Consumers who want to watch movies or TV-shows online are limited to the content that they are permitted to see in their home country.

This means that the Netflix or Amazon library in one country can be entirely different to those made available in a neighboring nation.

This is a direct result of the territorial licensing deals the entertainment industry is built on. However, now that people are more connected online, these restrictions are an increasing source of frustration. That frustration can, in turn, fuel piracy.

Many PlayStation users were reminded of these licensing complications a few days ago when they were informed that several purchased movie titles will disappear from their libraries. While that’s a unique situation, it’s quite common to see movie and TV show titles removed from subscription platforms.

No law can force these platforms to offer content indefinitely but according to European lawmakers, it is possible to level the playing field and remove unnecessary barriers.

EU’s Geo-Blocking Restrictions

To counter consumer-unfriendly limitations, the European Commission previously banned certain types of geo-blocking as part of the Digital Single Market reforms. This legislation has been in place for a few years and works well, although video content is currently exempt .

There are ongoing discussions in the EU that could upend this. Current plans don’t call for an end to regional licenses or the adoption of a general EU-wide license, but they do stress that catalog and heritage content should be available in “unsold” territories. Specifically, citizens shouldn’t be discriminated against based on where they live.

The European Parliament’s Committee on Internal Market and Consumer Protection (IMCO) recently put out a report (pdf) in which it sets out several suggestions and recommendations. They include a lifting of the geo-blocking ban exemption for the audiovisual sector.

Expanding to Video Platforms?

The report recommends the EU Commission to launch a comprehensive review of the current geo-blocking regulation and have that completed by 2025. It also carries several suggestions for improvement and expansion of the current rules.

“The data presented in the report suggest that the effects of such an [geo-blocking] extension would vary by type of content, depending on the level of consumer demand and on the availability of content across the EU,” the report’s summary reads.

“As regards an extension to audio-visual content, it highlights potential benefits for consumers, notably in the availability of a wider choice of content across borders. The report also identifies the potential impact that such an extension of the scope would have on the overall dynamics of the audio-visual sector, but concludes that it needs to be further assessed.”

The proposals don’t include the abolishment of all territorial licenses in the EU, and they’re mindful of the potential impact on the industry. Nevertheless, some industry insiders are spooked; the Creativity Works! coalition ( CW ), for example, which counts the MPA, ACT, and the Premier League among its members.

‘Geo-Blocking Restrictions Threaten Video Industry’

According to CW, geo-blocking technology is crucial to the creative and cultural industries in Europe.

“Geo-blocking is one of the foundations for Europe’s creative and cultural sectors, providing Europeans with the means to create, produce, showcase, publish, distribute and finance diverse, high-quality and affordable content,” they write .

Banning geo-blocking altogether would be a disaster that puts millions of jobs and hundreds of billions of euros in revenue at risk, CW warns. At the same time, it may result in more expensive subscriptions for many consumers.

“Ending geo-blocking’s exclusive territorial licensing would threaten 10,000 European cinemas, access to over 8,500 European VOD films and up to half of European film budgets,” CW writes.

“What’s more, over 100 million European fans could pay more to view the same sports coverage, while major digital streaming platforms might be forced to introduce sharp hikes for consumers in many European countries.”

Upsetting The Status Quo

Understandably, the movie industry is concerned about legislation that upsets the status quo. However, the IMCO report doesn’t recommend a wholesale ban on territorial licenses but aims to ensure that content is available in regions where it currently isn’t.

At this stage, nothing is set in stone, so proposals could change. However, the present recommendations appear to seek a balance between the interests of the entertainment industry and the public at large.

Digital rights organization Communia supports the proposals, which it in part helped to shape. The group is concerned about CW’s suggestion that restricting access to content is the “foundation for Europe’s creative and cultural sectors” and hopes that lawmakers will carefully weigh all arguments.

Communia says the report makes it clear that the entertainment industries can do more to serve customers across all regions. This is a conclusion rightsholders are not happy with, the group notes .

“[O]ne of the core insights of the IMCO report, that as a consequence, the adaptation of existing business models to the changing environment is needed both for consumers and businesses is once again at the risk of being ignored.

“Rightholders are seeking to get this conclusion removed from the report because the stakeholders on the supply side of the AV sector have again decided that rather than adapting to and working with consumer expectations, they can rely on their considerable lobby power to preserve the status quo that they have gotten comfortable with.”

Communia believes, however, that there are plenty of options to improve the situation for the general public, without destroying the entertainment industries.

“If done well, ending geo-blocking would provide all Europeans with more legal access to a more diverse offering of AV content and a thriving cultural sector that can finally stop claiming that denying people access to culture is in anyone’s interest,” the group concludes.

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

Signed into law a quarter century ago, the Digital Millenium Copyright Act (DMCA) aimed to equip copyright holders with new tools to protect their works online.

A key element of the law requires online service providers to remove or disable access to infringing content in response to a takedown notice.

The system isn’t bulletproof. Rightsholders repeatedly complain that their content swiftly resurfaces after it’s removed. At the same time, the takedown process is abused by bad actors to censor or remove material in bad faith.

Shopify DMCA Harassment

DMCA abuse is nothing new, but it’s rare for online platforms to take public action against it, let alone take the matter to court. In an attempt to protect its vendors, e-commerce giant Shopify is one of the rare exceptions.

Last month, we reported that Shopify had filed a lawsuit against a “John Doe” who used DMCA takedown notices to remove listings from third-party stores. According to Shopify, the senders of these takedown requests did so without owning the rights.

This alleged scammer isn’t the only one wreaking havoc on the platform. A few days ago, Shopify filed a fresh DMCA abuse complaint at a Florida federal court. This time, the e-commerce platform has a named target; Orlando resident Amir Mokrian, a.k.a Clayton Burnz.

“Defendant Mokrian has repeatedly harassed, and continues to harass, Shopify merchants and Shopify itself through knowingly false allegations of copyright infringement. This lawsuit seeks to halt that misconduct and hold him accountable for the damage he has caused,” Shopify writes.

Dozens of False DMCA Notices

Shopify informs the court that it takes copyright infringement very seriously. The company receives thousands of notices each month and regularly removes shop listings deemed to be infringing. If a store owner is repeatedly targeted, they’re at risk of having their store closed completely.

The e-commerce platform relies on a mix of both human and automated reviews to process DMCA takedowns. This works well in most cases but the process is not bulletproof, as this lawsuit exemplifies.

Using several aliases including “Clayton Burnz”, Defendant Mokrian allegedly sent dozens of DMCA takedown notices to Shopify containing false claims. These requests targeted stores selling snore-reducing mouthguards and footwear insoles over alleged copyright infringement.

However, according to Shopify, these notices were littered with false information. They didn’t include any legitimate copyright complaints but were merely intended to harm other merchants.

Taking Out Competitors

The reason for this behavior is obvious; according to Shopify, Mokrian was running competing stores. By taking out the competition, interest in their own products should rise.

“It is plain that Mokrian submitted his fraudulent DMCA takedown notices for anti-competitive purposes. TeraNue—one of Mokrian’s stores on Shopify—sells snore-reducing mouthguards. Through his takedown notices, Mokrian targeted the same or similar mouthguard products sold by competing merchants,” Shopify informs the court.

“X-Care—another Mokrian store on Shopify—sells foot insoles, the same type of product sold by Rizzsoles.com, a Shopify merchant Mokrian targeted with his false notices. Mokrian used takedown notices not in an effort to root out copyright infringement, but in an effort to root out competition.”

Shopify ended up removing 38 competing products based on these false takedown claims. While these decisions were ultimately reversed, serious harm was done to both the affected shops and the platform itself.

The complaint notes that Shopify was financially impacted by the abuse. The company spent tens of thousands of dollars in personnel time and resources to address the issue. In addition, its goodwill was seriously harmed.

Through the lawsuit, Shopify hopes to be compensated for its losses. In addition, the company asks the Florida court for an injunction against the Orlando resident, prohibiting them from sending any fraudulent DMCA notices going forward.

—

A copy of the complaint Shopify filed at the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida is available here (pdf)

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

When cassette recorders, VCRs and similar devices hit the mainstream, entertainment companies with business models reliant on customers buying copies faced uncertainty.

The fear of consumer copies was encapsulated by the now-famous words of the MPAA’s Jack Valenti: “The VCR is to the American film producer, as the Boston Strangler is to the woman home alone,” Valenti said.

With the benefit of hindsight the VCR did more to help than it did to hinder but still, copying carried out privately in the home was considered a major threat with few enforcement options.

Private Copying Levy

Valenti’s statement in 1982 reached a broad audience but its essence wasn’t new. The potential for blank media to undermine the creative industries saw Germany introduce a levy in 1966, usurping the exclusive reproduction right with a right to equitable remuneration.

In 1985, France introduced “remuneration for private copying” to ensure that rightsholders were compensated for any harms caused by private copying of their works. A levy was placed on sales of blank media such as cassette tapes but as technology progressed, the levy became applicable to CDs and other recordable media.

Today, smartphones are the main source of private copying revenue which according to figures from 2021, now generates around €300 million per year for rightsholders.

Pushback Begins

While an annual boost of €300 million is good news for the beneficiaries, some believe the levy system is outdated and unnecessarily opaque. Since the price of a mobile phone 64GB and above is inflated by roughly 17 euros, whether anything is copied on the device or not, some have described the levy as anti-consumer too.

Compensation is paid to rightsholders through the company Copie France, at rates decided by a committee consisting of rightsholders, manufacturers of recording media, and consumers.

A French government report on private copying compensation published in October 2022 ( pdf ) offered several proposals for improvement. Noting that the rightsholders themselves provide usage statistics, using methods dating back a decade, calculation methods need to be updated transparently to reflect the reality of private copying today, in a market dominated by streaming.

French Politician Responds to Government Report

A L’Informe report published Monday reveals proposals from Member of Parliament Philippe Latombe in response to the government’s report.

Latombe’s first proposal is to transfer the decisions on how much levy is applied to each medium into the hands of the government.

“[I]n the same way as the finance law or the social security financing law, parliamentarians must be decision-makers and accountable to our fellow citizens,” the politician explains.

Latombe isn’t proposing the end of the existing panel (Private Copying Commission) but says its role should be to propose rates to parliament. L’Informe notes that the panel would also be prevented from initiating usage studies carried out by private companies at the levy fund’s expense. Instead, that work should be carried out by telecoms regulator, Arcom.

People Pay Levy Who Shouldn’t, Devices Shouldn’t Incur Levy Twice

The MP also criticizes the current system where the levy is collected on smartphones and tablets at the point of import, something that forces professional end buyers not liable to pay the levy, to enter a process to try and claim the excess back. Overpayments are currently estimated at between 40 and 50 million euros, so there are calls to simplify the process and ensure quicker refunds.

Latombe’s third proposal is to exempt smartphones and tablets reconditioned in France, currently subjected to a levy of 10 euros per unit. This would not only promote the use of the recycling market, protect the environment and create jobs, but would also ensure that devices would remain accessible to the socially disadvantaged.

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

With more than a billion impressions per month and over 30,000 active advertisers, PropellerAds is a serious player in the online advertising industry.

The Cyprus-based company works with advertisers and publishers from all over the world and while many are legitimate companies, Hollywood believes there are some bad apples too.

MPA’s List of Notorious Markets

Last month, the Motion Picture Association (MPA) nominated PropellerAds for inclusion on the US Trade Representative ‘s annual list of “notorious markets”. In the overview, the advertising outfit is flanked by traditional pirate sites such as The Pirate Bay, Fmovies, and YTS.

According to the MPA, PropellerAds is used by many pirate sites to generate millions of dollars in revenue.

“Although primarily based in Cyprus, Propeller Ads is an ad network operated by Russian individuals that has subsidiary offices in the Czech Republic, the Isle of Man, and the United Arab Emirates. The company is a significant ad provider to streaming cyberlockers,” MPA wrote.

The movie industry group added weight to its claim by referencing reports from the Digital Citizens Alliance ( DCA ), which show that illicit actors use pirate sites to display dubious or even harmful ads.

“According to DCA, Propeller Ads is among the biggest facilitators of malvertising on piracy sites, accounting for a quarter of their malvertising. Propeller Ads has been offering its services to dozens of illegal and infringing sites such as French-Stream.gg, Supervideo.tv, Vidlox.me, and Filmpertutti.lat, helping those sites generate significant revenues through advertising,” MPA writes.

This isn’t the first time that PropellerAds has been nominated for an appearance in the “notorious markets” overview; the MPA previously submitted almost identical recommendations to the USTR. These claims are a thorn in the side of the advertising company which has just responded with a scathing rebuttal in which it openly criticizes the MPA.

PropellerAds Responds

In a letter to the USTR, PropellerAds, represented by Boston Law Group’s Val Gurvits, describes the MPA’s characterization as baseless and libelous.

“In short, there is no basis to claim that Propeller Ads can be or should be alleged to be taking part in piracy. The assertions by the MPA that Propeller Ads is willfully funding piracy websites are not only factually wrong, but also legally baseless and libelous,” the letter reads.

The advertising company sees itself as an intermediary between advertisers and publishers, who use its platform to show billions of ads. It has no control over what’s offered on its clients’ websites, nor does it endorse or support any of the content.

In this intermediary role, the company believes that it’s not responsible for potentially problematic content. That’s in line with how courts in the US have ruled on this matter, the response notes, citing various legal precedents.

“In stark contrast to the MPA’s suggestion that advertising services somehow make Propeller Ads complicit in copyright piracy occurring on certain Internet websites, United States courts have explicitly found that an advertising network like Propeller Ads is not responsible for the infringing activities of its publishers.”

Reckless, Baseless, Inaccurate, and Misleading

As the rebuttal continues, the wording gets stronger. PropellerAds openly discredits the DCA research the MPA relies on, describing it as “reckless, baseless, inaccurate, and misleading.”

“The DCA Report not only fails to include Propeller Ads, but it does not even allege that any online advertisers or ad networks, in general, are responsible for illicit acts of piracy, credit card fraud, malware nor for any other potential risk to the health and safety to American consumers,” PropellerAds insists.

The MPA’s reliance on the DCA research to back up their “attacks” is “reprehensible and self-interested,” the advertising company notes. It stresses that there are close ties and financial links between the film industry and DCA, as previously reported by Vox .

PropellerAds indirectly suggests that DCA’s reports are used as ammunition for lobbying efforts. For example, the research is often referenced in legislative and policy commentary, without proper attribution and unbiased data.

“Indeed, all evidence demonstrates that the DCA created the DCA Report simply by relying on the unsubstantiated allegations of self-interested parties without conducting any reasonable independent research, with the clear intention of reaching a predetermined conclusion, defaming Propeller Ads,” the company adds.

“The DCA Report and all information therein about Propeller Ads is based on unconfirmed, farfetched, and false allegations without any actual evidence or justification whatsoever.

“The DCA Report provides no statistics or other real evidence proving that advertising intermediaries are in any way responsible for these bad actors. Therefore, all declarations, data, and numbers in the DCA Report as it relates to Propeller Ads are nothing more than mere speculations, expressions of malevolent opinions, and invalid assumptions.”

Harassment and Defamation

Propeller Ads says the MPA uses the USTR process to put pressure on third-party intermediaries, which can be seen as harassment and defamation.

“While the MPA holds itself out as a party eager to combat illegal activities on the internet, in reality, the MPA is using its platform and influence to baselessly harass and defame Propeller Ads and other major industry participants.”

If the MPA truly believes that PropellerAds is breaking the law it can take the matter to court; thus far, however, that’s yet to happen. While the MPA may not like some of the sites the company works with, that doesn’t make it liable.

For this reason, the USTR should not list the advertising company as a notorious market in its final report, the letter concludes.

“Propeller Ads respectfully cautions USTR to not adopt the MPA’s unfounded allegations and manufacture of evidence. The MPA’s cynical strategy is quite clear. The MPA is attempting to launder their own allegations through the USTR to advance the MPA’s own interest against Propeller Ads and other online advertisers.”

—

A copy of PropellerAds full response, submitted to the US Trade Representative, is available here (pdf)

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

Over the years we have seen dozens of anti-piracy campaigns. Initially, many of these tried to appeal to people’s morals.

You wouldn’t steal a car , right?

This type of messaging doesn’t work for everyone , so more direct tactics have also been explored. These often focus on the risks associated with piracy, running into legal trouble, for example. However, due to the perception that exposure to these types of issues is relatively unlikely, the overall deterrent effect can be quite limited.

Malware and Other Threats

A more ‘common’ threat that people face is malware and other types of scams. This may help to explain why many recent studies and reports have linked malware to pirate sites. These findings are backed by rightsholders and anti-piracy groups, who seem very concerned about the digital safety of pirates.

The Digital Citizens Alliance ( DCA ), which has close ties to the content industries, has highlighted these types of piracy threats for years. The group has released a variety of reports pointing out that pirate sites are a hotbed for malware, credit card theft, ransomware and other evils.

Earlier this year, a DCA mystery shopper experiment revealed that handing over credit card details to sellers of shady IPTV subscriptions isn’t a good idea. Several unknown charges popped up on some accounts, suggesting that cards had been compromised.

In addition, an accompanying study among American consumers found that 72 percent of those who used a credit card to pay for an IPTV subscription experienced a credit card breach. Of those who never visited pirate sites, ‘only’ 18 percent reported similar issues.

Attorneys General Warn Pirates

DCA says that these findings should send a warning to the public that pirate sites are unsafe so, to add some extra weight, today DCA launched a new series of public service announcements. They feature attorneys general in 19 states and the District of Columbia warning the public about these threats.

Participating law enforcers include California Attorney General Rob Bonta, Vermont Attorney General Charity Clark, and Georgia Attorney General Christopher Carr. All read from exactly the same script in their PSAs.

“Some very bad actors have found a way into our homes through the entertainment we watch, so-called piracy operators lure us with the offer of free or cheap access to our favorite programs and then spread viruses such as ransomware,” they warn

“They also offer low-cost piracy subscription services to watch pirated programs and live sports then steal your credit card information.

“Don’t let hackers or credit card thieves into your house. Be careful with the websites you visit and warn your children and other family members about how to stay safe online,” the message concludes.

Spreading The Message

DCA funded the campaign which will be promoted through social media. In addition, the messages have been submitted for airing on local TV stations, hoping to dissuade people from using pirate sites and services.

According to DCA’s executive director Tom Galvin, pirated content is often used as bait to exploit naive Internet users seeking cheap access to online entertainment.

“Piracy operators dangle free content. But what they don’t tell you is that the content is bait designed to infect users’ devices and enable criminals to abuse their credit cards,” Galvin says.

TorrentFreak asked DCA whether any other attorneys general were asked to participate, but we didn’t receive a direct answer. The Alliance did inform us that a standard script was used to ease video production. The same was done a few years ago, when a similar campaign was launched.

Attorneys general are tasked with keeping their citizens safe, so the campaign fits that goal. That said, the malware problem can be more nuanced than it’s portrayed in this campaign, but that would likely take away from the deterrent effect.

Finally, it’s worth highlighting that the PSAs make no mention of the fact that online piracy is linked to copyright infringement, which also has consequences. That doesn’t have priority, at least not in this campaign.

—

The attorneys general participating in the campaign are listed below. At the time of writing, not all videos are available online.

Attorney General Rob Bonta (California)
Attorney General William Tong (Connecticut)
Attorney General Brian Schwalb (District of Columbia)
Attorney General Chris Carr (Georgia)
Attorney General Brenna Byrd (Iowa)
Attorney General Kris Kobach (Kansas)
Attorney General Anthony G. Brown (Maryland)
Attorney General Dana Nessel (Michigan)
Attorney General Keith Ellison (Minnesota)
Attorney General Lynn Fitch (Mississippi)
Attorney General Aaron D. Ford (Nevada)
Attorney General Letitia A. James (New York)
Attorney General Josh Stein (North Carolina)
Attorney General Dave Yost (Ohio)
Attorney General Michelle Henry (Pennsylvania)
Attorney General Alan Wilson (South Carolina)
Attorney General Marty Jackley (South Dakota)
Attorney General Sean Reyes (Utah)
Attorney General Charity R. Clark (Vermont)
Attorney General Jason Miyares (Virginia)

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

The Entertainment Software Association ( ESA ) has submitted its latest overview of “Notorious Markets” to the Office of the US Trade Representative (USTR).

These submissions serve as input for the USTR’s yearly overview of piracy ‘markets’ which helps to shape the Government’s global copyright enforcement agenda going forward.

The ESA, which represents video game companies including Activision Blizzard, EA, Epic Games, Nintendo, Sony, Square Enix, and Ubisoft, hopes that the interests of its members will be taken into account. In the report, the group lists various pirate sites that allow the public to download games for free.

Cyberlockers, Linking and Torrent Sites

Download sites remain a key problem for the video games industry and these exist in various forms. In the cyberlocker category 1fichier.com and megaup.net are mentioned specifically. The former has also been the target of Nintendo legal action in France.

Megaup hasn’t been sued, but ESA views the platform as a growing concern. Over the past year, the number of estimated game downloads rose 135% according to the report. While Megaup processes takedown notices, most are never followed up. Files that are taken down only disappear after a considerable delay, according to ESA.

“Megaup hosts hundreds of unauthorized copies of copyright protected video game titles and only has a 33% response rate to ESA’s takedown notices despite receiving numerous removal notices,” ESA writes.

“Linking websites that index and manage the links to content hosted on Megaup also benefit from the platform’s low compliance rate as these websites derive more traffic, and thus more advertising revenue, due to the durability of the Megaup links.”

These linking sites also remain a threat and the same applies to torrent indexers. ESA lists nsw2u.com, Game3rb.com, Solidtorrents.to, and 1337x.to in its submission. Interestingly, the game companies write that 1337x was launched in 2014, which is seven years after its actual founding date.

Cheats and Marketplaces

The game companies continue by listing various sites that offer cheats and related information. These include mpgh.net and unknowncheats.me. The latter claims to have over four million users and has been in operation for more than two decades.

“[Unknowncheats.me] offers cheats and tutorials for 100+ titles as well as information and links to anti-cheat software and how to circumvent their protocols. It does not charge for cheats, instead relying on advertisements to
generate revenue.

“All cheats are created by the community and the site encourages users to develop and distribute these illegal goods,” ESA adds.

Unauthorized marketplaces make up the final category of sites. ESA specifically mentions playerauctions.com and G2G.com, which sell in-game items such as skins, virtual game currency, and various boosting options. Both sites have millions of monthly visits, according to recent SimilarWeb estimates.

Scene Groups, Crackers and Repackers

ESA has called out many of the above-mentioned sites and services in previous submissions, but the group also points out problems that it hasn’t discussed in detail before. They include Scene release groups, crackers, and repackers.

While the game-cracking scene has been thriving for roughly four decades, the game companies describe the “warez scene” or “Scene release groups” as an “emerging” threat.

“Scene release groups facilitate commercial scale piracy by circumventing technological protection measures and ‘packaging’ illegal downloads to be more easily accessed by the general public,” ESA writes.

Scene releases are indeed a problem but ESA appears to confuse some terms. The Scene doesn’t release any content to the public; it’s actually frowned upon and contrary to their rules. There are, however, non-Scene release groups and repackers that do upload content to the public.

Whether a Scene label is appropriate or not, ESA believes that “highly skilled” crackers and repackers pose a major threat to the gaming industry.

“Especially critical to this illicit supply chain are highly skilled hackers – also known as ‘crackers’ and ‘repackers’,” ESA writes.

Crackers are typically the people who remove DRM restrictions. These can be from the Scene but others operate more openly. Regardless, ESA notes that crackers violate Section 1201 of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA).

Cracked games usually appear on Scene topsites and private or public pirate sites, through which they are distributed to the broader public. In many cases, these pirated games are then picked up by ‘repackers’, who create slimmed-down versions that are easier to distribute.

“These ‘repacked’ files are very popular with individuals with slower internet speeds and/or data limits, as they will download faster and utilize less bandwidth,” ESA writes.

ESA doesn’t mention any crackers or repackers by name but notes that information on their whereabouts and operations is often shared through websites such as cs.rin.ru.

Cryptocurrency and Malware

Finally, the game companies mention malware and use of cryptocurrencies as growing trends. Many illicit marketplaces accept payments in cryptocurrencies, which are often harder to seize or track than regular bank accounts.

“With the growth of this oftentimes nonrestricted payment system, bad actors are using cryptocurrency as a way of purchasing or selling illicit products without using regulated financial institutions,” ESA writes.

Malware can also be used to generate revenue. In some cases, bad actors monetize pirated games by automatically installing cryptocurrency miners while adware also remains a problem.

“Distributors of pirated video games often lace their downloads with these various forms of malware in order to exploit users downloading ostensibly ‘free’ games,” ESA notes.

The gaming association hopes that by pointing out these threats, some will appear on the radars of law enforcement, policymakers, and foreign governments, then dealt with via appropriate action.

—

A copy of ESA’s submission for the 2023 Special 301 Out-of-Cycle Review of Notorious Markets is available here (pdf) . An overview of the (online) threats is listed below.

Hyperlinking Websites (“Linking Sites” or “Link Sites”)
– nsw2u.com
– Game3rb.com

Hosting Websites (“Cyberlockers”)
– 1fichier.com
– megaup.ne

Torrent Indexing Websites
– 1337x.to
– Solidtorrents.to

Cheats
– unknowncheats.me
– mpgh.net

Unauthorized Online Marketplaces
– playerauctions.com
– G2G.com

Malware

Cryptocurrency

Scene Release Groups

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

While the continued proliferation of cheap albeit illegal pirate IPTV subscriptions is a problem for Sky, the broadcaster’s engagement with governments suggests that allocation of public crime-fighting resources would make things more manageable.

A public/private partnership featuring Sky and police forces across England has seen significant resources deployed to tackle various players in the IPTV ecosystem. Sky provides police forces with leads and supporting evidence and, if all goes to plan, suspects are arrested and processed through the criminal legal system.

Arrests like these are often publicized by the police, which adds weight to Sky’s public messaging; the ‘BeStreamWise’ campaign currently seen on billboards in Ireland is a current example.

A report published yesterday by Irish Independent ( paywall ) suggests that after persuading authorities in England to allocate law enforcement resources, Sky would ideally like the Irish government to follow suit.

Sky Ireland Chief Executive Officer Met With Enterprise Minister

The Irish Independent’s report cites correspondence revealing a meeting last May between Sky Ireland Chief Executive Officer JD Buckley and Enterprise Minister Simon Coveney .

Alongside trading issues related to Brexit and EU law, Sky reportedly asked the government to set up a “dedicated anti-piracy garda unit” (a reference to Ireland’s National Police and Security Service) to tackle the illicit pirate IPTV subscription/device market, colloquially known as “dodgy boxes.”

Who requested the meeting and where it was held are details absent from the report. However, public records reveal that Minister Coveney traveled to Sky’s offices five months ago where he had a meeting with Mr Buckley and Stephen van Rooyen , Chief Executive Officer Sky UK and Ireland and Group Chief Commercial Officer.

A public post on LinkedIn thanks Minister Coveney for visiting Sky’s office where “a number of Sky priorities for the year ahead” were discussed.

Sky Followed-Up on Piracy Discussion

How the Independent was able to review the correspondence isn’t clear, but the proposals themselves are presented in considerable detail. It appears that Sky wants to tackle IPTV subscription resellers; in other words, the people most often in direct contact with the public.

“There are dozens of such resellers across Ireland and it is these cases we really want to focus on, as taking out these significant suppliers will cause significant disruption and highlight to end-users the risks and illegality of piracy,” Mr Buckley said.

“I would appreciate if you could speak to your cabinet colleague in the Department of Justice to see if resourcing of this area is possible. We at Sky are of course available to discuss how we can support this objective.”

The Department of Justice said it had “no engagement” on the matters raised by Sky, the Independent reports, and the deployment of garda resources was a matter for Garda Commissioner Drew Harris. For unconnected reasons , Harris currently has other things on his mind.

An RTE report published yesterday revealed that an increasing number of gardaí are resigning from the job because of “low morale, bullying and unfair treatment, and work-related stress.” RTE reports that so far this year, 106 gardaí have left their jobs, a figure that matches departures for the whole of 2022.

Garda Siochäna Already Works With Industry

In a statement the Garda Síochána, Ireland’s national police and security service, said that it already works with industry and service providers to tackle illicit streaming, noting that money-laundering offenses and the freezing of accounts form part of their work.

Back in March, for example, warnings were issued to people suspected of providing access to illicit streams in the counties of Mayo, Limerick, Meath, Offaly, Dublin, Wexford, Cork, Wicklow, Tipperary, Kilkenny, Kildare, and Donegal.

This operation also appears to have focused on IPTV subscription resellers so, at least at face value, Sky appears to be seeking law enforcement resources to do more of the same.

Resellers are an important part of the pirate IPTV ecosystem. They supply large numbers of subscriptions to the public and in some cases to lower-tier resellers. More often than not, however, they are at least one and potentially many more steps away from those actually providing the streams. In layman’s terms, this strategy targets the ‘warehouses’ to prevent supplies from reaching the ‘retail’ end of the market, but in itself does little to halt the supply of streams.

That being said, resellers may also possess a different type of ‘intellectual property’ considered particularly useful to rightsholders. And who better to extract that proprietary information than those with the power of arrest, directly supported by those ultimately pulling the strings.

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

Over the past year, new artificial intelligence tools and services have been surfacing everywhere.

This AI boom followed the success of ChatGPT and many people believe these recent developments are just the beginning.

While entrepreneurs and the public at large are mostly focused on the new possibilities the technology offers, many copyright holders are focused on potential threats. This includes the music industry’s anti-piracy arm, the RIAA , which previously took action against a popular AI-related Discord server that was shut down last week.

Artificial intelligence also makes an appearance in the RIAA’s latest overview of foreign sites and services that present copyright and other intellectual property challenges.

Responding to a request from the Office of the US Trade Representative (USTR), the music group added “AI Vocal Cloning” as a new category in its annual overview of ‘notorious’ piracy markets.

“The year 2023 saw an eruption of unauthorized AI vocal clone services that infringe not only the rights of the artists whose voices are being cloned but also the rights of those that own the sound recordings in each underlying musical track.

“This has led to an explosion of unauthorized derivative works of our members’ sound recordings which harm sound recording artists and copyright owners,” the RIAA reports.

Voicify.ai

The music group sees vocal cloning websites as a broader problem, but mentions just one service by name; Voicify.ai . With over a million monthly visits this is one of the largest players, with subscription fees starting at $7.99 a month.

Voicify focuses on AI covers and allows users to create a new version of a track by simply adding a YouTube link and picking a voice model. The voice models mimic popular artists such as Ariana, Bruno Mars, Elvis, Eminem, and Taylor Swift, but Donald Trump and Spongebob are popular options too.

This site promotes itself as the “#1 platform for making high quality AI covers in seconds!” but the RIAA mainly sees copyright troubles with the Amazon-hosted service.

Rights of Publicity

According to the RIAA’s description, Voicify effectively stream-rips YouTube music videos. It then separates the acapella track and uses the AI voice model to alter that, after which it is added to the underlying musical bed to create the cover.

The RIAA believes that ripping YouTube tracks is a violation of the DMCA and using a voice model to create a derivative work is problematic too. On top of that, the voice models infringe the artists’ rights of publicity .

“This unauthorized activity infringes copyright as well as infringing the sound recording artist’s rights of publicity,” RIAA writes.

This ‘publicity’ right allows artists to control how their names, images, and likenesses are used in a commercial setting. That could also apply to their voices when exploited by a third party.

Evolving AI Challenges

This isn’t the first time that AI voice models have been called out. Earlier this year, Sony Music raised concerns about AI vocals and an AI-generated collaboration between ‘Drake’ and ‘The Weeknd’ was silenced over copyright concerns around the same time.

The RIAA arrived at the party early. Before the ChatGPT boom started, the music group had already signaled AI as an emerging threat . At the time, it was concerned with tools that could extract vocals or music beds, but those are old news today.

At the pace that new services are being rolled out today, Voicify might also be horribly outdated again a year from now. However, AI concerns are unlikely to dissipate anytime soon.

Traditional Piracy Threats Remain

Aside from the emerging AI threat, the RIAA remains concerned over more traditional piracy tools as well. This includes torrent sites such as The Pirate Bay and 1337x, as well as stream rippers, direct download portals, and cyberlockers.

Similarly, bulletproof hosting companies such as FlokiNET and PRQ are awarded with a “notorious” mark and the same applies to domain name privacy provider Njal.la and alternative app store Aptoid.

The RIAA’s full list of “notorious” sites and services can be found below, and the full report is available here (pdf)

—–

The cursive listings are new this year and those that were removed are crossed out. The RIAA stresses that these are mere examples as this is a non-exhaustive overview.

Stream-Ripping Sites

– ssyoutube.com
– ytmp3.nu
– mp3juices.cc
– flvto.biz and 2conv.com
– y2mate.com (and related sites yt1s.com, 9convert.com, and tomp3.cc)
– savefrom.net (and related site savef.net)
– ssyoutube.com
– Snaptube app and related domains
– tubidy.watch (tubidy.mobi, tubidy.com, tubidy.buzz, tubidy.ws9)

Music Download Sites

– newalbumreleases.net
– intmusic.net
– ak47full.com
– fakaza.com
– hiphopda.com
– bazenation.com
– itopmusicx.com
– songswave.com

BitTorrent Indexing Sites

– thepiratebay.org
– 1337x.to and mirrored at 1337x.is, 1337x.se, 1337x.st, x1337x.ws, x1337x.eu, and x1337x.se)
– rarbg.to
– torrentgalaxy.to

Cyberlockers

– zippyshare.com
– dbree.org
– rapidgator.net
– turbobit.net
– krakenfiles.com
– ddownload.com
– onlyfiles.io

Unauthorized Short Form Video Services

– likee.video
AI Based Extractors/Mixers

– acapella-extractor.com
– remove-vocals.com
– songmastr.com

AI Vocal Cloning

– voicify.ai

Additional Issues

– Bulletproof ISPS: PRQ, FlokiNET, Frantech Solutions/BuyVM/ PONYNET , DDoS Guard.
– Nigerian-Operated Infringing Sites: thenetnaija.net, trendybeatz.com, justnaija.com, 24naijamuzic.com and bazenation.com.
– Other intermediaries: Njal.la, A-Ads/Equativ, Softonic/Aptoid.

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

Following a request by the Office of the United States Trade Representative for stakeholders to identify so-called ‘notorious markets’ involved in large-scale infringement, submissions are now publicly available.

After reporting on submissions by the Motion Picture Association (MPA) ( 1 ) and Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) ( 2 ) this week, today we present a roundup of three key submissions, all of which target the pirate IPTV / live sports streaming ecosystem.

Anti-Piracy Coalitions, Members, Overlaps

Submissions by the Audiovisual Anti-Piracy Alliance (AAPA), Football Association Premier League, plus a joint submission by beIN Media and Miramax, contain considerable detail on the problems faced by sports leagues and their broadcasting partners.

In some cases the nominated pirate services appear in more than one report. That’s not unexpected among companies in the same market but since some rightsholders are represented in more than one submission, for the sake of clarity those are shown in bold below.

AAPA members : Altice France, beIN Media Group , Canal+, Cosmote TV, CryptoGuard, Cyta, DAZN, DFL, Friend MTS, Irdeto, LeakID, LFP, Liberty Global, Nagra Kudelski, NOS, OPSEC, Premier League , Sky, Synamedia, United Media, Verimatrix, Viaccess Orca, Viaplay Group, Vodafone Ziggo, Wiley (S1)
Individual submission: Sole rightsholder Premier League (S2)
Joint submission: Miramax and beIN Media (S3)

Illicit IPTV Services

BestBuyIPTV heads the list of illicit IPTV services in the Premier League’s individual submission (S2).

“BestBuyIPTV is a very popular global IPTV service that carries channels from broadcasters located all around the world, including many that carry Premier League content. Investigations conducted by the Premier League have located the operator of the service in Vietnam.” (Premier League)

Forever TV (affiliates Chaloos and Mediastar ) takes the top spot in both the AAPA’s submission (S1) and the joint beIN/Miramax submission (S3). The IPTV service appears second in the Premier League’s report and is considered a major threat.

“The service operates from a website at https://foreveriptv.net/ where it offers subscriptions to its service as well as a re-streamer and re-seller program, which rewards third parties for further distribution of its pirated content.” (AAPA)

“These services between them are responsible for the unauthorized provision of thousands of premium TV channels and on-demand movies and TV content. Chaloos was named by the United States Trade Representative (‘USTR’) on its 2022 Notorious Markets List.” (Premier League)

Other IPTV services listed by the Premier League include the following (comments summarized):

EVPad: One of the most popular illicit streaming services across South East Asia. The business is extremely sophisticated. 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.

Family Box: Nominated in both Premier League and beIN/Miramax submissions. “Family Box is both a terrestrial pirate organization covering Kurdistan, and an IPTV pirate organization with global coverage. Its offices are in Erbil, Iraq,” beIN reports. Almost identical text appears in the Premier League’s individual submission, most likely since they’re both members of AAPA.

Globe IPTV: One of the most prominent wholesalers of content to pirate services around the world. Has supplied multiple pirate services that have been the subject of historical and ongoing legal action. Rightsholders have identified Globe’s operator in Lebanon.
(TF note: Globe was a supplier to Flawless TV. The roles were later reversed)

SVI Cloud: An illicit streaming device very popular in South East Asia. Operates both online and through an extensive list of resellers with over 70 physical locations listed as selling the device on their official website. (TF note: 17 people were arrested in Singapore early October and 2,500 devices seized. Follows a similar crackdown in Taiwan.)

Pirate Streaming Sites/Cyberlockers/Others

Both AAPA and Premier League have nominated web-based streaming sites to the USTR and in some cases the same platforms appear on both lists.

Livetv.sx , a popular sports stream indexing site, receives nominations from both, with the Premier League noting its availability in 12 different languages and an estimated 129 million global online visits since October 2022. The site is subject to Premier League blocking injunctions in multiple jurisdictions. AAPA believes the site is operated from Cyprus, Kazakhstan and/or Russia.

Freestreams-live1 receives a nomination from the Premier League. Previously the site operated from the domain freestreams-live1.com, but after that was seized by Homeland Security Investigations, freestreams-live1.tv became the site’s new domain.

Totalsportek (Poland), VIPBox (Germany), and Xoilac (Vietnam) were also reported by the Premier League.

LSHunter.net , Streamonsport , Rojadirecta , Soccerstreams.football , Totalsportek.pro , Filmmoviplex.com , RLSBB , Soap2day (variants), 1movieshd.com , Papadustream , Score808 , futemax.to , Pobretv.net , and YTS , were reported by AAPA.

We conclude with the AAPA’s cyberlocker and eBook nominations which include both Sci-Hub and Libgen due to publisher Wiley becoming an AAPA member.

The AAPA’s submission to the USTR is available here ( pdf )

The Premier League’s submission is available here ( pdf )

The beIN / Miramax submission is available here ( pdf )

———-

Other AAPA IPTV nominations not detailed above: GoGo IPTV , Apollo 5 , Yacine TV , Cobra TV , IPTV Smarty , IPTV Main , Bobres IPTV , SyberTV , Apollo Group TV , Xtreme HD , King IPTV , Orca IPTV , Dezor , META IPTV , 4KEVO IPTV , and XCTV IPTV .

(TF note1: AAPA reports that Cobra IPTV is “one of the most significant pirate IPTV services with worldwide popularity. TF note2: Sky obtained permission from the UK High Court in July to block IPTVMain’s servers . Others subject to blocking include BunnyStreams, GenIPTV, and GoTVMix)

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