Early September, Indian media company Zee Entertainment Enterprises revealed it would soon launch a brand new streaming service with the aim of premiering blockbuster movies directly to people’s homes, partly to combat piracy.

Initially reported as the ‘Zee Plex’ service, the product was set for launch last Friday, October 2, 2020. However, the news didn’t sit well with US-based Plex, Inc., the operator of the famous Plex media server software.

According to Plex, Inc., Zee Plex operator Zee Entertainment Enterprises’ choice of name meant that its new service would be illegally trading off the hard-earned goodwill of the Plex trademark. Describing Zee Plex as a “competing service”, Plex Inc. took legal action to urgently obtain an injunction to prevent the service launching with the infringing mark.

Ad-Interim Application for Injunction

Zee Plex launched as planned October 2, 2020, but not before the matter was heard by the High Court in Bombay via video conferencing just a day earlier.

The Court heard that Zee Entertainment is a large multi-media conglomerate providing entertainment across a broad range of platforms including the Internet, OTT, satellite and cable. It was acknowledged that Plex Inc. had adopted the Plex trademark in May 2008 in the United States for a software/hardware service that allows a user to take content “wherever he goes”.

Plex told the Court that it signed up its first Indian user back in July 2008 and now has 550,000 users and “very high sales” in the country.

The Court questioned that, noting that evidence pointed to sales of between US$24,000 to US$30,000. This is important because the volume of domestic business can be used as a factor when considering the value of existing goodwill and reputation.

Court Failed to See Similarities Between Plex and Zee Plex

In the decision handed down on October 1, 2020, the Court found that on first view, the Plex media server and Zee Plex were “fundamentally different”. Noting that Zee Plex is a “cinema-to-home pay-per-view movie service” and that Plex carries some of its own “curated content”, the Zee Plex service does not have any of the “take your own content with you” services offered by Plex.

At this point it’s worth highlighting that Zee says that its service is actually called ZEEPLEX, i.e one word instead of two. According to the Court, this doesn’t amount to much since Plex objects to the word ‘Plex’ being used in any way but from here things didn’t get any better for Plex.

No Prima Facie Case of ‘Passing Off’

The Court notes that Plex’s case is based on allegations of deceit by Zee Entertainment, in that it used the Plex name to dupe or mislead consumers into thinking it had somehow tied up with Plex in business. To show such a case, Plex must demonstrate strong reputation and brand recognition in India among consumers but the Court found that, on the surface, the balance tips away from the US-based company.

“I do not yet see sufficient material from Plex to be able to establish its reputation at least within India, whatever may be its reputation, registrations and sales in other jurisdictions. In contract, there is the much greater reputation and standing of Zee amongst subscribers across the length and the breadth of the country with a large number of channels in various languages,” the judge’s order reads.

Equally, arguments by Plex that it should receive the same kinds of protection enjoyed by companies such as Sony, Disney or Hotstar, were also dismissed by the Court.

“Merely pointing to other established and reputed players in the field is not enough, and it is hardly a credible argument to say that ‘if Sony provides content and has a reputation, since I, too, provide content, I must be presumed to have an equivalent reputation. So if Sony could maintain such an action and get an order, so must I.’

“There is no one-size-fits-all approach in these matters. Every claimant in a passing off action stands or falls on his own merits and case,” the order adds.

Issues With Plex Trademark in India

The Court notes that while Plex has registered trademarks in several jurisdictions, those locations do not include India. The Court adds that when the ZEEPLEX service was announced in September, Plex had applied for but not obtained a trademark registration. However, after the announcement, Plex reportedly went to the registry to make an amendment that indicated that it was proposed to be used back in 2008.

“In other words, until it moved the amendment application, its own case in the registry was that at least in India, its mark was not in use, but only had a proposed or anticipated user,” the order notes.

Judge Apparently Irritated By Last Minute Injunction Demands

While the Court heard the matter in advance of the ZEEPLEX service’s launch, the judge appears to be irritated by companies in intellectual property disputes expecting courts to deal with their cases quickly and at the expense of other matters.

“[I] have said this before — that parties in IPR matters cannot expect Courts to push aside all other cases. This happens repeatedly, whether it is movie releases or otherwise. It must stop,” the judge writes in his order.

“It is unfair to courts and it is unfair to other litigants waiting their turn. Where a plaintiff has had enough notice and yet chooses to move at the eleventh hour — and makes no allowance at all for any adjustment that may be required — the plaintiff must be prepared to face the consequences.”

Plex Injunction Application Fails At This Stage

In considering whether to grant an early injunction, the Court weighed several factors but ultimately sided with Zee Entertainment. According to the judge, Plex has no prima facie case, cannot show anticipated injury, and its userbase in India is too small to show that Zee tried to pass off its new channel as being in association with Plex.

“The grant of the injunction Plex seeks would, on the other, cause immense and immediate financial loss and harm to Zee. Consequently, I find no reason to grant an ad interim injunction in this passing off action,” the order concludes.

While Plex didn’t immediately get the result it had hoped for, the matter isn’t completely over yet. Plex has been granted leave to amend and will be hoping for a different result.

The order handed down by the High Court of Bombay can be found here (pdf)

ISP blocking has become a prime measure for the entertainment industry to target pirate sites on the Internet.

The practice has been around for over a decade and has gradually expanded to dozens of countries around the world.

This is also the case in Greece, where the first blockades were issued in 2018. The Greek blocks are overseen by the IPPC, a special commission at the Greek Ministry of Culture and Sports that acts following complaints from rightsholders.

The Greek system is different from that of many other countries because it doesn’t involve a court. It’s an administrative procedure which allows copyright holders to swiftly request pirate site blockades, without the need for lengthy and costly legal proceedings.

The most recent blocking request was filed by the Society for the Protection of Audiovisual Works (EPOE), a local anti-piracy group that represents the interests of major Greek copyright holders. The company previously obtained a blocking order against The Pirate Bay, 1337x, and YTS, but requested to expand it.

Blocking Pirate Proxies and Alternaitives

While the original order does its job, Greek pirates swiftly moved to alternative proxy sites. The anti-piracy group, therefore, asked more than 200 of these Pirate Bay, 1337x, and YTS proxies to be blocked as well.

 

 

Following careful deliberation, the IPPC decided to expand the Greek pirate site blockade. The Government organization concluded that, for the vast majority of the domains, the database, structure, graphics, and user-interface were substantially similar to the sites that were blocked originally.

In addition to The Pirate Bay, 1337x, and YTS, several subtitle domains, and local pirate sites including GamaTV were targeted as well.

One Request Denied

Before issuing a new order, the owners of the domains were given the option to object to the request. This includes the administrator of subtitle site subs4series.com, who claimed that his site was wrongfully targeted.

The blocking application claimed that subs4series.com was similar to the previously blocked subs4free.info, which the site’s administrator denied. The Government organization agreed and rejected the requested blockade.

“After the relevant research, it appears that the site with the domain name subs4series.com does not redirect to the site with the domain name subs4free.info. Therefore, according to the relevant allegation of the applicant, there is no violation, as it concerns the no. 3/2018 decision of the Commission for the Internet Infringement of Intellectual Property,” IPPC writes.

The blocking order is valid for three years and applies to all Greek Internet providers. They’re given 48 hours to add the 264 new domains to their blocklists, including more than 120 Pirate Bay proxies. If the companies fail to comply they risk a fine of €850 per day.

—-

A copy of the most recent blocking order, issued by IPPC, is available here (pdf) This also includes a list of all targeted domains

Spain is an interesting country when it comes to piracy. On the one hand, it has one of the highest piracy rates worldwide, but there is no shortage of enforcement actions either.

In recent years there have been several criminal investigations into unauthorized IPTV streaming, torrent and streaming portals have been taken to court, and ISPs have been ordered to block pirate sites as well.

It appears that, despite all the legal pressure and threats, new pirate sites and services continue to appear online. Unlike in some other countries, these are often localized as well.

Names such as “Don Torrent,” “DivxTotaL,” and “Megadede” are relatively unknown in most parts of the world. However, in Spain, they are listed among the 100 most visited sites in the country, mixed in with major brands such as Google, Wikipedia, Amazon, Facebook, and Netflix.

Local Piracy Giant Megadede Shuts Down

This week one of these giants announced its demise. In a message posted on the site, Megadede.com’s operators write that they are “forced” to announce that the site shuts down within a week.

“The members of the team are forced to announce that in less than a week megadede will come to an end. We hope you have enjoyed this time with us and take the opportunity to download your lists. Thanks for everything #megabye.”

 

 

It’s not clear who forced the operators to take action, but it is possible that legal pressure played a role. Unlike many other streaming sites, Megadede required an account to view all content. It didn’t rely on search traffic but had a dedicated user base.

 

 

Megadede is one of the largest sites in Spain but has only been around for two years. It took over from Plusdede in 2018 after that site was ordered to shut down by the authorities. Plusdede, wasn’t unique either, as it was reportedly built based on the database of Pordede, which shut down after being hacked.

Takeover is an Option

While Megadede will soon be gone, there is room for a takeover of the domain name or even the entire project. In the site’s help and support section the operators write that they are willing to sell to a good bidder.

“If someone wants to buy the domain or the project, you can send an offer through the contact page. We will only answer offers that may interest us,” they write.

This means that Megadede may possibly continue under new ownership. However, there is no shortage of alternatives either. After the site announced its shutdown decision several competitors said they were ready to take over the traffic.

Some, including DivMax.com, even offered to enable support for Megadede user ‘playlists’ to enable a smooth transition.

“The DixMax administration welcomes you. Due to the recent closure of Megadede we invite you to meet and discover DixMax.com and all its applications available for free. Downloaded Megadede playlists will soon be added,” the site writes on Twitter.

When it comes to copyright infringement matters, especially when that involves commercial players doing battle to prevent the wholesale spread of content, my basic position is that all is fair in love and war.

If a torrent site, IPTV provider or streaming platform has a specific role to distribute premium copyrighted content to the masses for profit, then they should expect a robust response. This is someone’s content and it should come as no surprise that powerful people will attempt to protect it.

Even if only quietly, all players in this space understand the rules. Every now and again, however, copyright enforcement can hit a nerve even with the most understanding and pragmatic among us. It can be particularly jarring when the end result amounts to a reduction in previously enjoyed freedoms when that should not be the case.

TuneIn Radio Index Deemed to Be Copyright-Infringing

For those out of the loop, during the past few days TuneIn radio, a major aggregator of streaming radio links already in existence on the web, took the decision to conduct widespread geo-blocking of content in the UK. This was due to a High Court order obtained by record labels Sony and Warner who successfully argued that the service essentially became a broadcaster when it offered links to a ‘new public’ in the UK.

Purely on a legal footing and based on existing case law in the UK and EU, the decision makes quite a lot of sense. When access to unlicensed content is facilitated to a new audience, whether delivered via Internet radio stations or other Internet-based platforms, that generally amounts to a breach of copyright law.

On the ground, however, we are already seeing that the effects can be much more profound. TuneIn’s decision to block access to a huge range of stations broadcasting content NOT owned by Sony or Warner shows that the chilling effect is already underway and sadly it’s only likely to get worse.

Be Warned: TuneIn is Not the Only Aggregator

Anyone with a hardware-based Internet radio in the UK will probably have been sold it on the premise that it provides access to between 20,000 and 40,000 stations from around the world. These devices are the modern-day equivalent of AM or even shortwave radio, allowing us to listen to broadcasts without borders, from the most diverse and secluded regions and covering a massive range of niche topics and cultures.

Thanks to the decision by the High Court, however, this access could soon be a distant memory.

Hardware receivers, (of which I own two excellent ones, both Revo) are completely useless on the Internet radio side without access to an external index of radio stations and their related URLs. These massive indexes are not colorful like the one provided by TuneIn but they are functionally similar. One can search by station name and other parameters such as genre or region. This type of curation was deemed unacceptable by the High Court in the TuneIn case.

The big question now, of course, is how long will these platforms be able to offer services to users in the UK without facing the same kind of pressure applied to TuneIn? How long before they too start censoring access to global stations on the basis that they might breach the rights of the two labels that brought the action against TuneIn in the UK?

As per the comment received by TorrentFreak this week from TuneIn, “Over the past several months, we have worked with broadcasters to confirm their licensing status, removing from our platform those radio stations whose licensing status we are unable to verify at this time.”

“Unable to verify at this time” does not mean absolutely unlicensed. Neither does it mean that all removed stations breached the rights of the labels. TuneIn appears to be erring on the side of caution because it’s terrified that under-blocking won’t get the job done and could leave it liable for copyright infringement.

With Great Power Comes Great Responsibility

Anyone can set up an Internet radio stream in minutes and broadcast content that is not licensed for use in the UK because it doesn’t need to be as it breaches nobody’s rights. How does one go about proving that status to an index like TuneIn? Proving you don’t need a license is much harder than simply having one to show.

The great charm of Internet radio is that it can be used to find fresh or unusual content that isn’t owned by major labels like Sony and Warner, largely because it’s not considered popular enough. In fact, platforms not broadcasting that type of content is a major plus for me personally as I have Spotify for that, should I need it.

So why were some of my favorite stations dedicated to promoting new artists and music who want to be promoted blocked by TuneIn this week in response to this lawsuit?

To draw a parallel, how would we feel if we turned on our regular radios to tune into a distant broadcast only to be greeted by a high-pitched tone put there to prevent us from listening? We wouldn’t accept that and it’s my opinion people shouldn’t accept this either – this is not exclusively about two labels’ rights.

In the 90s, when I spent quite a bit of time in Poland, I liked nothing better than to flick a hotel radio to AM to listen to a distant broadcast of what was then TalkRadio. Now, Polish citizens in the UK, who previously enjoyed a local channel from back home, face the prospect of it not being available in their second home via TuneIn, thanks to the fear of TuneIn breaching a High Court ruling.

The labels will argue this isn’t their problem, as any blocking only needs to be done when a station breaches their rights. And they would be completely correct. But their actions have led to this situation and now everyone has to suffer, regardless of whether their international listening habits were covered by the lawsuit or not. But there are other issues too.

Driving Pirate Radio Back Onto the Streets is a Bad Idea

With great power comes great responsibility and bombing Internet radio back to the stone age to protect the rights of the few is overkill and counterproductive.

Fully-blown pirate/unlicensed radio stations are of course illegal in most countries but they serve a purpose. They existed and exist to bring niche content to a wider public completely underserved by licensed operations.

In the 80s, for example, early dance, plus soul, reggae, and funk music weren’t broadcast on any legal station in the UK in any meaningful way, a gap that pirates like the then-illegal Kiss were happy to fill. And just look at the size of the market now, raking in countless millions for labels like Sony and Warner.

It took years for mainstream providers to catch up on these niches yet they’re still miles behind today if quality and quantity are considered. Bluntly, they don’t get involved until they see an audience because that’s where the money is. Pirate radio stations incubated those audiences and still do today.

Admittedly, broadcasting via traditional antenna was and is both illegal and potentially dangerous. In recent years, however, many of these broadcasts have been switched to the Internet, reducing airwave pollution while continuing to serve fans with niche content that licensed broadcasters couldn’t care less about. If this High Court ruling runs to its logical conclusion, aggregators will be too scared to index any of them.

That could be a way off, but the stage has been set. Big Music has the opportunity to step back now but history tells us that won’t be the case. Fortunately, where there’s a will there’s a way. Labels can tear up the radio ‘phonebook’ operated by TuneIn and their counterparts but they can’t block every station on the Internet, even though they’d probably like the power to.

The Future and What it May Hold

If a ruling can be obtained in the UK to compel geo-blocking of international stations, then it doesn’t seem far-fetched to conclude that decisions could be obtained elsewhere too.

How long before United States aggregators must block all UK-based stations? How long before listeners in the Netherlands are barred from content broadcast to German or French audiences? When will Canadians be prevented from enjoying content from their cousins south of the border? Could we even face a situation where stations based anywhere in the world are forcibly removed from aggregators for not respecting their geographic licensing regions?

It may sound alarmist, and hopefully it is, but what people might have to prepare for in a worst-case scenario is radio aggregators being treated like illegal torrent indexes that are either forced offline or made to persistently teeter on the edge of a lawsuit.

The stations themselves are still broadcasting of course but listeners will probably have to get used to finding them another way. It might be a good time to get familiar with how to do that right now, before it’s too late.

The real Pirate Bay website operates from ThePiratebay.org, but the site always had many backup domains in place, just in case.

This included Piratebay.org (without the) as well as ThePiratebay.com. The former was sold for $50,000 at auction earlier this week after the previous owner seemingly forgot to extend the registration. The .com domain also lapsed and will be auctioned off this weekend.

The high price tag is quite unusual for a Pirate Bay domain. Many domain brokers buy these types of domains to monetize them through advertising feeds, but at this price, it isn’t really a good deal.

This made us wonder what the buyer was up to. Could he or she be planning to start a Pirate Bay copy, hoping to take over part of the torrent site’s traffic? Could it become a malware invested ‘pirate trap’, or even a honeypot?

PirateBay Pictures Announces ‘The Torrent Man’

A few hours ago the plan became more became clear but it’s not what anyone expected. People who visit Piratebay.org today will see a message from “PirateBay Pictures,” in collaboration with “I’m Feeling Lucky Studios,” announcing their film project; The Torrent Man.

“Yes, it’s official, the PirateBay Pictures is starting to film The Torrent Man, an indie feature movie about the darknet, torrenting world, crypto, and the real people behind them,” they announce.

 

 

While that sounds intriguing, it appears that thus far, the aspiring filmmakers don’t have much else. After spending $50,000 on the Piratebay.org domain they now hope to sell the domain for nearly $2 million to raise funds for their project.

Crowdsourcing Everything

In addition, they also need a film script, and pretty much the entire film crew, which they hope to crowdsource.

“We need actors, crew members, and authors (!) as we are crowdsourcing the movie script. Any unusual twists you can think of, any characters you want to see, crazy storylines?”

This is all highly unusual, to say the least. Based on the information that’s presented in public it seems that the people behind the site basically have nothing, except for a title. While that could be an ‘artsy peer-to-peer’ way of creating content, caution is warranted.

Skeptical Notes

The domain experts we’ve spoken with say that asking $2 million for the domain isn’t realistic at all. That makes sense, as the brokers who were previously interested already bid in this week’s auction and bailed out when the price went too high.

That said, ‘The Torrent Man’ idea will get plenty of attention for the Piratebay.org domain, which makes it more valuable with an increased number of backlinks. We’re not saying that this is the true goal but without more information, we’re a bit skeptical.

Perhaps we’re being too cautious, but without more information, the entire plan seems quite confusing. For example, the site mentions that the “original shoot got pushed back due to Covid,” which is odd as there was no script or crew yet.

We have reached out to “PirateBay Pictures” for more details and are looking forward to hearing more. We will update this article when their answers come in.

As the popularity of pirate IPTV suppliers, sellers, and resellers continues to grow, entertainment industry companies – which were initially quite slow to combat the threat – are now piling on the pressure.

The momentum arrives via the Alliance for Creativity and Entertainment (ACE), the huge anti-piracy coalition featuring the combined power of Hollywood, Netflix, Amazon, plus a broad array of global entertainment industry names.

While ACE’s press office sits quietly by, knowing all but saying pretty much nothing, news of fresh ACE activity hits TF’s newsdesk several times every month and regularly features action against IPTV providers. This week offers no let-up in that trend.

‘Streams For Us’ Shuts Down Under ACE Pressure

There are hundreds of IPTV brands on offer today and Streams For Us was one of the better-known providers. Until this week, that is, when it suddenly shut down.

As always, rumors varied from the operators “doing a runner” with the cash to being forced out of business due to actual or potential legal action. From the information received by TF thus far on the matter, it appears that the latter applies in this case.

It is extremely common for ACE pressure to begin with a cease-and-desist notice. At this point it’s up to the IPTV entity to decide on the direction – ignore it and carry on or comply with its terms. Streams for Us was placed under pressure by ACE and subsequently shut down.

That will almost certainly not be the end of the matter though, as ACE also likes to tie up loose ends, including taking over domains and perhaps reaching a settlement offer. The terms of any settlement are almost always confidential but depending on how quickly an agreement can be reached, it’s likely that Streams For Us domains will be transferred to the MPA shortly after.

Precisely when this pressure to close began isn’t clear but according to reports, the Streams For Us 24/7 VOD channels were removed a few days ago. So-called 24/7 channels specialize in a particular TV series, showing episodes constantly.

While popular with customers, these channels require copies of the episodes to be stored on – and distributed from – a server, a breach of copyright law and a clear head above the parapet for those seeking to exploit the ‘streaming loophole‘.

At the time of writing, streamsforus.net and forushosting.com are both down along with the service’s social media accounts.

Other IPTV Brands Go Down, Potentially Due to the Above

After Streams For Us went down, other IPTV brands – some of which appear to have connections to the targeted provider – also disappeared according to users.

Thunder IPTV, Commando IPTV, Nue Media, Net Streams are all reportedly down at the time of writing, with reports suggesting that some acted as resellers or rebrandings of the Streams For Us service. TheHeroTV also appears to have gone down during the past few days too but we were unable to establish if connections exist to the above.

Whether any of these brands were targeted individually by ACE is currently unknown but if the claims of reliance on Streams For Us channels are true, cutting off the head may have achieved the desired result without that being necessary.