ZeroPaid.com » mpaa

Hollywood Wins Court Case – ISP Ordered to Block NewzBin2

Drew Wilson — Thu, 28 Jul 2011 22:47:29 +0000

While major entertainment corporations are working hard at censoring the internet in the United States through the PROTECT IP Act, it corporate sponsored censorship has already become a reality in the UK thanks to what some have referred to as a landmark court case.

Legally speaking, the internet got a little more censored recently. The Telegraph is reporting that Hollywood has won a major court case in which they are now, for now, able to compel ISPs to block access to, really, any website they pick and choose in the name of combating copyright infringement. At stake was general access to a website known as NewzBin2. NewzBin2 is a website that offers an index of NZB files. NZB indexing sites are generally simply a list of small files that are merely metadata. The NZB files points to a file made available on one of the oldest known file-sharing networks that is still used quite a lot - UseNet. The file is a bit like a .torrent file, only the file is on a server - or maybe several servers - instead of on other people's computers. The actual downloading typically doesn't happen on the NZB indexing site nor is the NZB indexing site keeping track of any data flowing to and from the user. An NZB file may be convenient, but it simply isn't necessary for downloading anything on UseNet (access to UseNet providers, sure, but not the NZB file) So, knowing this, the only thing the court ruling really does is enable Hollywood to censor the internet in the UK. Blocking NewzBin2 will amount to nothing in the end except maybe a temporary minor inconvenience for some people. Many already point to the fact that an encrypted connection will circumvent whatever the ISP throws down against its own users - and if you're using UseNet regularly, there's a good chance you'd know about how to hide your connection from ISP level censorship anyway, I think. What is a little disconcerting is what the judge said in his ruling. From the report:

“In my judgment it follows that BT has actual knowledge of other persons using its service to infringe copyright: it knows that the users and operators of Newbin2 infringe copyright on a large scale, and in particular infringe the copyrights of the Studios in large numbers of their films and television programmes," said Justice Arnold. In opposing the order, BT had argued that Newzbin2 also links to lawful content, but the court said it was far outweighed by pirated material and that "BT’s best shot was to point to a reference to the 1891 Lancashire census".

If the judge is suggesting that ISPs know what everyone on their network is doing, then isn't that like saying that the operators of a major subway network know exactly where everyone in the network is going? Sure, whoever is controlling the network might be able to track a handful of individuals, but trying to track every person is way too demanding as the amount of man hours to make sure it knows the movements of every user is simply impractical. Even scarier is the suggestion that lawful content is no excuse to stop the blocking of a website. It's very difficult to really know where to begin with that. How much content has to be infringing in order for the website to be blocked? Will it have to be more than 50% infringing content? 25% infringing content? One song that happens to have three notes that are similar to another song? Where's the bar set here? That point is not reflected in the report and if the judgement doesn't specify what the level is, it's not completely illogical to suggest that Hollywood can really block every website in existence. How many websites have at least a reference to copyrighted material (i.e. a message on a forum saying "Listening to Kiss right now.")? The amusing part is the fact that the censorship of NewzBin2 will be put in place in the Fall. No doubt this will give NewzBin2 plenty of time to figure out how to bi-pass this measure for it's UK users. Even better is the fact that this only affects BT currently and similar motions will be brought to other ISPs. I don't see how NewzBin2 simply changing it's website to another name for its British users won't defeat this in any way. Call the site "Fuzzybunniesjumpinginthefield.com" and allow access to the NewzBin2 services. If you plan on finding ways to circumvent British censorship in order to download the entire Adbobe Suites in the future, you only have until the end of the Summer holidays to figure it out! In the end, this will do little more than damage the internet infrastructure as more methods to circumvent censorship measures will be developed. Activities like this will probably have an affect on users wanting to use the internet for legitimate purposes, but it's unlikely that this will even come close to putting a dent on file-sharing. Have a tip? Want to contact the author? You can do so by sending a PM via the forums or via e-mail at drew@zeropaid.com.

Senate Judiciary Committee Approves Plan to Filter the Internet

Jared Moya — Tue, 31 May 2011 16:23:41 +0000

PROTECT IP Act would give the Department of Justice the power to force ISPs and search engines to block access to infringing sites. Bill now moves forward to a full vote by the Senate.

Late last week the Senate Judiciary Committee approved the controversial "Preventing Real Online Threats to Economic Creativity and Theft of Intellectual Property Act," or "PROTECT IP Act as it's known, giving the Department of Justice and copyright holders greatly expanded powers in the battle against online infringement. “Today the Judiciary Committee took an important step in protecting online intellectual property rights," said Senator Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) afterwards. "The Internet is not a lawless free-for-all where anything goes. The Constitution protects both property and speech, both online and off.” First proposed earlier this month, the PROTECT IP Act would give the Attorney General the power to force US based third-parties, including ISPs, payment processors, online advertising network providers, and search engines to either block access to an infringing site or cease doing business with it. Copyright holders would be able to target payment processors and online advertising network providers. “Increased online theft of intellectual property has become a rampant problem,” added Senator Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa). “The impact of copyright piracy and sale of counterfeit goods imposes a huge cost on the American economy – lost jobs, lost sales, and lost income. This bill will help to protect against harmful counterfeit and pirated products that cause damage to both the economy and the health and safety of the consumer.” Copyright holder groups like the MPAA and RIAA are obviously pleased with the news. “It’s essential that we reign in online thieves and business models predicated on ripping off America’s songwriters, musicians and performers,” said Mitch Bainwol, RIAA Chairman. “A review of the most frequently visited web sites – including those specializing in pre-release songs that are not yet even available in the legitimate marketplace -- feature banner ads for some of America’s best known companies. The MPAA also welcomed passage of thge PROTECT IP Act. "The Judiciary Committee took an important step today to stop theft and save jobs," said Michael O'Leary, Executive Vice President, Government Affairs of the MPAA. "By helping shut down rogue websites that profit from stolen films, television shows, and other counterfeit goods, this legislation will protect wages and benefits for the millions of middle class workers who bring America's creativity to life." Critics, however abound. The Electronic Frontier Foundation has reminded people of the fact that it could have serious domain name system (DNS) implications. It writes:

When COICA was introduced in the Senate last fall, EFF wrote about its dangerous implications for the Internet’s domain name system (DNS). These remain true for PIPA, despite the removal of a provision that would have required registrars and registries to block domain names pointing to sites “dedicated to infringing activities.” Because blocking via registries and registrars underlies Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s ongoing practice of seizing domain names, taking this device out of PIPA is small gain. The bill will still require targeted DNS server operators like ISPs to prevent an identified domain name from resolving to the domain's IP address, thereby preventing their users from accessing those sites. As a result, the warnings that we and others gave last year about serious security vulnerabilities and a fractured Internet are unchanged.

Public Knowledge said it was "disappointed" with the news. “We are disappointed that the Senate Judiciary Committee today approved legislation (S. 968) that will threaten the security and global functioning of the Internet, and opens the door to nuisance lawsuits while doing little if anything to curb the issues of international source of illegal downloads the bill seeks to address," said Sherwin Siy, the group's deputy legal director. o That's the real problem. Internet users will still be able to bypass any proposed search engine filter or ISP-level site blocking, and foreign infringing sites will still be accessible. The PROTECT IP Act talks about “safeguards” like allowing domain name operators or site owners to petition the court to have the orders vacated, but it still occurs after the fact and the damage done. Stay tuned. jared@zeropaid.com _____________________________ BillText-PROTECTIPAct

MPAA, RIAA Blast Google’s Pledge to Fight Net Filters

Jared Moya — Fri, 20 May 2011 14:54:02 +0000

Call the move "baffling," and a form of a "corporate imperialism." Say proposed US net filter doesn't compare to China's "Great Firewall" because China's filter isn't "bi-partisan" or "narrowly tailored."

Soon after Google’s executive chairman, Eric Schmidt, said the company would fight efforts to implement a US net filtering regime the MPAA and RIAA weighed in to criticize the search engine giant for opposing the plans. Schmidt set net filters would set a “disastrous precedent” for freedom of speech online, and that even if legislation was passed into law it would still fight it. “If there is a law that requires DNSs [domain name systems, the protocol that allows users to connect to websites] to do X and it’s passed by both houses of congress and signed by the president of the United States and we disagree with it then we would still fight it,” he said. The MPAA expressed astonishment at the comment and asked if Schmidt believes Google is "above the law." "Is Eric Schmidt really suggesting that if Congress passes a law and President Obama signs it, Google wouldn’t follow it? As an American company respected around the world, it’s unfortunate that, at least according to its executive chairman’s comments, Google seems to think it’s above America’s laws," said the MPAA. Plans for web filtering in the US are still in the early stages. Last week lawmakers submitted the “Preventing Real Online Threats to Economic Creativity and Theft of Intellectual Property Act of 2011,” or the “PROTECT IP Act.” The bill would give the Dept of Justice the power to force US based third-parties, including ISPs, payment processors, online advertising network providers, and search engines to either block access to infringing sites or cease doing business with it. Schmidt added that he thought net filtering would set a “disastrous precedent” for freedom of speech online, and compared it to the "Great Firewall" of China. The MPAA responded by claiming the two aren't the same since China's net filtering regime isn't "bi-partisan" or "narrowly tailored." "And the notion that China would use a bi-partisan, narrowly tailored bill as a pretext for censorship is laughable, as Google knows, China does what China does," it said. It's an odd criticism to make. Just because a bill is "bi-partisan" doesn't mean it's any different, and how can it say the "PROTECT IP Act" is "narrowly tailored" when it encourages voluntary filtering and sanctions against sites that third parties can arbitrarily determine are infringing? The legislation also puts the US govt in the hypocritical position of telling other countries not to filter the Internet while we ourselves do. Last March the US State Dept criticized the Australia govt over similar plans in that country. Even further damaging is a statement made by US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton urging the private sector to "take a proactive role in challenging foreign governments’ demands for censorship and surveillance." "The private sector has a shared responsibility to help safeguard free expression. And when their business dealings threaten to undermine this freedom, they need to consider what’s right, not simply what’s a quick profit," she added. Doesn't this apply to Google even if it is right here at home? The RIAA called Google's comments "baffling" and said it couldn't believe the company doesn't care about creating a "civilized online ecosystem," but is it really all that baffling that a search engine would be concerned about govt attempts to filter its results? What's to stop every other country in the world from demanding a filtering regime of their own? Stay tuned. jared@zeropaid.com

Cyberlocker Hotfile Fights Back Against MPAA Infringement Suit

Jared Moya — Fri, 08 Apr 2011 16:49:28 +0000

Notes that "Studios do not deny that Hotfile scrupulously complies with the DMCA safe harbor provisions," and yet they "complain that they are 'left to play catch-up' because of the 'scale' and 'speed' of users‘ alleged infringement."

Cyberlocker Hotfile.com is fighting back against claims by the MPAA that the site's "entire business model" is to facilitate copyright infringement by third parties. This past February the MPAA filed a copyright infringement lawsuit against Hotfile, arguing that the site “facilitates the theft of copyrighted motion picture and properties on a staggering scale and profits handsomely from encouraging and providing the means for massive copyright infringement.” Unlike other cyberlocker sites Hotfile rewards users with money kickbacks based on the ratio of uploaded files to the number downloads. Hotfile says that file's "popularity" file is no indication of whether it's copyrighted or not. Hotfile says the Studios are trying to rehash the famous Sony Betamax decision of 1984 in which the Supreme Court ruled in favor of technology "capable of substantial non-infringing uses" much like its online data storage service. It points out that it has has complied with each and every DMCA takedown notice it's received from the MPAA, and even blocks access to "specifically-identified copyrighted works." "The Studios do not deny that Hotfile scrupulously complies with the DMCA safe harbor provisions," it adds. "They nonetheless complain that they are 'left to play catch-up' because of the 'scale' and 'speed' of users‘ alleged infringement." Hotfile also notes that the site has no "search box" meaning that only the users themselves can make copyrighted content illegally available to others, and if "third-party pirate link sites" are organizing and hosting Hotfile links then the MPAA should target them instead. "The Studios do not allege that they have attempted to sue these 'pirate link sites' or that any such sites are controlled by Hotfile," it says. Moreover, it says the MPAA hasn't claimed that Hotfile has allowed "specifically identified infringing content" to be hosted on its servers, and that therefore there is "no legal basis" to argue that Hotfile had an "intent to infringe." Stay tuned. jared@zeropaid.com

MPAA Warns Illegal Downloading is “Canary in the Coal Mine”

Jared Moya — Thu, 31 Mar 2011 20:24:36 +0000

Warns that if the govt doesn't make it "clear that this kind of activity is illegal, it has the potential to become the harbinger of even more forms of illegal activity on the Internet.” The only problem is that it doesn't acknowledge file-sharing is inherently altruistic, and isn't a "gateway drug" to selfish crimes carried out for economic gain.

The MPAA took time from its busy day to thank the US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) for seizing domains accused of copyright infringement. The seizures, part of the ongoing “Operation in Our Sites” campaign, has so far ensnared some 100 sites, none of which were afforded the basic right to defend themselves in a court of law and face their accusers. “Operation In Our Sites has not only put illegal sites out of business, but has raised public awareness about this specific form of crime on the Internet,” reads the letter submitted by a variety of movie industry groups including the MPAA. The letter praises the fact that the seizures have forced the sites to "cease their illegal activity," yet seems oblivious to the fact that the seizures themselves were likely "illegal activity." ICE Director John Morton has defended the campaign by comparing domain seizures to other forms like bank accounts, houses, and vehicles – anything that is “associated with the crime.” “Now, we’ve got civil seizure of items used in a crime, so that’s weird enough,” pointed out assistant law professor Derek Bambauer last December. “What is even more strange is that the government doesn’t have to provide notice to the domain name owners if it files a civil complaint against the property – that is, against the domain names.” Where the movie industry's thought process becomes even more muddled is where it refers to illegal downloading as the proverbial "canary in the coal mine." It warns that if the govt doesn't make it "clear that this kind of activity is illegal, it has the potential to become the harbinger of even more forms of illegal activity on the Internet.” Now it's pretty vague as to what it's referring to, and I use the term "vague" liberally here, but I assume it means that people will see the govt's inaction on illegal downloading as a license to carry out additional crimes. I guess they believe P2P is a "gateway drug," but what could those other "forms of illegal activity" even be? Identity theft? Cyberbullying? Aside from the fact that this statement makes a huge leap from illegally downloading movies to perhaps stealing credit card numbers, it ignores the fact that P2P is file-sharing. People are exchanging files without benefit of financial gain. What are "forms of illegal activity" are so inherently altruistic? Stay tuned. jared@zeropaid.com

Piracy Who? MPAA Celebrates 5th Consecutive Year of Record Profits

Jared Moya — Sat, 26 Feb 2011 00:49:09 +0000

Bob Pisano, President and Interim CEO of the MPAA, claims it's "impossible to compete with free," yet the MPAA seems to have figured out how to do just that.

Instead of trying to pass draconian new copyright laws that seek to systematically hobble the Internet as we know it, American consumers might be better served if Congress passed legislation outlawing the MPAA from making any more false claims about a struggling motion picture industry. According to its annual theatrical market statistics report worldwide box office revenue increased by 8% between 2009 and 2010 to a record-breaking total of $31.8 bln. That makes it the fifth year in a row that box office ticket sales have surpassed the year before it. All in all worldwide box office revenue is up by 25% since 2006 when it was $25.5 bln. “It was a strong year at the movies in 2010. Despite a weak economy, shifting business models, and the ongoing impact of digital theft, we had another record year at the global box office driven by growth outside the U.S. and Canada. In the U.S. and Canada 3D was the driving force,” said Bob Pisano, President and Interim CEO of the MPAA. “Higher value entertainment continues to make a significant contribution to box office revenues.” Oddly enough, Pisano still complains that it's "impossible to compete with free," yet the MPAA seems to have figured out the answer. How else could it explain another record-breaking year? “Though innovation and technology continue to be a positive force for the theatrical business, driving moviegoers towards higher value 3D entertainment, the continued theft of movies online will have a sustained adverse impact on movie attendance in the coming years. It’s impossible to compete with free,” said Pisano. “We will continue to work with our industry partners to fight for common sense ways, through legislative, enforcement and legal avenues, to vigilantly protect the creativity at the heart of our industry from theft.” Even the Government Accountability Office, Congress’ investigative arm, has questioned how the MPAA comes up with its piracy statistics, and news of the MPAA's good fortune adds weight to its concern. The GAO said the MPAA relies on consumer surveys to determine piracy losses, yet was unable to figure out either its substitution rate nor how the survey was extrapolated to the rest of the population. Faulty piracy estimates combined with record-breaking profits for the fifth year in a row ought to give legislators reason for pause before even considering new copyright enforcement provisions. The only way to really compete with piracy is by offering viable legal alternatives. Streaming movie services like the one Netflix offers make a compelling case for file-sharers to cease illegal downloading, and yet movie studios have yet to fully embrace the platform and have severely limited the number of titles Netflix can make available. Stay tuned. jared@zeropaid.com

MPAA Accuses Google of Piracy, Warns of Internet Disconnection

Jared Moya — Fri, 11 Feb 2011 03:26:06 +0000

Says its Internet account was "identified as having been used recently to copy and/or distribute illegally" the movie "The Green Hornet" and warns the search engine giant that copyright infringement violates its ISP's terms of service and could lead to "limitation or suspension" of its Internet service.

Somebody over at Google HQ is likely in hot water with news that the MPAA has notified the search engine giant that somebody has been using its network to illegally download and/or distribute copies of the movie "The Green Hornet." "You are receiving this notice because your Internet account was identified as having been used recently to copy and/or distribute illegally the copyrighted motion pictures and/or television shows listed at the bottom of this notice," reads MediaSentry's DMCA complaint. It says that Google Inc. needs to perform the following in order to "prevent serious legal and other consequences." The steps include:

1. Stop downloading or uploading without authorization any motion pictures or TV shows owned or distributed by Columbia Pictures; and 2. Permanently delete from your computer(s) all unauthorized copies you may have already made of these movies and TV shows.

Where it gets really interesting is where it warns that Google Inc. could likely lose its Internet connection if it's continued to be used for copyright infringing purposes. "Copyright infringement also violates your ISP's terms of service and could lead to limitation or suspension of your Internet service," it says. "You should take immediate action to prevent your Internet account from being used for illegal activities." More details are as follows:

Infringing Work: The Green Hornet First Found: 1 Feb 2011 03:03:26 EST (GMT -0500) Last Found: 1 Feb 2011 03:03:26 EST (GMT -0500) IP Address: 216.239.45.19 IP Port: 51413 Protocol: BitTorrent Torrent InfoHash: E5C93F23D386FE006B207EF6602ACB129C65F53D Containing file(s): The.Green.Hornet.2010.TS.XViD-T0XiC-iNK.torrent (1,479,901,024 bytes)

Either he download the file at work or he brought in a laptop (Wi-Fi was also used) that has a BitTorrent client installed that runs on system startup, and he merely began reeseding a previously downloaded copy of "The Green Hornet." I'm sure Google Inc. is fine for now, but I'd bet money the employee with the IP address listed above is in some hot water. Stay tuned. jared@zeropaid.com [via]

Hollywood Employees in US Hit Hard By OutSourcing

Drew Wilson — Fri, 11 Feb 2011 00:52:56 +0000

There's never been a shortage of press releases over the years about the MPAA blaming piracy for massive job losses. The numbers never seemed to add up given that most numbers being thrown about seemed to come from nowhere concrete. The question that does sometimes come out is, if Hollywood employees are being laid off, where are all the jobs going and why? A report that has surfaced about the state of the jobs does point to a much more plausible source for job losses - outsourcing.

How many times have you heard things like piracy steal jobs? Numbers being pushed seemingly suggest that these numbers are more often then not completely made up. Sometimes they are based on someone's hypothetical model, other times, there isn't even a model these pro-copyright restriction advocates are basing it off of. Many studies that say how piracy have been debunked in the past including one particularly outrageous suggestion that one month of torrenting costs more money then the entire GDP of France from back in 2006. In fact, countless study after study have suggested that either piracy has no effect on sales or is a net benefit to sales. So, one question that might come up for those still skeptical about any potential net benefits to piracy might be that they know of people being laid off in, say, the movie industry. If piracy is not a detriment to movie sales, why are there occasional reports that say that jobs are still being lost in North America? Turns out, one of the big problems is a problem facing pretty much every industry - outsourcing. A report on the LATimes highlighted recently how a successful visual effects studio called Asylum Visual Effects, which was involved in the effects seen in movies like "The Curious Case of Benjamin Button", "The Sorcerer's Apprentice" and "Terminator Salvation," was forced to shut down. The story discusses how, in spite of getting some decent credits to their name and earning Academy Award Nomination, the studio was forced to close, laying off almost 100 workers. The cause? Foreign competition for the same work. Sometimes, it's because of studio's located in Vancouver Canada. Canada was an interesting source to where the jobs are going because conventional wisdom says that when the Canadian dollar rises - especially above parity like it is now - there are less incentives for the studios to tap talent from there. Other places that were blamed for job losses were London, England and the ever famous outsourcing destinations China, Singapore and India. Outsourcing is not an uncommon problem in the fields of the arts and technology. Sometimes, quick browsing through outsourcing sites like freelancer will be enough for some professionals in North America to get uneasy over their job security. Whether or not you believe that piracy is costing jobs, it's very hard to dismiss outsourcing as at least a cause for some firms in North America to shut down, laying off dozens or even hundreds of workers in the process. I'd say just saying piracy is a sole source for job losses is extremely disingenuous at best. Have a tip? Want to contact the author? You can do so by sending a PM via the forums or via e-mail at drew@zeropaid.com.

MPAA Sues Hotfile for Copyright Infringement

Jared Moya — Thu, 10 Feb 2011 19:56:04 +0000

Claims that every file hosted on the site is responsible for the "theft of thousands of MPAA member companies‟ movies and TV shows." Says that unlike other legitimate cyberlockers Hotfile "openly discourages use of its system for personal storage."

The MPAA filed a copyright infringement lawsuit against Hotfile.com recently, arguing the site "facilitates the theft of copyrighted motion picture and television properties on a staggering scale and profits handsomely from encouraging and providing the means for massive copyright infringement." From the complaint:

Defendants actively encourage their users to upload to Hotfile’s computer servers infringing copies of the most popular entertainment content in the world. Once uploaded, defendants provide their users a “link” to the infringing content, and encourage their users to disseminate these “links” as broadly as possible on the Internet so that as many people as possible will find the links and use them to download the infringing content from Hotfile. Anyone clicking the “link” can download the infringing content from Hotfile’s servers. Defendants openly pay users to upload, and disseminate links to, infringing content. Defendants pay uploading users more depending upon how many times the infringing content is downloaded by others – the more frequently the content is downloaded illegally, the more defendants pay the uploading user. Defendants also pay the websites that host and promote “links” to infringing content on Hotfile’s servers.

Unlike other cyberlocker sites Hotfile rewards users with money kickbacks based on the ratio of uploaded files to the number downloads. This incentivizes users to upload popular content like illegal copies of motion pictures and TV shows. RapidShare and Megaupload, for example, have no such incentives for sharing content. “In less than two years Hotfile has become one of the 100 most trafficked sites in the world. That is a direct result of the massive digital theft that Hotfile promotes. Everyday Hotfile is responsible for the theft of thousands of MPAA member companies' movies and TV shows - including movies still playing in theaters - many of which are stolen repeatedly, thousands of times a day, every single day,” said Daniel Mandil, General Counsel & Chief Content Protection Officer for the MPAA. “The theft taking place on Hotfile is unmistakable. Their files are indeed 'hot,' as in 'stolen.' It's wrong and it must stop.” The MPAA tries to emphasize a distinction between Hotfile and other "legitimate online locker services," but it's odd considering that the most legitimate ones are Rapidshare and Megaupload and it's reportedly been trying to get Mastercard to cut them both off. Stay tuned. jared@zeropaid.com

Words Not Actions

Bruce Lidl — Sat, 05 Feb 2011 00:30:33 +0000

When analyzing the anti-infringement activities of the content owning industries (RIAA, MPAA, etc.) it is often far more interesting to focus on the results of what they do, rather than the rhetoric they employ. While Hollywood executives love to harshly criticize unauthorized distribution of their movies, very frequently they do things that in fact contribute to such activity, as I have outlined previously. The well-publicized recent campaign by US authorities to seize the domain names of suspected infringing sites, pushed vigorously by the content owners, neatly presents a case where words and actions are deeply contradictory. As nearly every analysis of the recent ICE action has noted, by seizing the US registered domain names of foreign-owned and operated sites, the authorities have propelled the sites to set up on domains not under US control, and to do so within days, if not hours, of the seizures. Rojadirecta quickly went from a .com to an .es address and atdhe.net very rapidly became atdhe.me, with all the same streams and functionality. It would appear that aside from a very momentary interruption, the practical effect of the seizures will be negligible, except to make any future actions by rights holders that much more difficult, since the targeted sites will be farther from US jurisdiction. Additionally, and even more importantly, the recent ICE domain seizures that focused on sports streaming sites has had, and will continue to have, the effect of generating more publicity for this kind of infringing. Consistent with the concept of the “Streisand Effect,” attempts to suppress troublesome information online result invariably in that information becoming even more widely distributed. While impossible to quantify with any certainty, the seizures by ICE surely increased awareness of the existence of rojadirecta and atdhe, and even more, of the ease in which viewers can access live streaming of sporting events online. As we so often see in articles about “cord-cutting,” or dropping cable in favor of purely internet video delivery, many people are stymied by the lack of live sports online, yet now, because of the actions of ICE, millions more viewers have just been instructed that it is actually quite simple to get live footage of every soccer match or football game. It defies logic to think that the seizures could have had any other outcome. Yet the major content owners and their representatives in government continue to pursue strategies that inevitably result in more of the infringement they so assiduously decry. Is it incompetence or something else that drives such misguided actions, because from an outside observer it is hard to reconcile what they say with what they do.