This morning, the Asia Video Industry Association’s (AVIA) Coalition Against Piracy (CAP), which represents the interests of groups including the MPA and other major companies, revealed the results of a commissioned YouGov survey.

“In a recent study of the content viewing behavior of Thai consumers, it was revealed that 45% of consumers use a TV box which can be used to stream pirated television and video content,” CAP writes.

“These TV boxes, also known as Illicit Streaming Devices (ISDs), allow users to access hundreds of pirated television channels and video-on-demand content, usually with a low annual fee.”

In the above paragraph, the precise definition of “consumer” isn’t particularly clear. Also, the use of the phrase “can be used” is open to ambiguity. TorrentFreak spoke with Neil Gane, General Manager of CAP, who was happy to clarify on both fronts.

“The survey focused on Internet-connected/online consumers. [T]he survey also included consumers who are online and yet don’t view video content, as all respondents were given the option to select ‘Not applicable – I don’t watch television and video content’,” Gain explained.

Gane further clarified that the 45% of consumers does not include users who use general “piracy-capable” devices such as computers, laptops, mobile phones, or Firestick/Chromecast dongles etc.

CAP’s General Manager added that while most devices “can be used” to stream pirated content, the survey was “solely focused on TV boxes pre-loaded with infringing app(s), which by definition would make them illicit streaming devices (ISDs).”

Examples of ‘pirate applications’ found on such devices include Mango TV, HD Playbox, and U Play, which provide access to streaming movies and TV shows, mainly on Android.

With the details established, the claims of the effects of piracy-enabled devices are more easily digested. CAP says that of the 45% of consumers who bought such a device, “more than two in three (69%) stated that they canceled all or some of their subscriptions to legal pay TV services.”

The YouGov research also established that younger people are attracted to piracy-configured devices. They are particularly popular among 18 to 24-year-olds, “with more than three in four (77%) canceling legitimate subscription services as a result of owning ISDs, especially international online subscriptions (40%).”

Of course, no recent anti-piracy announcement would be complete without claims about malware running riot.

“The damage that piracy does to the creative industries is without dispute,” Gane explains.

“However, the damage done to consumers themselves, because of the nexus between content piracy and malware, is only beginning to be recognized. Piracy websites and applications typically have a ‘click happy’ user base, and, as such, are being used more and more as clickbait to distribute malware.”

There is little doubt that many users of pirate websites are indeed “click happy” in their quest for free content and that can lead them into trouble. However, we’ve covered malware issues before (specifically in respect of so-called “Kodi Boxes”) and found nothing to suggest that there is a significant risk to consumers.

Of course, that doesn’t mean there isn’t a risk with other software pre-installed on set-top boxes – it’s a computer after all, and all such devices are vulnerable to infection. That means that as a minimum, all users should consider running anti-virus software on all devices capable of doing so.

That being said, set-top boxes are isolated machines that rarely carry much of value to malware distributors. Most people don’t browse on these machines, send email, or enter any personal or banking information. There is always some risk involved, but in the set-top box environment, it’s almost certainly minimized.

Speaking with TF, Neil Gane said that the study wasn’t related to malware but he stands by his references to the “piracy/malware nexus”. He also pointed us to a September 2018 EU report that found that trojans and malware can be found on pirate sites, leading to “not only financial losses, but also theft of personal data and other risks of unwanted access and control.”

While that’s true, the same report also stated that copyright-infringing websites and streaming services are not normally considered to be dominant sources of malware.

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

For more than a decade, alleged file-sharers around the world have been pressured to pay significant settlement fees.

These so-called copyright-trolling efforts are fairly straightforward. Copyright holders obtain a list of ‘pirating’ IP-addresses and then request a subpoena from the court, compelling ISPs to hand over the associated customer data.

In recent years, several news reports have appeared on these cases in the US, Canada, Sweden, Denmark and elsewhere. In Finland, they have been a common sight since 2013.

Adultia is one of the companies that’s active in the Nordic country which, as its name suggests, deals with adult content. Helped by the Cyprus-based company M.I.C.M, it obtained personal details of thousands of Finnish subscribers, asking them to pay up, or face legal action.

At the start of this year, the company appeared to have halted its practices. No new letters were being reported, which was carefully celebrated as a win by copyright troll opponents, many of whom are active in the local MuroBBS community.

However, the excitement didn’t last as the letters returned after a few months, albeit in a different form.

At the end of September, several people who were previously targeted by Adultia started to receive new letters. While the accusations and details were the same as before, they were sent by KTC Finland Oy this time, which is a local debt collection agency.

Example of a new letter

The letters were reported in the MuroBBS forum where they raised eyebrows. According to several activists, these “debt collection bills” were not lawful, as the earlier letters from Adultia were not official debts, but accusations.

In response, several opponents helped to draft template response letters, accusing the debt collecting company of breaking the rules. These were sent to the debt collection outfit, as well as government officials.

After a few weeks, this had the desired effect. Late last month, Timo Korhonen, chief investigator of Finland’s Regional State Administrative Agencies (AVI) in Finland, wrote a post on MuroBBS stating that KTC’s actions were now under investigation.

AVI’s involvement has weight as it ensures that companies, including debt collectors, follow local rules and regulations. In case of severe violations, it also has the power to revoke licenses of debt collectors.

The pressure was building, as AVI’s involvement was also picked up by the local news site Tivi and Ilta-Sanomat. Last week, KTC announced that it will withdraw from the copyright debt collection business.

“Because of the widespread attention, we have decided to stop collecting these debts. Because of our high standards, we are now concentrating on serving our other customers and thus we leave control over these copyright matters to companies that are specialized in it,” KTC writes on its website.

KTC maintains that its practices are in accordance with the law and encourages people who received a legitimate demand to pay. However, no new letters will go out.

While the anti-trolling activists at MuroBBS see this decision as a clear win, they hope that AVI’s investigation will pay off, noting that copyright trolling remains a problem. Law firm Hedman Partners is reportedly still active, for example, using the court to go after alleged pirates.

TorrentFreak spoke to activist ‘Don MC’ who notes that details behind 200,000 IP-addresses have already been handed out. While there are signs the court is more reserved now when it comes to these cases, copyright trolling remains a problem.

“Lately, and perhaps even by the influence of the civil activists on the MuroBBS board, the Market Court has tightened its criteria and no longer hands out these addresses en masse,” Don MC explains.

“The MuroBBS community is working hard to end copyright trolling in Finland once and for all. The fight against the trolls will hopefully go on until the last single troll is weeded out.”

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

There are plenty of options for copyright holders to frustrate the operations of pirate sites, but one of the most effective is to attack their domain names.

In recent years, various entertainment industry groups have called on the domain name industry to help out on this front.

As a result, the MPAA signed a landmark agreement with the Donuts registry under which the movie industry group acts as a “trusted notifier” of “pirate” domains. A similar deal was later announced with the Radix registry.

This was later followed by a much more ambitious plan. Last year, the Domain Name Association, which counts prominent registrars and registries among its members, unveiled its Healthy Domains Initiative, a voluntary self-regulation scheme to tackle all kinds of abuse.

According to the initially published outline, it would institute a copyright arbitration policy to deal with pervasive instances of copyright infringement. This would allow copyright holders to request that domain names be taken offline, without going to court.

This plan, also referred to as SCDRP, was listed as a proposal from the Public Internet Registry (PIR). PIR oversees the registrations of .org domains, including ThePirateBay.org, which was a likely candidate for this arbitration process.

According to Idaho Law Professor Annemarie Bridy, who recently published a handbook chapter on developments in copyright-related domain and DNS regulation, the arbitration plan would dwarf that of the MPAA’s trusted notifier agreements.

“If PIR were to implement the SCDRP, the RIAA would almost certainly succeed in having the Pirate Bay quietly shut down without subjecting itself to the expense and publicity associated with a lawsuit against its longtime nemesis,” Bridy writes.

Original peoposal

However, more than a year has passed and the proposed arbitration scheme appears to have vanished.

The Domain Name Association’s Healthy Domains Initiative is still alive and taking proactive steps against abuse, but the copyright arbitration proposal has been removed from the earlier document.

So what’s going on here? As it turns out, many prominent players in the domain name industry felt that the copyright arbitration plans went a step too far.

Registries and registrars believe it’s their role to help the public set up domain names and manage DNS entries, but they don’t want to take an active role as copyright enforcers of content they don’t ‘host’.

“It was really strongly pointed out to the working group that the hosting services are not necessarily in the same division or even same company, and that such things are entirely outside of the registration process,” Jothan Frakes, Domain Name Association’s Executive Director, informs TorrentFreak.

“The registry or registrar thus are really not part of that content hosting process, and injecting them into that process or putting registrar or registry in the role (and costs and potential legal exposure) of content policing,” he adds.

That said, under the Healthy Domain Initiative, these companies do take action against domain names with other problematic content. This includes domains pointing to “rogue” pharmacies and child abuse.

Many registrars and registries clearly felt that the copyright arbitration plan went too far though.

The Public Internet Registry (PIR) shares this observation. The organization’s general counsel previously said that they are not happy with The Pirate Bay’s presence on an .org domain, and that it’s a prime candidate to be removed under the right conditions.

However, PIR is not happy with initiatives such as the MPAA’s trusted notifier scheme and after discussions with other stakeholders, it felt that the copyright arbitration plan lacks support as well.

This means that PIR will not implement SCADR, despite repeated calls from rightsholders and governments to engage registrars and registries in potential content regulation.

“Public Interest Registry is an advocate for a free, open, safe and secure internet. To that end, we believe that any effort to mitigate content-related abuses should be tightly circumscribed and keenly focused on fostering these principles and ensuring due process,” PIR informs TorrentFreak.

And so ThePirateBay.org and many other domains are safe, for now.

The decision to remove the arbitration plans obviously comes as a huge disappointment to copyright industry groups such as the MPAA and RIAA. While they can still take action against domain names, they will have to go to court instead.

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

Back in April, the Alliance for Creativity and Entertainment, the global anti-piracy alliance featuring several Hollywood studios, Amazon, Netflix, and dozens of other entertainment companies, sued Florida-based SET Broadcast, LLC.

The popular unauthorized IPTV was accused of being a piracy tool offering copyright-infringing streams to a large number of subscribers. Early June, SETTV went offline after a second lawsuit was filed against the company.

In a Florida court, DISH Network and encryption partner NagraStar sued several individuals, companies and trusts collectively doing business as SETTV via the domain SETTVNOW.com. The plaintiffs stated that the complex business structure was designed to frustrate enforcement efforts and hide profits made by SET Broadcast and various individuals.

“Defendants created a pirate streaming television service they have branded ‘SET TV’,” the complaint reads, citing offenses under the Federal Communications Act (FCA).

“Defendants sell subscriptions and devices for the SET TV pirate streaming service, which includes numerous television channels that were received without authorization from DISH’s satellite service and were subsequently retransmitted without authorization on the SET TV pirate streaming service.”

DISH and NagraStar alleged that “for only $20 per month”, SET TV gave users access to more than 500 live channels, including on-demand content and PPV broadcasts. The company also sold pre-configured hardware devices that came pre-loaded with the SET TV application. As a result, the plaintiffs demanded a permanent injunction plus huge damages.

In an agreed judgment handed down by a Florida court (the merits of the case were not considered), the demands of DISH and NagraStar have now been met.

“DISH is awarded statutory damages of $90,199,000 under the FCA. The statutory damages are calculated at the parties’ agreed upon $500 for each of the 180,398 subscribers that were acquired directly by Defendants and provided with unauthorized access to DISH’s television programming using Defendants’ SetTV streaming service. Defendants are jointly and severally liable for all damages awarded herein,” the judgment reads.

The defendants in the case (and anyone acting in concert with them) are also permanently enjoined from “receiving, retransmitting, or copying, or assisting others in receiving, retransmitting, or copying, any of DISH’s satellite or over-the-top Internet transmissions of television programming or any content contained therein without authorization”, and having any dealings with infringing subscriptions, set-top devices, or applications.

DISH also won the right to take ownership of all SETTV-branded set-top boxes, similar devices sold through resellers and affiliates, plus subscription codes, passwords and applications relating to the SETTV service.

Additionally, SETTV is required to hand over any domains relating to its service, including but not limited to SETTVNOW.com and SETBROADCAST.com.

“The judgment and injunction against the SetTV service marks a significant victory in the ongoing fight against pay-TV piracy, and a win for consumers who subscribe to legitimate pay-TV services,” DISH said in a statement.

“Following extensive discovery, DISH and the SetTV Defendants reached a confidential settlement agreement. Pursuant to that agreement, the Parties filed stipulated facts and admissions of liability by the SetTV Defendants, along with an agreed judgment and permanent injunction that was entered by the Court on October 24, 2018.

“In compliance with the Court’s injunction, the SetTV service has been shut down permanently and the websites used to operate the service, along with all remaining inventory of receivers and subscription codes, will be forfeited for destruction.”

In common with similarly large damages rulings, it’s unlikely that SETTV will pay anything like the amount cited by the Court. However, the $90m judgment makes great headlines and is likely to act as a deterrent to all but the most aggressive US-based pirates.

The original complaint and subsequent judgment can be found here and 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.

This summer, Nintendo made it totally clear that websites offering access to its retro-games and ROMs will not be tolerated.

The Japanese game developer filed a complaint at a federal court in Arizona, accusing LoveROMS.com and LoveRETRO.co of massive copyright and trademark infringement.

Faced with millions of dollars in potential damages, the operator of the sites, Jacob Mathias, swiftly took the platforms offline. The legal action also led to the shutdown several other ROM sites, who feared they could be next.

It quickly became clear that the Mathias and his wife, who was later added to the complaint, were not looking forward to a drawn-out legal battle. Instead, they engaged in settlement discussions with Nintendo, hoping to resolve the matter without too much bloodshed.

Today we can report that both sides have indeed reached a deal. They agreed to a consent judgment and a permanent injunction that will resolve all outstanding disputes.

Paperwork obtained by TorrentFreak shows that Mathias and his wife admit that their involvement with the websites constituted direct and indirect copyright and trademark infringement, which caused Nintendo irreparable injury.

However, on paper, the married couple won’t be getting off cheaply. On the contrary, they actually agreed to a judgment that exceeds $12 million.

“Plaintiff is hereby awarded judgment against all Defendants, jointly and severally, in the amount of $12,230,000,” the proposed language reads.

Unsigned final judgment

It seems unlikely that the couple has this kind of money in the bank, or that a jury would have reached a similar figure. So why the high amount?

We can only speculate but it’s possible that Nintendo negotiated such a high number, on paper, to act as a deterrent for other site operators. In practice, the defendants could end up paying much less.

It wouldn’t be the first time that a judgment in court is more than what the parties agreed to privately. This happened before in the MPAA’s lawsuit against Hotfile, where a $80 million judgment in court translated to $4 million behind the scenes settlement.

In addition to the monetary judgment, both parties also agreed on a permanent injunction. This will prevent the couple from infringing Nintendo’s copyrights going forward.

They further have to hand over all Nintendo games and emulators they have, at their own expense. On top of that, the permanent injunction requires them to sign over LoveROMs.com and LoveRETRO.co to the Japanese company.

The documents have yet to be signed off by a judge but considering that both parties agree with it, that should be a formality. After that, it’s game over.

—

Here are copies of the yet-to-be-signed permanent injunction (pdf) and final judgment (pdf).

LoveROMS

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