As outlined again only this month , people who simply watch pirate streams break UK law. If the content comes from an illegal source, it’s illegal to consume it under copyright law. That is a fact – there is no debate.

The problem for rightsholders is that copyright cases are complex, difficult to prove, and won’t end in a prison sentence under civil law. A stronger, criminal angle might prove more persuasive.

The Federation Against Copyright Theft, which acts for the Premier League, SKY, and BT Sport, came up with a solution – Section 11 of the Fraud Act 2006 , which criminalizes the act of obtaining any kind of service dishonestly.

With a potential crime now part of the equation, the logical conclusion for Joe Public is that people risk being arrested in their own homes for watching an unlicensed stream. Of course, people also need to be persuaded that an underfunded police force doesn’t have bigger fish to fry.

Press Hysteria

Early January, FACT sent out a press release titled “Police visit homes across the UK to issue warnings to subscribers of illegal sports streaming services.” The image below shows the first two paragraphs;

We’ll return to the first paragraph shortly, but as anyone can see, there are two distinct statements. One says that FACT and police will be visiting homes. The second says that 1,000 people were identified after a raid on a streaming service. Nowhere does it say that FACT and police will be visiting the homes of 1,000 people.

Dozens of articles just like these perpetuated the idea of a massive crackdown but the truth is more mundane. Some people will indeed get a personal visit, but the rest will be contacted by email, as confirmed by FACT when TorrentFreak questioned the volume.

Prison “For Watching Unauthorized Streams”

Let’s get this absolutely clear. While it is illegal under both civil and criminal law, nobody has ever gone to prison for simply watching an unauthorized stream in the UK. That doesn’t mean it won’t eventually happen, but the snippet (below) from FACT’s press release shouldn’t have been reported in isolation.

Important and relevant information about these men was made available by FACT at the same time but given no weight in popular media. That led to widespread misinformation that could’ve been avoided.

The prospect of ordinary people going to prison for simply viewing an unlicensed stream is an extraordinary claim and it’s a journalist’s job to investigate extraordinary claims. If it’s true that simply viewing unlicensed streams will put UK internet users in prison for months, millions of families face the prospect of seeing loved ones behind bars.

That’s the bigger story that needed to be investigated, and it would’ve been ridiculously easy too. Simply scrolling to the bottom of the FACT press release reveals that both jailed men were operators of illegal streaming services and both pleaded guilty to multiple copyright and fraud offenses.

The prosecution in Millington’s trial alone estimated damages running to well over £10 million . Instead, the ‘news’ that two men were arrested and sent to jail for 16 months for simply watching streams went all around the world, almost completely unchallenged.

As the snippets above show, news outlets in Brazil, Russia, Poland, China, Greece, Italy, Thailand, Spain, Indonesia and beyond, not only repeated the statement without any context, but helped to make it an established and uncontested ‘fact’ around the world.

Now here’s what actually happened, to set the record straight.

No Ordinary Pirate Stream Watcher

The details in Millington’s case reveal that the opportunity for a “watching streams” conviction came gift-wrapped and tied up in gold ribbon.

The most serious charges against him related to his Kodi-based ‘stephen-builds’ software packages, which included the ‘Supremacy’ and ‘Supremacy Sports’ addons that provided his users with free access to illegal streams.

For context, Supremacy was one of the most-used pirate addons on the entire planet and, according to the lawyer who prosecuted Millington, was responsible for causing more than £10 million in damages to rightsholders.

Millington pleaded guilty to charges under Section 7 of the Fraud Act (making or supplying articles for use in fraud) and under the Copyright Act for distributing movies and other content via a Plex server.

He also pleaded guilty to watching illegal streams under Section 11 of the Fraud Act (obtaining a service dishonestly) but the background shows this was no ordinary case.

For several months after his home was raided, Millington’s defense was that the software and equipment he had accumulated existed for his own personal use. He was a keen gamer but also admitted that he used the equipment for viewing pirate streams via software he developed.

Millington later changed his plea to guilty but there was a pivotal moment: To advertise his Kodi-related products online, Millington recorded a video of himself as he used his own pirate software to access illegal streams.

That video was found on his phone during the investigation. The prosecution then took the opportunity to add a charge of viewing illegal streams to a case where the defendant ultimately had no choice but to plead guilty, due to a mountain of evidence. It’s still a conviction for watching unlicensed streams but in this case, context is everything.

The source of this information is vitally important too.

UK’s Leading Prosecutor of Streaming Pirates

Ari Alibhai is the lawyer of choice when it comes to the private prosecution of pirates in the UK and his track record speaks for itself . Among many others, he’s conducted multiple successful pirate IPTV prosecutions on behalf of FACT, Premier League, BT Sport and SKY.

It’s important to note that Mr Alibhai did not take part in the public announcements earlier this month, no reference was made to his work, and he has never claimed that Millington and Faulkner were sent to prison for simply viewing unlicensed streams. And he should know – he prosecuted both of them.

Webinar Published on the Millington Case

Late November 2021, Mr Alibhai conducted a webinar. The video of that presentation was posted more than a year ago on his company’s public website , together with other information on Millington’s case.

Given the importance of the victory, the promotional value of the video is obvious and, as such, it’s still available today.

For those who don’t have time to watch the entire video, discussion on the possibility of prosecuting people who simply watch unlicensed streams appears around 40 minutes into the 48-minute recording. It begins with a question from a man assisting Mr Alibhai from behind the camera.

“You mentioned about the difficulty of prosecuting end-users,” he said. “Someone asked if there any reasonable risks of prosecution or penalty to the end-users, the ones watching the content?”

Mr Alibhai’s response, as reported below, represents just a tiny fraction of a very informative presentation. In light of the reporting on this month’s events, and especially given the authoritative nature of the source, his opinion holds considerable value. In order to provide the most clarity, the response is cited verbatim.

Ari Alibhai webinar on Millington/Supremacy prosecution

Ari Alibhai: I’m assuming that question means, is there a risk to the user? So, is there a realistic risk to someone who’s watching TV that you will be prosecuted. Now, again, there’s an academic answer and then there’s a real answer.

In theory you can be prosecuted for watching unlawful television. You can be prosecuted under the Copyright Act under section 297 (I think, I haven’t used it for a long time), but you can also be prosecuted under section 11 of the Fraud Act (obtaining services dishonestly). In fact, in the explanatory notes [of section 11] mention is made of illegal television viewing boxes being part-and-parcel of section 11.

Section 11 carries a maximum penalty of five years in imprisonment so, you know, in theory you face imprisonment if you watch TV illegally.

In practice, the idea of someone being prosecuted who isn’t also concerned in the trade, so they aren’t also concerned in supplying illicit television services, is minimal.

This opinion from arguably the UK’s leading expert stands on its own two feet. Why overt public messaging sits in such stark contrast is puzzling to say the least.

That being said, Mr Alibhai wasn’t quite done.

Risk and Benefits of Viewer Prosecutions

In follow-up comments, Mr Alibhai questioned whether the idea of NOT prosecuting viewers would be the right approach but then laid out the risks associated with that type of strategy.

“I often feel that if you do you want to send a message out then maybe you’d have to take on pure prosecutions against end users. But clearly there is a reputation issue here, there’s a David and Goliath issue that’s going to come up for the broadcaster that takes that on. And there’s potential adverse press to consider,” he said during the webinar.

“So in the round, I would say that it’s unrealistic to expect that, if anyone is watching it, then you’ll get prosecuted.”

Scary Stories, Reputation, Animosity

Finally, on the matter of reputational issues, the Twitter thread linked here contains an article from UK tabloid The Mirror. It states quite clearly that 1,000 homes will be visited as part of a “major ongoing criminal investigation” and that two people “were sentenced to a total of 16 months for watching illegal streams in 2021.”

At the time of writing it has been viewed 6.3m+ times but the overwhelming majority of the comments on the tweet are negative. They either put the blame at the feet of the Premier League and/or the broadcasters, or criticize the police for taking this on when so many other ‘real crimes’ go unsolved.

The above may suggest that even when presented with the prospect of going to prison, the public response isn’t to hand over their cash. Instead they list their demands – better access to matches (including at 3pm on Saturdays) and – overwhelmingly – don’t expect normal working people to spend £100+ every month to see a limited number of matches.

Universal access to football at a fair price? It might just work. A commercial solution to what is essentially a commercial problem seems reasonable. The problem for the Premier League is the prospect of devaluing a premium product in the mere hope of gaining enough subscribers to maintain its financial position.

Given that pirate services won’t simply go away, the difficult bottom line seems almost inevitable. The risk of being prosecuted for simply watching pirate streams may be low today, but that will almost certainly change.

If those who currently stream illegally can afford it, perhaps they might consider supporting the sport they love. For those who don’t have the resources to buy what is essentially a luxury product, millions will sympathize. If the decision is to continue with illegal streams regardless, rightsholders most definitely will not.

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

Over the past several years, Italian internet users have grown increasingly fond of the ‘pezzotto’, aka pirate IPTV boxes.

According to recent estimates , 23% of the population – around 11.7 million people – consume live TV illegally. If incoming reports from Italian police live up to the hype, the local piracy market may have just received a considerable blow.

‘Operation Gotha’ Hits IPTV Network with 900,000 Subscribers

Italy’s Polizia di Stato (State Police) says officers are currently engaged in a nationwide operation to take down a huge pirate IPTV network.

Police began raiding locations across the country during the early hours of Friday morning with almost two dozen towns and cities named as follows:

Ancona, Avellino, Bari, Benevento, Bologna, Brescia, Catania, Cosenza, Fermo, Messina, Napoli, Novara, Palermo, Perugia, Pescara, Reggio Calabria, Roma, Salerno, Siracusa, Trapani, L’Aquila e Taranto

Police say the targeted IPTV network is vast, with early reports indicating 900,000 subscribers being serviced nationwide. When combined, police say these customers generated “profits of millions of euros” every month for the network’s operators.

Equipment and Websites Seized

The operation was ordered by the District Prosecutor of Catania and is being executed by the Cyber Security Operations Centers of the Postal Police ( Centri Operativi Sicurezza Cibernetica della Polizia Postale ).

No IPTV services have been specifically named by the Postal Police but these screenshots suggest that some websites may have already been seized.

A video released by police appears to confirm that at least one of the targeted locations contained banks of Sky decoders from where broadcasts would’ve been received, captured, and then rebroadcasted to other locations for onward distribution.

These images are an important indicator of the nature of Operation Gotha. They confirm that Italian police targeted the exact location of a live broadcast capturing operation. When this type of equipment is seized, every onward server that relies on the content it provides immediately goes dark.

Police say that a press conference is scheduled for this morning so if additional information is made available, we’ll update this article accordingly.

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

This September, TorrentFreak was provided with information relating to Marvel Streams UK, a pirate IPTV service that suddenly disappeared in March 2022.

Like many similar services, Marvel Streams offered subscription packages that included live TV channels and a movie/TV show VOD service, all for a cheap monthly price.

The service’s operator, Peter Dilworth of Merseyside, was unaware that the Premier League had discovered Sky and BT Sport streams being made available on his service and that anti-piracy group FACT had launched an investigation in January 2021.

Sources with knowledge of the service told TorrentFreak that the case was referred to NWROCU, the North West Regional Organised Crime Unit. This police unit had been involved in similar IPTV cases over the past couple of years and in March 2022, Dilworth was arrested.

Eight-Month Suspended Sentence

Documents shared with TorrentFreak indicated that Dilworth was initially expected to plead not guilty. When he appeared at Liverpool Crown Court this Tuesday, he’d already entered a guilty plea, something looked upon favorably by the courts. We understand that a custodial sentence was expected but in the event, Dilworth received an eight-month sentence, suspended for 18 months.

Given that the Premier League, FACT, BT Sport, Sky, and a police organized crime unit had all been involved at some point, it seems unlikely that a suspended sentence was their ideal outcome. However, in a joint statement issued yesterday, the suspended sentence was welcomed by the police, with Premier League and FACT also expressing satisfaction.

“We would like to thank Merseyside Police for all their work and support on this case. The successful prosecution would not have been possible without them acting on our intelligence and ultimately arresting the operator,” said Kevin Plumb, General Counsel for the Premier League.

FACT Chief Executive Kieron Sharp thanked Merseyside Police for their work and described the outcome as “another step forward in the right direction in tackling the issue of illegal streaming.”

Merseyside Police also provided an interesting comment – notable for what it included, and for what it left out.

Important Details Left Out?

“We welcome this sentence, which shows the value of working closely with our partners in law enforcement,” said Merseyside Police Detective Constable Gareth Jones.

“Dilworth made a considerable amount of money from his dishonesty, and we are glad that this joint investigation has resulted in such a positive outcome.”

When pirates are prosecuted in the UK, more often than not “considerable amounts of money” feature prominently in press releases announcing their convictions. In an earlier prosecution where three men made around £5 million, the amount was described as “significant” by the Premier League.

The complete absence of any specific figure beyond “considerable” in Dilworth’s case is a departure from the norm, but documents seen by TorrentFreak in September do put a figure on the money he received – just under £19,500.

No Details of What Dilworth Was Actually Convicted Of

FACT’s press release is available here but there is no mention whatsoever of the crimes Dilworth actually committed.

That is also a departure from tradition in these cases. Perhaps it’s a simple oversight but the details are interesting since we understand the prosecution took a different track. The Premier League and FACT are known for their aggressive private prosecutions in criminal courts but Dilworth’s case was a break from the norm.

Somewhat unusually, his prosecution was handled by the Crown Prosection Service and where Premier League and FACT present charges of fraud, the CPS opted for offenses under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act (296ZB(2)(a) and Proceeds of Crime Act (section 329(1) .

Whether this case is an outlier or the start of a new trend is unknown, but prosecutions under copyright law carry significantly lower sentences than those alleging fraud, something that Peter Dilworth is certainly aware of right now.

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

Selling piracy-configured set-top boxes or subscriptions that enables access to pirated TV streams can lead to both civil and criminal prosecutions in the UK. In most cases over the past few years, the latter has been the preferred option.

Any rightsholder can file a civil lawsuit but companies including Sky, BT Sport and the Premier League, prefer private criminal prosecutions offering prison sentences in addition to damages. In several cases over the past few years, investigations by local Trading Standards teams have also led to custodial sentences and on Friday, another was added to the list.

Trading Standards Investigates BillsTV

Britain’s pubs have long been associated with people quietly buying questionable items from men with names that suddenly can’t be remembered. These days it’s more likely for those sales to be organized on social media, which happily broadcast illegal sales to the whole world while logging everything for posterity.

After Kent County Council Trading Standards discovered piracy-configured set-top boxes and access to illegal streams being sold on Facebook, it launched an investigation. Sales took place via a dedicated page called ‘BillsTV’ with devices and subscription tiers offered at various prices, and then paid for via PayPal.

Combining illegal streaming subscriptions and Facebook advertising with PayPal payments isn’t exactly ideal for avoiding detection and by May 2019, Trading Standards had seen enough. Two warrants were executed in Dover and Tonbridge, one of them against a man who used his own name to brand his piracy business.

Fraud, Copyright and Money Laundering

Following their arrest in May 2019, Billy Collin Arthur Martin from London and Darren Bough from Dover had a considerable wait for their guilty pleas to be heard in court. During a sentencing hearing in Court 5 of Canterbury Crown Court last Friday (case T20220079), it was revealed that the men sold devices and memberships that allowed customers to access TV shows, movies and live sporting events, in breach of copyright.

Kent County Council Trading Standards (KCCTS) says that Facebook customers paid the men via five different PayPal accounts, netting them over half a million pounds over a relatively short period.

“In the space of approximately 18 months the fraud made the criminals more than £540,000. Bough received £399,536 and Martin £140,568, all believed to be linked to this illegal activity.”

Crimes “Too Serious” to Avoid Custodial Sentences

KCCTS reports that the men asked the Court for leniancy, citing their families’ reliance upon them. There had also been a significant delay in bringing the case to a close following their arrests in 2019. Judge Rupert Lowe took their submissions into consideration butfound that the pair’s offending had been “too serious” to avoid custodial sentences.

Describing the men as a “couple of Fagins” who had “struck at the heart” of online commerce, Judge Lowe sentenced Martin to 24 months imprisonment and Bough to 21 months for fraudulent trading, money laundering and copyright infringement offenses.

In a statement following the sentencing, Clive Phillips, Operations Manager at KCCTS, said that intellectual property crime has a negative effect on society.

“Intellectual property crime damages the economy. It impacts on creators, avoiding tax and hampering innovation. We will investigate and take appropriate action to ensure there is a fair and legal trading environment in Kent,” Phillips said.

Trading Standards Strike in Scotland

Following a separate investigation, a report from Trading Standards Scotland (TSS) reveals that four people, aged 51, 50, 46 and 45, have been reported to the Procurator Fiscal Paisley for providing illegal access to broadcasts owned by Sky and other legal streaming services.

“After a joint operation with Police Scotland and Sky, the accused have been reported for various offenses against the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 and the Trade Marks Act 1994, offences which are punishable by a fine and/ or imprisonment upon conviction: more charges are to follow,” TSS says.

Matt Hibbert, Director of Anti-Piracy at Sky, described the four people as potentially important players.

“This operation targeted a group who were believed to be a major source of illegal streams. In taking this action Trading Standards Scotland has not only blocked access to stolen Sky content, it has helped protect consumers from some of the very real risks of accessing movies, TV shows and live sports in this way,” Hibbert said.

TSS currently lists IPTV as a priority area for enforcement.

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

Rightsholders seeking to crack down on pirate streaming services in the UK can do so under civil and criminal law but the former has mostly been abandoned.

Rightsholders such as the Premier League, Sky and BT Sport, with support from the Federation Against Copyright Theft, now tend to conduct their investigations before referring them to the police.

When cases are progressed, this usually means police-led raids, arrests, and seizures of key evidence. Then, based on a number of factors, subsequent prosecutions are handled by the state or via private prosecutions. According to sources familiar with the matter, a new criminal case will be heard in court next month, one that could lead to a custodial sentence for the suspect.

Marvel Streams Goes Offline

Early this year, UK-based IPTV service Marvel Streams appeared to be operating much like any other, offering live TV channels plus movies and TV shows as part of a cheap monthly subscription package. By the second week of March, the service’s Twitter account found itself dominated by complaints. The general theme was that the service had disappeared without notice and nobody knew what was happening.

“Is your system down or is there another link?” one user wrote . “I’m trying to renew and haven’t been able to, is the website down?” added another.

While some IPTV services manage to stay online for extended periods of time, others tend to come and go. While this means that customers lose any money paid in advance, it’s hardly an unexpected event and people move on. With Marvel Streams a fairly distant memory, earlier this month we were surprised to receive a tip offering information on the IPTV service’s demise.

Alleged Marvel Streams Operator Arrested in March

According to the source, Marvel Stream’s downtime in March was due to the service’s operator being raided in the UK. A second source familiar with the matter confirmed that was indeed the case, with one questioning why police hadn’t reported the arrest at the time, as is usually the case. Here’s what we know.

As part of an investigation reportedly carried out by the Federation Against Copyright Theft on behalf of Sky and BT Sport, investigators purchased a Marvel Streams subscription and confirmed that the broadcasters’ content was being made available illegally.

The case was later referred to NWROCU – the North West Regional Organised Crime Unit – which has been involved in similar cases over the past couple of years, including one that targeted three men in late March .

NWROCU officers accompanied by FACT/Sky/BT Sport representatives subsequently targeted a man in Claughton, Merseyside, believing him to be the operator of Marvel Streams. No other arrests were made, our sources say.

Relatively Rare Copyright Charge

Documents seen by TF indicate that a man in his mid-thirties was subsequently charged with two sets of offenses, both covering the period February 2021 to October 2021. It is common for IPTV operators to be charged under the Fraud Act but as far as we can see, that’s not the case here.

The first charge alleges offenses under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act (CDPA) 1988, specifically section 296ZB(2)(a) .

It’s alleged that in the course of a business, the suspect marketed a service (Marvel Streams UK) that enabled or facilitated the circumvention of effective technological measures.

For cases normally handled under the easy-to-understand Fraud Act, the use of the CDPA in this matter is somewhat unusual. Charges related to circumvention of content protection measures are rarer still in IPTV cases, although in the United States they have been increasing in recent years.

A person guilty of an offense under 296ZB subsection 2 is liable (on summary conviction) to imprisonment for a term not exceeding three months, or to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum, or both, according to the CDPA. A conviction on indictment carries the possibility of a fine, a prison sentence not exceeding two years, or both.

Charge Under the Proceeds of Crime Act

The second charge relates to an alleged offense under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, specifically section 329(1) .

Under Section 329, a person commits an offense if they acquire criminal property, use criminal property, or have possession of criminal property. In this case the alleged operator of Marvel Streams stands accused of possessing around £19,500, which appears to relate to revenue generated by the IPTV service during an eight-month period in 2021.

Penalties available under Section 329 vary from a maximum prison sentence of six months, a fine, or both, to a maximum of 14 years imprisonment, a fine, or both.

We’re informed that the alleged operator of Marvel Streams will appear in a magistrates’ court (district court) early October and from there the case will be referred to a Crown Court for an appearance no later than November.

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

With over 200 million code repositories, shared by more than 80 million users, GitHub is the largest online developer platform of its kind.

The vast majority of all content stored on the site is perfectly legitimate, but some repositories are more questionable, as they contain or indirectly link to copyright-infringing content.

Sky Targets CucoTV Again

A few hours ago, UK broadcasting giant Sky flagged a problematic repository tied to the pirate IPTV app “ CucoTV “. This isn’t the first time that Sky has targeted this app, as the company sent a similar request earlier this year.

At the time, the app was hosted by GitHub user “CucoTV”. After it was removed, the repository redirected to “CucoTV2” and, at the end of May , switched to the “CucoappTV” account. Needless to say, Sky wants this account removed as well.

“Following the removal of the [CucoApp] repository, this app was uploaded to a new repository. The CucoTV app, an app that allows you to watch movies and TV series totally for free,” Sky’s takedown notice reads.

“The developer of the application is not in possession of any type of license for the transmission of the Sky UK Limited contents, therefore this application is considered illegal. So we ask for the repository to be removed.”

How to Pirate “Riviera”

The code itself is not infringing but Sky explains in detail how the app can be used to access pirated content. The company provides a step-by-step guide showing how the TV-show “Riviera” can be streamed for free.

Sky’s request was successful as GitHub swiftly removed the repository. The associated APK, which initially remained online after the previous request, has been taken off the platform as well.

Time will tell whether CucoTV will move away from GitHub now or if the developers will simply try their luck with yet another account. If that’s the case, we can expect yet another Sky takedown request in a few weeks.

GitHub Reports DMCA Takedown Increase

Sky is not the only rightsholder that has issues with “infringing” content on GitHub. Every month, thousands of projects are flagged and removed.

Yesterday, GitHub published its latest transparency report , covering the first half of 2022. This shows that the number of takedown notices and the targeted repositories continue to increase.

Over the past six months, 15,883 projects were taken down, compared to 7,675 a year earlier. A small number of reported projects, 82, were reinstated following counter-notices, reversals, or retractions.

GitHub stresses that these takedowns represent only a tiny fraction (0.02%) of all content available on the platform. In addition, it notes that the increase in takedowns is in part due to the fact that GitHub continues to grow.

“Based on DMCA data we’ve compiled over the last few years, the number of DMCA notices we received and processed has generally correlated with growth in repositories over the same period of time.”

The chart above shows that the number of targeted projects increases by a monthly average of 27. This trend has been fairly consistent with one major outlier in October 2020, when nearly 14,000 projects were flagged in a single month.

The Youtube-dl Effect

That outlier is actually tied to one of the biggest takedown stories in GitHub’s history. At the time, the RIAA asked the platform to remove the youtube-dl repository, which it subsequently did .

That takedown sparked outrage among many fellow developers who, en masse, started to upload copies of the repository. This resulted in thousands of additional takedowns, which explains the spike.

GitHub eventually reinstated the youtube-dl repository after it concluded that the code doesn’t violate the DMCA’s anti-circumvention provisions. In addition, the company placed $1 million into a takedown defense fund to protect the interests of developers.

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

Last month, the US Copyright Claims Board went live . Through this Copyright Office-hosted venue, copyright holders can try to recoup alleged damages outside the federal court system.

The board aims to make it cheaper for creators to resolve disputes. There’s no attorney required and the filing fee is limited to $100 per claim. Accused parties also benefit as the potential damages are capped at $30,000. Those who prefer traditional lawsuits can choose to opt-out.

The benefits of the board are clear to many rightsholders. Opponents, however, feared that the system could be used by opportunistic rightsholders to extract ‘easy money’ from less law-savvy individuals.

Suspicious ‘Sky Group’ Claim

Thus far a few dozen complaints have been filed at the CCB. There’s no sign of systematic abuse but a rather strange copyright infringement claim was submitted last week, one that set off several alarm bells.

The claim was submitted by a group called “Copyrights Protection”, supposedly on behalf of the UK media giant Sky Group. The claim accuses the streaming app HA Sports Studio of infringing Sky’s rights.

“They are showing Sky Sports live broadcast through their mobile applications on Google Play Store without the permission of our client Sky Group,” the claim reads.

It would be a big deal if a major media company such as Sky began using the Copyright Claims Board to resolve a piracy issue. The piracy allegations may be true but in this case the claim itself is rather fishy.

When we go to the website of the supposed anti-piracy group we’re welcomed by a stock design template where various placeholder texts are still intact. There’s no contact address or information listed on the site either.

Sky is Not Involved

It seems odd that a company such as Sky would use an unknown and seemingly amateurish representative to file a case at the Copyright Claims Board. We reached out to Sky directly who informed us that it has nothing to do with this claim.

“This claim has not been brought on behalf of Sky. We have no association with Copyrights Protection, they are not authorized to act on our behalf and we will be contacting them to request the claim is withdrawn,” a Sky spokesperson informed us.

Sky’s response shows that someone is impersonating Sky at the Copyright Claims Board. This is relatively easy as rightsholders and their representatives are not required to verify their identity before submitting a claim.

Copyright Office Responds

When asked the US Copyright Office about this unusual case, it informed us that it doesn’t comment on pending cases or the internal work of the Board. However, it stresses that all cases go through a ‘compliance review’ where such inconsistencies may be revealed.

“Compliance review is the process in which CCB staff attorneys review a claim to determine whether it meets legal and regulatory requirements under the CASE Act and the Office’s regulations,” a US Copyright Office spokesperson says.

There is no formal identity verification process, as far as we know, but the Board may ask for additional information if needed.

“While the CCB generally does not conduct factual investigations, its review will naturally identify claims that have material inconsistencies and areas where the claimant may need to clarify certain issues, including its right to bring a copyright claim on behalf of another party.”

Who and Why?

It remains unclear who is behind this bogus claim and why it was submitted. We sent an email to the contact address “Copyrights Protection” provided to the CCB, asking for clarification but at the time of writing, we have yet to hear back.

Meanwhile, the “Copyrights Protection” website is no longer accessible , which makes it even more likely that we’re dealing with someone who sent a claim in bad faith.

We can only speculate at this point, but it’s possible that the sender hoped to get a damages award, without Sky noticing. Another, perhaps more likely option, is that a rival pirate streaming app is trying to get competition out of the way.

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