The U.S. Foreign Trade Barriers Report is an annual publication by the Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR).

The report aims to draw attention to matters that represent “significant foreign barriers” to U.S. exports, investment, and commerce.

These barriers typically revolve around copyright infringement and other intellectual property matters, data privacy, and handling of trade secrets, but there’s no shortage of problems in other areas that fall outside our reporting niche here.

Piracy Problems Worldwide

In common with the Special 301 Report, the Foreign Trade Barriers Report is published by the USTR. As such there is some crossover, with many countries appearing on both lists for one reason or another.

On piracy, copyright, and closely related matters, this year’s report begins fairly predictably; Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, and Costa Rica, then over to Asia for criticism of China and Cambodia, among others.

That U.S. standards are not being met in other countries doesn’t come as a surprise. Russia’s relationship with the United States over Ukraine is certainly strained, with the USTR highlighting ‘Decree 322’, a new measure that restricts the ability of foreign right holders from “unfriendly” states to collect license payments for most types of intellectual property.

Vietnam: World Streaming Piracy Epicenter

Then there’s the section dedicated to Vietnam, home of the world’s most popular pirate sites, dedicated to piracy of mostly US-produced movie and TV show content, but with zero qualms about offering other content, to a massive global audience.

Yet despite Vietnam-based/operated pirate sites being responsible for billions and billions of illegal views, the report remarkably mentions not a single one. There’s not even a nod towards them collectively, or even a short note that they exist at all.

That is remarkable, bordering on incredible, but Vietnam’s Deputy Prime Minister Lê Minh Khái did have a meeting with United States Trade Representative Katherine Tai in Boston on April 2, so that may provide an explanation of sorts.

No Such Pass For EU Member States

The one-year anniversary of RARBG’s sudden demise is just a few weeks away. Closely linked to Bulgaria, RARBG was one of the most reliable public torrent sites to ever exist yet if the Bulgarian government had any hand in its closure , it’s yet to claim any credit.

The Trade Barriers report makes no mention of the disappearance of RARBG but does note that the USTR has “enforcement concerns” including “inadequate prosecution efforts, lengthy procedures, and insufficient criminal penalties, particularly in the area of online piracy.”

In August 2023, Bulgaria amended its Criminal Code which should make investigations of pirate sites more straightforward; the United States says it will monitor whether the changes make any difference to the rate of criminal prosecutions in Bulgaria.

Germany: Upload Filters Aren’t Aggressive Enough

Germany also receives criticism from the United States due to its implementation of the pro-copyright yet much-criticized EU Copyright Directive.

“When Germany implemented the Copyright Directive in 2021, it introduced new requirements for online platforms regarding the filtering of user uploads to prevent the automatic blocking of potentially copyright-protected content for uses that are presumably authorized by law,” the Trade Barriers Report begins.

“Some U.S. stakeholders are concerned that Germany also introduced an overly broad copyright presumption that makes it difficult for creators to enforce their copyrights in music and videos that are used in the background of short-form content that is often posted on social media.”

The Trade Barriers Report elaborates no further but, in broad terms, U.S. rightsholders seem unsettled by Germany’s focus on implementing upload filters (which have the potential to restrict freedom of expression) in a way that respects fundamental rights and acknowledges exceptions to copyright law. These exceptions include caricature, parody, pastiche, and quotation, and by considering these factors, the right to freedom of expression and the right to communicate are preserved.

U.S. stakeholders are also concerned that that Germany’s legal framework for technological protection measures “remains inadequate.” Whether that includes the 2023 ruling of a German court that held hosting company Uberspace liable for hosting the website of youtube-dl, because the open-source tool allows people to download content from YouTube, isn’t made clear.

Poland and Romania

Concerns over the situation in Poland read as follows: “Stakeholders continue to identify copyright piracy online as a significant concern in Poland and noted inconsistent enforcement on the part of law enforcement and backlogs in the Polish courts. Stakeholders also are concerned about illegal camcording and easy access to counterfeit products.”

In isolation these statements seem relatively unremarkable yet when compared to reporting directly from Poland, by the anti-piracy group that represents U.S. rightsholders’ interests in Poland, there’s a difference of opinion. In a ceremony last month, the Sygnal anti-piracy group handed out ‘Golden Plate’ awards to Polish police officers for their excellence in fighting piracy.

“The most difficult cases often end up in the hands of the best officers, who are not only perfectly versed in the legal and technological aspects related to economic crime on the Internet, but also stand out for their commitment, and this year especially – for their extraordinary diligence in handling cases. As a result, several dozen pirate websites and services related to them were closed last year,” said Teresa Wierzbowska, President of the Sygnał Association.

Finally, criticism of Romania follows the same pattern of the last 10 to 15 years. Low penalties for IP-related crimes combined with excellent internet infrastructure has always been a potent mix. The report claims that “some notorious online pirate sites” operate from Romania and since IP penalties are low, law enforcement bundle significant cases under tax evasion files.

“Romania lacks an effective and timely mechanism for rights holders to submit takedown requests against online markets and hosting platforms for infringing material. Adequate resources, including additional training for law enforcement, are needed to enhance enforcement quality,” the report concludes.

Romania, just like any other EU country, must abide by applicable EU law. Once intermediaries are made aware of infringing content, the law says they must take it down or risk incurring liability ( pdf ) .

The 2024 National Trade Estimate Report on Foreign Trade Barriers is available here (pdf)

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

Over the past year, new artificial intelligence tools and services have been surfacing everywhere.

The same can be said for AI-related lawsuits and complaints, which have been piling up by the dozen.

In the UK, music industry group BPI has enetered the mix, targeting AI-generated voice models and cover tracks. This technology, which partly relies on copyrighted recordings, has been controversial for a while.

Voicify Faces Legal Pressure

AI vocal-cloning service Voicify was previously called out by the RIAA. In a recommendation to the U.S. Trade Representative, the recording label group asked the USTR to put the site on its list of notorious piracy sites . The USTR did not include the site in its report, however, and Voicify continued its operations as usual.

After the RIAA put a spotlight on Voicify, the BPI maintained the pressure in a letter to the site’s operators, urging them to stop all copyright-infringing activity. If not, the BPI would consider follow-up steps, implying a full-blown lawsuit.

The letter was sent privately on February 26th but aside from the legal threat, its contents remain unknown. While Voicify failed to respond appropriately according to the BPI, the service did announce a major change soon after by rebranding its website to “ Jammable “.

Rebrand Can’t Escape Lawsuit Threat

According to the website, the brand change was motivated by the service’s move away from just being an ‘AI Voice Platform’. However, a source familiar with the situation informs TorrentFreak that a ‘legal matter’ played a yet role in the decision. That could very well be related to BPI’s letter.

Perhaps not coincidentally, the news about BPI’s legal threat against Voicify/Jammable broke in The Times , just days after the rebrand. As ‘a matter of policy’, BPI can’t say whether it reached out to The Times first, or vice versa, but the added pressure helps its case.

An accompanying message released by BPI’s General Counsel Kiaron Whitehead is also crystal clear.

“The music industry has long embraced new technology to innovate and grow, but Voicify (now known as Jammable), and a growing number of others like them, are misusing AI technology by taking other people’s creativity without permission and making fake content. In so doing, they are endangering the future success of British musicians and their music.”

Massive music ‘Deepfake’ Service

With a library featuring thousands of voice models, the BPI considers Jammable one of the world’s largest and most egregious deepfake AI music sites. In its letter the BPI gave the voice cloning site the option to respond and avoid legal action but thus far the BPI remains dissatisfied.

While AI-related copyright issues are still rather novel and mostly unexplored from a legal perspective, the music group is convinced it has the law on its side. The BPI’s complaint centers around Jammable’s purported use of copyrighted music recordings to create voice models and AI covers.

In theory, these types of services could enable people to create a cover of a Frank Sinatra song using the voice of Homer Simpson, if they’d like to hear that.

This use of copyrighted music, combined with the commercial nature of Jammable, is not allowed according to BPI.

Thus far, music-related AI lawsuits haven’t appeared in UK courts so if the BPI decides to follow up on its threat, this would be the first. For now, however, there is no sign of legal action.

Several other music industry entities including the Musicians’ Union and UK MUSIC support the efforts to protect rightsholders against AI troubles.

“Jammable is just one worrying example of AI developers encroaching on the personal rights of music creators for their own financial gain,” Musicians’ Union General Secretary Naomi Pohl says.

“It can’t be right that a commercial enterprise can just steal someone’s voice in order to generate unlimited soundalike tracks with no labelling to clarify to the public the output tracks are not genuine recordings by the original artist, no permission from the original artist and no share of the money paid to them either.”

Speaking with TorrentFreak, a BPI spokesperson says that it has only sent a letter to Voicify/Jammable, not to any similar services. We also asked Jammable for a comment on the legal threat but, at the time of publication, we have yet to hear back.

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

In recent years, copyright holders have paid close attention to a growing number of large piracy services with connections to Vietnam.

Representatives of the Motion Picture Association ( MPA ) and the Alliance for Creativity and Entertainment ( ACE ), went as far as traveling to the Asian country to discuss the problem with local authorities.

The problematic sites and services, which include Fmovies, AniWave, 123movies, BestBuyIPTV, 2embed, and Y2mate, have many millions of monthly users globally. Several attempts have been made to alert the authorities to these ‘criminal’ platforms but to date, criminal convictions have proven elusive.

IIPA Flags Vietnam as a Piracy Haven

To strengthen its call for action, the International Intellectual Property Alliance ( IIPA ) urges the U.S. Trade Representative ( USTR ) to assist. The IIPA represents the interests of prominent rightsholder groups, including the MPA, RIAA, and ESA, and highlights the Vietnam problem in its recent “ Special 301 ” recommendation.

“Vietnam has become a leading global exporter of piracy services and Vietnamese operators have been associated with some of the world’s most pervasive piracy websites, causing significant damage to both the local and international marketplaces,” IIPA writes.

It’s no secret that many large pirate sites and services have links to Vietnam and local authorities are aware of at least some of them. While this has resulted in some enforcement action, the first piracy-related criminal conviction has yet to take place.

A high-profile conviction would reassure rightsholders and other companies considering investments in the country, IIPA reasons, while noting that the country is currently seen as a “piracy haven”.

“The Government of Vietnam should recognize that securing the country’s ‘first’ criminal copyright conviction would provide significant reassurance to companies that are considering investing in local content and provide rights holders with a better understanding and assurance regarding the required criminal process,” the IIPA notes.

“The criminal enforcement path available against these sites and their operators remains excessively long and lacks transparency.”

Music Pirates

The IIPA highlights several concrete piracy challenges, which aren’t limited to video entertainment. Recent survey data released by music industry group IFPI showed that roughly two-thirds (66%) of Vietnamese respondents between the age of 16-44 regularly pirate music. That’s well above the global average.

A popular option to obtain copyrighted music is through YouTube-ripping platforms such as Y2Mate, which reportedly has links to Vietnam. The site blocked visitors from the US and UK in 2021, but that decision was recently reversed.

“Importantly, Y2Mate is one of a network of seven globally popular stream-ripping sites believed to be operating from Vietnam,” IFPI writes.

“Although the operator of Y2mate.com voluntarily geo-blocked access from the United States, United Kingdom, France, and Germany, the site is once again accessible from these countries, and while the site was geoblocked the operator set up alternative stream-ripping sites.”

Persistent Movie/TV Pirates

Y2mate isn’t the only site persisting with its piracy activities. There’s a pattern of Vietnamese sites and services ostensibly giving in to legal pressure, only to later reappear with a twist.

As reported here earlier, ACE previously tracked down the operators of 2embed and zoro.to, who appeared cooperative after they were paid a visit. However, those actions didn’t have a lasting effect.

Zoro.to was reportedly ‘ acquired ‘ by a new team, who kept the site online under the Aniwatch brand . Similarly, 2embed’s ‘ shutdown ‘ had little effect as a new 2embed swiftly replaced it , presumably with links to the old team.

In its recommendation to the USTR, the IIPA highlights both events as key examples of the enforcement challenges rightsholders face in Vietnam.

“Both 2embed and zoro.to were being operated by the same network of identified operators. In a Knock-and-Talk operation in July 2023 undertaken by the Alliance for Creativity and Entertainment (ACE) the operators of these sites handed over administrative control of the primary and associated domains.”

“However, in a matter of weeks a new domain (aniwatch.to) replaced zoro.to and thereafter a new domain (2mbed.me) replaced 2embed.to. Criminal enforcement action by the [Ministry of Public Security] is needed to close such expansive piracy networks,” IIPA adds.

Criminal Enforcement, Please

Legally, Vietnamese authorities have the power to act against these piracy moguls. In 2018, copyright infringement offenses were added to the country’s Criminal Code. Practical challenges remain, however.

In 2021, there was some hope when Vietnamese police questioned the alleged founder and two employees of the notorious piracy site Phimmoi.net. However, no charges were filed as a result and local authorities eventually suspended the investigation.

More recently, ACE submitted criminal referrals targeting Fmovies and BestBuyIPTV to Vietnam’s Ministry of Public Security (MPS). Thus far, these cases are still ‘stuck’ in processing, IIPA says, with little sign of progress.

“[T]here remains a lack of transparency and clarity with the MPS continuing to request additional evidence without explanation or reasoning, potentially using the opaque process as a pretext to delay the investigation or not pursue a prosecution,” IIPA writes.

It’s clear that rightsholders are becoming increasingly frustrated with the situation. The IIPA suggests a more robust enforcement framework should be a top priority for 2024.

“Establish a robust enforcement framework and ensure enforcement officials […]investigate and criminally prosecute commercial-scale piracy sites and services as well as bring administrative actions.”

The above is just a small selection of IIPA’s comments and suggestions for Vietnam, which go far beyond the need for criminal action.

The ultimate conclusion is that Vietnam deserves to be called out on the USTR’s “Priority Watch List” in the upcoming Special 301 Review.

—

IIPA’s 2024 Special 301 Report on Copyright Protection and Enforcement, which includes all Vietnam references, is available here (pdf)

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

Each year around the end of January, the Office of the United States Trade Representative ( USTR ) publishes its annual review of so-called ‘notorious markets’ known for their connections to intellectual property crime.

In common with previous years, the 2023 edition published Tuesday highlights “prominent and illustrative” examples of mainly online sites and services that either engage directly in piracy, facilitate it, or simply turn a blind eye to infringement while enjoying the benefits. The USTR’s report aims to motivate governments and various players in the private sector to take appropriate action, wherever that’s possible, to disrupt and limit infringement.

2023 Notorious Markets Review

The 2023 Review of Notorious Markets shows that for a persistent few, annual appearances on the list are now considered more likely than sudden absences. The Pirate Bay is present once again, and the same is true for streaming giant Fmovies and academic research repository Sci-Hub. Russia-based trio Rapidgator (file-hosting), RuTracker (torrents) and VK, the largest social media platform in Russia, also maintain their spots.

After an unexplained absence in 2021, YTS.mx reappeared in the report last year. As expected, the most-visited torrent site on the internet also appears in this year’s report.

USTR Highlights Positive Developments, Notable Absentees

Regular readers of the USTR’s reports will have already noted the absence of former torrent giant, RARBG. After being listed as a notorious market for the previous seven years, last May the site suddenly shut down , sending shockwaves through the piracy ecosystem.

Since it proved impossible for us to confirm the specific reasons behind the site’s closure, our best attempt at an explanation last September necessarily relied on circumstantial evidence. The USTR links to that article in its report but the specific reasons for RARBG’s demise remain elusive.

Nevertheless, RARBG’s place in the report has already been occupied by new entry, TorrentGalaxy, a popular torrent site that effortlessly handled additional users and sudden increases in traffic when RARBG unexpectedly disappeared last year. Reportedly hosted in Romania, TorrentGalaxy has cemented its position as one of the most-visited torrent sites in the world.

Other absentees this year include the Premier League-nominated iStreamtoWatch and LalaStreams, which fell following enforcement action by the U.S. government. The USTR also highlights significant enforcement action in 2023 against some of the largest overseas piracy platforms. They come with important caveats, however.

Major Piracy Platforms and the Resurrection Phenomenon

While mitigating the effects of enforcement action is nothing new for pirate sites, today’s ‘hydra response’ can happen at bewildering speed and scale. For some, resilience is already baked in and for those based in problematic jurisdictions, even a more leisurely response can prove effective.

In 2023, the Alliance for Creativity and Entertainment targeted sites operating under Cuevana3 branding that had featured in earlier notorious markets reports. As the USTR notes, the operation was an immediate success, albeit in much the same way earlier operations targeting Cuevana-branded sites had been too; initially devastating but ultimately temporary .

“Cuevana’s use of multiple domains has allowed variants of the site to remain operational. Despite successful enforcement efforts that enabled right holders to take control of 22 domain name variants in 2023, mirror sites were able to quickly re-emerge under new domains,” the USTR writes. (Officially nominated as Cuevana3.ch, others include go.cuevana3.news, cuevana3.pro, cuevana3.ma, cuevana3.media, and cuevana3.nu)

Mexico-based Pelisplus, a new addition to the 2023 list, is another streaming platform causing problems in Latin America. The USTR says the site services its own visitors but also supplies content to similar sites.

“Pelisplus offers a content management system library service — a database that provides access to pirated movies and television series elsewhere in exchange for payment of a fee or other compensation — and also streams its own catalog of pirated movies and television shows,” the USTR reports. (Nominated as pelisplus.icu. Related sites include pelisplushd.to, pelisplushd.lat, pelisplus.in, and pelisplus.ai)

After receiving a nomination from the MPA last October, the rapid growth of streaming site Vegamovies earns it a prominent newcomer spot in this year’s report. Operating from several domains, it’s claimed that Vegamovies receives almost 185 million visits per month, which could already mean it’s the most-visited site of its type in the world.

Since 96% of its visitors originate from India, Vegamovies has remarkable scope for expansion in international markets.

Vietnam Also Injects Life Into ‘Dead’ Sites

For similar reasons mentioned earlier, regarding Cuevana3, 2embed maintains its notorious status in 2023. The USTR describes 2embed as a “piracy-as-a-service” provider; it crawls pirate sites for infringing content and then supplies it to other platforms.

When 2embed inserts its own ads, content is supplied for free; when customers prefer their own ads, that comes at a price. When the MPA reached an agreement for 2embed to shut down, its response was less predictable.

“Despite successful enforcement action in July 2023 by right holders and anti-piracy trade associations to shut down 2embed.to, which was run from Vietnam, the site is now operating again using different domains,” the USTR notes. (Nominated as 2embed.me. Related sites include 2embed.cc and 2embed.org)

Reanimating Anime

When the world’s largest anime piracy platform pulled an almost identical stunt around the same time last year, notorious market status was all but inevitable.

“Aniwatch, which reportedly became one of the most popular pirate streaming sites in the world this year, also is reportedly a rebrand of a previously popular site, zoro.to,” the USTR notes. “In July 2023, right holders and anti-piracy trade associations shut down zoro.to, which was run from Vietnam, and thereafter the site apparently was rebranded as aniwatch.to.”

The USTR notes that resurrections like these “highlight the importance of pursuing piracy site owners and operators, in addition to shutting down the websites, in order to target the root of infringing content and illegal conduct.”

Pirate IPTV in a State of Flux

After various enforcement measures paid off, IPTV platforms Chaloos, Forever IPTV, iStar Media, and Media Star, are absent from the 2023 report.

After being listed last year, Globe IPTV – historically one of the largest and longest-standing pirate providers – receives no mention in the report published yesterday. In its place is new entrant GenIPTV, one of the services currently being subjected to unconventional blocking measures at the hands of UK subscription broadcaster, Sky TV.

“GenIPTV is one of the largest IPTV providers in the world, reportedly operating through multiple affiliates to sell subscriptions for access to over 10,000 broadcast and streaming channels as well as a video library of over 52,000 copyright-protected titles,” the USTR notes. (Nominated as genip.tv)

Vietnam-based BestBuyIPTV remains on the list this year as does Shabakaty, an unlicensed IPTV service operated by EarthLink Telecommunications, the largest Internet service provider in Iraq. Spider, based in Amman, Jordan, keeps its notorious status due to its persistent sale of pre-loaded set-top boxes and unlicensed IPTV subscriptions.

After the MPA labeled it a priority target last October, IPTV software solution WHMCS Smarters now appears in the USTR’s full report.

“WHMCS Smarters is a company in India that sets customers up in the illegal IPTV business by building for them a customized ‘over the top’ (OTT) IPTV platform from scratch and providing end-to-end support,” the USTR notes.

“While WHMCS Smarters states that they do not sell infringing streams, channels, or other content or subscriptions, it does sell the software, tools, and services an individual would need to establish and operate his or her own ‘off the shelf’ illegal IPTV business.”

Music, Shadow Libraries, File-Hosting

Having previously been considered priority enforcement targets, stream-ripping platforms flvto.biz and 2conv.com, and fellow music piracy platforms MP3Juices and NewAlbumReleases, are absent from this year’s report. Instead, SSYoutube.com has burst onto the scene after being identified as the most popular YouTube-ripping platform in the world, pulling in an estimated 343 million visits per month.

On the file-hosting front, Krakenfiles (incorrectly listed in the report as Kra n kenfiles) and Savefrom are new additions to the notorious markets list. There’s no change for shadow libraries Sci-Hub and Libgen, but the USTR now links both platforms with relative newcomer, Annas-archive.org.

A copy of the USTR’s 2023 Review of Notorious Markets is available here (pdf). A list of highlighted sites/services, including those listed for counterfeiting, reads as follows:

Torrent Sites

– 1337X
– RuTracker
– The Pirate Bay
– TorrentGalaxy (new)
– YTS.mx

File-Hosting/Cyberlockers

– 1fichier
– Krakenfiles (new)
– Rapidgator
– Savefrom (new)

E-Commerce

– Aliexpress (no longer listed)
– Baidu Wangpan
– Bukalapak
– DHgate
– Indiamart
– Pinduoduo
– Shopee
– Taobao

PaaS

– 2embed
– WHMCS Smarters (new)

Advertising

– Avito

Streaming /IPTV

– Aniwatch (new)
– BestBuyIPTV
– Cuevana3 (new)
– Fmovies
– GenIPTV (new)
– Pelisplus (new)
– Shabakaty
– Spider
– Streamtape (new)
– VegaMovies (new)

Hosting/Infrastructure

– Amaratu
– DDoS-Guard (new)
– FlokiNET
– Squitter (new)

Social Media

– VK
– WeChat

Gaming

– NSW2U (new)

Music

– SSYouTube (new)

Publishing

– Libgen
– Sci-Hub

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

The UK government’s Criminal Justice Bill had its first reading in the House of Commons on November 14, 2023, followed by its second reading on November 28.

A Public Bill Committee is now in the process of scrutinizing the Bill “line by line” and if all goes to plan, the Committee will report back to the House by January 30 , in advance of the Bill’s third reading.

The purpose of the Bill is to amend criminal law and, in many respects, it signals positive change. New criminal offenses to prohibit devices used in serious crime, theft, and fraud, such as 3D printer firearms templates, tablet presses, encapsulators, and vehicle concealment compartments, have been reasonably well-received.

Measures against universally despised, SMS spam-and-fraud-enabling SIM farm devices are long overdue, but some believe that criminalizing the homeless for “nuisance” rough sleeping isn’t the type of change Britain needs right now. However, with prison sentences of up to a month on the table, such nuisances can be completely eliminated, in theory for up to a month.

Preventing Online Crime

During the debate on November 28, Home Secretary James Cleverly spoke about the need to tackle fraud in its various forms. Published in June 2023, the government’s fraud strategy revealed that fraud now accounts for over 40% of all reported crime in the UK, with police dedicating just 1% of overall resources to tackle the problem.

“The Criminal Justice Bill contains several new measures to tackle fraudsters and the perpetrators of other serious crimes. We are prohibiting the possession and supply of SIM farms that have no legitimate purpose,” Cleverly said .

On the disparity between police resources deployed and the sheer scale of the fraud problem, Cleverly responded that it’s “not quite as simple as mapping the proportion of crime to the proportion of police officers,” since there’s a need to “upskill investigators so that they can focus on those crime types.”

The Home Secretary added that new tools to fight fraud are also part of the Bill.

“Law enforcement agencies will have extended powers to suspend domain names and IP addresses used for fraudulent purposes or other serious crimes,” Cleverly said.

Are Pirate Sites Among the Targets?

The Bill sees domain and IP suspensions as a mechanism to fight fraud and other crime that has an online component. Pirate sites aren’t mentioned specifically, but the same also applies to many other illegal operations that currently exist, or might exist in the future.

According to the Bill, investigative agencies would be given new power to apply to the court for a suspension order. These would compel third-party entities, involved in the provision of IP addresses or domain names, to suspend or deny access to them for up to a year.

According to the Bill’s explanatory notes, law enforcement agencies and entities responsible for assigning domain names or IP addresses currently operate under voluntary agreements. These rely on alleged fraudsters violating the terms of service laid down by their providers, at which point domains and/or IP addresses can be suspended for those breaches.

While that works in the UK, overseas providers “do not always recognize” informal requests and demand court orders before any suspensions can take place. The Bill addresses this with the introduction of two new orders, one to suspend IP addresses and one to suspend domain names, to be served against “Regional Internet Registries, Local Internet Registries, or Internet Service Providers.”

According to the government, these orders “can be served internationally, to ensure that any threat originating from outside the UK can be effectively tackled.”

Suspension Orders Target ‘Serious Crime’

The Bill says that an “appropriate officer” may apply for an IP address suspension order. The definition covers police officers, NCA officers, HM Revenue and Customs officers, members of staff of the Financial Conduct Authority, and enforcement officers in the Gambling Commission.

Before a court issues an IP address suspension order, certain conditions must be met. For example, an IP address can only be suspended when it is being used for serious crime.

Crime is defined as conduct which constitutes one or more criminal offenses, or corresponds to conduct which, if it all took place in the United Kingdom, would constitute one or more criminal offenses. The threshold for serious crime is when the offense(s), committed by a person over 18 (or 21 in Scotland and Northern Ireland) with no previous convictions, could reasonably be expected to be sentenced to prison for three years or more.

The majority of the defendants in the recent prosecution of Flawless IPTV had no previous convictions. In 2023, five defendants were sentenced to over 30 years in prison for offenses including conspiracy to defraud and money laundering. Over the last ten years, City of London Police has sent letters to pirate site operators ordering them to shut down or face potential prosecution under the Fraud Act and Serious Crime Act.

Relationship Between IP Address and UK

To show a relationship between the alleged serious crime, an IP address, and the UK, one of several conditions must apply. Most center on the definition of a ‘UK Person’ which broadly covers a person with British citizenship, a person living in the UK, a body incorporated under UK law, or an unincorporated association formed under UK law.

A relationship to the UK is established when a UK Person uses an IP address to commit serious crime, or becomes a victim of serious crime for which the IP address has been used. A relationship can also be established when an IP address is used for crime in connection with unlicensed gambling, or when an IP address is allocated to a device located in the UK.

Using the Flawless case as an example, more than one person used an IP address to commit serious crime, while a UK Person (Premier League) was the victim. Even if the defendants had been located overseas, a relationship could still be established due to the victim’s status as a UK Person.

Reactive and Proactive Suspensions

In respect of domain names, the measures are similar but also include a significant proactive element.

“The domain name conditions also cover instances in which domain names could be used for criminality in the future,” the Bill’s explanatory notes read.

“This is due to the criminal use of domain generation algorithms (DGA) to aid their operations. Once the relevant law enforcement agencies understand the DGA, they can identify domains which could be associated with criminal activity in the future and suspend them before they can be used.”

As previously reported , UK broadcaster Sky is fighting DGAs deployed by IPTV providers who are attempting to circumvent a High Court blocking injunction. While that is a matter under civil law, case law establishes that Sky is a victim of fraud, and a UK Person as defined by the Criminal Justice Bill.

Whether companies like Sky and the Premier League will make use of the provisions in the Bill when it enters into law is unknown. What isn’t in doubt is their determination to use any tool that has the potential to reduce the piracy problem.

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

The UFC has promoted mixed martial arts fights for three decades. Today, however, the company is also fighting a battle of its own against online piracy.

Unauthorized views of UFC events have taken off in recent years. The organization is trying to put a stop to these pirated livestreams, but that’s proving to be a drawn-out battle.

Last week, General Counsel Riché McKnight shared UFC’s concerns with lawmakers during a House Judiciary Subcommittee hearing . While site-blocking discussions dominated the hearing , UFC’s comments are worth highlighting separately.

“Watch UFC Free”

McKnight’s testimony describes the piracy problem as widespread and costly. Pirated livestreams can get millions of views and these free alternatives result in lower subscriptions revenues.

The problem isn’t limited to people who record or stream UFC events on their phones. It regularly involves organized crime groups that tap into source signals and rebroadcasts them to profit from the advertising views they generate.

These people also brazenly advertise on social media platforms to attract viewers to their pirate websites, with slogans on social media sites such as “Watch UFC Free,” McKnight notes.

“[T]hey will then post those livestreams and recorded videos to those sites, and those videos will often collect hundreds of thousands or millions of views before they are taken down.”

“Expeditious”

According to UFC, several legislative hurdles prevent the company from being more efficient on the takedown front. They include the relatively ‘slow’ response time to DMCA takedown notices.

Under U.S. copyright law, online services are required to “expeditiously” respond to takedown notices if they want to keep their safe harbor protections. However, the law doesn’t define what the term expeditious entails.

“[Online services] often will claim to us that they are removing content expeditiously even when they allow a livestream to stay up for the entirety of a UFC event or remove recorded content days later,” Knight explains.

It can sometimes take hours or days before online services take action. This is a problem, since the value of UFC recordings and live streams diminishes quickly after the event is over.

The UFC calculated that for each event, it sends an average of 1,173 takedown requests for pirated livestreams and an additional 2,246 takedown requests for recorded content. 26% of the pirated livestreams remained online an hour after the takedown was sent. For recorded UFC content, 74% was still up after an hour.

Instant Takedowns

UFC suggests updating the legislative language to clarify the term “expeditious” as that leaves a lot of room for interpretation.

“This issue can be easily remedied by adding a statutory definition to clarify what ‘expeditiously’ means for the purposes of determining whether OSPs are eligible for a safe harbor from liability based on the infringing conduct of their users.

“Specifically, we believe the law should be clear that, for live events specifically, ‘expeditiously’ means ‘instantaneously’ or ‘near instantaneously’,” McKnight adds.

Replacing it with ‘near instantaneously’ still doesn’t set a specific time limit, of course. But it does suggest that taking more than a day to process a livestreaming takedown notice is too long.

Repeat Infringers

UFC’s General Counsel points out that more clarifications are welcome. The DMCA currently requires online services to terminate accounts of “repeat infringers” in “appropriate circumstances”. Neither of these terms are specified.

McKnight doesn’t offer a concrete definition but stresses that online services can take stricter actions against people who repeatedly post infringing content. That includes those who register new accounts.

“This could involve more stringent account verification measures, which some OSPs have already successfully implemented to reduce the prevalence of spam accounts,” he notes.

“Future legislation could make clear that it is not enough to simply terminate a specific account and then turn a blind eye when the same user creates one or more additional accounts.”

Site Blocking

The aforementioned suggestions all rely on the assumption that online services are complying with U.S. law, but that’s not a given. The most notorious streaming platforms are designed to ignore copyright concerns.

For that group, site blocking would be a solution. UFC supports the calls from other rightsholders who believe that U.S. law should be updated to allow courts to issue “no fault” injunctions. These would make it possible to compel ISPs to block pirate sites, without making them liable.

“Under this sort of ‘site-blocking’ framework, copyright owners like UFC could address the harm caused by these websites—enabling U.S.-based users to easily view pirated content—without the existing hurdles to effective enforcement actions against such sites,” McKnight concludes.

These suggestions are all noted by the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Property, and the Internet. Combined with input from other stakeholders, it will then decide whether legislative changes are needed.

—

A copy of the full written testimony from UFC General Counsel Riché McKnight is available here (pdf)

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

For a long time, pirate site blocking was considered a topic most U.S. politicians would rather avoid.

This stance was a remnant of the SOPA defeat , which drove copyright holders to focus on blocking efforts in other countries instead, and not without success.

Those challenging times are now more than a decade old, and momentum is shifting. After more than forty countries around the world instituted site-blocking measures, including in Canada, U.S. lawmakers may be more receptive to revisiting this topic.

House Committee Hearing on Piracy

Yesterday, the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Property, and the Internet held a hearing on Digital Copyright Piracy. Specifically, lawmakers were interested to learn about the scope of the problem and the solutions available today.

The representatives heard testimony from four witnesses. Rightsholders were represented by MPA’s Karyn Temple , UFC’s Riché McKnight , and award-winning producer Richard Gladstein . On the other side, CCIA’s Matthew Schruers defended the interests of Internet services.

From the start, it was clear that lawmakers see piracy as a serious problem that requires solutions. U.S. Representative and committee chairman, Darrell Issa, started the hearing by presenting an overview of today’s challenges, from a global perspective.

Pirates are ‘Hosted’ on Russian Military Bases

The committee chairman notes that piracy has evolved from back-alley sales of DVDs to international criminal operations. He specifically mentioned the Vietnamese-operated streaming site Fmovies , while Russian military bases also play a role.

“Many of these pirate websites like Fmovies are hosted on servers that exist outside the United States, currently outside our ability to take them down. This creates unique judicial challenges for enforcement against widespread piracy on such websites.

“In some cases, these websites are even hosted within foreign governments, like the Russian government on military bases, and other enemies of the United States,” Rep. Issa adds.

The Russian reference is interesting as the country has some of the most strict anti-piracy laws in the world today. Throughout the hearing, there was no further mention of the Russian military bases, but the comment may refer to optical disc piracy that took place nearly 30 years ago .

Fmovies, on the other hand, remained front and center at the House hearing.

Lawmakers get Fmovies Walkthrough

With over 160 million monthly visits, Fmovies is one of the most notorious pirate streaming sites. The portal recently rebranded to Fmoviesz but the modus operandi remains the same; people can watch whatever they want, whenever they like, without paying a dime.

MPA’s Senior Executive Vice President, Karyn Temple, illustrated the problem by giving a live demonstration of the website at the hearing.

“Anyone can simply type the Fmovies URL into their favorite browser today and an extremely professional and legitimate-looking site pops up. You can literally scroll through thousands of movies and television shows including this year’s Blockbusters and even movies that have not yet hit theaters.

“You’ll see all of our top-rated Blockbusters and popular films. Here you see coming up Wonka, which won’t be out in the United States theaters until this Friday,” Temple said while browsing through the site.

Temple points out that most of the site’s visitors come from the United States. The MPA tried to take action against the site and encouraged the U.S. Department of Justice to help out but, since Fmovies’ operators are in Vietnam and its servers are in Bulgaria, options are limited.

‘U.S. Needs Pirate Site Blocking’

Several MPA representatives visited Vietnam earlier this year but that hasn’t resulted in concrete enforcement actions either. This means that blocking the site through ISPs, as many other countries do, is one of the only viable options at the moment.

“If we had site blocking in the United States, as we do in the 16 other countries where versions of this site have been blocked already, then this piracy site’s U.S. traffic would have plummeted, protecting us consumers and the US creative sector, while removing the financial incentives for piracy,” Temple said.

“It’s beyond time for Congress to revisit no-fault injunctive relief to combat blatant forms of piracy.”

Why Are ISPs Not Blocking Fmovies Today?

The call for site blocking is supported by other creative industry witnesses, who all describe it as an effective anti-piracy tool. CCIA President Matthew Schruers, whose organization represents several Internet services, was the hearing’s sole dissenting voice in respect of blocking.

“The blunt instrument of architectural regulation is particularly inappropriate for policing subject matter like copyright,” Schruers informed the committee.

“There exists a long history of site-blocking injunctions leading to overreach. This includes examples of overblocking restricting access to thousands of websites, without evidence or process. It is simply not possible to craft a uniquely American, speech-protecting site-blocking regime.”

Schruers stressed that the availability of legal content remains the key option to deter piracy, while noting the availability of less-invasive enforcement avenues that can be explored.

These concerns didn’t immediately convince all lawmakers and U.S. Representative Ted Lieu was particularly vocal. After browsing the Fmovies site on his phone during the hearing, he asked CCIA’s President why ISPs don’t block the site right now.

“I just went on my phone and went on Fmovies and it’s still up. And I can watch Willy Wonka for free without paying for it. Why don’t the online service providers block it right now, like today?” Lieu asked.

“This is such an unreasonable case it is so clearly online piracy copyright infringement and you don’t want your organization and your members to be defending something so blatantly unlawful and unreasonable. So I just ask your members to block that site today.”

Mr. Schruers highlighted that the broadband access providers who can block the site aren’t here today and again stressed that legal availability is important and that less-invasive anti-piracy options are available. That didn’t convince Rep. Lieu, however, who requested the ISPs to be present at a future hearing.

“I ask the Chair of this Committee to call in a hearing with the witness that represents the members that could block this site and block it now,” Lieu said.

SOPA Scars and Instant Takedowns

Committee Chairman Darrell Issa agreed to invite the ISPs directly for a future hearing, so they can explain their position. Meanwhile, it also became clear that the tensions of the SOPA debates more than ten years ago, have left permanent scars.

“I hope we don’t get into another tumultuous, dysfunctional technical fight as we did twelve years ago,” Rep. Zoe Lofgren noted.

The copyright representatives made repeated callbacks to the previous attempt to establish an American site-blocking regime. At the time, there were massive public protests and a broad revolt by Internet companies who feared overblocking and other negative consequences.

These concerns were real at the time but now that site blocking has been rolled out in dozens of countries around the world, they should be reconsidered.

“None of the hyperbolic predictions about the effects of site blocking have come true. Examples of overblocking of non-infringing content, stifling free expression, or deprivation of due process have been rare to the point of non-existence,” MPA’s Temple said.

Mr. Schruers countered by pointing out that there have been overblocking incidents, reminding lawmakers that Spotify was inadvertently blocked in the House of Representatives ten years ago.

All in all, however, the Committee made it clear that something must be done.

Chairman Darrell Issa ended the hearing by mentioning that the import of copyrighted and trademarked goods can be easily stopped by U.S. customs, suggesting that the same should apply to the ‘import’ of pirated goods online through sites such as Fmovies.

“For what’s possible in the tangible world, we want to find a solution in the Internet world. We will not quit under this committee until we do so,” Issa concluded.

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

Consumers who want to watch movies or TV-shows online are limited to the content that they are permitted to see in their home country.

This means that the Netflix or Amazon library in one country can be entirely different to those made available in a neighboring nation.

This is a direct result of the territorial licensing deals the entertainment industry is built on. However, now that people are more connected online, these restrictions are an increasing source of frustration. That frustration can, in turn, fuel piracy.

Many PlayStation users were reminded of these licensing complications a few days ago when they were informed that several purchased movie titles will disappear from their libraries. While that’s a unique situation, it’s quite common to see movie and TV show titles removed from subscription platforms.

No law can force these platforms to offer content indefinitely but according to European lawmakers, it is possible to level the playing field and remove unnecessary barriers.

EU’s Geo-Blocking Restrictions

To counter consumer-unfriendly limitations, the European Commission previously banned certain types of geo-blocking as part of the Digital Single Market reforms. This legislation has been in place for a few years and works well, although video content is currently exempt .

There are ongoing discussions in the EU that could upend this. Current plans don’t call for an end to regional licenses or the adoption of a general EU-wide license, but they do stress that catalog and heritage content should be available in “unsold” territories. Specifically, citizens shouldn’t be discriminated against based on where they live.

The European Parliament’s Committee on Internal Market and Consumer Protection (IMCO) recently put out a report (pdf) in which it sets out several suggestions and recommendations. They include a lifting of the geo-blocking ban exemption for the audiovisual sector.

Expanding to Video Platforms?

The report recommends the EU Commission to launch a comprehensive review of the current geo-blocking regulation and have that completed by 2025. It also carries several suggestions for improvement and expansion of the current rules.

“The data presented in the report suggest that the effects of such an [geo-blocking] extension would vary by type of content, depending on the level of consumer demand and on the availability of content across the EU,” the report’s summary reads.

“As regards an extension to audio-visual content, it highlights potential benefits for consumers, notably in the availability of a wider choice of content across borders. The report also identifies the potential impact that such an extension of the scope would have on the overall dynamics of the audio-visual sector, but concludes that it needs to be further assessed.”

The proposals don’t include the abolishment of all territorial licenses in the EU, and they’re mindful of the potential impact on the industry. Nevertheless, some industry insiders are spooked; the Creativity Works! coalition ( CW ), for example, which counts the MPA, ACT, and the Premier League among its members.

‘Geo-Blocking Restrictions Threaten Video Industry’

According to CW, geo-blocking technology is crucial to the creative and cultural industries in Europe.

“Geo-blocking is one of the foundations for Europe’s creative and cultural sectors, providing Europeans with the means to create, produce, showcase, publish, distribute and finance diverse, high-quality and affordable content,” they write .

Banning geo-blocking altogether would be a disaster that puts millions of jobs and hundreds of billions of euros in revenue at risk, CW warns. At the same time, it may result in more expensive subscriptions for many consumers.

“Ending geo-blocking’s exclusive territorial licensing would threaten 10,000 European cinemas, access to over 8,500 European VOD films and up to half of European film budgets,” CW writes.

“What’s more, over 100 million European fans could pay more to view the same sports coverage, while major digital streaming platforms might be forced to introduce sharp hikes for consumers in many European countries.”

Upsetting The Status Quo

Understandably, the movie industry is concerned about legislation that upsets the status quo. However, the IMCO report doesn’t recommend a wholesale ban on territorial licenses but aims to ensure that content is available in regions where it currently isn’t.

At this stage, nothing is set in stone, so proposals could change. However, the present recommendations appear to seek a balance between the interests of the entertainment industry and the public at large.

Digital rights organization Communia supports the proposals, which it in part helped to shape. The group is concerned about CW’s suggestion that restricting access to content is the “foundation for Europe’s creative and cultural sectors” and hopes that lawmakers will carefully weigh all arguments.

Communia says the report makes it clear that the entertainment industries can do more to serve customers across all regions. This is a conclusion rightsholders are not happy with, the group notes .

“[O]ne of the core insights of the IMCO report, that as a consequence, the adaptation of existing business models to the changing environment is needed both for consumers and businesses is once again at the risk of being ignored.

“Rightholders are seeking to get this conclusion removed from the report because the stakeholders on the supply side of the AV sector have again decided that rather than adapting to and working with consumer expectations, they can rely on their considerable lobby power to preserve the status quo that they have gotten comfortable with.”

Communia believes, however, that there are plenty of options to improve the situation for the general public, without destroying the entertainment industries.

“If done well, ending geo-blocking would provide all Europeans with more legal access to a more diverse offering of AV content and a thriving cultural sector that can finally stop claiming that denying people access to culture is in anyone’s interest,” the group concludes.

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

Signed into law a quarter century ago, the Digital Millenium Copyright Act (DMCA) aimed to equip copyright holders with new tools to protect their works online.

A key element of the law requires online service providers to remove or disable access to infringing content in response to a takedown notice.

The system isn’t bulletproof. Rightsholders repeatedly complain that their content swiftly resurfaces after it’s removed. At the same time, the takedown process is abused by bad actors to censor or remove material in bad faith.

Shopify DMCA Harassment

DMCA abuse is nothing new, but it’s rare for online platforms to take public action against it, let alone take the matter to court. In an attempt to protect its vendors, e-commerce giant Shopify is one of the rare exceptions.

Last month, we reported that Shopify had filed a lawsuit against a “John Doe” who used DMCA takedown notices to remove listings from third-party stores. According to Shopify, the senders of these takedown requests did so without owning the rights.

This alleged scammer isn’t the only one wreaking havoc on the platform. A few days ago, Shopify filed a fresh DMCA abuse complaint at a Florida federal court. This time, the e-commerce platform has a named target; Orlando resident Amir Mokrian, a.k.a Clayton Burnz.

“Defendant Mokrian has repeatedly harassed, and continues to harass, Shopify merchants and Shopify itself through knowingly false allegations of copyright infringement. This lawsuit seeks to halt that misconduct and hold him accountable for the damage he has caused,” Shopify writes.

Dozens of False DMCA Notices

Shopify informs the court that it takes copyright infringement very seriously. The company receives thousands of notices each month and regularly removes shop listings deemed to be infringing. If a store owner is repeatedly targeted, they’re at risk of having their store closed completely.

The e-commerce platform relies on a mix of both human and automated reviews to process DMCA takedowns. This works well in most cases but the process is not bulletproof, as this lawsuit exemplifies.

Using several aliases including “Clayton Burnz”, Defendant Mokrian allegedly sent dozens of DMCA takedown notices to Shopify containing false claims. These requests targeted stores selling snore-reducing mouthguards and footwear insoles over alleged copyright infringement.

However, according to Shopify, these notices were littered with false information. They didn’t include any legitimate copyright complaints but were merely intended to harm other merchants.

Taking Out Competitors

The reason for this behavior is obvious; according to Shopify, Mokrian was running competing stores. By taking out the competition, interest in their own products should rise.

“It is plain that Mokrian submitted his fraudulent DMCA takedown notices for anti-competitive purposes. TeraNue—one of Mokrian’s stores on Shopify—sells snore-reducing mouthguards. Through his takedown notices, Mokrian targeted the same or similar mouthguard products sold by competing merchants,” Shopify informs the court.

“X-Care—another Mokrian store on Shopify—sells foot insoles, the same type of product sold by Rizzsoles.com, a Shopify merchant Mokrian targeted with his false notices. Mokrian used takedown notices not in an effort to root out copyright infringement, but in an effort to root out competition.”

Shopify ended up removing 38 competing products based on these false takedown claims. While these decisions were ultimately reversed, serious harm was done to both the affected shops and the platform itself.

The complaint notes that Shopify was financially impacted by the abuse. The company spent tens of thousands of dollars in personnel time and resources to address the issue. In addition, its goodwill was seriously harmed.

Through the lawsuit, Shopify hopes to be compensated for its losses. In addition, the company asks the Florida court for an injunction against the Orlando resident, prohibiting them from sending any fraudulent DMCA notices going forward.

—

A copy of the complaint Shopify filed at the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida is available here (pdf)

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