UEFA is the international body that governs football throughout Europe.

As part of FIFA, the organization holds the rights to several major competitions and tournaments, including the Champions League and the European Championships .

These events are good for billions of euros in broadcasting rights and with these types of figures at stake, UEFA is understandably keeping a close eye on piracy. The job has become increasingly complex, now that unauthorized live-streaming is booming.

EURO 2024 Pirates

With the EURO 2024 tournament starting in Germany tomorrow, the organization and its anti-piracy partners are on high alert. Systems are in place to detect and shut down pirate streams within minutes, and social media will be heavily monitored as well.

UEFA is not the only organization preparing for the major tournament; pirates are planning ahead as well. In recent weeks, several sites have put up placeholders for the upcoming EURO 2024 matches.

These placeholders are picked up and indexed by search engines. As a result, the pirate sites are easily findable when match day comes. That is, if these pages are still in search engines by then.

According to Google’s transparency report, UEFA anti-piracy partner ‘Friend MTS’ asked the search engine to remove thousands of ‘pirate’ live-streaming links over the past week. This includes links to EURO 2024 games that are not even ‘live’ yet.

Preemptive Takedowns

The Chinese site below, for example, prepared a dedicated page for upcoming Euro 2024 live streams. After Friend MTS listed the URL in a takedown notice, Google promptly removed it. The same is true for other “EURO 2024” pirate streaming placeholders.

Google has removed most of these links from its search index. Although there is technically no copyright infringement yet, Google presumably finds it reasonable to assume that links to pirated streams will appear there eventually, as advertised.

In some cases, UEFA’s requests are rather broad. For example, one of the EURO 2024 takedowns lists a page from Leisu.com that doesn’t mention live streams. Instead, it looks more like a live score page.

According to its own website, Leisu Sports is the official ‘ copyright data supplier ‘ of the Chinese Football Association.

We don’t know whether Google looked into the matter in detail, but the company removed the leisu.com URL from its search results. That said, Google doesn’t simply take down every link that’s submitted.

Homepage Removals

After looking into more UEFA takedown requests from this month, including friendly matches that were played over the past days, we see many ‘homepages’ of pirate streaming sites listed. Google appears to be more reserved when it comes to such broad requests.

For example, 123koora.com, amzfutbol.com, rojadirectenvivo.me, and others are still indexed by Google, despite being listed in takedown requests.

It’s clear that UEFA will be pulling out all the stops to ensure that licensed broadcasts are properly protected. In the past, it also sent advance warnings to pirate site owners directly, but we haven’t heard similar reports this time around.

EUIPO Support

While Europe is gearing up for the Championship of the continent’s most popular sport, UEFA received some indirect support from the European Union’s Intellectual Property Office.

Yesterday, EUIPO put a spotlight on the alarming sports streaming piracy rates in the EU. The press release mostly regurgitates previously published reports, but that didn’t prevent mainstream media from picking it up.

“According to EUIPO data, millions of EU citizens access or stream sports content from illegal online sources while fake sports equipment cost manufacturers €850 million per year,” EUIPO wrote.

One can wonder whether a reminder of the immense popularly of pirate live streams actually works as an advertisement to the general public, instead of a deterrent. After all, research has shown that these popularity ‘warnings’ can backfire.

EUIPO’s intentions are clear; however. It wants fans to ‘play fair’ and use legitimate viewing options, as pirate ‘cheers’ don’t pay off.

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

Almost half a decade ago, eight Las Vegas men were indicted by a grand jury for conspiring to violate criminal copyright law via two IPTV services, Jetflicks and iStreamitAll.

The indictment accused the defendants of reproducing tens of thousands of copyrighted TV shows without authorization, and distributing that content to tens of thousands of paid subscribers across the United States.

At one point, Jetflicks was said to have made available more than 183,200 different TV show episodes. iStreamitAll allegedly made available more than 118,479 TV shows and 10,980 movies; at the time more content than Netflix, Hulu, or Amazon Prime offered.

The Road to Trial

After pleading guilty to copyright infringement and money laundering, in 2021 a key defendant was sentenced to 57 months in prison and a $1m forfeiture order. In the same year, another pled guilty to one count of conspiracy to commit copyright infringement and was sentenced to one year and a day in prison.

Other defendants dug in to fight a case that had become unusually complex , for a range of reasons, many of which are still not for public consumption.

After reportedly generating 19TB of data and 175,000 pages of print discovery, the defense previously estimated that it would take “at least a couple of months” just to take a copy of the data needed for trial; by then a bewildering 63TB in total.

Trial Begins in Las Vegas, Nevada

Since instructions issued by District Judge Richard F. Boulware, II, state that transcripts must not be made available online for several weeks, reporting daily events in detail presents challenges. Nevertheless, there’s no shortage of general information available that shows the scale of the matter in hand and the mood of the parties involved.

On May 28, day one of the trial, the government had four attorneys listed for appearance, alongside an FBI Special Agent and an IT expert. Listed for lead defendant Kristopher Lee Dallmann, three counsel, a paralegal, an investigator, and two interns. For Felipe Garcia, two counsel and a paralegal; for Douglas Courson, Jared Edward Jaurequi, and Peter H Huber, two counsel each.

At 09:28, prospective jurors were called to the courtroom and at 09:43, a total of 85 were in attendance. By 11:00, they numbered ‘just’ 50.

Day Two to Day Four

After two jurors raised concerns at the start of day two, each spent some time with the Judge. The nature of those concerns and the outcome are absent from the docket.

The government’s opening statement arrived just before noon, with defendants’ counsel delivering their statements early afternoon, before jury members were excused for lunch at 14:30. A direct examination of a Supervisory Special Agent at the FBI by counsel for the government brought the second day to a close.

The fourth day of the trial began with counsel for Peter Huber informing the Court about an issue with her client. While that has no explanation either, counsel for Kristopher Dallmann advised the Court of a forthcoming motion on behalf of his client; details of that matter are substantial.

Dallmann Files Motion For Mistrial

On Saturday, May 25, the government provided a PowerPoint presentation to the defense that it intended to use in opening statements to the Court. Counsel for Dallmann notified the government on Monday, May 27, that they intended to object to the proposed use of the presentation, details of which were also provided to the Court.

“Counsel for Mr. Dallmann specifically noted that they would seek a mistrial if the exhibits were permitted to be shown during opening statements,” Dallmann’s motion for mistrial notes.

The government ultimately went ahead anyway, prompting counsel for Dallmann to respond as promised.

“Here, a mistrial is warranted because the government was permitted to show inadmissible and highly credible legal conclusions to the jury during opening statements with no qualification or limiting instructions,” the motion continues.

“Inadmissible and Impossible to Disregard”

One of the exhibits shown to the jury was a letter dated July 22, 2011, sent by HBO to Jetflicks c/o Dallmann.

“While the letter is framed as a notice, it is based on a finding that copyright infringement occurred (otherwise, the letter would not have issued). That finding constitutes a legal conclusion,” the motion continues.

“Steven Rosenthall was not just any lawyer—he was the Director of Anti-Piracy in HBO’s legal department. There can be no question that someone who has ascended to that position is scrupulous, detail-oriented, and credible. Furthermore, the legal department at HBO is not some ragtag team of vagabonds. It’s the legal department within a massive, flagship American media organization. Consequently, a legal conclusion by HBO’s legal department carries significant weight.”

In summary, counsel for Dallmann argues that the jury was exposed to an inadmissible legal conclusion that will be impossible to disregard, in a letter sent by someone who is not noticed as a government witness, so cannot be cross-examined. The only solution, therefore, is a mistrial.

MPAA Infringement Notice, PayPal Correspondence

Similar concerns are leveled at an infringement notice sent by the then-MPAA to Dallmann dated November 16, 2012. While not mentioned by the defense, it refers to infringement on jetflick.mobi, a domain for which no records appear to exist, since it may have never been registered. Jetflicks.mobi may have been the intended target, however.

An email dated October 24, 2016, sent by PayPal to Dallmann to advise his account had been temporarily limited due to violation of the company’s Acceptable Use Policy, also came in for criticism.

“The email is hearsay, and no PayPal witness has been noticed who can testify about the email. The email is prejudicial because the government used it to establish that Mr. Dallmann had engaged in copyright infringement,” the motion continues.

Other, apparently contentious, items include records provided by Google in response to a warrant, listing details of several searches allegedly carried out by Dallmann. An extract of a conversation that allegedly took place between Dallmann and Coulson, with the source listed as ‘IPhone 7 Plus/mobile/Library/SMS/sms.db’, appears to contain details of business planning.

In any event, the defense insists that the slides are inadmissible on several grounds, including a lack of authentication and failure to adhere to rules governing coconspirator statements.

Government Opposition to Motion

In its 10-page opposition, the government notes that before these items were shown to the jury, they were previewed by the Court and defense counsel. In all instances, “..the Court determined that the slides could properly be displayed during opening statement.”

In broad terms, the defense argues that the exhibits were presented as proof of copyright infringement, contrary to the government’s claim that they would be offered “for the effect on the listener and not for the truth of the matter.”

What that means in practice is explained in a statement by the Court in response to the defense’s objection to the MPAA letter of infringement being shown to the jury.

“The defense objected again during court proceedings, and the Court similarly responded, ‘If it’s being offered for the same reason, which is for your client’s state of mind, not for the fact that it’s true, but for the fact that he received it, then it wouldn’t be hearsay’,” the government explains.

“The Court repeated its view that use of the exhibit in the opening as a demonstrative was acceptable ‘so long as I find that there’s a likelihood that the evidence would be admitted’.”

In a nutshell, the documents were shown to the jury (the PayPal documents were apparently withheld) to demonstrate that Dallmann had received notice, that victims and/or their representatives believed his conduct was infringing, and they had ordered him to stop. The ‘effect on the listener’ amounts to Dallmann’s conduct after he took possession of those notices.

Every Detail Subject to Challenge

When viewing progression in this case from indictment to day one of the trial, with every detail a potential avenue for prolonged argument, the potential for some kind of derailment seems higher than normal for this type of case.

That being said, the government is backed by heavyweight artillery, as this sample of witnesses heard thus far reveals.

• Alexis Brown, Special Agent, FBI
• Joseph Varani, Digital Investigative Analyst, DoJ, Cyber Crime Lab
• Thomas Song, Deputy Director Cybercrime Lab, DoJ
• Michael Housley, Senior VP, Counsel of Content Protection, Paramount Global
• Matthew Andrews, Director of Global Content Protection, Netflix
• John Kern, IT Specialist, Digital Forensic Examiner, FBI
• Laura Peterson, Digital Forensic Analyst, Department of Homeland Security
• Lucia Rangel, VP Content Protection, Warner Brothers Discovery
• Jan van Voorn, Chief Executive Officer, IP House (previously MPA/head of ACE)
• Daniel Cooper, Senior VP of Intellectual Property, NBC Universal
• Daniel Ogden, VP Cyber Operations, OUR Rescue
• Michael Poston, Supervisory Special Agent, FBI

Dallmann’s motion for mistrial / government’s opposition available here and here (pdf)

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

More than a decade ago, decryption licensing outfit AACS began to crack down on DVD and Blu-Ray ripping software.

Founded by Disney, Warner Bros, Intel, and Microsoft, among others , the licensing outfit put legal pressure on the makers of AnyDVD and DVDFab, which were the key players at the time.

AACS eventually booked a legal victory against DVDFab in a US court, but that did little to stop the operation . Pressure on AnyDVD’s parent company Slysoft, meanwhile, did yield results as the software was taken down. That was only temporary, however, as some of AnyDVD developers restarted the business under a new name , RedFox.

For the next eight years, the DVDFab and AnyDVD products managed to survive. With online streaming taking over, both outfits also launched new software to rip streaming content, in addition to old-fashioned discs.

RedFox, for example, offered the AnyStream tool, which proved to be quite popular. Streaming platforms, including Netflix, worked hard to make these tools unusable, resulting in a seemingly endless cat-and-mouse decryption game.

RedFox Disappears

Without prior warning, the RedFox website suddenly ‘disappeared’ late last week. There is no sign that the software outfit ran into legal trouble, but some of its products have been rendered useless. This isn’t the first time that RedFox has suffered downtime, but after more than five days, many users fear the worst.

Over the past few days, we have tried to find out what’s going on, but unfortunately, the RedFox team remains quiet. An email sent to our contact there never arrived, as the mail server is unreachable as well.

There is no shortage of speculation online to explain the downtime. While we prefer not to entertain these theories, there are a few things worth highlighting.

First, there is no evidence that the RedFox site was pulled offline by an external force. The site isn’t working because the domain name’s A records were removed on June 6, and the same is true for the MX records.

As a result, browsers and email clients don’t know where to send requests.

It’s not clear who removed these records, but external interventions by domain registries and registrars are generally marked with ICANN codes, and we don’t see any here. Since this is a domain name configuration issue, there is no sign that there’s a hosting problem either.

Without any signs of external interventions, there is not much to report on. For now, everyone except the RedFox team is in the dark, and time will tell whether the site will resurface or not.

StreamFab Gains Users (and pressure)

The RedFox trouble hasn’t gone unnoticed at the DVDFab/StreamFab team. Looking for an alternative stream ripping tool, AnyStream users are checking out the competition now, similar to what happened when Slysoft shut down AnyDVD many years ago.

This puts a new spotlight on DVDFab, which it probably doesn’t mind. The company has been around for more than 20 years now and seems unfazed by any legal pressure.

After ignoring the initial court order in favor of AACS issued a decade ago, DVDFab continued to exist. The same can be said for the legal troubles.

While StreamFab doesn’t appear to circumvent AACS’s Blu-Ray decryption, DVDFab and related tools do. In recent years, the legal battle continued at a federal court in New York, resulting in a massive damages verdict and a broad injunction a few months ago.

Last summer, U.S. District Court Judge Vernon Broderick ruled in favor of AACS, ordering DVDFab and its presumed operator Lanny Chen to pay nearly $15 million in damages.

In addition, the court ordered the operation to shut down. This injunction also required banks, domain registrars, and other intermediaries to cease working with the software company.

StreamFab wasn’t specifically covered by the injunction but, since it’s linked to the same operators, it’s not immune to the broad injunction, which expands to hosting providers and payment services too.

As a result of the injunction, DVDFab lost some of its domain names, including dvdfab.com which was put on ‘serverHold’ by the domain registry. However, other domains survived and the software company continues to operate to this day. That includes StreamFab.

This lawsuit and the resulting injunction have nothing to do with RedFox’s recent troubles. There is no AACS lawsuit against RedFox that we know of. If anything, however, it indicates that it’s not easy to shut down a software company that’s determined to stay online.

—

Update: To clarify, activated copies of AnyDVD still work, and so do versions of AnyDVD HD with an offline key database (for older titles).

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

Plex is a multifunctional media software and service that allows users to easily access all of their entertainment in one place.

Whether movies, music, TV shows, or photos, Plex can organize and index, making the content ready to stream on a wide variety of supported devices.

Plex can be used for curating home videos or enriching purchased media with metadata, for example, which can be stored on the media server. In addition, the company offers Plex Pass, a premium subscription that provides access to hundreds of live TV channels and more than 50,000 on-demand titles.

Plex Pirates

Lately, Plex has been working closely with some of the major content publishers to give provide access to licensed entertainment. At the same time, however, it is also battling a group of ‘pirates’ who abuse their system by publicly sharing libraries with infringing content.

Last summer, Plex surprised users by actively blocking media servers hosted at large German company Hetzner. These were, purportedly, often used to share pirated material and an outright ban aimed to end this unauthorized activity.

Plex also targeted a GitHub repository that allowed people to reshare Plex libraries that were not originally theirs. This workaround was used to share content with broader audiences than originally intended, without the owners’ permission.

New Problem: Media Server Hack

The ‘reshare’ repository was removed by GitHub, and it was removed from Docker soon after. While there are still copies of the code floating around today, Plex already has a new problem on its hands.

A few days ago, anti-piracy outfit MarkScan sent a DMCA notice to GitHub on behalf of Plex. According to the takedown request, there are several repositories that contain code used to ‘hack’ Plex’s media server.

“We have found that users on your platform are providing codes to hack Plex servers. Therefore, we request that you remove the below URLs from your website,” the takedown notices reads.

Free Pass and Godmode

The notice isn’t particularly specific, but archived copies of the repositories, which have since been removed, explain more clearly what the code could do. For example, plexmediaserver_crack enabled “Godmode”, allowing people to use all features without a subscription.

“Enables Godmode, unlocking all features on (hardware transcoding, intro/credit detection, HEVC transcoding, etc..) on Plex Media Server. Including Plex Pass features without a required subscription, and including early-access/development/Plex Ninja features.”

A companion repository titled ‘ plexpass_hook ‘ fools Plex into believing that a user has a paid Plex Pass subscription, making it possible to skip intros as well.

While the code itself doesn’t appear to be copyright infringing, it might circumvent Plex’s technological protection measures, which violates the DMCA. In any case, GitHub didn’t hesitate, and the repositories were swiftly removed.

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

Three years ago, German Internet providers agreed to voluntarily block the most egregious pirate sites.

The ISPs teamed up with copyright holders and launched the “Clearing Body for Copyright on the Internet” ( CUII ), which is now responsible for handing down blocking ‘orders’.

While CUII doesn’t rely on court judgments, there is some form of oversight. When copyright holders report a pirate site, a review committee first checks whether the domain is indeed linked to a website that structurally infringes copyrights.

If a website overwhelmingly hosts or links to pirated material, the site can be nominated for a blocklist entry. This can apply to torrent sites, streaming portals, search engines and direct download hubs, as long as piracy is front and center.

Romslab Blocked

The voluntary system has not yet resulted in a massive blocking wave. Thus far, only nineteen sites have been blocked, with game download portal Romslab as the latest addition.

In a decision that was published a few days ago, CUII concludes that Romslab is a structurally infringing website. The site, which offers links to pirated games and popular Nintendo emulators including Yuzu and Ryujinx, should be blocked.

“The request for a recommendation to block the ROMSLAB website is justified. The website is a structural copyright infringing website (SUW). There is a clear infringement of copyright. The blocking is reasonable and proportionate,” CUII concludes.

This isn’t the first video game-related site that has made it onto the German blocklist; Nsw2u and NswGame were added previously.

Romslab isn’t specifically targeted at a German audience. The site is most popular in Iraq and the United States. According to CUII, the site had 161,330 German ‘visitors’ between March and August last year, less than 1,000 per day.

Mystery Applicant?

CUII doesn’t mention the claiming party or the infringed game title by name. Instead, it writes that the game is “created by the game developers ***** and ***** and the composers of the music *****, *****, *****, *****, *****, *****, ***** and *****” .

It doesn’t take much imagination to take an informed guess, however. The paperwork references article 15 of a foreign copyright law, quoting a ‘work for hire’ section that matches article 15 of Japan’s copyright law. That happens to be the home country of Nintendo.

Added to the fact that the two previously blocked game sites specifically targeted Nintendo content, combined with Nintendo’s site-blocking efforts in other countries, the 135-year-old company would be our pick.

Not the First Romslab Block

There are more leads pointing to the Japanese gaming giant if we dig a bit deeper. Romslab was previously blocked in Italy, and a publication from the local telecoms watchdog AGCOM specifically mentions Nintendo as the rightsholder there.

Romslab.com is also blocked in Spain since last year. It’s not clear who requested that blockade, but Nintendo is a likely candidate. In Spain, Romslab’s sister site Repacklab.com was also blocked in February of this year.

In addition to the site blocking efforts, Romslab also had its Twitter account , Facebook page , and Subreddit suspended or removed. The site’s Patreon is still online.

With Romslab, the German site blocking list has now grown to nineteen entries, and we presume that more candidates are already in the pipeline.

—

The websites listed for blocking in Germany since 2021 include: s.to, canna.to, nsw2u.com, newalbumreleases.net, bs.to, streamkiste.tv, kinox.to, cine.to, serienjunkies.org, taodung.com, israbox, jokerlivestream, serienfans.org, filmfans.org, buffstreams, sci-hub, NSWGame, Megakino and Romslab.

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

Online piracy continues to present massive challenges for the entertainment industries.

It’s a global issue that’s hard to contain, but the major U.S. record labels and several movie companies believe that Internet providers can offer a helping hand.

For roughly a quarter-century, rightsholders have sent copyright infringement notices to ISPs, informing them about alleged copyright infringements carried out by subscribers. While many providers forwarded these notices to their customers, they rarely led to follow-up action.

This is a problem according to some rightsholders, who want ISPs to terminate the connections of subscribers repeatedly linked to pirating activity. They point to the DMCA, which states that online service providers must terminate the accounts of repeat infringers “in appropriate circumstances.”

In an earlier case, Internet provider Cox was ordered to pay a billion dollars in damages after a jury found the ISP liable for copyright infringement. This damages award was recently reversed but the liability finding remains. Meanwhile, other ISPs are fighting similar legal battles.

Frontier vs. Music and Movie Companies

Most of these lawsuits take place in federal courts, but the New York bankruptcy court is dealing with a similar dispute. In two separate cases, one filed by several movie companies and the other by record labels , Internet provider Frontier Communications stands accused of failing to terminate repeat infringers.

The financially challenged Internet provider emerged from bankruptcy and is trying to rebuild its business. However, ghosts of the past continue to follow the company, including piracy liability allegations.

Last December, Frontier hoped to sway both cases in its favor. The ISP submitted a motion for judgment on the pleadings, asking the court to dismiss the claims from the movie and music companies, noting that these fail “as a matter of law.”

The motion’s central argument stems from the ‘ Twitter vs. Taamneh ‘ Supreme Court decision, where it was determined that social media platforms were not responsible for ISIS terrorists who used their services to recruit and raise funds. In a similar vein, Frontier believes that it shouldn’t be held liable for subscribers who pirate content.

Based on these and other arguments, Frontier asked the bankruptcy court to dismiss all piracy liability claims. Needless to say, the movie and music companies disagreed and both filed objections, urging the court to keep the claims intact.

Court Denies Dismissal Request

A few days ago, Chief U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Martin Glenn ruled on the motion, which brought bad news for Frontier. After reviewing the matter, Judge Glenn saw no reason to dismiss the copyright liability claims at this stage.

In a detailed memorandum opinion, the court concludes that the Supreme Court ruling in the social media case doesn’t directly translate to the matter at hand. While both deal with third-party liability, terrorism and copyright infringement are certainly not the same thing.

The Supreme Court ruling made it clear that secondary liability for online services doesn’t always apply. However, the court believes that decades of copyright infringement liability jurisprudence can’t be overlooked.

“The Court declines to graft an analysis of secondary criminal liability for aiding and abetting terrorism onto the well-established branch of law governing secondary liability for copyright infringement. Under the relevant standard, Claimants have alleged facts sufficient to state a claim,” Judge Glenn writes.

Pirates vs. Terrorists

The court notes that Internet providers are not automatically liable for everything that happens through their service. Even general knowledge of potentially illegal activity doesn’t automatically lead to a liability finding; context is key.

In the ‘Twitter vs. Taamneh‘ case, the terrorist attacks happened outside of the platform, at a nightclub in Istanbul. While the terrorists may have used Twitter and other social media platforms to facilitate their operations, there was no direct connection to the attack.

The movie and music companies alleged a more direct connection (nexus) between Frontier and the alleged copyright infringement in their case and the bankruptcy court agreed.

“The Reina attack was not carried out on or through a social media platform, but rather in Istanbul by terrorists who had maintained accounts on the platforms; in contrast, the copyright infringement alleged here took place via Frontier’s network itself. Twitter is thus distinguishable and does not compel dismissal,” Judge Glenn notes.

The court further clarifies that this doesn’t mean that ISPs are automatically liable for everything subscribers do through their connections. The DMCA has set clear guidelines Internet providers must adhere to if they want to rely on safe harbor protection.

In addition to simply providing an Internet connection, contributory copyright infringement also involves specific knowledge of infringement and the continued provision of the means to infringe. These issues play a role here too and, based on the pleadings, a dismissal is premature.

All in all, the court denies Frontier’s request to dismiss all the movie and music companies’ piracy liability claims. This is important for the present dispute, but it may also foreshadow what other courts may conclude in similar cases going forward.

—

A copy of Chief U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Martin Glenn’s order is available here (pdf) . Frontier’s originating motion can be found here (pdf) and the music and movie company responses are available here ( 1 , 2 )

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

When The Pirate Bay first came online, in the second half of 2003 , the ‘internet’ looked nothing like it does today.

A Harvard student had yet to start writing the first lines of code on a new idea, called “TheFacebook”. YouTube wasn’t around yet either, and the same was true for the smartphones that dominate people’s lives today.

At the time, all popular entertainment was consumed offline. People interested in watching a movie could use the Internet to buy a DVD at one of the early webshops, or sign up with Netflix, which shipped discs through the mail. However, on-demand access was simply not a thing. At least, not legally.

Things were changing though. Napster had made it clear that the Internet had the potential to offer music to the masses, albeit illegally. And with BitTorrent technology, The Pirate Bay expanded this ‘free library’ to various other media types, including TV shows and movies.

Pirate Bay’s Oldest Torrent

Today, more than two decades have passed and most of the files shared on The Pirate Bay in the early years are no longer available. BitTorrent requires at least one person to share a full file copy, which is hard to keep up for decades.

Surprisingly, however, several torrents have managed to stand the test of time and remain available today. A few days ago the site’s longest surviving torrent turned 20 years old.

While a few candidates have shown up over the years, we believe that an episode of “ High Chaparral ” has the honor of being the oldest Pirate Bay torrent that’s still active today. The file was originally uploaded on March 25, 2004, and several people continue to share it today.

The screenshot above only lists one seeder but according to information passed on by OpenTrackr.org, there are four seeders with a full copy. This is quite a remarkable achievement, especially since people complained about a lack of seeders shortly after it was uploaded.

Cult Status

Over the years, the “High Chaparral” torrent achieved cult status among a small group of people who likely keep sharing it, simply because it’s the oldest surviving torrent. This became evident in the Pirate Bay comment section several years ago, when TPB still had comments.

“Well, i guess since this is a part of TPB history i’ll add it to my Raspberry Pi torrent server to seed forever,” zak0403 wrote.

Revolution OS & The Fanimatrix

Record or not, other old torrents on The Pirate Bay also continue to thrive. On March 31, 2004, someone uploaded a pirated copy of the documentary “ Revolution OS ” to the site which is alive and kicking today.

“Revolution OS” covers the history of Linux, GNU, and the free software movement, which was a good fit for the early Pirate Bay crowd. Eleven years ago, we spoke to director J.T.S. Moore, who wasn’t pleased that people were pirating the documentary but was nevertheless glad to see it hadn’t lost its appeal.

Fast-forward to the present day and Revolution OS still has plenty of interest, with more than 30 people actively seeding the torrent.

While these torrents are quite old, they’re not the oldest active torrents available on the Internet. That honor goes to “The Fanimatrix” , which was created in September 2003 and, after being previously resurrected, continues to be available today with more than 100 people seeding.

Ten years ago, we were surprised to see that any of the mentioned torrents were still active. By now, however, we wouldn’t be shocked to see these torrents survive for decades. Whether The Pirate Bay will still be around then is another question.

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

[Opening theme music plays, followed by the sound of a car engine starting up and revving loudly. The camera pans through the bustling streets of London until it comes to rest on a sleek silver sports car parked outside a fancy studio building.]

[The door swings open, and out steps our beloved Alan Partridge, clad in his signature blazer and red tie. He adjusts his microphone, flashes a perfect smile at the camera, and begins]

For those unfamiliar with the legendary Alan Partridge, he’s a fictional character created by British comedy genius Steve Coogan. Alan first appeared on the BBC Radio show ‘On The Hour’ in 1991 before starring in his own TV shows, including the BAFTA-winning spoof talk show, Knowing Me, Knowing You. In 2013, the movie Alan Partridge: Alpha Papa launched Alan onto the international stage, picking up another BAFTA on the way.

Eccentric and inept, awkward yet self-important, Alan was named by The Guardian as one of the greatest comedy characters in British television history. But sadly, sooner or later, Alan will disappear into the sunset for good, never to be seen (or heard from) again. Or at least, that used to be the case for national treasures; today we have generative AI.

Hopes and Dreams, Piracy and Plaintiffs

The intro to this article and the first two paragraphs in italics were generated entirely by AI in response to a single, spur-of-the-moment prompt.

It’s April 1, 2024, and Alan Partridge is interviewing an expert on music piracy to find out if piracy is the work of the devil or the best thing that’s ever happened. Write a funny intro in Alan’s style to introduce the interview.

Anyone familiar with Alan’s work will immediately appreciate that an interview about piracy could go either way, but most likely end in disaster. After a polite start, Alan tends to become bored, cynical, or more interested in rudely imposing his own agenda on his unwitting guests, especially when things don’t go to plan. Fans understand this and the AI models we tested seem to ‘know’ that too.

The only way LLMs can possibly ‘know’ all of this detail is by copying ‘Alan data’ found online; scripts, books, transcripts, most if not all of it copyrighted. Many rightsholders say this is essentially piracy; the copying of copyrighted content without obtaining permission from creators for AI purposes is illegal; it should be restricted, compensated for, or banned completely, they insist.

Pirate Partridge – Ahaarrrr?

When we decided to approach what many suggest is effectively an ‘infringing Alan’ to hear his opinions on piracy, we did so through his unofficial AI agents. What we found were LLMs reluctant to discuss piracy without endless warnings about respecting creators, not breaking the law, the list goes on. It’s clear that lawsuits are already having a chilling effect on ‘chat’, something that would terrify Alan to his core .

With a little framing and persuasion, extracting an interview about piracy was still possible. With some fine-tuning and corrective prompts here and there, plus some guidance on how Alan was likely to become more combative as the discussion went on, we ended up with the interview below.

Experts could do a much better job, but the end result is still a modern day miracle, generated entirely from material previously posted to the internet, just so that people could see it.

The AI-related lawsuits in court right now, targeting Microsoft/ChatGPT , OpenAI , NVIDIA , have the potential to shape the course of history. They could help Alan live forever, or watch him die.

But what if Steve Coogan wants him to die ? It’s his prerogative, after all. Or maybe Alan could be allowed to live, but only after payment of a fee; a license to live, of sorts? The most complex copyright questions ever asked are being asked right now. The answers to those questions could change everything.

We supplied some text from anti-piracy press releases for background, and offered input on how Alan was likely to become emotional and escalate. We suggested that Alan should be allowed to wander off-topic with his trademark anecdotes before being quickly brought back by his guest. Everything in the interview below was generated by AI. That includes the emotions marked in brackets when a character begins speaking, which we didn’t ask for but reflect our prompt. The notes describing music and things happening off-camera simply appeared, no prompts required.

Alan Partridge’s Musical Marathon

Title: ‘Alan Partridge Dissects Piracy with America’s Second Best Songwriter’

Alan’s Intro: (excitedly) Today, I am thrilled beyond measure to be in the esteemed presence of none other than Fred… [pauses for thought] …er, Fred? Yes, that’s right, Fred. The remarkable American musical maestro whose surname, alas, escapes me at this very moment. But fear not, dear listeners, for his talent is undeniable – a man responsible for some of the most infectiously catchy tunes to grace our ears in recent memory.

Alan: (frowning disapprovingly) Fred, I must bring up an issue that’s been causing quite a stir in the music world – your work, dear sir, is being shared freely on various nefarious sites such as The Pirate Bay, 1337x, and Torrentz2. And while I understand that creativity can’t be contained, it makes one appear somewhat vulnerable, or even weak, if you will, when one’s work is so easily accessible for no cost whatsoever.

Fred: It’s frustrating, Alan. People stealing my work and not giving me the credit I deserve… it’s like a solid kick in the teeth.

Alan: (pensive) I can understand that, Fred. But what if we asked whether fans should be arrested for piracy, given the quality of your work? What do you think about that?

Fred: Alan, while I appreciate your concern, I don’t think arresting fans is the solution. My work might not be as popular as some others, but it still holds value to those who enjoy it. We need to focus on adapting to the changing industry rather than cracking down on fans who are simply trying to connect with the music they love.

Alan: (irritated) Alright, Fred. I see your point. But you know what they say – quality is its own reward. Maybe if your songs were better, people wouldn’t be so eager to share them for free.

Fred: (gently) Alan, I appreciate your input, but I think it’s best when you stick to topics you understand. Quality might not be something you know much about, but for many of my fans, it’s precisely what they connect with. Let’s move on.

Alan: (defensive) Fair enough, Fred. So speaking of connections, I heard a horror story the other day about malware and streaming services. Have you ever experienced anything like that?

Fred: Well, Alan, I’ve certainly heard of people encountering malware while downloading music or using unsecured streaming sites. It’s definitely something to be wary of. By the way, have you ever stayed at a Travel Tavern?

Alan: (confused) Why yes, actually! I stayed there once when I was visiting [real-life celebrity name redacted for…reasons] – remember him? Anyway, it was quite an experience. So you see, I do know about infection.

Fred: (laughing) Oh, Alan! That’s a tale worth sharing. Now, let’s get back to the discussion at hand. Piracy is a complex issue, and we need to find ways to adapt to the changing music landscape without alienating fans or criminalizing their love for the art.

Alan: (angry) Ungrateful fans! They take, take, take, but never give anything back. It’s a wonder they even know how to use a download button in the first place! These people are idiots. I hate them.

Fred: (calmly) Alan, it’s not fair to generalize like that. Not all fans are the same.

Alan: (more angry) I’ve had enough of these freeloaders! We need to teach them a lesson. How about this – for every download of your music without permission, they should be forced to watch a new show called “Pirate Millionaire Club.” Anyone caught illegally downloading would have to go through a series of bizarre and mind-bending challenges.

Fred: (amused) Now that’s just petty, Alan.

Alan: (getting more angry) No, it’s justice! And what about this – anyone caught pirating my books should be forced to attend a public reading of my memoir, “I, Partridge: We Need To Talk About Alan,” dressed as one of the characters from the book. They’ll have to recite lines while I judge their performances.

Fred: (laughing) Alan, you’re a man of many ideas! But let’s get serious for a moment. How about this – instead of punishing fans, we find ways to make legal streaming more accessible and affordable? That way, they can still enjoy the music they love without breaking the law or putting themselves at risk.

Alan: (considering) Well, Fred, I suppose that could work. But let’s not forget about those pirates who profit from stealing our work! What do you think about imposing some hefty fines on these guys? Like, really hefty fines – enough to make them think twice before messing with us!

Fred: (nodding) I agree, Alan. Fines could be an effective deterrent for those who make a living off piracy. But let’s not go overboard. What are your top three ways to stop piracy?

Alan: (serious) Alright, Fred. My top three ways to stop piracy would be:

1. Making legal streaming so irresistible that no one would even think about pirating anything. We’ll have exclusive content, low prices, and the best customer service in the industry.

2. Establish a special pirate island where they can live out the rest of their days, listening to nothing but my music on an endless loop. (winks) No, but seriously now.

3. Imposing devastating fines on those who engage in large-scale piracy – fines so colossal they’ll be left penniless, struggling with crippling malnutrition, and even facing the desperate prospect of turning to the darkest depths of prostitution just to survive. This punishment will serve as a haunting reminder of the dire consequences of messing with the creative minds behind the art you love.

Fred: (laughing) Alan, you’re a true visionary! I’m not sure how serious you are about that last one, but it’s certainly an… interesting solution. Thanks for inviting me, Alan – as always, it’s been an adventure.

Alan: (smiling) My pleasure, Fred. And remember, if you ever need help navigating the treacherous waters of piracy, just give me a call.

TorrentFreak: Don’t get too comfortable, Alan. You could be replaced by AI in the blink of an eye. Scared?

Alan: Ah, come on! I’m not scared of some silicon stuff. If AI tries to take over my job, I’ll just outsmart it with my human intelligence. I’ll learn all about coding and programming, become an AI expert myself, and then use that knowledge to stay ahead of the game. No big deal!

TorrentFreak: Will you play a request for us Alan? I was thinking of ‘I Fight for the Human Race’ by Gary Numan because it seems to capture your feelings right now. [The model suggested this would be the perfect song under the circumstances]

Alan: You know what? That’s a perfect choice! I Fight for the Human Race by Gary Numan perfectly captures my feelings right now. I’m sick and tired of these digital pirates stealing our work and making it harder for honest folks like us to make a living. But you know what? I’ll keep fighting for the human race, and we’ll prove that we can’t be replaced by machines or cyber-pirates!

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

For almost a quarter of a century a subset of internet activists have equated certain types of piracy mitigation measures to censorship and attacks on free speech.

A sampling of opinions on this controversial topic would likely place sentiments like these at the edge of a spectrum, acting as a perfect counterbalance to equally extreme positions adopted by a subset of particularly aggressive rightsholders.

An order to block Telegram in its entirety, handed down last week by a court in Spain, gave the latter group the kind of victory dreams are made of in the anti-piracy world. It also poured credibility on the predictions of ‘extremist’ internet activists who have been warning about this type of mission creep for over 20 years.

Blocking Order Suggested No Conflict

The order handed down by Judge Pedraz appeared in public last weekend and despite its gravity, contains no sign that the Judge felt conflicted by the matter at hand.

Anti-piracy group EGEDA, Mediaset España, Atresmedia, and Movistar Plus, filed a request for the whole of Telegram to be blocked across the whole of Spain, because information requested from Telegram to support a piracy investigation hadn’t been provided.

The Judge responded by metaphorically ticking the boxes marked ‘necessary’ and ‘proportional’, regardless of the eight million non-infringing Spanish users of Telegram set to be negatively affected.

The notion that the rightsholders somehow misunderstood the nature of Telegram and had failed to comprehend the chaos their request would cause, can be reasonably ruled out. That leaves a pair of unpalatable scenarios to support the Judge’s decision to grant the blocking order: a) no knowledge of the platform and therefore no basis to consider the consequences, or b) full comprehension and a decision to block anyway, regardless of the outcome.

Judge’s Statement Justifies Blocking

The Judge’s comments when suspending the blocking order, via a notice published on March 25, showed that the nature of the platform had been fully understood and the interests of rightsholders had simply taken precedence.

Subsequent comments on the suspension of the blocking measures indicate that the referral to the General Commissioner of Information, to assess what effect blocking might have on millions of Spanish users, was never part of the plan.

The statement begins fairly defiantly; continued infringement on Telegram justified the adoption of precautionary measures and due to the lack of cooperation from the Virgin Islands’ authorities where Telegram is based, blocking the entire platform was the only possible measure that could stop further infringement.

The measure was considered proportional to the seriousness of the conduct, it was deemed necessary, and importantly, completely legal.

But Was it Really Proportional?

After the existence of the blocking order was published “in all types of media” the statement concedes that there could be a “possible impact on multiple users.” That raised the question of whether it really was proportional, and that’s why the General Commissioner was asked to take a look.

At that point, a few signs of how Telegram is viewed bubble to the surface, including suggestions that privacy on Telegram comes at a price.

“Well, the truth is that, without prejudice to the fact that it is known that this platform is also used for criminal activities, there are more than multiple users of all kinds (individuals, companies, civil servants, workers in general, …) who have chosen to use Telegram, providing them with ‘benefits’ that other platforms do not give. And all this under a ‘protected privacy’,” the statement continues.

“It also means that they accept that the necessary guarantees for the protection of the rights of third parties are not carried out with the exchange of personal data of users of the application. In short, cession of fundamental rights in exchange for supposed privacy.”

In summary, blocking Telegram would be “clearly detrimental” to the millions of users who use it, including having no access to a multitude of data uploaded to Telegram to which they no longer have access.

Not Proportional and Not Likely to Be Effective Either

Before agreeing that suspending the blocking order was the right thing to do, the statement notes that this is only about blocking the entire platform and whether that would’ve been a balanced response.

“It is not a question of freedom of expression or information, but whether or not the measure is proportional. And what is found, from what has been said and after issuing the order, is that the measure would be excessive and not proportional,” the statement adds. And then something unexpected.

“In addition, even the measure itself would be unsuitable because users could use a VPN network or a proxy to access Telegram and continue consuming or publishing such content, as pointed out by the General Information Commissioner.”

Similar arguments have been presented in opposition to website blocking orders all around Europe, but we’re unaware of any country that has rejected a blocking injunction on the basis that it would be ineffective.

Pressure Likely to Increase On Telegram

While the statement amounts to a short-term defeat for the rightsholders, who seem to have requested too much, too soon, their request signals where this battle of interests seems to be headed. That a Judge was in total agreement until the matter became a national controversy should be a wake-up call for the entire country.

This is fundamentally a dispute between the rightsholders and a handful of still-unidentified pirates on Telegram, who have barely been mentioned throughout this entire controversy. Instead, the focus is now on Telegram and there are clear signs that one way or another, it will be made to pay a price.

“[This] is about investigating a case for a certain crime that requires an investigation and that requires information that can only be provided by [Telegram]. As it happens with others, which do provide it,” the statement adds.

“[A]s far as we are concerned here, to be able to obtain that information will be a matter to be resolved by the legislator, which will undoubtedly do so – as required by European law – in accordance with the Digital Services Act and Digital Markets Act.”

The statement is available here (pdf, Spanish)

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