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

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

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

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

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

And Then Two Come Along at Once

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

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

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

(Release name as an image, to avoid being flagged in a wrongful DMCA notice)

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

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

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

Welcome to the MPA

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

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

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

(Release name as an image, to avoid being flagged in a wrongful DMCA notice)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bitmanagement Wins Appeal

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

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

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

$155,400,000 in Piracy Damages?

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

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

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

Court Awards $154,400, Bitmanagement Appeals

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

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

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

Appeals Court Affirms $154,400 Damages Award

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

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

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

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

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

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

—

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Unlicensed Distributors, Illegal Competition

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

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

Image credit:ABJ [TF translations in bold]

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

In the meantime, pressure on pirate sites continues.

Back in Court Once Again

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

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

Image credit: CODA/Bunka

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The latest wave of the UK government’s Copyright Infringement Tracker study was expected a year ago. There’s still no indication when it will arrive, or even if it will arrive at all, a shame considering interest generated by previous reports.

That said, the first three weeks of 2025 has seen the publication of other IP-focused reports, including the Intellectual Property Office’s (IPO) 2022/23 Report and Accounts and its Innovation and Growth Report 2023/24 .

Neither provide fuel for our reporting niche quite like the Infringement Tracker, but one interesting nugget concerning the funding of the Police Intellectual Property Crime Unit (PIPCU) warranted a closer look.

IPO’s ‘Surplus’ Millions Fund PIPCU

The IPO’s publicatiob notes that BEIS, the Department for Business, Energy & Industrial Strategy, ” can utilize IPO surpluses through taking additional dividends and currently does so to fund other IP related initiatives.”

The report states that the arrangement covers PIPCU’s funding requirements, as shown in the extract below.

While BEIS no longer exists, having been replaced by three new departments in 2023 , PIPCU’s funding arrangement seems unchanged. City of London Police currently lists the IPO as PIPCU’s funding provider, with an annual figure of £2,053,000.

Whether that figure covers all operational costs is unclear. PIPCU launched in 2013 with annual funding of £2.56 million, with an increase to £3.39 million reported in 2019. Since City of London Police can generate income through commercial partnerships, charging for services, and recovery through the Proceeds of Crime Act (POCA), additional funding may be available from elsewhere ( pdf ) .

With fraud online now at record highs, City of London Police as a whole is clearly busy. On the IP crime front lines specifically, PIPCU may be busier that its intermittent press releases seem to suggest.

PIPCU Fights Fraud First, Pirates Handled Later

Details of some PIPCU activities appear in several official reports; the National Lead Force Performance Report, and the Economic & Cyber Crime Committee’s Communications & Strategic Engagement report, for example.

From the volumes reported, tackling online scams and insurance fraud consumes significant resources at City of London Police. At least in public reporting, tackling online piracy seems to receive less attention. However, when police engage the public on issues that include piracy, a dedicated social media team monitors for engagement and the results are reported accordingly.

One example featured an appearance in the media, which aimed to highlight the dangers of illegal streaming in support of a “partner agency.”

“DCI Gary Robinson was quoted in ITV News, Independent, Express, The Sun, Mirror, Daily Star, Daily Mail, Metro, LADbible and several others after [City of London Police] contributed to a partner agency’s press announcement on the risks associated with using illegal streaming services,” a Communications & Strategic Engagement update notes.

The ‘partner agency’ goes unnamed but ‘Federation Against Copyright Theft’ seems a perfect fit for the scenario. It may also go some way towards explaining the sudden and massive interest in piracy over the past couple of years, much of it on display in the publications mentioned above.

Police Authority Board – Commissioner’s Update Reports

A subsequent Commissioner’s Update Report reveals significant action against a pirate IPTV provider. While there are similarities with reported events, we can’t be 100% sure which case this refers to, and the same goes for the other cases mentioned below. There’s no doubting their importance, however.

“The team took down a very large Internet Protocol Television (IPTV) provider alongside partners at Sky TV. This was one of the UK’s biggest illegal streaming operations,” the statement reads.

“Losses to the TV broadcaster will be counted in the millions of pounds. Over two operations there have been three arrests and large data capacity servers seized.”

A similar update three months later notes that “PIPCU attended a EUROPOL conference in Romania to discuss joint Investigations/operations against criminal activities concerning IPTV” and other illegal streaming.

“PIPCU advised on how European law enforcement authorities can enhance their response against the threat of illegal television streaming networks and to identify and tackle Organized Crime Groups behind this criminality.”

Further Updates on Pirate IPTV Cases

Subsequent reports provide additional information on what appears to be the same case. There’s no additional information available beyond the following quotes, but the combination of details sound very familiar.

“[The case is an] investigation into illegal IPTV streaming involving the top tier, which includes a father and son and an in- law. Similarly, the suspected benefit figure runs over £4m with a restraint order of £1.68m. There are 86 accounts so far identified.”

“Op Talos – Very large Internet Protocol Television (IPTV) illegal TV streaming and money laundering – Final restraint figure now confirmed at £1.6m, this is the biggest restraint in PIPCU’s 10 year history”

In addition to [Op]eration Talos, PIPCU also mentioned [Op]eration Delaware, which reportedly targeted what was “believed to be the UK’s largest Illegal streaming service causing losses to the industry of £17 million a year.”

This illegal TV network “had millions of global users,” the report concludes.

In another PIPCU case, the restraint and confiscation of £186,182, relating to the sale of ‘counterfeit IPTV set-top boxes’, sits among others in the shade of the cases detailed above. Nevertheless, it still carries value as a potential source of additional funding, on top of any surplus cash supplied by the Intellectual Property Office.

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

File-hosting platform 1fichier.com appeared around 2009 and since then has seen no shortage of copyright complaints.

Most recently, it was highlighted by the U.S. Trade Representative as a notorious piracy market. The site’s response to takedown notices is seen as insufficient by rightsholders, the USTR concluded.

These allegations are nothing new to 1Fichier and parent company Dstorage. However, where other services typically evade legal threats, 1fichier has defended itself in court, albeit with little success.

Nintendo previously sued the file hosting company and won, both in first instance and on appeal. 1fichier now owes the gaming giant hundreds of thousands of euros in damages, which has yet to be confirmed in a follow-up proceeding.

A Decade of Payment Troubles

Long before Nintendo appeared into view, 1fichier already had plenty of other worries. The shutdown of Megaupload in 2012 put a spotlight on the cyberlocker industry and, urged by rightsholders, major payment companies started to intervene.

PayPal notably increased its enforcement efforts, banning dozens of services, and in the background banks were cutting their ties too. Société Générale terminated its contract with 1fichier in 2015 due to concerns over piracy.

The French ban followed an alert by Mastercard and complaints from Zee Entertainment, which alleged that hundreds of links to copyrighted works were being shared on the site. The bank referred these complaints to 1fichier, asking it to take appropriate action.

While the file-hosting site claimed it responded to these takedowns, it couldn’t prevent similar files from being shared. That was a problem. After new complaints were received, Société Générale decided to terminate its contact with 1fichier.

Anti-Piracy Provision in Bank Contract

The French bank didn’t just arbitrarily cut its ties. The company had previously updated its contracts with clients to include a section where they agreed to stay away from illegal activities, including “acts of counterfeiting and infringements of works protected by intellectual property rights.”

Most cyberlockers would have taken termination for granted, but not 1fichier. The French site went to court, arguing that it should not be held responsible for third-party copyright infringements without being notified about specific instances first.

In court, 1fichier argued that hosting services are only at fault when they fail to remove content after being specifically notified about concrete infringements. In addition, the service claimed to have taken steps to prevent pirated content from reappearing.

The French courts disagreed and ultimately ruled that the bank was within its right to terminate the contract based on the copyright infringement clause. This conclusion was confirmed by the court of appeal in 2023, which determined that 1fichier’s response to the reported infringements was insufficient.

Supreme Court Affirms

1fichier’s parent company Dstorage took the case to the French Supreme Court ( Cour de Cassation ), hoping for a reversal. However, in a decision handed down this week, the court affirmed the appeal court’s verdict.

The Supreme Court notes that the bank warned the hosting company of copyright infringements, including a link to content that was previously reported, concluding that 1fichier failed to demonstrate that it had implemented appropriate anti-piracy measures.

“Based on the findings and the statements, which indicated that Dstorage had failed to comply with its contractual undertaking not to publish or store any illicit content, the court of appeal was able to hold that Société Générale had rightly terminated the contract. The plea is therefore unfounded,” the Supreme Court’s decision reads.

The Supreme Court saw no need to refer any questions to the Court of Justice of the European Union. Instead, it dismissed the case and ordered Dstorage to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Monitoring Obligation?

1fichier is disappointed with the outcome. Speaking with TorrentFreak the hosting platform says that the court effectively ruled that it has an obligation to monitor its service for potential copyright infringements. The company views that as problematic and a violation of EU law.

This is reminiscent of the indirect ‘upload filter’ requirements referenced in Article 17 of the EU Copyright Directive. However, under Article 15 of the EU E-Commerce Directive, member states cannot impose a general monitoring obligation on service providers.

For 1fichier, this is sufficient ground to take the case to the EU authorities for clarification. But even if the EU takes the case on, it will likely take years before a decision is reached. Meanwhile, the site still accepts PayPal, Visa, and Mastercard payments through third parties.

—

A copy of the decision from the Cour de Cassation Chambre commerciale financière et économique is available here (pdf)

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

Launched last year, Italy’s elaborate ‘ Piracy Shield ‘ blocking scheme was billed as the future of anti-piracy efforts.

To effectively tackle live sports piracy, broad blocking powers aim to block piracy-related domain names and IP addresses within 30 minutes.

While many pirate sources have indeed been blocked, Piracy Shield is not without controversy. There have been multiple reports of overblocking, where the anti-piracy system blocked access to Google Drive , Cloudflare , and other legitimate sites and services. Meanwhile, calls for more transparency and accountability are growing.

Tech Industry Sounds Alarm Bell

Yesterday, the Computer & Communications Industry Association ( CCIA ) sounded the alarm. In a letter addressed to the EU Commission, the coalition of tech industry companies, including Amazon, Cloudflare and Google, shared grave concerns.

The European branch of CCIA acknowledges that Piracy Shield aims to protect rightsholders. However, they argue that the ‘blunt’ DNS and IP blocking measures represent a threat to other companies and the public.

“While this approach aims to protect intellectual property and reduce online piracy, it relies on IP address and domain name system (DNS)-level blocking, making it a potentially extremely blunt instrument to address online copyright infringement,” CCIA writes.

In addition, extending the blocking scheme to DNS resolvers and VPN providers is seen as a major concern. These tools are not suited to carry out blocking measures, CCIA says, as they are fundamental to the protection of free expression.

CCIA emphasizes that concerns about overblocking are not hypothetical, as the Piracy Shield is already wreaking havoc. It cites the aforementioned Google Drive blockade, which affected millions of Italians and took hours to resolve.

“On 20 October 2024, Google Drive was mistakenly blocked by the Piracy Shield system, causing a three-hour blackout for all Italian users, while 13.5% of users were still blocked at the IP level, and 3% were blocked at the DNS level after 12 hours.”

Transparency, Verification & Accountability

While European Courts have previously greenlighted pirate site blocking schemes, CCIA highlights that Italy’s implementation lacks sufficient safeguards and transparency. That makes the prevention and swift correction of errors much more difficult.

The tech group also notes that Piracy Shield was developed by a company affiliated with local football league Serie A, one of the few rightsholders currently allowed to use the system. This raises concerns of whether the system adequately considers all stakeholders’ interests.

CCIA says that AGCOM, the regulator that manages Piracy Shield, should take measures to address these concerns.

“The Italian Piracy Shield should at the very least incorporate more robust verification protocols and significantly enhance transparency, as well as adequate redress mechanisms for affected users, to reduce these negative impacts.”

Problematic Reporting Obligations

In addition to matters directly related to blocking, the tech industry is concerned about recent amendments to Italian copyright law that introduce obligations that contradict the principles set forth in the EU’s Digital Services Act (DSA).

These amendments mandate all intermediary providers to report any knowledge of illegal activity, including minor copyright infringements. Failure to comply could result in up to one year of imprisonment .

According to the CCIA, these requirements introduce new obligations for companies that simply pass on traffic. It argues that these requirements go beyond EU law and will create a chilling effect on freedom of expression and innovation online.

Withdraw Piracy Shield

CCIA believes that Piracy Shield and the recent legal amendments violate several EU laws. They were not submitted under the TRIS procedure either, a key element of the European Union’s single market policy when it comes to rules regarding online services.

To properly address these concerns, CCIA urges the EU Commission to engage with the Italian Government to put a halt to the anti-piracy measures, so their lawfulness can be thoroughly checked.

“The Italian government should withdraw the above-mentioned legislation in order to go through the TRIS procedure, allowing the Commission and other Member States to review the substance of these flawed and ineffective initiatives, and address their infringement of European laws,” CCIA concludes.

—

A copy of CCIA Europe’s letter is available here (pdf)

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

The arrest of Telegram founder Pavel Durov by French authorities in August 2024 was unexpected, the basis perhaps even more so.

The mere suggestion that social media operators in the United States could face arrest overseas, for the alleged misconduct of a minority of users among more than a billion, would not be well received.

According to reports, France accused a subset of Telegram users of committing a range of very serious crimes. Extending the blame to Durov personally, inaction in the face of complaints rendered him complicit, the authorities said.

Telegram’s New Leaf?

The detail of Durov’s unplanned extended French break, and how that was received behind the usually impenetrable walls of Telegram, remains mostly unclear. However, the bottom line seems to be a more flexible, perhaps even reformed Telegram, with a much-improved attitude towards content complaints, copyright notifications included.

Last September Telegram reportedly removed allegedly-infringing messages from Z-Library’s channel for copyright infringement. Telegram struck again earlier this month, deleting channels operated by Z-Library and fellow shadow library, Anna’s Archive.

RuTracker? Surely Not..

This week Russian media outlets reported that a similar fate had befallen RuTracker, a veteran torrent index/tracker still going strong after celebrating its 20th birthday last September.

First reported by CNews, the publication said that Telegram had “destroyed” RuTracker’s channel. That sits in stark contrast to the image below, which shows an early promotion of the channel on Twitter in 2017.

The body of the article clarifies that the channel was blocked and no longer appears in Telegram’s search results. CNews further reports that subscribers to the channel, over 27,900 according to Telegram data, can no longer access the channel’s content either.

Instead, they’re reportedly greeted by a message, stating that “This channel is unavailable due to copyright infringement.” A report published at Habr.com reports along the same lines, this time with an accompanying screenshot.

RuTracker’s attitude to copyright complaints previously earned the site a place on Russia’s blocklist. Operated by telecoms regulator Roscomnadzor, the list now features RuTracker as a permanent fixture, an inevitable response to ongoing infringement and zero compliance.

Telegram Means Little to RuTracker

While there are plenty of reports in Russia media concerning the blocking of RuTracker, our tests from outside Russia failed early Tuesday but on Wednesday, passed with flying colors.

Given that site-blocking is widespread in Russia, almost anything is possible. Interestingly, the supposed reason for the block – copyright infringement, according to reports – seems highly unlikely to have been triggered by a valid complaint.

On January 19, issues with the main RuTracker site, which operates separately from Telegram, prompted RuTracker staff to post a message about the issues to the channel, followed by an update a few minutes later.

No further posts have appeared since then, but that deserves more context.

Site Doesn’t Use Telegram Very Often

The post above that begins by addressing “Friends” is preceded by another bearing good news. “The service has been restored! If you have problems accessing the forum, clear your browser cache and cookies,” it reads.

That post is dated January 27, 2023, suggesting that RuTracker made little to no use of the channel during the last two years. Two short posts further back still is another marking RuTracker’s 18th birthday. It’s dated September 18, 2022 .

That celebration was viewed 286,200 times; this week’s post was viewed 6,500 times.

As a famous Russian once said: If it dies, it dies.

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

Reddit has gone head-to-head with a group of filmmakers over the past two years, aiming to protect the privacy of its users.

In three separate cases, the filmmakers subpoenaed Reddit for details of users who commented on various piracy related topics.

The movie companies said they are not planning to go after these people in court but want to use their comments as evidence in ongoing piracy liability lawsuits against Frontier Communications and other internet providers.

For example, the rightsholders argued that the Redditors’ comments are key evidence to show that ISPs didn’t implement a suitable repeat infringer policy, and that subsequently acted as a draw to pirating subscribers.

Reddit views the requests as intrusive. The company objected to the initial attempt , arguing that handing over the requested information would violate users’ First Amendment right to anonymous speech. Reddit later responded similarly to a second and third subpoena request.

The movie companies took these cases to a federal court, asking it to compel Reddit to comply. The court refused to do so, on several occasions and for varying reasons.

Court of Appeals

The film companies, including Killing Link Distribution and movant Voltage Holdings, disagreed with the lower court decisions. They appealed to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, requesting a reversal .

In their opening brief at the Ninth Circuit, the movie companies stress that the users’ IP addresses requested in the DMCA subpoena are key evidence to show that Frontier is liable for its subscribers’ copyright infringements.

“Particularly, the IP addresses show that the users who made incriminating comments were, one, making these comments from Frontier’s Internet service, and two, had shared pirated copies of Appellants’ Works from the IP addresses.

“Further, the IP addresses are necessary to show that the users who boasted that Frontier took no action in response to DMCA notices were indeed users of Frontier’s service and thereby rebut Frontier’s safe harbor defense,” the movie companies add.

First Amendment?

Thus far, the movie companies haven’t had much success with these DMCA subpoenas against Reddit. However, U.S. District Court Judge James Donato offered some hope. While the court ultimately denied the request for a ‘de novo’ review this summer, it offered a different view on the First Amendment angle.

Unlike the earlier decisions, including that of the magistrate judge, Judge Donato didn’t see this as an anonymous speech matter.

“I don’t think this is a First Amendment case. It’s plain as day that these people were saying that they were involved in copyright infringement, and First Amendment does not protect infringing conduct,” the Judge said at a hearing.

Instead, the DMCA subpoena was denied because the requested information doesn’t justify the discovery burden on Reddit. The result is the same for the movie companies, but the courts’ varying reasons are part of the motivation to appeal.

Reddit Responds

Last month, Reddit responded to the opening brief, requesting the Court of Appeals to affirm that the DMCA subpoena should be quashed. This conclusion can be reached based on the lower court’s finding that the value of the requested information fails to justify the burden.

In addition, Reddit stresses that, contrary to Judge Donato’s finding, the First Amendment right to anonymous speech does come into play here as well.

“The anonymous speech targeted by the subpoena is unquestionably protected by the First Amendment. Talking about pirating movies is not copyright infringement, and even the ‘advocacy of illegal acts’ is ‘within the First Amendment’s core’,” Reddit writes in its answer.

Whether the court quashes the DMCA subpoena based on the ‘First Amendment’ or the ‘undue burden’ argument is irrelevant to the outcome of this case, Reddit notes. In both cases, it should be quashed.

“This Court should affirm the district court’s quashing of the subpoena because, at best, it is nothing more than a fishing expedition, and at worst, it is a targeted attempt to intimidate Reddit users and chill their speech,” Reddit notes.

EFF Chimes In

Reddit’s position is supported by the Electronic Frontier Foundation ( EFF ) which filed an amicus curiae brief at the Court of Appeals. The group agrees that the motion can be quashed for ‘undue burden’ but it is particularly interested in the anonymous speech angle.

EFF warns that Judge Donato’s remark shouldn’t trump existing jurisprudence. Instead, the Court of Appeals should follow the reasoning of the magistrate judge’s analysis regarding anonymous speech.

“It is well established that the First Amendment’s robust protections for anonymous speech apply to online speakers, and that they cannot be unmasked unless the party seeking to identify them can meet a heightened standard.

“It is also clear that there is no copyright exception to this rule,” EFF adds.

Movie Companies Double Down

Last week, the movie companies responded to arguments presented by Reddit and the EFF. According to their filing, Reddit did not raise the undue burden initially and there is no evidence on the record to suggest that it will be burdened by the DMCA subpoena request.

The appellants also counter the First Amendment arguments, stressing that there is no evidence that disclosing the IP-addresses of the six Redditors will chill any protected speech.

“The Reddit users’ comments are not protests of copyright laws or even discussion of copyright laws as described by Reddit but boasts of ‘deliberate unlawful copying [that] is no less an unlawful taking of property than garden variety theft,” they write.

In addition, the movie companies deny that there’s any “unmasking” involved here, as they are not asking for names and phone numbers (anymore). They claim the IP addresses will confirm that the Reddit users are Frontier subscribers, so the DMCA subpoena should be allowed.

All in all, it’s clear that both sides have entirely different views on the matter. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals will take a closer look, and ultimately come to a decision.

—

A copy of the referenced opening brief is available here (pdf) . Here are copies of Reddit’s response (pdf) , EFF’s amicus curiae brief (pdf) , and the movie companies’ reply (pdf)

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

Over the past two years, AI development has progressed at a rapid pace.

This includes large language models, which are typically trained on broad datasets of texts; the more, the better.

When AI hit the mainstream, it became apparent that many rightsholders had concerns over the unauthorized use of their copyright works. Creatives including photographers, artists, musicians, journalists, and authors, responded by filed copyright infringement lawsuits to protect their rights.

Book authors, in particular, complained about the use of pirated books as training material. In various lawsuits, companies including OpenAI, Microsoft, Meta, and NVIDIA are accused of obtaining books from ‘pirate’ sources, including the controversial Books3 database and shadow library LibGen.

Meta Acknowledges ‘Pirate’ Sourcing Early On

One of the most intriguing cases, especially for those interested in the piracy angle, is the class action lawsuit filed by authors including Richard Kadrey, Sarah Silverman, and Christopher Golden. The authors accuse Meta of using their work without permission.

While this may sound problematic to some, Mark Zuckerberg’s Meta didn’t beat around the bush. More than a year ago the company admitted that unofficial sources, comprised of pirated content, were used as training input.

Crucially, however, Meta denied the copyright infringement allegations, noting that it would rely on a fair use defense, at least in part.

“To the extent that Meta made any unauthorized copies of any Plaintiffs’ registered copyrighted works, such copies constitute fair use under 17 U.S.C. § 107,” Meta said in its early response.

A Spotlight on Meta’s Torrenting Activity

The fair use defense will be central in many AI copyright infringement lawsuits. AI companies generally believe that use of ‘public’ data as training inputs is justified. They characterize the use as transformative and argue that it doesn’t compete with the original market for these works.

Whether that is indeed the case is a question that may ultimately end up at the Supreme Court. Meanwhile, however, rightsholders in this lawsuit have raised additional allegations of copyright infringement.

A few weeks ago, the plaintiffs asked for permission to submit a third amended complaint. After uncovering Meta’s use of BitTorrent to source copyright-infringing training data from pirate shadow library, LibGen, the request was justified, they argued.

Specifically, the authors say that Meta willingly used BitTorrent to download pirated books from LibGen, knowing that was legally problematic. As a result, Meta allegedly shared copies of these books with other people, as is common with the use of BitTorrent.

“By downloading through the bit torrent protocol, Meta knew it was facilitating further copyright infringement by acting as a distribution point for other users of pirated books,” the amended complaint notes.

“Put another way, by opting to use a bit torrent system to download LibGen’s voluminous collection of pirated books, Meta ‘seeded’ pirated books to other users worldwide.”

Court Greenlights Torrent Piracy Probe

Meta believed that the allegations weren’t sufficiently new to warrant an update to the complaint. The company argued that it was already a well-known fact that it used books from these third-party sources, including LibGen.

However, the authors maintained that the ‘torrent’ angle is novel and important enough to warrant an update. Last week, United States District Judge Vince Chhabria agreed, allowing the introduction of these new allegations.

In addition to greenlighting the amended complaint, the Judge also allowed the authors to conduct further testimony on the “seeding” angle.

“[E]vidence about seeding is relevant to the existing claim because it is potentially relevant to the plaintiffs’ assertion of willful infringement or to Meta’s fair use defense,” Judge Chhabria wrote last week.

Authors Want Meta’s Torrent Client Logs and Seeding Data

With the court recognizing the relevance of Meta’s torrenting activity, the plaintiffs requested reconsideration of an earlier order, where discovery on BitTorrent-related matters was denied.

Through a filing submitted last Wednesday, the plaintiffs hope to compel Meta to produce its BitTorrent logs and settings, including peer lists and seeding data.

“The Order denied Plaintiffs’ motion to compel production of torrenting data, including Meta’s BitTorrent client, application logs, and peer lists. This data will evidence how much content Meta torrented from shadow libraries and how much it seeded to third parties as a host of this stolen IP,” they write.

While archiving lists of seeders is not a typical feature for a torrent client, the authors are requesting Meta to disclose any relevant data.

In addition, they also want the court to reconsider its ruling regarding the crime-fraud exception. That’s important, they suggest, as Meta’s legal counsel was allegedly involved in matters related to torrenting.

“Meta, with the involvement of in-house counsel, decided to obtain copyrighted works without permission from online databases of copyrighted works that ‘we know to be pirated, such as LibGen’, they write.

The authors allege that this involved “seeding” files and that Meta attempted to “conceal its actions” by limiting the amount of data shared with the public. One Meta employee also asked for guidance, as “torrenting from a corporate laptop doesn’t feel right .”

Meta as Distributor

With the addition of a torrent angle, the amended complaint adds a new element to the case. One that could potentially be crucial, particularly for the fair use defense.

The plaintiffs now accuse Meta of operating as a distributor of the pirated works. While that has little to do with how the works were used to train AI, it’s a copyright claim, nonetheless, and one that might be harder to defend as fair use.

Whether this will substantially change the case has yet to be seen, but it’s certainly fuel for legal fireworks. That said, these torrent allegations are just a small fraction of the case, which will be fought tooth and nail by both sides.

—

A copy of the plaintiffs’motion for relief from the non-dispositive pretrial order submitted on January 15, is available here (pdf) . A copy of the third-amended complaint can be found here (pdf)

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