After two decades online and maybe even a few more under Divxstation branding right at the beginning, veteran subtitle download site Subscene.com has finally thrown in the towel.

In various guises, linked to specific geographic regions, perhaps as many as 50 domains can be linked to Subscene over the past twenty years. At a time when legal streaming services didn’t even exist, Subscene offered subtitles for large libraries of movies and TV shows in multiple languages.

Making content accessible to non-native speakers, in countries where legal streaming services wouldn’t arrive for a decade, didn’t just help people to understand movies. For those hoping to widen their horizons, subtitles became opportunities to learn new languages. For the deaf and hard of hearing, subtitles represented a new connection with the wider world.

Competition – Finally

Things are, of course, very different today. While a disappointing number of legal streaming platforms still fail to provide acceptable subtitles on all content, Netflix releases often arrive with subtitles in dozens of languages. That seems likely to have played a part in reduced levels of traffic at Subscene, leading to a fairly quiet announcement two months ago.

“Hi everyone, i’m very sorry to be [writing] this, but Subscene cannot continue for much longer,” the site’s owner told users.

“It has not been paying for itself for several years now, visitors are falling, and maintenance cannot continue. I am amazed at all your administrative work with the content which is the primary reason that I have continued paying for the site for this long. Thank you all for this journey we have been on together. If I can do anything for you let me know.”

Shutdown in 24 Hours

On May 2, 2024, Subscene’s owner posted to the site’s forum to confirm what had been mentioned at least eight weeks earlier. Subscene would be shutting down for good.

Some Subscene users complained that 24 hours wasn’t enough time to back up subtitles they had uploaded to the site. Others expressed concerns that a giant subtitle collection shouldn’t just disappear without an effort to preserve it. The reality is that efforts to preserve the contents of Subscene had been underway for some time.

Archiving, Hoarding Data

Soon after the first announcement two months ago, indicating that Subscene would close down, members of the /r/DataHoarder subreddit had quickly sprung into action. They produced a full 90GB+ database, which they say even includes deleted subtitle files, and then made it available online via a regular .torrent file, a magnet link, and for the Usenet fans, an NZB file.

As mentioned on their Wiki , Archive Team sprang into action with the 24-hour shutdown period underway yet still managed to retrieve almost everything.

“It was announced on 2024-05-02 that the site would cease operations within 24 hours, and that a ‘takeover plan was not possible’. No reason was given for the sudden closure. A DPoS project was started 2024-05-03 13:56 UTC and was able to grab most subtitles before the websites demise later that day at 2024-05-03 21:11 UTC.”

Data Saved But in The Wrong Place for App Users

Users who prefer to use mostly Android apps for their movie and TV show fix, often have in-app access to subtitles. As the image below shows, Subscene.com is regularly used as a source for those subtitles.

Since the site’s URL appears to be hardcoded in many cases, only an app update will be able to point to a new location. Even then, open access to the files isn’t guaranteed and will only become more complex if there’s not enough centralized interest in creating or curating new subtitles for the latest titles.

There’s no suggestion from the site’s operator that Subscene has faced recent legal issues but nevertheless, blocking injunctions and personalized mentions in industry reports to government have played a part in the site’s history.

According to a message on the site’s main page, that history ends here.

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

Last summer, Lithuania amended its Code of Administrative Offenses , allowing media watchdog LRTK to fine pirates, without going to court.

This legislative change is the latest attempt to deter piracy in the European country. The potential fines should make pirates reconsider their habits, the thinking was.

Tracking Torrent Trackers

Over the past several months, dozens of fines were handed out. The targets were first-time offenders and all received the minimum fine of 140 euros. For repeat offenses, fines can potentially reach 600 euros.

The early fines were almost exclusively issued to users of the private torrent tracker Linkomanija for sharing pirated films. However, the authorities have cast their net wider than that, a recent update shows.

According to LRTK’s latest information, it’s also keeping an eye on users of ‘private’ torrent tracker, Torrent.lt. This site was once among the twenty most visited websites in Lithuania and still has a dedicated user base.

A €140 Lesson

Three of Torrent.lt’s users were caught illegally sharing an audiobook of self-help classic “The 7 Habits of Highly Effective People” written in 1989 by the late Stephen Covey.

The book promises readers “powerful lessons in personal change” but whether the trio managed to improve their lives isn’t clear. They were certainly not very effective as pirates, however, as the book came at a cost.

LRTK hopes that the fine will offer a powerful lesson too. Since the audiobook pirates were all first offenders, who eventually apologized for their torrenting habits, the lowest possible fine was deemed sufficient.

“Since the identified persons were sincerely sorry for the offense committed, they were fined 140 euros, which they will have to pay to one of the collection accounts of the State Tax Inspectorate,” the media watchdog writes.

The print version ‘7 Habits’ book was originally published by Free Press, which wasn’t involved in the process. Instead, the enforcement action was taken on behalf of a local rightsholder, the Lithuanian Audiosensory Library.

Effective?

More ‘effective’ pirates may use tools to hide their IP-addresses from tracking companies but, thus far, LRTK has had no trouble identifying potential targets.

Although the catch rate is relatively low, and the fine somewhat modest, the watchdog hopes that its enforcement efforts will encourage change. In any case, it doesn’t plan to stop its fining campaign anytime soon.

“It should be noted that LRTK constantly monitors in order to protect copyrights on the Internet and reduce the scale of piracy in Lithuania,” the group concludes .

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

As part of anti-piracy scheme featuring warning letters, fines, and ISP disconnections, France has monitored and stored data on millions of internet users since 2010.

Digital rights groups insist that as a general surveillance and data retention scheme, the ‘Hadopi’ program violates fundamental rights.

Any program that monitors citizens’ internet activities, retains huge amounts of data, and then links identities to IP addresses, must comply with EU rules. Activists said that under EU law, only “serious crime” qualifies and since petty file-sharing fails to make the grade, the whole program represents a mass violation of EU citizens’ fundamental rights.

Surveillance and Serious Crime

Seeking confirmation at the highest level, La Quadrature du Net, Federation of Associative Internet Service Providers, French Data Network, and Franciliens.net, began their challenge in France . The Council of State referred the matter to the Constitutional Council, which in turn referred questions to the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) for interpretation under EU law.

EU member states may not pass national laws that allow for the general and indiscriminate retention of traffic and location data. Retention of traffic and location data is permitted on a targeted basis as a “preventative measure” but only when the purpose of retention is to fight “serious crime.”

In his non-binding opinion , CJEU Advocate General Szpunar described Hadopi’s access to personal data corresponding to an IP address as a “serious interference with fundamental rights,” the clearest sign yet that the right to privacy had already taken a blow.

CJEU judgments have balanced citizens’ rights and rightsholders’ right to copy many times over the years but here, case law was deemed potentially problematic. In fact so much so, AG Szpunar proposed “readjustment of the case-law of the Court” to ensure that rightsholders would not be left in a position where it was impossible to enforce their rights on BitTorrent and similar networks.

EU Law Shouldn’t Rule Surveillance Out

By last September, it was clear that a legal basis needed to be found to allow Hadopi and similar programs to continue. For example, the fluid nature of dynamic IP addresses was mentioned as an obstacle to comprehensive tracking.

Well-constructed arguments stated that balance could be found in securing the harvested data and, to protect fundamental rights, limitations on how much data could be used in the event an alleged file-sharer was prosecuted.

Ultimately, however, when infringement occurs exclusively online, an IP address may be the only means to track down an alleged infringer, leading to the conclusion that retention and access to civil identifying data is both “necessary” and “wholly proportionate.”

Copyrights Trump Privacy Rights

In its decision handed down Tuesday, initially only in French, the CJEU leaves no stone unturned in delivering a win for rightsholders. Despite the problematic case law, the judgment builds a framework for how monitoring and data retention can be conducted within the requirements of EU law.

The judgment deals with three key questions, summarized as follows:

1. Is civil identity data corresponding to an IP address included among the traffic and location data which, in principle, requires prior review by a court or administrative entity?

2. If yes, is EU law to be interpreted as precluding national legislation that provides for the collection of such data, corresponding to users’ IP addresses, without prior review by a court or administrative entity?

3. If yes, does EU law preclude the review from being performed in an adapted fashion, for example as an automated review?

In other words, are member states precluded from having a national law that authorizes a copyright authority to access stored IP addresses and civil identity data relating to users, collected by rightsholders monitoring their activities on the internet, for the purpose of taking further action, without a review by a court or administrative body?

Data collected includes date and time of alleged infringement, IP address, peer-to-peer protocol, user pseudonym, details of copyright works, filename, ISP name.

Ensuring Privacy and Data Security

The judgment notes that IP addresses can constitute both traffic data and personal data. However, IP addresses that are public and visible, as they are in file-sharing swarms, are not being used in connection with the provision of an ‘electronic communication service’.

The judgment also states that, if Member States seek to impose “an obligation to retain IP addresses in a general and indiscriminate manner, in order to attain an objective linked to combating criminal offenses in general”, they should lay down clear and precise rules in legislation relating to retention of data, meeting strict requirements.

IP and civil identity data must be separated from each other and all other data, in a secure and reliable computer system. When IP addresses and civil data need to be linked, a process that does not undermine the “watertight separation” should be used, and regularly inspected for effectiveness. When these rules are followed, even citizens’ data gathered indiscriminately cannot result in “serious interference” to fundamental rights.

The judgment notes that EU law does not “preclude the Member State concerned from imposing an obligation to retain IP addresses, in a general and indiscriminate manner, for the purposes of combating criminal offenses in general.”

Balancing Competing Rights

The CJEU says that while EU citizens using internet services “must have a guarantee that their privacy and freedom of expression” will be respected, those fundamental rights are not absolute. The prevention of crime or the protection of the rights and freedoms of others may see those rights deemed less important.

Then, with some fluidity, the CJEU pulls the rug on excuses and upgrades petty file-sharing to something, well, a bit more serious .

To prevent crime, it may be strictly necessary and proportional for IP addresses to be captured and retained for “combating criminal offenses such as offenses infringing copyright or related rights committed online.”

Indeed, not allowing the above “would carry a real risk of systemic impunity not only for criminal offenses infringing copyright or related rights, but also for other types of criminal offenses committed online or the commission or preparation of which is facilitated by the specific characteristics of the internet.”

Pirate Privacy? Not Here

The judgment adds that despite the strict security guarding private information, there’s always a chance that a person might find themselves profiled. And that, the court suggests, may be of their own making.

[S]uch a risk to privacy may arise, inter alia, where a person engages in activities infringing copyright or related rights on peer-to-peer networks repeatedly, or on a large scale, in connection with protected works of particular types that can be grouped together on the basis of the words in their title, revealing potentially sensitive information about aspects of that person’s private life.

Thus, in the present case, in the context of the graduated response administrative procedure, a holder of an IP address may be particularly exposed to such a risk to his or her privacy where that procedure reaches the stage at which Hadopi must decide whether or not to refer the matter to the public prosecution service with a view to the prosecution of that person for conduct liable to constitute the minor offense of gross negligence or the offense of counterfeiting.

Throughout the course of the next few paragraphs, the judgment mentions processing data for the “prevention, investigation, detection or prosecution of criminal offenses,” and a quote from the French government stating that “the measures adopted by Hadopi in the context of the graduated response procedure ‘are of a pre-criminal nature directly linked to the judicial proceedings’.”

That leads to the predictable conclusion that EU law does not preclude national legislation that allows for the surveillance of internet users and the retention of their data, for the purpose of identifying users and taking legal action against them.

Member states just need to follow the rules to ensure that those who didn’t have their privacy breached when their data was collected, don’t have it breached or leaked as they wait for whatever punishment arrives in the mail.

La Quadrature du Net says it’s disappointed with the judgment.

“[T]his decision from the CJEU has, above all, validated the end of online anonymity. While in 2020 it stated that there was a right to online anonymity enshrined in the ePrivacy Directive, it is now abandoning it.

Unfortunately, by giving the police broad access to the civil identity associated with an IP address and to the content of a communication, it puts a de facto end to online anonymity.”

The judgment is available here

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

The joint press release issued Monday by the Premier League and Alliance for Creativity and Entertainment (ACE) was unusual right from the start.

Published early on Monday, even the timing was a break from the norm, but the content was even more surprising. Following criminal referrals by the Premier League and ACE, an operator of BestBuyIPTV – a platform that has appeared on the USTR’s Notorious Markets report for the past five years – had been convicted at the People’s Court of Hanoi.

For a country where criminal referrals have traditionally disappeared into the ether, that could be a very big deal.

Sentencing Details Are Somewhat Puzzling

The press release clearly identifies Le Hai Nam as “the operator” of BestBuyIPTV. He entered a guilty plea and was sentenced to 30 months in prison and ordered to pay the equivalent of $4,000. Whether that was a straightforward fine or something else isn’t clear, but more than $24,000 in illegal profits were identified, confiscated, and then seized by the state, while $12,000 in restitution was paid according to the indictment.

Having learned more about the case and its challenges since Monday, the conviction seems to represent a minor miracle in itself. In isolation, however, there’s an irreconcilable gap between the scale of the infringing and the punishment handed down.

For reasons that aren’t addressed, the court suspended the entire sentence, i.e no prison time at all. Assuming the restitution was split 50/50, that’s $6,000 each for the Premier League and ACE, while $24,000 – the bulk of funds – simply evaporated into the public purse. It’s a baffling situation, but clearly the conviction is the main prize here; it could be priceless.

Legal Process Took Four Years

Information made available to TorrentFreak suggests that the Premier League filed a complaint with authorities in June or July 2020, requesting an investigation and criminal prosecution of not one, but two Vietnamese nationals, one of which was Le Hai Nam.

The other, whose name we’ll refrain from revealing here, was considered the operator of BestBuyIPTV while Nam appears to have controlled the restreaming side of the business. Communications with customers show involvement in both reselling and direct sales, however.

Estimates of how much BestBuyIPTV was making overall were not made available to us, but a third party estimate provides some basis to throw some figures into the air to compare with the $14,000 paid in restitution.

In common with similar services who use subscriber numbers as part of their marketing, BestBuyIPTV’s homepage boasted 900,000 subscribers, between 10,000 and 12,000 resellers, and around 2,000 restreaming affiliates. If we assume these figures are highly inflated and then broadly avoid counting revenues twice, a conservative estimate would run to a seven-figure sum, and quite possibly eight.

The other remarkable aspect to this case can be viewed from two different directions. Either there was a complete lack of awareness on the security front, or maybe none of those involved actually cared. Given the technical skills on display concerning the service itself, the former seems to be out of the question. That leaves the latter, and probably one of the easier identifications for the Premier League in recent years.

Of course, that’s just a small part of the puzzle; gathering evidence to support convictions is painstaking work and more may be needed to bring this particular battle to an end.

Official Admits Manga Piracy Problem

As regularly reported over the past few years, Vietnam is home to some of the world’s largest pirate sites. In the United States, with site-blocking legislation back on the political agenda, the spotlight is on FMovies , one of the world’s leading movie and TV show streaming sites.

For some time, however, copyright holders in Japan have been reporting several other Vietnam-based or Vietnam-operated platforms responsible for staggering levels of piracy. They specialize in Japanese comics, known as manga, and local cartoons, better known as anime.

After recently renewing an anti-piracy partnership with Hollywood, publishers and anti-piracy group CODA are independently working flat out to solve what at times has looked like an unsolvable problem. However, unusual comments published in local media may suggest some light on the horizon.

Hundreds of Millions of Dollars

Pham Hoang Hai is the director of the Radio, Television and Electronic Information Testing Center, which operates within the Department of Broadcasting and Electronic Information under the Ministry of Information and Communications.

In comments published recently in local media, Hai said that around 100 websites are known to offer football matches illegally in Vietnam, together responsible for around 1.5 billion views in the 2022/2023 season. He also commented on sites dealing in other content, around 200 generating around 120 million views. And then something else, which as far as we know is the first public comment that acknowledges the scale of manga piracy traceable to Vietnam.

“Recently, we discovered a number of websites with servers located abroad that violate comic book copyrights,” Hai said .

“There have been a number of Japanese organizations working with the Ministry of Information and Communications, reporting comic book violations. Wars in cyberspace have caused hundreds of millions of dollars in damage to copyright owners.”

In isolation, that may not sound like a particularly important comment and with no context, a suspended sentence and measly restitution could easily be dismissed on the same grounds. Only time will tell whether these seeds will grow into something more substantial but in Vietnam, where signs of progress are extremely rare, any achievement in the right direction holds significant value.

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

For online media consumers, things have improved significantly over the years. More content is being made available on-demand than ever before.

Netflix set the tone a decade ago by offering movies and TV series online as a convenient alternative to piracy. This worked well, so well that more than a dozen other streaming services were launched, all with their own exclusive releases.

While this may sound positive, in some ways it made things worse for consumers. As it turns out, it’s quite costly to have more than a handful of subscriptions and fees may rise to the point where people feel justified to pirate some content to keep costs under control.

This revelation isn’t new. It’s been brought up several times over the years, dating back to at least 2017 . And indeed, while most people gladly pay for streaming subscriptions, many use pirate sites and services ‘on the side’ to incidentally watch content from services they’re not already subscribed to.

Academic studies are yet to examine this effect in great detail, but there is survey data to back the theory up. Previously, most UK consumers felt that they were paying too much for legal subscriptions, with half indicating that piracy is a viable alternative.

1 in 3 Americans Pirated Movies or TV recently

New data from U.S. respondents released this week suggests that expensive streaming subscriptions are an issue there too. The online survey , conducted by Cordcutting among a sample of 988 American adults, finds that a third of all respondents pirated TV series or movies in the past year.

Younger people are more likely to have pirated at some point in their lives. For example, 76% of Generation Z says they have pirated content, a figure that falls to 28% for baby boomers.

Piracy habits are relatively stable. Most people who admitted pirating something over the past twelve months indicate that they ‘consume’ about the same as they did earlier. The positive news for rightsholders is that 35% pirate less than before, while just 11% have increased their piracy volume.

Streaming Costs Trigger Piracy

For many people, fragmentation and cost of paid streaming services appear to be key reasons for turning to pirate alternatives. More than a third of the self-proclaimed pirates mentioned the price of legal subscriptions among their reasons.

Of all pirating respondents, 36% said they used unauthorized alternatives because they were only interested in a specific show or movie, which alone was not worth a full subscription. This is close to the 35% who indicated that subscription services are too expensive.

The results of these types of surveys should always be interpreted with caution. The formulation of questions can be leading at times, for example, and paid online polls may have a selection bias.

The results make it clear that the price of legal subscriptions is an issue for a number of people. At the same time, however, the majority of respondents didn’t mention cost as a problem. Other popular reasons to pirate include content being unavailable through legal channels, or to avoid advertising.

How to Solve It?

The current streaming landscape is complicated for a reason. Many players are trying to gain market share hoping to become a dominant force. However, at some point more consolidation would make sense to keep costs under control for distributors and consumers.

When asked about possible solutions, many respondents mentioned that cheaper legal services would help, as would stronger penalties for online pirates.

At the moment, rightsholders are mostly focused on enforcement efforts to tackle the problem. In addition to going after pirate sites and services, they hope to introduce site blocking legislation to the United States. That has the potential to deter some casual pirates.

According to the survey, an emphasis on the potential negative effects of piracy could help. Among the U.S. respondents who indicated that they had never pirated anything, malware threats and potential negative effects on the industry were frequently mentioned as reasons.

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

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.

Read 17 remaining paragraphs | Comments

Pirated copies of movies leak all year round, often ripped from streaming platforms after their official premiere. That by itself is nothing special.

However, when a high-quality copy of a blockbuster title appears online before it’s officially available, people take notice. That’s exactly what happened with Dune: Part Two over the past few hours.

The second installment of the adaptation of Frank Herbert’s 1965 sci-fi book premiered in cinema a little over a month ago. With over $600 million in global box office revenues, it’s the most successful film of the year. The digital release, planned for later this month, is highly anticipated too.

Dune Leak: Part Two

Dune’s popularity was also noticed in pirate circles; ‘Dune: Part One’ made a surprising comeback in the weekly list of most pirated films. Apparently, some people chose to watch Part One through unofficial channels before buying a cinema ticket for Part Two.

Needless to say, the high-quality leak of Dune: Part Two is also drawing lots of visitors to pirate sites. Its ‘WEB-DL’ tag suggests a lossless rip from an online streaming source. It’s unclear where it originated, as the film is not available through any digital platforms yet; at least as far as we know.

The leak is real, however, evidenced by the screenshot below and the many commenters who were surprised by this early release.

Remember EVO?

The early leak comes with another noteworthy angle, the inclusion of “InMemoryOfEVO” in its filename. This refers to the release group EVO which was busted in 2021 by the Portuguese police , partly acting on intelligence gathered by the Alliance for Creativity and Entertainment.

That this ‘tribute’ to EVO comes as part of the Dune leak likely isn’t a coincidence either. EVO was the group that leaked a copy of Dune: Part One before its official release. Not long after, the group disappeared off the radar .

The EVO bust was a pivotal moment for piracy release groups. It marked the end of more than two decades of steady “screener” leaks, in which EVO played a central role in more recent years. The recent Dune leak is no screener, of course, but it’s certainly a high-profile release that will be watched closely by pirates, and Hollywood.

With ongoing talks about a third Dune installment , this may not be the final part of this saga either.

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

The global popularity of the English Premier League signals huge potential for growth, at least when local complications can be overcome.

The Premier League has a reputation for tackling challenges head on but, after breaking into the Russia market and signing a TV rights deal worth £43 million, a full-blown invasion of Ukraine was unlikely to have been part of the plan. The Premier League condemned the violence and announced it would donate £1m to the Disasters Emergency Committee to deliver humanitarian aid directly to those who needed it.

In any event, the deal with Match TV, a broadcaster owned by Gazprom Media, in turn owned by Gazprombank, had nowhere to go that didn’t risk a collision course with sanctions. A deal with over-the-top platform Okko Sport, owned by Rambler, in turn owned by state bank Sberbank, was over too.

The Game Goes On

When legal access to Premier League matches dried up, there would’ve been little panic among fans. While the piracy situation in Russia had noticeably improved during the previous decade, no content is immune to being cloned; it’s simply a question of choosing a new supplier and deciding whether content should be ridiculously cheap or completely free.

An intriguing interview published this week by local news outlet Vedomosti charts the resurgence of Sportscast, a group that began illegally streaming NBA in 2016 using its own Russian commentators but has since amassed a team of 50, covering Premier League, NHL, tennis, and Formula 1.

Sportscast operates its own website but also has a major presence on social networking platform VK. On VK Video, the group archives matches so that they are viewable on demand. The most recent video, last night’s 4-1 defeat of Aston Villa at the hands of Manchester City, currently has almost 49,000 replay views.

Anton Kuzmichev, head of Sportcast, told Vedomosti that he feels no guilt showing Premier League matches; as soon as the league returns to Russia, Sportcast will stop its broadcasts for legal reasons.

“I have a legal education, and I can say for sure that we are not violating any Russian laws,” Kuzmichev said.

The belief is that since the broadcasting deal between the Premier League and Match TV is not in effect, nobody has a license to show Premier League games in Russia, so in theory nobody can sue.

Matches from Spain’s LaLiga are not shown for the opposite reason; apparently happy to accumulate rubles, LaLiga’s deal with Okko remains in place, meaning that if the company files a complaint in Russia, pirates could find their websites blocked.

Pirating the Pirates

Behind the scenes of these pirate broadcasts, keeping costs under control is a key objective. Match streams are sourced from other pirates, with $3 sufficient to buy an IPTV package for a month with match commentary arriving in Portuguese (most likely sourced from Brazil), Polish, or Arabic ( usual sources ). As expected, streams can break up at times but judging purely on the replay videos uploaded as part of Sportcast’s VOD service, quality is very good indeed.

Commentators work from home using OBS Studio , adding their own graphics, suppressing the original commentary, before adding their own via a $50 mic. Through a donation model, can earn between $30 and $45 per match but some see the gig as a stepping stone to bigger things.

Ivan Kazakov, who works as a commentator on the ‘Goat Sport’ group on VK, says he took a three-month summer course in journalism and is now doing an internship with Match TV where he commentates on matches from Italy’s Serie A.

Business Matters

For the operator of SportsCast, generating revenue is a requirement to keep the project going. Gambling ads are not allowed on VK so the video player embedded in the SportsCast website is used to deliver gambling ads while Sports.ru provides sponsorship.

The overall audience is estimated at around 300,000 viewers, averaging between 30,000 and 40,000 per match, but nothing lasts forever. When serious competition returns to the market, offering football to the masses at a reasonable price people can actually afford, everything will come crashing down.

“As soon as [Premier League] returns to Russia, our market will collapse,” Kuzmichev concludes.

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