For streaming services such as Netflix, Digital Rights Management (DRM) systems provide a level of control over the company’s most valuable assets, including movies, TV shows, and other content for consumer consumption.

DRM not only restricts access to customers authorized to consume content, it can determine when and how it’s consumed too. When all goes to plan, DRM should also prevent end users from casually copying movies and TV shows, which should result in a positive contribution towards minimizing the spread of pirated content online; at least in theory.

Widevine Everywhere

Ultimately, whether users loathe it or just hate it, DRM exists in billions of web browsers and devices. One of the most widespread is Google’s Widevine and avoiding its footprint today is almost futile. It can be found in Chrome, Firefox and similar browsers, mobile platforms such as Android, videogame consoles, plus many set-top boxes and smart TVs. At least five billion of them, most probably more.

Unsurprisingly, Widevine has been exploited and reverse engineered over the years, as evidenced by the content it’s supposed to protect ending up on pirate sites, almost without exception. In 2020, Google took action against Chrome extension Widevine L3 Decryptor , which was capable of decrypting Widevine content keys by hijacking calls to the browser’s Encrypted Media Extensions (EME).

Problems persisted throughout 2021 and 2022 with Widevine Dump but the problems haven’t gone away. The same goes for individuals and groups committed to countering Widevine, although it’s still possible to attract negative attention.

OnlyFans Targets CDRM-Project

In a DMCA takedown notice dated April 22, 2025, OnlyFans owner Fenix International Limited informs GitHub that it had “recently become aware” of repos on the platform with code “specifically designed” to circumvent Fenix’s DRM, aka Widevine.

“The identified repositories contain step-by-step instructions which are specifically designed to circumvent the DRM protections in place on OnlyFans. The repositories contain links that are ‘hard-coded’ and specifically targeted at OnlyFans,” Fenix writes.

“The coding is designed to impersonate a video player in order to decrypt and play DRM protected files, obtaining the ‘secret’ token required to play the DRM protected content. The downloaded files are then converted into an MP4 format which has the DRM protection removed.”

CDRM-Project repo before suspension

In line with its pro-developer policy when processing DMCA takedown notices, GitHub contacted the operator of the main repo and the operators of six additional forks, with an opportunity to address the complaint and avoid suspension.

For reasons that aren’t revealed, GitHub’s outreach couldn’t prevent the suspension of the entire CDRM-Project repo and all reported forks.

CDRM-Project repo is no more

GitHub requested Fenix to identify “every specific file” in the repo that it considers infringing; Fenix responded with a statement that the “entire repository is infringing” and should be removed.

Anti-Circumvention Complaint

To GitHub’s credit, when rightsholders allege violations of the DMCA’s anti-circumvention provisions, GitHub conducts its own assessment. If there is no basis for a claim, GitHub sometimes finds other copyright-related grounds, but here there is no pushback. That’s usually a sign of a complaint that stands up under intense scrutiny.

Another unusual aspect to the complaint is the Fenix response to GitHub’s request to provide the alleged infringer’s contact details, if they’re in possession of them. In most cases rightsholders say they’re unaware of those details but here, Fenix provides the details of two sets of owners and two sets of contributors.

The project is now being made available via a repo on cdm-project.com but how long that’s likely to last is unclear.

When any DRM system unnecessarily restricts access to content by design or due to inherent limitations, those who suffer the most are legitimate customers. Most have no interest in piracy, were never part of the original problem, but are responsible for the bulk of the revenue. Once DRM starts to feel like DRM, that’s where the big problems start.

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

In recent years, music and movie companies have filed several lawsuits against U.S. Internet providers, for failing to take action against pirating subscribers.

One of the main allegations is that ISPs fail to terminate the accounts of repeat infringers in “appropriate circumstances”, as the DMCA requires.

These lawsuits resulted in multi-million dollar judgments against Cox and Grande. Meanwhile, more companies are at risk too, including Frontier Communications, which emerged from bankruptcy four years ago.

Frontier vs. Movie and Music Companies

Frontier is fighting not one, but two legal battles. After the company was sued by several prominent record labels including UMG, Sony Music and Warner Music, a group of independent film companies filed a similar lawsuit.

Progress was slow in both cases but after the court denied Frontier’s motions to dismiss last year, the parties began preparing for a trial starting next week.

With damages that could run to hundreds of millions of dollars, the stakes are high. The music companies alone listed 7,758 sound recordings; based on the statutory maximum of $150,000 per willfully infringed work, that could translate to over $1 billion in damages.

The movie and music company plaintiffs separately alleged that Frontier is secondarily liable for copyright infringement because it allegedly provided internet service to known repeat infringers.

The movie companies sought additional relief, most notably a request for an injunction that was bound to pique wider interest due to a site blocking component.

Pirate Site Blocking Measures (Shelved)

In a pretrial order published last week, the parties shared their contentions in advance of the scheduled trial at the New York Bankruptcy Court. The movie companies listed their site-blocking demand as one of the key questions to be answered.

The companies argued that the domains thepiratebay.org, 1337x.to, YTS.MX and (the currently offline ) torrentgalaxy.to, should be blocked.

“MCCs further request the Court grant an injunction ordering Frontier to terminate accounts of customers that have repeatedly infringed MCCs’ Works and block access on the domain name service (‘DNS’) level of foreign piracy websites thepiratebay.org, 1337x.to, YTS.MX and torrentgalaxy.to and any of their proxy websites,” the pretrial order reads.

If granted and carried through to conclusion, this would’ve been the first time that a major U.S. Internet provider had blocked pirate sites. However, not long after the joint pretrial order was published, Frontier and the movie companies announced that they were aiming to settle the case.

Movie Companies and Frontier Settle “In Principle”

Last Friday, the parties submitted a joint notice of settlement to the court, mentioning that a settlement is being finalized. As a result, the movie companies asked to be excused from the trial next week.

“Parties have arrived at a settlement in principle, which the Parties are working quickly to document and finalize. Accordingly, the Parties request that the Court excuse MCCs from participating in the trial […] to give the Parties an opportunity to effectuate their settlement and file a stipulation for dismissal,” the update reads.

The court has yet to grant this request, but it shows that the movie companies seem unlikely to participate in the trial. In fact, two of the movie companies have already finalized their settlement.

This significantly narrows the scope, since the trial will focus on the music company claims alone. Since the movie companies requested the site blocking injunctions, this request will naturally be off the table as well.

Music Companies go to Trial with Frontier

Regardless of the outcome, the music companies’ claims remain, and Frontier will have to put up a defense at trial, of which the company shared a glimpse in the pretrial order.

Among other things, the ISP plans to argue that it lacked sufficient knowledge of the infringements based on the notices sent by copyright holders. Frontier will further point out that it did not encourage or materially contribute to any infringement, emphasizing the substantial non-infringing uses of its service.

The ISP will also highlight its repeat infringer policy, which included warnings and termination of accounts when appropriate. It will argue that the policy should be sufficient for the ISP to benefit from the DMCA’s safe harbor provision.

All in all, it’s clear that the scope of the trial will be significantly reduced if the movie companies and Frontier settle. That said, with a billion dollars in potential damages still in play, significant risk remains.

—

A copy of the joint pretrial order, submitted to the New York Bankruptcy Court, is available here (pdf) . The joint notice of settlement can be found here (pdf) .

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

Even after years of trawling the invaluable Lumen Database , the scale of online copyright infringement today still manages to surprise week after week. And with more time spent searching, the greater the chances of the archive surfacing curiosities from years ago, or unusual items from the more recent past.

Take the bait and time has a tendency to get eaten away in journeys down various rabbit holes, and that’s a good thing. Without Lumen, censorship would undoubtedly thrive in a darker place; it already needs little encouragement.

Free* Speech (*Terms and conditions apply, YMMV)

After a spurious attempt to deindex one of our articles with a bogus copyright claim, research led us by chance down a parallel path, revealing an even greater threat to free speech and legitimate reporting.

The nature of a sizeable number of the takedown notices in question brings to mind the Lumen Database’s original name, Chilling Effects. The name was derived from the likely suppressant effect of abusive takedown notices and legal threats on free speech.

In the United States, where speaking the truth doesn’t usually amount to a crime, the scope of free speech far exceeds that available in Europe. In the Netherlands, for example, libel is a criminal offense and in the UK, the rich can launch libel action in the High Court. There, regular people can be drawn into a potentially ruinous legal quagmire, for as little as vigorously opposing one man’s assertion that his online handle is Satoshi .

Threats to Google: Censor the Govt, BBC, Guardian, Daily Mail

Working for the BBC, Guardian, or Daily Mail can provide a safety net against the potential consequences of legal threats, but immunity from receiving threats themselves doesn’t exist. In a notice addressed to Google, the company was ordered to “De-index the specified URLs” from search results within 14 days to “prevent further dissemination” of what is described as “defamatory and harmful content.”​

14 Days to Police The Internet

Published in 2022, the BBC URLs above report the details of a damning investigation involving serious neglect and abuse of children. The ‘Hansard’ URLs link to the website of the Houses of Parliament which contains transcripts of government ministers discussing the scandal. The name of the sender is redacted, but Google was threatened with an injunction and damages for simply having those links in its indexes.

Business Disputes: He Said, She Said

Another notice demands a takedown based on the Defamation Act 2013, claiming that “the publication of a statement that would cause serious harm to the reputation of a person or entity” meets the criteria for defamation. The article in question was published by the UK’s Financial Conduct Authority, warning the public against doing business with a named fraudulent company.

Takedown notices involving businesses and a maze of disputes related to the pursuit or recovery of money, are sent to Google in large numbers. Many involve allegations or denials of fraud. Some deny fraud despite documented evidence to the contrary. Others resort to vague copyright claims or indeed, anything else that might help silence the opposition. Whatever the mechanism, the legal threats persist.

All notices referenced here are listed under the same sender ID in the Lumen Database. Some have a similar format or likely common sender, others appear to be written by unconnected individuals. Some are barely understandable, others fail to identify what should be taken down; a surprising number contain no information, period.

Who’s Telling the Truth? Friendly Sender or Something Else?

Considering how many takedown notices Google receives, it does a remarkable job of getting most things right. The reality is that it can’t check every complaint or validate every backstory.

The notice below appears to be someone being a good citizen, and we definitely need more of those. On the other hand, could it be a ruse to prompt Google into taking action against the Google Drive account listed in the takedown notice? We could test out the link, but taking unnecessary risks in this climate would be pretty stupid.

The next two complaints request TikTok-related takedowns. How Google was supposed to know what was said, or who did what, let alone who’s telling the truth, is unclear. The first notice sender, who seems oblivious to the inherent difficulties, may not have given it much thought. The second knows fraud when they see it, and a bit about the legality of copyright too.

Concerned Citizens

If the takedown notice below is in some way official, presumably other avenues exist to ensure adherence to the regulations rather than de-indexing a business. The sender may be someone concerned about harmony in the trade or, at least potentially, someone with nothing better to do. In any event, it’s more work for Google.

While it’s easy to sympathize with the position some senders claim to find themselves in, deleting links to news articles isn’t going to help. An article published by a UK news website reported how a drunken family member terrified another with a knife, before battering them over the head with a radio. At the local school, the news was blamed for creating unwanted friction.

“This has gone to [sic] far and is causing grievances left right and center. I would like this delisted at the least from when you enter ‘[REDACTED] [REDACTED]’ into Google search bar,” the sender insisted.

A rambling notice reportedly sent by a person convicted of a serious crime, demanded the removal of an article reporting their sentencing. Active on social media now, having learned nothing, this matter can only be referred directly to the police.

Internet Dispute Court: Judge Google Presiding

From complaints about students using an AI service to write their assignments, to an insistence that content must be deindexed because the author “is from Estonia for God’s sake,” Google has much on its plate, including social media squabbles to preside over. Requests to remove links to Facebook pages, accounts on X, and listings on Temu, are seen as problems to be solved by silencing those who didn’t send a complaint.

One notice argued that a news story about a sportsman’s wife, who discovered that her husband was also married to someone else, should be removed because it amounts to defamation of the wife’s character .

Google also receives many takedown notices for photos uploaded to Google Maps. A cursory review of a few suggest that some images taken inside various restaurants may not have met the standard their owners’ expected.

Other notices seem to have good intentions, but appear to use drama to improve takedown odds. In one example, a potential map error becomes a hazard to public safety fueled by potential fraud and deception.

Unjustified Takedowns Remain Unacceptable (usually)

Copyright-related takedowns have their moments but from the few hundred reviewed for the above, takedowns for other reasons represent a far greater risk to the public record and associated freedom of speech.

Under the DSA, large platforms including Google are required to inform the European Commission when and why content was taken down . The scheme was available late 2023, the number of takedowns reported today is significant.

To end on a lighter note, takedowns that put the well-being of others before selfish interests, are a pleasure to read and immediately restore all faith in human nature.

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

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

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

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

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

Pirate CDNs Play an Important Role Worldwide

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

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

One Player Dominates the Market

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

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

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

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

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

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

Databases, Customers, Ads, Hosting

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

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

Alloha player implemented on two different sites

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

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

The West Should Take Piracy More Seriously, Apparently

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You Wouldn’t Steal a Font

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

This time, however, the evidence seems compelling.

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

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

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

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

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

Font Creator: It’s Hilarious

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Piracy Awareness At Record Highs in the UK

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

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

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

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

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

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

Divide and Conquer – GENTLY

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

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

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

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

Be Polite, Always Credit the Source

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

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

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

Warnings Published Regularly in the Media

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tackling online piracy is a complicated endeavor that often begins with efforts to identify the operators of infringing sites and services. This is also where the first hurdles show up.

Many pirates keep their identities concealed. This applies to the operators of sites and services as well as their users.

This relative anonymity is a nuisance to anti-piracy groups, including the RIAA and MPA. While most online services refuse to voluntarily hand over user details, legal tools can help rightsholders move forward.

In recent years, DMCA subpoenas have established themselves as a key anti-piracy enforcement tool. These requests don’t require any oversight from a judge and are typically signed off by a court clerk. This makes them ideal to swiftly identify online pirates.

DMCA Subpoenas at Risk

Both the RIAA and MPA have used these subpoenas to identify owners of pirate sites and individual infringers. The groups would like DMCA subpoenas, as detailed in DMCA §512(h) , to remain in their toolbox but there are concerns that a recent court order could hinder their effectiveness.

The case in point doesn’t involve the RIAA or MPA. It’s a dispute between several independent film companies and Internet provider Cox. The latter successfully objected to a DMCA subpoena which sought to obtain the personal details of numerous alleged BitTorrent pirates.

The main contention in this case is whether DMCA subpoenas apply to residential Internet providers. Cox argued against, describing itself as a mere conduit provider benefiting from the DMCA’s §512(a) safe harbor, which does not require ISPs to take anything down, because the ISP doesn’t store content.

^{For background, a brief summary of the four types of ISPs under 17 U.S.C. § 512.}

^{– §512(a): transitory digital network communications; services that merely pass on bits and bytes
– §512(b): system caching; services that temporarily store (cache) data
– §512(c): storage of information on systems; services that host data
– §512(d): information location tools; services that connect users to online locations (e.g. social media, search engines)}

Last year, the court agreed with Cox’s reasoning and quashed the subpoena. The order concluded that DMCA subpoenas typically don’t apply to DMCA §512(a) services, but do apply to other providers that store or link to infringing content directly.

The film companies, including Capstone Studios and Millennium Funding, didn’t give up. After the motion for reconsideration failed, they filed an appeal at the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Among other things, the appeal argued that Cox also falls under DMCA §512(d), as it can remove or disable ‘references or links’ to infringing content.

In addition, the rightsholders also argue that DMCA subpoenas apply to § 512(a) service providers. Therefore, they say, a DMCA subpoena should be valid for Cox.

MPA and RIAA Want to be Heard

The language of the DMCA can be complex at times and open to interpretation. The film companies hope that they can force a breakthrough via the court of appeals, but an adverse ruling that further restricts the scope of DMCA subpoenas is possible too.

The risk of an adverse ruling clearly has the MPA and RIAA worried. They often use these subpoenas to request information from third-party services such as Cloudflare, social media companies, and domain registrars.

The trade groups previously shared their thoughts in an amicus brief. They didn’t take sides in the dispute, but pointed out that the lower court’s ruling was too broad. Specifically, they questioned the part suggesting that IP addresses may never function as links, within the context of the section 512(d) safe harbor.

MPA and RIAA instead argued that section 512(d) services, which could cover reverse proxy providers such as Cloudflare, can link to pirate websites through IP-addresses.

If the district court’s order stands, the validity of MPA and RIAA DMCA subpoenas may be in question. For this reason, the group urged the court to limit its findings to the evidence at hand, without the contested and presumably unneeded IP-address interpretation.

To further reiterate this position, MPA and RIAA asked for speaking time at a hearing scheduled for June. They request 10 minutes of the court’s time, while keeping the available time for the other parties at 15 minutes each.

“MPA and RIAA invest substantial resources to combat online piracy, including through the use of section 512(h) subpoenas. Because infringers hide under aliases and behind proxies, section 512(h) subpoenas are a key tool to combat online infringement and protect the legitimate creative industries,” the groups inform the court.

“Amici intend to use their time to advocate for reversal or a narrow ruling, preventing unintended consequences for subpoenas and issues not before this Court that could have unintended consequences on the carefully-crafted compromise reflected in the DMCA.”

The court has yet to rule on this request. While the movie companies don’t object, Cox doesn’t want to extend the hearing by ten minutes, but wants the MPA and RIAA to use the film companies’ time instead.

‘Trolls’

Where the MPA and RIAA call for a more narrow and restricted ruling, an additional third-party has submitted an amicus brief that extends far beyond the legal intricacies of the DMCA’s section 512.

That submission comes from Charles Muszynski, who has been embroiled with movie companies and their attorneys for several years. Their dispute started when the movie companies targeted LiquidVPN , which had been purchased by one of Muszynski’s companies.

That particular legal battle is over, but follow-up litigation in international courts continues to this day. According to Muszynski, the movie companies are of a “copyright troll” group that operates a “criminal racketeering and money laundering sham” that he likens to the criminal Prenda Law operation.

These allegations are not immediately relevant for the DMCA subpoena argument. But, for the matter at hand, Muszynski’s amicus brief concurs and adopts the arguments that were previously made by the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) in this case.

EFF also used the “troll” terminology, albeit in a different context and without directly referring to the movie companies. EFF urged the court not to allow copyright holders to issue §512(h) subpoenas to ISPs who simply transmit data, as this could trigger more coercive settlement requests against internet subscribers.

The amicus curiae briefs from both EFF and Muszynski are still listed as pending, so it’s still unknown whether they will be considered by the Court of Appeals. That said, with many eyes on this case, it’s clear that there’s a lot at stake in the upcoming hearing, and in the ruling that will eventually follow.

—

A copy of the MPA and RIAA’s request to participate in the oral hearing is available here (pdf) . Muszynski’s amicus curiae brief is available here (pdf)

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

Since early February, Spain has faced unprecedented yet avoidable nationwide disruption to previously functioning, entirely legitimate online services.

A court order obtained by top-tier football league LaLiga in partnership with telecommunications giant Telefonica, authorized ISP-level blocking across all major ISPs to prevent public access to pirate IPTV services and websites.

In the first instance, controversy centered on Cloudflare, where shared IP addresses were blocked by local ISPs when pirates were detected using them, regardless of the legitimate Cloudflare customers using them too.

When legal action by Cloudflare failed, in part due to a judge’s insistence that no evidence of damage to third parties had been proven before the court, joint applicants LaLiga and Telefonica continued with their blocking campaign. It began affecting innocent third parties early February and hasn’t stopped since.

Vercel Latest Target

US-based Vercel describes itself as a “complete platform for the web.” Through the provision of cloud infrastructure and developer tools, users can deploy code from their computers and have it up and running in just seconds. Vercel is not a ‘rogue’ hosting provider that ignores copyright complaints, it takes its responsibilities very seriously .

Yet it became evident last week that blocking instructions executed by Telefonica-owned telecoms company Movistar were once again blocking innocent users, this time customers of Vercel.

Movistar informed of yet more adverse blocking

As the thread on X continued, Vercel CEO Guillermo Rauch was asked whether Vercel had “received any requests to remove illegal content before the blocking occurs?”

Vercel Principal Engineer Matheus Fernandes answered quickly.

No takedown requests, just blocks

Additional users were soon airing their grievances; ChatGPT blocked regularly on Sundays, a whole day “ruined” due to unwarranted blocking of AI code editor Cursor, blocking at Cloudflare, GitHub, BunnyCDN, the list goes on.

Vercel Slams “Unaccountable Internet Censorship”

In a joint statement last week, Vercel CEO Guillermo Rauch and Principal Engineer Matheus Fernandes cited the LaLiga/Telefonica court order and reported that ISPs are “blocking entire IP ranges, not specific domains or content.”

Among them, the IP addresses 66.33.60.129 and 76.76.21.142, “used by businesses like Spanish startup Tinybird, Hello Magazine, and others operating on Vercel, despite no affiliations with piracy in any form.”

This isn’t a narrowly scoped takedown. LaLiga is a private organization triggering IP-wide blocks that impact critical infrastructure, developers, and businesses—without review, due process, or transparency. These blocks are primarily enforced during LaLiga matchdays, typically on weekends and select weekdays, when live broadcasts occur.

ISP-level blocking of individual sites is common. Typically, this is done by inspecting the Server Name Indication (SNI) header during the TLS handshake. SNI contains the hostname in plaintext before encryption, allowing ISPs to block specific domains while leaving other traffic on the same IP untouched, even while the actual traffic is encrypted.

But that’s not what’s happening here. Spanish ISPs are blocking entire IPs, ignoring SNI and making no effort to distinguish between hosts. Any website or service behind a blocked IP is taken offline, regardless of its legitimacy.

What started as an anti-piracy measure has become an unaccountable form of internet censorship. There’s no distinction between targeted enforcement and mass collateral damage. IPs are being blocklisted wholesale.

Like all platforms working with user-uploaded content, Vercel receives external complaints concerning potential copyright infringement. Vercel’s latest transparency report reveals that during the latest reporting period it received 1,015 DMCA notices and restricted content in response to 1,001 of them. For additional perspective, Vercel has six million users and has a dedicated dispute resolution program, should that be necessary in respect of any complaint.

Vercel Now in Contact With LaLiga

The details concerning this latest blocking disaster and the many others since February, are unavailable to the public. This lack of transparency is consistent with most if not all dynamic blocking programs around the world. With close to zero transparency, there is no accountability when blocking takes a turn for the worse, and no obvious process through which innocent parties can be fairly heard. While these negatives are a real concern, it appears that tech-savvy Spaniards are embracing the challenge.

In our previous report we highlighted several coding projects that aim to counter the blocking issues in various ways. The hayahora.futbol project is especially impressive; it gathers evidence of blocking events, including dates, which ISPs implemented blocking, how long the blocks remained in place, and which legitimate services were wrongfully blocked.

Vercel blocked IP addresses, who was responsible, and for how long

While clearly unhappy with how the company has been treated, Vercel says it’s now working with LaLiga .

“We remain committed to providing fast, secure infrastructure for modern web applications. Likewise, we expect enforcement efforts to do the same: targeted, transparent, and technically sound. We are in contact with La Liga and are collaborating to remove illegal content in accordance with the court order. We’re exploring mitigation strategies to restore access for Spanish users and continue to advocate for an open and permissionless web,” Vercel concludes.

The Changing Role of ISPs

ISPs were traditionally the first to push back against site blocking but in Spain, all of those now involved have commercial interests in the content being blocked. They agreed to the terms of the blocking order, and they weren’t subjected to it against their will; that’s why the court approved it.

Yet when LaLiga is portrayed as the driving force behind events playing out in Spain, very little attention is paid to the significant help it needs to make blocking happen. The reasons why that help continues to arrive – despite known and repeated overblocking incidents – may raise questions as part of the wider net neutrality debate.

On one hand, LaLiga, Telefonica, and the interested ISPs, are protecting their rights in live LaLiga match broadcasts against rampant piracy under extremely difficult conditions. Yet on the other, they’re blocking IP addresses that their sophisticated anti-piracy departments know are also used by innocent companies and their customers trying to conduct legitimate business in Spain. There are suggestions that may yet run into trouble .

That leads us to RootedCON, the cybersecurity group that previously attempted to end LaLiga’s blocking campaign with an appeal to the court. Like Cloudflare, the bid failed but motivation to examine other potential opportunities remains high.

Previously dismissed as “geeks” by LaLiga, others consider the term “hackers” more descriptive. It also adds more spice to the recent mention that there may be a release of “technical tools to piss people off” as an interim (but entirely legal) anti-blocking measure.

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

For major companies like Nintendo, tackling online piracy isn’t just about punishing individual infringers; it’s about strategic deterrence.

Filing lawsuits against casual gamers who may have made an isolated mistake is not a good look and could potentially backfire. Nintendo understands that and carefully picks its battles.

The case against Jesse Keighin, better known under his gaming handle “EveryGameGuru”, exemplifies this approach. Filed in a Colorado federal court last November, Nintendo’s complaint lists many alleged wrongdoings, including pre-release game streaming using pirated ROMs and distribution of circumvention tools.

Add in the public exposure through streaming platforms such as YouTube, Discord, and Twitch, and it’s not difficult to see why Nintendo singled out this defendant.

Absent and Undeterred Defendant

Facing a lawsuit from a multibillion-dollar company can be a frightening prospect. In this case, however, the defendant seemed undeterred, based on public messages that appeared online.

Instead of trying to avoid a legal disaster, Keighin apparently went on the offensive, with no sign of giving in . Quite the contrary.

“You might run a corporation. I run the streets,” Keighin wrote to Nintendo’s legal team at some point, warning that they should have done more research on him before taking action.

The defendant reportedly destroyed evidence and evaded Nintendo’s attempts to serve him personally. Due to these complications, the court eventually allowed service via email and the home addresses of his mother, grandmother, and partner.

When that didn’t yield a response in court either, the game giant requested an entry of default, so it could move the case forward without an official defense.

Nintendo Seeks Default Judgment

In a motion for default judgment, Nintendo explains that the defendant willfully streamed pirated copies of pre-release games to his followers. These streams were tagged as “EARLY RELEASE” or “FIRST LOOK,” but without authorization from Nintendo.

“At least fifty times in the last two years, Defendant streamed gameplay of pirated copies of at least ten different Nintendo games—all before those titles were released,” Nintendo writes.

“By streaming games prior to their publication, Defendant normalizes and encourages prerelease piracy, signaling to viewers that they too should pirate and play the game now, without waiting for its release or paying for it.”

In addition to directly infringing the copyrights of games including “Mario & Luigi: Brothership”, the defendant also shared links to the Nintendo Switch emulators Ryujinx, Yuzu, Suyu, and Sudachi on social media. By doing so, Nintendo says he effectively trafficked in circumvention devices.

Nintendo also accuses Keighin of circumventing technical protection measures himself, in violation of the DMCA, as well as using hacked hardware to play pirated games.

“Defendant often used an emulator but also used a hacked Nintendo Switch, demonstrating that he decrypted and accessed without authorization the prerelease games he streamed,” Nintendo writes.

$17,500 and a Broad Injunction

The legal paperwork includes ten titles that the defendant allegedly infringed, willfully. In theory, this can lead to up to $1.5 million in statutory damages for copyright infringement alone, but the game company requests a substantially lower amount.

Here, Nintendo requests damages for only one of the ten games and says that $10,000 is an appropriate award. After ignoring previous warnings for close to two years, this should help deter future wrongdoings.

For circumvention of technological protection measures and trafficking in circumvention technology, the game giant requests damages of $5,000 and $2,500 respectively. This brings the total damages amount to $17,500.

In addition to the monetary damages, Nintendo also seeks a broad permanent injunction against Keighin, which would apply worldwide. If granted, this injunction will prohibit the defendant from any infringing activities going forward, including the use of emulators.

These restrictions apply to existing emulators such as Yuzu or Ryujinx, but also those not yet named. Similarly, the injunction would apply to existing Nintendo games and games that do not yet exist. Meanwhile, all infringing hardware and software need to be destroyed.

The court has yet to grant Nintendo’s motion, but it’s notable that the company has not requested the maximum amount in compensation. Instead, it hopes to send a deterrent message to Keighin and other alleged pirates, to stop pirating and streaming Nintendo games.

Whether this strategy will pay off remains to be seen. Thus far, “EveryGameGuru” hasn’t been very receptive to Nintendo’s outreach. That said, this legal action also puts others on notice that Nintendo doesn’t appreciate pre-release streams or advertising of ‘rogue’ emulators.

—

A copy of Nintendo’s motion for default judgment against Keighin, filed at the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado last Friday, is available here (pdf)

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