As pirate site blocking programs expand around the world, Denmark already has more than 15 years of experience in this branch of copyright protection.

After blocking Russian MP3 site AllofMP3 in 2006, Danish rightsholders haven’t looked back. The big drive now is how to streamline the site-blocking process so that piracy platforms can be hit as quickly and as comprehensively as possible.

Part of the problem is that to have pirate domains blocked, rightsholders need to have authorization from the court. This can be obtained by obtaining an injunction against an ISP but when a single ISP is the target, other ISPs are not legally required to do anything.

In 2014, rightsholders and ISPs solved these problems by signing a Code of Conduct which ensures that when one ISP is ordered to block, others follow voluntarily. But in the world of site-blocking, there’s always more to be done.

Dynamic Blocking….And Beyond

Since blocking pirate sites is a commitment rather than a one-off effort, Denmark’s site-blocking regime also tackles domain switches and proxy sites. This so-called ‘dynamic blocking’ doesn’t require a new court process. Anti-piracy group Rights Alliance has the authority to identify any new domains and forward them to ISPs for blocking, a process that will now be accelerated.

The Conduct of Conduct (CoC) that provides the framework for blocking has been revised over the years, to accommodate the changing piracy landscape. Earlier this month it was updated again, hoping to shut down domains more quickly than before.

“[T]he illegal market on the Internet is constantly and rapidly developing, which is why it has been necessary to carry out a slight revision of the CoC agreement,” Rights Alliance explains.

“This implies greater flexibility and automation of the processes in the agreement, which should make it easier for both the Rights Alliance and the members of the Telecom Industry to block illegal websites.”

The plan is for ISPs to block new domains within seven days, using automation to retrieve updated lists before carrying out the usual DNS blocking.

How Will The System Work?

Both Rights Alliance and Teleindustrien (Telecommunications Industry Association in Denmark) have published copies of the new Code of Conduct but neither explain how the new system will work. Indeed, the CoC contains a paragraph that explains that a section detailing the individual steps, procedures and criteria, has been withheld “in order to achieve the purpose of the agreement.”

Given that Denmark’s blocking program is DNS-based, it’s trivial for ISPs to modify local DNS entries to redirect pirate site visitors to Share With Care (SWC), a portal designed to encourage pirates back on to the legal path of authorized content services.

Somewhat intrigued by the apparent need for secrecy, we took a closer look at Teleindustrien and to our surprise, found the complete opposite.

Complete Blocking Transparency

It appears that when ISPs are ordered to block domains for any reason, Teleindustrien goes public with three things: the laws under which the blocking was ordered, who ordered the blocking, and which domains were blocked in response.

For example, the telecoms industry group details recent blocks associated with the Ukraine conflict (including RT.com and sputniknews.com) and publishes the domains to an easily downloadable .csv file – perfect for ISPs looking to implement DNS blocking.

Another .csv file is published for gambling site domains deemed illegal in Denmark, 183 according to the latest batch

The data relating to Denmark’s pirate site blocking program reveals how quickly it has expanded over the years. In 2017, Danish ISPs were blocking around 100 pirate sites , a figure that jumped to 478 in 2020.

The latest .csv file containing the list of blocked piracy domains is dated September 27, 2022. It contains 892 URLs – some of them domains in their own right and others representing sub-domains on various sites dedicated to unblocking.

It’s unclear how the new streamlining provisions in the revised Code of Conduct can beat pulling a plain text file from a website but Teleindustrian also provides the data in PDF format for the Adobe fans out there.

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

Absorbing knowledge online is essentially free but those who curate that knowledge may have their own plans on where, when, and at what price their work is made available.

For millions of website publishers the problem mostly solves itself, but for those who have more restrictive offerings in mind, such as physical book sales or a digital subscription offer, the wider internet can prove to be a disruptive competitor.

Millions of scientific papers, novels, textbooks, and magazines are now just a couple of clicks away, making unlicensed sites like Sci-Hub and Libgen both wildly popular and prime candidates for anti-piracy enforcement. The platforms have proven impossible to close down, so publishers regularly obtain court injunctions that require ISPs to implement blocking.

Sci-Hub is fighting one such case in India and receiving support from both students and academics. But while everyone focused on Sci-Hub’s landmark standoff, seen by some as pivotal for educational equality in a nation of almost 1.4 billion, another lawsuit targeting a similar site slipped into court unnoticed and walked out with a significant prize.

Z-Library Suddenly Becomes Unavailable

A few days ago, Aroon Deep at Entrackr contacted us with an interesting finding. When attempting to access Z-Library, a Libgen-related platform that offers close to 100 million articles and ebooks, something else appeared instead.

“The website has been blocked as per direction/order of Hon’ble Court,” the message read.

Deep found that the same text appeared when accessing Z-library from ISPs including ACT Broadband and Reliance Jio, but which court had ordered the ISPs to block the site and on whose behalf was unknown. The ongoing Sci-Hub/Libgen case has been heavily reported around the world, yet it appears that nobody saw this Z-Library case coming, despite obvious relevance to Sci-Hub and the wider access-to-knowledge debate.

Publisher Targeted Z-Library in a West Delhi Court

The Z-Library blocking mystery was solved yesterday when the Department of Telecommunications disclosed the blocking order and Deep published a link on Twitter.

The document confirms that a judge sitting at a court in Delhi ordered local ISPs to start blocking Z-Library in response to a complaint filed by publisher Taxmann Publications Pvt Ltd . The background to the case laid out in earlier filings shows that at least 12 parties are named as defendants.

Copyright Infringement Allegations

Defendant #1 is listed as z-lib.org and joined by three additional domains – 1lib.in, booksc.org and booksc.eu. Defendants 2 to 10 are internet service providers, including Vodafone, Reliance Jio, Tata Teleservices and Bharti Airtel. Defendants 11 and 12 are Indian government departments, the Ministry of Communications and IT and the Ministry of Electronics & Information Technology (MEITY).

In April 2022, the court heard that Taxmann Publications Pvt Ltd is a reputable company that has spent a “huge amount of money” developing its business. Taxmann, a publisher of books about tax and corporate law, views Z-Library as a “rogue website” engaging in piracy on a grand scale, including by offering pirated copies of ten books for which it owns the rights.

Counsel for the plaintiff said that Z-Library has no physical address where any notice could’ve been served but having reviewed its claim, the court was satisfied that the publisher had a case.

Court Issues Injunction

In an order dated May 12, 2022, District Judge Dinesh Bhatt wrote that since Taxmann owns the rights to the ten books and Z-Library is offering them in electronic format for free, an interim injunction to restrain any future infringments was appropriate.

“In view of the above, defendant no. 1 is restrained from offering the plaintiff’s books (ten books as mentioned in the plaint) for downloading in the PDF format or any other mode on its website,” the order reads.

Two other orders, dated May 21 and August 1, 2022, are currently unavailable for viewing on the court website but in Indian blocking cases, the pattern is well known. Following an order from the court, the two government ministries named as defendants instruct the named ISPs to implement blocking, to prevent their subscribers from accessing the ‘rogue site’ in question.

Compliance with the final blocking order (linked below) will be reviewed in September. Two or three of the ISPs didn’t immediately block the Z-Library domains, which raised warnings from the other ISPs that if they didn’t block together, Z-Library would remain accessible. All ISPs will have to do so now.

Given the scope of the injunction and the limited domains listed, Z-Library is likely to remain accessible via other domains at its disposal. A number of these were temporarily suspended last year by a Chinese registrar following copyright complaints from Harvard, but the decision was later reversed.

The blocking order (Case Number: CS (COMM)/221/2022) can be found here (pdf)

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

For more than two decades, copyright holders have sent takedown notices to ISPs to alert account holders that their connections are being used to pirate content.

In the past, subscribers could simply ignore these warnings if they wanted, as there were virtually no repercussions.

AT&T and other ISPs publicly stated that they would never disconnect customers without a court order, arguing that only a court can decide what constitutes a repeat infringement.

AT&T Disconnects Persistent Pirates

After rightsholders filed several high-profile lawsuits against ISPs, most providers revised their policies. In AT&T’s case, the ISP launched a dedicated copyright portal and began terminating the accounts of subscribers repeatedly targeted with piracy allegations.

AT&T doesn’t disconnect subscribers without giving them advance notice, of course. After the initial warnings, they get the chance to take steps so that future infringements are prevented. This can get pretty hands-on as it involves a mandatory educational ‘ copyright tutorial ‘.

If subscribers fail to resolve the issue, more harsh measures come into play, with a permanent disconnection as the ultimate punishment. This option is clearly laid out in the AT&T Copyright Alert Program .

“If multiple violations occur, AT&T will take action, which may include terminating your internet service,” the provider writes.

With this much on the line, most subscribers take the piracy warnings quite seriously. The ISP will be happy with that but many subscribers are less happy with how AT&T is handling things at its end.

Complaints About a Buggy Copyright Portal

Over the past few days, there have been several complaints from subscribers who can’t acknowledge that they have received piracy notices or are unable to complete the required copyright tutorial.

These complaints are not new. We have spotted numerous threads over the years and the issue regularly flares up. While these might be occasional technical difficulties, they are quite frustrating for people who might lose their Internet access.

A small selection of recent messages are listed below:

I’ve recently gotten an e-mail telling me about a copyright noticed and as I attempt to do the tutorial I keep getting Server Error issue so i’m unable to complete it. Do they really shut off your internet if you don’t complete it?” ^{– User2022}

“I’m told to login and go to att.com/copyright-infringement to acknowledge that I have received this alert. But when I do that there is absolutely nowhere that I can acknowledge it. Everything ends up a dead end!” ^{– Julius}

“Why can’t I access the Tutorial? Is there anyone at ATT I can talk to to get some help with this issue. The latest letter I received says they will reduce my internet access if I do not take the Tutorial.” ^{– jimb0g}

“You cant threaten to turn off my internet when your own website prevents me from doing it. I need a solution ASAP.” ^{– FrustratedCustomer89}

Recurring Problems

Most of these calls for help are not immediately answered by an AT&T employee. However, there is an ‘award-winning’ forum user named Tonydi who regularly chimes in to confirm a recurring problem.

“This situation keeps coming up in here over and over, literally for years. AT&T must have recently sent out a bulk mailing because all of a sudden it’s become a popular subject in the forum again,” Tonydi writes .

Most subscribers are reassured by his suggestion that AT&T does “absolutely nothing” after they send the scary notices. However, as we highlighted earlier, the ISP has terminated subscribers in the past, so ignoring the matter isn’t without risk.

Solution?

It’s unclear if the complaining subscribers eventually sort out the problem. In most cases, an AT&T employee eventually responds to the complaints with some advice but that doesn’t always lead to a solution.

For example, we spotted a response from a subscriber who was directed to call the Digital Assistance Center after the initial advice failed. This person was then sent back and forth between different customer service departments. Despite spending an hour trying to resolve the matter, the problem persisted.

The above clearly suggests that AT&T’s handling of piracy complaints can be quite buggy at times and could use some more attention. Especially when people are threatened with losing their Internet access.

We reached out to the Internet provider asking for a comment on our findings. While it didn’t go into the possible terminations, an AT&T spokesperson replied with the following statement.

“We take allegations of copyright infringement very seriously and are committed to helping our customers understand how to comply with the law. The online tutorial is just one of several resources we offer and customers may contact us with questions at any time.”

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