At the end of 2020, the operator of one of the largest YouTube rippers took the unprecedented step of taking the music industry to court.

Yout.com’s Johnathan Nader was fed up with a bombardment of DMCA takedown requests and alleged defamatory claims. In response, he sued the RIAA , asking the federal court in Connecticut to declare his service non-infringing.

The RIAA and other music groups had been actively trying to remove so-called YouTube rippers from Google’s search results. The industry group had also prevailed in legal action against some of the sites but in its battle with Yout.com, the RIAA filed a motion to dismiss.

Last fall, the district court decided to dismiss the matter , handing a win to the RIAA. Judge Stefan Underhill ultimately concluded that Yout had failed to show that it doesn’t circumvent YouTube’s technological protection measures. That rendered Yout’s defamation and business disparagement claims moot.

Yout.com Appeal

Yout’s operator did not give up on the case and opted to appeal in the belief that YouTube rippers do not violate the DMCA. The argument received backing from the EFF and GitHub in their supporting amicus briefs.

The RIAA filed a lengthy response concluding that Yout is an “illicit stream-ripping service” that effectively allows people to “bypass YouTube’s technological restrictions” that prevent downloading of works streamed through YouTube. As such, the service violates the DMCA, a position supported by the Copyright Alliance.

One of the key issues in this dispute is whether YouTube actually implemented technological measures designed to control access to copyrighted works. In Yout’s response to the RIAA filed this weekend, the focus returns to the same thorny topic.

Yout’s reply brief stresses that this case was dismissed prematurely, even before both parties were allowed to conduct discovery. That’s problematic, as the lawsuit deals with key questions relating to the DMCA, many of which remain unanswered.

The Elephant-Sized Hole

The stream-ripper points out that rightsholders haven’t implemented any copy protection measures themselves. The RIAA argues that YouTube has but according to Yout’s lawyer, it still isn’t clear whether YouTube’s technical hurdles were intended to act as copyright protection measures.

“[RIAA] attempts to argue not only that it is entitled to rely on technology that it claims to have been put in place by YouTube, but that it makes no difference at all whether YouTube intended for the technology to limit the access to or the ability to copy the videos that are freely available on YouTube to anyone with an internet connection and a browser.”

This leaves an elephant-sized hole in the room. While the case centers around YouTube’s alleged copyright protections, which are presumably vital to the music industry, YouTube itself is notably absent. It didn’t file an amicus brief to back up the RIAA’s position, for example.

” […] one might have assumed that YouTube itself would have appeared on Appellants behalf as an amicus. That it did not leaves an elephant sized hole in the room,” Yout argues.

Yout says the RIAA is attempting to cover this “enormous hole with fig leaves.” For example, the music group argues that the DMCA says nothing about the ‘intent’ of presumed protection measures, but Yout says that assertion is incorrect and defies common sense.

You’re So Vain…

Yout also points out that the RIAA mischaracterizes its service. The music group repeatedly stresses that the site’s only purpose is to infringe the copyrights of its members, which prompted an interesting response.

“To paraphrase one of the RIAA members’ recording artists: You’re so vain, I bet you think this software’s about you,” Yout’s lawyers write, inspired by the lyrics of Carly Simon.

In a footnote, the attorneys apologize for this reference, but their message is serious. Music only represents a small fraction of the content on YouTube, they note, adding that Yout itself is merely a dumb ‘recording’ tool.

“The service provided by Yout is content-neutral, providing nothing more than a recording device that utilizes the very information that is freely and publicly available to anyone who cares to look for it, without the need to circumvent any technological measures.

“To the extent that the RIAA thinks otherwise, it should have the opportunity to prove that theory… at a trial following discovery,” Yout’s lawyers write.

Dismissal Should be Reversed

The brief further argues that many of the legal findings cited in the RIAA’s answering brief come from cases that were properly litigated; not ones that were dismissed at an early stage.

The parties in these cases had the opportunity to build a proper record, with expert testimonies and witnesses. Considering the important issues at stake and the outstanding disputes, Yout believes it should be allowed to do the same.

Based on these and other arguments, Yout says the District Court’s decision to dismiss the case was premature and should be reversed.

—

A copy of Yout’s reply in response to RIAA’s answering brief, filed at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the second circuit, is available here (pdf)

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

A few years ago, the RIAA started targeting YouTube ripping sites by sending relatively rare takedown requests to Google.

Instead of the usual DMCA copyright notices, the music group asked the search engine to remove various URLs for alleged violations of the DMCA’s anti-circumvention provision.

The delisting requests are supposed to make it harder for people to find ‘YouTube MP3 download’ sites in search results. However, the targeted sites have no intention of disappearing and actively fighting back , rotating to new URL structures.

While the RIAA kicked off the great purge, the music group has since received help from the British music group BPI. And more recently, the small French indie label Because Music also joined in on the action.

To the broader public, the label is relatively unknown, but owners of YouTube download sites are quite familiar with the outfit, as its takedown volume now exceeds that of the RIAA and BPI combined.

Music Company Targets Wikipedia Entry

Most of these takedown requests do indeed target YouTube downloaders. While the legality of these sites is subject to legal debate , YouTube owner Google generally accepts them as valid DMCA notices and removes the URLs.

Not all notices are flawless though. In the past, we have seen imposters abusing the takedown process to delist sites of competitors, for example. In addition, some notices appear to be quite broad, targeting sites that simply link to YouTube downloaders.

This week we spotted a notice , reportedly sent by Because Music, that falls into the latter category. In addition to streamripper URLs it also targets them indirectly, by going after a Wikipedia entry, for example.

The highlighted URL in the above notice lists Wikipedia’s “ Comparison of YouTube downloaders ” page. This overview links to sites that the music industry deems to be infringing, and Because Music asked Google to remove them from the search results.

Should Google ‘Censor’ Wikipedia?

At first glance, this may seem like an overbroad request. That said, music groups could make a case that this type of content shouldn’t be on Wikipedia at all. In that case, it might make more sense to complain to Wikipedia directly.

The same notice also links some other URLs that are at least one step removed from any potential DMCA violations.

There’s a link to a Facebook post , a page from traffic analytics company Similarweb , a Trustpilot review , and an uptime status checker. None of these sites host problematic content, but they mention or link to YouTube downloaders so should be delisted, according to the music company.

The same applies to sites that host apps. The takedown notice also lists a Chrome and Firefox addon, as well as a Softonic page that provides a list of Android and Windows-based YouTube downloaders.

Ironically, Because Music’s DMCA notice also lists a Soundcloud page that mentions Yt1s.com, likely because someone used the YouTube downloader to rip tracks that were then posted to the site.

While most of these links remain in Google’s search results, the links to Similarweb and Updownradar are no longer indexed. Whether this was done automatically or after a deliberate review is unknown. The Wikipedia page remains online.

The Big Delisting Battle Continues

Whether Google should or shouldn’t take action, is ultimately something a court would have the final say on. However, the above shows that the big delisting battle is slowly edging towards indirect takedowns.

We have to say, though, that it’s often hard to see which takedowns are real and which ones were sent by imposters. The one we highlight here was presumably sent by a French label Because Music but, according to Google, it was sent from Burundi, which seems odd.

By now, YouTube downloaders should be familiar with these delisting efforts. TorrentFreak spoke to the operator of a large number of sites, who prefers to stay anonymous. He has noticed a clear uptick in suspicious and broad requests but tries to get around them to remain in search results.

“I have quite a few sites, hundreds to be specific. It is my strategy to fight Google core updates and delistings,” the site owner explains.

“Sometimes it actually helps, when your competition disappears from Google, if even for a few hours. But these days ‘delisters’ instantly see your site coming up through ranks and delist it too,” he adds.

This doesn’t mean that the takedown notices and delistings have no effect at all. Dealing with this problem is slowly starting to take its toll. At least on some of the people that run these sites.

“I am honestly considering a different way of making money.. they are winning,” the operator says, half-jokingly.

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

The word ‘open’ in a connected world can be something positive. Open source, for example, or open library. On other occasions the opposite can be true; unnecessary ports left open on a router springs to mind.

For millions of people using devices that appear to configure themselves, whether something is open or closed is irrelevant. If a device immediately works as promised, oftentimes that’s good enough. The problem with some internet-connected devices is that in order to immediately work in the hands of a novice, security gives way to ease of use, and that can end in disaster.

Torrent Client WebUI

Many of today’s torrent clients can be operated via a web interface, commonly known as a WebUI. A typical WebUI is accessed via a web browser, with the client’s IP address and a specified port number providing remote access.

In a LAN environment (the part of a network behind the router, such as a home) the torrent client’s web interface serves local users, i.e those with direct access to the local network, typically via Wifi. The problems begin when a torrent client’s WebUI is exposed to the wider internet. In broad terms, instead of the client being restricted to IP addresses reserved for local uses (starting 192.168.0.0 or 10.0.0.0), anyone with a web browser anywhere in the world can access the UI too.

In many cases, a WebUI can be secured with a password or by other means but when users are allowed to do that themselves, many never do, despite the warnings. That could end in disaster if the wrong person decides to let rip from the other side of the world.

Specialized Search Engines

Internet-connected devices are easily found using services such as Shodan , Censys , Fofa and Onyphe.io and those that are poorly configured are in plentiful supply.

The image above shows a WebUI for the Tixati torrent client. With zero security, everything is on full display, just as it is for the person who operates the client, whoever they might be. This means that all downloads and uploads can be browsed, including data related to those transfers, as seen below.

It can take just a couple of minutes to find hundreds of open clients. A common WebUI seen in the wild belongs to qBittorrent but the overwhelming majority are locked down, just as they should be.

That’s Not Ideal

For reasons that aren’t entirely clear, the Android torrent client ‘ tTorrent ‘ is quite popular in Russia.

It’s possible that people install tTorrent on always-on set-top boxes, so the latest movies are ready to go as soon as they get home from work, or the local bar. The problem here is that with an entirely exposed WebUI, people can find out what Russians are downloading.

The average Russian citizen probably won’t mind if outsiders discover their Mortal Kombat habit; they made the decision to download it, so that’s that.

But what if strangers passing by in the night had influence over content consumed locally? What if those strangers decided to utilize their control of an open WebUI to share news from the other side of the world, downloaded directly to their new friend’s Android device?

If they did, it might look a lot like this….

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

In the face of legislation designed to thwart its growth, seizures, prosecutions, dozens of arrests and countless prison sentences have done little to prevent piracy.

Anti-piracy enforcement actions, including dozens by the Alliance for Creativity and Entertainment, have taken hundreds of sites out of the game. That’s a solid base for arguing that piracy volumes could’ve been much worse without so much enforcement.

The reality is that sites continue to emerge with some notable examples generating extraordinary levels of traffic, at a scale never seen before. History tells us that won’t continue indefinitely; pirate sites may come and go but Hollywood is in for the long haul – and then some.

9anime: Huge, Successful, and a Prime Target

One of the current batch of piracy behemoths is 9anime, a free streaming platform dedicated to Japanese cartoons. It currently receives in excess of 214 million visits per month, an incredible 2.5+ billion per year.

A DMCA subpoena application filed at a California court on Thursday shows that ACE has not given up on its plan to reduce 9anime’s traffic to zero. Like many times before, ACE – via the MPA – wants Cloudflare to give up information on its customers, 9anime included.

This information typically includes names, physical addresses, IP addresses,
telephone numbers, email addresses, and payment information. However, ACE also seeks additional information relating to account updates and histories, which could help to fill in some crucial blanks when combined with intelligence obtained elsewhere.

There’s no doubt that 9anime will remain a priority enforcement target. At the time of writing the 9animetv.to domain is ranked #164 globally and with over 30% of that traffic coming from inside the United States, it represents one of the squeakiest wheels in the entire online piracy market.

Sites Under The Spotlight

Also mentioned in Thursday’s applications is allanime.to, a site offering anime, manga (Japanese comics) and associated music. The domain became popular in February and since then traffic has increased considerably, to a current level of around 4.7 million visits per month. In common with 9anime, over a third of allanime’s traffic comes from the United States, assisted by social media referrals, the majority on YouTube.

Two other anime-focused domains – animefreak.site and animet.site – also get a mention. The former receives under half a million visits per month according to SimilarWeb, with the latter apparently receiving just a couple of thousand.

With no obvious public web presence and a domain that won’t resolve, Anifastcdn.info receives no traffic at all by most accounts, but that’s certainly not the case. While the platform uses Cloudflare in the United States, its servers appear to be on the other side of the Atlantic and not that difficult to find either, certainly for an operation like ACE.

Cloud Storage

Two other platforms attracting ACE interest have more visible levels of traffic. Ninjashare.to heads the list as a growing platform; after pulling in 11.8m monthly visits in February, the cloud storage platform received 15.8 million in April.

Also mentioned in the DMCA subpoena application is rapid-cloud.co, a storage platform sporting Vidcloud branding and around 4.5 million monthly visits. According to ACE, specific content accessed via rapid-cloud actually came from betterstream.cc, which also has no obvious public web presence but does have significant traffic.

When Cloudflare hands over information to ACE, it may prove informative but there’s a reasonable chance the data won’t amount to some big reveal. But it might eventually, so as long as these and similar sites are in business, ACE can return to court again and again to obtain subpoenas just like this one, for less than $50 a pop.

It will probably continue to do that, for as long as it takes.

Image Credit: Pixabay/ geralt

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

Similar to any other online platform that deals with user-generated content, Instagram processes copyright complaints on a daily basis.

Most of these arrive in the form of DMCA notices, in which rightsholders requests the removal of a specific image, video, or URL.

The number of removals runs in the hundreds of thousands during a typical month, without getting noticed by the public at large, but if Instagram users continue to post copyright infringing content, they risk losing their accounts.

Takedown Trouble Triggers Lawsuit

This takedown policy is widely accepted as the standard for social media services but every now and then, disputes can arise. In India, one such dispute turned into a legal battle in which the Bombay High Court issued a broad injunction earlier this month.

The lawsuit in question was filed by Applause Entertainment, the Indian company behind the TV-series “Scam 1992”. The series covers the 1992 Indian stock market scam, adapted from Debashis Basu’s book The Scam.

The TV production is licensed to Sony LIV and was a huge success. However, as often happens with popular media, pirated footage was readily available too. Not just on pirate sites, but also on otherwise legitimate social media platforms.

Applause Entertainment wasn’t happy with this pirate activity so it approached several platforms to take down infringing clips and snippets of the show. Instagram was one of the recipients but, instead of taking immediate action, the platform asked for proof of ownership.

The company responded to this correspondence with relevant ownership documents but, apparently, Instagram still wasn’t convinced. This standoff prompted Applause to take the matter to the Bombay High Court, where it requested an ex-parte injunction.

Court Issues Broad Injunction

The High Court concluded, after reviewing the evidence, that the studio does own the rights so Instagram must take action. This isn’t out of the ordinary but the court went further than simply asking the infringing posts to be removed.

As highlighted by the law blog SpicyIP , the court issued a so-called dynamic injunction, which goes much further than a simple takedown request.

In addition to removing the pirated clips, Instagram must also terminate the accounts of 33 affected users, while handing over their personal details including email addresses, phone numbers, and physical locations.

Specifically, Instagram must disclose personal user data, “including but not limited to the contact details, mobile numbers, email addresses, IP addresses and physical locations / addresses of Defendant Nos. 2 to 34.”

The injunction’s scope doesn’t stop there. In addition to removing the reported posts, Instagram must also remove other infringing URLs from its platform. This implies broader filtering and could affect other users who shared similar links. The same applies to other “rogue handles” that the users potentially used.

A Blunt Anti-Piracy Tool?

According to SpicyIP, the court appears to put Instagram users in the same category as pirate websites. Previously, the court ordered flagrantly infringing pirate sites and their ‘mirrors’ to be blocked, but social media accounts might require a different treatment.

There are no signs that the court investigated the user accounts, so it’s possible that some posts were relatively innocent. Alternatively, they may be classified as fair use.

“There is the possibility that of these defendants a few of could have been genuine social media handles that have several legitimate pieces of content, and that there was a ‘mere re-sharing’ of the content in question in one shared reel or post.

“There is also the possibility that the handles, used the ‘short audio-visual’ clippings to make Instagram reels. This could have included licensed content from other sources, or fair dealing uses,” SpicyIP adds.

The court order doesn’t go onto detail on the nature of the posts, so it’s hard to draw any strong conclusions. In any case, the High Court has shown once again that copyright infringement matters are taken rather seriously in India.

Whether Instagram plans to challenge the injunction is unknown. Telegram previously did so when it was ordered to expose alleged copyright infringers , but that challenge failed .

—

A copy of the order issued by the Bombay High Court is available here (pdf)

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

The US Chamber of Commerce 2023 International IP Index report is a pretty big read at 213 pages, but for those interested in intellectual property matters, it’s an interesting one too.

The report benchmarks the IP frameworks in 55 major economies and rates them based on how effectively they protect all kinds of intellectual property. Countries and regions with a reputation for cracking down on infringement tend to gravitate towards the top of the index but that doesn’t prevent the Chamber of Commerce from offering criticism.

European Union Criticized For Complexity

For the last two years, the European Commission has expended significant resources on two new pieces of legislation known as the Digital Markets Act (DMA) and the Digital Services Act (DSA). Their overall goal is to improve online safety and protect citizens’ fundamental rights, while ensuring that digital markets are both fair and open.

Time will tell how that all works out but for now, over-complication appears to have led to a level of frustration in the United States. The Chamber introduces the DSA as a “sprawling piece of legislation granting vast regulatory and monitoring powers” before noting the plethora of categorizations that hope to encompass all kinds of online platforms.

“The law is full of definitions and categorizations of different providers of online ‘intermediary services,’ including ‘caching, mere conduit, hosting, online platforms, very large online platforms, and very large online search engines. Some of these categories are transplanted from preexisting definitions under the E-Commerce Directive, whereas others are new,” the report notes.

“[T]hese categories are fluid, and entities may, at different moments, be one or another or a combination of these categories with differing levels of accompanying compliance and reporting responsibilities. Consequently, an entity’s legal obligation and responsibilities may change rather significantly depending on what category of service provider the entity was at a given moment.”

Trusted Flaggers Fail to Impress

Major rightsholders and some governments have been promoting the use of so-called ‘trusted flaggers’ to help tackle infringement. These entities could be companies, organizations or even an individual, but the key element is that they are trusted to make good decisions on the takedown, removal or blocking of content, directly on the platforms where content is found.

The concepts around this tend to vary, but a basic example might include a third-party acting on behalf of a rightsholder having direct access to a video platform’s panel and being allowed to flag content for deletion themselves. Trusted flaggers have been mentioned as potentially useful in rapid site-blocking actions and live stream takedowns, through to the removal of listings on social media advertising sundry infringing goods.

As the Chamber of Commerce points out, such takedown notices must be “processed and decided upon with priority and without undue delay,” but not all rightsholders have the resources to employ a trusted flagger to do their work. So what about their rights?

“[G]iven the sheer scale and volume of illegal and IP-infringing content on the internet, what will happen with notifications filed by non-trusted flaggers? Will such notices be addressed in an expeditious fashion or deprioritized by intermediaries in favor of notices filed solely by trusted flaggers?” the report asks.

“As currently drafted, that is a logical and not unlikely outcome. Furthermore, although the creation of the trusted flagger concept may help standardize and professionalize the notification process, it may also prove to be largely ineffective and, in fact, act as a barrier to effective enforcement.

“The creation of what is, in effect, an online enforcement gatekeeper adds a hurdle and layer of bureaucracy to an already elaborate enforcement process,” the report concludes.

The 2023 International IP Index report is available here

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

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

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

Pirate IPTV Raid

This week, 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 suggests that GLOBE Datacenter was a key target. This makes sense as its website and network have been offline for two days now, downtime matched by the company’s Twitter feed .

Speaking with TorrentFreak, FIOD confirmed that it won’t release any names of suspects at this point. However, police say that 1,200 servers were intentionally taken offline at a data center, which was allegedly operated by one of the main suspects.

While IPTV raids are not rare, we seldom see an entire commercial data center taken offline in the process. This would suggest that police had information that the hardware and network were almost exclusively used to facilitate the alleged criminal activity.

Legitimate Businesses go Offline

Looking at the sites that were hosted on GLOBE’s autonomous system number ( AS212708 ), we indeed see many IPTV-related domains and IP-addresses. These include nextiptv.org, iptvextrema.com, mercuryiptv.com and many others.

There are some clear outliers too, including local businesses such as a vacation rental park , painters , a dentist , a pedicure salon , a crane company , and a typically Dutch flower bulbs seller. These and many other sites became unreachable and are still offline today.

Needless to say, these businesses are not suspects in any way. The sites were hosted on a shared IP-address – assigned to a smaller ‘local’ hosting company – that happened to use GLOBE’s infrastructure. Unfortunately, the damage is real.

Real Companies, Real Trouble

TorrentFreak spoke to a representative of one of the companies involved, who confirmed that its website was taken down in the raid. This understandably caused a lot of issues, as customers and clients often visit a company’s website to get in touch or make a booking.

From what we can see, the fallout is relatively contained to a few dozen domains. That said, those who are affected still have to deal with the fallout.

When confronted with this collateral damage, a FIOD spokesperson initially told us that unrelated sites were not supposed to be hit. We were asked us to compile a list of affected websites which we sent via email yesterday. This list actually wasn’t hard to find using public information .

One of the affected companies informed us today that they were approached by FIOD after the raid, but it’s unclear if and how the situation will be resolved. We approached FIOD for comment and received a response shortly before publication.

Fiscal Police Responds

FIOD and the prosecution service (OM) confirmed that the data center was in large part used for illegal purposes. It appears that one of the employees, a suspect in this case, also operated a hosting company for small and mid-sized companies (SMEs).

“The decision to shut down the data center in question was prompted by the fact that our investigation showed that the majority of the data center consisted of illegal (video streaming) services. On-site investigations confirmed this,” FIOD’s spokesperson says.

“One of the employees of the data center, also a suspect in the investigation, apparently had the additional function of providing IT services to SMEs. These companies are the victims of the aforementioned illegal main function of the data center, on which FIOD and OM had to act.”

The data of the innocent companies has not been seized and FIOD encourages the GLOBE employee who operated their hosting company to assist in the recovery of the affected websites.

“FIOD and OM do their best to ensure that the relevant SMEs have access to their data. The servers on which this data is stored are not seized. FIOD and OM also encourage the aforementioned employee from the data center to represent the interests of these companies,” the FIOD spokesperson said.

When hundreds of servers are taken offline it is hard to completely rule out collateral damage. The same happened when The Pirate Bay and Megaupload were raided. In this case, however, it seems that more research could have potentially prevented some of the fallout.

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

Mediavision has been tracking citizens’ piracy habits across the Nordic countries since 2010. The company’s annual report for Spring 2023, based on a survey conducted in March, has just been released.

With Sweden, Denmark, Finland and Norway under the spotlight once again, Mediavision’s pan-Nordic consumer survey aims to measure unlicensed content consumption among 15 to 74-year-old respondents, across categories including movies and TV shows, and access to both via pirate IPTV services.

Overall Piracy Rates Increase

With no obviously positive news to distract, poor figures across all four countries take center stage.

Denmark, a country with an overall movie and TV show piracy rate of 11% in 2014, now has an overall rate of 20%, up from the 13% reported in Mediavision’s survey in 2022.

With an overall rate of just 8% in 2014, increases over the years led to a 13% overall rate for Finland in 2022. A four point rise over the past 12 months pushes Finland’s overall movie and TV show piracy rate to 17%.

Since 2014, overall unlicensed consumption of movies and TV shows, in both Norway and Sweden, adopted a broadly U-shaped curve. With reducing piracy rates indicating signs of progress in the middle, high rates of piracy seen in 2014 are back on display in 2022, and then some.

Image: Mediavision Nordic Piracy Report (Spring 2023)

Overall movie and TV show piracy rates for Norway now stand at 22% versus 18% last year, with Sweden at 25% and 20% respectively. Mediavision reports that in all four countries, the usual suspects are driving the increases.

Young People Push Up Piracy

Technologically adept and hungry for content, young people often make a disproportionate contribution to piracy rates. Through various programs, rightsholders have reached out to kids of all ages, hoping to encourage negative attitudes towards piracy from an early stage.

From kindergarten copyright classes in the United States, to a current project in Denmark that will pay teens to assist with piracy research, most things have been tried.

Mediavision’s latest study reveals that piracy increases are being driven by young people in the 15 to 24-year-old group, across all four countries. The concern for rightsholders lies in piracy’s monthly reach, which was unacceptably high last year and is now considerably worse.

According to last year’s report, 29% of young Danes engaged in movie and/or TV show piracy. The latest figures show a leap to 46%, a figure that puts Denmark on equal footing with Finland, where rates rose to 46% from the 27% reported last year.

Norway’s increase, from 38% last year to 51% this year, is slightly less steep, leaving Sweden with the surprise upper hand.

Image: Mediavision Nordic Piracy Report (Spring 2023)

The eight percentage point increase attributed to young Swedes in this year’s survey is less than any of its regional neighbours. Unfortunately, Sweden’s last set of results in 2022 indicated that 45% of its young people engaged with piracy, a figure that has now risen to 53%. That suggests that every second young person in Sweden today is a pirate

Access to Pirate IPTV Services

Mediavision’s Spring 2022 survey found that across Sweden, Denmark, Finland & Norway, just under 0.9 million households subscribed to an illegal IPTV service.

With the largest population, Sweden accounted for more than 40% (380,000) of IPTV-equipped households across the region. With 230,000 subscribed homes, Norway was runner-up, with Finland (155,000) and Denmark (125,000) taking the remaining spots. Taking population into account, Norway’s 10% share beat Sweden’s 9% into second place.

Following the release of these figures last year, entertainment companies warned that use of pirate IPTV services was on the increase in the Nordic region. According to the latest survey, the prediction was spot on.

Image: Mediavision Nordic Piracy Report (Spring 2023)

The latest figure of 1,150,000 households represents a 29% increase over the 890,000 households reported in 2022. With 490,000 and 255,000 households respectively, Sweden and Norway are the leading consumers of IPTV by volume, pushing Denmark (220,000) and Finland (190,000) into third and fourth place. By share, Sweden and Norway tie with 11% each, leaving Denmark (9%) and Finland (7%) to complete the set.

And Now The Good News

In contrast to the gloomy picture painted by the latest survey, other recent reports published by Mediavision signal positive trends in legal content consumption.

“Online video in Finland is on the rise. During this spring, subscribing SVOD households have passed 1.5 million, corresponding to a penetration of 61 percent. This equals an annual growth of 8 percent in subscribing households,” the company notes .

In Sweden, where piracy habits are on the rise, legal consumption is going in the same direction.

“Today, over 90 percent of households in Sweden pay for some form of media subscription,” another Mediavision report begins. Despite rising interest rates, inflation and increased financial anxiety, there is no sign of a slowdown in paid media.

“On the contrary, Mediavision’s latest analysis measures a new record level for households’ total media expenditure. Households pay the most for TV and streaming subscriptions,” Mediavision reports .

Denmark’s situation also appears less gloomy than its piracy rates suggest. After adding half a million in 2022, there are now over four million paid VOD subscriptions in Denmark, from a total population of less than six million.

Mediavision also notes that around three million subscriptions in the Nordics are shared accounts, paid for by the subscriber but enjoyed for free by others. With further sharing crackdowns looming on the horizon, the question is whether legal platforms or pirate sites stand to reap the most benefits.

Mediavision’s Nordic Piracy Report 2023 is available from TTVK ( pdf )

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

In recent years, website blocking has become one of the most widely-used anti-piracy enforcement mechanisms in the world.

ISPs in several dozen countries prevent subscribers from accessing a variety of ‘pirate’ sites, either through court processes or as part of government-backed administrative blocking regimes.

Europe has been at the forefront of this blocking wave. The first case was launched in Denmark and dates back to 2006 . In the years since, similar measures were taken in other EU countries, with the ultimate approval of the European Union’s highest court.

Research on the effectiveness of site-blocking interventions is scarce but the overall indication is that while the measures are far from perfect, they’re effective nonetheless. They are particularly effective at stopping casual pirates when multiple sites are blocked simultaneously.

European Commission Flags Foreign Countries

The European Commission is also convinced that this enforcement tool can make a difference. A few days ago, the EU governing body released its biennial report on the protection and enforcement of intellectual property rights in third countries, in which site blocking is repeatedly mentioned.

The report is the EU’s equivalent of the US Trade Representative’s “ Special 301 ” review. Its main aim is to identify ‘priority’ countries with lacking copyright and trademark protections, hoping to elicit improvements in the years to come.

In addition to counterfeiting, piracy remains one of the key problems in the targeted countries. While some progress has been made in recent years, more can be done.

“Copyright piracy […] remains a major issue for European creative sectors. The problem remains widespread and rampant in countries such as China, Indonesia, Mexico, Saudi Arabia, Thailand, Vietnam, as well as Brazil despite the positive developments set out in this report,” the report reads.

The report lists thirteen countries in total, with China singled out as the highest priority concern.

Priority 1: China
Priority 2: India, Indonesia, Russia, Turkey, Ukraine
Priority 3: Argentina, Brazil, Ecuador, Malaysia, Nigeria, Saudi Arabia, Thailand

Perhaps unsurprisingly, China doesn’t appear to have any trouble blocking citizens’ access to websites but in statements about several other countries, blocking measures are regularly mentioned.

‘Site Blocking Would be Useful’

In Vietnam, a country called out by the U.S. recently for its lacking piracy response, online copyright infringement remains a major concern. To combat this problem, site blocking would be useful, the EU suggests.

“Enforcement, both as regards online and physical marketplaces, remains of the highest concern. EU stakeholders raise ineffective copyright enforcement as one of the main concerns, in particular in the online environment, including as regards site-blocking,” the report reads.

Argentina continues to struggle with piracy as well. Piracy has increased in recent times, the EU explains, in part due to a lack of awareness of the negative impact piracy has on the economy and society. The country does allow blocking injunctions, including dynamic ones , but rightsholders say that more can be done.

“Some stakeholders refer to the lack of effective measures at administrative or criminal level to block infringing sites and report that injunctions against intermediaries are not easily available,” the EU Commission report reads.

There are also countries that have made significant progress on the blocking front in recent years. The Indonesian Government, for example, has ordered local Internet providers to block more than 3,500 problematic domain names.

‘Please Address Domain Hopping’

Increased blocking in Indonesia is viewed as a positive development but the EU believes that the country should be wary of sites that continue to offer pirated content by simply ‘hopping’ to new domain names. In many EU countries this problem is tackled with regular updates to existing blocking orders.

“Effective remedies and closing existing gaps in protection are needed to combat online infringements [in Indonesia]. This in particular concerns site-blocking injunctions and measures to prevent ‘domainhopping’,” the report reads.

India is one of the countries with a long and extensive site blocking record. Local courts have blocked tens of thousands of sites, tackled domain hopping , and even issued preemptive blocking orders .

These anti-piracy achievements haven’t gone unnoticed by rightsholders and the EU Commission. While many copyright related challenges remain, India passes the blocking requirements with flying colors.

“IPR enforcement remains a source of serious concern. EU stakeholders report improvements on judicial enforcement in the last two years, particularly blocking piracy sites,” the report reads.

No U.S. Mention

Overall, the European Commission report gives the impression that pirate site blocking is a globally accepted standard. Countries that fail to facilitate this type of enforcement are urged to make progress, a view also shared by many major rightsholders.

Interestingly, however, the EU report doesn’t mention the United States in this regard. While U.S. rightsholders obtain site blocking orders throughout the world, these types of no-fault blocking measures are unavailable on home turf, where online piracy volumes are largest globally.

The omission isn’t problematic enough to warrant a ‘priority’ listing in the EU report. That’s not entirely unexpected, as the U.S. generally has excellent copyright enforcement and policies, but it stands out nonetheless.

In recent years there have been calls to make site blocking measures available in the U.S. but, thus far, this hasn’t resulted in concrete action.

All in all, the European Commission’s report has a lot of overlap with the U.S. equivalent, which was published a few weeks ago. That said, one notable difference is that the latter doesn’t include a single mention of site blocking.

—

A copy of the European Commission’s Report on the Protection and Enforcement of Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) in third countries is available here (pdf)

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