Last Friday, Dutch anti-piracy group BREIN teamed up with the Motion Picture Association (MPA) and Alliance for Creativity and Entertainment to take action against a massive supplier of pirate movies and TV shows.

Moonwalk, as the Content Delivery Network was known, supplied an estimated 80% of known Russian streaming portals. These sites were able to embed a video player which presented not only movies and TV shows from Moonwalk, but advertising too. For this service, Moonwalk reportedly paid the sites $0.60 per 1000 views.

After bailiffs acting on BREIN’s behalf served ex parte court orders on five Netherlands-based hosting providers, which required them to disconnect and preserve evidence on Moonwalk’s operations, the CDN shut down, stating it would “NEVER be up again“.

This week TorrentFreak spoke with cybersecurity company Group-IB. The Singapore-based firm, which is a partner of both INTERPOL and Europol, had previously supplied us with information detailing the activities of Moonwalk. It has now provided an interesting update on the fallout from last week’s legal action.

Group-IB says that at the time of its shutdown, Moonwalk was even bigger than the conservative figures published by BREIN last week suggest. While BREIN claimed more than 26,000 movies and 10,000 TV shows were stored, Group-IB says that 28,258 movies were being distributed alongside 14,549 TV shows at the time of the shutdown.

However, it’s the knock-on effect and the state of the market after the takedown that raises the most interest.

Group-IB informs us that another big “pirate-powered” CDN known as HDGO has also shut down following the action by BREIN and its partners. The cybersecurity firm believes that the closures are connected because HDGO used some of the same infrastructure as Moonwalk.

“Compared with other CDNs HDGO provided new content faster and guaranteed a higher income for pirate websites’ owners,” says Dmitry Tyunkin, Deputy Director of Anti-Piracy and Brand Protection at Group-IB.

A second “pirate-powered” CDN, known online as Kodik, has also shut down as a result of the Moonwalk action. Again, Kodik is believed to have used the same infrastructure as Moonwalk and HDGO, suggesting that the BREIN court orders may have had an even wider effect.

“The Kodik CDN used some of Moonwalk’s servers, especially the ones where TV show content was stored. According to our estimates, Kodik could have lost 8,000 out of 17,000 TV shows. It’s known that there was a pirated content ‘exchange agreement’ between Moonwalk and Kodik,” Tyunkin adds.

It’s estimated that Moonwalk’s CDN player could have been built-in into thousands of websites so the removal of the players could have an even more profound effect.

“In the short-term perspective, the shutdown of Moonwalk, HDGO and Kodik could mean a big blow to online piracy in Russia and can potentially contain pirated video content distribution for some time.”

But Moonwalk, HDGO, and Kodik weren’t the only players in the ‘pirate CDN’ market. Group-IB says that despite the magnitude of the recent efforts and initial fallout, in the long-term the “many competitors” of Moonwalk are likely to step in to facilitate supply.

The company believes there are 10 “pirate-powered” CDNs still supplying the market, including major players HDVB, VideoCDN, and Collaps.

“According to Group-IB’s data, 80% of pirated movies in Russia are now streamed, a figure that increases to 90% for TV shows,” the company says.

“The majority of Russian online pirates use CDNs because they store hundreds of thousands of files containing films and TV series, and offer a technical service that allows to automatically place this content on pirate websites.

“Some of these technical CDN providers also offer web modules that autofill sites with film posters and descriptions, and in some cases even supply unique reviews.”

Finally, in terms of impact on the global market, Group-IB believes the shutdowns have the potential to affect between 5 and 10 percent of worldwide supply but cautions that this is “definitely a temporary change.”

Source: TF, for the latest info on copyright, file-sharing, torrent sites and more. We also have VPN reviews, discounts, offers and coupons.

The Pirate Bay has been hard to reach for more than a week.

For most people, the site currently displays a Cloudflare error across the entire site, with the CDN provider mentioning that a “bad gateway” is causing problems.

Others see the dreaded “database maintenance” message, with a prompt to check back in 10 minutes. If they do, the exact same notification usually pops up.

As is often the case with TPB, no further details are available to us and there is no known ETA for the site’s full return. However, judging from past experience, it’s likely some type of technical issue that needs fixing.

TorrentFreak reached out to a Pirate Bay staffer who informed us that the downtime is a mystery to most staffers as well. The technical part of the site is managed by “Winston,” who hasn’t yet provided an explanation.

We also contacted another person who managed the site in the distant past, but he had no further information on the present issues either.

The Pirate Bay has had prolonged downtime in the past and always returned thus far. There is no indication that things are different now, but the duration of the current problems certainly is longer and more widespread than usual.

TPB is still occasionally available via its .onion address on the Tor network, which is accessible using the popular Tor Browser, for example. However, as the official status page reveals, the Tor version is also experiencing some issues.

This isn’t the first setback for Pirate Bay visitors this year. As reported previously, new registrations to the site were disabled a few months ago to prevent spam floods. This remains the case today.

The trouble has motivated some Pirate Bay users to move elsewhere for the time being. Some have switched to unofficial proxy sites, which may still be somewhat operational, while others are utilizing other torrent sites.

For the rest, it’s just the usual waiting game. If we look at the past, the site will likely reappear eventually, and then continue as if nothing ever happened.

Source: TF, for the latest info on copyright, file-sharing, torrent sites and more. We also have VPN reviews, discounts, offers and coupons.

Cheating in videogames is a popular pastime for those who don’t want to play by the rules but there are two distinct groups who detest the activity.

While genuine players are routinely disadvantaged by those running cheat software, developers not only see their finely-tuned gaming environments disrupted but in some cases their business models too.

In September, the BBC ran a video piece on the topic of game cheating. An alleged 17-year-old appeared on the show in disguise, speaking of the hacks he created for Rainbow Six Seige, and noting that if Ubisoft “decides to come after you for copyright infringement then you’re in for a tough time.”

A month later, those tough times have arrived. In a lawsuit filed by Ubisoft in a California federal court, the videogame company is suing ‘J.V.L’, a teenager who lives in the Netherlands, allegedly developed a sophisticated Rainbow Six Seige (R6S) cheat, and reportedly appeared in the BBC interview under the alias ‘Lucas’.

Formerly known as “CheapBoost” but now known as “Budget Edition Rainbow Six: Siege Cheat”, it’s claimed the cheat allowed people to manipulate R6S to their advantage by “increasing the damage inflicted by the player, changing the player’s perspective, and allowing the player to see areas of the battlefield that otherwise would be obscured.”

The lawsuit targets several people, including J.V.L’s mother, Sandra Rijken, and numerous alleged support staff and resellers of the cheat. Most are only known by their online aliases but Ubisoft says it will amend its complaint when their identities are known.

The lawsuit also lists business entities Mizusoft (which was allegedly founded by J.V.L and sold the cheat) plus Rijken’s company Simply san Webdesign, which reportedly collected, processed and transmitted payments from Mizusoft customers to one or more of the defendants.

Ubisoft claims that Mizusoft was created for the “express purpose” of shielding J.V.L and his mother from the legal consequences of creating and distributing the R6S cheat software.

“Ubisoft is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that Defendants’ entire business is dedicated to creating, producing, marketing, distributing, and supporting the Cheating Software – which can be used only to cheat in R6S. Thus, Defendants’ business is wholly parasitic in nature and is entirely dependent upon causing harm to Ubisoft and its multiplayer community,” the complaint notes.

For those unfamiliar with this kind of cheating software, its cost will come as a surprise. According to the complaint, the cheat in question was sold on a recurring subscription fee basis of 11.99 euros per day, 29.99 euros per week, or 69.99 euros per month. Those payments, Ubisoft claims, were made to Simply San Webdesign via Stripe.

“Defendants know that trafficking in circumvention products such as the Cheating Software is unlawful and violates Section 1201 of the DMCA. As J.V.L. admitted on a BBC news segment: ‘if Ubisoft decides to come after you because of copyright infringement then you’re in for a tough time’,” Ubisoft adds.

The company says that the defendants’ actions have caused serious harm to its games and its online community, ruining the gaming experience for players and causing them to lose interest and stop playing R6S. On top, the company says it has spent “enormous sums of money” attempting to mitigate the cheat, including hiring people to police games for cheaters.

Ubisoft says that by creating and distributing the cheat software, the defendants trafficked in circumvention devices that are solely designed to defeat technological measures put in place to control access to a copyrighted work.

“As a result of the foregoing, Defendants are offering to the public, providing, importing, or otherwise trafficking in technology that violates 17 U.S.C. § 1201(a)(2). Defendants’ acts constituting DMCA violations have been and continue to be performed without the permission, authorization, or consent of Ubisoft,” the complaint adds.

In terms of damages under the DMCA, at the very least Ubisoft is demanding the profits generated by the defendants, which according to them could run to hundreds of thousands of dollars.

Alternatively, Ubisoft says it is entitled to maximum statutory damages of $25,000 for every breach of the DMCA, which run into their thousands. In any event, the company wants all of its legal fees and costs repaid.

But the complaint doesn’t stop at claims under the DMCA. A second count claims ‘intentional interference with contractual relations’, with the defendants standing accused of encouraging and inducing their customers to breach their Terms of Use agreement with Ubisoft, which bans cheating. The company also claims unfair competition.

“Defendants are guilty of oppression, fraud, or malice, and Ubisoft, in addition to its actual damages, by reason thereof, is entitled to recover exemplary and punitive damages against Defendants,” the company adds.

Initially, however, Ubisoft wants the entire operation shut down and more.

In addition to an injunction preventing the activities detailed in the complaint, Ubisoft wants the defendants to hand over everything that infringes their rights along with accounts that show all sales of cheat products and services in the United States. Ubisoft also wants to seize all domain names connected to the cheating business.

Ubisoft’s complaint, obtained by TorrentFreak, can be found here (pdf)

Source: TF, for the latest info on copyright, file-sharing, torrent sites and more. We also have VPN reviews, discounts, offers and coupons.

In May, new legislation was tabled in the U.S. House and Senate that introduces the creation of a “small claims” process for copyright disputes.

The CASE Act, short for “Copyright Alternative in Small-Claims Enforcement,” proposes to establish a copyright claim tribunal within the United States Copyright Office.

If adopted, the new board will provide an option to resolve copyright disputes outside the federal courts, which significantly reduces the associated costs. As such, it aims to make it easier for smaller creators, such as photographers, to address copyright infringements.

The bill is widely supported by copyright-heavy industry groups as well as many individual creators. However, as is often the case with new copyright legislation, there’s also plenty of opposition from digital rights groups and Internet users who fear that the bill will do more harm than good.

Supporters of the CASE Act point out that the new bill is the ‘missing piece’ in the present copyright enforcement toolbox. They believe that many creators are not taking action against copyright infringers at the moment, because filing federal lawsuits is too expensive. The new small claims tribunal will fix that, they claim.

Opponents, for their part, fear that the new tribunal will trigger an avalanche of claims against ordinary Internet users, with potential damages of up to $30,000 per case. While targeted people have the choice to opt-out, many simply have no clue what to do, they argue.

Thus far legislators have shown massive support for the new plan. Yesterday the bill was up for a vote at the U.S. House of Representatives where it was passed with overwhelming bipartisan support. With a 410-6 vote, the passage of the CASE Act went smoothly.

The news was welcomed by proponents of the bill, including the Recording Academy. In recent weeks the group actively rallied support from nearly 2,000 creators, who helped to lobby legislators.

The Copyright Alliance was equally delighted with the favorable vote. CEO Keith Kupferschmid notes that it further attests to the tremendous support the bill has gained so far. At the same time, it shows that legislators were not swayed by the CASE Act’s opponents.

“Today’s vote by the House demonstrates not only the tremendous support for the bill but also the fact that members of Congress could not be bamboozled into believing the numerous falsehoods about the CASE Act,” Kupferschmid comments.

According to the Copyright Alliance CEO, these alleged falsehoods are shared by people who “philosophically oppose any copyright legislation that will help the creative community and who will use any means to achieve their illicit goals.”

These comments illustrate that the tensions between supporters and opponents of the CASE Act are high. In recent months, both sides have accused each other of misrepresenting the bill.

Meredith Rose, Policy Counsel at Public Knowledge, is in the opposing camp. She’s not happy with the vote at all and hopes that the Senate will slam on the brakes to prevent it from progressing in its current form.

“The CASE Act was rammed through on suspension with no hearings, no opportunity for amendment, and no opportunity for meaningful comment from public interest and consumer groups. We urge the Senate not to take up this bill as written, but to instead open the dialogue to all affected parties to craft meaningful, functional solutions,” Rose says.

Public Knowledge and other groups, such as EFF and Re:Create, fear that the bill will lead to more copyright complaints against regular Internet users. Re:Create’s Executive Director Joshua Lamel hopes that the Senate will properly address these concerns.

“The CASE Act will expose ordinary Americans to tens of thousands of dollars in damages for things most of us do everyday. We are extremely disappointed that Congress passed the CASE Act as currently written, and we hope that the Senate will do its due diligence to make much-needed amendments to this bill to protect American consumers and remove any constitutional concerns,” Lamel notes.

The 410-6 House vote shows that, thus far, there is not much interest from lawmakers to change the proposal. However, with several weeks of lobbying ahead from both supporters and opponents of the CASE Act, the battle is not over yet.

Source: TF, for the latest info on copyright, file-sharing, torrent sites and more. We also have VPN reviews, discounts, offers and coupons.

While ‘pirate’ sites still exist as regular web-based streaming or torrent portals accessible through a browser, recent years have seen a shift.

Software applications, or apps as they’re more commonly known, are now seen as a more convenient option.

Installable on phones, tablets, and a multitude of set-top devices, they often provide access to huge libraries of instantly-streamable movie and TV shows, presented in a Netflix-style interface.

While Popcorn Time was the first to hit the mainstream, plenty of alternatives now exist. One of those is TeaTV, a popular app for Android, Windows and macOS. According to SimilarWeb stats, its download portal has been pulling in around 1.5 million visits per month a few days ago a considerable irritant presented itself.

News outlet CNBC – which is owned by media giant NBCUniversal – ran a piece claiming that TeaTV was being “bankrolled” by advertising, some of it being placed by Pandora, TikTok, Hulu, Yahoo Mail, and Amazon, among others.

There was no suggestion in the CNBC piece that any of the companies placed ads directly with Teat-TV. Instead, a network of hard-to-control resellers was handed the blame, some of which are no longer doing business with TeaTV due to the CNBC investigation. Other advertising companies approached declined to comment.

Interestingly, the publication also revealed that during a “recent meeting of major industry players in New York” on the topic of ad-supported piracy, TeaTV came up as a discussion point.

Who those players are is open to debate but ad-supported piracy is a hot topic and there can be little doubt that familiar names, including those involved in the ACE anti-piracy coalition (CNBC owner NBCUniversal is an ACE member), would’ve been privy to the conversations.

Perhaps coincidentally but more likely not, in the hours following the publication of the CNBC piece, TeaTV began to purge itself from the web. Its main webpage, previously located at TeaTV.net, no longer exists, meaning that downloads of the app from that portal have come to a halt.

Furthermore, TeaTV’s social media has been blacked out too. Both its Twitter and Facebook pages have been removed or deleted, leading some to speculate that the popular software has been consigned to history following the investigation.

After receiving unconfirmed information that TeaTV won’t ever be coming back, TorrentFreak spoke directly with a source very close to the app. That person declined to comment on the CNBC investigation specifically or whether TeaTV’s disappearance is directly connected to it.

However, we were assured that TeaTV will be returning sometime in the future. No timescale was given for the full resurrection but at least some changes are planned, including a potential rebranding of the app.

“Just a matter of time. We will get back to you when there is an update,” we were told.

With a full return (in some shape or form) penciled in for a future date, it appears that TeaTV as an application is still working for many of its users. Numerous reports online suggest that despite the app’s homepage and social media going dark, the software is still providing access to content.

Source: TF, for the latest info on copyright, file-sharing, torrent sites and more. We also have VPN reviews, discounts, offers and coupons.