Three years ago, pirated Blu-ray copies of “Spider-Man: No Way Home” began circulating on pirate sites, weeks before their official release.

Such high-profile leaks are rare, and the source of the breach remained unknown until earlier this year.

In February, the U.S. Department of Justice indicted 37-year-old Steven Hale from Tennessee, a former employee of a disc manufacturing and distribution company in Memphis. While working at the unnamed company between 2021 and 2022, Hale allegedly stole numerous “pre-release” DVD and Blu-ray discs from his employer.

These stolen discs contained many high-profile movie titles including “Spider-Man: No Way Home”.

In addition to the copyright infringement charge, Hale was also indicted for a firearm offense. When raiding his premises, law enforcement found a gun in a car that was registered in his name, which, for a felon, is a separate criminal offense.

57 Month Prison Sentence

Hale was sentenced at a federal court in Memphis yesterday, where Chief Judge Sheryl H. Lipman handed down a 57-month prison term, exactly in line with the U.S. government’s recommendation .

Two separate sentences will be served concurrently. Hale received 21 months for the theft and distribution of hundreds of pre-release movie discs. A longer sentence of 57 months was handed down for the firearm charge, which ultimately defines the total prison term.

Judge Lipman also granted several requests by the defense. The court recommended that Hale be housed in a facility as close to Memphis as possible so he can be near his family. In addition, the defendant will be allowed to remain on bond and self-surrender to prison at a later date.

Hale Pleaded Guilty

The 21-month sentence for the copyright infringement charge is substantially lower than the maximum of 60 months. This is in part the result of a guilty plea the defendant signed in May. After accepting responsibility, the prosecution agreed to drop other charges and recommend a sentence at the low end of the guideline range.

Hale entered his guilty plea to Count Two of the indictment. The charge relates to his distribution of ten or more copies of copyrighted works, including pre-release movies, for commercial advantage and private financial gain. This includes the pre-release ‘Spider-Man: No Way Home’ disc, which is likely the source of the public leak.

The other films covered by this count are ‘Jungle Cruise,’ ‘Venom: Let There Be Carnage,’ ‘Encanto,’ ‘Eternals,’ ‘The King’s Man,’ ‘Shang-Chi and the Legend of the Ten Rings,’ ‘Resident Evil: Welcome to Raccoon City,’ ‘Marry Me,’ ‘Sing 2,’ and ‘The Matrix Resurrections.’

EVO

The “Spider-Man: No Way Home” leak is extra noteworthy, as it was one of the last films released online by the notorious piracy group EVO. This group was dismantled by the Portuguese authorities in late 2022 , leading to multiple arrests.

There is no indication that Hale was in direct contact with EVO but, in the sentencing recommendation, the prosecution explicitly linked the Blu-ray theft to the copies that were leaked on pirate sites.

“At least one of the DVDs—that of ‘Spider Man: No Way Home,’ one of the most popular movies of all time—was ‘ripped’ and distributed tens of millions of times over the internet through pirate sites, causing the copyright owner tens of millions of dollars in damages,” the prosecution wrote .

The timing of the events also suggests that the leaked pirated copies may be linked to the stolen discs.

The EVO release of ‘Spider Man: No Way Home’ leaked online in early March 2022. A few days later, on or around March 14, the authorities searched Hale’s house and seized hundreds of pre-release discs that were still in his possession. The EVO group was eventually busted at the end of 2022.

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

Earlier this year, accounting firm Grant Thornton published a report in partnership with the Live Content Coalition to evaluate the effectiveness of takedown notices.

One of the main conclusions was that, in 2024, only a small fraction of takedown notices sent by a group of select rightsholders resulted in suspensions of pirated live streams.

Of the 10.8 million notices recorded last year, only 19% resulted in suspensions of pirated live streams. Even when online services responded, it often took more time than rights holders would like. Only a small fraction of the reported live streams, 2.7%, were suspended within 30 minutes of a takedown notice being sent.

These findings were used by rightsholders to argue that current policy doesn’t work. They hoped that by sounding the alarm bell, things would change, but new data covering the first half of 2025 doesn’t provide any evidence that this is the case.

More Takedowns, Fewer Suspensions

In a new industry-backed report, Grant Thornton finds that the number of takedown notices sent to online intermediaries grew by more than 15 million in the first half of 2025, which is roughly triple the number of takedowns that were recorded in the two previous periods.

The bar chart below shows that in 2025, the majority of the notices were sent to “other” service providers, which includes Cloudflare. Dedicated service providers were good for 42% of the notices, while online platforms only received a tiny fraction.

The report regularly combines the 2025 findings with those from last year’s reports, noting that since January 2024, rightsholders have sent 26.2 million takedown notices for live streaming broadcasts. While the suspension rate was 19% in the second half of 2024, that figure decreased to just 5% in the first half of 2025.

The bar chart below displays the actions per intermediary, revealing that the low percentage of suspensions is largely driven by the popular “others” category. This category includes proxy services such as Cloudflare, which typically takes no action when the allegedly infringing content is not hosted by Cloudflare itself.

Based on the new findings, the report concludes that “online piracy continues to escalate, while progress in the effectiveness of mitigation efforts remains limited.” While this appears to be a logical conclusion, there are some important caveats.

Methodological Concerns

The report is based on data provided by ten rightsholders, who are either major sports leagues or broadcasters. This is an increase of two rightsholders over the eight featured in the previous report, which likely has an effect on the takedown notice volume, regardless of piracy developments.

These companies have direct control over how many notices they send and can, in theory, increase the volume while piracy rates are falling.

This means that the drastic increase in notices might mostly be a reflection of increased or improved enforcement efforts, rather than an unprecedented tripling of the number of available pirated live streams.

There’s also a clear bias risk. These rightsholders have a vested interest in showing that piracy is a large and worsening problem, to support their lobbying efforts for stricter regulations. The methodology does not account for this.

The inclusion of Cloudflare as a nonresponsive intermediary also raises questions. It is well known that Cloudflare does not take action against reported pirated content that it doesn’t host. The company believes that, under U.S. law, it is not legally required to do so for its proxy services.

By including an ever-increasing number of notices sent to services like Cloudflare, which they know will not result in a suspension for policy reasons, the report’s methodology effectively “bakes in” a lower success rate.

Although the data is not inaccurate, it’s less of a measure of the evolving piracy landscape than it is a reflection of the rightsholders’ enforcement strategy, particularly their decision to target Cloudflare and similar platforms, which are known for not taking action.

LaLiga Rethinks Its Headline

That the report leaves room for multiple explanations, or framing options, was illustrated by the Spanish football league LaLiga. On Tuesday, it initially pushed out a concerning press release mentioning that “piracy of live sports events soars”.

That’s not completely accurate, however, as the research only looks at the volume of takedown notices. It appears that LaLiga understands this nuance, as the headline was changed a few hours later to: Piracy Detection in Sports and Other Live Events Hits Record Levels Thanks to Greater Investment in Resources and Technology

This new headline suggests that the ‘escalation of online piracy’ reported by Grant Thornton, might be an escalation in anti-piracy detections, rather than an increase in piracy. That’s quite an important distinction, considering its intended goal.

EU Advocacy

The report was written specifically to address the impact of a recommendation by the EU Commission published two years ago. This policy document encouraged member states to introduce measures to facilitate prompt takedowns of live streams.

The recommendation, which doesn’t include any legislative requirements, also encouraged service providers and rightsholders to collaborate and tackle the challenge together.

In its report, which references the EU’s non-binding recommendation in its title, Grant Thornton indirectly suggests that it failed to curb the negative piracy trends.

“During the period of analysis, there has been a negative trend in key metrics, such as an increase in the number of notices issued and a decrease in the percentage of those resulting in suspension.

“This suggests that, despite the European Commission’s Recommendation, the issue of online piracy continues to escalate, while progress in the effectiveness of mitigation efforts remains limited,” the report concludes.

This is an interesting conclusion, since LaLiga now cites the same takedown data to show that piracy detection hit record levels with help from investments in resources and technology. That means that piracy itself may not have worsened at all.

When the data is this flexible and open to interpretation, the cleanest and only truly verifiable conclusion is simple. In the first half of 2025, a small group of rightsholders sent a lot more takedown notices. Why? That depends on who you ask and what their goal is.

—

A copy of the latest progress report, titled “Two Years On: Online Piracy Trends Worsen Despite the European Commission’s Recommendation” is available here (pdf)

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

Major sports rightsholders and broadcasters are building momentum for what could be a crucial couple of years ahead.

The USTR has promised to focus on live sports in its Notorious Markets review before rightsholders’ eyes turn to the European Commission, hoping that their endless patience for measures to curtail live streaming leads to something substantial that justifies the wait .

In the meantime, enforcement operations continue. With the ink barely dry on last week’s Streameast announcement , developments reported this week will be seen as another plus for live sports.

Calcio: Italian For ‘Football’ and Italy’s #1 Pirate Sports Site

The Alliance for Creativity and Entertainment (ACE) and broadcaster DAZN, which is also a member of ACE, report that a coordinated investigation has led to the shutdown of Calcio, the most popular live sports piracy site in Italy.

According to ACE, Calcio received more than 123 million visits during the past 12 months, with Italians responsible for six million of those visits every month. For many, free access to premium Serie A football (‘calcio’ in Italian) would’ve been the main reason for visiting the site, together providing 80% of Calcio’s traffic.

Remaining traffic consisted of visitors from Spain, the United States, Germany, and France. Earlier action by DAZN to have the domains Calcio.ws and Calcio.la blocked in Italy were authorized ( 1 , 2 ) by telecoms regulator AGCOM in 2023. However, using a mountain of backup domains, Calcio remained stubbornly accessible.

Calcio Stockpiled Domains

ACE says that Calcio operated 134 domains but identified none in its press release. From our own limited research, domains now under MPA control appear to have a similar number of unique domain extensions. From calcio.autos to calcio.baby, through calcio.beauty, .best, .buzz and .hair, Calcio had many other domains besides, hoping to undermine any and all efforts to block it.

Based on records correct at the time of writing, a likely incomplete list of ‘calcio’ domains, showing the MPA as their new owner, appears in the first table below.

While ACE doesn’t specify an exact date when Calcio was reportedly shut down, WHOIS records suggest that the domain transfer process likely began around the third week of June and then continued through July and August.

The volume of domains acquired by Calcio’s operator indicates determination to keep the site online. With this many domains, it’s possible to evade regular blocking tactics and minimize the effects of a potential, although somewhat less likely, bulk domain seizure.

Yet despite these preparations and considerable levels of traffic, Calcio appears to have disappeared off the radar, just like that.

Italy’s Favorite Sports Piracy Site, Run from Moldova

The circumstances of Calcio’s closure are completely absent from the press release. Indeed, the description seems unusually casual for such an important shutdown, to the extent that it immediately stands out.

The Moldova-based operator of the service agreed to cease operations after being approached.

While some kind of legal process can’t be completely ruled out, current copyright-related turbulence of various types could dampen enthusiasm. If nothing else, the timing isn’t great and probably won’t be for several years to come.

Even when all else fails, opportunities to send a deterrent message are considered valuable, and as such are rarely overlooked. In this case a clear messaging opportunity sails right by, drawing attention to another press release absentee; the customary ‘well done’ and ‘thank you’ to local authorities for their invaluable input.

A second oversight can’t be completely ruled out, but other explanations for not dwelling on the details seem more persuasive. When considering Moldova’s traditional lack of focus on piracy issues, and its future planning where the opposite is unavoidable, the backdrop to Calcio’s shutdown is interesting, whether it played a major role here or not.

EU Membership and the Future of Moldova

Following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, in March 2022 the Republic of Moldova applied for EU membership. With only a river separating Moldova from a breakaway state to its east, one with its own government, army, and a heavy Russian military presence, the former Soviet state had understandably seen enough.

After achieving candidate status in June 2022, Moldova set a target date of 2030 for EU Accession and negotiations officially began late June 2024. Even without consideration of guaranteed interference from Russia, Moldova has an extraordinary workload ahead; from democratic reforms to the alignment of national legislation with that of the bloc, everything is more easily said than done.

On the thorny issue of intellectual property rights, an area requiring work beyond the latest copyright amendment draft, Moldova has little room for maneuver. Collaboration with the EU Intellectual Property Office and EU member states is just one of the requirements and already underway.

Among many other examples, on 12 and 13 June 2025 representatives attended the International IP Enforcement Summit 2025 in Athens, Greece, which took place just two weeks before Calcio’s domains began transferring to ACE. That might be coincidence, not unlike two years ago when RARBG disappeared around the same time.

Yet no matter how Calcio met its demise, cooperation with the EU and, interestingly, a non-EU partner thousands of miles away, is already embedded in Moldova’s future. The situation in Moldova is changing, making shutdowns like this even more likely in the future.

Moldova’s 2025 Work Plan

A document published by the State Agency for Intellectual Property (AGEPI) details Moldova’s action plan for 2025 ( pdf ) . It contains commitments to implement provisions in international treaties and to collaborate with overseas governments and rightsholders in the private sector.

2.2. Ensuring cooperation with the associations of rights holders and other associations with responsibilities in the IP field abroad

2.3. Monitoring to ensure the implementation of the provisions of international treaties and agreements in the field of IP to which the Republic of Moldova is a party

2.4. Ensuring bilateral collaboration in the field of IP, with IP offices of EU Member States, EFTA [European Free Trade Association], and the United States

In the context of potential EU membership, it’s not hard to imagine Moldova reacting favorably following a request from the EU, or from DAZN via ACE/MPA, to see if a site like Calcio could be persuaded to shut down. In the context of full EU membership, something similar may be viewed as an obligation.

EU Membership or Not, The Piracy Wars Wait For Nobody

What these changes will mean for the many pirate sites currently hosted in Moldova, where DMCA takedown notices are routinely ignored to the frustration of rightsholders, will become clearer in time. Right now, DAZN and ACE will view this as a big win, and most likely it won’t be the last.

“Shutting down illegal operations like Calcio is vital for protecting fans, safeguarding jobs, and preserving the value and integrity of live sports,” says Ed McCarthy, COO of DAZN Group. “ACE and DAZN’s decisive action in removing this site has prevented further harm to the wellbeing of the sports ecosystem.”

“Piracy diminishes the commercial value of a live sports broadcast well before the final whistle blows, harming broadcasters, sports leagues, and fans alike,” says Larissa Knapp, Executive Vice President and Chief Content Protection Officer for the Motion Picture Association (MPA).

“With the start of the Italian football season, I commend the team for the timely takedown of this notorious operation.”

Update: Additional Table 2 below contains ‘calciostreaming’ domains, apparently seized over a period of months, the most recent this week. Connection to ‘Calcio’ domains currently unclear

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

Nearly five years ago, a Virginia jury ordered Cox Communications to pay a billion dollars in damages to a coalition of record labels, including Sony and Universal.

The jury concluded that the Internet provider was liable for the pirating activities of its subscribers, as it failed to terminate their accounts after multiple infringement notices.

The liability ruling was upheld at the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, prompting Cox to request a hearing at the Supreme Court, which formally accepted the case and received Cox’s opening brief last August.

In recent days, it became apparent that the Internet provider is not fighting the battle alone; there is support from a wide variety of interested parties, including the U.S. Government, which also backed Cox earlier this year.

U.S. Government Warns of Mass Terminations

The U.S. government, through the Office of the Solicitor General, filed an amicus brief supporting Cox’s position. The government’s decision to weigh in is significant; the Solicitor General’s office is seen as the tenth justice and its arguments are granted significant weight by the Supreme Court.

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

The U.S. brief highlights that secondary liability requires “culpable intent” to facilitate infringement, not just a passive failure to act. The brief states that Cox’s services have substantial non-infringing uses, and its conduct, at worst, showed indifference to infringement, not a desire to facilitate infringement.

If the Fourth Circuit ruling is allowed to stand, then ISPs and other online services may be more inclined to take action following copyright complaints. That would affect innocent users and threaten universal internet access.

“Affirmance of the ruling below would create a substantial disincentive to ISPs’ provision of universal internet service. Terminations of service would adversely affect not only actual infringers, but also the potentially numerous non-infringing users of terminated accounts,” the U.S. brief reads.

The U.S. also sides with Cox’s view that mere knowledge of subscriber piracy does not constitute ‘willful’ copyright infringement, as the lower court suggested to the jury. Willful infringement requires proof that the defendant understood the illegality of their own conduct, not just that they knew their customers’ actions were unlawful, the brief reads.

Google, Amazon & Microsoft Back Cox

Cox’s case also receives support from a coalition of leading tech companies, including Google, Amazon, Microsoft, Mozilla, and Pinterest. They submitted a joint amicus brief warning that the Fourth Circuit’s ruling “threaten[s] all types of online service providers” with “overbroad and unpredictable liability rules”.

The tech companies argue that the lower court misinterpreted the DMCA’s safe harbor protections. These are intended to provide a layer of protection for service providers, but the court turned that upside down and transformed it into a “liability-creating mechanism” instead, the companies say.

Under the DMCA, online services enjoy safe harbor protection if they implement a proper repeat infringer policy. Not doing so makes Cox ineligible for safe harbor protections, but not automatically liable. In this case, the court concluded that Cox is liable for contributory copyright infringement because it failed to implement such a policy.

Similar to the U.S. position, the tech companies argue that “conscious, culpable conduct” is required to prove contributory infringement, not merely a failure to act.

The brief also points out that willful infringement requires actual knowledge of its own wrongdoing. The loose standard that was applied by the lower court opens the door to damages awards of $150,000 per work, which leads to “truly exorbitant damages,” they note.

Legal scholars, ISPs, rights groups, and others all back Cox

The U.S. Government and tech companies are not the only parties that have come out in support of Cox. Filings from a diverse array of fellow ISPs, digital rights groups, and legal scholars, all argue that the lower court’s decision is a dangerous expansion of copyright law that threatens to disrupt the fundamental nature of the internet.

Altice, AT&T, and Verizon are concerned about the real-world consequences of the ruling for the public, warning of potentially crippling damages awards that could shake up the industry.

“It threatens to saddle internet service providers with responsibility for virtually every bad act that occurs online. And it threatens those providers with massive liability if they do not carry out mass internet evictions,” the ISPs write.

The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), along with the American Library Association and Re:Create, stressed the public policy implications. Their brief argues that the lower court’s ruling would cause ISPs to disconnect “innocent and vulnerable users” upon the “flimsiest of accusations”.

“If there was ever a case where the Court should act cautiously before expanding the scope of copyright contributory liability, it’s this one. Here, Defendant Cox is an Internet Service Provider (ISP), upon which millions of innocent users rely for internet access, a vital service in today’s society,” they write.

Digital rights organization Public Knowledge also weighed in, calling the existing precedent “ahistorical and contrary to public policy”. The group argues that the Fourth Circuit’s decision misinterprets the DMCA by treating its safe harbor conditions as a trigger for liability, creating a “perverse incentive to terminate first and ask questions later.”

Legal scholars Christopher Cotropia and James Gibson point out that holding Cox liable for its inaction, instead of its actions, is a dangerous precedent that could lead to liability findings for all sorts of mere conduit providers.

“By treating Cox’s passive provision of Internet access and data transmission as a knowing, material contribution to infringement, the Fourth Circuit collapsed the crucial legal distinction between conduits and hosts, extending contributory liability into an area where no court or legislature has ever placed it.”

Finally, X Corp., the parent company of Twitter, brought a unique perspective as a social media platform. Its brief argues that the lower court’s ruling would have a chilling effect on free expression.

“Declining to take away an important tool of expression from these ordinary Americans is not the kind of inaction that the doctrine of contributory or aiding-and-abetting liability was meant to reach,” X Corp writes.

“To allow a billion dollar award against a party that did not itself directly infringe, did not participate in the infringement, and did not financially benefit from infringing uses versus non-infringing uses by its subscribers is a grotesque distortion of the purposes of copyright law and common-law principles of liability.”

These briefs make it clear that this isn’t an ordinary case, but a landmark legal battle destined to shape the future of U.S. copyright law. However, these responses are just one side of the argument. The record labels are expected to file their reply brief next month. They will undoubtedly receive support from other rightsholders.

—

Copies of all the supporting amicus briefs mentioned in this article, plus some others that came in, are available below.

– United States ( pdf )
– Google, Amazon.com, Microsoft, Mozilla and Pinterest ( pdf )
– Law professor Charles Duan ( pdf )
– Electronic Frontier Foundation et al. ( pdf )
– Legal scholars Christopher Cotropia and James Gibson ( pdf )
– Common Sense Copyright Coalition et al. ( pdf )
– Public Knowledge ( pdf )
– X Corp ( pdf )
– Altice, AT&T and other ISPs ( pdf )
– Computer & Communications Industry Association ( pdf )
– The Copia Institute ( pdf )
– ACLU et al. ( pdf )
– Engine Advocacy ( pdf )
– Joshua Moon and the United States Internet Preservation Society ( pdf )
– American Intellectual Property Law Association ( pdf )
– Intellectual Property Law Scholars ( pdf )
– Internet Society ( pdf )
– Grande Communications Networks ( pdf )

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

In June 2024, Nintendo filed a lawsuit against Modded Hardware and its alleged operator, Michigan-resident Ryan Daly.

In a complaint filed at a federal court in Seattle, Washington, Nintendo accused Modded Hardware of copyright infringement and violating the DMCA by trafficking in circumvention devices, among other things.

The case is part of Nintendo’s broader enforcement strategy to prevent the public from playing pirated games on the Switch console. The Japanese gaming company has won several lawsuits and previously referred the infamous hacking group Team-Xecuter to U.S. authorities, which led to its demise .

Initial Denial

In the complaint, Nintendo alleged that Modded Hardware sold devices designed to circumvent its piracy protections. These include mod chips and ‘MIG Switch’ devices, which allow people to play pirated copies of Nintendo Switch games on authentic consoles.

In October 2024, Daly responded to the lawsuit pro se (without an attorney), denying any wrongdoing . He specifically denied the claim that he owned and operated the Modded Hardware business. At the time, access to the Modded Hardware website had already been restricted with a password-protected login.

With Daly’s response on the record, a trial was scheduled for January 2026, pitting the defendant against a team of seasoned Nintendo lawyers. After the parties agreed on a joint stipulation late last week, that scenario will likely be avoided.

Modded Hardware & Nintendo Reach Settlement

Following private discussions, both parties agreed to a final judgment in which Daly agrees that he trafficked in “circumvention devices” and “hacked consoles” that allowed Nintendo Switch users to play pirated games. According to the proposed judgment, this violated Nintendo’s rights under the DMCA and the U.S. Copyright Act.

As part of this settlement, Nintendo will be awarded $2,000,000 in compensation. There is no specific breakdown for this damages figure, but the stipulation mentions that Nintendo suffered losses due to the piracy enabled through Modded Hardware.

“Defendant’s conduct has caused NOA significant and irreparable harm. For example, the MIG Devices, Mod Chips, Hacked Consoles, and Circumvention Services allow members of the public to create, distribute, and play pirated Nintendo games on a massive scale,” the proposed judgment reads.

Permanent Injunction

In addition to the agreed judgment, Nintendo and Daly also reached agreement on a permanent injunction. This prohibits the defendant from owning, selling, creating, or trafficking in “Circumvention Devices” such as mod chips, MIG Dumpers, MIG Switches, and “Hacked Consoles”.

Even linking to third-party sites that offer these devices is off-limits. In addition, Daly is personally restrained from reverse engineering or otherwise tampering with any of Nintendo’s products going forward.

Finally, the proposed injunction requires the defendant to hand over the moddedhearware.com domain name to Nintendo, while destroying any circumvention devices still in his possession.

The provided documents don’t include any background on how this settlement was reached, but it is clear that both parties prefer not to go to trial. At the time of writing, the court has yet to approve the final judgment and the injunction, but that only seems a formality.

—

A copy of the Joint Stipulation for Entry of Final Judgment, submitted at the Seattle federal court, is available here (pdf) . A copy of the proposed Judgment and the Permanent Injunction can be found here (pdf)

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

From the perspective of rightsholders, blocking domains and IP addresses is necessary to counter a persistent threat from online piracy. In this context, they insist it is reasonable to force internet intermediaries to intervene, using blocking measures that also elevate the risk of unintended consequences and collateral damage.

With blocking demands moving towards a ‘real time’ requirement as standard, increasingly unsupervised blocking exposes third parties to a risk of becoming collateral damage in a war that already transcends national borders.

With no requirement to report incidents of overblocking, and third party claims routinely dismissed as unsubstantiated hearsay, the findings of a new study focused on Italy’s Piracy Shield platform provides an opportunity for reflection.

The peer-reviewed study reveals that broad-scope blocking significantly disrupts legitimate online services, renders IP address space unusable, undermines the operation of legitimate businesses, while posing a broader systemic risk encompassing national infrastructure.

Piracy Shield: Collateral Damage and Efficacy

The credentialed authors of the study , 90th Minute: A First Look to Collateral Damages and Efficacy of the Italian Piracy Shield are Raffaele Sommese , Anna Sperotto , Jeroen van der Ham , and Antonia Affinito at the University of Twente, Netherlands, and Antonio Prado , an independent consultant in Italy.

Motivated by the aggressive piracy countermeasures of Italy’s Piracy Shield, related collateral damage, and a lack of empirical data on the platform’s real-world impact, the study aims to provide the first data-driven investigation into the platform’s efficacy and unintended consequences.

Obtaining Data, Understanding Blocked Resources

In an environment that the researchers describe as favoring “enforcement efficiency over full transparency” access to relevant official data was an immediate challenge. Resources blocked by Piracy Shield are not published by telecoms regulator AGCOM and an unofficial list of blocking tickets available via ISP Infotech appear only in redacted form.

A Piracy Shield dataset leaked to GitHub, containing ~11,000 IP addresses and ~42,600 fully qualified domains (FQDN), provides the foundation for the study.

Of these domains, 18,849 (44.2%) were confirmed as still blocked, while 23,805 (55.8%) had been removed. Verified by the researchers as authentic after cross-referencing with Infotech data, the same dataset was independently reviewed by TorrentFreak in 2024 and is considered reliable.

Identification of the blocked resources and exploration of their characteristics, allowed the researchers to evaluate ownership, operational control, while inferrinng hosting and leasing activity; i.e IP addresses likely to belong to leased address space.

The researchers leveraged data provided by OpenINTEL to identify domains either hosted on blocked IP addresses or referring – via CNAME records – to blocked FQDNs. They also conducted their own scan of 1.8 billion FQDN extracted from Certificate Transparency logs to identify shared infrastructure and potential collateral damage.

Distribution of Blocked IPs and FQDNs

From February 2, 2024 to June 4, 2025, a total of 3,782 blocking requests (tickets) were issued to the Piracy Shield platform. Of those, 1,817 (48%) tickets targeted at least one FQDN and one IPv4 address, 1,719 (45%) targeted only FQDNs, and 246 (7%) targeted only IP addresses. The distribution of blocked IP addresses per country and FQDN per TLD are shown in the tables below:

Table II shows that 37.9% of the IP addresses blocked by Piracy Shield are hosted in the Netherlands followed by Germany (9.0%) and Romania (8.2%), with a relatively modest 843 IP addresses (7.7&) located to the United States.

“Interestingly, 2.5% of the blocked IPs are located in Italy, and 76.8% of the blocked IPs are within the European Union, where copyright owners may have better leverage to identify illegal streaming perpetrators and take them down,” the researchers note.

Distribution across the top 15 hosting infrastructures for the 10,918 IP addresses, by company, /24 networks (2,134 overall), and ASN (262 overall), is shown in the table below. (Note: As referenced in the study, a ‘/24 network’ is a Class C IPv4 network supporting 254 hosts)

“Interestingly, a single company – GZ Remittance— hosted more than 9.5% of all blocked resources, concentrated in just 15 distinct /24s. This may suggest that the company is highly favored by illegal streaming operators, who likely rotate through IPs to evade blocking. The same pattern is observable for NexonHost, which shows similar figures,” the study notes.

“OVH stands out for having the highest number of unblocked IPs – 41 in total, accounting for almost one third of all unblocked addresses. This suggests that shared resources may have been inadvertently affected, or that the infrastructure was later reused for benign purposes.”

IP Addresses and Leased Address Space

The researchers observed that of the 10,918 blocked IP addresses, 2,618 (24%) were linked to leased address space. This is significant; leased address space can be used as an evasion tactic and could lead to collateral damage when ‘pirate’ leases expire and IP addresses are made available under a new lease.

The study found that, on average, 7.5 IP addresses per /24 were blocked in leased address blocks, compared to just 4.5 IP addresses per /24 in non-leased blocks. This suggests that some pirates prefer leased address space, leading to potential collateral damage when blocked IP addresses are reassigned under a new lease. Interestingly, 453 IP addresses were leased for the first time after being blocked, signaling major Italian connectivity issues for the new operator of those IPs.

Furthermore, with assistance from IP leasing broker IPXO , the researchers were able to identify an additional 1,012 IP addresses spanning 121 /24 networks still subject to Piracy Shield blocking. Of these, 268 IP addresses (across 32 /24s) were no longer leased by the same companies, with 250 IP addresses (across 23 /24s) having been re-leased to different companies.

“These results highlight a significant risk of collateral damage for companies that may find part of their address space unusable when communicating with Italian customers,” the study notes.

Collateral Damage

The study uncovered significant and widespread collateral damage, mostly caused by IP address blocking.

During the study’s timeframe, 7,114 FQDNs were either completely or partially affected by Piracy Shield blocking, with 510 domains manually confirmed by the researchers as legitimate websites, unconnected to any streaming-related activity.

Of these, 373 domains were disrupted by IP address blocking, including personal branding pages, company profiles, hotels, restaurants, a car mechanic, a nunnery, retail shops, an accountant, and a telehealth missionary program. In three cases, blocking single IP addresses caused 60 collateral blocks each.

Between February 2024 and June 2025, 7,742 FQDNs were impacted by IP address-level blocking. In 7,232 of these cases, all hosting IPs of the affected FQDNs were blocked and in 302 cases a subset of their hosting IPs suffered disruption. Mail server IPs were blocked in 782 cases and disruption due to nameserver blocking was observed in 397.

In one case a single blocked Hetzner IP address disrupted 325 domains, one of which was operated by a Portuguese hosting provider that suffered 16 days of lost email connectivity with Italian customers. Anycast IP addresses belonging to DDoS protection providers including StormWall and DDoS Guard were also blocked and in Italy, nine domestic websites – including an Italian marketing company using an OVH IP address – remain unreachable.

On average, domains affected by Piracy Shield-related collateral damage remain impacted for ~320 days.

Conclusions and Discussion

The study’s findings validate warnings from Italy’s ISPs before Piracy Shield’s launch early 2024. In broad terms, there were two critical issues: 1) IP address blocking would cause collateral damage and 2) Blocking would prove ineffective while imposing an unacceptable burden on local ISPs.

“Our results on the collateral damages of IP and FQDN blocking highlight a worrisome scenario, with hundreds of legitimate websites unknowingly affected by blocking, unknown operators experiencing service disruption, and illegal streamers continuing to evade enforcement by exploiting the abundance of address space online, leaving behind unusable and polluted address ranges,” the researchers note.

With emphasis that the study offers a “conservative lower-bound estimate” that likely misses “cascading disruptions on other services like APIs, email, or databases that rely on direct IP connectivity”, the impact of Piracy Shield is likely understated.

“Technically, it risks systemic failure by blocking shared infrastructure like CDNs and DDoS protectors while polluting the IP address space for future, unsuspecting users. Operationally it imposes a growing, uncompensated burden on Italian ISPs forced to implement an expanding list of permanent blocks.”

Mitigation

The researchers make many solid recommendations, the majority of which have been aired dozens of times previously before being routinely rejected. With the support of evidence presented within this study, conducted by highly competent experts in relevant fields, it’s hoped that opportunities to mitigate damage will receive greater attention.

• IP-level blocking is indiscriminate, has consequences outweighing its benefit, and should not be used
• Many illegal streaming services operate within the EU; rightsholders’ legal action should target them there
• Resource owners should be notified immediately when their assets are blocked
• A fast unblocking mechanism must be made available
• AGCOM should publish a list of all blocked resources to enable third party review and remedial action
• Control of critical infrastructure under a single opaque platform remains ill-advised

To conclude, we hope that this work sparks a thorough discussion among Italian operators, AGCOM, and national policymakers on reconsidering the Piracy Shield initiative. This reflection must account for the significant collateral damage to legitimate infrastructure and the potential threat to national security the platform may pose. Ultimately, the challenge is not whether piracy should be fought, but how to do so without endangering the very principles and infrastructure that sustain the Internet as we know nowadays.

90th Minute: A First Look to Collateral Damages and Efficacy of the Italian Piracy Shield, published as part of the upcoming 21th International Conference on Network and Service Management , is available here (pdf)

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

Will the United States introduce a pirate site blocking program? Depending on who one asks, the answer could go either way.

A slightly different and potentially more complex question isn’t whether the United States will adopt such a program, but whether it should. Is limiting communications absolutely necessary and the only option left? Is it still absolutely necessary after considering how quickly the UK is descending into censorship , with the equipment standing by to take things to the next level?

No matter how the topic is presented, and whether for or against site blocking, definitive answers are always elusive. Yet, extend the timeline to the horizon and a little beyond, and whether the United States will ever introduce a site blocking program has a straightforward answer; It is absolutely inevitable; only the timing, framing, and eventual implementation are in doubt.

Transparency is Not an Option, It’s Absolutely Necessary

Murphy’s law posits that anything that can go wrong, will go wrong, and almost every prediction from 2012 about how site blocking could go wrong, has gone wrong in the period since. There has been no wholesale collapse of the internet , yet, but try telling that to the Spanish who, incidentally, were simply ignored when they called out for help.

No system is perfect, but a transparent system helps to build trust. The recent site blocking proposals in the U.S. recognize that transparency is important, but there’s a pretty big caveat. Since relatively few people are aware of the true scale of worldwide site-blocking due to a general lack of transparency in most countries, how does one assess the value of transparency that isn’t comprehensive?

The recently introduced Block BEARD draft does not mention public transparency, but both FADPA and ACPA envision publication of site blocking orders once granted by the court. For scale, that’s more or less equivalent to reading the opening paragraph of a detailed news article.

In other jurisdictions where orders made public, they typically outline the justification for blocking and detail why the target sites meet the threshold for blocking under relevant law. At this crucial stage, shining a spotlight on anomalies is essential because people may act quite differently when free from scrutiny.

The limited transparency outlined in the FADPA and ACPA proposals can be put into perspective with help from a practical example.

DAZN Obtains a Local Blocking Order With Global Impact

The Indian legal system may not always deliver the results major U.S. rightsholders expect, but when it comes to site blocking, the High Court of Delhi has shown an enthusiasm for blocking up to tens of thousands at once. More recently, the issue of jurisdiction has received liberal treatment too, with blocking orders under Indian law reaching into other countries with instructions for registrars to suspend domains, among other things.

An order obtained in June by Disney subsidiary Star India is the latest example of the High Court going the extra mile for rightsholders. With maximum freedom to block domains quickly, limited oversight was temporarily suspended in favor of no oversight at all while the Court was on holiday.

This dynamic+ injunction grants permission to block domains that don’t yet exist, and if content is delivered by apps instead of sites, no problem; blocking is not only authorized but must take place in real-time. Domain suspensions are part of the package too, including those linked to American companies such as Namecheap, which is known to comply . Try that in the United States, and it could easily take one or two years.

After obtaining global broadcasting rights to the FIFA Club World Cup 2025, selecting India as the venue for its site-blocking measures would’ve been a no-brainer for DAZN .

With no question of who owns the rights anywhere on the planet, the High Court of Delhi granted an injunction that required local ISPs to block six sites: buffsports.me, sporthd.me, piratemedia.me, vipbox.lc, strimsy.top and vipstand.pm.

Despite the popularity of the domains, the list of six domains was pretty mild by most standards. That the sites lacked popularity in India made things more interesting but not exactly a surprise given the potential for global impact.

Transparency Ends Here in the U.S. Proposals

India’s blocking measures are roughly equivalent to those suggested in the United States drafts and, up to this point, offer the same level of transparency.

In India, once one knows where to look, most details are available for scrutiny, from the initial order to any follow-up measures. In the United States (as far as we know), only the information in the initial order would be made public; nothing beyond that would ever see the light of day.

The dynamic order was issued on May 28, 2025, and very quickly at least three of the original domains were suspended by 1API Gmbh, NETIM and Namecheap. Suspensions aren’t part of the current proposals in the United States but may not be required either, not with an offshore service like this available.

DAZN Comes Up With a Few More Domains

On June 2, DAZN filed its first ‘List of Additional Domains’, all of which are submitted along with an evidence pack (below) . These domains are typically proxies, mirrors, or new domains obtained by, or linked to, the six sites outlined in the initial order. However, DAZN kept its powder dry for good reason.

The injunction permitted the blocking of ANY site, regardless of any connection with those revealed in the initial batch. Additional List 1 contained the following domains, all subject to local ISP blocking and suspensions by domain registrars that have global impact:

Additional List 1: vipleague.im, amzstream.tv, footybite.store, ppv.wtf, rivofutboll.live, pelotalibretv.me, www.pelotalibretv.me, thedailytimereads.com, streamlivetv.site, livetv.sx, cdn.livetv853.me, futbollibretvpe.com, etvpe.com, tv.hesgoal-tv.app, live.hesgoal-tv.app, king-shoot.live, tipotv.com, futlibre.net, bosscast.online, sportp2p.com, lshunter.online, daddylive.dad, klubsports.site, totalsportek.es, hdplayerr.xyz, totwatch.php, ozb.spon.live, ff.wcup.me, premiertv.watch, amzlive.tv, bingsport.com, 247sport.net, bingsport.watch, deporte-libre.link, worldsports.me, soccerworldcup.me, qatarstreams.me, socceronline.me, fbstreams.pm, vipleague.pm, rojadirectatv.run, rojadirecto.de, rojadirectahd.com, cracksports.me

On June 17, DAZN submitted another list containing many popular domains, especially in Latin America.

Additional List 2: ovogoal.net, live-kooora.com, koraonline.live, 1ball.me, flicksoccer.com, totalsportek.pro, fawanews.com, rbtv77.vin, gol.yalla-shoot-as.com, k315.liveball.ws, redditsoccerstreams.org, rbtv77.rocks, kora.kooora-goal.live, stad.yalla-shhoot.com, totalfhdsport.xyz, tiksports.net, hesgoal.one, pelota-libre.org, rojadirectaenhd.net, score808pro.com, tazztv.art, tazztv.pro, rojadirectaenvivo.store, rusticotv.vip, nbatv.store, rojadirectavip.net, futbolhoy.live, pelotalibre.com, pirlotv.in, pirlotvenhd.com, stream196tp.com, futbol-libre.org, apretontv.com, la12hd.com, verfutboltv.net, todopelotatvhd.com, telerium.biz, tarjetarojaenvivo.nl, futbolparatodostv.net, viperplayhd.com, pelotalibre2.org, futbolparatodostv.lat, futbollibreonline.org, tarjetarojaa.com, deporte-libre.fans, rojadirectahd.mx, deportestvhdplus1.pro, rojadirectatv.uno, rojadirectaenvivo.la, antenacentral.store, pelotalibreonline.com, pirlotvhd.store, rusticotvhd.com, deportelibre.live, rojadirectatv.world, pirlotv.uno, futbollibretvenvivo.com, pirlotv.bet, envivoplay.net, pirlotvenhd.online, sportwatch24.com, telegratishd.com, rbtv77.services, kooralive.ws, rojadirect.top, kooora-lives1.com, pirlotv.win, fr2.sportplus.tv, dooball66m.com, rojadirectaenvivo.uk, freeshot.live, daddylive.icu, qkoora.live

A day later, a fairly small batch followed, probably because there was not much left to block…

Additional List 3: elitegol.onl, elitegol.watch, futbollibre.run, futbollibrego.cl, futlibre.com, kooora4us1.com, live.kickkoora.com, livetv853.me, me.webcric.com, multicanais.casa, pelotalibretv.com, pirlotv.onl, pirlotvdh.lol, pirlotvenhd.me, pirlotvhd.lol, rivestream.org, rojadirect.uno, rojadirecta.gratis, rojadirectaenhd.me, rojadirectahdenvivo.com, rojadirectatv.lol, selcuksportshd1826.xyz, sportsbay.dk, streamonsport.city, streamsgate.tv, yalla-shoot-tv.one

…apart from yet another batch just 24 hours later, obviously.

Additional List 4: alangulotv.cloud, apurogol.info, balondeportes.com, cdn.stream-24.xyz, daddylivehd.click, dzritv.com, fctv77.com, futbollibre.biz, ggsport.tv, h5.365streams.world, home.sporttuna.vip, la14hd.com, megadeportes.pro, megadeportes2.lat, mutstreams.com, pelotalibrehd.com, pirlotv.asia, pirlotv.lol, pirlotv.shop, pirlotv.tel, rbtv77.com, rojadiecta.uno, rojadirectatvhd.org, rojadirecto.uno, rojdirecta.com, tufutbollibre.com, tvlibreonline.org, verfutebol.website, viperplayonline.com, zonamovil.net

After submitting its fourth additional list on June 19, it seems reasonable to point out that the original site-blocking application offered almost nothing to suggest the blocking bonanza that would follow. That’s relevant to the transparency discussion in the United States, especially when one considers this is nothing out of the ordinary.

Indeed, it’s a strategy seen anywhere where it’s allowed in the world; reveal as little as possible in the application, then when the transparency lights go out, deliver the mother lode.

No Criticism of DAZN, It Did Everything it Was Supposed To

DAZN obviously didn’t have the luxury of complete darkness but nevertheless, it didn’t complicate the application with a huge volume of domains when it wasn’t required to. Indeed, there can be no criticism of DAZN anywhere in the process. The application had no issues and as soon as it was practical, the broadcaster began submitting the additional lists detailed above.

And this list dated June 20, a day after the previous one.

Additional List 5: 24tv.site, 808fubo.com, antenasport.online, azulbogota.com, dooball66k.com, drama-tv.live, en.sportplus.live, futbol-libre.info, futbollibrehd.com, futbollibrehd.futbol, futemax.ngo, hattrick.ws, k323.liveball.ws, kooralive-4k.com, koora-live-tv.app, kuoralive.com, lady3.ltdak8nature334hqis.shop, livestreming.online, nizarstream.xyz, sexandsamba.xyz, shoot-yalla.me, shoot-yalla-tv.live, soccer-1000.com, softlive.xyz, streameast100.com, stream-easts.app, streamtpglobal.com, supertipzz.online, yalla-shooot.io, zingsport.tv, zonamovil.top

Having illustrated what often happens after an initial blocking order [ pdf ] is issued by a court, we should mention that Additional List 5 above was followed by additional lists 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10.

That’s an awful lot of domains already, but DAZN didn’t stop until it had submitted its 19th Additional List making a grand total of 536 domains, including some of the largest sports streaming platforms online today; or not, as the case may be.

Under FADPA or ACTA, the public would be made aware of just buffsports.me, sporthd.me, piratemedia.me, vipbox.lc, strimsy.top and vipstand.pm.

Transparency as proposed would hide the remaining 530 domains, an uplift of 8,833% over those actually disclosed. The greatest risk of collateral damage exists not in the initial order, but what came next.

As far as we’re aware, there have been no voluntary disclosures of collateral damage during the past 15 years of global site blocking. Cloudflare’s unique position allowed it to identify thousands of instances. Transparency would help to identify and potentially eliminate many more.

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

Sports piracy made headlines this week when anti-piracy coalition ACE announced the shutdown of the world’s largest illegal sports streaming ring .

The operation, carried out by Egyptian authorities at the end of August, resulted in two arrests and the seizure of roughly 80 domain names.

A website carrying the ‘Streameast’ brand was one of the main targets. This was indeed one of the larger pirate sports streaming portals. However, reports by The Athletic and other news outlets concluded that the original Streameast site was shut down; that is not correct.

In reality, this week’s takedown targeted a massive ‘copycat’ network that simply copied famous ‘pirate’ site logos and branding to its own sites, to boost their popularity by passing off as the originals. This was corroborated by the operator of the original Streameast, who quickly clarified they have no connection to the seized sites or to Egypt where the enforcement action took place.

USTR puts a spotlight on Sports Streaming Piracy

While the distinction might seem minor, getting the facts right is crucial, especially when other prominent reports are also causing confusion.

In this light, it is good to see that the U.S. Trade Representative recently announced that sports piracy will be the focus issue for its upcoming review of significant piracy and counterfeiting threats. The annual “Notorious Markets” overview is compiled with help from copyright holders and can be used to motivate foreign authorities to take action, with the emphasis on “piracy of sports broadcasts” in 2025.

The MPA, parent organization of the ACE coalition, is a regular ‘notorious market’ contributor. In its most recent submission last year, the group did not mention Streameast by name. Instead, Librefutbol.su, Librefutboltv.net, and Buffstreams.app ^(*) were the only featured sports streaming sites in its recommendation.

With sports piracy as the focus issue, MPA may list more sports streaming targets in its upcoming recommendations. That will also be an opportunity to mention the shutdown of the world’s largest illegal sports streaming ring as a recent key achievement, perhaps with additional context.

Streameast vs. Streameast

Additional eyeballs on sports streaming presents a good opportunity to clear up the Streameast confusion.

After all, the original Streameast, which was targeted in a crackdown by U.S. authorities last year , remains online today. Perhaps that site is no longer considered a major threat due to more modest traffic, but the fact that it was targeted in a criminal investigation by the feds would at least warrant a mention.

The Premier League and BeIN may be able to help with that, as these rightsholders previously flagged Streameast.app (the clone) as a notorious market. With the clone sites now shut down, the original Streameast is picking up extra traffic and that will automatically bring it back into focus.

The U.S. Trade Representative’s call for comments on the 2025 Review of Notorious Markets for Counterfeiting and Piracy is available in the Federal Register . The deadline for submissions is October 1.

—

note: Buffstreams.app is one of the domains that was recently taken down, likely as part of the Streameast operation. It is now under the control of MPA/ACE. In last year’s USTR submission, MPA said that the operators were believed to be in France.

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

During the first half of 2022, U.S. Senator Thom Tillis was working on a proposal to put forward in a new pirate site blocking bill.

The text of the No-Fault Copyright Remedy Act (NFCRA) was shared among stakeholders but wasn’t announced to the public.

A decade had passed since the first attempt to introduce site-blocking legislation backfired in 2012. For NFCRA, copyright holders and Internet service providers were brought on board early with the aim of negotiating a mutually agreed text.

That hoped-for agreement never came. Rightsholders and ISPs submitted proposed amendments that would take the bill in different directions, widening the gap instead of closing it.

After the failed attempt to make progress behind closed doors, things went quiet. However, rightsholders’ calls for site-blocking legislation only intensified, and this summer Senator Tillis officially introduced the Block BEARD Bill.

The Block BEARD Bill ‘Evolution’

The Block BEARD Act of 2025 is a bipartisan effort supported by Senators Chris Coons (D-DE) and Marsha Blackburn (R-TN), as well as Representative Adam Schiff (D-CA). The latest version still includes sentences from the early draft circulated three years ago, but there are substantial changes too.

A key difference is that the Block BEARD proposal allows for dynamic blocking. It specifically gives courts the authority to amend existing orders with new domain names or IP addresses, if a site uses them to circumvent blocking efforts.

The latest bill also proposes a significant reduction in the time allowed to implement blocking measures; just 15 days and for live events “as soon as practicable”. In the NFCRA draft, service providers would’ve been given a minimum of 30 days to act, with no special carve-outs.

The good news for some service providers is that Block BEARD doesn’t apply to them all. Those with fewer than 50,000 subscribers are explicitly excluded, and the same applies to venues such as coffee shops, libraries, and universities that offer internet access to visitors.

Meanwhile, the operators of alleged foreign pirate sites have the right to appear in court to prevent a blocking order from being issued. That safeguard wasn’t included in the bill’s predecessor.

Feature	NFCRA (2022)	Block BEARD Act (2025)
Service Provider Definition	A broad definition that includes providers of broadband internet access service and DNS resolvers.	A more specific definition that excludes broadband providers with fewer than 50,000 subscribers and premises like coffee shops and libraries.
Criteria for Court Order	The site’s primary purpose or commercially significant use is copyright infringement.	Adds an additional criterion that the site is “intentionally marketed to promote infringement” to its primary purpose test.
Operator’s Contest Rights	Allows the operator to appear before the court and contest the order.	The order will not be issued if the operator appears, submits to the court’s jurisdiction, and posts a bond to ensure compliance.
Implementation Deadline	Specifies a minimum of 30 days for service providers to implement the order.	Shortens the minimum time to 15 days, with an “as soon as practicable” provision for live events.
Order Duration & Extension	Provides that an order will expire 1 year after it is served, subject to extension.	Provides that an order will expire 1 year after it is served, subject to a 1-year extension. Allows for amending the order for sites that use circumvention techniques.

To what degree stakeholders were involved in the drafting process of the latest text is not known to us. It’s clear that not all parties who were previously involved were brought back to the table, but previous comments by Senator Coons suggested that ISPs and rightsholders were involved.

In any case, the process and history show that the latest proposal is far from new. It’s the result of a multi-year effort that took place outside the public eye.

More Blocking Bills in the Works

Block-BEARD is not the only site-blocking proposal currently on the table in the United States. Earlier this year, U.S. Rep. Zoe Lofgren introduced the Foreign Anti-Digital Piracy Act (FADPA), which proposes a similar blocking regime, but one that specifically excludes DNS resolvers.

At the same time, Representative Darrell Issa is working on yet another site-blocking bill, the ‘American Copyright Protection Act’ ( ACPA ), which tackles the same issue from a different angle by appointing judges for blocking cases. This version is yet to be formally introduced.

If site-blocking efforts move forward, the eventual law must pass both the House and the Senate. This means that a combination of these proposals may ultimately lead to the final blocking legislation, if it gets that far.

Opposition Treads Carefully

Over the past several weeks, many rightsholder groups have responded positively to the proposals, as expected. Interestingly, however, there hasn’t been much response from residential ISPs or the many companies and organizations that previously spoke out against similar legislation.

The Re:Create coalition, which promotes a free and open Internet on behalf of members including the EFF, Creative Commons, and the Consumer Technology Association, has been most outspoken in opposition.

“Despite a clever acronym that distracts from the truth, the Block BEARD Act is a new name for a decades-old attempt by Big Content to control the internet through site-blocking,” Executive Director Brandon Butler commented.

“The Block BEARD Act would legalize a dangerous mechanism for content trolls to request the take down of legitimate content because of an alleged piracy claim, putting Americans’ free speech rights into the hands of a powerful few.”

Most large Internet services have remained quiet, however. While we can only speculate on their reasons, they may prefer diplomacy over a major SOPA-style pushback.

The online and political landscape has changed dramatically over the past thirteen years. And with site-blocking being broadly implemented over the world, stopping multiple legislative proposals in the United States is not going to be easy.

American companies such as Google and Cloudflare already implement blocking measures in other jurisdictions, so if the U.S. proposals move forward, they would likely prefer to exert their influence, rather than publicly berating the efforts.

Concerns Over Collateral Damage

The Internet Infrastructure Coalition ( i2Coalition ) is keeping a close eye on developments. The organization represents members including Cloudflare, Google, Amazon Web Services, and several large VPN providers, all of which could be impacted by the blocking plans.

Speaking with TorrentFreak, Executive Director Christian Dawson notes that combating illegal activity is important, but he urges caution over the risk of causing collateral damage.

“Blocking at the infrastructure level is a blunt instrument that too often breaks the open Internet in the process,” Dawson says.

“While we share the goal of addressing illegal activity, the Block BEARD Act risks causing collateral damage to lawful services and undermining the security and reliability of the networks we all depend on.”

As the legislative process moves forward, we can expect more commentary and advocacy from various stakeholders. However, a global blackout of the Internet and massive worldwide protests are not on the cards.

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