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

That’s no longer the case…

In recent years calls for a U.S. site-blocking regime have started to flare up. Last week, MPA CEO Charles Rivkin used his keynote speech at CinemaCon to double down on this demand, urging U.S. lawmakers to seriously consider site blocking, now that it’s proven to work in dozens of other countries.

Exhibit A: FMovies

MPA’s boss wasn’t secretive about the top target either. At a previous hearing in Congress, MPA’s Karyn Temple already gave lawmakers a walkthrough of the popular pirate streaming site FMovies and, in his CinemaCon speech, Rivkin put the same site under the spotlight.

“One of the largest illegal streaming sites in the world, FMovies, sees over 160 million visits per month and because other nations already passed site blocking legislation, a third of that traffic still comes from the United States,” Rivkin said.

Rightsholders can dramatize statistics but, in this case, the ‘threat’ might even be somewhat underplayed. According to SimilarWeb’s most recent traffic statistics , FMovies had more than 190 million visits in March. Nearly 40% of those visits are attributed to U.S. visitors.

More Visits Than Disney+

The site’s popularity continues to grow; FMovies just climbed to the 9th spot in SimilarWeb’s U.S. “ Streaming & Online TV ” category. This top ten listing is even more impressive if we consider the level of competition the pirate site is up against.

The top three slots are occupied by YouTube, Max, and Netflix, which are all multi-billion dollar operations. FMovies doesn’t come close to these, but it beats Disney+ in 10th place, and Crunchyroll just behind at 11th.

These comparisons don’t show the full picture. While FMovies has more U.S. web-based visits than the other two, app traffic isn’t counted. Disney+ likely has more app-related traffic. Still, the top ten listing signals that FMovies is massively popular in the United States.

U.S. Congress Visit

At the House Subcommittee Hearing last December, many lawmakers were surprised to see how easily the site can be accessed. U.S. Representative Ted Lieu tested this live as he accessed FMovies on his phone during the proceeding.

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

With no Internet providers present at the hearing, this question remained unanswered. However, ISPs are not likely to act voluntarily, at least not without assurances.

One of the main reasons why site blocking hasn’t come to the U.S. yet is the absence of no-fault injunctive relief . That would allow for court orders, compelling Internet providers to take action, without imposing any type of liability.

Lots to Gain, Much to Lose

The recent traffic numbers confirm that FMovies is a major threat to Hollywood and we expect it to serve as “Exhibit A” in the site blocking discussions going forward.

Blocking access to websites isn’t a perfect anti-piracy tool and rightsholders know that. There are plenty of options to circumvent these measures, as we have seen in other countries where these were implemented.

That said, blockades undoubtedly make it harder to access websites and academic research suggests that the overall effects on legitimate consumption are positive.

While FMovies hasn’t responded to the controversy, there must be some concern there too. The site isn’t fazed by copyright law but does rely on advertising revenue, and it’s no secret that advertisement rates for U.S. traffic are the highest, by far. If U.S. traffic tanks, that will certainly be felt.

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

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

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

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

House Committee Hearing on Piracy

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

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

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

Pirates are ‘Hosted’ on Russian Military Bases

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

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

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

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

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

Lawmakers get Fmovies Walkthrough

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

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

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

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

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

‘U.S. Needs Pirate Site Blocking’

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

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

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

Why Are ISPs Not Blocking Fmovies Today?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

SOPA Scars and Instant Takedowns

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Accurately predicting how, when and where the next wave of pirate sites will emerge to become the next big threat is much easier said than done.

At any point, one of several moving parts could rule a country out for a few years, or propel it straight into pole position. From rapid development of internet infrastructure to a new generation blessed with the right skills, joining the workplace at just the right time, anything is possible in the shifting sands of piracy.

The MPA accurately predicted the chances of Vietnam becoming an online piracy hotbed many years ago. Yet despite every conceivable effort, progress to disrupt sites like Fmovies and Aniwatch (formerly Zoro.to) which enjoy close to a quarter billion visits every month, progress has been slow when compared to efforts in other regions.

The current state of play features Vietnam as the home of some of the world’s most popular pirate sites, together servicing at least two billion visits each month, but potentially many more.

What Can Be Done About the Worst of the Worst?

Following a September report highlighting piracy of live sports in Vietnam , last weekend the Ministry of Information and Communications held a workshop where stakeholders discussed matters related to pirate sites.

Inevitably, notorious sports streaming sites operating under the ‘Xoi Lac’ banner received several mentions due to unusual resilience and overall share of the ‘pirate’ market. Xoi Lac has evaded every disruption measure deployed over the past five years while attracting the wrong kind of attention from rightsholders thousands of miles away.

In a recent report to the USTR, the Premier League said that it considers Xoi Lac one of the worst platforms it has ever seen.

[The Xoilac websites] are some of the most egregious the Premier League has encountered, with infringement continuing on the site despite Vietnamese authorities attempting to block access to domains associated with the service, and widespread news coverage highlighting that the sites are infringing. In total, the operators have created over 300 domains within the Xoilac family to try and avoid disruption efforts.

Pirate sites can benefit from the publicity that goes hand-in-hand with this kind of attention; as The Pirate Bay said on many occasions: “This will just give us more traffic, as always. Thanks for the free advertising.”

Becoming a household name is a considerable milestone for any website. Unfortunately, the millstones of infamy are less beneficial, harder to shake, and for those in power, an obvious potential target. When other crimes enter the mix, anything can happen.

“They Are Associated With Organized Crime”

The Premier League’s USTR submission states that Xoi Lac’s operators appear to be based in the capital, but the follow-up comment is potentially more interesting. Major overseas rightsholders claim to know the identities of the people behind several Vietnam-based sites, yet many continue to operate with apparent impunity.

“The operators of the site appear to be based in Hanoi, Vietnam and seemingly operate with little concern for enforcement action being taken against them,” the submission notes.

While that’s a major concern for rightsholders, comments made during the workshop may signal changes ahead.

“The issue of copyright infringement is associated with organized crime. For example, the Xoi Lac channel is not simply a form of live-streaming online; it is also associated with online fraud, online gambling, and loan sharking for football betting,” said Nguyen Thanh Lam, Vietnam’s Deputy Minister of Information and Communications.

Comments like these are uncommon, especially when accompanied by a commitment to fight piracy.

Ministries Combine to Form Specialized Unit

Lam told the workshop that the Ministry of Information and Communications, the Ministry of Culture, Sports and Tourism, and the Ministry of Public Security, will establish a specialized unit to tackle copyright issues.

The Minister also highlighted the need to educate the public on why they should avoid pirate sites. That raises interesting questions in itself.

Aside from the popular state-run lottery, gambling is heavily restricted in Vietnam and those caught facilitating illegal gambling can end up in prison. Loan shark-style money lending is also illegal and an aggravating factor in illegal gambling prosecutions. Those who simply participate in illegal gambling face punishment if caught, yet even that hasn’t proven much of a deterrent.

On the assumption that the Minister’s claims about Xoi Lac are true, yet people still flood to the site, it seems likely that some are borrowing money from loan sharks to participate in illegal gambling. There are few scenarios in any country where that ends well for the in-debt gambler, people know it, yet still aren’t deterred.

That raises the question of what type of messaging could possibly deter people from watching pirated football streams, when anti-gambling measures have so obviously failed. A local report suggests that messaging may receive support from the police.

“In the near future, the Ministry of Information and Communications will have a plan to discuss with the police force to launch a peak attack and suppress crime in this field,” the report concludes.

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

For quite some time, Fmovies has sat among a newer-breed of pirate streaming sites pulling in astonishing levels of traffic. This has attracted a lot of negative attention from major rightsholders in the movie and TV sectors.

The studios of the MPA have repeatedly taken complaints about FMovies to the U.S. government, leading to the platform making annual appearances in the USTR’s ‘notorious markets’ list. The resulting diplomatic pressure on overseas governments ( in this case Vietnam ) is supposed to restrict and restrain sites like Fmovies from operating freely; even a reduction in popularity might be a good start.

Fmovies Does Nothing But Grow

No matter which tools rightsholders use against FMovies, nothing has worked thus far. The site was sued in the United States in 2016 and emerged on the wrong end of a $210,000 judgment , yet appeared entirely unaffected.

The site is also subject to numerous ISP blocking orders around the world and in 2022 was held up as an example to show why global DNS blocking may be needed to deal with the most persistent of pirate sites.

Back then Fmovies.to was enjoying at least 87 million visits per month but by May 2023, the figure had increased again to over 98.4 million. Just a month later, Fmovies reached 106.9 million visits according to SimilarWeb stats, but that was just another stepping stone to the 122.3 million achieved in July 2023.

Users Keep Returning to the Site

This level of growth is not typical and in part may be linked to the closure of Soap2Day . Nevertheless, the site must be getting things right in the eyes of its users to maintain such high levels of traffic.

One of the claimed benefits of Fmovies is that advertising is kept to a minimum. For users of adblocking extensions, which likely counts for millions of the site’s users, that’s to be expected, but sites like Fmovies don’t run on fresh air. Indeed, in today’s ‘pirate market’, turning a profit is mostly seen as fundamental. The manner in which Fmovies generates revenue is likely to come to the forefront at some point but until then, some users have been voicing security concerns.

Anti-Virus/Malware Warnings

One of the conversations on Reddit began when a user complained that their AVG security software had blocked the download of a supposed trojan while using Fmovies.

Given that false positives are common and people can have polarized positions on which security software people should (and should not) be using, the conversation was much less productive than it could’ve been. Nevertheless, users of Avast and Kaspersky claimed to have the same issue, while at least one person advised that anti-virus software isn’t needed these days at all.

After speaking with a couple of people more focused on this type of issue, one shared the puzzling screenshot below. There’s no claim that the issues reported above are linked in any way to the information below, but it’s not the type of thing one tends to expect.

Running the same URL through urlscan.io shows that Fmovie scans are common; over 600 have already been carried out. The screenshot retrieved by URLScan can be seen below. The ‘software update’ is not what it claims to be and for those who click through, nothing good will come of it.

‘Disney’ Subdomain a Coincidental One-Off?

Drawing conclusions on security matters is best left to the professionals, so we draw none here. All we can say for sure is that some security vendors appear to have been sounding the alarm this week, as the screenshot below tends to suggest. Over what exactly isn’t clear so for anyone experiencing issues or those with a technical interest, getting in touch with the vendors directly maybe an option.

Given the basic curiosity around the Disney subdomain, it was always a possible that Netflix or Amazon might’ve made an appearance too, but they don’t. Instead, the weirdness continues with verizon.fmovies.to, centurylink.fmovies.to, comcastcorporation.fmovies.to, and charter.fmovies.to, among others. There are plenty of mundane ones too, like server.fmovies.to and cdn.fmovies.to, but everyone has some of those.

Maybe some people just like having fun with off-the-wall naming conventions but for those who like big brands, the full list is a goldmine – almost literally in some cases.

northwesternmutual, nscorp, expediainc, centerpointenergy, visa, citigroup, walmart, omnicomgroup, wellsfargo, pepsico, etc, etc, etc (full list here )

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

After spending more than 16 years implementing intellectual property laws introduced in 2005, amendments to intellectual property law in Vietnam came into effect on January 1, 2023.

At that point, however, implementation was still to be determined so, over the past few months, the government has been drafting decrees.

Issued by the government in late April, Decree No. 17/2023/ND-CP offers guidance on various copyright matters related to ISP liability and enforcement measures, including disclosure of customer information. At first blush, it appears to herald a new world of opportunities for rightsholders.

“Most Voluminous” Copyright Decree Ever Issued in Vietnam

Global IP services firm Rouse reports that with 8 chapters and 116 articles, Decree 17 is the most voluminous copyright decree ever issued in Vietnam.

“[T]he Copyright Decree provides significantly detailed guidance on copyright enforcement, especially which disputes can be classified as a copyright dispute, how to establish acts of copyright infringement, and how to calculate damages caused by infringements,” the company reports.

“The long, detailed section in copyright assessment is also expected to pave the way for the growth of the currently limited copyright assessment services in Vietnam.”

Hollywood studios and publishers of Japanese anime and manga have long complained of difficulties enforcing their rights in Vietnam. However, if the new amendments take shape as the Decree suggests, Vietnam may be on the cusp of a whole new era.

For rightsholders struggling to tackle major piracy platforms including Fmovies, 9anime, and BestBuyIPTV, the balance of power may have begun to shift.

Internet Service Providers

Given that pirate site operators can be difficult to identify, rightsholders believe that entities providing infrastructure services, such as connectivity or hosting, should shoulder some responsibility for infringement, if they are in a position to act but fail to do so.

According to a report from IP experts at Baker McKenzie , Article 198b of the Amended IP Law as laid out in Decree 17 broadly identifies an ISP as a mere conduit, caching, or on-demand digital content storage/hosting service. Entities that qualify for ISP status include cloud storage providers, social network providers, and search engines.

Hosting ISPs must develop tools to receive requests for content to be removed or blocked, when that content infringes on copyright and/or related rights. They will also be required to remove or block content in accordance with new regulatory procedures when receiving “substantiated requests” from users or a competent state agency.

“Failure to comply with this requirement may result in joint liability for losses caused by the infringing act of the user,” the experts note, adding that hosting ISPs will also be required to notify Vietnam’s Copyright Office of the name of the person responsible for copyright issues.

Know Your Business Customer Rules

Platforms are also responsible for warning their users of the liability incurred if they commit copyright infringement. In theory, that should be easier than before. The new law requires ISPs to verify their customers’ identities when they first register for an account. These so-called Know Your Business Customer (KYBC) rules are always popular with rightsholders, even though many countries in the West choose not to implement them.

Adherence to KYBC protocols means that when ISPs receive a written request from a competent state agency, they must provide information on their users in copyright infringement matters.

That still falls short of standards elsewhere where courts can authorize disclosure based on rightsholder complaints, but as part of a package of measures, rightsholders appear much better equipped than they were under the previous regime. How things will play out in practice will remain to be seen.

The Vietnam Copyright Decree (Decree No. 17/2023/ND-CP) is available here (pdf)

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

When the United States wanted Sweden to take action against The Pirate Bay, communication through diplomatic channels oiled the wheels, led to a raid, and was followed by handshakes all round.

The Pirate Bay famously reappeared online but in that moment, collaboration between U.S. and Swedish authorities was set on a more harmonious course. At the time it was rumored that cooperation had prevented Sweden being placed on the USTR’s Special 301 Report ‘Watch List’ but whatever the truth, that never happened.

The same cannot be said of Vietnam. Five years ago the USTR warned that unless Vietnam took stronger enforcement action, not only would it remain on the Watch List, but online piracy was likely to get worse as broadband penetration increased. The prediction was solid.

Vietnam Stays on the Watch List

In 2018 there had been some promising signs. After the the US Ambassador to Vietnam called on the local government to criminally prosecute the people behind movie streaming sites 123movies, Putlocker and Kisscartoon, 123movies – also known as 123movieshub and GoMovies – suddenly shut down .

A criminal investigation had toppled a site once described by the MPA as “the most popular illegal site in the world.” Once again, enforcement in Vietnam suddenly seemed viable.

When the USTR published its list of ‘notorious markets’ in 2019, Vietnam had other problems on its hands. Local piracy platform Phimmoi.net was pulling in 75 million monthly visits according to the USTR , and a site called FMovies was also making waves, although it wouldn’t be officially associated with Vietnam for some time.

In August 2019, right holders filed a criminal complaint against the operators of Phimmoi.net but a year later local authorities suspended their investigation for “ unknown reasons .” The site reportedly moved domain and went on to become one of the most popular sites in Vietnam.

True Scale of the Problem Emerges

The language barrier and lower levels of transparency hinder proactive reporting on events in Vietnam, but rightsholders in the United States have provided a steady flow of information and the USTR has reported accordingly.

Fmovies, also known as Bmovies and Bflix, are three of the most recognizable pirate streaming brands for good reason. SimilarWeb data indicates that a single domain, fmovies.to, currently receives 92 million visits per month to its archive of mainstream movies and TV shows. One Bflix domain currently manages around 10 million, still significant numbers.

Also believed to be operated out of Vietnam is BestBuyIPTV, a pirate IPTV service boasting 900,000 users and 12,000 resellers. Whether these figures are accurate is up for debate but for a premium service costing 15 euros per month, half the number of users sounds like $81 million in annual revenue. Cut that figure in half for good measure and it’s still hugely significant.

Vietnam May Be The World’s Biggest Piracy Problem

By 2022, the MPA was openly linking Fmovies and its sister sites to Vietnam.

This January, the International Intellectual Property Alliance also linked Fembed to Vietnam, describing the platform as ‘Piracy-as-a-Service.’ Y2Mate, the world’s most popular stream-ripping site, good for at least 120 million visits per month, was also linked to Vietnam. Then even more meat was put on the bones.

“The operator of the notorious streaming piracy network of sites Fmovies has over 60 associated domains, many of which are known pirate brands such as Bmovies, 9anime, Putlocker, and Solarmovies, provides unauthorized access to popular movies and TV series, and is domiciled in Vietnam,” the anti-piracy group wrote .

As soon as 9anime enters the mix, the few hundred million visits per month mentioned thus far risk being overshadowed. We cannot confirm who is behind these domains but the numbers are staggering: 9animetv.to pulls in 197.3 million visits per month, 9anime.to receives over 97 million. In January, 9anime.gs received 95 million visits but in March, ‘just’ 35 million.

There may be some doubling up or crossover traffic when multiple domains are in play but, for reference, 9anime.pl receives more than 37 million visits per month and with ‘just’ 18 million, 9anime.id seems hardly worth mentioning.

And then there’s zoro.to, which some suggest also has links to Vietnam. We’re in no position to confirm that but the traffic it receives is certainly worth recording for posterity; in January 2023 alone the site received over 206 million visits .

USTR Publishes Special 301 Report 2023

The publication of the USTR’s 2023 Special 301 Report this week highlighted recent changes in Vietnamese law.

“[A]mendments to the IP Code entered into force in January 2023, which include categorizing the illegal uploading and streaming of a cinematographic work as a violation of communication rights and clarifying that copying of part of a work will be considered as a reproduction,” the report reads.

Describing IP enforcement as a “serious challenge” the report references the stalled investigation into Phimmoi.net. It further notes that there are “no criminal investigations or prosecutions” in Vietnam, even though criminal law allows for “substantial fines and years of incarceration” for copyright infringement.

“[O]nline piracy, including the use of illicit streaming devices and associated piracy applications to access unauthorized audiovisual content, remains a significant concern,” the report adds.

Yet despite all of the above, Vietnam was not upgraded to the Priority Watch List, despite rightsholder recommendations. The reasons for that could be political or maybe a grain of optimism remains. Perhaps a little bit of both.

Whatever the truth, Vietnam seems to be riding its luck. No country in the history of online piracy has ever had so much power, refused to use it, and then reaped the benefits longer-term. A turnaround may still be possible but unlike the pirated movies, TV shows, anime and manga currently flooding the internet, patience isn’t always in unlimited supply.

The 2023 Special 301 Report can be found here ( pdf )

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

Given the extreme financial power and political leverage held by the world’s largest entertainment companies, most obstacles can be pushed aside or simply rolled over. But exceptions do exist.

In the fight against piracy, not only do the smallest gains require an unusual effort but they’re increasingly dependent on the cooperation of third parties, usually those in the online tech sector. If these companies can’t be convinced to commit business resources to the piracy war voluntarily, lawsuits and mandatory conscription can lie ahead.

The message – that internet companies must tackle piracy or be held responsible for taking part in it – is nothing new. Internet service providers, websites, search engines, hosting providers, domain companies, social media services, and advertising companies are all considered part of the problem.

From terminating allegedly infringing users and implementing copyright filters, to due diligence, website blocking, and running a search engine, tech companies can find themselves being held responsible when third parties upset the business models of other third parties. This new commercial reality isn’t just spreading, it has global aspirations.

Control The Phone Book, Control Communications

A presentation prepared for the recent Fifteenth Session of the World Intellectual Property Organization’s Advisory Committee on Enforcement begins with a brief explainer of the Domain Name System (DNS) and how it works. The fundamental importance of DNS to the internet is glaringly obvious.

So that humans don’t have to remember thousands of IP addresses to access their favorite websites, the DNS system holds all of those numbers in a database and matches them to more easily remembered domain names. When domain names are entered into a browser (Google.com, for example), DNS converts the domain into an IP address and the page appears. If done properly, it’s completely invisible.

At the time of writing, a couple of billion websites rely on the ability of the DNS system to carry out these conversions. The problem for rightsholders is that some of those sites facilitate access to their copyrighted works, and with easy-to-remember names such as thepiratebay.org, they are too easy for people to find.

Following legal action, ISPs in dozens of countries are now required to prevent their customers from accessing sites like thepiratebay.org. Since ISPs carry their own copy of the DNS ‘phone book’, they look up thepiratebay.org, find the IP address allocated to it, and exchange it for a completely useless one.

Rightsholders like this arrangement. Critics say that internet infrastructure shouldn’t tell lies to its users.

So Why Such Drastic Action? FMovies….and a Few Others

If The Pirate Bay’s resistance to shutdown helped to fuel the early days of pirate site blocking, sites like FMovies may end up shouldering the blame for more extreme measures.

With close to 87 million visits per month via desktop alone, FMovies is not only massive but quite possibly the most comprehensive pirate VOD-style streaming site available today. It operates many domains in various jurisdictions under multiple brandings, and isn’t confined to the mainstream movie and TV show ‘niches’ either.

Hollywood companies have forced ISPs in several countries to tamper with the site’s local DNS entries after obtaining injunctions or voluntary cooperation. The site’s traffic continues to grow because it’s still online – DNS tampering cannot change that, not for FMovies or any other site

Perhaps the most surprising thing about the presentation is that it talks about options for action against DNS, yet reveals the countries where FMovies has infrastructure, names the companies allegedly supporting that infrastructure, and puts their locations on a map.

So what action could be taken by DNS service providers to take FMovies offline, render it inaccessible, or even make it marginally less successful than it currently is? The presentation has some ideas but before we come to them, it might be worth looking at the slide again.

Why would meddling with the DNS system, which has zero ability to remove content, be preferred over actually removing content ?

OVH and M247, two companies listed as serving FMovies, are very large hosting operations and couldn’t hide even if they wanted to. The fact that they are in the EU renders them legally ‘accessible’ too, in the event that they are indeed playing host to one of the world’s largest stashes of premium infringing content. They probably have no idea that’s the case, of course, and being cash-rich their lawyers would be very happy to explain that, in court if necessary.

But the real problem here isn’t who has the ability to fight back, it’s that DNS interference has always been portrayed as a tool of last resort, something to be used when everything else fails. The presentation to the WIPO Enforcement Committee even states that DNS resolvers are completely incapable of removing infringing content.

“The legal frameworks and case law lack a clear picture at international and national levels. Case law mainly discusses liability as secondary infringers if DNS providers serve structurally copyright infringing websites. This usually requires intent, which could be established by a notice,” it reads.

Sony Music certainly hopes that will be enough.

Quad9 DNS Resolver Dispute

In Germany, Swiss-based DNS resolver Quad9 is now in direct legal conflict with Sony Music after refusing to cooperate in the label’s campaign to have a music piracy site blocked. Sony took the case to court, arguing that Quad9 has a duty of care to block the site – a site that doesn’t carry infringing content itself but links to content hosted on another site (or sites), somewhere else entirely.

Perhaps with an eye on the type of intent mentioned above, Sony did indeed give Quad9 clear notice of the infringement. Unfortunately for Quad9, Germany sets the bar for involvement very low indeed, which makes it the perfect venue for this kind of lawsuit.

Under the legal concept of Störerhaftung, otherwise known as disturbance or disruptor liability, a disruptor is someone who is involved in any way with the distribution of illicit content. As involvement goes, Quad9’s role is either extremely minimal or absolutely crucial, depending on perspective.

Sony currently appears to have the upper hand ( 1 , 2 ) and although it’s not over yet( 1 ), some liability protection has already been stripped away. According to a German regional court, since Quad9 only triggers IP address queries to DNS servers and transmits no information, it does not qualify for ‘mere conduit’ liability exemptions.

Cloudflare Ordered to Block Pirate Sites

If Quad9 loses, any order compelling it to block will be part of the package waved around in other jurisdictions to achieve the same goals: do providers want to cooperate now, or perhaps they prefer legal conscription? In the EU, this type of approach has a tendency to spread, where one ruling leads to another and then becomes the accepted norm as intermediaries concede defeat.

And momentum is building.

In July, an Italian court ordered Cloudflare to block three torrent sites on its public DNS resolver 1.1.1.1. Music industry group FIMI said that since the Cloudflare service helps people to access pirate sites, Cloudflare becomes part of the piracy problem. The court agreed and issued a preliminary injunction against Cloudflare.

While copyright holders have shown their intent in no uncertain terms, Cloudflare is drawing its own lines in the sand. While it has been compelled to block in both Italy and in Germany , Cloudflare recently said it will fight any ‘global’ blocking requests if they target its 1.1.1.1 DNS resolver.

Less Aggressive Options

If DNS entities get tired of the lawsuits, it’s possible they could be tempted by so-called non-fault injunctions, the presentation suggests. Popular in the UK and India, the idea is that intermediaries are named as respondents in blocking applications but copyright holders have no intention to sue them.

Everyone involved acknowledges that the intermediaries are in a good position to help out and that everyone’s rights should be respected under the principle of proportionality. This balances copyright holders’ rights, the intermediaries’ rights, and the rights of internet users to access information. The important thing is that there is no conflict and as long as applicants follow procedure, blocking tends to get the court’s seal of approval.

Another favored option doesn’t involve the courts at all because direct agreements between copyright holders and intermediaries do all of the heavy lifting. By designating groups such as the MPA as ‘Trusted Notifiers’, DNS entities could follow the lead of two domain registries and decide what should be blocked in private.

“Proactive measures by DNS providers to discourage online infringement and other illegal activity should be adopted, such as ensuring accuracy of registrant/WHOIS data. Voluntary reactive measures, such as trusted notifier arrangements, should be encouraged,” the presentation concludes ( pdf ).

WIPO says that the views in the presentation on DNS providers and resolvers are those of the authors and are not necessarily shared by WIPO members. The authors are leading Germany copyright attorney Jan Bernd Nordemann and Dean S. Marks, former Deputy General Counsel and Chief of Global Content Protection at the MPA.

Image Credit: Jimmy Nilsson Masth ( Unsplash License )

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