Filing lawsuits against internet users who allegedly shared copyrighted content online without permission, has led to countless cash settlements over the years and for some, a lucrative business model in its own right.

There’s also no shortage of cases going wrong for all kinds of reasons . A recent case in Canada, seeking “extraordinary equitable relief” upon which cases like this either live or die, collapsed in dramatic fashion at the very first hurdle, and went further downhill from there.

Background to a Familiar Claim

Hellboy Productions, Inc. filed its statement of claim at Federal Court in Toronto on March 4, 2025. The basis for the claim was very familiar, having made hundreds of appearances in cases previously filed at courts in Canada, the United States, United Kingdom, Scandinavia, and beyond.

The movie in question, Hellboy: The Crooked Man , fits the profile for an appearance in a settlement lawsuit. Hellboy movies have never performed well at the box office and after generating just $1.4m worldwide , the latest outing continued the trend.

While many fans of the Hellboy brand still wanted to watch The Crooked Man , average reviews of 4.5/10 most likely dampened enthusiasm for paying to do so. That can lead to activity on pirate sites for as long as it lasts and in this instance, long enough for the copyright holder to capture ~2,400 IP addresses linked to three Canadian ISPs – Telus, Cogeco, and Bell.

Turning IP Addresses into Names and Physical Addresses

In common with the UK, Ireland, and Australia, unmasking alleged pirates in Canada typically requires the plaintiffs to obtain a Norwich Pharmacal order , or simply Norwich order for short. Obtained from a court, Norwich orders compel a third party, who for various reasons have become unwittingly involved in someone else’s wrongdoing, to disclose information (usually documents/records) that can help a plaintiff identify an alleged infringer.

In this case, the claimant (Hellboy Productions, Inc.) alleges that infringers used internet connections provided by Telus, Cogeco, and Bell to pirate the movie. If served with a Norwich order, the ISPs would be required to match the IP addresses and timestamps provided by the plaintiffs, to activity logs that identify the corresponding account holders.

Once in the hands of the movie company, this information triggers a process to contact as many account holders as possible, on the assumption that they (or someone close) are infringers, and therefore liable to pay compensation for any damages caused. The amount tends to vary but whether the demand was CAD 1,000 or more, the potential revenue from 2,400 subscribers would easily exceed worldwide box office sales.

At least, if all went to plan.

Does the Claimant Have a Bona Fide Claim?

In an order and reasons issued last week, Case Management Judge John C. Cotter notes that Telus did not oppose the order requested by the movie company, while the positions of Cogeco and Bell are simply unknown. The absence of ISPs doesn’t mean that a claimant automatically wins, however.

“A lack of opposition from an ISP is not sufficient on its own to grant the motion. The Court must be satisfied that the applicable test has been met. This is important given the privacy interests of the unidentified alleged wrongdoers,” Judge Cotter explains.

Before those interests are weighed against those of the rightsholder, the plaintiff must show that it has a bone fide claim for copyright infringement and can show, on balance, that the alleged infringers used the ISPs’ services to infringe its rights.

According to the Judge, the plaintiffs failed to produce sufficient evidence to show either.

Insufficient Grounds for Asserting Copyright Ownership

“An analysis of the merits of the claim in this case includes some minimal analysis of whether copyright subsists in the Work, and whether the plaintiff has standing to assert a claim for copyright infringement. In the context of this case, the issue of standing is whether plaintiff is the owner of the copyright in the Work, which is asserted in paragraph 4 of the statement of claim,” Judge Cotter writes. (see screenshot above)

“The plaintiff’s evidence did not include a certificate of copyright registration. The plaintiff’s evidence on copyright subsistence and ownership is limited to the following in the Law Clerk Affidavit (which is the same for each of the three motions):”

Showing the company name in the credits above means that the plaintiff relied on presumptions available under Section 34.1 of the Copyright Act that a) copyright subsists in the work and b) since its name appears in the credits as the maker of the movie, it should be presumed that the plaintiff is indeed the maker.

According to Judge Cotter, those presumptions do not apply when the plaintiff has requested a Norwich order. Section 34.1(1) sets out a precondition for the engagement of the presumptions.

In this matter, the 2,400+ plus defendants are currently anonymous and without knowing who they are, it’s impossible to show that a defendant had “put the existence or title of the copyright in issue.”

Unable to trigger the precondition, no reliance could be placed on the presumptions available under Section 34.1. The Judge dismissed the evidence shown in the Law Clerk Affidavit as “at best, hearsay evidence for which the source is not specified,” and with no copyright certificate there was no way to prove ownership. Moreover, there was no evidence to show that copyright subsists in the movie.

With no bona fide copyright claim, the Judge dismissed all three motions for Norwich orders. He then addressed a few additional issues in need of an airing.

Evidence Should Be Organized, Easily Understood, Easy to Verify

In his order and reasons, Judge Cotter emphasizes that the Court is entitled to demand the “best available evidence” when granting the “extraordinary equitable relief of a Norwich order.”

While failure to establish copyright ownership proved fatal for all three motions, the image of the movie credits page also fell short of the expected standard. The Judge also criticized evidence presented in the affidavit of Thomas Nowak, the CEO of anti-piracy/BitTorrent monitoring company Maverickeye UG, the supplier of evidence in this case and scores of others in the past.

Showing that Telus, Cogeco, or Bell is the ISP for the alleged infringers was a requirement to obtain a Norwich order. Deficiencies in the example below and a series of issues detailed on pages 17-21 of Judge Cotter’s order, led to the conclusion that the plaintiff had failed to show that, while also failing to meet the evidence standard expected by the Court.

Deficiencies in the example above and a series of others detailed elsewhere, plus the failure to show ownership of the copyright it aimed to enforce, meant the plaintiff’s requests for Norwich orders were denied. As a result, the anonymous alleged infringers remain anonymous, but for how long is unknown.

Despite significant criticism, dismissal of the plaintiff’s motions, and denial of its request for an award of costs, Judge Cotter notes that his order does not preclude further motions by the plaintiff.

As sure as day follows night, those motions will arrive, only the timing is in doubt.

The original claim can be found here (pdf) , Judge Cotter’s order is available here ( pdf )

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

Every year, the office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR) publishes the National Trade Estimate Report on Foreign Trade Barriers.

The report is compiled based on input from key industry players. This includes submissions from copyright industry groups that frequently highlight piracy challenges that in their view act as barriers to trade.

In previous years, for example, the MPA and others have called for more site-blocking efforts to counter the piracy threat. Interestingly, however, other American companies now inform the USTR that foreign site-blocking measures are becoming a significant trade barrier.

Cloudflare Sees Piracy Blockades as Trade Barriers

To share its concerns, Cloudflare decided to participate in the annual trade barriers consultation for the first time this year. The company describes itself as a “leading connectivity cloud company” running one of the world’s largest networks, providing security, performance, and reliability services.

According to Cloudflare, several foreign countries disproportionately impact U.S. technology providers, with many concerns relating to site-blocking measures that aim to deter online piracy.

Spain

Cloudflare writes that Spanish courts allow rightsholders to request “overbroad court orders” that authorize IP address blocking. Since a single IP address can serve thousands of domains, disrupting pirates often means that many legitimate sites and services are blocked too, causing widespread collateral damage.

“This practice results in the widespread and repeated disruption of tens of thousands of unrelated, legitimate websites, as well as the disruption of digital services, with no judicial opportunity for remedy,” Cloudflare writes.

“These actions, designed to protect a narrow set of commercial interests, have caused significant collateral harm to businesses and users who are not the intended targets, without recourse or the possibility for affected parties to challenge the underlying order.”

The Spanish Government is aware of the problems, which Cloudflare says are at odds with international standards, but has chosen not to intervene in the issue. Therefore, it continues to present a significant trade barrier.

Italy

Cloudflare reports similar concerns in Italy, where the “Piracy Shield” site-blocking law has a direct effect on American companies. This blocking regulation requires network providers, including CDNs, to comply with blocking notices within 30 minutes.

“The failure to include adequate safeguards against collateral damage has led to the inappropriate blocking of shared services of large cloud providers, which are disproportionately American businesses,” Cloudflare notes.

“For instance, the blocking of a Cloudflare IP address resulted in tens of thousands of non-targeted websites being blocked in February 2024. Furthermore, the blocking of the domain “drive.usercontent.google.com” in October denied Italian users access to Google Drive for over 12 hours.”

Efforts to expand Piracy Shield to public DNS resolvers and VPN services only make the problem worse, Cloudflare says, noting that some U.S. companies have already decided to leave the European country.

Automated piracy blocks are not the only reported trade barrier in Italy. Cloudflare also notes that the country allows rightsholders to “abuse” the courts to disrupt U.S. businesses by granting ex parte blocking orders without giving the companies a chance to oppose them.

“This coercive, penalty-based approach to removal of content, without adequate judicial review or due process protections, is a significant barrier to doing business in Italy,” Cloudflare writes.

France

In France, Cloudflare highlights Article L.333-10 of the Sports Code as a key problem. This has resulted in several pirate site blocking orders that go beyond regular Internet providers, requiring DNS resolvers and VPN services to take action as well.

Cloudflare notes that some services lack the technical capabilities to implement these orders and as a result, several U.S. companies have already left the country.

Recently, France passed a new anti-piracy bill that opens the door to automated IP-address blocking, similar to Italy’s Piracy Shield. This is a major concern for Cloudflare, which fears that this will only lead to more collateral damage.

“It increases the risk of overblocking legitimate content or mistakenly targeting websites that operate lawfully, potentially disrupting cross-border digital services,” Cloudflare writes.

South Korea

South Korea has also created trade barriers due to its site-blocking measures, Cloudflare reports. A revision to the Network Act in 2023 now requires “CDNs to restrict access to illegal content”.

As a result, Cloudflare and other American companies are required to maintain detailed and regularly updated blocklists.

“The South Korea Communication Commission (KCC) sends U.S. CDN providers a ‘block list’ of over 1.5 million URLs (with 30,000 new additions monthly),” Cloudflare writes, noting that this places an “unprecedented compliance burden” on companies.

Conflicting Demands at the U.S. Trade Office

Cloudflare urges the USTR to take these concerns into account for its upcoming National Trade Estimate Report. Ideally, it wants these trade barriers to be dismantled.

These calls run counter to requests from rightsholders, who urge the USTR to ensure that more foreign countries implement blocking measures. With potential site-blocking legislation being considered in U.S. Congress , that may impact local lobbying efforts as well.

If and how the USTR will address these concerns will become clearer early next year, when the 2026 National Trade Estimate Report is expected to be published.

—

A copy of Cloudflare’s submission for the USTR’s 2025 National Trade Estimate Report on Foreign Trade Barriers is available here (pdf)

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

The action in Argentina two months ago was announced with a reasonable level of detail. Targeting dozens of IPTV services with an estimated eight million global subscribers, Spanish football league LaLiga described the operation as “historic” and as the dust settled, its importance wasn’t in doubt.

Targeting a Network with Eight Million Subscribers

Following an investigation by the Cybercrime Prosecutor’s Office of San Isidro (UFEIC), most likely fueled by investigations carried out by LATAM anti-piracy group Alianza, MPA/ACE, Nagravision, and others in the region, local police raided four office buildings in Vicente López, Buenos Aires.

The raids were conducted under the authority of San Isidro Guarantees Court No. 4 and images of DDI agents and tables covered with cash were soon circulating online. Publishing a statement containing a long list of branded and ‘dismantled’ IPTV services can end badly; however, LaLiga seemed unusually confident that resurrection wouldn’t play a role here.

While there were no immediate reports of an existential IPTV crisis in Brazil, complaints about service issues were still quick to arrive and only seemed to increase throughout September.

Services Start Shutting Down

On-screen notices announcing a service’s demise aren’t especially common but since early September, IPTV subscribers in Brazil have been exposed to quite a few of them.

An early casualty was ‘My Family Cinema’ which had been one of the most recognizable IPTV brands in the region. The notice reportedly came via a set-top box update; some reports implied that updates were probably required to get back in the game.

LaLiga’s presumed confidence that services wouldn’t rise from the dead seemed to look a little precarious given the terminology in the shutdown announcement. Indeed, some former customers claimed that My Family Cinema was subsequently “taken over” by another service called VELA.

Intermittent service and other errors were reported there too, at least for a while.

Reports that My Family Cinema was still partly operational continued through October but perhaps more ominous news had already began to surface.

People keen to renew their subscriptions to various services complained that was no longer possible. Some said that after ‘upgrading’ to VELA and upgrading again to another substitute service (Konex), payments were successful. Or rather, payments went through as expected but resulted in either no service or a service with ads.

With some users preparing to dust off their torrent clients and others mulling the pros and cons of YouTube, heated discussions over consumer rights – including the possibility that the services were executing some kind of exit scam – helped to descend the situation further into chaos.

From a rightsholders’ perspective, mistrust and declining confidence in piracy are valuable commodities. Few things focus the mind more than throwing good money after bad, and if pirates pick up the blame, it doesn’t get much better than that.

Two Months After the Raids – Why Now?

Official news on how the case is progressing appears to be almost non-existent.

A comment from anti-piracy group Alianza confirmed that the legal process is indeed under seal. The practical issues observed on the ground are probably linked to advances made by the Argentine Public Prosecutor’s Office in its ongoing investigations against the platform’s operators, the theory goes.

Other information provided by Alianza clarifies that the eight million subscriber estimate concerns the network’s peak worldwide. Working on the basis of 6.2 million subscribers more recently, Alianza claims that 4.6 million subscribers can be found in Brazil, together generating between US$150 million and US$200 million.

As for the network’s operational structure, Alianza president Jorge Bacaloni says that management, IT/technical, and financial matters are handled in China.

The investigation in Argentina reportedly concerns a ‘command center’ that controls/coordinates pirate services across the region. An office in Buenos Aires was reportedly responsible for marketing the services and for what could be over US$100m in global piracy sales.

Common Denominator For Popular Brands

Since there are signs that new services are easily launched and if necessary, devices with subscriptions to defunct services can be remotely updated to access another service, common ownership/control seems a reasonable explanation, in broad terms at least.

Proving that’s actually the case to a criminal standard is quite rightly a matter for the prosecutor’s office. However, if there’s a central marketing/sales operation common to some or even all of the named services, that should be much easier to discover.

Since Alianza provided no real clues, we cannot say whether the marketing company apparently used by some of the IPTV services is just a marketing company, or whether it’s THE marketing company referenced by Alianza.

What we can confirm is that in this instance, zero effort was expended to hide the connections, despite that being technically trivial. What that says in the bigger picture, if indeed it says anything at all, is for the prosecutor’s office to determine.

Other signs that the overall business was approached from otherwise legitimate angles, include the trademark applications for ‘My Family Cinema’ filed in Paraguay.

Given that there are copyright complaints filed against several branded services and other entities with links to them, why it took around six years to take action is unclear. Perhaps timing and opportunity are still the most important factors.

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

Anna’s Archive is a meta-search engine for shadow libraries that allows users to find pirated books and other related sources.

The site launched in the fall of 2022 , just days after Z-Library was targeted in a U.S. criminal crackdown, to ensure continued availability of ‘free’ books and articles to the broader public.

In the three years since then, Anna’s Archive has built up quite the track record. The site has been blocked in various countries, was sued in the U.S. after it scraped WorldCat, and actively provides assistance to AI researchers who want to use its library for model training.

Despite legal pressure, Annas-archive.org and the related .li and .se domains remain operational. This is a thorn in the side of publishers who are actively trying to take the site down. In the absence of options to target the site directly, they ask third-party intermediaries such as Google to lend a hand.

749 Million URLs

Google and other major search engines allow rightsholders to request removal of allegedly infringing URLs. The aim is to ensure that pirate sites no longer show up in search results when people search for books, movies, music, or other copyrighted content.

The Pirate Bay, for example, has been a popular target; Google has removed more than 4.2 million thepiratebay.org URLs over the years in response to copyright holder complaints. While this sounds like a sizable number, it pales in comparison to the volume of takedowns targeting Anna’s Archive.

Google’s transparency report reveals that rightsholders asked Google to remove 784 million URLs, divided over the three main Anna’s Archive domains. A small number were rejected, mainly because Google didn’t index the reported links, resulting in 749 million confirmed removals.

The comparison to sites such as The Pirate Bay isn’t fair, as Anna’s Archive has many more pages in its archive and uses multiple country-specific subdomains. This means that there’s simply more content to take down. That said, in terms of takedown activity, the site’s three domain names clearly dwarf all pirate competition.

5% of All Google Takedowns, Ever

Since Google published its first transparency report in May 2012, rightsholders have flagged 15.1 billion allegedly infringing URLs. That’s a staggering number, but the fact that 5% of the total targeted Anna’s Archive URLs is remarkable.

Penguin Random House and John Wiley & Sons are the most active publishers targeting the site, but they are certainly not alone. According to Google data, more than 1,000 authors or publishers have sent DMCA notices targeting Anna’s Archive domains.

Yet, there appears to be no end in sight. Rightsholders are reporting roughly 10 million new URLs per week for the popular piracy library, so there is no shortage of content to report.

With these DMCA takedown notices, publishers are aiming to make it as difficult as possible for people to find books on the site using Google. This works, as many URLs are now delisted while others are actively being demoted by the search engine for book-related queries.

That said, the Anna’s Archive website is certainly not unfindable. Searching for the site’s name in Google still shows the main domain as the top search result.

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

The major Hollywood studios of the MPA, which in recent years now includes Netflix and Amazon, are well known for obtaining site blocking injunctions at the High Court in London.

While blocking of new domains continues at a considerable pace, applications for all-new injunctions are relatively rare. Since they tend to operate in groups while adopting familiar branding, the most persistent pirate sites are identified quite quickly, and then blocked under the scope of previously obtained injunctions.

Outliers certainly exist, but the recent addition of Cloudflare shows that the landscape can shift quite quickly and in unexpected directions . New rightsholders are also getting involved.

Warner Bros. Discovery & TNT Sports

During the past few years, surging interest in live sports coupled with rising prices for already expensive official packages, have combined to give pirate IPTV services the conditions in which they thrive. Pressure on the European Commission increased last week with demands that include the introduction of pan-European blocking orders.

In the UK, the Premier League has been going about its blocking business relatively silently, with parallel action from Sky targeting persistent IPTV providers. Following an application for a Section 97a blocking injunction at the High Court in October, a pair of established albeit rebranded rightsholders will soon enter the fray.

Known as BT Sport until 2023 and now owned by Warner Bros. Discovery and BT Group, TNT Sports is a group of premium TV sports channels operating in the UK and Ireland.

The six defendants are instantly recognizable as the UK’s leading internet service providers. Having been put on formal notice that their subscribers are accessing pirate sites and services offering TNT Sports content illegally, they will be required to block the illicit platforms under Section 97A of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988.

Specific Content Currently Unclear

WBD Sports has an impressive range of sports rights; the Olympics, tennis Grand Slams, cycling Grand Tours, PGA Tour, World Snooker, FIM Speedway GP, plus various winter sports.

In the UK and Ireland, TNT Sports airs everything from the Premier League and FA Cup to UEFA Champions, Europa, and Conference Leagues, to Premiership Rugby, MotoGP, Cricket, UFC, and boxing.

Which of these assets the companies aim to protect is currently unclear. As the exclusive rightsholder, Premier League has been obtaining site blocking injunctions in the UK since 2013, initially targeting platforms including First Row Sports, Drakulastream, and Rojadirecta. Running parallel to its work blocking IPTV providers under the authority of renewable blocking orders, more recently Premier League began blocking web-based platforms including TotalSportek, FootyBite and VIP League.

A similar picture emerges for UEFA; also an exclusive rightsholder, UEFA obtained its first injunction in 2018 and returns to court to ensure rolling protection whenever the granted period is due to expire.

With a deal that secured exclusive live broadcasting rights for TNT Sport until the end of the 2030/31 season, Premiership Rugby seems among the most obvious candidates for piracy protection.

Worth around £84 million, the deal comes at a time when average audiences are reportedly up 10% in the current season, where live-to-live scheduling with Premier League matches is reportedly driving a 39% audience increase over events with no lead in.

The World is Getting Smaller

Several of the defendant ISPs have direct interests in sports broadcasting remaining as piracy-free as possible. British Telecommunications owner BT Group owns claimant TNT Sports in partnership with claimant Warner Bros. Discovery.

Those interested in watching TNT Sports channels can do so via streaming platform Discovery+. Or, if they prefer, via defendant EE Limited’s EE TV platform, or using satellite and cable broadcasts made available via defendants Sky and Virgin Media’s networks respectively.

The TNT Sports package available via defendant TalkTalk includes the four main TNT Sports channels leaving Plusnet the only defendant ISP without a TV offering. It’s ultimately owned by BT Group, however.

A wider plan to obtain blocking injunctions valid all over Europe is the type of consolidation we’re likely to see more of in the coming months and years. Rightsholders are becoming increasingly averse to duplication of effort in multiple member states but whether the European Commission believes that’s appropriate remains unclear.

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

“Thou shalt not steal” is one of the Ten Commandments that many Christians hold in high regard, and other religions similarly condemn theft as a practice incompatible with religious teachings.

In general, the public doesn’t view piracy as outright stealing or morally wrong. In fact, many people see ‘unauthorized copying’ as morally justified, even if it costs rightsholders billions.

There are also religious people who pirate music, films, and software. While these people all have their own reasons, how they practice their religion appears to have a significant impact on how likely they are to pirate. In some cases, religion can even increase the tendency to pirate, a new study suggests.

Research: Piracy & Religion

A new paper titled “Software Piracy: The Effects of Neutralization and Religiosity,” published in the Journal of the Southern Association for Information Systems, investigates how an individual’s religious beliefs affect their intention to engage in software piracy.

Researchers from Pittsburg State, Kansas State, and Oklahoma State University developed a model combining religiosity theory with neutralization to examine how the effect of religion on piracy intentions can differ.

The research draws on the psychological distinction between intrinsic and extrinsic religiosity, which differs from person to person.

Intrinsic religiosity typically involves deeply internalized religious beliefs and living one’s life according to those beliefs. Extrinsic religiosity is more focused on using religion for personal or social benefits, such as being a respectable member of the community, identifying with a religious group, or finding psychological comfort in faith.

The researchers hypothesized that how people identify with their faith will affect their intention to engage in piracy. This was tested in a survey among 338 undergraduate business students in the United States, who had to review a software piracy scenario and were asked to rate the likelihood that they would do the same.

Religion Impacts Piracy Habits

The findings show that the degree of intrinsic and extrinsic religiosity has a significant impact on the intention to pirate.

Intrinsic religiosity was negatively correlated with the intention to pirate. This suggests that individuals who have deeply internalized religious and moral values are less likely to pirate software.

Extrinsic religiosity correlated positively with the intention to pirate software. This implies that individuals motivated by the social or utilitarian benefits of religion may be more likely to justify unauthorized downloading of software.

The driving factor behind these findings is the use of rationalization techniques or, boldly put, excuses. Those who pirate typically come up with rationalizations for their behavior, and that’s also shown by the research. Three rationalization techniques were significant predictors of piracy intention.

The researchers conclude that these rationalizations can directly involve religion for those who have an extrinsic religious orientation.

“Those with extrinsic religiosity are more likely to have utilitarian motives and are less likely to have genuine ethical intentions. If I attend church and do other good things, then it is all right if I pirate a little software now and then (metaphor the ledger),” the paper reads.

The Anti-Piracy Gospel

In addition to these key findings, the study also confirmed earlier research finding that men are more likely to pirate than women, and that older people are less inclined to pirate software than their younger counterparts.

The research shows that people’s tendency to pirate is influenced by a combination of internal moral compass and the ability to rationalize piracy. That said, the findings are based on a sample of business students, which means that they may not be representative of the general population.

Intriguingly, the researchers suggest that their findings could make it worthwhile to involve religious organizations in anti-piracy campaigns.

“Religious organizations can play a key role in educating communities about the ethical issues of piracy by using sacred teachings to promote honesty and respect for others’ work. They can address piracy in sermons, host educational workshops, and incorporate digital ethics into youth programs,” they write.

Whether any anti-piracy groups are eager to pick this up is unknown.

—

Sikolia, D., Bahr, G., & Biros, D. (2025). Software Piracy: The Effects of Neutralization and Religiosity. The Journal of the Southern Association for Information Systems, 12, 1-17. https://doi.org/10.17705/3JSIS.00038

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

The Internet is littered with cheap IPTV services that offer access to a lot of content, for very little money.

These deals often seem too good to be true, and in most cases they are, at least for those who prefer to stay on the right side of the law.

The operators of these services often remain in the shadows, but anti-piracy groups are actively trying to pin them down. For example, members of the Alliance for Creativity and Entertainment ( ACE ) identified Mechanicsburg resident Brandon Weibley as the alleged operator of several commercial IPTV services offering pirated streams.

Studios Sue U.S. IPTV Operator

In a complaint filed at a Pennsylvania federal court in March, Amazon, Netflix, Disney, Paramount, and other major Hollywood studios accused Weibley of widespread copyright infringement through various IPTV brands. The companies alleged that Weibley has a long history of illegally profiting from pirated content.

The operator’s infringing activity dates back to 2017, when he allegedly registered the domain beastmodebuilds.com and began selling subscriptions to infringing streaming services. In the years that followed, the defendant was linked to various IPTV brands, such as Beast Mode Live, BTV, Viking Media, and GreenWing Media.

While the defendant made efforts to conceal his identity, investigators followed a digital trail that led to his personal email address.

The movie studios used this lead to confront Weibley in 2023, but instead of shutting down, he switched the operation to a different domain name, vonwik.com. Meanwhile, he continued to offer thousands of TV channels through the rebranded services ‘Shrugs’ and ‘Zing’.

“Weibley now provides subscribers to the Current Infringing Services with access to more than 9,000 pirated channels, featuring Plaintiffs’ television series and movies, as well as international content and live sports events. This is infringement of Plaintiffs’ copyrighted works on a massive scale,” the plaintiffs wrote in their complaint.

Defendant Ghosts Lawsuit, IPTV Services Remain Online

Weibley was served in person but filed no answer and failed to appear in court. As a result, the movie studios have now requested a default judgment and $9 million in damages.

In a motion submitted to the Pennsylvania court earlier this month, they note that, despite the lawsuit, the infringing IPTV services remain operational.

“Weibley has known since at least 2023 that his services infringe Plaintiffs’ copyrights, yet he continued to operate them. Indeed, even after being personally served with the Complaint and knowing about this action, Weibley continues to operate the Current Infringing Services,” they write.

In an associated declaration, MPA Chief Content Protection Officer Larissa Knapp noted that the defendant is still believed to be in charge of the operation.

The plaintiffs hope that a default judgment will change the status quo but if that’s not sufficient, an injunction will help to take the IPTV services offline.

Studios Seek $9 Million and an Injunction

The movie studios request the maximum statutory damages of $150,000 per work for a small sample of 60 copyrighted works, totaling $9,000,000. This is the maximum statutory penalty for “willful” infringement, which they argue applies to Weibley’s conduct.

According to the plaintiffs, the operator made the decision not to put up a defense. Therefore, the infringing activity was willful and punitive damages are appropriate.

The rightsholders realize that the lack of response is an indication that the defendant might not be inclined to pay any damages. Therefore, they also request a permanent injunction to compel domain registrars and registries to sign over vonwik.com and related domains.

In addition, the proposed injunction compels all related hosting providers to stop serving the IPTV services.

“Plaintiffs similarly seek an order directing the hosting providers of the Infringing Domains […] to suspend services to such domains and to prevent the content on the websites associated with the domains from being transferred to another domain name or hosting service,” the studios write.

At the time of writing, the court has yet to sign off on the motion for default judgment. It will be up to U.S. District Judge Yvette Kane to review the arguments and decide whether the $9 million award and permanent injunction are warranted.

The current lawsuit is one of two parallel cases filed by the ACE coalition back in March. The defendant in the other lawsuit, ‘Outer Limits IPTV’ operator Zachary DeBarr, also failed to formally answer the complaint. In August, a California federal court granted the studios’ motion for default judgment, awarding them $15 million in statutory damages.

—

A copy of the memorandum in support of the motion for default judgment is available here (pdf) and the proposed order can be found here (pdf) . Knapp’s declaration is available here (pdf) .

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

For major companies like Nintendo, tackling online piracy isn’t just about punishing individual infringers; it’s about strategic deterrence.

Filing lawsuits against casual gamers who may have made an isolated mistake is not a good look and could potentially backfire. Nintendo understands that and carefully picks its battles.

The case against Jesse Keighin, better known under his gaming handle “EveryGameGuru” exemplifies this approach. Filed in a Colorado federal court last November, Nintendo’s complaint lists many alleged wrongdoings, including pre-release game streaming using pirated ROMs and distribution of circumvention tools.

“I Run The Streets”

Defending a lawsuit filed by a multi-billion dollar company can be a frightening prospect but based on messages posted online, the defendant seemed undeterred.

Instead of trying to avoid a legal disaster, Keighin apparently went on the offensive , showing no signs of giving in. Quite the contrary.

“You might run a corporation. I run the streets,” Keighin wrote in a Facebook post addressing Nintendo’s legal team. They should have done more research before taking him on, the gamer wrote.

The defendant reportedly destroyed evidence and evaded Nintendo’s attempts to serve him personally. Due to these complications, the court eventually allowed service via email and the home addresses of his mother, grandmother, and partner.

Nintendo Requests Default Judgment

Despite his defiant stance, Keighin did not respond to Nintendo’s allegations so the company requested a default judgment to continue the case without him.

The gaming giant requested $17,500 in damages for copyright infringement, including streaming pre-release games and sharing links to emulators. This was a relatively modest request, as potential maximum damages could have easily exceeded $1 million.

In addition to the modest monetary damages, Nintendo also requested a broad permanent injunction to restrain the defendant from any infringing activities going forward, including the use of emulators such as Yuzu or Ryujinx.

Nintendo said the injunction should apply to third parties working in concert with the defendant and require all infringing hardware and software to be destroyed.

Court Hands Nintendo the Final Win

In early October, Magistrate Judge Scott T. Varholak recommended granting Nintendo its requested $17,500 in damages and an order enjoining Keighin from future infringement.

At the same time, the Magistrate wrote that two of Nintendo’s broader requests should be denied. The demand to “destroy all circumvention devices” was rejected as “unclear” and “unreasonable,” as the tools in question are mainly software applications available online.

The request to apply the injunction to “third parties” working in concert with Keighin should also be denied as Nintendo did not specify any third parties who worked with the defendant.

Yesterday, U.S. District Judge Gordon P. Gallagher formally adopted this recommendation, effectively handing Nintendo the win.

The Judge’s order notes that, since no party filed objections, a full de novo review was not required. After finding ‘no clear error’ in the recommendation, Judge Gallagher adopted it in full. This means that the damages award and the partially granted injunction are now final.

While this is likely not the outcome Keighin had hoped for, without putting up a defense, it was mostly a lost case from the start.

—

A copy of Magistrate Judge Scott T. Varholak’s recommendation is available here (pdf) and U.S. District Judge Gordon P. Gallagher’s final judgment can be found here (pdf) .

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

After calling out pirate sites including Vidsrc, HydraHD, and Cineby in a submission to the USTR’s Notorious Markets review, Hollywood’s next targets were put on notice.

The MPA’s use of the term ‘hydra’ was a reference to sites that have a tendency to respawn and multiply in response to site blocking measures. In the case of VidSrc, a platform that excels at making piracy simple for many other sites reliant on its services, VidSrc represents the body of a hydra in a piracy-as-a-service wrapper.

Providing a constant flow of content to sites facing potential decapitation is always a threat, but the new action required VidSrc to show some regenerative powers of its own.

Weapons Built in India

With site blocking measures back on the agenda in the United States, seeking an injunction on home soil capable of eliminating or even seriously disrupting a site like VidSrc, would introduce unnecessary risk for very little gain.

A relatively weak injunction would probably have little or no effect, while a big win could call into question the need for new law to support a formal site blocking regime on home soil. When balanced against the benefits of obtaining an injunction in India, of the kind that U.S. courts would be unlikely grant, no better option exists anywhere else.

The injunction obtained at the High Court of New Delhi late September featured members of the MPA and ACE. Beyond Universal City Studios, identifying the rest of the plaintiffs was more difficult than it should’ve been, but we can now confirm them as follows:

• Universal City Studios Productions LLLP (United States)
• Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc. (United States)
• Netflix US, LLC (United States)
• Disney Enterprises Inc. (United States)
• Apple Video Programming LLC (United States)
• Crunchyroll, LLC (United States)
• SBS Co. Ltd. (Republic of Korea)
• CJ ENM Co. Ltd (Republic of Korea)
• SLL Joongang Co. Ltd. (Republic of Korea)

The scope of the injunction certainly made it stand out. The initial order covered the blocking of 248 domains by local ISPs but also compelled domain registrars worldwide to suspend them within 72 hours.

Framework for Follow-Up Blocking and Suspensions

The real power is the injunction’s ability to tackle any number of replacement domains that subsequently appear to circumvent blocking. The first additional wave of submitted domains is detailed in a follow-up order designed to disrupt VidSrc by blocking and suspending ‘all’ of its domain names at the same time.

In addition to the 248 domains listed in the original injunction ( pdf ) , blocking can also be applied against sites, services, and domains meeting the following criteria:

1. Any site which appears to be associated with any of the previously blocked sites, based on factors including;

• Site name, site branding, site operator’s identity
• Source of the infringing content
• Provision of additional/alternate access to blocked domains

2. Any other site, site owner or anyone else discovered to have been infringing the Plaintiffs’ exclusive rights and/or any other right , including but not limited to hosting, streaming, making available, communicating to the public, or facilitating the same.

That led to the plaintiffs submitting the following domains; the overwhelming majority are linked to VidSrc and most fulfill all blocking criteria, not just one as required.

The corresponding domain name registrars (DNR) identified by name “and other DNRs, their directors, partners, employees, and all others acting in the capacity of principal or agent acting for and on their behalf,” are directed to;

• Lock and suspend the domains within 72 hours of receiving the order
• Gather personal details relating to the registrant of the domains, including;
• Know-your-customer data, credit card details, mobile number etc.
• Supply that information to the plaintiffs within 72 hours

Precisely when or if these instructions were received by the registrars is unknown.

VidSrc Takes Refuge in Russia

With no obvious signs of enforcement action against its domains and zero element of surprise, VidSrc had plenty of time to take evasive action. In hindsight, it probably responded far more quickly than necessary.

On the front pages of the domains listed for blocking/suspension, notices state that users need to switch to a new set of domains.

While obscured in the image above, the domains are clearly visible when visiting the domains supplied by the rightsholders. All replacement domains are linked to Russia; one carries the .ru ccTLD and the other three use .su, the ccTLD previously allocated to the Soviet Union.

The switch to Russia-linked domains isn’t entirely unexpected. Convincing US-based registrars to suspend domains on behalf of US-based rightsholders, seems more likely to return better results than attempting the same in Russia.

That said, TorrentGalaxy lost control of a .su domain in April 2023. The domain is no longer linked to a torrent site, but it does remain active. If nothing else, it suggests that .su domains aren’t necessarily a stable option. As a long-term option, they’re not suitable at all; the .su ccTLD is expected to be completely phased out by 2030.

Demanding the suspension of the single .ru domain, using the legal avenues available in Russia, to protect U.S. rightsholders brandishing an injunction issued in India, doesn’t sound like an ideal recipe for success. Whether the South Korea-based rightsholders SBS Co. Ltd, CJ ENM Co. Ltd, and SLL Joongang Co. Ltd. continue to do business in Russia is unclear, but beyond local site blocking measures, options for enforcement seem minimal.

Reaction Time Undermined The Order

If the Court’s instructions had been followed to the letter within the 72 hours allocated, the outcome may have been different.

The reasons for the delay at domain registrars is currently unknown. However, it appears the volume of site-blocking instructions handed down by Indian courts, collectively affecting at least tens of thousands, maybe even hundreds of thousands of domains in recent years, is becoming a problem.

The plea is fairly self-explanatory, and while it makes a lot of sense on the ground, it also introduces additional complications.

Under the IT Act, the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY) could simply order the companies hosting pirate sites to cease doing so. Since that renders the sites immediately inaccessible, blocking at 2,700 ISPs wouldn’t be required, thus easing the administrative load. In the event a site is located outside India, blocking at the gateway level could achieve a similar effect.

The IT Act in India allows the government to block sites under Section 69A on specific grounds, such as national security or public order. The Copyright Act is very clearly not the IT Act, and attempting to find common ground fails at the first hurdle.

The request for the plaintiff to carry out a trace route to each site’s web server, to determine their location, may be well-intentioned. Yet in practical terms, it’s completely baffling. The overwhelming majority of pirate sites use Cloudflare, which ordinarily prevents web servers from being located. In fact, the use of reverse proxies and similar anonymizing technologies were among the main reasons rightsholders turned to blocking injunctions in the first place.

With Indian courts more than happy to grant extraordinarily broad injunctions, at times covering tens of thousands of domains, India has become the website-blocking capital of the world. On paper, at least.

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