Official figures on exactly how many people have been arrested, prosecuted and sentenced for piracy-linked offenses, are not easily obtained in the UK.

Indeed, disclosure in response to FOIA requests seems to become more difficult when petty offending results in no arrests, or when suspects are later released without charge.

When it comes to those who sell or resell subscriptions or operate illegal IPTV services, the last couple of years have seen a fairly dramatic uptick in successful prosecutions and convictions. At this point even the term ‘major crackdown’ is justified.

No country in Europe spends the same kind of money as the UK, either through allocation of police resources, or the refunding of millions in expenses mostly incurred by Sky and the Premier League, during numerous private prosecutions.

Man Sentenced for ‘Sophisticated’ Pirate IPTV Operation

At Birmingham Crown Court last week, Gary McNally, 55, was sentenced to two years and nine months for running a ‘sophisticated’ pirate IPTV service from his home in Acocks Green, Birmingham. The platform, identified as Each Online by the Federation Against Copyright Theft, was uncovered during an investigation by broadcaster Sky.

The platform operated between November 2017 and June 2020, capturing Sky’s attention due to McNally’s use of legitimate NOW TV accounts to obtain content straight from the source, rather than relying on a third party illicit supplier. That makes the prosecution quite rare by UK standards but also exposes people like McNally to new content-based risks, and an increased risk of being exposed elsewhere.

For example, high capacity broadband connectivity to a residential dwelling, at a cost of £400+ each month, would’ve been fairly difficult to account for. It would not, however, be too difficult to consume. Streaming Sky Sports, Sky Movies, and many other channels 24/7 may not be massively unusual as far as downloading goes, but there’s no credible explanation for upstream traffic at those levels, even with upstream servers elsewhere.

McNally Pleads Guilty to Two Counts of Fraud

McNally appeared at Birmingham Crown Court in March 2024, pleading guilty two counts of making articles for use in fraud, contrary to Section 7(1)(b) of the Fraud Act 2006.

A person is guilty of an offense if he makes, adapts, supplies or offers to supply any article—
(a) knowing that it is designed or adapted for use in the course of or in connection with fraud, or
(b) intending it to be used to commit, or assist in the commission of, fraud

McNally was sentenced to two years and nine months in prison on each count, with the sentences to be served concurrently. Matt Hibbert, Group Director of Anti-Piracy at Sky, thanked the police for their work and promised to continue the fight against piracy.

“We are grateful to the West Midlands Police for acting so robustly to take down a highly sophisticated illegal streaming operation,” Hibbert said. “We will continue to work with law enforcement to protect our content and help keep consumers safe from criminal piracy networks.”

A statement from West Midlands Police followed along similar lines. “We will work with partners wherever possible to disrupt criminal activity, and we hope this case sends a warning message to anyone involved in this kind of criminal enterprise.”

Initial Estimates a Little High

An interesting final note from Sky seemed to suggest perhaps a slim chance of further action.

Two other individuals were arrested alongside McNally. One person has since been released with no further action. A second person has been released pending further investigation.

When McNally was raided in 2021, two other people – a 35-year-old man and a 40-year-old woman – were detained on suspicion of copyright infringement, fraud, and conspiracy to commit fraud.

According to a BBC report at the time, West Midlands Police and FACT “spent months planning raids at two addresses in Birmingham.” The reason for such a major commitment is described by the BBC as follows:

Three people have been arrested after raids to dismantle what authorities called a major illegal streaming network.
Hundreds of thousands of people are thought to have used the service.
FACT said the streaming platform was believed to have provided more than 100 pirate TV services, allowing illegal access to premium content.

The Court heard that the number of subscribers was a bit lower than that, as FACT reveals.

“During a single world championship boxing match broadcast by Sky in February 2018, McNally claimed to have, over 2,000 subscribers to his illegal service.”

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

Nearly a year has passed since Italy officially implemented ‘ Piracy Shield ‘, a system that aims to deter and decrease live sports streaming piracy.

Since last February, Piracy Shield has blocked access to thousands of IP-addresses and domain names associated with unauthorized broadcasts.

This massive blocking operation is seen as a grandiose success by the authorities and many participating rightsholders. There were some mishaps , including repeated instances of widespread overblocking, but these were regarded as unavoidable teething problems.

‘Piracy Shield’ Expansion

There are no signs that ‘Piracy Shield’ will lose importance anytime soon. On the contrary, there are calls to expand the system beyond the protection of live football matches to many other types of content, movie premieres and live TV, for example.

At the same time, stakeholders are working to enhance the impact of the program through various legal efforts and collaborative discussion. VPNs were brought into the mix recently, along with DNS services, Cloudflare and others. Broader blockades are better blockades, the theory goes.

Telecoms regulator AGCOM, which is in charge of the blocking system, actively reaches out to various stakeholders. Earlier this week, AGCOM spoke to Brian Turnbow of CDLAN , a technology company that operates cloud and hosting solutions, among other things.

What was said during the call has not been disclosed, but the discussion prompted Turnbow to look more closely at Piracy Shield’s achievements thus far. That led to some interesting findings.

”Piracy Shield’ Blocks, So it Works

To put these findings in context, it’s important to understand how an ‘effective anti-piracy blocking program’ should be defined.

AGCOM and other backers have pointed out that Piracy Shield works because it blocks pirate domain names and IP addresses, which decreases traffic to these sources. Therefore, it ‘lowers’ piracy by definition. Obstruo, ergo efficax sum .

However, reality doesn’t always reflect this tautological line of reasoning. While traffic to blocked services might indeed decline, people may have moved to other unblocked sources. And even if illegal traffic overall is down as an early study suggested, a drop in piracy doesn’t necessarily lead to more paying customers.

This is where Turnbow comes in again. After his call with AGCOM, he shared some data from the regulator’s own quarterly report. This can be used to argue that the success of the year-long blocking effort is less spectacular than assumed.

Skeptical Eye Spots Little Progress

Turnbow’s own ‘investigation’ isn’t complex either. But instead of focusing on the repressive elements, he checked if Piracy Shield positively impacted legal streaming services. He was particularly interested in DAZN’s viewership, as they hold the rights to Serie A content, which is a key player in the blocking program.

There was little data crunching involved, as the bar charts clearly show that the number of DAZN subscribers didn’t go up in 2024. The same applies to the hours watched, which was flat too.

“The number of users post piracy shield in 2024 is the same as 2023.. no gains. The number of hours watched in 2024 is the same as 2023, again no gain. 2024 overall is below 2022 when there was no piracy shield,” Turnbow notes.

The only noticeable increase he could find was in the subscription price, which wasn’t reported by AGCOM. That reportedly went up from €40.99 to €44.99 at DAZN.

“So after 12 months, the data says ISPs sustained costs to implement the service, no users or hours gained for DAZN, and higher prices for end users,” the LinkedIn post reads.

Wanted: A Nuanced Discussion

Turnbow doesn’t claim to have shared groundbreaking conclusions. Besides, this type of cherry-picking is also selective, and opponents could argue that subscribers could have actually dropped significantly, without the anti-piracy measures.

That said, the skeptical LinkedIn post shows that online intermediaries aren’t simply going along with a broad blocking program, without taking a critical look at what they’re getting themselves into.

If the past year has shown anything, it’s that a lack of nuance, transparency, and openness to feedback, can end up being counterproductive. Extreme positions on both ends of the spectrum often block real progress.

The fact that the tip-off for this article came from a major representative of a prominent copyright holder group, shows how dire the situation is. Even those who have fought piracy for decades are divided; the Piracy Shield effect seems reminiscent of the Tower of Babel.

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

With the next cutting-edge big-budget AAA masterpiece never too far away, thousands of 8bit and 16bit classics dating back almost 50 years sit quietly by, waiting for the arrival of the next wave of curious explorers.

The magic of emulation makes all of this happen and for many retro gaming enthusiasts, the Multiple Arcade Machine Emulator ( MAME ) rules them all. First released on February 7, 1997, development of this open source giant continues to this day, supporting a wide range of systems popular with millions of gamers of the past, and millions more today in pursuit of nostalgia.

Emulation, ROMs and Legal Friction

While emulators like MAME are legal, gaming code dumped from arcade machines, 8bit computer disks, or the cartridges of veteran consoles, find friction in the presence of copyright law. Commonly known as ROMs, these relatively tiny files contain the games but unlike other pieces of software in the emulation jigsaw, ROMs are less likely to be distributed openly for legal reasons.

Rest assured, tens of thousands are rarely more than a few clicks away, but how they came to exist at all is a minor miracle. Video game preservation is seen as the only practical way of keeping games alive when companies fold and abandoned hardware begins to decay. Liberating software from ncient hardware is therefore key to preservation, but with anti-piracy systems of yesteryear still intact, circumvention is vital.

A new study published by data scientists Kristofer Erickson and Felix Rodriguez Perez, in collaboration with the CREATe Centre at the University of Glasgow, considers the effect of Technological Protection Measures (TPM) on video game preservation. The researchers focused on MAME, which to date has successfully emulated over 14,377 legacy devices, including 3,783 arcade machines dating back to 1979.

TPMs Not Omnipresent, But Their Presence is Undeniable

According to live product data for the modern anti-piracy system Denuvo, on average protected games enjoy 68 crack-free days after their initial release. Even for a state-of-the-art system like Denuvo, an average of a couple of months of circumvention resilience seems to be the limit. Of the sample 3,783 arcade machines considered in the study, 712 machines contained TPMs, all of which required circumvention to enable preservation.

“We measured the time delay introduced by the need to circumvent TPMs to the preservation effort, finding that this added an additional 10.6 months per item to preservation,” the researchers reveal.

“Taking the 712 games from our sample that required circumvention, this represents 628 additional years required to preserve those games protected by TPMs. This represents a social cost in terms of additional labour from community volunteers, as well as missing use from the absence of preserved copies of games available for research, innovation and other productive uses.

“Moreover, as preservation is delayed, technical costs for knowledge institutions may rise. Digital materials that depend on TPM-protected formats and devices can become permanently inaccessible to research and preservation when rightsholders or TPM manufacturers can no longer be located.”

Move Over Denuvo, It’s Grandpa’s Turn Now

The researchers’ conclusion, that legacy TPMs present “a considerable and statistically significant impediment” to preservation, suggests the presence of sophisticated TPMs that have stood the test of time. The key challenges to circumvention were as follows:

• Encryption of game data: In the supported device list for MAME 0.258 and the sample of all arcade games released between 1979 and 2023, at least 1,072 games (29%) had some kind of protection against copying. The researchers report that encryption of game data was most common, present on 370 devices (10%) of the arcade sample.

• Memory Controller Units: A similar number of game boards featured Memory Controller Units (MCUs). These devices manage the flow of data to and from a game’s main memory and with memory scrambling available, access to game data was further complicated.

Self-Destruction

• Suicide Chips: “The Hitachi FD1089 / FD1094 found on Sega System 16 boards used an encryption key to verify the contents of a game before running the code. The chip required battery power to operate correctly, so when batteries died the chip would no longer function, resulting in a fault,” the researchers explain.

“Because such systems rely on inaccessible sources of power inside TPM modules in order to function, they have been dubbed ‘suicide boards’ by the preservation community. In 2018, researcher Eduardo Cruz published a method for backing up and restoring (‘de-suiciding’) Hitachi FD1094 modules. He indicates that circumvention required work by several individuals over a span of years.”

• Slapstick Protection: Present on many 16-bit Atari games including Marble Madness (1984), Gauntlet (1985), and Paperboy (1985), the ‘Slapstic’ protection chip was reportedly one of the earliest TPM challenges faced by game preservationists.

The researchers cite MAME developer Aaron Giles, who explained that the chip was unique to Atari games. Its purpose was to prevent machine operators from burning new EPROMs and “upgrading” their PCBs (circuit boards) to a new game without having to buy official upgrade kits from Atari. That’s an all-too-familiar story even today, one that has an equally familiar outcome.

“In 1998, Giles successfully reverse engineered functionality of the Slapstic security, enabling full emulation of the 8- and 16-bit Atari arcade games that used the protection,” the researchers note.

Conclusion

In the context of game preservation, the researchers conclude that TPMs inhibit several positive effects, including the denial of benefits to society when games enter the public domain. The researchers conclude their study (available here ) with recommendations to guide future law and policy.

The future costs of TPMs on society should be carefully considered, weighing the benefits of statutory exceptions for circumvention, to facilitate preservation, research, and interoperability.

1/ to clarify that cultural heritage institutions may circumvent TPMs for preservation purposes without having to navigate the cumbersome administrative processes currently imposed by European copyright law; and

2/ to weigh the future costs of TPMs against strong protections granted to rightsholders, for example by requiring that rightsholders maintain and offer robust means for European institutions and researchers to access TPM-protected works into the future.

Given the uptake of new business models and distribution methods such as cloud and software-as-a-service (SaaS), born-digital materials are at greater risk than ever from inaccessibility. TPMs will continue to inhibit preservation of digital materials well into the future, so policy action to mitigate their impacts and support European memory institutions is vital.

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

After steadfastly protecting the privacy rights of subscribers, usually against aggressive rightsholders determined to unmask them, ISPs today are more likely to view disclosure from a different perspective.

At a time when internet subscriptions paid most of the bills, protecting customers accused of illicit file-sharing led to prolonged litigation. Cases were fought up to the highest courts in the United States. In Europe, further still.

When rights organization Promusicae sued Telefonica in 2005, demanding the identities of customers accused of using KaZaA to pirate music, Telefonica fought tooth and nail all the way to Europe’s highest court.

Telefonica argued that under Spanish law, ISPs were under no obligation to hand over customer details to rightsholders intent on civil litigation. On January 29, 2008, the Court of Justice of the European Union agreed , handing Telefonica – and its customers – a landmark win.

Laws Change, Priorities Change

Over time, legal amendments and the drive for profit rendered Telefonica’s win irrelevant. ISPs were already selling internet access alongside mobile phone contracts, live TV subscription packages, VOD services, music, and other valuable content, the vast majority of it regularly pirated online.

As a result, the past several years have seen the traditional bright lines between exclusive rightsholders and ISPs licensed distributors become increasingly blurred.

Common Interests Are the Main Focus Now

In 2024, controversial legal action by LaLiga, Spain’s top-tier football league, led to Telefonica disclosing the identities of alleged pirate subscribers, based solely on LaLiga’s allegations.

If Telefonica resisted at all during closed-door discussions on disclosure, only evidence of cooperation has seen the light of day. If that proves unpopular with a subset of customers, not much can be done. Since rival ISPs are also cooperating with LaLiga, jumping ship in protest would be completely pointless.

Disclosures are now said to take place on a rolling basis, with LaLiga supplying IP addresses and Telefonica naming names. LaLiga’s subsequent letters, sent to freshly deanonymized subscribers, contain offers to settle for a few hundred euros. Financial penalties like these are meant to act as a deterrent and a forceful reminder that LaLiga matches should be purchased from licensed distributors.

Those distributors include Movistar Plus+, a subscription digital TV platform owned by Telefónica, that currently accounts for almost half of the Spanish market. Telefonica paid 1.2 billion euros for the rights to broadcast LaLiga matches.

TV channels owned by Sony, Disney, Warner Bros. Discovery, Paramount, and Comcast are also distributed through Movistar Plus+. Anti-piracy agreements between LaLiga and Movistar Plus+, and with the channel owners via the MPA, sees URLs/domains delivered to Telefonica and other ISPs, on a weekly and monthly basis, to enable effective blocking of pirate sites.

You Scratch My Back, I’ll Scratch Yours

Of course, similar agreements between rightsholders ISPs are common elsewhere, although nothing quite as unusual as the arrangement detailed in a DMCA takedown notice sent to GitHub earlier this week.

While the sender’s identity isn’t 100% clear due to numerous redactions, GitHub’s report indicates Telefonica. In basic terms, the notice requests removal of an .M3U playlist which allegedly provides access to content to which Movistar owns the rights. GitHub responded as expected by disabling the repository which rendered the file inaccessible.

In other respects the DMCA notice is both unusual and somewhat confusing. In response to the question, “Are you the copyright holder or authorized to act on the copyright owner’s behalf?” the sender said “Yes, I am the copyright holder.”

In a notice sent by Telefonica, that’s nothing unusual, much less something to quantify in an explanatory wall of text that, if anything, seems to contradict the copyright holder declaration made earlier.

The unlikely conclusion is that in order to protect content distributed by Movistar, to which Telefonica directly or indirectly owns the rights, the telecoms giant has entered into an anti-piracy agreement with LaLiga, Spain’s top football league. The agreement authorizes LaLiga to act on Telefonica’s behalf as follows:

While the terms ‘monitoring’ and ‘removal’ are self-explanatory, ‘enforcement’ could apply to any number of measures, some of which are only available to exclusive rightsholders.

Nevertheless, this is an intriguing situation that could play out in unpredictable ways. Quite simply, since the ideals behind the 2008 victory are dead and buried, increasingly vulnerable pirates may like to keep that in mind.

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

With billions of annual visits, MissAV ranked among the top 60 most-visited websites on the internet.

For years, the site appeared to operate without any significant setbacks, but that changed a few days ago, when several domain names including MissAV.com and ThisAV.com were seized.

Initially, it wasn’t clear how permanent these seizures were, as the domains briefly became accessible again. However, that changed a few hours ago when the Japanese adult entertainment producer Will Co. LTD announced that these actions are backed up by a U.S. federal court order.

The company sued the foreign defendants Ka Yeung Lee, Youhaha Marketing, Promotion Limited, and several “John Does”, holding them responsible for the copyright infringing activities on MissAV.com, ThisAV.com, and several related domains.

In the early stages, the defense argued that the American court had no jurisdiction over the defendants, who are mostly linked to Hong Kong. However, the Washington District Court disagreed and allowed the case to continue.

$4.5m Default Judgment

When the defendants eventually stopped responding, the Japanese rightsholder requested a default judgment in its favor.

In addition to seeking $45 million in damages for copyright infringement, the plaintiff requested an injunction allowing it to take control of several pirate domains, including thisav.com, missav.com, myav.com, missav789.com, vassim.com, eightcha.com, and fivetiu.com.

The default judgment was granted last week, effectively putting an end to the case. Instead of the requested $150,000 for each of the 300 infringed works, the court settled on a tenth of that , bringing the total damages award to a still sizable $4.5 million.

Perhaps of equal importance is the injunctive relief which allowed Will Co. to take control of the domain names through the .com domain registry VeriSign. This took some time to process, but the handover is now complete with all domains pointing to a seizure banner.

Domain Seizures Send an Important Message

Anti-piracy firm Battleship Stance , which helped to orchestrate the enforcement action against MissAV and ThisAV, is happy with the outcome of the long fought legal battle.

“We are pleased with this ruling, which not only delivers justice for Will Co. but also strengthens the position of creators in their fight against international piracy,” says Jason Tucker, president of Battleship Stance.

The U.S. court order against foreign pirate sites is particularly important, as this indicates that rightsholders can take effective legal action against stubborn pirate sites.

“The transfer of these domains sends a clear message to pirate operators that they risk losing their assets when they steal content. Our commitment to defending creative works remains unwavering as we continue the fight against digital piracy,” Tucker explains.

Lead counsel for the plaintiff Spencer Freeman agrees, noting that the case shows that foreign websites with ties to the U.S. can be held accountable.

“This case sets a precedent for stronger enforcement of U.S. copyright laws against foreign entities. It underscores the importance of pursuing legal action across borders to protect intellectual property rights globally,” he says.

MissAV Remains Online

Despite the positive comments, MissAV and the related sites are not completely out of action. The site registered a new .ws domain name and continues to operate from there, not mentioning any of its legal troubles.

Jason Tucker of Battleship Stance informs TorrentFreak that they are aware of these new domains and that legal actions are already underway to prevent the further spread of pirated content.

For now, however, Will Co. is celebrating its win. And after this success in the Washington District Court, it’s likely that Will Co. and other rightsholders will try to use a similar procedure to go after more pirate sites in the future.

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

With 40 million players worldwide and over a billion views on YouTube, the Poppy Playtime game series has gained a massive following.

Created by the American indie game studio Mob Entertainment, the game is particularly popular among fans of horror games and online content creators. A planned Poppy Playtime live action movie will only add to this lure.

Poppy Playtime’s success hasn’t gone unnoticed. As is often the case, popular games serve as inspiration for other developers. That’s fine, but when others use the same brand and content to attract users, a line is clearly being crossed.

‘Copyright Infringing Scam Apps’

According to Mob Entertainment, this is precisely what happened on Google Play. In a new lawsuit filed at a federal court in California, Poppy Playtime’s creators accuse developer ‘Daigo Game 2020, Inc’ of releasing ‘scam’ applications on Google Play.

The unauthorized games versions were advertised as “Poppy Playtime: Chapter 3” and “Poppy Playtime: Chapter 4” and allegedly contain many works protected by Mob Entertainment’s copyright. The comparison below does indeed show striking similarities.

Poppy Playtime’s developer notes that these knockoff games confused many thousands of players, not least due to ‘Chapter 3’ and ‘Chapter 4’ bring uploaded to Google Play before these versions were officially released.

Aside from using Poppy Playtime’s name, logo, and characters, the ‘scam’ apps offer very little to the user. The complaint notes that the app is not a game at all. Instead, it asks users to pay $30 to $95 for the “Guide wuggy playtime mod.”

“When users pay for the “Guide wuggy playtime mod,” all they receive is a link to a dead webpage,” the complaint notes.

‘Google Play Failed to Take Apps Offline’

The complaint doesn’t just target the developers of these alleged scam apps, it also lists Google as a defendant. The plaintiffs allege that Google receives 15% or 30% of the unauthorized sales and failed to take proper action in response to DMCA notices.

Mob Entertainment says it contacted Google on various occasions, using the web-based takedown form and the email address dmca-agent@google.com . These requests to remove the allegedly infringing app didn’t yield a satisfactory result and can be summarized as follows.

– October 31, 2024: Takedown request sent for unauthorized Poppy Playtime Chapter 3 app

– November 1, 2024: Google confirms receipt

– December 5, 2024: No response, Mob Entertainment sends a follow-up

– December 9, 2024: Google responds, stating that the app will be removed

– December 9, 2024: Google removes “Poppy Playtime Chapter 3”

– December 13, 2024: “Poppy Playtime Chapter 3” returns to the Play Store (same URL)

– December 13, 2024: Mob Entertainment informs Google that the app returned

– December 16, 2024: Google confirms receipt

– December 19, 2024: Mob Entertainment sends another DMCA takedown notice

– December 19, 2024: Google asks the developer to use the web-based takedown form

– December 30, 2024: Takedown request sent for unauthorized Poppy Playtime Chapter 4

– December 30, 2024: Google confirms receipt

Mob Entertainment argues that, despite these efforts, Google did not expeditiously remove the copyright infringing applications, which are still available in the Play Store to this day.

Poppy Playtime Requests Damages

Google’s alleged inaction makes the company ineligible for DMCA safe harbor protection, the lawsuit notes. As such, it can be held liable for copyright infringement.

“Google forfeited the benefits of the DMCA’s safe harbor provision for its infringement of Mob Entertainment’s copyrighted works contained in the unauthorized ‘Poppy Playtime: Chapter 3’ and ‘Poppy Playtime Chapter 4’ applications.”

Mob Entertainment accuses Google and Daigo of both copyright and trademark infringement, and they request to be compensated. This includes potential statutory damages of $150,000 per work.

In addition, the indie game developer seeks an injunction preventing both Google and Daigo from infringing its copyrights and trademarks going forward.

—

A copy of Mob Entertainment’s complaint against Google and Daigo, filed yesterday at the California federal court, is available here (pdf) . Neither defendant has responded to the lawsuit thus far.

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

With close to a billion active monthly users worldwide, Telegram is one of the most used messaging services.

The communication platform helps to connect people from all over the globe, with optional end-to-end encryption providing improved security compared to some other players in the market.

Telegram can also be an excellent medium to broadcast messages to a wider audience. Through dedicated one-way channels, people can share news, status updates, and emergency alerts, for example.

Z-Library & Anna’s Archive

In ‘piracy’ associated circles, Z-Library has one of the most followed Telegram channels of all. The shadow library’s official channel amassed over 630,000 subscribers over the years, who were among the first to read site announcements and other key updates.

Z-Library previously had some of its messages removed due to copyright infringement. While it didn’t upload or directly link to infringing material on Telegram, rightsholders allegedly complained about the links that were posted to the Z-Library website.

In response, Z-Library chose to no longer include links to its own homepage on Telegram. Instead, it referred users to Wikipedia and Reddit , where the links were still available.

The same copyright awareness was visible at Anna’s Archive , a popular shadow library search engine. This channel was also careful not to post direct links to infringing material. After all, sharing or uploading copyrighted books would undoubtedly lead to trouble.

Telegram Disables Channels Without Notice

Despite the reported caution, the channels of both Z-Library and Anna’s Archive are no longer accessible today. Messages posted by these accounts were purged “due to copyright infringement”, as shown below.

Telegram didn’t limit its action to removing posts; the channels are now entirely inaccessible. Those trying to access the channels in the Telegram app receive a pop-up message stating they are “unavailable due to copyright infringement.”

The simultaneous removal of both channels suggests they are linked to the same complaint or decision. The specific complaint and alleged copyright infringements remain unclear. Telegram’s press contact didn’t immediately respond to our request for comment.

What Copyright Infringements?

An Anna’s Archive representative states that they are also unaware of the reason for the suspension. Telegram didn’t inform them about the channel suspension, and Anna’s Archive says that Z-Library – who they are in good contact with – was not informed either.

“We took care not to link to any infringing files or websites from the Telegram group,” Anna says, adding that they have no idea why this happened.

It’s possible that infringing links may have slipped through somehow and coincidentally raised ‘repeat infringer’ flags for both channels. Another option is an unreported legal complaint or proceeding triggering this action.

At this point, we can only speculate about the reason for the removals. But if it’s tied to legal action, India comes to mind.

Telegram was previously ordered by an Indian court to share user details . These courts also issue broad blocking orders against pirate sites, often affecting third-party intermediaries , so Telegram’s involvement is plausible.

What we do know is that the targeted websites remain readily available. Z-Library didn’t return our request for comment, but the site has launched a new Telegram channel, which already has a few hundred subscribers.

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

Excellent infrastructure and limited anti-piracy action made Malaysia a popular hosting location back when torrent sites were in their prime.

Then seemingly out of nowhere, in 2008/2009 the government began shutting down popular sites including Extremebits, Rapthe , Superfundo and later, LeechersLair . One BitTorrent tracker owner discovered to his surprise that a device was quietly gathering data from the site’s server.

At the time widely attributed to the Malaysian Communications and Multimedia Commission, these physical shutdowns were followed in 2011 by something new. After previously promising never to censor the internet, the Commission announced the imminent blocking of a number of pirate sites, including thepiratebay.org, megaupload.com, megavideo.com, movie2k.to, putlocker.com, and several others.

Effectively a gallery of hand-picked Hollywood targets, in hindsight the list could’ve been seen as a statement of intent. Few of the sites survived long enough to experience much blocking, Megaupload in particular.

No Turning Back

With blocking increasingly common, in 2017 the MPA published a report, titled How Site Blocking in Malaysia Has Significantly Reduced Online Piracy . The study claimed that six months after the completion of six site-blocking waves, traffic to blocked pirate sites had decreased somewhere between 67% to 74%.

Up to Three-Quarters of Piracy eliminated (slide credit: MPA)

Despite the reported success against blocked sites, success against the unblocked sites quickly meeting demand required even more blocking. The next wave of success and the subsequent and inevitable rise of other unblocked sites kept Malaysian authorities busy; in 2019 (438 sites), 2020 (644), and in 2021 (347).

Whether some or all of these ‘sites’ were clones, mirrors, or proxies, or potentially just new domains, wasn’t revealed. In total 1,429 ‘sites’ were added to the blocklist, but that was only the beginning.

Slide credit: Ministry of Domestic Trade & Consumer Affairs (MDTCA)

While pirate site blocking has been around for almost 20 years, key aspects of this enforcement measure never change. The history of site blocking in Malaysia shows the same pattern and may even provide a textbook example.

1. Initial Blocking Request Never a One-Off, But it Will Succeed

The SOPA disaster in the United States showed that acceptance of site blocking measures can’t be taken for granted. Opinions vary, but two key mistakes haven’t been repeated since: 1) encouraging mass opposition by demanding too much, too early and 2) misjudging the importance of timing.

After appearing on the USTR’s Priority Watch List in 2000 and 2001, Malaysia quickly showed “significant improvement” and was moved to the less oppressive Watch List a year later. For the next decade the USTR found no reason to change the status quo but after blocking some of the world’s most popular sites in 2011, Malaysia was removed from the Watch List the very next year.

The MPA’s 2017 report cited earlier suggested that subsequent site-blocking was another success for Malaysia. Failure at that stage would’ve been unthinkable and could’ve fatally dampened enthusiasm for any further blocking. After so much effort, that was never likely to happen.

Additional Requests Always Follow

The blocking of 1,429 additional ‘sites’ in 2019/20/21 suggests that ‘success’ in 2017 triggered a massive increase in blocking requests.

A study published by the Asia Video Industry Association (AVIA), which counts the MPA’s members among its own, reported significant ongoing success in 2020. The details appeared in a government presentation, Enforcement of Intellectual Property Rights in Malaysia , and were just as impressive.

Slide credit: Ministry of Domestic Trade & Consumer Affairs (MDTCA)

In summary then, we have a background of blocked pirate sites losing between 67%-74% of their traffic (MPA/2017), and a 64% decline in Malaysian consumers accessing pirate streaming sites in 2020. If we assume that new copyright law, providing for up to 20 years in prison for online pirates , acted as a deterrent following its introduction during 2021, Malaysia should’ve been well on its way to even greater success.

Unfortunately, the rule that success always leads to more blocking requests, was confirmed in a Malaysian government announcement this week.

Over 3,600 Sites Offering Pirated Content Blocked Since 2021

According to a Bernama report, the latest data made available by the Malaysian government show that a total of “3,682 illegal websites offering and spreading pirated content” were blocked between 2021 and November 2024.

Minister of Domestic Trade and Cost of Living, Datuk Armizan Mohd Ali, said his department (KPDN) carried out the blocking in collaboration the Malaysian Communications and Multimedia Commission (MCMC) and local ISPs.

“This is part of the ministry’s commitment to protecting local creative works from being exploited illegally,” he said. “KPDN will continue to strengthen cooperation with various agencies involved in efforts to address digital piracy issues.”

With the total number of sites blocked since 2019 now at 5,100+, the most important question is whether these considerable blocking efforts have had a positive effect and if so, what were they, and who benefited?

Based solely on the somewhat confusing figures presented above, in theory piracy should’ve been eliminated given the reported collapse in pirate site attendance. While that’s unlikely, a progress report on the stated aim of protecting local content shouldn’t be completely impossible.

In the meantime, a certificate of appreciation signed by the Premier League must count for something.

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

Pirate streaming apps and unauthorized IPTV services have gained popularity globally in recent years.

Latin America is no exception to this trend but unlike other regions, one pirate streaming brand clearly stands out, MagisTV.

The MagisTV name is used by dozens of websites, many of which are reseller platforms. While some of these might be related, the name is also used by unrelated entities, simply because the brand has become synonymous for pirate IPTV.

A Notorious Market

Rightsholders worldwide are not pleased with the brand’s dominance and have worked hard to counter it. The Motion Picture Association and ACE have targeted MagisTV services for several years and local copyright holders have done the same.

This resulted in several referrals that reportedly resulted in criminal investigations in Argentina, Colombia, Ecuador, and Venezuela. In addition, MagisTV-related websites have been blocked in several countries too.

Last week, the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative elevated the MagisTV concerns once again by adding the brand to its latest list of notorious piracy markets .

“MagisTV is one of the world’s most popular IPTV services and operates primarily in Latin America. The service provides unauthorized access to live sports streams, television channels, and on-demand movies and television shows to its customers for a monthly subscription,” USTR wrote.

U.S. Trademark Application

It’s clear that the brand’s popularity comes with both threats and opportunities. To seize the latter, Chinese MagisTV-linked companies reportedly applied for related trademarks in several countries, including Argentina, Ecuador, Mexico, and Uruguay.

These applications have met resistance in some instances. In Ecuador, for example, the local football league LigaPro teamed up with Paramount Pictures and DIRECTV to successfully protest a trademark application.

In Ecuador, the Chinese company ‘Shenzhen Geshan Technology’ applied for the trademark. A company from the same region, ‘Shenzhen Huiyi Electronics’, recently did the same at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.

The application passed the first hurdle, as shown above, and a notice of allowance was sent to the registrant. However, there is still an opportunity for third-parties to object to the application. Considering the fierce opposition in Ecuador, there will likely be protests in the U.S. too.

MagisTV -> Flujo TV

Whether a trademark battle is needed at this point is questionable. More recently, several popular MagisTV services have decided to rebrand to ‘Flujo TV’ (Flow TV). This includes magistv.la and magistv-venezuela.com, which were both branded a ‘notorious market’ by the USTR.

The rebranding doesn’t appear to be directly related to the USTR listing, as it already started earlier. However, it is clear that the operators of these sites and services are eager to move away from the tainted MagisTV brand.

At the time of writing, many of the major MagisTV services have adopted the “Flujo” name. The reason for the rebranding is unknown. These services don’t care about copyright infringement, so any prospective trademark issues shouldn’t easily scare them either.

Perhaps those involved hope to evade being targeted in ‘dynamic’ domain blocking orders with a new name, at least for a while?

That said, a new name doesn’t make these pirate IPTV services any less ‘infringing’ so, if they continue, we will likely see many “Flujo TV” targeted enforcement efforts going forward.

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