As the RIAA sued thousands of students for music piracy, Hollywood knew that faster internet connections would soon make movies a similarly easy target.

For downloaders in the early 2000s, faster connections couldn’t come soon enough.

In the meantime, ads promising faster downloads began appearing everywhere. Some offered magical ‘internet booster’ software that in reality did little or nothing to improve speeds. Others linked to all-you-can-eat ‘direct download’ portals with flashy names and equally flashy graphics.

As the months and years rolled on, these platforms used content availability as a selling point and through various deceptions, many gave the impression that they offered every piece of content imaginable for a small fee, completely legally.

These platforms deployed various business models, but for consumers who signed up for a short trial, what followed was never good. In most cases there was no content to download. Some sites were selling subscriptions that were structurally difficult or even impossible to cancel, or in some cases incurred an extortionate ‘leaving’ fee.

Due to the presentation, many people believed they were paying for legal content at a discount. What they often received instead was involuntary membership of a ‘subscription trap’ that relieved them of their money while generating millions of dollars for scam site operators. In many cases busy people simply didn’t know that their opportunity to cancel had expired, or that they were being charged $50 or $60 every month for absolutely nothing.

Evolution

Hoping to secure their piece of the pie, new players entered the market in the years that followed. Deception wasn’t just limited to movies either. Hundreds of bogus music download sites promised unlimited legal MP3 downloads, while bogus eBook sites offered extensive libraries of junk. In broad terms the content ostensibly on offer was merely a distraction; underneath they were substantially the same.

What many had in common was their targeting of people prepared to pay for content; people who could’ve used legal services if they’d known any better. But as law enforcement and entertainment industry action shut down pirate sites servicing customers who preferred not to pay , fake ‘legal’ download sites continued to defraud people who actually wanted to pay , year after year.

By 2021, the business model had evolved. Advertising still promised the earth, but instead of receiving nothing for their money, subscribers were given access to obscure and unpopular content; a far cry from the blockbusters promised but a veneer of legitimacy for dubious operators.

Dutch anti-piracy group BREIN is known to report scam sites to ScamAdvisor, but the only major action against these platforms came in the summer of 2021. Radio Canada’s Décrypteurs program exposed what was probably the largest operation of its type in the world with an estimated 1,000+ sites in the network.

Within two months, the business was reportedly shut down, but the idea could never be put back in the bottle. In fact, after effectively ignoring these scams for more than 20 years, new Hollywood piracy studies now describe them as a greater risk to consumers than pirate sites themselves. In itself that’s intriguing but as we explain below, their appearance in piracy studies is problematic.

Studies Funded By MPA

The first study to attract our attention was published on the MPA’s EMEA website in September. Consumer Risk from Piracy in Poland ( pdf ) discloses that it was funded by the MPA and “produced independently” by Dr Paul Watters at La Trobe University (Melbourne).

The aim of the study “was to quantify the cyber risks faced by Polish consumers who engage with digital piracy websites.” The paper begins by defining what it claims are the four predominant types of digital piracy service operating in Poland; P2P Sites, Illicit Streaming Sites, Fraudulent Piracy Sites, and IPTV Subscription Services.

What is a Fraudulent Piracy Site?

While three of the categories above are self-explanatory, Fraudulent Piracy Sites are defined on page 10 as “presenting pirated content as legitimate” and “tricking users into payments or downloading malicious software”. The study claims that these activities “violate content creators’ rights” and also “carry legal consequences for both distributors and consumers.”

No site of any kind is named in the report so it’s impossible to visually confirm what “presenting pirated content as legitimate” actually means. Perhaps a logical example might see a pirate site dressed up as Netflix, but streaming pirated content rather than the fully-licensed content users paid for. This would make sense; pirated content is close to free, the consumer pays for what they believe is a legitimate product, and the pirate service generates profit from the gap in the middle.

Unfortunately that logical example fails to help here due to a confusing clash of definitions in the study.

The definition of ‘Fraudulent Piracy Site’ on page 10 of the study is followed by another definition of the same term on page 18. When placed side by side, with each definition’s key point highlighted (red), the problem clearly stands out.

The deception described on page 10 sees pirated content presented as legitimate content, with perceived value on the consumer side facilitating the scam; seems viable. The deception on page 18 describes a concerted effort to present zero value nonexistent pirated content, as low value pirated content on a scam site masquerading as a pirate site with no actual content.

The brief history of ‘fake’ download sites outlined earlier suggests that the most successful scam model involves masquerading as a legitimate service. That Canadian operation reportedly generated CAD$100 million doing just that. By presenting as legitimate, it’s likely that victims factored in perceived value.

Since in general only pirates recognize pirate sites, an absolutely flawless imitation would likely fool some pirates. Unfortunately, the value proposition versus a legitimate service falls way short, especially when pirates are then expected to pay for pirated content.

Similar Risk Report For the Philippines

A similar study appeared on the MPA’s EMEA website in November. Consumer Risk from Piracy in the Philippines ( pdf ) discloses that it was funded by the MPA and “produced independently” by Dr Paul Watters, this time at Macquarie University (Sydney).

“The aim of this study was to quantify the cyber risks faced by Filipino consumers who engage with digital piracy websites, including fraudulent sites, illegal streaming services, proxy sites, P2P sites, or IPTV platforms,” it begins, broadly in line with the Polish report detailed earlier.

The definition of a Fraudulent Piracy Site in this study follows the ‘fake pirate site’ model: “Fraudulent piracy websites masquerade as piracy platforms to swindle users. These sites often mimic the layout, advertising style, and even domain names of popular unauthorized content sharing platforms.”

The graphic below ranks ‘Fraudulent Piracy Sites’ almost as highly as real pirate sites.

The reports covered here are clearly designed to prompt Poland and the Philippines to ensure that site-blocking measures are implemented to counter the pirate site threat. The researcher removes all doubt by making extremely specific recommendations in both reports that fall precisely in line with the MPA’s policy goals for each country.

Once published, studies like these are used to support all kinds of legislation, the global campaign to block sites for copyright infringement especially. As the Polish report confirms, preference is for an administrative site-blocking program in Poland, i.e one that functions without judicial oversight.

The surprise mention of transparency is welcome, however, since administrative programs such as Portugal’s operate behind closed doors. The complication is the introduction of ‘Fraudulent Piracy Sites’ which, incidentally, are just as predatory as any other cybercrime targeting the public today.

Unfortunately, an indisputable fact hasn’t been addressed; these are NOT ‘piracy sites’

There is no precedent anywhere in the world, in any other pirate site-blocking program, that has even discussed blocking these platforms. Quite frankly law enforcement should’ve taken action 20 years ago but here we are, facing a state of emergency that demands a “zero day” response to prevent further exploitation.

So apart from muddying the piracy waters with a new category of pirate site that contains no pirate sites, why is this important?

Once site-blocking is introduced, nobody will spend another second worrying about ‘Fraudulent Piracy Sites’ beyond their usefulness as a lobbying tool. As a result, when all pirate sites are eventually blocked in Poland, for example, what type of site is most likely to enjoy a massive influx of business as people try to find sites that aren’t blocked?

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

As the RIAA sued thousands of students for music piracy, Hollywood knew that faster internet connections would soon make movies a similarly easy target.

For downloaders in the early 2000s, faster connections couldn’t come soon enough.

In the meantime, ads promising faster downloads began appearing everywhere. Some offered magical ‘internet booster’ software that in reality did little or nothing to improve speeds. Others linked to all-you-can-eat ‘direct download’ portals with flashy names and equally flashy graphics.

As the months and years rolled on, these platforms used content availability as a selling point and through various deceptions, many gave the impression that they offered every piece of content imaginable for a small fee, completely legally.

These platforms deployed various business models, but for consumers who signed up for a short trial, what followed was never good. In most cases there was no content to download. Some sites were selling subscriptions that were structurally difficult or even impossible to cancel, or in some cases incurred an extortionate ‘leaving’ fee.

Due to the presentation, many people believed they were paying for legal content at a discount. What they often received instead was involuntary membership of a ‘subscription trap’ that relieved them of their money while generating millions of dollars for scam site operators. In many cases busy people simply didn’t know that their opportunity to cancel had expired, or that they were being charged $50 or $60 every month for absolutely nothing.

Evolution

Hoping to secure their piece of the pie, new players entered the market in the years that followed. Deception wasn’t just limited to movies either. Hundreds of bogus music download sites promised unlimited legal MP3 downloads, while bogus eBook sites offered extensive libraries of junk. In broad terms the content ostensibly on offer was merely a distraction; underneath they were substantially the same.

What many had in common was their targeting of people prepared to pay for content; people who could’ve used legal services if they’d known any better. But as law enforcement and entertainment industry action shut down pirate sites servicing customers who preferred not to pay , fake ‘legal’ download sites continued to defraud people who actually wanted to pay , year after year.

By 2021, the business model had evolved. Advertising still promised the earth, but instead of receiving nothing for their money, subscribers were given access to obscure and unpopular content; a far cry from the blockbusters promised but a veneer of legitimacy for dubious operators.

Dutch anti-piracy group BREIN is known to report scam sites to ScamAdvisor, but the only major action against these platforms came in the summer of 2021. Radio Canada’s Décrypteurs program exposed what was probably the largest operation of its type in the world with an estimated 1,000+ sites in the network.

Within two months, the business was reportedly shut down, but the idea could never be put back in the bottle. In fact, after effectively ignoring these scams for more than 20 years, new Hollywood piracy studies now describe them as a greater risk to consumers than pirate sites themselves. In itself that’s intriguing but as we explain below, their appearance in piracy studies is problematic.

Studies Funded By MPA

The first study to attract our attention was published on the MPA’s EMEA website in September. Consumer Risk from Piracy in Poland ( pdf ) discloses that it was funded by the MPA and “produced independently” by Dr Paul Watters at La Trobe University (Melbourne).

The aim of the study “was to quantify the cyber risks faced by Polish consumers who engage with digital piracy websites.” The paper begins by defining what it claims are the four predominant types of digital piracy service operating in Poland; P2P Sites, Illicit Streaming Sites, Fraudulent Piracy Sites, and IPTV Subscription Services.

What is a Fraudulent Piracy Site?

While three of the categories above are self-explanatory, Fraudulent Piracy Sites are defined on page 10 as “presenting pirated content as legitimate” and “tricking users into payments or downloading malicious software”. The study claims that these activities “violate content creators’ rights” and also “carry legal consequences for both distributors and consumers.”

No site of any kind is named in the report so it’s impossible to visually confirm what “presenting pirated content as legitimate” actually means. Perhaps a logical example might see a pirate site dressed up as Netflix, but streaming pirated content rather than the fully-licensed content users paid for. This would make sense; pirated content is close to free, the consumer pays for what they believe is a legitimate product, and the pirate service generates profit from the gap in the middle.

Unfortunately that logical example fails to help here due to a confusing clash of definitions in the study.

The definition of ‘Fraudulent Piracy Site’ on page 10 of the study is followed by another definition of the same term on page 18. When placed side by side, with each definition’s key point highlighted (red), the problem clearly stands out.

The deception described on page 10 sees pirated content presented as legitimate content, with perceived value on the consumer side facilitating the scam; seems viable. The deception on page 18 describes a concerted effort to present zero value nonexistent pirated content, as low value pirated content on a scam site masquerading as a pirate site with no actual content.

The brief history of ‘fake’ download sites outlined earlier suggests that the most successful scam model involves masquerading as a legitimate service. That Canadian operation reportedly generated CAD$100 million doing just that. By presenting as legitimate, it’s likely that victims factored in perceived value.

Since in general only pirates recognize pirate sites, an absolutely flawless imitation would likely fool some pirates. Unfortunately, the value proposition versus a legitimate service falls way short, especially when pirates are then expected to pay for pirated content.

Similar Risk Report For the Philippines

A similar study appeared on the MPA’s EMEA website in November. Consumer Risk from Piracy in the Philippines ( pdf ) discloses that it was funded by the MPA and “produced independently” by Dr Paul Watters, this time at Macquarie University (Sydney).

“The aim of this study was to quantify the cyber risks faced by Filipino consumers who engage with digital piracy websites, including fraudulent sites, illegal streaming services, proxy sites, P2P sites, or IPTV platforms,” it begins, broadly in line with the Polish report detailed earlier.

The definition of a Fraudulent Piracy Site in this study follows the ‘fake pirate site’ model: “Fraudulent piracy websites masquerade as piracy platforms to swindle users. These sites often mimic the layout, advertising style, and even domain names of popular unauthorized content sharing platforms.”

The graphic below ranks ‘Fraudulent Piracy Sites’ almost as highly as real pirate sites.

The reports covered here are clearly designed to prompt Poland and the Philippines to ensure that site-blocking measures are implemented to counter the pirate site threat. The researcher removes all doubt by making extremely specific recommendations in both reports that fall precisely in line with the MPA’s policy goals for each country.

Once published, studies like these are used to support all kinds of legislation, the global campaign to block sites for copyright infringement especially. As the Polish report confirms, preference is for an administrative site-blocking program in Poland, i.e one that functions without judicial oversight.

The surprise mention of transparency is welcome, however, since administrative programs such as Portugal’s operate behind closed doors. The complication is the introduction of ‘Fraudulent Piracy Sites’ which, incidentally, are just as predatory as any other cybercrime targeting the public today.

Unfortunately, an indisputable fact hasn’t been addressed; these are NOT ‘piracy sites’

There is no precedent anywhere in the world, in any other pirate site-blocking program, that has even discussed blocking these platforms. Quite frankly law enforcement should’ve taken action 20 years ago but here we are, facing a state of emergency that demands a “zero day” response to prevent further exploitation.

So apart from muddying the piracy waters with a new category of pirate site that contains no pirate sites, why is this important?

Once site-blocking is introduced, nobody will spend another second worrying about ‘Fraudulent Piracy Sites’ beyond their usefulness as a lobbying tool. As a result, when all pirate sites are eventually blocked in Poland, for example, what type of site is most likely to enjoy a massive influx of business as people try to find sites that aren’t blocked?

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

As the RIAA sued thousands of students for music piracy, Hollywood knew that faster internet connections would soon make movies a similarly easy target.

For downloaders in the early 2000s, faster connections couldn’t come soon enough.

In the meantime, ads promising faster downloads began appearing everywhere. Some offered magical ‘internet booster’ software that in reality did little or nothing to improve speeds. Others linked to all-you-can-eat ‘direct download’ portals with flashy names and equally flashy graphics.

As the months and years rolled on, these platforms used content availability as a selling point and through various deceptions, many gave the impression that they offered every piece of content imaginable for a small fee, completely legally.

These platforms deployed various business models, but for consumers who signed up for a short trial, what followed was never good. In most cases there was no content to download. Some sites were selling subscriptions that were structurally difficult or even impossible to cancel, or in some cases incurred an extortionate ‘leaving’ fee.

Due to the presentation, many people believed they were paying for legal content at a discount. What they often received instead was involuntary membership of a ‘subscription trap’ that relieved them of their money while generating millions of dollars for scam site operators. In many cases busy people simply didn’t know that their opportunity to cancel had expired, or that they were being charged $50 or $60 every month for absolutely nothing.

Evolution

Hoping to secure their piece of the pie, new players entered the market in the years that followed. Deception wasn’t just limited to movies either. Hundreds of bogus music download sites promised unlimited legal MP3 downloads, while bogus eBook sites offered extensive libraries of junk. In broad terms the content ostensibly on offer was merely a distraction; underneath they were substantially the same.

What many had in common was their targeting of people prepared to pay for content; people who could’ve used legal services if they’d known any better. But as law enforcement and entertainment industry action shut down pirate sites servicing customers who preferred not to pay , fake ‘legal’ download sites continued to defraud people who actually wanted to pay , year after year.

By 2021, the business model had evolved. Advertising still promised the earth, but instead of receiving nothing for their money, subscribers were given access to obscure and unpopular content; a far cry from the blockbusters promised but a veneer of legitimacy for dubious operators.

Dutch anti-piracy group BREIN is known to report scam sites to ScamAdvisor, but the only major action against these platforms came in the summer of 2021. Radio Canada’s Décrypteurs program exposed what was probably the largest operation of its type in the world with an estimated 1,000+ sites in the network.

Within two months, the business was reportedly shut down, but the idea could never be put back in the bottle. In fact, after effectively ignoring these scams for more than 20 years, new Hollywood piracy studies now describe them as a greater risk to consumers than pirate sites themselves. In itself that’s intriguing but as we explain below, their appearance in piracy studies is problematic.

Studies Funded By MPA

The first study to attract our attention was published on the MPA’s EMEA website in September. Consumer Risk from Piracy in Poland ( pdf ) discloses that it was funded by the MPA and “produced independently” by Dr Paul Watters at La Trobe University (Melbourne).

The aim of the study “was to quantify the cyber risks faced by Polish consumers who engage with digital piracy websites.” The paper begins by defining what it claims are the four predominant types of digital piracy service operating in Poland; P2P Sites, Illicit Streaming Sites, Fraudulent Piracy Sites, and IPTV Subscription Services.

What is a Fraudulent Piracy Site?

While three of the categories above are self-explanatory, Fraudulent Piracy Sites are defined on page 10 as “presenting pirated content as legitimate” and “tricking users into payments or downloading malicious software”. The study claims that these activities “violate content creators’ rights” and also “carry legal consequences for both distributors and consumers.”

No site of any kind is named in the report so it’s impossible to visually confirm what “presenting pirated content as legitimate” actually means. Perhaps a logical example might see a pirate site dressed up as Netflix, but streaming pirated content rather than the fully-licensed content users paid for. This would make sense; pirated content is close to free, the consumer pays for what they believe is a legitimate product, and the pirate service generates profit from the gap in the middle.

Unfortunately that logical example fails to help here due to a confusing clash of definitions in the study.

The definition of ‘Fraudulent Piracy Site’ on page 10 of the study is followed by another definition of the same term on page 18. When placed side by side, with each definition’s key point highlighted (red), the problem clearly stands out.

The deception described on page 10 sees pirated content presented as legitimate content, with perceived value on the consumer side facilitating the scam; seems viable. The deception on page 18 describes a concerted effort to present zero value nonexistent pirated content, as low value pirated content on a scam site masquerading as a pirate site with no actual content.

The brief history of ‘fake’ download sites outlined earlier suggests that the most successful scam model involves masquerading as a legitimate service. That Canadian operation reportedly generated CAD$100 million doing just that. By presenting as legitimate, it’s likely that victims factored in perceived value.

Since in general only pirates recognize pirate sites, an absolutely flawless imitation would likely fool some pirates. Unfortunately, the value proposition versus a legitimate service falls way short, especially when pirates are then expected to pay for pirated content.

Similar Risk Report For the Philippines

A similar study appeared on the MPA’s EMEA website in November. Consumer Risk from Piracy in the Philippines ( pdf ) discloses that it was funded by the MPA and “produced independently” by Dr Paul Watters, this time at Macquarie University (Sydney).

“The aim of this study was to quantify the cyber risks faced by Filipino consumers who engage with digital piracy websites, including fraudulent sites, illegal streaming services, proxy sites, P2P sites, or IPTV platforms,” it begins, broadly in line with the Polish report detailed earlier.

The definition of a Fraudulent Piracy Site in this study follows the ‘fake pirate site’ model: “Fraudulent piracy websites masquerade as piracy platforms to swindle users. These sites often mimic the layout, advertising style, and even domain names of popular unauthorized content sharing platforms.”

The graphic below ranks ‘Fraudulent Piracy Sites’ almost as highly as real pirate sites.

The reports covered here are clearly designed to prompt Poland and the Philippines to ensure that site-blocking measures are implemented to counter the pirate site threat. The researcher removes all doubt by making extremely specific recommendations in both reports that fall precisely in line with the MPA’s policy goals for each country.

Once published, studies like these are used to support all kinds of legislation, the global campaign to block sites for copyright infringement especially. As the Polish report confirms, preference is for an administrative site-blocking program in Poland, i.e one that functions without judicial oversight.

The surprise mention of transparency is welcome, however, since administrative programs such as Portugal’s operate behind closed doors. The complication is the introduction of ‘Fraudulent Piracy Sites’ which, incidentally, are just as predatory as any other cybercrime targeting the public today.

Unfortunately, an indisputable fact hasn’t been addressed; these are NOT ‘piracy sites’

There is no precedent anywhere in the world, in any other pirate site-blocking program, that has even discussed blocking these platforms. Quite frankly law enforcement should’ve taken action 20 years ago but here we are, facing a state of emergency that demands a “zero day” response to prevent further exploitation.

So apart from muddying the piracy waters with a new category of pirate site that contains no pirate sites, why is this important?

Once site-blocking is introduced, nobody will spend another second worrying about ‘Fraudulent Piracy Sites’ beyond their usefulness as a lobbying tool. As a result, when all pirate sites are eventually blocked in Poland, for example, what type of site is most likely to enjoy a massive influx of business as people try to find sites that aren’t blocked?

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

In the 1978 movie Midnight Express, there’s a scene where prisoners walk slowly around a wheel in a dark, stone room. Performed instinctively in a clockwise direction, the ritual brings calm and unity to an otherwise nightmarish existence.

When the protagonist suddenly displays free will in an anti-clockwise direction, defiance of the unspoken rule causes confusion and then descends into chaos. At AGCOM headquarters in Italy, Commissioner and board member Elisa Giomi has stood alone in opposition to Piracy Shield’s direction for the last two years. That too has descended into chaos.

After publicly criticizing its failings, including spiraling costs and its apparent toll on public resources, Giomi is now under pressure to return to the officially designated direction while keeping her opinions to herself. That hasn’t happened yet, far from it.

Opposition Was Inevitable

In the wake of the blocking blunder that wiped out Google Drive last month, Giomi called for Piracy Shield’s suspension. Her colleagues all voted in the opposite direction, just as they’d done for the previous two years. With official rhetoric continuing to extol Piracy Shield’s virtues, Giomi publicly distanced herself from the party line. And how.

After criticizing how quickly the platform was approved by politicians, Giomi slammed the absence of transparency pertaining to external consultancy. With mounting blocking blunders on top, Giomi’s evisceration of Piracy Shield and the surrounding culture was unprecedented.

A source familiar with the situation virtually guaranteed there would be consequences for that outburst, but in what form was anyone’s guess.

Distancing From Comments Made to the Chamber of Deputies

In the wake of a hearing at the Chamber of Deputies, during which the president of AGCOM spoke about Piracy Shield, Giomi made her feelings known once again.

“I find myself once again having to make my position on the #PiracyShield platform transparent and distance myself from the statements made by the President of Agcom during a hearing at the Culture Committee of the Chamber of Deputies, statements that were never discussed and much less shared with the rest of the Agcom Council, which the President can represent but certainly not replace,” the Commissioner wrote on LinkedIn. Then point by point, Giomi systematically aired her grievances.

To ensure authenticity, the comments below are unedited and translated from Italian as plainly as possible. Note: Lega Calcio refers to Lega Nazionale Professionisti Serie A, Italy’s top-tier football league. The Authority refers to telecoms regulator AGCOM, where Giomi is a Commissioner and sits on the board.

Five Devastating Statements

1. Contrary to what the President declared, the re-engineering of the platform for blocking (most well-known) pirate sites and IP addresses was not necessary to optimize the existing system and adapt it to technological evolution, but because it generated a significant and constant percentage of errors that were not compatible with regulatory requirements.

2. These errors are not attributable to defects in the reports, as claimed by the President, but to the functioning of the platform itself, and have led to long resolution times and significant costs for the Authority and for the parties involved.

3. I distance myself from the claim that the donation of the blocking platform by Lega Calcio responded to “the public interest in providing for the provisions of the law in an extremely rapid manner.” It would have been possible to respect these deadlines by also contacting CONSIP , the national purchasing center of the Ministry of Economy, which would also have allowed the identification of a specialized supplier not in #conflictofinterest with the blocking of sites, thus ensuring greater impartiality of the administrative action of the Authority.

4. As a #referee I find myself uncomfortable in contrasting interests that are equally legitimate before the law, but it is worth remembering that the interest of Lega Calcio in combating #piracy contrasts with the equally legitimate interest of the providers of information society services and #platforms , called upon to adapt their networks according to the Piracy Shield standards and to try to prevent erroneous blocks of sites and IP addresses not involved in piracy. There is no charity in the donation of Lega Calcio but rather the desire to pursue private interests in the most effective way possible.

5. The Authority has entrusted the company that created the platform for the Lega Calcio with the evolutionary maintenance service for 12 months. True, but for a fee. Let’s start from a fixed point: the blocking platform pursues the important purpose of combating piracy, however blocks on the #web cannot be implemented by trampling on #fundamentalrights of owners of legitimate sites and IP addresses. The blocking platform should operate, in full, respecting both the right of defense before the block, and the right to immediate restoration of what has been unlawfully inhibited by the Authority. It is unacceptable that a legitimate site is closed in 30 minutes by the platform and that the removal of the block may take even more than 30 days.

Neutral Professionals Support Giomi. Those Involved Do Not

On LinkedIn, professionals overwhelmingly came out in support of Giomi’s unprecedented public airing of her grievances. Several commenters noted that it would’ve been better to have disclosed this information sooner, but the majority expressed their support nonetheless.

In a fresh announcement this week, Commissioner Giomi revealed that her post on LinkedIn led to her receiving “a warning to rectify” and a “threat of a possible compensation action.”

Who sent those threats isn’t made clear, but they don’t come as a surprise.

Contrary Opinions and Criticism Increasingly Unwelcome in Italy

“It is not the first time that I have found myself exposed to similar initiatives when I express a #dissenting opinion in the face of a contrary vote,” Giomi notes.

“I wonder if this does not constitute undue #pressure … a bit like what happens to journalists when they are subjected to #QuereleTemerarie for having reported something inconvenient.”

At the time of writing, the European Centre for Press & Media Freedom has ten articles on its front page, all of them related in some way to attacks on Italian journalists.

Media freedom in Italy has been steadily declining in recent years, marked by unprecedented attacks and violations often initiated by public officials in the attempt to silence critical voices. Political interference in public media and the systematic use of legal intimidation against journalists by political actors have long defined the media-politics relationship in Italy. However, these dynamics have reached alarming levels over the past two years.
Report Launch – Silencing the Fourth Estate: Italy’s Democratic Drift

The full post is available here but regardless of whether people oppose or support Piracy Shield, Giomi says that this dispute comes down to the benefits of diversity to a society where differences are allowed to coexist.

“The Piracy Shield affair brings us back to the importance of giving space to minority voices on issues of collective interest. That is, protecting #pluralism,” Giomi concludes.

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

In the 1978 movie Midnight Express, there’s a scene where prisoners walk slowly around a wheel in a dark, stone room. Performed instinctively in a clockwise direction, the ritual brings calm and unity to an otherwise nightmarish existence.

When the protagonist suddenly displays free will in an anti-clockwise direction, defiance of the unspoken rule causes confusion and then descends into chaos. At AGCOM headquarters in Italy, Commissioner and board member Elisa Giomi has stood alone in opposition to Piracy Shield’s direction for the last two years. That too has descended into chaos.

After publicly criticizing its failings, including spiraling costs and its apparent toll on public resources, Giomi is now under pressure to return to the officially designated direction while keeping her opinions to herself. That hasn’t happened yet, far from it.

Opposition Was Inevitable

In the wake of the blocking blunder that wiped out Google Drive last month, Giomi called for Piracy Shield’s suspension. Her colleagues all voted in the opposite direction, just as they’d done for the previous two years. With official rhetoric continuing to extol Piracy Shield’s virtues, Giomi publicly distanced herself from the party line. And how.

After criticizing how quickly the platform was approved by politicians, Giomi slammed the absence of transparency pertaining to external consultancy. With mounting blocking blunders on top, Giomi’s evisceration of Piracy Shield and the surrounding culture was unprecedented.

A source familiar with the situation virtually guaranteed there would be consequences for that outburst, but in what form was anyone’s guess.

Distancing From Comments Made to the Chamber of Deputies

In the wake of a hearing at the Chamber of Deputies, during which the president of AGCOM spoke about Piracy Shield, Giomi made her feelings known once again.

“I find myself once again having to make my position on the #PiracyShield platform transparent and distance myself from the statements made by the President of Agcom during a hearing at the Culture Committee of the Chamber of Deputies, statements that were never discussed and much less shared with the rest of the Agcom Council, which the President can represent but certainly not replace,” the Commissioner wrote on LinkedIn. Then point by point, Giomi systematically aired her grievances.

To ensure authenticity, the comments below are unedited and translated from Italian as plainly as possible. Note: Lega Calcio refers to Lega Nazionale Professionisti Serie A, Italy’s top-tier football league. The Authority refers to telecoms regulator AGCOM, where Giomi is a Commissioner and sits on the board.

Five Devastating Statements

1. Contrary to what the President declared, the re-engineering of the platform for blocking (most well-known) pirate sites and IP addresses was not necessary to optimize the existing system and adapt it to technological evolution, but because it generated a significant and constant percentage of errors that were not compatible with regulatory requirements.

2. These errors are not attributable to defects in the reports, as claimed by the President, but to the functioning of the platform itself, and have led to long resolution times and significant costs for the Authority and for the parties involved.

3. I distance myself from the claim that the donation of the blocking platform by Lega Calcio responded to “the public interest in providing for the provisions of the law in an extremely rapid manner.” It would have been possible to respect these deadlines by also contacting CONSIP , the national purchasing center of the Ministry of Economy, which would also have allowed the identification of a specialized supplier not in #conflictofinterest with the blocking of sites, thus ensuring greater impartiality of the administrative action of the Authority.

4. As a #referee I find myself uncomfortable in contrasting interests that are equally legitimate before the law, but it is worth remembering that the interest of Lega Calcio in combating #piracy contrasts with the equally legitimate interest of the providers of information society services and #platforms , called upon to adapt their networks according to the Piracy Shield standards and to try to prevent erroneous blocks of sites and IP addresses not involved in piracy. There is no charity in the donation of Lega Calcio but rather the desire to pursue private interests in the most effective way possible.

5. The Authority has entrusted the company that created the platform for the Lega Calcio with the evolutionary maintenance service for 12 months. True, but for a fee. Let’s start from a fixed point: the blocking platform pursues the important purpose of combating piracy, however blocks on the #web cannot be implemented by trampling on #fundamentalrights of owners of legitimate sites and IP addresses. The blocking platform should operate, in full, respecting both the right of defense before the block, and the right to immediate restoration of what has been unlawfully inhibited by the Authority. It is unacceptable that a legitimate site is closed in 30 minutes by the platform and that the removal of the block may take even more than 30 days.

Neutral Professionals Support Giomi. Those Involved Do Not

On LinkedIn, professionals overwhelmingly came out in support of Giomi’s unprecedented public airing of her grievances. Several commenters noted that it would’ve been better to have disclosed this information sooner, but the majority expressed their support nonetheless.

In a fresh announcement this week, Commissioner Giomi revealed that her post on LinkedIn led to her receiving “a warning to rectify” and a “threat of a possible compensation action.”

Who sent those threats isn’t made clear, but they don’t come as a surprise.

Contrary Opinions and Criticism Increasingly Unwelcome in Italy

“It is not the first time that I have found myself exposed to similar initiatives when I express a #dissenting opinion in the face of a contrary vote,” Giomi notes.

“I wonder if this does not constitute undue #pressure … a bit like what happens to journalists when they are subjected to #QuereleTemerarie for having reported something inconvenient.”

At the time of writing, the European Centre for Press & Media Freedom has ten articles on its front page, all of them related in some way to attacks on Italian journalists.

Media freedom in Italy has been steadily declining in recent years, marked by unprecedented attacks and violations often initiated by public officials in the attempt to silence critical voices. Political interference in public media and the systematic use of legal intimidation against journalists by political actors have long defined the media-politics relationship in Italy. However, these dynamics have reached alarming levels over the past two years.
Report Launch – Silencing the Fourth Estate: Italy’s Democratic Drift

The full post is available here but regardless of whether people oppose or support Piracy Shield, Giomi says that this dispute comes down to the benefits of diversity to a society where differences are allowed to coexist.

“The Piracy Shield affair brings us back to the importance of giving space to minority voices on issues of collective interest. That is, protecting #pluralism,” Giomi concludes.

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

In the 1978 movie Midnight Express, there’s a scene where prisoners walk slowly around a wheel in a dark, stone room. Performed instinctively in a clockwise direction, the ritual brings calm and unity to an otherwise nightmarish existence.

When the protagonist suddenly displays free will in an anti-clockwise direction, defiance of the unspoken rule causes confusion and then descends into chaos. At AGCOM headquarters in Italy, Commissioner and board member Elisa Giomi has stood alone in opposition to Piracy Shield’s direction for the last two years. That too has descended into chaos.

After publicly criticizing its failings, including spiraling costs and its apparent toll on public resources, Giomi is now under pressure to return to the officially designated direction while keeping her opinions to herself. That hasn’t happened yet, far from it.

Opposition Was Inevitable

In the wake of the blocking blunder that wiped out Google Drive last month, Giomi called for Piracy Shield’s suspension. Her colleagues all voted in the opposite direction, just as they’d done for the previous two years. With official rhetoric continuing to extol Piracy Shield’s virtues, Giomi publicly distanced herself from the party line. And how.

After criticizing how quickly the platform was approved by politicians, Giomi slammed the absence of transparency pertaining to external consultancy. With mounting blocking blunders on top, Giomi’s evisceration of Piracy Shield and the surrounding culture was unprecedented.

A source familiar with the situation virtually guaranteed there would be consequences for that outburst, but in what form was anyone’s guess.

Distancing From Comments Made to the Chamber of Deputies

In the wake of a hearing at the Chamber of Deputies, during which the president of AGCOM spoke about Piracy Shield, Giomi made her feelings known once again.

“I find myself once again having to make my position on the #PiracyShield platform transparent and distance myself from the statements made by the President of Agcom during a hearing at the Culture Committee of the Chamber of Deputies, statements that were never discussed and much less shared with the rest of the Agcom Council, which the President can represent but certainly not replace,” the Commissioner wrote on LinkedIn. Then point by point, Giomi systematically aired her grievances.

To ensure authenticity, the comments below are unedited and translated from Italian as plainly as possible. Note: Lega Calcio refers to Lega Nazionale Professionisti Serie A, Italy’s top-tier football league. The Authority refers to telecoms regulator AGCOM, where Giomi is a Commissioner and sits on the board.

Five Devastating Statements

1. Contrary to what the President declared, the re-engineering of the platform for blocking (most well-known) pirate sites and IP addresses was not necessary to optimize the existing system and adapt it to technological evolution, but because it generated a significant and constant percentage of errors that were not compatible with regulatory requirements.

2. These errors are not attributable to defects in the reports, as claimed by the President, but to the functioning of the platform itself, and have led to long resolution times and significant costs for the Authority and for the parties involved.

3. I distance myself from the claim that the donation of the blocking platform by Lega Calcio responded to “the public interest in providing for the provisions of the law in an extremely rapid manner.” It would have been possible to respect these deadlines by also contacting CONSIP , the national purchasing center of the Ministry of Economy, which would also have allowed the identification of a specialized supplier not in #conflictofinterest with the blocking of sites, thus ensuring greater impartiality of the administrative action of the Authority.

4. As a #referee I find myself uncomfortable in contrasting interests that are equally legitimate before the law, but it is worth remembering that the interest of Lega Calcio in combating #piracy contrasts with the equally legitimate interest of the providers of information society services and #platforms , called upon to adapt their networks according to the Piracy Shield standards and to try to prevent erroneous blocks of sites and IP addresses not involved in piracy. There is no charity in the donation of Lega Calcio but rather the desire to pursue private interests in the most effective way possible.

5. The Authority has entrusted the company that created the platform for the Lega Calcio with the evolutionary maintenance service for 12 months. True, but for a fee. Let’s start from a fixed point: the blocking platform pursues the important purpose of combating piracy, however blocks on the #web cannot be implemented by trampling on #fundamentalrights of owners of legitimate sites and IP addresses. The blocking platform should operate, in full, respecting both the right of defense before the block, and the right to immediate restoration of what has been unlawfully inhibited by the Authority. It is unacceptable that a legitimate site is closed in 30 minutes by the platform and that the removal of the block may take even more than 30 days.

Neutral Professionals Support Giomi. Those Involved Do Not

On LinkedIn, professionals overwhelmingly came out in support of Giomi’s unprecedented public airing of her grievances. Several commenters noted that it would’ve been better to have disclosed this information sooner, but the majority expressed their support nonetheless.

In a fresh announcement this week, Commissioner Giomi revealed that her post on LinkedIn led to her receiving “a warning to rectify” and a “threat of a possible compensation action.”

Who sent those threats isn’t made clear, but they don’t come as a surprise.

Contrary Opinions and Criticism Increasingly Unwelcome in Italy

“It is not the first time that I have found myself exposed to similar initiatives when I express a #dissenting opinion in the face of a contrary vote,” Giomi notes.

“I wonder if this does not constitute undue #pressure … a bit like what happens to journalists when they are subjected to #QuereleTemerarie for having reported something inconvenient.”

At the time of writing, the European Centre for Press & Media Freedom has ten articles on its front page, all of them related in some way to attacks on Italian journalists.

Media freedom in Italy has been steadily declining in recent years, marked by unprecedented attacks and violations often initiated by public officials in the attempt to silence critical voices. Political interference in public media and the systematic use of legal intimidation against journalists by political actors have long defined the media-politics relationship in Italy. However, these dynamics have reached alarming levels over the past two years.
Report Launch – Silencing the Fourth Estate: Italy’s Democratic Drift

The full post is available here but regardless of whether people oppose or support Piracy Shield, Giomi says that this dispute comes down to the benefits of diversity to a society where differences are allowed to coexist.

“The Piracy Shield affair brings us back to the importance of giving space to minority voices on issues of collective interest. That is, protecting #pluralism,” Giomi concludes.

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

Real-Debrid is nifty tool that provides access to premium and unrestricted downloads from a variety of file hosting and torrent websites.

The popular download service operates as a middleman to access file-hosting platforms, for example, and also uses cached content to stream content from torrent sites instantly.

These features appear to be quite appealing to pirates. This hasn’t gone unnoticed by Real-Debrid, which has an active DMCA removal policy to deal with complaints from rightsholders. However, according to French film distribution companies, this didn’t go far enough.

Real-Debrid Goes Full Anti-Piracy Mode

A few hours ago Real-Debrid informed its users that it will strengthen its anti-piracy measures. This drastic measure comes after a formal notice from the French Federation of Film Distributors ( FNEF ), which previously took several popular file hosting services to court .

Faced with FNEF’s demands, which could potentially escalate into a full-fledged legal battle, Real-Debrid has decided to take several steps to appease rightsholders.

The service says it will block content from ‘a number of’ cyberlockers that are on the US Trade Representative’s “Notorious Markets” list , as well as the EU “Piracy Watchlist” . No names are mentioned, but RapidGator, Mega, Dbree, and KrakenFiles are potential candidates.

Real-Debrid will also deactivate its API , which could be used by third-party services and applications, including media centers such as Kodi and Plex. The same applies to the ‘instantAvailability’ feature, which made it possible to instantly stream and download cached videos, including pirated content.

Upload Filters & More

The service appears to be leaving no stone untouched to combat piracy. It has announced several filtering measures, including keyword filters. Real-Debrid acknowledges that this may lead to false positives, but it appears that the service doesn’t have much choice.

Private torrent trackers aren’t safe either. The download service says it will block all torrent hashes from trackers mentioned in lawsuits filed at the Paris Judicial Court.

Furthermore, Real-Debrid also promises to purge all currently cached files matching these filters. Action to ban “all counterfeit Kodi and Stremio applications” is most likely a reference to any third party tools and extensions that enhance Kodi and Stremio with near-instant playback features.

What’s Next?

As expected, many of Real-Debrid’s paying customers are not pleased with these planned changes. To what degree it will affect the broader user base has yet to be seen, however.

Not all users of the service utilize its ‘instant’ streaming tool. The torrent download functionality is also quite popular. For these people, the impact will largely depend on the breadth and effectiveness of the hash and filename filters.

That said, the pressure applied by French movie distributors will clearly have an impact on Real-Debrid. If the current measures prove insufficient, the same rightsholders will likely come back with new demands.

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

Real-Debrid is nifty tool that provides access to premium and unrestricted downloads from a variety of file hosting and torrent websites.

The popular download service operates as a middleman to access file-hosting platforms, for example, and also uses cached content to stream content from torrent sites instantly.

These features appear to be quite appealing to pirates. This hasn’t gone unnoticed by Real-Debrid, which has an active DMCA removal policy to deal with complaints from rightsholders. However, according to French film distribution companies, this didn’t go far enough.

Real-Debrid Goes Full Anti-Piracy Mode

A few hours ago Real-Debrid informed its users that it will strengthen its anti-piracy measures. This drastic measure comes after a formal notice from the French Federation of Film Distributors ( FNEF ), which previously took several popular file hosting services to court .

Faced with FNEF’s demands, which could potentially escalate into a full-fledged legal battle, Real-Debrid has decided to take several steps to appease rightsholders.

The service says it will block content from ‘a number of’ cyberlockers that are on the US Trade Representative’s “Notorious Markets” list , as well as the EU “Piracy Watchlist” . No names are mentioned, but RapidGator, Mega, Dbree, and KrakenFiles are potential candidates.

Real-Debrid will also deactivate its API , which could be used by third-party services and applications, including media centers such as Kodi and Plex. The same applies to the ‘instantAvailability’ feature, which made it possible to instantly stream and download cached videos, including pirated content.

Upload Filters & More

The service appears to be leaving no stone untouched to combat piracy. It has announced several filtering measures, including keyword filters. Real-Debrid acknowledges that this may lead to false positives, but it appears that the service doesn’t have much choice.

Private torrent trackers aren’t safe either. The download service says it will block all torrent hashes from trackers mentioned in lawsuits filed at the Paris Judicial Court.

Furthermore, Real-Debrid also promises to purge all currently cached files matching these filters. Action to ban “all counterfeit Kodi and Stremio applications” is most likely a reference to any third party tools and extensions that enhance Kodi and Stremio with near-instant playback features.

What’s Next?

As expected, many of Real-Debrid’s paying customers are not pleased with these planned changes. To what degree it will affect the broader user base has yet to be seen, however.

Not all users of the service utilize its ‘instant’ streaming tool. The torrent download functionality is also quite popular. For these people, the impact will largely depend on the breadth and effectiveness of the hash and filename filters.

That said, the pressure applied by French movie distributors will clearly have an impact on Real-Debrid. If the current measures prove insufficient, the same rightsholders will likely come back with new demands.

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

Real-Debrid is nifty tool that provides access to premium and unrestricted downloads from a variety of file hosting and torrent websites.

The popular download service operates as a middleman to access file-hosting platforms, for example, and also uses cached content to stream content from torrent sites instantly.

These features appear to be quite appealing to pirates. This hasn’t gone unnoticed by Real-Debrid, which has an active DMCA removal policy to deal with complaints from rightsholders. However, according to French film distribution companies, this didn’t go far enough.

Real-Debrid Goes Full Anti-Piracy Mode

A few hours ago Real-Debrid informed its users that it will strengthen its anti-piracy measures. This drastic measure comes after a formal notice from the French Federation of Film Distributors ( FNEF ), which previously took several popular file hosting services to court .

Faced with FNEF’s demands, which could potentially escalate into a full-fledged legal battle, Real-Debrid has decided to take several steps to appease rightsholders.

The service says it will block content from ‘a number of’ cyberlockers that are on the US Trade Representative’s “Notorious Markets” list , as well as the EU “Piracy Watchlist” . No names are mentioned, but RapidGator, Mega, Dbree, and KrakenFiles are potential candidates.

Real-Debrid will also deactivate its API , which could be used by third-party services and applications, including media centers such as Kodi and Plex. The same applies to the ‘instantAvailability’ feature, which made it possible to instantly stream and download cached videos, including pirated content.

Upload Filters & More

The service appears to be leaving no stone untouched to combat piracy. It has announced several filtering measures, including keyword filters. Real-Debrid acknowledges that this may lead to false positives, but it appears that the service doesn’t have much choice.

Private torrent trackers aren’t safe either. The download service says it will block all torrent hashes from trackers mentioned in lawsuits filed at the Paris Judicial Court.

Furthermore, Real-Debrid also promises to purge all currently cached files matching these filters. Action to ban “all counterfeit Kodi and Stremio applications” is most likely a reference to any third party tools and extensions that enhance Kodi and Stremio with near-instant playback features.

What’s Next?

As expected, many of Real-Debrid’s paying customers are not pleased with these planned changes. To what degree it will affect the broader user base has yet to be seen, however.

Not all users of the service utilize its ‘instant’ streaming tool. The torrent download functionality is also quite popular. For these people, the impact will largely depend on the breadth and effectiveness of the hash and filename filters.

That said, the pressure applied by French movie distributors will clearly have an impact on Real-Debrid. If the current measures prove insufficient, the same rightsholders will likely come back with new demands.

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