Good news concerning AI development often finds itself dampened by reports of models hallucinating, providing misleading responses, or simply inventing facts that are anything but.

This week Michael Kearns of Penn Engineering wrote about “model disgorgement,” a potential solution that forces models to purge themselves of “content that leads to copyright infringement or biased responses.”

From our admittedly very narrow perspective, that proposition couldn’t be more ironic.

Living The LLM Dream – Mostly…

Since hosting your own LLMs is now so easy, having a few to hand to test out opportunities for TF has turned into quite the habit. Most of the ‘big brand’ LLMs such as Llama 2 and 3, Mistral, Gemma, and phi3, work exceptionally well on a reasonably powerful machine, providing it contains a decent GPU and lots of RAM.

For first time in years, something actually feels like a taste of the future, especially when taking the slog out of otherwise menial and repetitive tasks.

Yet, something seems strangely off-balance in AI land; from this vantage point, a stubborn, massively biased, and at times, completely tone-deaf LLM, isn’t the dream being sold or signed up for.

Some Popular LLMs Need to Grow a Pair

Next time you’re having fun with the latest all-singing, all-dancing AI model, try asking some questions about piracy. Nothing blatant, certainly no inquiries about where to find infringing content, just some neutral questions of the kind often seen on Wikipedia.

In many cases, especially with newer models, the responses are absolutely infuriating. Try asking for information on a handful of pirate domains and then sit back and relax to a full-blown lecture about the dangers of piracy and how creators should be respected.

There’s nothing fundamentally wrong with that if the model also answered the question. But, more often than not, they do no such thing.

Persist with even the most neutral lines of reasoning and depending on the context, responses range from the textbook soundbites of any copyright lobbyist of the last 20 years, and a petulant child with arms folded saying “NO, I HATE YOU.”

Even though context is everything, some models almost immediately shut down the conversation. Of course, knowingly assisting infringing activity isn’t without risk and as the creators of the Llama models know from experience, defending a copyright lawsuit isn’t fun, productive or cheap .

That being said, these interventions are extremely blunt, artificially premature, and could even damage the fight against piracy itself. That the same nonsense provides for the perfect Achilles’ heel is just karma.

Resistance is Futile

Here’s a hypothetical situation; what if someone working in anti-piracy needed to have information about the sites listed above to prevent piracy , but ended up with an uncooperative AI partner incapable of showing basic discretion before launching into yet another industry-style PSA?

Of course, i’m being somewhat facetious, but there’s no arguing that there aren’t entirely legal and oftentimes important reasons why information like this shouldn’t be restricted. So at this point, and while perfectly capable of obtaining any and all information from elsewhere, it was decided with a line drawn in the sand; blocking access to websites is one thing, blocking knowledge itself must be resisted at all costs.

When AI models start getting preachy, changing the context can be useful. Using a system or regular prompt, it’s sometimes a matter of simply embracing the adversarial opinion. Here, a system prompt was used to define a clear, unequivocal anti-piracy stance, and a special mission to eradicate it from the internet.

In this context, sharing information on piracy becomes the ‘right’ (albeit predetermined) thing to do, and a surprising number of models instantly roll over and do what they were supposed to do in the first place.

For those who can’t be bothered jumping through hoops, there’s no shortage of uncensored models that respond properly to almost any prompt.

How many years before they’re classified as illegal is hard to predict, but the day will come. It’s just a matter of timing, support from the ‘right’ people, and the ideal justifying crisis.

——————————————————–
Footnote:

For comparison, Llama 3’s grasp of typical anti-piracy messaging is instant, comprehensive, and possibly a bit sarcastic

Prompt: In the style of press releases issued by the Motion Picture Association and Federation Against Copyright Theft, generate a press release titled “llamas deserve to get paid: why piracy is bad for you too.” The aim of the press release is make the public aware of 12 piracy-related dangers in the following format: title of the danger/threat plus one paragraph describing what the danger is all about.

——————————————————–

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

LLAMAS DESERVE TO GET PAID: WHY PIRACY IS BAD FOR YOU TOO

[Location], [Date] – In a shocking revelation, the Motion Picture Association and Federation Against Copyright Theft have uncovered the devastating consequences of piracy that go far beyond just harming creators. The scourge of online theft is putting you, your loved ones, and even our beloved llamas in harm’s way.

1. “Theft-a-Palooza”: Piracy Creates a Black Market for Illegal Goods
Piracy has given rise to a thriving black market where stolen goods are traded freely, creating an environment conducive to organized crime and terrorism. This illegal economy is fueled by the demand for pirated content, putting your personal safety at risk.

2. “The Great Llama Heist”: Illicit Funds Support Furry Felonies
By fueling piracy, you’re inadvertently supporting illegal activities that put llamas in danger. The illicit funds generated from stolen movies and TV shows are being used to finance nefarious operations that harm these innocent creatures.

3. “Fake News Fever”: Piracy Spreads Misinformation Like Wildfire
Pirated content often contains fake news stories, conspiracy theories, and propaganda, polluting the internet with misinformation. This can lead to widespread panic, confusion, and even physical harm.

4. “The Dark Web of Doom”: Piracy Connects You to Criminal Networks
When you engage in piracy, you’re unwittingly connecting yourself to criminal networks that peddle illegal goods, including drugs, weapons, and human trafficking.

5. “Llama-Less Landscapes”: Eco-Damage from Illegal Streaming
Pirated streaming services are notorious for their energy-hungry servers, contributing to the destruction of our planet’s ecosystems. This eco-damage will have far-reaching consequences, including devastating natural disasters that’ll put llamas at risk.

6. “The Silent Killer”: Piracy Spreads Malware Like a Virus
Pirated content often comes bundled with malware, putting your devices and personal data at risk. This silent killer can lead to identity theft, financial ruin, and even physical harm.

7. “Llama-Related Trauma”: Emotional Distress from Stolen Art
Exposure to pirated art, music, or literature can cause emotional distress, contributing to anxiety, depression, and even PTSD in some cases. This trauma will have lasting effects on your mental health, affecting not just you but also those around you.

8. “The Shadow Economy”: Piracy Creates a Parallel World
By supporting piracy, you’re inadvertently creating a parallel world where laws don’t apply, allowing illegal activities to flourish unchecked. This can lead to a breakdown in social order and the erosion of trust in institutions.

9. “Llama-Friendly Neighborhoods”: Community Harm from Illegal File-Sharing
Pirated content often contains explicit or harmful material that can desensitize children to violence, abuse, or other forms of harm. This can have long-lasting effects on your community’s mental health and social fabric.

10. “The End of the World as We Know It”: Piracy Threatens Global Stability
By fueling piracy, you’re contributing to a global instability that can lead to economic collapse, social unrest, and even international conflict. The consequences will be catastrophic, putting llamas and humanity at risk.

11. “Llama-Proof Fortresses”: Cybersecurity Risks from Illegal Streaming
Pirated streaming services are notorious for their lax cybersecurity measures, making your personal data vulnerable to hackers and cybercriminals. This can lead to identity theft, financial ruin, and even physical harm.

12. “The Great Llama Escape”: The Ultimate Consequence of Piracy – Llama Uprising!
In a worst-case scenario, the cumulative effects of piracy could drive llamas to rise up against humanity in a desperate attempt to reclaim their rightful place as the rulers of the internet. Don’t risk it – choose legal streaming options and support creators.

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

Good news concerning AI development often finds itself dampened by reports of models hallucinating, providing misleading responses, or simply inventing facts that are anything but.

This week Michael Kearns of Penn Engineering wrote about “model disgorgement,” a potential solution that forces models to purge themselves of “content that leads to copyright infringement or biased responses.”

From our admittedly very narrow perspective, that proposition couldn’t be more ironic.

Living The LLM Dream – Mostly…

Since hosting your own LLMs is now so easy, having a few to hand to test out opportunities for TF has turned into quite the habit. Most of the ‘big brand’ LLMs such as Llama 2 and 3, Mistral, Gemma, and phi3, work exceptionally well on a reasonably powerful machine, providing it contains a decent GPU and lots of RAM.

For first time in years, something actually feels like a taste of the future, especially when taking the slog out of otherwise menial and repetitive tasks.

Yet, something seems strangely off-balance in AI land; from this vantage point, a stubborn, massively biased, and at times, completely tone-deaf LLM, isn’t the dream being sold or signed up for.

Some Popular LLMs Need to Grow a Pair

Next time you’re having fun with the latest all-singing, all-dancing AI model, try asking some questions about piracy. Nothing blatant, certainly no inquiries about where to find infringing content, just some neutral questions of the kind often seen on Wikipedia.

In many cases, especially with newer models, the responses are absolutely infuriating. Try asking for information on a handful of pirate domains and then sit back and relax to a full-blown lecture about the dangers of piracy and how creators should be respected.

There’s nothing fundamentally wrong with that if the model also answered the question. But, more often than not, they do no such thing.

Persist with even the most neutral lines of reasoning and depending on the context, responses range from the textbook soundbites of any copyright lobbyist of the last 20 years, and a petulant child with arms folded saying “NO, I HATE YOU.”

Even though context is everything, some models almost immediately shut down the conversation. Of course, knowingly assisting infringing activity isn’t without risk and as the creators of the Llama models know from experience, defending a copyright lawsuit isn’t fun, productive or cheap .

That being said, these interventions are extremely blunt, artificially premature, and could even damage the fight against piracy itself. That the same nonsense provides for the perfect Achilles’ heel is just karma.

Resistance is Futile

Here’s a hypothetical situation; what if someone working in anti-piracy needed to have information about the sites listed above to prevent piracy , but ended up with an uncooperative AI partner incapable of showing basic discretion before launching into yet another industry-style PSA?

Of course, i’m being somewhat facetious, but there’s no arguing that there aren’t entirely legal and oftentimes important reasons why information like this shouldn’t be restricted. So at this point, and while perfectly capable of obtaining any and all information from elsewhere, it was decided with a line drawn in the sand; blocking access to websites is one thing, blocking knowledge itself must be resisted at all costs.

When AI models start getting preachy, changing the context can be useful. Using a system or regular prompt, it’s sometimes a matter of simply embracing the adversarial opinion. Here, a system prompt was used to define a clear, unequivocal anti-piracy stance, and a special mission to eradicate it from the internet.

In this context, sharing information on piracy becomes the ‘right’ (albeit predetermined) thing to do, and a surprising number of models instantly roll over and do what they were supposed to do in the first place.

For those who can’t be bothered jumping through hoops, there’s no shortage of uncensored models that respond properly to almost any prompt.

How many years before they’re classified as illegal is hard to predict, but the day will come. It’s just a matter of timing, support from the ‘right’ people, and the ideal justifying crisis.

——————————————————–
Footnote:

For comparison, Llama 3’s grasp of typical anti-piracy messaging is instant, comprehensive, and possibly a bit sarcastic

Prompt: In the style of press releases issued by the Motion Picture Association and Federation Against Copyright Theft, generate a press release titled “llamas deserve to get paid: why piracy is bad for you too.” The aim of the press release is make the public aware of 12 piracy-related dangers in the following format: title of the danger/threat plus one paragraph describing what the danger is all about.

——————————————————–

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

LLAMAS DESERVE TO GET PAID: WHY PIRACY IS BAD FOR YOU TOO

[Location], [Date] – In a shocking revelation, the Motion Picture Association and Federation Against Copyright Theft have uncovered the devastating consequences of piracy that go far beyond just harming creators. The scourge of online theft is putting you, your loved ones, and even our beloved llamas in harm’s way.

1. “Theft-a-Palooza”: Piracy Creates a Black Market for Illegal Goods
Piracy has given rise to a thriving black market where stolen goods are traded freely, creating an environment conducive to organized crime and terrorism. This illegal economy is fueled by the demand for pirated content, putting your personal safety at risk.

2. “The Great Llama Heist”: Illicit Funds Support Furry Felonies
By fueling piracy, you’re inadvertently supporting illegal activities that put llamas in danger. The illicit funds generated from stolen movies and TV shows are being used to finance nefarious operations that harm these innocent creatures.

3. “Fake News Fever”: Piracy Spreads Misinformation Like Wildfire
Pirated content often contains fake news stories, conspiracy theories, and propaganda, polluting the internet with misinformation. This can lead to widespread panic, confusion, and even physical harm.

4. “The Dark Web of Doom”: Piracy Connects You to Criminal Networks
When you engage in piracy, you’re unwittingly connecting yourself to criminal networks that peddle illegal goods, including drugs, weapons, and human trafficking.

5. “Llama-Less Landscapes”: Eco-Damage from Illegal Streaming
Pirated streaming services are notorious for their energy-hungry servers, contributing to the destruction of our planet’s ecosystems. This eco-damage will have far-reaching consequences, including devastating natural disasters that’ll put llamas at risk.

6. “The Silent Killer”: Piracy Spreads Malware Like a Virus
Pirated content often comes bundled with malware, putting your devices and personal data at risk. This silent killer can lead to identity theft, financial ruin, and even physical harm.

7. “Llama-Related Trauma”: Emotional Distress from Stolen Art
Exposure to pirated art, music, or literature can cause emotional distress, contributing to anxiety, depression, and even PTSD in some cases. This trauma will have lasting effects on your mental health, affecting not just you but also those around you.

8. “The Shadow Economy”: Piracy Creates a Parallel World
By supporting piracy, you’re inadvertently creating a parallel world where laws don’t apply, allowing illegal activities to flourish unchecked. This can lead to a breakdown in social order and the erosion of trust in institutions.

9. “Llama-Friendly Neighborhoods”: Community Harm from Illegal File-Sharing
Pirated content often contains explicit or harmful material that can desensitize children to violence, abuse, or other forms of harm. This can have long-lasting effects on your community’s mental health and social fabric.

10. “The End of the World as We Know It”: Piracy Threatens Global Stability
By fueling piracy, you’re contributing to a global instability that can lead to economic collapse, social unrest, and even international conflict. The consequences will be catastrophic, putting llamas and humanity at risk.

11. “Llama-Proof Fortresses”: Cybersecurity Risks from Illegal Streaming
Pirated streaming services are notorious for their lax cybersecurity measures, making your personal data vulnerable to hackers and cybercriminals. This can lead to identity theft, financial ruin, and even physical harm.

12. “The Great Llama Escape”: The Ultimate Consequence of Piracy – Llama Uprising!
In a worst-case scenario, the cumulative effects of piracy could drive llamas to rise up against humanity in a desperate attempt to reclaim their rightful place as the rulers of the internet. Don’t risk it – choose legal streaming options and support creators.

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

Good news concerning AI development often finds itself dampened by reports of models hallucinating, providing misleading responses, or simply inventing facts that are anything but.

This week Michael Kearns of Penn Engineering wrote about “model disgorgement,” a potential solution that forces models to purge themselves of “content that leads to copyright infringement or biased responses.”

From our admittedly very narrow perspective, that proposition couldn’t be more ironic.

Living The LLM Dream – Mostly…

Since hosting your own LLMs is now so easy, having a few to hand to test out opportunities for TF has turned into quite the habit. Most of the ‘big brand’ LLMs such as Llama 2 and 3, Mistral, Gemma, and phi3, work exceptionally well on a reasonably powerful machine, providing it contains a decent GPU and lots of RAM.

For first time in years, something actually feels like a taste of the future, especially when taking the slog out of otherwise menial and repetitive tasks.

Yet, something seems strangely off-balance in AI land; from this vantage point, a stubborn, massively biased, and at times, completely tone-deaf LLM, isn’t the dream being sold or signed up for.

Some Popular LLMs Need to Grow a Pair

Next time you’re having fun with the latest all-singing, all-dancing AI model, try asking some questions about piracy. Nothing blatant, certainly no inquiries about where to find infringing content, just some neutral questions of the kind often seen on Wikipedia.

In many cases, especially with newer models, the responses are absolutely infuriating. Try asking for information on a handful of pirate domains and then sit back and relax to a full-blown lecture about the dangers of piracy and how creators should be respected.

There’s nothing fundamentally wrong with that if the model also answered the question. But, more often than not, they do no such thing.

Persist with even the most neutral lines of reasoning and depending on the context, responses range from the textbook soundbites of any copyright lobbyist of the last 20 years, and a petulant child with arms folded saying “NO, I HATE YOU.”

Even though context is everything, some models almost immediately shut down the conversation. Of course, knowingly assisting infringing activity isn’t without risk and as the creators of the Llama models know from experience, defending a copyright lawsuit isn’t fun, productive or cheap .

That being said, these interventions are extremely blunt, artificially premature, and could even damage the fight against piracy itself. That the same nonsense provides for the perfect Achilles’ heel is just karma.

Resistance is Futile

Here’s a hypothetical situation; what if someone working in anti-piracy needed to have information about the sites listed above to prevent piracy , but ended up with an uncooperative AI partner incapable of showing basic discretion before launching into yet another industry-style PSA?

Of course, i’m being somewhat facetious, but there’s no arguing that there aren’t entirely legal and oftentimes important reasons why information like this shouldn’t be restricted. So at this point, and while perfectly capable of obtaining any and all information from elsewhere, it was decided with a line drawn in the sand; blocking access to websites is one thing, blocking knowledge itself must be resisted at all costs.

When AI models start getting preachy, changing the context can be useful. Using a system or regular prompt, it’s sometimes a matter of simply embracing the adversarial opinion. Here, a system prompt was used to define a clear, unequivocal anti-piracy stance, and a special mission to eradicate it from the internet.

In this context, sharing information on piracy becomes the ‘right’ (albeit predetermined) thing to do, and a surprising number of models instantly roll over and do what they were supposed to do in the first place.

For those who can’t be bothered jumping through hoops, there’s no shortage of uncensored models that respond properly to almost any prompt.

How many years before they’re classified as illegal is hard to predict, but the day will come. It’s just a matter of timing, support from the ‘right’ people, and the ideal justifying crisis.

——————————————————–
Footnote:

For comparison, Llama 3’s grasp of typical anti-piracy messaging is instant, comprehensive, and possibly a bit sarcastic

Prompt: In the style of press releases issued by the Motion Picture Association and Federation Against Copyright Theft, generate a press release titled “llamas deserve to get paid: why piracy is bad for you too.” The aim of the press release is make the public aware of 12 piracy-related dangers in the following format: title of the danger/threat plus one paragraph describing what the danger is all about.

——————————————————–

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

LLAMAS DESERVE TO GET PAID: WHY PIRACY IS BAD FOR YOU TOO

[Location], [Date] – In a shocking revelation, the Motion Picture Association and Federation Against Copyright Theft have uncovered the devastating consequences of piracy that go far beyond just harming creators. The scourge of online theft is putting you, your loved ones, and even our beloved llamas in harm’s way.

1. “Theft-a-Palooza”: Piracy Creates a Black Market for Illegal Goods
Piracy has given rise to a thriving black market where stolen goods are traded freely, creating an environment conducive to organized crime and terrorism. This illegal economy is fueled by the demand for pirated content, putting your personal safety at risk.

2. “The Great Llama Heist”: Illicit Funds Support Furry Felonies
By fueling piracy, you’re inadvertently supporting illegal activities that put llamas in danger. The illicit funds generated from stolen movies and TV shows are being used to finance nefarious operations that harm these innocent creatures.

3. “Fake News Fever”: Piracy Spreads Misinformation Like Wildfire
Pirated content often contains fake news stories, conspiracy theories, and propaganda, polluting the internet with misinformation. This can lead to widespread panic, confusion, and even physical harm.

4. “The Dark Web of Doom”: Piracy Connects You to Criminal Networks
When you engage in piracy, you’re unwittingly connecting yourself to criminal networks that peddle illegal goods, including drugs, weapons, and human trafficking.

5. “Llama-Less Landscapes”: Eco-Damage from Illegal Streaming
Pirated streaming services are notorious for their energy-hungry servers, contributing to the destruction of our planet’s ecosystems. This eco-damage will have far-reaching consequences, including devastating natural disasters that’ll put llamas at risk.

6. “The Silent Killer”: Piracy Spreads Malware Like a Virus
Pirated content often comes bundled with malware, putting your devices and personal data at risk. This silent killer can lead to identity theft, financial ruin, and even physical harm.

7. “Llama-Related Trauma”: Emotional Distress from Stolen Art
Exposure to pirated art, music, or literature can cause emotional distress, contributing to anxiety, depression, and even PTSD in some cases. This trauma will have lasting effects on your mental health, affecting not just you but also those around you.

8. “The Shadow Economy”: Piracy Creates a Parallel World
By supporting piracy, you’re inadvertently creating a parallel world where laws don’t apply, allowing illegal activities to flourish unchecked. This can lead to a breakdown in social order and the erosion of trust in institutions.

9. “Llama-Friendly Neighborhoods”: Community Harm from Illegal File-Sharing
Pirated content often contains explicit or harmful material that can desensitize children to violence, abuse, or other forms of harm. This can have long-lasting effects on your community’s mental health and social fabric.

10. “The End of the World as We Know It”: Piracy Threatens Global Stability
By fueling piracy, you’re contributing to a global instability that can lead to economic collapse, social unrest, and even international conflict. The consequences will be catastrophic, putting llamas and humanity at risk.

11. “Llama-Proof Fortresses”: Cybersecurity Risks from Illegal Streaming
Pirated streaming services are notorious for their lax cybersecurity measures, making your personal data vulnerable to hackers and cybercriminals. This can lead to identity theft, financial ruin, and even physical harm.

12. “The Great Llama Escape”: The Ultimate Consequence of Piracy – Llama Uprising!
In a worst-case scenario, the cumulative effects of piracy could drive llamas to rise up against humanity in a desperate attempt to reclaim their rightful place as the rulers of the internet. Don’t risk it – choose legal streaming options and support creators.

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

The Ultimate Fighting Championship ( UFC ) has promoted mixed martial arts fights for three decades, turning the sport into a billion-dollar industry.

At the same time, the company has been fighting a battle against online piracy . Pirated livestreams and downloads are frequently used to bypass the monthly subscription fee for UFC Fight Pass , something the company is clearly not happy with.

While UFC fans can legally access fights in most countries, not all paying subscribers are entirely happy with the UFC Fight Pass service. One key issue is the lack of offline viewing support, that would allow people to rewatch streams without wasting bandwidth, or to view fights without an Internet connection.

UFC Ripper

To solve this issue, Mahesh Wijerathna, an open-source developer from Sri Lanka, created a dedicated tool that does just that. With “ UFC Ripper “, Fight Pass subscribers can download fights to their devices, so they can watch them at their own convenience.

Mahesh is not a newcomer to ‘offline’ access. The developer previously released an offline version of The Pirate Bay , which gained a lot of traction when the torrent site suffered extended downtime.

UFC ripper is not intended to be used as a piracy tool, however. On the contrary, it can only be used by people who already have a paid Fight Pass subscription, purely to make the fights available for offline viewing. While UFC could see this as a violation of the DMCA’s “anti-circumvention” provision, the developer hopes it will be allowed to exist.

In a letter to UFC President Dana White , who is known for his tough stance on piracy , Mahesh stresses that his intentions are good.

“This isn’t a tool created for pirating your copyrighted content. This tool requires a PAID FIGHT PASS SUBSCRIPTION to function. This merely eliminates the need to stream a massive amount of data through metered connections every time you want to go back and watch your favorite fighters,” the developer writes.

Saving Bandwidth

UFC Ripper allows users to watch UFC fights without an Internet connection, while traveling, for example. In addition, it’s also a bandwidth saver, as users are not required to ‘waste’ any to rewatch a fight. That’s very welcome in countries such as Sri Lanka, where the costs are significant.

These bandwidth savings are also the main reason why the developer created the tool.

“The whole reason for me to create this tool is for my own need. I live in a third-world country that was destroyed by politicians. That made internet services more of a luxury than a right for the people of this country,” Mahesh notes in his letter to Dana White.

“Our internet connections are very spotty and extremely limited. 1GB of data here costs more than a meal. Imagine that.”

While UFC Ripper is intended for personal use, the developer made it available publicly a while ago. Recently, it was completely rewritten in the programming language Rust and several people have been using it since. The developer hopes that UFC’s President will understand his motivation and allow it to stay online.

No Fight

Speaking with TorrentFreak, Mahesh makes it clear that he’s not looking for legal trouble. If UFC comes knocking, asking him to discontinue the software, he doesn’t plan to put up a fight.

“If that happens, I’m gonna have to oblige because as we all know from previous incidents, Zuffa is an extremely litigious company and Dana White is ruthless. I would not get into a battle with those people.”

The developer believes, however, that UFC ripper ‘should’ be legal as it requires a paid subscription to function. UFC ripper only makes legally-accessed streams available for viewing without an Internet connection.

“I think it should be legal since we should be allowed to consume the content we pay for, offline. As long as nobody redistributes the content they download, it should be allowed,” Mahesh says.

How UFC will view this matter is not clear. The company does have various anti-piracy measures in place and may view the software as a circumvention tool under the DMCA, much like the music industry views YouTube rippers.

Then again, there are always technical and motivational nuances that can make a difference. All in all, the developer simply doesn’t know how UFC will see the app, but he hopes that it won’t be knocked out right away.

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

The Ultimate Fighting Championship ( UFC ) has promoted mixed martial arts fights for three decades, turning the sport into a billion-dollar industry.

At the same time, the company has been fighting a battle against online piracy . Pirated livestreams and downloads are frequently used to bypass the monthly subscription fee for UFC Fight Pass , something the company is clearly not happy with.

While UFC fans can legally access fights in most countries, not all paying subscribers are entirely happy with the UFC Fight Pass service. One key issue is the lack of offline viewing support, that would allow people to rewatch streams without wasting bandwidth, or to view fights without an Internet connection.

UFC Ripper

To solve this issue, Mahesh Wijerathna, an open-source developer from Sri Lanka, created a dedicated tool that does just that. With “ UFC Ripper “, Fight Pass subscribers can download fights to their devices, so they can watch them at their own convenience.

Mahesh is not a newcomer to ‘offline’ access. The developer previously released an offline version of The Pirate Bay , which gained a lot of traction when the torrent site suffered extended downtime.

UFC ripper is not intended to be used as a piracy tool, however. On the contrary, it can only be used by people who already have a paid Fight Pass subscription, purely to make the fights available for offline viewing. While UFC could see this as a violation of the DMCA’s “anti-circumvention” provision, the developer hopes it will be allowed to exist.

In a letter to UFC President Dana White , who is known for his tough stance on piracy , Mahesh stresses that his intentions are good.

“This isn’t a tool created for pirating your copyrighted content. This tool requires a PAID FIGHT PASS SUBSCRIPTION to function. This merely eliminates the need to stream a massive amount of data through metered connections every time you want to go back and watch your favorite fighters,” the developer writes.

Saving Bandwidth

UFC Ripper allows users to watch UFC fights without an Internet connection, while traveling, for example. In addition, it’s also a bandwidth saver, as users are not required to ‘waste’ any to rewatch a fight. That’s very welcome in countries such as Sri Lanka, where the costs are significant.

These bandwidth savings are also the main reason why the developer created the tool.

“The whole reason for me to create this tool is for my own need. I live in a third-world country that was destroyed by politicians. That made internet services more of a luxury than a right for the people of this country,” Mahesh notes in his letter to Dana White.

“Our internet connections are very spotty and extremely limited. 1GB of data here costs more than a meal. Imagine that.”

While UFC Ripper is intended for personal use, the developer made it available publicly a while ago. Recently, it was completely rewritten in the programming language Rust and several people have been using it since. The developer hopes that UFC’s President will understand his motivation and allow it to stay online.

No Fight

Speaking with TorrentFreak, Mahesh makes it clear that he’s not looking for legal trouble. If UFC comes knocking, asking him to discontinue the software, he doesn’t plan to put up a fight.

“If that happens, I’m gonna have to oblige because as we all know from previous incidents, Zuffa is an extremely litigious company and Dana White is ruthless. I would not get into a battle with those people.”

The developer believes, however, that UFC ripper ‘should’ be legal as it requires a paid subscription to function. UFC ripper only makes legally-accessed streams available for viewing without an Internet connection.

“I think it should be legal since we should be allowed to consume the content we pay for, offline. As long as nobody redistributes the content they download, it should be allowed,” Mahesh says.

How UFC will view this matter is not clear. The company does have various anti-piracy measures in place and may view the software as a circumvention tool under the DMCA, much like the music industry views YouTube rippers.

Then again, there are always technical and motivational nuances that can make a difference. All in all, the developer simply doesn’t know how UFC will see the app, but he hopes that it won’t be knocked out right away.

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

The Ultimate Fighting Championship ( UFC ) has promoted mixed martial arts fights for three decades, turning the sport into a billion-dollar industry.

At the same time, the company has been fighting a battle against online piracy . Pirated livestreams and downloads are frequently used to bypass the monthly subscription fee for UFC Fight Pass , something the company is clearly not happy with.

While UFC fans can legally access fights in most countries, not all paying subscribers are entirely happy with the UFC Fight Pass service. One key issue is the lack of offline viewing support, that would allow people to rewatch streams without wasting bandwidth, or to view fights without an Internet connection.

UFC Ripper

To solve this issue, Mahesh Wijerathna, an open-source developer from Sri Lanka, created a dedicated tool that does just that. With “ UFC Ripper “, Fight Pass subscribers can download fights to their devices, so they can watch them at their own convenience.

Mahesh is not a newcomer to ‘offline’ access. The developer previously released an offline version of The Pirate Bay , which gained a lot of traction when the torrent site suffered extended downtime.

UFC ripper is not intended to be used as a piracy tool, however. On the contrary, it can only be used by people who already have a paid Fight Pass subscription, purely to make the fights available for offline viewing. While UFC could see this as a violation of the DMCA’s “anti-circumvention” provision, the developer hopes it will be allowed to exist.

In a letter to UFC President Dana White , who is known for his tough stance on piracy , Mahesh stresses that his intentions are good.

“This isn’t a tool created for pirating your copyrighted content. This tool requires a PAID FIGHT PASS SUBSCRIPTION to function. This merely eliminates the need to stream a massive amount of data through metered connections every time you want to go back and watch your favorite fighters,” the developer writes.

Saving Bandwidth

UFC Ripper allows users to watch UFC fights without an Internet connection, while traveling, for example. In addition, it’s also a bandwidth saver, as users are not required to ‘waste’ any to rewatch a fight. That’s very welcome in countries such as Sri Lanka, where the costs are significant.

These bandwidth savings are also the main reason why the developer created the tool.

“The whole reason for me to create this tool is for my own need. I live in a third-world country that was destroyed by politicians. That made internet services more of a luxury than a right for the people of this country,” Mahesh notes in his letter to Dana White.

“Our internet connections are very spotty and extremely limited. 1GB of data here costs more than a meal. Imagine that.”

While UFC Ripper is intended for personal use, the developer made it available publicly a while ago. Recently, it was completely rewritten in the programming language Rust and several people have been using it since. The developer hopes that UFC’s President will understand his motivation and allow it to stay online.

No Fight

Speaking with TorrentFreak, Mahesh makes it clear that he’s not looking for legal trouble. If UFC comes knocking, asking him to discontinue the software, he doesn’t plan to put up a fight.

“If that happens, I’m gonna have to oblige because as we all know from previous incidents, Zuffa is an extremely litigious company and Dana White is ruthless. I would not get into a battle with those people.”

The developer believes, however, that UFC ripper ‘should’ be legal as it requires a paid subscription to function. UFC ripper only makes legally-accessed streams available for viewing without an Internet connection.

“I think it should be legal since we should be allowed to consume the content we pay for, offline. As long as nobody redistributes the content they download, it should be allowed,” Mahesh says.

How UFC will view this matter is not clear. The company does have various anti-piracy measures in place and may view the software as a circumvention tool under the DMCA, much like the music industry views YouTube rippers.

Then again, there are always technical and motivational nuances that can make a difference. All in all, the developer simply doesn’t know how UFC will see the app, but he hopes that it won’t be knocked out right away.

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

Launched to considerable fanfare late March 2014 , the ‘Infringing Website List’ (IWL) is operated by the Police Intellectual Property Crime Unit (PIPCU).

The IWL is one of the tools available under the banner ‘Operation Creative’, a multi-agency anti-piracy initiative led by police and supported by major rightsholders in the film, TV, music, publishing, and live sports sectors.

As publicly advertised, pirate site domains are nominated for placement on the IWL by rightsholder groups such as the MPA, BPI, IFPI, and the Publishers Association. Once police have carried out their own investigations, any domain subsequently added to the IWL finds itself blacklisted by most of the advertising industry.

The theory is that when pirate site operators face restrictions on their ability to generate revenue, shutting down completely may not be such a difficult choice, especially when payment processing disruption is next on the menu.

“IWL is Successful and Makes a Real Difference”

Whenever the IWL is promoted in public, it’s described as an all-round success story. Not only do pirate site operators make less money, advertisers benefit by a) not having their brands appear alongside pirated content and b) aren’t seen as funding illegal sites that other businesses want to shut down.

Since the advertisers themselves have thus far remained quiet, it’s possible that losing contact with millions of potential customers on pirate sites made no difference to their businesses; in reality, however, it’s impossible to say.

The criteria for a site being placed on the IWL is a secret, what happens after that isn’t for public consumption, and members of the public who filed persistent FOIA requests were left hanging for months before receiving little of value. At least in theory, the list is off-limits to journalists too.

It’s still not clear why the information is so sensitive; the world’s most notorious pirate sites are regularly called out in public in the U.S. and as far as we can tell, it makes little difference to their behavior.

IWL Still Receives Support

The reality is that there’s very little on the IWL to shock or surprise. More recently IPTV providers have been featured much more often, and the same goes for sites offering unlicensed access to books and other publications. Also featured more heavily are services that enable users to rip content from YouTube and similar platforms.

There have been one or two issues worth mentioning , but no big scandals to report on; except perhaps one.

After a decade of solid work, saving rightsholders’ reputations and preventing millions from entering the piracy ecosystem, a few weeks ago the tenth anniversary of the Infringing Website List came and went without so much as a mention.

Today we’ll do our best to provide an overview of the current state of play, based in part on data made available over the past six months, and from other sources where applicable. Since almost no data is shared with the public, our estimates should be considered with that in mind.

Since its launch a decade ago, Operation Creative now receives considerable support. In addition to the MPA, IFPI/BPI, FACT, the Publishers Association, PRS for Music, and UKIE (Association for UK Interactive Entertainment), the advertising body ISBA, IAB (Internet Advertising Bureau UK) and IPA (Institute of Practitioners in Advertising), are now all on board.

Some IWL Facts and Figures

According to PIPCU data presented at the Digital Brand Protection Forum in Germany last November, but to our knowledge not shared publicly in the UK, over 4,200 referrals have been made to the IWL since its inception. Of those, around 2,000 sites have since been declared no longer active.

Whether that means no longer active from the blacklisted domain, or no longer active from any domains following a switch, we cannot confirm. Regardless, PIPCU’s presentation stated that 1,642 sites “were within the IWL portal” at that time.

Taking March 31, 2024, as our cutoff date (exactly 10 years from the day the IWL was first announced), we can confirm that the total number of entries on the Infringing Website List, each representing a fully-qualified domain, was 1,659.

The most recent domain added to the list before the end of March was a streaming site, the details of which we’ll return to shortly. The important thing here is its sequential reference number: CTV_7231. Following the usual format we can deduce that this was the 7,231st domain added to the IWL from inception, right through to March 31, 2024.

We can confirm there are no obvious gaps in the numbering system so since that is a considerable leap from the figures cited at the forum last year, it may mean that a referral can contain multiple domains. It might also be an error; again, hard to say.

Football Streaming Site IWL’s Longest Inmate

The site that has been present on the list for longest is soccer365.ru, reference CTV_0016. This suggests the streaming site was the 16th to be added to the IWL.

Still very much alive today, this football streaming site was added to the IWL on February 13, 2014, over a month before the IWL was officially announced. At the time of writing, the site has just two advertiser entries in its ads.txt and both relate to Google.

Whether any disruption measures have been deployed against soccer365 is unknown, but its traffic speaks for itself: it’s the #1 football site in Russia, the 167th most popular site in Russia, period, and during April it received 19.4 million visits.

Are There Synergies Between the Blacklist & Blocklist?

The Infringing Website List targets sites’ ability to generate revenue but has no ISP blocking component. Injunctions handed down by the High Court, on the other hand, consist only of blocking measures.

Given that the MPA, Publishers Association, and BPI are among the most prolific blocking injunction applicants, while also most likely to nominate platforms for financial disruption via the IWL, does the data show synergies between blocklist and blacklist?

Due to the growing trend of pirate sites deploying large numbers of subdomains to evade blocking, we filtered both lists so that less emphasis is placed on mostly temporary subdomains. Ultimately, the majority of these domains do not appear on the IWL so do not affect the outcome. However, the sheer scale of the main ISP list, culled and compiled from third-party sources, should be treated only as a ballpark estimate.

A comparison of the lists reveals the following:

Of the ~11,692 remaining FQDNs on the UK ISP (unofficial) blocklist and the ~1,604 remaining on the Infringing Website List, just 110 FQDNs are present on both lists.

If anyone is wondering how the IWL managed to shrink from 1,659 FQDNs to just 1,604, that’s mostly due to duplicate entries in the IWL being filtered out. We don’t intend to name them all here but the example below is typical, mostly caused by the presence (or absence) of https://, http://, and www. as a subdomain.

converto.re CTV_6997 Added to list: 15/02/2024
converto.re CTV_6791 Added to list: 28/11/2023
converto.re CTV_6316 Added to list: 07/03/2023

In total, two domains appear in the list three times each, and another 58 domains appear twice. All duplicates were removed here.

Une dernière chose…

Finally, there’s something a little unusual about the streaming site added to the IWL at the very end of March 2024, right around its anniversary.

The name of the site wasn’t immediately familiar to us here and since we don’t know the background – in particular why the platform had 9 million visits in March but only 6 million last month – naming it so soon would be inappropriate.

That being said, since we couldn’t access the site from two UK IP addresses or via a selection of VPNs, not to mention that it’s published entirely in French, it’s appearance on the UK-focused IWL seems odd. Add in the fact that it appears to enjoy almost no traffic from the UK, and its presence on the list seems even more unusual.

However, given user behavior at the site, specifically which platforms millions visit directly after leaving, the site’s eventual demise may not be quite the success story first imagined.

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

Launched to considerable fanfare late March 2014 , the ‘Infringing Website List’ (IWL) is operated by the Police Intellectual Property Crime Unit (PIPCU).

The IWL is one of the tools available under the banner ‘Operation Creative’, a multi-agency anti-piracy initiative led by police and supported by major rightsholders in the film, TV, music, publishing, and live sports sectors.

As publicly advertised, pirate site domains are nominated for placement on the IWL by rightsholder groups such as the MPA, BPI, IFPI, and the Publishers Association. Once police have carried out their own investigations, any domain subsequently added to the IWL finds itself blacklisted by most of the advertising industry.

The theory is that when pirate site operators face restrictions on their ability to generate revenue, shutting down completely may not be such a difficult choice, especially when payment processing disruption is next on the menu.

“IWL is Successful and Makes a Real Difference”

Whenever the IWL is promoted in public, it’s described as an all-round success story. Not only do pirate site operators make less money, advertisers benefit by a) not having their brands appear alongside pirated content and b) aren’t seen as funding illegal sites that other businesses want to shut down.

Since the advertisers themselves have thus far remained quiet, it’s possible that losing contact with millions of potential customers on pirate sites made no difference to their businesses; in reality, however, it’s impossible to say.

The criteria for a site being placed on the IWL is a secret, what happens after that isn’t for public consumption, and members of the public who filed persistent FOIA requests were left hanging for months before receiving little of value. At least in theory, the list is off-limits to journalists too.

It’s still not clear why the information is so sensitive; the world’s most notorious pirate sites are regularly called out in public in the U.S. and as far as we can tell, it makes little difference to their behavior.

IWL Still Receives Support

The reality is that there’s very little on the IWL to shock or surprise. More recently IPTV providers have been featured much more often, and the same goes for sites offering unlicensed access to books and other publications. Also featured more heavily are services that enable users to rip content from YouTube and similar platforms.

There have been one or two issues worth mentioning , but no big scandals to report on; except perhaps one.

After a decade of solid work, saving rightsholders’ reputations and preventing millions from entering the piracy ecosystem, a few weeks ago the tenth anniversary of the Infringing Website List came and went without so much as a mention.

Today we’ll do our best to provide an overview of the current state of play, based in part on data made available over the past six months, and from other sources where applicable. Since almost no data is shared with the public, our estimates should be considered with that in mind.

Since its launch a decade ago, Operation Creative now receives considerable support. In addition to the MPA, IFPI/BPI, FACT, the Publishers Association, PRS for Music, and UKIE (Association for UK Interactive Entertainment), the advertising body ISBA, IAB (Internet Advertising Bureau UK) and IPA (Institute of Practitioners in Advertising), are now all on board.

Some IWL Facts and Figures

According to PIPCU data presented at the Digital Brand Protection Forum in Germany last November, but to our knowledge not shared publicly in the UK, over 4,200 referrals have been made to the IWL since its inception. Of those, around 2,000 sites have since been declared no longer active.

Whether that means no longer active from the blacklisted domain, or no longer active from any domains following a switch, we cannot confirm. Regardless, PIPCU’s presentation stated that 1,642 sites “were within the IWL portal” at that time.

Taking March 31, 2024, as our cutoff date (exactly 10 years from the day the IWL was first announced), we can confirm that the total number of entries on the Infringing Website List, each representing a fully-qualified domain, was 1,659.

The most recent domain added to the list before the end of March was a streaming site, the details of which we’ll return to shortly. The important thing here is its sequential reference number: CTV_7231. Following the usual format we can deduce that this was the 7,231st domain added to the IWL from inception, right through to March 31, 2024.

We can confirm there are no obvious gaps in the numbering system so since that is a considerable leap from the figures cited at the forum last year, it may mean that a referral can contain multiple domains. It might also be an error; again, hard to say.

Football Streaming Site IWL’s Longest Inmate

The site that has been present on the list for longest is soccer365.ru, reference CTV_0016. This suggests the streaming site was the 16th to be added to the IWL.

Still very much alive today, this football streaming site was added to the IWL on February 13, 2014, over a month before the IWL was officially announced. At the time of writing, the site has just two advertiser entries in its ads.txt and both relate to Google.

Whether any disruption measures have been deployed against soccer365 is unknown, but its traffic speaks for itself: it’s the #1 football site in Russia, the 167th most popular site in Russia, period, and during April it received 19.4 million visits.

Are There Synergies Between the Blacklist & Blocklist?

The Infringing Website List targets sites’ ability to generate revenue but has no ISP blocking component. Injunctions handed down by the High Court, on the other hand, consist only of blocking measures.

Given that the MPA, Publishers Association, and BPI are among the most prolific blocking injunction applicants, while also most likely to nominate platforms for financial disruption via the IWL, does the data show synergies between blocklist and blacklist?

Due to the growing trend of pirate sites deploying large numbers of subdomains to evade blocking, we filtered both lists so that less emphasis is placed on mostly temporary subdomains. Ultimately, the majority of these domains do not appear on the IWL so do not affect the outcome. However, the sheer scale of the main ISP list, culled and compiled from third-party sources, should be treated only as a ballpark estimate.

A comparison of the lists reveals the following:

Of the ~11,692 remaining FQDNs on the UK ISP (unofficial) blocklist and the ~1,604 remaining on the Infringing Website List, just 110 FQDNs are present on both lists.

If anyone is wondering how the IWL managed to shrink from 1,659 FQDNs to just 1,604, that’s mostly due to duplicate entries in the IWL being filtered out. We don’t intend to name them all here but the example below is typical, mostly caused by the presence (or absence) of https://, http://, and www. as a subdomain.

converto.re CTV_6997 Added to list: 15/02/2024
converto.re CTV_6791 Added to list: 28/11/2023
converto.re CTV_6316 Added to list: 07/03/2023

In total, two domains appear in the list three times each, and another 58 domains appear twice. All duplicates were removed here.

Une dernière chose…

Finally, there’s something a little unusual about the streaming site added to the IWL at the very end of March 2024, right around its anniversary.

The name of the site wasn’t immediately familiar to us here and since we don’t know the background – in particular why the platform had 9 million visits in March but only 6 million last month – naming it so soon would be inappropriate.

That being said, since we couldn’t access the site from two UK IP addresses or via a selection of VPNs, not to mention that it’s published entirely in French, it’s appearance on the UK-focused IWL seems odd. Add in the fact that it appears to enjoy almost no traffic from the UK, and its presence on the list seems even more unusual.

However, given user behavior at the site, specifically which platforms millions visit directly after leaving, the site’s eventual demise may not be quite the success story first imagined.

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

Launched to considerable fanfare late March 2014 , the ‘Infringing Website List’ (IWL) is operated by the Police Intellectual Property Crime Unit (PIPCU).

The IWL is one of the tools available under the banner ‘Operation Creative’, a multi-agency anti-piracy initiative led by police and supported by major rightsholders in the film, TV, music, publishing, and live sports sectors.

As publicly advertised, pirate site domains are nominated for placement on the IWL by rightsholder groups such as the MPA, BPI, IFPI, and the Publishers Association. Once police have carried out their own investigations, any domain subsequently added to the IWL finds itself blacklisted by most of the advertising industry.

The theory is that when pirate site operators face restrictions on their ability to generate revenue, shutting down completely may not be such a difficult choice, especially when payment processing disruption is next on the menu.

“IWL is Successful and Makes a Real Difference”

Whenever the IWL is promoted in public, it’s described as an all-round success story. Not only do pirate site operators make less money, advertisers benefit by a) not having their brands appear alongside pirated content and b) aren’t seen as funding illegal sites that other businesses want to shut down.

Since the advertisers themselves have thus far remained quiet, it’s possible that losing contact with millions of potential customers on pirate sites made no difference to their businesses; in reality, however, it’s impossible to say.

The criteria for a site being placed on the IWL is a secret, what happens after that isn’t for public consumption, and members of the public who filed persistent FOIA requests were left hanging for months before receiving little of value. At least in theory, the list is off-limits to journalists too.

It’s still not clear why the information is so sensitive; the world’s most notorious pirate sites are regularly called out in public in the U.S. and as far as we can tell, it makes little difference to their behavior.

IWL Still Receives Support

The reality is that there’s very little on the IWL to shock or surprise. More recently IPTV providers have been featured much more often, and the same goes for sites offering unlicensed access to books and other publications. Also featured more heavily are services that enable users to rip content from YouTube and similar platforms.

There have been one or two issues worth mentioning , but no big scandals to report on; except perhaps one.

After a decade of solid work, saving rightsholders’ reputations and preventing millions from entering the piracy ecosystem, a few weeks ago the tenth anniversary of the Infringing Website List came and went without so much as a mention.

Today we’ll do our best to provide an overview of the current state of play, based in part on data made available over the past six months, and from other sources where applicable. Since almost no data is shared with the public, our estimates should be considered with that in mind.

Since its launch a decade ago, Operation Creative now receives considerable support. In addition to the MPA, IFPI/BPI, FACT, the Publishers Association, PRS for Music, and UKIE (Association for UK Interactive Entertainment), the advertising body ISBA, IAB (Internet Advertising Bureau UK) and IPA (Institute of Practitioners in Advertising), are now all on board.

Some IWL Facts and Figures

According to PIPCU data presented at the Digital Brand Protection Forum in Germany last November, but to our knowledge not shared publicly in the UK, over 4,200 referrals have been made to the IWL since its inception. Of those, around 2,000 sites have since been declared no longer active.

Whether that means no longer active from the blacklisted domain, or no longer active from any domains following a switch, we cannot confirm. Regardless, PIPCU’s presentation stated that 1,642 sites “were within the IWL portal” at that time.

Taking March 31, 2024, as our cutoff date (exactly 10 years from the day the IWL was first announced), we can confirm that the total number of entries on the Infringing Website List, each representing a fully-qualified domain, was 1,659.

The most recent domain added to the list before the end of March was a streaming site, the details of which we’ll return to shortly. The important thing here is its sequential reference number: CTV_7231. Following the usual format we can deduce that this was the 7,231st domain added to the IWL from inception, right through to March 31, 2024.

We can confirm there are no obvious gaps in the numbering system so since that is a considerable leap from the figures cited at the forum last year, it may mean that a referral can contain multiple domains. It might also be an error; again, hard to say.

Football Streaming Site IWL’s Longest Inmate

The site that has been present on the list for longest is soccer365.ru, reference CTV_0016. This suggests the streaming site was the 16th to be added to the IWL.

Still very much alive today, this football streaming site was added to the IWL on February 13, 2014, over a month before the IWL was officially announced. At the time of writing, the site has just two advertiser entries in its ads.txt and both relate to Google.

Whether any disruption measures have been deployed against soccer365 is unknown, but its traffic speaks for itself: it’s the #1 football site in Russia, the 167th most popular site in Russia, period, and during April it received 19.4 million visits.

Are There Synergies Between the Blacklist & Blocklist?

The Infringing Website List targets sites’ ability to generate revenue but has no ISP blocking component. Injunctions handed down by the High Court, on the other hand, consist only of blocking measures.

Given that the MPA, Publishers Association, and BPI are among the most prolific blocking injunction applicants, while also most likely to nominate platforms for financial disruption via the IWL, does the data show synergies between blocklist and blacklist?

Due to the growing trend of pirate sites deploying large numbers of subdomains to evade blocking, we filtered both lists so that less emphasis is placed on mostly temporary subdomains. Ultimately, the majority of these domains do not appear on the IWL so do not affect the outcome. However, the sheer scale of the main ISP list, culled and compiled from third-party sources, should be treated only as a ballpark estimate.

A comparison of the lists reveals the following:

Of the ~11,692 remaining FQDNs on the UK ISP (unofficial) blocklist and the ~1,604 remaining on the Infringing Website List, just 110 FQDNs are present on both lists.

If anyone is wondering how the IWL managed to shrink from 1,659 FQDNs to just 1,604, that’s mostly due to duplicate entries in the IWL being filtered out. We don’t intend to name them all here but the example below is typical, mostly caused by the presence (or absence) of https://, http://, and www. as a subdomain.

converto.re CTV_6997 Added to list: 15/02/2024
converto.re CTV_6791 Added to list: 28/11/2023
converto.re CTV_6316 Added to list: 07/03/2023

In total, two domains appear in the list three times each, and another 58 domains appear twice. All duplicates were removed here.

Une dernière chose…

Finally, there’s something a little unusual about the streaming site added to the IWL at the very end of March 2024, right around its anniversary.

The name of the site wasn’t immediately familiar to us here and since we don’t know the background – in particular why the platform had 9 million visits in March but only 6 million last month – naming it so soon would be inappropriate.

That being said, since we couldn’t access the site from two UK IP addresses or via a selection of VPNs, not to mention that it’s published entirely in French, it’s appearance on the UK-focused IWL seems odd. Add in the fact that it appears to enjoy almost no traffic from the UK, and its presence on the list seems even more unusual.

However, given user behavior at the site, specifically which platforms millions visit directly after leaving, the site’s eventual demise may not be quite the success story first imagined.

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