A multi-year legal campaign by academic and scientific publishers continued in 2020 with a lawsuit filed at the High Court in Delhi.

Once again the target was Sci-Hub and site founder Alexandra Elbakyan, and by naming local ISPs as defendants, Elsevier, Wiley, and American Chemical Society aimed to have the shadow library blocked nationwide in India .

The publishers left no stone unturned in their 2,169-page complaint, carefully following in the footsteps of universally successful cases that helped to create the framework for pirate site blocking in India. At least on paper, the Sci-Hub lawsuit stood out no more than any other. Dozens of similar cases had led to the blocking of thousands of pirate site domains in previous years, with each passing by relatively unnoticed.

Blocking Sci-Hub Would Be Bad For India, Critics Feared

The action against Sci-Hub triggered an unusually strong response, solely based on the type of copyrighted content made available on the platform. From academics and scientists, to teachers and their students, the consensus was that unauthorized access to scientific knowledge via pirated copies of the publishers’ works should be handled otherwise than in accordance with established copyright law.

Intervention applications by scientists and other interested parties stressed the importance of open access to scientific research. They claimed that the publishers were making excessive profits from elite institutions with the means to pay, effectively denying access to those who simply could not. Similar claims had been made in the past elsewhere in the world, but despite the occasional sympathetic reception, none made any ground in the face of undeniable infringement on a massive scale.

Yet in January 2021, calls to immediately block or remove infringing links from Sci-Hub were rejected by the High Court in Delhi. The judge acknowledged that since the case addressed an “ issue of public importance ” a two-week extension was appropriate. Urgent action to deny access to infringing content was deemed unnecessary since the alleged infringement had been ongoing since 2011.

Interested parties were invited to weigh-in with submissions on what was already a sensitive case and was about to become even more controversial.

A Year of Controversy

Seemingly out of nowhere, Sci-Hub’s nine-year-old Twitter account was suddenly banned in early 2021, despite never linking to copyrighted content.

In February, the publishers obtained a blocking order against Sci-Hub in the UK, targeting existing domains and any others used in the future. At the time of writing, over 200 domains containing the term ‘sci-hub’ have been blocked under that order, despite a warning from UK police in March 2021 which advised students not to use the platform.

Two months later, with site founder Alexandra Elbakyan seemingly under continuous pressure, she announced that the FBI had gained access to her Apple account, with confirmation provided in an email from Apple itself.

No surprise for Elbakyan, of course. The US Justice Department reportedly began investigating her in 2019, claiming that she “may” have been working with Russian intelligence to “steal U.S. military secrets from defense contractors.”

At least in public, none of these events developed into anything bigger than their initial reports. Yet back in India, an agreement between Elbakyan and the publishers in late 2020 would eventually lead to a fatal undermining of the case and, several years later, a win for the publishers.

Agreement: No More Infringing Uploads to Sci-Hub

During a hearing on December 24, 2020, counsel for Elbakyan reportedly offered assurances that no new copyrighted articles or publications owned by the plaintiffs, would be uploaded to or made available by Sci-Hub moving forward. How far forward appears to be in dispute.

As far as the plaintiffs and the High Court are concerned, the agreement remains in effect. Sci-Hub suggests that it viewed the agreement as temporary, to be continued only until the High Court issued a decision in the main case, which has dragged on and on.

In four months time, the case will be roughly five years old, which is highly irregular when compared to similar cases, even after factoring in additional time to account for a defended case, which is admittedly unusual in itself. Nevertheless, court notifications have at times been difficult to fathom. Lengthy delays of two or three months have been introduced for reasons such as ‘counsel can’t make it today’ or is ‘doing something else this afternoon.’

No signs indicate that was a problem for the court, or indeed, anyone else. However, after several years, the main issue of blocking Sci-Hub was eventually decided on August 19, partly on facts that have been available for years, even before the filing of the current case in 2020.

Violation of December 2020 Agreement

The plaintiffs had been monitoring Sci-Hub and a ‘sister site’ called Sci-Net for compliance with the 2020 agreement and recently informed the court of numerous violations. The plaintiffs contacted Elbakayan about the issue and received the following response:

Having detected a “lack of regard for the legal process” in the above response and confirming violations of the 2020 agreement, Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora examined whether the term “rogue website” applies to Sci-Hub.

The Judge considered characteristics including “a blatant disregard for copyright law” and the fact that blocking orders have already been issued against the site in 11 countries.

Concluding that both Sci-Hub and Sci-Net qualify for “rogue” status, the judge noted that Sci-Hub’s founder is prima facie guilty of contempt.

Defendant no. 1 [Elbakyan] has elected not to appear and failed to give appropriate instructions to her counsel, who represents her in these proceedings. Therefore, the intention of defendant no. 1 is neither to participate and nor to defend herself in these proceedings.

The fact that defendant no. 1 is a foreign national seems to make her believe that she is insulated from legal consequences of the violation of her undertaking dated 24.12.2020. However, in these given facts, the Court would have to take appropriate measures for ensuring that defendant no. 1’s wilful actions [of violation] do not see fruition within the jurisdiction of the Court.

After close to five years, the judge ordered the blocking of several Sci-Hub and Sci-Net domains (www.sci-hub.ru, www.sci-hub.se, www.sci-hub.st, www.sci-net.xyz) by local ISPs, describing the decision as “a necessary and proportionate enforcement measure.”

From the comments in her response, it seems reasonable to assume that Alexandra Elbakyan will respond to the blocking measures accordingly. The case is listed for further proceedings on December 1, 2025.

The High Court of Delhi’s decision and blocking order is available here (pdf)

From: TF , for the latest news on copyright battles, piracy and more.

Earlier this month, we reported that a screener copy of In the Hands of Dante had leaked online from an unknown source .

The unreleased Julian Schnabel film, featuring a star cast, is officially set to premiere at the Venice Film Festival next month. However, pirates got early access.

The same was true for other independent films, including The Best Thing About Christmas , Agon , American Cryptids , Life Is , and Extreme Family , all of which leaked early. What stood out is that several titles had an Italian connection.

The source of the leaks was initially unclear, but new information shared with TorrentFreak shows that many, if not all the leaked films, were already publicly available on video-sharing platform Vimeo long before they appeared on pirate sites.

Post-production Studio Uploads on Vimeo

Multiple versions of In the Hand of Dante , using the shorthand “ITHOD,” were uploaded to the Vimeo channel of Augustus Color Srl . This is the name of a prominent Italian company specializing in color grading and digital post-production.

The upload dates range from June to October 2024, confirming the films were exposed for the better part of a year before they appeared on pirate sites. The most recent ‘edit’ on Vimeo is identical in length compared to the copy that leaked on pirate sites and also comes with a screener watermark.

This wasn’t the only film posted to the account. Augustus Color has over 1,000 videos on their Vimeo account which has been in use for more than seven years. The account uses the logo of the studio and also posted the official promotional reel, various edits, and several additional films.

After some digging, we also found the leaked Agon film on the same Vimeo account. Again, this copy was posted on the video sharing platform long before it appeared on pirate sites, suggesting this is where the leaks originated. The same account also shared many other films that were not posted to pirate sites.

Before publishing, we reached out to Augustus Color, requesting a comment on our findings, but the company did not respond. The company may have been under the impression that these uploads were not publicly accessible, as the official showreel is private .

There’s More, Much More

Not all recently leaked movies could be traced back to this Vimeo account. It’s a much broader issue. For example, The Best Thing About Christmas screener was also publicly available, posted on Vimeo by the official account weeks before it leaked.

A screenshot from the leak, shown below, notes that it’s a director’s cut. The same cut was also posted on Vimeo.

When we reached out to the filmmakers, they informed us that the screener was not meant to be publicly accessible. They believed that it had been shared privately with specific people. That is clearly not the case here.

Similar uploads are common elsewhere on the video platform. A copy of Extreme Family was published in early July by an account linked to a Vietnamese film organization, before it appeared on pirate sites.

Similarly, a copy of the film American Cryptids was uploaded to Vimeo by a Florida-based industry insider in early August. Soon after, a ‘leak’ appeared on pirate sites, days in advance of the official theatrical premiere on Friday, August 15.

The person who shared the American Cryptids film on Vimeo did not respond to our request for comment, but the upload is now password protected. This suggests that it wasn’t meant to be publicly accessible either.

The more we dig on Vimeo, the more films we find. These include dozens of unreleased films, but also several films that were posted on Vimeo longer ago, before their official releases. These are linked to the accounts of industry insiders, ranging from small production outfits to videographers’ personal accounts.

Without additional comments from the players involved, we don’t know if these public uploads were the result of a misunderstanding about Vimeo’s privacy settings or if there is more to it than that. Whatever the reason, it’s a bombshell and a wake-up call all the same.

—

Note: we privately tested the privacy setting on Vimeo videos and that appears to work as intended.

From: TF , for the latest news on copyright battles, piracy and more.

The UK’s Online Safety Act (OSA) claims to protect children but has faced fierce criticism for censoring everything from legitimate news reporting from war zones, to critical discussion of the Act itself.

There are many problems, not least a requirement for adults in the UK to prove their identity when accessing sites meeting criteria dictated by Ofcom. Large sites, many in the United States, face huge fines for allowing children to access age-inappropriate content.

This means that unverified adults are treated as children with the same content restrictions. Ofcom’s global threats have led some sites to conclude that the safest option is to ban UK visitors altogether.

Degraded Internet Experience? Hand Over Your Papers

Successive UK governments understood there were risks, or rather, they were informed of the risks and went ahead regardless. Whether the internet is any safer is almost impossible to measure; the same can’t be said for the hours wasted or lost, and the corresponding increases in blood pressure, all thanks to artificial restrictions that punish those who value their privacy.

Guided by the mantra, “a problem shared is a problem halved” those who air their OSA grievances in public find themselves presented with a 50/50 ultimatum. According to Peter Kyle, Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology, those with an opinion on the legislation fall into two categories:

1) People who want to protect kids and 2) People who side with online predators.

You’re Either With Us, or Against Us

The imposition of a binary choice is a well-worn political tactic. It aims to shut down dissent and/or discredit the speaker; in this case ordinary members of the public branded ‘predator enablers’ by a government minister.

VPN users warranted direct advice; no allegations this time but a suggestion that, just like the unverified, VPN users aren’t helping to keep children safe.

In the event that the above fails to silence the troublemakers, the UK government has recently been discovered filing requests with overseas companies to delete posts made by UK citizens’ criticizing certain aspects of government policy. A United States Department of State report , criticizing the UK government for degrading the right to freedom of expression, remains stubbornly accessible.

No Border Too Distant

Of course, attempting to silence the State Department would be a truly historic mistake, especially in the wake of comments made by Metropolitan Police Commissioner Sir Mark Rowley.

Last summer Rowley threatened to “throw the full force of the law at people” for unacceptable social media comments, warning that “whether you’re in this country committing crimes on the streets or committing crimes from further afield online, we will come after you.”

Widely interpreted as a warning to citizens of the United States, and by extension a direct threat to their constitutional rights, U.S. officials intervened. Congressman Keith Self warned that “harassing Americans will do absolutely nothing to resolve Great Britain’s internal issues” and risks damaging the US/UK alliance.

As the United States attempts to introduce home turf pirate site blocking from three different directions , the UK government is already preparing to take site blocking to the next level.

Thanks to provisions in the Online Safety Act, the UK will soon begin drawing on 15 years of pirate site blocking experiences, to block regular sites that fail to meet their ‘obligations’ as laid out in the legislation .

Site Blocking For The People?

Ofcom’s stated purpose is to serve the public, within duties defined by parliament, independently, using funds provided by the companies in the sectors it regulates. As regulator, Ofcom doesn’t need permission from the public to start blocking sites, although general approval would likely make the process less controversial.

With the whole world watching and various platforms waiting to see if Ofcom’s threats of global enforcement can be ignored, there’s little room for error.

In the current climate any blocking could be perceived as a further restriction of free speech, or even straightforward censorship. The conundrum is how to make site blocking appear less like censorship while satisfying the people that it’s absolutely necessary. It’s a big ask, but not impossible.

The Pirate Bay: Default Poster Child of Piracy Blocking

In 2012 when the major recording labels obtained their first UK site blocking injunction on copyright grounds, they could’ve picked a no-name MP3 download site and walked away with an easy win. They picked The Pirate Bay instead, and not just because of the site’s profile and unparalleled infamy.

#1 Perfect Candidate: After years in the headlines, The Pirate Bay’s belligerent stance was well understood and at this point, helpfully predictable. First, there was never any chance of TPB spontaneously complying with copyright law. Since blocking injunctions came to exist for the purpose of tackling uncooperative entities, no candidate was more perfectly matched than the most uncooperative pirate site in the world.

#2 No Appearance? No Win: The odds of TPB’s operators making an appearance at the High Court in London were always vanishingly slim, but not just for the reasons one might expect. The site’s alleged operators were never served in the blocking case, and they never appeared at the hearing. In fact, the site wasn’t represented in any way, at any stage.

#3 If Done Right, No Defense: After it was determined that the law didn’t require TPB’s operators to be named as defendants, they were effectively excluded from the process. The ISPs were the defendants in this “no fault” case, and when they were ordered to block TPB, the terms of the injunction were those previously agreed in discussion with the labels.

Describing this as an ‘easy win’ would be a disservice to the work put in by the labels. Nothing was left to chance and the end result spoke for itself. The Pirate Bay and its function needed no introduction, and among supporters and opponents alike, acceptance that it exists for the purpose of infringement on a massive scale, was never in doubt.

That the process was entirely one-sided was neither here nor there. Nobody was surprised by the choice of target or the eventual outcome; in the bigger picture, controversy was kept to a minimum.

Now it’s Ofcom’s turn to convince, or simply inform the public, that blocking non-pirate sites benefits everyone. On paper, the notorious 4chan forum ticks all the right boxes and presumably no match for the well-resourced Ofcom.

4chan: Poster Child of Regular Site Blocking?

One can only imagine the reaction at 4chan when Ofcom advised that it had new obligations under a foreign law. Section 9(2) of the Act requires certain platforms to undertake an illegal content risk assessment, to assess the risks of users encountering ‘illegal’ content on their platforms.

The requirements were published February 24, 2025, and the ‘Illegal Content Duties’ came into effect on 17 March 2025. On April 14, Ofcom issued a ‘formal information notice’ to 4chan demanding a copy of its Illegal Content Risk Assessment and not surprisingly, received no reply.

In common with The Pirate Bay, 4chan’s non-compliance was almost inevitable. When accompanied by threats to disrupt its business, including by obtaining a court order to compel payment processors, advertisers, and hosting providers to stop doing business, while levying fines of £20,000 per day, non-compliance was effectively guaranteed. In this respect, 4chan’s response was entirely predictable.

4chan Unlikely to Attend Court in the UK

As highlighted previously, cases are more easily won when it’s understood that the defendant won’t make an appearance. We can safely assume that 4chan has the same number of tickets to London as it does Illegal Content Risk Assessments so, no, it will not attend. So far, so good then? Not exactly.

Ofcom launched its 4chan investigation on June 10, to determine compliance with various duties under the Online Safety Act.

Did 4chan adequately respond to a statutory information request? Has it conducted and kept a record of its illegal content risk assessment? Is it complying with its safety duties, including protecting its users from ‘illegal’ content?

Ofcom currently has no answers to these questions but did learn something new this week. Not only has 4chan hired extremely capable attorneys in response to Ofcom’s threats, any action by Ofcom will be resisted in the United States under Federal Law.

New Jurisdiction, Different Ball Game

Since Ofcom’s threats are viewed as undermining 4chan’s constitutional rights, its attorneys believe that no court in America will allow foreign penalties to be enforced in the United States. Once people begin speaking about that, the damage will have been done.

Given the offense caused by last year’s threats by UK police against U.S. citizens, and similar events since then, the final three paragraphs of the statement above seem especially relevant.

By selecting 4chan as a potential target for enforcement, knowing all too well it would refuse to comply, a stand-off has been engineered between UK censorship measures nobody asked for, and the constitutional rights of all Americans.

If the hallmarks of the win in The Pirate Bay case were predictability, inability to mount any defense, and the avoidance of controversy, this is only just short of a complete disaster. .

Who’s in Charge of Government Policy?

Further escalation at the political level in the event Ofcom digs in, may demand intervention at the highest level. For Prime Minister Keir Starmer, that does not bode well

First, Ofcom is independent, so that may not even be possible. Second, consider this recent exchange between JD Vance and Keir Starmer himself on the erosion of free speech in the UK.

Vance: “We also know that there have been infringements on free speech that actually affect not just the British. Of course, what the British do in their own country is up to them, but they also affect American technology companies and by extension American citizens. So that is something that we’ll talk about today at lunch.”

Starmer : “We’ve had free speech for a very long time in the United Kingdom and uh..uh.. and it will last for a very, very long time. Well no, I mean we certainly wouldn’t want to reach across to US citizens…and we don’t…and that’s absolutely right.

Ofcom begs to differ, clearly; so who is in charge here? Why doesn’t the Prime Minister know that the UK is actively “reaching across to US citizens?” Unfortunately, Ofcom has a reputation for not backing down. On the plus side, it hasn’t imposed any penalties to back down from yet, so there is that.

From: TF , for the latest news on copyright battles, piracy and more.

The Online Copyright Infringement Tracker (OCI) has provided data on piracy carried out online for more than a decade. After publication of Wave 12 in 2022 , there was no report covering 2023.

The latest Wave 13 edition covers online infringement in 2024, spanning various categories including movies, music, TV shows, and live sports. The online survey component was conducted among a representative 5,000 person sample of the UK population aged 12 and above.

OCI Wave 13 (2024)

The headline figure reveals a small decrease in the overall piracy rate, from 32% in 2022 to 29% in 2024. This figure represents the proportion of the total sample who had accessed any online content illegally during the previous three months. While any improvement will be welcomed by rightsholders, the authors of the report say the figure should be interpreted with caution due to the addition of new content categories and methods of access.

The software category showed the most progress, with the infringement rate falling from 38% in 2022 to 31% in 2024. Audiobook piracy developed in the opposite direction, increasing from 22% in 2022 to 30% last year.

In most of the other categories, infringement rates are close to those reported two years ago. Live sports, software, digital magazines, and audiobooks show above average piracy rates, and music, TV, video games, and ebooks, all show rates below average.

↑ Music Piracy Infringement Rate ↑

Music infringement rates increased marginally from 25% in 2022 to 26% in 2024. The figure relates to those who used a mix of legal and illegal sources in the preceding three months.

This means that for the last two waves, the overall piracy rate for music has stayed above the 24% rate reported in 2015, which preceded several year-on-year reductions. (red line denotes change in methodology)

In 2019 and 2020, the number of listeners consuming exclusively from legal sources showed slight increases, with those consuming exclusively from illegal sources remaining fairly static. Since then, legal-only consumers have fallen, with the percentage of respondents consuming from illegal sources increasing compared to previous years (47% vs. 45%).

In 2024, 53% of respondents said they only accessed music legally, with less than half (19%) relying exclusively on piracy.

Downloading was the dominant method used to access pirated music in 2024, with just 2% of respondents streaming using a mix of legal and illegal sources. No respondents reported streaming illegally. Overall, it’s estimated that around eight million people pirate at least some music in the UK

↑ Movie Piracy Infringement Rate ↑

In 2024, the overall infringement rate for movies continued on an upwards trend, from 24% in 2022 to 27% in 2024.

This three percentage point increase means a return to the highest overall movie piracy infringement rate recorded back in 2019. That high of 27% was due to an eight point shock increase over the rate reported in 2018 (19%), which in turn was the lowest rate recorded since 2015.

Wave 13 data (2024) shows 73% of respondents downloading movies exclusively from legal sources, with 17% utilizing both legal and illegal. One in ten (10%) respondents pirated everything they consumed.

Infringement via streaming sources was relatively low, with 17% mixing legal/illegal and just 4% obtaining everything from illegal sources. In Wave 12 (2022), 83% of respondents said they relied solely on legal sources to stream movies, a figure that dropped four points to 79% in Wave 13 (2024).

→ TV Piracy Infringement Rate ←

In 2024, the overall infringement rate for TV shows was 19%, unchanged from the previous wave in 2022.

While significantly higher than the 14% recorded in both 2020 and 2021, today’s overall piracy rate for TV content remains lower than the 21% recorded nine years ago.

The data on consumption sources shows 80% of respondents downloading exclusively from legal sources in 2024.

This represents a marginal improvement over figures reported in 2022, which had deteriorated following an all-time high in 2021. Those who downloaded all TV content illegally sat at 8% in 2024, with 11% downloading from a mix of legal/illegal sources.

The study found little change in the rate of TV show infringement purely via streaming, with 13% using a mix and just 2% using illegal sources exclusively.

↑ Live Sport Piracy Infringement Rate ↑

In 2024, the overall infringement rate for live sports was 38%, an increase of two points over the previous wave in 2022.

Live sports consumption appeared in its own category in the OCI tracker for the first time in 2019 and, apart from a Covid-related dip in 2021, has shown consistently high rates of infringement.

The latest figure of 38% in Wave 13 has the dubious honor of being the highest rate recorded since 2019. While this isn’t considered a significant increase in the study, data on the sources used to watch live sports may be a cause for concern.

Data from 2024 shows a decrease in legal-only live sports consumption (62% of respondents in 2024) and a similar one point decrease in exclusively illegal consumption to 14% (15% in 2022). The study provides additional context:

• Exclusive use of illegal sources highest among those aged 16-24 (28%)
• Exclusive use of illegal sources in other age groups (8% to 20%)
• Those with a high passion for live sport are most likely to infringe (44%)

While use of paid subscriptions to music streaming services increased by 3% (57% of respondents), paid subscriptions to sports streaming platforms fell by 8% in 2024 (51% of respondents). Meanwhile, paid subscriptions to pirate IPTV providers to access live sports were up 4% and used by 12% of respondents.

“In the qualitative phase, some participants mentioned having to abandon subscriptions to live sports, due to managing this cost alongside other increasing costs,” the study’s authors reveal.

“Participants suggested that, in the future, they would need to further decrease their consumption of live sports subscriptions and settle for free broadcasts on terrestrial TV.”

Headline Figures & Key Drivers of Infringement

The study found that music is pirated by more people than any other media, 9.9 million in total. An estimated 8.9 million people pirate movies, with 6.2 million getting their TV fix from pirate sites.

Live sports piracy is yet to topple the three main categories, but with 3.9 million people getting at least some events for free, the numbers are significant.

No real surprises or big changes in the dominant categories, but there’s potential for live sports to continue on an upward trend, and with an eight-point increase, audiobooks seem like a category to watch.

The study suggests that the rising costs of living, which include increased prices for music, TV/film, and video games subscriptions, all contribute to infringement levels.

The perception of unfair or high pricing for legal services, especially when multiple subscriptions are required, is cited as a main driver for illegal content access, with saving money the key benefit.

The Online Copyright Infringement Tracker Survey (13th Wave) is available here (ODT)

From: TF , for the latest news on copyright battles, piracy and more.

Sports streaming services are popular worldwide, with different regions having their local favorites.

In Latin America, the Magis TV brand is particularly popular but another name also popped up more frequently: ‘Al Ángulo TV’.

Al Ángulo was available through various domain names as well as an Android app, offering access to a variety of pirated sports streams. As its logo suggests, football was a particularly popular sport on the service.

‘Al Ángulo TV’ Operator Arrested

The streaming service stood out as its alleged operator, known online as ‘Shishi’ (real name Alejo Leonel Warles), was both active and visible on social media. Just a few days ago, Al Ángulo’s official X account celebrated 100,000 followers , a figure that has since skyrocketed to over 125,000 today. The reasons for the increase aren’t what Warles had hoped for.

Yesterday, Warles was arrested by local authorities in the city of Paraná, Argentina. The arrest, carried out by the San Isidro DDI, was approved by a local court following a month-long criminal investigation led by the Specialized Cybercrime Investigation Unit (UFEIC) of San Isidro, Buenos Aires.

The investigation received key support from international organizations, including the Alliance Against Audiovisual Piracy (ALIANZA) and Spain’s professional football league, LaLiga, which were both directly affected by Al Ángulo’s activities.

At the time of writing, the main domain of the service, which received over three million visits in July, is unreachable. This suggests that the operation was effectively shut down by the law enforcement operation.

Catch Me if You Can

According to a report from Infobae , Warles previously acknowledged the illegal nature of the service, while informing followers that ‘no one could catch him’. The alleged operator had also appeared in press interviews and was active on YouTube as W4RLES .

With this and other information, the authorities were able to connect the dots and then arrest the presumed brain behind the operation. Warles now faces charges for violating Law 11.723, Argentina’s copyright law, risking a multi-year prison sentence.

‘Al Ángulo TV’ reportedly generated revenues through advertising and direct user donations through virtual wallets and cryptocurrencies. During the raid on Warles’ home, authorities seized computers, cell phones, electronic devices, and various funds stored in the virtual accounts.

David vs. Goliath Fundraiser

The defendant is represented by attorney Fernando Madeo Facente, who will file a request for Warles to be released on bail, arguing that he has no prior criminal record. The attorney sees this case as a “David versus Goliath” battle.

“It’s similar to the case against the Fútbol Libre site. They’re multinational companies, and the Spanish LaLiga is involved in this. It’s David versus Goliath. A very powerful company versus a kid from a humble family,” Facente said, quoted by Infobae.

Shortly after the arrest, a fundraiser was launched to cover legal expenses and travel costs. This effort, purportedly backed by the family, is widely shared on social media .

According to Warles’ attorney, this swift action demonstrates that powerful forces, including LaLiga, are driving the case. Rightsholders, in turn, will see it as evidence that Argentinian authorities are taking piracy seriously.

From: TF , for the latest news on copyright battles, piracy and more.

With nearly 700 million monthly active users across over 180 markets, Spotify is the world’s most popular music streaming service by a significant margin.

The streaming giant has always positioned itself as a competitor to pirate services, but its success also relied on pirates. In the early days, Spotify allegedly used MP3s from The Pirate Bay to populate its beta service. The notorious Swedish torrent site was instrumental in other ways too.

Times change, however, and today online piracy and related tools are a major nuisance for the Swedish company. They get in the way of selling subscriptions and hurt the company’s bottom line.

Spotify Takes Down ‘EeveeSpotify’

EeveeSpotify, a software tweak for iOS that allowed users to access premium features without having to sign up for a paid subscription, was especially popular. Like its defunct predecessor Spotilife, it offered an ad-free listening experience, access to lyrics, and the ability to play any song on demand.

Developer ‘whoeevee’ posted pre-compiled IPA application packages on GitHub, so users could easily download an already modified version of the Spotify app, including the necessary tweaks.

After EeveeSpotify gained substantial traction over the past year, Spotify stepped in, asking GitHub to remove the entire repository from its platform.

“The files identified below were derived from unauthorized copies of the Spotify Copyrights and/or the files identified below are derivative works based on the Spotify Copyrights,” Spotify wrote , listing the entire EeveeSpotify repository as problematic.

The takedown notice specifically mentions derivatives. This is accurate, as EeveeSpotify was distributed pre-compiled and included the Spotify application’s original copyrighted code. As a result, GitHub took action, disabling the entire repository as well as more than 500 forks.

‘EeveeSpotify Reborn’

The removal was a disappointment for many users as well as the developer. However, ‘whoeevee’ read the notice carefully and concluded that there may be a way for the popular code tweak to survive in the form of ‘ EeveeSpotifyReborn ‘.

Soon after Spotify’s DMCA notice was honored by GitHub, the developer posted a new repository on GitHub offering the same functionality, but with a key difference. EeveeSpotifyReborn does not include the IPA packages containing Spotify’s copyrighted code.

“The original EeveeSpotify repository was disabled due to a DMCA takedown. This repository will not contain the IPA packages, as they are most likely the reason for the takedown,” the developer notes.

Without an easy sideloading option, some users may find it harder to install the tweak. However, the developer no longer directly infringes Spotify’s copyright. At the same time, the legal responsibility for modifying the Spotify app shifts more towards the end-user who applies the patch.

Whether this will ensure availability of the code going forward is unknown. In its takedown notice, Spotify also mentions that it uses protection measures to control access to copyrighted content. The company may argue that the tweak violates the anti-circumvention provision of the DMCA and enables wider infringement by users of the tweak.

For now, EeveeSpotifyReborn, which already has more than 100 forks on GitHub, remains online.

From: TF , for the latest news on copyright battles, piracy and more.

A little over three years ago, SmoothStreams was considered one the most reliable and well-known pirate IPTV providers. Several years of what appeared to be fairly plain sailing in relatively calm waters proved to be deceptive.

Following a years-long investigation, a huge coalition of entertainment industry companies including Bell Media and Rogers Media, members of MPA-Canada (Motion Picture Association Canada) and ACE (Alliance for Creativity and Entertainment), were preparing to shut SmoothStreams down.

The End of SmoothStreams

On June 17, 2022, Bell, Rogers, Disney, Paramount, Columbia, Warner Bros., and Universal filed a statement of claim against Marshall Macciacchera and Antonio Macciacchera (son and father respectively). According to the plaintiffs, these men were not just the operators of SmoothStreams, but were also behind several linked platforms including live247.tv, StreamTVNow.tv and StarStreams.tv.

Armed with an Anton Piller order issued by judge, the plan was to gain entry to various premises and quickly secure crucial evidence to prevent tampering or even destruction. With potential prison sentences for failing to respect this type of order, those targeted are expected to comply and that’s usually what happens. Not here .

As individuals their responses differed, but the bottom line was broadly the same for both men. Neither fully complied with the order and for that there would be consequences. The men were accused of contempt of court, an offense punishable by fines or even a custodial sentence.

The Long Haul and Mounting Costs

The substantial end of SmoothStreams was never really in doubt but whether there would ever be a normal trial was a completely different matter.

The plaintiffs quickly sought an order finding Marshall Macciacchera and several affiliated companies in contempt for failing to comply with the terms of an interim order. Failure to make financial disclosures, refusing to answer questions regarding assets, and failure to provide login credentials led to Marshall and the companies being charged with contempt in July 2022.

All Defendants Found Guilty of Contempt

Antonio faced a separate proceeding and a contempt judgment in the summer of 2023. He was ordered to pay ~CAD$95,000 (~US$70,900) to the plaintiffs to cover their costs.

In Marshall’s case, a contempt hearing spanning four days took place in April 2023, with additional submissions on five occasions to January 2024. The court concluded beyond a reasonable doubt that the terms of the interim order were knowingly breached; Marshall and three affiliated companies – Arm Hosting Inc., Star Hosting Limited, and Roma Works Limited – were all found guilty of contempt.

In an order dated August 21, 2024, the defendants were instructed to pay a lump sum amount of CAD$375,312.93 (~US$270,600) to cover the plaintiffs’ costs, an amount for which they were held jointly and severally liable.

For Marshall and Antonio, these costs were just the beginning; penalties for contempt were yet to be decided.

Plaintiffs Demand Custodial Sentences

The entertainment company plaintiffs informed the defendants that they would seek an initial term of imprisonment of up to six months for both men, to continue until they complied with the terms of the interim order. They were expected to “cure their contempt” by providing the information, documentation, and passwords that they had been ordered to provide.

The proposals put forth by Antonio and Marshall were considerably less punitive.

Antonio recommended that he should receive a 30-day term of imprisonment to be served on weekends, or 30 days of house arrest, for failing to provide financial information.

Marshall proposed a prison term of one week for his failure to comply with the terms of the interim order, without an offer to provide the plaintiffs with passwords, documents, and other information.

Concerned that custodial sentences would elevate flight risk, the plaintiffs highlighted track records of non-compliance, almost 100 questions yet to be answered, and significant costs yet to be paid, together representing an ongoing challenge to the Court’s authority. Marshall’s response to the plaintiffs asking whether he intended to cure his contempt by handing over a password, was provided to the court as an example.

>

After thorough consideration, the Court ordered Marshall and Antonio to surrender their passports to the Federal Court no later than 09:00 on the first day of their penalty hearing. There they would remain under seal until delivery of their penalty judgment, to be returned only when all appeals had been exhausted.

Order For Marshall’s Arrest

Throughout this entire case the majority of filings have remained unavailable to the public. An order dated August 15 was just the latest in a long line but a public note suggested that freedom had indeed been taken off the table.

Reasons for Order and Order dated 15-AUG-2025 rendered by Chief Justice Crampton. Matter considered with personal appearance. The Court’s decision is with regard to Special Case Result:

“YOU ARE HEREBY ORDERED to: 1. Arrest Marshall Macciacchera, whose last known address is XXX-XXXX XXXXX XXXXXXX XXXX Woodbridge, Ontario XXX XXX, if it is necessary to do so in order to take him into custody.”

A follow-up note provides valuable context and reveals the fate of both men.

The court found that the defendants showed blatant disregard for the orders, which aimed to prevent the destruction of evidence and transfer of funds outside the jurisdiction.

The plaintiffs sought penalties including incarceration until compliance. The court ordered [Marshall] to serve an initial six-month sentence followed by a maximum of five years less one day for continued non-compliance, requiring the disclosure of assets and passwords.

[Antonio] received a four-month initial term with the same maximum extension. The court emphasized that these penalties are necessary to uphold the rule of law and deter future contemptuous conduct, given the absence of mitigating factors in this case.

From: TF , for the latest news on copyright battles, piracy and more.

There’s little doubt that online businesses reliant on advertising revenue are negatively affected by increasing use of ad blocking solutions.

Yet it’s thanks to abusive and invasive ads, and threats to privacy due to incessant online tracking, that ad blockers became so popular.

There’s a good argument today that an effective ad blocking solution is not just a way to keep out an avalanche of mostly unwanted advertising. In many cases ad blockers are seen as an essential tool in the internet user’s security toolbox and as a result, people are reluctant to turn them off.

Axel Springer Acquires Target, Misses, Switches to New Weapon

For German publisher Axel Springer, ad blocking solutions are mechanisms that fundamentally undermine the company’s ability to generate revenue. Hoping to force change, over a decade ago the company took legal action against Eyeo GmbH, the company behind Adblock Plus , arguing that the software interfered with its business model. In April 2018, Adblock Plus and Eyeo came out on top, when Germany’s Supreme Court found no breach of competition law.

Still determined to take ad blocking out of the game, Springer changed tack. In a new lawsuit, the publisher alleged that AdBlock Plus removes ads by interfering with the “programming code of websites” which violates its exclusive rights under copyright law.

Eyeo dismissed the claim as “almost absurd” and in January 2022 the Hamburg Regional Court denied Springer’s request for an injunction, ruling that there was no unauthorized copying or reworking of copyrighted computer programs as defined under local law.

Springer appealed and in 2023 lost again , this time at the Higher Regional Court of Hamburg. Refusing to accept defeat, the publisher filed yet another appeal at the Federal Court of Justice (BGH).

Treatment of Software Under German Copyright Law

While competition law may have been a dead end, copyright law can offer novel opportunities for the determined.

Axel Springer’s argument is built on provisions in German copyright law for the protection of software. According to § 69a para. 3 UrhG , a piece of software (‘computer program’) is afforded protection under copyright law if it “represents an individual work to the extent that it is the result of the author’s own intellectual creation.”

Protection applies to “all forms of expression” in the program but does not extend to “ideas and principles” underlying its elements. This effectively means that people can’t copy or distribute a piece of software verbatim, but they are free to write their own version of the software as long as there’s no direct copying of the original.

In more general terms, computer programs are treated as literary works under the Copyright Act and as such enjoy the same protection. This means that the author of a computer program (or their employer) holds exclusive rights to reproduce, distribute and make the program publicly available, just as an author of a book would.

Springer Argues Websites Are Computer Programs

Axel Springer argues that the software used to create its online media presence (i.e its website) qualifies for protection as software under § 69a (1) and (2) of the Copyright Act.

Based on the assumption that its software does indeed qualify for protection under § 69a, Axel Springer notes that further protection is afforded under § 69c, with certain exclusive rights granted to the rightsholder.

Under § 69c, third parties must obtain permission for any of the following acts:

§ 69c (2) “the translation, adaptation, arrangement and other modifications of a computer program as well as the reproduction of the results obtained.”

Axel Springer’s argument is that when Adblock Plus blocks or manipulates its website code (‘computer program’) present in the user’s browser, that amounts to a violation of its exclusive right of modification available under § 69c (2) and its reproduction right under § 69c (1).

Federal Court of Justice Overturns Decision of Lower Court

The above matters and others focused on the technical issues are detailed in the ruling handed down by the Federal Court of Justice (BGH). The ruling ( Werbeblocker IV / Ad Blocker IV ) is clearly a setback for Eyeo GmbH; the Higher Regional Court of Hamburg previously ruled in favor of the Cologne-based company, a decision the BGH has just overturned.

In a nutshell, the BGH states that the Hamburg court arrived at its decision without first establishing important fundamentals. These details may support the decision of the Hamburg court or undermine it, but that can only be determined once the facts are established.

“When examining whether an infringement of a copyrighted right to a protected object (here: a computer program within the meaning of Section 69a (1) of the Copyright Act) has occurred, it is not always necessary to determine whether this protected object meets the requirements of a copyrighted work, computer program, or related right. Rather, this circumstance can be assumed, provided that there is no unlawful infringement of copyright,” the decision reads.

“It should be noted, however, that the question of an infringement of a property right may depend on a clear definition of the protected object and its features justifying protection. Denying an infringement of a copyright-protected right while simultaneously assuming that the protected object in question is eligible for copyright protection is therefore only possible in such a case if the object itself deemed to be protected by copyright and the features justifying its protection are clearly defined.”

Technical Matters

Lubberger Lehment, the law firm acting for Axel Springer, highlights a technical aspect mentioned in the BGH decision which it believes warrants much closer attention.

“In particular, the Higher Regional Court did not sufficiently consider Axel Springer’s argument that a browser is a virtual machine controlled by a website program as byte code. In its reasoning, the Federal Supreme Court quotes in unusual detail what we presented with the help of external experts,” their statement reads.

The decision notes that this is not just about “changing variable data in the memory of a computer, but rather changing code created by the bytecode of the website ‘computer program’ as a form of expression of the website programming itself.”

For those interested in the technical argument, full details are available in the decision ( pdf , German) . Which elements will make or break the case, if any, is still unclear.

Outcome Could Have Far-Reaching Implications

The scale of the fallout from an Axel Springer win could be significant and given the background, hard to balance in the bigger picture. Switching to copyright law purely because competition law proved insufficient, suggests that copyright may have been viewed as a means to an end. Whether wider disruption will find balance in the benefits claimed by the plaintiffs is another question.

Lubberger Lehment state that the case isn’t just about protecting the integrity of online media.

“It is about the question of whether at all and in what quality online journalism can be offered and used in the future – it is about freedom of information without paywalls. This is fundamental to democracy,” the company writes.

Whether the developer community will come to view the following in a positive light remains to be seen.

“[T]he case is of fundamental importance for the entire software industry. This is because all browser applications work with the same technical components, namely HTML5, CSS, PHP, and Java Script. This affects all cloud-based applications such as computer games, standard software, SAP, etc. The ad blocker trial will determine whether this future technology is protected by copyright or can be manipulated at will by third parties.”

From: TF , for the latest news on copyright battles, piracy and more.

Under U.S. law, rightsholders have an option to identify alleged copyright infringers without directly having to file a lawsuit.

Instead, they can request a DMCA subpoena which is typically signed by a court clerk and don’t require any judicial oversight.

Specifically, they allow rightsholders to obtain the personal details of anonymous alleged infringers from third-party internet services where the infringing material was stored or shared. That includes hosting companies and social media platforms.

DMCA Shortcut?

The DMCA specifies that these subpoenas don’t apply to all online services. Mere conduit providers that simply pass on bytes are typically excluded, for example. However, that didn’t stop some rightsholders from using this shortcut to request information from residential ISPs.

Drawing inspiration from the RIAA’s efforts to identify music pirates in the early 2000s, more recently they used the DMCA subpoena process to obtain the personal details of suspected copyright infringers.

Courts in the United States ruled out use of DMCA subpoenas in this context over two decades ago, but more recent attempts presented fresh interpretations while highlighting conflicting case law . Many court clerks granted these new subpoena requests, which required Internet providers to identify hundreds, if not thousands, of alleged pirates.

Cox Successfully Intervened, Filmmakers Appealed

After rightsholders obtained similarly broad DMCA subpoenas from courts around the U.S., Internet provider Cox Communications intervened in one of those cases to defend a subscriber who objected to the handover of their information.

In common with the opposition that ruled out the use of DMCA subpoenas in the early RIAA case, the ISP argued that these subpoenas don’t apply to mere conduit providers, as defined under § 512(a) of the DMCA.

The Hawaii District Court agreed with Cox’s reasoning last year and quashed the subpoena. The ruling concluded that DMCA subpoenas typically don’t apply to DMCA §512(a) services, but do apply to other providers that store or link to infringing content directly.

The film companies, including Capstone Studios and Millennium Funding, didn’t give up, however. After an initial motion for reconsideration failed, they filed an appeal at the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Among other things, the appeal argued that Cox also falls under the definition of DMCA §512(d) providers, as it can remove or disable ‘references or links’ to infringing content.

The rightsholders further argued that DMCA subpoenas also apply to § 512(a) service providers, so should be valid for Cox.

Court of Appeals Keeps Shortcut Closed

After hearing both sides, the Ninth Circuit ruled in favor of Cox, confirming the lower court’s decision. This means that DMCA subpoenas cannot be used to compel residential ISPs to identify subscribers who allegedly pirated content.

The Court ruled that the subpoena process is “inextricably intertwined” with the DMCA’s “notice and takedown” framework. This means that a valid subpoena can only be issued following a takedown notice that identifies content that should be removed or disabled.

Since an ISP like Cox does not store the files users share via BitTorrent, there is nothing for it to “take down”. Therefore, a valid notification cannot be sent, and a subpoena cannot be issued.

The film companies had argued that by assigning IP addresses and routing traffic, Cox was effectively “linking” subscribers to infringing content. The Court rejected this argument, noting that, based on this logic, the § 512(d) safe harbor would “completely swallow” the § 512(a) safe harbor, as every ISP performs this function.

Finally, the Court dismissed the filmmakers’ argument that Cox could “disable access” via port blocking or null routing. The Court concluded that these measures would not remove the infringing material from the internet.

MPA, RIAA, EFF and Congress

The ruling is in line with previous decisions from other circuits, solidifying the use of DMCA subpoenas as off-limits.

This is good news for subscribers who were at risk of being identified through this shortcut. Rightsholders can still request their identities, but only after filing a regular lawsuit, a more expensive process and harder to scale up.

The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), which submitted an amicus brief in the case, previously argued that allowing these subpoenas would empower “copyright trolls” and lead to coercive settlement demands against ordinary internet users. That concern is off the table now.

The MPA and RIAA will be less pleased with the Ninth Circuit’s decision. While they took no side in the dispute, they feared that the lower court’s ruling against DMCA subpoenas could interfere with their efforts to obtain details of infringers through third-party services such as Cloudflare.

The movie and music industry’s anti-piracy groups filed an amicus brief arguing for a “narrow ruling” that would not reject the possibility that an IP address could function as a “link” under the § 512(d) safe harbor.

However, the Ninth Circuit did not issue a narrow ruling. On the contrary, it confirmed that connecting a user to the internet and assigning them an IP address does not “link” or “refer” that user to any particular infringing material.

The Court did exactly what the MPA and RIAA feared it might do. Of course, this case applies to a residential ISP, Cox, and if a similar challenge is filed in cases where Cloudflare or other providers are targeted, other arguments may be brought to the table.

All in all, the Court of Appeals clarified that rightsholders will have to use the more expensive route if they want to identify alleged BitTorrent pirates. The Court did say that it understood the challenges rightsholders face, but stressed that these should be addressed by lawmakers.

“We are sympathetic to this argument, but whether the DMCA provides a sufficient remedy for copyright holders to vindicate their rights against infringers using P2P networking is ultimately a question for Congress, not the courts,” the decision concludes.

—

The decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, issued on August 15, is available here (pdf)

From: TF , for the latest news on copyright battles, piracy and more.