news.buyenne.com

In October 2020, the RIAA filed a DMCA takedown notice at GitHub targeting ubiquitous YouTube ripping tool, youtube-dl.

“The clear purpose of this source code is to (i) circumvent the technological protection measures used by authorized streaming services such as YouTube, and (ii) reproduce and distribute music videos and sound recordings owned by our member companies without authorization for such use,” the notice declared.

Significant uproar ensued and the youtube-dl repo was subsequently reinstated. For Johnathan Nader, the operator of YouTube-ripping platform Yout.com, the event triggered a five-year legal battle with the RIAA that continues to this day.

Declaration of Non-Infringement

The dispute began in 2019 when the RIAA sent DMCA anti-circumvention notices to Google, claiming that Yout “circumvents YouTube’s rolling cipher, a technical protection measure, that protects our members’ works on YouTube from unauthorized copying/downloading.”

The allegations caused Google to delist Yout.com URLs from search, but Nader strongly believed that he’d done nothing wrong under the law. He decided to sue the RIAA with the primary goal of convincing the court to declare Yout.com non-infringing.

In late 2022, Judge Stefan Underhill concluded that Yout had failed to show that it doesn’t circumvent YouTube’s technological measures.

I agree with the RIAA that Yout’s circumvention entails bypassing YouTube’s technological measures and modifying YouTube’s ‘signature value’ to facilitate unauthorized access to a downloadable digital copy.

Because that bypass and modification constitute a ‘process,’ I conclude that Yout does not plausibly allege that it does not circumvent the YouTube TPM, within the meaning of section 1201(a).

The RIAA thanked the court. Nader filed an appeal to bring the issues before the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.

Concerns Mount Over District Court’s Decision

Heading towards a hearing at the Court of Appeals, an amicus brief from GitHub warned that the lower court’s order was too broad, exposed software developers to criminal liability, and as a consequence would chill innovation. The EFF highlighted the benefits of similar software, describing the expansion of Section 1201 liability as “unwarranted”.

Both called for the lower court’s decision to be reversed. The Copyright Alliance warned that a reversal would devastate “numerous business models.”

A hearing at the Court of Appeals early 2024 further highlighted the entrenched positions of the parties, while a series of important questions for YouTube served to address the elephant in the room. Or rather its complete absence. One of the judges commented that certain key issues “could be easily solved” with some informed input.

“But right now, YouTube’s staying out of [the case] and we’re kind of guessing,” he said.

Major Labels Sue AI Startups Suno and Udio

During the summer of 2024, members of the RIAA including UMG Recordings, Capitol Records, Sony Music Entertainment, Atlantic Records and Warner Records, sued AI music generators Suno and Udio in separate but almost identical lawsuits that accused both of “trampling on copyright.”

According to the complaints, the defendants “copied decades worth of the world’s most popular sound recordings” and then ingested those copies into AI models to generate outputs that “imitate the qualities of genuine human sound recordings” for the purpose of generating profit.

Almost 16 months later, there’s no dispute that both companies trained their AI on huge quantities of music. That the companies acquired that music without first obtaining permission is clearly unacceptable to the RIAA. However, since Suno and Udio are relying on a fair use defense, permission isn’t technically required. Recent rulings in other AI cases have affirmed fair use albeit under tight, case-specific details.

In Bartz v. Anthropic PBC and Kadrey v. Meta Platforms, Inc., the defendants argued that use of the plaintiffs’ copyrighted works to train generative AI models (Claude and LLaMa respectively), constituted fair use. The court affirmed fair use in Anthropic’s case, describing the use as “exceedingly transformative.”

In Kadrey v. Meta, the court said that while a transformative use carries weight, the extent to which Meta’s use impacted the market for the original works was more important. No evidence of harm was presented, so Meta’s fair use was affirmed but to an extent, albeit only by default.

Suno and Udio will need every possible break, because the RIAA isn’t conceding an inch. A recent move in both cases goes further still with an attempt to critically undermine their fair use defense.

Millions of Tracks Obtained From YouTube

Recent filings in connection with the labels’ first amended complaints in the Suno and Udio lawsuits claim to identify the main source of music and the method used by the companies to obtain it for training purposes. This establishes a direct link to the substance of the Yout vs. RIAA appeal.

“[M]any (if not all) of the copyrighted sound recordings in [Suno’s] training data [were acquired] by illicitly downloading them from YouTube using a notorious method of music piracy known as ‘stream ripping,’” the labels claim.

In line with the arguments used to convince the district court in the Yout matter, they state that stream-ripping is illegal due to circumvention of YouTube’s technological measures.

Suno’s unauthorized extraction, copying, and storage of Plaintiffs’ Copyrighted Recordings from YouTube for use in its training data was accomplished by Suno’s unlawful circumvention of YouTube’s rolling cipher and any other technological measures YouTube may have implemented to prevent the downloading and copying of licensed content.

Suno’s actions constitute a breach of the Copyright Act’s anti-circumvention provisions, which state, among other things, that “[n]o person shall circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title.” 17 U.S.C. § 1201(a)(1)(A)

Their sudden interest in the Yout v. RIAA matter indicates the AI startups are leaving nothing to chance. There are no parallel claims of fair use in the Yout dispute, and for good reason. However, when viewed from a fair use perspective, a whole new landscape emerges in a five-year-old case in which seemingly every detail has already been debated to exhaustion.

Suno and Udio File Amicus Brief in Yout vs. RIAA

Suno and Udio filed their brief earlier this week. Their statement of interest in the case reads as follows:

“Both Amici assert that their use of pre-existing recordings to develop statistical insights about music, in the service of generating altogether new music, is a fair use under section 107 of the Copyright Act. The order on appeal is not about fair use. But Amici have an interest in this appeal because the ruling below jeopardizes the fair use doctrine by misconstruing the anti-circumvention provisions of section 1201 of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (‘DMCA’).”

The brief states that Section 1201 governs the circumvention of technological measures, noting that Congress did not provide for a fair use defense under Section 1201. The brief contends that Congress took a different approach to accommodate fair use, and while not determinative in Yout’s case, is nevertheless critical for fair use.

Access Controls vs Copy Controls

According to the brief, Congress harmonized Section 1201 with fair use by establishing a clear distinction between two types of technological protection measures, summarized as follows:

1. Access Controls (§ 1201(a)): These measures control access to a copyrighted work. The startups state that the DMCA prohibits circumvention of access controls.

Conclusion: If a technological measure is an access control, the act of circumvention is presumptively unlawful.

2. Copy Controls (§ 1201(b)): These measures protect a copyright owner’s rights, such as preventing unauthorized copies. Congress did not prohibit the act of circumvention of copy controls. This asymmetry was intentional and designed to protect fair use. Prohibiting circumvention of copy controls would essentially allow copyright owners to block lawful fair uses of already accessible works.

Conclusion: If the technological measure is a copy control, the act of circumvention is perfectly lawful.

Herein lies the problem. ‘Copy Controls’ exist to prevent unauthorized copying, yet copying is permitted under fair use. If circumvention had been totally prohibited, copyright owners would’ve been gifted the de facto right to prohibit fair use.

That didn’t happen, as the brief explains.

US Copyright Office / Summary of statutory structure

“So while Congress enacted a prohibition on the provision of devices designed to circumvent copy controls, it declined to prohibit the act of circumventing those controls, so that it would not effectively impose liability on fair users.”

The Measure Under Review in Yout vs. RIAA is a Copy Control

According to the RIAA’s DMCA takedown notices against Yout, the purpose of the measure under review in the Yout matter is to “protect . . .works on YouTube from unauthorized copying/downloading.”

“That makes it a copy control, i.e., a “technological measure that prevents copying..[]..It is not an access control,” the brief states.

Suno and Udio note that the lower court’s ruling failed to recognize the importance of the Access Control/Copy Control distinction, or that the distinction exists to protect fair uses. In fact, the court declined to consider the Copy Control provision and went on to erroneously conclude that YouTube’s download prevention mechanism is an Access Control.

Implications Beyond Yout

The distinction between access controls and copy controls is unlikely to affect Yout’s mission to obtain a declaration of non-infringement. Yout was primarily accused of trafficking in a circumvention device/service and the DMCA’s anti-trafficking provisions apply equally to technology designed to circumvent access controls (s1201(a)(2)) and copy controls (s1201(b)(1)).

If the lower court’s decision is allowed to stand, Suno and Udio could be in trouble. Last Friday, lawyers for Suno described the RIAA’s addition of illegal stream-ripping allegations to their lawsuit as “a gambit to try to evade application of the fair use doctrine to Suno’s technology development process.”

In short, a denial of the companies’ chosen defense won’t just be a loss for Yout; it could also provide the RIAA with a powerful blueprint for dismantling the fair use arguments that are at the center of AI fair use lawsuits.

The Suno and Udio amicus brief, which was accepted by the court on Friday, is available here (pdf)

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

In 2021, German Internet providers agreed to voluntarily block structurally infringing pirate sites.

The ISPs teamed up with rightsholder groups and launched the “Clearing Body for Copyright on the Internet” (CUII), which became responsible for handing down blocking ‘decisions’.

In June, signatories to the blocking agreement amended their code of conduct, which fundamentally changed how CUII operates. Going forward, all blocking action will take place after a court orders at least one Internet provider to block a website. While the addition of judicial oversight is laudable, transparency remains lacking.

Fitgirl Repacks, RPG Only, and Anna’s Archive

In late August, many people noticed that the popular game piracy site FitGirl Repacks was unavailable through many German ISPs. The blocking action had all the hallmarks of an official blockade, but there was no mention of a new order on the CUII website.

The same was true for RPG Only, which was blocked last month, again without an official notice at the time. This pattern repeated itself a few weeks later, when shadow library Anna’s Archive was presumably added to the German blocklist.

These ‘surprise’ blockades were discussed on social media, attracting attention from German news site Tarnkappe. However, all this time there was no official confirmation from CUII, the organization responsible for coordinating blocking efforts across ISPs and transparently informing the public.

Needless to say, this lack of communication doesn’t make it easier for the public to follow these developments. It also makes it harder for the press to accurately explain what is going on.

Transparency on Demand

Last week, there appeared to be some movement in the transparency process as CUII published official confirmation on the RPG Only blockade. It confirmed that DNS blocking was implemented following an order by the Cologne court, which deemed the site to be structurally infringing.

There is no mention of the complaining rightsholder, but the German game industry group is a member of CUII, so that’s a likely candidate.

While researching the matter, we looked for official confirmation on the FitGirl and Anna’s Archive blocks, but nothing appeared. At least, not until we asked.

We asked CUII for clarification on September 30 and the next day, official confirmation of the FitGirl and Anna’s Archive blockades was published on the CUII website.

CUII’s spokesperson, subsequently responded to our questions. She confirmed that the Anna’s Archive blockade is based on an order from the Cologne Regional Court. The block against FitGirl Repacks, however, predates the updated agreement and was implemented based on a decision from CUII’s own panel.

While the documents themselves are dated earlier, our observation of CUII’s website shows the notice for RPG Only was published on September 24. The confirmations for FitGirl and Anna’s Archive only appeared on October 1, the day after our inquiry.

Not tipping Off Pirate Site Operators

In the case of the FitGirl blockade, the official announcement comes more than three months after the order was signed, which is a rather long delay.

After requesting an explanation for this delay, CUII’s spokesperson clarified that their goal is to “ensure the greatest possible transparency,” but that its orders are only published after all participating ISPs have implemented the blocks.

According to CUII, they do this for two reasons. First, to ensure that the public documentation accurately reflects the real-world status of the blockade. Secondly, it’s a tactical measure to prevent site operators from learning about a block before all of their domains are rendered inaccessible.

While these procedural and strategic reasons explain the delay, the effect on the public remains the same: a period of uncertainty where blocks are active without any official, public confirmation.

Opaque Transparency

The delay between the implementation of the blockades and CUII’s official publication is not the only point of frustration. Transparency is rather limited too, as the names of the parties involved, including the rightsholders and the targeted domain names, are all shielded from the public.

The underlying court orders are often anonymized as well, which is typical in Germany. Moreover, these orders are not made publicly available.

The website of the Regional Court in Cologne explains that interested parties can request a copy at NRWE, which we did last week. On Monday, NRWE informed us that they don’t have a copy, redirecting our inquiry back to the court. Since then, we haven’t heard anything new.

Opaque transparency is not very useful, to say the least. Ideally, blocking schemes should publish a full list of all currently blocked domain names so outsiders can scrutinize the measures and correct errors, which do happen.

Amidst all the opacity, there remains a glimmer of transparency. A German student previously launched CUIIListe, a monitoring portal where all blocked domain names are monitored. This homebrew transparency portal picks up blocked domains long before they are confirmed by CUII.

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

Pintere.com is a straightforward tool that enables users to download images, videos, and boards from Pinterest.

The service also works with other platforms, including Facebook, Imgur, and Instagram, but its name suggests that Pinterest is of prime interest.

The site is a project from developer Johnathan Nader, a name that regular readers may recognize. Nader is also the owner of stream-ripper Yout.com, which is actively engaged in a legal battle with the RIAA currently pending at the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.

Nader initiated the lawsuit in 2020, alleging that the music group sent “abusive” DMCA anti-circumvention notices to Google. Through the lawsuit, the developer aims to establish that the site does not violate U.S. law.

Pinterest Targets Pintere.com

Pintere.com is not linked to music downloads, but that doesn’t mean that the service is immune to copyright issues. Unhappy with Pintere’s downloading capabilities, Pinterest sent DMCA anti-circumvention notices to Google search, hoping to delist site URLs from the company’s indexes.

Last week, Google informed Nader that it had removed various Pintere.com URLs from its search results following complaints, noting that the downloading tool might circumvent protections for copyrighted content.

Google’s Notice

The takedown notices (e.g.) appear to have been sent in August and according to information in the Lumen Database, the sender was Pinterest Inc. A quick check on Google reveals that the reported URLs were indeed removed.

Pintere Returns Fire

Disappointed that another one of his services has become a target for anti-circumvention notices, Nader sent a counter-notice to Google, requesting the search engine to reinstate the URLs.

The site’s lawyer, Frank Scardino, argues that Pinterest’s claims are “categorically false”. The letter accuses Pinterest of making false statements, arguing that its “representations to Google are false and that they materially misrepresent the Website’s activities”.

The letter

According to the letter, no circumvention is involved. Pintere is a “general purpose” tool that merely interacts with the publicly available Pinterest website using legitimate web requests.

“The Website does not descramble scrambled works, decrypt encrypted works, or otherwise avoids, bypasses, removes, deactivates, or impairs a technological measure that effectively controls access to copyrighted works,” the letter reads.

Like VCRs and DVRs

The lawyer compares Pintere.com to “VCRs and DVRs,” arguing the service is “capable of substantial noninfringing uses.” Based on these arguments, the letter formally requests Google to fully restore all URLs that were removed.

Pintere.com

After sending this formal notice, the ball is now in Google’s court. If these were regular DMCA notices, the search engine would be legally required to reinstate the URLs unless Pinterest takes further legal steps. That is not the case here, however.

Pinterest sent takedown notices under Section 1201 of the DMCA. They do not claim that the content on pintere.com is infringing, they say the service it provides is an illegal circumvention tool.

There’s no legal requirement for intermediaries to restore content in response to a counter-notice disputing the validity of an anti-circumvention takedown notice. As a result, it’s up to Google to decide what steps to take next.

To hear Pintrest’s side of the story, TorrentFreak requested comment on the counter-notice and the serious allegation it filed “false” claims with Google. Pintrest is yet to respond and for now, Pintere.com’s URLs are still missing from Google Search.

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

Everyone accepts that pirate suppliers are responsible for redistributing and profiting from content they don’t own and for that there could be a heavy price to pay. Yet when punishments for ordinary people enter the equation, that’s a completely different ball game.

Targeting suppliers of pirated content has a straightforward end game; make them stop, make them pay, and when the situation demands it, use the best cases as a public deterrent and hope something sticks. In broad terms, there’s very little calibration required in respect of how much force to use. Whatever it takes within the parameters of the law will usually do just fine and if pirates get upset, nobody will lose a moment’s sleep over it.

When targeting members of the public, who provide the revenue that allow companies to even exist, new and unpredictable risks are introduced to the business against its most valuable assets; branding and reputation. A miscalculation leading to damage in this part of a business could even undermine its ability to bounce back.

Many companies have tried to navigate the sue-your-own-customers minefield, few if any have made it across completely unscathed. None have subsequently reported that suing potential customers was the missing ingredient that triggered a sudden growth in business.

Italy: Hold My Beer

With years of experience pursuing commercially-motivated groups on the supply-side, last month DAZN, SKY and Serie A announced that they were ready to take action against consumers of pirated content. Having gained access to a list of individuals already fined by the state, for the offense of subscribing to an illegal IPTV service previously shut down by police, DAZN said it would target the same individuals directly.

The plan, the company said, was to request compensation for damages suffered by the company due to the subscriber’s use of the illegal service. True to its word, DAZN letters began arriving with at least some of those individuals this week. DAZN reportedly obtained the names and addresses of 2,200 people. Whether the company intends to contact them all is unclear.

On social media, many recipients shared various images of what appear to be identical letters. For clarity, an adjusted composite of those images appears below in the original Italian, with the translation directly after.

Letter from DAZN received this week (composite)

Translated text:

Subject: Illegal acquisition of IPTV services relating to packages for viewing live Serie A soccer matches

Dear Madam/Sir, in the context of criminal proceeding no. 7719/22 RGNR, filed with the Lecce Public Prosecutor’s Office, we have been able to ascertain that you unlawfully acquired the subject matter, in violation of the broadcasting rights (audiovisual rights, pursuant to Legislative Decree no. 9/2008) which belong exclusively to the undersigned Dazn Limited (“DAZN”), as licensee.

As a consequence of your unlawful conduct, a specific administrative sanction has been imposed on you by the Guardia di Finanza. DAZN, the injured party, was notified of the investigations carried out against you by the competent unit of the Guardia di Finanza on September 5.

Before undertaking legal action for compensation and protection, with a consequent increase in costs, DAZN intends to verify the possibility of a settlement of the incident, with a lump sum compensation payment of Euro 500.00 and your formal commitment not to engage in any further conduct that infringes the undersigned’s rights in the future.

Should you wish to proceed in this way, you may contact DAZN via the dedicated certified email address: conciliazione.antipirateria.dazn@legalmail.it. This option will expire 7 (seven) days after receipt of this letter, and DAZN will then be free to initiate appropriate legal proceedings without further notice.

Kind regards

The text is mostly self-explanatory but still likely to cause concern, primarily among those whose financial position means they simply can’t pay, even if they wanted to.

Breakdown

The letter begins with an attempt to completely undermine the recipient’s position by suggesting they have no defense. By citing a criminal action in which DAZN claims that the recipient has already been found guilty, there’s no presumption of innocence because the police have already determined otherwise.

A clear demand for a fixed sum as compensation offers a predictable outcome, in contrast to the uncertainty of non-compliance and unspecified rising costs. For those undecided about which course of action to take, the 7-day deadline exists to artificially inject urgency into settling a dispute already many months old.

For those who really can’t pay, there may be a temptation to email the company within the 7-day deadline to ensure the offer remains on the table. Whether that would be the right choice without first obtaining legal advice, is a luxury reserved for those who actually have access to the money.

In summary, recipients are guilty, have no defense, and there’s very little time to prevent a bad situation from getting worse. Or they could simply pay €500, promise not to hurt the company again, and everything goes back to normal.

No Real Surprises

The same tactics have appeared in all kinds of campaigns over the years but in this case, a couple of potentially interesting differences catch the eye.

Letters demanding compensation tend to have more impact when the recipient’s name appears at the top; ‘Dear sir/madam’ may feel less personal although in this case may be due to convenience and keeping costs under control. Lawyers tend to be quite expensive and at this stage, aren’t an absolute requirement.

That brings us to the final observation. Receiving a formal letter from DAZN’s lawyers may be perceived as even more ominous, but this is a letter carrying the name and signature of Stefano Azzi, the company’s CEO in Italy. It’s an intriguing choice that signals personal commitment from the very top, from a man who understands consumers better than most.

Time will tell if the payoff was worth the additional risk. According to reports, SKY could be preparing something similar.

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

The Motion Picture Association’s (MPA) submission to the USTR’s 2025 review of notorious pirate markets identifies a “rapidly expanding” category of pirate sites.

Calling out the likes of Vidsrc, HydraHD, and Cineby, the MPA spoke of “one-stop piracy sites offering content somewhat comparable to IPTV services, but without the need for subscriptions or dedicated devices.”

The MPA’s use of the term ‘hydra’ appears to acknowledge that sites operating in this category have a tendency to respawn and multiply in response to site blocking measures. That could mean switching to backup domains or, if necessary, entirely new branding. With reappearances as inevitable as the next wave in Space Invaders, it would take something special to turn the tide.

Slaying the Hydra

In this context, the term ‘hydra’ was popularized by The Pirate Bay, but it’s been capturing imaginations in Indian courts for years. Attorneys and judges alike continuously decry the menace of “hydra-headed websites” and the urgent need to shut them down.

In June, Disney subsidiary Star India obtained a so-called ‘superlative injunction‘ consisting of a rapid domain blocking mechanism locally, and a domain suspension component completely unrestricted by Indian borders.

Since blocked domains can continue to provide access to a site, measures that put them completely out of action are valuable. Domain suspensions and seizures are technically possible under civil law in the United States, but time and expense render them completely impractical.

Yet, Star India was able to issue orders to U.S. domain registrars and have domains permanently suspended in a matter of days. It was only ever a question of time before Western rightsholders used Indian courts to ease both local and international problems, and that moment has just arrived.

Universal City Studios Productions LLLP vs. Isaidub.spot

The aim of a blocking injunction handed down by the High Court of Delhi in late September isn’t in doubt, but the absence of fundamental details at the start means a few assumptions have to be made.

With its name in the title of the case, Universal City Studios is clearly the first plaintiff, but the names of the others go completely unmentioned in the order. Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora introduces the first six plaintiffs as “members of the MPA and/or the Alliance for Creativity and Entertainment,” but as organizations, neither has any standing to sue. The originating complaint does not appear to have been made public.

Plaintiffs 7, 8 and 9 are described as “members of Copyright Overseas Promotion Association (‘COA’).” COA is a South Korean anti-piracy coalition that counts Kakao and Naver Webtoon among its members but the names of the plaintiffs here go unmentioned here too.

Japanese anime producer Toho Co. Ltd. is mentioned by name as the owner of copyrighted content for which Plaintiff No. 6 is the exclusive distributor in India. Under India’s Copyright Act, Toho is actually listed as a defendant, while the name of the exclusive distributor, which does have standing to sue, remains a mystery.

106 Rogue Sites and 248 Domains to Get Things Going

As a group, a total of nine plaintiffs requested and obtained a permanent injunction against 106 ‘rogue’ websites, operating from 248 domains. The injunction restrains the operators of those sites from infringing the plaintiffs’ exclusive rights by making their content available online without appropriate licensing.

The list of ‘rogue’ sites contains several large piracy platforms such as Vidsrc, HydraHD, and Cineby, all of which the MPA directly links to ‘hydra-like’ activity.

On September 10, all sites named in the complaint were sent takedown notices but just one site responded. The operator of mp4moviez.villas said the site “merely indexes and organizes content which is publicly made available.” Many streaming sites carry a similar disclaimer, presumably in the mistaken belief it helps on the legal front.

Mp4moviez.villas rendered any argument moot by ignoring the takedown notice.

The Injunction

The scope of the injunction sits fairly quietly in the details but is nevertheless comprehensive. With no requirement for the live aspects of a ‘superlative’ injunction, it’s a dynamic+ variant with two key components – blocking and domain suspensions.

The domains listed in the order are all subject to blocking by local ISPs. Measures to block the usual mirrors, redirects, proxies and similar platforms are included and, by now, fairly standard practice.

Hydra-Headed Pirate Sites

The injunction takes a particularly broad view of how sites not named in the injunction can be considered within its scope. Any mirror/redirect/alphanumeric website which appears to be associated with any of the named websites either based on its name, branding, the identity of its operator, or source of the content it uses.

How many of the existing 248 domains use the same content sources would take time to establish, but if just 10% had truly distinct sources, that wouldn’t come as a surprise. In the wider world that doesn’t bode well for the hundreds of sites that are easily identified as using the same source, or even for those that simply appear to be using the same source.

In practical terms, site operators are effectively powerless because the rules are deliberately wide for obvious reasons. If Hollywood has ‘Six Degrees of Kevin Bacon‘ the rules here for pirate streaming sites likely reduce their variant to three or less. Depending on how the rules are interpreted, this list alone could be sufficient to encompass a very large portion of the overall market.

Domain Suspensions

The above rules apply to ISP blocking in India, which instantly covers 248 domains and could easily cover 5000 more in very little time at all. That the rules also apply to domains that domain registrars in the United States and elsewhere are expected to suspend is very significant indeed. Even more so considering that big name registrars are already complying with these foreign court orders.

The image below shows just a few of the domains already put out of action by NameCheap, Spaceship, NameSilo and Porkbun, in all cases using the domain status ‘clientHold’.

Sample of domains suspended to date

Early checks suggest maybe four dozen suspensions on this ground alone, but losing a cheap domain is only the beginning.

Domain name registrars are “directed to lock and suspend” the domains and provide the plaintiffs with details they hold relating to the registrants, including “Know Your Customer” information, plus credit card and mobile phone details, within 72 hours of receiving the order.

Overall, the order is a prime example of how powerful tools become available after a series of patient, incremental steps.

Depending on the volume of suspensions moving forward, there may even be implications for site-blocking proposals in the United States. With the right groundwork to ensure major platforms are continuously within the scope of this type of injunction, domains could be suspended more quickly than the time taken to block them.

The full list of domains is available in the linked order, with the majority also shown in the table below.

Universal City Studios Productions LLLP vs. Isaidub.spot blocking order here (pdf)

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

Back in July, the Brussels Business Court issued a sweeping ex parte site-blocking order targeting several “shadow libraries” including Anna’s Archive, Libgen, and Z-Library.

Unusually, the order also included the Internet Archive’s Open Library, a project operated by the well-known U.S. non-profit organization Internet Archive.

The order was granted based on a request from publishers and authors who claimed, among other things, that the operators of the targeted sites were difficult to identify. This also applied to the Internet Archive, which was not heard by the court before the order was issued.

The Brussels Court went along with these allegations and determined the targeted sites, including Open Library, to be structurally infringing copyrights. This meant that blocking could go ahead but while that was the case for most domains, Open Library was an exception.

As TorrentFreak previously reported, Belgium has a two-step process for site blocking, where a special government body, the Department for Combating Infringements of Copyright and Related Rights Committed Online and the Illegal Exploitation of Online Games of Chance, determines the final implementation.

In this case, the government department slammed on the brakes, realizing the U.S. non-profit organization could be easily contacted since it’s not a typical pirate site. Before making any further decisions, it urged the Internet Archive to consult the publishers to see if an agreement could be reached.

As a result, the blocking order was paused with regard to the openlibrary.org domain, while blockades of Anna’s Archive, LibGen, and Z-Library went into effect.

No Agreement Reached

Over the past several weeks, Internet Archive attempted to reach an agreement with the publishers, but the effort was unsuccessful. The details of these discussions are not public.

It is clear, however, that the Internet Archive believes that its use of copyrighted books for the Open Library qualifies as fair use. The organization is known to purchase physical copies, which it then digitizes to lend out to patrons, one copy at a time.

This self-digitizing project was previously contested in a U.S. federal court, where the publishers ultimately came out as the winner. They argued that the Internet Archive project competed with their own licensing business for book lending.

The detailed arguments at the center of the Belgian case are not public, but after hearing both sides, the Department for Combating Infringements of Copyright concluded that Internet Archive must take action.

No Agreement, Blocking is Necessary

In a follow-up decision published last week, the government department explicitly states that it can’t rule on U.S. fair use or the Belgian equivalent, but concludes that self-blocking measures are warranted.

The Internet Archive hosts the contested books and has the ability to render them inaccessible. If it refuses to do so, it may be considered a copyright infringer under local law.

“The Department finds that, without the involvement of Internet Archive, no works or excerpts of works belonging to the applicants would be made available online. As the website owner and host of “Open Library”, Internet Archive has full control over the content published on its website via its own servers.

“The provisional measures intended by the judge to put an end to the infringements on ‘Open Library’ can therefore be imposed on Internet Archive, which may be considered an ‘infringer’ within the meaning of Article XVII.34/1 of the CEL,” the decision adds.

Considered an infringer

Blocking Requirement with a €500,000 Non-Compliance Penalty

The final decision requires the rightsholders to supply the Internet Archive with a list of all books that should be blocked in Belgium. The non-profit then has 20 calendar days to implement the necessary measures.

In addition to making the books unavailable, Internet Archive must also prevent these works from being made available for digital lending in the future.

Implementation provisions

The department notes that its decision aims to be proportional, targeting only the infringing activity. This allows the rest of the Open Library to remain available, including metadata and reviews linked to the disputed books.

The order will remain in place until July 16 next year, and includes a one-off penalty of €500,000 in the event the Internet Archive fails to comply with its requirements.

Ultimately, the Belgian authorities chose a compromise, as no agreement could be reached voluntarily. The question remains whether this case should be handled by an anti-piracy framework, instead of a regular court proceeding that can rule on the European equivalent of fair use and related copyright exceptions.

—

Update: After publication, the Internet Archive shared the following statement with us.

“We appreciate the Belgian authorities’ balanced approach in allowing continued access to Open Library. The collection includes public domain works, metadata, and materials supporting accessibility for readers with print disabilities. We remain committed to constructive dialogue on how to ensure fair, lawful, and inclusive access to knowledge, which is a core mission shared by libraries worldwide.”

—

A copy of the final decision by the Department for Combating Infringements of Copyright and Related Rights Committed Online and the Illegal Exploitation of Online Games of Chance is available here (pdf).

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

Nintendo is doing everything in its power to prevent gamers from playing pirated games on its Switch console.

This involves sending a steady stream of cease and desist letters and takedown notices, and if those don’t work, the company is prepared to take action in court.

This legal strategy has resulted in several multi-million dollar awards for damages. Just last month, the operator of ‘Modded Hardware’ agreed to a $2 million judgment to settle a similar lawsuit with the gaming giant.

Nintendo Sues r/SwitchPirates Mod

In June 2024, Nintendo filed a lawsuit at a Washington federal court against Arizona-resident James C. Williams, known online as ‘Archbox’. Nintendo accused Archbox of being involved in several ‘pirate shops’ through which unauthorized copies of its games were distributed.

The lawsuit specifically named ‘Jack-in-the-Shop’, ‘Turtle in the Shop’ and ‘NekoDrive’, all of which shut down following a Nintendo cease and desist letter in March 2024. A fourth shop, LiberaShop, initially remained online but shut down shortly after the complaint was filed.

In addition to running these pirate shops, Williams allegedly helped people obtain and use circumvention software, such as ‘Signature Patches’ (or ‘Sigpatches’), to enable them to play pirated games. Nintendo alleges this activity was promoted through the SwitchPirates subreddit, where Archbox was a key figure.

“Defendant became a leading (if not the primary) moderator of the SwitchPirates Reddit community, which he helped grow to nearly 190,000 members,” the complaint added.

According to Nintendo, the moderator used his position to direct users to the pirate shops, offer technical advice on how to install circumvention software, and provide guidance on playing pirated Nintendo Switch games.

$4.5 Million Default Judgment

After filing the lawsuit, Nintendo had trouble serving the defendant, but eventually managed to do so in August 2024. However, Mr. Williams didn’t file an answer to the complaint.

As a result, Nintendo prepared to request a default judgment. Last December, the gaming giant obtained a subpoena to collect discovery from third-party intermediaries including Google.

An attorney who briefly represented the defendant engaged with Nintendo regarding the Google subpoena, but this back-and-forth ended with no formal defense filed in response to the lawsuit itself.

Last Friday, this culminated in Nintendo’s request for a default judgment. The company is seeking $4.5 million in statutory damages and a permanent injunction to prevent future infringement.

Nintendo’s legal team alleges infringement on a massive scale, claiming Williams reproduced and distributed a library of pirated games. The company adds that through the network of ‘Pirate Shops’, “thousands, if not hundreds of thousands,” copies were shared with the public.

Nintendo’s request

Gestures of Reasonableness

According to Nintendo, there can be no question that the defendant’s conduct was willful. The gaming giant argues that it’s difficult to calculate the actual damages caused, so statutory damages are more appropriate.

In its motion, Nintendo frames its request for $4.5 million as rather reasonable. Instead of seeking damages for all titles Mr. Williams infringed, it seeks $150,000 for “only” thirty works.

As an additional “gesture of reasonableness,” Nintendo is not seeking potentially millions of dollars in statutory damages for trafficking in circumvention devices under the DMCA, nor is it looking for attorneys’ fees. This appears to be a strategic choice to make the request appear more reasonable to the court.

Gesture of reasonableness

Besides the damages, Nintendo’s proposed injunction aims to restrain the defendant from existing and future infringement. In addition, Williams should close his Reddit account, as well as accounts on Instagram, X, TikTok, Discord, and Telegram that were used in connection with the copyright-infringing activities.

Nintendo’s motion has yet to be granted by the Washington federal court but considering the defendant’s failure to mount a defense, there’s little doubt that Nintendo will find itself on the winning side of another legal battle.

—

A copy of Nintendo’s motion for default judgment and permanent injunction is available here (pdf). Nintendo’s proposed order can be found here (pdf)

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

Time to catch up on some recent trailers.

Following the successful return to the "28 Days/Weeks/Months Later" franchise, the next movie in the series, not directed by Danny Boyle by the way, will arrive in 2026 - 28 Years Later: The Bone Temple continues where the crazy story ends in the recent movie.

It's Sydney Sweeney vs Amanda Seyfried in The Housemaid, which seems a fairer fight than the ones against the super snake in Anaconda.

Apple TV's The Lost Bus (another trailer here) takes a true story to its thriller conclusion, while Apple is hoping for another hit from the same vein as Slow Horses in Down Cemetery Road. The documentary series Knife Edge: Chasing Michelin Stars also looks interesting.

The next Star Wars movie is set in the Mandalorian timeline - The Mandalorian and Grogu may not have the most imaginative title, but it does look like quite a fun movie. 

Looking like the horror movie to watch in 2026, The Bride! gets an early teaser trailer. It may have some competition from Psycho Killer.

And in the category of "I didn't think it would get a sequel", Greenland 2 takes the story to the middle of the apocalypse.

For the little ones, we have the trailer for Gabby's Dollhouse: The Movie (music only trailer) and the second trailer for Zootopia 2.

Notable mentions include the Christmas movie Song Sung Blue (music only trailer), The Last Frontier, the second Avatar: Fire and Ash trailer, Vicious, and Good Boy.

Check out all of our recently added trailers here. And a reminder that if you want the highest quality version of these trailers, all of them are available to download in 4K (and sometimes 8K) in our Trailers section.

Every year, the US Trade Representative (USTR) issues an updated review of “Notorious Markets” that facilitate copyright infringement.

This overview is put together with help from copyright holders and aims to motivate the targets, foreign authorities, and other stakeholders to take action.

The RIAA typically represents the interests of the music industry, and that’s no different this year. Last week, the group sent its latest submission to the U.S. government, highlighting a wide variety of problematic sites and services.

Telegram and Discord

A notable change in this year’s overview is that Telegram and Discord are specifically mentioned as problematic distribution channels. According to the RIAA, these platforms play a major role in pre-release music piracy.

“Messaging platforms Telegram and Discord have become the primary mechanisms through which pre-release music is distributed without authorization,” the RIAA writes.

“Through private and semiprivate communities, organized, global groups engage in hacking, social engineering, and other methods to obtain pre-release music and, in many cases, sell this illegally obtained material for thousands of dollars.”

From RIAA’s submission

Telegram was mentioned in an RIAA notorious markets report a few years ago, and the new listing suggests that issues remain. Discord, on the other hand, was not previously listed. The Notorious Markets report typically focuses on foreign threats, but the RIAA reported the American company as a problem nonetheless.

These messaging services are not on the same level as classic pirate sites. The RIAA recognizes this in its submission, acknowledging that both services respond to takedown notices while also indicating that both should do more.

“[I]t is unclear what steps, if any, they take to limit or prevent the ongoing abuse of the platforms for illegal pre-release distribution,” RIAA notes.

Stream-rippers, torrent sites, and cyberlockers

The RIAA’s latest submission also lists the usual suspects, including the stream-rippers Y2mate, Savefrom, Snaptube, Ssyoutube, Tubidy, and Notube. These allow people to download music from platforms such as YouTube and are seen as a prime copyright infringement tool by the music group.

Torrent sites and download/streaming portals also remain a problem. The RIAA mentions various targets, including Newalbumreleases, Scnlog, 1337x, Rutracker, and The Pirate Bay. The latter has been around for more than two decades, taunting rightsholders globally.

“Vast catalogues of music and the world’s most popular and newly released films can be downloaded via [The Pirate Bay]. The site makes no pretense of legitimacy, fails to respond to any takedown notices, and has previously ridiculed those who have sent them such notices,” the RIAA writes.

RIAA on The Pirate Bay

In the cyberlocker category, Krakenfiles stands out as a major source of pre-release piracy, the RIAA says, while also serving as a source for third-party AI voice cloning tools.

Intermediaries

In addition to direct threats and messaging apps, the RIAA also calls out several intermediaries. For example, hosting companies PRQ, Frantech Solutions, and DDoS-Guard are referenced. These companies are accused of hosting pirate sites and other criminal activity, despite complaints.

PRQ was launched by Pirate Bay founders Gottfrid Svartholm and Fredrik Neij. As far as we know they’re no longer involved, but the RIAA mentions this association in its submission.

“PRQ is a Swedish hosting service headquartered in Stockholm and created by two of the founders of ThePirateBay. It offers offshore hosting options and has consistently hosted criminal content,” the submission adds.

Finally, the RIAA mentions American domain name registrars NameCheap and Tucows as ‘issues’ for shielding customer WHOIS registration data to comply with EU privacy regulation.

Overall, the RIAA’s latest submission builds on previous years with many of the same targets. The inclusion of Telegram and Discord stands out most. Whether the U.S. Government will list these companies in its forthcoming notorious markets review has yet to be seen.

—

The RIAA’s full 2025 list of “notorious” sites and services can be found below, and the full report is available here (pdf). The cursive listings are newcomers and those that were removed are crossed out. The RIAA stresses that this list is a non-exhaustive overview.

Stream-Ripping Sites

– y2mate.nu
– ytmp3.nu
– savefrom.net
– snaptube app and related domains
– Ssyoutube.com
– tubidy.cool
-Notube.net

Music Download/Streaming Sites

– newalbumreleases.net
– Scnlog.me
– intmusic.net
– waploaded.com
– hiphopkit.com
– hiphopda.com
– itopmusicx.com

BitTorrent Indexing Sites

– thepiratebay.org
– 1337x.to
– torrentgalaxy.to
– Rutracker.org

Cyberlockers

– dbree.org
– rapidgator.net
– turbobit.net
– krakenfiles.com
– ddownload.com
– pillows.su
– Chomikuj.pl
– Pixeldrain.com

Additional Issues

Bulletproof ISPS: PRQ, FlokiNET, Frantech Solutions/BuyVM, DDoS Guard.

Domain Name Registrars: NameCheap, Tucows and others.

Other Intermediaries: Telegram and Discord

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

Nils competed in the DEF CON 33 CTF finals, placing 8th while running attack-defense operations, participating in the LiveCTF, and publishing a write-up on exploiting a Jukebooox bug leading to a glibc leak and ROP chain.