In response to constant claims by Italy’s multi-billion euro football and broadcasting sectors, that pirate IPTV services were “killing football” and there was no time to waste, this summer Italian lawmakers delivered.

Mandatory ISP blockades, set to take pirate streams offline within 30 minutes, were just one part of an overall package designed to turn the tables on piracy services and, if necessary, punish the Italian citizens who subscribe to them.

After being passed mid-July , the legislation received telecoms regulator AGCOM’s approval just two weeks later. On August 8, 2023, the new law went live.

The new ‘ Piracy Shield ‘ blocking system did not; according to the authorities, it simply wasn’t ready. The system didn’t go live in September either and thus far there’s been no sign of it in October, or any updates indicating even a tentative launch date.

Meanwhile, work is pressing ahead to determine whether the law has a sound legal basis. The law authorizes preemptive blocking and since the aim is for that to take place within 30 minutes, and probably much sooner, blocking targets have no opportunity to mount an appeal and ISPs have no choice but to implement the blocks.

Warnings Fail to Prevent The Inevitable

Back in April, months before the law came into force, Assoprovider, a trade group that represents the interests of small to medium-sized ISPs, sent a memorandum to the authorities detailing its concerns over the proposals.

President of Assoprovider, Giovanni Zorzoni, feared the proposed blocking system would introduce a single susceptible ‘point of failure’ with the potential to undermine national infrastructure. The ‘ Mega-Firewall ‘ of Italy could also expose ISPs to liability, while end users would ultimately pick up the bill.

After the proposals became law, Assoprovider raised the alarm again, warning that round-the-clock coverage to protect the interests of football clubs and broadcasters could cost an ISP 200,000 to 300,000 euros per year.

No problem for the multinationals, of course, but for small ISPs turning over 500,000 euros in a whole year, the costs could prove devastating. Claims that IPTV piracy costs Italy 10,000 jobs were countered by an Assoprovider estimate that the law could disappear 2,000 businesses in the ISP sector.

With those warnings having had little effect, Assoprovider has now launched a legal challenge in the Italian courts; part of that entails obtaining certain documents penned by the European Commission.

Technical Regulations and the European Commission

At the end of July, telecoms regulator AGCOM amended its regulation with Resolution 189/23 ( pdf ) . On page four of that document, AGCOM states that pursuant to EU Directive 2015/1535/EU, a notification dated March 22, 2023, was filed with the European Commission.

The aim of Directive 2015/1535/EU ( pdf ) is to prevent the introduction of new technical barriers to trade. It requires member states to supply the European Commission (and other EU members) with details of planned technical regulations at the drafting stage.

A further reference to the same directive appears on page 10 of the AGCOM resolution; it states that in April 2023, the European Commission filed requests with Italy’s Ministry of Business, seeking clarification on unspecified issues relating to the proposed technical regulations. AGCOM notes that after responding before the deadline, no further communication was received from the European Commission, so that was taken as a green light to press ahead.

No Public Access to European Commission Responses

After hearing of Assoprovider’s legal challenge we discovered that searches of the Commission’s vast library of documents were unlikely to surface its responses to notifications under 2015/1535/EU.

Fulvio Sarzana, a lawyer acting for Assoprovider in this matter, informs TorrentFreak that citizens in general are not granted access to the Commission’s responses. Details are shared with individual member states, but organizations like Assoprovider have no access, even when they have a direct interest in the information.

Legal Challenge Banks an Early Victory

As part of the Assoprovider legal challenge filed at the Court of Rome, which targets the regulations issued in July 2023 and their implementation by AGCOM, Assoprovider requested access to the Commission’s responses.

“[Assoprovider] already raised the issue ten years ago, when the anti-piracy provisions were issued for the first time: but the EU Commission denied us access to the documents on the assumption that they were non-visible documents,” Sarzana explains.

“For this reason it is essential to see whether the AGCOM Regulation has been questioned by the EU Commission. We know the details of the anti-piracy regulation but we don’t know if, following the Commission’s findings, the rule has been modified, since a law in Italy was also changed.”

This week Assoprovider landed an early win when the Lazio Regional Administrative Court granted the organization’s request and ordered AGCOM to hand over the documents.

“[T]he Communications Regulatory Authority shall arrange for the filing of the documentary findings – it is repeated, as analytically identified – within the period of 60 (sixty) days from the notification, or, if earlier, from the administrative communication of this ordinance,” the court’s order reads.

So what revelations might the documents contain?

“[T]he anti-piracy provisions could be contrary to the Commission’s observations, as well as, in our opinion, violating the principles of the right of defense established by the EU and the safe harbor rules established by the Digital Services ACT,” Sarzana concludes.

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

With torrent sites dominating the high seas of piracy in 2006, Bulgarian authorities decided to arrest Eliyan Geshev, administrator of the the country’s most popular tracker, ArenaBG.

Public uproar in Bulgaria was significant but just a day later, Geshev was a free man once again. After police provided zero evidence of any crimes being committed, a court found no grounds for Geshev’s initial arrest. Reporters who attempted to interview Geshev as he left court suddenly found themselves attacked by security guards.

In advance of Geshev being detained, the government had promised to “show no mercy” when targeting pirate site operators. In the wake of his release, Bulgarian authorities charged with tackling organized crime ordered ISPs to block ArenaBG.

Three ISPs said they would comply, others refused after declaring site-blocking “illegal.”

Site-Blocking Returns 15 Years Later

At the time, ArenaBG was hosted in the U.S. so in theory could’ve been handled there. In the end that wasn’t necessary as the blocking instructions against ArenaBG were withdrawn. In other EU countries, site-blocking plans were quietly gaining traction and would continue to do so.

Neighboring Greece approved blocking measures in 2012. Progress was dampened three years later due to constitutional concerns but today, Greece is a fully-fledged member of the EU site-blocking club, alongside its latest recruit: Bulgaria.

A decision handed down May 31, 2023 at the Sofia City Court requires three Bulgarian internet service providers to block two major torrent platforms. The names of the ISPs are unhelpfully redacted in court documents, but not so the names of the sites. Somewhat predictably, The Pirate Bay makes yet another appearance in a site-blocking action, along with Zamunda, the most popular torrent site in Bulgaria.

Recording Industry Behind The Action

The initial claim was filed in February 2020 by the Bulgarian Association of Music Producers (BAMP) with support from IFPI, the International Federation of the Phonographic Industry.

Court documents reveal that the claimants requested a dynamic injunction against the main domains of The Pirate Bay and Zamunda, plus any other domains, sub-domains, mirror and proxy sites that may facilitate access to the sites in future.

Based on claims that over 90% of the sound recordings indexed by the sites are protected by copyright and shared illegally by Bulgarian BitTorrent users, BAMP and IFPI referenced the CJEU ruling in the BREIN/ Ziggo case ( C-610/15 ). The CJEU found that ISPs in Member States can be ordered to block access to The Pirate Bay, even though the site itself stores no infringing content.

In respect of the three unnamed ISPs, the claimants said that since they’re intermediaries whose services are used by third parties to infringe copyright, under Article 8, paragraph 3 of Directive 2001/29/EC the following applies:

Member States shall ensure that rightholders are in a position to apply for an injunction against intermediaries whose services are used by a third party to infringe a copyright or related right

In written responses filed by two of the three ISPs, BAMP and IFPI’s claims were bluntly described as “inadmissible.”

Bulgarian ISPs Fight Back

One of the ISPs, identified only as ‘N.1’ in court documents, described the claim as unfounded and inadmissible, adding that it “opposes the active legitimization of the plaintiff.” The ISP also pointed out that Bulgarian law does not recognize a claim “for blocking access to Internet sites.” As for EU law requiring Member States to ensure access to injunction applications, that would not apply here because Bulgaria hadn’t yet transposed that into national law.

Pushing back further still, the ISP disputed allegations that it enables subscribers to commit copyright infringement on the torrent sites, so therefore disputes that its subscribers use the sites to download pirated content using BitTorrent. In summary, the ISP asked for the claim to be rendered inadmissible or possibly rejected as unfounded.

The ISP identified as ‘F.1’ used the words ‘inadmissible’ and ‘baseless’ to describe the claim. The ISP said that the claim was filed for the “termination of a violation” but since the claim failed to provide any details in respect of the ISP, conducting an effective defense would be difficult. In common with ‘N.1’, the ISP ‘F.1′ asked for the claim to rendered inadmissible or rejected as groundless.

After the ISPs questioned the accuracy of translations, and the authenticity and validity of IFPI/BAMP legal documents, the Court appointed forensic experts to investigate. The details of the various findings occupy a large part of the decision, including details of a dispute related to the claimants’ standing to bring a claim and the eventual termination of claims relating to unnamed foreign music producers.

ISPs Required to Block Pirate Bay and Zamunda

The Sofia City Court ultimately decided that the ISPs must block both sites.

“[T]he defendant companies, in their capacity as providers of Internet access, should be sentenced to take action within a period of up to six months, the necessary actions to stop the illegal use by envisaging and implementing measures aimed at blocking the Internet access of its users, to the web pages on which the online file sharing platforms ‘ThePirateBay’ and ‘Zamunda’ are accessible.”

The ISPs will be able to determine their own methods of blocking to “best match their resources and capacity,” with a threshold of “at least making it difficult to carry out unauthorized visits” to The Pirate Bay and Zamunda.

Industry Groups Stay Positive

In a joint press release, the recording industry groups focused on the positives.

“We welcome the decision of the Sofia City Court, which marks a major step forward in the recorded music industry’s fight against online music piracy,” said BAMP executive director Petya Tocharova

“For the first time in Bulgaria, a court decision has been issued to block access to pirate websites, and we consider this precedent an important step in the right direction.”

Francis Moore, Chief Executive of the IFPI, said: “We welcome this decision and the impact it will have on curbing illegal access to music. Copyright infringement of any kind causes serious harm to local music ecosystems and diverts money away from those who create and invest in music.”

Whether blocking two torrent sites will have much of an impact on music piracy is unclear. Research cited in the blocking decision reported 27,000 files containing music available via The Pirate Bay and 44,000 on Zamunda. The overwhelming majority of music piracy today involves content ripped from YouTube, a site with dozens of millions tracks completely unhindered by blocking.

Measurable impact of site-blocking on piracy tends to appear when many sites are blocked at once, at least according to industry reports. That raises the prospect of numerous return visits to Bulgarian courts, in potentially adversarial circumstances, at a time when cooperation is seen as the only real solution to a very complex problem.

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

Enlarge / The Monitor-IO in its natural habitat, glowing green to let you know that everything is copacetic with the network to which it's connected. (credit: Jim Salter)

Monitor-IO was a gadget that did one thing: live near a router and tell you how its network is doing. It did this both with detailed reports you could access from the local network and with a screen that glowed one of three colors: green for good, purple for problems, and red for dead. It could replace, or at least augment, typing a bunch of IP addresses into a browser and waiting for them to time out.

We liked the device when we reviewed it in August 2018 , despite our broad understanding of it as a "butter-passing robot," a device that relays information you could otherwise find out on your own. It had, beyond color-coded awareness, "obvious technical chops and real, careful attention to detail" in how it measured and what it could report. However, we also noted that the $100 price made sense for a small business but "might be a bit steep" for a household on a tight budget.

Monitor-IO seems to have run out of people willing to pay for better network awareness. In an "End-of-service" notice posted on its site , the company cites "rising costs and supply chain issues," among other "numerous headwinds." Faced with no better option, Monitor-IO is shutting down its business and monitoring service on April 15, 2023. (Support will be offered through May 30, 2023.)

Read 5 remaining paragraphs | Comments

As widely reported for most of this year, French anti-piracy agency ARCOM and numerous rightsholders have been using all available tools to reduce the availability of pirate sites.

Questionable reports of unprecedented success aside, there’s no question that France is disrupting piracy as promised. Football , Formula 1 , tennis and dozens of other sports , are benefiting from blocking measures available under various processes.

In September, the National Publishing Union, an industry group representing more than 700 members in the publishing sector, announced that a Paris Court (Tribunal Judiciaire de Paris) had ordered the country’s ISPs to implement blocking measures against more than 200 Z-Library domains.

Those domains were subsequently seized by the FBI but left Z-Library itself more or less intact. Nevertheless, by disabling access to Z-Library’s domains, it is now much harder to access the source of the infringing content.

New legal action underway in France may have a similar goal in mind. It targets just four sites but by going after sources of content relied upon by other sites, the overall impact could be much greater.

Movie Industry Giants vs. ISPs

According to journalist Marc Rees (paywall) , the applicants are numerous and showing a clear and united front.

The National Federation of Film Editors (FNEF), the Video Publishing Union (SEVN), the Association of Independent Producers (API), the Union of Cinema Producers (UPC) and the Union of Independent Producers (SPI) are the most powerful groups in the video industry sector.

The targets of the complaint are local internet service providers – Orange, Bouygues, SFR, and Free – and the demands are relatively straightforward. The video groups want the service providers to block access to just four sites – Fembed, Uqload, Upvid, & Uvideo. Together these sites are good for millions of visits every month but the content delivery mechanism is key.

Sources Fuel The Supply Chain

If casual pirates were asked where they stream the latest movies and TV shows for free, well-presented sites featuring movie covers and organized categories would probably top the list. There are exceptions, but most of these sites don’t actually stream anything.

Much like YouTube videos embedded in countless websites, content delivery is handled by remote servers that directly supply video to users, often via an embedded player. Some are dedicated to the supply of pirated content and never take anything down. Others present themselves as responsible actors in full compliance with the law.

The film industry groups suggest this is a facade. They claim that Fembed, Uqload, Upvid, and Uvideo carry mostly pirated content which fuels third party sites. These often provide a Netflix-type experience but not a penny is seen by rightsholders.

The complaint further alleges the existence of payment schemes. Upvid reportedly pays affiliates $22 for 10,000 video views although reports on webmaster forums suggest that getting paid at all can be an issue. A message that appeared on the Upvid.co domain in October offered some kind of explanation.

Traffic to Upvid’s .co domain has been collapsing for some time, but it has many more domains, some with no traffic at all. Others show millions of visits per month, and it appears to be open for business, for now at least.

Fembed also has plenty of domains in storage, unlike Uqload which may only have two. Nevertheless, the latter still draws at least a few million visits per month, with most of its traffic generated by users in France.

These file-hosting sites are not the only content sources available to streaming portals and blocking them won’t end their businesses immediately. However, this is the first blocking action against file-hosting platforms in France and once rightsholders get over the first hurdle, they tend to return for more.

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

A decade ago prominent voices issued dire warnings that blocking would “break the internet,” but of course, the internet survived, just as blocking advocates said it would.

That meant tacit permission for more piracy blocks, then faster blocks, and then both – with less involvement of the courts and unnecessary public oversight. And with the groundwork done, other countries could quickly implement the same kinds of systems because the Internet is doing just fine .

Those who issued those warnings a decade ago weren’t supporters of piracy – but they did know what was coming. Dozens of countries now have site-blocking systems in place and ISPs actively help to set them up. The recent moves against DNS providers are alarming but in time, they too will become the latest uncontested standard before implementation of the next incremental step, followed by the next.

Of course, it would be alarmist to even imply that blocking, censoring, or diverting other types of information might suit future governments worldwide. Uruguay certainly doesn’t think so. Freedom of expression is fully guaranteed for citizens, groups and the press, without any kind of censorship, including the internet . With some exceptions, apparently.

Uruguay Implements Site-Blocking

Following legal action by Fox Networks Group Latin America, in 2018 a criminal court in Uruguay instructed local ISPs to block popular sports streaming portal RojaDirecta.

The head of the Fox Networks’ anti-piracy unit described the ruling as “the beginning of judicial awareness on online piracy issues.” It was indeed just the beginning.

The government made its intentions clear in 2020 with Article 712 of Law No. 19,924, which envisioned the Communications Services Regulatory Unit (URSEC) taking the lead to ensure that allegedly infringing content was blocked by local Internet service providers, before it could reach consumers in Uruguay.

Time to Start Blocking

Uruguay’s Ministry of Industry, Energy and Mining (MIEM), issued a decree on October 25, 2022. It states that since it is “the obligation of the State to ensure the protection of intellectual work and copyright,” the introduction of a pirate site blocking regime is the government’s response.

“The issued decree was conceived to eliminate the broadcasting of television signals broadcast through the Internet or similar networks, for unauthorized commercial purposes, which violates laws 9,739, on literary and artistic property, and 17,616, on the protection of intellectual property,” a government statement reads.

Any complaints concerning illegal TV streams must be sent to the Communications Services Regulatory Unit (URSEC). If the regulator is satisfied, instructions will be issued to service providers to implement blocking or similar measures within four days.

What sets this system apart from those available in most other countries is that applications for blocking can be filed by companies that aren’t necessarily the ultimate rightsholders of TV shows or movies.

TV Services and Intermediaries

As Article 1 of Decree No. 345/022 explains, operators of licensed television services in Uruguay can report pirate services to URSEC for evaluation and if the regulator agrees, comprehensive blocking measures will follow.

[T]he holders of television services for subscribers may file a well-founded complaint with the URSEC, as an affidavit, so that the Unit can evaluate it and order, if applicable, the notification to platforms and/or independent intermediaries or the provision of a temporary electronic blockade that is necessary to prevent access from the national territory to IP addresses (Internet Protocol) and/or Internet domains (DNS) and/or URLs (Uniform Resource Locator), corresponding to specific offers of infringing products, services and/or content, as appropriate, that are used to develop such activities, under the sole responsibility of the person filing the complaint.

Notwithstanding the provisions of the preceding paragraph, when the platform and/or the independent intermediary have their own complaint mechanisms for the removal of content and/or sales offers of allegedly illegal products and/or services, the owner or representative of the complainant, may appeal through the means provided by the intermediary, in order to assert their rights through the fastest and most effective means.(Translated from Spanish)

The decree’s Article 3 details the rest of the process, including that assumed pirate services will initially face blocking for up to 30 days in advance of a judicial review.

Blocking vs. Freedom of Expression

The Latin American and Caribbean Internet Address Registry (LACNIC) appreciates the new blocking regime is designed to protect content from piracy. However, it has fears that freedom of expression could be a casualty due to an absence of skills to implement accurate blocking.

“Recently the state published a decree in which the authorities can block sites that violate intellectual property rights, in essence: television signals that are transmitted illegally,” says Oscar Robles Garay, executive director of LACNIC.

“It’s okay to protect the intellectual property of others, but sometimes when you do that without enough technical expertise, other rights can be affected: websites, government sites, schools and more, which is clearly not the focus of these measures.”

A decision on whether live streams should be blocked within 30 minutes of a complaint has been delayed until next year but, given moves in other regions, implementation seems is only a question of time.

After that, requests for complex dynamic injunctions will likely follow and when they aren’t considered effective enough, interference with DNS records seems the next likely blocking candidate. By then, even more aggressive blocking options will become available, most likely across 45 to 50 countries, covering just hundreds of millions of internet users, and countless ISPs and intermediaries.

When none of these measures return the required results, tougher measures will undoubtedly follow. But whatever they are, the internet will never, ever break. Promise.

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

In terms of drama, excitement, politics and at times pure theater, Sweden’s connection with iconic file-sharing battles is unrivaled, largely due to the antics of The Pirate Bay.

At least for a while, the battle lines seemed to be clearly drawn. ‘Greedy’ entertainment industry giants lined up on one side, with The Pirate Bay, its founders, and what felt like universal public support on the other. But as the dust of these battles began to settle, a new front opened up.

ISPs – Dumb Pipes or Piracy Facilitators?

As proud maintainers of non-discriminatory ‘dumb pipes’ that exist to facilitate the free flow of all information, many ISPs in Sweden stood strong while distancing themselves from the copyright infringements of their customers. They did not endorse illegality but for them it was a matter of principle. We don’t monitor and we don’t interfere. We are neutral.

In 2014, a coalition of major recording and movie companies put that disconnect to the test by suing Bredbandsbolaget (Broadband Company), warning that if the ISP didn’t block The Pirate Bay, it would be held liable for copyright infringement.

Following a trial in 2015, Bredbandsbolaget emerged victorious and then, following an appeal , the result was reversed in 2017. Ultimately it was decided that under EU law, copyright holders can indeed obtain blocking injunctions against any ISP whose services are used to commit copyright infringement.

ISP Telenor, which would later swallow up the Bredbandsbolaget business, was furious. It described the prospect of ISPs having to block websites as “a dangerous path to go down” and described website blocking as an ineffective way to stop online piracy.

That was just over five years ago and, unsurprisingly, even the strongest opinions are subject to change.

Faced with a relentless entertainment industry with the law on its side, Telenor and several other Swedish ISPs have now decided to team up with their former rivals to ensure that future site-blocking is carried out in the most effective way possible.

Entertainment Industries and ISPs Sign Agreement

The big problem for rightsholders today is the cumbersome nature of the site-blocking process – it’s time-consuming and expensive. Even when an injunction orders an ISP to block a site, the order does not apply to another. Then more pirate sites appear or relocate, some with new names.

What the entertainment industries really want is a process that takes much less time and eliminates wasteful repetition. It appears that major ISPs in Sweden broadly agree.

As reported by Swedish anti-piracy group Rights Alliance, the entertainment industries and major ISPs have now signed an agreement to operate a simplified and more efficient process to handle blocking orders.

“The industry agreement means that several internet providers are included in one and the same court case and that the parties at an earlier stage in the process exchange information about the scope of the action. The simplified process means that the court, upon application from the right holder, can focus on the core issues and decide whether a website should be blocked or not, while maintaining legal certainty,” the announcement reads.

Unusually yet commendably, the parties have opted for transparency. The details of the agreement are open for scrutiny and reveal what appears to be a practical arrangement. It recognizes the inevitability of injunctions in the right circumstances and the need to implement blocks efficiently while maintaining due process, court oversight, and the ability to deal with circumvention techniques.

Huge Numbers of Rightsholders Involved

Rather than have all rightsholders sign individually, major industry groups are their representatives in the agreement. The Motion Picture Association flies the flag for Hollywood’s major studios and Netflix, while local media companies are represented by Nordic Entertainment Group, Nordisk Film Distribution, Svensk Filmindustri and TV4 Media, among several others.

Recording industry giant IFPI will ensure that music is properly protected, local gaming industries will rely on Dataspelsbranschen, and the Swedish Publishers’ Association will take care of members representing 70% of the local market. The ISP signatories include communications giants Tele2, Telenor and Telia, all household names in Sweden.

Expansion and Future Goals

The published agreement also makes it clear that further expansion is planned and encouraged, applying equally to rightsholders and ISPs. Prospective members will be subject to conditions but given that they could play a role in changing the law, supporters are unlikely to be in short supply.

“The parties to the agreement have also agreed to jointly strive for new and clear legislation for administrative blocking in Sweden,” Rights Alliance notes , referencing systems in other countries that can block sites in a matter of days.

The documents relating to the agreement can be found here ( 1 , 2 , 3 )

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

Enlarge (credit: Getty Images | gaby_campo)

A federal judge has ordered all Internet service providers in the United States to block three pirate streaming services operated by Doe defendants who never showed up to court and hid behind false identities.

The blocking orders affect Israel.tv, Israeli-tv.com, and Sdarot.tv, as well as related domains listed in the rulings and any other domains where the copyright-infringing websites may resurface in the future. The orders came in three essentially identical rulings (see here , here , and here ) issued on April 26 in US District Court for the Southern District of New York.

Each ruling provides a list of 96 ISPs that are expected to block the websites, including Comcast, Charter, AT&T, Verizon, and T-Mobile. But the rulings say that all ISPs must comply even if they aren't on the list:

Read 9 remaining paragraphs | Comments