There are plenty of options for copyright holders to frustrate pirate site operations, but attacking their domain names is particularly effective.

In recent years, various entertainment industry groups have called on the domain name industry to help out on this front.

The MPA previously signed landmark agreements with registries , enabling the movie industry group to act as a “trusted notifier” of “pirate” domains. Other players in the domain name market have been more reserved.

EU and NL Registries Tackle Pirate Domains

The Public Interest Registry (PIR), for example, which oversees the .org gTLD, previously denied requests to take action against The Pirate Bay. According to PIR, caution is advised to ensure a “free, open, safe and secure internet”.

In recent years, rightsholder pressure hasn’t abated. Domain name registries that fail to take action are now listed as “ notorious piracy markets ” themselves, as recent reports against the .cc, .io, and .tv domain extensions have shown.

Politics also play a part. For example, U.S. lawmakers previously asked domain name registry VeriSign, known for managing the .com domain, to help tackle online piracy .

EU and NL Registries Tackle Pirate Domains

Despite these developments, there’s little public discussion about new agreements between domain registries and rightsholders. Given the sensitivities involved, not all collaboration needs a spotlight.

This week, Dutch anti-piracy group BREIN reported that it had booked new success with its previously unknown ‘ registry strategy ‘.

Following a notice from BREIN, the SIDN (.nl) and EURid (.eu) registries took several pirate site domains offline. SIDN’s actions targeted IPTV-related domains, such as streamdeal.nl, iptvproviders.nl, omniptv.nl and iptvstreamplus.nl.

EURid reportedly removed seven domain names after BREIN reached out. These domains, which were used to provide access to pirated films, music, books and games, were registered though domain proxy services that shield the identity of the owners.

The .eu domain names are not publicized as those sites use alternative gTLDs that remain active. Mentioning these domains in public could therefore serve as an unwanted advertisement.

Reporting Illegal Content?

BREIN says that these registries take responsibility by helping to shut down illegal activity. On what grounds these companies take action isn’t immediately clear.

“Pirates like to use trustworthy top-level domains such as .nl and .eu for their illegal websites. The organizations responsible for this, SIDN and EURid, know this and take their responsibility by helping to combat illegality,” BREIN writes.

The anti-piracy group goes on to mention that pirate IPTV services infringe copyrights. That violates the terms and conditions of the domain registries, so they can be terminated on these grounds. But were they?

TorrentFreak reached out to both SIDN and EURid, requesting more information and both registries say that the domain name terminations referenced by BREIN were not copyright related.

Inaccurate WHOIS Information

SIDN spokesperson Marnie van Duijnhoven explains that the domain name registrations were canceled, because the owners didn’t provide or confirm the correct WHOIS registration data.

“This is a standard procedure at SIDN that we apply if there is reason to doubt the correctness of the registrant’s data. The reason may be a report from a third party such as Stichting Brein, but also, for example, the Police,” Van Duijnhoven says.

While these verification procedures were initiated in response to BREIN’s notifications, the decision to cancel the domain names was not directly related to the content on the sites. Instead, the cancellations were made under Articles 16 and 18 of SIDN’s terms and conditions, which cover inaccurate WHOIS information

EURid spokesperson Reelika Kirna confirmed that inaccurate registrant data also triggered their response. This is a terms of service violation, but not one related to copyright.

“Following the request from BREIN regarding seven .eu domain names, we carried out our standard procedure for registration data validation and subsequently suspended these domain names due to a breach of Articles 3(b) and 4(d) and (e) of our Terms and Conditions,” Kirna informed us.

Roads to Rome

BREIN’s director Bastiaan van Ramshorst informs us that SIDN and EURid are indeed correct. In these instances, copyright wasn’t the reason to report the domains, at least on paper.

The anti-piracy group previously reported domains to SIDN on the basis of copyright infringement. These complaints are handled under the separate notice and takedown procedure. That wasn’t the case here, but the aim is the same.

“BREIN’s goal is the same: to take the domain offline because copyright and related rights are being violated on a large scale. The grounds on which SIDN takes action does not matter to us.”

“Both roads lead to Rome. Obviously illegal websites almost always have incorrect WHOIS data because infringers want to remain anonymous. BREIN can and does use both grounds,” Van Ramshorst adds.

Whether any of these roads is easier than the other is unknown, but SIDN’s latest transparency report shows that notice and takedown (NTD) reports are rare. The registry received 39 NTD requests in the first three quarters of the year.

During the same period, SIDN launched over 5,000 procedures under article 16 and 18 of its terms and conditions, which includes claims concerning inaccurate WHOIS information.

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

For those who enjoy reading professional reports filled with statistics and detailed analysis, the piracy landscape has an endless supply.

Many reports are highly informative and, regardless of underlying political aims, few get things completely wrong.

Yet, even the most detailed studies and elaborate industry reports can at times leave the reader feeling puzzled. On the one hand, multi-billion dollar companies have more piracy data and intelligence than anyone else, period. On the other, nobody needs a meteorologist’s report to determine whether it’s raining outside.

In no other area is this more evident than in the promotion of reportedly effective site-blocking measures; and in no other country has site-blocking been adopted so comprehensively than in Italy. Bur even with very few guardrails and direct access to every tool available, the last year has seen tens of thousands of IP addresses and domains blocked by rightsholders, despite an obvious decline in the availability of pirated content.

Targeting The Source

By definition, site-blocking doesn’t remove pirated content from the internet. That’s why removing suppliers from the ecosystem is seen as a much better response than putting up endless, easily circumvented roadblocks. Late November, an investigation led by the Italians came to fruition with an enforcement operation billed as the largest to ever target a pirate IPTV network.

Operation Takendown reportedly took place on November 26/27 and according to authorities in Italy and several other countries in Europe, it “dismantled” an international pirate IPTV network serving 22 million users and generating an estimated €3 billion per year. At least 11 suspects were detained and around 100 others were said to be under investigation. Meanwhile, there were reports of subscribers all over Europe losing access to channels and in some cases their entire service.

At the time, this certainly sounded like a very big deal. Law enforcement seized 29 servers, 270 pieces of IPTV equipment, searched 112 private homes, identified close to 600 IPTV subscription resellers, and seized EUR 1.6 million in cryptocurrency plus EUR 40,000 in cash. Since the pirate IPTV provider in question was seen as a significant threat to the Italian live sports and broadcasting sectors, its reported demise was enthusiastically celebrated in the media.

Eliminating such a massive supplier should in theory restrict availability of illegal streams in Italy, even if only temporarily. After all, that was the entire point of the operation. By extension then, demand for ISP blocking in Italy should be reduced too, even if only for a short time.

Three Weeks Before, Three Weeks After

While keeping an open mind, we expected a sizeable albeit temporary dip in blocking tickets filed at Piracy Shield, followed by a relatively short recovery as the pirate IPTV market repaired itself and everything returned to normal.

Using Piracy Shield blocking data unofficially made available at piracyshield.iperv.it , we took the raid dates of November 26/27 as the central point. From there we examined every blocking ticket filed by rightsholders in the three weeks preceding Operation Takendown, and for comparison every ticket filed in the three weeks after.

During that six-week period, rightsholders filed around 186 Piracy Shield tickets similar to the one above, containing instructions for local ISPs to block a total of 527 IP addresses and 3,322 fully qualified domain names.

The chart below shows domain name blocking in blue, IP address blocking in red, and the approximate dates of the operation in green in the center.

The data reveals that in the three-week period leading up to the enforcement action, rightsholders’ tickets required ISPs to block 204 IP addresses after they were observed providing access to pirate IPTV.

In the three weeks following the claimed “dismantling” of the 22 million-user service, rightsholders’ tickets required ISPs to block 323 IP addresses, up 50%+ on the preceding three weeks.

In respect of domain name blocking, the 1,322 FQDNs requested in the three weeks before the takedown, were easily eclipsed by 2,000 domains listed for blocking in the three-week period afterward.

Apparently, there were still plenty of piracy threats. And indeed, reports from a number of sources indicate that subscribers who lost service around November 26/27 had their channels restored within 48/72 hours.

Meanwhile, tickets like the one below are being filed almost daily and on some days, several at a time. It’s a perpetual workload that somehow seems to increase when massive providers get shut down or ‘dismantled’.

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

In the fall of 2002, Suprnova.org launched as one of the first sites dedicated to sharing ‘torrents’.

At the time, Napster has just shut down, leaving a void in the file-sharing landscape. A Slovenian teenager named Andrej Preston has just discovered the new BitTorrent protocol at the time and decided to embrace it.

Andrej, commonly known under the nickname ‘Sloncek’, started Suprnova out of personal interest, as he couldn’t watch some TV-shows in his home country. Like many of these early hobby projects, it started as a very primitive setup, hosted on a Linux box at Peston’s home.

In the weeks that followed, word of the “Universal BitTorrent Source” spread like wildfire, maxing out the meager 16kb/s upload capacity of the residential internet connection. Faced with this explosive growth, Suprnova was moved to an external hosting company, with many mirror sites later helping to distribute the traffic.

December 19, 2004: Suprnova.org Shuts Down

In record time, Suprnova became one of the most visited websites on the Internet. It became the go-to site for pirates who had discovered the unlimited sharing capacity of BitTorrent and the community that came with it. It also served as inspiration for other torrent sites that launched later, The Pirate Bay included.

Just as quickly as it rose to stardom, exactly twenty years ago today on December 19, 2004, Suprnova went dark . Initially, not much was known about the circumstances, but Andrej later said that he pulled the plug after he started reading about himself in the newspapers. Something didn’t feel right .

In hindsight, this was likely a pivotal decision. A month after the shutdown, police raided Andrej’s home, taking equipment and media as part of a criminal investigation. The case was closed in October 2005, but it’s not hard to see how things may have ended differently if the site had been active.

Not all decisions made at the time were great. Following the demise of Suprnova, Andrej became the spokesperson for the ambitious file-sharing software startup eXeem , which failed miserably. The same can be said for the relaunch of Suprnova in 2009 by The Pirate Bay, which Andrej wasn’t actively involved in. That never really took off.

Academy of Art University

Instead of focusing on new file-sharing ventures, Andrej explored his creative side. He dreamed of being in the film and TV business and wanted to study in the United States, close to LA. Eventually, he was admitted to Academy of Art University in San Francisco.

Ironically, the funds he earned from Suprnova helped him pursue this dream, but the money eventually dried up and Andrej worked as a Resident Assistant to get free room and board. Together with funds scraped together by his parents, he made it though school.

During this time, Andrej also gained experience at an online video production company, working for free. He was also the driving power and creative mind behind TorrentFreak TV , which offered more room to improve his skills between 2008 and 2010. While that project stopped after two seasons, the passion for online video certainly wasn’t over.

A YouTube Star…

Today, Andrej is the owner of “ The Infographics Show ” a YouTube channel with more than 14 million subscribers. The first videos were posted on Suprnova’s video portal back in 2011. There are still traces of Suprnova.org on YouTube today, as the channel’s oldest videos display its logo in their intro .

With more than a decade of YouTube experience, six billion video views, and a team that consists of nearly 200 people, Suprnova’s founder has come a long way. But what was this journey like? About time to hear his thoughts again, twenty years after he pulled the plug.

We typically don’t post interviews in full, but we gladly make an exception here for what is a truly authentic story, with remarkable depth and detail tracing back to the early days of torrents. In addition, it offers a unique perspective on copyright, online entertainment, and life in general.

——

TF: Looking back 20 years, what’s your overriding feeling about Suprnova.org? Pride, regret, something else?

Andrej: Honestly I feel like I’ve lived quite a few lives. Do I look at it with a particular feeling? It’s kind of hard to put into words. I’d say for most of my adult life, I saw it as just something that happened. It’s the only life I know.

As I’m quickly approaching 40, I view the past with quite different eyes. I am proud of myself and the size of the project I ran starting at the age of 15. Is my view of copyrights and business in general as naive as it was back then? Absolutely no, and I wouldn’t risk doing something like that today.

But overall, in short, yeah, I am proud. I am proud of the project and who it made me today. I also feel so lucky for the life long friends I made because of it.

TF: The profits generated though Suprnova allowed you to study in the United States. Why did you choose the Academy of Arts in San Francisco? How did that go?

Andrej: I used all the money I made to put myself through school. I loved film & tv and I felt that, the only way to do it at the scale I dreamt of, required me move to the states. But I was never a great student.

My grades through school were pretty much between a C and a D. I attended a Waldorf school through all my school years but even that felt like it wasn’t right for me in terms of education. So, I had to choose a school that offered a TV Producing major that had open enrollment and I really wanted to be close to LA.

I worked through the whole school process. I was a Resident Assistant for 3 out of 4 years to get room and board for free and I worked for almost two years for free as an intern at an online video production company to gain additional skills and experience.

I also ran out of money to continue paying for my school and had to have my parents take out a loan against their property they lived in and I grew up in. Having to study and my homework be something I was so passionate about made it really easy to get good grades. It was the first time in my life that I felt school came easy.

TF: After handing over the Suprnova.org domain to The Pirate Bay briefly, you later regained control. In 2011 you relaunched is as a video portal, briefly showing TorrentFreak TV episodes and a new project called the “Infographics Show”. Where did the idea for the Infographics Show come from?

Andrej: I realized that I really loved everything internet and as much as I felt hurt by being torn to pieces online by people for launching eXeem – which was also a financial debacle – I needed to embrace what I really loved.

I was fortunate enough to be given an opportunity by you to record some TorrentFreak episodes, which actually helped me learn a lot more about the online video streaming landscape.

I was also a huge fan of statistics, data and visual representations of them. I had an idea that if I just took a static infographic and made it animated people would for sure want to watch it, as that’s something I’d want to watch. The show has evolved a lot since then and is an ‘infographic’ only in its name.

TF: It’s been over a decade since you launched The Infographics Show on YouTube, which now has millions of subscribers. How do you look back on the past years? Any milestones you can share?

Andrej: The weird part about milestones is that the bigger they are, the less they mean. The Infographics Show now sits at around 14.7 million subscribers with over 6 billion views and over 5 thousand videos made.

I believe I made about 25 videos between 2011 and 2016 and had a few thousand subscribers. It was the video ‘ North Korea vs United States – Who Would Win The War ‘ that started getting some views after a year of publishing, that made me look at my YouTube channel again.

There was also a comment by the best friend of my spouse who at the time expressed doubt about my earning potential by making a comment “but does the lightning really strike twice”, suggesting that I had luck with SuprNova and that was it. I felt like I had something to prove to myself at that point and decided to make a few more videos.

My biggest memorable milestone was when I made another video with a similar theme and it received 10,000 views in a day. That was the time I felt I can do this and I am on to something.

Of course the million subscribers milestone and then the 10 million were special (I made sure I invited the person who made the comment about having luck to my 10 million subscribers celebration, but they have no idea how their comment ever affected me or that I even knew about it).

The milestones are different now, there isn’t just The Infographics Show (even though that’s what people mostly know about). There are many other channels, including SCP Explained . It’s also not just me. The team is large, close to 200 people. I am lucky I get to work with my best friends and I am lucky to once again have my brother working with me.

And while a lot of people look at The Infographics Show and see that it’s generating smaller numbers than even a few years ago, the amount of watch time has never been higher.

Between all the channels, we’ve generated over 300 million watch time hours and, when putting that in perspective, that’s a lot more than a lot of my favorite TV shows that inspired me ever did. Yet of course it still feels like it’s not enough.

TF: Did any specific aspects of your experience with Suprnova influence your approach to creating and sharing content on The Infographics Show?

Andrej: I think SuprNova taught me at a very young age how to project manage and delegate. At the time I had no idea what I was learning but it made me the producer I am today. I also believed from the start that the way I’d like to make money is by making content available to everyone and I’ll make the money against the ads shown to them.

I believe there are so many ways to make money from popular content. Even views that aren’t directly monetized today can still contribute to revenue I make in the future. Whether that’s via the person watching more of my content but seeing ads, telling their friends about it, or maybe just showing the algorithm that it’s worth watching and spreading the reach.

TF: 20 years ago you were worrying about cease and desist letters from copyright holders. Today, you’re an established ‘creator’ yourself. Has this changed your outlook in any way?

Andrej: Ha, this is a funny one. I honestly have no real recollection of receiving cease and desist letters, maybe my brain just erased those memories. But I do often ask myself if I’m a hypocrite as I send a takedown notice.

I have to explain this part a little. I generally ‘copyright claim’ reuploads of my content on YouTube. This means other people will upload it and I will earn the money based on the ads shown on those videos.

I will sometimes copyright strike videos, where you can see somebody is just downloading my videos and reuploading them, without even editing them or giving them any new value. It’s rare but I do.

This is where you might call me a hypocrite but let me explain myself. I believe that all media (entertainment and the rest) has a significant impact on who we are and how it shapes us. I believe that there should be a way for everyone to have access to it, via different sources.

I think people who want a better experience should pay for those experiences, but I think those who would otherwise be deprived of ever having the opportunity to see it in any way, should have a chance to see it.

I feel that if I hadn’t had a chance to use certain applications as a kid, due to being in a country where access was limited, and coming from a family that was not well off, I would have not had a chance to compete on a global market at the same level as someone who had the privilege from a young age to have access to all of it. The same goes for media and entertainment. Those experiences show a person what is possible.

Since my videos are already completely free on YouTube, I don’t think there is a reason for somebody to be uploading to the exact same platform where I already provide everything, and try to collect money from it. If people were putting my videos somewhere where I could not put them myself, and that was the only way for people to see them, I would have absolutely no problem with that.

TF: Suprnova existed in a different era. How do you view the current state of online entertainment and piracy, and what are your thoughts on how the industry can adapt?

Andrej: SuprNova existed because it needed to exist. This was a time that old school business models met new emerging technologies. The world needed to change and adapt to how people consume all sorts of media. If SuprNova didn’t exist, you would be talking with a different person right now but the questions would have been the same.

The current state of online entertainment is something I am trying to predict as it will affect me massively.

I think the golden age of streaming is already over. Every legacy media empire was forced to come up with an online streaming platform. They all competed for subscribers so we saw the lowest prices we will ever see. We were also able to pick what kind of content we preferred and paid only for those platforms. I believe this is now over and we are moving into a rapid consolidation of media into what we will soon see as old school TV packages.

Streaming platforms will be more expensive and if you want to have access to all the content available, it will cost you A LOT. TV ad dollars are moving online. Sadly I believe we will eventually get to the point where even the most premium and most expensive option will be ad supported and there will not be a way to pay for services without ads.

While I don’t follow much of what is happening in the piracy world nowadays, I think once we get there, you will see a lot more people resorting to piracy, once again.

One thing we shouldn’t leave unmentioned is the advancement of AI and video generation. My prediction is that platforms like YouTube and others will be flooded within the next few years with auto generated content.

While it’s scary to think how it will affect my bottom line, I just have to accept that I was a part of technological revolution at some point and I can’t fight it. I have to see how I can adapt and embrace it and understand that nothing stays the same for long.

—

TF: We want to thank Andrej for his openness and insight he provided over the years. Looking back at more than two decades of following the piracy scene, this is one of the stories that stands out most. We’ll check in again in another decade.

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

According to an infamous anti-piracy PSA that just recently celebrated its 20th birthday, downloading a copy of a movie is the same as stealing a physical disc from a regular store, stealing a handbag, or even stealing a car.

These claims remain factually incorrect but at the time the PSA was released, rightsholders needed to drive a simple message home. While the act of stealing is instantly recognized by billions all over the world, two decades ago downloading a movie was still relatively new, mostly invisible, and didn’t even require physical media to exist.

Conflating a crime people understood with the act of downloading a movie may have helped some understand a new concept, but that still didn’t make the stealing claims true. In this context the unforgettable campaign slogan ‘Piracy is a Crime’ wasn’t the universal fit it claimed to be either. Nevertheless, twenty years later similar tactics are still in use, despite piracy itself being much more broadly understood.

Piracy Isn’t Always a Crime, Even When Dressed Up as Something Else

As telecoms regulator AGCOM warns that people who simply use pirate IPTV subscriptions risk having their details forwarded for prosecution, a case with alleged offenses dating back to January 2017 has been progressing in the background.

In summary, a man from Gallarate in northern Italy operated a website where pirate IPTV subscriptions were sold. After making payment via Postepay accounts that don’t provide anonymity, customers gained illegal access to streaming content owned by companies including Mediaset, Sky, DAZN, and Disney, but paid them nothing for the privilege.

In 2017, Europe’s highest court confirmed that simply streaming pirate content is illegal under copyright law, but prosecutors in Italy had a different idea. All 23 pirate IPTV subscription buyers were prosecuted for the crime of receiving stolen goods. It didn’t go well.

Two Different Case Tracks, Same Outome

Thirteen of the defendants opted to be heard under an abbreviated procedure which was heard recently, with the remaining nine defendants appearing before Judge Bianca Maria Todaro at the Court of Lecce in April this year.

The prosecutor argued that the defendants effectively profited from the cheap subscriptions and knew they were illegal. The company now known as Mediaset Premium spiced up the criminal procedure with an €80,000 civil claim for compensation.

Lawyers for the defendants argued that a decision dating back to 2005 clearly shows that, since violations were exclusively of an administrative nature, all of their clients should be acquitted of the alleged crime.

In her decision, Judge Todaro noted that the defendants had indeed purchased the pirate IPTV subscriptions, but had done so for strictly personal use. With no aggravating factors suggesting anything other than private consumption, the Judge said no crime had been committed. And since an administrative sanction was applicable, criminal convictions for receiving stolen goods were ruled out.

The administrative sanction for each defendant was €154, with a 33% discount available for those who settled their account within 60 days.

Thirteen IPTV Pirates Acquitted

The remaining 13 defendants appeared before Judge Roberta Maggio last week, charged with exactly the same crime of receiving stolen goods.

Judge Maggio acknowledged the purchase of the illicit subscriptions but said there was no evidence to show that any of the defendants sold, distributed, or held subscriptions for resale purposes.

Indeed, the decision states that the defendants’ possession of the subscriptions was for “purely personal purposes.” Since that is an administrative matter to be settled with a payment of €154 (minus 33% discount for prompt settlement), no crime of receiving stolen goods ever took place.

Under Italian legislation passed in 2023, those who simply use or view copyrighted content without permission face an administrative fine of between €154 and €5,000. The decisions handed down by both judges indicate that a first time offense of possessing an illegal IPTV subscription for personal use is €154, an amount only likely to increase for subsequent offenses.

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

In 2018, Canada’s Federal Court approved the country’s first pirate site-blocking order .

Following a complaint from major media companies Rogers, Bell and TVA, the Court ordered several major ISPs to block access to the domains and IP-addresses of pirate IPTV service GoldTV.

Site Blocking Appeals

There was little opposition from Internet providers, except for TekSavvy, which quickly announced an appeal . According to the ISP, the blocking injunction threatened the open Internet, just to advance the interests of a few powerful media conglomerates.

Canada’s Federal Court of Appeal disagreed and in 2021 it concluded that the blocking order can stay in place. According to the Court, site-blocking injunctions are an available option under the Copyright Act and they don’t violate freedom of speech or net neutrality.

Hoping to turn the tide, TekSavvy petitioned the Supreme Court to review the impact of site blocking on the open internet. However, Canada’s highest court declined to hear the case, effectively establishing Canada’s judicial site blocking route.

Blockade Evolves and Expands

The initial GoldTV blocking order was valid for two years. After that, rightsholders had to go back to court to request an extension. That happened indeed, and as time went on the blocking targets have evolved quite a bit.

After two years, none of the original domains were included in the blocking order. This is no surprise, as the original target domains were discontinued and replaced by new ones.

In 2022, the Federal Court approved the latest update, which included the domains destv.me, 905iptv.com, firtio.club, jiocdn.cc, new4k.co and zkat.me, as well as dozens of related subdomains. Most of these domains are still online today, linking to IPTV stalker portals.

Rightsholders Let Blocking Order Expire

While the blocking measures were still effective earlier this month, rightsholders Bell, Rogers, and TVA have decided not to request any further extensions. This effectively means that the blocking measures expired last weekend.

In a letter to the court, the plaintiffs state that they do not intend to further extend the duration of blocking the order. In addition, they have decided to discontinue the underlying lawsuit against the ‘unknown’ GoldTV defendants.

The media companies provide no further details on the decision, but it’s possible that the costs of keeping the blocking order intact weigh stronger than the perceived benefit. Unlike in some other countries, the rightsholders must compensate ISPs for the costs incurred.

While the GoldTV blocking measures are now discontinued, most of the targeted domains still appear to be up and running. These specific IPTV portals are not particularly popular today, but they were certainly not eradicated.

New Blocking Targets Take Priority

Rightsholders haven’t been sitting still, of course. The GoldTV case was the first test case; broader and more dynamic blocking efforts have followed since. These affect live streams of popular sporting events.

This summer, rightsholders including Bell, Fubo TV, Rogers, and The Sports Network obtained a blocking order that covers multiple sports . The organizations sought to secure a blocking order for new NBA, NHL and Premier League games, identifying three “John Doe” defendants.

Meanwhile, there is an ongoing proceeding in Canada against popular streaming site Soap2Day. The site officially shut down last year after a complaint was filed, but rightsholders could still try to obtain a blocking order to target its ‘copycats’.

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

Founded in 2018, TorrentGalaxy has grown to become a leading player in the torrent ecosystem.

The site was launched by former members of ExtraTorrent, a popular torrent site that had just shut down at the time. The founders aimed to provide a home for ExtraTorrent ‘refugees’ but, over time, it transformed into much more than that.

TorrentGalaxy Downtime

In recent months, TorrentGalaxy has faced considerable downtime. The original team sold the site to new operators, which offered an explanation for the earlier ‘ maintenance ‘ issues. However, the site continues to face trouble.

Technical problems have plagued TorrentGalaxy.to for nearly a week and yesterday the site became completely unreachable. The status update domain progalaxy.me has been offline even longer. There is no maintenance message on either of these sites.

Update December 13: Torrentgalaxy appears to be back in action. The uploads at other sites have yet to resume.

TorrentGalaxy’s owners have not informed the staffers about the reason for the downtime, nor is it clear how serious the issues are. Right now, visitors to the site will simply see a browser timeout notice, which suggests that part of its server infrastructure is disconnected.

Broken Upload Bots

At this point, downtime at a pirate site is hardly newsworthy. Due to ongoing anti-piracy efforts, websites are pulled offline every week. That said, TorrentGalaxy’s issues have a much broader impact than those at other sites.

Since the site also provides a steady flow of [TGx] releases to other torrent sites, the downtime will be noticeable there as well. This includes the popular ‘TGxGoodies’ uploader at 1337x and The Pirate Bay, whose releases stopped five days ago.

This isn’t just any other uploader either. TGxGoodies submitted close to 5,000 torrents to these sites in November, including many of the most popular releases.

As always, these types of developments are fuel for rumors, which we won’t entertain here. To the delight of rightsholders, it is clear that the public torrent ecosystem is becoming more fragile by the day, which is a trend that shows no signs of abating.

Update December 13: Torrentgalaxy appears to be back in action. The uploads at other sites have yet to resume.

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

TorrentGalaxy has had its fair share of issues over the past few months.

Update December 9 : The troubles continue for TorrentGalaxy. After a few days with technical issues, the site is currently unreachable. Perhaps more updates or maintenance? No further information is known but the site’s owners have not informed the staff.

In June, many users feared that the site had thrown in the towel, displaying only a cryptic message that read “4ever?” to visitors. This came as a surprise, even to the site’s top staffers, who had no clue what was going on.

The site eventually returned as if nothing ever happened and resumed its operations. The purpose of the downtime was never clarified and most people forgot about it until the site went offline again in September with another cryptic message.

With the rumor mill in full swing, claims from ‘moderators’ about the site’s demise started to circulate. However, those turned out to be unfounded as the site made yet another comeback after a few days .

Meanwhile, users began noticing occasional technical issues with the site, including periods of downtime such as today. Visitors to the site currently see the following message: (site’s back on October 18)

“Site is temporarily unavailable due to automated maintenance or some mook spilling coffee in the wrong places.”

These recurring issues are unusual for TorrentGalaxy which never suffered from long stints of downtime in previous years. So, why is this happening now?

‘New Owners’

After speaking to several sources, we can now offer some broader context. Apparently, the site has changed owners recently. The initial ‘maintenance’ was presumably part of this handover and could also play a role in other recent issues.

TorrentFreak spoke to one of the TorrentGalaxy’s original founders, who confirmed the change of ownership. We tried to get in touch with the new operators to hear their side of the story, but they haven’t replied.

Takeovers of pirate sites are not uncommon, but given TorrentGalaxy’s community-driven history, this is a noteworthy event.

Finding out more details about the takeover appears impossible, however. The co-founder we spoke to claims not to have been involved in selling the site and the person who was in charge of the sale can’t be reached.

How it All Began

While we don’t know where the site is heading under its new owners, the co-founder did provide some more background on how TorrentGalaxy got started. That, by itself, is a story worth sharing.

The co-founder prefers to remain anonymous, so here we refer to them using the fictitious nickname “Genesis”. For the record, what follows is the account of one person and should be interpreted as such.

The origin story takes us back to late 2017, when ExtraTorrent had just shut down . At the time, Genesis came up with the idea to start a new torrent site. A developer was approached to code it from scratch, but the end result wasn’t satisfactory, so that initial project stranded.

During this time, many former ExtraTorrent members stayed connected, often using the chatbox of another popular torrent site, 1337x. When Genesis shared their plans for a new torrent site there, “Cameron” (another pseudonym), also a former ExtraTorrent user, offered assistance.

Both founders brought something essential to the table. Cameron had plenty of coding experience and took care of all the technical aspects. Meanwhile, Genesis helped out with the finances until the site could sustain itself though advertisements.

Within months, an idea born in a chatbox became TorrentGalaxy, which quickly built a thriving community. In just a few years, ‘TGx’ grew into one of the largest torrent sites, serving millions of visitors each month.

It was already public knowledge that former ExtraTorrent members founded the site, but this backstory adds some more color. What began as a simple chatbox conversation, triggered a transformation worthy of ‘ notorious pirate site status ‘, and the associated legal pressure that comes with it.

The reason for the site’s sale remains unknown. We understand that Genesis and Cameron are no longer in contact. Perhaps they prefer to leave the past behind, regardless of TorrentGalaxy’s future.

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

The DMCA takedown procedure may not be perfect but, for those intending to use it, there’s an unambiguous step-by-step process that’s been in place for a quarter of a century.

Needless to say, entities that deviate from the established rules can make life difficult for themselves as well as the intended recipients of takedown notices. That includes entities that attempt to use DMCA takedown notices to enforce trademark disputes, or prefer to avoid the DMCA altogether by portraying copyright complaints as something more serious.

Itch.io Taken Offline By Bogus Complaint

In a post on X.com early this morning, indie videogame storefront Itch.io said its platform had been effectively taken offline following a “bogus phishing report” that resulted in the disabling of its domain by the platform’s domain registrar.

“I kid you not, @itchiohas been taken down by @OriginalFunko because they use some trash ‘AI Powered’ Brand Protection Software called @BrandShieldltd that created some bogus Phishing report to our registrar, @iwantmyname, who ignored our response and just disabled the domain,” the company complained.

The events that led up to this disaster (at the time of writing the domain has still not been reinstated) seem to highlight an imbalance. While platforms swiftly respond to complaints, they seem far less eager to address the consequences of erroneous takedown requests.

Copyright Complaint Was ‘Upgraded’ to Fraud/Phishing

In a post on HackerNews hoping to draw attention to the situation, ‘Leafo’ from Itch.io explains the origins of the complaint. From their knowledge of the initial trigger, a DMCA complaint was the obvious mechanism to achieve the desired result. Instead, a company called BrandShield Ltd took a different approach.

“I’m the one running itch.io, so here’s some more context for you: From what I can tell, some kid made a fan page for an existing Funko Pop video game (Funko Fusion), with links to the official site and screenshots of the game,” Leafo explains.

“The BrandShield software is probably instructed to eradicate all ‘unauthorized’ use of their trademark, so they sent automated reports to our host and registrar claiming there was ‘fraud and phishing’ going on, likely to cause escalation instead of doing the expected DMCA/cease-and-desist.”

Leafo confirmed that around five to six days ago, Itch.io’s host Linode and its domain registrar iwantmyname.com, forwarded reports of the complaint. In response, Itch.io took the disputed page down with Leafo sharing his concerns with both companies, presumably over the way the problem had been addressed.

“I expressed my disappointment in my responses to both of them but told them I had removed the page and disabled the account. Linode confirmed and closed the case. iwantmyname never responded,” Leafo notes.

Domain Suspension Prevents Itch.io From Doing Business

On Sunday evening, Leafo received an alert and went on to discover an ominous status for the Itch.io domain.

“[I] noticed that the domain status had been set to ‘serverHold’ on iwantmyname’s domain panel. We have no other abuse reports from iwantmyname other than this one.

“I’m assuming no one on their end ‘closed’ the ticket, so it went into an automatic system to disable the domain after some number of days. I’ve been trying to get in touch with them via their abuse and support emails, but no response likely due to the time of day, so I decided to ‘escalate’ myself on social media.”

So Who Takes The Blame?

Despite identifying a possible failure on the part of iwantmyname, Itch.io appears to be pointing the finger of blame at BrandShield, the originator of the initial complaint.

Leafo believes that incorrectly stating that Itch.io was engaged in “fraud and phishing” was an escalation attemp to obtain a more significant result than usually available under the DMCA takedown process.

“I honestly think they’re the malicious actor in all of this. Their website, if you care: https://www.brandshield.com/,” Leafo wrote.

In these types of cases, intent can be difficult if not impossible to prove. However, if the BrandShield promotional document on the right remains current, the anti-phishing service offered by the company operates as SaaS and may allow its clients to initiate action too.

Whether the entire system was automated in this case is unclear. The type of nefarious identity-stealing phishing activity portrayed on the BrandShield website is clearly a big step up from the fan page content created by the user on Itchi.io. In any event, an incorrect enforcement tool prompted an incorrect takedown mechanism, and seems to have led to a disproportionate end result.

Google Transparency Reports

Numerous takedown notices sent previously by Brandshield to Google are available for browsing within the company’s Copyright Transparency Report. As seen here , successful takedowns are vastly outnumbered by those that fail, usually after being rejected by Google.

Without drawing any conclusions on whether the takedowns were warranted, in many cases it appears that Google refused to take action because BrandShield attempted to use the copyright takedown mechanism offered by Google to address alleged trademark infringement.

While that would be convenient, it’s impossible to send a valid DMCA takedown notice for alleged trademark infringement.

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

Cloudflare, a global internet infrastructure company, offers various services to millions of users, including connectivity and privacy tools.

While primarily a conduit for internet traffic, Cloudflare occasionally hosts content permanently on its servers.

The company’s approach to copyright complaints differs based on the role it plays. If Cloudflare merely passes traffic along (for a website using their CDN), they forward DMCA takedown notices to the actual hosting provider, which is often hidden from public view.

When Cloudflare actually hosts reported content, it will remove or disable access to it, following the procedures set forth in the DMCA, 17 U.S.C. § 512(g) .

Cloudflare Copyright Takedowns on the Rise

Historically, Cloudflare hasn’t hosted much content. Therefore, it’s no surprise that the number of takedown requests for this type of content has been rather minimal, averaging between 1 and 3 reports per year between 2018 and 2020.

In the years that followed, this number started to pick up. According to Cloudflare’s latest published transparency report, the company received 376 DMCA reports in the first half of last year . More recent data is not available yet.

In addition to the transparency report, which is published with a delay of more than a year, Cloudflare also started sharing takedown requests with the Lumen Database . These are updated weekly, and suggest that the takedown volume is growing.

Pirate Sites Targeted

Thus far, Cloudflare has shared more than 2,000 takedown notices publicly, most of which are from 2024. These notices target URLs from Cloudflare pages , Images and R2 , including links that are typical pirate sites, such as yts.cx, ytsmovie.cx, limetorrents.unblockedstream.online, and movielair.cc.

Dutch anti-piracy group BREIN , for example, reported several domain names that are currently blocked by local court orders. Through these notices, the group asks Cloudflare to inform the website owner and the hosting company to shut these sites down.

“This letter is to a) inform the owner of the Website of the infringing and illegal character, with the demand to immediately cease the operation thereof, and b) inform the hosting provider concerned of the infringing and illegal character, demanding to immediately cease its services in relation to this website,” the notice reads.

These types of notices are not new. Cloudflare has received complaints for many large pirate sites, including The Pirate Bay. In this case, however, Cloudflare appears to be involved in hosting.

HTTP Error 451

Takedown notices for passthough services are not recorded as valid takedown notices. In hundreds of recent instances, however, Cloudflare did take action, replacing the reported URLs with an HTTP error 451 notice.

The HTTP 451 Error code was invented for situations where content is made inaccessible for legal reasons. Cloudflare uses this for DMCA takedown removals, linking these to the Lumen Database reports.

For example, the yts.cx link to a pirated copy of “Bad Boys II” is made inaccessible by Cloudflare, honoring the takedown request. This is a targeted intervention, as all other yts.cx URLs remain accessible.

The same applies to the URLs of other pirate sites that are presumably hosted by Cloudflare. The company makes the reported URLs unavailable, as requested, while keeping the other URLs untouched. The 451 error notice is Cloudflare’s way to inform the public that it complied with a copyright complaint.

In addition to the classic pirate site URLs, Cloudflare also made plenty of other content unavailable, including streaming sports stream playlists reported by beIN , and an infringing Zelle Pay app .

The full extent of Cloudflare’s presumably increased takedown activities remains unknown, but the company’s forthcoming transparency reports are expected to provide more details.

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