• chevron_right

      US Piracy Blocking Lawsuit Enters New Phase – Part Public, Part Hidden

      news.movim.eu / TorrentFreak · Friday, 9 September, 2022 - 20:30 · 4 minutes

    blocked After winning three lawsuits against three pirate streaming sites, earlier this year a coalition of Israel-based media companies obtained an injunction at a New York court.

    Every single ISP in the United States was required to block three sites, now and forever, on any domain in existence, now and in the future. Any and all web-based businesses were forbidden from doing any business with the defendants in perpetuity, despite their identities being completely unknown.

    Thanks to public access to court records, it was possible to quickly show what can happen when private companies are handed extraordinary powers. Cloudflare, Google, and others later protested the injunction – not its overall goals as such, but its nuclear approach to enforcement.

    Massive Opposition

    Under intense pressure after openly threatening Cloudflare, the entertainment companies later agreed to more sensible terms in a modified injunction.

    Crucially, all of the proceedings and legal documents were publicly available through PACER. The injunction was exposed as completely unenforceable, but the specific factors that led to that conclusion were equally important. This won’t be the last blocking and/or seizure injunction with a mission to break new ground in the United States, and it’s not over yet.

    Transparency: A Necessary Nuisance

    In ISP blocking cases, ‘dynamic injunctions’ allow new domains to be added to existing orders, to maintain pressure on pirate sites. The injunction initially obtained by the entertainment companies allowed them to have new domains seized, not just blocked, purely on their say-so, no court needed.

    The amended injunction requires the court to be involved, which is good for transparency. Perhaps inevitably, the plaintiffs’ first step before adding new domains was to file a request with the judge to have information hidden from public view.

    Motion to Amend Injunction Because [REDACTED]

    It is not uncommon for entertainment companies to seek privacy in blocking and seizure cases. They want to hide their next move from the targeted sites and don’t want to publicize pirate platforms. What arguments the plaintiffs have here is hard to fathom, thanks to the following letter ( pdf ) :

    Balancing the plaintiffs’ needs with the public’s right to see justice being done can be delicate. On one hand, pirate sites are known to take countermeasures, so the less they know the better. On the other, an unenforceable injunction appears to have been used to seize a domain that was never used for piracy, while the FBI seal was placed on other seized domains, despite no FBI involvement in the case.

    Whatever balancing exercise took place, the court sided with the plaintiffs late last week. When attempting to access most documents filed since then, access is denied by PACER, but at least one entry has been left open.

    Proposed Second Amended Permanent Injunction: Israel.tv

    When attempting to put streaming site Israel.tv out of action, the plaintiffs previously identified Israel.tv, Israeli.tv, IsraelTV.com, Israel-tv.xyz, Israeltv.to and Zira.to as targets.

    The entertainment companies now have a list of “newly discovered or updated domains” to add to the list: Israeltv.se, Israeltv.nu, Israeltv.su, Isratv.ru, Israeltv.am, Israeltv.la, Israeltv.bz, Israeltv.hk, Israeltv.eu, Israeltv.is, Isr.live, Isr.dev and Sup247.me.

    A more unusual addition is https://xn--0tr80i11eca131dda736e5v4b0duga450wha.xn--55qx5d. This is an Internationalized Domain Name and when converted looks like this: https://帕拉赞蒂和科夫曼帕拉赞蒂.公司.

    The plaintiffs have also presented additional domains for seizure in a separate document. That is under seal, so the nature and quantity of domains are both unknown. A separate request contains seven URLs related to an app on Google Play called Israel Radio – TV Version. The plaintiffs want an order that prevents the defendants from operating it.

    The final demands in respect of Israel.tv relate to accounts held by its operators on other platforms including Facebook, various URL shorteners, a messenger account on ProtonMail, an account on crypto platform MoonPay, and a domain that immediately drops an APK on visitors’ machines. Another document, again under seal, contains the details of other accounts but on which platforms is unknown.

    In this action, the plaintiffs are also determined to shut down Sdarot, Israel’s largest pirate streaming service. We presume new measures to be taken against that service are detailed in the docket entries that remain inaccessible but we have no way of confirming that.

    Meanwhile, both of these services appear to be still operating. We’re informed by a source familiar with the operations of one site that measures taken so far are taking their toll but there are no plans to shut down.

    Sdraot recently announced a new login and email verification requirement and is already directing users to a Telegram channel to make payments. There’s a determination to press on but this isn’t ‘business as usual’. That being said, a Google search for ‘Sdarot’ lists new domains on the very first page.

    Related documents here ( 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , pdf)

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

    • chevron_right

      Broadest US Pirate Site Injunction Rewritten/Tamed By Cloudflare

      news.movim.eu / TorrentFreak · Monday, 4 July, 2022 - 16:52 · 5 minutes

    cloudflare When video and broadcasting companies take on their pirate site competitors it’s only natural that once they have their day in court, measures are taken to ensure the sites don’t just simply come back online.

    While even airtight injunctions can’t work miracles, they do make it easier to disrupt a pirate site’s business to the point that it may not be worth carrying on. On the other hand, an overbroad injunction has the potential to disrupt the business of third-party services too, despite them having little to do with the infringement or any reasonable way to predict it.

    Big Injunction, Big Tech Problems

    That’s exactly what happened when several Israel-based video companies won three lawsuits and injunctions to shut down three streaming/IPTV platforms. The injunctions granted extreme powers , from residential ISP blocking to almost any other action the plaintiffs deemed fit to keep the sites offline.

    Almost immediately that led to friction with third-party service providers and the situation only worsened when a concerned Cloudflare found itself threatened with contempt of court for non-compliance. The CDN company fought back with support from Google and EFF and that led the parties back to the negotiating table.

    Filings in the case last week suggested an acceptance by the plaintiffs that the injunction cannot be enforced in its present form. The parties promised to work on a new injunction to address both sides’ concerns and as a result, a new proposal now awaits the court’s approval.

    Original Injunction Undergoes Surgery

    The permanent injunction handed down against pirate IPTV platform Israel.tv began in conventional fashion by permanently restraining its operators (and anyone acting in concert or participation with them) from doing anything in future that would breach the plaintiffs’ rights.

    However, by also stating that the same applies to third-party services that may come into contact with the defendants’ operations, now or anytime in the future, the plaintiffs started rubbing up against companies like Cloudflare, which rejects any idea they’re ‘acting in concert’ with pirates. As a result, the proposed amended injunction looks much less threatening.

    The first change comes with the removal of powers related to enforcement against “third parties providing services used in connection with Defendants’ operations.” And where the injunction initially referred to those “Operating and/or hosting Defendants’ Infringing Website,” it now reads “Operating Defendants’ Infringing Website.”

    But that’s just the beginning.

    Major ISPs No Longer Required to Block Pirate Sites

    Before Cloudflare got involved, the first obviously broad part of the injunction was a requirement for every single ISP in the United States to block the three IPTV services, not just at their current domains but also any they might use in the future. All blocked domains were also set to be diverted to an anti-piracy landing page, as a deterrent message.

    The entire section laying out the requirements and terms for such blocking has now been completely removed from the proposed amended injunction. No ISP blocking in any form is requested but the deletions go much further than just that.

    The original also ordered all third parties “used in connection” with the pirate sites not to do so again, now or in the future. Those third parties included ISPs, webhosts, CDNs, DNS and VPN providers, domain name entities, advertising partners, search engines, payment processors, banks, credit card companies, plus many, many more. That section has also been removed.

    Dealing With New Domains

    The original injunction not only gave the plaintiffs broad powers to take action against the pirate sites’ existing domains but also any new domains registered by the defendants to replace those already seized. In common with other aspects of the order, including those that granted authority over companies like Cloudflare, there was a complete lack of judicial oversight.

    The plaintiffs believed they could issue an order, without supporting evidence, and third parties must comply. In the proposed amended injunction, that is not the case. When the plaintiffs identify ‘newly detected domains’ they will be required to notify the court and request permission to further amend the injunction. When/if granted, that order will have to be served on registries and registrars.

    Previously, the injunction required domain companies to make domains inactive within seven days and configure them to divert to the video companies’ anti-piracy page. That requirement has also been removed while a new section explains that if a registry or registrar wants to object to a disabling order, they are allowed to do so, without being held in contempt of court.

    Continuing the theme that action can be taken against piracy-facilitating domains but only when the court has knowledge and oversight, the proposed amended injunction details an updated list of specific domains, including the following:

    israel.tv, israeli.tv, israeltv.com, israel-tv.xyz, israeltv.to, t2m.is.isr, t2m.ac, isr.dev and zira.to . Newer additions include israeltv.se, israeltv.nu, israeltv.su, isratv.ru, israeltv.am, israeltv.la, israeltv.bz, israeltv.hk, israetv.eu, israeltv.is and sini.la .

    Interestingly, the proposed injunction also prohibits the operators of israel.tv (and related domains) from using specific applications listed on Google Play that facilitate access to infringing content owned by the plaintiffs. The pirate operators are also restrained from accessing a Facebook account (‘TvFromIsrael’) and various other messaging channels previously used to provide customer support and new domain information.

    Entire Section Dedicated to Cloudflare

    With the contempt of court issue behind them, Cloudflare and the plaintiffs appear to have settled their differences. An entire section in the injunction dedicated to Cloudflare suggests that the CDN company is indeed prepared to help the video companies but they’ll have to conform to certain standards.

    Before even contacting Cloudflare they’ll first need to make “reasonable, good faith efforts to identify and obtain relief for the identified domains from hosting providers and domain name registries and registrars.”

    If the plaintiffs still need Cloudflare’s assistance, Cloudflare will comply with requests against domain names listed in this injunction and future injunctions by preventing access to the following:

    Pass-through security services, content delivery network (CDN) services, video streaming services, and authoritative DNS services, DNS, CDN, streaming services, and any related services

    An additional note states that the plaintiffs acknowledge that Cloudflare’s compliance “will not necessarily prevent the Defendants from providing users with access to Defendants’ infringing services.”

    Given the agreement on the terms, the amended injunction will likely be signed off by the court in the coming days. Service providers everywhere will breathe a sigh of relief while rightsholders will have a template for similar cases moving forward.

    The proposed amended injunction documents can be found here ( 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 pdf)

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

    • chevron_right

      Cloudflare & Media Companies Agree to Modify “Power Grab” Piracy Injunction

      news.movim.eu / TorrentFreak · Thursday, 30 June, 2022 - 19:31 · 3 minutes

    cloudflare When United King Film Distribution, DBS Satellite Services, and Hot Communication won copyright lawsuit s against three pirate streaming sites in April, the court gave them everything they asked for.

    In addition to millions in damages against pirate streaming/IPTV platforms Israel-tv.com, Israel.tv and Sdarot.tv, the court handed down the broadest injunction ever seen in a US piracy case.

    The injunction banned every online service provider from doing any business with the pirate platforms and ordered residential ISPs to block their current domains and any that appear in the future. In hindsight, it was a case of being careful what you wish for, because you may just get it.

    With extraordinary power at hand, the media companies (all members of anti-piracy group Zira) began seizing domains but mysteriously asked the court not to enforce the requirement for residential ISPs to block the sites.

    It appeared that someone may have started to push back and after issuing all kinds of orders to a range of online entities, the situation began to deteriorate. After the plaintiffs asked the court to hold Cloudflare in contempt for not following their instructions, Cloudflare fired back with amicus curiae support from Google, EFF and CCIA.

    ‘Power Grab’ Injunction is Invalid

    The briefs submitted to the court are detailed but all agree that the injunction is impermissibly broad, lacking in detail, and contrary to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65 and the DMCA . Perhaps surprisingly, the plaintiffs continued to insist that they knew better.

    Last week they submitted documents to further support their expedited motion for a contempt ruling against Cloudflare. The filing included exhibits claiming to show that Cloudflare’s DNS servers were servicing four new domains allegedly deployed by one of the pirate sites after its other domains were seized.

    None of these domains were specifically listed in the injunction and as Cloudflare previously pointed out, any reading of the injunction that attempted to stretch it to cover new domains would violate fundamental limitations on the scope of available injunctive relief. Acting on the unsupported claims of the media companies with no judicial oversight is not an option, Cloudflare added.

    Then this week, a sudden and unexpected light appeared on the horizon.

    Broadest Piracy Injunction in the US Needs Adjustment

    In a joint status letter filed Tuesday and addressed to Judge Katherine Polk Failla, whose signature authorized the original injunction, the media companies and Cloudflare say that progress is being made.

    Following negotiations the parties say they have reached an agreement in principle to solve their differences. This will be achieved by addressing the core issues that led to the plaintiffs’ attempting to hold Cloudflare in contempt while addressing concerns raised by Cloudflare during a recent conference.

    The specific details are not being made available at this stage but as soon as the agreement is formalized, the plaintiffs say they will file a motion to amend the default judgment and permanent injunction handed down by the court on April 26. An amended order will be presented for the court’s approval.

    The plaintiffs say they will then withdraw with prejudice the pending motion for contempt against Cloudflare while reserving the right to file future motions to enforce the court’s original order or amended order, as appropriate. In turn, Cloudflare has agreed to withdraw its request for attorneys’ fees and costs incurred in responding to the plaintiffs’ motion for contempt.

    It will be of great interest to see how the amended injunction balances the interests of the plaintiffs with those of Cloudflare and, by extension, every other service provider affected by the original injunction.

    Update : The docket shows no indication that the agreement in principle is now a done deal but Judge Failla responded Wednesday as follows:

    “In light of the above status update, the Court hereby deems both Plaintiffs’ contempt motion and Cloudflare’s request for attorneys’ fees and costs to be withdrawn.”

    The plaintiffs’ declaration can be found here and the joint status report here (both pdf)

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

    • chevron_right

      Big Tech Protests US Pirate Site Injunction “Power Grab” Against Cloudflare

      news.movim.eu / TorrentFreak · Friday, 17 June, 2022 - 09:44 · 7 minutes

    cloudflare This April, United King Film Distribution, DBS Satellite Services, and Hot Communication (all members of Israel-based anti-piracy group Zira) won three copyright lawsuits against three pirate streaming sites.

    The operators of Israel-tv.com, Israel.tv and Sdarot.tv failed to appear, so the court held them liable for millions in statutory damages and signed off on an extremely broad injunction requiring every ISP in the country to block subscriber access to the sites.

    While that element was later suspended , the injunction also prohibits any company (ISPs, webhosts, CDN providers, DNS providers, domain companies, advertising services, financial institutions, payment processors) from doing any business with the sites, now or in the future.

    Early June, after seizing several ‘pirate’ domains, the plaintiffs’ informed the New York court that since Cloudflare had continued to service Israel.tv, it had failed to comply with the injunction and should be held in contempt of court. A timeline reported in our earlier article indicated that the plaintiffs’ allegations were likely incorrect, since they themselves had seized the domain around May 26.

    According to a 24-page response just filed by Cloudflare, the company appears to agree, but its opposition goes much further. Broad injunctions that attempt to deal with future ‘pirate’ countermeasures (such as domain changes) may seem reasonable to the plaintiffs, but this case shows that rightsholders can issue powerful orders without any due process or judicial oversight.

    Cloudflare: We Can’t Discontinue Service That Doesn’t Exist

    Our timeline linked above indicates that the Israel.tv domain was likely seized by the plaintiffs on May 26, meaning that it was no longer linked to the infringing activity mentioned in the injunction. In its response, Cloudflare confirms that on that same date, Israel.tv stopped using its services, meaning that there was no action it could take, i.e it’s impossible to withdraw services that aren’t being used.

    “Cloudflare cannot possibly be ‘in active concert or participation’ with Defendants [Israel.tv] with respect to copyright infringement or other prohibited acts on the Website, when no such acts are occurring. The Court should deny Plaintiffs’ Motion as moot on that basis alone,” Cloudflare writes.

    New Domains Aren’t Covered By The Injunction

    In addition to their complaints relating to Israel.tv, the media company plaintiffs go even further in their motion for contempt. They allege that five additional domains “associated with the infringing Website” were created and new accounts were opened with Cloudflare around May 22.

    Since the injunction covers “any domain address known today…or to be used in the future by the Defendants”, they believe that Cloudflare should take action when notified of these “Add-On Domains”.

    Cloudflare’s response states that none of the advised domains are plausibly covered by the injunction, and the unsupported bare claims of the media companies fail to convince otherwise.

    “Plaintiffs fail to provide a shred of evidence, or even any argument, that any of the Add-On Domains are connected to Israel.tv, or that they are owned or operated by Defendants or their agents. Any reading of the Injunction that attempted to stretch it to cover the Add-On Domains would violate fundamental limitations on the scope of available injunctive relief..,” the company’s opposition reads.

    Cloudflare says that under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(d) and Section 512(j) of the DMCA, injunctive relief must be narrowly targeted to specific, identified defendants and their agents, and/or third parties in active concert or participation with such defendants.

    “None of those conditions are satisfied here,” Cloudflare notes.

    Describing the contempt motion as a “blatant attempt at a power grab” by media companies seeking to enforce an overbroad injunction, solely on their say-so, and without any due process or judicial oversight, Cloudflare says the motion “flies in the face of the law” and should be denied for violating basic legal principles.

    For clarity, Cloudflare says it reviewed its records for the new ‘Add-On Domains” and found that none match the subscriber information associated with Israel.tv.

    Big Tech Gets Involved After Cloudflare Was Singled Out

    Cloudflare’s opposition questions why the plaintiffs singled out Cloudflare for a motion of contempt, especially on an “emergency” basis when it was obvious the company hadn’t been servicing the domain for some time (due to the plaintiffs’ domain seizure), so was in effect already complying with the injunction.

    Those questions remain unanswered but new developments overnight indicate that, by obtaining such a broad injunction and then wrongly attempting to hold Cloudflare in contempt, plaintiffs United King Film Distribution, DBS Satellite Services, and Hot Communication have managed to stir up a Big Tech hornets’ nest in the United States.

    In a letter to Judge Katherine Polk Failla at the US District Court for the Southern District of New York, Google LLC says that it was identified in the injunction as a “vendor providing services” to Israel.tv and also as an ISP in the form of Google Fiber Inc. The big news is that Google is in talks with the media companies’ counsel in advance of a potential motion to either modify or dissolve the injunction.

    Google says that it does not want its services to be used to violate an injunction but, as they stand, the injunctions covering the three pirate sites are problematic in both scope and terms.

    “Google is not in active concert or participation with the activities of the Defendants, and for that reason cannot properly be bound by an injunction in these cases,” the company informs the Court.

    Google also holds the same position as Cloudflare, noting that under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure, injunctions need to “describe in reasonable detail…the act or acts restrained or required.” In this case the injunctions do not name the defendants (all were defaulting ‘Does’) so Google says it has no idea who it shouldn’t be doing business with.

    The ‘Add-On Domains’ are also a problem, since the injunctions “appear to contemplate additional domains being added simply based on the unsupervised say-so of counsel for Plaintiff.” Finally, the injunctions only describe general categories of behavior rather than specific activities with respect to specific, identified copyrighted works, a requirement under copyright law.

    “Google is discussing with Plaintiffs what voluntary action Google is willing to take to assist in effectuating this Court’s remedies against the Defendants, while taking into account Google’s concerns regarding both the proper scope of injunctive relief in this matter and the parties against whom such relief may be granted,” Google informs the court.

    EFF and CCIA Request Permission to File Amicus Curiae Brief

    Shortly after Google filed its letter, the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) and Computer and Communications Industry Association (CCIA) requested permission to file an amicus curae brief. CCIA is a large tech advocacy group counting the likes of Amazon, Apple, eBay, Facebook, Mozilla, Nord Security, and Twitter among its members.

    Both EFF and CCIA are troubled by the injunction, noting that the plaintiffs requested a sweeping injunction that purports to bind “hundreds, perhaps thousands” of non-party internet communications businesses.

    “The injunction is impermissibly broad. It is contrary to both Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65 and the Digital Millennium Copyright Act,” EFF and CCIA inform the Court.

    “It will cause collateral harm to numerous Internet services and their users by imposing unnecessary costs and compliance burdens. Plaintiffs’ motion for contempt against Cloudflare is likewise improper. It illustrates the harm that Plaintiffs can cause, and appear ready to cause, through the injunction.”

    Noting that an injunction cannot be a “blank check to fill in” with the details of any business that touches a defendant’s infringing materials, EFF and CCIA say that the plaintiffs have provided no “clear and convincing proof” that any non-party service provider, including Cloudflare, is “substantially intertwined” with the defendants and actively working with them to bypass the injunction.

    The proposed amicus brief broadly aligns with the concerns raised by Cloudflare/Google and highlights how injunctions that aim to be proactive (by covering new domains, for example) can have a chilling effect due to a lack of specificity.

    “Requiring service providers to actively detect and block websites that are not explicitly named in an order, on pain of contempt sanctions, would create a strong incentive for those service providers to preemptively block sites that show any appearance of being affiliated with an enjoined defendant, but in fact are not,” the brief adds.

    EFF and CCIA conclude by asking the Court to deny the motion of contempt against Cloudflare and “treat with skepticism” any future attempts by the plaintiffs to enforce the injunction against nonparty service providers.

    Cloudflare’s Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Motion for Contempt can be found here , Google’s letter here , and the EFF/CCIA proposed amicus brief here (all pdf)

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

    • chevron_right

      Pirate Streaming Lawsuit Plaintiffs Want Cloudflare Held in Contempt of Court

      news.movim.eu / TorrentFreak · Thursday, 9 June, 2022 - 19:54 · 4 minutes

    cloudflare Late April, three copyright lawsuits filed by United King Film Distribution, DBS Satellite Services, and Hot Communication ended in victory for the plaintiffs, all members of Israel-based anti-piracy group Zira.

    After failing to appear, default judgments were entered against pirate streaming sites Israel-tv.com, Israel.tv and Sdarot.tv, with each held liable for $7,650,000 in damages. United States District Judge Katherine Polk Failla also signed an extraordinary permanent injunction that in part required every ISP in the country to block subscriber access to the sites, including any new domains that might be deployed.

    While that element was later suspended following a surprise request from the plaintiffs, third-party service providers including Google, Facebook, Mastercard, Visa, PayPal, Namecheap, Apple, Amazon and Cloudflare were ordered to stop doing business with the sites, hand over documentation and, where applicable, freeze the defendants’ assets.

    Domain Seizures and Third Party Action

    We can confirm that several domains previously owned by the sites have been seized, including some that have never been used in connection with the infringing sites and others that were only used as information resources. Many display a message referencing the blocking injunctions while driving traffic to Screen IL, the official streaming portal connected to the plaintiffs.

    The extent to which all third-party service operators are complying with the injunction is unknown but in new filings at a New York court this week, the plaintiffs single out Cloudflare as especially problematic.

    Cloudflare is “Facilitating The Pirating Activities” of Israel.tv

    The plaintiffs say that in response to a subpoena dated February 1, 2022, Cloudflare provided information on March 28, 2022, revealing that a user related to the domain Israel.tv had opened an account on August 24, 2016. After the injunction was handed down, a copy was served on Cloudflare instructing it to stop providing services to the site.

    Follow-up emails on May 11 and 19 advised Cloudflare of its alleged non-compliance with the order but according to the plaintiffs, no responses were received. Then the situation began to escalate. On or around May 22, the plaintiffs say that five additional domains “associated with the infringing Website” were created and new accounts were opened with Cloudflare.

    “Thus, despite being served with the Order over a month ago, Cloudflare failed to comply therewith. Cloudflare is still providing services that enable Defendants’ infringing Website to operate, and permitted a user (or users) to establish at least five new accounts that configured the Website to use CloudFlare’s services through new domains,” the plaintiffs inform the court.

    “Connecting internet users to Israel.tv in this manner benefits Defendants and quite fundamentally assists them in violating the injunction because, without it, users would not be able to connect to Defendants’ site unless they knew the specific IP address for the site.”

    “Cloudflare Should Be Held in Contempt of Court”

    Describing their motion against Cloudflare as an emergency, the plaintiffs accuse the CDN company of facilitating Israel.tv’s streaming of pirated movies, TV shows, and sports programming, by turning a blind eye to illegal conduct.

    In summary they request an order holding Cloudflare in contempt of court for failing to comply with the injunction, an order compelling Cloudflare to comply, plus an award of attorneys’ fees and costs to cover the costs of the motion which, including declarations and other information, runs to dozens of pages.

    Cloudflare is yet to appear in the matter to present its case but information and documents obtained by TorrentFreak show that the situation is less than straightforward.

    Israel.tv, Cloudflare, and Domain Seizures

    Early May, Cloudflare advised the account associated with Israel.tv that in response to a subpoena, it had provided the data requested by the plaintiffs. That correspondence came with a note indicating that Cloudflare would not be shutting down the site. Before that, however, another event may have muddied the waters.

    On May 26, the domain registrar of Israel.tv advised that a Court order had been served on domain registry Verisign with instructions to move the domain to GoDaddy. Verisign complied with the order and shortly after a new website with the title ** Zira – This site is monitored by the FBI ** greeted visitors.

    Given that the legal processes against Israel.tv and the other sites are being conducted under civil law, the appearance of the official FBI seal on the plaintiffs’ landing page was surprising. Announcing the existence of an FBI investigation seems a little odd and the injunction made no mention of including the FBI seal on Zira’s landing page either.

    In any event, Israel.tv was transferred away from its former owner to GoDaddy on May 26 and later displayed the same ‘seized’ banner highlighted previously, i.e one without the FBI seal present. (Side note: Falsely representing FBI endorsement/authorization is a crime carrying up to a year in prison)

    This presumably means that the Israel.tv domain at the center of the complaint has been under the plaintiffs’ control since May 26, exactly one month after the April 26 order was issued and several weeks before this week’s motion to hold Cloudflare in contempt of court.

    Cloudflare’s position on the new domains that weren’t specifically mentioned in the injunction (but appear to be covered by it) is currently unknown.

    Documents in support of the plaintiffs’ contempt motion can be found here ( 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 )

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

    • chevron_right

      Court Orders For All US ISPs to Block Pirate Sites Have Been Suspended

      news.movim.eu / TorrentFreak · Monday, 6 June, 2022 - 07:11 · 5 minutes

    unblocker In dozens of countries around the world, copyright holders have the ability to take legal action to compel ISPs to block the domains of pirate sites.

    These domain blocking mechanisms were pioneered by mostly US companies seeking to enforce their rights overseas. They sought something broadly similar through the SOPA legislation in the United States but when that failed, no effort was made to test a blocking request in court under existing law.

    As it recently turned out, the ability was there all along.

    Groundbreaking Site Blocking Order

    In 2021, companies including United King Film Distribution, DBS Satellite Services, and Hot Communication filed three copyright infringement lawsuits in a New York district court. Each complaint targeted a single pirate streaming site – Israel-tv.com, Israel.tv and Sdarot.tv – the latter being Israel’s most popular pirate streaming site.

    As expected, none of the defendants mounted a defense meaning they lost by default judgments. The operators of the three sites were found liable for $7,650,000 in damages each but the awards were almost a footnote when compared to the terms of the injunction.

    Proving the naysayers wrong, in one fell swoop the plaintiffs obtained not only three regular site-blocking injunctions but dynamic ones that could adapt to countermeasures. In some countries it has taken years to get these injunctions accepted but in these three cases, the plaintiffs just asked and the judge signed the order .

    “All ISPs…and any other ISPs providing services in the United States shall block access to the Website at any domain address known today…or to be used in the future by the Defendants…by any technological means available on the ISPs’ systems,” the injunctions read.

    Going further, all three injunctions prevent any company (ISPs, webhosts, CDN providers, DNS providers, domain companies, advertising services, financial institutions, payment processors) from doing any business with the sites, now or in the future.

    As piracy-fighting tools go, it doesn’t get better than this in the United States. That makes the most recent developments in the case even more puzzling.

    We Might Not Need Site-Blocking After All

    After Judge Failla gave the plaintiffs everything they asked for on April 26, 2022, a little under a month later they were back in court with a new request to put the brakes on the powers they had been given.

    “Plaintiffs are engaging diligently in efforts to enforce the Orders against the non-party registrars and registries [covered by the injunctions] and the service providers [listed] in each of the Orders,” a letter to the Judge reads.

    “Plaintiffs hope that because of such efforts, Defendants’ streaming of pirated content that infringes upon Plaintiffs’ copyrights will be limited. As such, it might not be necessary to enforce the Orders against the ISPs.”

    With that, the plaintiffs asked the court not to enforce the blocking orders against every ISP in the United States (that they themselves had asked for), but to wait until further notice. Judge Failla had no issue with the request.

    “The Court hereby STAYS enforcement of the obligations imposed upon the Internet Service Providers (ISPs) by the default judgment and permanent injunction Orders entered into in the above-captioned cases, pending further order of the Court,” her order reads.

    Why Throw Away The Holy Grail?

    While it’s entirely reasonable to take the plaintiffs’ statement on face value, that becomes more difficult when placed alongside some of the other issues related to the three cases.

    Israel-tv.com had already been down for months when a site-blocking injunction was requested so if a domain seizure (including future domains) made sense at that time, so would ISP blocking, if only as a backup if fresh domain seizures could not be carried out after any resurrection.

    Israel.tv, on the other hand, has continued operations despite the seizure of several domains, including several .to variants that are usually considered a more stable option for pirate sites. The site has other domains including isratv.ru and israeltv.cn and remains in operation even today. We’ll have more detail on these domains later but we suspect that seizing them won’t be straightforward.

    When it comes to Sdarot.tv, the request not to enforce the orders against ISPs is most puzzling of all. Sdarot is the most popular pirate site in Israel with millions of visitors and has been the subject of legal action for at least six years. In 2016, the plaintiffs in the US case (members of anti-piracy group Zira) were granted an ISP blocking order against the site in Israel, so they’re clearly not averse to ISP blocking per se.

    So why, having just been awarded an even broader blocking order in the US, are the plaintiffs now suggesting that ISP blocking might not be needed, even though Sdarot remains up and fighting?

    “Sdarot’s cyber experts have been preparing for any scenario in advance, right from the start of the trial in the United States. The site will continue to be the No. 1 direct viewing site in Israel (and now probably also in the United States),” an announcement on the site reads.

    History shows that when copyright holders are given powers, they tend to guard them because they often become even more useful in the future. At least in our experience, it is unusual for copyright holders to return to court asking for those powers to be limited, even if only temporarily. Especially given that in this case, attorneys’ fees and costs exceed $73,400 and may never be recovered.

    There are no official entries on the docket but it’s at least feasible that US ISPs view the order as troublesome and may have even raised concerns in private. The same may also be true for CDN providers and other intermediaries.

    The situation may become clearer in the weeks to come but at least as far as Sdarot and Israel.tv are concerned, domain seizures alone have proven disruptive, but certainly not fatal. Whether that will reignite the desire to compel ISP blocking remains to be seen but if that does go ahead, more requests are sure to follow.

    The letter to the court and order on motion to stay can be found here (pdf)

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

    • chevron_right

      US Court Orders Every ISP in the United States to Block Illegal Streaming Sites

      Andy Maxwell · news.movim.eu / TorrentFreak · Monday, 2 May, 2022 - 08:23 · 4 minutes

    stop Earlier this year, producer and cinema investor Moshe Edery fired warning shots across the bows of Mastercard, Visa and American Express for continuing to provide payment processing to pirate streaming sites.

    Edery, the co-founder of Screen iL, an international TV streaming platform aimed at Israelis living abroad, said the companies must be aware that pirate sites are involved in criminal copyright infringement and money laundering. The suggestion was that by continuing to do business with them, the payment companies should also expect legal action against them.

    While that would be a first in anti-piracy enforcement, several Edery-related companies have just won three separate copyright lawsuits in the United States. The judgments and injunctions not only break new ground in the United States but might also represent one of the most significant anti-piracy wins of the century.

    Edery-Affiliated Companies Sued Pirate Sites in 2021

    Last year, companies including United King Film Distribution, DBS Satellite Services, and Hot Communication filed three copyright infringement lawsuits in the US District Court for the Southern District of New York. Each complaint targeted a specific pirate streaming site – Israel-tv.com, Israel.tv and Sdarot.tv – the latter being Israel’s most popular pirate streaming site with millions of visitors each month.

    At least in broad terms, the lawsuits were relatively unremarkable. They followed traditional lines by demanding $150,000 in statutory damages for every copyrighted work infringed and an injunction to prevent infringement moving forward. From the beginning it seemed highly unlikely that the operators of these sites would turn up in court to defend themselves, meaning that a win for the plaintiffs in these cases was never really in doubt.

    Late last week, the plaintiffs won all three lawsuits via default judgments. The court ordered the operators of Israel-tv.com, Israel.tv and Sdarot.tv to each pay $7,650,000 in statutory copyright infringement damages related to 51 registered works owned by the plaintiffs.

    While almost $23 million in damages isn’t an inconsiderable amount, the injunctions handed down in all three cases are something never seen before in a TV/movie piracy case.

    Permanent Injunctions Break New Ground in the US

    In all three judgments, the defendants are enjoined and restrained from infringing the plaintiffs’ rights, including by streaming, distributing, or otherwise making any of their copyrighted works available to the public. They are also banned from operating their websites from existing domains or any other they might use in the future.

    All pretty standard stuff so far – and then the big one.

    All ISPs…and any other ISPs providing services in the United States shall block access to the Website at any domain address known today…or to be used in the future by the Defendants…by any technological means available on the ISPs’ systems.

    Attached to each judgment is a list of US-based Internet service providers that are required to not only block the domains currently used by the pirate sites but any they might use in the future too. The first page of the list of ISPs is shown below but there are nine pages in total covering almost 100 residential ISPs.

    The injunctions also clarify that the list is non-exhaustive, meaning that the orders also apply to all other ISPs providing services in the United States.

    “The domain addresses and any Newly Detected Websites shall be channeled in such a way that users will be unable to connect and/or use the Website, and will be diverted by the ISPs’ DNS servers to a landing page operated and controlled by Plaintiffs,” the injunctions continue.

    It’s not clear how long it will take all ISPs in the United States to comply with the order but the specified landing page is already live at http://zira-usa-11025.org .

    So what we appear to have here are three substantially identical judgments and permanent injunctions that compel all ISPs in the United States to implement whole-site blocking for copyright infringement. Not only that, these are examples of so-called ‘dynamic’ injunctions that are designed to adapt to any anti-blocking countermeasures the sites might deploy in the future.

    These injunctions exist in several other countries already but at least as far as we know, this is the first time that copyright holders have been granted such sweeping powers in the United States. SOPA promised whole-site blocking for piracy but a decade later it transpires that existing copyright law was good enough already.

    Additional Features of the Injunctions

    All three injunctions prevent any third-party company (including ISPs, webhosts, CDN providers, DNS providers, domain name companies, advertising services, financial institutions, payment processors, etc) from doing any business with the sites at their current domains or any new ones.

    All domains must be channeled to the landing page operated by the plaintiffs and all companies where the defendants hold accounts must be located and frozen. To satisfy the damages listed in each judgment, any funds in those accounts must be transferred to the plaintiffs within 30 days.

    The plaintiffs can also conduct additional discovery against pretty much any entity they believe to be connected to the infringing sites (or their operators) to locate more assets.

    If the defendants don’t like the Court’s ruling, they are invited to appeal but having avoided court thus far, that seems unlikely. Whether every (or any) ISP in the United States will contest the injunction is currently unknown, but we can be fairly confident that if they choose not to, these three site-blocking injunctions won’t be the last in the United States.

    All three judgments and injunctions can be found here ( 1 , 2 , 3 , pdf)

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