In September 2021, a grand jury returned a 62-count indictment charging Bill Omar Carrasquillo with crimes related to his Gears-branded IPTV services.

Better known online as YouTuber ‘Omi in a Hellcat,’ Carrasquillo ran an illegal internet-based television and movie streaming service using video content fraudulently obtained from cable providers.

From March 2016 through November 2019, Carrasquillo and his co-defendants opened fraudulent accounts with TV providers Charter Communications, Comcast, DirecTV, Frontier Corporation, and Verizon Fios.

These companies supplied hundreds of set-top boxes and similar equipment to multiple properties owned by Carrasquillo. At these locations, content supplied by the TV providers had its copy protection stripped before being transmitted, stored, and then retransmitted to Gears subscribers using servers and other hardware controlled by Carrasquillo and his co-defendants.

U.S. Government Attorneys Submit Sentencing Memorandum

In a sentencing memorandum submitted in a Pennsylvania federal court on Tuesday, U.S. government attorneys say the infringement amount associated with the defendants’ services had been “conservatively” calculated at $176 million.

“Carrasquillo personally profited from the conspiracy in an amount of $30,095,204,” the memorandum notes.

62 Count Indictment

The original indictment charged Carrasquillo with a laundry list of crimes:

Conspiracy to commit copyright infringement, circumvention of access controls, access device fraud, wire fraud, criminal circumvention of copyright protection measures under the DMCA, and 20 counts of criminal copyright infringement.

And the list continued: six counts of wire fraud, three counts of false statements to a bank, 19 counts of monetary transactions from specified unlawful activity, two counts of false statements, two counts of removal of property and, finally, four counts of tax evasion.

Carrasquillo’s Plea Agreement

Carrasquillo and the government subsequently entered into a written plea agreement, the details of which are now revealed for the first time. On February 1, 2022, Carrasquillo pled guilty to the following:

• 1. Conspiracy to commit felony & misdemeanor copyright infringement, circumvention of access controls, access device fraud, & wire fraud from March 2016 through November 23, 2019, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371
• 2. Circumvention of an access control device, from March 2016 through November 23, 2019, in violation of 17 U.S.C. §§ 1201(a)(1)(A) , 1204(a)(1) and 18 U.S.C. § 2
• 3. Reproduction of a protected work (felony copyright infringement via reproduction of copyrighted video works) from May 24, 2019 to November 20, 2019, in violation of 17 U.S.C. § 506(a)(1)(A) and 18 U.S.C. §§ 2319(b)(1) and 2
• 4. Public performance of a protected work (misdemeanor copyright infringement through via “streaming” of copyrighted video works) of three specific copyrighted video works between February 11, 2019, and November 20, 2019, in violation of 17 U.S.C. § 506(a)(1)(A) and 18 U.S.C. §§ 2319(b)(3) and 2 (Counts 4, 13, and 18)
• 5. Access device fraud from June 6, 2018 through June 5, 20198, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1029(a)(2) , (c)(1)(a)(i) and 2
• 6. A wire fraud scheme against the victim cable companies from March 2016 through November 23, 2019, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1343
• 7. False statements to a bank June 14, 2019, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1014 and 2; and
• Engaging in monetary transactions derived from specified unlawful activity (money laundering) on December 20, 2018, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1957
• 9. False statement, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1001
• 10. Tax evasion, in violation of 26 U.S.C. § 7201

Carrasquillo agreed to forfeit $5,895,507.76 in cash seized from his bank accounts .
The YouTuber also agreed to forfeit more than 50 vehicles (including his infamous supercar collection), and close to 50 real properties, most with Philadelphia addresses.

Carrasquillo agreed to the entry of a forfeiture money judgment of all of the proceeds he received from his Gears TV empire, and to pay restitution to the victims in an amount to be ordered by the court.

Possible 98 Years’ Imprisonment, $3.5 Million in Fines

Having pled guilty to crimes carrying a maximum sentence of 98 years in prison, Carrasquillo’s focus will be on convincing the court that a much shorter sentence will be sufficient. Meanwhile, the U.S. government’s sentencing submission attempts to quantify the scale of Carrasquillo’s offending to arrive at a suitable sentence, all things considered.

Carrasquillo’s pirate service relied on the decoding, copying, and retransmission of more than three years of cable programming broadcast on hundreds of channels. Each channel aired different programs 24 hours a day, seven days a week. That is a huge amount of infringement but almost impossible to quantify.

“Assuming each channel aired only one show per hour each day, and further assuming that the Gears Service had illicitly transmitted only 100 channels, if the infringement amount were calculated based on the total number of times the defendants copied and transmitted an infringing copyrighted television program to one of their subscribers, the government would have to determine the individual retail value of an astounding 3,066,000 programs,” the government explains.

Quantifying Infringement Amount

The government details two options for calculating the overall infringement amount.

The first method begins with subscription fees paid to the Gears service (around $34,826,402) and divides that by $19 (subscription price per month) to arrive at a total of 1,832,968 ‘subscriber months’. The cost of a subscription in the legal market is estimated at $120.68 per month, so when multiplied by all of Gears’ ‘subscriber months’, the government reaches a total estimated infringement amount of $221,202,578.

The second approach is more straightforward. Using a customer database seized from the defendants (which does not include start/end dates for 148,807 customers who purchased subscriptions from resellers, the government estimates a total of 1,390,595 ‘subscriber months’. Multiplying that figure by a legal monthly subscription cost of $120.68, the total estimated infringement amounts to $167,817,004.

Government Believes 15 Years+ in Prison is Appropriate

In summary, Carrasquillo’s infringement was massive and complicated by other offenses, such as money laundering and tax evasion, etc. The government says that advisory guidelines indicate a sentence of 292 to 365 months but concedes that even the lower figure (24 years in prison) would be “highly unusual” for a copyright matter.

“Accordingly, based on Carrasquillo’s leadership of this organization, his culpability, the seriousness of his offense conduct, and his existing criminal record, the government calculates his advisory sentence range to be 188 – 235 months’ imprisonment (15 years and 8 months – 19 years and 7 months),” the sentencing memorandum concludes.

Carrasquillo will be sentenced next month.

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

Dutch anti-piracy group BREIN has built quite a reputation over the years. For many Netherlands-based file-sharers, BREIN was considered a mortal online enemy.

Passions don’t run anywhere near as high today, but not because BREIN took its foot off the gas. Anyone involved in the Dutch piracy scene still risks running into BREIN, and while that isn’t exactly ideal, it isn’t necessarily the end of the world either.

BREIN usually has a handful of key goals. Most importantly, any infringement of its clients’ rights must come to an immediate end. After that, BREIN seeks compensation to cover its costs and, depending on circumstances, a reasonable financial penalty.

The final component is a signature on a legal agreement that outlines what will happen if piracy somehow restarts. Agreement terms vary, but settling with BREIN and then breaching the agreement has a tendency to multiply any financial components.

Pirate Couple Caught Uploading

Although it probably wouldn’t shy away from the opportunity, BREIN tends not to chase down casual pirates. The group is more interested in making a difference where it really counts, i.e removing pirate sites and their uploaders from the ecosystem. In a case dating back to 2018, BREIN focused on a torrent site and eliminated both.

According to BREIN, the site was small but persistent, offering movies, TV shows, ebooks and games for download. BREIN identified three people involved in the site, including the site’s administrators, a middle-aged married couple.

Since all three were out of work, BREIN adjusted its settlement offer accordingly. The couple agreed to pay 2,500 euros but also signed an agreement that detailed the consequences should they return to their old ways.

Pirate Couple Caught Uploading Again

BREIN references a married couple in an announcement published today. The man and woman signed an abstention agreement back in 2018, just like the couple mentioned above. While the anti-piracy group rarely identifies infringers by name, uploading cases involving married couples are rare, particularly given the timeframe.

BREIN reports that during an investigation into various sites illegally offering movies, TV shows, music, ebooks and games, information came to light that various aliases responsible for thousands of illegal uploads belonged to a couple with whom BREIN had previously settled. As a result, BREIN determined that the terms of their settlement agreement had been breached.

Financial Consequences

“Despite their promise in the 2018 abstention statement, they had secretly continued their illegal uploads, hiding with the help of those involved in the illegal websites,” BREIN explains.

“It has now been agreed with them that they will pay 16,200 euros and, in the event of non-payment, will immediately owe 55,000 euros.”

Using the 2,500 euro settlement figure cited by BREIN in 2018, 16,200 euros represents a six-fold increase for a second offense and breach of the original settlement terms. With the amount for non-payment more than three times the amount now owed, any additional infringement will result in significant additional penalties.

According to BREIN, any future infringement carries a penalty of 5,000 euros per day or the same amount per infringement. Since this type of penalty is instantly enforceable, a visit from a bailiff could happen sooner rather than later.

Unintended Personal Consequences

BREIN notes that the married couple at the center of the case are no longer a pair. Marriages can collapse for any number of reasons and usually more than just one, but the suggestion is that being found in breach of the agreement didn’t help at all.

That information might sound overly personal, but it’s highly relevant to the case.

BREIN doesn’t go into additional detail, but since the man and woman signed an agreement together and are confirmed as jointly and severally liable, even when separated they must pay the full amount jointly, or face liability for the full amount individually. That’s obviously not ideal under the circumstances.

That raises the speculative question of whether one or both breached the original agreement to abstain from illegal uploading. Even if only one breached the agreement, both are still liable. It’s not hard to imagine a scenario like that being even more controversial.

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

Back in the 1980s, all computer nerds were familiar with Datel. The company produced peripherals for the 8-bit computers of the day, including RAM packs, keyboards, joystick interfaces, even sound samplers.

Datel’s venture into the new world of videogame cheat devices was more controversial. The company’s Action Replay range battled against Codemasters’ Game Genie, with the latter eventually backing out of the market. Datel went on to release products for mainstream consoles, facing legal action on the way.

One of those lawsuits saw Sony Computer and Entertainment sue Datel in Germany over cheat software produced for the Playstation Portable (PSP) console. The PSP was discontinued in 2014, but after more than a decade, Sony’s lawsuit is still alive and inching toward a conclusion – one way or another.

Sony Sends in the Lawyers

When Sony released the PSP in 2004, the race to run ‘homebrew’ software on the PSP also began. The inevitable game of cat-and-mouse saw Sony continuously updating PSP firmware, hoping to shut down exploits that allowed ‘backups’ and ‘homebrew’ to be played on PSP.

In parallel, Datel saw opportunities to ‘enhance’ the PSP with software that changed how games were supposed to be played. Gaming giant sony responded with a copyright infringement lawsuit targeting two companies and a director connected to the Datel products.

Hamburg Regional and Higher Courts Disagree

Datel’s software – Action Replay PSP and Tilt FX – enabled gamers to cheat in Sony games. An example in the lawsuit describes how restrictions on “turbo” availability in racing game Motorstorm Arctic Edge were bypassed. Datel’s product achieved this by manipulating code stored in the PSP console’s main memory.

In January 2012, the Hamburg Regional Court found largely in Sony’s favor. The Court found that Datel’s software intervened in the ‘program flow’ of Sony’s games and by changing the flow, the original code was modified to create a revision or derivative of Sony’s copyrighted work.

The Court ruled that it made no difference whether the modification occurred in the game software itself or in the data stored by the game in the PSP’s main memory. Even though the modification of data in memory was temporary, the Court said this still amounted to a revision under § 69c Nr.2 UrhG .

“The translation, adaptation, arrangement and other adaptation of a computer program” require permission from the copyright holder, the relevant section reads.

Datel filed an appeal and in 2021, the Higher Regional Court overturned the district court’s judgment and dismissed the action.

The Court found that the changes apparent in the gameplay were the result of “parallel commands on the variables stored in the main memory.”

The defendant’s software intervened by changing the effect of data stored in the game console’s main memory, but did not change commands in the game software itself.

Federal Court of Justice Appeal

Unhappy with the decision, Sony filed an appeal at the Federal Court of Justice (Bundesgerichtshof, BGH), Germany’s highest court.

On February 23, 2023, the BGH said it had stayed proceedings in the appeal and referred key questions to the Court of Justice of the European Union for a preliminary ruling.

The questions are as follows: (translated from German)

1. Is the scope of protection of a computer program according to Art. 1 Para. 1 to 3 of Directive 2009/24/EC ( pdf ) encroached upon if neither the object nor source code of a computer program or a copy is modified, but something else running at the same time as the protected computer program changes the content of variables that the protected computer program has created in the main memory and uses in the course of the program?

2. Does a revision exist within the meaning of Art. 4 (1)(b) of Directive 2009/24/EC if neither the object or source code of a computer program or a copy is modified, but something else running at the same time as the protected computer program modifies the content of variables that the protected computer program has created in the main memory and uses in the course of the program?

When the CJEU will publish its decision is unknown, but it’s unlikely to be anytime soon.

Details of earlier hearings and decisions here ( 1 , 2 ) and the referral here ( 3 )

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

When Amazon launched the first Kindle fifteen years ago, book piracy was already a common problem.

When publishers clashed with The Pirate Bay over illegally shared copies, we envisioned that things could get much worse if Kindle-ready pirate sites began to pop up.

Rempant Book Piracy

Fast forward to today and book piracy is easier and more widespread than ever. It has reached a point where the highest echelons of U.S. law enforcement stepped in to tackle this issue, with the crackdown on Z-library . Thus far, this hasn’t achieved the desired result .

The frustrations of publishers and authors is understandable. Many see their books being openly shared for free, just hours after they hits the stores. This isn’t limited to bestsellers either, it affects independent authors too.

In the midst of this drama, Amazon is making things worse. Generally speaking, the company is a blessing to many smaller authors because of its accessible self-publishing options and promotional features. This includes KDP Select , through which books are made available on Kindle Unlimited.

As part of the KDP Select agreement, authors promise to make digital versions of their books exclusive to Amazon. This makes sense, as it comes with various perks. However, this rule doesn’t only apply to competing stores, pirate sites are included as well.

Amazon Punishes Authors for Piracy?

Over the past few weeks, several authors complained that Amazon had removed their books from Kindle Unlimited because they violated their agreement . The piracy angle is front and center, raising plenty of questions and uncertainty.

Raven Kennedy , known for The Plated Prisoner Series, took her frustration to Instagram earlier this month . The author accused Amazon of sending repeated “threats”. This eventually resulted in the removal of her books from Kindle Unlimited, ostensibly because these were listed on pirate sites.

“Copyright infringement is outside of my control. Even though I pay a lot of money to a company to file takedown notices on my behalf, and am constantly checking the web for pirated versions, I can’t keep up with all the intellectual theft.

“And rather than support and help their authors, Amazon threatens me. The ironic thing is, these pirates are getting the files FROM Amazon,” Kennedy added.

A similar experience was shared by Carissa Broadbent , author of The War of Lost Hearts Trilogy. Again, Amazon removed a book from Kindle Unlimited for an issue that the author can’t do much about.

“A few hours ago, I got a stomach-dropping email from [Amazon] that Children of Fallen Gods had been removed from the Kindle store with zero warning, because of content ‘freely available on the web’ — IE, piracy that I do not have any control over,” Broadbent noted .

Petition

These and other authors received broad support from their readers, and sympathy from the general public. A Change.org petition launched in response has collected nearly 35,000 signatures to date, with new ones still coming in.

Author Marlow Locker started the petition to send a wake-up call to Amazon. According to her, Amazon should stand behind its authors instead of punishing them for the fact that complete strangers have decided to pirate their books.

Most authors will gladly comply with the exclusivity requirements, but only as far as this lies within their control. Piracy clearly isn’t, especially when it happens on an almost industrial scale.

“Currently, many automated systems use Amazon as a place to copy the e-files that they use for their free websites. It’s completely absurd that the same company turns around and punishes an author by removing their book from KDP Select,” the petition reads.

From the commentary seen online, several authors have been able to resolve their issues with Amazon. And indeed, the books of Broadbent and Kennedy appear to be back online. That said, the exclusivity policy remains in place.

Amazon Takes Note

Amazon is aware of the complaints and informs TorrentFreak that it’s working with the people involved to find an appropriate solution. The company stresses that, if books are removed from Kindle Unlimited, they remain for sale on Amazon’s regular store.

The company further explains that, before taking action, it sends authors an advance warning with an extended timeline so they can try to resolve the issue.

“We welcome author feedback and work directly with authors to address any issues or errors affecting their accounts,” an Amazon spokesperson said.

The problem is, of course, that individual authors can’t stop piracy. If it was that easy, most authors would be happy to do so. However, if billion-dollar publishing companies and the U.S. Government can’t stop it, Amazon can’t expect independent authors to ‘resolve’ the matter either.

It would make more sense for Amazon to update its KDP Select policy to exclude pirate sites from the exclusivity rule. With book piracy being as rampant as it is, no title can ever guarantee to be piracy-free, ever.

Perhaps it’s also a good idea to use all the vocal and social media-savvy authors as an asset to educate the broader public on piracy. That will do more than having them stress over book removals and pointless DMCA takedown campaigns.

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

Minecraft is, without doubt, one of the most iconic and recognizable videogames of recent times.

The game was originally created by Markus “Notch” Persson, who also founded Mojang Studios, which continues to develop the software today.

In the years following its first release in 2011, Minecraft captured a truly massive audience. With more than 238 million copies sold, it’s also the best-selling video game in history, a reign that looks set to continue.

Minecraft’s success inspired a subset of players to get creative by tinkering with the original game. Homebrew Minecraft mods and hacks that spice up the action are in plentiful supply.

Mojang is totally fine with this, as long as people don’t charge money or distribute modded copies of the game. Mods can’t use substantial content or code from the original game either, so when the rules get broken, Mojang reserves the right to step in and take action.

Eaglercraft Crackdown

This week, the Microsoft-owned game studio did exactly that. Mojang sent a DMCA takedown notice to its sister company GitHub, targeting 92 copyright-infringing repositories. All repositories are reportedly linked to copies of Eaglercraft.

Eaglercraft is a Minecraft variant playable in a web browser. This can come in handy for people who want to bypass blocking measures, which are common on some networks, schools included. Another main perk is that this Minecraft variant is totally free.

After seeing enough, Mojang urged GitHub to take the repositories offline, citing trademark and copyright infringements.

“The Repo and corresponding websites are a remake (decompile) of Minecraft 1.3. Their repo states this and the website running their code clearly shows a 100% reuse of our code and assets,” the game studio writes .

“This user has presumably decompiled and reverse engineered portions of our code to find how to reuse/repost. Their code goes against our EULA and Terms of Use by modifying and reposting source code and the game.”

The takedown request was successful and the repositories were swiftly removed from the developer platform. Instead, visitors will now see a notice pointing them to the DMCA takedown request.

This isn’t the first time that Mojang has gone after browser-based copies of Minecraft, and Eaglercraft isn’t a new target either. Over the past several months, Mojang has been working hard to take these free copies offline.

Eaglercraft Developer Gets Creative

Eaglercraft developer “lax1dude” took down the code from his own website after running into trouble with Mojang. However, he didn’t stop tinkering; on the contrary.

Lax1dude’s GitHub account currently lists an “ EaglercraftX 1.8 ” repository that provides tools and instructions on how to decompile Minecraft 1.8.

Mojang may disapprove of this repo, but Lax1dude believes the game company can’t take it offline. The repository doesn’t include any copyrighted code or other infringing content.

“Attention Mojang/Microsoft employee assigned to stalk me: this repository does not contain your intellectual property. Filing a false DMCA is illegal and immoral,” the developer writes in all caps.

Whether Mojang agrees is yet to be seen. Simply using Minecraft images and the trademark can already cause trouble, depending on the context, so this dispute might not be completely over just yet.

At the time of publication, Lax1dude’s EaglercraftX 1.8 repository is still online.

—

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

After thriving in what was once a localized traditional market, Japanese comics known as ‘manga’ took the world by storm. Publishers and authors could only watch as their work fueled a huge but unlicensed black market.

By offering free localization and distribution services in what was once a chronically underserved overseas market, hobbyist translators and pirate sites made manga more accessible in every way. The problem for manga creators and publishers today is that pirates offer their copyrighted content for free in the same global market.

A new breed of highly-commercialized pirate entities, many of which seem to love money more than manga, only add to what is already a complex problem. And when Japanese rightsholders seek to mitigate infringement in overseas legal processes, new challenges appear around every corner.

Publishers Seek Help From U.S.

In August 2022, Japanese manga publisher Shueisha filed an ex parte application at a California district court seeking information for use in a foreign proceeding – a lawsuit in Vietnam or Japan targeting pirate site operators.

Hoping to identify the operators of pirate manga sites including gokumanga.com and doki1001.com, Shueisha sought permission from a court to obtain information from U.S. companies including Cloudflare, PayPal, Visa, Mastercard, and Google.

Even at this early stage, some of the pirate sites had moved to new domains. At least one site had been targeted in a DMCA subpoena obtained a year earlier and may have switched domains around that time too.

New Request For Information

On February 10, 2023, Shueisha teamed up with major publishers Shogakukan, Kadokawa, and Kodansha in another ex parte application ( 1 ) and proposed order ( 2 ), filed this time at a district court in Delaware.

Once again, the companies requested access to information held by U.S. internet companies to support a potential lawsuit in Vietnam or Japan.

GoDaddy and eNom customers had registered domains for two pirate manga sites, and the rightsholders were keen to receive any information that might help their investigation. Those domains – gokumanga.com and doki1001.com – were also among the targets in the ex parte application filed last August.

More than six months later, the first process is still ongoing, and according to the recent application, no pirates have been identified. The domains they used have long since been replaced, but in the past, redirected to other domains listed in the same application. It’s complex and messy, almost certainly by design. In this space, domain names may redirect, hibernate or even die, but the underlying sites prefer reincarnation.

Rightsholders Test Every Possible Option

Manga publishers, anti-piracy groups, the recording industry (RIAJ), movie and TV show companies (JIMCA and the MPA), trade organizations, tech companies players, search engines, and Japan’s government, are engaged in almost constant communication over potential anti-piracy tools and the issues they raise.

Overseas legal procedures are considered burdensome, expensive, and a strain on both time and resources, says manga publisher Shogakukan. Plans to partner with overseas entities to create a more effective international legal network could help, but that will also take time.

In the short term, rightsholders will continue to request subpoenas, hoping that information held by U.S. service providers will help them to identify pirates. At the same time, every possible enforcement idea is considered worthy of exploration.

Liability, Pressure on Intermediaries

Other options under discussion include increased liability for intermediaries and requirements for ISPs and OSPs to obtain and retain more detailed customer information. Along those same lines, the MPA and its Japanese partners have drawn attention to U.S. Executive Order 13984 .

The order is supposed to deter foreign malicious cyber actors’ use of US-based Infrastructure as a Service (IaaS) platforms. Hollywood’s goal is to ensure that every domain name company, DNS provider, CDN, web hosting service, reverse proxy provider, advertising company and payment processor are bound by the same rules, so that pirates can be more easily identified.

Site Blocking and CDN Providers

Large international rightsholders are broadly in favor of site-blocking measures, but the topic is controversial in Japan. Proposals to restrict access to information would almost certainly face challenges under Japan’s constitution.

At least as things stand, site-blocking proposals seem to lack momentum: freedom of expression, the protection of confidentiality of communications, and the prohibition of censorship, carry significant weight in Japan. These red lines may never be overcome but more immediate issues already have universal support.

One of the most discussed issues concerns CDN providers, Cloudflare in particular. Despite various angles and mounting criticism, Cloudflare has thus far refused to give any ground. If rightsholders in Japan want content taken down, they should focus on hosting companies. These are the entities that can actually remove content; removing Cloudflare leaves infringing content online, the company says.

Suggestions that Cloudflare faces liability for pirate sites are directed to the Mon Cheri v. Cloudflare lawsuit in the U.S., from which the CDN company emerged with a clear win.

Claims that Cloudflare ‘hides’ the IP addresses of pirate sites are met with the usual response: if a site is infringing, any complaints will be forwarded to the site’s host. If personal information is required, rightsholders should present a court order.

The reasons are unknown, but discussions with Cloudflare on this topic are sometimes marked ‘undisclosed’ or confidential in reports that openly discuss other companies’ input.

In broad terms, few of those who express an opinion are happy with Cloudflare’s position. Paraphrasing comments made over the last few months, the general sentiment is that if Cloudflare has a primary goal of protecting sites from abuse on the internet, why is it the primary protector of pirate sites that are abusive in themselves?

Since Cloudflare’s position is both clear and consistent across markets, the end result is a circular argument from which there are no obvious means of escape.

Search Engines

Google appears to be taking the same position in Japan as it does elsewhere . If a court rules that a site is illegal and should be blocked in its entirety, Google is likely to deindex its domain so it never appears in Japan’s search results.

One of Yahoo! Japan’s anti-piracy contributions is more immediately visible. When users search for the term ‘海賊版’ (English: pirated version/pirate copy) Yahoo! returns an unmissable promotion for the STOP! anti-piracy campaign run by Authorized Books of Japan (ABJ) to protect manga and similar content.

Other suggestions receiving support include educational or ‘enlightenment’ campaigns to guide casual pirates back on the right track. The music industry hopes to ensure that anti-piracy education reaches Japan’s children, preferably during the early years of school.

Advertising, Domains, Security Software, Web Browsers

The Japan Network Information Center (JPNIC) is Japan’s internet registry with responsibilities that include the allocation of IP addresses and AS numbers. JPNIC has reported discussions with ICANN relating to anti-piracy issues, noting that the Japanese government’s “continuous efforts at ICANN are paying off.”

Exactly what that means is unclear, but there does appear to be some pressure on ICANN to ensure that domain registries and registrars remain in compliance with the terms of their contracts. Those terms require customers to provide identifying information but by various means, that’s usually not the case.

Overall, and in common with rightsholders elsewhere, there’s a general sentiment that pirate sites abuse domain names. People who abuse domain names in the trademark arena tend to lose them; some feel that should be the case with pirates too.

On the understanding that advertising fuels many pirate sites, disruption in this area is seen as a priority. A music industry group says that identifying and obtaining contact information for advertising companies placing ads on sites should be a short-term priority. Longer term, technical measures to prevent adverts ever appearing on pirate sites should be the goal.

Non-profit organization Virtual Rights suggested that companies behind web browsers (e.g. Google LLC, Mozilla Foundation, etc.) could provide assistance on this front.

What Can Be Done About Vietnam?

Pirate sites with connections to Vietnam are recognized as causing global problems for companies in publishing, movies, TV shows, music and beyond.

Manga publishers Kadokawa and Kodansha say that all overseas pirates cause problems, but the latter concedes that the Vietnam problem is “enormous.” Shogakukan says that when it comes to ‘malicious’ platforms with the most visitors, Vietnamese sites present the biggest problem.

Optimism that new legislation might ease the situation can be dampened relatively easily: Fmovies, BestBuyIPTV, Abyss.to, Fembed, 2embed.to – the list goes on and on.

Pirate sites have been shut down in Vietnam but as far as we can tell, mostly for displaying outlawed gambling advertising rather than piracy. Facing the same issues, the Alliance for Creativity and Entertainment wants to recruit new members inside Vietnam, hoping that will turn the tide.

Various reports from the United States, EU, and UK describe a complex IP enforcement system in Vietnam featuring multiple agencies and overlapping jurisdictions, a lack of coordination among those agencies, limited institutional capacity and stretched resources related to IP enforcement.

Or as one Japanese anti-piracy report put it: Vietnam’s Intellectual Property Office “has brains but no limbs.”

These issues and others elsewhere seem unlikely to deter this systematic anti-piracy drive. At what point it will produce repeatable and sustainable results is unknown, but they will come, there’s little doubt about that.

Sources/image credits: ( 1 ) Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications, ( 2 ) Agency of Cultural Affairs( 3 ) Japan Institute of Law and Information Systems, ( 4 ) Japan Internet Governance Forum, ( 5 ) Taylor Vick/Unsplash

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

Over the years, copyright holders have tried a multitude of measures to curb online piracy, with varying levels of success.

Site blocking has emerged as one of the preferred solutions. While blocking measures are not bulletproof, the general idea is that they pose a large enough hurdle for casual pirates to choose legal options instead.

The blocking approach was very controversial at the start of the last decade, particularly in the U.S., but elsewhere it’s increasingly being normalized. Dozens of countries have legal or procedural options to request ISP blockades, which currently block in excess of 20,000 sites around the world.

The Star-Spangled Elephant

American entertainment companies are the driving force behind most pro-blocking campaigns, which currently span all inhabited continents. This can be seen as a great achievement but there’s a star-spangled elephant that’s rarely brought up in site-blocking discussions; the lack of pirate site blocking in the U.S.

This isn’t a minor oversight as the United States actually harbors many millions of online pirates, more than any other country in the world. At the same time, however, the U.S. was also where the first major site-blocking legislation push failed more than a decade ago, following fierce protests from the public.

In recent years major rightsholders have slowly started to put the issue back on the political agenda . This week, CreativeFuture CEO Ruth Vitale wrote an op-ed for The Hill , calling for action.

CreativeFuture is an organization that represents the interests of over 500 copyright-reliant companies, as well as 300,000 individuals who work in the creative industries. The group is a fierce proponent of stricter copyright legislation including site blocking.

“Despite the long history of innovation in our creative communities, the U.S. is somehow lacking a commonsense and extremely effective anti-piracy tool: site blocking. And we need it now more than ever,” Vitale writes.

According to Vitale, it is “incomprehensible” that the U.S. sits on the sidelines while other countries are taking these “commonsense measures”.

No-Fault Injunctions

Technically, U.S. courts can already order intermediaries to block sites, and that has happened in the past. However, the text of the law is not entirely clear on whether ISPs have to be held liable or not. This makes it a complicated legal issue.

Ideally, rightsholders would like to change the legal framework in the United States to allow for these orders on home turf. Concrete proposals are yet to be formed but according to Vitale, it’s clear that site-blocking schemes work.

With proper judicial oversight, courts should be able to require Internet providers to block foreign pirate sites, without holding the intermediaries liable.

“Such site blocking has proven to be an effective remedy against piracy in the more than 40 countries that have implemented court-adjudicated site blocking — including western democracies like Canada and the UK,” Vitale notes.

Western Democracy-Approved

The earlier “SOPA” site-blocking legislation became stranded after massive public protests were supported by tech giants including Google and Wikipedia. The main fear was that blocking would eventually lead to over-blocking and other problems affecting core internet infrastructure.

According to Vitale, those fears were overblown and unproven. There have been few issues in countries where site-blocking is operational. In fact, several of these counties rank higher on core democratic values than the United States.

“Many of the countries that permit judicial site blocking, including Canada, Australia, and the UK, ranked higher than the U.S. in the Economist Intelligence Unit’s latest annual index of the state of democracy around the world.

“The takeaway? There is little, if any, evidence of a negative correlation between site blocking and freedom of expression,” Vitale adds.

Calling on Congress

Opponents have pointed out that site blocking is a slippery slope that threatens free speech. In addition, the effectiveness of the measures are also in question, as they are easy to bypass or circumvent .

Vitale counters the latter by pointing to research that shows how site blocking can decrease piracy and increase legal consumption. It may not be perfect, but that’s besides the point.

“It is time for these outdated arguments against commonsense anti-piracy tools to stop. Protecting the creative industries has always been a bipartisan issue, and I hope that members of Congress on both sides of the aisle will soon be ready to discuss site blocking legislation,” Vitale concludes.

The fact that the headline of Vitale’s op-ed avoids the term ‘site blocking’ suggests that sensitivities remain. At this point, however, completely ignoring the site blocking issue is becoming increasingly uncomfortable.

There is some movement already, however. US Senator Thom Tillis previously asked the public to share their views on site blocking. This triggered unanimous support from the Motion Picture Association, but there was plenty of opposition too, as always.

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

From February 28, 2023, availability of Western content on Russia’s legal streaming portals is set to nosedive.

Following the invasion of Ukraine a year ago, new video content produced by major Western companies mostly disappeared from Russian cinemas and online platforms. Older content covered by existing licensing agreements remained in place, but in a matter of days, many of those deals will run out.

Local reports suggest that at least 200 films owned by Disney, Sony, and other Hollywood studios, will disappear from licensed streaming platforms, including market leader Kinopoisk.

Against that background, experts suggest that Kinopoisk’s customers will migrate to illegal sites offering everything for free. Local cybersecurity companies believe that preparations are already underway to meet the demand.

Domain Name Registrations Surge

According to Russian cybersecurity firm Angara Security , registrations of domain names with a movie or TV show theme began to surge at the start of the month. The company says that between February 1 and February 10 alone, registrations were up 64% on similar registrations for the whole of January.

“According to our data, the vast majority of newly created sites belong to pirates. Such activity is due to the fact that attackers closely follow the content agenda and use it for their own purposes,” Angara Security’s Victoria Varlamova informed IZ this week.

Less Legal Content, More Pirates, Even More Pirate Sites

Asked to comment on the reported surge, Cybersecurity firm R-Vision was more specific. The company linked increasing numbers of pirate sites directly to sanctions and reduced access to licensed content.

“Indeed, against the backdrop of sanctions restrictions, there has recently been an increase in the number of pirated sites with films and series, as more and more popular foreign content is removed from legal online cinemas,” said R-Vision’s Petr Kutsenko.

None of the opinions expressed thus far are particularly unusual. While we were unable to confirm excess ‘pirate’ domain registrations in early February, domains registered over the past 48 hours alone include large numbers of instantly recognizable ‘pirate’ brands on a wide range of TLDs.

Due to search engine demotions, site-blocking and other anti-piracy measures, that in itself is not particularly unusual. Pirates are burning through domains at an unprecedented rate and it’s entirely feasible that some have spotted an opportunity and intend to exploit it.

The Russian government says it’s all part of a Western conspiracy.

Roskomnadzor Blames Ukraine & Other ‘Unfriendly Countries’

Those who initially reported the domain registration surge placed the blame on generic pirates but went no further than that. Russian telecoms regulator Roskomnadzor had much more to say.

“The creation and popularization of such pirated video services among the Russian audience is carried out from the territory of Ukraine with the support of a number of unfriendly countries, from which claims have ceased to be received regarding violation of their copyrights when distributing content,” the department told Izvestia.

The claim that some people in Ukraine are involved in pirate sites hardly comes as a huge shock; it’s been common knowledge for at least 20 years. But the suggestion that Ukraine is colluding with Western allies to push pirated content to Russian audiences via pirate sites, because rightsholders have stopped sending copyright complaints for violations in Russia? Less plausible.

Pirate Propaganda

Since Russian pirates are perfectly capable of serving local audiences without foreign assistance, it’s unclear what unfriendly pirates could achieve in Russia. But Roskomnadzor has its own theory, one that goes far beyond streaming illicit movies and TV shows. According to the telecoms watchdog, Western-supported pirate sites, run from the territory of Ukraine, play a role in the war.

As reported by Izvestia, Roskomnadzor claims that these pirate sites are “purposefully used for anti-Russian propaganda and dissemination of fake materials” relating to the situation in Ukraine.

Roskomnadzor says that since February 2022, more than 4,000 of these “pirate internet resources” have been blocked by ISPs for “distributing advertising banners with fake materials about a special military operation.”

For rightsholders running short of ideas on the anti-piracy front, site-blocking opportunities don’t come any easier than that.

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

The European Union recognizes that online piracy poses a serious threat to copyright holders and the public at large.

Last December, the EU published an updated version of its biannual piracy and counterfeiting watchlist , calling out some of the worst offenders.

“Infringements of intellectual property rights, in particular commercial-scale counterfeiting and piracy, pose a serious problem for the European Union,” the EU Commission wrote.

The report explained that the unauthorized activity leads to “high financial losses” for copyright holders. Members of the public face risks too, such as piracy-related malware and scammers determined to obtain their credit card details.

Europa.eu Pirate Scammers

As the EU published these cautionary words, its flagship domain name Europa.eu was already being exploited by piracy-related scams , including the worst type – credit card phishing spam.

When we alerted the European Commission to our findings, a spokesperson informed us that the origin of the incident has been identified and that proper action had been taken to resolve the matter.

“Concerned platform stakeholders have already taken the necessary measures such as removal of suspicious files and blocking further attempts for uploading them. We are closely monitoring the situation and continue scanning websites for suspicious files,” the spokesperson said.

The Piracy Problem Persists

Despite these reassuring words and the passing of three months, the problem is yet to be solved. Basic searches reveal that Europa.eu portals have been plagued by thousands of piracy-related adverts, with new ones being added daily.

The EU hosts a broad variety of projects on its official domain and several allow outsiders to contribute content. It appears that this weakness is easily exploited, yet hard to patch.

Below is just one of the many piracy-related adverts, promoting a 123movies website where people can supposedly stream free movies.

These and other variants appear on europa.eu and subdomains including school-education.ec.europa.eu, atlantic-maritime-strategy.ec.europa.eu, esdac.jrc.ec.europa.eu and more.

Like many others, the advert shown above arrives as a PDF file containing a link to the target site. In this case, the link goes to a dodgy movie platform that has absolutely nothing to do with 123movies.

Phishing

Prospective pirates who click the link see a dummy streaming site, which may show short movie intros. Interestingly, the scammy streaming site appears to block certain countries but by using an American IP address, we managed to get in.

After a brief intro, users are prompted to register. We attempted to sign up but decided to abort the mission when our anti-virus software confirmed a phishing scam.

“Phishing websites persuade you to reveal personal data such as login or credit card details, usually by pretending to be a legitimate source. It uses social engineering to trick you,” the warning read.

The same scammy ads also promote specific movies, such as “Black Panther: Wakanda Forever” and Ant-Man and the Wasp: Quantumania”, The same is true for popular TV-series such as HBO’s “The Last of Us”.

TorrentFreak reached out to the Commission again, to get an update on how it sees the problem, but we haven’t heard back. When we last inquired about the issue a few weeks ago, a spokesperson informed us that the EU “won’t comment any further on this matter.”

IPTV, UFC, and the Super Bowl

The EU must have its reasons for the lack of communication, but the spamming only appears to be getting worse. In addition to classic pirate streaming sites, shady IPTV services are advertised too.

Several ads on the Europa.eu site are linked to tv.elaalam.com, which promises access to virtually all content imaginable, including live sports. You have to pay first, of course.

Whether this is a total scam or not is irrelevant at this point. The EU previously called out pirate IPTV services and is in talks with rightsholders to better protect themselves against live streaming piracy. Inadvertently running ads for these services at the same time is not ideal.

The spam doesn’t stop at pirate IPTV services either. We’ve seen ads for scammy UFC broadcasts , Premier League matches, NBA games, NASCAR races, and even the mighty Super Bowl has a dedicated promo in Europa.eu.

Male Enhancement Gummies

By now it should be clear that there’s a spam problem, but the deeper we dig, the more dirt we encounter. Want to hack Instagram ? Need a hacked Onlyfans account? Or a free cash app money generator? There’s an ad for that.

Gift cards also appear to be quite popular; Google Play, Xbox, Amazon, or Playstation, you name it. Even physical needs can be satisfied if you believe in magic.

The “CBD Male Enhancement Gummies” for “longer staying power” stood out to us in this regard; literally.

Upload Filter?

The above shows that the problem is rampant. However, it doesn’t mean that the EU is completely ignoring it. Several of the scammy ads have been removed and takedowns are ongoing.

That said, the spam avalanche is ongoing and has been for at least three months. While we were working on this article, dozens of new PDF files were uploaded.

In recent years the EU has passed legislation to ensure that large online platforms use technical tools such as upload filters to tackle online piracy. Perhaps that could be an option for Europa.eu too?

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