With around 400 million Spanish speakers and tens of millions of passionate football fans, Latin America is a natural overseas market for top-tier Spanish football league LaLiga.

At least initially market prospects look quite good. Data reported in 2023 by LATAM-focused anti-piracy group Alianza (DirecTV, SimpleTV, SKY Brasil, Warner, Disney, LaLiga & more ) around 98.2m households in the region have access to broadband.

The fly in the ointment is that an estimated 40 million of those households engage in piracy. Within Argentina’s 11.3 million broadband-enabled households, 4.8 million households have a penchant for piracy, a 42.6% piracy rate overall. That’s not quite as bad as Mexico (46%) and nowhere near Ecuador’s overall rate (58.6%) but somehow significantly worse than Brazil (38.4%).

LaLiga & Alianza Target #1 LATAM IPTV Menace, MagisTV

In an announcement Thursday, LaLiga reported relatively rare success in Argentina after teaming up with Alianza and local law enforcement. Under the authority of orders issued by the Juzgado de Garantias Nº 4 (Court of Guarantees No. 4) of San Isidro, as part of a legal process in which LaLiga is a plaintiff, local distributors of MagisTV subscriptions were targeted in several regions of Argentina.

The orders were signed by Judge Esteban Rossignoli, who recently ordered local ISPs to carry out live blocking to protect the Champions League and Argentine League finals.

LaLiga reports that after the Court issued multiple arrest warrants, Argentine Federal Police and local forces conducted five simultaneous raids that led to the execution of arrest warrants in Chubut, Mendoza, and Río Negro.

Assistance was provided by LATAM online market Mercado Libre and payment platform Mercado Pago, both of which receive praise from LaLiga for their contribution. Several years ago the former was itself declared a Notorious Market for failure to tackle infringement, but since its removal from the list in 2021, there’s been no looking back.

Local ISP Allegedly Acted as a MagisTV Sales Outlet

LaLiga reports that one of the main targets was local internet service provider UV Mundo Digital. With offices in Trelew and Rawson in the province of Chubut, it appears that those two locations were targeted in the operation. LaLiga claims that the ISP sells subscriptions to MagisTV Pro, promoting the packages on a website (still online), social media, and in its retail stores, “under the guise of legality.”

During the course of the investigation, police reportedly visited UV Mundo Digital’s premises and were informed that in addition to regular packages, they could also offer a “different internet service and different cable service, installed by a third party with a different price.” A provided booklet reportedly concerned MagisTV Pro.

LaLiga’s criticism of the ISP and CABASE (the non-profit association it’s a member of), sits in stark contrast to the warm words used to describe companies that are actively collaborating.

“This type of operation demonstrates that CABASE is influenced by some ISPs that violate legal standards related to audiovisual fraud and others that refuse to comply with judicial orders,” says Javier Tebas, president of LALIGA.

“We are very satisfied with the collaboration of ALIANZA and LALIGA, as well as with entities like Mercado Libre, which have supported the investigation. We firmly believe that collaboration is key to eradicating audiovisual fraud.”

More Arrests to Come

LaLiga says the authorities have requested the arrest of four individuals identified as “key operators” in the distribution of MagisTV Pro. They used accounts at Naranja X and Binance, and may not have anticipated that using the services of Mercado Pago was a mistake. It’s alleged that some accounts accumulated amounts exceeding 160 million Argentine peso, around US$125,000

“All of them were directly linked to the sale of illegal accounts through banking evidence, IP address records, and messages extracted from messaging applications,” Spain’s top football league reveals.

Whether collaborating with LaLiga and Alianza will help to remove Argentina from the USTR’s Priority Watchlist remains to be seen. However, for UV Mundo Digital owner Ulises Jorge Velázquez, the situation seems to be deteriorating. He’s now considered a fugitive with a warrant out for his arrest.

According to a La Nacion report , the alleged duration of offending appears to be quite short.

“From at least January 1st until the 7th [of July 2025], Velázquez and the other suspects offered Magis TV Pro accounts for sale, with monthly payments, to distribute television signals without proper authorization,” Prosecutor Musso wrote in a request for the suspects to be arrested.

“The APK (Android application) operates in clear violation of the rights of the owners of the works. All of this was done through the website www.magispro.lat and WhatsApp contacts associated with them, with monthly payments made through transfers to virtual wallet accounts and even through crypto assets,” he continued.

“Based on the evidence presented, I interpret this criminal act as constituting the crime of infringement of intellectual property law,” the Prosecutor added.

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

Over the past few years, AI technology has progressed at a rapid pace.

This includes large language models, which are typically trained on a broad datasets of text; the more, the better.

When AI hit the mainstream, it became apparent that rightsholders were not always pleased to learn that their works had been used to train AI. Those works include millions of books and articles, as well as libraries of music and photographs.

There are currently dozens of lawsuits in U.S. courts with this dispute at their core. The AI companies typically take the position that using copyrighted works as model input is fair use, but rightsholders disagree. They want to be compensated for use of their works.

With many billions of dollars at stake, this legal question may ultimately end up at the Supreme Court. Alternatively, lawmakers could address the topic in targeted bills , which could support either side of the debate.

Trump: Paying for All Copyrighted Content Is Not Doable

Yesterday, President Trump weighed in on the issue during the “Winning the AI Race” summit, where he suggested that it is “not doable” for AI companies to pay for all copyrighted content used to train AI models.

“You can’t be expected to have a successful AI program when every single article, book or anything else that you’ve read or studied, you’re supposed to pay for. You just can’t do it because it’s not doable,” Trump said.

“When a person reads a book or an article, you’ve gained great knowledge. That does not mean that you’re violating copyright laws or have to make deals with every content provider,” the president added.

AI-related copyright issues are complex and involve both content used for input and content output by models. In his comments, President Trump appears to refer mostly to the former. While some AI companies have made licensing deals, many have used unauthorized libraries often derived from pirate sites.

China and Anna’s Archive

One of these so-called shadow libraries, Anna’s Archive, previously said that high-speed access to data had already been provided to dozens of AI companies and data brokers, most of which are based in China.

Anna’s Archive warned that if countries want to stay relevant in the AI race, copyright should not be a restricting factor. “It’s a matter of national security,” Anna’s Archive said.

President Trump is also aware of various stances that other nations have taken on copyright and AI. In his speech, he explicitly suggested that paying for all copyrighted material is not a viable option, noting that “China’s not doing it.”

“You have to be able to play by the same set of rules,” Trump said, adding that it doesn’t mean that AI should be able to reproduce copyrighted works.

“Of course, you can’t copy or plagiarize an article, but if you read an article and learn from it, we have to allow AI to use that pool of knowledge without going through the complexity of contract negotiations, of which there would be thousands for every time we use AI.”

Acknowledging Opposition

Trump said a number of people warned him that this position would not be popular with everyone, but it is necessary to advance AI.

“I was told before I got up here, this is an unpopular thing because some people, they don’t want that. But I want you to be successful,” he said.

These comments come after Meta and Anthropic celebrated early ‘fair use’ victories in the U.S., but there’s still a long way to go before this complex topic is completely settled before the courts. Whether the U.S. administration plans to take steps to advance concrete legislation on the issue is not immediately clear.

A final fair use ruling won’t necessarily resolve all AI copyright battles either. Meta and other companies have also been accused of actively distributing pirated books as part of their information-gathering process, which is a separate copyright infringement issue.

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

Last month, the Supreme Court granted Cox Communications’ petition for a writ of certiorari in a landmark copyright liability battle.

The internet provider challenged the $1 billion damages award by a Virginia jury in 2019, which went in favor of a group of major record labels, including Sony, Universal, and Warner.

Cox successfully convinced the Supreme Court that the contributory infringement standards, which determine how ISPs should respond to pirating subscribers, should be reviewed. The same applies to the associated willfulness finding, which contributed to the initial billion-dollar verdict.

The Supreme Court’s review offers potential clarity for an industry grappling with complex legal issues. The outcomes of other lawsuits between ISPs and rightsholders will be directly impacted too, especially when it comes to claims for contributory infringement.

Labels vs. Altice Case on Hold

A lawsuit between several major record labels and Internet provider Altice is one of those affected. The matter was scheduled for trial in September, but both parties agreed that it would be wise to stay the proceeding until the Supreme Court issues its decision.

In a joint motion, the parties informed the Texas federal court that the Cox decision will potentially change the liability standards when it comes to repeat infringers, an issue central to the case. Therefore, it’s sensible to put the case on hold.

“The Parties agree that proceeding to trial now, before the Supreme Court’s decision in Cox, risks both the Parties and this Court expending significant resources to complete pre-trial proceedings and prepare for and hold a trial, only to have wasted the jury’s time and have to repeat those efforts as a result of the decision in Cox,” the joint motion reads.

The request for a stay was granted by U.S. Magistrate Judge Roy Payne last week, who put the case on hold, canceling the plans for a September trial.

Verizon Asks for a Stay

Contrary to their agreement in the Altice case, the labels are not willing to put a similar case against Verizon on hold. While many of the same companies are listed as plaintiffs, they believe that this case can continue for now, as it’s nowhere near a trial.

Verizon previously requested a stay pending the Cox review. While the case is in its early stages, with a motion to dismiss pending and no discovery taking place at the time, the ISP sees no reason to rush it forward and potentially ‘waste’ resources.

“The Supreme Court’s ruling in Cox will control this Court’s decision on that issue. A stay is therefore warranted in the interest of judicial economy and will not prejudice any party,” Verizon wrote.

Labels Oppose More Stalling

This week, the labels objected to the request, asking a New York federal court to keep the case active. According to the music companies, several of their claims won’t be affected by the Supreme Court ruling so should be allowed to move forward.

The labels reiterate that Verizon received thousands of piracy notices for its customers, which it allegedly ignored. After being sued, Verizon allegedly tried to stall the litigation, including the labels’ request to begin discovery.

Verizon’s recent request to stay the case is another attempt to delay, they say.

“Now, Verizon seeks what would be a yearlong stay based on speculation that a Cox ruling might impact some aspects of Plaintiffs’ contributory infringement claim—though it will not impact their vicarious liability claim or Verizon’s primary defense under the [DMCA],” the labels write.

“This case is already one year old and has not left the gate. Verizon has failed to carry its burden to justify further delay. The request should be denied.”

The labels’ position clearly differs from that adopted in the Altice case, where they agreed to put the case on hold. In addition to the different claims at stake, this can be explained by the Verizon case being in its early stages.

In the Altice lawsuit, the dispute was preparing to go to trial, while the Verizon case still has a motion to dismiss pending, as well as a discovery process, where both sides can gather further evidence.

Whether the court rules in favor or against, the Supreme Court decision will ultimately affect the Verizon case too, at least when it comes to the contributory infringement claim and the issue of willfulness.

—

A copy of Verizon’s request to stay the case is available here (pdf) and the opposition brief from the record labels can be found here (pdf)

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

According to his profile on LinkedIn , Las Vegas resident Kristopher Dallmann became the CEO of Jetflicks, LLC, in June 2007.

Fueled by pirated content obtained via sites including The Pirate Bay, RARBG, and Nzbplanet, Jetflicks’ operations came to an abrupt halt in 2017 with an FBI raid on Dallmann’s Las Vegas home following a Motion Picture Association investigation.

Disagreement and the Long Haul to Trial

Dallmann subsequently claimed that FBI agents removed him from the premises at gunpoint, declined his request for a lawyer, and insisted he waived his Miranda rights.

The U.S. Government strongly refuted that version of events. A similar pattern of disagreement, over what at times seemed relatively insignificant details, became a feature of a prolonged and complex legal battle spanning the next seven years.

Indicted by a grand jury in 2019 , a total of eight defendants faced charges of conspiring to violate criminal copyright law.

Disguised as an aviation service, Jetflicks reportedly offered subscribers a library of movies and at one point 183,285 pirated TV episodes; that made it the largest internet piracy case by volume of infringed works ever to go to trial in the U.S., the Department of Justice said.

Las Vegas Jury Finds Defendants Guilty

Dallmann and co-defendants Jared Jaurequi, Douglas Courson, Felipe Garcia, and Peter Huber, went on trial at a court in Las Vegas in the summer of 2024.

The court heard that lead defendant Dallmann ran Jetflicks with assistance from Jaurequi and Courson. Garcia was in charge of customer support and also obtained TV show content, while Huber worked at Jetflicks as a programmer.

The jury found all five defendants guilty of conspiracy to commit criminal copyright infringement. Dallmann was also found guilty of three additional counts of criminal copyright infringement plus two counts of money laundering by concealment.

A sixth defendant, Jetflicks programmer Yoany Vaillant, went on trial separately after the court severed his case from the others. He worked at Jetflicks for just four-and-a-half months but was found guilty of conspiracy to commit criminal copyright infringement after a two-week trial last November.

U.S. Sought 25-30 Year Sentence for Dallmann

Following the convictions in June 2024, the court docket has remained active with over 200 additional entries. As previously reported, this is a very important case for both the U.S. government and the MPA. Not only is Jetflicks the largest case by volume of works infringed, but it’s also the very first illegal streaming case to go to full trial in the United States.

Last year’s convictions would’ve been welcomed, but deterrent sentences were a priority too. Four of the men were told they could receive sentences of up to 60 months in prison.

Group leader Kristopher Dallmann submitted that a sentence of 36 months on each of his felony counts would be reasonable and could run concurrently. However, the government’s Sentencing Guideline proposed a range of 25 to 30 years, prompting Dallmann’s counsel to brand it “ facially absurd .”

Judgment for Dallmann

A judgment signed by U.S. District Judge Richard F. Boulware, II, dated July 18, 2025, confirms that Dallmann was found guilty on six counts in the indictment. They include (Count 1) Conspiracy to Commit Criminal Copyright Infringement and (Counts 2&3) Criminal Copyright Infringement by Reproduction or Distribution.

Dallmann was also found guilty of Criminal Copyright Infringement by Public Performance (Count 4 / 17 U.S. Code § 106(4)), plus Money Laundering and Aiding and Abetting (Counts 13&14), and sentenced as follows;

Total criminal monetary penalties of $375.00 were due immediately. Dallmann is required to surrender for service of sentence on October 17, 2025.

Previous Convictions

In 2021, Jetflicks programmer Luis Angel Villarino pled guilty to one count of conspiracy to commit copyright infringement and was sentenced to one year and one day in prison.

Daryl Polo, Jetflicks programmer and later the operator of rival service iStreamitAll, received a 57-month sentence and a $1m forfeiture order after pleading guilty to four counts of criminal copyright infringement and one count of money laundering.

USA v Dallmann [Jetflicks] Judgment/Sentencing of Kristopher Lee Dallmann ( pdf )

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 but unlike other regions, one pirate streaming brand clearly stands out: MagisTV.

The MagisTV name is used by dozens of websites, many of which are reseller platforms. While some of these might be related, the name is also used by unrelated entities, simply because the brand has become synonymous with pirate IPTV.

A Notorious Market

Rightsholders worldwide are not pleased with the brand’s dominance and have worked hard to counter it. This resulted in several referrals that reportedly resulted in criminal investigations in Argentina, Colombia, Ecuador, and Venezuela.

Following a referral from the MPA’s anti-piracy arm ACE, two Magis TV operators were criminally prosecuted in Colombia, with both receiving 30-month suspended prison sentences from a local court in May.

The MagisTV problem was also reported to the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR), which added the brand to its latest list of notorious piracy markets .

“MagisTV is one of the world’s most popular IPTV services and operates primarily in Latin America. The service provides unauthorized access to live sports streams, television channels, and on-demand movies and television shows to its customers for a monthly subscription,” USTR wrote.

However, despite these enforcement actions and repeated warnings, the “Magis TV” problem hasn’t gone away.

Magis TV Trademark Application Abandoned

Following the USTR’s listing, several Magis TV domain names were abandoned, while others rebranded their service to Flujo TV, presumably to escape the heat. The Magis TV brand nonetheless remains popular today even in the United States, where a Chinese company tried to obtain the U.S. trademark.

The company ‘Shenzhen Huiyi Electronics’ applied for the ‘Magis TV’ mark for the recognizable logo at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. Last December, it passed the first hurdle when the office issued a “notice of allowance,” to the frustration of many rightsholders.

To proceed with the registration process, the Chinese set-top box manufacturer was required to file a Statement of Use (SOU), proving they are actually using the trademark in commerce. That document never arrived, prompting the trademark office to abandon the application.

This effectively means the trademark application is no longer active and will not proceed to registration.

If the Chinese company would still like to secure the trademark, it can file a “Petition to Revive” within two months, which comes at an extra cost. For now, however, there’s no indication that it missed the deadline unintentionally. Instead, the legal pressure against the Magis TV brand likely makes the trademark less appealing.

A Malware and Security Threat

In addition to the legal concerns, recent publications in Latin American news outlets repeatedly warn of potential security risks related to Magis TV. While these concerns are certainly warranted, the barrage of articles clearly stands out, as the collection of translated headlines below shows.

• Download Magis TV: Using the free APK to watch series and movies is a threat to your banking data.
  (Cronista, July 20 )
• Find out what Magis TV is and why it’s not the best option for your entertainment.
  (Infobae, July 17 )
• Downloading Magis TV on your cell phone is a risk.
  (Eldestape, July 17 )
• Why not download Magis TV?
  (Infobae, July 16 )
• Watching free series and movies on Fire TV Stick with Magis TV is illegal.
  (Eldestape, July 15 )
• Magis TV: Downloading the free 2025 APK can ruin your TV and steal your data.
  (Cronista, July 14 )
• ‘Magis TV download’, one of the most common and dangerous searches.
  (Infobae, July 12 )
• Watching the 2025 Club World Cup final on Magis TV is a risk.
  (Eldestape, July 11 )
• Don’t use Magis TV.
  (Infobae, July 8 )
• Farewell to Magis TV: safe and legal platforms for watching movies and series.
  (Infobae, July 8 )
• Magis TV Danger: This APK version can destroy your electronic devices and put your personal data at risk.
  (Cronista, July 6 )

—

The articles list a wide variety of potential threats, including malware, viruses, data theft, identity theft, bank fraud, and many others. At the same time, they conveniently offer options for legal and authorized streaming services readers can try instead.

Interestingly, several Magis TV websites are fighting back against these news articles by explicitly mentioning that their software is safe. This is corroborated with evidence in some cases, including the site below that shows a clean VirusTotal check to reassure visitors.

Whether these promises are worth anything is questionable because VirusTotal showed a different result when we checked the APK file ourselves .

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

In 2023, Google and its cybersecurity partners teamed up with German law enforcement agencies after discovering BadBox , a botnet comprised of 74,000 Android devices infected with malware.

After deploying a range of measures to suppress BadBox, a much larger threat quickly arrived.

BadBox 2.0

BadBox 2.0 was discovered by HUMAN’s Satori Threat Intelligence and Research team. Their initial report published in March revealed how infected devices were able to request and click on ads without the user being aware, committing ad fraud and laundering.

As part of a botnet able to act as a residential proxy network, devices were also being used for account takeovers, DDoS attacks, and spreading malware. Since infected devices are also capable of executing new code delivered over the internet, without any user interaction, the potential for harm was unusually high.

At the time the impact of BadBox 2.0 was described as global, with more than one million devices infected in 222 countries and territories. To prevent the spread, users were advised to only download apps from official marketplaces such as Google Play while avoiding off-brand devices.

A list of device model numbers made available since reveals that cheap set-top boxes manufactured in China appear to account for the majority of infected devices. However, laptop and desktop computers, smartphones, tablets, in-car entertainment devices and digital projectors have all been compromised too.

In an announcement late last week, Google revealed that in partnership with HUMAN Security and Trend Micro, its researchers are now battling a botnet comprised of 10 million uncertified and infected devices, running Android’s open-source software (Android Open Source Project), “which lacks Google’s security protections.”

Lawsuit Filed in New York

Google’s actions include a lawsuit filed at a federal court in New York which began in May but with most documents sealed until recently. In addition to a temporary restraining order issued on May 30, on July 1 Google was awarded a preliminary injunction to mitigate the ongoing spread of malware, infection of new devices, and other “criminal schemes”.

The identities of the defendants – Does 1-25 – are reportedly unknown but with some confidence Google’s recently unsealed complaint places the blame firmly on bad actors in China who it believes would not comply with a judgment for money damages.

• The Infrastructure Group: Established and manages the “command-and-control” C2 infrastructure (C2 Servers and domains) for BadBox 2.0.
• The Backdoor Malware Group: Developed and preinstalls malware on the infected devices and uses that malware to operate a botnet composed of a subset of BadBox 2.0-infected devices to carry out a variety of ad fraud campaigns.
• The Evil Twin Group : Develops apps that the BadBox 2.0 Enterprise uses to commit ad fraud via hidden ads.
• The Ad Games Group: Connected to an ad fraud campaign conducted through BadBox 2.0-infected devices that uses fraudulent “games” to generate ads in hidden web browsers

Google Obtains Permission to Take Significant Action

Specific details are currently withheld, but it appears that Google has been granted broad permission based on claims under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA) and the Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), to block (and require other entities to block) traffic to and/or from IP addresses and certain domains.

Other reasonable measures, including seizing control of domain names through registrars and registries, are also at Google’s disposal, to limit the botnet’s ability to operate.

The FBI’s advice is for users to “avoid downloading apps from unofficial marketplaces advertising free streaming content” and “assess all IoT devices connected to home networks for suspicious activity.”

While avoiding unofficial marketplaces is straightforward, those looking for the latest movies and TV shows are unlikely to find suitable apps offering that content for free anywhere else. Monitoring home networks is likely to prove prohibitively difficult too.

There may be a very good argument for physically destroying these devices. The complaint states that the entire supply chain is compromised. “They are devices manufactured by the BadBox 2.0 Enterprise,” it reads.

But even if malware isn’t preinstalled, it can be installed remotely when devices are switched on by the user or when users download apps designed to look attractive but carry a similarly malicious payload.

The preliminary injunction obtained by Google is available here (pdf)

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

Not long after winning the Oscar for Best Picture in 2010, the makers of the war action thriller ‘The Hurt Locker’ set their eyes on their next prize.

With a then-novel legal scheme, they planned to sue tens of thousands of Americans, who shared pirated copies of their film via BitTorrent, in a single lawsuit.

“We’re creating a revenue stream and monetizing the equivalent of an alternative distribution channel,” lawyer Jeffrey Weaver said at the time.

These types of business models, where lawyers and anti-piracy outfits also reap the financial benefits, were already well-known in the UK and Germany, but the United States opened the doors to millions of new targets.

Fifteen years later, these lawsuits are still prevalent, but the playing field has changed. Filing lawsuits against hundreds or thousands of defendants at once was ruled a no-go . This made these legal campaigns substantially more expensive, as every complaint comes with a filing fee and paperwork.

At the same time, some judges were showing increasing reluctance to take on this type of case. And with a ruling that an IP address alone is insufficient evidence, nearly all rights holders gave up on the practice.

Strike 3’s Unrelenting Anti-Piracy Campaign

Strike 3 Holdings is the only prolific litigant in BitTorrent piracy cases today. Known for brands including ‘Milfy,’ ‘Tushy,’ and ‘Vixen,’ the adult entertainment company isn’t scaling down either.

Thus far this year, the company has filed 2,277 lawsuits in U.S. courts, putting the firm on track to beat last year’s record of more than 3,900 lawsuits filed overall. All of these cases target IP addresses observed in public BitTorrent swarms, allegedly sharing adult videos.

Once a complaint is filed, Strike 3 obtains a subpoena through which it can compel the corresponding Internet provider to share the personal details of the account holder. This person can then be added as a named defendant in the case and summoned to appear in court.

These types of lawsuits seldom make it to trial. Strike 3 often reaches out to the defendant with a settlement offer and if both parties agree, that effectively ends the case. Lawsuits can also be dismissed for other reasons which are typically not made public. And in rare instances, defendants can claim a victory of sorts.

A Pirate’s Catch 22

Whether defendants are innocent or not, these cases typically have financial implications. Some defendants opt to proceed pro se , defending themselves; legal representation isn’t cheap, especially if many hours are spent on the case, let alone a full trial.

This leads to a catch-22 situation where defendants have to invest thousands of dollars to prove their innocence, without a guarantee of success or financial compensation. Ironically, it is often cheaper to settle the case, even for someone who did nothing wrong.

We are not lawyers, and the above is not legal advice, but it illustrates the conundrum some people find themselves in. For those defendants who really are innocent, there’s no easy way out. That’s simply how the system works.

Given this backdrop, some defendants choose to ignore a lawsuit completely, hoping that it will go away. That may be understandable, but it is arguably the worst option of all. And typically the most costly too.

Ignoring a Lawsuit Can Be a Costly Mistake

Most Strike 3 cases are dismissed, often after a settlement, but default judgments are also common. When defendants fail to respond to a lawsuit, the plaintiff’s arguments can be taken as written and with no defense, the alleged pirate literally loses by default.

We don’t report on most of these judgments because they have little news value in isolation. However, damages awards can be substantial and in the bigger picture, the numbers quickly add up.

Earlier this year, we highlighted three defendants who were ordered to pay $97,500, $86,250 and $26,250 respectively. But there are many more.

A quick glance at recent records reveals a $24,000 award for damages against a defendant in Texas last month. Strike 3 requested a $51,750 damages award at a California federal court last week, against a defendant who alleged shared 96 videos. And with thousands of cases still in the pipeline, these lawsuits are unlikely to end anytime soon.

For anyone involved in one of these cases, innocent or not, the defaults are a reminder that ignoring legal paperwork can be a costly mistake. And if defendants are innocent, history has shown that it can be worth putting up a serious defense. But of course, that will likely mean a substantial upfront legal bill.

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

Generic warnings about malware, identity theft, and other types of fraud have become embedded in the majority of anti-piracy campaigns over the last few years.

Yet, no matter how stylishly produced or immaculately directed at the target audience, moving the awareness needle by a few percentage points is just the beginning.

Increased awareness of the message doesn’t mean that more people believe in it, or that they’re more convinced that it holds any relevance to them as an individual. With no exceptions, every single rightsholder-backed anti-piracy/malware campaign has a mountain to climb; that’s assuming they even take time to listen.

They would say that, they’re only interested in your money

For pirates, the statement above is a common reaction to malware warnings from rightsholders. The statement is difficult to counter because yes, they would indeed say that. And of course, it’s usually being said by a massive corporation motivated by money. It’s easily tested too; just stop paying and see how it goes.

Communication between pirate sites and their users varies wildly for all kinds of reasons, but in general, operators of today’s large public sites appear to see no value in user engagement. Content gets posted, and people come and view it for free. If it arrives quickly enough and the quality and delivery seem acceptable, visitors are likely to return and might even bring friends along sometime.

Broad generic warnings that there’s no such thing as free, and that visiting any pirate site will end in disaster, represent a default position to which few pirates can relate. For the overwhelming majority, that’s not their experience. And because of the scope, the entire message is dismissed as self-serving and substantially untrue.

The truth is usually found somewhere in the middle and, in individual cases, it may actually prove quite hard to digest.

The Infostealer Crisis

While many seasoned pirates are quick to dismiss malware warnings from anti-piracy groups, what’s happening behind the scenes in the infostealer crisis poses a real concern for others.

As the investigation reported by Microsoft in March reveals, malicious mechanisms to obtain information from internet users can be extremely sophisticated.

With more than a trillion ads delivered globally, malicious ads represent a tiny fraction of the total, malicious code even less. But whether they appear on mainstream social media platforms or on dedicated pirate sites, the end result is the same for those affected by them.

Personal information, valuable credentials, stored credit card info, cookies/session tokens, and crypto wallets are siphoned up by those most likely to exploit them, potentially on an ongoing basis for those silently infected.

Cybersecurity portal Hudson Rock currently reports over 32.2 million infected machines and over 4.8 million compromised employees; some of the most valuable targets are corporate accounts.

Hudson Rock’s Cavalier OSINT & Infostealer Investigation Platform, with data verified through Infostealers.com public breach disclosures, delivers some remarkable and at times alarming insights on infostealers, related infections, and their links to piracy.

That includes information on the most popular movie piracy site to ever exist.

Infostealer Exposure Analysis: FMovies

FMovies was famously shut down around a year ago but retains its title as the most popular mainstream movie piracy streaming site to ever exist.

To retain the original context and to avoid misrepresentation, the information concerning FMovies is presented here as-is. The source for each conclusion appears on each image, using data verified as indicated.

Interesting Tools: Do Your Own Research

For anyone concerned about infostealer threats or just intrigued to learn more, free tools available at Hudson Rock should prove informative. Ultimately, hard and measurable data is more convincing than vague threats.

Using data from over 32 million devices infected with infostealers, the tools can provide insight into threats linked to Android apps (left) and most domains (right). Results should be read in context.

While results for ‘Android Piracy App X’ may show hundreds of confirmed users of ‘Android Piracy App X’ who are infected, it’s possible that the infection came via another vector, not necessarily the app in question. The same applies to websites where testing a range of sites in the same niche, both legal and illegal, provides greater insight than not doing so.

The result on the right relates to a piracy domain ‘seized’ by the Alliance for Creativity and Entertainment, as indicated by the favicon. The data suggests an infection rate that puts FMovies in the shade. Using the free tools , insights like these are freely available to all; researching Android apps can be quite the ride.

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

When governments prohibit, outlaw, or otherwise restrict certain activities or access to products, some believe that can make the forbidden even more interesting.

Coincidentally, perhaps, forbidden is a theme the adult industry has always found quite lucrative, ironically in countries where there are few restrictions.

In Vietnam, making, possessing and distributing pornographic material is illegal, so the underground market today is fueled by sites offering pirated porn from which third parties profit. Running these types of sites is not without risk, however.

Two Men Prosecuted

In an announcement on Wednesday, police provided an outline of crimes allegedly committed by two men said to operate hundreds of sites.

The Investigation Police Agency at Tuyen Quang Provincial Police first announced the prosecution of Thái Nguyên province resident Vũ Văn Thìn. Born in 1988, he allegedly launched the first of his sites in 2018.

Stocked with “pornographic and depraved” content, the sites reportedly attracted a large, but unspecified number of visitors. Since many porn pirates prefer not to pay, especially in a country where explicit adult material is illegal, the sites offered free content to generate revenue from advertising.

Easy Money

Vũ Văn Thìn’s successes reportedly led to others wanting to work with him, including Đinh Mạnh Dũng (born 1989), a resident of Thanh Hóa province. Working as partners and independently, Thìn and Dũng are said to have expanded their site portfolios when generating revenue came easily.

As the government source explains:

Realizing that making money is easy, the subjects multiplied the number of websites; using high-tech technical means with sophisticated tricks to commit criminal acts, in order to increase profits and evade the censorship of telecommunications service providers in Vietnam.

At the time of his arrest, Vũ Văn Thìn had reportedly “created, managed and operated” 287 websites to which he’d posted 21,000 videos.

Đinh Mạnh Dũng reportedly created and operated more than 100 similar sites offering similar content, although he personally uploaded fewer videos, around 1,000 according to police.

Very Serious Crimes

While prosecutions of regular pirate site operators in Vietnam fall well short of Western rightsholders’ expectations, the distribution of prohibited content is described by police as a very serious crime that “infringes on fine customs and social ethics.”

Whether the alleged volume of sites will have any bearing on the prosecution’s case is unknown. Site names have not been released for obvious reasons, but in practical terms, it seems unlikely that the defendants operated 400 distinct sites.

Circumvention of Government Blocking

A more likely scenario would see hundreds of domains linked to a very limited number of sites, for the purpose of circumventing ISP blocking measures, among other things. Having become ubiquitous in the broader streaming piracy landscape, large pirate sites with strong connections to Vietnam use similar tactics to avoid blocking in multiple jurisdictions.

Deployed at local ISPs either owned by the state or operated by those closely connected to the Vietnamese government, blocking is supposed to prevent access to prohibited content of various types, which in practice can be broadly defined .

Circumvention of blocking measures ordered by the state, for the purpose of distributing content banned by the state, has the potential to prove costly. The revenue generated through ads may also factor into the equation but depending on the nature of the ads, the cost may be felt more acutely by users.

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