U.S music and movie industry companies have exported their pirate site blocking scheme to countries all over the globe.

These efforts have been quite successful and decreased the number of visits to pirate sites, according to the MPAA.

On Hollywood’s home turf, however, pirate sites remain freely accessible. This is peculiar, not least because the United States remains the prime traffic source for many of these sites.

New research released by piracy tracking outfit MUSO confirms this once again. Drawing on data from tens of thousands of the largest global piracy sites, the company found that the United States is the country that sends most visitors to pirate sites.

With well over 17 billion ‘visits’ the U.S. takes the lead ahead of Russia, Brazil, India, France, and Turkey. The top ten is completed by Ukraine, Indonesia, the UK, and Germany. 

That the U.S. is the top source doesn’t come as a surprise. The country has one of the largest populations in the world and is relatively well-connected. Based on the number of visits per Internet user, the list would obviously be different. 

Looking at the broader picture MUSO reveals that visits to pirate sites have dipped slightly, from over 206 billion in 2017 to less than 190 billion a year later.  This downward trend applies across the board and affects torrent, streaming, download, and stream-ripping sites. 

Streaming sites remain by far the most popular. More than half of all pirate site visits went to streaming platforms. Direct download sites come in second place with 22% and public torrent sites are in third, with around 13% of all visits.

Stream-ripping portals, which are generally seen as the most severe threat to the music industry, make up ‘only’ 4% of the total volume of pirate site traffic, which equates to 7.7 billion visits. It has to be noted though, that stream rippers, as well as the other sites, can have legal uses as well.

Looking at the various types of pirated content, TV remains the most popular. Close to half of all pirate site visits were related to TV content, followed at a distance by movies, music, publishing, and software respectively. 

According to Andy Chatterley, MUSO’s CEO and co-founder, the fragmentation in the TV industry is one of the reasons why piracy remains relevant. People often need a variety of subscriptions to see all the shows they want.

“Digital piracy is still prevalent globally. Television is the most popular content for piracy and given the fragmentation of content across multiple streaming services perhaps this isn’t surprising,” Chatterley says. 

MUSO sees the massive pirate audience as an opportunity for rightsholders, instead of it being just a threat. Understanding when and what people pirate can help the entertainment industry to convert pirates into paying customers.

“Whilst it’s important to restrict the distribution of unlicensed content, there is a wealth of insight to be garnered from piracy audience data that gives a comprehensive view of global content consumption.”

One final data point that’s worth mentioning relates to search engines. MUSO notes that, compared to the year before, more people bypass search engines and visited pirate sites directly in 2018. 

Fewer search engine referrals may be a sign that takedown notices are working, perhaps in combination with Google’s downranking strategy. However, people can still find their way to pirate sites.

“Simply focussing on take-downs is clearly a whack-a-mole approach and, while an essential part of any content protection strategy, it needs to be paired with more progressive thinking. With the right mindsight, piracy audiences can offer huge value to rights holders,” Chatterley notes.

While the data offers an intriguing insight into the piracy landscape, it only covers part of it.  Many people use streaming boxes or mobile apps nowadays. These are not included in MUSO’s dataset, which relies on data provided by SimilarWeb, among other sources.

MUSO’s dataset covers visits to pirate sites only, which isn’t an exact science it appears.

Last year the company reported that there were roughly 300 billion pirate site visits in 2017. This number has now been readjusted to 206 billion. According to MUSO, this is because one of their data providers significantly scaled down mobile visit estimations.

In any case, the relative comparisons and broader trends remain the same, and the United States still has more pirate site visits than any other country in the world.

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

For many years, Google has been bombarded with requests from copyright holders to remove allegedly-infringing content from its indexes.

As reported here on TF last week, those requests have now reached astronomic levels – four billion links reported by 168,180 copyright holders against 2,283,811 separate domains.

Google honors most of the requests but rejects a fair few too, often due to the reported activity not actually being copyright infringement. However, when links are removed, users are informed of the fact via a note at the bottom of Google’s search results.

As the image above shows, when results are removed the associated DMCA notice which caused the removal can be found on the LumenDatabase, the online repository where some Internet companies file complaints for transparency purposes.

Anyone can click through and view the notices for themselves but this can be time-consuming, especially when researching a large number of links. It’s a problem the folks at ibit tried to solve this week with the release of a new browser extension.

Compatible with Chrome and Opera, Google Unlocked is open source and available via its Github repo. Its developer offers this simple introduction.

“The extension scans hidden links that were censored on Google search results due to complaints. The tool scans those complaints and extracts the links from them, puts the links back into Google results, all in matter of seconds,” he writes.

TF tested the extension (which isn’t available on the Chrome store) with a clean Opera install and found that it only asks for minimal permission to access Google domains, something confirmed by its developer.

“Please take a look at the code on Github, it is just a few lines of Javascript code. The extension is completely open source and you install it after unpacking the zip file so no hidden secrets there,” he told TF.

“It only needs permission to access www.google.* domains so that it can inject the missing links back in the page. Under the hood, the extension checks the Google results for the word “complaint” and fetches the URL behind it with a simple XMLHttpRequest. It then parses those URLs and puts them back on the same page.”

Since by its very nature the tool searches for allegedly infringing links, we aren’t going to demonstrate those here. Safe to say, however, the tool does scan LumenDatabase as advertised and all the removed links do get embedded in the search result page itself, very large numbers of links in some instances.

However, we also discovered that Google Unlocked is helpful when researching invalid DMCA notices too, but that (and indeed its ability to concisely display URLs from legitimate takedown complaints) then uncovers a flaw in the system, one that cannot be solved easily – if at all.

Readers will perhaps recall that a poet by the name of Shaun Shane issued a heap of false DMCA notices against sites (this one included) that legitimately reported on his efforts to stop people writing about his poem. So, for fun, we typed the phrase “If only our tongues were made of glass” into Google, which informed us that a single result had been removed.

However, after pressing the Google Unlocked button, we were confronted with eight URLs injected by the extension, as shown below.

While these are indeed all of the URLs present in the notice advised by Google under the “read the DMCA complaint” link provided, most of them were either rejected by Google or are actually legitimate links provided by Shaun Shane himself.

Most DMCA notices filed with the company also include locations where the original source material can be found, so these are also parsed by Google Unlocked and presented as removed content, as the image below illustrates.

So, while Google Unlocked is very capable when it comes to ‘reinstating’ links removed by Google following a copyright complaint, it has some of the same issues suffered by many anti-piracy crawlers – it simply cannot differentiate between infringing and non-infringing content.

Given the simplicity of the extension and the complexity of the situation, this is not a problem Google Unlocked will ever be able to completely solve. So, while it does work as advertised in many scenarios, the reinstated URLs will nearly always contain links pointing to legitimate sources or links that Google has thrown out due to them being non-infringing.

That being said, Google Unlocked’s developer is inviting others to contribute to this interesting project, which may improve its performance over time.

“I put the source on Github and I hope to get more programmers to do pull requests to keep the extension up to date, since I know a lot of geeks will love this extension,” he concludes.

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

Last year, a group of prominent record labels filed a piracy lawsuit against the Russian operator of YouTube-ripping sites FLVTO.biz and 2conv.com.

The labels hoped to shut the sites down, but this effort backfired.

In January, US District Court Judge Claude M. Hilton dismissed the case due to a lack of jurisdiction. The Court carefully reviewed how the sites operate and found no evidence that they purposefully targeted either Virginia or the United States.

The sites are not seen as highly interactive and their interaction with users could not be classified as commercial, the Court concluded.

“As the Websites are semi-interactive, the interactions with the users are non-commercial, and there were no other acts by the Defendant that would demonstrate purposeful targeting, the Court finds that Defendant did not purposefully avail himself of the benefits and protections of either Virginia or the United States,” the verdict read.

The RIAA labels were disappointed and last week they submitted their opening brief at the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals. The labels are not the only organizations that have an interest in this case though. A few days ago, Hollywood’s MPAA and others chimed in as well.

The MPAA filed an Amicus Curiae brief in support of the record labels. The industry group notes that it has a vested interest in the matter, as the district court verdict hurts its ability to go after site operators who are located outside of the US.

The MPAA argues that it was a mistake by the district court to grant the dismissal. That ‘error’ could cause significant damage to copyright holders, it says, describing the Russian owner of the site as a brazen pirate.

“Kurbanov is a brazen digital pirate. His highly interactive, commercial,
stream-ripping websites are, in essence, piracy valets that deliver stolen works to the websites’ users,” MPAA writes in its brief. 

While movie studios are not directly harmed by stream ripping, at least not to the extent that the record labels are, they fear that, if the current verdict is upheld, it will become harder to bring foreign site owners to justice.

“If affirmed and widely adopted, the district court’s erroneous holding could serve as a roadmap for foreign pirates, teaching them how to exploit the U.S. market and American intellectual property while evading jurisdiction in the United States, thus depriving aggrieved American copyright owners of a legitimate—and often the only—forum in which to enforce their rights.”

The MPAA has quite a bit of experience with these types of lawsuits. It previously brought cases against the Canadian operator of torrent site isoHunt, for example, and targeted a Panamanian defendant in the Hotfile case.

In the current brief, the movie industry group focuses in great detail on the supposed commercial nature of the stream-ripping sites. The Court concluded that the advertisements could not be seen as commercial interactions, but the MPAA disagrees.

“The district court’s holding failed to appreciate how the internet-advertising and digital-piracy ecosystems work,” the MPAA writes.

“In fact, Kurbanov’s websites are quintessentially commercial. Kurbanov attracts users, in part, because the only cost of accessing the infringing websites is exposure to advertisements—no money changes hands between the users and Kurbanov.”

The advertising networks the sites rely on are seen as a cornerstone of digital piracy, the MPAA notes. Pirate sites can’t easily sell advertisements directly and therefore use third-party companies to generate revenue.

The Hollywood group argues that Kurbanov’s decision to use ad-networks, as opposed to direct sales, illustrates his commercial intent. These advertisements target US users, which is one of the reasons why the court should have jurisdiction over the site owner.

This would also be in line with previous orders issued by US federal courts, the movie studios conclude.

“Kurbanov, by engaging in this unlawful scheme, rendered himself subject to the jurisdiction of our federal courts. Courts have confronted the ad-based model of piracy in numerous prior cases, and have routinely held that such sites are commercial in nature,” MPAA writes.

The MPAA is not the only outside party to take an interest in this case.

The Association of American Publishers also submitted a brief in support of the record labels, and the Copyright Alliance and the International AntiCounterfeiting Coalition has done the same.

All amici argue that the district court verdict should be overturned to protect the interests of copyright holders. Thus far, the Court of Appeal granted the filing of the latter two briefs. The MPAA brief has yet to be accepted.

—

A copy of the Amicus Curiae brief from the MPAA is available 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.

Over the past several years, consumers have been increasingly turning to ‘pirate’ IPTV providers with the key aims of cutting bills and gaining convenient access to vast swathes of live TV and on-demand video.

But for rightsholders and broadcasters, these unlicensed platforms present a growing threat as they undermine existing business models with what are increasingly high-quality services.

The latest effort to stem the tide appears to be a significant one. Spain’s National Police says that in cooperation with police forces from the UK, Denmark, and Europol, it has conducted “the largest operation in Europe” against the illegal distribution of content via IPTV.

Police carried out 14 simultaneous raids, eight of them in Spain (in Malaga, Madrid and Alicante), four in Denmark, and two in the UK. Five people were arrested and now stand accused of a variety of crimes, from IP offenses to fraud and money laundering. Ten others gave statements to police.

The investigation began in late 2015 following a complaint filed by the UK’s Premier League against a Malaga-based website offering IPTV subscription packages providing “a multitude of international conditional access channels”, i.e, otherwise premium subscription-based content.

Following the complaint, police in Spain made efforts to verify the illegal activity, which included the provision of more than 800 television channels, on demand content, and radio stations. The packages offered by the unlicensed provider cost between 40 and 460 euros per month.

The investigation revealed various social network accounts through which the service attracted more customers, plus a network of 20 additional websites offering the same product.

“The strategy used by those investigated was to use a multitude of servers and change them periodically, gradually creating new web pages to form a framework that, in principle, had no relationship. In this way they aimed not to be detected by the National Police and continue profiting from the crime,” a statement from the National Police reads.

Officers in Spain determined that the business was being operated through Spanish companies but subscription payments from customers in more than 30 countries were made to a company in Gibraltar.

Investigations led the police to conclude they were dealing with a “specialized international criminal organization” with connections to Spain, Denmark, the UK, Latvia, Netherlands, and Cyprus.

“After a detailed investigation, the police discovered a link between the holding companies and the beneficiary bank accounts of the subscriptions, always belonging to the members of the organization,” Spanish police note.

“The research found that, to make the trail more difficult, they increasingly displayed less content and, in addition, they were using anonymization systems. They had evolved technologically in a way that was allowing them to increase the volume of customers, since they offered different ways of accessing the viewing of increasingly innovative channels.”

During the operation, police say they “disconnected” 66 servers involved in the crime while further identifying the locations of other servers that were part of the network. Police says they identified 11 server ‘farms’, with some comprising more than 44 servers.

Current police estimates suggest that the people behind the operation “obtained an economic benefit” of around 8 million euros with 1.6 million euros diverted to companies abroad since 2013. It’s alleged that the money was laundered through businesses that appeared respectable.

“To give the illicit business the appearance of legality and to launder the profits, they created companies with lawful activity and a stated objective related to the provision of telecommunications services, internet and hardware,” Spanish police explain.

“On the one hand, they had the technical and technological infrastructure necessary to carry out their legal business (fiber operators) and also the illicit business (illegal IPTV subscriptions). On the other, they were authorized operators for fiber. It served as an argument for customers to believe that they were also in the business of distributing foreign channels.”

The operators, therefore, allegedly mixed legal revenue with illegal, in order to raise as little suspicion as possible. However, that didn’t stop the police from noticing their luxury lifestyles.

“Those arrested resided in luxury urbanizations on the Malaga coast, using high-end vehicles that were continually being renewed. In fact, the operation involved 12 high-end vehicles, in addition to bank accounts and real estate,” Spain’s National Police conclude.

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

With the final vote on Europe’s Copyright Directive coming up next week, campaigning efforts from both supporters and opponents are reaching new heights.

Earlier this month hundreds of organizations from the creative industries called on the European Parliament to quickly adopt the proposals. These organizations were later followed by many individual creators.

These supporters stress that the planned Copyright Directive will help them to protect their rights and get fair compensation for the use of their works on the Internet. This is also the message that EU copyright rapporteur Axel Voss is trying to convince the public with.

On the opposing side, there hasn’t been any shortage of action either. Today the “Stop the censorship-machinery! Save the Internet!” petition passed five million signatures, making it one of the largest to be hosted on the platform.

The petition is part of a broader campaign. It has been up for months, but this latest milestone will undoubtedly be used to convince members of the EU Parliament to reject Article 13 and Article 11 in the upcoming vote next Tuesday.

Several well-known digital rights groups have also launched the Pledge2019 campaign, encouraging people to contact their representatives in the EU Parliament. According to the latest stats, 121 MEPs have thus far pledged to vote against the Copyright Directive.

There are anti Article 13 website blackouts scheduled as well, which we also saw with the anti-SOPA protests several years ago. The German version of Wikipedia is going dark for 24 hours today, for example, and it is joined by the Slovak edition.

Offline there are also several demonstrations planned around Europe, from Portugal all the way to Finland. However, much of the protest is centered in and around Germany where the public has been very vocal about the Copyright Directive plans.

The Copyright Directive is a hot topic in German politics at the moment.  Last Friday, Germany’s largest political party, CDU, announced a plan to prevent “upload filters” in the country. Instead, large Internet platforms should pay flat-rate licensing payments to copyright holders.

This proposal, which assumes the Copyright Directive will pass, has been widely criticized too. 

As the vote nears, the atmosphere is becoming more grim. Last weekend, German police investigated a bomb threat directed towards the office of Axel Voss. Meanwhile, some press publishers reportedly threatened Parliament Members with bad press if they vote against the Copyright Directive.  

With less than a week to go, the campaigns from opponents and supporters will soon reach their climax. Then, it’s up to the Members of the European Parliament to have their final say. 

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