The Intellectual Property Office of the Philippines (IPOPHL), the National Telecommunications Commission (NTC) and the country’s internet service providers (ISPs) have agreed to join hands and establish a coordination mechanism that will enable a more streamlined and rapid blocking of pirated sites. The alliance was proposed by IPOPHL Director General Rowel S. Barba at an April 8 focused group discussion (FGD) attended by nearly 50 representatives from relevant government agencies and ISPs. Participating ISPs include Globe Telecom, Inc., Smart Communications, Inc., PLDT, Inc., Sky Cable Corp., Converge ICT Solutions Inc., and DITO Telecommunity Corp. The partnership will be formed through a memorandum of understanding (MoU) that will lay down a clear-cut inter-coordination protocol for the site blocking process. The MoU will also include each party's commitments to assure effective implementation of the site blocking drive, which one of the ISPs said can take around two hours once an order is received from NTC. The order from NTC will result from IPOPHL’s order based on the latter's appreciation of a verified complaint from the concerned IP right holder regarding piracy. ISPs expressed positive sentiment in the collaboration, seeing this also as a platform to prevent the shutting down of "false positives" or legitimately law abiding sites, and ensure that the freedom of citizens to access these sites is preserved. IPOPHL's IP Rights Enforcement Office (IEO) Officer-in-Charge Director Ann N. Edillon assured that IEO’s complaint validation process is a "fine-toothed comb" to ensure that all evidence points out to a case of piracy before they refer a blocking to the NTC. "The duration of IPOPHL's investigations will depend on the merits of the case and evidence submitted, but we always ensure a speedy and thoroughly validated decision," Edillon told ISPs. The ISPs welcomed the development for collaboration, with some open to having IPOPHL directly issue the blocking order, an arrangement that will also be explored during the discussions of the MoU. IP Code updates still needed However, some ISPs also recognized the need for an "enabling law" that will institutionalize IPOPHL's authority to block piracy sites and eliminate the current protocol in which NTC has to validate IPOPHL's order––a process that can add days to a matter that ideally requires real-time blocking. At present, various bills are being consolidated by the House of Representatives’ Committee on Trade and Industry to amend the IP Code and align the Philippine IP system with current global legal and technological trends. Among the proposed amendments is the expansion of IEO’s administrative enforcement powers to issue blocking orders, which will be acted upon immediately by the NTC. ‘File a complaint’ Last week, IPOPHL also partnered with the Asia Video Industry Association (AVIA) to support site blocking in the country. An industry group that aims to further the growth of film and video companies in Asia-Pacific by battling piracy across the region, AVIA hopes to mirror in the Philippines the significant reduction of piracy in countries they have helped in using this mechanism. A 2020 survey commissioned by AVIA and conducted by YouGov found that the demand for pirated content in the Philippines is highest across Southeast Asia, with 49% of Filipino respondents admitting to going to piracy streaming websites or torrent sites. With the Office’s recent and upcoming partnerships in its fight against piracy, IPOPHL Deputy Director General Teodoro C. Pascua encouraged IP rights holders to file a complaint so they can “test the blocking process as soon as possible.” “With these inter-coordination mechanisms being developed, IP right holders must be more active and emboldened to enforce their IP rights and file a complaint with our IEO. Rest assured that IPOPHL and its anti-piracy partners will work hard to ensure the successful and timely removal of their pirated content online and avert the losses of an already struggling industry,” Pascua added. (IPOPHL)

A 46-year-old woman pleaded guilty to a charge of fraudulently acquiring content belonging to Measat Broadcast Network System Sdn Bhd by having six media boxes with the MyTV.apk application. Ng Lee Lee was slapped with six charges at the Sessions Court here under the Communication and Multimedia Act 1998 before judge Muhamad Anas Mahadzir. Muhamad Anas imposed a fine of RM5,000 for each charge and a month’s jail for each charge if she failed to pay the penalty. According to the facts of the case, Ng, who is the director of a company called Little Yap Resources, was caught with the six media boxes – three iBoite-X and three i-Boite brands – in a raid on premises at Taman Putra Prima, Sepang on Dec 12. Upon inspection of the boxes at the cyber and multimedia crime investigation unit at Bukit Aman on Dec 19 and 20 last year, it was confirmed that all six media boxes can air content from various channels owned by Measat Broadcast Network System Sdn Bhd’s Astro without having to pay the subscription fee. The raid was conducted following a complaint made by a representive of Measat. Deputy Public Prosecutor Syazwani Zawawi asked the court to impose a fine of RM30,000 for each of the six offences given that the maximum penalty under the charge was RM300,000 and three years' jail. "This case is the first of its kind and there is a need to set a benchmark on the penalty imposed. It must also be taken into consideration that it involves the public interest of paying customers as well as the license and rights owners of the content," she said. Muhamad Anas then asked Syazwani to explain how the case was of public interest as well as how it affected the general public. Syazwani said that 4.7mil people were paying to subscribe to Astro while the media box, which will be sold for about RM300 to RM400 would provide the same content for free. “It also impacts the economy as taxes are paid to the government but when it is not legal and free, there is a loss of those (taxes)," she added. However, Muhamad Anas did not agree with her contention that the case involved a matter of public interest. “Astro is not the public and Astro has every right to take personal action against her (Ng)," he said. In response, Ng’s defence counsel Low Li Qun asked the court to impose a fine of RM1,000 for each charge and said that her client has three children and also supported her aged parents and parents-in-law. When asked to make her plea, Ng said the authorities had seized 55 media boxes from her premises but only six had the MyTV.apk application. “Normally we only sell empty hardware but that day the customer asked us to do this (install the application in the media boxes)," she said. Ng also said she was aware that she had committed an offence but added she had to earn a living as her business had dropped by 80% due to the Covid-19 pandemic. She also apologized to the court and said she will not repeat the offence. When delivering his judgement, Muhamad Anas said the crime committed by Ng was happening widely and was a form of piracy to achieve easy profits from the hard work of others. He said it was a very serious offence even though it may appear to be otherwise. “I believe the box for streaming is a one-off buy and if you want to upgrade you do it once a year. All content and channels are free and so it is piracy, ’’ said Muhamad Anas. He also said the government had put in the necessary measures to fight piracy. After the proceedings, Low said Ng will be paying the fine and was waiting for the court to issue the documents needed to make payment. Koh Shueh Jing from legal firm Wong & Partners held a watching brief for Measat Broadcast Network System Sdn Bhd.

DISH Network LLC and NagraStar LLC filed a complaint on Monday in the Western District of New York against defendants UVConn Inc., DHE Boss Inc., and individual defendants collectively doing business at ZummTV and TVIPBOX, claiming that the defendants violated the Federal Communications Act (FCA) by retransmitting programming without DISH’s consent. DISH, which operates a satellite pay TV service, and NagraStar, which provides “technology, security services and products” for DISH’s satellite pay TV service, alleged that TVIPBOX, “a purported software development and manufacturer for IPTV/OTT service providers,” and the ZummTV Entities (UVConn, DHE Boss, and ZummTV) have engaged in unlawful conduct. According to the plaintiffs, the individual defendants commingled assets among the ZummTV Entities in an effort to purportedly defraud the plaintiffs, while also transferring “valuable assets, property, rights and/or interests” to the individual defendants “without adequate consideration”; the individual defendants “drained the ZummTV Entities of substantial sums of money” and “failed to follow the formalities of corporate existence.” DISH claimed that it “contracts for and purchases the rights to broadcast the television programming shown on its platforms” from various providers, and NagraStar “provides smart cards and other security technologies that form a conditional access system designed to control access to the DISH Programming and utilized to authorize a subscriber’s receipt of DISH’s satellite transmissions of its television programming.” However, the plaintiffs averred that the defendants run the allegedly infringing Internet Protocol television (IPTV) service ZummTV, which sells IPTV boxes that it calls “Plug-n-Play” boxes. The plaintiffs proffered that the defendants “make, use, import, sell and/or distribute products and services that include unauthorized retransmissions of DISH Programming.” Accordingly, the defendants “retransmit programming originating from DISH’s satellite communications to end users of their ZummTV pirate streaming service, without authorization.” DISH stated that it hired an independent investigative firm to make two separate purchases “of a ZummTV receiver and IPTV service” from the defendants. DISH noted that the “first purchase consisted of a Z4 Prime IPTV receiver, along with device codes, providing for six months of access to the ZummTV IPTV service”; the firm purchased this for $528.80. The second purchase “consisted of a ZummTV S2 Prime IPTV receiver, along with device codes providing for twelve months of access to the ZummTV IPTV service” for $404.49. DISH claimed that when the ZummTV service was tested, “encoded messages delivered as part of DISH’s satellite communications were detected on the DISH Programming retransmitted on the ZummTV pirate streaming service, confirming that the DISH Programming provided by Defendants originated from DISH’s satellite communications and DISH’s subscriber accounts.” The plaintiffs claimed that the defendants’ conduct has caused them irreparable reputational and financial harm and has harmed contractual and business relationships. The defendants are accused of violating the FCA. The plaintiffs have sought a permanent injunction, an order authorizing the plaintiffs to take possession of and destroy all device codes and related equipment and for the defendants to preserve and turn over all records relating to the purported scheme, an award for damages, an award for costs and fees, and other relief.

The US record companies are issuing an increased number of takedown requests relating to allegedly copyright infringing content on legitimate streaming services like Spotify and Apple Music, according to a new report from Torrentfreak. The music industry issues a constant flood of copyright notices, of course, requesting that content or links be removed from an assortment of websites and digital platforms. That includes outright piracy sites, as well as otherwise legitimate social media and content-sharing platforms where users regularly upload videos containing other people’s music. Another stack of takedowns are then sent to search engines that index and list pirated content. Those websites and digital platforms are obliged to respond to any takedowns if they want to avoid liability for copyright infringement on the back of the copyright safe harbour. Most piracy sites ignore them, obviously, which is why search engines linking to those piracy sites are also a top target. Torrentfreak has been monitoring the database of takedown notices managed by Lumen, a Harvard University project that is focused on takedowns and other cease-and-desist letters issued in relation to online content. “Takedown requests are generally aimed at pirate sites and stream-rippers, but in recent weeks the [Recording Industry Association Of America] went after legitimate streaming services as well – apparently Spotify, Deezer, Amazon, Tidal and Apple Music host ‘copyright infringing’ content too”, it notes. Some of that definitely relates to podcasts. As the streaming services have been pushing podcast content ever more prolifically, the spotlight has fallen on the fact that most music podcasts are not properly licensed, mainly because it’s really hard to license music for podcast programmes. Crucially, the music licences of Spotify et al do not cover music within any standard podcasts that appear on those platforms, which means technically they shouldn’t be on there. As a result, said platforms have filters that try to stop such content getting through. However, in some cases, fans have actually managed to use podcast feeds to add tracks not officially available on Spotify to the service, which suggests that those filters are not always very effective. Not all podcasts containing music on the streaming services are infringing. The platforms’ own podcasts will have secured licences, of course, and Spotify is developing a tool to allow podcasters to pull in tracks from its licensed music library. But many third-party music-based podcasts that do appear on those streaming service are very likely not properly licensed. And some of those were targets of some of the recent takedowns against Spotify. But, Torrentfreak points out, some of the takedowns relate to individual tracks on the music side of the service, rather than podcasts. That includes some remixes and karaoke versions of songs, but also some original recordings. Those could have been uploaded via podcast feeds, as noted. Although the presence of allegedly infringing tracks on the streaming services possibly relates to another debate that has rumbled on in recent years. Which is, to what extent people are uploading other people’s music via DIY distribution platforms, and what efforts those platforms and the streaming services themselves are going to in order to spot and block such uploads. According to Torrentfreak, although those takedowns have been sent to Google so that links to the podcasts or tracks can be removed from its search engine, the web giant doesn’t seem to have acted on those notices. Very possibly because it reckons the streaming services are in a better position to assess if that content is indeed infringing and, if so, to actually remove it. Certainly, some of the identified podcasts and tracks are no longer available on Spotify.

The industry association of video producers, distributors and aggregators may lose $120 million worth of potential revenues to piracy this year, studies show.The Asia Video Industry Association said incidents of video piracy remained prevalent in the Philippines based on a report of Media Partners Asia.“While legal SVOD [subscription video on demand] monetization is growing, piracy remains pervasive in the Philippines. Piracy is depriving SVOD of $120 million in revenue per annum, more than 90 percent of the current legal opportunity,” said AVIA Coalition Against Piracy general manager Neil Gane in a virtual roundtable discussion organized by Stratbase Albert del Rosario Institute on Thursday.Gane said legal SVOD was growing in the country, led by Netflix, Viu, HBO Go and Prime Video. Disney+ Hotstar and homegrown Viva are set to launch their SVOD services in 2021, he added.He said a YouGov September 2020 survey showed that among eight East and Southeast Asian countries, the Philippines ranked third among the percentage of consumers who admit having accessed piracy streaming sites.About 49 percent of respondents in the Philippines admitted having accessed piracy streaming sites in September 2020, behind 53 percent in Thailand and 50 percent in Vietnam.Hong Kong only had 48 percent of respondents admitting having accessed piracy streaming sites; Taiwan, 33 percent; Indonesia, 28 percent; Malaysia, 22 percent; and Singapore, 17 percent.Gane said that in the same survey, 47 percent of consumers in the Philippines who accessed piracy sites admitted having cancelled their subscriptions to both local and international content services.He said most respondents believe that online piracy have negative consequences for the Philippines.About 50 percent of respondents in the YouGov study believe that online piracy results in people who work in the creative industry losing their jobs and 55 percent say that online piracy results in people making profits from content that is not theirs.About 49 percent of the respondents believe that online piracy increases the risk of malware infections on people’s computers and devices and 44 percent say online pirates do not pay taxes and therefore all of society is being defrauded.About 29 percent of the respondents say online piracy has negative consequences for the Philippines in other ways, while only 9 percent believe that online piracy does not have negative consequences for the Philippines.Online infringement tracker White Bullet said that globally, 12 percent of the top pirate sites were found to have malware and fraud and 29 percent have branded ads including premium brands which gives the sites a sense of credibility and often well-funded with higher priced ads. About 3 percent carry explicit pornographic ads.White Bullet also reported that of the top 20 pirate sites in the Philippines, 17 percent have malware and fraud which was higher than the global average. About 49 percent carry branded ads while 11 percent explicit pornographic ads, both of which are much higher than the global average.Gane said that to combat piracy, 53 percent of online Filipino consumers agree that the most effective measure is a “government order or law for ISPs to block pirated websites”. Senate Bill No. 497 was filed in January 2019 to institutionalize the Online Infringement Act.Gane said site blocking is both an effective and a commonly used disruptive tool in the fight against online piracy which is being used by 45 countries around the world. Among them are Indonesia and Malaysia which saw a significant drop in video piracy over the past year.Results of the YouGov Consumer Research particularly showed a 55-percent reduction in Indonesian consumers who access piracy streaming websites over a 10-month period from September 2019 to June 2020 following the government’s adoption of site blocking.This blocked more than 2,800 streaming sites and apk domains since July 2019 and resulted in 69-percent reduction in traffic to the piracy streaming websites and a 30-percent increase in traffic to legal services.From 63 percent of consumers who admit having accessed piracy streaming sites in Indonesia in September 2019, the number went down to 28 percent in June 2020.“Indonesia is now market leader in IP protection in Southeast Asia, boosting growth of legitimate services,” Gane said. Topics: Asia Video Industry Association , video piracy , Media Partners Asia , subscription video on demand Related stories: AVIA’s Coalition Against Piracy supports Globe #PlayItRight campaign Globe shows mad love for local movies, TV, and music AVIA’s Coalition Against Piracy supports Globe #PlayItRight campaign to inform consumers vs. risks of piracy sites

Before they were shut down by law enforcement, Jetflicks and iStreamitAll were said to be two of the largest pirate streaming services in the United States. After pleading guilty, a man who was deeply involved in both is now facing a lengthy prison sentence. The US Government is demanding 57 months behind bars but the defendant believes that 36 months will be adequate. In August 2019, eight men were indicted by a grand jury for conspiring to violate criminal copyright law by running two of the largest pirate streaming services in the United States. One of those men, Darryl Julius Polo (aka djppimp), pleaded guilty to charges of copyright infringement and money laundering back in December 2019. The big question that remains is how long the Las Vegas resident will spend behind bars. Background – Involvement in Jetflicks and iStreamitAll According to the US Government, Polo helped build and run Jetflicks and iStreamitAll, a pair of subscription-based pirate services headquartered in Las Vegas. Polo was the direct owner of iStreamitAll (ISIA), which reportedly made available more than 118,479 television works and 10,980 movies – at the time more content offered by Netflix, Hulu or Amazon Prime. Before his time at ISIA, Polo worked as a programmer at Jetflicks, another Las Vegas-based subscription service that offered around 183,285 TV episodes to customers. Using automated scripts that ran around the clock, Polo is said to have obtained content from other unlicensed platforms including The Pirate Bay, RARBG, TorrentDay, NZBplanet, NZBgeek, and NZB Finder. That content was then made available to subscribers for streaming and downloading and the Government claims that the damage caused was significant. “[T]he government now believes that the total estimated infringement amount for ISIA is over $40 million and the infringement amount for the two periods that the defendant worked at Jetflicks is an estimated $8 million, for a total of $48 million,” its sentencing recommendation reads. In addition to ISIA, Polo is said to have operated several other piracy services including SmackDownOnYou, BoxBusters.TV, Jailbreakingtheipad, and MixtapeUG. Overall, this generated significant revenue, with Polo himself admitting that between December 2016 and August 2019, he processed more than $1.1m through just one of many payment processors, most of it in relation to ISIA. US Government Calls For A Harsh Sentence According to the US, Polo is an individual who is “deeply embedded” in the piracy scene having previously been sued by DISH Network, Echostar and Nagrastar for multiple violations of the DMCA and Communications Act. In that matter the court awarded the plaintiffs a $250,000 judgment but instead of stopping his offending, Polo moved onto other piracy endeavors. Furthermore, the US notes that instead of immediately shutting ISIA down after the FBI raided him in November 2017, he continued operating the service. Indeed, Polo reportedly carried on even after being indicted in August 2019 and only stopped when two domains were seized in September that year. Given this background, including that Polo engaged in money laundering in addition to copyright offenses, the US Government demands a particularly lengthy sentence of 57 months in prison to send a message to others who might consider Internet piracy an easy way to make money. Of course, Polo sees things differently. Polo: Lessons Learned, No Intention To Reoffend In calling for a lower sentence, Polo’s counsel submits that his client is a “fundamentally good and generous character” while also highlighting a less than favorable upbringing coupled with financial instability within his early family. Counsel also draws attention to the fact that Polo has outstanding warrants stemming from an assault which he eventually intends to address. Significant parts of Polo’s sentencing recommendation are redacted but the programmer does concede that he knew that running a pirate streaming service is illegal. However, he counters that he rationalized that by telling himself he wasn’t hurting anyone and has since changed his mind. “I have learned about the impact my crime has on the whole industry and I understand why the prosecution takes it seriously. To say this has been a wake-up call is an understatement,” he says. Polo’s call for a more lenient sentence is backed up by letters of support from family and friends, many of whom advise the court that Polo regrets his crimes and has no intention of repeating them. What weight the court will give these letters remains to be seen but as far as Polo is concerned he does deserve to be punished, just not at the scale the Government is proposing. Sentencing Disparity Should Be Avoided In addition to various points of law, Polo’s counsel says that sentencing disparities should be avoided. Attention is drawn to two cases prosecuted in the same division involving NinjaVideo and Megaupload, noting that the main defendant in the former was sentenced to 22 months, well below the guideline range of 46 to 57 months. In the Megaupload case, defendant Andrus Nomm was extradited from New Zealand and pleaded guilty to conspiracy to commit copyright infringement. Despite his involvement in Megaupload, which is said to have caused upwards of $500m in damages to copyright holders, Nomm was sentenced to 12 months and one day in prison. Polo isn’t requesting a comparable sentence but submits that in both cases, judges have imposed below-guidelines sentences in similar copyright infringement cases. Polo Submits That a 36-Month Sentence is Appropriate “A sentence of 36 months would be the longest sentence Mr. Polo will have served,” his counsel informs the court. “This extended period of time away from his family, friends, and community would send a clear signal that copyright infringement and money laundering are serious offenses punishable with prison. A 36-month sentence would be a more than adequate deterrent; while Mr. Polo is committed to leading a lawful life after his release.” Polo has reportedly expressed an interest in using his skills to combat copyright infringement online and believes that a three-year sentence would serve as a warning to others who may not necessarily be aware that copyright infringement can carry significant prison sentences.

Police, anti-piracy groups, and sports companies are fighting a battle, not only to prevent pirate IPTV services from operating but also to stop fans from becoming illegal streaming customers. Interestingly, a potent part of their arsenal consists only of carefully constructed words that, when delivered into the hands of the lazy and unscrupulous, can be amplified to distort and mislead. As a publication entirely dedicated to reporting on copyright, piracy, torrent and streaming sites (plus all things closely related), here at TorrentFreak we aim to tell all ‘sides’ of the story. We do not shy away from reports that show that piracy hurts sales and we have no problem publishing research projects that show completely the opposite. It’s called balanced reporting and it hurts absolutely no one. Indeed, the whole idea is to present people with facts and allow them to make informed decisions. Generally, it’s all wrapped up in a desire not to treat our valued readers with contempt. Yesterday we published a piece with ideas about how pirate IPTV might prove less popular with consumers during 2021. But there’s another element too, one that deserves a closer look. Legal Basics To clear a few things up before we begin, there’s no doubt that some piracy operations amount to organized crime. Large IPTV providers, with many staff and hundreds of thousands of customers generating millions in profit, could easily fall into that category. This isn’t a surprise to them, they know what they’re doing, and may or may not be ready to do the time. Their choice, their problem. Also worthy of pointing out is that people who watch unlicensed streaming services are most probably committing an offense too under civil law in the EU and more specifically in the UK too, now that Brexit has been done. In some cases where they have clear intent, it’s also possible that they’re committing a crime too, i.e one punishable by the Crown. So, let’s move on to the rant in hand. Relying on the Tabloids to Send Messages is Irresponsible British tabloids have a terrible record when it comes to reporting unbiased news. They regularly report in favor of specific political parties, ignore any positives presented by the ‘other side’, and always sensationalize the most mundane of topics while treating their readers as mindless morons. But, arguably worse still, there are entities out there that seem happy to exploit this embarrassing blot on our society for their own ends. Anti-piracy groups have done it for some time but to see the authorities potentially stoking the fire too is not a great look and only detracts from their overall message, which is undoubtedly well-intentioned. The ‘Kodi Box’ Cringefest This tabloid feeding frenzy began when UK-based anti-piracy outfits were looking for media exposure. Not only for their own business promotion purposes, but also as part of entertainment company and broadcaster campaigns to drive awareness of the terrible things that could happen to so-called ‘Kodi Box’ owners if they were caught. The problem, however, was that none of the journalists had a clue what they were writing about so simply spouted whatever they were told. Eventually, everyone in the country knew what ‘Kodi Boxes’ and similar devices could do, thanks to these ‘adverts’ in the mainstream press. It seems safe to say that this ill-conceived campaign failed to achieve its goals, unless those goals were to advise people on ways to avoid paying for content. Tabloids Interest in Piracy Reignited For many months the tabloids got bored with their sensational ‘Kodi Box’ reporting but then, fueled by press releases by the Federation Against Copyright Theft and Premier League, took an interest again. However, it wasn’t until the police got involved that their insatiable desire for ridiculous headlines and scare-pieces got the best of them and they started to appear all over again in 2020. As reported here in September, police in the UK took down an illegal IPTV provider, noting quite correctly that the operators of such services face considerable legal implications. Of course they do, they’re running a criminal operation that probably involves all sorts of other offenses too, including money laundering. However, it was the fact that the police were sending out emails to customers of that service, advising them that they too could be held criminally liable, that became the focus of the headlines. And boy did the tabloids deliver. In response to the police claiming that mere subscribers of these services could get a five-year jail sentence, the tabloids went into overdrive with sensational headlines that were repeated again recently when another illegal service received similar treatment. The first problem is that the tabloids are around to sell newspapers and generate clicks, not to supply sensible or measured information. The second is that the police in the UK should be only too aware of the tabloids’ track record for scandal and if we take that as being the case, they could’ve been more responsible with the information provided to them. Ultimately, everything hinged on a single paragraph. “Persons whom subscribe to services like the service provided by GE Hosting also commit a criminal offense contrary to s.11 of the Fraud Act which carries a maximum sentence of up to five years imprisonment, and/or a fine, and consequently results in a criminal record,” the police announcement read. Or in tabloid-speak, IPTV customers are running the risk of getting locked up behind bars until 2025. While technically accurate, this is obvious hyperbole. The big worry is that those formulating the press releases may have considered the tabloids’ predictable handling of the information and recognized it as a valuable tool for keeping the public in line. Comparison With Similar Law Breaking Activities If we take the law on possession of drugs, for example, we can see that possession of a Class B substance (such as cannabis) can also result in a five-year prison sentence and/or an unlimited fine. On the facts, possession of a small amount suitable for a few joints could mean a five-year stretch (at least if the tabloids decide to run with it) but in reality, police are able to issue a warning or an on-the-spot fine. So do the police generally go around warning small-scale stoners via the tabloids that half a decade in jail awaits them for their crimes? Absolutely not. But for the relatively unknown offense of receiving a TV service without intending to pay for it, the opposite appears to be true. To be clear, the fraudulent offense in question is similar to someone jumping over the wall of a football stadium without a ticket or making off from a restaurant without paying. The point is there are levels to crimes like fraud and subscribing to a pirate IPTV service is not something that is going to put someone behind bars for five years. Here’s just one example that shows how ludicrous that proposition is. In June 2020, Daniel Aimson, who was serving a six-year sentence for running a cannabis farm, was handed an additional 12 months inside for running a pirate streaming operation. Not subscribing to one – operating one. Unlike IPTV subscribers who, under Section 11 of the Fraud Act are being threatened with five years inside for obtaining a service with an intent to avoid payment, Daniel Aimson pleaded guilty to conspiracy to commit fraud, which could’ve carried a ten-year sentence. Just to add more meat to the bones, at the time Aimson was shifting 1,640 illegal IPTV boxes, making at least £300,000 in illicit profits (none of which was declared to HMRC), and causing Sky an alleged £2.12 million in losses, he was a serving police officer with Greater Manchester Police. Bottom Line – Be Honest and Don’t Trust The Tabloids The point of this overly-long rant is simple. Knowingly subscribing to a pirate IPTV service with the intent of depriving a broadcaster is a crime in the UK but that information needs to be put into the public domain carefully. The police can’t be held responsible for how information gets used by the tabloids but there should be at least some duty of care when talking about the legal consequences. The truth is that a simple subscriber to an IPTV service, absent of any seriously aggravating factors, is not going to prison in the current sentencing climate, let alone for five years. However, any conviction for fraud (no matter how small) has the potential to be a life-changing matter, especially when it comes to gaining or even keeping meaningful employment. This latter fact cannot be disputed and it has the added bonus of being 100% accurate with zero elements of scaremongering. Even without the tabloid elements, those who place a value on their own quality of life should sit up and listen if given the facts. What this approach doesn’t have is the propaganda factor that copyright holders and the tabloids absolutely thrive on. And that, unfortunately, could be the major drawback against it being adopted. The secret weapon in this war is the tabloids taking a grain of information and turning it into a scandal, and they don’t even have to be in on the secret or the operational details to do so. They just do what they do best – insult readers’ intelligence on a daily basis. What the police and anti-piracy groups might consider moving forward is that they have the power to push them in the right direction when it comes to the news being delivered. It’s certainly worth a try and may even result in people taking the threats seriously, rather than dismissing them out of hand as scaremongering nonsense.

Seventeen unnamed Americans face a copyright infringement lawsuit from the producers of the movie Angel Has Fallen over allegations that they illegally downloaded the film. Fourteen of these individuals have been accused of using best VPN contender Private Internet Access to watch the movie illegally and were issued with DMCA notices, according to a report by Torrent Freak. They're not as secure, but great for quick cover: check out the best free VPN Get the best online security with our antivirus software buying guide Just in: PS5 price and release date could be revealed soon Subpoenas may be issued Fallen Productions, which created the movie, is looking to have the alleged pirates subpoenaed after filing a lawsuit in U.S. federal court in Colorado. The court filing says: “Upon information and belief, Defendants DOES 3-5, 7-10 and 12-17 registered for paid accounts for Virtual Private Network (‘VPN’) service with the Colorado Internet Service Provider Private Internet Access.” At the moment, it is not known who the accused individuals are. But Kerry Culpepper, the lawyer representing Fallen Productions, believes that subpoenas will help to reveal their identities. Setup VPN: our comprehensive guide for all devices Here's exactly how to change region on Netflix Unmasking the accused While the fact that the individuals used a no-log VPN service should help to shield their identities and potentially make the court case more difficult, the legal team pursuing the case has access to the individuals' email and IP addresses via torrenting website YTS. The lawsuit is heavily reliant on the information from YTS, but Culpepper has asked for the court to issue subpoenas against Private Internet Access, internet service providers and email services in a hope that this will shed more light on the identities of the accused. If this request is granted and Private Internet Access is subpoenaed, the VPN provider may be unable to provide any incriminating evidence as its policy is to refrain from tracking the internet traffic and data of its users. A spokesperson for the VPN company told Torrent Freak: “Private Internet Access has not received a subpoena in regards to this case. Even if we do, our response will be the same as always: PIA does not log VPN user activity”. Can the movie industry stop torrenters? Jake Moore, a security specialist at ESET, told Tom's Guide that the case highlights the various steps that the movie industry is taking to stop people from downloading their content at no cost. But he admits that the case will be challenging. "Those who illegally use such torrent services are usually well clued up on how to evade capture with the correct use of VPNs," Moore explained. "This lawsuit shines a light on what remnants of data can still be accessed when law enforcement have their hands on a VPN company, but ultimately this is likely to only catch the low-hanging fruit who are unaware of these extra privacy-focused tactics and make errors such as using their personal email for sign up. "However, as will become apparent, this still won’t be enough to pin on anyone downloading specific torrents without a digital forensic search of the target hard drives where the data has supposedly been copied to.

A few weeks ago, several movie companies sued a widely used Popcorn Time fork, as well as VPN.ht. When the app's official website disappeared a few days later most people assumed that the developers had decided to throw in the towel. However, this early conclusion is unwarranted. While there are internal struggles, Popcorn Time plans to make a comeback. For more than seven years, Popcorn Time has been a thorn in the side of movie studios large and small. The ‘Netflix for Pirates’ offers an easy-to-use application that opens the door to a library of thousands of streamable movies and TV shows. Popcorn Time’s Legal Issues The Motion Picture Association (MPA) recognized this threat early on and pressured the original developers to throw in the towel. That worked, but it came too late as the open-source project was swiftly revived by others. Today, Popcorn Time lives on through many project forks. The most popular is PopcornTime.app, which carried on where the original developers stopped, releasing various new features over the years. Running a project like that is a challenge. Movie companies are keeping a close eye on the project and have explored several options to take it down. Last year, for example, the MPA sent a takedown notice to GitHub, taking down Popcorn Time’s official repository. This was a setback for the developers, but not something they couldn’t overcome. Popcorn Time successfully filed a DMCA counternotice and after two weeks GitHub restored the project. Popcorntime.app Disappears After New Lawsuit A few weeks ago another, perhaps even more concerning problem appeared. In a complaint filed at a federal court in Virginia, several movie companies accused the anonymous operators of Popcorntime.app of massive copyright infringement. This case is still ongoing and the court swiftly issued a preliminary injunction, ordering the registrar to lock the domain name, so it can’t be transferred. Around the same time, the Popcorntime.app site disappeared. The downtime coincided with the fact that the site initially redirected to the “goodbye” message the original Popcorn Time developers published in 2014, and led us to believes that the project was done. However, the reality is a bit different. Planned Comeback This week one of the Popcorn Time developers, using the official email address, informed us that a comeback is in the making. The team has lost access to the Cloudflare account which caused some problems, but nothing that can’t be fixed. Interestingly, the Cloudflare issues are not a direct result of the legal action. Instead, the Popcorn Time representative told us that the loss was caused by “internal” issues. The team promised that it will share more information on these internal issues when possible and also confirmed that a comeback is being planned. If and how this will happen remains unclear. GitHub Repo is Online That said, Popcorn Time never really went away completely. While the site is inaccessible, the official GitHub repository is still online and being updated. This repo features all the latest releases too. Given the legal pressure, it’s possible that the GitHub repository will eventually be targeted too. The movie studios that sued Popcorn Time have already requested information from GitHub and if they win their case, they may try to get a court order to take the GitHub repo offline. Thus far, the movie companies haven’t shied away from taking legal steps. VPN provider VPN.ht, which is a defendant in the same lawsuit, had already had its PayPal funds frozen. This week, the court approved another injunction, requiring the US-based Evolve Bank & Trust to freeze the company’s assets.

With an increasing reliance on digital platforms, Filipinos face more incidents of phishing attacks, online scams and other cybersecurity threats. There is also the rise of digital piracy. Legitimate content producers and original copyright owners would be denied their share of income, which could discourage them from generating more content. Spreading of malware gives a negative impact on the creative economy and slows down network performance. Digital piracy could also have ramifications on cybersecurity since networks could get exposed to potential virus infection or malware. Hackers could use such infected systems to launch an attack. Cybersecurity is a top concern among business leaders, based on The CrowdStrike 2020 Asia Pacific and Japan State of Cybersecurity Report. Seventy percent of survey respondents expressed more concern now about cyberattacks than before the pandemic. Conducted from May 26 to June 7, 2020, the report covered over 2,000 business leaders in Australia, Hong Kong, India, Indonesia, Japan, Malaysia, New Zealand, Philippines, Singapore and Thailand about their cybersecurity practices during the coronavirus pandemic. 360p geselecteerd als afspeelkwaliteit From March to June, the Intellectual Property Office of the Philippines documented piracy activities accounting for most intellectual property rights violations. Piracy activities covered 42 percent or 28 of the total reports over the period, including illegal streaming and illegal reproduction of copyrighted content. A survey, commissioned by Asia Video Industry Association’s (AVIA) Coalition Against Piracy (CAP) and conducted by British market research firm YouGov, disclosed that 66 percent of online Filipino consumers admitted having accessed piracy streaming sites and torrent sites, the highest percentage among eight Southeast Asian countries included in the survey. Does online piracy have negative consequences for the Philippines? Based on the YouGov survey, 55 percent said online piracy results in people making profits from content that is not theirs, 50 percent answered that it results in the loss of jobs in the creative industry, 49 percent mentioned it increased the risk of malware infections, while 44 percent revealed that they were aware that pirates do not pay tax and therefore all of society is being defrauded. To reduce piracy behavior, 53 percent of online Filipino consumers agreed that the most effective measure in the Philippines was a government order or law for Internet Service Providers (ISPs) to block pirated websites. According to Neil Gane, general manager of AVIA’s CAP, “Site blocking is both an effective and a commonly used disruptive tool in the fight against online piracy.” 45 countries around the world adopted site blocking provisions. Gane presented case studies of Indonesia and Malaysia. With 2,800+ streaming sites and APK domains blocked since July 2019 in Indonesia, a 55-percent reduction was seen in Indonesian consumers accessing piracy streaming websites over a nine-month period (Sept. 19, 2019 to June 20, 2020). As a result, 74 percent Indonesian consumers spend more time watching free (with advertising) international streaming services (e.g., VIU Free, Catchplay Free and YouTube). Australia risks own credibility to scrap BRI deals 00:05/02:38 Indonesia curbed online piracy by 69 percent and increasing legal platforms by 30 percent. Site blocking requires an enabling legislation. The AVIA’s CAP is pushing for the passage of Senate Bill 497, or the “Philippine Online Infringement Act,” authored by Senate President Vicente Sotto 3rd. If passed, the Intellectual Property Office, through the National Telecommunications Commission, would have power over ISPs to ensure that they take reasonable steps “to disable access to sites whenever these sites are reported to be infringing copyright or facilitating copyright infringement.” Gane stressed that, “We all know that piracy impacts whether it’s the cable and satellite industry in the Philippines, certainly impacts those in front of the camera, behind the camera, those who are making television content and movie content in local platforms and the theaters, as well as international platforms.” We must not abuse implementation of the law to block legitimate websites critical of the government as copyright infringement. I have seen a Facebook post taken down because of alleged copyright infringement but did not cite the particular content. Legislation would not be the only solution. IPO, creative content producers, and telecommunications industries must work together on a policy framework that enables ISPs to block pirated websites. By reducing the demand and supply of infringing websites, we would protect both consumers and legitimate content producers.

Two men were indicted in Taiwan, who were suspected of operating a piracy operation called 8maple.ru,. Authorities requested that about US$2.35 million in assets from their “illegal dealings” be frozen. They were said to have been working with Chinese nationals since 2015. They are accused of violating Taiwan’s Copyright Act, by distributing 107 Taiwanese dramas, 64 American dramas, 60 Japanese dramas and 144 movies from Taiwan, infringing on the intellectual property rights of several companies; using offshore hosting resources to distribute the programming free of charge. Basd on evidence collected over time by Taiwan’s CD TV, Fuji Television Network and others, the operators were thought to be making an equivalent of about US$70,000 per month in advertising revenue. The total value of the infringment was estimated to have infringed on the equivalent of about $3.5 Million.

The Motion Picture Association (MPA) is hoping to recruit a network engineer to assist in its war against online piracy. Among other things, the Hollywood group is looking for a candidate with knowledge of VPNs, reverse proxies, Whois privacy services, and Internet registries such as RIPE and ARIN. Part of the job description is to find suitable targets for civil and criminal lawsuits. In its quest to combat online piracy, the Motion Picture Association (MPA) continues to expand and evolve its anti-piracy toolbox. This is a necessity since pirates have also learned to adapt over the years and are increasingly taking far-reaching measures to hide their identities. One major problem is that pirate sites and their operators are often hard to locate and identify. The same is true for illegal streaming services. These regularly use all sorts of tools to avoid detection, including VPNs, reverse proxies, complicated network setups, and various privacy services. This means that, in order to catch these people, the MPA needs in-house experts who can help to uncover their targets. That’s not always possible, but someone with the right knowledge can certainly be a great asset. In a recent job offer, the MPA is looking for such an expert. Specifically, the anti-piracy company outfit is seeking to recruit an “Internet Investigator” with a network engineering background. “The ideal candidate for this position will approach traditional Internet investigations from a technical perspective by creatively applying their skills and knowledge in network engineering to uncover additional evidence,” the MPA writes. The person who gets this job will become part of the Global Content Protection team which carries out detailed investigations into key piracy players. The goal is to identify the people and organizations that run these pirate services and, just as importantly, the technical infrastructure behind them. When new and suitable targets are found, these can be referred up the chain. This can result in cease and desist letters, civil lawsuits, or in the most extreme cases a criminal referral to law enforcement agencies. “Identify cases suitable for further investigation or escalated actions, including civil and criminal actions,” says the MPA of one key responsibility. The ideal candidate should also be able to proactively identify new targets. This requires knowledge of trends and new developments in the piracy ecosystem as well as the right network engineering skills. The latter is also reflected in the job offer. The MPA is looking for someone with detailed knowledge of network protocols and services, including VPNs, TCP/IP, DNS, BGP, load balancing, MPLS, HTTP, and SSL. He or she should also be familiar with Whois and DNS lookups, tracerouting, and packet capture analysis by using tools such as WireShark and tcpdump. In addition, experience with and knowledge of IP addresses, hosting providers, domain name registries, ICANN, IANA, RIPE, ARIN, reverse proxy providers, and whois privacy protection are also welcome. It’s clear that the MPA is looking for a technical network expert with investigative skills who can at least match the knowledge of pirate site operators. To win this key position in the anti-piracy apparatus, people can apply through the official MPA website, provided that they possess the highest level of integrity and are able to keep confidential information to themselves.

Google transparently reports the billions of copyright takedown requests it receives for its search engine. However, finding out how many videos are flagged and removed on YouTube appears to be quite the challenge. We gave it a go nonetheless and can also conclude that the Content ID system is a cash cow. Earlier this year we reported that Google had processed the five billionth DMCA takedown request for its search engine, a massive number. These data are conveniently shared through Google’s official transparency report, which is a treasure trove for reporters. For example, it allowed us to monitor the steep increase in notices over the years, as well as the subsequent decline. The data has also helped us spot errors and inaccuracies and it also provides fuel for academic research as well. It’s safe to say that Google’s transparency report offers a wealth of valuable information. It would make sense to have similar data available for YouTube but, unfortunately, that’s not the case. No YouTube Copyright Transparency Report When we look at Google’s transparency report, there is no mention of YouTube’s copyright complaints. There is plenty of data showing how many videos, channels, and comments are removed for violating the community guidelines. However, copyright requests are not included. This is odd because every day there are mentions of YouTubers facing issues with DMCA removals or Content ID flagging. These reports have increased over the years but keeping track of the volume, or scanning publicly for errors, is impossible. We asked Google about this omission this week, but without result. While the company has been quite responsive to other inquiries, it remains silent on this issue. This leaves us with no other option than to scour the web for bits and pieces, trying to lift at least part of the veil. After browsing through public reports and testimonies, we found that in 2017 YouTube removed “more than 7 million video URLs” following DMCA requests. These are requests that are sent by copyright holders outside of the Content ID system. This is actually a vital reference point because YouTube separately reported that 98% of all copyright claims were made through Content ID in the same year. This indirectly suggests that a total of 350 million copyright claims we made on YouTube that year. 350 Million YouTube Copyright Claims The 350 million is extrapolated from public information and not confirmed by Google, but it would make sense. And given that the data is from 2017, we expect the number to be significantly higher right now. It is worth noting that only a small fraction of the reported videos were removed. That brings up another intriguing Content ID feature that’s not often highlighted: the monetization angle. YouTube frequently mentions that it spent over $100 million on the development of its Content ID system. This is brought up to show how much the company cares about and invests in rightsholders but the anti-piracy system helps to bump its own revenues as well. In a recent hearing, before the US Senate, YouTube’s Global Director of Business Public Policy Katherine Oyama said that the vast majority of all claimed videos are not removed, but monetized instead. “Rightsholders choose to monetize 90% of all Content ID claims, opening up a multitude of new revenue streams for themselves. In the music industry, rightsholders choose to monetize over 95% of Content ID claims.” This revenue is split between YouTube and copyright holders. And with millions of flagged videos, we’re not talking about peanuts here. Billions in Content-ID Monetization Revenue At the Senate hearing last December, Oyama said that YouTube paid more than $5.5 billion in ad revenue to rightsholders from content that was claimed and monetized through Content ID. What YouTube didn’t highlight is that it made billions in revenue from these same videos as well. Revenue that would have (partially) been lost if the videos had been taken offline. That’s well worth the $100 million investment into the Content ID system. Monetizing ‘infringing’ videos instead of taking them offline has essentially transformed the anti-piracy tool into a cash cow that generates massive amounts of money for copyright holders and YouTube. (Almost) No Losers It almost appears to be an ideal scenario where there are only winners and no losers. Almost… That brings us back to the transparency issue. In the past, we have seen rightsholders abuse the Content ID system to claim content that’s clearly fair use, or sometimes simply not something they own. These people can then hijack the ad revenue as well, which clearly frustrates the channel owners Now if we could only transparently see what is claimed and by who, it may actually help to limit these mistakes, and hold abusers accountable.

Italian police have blocked 1.5 million users that were illegally streaming content from providers including Netflix Inc, Comcast's Sky unit, DAZN and domestic broadcaster Mediaset. A police statement said that more than 200 officers were involved in the operation, which led to 45 people being charged for alleged conspiracy to illegally access IT infrastructure and commit fraud. Police said the seizing of a large central IT system in the Sicilian town of Messina had ensured the blocking of 80% of content illegally streamed over the internet through so-called internet protocol (IP) television. The content is first acquired legally and then turned into audio and video flows to homes of final users. The blocked accounts amount to about 11% of total users of streaming services in Italy based on sector estimates provided by Ampere Analysis.

The popular torrent site The Pirate Bay spent days off the air and resumed its normal activities this past Wednesday (12) with a surprise: the logo on the homepage now redirects the user to the PancakeSwap cryptocurrency trading platform , on which other digital currencies can be exchanged for the so-called PirateToken (TPB). Elon Musk says Tesla will no longer accept bitcoin and cryptocurrency plummets What is cryptocurrency? The Pirate Bay discloses suspicious cryptocurrency (Campus Party México / Flickr) The Pirate Bay has history with cryptocurrencies Apparently, it is a suspicious cryptocurrency promoted by The Pirate Bay and so far nothing is known about it. The torrents website has a history with digital currencies, it was one of the first to integrate them in the past, with the right even to some controversies. More than eight years ago, the site added a feature that made it possible to make donations in bitcoin (BTC), litecoin (LTC) and Monero (XRM). The Pirate Bay was also one of the first platform in the world to start mining criptomoedas using computer processing power of its members. The news was very controversial at the time, but eventually other sites started doing the same. Logo redirects user to the cryptocurrency platform Now, the platform has taken another step in its adherence to cryptocurrencies, however strange and mysterious it may be. After spending three days down, The Pirate Bay returned to normal operation this past Wednesday. However, it didn't take long for users to realize that above the website logo on the home page there was also an icon for the PancakeSwap platform . When you click on the logo, you are taken to the cryptocurrency trading website, but specifically to the page that allows you to exchange them for the suspected PirateToken (TPB). The PancakeSwap is a kind of decentralized exchange through which to exchange a cryptocurrency for another, but not by fiat money as most brokers. The Pirate Bay logo redirects user to TPB cryptocurrency trading page (Image: Reproduction) After all, what do we know about TPB? One of the most basic questions about PirateToken has yet to be answered: What is its purpose? The cryptocurrency is presumed to have something to do with The Pirate Bay , especially when the acronym for the digital currency is TPB, as well as the short for the torrents website. However, there is no official information about the token, which does not even have a logo until then. But there is still no certainty as to whether there is in fact a relationship between the cryptocurrency and the site. In the past, The Pirate Bay used to temporarily sell the logo space for advertising purposes. What is known so far is that cryptocurrency is very recent and there are 100 million units of the digital currency that until then were concentrated in a single digital wallet. Now, some negotiations have already started through PancakeSwap , which is apparently the only platform that lists PirateToken to date. In less than a day of its launch, the number of TPB holders has exceeded 200. Tens of thousands of coins have already been sold, but 99.9% are still owned by the creator of the cryptocurrency. Its price is very volatile, it reached US $ 15 yesterday, but at the time of closing this matter the token was worth US $ 3.3.

Several of the largest Internet providers and copyright holders in Germany have joined forces to tackle online piracy. With the new "Clearing Body for Copyright on the Internet," they have agreed to block structurally infringing sites without going to court. The first target is streaming portal S.to and other prominent sites including Kinox and The Pirate Bay are being considered. ISP blocking has become a prime measure for the entertainment industries to limit the availability of pirate sites on the Internet. In recent years thousands of domain names have been blocked throughout Europe, Asia, Latin America, and even Down Under. In most countries, these blockades are handed down by courts. However, extrajudicial schemes and voluntary agreements between Internet providers and copyright holders are no exception. This is also true for Germany, where a new plan was unveiled today. Clearing Body for Copyright on the Internet A coalition of the country’s largest ISPs and copyright holder groups launched the “Clearing Body for Copyright on the Internet” (CUII) which aims to block the most blatant pirate sites. While CUII doesn’t rely on court judgments, there is some form of oversight. When copyright holders report a pirate site, a review committee first checks whether the domain is indeed linked to a website that structurally infringes copyrights. The review committee consists of retired judges who are familiar with copyright matters. If they conclude that a domain is structurally infringing, the matter is referred to the German government’s Federal Network Agency (BNetzA) to confirm that a blockade will not violate net neutrality. If there are no problematic issues detected, ISPs will have the green light to implement a DNS blockade. Structurally Infringing Sites The definition of a structurally infringing website can be open to interpretation but only the most blatant pirate sites will be targeted. As concrete examples, CUII mentions thepiratebay.org, kinox.to and goldesel.to. “The offerings of these platforms are specifically targeted at the infringement of copyrighted works. If there is legal content on the platform, its size is not significant in the overall ratio of legal to illegal content,” CUII writes. While the referenced sites are likely candidates to be blocked, the first domain name on the list is the streaming portal S.to, according to a press release from BNetzA. This site is already blocked by Vodafone. ISPs and Rightsholders Are Pleased Both copyright holders and Internet providers are happy with the landmark code of conduct, which is the result of a lengthy negotiation process. The ISP’s are pleased with the oversight from BNetzA, which ensures that net neutrality isn’t violated. At the same time, they are happy to draw a line under a decade of court battles. “With the establishment of the Clearing Body, we have jointly found a way to obtain independent, and, at the same time, extremely high-quality decisions on how to deal with copyright blocking claims against Internet access providers,” says Judith Steinbrecher, who assisted ISPs in the negotiations. No Silver Bullet The establishment of the CUII means that it will become more difficult for German Internet users to access pirate sites. However, it won’t solve the piracy problem completely. As noted by the German news site Tarnkappe, DNS blockades can be easily circumvented by switching to Google or Cloudflare’s DNS server, or people may simply use a VPN.

The Russian FSB (Federal Security Service) has proposed the creation of a universal escrow-like deposit of encryption keys for mobile applications, enabling law enforcement agencies to access data when criminal investigations require it. This way, law-abiding citizens would continue to enjoy privacy and confidentiality in their communications while terrorists wouldn’t be able to hide behind end-to-end encryption systems anymore. It sounds like a win-win, but the margin for abuse is obviously still there. Privacy advocates have difficulty trusting governments and their agencies, so if the keys to unlock protected communications are made available to them, the mechanisms for stealthy abuse could be established quickly. The escrow idea is meant to help mitigate this very risk. Still, if multiple participants in the contractual arrangement have common or similar benefits from the systematic bypassing of the safeguards, we could end up with a distorted reality system. Deputy Foreign Minister of the Russian Federation, Oleg Syromolotov, stated that their foreign partners welcomed FSB’s proposal without mentioning which countries reacted positively. It is, however, clear that most countries out there seek ways to snoop all communications, so we wouldn’t be surprised if even governments that have cold relationships with Russia will stand behind this encryption storage deposit system proposal. Right now, not many details about how this system would work have been publicly disclosed, but it’s clear that everyone interested in it is fascinated by the fact that it is a proposal that doesn’t ask for a backdoor. As such, software developers and companies that create e2ee communication and data exchange tools will have great difficulty expressing their concerns about the retention of user privacy or refuting the escrow system on grounds of distrust. And as for social networks, IMs operating in the context of these platforms should be within the access scope of the proposed system, as Syromolotov confirmed. The Minister stated that there are serious risks associated with disseminating information promoting violence and terrorism, so no social media platform can be omitted.

Super Channel operator Allarco claimed that major retailers including Staples and Best Buy are selling and encouraging the use of "piracy devices" that undermine its business. However, the company's application for an injunction banning sales has now been denied, with the judge slamming Allarco's application and investigative actions from every conceivable angle. In September 2019, Super Channel owner Allarco Entertainment filed a lawsuit in Canada’s Federal Court targeting Staples Canada, Best Buy Canada, London Drugs, Canada Computers, several related companies and up to 50,000 ‘John Doe’ customers. Allarco accused the retailers and their staff of promoting and instructing in the use of ‘pirate devices’, set-top boxes that could enable customers to access infringing content. The complaint was supported by 100 hours of undercover recordings which, according to Allarco, showed prospective customers being instructed how to use software such as Kodi for piracy purposes. Allarco demanded an injunction restraining these alleged behaviors but after the retailers fought back, in January 2020 Allarco discontinued its Federal Court lawsuit. However, Allarco had already filed a similar lawsuit in December 2019, this time at the Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta (Alberta’s superior court), and earlier this year demanded an injunction preventing the retailers from offering ‘pirate devices’ for sale to the public. This has now failed in the most spectacular way with the Court tearing apart large swathes of Allarco’s evidence and allegations. What Could Go Wrong? Pretty Much Everything The standard position for a copyright infringement lawsuit in Canada is that the copyright holders themselves are party to an action. While Allarco is a licensee of programming, it is not a copyright holder, so was required to join the relevant copyright holders in the matter. The broadcaster presented two TV shows as “proxies” for its action but not only did it fail to add the copyright holders, it did not even notify them of the proceeding. As such, there is no evidence that they authorized Allarco to bring a copyright suit or even wanted to be part of one. As a result, last Friday Mr. Justice M. J. Lema stayed the main action until the copyright holders are joined. Until then, Allarco is effectively barred from bringing copyright infringement proceedings in its main litigation. With no established right to bring the action, the Judge moved on to the interlocutory application, which does not require the addition of the copyright holders. At this point, things became even worse for Allarco. Judge: There is No Serious Case To Be Tried Here Allarco’s demand for an injunction is centered upon its claims that the decline in its subscriber base and “otherwise suboptimal performance” was caused by consumers using the ‘pirate devices’ sold by the retailers. These sales need to be stopped, according to Allarco, to prevent the situation from getting any worse. The Judge found that Allarco failed to provide evidence to back up its allegations. Noting that Allarco did not have to identify every instance of infringement, the Judge said that at a minimum it needed to show an actual link between the activities of the retailers and its claimed losses. Allarco also had to show causation, i.e the promotion of set-top boxes for content piracy actually caused the loss of subscribers. But the company came up short. Among other things, Allarco failed to demonstrate that even one Super Channel subscriber canceled or even considered canceling their subscription because they bought a set-top box from a retailer. Perhaps even more problematic is that Allarco provided no evidence that anyone who bought a set-top even went on to use it, “in any fashion.” “Accordingly, Allarco has not proved that retailers-sold boxes have been used to infringe any of its broadcast rights. As a result, its copyright and other remedial claims hinging on proving such a link fall flat,” Justice Lema wrote. That being said, the Judge did assume that at least some of the devices may have been used, so he moved on to the question of whether the retailers contributed to any infringement of Allarco’s rights. Did The Retailers Promote and Encourage Piracy? As previously reported, Allarco employed a single “investigative shopper” to gather evidence that the retailers were encouraging the use of set-top boxes for piracy purposes. Identified as a Mr. Best, the shopper is reported to have traveled Canada for more than a year, posing as a customer interested in buying a set-top box for piracy purposes, while secretly recording the transactions. “In other words, [Mr. Best posed as] a person who, to all appearances, was already disposed to content piracy,” the Judge noted. Citing the retailers’ brief, Justice Lema agreed that Best went to the stores with a plan to get employees to discuss how devices could be used for piracy. To achieve that, Best misled and lied to employees by telling them that his friends had already bought a device from the store that enabled piracy. Some employees told him that his planned activities were illegal. Others did not know what he was talking about. However, a subset had some knowledge of how devices could be modified and tried to answer Best’s “leading questions.” “Contrary to Mr. Best’s assertions, virtually all of the employees indicated the company could not assist with modifying any device. A few said otherwise and, taken at its worst, these employees (who have no legal training) were only guilty of trying to assist a persistent customer,” the stores testified. “[T]here is not a single example in his evidence of any employee approaching him and promoting these products for those purposes.” The Judge found this account to be accurate and highlighted another problem. Allarco tried to extrapolate the experiences of Mr. Best to other retail store customers but failed to provide evidence of interactions with any other customer, let alone retail customers generally. “More significantly, whatever the extent, Mr. Best’s videos do not prove that the retailers promote and encourage a culture of piracy, and they do not prove that the retailers, through their employees’ actions, played any material role in any infringements of Allarco’s broadcast rights,” the Judge noted. “I cannot find, based on the Best evidence here, or any other Allarco evidence, that any assistance offered by retailer employees to such persons contributed, or contributes, in any material way, to Allarco subscriber losses or other business difficulties.” Retailers Did Not Sell Pirate Devices, Expert “Entirely Unhelpful” One of Allarco’s main claims is that devices sold with the addition of Kodi software are only intended for piracy purposes and should not be sold by the retailers. The Judge didn’t buy that, noting that Kodi is a neutral application that can be used to find both legitimate and pirated content, with the addition of certain add-ons. The Judge also noted that most (if not all) of the devices listed in the case came pre-installed with Netflix, YouTube and Google Play. However, Mr. Best and Allarco’s expert Dr. Eric Cole incorrectly claimed that the devices had no legitimate uses, with the latter insisting that they were designed for piracy and “not a viable or cost-effective use of technology for any other purpose.” But things were about to get even worse. With the Judge variously finding Cole’s evidence as “not helpful”, providing no “illumination on the uses or functionality of the devices”, and at other times, “almost completely hollow”, attention was turned to Dr. Cole’s objectivity. Dr. Cole reportedly has a history of working with a Donald Best, including in litigation commenced by Donald Best. However, Allarco’s counsel refused to allow Dr. Cole to answer any questions about his previous work with Allarco or Donald Best. However, it transpired that Dr. Cole had worked with Patrick Best, Donald Best’s son and the person who carried out the investigation for Allarco and whose work he was paid to verify. Somewhat awkwardly, Dr. Cole also used Patrick Best’s equipment to compile his evidence while Patrick Best “assumed the role of note-taker” and indeed wrote some of the ‘Expert Notes’. Under cross-examination, Dr. Cole could not recall which parts of the Expert Notes were written by him and which parts were written by Patrick Best. Furthermore, after claims that the Expert Notes were not modified after January 19, 2020 were found to be untrue (additional notes were added), Dr. Cole refused to answer whether Patrick Best had sent him those notes. “An expert is expected to be helpful to the Court, he or she is also expected to be objective and transparent,” the judgment reads. “This report raised more questions than it answered, and it did not answer, or shed any helpful light on, any issue in these proceedings. I reject Dr. Cole’s report as entirely unhelpful here, all aside from my concerns over his objectivity (echoing those of the retailers).” Turning to Mr. Best, who has no computer or application testing background, the Judge found that his evidence had an “intentional” and “massive gap”, i.e it made no attempt at gauging the full range of uses for the set-top boxes beyond piracy, rendering Allarco’s evidence “effectively meaningless.” Worse still, Mr. Best’s evidence, that he was able to use purchased set-top boxes in “off the shelf” condition to access pirated content, was also fatally flawed. “In fact, the testing by both sides showed that various steps, of various difficulty, and requiring various amounts of time, were required to find and add on whatever ‘add-on’ programs were necessary to access pirated content,” the judgment reads. “None of the units sold by the retailers included such add-ons when purchased. They either did not include KODI or included KODI without add-ons. Whether add-ons could be added in three minutes or thirty, or with ten clicks or twenty, the point is that the units here were not configured, as sold by the retailers, for immediate use as a pirating device.”

After almost two decades of lawsuits and criminal cases against pirates of all kinds, no one should be surprised that supplying infringing content has the potential to end badly. Nevertheless, it's a risk that some people are still prepared to take, sometimes with life-altering consequences. Don't do the crime if you can't do the time? Perhaps, but there are real lives at stake here too, let's not forget that. For those who are old enough to remember, the 2000s were arguably the glory years of the file-sharing revolution. Have a file, give one. Need a file, take one back. That was the very essence of file-sharing, a mostly self-governing system that allowed people to swap content without having to part with a penny. Certainly, in the majority of cases, regular people weren’t making any money from it even though they were probably saving some. In broad terms, those days are now gone. While there are still some communities that exist on the old sharing ethos, today’s file-sharing landscape has transformed into a much broader piracy scene, often motivated by profit. Indeed, when it comes to the latest revelation, pirate IPTV packages, none if any of it would exist without being supported by an underlying business and in effect, a massive black market. IPTV Crackdown Continues, With an Interesting Target Rightsholders and their anti-piracy partners view this type of piracy as a particular threat. These are paying customers after all, ones that they would prefer to have line their collective pockets, not those of organized pirates. As a result, it appears that entertainment companies are prepared to go to extreme lengths to enforce their rights, with little or no mercy shown to their targets. This week yet another case came to the fore via a release from the Federation Against Copyright Theft. Working with the likes of the Premier League and Sky, FACT is no stranger to tracking down pirates. However, the case in point has a different tone to it, one that shows that absolutely no one is immune to being hauled over the coals. FACT says it was able to identify a man selling illegal services that provided access to premium sport, TV and films. He was reportedly offering the subscriptions through a Facebook group and via an app, for loading onto devices such as Firesticks. Nothing particularly out of the ordinary thus far but FACT also drew specific focus to his occupation. Serving Member of the Military – So What? The anti-piracy group reported that the man, from Oxfordshire, is a serving member of the armed forces as a Corporal in the Royal Air Force. FACT says that in order to carry out its investigation it teamed up with the RAF Special Investigation Branch and was able to confirm that the man had been working with “illegal content providers outside the military.” FACT did not reveal whether the man pleaded guilty or not, but the company reports that he has now been sentenced. “He was convicted of conspiracy to defraud and loss of service property and also received a reduction to his rank,” FACT revealed. It is quite possible that the conspiracy to defraud part of the above statement came as no surprise. FACT prosecutions have long centered on fraud charges rather than copyright infringement because they carry more weight and are easier for a jury to understand. However, the direct effect on someone’s career isn’t something we’ve seen before. And FACT sound pretty pleased about it. “Those running illegal streaming services are committing a serious crime and must be held accountable for their actions,” said FACT Chief Executive Kieron Sharp. “This result shows the serious consequences faced by individuals who choose to break the law by supplying illegal content. This type of conviction will have a significant and long-lasting effect on this individual’s career and future opportunities.” Dire Consequences This almost celebratory warning over an entire career being undermined makes for uneasy reading. But the statement goes beyond that, by appearing to welcome the potential for a lifelong negative effect on opportunities too. It looks bad – and it is bad – but it is also completely true and shows how the game is progressing. The message that FACT wants to send out is that piracy does not pay, can ruin your life, and the company is standing by to help make that happen. There are hundreds of potential targets when it comes to sellers of pirate IPTV in the UK but for reasons that FACT and its partners aren’t making clear, this person was considered a perfect candidate for the most punitive action, despite his role serving his country. Of course, serving a country doesn’t make anyone immune from prosecution, but it’s perhaps telling that the man’s name, age, address, and extent of offending have all been suppressed. This information is usually made public but not in this case, potentially due to his position in society. Don’t Do The Crime If You Can’t Do The Time? Let’s not tread lightly here though. While getting into the IPTV selling game is relatively simple these days, there can be few people involved who aren’t aware of the risks. It has been widely publicized on dozens of occasions that sellers in the UK have been pursued for conspiracy to defraud so as a presumably intelligent member of the military, this cannot have gone unnoticed to the recently sentenced man. With that in mind, we are presented with an uncomfortable truth. When people get involved in this type of activity, are aware of the risks, and yet do it anyway, should anyone have any sympathy? For whatever reasons, this was a person out to make a profit from piracy and to FACT – a company that measures its success by the severity and volume of these types of convictions – this is a red rag to a bull. Deterrence – But At Any Cost? What people need to know and what FACT is keen to express, is that no one is above the law. If they’ll hit this guy, they’ll hit anyone, the news seems to suggest. The big question is whether sending a strong deterrent message has its limits before those signals veer off into less palatable territory. Indeed, it’s notable that the rightsholders behind this action appear to have taken the decision not to have their names associated with it in public, instead allowing FACT to take whatever type of publicity comes as a result. That being said, big names in sport and/or broadcasting are most certainly behind the action and could have more in store. “We thank the RAF for their work on this and FACT will continue to monitor channels used to advertise, market, sell and distribute apps, devices and streams to take action against suppliers and operators. Subscribers to his services have been identified and further action is anticipated,” FACT concludes. Let no one say they didn’t get the memo.

Super Channel operator Allarco claimed that major retailers including Staples and Best Buy are selling and encouraging the use of "piracy devices" that undermine its business. However, the company's application for an injunction banning sales has now been denied, with the judge slamming Allarco's application and investigative actions from every conceivable angle. In September 2019, Super Channel owner Allarco Entertainment filed a lawsuit in Canada’s Federal Court targeting Staples Canada, Best Buy Canada, London Drugs, Canada Computers, several related companies and up to 50,000 ‘John Doe’ customers. Allarco accused the retailers and their staff of promoting and instructing in the use of ‘pirate devices’, set-top boxes that could enable customers to access infringing content. The complaint was supported by 100 hours of undercover recordings which, according to Allarco, showed prospective customers being instructed how to use software such as Kodi for piracy purposes. Allarco demanded an injunction restraining these alleged behaviors but after the retailers fought back, in January 2020 Allarco discontinued its Federal Court lawsuit. However, Allarco had already filed a similar lawsuit in December 2019, this time at the Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta (Alberta’s superior court), and earlier this year demanded an injunction preventing the retailers from offering ‘pirate devices’ for sale to the public. This has now failed in the most spectacular way with the Court tearing apart large swathes of Allarco’s evidence and allegations. What Could Go Wrong? Pretty Much Everything The standard position for a copyright infringement lawsuit in Canada is that the copyright holders themselves are party to an action. While Allarco is a licensee of programming, it is not a copyright holder, so was required to join the relevant copyright holders in the matter. The broadcaster presented two TV shows as “proxies” for its action but not only did it fail to add the copyright holders, it did not even notify them of the proceeding. As such, there is no evidence that they authorized Allarco to bring a copyright suit or even wanted to be part of one. As a result, last Friday Mr. Justice M. J. Lema stayed the main action until the copyright holders are joined. Until then, Allarco is effectively barred from bringing copyright infringement proceedings in its main litigation. With no established right to bring the action, the Judge moved on to the interlocutory application, which does not require the addition of the copyright holders. At this point, things became even worse for Allarco. Judge: There is No Serious Case To Be Tried Here Allarco’s demand for an injunction is centered upon its claims that the decline in its subscriber base and “otherwise suboptimal performance” was caused by consumers using the ‘pirate devices’ sold by the retailers. These sales need to be stopped, according to Allarco, to prevent the situation from getting any worse. The Judge found that Allarco failed to provide evidence to back up its allegations. Noting that Allarco did not have to identify every instance of infringement, the Judge said that at a minimum it needed to show an actual link between the activities of the retailers and its claimed losses. Allarco also had to show causation, i.e the promotion of set-top boxes for content piracy actually caused the loss of subscribers. But the company came up short. Among other things, Allarco failed to demonstrate that even one Super Channel subscriber canceled or even considered canceling their subscription because they bought a set-top box from a retailer. Perhaps even more problematic is that Allarco provided no evidence that anyone who bought a set-top even went on to use it, “in any fashion.” “Accordingly, Allarco has not proved that retailers-sold boxes have been used to infringe any of its broadcast rights. As a result, its copyright and other remedial claims hinging on proving such a link fall flat,” Justice Lema wrote. That being said, the Judge did assume that at least some of the devices may have been used, so he moved on to the question of whether the retailers contributed to any infringement of Allarco’s rights. Did The Retailers Promote and Encourage Piracy? As previously reported, Allarco employed a single “investigative shopper” to gather evidence that the retailers were encouraging the use of set-top boxes for piracy purposes. Identified as a Mr. Best, the shopper is reported to have traveled Canada for more than a year, posing as a customer interested in buying a set-top box for piracy purposes, while secretly recording the transactions. “In other words, [Mr. Best posed as] a person who, to all appearances, was already disposed to content piracy,” the Judge noted. Citing the retailers’ brief, Justice Lema agreed that Best went to the stores with a plan to get employees to discuss how devices could be used for piracy. To achieve that, Best misled and lied to employees by telling them that his friends had already bought a device from the store that enabled piracy. Some employees told him that his planned activities were illegal. Others did not know what he was talking about. However, a subset had some knowledge of how devices could be modified and tried to answer Best’s “leading questions.” “Contrary to Mr. Best’s assertions, virtually all of the employees indicated the company could not assist with modifying any device. A few said otherwise and, taken at its worst, these employees (who have no legal training) were only guilty of trying to assist a persistent customer,” the stores testified. “[T]here is not a single example in his evidence of any employee approaching him and promoting these products for those purposes.” The Judge found this account to be accurate and highlighted another problem. Allarco tried to extrapolate the experiences of Mr. Best to other retail store customers but failed to provide evidence of interactions with any other customer, let alone retail customers generally. “More significantly, whatever the extent, Mr. Best’s videos do not prove that the retailers promote and encourage a culture of piracy, and they do not prove that the retailers, through their employees’ actions, played any material role in any infringements of Allarco’s broadcast rights,” the Judge noted. “I cannot find, based on the Best evidence here, or any other Allarco evidence, that any assistance offered by retailer employees to such persons contributed, or contributes, in any material way, to Allarco subscriber losses or other business difficulties.” Retailers Did Not Sell Pirate Devices, Expert “Entirely Unhelpful” One of Allarco’s main claims is that devices sold with the addition of Kodi software are only intended for piracy purposes and should not be sold by the retailers. The Judge didn’t buy that, noting that Kodi is a neutral application that can be used to find both legitimate and pirated content, with the addition of certain add-ons. The Judge also noted that most (if not all) of the devices listed in the case came pre-installed with Netflix, YouTube and Google Play. However, Mr. Best and Allarco’s expert Dr. Eric Cole incorrectly claimed that the devices had no legitimate uses, with the latter insisting that they were designed for piracy and “not a viable or cost-effective use of technology for any other purpose.” But things were about to get even worse. With the Judge variously finding Cole’s evidence as “not helpful”, providing no “illumination on the uses or functionality of the devices”, and at other times, “almost completely hollow”, attention was turned to Dr. Cole’s objectivity. Dr. Cole reportedly has a history of working with a Donald Best, including in litigation commenced by Donald Best. However, Allarco’s counsel refused to allow Dr. Cole to answer any questions about his previous work with Allarco or Donald Best. However, it transpired that Dr. Cole had worked with Patrick Best, Donald Best’s son and the person who carried out the investigation for Allarco and whose work he was paid to verify. Somewhat awkwardly, Dr. Cole also used Patrick Best’s equipment to compile his evidence while Patrick Best “assumed the role of note-taker” and indeed wrote some of the ‘Expert Notes’. Under cross-examination, Dr. Cole could not recall which parts of the Expert Notes were written by him and which parts were written by Patrick Best. Furthermore, after claims that the Expert Notes were not modified after January 19, 2020 were found to be untrue (additional notes were added), Dr. Cole refused to answer whether Patrick Best had sent him those notes. “An expert is expected to be helpful to the Court, he or she is also expected to be objective and transparent,” the judgment reads. “This report raised more questions than it answered, and it did not answer, or shed any helpful light on, any issue in these proceedings. I reject Dr. Cole’s report as entirely unhelpful here, all aside from my concerns over his objectivity (echoing those of the retailers).” Turning to Mr. Best, who has no computer or application testing background, the Judge found that his evidence had an “intentional” and “massive gap”, i.e it made no attempt at gauging the full range of uses for the set-top boxes beyond piracy, rendering Allarco’s evidence “effectively meaningless.” Worse still, Mr. Best’s evidence, that he was able to use purchased set-top boxes in “off the shelf” condition to access pirated content, was also fatally flawed. “In fact, the testing by both sides showed that various steps, of various difficulty, and requiring various amounts of time, were required to find and add on whatever ‘add-on’ programs were necessary to access pirated content,” the judgment reads. “None of the units sold by the retailers included such add-ons when purchased. They either did not include KODI or included KODI without add-ons. Whether add-ons could be added in three minutes or thirty, or with ten clicks or twenty, the point is that the units here were not configured, as sold by the retailers, for immediate use as a pirating device.”

A man handed a record jail term for online music piracy offenses has been freed less than a year into his sentence. Kane Robinson, owner of defunct pre-release music site Dancing Jesus, was jailed in 2014 and expected to serve 32 months, but was released late last week, much to the delight of his supporters. Following an investigation carried out by the BPI and IFPI, with assistance from the US Department of Homeland Security, in 2011 file-sharing links forum Dancing Jesus was taken offline. Two men, one the owner of the site and the other one of the forum’s top uploaders, were arrested by City of London Police. Homeland Security seized a Dancing Jesus server hosted in the United States. After years of quiet, last October it became evident that the BPI was pursuing a private prosecution against the pair. In January 2014, site owner Kane Robinson of South Shields pleaded guilty to illegally distributing music. Key uploader Richard Graham of Leicestershire entered a guilty plea at a later date. On November 10, 2014, Robinson and Graham were sentenced and received the harshest punishments ever handed down to UK-based file-sharers. For his part in offering a reported 22,500 links to 250,000 titles, Robinson was sentenced to 32 months. Graham received 21 months. At the time the sentences were criticized as being both harsh and disproportionate but within months positive signs began to emerge. In August a posting to a Facebook campaign page titled ‘Justice for Kane Robinson’ carried an optimistic message. “We saw Kane at the weekend he is doing well and it is hopeful he could be out soon..thanks for all your continued support guys!” it read. Then last Thursday, after receiving the toughest sentence of its kind and serving time in three separate prisons, Robinson was freed ‘just’ 11 months into his sentence. His Facebook campaign carried two simple hashtags: #‎Justice4Kane‬ ‪and #‎Missioncomplete‬ It’s unclear why Robinson has been released so early. Chronicle Live said it had approached the Ministry of Justice but the office declined to comment on individual cases. Robinson himself has also remained silent. TorrentFreak caught up with David Cook, a specialist cyber crime solicitor who was previously instructed to provide expert opinion to the defense in the case. He told TF that he no longer represents Robinson or Graham but confirmed both had previously filed appeals. “However, this probably has a more simple explanation,” Cook explained. “A 34 month sentence would equate to 17 months in custody and 17 months ‘on license’ in the community. If a person behaves and is deemed suitable then they may be released earlier.” Both men will now be looking to rebuild their lives, probably far away from the file-sharing arena.

The International Broadcaster Coalition Against Piracy (IBCAP) is promoting a coordinated attack against copyright pirates in North America, ensuring that unauthorized services and retailers are held accountable through massive trials and that their platforms are closed. Representing more than 140 television channels from Europe, Brazil, the Middle East and South Asia, IBCAP, together with the technical services provided by NAGRA, is proactively monitoring and identifying unauthorized video services, collecting evidence and assisting with legal actions. Last week, a Federal Court in Texas awarded an IBCAP member $ 16,800,000 for intentional copyright infringement, a court order against the owner of the infringing sites, the transfer of 15 domains, including freetvall.com, and a determination regarding the use of non-outsourced service providers as website hosts and Content Delivery Networks (CDNs). The Texas lawsuit follows in the wake of a $ 2,100,000 trial in the Delaware Federal Court against the pirated East IPTV service for copyright infringement. An additional $ 600,000 has been awarded to the CDN used by East IPTV to broadcast IBCAP member channels. But that does not end with the pecuniary trials - the defendants were forced to transfer the domains of the service and any future domains used to infringe copyright will also be deactivated. The East IPTV service has ended. These recent legal victories add to the sequence of more than 20 successful lawsuits coordinated by IBCAP and brought by its members in the past five years. Judgments can include devastating pecuniary values against pirates and the distributors and retailers in their distribution chain. Recent examples include $ 25,350,000 against Shava and Cres IPTV, the amount of $ 1,600,000 against one of Shava's retailers in New York, or the lawsuit against a pirated services retailer in Florida that forced that retailer into bankruptcy and resulted in a $ 4,440,000 judgment. In addition to the financial impact, at the heart of almost all of these legal victories are court orders that extend to CDNs, Internet Service Providers (ISPs) and retailers, completely disabling the pirate network. Chris Kuelling, Executive Director of IBCAP, said, “We will be relentless in working with our members to end these services. If they are not in compliance, all available legal measures will be considered and used as necessary, including seeking damages and extensive legal actions that extend to CDNs, ISPs, retailers and others. The enforcement of judgments against retailers resulted in the bankruptcy of these stores or individuals. To be clear, we are not going to stop just going after the 'pirates', we are going to go after their 'crew members' who contribute to the process, like retailers who sell pirated services. ” Kuelling further commented: “They are not only selling unauthorized channels, but also deceiving customers. It's like selling someone a defective product. You pay $ 300 or more for a set-top box and then the unauthorized service is terminated and the consumer is left without their favorite channels and no guarantee to get their money back. That is why it is extremely important that consumers are aware when making their decisions, making sure that they are buying from an authorized source capable of providing a reliable service. ” In all of these cases, Nagra was instrumental in supporting the IBCAP to identify pirate targets and gather the evidence needed to coordinate and pursue legal action. Commenting on the role of Nagra, Pascal Metral, VP of Legal Affairs and Head of Anti-Piracy, Intelligence and Litigation Investigations, he said: “Global content piracy cheats content creators and erodes consumer confidence. NAGRA continues to monitor, assemble and act on intelligence to equip strategic industry alliances, such as that of IBCAP, with compelling evidence that leads to successful actions against those involved in pirated operations and the distribution of illicit content. ” The International Broadcast Coalition Against Piracy, is the coalition of the main international broadcasters and distributors that represent more than 140 television channels in Asia, Europe, the Middle East and South America. The non-profit organization proactively monitors and identifies video services unauthorized, collects evidence and assists in legal actions and criminal investigations against organizations and individuals involved in pirated activities. IBCAP contributes to government and police agencies in the United States and abroad, reports suspected violations to the appropriate authorities, initiates investigations and prosecutes individuals or companies that participate in the illegal distribution of video content from its members.

In early February, the Alliance for Creativity in Entertainment (ACE) reported the shut-downs of pirate streaming sites in Canada and Europe that took place in recent months. In January, ACE tendered a cease-and-desist communication to Canadian streamer VengeanceTV, which went offline in early February. German streamer Stream.to went offline in November. ACE reported that stream.to distributed more than 30,000 movies and 4,700 TV shows illegally; mainly to consumers in Germany and Austria. During Q4 of 2020, ACE also accomplished the shut-down of three pirate streaming sites in Spain, Megadede, Vidcorn and Movidy, which, according to ACE, accounted for most of the pirate streaming originating in Spain and consumed in Spain and other Spanish-speaking countries. The sites have apparently been de-listed from search engines, as their names no longer appear in search results. Attempts to connect directly result in ‘server not found’ or ‘connection timed out.’ Visitors to illegal streaming sites are redirected to an ACE warning US streaming sites shut down in Q4 of 2020 Pirate streamer Big Daddy TV now re-directs to an ACE warning, followed by a screen about ACE’s ‘Watch It Legally’ program. It had been offering 6,000 live channels plus more than 2,600 VOD movies and 240 TV channels Another illegal service, ironically called Ace TV offered more than 2,700 channels delivered online and to an illicit streaming device None of ACE’s news releases identify formal legal complaints or settlements. Why it matters ACE has pursued legal countermeasures successfully in its battle against piracy, in the form of cease and desist demands. ACE is a consortium of Hollywood studios, broadcasters, premium TV programmers, online distributors and other major media companies.

The five-year INTERPOL Stop Online Piracy (I-SOP) initiative “will counter online piracy and crimes involving intellectual property rights infringement, identifying and dismantling linked illicit online marketplaces, as well as targeting the criminal networks and confiscating their assets.” The Korean Ministry of Culture, Sport and Tourism has contributed €2.7 Million to the venture, which will also have collaboration with the Korean National Police Agency. The initiative will build public-private partnerships with industry, and work together with international anti-piracy advocacy organizations, and with academia. “Korea’s support for this project will enable INTERPOL to assist countries develop a more targeted response in identifying the criminal networks, which can use their illicit profits to fuel other crimes,” added Secretary General Stock. Agencies representing other countries are expected to join the I-SOP initiative. Read the complete press release (INTERPOL). Note: at the time of this writing, an I-SOP Web site was not yet available. Why it matters I-SOP’s launch aligns with the jump in online piracy coinciding with the COVID-19 pandemic. In addition to targeting criminal operations, I-SOP also has the goal of raising public awareness of the risks linked to digital piracy, including the spread of malicious software.

Space Exploration Technologies, the Elon Musk company better known as SpaceX, has been building a constellation of satellites for the past several years, called Starlink; to provide universal broadband service worldwide. It passed the 1,000 satellite mark this year and is in commercial service. Amazon is launching a competing network of more than 3,000 satellites, called Project Kuiper. A Starlink user recently received a warning generated by Starlink: “Downloading copyrighted materials without a license may lead to suspension or termination of your service, and put you at risk of legal action by the content owner.” Screenshot taken by Reddit user Substrate97 (Source: PC Mag) Apparently, this user had been testing torrents over Starlink for two months to “see what would happen.” But as soon as the user tried to torrent a copyrighted program from a major video producer, SpaceX detected it and issued the warning. Read the full article via PC Magazine Why it matters Kudos to SpaceX (and the individual who thought of putting it in place in anticipation) for having the presence of mind to set up piracy detection. Between the lines, this might also tell us that SpaceX is collaborating with major media companies to enable monitoring for content that carries forensic watermarking; and that this user’s initial test content wasn’t watermarked and therefore was not detected. As a nascent service, in the emerging category of satellite-based Internet access, Starlink is still in its ‘early adopter’ phase, which makes it more likely to attract ‘innovative’ users who know that they can’t distribute stolen content or services over terrestrial-based services, and give it a try.