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

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

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

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

Man Sentenced for ‘Sophisticated’ Pirate IPTV Operation

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

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

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

McNally Pleads Guilty to Two Counts of Fraud

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

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

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

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

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

Initial Estimates a Little High

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

$4.5m Default Judgment

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

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

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

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

Domain Seizures Send an Important Message

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

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

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

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

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

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

MissAV Remains Online

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

‘Copyright Infringing Scam Apps’

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

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

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

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

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

‘Google Play Failed to Take Apps Offline’

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

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

---

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

– November 1, 2024: Google confirms receipt

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

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

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

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

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

– December 16, 2024: Google confirms receipt

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

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

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

– December 30, 2024: Google confirms receipt

---

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

Poppy Playtime Requests Damages

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

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

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

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

—

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

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

Manga and anime have become increasingly popular in recent years. These formats originate in Japan but are now in demand worldwide.

Similar popularity also extends to the adult counterpart known as “hentai,” which has millions of avid fans.

Like other forms of media, not everyone accessing hentai content chooses to pay for it. Instead, many people opt for free websites like nHentai.net, which averaged close to 80 million visits in recent months.

Nhentai Sued by Publisher for Widespread Piracy

Nhentai.net has been around for over a decade but in a move last summer, California company PCR Distributing described the site as a threat to its business. PCR does business under various brands, including J18 and JAST USA, and views the ‘pirate’ site as unlicensed competition.

Initially, PCR requested a DMCA subpoena asking Cloudflare to unmask the people behind the site, after they allegedly failed to process takedown notices. These requests are typically straightforward but not in this case, as Nhentai decided to object.

Facing opposition, PCR dropped the subpoena request. Instead, it decided to file a full complaint at a California federal court. According to the publisher, Nhentai shares copyrighted material without obtaining permission from rightsholders.

“[Nhentai] hosts a vast collection of hentai works, including commercially produced content, much of which, based on information and belief, is shared without proper authorization from the owners,” the complaint read.

Nhentai Fights Back with a Vengeance

Nhentai’s initial opposition already indicated that the site doesn’t plan to leave these allegations uncontested. And indeed, when PCR requested early discovery, Nhentai objected , pointing out that PCR had granted express permission to use its copyrighted works.

This week, the alleged ‘pirate’ site went a step further, requesting the court to dismiss the lawsuit in its entirety. The request isn’t based on a single issue; Nhentai says there are several grounds for the court to end the lawsuit prematurely.

Not the author

First, Nhentai argues that it isn’t clear whether PCR is actually the ‘author’ of all works. Some official copyright registration records list ‘JAST USA’ as the author.

Although PCR claims to operate under the JAST USA brand, the defendants argue that PCR is a separate company and has not provided sufficient evidence to demonstrate that they possess the necessary licenses or assignments for the copyrighted works.

“Public records for JAST USA show it has an entirely separate status as a ‘stock corporation’ with what appears to be different ownership, i.e., no overlapping directors, officers, addresses, etc. from those shown in PCR’s corporate filings,” the motion to dismiss alleges.

Nhentai asserts that this potential discrepancy in ownership is sufficient grounds to dismiss the lawsuit.

What is Copyrighted?

The defense also brings up another copyright concern. They point out that it’s not clear what is actually copyrighted. The Nhentai website mostly shares images, but some copyright registrations refer to literary works , which might not cover the images in question.

“Under copyright law, ‘Literary works’ specifically exclude images,” they argue. “This is critical because Plaintiff has not demonstrated any right to sue for copyright infringement as to the images.”

Along similar lines, Nhentai contends that works registered as “English translations” may not grant the plaintiffs ownership of the corresponding images displayed on their website.

Too Late

Nhentai further argues that there are various problems with the timing of the lawsuit. Some of the alleged copyright infringements are barred as the statute of limitations has allegedly passed, for example.

In addition, Nhentai believes that some of the copyrights were registered years after the associated images were distributed on its site. This means that the copyrights for the works were not registered when they were originally uploaded.

“In such an instance, the law mandates that Plaintiff is not entitled to statutory damages or attorneys’ fees as to this copyright,” Nhentai writes.

“Plaintiff also cannot show entitlement to statutory damages and/or attorneys’ fees on the other basis in section 412, as the work was not copyrighted within three months of publication,” the motion to dismiss adds.

Permission Granted

Finally, Nhentai’s attorney also highlights that a representative of PCR’s brands previously granted written permission via email for use of their content and had even explored the possibility of running paid advertisements on the site.

One of the emails suggested that piracy helped manga and anime to grow in the West. It stated that “this isn’t a takedown request or a DMCA”, offering a collaboration instead.

Given this alleged ‘permission’, as well as the other arguments put forward in the motion, Nhentai believes that PCR has no legitimate claim for copyright infringement. Therefore, the case should be dismissed.

No Tongan Connection

If the court ultimately decides not to dismiss the case at this stage, Nhentai would at least like it to strike all claims related to Nhentai.to. This site used the same name, but Nhentai.net says that it’s an entirely unaffiliated operation.

“Plaintiff states that Defendants also own and operate the URL nHentai.to.’ As discussed in a hearing before Magistrate Richlin, the website nhentai.to is wholly unrelated to www.nhentai.net,” they write.

The ‘.to’ in nhentai.to refers to the Kingdom of Tonga, an island in Polynesia. It has nothing to do with Plaintiff’s allegations against Nhentai.net,” they add.

PCR has yet to respond to the claims presented in the motion. In an upcoming reply, it’s expected to share its side of the story, which will likely paint a completely different picture. After that, it will be up to the court to render a decision.

A copy of Nhentai’s notice of motions and motion to dismiss, filed at the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, is available here (pdf)

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

The ease with which IP addresses and BitTorrent downloads can be tracked has created a fertile ground for copyright lawsuits.

This inherent transparency has fueled thousands of lawsuits against alleged video pirates, both in the U.S. and around the world.

In the United States, Strike 3 Holdings has emerged as a key player in this legal landscape. The company, known for adult entertainment videos published under the ‘Milfy’, ‘Tushy’, and ‘Vixen’ brands, pursues legal action against those who share its content illegally.

‘John Doe’ Lawsuits

When these videos leak and are shared on pirate sites, Strike 3 takes action. After collecting the IP-addresses, it typically files a complaint, requesting a subpoena to obtain the subscriber’s details. Once the target is identified, the case can move forward.

These lawsuits can be a lucrative business, especially when targeted defendants opt to swiftly settle the action for a few thousand dollars. The money comes on top of the deterrent factor that is often cited by copyright holders as one of the main reasons to take action.

Legal pressure can deter the accused pirates and, perhaps, some of their neighbors too. There appears to be no shortage of pirates yet, though, not even within Strike 3’s niche market, as exemplified by Strike 3’s track record.

3,900+ Cases Filed in 2024

More than a decade ago, there were many rightsholders deploying this strategy in U.S. courts. Nowadays, Strike 3 mostly acts alone, but that doesn’t mean that their activity has diminished.

Since 2017, the adult company has filed over 15,000 cases against alleged pirates. These repetitive complaints barely ever reach the news, but they continue to target real people. Not just that, the number of cases has also increased steadily since 2020.

Last year, Strike 3 is listed as a party in 3,932 ^(*) cases filed in U.S. federal courts. This is a new all-time record. Never before has a copyright holder filed this many individual cases in a single year.

For comparison, in 2017 – the first year Strike 3 was active – all copyright holders combined filed 1,019 cases related to file-sharing. At the time, Malibu Media was the most active copyright litigant.

Strike 3 Holdings also dominates when it comes to all copyright cases filed in the US. According to Justia , over 7,000 copyright cases were filed in 2024, with Strike 3 responsible for more than half of that total.

Settlements and Dismissals

With this level of workload, it’s no surprise that most Strike 3 cases are resolved relatively swiftly. Of all lawsuits filed in the first half of 2024, more than 88% have already been closed. This typically happens when the parties reach an out-of-court settlement or if Strike 3 drops a complaint for other reasons.

There have been a few rare instances where alleged pirates have fought back. For example, when Strike 3 filed a lawsuit against a 70+-year-old retired police officer, the defendant prevailed and ultimately ‘won’ a fees and costs award of $47,777 .

Strike 3 has also had significant windfalls. In some instances, where defendants failed to respond, the adult entertainment company scored big wins, including a $108,750 damages award .

Overall, the fact that Strike 3 continues to file news lawsuits, while also increasing its output, suggests that they are getting more out of this than it costs.

—

(*) Note: the numbers presented here are based on a PACER and Justia searches for cases filed between January 1 and December 31, 2024, where ‘Strike 3’ is listed as a party. For 2024, all possible non-copyright cases have been filtered out.

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

After labeling DoodStream the world’s largest illegal video hosting site, the major Hollywood studios, Netflix, Amazon, and Apple, teamed up in a lawsuit filed against its India-based operators at the High Court of Delhi.

The need for urgent action was underscored by the scale of the DoodStream operation; according to the MPA, 2.69 billion visitors in 2023 alone. A March 2024 injunction issued by the High Court compelled the site to purge itself of all links to the plaintiffs’ content inside 24 hours. An April 5 filing by the plaintiffs informed the Court that didn’t happen, with a filing by the defense two days later by arguing otherwise.

Non-Compliance, With Attitude

As described in court documents, some kind of technical roundtable subsequently took place, attended by a technical expert appointed by the plaintiffs and two representing the defense. More specifically, the DoodStream defendants – Raja Durai and Sarvesh Chandran – were permitted to act as the site’s technical experts, despite actively running the site while in breach of a court order, and the site paying users for content uploaded.

That process led to the plaintiffs claiming that 1,512 tested links were still live. The Court tested six links at random, five of which remained functional. Counsel for the defendants said his clients had done their best under the circumstances; removing a million infringing links is very big job.

To help prevent infringement moving forward, the plaintiffs requested the removal of certain site features attractive to infringers. The defendants refused to comply , citing their “inability to remove these features.” Another request, to place content uploaders’ usernames next to content they uploaded, was rejected “due to the lack of infrastructure and technical feasibility.”

Interim Injunction

In a trade barriers report submitted to the U.S. government, the MPA reported that an interim injunction issued by the High Court of Delhi had proven ineffective. After failing to fully comply with any of the High Court’s orders, in September 2024 contempt proceedings against the defendants were described as “ongoing.”

The injunction attempted to ban DoodStreams’ operators “and all those acting for/on their behalf” from running the site. A list of domains was provided for convenience.

It’s not clear whether all of these domains were in active use at the time, but many remain active today and still report significant traffic.

Data collected by TF in December for November 2024 reveals examples including dood.li (120m), doods.pro (30.6m), dood.to (15.8m) and doodstream.com (5.5m), among dozens of similar domains that mostly redirect to the DoodStream frontpage.

Minimal Progress, Slowly

When first filed in March 2024, the complaint against DoodStream and its operators didn’t look much out of the ordinary. As the months progressed and the site remained online, the contrast between this lawsuit and actions against pirate sites based overseas, seemed to stand out.

In dozens of site-blocking actions, for example, requests for urgent action are usually met with a suitable response. More extreme measures, including compelling overseas domain registrars to disable domain names, have been signed off in days and then revisited in cases of non-compliance.

This case, albeit one contested by the defendants, has seen court orders and an injunction meet with non-compliance and ongoing infringement at considerable scale. But perhaps most jarring of all are comments from the defense suggesting that some of the Court’s instructions are optional, or at least up for negotiation.

More nuance may be available in court filings that aren’t made available to the public, but one statement explaining why the High Court of Delhi’s orders carry less weight than one might expect, really is quite something.

The next hearing is scheduled for early February.

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

In the early 2000s, the music industry took a stand against online piracy by going after tens of thousands of alleged pirates through U.S. courts.

The RIAA tracked down IP addresses of suspected music pirates and requested corresponding DMCA subpoenas, hoping to link these addresses to subscribers’ contact details.

This initially worked well. However, as the practice became more common ISPs began to object. They countered that DMCA subpoenas don’t apply to mere conduit providers. Appeal courts eventually agreed and effectively banned the practice decades ago.

Rightsholders were still able to sue alleged pirates. However, instead of easily obtaining the identities through a relatively cheap DMCA subpoena procedure, they would have to file a full complaint in federal court, with full judicial oversight.

‘Copyright Trolls’

This more cumbersome path was not ignored. In the late 2010s, waves of lawsuits were filed in U.S. courts targeting alleged BitTorrent ‘pirates’. The associated account holders were still identified through a subpoena but this time within a proper copyright action.

This practice, which some refer to as ‘copyright trolling’, is still prevalent today. Every year, many thousands of copyright lawsuits are filed in the U.S. These are typically closed within months, often after an undisclosed settlement is reached with the defendants.

Most of the cases against alleged pirates are now filed by a single adult entertainment company, Strike 3 Holdings . There are other companies that are interested in identifying pirates too but the relatively high filing fee for these lawsuits is seen as a roadblock.

DMCA Subpoena Revival in Court

To bypass these costs, some rightsholders have started to revive the DMCA subpoena shortcut . Drawing inspiration from the RIAA’s early efforts, they once again used the DMCA subpoena process to obtain the personal details of suspected copyright infringers.

These recent DMCA subpoenas progressed quietly, and many were granted with little fanfare or pushback. That changed in 2023 when a Cox subscriber, suspected of pirating the movie Fall, filed an objection in court.

The objection prompted Cox Communications to intervene. The Internet provider challenged the use of DMCA subpoenas, as detailed in DMCA §512(h). Similar to the earlier opposition against the RIAA’s attempts, the ISP argued that DMCA subpoenas don’t apply to mere conduit providers, as defined under § 512(a).

Last year, a district court judge in Hawaii sided with Cox . The court ruled that DMCA subpoenas don’t apply to mere conduit services, but do apply to other providers that store or link to infringing content directly. As such, the movie companies’ request for a subpoena was denied.

Movie Companies Appeal

The movie companies, including Voltage Holdings, Millennium Funding and Capstone Studios were persistent. They filed a petition at the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals , arguing that the district court’s interpretation of the DMCA was overly narrow.

The movie studios argued that the district court’s decision relied on dated precedents, which don’t reflect the realities of the modern Internet. They countered that ISPs do play a role in facilitating piracy, even if indirectly, and should be subject to DMCA subpoenas.

“A careful reading of the full text of 17 U.S.C. §512 leads to the unquestionable conclusion that Congress intended for DMCA subpoenas to apply to §512(a) service providers despite the contrary conclusions of Verizon and Charter,” their petition read.

In December, Cox responded to these arguments at the Court of Appeal. According to the ISP, Congress clearly excluded ISPs from this legal DMCA subpoena ‘shortcut’.

EFF Chimes in with ‘Troll’ Warning

Cox is not the only one to stand up against the movie companies. The Electronic Frontier Foundation ( EFF ) recently filed an amicus curiae brief, urging the court to keep the status quo intact.

Without naming names, EFF warns that allowing the DMCA subpoena route to identify ISP account holders will feed ‘copyright trolls’. They will see it as an easy route to obtain swift settlements, including those against innocent subscribers.

Whether settlements are planned by the movie companies in this case is not clear, but EFF notes that classic copyright trolls would benefit from this cheap shortcut.

“To achieve higher returns from settlements with less expense, practitioners of the copyright trolling business model have an incentive to pursue settlements from the ISP subscribers identified through subpoenas to ISPs, even where the subscriber is not necessarily the infringer,” EFF writes.

EFF: Oversight is Key

The precedents set in the RIAA vs. Verizon and Charter cases are key to protect these subscribers. They require rightsholders to file a proper lawsuit, instead of obtaining personal details through a simplified process.

This oversight is important, EFF says, as in previous lawsuits filed via the proper route, courts have rejected subpoenas because there was no evidence that the infringing IP address was used by the person who paid the ISP bills.

For example, in the Cobbler case , the Court of Appeal ruled that since several people can use the same Internet connection, rightsholders must present more than just an IP address to make their case. The DMCA subpoena procedure removes this check, EFF notes.

“Breaking with the long-established precedents of Verizon and Charter by permitting copyright holders to issue §512(h) subpoenas to ISPs who simply transmit data would bypass an important mechanism of court oversight and invite more coercive settlement demands against internet subscribers,” EFF concludes.

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals will now review the arguments before deciding how the DMCA should be interpreted. It’s clear that the stakes are significant for all parties involved.

—

A copy of EFF’s amicus curiae brief , for which the paper versions were filed at the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals on January 3, is available here (pdf) .

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

Offering pirate streaming services is a serious offense in the UK, where several people have received multi-year prison sentences.

Last Friday, another seller was added to this growing list. At York Crown Court, 41-year-old Sunny Kanda from Wheatley, Halifax, was sentenced to two years in prison for selling modified Fire Sticks that provided access to pirate IPTV streams.

The sentencing doesn’t come as a surprise, as Kanda pleaded guilty to three charges; violating the Copyright Designs and Patents Act 1988, the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, and Fraud Act 2006.

£108,000 (Lost) Revenue

The ‘criminal’ proceeds from the Fire Stick operation were estimated at £108,000 over an 18-month period. The victims were legitimate streaming providers such as Sky, BT Sport, Disney+ and Netflix, who purportedly lost revenue as the result of the pirate sales.

The information provided above was shared in a press release issued by National Trading Standards and anti-piracy group FACT , who are both pleased with the outcome. They hope it will deter others from starting similar criminal operations.

“Today’s sentence is an important reminder to all those who buy and sell TV firesticks that crime does not pay – it breaches copyright law and we encourage people to report suspected cases to the Citizens Advice consumer service,” a Trading Standards spokesperson said on Friday.

The press release was picked up by several reputable news outlets including the BBC , which reported all the major talking points. They include an undercover FACT investigator joining a private, 3,900 member Facebook group where “KD Streams” was sold, to make a test purchase of a pirate Fire Stick.

The official communication is accurate, but it also leaves out many details that could put this criminal conviction in context.

Rebrand & Resell

Those who think that the defendant was running an entire IPTV operation are wrong. In a Reddit post from 2020, Kanda showed an interest in rebranding an APK, which could then be used to resell subscriptions. That’s how many ‘hobbyist’ resellers first get involved.

Such rebranded apps can be used in conjunction with dedicated IPTV platform software such as OTTRUN, with the user bringing their own service from elsewhere. These subscriptions ‘credits’ are often bought by resellers in bulk from yet another provider, such as the IPTV Reseller Hub.

The prices below show that there’s plenty of room for profit, as plans are sold to customers at much higher prices.

Kanda, possibly with help from others, likely combined services like these to sell his modified Fire Sticks with a significant markup. These customers included a FACT investigator, which led to his arrest and conviction.

Small Cog in the Wheel

How many customers the operation had wasn’t made public. However, simple math shows that £108,000 results in an average of 600 customers who each paid £10 per month for the 18 months that were mentioned. At least one former user of the service claims to have paid £15 per month, which could theoretically reduce the average to 400.

There is no doubt that Kanda broke the law. However, it’s important to note that he’s far from a mastermind in the grander pirate IPTV business.

The man doesn’t come across as a typical ‘criminal’ either. Publicly available information suggests that he has been gainfully employed for years, has a steady relationship, and occasionally raised money for charity.

That said, by willingly operating as a pirate IPTV reseller, he faced all the risk, which resulted in a multi-year prison sentence.

While rightsholders are happy with the criminal conviction, the fact remains that the criminal masterminds who rake in millions a month from these schemes remain out there. Their business wasn’t impacted, and they will simply move on to the next ‘reseller’.

After which this sad cycle will repeat itself.

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

Japanese manga comics have always been popular on pirate sites, whereas other categories have seen their growth stall. In contrast, manga piracy continues to grow.

This unauthorized activity is a thorn in the side of publishers, who are increasingly fighting back against this piracy activity, wherever it takes place in the world.

Japan’s largest publisher Shueisha has taken a variety of legal actions, also in U.S. courts. The company obtained several DMCA subpoenas hoping to expose the operators of dozens of pirate sites such as Manganato.com , mangakoma01.net , truyenqqvn.com , and manga-zip.is , for example.

These cases are filed in the U.S. because the manga publisher requests information from third-party intermediaries such as Cloudflare, PayPal, Visa, and Google.

One Piece ‘Pirates’ on X

This week the manga mogul was back in court, requesting a DMCA subpoena from another American intermediary, Elon Musk’s social media platform X. The application targets the X accounts of ‘spoilerplus’ and ‘mangaraw’, which stand accused of repeatedly sharing ‘One Piece’ content without permission.

These are not random X accounts that incidentally shared pirated material. On the contrary, they are linked to well-known pirate sites that have been targeted by similar efforts before.

Spoilerplus and Mangaraw domain names were listed in a broad DMCA subpoena that targeted Cloudflare last year. Not much later, these domains also showed up in a separate request in a California federal court, where Google, Visa, and PayPal were asked to provide information on the alleged operators.

The latter information request is tied to legal developments in Japan, where Shueisha aims to bring the ‘anonymous’ operators to justice. The status of the Japanese process is unclear, as the manga publisher continues to seek information, including sources like X.

X DMCA Subpoena

The request for a DMCA subpoena, filed at a Californian court this week, specifically seeks information on twitter.com/spoilerplus and twitter.com/mangaraw_jp .

Shueisha previously sent a notice to X, asking it to remove both accounts. While X disabled all the highlighted posts that are tied to allegedly infringing material, the Mangaraw account is still online today, linking to the mangaraw01.net website.

Both accounts posted infringing ‘One Piece’ material according to Shueisha. According to a declaration from attorney Hiroyuki Nakajima, these posts were made by “anonymous internet users” without authorization from the rightsholders.

Japanese Lawsuit & Free Speech?

The DMCA subpoena request doesn’t mention a potential lawsuit in Japan. However, the manga publisher stresses that it needs all information tied to these accounts to protect its rights.

While ‘anonymous’ users have previously been shielded by free speech rights under the First Amendment, the rights of copyright holders should carry more weight here, the request argues.

Shueisha specifically cited jurisprudence from a U.S. court which previously held that “to the extent that anonymity is used to mask copyright infringement […] it is unprotected by the First Amendment.”

In this case, the account holders are suspected infringers at the center of potential copyright litigation. That sets it apart from previous instances where the anonymous speech of Redditors was protected because they were merely seen as potential ‘witnesses’.

Email, IP-addresses, Access logs & More

The request for a DMCA subpoena has yet to be approved by the court but, absent any protest from X, that’s just a formality.

Shueisha already shared a list of all the details they would like to receive about the two X accounts. This includes names, phone numbers, email addresses, payment details, IP-addresses, and detailed access logs.

Whether X has access to all this information has yet to be seen. And even if it has, it’s unclear how usable it is. Ostensibly, Shueisha’s previous attempts at Cloudflare, Google, PayPal, and Visa were not sufficient to identify all the culprits with certainty.

Update: There’s a separate DMCA request from Shogakukan looking for information on X user @WeET_COLLECTION ( pdf ).

—

A copy of Shueisha’s DMCA subpoena request at the California federal court and the associated paperwork is available here ( 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 ).

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