Late 2019, Internet provider Cox Communications lost its legal battle against a group of major record labels, including Sony and Universal.

Following a two-week trial, a Virginia jury held Cox liable for its pirating subscribers. The ISP failed to disconnect repeat infringers and was ordered to pay $1 billion in damages.

Cox challenged the verdict through several routes and, earlier this year, booked a partial victory. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals confirmed that the ISP was contributorily liable for pirating subscribers, but reversed the vicarious copyright infringement finding. A new trial will determine the appropriate damages amount given these new conclusions.

Meanwhile, Cox has another angle to work at. This week, the company filed its opening brief, appealing the District Court’s denial of its relief from judgement (Rule 60[b]) motion, as well as the court’s conclusion that Cox’s defense wasn’t hampered by the music companies ‘concealment’ of evidence.

Rehashed Infringements?

The alleged misconduct refers to evidence that, according to Cox, was held back intentionally. Specifically, it relates to the piracy tracking system, operated by MarkMonitor, which formed the basis for the lawsuit through hundreds of thousands of copyright infringement notices.

MarkMonitor was hired by the music labels to track the pirated files being shared by Cox subscribers through BitTorrent. To confirm that these files were indeed pirated, they were downloaded and verified using Audible Magic’s fingerprinting technology.

Evidence pertaining to these allegedly pirated files was central to proving direct copyright infringement. During the Cox trial, the music companies presented a hard drive that contained the files, suggesting that those were the original songs that were pirated between 2012 and 2014.

However, based on information that surfaced in the music companies’ lawsuits against Internet providers Charter and Bright House, Cox later learned that this evidence was recreated at a later date, using hash values supplied by record labels.

Cox brought this up at the district court in 2022 and submitted a motion for relief from judgment, requesting a do-over. However, the court denied the request which led to the current appeal after a two-year pause.

Cox Appeals Over ‘Concealed’ Evidence

In its opening motion before the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, Cox stresses that the MarkMonitor evidence is of key importance. Any concerns should not be brushed away or hidden.

“Needless to say, the reliability of MarkMonitor’s system was all important, and Cox had every interest in attacking it. But Cox was deprived of the opportunity to scrutinize MarkMonitor’s system fully, something it would learn only after judgment was entered.”

“The truth came out when district courts in cases Plaintiffs brought against other ISPs forced Plaintiffs to turn over evidence Plaintiffs had deliberately concealed from Cox,” the ISP adds.

The district court previously acknowledged that some evidence was not disclosed by MarkMonitor at the time. However, the court believes that the ‘recreated’ evidence doesn’t change anything materially.

According to the court, it doesn’t matter whether the infringing files were verified before or after the fact. The verification process is based on file hashes, which don’t change over time.

Smoking ‘Hashes’ Gun?

Cox clearly believes that something is not right, however, and points to information showing that, while recreating evidence, MarkMonitor allegedly failed to find new music files for some of the provided hash values.

These unconfirmed hashes were discovered in the record labels’ lawsuit against Charter, which first uncovered the recreated evidence. This could have turned the case upside down, but the lawsuit was settled before trial .

“And lo and behold, the Charter evidence ultimately revealed that the 2016 project failed to confirm some of the original entries in the MarkMonitor database,” Cox notes.

“With this laid bare, Plaintiffs in Charter were forced to develop an entirely new approach to proving the system’s reliability and, thus, direct infringement; they hired a gaggle of new experts, then settled before trial could test this new method.”

Cox argues that the unseen evidence would have squarely undermined the reliability of the MarkMonitor notice system and the entire direct copyright infringement claim by extension.

And there’s more. In the record labels’ lawsuit against another ISP, Bright House, the music companies admitted that they failed to disclose key aspects of MarkMonitor’s source code.

It’s unclear what was held back but, since that lawsuit was settled at the eleventh hour , Cox believes that it could be quite important.

“Cox still does not know precisely what this code does. But public documents from Charter and Bright House indicate that the code governs, at least, the process by which MarkMonitor supposedly verified that files it found on peer-to-peer networks matched copyrighted works,” the ISP informs the court.

“The district court in Bright House was determined to get to the bottom of this. It summoned MarkMonitor’s corporate representative to appear in court and explicitly commanded that ‘Plaintiffs’ counsel SHALL NOT coach [him] in advance.’ Plaintiffs settled the day before that appearance.”

All in all, Cox believes that a new trial is warranted, so the evidence can be tested and scrutinized properly. Reopening the case makes more sense now, it argues, as the earlier appeal also reopened several key questions.

“This Court should therefore reverse the denial of Cox’s Rule 60 motions or, at a minimum, vacate the district court’s decision and direct the court to permit Cox its requested discovery, followed by appropriate motion practice. The fairness and integrity of any result in this case depends on it,” Cox concludes.

—

A copy of Cox’s ‘page proof’ opening brief, submitted at the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, is available here (pdf)

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

Late 2019, Internet provider Cox Communications lost its legal battle against a group of major record labels, including Sony and Universal.

Following a two-week trial, a Virginia jury held Cox liable for its pirating subscribers. The ISP failed to disconnect repeat infringers and was ordered to pay $1 billion in damages.

Cox challenged the verdict through several routes and, earlier this year, booked a partial victory. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals confirmed that the ISP was contributorily liable for pirating subscribers, but reversed the vicarious copyright infringement finding. A new trial will determine the appropriate damages amount given these new conclusions.

Meanwhile, Cox has another angle to work at. This week, the company filed its opening brief, appealing the District Court’s denial of its relief from judgement (Rule 60[b]) motion, as well as the court’s conclusion that Cox’s defense wasn’t hampered by the music companies ‘concealment’ of evidence.

Rehashed Infringements?

The alleged misconduct refers to evidence that, according to Cox, was held back intentionally. Specifically, it relates to the piracy tracking system, operated by MarkMonitor, which formed the basis for the lawsuit through hundreds of thousands of copyright infringement notices.

MarkMonitor was hired by the music labels to track the pirated files being shared by Cox subscribers through BitTorrent. To confirm that these files were indeed pirated, they were downloaded and verified using Audible Magic’s fingerprinting technology.

Evidence pertaining to these allegedly pirated files was central to proving direct copyright infringement. During the Cox trial, the music companies presented a hard drive that contained the files, suggesting that those were the original songs that were pirated between 2012 and 2014.

However, based on information that surfaced in the music companies’ lawsuits against Internet providers Charter and Bright House, Cox later learned that this evidence was recreated at a later date, using hash values supplied by record labels.

Cox brought this up at the district court in 2022 and submitted a motion for relief from judgment, requesting a do-over. However, the court denied the request which led to the current appeal after a two-year pause.

Cox Appeals Over ‘Concealed’ Evidence

In its opening motion before the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, Cox stresses that the MarkMonitor evidence is of key importance. Any concerns should not be brushed away or hidden.

“Needless to say, the reliability of MarkMonitor’s system was all important, and Cox had every interest in attacking it. But Cox was deprived of the opportunity to scrutinize MarkMonitor’s system fully, something it would learn only after judgment was entered.”

“The truth came out when district courts in cases Plaintiffs brought against other ISPs forced Plaintiffs to turn over evidence Plaintiffs had deliberately concealed from Cox,” the ISP adds.

The district court previously acknowledged that some evidence was not disclosed by MarkMonitor at the time. However, the court believes that the ‘recreated’ evidence doesn’t change anything materially.

According to the court, it doesn’t matter whether the infringing files were verified before or after the fact. The verification process is based on file hashes, which don’t change over time.

Smoking ‘Hashes’ Gun?

Cox clearly believes that something is not right, however, and points to information showing that, while recreating evidence, MarkMonitor allegedly failed to find new music files for some of the provided hash values.

These unconfirmed hashes were discovered in the record labels’ lawsuit against Charter, which first uncovered the recreated evidence. This could have turned the case upside down, but the lawsuit was settled before trial .

“And lo and behold, the Charter evidence ultimately revealed that the 2016 project failed to confirm some of the original entries in the MarkMonitor database,” Cox notes.

“With this laid bare, Plaintiffs in Charter were forced to develop an entirely new approach to proving the system’s reliability and, thus, direct infringement; they hired a gaggle of new experts, then settled before trial could test this new method.”

Cox argues that the unseen evidence would have squarely undermined the reliability of the MarkMonitor notice system and the entire direct copyright infringement claim by extension.

And there’s more. In the record labels’ lawsuit against another ISP, Bright House, the music companies admitted that they failed to disclose key aspects of MarkMonitor’s source code.

It’s unclear what was held back but, since that lawsuit was settled at the eleventh hour , Cox believes that it could be quite important.

“Cox still does not know precisely what this code does. But public documents from Charter and Bright House indicate that the code governs, at least, the process by which MarkMonitor supposedly verified that files it found on peer-to-peer networks matched copyrighted works,” the ISP informs the court.

“The district court in Bright House was determined to get to the bottom of this. It summoned MarkMonitor’s corporate representative to appear in court and explicitly commanded that ‘Plaintiffs’ counsel SHALL NOT coach [him] in advance.’ Plaintiffs settled the day before that appearance.”

All in all, Cox believes that a new trial is warranted, so the evidence can be tested and scrutinized properly. Reopening the case makes more sense now, it argues, as the earlier appeal also reopened several key questions.

“This Court should therefore reverse the denial of Cox’s Rule 60 motions or, at a minimum, vacate the district court’s decision and direct the court to permit Cox its requested discovery, followed by appropriate motion practice. The fairness and integrity of any result in this case depends on it,” Cox concludes.

—

A copy of Cox’s ‘page proof’ opening brief, submitted at the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, is available here (pdf)

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

Late 2019, Internet provider Cox Communications lost its legal battle against a group of major record labels, including Sony and Universal.

Following a two-week trial, a Virginia jury held Cox liable for its pirating subscribers. The ISP failed to disconnect repeat infringers and was ordered to pay $1 billion in damages.

Cox challenged the verdict through several routes and, earlier this year, booked a partial victory. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals confirmed that the ISP was contributorily liable for pirating subscribers, but reversed the vicarious copyright infringement finding. A new trial will determine the appropriate damages amount given these new conclusions.

Meanwhile, Cox has another angle to work at. This week, the company filed its opening brief, appealing the District Court’s denial of its relief from judgement (Rule 60[b]) motion, as well as the court’s conclusion that Cox’s defense wasn’t hampered by the music companies ‘concealment’ of evidence.

Rehashed Infringements?

The alleged misconduct refers to evidence that, according to Cox, was held back intentionally. Specifically, it relates to the piracy tracking system, operated by MarkMonitor, which formed the basis for the lawsuit through hundreds of thousands of copyright infringement notices.

MarkMonitor was hired by the music labels to track the pirated files being shared by Cox subscribers through BitTorrent. To confirm that these files were indeed pirated, they were downloaded and verified using Audible Magic’s fingerprinting technology.

Evidence pertaining to these allegedly pirated files was central to proving direct copyright infringement. During the Cox trial, the music companies presented a hard drive that contained the files, suggesting that those were the original songs that were pirated between 2012 and 2014.

However, based on information that surfaced in the music companies’ lawsuits against Internet providers Charter and Bright House, Cox later learned that this evidence was recreated at a later date, using hash values supplied by record labels.

Cox brought this up at the district court in 2022 and submitted a motion for relief from judgment, requesting a do-over. However, the court denied the request which led to the current appeal after a two-year pause.

Cox Appeals Over ‘Concealed’ Evidence

In its opening motion before the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, Cox stresses that the MarkMonitor evidence is of key importance. Any concerns should not be brushed away or hidden.

“Needless to say, the reliability of MarkMonitor’s system was all important, and Cox had every interest in attacking it. But Cox was deprived of the opportunity to scrutinize MarkMonitor’s system fully, something it would learn only after judgment was entered.”

“The truth came out when district courts in cases Plaintiffs brought against other ISPs forced Plaintiffs to turn over evidence Plaintiffs had deliberately concealed from Cox,” the ISP adds.

The district court previously acknowledged that some evidence was not disclosed by MarkMonitor at the time. However, the court believes that the ‘recreated’ evidence doesn’t change anything materially.

According to the court, it doesn’t matter whether the infringing files were verified before or after the fact. The verification process is based on file hashes, which don’t change over time.

Smoking ‘Hashes’ Gun?

Cox clearly believes that something is not right, however, and points to information showing that, while recreating evidence, MarkMonitor allegedly failed to find new music files for some of the provided hash values.

These unconfirmed hashes were discovered in the record labels’ lawsuit against Charter, which first uncovered the recreated evidence. This could have turned the case upside down, but the lawsuit was settled before trial .

“And lo and behold, the Charter evidence ultimately revealed that the 2016 project failed to confirm some of the original entries in the MarkMonitor database,” Cox notes.

“With this laid bare, Plaintiffs in Charter were forced to develop an entirely new approach to proving the system’s reliability and, thus, direct infringement; they hired a gaggle of new experts, then settled before trial could test this new method.”

Cox argues that the unseen evidence would have squarely undermined the reliability of the MarkMonitor notice system and the entire direct copyright infringement claim by extension.

And there’s more. In the record labels’ lawsuit against another ISP, Bright House, the music companies admitted that they failed to disclose key aspects of MarkMonitor’s source code.

It’s unclear what was held back but, since that lawsuit was settled at the eleventh hour , Cox believes that it could be quite important.

“Cox still does not know precisely what this code does. But public documents from Charter and Bright House indicate that the code governs, at least, the process by which MarkMonitor supposedly verified that files it found on peer-to-peer networks matched copyrighted works,” the ISP informs the court.

“The district court in Bright House was determined to get to the bottom of this. It summoned MarkMonitor’s corporate representative to appear in court and explicitly commanded that ‘Plaintiffs’ counsel SHALL NOT coach [him] in advance.’ Plaintiffs settled the day before that appearance.”

All in all, Cox believes that a new trial is warranted, so the evidence can be tested and scrutinized properly. Reopening the case makes more sense now, it argues, as the earlier appeal also reopened several key questions.

“This Court should therefore reverse the denial of Cox’s Rule 60 motions or, at a minimum, vacate the district court’s decision and direct the court to permit Cox its requested discovery, followed by appropriate motion practice. The fairness and integrity of any result in this case depends on it,” Cox concludes.

—

A copy of Cox’s ‘page proof’ opening brief, submitted at the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, is available here (pdf)

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

Pirate sites and services are a major problem for rightsholders and can be challenging to deal with. In India, however, recent court orders have proven to be quite effective.

Indian courts have issued pirate site blocking orders for over a decade . In recent years, these have transformed into a powerful legal tool, allowing rightsholders to protect existing and future works with relative ease.

More recent orders are not limited to ISP blocking, domain name registrars are also required to act. These broad injunctions, partly shaped by Hollywood companies such as Netflix, Disney, and Universal, are starting to have an impact globally.

In February, we reported that an Indian dynamic+ court order had targeted several prominent pirate sites, including Zorox.to and Upmovies.to. The injunction, issued by the New Delhi High Court, required local ISPs to block access to the domains. In addition, domain name registrars were required to take action.

The domain blocking efforts are limited to the Indian border, but the injunction’s effect didn’t stop there. US-based domain registrar Namecheap suspended movie-web.app and other domains, per the injunction, which caused the pirate site to become inaccessible globally.

Dynamic+ Domain Blocking and Suspension

When first reporting on this powerful anti-piracy measure, we expected similar orders to follow. And indeed, last week, the High Court of New Delhi issued a new dynamic+ blocking order targeting several dozen pirate streaming portals.

The latest Dynamic+ injunction, issued by Justice Anish Dayal, aims to target “ hydra headed ” pirate sites and instructs ISPs to block 42 domain names, linked to 26 sites. They include popular pirate sites such as Animeflix, Vegamovies, Losmovies, and EZTV, which have millions of monthly visits.

The goal of the court order is to protect existing video content, including films such as ‘Encanto’ and ‘Aquaman’, as well as TV series ‘Stranger Things’ and ‘One Piece’. The same order also covers future works that have yet to be created.

“To keep up with the hydra-headed nature of the infringement actions of such infringing domains/websites, this Court finds it fit to grant a ‘Dynamic+ injunction’ to protect copyrighted works as soon as they are created, to ensure that no irreparable loss is caused to the owners of copyrighted works,” the order reads.

Similar to previous injunctions, the Court stresses that the injunction also applies to mirror sites that may pop up in the future, and to sites that provide access to copyright infringing content using the same piracy ‘brand’.

Domain Name Registrars

While site blocking orders are quite common in many countries today, the High Court goes a step further by including domain name registrars in its order. This is a key part for rightsholders, as suspended domain names become unavailable globally if a registrar takes action.

The order requires registrars (DNRs) to suspend the domain names. In addition, they must share the personal details of the associated account holders, including their names, addresses, and payment information.

“The DNRs of the infringing websites, upon being intimated by the plaintiffs, shall lock and suspend the said domain names. In addition, any details relating to the registrants of the said domain names including KYC, credit card, mode of payment, mobile number, etc. be also provided to the plaintiffs,” the order reads.

Our previous coverage showed that Namecheap complies with Indian orders, presumably because of the risk of being banned from operating in the country if it fails to act. This wasn’t an incident, as several Namecheap-registered domains in the latest court order have been suspended too.

At the time of writing, several Animeflix domains are suspended, including Animeflix.live, which had over 34 million visits last month. The popular vegamovies.llc domain, which is also registered with Namecheap, now shows the dreaded “ clienthold ” status.

Vegamovies was called out by the U.S. Trade Representative earlier this year , which branded it one of the most notorious pirate sites; one that’s particularly popular in India.

The High Court order also took down Losmovies.id, but not through Namecheap. Losmovies, which had millions of monthly visits, is registered through the Indonesian domain name company Belidomain , which appears receptive to the foreign court order.

Not All Domains are Suspended, Yet

As usual, the sites behind the suspended domain names are likely to pop up again under new domains. However, it’s clear that these injunctions are much more effective than traditional blocking orders.

Not all registrars have immediately taken action. The order includes several domains registered through Tucows, NameSilo, and EPAG, for example, which remain accessible for now. PorkBun, on the other hand, swiftly complied, as it did previously.

Making matters more confusing, several Namecheap registered domains remain online as well. These are all .to domains. The Tonic registry doesn’t disclose the registrar in its Whois database, and it doesn’t support the “clienthold” status either.

With the previous High Court order, we also noticed that Namecheap didn’t suspend the .to domain names at the same time as the others. However, after a brief delay, they were all suspended eventually .

The domain of popular TV-torrent site eztvx.to is not registered through Namecheap. The registrar is unknown to us, but the domain name remains accessible at the time of writing.

Given the effectiveness of this Indian court action, we expect that Netflix, Disney and others, will continue to apply for similar court orders in the future.

—

A copy of the High Court order is available here (pdf) , via LawBeat . The full list of all domains covered by the court order can be found below. All domains must be blocked by Indian ISPs. Not all are suspended by their respective registrars, however.

– moviesl23.la
– 123movies.com.pk
– movies123.com.pk
– 123movies-hd.com
– hdmaza.pk
– animeflix live
– animeflix.co.in
– animeflix.lol
– animeflix.mobi
– myflixer.onl
– vegamovies.yt
– vegamovies.llc
– vegamovies.ph
– Vegamovies.rsvp
– vegamovies.cash
– gogoanimex.to
– hdfilmer.net
– hdobox.se
– cinego.tv
– eztvx.to
– f2movies.mx
– favmovies.to
– soaper.tv
– netfilm.app
– mydownloadtube.net
– movieuniverse.li
– movieuniverse.se
– losmovies.id
– mdufree.tv |
– isaimini.com.lk
– isaimini.com.hn
– isaimini.com.sb
– isaimini.com.es
– megashare-website.com
– animedekho.com
– proxyninja.net
– yify.guide
– yify.app
– huramovies.to
– myanimeindia.in
– cartoonsarea.xyz
– animeheaven.me

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

Pirate sites and services are a major problem for rightsholders and can be challenging to deal with. In India, however, recent court orders have proven to be quite effective.

Indian courts have issued pirate site blocking orders for over a decade . In recent years, these have transformed into a powerful legal tool, allowing rightsholders to protect existing and future works with relative ease.

More recent orders are not limited to ISP blocking, domain name registrars are also required to act. These broad injunctions, partly shaped by Hollywood companies such as Netflix, Disney, and Universal, are starting to have an impact globally.

In February, we reported that an Indian dynamic+ court order had targeted several prominent pirate sites, including Zorox.to and Upmovies.to. The injunction, issued by the New Delhi High Court, required local ISPs to block access to the domains. In addition, domain name registrars were required to take action.

The domain blocking efforts are limited to the Indian border, but the injunction’s effect didn’t stop there. US-based domain registrar Namecheap suspended movie-web.app and other domains, per the injunction, which caused the pirate site to become inaccessible globally.

Dynamic+ Domain Blocking and Suspension

When first reporting on this powerful anti-piracy measure, we expected similar orders to follow. And indeed, last week, the High Court of New Delhi issued a new dynamic+ blocking order targeting several dozen pirate streaming portals.

The latest Dynamic+ injunction, issued by Justice Anish Dayal, aims to target “ hydra headed ” pirate sites and instructs ISPs to block 42 domain names, linked to 26 sites. They include popular pirate sites such as Animeflix, Vegamovies, Losmovies, and EZTV, which have millions of monthly visits.

The goal of the court order is to protect existing video content, including films such as ‘Encanto’ and ‘Aquaman’, as well as TV series ‘Stranger Things’ and ‘One Piece’. The same order also covers future works that have yet to be created.

“To keep up with the hydra-headed nature of the infringement actions of such infringing domains/websites, this Court finds it fit to grant a ‘Dynamic+ injunction’ to protect copyrighted works as soon as they are created, to ensure that no irreparable loss is caused to the owners of copyrighted works,” the order reads.

Similar to previous injunctions, the Court stresses that the injunction also applies to mirror sites that may pop up in the future, and to sites that provide access to copyright infringing content using the same piracy ‘brand’.

Domain Name Registrars

While site blocking orders are quite common in many countries today, the High Court goes a step further by including domain name registrars in its order. This is a key part for rightsholders, as suspended domain names become unavailable globally if a registrar takes action.

The order requires registrars (DNRs) to suspend the domain names. In addition, they must share the personal details of the associated account holders, including their names, addresses, and payment information.

“The DNRs of the infringing websites, upon being intimated by the plaintiffs, shall lock and suspend the said domain names. In addition, any details relating to the registrants of the said domain names including KYC, credit card, mode of payment, mobile number, etc. be also provided to the plaintiffs,” the order reads.

Our previous coverage showed that Namecheap complies with Indian orders, presumably because of the risk of being banned from operating in the country if it fails to act. This wasn’t an incident, as several Namecheap-registered domains in the latest court order have been suspended too.

At the time of writing, several Animeflix domains are suspended, including Animeflix.live, which had over 34 million visits last month. The popular vegamovies.llc domain, which is also registered with Namecheap, now shows the dreaded “ clienthold ” status.

Vegamovies was called out by the U.S. Trade Representative earlier this year , which branded it one of the most notorious pirate sites; one that’s particularly popular in India.

The High Court order also took down Losmovies.id, but not through Namecheap. Losmovies, which had millions of monthly visits, is registered through the Indonesian domain name company Belidomain , which appears receptive to the foreign court order.

Not All Domains are Suspended, Yet

As usual, the sites behind the suspended domain names are likely to pop up again under new domains. However, it’s clear that these injunctions are much more effective than traditional blocking orders.

Not all registrars have immediately taken action. The order includes several domains registered through Tucows, NameSilo, and EPAG, for example, which remain accessible for now. PorkBun, on the other hand, swiftly complied, as it did previously.

Making matters more confusing, several Namecheap registered domains remain online as well. These are all .to domains. The Tonic registry doesn’t disclose the registrar in its Whois database, and it doesn’t support the “clienthold” status either.

With the previous High Court order, we also noticed that Namecheap didn’t suspend the .to domain names at the same time as the others. However, after a brief delay, they were all suspended eventually .

The domain of popular TV-torrent site eztvx.to is not registered through Namecheap. The registrar is unknown to us, but the domain name remains accessible at the time of writing.

Given the effectiveness of this Indian court action, we expect that Netflix, Disney and others, will continue to apply for similar court orders in the future.

—

A copy of the High Court order is available here (pdf) , via LawBeat . The full list of all domains covered by the court order can be found below. All domains must be blocked by Indian ISPs. Not all are suspended by their respective registrars, however.

– moviesl23.la
– 123movies.com.pk
– movies123.com.pk
– 123movies-hd.com
– hdmaza.pk
– animeflix live
– animeflix.co.in
– animeflix.lol
– animeflix.mobi
– myflixer.onl
– vegamovies.yt
– vegamovies.llc
– vegamovies.ph
– Vegamovies.rsvp
– vegamovies.cash
– gogoanimex.to
– hdfilmer.net
– hdobox.se
– cinego.tv
– eztvx.to
– f2movies.mx
– favmovies.to
– soaper.tv
– netfilm.app
– mydownloadtube.net
– movieuniverse.li
– movieuniverse.se
– losmovies.id
– mdufree.tv |
– isaimini.com.lk
– isaimini.com.hn
– isaimini.com.sb
– isaimini.com.es
– megashare-website.com
– animedekho.com
– proxyninja.net
– yify.guide
– yify.app
– huramovies.to
– myanimeindia.in
– cartoonsarea.xyz
– animeheaven.me

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

Pirate sites and services are a major problem for rightsholders and can be challenging to deal with. In India, however, recent court orders have proven to be quite effective.

Indian courts have issued pirate site blocking orders for over a decade . In recent years, these have transformed into a powerful legal tool, allowing rightsholders to protect existing and future works with relative ease.

More recent orders are not limited to ISP blocking, domain name registrars are also required to act. These broad injunctions, partly shaped by Hollywood companies such as Netflix, Disney, and Universal, are starting to have an impact globally.

In February, we reported that an Indian dynamic+ court order had targeted several prominent pirate sites, including Zorox.to and Upmovies.to. The injunction, issued by the New Delhi High Court, required local ISPs to block access to the domains. In addition, domain name registrars were required to take action.

The domain blocking efforts are limited to the Indian border, but the injunction’s effect didn’t stop there. US-based domain registrar Namecheap suspended movie-web.app and other domains, per the injunction, which caused the pirate site to become inaccessible globally.

Dynamic+ Domain Blocking and Suspension

When first reporting on this powerful anti-piracy measure, we expected similar orders to follow. And indeed, last week, the High Court of New Delhi issued a new dynamic+ blocking order targeting several dozen pirate streaming portals.

The latest Dynamic+ injunction, issued by Justice Anish Dayal, aims to target “ hydra headed ” pirate sites and instructs ISPs to block 42 domain names, linked to 26 sites. They include popular pirate sites such as Animeflix, Vegamovies, Losmovies, and EZTV, which have millions of monthly visits.

The goal of the court order is to protect existing video content, including films such as ‘Encanto’ and ‘Aquaman’, as well as TV series ‘Stranger Things’ and ‘One Piece’. The same order also covers future works that have yet to be created.

“To keep up with the hydra-headed nature of the infringement actions of such infringing domains/websites, this Court finds it fit to grant a ‘Dynamic+ injunction’ to protect copyrighted works as soon as they are created, to ensure that no irreparable loss is caused to the owners of copyrighted works,” the order reads.

Similar to previous injunctions, the Court stresses that the injunction also applies to mirror sites that may pop up in the future, and to sites that provide access to copyright infringing content using the same piracy ‘brand’.

Domain Name Registrars

While site blocking orders are quite common in many countries today, the High Court goes a step further by including domain name registrars in its order. This is a key part for rightsholders, as suspended domain names become unavailable globally if a registrar takes action.

The order requires registrars (DNRs) to suspend the domain names. In addition, they must share the personal details of the associated account holders, including their names, addresses, and payment information.

“The DNRs of the infringing websites, upon being intimated by the plaintiffs, shall lock and suspend the said domain names. In addition, any details relating to the registrants of the said domain names including KYC, credit card, mode of payment, mobile number, etc. be also provided to the plaintiffs,” the order reads.

Our previous coverage showed that Namecheap complies with Indian orders, presumably because of the risk of being banned from operating in the country if it fails to act. This wasn’t an incident, as several Namecheap-registered domains in the latest court order have been suspended too.

At the time of writing, several Animeflix domains are suspended, including Animeflix.live, which had over 34 million visits last month. The popular vegamovies.llc domain, which is also registered with Namecheap, now shows the dreaded “ clienthold ” status.

Vegamovies was called out by the U.S. Trade Representative earlier this year , which branded it one of the most notorious pirate sites; one that’s particularly popular in India.

The High Court order also took down Losmovies.id, but not through Namecheap. Losmovies, which had millions of monthly visits, is registered through the Indonesian domain name company Belidomain , which appears receptive to the foreign court order.

Not All Domains are Suspended, Yet

As usual, the sites behind the suspended domain names are likely to pop up again under new domains. However, it’s clear that these injunctions are much more effective than traditional blocking orders.

Not all registrars have immediately taken action. The order includes several domains registered through Tucows, NameSilo, and EPAG, for example, which remain accessible for now. PorkBun, on the other hand, swiftly complied, as it did previously.

Making matters more confusing, several Namecheap registered domains remain online as well. These are all .to domains. The Tonic registry doesn’t disclose the registrar in its Whois database, and it doesn’t support the “clienthold” status either.

With the previous High Court order, we also noticed that Namecheap didn’t suspend the .to domain names at the same time as the others. However, after a brief delay, they were all suspended eventually .

The domain of popular TV-torrent site eztvx.to is not registered through Namecheap. The registrar is unknown to us, but the domain name remains accessible at the time of writing.

Given the effectiveness of this Indian court action, we expect that Netflix, Disney and others, will continue to apply for similar court orders in the future.

—

A copy of the High Court order is available here (pdf) , via LawBeat . The full list of all domains covered by the court order can be found below. All domains must be blocked by Indian ISPs. Not all are suspended by their respective registrars, however.

– moviesl23.la
– 123movies.com.pk
– movies123.com.pk
– 123movies-hd.com
– hdmaza.pk
– animeflix live
– animeflix.co.in
– animeflix.lol
– animeflix.mobi
– myflixer.onl
– vegamovies.yt
– vegamovies.llc
– vegamovies.ph
– Vegamovies.rsvp
– vegamovies.cash
– gogoanimex.to
– hdfilmer.net
– hdobox.se
– cinego.tv
– eztvx.to
– f2movies.mx
– favmovies.to
– soaper.tv
– netfilm.app
– mydownloadtube.net
– movieuniverse.li
– movieuniverse.se
– losmovies.id
– mdufree.tv |
– isaimini.com.lk
– isaimini.com.hn
– isaimini.com.sb
– isaimini.com.es
– megashare-website.com
– animedekho.com
– proxyninja.net
– yify.guide
– yify.app
– huramovies.to
– myanimeindia.in
– cartoonsarea.xyz
– animeheaven.me

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

During the first week of April 2024, the CEO of top Italian football league Serie A was brimming with confidence.

Luigi De Siervo said that Piracy Shield, Italy’s brand new anti-piracy blocking system, was having such an effect that “No pirate can sleep peacefully.” Those who doubted its capabilities, he implied, should note what Serie A investigators were seeing on pirate Telegram channels after the system’s launch; ‘excitement’ apparently, but of what kind wasn’t made clear.

Piracy Shield Had an Exciting First Two Months

It’s certainly possible that when AGCOM finally admitted that weeks earlier Cloudflare had indeed been blocked in error , that may have caused a little excitement.

Maybe Piracy Shield code leaking online helped to get pulses racing too, or perhaps a third party site, publishing blocking data that the authorities should’ve published, but did not, could be somewhat responsible?

It’s not out of the question that the figures released in the first week of April played their part: 10,000 sites blocked in 60 days was a powerful statement, with the caveat that for technical reasons, that wasn’t entirely true .

Legal Action Ensues

If the excited pirates had known at the time that Serie A had filed a legal complaint against Cloudflare just days before these figures were released, that might’ve been cause for excitement. More likely it would’ve been confusing, however, because despite all talk of blocking successes outside court, inside court Cloudflare was being painted as an underminer of blocking and a partner of pirates.

A summary of the complaint, filed at the Court of Milan on April 3, 2024, arrives courtesy of La Repubblica ( paywall ) . Numerous allegations leveled against the U.S. company can be boiled down to one thing; the circumvention of Piracy Shield’s blocking measures via Cloudflare’s services, by consumers of streams and pirate suppliers alike.

According to Serie A, a pirate strategy is playing out online. While circumventing Piracy Shield’s best efforts, pirates of all kinds are spreading instructions online to train others. This includes information on how to remain anonymous, an important skill for those wishing to avoid AGCOM’s recently elevated piracy fines.

All of this is made possible thanks to Cloudflare, Serie A informed the Court.

‘Facilitating Pirate Sales and Providing Escape Routes’

In the words of La Repubblica, Serie A’s legal team accuse Cloudflare of “providing pirate match dealers” with the “dealing room and the exit routes” to evade capture.

Specifically, Cloudflare is under fire for providing its free VPN, otherwise known as WARP, which according to the league “moves the connection between pirates and their customers from a public network to a private one, in a secret circle where it is possible to operate outside the controls of the authorities.”

Last October, the head of AGCOM described the promotion of VPNs among pirates as “ positive news ” on the basis that their apparent intent would mean limited avenues of defense. In its complaint filed at the Court of Milan, Serie A bemoaned Cloudflare’s apparent resistance when it comes to handing over subscribers’ traffic logs.

And then there’s Cloudflare’s CDN service, which allegedly pipes streams as closely as possible to football fans for clear, uninterrupted viewing. Serie A insists that Cloudflare could easily reject pirate services as customers but apparently does not. Cloudflare’s DNS also gets a mention; unlike DNS services mostly operated by ISPs in Italy, Cloudflare’s has none of the site-blocking drawbacks of those compelled to work with AGCOM.

Serie A also complained about a flood of emails allegedly sent to AGCOM by Cloudflare customers protesting the blocking of the company’s IP addresses in February. Serie A’s attorneys say that since this campaign was orchestrated by Cloudflare, the company forfeited its neutrality as a service provider.

More Woes For Piracy Shield

Just one of the many serious flaws highlighted by experts, even before Piracy Shield had a name, was the danger of placing domains and IP addresses on a blacklist, with no mechanism in place to remove them. Concerns were even aired that the country might simply run out of accessible IP addresses.

Of course, those at the more enthusiastic end of the internet blocking market showed little concern about unblocking these internet assets at the time, but appear to be regretting it now. Wired.it reports that ISPs were assured that the number of fully qualified domain names (FQDN) blocked would not exceed 18,000, with IP addresses capped at 15,000.

With the football season almost over in Italy, rightsholders reportedly filed 1,332 tickets to the Piracy Shield system on May 24, for a total of 3,626 IP addresses and 15,791 FQDNs added to the ISPs’ blacklists. Since the law passed year has no provision for removing domains or IP addresses from the list, AGCOM will now prepare a report for the government requesting the power to do so.

The irony of a blocking system vacuuming up scarce IP addresses which, at least in part, is a shortage that Cloudflare’s system exists to mitigate, is unlikely to pass the company by.

The Court of Milan will ultimately have to decide whether to investigate the claims against Cloudflare. It seems highly improbable that it will also be required to investigate the football broadcasting monopoly in Italy, or the coincidental subscription price rises imposed since the launch of Piracy Shield.

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

During the first week of April 2024, the CEO of top Italian football league Serie A was brimming with confidence.

Luigi De Siervo said that Piracy Shield, Italy’s brand new anti-piracy blocking system, was having such an effect that “No pirate can sleep peacefully.” Those who doubted its capabilities, he implied, should note what Serie A investigators were seeing on pirate Telegram channels after the system’s launch; ‘excitement’ apparently, but of what kind wasn’t made clear.

Piracy Shield Had an Exciting First Two Months

It’s certainly possible that when AGCOM finally admitted that weeks earlier Cloudflare had indeed been blocked in error , that may have caused a little excitement.

Maybe Piracy Shield code leaking online helped to get pulses racing too, or perhaps a third party site, publishing blocking data that the authorities should’ve published, but did not, could be somewhat responsible?

It’s not out of the question that the figures released in the first week of April played their part: 10,000 sites blocked in 60 days was a powerful statement, with the caveat that for technical reasons, that wasn’t entirely true .

Legal Action Ensues

If the excited pirates had known at the time that Serie A had filed a legal complaint against Cloudflare just days before these figures were released, that might’ve been cause for excitement. More likely it would’ve been confusing, however, because despite all talk of blocking successes outside court, inside court Cloudflare was being painted as an underminer of blocking and a partner of pirates.

A summary of the complaint, filed at the Court of Milan on April 3, 2024, arrives courtesy of La Repubblica ( paywall ) . Numerous allegations leveled against the U.S. company can be boiled down to one thing; the circumvention of Piracy Shield’s blocking measures via Cloudflare’s services, by consumers of streams and pirate suppliers alike.

According to Serie A, a pirate strategy is playing out online. While circumventing Piracy Shield’s best efforts, pirates of all kinds are spreading instructions online to train others. This includes information on how to remain anonymous, an important skill for those wishing to avoid AGCOM’s recently elevated piracy fines.

All of this is made possible thanks to Cloudflare, Serie A informed the Court.

‘Facilitating Pirate Sales and Providing Escape Routes’

In the words of La Repubblica, Serie A’s legal team accuse Cloudflare of “providing pirate match dealers” with the “dealing room and the exit routes” to evade capture.

Specifically, Cloudflare is under fire for providing its free VPN, otherwise known as WARP, which according to the league “moves the connection between pirates and their customers from a public network to a private one, in a secret circle where it is possible to operate outside the controls of the authorities.”

Last October, the head of AGCOM described the promotion of VPNs among pirates as “ positive news ” on the basis that their apparent intent would mean limited avenues of defense. In its complaint filed at the Court of Milan, Serie A bemoaned Cloudflare’s apparent resistance when it comes to handing over subscribers’ traffic logs.

And then there’s Cloudflare’s CDN service, which allegedly pipes streams as closely as possible to football fans for clear, uninterrupted viewing. Serie A insists that Cloudflare could easily reject pirate services as customers but apparently does not. Cloudflare’s DNS also gets a mention; unlike DNS services mostly operated by ISPs in Italy, Cloudflare’s has none of the site-blocking drawbacks of those compelled to work with AGCOM.

Serie A also complained about a flood of emails allegedly sent to AGCOM by Cloudflare customers protesting the blocking of the company’s IP addresses in February. Serie A’s attorneys say that since this campaign was orchestrated by Cloudflare, the company forfeited its neutrality as a service provider.

More Woes For Piracy Shield

Just one of the many serious flaws highlighted by experts, even before Piracy Shield had a name, was the danger of placing domains and IP addresses on a blacklist, with no mechanism in place to remove them. Concerns were even aired that the country might simply run out of accessible IP addresses.

Of course, those at the more enthusiastic end of the internet blocking market showed little concern about unblocking these internet assets at the time, but appear to be regretting it now. Wired.it reports that ISPs were assured that the number of fully qualified domain names (FQDN) blocked would not exceed 18,000, with IP addresses capped at 15,000.

With the football season almost over in Italy, rightsholders reportedly filed 1,332 tickets to the Piracy Shield system on May 24, for a total of 3,626 IP addresses and 15,791 FQDNs added to the ISPs’ blacklists. Since the law passed year has no provision for removing domains or IP addresses from the list, AGCOM will now prepare a report for the government requesting the power to do so.

The irony of a blocking system vacuuming up scarce IP addresses which, at least in part, is a shortage that Cloudflare’s system exists to mitigate, is unlikely to pass the company by.

The Court of Milan will ultimately have to decide whether to investigate the claims against Cloudflare. It seems highly improbable that it will also be required to investigate the football broadcasting monopoly in Italy, or the coincidental subscription price rises imposed since the launch of Piracy Shield.

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

During the first week of April 2024, the CEO of top Italian football league Serie A was brimming with confidence.

Luigi De Siervo said that Piracy Shield, Italy’s brand new anti-piracy blocking system, was having such an effect that “No pirate can sleep peacefully.” Those who doubted its capabilities, he implied, should note what Serie A investigators were seeing on pirate Telegram channels after the system’s launch; ‘excitement’ apparently, but of what kind wasn’t made clear.

Piracy Shield Had an Exciting First Two Months

It’s certainly possible that when AGCOM finally admitted that weeks earlier Cloudflare had indeed been blocked in error , that may have caused a little excitement.

Maybe Piracy Shield code leaking online helped to get pulses racing too, or perhaps a third party site, publishing blocking data that the authorities should’ve published, but did not, could be somewhat responsible?

It’s not out of the question that the figures released in the first week of April played their part: 10,000 sites blocked in 60 days was a powerful statement, with the caveat that for technical reasons, that wasn’t entirely true .

Legal Action Ensues

If the excited pirates had known at the time that Serie A had filed a legal complaint against Cloudflare just days before these figures were released, that might’ve been cause for excitement. More likely it would’ve been confusing, however, because despite all talk of blocking successes outside court, inside court Cloudflare was being painted as an underminer of blocking and a partner of pirates.

A summary of the complaint, filed at the Court of Milan on April 3, 2024, arrives courtesy of La Repubblica ( paywall ) . Numerous allegations leveled against the U.S. company can be boiled down to one thing; the circumvention of Piracy Shield’s blocking measures via Cloudflare’s services, by consumers of streams and pirate suppliers alike.

According to Serie A, a pirate strategy is playing out online. While circumventing Piracy Shield’s best efforts, pirates of all kinds are spreading instructions online to train others. This includes information on how to remain anonymous, an important skill for those wishing to avoid AGCOM’s recently elevated piracy fines.

All of this is made possible thanks to Cloudflare, Serie A informed the Court.

‘Facilitating Pirate Sales and Providing Escape Routes’

In the words of La Repubblica, Serie A’s legal team accuse Cloudflare of “providing pirate match dealers” with the “dealing room and the exit routes” to evade capture.

Specifically, Cloudflare is under fire for providing its free VPN, otherwise known as WARP, which according to the league “moves the connection between pirates and their customers from a public network to a private one, in a secret circle where it is possible to operate outside the controls of the authorities.”

Last October, the head of AGCOM described the promotion of VPNs among pirates as “ positive news ” on the basis that their apparent intent would mean limited avenues of defense. In its complaint filed at the Court of Milan, Serie A bemoaned Cloudflare’s apparent resistance when it comes to handing over subscribers’ traffic logs.

And then there’s Cloudflare’s CDN service, which allegedly pipes streams as closely as possible to football fans for clear, uninterrupted viewing. Serie A insists that Cloudflare could easily reject pirate services as customers but apparently does not. Cloudflare’s DNS also gets a mention; unlike DNS services mostly operated by ISPs in Italy, Cloudflare’s has none of the site-blocking drawbacks of those compelled to work with AGCOM.

Serie A also complained about a flood of emails allegedly sent to AGCOM by Cloudflare customers protesting the blocking of the company’s IP addresses in February. Serie A’s attorneys say that since this campaign was orchestrated by Cloudflare, the company forfeited its neutrality as a service provider.

More Woes For Piracy Shield

Just one of the many serious flaws highlighted by experts, even before Piracy Shield had a name, was the danger of placing domains and IP addresses on a blacklist, with no mechanism in place to remove them. Concerns were even aired that the country might simply run out of accessible IP addresses.

Of course, those at the more enthusiastic end of the internet blocking market showed little concern about unblocking these internet assets at the time, but appear to be regretting it now. Wired.it reports that ISPs were assured that the number of fully qualified domain names (FQDN) blocked would not exceed 18,000, with IP addresses capped at 15,000.

With the football season almost over in Italy, rightsholders reportedly filed 1,332 tickets to the Piracy Shield system on May 24, for a total of 3,626 IP addresses and 15,791 FQDNs added to the ISPs’ blacklists. Since the law passed year has no provision for removing domains or IP addresses from the list, AGCOM will now prepare a report for the government requesting the power to do so.

The irony of a blocking system vacuuming up scarce IP addresses which, at least in part, is a shortage that Cloudflare’s system exists to mitigate, is unlikely to pass the company by.

The Court of Milan will ultimately have to decide whether to investigate the claims against Cloudflare. It seems highly improbable that it will also be required to investigate the football broadcasting monopoly in Italy, or the coincidental subscription price rises imposed since the launch of Piracy Shield.

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