Late last year, popular anime site AmimixPlay closed its doors , citing technical and motivational issues.

The decision was a massive disappointment to its loyal user base, which was good for an estimated 100 million monthly visits.

Following the site’s demise, several copycats popped up. A group of fans also created a new project to honor the original in a more respectful matter, while giving former users a new home; AnimixReplay .

This scenario has worked for other pirate sites and services in the past but it’s certainly not without risk. Visiting a pirate streaming site as a casual user is an entirely different ball game to running one, and the legal implications are not immediately obvious to everyone.

ACE Investigates AnimixReplay

The AnimixReplay team learned this lesson over the past few days. While they were building up their project, including a new app, the MPA-staffed Alliance for Creativity and Entertainment ( ACE ) was gathering intelligence on the key people involved.

A few days ago, ACE boss Jan van Voorn requested two DMCA subpoenas from a California federal court. The first one targeted CDN provider Cloudflare, while the other was directed at the Tonic registry , which oversees all .to domain names.

The subpoenas listed a variety of suspected piracy portals, including kool.to, zoro.to, theflixer.tv and gogohd.pro. And indeed, the animixreplay.to domain made an appearance as well.

The goal of these DMCA subpoenas is to request the personal details of the domain operators from online intermediaries. This information is sometimes unusable as pirate sites can provide fake details, but with AnimixReplay, ACE hit the jackpot.

Legal Threat

On Monday, AmimixReplay suddenly shut down “until further notice”, mentioning that they had received word from a lawyer. This lawyer, who mentioned prominent ACE backers including Disney, Netflix, and Warner Bros, urged them to cease their copyright infringing activity.

“You may be wondering whats happening? Well that’s because we got a Subpoena from Disney, Netflix, Paramount, Sony, Warner Bros, and more all at once! So yeah thats a thing,” the announcement on Discord read.

At this point, the implications weren’t entirely clear to the AnimixReplay team. Lack of understanding was also apparent in a Reddit post , which suggested jail time was on the horizon.

The Real ACE

TorrentFreak reached out to Fryz from the AnimixReplay team yesterday, who confirmed that ACE had warned them and sent a copy of the Cloudflare subpoena. This seriously spooked the operators, but they still weren’t convinced.

After doing some research, the team initially thought that it could all be a prank, so they reached out to Cloudflare to get confirmation.

To learn more we reached out to ACE’s Jan van Voorn, who informed us that the warning salvo was very real. ACE was indeed behind the subpoenas and although Cloudflare hadn’t produced any information yet, the anti-piracy group had tracked down two US-based operators through other means.

“[W]hile waiting for subpoena responses, we continued our investigation, and we relatively quickly identified the 2 US-based operators (Kentucky and Ohio) of animixreplay.to and its related website fryz.site through OSINT analysis,” Van Voorn said.

“Our findings were confirmed via the voluntary cooperation of other intermediaries used by these websites,” he added.

The above suggests that the subpoenas certainly weren’t key in tracking down people connected to AnimixReplay. The alliance has more OSINT tricks and can rely on help from third-party intermediaries. While ACE doesn’t mention which ones, it’s possible that the ‘ friendly ‘ Radix registry assisted with providing more information on the .site domain.

Shutting Down

For the AnimixReplay team, it doesn’t really matter ‘how’ they were tracked down. The potential legal consequences have presented a bigger worry. At this point, no lawsuit has been filed and based on ACE’s comments, that’s not on the horizon as long as the site remains offline.

“Should the websites be brought online again after this initial warning, either in their original or a rebranded form, we will be happy to have our attorneys reach out to them directly,” Van Voorn tells us.

Fryz and the rest of the AnimixReplay team received the message, loud and clear. Shortly after the confirmation, they announced that the project won’t come back online.

“This is a legal shutdown on the website, I’m confirming all docs are legit,” Fryz wrote, effectively calling the end of the project.

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

Numerous reports published by the European Union over the past decade have linked higher levels of content piracy with lacking availability of legal content.

Restricted access to legal offers fuels the perception among citizens that piracy is an acceptable option, which in turn leads to higher levels of pirated content consumption. One way to combat that is by making content available and raising awareness, through the EU’s Agorateka platform , for example.

Member State Lithuania has faced criticism for its high piracy rates, including an EU finding in 2022 that 43% of young people mainly access movies from illegal sources. However, when Agorateka sends citizens to the country’s “Buy Legally” portal which doesn’t appear to exist , that doesn’t help when the same EU report ( pdf ) found that 50% of people said they would stop pirating content if it was made available legally.

Filmai – A Pirate Movie Service Like No Other

Filmai is the most famous movie and TV show piracy site in Lithuania. Founded in 2009 when access to legal content was exponentially worse than it is even today, Filmai is no ordinary piracy platform.

So that Lithuanians can access and enjoy international movies, the site hires translators and voice actors to create Lithuanian language streams and downloads. Since this costs money, Lithuanian visitors mostly pay to access the service. In 2021, it was revealed that Lithuanian officials were Filmai users.

At the same time, two alleged administrators of the site were under criminal investigation. Filmai had been infiltrated by anti-piracy investigators posing as translators. The team reportedly earned 111.17 euros for their work, and payment was sent to their PayPal account. The fates of two alleged operators of Filmai were announced yesterday.

One Conviction, One Acquittal

Following a legal process that took more than five years, relating to the activities of two men between 2010 and 2017, the Kaunas District Court handed down its decision last Friday. One of the defendants was acquitted of all wrongdoing but the other wasn’t so lucky.

The Lithuanian man, who hasn’t been named, was ordered to pay almost 50,000 euros in fines to rightsholders including 38,000 euros to the Lithuanian Copyright Collective Administration Association (LATGA) and 11,000 euros to All Media Lithuania (TV3 television).

The most significant component of the sentence is a confiscation order. Assets worth almost 200,000 euros will be seized from the defendant, who is also required to compensate LATGA for its legal costs.

LATGA Celebrates Win

In a statement issued yesterday, LATGA welcomes the district court’s verdict since it also serves as a reminder that takedown notices and ISP blocking are not the only anti-piracy options available to rightsholders.

“The legal acts also provide for the possibility to apply for the application of criminal liability to specific persons who administer illegal websites and receive financial benefits from such activities, at the same time claiming against them claims for compensation for property damage,” says LATGA director Laura Baškevičienė.

“This court decision only confirms that copyright violations are taken seriously and can lead to serious legal consequences.”

Filmai Appears to Be Thriving

While Filmai has suffered some downtime over the past few years, the site appears to be thriving. During the last three months of 2022, Filmai.in received around 1.8 million visitors per month, despite the site’s domains being blocked by internet service providers. Legal competitor Go3.lt receives around 1.9 million visits per month.

Also of interest is the significant amount of traffic Filmai attracts from abroad. Around 38% of the site’s total traffic comes from outside Lithuania, with the United Kingdom (19%), Norway (7%), Sweden (4%) taking the top spots according to SimilarWeb stats.

For reasons that aren’t entirely clear, visitors from Ireland recently increased by 78% and now account for 3% of Filmai’s overall traffic. All of this helps to maintain Filmai’s position among the top 120 most-visited sites in Lithuania.

Finally, it appears that Filmai also shared some of its spoils with the state. The entity behind the site paid around 287,000 euros in VAT over the years and between 2015 and 2017, declared another 56,000 euros in VAT as payable. That in itself doesn’t render the site legal but it does suggest demand in what appears to be an underserved market.

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

Strike 3 Holdings is a familiar name in U.S. federal courts. Last year alone the adult entertainment company filed a record-breaking number of lawsuits against alleged BitTorrent pirates.

While many of these lawsuits have resulted in private settlements, Strike 3 also encountered pushback from some of the people it sued.

In the Middle District of Florida, for example, a “John Doe” defendant denied any wrongdoing and fought back. The previously unnamed adversary came out of the shadows as John Adaire last week, as both parties prepare to go to trial.

Heading to Trial

It’s rare for this type of case to make it this far without being settled. As a result, the parties are fighting tooth and nail to obtain the best possible position in preparation for a public showdown.

According to Strike 3, it is clear as day that the man downloaded and shared 36 of Strike 3’s porn videos without permission. Backed up by technical evidence and testimony, Strike 3 explains that it repeatedly found an IP address, assigned to Adaire, sharing the pirated movies.

The adult company further accused the defendant of destroying electronic evidence by deleting data from his desktop computer, mishandling a hard drive, and reinstalling the operating system on his laptop

“Even if Doe were not the infringer, he made sure to destroy and conceal evidence of his innocence,” Strike 3 wrote in its pretrial statement.

The defendant, now identified as Mr. Adaire, denied any wrongdoing and alleged that Strike 3’s evidence is unreliable. The adult company developed its “VXN” tracking technology in-house, which makes it little more than ‘circumstantial’ evidence.

“VXN had no user’s manual, no design documentation, and was never verified by an independent third party. There is no known false positive rate of VXN, since it was never measured,” the defense argued.

Excluding Homebrew Piracy Evidence?

In preparation for a trial later this year, both parties submitted a motion in limine asking the court to withhold evidence from the jury. Among other things, the defense asked to exclude the VXN tracking evidence.

In addition, the defense asked the court to exclude evidence taken from Doe’s social media profiles and comments from his neighbors, who testified on the strength of his WiFi signal.

Last week the court delivered a mixed ruling. US District Court Judge Mary Scriven denied the request to exclude the VXN data. This means that Strike 3’s main evidence, which links the defendant’s IP-address to pirated films, remains intact.

However, the court granted the request to prohibit the use of information from the defendant’s social media profile. On top of that, testimony by non-experts such as neighbors is, in principle, not allowed either.

Copyright Troll & Press

Strike 3 also asked the court to exclude information from the upcoming trial. As reported previously, the company doesn’t want the defense to use the term “troll,” which is often used to describe its sue-and-settle practice.

According to Strike 3, it’s clear that being called a ‘troll’ is derogatory, so it wants to prevent a jury from being influenced by ‘prejudicial’ language.

“Name-calling has no place in civil litigation,” Strike 3’s lawyers wrote, noting that the label is inaccurate and thus irrelevant.

In her order, Judge Scriven doesn’t agree that this term is off-limits so denied the request. This means that the defense can freely use the ‘copyright troll’ moniker in their arguments.

Aside from the troll worries, the adult entertainment company also wanted to exclude all blogs, media, and other Internet coverage from the potential pool of evidence.

These online news articles often contain subjective comments that put the company in a bad light, which could present the wrong picture to the jury, Strike 3 argued.

“The Internet and media articles target Plaintiff and its counsel and contain comments that are biased, slanderous, and prejudicial, and should not be referred to at trial for any purpose,” it wrote.

The court was more sympathetic to this argument and granted the request “on stipulation”. This stipulation isn’t detailed further in the written order, but it’s a win for Strike 3 nonetheless.

Summary Judgment and Sanctions

The good news for Strike 3 doesn’t stop there. In addition to the motion in limine, the court also ruled on the motions for summary judgment from both sides, handing an early victory to the adult company.

After reviewing all arguments, Judge Mary Scriven denied Mr. Adaire’s request for a judgment that he didn’t engage in any copyright-infringing activity. This question will be decided by the jury instead.

Strike 3’s own request for summary judgment was denied along with most of Mr. Adaire’s counterclaims.

The only remaining counterclaim is the accusation that Strike 3 misused its copyrights, by using the Florida State Court as a preliminary process to attempt to acquire federally protected subscriber information. This argument can be presented to the jury.

Finally, Judge Scriven ruled that the alleged pirate will be sanctioned for failing to preserve electronically stored evidence. This is based on Strike 3’s finding that the defendant destroyed evidence by wiping data from his desktop computer and other devices.

Details of the sanctions aren’t revealed in the court order but they certainly won’t help the defense during trial.

All in all, the case can still go either way. It will ultimately be up to the jury to decide on the copyright infringement allegations but Strike 3 will likely feel emboldened by the court’s recent orders.

—

A copy of U.S. District Court Judge Mary Scriven’s full order, which also touched on other subjects, is available here (pdf)

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

After being sued by DISH Network in 2021, former Nitro TV operators Alex Galindo, Anna Galindo, Martha Galindo, and Osvaldo Galindo, made no real attempt to fight the lawsuit.

Why that decision was taken is still unknown, but court records suggest that throwing money away on a case that couldn’t be won might be one of the possibilities. The downside is that the plaintiffs went completely unchallenged, including when they requested and received a damages award in excess of $100 million last June .

Cash Disappeared, House Remained

After receiving the green light, DISH began searching for the defendants’ assets, including more than $10 million generated by the Nitro TV service.

Four banks that had received deposits of more than $9 million complied with disclosure requests; two reported no active accounts, one confirmed a $49.00 balance, and the final account was in the red.

Finding the cupboard bare, DISH moved in on the defendants’ house in Friendswood, Texas.

Since the property might qualify for homestead protection, DISH presented evidence to the court to show that Nitro TV subscription revenue was used to pay for the house. With the defendants entirely absent from the legal process, the court ordered the United States Marshal Service to levy and sell the property.

Out of nowhere, the defendants suddenly decided that wasn’t going to happen.

The House is Off Limits

In a motion to alter or amend the judgment “to prevent a clear error or manifest injustice,” counsel for Alex Galindo explained that his client bought the house in Friendswood in March 2020 and declared it his home.

“The Texas Constitution provides special protections for the homestead separate and distinct from protections afforded other types of property,” the motion reads.

“Because constitutional homestead rights protect citizens from losing their homes, statutes relating to homestead rights are liberally construed to protect the homestead.”

DISH evidence linked 99% of the house purchase price to sales of illegal IPTV subscriptions. The company argued that homestead protection is not available when a property is purchased with wrongfully acquired funds.

To support that claim, DISH cited another case – Deluxe Barber School, LLC and Bonifice I. Mbaka – but according to counsel for Galindo, an important detail means that his house still enjoys protection.

No Money Was Stolen

In a nutshell, Deluxe Barber involved a foreclosure on a property that was purchased with stolen cash. The strong suggestion here is that since the cash at issue in the Nitro case wasn’t stolen and wasn’t earned by DISH, Deluxe Barber is unhelpful to the broadcaster.

“[T]hese funds were never possessed, or even earned, by the Plaintiffs. There is no evidence that such funds belonged to the Plaintiffs or that Defendants stole or wrongfully acquired funds directly from Plaintiffs,” the motion reads.

The 99% figure is also important, the motion adds. It argues that since the account used to buy the property contained personal funds and money “potentially earned” from legitimate transactions, just one percent of legitimate funding would mean homestead rights under the Texas Constitution, especially since Texas courts “liberally construe statutes” relating to homestead rights.

Predictably, DISH sees things quite differently.

DISH: Don’t Undo The Correct Decision

In calling for the motion to be dismissed, DISH cites the history of the lawsuit, using the Court’s own words to state its position. The defendants operated an “illegal streaming service called Nitro TV, through which the defendants pirated the plaintiffs’ television programming and sold that content to Nitro TV’s subscribers,” the court’s judgment reads.

The Court also handed down a statutory damages award of $100,363,000 – the defendants didn’t challenge the award in June 2022, and they aren’t challenging it now, DISH adds. Furthermore, the defendants were served with a motion relating to the house in October 2022, and a month later after receiving no response, the Court found that the property does not warrant homestead protection.

“Defendants moved the Fifth Circuit to stay the sale of the Friendswood Property – making essentially the same arguments raised here – and that motion was denied,” DISH notes.

“Defendants’ motion for reconsideration should likewise be denied as there are no grounds warranting the extraordinary remedy of reconsideration and, even if reconsidered, the Court’s Order allowing the sale of the Friendswood Property is supported by the undisputed facts and well-established Texas law.”

The Money Wasn’t Stolen But Fraud Works Too

Addressing Galindo’s assertion that stolen money wasn’t used to buy the house, DISH draws attention to “analogous Florida laws” where homestead protection did not apply because funds were “fraudulently obtained.” Furthermore, if the house was indeed a homestead, it wasn’t designated as such for tax purposes.

“Defendants fail to show entitlement to the extraordinary remedy of reconsideration. Defendants’ motion to alter or amend the Court’s Order authorizing the U.S. Marshal to levy and sell the Friendswood Property and apply the proceeds towards the satisfaction of Plaintiffs’ judgment should be denied in all respects,” DISH concludes.

Galindo’s motion to alter/amend and the DISH response can be found here ( 1 , 2 , 3 pdf)

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

As outlined again only this month , people who simply watch pirate streams break UK law. If the content comes from an illegal source, it’s illegal to consume it under copyright law. That is a fact – there is no debate.

The problem for rightsholders is that copyright cases are complex, difficult to prove, and won’t end in a prison sentence under civil law. A stronger, criminal angle might prove more persuasive.

The Federation Against Copyright Theft, which acts for the Premier League, SKY, and BT Sport, came up with a solution – Section 11 of the Fraud Act 2006 , which criminalizes the act of obtaining any kind of service dishonestly.

With a potential crime now part of the equation, the logical conclusion for Joe Public is that people risk being arrested in their own homes for watching an unlicensed stream. Of course, people also need to be persuaded that an underfunded police force doesn’t have bigger fish to fry.

Press Hysteria

Early January, FACT sent out a press release titled “Police visit homes across the UK to issue warnings to subscribers of illegal sports streaming services.” The image below shows the first two paragraphs;

We’ll return to the first paragraph shortly, but as anyone can see, there are two distinct statements. One says that FACT and police will be visiting homes. The second says that 1,000 people were identified after a raid on a streaming service. Nowhere does it say that FACT and police will be visiting the homes of 1,000 people.

Dozens of articles just like these perpetuated the idea of a massive crackdown but the truth is more mundane. Some people will indeed get a personal visit, but the rest will be contacted by email, as confirmed by FACT when TorrentFreak questioned the volume.

Prison “For Watching Unauthorized Streams”

Let’s get this absolutely clear. While it is illegal under both civil and criminal law, nobody has ever gone to prison for simply watching an unauthorized stream in the UK. That doesn’t mean it won’t eventually happen, but the snippet (below) from FACT’s press release shouldn’t have been reported in isolation.

Important and relevant information about these men was made available by FACT at the same time but given no weight in popular media. That led to widespread misinformation that could’ve been avoided.

The prospect of ordinary people going to prison for simply viewing an unlicensed stream is an extraordinary claim and it’s a journalist’s job to investigate extraordinary claims. If it’s true that simply viewing unlicensed streams will put UK internet users in prison for months, millions of families face the prospect of seeing loved ones behind bars.

That’s the bigger story that needed to be investigated, and it would’ve been ridiculously easy too. Simply scrolling to the bottom of the FACT press release reveals that both jailed men were operators of illegal streaming services and both pleaded guilty to multiple copyright and fraud offenses.

The prosecution in Millington’s trial alone estimated damages running to well over £10 million . Instead, the ‘news’ that two men were arrested and sent to jail for 16 months for simply watching streams went all around the world, almost completely unchallenged.

As the snippets above show, news outlets in Brazil, Russia, Poland, China, Greece, Italy, Thailand, Spain, Indonesia and beyond, not only repeated the statement without any context, but helped to make it an established and uncontested ‘fact’ around the world.

Now here’s what actually happened, to set the record straight.

No Ordinary Pirate Stream Watcher

The details in Millington’s case reveal that the opportunity for a “watching streams” conviction came gift-wrapped and tied up in gold ribbon.

The most serious charges against him related to his Kodi-based ‘stephen-builds’ software packages, which included the ‘Supremacy’ and ‘Supremacy Sports’ addons that provided his users with free access to illegal streams.

For context, Supremacy was one of the most-used pirate addons on the entire planet and, according to the lawyer who prosecuted Millington, was responsible for causing more than £10 million in damages to rightsholders.

Millington pleaded guilty to charges under Section 7 of the Fraud Act (making or supplying articles for use in fraud) and under the Copyright Act for distributing movies and other content via a Plex server.

He also pleaded guilty to watching illegal streams under Section 11 of the Fraud Act (obtaining a service dishonestly) but the background shows this was no ordinary case.

For several months after his home was raided, Millington’s defense was that the software and equipment he had accumulated existed for his own personal use. He was a keen gamer but also admitted that he used the equipment for viewing pirate streams via software he developed.

Millington later changed his plea to guilty but there was a pivotal moment: To advertise his Kodi-related products online, Millington recorded a video of himself as he used his own pirate software to access illegal streams.

That video was found on his phone during the investigation. The prosecution then took the opportunity to add a charge of viewing illegal streams to a case where the defendant ultimately had no choice but to plead guilty, due to a mountain of evidence. It’s still a conviction for watching unlicensed streams but in this case, context is everything.

The source of this information is vitally important too.

UK’s Leading Prosecutor of Streaming Pirates

Ari Alibhai is the lawyer of choice when it comes to the private prosecution of pirates in the UK and his track record speaks for itself . Among many others, he’s conducted multiple successful pirate IPTV prosecutions on behalf of FACT, Premier League, BT Sport and SKY.

It’s important to note that Mr Alibhai did not take part in the public announcements earlier this month, no reference was made to his work, and he has never claimed that Millington and Faulkner were sent to prison for simply viewing unlicensed streams. And he should know – he prosecuted both of them.

Webinar Published on the Millington Case

Late November 2021, Mr Alibhai conducted a webinar. The video of that presentation was posted more than a year ago on his company’s public website , together with other information on Millington’s case.

Given the importance of the victory, the promotional value of the video is obvious and, as such, it’s still available today.

For those who don’t have time to watch the entire video, discussion on the possibility of prosecuting people who simply watch unlicensed streams appears around 40 minutes into the 48-minute recording. It begins with a question from a man assisting Mr Alibhai from behind the camera.

“You mentioned about the difficulty of prosecuting end-users,” he said. “Someone asked if there any reasonable risks of prosecution or penalty to the end-users, the ones watching the content?”

Mr Alibhai’s response, as reported below, represents just a tiny fraction of a very informative presentation. In light of the reporting on this month’s events, and especially given the authoritative nature of the source, his opinion holds considerable value. In order to provide the most clarity, the response is cited verbatim.

Ari Alibhai webinar on Millington/Supremacy prosecution

Ari Alibhai: I’m assuming that question means, is there a risk to the user? So, is there a realistic risk to someone who’s watching TV that you will be prosecuted. Now, again, there’s an academic answer and then there’s a real answer.

In theory you can be prosecuted for watching unlawful television. You can be prosecuted under the Copyright Act under section 297 (I think, I haven’t used it for a long time), but you can also be prosecuted under section 11 of the Fraud Act (obtaining services dishonestly). In fact, in the explanatory notes [of section 11] mention is made of illegal television viewing boxes being part-and-parcel of section 11.

Section 11 carries a maximum penalty of five years in imprisonment so, you know, in theory you face imprisonment if you watch TV illegally.

In practice, the idea of someone being prosecuted who isn’t also concerned in the trade, so they aren’t also concerned in supplying illicit television services, is minimal.

This opinion from arguably the UK’s leading expert stands on its own two feet. Why overt public messaging sits in such stark contrast is puzzling to say the least.

That being said, Mr Alibhai wasn’t quite done.

Risk and Benefits of Viewer Prosecutions

In follow-up comments, Mr Alibhai questioned whether the idea of NOT prosecuting viewers would be the right approach but then laid out the risks associated with that type of strategy.

“I often feel that if you do you want to send a message out then maybe you’d have to take on pure prosecutions against end users. But clearly there is a reputation issue here, there’s a David and Goliath issue that’s going to come up for the broadcaster that takes that on. And there’s potential adverse press to consider,” he said during the webinar.

“So in the round, I would say that it’s unrealistic to expect that, if anyone is watching it, then you’ll get prosecuted.”

Scary Stories, Reputation, Animosity

Finally, on the matter of reputational issues, the Twitter thread linked here contains an article from UK tabloid The Mirror. It states quite clearly that 1,000 homes will be visited as part of a “major ongoing criminal investigation” and that two people “were sentenced to a total of 16 months for watching illegal streams in 2021.”

At the time of writing it has been viewed 6.3m+ times but the overwhelming majority of the comments on the tweet are negative. They either put the blame at the feet of the Premier League and/or the broadcasters, or criticize the police for taking this on when so many other ‘real crimes’ go unsolved.

The above may suggest that even when presented with the prospect of going to prison, the public response isn’t to hand over their cash. Instead they list their demands – better access to matches (including at 3pm on Saturdays) and – overwhelmingly – don’t expect normal working people to spend £100+ every month to see a limited number of matches.

Universal access to football at a fair price? It might just work. A commercial solution to what is essentially a commercial problem seems reasonable. The problem for the Premier League is the prospect of devaluing a premium product in the mere hope of gaining enough subscribers to maintain its financial position.

Given that pirate services won’t simply go away, the difficult bottom line seems almost inevitable. The risk of being prosecuted for simply watching pirate streams may be low today, but that will almost certainly change.

If those who currently stream illegally can afford it, perhaps they might consider supporting the sport they love. For those who don’t have the resources to buy what is essentially a luxury product, millions will sympathize. If the decision is to continue with illegal streams regardless, rightsholders most definitely will not.

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

First broadcast in the Netherlands back in 1999, reality TV show ‘Big Brother’ is now a global franchise spanning more than 60 countries.

Big Brother Brazil (BBB) is one of the most successful regional variants. Right now, BBB23 is live on air, so millions of fans are tuning in at home to watch other people living in a different house for a bit while others watch.

When BBB fans aren’t glued to their TVs waiting for the drama to unfold, many can be found on social media, usually speculating about what comes next, based on what they’ve just seen. To facilitate the discourse, fans often post images and video clips from the show, but for TV company Globo, which broadcasts the show 24/7 on pay-per-view, some fans go too far.

Security Department’s Email Gets Leaked

When Globo broadcast BBB22 last year, the company decided to loosen its copyright policy. Rather than being banned from Twitter for sharing clips of the show without permission, Globo said that fans could share a one-minute clip online for every hour of the show.

According to an internal communication leaked to local media outlet TVPop , the position may have changed for BBB23.

Reportedly issued by Globo’s Information Security department, new guidelines inform staff that digital piracy harms the show and as a result, harms the company.

“Digital piracy causes several damages to the market and the entertainment industry is especially affected by it,” the translation reads.

“Piracy Impacts Advertising”

Reportedly sent to staff via an internal communications system, the new guidelines suggest that piracy harms Globo employees and has a negative effect on the advertising market.

“The damage goes far beyond the loss of uniqueness and the dissemination of content without authorization. For example, there is an impact on the attractiveness of audiovisual products for the advertising market,” it reads.

While the extent of any damage isn’t quantified, data shows that subscriptions to the Globoplay streaming platform increased by 79% in 2020 and by another 32% in 2021. A document published by Associação Brasileira das Administradorasde Consórcios ( pdf ) last September provides specifics on the BBB23 advertising program.

“Advertising on Big Brother Brasil will become more expensive in 2023. 112 days before the start of the program, brands are rushing to secure a space in the most watched house in Brazil, even with sponsorship quotas for the [Globo] program costing up to 32% more than in previous series,” it reads.

“According to program data, in 2022, more than 153 million people watched the program on Globo platforms. Although without breaking the 2021 audience record, according to the broadcaster, the public spent 13% more time watching the last series.”

“Lots of Parties and Bullshit”

Globo’s leaked communication initially celebrates the launch of BBB23 but quickly emphasizes the importance of clamping down on piracy.

“The most watched house in the country is back and promises lots of parties, bullshit, exciting competitions, shacks and audience records. It’s a lot of good things together! But there are people wanting to take a ride on this success. Piracy generates several negative consequences for BBB and for the work of all of us,” it reads.

So what can Globo staff do to help?

To clamp down on social media users sharing images and videos of BBB23, staff are instructed to report them to Globo. The line between free advertising and piracy isn’t made clear, but when it comes to another modern-day scourge, facilitated by Globo’s paying customers, everything seems more cut and dried.

“If you see pirated content out there or know of someone who is sharing the Globoplay login with other people, you already know: just report it by email,” the communication adds.

According to TVPop, Globo appears to be taking down BBB videos dating back several years at the same time as taking down content from BBB23. Evidence of takedowns can be found on the Lumen Database, which lists dozens of DMCA takedown notices sent by Globo to Google.

Whether this will be enough for Globo is unclear, but with headlines in local media asking, “What time do participants go to the secret room?” the pressure on fans to subscribe can’t be understated.

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

Adult entertainment outfit Malibu Media has often been characterized as a copyright-trolling operation.

The Los Angeles company, known for its popular “X-Art” brand, has gone after thousands of alleged file-sharers in U.S. courts, collecting millions of dollars in settlements on the way.

Tables Turned

Not too long ago Malibu was one of the most active anti-piracy litigants in the U.S., but in recent years this activity ground to a halt. In the one case that continued, the hunter became the hunted.

A “John Doe” defendant turned the tables and filed a long list of counterclaims against Malibu Media, accusing the company of abuse of process and misuse of copyright, among other things.

“Plaintiff monetizes its alleged copyrights through coercive and needless litigation and by extracting settlements from that litigation disproportionate to the minimal value of Plaintiff’s works,” the defense wrote.

In addition, the accused pirate asked the court to dismiss Malibu Media’s claims, arguing that the company can’t be involved in a lawsuit due to a suspension of its corporate status. California’s Franchise Tax Board suspended Malibu Media in 2021 over tax deficiencies.

Company Suspension Deadline

Responding to this situation, Senior United States District Judge David Ezra set a deadline for the adult entertainment outfit. Malibu needed to fix the suspension problem or face its case being dismissed.

That deadline passed last Friday, so without any response from Malibu, Judge Ezra was left with no other option than to dismiss the matter.

“The deadline has now passed, and a search of the California Secretary of State’s website shows that Malibu Media’s corporate status remains suspended,” Judge Ezra’s order reads.

“Accordingly, the case is dismissed without prejudice to Malibu Media seeking reconsideration at some future time when its capacity to defend itself in federal court has been restored.”

Future Uncertain

The second sentence offers some hope to the troubled adult entertainment outfit. If the corporate suspension is eventually resolved, it can choose to refile the piracy lawsuit and start over.

Based on recent history, it is doubtful that Malibu Media aims to pick up its old habit. Malibu’s most recent John Doe piracy lawsuit dates back to 2019, and since then the company has faced setbacks , including a $108,271 ruling in favor of an accused pirate.

Malibu Media’s judicial problems add to a list of issues currently facing its owner. For example, several other companies associated with Malibu’s CEO are also suspended . As such, this order could very well mark the end of an era.

—

A copy of Senior United States District Judge David Ezra’s order to dismiss the case without prejudice is available here (pdf)

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

The World Cup is international football’s most prestigious tournament. International governing body FIFA guards its lucrative rights to the competition with a rod of iron.

FIFA World Cup 2022 got underway on November 20 in Qatar, and in the hours leading up to December 10, Homeland Security Investigations began seizing pirate streaming site domains . Our initial report was confirmed by U.S. authorities two days later, with a statement claiming that “ 55 separate websites ” had been seized.

Over the next few days, 23 additional domains were seized , bringing the total to 78. The official announcement referenced an affidavit filed in support of the seizures, but no copy was provided and hours spent trawling court records turned up nothing in December.

Affidavit Dated December 2022 Filed in January 2023

After being officially filed on January 12, 2023, two identical affidavits appeared on record this month at the United States District Court for the District of Maryland. Submitted by HSI Special Agent Jones under two different case numbers, the affidavits carry the signature of Judge Maddox dated December 16, 2022.

Both affidavits relate to seizures that took place between December 16-19 but make no mention of earlier seizures. The affidavits list two other case numbers but those documents were filed under seal.

After previous assignments at the NSA and Weapons of Mass Destruction Response Team, Special Agent Jones is currently assigned to HSI’s Transnational Cyber Crimes Team (TCCT).

His affidavit states that he has probable cause to believe that the listed domains are subject to seizure and forfeiture under 18 U.S.C. § 2323(a)(1)(A) -(B) and (b)(1) because they are used or intended to be used to commit or facilitate criminal infringement under 17 U.S.C. § 506 and 18 U.S.C. § 2319 .

Friend MTS Referral to HSI in September

At least two months before World Cup 2022 began, in its role as representative of FIFA, UK-based anti-piracy company Friend MTS (which is heavily involved in dynamic stream blocking in Europe) began supplying HSI with information on “several” domains.

“Friend MTS identified the sites as being used to transmit and distribute copyright infringing content (World Cup games in particular), without the authorization of the copyright holders,” the affidavits read.

A “whitelist” of domains allowed to broadcast games is apparently maintained by FIFA, but none of the domains submitted by Friend MTS appeared on that list.

‘Open-Source’ Search For Additional Domains

To find additional domains illegally streaming copyright-protected content, U.S. investigators reportedly conducted a review of “open-source internet messages.” Some of the sites discovered “appeared to host illicit streaming content,” while others embedded streams or offered links to content hosted elsewhere.

The table below lists some of the domains and the time they were confirmed as offering FIFA content. Also listed are their corresponding domain registries, in this case mostly VeriSign, but others include GoDaddy, Inc., Identity Digital Inc., and Tonic Domains.

After confirming all domains were offering unlicensed content, HSI concluded that “neither a restraining order nor an injunction” could guarantee their seizure.

However, if the domains were seized and redirected to another website, that would “prevent third parties from acquiring the name and using it to commit additional crimes” and “prevent third parties from continuing to access the websites in their present forms.”

Legal Assessment & Seizure

The affidavit states that for civil forfeitures, venue may lie in any district where any of the acts giving rise to forfeiture occurred, where the property was found, or where it was bought. For criminal forfeitures, venue lies in any district in which prosecution could occur.

In this case, the affidavit states there is probable cause to believe that the domains are subject to civil and criminal forfeiture. With all bases covered, attention turns to the domain registries for .com, .tv, .to, .cc, me, .live, and .net domains – Verisign, Inc., GoDaddy, Tonic Domains, and Identity Digital, Inc.

Upon seizure of the domains, the registries were required to associate them with new authoritative name servers, to direct visitors to a government seizure notice referencing a warrant issued by the court.

After being served with a copy of the seizure warrant, domain registrars (through which the domain owners had purchased their domains) were told to “modify any records, databases, tables, or documents” used to identify the owner of the domain, to show that seizure had taken place.

Domain Seizure Instructions

Both affidavits have four attachments marked A1-A4, each detailing actions to be taken by a specific registry. In all cases domain seizures were instructed to take place on December 16, 2022, at 4:00 pm EST.

Registries were given the choice of adding two new DNS entries (ns1 and ns2.seizedservers.com) to each domain or redirecting domains to two designated IP addresses. A third option allowed law enforcement to issue instructions to a relevant domain registrar instead.

All registries were warned to prevent any modification or transfer of the domains and to implement instructions as quickly as possible. The list of domains for each registry reads as follows:

Verisign: Rojadirectatvonline.net, Soccerstreams.net, Weakstream.net, Wizwig1.com, Releasesky.com, Tenorsky.com, Vipleagues.net, Extremotvplay.com, Futbollatam.com, Futboltv-envivo.com, Futbollatin.com, Librefutbol.com, Ovopremium.com

Registry Services, LLC (GoDaddy): AJSports.tv, Sportstream.tv, Futboltv.biz

Tonic Domains: Soccerstreams.to

Identity Digital, Inc.: Rojadirecta.global, Hesgoal.pro, Rojadirecta.me, Livetv605.me, Futboltv.live, Hesgoal.me

Notify Domain Owners of Seizures (or not)

Since domain seizures are still relatively uncommon in the United States, it was unclear whether the authorities would target domain registries, domain registrars, or both. The paperwork clearly shows that registries are the preferred option, but registrars do get a few mentions.

For instance, there’s an instruction for domain registrars to modify registrant records “to reflect the seizure” and also the potential for registrars to change DNS records. In the section shown below, there is a requirement for domain registrars to notify customers that their domains were seized by Homeland Security.

As detailed in our earlier report , U.S. domain registrars are listed for more than 60% of the seized domains. Registrars have access to domain owners’ details, so contacting them about seized domains would be straightforward.

Despite instructions in the warrant directed at registrars and notes that the seizure warrant will be sent to domain name registrars based in the United States, in all cases the list of registrars is surprisingly small.

The affidavit claims that no registrars are based in the United States but in the example above, both AJSports.tv and Futboltv.biz list NameCheap Inc. as the registrar.

Other domains listed in the affidavit as having no registrar in the United States include Hesgoal.pro (NameCheap), LiveTV605.me (NameCheap), Fullboltv.live (NameCheap) and Hesgoal.me (Name.com, Inc.)

At least on the surface, it appears that all U.S. registrars must inform their customers of the seizures but only if they are listed in the affidavit as being in the United States. None are listed as such.

Finally, the original seizure applications and orders were sealed and remain so. At least one was filed in a Miami district court back on October 5, 2022, at least six weeks before the start of the World Cup on November 20, 2022.

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

With millions of monthly users, USTVGO was one of the most visited live TV streaming portals on the Internet.

As its name suggests, the portal focused on US channels, making it a popular site for cord-cutting Americans or those living abroad.

A few days ago, USTVGO users were presented with a disappointing message. Out of the blue, the site’s clean homepage, which usually carries links to over a hundred channels including ABC, CBS, NBC, and Nickelodeon, was replaced with just four words; Sorry, we are closed.

Mystery Disappearances

When the message first appeared, some had hoped that the downtime would be temporary. But, as time passed, a short hiatus seemed more and more unlikely.

It’s not just the main USTVGO.tv domain name that’s affected either; many alternative points of access, including ustv247.tv and watchnewslive.tv, display the same “we are closed” message.

To discover more about the shutdown, TorrentFreak reached out to USTVGo’s administrators. At the time of writing we’re yet to receive a response. The site’s email addresses no longer work since USTVGo’s mail servers have disappeared. The platform’s official Discord channel has also been shut down.

The above suggests that the people behind the site don’t want to be reached. That leaves former users and the public with unanswered questions, which will undoubtedly lead to speculation.

On The Anti-Piracy Radar

A statement on USTVGO’s website claimed that it was legal ‘to watch’ its streams. However, the site itself was clearly not seen as a legal streaming service, as the streams were (re)broadcasted without permission from rightsholders.

Despite its popularity, USTVGO never appeared on the U.S. Trade Representative’s list of notorious pirate sites, but it was in the crosshairs of copyright holders and anti-piracy groups.

In recent months, the TV streaming website was targeted in DMCA notices sent by ESPN, Major League Baseball, and NBCUniversal, who all had their channels listed on the site.

Anti-piracy outfit Alianza , which represents major TV broadcasters including DirecTV, Discovery, Fox, HBO, and Sky, has also been on to the service for a while. In a 2021 report produced by Nagra, USTVGO was listed as one of the most popular TV streaming sites.

The screenshot above estimates that the service had roughly two million visitors in early 2021, but traffic continued to grow. More recently USTVGO reportedly enjoyed 16 million monthly visits, with almost three quarters coming from the US.

Pressure?

Without official word from the site’s operators, we can only speculate about the reasons behind USTVGO’s sudden closure. However, in cases like these, some type of legal pressure seems a likely option.

There is no evidence to suggest that a third party has taken control of USTVGO’s domains, but perhaps the owners were approached with a cease-and-desist notice.

For the site’s former users, whose favorite streaming portal has already gone, the cause of the closure is irrelevant. Some will likely flock to USTVGO alternatives such as 123tvnow, 123tv, tv247, and others.

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