Shorter theatrical windows and improved access to movies via streaming, aimed to address one of the reasons some people prefer to pirate movies rather than pay.

While no silver bullet, making movies available legally is crucial in the fight against piracy. Yet, for many years, avoiding the most obvious response to unauthorized distribution meant that the ‘recently released’ movie market was dominated by not only illicit, but mostly inferior products.

Each year, usually around late December through mid-January, the market received a quality boost that attracted pirates in their millions. ‘Screener Season’ began when predominantly DVD-based movies were sent to those whose votes have the potential to transform great movies, into Academy Award-winning movies . But all too often, things didn’t go to plan.

Basic security failures saw screener discs lost, misplaced, loaned or gifted to family members, sold on eBay, or simply stolen. Whatever their route to the internet, high-quality screeners represented direct competition for genuine products, that in many cases wouldn’t be legally on sale for months.

There’s no real doubt that screener leaks had a negative effect on sales of legitimate products, but it took years to migrate screener viewing online. Enforcement action against EVO, a piracy release group with a reputation for screener leaks, eventually coincided with the collapse and assumed permanent demise of the screener scene late 2022.

And Then Two Come Along at Once

Seeing the word SCREENER in a release title is rare these days, seeing two within minutes of each other even more so. A long time TF reader wasted no time tipping us off about two leaks last evening, in one case less than five minutes after initial release, the other in just under eight.

September 5 premiered at the 81st Venice International Film Festival late August 2024. Distributed by Paramount ( IMDb ), the movie enjoyed a limited theatrical run in the United States starting December 13, 2024, before a wider release on January 17, 2025.

Focused on the terrorist attack on the Munich Olympics in 1972, September 5 received an Academy Award nomination for Best Original Screenplay.

Typically distributed alongside pirate releases, the ‘NFO’ file above provides information on the nature of the screener and subsequent leak. ‘COLLECTiVE’ is the name of the group responsible for the release. The group is known for its releases on peer-to-peer networks including BitTorrent; this release appeared on the private tracker iPT and at the time, there were no reports of an earlier appearance elsewhere.

The title tag ‘WEB-DL’ is an indication that the copy was downloaded (rather than ripped) from an online source, potentially an online screener viewing platform. Paramount operates a service for precisely that purpose, but there’s no information to suggest any specific origin.

The suggestion that the source of the screener was “a friend” isn’t especially helpful in its own right, but a clear mention of Portuguese subtitles is somewhat unusual. We’ll return to that in a moment.

Welcome to the MPA

For long-time MPA member Paramount, having a screener leaked online won’t come as any surprise. For Amazon MGM Studios, which became the seventh member of the MPA last September, its most recent addition since Netflix joined in 2019, the leak of a Nickel Boys screener is something new ( IMDb ).

Nickel Boys received a Best Motion Picture – Drama nomination at the 82nd Golden Globe Awards, and a Best Picture nomination at the 97th Academy Awards.

At least potentially, this leak may be an unfortunate one-off for Amazon MGM Studios, but still one too many.

The ‘NFO’ file available alongside this screener release indicates that ‘COLLECTiVE’ is the group behind it. The release was first seen on private tracker iPT with no earlier appearances elsewhere, at least as far as we know.

Made available in 1080p, it’s claimed that like September 5, the Nickel Boys screener was downloaded from an online source (WEB-DL) and distributed via P2P with English subtitles.

The inclusion of ‘remuxed’ (copied without changes) Portuguese subtitles is common to the leak of September 5. However, the Nickel Boys’ English subtitles are hardcoded, meaning that the viewer can’t easily turn them off to enjoy the switchable subtitles in Portuguese.

Given the choice, it seems likely that COLLECTiVE would have made both subtitles switchable, a strong indication that the source copy had English subtitles burned in by default.

Whether that means COLLECTiVE has a specific interest in catering to a Portuguese-speaking audience remains unclear. However, it’s an interesting coincidence when one considers that EVO, the prolific screener release group mentioned earlier, is believed to have been led from Portugal , at least until its demise three years ago.

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

Shorter theatrical windows and improved access to movies via streaming, aimed to address one of the reasons some people prefer to pirate movies rather than pay.

While no silver bullet, making movies available legally is crucial in the fight against piracy. Yet, for many years, avoiding the most obvious response to unauthorized distribution meant that the ‘recently released’ movie market was dominated by not only illicit, but mostly inferior products.

Each year, usually around late December through mid-January, the market received a quality boost that attracted pirates in their millions. ‘Screener Season’ began when predominantly DVD-based movies were sent to those whose votes have the potential to transform great movies, into Academy Award-winning movies . But all too often, things didn’t go to plan.

Basic security failures saw screener discs lost, misplaced, loaned or gifted to family members, sold on eBay, or simply stolen. Whatever their route to the internet, high-quality screeners represented direct competition for genuine products, that in many cases wouldn’t be legally on sale for months.

There’s no real doubt that screener leaks had a negative effect on sales of legitimate products, but it took years to migrate screener viewing online. Enforcement action against EVO, a piracy release group with a reputation for screener leaks, eventually coincided with the collapse and assumed permanent demise of the screener scene late 2022.

And Then Two Come Along at Once

Seeing the word SCREENER in a release title is rare these days, seeing two within minutes of each other even more so. A long time TF reader wasted no time tipping us off about two leaks last evening, in one case less than five minutes after initial release, the other in just under eight.

September 5 premiered at the 81st Venice International Film Festival late August 2024. Distributed by Paramount ( IMDb ), the movie enjoyed a limited theatrical run in the United States starting December 13, 2024, before a wider release on January 17, 2025.

Focused on the terrorist attack on the Munich Olympics in 1972, September 5 received an Academy Award nomination for Best Original Screenplay.

Typically distributed alongside pirate releases, the ‘NFO’ file above provides information on the nature of the screener and subsequent leak. ‘COLLECTiVE’ is the name of the group responsible for the release. The group is known for its releases on peer-to-peer networks including BitTorrent; this release appeared on the private tracker iPT and at the time, there were no reports of an earlier appearance elsewhere.

The title tag ‘WEB-DL’ is an indication that the copy was downloaded (rather than ripped) from an online source, potentially an online screener viewing platform. Paramount operates a service for precisely that purpose, but there’s no information to suggest any specific origin.

The suggestion that the source of the screener was “a friend” isn’t especially helpful in its own right, but a clear mention of Portuguese subtitles is somewhat unusual. We’ll return to that in a moment.

Welcome to the MPA

For long-time MPA member Paramount, having a screener leaked online won’t come as any surprise. For Amazon MGM Studios, which became the seventh member of the MPA last September, its most recent addition since Netflix joined in 2019, the leak of a Nickel Boys screener is something new ( IMDb ).

Nickel Boys received a Best Motion Picture – Drama nomination at the 82nd Golden Globe Awards, and a Best Picture nomination at the 97th Academy Awards.

At least potentially, this leak may be an unfortunate one-off for Amazon MGM Studios, but still one too many.

The ‘NFO’ file available alongside this screener release indicates that ‘COLLECTiVE’ is the group behind it. The release was first seen on private tracker iPT with no earlier appearances elsewhere, at least as far as we know.

Made available in 1080p, it’s claimed that like September 5, the Nickel Boys screener was downloaded from an online source (WEB-DL) and distributed via P2P with English subtitles.

The inclusion of ‘remuxed’ (copied without changes) Portuguese subtitles is common to the leak of September 5. However, the Nickel Boys’ English subtitles are hardcoded, meaning that the viewer can’t easily turn them off to enjoy the switchable subtitles in Portuguese.

Given the choice, it seems likely that COLLECTiVE would have made both subtitles switchable, a strong indication that the source copy had English subtitles burned in by default.

Whether that means COLLECTiVE has a specific interest in catering to a Portuguese-speaking audience remains unclear. However, it’s an interesting coincidence when one considers that EVO, the prolific screener release group mentioned earlier, is believed to have been led from Portugal , at least until its demise three years ago.

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

Shorter theatrical windows and improved access to movies via streaming, aimed to address one of the reasons some people prefer to pirate movies rather than pay.

While no silver bullet, making movies available legally is crucial in the fight against piracy. Yet, for many years, avoiding the most obvious response to unauthorized distribution meant that the ‘recently released’ movie market was dominated by not only illicit, but mostly inferior products.

Each year, usually around late December through mid-January, the market received a quality boost that attracted pirates in their millions. ‘Screener Season’ began when predominantly DVD-based movies were sent to those whose votes have the potential to transform great movies, into Academy Award-winning movies . But all too often, things didn’t go to plan.

Basic security failures saw screener discs lost, misplaced, loaned or gifted to family members, sold on eBay, or simply stolen. Whatever their route to the internet, high-quality screeners represented direct competition for genuine products, that in many cases wouldn’t be legally on sale for months.

There’s no real doubt that screener leaks had a negative effect on sales of legitimate products, but it took years to migrate screener viewing online. Enforcement action against EVO, a piracy release group with a reputation for screener leaks, eventually coincided with the collapse and assumed permanent demise of the screener scene late 2022.

And Then Two Come Along at Once

Seeing the word SCREENER in a release title is rare these days, seeing two within minutes of each other even more so. A long time TF reader wasted no time tipping us off about two leaks last evening, in one case less than five minutes after initial release, the other in just under eight.

September 5 premiered at the 81st Venice International Film Festival late August 2024. Distributed by Paramount ( IMDb ), the movie enjoyed a limited theatrical run in the United States starting December 13, 2024, before a wider release on January 17, 2025.

Focused on the terrorist attack on the Munich Olympics in 1972, September 5 received an Academy Award nomination for Best Original Screenplay.

Typically distributed alongside pirate releases, the ‘NFO’ file above provides information on the nature of the screener and subsequent leak. ‘COLLECTiVE’ is the name of the group responsible for the release. The group is known for its releases on peer-to-peer networks including BitTorrent; this release appeared on the private tracker iPT and at the time, there were no reports of an earlier appearance elsewhere.

The title tag ‘WEB-DL’ is an indication that the copy was downloaded (rather than ripped) from an online source, potentially an online screener viewing platform. Paramount operates a service for precisely that purpose, but there’s no information to suggest any specific origin.

The suggestion that the source of the screener was “a friend” isn’t especially helpful in its own right, but a clear mention of Portuguese subtitles is somewhat unusual. We’ll return to that in a moment.

Welcome to the MPA

For long-time MPA member Paramount, having a screener leaked online won’t come as any surprise. For Amazon MGM Studios, which became the seventh member of the MPA last September, its most recent addition since Netflix joined in 2019, the leak of a Nickel Boys screener is something new ( IMDb ).

Nickel Boys received a Best Motion Picture – Drama nomination at the 82nd Golden Globe Awards, and a Best Picture nomination at the 97th Academy Awards.

At least potentially, this leak may be an unfortunate one-off for Amazon MGM Studios, but still one too many.

The ‘NFO’ file available alongside this screener release indicates that ‘COLLECTiVE’ is the group behind it. The release was first seen on private tracker iPT with no earlier appearances elsewhere, at least as far as we know.

Made available in 1080p, it’s claimed that like September 5, the Nickel Boys screener was downloaded from an online source (WEB-DL) and distributed via P2P with English subtitles.

The inclusion of ‘remuxed’ (copied without changes) Portuguese subtitles is common to the leak of September 5. However, the Nickel Boys’ English subtitles are hardcoded, meaning that the viewer can’t easily turn them off to enjoy the switchable subtitles in Portuguese.

Given the choice, it seems likely that COLLECTiVE would have made both subtitles switchable, a strong indication that the source copy had English subtitles burned in by default.

Whether that means COLLECTiVE has a specific interest in catering to a Portuguese-speaking audience remains unclear. However, it’s an interesting coincidence when one considers that EVO, the prolific screener release group mentioned earlier, is believed to have been led from Portugal , at least until its demise three years ago.

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

Nearly a decade ago, the US Navy was sued for mass copyright infringement and accused of causing hundreds of millions of dollars in damages.

The lawsuit was filed by the German company Bitmanagement . It’s not a typical piracy case in the sense that software was downloaded from shady sources. Instead, it deals with unauthorized installations.

It all started in 2008 when the US Navy began testing Bitmanagement’s 3D virtual reality application ‘BS Contact Geo’. After some testing, the Navy installed the software across its network, assuming that it had permission to do so.

This turned out to be a crucial misunderstanding. Bitmanagement said it never authorized this type of use and when it heard that the Navy had installed the software on 558,466 computers, the company took legal action.

Bitmanagement Wins Appeal

In a complaint filed at the U.S. Court of Federal Claims in 2016, the German company accused the US Navy of mass copyright infringement and demanded damages for the alleged unauthorized use.

The Court initially ruled in favor of the government, but Bitmanagement appealed. In 2021, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit sided with the software company, concluding that the US Government is indeed liable .

This meant that the matter was reverted to the Federal Claims court, to determine an appropriate damages amount. This part of the legal battle was just as crucial, as potential damages ranged from tens of thousands of dollars to more than $100 million.

$155,400,000 in Piracy Damages?

Bitmanagement told the court that it is entitled to $155,400,000 in copyright infringement damages. The figure was based on more than 600,000 copies of the software allegedly installed by the Navy, multiplied by the negotiated $370 license per install, minus a 30% discount.

The U.S. Government disagreed. To counter the software company, it brought forward expert witness David Kennedy. After reviewing various log files, Mr. Kennedy concluded that the software was used by a few hundred unique users at most.

The witness further argued that a price of up to $200 per license would likely have been reasonable. The amount was lower than the $370 per install previously quoted, but warranted due to the large number of licenses involved.

Court Awards $154,400, Bitmanagement Appeals

The Federal Claims Court ultimately went along with the Government’s position, awarding $154,400 in damages.

The damages figure is based on 635 unique users and a license fee of $200. The court also awarded an additional $350 for each of the 100 simultaneous-use licenses the Navy would have agreed to.

The court stressed that its damages calculation was based on objective considerations, characterizing it as “fair and reasonable”. Bitmanagement had a different take and requested a higher damages award at the Court of Appeals.

Appeals Court Affirms $154,400 Damages Award

Earlier this month, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reached its decision. After hearing both sides, it concluded that the $154,400 award was correct.

The Federal Circuit affirmed the damages figure, noting that the law does not require every award of copyright damages to be on a per-copy basis.

“No case that we or the parties have identified, in this or any other circuit, requires that an award of copyright damages invariably be on a per-copy basis,” the decision notes.

The court also held that the Court of Federal Claims did not err when it required Bitmanagement, rather than the Navy, to prove how much the U.S. Navy used the software. Finally, the court was within its right to admit the testimony of the government’s expert witness.

“We have considered Bitmanagement’s remaining arguments and find them unpersuasive. Because the Court of Federal Claims’ damages award was not an abuse of discretion, we affirm,” the court concludes.

While this is certainly a unique case, it’s not the first time the U.S. military has been “caught” pirating software. The Government was previously accused of operating unlicensed logistics software, a case the Obama administration eventually settled for $50 million.

—

A copy of the verdict released by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit is available here (pdf)

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

Nearly a decade ago, the US Navy was sued for mass copyright infringement and accused of causing hundreds of millions of dollars in damages.

The lawsuit was filed by the German company Bitmanagement . It’s not a typical piracy case in the sense that software was downloaded from shady sources. Instead, it deals with unauthorized installations.

It all started in 2008 when the US Navy began testing Bitmanagement’s 3D virtual reality application ‘BS Contact Geo’. After some testing, the Navy installed the software across its network, assuming that it had permission to do so.

This turned out to be a crucial misunderstanding. Bitmanagement said it never authorized this type of use and when it heard that the Navy had installed the software on 558,466 computers, the company took legal action.

Bitmanagement Wins Appeal

In a complaint filed at the U.S. Court of Federal Claims in 2016, the German company accused the US Navy of mass copyright infringement and demanded damages for the alleged unauthorized use.

The Court initially ruled in favor of the government, but Bitmanagement appealed. In 2021, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit sided with the software company, concluding that the US Government is indeed liable .

This meant that the matter was reverted to the Federal Claims court, to determine an appropriate damages amount. This part of the legal battle was just as crucial, as potential damages ranged from tens of thousands of dollars to more than $100 million.

$155,400,000 in Piracy Damages?

Bitmanagement told the court that it is entitled to $155,400,000 in copyright infringement damages. The figure was based on more than 600,000 copies of the software allegedly installed by the Navy, multiplied by the negotiated $370 license per install, minus a 30% discount.

The U.S. Government disagreed. To counter the software company, it brought forward expert witness David Kennedy. After reviewing various log files, Mr. Kennedy concluded that the software was used by a few hundred unique users at most.

The witness further argued that a price of up to $200 per license would likely have been reasonable. The amount was lower than the $370 per install previously quoted, but warranted due to the large number of licenses involved.

Court Awards $154,400, Bitmanagement Appeals

The Federal Claims Court ultimately went along with the Government’s position, awarding $154,400 in damages.

The damages figure is based on 635 unique users and a license fee of $200. The court also awarded an additional $350 for each of the 100 simultaneous-use licenses the Navy would have agreed to.

The court stressed that its damages calculation was based on objective considerations, characterizing it as “fair and reasonable”. Bitmanagement had a different take and requested a higher damages award at the Court of Appeals.

Appeals Court Affirms $154,400 Damages Award

Earlier this month, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reached its decision. After hearing both sides, it concluded that the $154,400 award was correct.

The Federal Circuit affirmed the damages figure, noting that the law does not require every award of copyright damages to be on a per-copy basis.

“No case that we or the parties have identified, in this or any other circuit, requires that an award of copyright damages invariably be on a per-copy basis,” the decision notes.

The court also held that the Court of Federal Claims did not err when it required Bitmanagement, rather than the Navy, to prove how much the U.S. Navy used the software. Finally, the court was within its right to admit the testimony of the government’s expert witness.

“We have considered Bitmanagement’s remaining arguments and find them unpersuasive. Because the Court of Federal Claims’ damages award was not an abuse of discretion, we affirm,” the court concludes.

While this is certainly a unique case, it’s not the first time the U.S. military has been “caught” pirating software. The Government was previously accused of operating unlicensed logistics software, a case the Obama administration eventually settled for $50 million.

—

A copy of the verdict released by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit is available here (pdf)

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

Nearly a decade ago, the US Navy was sued for mass copyright infringement and accused of causing hundreds of millions of dollars in damages.

The lawsuit was filed by the German company Bitmanagement . It’s not a typical piracy case in the sense that software was downloaded from shady sources. Instead, it deals with unauthorized installations.

It all started in 2008 when the US Navy began testing Bitmanagement’s 3D virtual reality application ‘BS Contact Geo’. After some testing, the Navy installed the software across its network, assuming that it had permission to do so.

This turned out to be a crucial misunderstanding. Bitmanagement said it never authorized this type of use and when it heard that the Navy had installed the software on 558,466 computers, the company took legal action.

Bitmanagement Wins Appeal

In a complaint filed at the U.S. Court of Federal Claims in 2016, the German company accused the US Navy of mass copyright infringement and demanded damages for the alleged unauthorized use.

The Court initially ruled in favor of the government, but Bitmanagement appealed. In 2021, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit sided with the software company, concluding that the US Government is indeed liable .

This meant that the matter was reverted to the Federal Claims court, to determine an appropriate damages amount. This part of the legal battle was just as crucial, as potential damages ranged from tens of thousands of dollars to more than $100 million.

$155,400,000 in Piracy Damages?

Bitmanagement told the court that it is entitled to $155,400,000 in copyright infringement damages. The figure was based on more than 600,000 copies of the software allegedly installed by the Navy, multiplied by the negotiated $370 license per install, minus a 30% discount.

The U.S. Government disagreed. To counter the software company, it brought forward expert witness David Kennedy. After reviewing various log files, Mr. Kennedy concluded that the software was used by a few hundred unique users at most.

The witness further argued that a price of up to $200 per license would likely have been reasonable. The amount was lower than the $370 per install previously quoted, but warranted due to the large number of licenses involved.

Court Awards $154,400, Bitmanagement Appeals

The Federal Claims Court ultimately went along with the Government’s position, awarding $154,400 in damages.

The damages figure is based on 635 unique users and a license fee of $200. The court also awarded an additional $350 for each of the 100 simultaneous-use licenses the Navy would have agreed to.

The court stressed that its damages calculation was based on objective considerations, characterizing it as “fair and reasonable”. Bitmanagement had a different take and requested a higher damages award at the Court of Appeals.

Appeals Court Affirms $154,400 Damages Award

Earlier this month, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reached its decision. After hearing both sides, it concluded that the $154,400 award was correct.

The Federal Circuit affirmed the damages figure, noting that the law does not require every award of copyright damages to be on a per-copy basis.

“No case that we or the parties have identified, in this or any other circuit, requires that an award of copyright damages invariably be on a per-copy basis,” the decision notes.

The court also held that the Court of Federal Claims did not err when it required Bitmanagement, rather than the Navy, to prove how much the U.S. Navy used the software. Finally, the court was within its right to admit the testimony of the government’s expert witness.

“We have considered Bitmanagement’s remaining arguments and find them unpersuasive. Because the Court of Federal Claims’ damages award was not an abuse of discretion, we affirm,” the court concludes.

While this is certainly a unique case, it’s not the first time the U.S. military has been “caught” pirating software. The Government was previously accused of operating unlicensed logistics software, a case the Obama administration eventually settled for $50 million.

—

A copy of the verdict released by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit is available here (pdf)

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

After decades of work, supporting a stated mission to destroy online piracy, rightsholders today understand the enormous task ahead. A few prominent outliers aside, more pragmatic terms to describe ongoing anti-piracy work, may even be gaining traction.

A staple of law enforcement agencies everywhere, ‘disruption’ is perhaps the most accurate term to describe successes in the context of an expansive, oversupplied, yet adaptive piracy market. The term acknowledges hard-fought gains on one hand, yet doesn’t imply permanent damage on the other.

Japan’s manga publishers are engaged in the same fight, but from a starting position where piracy ‘damage’ was effectively almost total. The scale of ‘disruption’ required in this context takes on a whole new dimension.

For years, pirate sites obtained pirated manga, and distributed translated versions to underserved fans in the West to satisfy demand. That exploited and then exploded a market that in relative terms barely existed.

This unique position for manga publishers isn’t simply about limiting how much pirates can bite from existing business, but a fight to be properly compensated as the market leaders, in a market already dominated by their own products.

Unlicensed Distributors, Illegal Competition

Last summer, Japan-based anti-piracy group Authorized Books of Japan (ABJ) revealed that 1,332 pirate sites, most dedicated to manga, were pulling in billions of annual visits. A relatively small number of the sites dominated the market. Of that total, an estimated 294 sites were described as catering to the Japanese market.

As the latest data from ABJ shows that 2024 began well. A series of achievements had led to fewer accesses to pirate sites from inside Japan. After the appearance of multiple large sites in June, it took less than six months to wipe out the gains of the past several years, and beyond that.

While events like these are not unexpected, it’s not difficult to imagine the effect on morale. Yet, if that’s part of the equation in Japan, there’s no evidence of that in public, nor is there any deviation from the long-term plan.

In the meantime, pressure on pirate sites continues.

Back in Court Once Again

Any pirate site of significance will appear on the radar of CODA , an anti-piracy group affiliated with the MPA . CODA represents the largest manga publishers in Japan – Shueisha, Shogakukan, Kadokawa, and Kodansha (in no particular order) – and when investigations call for new, additional, or potential information, one company is called upon to supply it more than any other.

Cloudflare is used by millions of sites and, any sample that large, will of course contain questionable players. A subset of those sites are some of the largest piracy platforms in the world. Cloudflare’s reasons for allowing them to retain service are well known and remain a point of friction among rightsholders, including those in Japan.

Becoming embroiled in the disputes of a relatively small number of users, is the gateway to much more of the same, involving much bigger groups with a diverse range of motivations. As a result, Cloudflare hands over personal information in copyright cases upon receipt of a valid DMCA subpoena.

On January 22, 2025, Shueisha filed a new DMCA subpoena application at the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (San Francisco Division). The table at the foot of the article lists the domains for which Shuesiha is requesting a range of identifying information, as follows:

name(s), last known address(es), last known telephone and/or cell phone number(s), any and all email address(es); account number(s); billing information (including, but not limited to, names, telephone number(s), and mailing and billing address(es) of each of all of the payment methods (including, but not limited to, credit cards, bank accounts, and any online payments system), hosting provider(s), server(s), any other contact information and any and all logs of IP address(es), relating to each individual or business entity that operates or owns each of the Infringing URLs, and each individual or business entity that has hosted content, uploaded content, and/or has contracted with others to upload or host content using the Infringing URLs, from any and all sources, including without limitation billing or administrative records with timestamps from the time of the registration of each Infringing URL until the date of this subpoena.

2. All access log information (IP addresses, corresponding port numbers, corresponding dates and times, access type, and corresponding destination IP addresses) relating to each of the Infringing URLs listed below.

In various forms, similar requests have previously targeted linked/similar domains, possibly on two or more occasions.

With an abundance of patience and a massive market to secure, two or twenty more occasions shouldn’t be ruled out. Likewise, the chance of malware infection (or phishing attempt) upon visiting at least one but potentially any of URLs listed below, without checking first .

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

After decades of work, supporting a stated mission to destroy online piracy, rightsholders today understand the enormous task ahead. A few prominent outliers aside, more pragmatic terms to describe ongoing anti-piracy work, may even be gaining traction.

A staple of law enforcement agencies everywhere, ‘disruption’ is perhaps the most accurate term to describe successes in the context of an expansive, oversupplied, yet adaptive piracy market. The term acknowledges hard-fought gains on one hand, yet doesn’t imply permanent damage on the other.

Japan’s manga publishers are engaged in the same fight, but from a starting position where piracy ‘damage’ was effectively almost total. The scale of ‘disruption’ required in this context takes on a whole new dimension.

For years, pirate sites obtained pirated manga, and distributed translated versions to underserved fans in the West to satisfy demand. That exploited and then exploded a market that in relative terms barely existed.

This unique position for manga publishers isn’t simply about limiting how much pirates can bite from existing business, but a fight to be properly compensated as the market leaders, in a market already dominated by their own products.

Unlicensed Distributors, Illegal Competition

Last summer, Japan-based anti-piracy group Authorized Books of Japan (ABJ) revealed that 1,332 pirate sites, most dedicated to manga, were pulling in billions of annual visits. A relatively small number of the sites dominated the market. Of that total, an estimated 294 sites were described as catering to the Japanese market.

As the latest data from ABJ shows that 2024 began well. A series of achievements had led to fewer accesses to pirate sites from inside Japan. After the appearance of multiple large sites in June, it took less than six months to wipe out the gains of the past several years, and beyond that.

While events like these are not unexpected, it’s not difficult to imagine the effect on morale. Yet, if that’s part of the equation in Japan, there’s no evidence of that in public, nor is there any deviation from the long-term plan.

In the meantime, pressure on pirate sites continues.

Back in Court Once Again

Any pirate site of significance will appear on the radar of CODA , an anti-piracy group affiliated with the MPA . CODA represents the largest manga publishers in Japan – Shueisha, Shogakukan, Kadokawa, and Kodansha (in no particular order) – and when investigations call for new, additional, or potential information, one company is called upon to supply it more than any other.

Cloudflare is used by millions of sites and, any sample that large, will of course contain questionable players. A subset of those sites are some of the largest piracy platforms in the world. Cloudflare’s reasons for allowing them to retain service are well known and remain a point of friction among rightsholders, including those in Japan.

Becoming embroiled in the disputes of a relatively small number of users, is the gateway to much more of the same, involving much bigger groups with a diverse range of motivations. As a result, Cloudflare hands over personal information in copyright cases upon receipt of a valid DMCA subpoena.

On January 22, 2025, Shueisha filed a new DMCA subpoena application at the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (San Francisco Division). The table at the foot of the article lists the domains for which Shuesiha is requesting a range of identifying information, as follows:

name(s), last known address(es), last known telephone and/or cell phone number(s), any and all email address(es); account number(s); billing information (including, but not limited to, names, telephone number(s), and mailing and billing address(es) of each of all of the payment methods (including, but not limited to, credit cards, bank accounts, and any online payments system), hosting provider(s), server(s), any other contact information and any and all logs of IP address(es), relating to each individual or business entity that operates or owns each of the Infringing URLs, and each individual or business entity that has hosted content, uploaded content, and/or has contracted with others to upload or host content using the Infringing URLs, from any and all sources, including without limitation billing or administrative records with timestamps from the time of the registration of each Infringing URL until the date of this subpoena.

2. All access log information (IP addresses, corresponding port numbers, corresponding dates and times, access type, and corresponding destination IP addresses) relating to each of the Infringing URLs listed below.

In various forms, similar requests have previously targeted linked/similar domains, possibly on two or more occasions.

With an abundance of patience and a massive market to secure, two or twenty more occasions shouldn’t be ruled out. Likewise, the chance of malware infection (or phishing attempt) upon visiting at least one but potentially any of URLs listed below, without checking first .

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

After decades of work, supporting a stated mission to destroy online piracy, rightsholders today understand the enormous task ahead. A few prominent outliers aside, more pragmatic terms to describe ongoing anti-piracy work, may even be gaining traction.

A staple of law enforcement agencies everywhere, ‘disruption’ is perhaps the most accurate term to describe successes in the context of an expansive, oversupplied, yet adaptive piracy market. The term acknowledges hard-fought gains on one hand, yet doesn’t imply permanent damage on the other.

Japan’s manga publishers are engaged in the same fight, but from a starting position where piracy ‘damage’ was effectively almost total. The scale of ‘disruption’ required in this context takes on a whole new dimension.

For years, pirate sites obtained pirated manga, and distributed translated versions to underserved fans in the West to satisfy demand. That exploited and then exploded a market that in relative terms barely existed.

This unique position for manga publishers isn’t simply about limiting how much pirates can bite from existing business, but a fight to be properly compensated as the market leaders, in a market already dominated by their own products.

Unlicensed Distributors, Illegal Competition

Last summer, Japan-based anti-piracy group Authorized Books of Japan (ABJ) revealed that 1,332 pirate sites, most dedicated to manga, were pulling in billions of annual visits. A relatively small number of the sites dominated the market. Of that total, an estimated 294 sites were described as catering to the Japanese market.

As the latest data from ABJ shows that 2024 began well. A series of achievements had led to fewer accesses to pirate sites from inside Japan. After the appearance of multiple large sites in June, it took less than six months to wipe out the gains of the past several years, and beyond that.

While events like these are not unexpected, it’s not difficult to imagine the effect on morale. Yet, if that’s part of the equation in Japan, there’s no evidence of that in public, nor is there any deviation from the long-term plan.

In the meantime, pressure on pirate sites continues.

Back in Court Once Again

Any pirate site of significance will appear on the radar of CODA , an anti-piracy group affiliated with the MPA . CODA represents the largest manga publishers in Japan – Shueisha, Shogakukan, Kadokawa, and Kodansha (in no particular order) – and when investigations call for new, additional, or potential information, one company is called upon to supply it more than any other.

Cloudflare is used by millions of sites and, any sample that large, will of course contain questionable players. A subset of those sites are some of the largest piracy platforms in the world. Cloudflare’s reasons for allowing them to retain service are well known and remain a point of friction among rightsholders, including those in Japan.

Becoming embroiled in the disputes of a relatively small number of users, is the gateway to much more of the same, involving much bigger groups with a diverse range of motivations. As a result, Cloudflare hands over personal information in copyright cases upon receipt of a valid DMCA subpoena.

On January 22, 2025, Shueisha filed a new DMCA subpoena application at the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (San Francisco Division). The table at the foot of the article lists the domains for which Shuesiha is requesting a range of identifying information, as follows:

name(s), last known address(es), last known telephone and/or cell phone number(s), any and all email address(es); account number(s); billing information (including, but not limited to, names, telephone number(s), and mailing and billing address(es) of each of all of the payment methods (including, but not limited to, credit cards, bank accounts, and any online payments system), hosting provider(s), server(s), any other contact information and any and all logs of IP address(es), relating to each individual or business entity that operates or owns each of the Infringing URLs, and each individual or business entity that has hosted content, uploaded content, and/or has contracted with others to upload or host content using the Infringing URLs, from any and all sources, including without limitation billing or administrative records with timestamps from the time of the registration of each Infringing URL until the date of this subpoena.

2. All access log information (IP addresses, corresponding port numbers, corresponding dates and times, access type, and corresponding destination IP addresses) relating to each of the Infringing URLs listed below.

In various forms, similar requests have previously targeted linked/similar domains, possibly on two or more occasions.

With an abundance of patience and a massive market to secure, two or twenty more occasions shouldn’t be ruled out. Likewise, the chance of malware infection (or phishing attempt) upon visiting at least one but potentially any of URLs listed below, without checking first .

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