Praised by major rightsholders as progress in the fight against piracy, Italy’s Piracy Shield system made headlines for all the wrong reasons.

Authorized under new legislation and promoted as a killer blow to piracy of live sports, Piracy Shield’s launch soon descended into a series of overblocking blunders and international news headlines. Realization that Piracy Shield was incapable of living up to the hype, led to legal amendments that contained direct threats against the tech sector.

CCIA Intervenes On Behalf of the Tech Sector

The Computer & Communications Industry Association (CCIA) represents global tech giants including Amazon, Apple, Cloudflare, Google, and Meta, among others. In a January 2025 letter to the EU Commission, CCIA acknowledged that Piracy Shield exists to protect rightsholders but warned that the blocking mechanism is a “ blunt instrument ” that threatens businesses and the public alike.

When telecoms regulator AGCOM launched a public consultation on proposed amendments to copyright regulations and Piracy Shield’s operations, CCIA took the opportunity to restate its concerns. Highlighting the risk of overblocking, CCIA turned to the blocking requests made by rightsholders and a requirement under Italian law to execute them within 30 minutes.

“[W]e believe that the Piracy Shield poses significant risks to the principles of freedom of enterprise expression, as established by European and Italian law,” CCIA wrote .

CCIA Urges European Commission to Intervene

After months of engagement, including its letter to the European Commission back in January, CCIA’s latest submission calls on the Commission to seize the opportunity to publish a detailed opinion to address Piracy Shield’s apparent incompatibility with EU law.

CCIA’s submission to AGCOM begins by highlighting the proposed amendments.

“The Piracy Shield allows copyright holders to request site-blocking orders to be executed within 30 minutes, with limited transparency or recourse for affected parties.

“These amendments, most notably changes to Article 10 and Article 8 (3-bis) of the Regulation, further consolidate the Shield’s role, including extraterritorial content-removal capabilities without clear coordination with EU law, particularly the Digital Services Act (DSA),” CCIA’s submission reads.

“Given the serious implications of these proposals for the EU internal market, the freedom to provide cross-border services, and fundamental rights such as freedom of expression and due process, CCIA Europe urges the Commission to issue a detailed opinion under the TRIS procedure.”

TRIS – Prevention of Technical Barriers to Trade

One of the basic principles of the European Union is an internal market that embraces the free movement of people, goods, services, and capital. Mechanisms that restrict or have the effect of restricting such movement, may create prohibited ‘internal frontiers’.

The aim of the TRIS procedure ( Directive 2015/1535 ) is to identify and prevent the appearance of internal barriers before they can have a negative effect on the market. Under TRIS, notifications sent to the European Commission may lead to a legal analysis in light of EU law.

CCIA’s submission draws attention to key issues that it believes should be assessed by the Commission, summarized as follows:

Lack of procedural safeguards and transparency in the Piracy Shield platform

• Blocking requests processed automatically, does not seem AGCOM checks for accuracy.
• No meaningful opportunity to contest blocking orders before enforcement.
• No independent review or appeal mechanism that operates in a timely manner.
• Piracy Shield technical specs and operational protocols have never been made public.
• Development and governance lacked stakeholder inclusivity.
• Platform incompatible with principles of proportionality and due process

Risk of overblocking and collateral damage covers known incidents of overblocking, including the event that caused a widespread outage of Google Drive and the blocking of shared IP addresses at Cloudflare.

In general, blocking of shared IP addresses “poses a high risk of unjustified interference with lawful online content and services” while domain name blocking “heightens the potential for overreach and content censorship, particularly when a single domain may host a mix [of] infringing and non-infringing content.”

Questionable legal basis for cross-border removal

AGCOM’s new proposal introduces a provision empowering itself to issue orders for the removal of content hosted in other EU Member States, vaguely referring to the Digital Services Act (DSA) as a legal basis. This raises several concerns:

• The DSA provides for structured cross-border cooperation mechanisms and does not grant national authorities carte blanche to take direct enforcement action against hosting services in other Member States.

• The proposal lacks clarity on which provisions of the DSA are being invoked and how these powers align with Articles 8 and 9 of the DSA, which govern the issuance and enforcement of orders to act against illegal content.

• This extraterritorial enforcement risks undermining the DSA’s country-of-origin principle and creates legal uncertainty for service providers operating across the EU.

The final section in the submission titled Ineffectiveness of network-level blocking notes that blocking is easily circumvented and does not remove any infringing content from the internet. Blocking can also “serve to obscure” rather than address the root causes of piracy. Overall, better options exist.

That leads CCIA to its conclusions and a brief summary of its key points and concerns.

No timeline is mentioned in respect of a decision for or against an assessment, or how long a subsequent opinion could take to arrive.

The full CCIA submission is available here (pdf)

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

Over the past two decades, online piracy has proven to be a massive headache for the entertainment industries.

Governments around the world have recognized this challenge and, where possible, lend a helping hand to identify and address the threats.

The European Commission, for example, compiles a biennial ‘Counterfeit and Piracy Watch List’, following the example set by the United States. Like its U.S. equivalent, the EU watchlist relies on input from copyright holders , which nominate problematic sites and services for inclusion.

New Threats

This week the Commission released its latest version of the Counterfeit and Piracy Watch List. The report provides a detailed overview of the piracy landscape including statistics from many studies that were previously published. In addition, it highlights what are seen as the most serious threats today.

Compared to the previous edition, there appears to be a stronger focus on game piracy. Several new additions are gaming-related, including the elusive repacker FitGirl and several NSW2U domain names. Both have been blocked by ISPs in several EU countries.

Other newcomers are the streaming repository Doodstream , sports streaming site Pirlo TV , hosting provider Virtual Systems , IPTV service GenIPTV and the pirate video library Vidsrc .

Njalla: Off-the-Shelf Piracy Service?

Another new target is Njalla , the privacy-focused domain registration intermediary founded by Pirate Bay co-founder Peter Sunde. The service is operated by Saint Kitts and Nevis-based 1337 Services.

According to the EU report, Njalla appears to do more than simply registering domains for its customers. Allegedly, it allows people to launch a complete pirate site using the service.

“This off-the-shelf piracy facilitation service makes it easy for would-be pirates to create and monetise a fully functioning pirate service,” the EU report reads.

This description does not fit Njalla as we know it. However, it can be explained. Apparently, the the EU Commission appears to apply the general description of “Piracy as a Service” (PaaS) providers to Njalla. While MPA previously reported Njalla as a PaaS service (to the USTR), applying the full description seems out of place here.

In its submission, MPA argued that PaaS services, taken together, make it easy for aspiring pirates to launch their own services. However, Njalla itself does not allow “pirates to create and monetise a fully functioning pirate service” as the EU Commission suggests. That’s a concerning error, to say the least.

The PaaS term was originally coined years ago. We first noticed it in a MPA report in 2021 , where the same “off the shelf” terminology was used.

IPFS

The final newcomer to stand out is the InterPlanetary File System, more broadly known as IPFS . This is a decentralized network where users make files available to each other. The system makes websites censorship resistant and not vulnerable to regular hosting outages.

These advantages allow archivists, content creators, researchers, and many others to reliably distribute large volumes of data over the Internet. Wikipedia has used it’s for example, and Lockheed Martin helped to launch an IPFS node into space.

However, the same censorship-resistant features also appeal to pirate sites , which is why the EU has now included it on its watch list. The same applies to the Interplanetary Distributed Literature Catalog (IPDL), which maintains links to torrent and IPFS archives.

“Super Pirate and the major pirate networks, including Library Genesis (LibGen), Z-Library, Anna’s Archive are reported to use public gateways to host and distribute copyrighted materials on IPFS,” the report reads.

Usual Suspects

In addition to roughly a dozen fresh entries, the EU watchlist includes many familiar websites. Torrent sites such as The Pirate Bay, 1337x, and Rutracker make an appearance, similar to previous years.

Fmovies is still mentioned too, despite its shutdown last year. Instead of the original site, the EU Watch list now includes two copycat Fmovies sites; fmoviesto.site and f-moviesz.to.

The music category, meanwhile, is dominated by stream-ripping services, while publishing companies highlighted Sci-Hub and LibGen as persistent threats. The full list is completed by various hosting companies, IPTV services, and pirate apps and tools.

While all currently listed sites and services would likely prefer to remain unmentioned, there are no immediate consequences, at least as far as the EU is concerned.

The EU Commission notes that the Piracy Watch List mainly serves to encourage operators and owners, as well as local governments and enforcement authorities, to take appropriate action to reduce online piracy.

—

Update: After publication, ISTQ management informed us that it was surprised to be included in the report, while clarifying its position.

“ISTQ does not support, promote, or knowingly host any illegal services, including unlicensed IPTV. On the contrary, we have permanently suspended many client accounts in the past after receiving verified abuse reports related to such activities.

As a hosting provider, we receive new clients daily, and while we are unable to pre-screen the nature of their businesses, we take immediate action when any activity in violation of our terms or applicable laws is identified.

We operate under clear abuse handling procedures and cooperate fully with copyright holders and legal authorities. Our logs and actions are well documented and available for review upon request.

We are open to constructive dialogue and welcome any feedback on how we can strengthen our policies even further. We believe it’s important that infrastructure providers who act in good faith are treated fairly.”

—-

A copy of the European Commission’s fourth Counterfeit and Piracy Watch List is available here (pdf) . A list of all the online piracy targets and intermediaries can be found below.

Cyberlockers

– Mega.nz/.io
– Uptobox.com / Uptostream.com
– Rapidgator.net
– Uploaded.net (ul.to, uploaded.to)
– Dbree.org
– Doodstream (new)
– Z-Library (new)

Stream-Rippers

– YTMP3.CC, Ytmp3.nu (new)
– X2mate.com (new)
– Y2mate.com and related sites
– Savefrom.net /ssyoutube.com/sfrom.ne
– Flvto.biz and 2conv.com
– Snappea.com

Linking or referring websites

– Fmovies (clones, fmoviesto.site, f-moviesz.to)
– Seasonvar.ru
– Rlsbb.ru
– Rezka.ag
– Dytt8[.]net, Dytt89.com, Dy2018.net, Dy2018[.]com, Dydytt[.]net, and Ygdy8[.]com (new)
– Hianime (formerly Aniwatch[.]to and zoro[.]to) (new)
– Cuevana[.]biz and Cuevana3[.]eu, Cuevana3[.]ch, Cuevana.is (new)
– nsw2u.xyz/nsw2u.com/nsw2u.net (new)
– fitgirl-repacks.site (new)
– Pirlo TV (new)

Peer-to-peer and BitTorrent indexing websites

– ThePirateBay.org (and related domains)
– Rarbg.to
– Rutracker.org
– 1337x.to
– Interplanetary Distributed Literature Catalog (IPDL) (new)
– InterPlanetary File System (IPFS) (new)

Unlicensed download sites

– Music-Bazaar.com and Music-Bazaar.mobi
– Sci-hub.io (Sci-hub.tw; sci-hub.cc; sci-hub.ac; sci-hub.bz and others)
– Libgen.onl and mirror sites

Piracy Apps

– IPTV Smarters
– Ievpad.com
– MagisTV
– Shabakaty

Hosting providers

– DDoS-Guard.net
– Private Layer
– Virtual Systems, V-Sys (new)
– Squitter, ABC Consultancy, Peenq, ESTOXY, BestDC, SERDECHS (new)
– “Amarutu”, also known as Koddos
– AS-Istqservers / Istqserverses (“Istq”)
– HostPalace Web Solution PVT LTD (“Host Palace”)

Unlicensed IPTV services

– BIPTV.best and BestBuyIPTV.store
– King365tv.com / Theking365tv.pro, Theking365tv.site
– VolkaIPTV.com /.ru
– GenIPTV (new)
– Dark IPTV (new)

Piracy Supporting Services

– 2embed.ru; 2embed, or 2embed[.]cc / 2embed[.]skin
– Fembed.com
– Vidsrc[.]to (new)
– Njal[.]la – 1337 Services (new)
– GDrivePlayer (new)

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

Torrent site uploaders come in various shapes and sizes. Only a few become so popular that their ‘brand’ is widely recognized by online pirates.

COLLECTiVE falls into the latter category. The uploader operating under this tag, Will1869, shared many high-profile titles, mostly films. He purportedly operated as a one-man team.

These releases appeared on major torrent sites including 1337x and the recently defunct TorrentGalaxy. COLLECTiVE reportedly ran a small torrent portal, Laidbackmanor, where these releases often appeared first.

Unlike regular release groups, which are often the origin of leaks, Will1869 (as COLLECTiVE) typically sourced his releases from elsewhere. This included cams with embedded ads that were carefully stripped before they were shared further.

UK Police Arrest Will1869, Shut Down Laidbackmanor

For a long time, COLLECTiVE uploads appeared at a steady pace, but that changed at the end of last month, when they suddenly stopped. At the same time, the Laidbackmanor site was taken offline and redirected to a GoDaddy landing page.

In the immediate wake of these events, rumors started to spread that Will1869, a.k.a. COLLECTiVE, had been arrested. This was reported by several unconfirmed sources and corroborated by a message sent through his website hours before it disappeared.

After reaching out to a trusted source, who asked to remain anonymous, we can now report that UK police arrested Will1869 at the end of April. He has since been released on bail but remains under investigation.

At this point, no further information on the case is available, but we are informed that additional details are expected to be released in due course. What is clear, however, is that the arrest effectively means the end for COLLECTiVE and the associated website.

Prominent Releases

It’s unknown how the authorities eventually pinpointed Will1869, but his operation under the COLLECTiVE tag has been a high-profile target for a while, as its releases have been downloaded through pirate sites many millions of times.

In January, COLLECTiVE made headlines when two Oscar-nominated screeners started to leak across various torrent sites. The most popular releases were tagged by COLLECTiVE but Will1869 wasn’t the original source. Instead, the leaks were obtained elsewhere on the open web.

These pass-through releases were typical of how COLLECTiVE operated. Instead of ripping content directly, Will1869 picked up other releases which, after some ‘improvements’, were uploaded to the public.

The arrest of Will1869 by UK police effectively puts an end to this stream of uploads.

—

Update May 22: The Police Intellectual Property Crime Unit (PIPCU) at City of London Police issued a press release confirming a recent arrest .

PIPCU reported that a 47-year-old man was arrested in Wales at the end of April, following a joint investigation with the Motion Picture Association (MPA). The man was released on bail and remains under investigation.

“He is suspected to have obtained thousands of films, television series and songs without the necessary licence or permissions from the copyright owners and then distributed them through a file sharing torrent site. The content included two recent Hollywood films that were leaked before their official release dates,” the press release reads.

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

To protect copyright holders, YouTube regularly removes, disables, or demonetizes videos that contain allegedly infringing content.

For years, little was known about the scope of these copyright claims. That changed three years ago when the streaming platform published its first-ever transparency report .

The report showed that roughly 99% of all copyright claims on YouTube are handled through the Content ID system. Since many claims are automated, without human intervention, access is restricted to a few thousand vetted rightsholders.

4,564 Users, 2.2 Billion Claims

Published this week, YouTube’s latest Transparency Report shows that the number of automated claims continues to rise. In 2024, the streaming platform processed over 2.2 billion claims, up from nearly 2 billion a year earlier.

YouTube reports that of the 7,703 rightsholders who currently have access to the system, 4,564 actively use it. That’s a relatively small number when compared to the 308,556 users who filed just over 3 million claims through the online takedown form.

The report reveals that 99.43% of all copyright actions taken on the platform throughout the year are processed by the Content ID system. These are mostly automated claims, but Content ID users also flagged content manually in 0.31% of cases.

This tiny percentage might not sound like much but, at this scale, it translates to approximately 6.9 million manual claims.

Disputed Claims

Despite the immense volume of claims, the number of disputed claims remains relatively low. Fewer than 1% of the over 2.2 billion Content ID claims were disputed by recipients in 2024. That’s relatively low, although one percent still equates to 22 million disputes.

Interestingly, manually generated claims were more than twice as likely to be disputed (1.13%) compared to those made via automated detection (0.54%). This suggests that human intervention triggers more complaints.

Challenges against Copyright claims are often filed for good reason. According to the report, over 65% of Content ID claim disputes in 2024 were resolved in favor of the uploader. This typically happens because claimants voluntarily released their claim or did not respond in time.

A “$12 Billion” Money Machine

While Content ID can be a major source of frustration for YouTubers, it has become a goldmine for rightsholders. Instead of removing infringing videos, most rightsholders prefer to monetize them through YouTube instead.

Rightsholders chose to monetize over 90% of all Content ID claims in 2024. As a result, the advertising revenue from these videos is shared with the claiming parties instead of the uploaders.

This monetization strategy has proven to generate substantial revenues for claimants. Since inception, YouTube has paid out $12 billion in revenue for copyright claims originating from the Content ID system.

Access Restricted

The numbers reported above only apply to the Content ID system. While it’s responsible for nearly all copyright actions on YouTube, those who are not part of the system must use other options, such as the webform or the Copyright Match Tool .

Many other rightsholders would like access to Content ID, but YouTube intentionally limits participation to a few thousand vetted users.

One of the reasons YouTube limits use of Content ID to a relatively small group, is the potential for damage. An inaccurate or abusive reference file can result in thousands of false claims.

“In Content ID the impact is multiplied due to its automated nature; one bad reference file can impact hundreds or even thousands of videos across the site,” YouTube writes.

“In one highly publicized instance, a news channel uploaded public domain footage from NASA of a Mars rover and ended up making inappropriate claims against all other news channels and creators using the same footage, even against the NASA channel itself.”

This doesn’t mean that Content ID is perfect, of course. While there have been plenty of mistakes and even outright criminal abuse in the past, YouTube hopes that with the current setup, it has found a balance most rightsholders and content creators can live with. Whether that’s indeed the case, depends on who you ask.

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

Around 15 years ago, the French government launched an expansive monitoring and enforcement system to fight online piracy.

With fines and internet terminations for recidivists, the so-called Hadopi system was arguably ahead of its time. Users of the peer-to-peer BitTorrent-like networks that Hadopi had been designed to prowl, almost universally hated it.

Yet, for the many pirates that had already migrated to file-hosting, indexing, and streaming platforms, and the millions more in the process of doing so, the Hadopi deterrent had arrived late to a party already underway at a new location. Since streaming services were immune to the P2P eavesdropping skills of Hadopi, blocking access to pirate sites was one of the few options left.

The Arcom Era

Mapping, understanding, and restricting the French piracy landscape now falls to regulator Arcom. At a time when sports leagues and their broadcasting partners speak of multi-billion euro annual losses, Arcom has much to do. With the provisions available under the French Sports Code, it also has the authority to do so.

Rightsholders able to show “serious and repeated infringements” of their IP rights can ask a court to demand “all appropriate measures” to prevent or limit the infringement, from any person/entity in a position to do so. As seen in recent cases involving Cloudflare and Google , third party DNS resolvers fall within that scope. A ruling earlier this month means that VPN providers will also have to comply .

Under the orders of a judge at the Court of Paris, Cloudflare and Google must restrict access to named pirate sites by blocking resolution of their domain names. A new report published by Arcom provides an overview of blocking measures in France during 2024 and the first few months of 2025. Given the scale, if Cloudflare, Google, and the VPN providers are included in future blocking applications as standard, all will become instantly busy.

The report also casts more light on Arcom’s role after blocking orders are handed down, and provides data which reveals the scale of blocking carried out to date. Whether results at the consumer end amount to victory, acceptable progress, treading water, or something much less, depends on information rarely seen in a blocking report. Unfortunately, sales data makes no appearance here either.

Headline Piracy Consumption Data

Rather than a catch-all category of ‘illegal streaming’, the report differentiates between watching streams via a traditional streaming website, and consuming streams via a pirate IPTV service more likely to cost money.

Arcom reports that 2,028 live streaming domains were blocked in 2024, compared to 1,769 IPTV domains. For context, just 77 IPTV domains were blocked in 2023.

Arcom says that 16% of French people admit to using live streaming sites, compared to just 12% for IPTV. Of immediate concern is the apparent influx of new users to the latter.

In 2023 around 26% of IPTV users had been consuming content this way for less than a year. In 2024, four in ten (41%) said they’d been using pirate IPTV services for less than 12 months. That may raise questions of whether greater awareness of piracy issues is having the intended effect.

Overall, 18% admitted to consuming live sports broadcasts from illegal sources in 2024, a small reduction on the 19% from the previous year. Whether ‘containing’ piracy year-on-year will be seen as acceptable seems unlikely. However, for governments hoping to move the needle by cracking down on end users, a finding in the report should give pause for thought.

“[T]he propensity of viewers [using illicit sources] to also subscribe to legal paid offers remains high: 60% of them pay for sports offers, twice as much as the average French person (32%, a slight decrease compared to 2023),” Arcom notes.

Headline Blocking Data

With site blocking firmly established as the anti-piracy weapon of choice, rightsholders hope that visiting blocked domains will cause inconvenience and disappointment to combine so often that paying for content becomes more attractive.

“Nearly a third of Internet users using illegal streaming sites have encountered blocking measures implemented by Arcom, an increase of five points, and 71% of them end up abandoning their attempts at illegal viewing,” Arcom reports.

A blocking message exposure rate in excess of 30% doesn’t seem unreasonable; between Arcom and the Court of Paris, pirate domains are being blocked in their thousands.

Domains vs Sites

When rightsholders file blocking applications at the Court of Paris, the paperwork sets out a case in favor of blocking along with a list of infringing domains. In some cases recent applications have contained anywhere between 100 and 150 domains, which can lead to media reports conflating domains with the number of sites targeted. The data suggests that the difference is important.

When the Court of Paris approves blocking measures, the domains in the application are blocked by local ISPs. At some point, pirate site operators usually deploy countermeasures to limit the effect of the blocking.

Depending on the targets, that could mean the deployment of a new domain, ten new domains, or 10,000 unique and impossible to read subdomains, followed by a complete rebrand. Whatever the response, rightsholders and Arcom are kept busy.

Dynamic Blocking Now a Minimum Requirement

Today’s blocking orders anticipate countermeasures by providing flexibility. All rightsholders have to do is keep track of any new domains facilitating access to the sites behind the domains listed in the initial order, then provide Arcom with a new list of pirate domains. Much easier said than done.

Once Arcom’s agents have carried out relevant checks, Arcom issues notifications for those domains to be blocked along with the domains in the order. In 2024, a total of 3,797 domains were blocked following an Arcom notification, versus just 415 domains in orders issued by the Court of Paris.

When added together, domains authorized for blocking by the Court are just a fraction of domains blocked following Arcom’s notifications.

These figures are broadly similar to those seen elsewhere; when a Court orders domains to be blocked, more likely than not the number of domains that ultimately affects is several times greater than the initial order suggests.

Finally, the French have another powerful tool at their disposal. Sites subjected to blocking measures can be reported to search engines, typically Google and Bing, from where their domains are deindexed, never to be seen again. The downside is a visibility boost for malicious pirate sites and various scams, which typically target less savvy users before parting them from their money.

Arcom’s report is currently available in French and is linked below. All translations and presentation of Arcom data here should be considered unofficial.

Arcom’s Illicit Consumption of Live Sports in 2024 report is available here (pdf)

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

After a decade of focusing on efforts overseas, the push for website blocking has landed back on American shores.

Domestic site blocking initiatives were shelved for over a decade in the U.S. following the SOPA backlash, but that hesitation appears to have evaporated.

With Representative Zoe Lofgren’s introduction of the Foreign Anti-Digital Piracy Act ( FADPA ) in February, the controversial mechanism of court-ordered blocking against foreign ‘pirate’ sites is no longer just a foreign issue. On the contrary, with more than one bill in the making, lawmakers and stakeholders are actively fleshing out the details.

MPA Spotlights Site Blocking at Senate Hearing

Thus far, most of the work on these site blocking agreements has taken place behind closed doors. We know that ISPs are involved but none have commented on the matter in public. The same is true for rightsholders who, after the massive SOPA revolt, prefer private negotiations over demands in the public spotlight.

As a pioneer of site blocking efforts around the globe, it’s no secret that the Motion Picture Association (MPA) is in favor. And indeed, at a recent hearing at the Senate Subcommittee on Intellectual Property, the MPA’s Karyn Temple reiterated the need for a U.S. site-blocking system.

The MPA’s Senior Executive Vice President explained that pirate sites generate billions of visits a year by ‘stealing’ American films and TV series. These sites are not simple hobby projects, but commercial operations run by criminal groups from foreign countries.

“They are run not by individual teens in someone’s basement, but by sophisticated foreign criminal organizations who are involved in the most heinous criminal behavior you can imagine,” Temple said.

“And they are specifically designed to target American citizens, your constituents, for their personal and financial data and to expose them to malware and identity theft,”

American consumers are specifically targeted by these sites because they are lucrative victims, Temple said. Additionally, it is of course convenient that sites are not blocked in the U.S., unlike in 55 other countries, where blocking remedies are available.

ISPs Seek Retroactive Immunity

The MPA’s testimony offers little fresh news. The group has shared similar views for several years now but this time around, it appears that progress is actually being made, albeit behind the scenes.

Democratic Senator Chris Coons, the recent recipient of an MPA Industry Champion Award , shared some new information during the hearing. He noted that “real progress” appears to have been made, while also identifying a previously undisclosed roadblock.

Discussions on potential site blocking legislation are taking place alongside a request from ISPs for both prospective and retrospective immunity. That basically boils down to a demand for an exemption on piracy liability, regardless of when any infringement took place.

“It finally feels like we’re making some real progress here on site blocking after years. One of the key roadblocks to getting a final deal is whether ISPs should benefit from immunity, both prospectively and retrospectively,” Senator Coons said.

When asked to comment on the ISPs’ request, the MPA replied that this shouldn’t be much of a problem, as the immunity issue never led to any legal claims in other countries.

“ISPs have not routinely been sued for enforcing site blocking regimes. So, you know, I think in our experience, we don’t think that this is a provision that is necessary at all,” Temple replied.

U.S. Liability Lawsuits Against ISPs

Temple is right that site blocking schemes haven’t triggered a wave of lawsuits abroad, but the ISPs may have another interest in retrospective immunity when it comes to piracy liability.

While details of their exact demands are unknown, it seems plausible that ISPs are seeking to limit the existing piracy liability lawsuits, where providers are sued for not taking appropriate action against repeat infringers.

These lawsuits involve many prominent ISPs, including Verizon and Cox. The latter was previously held liable for a billion dollars in damages and the ISP recently appealed to the Supreme Court to take on the matter.

With these cases in mind, it’s understandable that ISPs would like to make sure that, if new legislation passes, they wouldn’t find themselves worse off from a liability perspective.

Finish Line in Sight?

Unfortunately, none of these site blocking ‘deal’ discussions between stakeholders are taking place in public. So, for now, we have to make do with the snippets that come out through hearings and other commentary.

That said, it’s starting to look like a U.S. site blocking scheme is closer to reality than ever before. At the hearing, Temple sounded confident that it could pass this session, which means a matter of months, not years.

“The MPA stands ready to work with you and all stakeholders to enact judicial site blocking this session. It’s time, finally, to get this legislation over the finish line,” Temple said.

—

The full video of the hearing of the U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary’s subcommittee on Intellectual Property that took place last week is available here .

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

Rampant piracy of live sporting events has been a hot topic in Europe for several years. Anti-piracy measures against relatively static targets have their place but preventing access to pirated live streams is much more difficult.

After calling for assistance from the European Commission, many rightsholders are hoping for new legislation to hold intermediaries more accountable. Until then, most sport-linked rightsholders continue to rely on site blocking measures.

After years of fine-tuning, courts all over Europe understand the process well and most appreciate the difficulties faced by rightsholders. Cases are commonly assessed to ensure that injunctive relief is warranted, measures requested are proportionate, and any negative effects on non-infringing third parties will be as low as practically possible.

LaLiga / Telefonica Order: Massive Overblocking

Sysadmin @jaumepons has been crunching data concerning a blocking order previously obtained by LaLiga and Telefonica to block 119 streaming sites. It was granted on the basis there would be no negative effects on internet users, but in February it became clear that hundreds, potentially thousands of innocent sites and users, were being blocked at the same time.

Appeals by Cloudflare and cybersecurity group RootedCON were dismissed by the issuing court; @jaumepons’ latest estimates published on Friday suggests those decisions came at a price.

LaLiga insists that its blocking is not indiscriminate and any overblocking is minimal. Unfortunately, even if the 2.7 million estimate was slashed to just 270, blocking two legal domains for every pirate domain isn’t proportionate and the harm inflicted is likely to be significant.

RootedCON Appeals to Constitutional Court

RootedCON previously stated it wouldn’t just stand by if nothing was done to protect internet users. With a complaint filed at Spain’s Constitutional Court, it is now making good on its word.

“At RootedCON, after 15 years promoting freedom, innovation, and critical thinking in the field of cybersecurity, we cannot stand idly by in the face of this outrage,” their statement reads.

“The measures adopted, lacking transparency, proportionality, and adequate safeguards, represent an extremely dangerous precedent for citizens’ digital rights and the Spanish technological ecosystem. We urge La Liga, the operators involved, and the judiciary to reflect on the serious impact of these types of decisions, which are more similar to the practices of authoritarian regimes of the last century than those of a modern, forward-looking democracy.”

Despite the serious nature of the ongoing controversy, until now it has generally lacked a political dimension.

The Spanish government’s only comment thus far (“We respect judicial decisions”) meets the standard every democratically elected government should strive for. The fly in the ointment is that the injunction was granted on the basis it would do no harm to third parties. As RootedCON suggests, momentum is building regardless.

“[I]n our appeal to the Constitutional Court, we request precautionary measures to curb the constant harassment suffered by both companies and users in our country, and we demand a public and technical debate in the Congress of Deputies on the limits of online control, following the initiative recently proposed by Representative Néstor Rego,” the statement concludes.

Politics Enters the Equation

Néstor Rego is a politician and a member of the Congress of Deputies of Spain. He’s the leader of the Galician Nationalist Bloc and in a statement posted to the party’s website, he calls on the government to “put a stop to the abusive and uncontrolled practices.”

“The State Government must take action on the matter given the repeated blocking of thousands of web pages because, if it does not do so, it implies an abandonment of its functions, leaving them in private hands that act for their own benefit and without control,” Rego says .

“[I]t is incomprehensible that private companies can block websites. The judicial authorization is absurd at this point, but it is not even respected, because that authorization establishes that no harm can be caused to third parties, and yes it is happening. The indiscriminate blocking by LaLiga and Movistar implies a violation of the rights of users and that is why the Government must act.”

LaLiga Responds to Complaints

During the last couple of weeks, momentum has noticeably increased among those who oppose blocking for the collateral damage it causes. Among them is José Luis Porquicho Prada, a journalist working at local news outlet Cádiz Directo.

On May 18, Prada published an article titled LaLiga blocks Cádiz Directo without evidence in its uncontrolled anti-piracy crusade , which revealed that LaLiga had started blocking cadizdirecto.com for no apparent reason. Prada reported that LaLiga was initially unresponsive so he was unable to explain that a mistake had been made.

“[C]ompletely innocent media outlets are being held accountable, without due process, without the right to defense, and without a shred of evidence. Fundamental rights enshrined in Article 24 of the Spanish Constitution, which guarantees effective judicial protection and the right to defense, are being violated,” Prada wrote as part of a polite but withering diatribe on recent events.

Response Perceived as Threatening – Then Bewildering

Late last week Prada revealed that he’d received a response via burofax, a type of secure postal service. He claims that the correspondence was presented in a “markedly threatening tone and lacking any willingness to resolve the conflict.”

Prada says it was signed by none other than LaLiga president Javier Tebas, who advised that cadizdirecto.com had been blocked because it is “hosted on an IP addresses from which intellectual property rights are repeatedly violated.”

Prada clarified that the site uses a CDN and then revealed what LaLiga expected from him. Translated from Spanish ( original here ), Prada explained as follows:

It transpires that Prada wasn’t the only journalist to receive similar correspondence. Political analysis outlet El Orden Mundial was also provided with legal advice.

Posting on X, El Orden Mundial director Fernando Arancón spoke of “the barbarity that is being carried out by @LaLiga with the support of the judiciary,” before suddenly adopting a “something’s coming” tone.

“[LaLiga] have lost their way and are going to eat a Streisand textbook,” Arancón predicted.

Update: Statement from LaLiga

At LALIGA, as always, we respect and comply with the legal system. And, as it could not be otherwise, we respect the decision to file an appeal for constitutional protection before the Constitutional Court. An appeal that was already announced several weeks ago and still needs to pass the admissibility phase.

It is worth recalling that, already last March, the Commercial Court No. 6 of Barcelona fully dismissed the requests for annulment filed by Cloudflare and RootedCON, among others, against the final ruling issued on 18 December 2024, finding no violation of any fundamental rights. That decision reaffirmed that the legal action taken was in accordance with the law and is supported by the current legislation on intellectual property and information society services.

Furthermore, the court order validated the procedural legality of the case, explicitly declaring that there was no “lack of guarantees” and stating that “none of the arguments put forward by the various petitioners demonstrate any actual harm, nor is any such harm identified, quantified, or supported by any proposed evidence intended to directly or indirectly establish damage as a constituent element of the claim for annulment.”

The judicial ruling is fully reasoned and lawful, and also makes it clear that the petitioners lacked standing to invoke the rights they claimed to hold.

LALIGA remains steadfast in its commitment to combating audiovisual fraud in order to protect the audiovisual rights of the competition, its sustainability and that of the football clubs, as well as the broader sports and entertainment industry.

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

The US Copyright Claims Board launched in 2022 . Through this Copyright Office-hosted venue, rightsholders can claim damages outside the federal court system.

The board , instituted through the CASE Act, aims to make it cheaper for creators to resolve disputes. There’s no attorney required and the filing fee is limited to $100 per claim. The potential damages are capped at $30,000 and those who prefer traditional lawsuits can choose to opt-out.

Many rightsholders and related groups backed the creation of a small claims board, noting that this would help resolve copyright disputes without having to file expensive federal lawsuits. Opponents, however, feared that it could be abused by trolls and other frivolous claimants.

Now that nearly three years have passed, the Copyright Office is working on a formal review of the board’s accomplishments. In a request for comments, it asked members of the public to chime in on CCB’s effectiveness and future.

Watchdog Groups Flag CCB Problems

In response to this request, a coalition of groups including Re:Create , the American Library Association , the Association of Research Libraries , R Street , and Engine , filed a critical response. The same groups also objected to the CASE Act and warned about potential abuse by trolls.

While there hasn’t been any sign of systematic abuse of the board, the group flagged various other shortcomings. In a detailed submission, they note that the CCB costs taxpayers millions, while relatively few cases reach a final decision.

According to the groups’ analysis, the CCB has spent approximately $5.4 million in its first years of operation, while only about $75,000 has been awarded to claiming copyright holders through its decisions.

With well over 1,200 complaints, there has been no shortage of claims. However, most of these end up being dismissed and thus far the board has only reached final determinations in 35 cases, awarding little over $2,000 in damages on average.

“American taxpayers have spent around $5,500 per case to reject hundreds of frivolous claims, adjudicate the remaining 3.5%, and issue opinions awarding damages that on average amount to less than half the cost of processing the claim,” the submission states.

High Dismissal Rate

Aside from the money, the high dismissal rate also stands out. The board’s own statistics show that, of the 964 cases that were dismissed, 470 were deemed to be noncompliant. That includes many cases where filers failed to amend their claims upon the CCB’s request.

Another 187 claims were dismissed because no valid proof of service was filed. In 114 instances the respondent chose to opt out, while 99 claims were settled without the board’s involvement.

The groups describe the CCB as “mostly churning through non-compliant claims,” and suggest the $40 initial filing fee is too low to screen out potentially frivolous claims.

“The $40 filing fee is not high enough to deter frivolous claims. Hundreds of non-compliant claims are filed each year by claimants who disappear after a CCB Staff Attorney spends substantial time evaluating the claim and preparing a detailed Order to Amend,” the submission reads.

Concerning Number of Defaults

The groups also expressed alarm over the high proportion of default judgments. Their filing indicates that 60% of the CCB’s final determinations were default judgments, where the respondent did not participate.

This rate is dramatically higher than the typical 7% default rate for copyright cases in federal court. This could signal that the public is not familiar with the opt-out procedure yet and that they don’t understand the consequences.

In one of these cases, respondent Angel Jameson shared her “disbelief that the Board is a government tribunal” after missing the opt-out deadline. Despite her objections, the CCB awarded the claimant $4,500 in damages, rejecting a request to vacate the default judgment.

“The Jameson case suggests that it is possible for respondents to fail to opt out due to mistrust and misunderstanding of the CCB process,” the groups write.

Repeal?

Given these significant operational concerns, the coalition argues strongly against expanding the CCB’s jurisdiction or powers at this time. This would include the suggestion to enable the board to grant subpoenas.

“There is no reason to consider adding to the CCB’s docket or to its powers until it can be established that the CCB is capable of accomplishing its initial mandate,” they note.

“At present, the CCB appears to be drowning in frivolous claims, handing out a handful of default judgments to facially valid claims with only one party present, and slowly grinding away at a handful of disputed claims.”

If these concerns remain, or get worse, it may be best that Congress abolish the small claims board in its entirety, the coalition concludes.

“If these trends continue, Congress should consider repealing the CASE Act.”

—

A copy of the submission submitted by Re:Create, the Association of Research Libraries, Engine, R Street Institute, and the American Library Association is available here (pdf) . Other submissions, including ones who view the CCB as more favorable, can be found here .

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