Every day millions of people download or stream pirated movies, which are readily available online through hundreds of dedicated sites.

To the broader public, pirate sites and services are the gateways to a darker side of the entertainment world. In turn, however, these sites are heavily reliant on the crucial ‘suppliers’ at the top of the piracy pyramid.

The Piracy Supply Chain

Broadly speaking, there are two ‘supplier’ groups in this supply chain. On one side, ‘The Scene’, a conglomerate of often intertwined groups that release ‘their’ content on private topsites. Rules and security are key in The Scene, but in 2020, a series of raids demonstrated that it’s not impenetrable.

In addition to Scene groups, there are also P2P groups. The latter operate more loosely and are generally connected to private sites, including torrent trackers where they publicly release pirated movies and TV shows.

Scene releases eventually appear on the wider internet through third parties, but P2P groups often upload their content straight to the public.

Unlike The Scene, P2P groups don’t have to abide by a particular set of rules, but privacy is still a top priority. Release group members risk criminal prosecution and multi-year prison sentences should they be identified by anti-piracy groups or law enforcement agencies.

EVO – The Leak Kings

EVO, short for EVOLUTiON, is a high-profile P2P group whose activities stood out in recent years. The group released a steady stream of new movie and TV show titles and gained pirates’ admiration by leaking many screeners way ahead of their official premieres.

For several years in a row, EVO opened the “screener season” by releasing leaked copies of upcoming films. This included Oscar contenders , but also several Netflix titles that originated from festival screenings.

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

Needless to say, movie industry insiders viewed EVO as a major threat. There was little doubt that rightsholders were doing everything in their power to track down the group. A few months ago, those enforcement efforts paid off.

EVO Arrests

Last November EVO stopped releasing new titles . This was highly unusual as EVO previously uploaded over a dozen titles each week. This suggested that something had happened to the group and the rumor mill led to suspicions of a potential bust.

At the time, TorrentFreak heard from several sources claiming that EVO had been dismantled by the authorities, but none could provide solid proof. One mentioned an operation in Spain, while another referred to an undocumented raid where equipment was seized.

We also reached out to the Alliance for Creativity and Entertainment ( ACE ) last November due to its involvement in many enforcement operations. At the time, ACE was unable to share any further insight, but that position has now changed.

A few days ago, ACE boss Jan van Voorn informed TorrentFreak that several people connected to EVO were tracked down by ACE last year. This culminated in an enforcement action last November and ACE continues to collaborate with Portuguese authorities as part of an ongoing investigation.

“I can finally confirm that we identified the leaders of the EVO release group and are actively working with the Portuguese authorities on the case,” Van Voorn said.

The statement is in line with information we received from another source last November, which stated that EVO was a Portuguese group.

Active Investigation

The fact that the investigation isn’t yet complete means that very little can be shared publicly at this stage. We pressed for further details but most of our follow-up questions remain unanswered.

After discussing the matter with the Portuguese authorities, ACE was able to confirm that “several arrests have been made” without mentioning the location of these suspects.

When EVO disappeared last year, another prominent release group called iFT also went quiet. ACE couldn’t confirm that iFT is linked to the investigation, nor can it share how the suspects were tracked down.

ACE notes that the alleged crimes of the people involved relate to intellectual property, but there are other charges as well. Unfortunately, however, the anti-piracy coalition is unable to share further information, at least not at this time.

No Leaked Screeners

The crackdown is a major win for ACE and the broader film industry. EVO was known for its early leaks of prominent screeners and in an interview , openly blamed Hollywood for keeping piracy relevant.

The recent arrests also appear to have had an immediate impact on the availability of leaked screeners. For the first time in the history of online piracy, no notable screeners leaked last year.

ACE also noted the lack of screener leaks. The enforcement action last November appears to have effectively shut down EVO and likely spooked others who may have had access to screeners.

“Yes, EVO has been one of the most prolific release groups out there. Actions by ACE and the Portuguese authorities put an end to their activities,” Van Voorn notes.

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

Brazil’s crackdown against pirate sites, IPTV services, infringing apps, and other mechanisms delivering illegal content to the masses, continues to press ahead.

In the wake of similar operations in previous years, including action reported in August 2022 , a new phase of Brazil’s ‘Operation 404’ anti-piracy initiative was announced on Tuesday.

Operation 404.5 – Phase 5

The launch of the 5th phase of Operation 404 is described by Brazil’s Ministry of Justice and Public Security (MJSP) as an “international mobilization” coordinated by the MJSP, through the National Secretariat for Public Security (Senasp), with support from police in eight states.

“The objective is the removal of audio and video content, such as games and music, blocking and suspension of illegal streaming websites and applications, de-indexing of content in search engines and removal of profiles and pages on social networks,” an MJSP announcement reads.

“In this 5th phase, eleven people were arrested: four in São Paulo, two in Paraná, one in Bahia and four in Minas Gerais,” the government ministry reports.

Search and seizure warrants to locate computer equipment were executed in the states of Pernambuco, São Paulo, Paraná, Minas Gerais, Rio Grande do Sul, Bahia, Ceará and Rio de Janeiro.

“199 illegal streaming and gaming sites and 63 music apps were also removed, in addition to blocking 128 domains,” the ministry says.

A total of six “messaging app channels” with more than 4,000 subscribers were also blocked, reportedly for distributing music that had not been officially released.

International Cooperation

The local operation received significant international support. Authorities say they collaborated with the UK’s Police Intellectual Property Crime Unit and the British Embassy, Peruvian intellectual property protection agency INDECOPI, MPA Latin American, anti-piracy group Alianza, and US-based videogame industry group Entertainment Software Alliance (ESA).

TorrentFreak obtained what appears to be a notice directed toward visitors to seized sites and domains. In addition to the groups listed above, it reveals the participation of the UK’s Intellectual Property Office, the Alliance for Creativity and Entertainment, Brazil-based music industry group APDIF, and global music industry group IFPI.

According to the latest figures, Operation 404 has led to the blocking of 1,974 websites and 783 apps since it began in 2019. The names of the sites and apps are never mentioned in material released to the public.

During a Ministry of Justice press conference Tuesday, there was a clear effort to associate pirate sites with malware and a “certainty” that people downloading music or watching pirate streams would have their private information exposed.

That led to a moment of unexpected dark humor (and concerned faces) when a journalist suddenly mentioned a Globo report containing claims that Brazil operated a secret system capable of monitoring the locations of up to 10,000 people by simply entering their phone numbers.

Focus on Pirate TV Services

A key focus area for Brazilian authorities is the illegal TV market, encompassing pirate IPTV services, illegal streaming websites, and the flood of set-top boxes that have saturated the local market.

In a late December 2022 announcement, Brazil’s National Film Agency (ANCINE) revealed a “reformulation” of its anti-piracy operations. Citing overlapping activities that risked straying into areas where the National Telecommunications Agency (ANATEL) has authority, ANCINE said that it would “ move away ” from actions targeting the TV piracy market.

Moving forward, ANCINE said that its focus would be on the protection of locally produced audiovisual works. As a result, technical cooperation with the Motion Picture Association in Latin America would come to an end .

The involvement of the MPA in the 5th phase of Operation 404 suggests that overall cooperation continued.

Earlier this year, ANATEL said that its work to disrupt the pirate TV market would continue using various means. Increased pressure on the sale of non-certified, non-approved set-top boxes, for example, and actions against illegal pay TV services that distribute content via the internet or otherwise rely on it.

Following our report last summer that Brazil planned to visit Portugal and Spain to learn more about their ISP blocking programs, we can confirm those visits went ahead and that Brazil views widespread blocking as a key weapon in the fight against piracy.

ANCINE and ANATEL Announce New Partnership

After announcing the signing of a ‘Technical Cooperation Agreement’ last week, it appears that ANCINE and ANATEL will now work together to combat pirate TV services.

The agreement covers an initial period of 24 months and will see ANCINE tracking and monitoring pirate services. Based on ANCINE’s complaints, ANATEL is expected to issue instructions to ISPs for the services to be blocked.

“With this exchange of information, ANCINE will signal the content that is being transmitted illegally and ANATEL may request the blocking of the channel or the pirated site”, says ANATEL’s Moisés Moreira.

“The idea of ​​this exchange of information is to have speed, because in a case involving a sports match, for example, you have to be quick. It’s a different scenario from a website or channel that is, for example, airing a TV series.”

Last month ANATEL said it had already begun blocking IP addresses in an effort to disrupt ‘ gatonets ‘, a mishmash of subscription piracy TV services accessed via set-top decoders, IPTV devices, and various software applications.

In a move designed to protect Japanese animation content, last month Brazilian authorities said they had shut down two of the largest dedicated anime piracy sites in the region.

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

Operating a mixtape site is not without risk. By definition, mixes include multiple sound recordings that are often protected by copyright.

Popular hip-hop mixtape site and app Spinrilla , which has millions of users, is well aware of these risks. In 2017, the company was sued by several record labels, backed by the RIAA, which accused the company of massive copyright infringement.

“Spinrilla specializes in ripping off music creators by offering thousands of unlicensed sound recordings for free,” the RIAA commented at the time.

Spinrilla Fought Piracy Accusations

The hip-hop site countered the allegations by pointing out that it had installed an RIAA-approved anti-piracy filter and actively worked with major record labels to promote their tracks . In addition, Spinrilla stressed that the DMCA’s safe harbor provision protects the company.

As the case progressed, both parties filed motions for summary judgment. The music companies requested rulings to establish, before trial, that Spinrilla is liable for direct copyright infringement and that the DMCA safe harbor doesn’t apply.

Spinrilla countered with cross-motions, filed under seal, in which they argued the opposite. Judge Amy Totenberg eventually sided with the record labels in 2020, concluding that the mixtape site is indeed liable.

Millions in Potential Damages

In her ruling, Judge Totenberg concluded that 4,082 copyrighted sound recordings were streamed, at least once, through Sprinrilla’s website or app.

The scale of the damages will be decided at trial and after several delays, the jury is currently set to gather in a few weeks. With thousands of copyrights at stake, damages could potentially exceed $600 million if the jury finds that the infringement was willful.

With the stakes this high, both sides will do their best to present their most favorable arguments. That also means efforts to prevent witnesses, evidence, and even specific words being presented to the court.

These requests come in the form of ‘motions in limine’ where the parties ask the court to keep certain information from the jury. Several of these motions were submitted to court over the past few days.

Piracy and Theft

According to recent filings, Spinrilla is particularly concerned over potential piracy stigma. The company notes that the music industry has spent years painting a picture of being under siege by “pirates,” “thieves” and “trespassers”.

This type of rhetoric might make the jury more likely to see Spinrilla’s activities as willful, which could increase the damages award. This should be prevented by banning these disparaging terms at trial, the platform says.

“Defendants anticipate that Plaintiffs will continue to refer to piracy and pirates so that the jury will be predisposed to find the Defendants acted willfully,” Spinrilla writes.

“These terms are not evidentiary, have no probative value, and are highly inflammatory such that they will create undue prejudice. Accordingly, the Court should bar Plaintiffs from referring to Defendants as ‘pirates’ or having engaged in ‘piracy’ or ‘theft’ other similarly disparaging words.”

‘Piracy History is Irrelevant’

In a separate motion, Spinrilla asks the court to bar the music companies from discussing the history of online piracy. Piracy may have hurt the music industry’s revenues over the years but that shouldn’t impact an appropriate award for damages, the mixtape service says.

“Spinrilla is not liable for the entirety of online piracy that started with Napster. Nor can Spinrilla be required to pay statutory damages that are calculated based on the injury to record labels by companies that operated years before Spinrilla was formed.”

According to Spinrilla, the music companies want to discuss historical piracy issues because that would increase the chances of a higher award for damages.

“The evidence is not tethered to the facts of this case. Rather, it is designed to brand into the brains of the jurors, that Defendants should be punished for the cumulative effects of infringement that Defendants had no hand in creating,” Spinrilla argues.

Record Labels Want Financials Excluded

The above is just a selection of the motions submitted by Spinrilla. At the same time, the music companies are fighting equally hard for the court to keep specific information from the jury.

According to one of the filings, Spinrilla included over 2,000 pages of consolidated financial reports for Universal Music Group, Sony Corporation, and Warner Music Group, the plaintiffs’ parent corporations.

These financial documents are misleading, according to the music companies, as they also include revenue from entirely unrelated businesses such as semiconductors, batteries, and film revenues.

The plaintiffs believe that this information could be used to create a misleading and prejudicial impression of their financial resources, which has no relevance to the damages calculation.

“Overwhelming the jury with voluminous combined financial statements of Plaintiffs’ parent corporations would confuse the jury, who would be left to wonder about the relevance of this information in calculating the amount of statutory damages they should award.

“The simple and undeniable fact is that this information has absolutely no relevance to that calculation,” the music companies add.

All in all, it is clear that both sides are trying to establish the best possible base before presenting their arguments to the jury. At the time of writing the court has yet to rule on these motions ahead of a trial scheduled to start next month.

—

Spinrilla’s cited motions in limine are available here ( 1 , 2 pdf) and the music companyies’ motion can be found here (pdf)

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

Having developed a highly automated system that attempts to deal with huge and increasing instances of piracy, YouTube has shown it can handle copyright complaints on an unprecedented scale.

Whether the next stages of development will tackle widespread abuse of the takedown system remains to be seen but the High Court of Justice, via the Business and Property Court in Birmingham, UK, hopes to reduce the volume, if only by a little.

Two Can Play The Takedown Game

Those with both the time and the patience to read the judgment handed down last week in Moviebox Megastores International Ltd & Ors v Rahi & Ors will likely emerge from the other side with a) a headache and b) relief that relatively few copyright takedown abuse cases ever get near a courtroom.

The judgment references a trial related to three sets of proceedings that were consolidated by court order in 2021.

The Court’s timeline of the dispute dates back to February 2017 when singer and claimed songwriter Mohammad Rahi emailed Kamraan Ahmed, a director of music publisher Moviebox Megastores International Limited. Rahi warned that if his music albums weren’t removed from Moviebox’s YouTube channel and from iTunes, legal action would follow.

When Ahmed refused to remove the albums, Rahi responded by setting up his own YouTube channel, populated with music he claimed to own. A month after that, in April 2017, Rahi filed copyright claims at iTunes for four of his albums published by Moviebox, and six published on iTunes by the second claimant in the case, Oriental Star Agencies Ltd. All complaints were rejected.

In May 2017, Moviebox used YouTube’s Content ID system to take all revenue generated by Rahi in respect of four albums he’d uploaded to his newly-created YouTube channel. Two years later in October 2019, Rahi began filing applications at the Intellectual Property Office in Pakistan seeking copyright certificates for a number of songs, and a book in which several songs were written.

Game On: Laying the Foundations

The background to the dispute is an extraordinary maze of claims, counterclaims, and bitterness spread out over several years, during which documents were forensically examined and fingerprints subjected to professional scrutiny.

The Court’s judgment, dated March 8, 2023, is concise yet still manages to weigh in at almost 54,000 words; our focus here will be on the YouTube takedown campaign and the subsequent fallout.

Rahi’s albums were legally obtained by one company and then transferred to another; both companies operated under Moviebox branding. It was alleged that two of Rahi’s co-defendants, Mr Qureshi and Ms Manzoor (both singers), entered into a scheme to transfer rights to hundreds of songs, including some already published on the Moviebox YouTube channel, for which Qureshi later filed copyright claims.

The two Moviebox companies (Moviebox hereinafter) and the other claimant, Oriental Star Agencies, alleged that Qureshi and Manzoor’s actions were designed to fuel Rahi’s malicious YouTube takedown campaign. Since neither defendant responded in court, both had default judgments entered against them.

That led the Court to conclude that Qureshi and Manzoor did indeed conspire or act together in a common design to unlawfully cause loss to Moviebox. The Court needed to determine whether Rahi was part of that conspiracy.

Dishonest Evidence, Falsified Documents, Copyright Strikes

The judgment describes Moviebox director Mr Ahmed as an honest witness. The Court found that Rahi was not. As per the judgment, the singer relied on falsified evidence, lied to YouTube, falsely claimed to have written lyrics he did not, and lied about his connections to the rights reassignment matter, among other things.

In February 2020, Oriental Star Agencies Ltd (the second claimant alongside the two Moviebox companies) uploaded 41 of Rahi’s solo albums to iTunes. Rahi filed copyright complaints at iTunes but all were rejected. Two months later, Rahi filed objections with YouTube over the earlier Content ID claims against albums on his channel, and the revenue still being paid to Moviebox as a result.

In response, Moviebox filed copyright complaints against Rahi’s channel to take the four albums down. For this, Rahi received copyright strikes. Rahi responded by filing DMCA counternotices and in June/July 2020, followed up with copyright claims against YouTube channels operated by Moviebox and Oriental Star.

Using a copyright certificate obtained earlier in Pakistan, in July 2020 Rahi started proceedings against Moviebox and Oriental Star at the Intellectual Property Tribunal in Lahore, claiming copyright ownership over songs published in a book.

Celebrating Suspensions

In September 2020, with copyright strikes accumulating, YouTube’s repeat infringer policy kicked in and Moviebox had its channel suspended. According to the judgment, Rahi celebrated the suspension on his Facebook page the very next day.

“In a video posted on Mr Rahi’s Facebook channel in which he, and his lawyer, Mr Zahoor appear, Mr Rahi says ‘…and those companies and that Mafia should keep this matter in their mind, who I have confronted, I am giving this message to them that you have established your companies to make money….. I talked to Sister Shazia Manzoor and she also told me that brother these people have done injustice to me..,” the Court’s account reads.

Meanwhile, Moviebox filed a claim against Rahi and obtained a “without notice injunction” requiring Mr Rahi to retract his strikes issued to YouTube. Less than two weeks later, Rahi agreed to comply.

Not Done Just Yet

Just three weeks after Rahi’s undertaking, Qureshi started filing takedown notices against Moviebox’s YouTube account and, in common with Rahi, began legal proceedings in Pakistan. Qureshi used the previously-mentioned reassignment of rights in hundreds of songs to a) support his YouTube claims and b) an application for an injunction against Moviebox and Oriental Star to prevent them from infringing his rights.

In November, Moviebox received another blow, this time from YouTube. Moviebox had sent DMCA counternotices to YouTube but since Qureshi had filed for an injunction against Moviebox in Pakistan, YouTube said it would disregard Moviebox’s counternotices.

Meanwhile, YouTube was threatening to disable Oriental Star’s YouTube channel. To counter that, Oriental Star obtained an injunction compelling Rahi to retract the complaints he sent to YouTube.

In December 2020, the two companies under Moviebox branding issued proceedings against Rahi, Manzoor, and Qureshi, obtaining an injunction against the latter pair. Three months later default judgments were issued against both, damages pending. The rights reassignment agreement was canceled.

Rahi’s Actions Caused Loss to the Claimant

The judgment published last week states that Rahi caused loss to Moviebox “as a result at least of: (a) its main YouTube channel being de-activated by YouTube from 9 September 2020; and (b) YouTube preventing the First claimant from uploading new content to its other YouTube channels.”

Rahi also caused loss to Oriental Star; YouTube required the removal of 12 videos from its channel and prevented the company from uploading new content. Rahi caused loss to both claimants via Qureshi and Manzoor’s rights assignment scheme, the judgment adds.

Handing down permanent injunctions against Rahi in respect of three claims, the presiding judge elaborated as follows:

In simple terms, the reason why I consider this appropriate is that Mr Rahi has displayed a willingness, acting in his own name and through others to pursue a relentless and fraudulent campaign aimed at damaging the economic interests of [Moviebox and Oriental Star], either as an end in itself or as a means of forcing the Claimants to stop exploiting songs sung by Mr Rahi for their own commercial benefit, in order to leave Mr Rahi free to do so.

The Claimants are entitled, in my judgment, to the protection of a suitably worded injunction which may serve the dual purpose of: (a) dissuading Mr Rahi from issuing any strikes himself against the Claimants’ YouTube channels or encouraging others to do so (and dissuading others from doing so at Mr Rahi’s encouragement); and (b) enabling the Claimants to demonstrate to YouTube that there is in place an extant injunction that prohibits Mr Rahi from engaging in issuing strikes against the Claimants YouTube channels or encouraging others to do so.

The High Court of Justice/Business and Property Court judgment is available here but somewhat unsurprisingly, this dispute seems destined to run and run.

In January 2023, Rahi filed a copyright infringement complaint against Moviebox and several UK-based record labels. He alleges that the defendants falsely claimed ownership of his music and had no right to upload his songs to YouTube.

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

Piracy is a global phenomenon but the availability of enforcement options varies from country to country.

In Iraq, for example, tackling copyright infringement isn’t seen as a priority or a new phenomenon.

When U.S. troops were still stationed in Iraq, rightsholders discovered that American soldiers were picking up the local habit. As a result, “copyright notices” were sent to US bases and United States Central Command was put on high alert .

At the end of 2021, the U.S. combat mission in Iraq officially ended, so that’s no longer an issue. Iraq still faces plenty of internal issues, of course, but fighting piracy doesn’t appear to be high on the agenda. That’s a concern for copyright holders.

Rightsholders Report Iraq to the USTR

Given Iraq’s history, it is no surprise that the country has been repeatedly flagged by the U.S. Trade Representative. The USTR considers rightsholder input and other public signals when compiling its Special 301 Report , an annual list of countries that deserve extra attention due to intellectual property shortcomings that may hurt U.S. businesses.

The report doesn’t lead directly to concrete action but is used as a leverage tool at the highest diplomatic levels to ‘demand’ change. As such, recommendations are taken very seriously.

Ideally, strong statements and claims from rightsholders should be backed up by solid evidence. That’s not always needed for their positions to be cited in the USTR report but, more recently, the USTR has begun asking detailed follow-up questions. That has lead to some insightful results, also regarding Iraq.

90% Are Pirates?

Miramax and beIN, for example, stated in their submission that around 90% of the Iraqi population watches pirated live sports events and other media content. That’s a remarkable figure that we have never seen in any official reports, and it also triggered the USTR to ask “how these estimates are formulated.”

With roughly half of Iraq lacking a basic broadband connection, describing this section of society as online pirates is problematic. And since more than a third of all Iraqis are under 14, a considerable number of pirates must be rather young too.

Last week Miramax and beIN responded to the USTR’s questions, explaining that the claims about Iraq and Algeria come from local contacts and partners, as well as their own extensive, independent knowledge.

“beIN has developed these estimates through discussions with contacts and commercial partners on the ground in both countries. These estimates are also informed by beIN’s extensive, independent knowledge of piracy networks in Iraq and Algeria,” Miramax and beIN write.

‘No Surprise’

The companies further explain that the 90% Iraqi piracy rate “should not come as a surprise” as external researchers have described the region as a “piracy hotspot.”

We examined the cited research and found that it doesn’t mention Iraq or Algeria specifically. In general terms, it refers to North Africa and the Middle East as a piracy hotspot, without sharing any concrete statistics.

While we don’t doubt that piracy is rampant in Iraq (and Algeria), there seems to be no hard data to back up the “90% of the population are pirates” claim. Without proper evidence, making such bold and strong claims in such an important recommendation could raise some eyebrows.

Lacking Enforcement/Evidence?

The USTR’s follow-up questions for beIN, Miramax, and other rightsholders are mostly requests for further evidence, to back up the claims being made. Responses often cite third-party sources instead of concrete detail, however.

For example, beIN said that it ‘understood’ that it would be very difficult for rightsholders to convince a public prosecutor to launch a copyright case against pirates in Algeria. The USTR requested further information on specific difficulties but it appears beIN’s comments are mostly based on input from its local counsel.

“beIN has not yet attempted to file a copyright infringement action (either civil or criminal) in Algeria. However, Algerian counsel has advised beIN that it would be extremely difficult for an audiovisual copyright holder to prevail in civil litigation against an infringer.

“According to Algerian counsel, it would be similarly difficult for an audiovisual copyright holder to convince an Algerian prosecutor to pursue criminal action,” beIN’s answer adds.

The same is true for the “lack of legal enforcement options in Iraq,” as reported by beIN to the U.S. Government. This claim is mostly based on advice from third parties rather than first-hand experience.

“beIN has received professional advice that due to the endemic political corruption in Iraq, legal actions against key infringers are unlikely to succeed,” beIN responded.

Corruption

beIN and Miramax do mention some names of ‘pirate’ services that allegedly have good connections with local government. This leads to corruption and the lack of enforcement options, including prosecutions.

“beIN understands that the owners and operators of Earthlink, Chaloos, and iStar (three major Iraqi media pirates) have significant influence among Iraqi government officials, both at the federal and regional levels.

“This helps explain the lack of criminal action to date in Iraq against any of these three pirates, despite their wide reach and notoriety,” the broadcaster notes.

Similar claims were made last year. While this definitely sounds concerning and plausible, yet again the claims were based on reports from third-party sources rather than concrete evidence. At least, as far as we can see.

The question is whether the USTR feels comfortable repeating these allegations in its high-profile Special 301 report. Based on the questions asked, it appears that the Office would like to have more detail.

More Rightsholders, More Questions

In addition to the contributions from beIN and Miramax, the lack of concrete detail also comes up in other responses. For example, the Premier League also mentions the Shabakaty and Chaloos services, noting that local rightsholders reported them to the Iraqi Government.

The USTR asked the Premier League to provide more detail on these reporting efforts and how the government responded, but the football organization says it can’t share any.

“As the Premier League has not itself been directly involved in attempts to pursue enforcement action against the services in question, we are unable to provide further specific details,” the Premier League responded.

All in all, the above shows that several rightsholders’ complaints concerning governments lacking copyright policies rely on reports from third-party sources. While these can be insightful, placing a country on the Special 301 Watchlist ideally requires some verifiable facts as well.

—

A copy of beIN and Miramax’ answers to the USTR’s follow-up questions is available here (pdf) and the Premier League’s comments can be found here (pdf)

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

As Reddit fights to protect the identities of users who simply participated in piracy-related discussions, two new cases filed last Friday may also prove controversial.

On February 17, 2023, Marvel’s Ant-Man and the Wasp: Quantumania officially kicked off ‘Phase 5’ of the Marvel Cinematic Universe (MCU). Distributed by Disney to lukewarm reviews, the movie took $105 million at the box office in its first week and then plummeted 70% to $32 million in week two.

Thanks to a leak posted online around a month before the movie’s theatrical debut, some fans already had an idea of how the movie would play out. Marvel’s pursuit of the leakers is likely to have a storyline all of its own.

MVL Film Finance LLC Targets Google

When MVL Film Finance LLC (MVL) was incorporated in 2004/5, its purpose was to finance Marvel Studios’ production of 10 “live-action or animated films” based on up to 10 of Marvel’s comic book characters. Several related business entities, including Marvel Studios and parent company Marvel Entertainment, are owned by The Walt Disney Company.

Last Friday at the United States District for the Northern District of California, Marvel Studios’ submitted a declaration in support of a DMCA subpoena application targeting Google. Matthew Slatoff, Marvel’s Vice President, Global Security & Content Protection, informed the Court that his responsibilities include monitoring and addressing infringement of MVL Film Finance’s rights.

According to Slatoff’s declaration, on January 21, a Disney anti-piracy analyst submitted a copyright infringement notice to Google after discovering that Ant-Man and the Wasp: Quantumania content had been uploaded to systems operated by Google, without MVL’s authorization. The takedown notice, submitted via Google’s webform, contained a prompt from Google and a response from the rightsholder.

Identify and describe the copyrighted work: Unreleased leaked script of the new Disney movie Ant-man and the Wasp: Quantumania.

Marvel supplied a docs.google.com/document/ URL as the location for the allegedly infringing content. The content no longer exists at that location.

On January 23, Disney’s analyst received confirmation that while the takedown notice had been received by Google, the company wasn’t able to take any content down. Sometime during the previous couple of days the file had already been removed, leaving Google with nothing to do.

That didn’t mean the document couldn’t be retrieved from elsewhere, however.

The Document Detailed in the DMCA Subpoenas

The document in question reveals a few interesting details. It’s 63 pages long, and in an introduction written by an unidentified person, the ‘script’ text is attributed to screenwriter Jeff Loveness and described as “translated dialogue.”

The script was edited and/or displayed in a Portuguese web interface, but since both Portugal and Brazil are mentioned in the source, neither can be ruled in or out. Other evidence points to the likelihood that the text was intended for use in subtitles. A date reference is also interesting.

The Reddit thread mentioned in the document is still online . It provides a number of spoilers but doesn’t carry any text from the leak.

The ‘leaked’ document Marvel is interested in mentions the Reddit thread above as being two months old at the time the document was written or edited. Both DMCA subpoena applications seek information relating to Google and Reddit users and their alleged activities between January 15 to February 15, 2023.

The timeframe seems relevant; around January 20 it was reported that the entire plot of the movie had been leaked online .

While that ties in with the newer Reddit thread, the older Reddit thread suggests a much earlier plot leak, around October 2022. Substantial plot leaks date back even further than that but nothing on the scale of an entire script.

MVL Wants Reddit to Unmask Leakers

When information about the script/subtitle file was posted on Reddit mid-January, leak-loving Marvel fans were both excited and impressed. “Yeah this is some next level leak” and “This legit might be the biggest leak in this subs history” set the tone, but the fun didn’t last.

A moderator of the subreddit commented that since the information was receiving copyright notices, any “future sharing of the material will result in a ban.”

The thread is still live today and there’s no doubt that Marvel is aware of it.

The DMCA subpoena application specifically mentions the thread alongside an email from Reddit’s legal team, which had previously agreed to take the infringing content down.

In common with the takedown notice sent to Google, the allegedly infringing content may have been deleted before Reddit could remove it. There’s no mention of a copyright complaint, instead the post notes, “Sorry, this post was deleted by the person who originally posted it.”

At this point concern shifts to the rest of the thread, which talks about the document hosted by Google and how the mod team “took the google doc down” to ensure that existing links to the file would no longer lead to it.

On one hand that’s a positive response to a copyright complaint. On the other, it links the document to the Reddit thread. The original post listed in the DMCA subpoena did an even better job of that.

As a result, Marvel now wants Reddit to hand over “All Identifying Information for the user ‘u/MSSmods’,” which throws another unpredictable element into the mix.

/u/MSSMods was created in March 2021 and declared as a shared account, meaning that at least one, or some, or perhaps all of the subreddit’s moderators have used it at some point.

That’s not ideal when one person posted the controversial thread but the information requested includes “any information provided when an Infringing User established their Reddit account, including the name(s), address(es), telephone number(s), email address(es); (b) any IP address(es) used by such user; and (c) account number(s).”

From there, the DMCA subpoena application attempts to throw a generalized dragnet, not just over the moderation team, but the entire subreddit and its users.

– All Identifying Information for any other user(s) responsible for posting, editing, and/or maintaining the content previously available on the Reddit Site, including, without limitation, any moderator of the MarvelStudioSpoilers subreddit involved in uploading content on or about January 20, 2023 to the Reddit Site comprising and/or related to the dialogue of then-unreleased motion picture “Ant-Man and the Wasp: Quantumania”

– All Identifying Information for any user involved, between January 15, 2023 and February 15, 2023, in posting and/or editing the Infringing Content. (edited for clarity)

Another issue here is that no infringing content was ever posted to the Reddit thread, meaning that nobody was in a position to edit the content either. The allegedly infringing content was hosted on Google, the thread simply provided a link.

Even under the circumstances (Reddit considered the original DMCA takedown notice and found a prima facie case for removal), the idea that Reddit must conduct an investigation to determine the involvement of anyone potentially involved may provoke opposition.

In the meantime, Reddit finds itself in the middle of another controversy and, as one Reddit user commented at the time of the leak, the subreddit’s moderators aren’t in the best spot either.

“Somewhere out there, Feige [President of Marvel Studios] is loading his gun and sharpening his knives,” the user wrote.

“I pity the fool who leaked this.”

The DMCA subpoena applications can be found here ( G1 / G2 , R1 / R2 )

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

ChatGPT has captured the imagination of millions of people, offering a glimpse of what an AI-assisted future might look like.

The new technology also brings up novel copyright questions. Several people are worried that their work is being used to train AI without any form of compensation, for example.

Parent company OpenAI may in turn be worried that third parties are exploiting the ChatGPT model without permission. That’s what a recent DMCA takedown notice sent to Google tends to suggest.

OpenAI’s Takedown Notice

The takedown request lists OpenAI as the sender and targets several ChatGPT-related links. These include the ChatGod app , which has since been removed from Google Play, as well as the Chat AI Pro app for iOS.

The notice isn’t just restricted to apps. It also lists a PC Guide article with information on the chatbot, which appears to be relatively harmless.

This isn’t the first time that an OpenAI takedown notice has shown up in Google’s transparency report. In December, a similar DMCA request asked for the removal of an AI writing tool’s GitHub repository .

Legitimate?

These enforcement actions are certainly newsworthy, but we can’t independently confirm that OpenAI sent them. In the past, we have seen plenty of imposters claiming to be reputable rightsholders, and it could be the case here as well.

TorrentFreak reached out to OpenAI to confirm or deny the legitimacy of the notices but the organization didn’t respond. Google’s view on the matter is also unknown. What we do know is that the search engine hasn’t removed any of the reported URLs.

Without a comment from OpenAI, we considered binning this article, but then realized that ChatGPT may be able to help out here.

ChatGPT Weighs In

Unfortunately, ChatGPT can’t verify the notices but the AI language model explained that “it is possible that OpenAI has sent DMCA requests to Google in the past” since it’s a “common legal mechanism for requesting the removal of copyrighted material from search results.”

“OpenAI might send a DMCA request to Google’s search engine if they have found that their copyrighted material is being hosted or distributed illegally by a third-party website that appears in Google’s search results.

“This can include cases where websites are reproducing OpenAI’s content without permission, or distributing OpenAI’s content in a way that violates their terms of use or intellectual property rights,” ChatGPT added.

The AI model also added some nuance, noting that OpenAI would not typically ask Google to remove URLs with legitimate ChatGPT-related content. Those include articles discussing the technology or apps that use ChatGPT with proper authorization.

ChatGPT Can Help

ChatGPT was also able to confirm that the AI model itself is not behind these takedown notices since it does not have the legal authority or capacity to initiate legal actions such as DMCA requests.

That said, ChatGPT could assist OpenAI in the process, and it kindly provided an example of what this would look like, as well as a counter-notice , and even a rare putback-notice .

We could go as far as asking ChatGPT to draft a potential follow-up lawsuit, but that’s something for another time, perhaps.

—

For context, the ChatGPT session that resulted in the answers above is available here in chronological order ( 1 , 2 , 3 ).

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

In the wake of the music industry’s destruction of Napster, hopes of a file-sharing vacuum were overwhelmed by a laundry list of protocols and software clients, some pre-existing, some new.

DCC, Gnutella, Freenet, eDonkey2000, Kazaa/FastTrack, WinMX, Bearshare, Grokster, Morpheus – the list went on and on – but with no social media, various news and discussion forums took off. Sites like Slyck, Unite the Cows, and Zeropaid became the subreddits of the day, but even 20+ years ago, these platforms were hardly a piracy free-for-all, far from it.

Unlike today, where users happily post direct links to infringing content on social media in their own name , two decades ago – in a legal environment far less developed than it is today – that was generally forbidden and respected as such.

Reddit’s /r/piracy, which celebrated its one-millionth member this week, has an exponentially larger task on its hands but, considering its scale, does a remarkably good job of stifling users intent on breaking its rules and ultimately getting the community banned by Reddit’s administrators. Other piracy subs haven’t been so lucky.

Reddit Bans For Excessive Infringment

During the first half of 2022 alone, Reddit banned 1,543 subreddits for excessive copyright infringement. Many of those went down in flames after failing to self-censor, but that’s not the only way to break up a community.

Reddit’s /r/iptv subredditt was created on Mar 6, 2011, and with 123,000+ members, ranks in the top 1% of subreddits according to data in its sidebar .

For those starting out in the world of pirate IPTV services or those already established, /r/iptv was a thriving community to learn about IPTV, discuss services and the pros and cons of software, solve technical issues, and much more. Today the community is almost completely silent.

The reasons for this have two key components. Firstly, /r/iptv’s moderators have a history of ensuring that the subreddit stays within Reddit’s global rules. That’s obviously important given its connections to related (but not necessarily affiliated) subreddits.

Generated using Anvaka’s SayIt , the image above reveals the names of subreddits related to /r/iptv, of which many have already been banned:

/r/RedditbayPro, /r/TheSellSpot, /r/IPTVresell, /r/IPTV_Services, /r/iptv4us, /r/Goodieiptvsolutions, /r/RedditBay_Official, /r/iptvsellers, /r/shoppingbay

How the IPTV Subreddit Avoided the Ban Hammer

Using the Wayback Machine we can see that in 2015, when the subreddit gained enough traction to boast 431 subscribers, the rules were simple: “ There are none. As long as it’s related to IPTV its good to go. ” That uncomplicated approach continued in 2016 and 2017 .

In 2018, most likely due to IPTV providers continually advertising their services, there were no rules “ Except for spam . You will get banned immediately.”

By 2019, there were rules . No link spamming, no posting IPTV service reviews, and no asking for service recommendations.

New Rules to Prevent Breaches of Reddit’s Rules

2020 was a big year for new rules. In addition to the three new rules introduced earlier, another nine were added to the list.

In summary, don’t post links any links to IPTV services or anything related to them, don’t post ‘sensitive info’, don’t solicit IPTV business in public or via message, don’t ask or provide trials, don’t post ads, don’t even name IPTV services, and don’t mention other subreddits Discord/Telegram channels involved in IPTV.

The following year saw a few new restrictions including “don’t mention you have customers” or link to YouTube channels mentioning IPTV. Certain rules came with a warning that Reddit could issue a community-wide ban if they were breached – asking to buy or offering to sell IPTV subscriptions, for example.

15 Rules Essentially Banned Everything

By the end of 2022, submitters on /r/iptv had to ensure that 15 rules hadn’t been broken. That triggered a moderator pre-approval process and a wait for their post to appear. Some may believe this was an unnecessary response but it was obvious the climate had changed and backs were pressed firmly to the wall.

According to the sub’s moderators, every day people requested IPTV service recommendations, people named them, and people tried to sell them. Scammers were also attempting to extract money from the less experienced members. Something else was causing issues too.

“[T]he providers are at risk of getting shut down when you talk about them on Reddit. This seems like a simple concept to grasp, but many don’t understand that you can be talking to anyone on Reddit,” an announcement from the moderators explained.

“Do not respond to DMs asking what service you use. You think you’re being helpful but you have no idea who that person is and what they are doing with the info. 3 years ago things were much different.”

The announcement went on to warn IPTV resellers that doing business on Reddit and social media in general, meant they were exposing themselves to “potential legal settlements, lawsuits and even prison time.”

Overreaction or Common Sense?

Opinions will vary but facts tend to speak for themselves. As multiplying arrests and other action showed, the warnings were valid. By selling subscriptions on social media, Reddit in particular, people were indeed exposing themselves to unnecessary risks. For some, those risks turned into a real-life crisis.

Make no mistake, Reddit is a goldmine of information that has been used in anti-piracy investigations in the past and is currently being used to obtain information on services today. Perhaps not from /r/iptv though.

When filtering by ‘new’ posts on /r/iptv today, the most recent are six months old. It appears that some posts have been ‘cleared up’ but as things stand, new public posts on the subreddit are more or less a thing of the past.

But as the moderators pointed out, few other choices were available to them, short of shutting the entire subreddit down. Or have Reddit do it for them.

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

After reading hundreds of copyright reports, anti-piracy studies, lobbying documents, and submissions to government and law enforcement agencies, anything that strays from the norm tends to stand out.

Last month the Industry Trust For IP published ‘Taking a Whole Society Approach to Infringement in the UK’, a report promoting ‘collaboration’ and ‘understanding’ to reduce piracy levels in the UK.

Our initial article focused on just one item in the report but something much more fundamental ran throughout. A pleasant surprise, even.

Softer, More Cooperative Tone

There is no such thing as a friendly anti-piracy report, the topic immediately rules that out, but the language and tone in the Industry Trust’s publication is interestingly close. Considering that companies behind the Industry Trust include Sony, Universal, Disney, and Warner, not to mention Sky, Premier League and the Federation Against Copyright Theft, that seemed a little unusual.

Familiar themes are present – calls for tech platforms to do more and hosts to implement ‘Know Your Customer’ regimes to help identify pirates, for example. However, forceful language such as “must be required to implement X’ and ‘should be prevented from doing Y’ are mostly replaced by scenarios where various entities ‘could’ be a real help if they did A, B or C.

Policymakers could update the UK Policy framework with due diligence protocols for intermediaries providing commercial services to online businesses

Technology companies could support enforcement efforts by introducing improved customer identification and verification

Technology companies could implement technical measures that introduce greater friction into infringement journeys

This type of language and tone certainly fits the overall sentiment of a collaborative campaign but also unusual enough to warrant a closer look.

Whether by pure coincidence or otherwise, the government appears to have concluded that aggressive messaging over online piracy may “seem at odds” with the “cooperative tone” that it considers “advisable in communications this year.”

It’s hard to say whether the Industry Trust’s recent report should be viewed as a product of government advice or independently prudent, but these themes are under discussion at government level.

UK Government Assesses ‘Behavior Change’ Opportunities

The Intellectual Property Office’s ‘Online Copyright Infringement Tracker’ is an annual survey of the latest trends in copyright infringement. Covering consumption habits in 2022, the most recent ‘Wave 12’ report is as detailed as ever but also carries some initially overlooked information.

One of the aims of the annual survey is to identify ‘behavior change’ opportunities. In 2022, this was achieved by way of an ‘Online Community’, a week-long internet-based series of guided activities in which participants interacted with each other and discussion moderators, the government says.

Participants in the community were presented with historical and potential campaigns, some linked to piracy and some not, in order to assess “attitudes towards infringement and behavior change campaigns.”

Govt. Weighed Potential of Piracy ‘Snitch’ Campaign

Unmoved by the colloquialisms of the masses, the government doesn’t use the word ‘snitch’ or the British variant, ‘grass’. Instead, the word ‘report’ is used when referring to citizens reporting fellow citizens to the authorities for alleged infringement.

The questions posed to the ‘Online Community’ aren’t detailed in the report but, to be blunt, the first seems to have been ‘Did you know you could grass on a neighbor or family member for piracy?’ As it turns out, people were generally unaware that they could.

“Across the community, many said they were not aware that they could report others for IP infringement. Generally, they felt it was not a fact that was well known in general,” the study found.

“It was not seen as something which necessarily concerned participants because many felt that others they knew also accessed content this way or that no one would realistically have reason to report them.”

Brits Don’t See The Benefit

“Asked whether they would report someone for infringing, most said they would not and stated various reasons,” the report continued, listing three main reasons as follows:

– There would be no benefit to themselves of reporting someone

– It would seem hypocritical if they used unofficial sources themselves/there could be danger of vindictive behaviour against them

– The police have higher priorities to be dealing with than IP crime

While these responses are entirely predictable, the questions behind them illustrate the disconnect between how ‘regular’ people tend to think and how the government thinks people think.

People Will Start Asking Questions

As the first response highlights, people are generally motivated by some kind of benefit. The proposition as it stands seems to entail doing unpaid anti-piracy work. In practical terms, fill in a form on our new website telling us everything you know but sorry, “we can’t promise to get back to you.” No feedback mechanism or obvious benefit isn’t a great motivator.

Response two speaks for itself; people who live in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones because it might not be long before their own windows need to be replaced. As motivational feedback mechanisms go, that couldn’t be more negative.

As for response three, the notion that police have resources to deal with online piracy but hardly any to tackle burglaries or car thefts would not be well received. Asking the public to make their own situation worse by reporting people they actually know would be extraordinary.

However, when framed slightly differently, some in the ‘Online Community’ were more positive about the proposal.

Deterrent Messaging

According to the government study, when the Online Community were asked whether they would consider incorporating the fact that someone could report another individual into a campaign, the subject of deterrent messaging was seen as a plus.

“[S]ome felt this could be an opportunity as it might deter some people who were thinking about infringing for the first time or were nervous about it,” the report notes.

The big question is whether any of the above will find its way into a future campaign. An even bigger question is whether the government would be prepared to be the ‘face’ of this type of messaging or whether those in the background who stand to benefit have enough confidence to put their own brands on the line.

Possible Potential, But Not Right Now

At least for now, it seems likely that 2023 will come and go without any big moves. The government doesn’t seem excited about this type of campaign in the current climate, despite the positive feedback on potential deterrent messaging.

“Yet, it would be worthwhile to consider the cooperative tone which is advisable in communications this year given the current circumstances and whether such a message would seem at odds with this ethos,” the government added in a soothing, non-confrontational tone.

During lockdown UK citizens were encouraged to report neighbors to the police for breaking social distancing laws. While that would’ve amounted to a crime, police didn’t like the idea . The public didn’t either, but that didn’t stop hundreds of thousands reporting neighbors to the authorities .

The report is available here

Image credit: Pixabay/geralt

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