In 2015, Portugal’s General Inspectorate of Cultural Activities (IGAC) finalized an agreement hailed as a groundbreaking development in the fight against online piracy.

A multi-industry memorandum of understanding saw rightsholders, anti-piracy group MAPINET, ISP group Apritel, and DNS.pt, the organization responsible for .PT domains, team up with advertising companies and consumer groups to fight piracy – together.

Based on reports from rightsholders, MAPINET filed monthly complaints to IGAC and within 15 days, ISPs voluntarily blocked pirate sites and advertisers took measures to prevent ad placement.

The Pirate Bay had been previously blocked by court order, but with judicial oversight no longer a requirement under the voluntary program, progress was swift. Within weeks major torrent sites including KickassTorrents, ExtraTorrent, Isohunt, YTS and RARBG, were blocked, along with streaming portals Watchseries, Primewire, and many more besides.

Portugal was on a roll and impressing powerful rightsholders with its reported efficiency.

Portugal’s Success Promoted to Spain and France

In 2016, it was reported that the Portuguese model was considered so effective that Hollywood had begun promoting it to other countries, including Spain and France. After just six months, 330 sites were on the blocklist and according to rightsholders, Portugal’s program was receiving international recognition for its streamlined blocking process.

Noting a “special efficiency” based on results versus costs of litigation, visits to pirate sites had been reportedly slashed by “ at least 60% ” already. In 2017, a study commissioned by the then-MPAA reported that usage of the top 250 pirate sites in Portugal had decreased 9.3 percent overall , while a control group showed that the same sites enjoyed a 30.8 percent increase in usage globally.

In 2019, the MoU was amended to allow for swift blocking of pirated streams of live sporting events, meaning that Portugal had access to the full range of blocking instruments; static, dynamic, and live. New law that came into force in 2022 added regulatory authority (IGAC) to the existing voluntary program and formalized obligations for intermediaries to address removal of infringing content.

Portugal Keeps on Blocking

Our most recent view of blocking activity in Portugal dates back to last November. Since official information isn’t made available to the public, reliance is placed on third-party resources’ best estimates.

The table of around 3,000 domains blocked since 2015 at the end of this article is likely incomplete. However, in light of Apritel’s statement concerning what it claims is a disastrous piracy situation in the country, the details are important when trying to process the bigger picture.

Apritel begins by reporting on data previously published by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO); 288,000 households in Portugal access paid piracy services (including pirate IPTV) every month, and around one million citizens have at some point consumed pirated content.

“Sports content leads the way in inappropriate consumption: 48% in the EU and 54% in Portugal,” Apritel explains, referencing the percentage of the population that have consumed pirated live sports streams at least once.

The telecoms group continues with additional information sourced from EU reports and covers the now-common talking points about the nature of pirate sites; the security risks faced by the people who use them, for example. Yet the thing that stands out most is actually notable for its puzzling absence.

Gold Standard Blocking System, Zero Mention of Blocking

Depending on the occasion, site-blocking is sometimes described as “just one of the tools in a broader anti-piracy toolbox” or more often one of the most essential tools available to rightsholders, period.

Portugal is as decorated as they come in respect of site blocking; if there was an Oscar for DNS tampering, Portugal would’ve received one a decade ago. Yet when describing the dire piracy situation in the country, Apritel doesn’t mention site blocking directly at all. The closest it gets is with a comment about VPNs noting that it’s “essential that no one gets left out.”

Instead, Apritel calls for urgent reform of the “Portuguese legislative framework and current practices by the competent authorities,” based on four fundamental points.

• Raising awareness among users of the illegality and risks of piracy;
• Systematically identifying/penalizing illegal exploitation of content via streaming/IPTV;
• Notifying and warning consumers as a first deterrent measure;
• Applying simple and swift financial sanctions to repeat offenders.

Since site-blocking measures aren’t directly addressed, to what extent they had an effect is difficult to say. That being said, it seems safe to assume that regardless of performance, a blocking program once described as the model for others to follow, simply wasn’t effective enough to prevent a new piracy crisis. If indeed the last one ever went away.

Punishing Pirates

What Portugal should do now, Apritel says, is put pirate consumers under pressure; warnings to begin, then sanctions for consumers who repeatedly don’t get the message.

“Several European countries — Germany, Spain, France, Greece, Denmark and Italy — have already implemented effective ‘Cease & Desist’ systems, with different models, which consist of formal warnings to consumers, supervised by competent authorities,” Apritel explains.

“In Portugal, this function would be the responsibility of the Inspectorate-General for Cultural Activities (IGAC), never that of electronic communications operators, as is wrongly believed. The data shows that illegal consumption per capita is significantly lower in countries that have adopted these tools. Why is this not being done here as well?”

The above caveat ‘with different models’ is worth a brief explanation. France has operated a system of warnings and sanctions for the past 15 years. Greece passed new law only recently but seems keen to start fining IPTV pirates as quickly as possible.

Italy passed new law in 2023 which supports small fines for an initial offense, increasing to 5,000 euros maximum for repeat offenders. At the time of writing, there are no reports of fines having been issued but pirate IPTV users are likely to be the first targets. Fines of around 70 euros are expected.

To our knowledge, Germany and Denmark have no comparable warning/fine systems in place for tackling piracy; what both have in common (Germany in particular) are histories of aggressive rightsholders using existing copyright law to squeeze cash settlements from the public.

Uptake of Legal Services Was Impressive

Apparently timed to coincide with the blocking of major pirate sites, in October 2015 and after a long wait, Netflix finally launched in Portugal. Estimates in 2023 suggested that around 4.5 million people in Portugal were consuming legal content from legitimate services, with Netflix easily the most popular.

The Streaming Platform Barometer – BStream – is a regular study to monitor the awareness and consumption of on-demand streaming services in Portugal. The most recent edition reported early February 2025 found that 52% of Portuguese people (15+ years old) are now consuming content via streaming platforms, the highest figure since the study began.

While this year’s figure shows a 10% increase over that reported in 2021, it represents growth over last year of just one percentage point; the market is slowing down.

Prices Travel in One Direction

When Netflix launched in Portugal in 2015, a basic single screen subscription cost €7.99 per month; two screen HD cost €9.99, and a premium plan of four screens in Ultra HD cost €11.99. That’s a lot more than the zero paid out when visiting pirate sites, so considering the millions who subsequently went legal, that’s not bad at all.

Due to the imposition of advertising and other shifts in service, direct comparisons today are less straightforward. However, the base subscription now costs €8.99, the ‘standard’ plan costs €12.99, and the ‘Premium’ plan costs €17.99, up from €15.99 at the last increase. Netflix also charges €4.99 for any additional viewers who aren’t under the same roof; when added together, the pressure appears to be on those who lightened the load by sharing the costs.

Consumers obtaining dramatic cost reductions via alternative means is apparently a concern once again. Depending on who receives the money, fines seem unlikely to increase consumers’ disposable income, or make them more receptive to industry outreach.

More blocking?

Consisting of blocking data compiled and publicly made available by sitesbloqueados.pt (offline at the time of writing), the ~3,000 domains in the table below should be considered an incomplete set. The list may also contain a relatively small number of domains blocked for reasons other than piracy. We have already removed around 300 domains blocked for gambling reasons, but we may not have identified them all.

No domains blocked in the last six months are included, and we understand that relatively few domains were added between November 2023 and November 2024

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

In 2015, Portugal’s General Inspectorate of Cultural Activities (IGAC) finalized an agreement hailed as a groundbreaking development in the fight against online piracy.

A multi-industry memorandum of understanding saw rightsholders, anti-piracy group MAPINET, ISP group Apritel, and DNS.pt, the organization responsible for .PT domains, team up with advertising companies and consumer groups to fight piracy – together.

Based on reports from rightsholders, MAPINET filed monthly complaints to IGAC and within 15 days, ISPs voluntarily blocked pirate sites and advertisers took measures to prevent ad placement.

The Pirate Bay had been previously blocked by court order, but with judicial oversight no longer a requirement under the voluntary program, progress was swift. Within weeks major torrent sites including KickassTorrents, ExtraTorrent, Isohunt, YTS and RARBG, were blocked, along with streaming portals Watchseries, Primewire, and many more besides.

Portugal was on a roll and impressing powerful rightsholders with its reported efficiency.

Portugal’s Success Promoted to Spain and France

In 2016, it was reported that the Portuguese model was considered so effective that Hollywood had begun promoting it to other countries, including Spain and France. After just six months, 330 sites were on the blocklist and according to rightsholders, Portugal’s program was receiving international recognition for its streamlined blocking process.

Noting a “special efficiency” based on results versus costs of litigation, visits to pirate sites had been reportedly slashed by “ at least 60% ” already. In 2017, a study commissioned by the then-MPAA reported that usage of the top 250 pirate sites in Portugal had decreased 9.3 percent overall , while a control group showed that the same sites enjoyed a 30.8 percent increase in usage globally.

In 2019, the MoU was amended to allow for swift blocking of pirated streams of live sporting events, meaning that Portugal had access to the full range of blocking instruments; static, dynamic, and live. New law that came into force in 2022 added regulatory authority (IGAC) to the existing voluntary program and formalized obligations for intermediaries to address removal of infringing content.

Portugal Keeps on Blocking

Our most recent view of blocking activity in Portugal dates back to last November. Since official information isn’t made available to the public, reliance is placed on third-party resources’ best estimates.

The table of around 3,000 domains blocked since 2015 at the end of this article is likely incomplete. However, in light of Apritel’s statement concerning what it claims is a disastrous piracy situation in the country, the details are important when trying to process the bigger picture.

Apritel begins by reporting on data previously published by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO); 288,000 households in Portugal access paid piracy services (including pirate IPTV) every month, and around one million citizens have at some point consumed pirated content.

“Sports content leads the way in inappropriate consumption: 48% in the EU and 54% in Portugal,” Apritel explains, referencing the percentage of the population that have consumed pirated live sports streams at least once.

The telecoms group continues with additional information sourced from EU reports and covers the now-common talking points about the nature of pirate sites; the security risks faced by the people who use them, for example. Yet the thing that stands out most is actually notable for its puzzling absence.

Gold Standard Blocking System, Zero Mention of Blocking

Depending on the occasion, site-blocking is sometimes described as “just one of the tools in a broader anti-piracy toolbox” or more often one of the most essential tools available to rightsholders, period.

Portugal is as decorated as they come in respect of site blocking; if there was an Oscar for DNS tampering, Portugal would’ve received one a decade ago. Yet when describing the dire piracy situation in the country, Apritel doesn’t mention site blocking directly at all. The closest it gets is with a comment about VPNs noting that it’s “essential that no one gets left out.”

Instead, Apritel calls for urgent reform of the “Portuguese legislative framework and current practices by the competent authorities,” based on four fundamental points.

• Raising awareness among users of the illegality and risks of piracy;
• Systematically identifying/penalizing illegal exploitation of content via streaming/IPTV;
• Notifying and warning consumers as a first deterrent measure;
• Applying simple and swift financial sanctions to repeat offenders.

Since site-blocking measures aren’t directly addressed, to what extent they had an effect is difficult to say. That being said, it seems safe to assume that regardless of performance, a blocking program once described as the model for others to follow, simply wasn’t effective enough to prevent a new piracy crisis. If indeed the last one ever went away.

Punishing Pirates

What Portugal should do now, Apritel says, is put pirate consumers under pressure; warnings to begin, then sanctions for consumers who repeatedly don’t get the message.

“Several European countries — Germany, Spain, France, Greece, Denmark and Italy — have already implemented effective ‘Cease & Desist’ systems, with different models, which consist of formal warnings to consumers, supervised by competent authorities,” Apritel explains.

“In Portugal, this function would be the responsibility of the Inspectorate-General for Cultural Activities (IGAC), never that of electronic communications operators, as is wrongly believed. The data shows that illegal consumption per capita is significantly lower in countries that have adopted these tools. Why is this not being done here as well?”

The above caveat ‘with different models’ is worth a brief explanation. France has operated a system of warnings and sanctions for the past 15 years. Greece passed new law only recently but seems keen to start fining IPTV pirates as quickly as possible.

Italy passed new law in 2023 which supports small fines for an initial offense, increasing to 5,000 euros maximum for repeat offenders. At the time of writing, there are no reports of fines having been issued but pirate IPTV users are likely to be the first targets. Fines of around 70 euros are expected.

To our knowledge, Germany and Denmark have no comparable warning/fine systems in place for tackling piracy; what both have in common (Germany in particular) are histories of aggressive rightsholders using existing copyright law to squeeze cash settlements from the public.

Uptake of Legal Services Was Impressive

Apparently timed to coincide with the blocking of major pirate sites, in October 2015 and after a long wait, Netflix finally launched in Portugal. Estimates in 2023 suggested that around 4.5 million people in Portugal were consuming legal content from legitimate services, with Netflix easily the most popular.

The Streaming Platform Barometer – BStream – is a regular study to monitor the awareness and consumption of on-demand streaming services in Portugal. The most recent edition reported early February 2025 found that 52% of Portuguese people (15+ years old) are now consuming content via streaming platforms, the highest figure since the study began.

While this year’s figure shows a 10% increase over that reported in 2021, it represents growth over last year of just one percentage point; the market is slowing down.

Prices Travel in One Direction

When Netflix launched in Portugal in 2015, a basic single screen subscription cost €7.99 per month; two screen HD cost €9.99, and a premium plan of four screens in Ultra HD cost €11.99. That’s a lot more than the zero paid out when visiting pirate sites, so considering the millions who subsequently went legal, that’s not bad at all.

Due to the imposition of advertising and other shifts in service, direct comparisons today are less straightforward. However, the base subscription now costs €8.99, the ‘standard’ plan costs €12.99, and the ‘Premium’ plan costs €17.99, up from €15.99 at the last increase. Netflix also charges €4.99 for any additional viewers who aren’t under the same roof; when added together, the pressure appears to be on those who lightened the load by sharing the costs.

Consumers obtaining dramatic cost reductions via alternative means is apparently a concern once again. Depending on who receives the money, fines seem unlikely to increase consumers’ disposable income, or make them more receptive to industry outreach.

More blocking?

Consisting of blocking data compiled and publicly made available by sitesbloqueados.pt (offline at the time of writing), the ~3,000 domains in the table below should be considered an incomplete set. The list may also contain a relatively small number of domains blocked for reasons other than piracy. We have already removed around 300 domains blocked for gambling reasons, but we may not have identified them all.

No domains blocked in the last six months are included, and we understand that relatively few domains were added between November 2023 and November 2024

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

In 2015, Portugal’s General Inspectorate of Cultural Activities (IGAC) finalized an agreement hailed as a groundbreaking development in the fight against online piracy.

A multi-industry memorandum of understanding saw rightsholders, anti-piracy group MAPINET, ISP group Apritel, and DNS.pt, the organization responsible for .PT domains, team up with advertising companies and consumer groups to fight piracy – together.

Based on reports from rightsholders, MAPINET filed monthly complaints to IGAC and within 15 days, ISPs voluntarily blocked pirate sites and advertisers took measures to prevent ad placement.

The Pirate Bay had been previously blocked by court order, but with judicial oversight no longer a requirement under the voluntary program, progress was swift. Within weeks major torrent sites including KickassTorrents, ExtraTorrent, Isohunt, YTS and RARBG, were blocked, along with streaming portals Watchseries, Primewire, and many more besides.

Portugal was on a roll and impressing powerful rightsholders with its reported efficiency.

Portugal’s Success Promoted to Spain and France

In 2016, it was reported that the Portuguese model was considered so effective that Hollywood had begun promoting it to other countries, including Spain and France. After just six months, 330 sites were on the blocklist and according to rightsholders, Portugal’s program was receiving international recognition for its streamlined blocking process.

Noting a “special efficiency” based on results versus costs of litigation, visits to pirate sites had been reportedly slashed by “ at least 60% ” already. In 2017, a study commissioned by the then-MPAA reported that usage of the top 250 pirate sites in Portugal had decreased 9.3 percent overall , while a control group showed that the same sites enjoyed a 30.8 percent increase in usage globally.

In 2019, the MoU was amended to allow for swift blocking of pirated streams of live sporting events, meaning that Portugal had access to the full range of blocking instruments; static, dynamic, and live. New law that came into force in 2022 added regulatory authority (IGAC) to the existing voluntary program and formalized obligations for intermediaries to address removal of infringing content.

Portugal Keeps on Blocking

Our most recent view of blocking activity in Portugal dates back to last November. Since official information isn’t made available to the public, reliance is placed on third-party resources’ best estimates.

The table of around 3,000 domains blocked since 2015 at the end of this article is likely incomplete. However, in light of Apritel’s statement concerning what it claims is a disastrous piracy situation in the country, the details are important when trying to process the bigger picture.

Apritel begins by reporting on data previously published by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO); 288,000 households in Portugal access paid piracy services (including pirate IPTV) every month, and around one million citizens have at some point consumed pirated content.

“Sports content leads the way in inappropriate consumption: 48% in the EU and 54% in Portugal,” Apritel explains, referencing the percentage of the population that have consumed pirated live sports streams at least once.

The telecoms group continues with additional information sourced from EU reports and covers the now-common talking points about the nature of pirate sites; the security risks faced by the people who use them, for example. Yet the thing that stands out most is actually notable for its puzzling absence.

Gold Standard Blocking System, Zero Mention of Blocking

Depending on the occasion, site-blocking is sometimes described as “just one of the tools in a broader anti-piracy toolbox” or more often one of the most essential tools available to rightsholders, period.

Portugal is as decorated as they come in respect of site blocking; if there was an Oscar for DNS tampering, Portugal would’ve received one a decade ago. Yet when describing the dire piracy situation in the country, Apritel doesn’t mention site blocking directly at all. The closest it gets is with a comment about VPNs noting that it’s “essential that no one gets left out.”

Instead, Apritel calls for urgent reform of the “Portuguese legislative framework and current practices by the competent authorities,” based on four fundamental points.

• Raising awareness among users of the illegality and risks of piracy;
• Systematically identifying/penalizing illegal exploitation of content via streaming/IPTV;
• Notifying and warning consumers as a first deterrent measure;
• Applying simple and swift financial sanctions to repeat offenders.

Since site-blocking measures aren’t directly addressed, to what extent they had an effect is difficult to say. That being said, it seems safe to assume that regardless of performance, a blocking program once described as the model for others to follow, simply wasn’t effective enough to prevent a new piracy crisis. If indeed the last one ever went away.

Punishing Pirates

What Portugal should do now, Apritel says, is put pirate consumers under pressure; warnings to begin, then sanctions for consumers who repeatedly don’t get the message.

“Several European countries — Germany, Spain, France, Greece, Denmark and Italy — have already implemented effective ‘Cease & Desist’ systems, with different models, which consist of formal warnings to consumers, supervised by competent authorities,” Apritel explains.

“In Portugal, this function would be the responsibility of the Inspectorate-General for Cultural Activities (IGAC), never that of electronic communications operators, as is wrongly believed. The data shows that illegal consumption per capita is significantly lower in countries that have adopted these tools. Why is this not being done here as well?”

The above caveat ‘with different models’ is worth a brief explanation. France has operated a system of warnings and sanctions for the past 15 years. Greece passed new law only recently but seems keen to start fining IPTV pirates as quickly as possible.

Italy passed new law in 2023 which supports small fines for an initial offense, increasing to 5,000 euros maximum for repeat offenders. At the time of writing, there are no reports of fines having been issued but pirate IPTV users are likely to be the first targets. Fines of around 70 euros are expected.

To our knowledge, Germany and Denmark have no comparable warning/fine systems in place for tackling piracy; what both have in common (Germany in particular) are histories of aggressive rightsholders using existing copyright law to squeeze cash settlements from the public.

Uptake of Legal Services Was Impressive

Apparently timed to coincide with the blocking of major pirate sites, in October 2015 and after a long wait, Netflix finally launched in Portugal. Estimates in 2023 suggested that around 4.5 million people in Portugal were consuming legal content from legitimate services, with Netflix easily the most popular.

The Streaming Platform Barometer – BStream – is a regular study to monitor the awareness and consumption of on-demand streaming services in Portugal. The most recent edition reported early February 2025 found that 52% of Portuguese people (15+ years old) are now consuming content via streaming platforms, the highest figure since the study began.

While this year’s figure shows a 10% increase over that reported in 2021, it represents growth over last year of just one percentage point; the market is slowing down.

Prices Travel in One Direction

When Netflix launched in Portugal in 2015, a basic single screen subscription cost €7.99 per month; two screen HD cost €9.99, and a premium plan of four screens in Ultra HD cost €11.99. That’s a lot more than the zero paid out when visiting pirate sites, so considering the millions who subsequently went legal, that’s not bad at all.

Due to the imposition of advertising and other shifts in service, direct comparisons today are less straightforward. However, the base subscription now costs €8.99, the ‘standard’ plan costs €12.99, and the ‘Premium’ plan costs €17.99, up from €15.99 at the last increase. Netflix also charges €4.99 for any additional viewers who aren’t under the same roof; when added together, the pressure appears to be on those who lightened the load by sharing the costs.

Consumers obtaining dramatic cost reductions via alternative means is apparently a concern once again. Depending on who receives the money, fines seem unlikely to increase consumers’ disposable income, or make them more receptive to industry outreach.

More blocking?

Consisting of blocking data compiled and publicly made available by sitesbloqueados.pt (offline at the time of writing), the ~3,000 domains in the table below should be considered an incomplete set. The list may also contain a relatively small number of domains blocked for reasons other than piracy. We have already removed around 300 domains blocked for gambling reasons, but we may not have identified them all.

No domains blocked in the last six months are included, and we understand that relatively few domains were added between November 2023 and November 2024

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

The internet has made video entertainment more accessible than ever before. With plenty of legal streaming services releasing new content every week, there’s no shortage of options.

While this is good news, choice brings its own difficulties. Because there are a myriad of legal options available today, paying several monthly subscription fees can become a costly endeavor. As a result, pirate streaming sites and services are thriving.

Hollywood and other copyright holders are trying to tackle this problem through enforcement. This has resulted in both large crackdowns and smaller successes, but new threats are always lurking around the corner. Sometimes they pop up in unexpected places.

A Piracy Optimized Browser?

Browser app Seekee has attracted quite a lot of attention recently, particularly on social media where people have noticed that the app is surprisingly good at accessing pirated content.

The app advertises itself as a fast and safe browser with built-in AI capabilities. While that sounds intriguing, the true appeal appears to lie in its entertainment offering, which is accessible via a single click on the “movies and series” and “animes” tabs.

These tabs take users to an overview of trending content, which can be watched instantly. There’s no indication that Seekee hosts any of the content it links to, but videos from third-party pirated sources are conveniently organized.

In fact, trying to find links to legal alternatives is quite a challenge. When we searched for “The Last of Us”, we had to scroll down past a list of pirate sources, before the Wikipedia and IMDb entries finally appeared .

For good measure, users can also watch the offerings listed by streaming platform, including Netflix, Prime Video, and Max, but links to these official services are not presented anywhere near the top of results.

The videos we checked were being streamed from the unknown h5.swplayer.com domain and similar variants. In addition to subtitles and original audio, many videos are also available with Portuguese and Spanish audio. This may explain why the app is particularly popular in Latin America, both on social media and in the press .

Google Play & iOS App Store

When we started writing this article, the Seekee app had five million downloads in the Google Play store, most of which were added this month. However, it appears that this exposure turned out to be too much. The app was deleted without explanation , possibly following rightsholder complaints. APK versions are still floating around, however.

Update: a new Seekee appeared in the Play Store. As noted below, there are many reasons to avoid these types of apps, including copyright, privacy, and security.

In the iOS store, Seekee remains available for now, listed as a fast and safe browser with intelligent search, AI creation, and multimedia processing. That includes the aforementioned streaming options.

“Easily search for movies and TV resources across the entire network and get accurate and reliable results. With a massive library updated daily, you can seamlessly access entertainment anytime, anywhere,” the iOS listing reads.

The app is published by the Chinese company Xiji Information Technology Co., Ltd, which also has a web presence with a privacy policy and user agreement. We reached out to the company requesting additional information on its unique offering, but we didn’t hear back.

At What Cost?

Aside from copyright concerns, using new apps from unknown developers always comes with risks. In this case, the privacy policy mentions that users have to give up a lot of information, including the following selection of data;

Advertising IDs, cookies, identifiers, IP addresses, social media IDs and profile pictures, IMEI/OAID, GAID numbers, IMSI numbers, MAC addresses, serial numbers, system versions and types, ROM versions, Android versions, Android ID, Space ID, SIM card operator and region, screen display information, device model name, activation time, network operator, connection type, hardware details, sales channels, CPU data, storage info, battery usage, screen resolution, temperature, camera model, and wake/unlock frequency.

Again, that’s just a selection, there is more . And that’s only what is disclosed, there may be more dangerous things going on in the background.

This is a lot of data, and it may very well explain why the app is free; the user and their data are the product.

It is hardly groundbreaking for apps like these to attract millions of users, with help from social media. However, the people who fall for the hype should be aware of the potential risks, dangers, and trade-offs, especially if they are not bombarded by ads.

At the end of the day, someone is making money from the app. In this case, it’s not the people who make the films, series and anime, but some unknown people in a land far, far away.

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

The internet has made video entertainment more accessible than ever before. With plenty of legal streaming services releasing new content every week, there’s no shortage of options.

While this is good news, choice brings its own difficulties. Because there are a myriad of legal options available today, paying several monthly subscription fees can become a costly endeavor. As a result, pirate streaming sites and services are thriving.

Hollywood and other copyright holders are trying to tackle this problem through enforcement. This has resulted in both large crackdowns and smaller successes, but new threats are always lurking around the corner. Sometimes they pop up in unexpected places.

A Piracy Optimized Browser?

Browser app Seekee has attracted quite a lot of attention recently, particularly on social media where people have noticed that the app is surprisingly good at accessing pirated content.

The app advertises itself as a fast and safe browser with built-in AI capabilities. While that sounds intriguing, the true appeal appears to lie in its entertainment offering, which is accessible via a single click on the “movies and series” and “animes” tabs.

These tabs take users to an overview of trending content, which can be watched instantly. There’s no indication that Seekee hosts any of the content it links to, but videos from third-party pirated sources are conveniently organized.

In fact, trying to find links to legal alternatives is quite a challenge. When we searched for “The Last of Us”, we had to scroll down past a list of pirate sources, before the Wikipedia and IMDb entries finally appeared .

For good measure, users can also watch the offerings listed by streaming platform, including Netflix, Prime Video, and Max, but links to these official services are not presented anywhere near the top of results.

The videos we checked were being streamed from the unknown h5.swplayer.com domain and similar variants. In addition to subtitles and original audio, many videos are also available with Portuguese and Spanish audio. This may explain why the app is particularly popular in Latin America, both on social media and in the press .

Google Play & iOS App Store

When we started writing this article, the Seekee app had five million downloads in the Google Play store, most of which were added this month. However, it appears that this exposure turned out to be too much. The app was deleted without explanation , possibly following rightsholder complaints. APK versions are still floating around, however.

Update: a new Seekee appeared in the Play Store. As noted below, there are many reasons to avoid these types of apps, including copyright, privacy, and security.

In the iOS store, Seekee remains available for now, listed as a fast and safe browser with intelligent search, AI creation, and multimedia processing. That includes the aforementioned streaming options.

“Easily search for movies and TV resources across the entire network and get accurate and reliable results. With a massive library updated daily, you can seamlessly access entertainment anytime, anywhere,” the iOS listing reads.

The app is published by the Chinese company Xiji Information Technology Co., Ltd, which also has a web presence with a privacy policy and user agreement. We reached out to the company requesting additional information on its unique offering, but we didn’t hear back.

At What Cost?

Aside from copyright concerns, using new apps from unknown developers always comes with risks. In this case, the privacy policy mentions that users have to give up a lot of information, including the following selection of data;

Advertising IDs, cookies, identifiers, IP addresses, social media IDs and profile pictures, IMEI/OAID, GAID numbers, IMSI numbers, MAC addresses, serial numbers, system versions and types, ROM versions, Android versions, Android ID, Space ID, SIM card operator and region, screen display information, device model name, activation time, network operator, connection type, hardware details, sales channels, CPU data, storage info, battery usage, screen resolution, temperature, camera model, and wake/unlock frequency.

Again, that’s just a selection, there is more . And that’s only what is disclosed, there may be more dangerous things going on in the background.

This is a lot of data, and it may very well explain why the app is free; the user and their data are the product.

It is hardly groundbreaking for apps like these to attract millions of users, with help from social media. However, the people who fall for the hype should be aware of the potential risks, dangers, and trade-offs, especially if they are not bombarded by ads.

At the end of the day, someone is making money from the app. In this case, it’s not the people who make the films, series and anime, but some unknown people in a land far, far away.

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

The internet has made video entertainment more accessible than ever before. With plenty of legal streaming services releasing new content every week, there’s no shortage of options.

While this is good news, choice brings its own difficulties. Because there are a myriad of legal options available today, paying several monthly subscription fees can become a costly endeavor. As a result, pirate streaming sites and services are thriving.

Hollywood and other copyright holders are trying to tackle this problem through enforcement. This has resulted in both large crackdowns and smaller successes, but new threats are always lurking around the corner. Sometimes they pop up in unexpected places.

A Piracy Optimized Browser?

Browser app Seekee has attracted quite a lot of attention recently, particularly on social media where people have noticed that the app is surprisingly good at accessing pirated content.

The app advertises itself as a fast and safe browser with built-in AI capabilities. While that sounds intriguing, the true appeal appears to lie in its entertainment offering, which is accessible via a single click on the “movies and series” and “animes” tabs.

These tabs take users to an overview of trending content, which can be watched instantly. There’s no indication that Seekee hosts any of the content it links to, but videos from third-party pirated sources are conveniently organized.

In fact, trying to find links to legal alternatives is quite a challenge. When we searched for “The Last of Us”, we had to scroll down past a list of pirate sources, before the Wikipedia and IMDb entries finally appeared .

For good measure, users can also watch the offerings listed by streaming platform, including Netflix, Prime Video, and Max, but links to these official services are not presented anywhere near the top of results.

The videos we checked were being streamed from the unknown h5.swplayer.com domain and similar variants. In addition to subtitles and original audio, many videos are also available with Portuguese and Spanish audio. This may explain why the app is particularly popular in Latin America, both on social media and in the press .

Google Play & iOS App Store

When we started writing this article, the Seekee app had five million downloads in the Google Play store, most of which were added this month. However, it appears that this exposure turned out to be too much. The app was deleted without explanation , possibly following rightsholder complaints. APK versions are still floating around, however.

Update: a new Seekee appeared in the Play Store. As noted below, there are many reasons to avoid these types of apps, including copyright, privacy, and security.

In the iOS store, Seekee remains available for now, listed as a fast and safe browser with intelligent search, AI creation, and multimedia processing. That includes the aforementioned streaming options.

“Easily search for movies and TV resources across the entire network and get accurate and reliable results. With a massive library updated daily, you can seamlessly access entertainment anytime, anywhere,” the iOS listing reads.

The app is published by the Chinese company Xiji Information Technology Co., Ltd, which also has a web presence with a privacy policy and user agreement. We reached out to the company requesting additional information on its unique offering, but we didn’t hear back.

At What Cost?

Aside from copyright concerns, using new apps from unknown developers always comes with risks. In this case, the privacy policy mentions that users have to give up a lot of information, including the following selection of data;

Advertising IDs, cookies, identifiers, IP addresses, social media IDs and profile pictures, IMEI/OAID, GAID numbers, IMSI numbers, MAC addresses, serial numbers, system versions and types, ROM versions, Android versions, Android ID, Space ID, SIM card operator and region, screen display information, device model name, activation time, network operator, connection type, hardware details, sales channels, CPU data, storage info, battery usage, screen resolution, temperature, camera model, and wake/unlock frequency.

Again, that’s just a selection, there is more . And that’s only what is disclosed, there may be more dangerous things going on in the background.

This is a lot of data, and it may very well explain why the app is free; the user and their data are the product.

It is hardly groundbreaking for apps like these to attract millions of users, with help from social media. However, the people who fall for the hype should be aware of the potential risks, dangers, and trade-offs, especially if they are not bombarded by ads.

At the end of the day, someone is making money from the app. In this case, it’s not the people who make the films, series and anime, but some unknown people in a land far, far away.

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

Spotify has certainly come a long way since it allowed us to hand out free invite codes to its beta launch 16 years ago.

With over 600 million monthly active users, across over 180 markets, it is now the world’s most popular music streaming service by a significant margin.

The streaming giant has always positioned itself as a competitor to pirate services, but its success also relied on pirates. In the early days, Spotify allegedly used MP3s from The Pirate Bay to populate its beta service. The notorious Swedish torrent site was instrumental in other ways too.

“If Pirate Bay had not existed or made such a mess in the market, I don’t think Spotify would have seen the light of day. You wouldn’t get the licenses you wanted,” former Sony BMG CEO Per Sundin said a few years ago.

Pirates are Adversaries Now

Today, Spotify is the largest Swedish company according to some metrics, with a market cap of more than $120 billion. The days when it flirted with pirates are long gone and the company is actively shutting down sites and services that bypass its technical restrictions.

The music service doesn’t go after general pirate sites, but focuses on services and tools that target its own product. This includes sellers of premium codes, as well as tools that allow Spotify users to download tracks into their own devices.

These are not typical pirates, as they rely on Spotify’s legal service to function. However, the streaming service clearly isn’t happy with these creative uses of its platform, and regularly sends legal takedown notices in response.

Spotify Dismantles Download Browser Extension

This week, Spotify targeted a Chrome extension that allowed users to download decrypted tracks in high-quality audio formats, including the associated metadata. Fittingly named “ SpotifyDL “, it has been available though GitHub for a few months.

The extension bypassed Spotify’s “PlayPlay” DRM to tackle Spotify’s encryption. It seemed to work as intended, allowing users to download tracks, playlists, or albums with relative ease.

Spotify wasn’t happy with this and the company previously requested GitHub to remove the “un-playplay” code that was used to bypass its decryption. However, the SpotifyDL extension remained functional, until it too was targeted.

The takedown notice doesn’t go into much detail; it simply mentions that the entire repository is infringing and should therefore be removed.

The repository wasn’t removed in its entirety. Before taking action, GitHub allowed developer “cycyrild” to make changes so it would no longer be deemed a problem. In response, cycyrild removed the PlayPlay source code, effectively rendering the extension useless.

“Following a DMCA Takedown Notice from Spotify, I have been forced to remove the source code for the PlayPlay CDM,” the developer writes.

While it is understandable that Spotify wants to protect its rights, and those of its main partners, the company’s shift in focus when it comes to ‘pirates’ is noteworthy.

Similar to Netflix and other streaming services that promised to convert pirates into paying customers, for Spotify, there’s an increasing focus on the challenge ‘pirates’ present, rather than the opportunity.

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

Spotify has certainly come a long way since it allowed us to hand out free invite codes to its beta launch 16 years ago.

With over 600 million monthly active users, across over 180 markets, it is now the world’s most popular music streaming service by a significant margin.

The streaming giant has always positioned itself as a competitor to pirate services, but its success also relied on pirates. In the early days, Spotify allegedly used MP3s from The Pirate Bay to populate its beta service. The notorious Swedish torrent site was instrumental in other ways too.

“If Pirate Bay had not existed or made such a mess in the market, I don’t think Spotify would have seen the light of day. You wouldn’t get the licenses you wanted,” former Sony BMG CEO Per Sundin said a few years ago.

Pirates are Adversaries Now

Today, Spotify is the largest Swedish company according to some metrics, with a market cap of more than $120 billion. The days when it flirted with pirates are long gone and the company is actively shutting down sites and services that bypass its technical restrictions.

The music service doesn’t go after general pirate sites, but focuses on services and tools that target its own product. This includes sellers of premium codes, as well as tools that allow Spotify users to download tracks into their own devices.

These are not typical pirates, as they rely on Spotify’s legal service to function. However, the streaming service clearly isn’t happy with these creative uses of its platform, and regularly sends legal takedown notices in response.

Spotify Dismantles Download Browser Extension

This week, Spotify targeted a Chrome extension that allowed users to download decrypted tracks in high-quality audio formats, including the associated metadata. Fittingly named “ SpotifyDL “, it has been available though GitHub for a few months.

The extension bypassed Spotify’s “PlayPlay” DRM to tackle Spotify’s encryption. It seemed to work as intended, allowing users to download tracks, playlists, or albums with relative ease.

Spotify wasn’t happy with this and the company previously requested GitHub to remove the “un-playplay” code that was used to bypass its decryption. However, the SpotifyDL extension remained functional, until it too was targeted.

The takedown notice doesn’t go into much detail; it simply mentions that the entire repository is infringing and should therefore be removed.

The repository wasn’t removed in its entirety. Before taking action, GitHub allowed developer “cycyrild” to make changes so it would no longer be deemed a problem. In response, cycyrild removed the PlayPlay source code, effectively rendering the extension useless.

“Following a DMCA Takedown Notice from Spotify, I have been forced to remove the source code for the PlayPlay CDM,” the developer writes.

While it is understandable that Spotify wants to protect its rights, and those of its main partners, the company’s shift in focus when it comes to ‘pirates’ is noteworthy.

Similar to Netflix and other streaming services that promised to convert pirates into paying customers, for Spotify, there’s an increasing focus on the challenge ‘pirates’ present, rather than the opportunity.

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

Spotify has certainly come a long way since it allowed us to hand out free invite codes to its beta launch 16 years ago.

With over 600 million monthly active users, across over 180 markets, it is now the world’s most popular music streaming service by a significant margin.

The streaming giant has always positioned itself as a competitor to pirate services, but its success also relied on pirates. In the early days, Spotify allegedly used MP3s from The Pirate Bay to populate its beta service. The notorious Swedish torrent site was instrumental in other ways too.

“If Pirate Bay had not existed or made such a mess in the market, I don’t think Spotify would have seen the light of day. You wouldn’t get the licenses you wanted,” former Sony BMG CEO Per Sundin said a few years ago.

Pirates are Adversaries Now

Today, Spotify is the largest Swedish company according to some metrics, with a market cap of more than $120 billion. The days when it flirted with pirates are long gone and the company is actively shutting down sites and services that bypass its technical restrictions.

The music service doesn’t go after general pirate sites, but focuses on services and tools that target its own product. This includes sellers of premium codes, as well as tools that allow Spotify users to download tracks into their own devices.

These are not typical pirates, as they rely on Spotify’s legal service to function. However, the streaming service clearly isn’t happy with these creative uses of its platform, and regularly sends legal takedown notices in response.

Spotify Dismantles Download Browser Extension

This week, Spotify targeted a Chrome extension that allowed users to download decrypted tracks in high-quality audio formats, including the associated metadata. Fittingly named “ SpotifyDL “, it has been available though GitHub for a few months.

The extension bypassed Spotify’s “PlayPlay” DRM to tackle Spotify’s encryption. It seemed to work as intended, allowing users to download tracks, playlists, or albums with relative ease.

Spotify wasn’t happy with this and the company previously requested GitHub to remove the “un-playplay” code that was used to bypass its decryption. However, the SpotifyDL extension remained functional, until it too was targeted.

The takedown notice doesn’t go into much detail; it simply mentions that the entire repository is infringing and should therefore be removed.

The repository wasn’t removed in its entirety. Before taking action, GitHub allowed developer “cycyrild” to make changes so it would no longer be deemed a problem. In response, cycyrild removed the PlayPlay source code, effectively rendering the extension useless.

“Following a DMCA Takedown Notice from Spotify, I have been forced to remove the source code for the PlayPlay CDM,” the developer writes.

While it is understandable that Spotify wants to protect its rights, and those of its main partners, the company’s shift in focus when it comes to ‘pirates’ is noteworthy.

Similar to Netflix and other streaming services that promised to convert pirates into paying customers, for Spotify, there’s an increasing focus on the challenge ‘pirates’ present, rather than the opportunity.

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