Nearly a quarter of a century after its debut, internet users stocking up on the latest multi-GB Linux distros can still do so with help from the BitTorrent protocol.

Able to download chunks of even the largest files, distributed among other users who could be anywhere on the planet, BitTorrent’s file transfer skills are two decades old yet never fail to impress.

For those yet to sample the magic of magnet links, the whole process begins with a humble .torrent file. These relatively small files contain metadata relating to the large file the user wants to download, including the location of one or more ‘trackers’, the central online servers that facilitate communication between users’ torrent clients.

Yet the real magic lies in BitTorrent’s resilience; it has a secret weapon that can find those chunks of data, wherever they may be, even when central trackers are blocked or shut down. It’s called DHT – Distributed Hash Table – and it’s one of the key reasons BitTorrent still performs so well on the global stage, even today.

Trackers Are Useful But Disposable

A central server known as a tracker communicates with torrent clients to coordinate transfers of files between them. When a client requests a piece of a file the tracker knows is available, the tracker tells the client which other clients have it and from there, transfers take place peer-to-peer. Periodically, clients update the tracker with new information about the network, and so the cycle continues.

DHT, on the other hand, empowers torrent clients with the ability to receive and impart information directly with other clients. By creating distributed network knowledge, there’s no absolute need for a tracker, eliminating a potential central point of failure.

Peers knowledge of other peers is boosted by Peer Exchange or PEX , a system through which a client that’s connected to another client, shares the IP addresses of peers it already knows. This increases the recipient client’s pool of connectivity opportunities and, if all goes well, speeds up downloads.

When new clients join the DHT, other torrent clients share content locations with the newcomer and, given time, the client returns the favor by passing information to other clients following similar requests.

The process is boosted locally using PEX, but the aim is the same – discovery of other clients/peers to create a more robust network with more effective file transfers.

In short, DHT makes every client a node in a vast decentralized network, with each sharing their growing knowledge of the network with other clients, that in turn have knowledge they’ll automatically share with others.

No single client knows the location of everything and even the pooled knowledge of thousands is unlikely to produce a full network map. However, most clients know enough to point out the location of at least something useful, and with PEX, they’ll provide the locations of other clients which helps to strengthen the overall network.

To many people the sharing of content is the most visible aspect of BitTorrent, but its real strength lies in the sharing of information that maintains the underlying network. The network that underlies that obviously plays a massive role too.

Tens of Millions of Peers But Hard to Measure

In the bigger picture, the loss of few clients from public DHT is a non-event. Indeed, the sudden shut down of a major residential internet provider somewhere in the world may not be especially disruptive either, given the scale of the network. Yet putting an exact figure on the size of the network has to date proven elusive.

The lowest estimates always start in the millions of peers, with some researchers previously reporting anything from 20 to 30 million, sometimes a few million more, other times a few million less.

Researchers behind BoonTorrent , a now seven-year-old project to create a real-time monitoring tool for BitTorrent DHT traffic, reported that “BitTorrent traffic is abundant, but difficult to analyze. To capture enough data for significant analysis, a large distributed solution is needed.”

Their solution included a heatmap visualization of the previous two minutes of traffic, with two examples shown below.

Depending on the circumstances, we know that the number of peers can vary by at least 10 million, possibly more at times, or less.

That being said, these images suggest that Southeast Asia and Russia had quite the presence on BitTorrent’s DHT seven years ago. That’s a long time in internet years and everything is subject to change.

Some ISPs Play Big Roles Supporting DHT Worldwide

As far as we’re aware, there are no large, recent studies on BitTorrent’s DHT so the overall numbers remain as elusive as ever. However, when using the tools available at IPinfo.io , something unexpected appeared; tracking data for BitTorrent’s DHT and some estimates based on IPinfo’s visibility of the network.

The data displayed as of today concerns the number of IP addresses and their corresponding ASNs observed on the Mainline DHT in the past 30 days. The data obtained by TF from IPinfo.io just a few days ago is broadly the same.

When drilling down into the details, the data provides an overview of the ISPs with the greatest number of allocated IP addresses observed on the DHT network.

Top ISPs With a Strong Customer DHT Presence

With 3,152,801 IP addresses observed on the DHT during the previous 30 days, Russian ISP PJSC Rostelecom comfortably takes the top spot. Lagging two million IP addresses behind, Korea Telecom takes second place (1,143,168 IPs) with CHINANET-BACKBONE narrowly behind with 1,131,734 observed IPs.

Positioned between ISPs from China and Morocco, Comcast Cable Communications takes 9th place with 377,976 observed IP addresses, with the UK’s British Telecommunications PLC edging out competition from Egypt and Turkey with 218,365 IP addresses. Given the site-blocking measures in place at BT, that’s a considerable number of subscribers sharing content openly, with no apparent need for a VPN.

The full list is available below, with a bonus column of most popular content downloaded by users in each country, tracked by IKnowWhatYouDownloaded on the DHT itself. Ultimately, the data provides a clear snapshot of BitTorrent’s modern landscape and the international telecom giants its users connect from.

It’s worth noting that a) this view of the DHT may not be complete and b) countries without a dominant national ISP may have many smaller ISPs not covered in the report. Even with that caveat, pushing Russia from the top spot overall seems unlikely since it already appears three times in the same table.

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

The Supreme Court case between several major record labels and Internet provider Cox Communications is a landmark legal battle.

The outcome will determine how Internet providers should deal with pirating subscribers on their networks.

Should alleged pirates be disconnected from the Internet after repeated third-party allegations of copyright infringement? Or does that go too far?

As previously reported, the case revolves around contributory copyright infringement and has the potential for broader implications for other online services. The eventual verdict is destined to shape the future of U.S. copyright law, and major tech companies, including Amazon, Google, and Microsoft, have already spoken out in favor of Cox.

Yet the most powerful support comes from the U.S. government itself, which has now taken an additional step to make its position clear.

From Written Briefs to Oral Arguments

The Office of the Solicitor General advised the Supreme Court to take on the case earlier this year. And after Cox submitted its opening brief last month , the U.S. filed an amicus brief openly supporting Cox’s position .

The government’s brief argued that the Fourth Circuit’s decision wrongly applied U.S. copyright law. By doing so, many people may be at risk of losing internet access, while companies such as Cox face broad copyright liability rulings.

An amicus brief from the U.S. Government carries significant weight, and it doesn’t stop there either. This week, Solicitor General D. John Sauer formally requested to be heard during the upcoming oral arguments, which are scheduled to take place this fall.

In a motion filed on Monday, the Solicitor General asks for ten minutes of speaking time, which will be used to argue in favor of Cox. The ISP was granted thirty minutes, but it agreed to cede ten minutes of its time to the United States.

Oral arguments are a key part of a Supreme Court case, as they allow the parties to clarify complex issues. The Solicitor General is expected to argue against broad Internet disconnections, as the amicus brief revealed.

In this week’s motion, the U.S. clarifies that, while copyright protection is important for the country, public access to critical communication tools such as the Internet is vital too.

“The United States has a substantial interest in the effective protection of intellectual property, which represents a significant portion of the nation’s economy,” the solicitor general writes.

“At the same time, the United States has a substantial interest in fostering technological developments and beneficial uses of digital technologies and in ensuring the broad availability of critical communications services like the internet.”

The motion, which has yet to be granted, is a powerful signal to the Supreme Court that the executive branch has concerns over the potential negative consequences of holding ISPs broadly liable for user infringement. It shows that this case is more than a simple dispute between an ISP and record labels.

The Billion Dollar Question(s)

The lower court’s ruling under appeal effectively requires ISPs to take action against repeat infringers, which can include terminating the Internet connections of entire households. It is not difficult to see how that could inhibit key communication channels, including access to Government information.

The Supreme Court now has to decide if an internet service provider can be held contributorily liable for piracy carried out by its subscribers after the ISP has been notified of the infringing activity. Additionally, the Court will clarify whether that liability qualifies as “willful” even when the ISP believes its own conduct is lawful.

For Cox, however, the case is about much more than their subscribers well-being or the correct interpretation of copyright law. The internet provider was previously ordered to pay $1 billion in damages to the record labels, so the financial consequences could be severe.

—

A copy of the motion of the U.S. to participate in the oral argument as amicus curiae, signed by Solicitor General D. John Sauer, is available here (pdf)

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

Following its launch early 2024, Italy’s Piracy Shield blocking system was rarely out of the headlines for long.

Promoted as the ultimate solution to online piracy, hype and excitement soon gave way to the practical realities of a notoriously difficult working environment.

Despite a series of legal tweaks somehow managing to worsen already strained relationships with the country’s ISPs, the platform’s early demise proved as elusive as the end of piracy itself.

With seemingly little progress to report in the face of highly credible reports of collateral damage, fresh legal amendments in the summer signaled an expansion of Piracy Shield and new content to protect.

Not Just Football, All Live Events Become Eligible

Since the launch of the platform, blocking has mainly concerned the protection of Serie A football matches. However, there was always a plan for Piracy Shield to do more and at the end of July, amendments to expand availability of dynamic blocking injunctions to rightsholders of all live events were finally given the green light .

“With these measures, it will be possible to disable access to illegally disseminated content, during the first thirty minutes of the transmission of live content and premieres of cinematographic and audiovisual works or entertainment programs, as well as similar audio works,” AGCOM confirmed.

A big movie premiere seemed a likely candidate to get this new phase of blocking underway. However, among a trio of live blocking applications from broadcaster Sky, is a call to protect a live family TV show known all around the world.

Sky Hopes Piracy Shield Has the X Factor

The application seeking Piracy Shield protection for ‘X Factor 2025’ was filed September 12. According to AGCOM, Sky highlighted a serious, ongoing, and systematic violation of its rights due to illicit broadcasting of its Sky Uno channel. The focus was on the high-value X Factor franchise, to which Sky owns the exclusive broadcasting rights.

The systematic and illegitimate provision of the Sky Uno channel (EPG no. 108), published by Sky Italia srl, was detected at the internet addresses/URLs of the reported pirate service. From 11 September 2025 until 4 December 2025, Sky will broadcast the entertainment programme “X Factor 2025” on this channel for the first time […].

There is therefore a threat of imminent, serious and irreparable harm to Sky Italia srl, the exclusive owner of the rights to the programme in question.

Furthermore, given the timeframe for making the work available and the need to safeguard the economic value associated with these rights (which would inevitably be jeopardized in the absence of intervention to protect the first event from competition), the Authority is asked to order, as a precautionary measure, the cessation of the illegitimate conduct.

As always, AGCOM carried out an investigation of its own. The service’s domain (dtsinc.cc) was registered with US-based NameCheap but the registrant reportedly remains anonymous. The service uses Cloudflare as a reverse proxy but according to AGCOM, no information about hosting services is available.

In parallel, however, a separate live blocking application to protect Sky’s rights concerning the US Open tennis tournament, targeted the same pirate domain with a different sub-domain. In that case, Cloudflare provided details that identified Romania-based hosting company NexonHost Srl.

AGCOM Issues Precautionary Blocking Order

After considering the circumstances of the complaint and satisfying itself that the IPTV provider in question is in breach of Italian law, AGCOM granted Sky’s blocking application, including Sky’s request for a dynamic injunction.

“The applicant has also requested that the recipients of this provision proceed, through subsequent reports, to block any future domain names, subdomains, or IP addresses, including variations of the name or simple declination or extension, attributable to the same content and through which the violations occur,” AGCOM noted as it gave the request the green light.

The fact that the X Factor TV series is broadcast live receives several mentions in AGCOM’s decision. Sky’s argument that the bulk of the value lies in the live broadcast is just as compelling as the arguments made to protect football. When combined with the rest of the evidence, which showed that infringement goes far beyond a single TV series, obtaining an injunction was just a formality.

“The Directorate believes that the requirements for initiating the precautionary procedure pursuant to Article 10 of the Regulation are met. Specifically, regarding the periculum in mora (danger in delay) , this is proven by the economic value of the infringed rights, whose value lies precisely in the first broadcast of the audiovisual content,” AGCOM’s order reads.

Scope of the Order

A blocking order against a single IPTV provider to protect one TV series seems somewhat inadequate given the limited lifetime of an X Factor series and the prevalence of alternative pirate suppliers. However, in common with similar blocking orders granted in Italy, there’s no attempt to specify narrow blocking windows to protect only the content specified in the application.

As a result, the injunction likely means persistent 24/7 blocking of an entire pirate IPTV service that will continue for as long as it takes, regardless of new domains, IP addresses or fresh identities it subsequently adopts. A liberal interpretation of the phrase “the same content” could mean authorization for blocking beyond a single service and most likely does, given the absence of follow-up requests in similar cases previously.

If Sky is able to keep up, and there’s every reason to believe that it will, blocking seems likely to continue until AGCOM removes the blocked domains and IP addresses from the master list. Unless absolutely necessary, that’s unlikely to happen anytime soon.

AGCOM’s blocking order is available here (pdf, Italian)

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

In the spring of 2012, Google formally launched its Copyright Transparency Report, sharing details on all copyright-related removal requests, including the targeted links and their senders.

In the years that followed, the number of reported URLs increased significantly. The company processed its five billionth DMCA takedown notice almost a decade later in 2021.

At the time, it appeared that the upward trends had reversed, with the number of takedown requests starting to decline substantially. However, that turned out to be the calm before the storm.

Google Search Transparency Resumes

In April this year, we reported that Google’s transparency reporting had stalled, freezing all public data since mid-April 2025 . This unexplained hiatus happened at a time when DMCA notices were rising rapidly, with hundreds of millions of URLs being flagged every week.

The lack of updates was a significant departure from the multiple-times-a-week schedule that had been in place for over a decade. These updates were at the center of much of our takedown reporting, including the 10 billion milestone reached less than a year ago.

Google Search resumed the public updates in its transparency report a few days ago. While it’s too early to tell whether the old updating schedule will be resumed, the newly shared figures indicate that there is no slowdown in the takedown volume at all.

5 Billion Reported URLs in a Year

As shown below, as of September 18, 2025, the company has received reports for 14,529,174,949 allegedly infringing URLs. This means that more than 2 billion were added over the past few months.

These are staggering numbers, especially when put into context. Over the past year, rightsholders asked Google to remove five billion URLs from search results, while it previously took nearly ten years to reach the same milestone.

At the current rate, assuming takedowns continue 24/7, an average of roughly half a million ‘pirate’ URLs are flagged every hour.

Publishers, Publishers, Publishers

A closer look at the data shows that the key players and targets remain largely the same. Dutch anti-piracy outfit Link-Busters continues to be a dominant force, sending a massive volume of requests on behalf of major book publishers.

Link-Busters alone is good for roughly three of the five billion URLs that were reported to Google over the past year. The same company, and the publishers it works for, are now responsible for more than 30% of all DMCA reports Google Search has received since 2012.

These notices are sent by Link-Busters on behalf of publishing giants including Penguin Random House, HarperCollins Publishers, and Hachette, making up the majority of all takedown efforts.

As shown above, Penguin Random House has taken the number one spot as the most active DMCA sender in the rightsholder category , taking over from the adult entertainment outfit MG Premium. Meanwhile, HarperCollins has secured the third place in this ranking, taking over from music industry group BPI.

All in all, the return of Google’s transparency report is a welcome development. It helps to paint a clearer picture of modern anti-piracy takedown efforts, a relentless, high-volume battle that shows no signs of slowing down, for now.

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

For top-tier football clubs around Europe, the start of a new season means the resumption of match-day anti-piracy measures and a prime opportunity to remind errant fans that piracy isn’t risk-free. Warnings usually appear in the media, often timed to coincide with real-life examples of why piracy should be avoided.

In Ireland, reports claimed that Sky and FACT had begun targeting retailers for selling pirate set-top boxes, a first according to FACT. Those reports coincided with an announcement from ACE revealing the closure of Streameast, a very large live sports streaming network that hijacked the branding of the original to gain traffic.

LaLiga’s Issues Piracy Warning But Leaves One Piracy Threat Out

Spain’s LaLiga opted for a campaign highlighting the dangers of piracy, warning that “You Get Pirated Football, They Get You.”

This is a reference to identity theft, financial fraud, malware, and privacy risks. Unfortunately, an illustrative screenshot is not available below due to YouTube’s tightening response to VPN use.

Yet, as Spaniards are by now well aware, the effects of LaLiga’s fight against piracy are not just real, but visibly so when match blocking takes place several times each week.

Under the authority of an order issued by a judge, LaLiga continues to block IP addresses belonging to companies including Cloudflare, on the basis they’re used by pirate sites. However, the same IP addresses are also shared with entirely legal websites which, through no fault of their own, also find themselves blocked.

LaLiga’s has a difficult choice when IP addresses are shared; it can block pirate sites and risk blocking any number of innocent sites at the same time, or protect innocent sites by walking away, having blocked no pirate sites at all. Having decided that the law protects its position , the league points towards Cloudflare as the source of the problem, while insisting that nothing of value gets blocked anyway.

Overblocking Returns But Meets a Trail of Evidence

LaLiga says that if anyone falls victim to over-blocking, they are free to file a complaint. Since it has received no complaints thus far, that’s interpreted as a clear sign that over-blocking doesn’t exist. In practical terms, however, attributing a website failure to over-blocking is extremely difficult for anyone other than the tech-savvy; proving it in the face of an insistence that over-blocking doesn’t even exist, is all but impossible without expensive, expert help.

Yet, if a new service lives up to its claims, that might be about to change. Operating from estalapagas.com (translated: ‘You Pay For This’) the Immutable Domain Monitor claims to offer a domain monitoring system. The system will monitor domains registered by users, check for any ISP blocking that affects those domains and, if any is detected, begin logging evidence. According to a notice on its front page, demand appears to be brisk.

“We are a community of net lovers documenting every attack on online freedom,” text on the site notes. “Who gave La Liga the right to make their content worth more than yours? Why can they trample on your freedom every weekend? The internet belongs to everyone and we all defend it.”

According to the team behind the service, match days are automatically certified and immutable logs (that cannot be modified or deleted) are cryptographically linked and stored on the blockchain, signed in BTC and ETH.

“With blockchain we leave an eternal record: no court, company, or power can erase the evidence. Each record is signed in time with OpenTimestamps and OriginStamp, ensuring its validity and authenticity. What we document today will still be there tomorrow, and a hundred years from now too,” the team add.

There’s no doubt that to have any chance of success, a challenge to the status quo must be supported by robust evidence. In that respect, using the blockchain makes perfect sense. Ensuring that the evidence is validated before entry is vital.

That might mean verifying the existence of an IP address block with a third party, input from Cloudflare, for example. In any event, a time-stamped notification to Cloudflare advising that blocking is underway might prove useful.

The system as described has the potential to play a very important role, but the team may also face additional issues, sooner rather than later, that aren’t directly addressed on the site.

Anonymous Team and Other Potential Pitfalls

On the service’s website, Immutable Domain Monitor describes itself as a “community of web lovers made up of developers, users, and activists committed to internet freedom.”

They state they are not a commercial company, but a “community initiative that uses blockchain technology as a tool for documentation and transparency.” The team’s mission is outlined in a series of bullet points.

We document attacks on digital freedom because we believe in:

Digital Equality: All domains deserve the same protection
Transparency: Blocks must be public, clear, and without harming third parties
Due Process: We reject arbitrary blocks and demand analysis and justification
Right to Information: Free access to legal content

From a community perspective the team clearly understands the critical issues. Yet total anonymity for the developers is both prudent on one hand, and a potential problem on the other.

If nobody is obviously accountable, the quality of the evidence could be vulnerable to a determined attack. Whether a mechanism exists to preserve anonymity, especially in the event that data needs to be presented in court, isn’t clear. A known and trusted “middle man” may be useful to confirm authenticity, build up trust in the media, also to protect the interests of the people intending to sign up.

One issue briefly raised by the team itself is the GDPR which may need to be addressed quite quickly. If there’s one thing that large corporations are mostly good at it’s compliance with regulations; noncompliance by a legal rival is likely to be spotted very quickly and could develop into an unwanted distraction.

Overall it’s good to see any initiative that genuinely aims to solve a really serious problem that isn’t getting the attention, or indeed the support, that it very obviously deserves.

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

In April 2011, a modest Russian‑language news portal, ‘bal‑con.ru’, ran an interview with two young entrepreneurs. The men were quietly working to solve a problem, identified by both as a barrier to book consumption in Russia.

“We found it strange that existing book websites on the Russian internet had plateaued at the level of the mid-20th century. They were incredibly inconvenient to use, requiring users to wade through vast lists of categories and authors,” the men complained.

“And yet, it was so tempting to just type the book you wanted into a search engine and download it immediately.”

The Pieces Move Into Position

In early January 2010, ideas of how to fix these problems began to take shape. Suitable technology to conveniently search for books, especially in large expanding libraries, had yet to arrive. Then in the mid-2000s, convenient e-readers began to gain traction.

“Our country loves to read, and so the demand for such devices was quite substantial,” the entrepreneurs recalled.

In parallel, another important development was underway: mass digitization of all types of books and, crucially, improving availability online.

“Our old book websites weren’t ready for this. The information on the pages was so cluttered that finding the book you were looking for became quite problematic. Moreover, people were gradually becoming accustomed to the minimalist and user-friendly interfaces of popular search engines.

“So why not create a similar search engine, but for books? After all, users value their time above all else; they value results, not sifting through tables of contents and author lists.”

I Came, I Typed, I Downloaded

The solutions to these problems, and others that would in time prove highly controversial, were built by the men and presented in a site known locally as Букфи. It had a simple but compelling USP.

“We will save the user from an unnecessary waste of time, giving him only what he wants – a link to the book,” the men recalled.

Who came up with the slogan “Пришел, набрал, скачал” ( loosely – I Came, I Typed, I Downloaded ) still isn’t clear but for those in search of books, Букфи did its best to provide the answers.

In the West, the answers were supplied in English on BookFinder (Bukfi), a site operating from a URL that will likely feel familiar to millions of modern-day book pirates even today. With Bookfi.org, the men would soon have an international hit on their hands.

Living The Dream

“Bookfi.org is a free electronic library. We believe that books are the property of society, their access should not be limited,” the interviewer at bal‑con.ru was informed.

“We want to create the largest library, both artistic and scientific, reference, and technical literature. To begin with, our library must be the largest in the Runet. Subsequently, we plan to expand and become the largest library on the Internet.”

After the men embarked on their quest, tracking developments became less straightforward.

Representing one half of the entrepreneurial duo, the fate of Vladislav Chikhira isn’t clear. But for his partner in crime – quite literally according to rapidly changing attitudes to piracy in the West – the impossible dream certainly wasn’t impossible, nor was it a typical dream. At times, in fact, it looked more like a nightmare.

As Bookfi developed and morphed this way and that, site variants including B-OK.org also made their mark on the growing and increasingly global ‘shadow library’ scene.

The impact of the variant known as Z-Library was huge; it would see the other half of the Bukfi duo, St. Petersburg resident Anton Napolsky, transformed from an eBook search problem-solver a decade or so earlier, into the prime target of an international manhunt led by the FBI.

Z-Library: The End of the Beginning

The law enforcement operation against Z-Library, carried out by the Postal Inspection Service, in collaboration with the U.S. Department of Justice, is well documented, at least up to a point. Around November 4, 2022, a wave of suspensions targeted Z-Library’s domains, including the prominent z-lib.org, b-ok.org, and 3lib.net.

Within days the scale of the operation became more clear. Over 130 domains with links to Z-Library had been disabled; in time, the running total would exceed 350.

Meanwhile, news began to emerge of a lawsuit in the United States, which accused two Russian nationals – Anton Napolsky and his partner Valeriia Ermakova – of criminal copyright infringement, wire fraud, and money laundering.

As previously reported, the alleged operators of Z-Library had already been arrested in Argentina, from where authorities in the United States planned to extradite them, ostensibly to stand trial in the criminal prosecution of Z-Library.

From Little Acorns Mighty Disputes Grow

Even during the interview on April 4, 2011, signs of Bukfi’s upward trajectory were difficult to ignore. In the previous month alone, almost 19,000 additional titles were uploaded to the site. Official site stats reported 880,419 books, written by 124,539 authors, all available for free download.

While still a large collection, it was no match for the 12 million titles eventually boasted by Z-Library, the site born from Bukfi’s DNA. There’s no doubt the scale aggravated increasingly frustrated rightsholders, and fuelled the criminal prosecution in 2022, but perhaps surprisingly, relationships hadn’t always been so frosty.

In 2011, Chikhira and Napolsky revealed that their site was hosted in Amsterdam, with a nod towards the favorable legal environment of the day. Yet, copyright disputes were nearly always settled in favor of copyright holders, in part due to communication that aimed to solve their differences.

“With several publishers and rights owners, we have established friendly relations, which allows us to put popular books on the site to share. We always try to negotiate with the copyright holders and come to a compromise – most often it succeeds,” they said.

It would be naïve to conclude that friendly negotiations were ever on the table in 2022. Or that in 2011 the men were oblivious to the risks of dominating the publishing space with one of the world’s largest repositories of pirated books.

Law, Politics, and Mystery

In reality, Napolsky and partner Ermakova could’ve eliminated most of the risks by remaining inside Russia. After visiting around 100 countries without any major issues, their luck eventually ran out in Argentina. At least for a while.

In their battle to avoid extradition , the pair experienced some positives and some negatives. As reported here in more detail, a judge’s decision to extradite was obviously one of the negatives. The decision to place the Russian nationals under house arrest, ultimately served to balance things out.

During a visit to monitor compliance with the terms of their house arrest, the group Patronato del Liberado found nobody at home. No public announcements have indicated the whereabouts of Napolsky and Ermakova since their disappearance in May 2024.

Meanwhile, Z-Library has continued to operate without major incident since their initial arrest and right up to the present day.

High-Level Intrigue

Aside from the peculiarities of the failed extradition procedure, another unusual matter has repeatedly raised its head. Official Argentinian reports, in the context of Russian citizens present or with links to the country, also mention the alleged operators of Z-Library by name.

Two weeks before the pair were arrested on November 3, 2022, there was excitement on X concerning an allegedly suspicious aircraft that had reportedly passed through Argentinian airspace a few weeks earlier. It’s a two-minute, highly controversial read , and important for context.

An unusual itinerary and supposed links to Russia triggered questions for the government, with answers provided by Argentinian officials. The details are documented in at least two official reports ( 1 ,2,large pdfs) .

A report published in Uruguay indicated that the same plane – a Bombardier Canadair CL-600 (M-OLOT) – flew from Leeds in the UK and via Argentina, eventually landed at an airport in Carrasco, Uruguay.

What became of these investigations is unknown and the conclusions, in the event any were drawn, seem unlikely to be reported quite as publicly as they initially were.

The contrast between the interview in 2011 and the events of 2022 could hardly be more striking. From attempting to make books more discoverable to being prosecuted by the United States government a decade later couldn’t have been part of the plan, or indeed, accounted for in the planning.

Consider the events in Argentina as part of the overall mix and the story becomes surreal; in the context of eBooks, barely believable.

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

Pirate streaming apps and unauthorized IPTV services have become increasingly popular globally in recent years.

Latin America is no exception to this trend, with MagisTV establishing itself as one of the top piracy brands.

Earlier this year, the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative added MagisTV to its latest list of notorious piracy markets . Soon after, MagisTV rebranded as FlujoTV and both names remain widely used today.

In response to widespread piracy, rightsholders and local authorities have taken countermeasures. This resulted in several referrals that reportedly resulted in criminal investigations in Argentina, Colombia, Ecuador, and Venezuela.

Top Spanish football league LaLiga notably helped to take down numerous operations linked to MagisTV during the summer. While this hasn’t resulted in a complete shutdown of the popular brand, more actions appear to be in the pipeline.

Pirates with Google IP Addresses

This week, LaLiga requested a DMCA subpoena at a federal court in California, through which it aims to compel Google to identify users associated with three IP-addresses: 34.8.45.110, 34.86.157.139, and 35.199.21.67.

The addresses are assigned to unnamed Google services and were allegedly used to stream a football match on FlujoTV without permission. Through its law firm, LaLiga notified Google of this activity on Tuesday.

“Google’s system and network is used to transmit LALIGA’s copyrighted works without authorization on the FlujoTV streaming service, an example being LALIGA’s broadcast of the football match between Atlético de Madrid and Villarreal that aired on September 13, 2025,” the notice explained.

Through the DMCA subpoena, LaLiga hopes that Google can disclose sufficient information to identify the alleged infringer. That could possibly serve as evidence for a future enforcement action.

LaLiga Targets App Operator

If a court clerk signs the legal paperwork, which has yet to happen, Google will be compelled to hand over information linked to the users of these IP addresses. That could include names, physical addresses, access logs, phone numbers, email addresses, payment information, and more.

Information shared by LaLiga’s attorneys suggests that the IP addresses are linked to an Android app (com.android.mgandroid) associated with FlujoTV.

The IP addresses appear to be linked to googleusercontent.com, which is used for user-generated content on various Google services. In this case, it was presumably used to stream copyright-infringing content, which raises an important issue.

DMCA Subpoenas Have their Limitations

Last month, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit confirmed that DMCA subpoenas are not unlimited in scope. They are not intended to compel service providers to identify copyright infringers based on an IP address if the service provider doesn’t store the infringing material.

The appeals court case concerned the identification of alleged BitTorrent pirates. The court concluded that Cox Communications is not required to share the personal details connected to these IP addresses. Instead of using a DMCA subpoena, rightsholders can request a standard subpoena by filing a regular lawsuit in federal court.

Whether Google is a mere conduit provider in the LaLiga case or if it also hosted content is not immediately clear. However, in theory, this nuance could complicate the football league’s enforcement efforts.

At the time of writing, the DMCA subpoena has yet to be signed by the court clerk. A copy of the request can be found here (pdf) and the letter sent to Google, including the evidence, is available here (pdf) .

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

Private torrent sites, or private trackers as they are commonly known, have a special place in the piracy ecosystem.

These sites tend to be more community-oriented than public torrent and streaming sites, which most people simply visit with a hit-and-run mentality.

Many private trackers have come and gone over the years, but some have been going for decades. With most anti-piracy enforcement focused on public platforms, predominantly streaming sites, private trackers generally operate beyond the limelight. Or so it seemed.

Private Trackers Targeted

Given this backdrop, it’s interesting to see a recent DMCA subpoena issued through a California federal court targeting several private torrent trackers: passthepopcorn.me, broadcasthe.net, karagarga.in, beyond-hd.me, hdbits.org, and bibliotik.me.

Despite their comparatively low public profiles, these platforms are well known and have been established for many years.

Karagarga (KG), for example, has been around since 2005 and offers access to a wealth of film obscurities. The site focuses on archiving rare classic and cult movies. Blockbusters and other popular Hollywood releases can’t be found on the site, as uploading them is strictly forbidden.

HDbits was launched around the same time, with no restrictions on popular film titles, while PassThePorpcorn and BroadcasTheNet both came onto the scene a few years later. Despite early DDoS attempts, these Gazelle-based trackers have been going strong for more than 15 years.

Filmmaker Wants Cloudflare to Unmask the Operators

The subpoena was obtained by filmmaker Matthew Schneider, who stated that he owns the rights to several movies. The titles include Do Us Part , Split: A Film Anthology , and Orlando Gloom – Always the Same . These are linked to the Canadian company Dirtbag Films , which has not been very active recently.

As shown below, the filmmaker listed the URLs through which his works are allegedly shared on these sites. These URLs are not public, so Schneider or someone he works with presumably has access to these elusive trackers.

Update: After publication, several sources informed TorrentFreak that several of these infringing URLs are not pointing to any working torrent pages. We could not verify this independently, but it suggests that they may not be accurate.

Schneider represented himself in court, but an attached takedown notification sent to Cloudflare in late August was signed by his attorney, David Bernstein.

The attorney asked Cloudflare to “immediately and permanently disable access to the infringing material” and to enforce its repeat infringer policy. Whether Cloudflare took any action in response to this notice is unknown, but it serves as the basis of the legal request.

Names, emails, IP addresses, payment details, and more

On September 8, a court clerk issued the DMCA subpoena, compelling Cloudflare to hand over all usable information it has on the associated users. This includes basic contact information such as names, physical addresses, email addresses, and phone numbers.

Cloudflare must also disclose all relevant billing information from credit cards, bank accounts, or other payment systems. In addition, it has to hand over historical logs of IP addresses and information related to hosting companies and servers that are used by these torrent trackers.

These types of DMCA subpoenas are not uncommon. Anti-piracy group ACE, for example, has used these dozens of times in attempts to gather intelligence on popular piracy sites. However, this is the first time that we have seen a small independent filmmaker target such prominent private trackers.

Whether this attempt to gather information will result in any usable intelligence will depend on how much effort the operators have put into shielding their identities. Generally speaking, this is a key priority.

The legal paperwork does not explain what Schneider intends to do with the information he receives, and our request for additional details remains unanswered. At the time of writing, all targeted domain names continue to use Cloudflare’s proxy services.

—

A copy of the DMCA subpoena issued by the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California is available here (pdf) . The associated declaration can be found here (pdf) . Whether Cloudflare has complied with this request is unknown.

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

Up until a few years ago, rightsholders complained that cable operators in the Dominican Republic broadcast their content without permission.

After HBO repeatedly pointed this out to the U.S. Government, the Dominican authorities eventually stepped in and put an end to the unauthorized activity.

However, as in many countries around the world, Dominicans had plenty of other options to access pirate streams. With the boom of illicit IPTV services more recently, this became easier than ever, at a fraction of the price of legal alternatives.

Authorities Arrest IPTV Operators, Helped by ACE

This week, authorities in the Dominican Republic cracked down on what they believe to be one of the larger pirate IPTV operations. In a major international anti-piracy operation, dubbed “Operation Domo,” authorities targeted six suspects and arrested four.

The operation was triggered by a criminal referral from the Alliance for Creativity and Entertainment ( ACE ), which mentions “IPTV66” as the target. A team of 30 prosecutors and various police units conducted over a dozen raids in the country, seizing electronic equipment, documents, and vehicles.

The raid locations include a ten-story office building in Santo Domingo, exclusively used by the operators, as well as a large ranch outside the city. This real estate was allegedly acquired using illegal proceeds.

The amounts are significant; ACE reports that in four years the operation was able to generate $10 million in cryptocurrency revenue.

In addition to ACE and local enforcement authorities, the anti-piracy sting received support from the U.S. Department of Justice and Homeland Security Investigations.

Previously Convicted

A key detail, not mentioned by ACE, was shared by the Dominican Office of the Attorney General . The government body reveals that four of the arrested suspects were “previously convicted” in the United States for similar piracy offenses.

The authorities mention that the case concluded in 2017, without sharing further detail. We were unable to pinpoint the exact case. While convictions typically refer to criminal prosecutions, it could’ve been a civil lawsuit.

There are no public references to a case involving IPTV66 in the United States. It is possible, however, that the suspects were running an operation under a different name at the time. Interestingly, IPTV66 was mentioned in a Canadian lawsuit (pdf) filed by rightsholders against IPTV providers in 2016. However, most documents in this case are not public.

IPTV66 Shutdown?

The Attorney General’s office mentions that the IPTV operation was dismantled. However, ACE does not use any language suggesting that the operation was shut down. Neither does it mention which “IPTV66” operation was targeted.

At the time of writing, the well-known IPTV66.com domain name remains online. Based on an OSINT analysis, this domain is linked to a person from the Dominican Republic, who also owns various other IPTV66 domains.

If this is indeed the IPTV66 operation that was targeted, the four arrests have not resulted in a full takedown of the platform.

For now, the investigation remains ongoing, and the Public Ministry has formally requested four arrested individuals to be placed in preventive detention while the case proceeds. They are accused of copyright infringement (Law 65-00), high-tech crimes (Law 53-07), and money laundering (Law 155-17).

As is often the case with these types of ongoing investigations, only minimal details have been released.

Local news outlet CDN was present at the court on Wednesday evening when the prosecution filed the necessary paperwork for a restraining order. While the report confirmed many of the public details from the steps of the courthouse, no new details on the operation emerged.

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