Studying can be a costly endeavor. Aside from the party budget, there are books and tuition fees to pay as well.

To reduce costs, some students choose to share books or buy cheaper second-hand versions. Others go a step further and venture onto the dark side, by downloading or even buying ‘pirated’ books.

These cost-saving tactics are nothing new. A few decades ago, copying machines at universities were already duplicating copyrighted works every day of the week. However, with digital books becoming more common, copying has become a breeze. This is a form of progress that publishers are not happy with.

Danish Deterrent?

Textbook piracy is happening around the globe. While enforcement is relatively rare, in Denmark several students have been convicted for selling pirated copies of textbooks. Publishers hoped that these cases would act as a deterrent but there are no signs that this is the case.

Danish anti-piracy group Rights Alliance recently published a new study , conducted by Epinion, which polled the attitudes and behaviors of students towards digital textbooks. In particular, those that are obtained illegally.

There have been several of these surveys over the years, which makes it possible to see how patterns change over time. In this case, things aren’t trending in the right direction. Despite lawsuits and public calls to avoid piracy, students continue to obtain unlicensed books from various sources.

50% Obtain Textbook Illegally

Of all the students that used digital textbooks (84%), half admit to having used at least some ‘pirated’ copies. This number has been relatively stable since 2020 and doesn’t seem to be impacted by recent prosecutions and fines handed out by the courts.

This relatively high percentage doesn’t mean that students are oblivious to the law; 70% admit to knowing that piracy is illegal.

How many books are obtained illegally can differ quite a bit. For some, it’s just a book or two, but one in four of the ‘pirating’ students acquire more than half of all textbooks through unofficial sources. And 7% of these students obtain between 91% and 100% of their books illegally.

Jail Threat Doesn’t Scare Students

Rights Alliance stresses that educational institutions have a role to play. They should put more effort into educating students on the subject, an issue that’s often overlooked.

“There is a concrete need for educational institutions to be sharper in their communication to students in this area,” says Rights Alliance director Maria Fredenslund.

“When management, teachers and tutors on the programs distance themselves from illegal sharing of study books, it has a concrete effect on the social norms within the programs,” she adds.

The question is whether this will make a massive difference. The majority of the survey respondents were already aware of the illegal nature of book ‘piracy’ but continue anyway. Apparently it goes a long way towards saving costs.

This is also reflected in the research, which found that only 18% would consider reducing their illegal textbook habits if they risked jail time. In addition, a lack of support from one’s social circle would only motivate 11% to reconsider.

It’s All About the Money

There is one key element that would sway students to go legal and that is price. The survey found that roughly half of the pirating students would purchase books if prices were significantly reduced.

To convince the majority of this group to change their behavior, prices should be at least 50% cheaper than they are now. This is probably not the solution publishers are looking for, however.

In addition to slashing prices, better access to digital books through official libraries is also mentioned as a solution by many students. Again, this is another way to reduce costs.

All in all the research shows that it will be hard to stop textbook piracy as long as the legal alternatives are considered unaffordable. Prosecuting more people and launching awareness campaigns may convince some to change their habits but, for the majority, it’s all about the money.

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

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

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

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

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

Site-Blocking Returns 15 Years Later

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

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

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

Recording Industry Behind The Action

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bulgarian ISPs Fight Back

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

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

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

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

ISPs Required to Block Pirate Bay and Zamunda

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

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

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

Industry Groups Stay Positive

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Internet provider Cox Communications has been on the sharp end of several piracy lawsuits in recent years.

The biggest hit came four years ago when the Internet provider lost its legal battle against a group of major record labels.

$1 Billion Appeal

A Virginia jury held Cox liable for pirating subscribers because it failed to terminate accounts after repeated accusations, ordering the company to pay $1 billion in damages to the labels. This landmark ruling is currently under appeal .

As part of the appeal, Cox informed the court of a supplemental authority that could support its position. The case in question is Twitter vs. Taamneh , in which the U.S. Supreme Court recently held that the social media platform isn’t liable for ISIS terrorists, who used Twitter to recruit and raise funds.

The Supreme Court rejected the claim that Twitter aided-and-abetted terrorist activity, because it didn’t “consciously and culpably” participate in the illegal activity. According to Cox, the same logic applies in its case, where the ISP was held liable for the piracy activities of subscribers.

“These same aiding-and-abetting principles animate copyright law’s contributory liability doctrine, and they likewise foreclose liability here,” an attorney for Cox informed the court.

Cox argues that the Supreme Court ruling confirms that aiding-and-abetting liability only applies when parties knowingly took part in the activity. That runs contrary to the finding in its own dispute with the record labels, where “culpable expression and conduct” or “intent” were not required.

“Though Twitter arises in a different context, its reasoning applies with full force and supports reversal of the contributory infringement verdict,” Cox added.

The two cases are indeed quite different, but ultimately they are about imposing liability on third-party services. According to Cox, the Twitter terrorist ruling clearly shows that it isn’t liable for pirating subscribers, but the music companies see things differently.

Terrorists vs. Pirates

Earlier this week, the music labels responded in court, countering Cox’s arguments. They argue that the Twitter ruling doesn’t apply to their piracy dispute with Cox, as the cases are grounded in different laws.

While the music industry certainly isn’t happy with pirates, the Cox case is a copyright matter while the Twitter lawsuit fell under the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act. And for now, pirates are not categorized as terrorists.

“Twitter arose under the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act. Plaintiffs there identified ‘no duty’ under that terrorism statute requiring defendants ‘to terminate customers after discovering that the customers were using the service for illicit ends’.”

“This case arises under the Copyright Act. This Court has already held that an internet-service provider has a duty to ‘do something’ about known infringers,” the music companies ‘counsel adds.

‘Not So Passive’

After establishing the difference between pirates and terrorists, the music companies point out that Twitter wasn’t directly connected to the misconduct. The platform’s role was more passive and its connection to ISIS was more distant than Cox’s connection to its subscribers.

Cox took a more active role and materially contributed to the pirating activities, which stands no comparison to the Twitter case, plaintiffs argue.

“Cox was not so passive,” the music company counsel writes, adding that the Internet provider “set up sham policies ensuring infringement would continue.”

“Cox knew of specific instances of infringement occurring on its network, tied them to specific users, and chose not to terminate those users to avoid ‘losing revenue from paying subscribers’,” the reply brief adds.

How the court of appeal will interpret the Twitter ruling remains to be seen. With $1 billion in damages on the line, both sides will likely do everything in their power to fight this case to the bitter end, and it may ultimately find its way to the Supreme Court.

—

A copy of Cox’s letter to the court, including the referenced Supreme Court ruling can be found here (pdf) . The music companies ‘reply is available here (pdf)

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

Rising interest in pirate IPTV services over the past several years has led to a limited number of people meeting demand while making considerable sums of money.

Technical ability, insider knowledge, and a keen eye for business all help to maximize pirate IPTV suppliers’ profits, but there can be considerable drawbacks too. The problem isn’t making big money, it’s managing to hold onto it when law enforcement agencies take an interest.

Pirate IPTV / Money Laundering Investigation

Published this week, a report from La Presse notes that as part of an investigation into IPTV piracy and money laundering, Canadian investigators from the Sûreté du Québec (SQ – Quebec Provincial Police) targeted Éric Grenier, identified by the publication as a director of companies behind streaming service, Arubox.TV.

Citing police sources, La Presse reports that the investigation began after a group of telecoms companies headed by Bell Canada filed a complaint with police alleging millions of dollars worth of damage to their businesses, attributable to the Arubox IPTV service.

In response, the Office of Criminal Assets Recovery and Money Laundering carried out five searches this week, including one at Grenier’s condo in Laval, another against an alleged accomplice in Saint-Eustache, and a third against a relative of Grenier in Brownsburg-Chatham.

As the investigation continues, police sources report that blocking orders will be requested against Grenier’s bank accounts and condo, valued at nearly $500,000.

At the time of writing, the main Arubox TV website remains online but the status of the underlying IPTV service is less clear. A Stalker login portal associated with Arubox appears functional but since logins are verified by device MAC addresses and valid subscriptions, verifying the status of the service wasn’t immediately possible.

When they sign up, Arubox subscribers are given a URL to put into their set-top boxes in order to access the service. That URL can be found on a completely separate domain that we’re informed may have links to another IPTV service. A source familiar with the situation says that the operator of the second service has connections to the first. A review of messages related to the second service indicates that its operator also received a visit from the police this week, in connection with the Grenier investigation.

Éric Grenier: Controversial and Media Friendly

As part of its own investigation, La Presse recently trawled Grenier’s Facebook account and discovered that he’s been promoting Arubox.tv since at least 2020. The image below tends to suggest he’s a fan of Formuler set-top boxes, widely considered to be among the best IPTV devices available, even if the Z8 model is a little outdated.

Grenier Advertising IPTV Boxes

This image from social media represents just the tip of a very large media iceberg that has kept Grenier in the public eye for years.

Know locally as the ‘Quebec Hugh Hefner’ due to his links with the adult industry, Grenier’s ownership of a strip club and appearances on a Canadian reality TV series sit alongside claims in the media, citing police sources, of alleged connections to a Hells Angels motorcycle club.

All of these pale into insignificance in light of a story published in the Montreal Gazette in 2014 . It features a computer containing 10kgs of a highly illegal substance, the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration, 10kgs of a less-expensive replacement substance, and an alleged loss to Grenier of $500K.

No set-top boxes were involved back then but nobody wants to go too hard, too soon.

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

Pirate sites come and go, often without being noticed by the public at large. That was certainly not the case when RARBG said its goodbyes yesterday.

The popular torrent site had millions of daily users spread across several domain names. This included the flagship .to domain which currently displays a farewell message .

After a brief intermezzo, many users simply began their search for alternatives, perhaps unaware that the effects of RARBG’s shutdown go beyond the site itself, leading to a much broader impact, including on popular ‘alternatives’.

RARBG Releases & Tracker

On the surface, RARBG looked like any other torrent site but it was one of the few platforms to release a steady stream of fresh content. All pirated movies and TV-shows come from somewhere and RARBG acted as a key bridge between scene sources and the public at large.

This content was picked up by RARBG’s bots from external sources before being posted on the site itself. ExtraTorrent’s in-house release groups worked in a similar way, including under the ‘ETTV’ label, before shutting down last year due to a lack of funds .

The absence of new releases is likely to make the overall piracy ecosystem more vulnerable. The same can also be said for RARBG’s dedicated tracker, which was also pulled offline yesterday, abruptly terminating millions of connections. And it doesn’t end there.

Torrent and Streaming Sites Feel the Pain

With another popular source of pirate movie and TV-show releases gone, the piracy supply side is shrinking. The vast majority of public torrent sites don’t have their own release channels. Instead, they relied on external parties such as RARBG.

This equally applies to direct download sites and streaming portals. While pirate streaming sites have become much bigger than their torrent peers in recent years, their movie and TV-show libraries can often be traced to torrent sources.

There are still alternative sources available, for now, but with RARBG gone the choices are more limited. This means there will be considerable pressure on the remaining suppliers, to say the least.

In addition to the typical pirate sites, RARBG links also appeared in dedicated pirate channels on platforms such as Telegram. These no longer work. The same also applies to users of software such as Sonarr, for whom RARBG was a popular source too.

From the Ashes?

The above may sound grim but it does illustrate the important position RARBG held in the piracy scene. That said, pirates have shown to be resilient in the past so there will likely be others willing to take the risk and fill the void.

Those will include copycats who will try to take over the RARBG brand. The same happened in the past with EZTV, YTS, KickassTorrents and Torrentz, with various levels of success.

Things aren’t getting any easier though. In its farewell message, RARBG summed up several reasons for shutting down. Aside from tragic personal issues, they included rising hosting costs and a decline in revenue. That’s becoming a trend too.

Inflation…

While we haven’t seen inflation mentioned as a reason to shut down a pirate site before, financial struggles are prevalent. As mentioned earlier, ETTV cited the same reason to close shop last year and others went before them .

So what about the sites that remain? Speaking with TorrentFreak, the operator of LimeTorrents mentions that the site has no plans to stop but they confirmed that rising hosting costs and low adverting revenues are indeed a real concern.

That said, inflation and other cost-related issues also work in favor of pirate sites, the site’s operator mentioned. After all, legitimate platforms such as Netflix and Disney+ cost money, while torrent sites are free and offer more content.

All in all, we can conclude that the broader piracy ecosystem has lost a key player that was much more than just another torrent site. While others could take its place, if they are willing to take the risk, the loss of RARBG is undoubtedly a considerable setback.

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

The shock closure yesterday of one of the world’s oldest and most reliable torrent sites ranks as one of the biggest surprises in recent years.

Founded in 2008, RARBG had a reputation for taking the fundamentals seriously. The site offered the usual spread of movies and TV shows, available in various qualities and numerous file sizes. The site didn’t cover every single release but when trawling the archives, it certainly felt like it might.

Consistent, Organized, Predictable

RARBG also became known for consistently offering subtitles for most movie and TV show releases. Long before legal streaming services made any serious attempt, RARBG’s curation of subtitles helped the deaf enjoy films again, without any of the frustrations associated with mislabeled files and out of sync releases.

In common with other torrent sites operating publicly, most RARBG users downloaded their files and headed for the hills. For the majority, seeding was either a dirty word, one they’d never heard before, or perhaps didn’t understand. Hit-and-run rates of 98%+ showed the scale of the problem but on RARBG, a lack of public seeders rarely presented a problem.

As if by magic, a single seed would often pop up when people needed one most, meaning that incomplete torrents were a rare occurrence. At least until yesterday.

Torrented Back to Life?

With RARBG’s indexes gone and trackers offline, the file-sharing scene may never be the same again. It will continue, of course, but filling that type of gap at scale, with the same level of accessible reliability, won’t be easy to pull off.

And then there’s the not insignificant loss of RARBG’s content indexes. With releases meticulously labeled and then tagged by genre, actor, director and more, replacing something like that in the public torrent scene would take considerable effort, if anyone could summon up the motivation to even try.

In short, an otherwise ordinary Wednesday offered nothing when it began, yet still took everything away from RARBG users in the space of a few hours. Whether the middle of the week had second thoughts is unclear but a few hours ago, the keys to much of the RARBG torrent network suddenly reappeared online in an unexpected format.

Yo! Magnets!

While RARBG supplied users with .torrent files to download content via BitTorrent clients, the site also offered magnet links, accessible by clicking the magnet-shaped icons next to each release.

For those with torrent clients configured to accept magnet links, transfers took place much like regular torrents, largely because magnet links provided by RARBG received help from RARBG’s regular BitTorrent trackers.

The beauty of magnet links is that the lack of trackers when a site disappears doesn’t stop users from downloading content. Furthermore, .torrent files are bulky, unlike magnet links which are easily represented in a line of plain text. In short, regular text files can contain thousands of magnet links in a just a few kilobytes. As such, they are easily shared online.

A few hours ago two repositories appeared on GitHub with zero fanfare. Created by user ‘2004content’, the first repo labeled ‘rarbg’ contains nothing. The same can’t be said about the other.

Three Ordinary .TXT Files

The three files of interest are basic .txt files. When loaded into a capable text editor, the first file (moviesrarbg.txt) appears to contain magnet links related to RARBG movie releases; a staggering 117,233 releases overall.

The remaining pair (showsrarbg.txt and showsothers.txt) appear to contain magnet links related to TV shows and series previously released on RARBG. The first contains 12,969 magnet links but the second contains considerably more – 137,669 magnet links collectively referencing the same number of releases.

Random Text or The Real Deal?

Verifying that these magnet links are indeed what they claim to be presents two key problems. The first is the huge number of links versus sensibly available resources. The second comes with a standard reminder; downloading and sharing copyrighted content, even using a magnet link, is illegal almost everywhere.

As a result, we don’t recommend the use of the magnet links listed in the text archives, and certainly not for infringement purposes. However, through the use of a small number of specialist tools, it is possible to obtain detailed metadata from a magnet link, without downloading or sharing any of the referenced content, infringing or otherwise. For a general idea of how someone might go about that, the TorrentParts project on GitHub may be of interest, although other techniques do exist.

We can’t confirm that the text file data references the entire RARBG movie/TV show collection but with some magnet links now confirmed as referencing the material they claim to reference, it’s certainly possible that a large part of RARBG’s video indexes appear in this three file collection on GitHub.

Update: RARBG Shutdown is a Major Blow to the Pirate Ecosystem

Image credit

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

Founded in 2008, RARBG evolved to become a key player in the torrent ecosystem.

The site didn’t only attract millions of monthly visitors from all over the globe, it was also a major release hub, bridging the gap between the Scene and the broader pirate public.

Today, the site’s fifteen year run unexpectedly came to an end. In a message posted on the site’s front page, the team says its farewells. This message has been separately confirmed by a source familiar with the matter.

RARBG cites multiple reasons behind the surprise decision, including COVID-related health problems which led to the tragic death of one of the people involved. The war between Russia and Ukraine also impacted the team, with RARBG suggesting that it had members fighting on both sides.

“The past 2 years have been very difficult for us – some of the people in our team died due to covid complications, others still suffer the side effects of it – not being able to work at all. Some are also fighting the war in Europe – ON BOTH SIDES,” the team writes.

The rising costs of operating from data centers in Europe also played their part. And with revenue having trouble keeping up with the rising costs, shutting down the site ultimately seemed the best solution.

“Inflation makes our daily expenses impossible to bare. Therefore we can no longer run this site without massive expenses that we can no longer cover out of pocket. After an unanimous vote we’ve decided that we can no longer do it.”

“We are sorry :( Bye,” the message concludes.

The shutdown also marks the end of the popular RARBG releases, many of which were shared through other pirate sites as well. These high quality releases which, aside from the early days never included CAMs, are among the most downloaded in history.

Today’s shutdown is one of the largest in the history of torrent sites. It’s also the first major closure since the 2015/2016 period, when KickassTorrents, Torrentz, and ExtraTorrent all left the scene.

Needless to say, there will be plenty of copycats who are eager to take over the RARBG brand. However, the real RARBG is no more.

—

Update: Over 267,000 Movie & TV Show Magnet Links Appear Online

Update: RARBG Shutdown is a Major Blow to the Pirate Ecosystem

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

After well over a decade of pushing back against pirate site blocking applications, many European ISPs now see little value in putting up a fight.

Earlier confirmation from Europe’s highest court, that site-blocking injunctions are legal when they proportionately protect third-party rights, is one of the key reasons for not contesting blocking applications today. In the Netherlands, where ISPs have a strong tradition of resisting site blocking injunctions, a recent application for a dynamic, shape-shifting blockade prompted ISP KPN into action.

Movie Companies Want to Block Lookmovie and Flixtor

In common with similar groups everywhere, Dutch anti-piracy BREIN is a proponent of site-blocking as part of an overall anti-piracy toolkit. The problem BREIN faces is a growing tendency for pirate sites to shift to new domains or receive assistance from proxy and mirror sites, in response to static site-blocking measures targeting specific domains.

Hoping to reduce infringing access to pirate streaming sites Lookmovie and Flixtor, while reducing the potential for domain switching and proxy/mirror site countermeasures, BREIN took legal action at the Court of Rotterdam in April against ISP and fiber optic network provider, KPN.

When presenting its case for the blocking of Lookmovie, BREIN explained that the platform provides free access to movies and TV shows, including some with Dutch subtitles, without any permission from copyright holders.

As the traffic statistics for just one of its domains show, the site receives millions of visitors overall according to SimilarWeb data.

BREIN notes that users who prefer not to watch ads on Lookmovie can pay a fee to avoid them, either on the site’s main domain, 13 others it also operates, or via a network of proxy and mirror sites.

BREIN’s Request For a Dynamic Injunction

BREIN’s case against Flixtor is broadly the same, with the anti-piracy company noting that the site is readily accessible from any of 11 domains and an unknown number of proxy and mirror sites.

Countering Perpetual Domain and IP Changes

To counter the growing phenomena of sites switching to domains and IP addresses not specifically mentioned in injunctions, BREIN asked KPN to comply with the terms of a dynamic injunction. When sites deploy new IP addresses, new domains or use sub-domains, dynamic injunctions are usually able to cope.

BREIN believed that as long as any proxy or mirror sites were the same or virtually the same as the originals, KPN would be ordered to prevent its customers from accessing them in the same way it can be required to block the original sites. KPN begged to differ.

KPN’s Site-Blocking Objections

The District Court of Rotterdam’s judgment notes that KPN objected to BREIN’s site-blocking application on several grounds. The ISP took the position that blocking websites is not an effective response to infringement because the infringing websites themselves remain online. As a result, internet users are free to circumvent site-blocking measures using VPNs, for example.

The Court agreed that circumvention takes place but said that isn’t an obstacle when awarding a site-blocking injunction.

“Closing access to Lookmovie and Flixtor by blocking domain names, proxies and mirrors will prevent access to the protected works through those addresses. As BREIN also acknowledges, a blockade does not completely prevent unauthorized calls from protected works, as some internet users will find detours to access blocked websites,” the judgment reads.

“It cannot be ruled out that internet users bypass blockades via VPN connections, but it is plausible that a blockade of the websites will lead to these sites no longer being accessible, at least considerably more difficult to access, for the normal internet user, as a result of which carrying out infringement becomes seriously complicated.”

The Court further noted that since BREIN requested a dynamic injunction covering new IP addresses and domain names as they appear, these alternative routes of access will also be subjected to a permanent blockade. As a result, blocking can be considered sufficiently effective overall..

Are Dynamic Injunctions Overbroad?

KPN further argued that BREIN’s blocking request was too broad, with associated costs and the risk of over-blocking increasing over time as more proxies and mirror sites are added. The ISP also complained that injunctions should be time-limited but the Court wasn’t convinced.

“KPN has been blocking domain names, mirrors and proxies for several years now, and it has not been found that implementation has led to major problems. On the contrary, BREIN has made it clear that it always sends updated lists of new domains to be blocked by e-mail to KPN, after which KPN implements the blockades within a short period, sometimes within an hour,” the judgment notes.

The suggestion here is that blocking may have been automated by KPN and since detailed checks may not be carried out, any inconvenience is minimal. In any event, KPN’s historically speedy response to blocking also helped to satisfy the Court that BREIN’s request for a blocking response in five working days wasn’t unreasonable either.

Dynamic Injunction Granted

After considering the freedom to access information and KPN’s freedom to conduct a business, the Court found that BREIN’s application is compatible with these fundamental rights.

“BREIN’s claims to block and block KPN subscribers’ access to the (sub) domain names and IP addresses through which Lookmovie and Flixtor operate or will operate are therefore granted,” the judgment reads.

BREIN believes the Court made the right decision.

“The measures requested by BREIN are judged to be reasonable; KPN’s freedom of enterprise is not unreasonably restricted. The defense that the blocking of proxies and mirrors would be too broad is also rejected: KPN has been implementing blockades for several years now and this has not led to any implementation problems,” BREIN reports .

Injunction Implications Go Beyond KPN

In October 2021, BREIN and several ISPs – KPN included – entered into an agreement known as the ‘ Covenant .’ Signatory ISPs promised that when a judgment is handed down against an ISP, requiring it to block websites following an adversarial process, the other ISPs would voluntarily comply with the same decision. As a result, blocking of Lookmovie and Flixtor will be deployed across the Netherlands.

Another useful side effect for BREIN is likely to involve Google. As previously reported , when Google is presented with a court order that requires an ISP to block pirate websites, Google recognizes the injunction by voluntarily deindexing the listed domains, resulting in their complete removal from search results, in the territory where the injunction is valid.

The District Court of Rotterdam’s judgment can be found here

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

In recent years, website blocking has become one of the most widely-used anti-piracy enforcement mechanisms in the world.

ISPs in several dozen countries prevent subscribers from accessing a variety of ‘pirate’ sites, often in response to a court order.

These orders often started as basic injunctions, requiring providers to block one or more domain names. Today, many courts issue dynamic injunctions too, allowing rightsholders to add new domain names or IP-addresses, without returning to court.

Dynamic blocking orders are also common in India with courts noting that the flexible approach helps to combat pirate site ‘hydras’. India is also known for another progressive site blocking strategy, one that targets piracy before it happens.

Preemptive Spider-Man Piracy Blockade

This week the Delhi High Court in New Delhi granted a site blocking order requested by Sony Pictures. This injunction aims to protect the upcoming release of “ Spider-Man: Across the Spider-Verse ,” which is scheduled to premiere in theaters later this week.

As far as we know, no pirated versions of the film are currently available online. Sony doesn’t mention any in its application either but expects rogue copies to appear on known pirate sites in the near future. To limit this potential piracy, these sites should be blocked, the studio argued.

The application lists 101 pirate sites including variants of The Pirate Bay, YTS, RARBG, LimeTorrents, Fmovies, Myflixer, 123movies and others. Many of these already share copies of the 2018 film “Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse” and are allegedly “in the process” of pirating the sequel too.

After reviewing the available evidence, Justice C Hari Shankar of the Delhi High Court comments as follows:

“The facts of the case as recited hereinabove indicate that the plaintiff’s copyright in the films ‘Spider-Man: Across The Spider-Verse’ and ‘Spider-Man: Into The Spider-Verse’ have/are in the process of being infringed and violated by the Defendants 1 to 101.”

Mirrors and Copies are Covered

The owners of the pirate sites were alerted to the proceeding last week but it appears that none have objected formally. As a result, Justice Shankar issued an order that prohibits the operators from making pirated copies of the Spider-Man films available to the public.

In addition, Indian Internet providers are ordered to block access to the pirate sites’ listed domain names, as well as any proxies and mirrors that may come online in the future.

“[The Internet providers] are directed to block access to the websites at S. Nos. 1 to 101, as well as any mirror/redirect/alphanumeric websites which appear to be associated with any of the said websites,” the order reads.

This leads to the intriguing situation that ISPs must block domain names, including those that have yet to be registered, to protect a film that is expected to be pirated in the future.

These types of preemptive blocking orders are not new in India. Similar ones have been issued previously and there’s little doubt that rightsholders such as Sony will request more of them in the future.

—

A copy of Justice C Hari Shankar’s order is available here (pdf) . The full list of domain names mentioned in the order reads as follows:

1) flixhd.cc
2) www6.f2movies.to
3) www2.movieorca.com
4) moviekids.tv
5) moviesnation.vip
6) allmovieshub.party
7) 1xbetmovies.bio
8) hdtoday.tv
9) hdtoday.ru
10) 0123movie.net
II) www5.himovies.to
I2) bflix.gg
13) thepiratebayIO.org
I4) thepiratebay.party
15) thepiratebay.org
16) m.thepiratebayO.org
17) thepiratebay3 .to
18) fmovies.llc
19) fmovies.hn
20) fmovies.ps
21) uhdmovies.bio
22) psa.re
23) medeberiyas.com
24) proxyrarbg.org
25) rarbgdata.org
26) rarbgmirrored.org
27) rarbgp2p.org
28) rarbgproxied.org
29) rarbgto.org
30) rarbgunblocked.org
31) rarbggo.to
32) myflixer.vc
33) myflixer.center
34) filmkio.run
35) hurawatch.cc
36) wwwl.attacker.tv
37) cataz.net
38) soap2day.id
39) soap2day.mn
40) soap2day-online.com
41) ww6.soap2day.day
42) ww7.soap2dayhd.co
43) Putlokemew.sb
44) putlokemew.vc
45) putlockers9.live
46) aiofi lm.top
47) watchseries.id
48) watchseries.world
49) watchserieshd.live
50) watchserieshd.ru
51) 123-movies.pics
52) 123moviesite.one
53) arc018.com
54) bolly4u.cafe
55) desiremovies.lat
56) dopebox.se
57) emovtes.si
58) filmywap.com.pe
59) flixtor.id
60) goku.sx
61) grantorrent.bz
62) hdencode.org
63) hexdownload.co’~
64) hindmoviez.wiki
65) katmovieshd.ms
66) limetorrents.lol
67) losmovies.ru
68) membedl.com
69) mobomoviez.fun
70) movierulzhd.wiki
71) movies7.io
72) moviesj oy.plus
73) moviesmod.co.in
74) moviestowatch.tv
75) nkiri.com
76) Old3.rlsbb.cc
77) onionplay.rs
78) primewire.id
79) projectfreetv.space
80) sflix.se
81) solarmovies.win
82) solidtorrents.to
83) swatchseries.biz
84) tamilvip.city
85) terbit2l.art
86) tfpdl.seEmail:
87) Tgx.rs
88) theflixer.tv
89) themovieflix.eu.com
90) thenetnaija.net
91) vegamovies.chat
92) vhmovies.to
93) vumoo.to
94) watchsomuch.to
95) ww1.123moviesto.cc
96) wwl.streamm4u.ws
97) ww4.solarmovie.to
98) www3.yggtorrent.do
99) xmovies8.fun
100) yesmovies.lat
101) yts.rs

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