The legal saga of News-Service Europe ( NSE ) and anti-piracy group BREIN has taken another dramatic turn.

Once a titan in the Usenet world, NSE was forced to shut down in 2011 after BREIN took legal action on behalf of the movie and music industries.

In its initial verdict, the Court of Amsterdam concluded that NSE willingly facilitated online piracy through its services. As a result, the company was ordered to remove all copyrighted content and filter future posts for possible copyright infringements.

According to the Usenet provider, this filtering requirement would’ve been too costly to implement so it shut down its service but appealed the case.

NSE Wins Appeal

After several more years of litigation, the Amsterdam appeals court ruled that NSE wasn’t liable for users’ pirating activities after all, but NSE was required to offer a responsive and effective notice and takedown procedure, possibly with additional measures.

Unhappy with the outcome, BREIN decided to take the matter to the Dutch Supreme Court. While NSE was no longer a threat, the case could prove crucial for many other Usenet providers.

Last year, the Supreme Court confirmed that the Usenet provider shouldn’t be held liable for pirating users. The fact that NSE had a decent takedown procedure and no apparent knowledge of infringement, weighed in its favor.

The Court also confirmed that NSE didn’t curate any content, nor did it specifically promote copyright infringement.

NSE Sues BREIN for Millions in Damages

NSE’s victory was bittersweet; its operation had long been shut down due to BREIN’s legal pressure. Now, after years of legal battles and a final vindication, NSE is back in court once again.

In a lawsuit filed today, NSE demands damages from BREIN that could potentially reach millions of euros.

According to NSE, BREIN’s lawsuit essentially forced the service to shut down, even though the case was appealed. As a result, the entire team lost their jobs and the company’s owners faced expensive legal bills.

Although the court’s requirements led to the shutdown, NSE sees BREIN as the main instigator, because the anti-piracy group didn’t want to wait for the appeal to play out.

“BREIN deliberately made it impossible for us to continue,” NSE co-founder and former CEO Patrick Schreurs says. “BREIN decided not to wait for the appeal and to force us to comply with the verdict immediately. That was completely unnecessary. We have always found that incomprehensible.”

NSE co-founder Wierd Bonthuis, who previously served as CFO, notes that the Supreme Court confirmed that BREIN was wrong. To fully set the record straight, the Usenet provider now seeks full compensation.

“The confirmation of the highest Dutch court is a great first step towards complete justice. This will happen if BREIN fully compensates us for the damage that its stubbornness has caused,” Bonthuis says.

“We look forward to the verdict in the case filed today with great confidence,” he adds.

BREIN Sheds a Different Light on the Case

BREIN has not yet seen the summons, but in an initial response it believes that NSE was never able to simply restart its original service. Instead, it should have taken measures against the enormous amount of unauthorized content on its servers.

The parties never finalized discussions on what an effective takedown policy would entail. Instead of engaging in court-mandated negotiations, BREIN director Bastiaan van Ramshorst says that NSE decided to shut down its service.

“BREIN awaits the summons in confidence. The fact remains that all that copyright-protected content, including films, TV series, books, games and software, made it attractive for consumers to take out a subscription with a commercial Usenet provider.

“The loss of profit by not being able to offer illegally offered protected content of others is of course no basis for a lawsuit,” Van Ramshorst adds.

All in all it’s clear that, after more than 15 years, the newly filed lawsuit adds yet another chapter to what is already one of the longest running piracy lawsuits in history.

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

The legal saga of News-Service Europe ( NSE ) and anti-piracy group BREIN has taken another dramatic turn.

Once a titan in the Usenet world, NSE was forced to shut down in 2011 after BREIN took legal action on behalf of the movie and music industries.

In its initial verdict, the Court of Amsterdam concluded that NSE willingly facilitated online piracy through its services. As a result, the company was ordered to remove all copyrighted content and filter future posts for possible copyright infringements.

According to the Usenet provider, this filtering requirement would’ve been too costly to implement so it shut down its service but appealed the case.

NSE Wins Appeal

After several more years of litigation, the Amsterdam appeals court ruled that NSE wasn’t liable for users’ pirating activities after all, but NSE was required to offer a responsive and effective notice and takedown procedure, possibly with additional measures.

Unhappy with the outcome, BREIN decided to take the matter to the Dutch Supreme Court. While NSE was no longer a threat, the case could prove crucial for many other Usenet providers.

Last year, the Supreme Court confirmed that the Usenet provider shouldn’t be held liable for pirating users. The fact that NSE had a decent takedown procedure and no apparent knowledge of infringement, weighed in its favor.

The Court also confirmed that NSE didn’t curate any content, nor did it specifically promote copyright infringement.

NSE Sues BREIN for Millions in Damages

NSE’s victory was bittersweet; its operation had long been shut down due to BREIN’s legal pressure. Now, after years of legal battles and a final vindication, NSE is back in court once again.

In a lawsuit filed today, NSE demands damages from BREIN that could potentially reach millions of euros.

According to NSE, BREIN’s lawsuit essentially forced the service to shut down, even though the case was appealed. As a result, the entire team lost their jobs and the company’s owners faced expensive legal bills.

Although the court’s requirements led to the shutdown, NSE sees BREIN as the main instigator, because the anti-piracy group didn’t want to wait for the appeal to play out.

“BREIN deliberately made it impossible for us to continue,” NSE co-founder and former CEO Patrick Schreurs says. “BREIN decided not to wait for the appeal and to force us to comply with the verdict immediately. That was completely unnecessary. We have always found that incomprehensible.”

NSE co-founder Wierd Bonthuis, who previously served as CFO, notes that the Supreme Court confirmed that BREIN was wrong. To fully set the record straight, the Usenet provider now seeks full compensation.

“The confirmation of the highest Dutch court is a great first step towards complete justice. This will happen if BREIN fully compensates us for the damage that its stubbornness has caused,” Bonthuis says.

“We look forward to the verdict in the case filed today with great confidence,” he adds.

BREIN Sheds a Different Light on the Case

BREIN has not yet seen the summons, but in an initial response it believes that NSE was never able to simply restart its original service. Instead, it should have taken measures against the enormous amount of unauthorized content on its servers.

The parties never finalized discussions on what an effective takedown policy would entail. Instead of engaging in court-mandated negotiations, BREIN director Bastiaan van Ramshorst says that NSE decided to shut down its service.

“BREIN awaits the summons in confidence. The fact remains that all that copyright-protected content, including films, TV series, books, games and software, made it attractive for consumers to take out a subscription with a commercial Usenet provider.

“The loss of profit by not being able to offer illegally offered protected content of others is of course no basis for a lawsuit,” Van Ramshorst adds.

All in all it’s clear that, after more than 15 years, the newly filed lawsuit adds yet another chapter to what is already one of the longest running piracy lawsuits in history.

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

The legal saga of News-Service Europe ( NSE ) and anti-piracy group BREIN has taken another dramatic turn.

Once a titan in the Usenet world, NSE was forced to shut down in 2011 after BREIN took legal action on behalf of the movie and music industries.

In its initial verdict, the Court of Amsterdam concluded that NSE willingly facilitated online piracy through its services. As a result, the company was ordered to remove all copyrighted content and filter future posts for possible copyright infringements.

According to the Usenet provider, this filtering requirement would’ve been too costly to implement so it shut down its service but appealed the case.

NSE Wins Appeal

After several more years of litigation, the Amsterdam appeals court ruled that NSE wasn’t liable for users’ pirating activities after all, but NSE was required to offer a responsive and effective notice and takedown procedure, possibly with additional measures.

Unhappy with the outcome, BREIN decided to take the matter to the Dutch Supreme Court. While NSE was no longer a threat, the case could prove crucial for many other Usenet providers.

Last year, the Supreme Court confirmed that the Usenet provider shouldn’t be held liable for pirating users. The fact that NSE had a decent takedown procedure and no apparent knowledge of infringement, weighed in its favor.

The Court also confirmed that NSE didn’t curate any content, nor did it specifically promote copyright infringement.

NSE Sues BREIN for Millions in Damages

NSE’s victory was bittersweet; its operation had long been shut down due to BREIN’s legal pressure. Now, after years of legal battles and a final vindication, NSE is back in court once again.

In a lawsuit filed today, NSE demands damages from BREIN that could potentially reach millions of euros.

According to NSE, BREIN’s lawsuit essentially forced the service to shut down, even though the case was appealed. As a result, the entire team lost their jobs and the company’s owners faced expensive legal bills.

Although the court’s requirements led to the shutdown, NSE sees BREIN as the main instigator, because the anti-piracy group didn’t want to wait for the appeal to play out.

“BREIN deliberately made it impossible for us to continue,” NSE co-founder and former CEO Patrick Schreurs says. “BREIN decided not to wait for the appeal and to force us to comply with the verdict immediately. That was completely unnecessary. We have always found that incomprehensible.”

NSE co-founder Wierd Bonthuis, who previously served as CFO, notes that the Supreme Court confirmed that BREIN was wrong. To fully set the record straight, the Usenet provider now seeks full compensation.

“The confirmation of the highest Dutch court is a great first step towards complete justice. This will happen if BREIN fully compensates us for the damage that its stubbornness has caused,” Bonthuis says.

“We look forward to the verdict in the case filed today with great confidence,” he adds.

BREIN Sheds a Different Light on the Case

BREIN has not yet seen the summons, but in an initial response it believes that NSE was never able to simply restart its original service. Instead, it should have taken measures against the enormous amount of unauthorized content on its servers.

The parties never finalized discussions on what an effective takedown policy would entail. Instead of engaging in court-mandated negotiations, BREIN director Bastiaan van Ramshorst says that NSE decided to shut down its service.

“BREIN awaits the summons in confidence. The fact remains that all that copyright-protected content, including films, TV series, books, games and software, made it attractive for consumers to take out a subscription with a commercial Usenet provider.

“The loss of profit by not being able to offer illegally offered protected content of others is of course no basis for a lawsuit,” Van Ramshorst adds.

All in all it’s clear that, after more than 15 years, the newly filed lawsuit adds yet another chapter to what is already one of the longest running piracy lawsuits in history.

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

Library Genesis ( LibGen ) is one of the oldest shadow libraries on the Internet, offering free access to millions of books and academic papers for which people would otherwise have to pay.

The site’s origins reportedly trace back to the Soviet Union’s underground publishing culture ‘samizdat,’ which was used to bypass state censorship in the last century.

LibGen launched around 2008 as a digital version of the same concept. In addition to bypassing ‘local’ censorship, it’s widely used to circumvent the paywalls of major international publishing companies, serving as a popular ‘pirate’ site for (text)books and academic works.

Rightsholders have attempted to take the site offline several times over the years, both through direct lawsuits and site blocking injunctions . While the site hasn’t thrown in the towel just yet, the site today is a shadow of its former glory.

Domain Name Seizures and Suspensions

In recent weeks, several LibGen domain names were taken offline. Some simply stopped resolving, while others were handed over to publishers and replaced by a notice explaining that the domains were seized as part of legal action.

For example, library.lol now shows the notice below. The same applies to libgen.fun, libgen.space, and booksdl.org.

“ This website has been shut down and its domain name turned over to educational publishers by court order .”

Other domains are inaccessible because they were deactivated, or suspended by domain registries or registrars. This includes LibGen.rs, which previously served as one of the site’s main domains.

These seizures don’t come as a complete surprise. In September, a New York federal court ordered the operators of LibGen to pay $30 million in copyright infringement damages. This order came with an injunction, urging domain name services to hand over the site’s domain names.

The publishers, including Cengage, McGraw Hill, and Pearson Education, might have a hard time recouping the damages. However, the domain name seizures will certainly have an impact. This will be lasting too, as the injunction also targets all ‘future’ domains.

New Blocking Order in Germany

The U.S. court order is effective, but not all registrars and registries appear to have taken action, at least not yet. The popular libgen.li domain remains accessible, but the publishers are also taking action to address this and other remaining domains.

This week, Germany’s “Clearing Body for Copyright on the Internet” ( CUII ) issued a new blocking order targeting LibGen. The order was requested by publishers whose names remain redacted. The domain names have not been published either, but they likely include the main ones.

According to data gathered by the third-party transparency portal CUIIListe , ISPs have started blocking Libgen.li, libgen.gs, and libgen.is, as well as the deactivated libgen.rs domain.

CUII’s blocking order follows a familiar format. Under a voluntary agreement between rightsholders and ISPs, the clearing body carefully reviews whether a target site is indeed structurally infringing. That was the case here.

“The request for a recommendation to block the LIBGEN website is justified. The website is a structurally copyright infringing website. There is a clear copyright violation. The blocking is reasonable and proportionate,” CUII writes.

LibGen isn’t the first shadow library to be blocked in Germany. Earlier this year, Sci-Hub was blocked using the same procedure. The full German blocklist now contains 24 pirate sites.

What’s Next?

Pirate sites are ultimately expected to encounter these types of issues and many respond by registering new domain names. That said, LibGen’s owners have been rather quiet lately.

The lack of communication doesn’t come as a complete surprise. At the beginning of the year, the site already appeared to have some internal struggles, as the person in charge of the site’s coding had been ‘ inactive’ for some time.

As far as we know, the site isn’t actively managed as it once was. The homepage still promotes a domain name that is no longer active, for example. Whether the site will eventually break down completely is unknown, but the publishers will do everything they can to frustrate its operation.

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

Library Genesis ( LibGen ) is one of the oldest shadow libraries on the Internet, offering free access to millions of books and academic papers for which people would otherwise have to pay.

The site’s origins reportedly trace back to the Soviet Union’s underground publishing culture ‘samizdat,’ which was used to bypass state censorship in the last century.

LibGen launched around 2008 as a digital version of the same concept. In addition to bypassing ‘local’ censorship, it’s widely used to circumvent the paywalls of major international publishing companies, serving as a popular ‘pirate’ site for (text)books and academic works.

Rightsholders have attempted to take the site offline several times over the years, both through direct lawsuits and site blocking injunctions . While the site hasn’t thrown in the towel just yet, the site today is a shadow of its former glory.

Domain Name Seizures and Suspensions

In recent weeks, several LibGen domain names were taken offline. Some simply stopped resolving, while others were handed over to publishers and replaced by a notice explaining that the domains were seized as part of legal action.

For example, library.lol now shows the notice below. The same applies to libgen.fun, libgen.space, and booksdl.org.

“ This website has been shut down and its domain name turned over to educational publishers by court order .”

Other domains are inaccessible because they were deactivated, or suspended by domain registries or registrars. This includes LibGen.rs, which previously served as one of the site’s main domains.

These seizures don’t come as a complete surprise. In September, a New York federal court ordered the operators of LibGen to pay $30 million in copyright infringement damages. This order came with an injunction, urging domain name services to hand over the site’s domain names.

The publishers, including Cengage, McGraw Hill, and Pearson Education, might have a hard time recouping the damages. However, the domain name seizures will certainly have an impact. This will be lasting too, as the injunction also targets all ‘future’ domains.

New Blocking Order in Germany

The U.S. court order is effective, but not all registrars and registries appear to have taken action, at least not yet. The popular libgen.li domain remains accessible, but the publishers are also taking action to address this and other remaining domains.

This week, Germany’s “Clearing Body for Copyright on the Internet” ( CUII ) issued a new blocking order targeting LibGen. The order was requested by publishers whose names remain redacted. The domain names have not been published either, but they likely include the main ones.

According to data gathered by the third-party transparency portal CUIIListe , ISPs have started blocking Libgen.li, libgen.gs, and libgen.is, as well as the deactivated libgen.rs domain.

CUII’s blocking order follows a familiar format. Under a voluntary agreement between rightsholders and ISPs, the clearing body carefully reviews whether a target site is indeed structurally infringing. That was the case here.

“The request for a recommendation to block the LIBGEN website is justified. The website is a structurally copyright infringing website. There is a clear copyright violation. The blocking is reasonable and proportionate,” CUII writes.

LibGen isn’t the first shadow library to be blocked in Germany. Earlier this year, Sci-Hub was blocked using the same procedure. The full German blocklist now contains 24 pirate sites.

What’s Next?

Pirate sites are ultimately expected to encounter these types of issues and many respond by registering new domain names. That said, LibGen’s owners have been rather quiet lately.

The lack of communication doesn’t come as a complete surprise. At the beginning of the year, the site already appeared to have some internal struggles, as the person in charge of the site’s coding had been ‘ inactive’ for some time.

As far as we know, the site isn’t actively managed as it once was. The homepage still promotes a domain name that is no longer active, for example. Whether the site will eventually break down completely is unknown, but the publishers will do everything they can to frustrate its operation.

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

Library Genesis ( LibGen ) is one of the oldest shadow libraries on the Internet, offering free access to millions of books and academic papers for which people would otherwise have to pay.

The site’s origins reportedly trace back to the Soviet Union’s underground publishing culture ‘samizdat,’ which was used to bypass state censorship in the last century.

LibGen launched around 2008 as a digital version of the same concept. In addition to bypassing ‘local’ censorship, it’s widely used to circumvent the paywalls of major international publishing companies, serving as a popular ‘pirate’ site for (text)books and academic works.

Rightsholders have attempted to take the site offline several times over the years, both through direct lawsuits and site blocking injunctions . While the site hasn’t thrown in the towel just yet, the site today is a shadow of its former glory.

Domain Name Seizures and Suspensions

In recent weeks, several LibGen domain names were taken offline. Some simply stopped resolving, while others were handed over to publishers and replaced by a notice explaining that the domains were seized as part of legal action.

For example, library.lol now shows the notice below. The same applies to libgen.fun, libgen.space, and booksdl.org.

“ This website has been shut down and its domain name turned over to educational publishers by court order .”

Other domains are inaccessible because they were deactivated, or suspended by domain registries or registrars. This includes LibGen.rs, which previously served as one of the site’s main domains.

These seizures don’t come as a complete surprise. In September, a New York federal court ordered the operators of LibGen to pay $30 million in copyright infringement damages. This order came with an injunction, urging domain name services to hand over the site’s domain names.

The publishers, including Cengage, McGraw Hill, and Pearson Education, might have a hard time recouping the damages. However, the domain name seizures will certainly have an impact. This will be lasting too, as the injunction also targets all ‘future’ domains.

New Blocking Order in Germany

The U.S. court order is effective, but not all registrars and registries appear to have taken action, at least not yet. The popular libgen.li domain remains accessible, but the publishers are also taking action to address this and other remaining domains.

This week, Germany’s “Clearing Body for Copyright on the Internet” ( CUII ) issued a new blocking order targeting LibGen. The order was requested by publishers whose names remain redacted. The domain names have not been published either, but they likely include the main ones.

According to data gathered by the third-party transparency portal CUIIListe , ISPs have started blocking Libgen.li, libgen.gs, and libgen.is, as well as the deactivated libgen.rs domain.

CUII’s blocking order follows a familiar format. Under a voluntary agreement between rightsholders and ISPs, the clearing body carefully reviews whether a target site is indeed structurally infringing. That was the case here.

“The request for a recommendation to block the LIBGEN website is justified. The website is a structurally copyright infringing website. There is a clear copyright violation. The blocking is reasonable and proportionate,” CUII writes.

LibGen isn’t the first shadow library to be blocked in Germany. Earlier this year, Sci-Hub was blocked using the same procedure. The full German blocklist now contains 24 pirate sites.

What’s Next?

Pirate sites are ultimately expected to encounter these types of issues and many respond by registering new domain names. That said, LibGen’s owners have been rather quiet lately.

The lack of communication doesn’t come as a complete surprise. At the beginning of the year, the site already appeared to have some internal struggles, as the person in charge of the site’s coding had been ‘ inactive’ for some time.

As far as we know, the site isn’t actively managed as it once was. The homepage still promotes a domain name that is no longer active, for example. Whether the site will eventually break down completely is unknown, but the publishers will do everything they can to frustrate its operation.

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

As a TV broadcaster, Sky has an exceptional view of the legal subscription TV market and how the illegal IPTV market encroaches on that.

As an ISP that supplies 20% of the market, Sky’s view of its own customers using Sky Broadband to pirate Sky’s pay TV content is a persistent irritant that comes with the territory.

Sky’s involvement in ISP blocking orders has traditionally meant complying with injunctions obtained by groups including the MPA and RIAA. Along with its main ISP rivals including market leader BT (28%), roughly on-par competitor Virgin Media (20%), and TalkTalk (12.5%), over the years Sky has blocked thousands of domains to protect content owned by others.

Sky Tests Blocking to Protect Its Own Content

In the summer of 2023, Sky obtained a blocking injunction at the High Court to protect content it broadcasts on its own TV channels. Sky’s targets included BunnyStream, Enigma Streams, GenIPTV, CatIPTV, GoTVMix, and IPTVMain , none of which warmed to the idea of being blocked. Sky’s blocking measures faced pirate countermeasures, most visibly through the use of endless subdomains generated at will, which Sky also went on to block on an unprecedented scale , with a predictable response each time.

On November 12, 2024, Sky obtained an extension to its original order, the second since the summer of 2023. With BT, EE, Plusnet, TalkTalk, and Virgin Media listed once again, there was no change among the respondents. The list of targets, which includes static promotional/sales websites and underlying pirate IPTV services, reads as follows:

BunnyStream; CatIPTV; EnigmaStreams; GenIPTV; GoTVMix; IPTVMAIN; FastIP.tv; IP-TV.uk; IPTV-King.co.uk; IPTVSubscribe.uk; IPTV-UK.digital; KemoIPTV.tv; UKChannels.co.uk; UKIPTVMedia.co; TheSkyIPTV.shop; and Calmahub.live

All of Sky’s initial targets appear to have survived unprecedented levels of ISP blocking so are now appearing once again. Why that’s the case isn’t mentioned in the High Court order, and the same applies to other confidential aspects of the case to prevent circumvention. Fortunately, not everything is shrouded in darkness.

Dynamic and Static Blocking

The order allows Sky to conduct Dynamic Blocking of IP addresses associated with the IPTV platforms’ servers. Once Sky becomes aware of a server it needs to block, IP address information can be sent to the respondent ISPs for blocking in real-time.

Blocking takes place during specific Blocking Windows based on detection of unauthorized broadcasts of Sky Channels (table below), or various conditions listed in a confidential schedule.

The IP addresses are unblocked at the conclusion of each Blocking Window , the durations of which are confidential.

Under the order, Static Blocking of URLs and Fully Qualified Domain Names (FQDNs) associated with the IPTV services’ websites is permanent.

Sky is authorized to detect and instantly notify the ISPs of IP addresses for Dynamic Blocking and URLs/FQDNs for Static Blocking if certain conditions are met. They include use of an IP address to broadcast public linear audiovisual footage of any Sky Channel during an unspecified Monitoring Period , or use that meets one or more detection conditions specified in a confidential schedule.

The order allows Sky to notify the ISPs of any URL or FQDN for Static Blocking if its “sole or predominant purpose is to enable or facilitate access to a Target Website.” Due to the confidentiality aspects of this and previous orders, specific examples aren’t provided.

However, this could be a measure to limit the usefulness of generating thousands of new subdomains to circumvent blocking. Previously the IPTV providers appeared to utilize wildcard certificates to generate FQDNs such as those shown below.

It may have been the case that if infringing activity only ever took place on subdomains, only those subdomains could be legally blocked. With an infinite supply of subdomains available at zero cost, generating more subdomains wasn’t a problem.

Here, however, a main domain would qualify as having the “sole or predominant purpose” of facilitating access to a pirate service. That means domains and subdomains could be blocked permanently, forcing the purchase of a whole new domain that when deployed would ultimately fare no better.

IP Blocking, URL Blocking, DNS Blocking, Deep Packet Inspection

Each ISP is required to implement blocking based on the type requested and the availability of existing specialist tools.

British Telecommunications (BT)

The section of the order detailing how blocking should be carried out is more complicated than one might expect, largely due to the unique position of British Telecommunications Plc and companies operating within the BT Group. These include the ISP most people know as BT, telecoms brand EE, and the ISP Plusnet, both of which are listed as separate respondents in the blocking order.

BT Group subsidiary Openreach Limited operates the Openreach digital network through which the ISP BT supplies internet connectivity to customers. The Openreach network is also used by over 680 other companies selling broadband and telecoms services, including Plusnet and EE. The blocking order lacks clarity, but it appears that BT’s residential-type customers are handled using BT’s Cleanfeed filtering/blocking system, while ‘wholesale’ customers have access to a lesser-known BT blocking/filtering system called RedCard .

When Dynamic Blocking is required by the order, ISP BT must block by IP address. Customers to which the RedCard system applies must also block by IP address. When applying Static Blocking , BT must apply Cleanfeed for customers using its fixed-line and mobile networks, using technical means including;

● IP address blocking and IP address re-routing at the core network level
● Deep Packet Inspection (DPI) based blocking utilizing at least summary analysis
● DNS blocking for customers using BT’s own DNS servers.

EE Limited

When applying Dynamic Blocking , EE must use IP address blocking for customers on their fixed line network (EE Home line) and mobile network, including hosted Mobile Virtual Network Operators (MVNOs). This applies to customers using RedCard or any equivalent system EE may choose to deploy.

For Static Blocking , EE must use Cleanfeed for fixed line and mobile network customers (including MVNOs). Technical means include;

● IP address blocking and IP address re-routing for every address reported by Sky
● Deep Packet Inspection (DPI) based blocking utilizing at least summary analysis
● DNS blocking for customers using EE’s own DNS servers.

Plusnet

When applying Dynamic Blocking , Plusnet must use IP address blocking for customers to which RedCard applies.

When applying Static Blocking for customers to which Cleanfeed applies, the technical means include:

● IP address blocking and IP address re-routing for every address reported by Sky
● Deep Packet Inspection (DPI) based blocking utilizing at least summary analysis
● DNS blocking for customers using Plusnet’s own DNS servers.

TalkTalk

The instructions for TalkTalk make no references to static or dynamic blocking. The order instead mentions StreamShield, a blocking/filtering system operated by TalkTalk since ~2006. When StreamShield is applied the technical means is URL blocking for each and every URL notified by Sky. When ‘blackholing’ is applied, the technical means is IP address blocking for each IP address notified by Sky.

TalkTalk appears to be the only ISP where blocking measures are limited by volume. For all UK blocking orders that require TalkTalk to implement blocking, a limit of 10,000 simultaneous IP addresses applies.

Virgin Media, Sky, Google

Instructions for Virgin Media do not refer to static or dynamic blocking. The order instead mentions Web Blocker 3, a blocking/filtering system operated by Virgin. When Web Blocker 3 or blackholing is applied, the technical means is IP address blocking.

Sky is the applicant in this process, not a respondent, but appears to have volunteered for blocking duties on its own behalf. Sky will use its own Hawkeye system to carry out IP address blocking.

Google also receives no mention in the court order but TorrentFreak can confirm that the company is voluntarily removing IPTV providers’ domains from search results. That has already had the effect of ‘promoting’ sites publishing reviews of the IPTV providers’ services into the top slots, and will probably lead to scammers exploiting the vacuum to rip off unsuspecting consumers.

In general terms, however, this enhanced blocking order will make life more complex for providers. End users already using VPNs to access these services, on the other hand, will most likely remain completely unaffected.

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

As a TV broadcaster, Sky has an exceptional view of the legal subscription TV market and how the illegal IPTV market encroaches on that.

As an ISP that supplies 20% of the market, Sky’s view of its own customers using Sky Broadband to pirate Sky’s pay TV content is a persistent irritant that comes with the territory.

Sky’s involvement in ISP blocking orders has traditionally meant complying with injunctions obtained by groups including the MPA and RIAA. Along with its main ISP rivals including market leader BT (28%), roughly on-par competitor Virgin Media (20%), and TalkTalk (12.5%), over the years Sky has blocked thousands of domains to protect content owned by others.

Sky Tests Blocking to Protect Its Own Content

In the summer of 2023, Sky obtained a blocking injunction at the High Court to protect content it broadcasts on its own TV channels. Sky’s targets included BunnyStream, Enigma Streams, GenIPTV, CatIPTV, GoTVMix, and IPTVMain , none of which warmed to the idea of being blocked. Sky’s blocking measures faced pirate countermeasures, most visibly through the use of endless subdomains generated at will, which Sky also went on to block on an unprecedented scale , with a predictable response each time.

On November 12, 2024, Sky obtained an extension to its original order, the second since the summer of 2023. With BT, EE, Plusnet, TalkTalk, and Virgin Media listed once again, there was no change among the respondents. The list of targets, which includes static promotional/sales websites and underlying pirate IPTV services, reads as follows:

BunnyStream; CatIPTV; EnigmaStreams; GenIPTV; GoTVMix; IPTVMAIN; FastIP.tv; IP-TV.uk; IPTV-King.co.uk; IPTVSubscribe.uk; IPTV-UK.digital; KemoIPTV.tv; UKChannels.co.uk; UKIPTVMedia.co; TheSkyIPTV.shop; and Calmahub.live

All of Sky’s initial targets appear to have survived unprecedented levels of ISP blocking so are now appearing once again. Why that’s the case isn’t mentioned in the High Court order, and the same applies to other confidential aspects of the case to prevent circumvention. Fortunately, not everything is shrouded in darkness.

Dynamic and Static Blocking

The order allows Sky to conduct Dynamic Blocking of IP addresses associated with the IPTV platforms’ servers. Once Sky becomes aware of a server it needs to block, IP address information can be sent to the respondent ISPs for blocking in real-time.

Blocking takes place during specific Blocking Windows based on detection of unauthorized broadcasts of Sky Channels (table below), or various conditions listed in a confidential schedule.

The IP addresses are unblocked at the conclusion of each Blocking Window , the durations of which are confidential.

Under the order, Static Blocking of URLs and Fully Qualified Domain Names (FQDNs) associated with the IPTV services’ websites is permanent.

Sky is authorized to detect and instantly notify the ISPs of IP addresses for Dynamic Blocking and URLs/FQDNs for Static Blocking if certain conditions are met. They include use of an IP address to broadcast public linear audiovisual footage of any Sky Channel during an unspecified Monitoring Period , or use that meets one or more detection conditions specified in a confidential schedule.

The order allows Sky to notify the ISPs of any URL or FQDN for Static Blocking if its “sole or predominant purpose is to enable or facilitate access to a Target Website.” Due to the confidentiality aspects of this and previous orders, specific examples aren’t provided.

However, this could be a measure to limit the usefulness of generating thousands of new subdomains to circumvent blocking. Previously the IPTV providers appeared to utilize wildcard certificates to generate FQDNs such as those shown below.

It may have been the case that if infringing activity only ever took place on subdomains, only those subdomains could be legally blocked. With an infinite supply of subdomains available at zero cost, generating more subdomains wasn’t a problem.

Here, however, a main domain would qualify as having the “sole or predominant purpose” of facilitating access to a pirate service. That means domains and subdomains could be blocked permanently, forcing the purchase of a whole new domain that when deployed would ultimately fare no better.

IP Blocking, URL Blocking, DNS Blocking, Deep Packet Inspection

Each ISP is required to implement blocking based on the type requested and the availability of existing specialist tools.

British Telecommunications (BT)

The section of the order detailing how blocking should be carried out is more complicated than one might expect, largely due to the unique position of British Telecommunications Plc and companies operating within the BT Group. These include the ISP most people know as BT, telecoms brand EE, and the ISP Plusnet, both of which are listed as separate respondents in the blocking order.

BT Group subsidiary Openreach Limited operates the Openreach digital network through which the ISP BT supplies internet connectivity to customers. The Openreach network is also used by over 680 other companies selling broadband and telecoms services, including Plusnet and EE. The blocking order lacks clarity, but it appears that BT’s residential-type customers are handled using BT’s Cleanfeed filtering/blocking system, while ‘wholesale’ customers have access to a lesser-known BT blocking/filtering system called RedCard .

When Dynamic Blocking is required by the order, ISP BT must block by IP address. Customers to which the RedCard system applies must also block by IP address. When applying Static Blocking , BT must apply Cleanfeed for customers using its fixed-line and mobile networks, using technical means including;

● IP address blocking and IP address re-routing at the core network level
● Deep Packet Inspection (DPI) based blocking utilizing at least summary analysis
● DNS blocking for customers using BT’s own DNS servers.

EE Limited

When applying Dynamic Blocking , EE must use IP address blocking for customers on their fixed line network (EE Home line) and mobile network, including hosted Mobile Virtual Network Operators (MVNOs). This applies to customers using RedCard or any equivalent system EE may choose to deploy.

For Static Blocking , EE must use Cleanfeed for fixed line and mobile network customers (including MVNOs). Technical means include;

● IP address blocking and IP address re-routing for every address reported by Sky
● Deep Packet Inspection (DPI) based blocking utilizing at least summary analysis
● DNS blocking for customers using EE’s own DNS servers.

Plusnet

When applying Dynamic Blocking , Plusnet must use IP address blocking for customers to which RedCard applies.

When applying Static Blocking for customers to which Cleanfeed applies, the technical means include:

● IP address blocking and IP address re-routing for every address reported by Sky
● Deep Packet Inspection (DPI) based blocking utilizing at least summary analysis
● DNS blocking for customers using Plusnet’s own DNS servers.

TalkTalk

The instructions for TalkTalk make no references to static or dynamic blocking. The order instead mentions StreamShield, a blocking/filtering system operated by TalkTalk since ~2006. When StreamShield is applied the technical means is URL blocking for each and every URL notified by Sky. When ‘blackholing’ is applied, the technical means is IP address blocking for each IP address notified by Sky.

TalkTalk appears to be the only ISP where blocking measures are limited by volume. For all UK blocking orders that require TalkTalk to implement blocking, a limit of 10,000 simultaneous IP addresses applies.

Virgin Media, Sky, Google

Instructions for Virgin Media do not refer to static or dynamic blocking. The order instead mentions Web Blocker 3, a blocking/filtering system operated by Virgin. When Web Blocker 3 or blackholing is applied, the technical means is IP address blocking.

Sky is the applicant in this process, not a respondent, but appears to have volunteered for blocking duties on its own behalf. Sky will use its own Hawkeye system to carry out IP address blocking.

Google also receives no mention in the court order but TorrentFreak can confirm that the company is voluntarily removing IPTV providers’ domains from search results. That has already had the effect of ‘promoting’ sites publishing reviews of the IPTV providers’ services into the top slots, and will probably lead to scammers exploiting the vacuum to rip off unsuspecting consumers.

In general terms, however, this enhanced blocking order will make life more complex for providers. End users already using VPNs to access these services, on the other hand, will most likely remain completely unaffected.

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

As a TV broadcaster, Sky has an exceptional view of the legal subscription TV market and how the illegal IPTV market encroaches on that.

As an ISP that supplies 20% of the market, Sky’s view of its own customers using Sky Broadband to pirate Sky’s pay TV content is a persistent irritant that comes with the territory.

Sky’s involvement in ISP blocking orders has traditionally meant complying with injunctions obtained by groups including the MPA and RIAA. Along with its main ISP rivals including market leader BT (28%), roughly on-par competitor Virgin Media (20%), and TalkTalk (12.5%), over the years Sky has blocked thousands of domains to protect content owned by others.

Sky Tests Blocking to Protect Its Own Content

In the summer of 2023, Sky obtained a blocking injunction at the High Court to protect content it broadcasts on its own TV channels. Sky’s targets included BunnyStream, Enigma Streams, GenIPTV, CatIPTV, GoTVMix, and IPTVMain , none of which warmed to the idea of being blocked. Sky’s blocking measures faced pirate countermeasures, most visibly through the use of endless subdomains generated at will, which Sky also went on to block on an unprecedented scale , with a predictable response each time.

On November 12, 2024, Sky obtained an extension to its original order, the second since the summer of 2023. With BT, EE, Plusnet, TalkTalk, and Virgin Media listed once again, there was no change among the respondents. The list of targets, which includes static promotional/sales websites and underlying pirate IPTV services, reads as follows:

BunnyStream; CatIPTV; EnigmaStreams; GenIPTV; GoTVMix; IPTVMAIN; FastIP.tv; IP-TV.uk; IPTV-King.co.uk; IPTVSubscribe.uk; IPTV-UK.digital; KemoIPTV.tv; UKChannels.co.uk; UKIPTVMedia.co; TheSkyIPTV.shop; and Calmahub.live

All of Sky’s initial targets appear to have survived unprecedented levels of ISP blocking so are now appearing once again. Why that’s the case isn’t mentioned in the High Court order, and the same applies to other confidential aspects of the case to prevent circumvention. Fortunately, not everything is shrouded in darkness.

Dynamic and Static Blocking

The order allows Sky to conduct Dynamic Blocking of IP addresses associated with the IPTV platforms’ servers. Once Sky becomes aware of a server it needs to block, IP address information can be sent to the respondent ISPs for blocking in real-time.

Blocking takes place during specific Blocking Windows based on detection of unauthorized broadcasts of Sky Channels (table below), or various conditions listed in a confidential schedule.

The IP addresses are unblocked at the conclusion of each Blocking Window , the durations of which are confidential.

Under the order, Static Blocking of URLs and Fully Qualified Domain Names (FQDNs) associated with the IPTV services’ websites is permanent.

Sky is authorized to detect and instantly notify the ISPs of IP addresses for Dynamic Blocking and URLs/FQDNs for Static Blocking if certain conditions are met. They include use of an IP address to broadcast public linear audiovisual footage of any Sky Channel during an unspecified Monitoring Period , or use that meets one or more detection conditions specified in a confidential schedule.

The order allows Sky to notify the ISPs of any URL or FQDN for Static Blocking if its “sole or predominant purpose is to enable or facilitate access to a Target Website.” Due to the confidentiality aspects of this and previous orders, specific examples aren’t provided.

However, this could be a measure to limit the usefulness of generating thousands of new subdomains to circumvent blocking. Previously the IPTV providers appeared to utilize wildcard certificates to generate FQDNs such as those shown below.

It may have been the case that if infringing activity only ever took place on subdomains, only those subdomains could be legally blocked. With an infinite supply of subdomains available at zero cost, generating more subdomains wasn’t a problem.

Here, however, a main domain would qualify as having the “sole or predominant purpose” of facilitating access to a pirate service. That means domains and subdomains could be blocked permanently, forcing the purchase of a whole new domain that when deployed would ultimately fare no better.

IP Blocking, URL Blocking, DNS Blocking, Deep Packet Inspection

Each ISP is required to implement blocking based on the type requested and the availability of existing specialist tools.

British Telecommunications (BT)

The section of the order detailing how blocking should be carried out is more complicated than one might expect, largely due to the unique position of British Telecommunications Plc and companies operating within the BT Group. These include the ISP most people know as BT, telecoms brand EE, and the ISP Plusnet, both of which are listed as separate respondents in the blocking order.

BT Group subsidiary Openreach Limited operates the Openreach digital network through which the ISP BT supplies internet connectivity to customers. The Openreach network is also used by over 680 other companies selling broadband and telecoms services, including Plusnet and EE. The blocking order lacks clarity, but it appears that BT’s residential-type customers are handled using BT’s Cleanfeed filtering/blocking system, while ‘wholesale’ customers have access to a lesser-known BT blocking/filtering system called RedCard .

When Dynamic Blocking is required by the order, ISP BT must block by IP address. Customers to which the RedCard system applies must also block by IP address. When applying Static Blocking , BT must apply Cleanfeed for customers using its fixed-line and mobile networks, using technical means including;

● IP address blocking and IP address re-routing at the core network level
● Deep Packet Inspection (DPI) based blocking utilizing at least summary analysis
● DNS blocking for customers using BT’s own DNS servers.

EE Limited

When applying Dynamic Blocking , EE must use IP address blocking for customers on their fixed line network (EE Home line) and mobile network, including hosted Mobile Virtual Network Operators (MVNOs). This applies to customers using RedCard or any equivalent system EE may choose to deploy.

For Static Blocking , EE must use Cleanfeed for fixed line and mobile network customers (including MVNOs). Technical means include;

● IP address blocking and IP address re-routing for every address reported by Sky
● Deep Packet Inspection (DPI) based blocking utilizing at least summary analysis
● DNS blocking for customers using EE’s own DNS servers.

Plusnet

When applying Dynamic Blocking , Plusnet must use IP address blocking for customers to which RedCard applies.

When applying Static Blocking for customers to which Cleanfeed applies, the technical means include:

● IP address blocking and IP address re-routing for every address reported by Sky
● Deep Packet Inspection (DPI) based blocking utilizing at least summary analysis
● DNS blocking for customers using Plusnet’s own DNS servers.

TalkTalk

The instructions for TalkTalk make no references to static or dynamic blocking. The order instead mentions StreamShield, a blocking/filtering system operated by TalkTalk since ~2006. When StreamShield is applied the technical means is URL blocking for each and every URL notified by Sky. When ‘blackholing’ is applied, the technical means is IP address blocking for each IP address notified by Sky.

TalkTalk appears to be the only ISP where blocking measures are limited by volume. For all UK blocking orders that require TalkTalk to implement blocking, a limit of 10,000 simultaneous IP addresses applies.

Virgin Media, Sky, Google

Instructions for Virgin Media do not refer to static or dynamic blocking. The order instead mentions Web Blocker 3, a blocking/filtering system operated by Virgin. When Web Blocker 3 or blackholing is applied, the technical means is IP address blocking.

Sky is the applicant in this process, not a respondent, but appears to have volunteered for blocking duties on its own behalf. Sky will use its own Hawkeye system to carry out IP address blocking.

Google also receives no mention in the court order but TorrentFreak can confirm that the company is voluntarily removing IPTV providers’ domains from search results. That has already had the effect of ‘promoting’ sites publishing reviews of the IPTV providers’ services into the top slots, and will probably lead to scammers exploiting the vacuum to rip off unsuspecting consumers.

In general terms, however, this enhanced blocking order will make life more complex for providers. End users already using VPNs to access these services, on the other hand, will most likely remain completely unaffected.

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