Back in 2019, Dutch anti-piracy group BREIN, alongside the Alliance for Creativity and Entertainment and Hollywood’s MPA, had reason to celebrate following a successful enforcement operation.

Their target was a CDN (Content Delivery Network) known as Moonwalk, which offered vast quantities of movies and TV shows for pirate site operators to embed in their own sites.

Services like these aren’t necessarily the cheapest option, but if time is money, having a one-stop-shop video supplier take care of pretty much everything, ads included, could certainly lighten the load for those short on time.

Moonwalk allegedly supplied content to 80% of known Russian streaming portals before it was shut down. A knock-on effect quickly claimed the scalps of other big players including HDGO and Kodik, at least for a while.

Pirate CDNs Play an Important Role Worldwide

Most visitors to popular pirate streaming sites will have watched embedded movies or TV shows that are hosted somewhere else entirely. This can be obvious when the viewer is presented with a choice of hosts, but that’s not always the case. Most streaming sites simply act as shop windows, which certainly helps with mobility when it’s time to rebrand while circumventing another round of blocking.

A new report from Russian cybersecurity firm F6 (previously Group-IB) provides an overview of the local pirate CDN market and presents some interesting findings.

One Player Dominates the Market

F6 analysts say they investigated 1,400 pirate sites to determine which CDNs are most popular in Russia. At the top of the list by some distance is the Alloha network. F6 estimates that 61% of local illegal streaming sites rely on Alloha for video content.

In our tests Alloha wasn’t readily findable in Google’s search results, despite being absent from the company’s takedown transparency report. Only when queries contained the platform’s full URL did it surface as expected; searches using Yandex, meanwhile, were much more straightforward.

Access to Alloha is granted on application, and subject to various terms and conditions.

The service states that applicants must operate their own site and must’ve had a minimum of 300 visitors per day during the previous week.

That appears to rule out brand-new sites seeking content to grow from an absolute standing start, but finding 300 visitors shouldn’t be too difficult.

Operating from an Indian domain, the Rewall service takes second place in the F6 list with 42%. In third place is Lumex with 11%, followed by the resurrected Kodik (9%), and HDVB with a modest 7% share. Since the total is over 100%, some pirates seem to be edging their bets with two or three suppliers, just in case.

Databases, Customers, Ads, Hosting

The authors of the report claim that these services usually offer massive libraries of pirated content. One unnamed service reportedly has more than 550,000 items of video listed in its database.

Overall, F6 notes that these services allow pirates to more effectively grow their sites. Advertising delivered along with video streams through the embedded player reportedly accounts for 36% of all advertising on pirate streaming sites.

That leaves the claim that around 1,400 streaming sites rely on these types of services for content. That sounds entirely plausible.

Finding sites behind Cloudflare can be a challenge, but at least one of these platforms prefers not to use it, which helped us to quickly identify around 600 domains linked to the service. How many are unique is another question, but the end result probably wouldn’t undermine the headline figure.

The West Should Take Piracy More Seriously, Apparently

Finally, it seems somewhat ironic that the West describes piracy in Russia as a very serious problem, yet in Russia, criticism in this case appears to run in the opposite direction. The mobility of indexing sites means that blocking in Russia descends into a game of cat and mouse, but the CDNs themselves are also considered problematic.

Instead of the CDNs being hosted in Russia, F6 notes that overseas hosting is preferred. The Netherlands, United States, Ukraine, Germany, and France are highlighted as the locations of choice, all of them more difficult for Russian authorities to block than servers hosted on home soil.

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

Back in 2019, Dutch anti-piracy group BREIN, alongside the Alliance for Creativity and Entertainment and Hollywood’s MPA, had reason to celebrate following a successful enforcement operation.

Their target was a CDN (Content Delivery Network) known as Moonwalk, which offered vast quantities of movies and TV shows for pirate site operators to embed in their own sites.

Services like these aren’t necessarily the cheapest option, but if time is money, having a one-stop-shop video supplier take care of pretty much everything, ads included, could certainly lighten the load for those short on time.

Moonwalk allegedly supplied content to 80% of known Russian streaming portals before it was shut down. A knock-on effect quickly claimed the scalps of other big players including HDGO and Kodik, at least for a while.

Pirate CDNs Play an Important Role Worldwide

Most visitors to popular pirate streaming sites will have watched embedded movies or TV shows that are hosted somewhere else entirely. This can be obvious when the viewer is presented with a choice of hosts, but that’s not always the case. Most streaming sites simply act as shop windows, which certainly helps with mobility when it’s time to rebrand while circumventing another round of blocking.

A new report from Russian cybersecurity firm F6 (previously Group-IB) provides an overview of the local pirate CDN market and presents some interesting findings.

One Player Dominates the Market

F6 analysts say they investigated 1,400 pirate sites to determine which CDNs are most popular in Russia. At the top of the list by some distance is the Alloha network. F6 estimates that 61% of local illegal streaming sites rely on Alloha for video content.

In our tests Alloha wasn’t readily findable in Google’s search results, despite being absent from the company’s takedown transparency report. Only when queries contained the platform’s full URL did it surface as expected; searches using Yandex, meanwhile, were much more straightforward.

Access to Alloha is granted on application, and subject to various terms and conditions.

The service states that applicants must operate their own site and must’ve had a minimum of 300 visitors per day during the previous week.

That appears to rule out brand-new sites seeking content to grow from an absolute standing start, but finding 300 visitors shouldn’t be too difficult.

Operating from an Indian domain, the Rewall service takes second place in the F6 list with 42%. In third place is Lumex with 11%, followed by the resurrected Kodik (9%), and HDVB with a modest 7% share. Since the total is over 100%, some pirates seem to be edging their bets with two or three suppliers, just in case.

Databases, Customers, Ads, Hosting

The authors of the report claim that these services usually offer massive libraries of pirated content. One unnamed service reportedly has more than 550,000 items of video listed in its database.

Overall, F6 notes that these services allow pirates to more effectively grow their sites. Advertising delivered along with video streams through the embedded player reportedly accounts for 36% of all advertising on pirate streaming sites.

That leaves the claim that around 1,400 streaming sites rely on these types of services for content. That sounds entirely plausible.

Finding sites behind Cloudflare can be a challenge, but at least one of these platforms prefers not to use it, which helped us to quickly identify around 600 domains linked to the service. How many are unique is another question, but the end result probably wouldn’t undermine the headline figure.

The West Should Take Piracy More Seriously, Apparently

Finally, it seems somewhat ironic that the West describes piracy in Russia as a very serious problem, yet in Russia, criticism in this case appears to run in the opposite direction. The mobility of indexing sites means that blocking in Russia descends into a game of cat and mouse, but the CDNs themselves are also considered problematic.

Instead of the CDNs being hosted in Russia, F6 notes that overseas hosting is preferred. The Netherlands, United States, Ukraine, Germany, and France are highlighted as the locations of choice, all of them more difficult for Russian authorities to block than servers hosted on home soil.

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

Back in 2019, Dutch anti-piracy group BREIN, alongside the Alliance for Creativity and Entertainment and Hollywood’s MPA, had reason to celebrate following a successful enforcement operation.

Their target was a CDN (Content Delivery Network) known as Moonwalk, which offered vast quantities of movies and TV shows for pirate site operators to embed in their own sites.

Services like these aren’t necessarily the cheapest option, but if time is money, having a one-stop-shop video supplier take care of pretty much everything, ads included, could certainly lighten the load for those short on time.

Moonwalk allegedly supplied content to 80% of known Russian streaming portals before it was shut down. A knock-on effect quickly claimed the scalps of other big players including HDGO and Kodik, at least for a while.

Pirate CDNs Play an Important Role Worldwide

Most visitors to popular pirate streaming sites will have watched embedded movies or TV shows that are hosted somewhere else entirely. This can be obvious when the viewer is presented with a choice of hosts, but that’s not always the case. Most streaming sites simply act as shop windows, which certainly helps with mobility when it’s time to rebrand while circumventing another round of blocking.

A new report from Russian cybersecurity firm F6 (previously Group-IB) provides an overview of the local pirate CDN market and presents some interesting findings.

One Player Dominates the Market

F6 analysts say they investigated 1,400 pirate sites to determine which CDNs are most popular in Russia. At the top of the list by some distance is the Alloha network. F6 estimates that 61% of local illegal streaming sites rely on Alloha for video content.

In our tests Alloha wasn’t readily findable in Google’s search results, despite being absent from the company’s takedown transparency report. Only when queries contained the platform’s full URL did it surface as expected; searches using Yandex, meanwhile, were much more straightforward.

Access to Alloha is granted on application, and subject to various terms and conditions.

The service states that applicants must operate their own site and must’ve had a minimum of 300 visitors per day during the previous week.

That appears to rule out brand-new sites seeking content to grow from an absolute standing start, but finding 300 visitors shouldn’t be too difficult.

Operating from an Indian domain, the Rewall service takes second place in the F6 list with 42%. In third place is Lumex with 11%, followed by the resurrected Kodik (9%), and HDVB with a modest 7% share. Since the total is over 100%, some pirates seem to be edging their bets with two or three suppliers, just in case.

Databases, Customers, Ads, Hosting

The authors of the report claim that these services usually offer massive libraries of pirated content. One unnamed service reportedly has more than 550,000 items of video listed in its database.

Overall, F6 notes that these services allow pirates to more effectively grow their sites. Advertising delivered along with video streams through the embedded player reportedly accounts for 36% of all advertising on pirate streaming sites.

That leaves the claim that around 1,400 streaming sites rely on these types of services for content. That sounds entirely plausible.

Finding sites behind Cloudflare can be a challenge, but at least one of these platforms prefers not to use it, which helped us to quickly identify around 600 domains linked to the service. How many are unique is another question, but the end result probably wouldn’t undermine the headline figure.

The West Should Take Piracy More Seriously, Apparently

Finally, it seems somewhat ironic that the West describes piracy in Russia as a very serious problem, yet in Russia, criticism in this case appears to run in the opposite direction. The mobility of indexing sites means that blocking in Russia descends into a game of cat and mouse, but the CDNs themselves are also considered problematic.

Instead of the CDNs being hosted in Russia, F6 notes that overseas hosting is preferred. The Netherlands, United States, Ukraine, Germany, and France are highlighted as the locations of choice, all of them more difficult for Russian authorities to block than servers hosted on home soil.

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

First released in 2004 as part of the broader “Piracy: It’s a Crime” campaign, the “You Wouldn’t Steal a Car” PSA quickly became iconic.

Its dramatic equation of online piracy with stealing handbags, televisions, and cars, also made it a fertile breeding ground for memes, satire, and ridicule.

While the main commercial is well-remembered, a lesser-known ‘ street sales ‘ equivalent has largely been forgotten. Even the official piracyitsacrime.com campaign website eventually vanished, only for the domain name to be later acquired and cleverly redirected to the famous IT Crowd parody mocking the original ad.

Two decades on, the “You Wouldn’t Steal” video remains ingrained in internet culture. Yet, new details about the campaign continue to surface, including the ironic possibility that it used a ‘stolen’ font.

You Wouldn’t Steal a Font

In the past, reports have repeatedly claimed that the music used for the PSA was pirated. These claims were inaccurate , so when we saw repeated mentions suggesting that the font used for the “You Wouldn’t Steal” commercial was a clone of a commercial font, we were skeptical at first.

This time, however, the evidence seems compelling.

The “Piracy It’s a Crime” site and the “You Wouldn’t” steal commercials always appeared to use the FF Confidential font , which was created by Just Van Rossum in 1992. However, materials posted on the campaign website use an identical but differently named font called “XBAND Rough”.

XBAND Rough is a freely available font created by Catapult Entertainment in 1996, but it’s not difficult to see that this is a direct clone of Van Rossum’s font, which requires a license to use.

Pinpointing the font from the videos alone is difficult. However, Melissa Lewis recently suggested on Bluesky that the clone was used. This finding was later supported by another user, “Rib,” who discovered XBAND Rough embedded in a 2005 PDF file hosted on the official campaign website.

TorrentFreak was able to confirm independently that the campaign material uses the embedded XBAND Rough font, and the same applies to another campaign flyer created in 2005.

Technically, it’s still possible that the commercials used a licensed version of FF Confidential, so we refrain from drawing any strong conclusions. However, the irony that a free knockoff of a commercial font was used for an anti-piracy campaign doesn’t escape us.

Font Creator: It’s Hilarious

So, what does FF Confidential’s creator, Just Van Rossum, think of this discovery?

Van Rossum informs us that he can’t say whether his font was licensed for the commercial, or if the cloned version was used instead. However, the evidence suggests that the “Piracy It’s a Crime” campaign itself did use the free font, a fact he finds hilarious.

“I knew my font was used for the campaign and that a pirated clone named XBand-Rough existed. I did not know that the campaign used XBand-Rough and not FF Confidential, though. So this fact is new to me, and I find it hilarious,” Van Rossum informs us.

The font’s creator has no intention of following this up, as he’s no longer the font’s official distributor. The licensing is currently handled by Monotype and before 2014, FontShop International had the exclusive rights.

More than two decades after its launch, the “You Wouldn’t Steal a Car” campaign continues to spark conversation. The revelation that its own materials likely contained a cloned version of a licensed font automatically leads us to a simple closing question: You wouldn’t steal a font, right?

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

First released in 2004 as part of the broader “Piracy: It’s a Crime” campaign, the “You Wouldn’t Steal a Car” PSA quickly became iconic.

Its dramatic equation of online piracy with stealing handbags, televisions, and cars, also made it a fertile breeding ground for memes, satire, and ridicule.

While the main commercial is well-remembered, a lesser-known ‘ street sales ‘ equivalent has largely been forgotten. Even the official piracyitsacrime.com campaign website eventually vanished, only for the domain name to be later acquired and cleverly redirected to the famous IT Crowd parody mocking the original ad.

Two decades on, the “You Wouldn’t Steal” video remains ingrained in internet culture. Yet, new details about the campaign continue to surface, including the ironic possibility that it used a ‘stolen’ font.

You Wouldn’t Steal a Font

In the past, reports have repeatedly claimed that the music used for the PSA was pirated. These claims were inaccurate , so when we saw repeated mentions suggesting that the font used for the “You Wouldn’t Steal” commercial was a clone of a commercial font, we were skeptical at first.

This time, however, the evidence seems compelling.

The “Piracy It’s a Crime” site and the “You Wouldn’t” steal commercials always appeared to use the FF Confidential font , which was created by Just Van Rossum in 1992. However, materials posted on the campaign website use an identical but differently named font called “XBAND Rough”.

XBAND Rough is a freely available font created by Catapult Entertainment in 1996, but it’s not difficult to see that this is a direct clone of Van Rossum’s font, which requires a license to use.

Pinpointing the font from the videos alone is difficult. However, Melissa Lewis recently suggested on Bluesky that the clone was used. This finding was later supported by another user, “Rib,” who discovered XBAND Rough embedded in a 2005 PDF file hosted on the official campaign website.

TorrentFreak was able to confirm independently that the campaign material uses the embedded XBAND Rough font, and the same applies to another campaign flyer created in 2005.

Technically, it’s still possible that the commercials used a licensed version of FF Confidential, so we refrain from drawing any strong conclusions. However, the irony that a free knockoff of a commercial font was used for an anti-piracy campaign doesn’t escape us.

Font Creator: It’s Hilarious

So, what does FF Confidential’s creator, Just Van Rossum, think of this discovery?

Van Rossum informs us that he can’t say whether his font was licensed for the commercial, or if the cloned version was used instead. However, the evidence suggests that the “Piracy It’s a Crime” campaign itself did use the free font, a fact he finds hilarious.

“I knew my font was used for the campaign and that a pirated clone named XBand-Rough existed. I did not know that the campaign used XBand-Rough and not FF Confidential, though. So this fact is new to me, and I find it hilarious,” Van Rossum informs us.

The font’s creator has no intention of following this up, as he’s no longer the font’s official distributor. The licensing is currently handled by Monotype and before 2014, FontShop International had the exclusive rights.

More than two decades after its launch, the “You Wouldn’t Steal a Car” campaign continues to spark conversation. The revelation that its own materials likely contained a cloned version of a licensed font automatically leads us to a simple closing question: You wouldn’t steal a font, right?

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

First released in 2004 as part of the broader “Piracy: It’s a Crime” campaign, the “You Wouldn’t Steal a Car” PSA quickly became iconic.

Its dramatic equation of online piracy with stealing handbags, televisions, and cars, also made it a fertile breeding ground for memes, satire, and ridicule.

While the main commercial is well-remembered, a lesser-known ‘ street sales ‘ equivalent has largely been forgotten. Even the official piracyitsacrime.com campaign website eventually vanished, only for the domain name to be later acquired and cleverly redirected to the famous IT Crowd parody mocking the original ad.

Two decades on, the “You Wouldn’t Steal” video remains ingrained in internet culture. Yet, new details about the campaign continue to surface, including the ironic possibility that it used a ‘stolen’ font.

You Wouldn’t Steal a Font

In the past, reports have repeatedly claimed that the music used for the PSA was pirated. These claims were inaccurate , so when we saw repeated mentions suggesting that the font used for the “You Wouldn’t Steal” commercial was a clone of a commercial font, we were skeptical at first.

This time, however, the evidence seems compelling.

The “Piracy It’s a Crime” site and the “You Wouldn’t” steal commercials always appeared to use the FF Confidential font , which was created by Just Van Rossum in 1992. However, materials posted on the campaign website use an identical but differently named font called “XBAND Rough”.

XBAND Rough is a freely available font created by Catapult Entertainment in 1996, but it’s not difficult to see that this is a direct clone of Van Rossum’s font, which requires a license to use.

Pinpointing the font from the videos alone is difficult. However, Melissa Lewis recently suggested on Bluesky that the clone was used. This finding was later supported by another user, “Rib,” who discovered XBAND Rough embedded in a 2005 PDF file hosted on the official campaign website.

TorrentFreak was able to confirm independently that the campaign material uses the embedded XBAND Rough font, and the same applies to another campaign flyer created in 2005.

Technically, it’s still possible that the commercials used a licensed version of FF Confidential, so we refrain from drawing any strong conclusions. However, the irony that a free knockoff of a commercial font was used for an anti-piracy campaign doesn’t escape us.

Font Creator: It’s Hilarious

So, what does FF Confidential’s creator, Just Van Rossum, think of this discovery?

Van Rossum informs us that he can’t say whether his font was licensed for the commercial, or if the cloned version was used instead. However, the evidence suggests that the “Piracy It’s a Crime” campaign itself did use the free font, a fact he finds hilarious.

“I knew my font was used for the campaign and that a pirated clone named XBand-Rough existed. I did not know that the campaign used XBand-Rough and not FF Confidential, though. So this fact is new to me, and I find it hilarious,” Van Rossum informs us.

The font’s creator has no intention of following this up, as he’s no longer the font’s official distributor. The licensing is currently handled by Monotype and before 2014, FontShop International had the exclusive rights.

More than two decades after its launch, the “You Wouldn’t Steal a Car” campaign continues to spark conversation. The revelation that its own materials likely contained a cloned version of a licensed font automatically leads us to a simple closing question: You wouldn’t steal a font, right?

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

For those not directly involved, assessing the effectiveness of an anti-piracy campaign meets significant challenges.

The results of campaigns are often measured by those behind them, in some cases after receiving significant financial assistance from friendly governments. Whether by coincidence or otherwise, subsequent reports suggesting that everyone wasted their money are impossible to find.

Reports of successful campaigns are less scarce but since supporting evidence now amounts to commercially-sensitive corporate information, details showing why the investment paid off tend to be restricted.

Estimating the results of an anti-piracy campaign that strives to increase awareness is much more straightforward. Publicly unencumbered by requirements to decrease piracy while increasing sales, success amounts to more people being aware of the issues than before the campaign launched.

Piracy Awareness At Record Highs in the UK

The UK’s BeStreamWise anti-piracy campaign has been running since September/October 2023 . At launch the campaign was publicly supported by the Federation Against Copyright Theft, the UK government’s Intellectual Property Office, CrimeStoppers, British Association for Screen Entertainment, Sky, the Premier League, the Irish Industry Trust For IP Awareness, and broadcaster ITV.

During the months that followed, additional companies and organizations were revealed as backers, including DAZN, BBC, the Police Intellectual Property Crime Unit, streaming platforms GAAGO and Clubber, U.S. giant Universal, and the most recent addition, the world-famous Formula 1.

As things stand that’s already an impressive set of backers but also somewhat understated.

Through their memberships of FACT and BASE, several major entertainment companies can be added to the list.

They include The Walt Disney Company, Warner Bros., Sony Pictures, Studio Canal, Virgin Media, TNT, Lionsgate, Mattel, and Crunchyroll, to name a few. The overwhelming majority haven’t been publicly associated with the campaign in any way, with FACT shouldering most of the overt press appearances. Commentary provided is regularly attributed to FACT, but not explicitly stated as provided on behalf of the campaign.

If piracy awareness was the goal, mission accomplished. Awareness of pirate set-top boxes and the possibility of obtaining all media for free is at an all-time high in the UK. Much of the credit for that goes to the tabloid media for their sustained wall-to-wall piracy coverage over the past 18 months.

Divide and Conquer – GENTLY

Unlike many traditional anti-piracy campaigns that demonized suppliers and consumers of pirated content, BeStreamWise launched with emphasis on the risks associated with illegal content consumption, such as malware, credit card fraud, and identity theft.

By not immediately going to war with those consuming pirated content, the scale of any pushback was naturally limited, and the nightmare scenario of the campaign itself providing the fuel for opposition was effectively eliminated. That theoretically provided BeStreamWise with space to undermine loyalty to pirate suppliers and gently ease consumers back onside against a common adversary .

Perceptions of how things played out will obviously vary. However, of the 27 or so news updates subsequently published on the BeStreamWise portal, just three or four addressed the main theme of the campaign (consumer risk). The overwhelming majority reported on “crackdowns” on illegal IPTV services, raids, arrests, people being fined, imprisoned, and otherwise being held accountable for piracy activities.

This tends to suggest that warning messages are still perceived as important, if the confrontation they generate can be effectively managed.

Be Polite, Always Credit the Source

The BeStreamWise campaign’s official work with the media, and the motivation behind hundreds of articles published by the UK tabloids containing exactly the same talking points and overall narrative, show few clear dividing lines. Comments from Sky and the Intellectual Property Office, for example, are notable for their clear attribution , albeit in relatively few articles.

The individual companies and government departments behind BeStreamWise are known to communicate with the press, but attribution is consistently limited. Commentary from the campaign itself has in many cases gone uncredited in much the same way.

Despite being involved in a major national campaign, the Intellectual Property Office website lacks any public mention of BeStreamWise, while a trawl of its expenditure records reveals no direct references to financial assistance or details of resource allocation. The apparent disconnect seems unusual but considering the sensational and often misleading information churned out in local media, maintaining distance may avoid most of the embarrassing questions.

Warnings Published Regularly in the Media

Persistent media claims that users of pirate set-top boxes face up to a decade of imprisonment, are stated as fact but without attribution. Other distortions implying that police are somewhat routinely knocking on doors in search of people watching illegal streams, after tracking users down with vehicle-based ‘ illegal streaming detection technology ‘, receive exactly the same treatment.

These are just two examples of the type of commentary that has run alongside the campaign, in articles that mention the campaign and others that don’t. These claims are never directly linked to the campaign and that may be for good reason, i.e the campaign was not the source. Unfortunately, citing sources is extremely rare; corrections rarer still.

Statements similar to the above often appear in articles that unhelpfully conflate, or fail to differentiate between, action against suppliers and sellers of pirate streams, and the alleged threat of action against consumers of pirated content. We’ve highlighted this problem several times before, including directly, but to no avail.

Interestingly, confirmation that users are unlikely to face arrest arrived just a few days ago, in an article mentioning the BeStreamWise campaign where the source was actually cited.

Individuals Largely Use ‘Illegal Fire Sticks’ “Without Any Risk of Arrest”

Published in the Financial Times behind a paywall , the article’s headline speaks volumes. “Number of UK consumers streaming sports illegally has gone ‘through the roof’, police say” is the last thing rightsholders want to hear, but nonetheless typical of recent dreary assessments concerning the fight against piracy.

The article centers on an interview with Detective Chief Inspector Emma Warbey, the head of the Police Intellectual Property Crime Unit at City of London Police. For the sake of clarity, the introduction and one additional paragraph are reproduced verbatim below.

The number of people who stream sports or other channels illegally in the UK has gone “through the roof” — straining already-stretched police forces in their efforts to prosecute consumers who flout the law, the head of Britain’s intellectual property crime unit has said.

Emma Warbey, detective chief inspector and head of the Police Intellectual Property Crime Unit at the City of London Police, admitted individuals were largely able to use “broken” illegal fire sticks without risk of arrest by her team as officers targeted organized crime groups and resellers at the head of such schemes.
————–
Warbey said it would be wrong to conclude that using illegal streams to watch sports and other paid TV content was a risk-free way of watching media, pointing to fraud and funding for organized crime gangs. She said her team had focused efforts on tackling “resellers and the people at the top of the tree” given that “it’s really hard to stop people doing it”.

She added: “We always follow the money and go for the bigger organized crime groups and the bigger organized crime networks.”

The suggestion by the FT that consumers may have been at least considered for potential arrest is not especially surprising, but still falls way short of the scenarios suggested in the media.

The reality that police don’t have the necessary resources to pursue individual consumers is not surprising at all, but it would’ve been very effective at fueling the type of opposition BeStreamWise has largely avoided.

What happens should the more gentle approach be considered ineffective, is the same unanswered question repeated several times annually for the last 25 years.

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

For those not directly involved, assessing the effectiveness of an anti-piracy campaign meets significant challenges.

The results of campaigns are often measured by those behind them, in some cases after receiving significant financial assistance from friendly governments. Whether by coincidence or otherwise, subsequent reports suggesting that everyone wasted their money are impossible to find.

Reports of successful campaigns are less scarce but since supporting evidence now amounts to commercially-sensitive corporate information, details showing why the investment paid off tend to be restricted.

Estimating the results of an anti-piracy campaign that strives to increase awareness is much more straightforward. Publicly unencumbered by requirements to decrease piracy while increasing sales, success amounts to more people being aware of the issues than before the campaign launched.

Piracy Awareness At Record Highs in the UK

The UK’s BeStreamWise anti-piracy campaign has been running since September/October 2023 . At launch the campaign was publicly supported by the Federation Against Copyright Theft, the UK government’s Intellectual Property Office, CrimeStoppers, British Association for Screen Entertainment, Sky, the Premier League, the Irish Industry Trust For IP Awareness, and broadcaster ITV.

During the months that followed, additional companies and organizations were revealed as backers, including DAZN, BBC, the Police Intellectual Property Crime Unit, streaming platforms GAAGO and Clubber, U.S. giant Universal, and the most recent addition, the world-famous Formula 1.

As things stand that’s already an impressive set of backers but also somewhat understated.

Through their memberships of FACT and BASE, several major entertainment companies can be added to the list.

They include The Walt Disney Company, Warner Bros., Sony Pictures, Studio Canal, Virgin Media, TNT, Lionsgate, Mattel, and Crunchyroll, to name a few. The overwhelming majority haven’t been publicly associated with the campaign in any way, with FACT shouldering most of the overt press appearances. Commentary provided is regularly attributed to FACT, but not explicitly stated as provided on behalf of the campaign.

If piracy awareness was the goal, mission accomplished. Awareness of pirate set-top boxes and the possibility of obtaining all media for free is at an all-time high in the UK. Much of the credit for that goes to the tabloid media for their sustained wall-to-wall piracy coverage over the past 18 months.

Divide and Conquer – GENTLY

Unlike many traditional anti-piracy campaigns that demonized suppliers and consumers of pirated content, BeStreamWise launched with emphasis on the risks associated with illegal content consumption, such as malware, credit card fraud, and identity theft.

By not immediately going to war with those consuming pirated content, the scale of any pushback was naturally limited, and the nightmare scenario of the campaign itself providing the fuel for opposition was effectively eliminated. That theoretically provided BeStreamWise with space to undermine loyalty to pirate suppliers and gently ease consumers back onside against a common adversary .

Perceptions of how things played out will obviously vary. However, of the 27 or so news updates subsequently published on the BeStreamWise portal, just three or four addressed the main theme of the campaign (consumer risk). The overwhelming majority reported on “crackdowns” on illegal IPTV services, raids, arrests, people being fined, imprisoned, and otherwise being held accountable for piracy activities.

This tends to suggest that warning messages are still perceived as important, if the confrontation they generate can be effectively managed.

Be Polite, Always Credit the Source

The BeStreamWise campaign’s official work with the media, and the motivation behind hundreds of articles published by the UK tabloids containing exactly the same talking points and overall narrative, show few clear dividing lines. Comments from Sky and the Intellectual Property Office, for example, are notable for their clear attribution , albeit in relatively few articles.

The individual companies and government departments behind BeStreamWise are known to communicate with the press, but attribution is consistently limited. Commentary from the campaign itself has in many cases gone uncredited in much the same way.

Despite being involved in a major national campaign, the Intellectual Property Office website lacks any public mention of BeStreamWise, while a trawl of its expenditure records reveals no direct references to financial assistance or details of resource allocation. The apparent disconnect seems unusual but considering the sensational and often misleading information churned out in local media, maintaining distance may avoid most of the embarrassing questions.

Warnings Published Regularly in the Media

Persistent media claims that users of pirate set-top boxes face up to a decade of imprisonment, are stated as fact but without attribution. Other distortions implying that police are somewhat routinely knocking on doors in search of people watching illegal streams, after tracking users down with vehicle-based ‘ illegal streaming detection technology ‘, receive exactly the same treatment.

These are just two examples of the type of commentary that has run alongside the campaign, in articles that mention the campaign and others that don’t. These claims are never directly linked to the campaign and that may be for good reason, i.e the campaign was not the source. Unfortunately, citing sources is extremely rare; corrections rarer still.

Statements similar to the above often appear in articles that unhelpfully conflate, or fail to differentiate between, action against suppliers and sellers of pirate streams, and the alleged threat of action against consumers of pirated content. We’ve highlighted this problem several times before, including directly, but to no avail.

Interestingly, confirmation that users are unlikely to face arrest arrived just a few days ago, in an article mentioning the BeStreamWise campaign where the source was actually cited.

Individuals Largely Use ‘Illegal Fire Sticks’ “Without Any Risk of Arrest”

Published in the Financial Times behind a paywall , the article’s headline speaks volumes. “Number of UK consumers streaming sports illegally has gone ‘through the roof’, police say” is the last thing rightsholders want to hear, but nonetheless typical of recent dreary assessments concerning the fight against piracy.

The article centers on an interview with Detective Chief Inspector Emma Warbey, the head of the Police Intellectual Property Crime Unit at City of London Police. For the sake of clarity, the introduction and one additional paragraph are reproduced verbatim below.

The number of people who stream sports or other channels illegally in the UK has gone “through the roof” — straining already-stretched police forces in their efforts to prosecute consumers who flout the law, the head of Britain’s intellectual property crime unit has said.

Emma Warbey, detective chief inspector and head of the Police Intellectual Property Crime Unit at the City of London Police, admitted individuals were largely able to use “broken” illegal fire sticks without risk of arrest by her team as officers targeted organized crime groups and resellers at the head of such schemes.
————–
Warbey said it would be wrong to conclude that using illegal streams to watch sports and other paid TV content was a risk-free way of watching media, pointing to fraud and funding for organized crime gangs. She said her team had focused efforts on tackling “resellers and the people at the top of the tree” given that “it’s really hard to stop people doing it”.

She added: “We always follow the money and go for the bigger organized crime groups and the bigger organized crime networks.”

The suggestion by the FT that consumers may have been at least considered for potential arrest is not especially surprising, but still falls way short of the scenarios suggested in the media.

The reality that police don’t have the necessary resources to pursue individual consumers is not surprising at all, but it would’ve been very effective at fueling the type of opposition BeStreamWise has largely avoided.

What happens should the more gentle approach be considered ineffective, is the same unanswered question repeated several times annually for the last 25 years.

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

For those not directly involved, assessing the effectiveness of an anti-piracy campaign meets significant challenges.

The results of campaigns are often measured by those behind them, in some cases after receiving significant financial assistance from friendly governments. Whether by coincidence or otherwise, subsequent reports suggesting that everyone wasted their money are impossible to find.

Reports of successful campaigns are less scarce but since supporting evidence now amounts to commercially-sensitive corporate information, details showing why the investment paid off tend to be restricted.

Estimating the results of an anti-piracy campaign that strives to increase awareness is much more straightforward. Publicly unencumbered by requirements to decrease piracy while increasing sales, success amounts to more people being aware of the issues than before the campaign launched.

Piracy Awareness At Record Highs in the UK

The UK’s BeStreamWise anti-piracy campaign has been running since September/October 2023 . At launch the campaign was publicly supported by the Federation Against Copyright Theft, the UK government’s Intellectual Property Office, CrimeStoppers, British Association for Screen Entertainment, Sky, the Premier League, the Irish Industry Trust For IP Awareness, and broadcaster ITV.

During the months that followed, additional companies and organizations were revealed as backers, including DAZN, BBC, the Police Intellectual Property Crime Unit, streaming platforms GAAGO and Clubber, U.S. giant Universal, and the most recent addition, the world-famous Formula 1.

As things stand that’s already an impressive set of backers but also somewhat understated.

Through their memberships of FACT and BASE, several major entertainment companies can be added to the list.

They include The Walt Disney Company, Warner Bros., Sony Pictures, Studio Canal, Virgin Media, TNT, Lionsgate, Mattel, and Crunchyroll, to name a few. The overwhelming majority haven’t been publicly associated with the campaign in any way, with FACT shouldering most of the overt press appearances. Commentary provided is regularly attributed to FACT, but not explicitly stated as provided on behalf of the campaign.

If piracy awareness was the goal, mission accomplished. Awareness of pirate set-top boxes and the possibility of obtaining all media for free is at an all-time high in the UK. Much of the credit for that goes to the tabloid media for their sustained wall-to-wall piracy coverage over the past 18 months.

Divide and Conquer – GENTLY

Unlike many traditional anti-piracy campaigns that demonized suppliers and consumers of pirated content, BeStreamWise launched with emphasis on the risks associated with illegal content consumption, such as malware, credit card fraud, and identity theft.

By not immediately going to war with those consuming pirated content, the scale of any pushback was naturally limited, and the nightmare scenario of the campaign itself providing the fuel for opposition was effectively eliminated. That theoretically provided BeStreamWise with space to undermine loyalty to pirate suppliers and gently ease consumers back onside against a common adversary .

Perceptions of how things played out will obviously vary. However, of the 27 or so news updates subsequently published on the BeStreamWise portal, just three or four addressed the main theme of the campaign (consumer risk). The overwhelming majority reported on “crackdowns” on illegal IPTV services, raids, arrests, people being fined, imprisoned, and otherwise being held accountable for piracy activities.

This tends to suggest that warning messages are still perceived as important, if the confrontation they generate can be effectively managed.

Be Polite, Always Credit the Source

The BeStreamWise campaign’s official work with the media, and the motivation behind hundreds of articles published by the UK tabloids containing exactly the same talking points and overall narrative, show few clear dividing lines. Comments from Sky and the Intellectual Property Office, for example, are notable for their clear attribution , albeit in relatively few articles.

The individual companies and government departments behind BeStreamWise are known to communicate with the press, but attribution is consistently limited. Commentary from the campaign itself has in many cases gone uncredited in much the same way.

Despite being involved in a major national campaign, the Intellectual Property Office website lacks any public mention of BeStreamWise, while a trawl of its expenditure records reveals no direct references to financial assistance or details of resource allocation. The apparent disconnect seems unusual but considering the sensational and often misleading information churned out in local media, maintaining distance may avoid most of the embarrassing questions.

Warnings Published Regularly in the Media

Persistent media claims that users of pirate set-top boxes face up to a decade of imprisonment, are stated as fact but without attribution. Other distortions implying that police are somewhat routinely knocking on doors in search of people watching illegal streams, after tracking users down with vehicle-based ‘ illegal streaming detection technology ‘, receive exactly the same treatment.

These are just two examples of the type of commentary that has run alongside the campaign, in articles that mention the campaign and others that don’t. These claims are never directly linked to the campaign and that may be for good reason, i.e the campaign was not the source. Unfortunately, citing sources is extremely rare; corrections rarer still.

Statements similar to the above often appear in articles that unhelpfully conflate, or fail to differentiate between, action against suppliers and sellers of pirate streams, and the alleged threat of action against consumers of pirated content. We’ve highlighted this problem several times before, including directly, but to no avail.

Interestingly, confirmation that users are unlikely to face arrest arrived just a few days ago, in an article mentioning the BeStreamWise campaign where the source was actually cited.

Individuals Largely Use ‘Illegal Fire Sticks’ “Without Any Risk of Arrest”

Published in the Financial Times behind a paywall , the article’s headline speaks volumes. “Number of UK consumers streaming sports illegally has gone ‘through the roof’, police say” is the last thing rightsholders want to hear, but nonetheless typical of recent dreary assessments concerning the fight against piracy.

The article centers on an interview with Detective Chief Inspector Emma Warbey, the head of the Police Intellectual Property Crime Unit at City of London Police. For the sake of clarity, the introduction and one additional paragraph are reproduced verbatim below.

The number of people who stream sports or other channels illegally in the UK has gone “through the roof” — straining already-stretched police forces in their efforts to prosecute consumers who flout the law, the head of Britain’s intellectual property crime unit has said.

Emma Warbey, detective chief inspector and head of the Police Intellectual Property Crime Unit at the City of London Police, admitted individuals were largely able to use “broken” illegal fire sticks without risk of arrest by her team as officers targeted organized crime groups and resellers at the head of such schemes.
————–
Warbey said it would be wrong to conclude that using illegal streams to watch sports and other paid TV content was a risk-free way of watching media, pointing to fraud and funding for organized crime gangs. She said her team had focused efforts on tackling “resellers and the people at the top of the tree” given that “it’s really hard to stop people doing it”.

She added: “We always follow the money and go for the bigger organized crime groups and the bigger organized crime networks.”

The suggestion by the FT that consumers may have been at least considered for potential arrest is not especially surprising, but still falls way short of the scenarios suggested in the media.

The reality that police don’t have the necessary resources to pursue individual consumers is not surprising at all, but it would’ve been very effective at fueling the type of opposition BeStreamWise has largely avoided.

What happens should the more gentle approach be considered ineffective, is the same unanswered question repeated several times annually for the last 25 years.

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