In recent years, many copyright holders have complained that Cloudflare does little to nothing to stop pirate sites from using its services.

The US-based company receives numerous DMCA notices but aside from forwarding these to the affected customers, it takes no action.

Cloudflare sees itself as a neutral intermediary that simply passes on bits. This approach is not welcomed by everyone and, as a result, the company has been placed on the EU piracy watchlist alongside familiar pirate sites such as The Pirate Bay, Seasonvar and Rapidgator.

Despite this callout, Cloudflare maintains its position. The company doesn’t want to intervene based on allegations from copyright holders and requests a court order to take action. These orders are very rare, but a few days ago the Court of Milan, Italy, set a precedent.

Sky and Serie A Sued Cloudflare

The case in question was filed by the TV platform Sky Italy and Lega Serie A , Italy’s top football league. The organizations requested a court order to stop various third-party intermediaries from providing access to “IPTV THE BEST”, a popular IPTV service targeted at an Italian audience.

Since the IPTV service is a Cloudflare customer the US-based CDN provider was also sued. The copyright holders demanded Cloudflare and several other companies including hosting provider OVH, and ISPs such as Vodafone, TIM, Fastweb, Wind and Tiscali, to stop working with the pirate service.

Last September, the Court of Milan sided with Sky and Serie A. It issued a preliminary injunction ordering the companies to stop working with the IPTV provider, regardless of the domain name or IP-address it uses.

Cloudflare objected to the claim. In its defense, the company pointed out that it isn’t hosting any infringing content. As a CDN, it simply caches content and relays traffic, nothing more. In addition, the Italian court would lack jurisdiction as well, the company argued.

Cloudflare’s Defense Falls Flat

Despite the fierce defense from Cloudflare, which extended the case by more than a year, the court didn’t change its position. In a recent order, it explained that it’s irrelevant whether a company hosts files or merely caches the content. In both cases, it helps to facilitate copyright-infringing activity.

This is an important decision because services like Cloudflare are hard to classify under EU law, which makes a general distinction between hosting providers and mere conduit services. The Italian court clarified that such classification is irrelevant in this matter.

“The ruling is unique in its kind because it expressly addresses the issue of the provision of information society services that are difficult to classify in the types outlined by the European eCommerce Directive,” attorney Alessandro La Rosa informs TorrentFreak.

Together with Mr. Bruno Ghirardi, his colleague at the law firm Studio Previti , La Rosa represented the football league in this matter. They worked in tandem with attorney Simona Lavagnini , who represented Sky Italy.

‘Unique and Important Ruling’

Lavagnini tells us that the ruling is important because it’s the first blocking order to be issued against a CDN provider in Italy.

“The order is important because, at least to my knowledge, it is the first issued against a CDN, in which the CDN was ordered to cease the activities carried out in relation to illegal services, also including those activities which cannot qualify as hosting activities,” she says.

“The recent order clearly says that the services of the CDN shall be inhibited because they help to allow third parties to carry out the illegal action which is the subject matter of the urgent proceeding, even if there is no data storage by the CDN,” Lavagnini adds.

TorrentFreak also reached out to Cloudflare for a comment but at the time of writing the company has yet to respond.

Cloudflare Blocking Becomes More Common

While the attorneys we spoke with highlight the uniqueness of the ruling, Cloudflare previously noted in its transparency report that it has already blocked 22 domain names in Italy following a court order. It’s not known what case the company was referring to there, but it affects 15 separate accounts.

The blocking actions will only affect Italians but in theory, they could expand. There are grounds to apply them across Europe or even worldwide, Lavagnini tells us, but that will likely require further clarification from the court.

This isn’t the first time that Cloudflare has been ordered to block a copyright-infringing site in Europe. Earlier this year a German court ordered the company to block access to DDL-Music , or face fines and a potential prison sentence.

In Italy, the CDN provider was also required to terminate the accounts of several pirate sites last year. However, in that case, Cloudflare was seen as a hosting provider due to its “Always Online” feature. Also, that court order didn’t mention geo-blocking or blocking in general.

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

With a video game history dating back decades, Nintendo is perhaps the most well-known brand in the market.

Nintendo’s characters including Mario and Zelda are much loved but despite the availability of many official titles, some fans feel that some deserve an update or have some gaps filled in their gaming universes.

One of these fans is modder Kaze Emanuar who, over the past several years and in conjunction with his team, has released a steady flow of unofficial Nintendo-based gaming titles, much to the delight of fans.

The Missing Link

During the summer, Emanuar and partners released The Missing Link, a fan-made title that utilized the engine from the now 20-year-old game The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time, the first Zelda game with 3D graphics. The purpose of The Missing Link was to bridge the gap between the critically-acclaimed 1998 title and the 2000 release of Majora’s Mask.

To play The Missing Link, players need a copy of The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time in .n64, .z64 or .wad format (compatible with N64 and Wii) and the assistance of a trio of patches, after which the new game can be enjoyed utilizing the assets from the donor game.

The title was well-received by the gaming press but given its nature and the increasingly litigious stance of Nintendo, it was only a question of when the gaming giant would send in its legal team to deal with the rogue code, not if.

The Missing Link Has Gone Missing

Since its inception, The Missing Link has been hosted on Github Pages but following a new complaint from a Nintendo of America-appointed attorney, it has now been resigned to history.

“The copyrighted works are the video games in Nintendo’s The Legend of Zelda video game franchise, including without limitation the audio-visual works, story lines, characters, and imagery in The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time (U.S. Copyright Reg. No. PA0000901848), The Legend of Zelda: Majora’s Mask (U.S. Copyright Reg. No. PA0001940271), and others,” the complaint filed with the Microsoft-owned platform reads.

“Nintendo has reviewed the reported material and does not believe it qualifies as a fair use of Nintendo’s copyright-protected work.”

The complaint goes on to demand the removal of the website at https://tml.z64.me/ and any related repositories, stating that the URL in question contains “an unauthorized derivative work” of Nintendo’s The Legend of Zelda video game franchise “in violation of Nintendo’s exclusive rights.”

Gone But Not Forgotten

While Github responded to the complaint as expected by taking the project down, an archive copy still exists, as does the ROM patcher tool required to transform backup copies of Ocarina of Time into The Missing Link.

And, of course, the necessary .n64, .z64 or .wad files continue to be available from a number of ROM sites and archives (despite Nintendo doing whatever it can to close several down ), meaning that The Missing Link will live on, if only underground.

This takedown by Nintendo will not have come as a surprise to Emanuar and his team. Considering the fate of earlier projects such as Super Mario 64 Online , Super Mario 64 on the PC and in a browser , a Donkey Kong remake , plus many others, having Nintendo on their tail was almost certainly a calculated occupational hazard.

And, while unpalatable to some, it is ‘only’ a DMCA takedown, not a lawsuit, which would be an entirely different matter for all involved.

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

When the new Premier League season began last month, those hoping for a return to normality had their hopes dashed once again.

With social-distancing restrictions still in place the stadium ban continued, leaving fans with few other options than to watch games on TV. But this is the Premier League and not only is everything expensive, but it’s also complicated too.

As previously highlighted , UK fans have a choice between spending a small fortune to watch matches on TV or not watch them at all, despite fans in other countries being able to watch all matches for the smallest of outlays.

In the meantime, however, one site in particular is cutting through all of the red tape while eliminating all costs, at least for those bold enough to step over to the dark side of pirate streaming portals.

Background: /r/SoccerStreams Banned By Reddit

Readers may recall that in January 2019, /r/soccerstreams, a forum on Reddit dedicated to pirated football/soccer streams, was handed a final warning by Reddit’s administrators. The huge sub-Reddit, which at the time had in excess of 420,000 subscribers, was on borrowed time after receiving more than its fair share of complaints from copyright holders.

It was later revealed that the Premier League had a played a key role in having the sub-Reddit shut down. While that can be chalked up as a success, it wasn’t a success story as the final whistle blew on the community.

SoccerStreams.net – A Piracy Giant With Unprecedented Growth

In one form or another, SoccerStreams.net has been offering links to pirated sports streams for some time but it began to gain additional traction last year, not too long after /r/soccerstreams was shut down.

Sharing the same name and proudly advertising the fact that the site was created by the founders of its Reddit namesake, the unprecedented interest in SoccerStreams over the past several months is now a sight to behold.

Relatively small visitor numbers at the start of the year are now being utterly dwarfed by huge crowds of hungry football fans looking for a free fix instead of several expensive subscriptions, expensive PPVs, or the now non-available expensive ticket, pie and a pint.

The above web traffic analysis provided by SimilarWeb shows traffic in April 2020 of around 280,000 visits per month to SoccerStreams.net. By May, the ‘slight’ rise on the graph reveals 2.5 million visits, with June skyrocketing to more than 18 million visitors.

Four weeks on, the site was receiving 26.6 million visits per month, dipping slightly to 23.3 million in August and rising again to roughly 25.5 million in September. Such a meteoric rise is rarely witnessed in the piracy space, especially by sites specializing in just one area of content consumption.

Massively Popular in the UK

Clearly, the rise of SoccerStreams is nothing less than impressive but it is where the growth is coming from that perhaps points to the bigger picture. At the time of writing, Norway, Portugal and Canada each provide around 5% of the site’s traffic, with the United States accounting for close to 19%.

Right at the top, however, is the 22.3% currently coming from the UK, with SimilarWeb reporting that the UK’s traffic share is up a staggering 63.55% over the past month. It’s impossible to say whether all of this traffic is bound for Premier League action but considering its popularity, there’s a good chance it accounts for much of it.

Indeed, according to SimilarWeb, SoccerStreams.net is now the 439th most-visited site in the UK, period. Other stats provided by Alexa, another platform offering website traffic analysis, reveals that the streaming links platform is now the most popular pirate site in the whole of the UK. Another popular sports streaming site, Liveonscore.tv, is not far behind.

That paints a picture of a lot of pent up demand and revenue to be realized, if only the Premier League and its broadcasting partners could get over themselves and start thinking more seriously about how the current problems can be solved at a sensible price.

This is a really bad move by the @premierleague to charge £14.95 for single matches that have been shown free for 6 months !

— Gary Neville (@GNev2) October 9, 2020

Of course, the entire business is ridiculously complicated but if fans can’t afford to pay the extortionate rates on the current “take it or leave it basis”, the above traffic analysis shows they don’t necessarily have to “leave it” at all.

Sites like SoccerStreams.net are filling that gap and that isn’t good for an industry struggling to come to terms with the new state of play. However, one can’t help think that aspects of this crisis are at least partially self-inflicted, with astronomical costs ultimately being footed by the fans, despite the pandemic.

Unfortunately for top-flight football, fans’ loyalty is now being pushed to breaking point alongside a background of Premier League clubs still managing to spend £1 billion in transfer fees over the summer, all while many people are struggling to pay their bills.

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

Internet provider Charter Communications is one of several companies being sued for turning a blind eye to pirating subscribers .

These lawsuits, filed by dozens of major record labels and music companies, allege that Internet providers fail to terminate accounts of repeat infringers.

Discovery Disputes

With a potential billion-dollar damages claim the case is being fought tooth and nail by both sides. It’s currently in the discovery process where both parties request relevant documents and information from the other side to make their case.

This often results in disputes where one party asks for more than the other is willing to provide. This is also the case here. In order to resolve these disagreements, the court was asked to chime in, which happened last week.

Music Companies are Interested in VPN Use

One of the contested issues is a request from the music companies for detailed information about the VPN use of Charter subscribers. Specifically, if and how often subscribers used a VPN to conceal their piracy activities.

The music companies want to know more about this so they can determine “the extent to which “Charter was aware of its subscribers’ use of VPNs to avoid detection, and whether it took any steps to investigate repeat infringers that accounted for these obfuscating tactics.”

Charter Objects

This is a broad question which Charter immediately objected to. According to the ISP, answering it would require the company to review all documents associated with any subscriber. Instead, it would like to limit it to the customers who have been accused of copyright infringement.

The court agrees with the ISP. In an order issued by a Colorado district court last week, special master Regina Rodriguez fails to see the importance of the requested data.

“On the record before me, I find subscriber use of VPNs to be of only marginal relevance to the claims at issue here.”

Hypothetical Smoking Gun?

The music companies hoped to find a smoking gun. They argued that there may be a document somewhere showing that Charter knows its subscribers often use VPNs to avoid being caught pirating, and that Charter did nothing about it.

This lack of action would then be a sign that the ISP’s repeat infringer policy isn’t working. Or as they put it to the court:

“If, for example, Charter created a report describing generally how its subscribers use VPNs to avoid detection for infringement, but it nevertheless did not try to curb improper use of VPNs, that would be highly probative evidence related to whether Charter reasonably implemented a repeat infringer policy,” they argued.

The court agrees that this information could, hypothetically, lead to useful info, but it finds that possibility is outweighed by the trouble Charter has to go through.

“While a document such as the hypothetical one Plaintiffs propose may be of some possible relevance to Plaintiffs’ claims, it appears that such relevance is attenuated and speculative such that it does not overcome the burden identified by Charter of ‘searching every communication’,” special master Regina M. Rodriguez writes.

Charter Will Share Some VPN Info

This doesn’t mean that Charter won’t share any VPN-related information at all. When VPNs are mentioned in communications regarding subscribers who were accused of copyright infringement, the ISP will share it.

In addition, Charter agreed to produce work log notes and internal correspondence, which will also include all VPN references. This is sufficient, the court’s special master concludes, denying the request for any further information on VPNs.

How Useful Are VPN Details?

What’s perhaps most intriguing about this discovery dispute is the fact that the music companies plan to use VPN usage as evidence. Thus far, this angle has never been brought up in any related cases.

We also wonder how useful this information can be. If Charter is indeed aware that some of its users use VPNs to conceal pirating activity, how can it respond to this?

An ISP can’t see if a VPN is being used for illegal purposes, so without an explicit admission from a subscriber, Charter can’t take any action. Simply banning all VPN users would be a bit much, as VPNs have numerous legal uses as well.

—

A copy of the discovery dispute order from special master Regina Rodriguez is available here (pdf) .

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

BiglyBT is a relatively new BitTorrent client that first entered the scene during the summer of 2017 .

The open-source software is created by ‘Parg’ and ‘TuxPaper’ who previously worked as the main developers of Azureus and Vuze. After that project stalled, they left to create their own spinoff instead.

People who try BiglyBT will immediately notice that it has been created by veteran BitTorrent coders. The user interface is old-school and packed full of nifty features, just like the client it was based on. However, BiglyBT is much more than just a copy.

First Client to Support BitTorrent v2

The developers continued improving the software over the years and they have just released a new version with several updates. This latest release includes BitTorrent v2 support, which makes it the first torrent client to support the new specification.

BitTorrent v2 isn’t well known to the public at large but developers see it as a potential game-changer. In basic terms, it’s a new and improved BitTorrent specification that includes several technical changes. It was first proposed by Bram Cohen in 2008 and updated and improved along the way.

A few weeks ago, v2 support was officially added to the Libtorrent library , which is used by popular clients including uTorrent Web, Deluge, and qBittorrent. These clients have yet to implement the functionality and were beaten to the chase by BiglyBT.

Two Types of Torrents

One of the main differences users may notice from BitTorrent v2 is that it creates a new type of torrent format. The v2 torrent format creates a different, stronger torrent hash for a given set of files which will result in a separate swarm from a v1 torrent containing the same files.

To aid migration, there are ‘hybrid’ torrent files that contain information to construct both v1 and v2 swarms for a set of files. BiglyBT supports these, allowing files to be downloaded via both the v1 and v2 swarms. Older clients may be able to access the v1 swarm without change, but this is not guaranteed.

“We support both hybrid and v2 only torrents for downloading, magnet metadata downloads and with all our existing features such as swarm discoveries and I2P,” Parg from BiglyBT informs us.

Different torrent formats may sound like a step backward, but it’s a prerequisite for many added benefits that make BitTorrent ready for the decades to come. We have discussed these benefits in detail before , including the ‘swarm merging’ possibilities.

With swarm merging, someone can download the same file from different torrents that are discovered on request. BiglyBT already has this option where new files are matched based on file sizes. This is a pretty basic approach that involves some guesswork, which makes it error-prone.

Per-File Hashes Opens Doors

BitTorrent v2 changes this, as each file within a torrent has its own hash. This makes it possible to perfectly match files, which could even be done automatically. Right now the feature isn’t implemented yet, but it’s an idea that’s being considered.

“With v2 torrents we have explicit file hashes for each file. Therefore we can switch from using file size as the proxy and take the guesswork out of the matching process,” Parg tells us.

Torrent users can already reap the benefits from v2’a fine-grained block hashes. This makes it possible to verify much smaller chunks of a file as it is downloaded.

The benefit to users of this is that, when bad data is received, either due to corruption during download or perhaps from deliberate pollution by bad actors, only a small amount of data needs to be discarded and the culprit is readily identifiable.

Change Will be Slow

For now, however, not much is going to change. While users can create and download v2 torrents with the latest release, they are not backed by any torrent sites or publishers yet. Until that changes, things will remain the same.

The BiglyBT team does want to be ready for when that time comes and they see the latest release as a conversation shifter.

“I see the BiglyBT support more as a conversation shifter away from the ‘what’s the point of v2, nobody supports it so why should I even think about it’ towards a discussion about realizing the benefits of a transition,” Parg notes.

Thus far there has been surprisingly little talk about BitTorrent v2, even from insiders. BitTorrent’s parent company TRON, which usually doesn’t shy away from making big statements, hasn’t even mentioned it yet, as far as we know.

BitTorrent inventor Bram Cohen did bring it up recently, in a discussion about a Verge article covering the controversial persona of Tron’s Justin Sun. Cohen, who added insult to injury. , said that he finalized the v2 plans before abandoning the ship.

“I made sure that the plans for BitTorrent v2 were in place before I left and am happy that it’s now launched. Protocols can develop a lot of cruft after more than a decade,” Cohen wrote last week.

Perhaps it’s a sign of the times that personal stories about the antics of a ‘technology’ entrepreneur get more press than a potential revolution in the technology itself. In any case, those who are interested in new technology can create and share their own v2 torrents with BiglyBT today.

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

Back in 2018, broadcaster DISH Network sued pirate IPTV service SET TV for offering numerous TV channels that had been illegally obtained from DISH’s satellite service.

In November 2018 that particular lawsuit came to end when SET TV’s operators were ordered by a Florida court to pay $90 million in statutory damages . However, DISH wasn’t convinced its work was done when it came to similar if not identical services still in operation.

DISH Targets Pirate IPTV Service Simply-TV

In March 2019, DISH and NagraStar filed another lawsuit in Florida, targeting several individuals and companies collectively doing business as Simply-TV, a $20 per month service which several users described as having many similarities to SET TV.

DISH complained that Simply-TV worked with SET TV-related entities that capture DISH content without permission, with Simply-TV also re-selling the service to others under their own brands and pricing structures. The Florida court quickly handed down a temporary restraining order and later in April, converted that to a comprehensive preliminary injunction .

In August 2019, DISH was awarded $30 million in statutory damages and an order that permanently enjoined the Simply-TV defendants “and anyone acting in active concert or participation” with them from “retransmitting or copying, or assisting others in retransmitting or copying, any of DISH’s satellite or over-the-top Internet transmissions of television programming or any content contained therein.”

DISH Sues Former SET TV and Simply-TV Reseller Lisa Crawford

According to yet another IPTV lawsuit filed in Florida, DISH is now continuing its battle against an individual it claims was not only a reseller of the SET TV service but also of Simply-TV.

DISH claims that an individual called Lisa Crawford along with business entities including LC One LLC, LC Pryme Enterprises LLC, LC Pryme Holdings LLC, LC Pryme One Enterprises LLC, and several others, ignored the orders of the Court in the previous cases by continuing to breach the broadcaster’s rights.

Noting that Crawford initially acted as a reseller for SET TV, when that was shut down she began reselling Simply-TV packages. When that service was ended she moved on again by allegedly selling and supporting new pirate IPTV services including Prime Tyme TV, Lazer TV Streams, Griff TV, and Flix Streams.

“Just like the SET TV and Simply-TV pirate streaming services, the new Pirate IPTV Services being facilitated by Crawford and the Pirate IPTV Entities are, and have been retransmitting DISH programming received from DISH’s satellite television service without authorization from DISH,” the complaint reads.

DISH Demands Damages & Injunction Under the FCA

DISH’s claims against Crawford, the LLCs, and the various IPTV brands are being actioned under the Federal Communications Act, specifically 47 U.S.C. § 605(a) and 47 U.S.C. § 605(e)(4) which relate to illegal reception/retransmission and selling devices that facilitate access to DISH’s satellite programming.

In common with the lawsuits against SET TV and Simply-TV, DISH also demands a permanent injunction preventing Crawford and the various entities from illegally obtaining and distributing its television content, and manufacturing or selling configured devices and/or subscriptions.

DISH also seeks an order that will remove advertising and social media pages promoting Prime Tyme TV, Lazer TV Streams, Griff TV, and Flix Streams, and an order that will allow it to take control of any and all websites used to offer the services. DISH also wants access to all records relating to IPTV devices and subscription sales, including the details of those who purchased them.

In respect of damages, DISH demands up to $100,000 for each violation of 47 U.S.C. § 605(a) and up to $100,000 for each violation of 47 U.S.C. § 605(e)(4). As the earlier cases show, potential awards can easily reach tens of millions of dollars.

The full complaint can be found here (pdf)

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

When Microsoft’s Windows XP launched in 2001, it was somewhat of a revelation.

Built on Windows NT and a clear step up from the consumer variants of Windows that preceded it, the OS reigned for years after being installed on millions of machines.

It’s currently estimated that around 0.8% of Windows PCs are still running Windows XP, despite Microsoft offering zero support for the relatively ancient OS. Nevertheless, there was mild euphoria among coders last month when it was confirmed that the source code for XP, among other things, had been leaked online , presumably to the dismay of Microsoft.

Leaked via 4chan, Distributed via Torrents and MEGA

For the vast majority of interested onlookers, the leak probably meant very little in practical terms. With no support from Microsoft, running Windows XP is already a security gamble, regardless of any additional leaks.

However, when Microsoft confirmed it was actively investigating the leak, some presumed the company would act very quickly to have the code disappeared from the web. Quite when the upload to MEGA was taken down is unclear but it didn’t take long for the file to be removed following a complaint.

Torrents, of course, are much more complicated. While it is possible to have some torrent sites respond to takedown requests, sites such as The Pirate Bay will happily index pretty much anything – including the source code leak.

Predictably, the leaked content is available via the site today and not even the mighty Microsoft can do much about that. However, when checking the hash value in Google search and scouring the DMCA notice archive hosted by Lumen Database, there appears to have been little or even no effort to have links to the source code removed from Google or Twitter.

Granted, most of the sites mentioning the content have taken care not to link directly to the leaked source itself, with many preferring to post unclickable but entirely usable magnet links instead. Nevertheless, just days after the leak was reported, a very public repository of the code appeared much closer to home and nothing was done about that either.

Source Code Published to Microsoft-Owned Github

On September 29, a handful of days after the leak reportedly appeared on 4chan, someone called ‘shaswata56’ thought it would be a good idea to post the source code for Windows XP on Github, for the world to see and download. The interesting thing here is that Github is owned by Microsoft, so the computing giant was effectively hosting its own leak.

Given the presumed sensitive nature of the source code, one might conclude that it would be spotted and deleted quickly. However, despite all the publicity, it took a full 10 days for Microsoft to do anything about it, at which point it had to serve its own company with a DMCA notice requesting that the code be taken down.

Takedown Notice to Github

“I work in Microsoft Security Incident Response. The code in question is from a Windows XP source code leak,” the DMCA notice dated October 8 and filed with Github reads.

“The GitHub content is pulled directly form [sic] a torrent (that was also taken down),” it continues.

The notice originally contained a hash value for the source but that was censored by Github, presumably to stop any additional infringement. However, archive copies of the now-removed repository show that hash value in full, which can be easily converted to a torrent, one that is very much alive and being shared by many people.

Microsoft Not Too Bothered By The Leak?

Clearly, Microsoft’s claim that the torrent was somehow taken down was incorrect but that’s not a huge surprise since once a torrent is being spread, stopping people with access to magnet links or even a hash is incredibly difficult.

That being said, it would’ve been trivial to remove the source from Github on the day it was published. Instead, it took exactly 10 days, a lifetime where leaks are concerned and a little bit embarrassing when it’s your own site doing the distribution.

Quite why a rapid removal wasn’t executed isn’t clear but coupled with what appears to be a lack of enthusiasm to remove links still available via Google, it makes one wonder how concerned Microsoft is about the leak after all.

Or, just possibly, the company realizes just how futile it all is.

The DMCA notice is available here

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

Website blocking is without a doubt one of the favorite anti-piracy tools of the entertainment industries.

The UK has been a leader on this front. Since 2011, the High Court has ordered ISPs to block access to many popular pirate sites.

While official numbers are lacking, it’s believed that thousands of URLs are currently blocked, targeting sites such as The Pirate Bay, RARBG, Fmovies, NewAlbumReleases, and Team-Xecuter.

UK Site Blocking Set an Example

The UK approach has set an example for many other countries and has been used to argue in favor of site blocking measures in other regions including Australia and Canada. More recently, the UK example was highlighted in a US Senate hearing, with Hollywood’s MPA praising its effectiveness .

“Studies in the UK and Australia have shown that this can lead to statistically significant and meaningful increases in legal online consumption. In that respect, the injunctive remedy in the European Union, the UK, Australia, and elsewhere has been decidedly more effective than the endless cycle of DMCA notice sending,” MPA’s Stan McCoy said.

The comment was made to support a new push for ‘no-fault’ site-blocking injunctions in the US. The MPA speaks from personal experience here, as it was the driving force behind several UK court orders. That said, McCoy’s testimony leaves out some important context.

Pirate Sites Flourish

While the MPA is pushing site blocking in the US, the UK efforts have completely died down. The last blocking request from Hollywood studios dates back roughly years ago. Similarly, there hasn’t been any request from record labels since 2013.

As a result, new pirate sites, and those that haven’t been blocked, were able to grow their audiences without much trouble. And indeed, if we take a look at the 500 most visited sites in the UK, names including Magnetdl, Filmix, Lookmovie, Rutor, and 9anime show up.

For a site such as Magnetdl, roughly a quarter of all traffic comes from the UK, where the site isn’t blocked.

Why No New Requests?

This begs the question; if site blocking is so extremely effective in curbing piracy, why aren’t there any new requests? We reached out to the MPA’s EMEA office, which was kind enough to comment on the matter but didn’t offer any answers.

“The MPA EMEA is continuing with site blocking across Europe. Site blocking is a legitimate and effective way of halting the spread of online piracy. Piracy affects everyone involved in the creative process – from the songwriters to authors and the makeup artists, a spokesperson informed us

“Site blocking builds on years of work, and forms just one pillar of the MPA EMEA’s overall enforcement strategy. Online infringement is complex, and there is no single answer to addressing it.”

Costs Play a Role

Reading between the lines it appears that the MPA prefers to focus on other anti-piracy efforts, at least in the UK. This is likely the result of a cost-benefit analysis. Although it wouldn’t be hard to apply for new pirate site blockades, these anti-piracy measures come at a cost.

Previously, it was estimated that an unopposed application for a section 97A blocking order costs roughly £14,000 per site, while maintaining it costs an additional £3,600 per year. With hundreds of blocked sites, the costs are quite significant, to say the least.

BPI Will Request Stream Ripper Blocks in 2021

The music industry may have similar reasons. In recent years they have complained repeatedly about the copyright-infringing nature of YouTube rippers, but there haven’t been any attempts to have these sites blocked. That will change though.

We reached out to the UK music group BPI which says that it still sees site blocking as a valuable tool. The group hasn’t requested any new blocks in years but it will soon request blocks against stream rippers.

“There are a range of tools that we use to reduce stream ripping and music piracy in all its forms in the UK. We also expect others who are in positions of responsibility within the digital economy to do more.”

“Website blocking is an important and very effective part of our tool kit and is used in a proportionate way. BPI intends to seek the High Court’s judgment in relation to stream rippers in 2021,” a BPI spokesperson added.

While the movie and music industries have other priorities, site-blocking powers are not completely unused. In recent years various sports organizations, including UEFA and the Premier League, have repeatedly requested and renewed IP-address blocks of illegal IPTV services .

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

Earlier this year, Hawaiian anti-piracy lawyer Kerry Culpepper turned some of the most popular piracy brands into a powerful anti-piracy tool.

The attorney, who is listed as director of the company ’42 Ventures,’ registered several piracy-related trademarks, including ‘YTS’ and ‘Popcorn Time.’

The company, which was founded last year, legally claimed these marks and uses them on a website that doesn’t draw any significant traffic. What did get people’s attention, however, were the enforcement actions that followed.

Shortly after the trademarks were granted, Culpepper managed to suspend the Twitter account of a popular Popcorn Time fork. He offered to return it in exchange for a Popcorn Time licensing deal, which failed.

Trademark Lawsuits Against YTS Sites and Apps

In addition, the attorney also filed a trademark infringement lawsuit on behalf of 42 Ventures. The lawsuit targeted the operators of yst.lt, ytsag.me, yts.ae, ytsmovies.cc, yts.ms, as well as apps such as “Y Movies,” “YTS Movies Library” and “YTS movies.”

The people behind these sites, who are believed to be from India, China and Egypt, used the YTS brand as a promotional tool. This isn’t uncommon, as YTS has been a popular pirate brand for years, after originally belonging to a long-defunct release group.

Over the past weeks, one of the site operators agreed to settle the trademark infringement matter for $200,000, on paper. The other four didn’t respond to the allegations at all, which prompted the lawyer to request default judgments of $250,000 against all defendants.

“Defendants purposefully utilize Plaintiff’s YTS mark in their domain registrations and app names in order to mislead consumers about the origins of its goods and services as connected to Plaintiff, resulting in a substantial loss of income, profits, and goodwill,” Culpepper informed the court.

42 Ventures Requests Default Judgment

Since none of the defendants showed up in court there was little to stop a victory, except for the court itself, it now appears.

In a ‘findings and recommendations’ issued this week, US Magistrate Judge Wes Reber Porter recommends the court to deny the $250,000 damages request and dismiss the complaint because the court lacks personal jurisdiction.

For a court to decide over a defendant, it should have the right to do so. This is usually not a problem when a US citizen is taken to court in the US but, in this case, the defendants are foreigners. That changes everything.

The court can only issue a judgment when it’s shown that the defendants “purposefully directed their activities towards the United States.” Here, Judge Porter is not convinced that this is the case.

According to Culpepper, the trademark-infringing YTS sites and apps were available in the US, used US-based services including domain registrars, and used US-based payment providers, among other things.

Judge Doesn’t Believe Court Has Jurisdiction

Judge Porter doesn’t dispute these facts but doesn’t agree that this is sufficient to show that the court has personal jurisdiction.

“The Court finds that Defendants’ use of United States-based companies for webhosting and domain name services and for paying for those services is insufficient to show that Defendants aimed their allegedly infringing acts at the United States,” Porter writes.

The Judge notes that in some cases people simply choose to work with US-based companies because they are the biggest brands in their industries, or have a monopoly. Not because they’re from the US.

“Indeed, as other district courts have recognized ‘it is more accurate to say that [the defendant] utilized Apple and Google because they arguably have a virtual monopoly on the channels in which developers can distribute application-based software—not because they have offices in [the United States]’.”

If this logic indeed applies, then all foreigners with a Gmail account would subject themselves to the jurisdiction of US courts, which is something Judge Porter doesn’t agree with.

Two of the defendants also used advertising services, cookies and web beacons, to gather information about individual visitors, some of whom are from the US. Culpepper brought this in as another argument to show that the court has jurisdiction but that was disregarded as well.

“Finally, the Court finds that Plaintiff’s allegations regarding Defendants Mav and Shan collecting information about users on their websites is insufficient to show that these Defendants have done engaged in ‘conduct directly targeting the forum’.”

Judge Recommends Dismissal

All in all, Judge Porter concludes that the court lacks personal jurisdiction over the defendants. He therefore recommends denying the motion for a $250,000 default judgment and suggests a dismissal of the entire case.

This recommendation has yet to be adopted by the court in a final ruling and can be contested by Culpepper. However, the first signs don’t look positive for the trademark owner.

In closing, it is worth pointing out that YTS.mx, which is by far the most popular YTS site , wasn’t targeted in this trademark case. However, the same lawyer previously negotiated copyright infringement settlements with the site’s owner, totaling well over a million dollars .

—

A copy of the findings and recommendations published by US Magistrate Judge Wes Reber Porter is available here (pdf)

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