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

Ideally, they would like to see updates to current legislative frameworks, so the problem can be targeted more efficiently. Site-blocking is high on the list of preferred options, particularly in the United States.

While ISP blocking is still a debated issue among U.S. lawmakers, the country’s enforcement authorities have a more direct option; domain name seizures. With the appropriate legal paperwork, the DoJ’s Homeland Security Investigations ( HSI ) has sporadically targeted ‘pirate’ domain names for more than a decade.

Streameast Domain Names Seized

This weekend, the feds appear to have carried out another round of seizures, this time targeting the pirate sports streaming website Streameast. This site, which has a strong focus on ‘American’ sports, has over 15 million monthly visitors, who were all sidelined by surprise.

Instead of the usual homepage with links to the latest streams of sporting events, Streameast’s visitors – most of which come from the U.S. – were welcomed by a domain seizure banner.

“This domain name has been seized by Homeland Security Investigations (HSI) pursuant to a warrant issued by the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana,” the banner reads.

“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 seized domain names include the main one; thestreameast.to, as well as popular backup domain options such as streameast.io, streameast.xyz, and streameast.live.

Streameast Makes ‘Instant’ Comeback

The authorities have yet to officially confirm the action, which can typically take a few days. However, all available signs suggest that this is a legitimate law enforcement action. For example, the nameservers were all changed to “seizedservers.com”.

Whether the seizures will be effective in shutting down the Streameast operation is up for debate, however.

Soon after the domain seizures started to populate across DNS servers, the site’s operators informed their followers on Discord that the site has no intention of throwing in the towel. Quite the opposite, the site remains available though alternative domain names.

“As you may know, many of our domains were seized by the US government last night. As the only free streaming site in the world that truly values user experience and quality, it was no coincidence that this happened to us,” Streameast admin ‘Quick’ writes.

There are many fake, fraudulent, and scammy alternatives that remain online but only ‘legitimate’ Streameast domains were targeted, according to the site’s operators. While this came as a disappointment, there was a backup plan in place.

The Streameast team says that it has hundreds of domain names ready to deploy, some of which came into play this weekend. More domains will follow, and the team vows it will continue until ‘affordable’ sports streaming options are available for everyone.

“They need to see that they can’t stop us this way. We own over 400 domains in total, and we will be activating and sharing most of these with you throughout the week,” they write.

“We will never give up the fight. Our fight will continue until sports become affordable for everyone. We promise that once this is achieved, we will permanently shut down all Streameast services,” Streameast adds.

Why, and Why Now?

The Streameast team kept their word and in addition to streameast.co, they also activated streameast.ec, streameast.fi, streameast.ms, streameast.ph, streameast.ps, streameast.sh, and streameast.sk. These domain names may also be seized in the future, but for now, they remain online.

Why Streameast was singled out as a target on this particular weekend is unknown. Typically, U.S. law enforcement plans their domain seizure operations around major sporting events, as happened with the Super Bowl and the FIFA World Cup . There was a big UFC PPV event over the weekend, but those take place each month.

With the Paris Olympics, there was a major sporting event earlier this month, but these seizures are a bit late for that.

As far as we know, there are no indictments against people associated with the site. That said, it is still early days and more information may come out later in the week. With Streameast being as defiant as it is, we don’t expect this to be the end of the enforcement efforts.

—

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

If 2009 sounds like it happened half a lifetime ago, many 30 year-olds would likely agree.

At the time the UK government was taking advice from the entertainment industries on how to tackle surging piracy via the BitTorrent protocol.

Presented as an entirely proportionate and reasonable response for dealing with habitual downloaders, disconnecting entire households from the internet loomed ominously on the horizon.

Yet in 2007, the band Radiohead had ventured quite bravely in the opposite direction, arguing that piracy shouldn’t be punished and file-sharing should be embraced. When the band released the album ‘In Rainbows’ online, its price tag competed with ‘free’ on terms that even pirates could understand.

The debate over Radiohead’s ‘pay-what-you-want’ model went global. Praised by some for allowing everyone to afford music, it faced heavy criticism from those who felt that the price devalued music, and would lead to artists – especially less successful ones – suffering the financial consequences of competing with free. Despite the polarized views, Radiohead hadn’t quite finished.

Music Industry & Government Had it All Wrong

In May 2009, Brian Message, a partner in Radiohead’s management company, did the unthinkable. After describing the plan to kick file-sharers (and their families) off the internet as unworkable, Message suggested a radically different approach.

“We believe file-sharing by peer to peer should be legalized. The sharing of music where it is not for profit is a great thing for culture and music,” Message said.

That wasn’t what the labels wanted to hear, to put it mildly. With the benefit of hindsight, legalization probably wasn’t the right solution to support what eventually followed, but anyone could see that the status quo simply wasn’t working.

Was It Really Happening?

In early August 2009, after Radiohead’s Thom Yorke had dropped hints about a “great idea” and a secret distribution plan, things were about to start get interesting again. Whether it was the band, people working for them, or someone else, when the yet-to-be-released Radiohead track ‘These Are My Twisted Words’ was uploaded to private torrent site What.cd, Radiohead and file-sharing were suddenly back in the news again.

For many file-sharers, Radiohead’s approach felt like someone was actually listening; an outreach of sorts, acknowledgement from people who mattered that things needed to change. In the end, changes implemented by the music industry were a revelation. Not only did the industry prove itself wrong by successfully competing with free, it had managed to do so without resorting to brute force.

The idea that file-sharers, fans, will only return to buying any type of content if there’s a credible threat of force, has never made sense to us here at TF. Loyal consumers are happy consumers; happy with the product, happy with the service, and happy with the price. Get any one of those wrong and consumers become unhappy; any plan to cheer them up by a) not fixing the problem and b) resorting to threats, will fail – period.

Radiohead not only understood this better than most, the band actually dared to try something different. Less than a week after the ‘leak’ of ‘These Are My Twisted Words’ on What.cd, Radiohead’s Jonny Greenwood took to the band’s Dead Air Space blog.

The Air Space blog, saved from extinction by the Internet Archive

In his post, Greenwood announced ‘These Are My Twisted Words’ officially for the first time. He then invited people to download it for free, including via a torrent hosted on Mininova, once one of the world’s most popular torrent sites.

And Back to Reality

For Mininova, the Radiohead release symbolized hope. Legal troubles with Dutch anti-piracy group BREIN meant that the site needed to change drastically or face extinction. In our 2009 article, co-founder Erik Dubbelboer celebrated Radiohead’s use of the site’s fledgling content distribution service and called on more artists to do the same.

By November 2009, the only content that remained on Mininova was content uploaded to the new distribution service. After losing its dispute with BREIN, Mininova was ordered to delete all other content , which in time led to the site’s demise. In common with similar sites, Mininova already had a policy of responding to rightsholders’ takedown notices but when a Dutch court found that insufficient, the end was nigh.

TorrentFreak also has a takedown policy. Our policy is to create all of our own content, obtain licenses for images where applicable, and if required, adhere to fair use norms. Because the policy works and nothing is infringing, nothing ever needs to be taken down. Unfortunately, some rightsholders and anti-piracy outfits occasionally disagree; on the plus side, on every occasion they are always wrong.

Wrongfully Targeted Yet Again

Around eight years ago, an industry shake-up saw Radiohead’s back catalog move from Parlophone to XL Recordings, which now operates as part of Beggars Group Digital. With assistance from anti-piracy company MUSO, attempts are now being made to purge Google’s search indexes of all links to unauthorized copies of Radiohead’s music.

A single notice dated August 8, 2024, presented here courtesy of the Lumen Database , is huge. Weighing in at over 9,600 URLs, hidden deep inside is one of our URLs which, according to the notice, should be disappeared by Google for the remainder of eternity, for violating copyright law.

That article contains no copyrighted material apart from our own, and doesn’t link to any infringing content either.

Coincidentally, the same generally applies to the takedown notice itself. Despite claiming to contain close to 10,000 pirate URLs across 1,643 domains, Google’s assessment indicates that just 4.5% are actually infringing.

Rightsholders never got to target individuals in the manner suggested 15 years ago, and that is a good thing; a very, very good thing considering the complaint detailed above. More importantly, people without internet can’t access YouTube, for example, which now generates billions of dollars in revenue for the music industry.

Instead, the focus today is on making life difficult for pirate sites, via site-blocking measures and by generating takedown notices on an industrial scale. When it comes to the latter, all people can do is try not to get caught in the crossfire, pray occasionally, and put faith in Google to shield your own copyrighted works from being rendered unfindable.

That’s exactly what Google did here, having done so many times before .

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

Over the past two years, AI developments have progressed at a rapid pace.

This includes large language models, which are typically trained on a broad datasets of texts; the more, the better.

When AI hit the mainstream, it became apparent that rightsholders are not always pleased that their works were used to train AI. This applies to photographers, artists, music companies, journalists, and authors, some of whom formed groups to file copyright infringement lawsuits to protect their rights.

Book authors, in particular, complained about the use of pirated books as training material. In various lawsuits, companies including OpenAI, Microsoft, Meta, and NVIDIA are accused of using the ‘Books3’ dataset, which was scraped from the library of ‘pirate’ site Bibliotik.

After the Books3 accusations hit mainstream news, many AI companies stopped using this source. Meanwhile, anti-piracy companies helped publishers to take the alleged rogue libraries offline to prevent further damage.

These enforcement efforts aren’t limited to Books3 either, or the English language for that matter; earlier this week anti-piracy group BREIN reported that it helped to remove a Dutch language dataset.

Authors sued NVIDIA

Earlier this year, several authors sued NVIDIA over alleged copyright infringement. The class action lawsuit alleged that the company’s AI models were trained on copyrighted works and specifically mentioned Books3 data. Since this happened without permission, the rightsholders demand compensation.

The lawsuit was followed up by a near-identical case a few weeks later, and NVIDIA plans to challenge both in court by denying the copyright infringement allegations.

In its initial response, filed a few weeks ago , NVIDIA did not deny that it used the Books3 dataset. Like many other AI companies, it believes that the use of copyrighted data for AI training is a prime example of fair use; especially when the output of the model doesn’t reproduce copyrighted works.

The authors clearly have a different take. They allege that NVIDIA willingly copied an archive of pirated books to train its commercial AI model, and are demanding damages for direct copyright infringement.

Trial in Two years…?

This week, the authors and NVIDIA filed a joint case management statement at a California court, laying out a preliminary timeline. This shows that both parties intend to take their time to properly litigate the matter.

The authors expect that the parties need until October next year to gather facts and evidence during the discovery phase. An eventual jury trial is penciled in a full year later, November 2026.

NVIDIA doesn’t have a hard trial deadline in mind but stresses that the fair use issue is key, and should be addressed early and efficiently. For starters, the company intends to file a motion for summary judgment within a year, after which both parties should have more clarity.

Facts, Figures, and Statistical Correlations

Aside from the timeline, NVIDIA also shared its early outlook on the case. The company believes that AI companies should be allowed to use copyrighted books to train their AI models, as these books are made up of “uncopyrightable facts and ideas” that are already in the public domain.

The argument may seem surprising at first; the authors own copyrights and as far they’re concerned, use of pirated copies leads to liability as a direct infringer. However, NVIDIA goes on to explain that their AI models don’t see these works that way.

AI training doesn’t involve any book reading skills, or even a basic understanding of a storyline. Instead, it simply measures statistical correlations and adds these to the model.

“Training measures statistical correlations in the aggregate, across a vast body of data, and encodes them into the parameters of a model. Plaintiffs do not try to claim a copyright over those statistical correlations, asserting instead that the training data itself is ‘copied’ for the purposes of infringement,” NVIDIA writes.

Put differently, NVIDIA argues that its AI models don’t use the books the way humans do; neither do they reproduce them. It’s simply examining the ‘facts and ideas’ in the books, ‘transforming’ their original purpose to build a complex AI model. That qualifies as fair use, they state.

“Plaintiffs cannot use copyright to preclude access to facts and ideas, and the highly transformative training process is protected entirely by the well-established fair-use doctrine.

“Indeed, to accept Plaintiffs’ theory would mean that an author could copyright the rules of grammar or basic facts about the world. That has never been the law, for good reason,” NVIDIA adds.

Fair Use Battle

According to NVIDIA, the lawsuit boils down to two related questions. First, whether the authors’ direct infringement claim is essentially an attempt to claim copyright on facts and grammar. Second, whether making copies of the books is fair use.

The chip company believes that it didn’t do anything wrong and cites several cases that will likely appear in its future filings. They include the Authors Guild v. Google lawsuit, where the court of appeals concluded that copying books to create a searchable database was fair use. As a result, Google Books still exists today.

NVIDIA is not the only company that will rely on a fair use defense in response to AI-related copyright infringement claims. Many other companies are taking the same approach so whether it succeeds will prove key for the future of AI model development.

What makes these matters more complex is that AI models and technologies have different applications; so what may be fair use in one case, could be copyright infringing in another.

For example, earlier this week, a California federal court ruled that a copyright lawsuit filed by visual artists against DeviantArt, Midjourney, Runway AI, and Stability AI, can move forward . These defendants are also accused of copyright infringement, but the lawsuit deals with images, and image outputs instead.

Given the parties involved and the potential damages at stake, these lawsuits will keep the courts busy for years to come. Even after the first ‘final’ verdicts come in, there will be appeals, and some questions may eventually end up at the Supreme Court.

Meanwhile, the actions of NVIDIA and other AI companies will be closely monitored by copyright watchers. This includes recent press reports accusing NVIDIA, among others, of scraping both videos and transcripts from YouTube, to train their respective models.

—

A copy of the joint case management statement in Nazemian vs. Nvidia is available here (pdf)

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

After filing copyright lawsuits against early peer-to-peer file sharing services and emerging mostly victorious, the global music industry found that any depressant effect, on pirate content availability and consumption, was insufficient.

Content was soon being consumed by an expanding pool of internet users, and relentless demand was met being met by increased availability and supply. Since robust peer-to-peer networks had few issues taking care of mass distribution, music industry lawyers switched to suing tens of thousands of music pirates instead. That eventually became unpleasant for everyone and as an anti-piracy strategy, also insufficient.

We Can Do This The Easy Way, Or The Hard Way. No Pressure

Having sued piracy platforms and their users, attention turned to residential ISPs. Approached as potential allies, progress over the years was rarely much more than a mixed bag. When it became increasingly clear that cooperation would involve ISPs suppressing their own customers – those that the music companies had previously failed to suppress – lawsuits against the internet’s gatekeepers were inevitable.

After music giant BMG sued Cox Communications for failing to take action against repeat infringer customers, the matter was settled in BMG’s favor via a “ substantial settlement .” With big money at stake, repeat infringer lawsuits are now widespread in the United States; in 2022, BMG hit the owners of Optimum with a similar lawsuit carrying a billion-dollar payload.

The Hard Way It Is Then

Filed in the Eastern District of Texas, the complaint featured plaintiffs BMG Rights Management, UMG Recordings, Capitol Records, Concord Music Group, and Concord Bicycle Assets.

The defendants, Altice USA and CSC Holdings, were described as the operators of one of the largest ISPs in the United States. Sold under ‘Optimum’ branding and available in at least 21 states, high-speed connections made available by the defendants were allegedly being used by thousands of persistent pirates responsible for millions of infringements.

The plaintiffs informed the court that efforts to encourage the ISP to suspend or disconnect alleged infringers, had come to nothing.

“Rather than work with Plaintiffs or take other meaningful or effective steps to curb this massive infringement, Altice chose to permit infringement to run rampant, prioritizing its own profits over the Plaintiffs’ rights,” the complaint continued.

With David Bowie, Justin Bieber, Katy Perry, Keith Urban, and Lady Gaga among around 8,000 artists suffering the consequences of the alleged inaction, the stage was set for a billion dollar showdown.

After 18 Months of Litigation, Case Dismissed – Permanently

If obtaining a settlement was the plan, the next 18 months of litigation failed to give much away. The discovery process, for example, led to claims that certain materials were being withheld based on unsupported assertions of privilege. Deposition notices served on the CEOs of both BMG and Concord were challenged and eventually quashed.

Anti-piracy company OpSec Online, which had been hired by the plaintiffs to track infringement carried out on BitTorrent networks, was required to hand over considerable amounts of data. That included copies of its source code (23,693 files) and more than a million pages of documents.

Altice also sought to obtain information from the RIAA relating to repeat infringer lawsuits targeting other ISPs. Then on Wednesday this week, the parties suddenly advised the court that the lawsuit was over.

Having been dismissed with prejudice, the matter won’t see the light of day again, but the filing itself offers no information to explain why. Similar cases against other ISPs were dismissed just hours before trial , so that seemed the most likely outcome here.

Parties Agreed to Settle

Confirmation that the parties did indeed settle can be found in Altice SEC filings.

“On July 1, 2024, we and the BMG Plaintiffs settled this lawsuit and as part of the settlement we expect a stipulation of dismissal with prejudice to be filed by the parties on or before August 20, 2024. The settlement amount was accrued for as of June 30, 2024,” the document reveals.

No specific settlement figure is mentioned by Altice, but the company does reference its ongoing legal battle with Warner, Sony, and other members of the RIAA, which makes similar ‘repeat infringer’ claims while also seeking massive damages.

“We intend to and are vigorously defending against the claims in the Warner Matter. In addition to contesting the claims of liability, we have an affirmative defense under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act that, if successful, would preclude or limit monetary damages against us in connection with some or all of the Warner Plaintiffs’ asserted claims. There can be no assurance as to the outcome of this litigation,” the filing warns.

The stipulation of dismissal (with prejudice) is available here (pdf)

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

Widening discussions on the seemingly limitless potential of AI suggest profound implications for most jobs in the future.

Of those with the greatest chance of surviving the AI revolution, fighting crime online must be one of the stronger candidates. With piracy close to ubiquitous, work opportunities exist, to put it mildly.

The realm of content protection may yet have an AI savior waiting in the wings, but until a model can accurately determine fair use and conduct complex, error-free investigations, humans retain the upper hand. Meanwhile, the entertainment industry has more content protection work than ever before, much of it with an ideal completion date of yesterday.

Larissa Knapp , the new head of content protection at the MPA, will undoubtedly meet challenges like these head on. This week the former FBI official revealed the culmination of an investigation in the United States where basic mistakes may have contributed to the services’ downfall. The press release itself includes some interesting presentational changes.

US-Based IPTV Services Shut Down

The anti-piracy profiles of the MPA, and more recently ACE, are without parallel in the United States. At least in part, high-profile lawsuits and in some cases criminal actions, have dampened pirates’ enthusiasm for becoming the next ‘victim’ of Hollywood’s piracy grinder. As a result, actions against IPTV providers in the U.S. are relatively rare.

On Wednesday, however, ACE announced the shutdown of at least four branded IPTV services on home soil; AnytimeTV (the most prominent), Cobra Servers, Elite Servers, and Lost Highway Media. Customers of some of these services have been complaining about their sudden disappearance since early June.

According to ACE, when combined these platforms had “thousands of subscribers” and “hundreds of thousands of domain visits annually.” The big question is whether the profit made on subscriptions will be enough to pay off ACE.

$2m+ Settlement Agreed

The closure of these services will be governed by a settlement agreement between ACE and three U.S.-based IPTV operators. ACE has mentioned reaching settlement agreements with platform owners in the past, but in this matter the financial aspect is given a much higher profile than usual.

ACE reports that the three operators have agreed to pay over $2 million in compensation; through unofficial channels TF has previously heard of settlement offers in the hundreds of thousands, but with so many cases, the sample is too small to predict the true range.

“These landmark settlements should serve as a warning to illegal streaming operators about the severe penalties they will face for breaking copyright law, including legal actions, substantial financial settlements and fines, and jail time,” Knapp says .

In most cases, settlements require domains used in connection with pirate services to be signed over to the MPA. Those specifically mentioned by ACE in this matter include anytimetv.us, anytimewebhosting.com, elite-servers.com, losthighway-media.com, and webhostsupply.com. Some already divert to the ACE seizure page.

Paying the Price for Zero Security

Groups like ACE never reveal exactly what makes one service more likely to face enforcement measures than another. Nevertheless, factors such as size or strategic position in the piracy market are typically weighed against prudent use of resources and prospects of success. Political considerations and matters related to overarching strategy may influence decisions too, but in some cases, enforcement action simply makes sense.

Services increasing in popularity, such as those recently shut down, may require more urgent attention. When that can take place on home soil, enforcement is likely to be more effective. When the domain anytimetv.us appeared in the mix, that may have made things much more interesting.

Unlike foreign domains, WHOIS records for .us domains cannot be hidden, with registrars facing potential repercussions for not following the rules. That’s why pirate sites usually avoid .us domains and prefer options such as .to, where the opposite is true.

In this case, public WHOIS records for anytimetv.us included a real name and a real physical address. With those details established, related information becomes easier to find.

On LinkedIn, for example, one service was presented by its owner as a regular business, using a name that can be cross-referenced with WHOIS records and other online databases. Similarly, engagement on Trust Pilot and other review platforms suggested that potential enforcement was hardly considered, if it was considered at all.

Whether ACE offered one or any of these services an early opportunity to shut down is unknown. What we can say with absolute certainty is that at least one of them was compromised years ago when legal action targeted an entity responsible for supplying their streams. A company name, banking details, and details of monthly payments made for streams, were obtained by an anti-piracy group as part of a much larger haul, which eventually entered the public domain.

Given the sheer number of platforms ACE has shut down since 2017, running a pirate IPTV service so openly with the above as background, makes zero sense. Even if we entertain the idea that identities, addresses, and profiles on social media, are simply elaborate fakes placed online for misdirection purposes, the bottom line still tells exactly the same story: services shut down and profits confiscated. And that’s just the lucky ones.

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

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

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

Cox challenged the verdict through several routes and earlier this year booked a partial victory. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals confirmed that the ISP was contributorily liable for pirating subscribers, but reversed the vicarious copyright infringement finding. A new trial will determine the appropriate damages amount given these new conclusions.

Following this ruling, Cox asked for the damages question to be put on hold, as there were other matters pending. Among them, a planned Supreme Court petition filed a few hours ago.

Cox Files Supreme Court Petition

In a public statement today, Cox warns that the current ruling jeopardizes internet access for all Americans, as it forces ISPs to terminate the accounts of subscribers who are repeatedly accused of sharing copyright-infringing content.

“Terminating internet service would not just impact the individual accused of unlawfully downloading content, it would kick an entire household off the internet,” Cox notes.

“This would have a particularly devastating impact on rural communities with only one service provider or where an alternative provider offers slow or unreliable connections — termination would leave a household with no viable access to the internet.”

After the Cox case was docketed, similar lawsuits were filed against other Internet providers, including Grande, Verizon, RCN, Bright House, Frontier and others. Some complaints were settled and others remain pending.

These cases have already changed how Internet providers handle repeat infringers on their networks and “terminations” are now more common. According to Cox, however, the current verdict goes too far.

Draconian Liability Regime

In its petition Cox writes that, in its view, the lower court’s ruling stretches service provider liability too far. As a result, ISPs find themselves ‘forced’ to terminate subscribers, who may have done little wrong.

“Cox Communications — which provides internet service to millions of homes and businesses — must either terminate internet connections previously used for infringement or else face liability for any future infringement.

“In doing so, the court installed the most draconian secondary-liability regime in the country, one that departs from three other circuits, defies this Court’s precedents, and threatens mass disruption across the internet,” Cox warns.

The Supreme Court petition aims to place the ‘repeat infringer’ issue into perspective, noting that pirating accounts represented roughly 1% of its total subscribers. Of this group, Cox was able to motivate 95% to stop.

The remaining ‘repeat infringers’ were able to continue. The music companies argued that the ISP could and should have terminated these accounts, some 57,000 in total, but Cox believes this is a step too far.

Universities, Hotels and Military Housing

Cox argues that subscribers shouldn’t lose their internet access based on unadjudicated third-party accusations; especially since the repeat infringers included business accounts with many simultaneous connections.

“In practice, the accounts that continued to rack up notices without termination were regional ISPs, universities, hotels, military housing, and other business accounts used by hundreds or thousands of individual users,” the petition reads.

Disconnecting universities and hospitals could have devastating consequences but Cox also continued to provide its services to many regular subscribers, who also continued to pirate.

While these examples are less dramatic, the company argues that disconnecting regular subscribers can also have serious consequences.

“Even with respect to individuals who did, in fact, infringe, loss of internet access is very heavy punishment for illegally downloading two songs. A person without internet might lose their job or have to drop out of school.”

Cox hopes that the Supreme Court will take on the case and limit secondary liability for Internet providers. The current Fourth Circuit ruling weighs heavily in favor of rightsholders, to the detriment of ISPs and their subscribers, the petition argues.

Two Questions

In recent weeks, Cox has put considerable effort into explaining its position to the press. When doing so, there was a strong focus on the potentially devastating impact on Internet users.

While this is undoubtedly an important issue, the matter at hand is ultimately about service provider liability. And the key questions presented to the Supreme Court don’t directly involve hospitals in rural areas.

This case is about who is responsible for Internet piracy. Is it only the users who actually share pirated material, or can ISPs be held responsible too?

The Fourth Circuit concluded that Cox “materially contributed” to the infringements of its subscribers, because the company knew about this activity and didn’t terminate their accounts.

That leads Cox to present the following question to the Supreme Court:

“Did the Fourth Circuit err in holding that a service provider can be held liable […] merely because it knew that people were using certain accounts to infringe and did not terminate access, without proof that the service provider affirmatively fostered infringement or otherwise intended to promote it?”

The second question is indirectly related to the damages award. The jury awarded the maximum statutory damages of $150,000 per work, which is typically reserved for “willful” infringement.

Cox questions whether simply knowing about copyright infringements of subscribers is willful, if the company didn’t know that its own conduct was illegal.

“Did the Fourth Circuit err in holding that mere knowledge of another’s direct infringement suffices to find willfulness under 17 U.S.C. § 504(c)?” the petition reads.

Landmark Case

If the Supreme Court decides to take on this case, it will undoubtedly result in a landmark decision. The music companies also indicate that they may present their own petition to the court, which will make the matter even more crucial.

Both sides are expected to garner support from third parties, which are expected to file supporting briefs on their behalf. After that, the Supreme Court will have to decide whether to take on the case.

Whatever the ultimate outcome, Internet providers could certainly benefit from extra clarity on the “repeat infringer” problem. Whether they will like the eventual outcome, remains to be seen.

—

A copy of Cox Communication’s Supreme Court petition is available here (pdf)

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

Faced with the growing popularity of ‘pirate’ libraries such as Z-Library and Anna’s Archive , book publishers have ramped up their anti-piracy efforts.

This year alone, Google has processed hundreds of millions of takedown requests on behalf of publishers, at a frequency we have never seen before. The same publishers also target the pirate sites and their hosting providers directly, hoping to achieve results.

Thus far, little is known about the effectiveness of these measures. In theory, takedowns are supposed to lead to limited availability of pirate sources and a subsequent increase in legitimate sales. But does it really work that way?

To find out more, researchers from the University of Warsaw, Poland, set up a field experiment. They reached out to several major publishers and partnered with an anti-piracy outfit, to test whether takedown efforts have a measurable effect on legitimate book sales.

The study only takes printed books into account, since the Polish e-book market is rather small, and statistically reliable sales data is difficult to obtain.

One-Year Takedown Experiment

The research methodology for this study is quite straightforward. In total, 12 prominent publishers took part, of which three dropped out. The publishers shared between 5 and 53 book titles, which were assigned to a takedown group or a control, for which no takedown notices were sent.

The group assignment wasn’t completely random. Instead, books were matched in pairs based on characteristics such as price, format, and previous sales figures, to remove as much noise as possible.

After the books were assigned, those listed in the takedown group were shared with the Polish anti-piracy outfit Plagiat.pl , which started protecting these works. For the remaining books, no action was taken. In total, Plagiat.pl found pirated copies on 53 sites and continually issued takedown notices for a full year.

Takedowns Were Effective, Sales Trend Up

After the research was completed, three assistants were asked to conduct online searches to confirm whether it was harder to find pirated copies ‘protected’ books online. That was clearly the case, as fewer copies were spotted, and it also took longer to find them

The effect of these successful takedowns didn’t clearly translate to sales of print books, however. While the researchers found a small positive effect in the takedown category, it wasn’t pronounced enough to be statistically significant.

Only after the researchers tried a Bayesian analysis, adding data from previous research, did they find an uptick in book sales.

“We were able to substantially curb the unauthorized distribution, which resulted in a small, positive effect on sales,” the researchers write.

“While using classical analysis we found it not to be significantly different from zero, a Bayesian approach using previous ‘piracy’ studies to generate a prior led to the conclusion that protecting from piracy resulted in a significant sales boost of about 9 per cent.”

Open Ending

The paper attributes the lack of a stronger initial result to the relatively low sample size. With more books, it would have been easier to get a more definite answer. However, the positive direction doesn’t contradict earlier research.

For example, a previous study found that takedown notices can lead to an increase in sales of e-books , which are digital, and therefore a more direct substitute for pirated copies.

Strong results or not, the researchers believe that their work is an important contribution to the existing literature. Piracy research typically relies on before-after comparisons, while this study allowed results to be compared during the same time period, with a full control group.

In the end, however, many questions remain unanswered, so follow-up research is warranted. It would be interesting to see the same approach in countries where e-books are more prevalent too.

Since the major publishers are now heavily involved in takedown efforts, they might be interested to see if they get a decent return on their investment? After all, sending takedown notices typically isn’t free.

—

A copy of the paper, published in a recent edition of the Journal of the Economic Science Association is available online here .

Hardy, W., Krawczyk, M. & Tyrowicz, J. Internet “piracy” and book sales: a field experiment. J Econ Sci Assoc (2024)

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

Major rightsholders are constantly seeking tougher legislation, more effective anti-piracy tools, and enhanced cooperation with governments and other stakeholders.

Even in countries where authorities view protection of intellectual property rights as a priority, achieving any of the above usually involves significant periods of negotiation. In Asia, where attitudes to IP crime vary considerably from one country to the next, tackling piracy may not be out of the question but may be considered less of a priority than other crime.

Thailand’s Perfect Storm

In Thailand, where anti-piracy operations are already more common than in most of its neighbors, legal Premier League streams are readily available at affordable prices.

Nevertheless, the piracy problem persists year after year, in part due to Thailand’s prohibition of most forms of gambling. In the absence of legitimate businesses to separate gamblers from their money, organized crime offers the forbidden fruit via illegal websites, with pirated Premier League live streams laid out like a red carpet.

The use of pirated content, to promote and support crimes typically considered to be more serious, provides rightsholders with a golden opportunity to place copyright infringement in the same conversation as illegal gambling and money laundering. An operation carried out by the government’s Department of Special Investigation (DSI) this week shows how effective that can be.

DSI Raids 21 Locations Across Thailand

According to the DSI, an investigation uncovered a network of sites broadcasting live Premier League matches for free. These streams were used to attract potential gamblers who were greeted with banner ads and links to sites, including those operated from other countries, ready to take their bets.

The DSI says that Thai nationals and foreigners, mostly poor with no fixed jobs, operated more than 100 ‘mule’ accounts through which revenue from illegal gambling was processed.

To tackle all of the above, a joint operation on July 31 under the Ministry of Home Affairs, saw the DSI and the Minburi Metropolitan Police carry out raids at 21 locations in several regions of Thailand.

Image credits: DSI

The suspects reportedly operated around 10 websites from an office in the Minburi district of Bangkok.

A document obtained by TorrentFreak reveals several domain names including TVsod.com, Bee789.com, Ballza.com, 7mscorethai.com, 7mscorethai.net, Dooballdottink.com, Suckballhd.com, Amloin789.com and 7upth.com. At the time of writing, none are operational.

“Two suspects were arrested: Mr. Athiwat (surname withheld) and Mr. Yutthaphong (surname withheld) ,” a DSI statement reads.

“They were arrested in front of the Songkhla Provincial Court, Bo Yang Subdistrict, Mueang Songkhla District, Songkhla Province, for the offense of jointly violating the copyright of others for commercial purposes by publishing creative works such as movies and artworks without permission.”

The authorities say that the arrested men are programmers, responsible for running the servers used to provide the pirated match streams and operating ‘mule’ accounts for transferring money. The second suspect is also accused of receiving money from gambling websites.

No Longer Working at the Car Wash

A video released by the authorities on social media shows a press conference and various clips from one of the raided locations.

That appears to be a car wash and according to information made available separately, may have been involved in the supply/distribution of pirated Premier League streams.

The scale of the law enforcement response suggests that washing cars probably wasn’t the extent of the business, butt that appears to be true of other images from the raids made available by DSI. That includes the image below which doesn’t appear to have an official explanation beyond being taken as part of the raids.

The number of graphics cards tends to point in one direction, so additional offenses may be announced at a later date. In any event, whether from the car wash or elsewhere, the DSI is advising those intending to make a clean getaway to reconsider.

“In this search and arrest operation, the Department of Special Investigation would like to inform those involved or suspects with arrest warrants who intend to flee, to surrender or provide information to enter the justice process, because the Department of Special Investigation will not exempt offenders from prosecution.”

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

Similar to other user-generated content platforms, X allows people to freely share content online.

This includes text, images, music, video, and live streams. In some cases, content is shared by users of X without first obtaining permission from rightsholders.

Over the years, various parties have called out Twitter/X over alleged copyright infringement. Research published by the EU Intellectual Property Office found that X is rife with piracy-related discussions. U.S. lawmakers, meanwhile, suggested that piracy is part of the company’s business model .

Last year, these complaints resulted in a lawsuit, filed by the major music labels. The companies accused Elon Musk’s X Corp of “breeding” mass copyright infringement and demanded damages, which could reach $250 million. The lawsuit continues as copyright pressure continues to build.

Sports Leagues and Broadcasters Demand Action

This week, AP reported that a group of sports leagues and broadcasters had contacted X CEO Linda Yaccarino, urging the platform to take live-streaming piracy more seriously. The letter, signed by the Premier League, LaLiga, Bundesliga, Serie A, UEFA, CONMEBOL, DAZN, Sky, beIN, DirecTV and Movistar Plus+, claims that the platform is falling short on its enforcement actions.

X is legally obliged to process DMCA takedown notices. While the company stopped releasing transparency reports after Elon Musk took over, the company hasn’t halted this practice. However, the letter, which appears to address Musk too, suggests that technical support for rightsholders decreased after he acquired Twitter.

“X’s approach to taking down unlawful live content notified to them is woefully insufficient and inadequate,” the letter notes. “Critically, since you acquired the platform, we have witnessed a demoralizing reduction in technical support making it ever more difficult to engage with the platform in any kind of meaningful discussion on this topic.”

‘X: The Home of Social Media Piracy’

While all social media platforms have to deal with piracy, the letter complains that X’s response to the problem falls short. This, purportedly, gives pirates the idea that they can abuse the platform without serious repercussions.

According to the rightsholders, the problem is getting worse, evidenced by an increased number of pirated live-streams on the platform. At the same time, moderation efforts have reportedly decreased.

“X is increasingly the home of unlawful social media piracy,” the letter reads.

The rightsholders are calling for a meeting with X to discuss these matters. Ideally, they want X to turn the tide by taking piracy more seriously, while meeting its obligations under the Digital Services Act. No concrete measures are mentioned, but the DSA calls for increased takedown transparency and prioritizing takedowns by ‘trusted flaggers’.

META and YouTube Do Better

The AP hasn’t released the letter in full, so it’s unknown whether it includes more concrete demands. What’s clear, however, is that X stands out in comparison to other platforms, with rightsholders stating that it “lacks many of the features which other responsible social media operators deploy to combat piracy.”

This notion is supported by Cameron Andrews, Legal Director at BeIN, who addressed X’s shortcomings in a BroadcastPro article yesterday.

“While some of the big players like META and YouTube have worked with rights owners to reduce the availability of pirated live content on their platforms, others like X, are doing very little,” Andrews writes.

During the Euro 2024 football championship this summer, BeIN identified 1,198 illegal streams, with hundreds of thousands of unauthorized viewers tuning in. Ideally, these streams should be shut down near instantly.

“In the absence of any effective cooperation from X, there is very little that rights owners can do to prevent the massive abuse of broadcast rights in this way,” BeIN’s anti-piracy director notes.

Just how receptive X is to this critique has yet to be seen. The company hasn’t officially commented on the matter, and Elon Musk hasn’t weighed in yet either. However, he previously made it clear that he’s not a fan of broad takedown measures.

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