Brazil’s enthusiasm for blocking piracy-linked domains and IP addresses is showing no signs of slowing down.

Despite being a relative newcomer to mass blockades on copyright grounds, Brazil’s ISPs will soon find themselves blocking the 15,000th resource since restrictions began in earnest just a couple of years ago.

That the cycle is guaranteed to continue next year, and at minimum a few years after that, celebrating the blocking of the 30,000th domain or IP address is no longer the impossible dream it once was. Whether the constant requirement for more and more blocking is a sign of success, or more like a dream turning into a nightmare, is hard to say. Pirates don’t appear to be deterred by it, that much as obvious.

What if Blocking Works and There are No Blunders?

In a recent interview , a departing board member of telecoms regulator Anatel said that site-blocking is paying off. Artur Coimbra said that customer satisfaction with pirate set-top boxes is in decline and if that continues, one day people won’t want to use piracy services at all.

It’s hard to fault the theory that people dislike spending money on things that fail to perform. Whether that’s how things will actually play out remains to be seen because history has shown that the opposite generally holds true. But Coimbra also had some controversial news up his sleeve about a new piracy countermeasure; he revealed that blocking tests are already underway at the internet’s core routers.

The implications of blocking blunders at the infrastructure level go beyond anything considered thus far. But what if mistakes and the risk to society could be eliminated? What if there was accuracy and transparency and accountability, all at the same time? Given that showing accuracy is largely reliant on full transparency which rarely exists, accountability isn’t a concept closely associated with site-blocking regimes anywhere.

That being said, wherever possible we always try to find out for ourselves and since an unexpected surge of blocking orders covering 250+ domains went live yesterday, now seems a good time to take a closer look.

Brazil’s Blocklist is Not Dissimilar to Many Others

Brazil’s blocklist isn’t available to the public but since ISPs are required to comply and the effects should in theory be visible, various means allow for a decent overview. Right now the list contains over 13,100 domains and around 1,500 IP addresses, most of them piracy-related but not exclusively so.

Blocked gambling sites also feature quite strongly, as do sites selling vapes, although at least for now, relatively sparingly. Even Elon Musk’s X appeared on the list recently; after the entrepreneur irritated a judge, the convenience of having a blocking mechanism to hand made the consequences very predictable.

Movies and Live Sports Piracy

Having been heavily targeted previously, stream-ripping platforms deserve a mention, but largely they get to sit this wave out. The list still contains lots of related domains, including around 50 ytmp3 variants, 24 featuring the term y2mate , and another 50 with conv/convert/converter somewhere in their domain, but the new batch is all about streaming.

The new domains added Monday follow directly after a batch of familiar piracy domains including 123movieswatch4k.com, 123movieslane.com, 123movieses.net, 123moviesking.com, and 123movieszfree.me .

With that naming convention offering no surprises, the same holds true for several recently added bflix domains, accompanied by even more 123movies domains, because why not? They’ll be useless by the end of the week anyway.

The list of new additions is initially dominated by variants of multicanais , a popular live sports streaming platform that refuses to stay blocked. Less easy to explain is the domain highlighted in yellow – danielgarcialeilao.org .

While hiding pirate sites within innocent-looking platforms isn’t unheard of, the site shown above appears to be an auction site for recovered and wrecked vehicles, and we haven’t see anything like that before.

Targeting Dan

Alternatively, if reports elsewhere are to be believed, this may be a fake site impersonating the real Daniel Garcia Auctions . According to reports, the difference is that while one is a business that actually exists, the other takes customers’ money and heads for the hills.

While there will be few complaints if the authorities protect citizens from an alleged scam at the hands of a fake Dan, there’s another Dan on the blocklist that is 100% genuine. Domain sales platform Dan.com is owned by GoDaddy and may not be performing quite as well in Brazil as previously hoped.

The URL https://t.co/rtG5bJ3jkz is also blocked, presumably because it previously linked to FilmesTorrents.net . Today that domain is up for sale on GoDaddy but if anyone from Brazil is interested in it, using a VPN or similar circumvention tool comes with its own risks. We’re informed that circumvention of blockades can be considered an offense in Brazil although under what circumstances isn’t completely clear.

FilmesTorrent fans, meanwhile, must’ve had fun keeping up with domain changes; at the time of writing there are 34 domains on the blocklist with a similar format.

Trying to keep track of domain changes for streaming site Cuevana and its many namesakes would’ve been exponentially more tricky. At the time of writing there are more than 500 variants on the list, including icuevana4.pro, cuevana3z.autos, cuevana3.supply, and the aptly named, cuevanaa.help, which throws in an extra ‘a’ at the end, just to keep things interesting.

Conclusion

Just scrolling through 10,000+ domains is pretty exhausting so detailed checking will likely take us quite a few hours. There’s only so much automated tools can achieve on their own so if other obviously legitimate domains also appear on the list, we’ll report that in due course.

What we can confirm is that after scanning every domain recently added to the list, attempting to take a screenshot, scraping a small amount of text from each, and carrying out some automated security checks, 22 domains had issues related to some type of malware. At least 30 indicated a risk of phishing. In both cases this may relate to a new domain in the event redirects are already in place.

We certainly aren’t recommending that people visit any of the sites but for those who can’t resist, basic anti-virus software is unlikely to detect these types of threats.

That being said, common sense says that Dan.com shouldn’t be on this list. There might be a reason, but it’s unlikely to be viewed in a positive light back in the United States. It’s possible that GoDaddy doesn’t even know that it’s being blocked, but that’s no surprise when transparency becomes a thing of the past.

Brazil: ISP Site Blocking Orders (Online Piracy) [2023-06-28 to 2024-11-18]
Order Date	Legal Authority/Agency	Site/Piracy Type	Transparency
2024-11-18	Tribunal de Justiça de São Paulo / CyberGaeco	Streaming Piracy	Restricted
2024-11-14	Tribunal de Justiça de Pernambuco	IPTV / Stream-Ripping	Restricted
2024-11-13	Tribunal de Justiça de São Paulo / ABTA (TV)	IPTV / Movie Piracy	Restricted
2024-11-12	Tribunal de Justiça de Pernambuco	IPTV / Stream-Ripping	Restricted
2024-11-12	Tribunal de Justiça de Pernambuco	IPTV / Stream-Ripping	Restricted
2024-11-06	Tribunal de Justiça do Distrito Federal e dos Territórios	Piracy	Restricted
2024-10-30	Tribunal de Justiça de Pernambuco	IPTV / Stream-Ripping	Restricted
2024-10-29	Tribunal de Justiça de Pernambuco	IPTV / Stream-Ripping	Restricted
2024-10-28	Tribunal de Justiça de São Paulo / ABTA (TV)	IPTV / Movie Piracy	Restricted
2024-10-25	Tribunal de Justiça de São Paulo / CyberGaeco	Streaming Piracy	Restricted
2024-10-25	Tribunal de Justiça de Pernambuco	IPTV / Stream-Ripping	Restricted
2024-10-25	Tribunal de Justiça de São Paulo / CyberGaeco	Streaming Piracy	Restricted
2024-10-22	Tribunal de Justiça de São Paulo / ABTA (TV)	IPTV / Movie Piracy	Restricted
2024-10-22	Tribunal de Justiça de São Paulo / ABTA (TV)	IPTV / Movie Piracy	Restricted
2024-10-17	Tribunal de Justiça de São Paulo / ABTA (TV)	IPTV / Movie Piracy	Restricted
2024-10-15	Tribunal de Justiça de São Paulo / ABTA (TV)	IPTV / Movie Piracy	Restricted
2024-10-10	Tribunal de Justiça de São Paulo / ABTA (TV)	IPTV / Movie Piracy	Restricted
2024-10-09	Tribunal de Justiça de Pernambuco	IPTV / Stream-Ripping	Restricted
2024-10-07	Tribunal de Justiça de São Paulo / ABTA (TV)	IPTV / Movie Piracy	Restricted
2024-10-02	Tribunal de Justiça de São Paulo / ABTA (TV)	IPTV / Movie Piracy	Restricted
2024-10-02	Tribunal de Justiça de Pernambuco	IPTV / Stream-Ripping	Restricted
2024-09-30	Tribunal de Justiça de São Paulo / ABTA (TV)	IPTV / Movie Piracy	Restricted
2024-09-30	Tribunal de Justiça de São Paulo / CyberGaeco	Streaming Piracy	Restricted
2024-09-25	Tribunal de Justiça de São Paulo / CyberGaeco	Streaming Piracy	Restricted
2024-09-25	Tribunal de Justiça de Pernambuco	IPTV / Stream-Ripping	Restricted
2024-09-23	Tribunal de Justiça de São Paulo / CyberGaeco	Streaming Piracy	Restricted
2024-09-18	Tribunal de Justiça de São Paulo / ABTA (TV)	IPTV / Movie Piracy	Restricted
2024-09-17	Tribunal de Justiça de São Paulo / CyberGaeco	Streaming Piracy	Restricted
2024-09-16	Tribunal de Justiça de São Paulo / ABTA (TV)	IPTV / Movie Piracy	Restricted
2024-09-16	Tribunal de Justiça de Pernambuco	IPTV / Stream-Ripping	Restricted
2024-09-13	Tribunal de Justiça de São Paulo / ABTA (TV)	IPTV / Movie Piracy	Restricted
2024-09-06	Tribunal de Justiça de São Paulo / ABTA (TV)	IPTV / Movie Piracy	Restricted
2024-09-03	Tribunal de Justiça de São Paulo / ABTA (TV)	IPTV / Movie Piracy	Restricted
2024-08-30	Tribunal de Justiça de São Paulo / ABTA (TV))	IPTV / Movie Piracy	Restricted
2024-08-29	Tribunal de Justiça de Santa Catarina	Movie Piracy	Restricted
2024-08-29	Tribunal de Justiça de Pernambuco	IPTV / Stream-Ripping	Restricted
2024-08-27	Tribunal de Justiça de São Paulo / ABTA (TV)	IPTV / Movie Piracy	Restricted
2024-08-26	Tribunal de Justiça de São Paulo / ABTA (TV)	IPTV / Movie Piracy	Restricted
2024-08-16	Tribunal de Justiça de São Paulo / ABTA (TV)	IPTV / Movie Piracy	Restricted
2024-08-15	Tribunal de Justiça de São Paulo / ABTA (TV)	IPTV / Movie Piracy	Restricted
2024-08-13	Tribunal de Justiça de São Paulo / ABTA (TV)	IPTV / Movie Piracy	Restricted
2024-08-12	Tribunal de Justiça de Pernambuco	IPTV / Stream-Ripping	Restricted
2024-08-07	Tribunal de Justiça de Pernambuco	IPTV / Stream-Ripping	Restricted
2024-08-07	Tribunal de Justiça de São Paulo / ABTA (TV)	IPTV / Movie Piracy	Restricted
2024-08-07	Tribunal de Justiça de São Paulo / ABTA (TV)	IPTV / Movie Piracy	Restricted
2024-08-02	Tribunal de Justiça de São Paulo / ABTA (TV)	IPTV / Movie Piracy	Restricted
2024-07-29	Tribunal de Justiça de São Paulo / CyberGaeco	Streaming Piracy	Restricted
2024-07-24	Tribunal de Justiça de São Paulo / ABTA (TV)	IPTV / Movie Piracy	Restricted
2024-07-24	Tribunal de Justiça de São Paulo / CyberGaeco	Streaming Piracy	Restricted
2024-07-23	Tribunal de Justiça de São Paulo / ABTA (TV)	IPTV / Movie Piracy	Restricted
2024-07-22	Tribunal de Justiça de Pernambuco	IPTV / Stream-Ripping	Restricted
2024-07-16	Tribunal de Justiça de São Paulo / CyberGaeco	Streaming Piracy	Restricted
2024-07-10	Tribunal de Justiça de São Paulo / ABTA (TV)	IPTV / Movie Piracy	Restricted
2024-07-10	Tribunal de Justiça de Pernambuco	IPTV / Stream-Ripping	Restricted
2024-07-04	Tribunal de Justiça de São Paulo / CyberGaeco	Streaming Piracy	Restricted
2024-07-01	Tribunal de Justiça de São Paulo / CyberGaeco	Streaming Piracy	Restricted
2024-06-27	Tribunal de Justiça de São Paulo / ABTA (TV)	IPTV / Movie Piracy	Restricted
2024-06-26	Tribunal de Justiça de Pernambuco	IPTV / Stream-Ripping	Restricted
2024-06-24	Tribunal de Justiça de Pernambuco	IPTV / Stream-Ripping	Restricted
2024-06-21	Tribunal de Justiça de São Paulo / CyberGaeco	Streaming Piracy	Restricted
2024-06-20	Tribunal de Justiça de São Paulo / ABTA (TV)	IPTV / Movie Piracy	Restricted
2024-06-19	Tribunal de Justiça de São Paulo / CyberGaeco	Streaming Piracy	Restricted
2024-06-04	Tribunal de Justiça de Pernambuco	IPTV / Stream-Ripping	Restricted
2024-05-29	Tribunal de Justiça de São Paulo / CyberGaeco	Streaming Piracy	Restricted
2024-05-24	Tribunal de Justiça de São Paulo / ABTA (TV)	IPTV / Movie Piracy	Restricted
2024-05-22	Tribunal de Justiça de São Paulo / CyberGaeco	Streaming Piracy	Restricted
2024-05-17	Tribunal de Justiça de São Paulo / ABTA (TV)	IPTV / Movie Piracy	Restricted
2024-05-10	Tribunal de Justiça de Pernambuco	IPTV / Stream-Ripping	Restricted
2024-05-10	Tribunal de Justiça de São Paulo / CyberGaeco	Streaming Piracy	Restricted
2024-05-07	Tribunal de Justiça de São Paulo / ABTA (TV)	IPTV / Movie Piracy	Restricted
2024-04-22	Tribunal de Justiça de Pernambuco	IPTV / Stream-Ripping	Restricted
2024-04-19	Tribunal de Justiça de São Paulo / CyberGaeco	Streaming Piracy	Restricted
2024-04-10	Tribunal de Justiça de São Paulo / CyberGaeco	Streaming Piracy	Restricted
2024-04-09	Tribunal de Justiça de Pernambuco	IPTV / Stream-Ripping	Restricted
2024-03-24	Tribunal de Justiça de São Paulo / ABTA (TV)	IPTV / Movie Piracy	Restricted
2024-03-21	Tribunal de Justiça de São Paulo / ABTA (TV)	IPTV / Movie Piracy	Restricted
2024-03-20	Tribunal de Justiça de Pernambuco	IPTV / Stream-Ripping	Restricted
2024-03-14	Tribunal de Justiça de Pernambuco	IPTV / Stream-Ripping	Restricted
2024-03-12	Tribunal de Justiça de São Paulo / ABTA (TV)	IPTV / Movie Piracy	Restricted
2024-03-01	Tribunal de Justiça de São Paulo / ABTA (TV)	IPTV / Movie Piracy	Restricted
2024-02-26	Tribunal de Justiça de São Paulo / CyberGaeco	Streaming	Open
2024-02-23	Tribunal de Justiça de São Paulo	IPTV	Open
2024-02-19	Tribunal de Justiça de Pernambuco	IPTV / Stream-Ripping	Restricted
2023-12-18	Tribunal de Justiça de São Paulo / CyberGaeco	Stream-Ripping	Open
2023-12-06	Tribunal de Justiça de Pernambuco / Policia Civil de Pernambuco	IPTV	Open
2023-08-31	Agência Nacional de Telecomunicações (Anatel)		Restricted
2023-08-10	Agência Nacional de Telecomunicações (Anatel)		Restricted
2023-07-28	Agência Nacional de Telecomunicações (Anatel)		Restricted
2023-06-28	Agência Nacional de Telecomunicações (Anatel)		Restricted

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

Most people know that pirating movies, live sports, and music is against the law. Despite this awareness, millions do so daily.

Norway is no exception. The country offers consumers plenty of legal options, including many streaming platforms. However, that might actually be part of the problem.

Those who want the full spectrum of streaming options, including Netflix, Amazon Prime, Disney+, Max, Apple TV, SkyShowtime, Viaplay, Discovery+, and many others, need deep pockets. In many cases, people subscribe to a selection instead, while pirating on the side.

This week, the Norwegian government released the results of a new Ipsos survey that looks at the public’s attitude toward piracy. These findings show that unauthorized streaming and downloading is broadly accepted, particularly among younger people.

Expensive Streaming Options Justify Piracy

The survey , which involved 1,411 respondents aged 15 and above, shows that 32% agree that is it okay to use pirate sites and services to save money. Among those under 30 years old, half find it acceptable to pirate for cost reasons.

When asked specifically whether it’s okay to pirate because legal services are too expensive, acceptance rates are even higher. This is a disturbing trend for rightsholders and various campaigns that have tried to curb piracy in recent years.

While the price of streaming services is seen as a problem, the majority of respondents do pay for legal access. In total, 61% paid for streaming services over the past year. This also applies to young people under 30, of which 64% paid for access.

These figures confirm that Norwegians are not opposed to paying for content but with over a dozen paid options, paying for everything is not seen as viable for all.

Organized Crime?

One of the strategies used to dissuade pirates is the highlighting of negative consequences. Aside from entertainment industry losses, these include potential malware and security threats, as well as the notion that pirate services can be associated with organized crime.

Interestingly, roughly two-thirds of all respondents say that they have considered the potential negative consequences of using pirate sites and services but less than half (47%) agree that piracy supports organized crime.

The organized crime link is most accepted by older Norwegians. However, many respondents say they simply don’t know enough about a possible link between piracy and organized crime, as 24% answered “I don’t know”.

Pirates Would Stop If…

Malware threats and links to organized crime are not of particular concern to pirates. Of those who knowingly pirated in the past year, 7% said that knowing more about the links with organized crime could make them stop, while 18% said that the risk of malware or fraud could deter them.

Instead of focusing on external threats and concerns, legal streaming platforms themselves could make the most progress by changing their pricing.

Among all self-proclaimed Norwegian pirates, the most common reasons to stop were more affordable legal streaming services (41%) and the availability of a broader range of content per service (35%).

All in all, the survey results show that piracy remains prevalent in Norway. While it will be impossible to eradicate completely, these findings indicate that the entertainment industries can make most progress by focusing on the affordability and availability of legal services.

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

In September, Apple removed the popular music streaming app Musi from its App Store. The delisting is significant, as the app has millions of users.

Apple’s action didn’t come as a complete surprise. Music industry groups had been trying to take Musi down for months, branding it a ‘parasitic’ app that skirts the rules.

Music group IFPI took the lead, calling on other music industry players and YouTube to complain to Apple as well. This mounting pressure eventually paid off.

The delisting puts the future of Musi directly at risk. The company initially hoped to resolve the matter with Apple behind closed doors. The tech giant was unwilling to reverse its decision, however, so the streaming app took the matter to court.

Musi Sues Apple over ‘YouTube-Triggered’ Removal

In a complaint filed at a California federal court last month, Musi sued Apple for breach of contract, as well as a breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. The music app believes that the delisting was unjustified and wants Apple to reinstate it immediately.

“Apple removed the Musi app based upon unsupported accusations from a third party who has failed to respond to Musi’s communications. Worse, Apple was fully aware that the third party had failed to substantiate its claims to Musi,” said the company behind the app.

The third-party in question is YouTube. According to Musi, Apple acted based on a five-word complaint from ‘YouTube Legal’ that was sent late July. Attempts by Musi to discuss the matter with YouTube remained unanswered, but Apple removed the app nonetheless.

Preliminary Injunction

For Musi, the matter amounts to an existential threat. The music app built its entire business on the iOS platform and without it being available in the App Store, the service will ultimately perish.

Faced with this conundrum, Musi requested a preliminary injunction to have the app reinstated as soon as possible. The removal has already caused irreparable harm, it argued, but a swift injunction can stop the bleeding.

“By removing the Musi app from its only viable distribution platform, Apple has exiled Musi from its customer base—thereby threatening the company’s survival,” Musi wrote.

“Musi is therefore entitled to a preliminary injunction to stop Apple from continuing to breach the Developer Agreement by refusing to list or otherwise making unavailable the Musi app.”

Apple Opposes Injunction

Apple responded in court last Friday, opposing Musi’s request for a preliminary injunction. The company argues that the terms of the Apple Developer Program License Agreement (DLPA) allow the company to delist apps “at any time, with or without cause.”

Aside from this contractual freedom, Apple also counters Musi’s allegation that it took action based on little more than a five word complaint from YouTube.

“That is false, and Musi knows that it is false,” Apple writes, mentioning a variety of other complaints, including those submitted by music group IFPI and the music publishers’ association NMPA.

The NMPA letter, for example, went beyond a simple complaint and detailed how Musi allegedly uses multiple free YouTube API-tokens to avoid paying licensing fees, while inserting its own ads.

Apple says it doesn’t take a position in the legal dispute between Musi, YouTube, and many of the other third parties that complained. However, the provided context suggests that the delisting isn’t the result of just one brief removal request.

‘Existential Exaggeration’

The opposition brief repeatedly stresses that Apple has the right to delist apps based on its own contracts. Even if that’s in doubt, there’s no need for a preliminary injunction.

Apple says that while new users can no longer download the app, existing Musi users are still able to use the installed app. This means that Musi can continue to generate revenue.

The app reportedly generated millions of dollars in advertising revenue per month in the past and there is no evidence that it is in financial trouble now, Apple argues.

“Musi provides no evidence relating to its financial condition and no evidence that it is unable to survive until a decision on the merits in this case,” Apple notes.

“In fact, public reporting suggests that Musi earned more than $100 million in advertising revenue between January 2023 and spring 2024 and employs ten people at most. If true […], Musi is not at imminent risk of extinction.”

All in all, Apple sees no reason for the court to grant the injunction. In addition to violating Apple’s rights, the proposed injunction also goes against the interests of all parties who complained that their rights are being infringed, the company notes.

Musi has yet to respond to Apple’s opposition. It is clear, however, that the app is fighting a legal battle that will be closely watched by rightsholders, YouTube, and many independent iOS developers.

—

A copy of Apple’s opposition to Musi’s motion for a preliminary injunction, filed as the California federal court, is available here (pdf)

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

The data for our weekly download chart is estimated by TorrentFreak, and is for informational and educational reference only.

Downloading content without permission is copyright infringement. These torrent download statistics are only meant to provide further insight into piracy trends. All data are gathered from public resources.

This week we have two newcomers on the list. “Deadpool & Wolverine” is the most shared title.

The most torrented movies for the week ending on November 18 are:

Movie Rank	Rank last week	Movie name	IMDb Rating / Trailer
Most downloaded movies via torrent sites
1	(1)	Deadpool & Wolverine	8.2 / trailer
2	(…)	Megalopolis	4.9 / trailer
3	(3)	The Substance	7.5 / trailer
4	(2)	Joker: Folie à Deux	5.3 / trailer
5	(4)	Alien: Romulus	7.2 / trailer
6	(7)	Beetlejuice Beetlejuice	6.9 / trailer
7	(…)	Saturday Night	7.2 / trailer
8	(6)	The Wild Robot	8.4 / trailer
9	(8)	Transformers One	7.7 / trailer
10	(back)	Dune: Part Two	8.5 / trailer

Note: We also publish an updating archive of all the list of weekly most torrented movies lists .

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

Whenever fans read about football in mainstream European media, carefully crafted deterrent messaging woven into anti-piracy news is unlikely to be too far away.

Suing everyone is impossible, but as rightsholders in Spain warn that fines are on the way , in the context of a reverse lawsuit lottery that nobody wants to win, ‘y si toca aquí?’

A press release issued by Spain’s Ministry of the Interior on Friday is fairly dry by most standards, but by withholding most of the important details (Who, What, When, Where, Why), those reporting on the story are left to fill in the blanks. As a result, arguably more significant developments may have been overlooked.

Operation Blue Corsair

The statement reveals that members of the Technological Investigation Team (EDITE) of the Madrid Command (Guardia Civil), were able to deactivate/disable “the most important streaming channel in Spain” as part of Operación Corsario Azul (Operation Blue Corsair).

Investigators reportedly discovered that a Kodi add-on “created by a developer external to the platform” provided free access to live streams of matches played in the first (and second) Spanish divisions. No straightforward mention of LaLiga, but still.

“Initially, the researchers focused their activity on finding out where the football matches were being broadcast, following the steps of the source code of the extension or ‘add-on’. After various searches for information, they managed to obtain said location, one of the most used instant messaging platforms in Spain,” the statement adds.

Tracking the Culprit

The Ministry says that to determine who is responsible for the unnamed add-on, which streams matches illegally from an unnamed messaging platform, apparently to 78,000 users for free, investigators focused on pseudonyms present in the source code of the add-on.

These investigations led to the identification of an unnamed “user of the platform” as the person responsible, who appears to be in considerable trouble. The 37-year-old was investigated for “a crime related to the market and consumers” with related fraud valued at exactly €42,547,104.

The operation also achieved the “blocking and elimination” of the channels used on the instant messaging app” as well as the “elimination of the programming code used illegally.” One of these claims seems like a bit of a stretch. The other may be more important that it sounds.

Some Meat on the Bones

The Civil Guard separately confirmed that “two well-known companies in Spain” were the victims in the alleged €42,547,104 fraud. Why the names of those companies seem hard to mention is unclear, but they’ll come as no surprise.

The investigation was triggered by a joint complaint filed by top-tier football league LaLiga, and Telefonica-owned broadcasting partner Movistar.

The target was a Kodi add-on called Cristal Azul , as these screenshots from a police video seem to confirm.

The GitHub repo seen in the video still exists, but it contains only a very old version of Cristal Azul (v0.0.12) from four years ago; the latest versions are v3.0.10+.

While not four years old, the news announced on Friday wasn’t exactly fresh either. In fact, those behind the add-on made an announcement on October 7, 2024, which left very little doubt that their position had become untenable, “ugly” even.

News that the addon would be immediately shut down and wouldn’t be coming back, was only the beginning.

Too Hot to Continue

Before those behind Cristal Azul shut the add-on down early October, the software was available from the Luar repository hosted on GitHub. Presumably due to the unwanted attention, soon after Cristal Azul shut down, the Luar repository disappeared in similar fashion, leaving the message “See you soon” behind.

Most likely due to the disappearance of Cristal Azul, the Luar repository received a significant (but useless) traffic boost in October.

A slightly longer message on Telegram added: “It’s time to say goodbye. WE CLOSE DOORS. We hope that in these 4 years Luar helped you in some way. Thank you for being there. See you soon.”

Telegram Fears: More Addons Call it Quits

Since the demise of Luar, other add-on related platforms have taken action too. Whether these are true closures, relocations, rebrandings or any other strategy deployed by pirates, is unknown, but TVChopo and Kodivertido began limiting their exposure in the third week of October.

Not long after, Palantir also took steps to improve its security; in fact, all players mentioned above took exactly the same action.

The popular instant messaging app that the Ministry alluded to in its statement concerning Cristal Azul was Telegram; it appears some people are becoming quite nervous about having a piracy presence there.

After Telegram’s founder and CEO Pavel Durov was arrested in France in August, Telegram promised to address abuse on the platform, including being more responsive to piracy complaints. Telegram says it intends to stand by that promise.

IP Addresses and Phone Numbers

When Spanish tech site AVPasion asked Telegram about its change of policy and how that could affect channel operators accused of infringement, Telegram was fairly bullish on the consequences.

“We’ve updated our terms of service and privacy policy, ensuring they are consistent across the globe. We’ve made it clear that IP addresses and phone numbers of those who violate our rules may be disclosed to relevant authorities in response to valid legal requests,” Telegram’s response reads.

For some who believed that Telegram was a safe haven, this may be an unexpected wake-up call. It really shouldn’t have been unexpected though and what comes next month or next year shouldn’t come as a surprise either.

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

YouTube is the world’s most watched streaming platform. The endless library of videos, uploaded by both amateurs and professionals, is simply unrivaled.

This popularity translates into hard cash, with YouTube and its creators generating billions of dollars in yearly revenue. However, the revenue potential is also a magnet for people who try to profit from the work of others.

We’re not referring to the occasional use of copyrighted content in a broader creative context, but systematic copying in order to generate ‘viral’ content. This turns out to be a profitable business model for dubious ‘creators’ trying to ride the wave of YouTube’s algorithm.

These types of channels exist in various gradations. Some have found loopholes to upload Hollywood content, but those more astute typically stay away from well protected footage. Instead, they source videos that perform well on YouTube, often focused on a specific theme.

Running an operation like this requires expertise. It can be quite a challenge to evade YouTube’s copyright checks, including the Content ID system. Evading copyright strikes and related penalties is a top priority.

A Very Explicit Facade

In recent weeks, several of these dubious YouTube channels demonstrated a rather disturbing trend. After generating many millions of views, they suddenly swap their existing channel artwork and video thumbnails for images of hardcore porn.

This sounds bizarre, but we have documented several examples. The MrTech channel , for example, which had more than 170,000 subscribers, originally looked like this . With the post popular videos each generating millions of views, it was certainly doing well.

Early November, however, the channel was suddenly filled with sexually explicit content. The videos were still the same, but the thumbnails, channel header, and the logo were clearly NSFW.

This type of footage is strictly forbidden on the streaming platform and within a few hours the channel was banned for violating community guidelines. That wasn’t unexpected at all, of course.

This explicit facade doesn’t appear to be an isolated incident. Others have started to notice similar channel overhauls recently. Internet Archive has a copy of the popular Luckiest People channel ( NSFW!! ) that shows a similar transformation, and there are many more.

So why do these types of channels display this behavior? Were they hacked? Or is there an ulterior motive behind getting themselves banned?

Porn Shield?

From what we are able to gather, these changes are intentional. We can’t rule anything out at this point, but it seems that the channel operators are deliberately trying to get their channels terminated for community guideline violations.

When channels are hit with several copyright strikes, they are on the brink of being terminated under YouTube’s copyright policy. However, by using porn as a shield, they’re able to preempt the copyright ban. This tactic usually works, as channels with blatant pornographic content are reported en masse and swiftly banned.

This tactic highlights a potential loophole or weakness in YouTube’s enforcement mechanism that malicious actors can exploit. But what do they get out of it?

YouTube channels can be terminated for both repeated copyright infringement and community guideline violations. In these cases, revenues are often withheld as well. It’s possible, however, that linked AdSense accounts are treated differently.

AdSense Nuance

AdSense policies can be confusing, but based on additional information provided by Google’s AI, YouTube copyright bans are most likely to result in AdSense terminations too.

“Google may suspend or permanently terminate the AdSense account linked to the terminated YouTube channel. This is because AdSense policies prohibit users from profiting from content that infringes on others’ copyrights.”

For community guideline violations, triggered by explicit content, Google AI notes that the response is ‘more nuanced’. Associated AdSense accounts are therefore less likely to be terminated.

“Unlike with copyright strikes, a channel terminated for community guideline violations might not automatically lead to AdSense termination. This is because the focus is on the content itself, not necessarily on profiting from illegal activity.”

Apparently, in some instances, revenues that were initially withheld may even be released after an investigation. That would be another major advantage.

This difference in penalties would explain the sudden appearance of explicit material on these channels. While that doesn’t save the existing channel in any way, it may leave the associated AdSense account intact.

An approved AdSense account is valuable, and keeping it intact means that it can then be used by other channels to start the process all over again. Indeed, there are clear signs that the people or groups behind “porn shield” continue their work elsewhere.

For example, we have seen plenty of new channels showing pretty much identical content to that uploaded by MrTech. Without pointing fingers directly, this Google search for one of its video titles is quite revealing .

TorrentFreak reached out to YouTube which couldn’t directly answer our questions. Instead, it provided a general statement, noting that MrTech triggered its Nudity & Sexual Content Policy, and that there’s a separate program for dealing with copyright infringement.

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

Under U.S. copyright law, Internet providers must terminate the accounts of repeat infringers “in appropriate circumstances”.

This legal requirement remained largely unenforced for nearly two decades but a series of copyright infringement liability lawsuits, with hundreds of millions of dollars at stake, have shaken up the industry.

RIAA Labels vs. Altice

These piracy liability lawsuits have targeted large and small Internet providers across the United States. This includes Altice, which was sued by various parties in recent years both directly and indirectly as the owner of ISP Optimum.

This summer, Optimum settled its lawsuit with some music industry giants, including BMG, UMG, and Capitol Records, but that doesn’t mean its legal woes are over.

Last December, a group of nearly 50 music labels filed a similar yet separate ‘mass-infringement’ lawsuit against Altice. All members of the RIAA, these music companies claim the ISP is liable for copyright infringement, alleging that it failed to take action against repeat infringers on the “Optimum” network.

“Despite Altice’s stated policies and despite receiving tens of thousands of infringement notices concerning Plaintiffs’ works […] Altice knowingly permitted repeat infringers to continue to use its services to infringe,” the complaint read.

RIAA Denies Discovery Requests

Nearly a year has passed since the complaint was filed. Both parties are currently conducting discovery, seeking relevant evidence to support their arguments. For Altice, the RIAA is a key target, as the music industry group was involved in events that led up to the lawsuit.

To find out more, Altice subpoenaed the RIAA for what it believes is relevant information. The RIAA responded to the request, but refused to produce several documents, so Altice filed a motion at the federal court, asking it to compel the RIAA to comply.

The ISP is particularly interested in the RIAA’s dealings with anti-piracy vendor OpSec Online. The company was responsible for tracking subscribers’ piracy activity on BitTorrent networks and alerting the associated Internet providers, including Altice. These piracy notices were then used as evidence in the current lawsuit.

“According to Plaintiffs, OpSec’s system was used to detect all of the alleged downloads by Altice’s subscribers that serve as the basis for Plaintiffs’ secondary copyright infringement case against Altice,” the motion reads.

RIAA’s Dealings with OpSec

The RIAA reportedly responded with standard rejections to many of these requests. The music group agreed to hand over a copy of its 2019 agreement with OpSec, but rejected to share any other communications related to it.

According to Altice, this missing context is vital to its defense. It may reveal more about the accuracy and reliability of the piracy notices, for example, including details of potential errors and inaccurate notices.

In addition, the RIAA should also be required to share reports and other details that provide more insight into the scope and purpose of the piracy notice efforts.

“[T]he broader reports are relevant to, for example, (1) how many notices were sent to other ISPs, (2) how the RIAA directed OpSec to gather evidence of piracy from other ISPs, and (3) whether the RIAA had a strategy for bringing suits against the entire ISP industry, and, if so, its motivations for doing so,” Altice writes.

Along the same lines, the RIAA should also disclose about how much it paid OpSec for its services. The music industry group already shared payments between 2020 and 2023, but it should hand over older data too. That will help to establish OpSec’s credibility as a witness, Altice notes.

RIAA’s Other Enforcement Efforts

The remaining information mostly relates to other enforcement efforts. The RIAA is asked to explain how it selects the copyrighted works that are used as evidence in lawsuits, for example, and whether it chose to extend the protection of certain titles, while discarding others.

The RIAA has so far refused to share this information. The same also applies to details of any other enforcement options it considered, including actions against torrent sites and potential lawsuits against providers of file-sharing software.

“These requests are directly relevant to the RIAA’s motivations for pursuing actions against ISPS, like Altice, instead of taking action themselves to address online copyright infringement such as sending notices of infringement to torrent site aggregators […] or taking legal action against providers of peer-to-peer file-sharing technologies.”

Finally, Altice brings up the Copyright Alert System (CAS). This now-defunct voluntary agreement between rightsholders and Internet providers was previously used in an effort to deter infringement. Notably, this industry sanctioned model did not require ISPs to terminate subscriber accounts.

The music labels have sued Altice for its alleged failure to terminate accounts of repeat infringers, so this information is highly relevant to its defense, the company notes. Through the motion to compel, Altice hopes that the court will order the music group to comply.

At the time of writing, the RIAA has yet to respond to the motion. After that, the court is expected to issue a decision.

—

A copy of the motion to compel, as well as an associated request to transfer it to the Eastern District of Texas, is available here (pdf) .

Instant update: The motion is transferred to Texas (pdf) .

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

Pirate site blocking is one of the entertainment industry’s favorite enforcement tools. In recent years, it’s become a common practice in many countries around the world.

In the Netherlands, it took over a decade for the first order to be approved. After detours through the Supreme Court and the EU Court of Justice, the final order was issued in 2020, targeting The Pirate Bay .

With all the legal paperwork in order, the doors were open to more blocking requests, especially after rightsholders and local ISPs signed a covenant to streamline the process. If a court orders one company to block pirate sites, by agreement the other ISPs will follow suit.

After the initial Pirate Bay blockade, a follow-up order targeted YTS, EZTV and other torrent sites in 2022. Last year, the court approved a ‘dynamic’ blocking order against Lookmovie and Flixtor, followed by similar action against popular shadow libraries a few months ago.

New TorrentGalaxy Blockade

Yesterday, BREIN announced that it has won another blocking case. In a recent ruling, the Rotterdam District Court ordered Dutch internet provider Odido to block access to popular torrent site TorrentGalaxy and its associated proxy and mirror domains.

The Court found that TorrentGalaxy facilitates copyright infringement by providing unauthorized access to copyrighted works. As an internet service provider, Odido plays a role in facilitating access to TorrentGalaxy, therefore it’s obliged to take action to limit the piracy activity.

The ISP is seen as an intermediary under Dutch copyright law. Without taking action, it can be held liable, the Court explained. This wasn’t contested by Odido, but the ISP opposed BREIN’s blocking request for other reasons.

ISP Opposition Fails

In court, the ISP mentioned the subsidiarity requirement of the blocking covenant, arguing that BREIN had not sufficiently tested other avenues to shut the site down. BREIN could have done more to address the infringements closer to the source, by going after TorrentGalaxy’s hosting provider, for example.

BREIN had reached out to TorrentGalaxy’s former host FlokiNET in the past, but without any result. However, when the torrent site reportedly relocated this summer, it was weeks before BREIN contacted the new hosting company, Virtual Systems, which typically doesn’t respond to its inquiries either.

After reviewing the arguments from both sides, the Court agreed that BREIN had taken all appropriate steps as agreed in the blocking covenant.

“BREIN not only wrote to the site and the hosting provider, but also to the registrant, registrar and registry of each domain. BREIN has therefore done more than was expected of it,” the Rotterdam District Court’s decision notes.

There are additional steps BREIN could have taken. For example, it could have sued the hosting companies. However, that’s not needed to warrant a blocking order.

“The subsidiarity requirement does not extend so far that BREIN is required to first conduct numerous lawsuits abroad against foreign parties before it demands a blockade in the Netherlands,” the Court adds

500+ Domain Blockade

BREIN director Bastiaan van Ramshorst is pleased with the outcome, which requires other Dutch ISPs to follow suit. Overall, these blocking measures have proven to be effective, particularly since dynamic orders allow new domains to be added later on.

“The websites blocking covenant is working satisfactorily. Dynamic blocking is effective and in the Netherlands it leads to a substantial decrease in visits to the evidently illegal websites that are blocked,” he says.

In addition to ISPs, the order also extends to Google, as the search engine previously decided to voluntarily remove domains from local search results based on ISP blocking orders.

“Moreover, all websites that Dutch access providers must block by court order, Google removes from its search results at the request of BREIN. This cuts both ways,” Van Ramshorst adds.

At the time of writing, the full Dutch pirate site blocklist covers 574 domain names, including proxies and mirrors. In addition to newcomer TorrentGalaxy, it includes The Pirate Bay, YTS, KAT, 1337x, EZTV, LimeTorrents, RARBG (offline), Lookmovie, Flixtor, Anna’s Archive, and Library Genesis.

—

Update November 14: A copy of the Dutch verdict is now publicly available .

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

At the start of 2024, few would’ve believed that Nintendo had a plan up its sleeve that would turn the Switch emulator scene upside down in a matter of months.

That Nintendo’s core strategy is effective regardless of the target, and appears flexible enough to put pressure on pro-piracy speech , is a rarity in itself. Even the timing and pace seem to have been measured to perfection.

While no action has been able to conclusively end Switch emulation, or even nudge the scene towards an existential crisis, things are not like they were in 2023. It’s possible there will never be a return, but all things considered, mass uptake of emulation for piracy purposes was never likely to end well.

A less shouty and brazen attitude towards the risky side of emulation, may actually end up being a plus for those determined to continue. When mainstream attraction eventually wears off, Nintendo itself may experience diminishing returns; right now, however, there’s still plenty of work left to do.

Undermining Foundations, Limiting Options

After the dust settled on Yuzu’s demise, any software based on Yuzu had already inherited the same poisonous traits that led to its downfall. With those details in hand, Nintendo has had a much easier time taking down developers’ repos.

Suyu, Nuzu, Uzuy and Torzu all faced disruption in July , along with Sudachi, a Yuzu-based emulator whose DNA can also be found in Pomelo, a Switch emulator for iOS devices.

In a DMCA takedown notice filed at GitHub a few hours ago, Nintendo targets eight Pomelo repos. Highlighting that Pomelo code can be traced back to Yuzu, Nintendo’s notice lists everything that Yuzu did wrong and then links that directly to Pomelo.

“The reported repository provides access to the yuzu emulator or code based on the yuzu emulator (specifically, a program called Pomelo),” the notice reads, before complaining about Yuzu’s actions and leaving GitHub to connect the dots.

“The yuzu emulator is primarily designed to play Nintendo Switch games. Specifically, yuzu illegally circumvents Nintendo’s technological protection measures and runs illegal copies of Nintendo Switch games,” Nintendo continues.

“Nintendo Switch games are encrypted using proprietary cryptographic keys (prod.keys) which protect against unauthorized access to and copying of the copyrighted games. During operation, yuzu necessarily uses unauthorized copies of these cryptographic keys to decrypt unauthorized copies of Nintendo Switch games, or ROMs, at or immediately before runtime without Nintendo’s authorization,” the notice adds.

All Switch Decryption is Illegal

On GitLab, where Pomelo currently continues unhindered, the repo has an unmissable notice on the very front page.

Unfortunately the disclaimer isn’t especially useful. Using the Yuzu case for guidance, dumping encryption keys, regardless of the source of those keys, is illegal. In fact, anywhere where encryption is mentioned, decryption is described as illegal, even when users extract keys from their own, legally purchased devices.

When taken together, these factors lead Pomelo and other Switch emulators down a dead end with nowhere left to go.

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