Search the Community

Internet providers are increasingly tasked in the role of anti-piracy enforcers and instructed to block pirate websites and services. In Europe, court-ordered blockades are now commonplace, but ISPs are cautious when it comes to further expansion. In a recent submission to the EU Commission, EuroISPA, which represents over 3,300 ISPs, complains about "disproportionate" blocking measures, as recently seen in Italy, Spain and elsewhere. Earlier this month, dozens of rightsholders and copyright groups urged the European Commission to pave the way for more robust measures to tackle live-streaming piracy. Two main themes in many of these submissions were broad pirate site blocking powers and effective Know-Your-Business-Customer (KYBC) requirements for online service providers. Ideally, this would enable rightsholders to swiftly block pirate sites while allowing them to track down the identities of those responsible. According to the MPA, IFPI, beIN, Eurocinema, FEVIP, Premier League and others, blocking and/or KYBC are essential to combat piracy. ISPs are Deeply Concerned These calls for broader enforcement are neither new nor unexpected. At the same time, they are not without opposition either. Among the many rightsholder requests, EuroISPA, the world’s largest association of Internet Service Providers, urges caution. “We are deeply concerned by the approach taken by some European rightsholders and certain Member States, who have implemented disproportionate network blocking measures,” the association writes. EuroISPA represents over 3,300 ISPs, including several of the largest European providers. The group is particularly concerned about regimes where over-blocking and collateral damage have damaged many innocent parties. Despite previous overblocking incidents, the rollout of increasingly broader blocking regimes continues. Where the initial orders were targeted at local ISPs, more recent blocking requests have included DNS resolvers, which operate globally. This introduces fallout well beyond EU borders. “Despite numerous over-blocking incidents, certain Member States continue to escalate their efforts and have therefore taken increasingly aggressive measures to expand blocking orders beyond local ISPs,” EuroISPA writes. Problematic Blocking Efforts The ISP association lists several concrete examples of collateral damage caused by overblocking. This includes an intervention in Italy, where a Cloudflare IP-address was blocked, rendering tens of thousands of websites inaccessible for Italian users. Italy’s blocking regime, known as “Piracy Shield“, also added the drive.usercontent.google.com domain, which made Google Drive unavailable in the country for more than half a day. This error was the result of reports from “trusted flaggers”, EuroISPA notes. Case study: Italy In Spain, there were similar overblocking issues related to third party service providers, including Cloudflare. One blocking order targeting CDN infrastructure, requested by the football league LaLiga, was approved in court while the owners of the servers were not informed, leading to collateral damage. This led to many outages for legitimate websites without any advance warning for those affected, EuroISPA says. “LaLiga secured the blocking order without notifying cloud providers, while knowingly concealing from the court the predictable harm to the general public. This blunt approach not only demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of how the Internet works, it also violates the principle of net neutrality.” The ISPs worry that ‘expeditious’ blocking requirements, including an often mentioned 30-minute timeframe to take action, will lead to more errors. There are concerns that smaller service providers are simply not equipped to properly analyze the accuracy of blocking requests in such a short timeframe. When done properly, EuroISPA believes that blocking remains an option. In this light, EuroISPA mentions an order in Belgium under the Copyright Directive framework, that offered “clear guidance” and “legal certainty” for ISPs, enabling them to take prompt and appropriate action. Guidelines and Cooperation EuroISPA isn’t ruling out all blocking efforts, it’s concerned that the current blocking push is disproportionate and a threat to the open Internet. Instead, of expanding the European Digital Services Act, which has yet to be implemented in many member states, the EU should foster cooperation. “EuroISPA believes that collaborative approaches between rightsholders and intermediaries are more effective than relying on court orders and invites rightsholders to engage directly with ISPs rather than pursue legal action against them. “The ultimate goal should be to bring together stakeholders – despite their potentially conflicting business interests – to collaborate on finding practical and sustainable solutions to piracy online.” The call for voluntary cooperation is not new and, in some countries, this is a reality today. However, this also requires both sides to reach common ground, which can be easier said than done. KYBC, DNS and VPN Expansions While EuroISPA opens the door to future agreements, it’s also clear that the European Commission should not burden internet service providers with further anti-piracy obligations. The association notes that expanding the current KYBC provision will introduce extra risks for the ISPs, which could potentially undermine the Internet as a whole. The same is true for the suggested addition of DNS and VPN providers as site blocking partners. While EuroISPA doesn’t rule that out, it notes that the legal and technical aspects of these measures should be carefully analyzed before any action is taken. All in all, the ISPs urge the European Commission to tread with caution and keep the interests of all stakeholders in mind when deciding what steps to take next. — A copy of EuroISPA’s submission in response to the European Commission’s assessment of the May 2023 Commission Recommendation to combating online piracy of sports and other live events is available here (pdf). Source Hope you enjoyed this news post. Thank you for appreciating my time and effort posting news every day for many years. News posts... 2023: 5,800+ | 2024: 5,700+ | 2025 (till end of May): 2,377 RIP Matrix | Farewell my friend

In , rightsholders have taken legal action to get large VPN providers on board with their pirate site blocking program. The aim is to prevent circumvention of existing blocking measures in place to reduce widespread copyright infringement. From the VPN provider's perspective, site blocking threatens online freedom. Swiss provider ProtonVPN describes blocking as 'a dangerous attack on Internet freedom on the altar of corporate greed'. Copyright holders see pirate site blocking as an effective and proportional anti-piracy measure. Over the years, courts and lawmakers in dozens of countries have agreed, resulting in a patchwork of blocking regimes around the globe. Initially, these efforts focused on residential ISPs as the key intermediaries. While these companies were not blamed directly, they were the go-to parties to implement blocking. But as time went on, that wasn’t enough. More recently, DNS resolvers have been targeted with blocking orders. Since services such as Cloudflare, Google and OpenDNS, can be used to bypass ISP blocking efforts, courts in and have determined that DNS resolvers should take responsibility too. Piracy blocking through DNS resolvers could expand further still since the U.S. FADPA bill, if approved, covers DNS blocking by default. That would be a breakthrough, but it wouldn’t necessarily mean the end of blocking expansion. Next Target: VPN Providers After courts granted injunctions against DNS resolvers in , rightsholders lined up VPN providers as their next target. As reported last week, sports rightsholders Canal+ and LFP requested blocking injunctions that would require popular VPNs to start blocking pirate sites and services. The full requests are not public, but the details available show that Cyberghost, ExpressVPN, NordVPN, ProtonVPN, and Surfshark are listed as respondents. The injunction request has yet to be approved. A hearing scheduled for next month will give both sides have a chance to have their say but based on early responses, the VPN providers are planning to fight this issue tooth and nail. Threatening Internet Freedom Soon after the news broke, the VPN Trust Initiative (VTI), which represents ExpressVPN, NordVPN and Surfshark, among others, was quick to dismiss the blocking request. VTI said that its members oppose any illegal activities on their networks but will rally against site blocking. “Imposing blocking on VPNs in risks significant overreach, where legitimate and non-infringing content can be summarily cut off. This raises alarms about unjustly limiting individuals’ rights to freedom of information and expression. “Given VPNs do not actually host content, it is misguided and disproportionate to block access to the entirety of these tools that have many proven additional benefits to end users,” VTI added. The VPN Trust Initiative is urging rightsholders to reconsider their approach. Instead of focusing on intermediaries, they should go after pirate services directly and find ways for stakeholders to ‘collaborate’ without compromising privacy and security. ProtonVPN Rebukes Piracy Blocking Push ProtonVPN took longer to respond, but in a detailed response issued a few hours ago, it vehemently opposes the push for a blocking injunction. According to the Swiss company, the request sacrifices online freedom for corporate interests. Instead of going after intermediaries, Canal+ and LFP should target pirate services directly. “This case is unprecedented in Western societies and represents a dangerous attack on internet freedom on the altar of corporate greed,” ProtonVPN says. “If we acknowledge that the fight against piracy is legitimate, the case should be tackling illegal IPTV services, not providers that allow secure and private browsing to millions of people worldwide,” the VPN provider adds. Implementing piracy blocking would require major changes, according to ProtonVPN, and would ultimately undermine users’ privacy while paving the way for more ‘dangerous attacks’ on privacy and free speech. Meanwhile, these blocking measures won’t be bulletproof. On the contrary, they may result in people using more dubious VPNs that fall outside the scope of French jurisdiction. “Moreover, censoring a single VPN service — or even dozens of them — will not prevent people from downloading a VPN from some other country, with the security and privacy risks it represents, that doesn’t acknowledge French jurisdiction.” European Court of Justice With their blocking request, Canal+ and LFP Media are crossing a red line, ProtonVPN says. Similar to the other VPN companies, the Swiss provider plans to oppose the injunction request in court. Even if the French court sides with rightsholders, this matter is unlikely to be resolved. If necessary, ProtonVPN is prepared to take this case all the way to Europe’s highest court and will likely find other VPNs on its side. “[Canal+ and LFP Media] are carrying out a plain sight raid on users’ online freedom for their own commercial interests. Proton is determined to fight this lawsuit up to the European Court of Justice,” the company concludes. Source Hope you enjoyed this news post. Thank you for appreciating my time and effort posting news every day for many years. News posts... 2023: 5,800+ | 2024: 5,700+ | 2025 (till end of January): 487 RIP Matrix | Farewell my friend

MPA Senior Executive Vice President Karyn Temple will share the movie industry group's site blocking 'best practices' at a WIPO meeting. The insights arrive just few days after a new site blocking bill was introduced in the United States. Not surprisingly, the MPA's 'best practices' for site blocking largely align with proposed legislative amendments. U.S. Rep. Zoe Lofgren introduced a new site blocking bill in the House last week, titled: Foreign Anti-Digital Piracy Act (FADPA). Should the proposal become law, FADPA would enable rightsholders to restrict access to verified pirate sites, run by foreign operators. Site blocking orders would apply to both Internet providers and public DNS resolvers. The introduction of a new site blocking bill was only a matter of time. But time it took. FADPA comes more than thirteen years after the previous SOPA bill was shut down. Since then, a lot has changed. Instead of a relative novelty, site blocking is commonplace nowadays. The MPA claims that over 50 countries have adopted the practice although as recently as last summer, the industry group’s estimate was around 40. With no similar measures in place, the U.S. is lagging behind, but the same can’t be said about American influence. As highlighted this weekend, movie industry group MPA has been a driving force behind global blocking efforts. The main goal has always been to protect the copyrights of its members, but the experience can also be used to bring site blocking ‘home’. MPA’s Site Blocking Presentation at WIPO The MPA has been closely involved in U.S. site blocking discussions for years and, shortly after FADPA was announced to the public last week, MPA Senior Executive Vice President Karyn Temple will discuss site blocking at the World Intellectual Property Organisation (WIPO). This week, WIPO’s Advisory Committee on Enforcement holds its sixteenth session in Geneva, Switzerland, where Temple will share the MPA’s views on the efficacy of no-fault injunctions. This type of injunction would become available in the United States under FADPA. A preparatory document, released early, highlights that site blocking measures, if done right, can be an effective tool to reduce traffic to pirate websites and increase the use of legitimate services in some cases. “Countries must therefore continue to develop strong and effective enforcement frameworks to address online piracy, including the use of no-fault injunctions to block access to illegal piracy services,” Temple notes. Site Blocking Best Practices Besides illustrating the need and power of site blocking, aided by academic research, the presentation also provides an overview of site blocking “best practices”. Not coincidentally, many of these are covered by the FADPA bill. Drawing from its vast experience around the world, MPA lists five pillars on which effective blocking schemes should be built. 1. Precise Targeting and Proportionality The recommendation to ensure ‘precise’ targeting can be interpreted in two ways. The MPA notes that blocking measures should only focus on websites that are primarily dedicated to sharing pirated content. Sensible safeguards are required to prevent errors. To achieve this, MPA advocates for the use of automated solutions which make sure that blocking measures remain strictly targeted. For example, by lifting blockades when sites change locations. At the same time, however, these automated tools can also block new ‘pirate’ locations if these become available. 2. Balancing Fundamental Rights The MPA’s second recommendation aims to stay ahead of critics. Specifically, it addresses the concern that blocking measures can impact freedom of expression and other fundamental rights. “Site blocking orders can potentially affect several fundamental rights, such as Internet users’ freedom of information and expression and online intermediaries’ freedom to conduct a business,” Temple’s contribution reads. To address the freedom of expression concern, site blocking should focus solely on structurally infringing services. These are the known pirate sites and services that have no significant legitimate use. Potential issues concerning the freedom to conduct business can be addressed by allowing ISPs and other providers to freely choose the blocking methods they prefer. 3. Transparency To keep the public informed and rightsholders accountable, blocking injunctions should be openly accessible. This includes the use of dedicated landing pages that explain who issued the order and on whose behalf. According to the MPA, it is of “paramount importance that site blocking injunctions are rendered in the most transparent way possible.” Transparency is mentioned in the FADPA bill, albeit with some room to maneuver. 4. Dynamic Blockades Pirates typically find ways to circumvent blocking orders. By switching to new IP addresses and domain names, for example. Therefore, blocking orders should be dynamic, so they can be swiftly updated. FADPA allows rightsholders to go back to court to request amendments to existing blocking injunctions. This is not completely dynamic, as court oversight is needed, but it’s not completely static either. Ideally, MPA would like to have effective dynamic site blocking tools. These are particularly important for live broadcasts, including sports, where a timely response is essential. 5. Safeguards and Automated Tools That dynamic live blocking can go horribly wrong has repeatedly been shown in Italy, where the “Piracy Shield” system blocked access to legitimate sites and services. MPA had no part in the Italian system, and is aware of its drawbacks, but believes that automated systems can be effective if they are set up correctly. “In particular, automated communication systems have been put in place between rightsholders and ISPs that allow the first ones to swiftly communicate the updated online locations that should be blocked, subject to a dynamic court order or under the supervision of competent authorities.” If all best practices are followed, including transparency, precision, and proper safeguards, automated tools can work, MPA’s recommendation stresses. Blocking Collaboration All in all, it is clear that the MPA sees site blocking as a powerful tool that, despite criticism, can be rolled out without trampling on the rights of the public at large. The recommendations and best practices also show that MPA is mindful of opposition. While their suggestions won’t convince staunch blocking opponents, lawmakers may be more open to this approach. In any case, MPA hopes to get ISPs and other service providers on the site blocking train. This doesn’t only apply to DNS resolvers, which are covered by FADPA, but also CDN providers. How harmless the resulting measures will be ultimately depends on how they are implemented. These ‘best practices’, as well as the draft of the FADPA bill, are just an outline. The true effect will hinge on the technical implementation. Source Hope you enjoyed this news post. Thank you for appreciating my time and effort posting news every day for many years. News posts... 2023: 5,800+ | 2024: 5,700+ | 2025 (till end of January): 487 RIP Matrix | Farewell my friend

With considerable encouragement from Hollywood and affiliated anti-piracy groups, in 2021 the Malaysian government stepped up its site blocking measures. An official statement published this week reveals that between 2021 and November 2024, a total of 3,682 pirate sites were blocked to prevent exploitation of local content. Interesting, perhaps, but after 15 years of effort, did site-blocking actually work and, if so, who benefited, and how? Excellent infrastructure and limited anti-piracy action made Malaysia a popular hosting location back when torrent sites were in their prime. Then seemingly out of nowhere, in 2008/2009 the government began shutting down popular sites including Extremebits, Rapthe, Superfundo and later, LeechersLair. One BitTorrent tracker owner discovered to his surprise that a device was quietly gathering data from the site’s server. At the time widely attributed to the Malaysian Communications and Multimedia Commission, these physical shutdowns were followed in 2011 by something new. After previously promising never to censor the internet, the Commission announced the imminent blocking of a number of pirate sites, including thepiratebay.org, megaupload.com, megavideo.com, movie2k.to, putlocker.com, and several others. Effectively a gallery of hand-picked Hollywood targets, in hindsight the list could’ve been seen as a statement of intent. Few of the sites survived long enough to experience much blocking, Megaupload in particular. No Turning Back With blocking increasingly common, in 2017 the MPA published a report, titled How Site Blocking in Malaysia Has Significantly Reduced Online Piracy. The study claimed that six months after the completion of six site-blocking waves, traffic to blocked pirate sites had decreased somewhere between 67% to 74%. Up to Three-Quarters of Piracy eliminated (slide credit: MPA) Despite the reported success against blocked sites, success against the unblocked sites quickly meeting demand required even more blocking. The next wave of success and the subsequent and inevitable rise of other unblocked sites kept Malaysian authorities busy; in 2019 (438 sites), 2020 (644), and in 2021 (347). Whether some or all of these ‘sites’ were clones, mirrors, or proxies, or potentially just new domains, wasn’t revealed. In total 1,429 ‘sites’ were added to the blocklist, but that was only the beginning. Slide credit: Ministry of Domestic Trade & Consumer Affairs (MDTCA) While pirate site blocking has been around for almost 20 years, key aspects of this enforcement measure never change. The history of site blocking in Malaysia shows the same pattern and may even provide a textbook example. 1. Initial Blocking Request Never a One-Off, But it Will Succeed The SOPA disaster in the United States showed that acceptance of site blocking measures can’t be taken for granted. Opinions vary, but two key mistakes haven’t been repeated since: 1) encouraging mass opposition by demanding too much, too early and 2) misjudging the importance of timing. After appearing on the USTR’s Priority Watch List in 2000 and 2001, Malaysia quickly showed “significant improvement” and was moved to the less oppressive Watch List a year later. For the next decade the USTR found no reason to change the status quo but after blocking some of the world’s most popular sites in 2011, Malaysia was removed from the Watch List the very next year. The MPA’s 2017 report cited earlier suggested that subsequent site-blocking was another success for Malaysia. Failure at that stage would’ve been unthinkable and could’ve fatally dampened enthusiasm for any further blocking. After so much effort, that was never likely to happen. Additional Requests Always Follow The blocking of 1,429 additional ‘sites’ in 2019/20/21 suggests that ‘success’ in 2017 triggered a massive increase in blocking requests. A study published by the Asia Video Industry Association (AVIA), which counts the MPA’s members among its own, reported significant ongoing success in 2020. The details appeared in a government presentation, Enforcement of Intellectual Property Rights in Malaysia, and were just as impressive. Slide credit: Ministry of Domestic Trade & Consumer Affairs (MDTCA) In summary then, we have a background of blocked pirate sites losing between 67%-74% of their traffic (MPA/2017), and a 64% decline in Malaysian consumers accessing pirate streaming sites in 2020. If we assume that new copyright law, providing for up to 20 years in prison for online pirates, acted as a deterrent following its introduction during 2021, Malaysia should’ve been well on its way to even greater success. Unfortunately, the rule that success always leads to more blocking requests, was confirmed in a Malaysian government announcement this week. Over 3,600 Sites Offering Pirated Content Blocked Since 2021 According to a Bernama report, the latest data made available by the Malaysian government show that a total of “3,682 illegal websites offering and spreading pirated content” were blocked between 2021 and November 2024. Minister of Domestic Trade and Cost of Living, Datuk Armizan Mohd Ali, said his department (KPDN) carried out the blocking in collaboration the Malaysian Communications and Multimedia Commission (MCMC) and local ISPs. “This is part of the ministry’s commitment to protecting local creative works from being exploited illegally,” he said. “KPDN will continue to strengthen cooperation with various agencies involved in efforts to address digital piracy issues.” With the total number of sites blocked since 2019 now at 5,100+, the most important question is whether these considerable blocking efforts have had a positive effect and if so, what were they, and who benefited? Based solely on the somewhat confusing figures presented above, in theory piracy should’ve been eliminated given the reported collapse in pirate site attendance. While that’s unlikely, a progress report on the stated aim of protecting local content shouldn’t be completely impossible. In the meantime, a certificate of appreciation signed by the Premier League must count for something. Source Hope you enjoyed this news post. Thank you for appreciating my time and effort posting news every day for many years. News posts... 2023: 5,800+ | 2024: 5,700+ RIP Matrix | Farewell my friend

The first pirate site blocking order in Canada was 'discontinued' this week. The plaintiffs, including rightsholders Bell and Rogers, won't request an extension of the landmark blocking measures against IPTV service GoldTV. Interestingly, many of the targeted domains are still online. No reason was provided for the discontinuation, but costs and changed priorities likely play a role. In 2018, Canada’s Federal Court approved the country’s first pirate site-blocking order. Following a complaint from major media companies Rogers, Bell and TVA, the Court ordered several major ISPs to block access to the domains and IP-addresses of pirate IPTV service GoldTV. Site Blocking Appeals There was little opposition from Internet providers, except for TekSavvy, which quickly announced an appeal. According to the ISP, the blocking injunction threatened the open Internet, just to advance the interests of a few powerful media conglomerates. Canada’s Federal Court of Appeal disagreed and in 2021 it concluded that the blocking order can stay in place. According to the Court, site-blocking injunctions are an available option under the Copyright Act and they don’t violate freedom of speech or net neutrality. Hoping to turn the tide, TekSavvy petitioned the Supreme Court to review the impact of site blocking on the open internet. However, Canada’s highest court declined to hear the case, effectively establishing Canada’s judicial site blocking route. Blockade Evolves and Expands The initial GoldTV blocking order was valid for two years. After that, rightsholders had to go back to court to request an extension. That happened indeed, and as time went on the blocking targets have evolved quite a bit. After two years, none of the original domains were included in the blocking order. This is no surprise, as the original target domains were discontinued and replaced by new ones. In 2022, the Federal Court approved the latest update, which included the domains destv.me, 905iptv.com, firtio.club, jiocdn.cc, new4k.co and zkat.me, as well as dozens of related subdomains. Most of these domains are still online today, linking to IPTV stalker portals. Rightsholders Let Blocking Order Expire While the blocking measures were still effective earlier this month, rightsholders Bell, Rogers, and TVA have decided not to request any further extensions. This effectively means that the blocking measures expired last weekend. In a letter to the court, the plaintiffs state that they do not intend to further extend the duration of blocking the order. In addition, they have decided to discontinue the underlying lawsuit against the ‘unknown’ GoldTV defendants. No further extensions The media companies provide no further details on the decision, but it’s possible that the costs of keeping the blocking order intact weigh stronger than the perceived benefit. Unlike in some other countries, the rightsholders must compensate ISPs for the costs incurred. While the GoldTV blocking measures are now discontinued, most of the targeted domains still appear to be up and running. These specific IPTV portals are not particularly popular today, but they were certainly not eradicated. New Blocking Targets Take Priority Rightsholders haven’t been sitting still, of course. The GoldTV case was the first test case; broader and more dynamic blocking efforts have followed since. These affect live streams of popular sporting events. This summer, rightsholders including Bell, Fubo TV, Rogers, and The Sports Network obtained a blocking order that covers multiple sports. The organizations sought to secure a blocking order for new NBA, NHL and Premier League games, identifying three “John Doe” defendants. Meanwhile, there is an ongoing proceeding in Canada against popular streaming site Soap2Day. The site officially shut down last year after a complaint was filed, but rightsholders could still try to obtain a blocking order to target its ‘copycats’. Source Hope you enjoyed this news post. Thank you for appreciating my time and effort posting news every day for many years. 2023: Over 5,800 news posts | 2024 (till end of November): 5,298 news posts RIP Matrix | Farewell my friend

During the coming weeks, the 15,000th piracy-linked resource will likely find itself blocked by Brazilian ISPs in response to yet another court order. Indications that Brazil is already testing piracy blocking measures at the internet's core routers is controversial, but if blocking is accurate and only targets pirate sites, criticism may be limited. With a new 250+ domain blocking wave implemented this week, let's take a closer look at how things play out. Brazil’s enthusiasm for blocking piracy-linked domains and IP addresses is showing no signs of slowing down. Despite being a relative newcomer to mass blockades on copyright grounds, Brazil’s ISPs will soon find themselves blocking the 15,000th resource since restrictions began in earnest just a couple of years ago. That the cycle is guaranteed to continue next year, and at minimum a few years after that, celebrating the blocking of the 30,000th domain or IP address is no longer the impossible dream it once was. Whether the constant requirement for more and more blocking is a sign of success, or more like a dream turning into a nightmare, is hard to say. Pirates don’t appear to be deterred by it, that much as obvious. What if Blocking Works and There are No Blunders? In a recent interview, a departing board member of telecoms regulator Anatel said that site-blocking is paying off. Artur Coimbra said that customer satisfaction with pirate set-top boxes is in decline and if that continues, one day people won’t want to use piracy services at all. It’s hard to fault the theory that people dislike spending money on things that fail to perform. Whether that’s how things will actually play out remains to be seen because history has shown that the opposite generally holds true. But Coimbra also had some controversial news up his sleeve about a new piracy countermeasure; he revealed that blocking tests are already underway at the internet’s core routers. The implications of blocking blunders at the infrastructure level go beyond anything considered thus far. But what if mistakes and the risk to society could be eliminated? What if there was accuracy and transparency and accountability, all at the same time? Given that showing accuracy is largely reliant on full transparency which rarely exists, accountability isn’t a concept closely associated with site-blocking regimes anywhere. That being said, wherever possible we always try to find out for ourselves and since an unexpected surge of blocking orders covering 250+ domains went live yesterday, now seems a good time to take a closer look. Brazil’s Blocklist is Not Dissimilar to Many Others Brazil’s blocklist isn’t available to the public but since ISPs are required to comply and the effects should in theory be visible, various means allow for a decent overview. Right now the list contains over 13,100 domains and around 1,500 IP addresses, most of them piracy-related but not exclusively so. Blocked gambling sites also feature quite strongly, as do sites selling vapes, although at least for now, relatively sparingly. Even Elon Musk’s X appeared on the list recently; after the entrepreneur irritated a judge, the convenience of having a blocking mechanism to hand made the consequences very predictable. Movies and Live Sports Piracy Having been heavily targeted previously, stream-ripping platforms deserve a mention, but largely they get to sit this wave out. The list still contains lots of related domains, including around 50 ytmp3 variants, 24 featuring the term y2mate, and another 50 with conv/convert/converter somewhere in their domain, but the new batch is all about streaming. The new domains added Monday follow directly after a batch of familiar piracy domains including 123movieswatch4k.com, 123movieslane.com, 123movieses.net, 123moviesking.com, and 123movieszfree.me. With that naming convention offering no surprises, the same holds true for several recently added bflix domains, accompanied by even more 123movies domains, because why not? They’ll be useless by the end of the week anyway. The list of new additions is initially dominated by variants of multicanais, a popular live sports streaming platform that refuses to stay blocked. Less easy to explain is the domain highlighted in yellow – danielgarcialeilao.org. While hiding pirate sites within innocent-looking platforms isn’t unheard of, the site shown above appears to be an auction site for recovered and wrecked vehicles, and we haven’t see anything like that before. Targeting Dan Alternatively, if reports elsewhere are to be believed, this may be a fake site impersonating the real Daniel Garcia Auctions. According to reports, the difference is that while one is a business that actually exists, the other takes customers’ money and heads for the hills. While there will be few complaints if the authorities protect citizens from an alleged scam at the hands of a fake Dan, there’s another Dan on the blocklist that is 100% genuine. Domain sales platform Dan.com is owned by GoDaddy and may not be performing quite as well in Brazil as previously hoped. The URL https://t.co/rtG5bJ3jkz is also blocked, presumably because it previously linked to FilmesTorrents.net. Today that domain is up for sale on GoDaddy but if anyone from Brazil is interested in it, using a VPN or similar circumvention tool comes with its own risks. We’re informed that circumvention of blockades can be considered an offense in Brazil although under what circumstances isn’t completely clear. FilmesTorrent fans, meanwhile, must’ve had fun keeping up with domain changes; at the time of writing there are 34 domains on the blocklist with a similar format. Trying to keep track of domain changes for streaming site Cuevana and its many namesakes would’ve been exponentially more tricky. At the time of writing there are more than 500 variants on the list, including icuevana4.pro, cuevana3z.autos, cuevana3.supply, and the aptly named, cuevanaa.help, which throws in an extra ‘a’ at the end, just to keep things interesting. Conclusion Just scrolling through 10,000+ domains is pretty exhausting so detailed checking will likely take us quite a few hours. There’s only so much automated tools can achieve on their own so if other obviously legitimate domains also appear on the list, we’ll report that in due course. What we can confirm is that after scanning every domain recently added to the list, attempting to take a screenshot, scraping a small amount of text from each, and carrying out some automated security checks, 22 domains had issues related to some type of malware. At least 30 indicated a risk of phishing. In both cases this may relate to a new domain in the event redirects are already in place. We certainly aren’t recommending that people visit any of the sites but for those who can’t resist, basic anti-virus software is unlikely to detect these types of threats. That being said, common sense says that Dan.com shouldn’t be on this list. There might be a reason, but it’s unlikely to be viewed in a positive light back in the United States. It’s possible that GoDaddy doesn’t even know that it’s being blocked, but that’s no surprise when transparency becomes a thing of the past. Brazil: ISP Site Blocking Orders (Online Piracy) [2023-06-28 to 2024-11-18] Order Date Legal Authority/Agency Site/Piracy Type Transparency 2024-11-18 Tribunal de Justiça de São Paulo / CyberGaeco Streaming Piracy Restricted 2024-11-14 Tribunal de Justiça de Pernambuco IPTV / Stream-Ripping Restricted 2024-11-13 Tribunal de Justiça de São Paulo / ABTA (TV) IPTV / Movie Piracy Restricted 2024-11-12 Tribunal de Justiça de Pernambuco IPTV / Stream-Ripping Restricted 2024-11-12 Tribunal de Justiça de Pernambuco IPTV / Stream-Ripping Restricted 2024-11-06 Tribunal de Justiça do Distrito Federal e dos Territórios Piracy Restricted 2024-10-30 Tribunal de Justiça de Pernambuco IPTV / Stream-Ripping Restricted 2024-10-29 Tribunal de Justiça de Pernambuco IPTV / Stream-Ripping Restricted 2024-10-28 Tribunal de Justiça de São Paulo / ABTA (TV) IPTV / Movie Piracy Restricted 2024-10-25 Tribunal de Justiça de São Paulo / CyberGaeco Streaming Piracy Restricted 2024-10-25 Tribunal de Justiça de Pernambuco IPTV / Stream-Ripping Restricted 2024-10-25 Tribunal de Justiça de São Paulo / CyberGaeco Streaming Piracy Restricted 2024-10-22 Tribunal de Justiça de São Paulo / ABTA (TV) IPTV / Movie Piracy Restricted 2024-10-22 Tribunal de Justiça de São Paulo / ABTA (TV) IPTV / Movie Piracy Restricted 2024-10-17 Tribunal de Justiça de São Paulo / ABTA (TV) IPTV / Movie Piracy Restricted 2024-10-15 Tribunal de Justiça de São Paulo / ABTA (TV) IPTV / Movie Piracy Restricted 2024-10-10 Tribunal de Justiça de São Paulo / ABTA (TV) IPTV / Movie Piracy Restricted 2024-10-09 Tribunal de Justiça de Pernambuco IPTV / Stream-Ripping Restricted 2024-10-07 Tribunal de Justiça de São Paulo / ABTA (TV) IPTV / Movie Piracy Restricted 2024-10-02 Tribunal de Justiça de São Paulo / ABTA (TV) IPTV / Movie Piracy Restricted 2024-10-02 Tribunal de Justiça de Pernambuco IPTV / Stream-Ripping Restricted 2024-09-30 Tribunal de Justiça de São Paulo / ABTA (TV) IPTV / Movie Piracy Restricted 2024-09-30 Tribunal de Justiça de São Paulo / CyberGaeco Streaming Piracy Restricted 2024-09-25 Tribunal de Justiça de São Paulo / CyberGaeco Streaming Piracy Restricted 2024-09-25 Tribunal de Justiça de Pernambuco IPTV / Stream-Ripping Restricted 2024-09-23 Tribunal de Justiça de São Paulo / CyberGaeco Streaming Piracy Restricted 2024-09-18 Tribunal de Justiça de São Paulo / ABTA (TV) IPTV / Movie Piracy Restricted 2024-09-17 Tribunal de Justiça de São Paulo / CyberGaeco Streaming Piracy Restricted 2024-09-16 Tribunal de Justiça de São Paulo / ABTA (TV) IPTV / Movie Piracy Restricted 2024-09-16 Tribunal de Justiça de Pernambuco IPTV / Stream-Ripping Restricted 2024-09-13 Tribunal de Justiça de São Paulo / ABTA (TV) IPTV / Movie Piracy Restricted 2024-09-06 Tribunal de Justiça de São Paulo / ABTA (TV) IPTV / Movie Piracy Restricted 2024-09-03 Tribunal de Justiça de São Paulo / ABTA (TV) IPTV / Movie Piracy Restricted 2024-08-30 Tribunal de Justiça de São Paulo / ABTA (TV)) IPTV / Movie Piracy Restricted 2024-08-29 Tribunal de Justiça de Santa Catarina Movie Piracy Restricted 2024-08-29 Tribunal de Justiça de Pernambuco IPTV / Stream-Ripping Restricted 2024-08-27 Tribunal de Justiça de São Paulo / ABTA (TV) IPTV / Movie Piracy Restricted 2024-08-26 Tribunal de Justiça de São Paulo / ABTA (TV) IPTV / Movie Piracy Restricted 2024-08-16 Tribunal de Justiça de São Paulo / ABTA (TV) IPTV / Movie Piracy Restricted 2024-08-15 Tribunal de Justiça de São Paulo / ABTA (TV) IPTV / Movie Piracy Restricted 2024-08-13 Tribunal de Justiça de São Paulo / ABTA (TV) IPTV / Movie Piracy Restricted 2024-08-12 Tribunal de Justiça de Pernambuco IPTV / Stream-Ripping Restricted 2024-08-07 Tribunal de Justiça de Pernambuco IPTV / Stream-Ripping Restricted 2024-08-07 Tribunal de Justiça de São Paulo / ABTA (TV) IPTV / Movie Piracy Restricted 2024-08-07 Tribunal de Justiça de São Paulo / ABTA (TV) IPTV / Movie Piracy Restricted 2024-08-02 Tribunal de Justiça de São Paulo / ABTA (TV) IPTV / Movie Piracy Restricted 2024-07-29 Tribunal de Justiça de São Paulo / CyberGaeco Streaming Piracy Restricted 2024-07-24 Tribunal de Justiça de São Paulo / ABTA (TV) IPTV / Movie Piracy Restricted 2024-07-24 Tribunal de Justiça de São Paulo / CyberGaeco Streaming Piracy Restricted 2024-07-23 Tribunal de Justiça de São Paulo / ABTA (TV) IPTV / Movie Piracy Restricted 2024-07-22 Tribunal de Justiça de Pernambuco IPTV / Stream-Ripping Restricted 2024-07-16 Tribunal de Justiça de São Paulo / CyberGaeco Streaming Piracy Restricted 2024-07-10 Tribunal de Justiça de São Paulo / ABTA (TV) IPTV / Movie Piracy Restricted 2024-07-10 Tribunal de Justiça de Pernambuco IPTV / Stream-Ripping Restricted 2024-07-04 Tribunal de Justiça de São Paulo / CyberGaeco Streaming Piracy Restricted 2024-07-01 Tribunal de Justiça de São Paulo / CyberGaeco Streaming Piracy Restricted 2024-06-27 Tribunal de Justiça de São Paulo / ABTA (TV) IPTV / Movie Piracy Restricted 2024-06-26 Tribunal de Justiça de Pernambuco IPTV / Stream-Ripping Restricted 2024-06-24 Tribunal de Justiça de Pernambuco IPTV / Stream-Ripping Restricted 2024-06-21 Tribunal de Justiça de São Paulo / CyberGaeco Streaming Piracy Restricted 2024-06-20 Tribunal de Justiça de São Paulo / ABTA (TV) IPTV / Movie Piracy Restricted 2024-06-19 Tribunal de Justiça de São Paulo / CyberGaeco Streaming Piracy Restricted 2024-06-04 Tribunal de Justiça de Pernambuco IPTV / Stream-Ripping Restricted 2024-05-29 Tribunal de Justiça de São Paulo / CyberGaeco Streaming Piracy Restricted 2024-05-24 Tribunal de Justiça de São Paulo / ABTA (TV) IPTV / Movie Piracy Restricted 2024-05-22 Tribunal de Justiça de São Paulo / CyberGaeco Streaming Piracy Restricted 2024-05-17 Tribunal de Justiça de São Paulo / ABTA (TV) IPTV / Movie Piracy Restricted 2024-05-10 Tribunal de Justiça de Pernambuco IPTV / Stream-Ripping Restricted 2024-05-10 Tribunal de Justiça de São Paulo / CyberGaeco Streaming Piracy Restricted 2024-05-07 Tribunal de Justiça de São Paulo / ABTA (TV) IPTV / Movie Piracy Restricted 2024-04-22 Tribunal de Justiça de Pernambuco IPTV / Stream-Ripping Restricted 2024-04-19 Tribunal de Justiça de São Paulo / CyberGaeco Streaming Piracy Restricted 2024-04-10 Tribunal de Justiça de São Paulo / CyberGaeco Streaming Piracy Restricted 2024-04-09 Tribunal de Justiça de Pernambuco IPTV / Stream-Ripping Restricted 2024-03-24 Tribunal de Justiça de São Paulo / ABTA (TV) IPTV / Movie Piracy Restricted 2024-03-21 Tribunal de Justiça de São Paulo / ABTA (TV) IPTV / Movie Piracy Restricted 2024-03-20 Tribunal de Justiça de Pernambuco IPTV / Stream-Ripping Restricted 2024-03-14 Tribunal de Justiça de Pernambuco IPTV / Stream-Ripping Restricted 2024-03-12 Tribunal de Justiça de São Paulo / ABTA (TV) IPTV / Movie Piracy Restricted 2024-03-01 Tribunal de Justiça de São Paulo / ABTA (TV) IPTV / Movie Piracy Restricted 2024-02-26 Tribunal de Justiça de São Paulo / CyberGaeco Streaming Open 2024-02-23 Tribunal de Justiça de São Paulo IPTV Open 2024-02-19 Tribunal de Justiça de Pernambuco IPTV / Stream-Ripping Restricted 2023-12-18 Tribunal de Justiça de São Paulo / CyberGaeco Stream-Ripping Open 2023-12-06 Tribunal de Justiça de Pernambuco / Policia Civil de Pernambuco IPTV Open 2023-08-31 Agência Nacional de Telecomunicações (Anatel) Restricted 2023-08-10 Agência Nacional de Telecomunicações (Anatel) Restricted 2023-07-28 Agência Nacional de Telecomunicações (Anatel) Restricted 2023-06-28 Agência Nacional de Telecomunicações (Anatel) Restricted Source Hope you enjoyed this news post. Thank you for appreciating my time and effort posting news every day for many years. 2023: Over 5,800 news posts | 2024 (till end of October): 4,832 news posts RIP Matrix | Farewell my friend

's Federal Court of Justice has clarified the conditions under which rightsholders can seek site-blocking orders to restrict access to piracy sites. Deutsche Telekom had refused to implement DNS blocking against Sci-Hub and Libgen, arguing that more reasonable options were available to copyright holders. The Court agreed that website blocking should be a last resort. Sci-Hub and Libgen have developed a reputation for breaking down digital walls as part of their quest to grant universal access to scientific papers, research, and knowledge. This mission objective receives considerable support from both academics and students. In stark contrast, major publishing companies own the rights to millions of papers being offered by Sci-Hub and Libgen for free, something that undermines their premium business model. The publishers view the platforms as straightforward pirate sites so want to deny access to them in any way possible, including via site-blocking measures. Publishers from , the United Kingdom, and United States have been fighting a legal battle in . They believe that telecoms company Deutsche Telekom should implement DNS blocking to prevent customers from accessing Sci-Hub and Libgen. After an initial lawsuit and subsequent appeal found in favor of one party and then the other, a ruling published by the First Civil Senate of the Federal Court of Justice (BGH) now clarifies the conditions under which site-blocking measures can be sought. District Court of Munich The case was first heard at the District Court of Munich (LG München) where publishers including Elsevier and Springer Nature claimed exclusive rights in publications including The Lancet and Nature. They claimed with a certainty of 99.99% that at least 96% of the content offered by Sci-Hub and Libgen was being made available to the public without the necessary rights. The publishers said that before filing the lawsuit to compel Deutsche Telekom to implement DNS blocking, they had obtained a $15m judgment and injunction against Sci-Hub in the United States and conducted investigations in Russia and elsewhere. None of these ‘wins’ led to Sci-Hub shutting down. Targeting Sci-Hub’s hosting providers was also ineffective. The publishers said copyright complaints were ignored or Sci-Hub would move to another provider, including so-called “bullet proof” hosting companies selling non-cooperation as part of their feature set. With no other options left, compelling Deutsche Telekom to implement DNS blocking would be reasonable and also relatively cheap (2,000 to 4,000 euros), the publishers said. Deutsche Telekom said it was not responsible for the infringements of third parties, nor was it able to assess or influence the intent of internet users during a pre-existing communications process. Noting that DNS blocking is unsuitable for eliminating infringement, the telecoms company said that the publishers had failed to exhaust more reasonable other options, including legal action against hosting providers. In its decision, the Munich District Court sided with the publishers and ordered a number of Sci-hub domains (plus unrelated proxy sites) to be blocked by Deutsche Telekom. Court of Appeal and Federal Court of Justice Decisions Deutsche Telekom appealed the Munich District Court’s decision, arguing that the publishers failed to exhaust other available options before requesting a blockade, as required by law. This includes action against a hosting provider in Sweden, a member of the European Union. The Munich Higher District Court (OLG München) agreed, overturned the lower court’s decision, and dismissed the case. Following a legal review carried out by ’s Federal Court of Justice (Bundesgerichtshof, BGH), a decision published yesterday finds that the court of appeal made the correct decision when it sided with Deutsche Telekom. Site-Blocking Should Be a Tool of Last Resort The Federal Court of Justice notes that the Telemedia Act (TMG) allows rightsholders to request blocking orders against internet service providers in order to prevent repeated violations of their rights. While this can include DNS blockades, certain conditions must be met before the relief can be obtained. Under the TMG, the rightsholder must have “no other possibility” of dealing with infringement. The Federal Court of Justice writes that demanding DNS blocking from an ISP (Deutsche Telekom) is only suitable when action against parties closer to the infringement has been exhausted. In this case, the publishers should have filed a lawsuit in against the known Sweden-based hosting provider, demanding that it hands over all information relating to its customers, Sci-Hub and Libgen. Without even attempting this option of targeting the infringement closer to where it occurs, the publishers should not have demanded a DNS block from a service provider. “The access provider [Deutsche Telekom], who only provides general access to the Internet, is only secondarily liable to those parties who (like the operator of the website) committed the infringement themselves or (like the host provider) contributed to the infringement by providing services and are therefore much closer to the violation of legal interests,” the decision reads. “The plaintiffs must attempt to assert a right to information against the Swedish host provider before a German court by way of an injunction. There is no reason to refer the matter back to the Court of Appeal. The plaintiffs have made extensive submissions on the measures they have taken.” The BGH decision can be found here. It underlines a BGH decision handed down in 2015 which found that internet providers can be obliged to block infringing websites on the condition that rightsholders have already done everything reasonably possible to stop the infringement. Federal Court of Justice: Pirate Site Blocking Must Be a Tool of Last Resort