While legal IPTV platforms exist online, the acronym is also closely associated with services providing access to unlicensed live TV feeds.

These services can be easily accessed via a PC, tablet, or mobile phone, but many are accessed via Android-type set-top boxes. Another option is to use the MAG range of set-top devices available from Ukraine-based Infomir.

The company strongly disassociates itself from such infringing uses and in support of that announced last December that following complaints from rightsholders, it would prevent users from accessing allegedly-infringing portals.

“Upon receiving complaints from a copyright holder, Infomir is obliged to restrict access from its devices to any portal suspected of copyright infringement. The restriction will be maintained until the issue with the copyright holder is resolved,” the company said.

News of this action, or at least its effects, spread quickly among many IPTV users. Customers of several unlicensed services reported that portal URLs (the domain names used by devices to access IPTV services) had been blocked on their MAG devices and were no longer accessible.

Some providers changed their portal URLs in response but that was always destined to become a game of whac-a-mole. However, right from the beginning it seemed that MAG devices themselves contained the solution and it didn’t take long before that was confirmed.

In a post to Reddit, an unnamed developer using a ‘throwaway’ account revealed how he’d defeated the blocking system.

“I’ve spent the last few days digging around with [network analysis tool] Wireshark + custom firmware to see how this was working, and it turns out it’s quite simple and can be removed from all current firmware on all models that I’ve tested (250/254/256/322/324),” he wrote.

“We *could*, as people currently are, keep changing portal URLs – but this is not sustainable and as the box is phoning home on every boot, is more than likely just making it easier for Infomir to just re-block on the next wave of updates to the blacklist.”

The full breakdown is available on Reddit and indeed other places elsewhere but speaking with TorrentFreak the developer offered to put some more meat on the bones.

‘Thr0wawayicus’ told TF that when connected to the Internet, MAG devices use encryption to access a URL on Infomir’s servers. This results in the creation of a file called dls.backup on the local device.

“The encrypted communication is made up of an HTTPS connection to the mentioned URL,” he said.

“I can only guess at the contents but at minimum, it contains the data that is saved as dls.backup, although I can’t rule out that it potentially also reports the portal URLs you’re using back to Infomir to build up their database for potential future blocks,” he postulated.

‘Thr0wawayicus’ says that left him with two tasks – patch the browser present in MAG devices (or block the hosts file to prevent access to the blacklist), or erase the dls.backup file to prevent cached lookups.

He told TF that deleting the file is probably fine since it likely has no other purpose than to block URLs – it didn’t exist in any firmware prior to the latest releases and is referred to internally as a “domain list file”.

While some technically-minded people will be able to follow the detailed instructions available online (we’ve published just the very bare bones here for reporting purposes), ‘Thr0wawayicus’ has also put in a lot of work to streamline the process.

MAG devices are designed to accept custom firmware. In fact, Infomir provides all the tools that users need to compile their own. ‘Thr0wawayicus’ says that he used these tools to create custom ‘anti-blocking’ firmware variants for popular MAG devices. These have been placed on file-hosting platforms and torrents for public consumption.

“The firmware was built with the officially available tools, from source files Infomir release specifically for the purpose of building custom firmware,” he explained.

“There are no license terms prohibiting you from editing the filesystem as needed. It’s no less legal than stopping say a Chinese WiFi camera from phoning home.”

While that might possibly be the case, we aren’t linking to modified firmware here. That being said, ‘Thr0wawayicus’ reveals that he spent considerable amounts of time putting them together.

“Reverse engineering the issue took me around a day. The longest part of the process which took a couple of days after that was the building and testing of all the individual firmware files for each model of the MAG to automate the process of disabling the check in a manner which would require no special intervention or technical knowledge from the end user,” he revealed.

“The time spent waiting for flashes to complete (because I had to go back and forth between the official firmware and mine for testing) probably made up the majority of those two days.”

The developer said he was motivated to bypass the portal blocking present in these devices because he isn’t comfortable with an equipment manufacturer dictating what people can and cannot do with their devices.

As previously highlighted, Infomir previously stated they are simply carrying through with their obligations to block allegedly-infringing content as required under both US and European law.

“Our policy is to comply with the EU and US legislation on copyright and take into account best practices in the area of handling of copyright infringement reports,” the company told TF.

“In particular, we only process the reports of copyright infringement that contain all the elements of notification envisaged by the DMCA.”

Infomir also added that it filters for false or abusive claims and provides all blocked providers with the opportunity to oppose a copyright infringement report. In the event of a dispute, the company said it would request a court order to maintain access restriction to a blocked portal.

Infomir informs TorrentFreak that its products are aimed at professional IPTV service providers and the company strives to maintain high standards of hardware and software.

“All the tools we provide to our customers are designed to be used solely by legitimate service providers,” says Infomir Legal Counsel Vladislav Larionov.

“We understand that there might be ways to circumvent any restriction system on any device, be it set-top box, smart TV, tablet, smartphone etc. To ensure high enough level of reliability of the restriction system, we get it in line with the recommendations of anti-piracy associations we cooperate with.” 

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

Within a week, the European Parliament and Council hope to finalize the final text of Article 13, which is part of the EU’s copyright reform plans.

After Parliament’s vote last September, the proposal has been tweaked in an attempt to gain broader support. However, critics remain skeptical, especially those who fear that it will lead to broad adoption of copyright filters.

This Friday, the EU member states will vote on the negotiating mandate for the Council, which may be in favor of, or against, Article 13. Several national governments haven’t made up their minds yet, so their votes can go either way.

The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) warns that the plans will increase censorship and surveillance. The digital rights group specifically calls on people from Germany, Sweden, Poland, and Luxembourg, to speak out.

“Your national government depends on your goodwill to win the votes to continue its mandate. This is a rare moment in European lawmaking when local connections from citizens matter more than well-funded, international corporations,” EFF notes.

When the Council’s position is known it will negotiate the final text of Article 13 with Parliament this coming Monday. While not everything has been decided yet, Pirate Party MEP Julia Reda notes that the liability part is fixed.

“The negotiators have reached agreement on the core of Article 13, which will change the internet as we know it: They want to make internet platforms directly liable for any copyright infringements their users commit,” Reda notes.

What actions Internet platforms will have to take to avoid this liability remains to be decided. Are there any exemptions for small businesses, for example, and is fair use properly accounted for?

When the text is finalized the Council will vote on the proposal in a few months, followed by the final vote in the European Parliament next spring.

Until then, activists from all sides will continue to push their message. Those who scour social media for opinions will see a lot of people who want to ‘delete’ Article 13 altogether, but there are plenty of other views as well.

YouTube, for example, appears to be happy with upload filters, which they already have in place. However, it stresses that platforms should only be held liable if copyright holders help platforms to identify infringing content.

Among copyright holders, there are mixed messages. While many are in favor of the original Article 13 proposal, companies in the audiovisual and sports sectors said they would rather be left out if they lose existing protections.

In the music industry, there is quite a bit of support for Article 13. Music outlets see it as an opportunity to address the so-called ‘Value Gap’. PRS for Music, the UK’s leading collection society, has been rather vocal on this issue.

“YouTube pays much less than other streaming platforms for a license but has more content and more users than the likes of Spotify and Apple Music. This is why #Article13 is important for creators,” it wrote in a recent tweet.

PRS and other groups such as UK Music are calling on all who support music to back the proposal. The latter group has also been actively responding to what it sees as Article 13 “myths”

On the other side, Techdirt’s Mike Masnick takes the official Article 13 Q&A of  EU Parliament’s Legislative Affairs Committee (JURI) apart in a fact-checking exercise, with an entirely different outcome.

In a week from now, we should know more about the final language of Article 13 and the broader copyright reform proposals. That said, the discussions, lobbying, and advocacy won’t stop until the final vote comes in.

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

The past year has been a rough one for The Pirate Bay.

The site has repeatedly suffered downtime and, to a subset of users, it was unavailable for weeks on end.

The Pirate Bay’s technical team hasn’t been very outspoken on the issues. However, a few days into the new year it’s clear that 2019 is not going to be spotless either.

Starting a few days ago, The Pirate Bay’s upload functionality has become unusable. According to the recent uploads page, no new torrents have been added since last weekend.

The last torrent was uploaded on Sunday and the recent torrents page suggests that the problems started around 6:36 a.m. Central European Time.

After that, things went quiet and the official Pirate Bay status page confirms that no new uploads are coming through. What’s causing the trouble is unknown at the moment.

No new torrents

Several uploaders have raised the issue at The Pirate Bay forums, but as usual, there is no official explanation available.

If they try to add a new torrent, they only see a “Error – File empty” or “Wrong Code” error message.

Problems with new uploads are not unique and usually get fixed eventually, but for now, the site’s users will have to do without any new content. At the same time, new comments are coming through irregularly as well.

The good news is that the site itself appears to be accessible to most people. At least, based on the official status page.

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

With English Premier League clubs reporting revenues of £4.5 billion for the period 2016/17, top-tier football is extremely lucrative.

The Premier League itself has a three-year TV deal which came into effect during the same period, with a record-breaking £5.1 billion paid to the League by broadcasters Sky and BT.

A new deal, effective 2019 to 2022, netted the Premier League £4.45 billion and the football organization is extremely keen to protect its revenues and that of its customers by tackling piracy head on.

Maintaining that momentum, today the Premier League announced the opening of a brand new office in Singapore, its first international office and one with the primary aim of dealing with unlicensed consumption.

Based in Tanjong Pagar, which is located within the Central Business District in Singapore, the office will reportedly provide a base for the Asia-Pacific region. From here, the League will deploy its anti-piracy enforcement program across “multiple” markets.

In terms of anti-piracy activities, the Premier League is best known for its crackdown on streaming piracy, particularly when it comes to live events.

In the UK, the League has pioneered and developed “live stream” injunctions which allow it to request that ISPs block illicit streams of matches to disrupt piracy as soon as it takes place.

The practice mainly tends to cause disruption on Saturday afternoons and although some illicit IPTV providers have deployed some successful countermeasures, there are always plenty of complaints on Saturday about illegal streams going down.

Until now, these blocking measures have been restricted to the UK but with this expansion and a brand new office focused on piracy, it seems likely that the scheme could be launched in other countries too.

“The Asia-Pacific region is strategically important for the Premier League and its clubs,” says Premier League Director of Broadcasting Paul Molnar.

“Singapore provides an excellent location for our first international office and we look forward to using this base to support our many broadcast partners across the region.

“Equally, it is critical that we now deploy local resource and expertise to combat the increasing threat of piracy which undermines all stakeholders in the creative industry.”

While the new Singapore office is the Premier League’s first anti-piracy focused overseas base, the company is no stranger to enforcement in the region.

Last year the Singapore High Court granted an injunction following complaints from The Premier League, Singnet PTE Ltd, Fox Networks Group Singapore PTE Ltd, NGC Network Asia LLC, and Fox International Channels (US) Inc.

Neil Gane, General Manager of AVIA’s Coalition Against Piracy (CAP), of which The Premier League is a member, told TorrentFreak that the motion was heard on November 2, 2018, with the court subsequently handing down an order against “eight authentication domains.”

“Singapore has been considered a bastion of Intellectual Property rights across the region, and the court’s decision to block access to popular illegal applications preloaded onto ISDs and sold in Singapore reaffirms this contention,” he added.

The Premier League referenced this action in today’s announcement, noting that it is also taking criminal action against suppliers of ISDs (Illicit Streaming Devices) and working with Thai authorities to raid those in the supply chain.

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

In the early 2000s, the RIAA filed lawsuits against tens of thousands of alleged music pirates.

The music industry had just defeated Napster, but P2P file-sharing remained a massive problem.

Millions of people flocked to alternatives such as KaZaA, Morpheus, Grokster, and eDonkey. Since regular education campaigns failed to curb this trend, the lawsuits were supported to alert the public that piracy is not without consequences.

Filing full-blown lawsuits can be an expensive exercise so the RIAA attempted to take a shortcut by applying for so-called DMCA subpoenas. Unlike regular subpoenas, these are not reviewed by a judge and only require a signature from the court clerk.

Internet providers were not happy with this trend and objected. They argued that DMCA subpoenas are only valid when an Internet service stores or links to the infringing content (such as YouTube, Twitter and Facebook), not when they merely pass on traffic.

Various courts have agreed with ISPs since and effectively banned the practice more than 15 years ago. If copyright holders want to go after alleged pirates, they have to file a complaint and request a regular subpoena.

This is well established and copyright holders who have gone after alleged BitTorrent pirates in recent years did so through proper channels. However, late last month the rightsholders of the movie “London Has Fallen” gave it another shot.

In a request at a Utah federal court, it requested the clerk to sign off on a DMCA subpoena identifying 33 alleged BitTorrent pirates on a Comcast connection.

The company in question, LHF Productions, is not unaware of how things are supposed to work. It has sued BitTorrent users through the regular ‘copyright troll’ scheme dozens of times in the past.

This time, however, it opted for the cheaper and easier DMCA subpoena route.

“[T]he Clerk should expeditiously issue and sign the proposed subpoena and return it to the undersigned for delivery to the service provider,” LHF’s attorney  Todd Zenger wrote in his request.

Perhaps the company hoped that the demand would slip through or that the court would have other reasons to approve it, but that was not the case. Last week, US District Court Judge David Nuffer denied the request.

The Judge clarified, once again, that Section 512(h) of the DMCA only allows for prelitigation subpoenas when the targeted Internet services actually host or link to the infringing content.

“This provision only applies to ISPs that directly store, cache, or provide links to infringing material. It does not apply to ISPs that merely function as a conduit for infringing material.

“LHF has not identified any material that Comcast should remove or disable, and there is no assertion that Comcast directly stores, caches, or provides links to infringing material,” the Judge writes.

The order (pdf)

The film company is not the first to attempt to revive DMCA subpoenas for file-sharing cases. Anti-piracy outfit Rightscorp attempted to take the same shortcut five years ago and also failed.

LHF tried but probably knew already that their attempt had little chance of success. Whether the company will now file a regular complaint against the alleged pirates is unknown.

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