So-called ‘three strikes’ anti-piracy schemes were once considered a cutting-edge response to P2P piracy.

Also known as ‘graduated response’, a typical scenario would see rightsholders monitor BitTorrent swarms to capture participants’ IP addresses sharing their content illegally. Those IP addresses would then be reported to a friendly (or coerced) ISP for matching against subscriber records, as a prelude to ISP customer outreach.

An initial letter sent to a subscriber would typically advise that piracy is illegal, so stop it. A second more strongly-worded letter would follow in case of continued infringement, with a third letter heralding termination of the subscriber’s account.

Eircom (Now Eir) Resisted, Then Got on Board

Following legal action by the Irish Recorded Music Association (IRMA), representing EMI, Sony, Universal and Warner, Irish ISP Eircom reached a settlement with the labels in 2009, leading to the introduction of a similar program, albeit to a background of legal complications.

As the labels attempted to force other ISPs to comply , ‘three strikes’ was taken off the table , then put back on . By then, however, sharing music via BitTorrent had almost completely collapsed, with most pirates preferring YouTube and the free-tier of Spotify.

Piracy at 3 Little Piggies

With the majority of music piracy now taking place on sites ripping music from YouTube, it’s remarkable that a three-strikes scheme dating back 15+ years is still operational at Eir. Proof of that arrives courtesy of Paul Walsh, owner of the 3 Little Piggies cafe on Union Quay in Cork, who recently received a warning letter from Eir confirming his very first ever piracy ‘strike’.

Walsh seemed genuinely surprised by the letter. Speaking with Corkbeo , he said he’d never seen anything like this before.

“I’ve never seen a notification like this. It’s kind of worrying that they’re saying the onus is on you,” Walsh said.

The letter contains a warning about the consequences of future infringement, including termination of Walsh’s internet connection should infringement continue. In common with all similar communications, the person paying the bill faces allegations; in this case, regardless of the fact that Walsh is a business customer of Eir, operating a free Wi-Fi service for the benefit of customers.

“What alarms me about this is that it’s the first time we’ve seen this and they’re saying I’m the one liable. If you want to get more serious, what if someone downloads something they shouldn’t be downloading? That’s opening up a can of worms,” he said.

Eir Apologizes, Warning Letter Sent in Error

Receiving an apology from an ISP is extremely rare in these cases, but Walsh received one nonetheless. In a statement, Eir encouraged all users “to be aware of copyright laws in both residential and business settings” while acknowledging that the ‘three strikes’ program only applies to its residential customers. Those with a business account are exempt, so the warning letter shouldn’t have been sent in the first place.

This effectively removes the ‘strike’ and eliminates the threat of future disconnection. Good news for a business owner and customers alike, even though one of them appears to have triggered this chain of events by downloading and sharing an album. Or did they?

Information and Notification

A document leaked in 2009 claimed to detail the draft protocol for administering the ‘three strikes’ program. One section detailed the minimum information that must appear in a notification for Eir (then Eircom) to consider a notification valid.

Without losing sight of the age of the scheme, in terms of evidence the minimum requirement detailed above is fundamentally sound. What is evident, however, is that the level of detail in the notice received by Paul Walsh is well below that previously considered the minimum.

Below Minimum Evidence

Despite the major record labels driving this entire program, the requirement to identify the copyright holder making the allegation appears to be missing at the point of delivery. But more interesting than that is the requirement to provide a “time stamp of when the investigation was initiated” and the “time stamp of when the investigation was completed.”

The warning letter clearly states that the ‘investigation’ began at 16:45 on the day in question, and ended at 16:45 on the very same day. That’s not an investigation, it’s a passing glimpse; and indeed, a glimpse of what exactly?

The requirement to provide a hash for the copyright material detected also appears to be absent from subscriber warning letters. Eircom requested these values “to verify that the copyright work identified by the record companies is in fact owned by them.”

For the same reasons, those receiving a warning letter would also find the information useful. For business subscribers exempt from notification it’s mostly irrelevant, but for residential bill payers – who may also share their connections with many other people who pay nothing – liability very often appears to be taken for granted. And without sufficient information to fight back, the chances of winning are extremely slim.

There are claims that mistakes simply aren’t made; 3 Little Piggies receiving this letter in the first place clearly shows otherwise.

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

Adult entertainment is massively popular online and there are many pirate sites that specialize in this niche.

In Asia, Japan in particular, MissAV is the leading player. The site, which has a strong focus on uncensored Japanese Adult Videos (JAV), is listed among the 15 most-visited websites in the country.

With over 300 million monthly visits, it’s also one of the most trafficked websites globally. This is a major frustration for rightsholders of adult content, including FANZA, which is owned by the Japanese Internet company DMM .

MissAV Confiscated

FANZA has been trying to curb this problem for a while, in part through enforcement actions. This paid off a few hours ago when the official MissAV.com domain was seemingly confiscated. The same applies to ThisAV.com, another popular adult site connected to the same operators.

Instead of adult content, these domains suddenly displayed a warning banner in multiple languages, clarifying that these unauthorized domains were confiscated as part of a legal procedure.

“The domain you accessed was a site that handled illegally uploaded videos. Therefore, the domain was confiscated through legal procedures,” the message reads.

“We want to remind you that it is a crime to infringe copyright and upload videos without permission. Using such sites encourages the crime of illegal uploading.”

In Japan, a slightly different message appeared . There, visitors get additional information about FANZA, which notes that payments for legal content help to fund new content. This banner also redirects people to the official FANZA website.

MissAV Bounces Back

While the significance of this enforcement effort shouldn’t be understated, as the news unfolded it appears that the deck was reshuffled once again.

Apparently, MissAV didn’t lose full control over its domain names. While writing this article, they started to redirect to MissAV.ws, which provides the same unrestricted access to the site as before.

This suggests that FANZA’s ‘legal procedure’ had a limited effect. It’s not clear what happened precisely, as details about the legal basis for the enforcement action is not known to us.

What we do know is that the domains previously used Cloudflare’s nameservers, then switched to one controlled by its domain registrar Namecheap. After the new DNS propagates, the original domains then redirect to MissAV.ws.

One possible, but unconfirmed, scenario is that Cloudflare was ordered to take action against MissAV through a legal procedure. If that’s the case, MissAV’s operators would still have control over the domain, allowing them to simply redirect it by removing the ‘compromised’ nameservers.

Whatever the case, it’s clear that MissAV is firmly in the crosshairs of FANZA and other rightsholders. So, this might not be the last enforcement action of this kind.

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

Manga and anime have become increasingly popular in recent years. These formats originate in Japan but are now in demand worldwide.

Similar popularity also extends to the adult counterpart known as “hentai,” which has millions of avid fans.

Like other forms of media, not everyone accessing hentai content chooses to pay for it. Instead, many people opt for free websites like nHentai.net, which averaged close to 80 million visits in recent months.

Nhentai Sued by Publisher for Widespread Piracy

Nhentai.net has been around for over a decade but in a move last summer, California company PCR Distributing described the site as a threat to its business. PCR does business under various brands, including J18 and JAST USA, and views the ‘pirate’ site as unlicensed competition.

Initially, PCR requested a DMCA subpoena asking Cloudflare to unmask the people behind the site, after they allegedly failed to process takedown notices. These requests are typically straightforward but not in this case, as Nhentai decided to object.

Facing opposition, PCR dropped the subpoena request. Instead, it decided to file a full complaint at a California federal court. According to the publisher, Nhentai shares copyrighted material without obtaining permission from rightsholders.

“[Nhentai] hosts a vast collection of hentai works, including commercially produced content, much of which, based on information and belief, is shared without proper authorization from the owners,” the complaint read.

Nhentai Fights Back with a Vengeance

Nhentai’s initial opposition already indicated that the site doesn’t plan to leave these allegations uncontested. And indeed, when PCR requested early discovery, Nhentai objected , pointing out that PCR had granted express permission to use its copyrighted works.

This week, the alleged ‘pirate’ site went a step further, requesting the court to dismiss the lawsuit in its entirety. The request isn’t based on a single issue; Nhentai says there are several grounds for the court to end the lawsuit prematurely.

Not the author

First, Nhentai argues that it isn’t clear whether PCR is actually the ‘author’ of all works. Some official copyright registration records list ‘JAST USA’ as the author.

Although PCR claims to operate under the JAST USA brand, the defendants argue that PCR is a separate company and has not provided sufficient evidence to demonstrate that they possess the necessary licenses or assignments for the copyrighted works.

“Public records for JAST USA show it has an entirely separate status as a ‘stock corporation’ with what appears to be different ownership, i.e., no overlapping directors, officers, addresses, etc. from those shown in PCR’s corporate filings,” the motion to dismiss alleges.

Nhentai asserts that this potential discrepancy in ownership is sufficient grounds to dismiss the lawsuit.

What is Copyrighted?

The defense also brings up another copyright concern. They point out that it’s not clear what is actually copyrighted. The Nhentai website mostly shares images, but some copyright registrations refer to literary works , which might not cover the images in question.

“Under copyright law, ‘Literary works’ specifically exclude images,” they argue. “This is critical because Plaintiff has not demonstrated any right to sue for copyright infringement as to the images.”

Along similar lines, Nhentai contends that works registered as “English translations” may not grant the plaintiffs ownership of the corresponding images displayed on their website.

Too Late

Nhentai further argues that there are various problems with the timing of the lawsuit. Some of the alleged copyright infringements are barred as the statute of limitations has allegedly passed, for example.

In addition, Nhentai believes that some of the copyrights were registered years after the associated images were distributed on its site. This means that the copyrights for the works were not registered when they were originally uploaded.

“In such an instance, the law mandates that Plaintiff is not entitled to statutory damages or attorneys’ fees as to this copyright,” Nhentai writes.

“Plaintiff also cannot show entitlement to statutory damages and/or attorneys’ fees on the other basis in section 412, as the work was not copyrighted within three months of publication,” the motion to dismiss adds.

Permission Granted

Finally, Nhentai’s attorney also highlights that a representative of PCR’s brands previously granted written permission via email for use of their content and had even explored the possibility of running paid advertisements on the site.

One of the emails suggested that piracy helped manga and anime to grow in the West. It stated that “this isn’t a takedown request or a DMCA”, offering a collaboration instead.

Given this alleged ‘permission’, as well as the other arguments put forward in the motion, Nhentai believes that PCR has no legitimate claim for copyright infringement. Therefore, the case should be dismissed.

No Tongan Connection

If the court ultimately decides not to dismiss the case at this stage, Nhentai would at least like it to strike all claims related to Nhentai.to. This site used the same name, but Nhentai.net says that it’s an entirely unaffiliated operation.

“Plaintiff states that Defendants also own and operate the URL nHentai.to.’ As discussed in a hearing before Magistrate Richlin, the website nhentai.to is wholly unrelated to www.nhentai.net,” they write.

The ‘.to’ in nhentai.to refers to the Kingdom of Tonga, an island in Polynesia. It has nothing to do with Plaintiff’s allegations against Nhentai.net,” they add.

PCR has yet to respond to the claims presented in the motion. In an upcoming reply, it’s expected to share its side of the story, which will likely paint a completely different picture. After that, it will be up to the court to render a decision.

A copy of Nhentai’s notice of motions and motion to dismiss, filed at the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, is available here (pdf)

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

With limited choice mostly a thing of the past, domain names today are available in many flavors. Above all others, however, the gTLD (generic top-level domain) .com is the most enduring.

Domain Tools data shows that of all TLDs, .com is the stand-out leader with 153,999,258 domains registered at the time of writing.

In distant second place, with 17,195,162 registered domains, is the German ccTLD (country code top-level domain) .de, with .net taking third spot with 12,477,708.

The current ranking of ccTLD .to is only revealed after considerable scrolling; 256th it transpires, with just 26,241 domains currently registered.

For perspective, Zonefiles reports that 129,614 .com domains were registered in the last 24 hours alone. Yet despite relative obscurity, .to domains have always been appreciated by pirate sites and, right now, they’re proving more popular than ever before.

Tonga Does Domains Differently

The Tonic Corporation opened for business in 1997 and during its first day, reportedly sold around 100 .to domains. Anyone who bought a domain from Tonic 28 years ago will appreciate the nostalgia visiting tonic.to today; text aside, nothing has changed.

The same applies to the product but that’s not a negative; Tonic’s approach was ahead of its time. As of today, the .to extension still denotes the ccTLD for Tonga, a small island nation in the South Pacific. It’s also still marketed more like a generic global domain than a ccTLD, imposing none of the region-based restrictions or requirements found elsewhere.

The Go .to ccTLD For Pirates?

In 1997, buying a .com domain was a laborious exercise, but Tonic mostly eliminated the form-filling, accepted payment, and registered the domain. When customers register a domain today, Tonic still requests some information relevant to the registration.

It may come as a surprise to those who believe that .to domains are anonymous, but the information requested is fairly comprehensive. Those details include first name, middle initial, last name, billing address, country, email address , plus the all-important credit card details to complete the sale. Perhaps another surprise: if served with a court order, Tonic will hand everything over.

In 2021, the MPA accused Tonic of doing little to prevent pirate sites from using the .to ccTLD, suggesting that it could simply disable domains names if it wanted to. Prominent examples included domains operated by some of the most well-known pirate sites; rarbg.to, fmovies.to, kinox.to, serienstream.to, 1337x.to, torrentgalaxy.to, solarmovie.to, ibit.to, and bs.to.

Tonic was clear, however, that random requests are no substitute for the rule of law.

“The .TO registry complies with court orders from courts of competent jurisdiction, including US courts, and has on many occasions taken down domain names in compliance with court orders,” TONIC’s Eric Gullichsen informed TF.

Since then, MPA/ACE have obtained DMCA subpoenas compelling Tonic to hand over the registration details behind dozens of pirate sites.

What information Tonic discloses is not for public consumption. However, reports suggest that, if information provided by domain registrants isn’t useful, especially when a third-party proxy is the registrant, anything handed over to comply with a subpoena won’t be useful either.

A Small Sample of Big Problems

Over the years, almost 500 .to domains have made an appearance on the UK’s pirate site-blocking list. They include former high traffic domains like watchseries.to, which dates back more than a decade, to relatively young domains popularized in the last five years; bflix.to and onionplay.to, for example.

Given the current trend of treating domains as disposable, to be discarded whenever site-blocking or search engine penalties limit their usefulness, some piracy platforms have stuck to their .to domains through thick and thin.

TorrentGalaxy.to is an obvious example, likewise 1337x.to. If its fortunes hadn’t shifted so dramatically in 2023, it’s likely that RARBG would still be a proud .to domain owner today. Other veteran sites including glodls.to, rlsbb.to, and limetorrents.to, still operate .to domains today.

Some sites, however, make much more noise, even in the face of enforcement action.

Sflix.to: A Single Example From Many

While all major pirate sites are subjected to pressure, streaming site sflix.to has received more than its fair share of attention.

After being blocked by courts in the UK and Australia in December 2021, Sflix.to was added to the PIPCU-maintained IWL (Infringing Website List) in April 2022. It remains listed today in the company of around 80 otherwise diverse domains with the same extension.

Yet, if visitor numbers are any indication of success, Sflix.to easily exceeds the standard.

In October, directly after sites with similar branding were shut down in Vietnam, Sflix.to received 43.8 million visits. By November, that had increased to 49 million visits and then, seemingly out of nowhere, traffic in December collapsed to ‘just’ 23.6 million.

The coincidental debut appearance of sflix2.to in December more than balanced things up; total visits for the month (from a standing start) 57.2 million.

Tonga’s Lure Remains

Sflix.to and other previously mentioned pirate domains are just a few examples, there are many more operational today. Apparently, the .to lure is strong and enduring.

A brief sample of popular and enduring sites, sporting familiar brands and .to domains, is sufficient to show that major pirate sites still prefer .to domains over hundreds of others readily available.

—

Our aim is to present current main domains only, so we have excluded a number of high-traffic domains where switches to new, non .to domains are currently underway. The order of the list has no value and by default, all sites should be considered a security risk.

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

The ease with which IP addresses and BitTorrent downloads can be tracked has created a fertile ground for copyright lawsuits.

This inherent transparency has fueled thousands of lawsuits against alleged video pirates, both in the U.S. and around the world.

In the United States, Strike 3 Holdings has emerged as a key player in this legal landscape. The company, known for adult entertainment videos published under the ‘Milfy’, ‘Tushy’, and ‘Vixen’ brands, pursues legal action against those who share its content illegally.

‘John Doe’ Lawsuits

When these videos leak and are shared on pirate sites, Strike 3 takes action. After collecting the IP-addresses, it typically files a complaint, requesting a subpoena to obtain the subscriber’s details. Once the target is identified, the case can move forward.

These lawsuits can be a lucrative business, especially when targeted defendants opt to swiftly settle the action for a few thousand dollars. The money comes on top of the deterrent factor that is often cited by copyright holders as one of the main reasons to take action.

Legal pressure can deter the accused pirates and, perhaps, some of their neighbors too. There appears to be no shortage of pirates yet, though, not even within Strike 3’s niche market, as exemplified by Strike 3’s track record.

3,900+ Cases Filed in 2024

More than a decade ago, there were many rightsholders deploying this strategy in U.S. courts. Nowadays, Strike 3 mostly acts alone, but that doesn’t mean that their activity has diminished.

Since 2017, the adult company has filed over 15,000 cases against alleged pirates. These repetitive complaints barely ever reach the news, but they continue to target real people. Not just that, the number of cases has also increased steadily since 2020.

Last year, Strike 3 is listed as a party in 3,932 ^(*) cases filed in U.S. federal courts. This is a new all-time record. Never before has a copyright holder filed this many individual cases in a single year.

For comparison, in 2017 – the first year Strike 3 was active – all copyright holders combined filed 1,019 cases related to file-sharing. At the time, Malibu Media was the most active copyright litigant.

Strike 3 Holdings also dominates when it comes to all copyright cases filed in the US. According to Justia , over 7,000 copyright cases were filed in 2024, with Strike 3 responsible for more than half of that total.

Settlements and Dismissals

With this level of workload, it’s no surprise that most Strike 3 cases are resolved relatively swiftly. Of all lawsuits filed in the first half of 2024, more than 88% have already been closed. This typically happens when the parties reach an out-of-court settlement or if Strike 3 drops a complaint for other reasons.

There have been a few rare instances where alleged pirates have fought back. For example, when Strike 3 filed a lawsuit against a 70+-year-old retired police officer, the defendant prevailed and ultimately ‘won’ a fees and costs award of $47,777 .

Strike 3 has also had significant windfalls. In some instances, where defendants failed to respond, the adult entertainment company scored big wins, including a $108,750 damages award .

Overall, the fact that Strike 3 continues to file news lawsuits, while also increasing its output, suggests that they are getting more out of this than it costs.

—

(*) Note: the numbers presented here are based on a PACER and Justia searches for cases filed between January 1 and December 31, 2024, where ‘Strike 3’ is listed as a party. For 2024, all possible non-copyright cases have been filtered out.

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

After labeling DoodStream the world’s largest illegal video hosting site, the major Hollywood studios, Netflix, Amazon, and Apple, teamed up in a lawsuit filed against its India-based operators at the High Court of Delhi.

The need for urgent action was underscored by the scale of the DoodStream operation; according to the MPA, 2.69 billion visitors in 2023 alone. A March 2024 injunction issued by the High Court compelled the site to purge itself of all links to the plaintiffs’ content inside 24 hours. An April 5 filing by the plaintiffs informed the Court that didn’t happen, with a filing by the defense two days later by arguing otherwise.

Non-Compliance, With Attitude

As described in court documents, some kind of technical roundtable subsequently took place, attended by a technical expert appointed by the plaintiffs and two representing the defense. More specifically, the DoodStream defendants – Raja Durai and Sarvesh Chandran – were permitted to act as the site’s technical experts, despite actively running the site while in breach of a court order, and the site paying users for content uploaded.

That process led to the plaintiffs claiming that 1,512 tested links were still live. The Court tested six links at random, five of which remained functional. Counsel for the defendants said his clients had done their best under the circumstances; removing a million infringing links is very big job.

To help prevent infringement moving forward, the plaintiffs requested the removal of certain site features attractive to infringers. The defendants refused to comply , citing their “inability to remove these features.” Another request, to place content uploaders’ usernames next to content they uploaded, was rejected “due to the lack of infrastructure and technical feasibility.”

Interim Injunction

In a trade barriers report submitted to the U.S. government, the MPA reported that an interim injunction issued by the High Court of Delhi had proven ineffective. After failing to fully comply with any of the High Court’s orders, in September 2024 contempt proceedings against the defendants were described as “ongoing.”

The injunction attempted to ban DoodStreams’ operators “and all those acting for/on their behalf” from running the site. A list of domains was provided for convenience.

It’s not clear whether all of these domains were in active use at the time, but many remain active today and still report significant traffic.

Data collected by TF in December for November 2024 reveals examples including dood.li (120m), doods.pro (30.6m), dood.to (15.8m) and doodstream.com (5.5m), among dozens of similar domains that mostly redirect to the DoodStream frontpage.

Minimal Progress, Slowly

When first filed in March 2024, the complaint against DoodStream and its operators didn’t look much out of the ordinary. As the months progressed and the site remained online, the contrast between this lawsuit and actions against pirate sites based overseas, seemed to stand out.

In dozens of site-blocking actions, for example, requests for urgent action are usually met with a suitable response. More extreme measures, including compelling overseas domain registrars to disable domain names, have been signed off in days and then revisited in cases of non-compliance.

This case, albeit one contested by the defendants, has seen court orders and an injunction meet with non-compliance and ongoing infringement at considerable scale. But perhaps most jarring of all are comments from the defense suggesting that some of the Court’s instructions are optional, or at least up for negotiation.

More nuance may be available in court filings that aren’t made available to the public, but one statement explaining why the High Court of Delhi’s orders carry less weight than one might expect, really is quite something.

The next hearing is scheduled for early February.

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

In the early 2000s, the music industry took a stand against online piracy by going after tens of thousands of alleged pirates through U.S. courts.

The RIAA tracked down IP addresses of suspected music pirates and requested corresponding DMCA subpoenas, hoping to link these addresses to subscribers’ contact details.

This initially worked well. However, as the practice became more common ISPs began to object. They countered that DMCA subpoenas don’t apply to mere conduit providers. Appeal courts eventually agreed and effectively banned the practice decades ago.

Rightsholders were still able to sue alleged pirates. However, instead of easily obtaining the identities through a relatively cheap DMCA subpoena procedure, they would have to file a full complaint in federal court, with full judicial oversight.

‘Copyright Trolls’

This more cumbersome path was not ignored. In the late 2010s, waves of lawsuits were filed in U.S. courts targeting alleged BitTorrent ‘pirates’. The associated account holders were still identified through a subpoena but this time within a proper copyright action.

This practice, which some refer to as ‘copyright trolling’, is still prevalent today. Every year, many thousands of copyright lawsuits are filed in the U.S. These are typically closed within months, often after an undisclosed settlement is reached with the defendants.

Most of the cases against alleged pirates are now filed by a single adult entertainment company, Strike 3 Holdings . There are other companies that are interested in identifying pirates too but the relatively high filing fee for these lawsuits is seen as a roadblock.

DMCA Subpoena Revival in Court

To bypass these costs, some rightsholders have started to revive the DMCA subpoena shortcut . Drawing inspiration from the RIAA’s early efforts, they once again used the DMCA subpoena process to obtain the personal details of suspected copyright infringers.

These recent DMCA subpoenas progressed quietly, and many were granted with little fanfare or pushback. That changed in 2023 when a Cox subscriber, suspected of pirating the movie Fall, filed an objection in court.

The objection prompted Cox Communications to intervene. The Internet provider challenged the use of DMCA subpoenas, as detailed in DMCA §512(h). Similar to the earlier opposition against the RIAA’s attempts, the ISP argued that DMCA subpoenas don’t apply to mere conduit providers, as defined under § 512(a).

Last year, a district court judge in Hawaii sided with Cox . The court ruled that DMCA subpoenas don’t apply to mere conduit services, but do apply to other providers that store or link to infringing content directly. As such, the movie companies’ request for a subpoena was denied.

Movie Companies Appeal

The movie companies, including Voltage Holdings, Millennium Funding and Capstone Studios were persistent. They filed a petition at the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals , arguing that the district court’s interpretation of the DMCA was overly narrow.

The movie studios argued that the district court’s decision relied on dated precedents, which don’t reflect the realities of the modern Internet. They countered that ISPs do play a role in facilitating piracy, even if indirectly, and should be subject to DMCA subpoenas.

“A careful reading of the full text of 17 U.S.C. §512 leads to the unquestionable conclusion that Congress intended for DMCA subpoenas to apply to §512(a) service providers despite the contrary conclusions of Verizon and Charter,” their petition read.

In December, Cox responded to these arguments at the Court of Appeal. According to the ISP, Congress clearly excluded ISPs from this legal DMCA subpoena ‘shortcut’.

EFF Chimes in with ‘Troll’ Warning

Cox is not the only one to stand up against the movie companies. The Electronic Frontier Foundation ( EFF ) recently filed an amicus curiae brief, urging the court to keep the status quo intact.

Without naming names, EFF warns that allowing the DMCA subpoena route to identify ISP account holders will feed ‘copyright trolls’. They will see it as an easy route to obtain swift settlements, including those against innocent subscribers.

Whether settlements are planned by the movie companies in this case is not clear, but EFF notes that classic copyright trolls would benefit from this cheap shortcut.

“To achieve higher returns from settlements with less expense, practitioners of the copyright trolling business model have an incentive to pursue settlements from the ISP subscribers identified through subpoenas to ISPs, even where the subscriber is not necessarily the infringer,” EFF writes.

EFF: Oversight is Key

The precedents set in the RIAA vs. Verizon and Charter cases are key to protect these subscribers. They require rightsholders to file a proper lawsuit, instead of obtaining personal details through a simplified process.

This oversight is important, EFF says, as in previous lawsuits filed via the proper route, courts have rejected subpoenas because there was no evidence that the infringing IP address was used by the person who paid the ISP bills.

For example, in the Cobbler case , the Court of Appeal ruled that since several people can use the same Internet connection, rightsholders must present more than just an IP address to make their case. The DMCA subpoena procedure removes this check, EFF notes.

“Breaking with the long-established precedents of Verizon and Charter by permitting copyright holders to issue §512(h) subpoenas to ISPs who simply transmit data would bypass an important mechanism of court oversight and invite more coercive settlement demands against internet subscribers,” EFF concludes.

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals will now review the arguments before deciding how the DMCA should be interpreted. It’s clear that the stakes are significant for all parties involved.

—

A copy of EFF’s amicus curiae brief , for which the paper versions were filed at the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals on January 3, is available here (pdf) .

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

The United States Trade Representative ( USTR ) published its annual “Out-of-Cycle Review of Notorious Markets” a few hours ago.

The non-exhaustive list includes dozens of sites and services linked to piracy or counterfeiting activity.

The report is largely based on input from copyright industry groups, including the RIAA and MPA. Platforms detailed in recommendations filed late last year, are meant to serve as ‘prominent and illustrative examples’ without the USTR drawing any legal conclusions.

Complex Ecosystem & Familiar Names

The review acknowledges that rightsholders described a complex piracy ecosystem, one that goes beyond traditional websites with technology companies and services also playing a role. Those include domain registries and registrars, search engines, reverse proxies, payment processors, and hosting companies.

Many third-party intermediaries were nominated in last year’s submissions but despite the mentions, the USTR hasn’t included many in its final overview. This will be welcomed by the i2Coalition , which previously cautioned against blurring the piracy lines.

Overall, the latest list includes many familiar names, some of which have been listed for well over a decade. The Pirate Bay makes an expected appearance, alongside fellow torrent sites 1337x, TorrentGalaxy, RuTracker, and YTS.

The listed torrent sites are identical to those listed in last year’s report. The same applies to ‘cyberlockers’, which include Krakenfiles and Rapidgator. The mentioned publishing sites, LibGen and Sci-Hub, didn’t change either.

The e-commerce platforms also remain completely unchanged in the latest report. While the USTR sees some positive developments in this industry, Baidu Wangpan, DHgate, Pinduoduo, Shopee, and others remain listed.

New Additions to the List

There are some shakeups in the video game scene, however, with Fitgirl-Repacks and Unknowncheats as new additions. Both sites were flagged by the Entertainment Software Association (ESA) last October .

“FitGirl-Repacks, often abbreviated to ‘fitgirl’ is a well-known ‘repacking’ site that provides access to compressed versions of unauthorized and pirated versions of video games,” the USTR notes.

There’s also a new streamripper, Y2Mate, thanks to a nomination by the RIAA . The site replaces ssyoutube.com, which was taken off the list.

The list of newcomers is completed by hosting provider Virtual Systems and two streaming services, MagisTV and Hianime. The latter replaces Aniwatch, which was taken down following the demise of the Fmovies piracy ring last summer.

USTR Applauds Successes

The Fmovies case is mentioned in detail by the USTR, described as one of the major piracy successes in 2024. This takedown was carried out by Vietnamese authorities, with key input from U.S. rightsholders and authorities.

“In Vietnam, the Hanoi Police collaborated with U.S. Homeland Security Investigations (HSI), the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) International Computer Hacking and Intellectual Property (ICHIP) program, and the Alliance for Creativity and Entertainment (ACE) to shut down the site Fmovies and associated piracy sites in July and August 2024,” USTR notes.

Other positive developments include the conviction of the operator of BestBuyIPTV in Vietnam, Brazil’s seventh installment of anti-piracy “Operation 404” , and the Italian-led IPTV crackdown “ Operation Taken Down “.

Almost Success: Cuevana

Finally, there is one site that deserves a special mention; Cuevana. This brand has been around for many years as new versions typically come online when others are taken offline.

The USTR’s report now lists Cuevana.biza after being nominated by the movie industry. This is somewhat unusual, as the site announced a voluntary shutdown a few weeks ago, citing pressure from the MPA and ACE. Purportedly, Cuevana was offering to sign over its domain names.

This shutdown never came to fruition, however. A message currently displayed on the site’s front page says that ACE merely sent an automated reply to Cuevana’s outreach, but didn’t respond otherwise. A follow-up reportedly remains unanswered too.

“In the last message, we kindly asked for the information to be passed on to the person in charge, but they again have not responded to us,” Cuevana.biz writes.

“I don’t know if the intention is to let us continue with the sites, but a week ago we should have already delivered one of the domains they requested..,” the site’s message adds.

Whether the message is sincere is hard to gauge. Technically, Cuevana could’ve put up a static page displaying this notice, instead of keeping the site running. But it’s worth pointing out anyway.

Perhaps it will result in another ‘positive development’, which the USTR can highlight in next year’s version of the notorious markets report.

—

A copy of the USTR’s 2024 Review of Notorious Markets is available here (pdf). The full overview also includes offline markets.

A list of highlighted sites and online services, including those listed for counterfeiting, is included below. The sites mentioned are categorized by TorrentFreak for clarity purposes and listed below.

Torrent Sites

– 1337X
– RuTracker
– The Pirate Bay
– TorrentGalaxy
– YTS.mx

File-Hosting/Cyberlockers

– 1fichier
– Krakenfiles
– Rapidgator
– Savefrom

E-Commerce

– Baidu Wangpan
– Bukalapak
– DHgate
– Indiamart
– Pinduoduo
– Shopee
– Taobao

PaaS

– 2embed
– Streamtape
– WHMCS Smarters

Advertising

– Avito

Streaming /IPTV

– Aniwatch
– BestBuyIPTV
– Cuevana3
– Fmovies
– GenIPTV
– Hianime (new)
– MagisTV (new)
– Pelisplus
– Shabakaty
– Spider
– VegaMovies

Hosting/Infrastructure

– Amaratu
– DDoS-Guard
– FlokiNET
– Squitter
– Virtual Systems (new)

Social Media

– VK.
– WeChat
Gaming

– NSW2U
– Firgirl-Repacks (new)
– Unknowncheats (new)

Music

– SSYouTube
– Y2Mate (new)

Publishing

– Libgen
– Sci-Hub

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

The adage that the first casualty of war is the truth held solid as Russia denied any intention of invading Ukraine, even as it was actively doing so.

State-controlled media, television presenters in particular, turned in some remarkable performances for the benefit of local audiences. While dramatically documenting events that bore only a passing resemblance to reality on the ground, broadcasters including Russia Today, Sputnik, and RIA Novosti, ensured that Russia’s position on Ukraine was presented overseas exactly as the Kremlin intended.

After quickly running out of patience, the EU banned all three broadcasters and many others ( list ) from transmitting from or to any EU member state, using any technical means. Whether by cable, satellite, websites or IPTV, the ban applied across the board to prevent (or at least limit) the spread of what the EU described as disinformation and propaganda.

Lithuania Saw Room For Improvement

On December 18, 2024, the Lithuanian Radio and Television Commission (LRTK) adopted a decision to block websites that provide access to Russian TV channels targeted by EU sanctions. In an announcement Tuesday, LRTK said that in order to ensure “more effective implementation” of the sanctions, it contacted Google with a request to deindex those websites from Google’s search results.

Obtained by TorrentFreak from the Lumen Database, the request envisions the deindexing of more than 620 domains.

“On January 3, 2025, Google announced that it had decided to remove 201 websites that hosted EU-sanctioned content,” LRTK continued.

“This means that a user who wants to access a blocked website and enters its address into Google search will not be offered the site among the search results. Thus, the implementation of EU sanctions will be even more effective and the accessibility of such websites will be even more limited.”

Silencing Only Propaganda?

The list of 279 domains present in the only notice seen by TF reveals numerous proxy domains not dissimilar to those deployed by pirate sites. Sputnik news, for example, appears in 53 fully qualified domains, with subdomain usage indicating the direct targeting of EU member states; cz, fr, it, and ro, for example.

Similar domains relating to Russia Today, Izvestia, and others facilitating access to already sanctioned platforms, offer no real surprises. Regardless of any propaganda value, the domains provide access to single, legitimate platforms. Under additional scrutiny, other domains on the list aren’t quite so straightforward.

For example, ottplayer.tv displays no content whatsoever, at least to those without an account. While links to Russia are fairly obvious, the service is described as an IPTV playlist aggregator/manager, with users apparently required to bring their own content.

The live TV portal at InternTV also seems like an unusual addition. Several of the sites subject to sanctions do appear on the portal for embedded viewing, but in this case context is everything.

In addition to providing access to pirated movies and TV shows, live TV channels from all around the world are featured no less prominently than their Russian counterparts.

Other live channels on offer include BB1, ITV, ITV2, ITV4, CNN, Bloomberg, Euronews, and Sky Sports. Sitting alongside in the same list are channels including Sport 2, XSport, Black Sea TV, and 1+1, all of which are notable for being Ukrainian channels targeting a Ukrainian audience.

So as an alleged outlet for propaganda, in general InternTV seems to perform quite poorly. By catering to an international audience with a platform that allows all sides to see and hear what everyone else has to say, it not only provides more balance than Russian state-controlled media, but outperforms the EU as well.

There will be no shortage of government leaders prepared to argue that responsibility to protect citizens from the evils of propaganda lies with them. Unfortunately, without first-hand experience of how propaganda manifests itself, those same citizens are denied an opportunity to learn and then think for themselves.

On the plus side, social media remains freely accessible to all, with propaganda conveniently delivered mostly in English, by those currently too difficult to block.

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