload’s Bitcache goes live,” Dotcom declared .

Just Wait For It

In October 2016, with the launch of Megaupload 2.0 and Bitcache just a few months away, ‘MU2’ secured its first investment round. Through the online investment platform BnkToTheFuture, 354 investors committed over a million dollars to the project, one that would not be ready for launch on January 20, 2017, as previously announced.

Dotcom said that a timely launch was “unlikely” so there would be an MU2/Bitcache announcement on that day instead.

With the launch suddenly and inexplicably back on, January 20, 2017, spectacularly failed to deliver. With just 90 minutes left before the official power-up of both Megaupload 2.0 and Bitcache, Dotcom said that the launch had “hit a roadblock” and he couldn’t comment further.

New Zealand companies MU2 Ltd, Bitcache Technologies Ltd, and Bitcache Ltd, did not comment either, and the same held true for their trust company owners registered in the Cook Islands and Cayman Islands.

Details of the last-minute ‘hiccup’ emerged on January 24, 2017. In an effort to raise capital, Megaupload 2.0 and Bitcache had reportedly struck a stock and cash merger deal worth $100m with a publicly listed company on the Canadian stock exchange. Dotcom said the Canadian Securities Exchange raised objections, and that ruined everything.

“Bitcache feels it is important as a technology startup to stay nimble and reduce corporate complexity in favor of technology development,” Dotcom said at the time.

With the benefit of foresight, Bitcache Limited’s liquidator might’ve nodded in agreement.

“There Are Fees Owed and Not Paid”

The day before Megaupload 2.0/Bitcache hit the roadblock in 2017, Kim Dotcom’s directorship in Bitcache Limited came to an end. Auckland lawyer Phil Creagh, who according to his bio was involved in all Kim Dotcom-related litigation matters since 2014, was a Bitcache director until September 2020. On May 24, 2023, Creagh filed an application to have the company liquidated.

“It’s pretty straightforward, there are fees owed and not paid. The company has not taken any steps so far to avoid being placed in liquidation,” Ceagh told Newsroom. “We’ll put it in liquidation and see what, if anything, can be recovered.”

Local company Insolvency Management Limited was appointed as liquidator on July 13, 2023. On the same day, Dotcom said Bitcache was in the hands of the liquidator because it had received an invoice for work carried out by a law firm.

NZ Herald reported that Creagh’s law firm, Anderson Creagh Lai, said the application was filed over “unpaid director’s fees in the sum of $231,653.”

Liquidator’s First Report

On August 18, 2023, Insolvency Management Limited filed its first report regarding Bitcache’s demise, which includes a list of shareholders, the most prominent shown below.

“The company traded as a software developer of a crypto currency scheme and was set up in 2016 by Kim Dotcom who acted as a director for some 7 months,” the report reads.

“Subsequently 2 professional directors were appointed although the Liquidator is advised Mr. Dotcom still held an active interest in the running of the business. Currently the Liquidator is not aware when the company ceased to trade.”

The liquidator “is not aware” of any physical assets owned by the company but notes that a trademark exists, value to be determined.

Bitcache owes NZ$1.2m (US$713K) to three creditors including Creagh and his law firm. With a share capital of NZ$21.5m, the total deficit is an estimated NZ$22.7m (US$13.5m).

“Potentially Serious Questions Raised”

An article published by NZ Herald says that the liquidator’s report raises “potentially serious questions” about Bitcache.

“The Companies Office listed 10 shareholders in Bitcache before its liquidation – all based in the Cook Islands, Cayman Islands or Hong Kong,” NZ Herald reports.

Insolvency Management principal Ian Nellies told the Herald that the shareholding companies were trusts.

“I’m still investigating who has ultimate ownership,” Nellies said.

The liquidator’s report also identified “some early developed software that may or may not have some value” but Dotcom was keen to distance Bitcache replacement ‘Fileshop’ from that discovery.

“The good news is that the project is now called FileShop, has been developed from scratch with a completely new code base and without any of the Bitcache IP,” Dotcom recently wrote on X .

“Very happy to announce that friendly previous investors and partners have not been forgotten and that this app is coming.”

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

The American copyright industry generates billions of dollars in annual revenue and is generally seen as one of the country’s primary exports.

Whether it’s movies, music, software or other goods, U.S. companies are among the market leaders.

To protect the interests of these businesses around the globe, copyright holder groups can count on help from the U.S. Government. The yearly list of ‘ notorious markets ,’ for example, is a well known diplomatic pressure mechanism to encourage other countries to up their enforcement actions and improve laws.

The same is true for trade deals and other policies, which often require trade partners to take action in favor of copyright holder interests.

The International Intellectual Property Alliance ( IIPA ), which represents the ESA, MPA, and RIAA, among others, has been the voice of major entertainment industries on this front. The Alliance regularly encourages the U.S. to further the international interests of its members, including in Africa.

The African Growth and Opportunity Act

A few weeks ago the IIPA published its views on the latest eligibility review of the African Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA). This process, led by the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR), determines which sub-Saharan African countries can enjoy certain trade benefits.

This isn’t the first review of its kind; we have reported on similar efforts in the past and the most recent review features much of the same critique.

IIPA is particularly concerned that South Africa isn’t doing enough to deter copyright infringement. There are also grave concerns that the proposed “fair use” exception, which is modeled after legislation in the U.S., could lead to problems in the African country.

The critique from rightsholders hasn’t gone unnoticed by South Africa. President Cyril Ramaphosa previously sent two copyright-related bills back to Parliament but IIPA and other rightsholder groups haven’t yet seen the desired changes.

Libraries Respond

Amid these high-level political lobbying efforts, one submission clearly stands out. Last week, the Library Copyright Alliance (LCA), which consists of the American Library Association and the Association of Research Libraries, sent a rather outspoken take to the USTR.

The Alliance represents more than 100,000 libraries which are used by 200 million Americans each year. While there is no direct tie to South Africa that we’re aware of, the group pays close attention to copyright-related developments around the globe.

When the Alliance read IIPA’s critique of South Africa’s copyright policies and plans, it felt the need to jump in and add a different take on the situation.

Fair Critique?

The libraries counter IIPA’s submission point by point. One of the key points of contention is the fair use proposal, which South Africa modeled after the U.S. version. According to rightsholders, this is a concern since it includes many copyright exceptions that might be abused.

The libraries clearly have a different take. They argue that protesting a fair use policy inspired by U.S. law is hypocritical.

“[A]s a matter of policy, the United States should always support other countries’ adoption of provisions based on U.S. copyright law. This is true regardless of whether the provision expands the scope of copyright or limits it. To oppose such adoption appears hypocritical and condescending,” the libraries write.

One of IIPA’s arguments suggests that the South African fair use proposal could violate the Berne Convention and the TRIPS Agreement. The libraries don’t contest that, but warn that, if true, the same would apply to the U.S. version.

“IIPA appears to imply that a fair use provision might be inconsistent with the three-step test in the Berne Convention and the TRIPS Agreement. This is a dangerous argument for IIPA to make, because if section 12A of the CAB violates the three-step test, so does 17 U.S.C. § 107.”

Above and Beyond

Some of the IIPA’s suggestions go beyond U.S. copyright law, the libraries note. For example, IIPA calls for stricter anti-piracy enforcement, including a policy that requires online platforms to prevent unauthorized use of copyrighted works on their platforms.

According to the libraries, this goes above and beyond what online services are required to do under U.S. law.

“These [requirements] do not exist in U.S. law. It appears that IIPA is requesting USTR to impose the EU Copyright in the Digital Single Market’s filtering obligations on South Africa,” the libraries write.

In other instances, IIPA requests South Africa to adopt U.S. standards that exceed international ones. For example, it requests a 70-year copyright term, as opposed to the 50-years standard.

“IIPA complains that the PPAB does not extend the term of protection in sound recordings from 50 years to 70 years. However, the term of protection for sound recordings set forth in the TRIPS Agreement and the WPPT is 50 years.

“South Africa should not be penalized for complying with, but not exceeding, these international standards,” the libraries add.

Orwellian

Finally, the libraries point out what they believe is an “Orwellian” take from the IIPA. The rightsholders argue that academic freedom would be threatened if scientists have the right to freely share the results of Government-funded research.

This would ensure that publicly funded research can be published in an open-access format, instead of being locked behind a paywall. As such, the libraries fail to see how this puts academic freedom at stake.

“This is a truly Orwellian argument. How does preserving a scientist’s right to make her research publicly available undermine her academic freedom?” they write.

The examples highlighted above are just a fraction of the points brought up by the Library Copyright Alliance’s submission. Overall the libraries conclude that many of the policy choices made in the bills are completely consistent with U.S. law. Other than that, it stresses that legislation is never perfect for all parties and that compromises have to be made.

—

A copy of the Library Copyright Alliance (LCA) submission to the USTR is available here (pdf)

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

In recent years, many people have canceled their expensive cable subscriptions, opting to use cheaper Internet TV instead.

Those who choose the cheapest plans often end up at pirate services. These may work flawlessly for years, until they suddenly don’t.

Fiscal Police Raid IPTV Service

Last May, Dutch fiscal police (FIOD) landed a major success in the battle against this type of piracy by shutting down one of Europe’s largest IPTV operations . This wasn’t just a random target either. The operation presumably offered its services to countless smaller IPTV sellers, which served over a million subscribers.

Little detail was released about the main defendants but authorities report that four people were arrested. The available information also suggested that GLOBE Datacenter was a key target and that more than 1,200 servers were taken offline.

The authorities didn’t mention any specific IPTV services but the operation was massive. Local anti-piracy group BREIN reported that TVs in hundreds of thousands of homes went dark due to the raids. Europol, which also assisted in the operation, said that the service had over a million users across Europe.

Faced with an operation of this size, law enforcement initially failed to see that the websites of innocent companies were also taken down in the process. The problem was addressed after TorrentFreak requested clarification.

Criminal Prosecution

The prosecution of those behind the illegal IPTV operation is just getting started. This week, there was a ‘pro forma’ hearing in the case against defendant Hicham O. The 30-year-old is a manager and shareholder of Globe Datacenter and Satellite Wholesale BV in Almere, two companies that were targeted in the raids.

The defendant is seen as a key player in the criminal IPTV operation and stands accused of laundering more than 17.5 million euros. He was arrested last May and remains in custody. AD reports that, according to tapped conversations, Hicham claimed to generate half a million euros in revenue per month, of which 200,000 euros was pure profit.

During the pro forma hearing, the defendant requested to be released pending trial, fearing that his family could lose their home as they no longer have an income. He cited mental struggles as well.

The request was denied, according to local media , as the court sees Hicham O. as a flight risk and potential recidivist.

The prosecutor mentioned that the defendant, who has Dutch and Moroccan nationality, has plans to flee to Morocco. Tapped conversations with family and fellow suspects revealed that he would like to relaunch the IPTV business to start making money again.

No-Brainer?

The public prosecutor further said that pirate IPTV subscriptions have become very common in recent years. In some parts of society, people believe that you’re crazy if you pay for a legitimate streaming subscription.

“Why would you pay hundreds of euros a month for streaming services if you can watch it all for ten euros a month?” the prosecutor questioned, adding that streaming platforms such as Viaplay are in financial trouble as a result of this attitude.

“What you see happening is that a company like Viaplay is in financial trouble because part of society is willing to take a walk with the property rights of these companies,” the prosecutor added.

How the prosecutor knows that Viaplay’s financial troubles are caused by IPTV services isn’t clear, but the tone is set.

The full trial against Hicham O. is currently scheduled to take place sometime next year. There are several other defendants as well, but these cases will be handled separately on different dates.

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

In July 2021, U.S. broadcaster DISH Network and subsidiary Sling TV filed a copyright lawsuit in a Texas district court against the unknown operators of four websites – SportsBay.org, SportsBay.tv, Live-NBA.stream, and Freefeds.com.

The complaint alleged that the unknown defendants circumvented (and provided technologies and services that circumvented) security measures employed by Sling and thereby provided “DISH’s television programming” to users of their websites.

According to the complaint , the defendants circumvented technological measures contrary to 17 U.S.C. § 1201(a)(1)(A) , and trafficked in circumvention technology and services contrary to 17 U.S.C. § 1201(a)(2) through their operation of the websites. The plaintiffs requested a permanent injunction, control of the defendants’ domains, and damages of up to $2,500 for each violation of the DMCA’s anti-circumvention provisions.

Early September 2021, District Judge Charles Eskridge granted DISH’s request to start serving subpoenas on third-party service providers including Namecheap and WhoisGuard, Tucows, Cloudflare, Digital Ocean, Google, Facebook and Twitter, with the aim of identifying the still-unknown operators of the sites. In the same month, the sites listed in the complaint disappeared .

DISH Names Defendants in Argentina

According to DISH’s first amended complaint filed in January 2022, information obtained from the third-party service providers enabled the company to identify two men responsible for operating the SportsBay sites.

Juan Barcan, an individual residing in Buenos Aires, Argentina, used his PayPal account to make payments to Namecheap and GitHub. Juan Nahuel Pereyra, also of Buenos Aires, used his PayPal account to make payments to Namecheap.

On January 20, 2022, DISH sent a request to the Argentine Central Authority to serve Barcan and Pereyra under the Hague Convention.

On October 31, 2022, the Central Authority informed DISH that Pereyra was served in Buenos Aires on September 14, 2022. Barcan was not served so after obtaining permission from the court, DISH served Barcan via a Gmail address used to make payments to Namecheap for the Sportsbay.org, Live-nba.stream, and Freefeds.com domain names.

When the defendants failed to appear, DISH sought default judgment. As part of that process, the plaintiffs provided the following information to describe the functions of the four websites listed in the complaint.

When Defendants and users selected or clicked on a channel on Sportsbay.org or Sportsbay.tv, the websites connected to Defendants’ Freefeds.com website by embedding in an iframe content originating from a Freefeds.com Uniform Resource Locator. The Freefeds.com iframe then accessed the encrypted Sling programing originating from Sling’s computer server and delivered it to the embedded iframe on the Sportsbay.org and Sportsbay.tv websites.

The Freefeds.com iframe then connected to Defendants’ Live-nba.stream server in order to obtain the DRM keys necessary to decrypt the Sling programming so that it was displayed to Defendants and users on the Sportsbay.org and Sportsbay.tv websites

DISH informed the court that each time a user accessed Sling programming from the links on the websites, “a connection was made with Live-nba.stream to obtain encryption keys to decrypt Sling’s transmission.”

By framing each visit to the Live-nba.stream website as a circumvention violation under section 1201(a)(2) of the DMCA, and nominating a six-month period where that domain reportedly received 2,469,250 visits from users in the United States, DISH arrived at a “reasonable and conservative claim” based on minimum statutory damages of just $200 for each violation.

“The Court should grant Plaintiffs’ Motion, award statutory damages in the amount of $493,850,000 for Defendants’ 2,469,250 violations of section 1201(a)(2) of the DMCA, and enter a permanent injunction barring Defendants from further violations,” DISH informed the court.

DISH Awarded Nearly Half a Billion in Damages

In his order handed down yesterday, District Judge Charles Eskridge entered a default judgment against Juan Barcan and Juan Nahuel Pereyra for violations of the DMCA’s anti-circumvention provisions.

The defendants and anyone acting in concert with them are permanently enjoined from circumventing any technological protection measure that controls access to Sling or DISH programming, including through the use of websites or any similar internet streaming service. Then comes the award for damages.

“Plaintiffs are awarded $493,850,000 in statutory damages against Defendants, jointly and severally, for Defendants’ 2,469,250 violations of section 1201(a)(2) of the DMCA,” the order reads.

The order can be found here (pdf)

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