In little over five years, TorrentGalaxy has grown out to become a leading player in the torrent ecosystem.

The site originally set out to ‘ bridge the gap ‘ between torrent and streaming sites, and it ultimately became much more than that.

With a dedicated group of uploaders and an active community, TorrentGalaxy provided a safe haven for many avid torrenters. The disappearance of other key torrent sources, including the demise of RARBG last year, has made TorrentGalaxy’s position as a torrent distribution portal increasingly important.

TorrentGalaxy Forever?

In June , many users feared that the site had thrown in the towel, as it directed visitors to a cryptic message that simply read “4ever?” This came as a surprise, even to the site’s moderators, who had no clue what was going on.

The site eventually returned as if nothing ever happened and resumed its operations. The purpose of the downtime was never clarified but that didn’t seem to matter anymore; until now.

A few hours ago, TorrentGalaxy started displaying an image from the movie Logan across its website, along with another mysterious message: “TG(X) Forever”. No further information is being provided at this time.

The image in question is titled “johntucker.jpg”. It’s not clear what this refers to, but if we put on our speculation hats, the film “ John Tucker must Die ” comes to mind, of which a remake is currently in the works.

These types of unsubstantiated theories do not give the site’s users much hope. However, it’s also possible that these vague messages are simply intended to confuse people, while regular maintenance is performed on the site. We simply don’t know.

In any case, a message that’s currently displayed on the TorrentGalaxy proxy portal doesn’t instill much hope for the site’s confused users. “ Executing End-Program.exe… ,” it currently reads.

TorrentFreak reached out to a TorrentGalaxy moderator, but at the time of writing, we have yet to hear back. As mentioned earlier, during the last downtime, the moderator team was not kept in the loop. If any news comes in, we will update this article accordingly.

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

Released Time for Religious Instruction (RTRI) is a mechanism in the United States which allows schoolchildren to receive religious instruction during school hours.

The law says that this can only take place off-site, with teachers and authorities’ involvement limited to releasing children into the hands of third-party organizations for instruction elsewhere.

In Ohio, parent Zachary Parrish became concerned by the actions and teachings of an organization called LifeWise, which recently described itself as a “privately funded Christian non-profit” that provides “religious instruction in traditional, character-based, Biblical teaching.”

To raise awareness of LifeWise and what Parrish describes as its spreading of “Evangelical Christianity, Purity Culture, Christian Nationalism, homophobic beliefs, transphobia, and hateful rhetoric,” Parrish and the like-minded Molly Gaines teamed up to found an opposition group: Parents Against LifeWise .

Parrish Publishes LifeWise’s Children’s Curriculum, LifeWise Sues

In the belief that the curriculum contains information supportive of the opposition group’s cause, Parrish obtained a copy of the closely-guarded documents and, in the public interest, posted them publicly online. When he refused to comply with LifeWise’s demands to take the content down, LifeWise responded with a potentially crushing copyright infringement lawsuit.

Filed in the Northern District of Indiana (Fort Wayne Division) on July 2, 2024, plaintiff LifeWise Inc. of Indiana described Parrish as a willful infringer whose goal was to “gather information and internal documents with the hope of publishing information online which might harm LifeWise’s reputation and galvanize parents to oppose local LifeWise Academy chapters in their communities.”

After the complaint was filed, Parrish immediately received an offer to settle. That was perceived as an attempt to bring the matter to an end but on unacceptable terms; no recognition of Parrish’s right to use the material under the doctrine of fair use and a potentially devastating effect on raising awareness and future criticism of the religious group.

These components unsurprisingly attracted the attention of the EFF, which is now defending Parrish against LifeWise’s copyright infringement allegations. That began in earnest last week with a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim.

Copyright Is Not a Tool to Punish or Silence Critics

EFF’s approach to this litigation is encapsulated in the heading above, as explained by EFF IP Litigation Director Mitch Stoltz and Staff Attorney Tori Noble.

“Copyright law is not a tool to punish or silence critics. This is a principle so fundamental that it is the ur-example of fair use, which typically allows copying another’s creative work when necessary for criticism,” EFF begins.

“But sometimes, unscrupulous rightsholders misuse copyright law to bully critics into silence by filing meritless lawsuits, threatening potentially enormous personal liability unless they cease speaking out. That’s why EFF is defending Zachary Parrish, a parent in Indiana, against a copyright infringement suit by LifeWise, Inc.”

A Perfect Example and Classic Fair Use

In a motion to dismiss dated August 26, EFF notes that some infringement lawsuits amount to “baseless shakedowns” where the expense of discovery heightens the incentive to settle rather than defend a frivolous lawsuit.

EFF informed the Court that the lawsuit against Parrish “is a perfect example.”

“As we explained to the court, Mr. Parrish’s posting of the curriculum was a paradigmatic example of fair use, an important doctrine that allows critics like Mr. Parrish to comment on, criticize, and educate others on the contents of a copyrighted work. LifeWise’s own legal complaint shows why Mr. Parrish’s use was fair,” the EFF notes, referencing LifeWise’s claim that Parrish hoped to gather information to publish online to harm the group’s reputation.

“This is a mission of public advocacy and education that copyright law protects. In addition, Mr. Parrish’s purpose was noncommercial: far from seeking to replace or compete with LifeWise, he posted the curriculum to encourage others to think carefully before signing their children up for the program.”

Returning to LifeWise’s assertion that Parrish aimed to harm LifeWise by publishing its curriculum, EFF points out that if a film critic uses scenes from a movie to support a devastating review, that’s considered fair use under copyright law. Likewise, if a concerned parent wishes to educate other parents “about a controversial religious school program by showing them the actual content of that program,” that’s permitted too.

Factors of Fair Use

A. LifeWise Concedes Mr. Parrish’s Transformative and Noncommercial Purpose

According to the motion to dismiss, LifeWise’s description of itself and its mission, of Parrish and his actions, show that LifeWise and Parrish had very different uses in mind for the curriculum.

For a fee, the former allows use of the document for “traditional, character-based, Biblical teaching during school hours.” For no fee, the latter’s use of the document was to “publish information online which might harm LifeWise’s reputationand galvanize parents to oppose local LifeWise chapters in their communities.”

B.The Nature of the Works Is Neither Disputed Nor Dispositive

The second factor of fair use concerns the creativity of the allegedly-infringed work. Creative content receives more protection than factual content, meaning that a finding of fair use is more or less likely depending on the content mix.

According to LifeWise, the curriculum is biblical instruction that includes videos, activity pages, leader guides, cards and printables; it is therefore a mix of creative work, passages from the Bible, plus other factual and non-creative elements.

“Given this jumble of characteristics, the ‘creativity’ subfactor is not likely to offer much illumination to the analysis,” EFF informs the court.

“Moreover, if the disputed use of the work ‘is not related to its mode of expression but rather to its historical facts’ then creativity matters even less to the analysis. Here, Mr. Parrish posted the Curriculum in order to make parents and the public aware of its content, not to appropriate its creative aspects.”

C. Mr. Parrish Used What Was Necessary for His Critical Purpose

It’s often claimed that using only small parts of a copyrighted work is key to a finding of fair use. While that may be helpful in some cases, copying of an entire work can be fair use in appropriate circumstances, when ‘time-shifting’ for example.

In this case, the entire curriculum was published and according to EFF, that was necessary given the purpose of the use. LifeWise provides a public 27-page summary of the curriculum and describes it as “comprehensive” but the EFF begs to differ.

“It is not plausible to infer that a 27-page summary, created by LifeWise itself —not exactly an objective source — would be adequate to fully educate parents or the public about what public school children might be learning during school hours from first grade through fifth grade, any more than a summary of the New Testament could substitute for actually reading it,” EFF informs the court.

D. LifeWise Does Not and Cannot Plausibly Allege Market Harm

The fourth and final factor of fair use considers the effect of the use of a copyrighted work on the potential market for that work. Put differently, whether use of the work deprived the copyright owner of income or undermined a new or even potential market. EFF argues that the complaint fails to show that any harm was caused.

“Where, as here, a use is highly transformative, only a strong showing of harm will weigh against fair use. When a use is transformative and non-economic, as in this case, market harm is less likely to exist or weigh against a finding of fair use,” EFF notes.

“LifeWise would never license the Curriculum for what it describes as Mr. Parrish’s intended use to ‘galvanize parents to oppose local LifeWise chapters in their communities. It concedes it would only license to Mr. Parrish, or anyone else, subject to ‘the restrictions that LifeWise is entitled to and would place on” use of the Curriculum, “including the right to deny permission altogether.”

LifeWise alleged that internet users may have downloaded the Curriculum for the purposes of religious instruction, contrary to the purpose envisioned by Parrish.

“Even taking this alleged harm at face value, Mr. Parrish cannot be held liable for what other people might hypothetically do; the question before the Court is whether Mr. Parrish’s own use is unlawful.”

Conclusion

EFF concludes that the posting of the LifeWise Curriculum “was a self-evident fair use”, and did not infringe any copyright. “This Court should dismiss the complaint and end LifeWise’s improper attempt to punish a critic.”

EFF ends a summary of recent events with a cautionary note that deserves to be highlighted.

Fair use is not the freedom to use copyrighted material with impunity. Fair use is a possible defense in a copyright lawsuit, not an immunity card that makes allegations disappear when waved in the air.

Parrish is fortunate to have EFF on his side; defending a fair use case not only requires legal experts, it can also get horribly expensive, extremely quickly. It’s hoped that the motion to dismiss filed by Parrish and EFF last week may help to end this lawsuit before it becomes unnecessarily costly for everyone, including the plaintiff.

Defendant’s motion to dismiss & EFF’s supporting brief are available here and here (pdf)

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

Three years ago, Bungie filed a complaint at a federal court in Seattle, accusing Destiny 2 cheat seller AimJunkies.com of copyright and trademark infringement, among other things.

The same accusations were also leveled against Phoenix Digital Group, the operating company behind the website, and third-party developer James May.

Bungie Wins Landmark Trial

After years of legal back-and-forth, the case went to trial in May, where both sides presented their arguments. AimJunkies, in particular, emphasized that the defendants never accessed or modified any of Destiny 2’s copyrighted game code.

Bungie, on the other hand, argued that AimJunkies’ copyright-infringing activities were blatant and obvious. At the end of the trial, the Seattle jury ruled in favor of the video game company.

After the hearings concluded, the jury found all defendants liable for direct, vicarious, and contributory copyright infringement. Phoenix Digital Group and all individual defendants were ordered to pay damages equivalent to the actual profits they earned, a total of $63,210 .

Court Denies AimJunkies a New Trial

The jury verdict was a clear victory for Bungie, but it didn’t mark the end of the legal battle. AimJunkies had previously filed a motion for judgment as a matter of law, contending that it was evident they hadn’t infringed on Destiny 2’s copyrights.

The district court was therefore asked to overrule the jury’s decision and enter a new verdict. Alternatively, the court could order a new trial, offering AimJunkies another chance to defeat Bungie.

Last week, United States District Judge Thomas Zilly denied the request for a do-over. Judgment as a matter of law may be granted if the evidence only allows for one reasonable conclusion , which runs contrary to the jury’s verdict. That’s not the case here.

Judge Zilly writes that Bungie was required to prove that it owned the copyrights and that these were infringed by AimJunkies. The presented evidence supports that, he concludes.

“[A]t trial Bungie needed only to establish that the ‘Cheat Software’ distributed by Defendants had copied protected aspects of Destiny 2. Bungie could show that Defendants copied protected aspects of Destiny 2 with either direct or circumstantial evidence of copying. Both types of evidence were presented at trial.”

For example, both Bungie and AimJunkies agreed that the cheat software affected the audiovisual output of Destiny 2. That alone, is sufficient to support the jury’s verdict that defendants engaged in copyright infringement.

$4.3 Million Arbitration Award

Before the trial took place, several of the claims presented in the lawsuit had already been resolved by an arbitrator. The arbitration process was conducted behind the scenes and resulted in a resounding win for the game developer. Bungie was awarded almost $4.4 million in damages and fees.

The bulk of the award was DMCA-related damages. According to arbitration Judge Ronald Cox, the evidence made it clear that AimJunkies and third-party developer James May bypassed Bungie’s technical protection measures in violation of the DMCA.

In addition to breaching the DMCA’s anti-circumvention provisions, the defendants were also found liable for trafficking in circumvention devices. Or, put differently, selling and shipping the cheats.

The AimJunkies defendants were disappointed in the arbitration outcome and decided to challenge it at the court of appeal . According to the cheat sellers, the arbitration process was not fair and correct.

The arbitrator relied heavily on evidence from Bungie’s witness, Dr. Kaiser, and denied cross-examination of the same witness, the defendants argued. This prevented AimJunkies from challenging the credibility of this key witness.

Appeals Court Denies AimJunkies’ Arbitration Appeal

Last week, the Ninth Circuit Court denied AimJunkies’ appeal. The court found that the district court did not err in confirming the $4.3 million arbitration award, concluding that the arbitrator didn’t prevent the defendants from challenging the witness.

“The Arbitrator did not entirely dismiss AimJunkies’ attempt or ability to impeach Dr. Kaiser,” Judges Nguyen, Johnstone and Ezra concluded

“For example, AimJunkies’ counsel could have tried to rephrase its question, question Dr. Kaiser about his transcripts, or read Dr. Kaiser’s transcripts into the record to impeach Dr. Kaiser. AimJunkies’ counsel did not attempt to do so.

“Instead, counsel abandoned the line of questioning entirely. This in no way amounts to an error […], especially not an error that was ‘in bad faith or so gross as to amount to affirmative misconduct’ […] and thus deprived the parties of a ‘fundamentally fair’ hearing.”

The arbitrator did not show “a manifest disregard” of law, no clear errors were made, and the scale of the award was not “completely irrational.”

As a result, the court of appeal affirmed the $4.3 million arbitration award.

As a result, Bungie emerges the clear winner once again. AimJunkies won’t get a new trial and the arbitration award, which was previously put on hold pending the appeal, can now be collected.

While there may still be further challenges ahead, AimJunkies’ outlook is ever more grim.

—

A copy of the Seattle District Court’s order is available here (pdf) . The order from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals can be found here (pdf) .

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

The demise of pirate streaming giant Fmovies in June, followed by the closure of Aniwave and more than a dozen others in the space of a few hours Monday night, will be remembered for a very long time.

When the Alliance for Creativity and Entertainment modestly confirmed on Thursday it had supported Vietnamese authorities to shut down the sites, the focus was on huge but easily digested numbers. When combined, fmovies, bflixz, flixtorz, movies7, myflixer, and aniwave, reportedly drew more than 6.7 billion visits between January 2023 and June 2024.

The popularity of these sites obviously made them a target, but significance can also be found elsewhere. For reasons we’re aware of and have reported previously, and likely many more besides, shutting down these sites was never going to be straightforward.

Frustrations date back years but more recently, at the same time domain names were being handed over to the MPA, presumably as part of an agreement, site resurrections were also underway.

The big question is whether Fmovies, Aniwave, and the other sites will attempt something similar.

Giving Up Was Never an Option

Some believed that nothing could be done about the piracy situation in Vietnam in the short term. Both Hollywood and Japan’s major anime studios seemed to have few options left, but that didn’t mean no options at all.

What follows is a sample of events relating to Vietnam that show the type of environment Fmovies and the other sites were up against. To what extent the background to these events affected the outcome, if they did so at all, is hard to quantify. What’s fairly clear is that when business needs are met in a mutually beneficial manner, momentum can take on a life of its own. As part of the overall vision for the Hollywood/Vietnam relationship, the sites’ existence may have simply become untenable.

International Symposium on Copyright Enforcement

As previously reported , Vietnam played host to the International Symposium on Copyright Enforcement starting June 17; those in attendance included the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), the World Trade Organization (WTO), Vietnam’s Copyright Office under the Ministry of Culture, the MPA and who’s-who of major rightsholders and specialist anti-piracy companies.

The symposium ended on June 21 and Fmovies reportedly stopped updating June 22/23. One day later, MPA Chairman/CEO Charles Rivkin appeared in a photograph alongside Nguyen Quoc Dzung, Vietnam’s Ambassador to the United States.

Topics discussed over lunch included the importance of Vietnam’s streaming market to the Hollywood studios, and “how to strengthen the bonds between our creative economies and protect the livelihoods of the creative workforce driving this shared growth.”

That was June 24 and just a few hours earlier, Fmovies had suddenly started to fail. On life support for a few days, the world’s most popular streaming site would soon be declared dead.

The obvious beneficiary was Hollywood but as we noted in an earlier report, other meetings were also taking place elsewhere in Vietnam. One event attended by the Vice Chairman of Sony Pictures mentioned potential funding mechanisms for local films.

Vietnam Tourism – Cinema Promotion Program in the United States

Official government documents dated July 2024 show that a “tourism and cinema promotion program” will take place in Los Angeles in the “third and fourth quarters of 2024” with exhibitions on Vietnamese cinema and tourism and a program to “introduce the potential of Vietnam’s cinema scene and policies towards international cinema activities.”

The goals of the program in the United States include the promotion of tourist destinations and potential filming destinations in Vietnam, plus the following:

Attract Hollywood film studios to Vietnam to film movies with great appeal, capable of creating international media attention, to promote and attract tourists to Vietnam.

And there’s more;

– Take advantage of the prestige and influence of Hollywood partners to organize the Program, attract public attention, and widely promote Vietnamese tourism. Promote tourism promotion through cinema, effectively exploit tourism from cinema, and create a breakthrough in tourism promotion.

– Introduce the image and brand of friendly, quality, and sustainable Vietnamese tourism destinations. Create opportunities for Vietnamese tourism service providers to meet and connect with US businesses and partners.

– Strengthening cooperation and exchange; promoting the signing and commitment to effectively implementing cooperation agreements on tourism and cinema between relevant agencies, localities, Vietnamese enterprises and US partners, contributing to concretizing and deepening tourism and cinema cooperation between the two countries.

– Contact, exchange and work with a number of US tourism and film organizations (US Travel Association, Motion Picture Association of America), a number of large tourism corporations and businesses, media corporations, airlines, cruise lines, and relevant US partners to promote cooperation in tourism and film development.

The documents suggest that the MPA agreed to ensure that producers, studio directors, directors, film set directors, and Hollywood stars, attend a special event on an unspecified date. The MPA was asked to make a speech on the same day.

Japanese Animation Movie Screening

As part of the 2024 Japan-Vietnam Copyright Cooperation Project, a meeting took place on July 23, 2024, between staff from the Copyright Office of Vietnam, Japanese publishers, and anti-piracy group CODA.

After a presentation, those in attendance took part in a “lively discussion, during which participants exchanged views on topics such as the Vietnamese government’s anti-piracy measures, cooperation with copyright awareness activities, and Vietnam’s intellectual property laws and their implementation.”

Another Vietnamese government document dated May 2024, details “The organization of the Program ‘Japanese Animation Film Screening’.”

If everything went according to plan, that event took place on Friday, August 23, 2024. Coincidentally or not, the world’s largest anime piracy site Aniwave closed down on August 26, just three days later.

What kind of effect the closure will have on the local anime market is unclear, but for Vietnam’s Beta Media and Japan’s Aeon Entertainment, any reduction in availability of pirated content will be considered good news.

On July 31, the partnership committed to building more than 50 premium cinema complexes across Vietnam under the Aeon Beta Cinema brand by 2035. The first is scheduled to open in 2025 and with overall investment reported as “tens of billions” of yen (one billion yen currently US$64.4 million), confidence in Vietnam’s cinema business seems fairly high right now.

Momentum Builds Pressure

These events are just a few examples of recent activity in Vietnam; when combined, they show that despite the existence of Fmovies, bridge building work has never stopped. Indeed, after U.S. President Joe Biden met with Nguyen Phu Trong, General Secretary of the Communist Party of Vietnam Central Committee, in Hanoi last September, forging closer ties is expected under the U.S.–Vietnam Comprehensive Strategic Partnership .

General reports and details of progress were reported several times in June; Daniel J. Kritenbrink, Assistant Secretary of State for East Asian and Pacific Affairs, spent June 21/22 in Hanoi where he met senior government officials. On June 25, with Fmovies drifting away in the background, Jose W. Fernandez, Under Secretary for Economic Growth, Energy, and the Environment, welcomed Vietnam’s Minister of Planning and Investment, Nguyen Chi Dung, to Washington, D.C.

Surfacing Anytime Soon Would Be….Complicated

On balance then, it seems fairly unlikely that Fmovies2 will debut anytime soon. With Hollywood pulling and pushing in the same direction as Vietnam, whatever appears on the table can be obtained or achieved much more easily. That’s something that money can’t buy, at least not directly. Transactions like these often find themselves settled through the bank of goodwill instead.

If pushed to highlight a negative, Vietnamese media reports on Fmovies’ demise seem limited to repeating what has already been reported in Western media. At least far as we can determine, government officials and the police have made no official comments. Government websites, which include news resources, haven’t reported the news at all.

Two people were indeed arrested, but nobody has yet been charged. ACE, meanwhile, has a local trademark application underway; all fingers will be crossed that moving forward, any use for it will be strictly limited.

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

With millions of visits per month, pirate sports streaming site Streameast is a fan favorite among many sports aficionados.

The site is particularly popular in the United States, where even the largest sports icons, including LeBron James, have reportedly used it to stream content.

The appeal of free sports content is understandable, as legal options can cost hundreds of dollars per month. This can lead to legal complications such as those that became apparent earlier this month, when Homeland Security Investigations (HSI) seized several Streameast domains .

“It is unlawful to reproduce or distribute copyrighted material including sporting events, television shows, movies, music, software, or games without authorization. Individuals who do so risk criminal prosecution under Title 18,” the banner explained.

The seizure warrant effectively targeted five domain names, including Streameast’s main home; thestreameast.to. There was no mention of an associated indictment and no further comments from law enforcement that we know of. That remains the case today.

Streameast Plans to Appeal

What is clear, however, is that these initial domain name seizures didn’t take out Streameast. On the contrary, the site’s operators immediately reassured visitors that they would keep going, and are now considering an appeal against the domain seizure warrant.

Streameast’s operator, ‘quick,’ explains that after extensive efforts, the site finally managed to obtain a copy of the seizure warrant. This raised more questions than it answered.

The order shown above was sent to the Tonic (.to) registry. Streameast eventually obtained a copy but it did not include any other paperwork. The full docket might contain more information where the allegations are discussed in detail, but Streameast hasn’t seen that.

Based on the paperwork provided, Streameast is planning to appeal the matter in court.

“[The warrant] did not provide any reasons for the shutdown, which is quite intriguing. As a result, we have doubts about the legitimacy of this decision, and we will be filing an appeal in the coming days,” ‘quick’ tells TorrentFreak.

No Advance Warning

Streameast wasn’t informed about the legal action beforehand. This is not unusual as domain seizures are intended to come as a surprise, so the operators of these sites can’t take precautionary measures.

The popular sports streaming site further informs TorrentFreak that it has never received direct legal threats from copyright holders either; only DMCA notices, which are standard practice for these types of sites.

“We’ve never received any legal threats in the past. However, we constantly receive DMCA requests, which have led us to change hosting providers several times. This is normal given the nature of the business.

“However, before the shutdown requests, we did not receive any official requests,” Streameast’s ‘quick’ notes.

While it may seem unusual for a ‘pirate site’ to challenge the U.S. government on this matter, Streameast is not the first sports streaming site to appeal a domain seizure. Rojadirecta did the same, twelve years ago, and the U.S. authorities eventually returned the seized domains .

Times have changed, however, and U.S. law enforcement may have upgraded its procedures to prevent the same from happening again. In addition, the Protecting Lawful Streaming Act ( PLSA ) effectively criminalized unauthorized streaming services when it became law late 2020.

New Mirror Domains

Despite the looming threat of criminal charges, Streameast remains devoted to keeping the site online. Following the domain seizures, it established several new mirrors, which are shared through the official Streameast Mirror List.

The sports streaming portal previously said that once access to sports streaming is affordable to everyone, it will shut down. While the site doesn’t have a concrete figure in mind, it believes that current prices are too high.

“While we can somewhat understand the need to pay in today’s world, it’s clear that the current prices are unrealistic. If a sports fan wants to watch all sporting events, including UFC and boxing PPVs, the monthly cost is almost $1500,” Streameast’s ‘quick’ says.

Streameast’s motivation to keep the site online stems from its loyalty to the audience, the operator says. While it clearly makes money from ads, the site cares about its users and stresses that it’s not “in it for the money”.

Pirate Streaming Gangs

Sports rightsholders will likely paint a different picture, accusing Streameast of being a criminal operation that generates revenue off the backs of companies that invest in live sports.

Interestingly, Streameast doesn’t deny that there are criminal gangs active in the pirate sports streaming business, but they view themselves differently. Instead, the site points a finger at competitors and copycat sites, some of which abuse the Streameast brand.

Many of these ‘fake’ Streameast domains are still operational today, as they weren’t part of the seizure warrant.

“It’s perplexing that while the real Streameast domain names are being seized, the sites created by gangs who set up fake Streameast sites are still operational. These gangs replicate every major streaming site, employing spam tactics to rank high on Google, and they have no ethical values.”

According to Streameast’s operator, many sports streaming sites lost their innocence years ago. Some have reverted to dangerous malware-linked ads, while ‘Asian spam gangs’ are launching copycats left and right, trying to outrank official sites in Google’s search results.

“I wish the USA would choose to deal with these gangs instead of targeting us,” ‘quick’ concludes.

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

Most anti-piracy campaigns of the last four or five decades feature a direct order (Don’t Pirate) followed by some additional information for people to consider before making an informed choice.

The direct order “Don’t Pirate” has never changed, but it only becomes effective when paired with a reason to abstain, ideally something that provokes consideration of the consequences.

Most angles have already been tested. “Home Taping is Killing Music” implied that if piracy continued, people would stop making music. Other campaigns have encouraged people to think of bands just starting out, artists struggling to make ends meet, and people who paint scenery on the set of Hollywood blockbusters.

When none of those hit the spot, “Don’t Pirate” was paired with “….because you’re probably going to get sued.” Yet even when pirates were prompted to think only of themselves, some inevitably continued to pirate.

One Anti-Piracy Strategy Consistently Performs

The best anti-piracy strategy is the accessible content at a fair price strategy, and after a reluctant start, the music industry is still leading the way, and reaping the rewards.

This week’s publication of IFPI’s Global Music Report 2024 includes the chart below which speaks for itself.

Results like these present a dilemma. On one hand they are very, very impressive; on the other, they could be even more impressive if piracy could be further reduced. Unfortunately, when sales are trending strongly in the right direction, pairing “Don’t Pirate” with anything that implies an industry on the financial brink, will probably end in failure.

Any attempt to promote a doom narrative in Latin America right now would run up against the fourteenth consecutive year of revenue growth, per IFPI’s latest report, with recorded music revenues “once again outpacing the global growth rate” with an increase of 19.4% in 2023. When homing in on Brazil, in 2023 there was a double-digit percentage climb of 13.4%.

Fortunately, the latest trend in anti-piracy messaging couples “Don’t Pirate” with something that can be used no matter how well the music industry is performing: “Malware Warning.”

“First-of-a-Kind Operation” in Brazil

As IFPI explained in a separate announcement this week, anti-piracy operations benefit creators but can also benefit the wider public. Case in point, Operation Redirect, a recently launched Brazilian law enforcement initiative supported by IFPI and Pro-Música Brasil.

“Operation Redirect is the first operation of its kind in Brazil to target illegal sites associated with malware distribution. It has already resulted in the identification and deactivation of eight sites that were sharing unauthorized music whilst exposing users to malware and viruses,” IFPI explains.

“This first iteration of the operation targeted a range of infringing websites that collectively received over 12 million visits in Brazil in the last year. They include illegal linking music sites, Stream ripping sites and Torrent search engines.”

Sites ‘Redirected’ end up here (translated)

IFPI says the operation was carried out by The Ministry of Justice and Public Security, through the Cyber Operations Laboratory (CIBERLAB) of the Directorate of Integrated Operations and Intelligence (DIOPI / SENASP), in partnership with the Civil Police of Bahia, Mato Grosso and Pernambuco.

Brazil regularly shuts down pirate sites but the suggestion here – that music piracy and malware have been placed on broadly equal footing – is intriguing.

Pirates may complain strongly when they lose access to free music, but a site operator arrested for deliberately hurting site visitors rather than for just piracy itself , is something new. Not only would that significantly damage any ‘Robin Hood’ imagery, it would show that the authorities are using finite public resources to protect the public, not just the music industry.

That might also help dampen suspicions that “Malware Warning” isn’t simply the latest “Don’t Pirate” add-on. And if things went really well, the overall message might be one that even pirates would find persuasive.

How Things Played Out in Brazil

Within the first few seconds of the CNN report broadcast to millions on live TV, it was clear this was report was, first and foremost, all about music piracy.

CNN went with ‘OPERAÇÃO DERRUBA SITES PIRATA DE MÚSICA’ (OPERATION TAKES DOWN PIRATE MUSIC SITES) to a background video of three unmarked SUVs departing police HQ, with red strobes already blazing from behind blacked-out windows. (English captions from voiceover)

Operation Redirect begins

“The Ministry of Justice is carrying out an operation against pirated music sites,” the studio presenter said, before handing over to a reporter with additional details.

“[T]here are still many pirated music sites on the internet, that is why this operation coordinated by the Ministry of Justice is on the streets with the support of three civil police from the states, for example Bahia, Pernambuco, and also in Mato Grosso,” he explained.

“Three search and seizure warrants were served, and the current assessment is that eight illegal sites that were making irregular music available without due authorization have already been taken down in this operation investigated by the cyberlab.”

Weapons drawn, searches begin

The reporter goes on to note that the operation resulted in just one arrest, and that the suspect was caught in flagrante delicto .

“Inside the house of a person who is responsible for one of these illegal sites, there were a lot of weapons, unregistered weapons. These are the weapons that were seized and why the person was arrested.”

Man arrested for unlicensed guns

So after hearing about the music piracy and the unlicensed weapons, what about the malware?

More About the Malware

Towards the end of the report, CNN did raise the issue of malware, noting that users who visit pirate music sites “become vulnerable because there are many viruses that these criminals are putting them on these sites which then appear on the computers and also on the cell phones of these users of the platforms on the internet.”

Brazil’s government also mentioned the malware angle.

“In addition to appropriating the works, the criminals left consumers who accessed these platforms vulnerable to viruses and malware (programs created to cause damage to computers and servers). As a result, users could have their machines infected and damaged or be redirected to phishing websites, capable of stealing personal, financial and corporate information,” a statement reads.

The big question is whether this relatively new strategy, now deployed across all entertainment industries, can succeed where others have failed. If CNN’s coverage is anything to go by, where malware was mentioned as a footnote, in an operation that was supposed to see piracy and malware given similar priority, not a chance.

Most current campaigns spend very little time ordering people not to pirate. Instead, they focus on associated dangers and then try to persuade people that, on balance, free or cheap content that arrives with malware or other threats to security, is actually poor value for money, not the bargain they were promised.

Unfortunately, without some kind of proof, the messages mean almost nothing. Yet there’s actually no shortage of proof , only a reluctance to share it.

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

Pirate sites tend to come and go but in recent months, significant shutdowns have been more frequent than usual.

Fmovies is one of the most prominent casualties. Founded in 2016, the pirate streaming site had been a thorn in Hollywood’s side for years. While rightsholders typically avoid naming pirate sites in public, fearing an indirect promotional effect, Fmovies was a recent exception.

To illustrate how brazen the platform had become, lawmakers in U.S. Congress received a demo of the site late last year courtesy of MPA Senior Executive Vice President, Karyn Temple. This showed how easily the latest movies and TV shows could be illegally streamed inside one of the country’s best-secured buildings.

Something had to be done to prevent this from happening and the MPA already had a solution in mind; site blocking. However, since implementing new legislation is a slow process, that raised the prospect of Fmovies and a myriad of related streaming portals continuing to operate.

Fmovies Empire Falls Apart

Ultimately, however, the Fmovies empire eventually began to crumble. Early cracks appeared in June when the stream of new content stopped appearing on the site. A few weeks later, Fmovies disappeared entirely , without any official explanation from its operators.

The shutdown triggered a domino effect. Several other streaming portals with connections to Fmovies ostensibly shut down too, redirecting to ‘new’ streaming sites instead. A few days ago and without warning, those sites also disappeared.

One of the Fmovies sister sites, Bflixz.to, posted an announcement that was a one-to-one copy of a shutdown notice posted by 123Movies six years ago. That’s no coincidence perhaps; all these sites have connections to Vietnam and Fmovies gained popularity after 123Movies threw in the towel.

The pirate site ‘massacre’ of the past few weeks wasn’t limited to platforms offering traditional movies and TV shows. The same piracy empire included AniWave; a massive anime piracy site with more than 170 million monthly visits at its peak. All told, billions of pirate site visits were wiped out overnight.

ACE and Vietnam Take Credit

While the significant scope of these events was clear, who or what was responsible wasn’t immediately confirmed. The operators of these sites wouldn’t shut down their profitable businesses without a very good reason; significant legal pressure, perhaps, or potentially even worse.

Over the past few weeks the MPA and ACE, who represent various major rightsholders including Hollywood studios and Netflix, made no comment. However, their frequent visits to Vietnam suggested that they probably knew more. Those suspicions are confirmed today.

In a press release, the Alliance for Creativity and Entertainment ( ACE ) confirmed that they collaborated with the Hanoi Police to shut down the Fmovies operation. This includes related sites such as AniWave, Bflixz, Flixtorz, Movies7, and Myflixer, as we highlighted in our earlier coverage.

According to ACE, the operation was the largest piracy ring in the world, attracting more than 6.7 billion visits between January 2023 and June 2024. The Fmovies team was also linked to video hosting provider Vidsrc.to, which went offline this week, impacting hundreds of smaller movie pirate sites that used the service.

Charles Rivkin, MPA CEO and Chairman of ACE, says that the takedown of Fmovies is “a stunning victory for casts, crews, writers, directors, studios, and the creative community across the globe.”

“With the leadership of ACE and the partnership of the Ministry of Public Security and the Hanoi Municipal Police, we are countering criminal activity, defending the safety of audiences, reducing risks posed to tens of millions of consumers, and protecting the rights and livelihoods of creators,” Rivkin says.

Bringing the Operators to Justice

While it’s confirmed that the Fmovies ring was taken down by Vietnamese law enforcement with support from ACE, the press release doesn’t mention any arrests, names, or any other relevant details.

Larissa Knapp, MPA Executive Vice President and Chief Content Protection, does praise the international collaboration, however. The former FBI executive says that she’s looking forward to future enforcement efforts where Vietnamese and U.S. authorities bundle their powers.

“The takedown of Fmovies is a testament to the power of collaboration in protecting the intellectual property rights of creators around the world,” Knapp says.

“We look forward to ongoing joint efforts with Vietnamese authorities, U.S. Homeland Security Investigations and the U.S. Department of Justice International Computer Hacking and Intellectual Property (ICHIP) program to bring the criminal operators to justice.”

The latter comment is intriguing. It’s not entirely clear whether it refers to Fmovies directly but if that turns out to be the case, it could mean that not all of those involved with the piracy ring have been identified or caught.

Vietnam / U.S. Collaboration

The press release does signal that after years of lobbying, Hollywood and other U.S. rightsholders are working closely with Vietnamese authorities to tackle the thriving pirate site rings in the Asian country.

This involves U.S. diplomatic efforts too, as a comment from U.S. Ambassador Marc E. Knapper on the Fmovies action makes clear.

“Strengthening intellectual property rights is an important element of the U.S.-Vietnam Comprehensive Partnership,” Knapper said

“These prosecutions demonstrate Vietnam’s commitment to intellectual property rights enforcement, contributing to an economic ecosystem where creators and inventors can thrive.”

The press release adds more collaborative color with a comment from Madam Ngo Phuong Lan, the Chairwoman of the Vietnam Film Development Association ( VFDA ). She stresses that the Vietnamese movie industry is transitioning and that proper copyright protection is vital to its success.

“The Vietnamese movie industry is at a pivotal stage of development, transitioning from a state-subsidized production model to a rapidly growing phase driven by private sector involvement,” Ngo Phuong Lan says.

“To achieve fast and sustainable growth and integrate into the global film industry, it is essential that we follow the right path. Intellectual property rights protection is a crucial element for our industry’s success.”

Vietnam’s Upcoming U.S. Cinema Promotion Program

Highlighting benefits for Vietnam shows that this enforcement action doesn’t only impact U.S. rightsholders. In this regard, it’s worth mentioning another collaboration, which remains unmentioned in today’s press release.

According to documents published by Vietnamese authorities, the country is currently planning a Cinema and Tourism Promotion Program in the United States.

Hollywood can play an important role in drawing more American tourists to Vietnam. By choosing Vietnam as a film location, more people may be inclined to visit, for example. This plan is now underway and events in Los Angeles are scheduled for later this year.

Translated, Vietnam’s Ministry of Culture, Sports and Tourism describes the goal as follows:

“Take advantage of the prestige and influence of Hollywood partners to organize the Program, attract public attention, and widely promote Vietnamese tourism. Promote tourism promotion through cinema, effectively exploit tourism from cinema, create a breakthrough in tourism promotion and promotion.”

The Motion Picture Association, under which ACE is managed, is in the loop too. According to the paperwork, an unnamed representative of the movie industry group is scheduled to give a speech at the event.

How the MPA will benefit from this tourist promotion program remains undiscussed. That being said, with the Fmovies piracy ring effectively shut down, the event will likely be quite a cheerful one. That may even have been part of the plan.

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

In a lawsuit filed at a New York federal court in June, leading textbook publishers including Cengage Learning, Macmillan Learning, Elsevier and McGraw Hill, accused Google of profiting from sales of infringing copies of their textbooks.

According to the complaint , Google’s “systemic and pervasive advertising” drives potential buyers to the websites of ‘Pirate Sellers’ who utilize Google Shopping Ads to advertise infringing copies of the plaintiffs’ books. Since the rogue sellers used names including “Cheapbok,” “Biz Ninjas,” and “Shop Hoth,” all of which appeared in the publishers’ takedown notices, Google should’ve known it was dealing with pirates, the publishers claimed.

“Failed to Terminate Repeat Infringers”

Despite this alleged knowledge, and regardless of their takedown notices, the publishers said that it was still possible for users to place orders with pirate sellers after clicking Google ads.

The publishers say this could’ve been curtailed if Google had consistently terminated so-called ‘repeat infringers’ and responded to follow-up notices more positively; the plaintiffs claim that Google responded to repeat requests on the same complaint by warning that it could stop reviewing their requests for up to six months.

The publishers’ complaint alleged (Count I) contributory copyright infringement, (Count II) vicarious copyright infringement, (Count III) trademark infringement, and (Count IV) violations of New York General Business Law, which deals with ‘materially deceptive and misleading practices.’

“Kitchen-Sink Pleading Strategy”

Filed this week in the Southern District of New York, Google’s motion to dismiss begins at what it describes as the “heart” of the case.

The publishers’ claim, that Google contributorily infringed copyrights by not doing enough to prevent ads for infringing works appearing in Google Shopping search results, doesn’t appear to be keeping Google up at night.

“Google will prevail on the merits of that claim because, among other things, Google has adopted industry-leading measures to combat advertisements for infringing products on its platform, well beyond the requirements of the safe harbors provided by the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (‘DMCA’). But this motion is not about Plaintiffs’ contributory copyright infringement claim (Count I),” Google’s motion reads.

The motion actually concerns the three remaining claims in the lawsuit, all of which are based on the same alleged underlying conduct at the “heart” of the case. Google says these were “tacked on” as part of a “kitchen-sink pleading strategy.”

Google: Each Claim Fails as a Matter of Law

Count II: Vicarious copyright infringement

To plead vicarious infringement, a plaintiff must show that a defendant had both the “right and ability” to supervise or control alleged third-party infringement, coupled with an “obvious and direct financial interest” in exploiting those copyrighted works. Google believes these standards haven’t been met.

“[The plaintiffs] have not adequately alleged (1) that Google has the ability to supervise or control the alleged underlying third-party infringement, which occurs entirely on websites not controlled by Google, or (2) that Google benefits financially from this purported infringement, let alone directly so,” Google states.

“Plaintiffs do not (and cannot) contend that either alleged act of Direct Infringement — the sale of unauthorized copies of Plaintiffs’ works, or the reproduction of those copies by purchasers — occurs on the Google platform. The Complaint makes clear that these allegedly infringing acts occurred on third-party websites.”

Responding to the claim that Google obtains a financial benefit from the alleged infringement, Google notes that the plaintiffs’ claim, that Google “earned revenue from each of the clicks that led to the Direct Infringements, and from clicks on paid infringing Shopping ads generally,” falls short of the standard required to establish vicarious liability.

“[To] establish vicarious liability, the financial benefit to the defendant must ‘flow directly from the third party’s acts of infringement,’ either because the defendant profits directly from infringing activity or because the infringement draws customers to the defendant’s service,” Google notes.

“The fact that Google makes money from sellers’ ads does not mean that Google makes money from sellers’ infringement, even if those ads include some products that are infringing, because Google’s financial interest is the same regardless of whether infringement occurs.”

Three Claims Should Fail Now, The Other Will Fail Later

Count III and Count IV, which concern matters not directly related to copyright law, also draw criticism from Google. That leads to the company’s request for the court to dismiss three claims at this stage, with Count I (contributory infringement) the only claims left standing. Not that Google believes the claim will succeed, however.

“None of Plaintiffs’ four claims is meritorious,” counsel for Google notes in a joint letter to the court.

“With respect to Plaintiffs’ claim for contributory copyright infringement, the evidence will show that Google has promptly and appropriately responded to notices of infringement and has enforced its repeat infringer policy such that it is entitled to the protections of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act’s safe harbors as a matter of law.

“With respect to Plaintiffs’ three ancillary causes of action, Plaintiffs’ allegations fail to state cognizable legal claims, and Google is seeking their dismissal. Plaintiffs’ baseless claims should all be rejected and judgment should be entered in Google’s favor.”

The letter reveals that the parties have not yet engaged in settlement discussions.

Google’s motion to dismiss and the parties’ joint letter are available here and here (pdf)

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

With an estimated 190 million visits in March 2024 alone, few pirate streaming sites have ever come to close to the popularity of Fmovies.

How it was even possible for an unlicensed platform to attract so much traffic is closely linked to Fmovies’ uncanny ability to stay almost perpetually online, year after year. Potential answers to these questions lie in a rich pool of circumstantial evidence; one that promises much but always seems to fall short when it comes to the crunch.

Fmovies and Associated Sites Fall Like Dominoes

Whether the full and unedited Fmovies story will emerge anytime soon is unclear. However, perhaps the most intriguing aspect, and potentially the most sensitive, is how in a matter of months, Fmovies went from being almost impossible to shut down, to literally shutting down overnight.

We outlined a few of our theories last month, concluding that Fmovies was almost certainly pushed . The precise circumstances under which that pushing took place are elusive, but we’re certainly looking forward to finding out.

Likewise, it will be interesting to learn how the demise of Fmovies in the middle of June, led to many sites connected to Fmovies changing domains (presumably in an effort to stay online), only for those sites and others to collapse so dramatically during Monday night .

Interestingly, others much closer to this pivotal event claim to be in the dark too.

Radio Silence

Posting on Reddit a few hours ago, an individual posting under the heading “from Aniwave admin” said that they’re also being kept in the dark.

“The Site’s owner has always been pretty disconnected from us, rarely giving us a heads up or any information in advance. Could the site have actually gone down? Yes, it’s possible- some sister sites have closed down recently. But it’s also possible that something happened and they lost control of the site,” Sorrow-San explained.

“None of us here have direct contacts with the team responsible for the site outside of intermittent emails once in a blue moon…..Those of us capable have reached out to our contacts to get information on what’s going on, but- frankly- for the time being we just don’t know.”

The true course of events may not see daylight anytime soon. However, after sifting through the wreckage today, we’ve put together a summary of sorts, detailing the casualties linked to the events of Monday evening and other data that aims to explain their significance.

Billions of Annual Visits

The exact nature of the Fmovies network isn’t easily explained. Fmovies itself hasn’t been too difficult to track over the years; however, sites either run by the same operators or those connected by platform or content, have had a tendency to become a maze of domain and/or brand changes.

The existence of clones and imposters doing roughly the same thing hasn’t made things any less complicated, so it’s entirely possible that the table below is incomplete or will require other amendments. That being said, the traffic volumes of these sites speak for themselves, especially when considering that some didn’t even exist a few weeks ago.

Without full knowledge of the circumstances and background to the shutdowns, predicting what may come next would be little more than guesswork. What seems almost guaranteed, however, is a sudden influx of sites claiming to be the official replacement or reincarnation of those in the table below, ready to pick up where everything left off.

Whether any of those claims have any basis in truth is an entirely different matter.

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