The inception and early years of The Pirate Bay are an intriguing chapter of the Internet’s history.

Founded by the Piratbyrån group, The Pirate Bay and its founders embraced the power of the new BitTorrent technology: to copy culture en masse .

By doing so, they altered the public discourse, openly taunting the entertainment industries in the process.

This chapter didn’t end as planned for the lead characters; Fredrik Neij (TiAMO), Peter Sunde (Brokep), and Gotffrid Svartholm (Anakata), who were eventually sentenced to prison . By then, however, they had sparked a digital and political revolution, the impact of which is still felt today.

TV Series

The Pirate Bay didn’t just trigger a file-sharing bonanza, it was exemplary for the rapid rise of the web. New technology empowered people whose lives were traditionally dictated by mainstream entertainment and publishing companies.

The web created new forms to share news, opinions, knowledge, and media. And few Swedes with keyboards had the power to upset billion-dollar companies.

It doesn’t take a genius to realize that this is a good story, perhaps even a movie script? This includes the people at the Swedish production company B-Reel Films, who got the green light to turn it into a TV series a few years ago.

The series premiered at the on-demand platform of the Swedish national broadcaster SVT a few hours ago. International deals haven’t been announced, but pirates can generally get access anyway.

Pirating ‘The Pirate Bay’ Series

Soon after the first two episodes of The Pirate Bay series came out, scene release copies started circulating online . As one would expect.

The Scene group OLLONBORRE, which specializes in Swedish content, was the first to pick the show up. Within minutes, the first 1080p WEB-rips were posted on private scene servers and 720p copies followed a few hours later.

Interestingly, pirate releases have yet to make their way to The Pirate Bay. We haven’t seen any other copies on other public pirate sites either, which is surprising given the topic of the series.

Update November 10 : After a delay, the episodes eventually were published on TPB and other pirate sites.

It’s common knowledge that The Scene – a secretive network of release groups – prefers to keep its releases private. Therefore, it wasn’t happy with The Pirate Bay’s public nature and rise to prominence in the early 2003s, which is highlighted in the first episodes of the TV series.

However, we expected non-scene release groups would be eager to pick up the show. Apparently that’s not the case, yet.

Fact-Based Fiction

While the broader international audience must wait for the officially sanctioned release, we can add a disclaimer for future viewers. While entertaining and engaging, the series should not be taken as fact.

The script is loosely based on The Pirate Bay story and many of the scenes are fiction. New elements were added, timelines have been changed, and the characters are constructed by the show’s writers, which is not necessarily how they came across in real life.

The Pirate Bay’s founders didn’t participate in the production , which means that the creators had no other option than to fill in some blanks.

In an interview with Drama Quarterly , director Jens Sjögren previously acknowledged that they had to mix facts and fiction to tell the story. He understands that some people won’t like that.

“People are going to say a lot of shit about it. ‘It was not exactly like this, blah, blah, blah.’ No, but we really broke our fucking backs to try to just embrace the feeling of really struggling with something you believe in so hard – so much so you would almost be ready to go to prison for it,” Sjögren said.

It wasn’t the creators’ main goal to create a literal replay of what happened. Instead, Sjögren said that he tried to capture the spirit of The Pirate Bay founders’ ambitions and goals.

Whether this succeeded is up to the viewer, but the series definitely shows the contrasting personalities of Fredrik, Gottfrid, and Peter. They were all in it for different reasons, which may be part of their initial success.

—

This weekend we will publish a follow-up article, sharing some thoughts on the series with input from Pirate Bay co-founder Peter Sunde and Piratbyrån co-founder Rasmus Fleischer.

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

The “Infringing Website List” (IWL) was launched in March 2014 as part of the Police Intellectual Property Crime Unit’s (PIPCU) efforts to combat intellectual property crime.

The IWL is a component of Operation Creative, a multi-agency initiative led by PIPCU at City of London Police, with support from partners across the creative and advertising industries.

Based on input from industry groups including the MPA, BPI/IFPI, FACT, and the Publishers Association, operators of pirate sites are engaged directly by officers from PIPCU. In most cases we’re aware of, site operators receive an email outlining their activities alongside allegations of crimes under various pieces of legislation. They are then advised to shut down before the situation gets worse.

Pirates Can Be Very Persistent

While Operation Creative has been financed from the public purse for over a decade, almost no information is made available to the public. As a result, it’s impossible to say how many sites shut down after the initial contact, or if any do at all. The only thing that can be said with certainty is that many ignore the ultimatum and carry on regardless.

Non-compliance isn’t unexpected; in many cases those behind the targeted sites don’t live in the UK, or even in Europe. Operation Creative says it responds with a multi-stage disruption process that begins with action against domains, hosting providers, and payment providers, and ends in enforcement. The details of that process and the factors used to measure success are not for public consumption.

Operation Creative Portal Set For a Makeover

Stubborn sites are placed on the Infringing Website List, primarily as a reminder for advertisers not to business. The IWL also offers a narrow window of transparency into an otherwise opaque operation. Transparency isn’t intentional but when a list containing thousands of domains is distributed to more than 700 advertisers, gambling businesses, and other interested parties, information can be hard to contain.

The 10th anniversary of Operation Creative and the all-important IWL passed silently earlier this year. In the background, however, important work was underway; the procurement of an all new Operation Creative Portal.

The process began late 2023 with a soft market testing exercise followed by the publication of the listing above mid-April 2024. The contract was eventually awarded to Bristol-based Calvium Limited, which according to its website already works with the NHS and the Department of Transport. Depending on whether extensions are granted after the initial three years, the contract is worth between £173,600 and £221,600.

The good news for the mostly overseas rightsholders set to benefit from the new portal, is that the cost of tackling the mostly overseas pirate sites on the Infringing Website List, will be paid from the UK public purse. To what extent anyone benefits from the program hasn’t been reported regularly, or even at all.

A report published last year indicated that the program prevented sites on the IWL receiving £6m in ad revenue from the UK. Averaged out, that could mean every platform lost £3000+ in revenue. For some lower end sites that could be devastating but without context, the overall effect could’ve been minimal too, there’s simply no way to tell.

Effective Or Not, The List is Quite Big

When data is withheld from the public as a matter of policy, attempting to assess that a site’s presence on the IWL is detrimental to its health amounts to a fool’s errand. Nevertheless, even without a single shred of evidence it’s safe to assume that no site placed on the list in the last decade will have drawn any benefit from that.

Subject to the caveats mentioned previously , we estimate that from the list’s launch in early 2014 to early October 2024, more than 8,130 domains have appeared on the IWL.

In some cases several domains, each with their own individual entry, relate to the same underlying platform, so 8,130 domains does not mean 8,130 sites have appeared on the list. Without access to every list ever produced, the total number of sites cannot be deduced, period.

Identifying the types of sites that have appeared on the list since the beginning faces the same issues. We can say with some certainty that at the start of October this year, the list contained ~1,800 domains. We can also confirm that new additions in 2024 are dominated by IPTV-related domains, endless web-based live sports streaming portals, the usual movie and TV show platforms, and the bane of the music industry, YouTube-ripping services.

Some Platforms Seem Immune

While the top of the IWL is subject to almost constant change, at the very bottom of the list very little seems to happen.

Without reference to domain extensions, the numbering system indicates that soccer365 was the 16th domain to be added to the IWL back in February 2014. While the 15 domains added earlier have disappeared, between July and September this year, soccer365 pulled in 45.8 million visits.

Others at the bottom include a well known file-hosting site added to the list in June 2014. Due to a UK court order, it’s been blocked by local ISPs for a decade and never appears in local search results after being deindexed by Google. Others include a handful of world-famous torrent sites (also blocked and deindexed), two music sites that simply refuse to die (blocked and deindexed), and at least one sports streaming site.

Something Everyone Could Benefit From

The IWL contains the domains of some very large sites that don’t rely on advertising revenue from the UK, or indeed anywhere else. Money is made by diverting some users of those sites to phishing portals where they’re encouraged to enter their social media and other credentials into look-a-like platforms.

That inevitably generates profit for the sites, at the expense of people in the UK. The remarkable element here is that servers connected to that activity have UK IP addresses. Just an observation really.

Finally, domains on the IWL that suspiciously divert to exactly the same website.

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

Despite warnings from internet experts, the government passed a law in 2023 aimed at combating illegal IPTV services. However, the legislation has failed to achieve its intended outcomes.

What followed wasn’t a meeting of minds with all stakeholders involved, but a steely determination to make the system work for the rightsholders. For a framework that had measures in place to punish internet companies for failing to block, but nothing in place to punish rightsholders for blocking innocent internet resources, that didn’t come as a surprise.

Disregard for Internet Services, Stealth Legal Amendments

Before Piracy Shield got off the ground, promises were made about oversight, to ensure those requesting blockades kept to the agreed limits. Among other things, that was to ensure ISPs weren’t burdened with additional costs; that is, even more costs on top of the costs they were already expected to cover from their own pockets, for nothing in return.

There was also the supervision aspect, with telecoms regulator AGCOM quite rightly expected to exercise control over blocking demands. Yet just weeks after the anti-piracy measures passed into law, another set of “urgent measures” (known as the Caivano decree) to “combat youth hardship, educational poverty, and juvenile crime” had something else hidden in the depths of its pages.

As previously reported by DDaY , amendments to the anti-piracy law, signed by the Forza Italia party, resulted in rights holders being given the right to block an IP address or poison ISPs’ DNS servers without AGCOM’s control. Some viewed that as a breach of trust, it’s not too difficult to see why.

Closing the ‘Loopholes’

It’s hardly a secret that DNS-based blocking can only achieve so much, and that those determined to circumvent blocking can do so easily by using tools such as VPNs. Everyone involved in the legislation passed in 2023 understood that. They also knew that blocking Content Delivery Networks and reverse proxy services would become a problem as soon as Piracy Shield launched early this year.

Yet, unlike most other countries that have adopted site-blocking programs, factoring-in the interests of other internet users appears to be viewed as unnecessary among Italy’s more enthusiastic site-blocking proponents. To that end, Forza Italia are back again with fresh amendments that amount to a direct attack – not on pirates – but the entire internet sector.

According to a La Gazzetta dello Sport report , this week the green light was given to the readmission of an amendment to the ‘Omnibus Decree’ in connection with VPNs and pirate IPTV.

“The proposal [by Dario Damiani of Forza Italia] wants to extend to VPNs the obligation to disable access to illegal games by blocking the use of VPNs to generate different IP addresses capable of circumventing the law,” the report notes.

Targeting VPNs? Just the Beginning

That an attempt is underway to level the playing field a little, by taking some VPNs out of the equation, doesn’t come as a surprise. However, while the report is entirely accurate, it significantly understates the scope of the proposed amendments.

The first proposal would pull VPNs AND third party DNS providers into the Piracy Shield system, requiring them to implement blocking in the same way local ISPs already do in Italy. But while only local ISPs are required to poison their DNS servers to redirect local internet users, the proposal for VPNs and DNS says they should be forced to participate in Piracy Shield wherever they are.

Proposed amendment 1 (translated from Italian)

Item 1, which initially looks harmless enough, seeks to replace the word univocally with the word predominantly . Now the all-important context.

If a target blocking location (IP address/domain) isn’t shared with any legal services, blocking simply goes ahead. In the event that the targeted content shares resources (IP address/domain) with legal content, blocking can not go ahead because of the collateral damage to any legal content.

The amendment seeks to lower the threshold so that it’s legal to block legal content, if the server or resource carries predominantly illegal content. This change could increase instances of blocking significantly, which is where item 6 comes in useful.

This amendment seeks to remove all limits on the volume of blocking allowed, regardless of who that negatively affects; primarily local ISPs, as mentioned earlier.

The second proposed amendment should have alarm bells ringing across the tech sector, if not the entire country.

Proposed amendment 2 (translated from Italian)

Football is a very important sport and deserves some level of protection. However, resorting to threats of imprisonment against those who invest in internet projects and offer services to millions of Italians, simply because they’re easier targets than those actually supplying the streams, is cynical at best.

Will that be a net gain or net loss to Italy as a whole? Has anyone carried out a risk assessment? Or an even better question: When that doesn’t work either, what next?

The official amendment document can be found here (pdf, Italian)

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

App stores are littered with apps that promise free access to music, but only a few live up to expectations. Musi is one of them.

The music app first made headlines in 2016 when its founders, who were teenagers at the time, presented their brainchild in an episode of the Canadian edition of Dragons’ Den.

The software itself works relatively simply. Musi can stream music, sourced from YouTube, and allows users to create and share playlists. It essentially uses YouTube as a music library, without showing the video.

Apple Removes Musi

While the app’s millions of users seem satisfied with Musi, music industry groups are not happy at all. They argue that Musi is a ‘parasitic’ app that doesn’t compensate creators or rightsholders. The app was previously removed from Google Play and, as we reported a few weeks ago, IFPI and other music insiders were pressing Apple to remove it too.

Those efforts paid off yesterday when Musi was wiped from the App Store. Apple users who previously installed the software can continue to use it, but it’s no longer possible to install the app through the official store .

There’s no official explanation from Apple about the reason for the takedown. Our inquiries to Apple weren’t immediately returned, and the sender of the takedown request is unknown. However, information seen by TorrentFreak sheds more light the background leading up to it.

Music Industry Pressure

The takedown didn’t arrive out of the blue. Music industry group IFPI reported the Musi app to the App Store last summer. This triggered a legal back and forth, which also involved Musi’s lawyer, who argued that the app was merely providing access to publicly available music, stressing that the app doesn’t store any content on its servers.

It’s not clear whether Apple took any position in the dispute. We do know that the company, which typically has rigorous copyright standards, didn’t remove Musi from the app store at the time.

IFPI, however, was determined to have the app taken down. The group escalated the matter and called on other stakeholders to complain to Apple. More complaints might help to convince Apple.

YouTube

In recent months, Apple indeed received more complaints, including a recent takedown request from the National Music Publishers’ Association (NMPA). Documentation seen by TorrentFreak further suggests that YouTube also got involved.

YouTube’s arguments in favor of takedown are unknown but, according to some, Musi circumvents YouTube’s ‘rolling cipher’ measures, which violates the DMCA. In addition, the app goes against the company’s terms of service.

The involvement of YouTube would be significant. Thus far, the video platform hasn’t taken any public action against “rolling cipher” issues . It’s often music companies who use this argument, against stream ripping platforms, for example.

Over the past year, music industry groups and various companies, who are a major revenue source for YouTube, repeatedly urged the company to get involved. Judging by the comments we’ve seen, those efforts paid off.

It’s Not Over Yet

This is one of the most significant App Store takedowns ever. With over 100 million downloads, Musi is one of the most popular apps around.

At the time of writing, the official Musi website still links to the iOS download, which is no longer available. In replies on social media, Musi says that it’s working on a potential comeback.

“The app is currently unavailable while we address some comments relating to the App Store. We don’t have an estimated time as to when it’ll be back but rest assured this has our top attention!,” Musi notes.

This is not the first time that Musi has been removed from the App Store. There’s still a possibility that, with some changes, it will return. Similarly, sideloading remains an option, and the music app may choose to focus on that going forward.

Who was behind this week’s takedown is unknown, but music industry insiders aren’t completely satisfied yet. There are talks about a potential lawsuit, which would likely take place in Canada, but that matter still being discussed. The hesitation likely stems from the fact that a lawsuit could potentially be lost, which would make matters worse, much worse.

If Musi doesn’t return to the App Store, it will be a major disappointment to millions of users. At the same time, it will be a massive blow to the app’s creators, who have turned it into a multi-million dollar business in recent years.

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

Library Genesis, often shortened to LibGen , is one of the longest-running shadow libraries online. It provides free access to a vast collection of millions of books and academic papers that typically require payment.

In recent years, rightsholders have made several attempts to shut the site down. Court orders have led to LibGen being blocked in several countries, but completely eliminating the threat has been extremely difficult. This is partly because the identities of those running it remains unknown.

In 2017, Elsevier won a court case against LibGen and Sci-Hub in a New York federal court, which awarded the publisher $15 million in damages . However, both shadow libraries remained online and continue to operate to this day.

Publishers vs. LibGen

Hoping for a better outcome, textbook publishers Cengage, Bedford, Macmillan Learning, McGraw Hill, and Pearson Education filed a similar copyright infringement lawsuit against LibGen last year. According to the plaintiffs, LibGen is responsible for “staggering” levels of copyright infringement.

The lawsuit was stalled for months because LibGen’s anonymous operators didn’t respond. With no other viable options left, the publishers filed a motion for a default judgment in their favor.

The rightsholders said that LibGen distributes at least 20,000 of their copyrighted works without permission. The site is designed to be user-friendly while remaining resilient to enforcement measures.

For example, LibGen can easily switch domain names if needed and uses censorship-resistant decentralized hosting technologies such as the InterPlanetary File System (IPFS), the publishers said.

Court orders LibGen to pay $30 million

Yesterday, U.S. District Court Judge Colleen McMahon granted the default judgment without any changes. The anonymous LibGen defendants are responsible for willful copyright infringement and their activities should be stopped.

“Plaintiffs have been irreparably harmed as a result of Defendants’ unlawful conduct and will continue to be irreparably harmed should Defendants be allowed to continue operating the Libgen Sites”, the order reads.

The order requires the defendants to pay the maximum statutory damages of $150,000 per work, a total of $30 million, for which they are jointly and severally liable.

While this is a win on paper, it’s unlikely that the publishers will get paid by the LibGen operators, who remain anonymous.

Injunction targets domains, IPFS gateways, and more

To address this concern, the publishers’ motion didn’t merely ask for $30 million in damages, they also demanded a broad injunction.

Granted by the court yesterday, the injunction requires third-party services such as advertising networks, payment processors, hosting providers, CDN services, and IPFS gateways to restrict access to the site.

^{“…all those in active concert or participation with any of them, who receive actual notice of this Order, are permanently enjoined from…}

^{…Using, hosting, operating, maintaining, registering, or providing any computer server, website, domain name, domain name server, cloud storage service, e-commerce platform, online advertising service, social media platform, proxy service (including reverse and forwarding proxies), website optimization service (including website traffic management), caching service, content delivery network, IPFS or other file sharing network, or donation, payment processing, or other financial service to infringe or to enable, facilitate, permit, assist, solicit, encourage, induce, participate with, or act in concert with the infringement of Plaintiffs’ Copyrighted Works…”}

The injunction further targets “browser extensions” and “other tools” that are used to provide direct access to the LibGen Sites. While site blocking by residential Internet providers is mentioned in reference to other countries, ISP blocking is not part of the injunction itself.

Seizing (Future) Domain Names

In addition to the broad measures outlined above, the order further requires domain name registrars and registries to disable or suspend all active LibGen domains, or alternatively, transfer them to the publishers.

This includes Libgen.is, the most used domain name with 16 million monthly visits, as well as Libgen.rs, Libgen.li and many others.

At the moment, it’s unclear how actively managed the LibGen site is, as it has shown signs of decay in recent years . However, when faced with domain seizures, sites typically respond by registering new domains.

The publishers are aware of this risk. Therefore, they asked the court to cover future domain names too. The court signed off on this request, which means that newly registered domain names can be taken over as well; at least in theory.

^{Should Plaintiffs identify any additional Libgen Sites registered to or operated by any Defendant and used in conjunction with the infringement of Plaintiffs’ Copyrighted Works, the registries and/or the individual registrars of such domain names shall further have the authority pursuant to this Order to transfer such additional domain names to Plaintiffs’ ownership and control or otherwise implement technical measures to ensure the domain names cannot be used by Defendants or to operate Libgen as described immediately above.}

All in all, the default judgment isn’t just a monetary win, on paper, it’s also one of the broadest anti-piracy injunctions we’ve seen from a U.S. court.

The paperwork is still fresh, so it remains to be seen how third-party services will respond to it. Some foreign companies, in particular, may be more hesitant to comply with U.S. court orders, for example.

At the time of writing, all LibGen domains mentioned by the publishers remain online.

—

A copy of the default judgment including the injunctive relief, as signed by U.S. District Court Judge Colleen McMahon, is available here (pdf). .

A list of all domain names mentioned by the publishers in March , with the associated details, can be found below.

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

An unprecedented order handed down by a judge in Argentina mid-September was music to the ears of LaLiga President Javier Tebas.

Alongside orders for local ISPs to block 69 domains linked to pirate IPTV service Magis TV, Judge Esteban Rossignoli at Court 4 of San Isidro reportedly instructed Google to “adopt the necessary technical means” to immediately uninstall the MagisTV app from all Android devices operating with an Argentinian IP address.

From a purely technical perspective, removing a sideloaded, non-Google Play piracy app doesn’t sound impossible. The precedent it would set has the potential to undermine Google, Android, and the majority of its users.

LaLiga President Blames Google For Piracy Woes

Google hasn’t issued a statement concerning the order but, given the gravity of the situation, that may be a good sign. The same can’t be said about Javir Tebas; he’s been celebrating this landmark moment in anticipation of its replication in other countries around the world, even before its debut in Argentina.

Fresh comments this week suggest that LaLiga doesn’t just view Google as an irritant in its battle against live sports piracy. The league believes that Google has the power to reduce piracy of LaLiga content by around 80% so, in the absence of positive action, the company should be held responsible.

At the Europa Forum on Monday, Tebas spoke of potential catastrophe for televised sports of all kinds, and the entire sports industry beyond that, if piracy isn’t brought urgently under control.

“We have to be aware that [piracy] is the main challenge facing professional football and the sports industry in general,” Tebas said.

“If this dynamic of piracy does not change,” he continued, there will be “a very significant decrease in audiovisual income that will affect football and non-professional sport [in Spain]”.

Tebas claims that this could be Spain’s reality in as little as two or three years. So, to mitigate the threat, LaLiga will call on the authorities to intervene.

Criminal Complaints Against Google

There are a number of valid reasons to file criminal complaints against pirate IPTV services. Indeed, targeting the source of pirated content has always made sense for obvious reasons, not least since it actually takes content down.

It also delivers an added bonus. With the content removed at source, looking around for third parties to hold liable becomes unnecessary. LaLiga sees things a little differently, however.

“The big technology companies have to intervene. They have to stop collaborating with piracy because they make money. Google makes money, Amazon makes money, Apple makes money – and they make a lot of money,” Tebas said, before revealing what comes next.

Tebas says that LaLiga will file “criminal complaints against Google” in countries such as Spain, France, Brazil, and Ecuador. LaLiga’s president is a lawyer so, presumably, he already knows the charges LaLiga has in mind and is satisfied that the evidence meets the higher standard required for a criminal prosecution.

Reports Suggest That Google Actually Cooperates Quite a Lot

Stating this week that “enough is enough”, Tebas says that 40% of the Spanish population are pirates. How many pirate LaLiga content is unclear but, however many there are, showing that Google is criminally liable for their conduct could prove challenging.

Take for instance an announcement by LaLiga, revealing its anti-piracy successes at both Google and YouTube when tackling piracy in the season spanning 2020/2021. The league reported that it successfully disabled in excess of 1,065,000 videos on YouTube and removed more than 75,800 websites from Google’s search results.

While the numbers demonstrate the scale of the problem, they don’t lead to the impression that Google is uncooperative. In fact, marketing material for LaLiga Tech, the anti-piracy unit founded by LaLiga in 2021, boasts of its abilities to swiftly take pirated content down, including from platforms owned by Google.

Teamwork?

Today, LaLiga Tech is known as Sportian, a joint venture formed with Globant in 2022. Customer testimonials relating to successes before and after the rebranding are hosted on the company’s website. One cites the benefits of having access to Google’s Trusted Copyright Removal Programme and YouTube’s Content ID , and how the whole package led to customer Dorna Sports seeing 98 out of every 100 illicit videos being taken down “within minutes.” ( pdf )

The image on the right (above) is an extract from a presentation which tells the story of how LaLiga itself turned piracy around. It’s brimming with positivity and sits in stark contrast to the apocalyptic vision portrayed elsewhere, including the threats directed at Google this week.

Good Cop, Bad Cop?

Exactly what’s playing out here may be revealed in due course but if nothing else, there appears to be a hat for every occasion. The report mentioned earlier stating that 1,065,000 videos were removed from YouTube and 75,800 websites were disappeared from Google’s search results, had another interesting figure attached.

According to LaLiga, “820 mobile applications that were used to view pirated content” were also taken down, so why Google is currently public enemy #1 is up for debate. If the criminal complaints concern apps that appear on Google Play and are subsequently installed on users’ devices, LaLiga would certainly like to see those apps rendered inoperable. Not complying with that request doesn’t seem like a crime, however.

A less invasive approach may lie in LaLiga’s own anti-piracy toolkit which appears capable of identifying and then taking apps down quickly, before they even get a chance to gain traction among users.

Source: Sportian report

Whatever grievances LaLiga has with Google, its Sportian division seems very happy to utilize its takedown tools and use their effectiveness as a selling point.

But for Google, not even generously granting access to its exclusive adserver and elite digital marketing tools can make things right .

Source: Sportian.com

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

The Diary of Anne Frank is one of the best known literary works in history, written by a young girl hiding from the Nazis in Amsterdam during World War II.

Anne Frank died in 1945, but her legacy lives on though her words, which are a powerful testament to the resilience of the human spirit and a reminder of the horrors of the Holocaust.

Anne never saw her diary in printed form, as the first copies were published by her father Otto Frank in 1947. Since then, it’s been translated into more than 70 languages, selling more than 30 million copies around the world.

In 1963, Otto Frank established the “Anne Frank Fonds” in Switzerland and appointed it as his sole heir. This organization now owns the copyrights, over which it works hard to maintain control. According to the organization, the original print versions will remain protected for many decades .

The Anne Frank Copyright Battle

While early versions are presumably in the public domain in several countries, the original manuscripts are protected by copyright in the Netherlands until 2037. As a result, the copies published by the Dutch Anne Frank Stichting , are blocked for Dutch visitors.

“The scholarly edition of the Anne Frank manuscripts cannot be made available in all countries, due to copyright considerations,” is the message disallowed visitors get to see.

This blocking effort is the result of a copyright battle. Ideally, Anne Frank Stichting would like to make the manuscripts available worldwide, but the Swiss ‘Fonds’ has not given permission for it to do so. And since some parts of the manuscript were first published in 1986, Dutch copyrights are still valid.

In theory, geo-blocking efforts could alleviate the copyright concerns but, for the Fonds, these measures are not sufficient. After pointing out that people can bypass the blocking efforts with a VPN, it took the matter to court.

Does Geo-blocking Protect Copyrights?

Around the world, publishers and streaming services use geo-blocking as the standard measure to enforce geographical licenses. This applies to the Anne Frank Stichting, as well as Netflix, BBC iPlayer, news sites, and gaming platforms.

The Anne Frank Fonds doesn’t dispute this, but argued in court that people can circumvent these restrictions with a VPN, suggesting that the manuscripts shouldn’t be published online at all.

The lower court dismissed this argument, stating the defendants had taken reasonable measures to prevent access from the Netherlands. The Fonds appealed, but the appeal was also dismissed, and the case is now before the Dutch Supreme Court .

The Fonds argues that the manuscript website is (in part) directed at a Dutch audience. Therefore, the defendants are making the manuscripts available in the Netherlands, regardless of the use of any blocking measures.

The defendants, in turn, argue that the use of state-of-the-art geo-blocking, along with additional measures like a user declaration, is sufficient to prevent a communication to the public in the Netherlands.

The defense relied on the opinion in the GO4YU case , which suggests that circumventing geo-blocking with a VPN does not constitute a communication to the public in the blocked territory, unless the blocking is intentionally ineffective.

VPN and Geo-Blocking Questions for EU Court

Before the Dutch Supreme Court goes ahead with the case, it has referred three key questions to the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU). It seeks clarification on how to interpret blocking and VPN use, in the context of Article 3(1) of the Copyright Directive.

Firstly, the Dutch Supreme Court asks the EU Court whether there can only be a “communication to the public” if a website is directed at that country. And if so, what does this ‘direction’ entail precisely.

The second question is whether there’s a “communication to the public” in a country where state-of-the-art geo-blocking measures, and potentially other restrictive measures are in place, yet may face circumvention with a VPN.

Finally, if the EU Court concludes that blocking measures are not sufficient because they can be bypassed with a VPN, does this automatically mean that the publisher is violating copyright law?

Or, in the translated words of the court:

^{1. Must Article 3(1) of the Copyright Directive be interpreted in such a way that a publication of a work on the internet can only be regarded as a communication to the public in a certain country if the publication is directed to the public in that country? If so, which factors must be taken into account in this assessment?}

^{2. Can there be a communication to the public in a certain country if, by means of (state-of-the-art) geo-blocking, it has been ensured that the website on which the work is published can only be accessed by the public in that country by circumventing the blocking measure with the help of a VPN or similar service? Is it relevant to what extent the relevant public in the blocked country is willing and able to gain access to the website in question via such a service? Does it make a difference to the answer to this question whether, in addition to the geo-blocking measure, other measures have been taken to hinder or discourage access to the website for the public in the blocked country?}

^{3. If the possibility of circumventing the blocking measure means that the work published on the internet is communicated to the public in the blocked country within the meaning of Article 3(1) of the Copyright Directive, is that communication then made by the person who published the work on the internet, even though the intervention of the provider of the VPN or similar service in question is required for taking cognizance of that communication?}

Far Reaching Consequences

On paper, the Anne Frank copyright battle is already controversial. However, this case could also have far-reaching consequences for many other sites and services that publish geographically-restricted content.

If state-of-the-art geo-blocking is not sufficient to alleviate copyright concerns, rightsholders can in theory go after publishers and platforms that use this technology. That applies to many large streaming services, and would make geographical licenses impossible to enforce.

Of course, most rights holders are already well aware of the geo-blocking weaknesses. They willingly accept this weakness in favor of geographical restrictions, which are often used to optimize profits.

That said, the ruling will also be important for VPN companies, many of which sell region unblocking as a feature. If the EU’s highest court decides that this is a key factor in copyright enforcement, that type of advertising could become problematic.

As for this specific situation, there’s a lot at stake as well. The manuscripts are important for research purposes, and broader access would help facilitate that. While opinions on copyright matters differ, everyone should strive to do good. Or as Anne Frank wrote:

“How noble and good everyone could be if, at the end of each day, they were to review their own behavior and weigh up the rights and wrongs. They would automatically try to do better at the start of each new day and, after a while, would certainly accomplish a great deal.”

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

A pictorial timeline on the Motion Picture Association’s website begins with a 102-year-old photograph taken at the first meeting of the Motion Picture Producers and Distributors of America (MPPDA), the organization known today as the MPA.

“Since that time, the MPA has served as the leading advocate of the film, television, and streaming industry around the world, advancing the business and art of storytelling, protecting the creative and artistic freedoms of storytellers, and bringing entertainment and inspiration to audiences worldwide,” the introduction reads.

In 2024, the MPA can be found doing all of the above in most countries around the world. Yet if intellectual property laws had been more rigorously enforced well over a century ago, the story of Hollywood may have ended before it even began. Thomas Edison’s hoarding of over 1000 patents included many that were vital to movie making. As a result, filmmakers were given a blunt choice; they could do it his way and pay for the privilege, or they could choose no way at all.

With intellectual property law threatening to stifle creativity, some filmmakers took a third, unadvertised option. 1) Go to Los Angeles, where Edison and his patent bullying would be less effective. 2) Start building Hollywood anyway, and then 3) Around seven years after the first studios opened for business, photograph the historic moment for the history books and keep looking forward.

“The Growing Threat of Film Piracy”

Despite an alleged transgression here and there, respect for all intellectual property has been the unshakable start, beginning, and end of the MPA’s policy for decades. In 1975, the MPAA, as it was then known, established the Film Security Office to work with law enforcement in an effort to calm the “growing threat of film piracy.”

It’s a phrase still in common use today, but back then, the numbers were a little less extreme. At that time, it was claimed that movie piracy cost the industry more than $100 million a year, or close to a third of the cost of Apollo 11 (~$355m), the mission that placed a human being on the moon.

Adjusted for inflation alone, that’s around $584 million in today’s money. To put that into perspective, last December the MPA informed lawmakers that piracy of filmed entertainment now costs the U.S. economy $29.2 billion and over 230,000 jobs annually.

Figures like these, coupled with statistics similar to those in the image above, represent tens of thousands of hours of research carried out by a wide range of organizations. The majority are either linked to the MPA directly via memberships or funding, or indirectly linked to the MPA through its members’ memberships of other organizations. Other entities do business with members of the MPA or the affiliated ACE anti-piracy coalition.

That’s not intended to cast doubt on the veracity of any study or report; it’s simply the most obvious example of the MPA’s unprecedented power, reach, and influence in the filmed entertainment sector – not to mention many governments – on a truly global scale.

MPA Dials in Even More Reach, Power, and Influence

When it comes to shaping global policy in a way that benefits the MPA, there’s no such thing as too much power. Being able to call on the combined might of members Paramount Pictures, Sony Pictures, Universal Studios, The Walt Disney Studios, and Warner Bros. Discovery is part of daily business for the MPA.

Since 2019, the MPA members list has also included Netflix which, along with its movie and TV show creating counterparts, also provides leadership as a founding / governing member of the ACE anti-piracy coalition.

Until now, the only founding member / governing board member of ACE that hasn’t counted itself among the members of the MPA, is the entity previously known as Amazon Studios LLC. An announcement by the MPA confirms that after many years trying to get Amazon on board, on October 1, 2024, Prime Video & Amazon MGM Studios will join the MPA as its most recent member.

And Then There Were Seven

“The MPA is the global voice for a growing and evolving industry, and welcoming Prime Video & Amazon MGM Studios to our ranks will broaden our collective policymaking and content protection efforts on behalf of our most innovative and creative companies,” says Charles Rivkin, Chairman and CEO of the MPA.

“MPA studios fuel local economies, drive job creation, enrich cultures, and bolster communities everywhere they work. With Prime Video & Amazon MGM Studios among our roster of extraordinary members, the MPA will have an even larger voice for the world’s greatest storytellers.”

Mike Hopkins, Head of Prime Video & Amazon MGM Studios, says the company is proud to join the world’s most powerful entertainment industry group.

“Amazon’s mission is to entertain customers around the world with compelling film and television. In order to do that, we must support storytellers, while also helping to sustain a robust entertainment industry that works for both studios and our creative partners,” Hopkins says. “We are proud to join the MPA and its member studios in their collective efforts to protect creators, content, and consumers worldwide.”

In common with the other members of the MPA, Prime Video & Amazon MGM Studios will likely pay millions towards the MPA’s annual running costs. However, if all goes to plan on everything from piracy reduction to taxation, membership might not end up costing Amazon very much at all. Now there’s a light bulb moment.

From October 1, 2024, the MPA members list will read as follows: Netflix, Paramount Pictures, Prime Video & Amazon MGM Studios, Sony Pictures, Universal Studios, The Walt Disney Studios, and Warner Bros. Discovery.

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

With approximately a billion active monthly users worldwide, Telegram is one of the most used messaging services.

The communication platform helps to connect people from all over the globe, with optional end-to-end encryption providing improved security compared to some other players in the market.

Telegram can also be an excellent medium to broadcast messages to a wider audience. Through dedicated one-way channels, people can share news, status updates, and emergency alerts, for example.

Illegal Activities

However, like any technology, Telegram has its dark side. It’s been used to facilitate illegal activities, including drug trafficking, fraud, and the spread of child abuse images. While much of this occurs beyond the company’s purview, Telegram has faced criticism for not doing enough to combat these activities.

Last month, the company’s CEO, Pavel Durov, was arrested at a French airport as part of a criminal investigation. According to several reports, Telegram is accused of facilitating drug trafficking, fraud, and the spread of child abuse images.

Although copyright infringement wasn’t cited as a reason for the arrest, Telegram has attracted criticism from rightsholders in the past. The service has been flagged a “notorious” piracy market on numerous occasions and was previously listed on the EU’s “piracy watch list”.

These complaints go beyond mere warnings. Earlier this year, a Spanish court ordered Internet providers to block the service in its entirety due to copyright issues. While this blockade was averted at the eleventh hour following fierce backlash, the pressure is on.

Z-Library, Telegram, and the DMCA

Telegram isn’t oblivious to the critique. The company accepts DMCA takedown notices and regularly removes copyrighted content, when asked. This means that if rights holders spot infringing content being posted publicly, they can take action.

It’s unknown how responsive Telegram is to these takedown notices, but the recent disappearance of several posts in the official “Z-Library Official” channel, suggests that Telegram isn’t sitting still.

With more than half a million subscribers, Z-Library has one of the more popular channels on Telegram. The shadow library is also the target in a U.S. criminal investigation and has had hundreds of domain names seized over the past two years.

Z-Library uses Telegram to send updates to users, including the availability of new domain names. That’s a source of frustration for book publishers and U.S. law enforcement, who are trying to make the site inaccessible. While Z-Library hasn’t folded yet, Telegram is taking action.

Telegram Removes Z-Library Posts

The “Z-Library Official” channel currently has 566,893 subscribers and remains online today. Several posts have vanished, however, including this message that was published in response to recent domain seizures .

Although this update didn’t include infringing content, it links to the Z-Library site, which appears to be off limits for Telegram. Over a dozen other posts have met the same fate. These have all been replaced with the following note.

“This message couldn’t be displayed on your device due to copyright infringement” , the updates now read.

The updates don’t mention who requested the removal, but rightsholders or U.S. law enforcement are prime candidates. In either case, Z-Library received the message loud and clear, and it no longer includes direct links to its site in new updates.

“Since recently, the Telegram administration has been blocking posts that contain links to our library. So, we’d like to remind you about the places where you can find the actual links,” the team writes, pointing readers to Wikipedia and Reddit.

The Link Conundrum

Z-Library’s message points users to Wikipedia and Reddit, where links are still accepted, at least for now. On Telegram, there are still plenty of Z-Library links in the comments as well, and even on Z-Library’s official profile page.

At the same time, fraudulent Z-Library copycats are profiting from the link Whack-A-Mole by posting unofficial links. These have also appeared on the official Wikipedia page in the past, and on top of search engine results.

While accessing Z-Library isn’t getting any easier, the site itself doesn’t show any signs of slowing down. Z-Library just started a new “donation drive” to continue to fund their operation. According to the numbers that are available, thousands of dollars have been donated already in just a few days.

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