Over the last quarter-century the piracy landscape has regularly received major blows from which many believed it could never recover.

While in most cases the doomsday scenario never materialized, not all niches are created equally. Those that require a very specific set of skills usually face more complex challenges.

When Nintendo sued the company and ultimately the developers of the Yuzu emulator in February, that was a significant event. When the team settled the lawsuit just a week later, that was not just unexpected.

The speed of the settlement seemed to suggest some type of vulnerability beyond the paperwork, and real enough – whatever it was – for Yuzu’s developers to submit. Comebacks aren’t unheard of or impossible, but coding an emulator is an entirely different proposition than running a website or uploading movies; there’s certainly not much of a crowd to hide in either.

The Big Clean-Up

The law didn’t change overnight when Yuzu was sued but Nintendo’s messaging since then strongly suggests that the company’s tolerance of infringers has shifted. Nintendo started its post-Yuzu clean-up operation in March, targeting numerous projects that until recently had operated mostly without fear of serious disruption.

Then last week, Nintendo made its intentions clearer still when targeting Nintendo-themed addons for Garry’s Mod , potentially a couple of decades worth, according to the team. That fairly turbulent event has just been followed by perhaps the most efficient takedown filed anywhere on the internet in recent years.

A single DMCA notice filed at GitHub triggered a chain reaction that took out over 8,535 Yuzu repos, all in the time it took to send an email.

Had the lawsuit against Yuzu not been filed and settled so quickly, and Nintendo hadn’t articulated its legal position with such clarity, GitHub’s approach to the takedown may have been more difficult. In the event the platform says it contacted the owners of the affected repos to give them an opportunity to make changes, and provided information on DMCA counter notices and availability of legal resources.

Weeding out every last repo will clearly take much more time but given the diminishing returns, that may not be of particular interest to Nintendo. Resources directed towards emerging threats may be considered a more effective strategy, however.

Mig Switch / Mig Dumper Suppression

Last December, rumors began to circulate about an upcoming product, a flashcart for the Nintendo Switch billed as a backup and development device. Branded Mig Switch, it was claimed the device would have enough memory to store several ROMs and would allow users to select which ‘backup’ to play, no soldering required. Mig Dumper, a tool for backing up original games, would appear separately.

Videos and reviews of Mig Switch have been appearing online and while prospective buyers will need a Switch console to use it, in common with Yuzu the plan is unlikely to involve the purchase of games.

As a result, Nintendo is already attempting to remove Mig Switch and Mig Dumper reseller websites from Google search, including those whose screenshots are shown below, along with Nintendo’s takedown text.

At the time of writing, pages on around 75 domains have been targeted for deindexing. Nintendo used DMCA anti-circumvention notices which unlike regular DMCA notices, have no counter notice process available.

Meanwhile, Mig Switch reportedly faces competition from UnlockSwitch, a not dissimilar device with the same functionality that may (or may not) be a clone of Mig Switch, which in turn may (or may not) be a clone of UnlockSwitch.

The people behind Mig Switch alleged that UnlockSwitch is a pre-order scam and their review units are actually Mig Switch devices underneath. Which side to believe, if any, is a personal choice; there’s unlikely to be a patent or registered mark to clear up the dispute.

Things rarely stand still in the Nintendo piracy scene; its ability to recover seems inextricably linked to the size of Nintendo’s user base and the opportunity to generate revenue with the right product. As a result, it’s unlikely that Nintendo’s hardened approach will deliver a terminal body blow at this end of the market anytime soon.

As for the future of the Switch emulation scene, there’s no denying it looks more precarious now than it did in January.

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

Tracking BitTorrent pirates isn’t all that hard since IP addresses are openly broadcasted. With help from Internet providers, these addresses can then be linked to account holders.

ISPs don’t hand over this data voluntarily; they typically require a subpoena or court order before taking action.

In the United States, subpoenas are typically obtained by filing a copyright complaint in federal court against a “John Doe” who’s known only by an IP address. Most of these cases are filed against a single person, which makes it a relatively expensive process.

DMCA Shortcut

In recent years, some rightsholders have used a shortcut to bypass this costly process. Taking a page from the RIAA’s early efforts to identify music pirates in the early 2000s, they used the DMCA subpoena process to obtain the personal details of suspected copyright infringers.

Unlike regular subpoenas, the DMCA equivalents are not reviewed by a judge and only require a signature from the court clerk. While several courts effectively banned the practice two decades ago, the new attempts cited fresh interpretations and conflicting case law , to back up their requests.

This tactic worked as many courts went along with these new requests, requiring Internet providers to identify hundreds, if not thousands of alleged pirates.

It’s not always clear what the rightsholders do with this personal information, as the eventual follow-ups fall outside the court’s purview. Typically, however, rightsholders reach out to alleged pirates privately to negotiate some type of settlement; either monetary, in exchange for information, or both.

Cox Intervenes with Success

Most of these recent DMCA subpoenas progressed quietly, with little fanfare or pushback, but that changed last year when a Cox subscriber filed an objection in court.

The objection triggered Cox Communications to intervene. The Internet provider decided to challenge the use of the DMCA subpoena tool, as detailed in DMCA §512(h) . Similar to the earlier opposition against RIAA’s attempts, the ISP argued that DMCA subpoenas don’t apply to mere conduit providers.

The challenge was fiercely contested by the rightsholders, including film companies Voltage Holdings, Millennium Funding, and Capstone Studios, who argued that ISPs can be required to respond to DMCA subpoenas.

Mere Conduit?

The main contention in this case is whether DMCA subpoenas apply to regular Internet providers. Cox argued that they don’t, as it’s a mere conduit provider. This falls under the DMCA §512(a) safe harbor, which does not require ISPs to take anything down, as nothing is stored by the ISP.

DMCA subpoenas don’t apply to DMCA §512(a) services, but do apply to other providers that store or link to infringing content directly. As such, the movie companies’ request should be denied.

A magistrate judge followed Cox in this reasoning and recommended quashing the subpoena. The Hawaiian District Court agreed, and earlier this year it effectively slammed the breaks on the DMCA shortcut .

The full ruling is much more detailed than the simplified version presented above, but the ultimate conclusion is that movie companies can’t use the DMCA subpoena to unmask alleged BitTorrent pirates. In addition, the court held that any information they had already obtained this way, could no longer be used.

Court Keeps Shortcut Closed

Hoping to change the court’s opinion, the filmmakers swiftly submitted a motion for reconsideration. In addition, they asked to stay the order to destroy any information that was previously obtained, pending a potential appeal.

In the motion for reconsideration, the movie companies argued that Cox and other ISPs are not just mere conduit providers under DMCA §512(a) ; they would also fall under DMCA §512(d) , as they can remove or disable ‘references or links’ to infringing content.

If this argument succeeds, a DMCA subpoena would be valid, as these do apply to services that fall under DMCA §512(d) .

The movie companies used various arguments to make their case. For example, they argued that IP addresses are in themselves “references or links to infringing material” which can be disabled through null-routing. In addition, Cox can respond to takedown notices by implementing filters or blocking ports.

The court reviewed these reconsideration arguments but didn’t change its conclusion. While null-routing would work, the measure goes far beyond disabling “access to infringing material” and is therefore not authorized by the DMCA.

“Null routing a subscriber’s IP address is not equivalent to ‘remov[ing], or disabl[ing] access to’ links to infringing material or activity, because null routing a user’s IP address has the outsize effect of terminating that address’s connection to the network,” the court writes.

The same applies to filtering techniques and port blocking, which go further than directly addressing alleged copyright infringements.

“[T]his argument would fail for the same reasons as Petitioners’ ‘null routing’ argument—whether ISPs can in fact ‘remove, or disable access to’ infringing material or not, it would not change the court’s interpretation of §512(d).”

The full motion for reconsideration includes several other attempts to classify Cox as more than a mere conduit provider, but these all fail. Ultimately, the court denied the motion for reconsideration, keeping the DMCA shortcut closed.

Piracy Settlements and User Data

The order is a setback for the rightsholders and also presents a new problem. The movie companies previously used the subpoena to identify Cox subscribers, and already settled with some of them.

Since the court ordered all information from the subpoena to be destroyed and returned, the movie companies fear that Cox will delete all subscriber data, while they still have the option to appeal.

In addition, the movie companies used settlements to obtain testimony from subscribers on their piracy habits, which they would like to use as evidence against pirate sites. If the settlement data is deleted, that evidence can no longer be used.

“If Petitioners destroy this information, their legal proof for asserting legal relief against the piracy website and the subscriber data will be lost,” the movie companies argued, asking the court to stay this ‘destruction’ order.

The movie companies don’t mention any pending lawsuits against pirate sites but they previously identified “watchmovierulz” and “piratebay” as sites that were mentioned as part of a settlement.

The court reviewed the arguments but didn’t change its order. The court notes that Cox already agreed to retain the contested subscriber data pending further appeals, so that will not be lost.

The court further clarified that all pending settlement discussions have to end immediately. In addition, the movie companies can’t use the evidence obtained from earlier settlements in potential lawsuits against pirate sites.

“Petitioners may maintain records of, for example, correspondence and binding settlement agreements with subscribers, but may not continue to seek settlement with any subscriber who has not yet concluded an agreement, and may not use information received from subscribers as evidence in litigation, e.g., against piracy websites.”

All in all, the court’s latest order is another setback for the movie companies but it’s not the end. The filmmakers have already indicated that they plan to appeal the case.

Needless to say, this could prove to be a crucial legal battle for copyright holders, Internet providers, and anyone accused of pirating content via BitTorrent going forward. At the same time, it may also cast doubt on how DMCA subpoenas are used against other services, such as Cloudflare and domain registrars.

—

A copy of the Hawaiian District Court’s order denying the motion for reconsideration, as well as the motion to stay, is available here (pdf)

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

In a world where there’s always someone telling people what to do, Garry’s Mod is a breath of fresh air. Launched in 2006, the sandbox game has no goals; just hand over $9.99 to Steam, jump in, and do whatever you like.

With the benefit of hindsight, some fans may have taken that a little too literally. At the time of writing, Garry’s Mod workshop content uploaded by users over many years, is being systematically taken down in response to takedown notices filed by Nintendo.

“This is an ongoing process, as we have 20 years of uploads to go through. If you want to help us by deleting your Nintendo related uploads and never uploading them again, that would help us a lot,” the Facepunch Studios announcement reads.

The team don’t seem especially upset and are taking everything in their stride. Nintendo has a reputation for taking action against content featuring its characters and artwork so removing it now is the right thing to do.

“Honestly, this is fair enough. This is Nintendo’s content and what they allow and don’t allow is up to them. They don’t want you playing with that stuff in Garry’s Mod – that’s their decision, we have to respect that and take down as much as we can,” the announcement adds.

DMCA Notices Aren’t Real, or Even Sent By Nintendo, Some Claim

Normal service will be restored shortly, but some fans may still need convincing regarding recent events. They believe that some type of scammer, probably not even connected to Nintendo, has been using bogus notices to take content down for quite some time.

Mindful that Garry and the team needed to be aware of that, so that nothing gets taken offline unnecessarily, attracting their attention became a priority this week.

As the image from X shows, a few hours after being alerted, investigations ended with the conclusion that the takedowns were legitimate. Yet for some, that still wasn’t good enough. Over the past few months there have been reports of bogus DMCA notices claiming to have been sent by Nintendo, containing allegedly similar fictitious claims. Many were resurrected this week after more than three years, contributing to the chaos.

In some cases, users simply expressed sadness or sympathy for Garry and the team. In many, many others, passions and frustrations proved too much. Instead of the usual blanket bitterness towards Nintendo, Garry’s X account filled up with demands for evidence, rock-solid proof that Nintendo really was to blame. Some even fired off accusations that no work had been done to get to the bottom of the crisis.

In a post to X, Garry addressed the “ it’s fake ” guys by posing five questions, all of them related to a domain name referenced in one or more of the takedown notices. The skeptics believe that the domain mm-nintendo.com is fake; Nintendo ‘always’ use a different domain, and domain details here are different to those used elsewhere, etc.

We’ve seen more than our fair share of bogus notices in the past but since these notices don’t appear to have been shared in public, determining whether they’re real or fake simply isn’t possible.

Since Garry is on record saying that they’re real, there’s no obvious reason to question that. It shouldn’t come as a big surprise that developers can become quite attached to their projects and the communities that support them; removing content for no reason isn’t something they do lightly. So whether real or fake, voluntarily or under duress, a decision has clearly been made to say goodbye to content that, in real terms, amounts to a liability.

That being said, let’s squeeze the domain mm-nintendo.com and see what comes out.

Genuine or a Big Fat Phoney?

Finding takedown notices featuring the domain mm-nintendo.com wasn’t difficult. The pair shown below seem fairly typical; they both use notice@ in their email addresses and were sent to ISPs asking for content to be taken down.

Similar notices dated 2016 , 2017 , and 2018 , fail to raise any obvious red flags and since the first and last were processed by GitHub, people can be confident they received considerable scrutiny.

A similar notice sent to GitHub in 2020 took content down using the DMCA. In other parts of the notice, takedowns were requested under trademark law .

At this point, it’s worth highlighting something that all of these notices have in common: not a single one targets pirated copies of Nintendo games. Instead, they all target audiovisual works, images, and fictional character depictions, to which Nintendo owns the rights. It’s a trend that runs through all similar notices.

A 2019 takedown notice sent to itch.io , also featuring the email address notice@mm-nintendo.com, displays the same features as another sent to Sankakucomplex in 2019 . No games piracy in sight, only alleged infringement in characters, artwork, and audiovisual works.

It doesn’t seem unreasonable to raise a theory at this point; is it possible that Nintendo uses the mm-nintendo.com domain when takedown notices target characters, artwork, and audiovisual works, in cases where specific expertise is necessary?

MarkMonitor (MM for short?)

There’s no direct evidence to show that the MM in mm-nintendo.com stands for MarkMonitor. However, there’s plenty of evidence to show MarkMonitor has connections to Nintendo. The domain was registered through MarkMonitor in September 2016 and then updated somewhat coincidentally this Wednesday when the Garry’s Mod controversy began.

The most obvious change is the prominence of the email address brandprotection@mm-nintendo.com before the update. MarkMonitor doesn’t manage all 6,431 domain names currently listed under Nintendo of America, but it has provided brand protection services for some of the biggest names in business.

When Apple worked with MarkMonitor back in 2013, records show the company operated the domain mm-apple.com. While that domain has long since expired, mm-microsoft.com is very much alive and just like mm-nintendo.com, redirects to its owner’s main domain.

Other domains registered through MarkMonitor and used for brand protection over the years, probably behaved in much the same way; mm-velcro.com, mm-walmart.com, mm-loreal.com, and mm-nissan.com, for example.

So Real or Fake?

There seems no doubt that the domain mm-nintendo.com a) actually exists b) is used for brand protection purposes and c) isn’t used often or even at all for regular DMCA takedown work. That leads to the final item, d) the domain is different because it has a specific purpose.

It’s possible that brand protection matters are handled by a dedicated Nintendo department and/or MarkMonitor itself, which also has an office in the UK. Perhaps the image below, uploaded on Thursday, offers a few more clues. Just don’t venture too close to the edge.

Whether the DMCA or similar takedown notices sent to Garry and the team are legitimate is best judged by those who have seen them. Based on the above, however, his claim – that the notices are official – should really be the last word on the matter.

As for the other ‘fake’ notices previously sent that also mention the mm-nintendo.com domain, only a close review of each could determine whether they’re genuine and/or accurate. When everything is said and done, however, perhaps the most important question is whether they target obviously Nintendo-like characters or imagery.

From what we’ve seen, most seem to do just that.

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

Read 13 remaining paragraphs | Comments

Read 5 remaining paragraphs | Comments

England is widely regarded as the ‘home of football’ and the Premier League is its top competition, drawing hundreds of millions of viewers from all over the world.

Aside from the sportive stakes, the Premier League also has a vested interest in selling broadcast rights. These rights generate billions of pounds in revenue per year; a staggering amount unmatched by any other football league.

Broadcasters who secure these rights typically recoup their investment through the public, often in the form of subscriptions. However, not all football fans are willing to play this game and some seek out free or cheaper alternatives in the form of pirate streaming platforms.

In recent years, the Premier League has tried several legal avenues to tackle the piracy problem. In addition to obtaining blocking orders in multiple countries, the organization has been a driving force behind several lawsuits, some of which resulted in prison sentences .

Shutting down a pirate operation is always the preferred outcome for rightsholders, but it’s more easily said than done. Operators of streaming sites and services are typically aware of the risks and do their best to remain anonymous.

Premier League Takes Aim at GoDaddy Customers

In an attempt to lift this veil, the football organization went to a California federal court this week, hoping to discover the identities of operators connected to more than two dozen domain names.

The legal request isn’t targeted at the streaming sites directly. Instead, the Premier League requests a DMCA subpoena to compel domain registrar GoDaddy to hand over all information it holds on the operators. This doesn’t have to but might result in useful intel.

Domain names mentioned in the request (full list below) include live-kooora.com, 30.tv, live4.kooora-gooal.com, fctvlive.com, and soccertv4k.com. Some of these have a few hundred domain names, while others have several millions of monthly visits.

In addition, the Premier League requests information on several backend domains connected to the popular pirate streaming services EVPad and SVI Cloud. These two platforms are particularly popular in South East Asia and were previously called out as “notorious markets.”

EVPad, for example, was described as an “ extremely sophisticated ” pirate streaming service.

“A product purchased on behalf of the Premier League was found to provide access to over 1,700 channels, including 75 offering live sports broadcasts. The operators have been very careful to hide their location and identities, Premier League links them to Hong Kong and China.”

Identifying Pirates and More?

Through the requested DMCA subpoena, the Premier League hopes to gather more information on the people behind the sites and services.

Among other things, the football league asks GoDaddy for information that can identify people connected to the domains. This includes names, addresses, telephone numbers, and email addresses, payment information, and other account details.

Aside from the subpoena request, the Premier League sent a letter directly to GoDaddy, asking the domain registrar to remove or disable access to the infringing content. If not, it is expected that these sites will continue to broadcast similar pirate streams throughout the rest of the season.

At the time of writing, many of the domains and services listed in the application remain online. GoDaddy typically doesn’t take domains offline without a court order, so that doesn’t come as a surprise.

That said, if the DMCA subpoena is granted, GoDaddy will hand over the requested account holder information. These types of subpoenas only require a signature from a court clerk, so this will likely move forward.

Whether any of the information is usable to the Premier League is another question. Many pirate site owners use ‘inaccurate’ domain registration data and, since GoDaddy accepts cryptocurrency payments, the financial trail might run dead as well.

Update: The subpoena was signed by a court clerk.

—

The subpoena request and the associated paperwork, filed at a California federal court, is available here ( 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 ).

A full list of all the domains mentioned can be found below. The request below includes several subdomains.

Websites

– live-kooora.com
– 5koora.live-kooora.com
– mpm24hd.com
– fctvlive.com
– koora-live.io
– yalla-shoot-as.com (redirects to yyallashoot.live)
– tarjetarojatvenvivo.net
– yalla–live.net
– kooora4lives.io (redirects to koora4live.ai)
– futbollibretv.me (redirects to futbollibretvhd.me)
– doomovie-hd.com (redirects to doomovie-hd.pro)
– streamlive7.com (redirects to match.fctvhd.com)
– live4.kooora-gooal.com
– 30.tv
– koooralive-tv.com (redirects to kooralive-tv.io)
– dooball2you.com
– dooballx.com
– soccertv4k.com
– futebolgratis.net
– baadooball.com
– dooballfree24hr.com
– herodooball.com
– kora-live-new.com
– kora-livee.com
– koora–live.com
– bein–match.com (redirects to tv.bein-match.pro)

SVI Cloud

– broker.6868a.cc
– 6868b.cc
– vpic.6868c.cc
– playback.f666666.xyz

EVPad

– appindex.google10sv.com
– v10js.google144.com
– sx.dl1717.com
– dlt.6868nbtc.com
– findpic.00005555.cc
– tm1.hdtvvip.com
– cdn_pic.0168861.com

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

Without doubt, Reddit is one of the most popular user-generated content sites that exists on the Internet today.

Last month, the community-driven news and discussion platform went public and, with a market cap of more than $6 billion, immediately became one of the larger tech players.

While publicly traded companies operate under a different ruleset than private ones, Reddit remains committed to its transparency efforts. A few hours ago, the company released its latest transparency report detailing the actions it took in the second half of 2023.

779,628 ‘Infringing’ Items Flagged

At TorrentFreak, we are mostly interested in copyright-related actions. In recent years, we have seen an increase in copyright takedown notices on Reddit, partly driven by the platform’s growth. In the first half of 2023, rightsholders requested the removal of nearly a million items, which was an all-time record.

During the second half of the year, this upward trend reversed. Reddit reports that rightsholders flagged 779,628 items between July and December, an 18% decrease compared to the first half of the year.

As shown above, not all of these takedown requests resulted in action. Reddit removed 69% of the reported items, which is the lowest removal percentage of the past two years. This logically means that little over half a million items were removed.

The high rejection rate might suggest that rightsholders’ takedown requests are too broad. However, most takedowns are rejected simply because the content has already been removed. In 29,143 cases, Reddit concluded that there was no infringement; other, less common reasons, include suspected fraud and fair use.

Copyright-Related User Bans

Thus far, there is nothing to show that Reddit’s decision to go public had a major impact on its copyright takedown policies. That said, the company does signal a significant increase in copyright-related user bans.

“From July to December of 2023, Reddit banned 792 users for repeat Copyright Policy violations, an increase of 258% compared to the first half of 2023. This large increase is a result of improvements to our detection methods and increased operational capacity,” Reddit writes.

These user bans are in part the result of legal obligations. Under the DMCA, Reddit is required to implement a reasonable policy to deal with repeat copyright infringers on its platform.

Improved detection methods and increased capacity suggest that Reddit takes repeat infringements seriously. However, if we go further back in time, we see that the number of banned users is far from a record. In the first half of 2022 , Reddit banned 3,859 users over repeat copyright infringements.

Subreddit and Counter-Notices

In addition to removing or banning posts, links, and users, Reddit also took action against entire subreddits. In the last half of 2023, the platform banned 452 subreddits, down 20% compared to the six months prior.

Finally, Reddit points out that users can always object to takedown notices by sending counter-notices. In the final half of last year, the discussion platform received 397 counter-notices, of which 216 were deemed valid.

The number of valid notices increased by 86% since the last report, which Reddit attributed to its increased operational capacity. As a result, 1,331 pieces of content were successfully restored.

While not specifically mentioned in the report, Reddit also continued to object to requests from a group of filmmakers to identify Reddit users. The company does typically respond to U.S. subpoenas, but in this case, it argued that the requests violated users’ constitutional right to anonymous speech.

—

Reddit’s latest transparency report covering the last six months of 2023 is available here

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

During the 6th meeting of the Policy Subcommittee of the Copyright Subcommittee of the Cultural Affairs Council in Japan last month, representatives from Google and ByteDance were invited to give presentations on the topic of appropriate compensation.

As the meeting progressed, the topic sparked discussion on connected matters, sometimes with legal implications. Neither company had lawyers present but, with plenty of scope to challenge the video platforms on piracy issues, including how some manage to benefit more than others, there was no shortage of conversation.

Google/YouTube

Takeya Kito, Head of Music Content Partnership for YouTube in Japan, began with some background. Used in over 100 countries with support for 80 languages, YouTube’s platform grows at a rate of over 500 hours of uploaded content every minute.

More than 71 million people, including two-thirds of the adult population, use YouTube every month in Japan, with the streaming service committed to providing four freedoms to each and every one: Freedom of expression, freedom of access to information, freedom of opportunity, and freedom of participation.

Mr. Kito spoke of YouTube’s commitment to transparency, including via its Copyright Transparency Report. When working with music partners, rights holders and artists, YouTube provides reports detailing how their content is consumed. In some areas, however, YouTube would like to see more transparency from its business partners.

“In order for YouTube to obtain a correct understanding of the royalties received by rights holders, we believe it is important to ensure transparency between the labels and copyright management organizations with whom we do business and license our works, and the individual artists, performers and songwriters who come after them,” Mr. Kito explained.

“This is because, unfortunately, we have no way of knowing how the distribution is actually handled between the individual rights holders, performers, and songwriters, so it is important to ensure transparency in this area as well.”

So, the Music Industry Gets Paid. What About Us>

Given Mr. Kito’s job title, it was perhaps inevitable that YouTube’s work with the music industry would dominate his presentation. Content ID, the content recognition / monetization system that currently handles over 99% of copyright claims and to date has returned $9 billion to rightsholders, mostly in the recording industry, received plenty of coverage.

The first question from those in attendance came from Mr. Ito, a representative of Authorized Books of Japan (ABJ), who thanked Mr. Kito for his presentation and then got right down to business.

“I found it very interesting to hear about how the music industry is successfully using Content ID in various ways. By the way, I belong to an organization called ABJ, and I work in anti-piracy measures at a publishing company [TF: Shueisha], and I’ve been using Content ID for about 14 years,” Mr. Ito explained.

“On YouTube, there are cases where publications, mainly still images of manga, are uploaded as videos like picture-story shows, or picture books, which are read aloud by users while turning the pages on their own. A large number of videos like this have been uploaded. Regarding Content ID, Content ID has no effect on illegal videos published by publishers, so publishers have to hire specialized companies or search on YouTube themselves to find infringing videos. I’m working on erasing them.”

Mr. Ito noted how representatives from the music industry spoke of being rewarded through Content ID, citing a “huge amount” of around $1.8 billion. But then, the inevitable; if the music industry has the ability to turn copyright claims into profit, what about everyone else?

“I strongly feel that publishers are not receiving any return from capturing pirated copies regarding Content ID. My first question is, what do you think about the situation where Content ID cannot be used to deal with pirated copies of publications?” Mr. Ito asked.

ABJ’s representative didn’t get the answer he was hoping for.

“Thank you very much,” YouTube’s representative responded. “As to your question, please understand that I am not in a position to answer it, as my role is limited to music partnerships in Japan.”

Mr. Ito accepted the position but still wasn’t quite done.

Time For TikTok

Representing TikTok at the meeting was Mr. Tomiji Kato, Senior Manager of Global Music Business Development & IP Rights at ByteDance Inc.

Mr. Kato’s presentation was very long but at one point he also touched on Content ID. TikTok doesn’t have a comparable system but the question here, it seems, is whether TikTok needs or even wants one. Something like that could be too restrictive for TikTok.

“At TikTok, we have not yet introduced a system like YouTube’s Content ID for original recordings, but what we need to consider is whether a system like Content ID is better, or whether we should have a pre-decided, all-inclusive contract like we are doing now with the labels,” Mr. Kato explained.

“By introducing a system or mechanism, we must not, for example, impair the creativity of music development or competition in music use, and so we must consider how the platforms and users can best use new music. We are considering how we can best contribute to new music use and development on the platform side and on the users’ side, and this is something that both the rights holders and the platforms should consider.”

When the presentation was opened up for questions, Mr. Ito of ABJ (and of publisher Shueisha) initially had considerable praise for TikTok; users of TikTok who introduce publishing content to their followers have a “ripple effect” and as a result, “there are many things to look forward to.”

Unfortunately, there are other things too, none of them good.

YouTube Used to Have Most Pirated Content, Not Any More

“For many years, I have been taking measures including on YouTube, and when it comes to video posting sites, YouTube has by far the most pirated copies, with the largest number of pirated copies being deleted in a month, around 20,000,” Mr. Ito said.

“However, starting around the summer, TikTok has finally overtaken YouTube, and now, depending on the month, TikTok has two to three times as many pirated copies being uploaded. We are also in serious trouble, and although the person in charge and the person at the anti-infringement company are deleting the information every day, the situation is not going away.”

Mr. Kato was then asked four questions: Is TikTok aware of so many pirated copies of publications, including manga? Does the company know that pirated copies often appear in recommendations? Does TikTok know that, when compared to YouTube, malicious accounts are less likely to be suspended? And finally, does TikTok appreciate how little copyright awareness is shown by its users?

“First of all, thank you for your positive comments,” said Mr. Kato. “I’m sorry, but I would like to refrain from answering any questions regarding pirated copies or takedowns, as this is outside of my scope of work.”

For those interested in how the discussion developed, the full minutes of the meeting ‘令和5年度第6回（2024年3月13日’ are available here (pdf). In summary, there might be a little more work to be done.

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

If the vision for the creation of the web included a day one feature that could restrict access to content, people working on their own specialist topics, catering to their own niche audiences, would’ve happily pressed the button.

A hundred or a thousand thriving communities, small utopias in their own right, with no connection to each other, would’ve been seen as a feature, not the failure of the internet we otherwise see today. The openness of the early days of today’s web, the ability to see most other sites and communities while being exposed to creativity and information like never before, was the easiest elevator pitch in history.

Come and see, everything you want for free, was the dream made reality and people couldn’t wait to experience it. Some things for free, but you have to pay for everything else, would’ve changed everything.

Regardless, that’s what we have as our internet today, although the definition of ‘free’ has been adjusted over time, mostly to mean no money changes hands. Just watch a few ads, allow the content providers to share your data with the world, and enjoy a lifetime of ‘free’ content.

Unfortunately, a ‘lifetime deal’ on the internet is subject to change too and when ads and other mechanisms stop paying the bills, the doors get locked until payment is made for the key.

Paywalls and News

If the whole piracy debate is put to one side just for a moment, paying for music, movies, and books, doesn’t sound especially ridiculous. Yet when it comes to paying to read news, a majority suddenly get a little offended, annoyed even. They read a handful of articles a day, and they’re not paying for that, period. Certainly, they’re not paying a full subscription to several online newspapers on the basis they might have something worth reading this month.

And to be frank, who can blame people for that sentiment? The days of someone sitting back in an armchair with a single newspaper, from which they consume all news, are largely gone. And good riddance too. Consuming news from multiple sources is the only way to filter out the political biases, balance opinions, and get closer to the truth. Yet increasingly, large swathes of information, crucial to broader insight and analysis, can only be found behind paywalls.

The conundrum is currently unsolvable; a news business requires revenue, just like any other. Ads don’t work and while paywalls are broadly disliked, they pay the bills. People want access to news, information about their world, current events that affect their lives. The only issue is that when asked to pay for it, people mostly don’t want to. If the streaming service market is fragmented, news takes it to a whole new level.

Bypass Paywalls Clean

Bypass Paywalls Clean (BPC) is a browser extension that bypasses many of the paywalls put in place by most of the world’s news publishers. While that’s an accurate description, it’s really an indication of a wider problem.

BPC restores the news landscape to one that people can enjoy again, in keeping with news delivery of the last couple of decades. It removes the irritations of news articles appearing in search engines with excerpts promising everything, only to transform into a ‘subscribe now’ bait-and-switch popup, of which there was no mention earlier.

BPC removes the need for credit card hunts, not to mention the pain of any subsequent data breaches. BPC removes the need for usernames, passwords, logins authorized by 2FA, and eliminates the barrage of follow-up spam news publications suddenly feel permitted to send; pressure to sign up for longer, and for more money, not to mention the price increases of this year and the year after, plus ‘special offers’ that nobody wants.

For these and other closely related reasons, users of BPC are very upset right now. In a post to X yesterday, the software’s developer revealed why his project is no longer available; someone filed a DMCA takedown notice against his repo on GitLab .

BPC has not published a copy of the DMCA takedown notice, GitLab doesn’t appear to have shared it either. In fact, the URL where the repo could be previously found returns only a 404 error; there’s no indication that a DMCA complaint was even received, let alone who sent it and what it said.

DMCA Abuse or Something Else?

The absence of information has led to some speculation that the notice may have been abusive. Only the developer can say for sure but on the assumption that a DMCA notice was indeed responsible for taking BPC down, some point to the BPC code while shouting ‘foul’. They claim that since the BPC code is the unique creation of its developer, a DMCA notice would need to wrongfully claim copyright of his code.

While that could be a worthy topic of discussion, these scenarios can be immediately addressed using a DMCA counter-notice. BPC’s creator can simply file one with GitLab and in less than two weeks’ time, the platform would have to restore it, if whoever sent the original notice didn’t sue the developer in the United States.

Diving into a potential legal quagmire is rarely attractive or sensible. Here, however, there are signs to suggest the option has been rendered unavailable. The repo no longer exists according to GitLab, but that seems like a minor detail when compared to the status of the developer’s account .

There’s no information close to hand on GitLab that attempts to explain why magnolia1234 is ‘blocked’ and no reason supplied on the developer’s account on X either. Responses from BPC users are limited to those who @Magnolia1234B specifically mentions, so discussion is somewhat limited.

More than One Type of DMCA Notice

The developer’s earlier comment, “another day another DMCA takedown notice” tends to suggest receipt of two, three or potentially more DMCA notices. On which platforms they were received isn’t specified but if those all relate to GitLab, it raises the question of whether a ‘repeat infringer’ policy came into play. That could explain the ‘blocked’ account status but since details aren’t being made available, it’s difficult to say for sure.

However, DMCA takedown notices come in more than one flavor and the ‘remove this copy of my content’ type may not even be the best fit here. It’s certainly possible that if a DMCA notice is responsible, it could be an anti-circumvention notice for which there is no counter-notice option available.

Whether BPC amounts to a tool that circumvents a “technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected by copyright” rendering it illegal under 17 U.S. Code § 1201 , cannot be answered without a proper technical analysis.

Websites use all kinds of methods to restrict access to content but whether some, any or all qualify for protection is mostly uncharted territory. There’s also the question of intent, i.e what BPC was designed and marketed for; that has the potential to matter a lot.

Blame the Game, Not the Player

In the physical world, a locked door is a pretty clear sign that whatever lies behind it is currently unavailable for access. Some people might give the handle a couple of tries to be sure but, in ordinary circumstances, people don’t immediately start searching for security weaknesses or pull out a lockpicking set.

In the online environment, where there’s an underlying assumption most things are free, a paywall popup with an article just visible underneath, is a signal that whoever published the article cannot afford to deliver it in any other way. Yet in many cases it has already been delivered, because the text is already right there.

Is it legally acceptable to remove the blocking element in your own browser or is this really about respecting the people who spent time and money creating the content, regardless of how good their security is?

Or could this be more about the online news situation in general, where anyone can setup a website that automatically copies everything a news site publishes in public, the moment it’s published, and then pumps it out as their own content to generate revenue?

Maybe the terrible ad networks that many illegal and indeed legal news platforms foist upon their readers are the real problem? Or perhaps the response to this barrage of unwanted ads causes most damage; exhausted readers simply rejecting ads altogether, blocking the good and bad in one swoop?

With no ad revenue, news sites can either shut down completely or turn to a paywall. So rather than viewing BPC as a parasite that stops creators getting paid for their work, perhaps a broader look at the news ecosystem itself is in order.

Who’s Really Taking Available Revenue?

Considering the volume of news available at any one moment, much of it simply rehashed or otherwise trash copies of reports produced by a limited number of original publishers, the real parasites driving paywall uptake aren’t found in the form of a browser extension.

They’re the publications that pass news off as their own, sometimes completely rewritten by AI, who then spend ten times more money on SEO, because getting low quality junk to the top of search results is clearly more important than journalism. They take news articles already being offered for free yet their only contribution is to make whatever they take worse. The world is awash with them yet search engines seem incapable of doing anything about most.

Removing these sites from the market would return more of the revenue to those that should’ve received it in the first place, hopefully negating the need for more paywalls and any future for tools like BPC.

If news consumers want fewer paywalls, boycott the parasites, plagiarists, and those bombarding your browser and inboxes with spam. Adding them to a hosts file or making a firewall rule is fairly painless but a convenient, open source browser extension might be a fitting solution under the circumstances.

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