In 2019, Internet provider Cox Communications lost its legal battle against a group of dozens of record labels, including Sony and Universal.

Following a two-week trial, a Virginia jury held Cox liable for its pirating subscribers. The ISP failed to disconnect repeat infringers and was ordered to pay $1 billion in damages .

This case is one of many . Other ISPs have been accused of being similarly lax in their stance against alleged piracy. Rightsholders believe that ISPs are motivated by profit while the ISPs typically argue that they shouldn’t be held liable for the alleged wrongdoing of subscribers.

Landmark Piracy Battle

Cox challenged the verdict through several routes and in August, filed a petition at the U.S. Supreme Court asking it to hear the case. The Internet provider stressed that the current verdict ‘jeopardizes’ internet access for all Americans.

Around the same time, the music companies filed their own petition , hoping to strengthen the verdict at the Supreme Court. Specifically, the record labels argued that the ISP should also be held liable for vicarious copyright infringement.

Both petitions essentially boil down to questions on liability. Are ISPs liable for copyright infringement if they don’t disconnect subscribers accused of copyright infringement? And can ISPs be held liable for infringing subscribers, even if they don’t directly profit from their activities?

Supreme Court Shows Interest

These writs of certiorari ask the Supreme Court to clarify how current law should be interpreted. The Supreme Court typically has a high barrier to accept new cases but, once greenlighted, they could shape the law for decades to come.

Yesterday, the Supreme Court suggested that it is indeed interested in the questions. In an order where dozens of petitions were denied, those submitted by Cox and the music companies were referred to the Solicitor General.

“The Solicitor General is invited to file a brief in these cases expressing the views of the United States,” the brief comment reads.

The Solicitor General is a high-ranking official in the U.S. Department of Justice who serves as the federal government’s primary lawyer before the Supreme Court. In the present cases, it can express the government’s position on the presented legal questions.

The referral signals that the Supreme Court considers the case to have significant implications for the federal government or federal law. If the Department of Justice agrees, it is more likely that the Supreme Court will take on these cases.

What’s the U.S. Government’s View?

While it’s clear that the Supreme Court is interested in these cases, the Solicitor General’s view is unknown. Thus far, the government has mostly stayed on the sidelines in these matters.

The most concrete suggestion came in 2020, when the U.S. Copyright Office released a report calling for clearer standards on what constitutes “reasonable implementation” of a repeat infringer policy. The perceived lack of clarity has led to inconsistent practices and legal uncertainty.

Those types of legislative changes are typically something that Congress should determine, but the Supreme Court can help to shape the legal interpretation of the DMCA as we know it today.

With hundreds of millions of dollars in damages on the line, a Supreme Court opinion is poised to provide some additional clarity in the ongoing DMCA “repeat infringer” controversy.

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

A man who previously admitted selling pirate TV devices recently appeared at Liverpool Crown Court for sentencing.

Hoping for leniency on three counts of fraud, Jonathan Edge’s defense evoked an image of a Robin Hood character stealing from the Premier League for the benefit of Sky TV-deprived local communities.

That went as well as could be expected, especially in light of the defendant’s previous convictions for fraud. That the piracy offenses took place while the Edge was on license following a three-year sentence for dealing cocaine, didn’t help much either. In that context, none of which was mentioned in the press release , the 40-month sentence handed down by the court doesn’t sound especially excessive.

Edge’s biggest mistake, however, was thumbing his nose at the Premier League. After takedown notices removed adverts for his service from Facebook and Instagram, he simply put them back up. Two years later, after signing a cease-and-desist order, Edge posted on social media that he would carry on regardless; he then went on to ignore multiple additional warnings.

Monitoring for compliance on home soil is trivial for the Premier League, but when similar understandings may have been breached in less predictable jurisdictions thousands of miles away, that brings a new set of challenges.

Notorious Markets: beIN / Miramax Submission

Previously the target of state-sponsored piracy as part of a wider diplomatic conflict, Qatar-based broadcaster beIN now faces similar piracy threats as its competitors. The same holds true for Miramax, the film and TV company 51% owned by beIN.

Every year the companies team up in a joint submission to the USTR’s review of notorious markets, outlining what they believe are the most serious piracy threats. What caught our eye in the submission’s browser-based streaming section is the number of sites that have faced enforcement action but through various means are effectively still in business.

WeCima

MyCima was once one of the largest pirate sites in the Middle East. The operation, which was purportedly operated from Alexandria, boasted over 50 million monthly visits and offered 12,000 movies and 26,000 TV shows. Reportedly taken down in February 2023, less than a month later there were already clear signs of a revival or resurrection, maybe even some kind of rebirth, under the brand ‘WeCima’.

“Although MyCima was reportedly taken down by actions initiated by the Alliance for Creativity and Entertainment (ACE) in February 2023, WeCima, a mirror version of MyCima with same content offered, was set up shortly after. It is already recording more than 18 million monthly visits,” the submission notes.

Platforms like MyCima and WeCima use various strategies to stay online, including the use of up to hundreds of domains. The ‘cima’ domains shown below are now under the control of the MPA, which effectively puts them out of action. Under what terms control changed is unknown but it most commonly happens via some sort of agreement.

The USTR submission states that WeCima also uses multiple domains to stay online.

“Apparently as a strategy to evade further enforcement actions, several WeCima domains and subdomains (wecima.click, wecima.co, mycima.wecima.watch, wecima.icu and many more) are continuously registered pointing at WeCima.cam,” it reads.

Shahid4u and Laroza

Further action in Egypt last September led to the reported shutdown of Laroza and the arrests of two alleged operators. Laroza was reportedly the largest pirate site in the Middle East and North Africa.

“Laroza is one of the oldest and most popular pirate websites in the Middle East and has a vast library of Arabic and international movies and series. Despite Laroza [being] reportedly taken down by actions taken by rightsowners in September 2024, new copycat domains have appeared online with the most significant being www.larozaa.net,” the report notes.

“Laroza’s operators have implemented an effective URL redirection strategy with redirections to multiple subdomains and TLD extensions applied daily or every other day. Some of their numerous domains used by the Laroza website are larona.one, laroza.vip, laroza.net, laroza.cam, laroza.tv, laroza.sbs among others. This strategy appears designed to circumvent enforcement and other disruption action taken by rights owners.”

A similar situation surrounds Shahid4u, which was taken down by ACE and Egyptian authorities in February 2023.

“Despite its closure, many copycat websites quickly surfaced. As of this writing, one of the prominent replacements is the domain www.shahid4u.my, which continues to operate alongside other similar domains such as shahid4u.watch, shahid4u.to, shahiid4u.cam, and shahid4u.diy.”

Whether the sites causing issues for beIN and Miramax are run by the same operators, their affiliates, or unconnected third parties, is difficult to prove. That being said, the speed at which they reappear in various forms suggests at least some preparation and does little to dampen suspicion.

To most users of these sites, if they look and perform as they used to, nothing else really matters. Whether that will have an impact on any deterrent effect intended by similar enforcement actions remains to be seen.

And Finally

Popular live sports streaming platform Freestreams-live was targeted by none other than Homeland Security Investigations during the FIFA World Cup in 2022. Pursuant to a warrant issued by the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, US law enforcement seized freestreams-live1.com , at the time the site’s main domain.

After what appeared to be an effortless recovery, the site went on to deploy freestreams-live.ga and variants using the extensions .me, .im, .se, .top, .tv, and .nu. The submission notes that despite only being registered in April 2024, freestreams-live.my generated 11.8 million visits in August. Perhaps the seizure of a single domain should be viewed as symbolic of general intent rather than in any way effective.

The beIN and Miramax submission to the USTR is available here

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

In May, the Paris Judicial Court ordered Google, Cloudflare, and Cisco to block access to several pirate websites by poisoning their DNS .

The order, issued under Article L.333-10 of the French Sports Code, compelled the tech giants to prevent users from accessing unauthorized streams of Champions League and Premier League matches.

Applicant Canal+ argued that the alternative DNS resolvers allowed people to bypass the “regular” blocking measures implemented by internet providers.

The tech companies opposed the measures, characterizing the blocking demands as overbroad. They presented a list of concerns and caveats, none of which convinced the court. A request to postpone the measures pending appeal was also denied.

As a result, Google and Cloudflare both implemented DNS poisoning measures in France. Cisco’s OpenDNS service, meanwhile, decided to leave France altogether , impacting all users of its service in the country.

The initial blocking efforts targeted a few dozen pirate sports streaming domains, including Footybite, Hesgoal, and Livekoora. While the additional DNS blocking order made it harder to access these sites, many other pirate sites remained accessible.

DNS Poisoning Spreads

To patch these holes, Canal+ returned to court multiple times in recent weeks, securing multiple DNS blocking orders that add many other pirate streaming domains to the blocklist.

This follow-up action initially went unreported, but Cloudflare recently uploaded three Paris Judicial Court orders to the Lumen Database to provide more transparency. These orders show that once successful, Canal+ continued to expand the scope of the blocking.

In September, the court granted Canal+’s blocking request for 15 domain names, including livetv.lol, sporttune.com, and crvsport.ru. These sites offered access to Formula 1 streams without permission.

Once again the court concluded that DNS resolvers are intermediaries that contribute to the illegal streaming activity. As such, they must take action.

At the time the order was published, Cisco’s OpenDNS service had already left France, so no action was required. Cloudflare and Google, on the other hand, were given just three days to comply.

Following the “Formula 1” order, Canal+ requested two additional orders that were granted last month. These targeted dozens of other sports streaming domains, through which pirated Champions League and Premier League matches were available.

These latest orders only target Cloudflare and Google, which were again required to block the domain names within three days.

Tech Companies Defense

Both tech companies presented a defense in court. Among other things, Cloudflare and Google argued that the blocking measures are disproportionate, costly, and ineffective.

There are simpler ways to block access, they noted, pointing out that the measures would not be effective because users could use VPNs or other DNS resolvers to bypass the blocks.

The Paris Court disagreed, insisting that blocking measures are proportionate and necessary. Canal+ could choose the blocking measures it deemed appropriate and the existence of alternative solutions is irrelevant, the court said.

Cloudflare and Cisco further argued that the legal justification for these blockades, Article L. 333-10 of the French Sports Code, does not apply to DNS resolvers. They claimed that they do not provide a “transmission function” and therefore are not “intermediaries” under EU law.

Again, the Paris court disagreed. It asserted that DNS resolvers do play a role in transmitting content and can be considered intermediaries under EU law.

Google also mentioned that some pirate streaming domains are customers of Cloudflare’s CDN service, implying that its fellow defendant could take more proactive measures. However, the court ruled that this wouldn’t relieve DNS providers of their responsibilities.

While Cloudflare and Google must comply with the court orders, they will likely try to overturn the decisions on appeal. According to the tech companies, these orders fragment the global Internet , jeopardizing the trust and integrity of DNS as a core global infrastructure

—

Copies of the three additional DNS blocking order issues by the Paris judicial court are available here ( 1 , 2 , 3 , pdf)

A list of all affected domain names is available below. Some domain names such as livetv807.me, antenasports.ru, and sporttuna.sx, appear in multiple orders.

aliezstream.pro
antenasport.shop
antenasports.ru
antenasports.shop
antenatv.online
antenatv.store
antennasport.ru
aspoitv.shop
livetv802.me
toparena.store
emb.ap1357.me
embx224539.ap1357.me
1qwebplay.xyz
livetv807.me
cdn.livetv807.me
boxtv60.com
infinity-ott.com
vbn123.com
futbolenvivo.ru
centralareana.live
crvspoît.ru
livetv.lol
streameast.buffstream.io
sporttuna.sx
freestreams-live1se.nu
streamonsport.nî
26216.stunserver.net
viwlivehdplay.ru
bestmlb.buffstream.io
1.dlhd.sx
claplivehdplay.ru
sporttuna.com
sporttuna.site
livetv806.me
rojadirectahdenvivo.com
streamsthunder.tv
rojadirectenvivo.me
methstreams.me
antenasports.ru
asportv.shop
toparena.store
lshunter.net
tv1337.buzz
livetv.sx
sporttuna.pro
livetv807.me
embx224539.ap1366.me
cdn.livetv807.me
locatedinfain.com
tvhd.tutvlive.info
stream-24.net
speci4leagle.com
vl.methstreams.me
klubsports.fun
weblivehdplay.ru
buddycenters.shop
olalivehdplay.ru
Iqwebplay.xyz
sporttvls.com
euro2024direct.ru
librarywhispering.com
cdn.livetv808.me
watch.sporttuna.pro
sporttuna.sx
sporttuna.online
lewblivehdplay.ru
viwlivehdplay.ru
r365.city
finytv.com

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

As the RIAA sued thousands of students for music piracy, Hollywood knew that faster internet connections would soon make movies a similarly easy target.

For downloaders in the early 2000s, faster connections couldn’t come soon enough.

In the meantime, ads promising faster downloads began appearing everywhere. Some offered magical ‘internet booster’ software that in reality did little or nothing to improve speeds. Others linked to all-you-can-eat ‘direct download’ portals with flashy names and equally flashy graphics.

As the months and years rolled on, these platforms used content availability as a selling point and through various deceptions, many gave the impression that they offered every piece of content imaginable for a small fee, completely legally.

These platforms deployed various business models, but for consumers who signed up for a short trial, what followed was never good. In most cases there was no content to download. Some sites were selling subscriptions that were structurally difficult or even impossible to cancel, or in some cases incurred an extortionate ‘leaving’ fee.

Due to the presentation, many people believed they were paying for legal content at a discount. What they often received instead was involuntary membership of a ‘subscription trap’ that relieved them of their money while generating millions of dollars for scam site operators. In many cases busy people simply didn’t know that their opportunity to cancel had expired, or that they were being charged $50 or $60 every month for absolutely nothing.

Evolution

Hoping to secure their piece of the pie, new players entered the market in the years that followed. Deception wasn’t just limited to movies either. Hundreds of bogus music download sites promised unlimited legal MP3 downloads, while bogus eBook sites offered extensive libraries of junk. In broad terms the content ostensibly on offer was merely a distraction; underneath they were substantially the same.

What many had in common was their targeting of people prepared to pay for content; people who could’ve used legal services if they’d known any better. But as law enforcement and entertainment industry action shut down pirate sites servicing customers who preferred not to pay , fake ‘legal’ download sites continued to defraud people who actually wanted to pay , year after year.

By 2021, the business model had evolved. Advertising still promised the earth, but instead of receiving nothing for their money, subscribers were given access to obscure and unpopular content; a far cry from the blockbusters promised but a veneer of legitimacy for dubious operators.

Dutch anti-piracy group BREIN is known to report scam sites to ScamAdvisor, but the only major action against these platforms came in the summer of 2021. Radio Canada’s Décrypteurs program exposed what was probably the largest operation of its type in the world with an estimated 1,000+ sites in the network.

Within two months, the business was reportedly shut down, but the idea could never be put back in the bottle. In fact, after effectively ignoring these scams for more than 20 years, new Hollywood piracy studies now describe them as a greater risk to consumers than pirate sites themselves. In itself that’s intriguing but as we explain below, their appearance in piracy studies is problematic.

Studies Funded By MPA

The first study to attract our attention was published on the MPA’s EMEA website in September. Consumer Risk from Piracy in Poland ( pdf ) discloses that it was funded by the MPA and “produced independently” by Dr Paul Watters at La Trobe University (Melbourne).

The aim of the study “was to quantify the cyber risks faced by Polish consumers who engage with digital piracy websites.” The paper begins by defining what it claims are the four predominant types of digital piracy service operating in Poland; P2P Sites, Illicit Streaming Sites, Fraudulent Piracy Sites, and IPTV Subscription Services.

What is a Fraudulent Piracy Site?

While three of the categories above are self-explanatory, Fraudulent Piracy Sites are defined on page 10 as “presenting pirated content as legitimate” and “tricking users into payments or downloading malicious software”. The study claims that these activities “violate content creators’ rights” and also “carry legal consequences for both distributors and consumers.”

No site of any kind is named in the report so it’s impossible to visually confirm what “presenting pirated content as legitimate” actually means. Perhaps a logical example might see a pirate site dressed up as Netflix, but streaming pirated content rather than the fully-licensed content users paid for. This would make sense; pirated content is close to free, the consumer pays for what they believe is a legitimate product, and the pirate service generates profit from the gap in the middle.

Unfortunately that logical example fails to help here due to a confusing clash of definitions in the study.

The definition of ‘Fraudulent Piracy Site’ on page 10 of the study is followed by another definition of the same term on page 18. When placed side by side, with each definition’s key point highlighted (red), the problem clearly stands out.

The deception described on page 10 sees pirated content presented as legitimate content, with perceived value on the consumer side facilitating the scam; seems viable. The deception on page 18 describes a concerted effort to present zero value nonexistent pirated content, as low value pirated content on a scam site masquerading as a pirate site with no actual content.

The brief history of ‘fake’ download sites outlined earlier suggests that the most successful scam model involves masquerading as a legitimate service. That Canadian operation reportedly generated CAD$100 million doing just that. By presenting as legitimate, it’s likely that victims factored in perceived value.

Since in general only pirates recognize pirate sites, an absolutely flawless imitation would likely fool some pirates. Unfortunately, the value proposition versus a legitimate service falls way short, especially when pirates are then expected to pay for pirated content.

Similar Risk Report For the Philippines

A similar study appeared on the MPA’s EMEA website in November. Consumer Risk from Piracy in the Philippines ( pdf ) discloses that it was funded by the MPA and “produced independently” by Dr Paul Watters, this time at Macquarie University (Sydney).

“The aim of this study was to quantify the cyber risks faced by Filipino consumers who engage with digital piracy websites, including fraudulent sites, illegal streaming services, proxy sites, P2P sites, or IPTV platforms,” it begins, broadly in line with the Polish report detailed earlier.

The definition of a Fraudulent Piracy Site in this study follows the ‘fake pirate site’ model: “Fraudulent piracy websites masquerade as piracy platforms to swindle users. These sites often mimic the layout, advertising style, and even domain names of popular unauthorized content sharing platforms.”

The graphic below ranks ‘Fraudulent Piracy Sites’ almost as highly as real pirate sites.

The reports covered here are clearly designed to prompt Poland and the Philippines to ensure that site-blocking measures are implemented to counter the pirate site threat. The researcher removes all doubt by making extremely specific recommendations in both reports that fall precisely in line with the MPA’s policy goals for each country.

Once published, studies like these are used to support all kinds of legislation, the global campaign to block sites for copyright infringement especially. As the Polish report confirms, preference is for an administrative site-blocking program in Poland, i.e one that functions without judicial oversight.

The surprise mention of transparency is welcome, however, since administrative programs such as Portugal’s operate behind closed doors. The complication is the introduction of ‘Fraudulent Piracy Sites’ which, incidentally, are just as predatory as any other cybercrime targeting the public today.

Unfortunately, an indisputable fact hasn’t been addressed; these are NOT ‘piracy sites’

There is no precedent anywhere in the world, in any other pirate site-blocking program, that has even discussed blocking these platforms. Quite frankly law enforcement should’ve taken action 20 years ago but here we are, facing a state of emergency that demands a “zero day” response to prevent further exploitation.

So apart from muddying the piracy waters with a new category of pirate site that contains no pirate sites, why is this important?

Once site-blocking is introduced, nobody will spend another second worrying about ‘Fraudulent Piracy Sites’ beyond their usefulness as a lobbying tool. As a result, when all pirate sites are eventually blocked in Poland, for example, what type of site is most likely to enjoy a massive influx of business as people try to find sites that aren’t blocked?

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

In the 1978 movie Midnight Express, there’s a scene where prisoners walk slowly around a wheel in a dark, stone room. Performed instinctively in a clockwise direction, the ritual brings calm and unity to an otherwise nightmarish existence.

When the protagonist suddenly displays free will in an anti-clockwise direction, defiance of the unspoken rule causes confusion and then descends into chaos. At AGCOM headquarters in Italy, Commissioner and board member Elisa Giomi has stood alone in opposition to Piracy Shield’s direction for the last two years. That too has descended into chaos.

After publicly criticizing its failings, including spiraling costs and its apparent toll on public resources, Giomi is now under pressure to return to the officially designated direction while keeping her opinions to herself. That hasn’t happened yet, far from it.

Opposition Was Inevitable

In the wake of the blocking blunder that wiped out Google Drive last month, Giomi called for Piracy Shield’s suspension. Her colleagues all voted in the opposite direction, just as they’d done for the previous two years. With official rhetoric continuing to extol Piracy Shield’s virtues, Giomi publicly distanced herself from the party line. And how.

After criticizing how quickly the platform was approved by politicians, Giomi slammed the absence of transparency pertaining to external consultancy. With mounting blocking blunders on top, Giomi’s evisceration of Piracy Shield and the surrounding culture was unprecedented.

A source familiar with the situation virtually guaranteed there would be consequences for that outburst, but in what form was anyone’s guess.

Distancing From Comments Made to the Chamber of Deputies

In the wake of a hearing at the Chamber of Deputies, during which the president of AGCOM spoke about Piracy Shield, Giomi made her feelings known once again.

“I find myself once again having to make my position on the #PiracyShield platform transparent and distance myself from the statements made by the President of Agcom during a hearing at the Culture Committee of the Chamber of Deputies, statements that were never discussed and much less shared with the rest of the Agcom Council, which the President can represent but certainly not replace,” the Commissioner wrote on LinkedIn. Then point by point, Giomi systematically aired her grievances.

To ensure authenticity, the comments below are unedited and translated from Italian as plainly as possible. Note: Lega Calcio refers to Lega Nazionale Professionisti Serie A, Italy’s top-tier football league. The Authority refers to telecoms regulator AGCOM, where Giomi is a Commissioner and sits on the board.

Five Devastating Statements

1. Contrary to what the President declared, the re-engineering of the platform for blocking (most well-known) pirate sites and IP addresses was not necessary to optimize the existing system and adapt it to technological evolution, but because it generated a significant and constant percentage of errors that were not compatible with regulatory requirements.

2. These errors are not attributable to defects in the reports, as claimed by the President, but to the functioning of the platform itself, and have led to long resolution times and significant costs for the Authority and for the parties involved.

3. I distance myself from the claim that the donation of the blocking platform by Lega Calcio responded to “the public interest in providing for the provisions of the law in an extremely rapid manner.” It would have been possible to respect these deadlines by also contacting CONSIP , the national purchasing center of the Ministry of Economy, which would also have allowed the identification of a specialized supplier not in #conflictofinterest with the blocking of sites, thus ensuring greater impartiality of the administrative action of the Authority.

4. As a #referee I find myself uncomfortable in contrasting interests that are equally legitimate before the law, but it is worth remembering that the interest of Lega Calcio in combating #piracy contrasts with the equally legitimate interest of the providers of information society services and #platforms , called upon to adapt their networks according to the Piracy Shield standards and to try to prevent erroneous blocks of sites and IP addresses not involved in piracy. There is no charity in the donation of Lega Calcio but rather the desire to pursue private interests in the most effective way possible.

5. The Authority has entrusted the company that created the platform for the Lega Calcio with the evolutionary maintenance service for 12 months. True, but for a fee. Let’s start from a fixed point: the blocking platform pursues the important purpose of combating piracy, however blocks on the #web cannot be implemented by trampling on #fundamentalrights of owners of legitimate sites and IP addresses. The blocking platform should operate, in full, respecting both the right of defense before the block, and the right to immediate restoration of what has been unlawfully inhibited by the Authority. It is unacceptable that a legitimate site is closed in 30 minutes by the platform and that the removal of the block may take even more than 30 days.

Neutral Professionals Support Giomi. Those Involved Do Not

On LinkedIn, professionals overwhelmingly came out in support of Giomi’s unprecedented public airing of her grievances. Several commenters noted that it would’ve been better to have disclosed this information sooner, but the majority expressed their support nonetheless.

In a fresh announcement this week, Commissioner Giomi revealed that her post on LinkedIn led to her receiving “a warning to rectify” and a “threat of a possible compensation action.”

Who sent those threats isn’t made clear, but they don’t come as a surprise.

Contrary Opinions and Criticism Increasingly Unwelcome in Italy

“It is not the first time that I have found myself exposed to similar initiatives when I express a #dissenting opinion in the face of a contrary vote,” Giomi notes.

“I wonder if this does not constitute undue #pressure … a bit like what happens to journalists when they are subjected to #QuereleTemerarie for having reported something inconvenient.”

At the time of writing, the European Centre for Press & Media Freedom has ten articles on its front page, all of them related in some way to attacks on Italian journalists.

Media freedom in Italy has been steadily declining in recent years, marked by unprecedented attacks and violations often initiated by public officials in the attempt to silence critical voices. Political interference in public media and the systematic use of legal intimidation against journalists by political actors have long defined the media-politics relationship in Italy. However, these dynamics have reached alarming levels over the past two years.
Report Launch – Silencing the Fourth Estate: Italy’s Democratic Drift

The full post is available here but regardless of whether people oppose or support Piracy Shield, Giomi says that this dispute comes down to the benefits of diversity to a society where differences are allowed to coexist.

“The Piracy Shield affair brings us back to the importance of giving space to minority voices on issues of collective interest. That is, protecting #pluralism,” Giomi concludes.

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

Real-Debrid is nifty tool that provides access to premium and unrestricted downloads from a variety of file hosting and torrent websites.

The popular download service operates as a middleman to access file-hosting platforms, for example, and also uses cached content to stream content from torrent sites instantly.

These features appear to be quite appealing to pirates. This hasn’t gone unnoticed by Real-Debrid, which has an active DMCA removal policy to deal with complaints from rightsholders. However, according to French film distribution companies, this didn’t go far enough.

Real-Debrid Goes Full Anti-Piracy Mode

A few hours ago Real-Debrid informed its users that it will strengthen its anti-piracy measures. This drastic measure comes after a formal notice from the French Federation of Film Distributors ( FNEF ), which previously took several popular file hosting services to court .

Faced with FNEF’s demands, which could potentially escalate into a full-fledged legal battle, Real-Debrid has decided to take several steps to appease rightsholders.

The service says it will block content from ‘a number of’ cyberlockers that are on the US Trade Representative’s “Notorious Markets” list , as well as the EU “Piracy Watchlist” . No names are mentioned, but RapidGator, Mega, Dbree, and KrakenFiles are potential candidates.

Real-Debrid will also deactivate its API , which could be used by third-party services and applications, including media centers such as Kodi and Plex. The same applies to the ‘instantAvailability’ feature, which made it possible to instantly stream and download cached videos, including pirated content.

Upload Filters & More

The service appears to be leaving no stone untouched to combat piracy. It has announced several filtering measures, including keyword filters. Real-Debrid acknowledges that this may lead to false positives, but it appears that the service doesn’t have much choice.

Private torrent trackers aren’t safe either. The download service says it will block all torrent hashes from trackers mentioned in lawsuits filed at the Paris Judicial Court.

Furthermore, Real-Debrid also promises to purge all currently cached files matching these filters. Action to ban “all counterfeit Kodi and Stremio applications” is most likely a reference to any third party tools and extensions that enhance Kodi and Stremio with near-instant playback features.

What’s Next?

As expected, many of Real-Debrid’s paying customers are not pleased with these planned changes. To what degree it will affect the broader user base has yet to be seen, however.

Not all users of the service utilize its ‘instant’ streaming tool. The torrent download functionality is also quite popular. For these people, the impact will largely depend on the breadth and effectiveness of the hash and filename filters.

That said, the pressure applied by French movie distributors will clearly have an impact on Real-Debrid. If the current measures prove insufficient, the same rightsholders will likely come back with new demands.

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

In recent years, rightsholders of major sports events have repeatedly complained that piracy of live sports is getting out of hand.

Increasingly, lawmakers and law enforcement were asked to help out. This week, these calls were heard.

247TVStream Shutdown and Indictment

The Department of Justice for the Eastern District of New York announced that it had effectively shut down a major pirate IPTV streaming operation, 247TVStream. The service was allegedly owned and operated by two brothers, Noor Nabi Chowdhury and Mohammad Mahmudur Rahman.

Chowdhury, who’s a New York resident, was arrested on Tuesday and arraigned in the New York court on the same day. His brother Rahman allegedly resides in Bangladesh and remains at large.

The men were charged with four counts; conspiracy to provide to the public an illicit digital transmission service, providing an illicit digital transmission service; conspiracy to commit wire fraud; and aggravated identity theft.

1000+ Channels

247TVStream was a subscription streaming service that offered illegal access to live television and sports programming. The service had over 1,000 television channels and was specifically targeted at sports fans.

These pirated channels could be viewed via dedicated devices or Android and iOS apps such as the ‘247 IPTV Player’, for streaming on the go.

“247tvstream.com is a place where sports fans can watch live sports online around the world with an alternative way from the comfort of their PC/Laptop/Smartphone/Tablets or SmartTV,” the service explained in its FAQ.

$7 Million in Subscription Fees

The authorities say that the service had been in operation since May 2017 and caused more than $100 million in damages to copyright holders. The pirate service itself also generated substantial revenues during this time; over $7 million in subscriber fees according to the indictment.

These revenues, typically $10 per month, partially went through payment processors which were presumably unaware of the nature of the business. The operators also made efforts to conceal their true identities through shell companies and false documents.

“To conceal the true nature of 247TVStream, Chowdhury and Rahman falsely described, and caused to be falsely described, the nature of 247TVStream and the identity of its owners on applications to the Merchant Processors,” the indictment reads.

Working with Dutch and UK law enforcement agencies, authorities seized the servers that hosted 247TVStream’s illegal content. They also seized the domain names tvschedule24.com and 247tvstream.com, which now display a banner announcing the seizure.

“The domain has been seized by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Homeland Security Investigations in accordance with a seizure warrant issued pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §§ 981, 982, 1030, and 2323 by the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York,” it reads.

Multi-Year Prison Sentences

Commenting on the news, United States Attorney for the Eastern District of New York, Breon Peace, thanked Canadian, Dutch, and UK partners for their cooperation. He is pleased with the outcome thus far.

“My Office and the Department of Justice are committed to protecting the rights of intellectual property holders from digital pirates like these defendants,” Peace notes.

After his arraignment on Tuesday, Chowdhury was released from custody with the bond set at $25,000. Rahman has yet to be apprehended.

The brothers could face decades behind bars if convicted on all charges. The penalties for their alleged crimes include a maximum of 20 years for wire fraud, five years for conspiracy related to the illegal streaming service, and a mandatory two-year sentence for identity theft, all of which could be served consecutively.

—-

A copy of the indictment, released by the Department of Justice for the Eastern District of New York, is available here (pdf)

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

Z-Library is one of the largest shadow libraries on the Internet, hosting millions of books and academic articles that can be downloaded for free.

The site defied all odds over the past two years. It continued to operate despite a full-fledged criminal prosecution by the United States, which resulted in the arrest of two alleged operators in Argentina.

These two Russian defendants are wanted by the United States and earlier this year a judge approved their extradition. However, according to the most recent information we have, the defendants escaped house arrest and vanished into thin air .

The roles of the two Russians remain unclear, but they were not vital to the site’s survival. Z-Library continued to expand its reach despite their legal troubles.

Z-Library Motivations Research

Z-Library users don’t seem to be hindered by the criminal prosecution either, as they continue to support and use the site. For many, Z-Library is simply a convenient portal to download free books. For others, however, it’s a vital resource to further an academic career.

A recent study published in the Journal of University Teaching & Learning Practice sheds light on the latter. It looks at the ‘piracy’ motivations of Redditors and students in higher education, specifically when it comes to Z-Library.

The paper, published by Dr. Michael Day of the University of Greenwich, labels the use of Z-Library as ‘Academic Cybercrime’. The findings, however, suggest that students are more likely to draw comparisons with “Robin Hood”.

The research looks at the motivations of two groups; Reddit users and Chinese postgraduate students. Despite the vast differences between these groups, their views on Z-Library are quite similar.

Redditors’ Responses

The 134 Reddit responses were sampled from the Zlibrary subreddit, which is obviously biased in favor of the site. However, the reasoning goes well beyond a simple “I want free stuff” arguments.

Many commenters highlighted that they were drawn to the site out of poverty, for example, or they highlighted that Z-Library was an essential tool to fulfill their academic goals.

“Living in a 3rd world country, 1 book would cost like 50%- 80% already of my daily wage,” one Redditor wrote.

The idea that Z-Library is a ‘necessary evil’ was also highlighted by other commenters. This includes a student who can barely make ends meet, and a homeless person, who has neither the money nor the space for physical books.

The lack of free access to all study materials, including academic journal subscriptions at university libraries, was also a key motivator. Paired with the notion that journal publishers make billions of dollars, without compensating authors, justification is found for ‘pirate’ alternatives.

“They make massive profits. So stealing from them doesn’t hurt the authors nor reviewers, just the rich greedy publishers who make millions just to design a cover and click ‘publish’,” one Redditor wrote.

Chinese Students

The second part of the study is conducted in a more structured format among 103 postgraduate students in China. This group joined a seminar where Z-Library and the crackdown were discussed. In addition, the students participated in follow-up focus group discussions, while also completing a survey.

Despite not all being users of the shadow library, 41% of the students agreed that the site’s (temporary) shutdown affected their ability to study and find resources for degree learning.

In general, the students have a favorable view toward Z-Library and similar sites, and 71% admit that they have used a shadow library in the past. In line with China’s socialist values, the overwhelming majority of the students agreed that access to knowledge should be free for everyone.

While the students are aware of copyright law, they believe that the need to access knowledge outweighs rightsholders’ concerns. This is also reflected in the following responses, among others.

^{– Z-Library, or a similar website, is helpful to students living in poverty (82% agree).
– Academic textbooks are too expensive, so I can’t afford to buy them as a student (67% agree).
– I have limited access to English medium academic books in my country (63% agree)
– I prefer to download books without restrictions, like [paywalls etc.], as it is difficult (77% agree).}

All in all, Z-Library and other shadow libraries are seen as a viable option for expensive or inaccessible books, despite potential copyright concerns.

Robin Hood Mentality

This research sheds an intriguing light on key motivations to use shadow libraries. However, the small sample sizes, selection bias, and specific characteristics of the groups, means that these findings should be interpreted with caution.

Dr. Michael Day, nonetheless, notes that the responses show clear signs of a Robin Hood mentality. Z-Library users evade the publishers’ ‘tax’ on knowledge by downloading works for free.

Overall, the paper suggests that universities and publishers may want to reconsider the status quo and consider making more content freely accessible, taking a page from Z-Library.

“There is need for universities to re-consider the digital divides faced by socioeconomically and digitally disadvantaged students, alongside publishers, who must rethink their approach by making open access research more commonplace and thus pro-human,” the author concludes.

The paper provides a good example, as it is published under a Creative Commons license and is freely accessible to all .

—

Day, M.J. (2024). Digital Piracy in Higher Education: Exploring Social Media Users and Chinese Postgraduate Students Motivations for Supporting ‘Academic Cybercrime’ by Shelving ebooks from Z-Library. Journal of University Teaching and Learning Practice.

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

Early September, Brazil’s telecom regulator Anatel announced that it would team up with the Hackathon Brazil Community to stage the first ever ‘TV Box Hackathon’.

The two-day event, tabled for September 28 and 29, would see teams of hackers develop “innovative solutions” to block or disable non-certified set-top boxes, typically piracy-configured Android devices installed in people’s homes.

So the challenge is this: by understanding how these non-approved devices work, you must develop an approach that is capable of interrupting the exchange of data that occurs between the devices and their users.

The task ahead was no walk in the park, but if anyone did manage to pull it off, the anti-piracy implications for the entertainment industries would be absolutely enormous.

We Have a Winner

“Hackathon Brasil and Anatel have successfully concluded the Hackathon TV Box 2024, awarding innovative solutions to end the use of illegal TV Box devices in Brazil,” an announcement on the official site now reads.

“The event brought together experts in technology, network security and hardware, focusing on creative and effective alternatives to protect consumers from digital threats, such as malware and spying.”

The winning team, revealed as Juarez J., Aline A., Henrique A., Eduarda L., Daniel S. and Theo W., picked up first prize after their solution demonstrated an “ability to directly impact the fight against TV Boxes not approved by Anatel, ensuring greater security and privacy for users.”

The competitors were judged on how closely they adhered to the details of the challenge, innovation, and ultimately the potential impact of their solution.

Anatel has repeatedly warned that many set-top devices currently in use have poor security, some at the operating system level. The winning team isn’t giving much away, but exploiting these weaknesses may have formed part of the successful strategy.

No Proof Yet, But The Attack Sounds Plausible

Exactly how much team leader/spokesman Daniel Lima is allowed to say in public is unclear, but the details revealed so far seem generally plausible.

In comments to Globo, Lima said the team’s solution is to render set-top devices useless through a software update controlled by them, rather than the manufacturer or whichever entity typically handles that. Ordinarily the first steps would’ve been much more difficult but in Brazil, systems are already in place to provide a helping hand.

In common with many counterparts elsewhere in the world, ISPs in Brazil already hijack DNS requests for the purpose of blocking access to pirate sites. Typically that involves an internet user attempting to access ‘Blocked Site A’ in their browser, and ISPs’ DNS servers directing the user to a blocking page instead. Assuming that a set-top box tries to access a particular domain name to receive an update, those requests can also be diverted to a different server.

“We were able to add code that completely disables [a device]. Our solution uses advanced networking capabilities to allow the software on the box to be altered, and the user would be unable to access protected content,” Daniel says.

“Since Anatel controls the ISPs, it can force them to implement advanced network features that make it possible for the box to receive a modified package.”

Caveats Always Apply

These hacks are often more easily said than done, but having the ability to meddle with ISP DNS records to divert a device to a rogue server is a great start. If the devices had stronger security by default, even this would face challenges. If a technique regularly seen in ‘pirate’ Android apps was in place, that could’ve really upset the party.

Known as certificate pinning , this networking practice provides much greater certainty that the destination server requested by the host is that to which it connects; certainly not a rogue server carrying a potentially ruinous software update.

Claims in earlier reports have portrayed device security as extremely weak, so updates may not always be delivered via https; if they arrive via unsecured http, that would amount to another big plus. That doesn’t necessarily mean the rest of the process would be easy, or that any number of countermeasures couldn’t be deployed to stop the scheme in its tracks. Details on the security of these devices could make all the difference, or not much at all, it’s hard to say.

Strong Confidence Meets Cooler Consideration

Whatever the details, Daniel seems very confident that something big is on the horizon.

“When Anatel implements the solution, there will be a general failure in most of the irregular boxes that are in use,” he insists .

Anatel seems reluctant to say much and its official statement doesn’t say anything about possible use. However, a comment that does catch the eye relates to something we mentioned in our earlier article .

A genuine and workable solution to the pirate set-top box problem could make those behind it impossibly rich, but only if supported by a robust attitude towards their all-important IP rights.

Courtesy of Globo, Anatel’s comments seem to imply that while useful, any solutions should be seen as an extension of Anatel’s existing work, including methods it’s familiar with already.

Anatel is holding meetings with the Hackathon participants in addition to the winners, as all the teams presented solutions that were seen as opportunities for improvement in the process carried out by the Agency. The objective of the discussions has been to adapt the solutions presented to the methodologies already used by the Agency.

Many of the proposals are in line with what Anatel already does. In this way, the Agency has considered all the concepts and ideas that were presented as improvements to the Agency’s internal and external processes, which will allow for the optimization of the security of the telecommunications infrastructure and users.

The process is already underway, as it is continuous, with Anatel working together with the participants.

Meanwhile, the victorious six-person team picked up a cash prize of R$7,000 for taking first place; that’s around US$1,200 or US$200 each after the split.

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