Online streaming has made it much easier for people to consume online entertainment whenever and wherever they want. This applies to movies and TV-shows but also to sporting events.

Last weekend’s Super Bowl game, for example, was available on a wide variety of legal streaming platforms including YouTube TV. At the same time, however, the game was also being offered for free in YouTube’s darker corners.

This problem isn’t by any means limited to YouTube, or the Super Bowl. For pretty much every significant sports broadcast there are pirate broadcasts available on all major streaming services.

That said, with an audience of over 100 million viewers, the Big Game between the San Francisco 49ers and the Kansas City Chiefs drew a much larger crowd. This also becomes apparent from the streaming numbers we received from piracy tracking outfit VFT Solutions.

VFT tracked down pirate streams on YouTube, Facebook, VK, Twitch, and Twitter’s Periscope. Pirated streams on these services were monitored for the duration of the live event as well as 3-hours after to capture part of the “on-demand” audience.

The company’s data doesn’t take dedicated pirate platforms into account but there was no shortage of streams. In total, 2,650 pirate Super Bowl streams were detected, which were watched by more than 12 million people.

The vast majority of the streams were found on Facebook (70.6%), followed by YouTube (20.8%), Periscope (4.8%), Twitch (3.2%) and VK (0.6%). Below is an example of one of the pirate streams on YouTube.

While Facebook listed the most streams, the view count on YouTube was actually higher. More than half of all viewers tuned in via YouTube (62.9%), followed by Facebook (22.7%) and Periscope (13.1%), with Twitch and VK picking up the remaining 1.3%.

Most of these pirate streams, roughly four out of five, were watched live. The rest was picked up on-demand after the official broadcast.

While the numbers are definitely impressive, not everyone watched the entire game. In fact, more than 60% watched less than 15 minutes, perhaps in part because their streams were taken down.

According to VFT the figures show that sports streaming piracy is rampant. Right now, most rightsholders respond to streams by issuing takedown requests but according to the tracking company, takedowns alone are not the answer.

Wayne Lonstein, CEO at VFT Solutions, believes that it’s much more effective to also educate these streamers and point them towards legal alternatives.

“If you take down the streams, what happens to the millions of viewers? They are left to search for other streams. In combination with takedowns, there needs to be education, communication, and redirection to alternative sources,” Lonstein tells TF.

“We believe there is a large percentage of the social stream viewer universe who are interested in the brand’s content and are receptive to and even desirous of engaging with content creators and their services,” he adds.

It shouldn’t come as a surprise that this is exactly what VFT offers to its clients. The company provides a ‘message insertion’ service where it reached out to pirates through direct messages or public chats, in an effort to direct them to legal options.

According to VFT, the pirate audience provides a huge opportunity. While some may never want to pay, a significant portion of the millions of pirate viewers may simply need a push in the right direction.

It’s an interesting thought, to say the least.

We don’t know whether reaching out to pirates through chats and direct messages is the answer, but certainly more can be done. At the moment, removed videos simply display a “this content is not available” notice. Why not replace that with a link to all the legal alternatives?

After all, many people simply don’t know what the legal options are or can’t find them. Even NFL legend Tom Brady admitted to pirating the Big Game in the past.

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

Lawsuits accusing people of downloading pirated videos through BitTorrent are a common sight in US courts. The phenomenon often dubbed as ‘copyright trolling’ started roughly a decade ago and remains ongoing.

The scheme can be both simple and lucrative. Rightsholders file complaints against “John Does” who are initially only known by an IP-address. They then request a subpoena to obtain the subscriber details and demand a settlement from the account holder.

This is also what happened when adult content producer ‘Strike 3 Holdings’ filed against a John Doe, known by the IP-address 73.225.38.130, more than two years ago.

Strike 3 is one of the most active copyright litigants in the US and has managed to obtain settlements against many accused pirates. However, this case was different. Instead of settling the case the accused account holder, a retired police officer in his 70s, chose to fight back.

The John Doe submitted a counterclaim accusing Strike 3 of abuse of process and “extortion through sham litigation.” The man accused the rightsholder of going on a “fishing expedition,” while knowing that it couldn’t link the subscriber of the IP-address to any specific infringement.

Following this pushback Strike 3 decided to dismiss its copyright infringement claim. However, the defendant wasn’t willing to let the case go. The retired police officer pushed on and requested a summary judgment to set in stone that he’s not a copyright infringer and to have his costs compensated.

This week U.S. District Judge Thomas Zilly ruled on the matter, deciding in favor of the falsely accused ‘pirate.’ According to the evidence presented before the court, Strike 3 can’t prove that the man copied any of the company’s movies.

While Strike 3’s evidence initially suggested that the file “hashes” referred to the actual movie file, the company later admitted that these were merely BitTorrent “info hashes” that point to torrent metadata instead.

“In other words, the referenced ‘Info Hash’ does not identify the actual motion picture that John Doe is accused of infringing, but merely the means by which the BitTorrent program can find the motion picture among the files of all of the computers connected to the BitTorrent network,” Judge Zilly writes.

In this case, Strike 3 bears the burden of proof for the alleged copyright infringements and based on the provided evidence, that standard wasn’t met. At most, the company can show that ‘someone’ with IP address 73.225.38.130 downloaded ‘some things’ that are identified by a series of hash sequences.

“A core element of copyright infringement is a ‘copying’ of the protected components of the work. Strike 3 has provided no evidence that John Doe copied any of Strike 3’s copyrighted motion pictures,” the order reads.

“Strike 3 cannot link John Doe to the activity associated with the IP address and it has now abandoned any assertion that the items allegedly transferred over the BitTorrent system were themselves copyrighted motion pictures or viewable pieces thereof,” Judge Zilly adds.

This finding is further backed up by an expert who reviewed the computer of the retired police officer, including many deleted files. This examination failed to find any of the allegedly infringed movies.

As such, the court concludes that ‘John Doe’ hasn’t downloaded any infringing material. In addition to clearing his name, the court also awarded attorney’s fees and costs, which have to be paid by the rightsholder.

Strike 3 asked the court to deny this request but Judge Zilly argued that this would improperly reward the company for using its suspicious litigation script, also known as copyright trolling.

Instead, the court ordered Strike 3 to pay the requested $40,501.63 in attorney’s fees and $7,275.63 in additional costs, totaling $47,777.26.

John Doe’s attorney, J. Curtis Edmondson, is happy with the outcome. It saves his client a lot of money and could also help others who are in a similar position.

“Any client who is sued by Strike 3 has potential exposure that starts in the tens of thousands of dollars, Edmondson tells TorrentFreak.

“For my retired client, this means he does not risk what he has saved for his retirement. That alone would take a lot of stress off someone, retired or not.”

In the broader picture, the order confirmed that Strike 3’s initial evidence claims, which are used to obtain subpoenas from ISPs, are not always sufficient to find an infringing movie on a hard drive.

In this case, the court also denied a wholesale inspection of the John Doe’s hard drive, limiting it to “hash values” only, which means that there’s insufficient evidence to prove actual copyright infringement.

—

A copy of U.S. District Judge Thomas Zilly’s judgment is available here (pdf) and the associated order 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.

While torrent giants such as The Pirate Bay are known and used all around the world, there are many sites that have a strong following in their native countries.

In France, for example, YggTorrent is a spectacular success. It’s the largest French-language sharing platform and also operates its own torrent tracker, a rarity these days. Alongside a reported 3,500,000 registered members, Alexa stats reveal that YggTorrent.ws is the 38th most-visited domain in the whole of France, period.

While that is an impressive achievement for a site that is just a handful of years old, unexpected overnight developments at the tracker are set to negatively affect that ranking, if only temporarily.

Earlier today, an individual who identified as one of the operators of YggTorrent informed TF that the torrent site’s main domain name, YggTorrent.ws, had been “suddenly disabled” by its registrar without warning or explanation. As the image below shows, it now displays the ominous ‘serverHold’ status.

According to ICANN, the serverHold domain status is uncommon and “usually enacted during legal disputes, non-payment, or when your domain is subject to deletion.” The status, which is rarely accompanied by good news, is set by the domain registrar, in this case Tucows.

As its DNS records suggest, the domain was purchased through Peter Sunde’s Njalla service but as a privacy platform, the company has no control over the ‘serverHold’ status.

As a result of this change, visitors to YggTorrent.ws can no longer access the site. However, in common with many platforms operating in a similar niche, YggTorrent has many domains in backup including yggtorrent.pe, yggtorrent.ch and yggtorrent.gg.

At least for the time being, however, the site is promoting the Sweden-based YggTorrent.se domain as its primary alternative. Crucially, it still maintains control over a separate domain for its tracker, which means that torrent sharing can continue for users, even if the main domain is down.

What caused the sudden loss of the .ws domain remains unclear but if history is anything to go by, copyright infringement issues must be at the top of the list. In 2018, YggTorrent was forced to abandon its .com domain following a complaint from French anti-piracy outfit SACEM.

Then, in 2019, following a complaint from local anti-piracy group SCPP, a Paris court ordered five French Internet providers to block access to thirteen websites that link to pirated content. Included in that order was YggTorrent.ch, a domain that remains under the control of the site but is currently used for redirection purposes only.

The site’s operators note that their Icelandic domain is blocked by various ISPs in France too but an additional domain for users affected by that action is already in place.

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

Those looking for a way to obtain otherwise premium subscription TV packages at a cheap price will find that piracy-configured TV devices are easily available online. Equally, those who prefer to see the goods before buying them can often find them for sale at markets up and down the UK.

Markets that develop a reputation for pirated and counterfeit goods can attract the attention of the authorities, including local councils. That was the case in July 2017 when Hertfordshire Trading Standards officers carried out a covert operation at Bovingdon Market.

According to Hertfordshire Council, the officers carried out a filmed, undercover purchase from traders operating from a stand under the BlackBox.tv banner. The piracy-configured device was sold on the premise that it gave access to movies and sports without the buyer having to pay a subscription.

The case took two-and-a-half years to go to trial but following a four-day hearing, two men – Thomas Tewelde and Mohamed Abdou, both from London – have now been found guilty of offenses under the Serious Crime Act 2007 and Fraud Act 2006.

During the trial, jurors were shown the covert video recorded by Trading Standards and unanimously found that the men had intentionally encouraged buyers of the devices to obtain paid TV services dishonestly. Or, in Serious Crime Act terms, they “encouraged or assisted the commission of an offense.”

Furthermore, after tests carried out by Trading Standards reportedly revealed electrical safety issues with the supplied devices, the pair were found guilty of supplying devices that failed to comply with Electrical Equipment Safety Regulations.

“We’re keen to support the growth of the creative industries which is significant in Hertfordshire. The sale of these boxes, allowing free access to copyrighted material, puts this industry and Hertfordshire jobs at risk,” commented Terry Hone, Cabinet Member for Community Safety.

“People who are buying these boxes may not be aware that they too could be committing a serious act of fraud as well as the associated risk of buying a box, which may not have been subject to safety checks, as in this case. If the deal appears too good to be true it likely is.”

In a tweet welcoming the convictions, Andrew Butler, Head of Regulatory Services at Hertfordshire County Council, revealed that the Federation Against Copyright Theft had been involved in the prosecution of the men. FACT Chief Executive Kieron Sharp issued a warning to others considering the same line of business.

“The message is very clear,” Sharp said. “If you sell a device that provides access to content that is not licensed or owned by you, you will face a criminal conviction and we thank Hertfordshire Trading Standards for their work on this case.”

The two men will be sentenced on February 28, 2019, at St. Albans Crown Court.

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, several major Hollywood studios filed a piracy lawsuit against Omniverse One World Television.

Under the flag of anti-piracy group ACE, the companies accused Omniverse and its owner Jason DeMeo of supplying pirated streaming channels to various IPTV services.

Omniverse offered live-streaming services to third-party distributors, such as Dragon Box and HDHomerun, which in turn offered live TV streaming packages to customers. According to ACE, the company was a pirate streaming TV supplier, offering these channels without permission from its members.

The IPTV supplier initially denied the allegations and countered that it did everything by the book. The company pointed to a licensing deal it had with cable company Hovsat, which relied on a long-standing agreement with DirecTV to distribute TV content.

As the case progressed, the Hovsat deal didn’t turn out to be as solid as expected. After several IPTV providers distanced themselves from Omniverse, it threw in the towel. Last November the company agreed to a liability judgment of $50 million for the copyright infringements it caused.

While Omniverse agreed to the monstrous judgment, it mostly blames Hovsat, as it made clear in a separate complaint that was filed against the company last summer. The IPTV supplier always believed that it was properly licensed and wants Hovsat to cover the multi-million piracy bill.

As time went by it became apparent that Hovsat, a revoked New Jersey corporation, wasn’t responding in court. The same is true for its alleged owner Shant Hovnanian. This lack of response has now prompted Omniverse to request a default judgment.

In a new filing submitted at a federal court in California, Omniverse is demanding $50 million, the exact damages amount it agreed with the Hollywood studios last November.

“HovSat is the party responsible for the copyright infringement alleged by the Plaintiffs by way of misrepresenting to Omniverse that HovSat actually received a license to distribute the copyrighted content through agreements with DirecTV,” Omniverse writes.

The defunct IPTV supplier accuses Hovsat of fraudulently claiming that it had a valid and lawful copyright license from DirecTV. This breach of contract made Omniverse liable for millions of dollars in damages.

“Had HovSat not made the misrepresentations regarding acquiring the distribution licenses for the copyrighted content, and thus not breached their contract with Omniverse, Omniverse would have never been subject to the above-caption lawsuit raised by Plaintiffs. It logically follows that HovSat’s misrepresentations thus proximately and directly caused the $50,000,000 in damages suffered by Omniverse,” the filing adds.

The court has yet to sign off on the default judgment. However, since Hovsat is not defending itself in court, there is a good chance that the IPTV supplier will indeed come out the winner. Whether it will ever recoup any of the potential damages from Hovsat is another question.

—

A copy of the proposed default judgment, which has yet to be signed off, 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.