Efforts to make pirate sites harder to access have resulted in two new waves of blocking in the UK. Action by Elsevier and Springer Nature now requires major ISPs to block several additional Sci-Hub-related domains while the efforts of the MPA require them to block domains that facilitate access to previously blocked sites including EZTV, SolarMovie, Icefilms, and more.

For well over a decade, copyright holders have been obtaining injunctions around the world to have copyright-infringing sites blocked by Internet service providers.

The belief is that when users are presented with this roadblock, they will be more likely to turn to licensed services instead.

At the time of writing, more than 40 countries either have blocking measures in place or are required to implement them. These include members of the European Union plus Argentina, Australia, Iceland, India, Israel, Liechtenstein, Malaysia, Mexico, Norway, Russia, Singapore, South Korea, and Thailand.

The UK is also prime blocking ground for copyright holders and it’s believed that at least hundreds and probably thousands of domains are blocked by ISPs. There is no publicly available centralized list but when new orders are issued, these are often reported by service providers. That was the case again this week when ISP TalkTalk published details of two new blocking orders.

Order Obtained by Elsevier and Springer Nature

In several regions, publishers Elsevier, Springer Nature and Wiley have been pursuing relentless legal action (1,2,3,4) against academic paper repository Sci-Hub and its founder Alexandra Elbakyan. Thus far efforts to shut the platform down have completely failed so in parallel, the publishers have been taking action against ISPs to have them block the platform’s domains.

Back in February, Elsevier and Springer Nature obtained an injunction that required the UK’s leading ISPs to block the domain sci-hub.se. In August, it was reported that the same providers were required to block scihub.unblockit.uno, a domain that helps people to access Sci-Hub when they find its domain blocked. These so-called proxy portals are a pretty big problem for the publishers since they undermine blocking efforts. It now appears they have been working to block even more of them.

A list published by TalkTalk this week but dated September 14 reveals that seven domains designed to neutralize blocking will now be blocked by this ISP and most likely others including BT, Virgin Media, Sky, and EE. They read as follows:

scihub.u4m.casa, scihub.unblockit.ch, scihub.nocensor.work, scihub.unbl0ck.cyou, scihub.unbl4you.club, scihub.123unblock.me, scihub.proxybit.me

These are just a tiny sample of proxy sites available online today so it’s probable that the publishers selected them due to their popularity. Any blocking is likely to push users to any number of alternatives but in combination with similar blocking efforts carried out by the Publishers Association against platforms including Libgen, the relatively minor hindrance may put some potential pirates off their stride.

Order Obtained by the MPA

Back in July, we reported that the MPA, which represents Netflix and the major Hollywood studios, had obtained a new blocking injunction in the UK targeting several pirate streaming sites including Myflixer.to, Soap2day.to, Lookmovie.io and Moviesjoy.to. The list added 19 domain names to the MPA’s overall blocking efforts and this week yet more domain blocks were revealed.

In common with the domains targeted by the publishers, the MPA’s list (as reported by TalkTalk) appears to target proxy-type services which have the stated aim of unblocking streaming and torrent site domains that have previously been listed for blocking action.

They include the resurrected Demonoid, EZTV (first blocked in 2013) plus additional sites operating under familiar brands such as Primewire (2013), Solarmovie (2013), and Putlocker (2016). The full list reads as follows:

eztv.unbl4you.club, solarmovie.unblockit.ch, eztv.unblocknow.club, icefilms.unblockit.ch, eztv.proxybit.me, scnsrc.unblockit.ch, eztv.mrunblock.casa, rapidmoviez.com, eztv.g3g.monster, losmovies.app, pw.unblockit.ch, demonoid.proxybit.me, primewire.proxybit.me, demonoid.mrunblock.casa, primewire.g3g.monster, demonoid.g3g.monster, primewire.nocensor.work, putlockers.gg, primewire.mrunblock.casa, 123movies.tools, primewire.unbl4you.club, 123moviesprime.com

Rapidmoviez.com is one of two ‘direct’ domains to be blocked in the order but it appears that the platform has already migrated to a new domain, Rmz.cr.

Most people know that they shouldn't stream or download pirated content. However, legal and moral arguments are often not sufficient to stop prospective pirates. A new anti-piracy ad seems to be well aware of this and focuses on different threats. Apparently, pirate streaming sites can be linked to all sorts of cybercrime, including sextortion.

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

You wouldn’t steal a car, right?

This type of messaging doesn’t work for everyone, so more direct tactics are explored as well. These often focus on the risks that are involved.

These risks obviously include legal trouble and settlement letters. However, the perceived chance of running into these is quite small, which generally means that the deterrent effect is as well. A more ‘common’ threat that people face is malware and other types of scams.

Malware and Piracy

In recent years numerous reports have cited the prevalence of malware on pirate sites. These findings are promoted or commissioned by rightsholders and anti-piracy groups, who are apparently very concerned about the digital safety of pirates.

While it is certainly true that malicious pirate sites can host or link to malware and other scams, some of the warnings are a bit overblown. It’s almost as if rightsholders are more concerned about scaring people than making sure they are safe.

Whatever the case, these warnings are slowly starting to creep into official reports. Just a few days ago, the UK Government’s latest IP crime and enforcement report repeated several such findings, including the statement that ‘half of all illegal streamers get hacked.’

While we are willing to believe this conclusion, we don’t see any evidence for it in the report, which is mostly a summary of information provided by copyright holders.

This week, we spotted another campaign that focuses on malware and other cybercrime threats. The campaign is run by the UK anti-piracy group FACT and features a conversation between former Premier League footballer Jimmy Bullard and cybersecurity expert Jamie Woodruff.

In the campaign video, Bullard is encouraged to check out a pirate sports streaming site, and see what dangers lie ahead. What happened next was terrifying.

“Jimmy’s experience with Jamie shines a light on just how risky illegal streaming is, with Jamie explaining how sites are set up to scam, infect devices and deliver terrifying attacks,” FACT commented while announcing the campaign.

Terrifying Attacks

These cyber-attacks are not limited to annoying pop-ups and malware. The people who operate these sites may also go after people’s credit card details, or even personal information to commit identity fraud.

“Jamie also demonstrates how easy it is for someone’s identity to be compromised through illegal streaming, whether the sites and apps are free or require payment,” FACT announced.

Research commissioned by FACT recently found that these risks are not rare. Their survey found that 33% of the respondents were hacked, exposed to online scams, or experienced fraud as a result of pirate streaming. And nearly a quarter was asked for personal information while streaming.

In the advertising campaign, Jimmy learns of these threats. However, the cybersecurity expert also mentions even more concerning facts, some of which are worth highlighting separately.

Nude Pictures of Pirates?

The video explains that, when attackers use trojans or viruses to gain access to people’s devices, people’s entire networks could be at risk.

“From there the hacker can start finding any kind of baby cameras, any kind of printers, any kind of connected devices, and then utilize that into potentially stealing secrets,” Woodruff says.

“In the past, we’ve had nude pictures taken through a webcam. And then the individual being held ransom,” he adds.

The security expert doesn’t give any details about the incidents, or whether they happened through a pirate site, but that’s clearly suggested. That said, one can wonder how many people actually watch pirate sports while naked.

The video mentions a wide variety of other risks too. Streaming sites can infect people through custom players, for example. And illegal streaming services for which people have to pay can take your credit card details.

Hacked Bank Account

At that point, Jimmy joins in with a personal anecdote. While it apparently is not related to piracy, the former Premier League player says criminals previously hacked into his bank account, stealing thousands of pounds.

The overall impression the video gives is that sports streaming sites are dangerous and should be avoided. There’s definitely truth to that message, as many of these sites are specifically set up to scam people.

That said, there are also dedicated pirate streaming sites that actually want people to come back. These are less likely to overload visitors with malware and trojans as they rely on recurring advertising eyeballs.

A lesson comes from the name of the anti-piracy campaign itself, which reminds people that “Nothing in Life is Free.” Whether that gentle hint will convince existing and prospective pirates has yet to be seen.

The year 2020 may well go down as the year when blockchain technology and cryptocurrencies, in particular, gained mainstream recognition. The restrictions on movement, as well as the widespread fear of catching a virus, forced many to look for alternative ways of making payments or sending remittances. This search for an alternative inevitably led many to crypto. Although the use of such alternatives to fiat cash continues to grow, many of the intended beneficiaries in places like Africa are still unable to use such digital currencies.

Kenya’s Kotani Pay Addresses Lack of Crypto Access

The lack of smartphones, misinformation about cryptocurrencies, and poor net connectivity are some of the main reasons why the number of digital currency users is not growing as some crypto proponents would have wanted. As a consequence, some players in this space are now working hard to find solutions to help those that presently cannot use digital currencies.

One such player is Kotani Pay, a Kenya-based fintech start-up that is focused on providing a reliable blockchain on-ramp and off-ramp service for users in Africa. Bitcoin.com News recently reached to the start-up’s CMO, Brian Kimotho, to learn more about Kotani’s offering. Below are Kimotho’s written responses to questions sent via WhatsApp.

Bitcoin.com News (BCN): When was Kotani Pay established and why?

Brain Kimotho (BK): Kotani Pay was established in 2020. We built Kotani Pay after realizing for a very long time that the people who were set out to benefit the most from the promise of Blockchain and Web3 technologies had no way of interacting with the services offered. Most of these users don’t have smartphones or an internet connection. They only have feature phones. The most they can do is communicate via texting or making phone calls. Kotani Pay is built with this in mind. To access the service one simply needs to dial the Unstructured Supplementary Service Data (USSD) code. Once dialed, the user is presented with a simple menu where they can make their preferred selection — send money, withdraw…

BCN: You are currently involved in efforts to provide the so-called universal basic income (UBI) to refugees. Can you tell our readers what motivated your company to become involved in this?

BK: Serving the refugees in collaboration with Impact Market, Refugee Integration Organisation and Mission Possible 2030 was in line with our goal of making Web3 technologies accessible to the last mile. In Africa for example, the total number of mobile phone users stands at 700M. Out of these 700 million users, only 260 million have internet-enabled smartphones. Kotani Pay, through projects such as the UBI for refugees, is able to realize its goals for empowering the remaining 440 million people who are using feature phones.

BCN: How many refugees are now benefiting from this UBI initiative?

BK: 2000 with an additional 4000 in the pipeline.

BCN: On your website, you tout Kotani Pay as “Africa’s most reliable blockchain on-ramp and off-ramp service.” In exactly how many countries do you provide this service?

BK: The Kotani Pay USSD service is powered by the Kotani Application Programming Interface (API). With this API, businesses can integrate their processes to our off-ramp service to serve mobile phone (smartphone and feature phone) users in Africa.

BCN: From your perspective, what would you say is the most important use case for digital currencies in Africa?

BK: Banking the unbanked.

BCN: You provide an on-ramp and off-ramp service on a continent where most countries have either banned or imposed some form of restrictions on digital currencies. How are you managing to provide this service and still not violate regulations in countries where you operate?

BK: We are fully compliant with the Payments Services Act and banking regulations in Kenya. We work via banking APIs regulated by the Central Bank of Kenya for user AML/KYC due diligence. Beyond that, we provide the service leveraging stablecoins on the Celo network pegged to the value of the dollar and euro. The stablecoins are backed by other verifiable assets making them less volatile to price fluctuations.

BCN: Countries like Ghana and Nigeria are proceeding with plans to launch central bank digital currencies (CBDC) while many other countries plan to do the same in the near future. In your opinion, are CBDCs something that the crypto industry should be afraid of?

BK: No, CBDCs are not something we should be afraid of. The CBDC use case goes to show the possibilities of what Web3 and Blockchain have to offer. CBDCs present several benefits including low barriers to entry for users, lower cost of minting money as well as low cost of cross-border and interbank transactions.

Major cryptocurrency exchanges are cutting ties with users in China following the latest crypto crackdown announcement by the Chinese government. Huobi has stopped letting new users in China sign up for its services while Binance has blocked account registrations using Chinese mobile phone numbers.

Major Crypto Exchanges Stop Signing Up Chinese Users

Following China’s latest crackdown announcement, several cryptocurrency exchanges and service providers said they have begun cutting ties with users in China.

Crypto exchange Huobi announced Sunday that it will “gradually retire existing mainland China users.” The exchange wrote:

To comply with local laws and regulations, Huobi Global has ceased account registration for new users in mainland China, effective September 24, 2021 (UTC+8). Huobi Global will gradually retire existing mainland China user accounts by 24:00 (UTC+8) on Dec 31, 2021.

Huobi Group co-founder Du Jun told Reuters, “On the very day we saw the notice, we started to take corrective measures.”

Meanwhile, Binance said it has blocked account registrations using Chinese mobile phone numbers and its app is also no longer available for download in China. A spokesperson for the exchange said:

Binance takes its compliance obligations very seriously and is committed to following local regulator requirements wherever we operate.

Binance has been under scrutiny from a long list of regulators worldwide, including those in the U.S., U.K., Netherlands, South Africa, Hong Kong, Singapore, Malaysia, Thailand, Lithuania, Italy, and Canada. On Monday, the exchange ended some services in Singapore.

Tokenpocket, a crypto wallet provider, also said in a notice to clients that it would terminate services to users in mainland China in order to comply with Chinese regulations.

Some people see the crypto crackdown by the Chinese government as positive news that has little effect on the crypto industry. Galaxy Digital CEO Mike Novogratz recently explained that China has “less and less” influence over the crypto market. Meanwhile, several U.S. lawmakers see the Chinese crackdown as a big opportunity for the U.S. to lead in the area of cryptocurrency.

Binance is terminating some services in Singapore, including fiat deposit services and spot trading of cryptocurrencies, to comply with the country’s regulations. The exchange has already ceased trading in Singapore dollars.

Binance Scaling Down Services in Singapore

Cryptocurrency exchange Binance announced Monday some changes to its offerings in Singapore. The company wrote:

　With effect from 2021-10-26 04:00 AM UTC (12:00 PM UTC+8), users in Singapore will not be able to access certain functions on Binance.com including fiat deposit services, spot trading of cryptocurrencies, the purchase of cryptocurrencies through fiat channels and liquid swap (‘Regulated Payments Services’).

The announcement adds that “Users in Singapore are advised to cease all related trades, withdraw fiat assets and redeem tokens” by the deadline “to avoid potential trading disputes.”

Binance Singapore has been undergoing changes since the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS), the country’s central bank that oversees the crypto sector, issued a warning about Binance. The central bank wrote: “MAS has reviewed Binance.com’s operations and is of the view that Binance, the operator of Binance.com, may be in breach of the Payment Services Act … Binance is required to cease providing payment services to Singapore residents and cease soliciting such business from Singapore residents.”

The exchange subsequently ceased trading in Singapore dollars to comply with local laws and removed its app from the Singapore iOS and Google Play stores.

In August, Binance Singapore appointed a CEO with many years of compliance background. Richard Teng was formerly CEO of the Financial Services Regulatory Authority at Abu Dhabi Global Market (ADGM).

Meanwhile, Binance has been heavily scrutinized by regulators worldwide, including those in the U.K., Netherlands, South Africa, Hong Kong, Malaysia, Thailand, Lithuania, Italy, and Canada. U.S. authorities are also investigating Binance for possible market manipulation and insider trading.

The academic community platform ResearchGate has removed 200,000 files in response to a wave of copyright complaints from publishers ACS and Elsevier. The takedowns go against ResearchGate's open-access philosophy but, legally, it saw no other option than to comply.

One of the core pillars of academic research is sharing. By letting other researchers know what you do, ideas are criticized, improved upon, and extended.

Unfortunately, it’s not always easy for academics to share their work. Most of the top publications are monetized by major publishers, which means that they are locked behind a paywall.

To make their work easier to access, many researchers place copies of their work on their personal profiles, often hosted by their university. There are also more organized ways to share research, by using ResearchGate for example.

ResearchGate

Based in Germany, ResearchGate promotes itself as a professional network for scientists and researchers. The site claims 20 million members, who use the platform to “share, discover, and discuss research.”

In addition to simply connecting to other academics, the site also allows members to share ‘their’ publications. While many see this as a great feature, some academic publishers are not pleased with this activity.

Researchers often share articles they have written themselves but they don’t necessarily own the rights. This is because most of the top publications ask the authors to sign away all of their copyrights if they want their papers to be published.

Take Down 200,000 Files

This is also true for Elsevier and the American Chemical Society (ACS), which overloaded ResearchGate with takedown requests recently. The site is certainly not a newcomer when it comes to copyright infringement complaints but the scope of the most recent takedown wave is something different.

“[T]he demands by Elsevier and ACS resulted in the removal of around 200,000 public files. In the context of a community of over 20 million researchers this is unfortunate, rather than existential, but it has sparked an acute reaction from many of our members who believe in the importance of open science,” ResearchGate writes.

The platform’s ultimate mission is to make research “open to all.” Therefore, ResearchGate is disappointed to see all of this knowledge being removed from the site. However, it saw no other option than to comply.

ResearchGate Seeks Cooperation

The publishers will have the law on their site in most cases. However, ResearchGate doesn’t believe that the takedowns are in the best interest of science. It would have preferred to cooperate instead.

“The decision by Elsevier and ACS to simply remove content is disappointing to the entire research community, not just because of the loss to science and researchers, but because there is a better way.”

ResearchGate has already partnered with other publishers such as Springer Nature and Wiley, who use the site’s network to reach a broader audience. These companies publish their content on the platform as part of a syndication agreement.

Many academics and researchers are disappointed that their work has been removed over copyright claims and some are plain angry. However, ResearchGate’s hands are tied.

Questionable Takedowns?

Interestingly, the platform also heard from researchers who had content removed that should have remained online. Because the rights were already bought out, for example, or when files are in the public domain.

Some researchers even said that they never transferred their copyrights to the publishers, which would mean that they have no say over the matter. ResearchGate can’t independently verify these claims but the organization sees them as a serious concern.

The present legal environment forces ResearchGate to simply take content offline. And enforcement is only expected to get stricter, as the platform is implementing an upload filter system, to prevent researchers from sharing content they don’t own the rights to. This can include their own publications.

In closing, ResearchGate urges its users not to upload content without permission or in violation of licensing terms. At the same time, the platform hopes that publishers will recognize the potential of the site and seek collaboration where possible.

“To all publishers: the future of academic publishing is open. Let’s work together to unlock its true potential,” ResearchGate writes.

This isn’t the first time that ResearchGate has squared off with major publishers. The company was also sued by Elsevier and ACS three years ago and this case remains ongoing. It’s possible that the recent takedown spree is, at least indirectly, linked to that lawsuit.