“You’ve Got Malware!” Wonder Why?

Detailed Academic Study of Five Southeast Asian Countries Clearly Demonstrates Close Correlation Between Piracy Sites and Malware Infection

A person sitting at a wooden table using a laptop, with a malware warning displayed on the screen.

Image: Shutterstock

You won’t get a message like this announcing you’ve just downloaded malware. Instead, you will find out when unauthorized payments start showing up on your credit card statement, or worse, you find that your bank account has been drained or you’ve received a ransomware threat, suddenly locked out of your accounts. No one knowingly downloads malware, but it is a proven byproduct of content piracy. Although a global threat, malware penetration is particularly problematic for emerging economies, like those in Southeast Asia working to build viable local content industries and creating safe digital platforms to grow their economy. A recently released study (“Consumer Risk from Piracy in Southeast Asia”) authored by Macquarie University professor Dr. Paul Watters, concludes that the risk of downloading malware in the form of trojans, worms or keyloggers, ransomware and cryptojacking, phishing and credential theft, spyware, data exfiltration and network compromise is up to sixty-five times higher when using piracy versus legitimate sites.

Watters examined the prevalence of malware downloading and piracy in five Southeast Asian countries, Vietnam, Indonesia, Malayia, Thailand and Singapore. He examined various types of piracy sites, including illicit streaming, streaming sports piracy, P2P networks, scam piracy sites (sites masquerading as providers of legal services or content), IPTV piracy subscription services, as well as anime and manga piracy sites. The relative cyber risk per piracy service type in the five countries studied in 2025 ranged from a high of sixty-five times the risk of using legitimate services for P2P networks to figures in the low to high thirties for streaming and IPTV services to fourteen percent for manga sites. (see table below).

Bar graph illustrating the relative cyber risk by piracy service type in Southeast Asia for the year 2025, comparing risk levels for P2P networks, scam piracy portals, streaming services, IPTV services, anime sites, and manga sites.

Watters points out that, “Digital piracy in Southeast Asia extends far beyond lost revenues, reshaping cultural norms, creative ecosystems and regional economies.”  While there are economic motivations for piracy, such as unwillingness to pay for content that can be obtained for “free”, social consensus (where piracy is normalized within a community) significantly influences individuals’ intentions to engage in piracy. Social and cultural norms rather than differences in legal frameworks, copyright tradition, or economic factors have been shown to be the most powerful predictors of piracy behaviour among students. These unhealthy trends, once normalized, undermine the basis for building a stable digital economy where business models are based on the normal expectation of receiving a reasonable return on investment for products or services provided. Also, in the case of Southeast Asian countries, they pose a long-term threat to the preservation and projection of regional cultures. If local content producers cannot receive fair compensation for their investment in production, there is less incentive to produce content based on local cultural heritage. And it is not just local cultural industries that suffer. The diversion of revenues away from legitimate businesses affects government revenues, having an impact on the full range of services offered to citizens by governments, while undermining government efforts to build a trusted digital economy so essential to SMEs and others.

While the figures documenting cyberthreats are startling and should give users of piracy sites pause to weigh the consequences of accessing “free” content, it is also incumbent on governments to take requisite action to dissuade their citizens from indulging their own worst instincts. Watters’ study highlights some of the measures that Southeast Asian governments are already engaged in, such as implementing comprehensive national cybersecurity strategies. All the countries in the region have criminalized unauthorized access, malware distribution and online fraud and have engaged in education and international cooperation. However, this is clearly not adequate in dealing with the significant problem of malware penetration.

Watters suggests a number of additional actions that could be taken, depending on the specific risk factors by country. These include revisiting domain-blocking frameworks to incorporate dynamic copyright-based site blocking injunctions updated in real time rather than relying on static “blacklists” (the pirates are nimble and often manage to stay one step ahead of the blocking process). There are specific recommendations for actions by ISPs and enterprise network operators. There is also the suggestion that regulators introduce minimum security standards for consumer electronics to combat the risk presented by Illicit Streaming Devices (ISDs) and user-installed P2P/streaming clients.

It is clear from Watters’ report that more needs to be done by Southeast Asian governments to protect consumers and reduce their exposure to the elevated cyber risk from accessing piracy platforms, a risk thoroughly and professionally documented in this study. The need is urgent, based not only on the demonstrated level of malware penetration through piracy sites but also the long-term negative impact such risks have on individual consumers. A corollary benefit is that combatting patronage of piracy sites will have a positive impact on generation of local cultural content and build out of digital industries, while strengthening the legitimate economy and government revenues.

As has been proven elsewhere, a comprehensive anti-piracy program focusing on dynamic copyright-based site blocking (with appropriate transparency and redress mechanisms), strengthened law enforcement expertise in combatting cyber-crime, and continued education and public awareness campaigns tailored to local conditions will enable governments in Southeast Asia to turn the tide on cyber security threats while at the same time enjoying the many economic and cultural benefits of reduced piracy among their citizens.

Southeast Asian consumers are entitled to expect that when they engage on the Internet, they can do so safely without fearing the consequences of malware attacks. While they need to take some responsibility for their own actions, it is incumbent on their governments to create a safe space through adequate regulation and enforcement. Professor Watters’ study provides not only a detailed analysis of what is happening with respect to consumer risks from piracy, but a roadmap of how to effectively deal with the problem.

© Hugh Stephens, 2025. All Rights Reserved.

Canada (Finally) Does Something Right on Copyright Protection: According to US Study, Canada’s Site Blocking Process is Worth Emulating

Report Cover: Used with Permission of DCA

It is a foggy Friday when a report out of the US heaps praise on Canada for anything in the area of intellectual property. But surprise, it just happened! Canadians are more used to being chastised (often with good reason, I hasten to add) by US industry groups such as the International Intellectual Property Alliance (IIPA), or in the annual “Special 301” report issued by the Office of the US Trade Representative (USTR) which is compiled from complaints brought forward from various US industry groups. This year’s Section 301 report once again placed Canada on USTR’s “Watch List”. According to USTR, the Watch List is used to designate US trading partners that “merit bilateral attention to address underlying IP problems“. A perennial favourite on the Watch List, this year Canada joins 19 other countries including such IP powerhouses as Turkmenistan, Algeria, Belarus and Bulgaria (the only EU member state on the list). Is this an objective assessment? Maybe, maybe not.

It’s not that the US itself is purer than the driven snow (the snow no doubt being part of the “cold air from Canada” that features regularly on US weather reports) when it comes to IP protection. It’s just that USTR does not report on the US’s own transgressions, as it has no mandate to do so. I gave it a helping hand a few months ago when I filed my own Watch List recommendation, (The USTR Watch List Designation You Will Never See), which “playfully” (as one of my readers commented), put the US on the list for a range of copyright lapses. Among the most serious was a complete absence of any workable mechanism to block or disable offshore pirate content websites. I pointed out that the US is the largest market for pirated content globally, with 13.5 billion visits to pirate sites annually according to Variety, yet is one of the few not to have a system to disable distribution of pirated content from offshore, often known by the shorthand term “site blocking”.

I personally don’t like the term “site blocking” as it implies some form of government censorship. It should more accurately be called “disabling access to offshore pirate websites” but that is too much of a mouthful, so we will have to go with the shorthand version. Site blocking, which is practiced in more than 50 countries, including Canada, (but not the US) is normally instituted after a judicial or administrative process, requiring substantial justification, whereby content owners seek remedies against offshore websites (which are located in jurisdictions beyond the reach of domestic law) that distribute pirated content and undermine licensed distribution. The remedies normally involve injunctions requiring domestic internet providers to block identified pirate sites. It was pioneered by the UK and Australia, where it has been overwhelmingly successful in curtailing distribution of pirated content and encouraging uptake of legitimate, licensed alternatives.

In Canada, application for a blocking order is made to the Federal Court by content owners (such as Rogers or Bell Media), often to cover streaming of high-profile sports games. Owners of the sites to be blocked can appear and argue against the order, but being offshore pirate sites, none do. Once issued, ISPs (internet service providers), who are the actual targets of the orders, are obliged to disable/block the pirated content stream so that viewers cannot receive it. Originally some ISPs, notably TekSavvy, opposed the orders although the major ISPs, some of which are owned by the owners or licensees of the sports content, went along without a fuss. TekSavvy’s objections were dismissed, as I wrote about here (Appeal Against Canada’s First Successful Pirate Site-Blocking Order is Dismissed: Good News for Copyright Protection in Canada), and the process has become more or less routine.

Recently the regime in Canada has been strengthened by the granting of dynamic injunctions. Dynamic injunctions allow flexibility, targeting the content rather than a specific Internet address, thus allowing the blocking order to shift to whatever address the pirated feed is coming from. It is a common tactic of pirate sites to shift IP address regularly as one means of evading the court authorized blocking order. Dynamic injunctions help to counter this tactic.

If site blocking is such an essential tool in the anti-piracy toolbox, then why doesn’t it exist in the US, a country with a huge economic stake in the production and distribution of legitimate content, and unfortunately a market where piracy is as common or more common than in many other countries? US stakeholders tried, unsuccessfully, to secure passage of site blocking legislation more than a decade ago, with the introduction of the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) into Congress in 2011. While widely supported by content industries and many members of Congress, it became the target of attack by cyber-libertarians stoked up by Silicon Valley. In an attention catching gimmick, Wikipedia and Reddit blacked out for a day, January 18, 2012, in protest. The legislation went into the “too difficult” basket and has never been revived.

The specious argument was put forward that SOPA would “break the internet” and interfere with the free flow of information. That was ridiculous then, and it is ridiculous now, as the successful establishment of site blocking in over 50 countries globally, including well established democracies such as the UK, France, Spain, Germany, Netherlands, the Nordic countries, India, Australia—and Canada—clearly shows. That point, along with data demonstrating the proven efficacy of site blocking, is among the key themes of a new study just published in the US by the Digital Citizens Alliance (DCA), commissioned from research firm IP House.

The DCA is a “consumer-focused group whose mission is to raise awareness among the public and policymakers about how to make the Internet safer”. Its latest report, “Overseas and Out of Reach: International Video Piracy and US Options to Combat It”, not only debunks the “break the internet” nonsense, but goes on to discuss the economic damage caused by pirate operations to legitimate business and government revenues. It also puts the spotlight on how piracy feeds revenue to organized crime, outlines the risk to consumers of clandestine installation of malware, explains how site blocking works, and documents the effectiveness of site blocking (as one essential tool among others) in combatting video streaming and Video-on-Demand piracy services. The unspoken bottom line message is that Congress should start looking seriously at reviving site blocking legislation.

To quote from the report’s introduction;

The United States faces a problem. Overseas criminals targeting Americans often live in countries that won’t prosecute them or lack adequate legal tools to do so – leaving them beyond the reach of U.S. law enforcement and secure in the notion they won’t face any consequences for their illegal activity.  One example: Overseas operators of illegal piracy websites and apps make $2.3 billion a year – while also using that stolen content to bait Internet users so they can infect devices with malware or steal credit card information.

One solution adopted by Canada, the United Kingdom, and Australia and over 50 other countries: if they can’t reach the overseas criminals targeting their citizens to deter them, then they block the websites of those criminals so they can’t reach their citizens.”

So there you have it. Canada is cited as an exemplar in this regard. What a refreshing change. Let’s hope the study gets the attention it deserves in the US and in Congress because combatting piracy is something that is in everyone’s interest, from law enforcement to film and TV production to consumers.

Let’s be clear. Damage to US film and TV production hurts Canada, given the almost $8 billion that was invested in such production in Canada in 2023 by foreign, mostly US, producers. While the majority of it was foreign location and service (FLS) filming, it also included $1 billion in financing for Canadian owned content production. Canada may have managed to establish a workable site-blocking regime, using the courts, but there is still much more that needs to be done in Canada and elsewhere to combat the threat of online content piracy. The Overseas and Out of Reach study is a valuable contribution to this debate.

© Hugh Stephens, 2024. All Rights Reserved.