• To chevron_right

      Brazil Blocks Another 250+ Pirate Domains, Milestone #15,000 Just Ahead

      news.movim.eu / TorrentFreak • 19 November 2024 • 11 minutes

    iptv-blocked Brazil’s enthusiasm for blocking piracy-linked domains and IP addresses is showing no signs of slowing down.

    Despite being a relative newcomer to mass blockades on copyright grounds, Brazil’s ISPs will soon find themselves blocking the 15,000th resource since restrictions began in earnest just a couple of years ago.

    That the cycle is guaranteed to continue next year, and at minimum a few years after that, celebrating the blocking of the 30,000th domain or IP address is no longer the impossible dream it once was. Whether the constant requirement for more and more blocking is a sign of success, or more like a dream turning into a nightmare, is hard to say. Pirates don’t appear to be deterred by it, that much as obvious.

    What if Blocking Works and There are No Blunders?

    In a recent interview , a departing board member of telecoms regulator Anatel said that site-blocking is paying off. Artur Coimbra said that customer satisfaction with pirate set-top boxes is in decline and if that continues, one day people won’t want to use piracy services at all.

    It’s hard to fault the theory that people dislike spending money on things that fail to perform. Whether that’s how things will actually play out remains to be seen because history has shown that the opposite generally holds true. But Coimbra also had some controversial news up his sleeve about a new piracy countermeasure; he revealed that blocking tests are already underway at the internet’s core routers.

    The implications of blocking blunders at the infrastructure level go beyond anything considered thus far. But what if mistakes and the risk to society could be eliminated? What if there was accuracy and transparency and accountability, all at the same time? Given that showing accuracy is largely reliant on full transparency which rarely exists, accountability isn’t a concept closely associated with site-blocking regimes anywhere.

    That being said, wherever possible we always try to find out for ourselves and since an unexpected surge of blocking orders covering 250+ domains went live yesterday, now seems a good time to take a closer look.

    Brazil’s Blocklist is Not Dissimilar to Many Others

    Brazil’s blocklist isn’t available to the public but since ISPs are required to comply and the effects should in theory be visible, various means allow for a decent overview. Right now the list contains over 13,100 domains and around 1,500 IP addresses, most of them piracy-related but not exclusively so.

    Blocked gambling sites also feature quite strongly, as do sites selling vapes, although at least for now, relatively sparingly. Even Elon Musk’s X appeared on the list recently; after the entrepreneur irritated a judge, the convenience of having a blocking mechanism to hand made the consequences very predictable.

    Movies and Live Sports Piracy

    Having been heavily targeted previously, stream-ripping platforms deserve a mention, but largely they get to sit this wave out. The list still contains lots of related domains, including around 50 ytmp3 variants, 24 featuring the term y2mate , and another 50 with conv/convert/converter somewhere in their domain, but the new batch is all about streaming.

    The new domains added Monday follow directly after a batch of familiar piracy domains including 123movieswatch4k.com, 123movieslane.com, 123movieses.net, 123moviesking.com, and 123movieszfree.me .

    With that naming convention offering no surprises, the same holds true for several recently added bflix domains, accompanied by even more 123movies domains, because why not? They’ll be useless by the end of the week anyway.

    The list of new additions is initially dominated by variants of multicanais , a popular live sports streaming platform that refuses to stay blocked. Less easy to explain is the domain highlighted in yellow – danielgarcialeilao.org .

    car dealer

    While hiding pirate sites within innocent-looking platforms isn’t unheard of, the site shown above appears to be an auction site for recovered and wrecked vehicles, and we haven’t see anything like that before.

    Targeting Dan

    Alternatively, if reports elsewhere are to be believed, this may be a fake site impersonating the real Daniel Garcia Auctions . According to reports, the difference is that while one is a business that actually exists, the other takes customers’ money and heads for the hills.

    While there will be few complaints if the authorities protect citizens from an alleged scam at the hands of a fake Dan, there’s another Dan on the blocklist that is 100% genuine. Domain sales platform Dan.com is owned by GoDaddy and may not be performing quite as well in Brazil as previously hoped.

    dan.com

    The URL https://t.co/rtG5bJ3jkz is also blocked, presumably because it previously linked to FilmesTorrents.net . Today that domain is up for sale on GoDaddy but if anyone from Brazil is interested in it, using a VPN or similar circumvention tool comes with its own risks. We’re informed that circumvention of blockades can be considered an offense in Brazil although under what circumstances isn’t completely clear.

    FilmesTorrent fans, meanwhile, must’ve had fun keeping up with domain changes; at the time of writing there are 34 domains on the blocklist with a similar format.

    Trying to keep track of domain changes for streaming site Cuevana and its many namesakes would’ve been exponentially more tricky. At the time of writing there are more than 500 variants on the list, including icuevana4.pro, cuevana3z.autos, cuevana3.supply, and the aptly named, cuevanaa.help, which throws in an extra ‘a’ at the end, just to keep things interesting.

    Conclusion

    Just scrolling through 10,000+ domains is pretty exhausting so detailed checking will likely take us quite a few hours. There’s only so much automated tools can achieve on their own so if other obviously legitimate domains also appear on the list, we’ll report that in due course.

    What we can confirm is that after scanning every domain recently added to the list, attempting to take a screenshot, scraping a small amount of text from each, and carrying out some automated security checks, 22 domains had issues related to some type of malware. At least 30 indicated a risk of phishing. In both cases this may relate to a new domain in the event redirects are already in place.

    We certainly aren’t recommending that people visit any of the sites but for those who can’t resist, basic anti-virus software is unlikely to detect these types of threats.

    That being said, common sense says that Dan.com shouldn’t be on this list. There might be a reason, but it’s unlikely to be viewed in a positive light back in the United States. It’s possible that GoDaddy doesn’t even know that it’s being blocked, but that’s no surprise when transparency becomes a thing of the past.

    Brazil: ISP Site Blocking Orders (Online Piracy) [2023-06-28 to 2024-11-18]
    Order Date Legal Authority/Agency Site/Piracy Type Transparency
    2024-11-18 Tribunal de Justiça de São Paulo / CyberGaeco Streaming Piracy Restricted
    2024-11-14 Tribunal de Justiça de Pernambuco IPTV / Stream-Ripping Restricted
    2024-11-13 Tribunal de Justiça de São Paulo / ABTA (TV) IPTV / Movie Piracy Restricted
    2024-11-12 Tribunal de Justiça de Pernambuco IPTV / Stream-Ripping Restricted
    2024-11-12 Tribunal de Justiça de Pernambuco IPTV / Stream-Ripping Restricted
    2024-11-06 Tribunal de Justiça do Distrito Federal e dos Territórios Piracy Restricted
    2024-10-30 Tribunal de Justiça de Pernambuco IPTV / Stream-Ripping Restricted
    2024-10-29 Tribunal de Justiça de Pernambuco IPTV / Stream-Ripping Restricted
    2024-10-28 Tribunal de Justiça de São Paulo / ABTA (TV) IPTV / Movie Piracy Restricted
    2024-10-25 Tribunal de Justiça de São Paulo / CyberGaeco Streaming Piracy Restricted
    2024-10-25 Tribunal de Justiça de Pernambuco IPTV / Stream-Ripping Restricted
    2024-10-25 Tribunal de Justiça de São Paulo / CyberGaeco Streaming Piracy Restricted
    2024-10-22 Tribunal de Justiça de São Paulo / ABTA (TV) IPTV / Movie Piracy Restricted
    2024-10-22 Tribunal de Justiça de São Paulo / ABTA (TV) IPTV / Movie Piracy Restricted
    2024-10-17 Tribunal de Justiça de São Paulo / ABTA (TV) IPTV / Movie Piracy Restricted
    2024-10-15 Tribunal de Justiça de São Paulo / ABTA (TV) IPTV / Movie Piracy Restricted
    2024-10-10 Tribunal de Justiça de São Paulo / ABTA (TV) IPTV / Movie Piracy Restricted
    2024-10-09 Tribunal de Justiça de Pernambuco IPTV / Stream-Ripping Restricted
    2024-10-07 Tribunal de Justiça de São Paulo / ABTA (TV) IPTV / Movie Piracy Restricted
    2024-10-02 Tribunal de Justiça de São Paulo / ABTA (TV) IPTV / Movie Piracy Restricted
    2024-10-02 Tribunal de Justiça de Pernambuco IPTV / Stream-Ripping Restricted
    2024-09-30 Tribunal de Justiça de São Paulo / ABTA (TV) IPTV / Movie Piracy Restricted
    2024-09-30 Tribunal de Justiça de São Paulo / CyberGaeco Streaming Piracy Restricted
    2024-09-25 Tribunal de Justiça de São Paulo / CyberGaeco Streaming Piracy Restricted
    2024-09-25 Tribunal de Justiça de Pernambuco IPTV / Stream-Ripping Restricted
    2024-09-23 Tribunal de Justiça de São Paulo / CyberGaeco Streaming Piracy Restricted
    2024-09-18 Tribunal de Justiça de São Paulo / ABTA (TV) IPTV / Movie Piracy Restricted
    2024-09-17 Tribunal de Justiça de São Paulo / CyberGaeco Streaming Piracy Restricted
    2024-09-16 Tribunal de Justiça de São Paulo / ABTA (TV) IPTV / Movie Piracy Restricted
    2024-09-16 Tribunal de Justiça de Pernambuco IPTV / Stream-Ripping Restricted
    2024-09-13 Tribunal de Justiça de São Paulo / ABTA (TV) IPTV / Movie Piracy Restricted
    2024-09-06 Tribunal de Justiça de São Paulo / ABTA (TV) IPTV / Movie Piracy Restricted
    2024-09-03 Tribunal de Justiça de São Paulo / ABTA (TV) IPTV / Movie Piracy Restricted
    2024-08-30 Tribunal de Justiça de São Paulo / ABTA (TV)) IPTV / Movie Piracy Restricted
    2024-08-29 Tribunal de Justiça de Santa Catarina Movie Piracy Restricted
    2024-08-29 Tribunal de Justiça de Pernambuco IPTV / Stream-Ripping Restricted
    2024-08-27 Tribunal de Justiça de São Paulo / ABTA (TV) IPTV / Movie Piracy Restricted
    2024-08-26 Tribunal de Justiça de São Paulo / ABTA (TV) IPTV / Movie Piracy Restricted
    2024-08-16 Tribunal de Justiça de São Paulo / ABTA (TV) IPTV / Movie Piracy Restricted
    2024-08-15 Tribunal de Justiça de São Paulo / ABTA (TV) IPTV / Movie Piracy Restricted
    2024-08-13 Tribunal de Justiça de São Paulo / ABTA (TV) IPTV / Movie Piracy Restricted
    2024-08-12 Tribunal de Justiça de Pernambuco IPTV / Stream-Ripping Restricted
    2024-08-07 Tribunal de Justiça de Pernambuco IPTV / Stream-Ripping Restricted
    2024-08-07 Tribunal de Justiça de São Paulo / ABTA (TV) IPTV / Movie Piracy Restricted
    2024-08-07 Tribunal de Justiça de São Paulo / ABTA (TV) IPTV / Movie Piracy Restricted
    2024-08-02 Tribunal de Justiça de São Paulo / ABTA (TV) IPTV / Movie Piracy Restricted
    2024-07-29 Tribunal de Justiça de São Paulo / CyberGaeco Streaming Piracy Restricted
    2024-07-24 Tribunal de Justiça de São Paulo / ABTA (TV) IPTV / Movie Piracy Restricted
    2024-07-24 Tribunal de Justiça de São Paulo / CyberGaeco Streaming Piracy Restricted
    2024-07-23 Tribunal de Justiça de São Paulo / ABTA (TV) IPTV / Movie Piracy Restricted
    2024-07-22 Tribunal de Justiça de Pernambuco IPTV / Stream-Ripping Restricted
    2024-07-16 Tribunal de Justiça de São Paulo / CyberGaeco Streaming Piracy Restricted
    2024-07-10 Tribunal de Justiça de São Paulo / ABTA (TV) IPTV / Movie Piracy Restricted
    2024-07-10 Tribunal de Justiça de Pernambuco IPTV / Stream-Ripping Restricted
    2024-07-04 Tribunal de Justiça de São Paulo / CyberGaeco Streaming Piracy Restricted
    2024-07-01 Tribunal de Justiça de São Paulo / CyberGaeco Streaming Piracy Restricted
    2024-06-27 Tribunal de Justiça de São Paulo / ABTA (TV) IPTV / Movie Piracy Restricted
    2024-06-26 Tribunal de Justiça de Pernambuco IPTV / Stream-Ripping Restricted
    2024-06-24 Tribunal de Justiça de Pernambuco IPTV / Stream-Ripping Restricted
    2024-06-21 Tribunal de Justiça de São Paulo / CyberGaeco Streaming Piracy Restricted
    2024-06-20 Tribunal de Justiça de São Paulo / ABTA (TV) IPTV / Movie Piracy Restricted
    2024-06-19 Tribunal de Justiça de São Paulo / CyberGaeco Streaming Piracy Restricted
    2024-06-04 Tribunal de Justiça de Pernambuco IPTV / Stream-Ripping Restricted
    2024-05-29 Tribunal de Justiça de São Paulo / CyberGaeco Streaming Piracy Restricted
    2024-05-24 Tribunal de Justiça de São Paulo / ABTA (TV) IPTV / Movie Piracy Restricted
    2024-05-22 Tribunal de Justiça de São Paulo / CyberGaeco Streaming Piracy Restricted
    2024-05-17 Tribunal de Justiça de São Paulo / ABTA (TV) IPTV / Movie Piracy Restricted
    2024-05-10 Tribunal de Justiça de Pernambuco IPTV / Stream-Ripping Restricted
    2024-05-10 Tribunal de Justiça de São Paulo / CyberGaeco Streaming Piracy Restricted
    2024-05-07 Tribunal de Justiça de São Paulo / ABTA (TV) IPTV / Movie Piracy Restricted
    2024-04-22 Tribunal de Justiça de Pernambuco IPTV / Stream-Ripping Restricted
    2024-04-19 Tribunal de Justiça de São Paulo / CyberGaeco Streaming Piracy Restricted
    2024-04-10 Tribunal de Justiça de São Paulo / CyberGaeco Streaming Piracy Restricted
    2024-04-09 Tribunal de Justiça de Pernambuco IPTV / Stream-Ripping Restricted
    2024-03-24 Tribunal de Justiça de São Paulo / ABTA (TV) IPTV / Movie Piracy Restricted
    2024-03-21 Tribunal de Justiça de São Paulo / ABTA (TV) IPTV / Movie Piracy Restricted
    2024-03-20 Tribunal de Justiça de Pernambuco IPTV / Stream-Ripping Restricted
    2024-03-14 Tribunal de Justiça de Pernambuco IPTV / Stream-Ripping Restricted
    2024-03-12 Tribunal de Justiça de São Paulo / ABTA (TV) IPTV / Movie Piracy Restricted
    2024-03-01 Tribunal de Justiça de São Paulo / ABTA (TV) IPTV / Movie Piracy Restricted
    2024-02-26 Tribunal de Justiça de São Paulo / CyberGaeco Streaming Open
    2024-02-23 Tribunal de Justiça de São Paulo IPTV Open
    2024-02-19 Tribunal de Justiça de Pernambuco IPTV / Stream-Ripping Restricted
    2023-12-18 Tribunal de Justiça de São Paulo / CyberGaeco Stream-Ripping Open
    2023-12-06 Tribunal de Justiça de Pernambuco / Policia Civil de Pernambuco IPTV Open
    2023-08-31 Agência Nacional de Telecomunicações (Anatel) Restricted
    2023-08-10 Agência Nacional de Telecomunicações (Anatel) Restricted
    2023-07-28 Agência Nacional de Telecomunicações (Anatel) Restricted
    2023-06-28 Agência Nacional de Telecomunicações (Anatel) Restricted

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

    • To chevron_right

      Brazil Blocks Another 250+ Pirate Domains, Milestone #15,000 Just Ahead

      news.movim.eu / TorrentFreak • 19 November 2024 • 11 minutes

    iptv-blocked Brazil’s enthusiasm for blocking piracy-linked domains and IP addresses is showing no signs of slowing down.

    Despite being a relative newcomer to mass blockades on copyright grounds, Brazil’s ISPs will soon find themselves blocking the 15,000th resource since restrictions began in earnest just a couple of years ago.

    That the cycle is guaranteed to continue next year, and at minimum a few years after that, celebrating the blocking of the 30,000th domain or IP address is no longer the impossible dream it once was. Whether the constant requirement for more and more blocking is a sign of success, or more like a dream turning into a nightmare, is hard to say. Pirates don’t appear to be deterred by it, that much as obvious.

    What if Blocking Works and There are No Blunders?

    In a recent interview , a departing board member of telecoms regulator Anatel said that site-blocking is paying off. Artur Coimbra said that customer satisfaction with pirate set-top boxes is in decline and if that continues, one day people won’t want to use piracy services at all.

    It’s hard to fault the theory that people dislike spending money on things that fail to perform. Whether that’s how things will actually play out remains to be seen because history has shown that the opposite generally holds true. But Coimbra also had some controversial news up his sleeve about a new piracy countermeasure; he revealed that blocking tests are already underway at the internet’s core routers.

    The implications of blocking blunders at the infrastructure level go beyond anything considered thus far. But what if mistakes and the risk to society could be eliminated? What if there was accuracy and transparency and accountability, all at the same time? Given that showing accuracy is largely reliant on full transparency which rarely exists, accountability isn’t a concept closely associated with site-blocking regimes anywhere.

    That being said, wherever possible we always try to find out for ourselves and since an unexpected surge of blocking orders covering 250+ domains went live yesterday, now seems a good time to take a closer look.

    Brazil’s Blocklist is Not Dissimilar to Many Others

    Brazil’s blocklist isn’t available to the public but since ISPs are required to comply and the effects should in theory be visible, various means allow for a decent overview. Right now the list contains over 13,100 domains and around 1,500 IP addresses, most of them piracy-related but not exclusively so.

    Blocked gambling sites also feature quite strongly, as do sites selling vapes, although at least for now, relatively sparingly. Even Elon Musk’s X appeared on the list recently; after the entrepreneur irritated a judge, the convenience of having a blocking mechanism to hand made the consequences very predictable.

    Movies and Live Sports Piracy

    Having been heavily targeted previously, stream-ripping platforms deserve a mention, but largely they get to sit this wave out. The list still contains lots of related domains, including around 50 ytmp3 variants, 24 featuring the term y2mate , and another 50 with conv/convert/converter somewhere in their domain, but the new batch is all about streaming.

    The new domains added Monday follow directly after a batch of familiar piracy domains including 123movieswatch4k.com, 123movieslane.com, 123movieses.net, 123moviesking.com, and 123movieszfree.me .

    With that naming convention offering no surprises, the same holds true for several recently added bflix domains, accompanied by even more 123movies domains, because why not? They’ll be useless by the end of the week anyway.

    The list of new additions is initially dominated by variants of multicanais , a popular live sports streaming platform that refuses to stay blocked. Less easy to explain is the domain highlighted in yellow – danielgarcialeilao.org .

    car dealer

    While hiding pirate sites within innocent-looking platforms isn’t unheard of, the site shown above appears to be an auction site for recovered and wrecked vehicles, and we haven’t see anything like that before.

    Targeting Dan

    Alternatively, if reports elsewhere are to be believed, this may be a fake site impersonating the real Daniel Garcia Auctions . According to reports, the difference is that while one is a business that actually exists, the other takes customers’ money and heads for the hills.

    While there will be few complaints if the authorities protect citizens from an alleged scam at the hands of a fake Dan, there’s another Dan on the blocklist that is 100% genuine. Domain sales platform Dan.com is owned by GoDaddy and may not be performing quite as well in Brazil as previously hoped.

    dan.com

    The URL https://t.co/rtG5bJ3jkz is also blocked, presumably because it previously linked to FilmesTorrents.net . Today that domain is up for sale on GoDaddy but if anyone from Brazil is interested in it, using a VPN or similar circumvention tool comes with its own risks. We’re informed that circumvention of blockades can be considered an offense in Brazil although under what circumstances isn’t completely clear.

    FilmesTorrent fans, meanwhile, must’ve had fun keeping up with domain changes; at the time of writing there are 34 domains on the blocklist with a similar format.

    Trying to keep track of domain changes for streaming site Cuevana and its many namesakes would’ve been exponentially more tricky. At the time of writing there are more than 500 variants on the list, including icuevana4.pro, cuevana3z.autos, cuevana3.supply, and the aptly named, cuevanaa.help, which throws in an extra ‘a’ at the end, just to keep things interesting.

    Conclusion

    Just scrolling through 10,000+ domains is pretty exhausting so detailed checking will likely take us quite a few hours. There’s only so much automated tools can achieve on their own so if other obviously legitimate domains also appear on the list, we’ll report that in due course.

    What we can confirm is that after scanning every domain recently added to the list, attempting to take a screenshot, scraping a small amount of text from each, and carrying out some automated security checks, 22 domains had issues related to some type of malware. At least 30 indicated a risk of phishing. In both cases this may relate to a new domain in the event redirects are already in place.

    We certainly aren’t recommending that people visit any of the sites but for those who can’t resist, basic anti-virus software is unlikely to detect these types of threats.

    That being said, common sense says that Dan.com shouldn’t be on this list. There might be a reason, but it’s unlikely to be viewed in a positive light back in the United States. It’s possible that GoDaddy doesn’t even know that it’s being blocked, but that’s no surprise when transparency becomes a thing of the past.

    Brazil: ISP Site Blocking Orders (Online Piracy) [2023-06-28 to 2024-11-18]
    Order Date Legal Authority/Agency Site/Piracy Type Transparency
    2024-11-18 Tribunal de Justiça de São Paulo / CyberGaeco Streaming Piracy Restricted
    2024-11-14 Tribunal de Justiça de Pernambuco IPTV / Stream-Ripping Restricted
    2024-11-13 Tribunal de Justiça de São Paulo / ABTA (TV) IPTV / Movie Piracy Restricted
    2024-11-12 Tribunal de Justiça de Pernambuco IPTV / Stream-Ripping Restricted
    2024-11-12 Tribunal de Justiça de Pernambuco IPTV / Stream-Ripping Restricted
    2024-11-06 Tribunal de Justiça do Distrito Federal e dos Territórios Piracy Restricted
    2024-10-30 Tribunal de Justiça de Pernambuco IPTV / Stream-Ripping Restricted
    2024-10-29 Tribunal de Justiça de Pernambuco IPTV / Stream-Ripping Restricted
    2024-10-28 Tribunal de Justiça de São Paulo / ABTA (TV) IPTV / Movie Piracy Restricted
    2024-10-25 Tribunal de Justiça de São Paulo / CyberGaeco Streaming Piracy Restricted
    2024-10-25 Tribunal de Justiça de Pernambuco IPTV / Stream-Ripping Restricted
    2024-10-25 Tribunal de Justiça de São Paulo / CyberGaeco Streaming Piracy Restricted
    2024-10-22 Tribunal de Justiça de São Paulo / ABTA (TV) IPTV / Movie Piracy Restricted
    2024-10-22 Tribunal de Justiça de São Paulo / ABTA (TV) IPTV / Movie Piracy Restricted
    2024-10-17 Tribunal de Justiça de São Paulo / ABTA (TV) IPTV / Movie Piracy Restricted
    2024-10-15 Tribunal de Justiça de São Paulo / ABTA (TV) IPTV / Movie Piracy Restricted
    2024-10-10 Tribunal de Justiça de São Paulo / ABTA (TV) IPTV / Movie Piracy Restricted
    2024-10-09 Tribunal de Justiça de Pernambuco IPTV / Stream-Ripping Restricted
    2024-10-07 Tribunal de Justiça de São Paulo / ABTA (TV) IPTV / Movie Piracy Restricted
    2024-10-02 Tribunal de Justiça de São Paulo / ABTA (TV) IPTV / Movie Piracy Restricted
    2024-10-02 Tribunal de Justiça de Pernambuco IPTV / Stream-Ripping Restricted
    2024-09-30 Tribunal de Justiça de São Paulo / ABTA (TV) IPTV / Movie Piracy Restricted
    2024-09-30 Tribunal de Justiça de São Paulo / CyberGaeco Streaming Piracy Restricted
    2024-09-25 Tribunal de Justiça de São Paulo / CyberGaeco Streaming Piracy Restricted
    2024-09-25 Tribunal de Justiça de Pernambuco IPTV / Stream-Ripping Restricted
    2024-09-23 Tribunal de Justiça de São Paulo / CyberGaeco Streaming Piracy Restricted
    2024-09-18 Tribunal de Justiça de São Paulo / ABTA (TV) IPTV / Movie Piracy Restricted
    2024-09-17 Tribunal de Justiça de São Paulo / CyberGaeco Streaming Piracy Restricted
    2024-09-16 Tribunal de Justiça de São Paulo / ABTA (TV) IPTV / Movie Piracy Restricted
    2024-09-16 Tribunal de Justiça de Pernambuco IPTV / Stream-Ripping Restricted
    2024-09-13 Tribunal de Justiça de São Paulo / ABTA (TV) IPTV / Movie Piracy Restricted
    2024-09-06 Tribunal de Justiça de São Paulo / ABTA (TV) IPTV / Movie Piracy Restricted
    2024-09-03 Tribunal de Justiça de São Paulo / ABTA (TV) IPTV / Movie Piracy Restricted
    2024-08-30 Tribunal de Justiça de São Paulo / ABTA (TV)) IPTV / Movie Piracy Restricted
    2024-08-29 Tribunal de Justiça de Santa Catarina Movie Piracy Restricted
    2024-08-29 Tribunal de Justiça de Pernambuco IPTV / Stream-Ripping Restricted
    2024-08-27 Tribunal de Justiça de São Paulo / ABTA (TV) IPTV / Movie Piracy Restricted
    2024-08-26 Tribunal de Justiça de São Paulo / ABTA (TV) IPTV / Movie Piracy Restricted
    2024-08-16 Tribunal de Justiça de São Paulo / ABTA (TV) IPTV / Movie Piracy Restricted
    2024-08-15 Tribunal de Justiça de São Paulo / ABTA (TV) IPTV / Movie Piracy Restricted
    2024-08-13 Tribunal de Justiça de São Paulo / ABTA (TV) IPTV / Movie Piracy Restricted
    2024-08-12 Tribunal de Justiça de Pernambuco IPTV / Stream-Ripping Restricted
    2024-08-07 Tribunal de Justiça de Pernambuco IPTV / Stream-Ripping Restricted
    2024-08-07 Tribunal de Justiça de São Paulo / ABTA (TV) IPTV / Movie Piracy Restricted
    2024-08-07 Tribunal de Justiça de São Paulo / ABTA (TV) IPTV / Movie Piracy Restricted
    2024-08-02 Tribunal de Justiça de São Paulo / ABTA (TV) IPTV / Movie Piracy Restricted
    2024-07-29 Tribunal de Justiça de São Paulo / CyberGaeco Streaming Piracy Restricted
    2024-07-24 Tribunal de Justiça de São Paulo / ABTA (TV) IPTV / Movie Piracy Restricted
    2024-07-24 Tribunal de Justiça de São Paulo / CyberGaeco Streaming Piracy Restricted
    2024-07-23 Tribunal de Justiça de São Paulo / ABTA (TV) IPTV / Movie Piracy Restricted
    2024-07-22 Tribunal de Justiça de Pernambuco IPTV / Stream-Ripping Restricted
    2024-07-16 Tribunal de Justiça de São Paulo / CyberGaeco Streaming Piracy Restricted
    2024-07-10 Tribunal de Justiça de São Paulo / ABTA (TV) IPTV / Movie Piracy Restricted
    2024-07-10 Tribunal de Justiça de Pernambuco IPTV / Stream-Ripping Restricted
    2024-07-04 Tribunal de Justiça de São Paulo / CyberGaeco Streaming Piracy Restricted
    2024-07-01 Tribunal de Justiça de São Paulo / CyberGaeco Streaming Piracy Restricted
    2024-06-27 Tribunal de Justiça de São Paulo / ABTA (TV) IPTV / Movie Piracy Restricted
    2024-06-26 Tribunal de Justiça de Pernambuco IPTV / Stream-Ripping Restricted
    2024-06-24 Tribunal de Justiça de Pernambuco IPTV / Stream-Ripping Restricted
    2024-06-21 Tribunal de Justiça de São Paulo / CyberGaeco Streaming Piracy Restricted
    2024-06-20 Tribunal de Justiça de São Paulo / ABTA (TV) IPTV / Movie Piracy Restricted
    2024-06-19 Tribunal de Justiça de São Paulo / CyberGaeco Streaming Piracy Restricted
    2024-06-04 Tribunal de Justiça de Pernambuco IPTV / Stream-Ripping Restricted
    2024-05-29 Tribunal de Justiça de São Paulo / CyberGaeco Streaming Piracy Restricted
    2024-05-24 Tribunal de Justiça de São Paulo / ABTA (TV) IPTV / Movie Piracy Restricted
    2024-05-22 Tribunal de Justiça de São Paulo / CyberGaeco Streaming Piracy Restricted
    2024-05-17 Tribunal de Justiça de São Paulo / ABTA (TV) IPTV / Movie Piracy Restricted
    2024-05-10 Tribunal de Justiça de Pernambuco IPTV / Stream-Ripping Restricted
    2024-05-10 Tribunal de Justiça de São Paulo / CyberGaeco Streaming Piracy Restricted
    2024-05-07 Tribunal de Justiça de São Paulo / ABTA (TV) IPTV / Movie Piracy Restricted
    2024-04-22 Tribunal de Justiça de Pernambuco IPTV / Stream-Ripping Restricted
    2024-04-19 Tribunal de Justiça de São Paulo / CyberGaeco Streaming Piracy Restricted
    2024-04-10 Tribunal de Justiça de São Paulo / CyberGaeco Streaming Piracy Restricted
    2024-04-09 Tribunal de Justiça de Pernambuco IPTV / Stream-Ripping Restricted
    2024-03-24 Tribunal de Justiça de São Paulo / ABTA (TV) IPTV / Movie Piracy Restricted
    2024-03-21 Tribunal de Justiça de São Paulo / ABTA (TV) IPTV / Movie Piracy Restricted
    2024-03-20 Tribunal de Justiça de Pernambuco IPTV / Stream-Ripping Restricted
    2024-03-14 Tribunal de Justiça de Pernambuco IPTV / Stream-Ripping Restricted
    2024-03-12 Tribunal de Justiça de São Paulo / ABTA (TV) IPTV / Movie Piracy Restricted
    2024-03-01 Tribunal de Justiça de São Paulo / ABTA (TV) IPTV / Movie Piracy Restricted
    2024-02-26 Tribunal de Justiça de São Paulo / CyberGaeco Streaming Open
    2024-02-23 Tribunal de Justiça de São Paulo IPTV Open
    2024-02-19 Tribunal de Justiça de Pernambuco IPTV / Stream-Ripping Restricted
    2023-12-18 Tribunal de Justiça de São Paulo / CyberGaeco Stream-Ripping Open
    2023-12-06 Tribunal de Justiça de Pernambuco / Policia Civil de Pernambuco IPTV Open
    2023-08-31 Agência Nacional de Telecomunicações (Anatel) Restricted
    2023-08-10 Agência Nacional de Telecomunicações (Anatel) Restricted
    2023-07-28 Agência Nacional de Telecomunicações (Anatel) Restricted
    2023-06-28 Agência Nacional de Telecomunicações (Anatel) Restricted

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

    • To chevron_right

      Brazil Blocks Another 250+ Pirate Domains, Milestone #15,000 Just Ahead

      news.movim.eu / TorrentFreak • 19 November 2024 • 11 minutes

    iptv-blocked Brazil’s enthusiasm for blocking piracy-linked domains and IP addresses is showing no signs of slowing down.

    Despite being a relative newcomer to mass blockades on copyright grounds, Brazil’s ISPs will soon find themselves blocking the 15,000th resource since restrictions began in earnest just a couple of years ago.

    That the cycle is guaranteed to continue next year, and at minimum a few years after that, celebrating the blocking of the 30,000th domain or IP address is no longer the impossible dream it once was. Whether the constant requirement for more and more blocking is a sign of success, or more like a dream turning into a nightmare, is hard to say. Pirates don’t appear to be deterred by it, that much as obvious.

    What if Blocking Works and There are No Blunders?

    In a recent interview , a departing board member of telecoms regulator Anatel said that site-blocking is paying off. Artur Coimbra said that customer satisfaction with pirate set-top boxes is in decline and if that continues, one day people won’t want to use piracy services at all.

    It’s hard to fault the theory that people dislike spending money on things that fail to perform. Whether that’s how things will actually play out remains to be seen because history has shown that the opposite generally holds true. But Coimbra also had some controversial news up his sleeve about a new piracy countermeasure; he revealed that blocking tests are already underway at the internet’s core routers.

    The implications of blocking blunders at the infrastructure level go beyond anything considered thus far. But what if mistakes and the risk to society could be eliminated? What if there was accuracy and transparency and accountability, all at the same time? Given that showing accuracy is largely reliant on full transparency which rarely exists, accountability isn’t a concept closely associated with site-blocking regimes anywhere.

    That being said, wherever possible we always try to find out for ourselves and since an unexpected surge of blocking orders covering 250+ domains went live yesterday, now seems a good time to take a closer look.

    Brazil’s Blocklist is Not Dissimilar to Many Others

    Brazil’s blocklist isn’t available to the public but since ISPs are required to comply and the effects should in theory be visible, various means allow for a decent overview. Right now the list contains over 13,100 domains and around 1,500 IP addresses, most of them piracy-related but not exclusively so.

    Blocked gambling sites also feature quite strongly, as do sites selling vapes, although at least for now, relatively sparingly. Even Elon Musk’s X appeared on the list recently; after the entrepreneur irritated a judge, the convenience of having a blocking mechanism to hand made the consequences very predictable.

    Movies and Live Sports Piracy

    Having been heavily targeted previously, stream-ripping platforms deserve a mention, but largely they get to sit this wave out. The list still contains lots of related domains, including around 50 ytmp3 variants, 24 featuring the term y2mate , and another 50 with conv/convert/converter somewhere in their domain, but the new batch is all about streaming.

    The new domains added Monday follow directly after a batch of familiar piracy domains including 123movieswatch4k.com, 123movieslane.com, 123movieses.net, 123moviesking.com, and 123movieszfree.me .

    With that naming convention offering no surprises, the same holds true for several recently added bflix domains, accompanied by even more 123movies domains, because why not? They’ll be useless by the end of the week anyway.

    The list of new additions is initially dominated by variants of multicanais , a popular live sports streaming platform that refuses to stay blocked. Less easy to explain is the domain highlighted in yellow – danielgarcialeilao.org .

    car dealer

    While hiding pirate sites within innocent-looking platforms isn’t unheard of, the site shown above appears to be an auction site for recovered and wrecked vehicles, and we haven’t see anything like that before.

    Targeting Dan

    Alternatively, if reports elsewhere are to be believed, this may be a fake site impersonating the real Daniel Garcia Auctions . According to reports, the difference is that while one is a business that actually exists, the other takes customers’ money and heads for the hills.

    While there will be few complaints if the authorities protect citizens from an alleged scam at the hands of a fake Dan, there’s another Dan on the blocklist that is 100% genuine. Domain sales platform Dan.com is owned by GoDaddy and may not be performing quite as well in Brazil as previously hoped.

    dan.com

    The URL https://t.co/rtG5bJ3jkz is also blocked, presumably because it previously linked to FilmesTorrents.net . Today that domain is up for sale on GoDaddy but if anyone from Brazil is interested in it, using a VPN or similar circumvention tool comes with its own risks. We’re informed that circumvention of blockades can be considered an offense in Brazil although under what circumstances isn’t completely clear.

    FilmesTorrent fans, meanwhile, must’ve had fun keeping up with domain changes; at the time of writing there are 34 domains on the blocklist with a similar format.

    Trying to keep track of domain changes for streaming site Cuevana and its many namesakes would’ve been exponentially more tricky. At the time of writing there are more than 500 variants on the list, including icuevana4.pro, cuevana3z.autos, cuevana3.supply, and the aptly named, cuevanaa.help, which throws in an extra ‘a’ at the end, just to keep things interesting.

    Conclusion

    Just scrolling through 10,000+ domains is pretty exhausting so detailed checking will likely take us quite a few hours. There’s only so much automated tools can achieve on their own so if other obviously legitimate domains also appear on the list, we’ll report that in due course.

    What we can confirm is that after scanning every domain recently added to the list, attempting to take a screenshot, scraping a small amount of text from each, and carrying out some automated security checks, 22 domains had issues related to some type of malware. At least 30 indicated a risk of phishing. In both cases this may relate to a new domain in the event redirects are already in place.

    We certainly aren’t recommending that people visit any of the sites but for those who can’t resist, basic anti-virus software is unlikely to detect these types of threats.

    That being said, common sense says that Dan.com shouldn’t be on this list. There might be a reason, but it’s unlikely to be viewed in a positive light back in the United States. It’s possible that GoDaddy doesn’t even know that it’s being blocked, but that’s no surprise when transparency becomes a thing of the past.

    Brazil: ISP Site Blocking Orders (Online Piracy) [2023-06-28 to 2024-11-18]
    Order Date Legal Authority/Agency Site/Piracy Type Transparency
    2024-11-18 Tribunal de Justiça de São Paulo / CyberGaeco Streaming Piracy Restricted
    2024-11-14 Tribunal de Justiça de Pernambuco IPTV / Stream-Ripping Restricted
    2024-11-13 Tribunal de Justiça de São Paulo / ABTA (TV) IPTV / Movie Piracy Restricted
    2024-11-12 Tribunal de Justiça de Pernambuco IPTV / Stream-Ripping Restricted
    2024-11-12 Tribunal de Justiça de Pernambuco IPTV / Stream-Ripping Restricted
    2024-11-06 Tribunal de Justiça do Distrito Federal e dos Territórios Piracy Restricted
    2024-10-30 Tribunal de Justiça de Pernambuco IPTV / Stream-Ripping Restricted
    2024-10-29 Tribunal de Justiça de Pernambuco IPTV / Stream-Ripping Restricted
    2024-10-28 Tribunal de Justiça de São Paulo / ABTA (TV) IPTV / Movie Piracy Restricted
    2024-10-25 Tribunal de Justiça de São Paulo / CyberGaeco Streaming Piracy Restricted
    2024-10-25 Tribunal de Justiça de Pernambuco IPTV / Stream-Ripping Restricted
    2024-10-25 Tribunal de Justiça de São Paulo / CyberGaeco Streaming Piracy Restricted
    2024-10-22 Tribunal de Justiça de São Paulo / ABTA (TV) IPTV / Movie Piracy Restricted
    2024-10-22 Tribunal de Justiça de São Paulo / ABTA (TV) IPTV / Movie Piracy Restricted
    2024-10-17 Tribunal de Justiça de São Paulo / ABTA (TV) IPTV / Movie Piracy Restricted
    2024-10-15 Tribunal de Justiça de São Paulo / ABTA (TV) IPTV / Movie Piracy Restricted
    2024-10-10 Tribunal de Justiça de São Paulo / ABTA (TV) IPTV / Movie Piracy Restricted
    2024-10-09 Tribunal de Justiça de Pernambuco IPTV / Stream-Ripping Restricted
    2024-10-07 Tribunal de Justiça de São Paulo / ABTA (TV) IPTV / Movie Piracy Restricted
    2024-10-02 Tribunal de Justiça de São Paulo / ABTA (TV) IPTV / Movie Piracy Restricted
    2024-10-02 Tribunal de Justiça de Pernambuco IPTV / Stream-Ripping Restricted
    2024-09-30 Tribunal de Justiça de São Paulo / ABTA (TV) IPTV / Movie Piracy Restricted
    2024-09-30 Tribunal de Justiça de São Paulo / CyberGaeco Streaming Piracy Restricted
    2024-09-25 Tribunal de Justiça de São Paulo / CyberGaeco Streaming Piracy Restricted
    2024-09-25 Tribunal de Justiça de Pernambuco IPTV / Stream-Ripping Restricted
    2024-09-23 Tribunal de Justiça de São Paulo / CyberGaeco Streaming Piracy Restricted
    2024-09-18 Tribunal de Justiça de São Paulo / ABTA (TV) IPTV / Movie Piracy Restricted
    2024-09-17 Tribunal de Justiça de São Paulo / CyberGaeco Streaming Piracy Restricted
    2024-09-16 Tribunal de Justiça de São Paulo / ABTA (TV) IPTV / Movie Piracy Restricted
    2024-09-16 Tribunal de Justiça de Pernambuco IPTV / Stream-Ripping Restricted
    2024-09-13 Tribunal de Justiça de São Paulo / ABTA (TV) IPTV / Movie Piracy Restricted
    2024-09-06 Tribunal de Justiça de São Paulo / ABTA (TV) IPTV / Movie Piracy Restricted
    2024-09-03 Tribunal de Justiça de São Paulo / ABTA (TV) IPTV / Movie Piracy Restricted
    2024-08-30 Tribunal de Justiça de São Paulo / ABTA (TV)) IPTV / Movie Piracy Restricted
    2024-08-29 Tribunal de Justiça de Santa Catarina Movie Piracy Restricted
    2024-08-29 Tribunal de Justiça de Pernambuco IPTV / Stream-Ripping Restricted
    2024-08-27 Tribunal de Justiça de São Paulo / ABTA (TV) IPTV / Movie Piracy Restricted
    2024-08-26 Tribunal de Justiça de São Paulo / ABTA (TV) IPTV / Movie Piracy Restricted
    2024-08-16 Tribunal de Justiça de São Paulo / ABTA (TV) IPTV / Movie Piracy Restricted
    2024-08-15 Tribunal de Justiça de São Paulo / ABTA (TV) IPTV / Movie Piracy Restricted
    2024-08-13 Tribunal de Justiça de São Paulo / ABTA (TV) IPTV / Movie Piracy Restricted
    2024-08-12 Tribunal de Justiça de Pernambuco IPTV / Stream-Ripping Restricted
    2024-08-07 Tribunal de Justiça de Pernambuco IPTV / Stream-Ripping Restricted
    2024-08-07 Tribunal de Justiça de São Paulo / ABTA (TV) IPTV / Movie Piracy Restricted
    2024-08-07 Tribunal de Justiça de São Paulo / ABTA (TV) IPTV / Movie Piracy Restricted
    2024-08-02 Tribunal de Justiça de São Paulo / ABTA (TV) IPTV / Movie Piracy Restricted
    2024-07-29 Tribunal de Justiça de São Paulo / CyberGaeco Streaming Piracy Restricted
    2024-07-24 Tribunal de Justiça de São Paulo / ABTA (TV) IPTV / Movie Piracy Restricted
    2024-07-24 Tribunal de Justiça de São Paulo / CyberGaeco Streaming Piracy Restricted
    2024-07-23 Tribunal de Justiça de São Paulo / ABTA (TV) IPTV / Movie Piracy Restricted
    2024-07-22 Tribunal de Justiça de Pernambuco IPTV / Stream-Ripping Restricted
    2024-07-16 Tribunal de Justiça de São Paulo / CyberGaeco Streaming Piracy Restricted
    2024-07-10 Tribunal de Justiça de São Paulo / ABTA (TV) IPTV / Movie Piracy Restricted
    2024-07-10 Tribunal de Justiça de Pernambuco IPTV / Stream-Ripping Restricted
    2024-07-04 Tribunal de Justiça de São Paulo / CyberGaeco Streaming Piracy Restricted
    2024-07-01 Tribunal de Justiça de São Paulo / CyberGaeco Streaming Piracy Restricted
    2024-06-27 Tribunal de Justiça de São Paulo / ABTA (TV) IPTV / Movie Piracy Restricted
    2024-06-26 Tribunal de Justiça de Pernambuco IPTV / Stream-Ripping Restricted
    2024-06-24 Tribunal de Justiça de Pernambuco IPTV / Stream-Ripping Restricted
    2024-06-21 Tribunal de Justiça de São Paulo / CyberGaeco Streaming Piracy Restricted
    2024-06-20 Tribunal de Justiça de São Paulo / ABTA (TV) IPTV / Movie Piracy Restricted
    2024-06-19 Tribunal de Justiça de São Paulo / CyberGaeco Streaming Piracy Restricted
    2024-06-04 Tribunal de Justiça de Pernambuco IPTV / Stream-Ripping Restricted
    2024-05-29 Tribunal de Justiça de São Paulo / CyberGaeco Streaming Piracy Restricted
    2024-05-24 Tribunal de Justiça de São Paulo / ABTA (TV) IPTV / Movie Piracy Restricted
    2024-05-22 Tribunal de Justiça de São Paulo / CyberGaeco Streaming Piracy Restricted
    2024-05-17 Tribunal de Justiça de São Paulo / ABTA (TV) IPTV / Movie Piracy Restricted
    2024-05-10 Tribunal de Justiça de Pernambuco IPTV / Stream-Ripping Restricted
    2024-05-10 Tribunal de Justiça de São Paulo / CyberGaeco Streaming Piracy Restricted
    2024-05-07 Tribunal de Justiça de São Paulo / ABTA (TV) IPTV / Movie Piracy Restricted
    2024-04-22 Tribunal de Justiça de Pernambuco IPTV / Stream-Ripping Restricted
    2024-04-19 Tribunal de Justiça de São Paulo / CyberGaeco Streaming Piracy Restricted
    2024-04-10 Tribunal de Justiça de São Paulo / CyberGaeco Streaming Piracy Restricted
    2024-04-09 Tribunal de Justiça de Pernambuco IPTV / Stream-Ripping Restricted
    2024-03-24 Tribunal de Justiça de São Paulo / ABTA (TV) IPTV / Movie Piracy Restricted
    2024-03-21 Tribunal de Justiça de São Paulo / ABTA (TV) IPTV / Movie Piracy Restricted
    2024-03-20 Tribunal de Justiça de Pernambuco IPTV / Stream-Ripping Restricted
    2024-03-14 Tribunal de Justiça de Pernambuco IPTV / Stream-Ripping Restricted
    2024-03-12 Tribunal de Justiça de São Paulo / ABTA (TV) IPTV / Movie Piracy Restricted
    2024-03-01 Tribunal de Justiça de São Paulo / ABTA (TV) IPTV / Movie Piracy Restricted
    2024-02-26 Tribunal de Justiça de São Paulo / CyberGaeco Streaming Open
    2024-02-23 Tribunal de Justiça de São Paulo IPTV Open
    2024-02-19 Tribunal de Justiça de Pernambuco IPTV / Stream-Ripping Restricted
    2023-12-18 Tribunal de Justiça de São Paulo / CyberGaeco Stream-Ripping Open
    2023-12-06 Tribunal de Justiça de Pernambuco / Policia Civil de Pernambuco IPTV Open
    2023-08-31 Agência Nacional de Telecomunicações (Anatel) Restricted
    2023-08-10 Agência Nacional de Telecomunicações (Anatel) Restricted
    2023-07-28 Agência Nacional de Telecomunicações (Anatel) Restricted
    2023-06-28 Agência Nacional de Telecomunicações (Anatel) Restricted

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

    • To chevron_right

      Half of Young Norwegians Say Online Piracy Is an Acceptable Way to Save Money

      news.movim.eu / TorrentFreak • 19 November 2024 • 2 minutes

    lighthouse Most people know that pirating movies, live sports, and music is against the law. Despite this awareness, millions do so daily.

    Norway is no exception. The country offers consumers plenty of legal options, including many streaming platforms. However, that might actually be part of the problem.

    Those who want the full spectrum of streaming options, including Netflix, Amazon Prime, Disney+, Max, Apple TV, SkyShowtime, Viaplay, Discovery+, and many others, need deep pockets. In many cases, people subscribe to a selection instead, while pirating on the side.

    This week, the Norwegian government released the results of a new Ipsos survey that looks at the public’s attitude toward piracy. These findings show that unauthorized streaming and downloading is broadly accepted, particularly among younger people.

    Expensive Streaming Options Justify Piracy

    The survey , which involved 1,411 respondents aged 15 and above, shows that 32% agree that is it okay to use pirate sites and services to save money. Among those under 30 years old, half find it acceptable to pirate for cost reasons.

    Survey results (translated)

    ok pirate

    When asked specifically whether it’s okay to pirate because legal services are too expensive, acceptance rates are even higher. This is a disturbing trend for rightsholders and various campaigns that have tried to curb piracy in recent years.

    While the price of streaming services is seen as a problem, the majority of respondents do pay for legal access. In total, 61% paid for streaming services over the past year. This also applies to young people under 30, of which 64% paid for access.

    These figures confirm that Norwegians are not opposed to paying for content but with over a dozen paid options, paying for everything is not seen as viable for all.

    Organized Crime?

    One of the strategies used to dissuade pirates is the highlighting of negative consequences. Aside from entertainment industry losses, these include potential malware and security threats, as well as the notion that pirate services can be associated with organized crime.

    Interestingly, roughly two-thirds of all respondents say that they have considered the potential negative consequences of using pirate sites and services but less than half (47%) agree that piracy supports organized crime.

    crime

    The organized crime link is most accepted by older Norwegians. However, many respondents say they simply don’t know enough about a possible link between piracy and organized crime, as 24% answered “I don’t know”.

    Pirates Would Stop If…

    Malware threats and links to organized crime are not of particular concern to pirates. Of those who knowingly pirated in the past year, 7% said that knowing more about the links with organized crime could make them stop, while 18% said that the risk of malware or fraud could deter them.

    Instead of focusing on external threats and concerns, legal streaming platforms themselves could make the most progress by changing their pricing.

    Among all self-proclaimed Norwegian pirates, the most common reasons to stop were more affordable legal streaming services (41%) and the availability of a broader range of content per service (35%).

    All in all, the survey results show that piracy remains prevalent in Norway. While it will be impossible to eradicate completely, these findings indicate that the entertainment industries can make most progress by focusing on the affordability and availability of legal services.

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

    • To chevron_right

      Half of Young Norwegians Say Online Piracy Is an Acceptable Way to Save Money

      news.movim.eu / TorrentFreak • 19 November 2024 • 2 minutes

    lighthouse Most people know that pirating movies, live sports, and music is against the law. Despite this awareness, millions do so daily.

    Norway is no exception. The country offers consumers plenty of legal options, including many streaming platforms. However, that might actually be part of the problem.

    Those who want the full spectrum of streaming options, including Netflix, Amazon Prime, Disney+, Max, Apple TV, SkyShowtime, Viaplay, Discovery+, and many others, need deep pockets. In many cases, people subscribe to a selection instead, while pirating on the side.

    This week, the Norwegian government released the results of a new Ipsos survey that looks at the public’s attitude toward piracy. These findings show that unauthorized streaming and downloading is broadly accepted, particularly among younger people.

    Expensive Streaming Options Justify Piracy

    The survey , which involved 1,411 respondents aged 15 and above, shows that 32% agree that is it okay to use pirate sites and services to save money. Among those under 30 years old, half find it acceptable to pirate for cost reasons.

    Survey results (translated)

    ok pirate

    When asked specifically whether it’s okay to pirate because legal services are too expensive, acceptance rates are even higher. This is a disturbing trend for rightsholders and various campaigns that have tried to curb piracy in recent years.

    While the price of streaming services is seen as a problem, the majority of respondents do pay for legal access. In total, 61% paid for streaming services over the past year. This also applies to young people under 30, of which 64% paid for access.

    These figures confirm that Norwegians are not opposed to paying for content but with over a dozen paid options, paying for everything is not seen as viable for all.

    Organized Crime?

    One of the strategies used to dissuade pirates is the highlighting of negative consequences. Aside from entertainment industry losses, these include potential malware and security threats, as well as the notion that pirate services can be associated with organized crime.

    Interestingly, roughly two-thirds of all respondents say that they have considered the potential negative consequences of using pirate sites and services but less than half (47%) agree that piracy supports organized crime.

    crime

    The organized crime link is most accepted by older Norwegians. However, many respondents say they simply don’t know enough about a possible link between piracy and organized crime, as 24% answered “I don’t know”.

    Pirates Would Stop If…

    Malware threats and links to organized crime are not of particular concern to pirates. Of those who knowingly pirated in the past year, 7% said that knowing more about the links with organized crime could make them stop, while 18% said that the risk of malware or fraud could deter them.

    Instead of focusing on external threats and concerns, legal streaming platforms themselves could make the most progress by changing their pricing.

    Among all self-proclaimed Norwegian pirates, the most common reasons to stop were more affordable legal streaming services (41%) and the availability of a broader range of content per service (35%).

    All in all, the survey results show that piracy remains prevalent in Norway. While it will be impossible to eradicate completely, these findings indicate that the entertainment industries can make most progress by focusing on the affordability and availability of legal services.

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

    • To chevron_right

      Half of Young Norwegians Say Online Piracy Is an Acceptable Way to Save Money

      news.movim.eu / TorrentFreak • 19 November 2024 • 2 minutes

    lighthouse Most people know that pirating movies, live sports, and music is against the law. Despite this awareness, millions do so daily.

    Norway is no exception. The country offers consumers plenty of legal options, including many streaming platforms. However, that might actually be part of the problem.

    Those who want the full spectrum of streaming options, including Netflix, Amazon Prime, Disney+, Max, Apple TV, SkyShowtime, Viaplay, Discovery+, and many others, need deep pockets. In many cases, people subscribe to a selection instead, while pirating on the side.

    This week, the Norwegian government released the results of a new Ipsos survey that looks at the public’s attitude toward piracy. These findings show that unauthorized streaming and downloading is broadly accepted, particularly among younger people.

    Expensive Streaming Options Justify Piracy

    The survey , which involved 1,411 respondents aged 15 and above, shows that 32% agree that is it okay to use pirate sites and services to save money. Among those under 30 years old, half find it acceptable to pirate for cost reasons.

    Survey results (translated)

    ok pirate

    When asked specifically whether it’s okay to pirate because legal services are too expensive, acceptance rates are even higher. This is a disturbing trend for rightsholders and various campaigns that have tried to curb piracy in recent years.

    While the price of streaming services is seen as a problem, the majority of respondents do pay for legal access. In total, 61% paid for streaming services over the past year. This also applies to young people under 30, of which 64% paid for access.

    These figures confirm that Norwegians are not opposed to paying for content but with over a dozen paid options, paying for everything is not seen as viable for all.

    Organized Crime?

    One of the strategies used to dissuade pirates is the highlighting of negative consequences. Aside from entertainment industry losses, these include potential malware and security threats, as well as the notion that pirate services can be associated with organized crime.

    Interestingly, roughly two-thirds of all respondents say that they have considered the potential negative consequences of using pirate sites and services but less than half (47%) agree that piracy supports organized crime.

    crime

    The organized crime link is most accepted by older Norwegians. However, many respondents say they simply don’t know enough about a possible link between piracy and organized crime, as 24% answered “I don’t know”.

    Pirates Would Stop If…

    Malware threats and links to organized crime are not of particular concern to pirates. Of those who knowingly pirated in the past year, 7% said that knowing more about the links with organized crime could make them stop, while 18% said that the risk of malware or fraud could deter them.

    Instead of focusing on external threats and concerns, legal streaming platforms themselves could make the most progress by changing their pricing.

    Among all self-proclaimed Norwegian pirates, the most common reasons to stop were more affordable legal streaming services (41%) and the availability of a broader range of content per service (35%).

    All in all, the survey results show that piracy remains prevalent in Norway. While it will be impossible to eradicate completely, these findings indicate that the entertainment industries can make most progress by focusing on the affordability and availability of legal services.

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

    • To chevron_right

      Apple Opposes Legal Quest to Reinstate ‘Parasitic’ Streaming App Musi

      news.movim.eu / TorrentFreak • 18 November 2024 • 4 minutes

    musi logo In September, Apple removed the popular music streaming app Musi from its App Store. The delisting is significant, as the app has millions of users.

    Apple’s action didn’t come as a complete surprise. Music industry groups had been trying to take Musi down for months, branding it a ‘parasitic’ app that skirts the rules.

    Music group IFPI took the lead, calling on other music industry players and YouTube to complain to Apple as well. This mounting pressure eventually paid off.

    The delisting puts the future of Musi directly at risk. The company initially hoped to resolve the matter with Apple behind closed doors. The tech giant was unwilling to reverse its decision, however, so the streaming app took the matter to court.

    Musi Sues Apple over ‘YouTube-Triggered’ Removal

    In a complaint filed at a California federal court last month, Musi sued Apple for breach of contract, as well as a breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. The music app believes that the delisting was unjustified and wants Apple to reinstate it immediately.

    “Apple removed the Musi app based upon unsupported accusations from a third party who has failed to respond to Musi’s communications. Worse, Apple was fully aware that the third party had failed to substantiate its claims to Musi,” said the company behind the app.

    The third-party in question is YouTube. According to Musi, Apple acted based on a five-word complaint from ‘YouTube Legal’ that was sent late July. Attempts by Musi to discuss the matter with YouTube remained unanswered, but Apple removed the app nonetheless.

    Preliminary Injunction

    For Musi, the matter amounts to an existential threat. The music app built its entire business on the iOS platform and without it being available in the App Store, the service will ultimately perish.

    Faced with this conundrum, Musi requested a preliminary injunction to have the app reinstated as soon as possible. The removal has already caused irreparable harm, it argued, but a swift injunction can stop the bleeding.

    “By removing the Musi app from its only viable distribution platform, Apple has exiled Musi from its customer base—thereby threatening the company’s survival,” Musi wrote.

    “Musi is therefore entitled to a preliminary injunction to stop Apple from continuing to breach the Developer Agreement by refusing to list or otherwise making unavailable the Musi app.”

    Apple Opposes Injunction

    Apple responded in court last Friday, opposing Musi’s request for a preliminary injunction. The company argues that the terms of the Apple Developer Program License Agreement (DLPA) allow the company to delist apps “at any time, with or without cause.”

    Aside from this contractual freedom, Apple also counters Musi’s allegation that it took action based on little more than a five word complaint from YouTube.

    “That is false, and Musi knows that it is false,” Apple writes, mentioning a variety of other complaints, including those submitted by music group IFPI and the music publishers’ association NMPA.

    The NMPA letter, for example, went beyond a simple complaint and detailed how Musi allegedly uses multiple free YouTube API-tokens to avoid paying licensing fees, while inserting its own ads.

    From NMPA’s complaint

    mnpa

    Apple says it doesn’t take a position in the legal dispute between Musi, YouTube, and many of the other third parties that complained. However, the provided context suggests that the delisting isn’t the result of just one brief removal request.

    ‘Existential Exaggeration’

    The opposition brief repeatedly stresses that Apple has the right to delist apps based on its own contracts. Even if that’s in doubt, there’s no need for a preliminary injunction.

    Apple says that while new users can no longer download the app, existing Musi users are still able to use the installed app. This means that Musi can continue to generate revenue.

    The app reportedly generated millions of dollars in advertising revenue per month in the past and there is no evidence that it is in financial trouble now, Apple argues.

    “Musi provides no evidence relating to its financial condition and no evidence that it is unable to survive until a decision on the merits in this case,” Apple notes.

    “In fact, public reporting suggests that Musi earned more than $100 million in advertising revenue between January 2023 and spring 2024 and employs ten people at most. If true […], Musi is not at imminent risk of extinction.”

    From Apple’s Opposition

    apple musi

    All in all, Apple sees no reason for the court to grant the injunction. In addition to violating Apple’s rights, the proposed injunction also goes against the interests of all parties who complained that their rights are being infringed, the company notes.

    Musi has yet to respond to Apple’s opposition. It is clear, however, that the app is fighting a legal battle that will be closely watched by rightsholders, YouTube, and many independent iOS developers.

    A copy of Apple’s opposition to Musi’s motion for a preliminary injunction, filed as the California federal court, is available here (pdf)

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

    • To chevron_right

      Apple Opposes Legal Quest to Reinstate ‘Parasitic’ Streaming App Musi

      news.movim.eu / TorrentFreak • 18 November 2024 • 4 minutes

    musi logo In September, Apple removed the popular music streaming app Musi from its App Store. The delisting is significant, as the app has millions of users.

    Apple’s action didn’t come as a complete surprise. Music industry groups had been trying to take Musi down for months, branding it a ‘parasitic’ app that skirts the rules.

    Music group IFPI took the lead, calling on other music industry players and YouTube to complain to Apple as well. This mounting pressure eventually paid off.

    The delisting puts the future of Musi directly at risk. The company initially hoped to resolve the matter with Apple behind closed doors. The tech giant was unwilling to reverse its decision, however, so the streaming app took the matter to court.

    Musi Sues Apple over ‘YouTube-Triggered’ Removal

    In a complaint filed at a California federal court last month, Musi sued Apple for breach of contract, as well as a breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. The music app believes that the delisting was unjustified and wants Apple to reinstate it immediately.

    “Apple removed the Musi app based upon unsupported accusations from a third party who has failed to respond to Musi’s communications. Worse, Apple was fully aware that the third party had failed to substantiate its claims to Musi,” said the company behind the app.

    The third-party in question is YouTube. According to Musi, Apple acted based on a five-word complaint from ‘YouTube Legal’ that was sent late July. Attempts by Musi to discuss the matter with YouTube remained unanswered, but Apple removed the app nonetheless.

    Preliminary Injunction

    For Musi, the matter amounts to an existential threat. The music app built its entire business on the iOS platform and without it being available in the App Store, the service will ultimately perish.

    Faced with this conundrum, Musi requested a preliminary injunction to have the app reinstated as soon as possible. The removal has already caused irreparable harm, it argued, but a swift injunction can stop the bleeding.

    “By removing the Musi app from its only viable distribution platform, Apple has exiled Musi from its customer base—thereby threatening the company’s survival,” Musi wrote.

    “Musi is therefore entitled to a preliminary injunction to stop Apple from continuing to breach the Developer Agreement by refusing to list or otherwise making unavailable the Musi app.”

    Apple Opposes Injunction

    Apple responded in court last Friday, opposing Musi’s request for a preliminary injunction. The company argues that the terms of the Apple Developer Program License Agreement (DLPA) allow the company to delist apps “at any time, with or without cause.”

    Aside from this contractual freedom, Apple also counters Musi’s allegation that it took action based on little more than a five word complaint from YouTube.

    “That is false, and Musi knows that it is false,” Apple writes, mentioning a variety of other complaints, including those submitted by music group IFPI and the music publishers’ association NMPA.

    The NMPA letter, for example, went beyond a simple complaint and detailed how Musi allegedly uses multiple free YouTube API-tokens to avoid paying licensing fees, while inserting its own ads.

    From NMPA’s complaint

    mnpa

    Apple says it doesn’t take a position in the legal dispute between Musi, YouTube, and many of the other third parties that complained. However, the provided context suggests that the delisting isn’t the result of just one brief removal request.

    ‘Existential Exaggeration’

    The opposition brief repeatedly stresses that Apple has the right to delist apps based on its own contracts. Even if that’s in doubt, there’s no need for a preliminary injunction.

    Apple says that while new users can no longer download the app, existing Musi users are still able to use the installed app. This means that Musi can continue to generate revenue.

    The app reportedly generated millions of dollars in advertising revenue per month in the past and there is no evidence that it is in financial trouble now, Apple argues.

    “Musi provides no evidence relating to its financial condition and no evidence that it is unable to survive until a decision on the merits in this case,” Apple notes.

    “In fact, public reporting suggests that Musi earned more than $100 million in advertising revenue between January 2023 and spring 2024 and employs ten people at most. If true […], Musi is not at imminent risk of extinction.”

    From Apple’s Opposition

    apple musi

    All in all, Apple sees no reason for the court to grant the injunction. In addition to violating Apple’s rights, the proposed injunction also goes against the interests of all parties who complained that their rights are being infringed, the company notes.

    Musi has yet to respond to Apple’s opposition. It is clear, however, that the app is fighting a legal battle that will be closely watched by rightsholders, YouTube, and many independent iOS developers.

    A copy of Apple’s opposition to Musi’s motion for a preliminary injunction, filed as the California federal court, is available here (pdf)

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

    • To chevron_right

      Apple Opposes Legal Quest to Reinstate ‘Parasitic’ Streaming App Musi

      news.movim.eu / TorrentFreak • 18 November 2024 • 4 minutes

    musi logo In September, Apple removed the popular music streaming app Musi from its App Store. The delisting is significant, as the app has millions of users.

    Apple’s action didn’t come as a complete surprise. Music industry groups had been trying to take Musi down for months, branding it a ‘parasitic’ app that skirts the rules.

    Music group IFPI took the lead, calling on other music industry players and YouTube to complain to Apple as well. This mounting pressure eventually paid off.

    The delisting puts the future of Musi directly at risk. The company initially hoped to resolve the matter with Apple behind closed doors. The tech giant was unwilling to reverse its decision, however, so the streaming app took the matter to court.

    Musi Sues Apple over ‘YouTube-Triggered’ Removal

    In a complaint filed at a California federal court last month, Musi sued Apple for breach of contract, as well as a breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. The music app believes that the delisting was unjustified and wants Apple to reinstate it immediately.

    “Apple removed the Musi app based upon unsupported accusations from a third party who has failed to respond to Musi’s communications. Worse, Apple was fully aware that the third party had failed to substantiate its claims to Musi,” said the company behind the app.

    The third-party in question is YouTube. According to Musi, Apple acted based on a five-word complaint from ‘YouTube Legal’ that was sent late July. Attempts by Musi to discuss the matter with YouTube remained unanswered, but Apple removed the app nonetheless.

    Preliminary Injunction

    For Musi, the matter amounts to an existential threat. The music app built its entire business on the iOS platform and without it being available in the App Store, the service will ultimately perish.

    Faced with this conundrum, Musi requested a preliminary injunction to have the app reinstated as soon as possible. The removal has already caused irreparable harm, it argued, but a swift injunction can stop the bleeding.

    “By removing the Musi app from its only viable distribution platform, Apple has exiled Musi from its customer base—thereby threatening the company’s survival,” Musi wrote.

    “Musi is therefore entitled to a preliminary injunction to stop Apple from continuing to breach the Developer Agreement by refusing to list or otherwise making unavailable the Musi app.”

    Apple Opposes Injunction

    Apple responded in court last Friday, opposing Musi’s request for a preliminary injunction. The company argues that the terms of the Apple Developer Program License Agreement (DLPA) allow the company to delist apps “at any time, with or without cause.”

    Aside from this contractual freedom, Apple also counters Musi’s allegation that it took action based on little more than a five word complaint from YouTube.

    “That is false, and Musi knows that it is false,” Apple writes, mentioning a variety of other complaints, including those submitted by music group IFPI and the music publishers’ association NMPA.

    The NMPA letter, for example, went beyond a simple complaint and detailed how Musi allegedly uses multiple free YouTube API-tokens to avoid paying licensing fees, while inserting its own ads.

    From NMPA’s complaint

    mnpa

    Apple says it doesn’t take a position in the legal dispute between Musi, YouTube, and many of the other third parties that complained. However, the provided context suggests that the delisting isn’t the result of just one brief removal request.

    ‘Existential Exaggeration’

    The opposition brief repeatedly stresses that Apple has the right to delist apps based on its own contracts. Even if that’s in doubt, there’s no need for a preliminary injunction.

    Apple says that while new users can no longer download the app, existing Musi users are still able to use the installed app. This means that Musi can continue to generate revenue.

    The app reportedly generated millions of dollars in advertising revenue per month in the past and there is no evidence that it is in financial trouble now, Apple argues.

    “Musi provides no evidence relating to its financial condition and no evidence that it is unable to survive until a decision on the merits in this case,” Apple notes.

    “In fact, public reporting suggests that Musi earned more than $100 million in advertising revenue between January 2023 and spring 2024 and employs ten people at most. If true […], Musi is not at imminent risk of extinction.”

    From Apple’s Opposition

    apple musi

    All in all, Apple sees no reason for the court to grant the injunction. In addition to violating Apple’s rights, the proposed injunction also goes against the interests of all parties who complained that their rights are being infringed, the company notes.

    Musi has yet to respond to Apple’s opposition. It is clear, however, that the app is fighting a legal battle that will be closely watched by rightsholders, YouTube, and many independent iOS developers.

    A copy of Apple’s opposition to Musi’s motion for a preliminary injunction, filed as the California federal court, is available here (pdf)

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