Over the past two years, rightsholders of all kinds have filed lawsuits against companies that develop AI models.

Most of these cases allege that AI developers used copyrighted works to train LLMs without first obtaining authorization.

Meta is among a long list of companies now being sued for this allegedly-infringing activity, including a class action lawsuit filed by authors Richard Kadrey, Sarah Silverman, and Christopher Golden. This case has a clear piracy angle, as Meta used libraries of pirated books as training material.

Meta admitted the use of these unofficial sources to train its Llama model early on. At the same time, however, the company denied the copyright infringement allegations, noting that it would rely on a fair use defense, at least in part.

Motions for Summary Judgment

In March, both parties filed motions for partial summary judgment . Meta argued that its use of copyrighted material was ‘fair’. It discussed the various fair use factors and stressed, among other things, that Meta’s alleged infringements did not cause any market harm, nor can they be seen as competition for the original works.

Meanwhile, the authors argued that the downloading of millions of books cannot be classified as fair use, since the source of the books is clearly copyright-infringing. Therefore, they argued that Meta should be held liable for direct copyright infringement.

While the summary judgment motions are partial, as they don’t cover the distribution claims ( BitTorrent uploading ), they are closely watched by other rightsholders and tech companies as potential sources of clarity on the fair use battle.

Meta Secures Fair Use Win

Yesterday, U.S. District Court Judge Vince Chhabria ruled on both motions, which at first sight offers a clear win for Meta. The court denied the authors’ motion to hold Meta liable for direct copyright infringement after it obtaining pirated books from shadow libraries via BitTorrent.

Judge Chhabria also granted Meta’s cross-motion for partial summary judgment, concluding that Meta’s use of the copyrighted books for LLM training indeed qualifies as fair use based on the arguments presented.

The ruling centers around an evaluation of the various fair use factors, with “market harm” explicitly identified as the most important element of fair use.

The court acknowledged the transformative nature of AI training, noting that Meta’s use of the books had a “further purpose” and “different character” than the original works, as LLMs are “innovative tools that can be used to generate diverse text and perform a wide range of functions.”

No Market Harm

The authors presented two main theories of market harm, both of which the court ultimately rejected as “clear losers”.

First, the authors argued that Llama could recite significant portions of their books, thereby allowing users to access the works for free. The court found this theory unviable, citing expert testimony that Llama could not generate more than 50 words from any of the plaintiffs’ books, even with “adversarial prompting”.

Second, the plaintiffs argued that Meta’s unauthorized copying harmed the relatively new market for AI training licensing. The court dismissed this too, ruling that the harm from the loss of licensing fees is not “cognizable”.

The court also identified a third argument, which the authors didn’t pursue in great detail; market dilution. Under this theory, AI models trained on copyrighted works can generate “countless works that compete with the originals, even if those works aren’t themselves infringing,” Judge Chhabria wrote.

This market dilution or indirect substitution argument could prove to be key in AI fair use cases, Judge Chhabria stressed.

“No other use—whether it’s the creation of a single secondary work or the creation of other digital tools—has anything near the potential to flood the market with competing works the way that LLM training does,” the Judge nnotes.

“If someone bought a romance novel written by an LLM instead of a romance novel written by a human author, the LLM-generated novel is substituting for the human-written one.”

In this case, however, the authors provided no meaningful evidence on market dilution, relying on speculation rather than empirical data. Therefore, their motion was rejected, with the court granting Meta’s fair use motion instead.

A Warning Shot for AI Developers

Despite the clear win, the court’s ruling is a bittersweet victory for Meta. The motion only covers part of the copyright claim, as Meta’s alleged distribution of pirated books was not part of it. In addition, the ruling only applies to the thirteen named authors included in this case.

The ‘win’ doesn’t mean that the fair use defense will hold up in other AI-training copyright cases. In fact, the court hinted that Meta and others may have to get used to the idea of licensing content for this purpose.

Meta argued that a negative fair use ruling could stop AI technology in its tracks, as AI models need vast amounts of data to be trained on. However, the court dismissed this line of reasoning as ridiculous.

“The suggestion that adverse copyright rulings would stop this technology in its tracks is ridiculous,” Judge Chhabria wrote.

“These products are expected to generate billions, even trillions, of dollars for the companies that are developing them. If using copyrighted works to train the models is as necessary as the companies say, they will figure out a way to compensate copyright holders for it.”

The court ruling in favor of Meta is more the result of the authors’ failure to adequately argue the market dilution argument, rather than a clear fair use win for AI training.

Judge Chhabria stated that, given the state of the record, the court has no choice but to grant summary judgment in favor of Meta. However, it certainly doesn’t mean that similar arguments will hold up in other cases.

“As should now be clear, this ruling does not stand for the proposition that Meta’s use of copyrighted materials to train its language models is lawful. It stands only for the proposition that these plaintiffs made the wrong arguments and failed to develop a record in support of the right one,” the ruling reads.

—

A copy of the ruling, issued at the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, is available here (pdf) . The court noted that Meta’s motion for summary judgment on the DMCA claim will be granted in a separate order.

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

Selling pirate IPTV subscriptions has always been illegal and after the EU’s top court confirmed as much in 2017, consuming unlicensed content is illegal too. Nevertheless, these offenses are typically treated differently.

Once identified, those who operate or sell access to illicit services are unlikely to get a free pass. Yet subscribers to those services have almost always walked away completely unscathed.

Limited Time For Success

The difference isn’t just about supply being more serious. Since fines and similar measures punish those directly responsible for those alleged lost sales reported so often, a successful outcome necessarily means getting those same people back on side and spending money.

Picking the right cases from which to harvest subscriber details is also important; a case concluded in Naples recently could hardly be more perfect.

Dismantling Italia TV

In December 2024, a popular IPTV supplier was shut down following an investigation by the Guardia di Finanza of Naples in collaboration with the Technological Fraud Unit of Rome. Alleged ringleader Cristian Fidato, 23, was reportedly responsible for sourcing the illegal content, with new clients onboarded by two colleagues, Ukraine-born Anatoliy Perrotta, 30, and 44-year-old Fiorino Della Corte.

The investigating judge found that Italia TV had around 6,000 subscribers, mostly in Campania in Southern Italy, but also in countries elsewhere in Europe, including Belgium, Switzerland, and Latvia. The IPTV platform’s servers were close to hand in Naples itself, at least until they were seized by the financial police and taken away for investigation.

Major Rightsholders’ Content

As a provider catering to mainstream demand, Italia TV offered content from the major Hollywood studios, Netflix, Disney+, and Amazon Prime, plus Sky and DAZN which offer live sports, including all-important Serie A football matches.

Even before the raid, investigators at the Guardia di Finanza had reportedly blocked 19 sites that worked as a redirect mechanism for Italia TV, before adding another 25+ later to finish the job. Those who previously made it through became subscribers after making payments to bank accounts in Italy and beyond.

Early estimates suggested that Cristian Fidato opened around 32 accounts, sometimes under false names including “Gennaro Maddaloni”, variously claiming to be a student supported by his parents according to one report , or self-employed according to others.

Fidato allegedly claimed to have a nine-figure income but for tax purposes, nothing was reported to the state. Over four years of operations, Italia TV packages covering movies, TV shows and live sports, were available for €80 per year, generating an estimated €850,000 in revenue.

Lots of Powerful Hardware, Neatly Arranged

Around a third of the service’s subscribers (2,000) paid using cryptocurrency, which landed in dozens of wallets, all of which were identified by law enforcement. Italia TV’s interest in crypto went further than that, however.

After the raid in 2024, descriptions of the provider’s server room and reports of a possible crypto mining operation, remained just that. The usual images of servers and other hardware weren’t part of the package released to the media, but a little digging online more than makes up for their absence.

Showcasing everything from RGB-loaded gaming PCs and multi-GPU crypto mining rigs, to sundry servers and other hardware with less obvious tasks, TikTok was the platform of choice for Italia TV’s ringleader.

While in many ways typical of operations dismantled in the past, Fidato had a disturbing sideline business running in parallel.

Investigators discovered 1,600 CSAM images and videos which Fidato had been offering separately via WhatsApp groups, reportedly for the equivalent of pocket change each. Police also found an indoor area equipped with lighting and an irrigation system used for the cultivation of cannabis.

Sentenced: Four Years and Four Months in Prison

Fidato and Anatoliy Perrotta opted to have their cases handled under the abbreviated procedure. This means that the court makes a decision based purely on evidence obtained during the preliminary investigations. Less resources are expended getting a case to trial and once there, trials are wrapped up more quickly. In return, defendants typically get a one-third discount on their sentence.

At the Neapolitan Court on June 16, preliminary investigations Judge Leda Rossetti issued the following verdict:

• Cristian Fidato: 4 years and 4 months in prison. Fined €22,000.
• Anatoliy Perrotta: 1 year and four months in prison (conditional/suspended)

A third defendant who pleaded guilty at an earlier stage received a one-year prison sentence.

Whether the affected rightsholders intend to pursue Fidato and Perrotta in a civil action for damages is still unclear. The fate of subscribers, meanwhile, appears to be headed in only one direction.

Subscribers Face Administrative Fines

As promised for many months, subscribers of Italia TV are now at risk of receiving an administrative fine.

Coordinated by Deputy Prosecutor of Naples Silvio Pavia and Deputy Prosecutor Alessandro Milita, it’s being reported that an investigation carried out by the Guardia di Finanza successfully identified more than 6,000 subscribers.

A La Stampa report ( paywall ) claims that according to its own investigation, some fines have already been sent out with some recipients paying the amount requested. The report makes no mention of the all-important fine amount, instead citing the range expected under law; a minimum of €51.33 for a first offense up to the repeat offender maximum of €5,000.

There are no reports of unexpectedly large fines in the initial batch sent out last month to 2,282 subscribers of a different service, so it’s likely that broadly the same parameters, whatever they are, will also be applied here.

Opinion: Punishments and the Long-Term Objective

In light of Cristian Fidato’s fine of just €22,000 for running a service, the theoretical maximum of €5,000 for viewing offenses seems somewhat disproportionate. Anatoliy Perrotta’s sentence, which carries no fine at all, raises the possibility of viewers being fined more than a person directly profiting from exactly the same platform.

Nobody will relish receiving a fine in the mail, which is the entire point of sending them. However, considering the long-term goal, perceptions of fairness could come into play at some point, adding another complication to an already risky strategy of using force against former and potential customers.

To be considered a success, fines need to do just enough to turn pirates into subscribers without destroying existing goodwill; limited damage is already inevitable.

Italian football clubs and their partner broadcasters currently have no other rightsholders to hide behind, but with the authorities positioned to act as a punishment proxy, they may have already bought a little more time. But not much.

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

Online piracy is a global problem for copyright holders, but some threats are relatively localized.

In addition to internationally oriented sites such as The Pirate Bay, Hianime, Cineby and many others, there are also many local favorites .

Filma24

Five years ago, Filma24 was Albania’s leading pirate site, with over half of its visitors hailing from the Southeastern European country, making it one of the nation’s most popular websites.

The site’s popularity attracted the attention of the MPA’s Alliance for Creativity and Entertainment (ACE), which attempted to identify the operators through a DMCA subpoena obtained at a U.S. court.

The MPA also mentioned the pirate site in its most recent notorious markets submission to the U.S. Trade Representative. While it wasn’t mentioned as a core threat, it was noted that the IO domain registry had kept Filma24’s .io domain online, despite rightsholders’ complaints.

The original site has changed domains numerous times so may not have remained under the same ownership. The Filma24 brand certainly didn’t disappear. Filma24.bike, for example, had over two million visits in March this year, half of which came from Albania.

While these numbers may not sound like much for larger pirate sites, it’s a local juggernaut. Albania only has a population of just over three million, and Filma24.bike alone was listed as the 59th most visited domain in the country. And with dozens of alternative domain names in standby mode, it was prepared for trouble.

MPA/ACE Take over Filma24 Domains

Trouble eventually arrived last weekend. Official confirmation is lacking, but over the past few days Filma24.bike began redirecting to ACE’s takedown banner. The same applies to many other Filma24 domains including filma24.app, filma24.dev, filma24-al.com, filma24.lol, filma24.name, filma24.pro, filma24.top, filma24.uno and filma24.vip.

In addition, the Zhblloko.com domain was also taken over by the Hollywood group. This website was promoted through the Filma24 website for years and informed people how they could bypass site-blocking efforts, by changing DNS servers for example, or through a VPN service.

Upon closer inspection, we can see that the domain names in question were signed over to the Motion Picture Association, which put the redirect in place. Since all domains were signed over nearly simultaneously, the operators may have been uncovered and handed over the domains as part of some type of agreement.

TorrentFreak reached out to the MPA and ACE, requesting a comment on the matter, but we have yet to hear back. That said, ACE regularly takes over domain names in a similar fashion and there appears to be no court order linked to this action.

Needless to say, the shutdown comes as a disappointment to many Albanian pirates who preferred Filma24 above other sites due to the availability of local subtitles. According to an unconfirmed Reddit thread, the site was asking for donations just days before it disappeared.

Whether this will truly be the end of the Filma24 brand is highly unlikely. There are already new sites using the same name and branding, which will likely be embraced by many as if nothing ever happened. Rinse and repeat.

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

The High Court in Delhi, India, regularly issues site blocking orders, requiring Internet providers to block access to pirate sites.

These orders have targeted sites that stream movies and TV series, both from Hollywood and Bollywood, but also sites that specialize in pirated sports streams.

Last week we covered a new “superlative” injunction that temporarily extends blocking powers to deal with pirated cricket matches, protecting the ongoing England Tour of India. However, “dynamic+” orders are still being issued and while less advanced on paper, they can still be quite effective.

FIFA Club World Cup Piracy

In a recent complaint, broadcaster DAZN requested a blocking order against six sports streaming sites, including buffsports.me and vipbox.lc. With this action DAZN, which is available for roughly $5 per month in India, aims to protect its broadcasting rights for the FIFA Club World Cup 2025, which is currently ongoing.

The request targets nine local ISPs and five domain name registrars – 1API, NameCheap, Netim, and Tucows – all of which operate globally. The fifth company is Sarek Oy, also known as Njalla, which isn’t a typical registrar but acts as a privacy intermediary instead.

These requests are common by now and, after reviewing the evidence, the New Delhi High Court found a prima facie case of copyright infringement by the websites and granted the site blocking injunction.

“If an ex parte ad interim injunction in favor of the plaintiff is not granted, the plaintiff will likely suffer irreparable loss and injury,” Justice Saurabh Banerjee concluded.

ISPs and Domain Registrars Take Action

When presented with the order, the named ISPs and domain registrars (DNRs) must “..take steps to immediately block the said domain names associated with the defendant websites on real time basis.” That also applies to companies that are not incorporated in India.

Shared by Verdictum this week, the injunction was issued late last month and does indeed appear to be having an effect.

Aside from local ISPs blocking access to these domain names, buffsports.me, sporthd.me, and piratemedia.me are all offline. These domains all display the clientHold status code used by registrars to suspend domain names.

Defendant No.	Website	DNR	Suspended?
1.	buffsports.me	1API Gmbh	Yes
2.	sporthd.me	NETIM	Yes
3.	piratemedia.me	NameCheap, Inc.	Yes
4.	vipbox.lc	Tucows Domains Inc.	No
5.	strimsy.top	Sarek Oy	No
6.	vipstand.pm	Sarek Oy	No

These suspensions suggest that NameCheap, 1API, and Netim have all taken action, likely in response to the Indian High Court order. The domains that were registered through Tucows and Njalla remain operational at the time of writing.

Global Reach

While this type of injunction has been granted before , the global reach of this type of Indian order is worth highlighting. The suspended domains are effectively unreachable around the world, which makes this a highly effective enforcement option.

Of course, the targeted websites can easily switch to new domains, which is typically what happens, but then rightsholders have the option to extend the scope of their request by asking registrars to block these additional domains as well.

Thus far, the pirate sports streaming problem is far from defeated. It largely remains a game of whack-a-mole, with new sites, domains, and services constantly appearing, while global calls for more effective blocking actions increase.

—

A copy of the the Delhi High Court order issued by Justice Saurabh Banerjee is available here (pdf, via )

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

Hot on the heels of a live sports piracy report published last month, French telecoms/audiovisual regulator Arcom has just published its comprehensive annual report for 2024.

Weighing in at over 200 pages, the report covers all aspects of Arcom’s responsibilities, for which it received a €51.3 million budget in 2024.

From regulating the entire audiovisual sector, tackling online misinformation and hateful content, ensuring the safety of women and children, to the suppression of online piracy, Arcom is certainly busy. Especially so once piracy of live sporting events has been factored in.

The Fight Against Sports Piracy

Arcom data shows that overall, consumption of cultural content and live sports from all sources has increased quite dramatically among the French.

In 2024, 48.2 million were consumers, up 6 million on figures reported for 2020. On the plus side, Arcom says that the growth largely benefits legal platforms, with 67% consuming exclusively from legal sources in 2024.

Illicit consumption is reportedly on the wane; 26% of the population consumed at least one item illegally in 2020, a figure that fell by two points to 24% in 2024.

The reduction in overall piracy rates will be considered a plus but in common with other countries, live event piracy is a significant outlier in France.

Regular streaming, direct downloading, and peer-to-peer network use are all declining; for live events, use of pirate IPTV services and social networks is heading in the opposite direction.

Unwelcome Newcomer Blamed For Big Losses

Arcom describes the phenomenon as recent; two-thirds (66%) of illegal IPTV users say they started watching less than three years ago, with just 11% of users consuming for longer than that. Estimates on losses for various parties are as significant as those reported elsewhere.

“The regulator reassessed the loss of earnings linked to the illicit consumption of audiovisual content and retransmissions of sporting events, five years after an initial estimate. The loss was estimated at €1.5 billion, or around 12% of the market, to which is added a loss of €190 million for the State in tax and social security revenue,” Arcom reports.

“The loss of revenue for the audiovisual sector alone is estimated at €1.2 billion, and for the sports sector it’s €290 million, or 15% of the revenue generated by legal sports platforms and broadcasters in 2023.”

7 Rightsholders, 14 Sporting Events, 1 Common Response

Between January 1, 2024 and December 31, 2024, Arcom says it received a total of 4,919 requests for domain name blocking, from seven sports rights holders (three broadcasters and four sports leagues) concerning fourteen sporting events.

Football dominates as expected, with blocking requested for UEFA Champions League, Ligue 1 and Ligue 2, English Premier League, German Bundesliga, Spain’s La Liga, and the World Cup. Blocking requests were also received for several rugby events, tennis tournaments including Wimbledon and Roland-Garros, the Olympic and Paralympic Games, plus motorsports Formula 1 and Moto GP.

Surprise! ‘Shock Blockades’ Boost Overall Blocking in 2024

In March 2025, the clash between Paris Saint-Germain and Marseille was notable for the enhanced blocking measures deployed to disrupt piracy. The clubs previously met in October 2024, a match where an estimated 55% of the TV audience watched via pirate streams.

For the return match, blocking was deployed in two waves an hour apart, targeting around 100 pirate services, hoping to cause as much disruption as possible by taking pirates by surprise. Arcom’s 2024 report says coup de poing operations like these were partly responsible for boosting the volume of domains blocked last year.

“Massive ‘shock block’ operations were carried out during 2024 in partnership with rights holders against IPTV services during particularly popular sporting events, notably the French Ligue 1 and Ligue 2. For example, 258 IPTV services were blocked on October 27, 2024, during the [Paris Saint-Germain and Marseille] match. As a result, the number of requests to block domain names allowing access to IPTV servers increased considerably during 2024,” Arcom reports.

Processing increasing numbers of blocking requests was streamlined last year with the introduction of a new system at Arcom.

Available since June 2024, the system automates referrals with Arcom reporting “an improvement in the processing of referrals and, consequently, an increase in the volume of blocked domain names.”

Following Arcom notifications to ISPs, overall requests for 2024 led to 3,797 ‘pirate services’ being blocked, an increase of 146% compared to 2023 .

The total includes 1,769 domain names “providing access” to IPTV services, 439 domains for which public DNS resolvers such as Cloudflare and Google were also required to take action, and 1,085 domains that major search engines, most likely Google and Bing, were required to de-index from search results.

Impact of Blocking Measures

Whether blocking is effective against streaming piracy largely depends on the scope of the question. Arcom measures effectiveness based on estimates of the audience for illicit streaming platforms; if the estimated audience for those sites reduces, then that’s a clear sign that blocking works, Arcom suggests.

“Demonstrating the effectiveness of the measures to block illegal sports sites implemented since January 2022, the audience for illegal live streaming represented, on average each month in 2024, 1.6 million internet users, down 18% compared to 2023. Over a longer period, this mode of consumption has fallen by 41% compared to its peak consumption in 2021, and by 30% compared to 2018,” the report notes.

That being said, there are caveats. Arcom says that while the “effects of DNS blocking are real” it’s important to consider whether internet users have moved to other methods of access. Half of all French consumers of illicit content (57%) say they now use a VPN, while 46% say they have changed their DNS settings.

“The development of criminal uses of these tools requires research into the most relevant measures to implement, and to call on all stakeholders likely to intervene to put an end to infringement of the rights,” the regulator adds.

Graduated Response

The so-called ‘graduated response’ program to tackle piracy via peer-to-peer networks like BitTorrent, has been running in France for 15 years. The shift away from BitTorrent to streaming services was inevitable due to the simplicity of the latter, meaning that the volume of claims from rightsholders and subsequent warning notifications sent to internet users, has continued to reduce year-on-year.

Arcom also considers other factors that may have contributed to the reduction.

“The decrease is due to several factors, the effectiveness of the fight against piracy, such as the transformation of uses in terms of consumption of works on the Internet, the acceleration of the availability of legal offers during the past years, even an increasing use of circumvention solution such as VPNs,” the regulator notes.

Of the 999 legal proceedings that were brought to the attention of Arcom in 2024, 45% resulted in financial penalties (fines or equivalent) compared to 28% in 2023. Arcom says that alternatives to financial penalties may have been preferred by the prosecutor, including “citizen contributions” paid to victim support groups, for example.

The full Arcom Annual Report 2024 is available here ( pdf , French)

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

Sky’s war on TV piracy has raged for well over thirty years and despite the passing of time, the goal remains the same.

In broad terms, pirates retain their original goals too, but how that can be achieved is always subject to change, largely depending on who has taken the lead in an increasingly complex arms race.

News emerging from Ireland suggests that Sky’s use (or proposed use) of a valuable asset to boost its fight against piracy, has led to a powerful Irish authority “engaging” in the process for quite some time. Only very rarely are the stakes this high.

Data Protection Commission “Engaging With Sky”

The Data Protection Commission (DPC) is the national independent authority responsible for ensuring that Irish citizens have their personal data protected to the standards required under the European Union’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR).

In an RTE report published this week, the DPC is described as “engaging with Sky on the company’s efforts to clampdown on so-called TV ‘dodgy boxes’,” a catch-all term for pirate devices that enable unauthorized access to premium content.

RTE confirmed that DPC’s contact with Sky concerns the broadcaster’s use of personal data for the purpose of taking action against illegal streaming.

Fighting Fraud “In an Appropriate, Ethical Manner”

In comments to RTE, Commissioner for Data Protection Des Hogan said that companies may have legitimate reasons for taking action against fraud. The issue for DPC turns on whether the use of protected data meets the standards required.

“[T]he use of personal data would be the question for us, and whether that’s been done in an appropriate, ethical manner,” Hogan said.

“We have been engaging with Sky for some time, and we’re going to be meeting them in two weeks time, and I expect that we’ll be bringing things forward with them at that point in time.”

Nothing Solid Given Away, But Plenty of Fuel For Speculation

The finer details of the “engagement” will presumably appear at a later stage but until then, recent comments may put some extra meat on the bones.

In the Irish Independent ( paywall ) this week, Sky Ireland CEO JD Buckley warned of “consequences” for operators of pirate IPTV platforms, and those tempted to use them.

“We continuously evolve our investigative strategies to crack down on illegal streaming and protect consumers from risks including malware, fraud and identity theft. Further action will follow with consequences for those identified as operating illegal services and for those who watch them,” Buckley said.

700,000 Subscribers, 400,000 Dodgy Box Users

An unnamed spokesperson for Sky confirmed that the company was “exploring various options” including “ongoing engagement” with the DPC. While vague statements have a tendency to fuel the rumor mill, depending on what Sky has in mind, the potential for impact could be significant.

Towards the lower end, Sky may be considering a significant expansion of its existing investigation footprint. Targeting a large number of individuals would necessarily mean the collection of evidence, including personal data. Ensuring every last detail of that process had been ‘vetted’ by DPC in advance, would reduce risk of a successful challenge by an individual on data protection grounds, undermining a whole campaign.

At the higher end are less likely options. If Sky as an ISP, and Sky as a broadcaster, saw no benefit from barriers restricting the ability to act publicly, on intelligence obtained from a figurative commingling of the companies’ knowledge of pirate activity, that would be a game changer. Complex legal issues aside, ISP records are nevertheless a potential goldmine of information.

To what extent intelligence sharing already happens is unknown, but a number mentioned by the Irish Independent – 400,000 users of “dodgy boxes”- can’t be casually brushed under a carpet. Figures quoted in Irish media estimate that Sky Ireland has around 700,000 subscribers.

Partners in Crime (Fighting)

While there was no explicit reference to Sky, it seems unlikely that Hogan would mention the GDPR and a particular type of data sharing, if that wasn’t directly relevant to the matter in hand.

“Any sharing of personal data, or processing of that personal data outside a company has to be done in a lawful manner under the GDPR,” Hogan said.

With whom Sky may have shared, or intends to share, personal data for piracy-fighting purposes, receives no mention, much less the type and volume of personal data involved. If this is more about collection of personal data concerning investigations, the sky’s the limit; pirates are hardly in short supply.

Under Article 35 of the GDPR, a Data Protection Impact Assessment ( DPIA ) must be carried out when a new activity “is likely to result in a high risk to the rights and freedoms of natural persons to other people’s personal information.”

Whatever the specifics of the engagement, the issue appears to be sufficiently important to place in the public eye. Sky’s privacy policy makes it quite clear that it reserves the right to take anti-piracy action.

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

Last year, Italy officially implemented the ‘ Piracy Shield ‘, a system that aims to deter and decrease live sports streaming piracy.

Since then, Piracy Shield has blocked access to thousands of IP-addresses and domain names associated with unauthorized broadcasts.

Despite overblocking concerns , the massive blocking operation is seen as a key success by the authorities and many participating rightsholders. The same is true for the updated copyright law in general, which introduced fines of up to €5,000 for pirate consumers.

Study Reveals Piracy-Shield Impact

While there is no shortage of opinions on these measures, hard data on the impact of the increased anti-piracy efforts is less common. Initial data indicated that the Piracy Shield had little impact on legal subscriptions, but thorough research is lacking.

This week, new data from IPSOS adds more context. The IPSOS survey and report have been published annually for several years in collaboration with local anti-piracy outfit FAPAV . The most recent version covers 2024, which is the first year Piracy Shield was active.

A quick glance at the headline numbers suggests a trend going in the right direction. In the span of a year, overall piracy rates decreased, especially among teens. The same is true for piracy volume, which dropped significantly.

_{Data sourced from the FAPAV/Ipsos surveys.}

Metric	2023 Survey Data	2024 Survey Data
Overall Piracy Rate (adults)	39%	38%
Teen Piracy Rate (10-14 years)	45%	40%
Pirates Converting After Block	45%	47%
Piracy Volume (Total Acts)	319 Million	295 Million

As shown above, pirates are increasingly converting to legal services after encountering a block. Nearly half of all pirates who ran into a blocked site or service reportedly sought legal options, which is a notable success. However, since the piracy rate only dropped a single percentage point in a year, piracy remained prevalent.

This brings us to some of the seemingly disappointing outcomes of the survey, including the prevalence of live sports streaming piracy, which is the main target of the Piracy Shield program.

The report finds that in 2024, 15% of the population had used pirate live sports streaming services at some point, which is the same figure as a year before. In other words, sports piracy did not decrease after the Piracy Shield launched.

When compared to 2023, prevalence of most types of piracy remained relatively stable, with a few single percentage point drops here and there. Of the researched content categories, film piracy was the most common with 29% of the population admitting to have pirated something in 2024.

_{Percentage of the adult population in Italy that engaged in each type of piracy at least once during the year.}

Type of Piracy	2023 Rate	2024 Rate
Overall Piracy (any type)	39%	38%
Film Piracy	30%	29%
Series Piracy	22%	23%
Software Piracy	21%	22%
Live Sports Piracy	15%	15%
Illegal IPTV Use	23%	22%

These percentages mostly apply to online piracy, but also include physical piracy and indirect piracy. The latter refers to receiving pirated content from another person, such as via a USB drive or by watching someone else’s copy.

Volume Down, Damages Up

While there was no drastic decrease in the piracy rates, the positive note is that the overall piracy volume dropped more significantly. The reported 295 million piracy ‘acts’ in 2024 represent an 8% drop compared to the year before.

On the flip side, however, the reported financial damages increased. Across all sectors, the study estimates the loss in turnover at €2.2 billion, a substantial 10% increase year over year.

The most dramatic increase is reported in the live sports streaming category. These losses were estimated at €285 million in 2023 and €350 million last year, a 23% increase. That’s despite the Piracy Shield measures, which are aimed at sports piracy.

Awareness

Piracy Shield definitely didn’t go unnoticed by the public at large, as the survey reveals that 70% are aware of the new anti-piracy law, which also introduced financial penalties for individual pirates.

For now, the law’s looming punishments lack deterrence, as 42% of the population doubts its effectiveness. At the same time, only 56% of the self-proclaimed pirates believe they risk being punished.

The Piracy Shield fares much better on this metric as an impressive 79% (of those who are aware of it?) believe that the anti-piracy blocking system is effective.

All in all, the IPSOS study indicates that there is still plenty of work to be done before online piracy is seriously tackled. With extensive piracy blockades and serious fines already in place, it will be interesting to see what comes next.

—

More details and information on the 2024 FAPAV/Ipsos study, released in Rome on Tuesday, is available here .

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

The most obvious downward piracy trends have arrived in response to rightsholders addressing market demands.

But, when authorities feel something drastic needs to be done, legal crackdowns can also be the weapon of choice. The idea is that these actions will punish offenders while also sending a deterrent message to others who operate in the same business.

Climate of Change

A man recently sentenced in Greece for his role running private torrent site P2Planet, appeared in court at a time when Greek authorities insist piracy will not be tolerated. Right on cue, the criminal court in Piraeus handed down not just a harsh custodial sentence, but one effective immediately, apparently to the surprise of those who attended the hearing.

According to a local report , those present in court were shocked when three police officers handcuffed the 59-year-old local man and escorted him out of the court. He was taken directly to prison for a five-year sentence, with a €10,000 fine, and a €1,800 bill for costs to consider.

A criminal prosecution involving BitTorrent is certainly rare in Greece, with local media reporting the case as a first. The severity of the punishment seems to have come as a shock too. Yet, all things considered, the general outcome shouldn’t have surprised anyone.

A site operator received an identical sentence in 2019, although the judges in that matter declined to issue a fine. Citing “mitigating factors,” the judges concluded that fining someone already in prison would be “meaningless.”

P2Planet: 44,300 Users, 14,000 Torrents

Private torrent site P2Planet came online early 2011 and got off to a bumpy start.

At the time, it wasn’t unusual for sites to be held together with hopes and prayers; from the clues on its front page, P2Planet used PHP BitTorrent tracker and forum TorrentStrike which did have a couple of quite serious issues .

Targeted by DDoS attacks along with other Greek trackers of the day, the site was eventually hacked and later had its database posted online.

More than a decade later, these details are effectively relics of the past but when viewed as a whole, they highlight an interesting point. Multiple Greek news reports clearly identify the convicted man as the operator of P2Planet, while confirming the site’s full domain name, p2planet.net.

A brief statement posted on social media in June 2014 noted that P2Planet had “unfortunately shut down” and that was that. Gone forever.

In parallel, and with no reference to the name of the site, police revealed that a Cybercrime Prosecution Directorate investigation had identified an individual they believed was the operator of a pirate site. On or around June 16, 2014, an officer of the court observed as police raided a man’s home in Piraeus. After confirming his ability to administer the site named in the investigation, he was arrested and a hard drive was reportedly sent for forensic examination.

Since then, snapshots on the Wayback Machine have shown the P2Planet.net domain on a parking page and precious little else, for more than a decade.

10+ Years Between Arrest and Sentencing

P2Planet.net statistics reported in the media in connection with the recent sentencing, claim that the tracker had 44,342 registered members and tracked 14,000 torrents, mostly relating to movies, TV shows and music. Reports also state that users of the site downloaded content with Azureus, a torrent client that received its last update in 2017.

Based on the assumption that the sentencing concerns offenses exclusively committed at P2Planet, the 59-year-old could’ve been as young as 44 or potentially 48 or 49 at the time.

Taking more than a decade to reach a conclusion makes the case stand out against any prosecution that doesn’t involve Kim Dotcom. When compared to similar site closures and prosecutions in Greece, involving one defendant in particular, much more can be done in just over half the time.

The identical five-year prison sentence mentioned earlier concerned the operator of greekstars.net and greekstars.co. Between 2009 and 2012 this individual was prosecuted four times, but each time continued to infringe.

In April 2014, a court in Thessaloniki sentenced the same person to five years in prison in connection with the domain greekstars.biz. The court decided to make that a suspended sentence. In November 2014, after relaunching under the domains greekstars.net and greekstars.co, a return to court led to a five-year prison sentence, starting immediately.

Sending someone almost sixty years old to prison for five years should in theory act as a deterrent. When people remember the site, recall the turmoil surrounding the arrest, and link both to this negative outcome, the deterrent effect is at its strongest.

When stretched out over a decade, there’s a chance that news of a stranger going to prison will mean almost nothing to many people. Others will be indifferent, others will move on without a second thought. As a deterrent, it could hardly get any worse than that

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

In a complaint filed at a Nashville federal court two years ago, Universal Music, Sony Music, EMI and others, accused X Corp of ‘breeding’ mass copyright infringement .

The social media company allegedly failed to respond adequately to takedown notices and lacked a proper termination policy.

The National Music Publishers Association (NMPA) claimed it had sent over 300,000 formal infringement notices, many of which didn’t lead to immediate removals.

“Twitter routinely ignores known repeat infringers and known infringements, refusing to take simple steps that are available to Twitter to stop these specific instances of infringement of which it is aware,” the music companies alleged.

Twitter/X Wins First Battle, Case Continues

Last year, X scored a partial win when the court dismissed the music publishers’ direct and vicarious copyright infringement claims, and partially dismissed claims of contributory infringement.

Judge Trauger concluded that X can’t be held liable for making it ‘very easy’ to upload infringing material or for monetizing pirated content. These characteristics are not exclusive to infringing material and apply to legitimate content too, she argued.

With elements of the contributory infringement claim still intact, the lawsuit was allowed to move forward on those grounds. They include claims that X’s repeat infringer policy was inadequate and that it willingly turned a blind eye to pirating users, especially those who have a blue checkmark.

“Particularly striking is the allegation that X Corp. enforces its copyright policies less stringently against individuals willing to pay for its ‘verified’ service,” Judge Trauger wrote in her order.

X Seeks Documents from NMPA CEO

Over the past several months, both parties have conducted discovery to gather further evidence. As part of this process, X sought information from the NMPA, including its President and CEO David Israelite.

The NMPA is not directly involved as a plaintiff in the case, but since its infringement notices are at the basis of this lawsuit, X believes that its information is relevant.

The NMPA was willing to share information but refused to hand over other relevant information, according to X. This includes documents from its President and CEO, with the NMPA describing Israelite as an “apex” figure who did not “operate” the notice program.

X was unhappy with the refusal and earlier this month filed a heavily redacted motion to compel the NMPA to hand over the requested documents, including those related to its top executive.

According to X, Mr. Israelite oversees all aspects of NMPA’s operations, including legal strategy and advocacy. He has also made extensive public statements about the lawsuit and the alleged copyright infringement by X, even calling Twitter his “top legal focus” shortly before the lawsuit was filed.

X also noted that on several occasions, Mr. Israelite had commented on X’s actions in the media. In 2023, after the lawsuit was filed, he informed the Hollywood Reporter that X can’t “hide behind the DMCA.”

“Maximum Pain”

The motion to compel is heavily redacted, but it appears that X believes that the NMPA played a key role in the lawsuit, and that it wasn’t merely concerned about the removal of infringing content.

“It is not disputed that NMPA conceived of and controlled the process that led to this litigation,” X writes, adding that Mr. Israelite has been very vocal in the press, condemning its actions, and hinting at a lawsuit before it started.

According to X, the requested discovery is important to show that NMPA used its takedown notice campaign as a tool to inflict “maximum pain” on X, to motivate Elon Musk’s platform to sign music licensing agreements.

“NMPA’s motive for initiating its notice program against X was not to obtain the removal of allegedly infringing videos posted to the X platform, but to inflict maximum pain on X’s business so that X would be more inclined to enter into music licenses with NMPA’s member,” X writes.

These are explosive allegations that have yet to be proven; if indeed the case even makes it that far.

Suddenly… a Settlement is Looming

After a few days, X dismissed its motion to compel and around the same time, both parties informed the court that they were trying to “amicably resolve” the entire lawsuit, requesting a stay of 90 days.

There’s no evidence that there’s a causal link between X’s explosive allegations and the sudden agreement between the two parties. However, with less than a week between the two filings after nearly two years of battling it out in court, the timing is noteworthy.

Commenting on the change of course in the lawsuit, an NMPA spokesperson informed the Hollywood Reporter that the group hopes that the case will result in a licensing deal.

“The intent of the stay is to discuss with X the resolution of the suit and proper compensation to songwriters and publishers for past unlicensed uses, while providing an opportunity for go forward licensing.”

For now, Judge Trauger has granted the 90 days stay. If X and the music publishers can reach a settlement, with or without a licensing deal, the lawsuit will be over. That also means the finer details of the alleged ‘maximum pain’ strategy are unlikely to see the light of day.

—

A copy of X Corp’s motion to compel is available here (pdf) . The order to stay the related case can be found here (pdf)

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