From its initial launch and relentless coverage in the media for a solid 18 months, there had to be something more to the BeStreamWise anti-piracy campaign than initially met the eye.

Anti-piracy campaigns come and go; BeStreamWise made itself comfortable in people’s living rooms, took over the Sky remote, and even now still refuses to leave.

Those who took refuge online found little respite. BeStreamWise has maintained a constant media presence, especially via the national tabloids, their regional partners, plus online-only publications known for their social media reach.

Interestingly, zero coverage by the BBC. Not a word. Even more unusual given that the campaign’s partners include the BBC itself and the UK government, via the Intellectual Property Office, which prominently mentions the campaign on its website…. absolutely nowhere?

Today we present a sample of what we have learned about the campaign and those involved since September 2023. A slightly different format than usual with plenty of images, in keeping with the campaign itself.

Creating the BeStreamWise Brand

“Sky partnered With marketing agency Weber Shandwick to create the BeStreamWise brand, educating consumers about the risks from illegal streaming websites. The Sky Anti-Piracy team needed a website to tie into a UK-wide TV, online and out-of-home advertising campaign.”

Photographer Henrik Knudsen worked with Weber Shandwick and Nice Shirt Films to create the assets for the out-of-home and digital campaign.

Special effects were created by BOOM CGI and the BeStreamWise campaign website, hosted on the Sky Websites platform, is powered by ContentStack which can provide useful insight on user interactions.

BeStreamWise Video Campaign

The BeStreamWise YouTube channel contains only three videos. The launch video (center) received relatively few views, just 2,600 in total. The 30-second campaign video (left) has performed well with 863,000.

That’s nothing when compared to the 15-second variant that is targeted, at least in part, at viewers known to have searched for infringing content.

A total of 7.6 million views so far and still counting shows the reach of the campaign. How many pirates viewed the video more than once isn’t clear but on a strict one-to-one basis, that figure is getting close to every pirate in the country.

The big question is this: they may have seen the campaign but did they listen closely enough to absorb the message? For that matter, what exactly is the message?

Holy Grail of Campaigning – Modify People’s Behavior (COM B Model)

Several months ago, a Sky employee updated colleagues on a successful campaign; an anti-piracy campaign with relevance as a cybersecurity awareness drive. The campaign was described as follows:

The campaign is a fresh take on anti-piracy messaging and likens illegal streaming to leaving your digital front door open. The tag line, ‘Illegal Streams Let Criminals In’, acts to remind consumers of the risks involved in illegal streaming from malware and viruses to fraud, theft or even identity theft. While also directing consumers to safe and official streaming pathways

The model chosen to underpin the entire campaign is especially interesting;

The COM B (Capability, Opportunity, Motivation, Behavior) model is a behavior change framework that suggests successful behavioral modification requires the following elements (descriptions tailored to the campaign, our analysis, not Sky’s)

1. Capability :
– Psychological and general ability to perform the desired behavior
– Understanding that illegal streaming carries risks
– Understanding potential cybersecurity threats

2. Opportunity :
– Social and physical environment that enables the desired behavior
– Availability of accessible legal streaming alternatives
– Highlighting easy ways to access legitimate content

3. Motivation :
– Brain processes that energize and direct behavior
– Emotional and reflective motivation towards risk avoidance (cybersecurity threats)
– Fear around potential consequences of illegal streaming (malware etc)

4. ̶P̶R̶O̶F̶I̶T̶ Successful behavioral modification

How Did the Campaign Perform?

After waiting three months in the hope that Sky would release the results to the public, we came to the conclusion that in all likelihood, the results of the campaign are probably destined for private consumption. We have no fine details but from the information available, certain targets were met and the campaign appears to have been viewed as a success.

Terms used to sum up:

• Earned media publicity through promotional efforts, not paid advertising
• OOH (Out-of-Home) Advertising : Billboards, street furniture, public transport etc
• Earned activations : Marketing initiatives that generate organic engagement
• Enforcement communications : See below

Whether a campaign is considered a success when measured against increased sales of legal products is never discussed in public; there’s no reason to believe BeStreamWise will be any different. Regardless of the outcome, nobody can accuse Sky of not putting in the effort and the targeting appears to have been pretty much flawless.

Finally, a short comment on ‘Enforcement communications’, which appear to be linked, in whole or in part, to hundreds of mostly sensationalized, misleading, or otherwise disappointing stories in the media, concerning illegal streaming, arrests, prison sentences etc.

Some may believe the end justifies the means, but filling the public consciousness with anything other than a best effort representation of the facts, simply kicks the piracy problem down the road for another day.

People should be concerned about malware, credit card fraud, and identity theft, so that’s a valuable message to have sent. But take that away, people still aren’t scared about piracy.

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

Early August, we reported on a remarkable court order handed down by the Dutch Business Court in Brussels. It compelled internet providers, hosting companies, and other intermediaries to block access to several ‘pirate’ sites and deny access to payment providers.

The targeted domain names are linked to known shadow libraries such as Anna’s Archive, LibGen, and Z-Library. However, the order also listed Internet Archive’s Open Library project as a structurally infringing website.

When making their case in favor of a blocking order, the plaintiffs argued that the sites’ operators were difficult to reach, which the court accepted in its ruling. While this can be true for classic pirate sites, Open Library is quite approachable; it’s operated by the Internet Archive, a U.S.-registered 501(c)(3) non-profit.

Despite this apparent conflict, the court signed off on an order that clearly requires ISPs and other companies to block access to Openlibrary.org.

Open Library Remains Accessible

After publishing our report the Internet Archive informed us that the Open Library project remained accessible in Belgium. Along with domains operated by four ‘target sites’, Open Library’s domain was listed on the master blacklist of FPS Economy, which oversees site blocking measures in Belgium. The site wasn’t actually blocked, however.

Hoping for clarification on what had led to Open Library’s exclusion, despite the presence of a clear blocking order, we contacted the responsible Belgian federal authority. Our request remains unanswered, but an official implementation plan for the order, published last week, explains what’s going on.

The follow-up order was published by the Department for Combating Infringements of Copyright and Related Rights Committed Online and the Illegal Exploitation of Online Games of Chance , which is part of a larger Belgian government ministry, FPS Economy.

Essentially, the order from the Business Court in Brussels granted authority for the department to determine the detailed technical rules for execution of the blocking order, to ensure that blocking is effective. That process allows for reversing or pausing blocking requirements, and that’s why Open Library remains accessible.

New Order Defers Open Library Blocking

As noted earlier, the implementation order indicates that the owner of Open Library is easily identified. In fact, the Belgian authorities formally heard the Internet Archive on July 28, after the blocking order was issued.

The original court order listed Internet Archive as the hosting service of Open Library, although it’s also the platform’s owner. Based on this information and the hearing, the blocking decision was deferred.

The implementation order urges the Internet Archive to consult the publishers who requested the blocking measures, to see if an agreement can be reached.

“Due to the capacity of this intermediary as website owner, the Department considers that additional consultation with the parties involved (Internet Archive, requesting parties) is necessary and that, if necessary, the implementation measures that have to be taken by this party will be determined in consultation with the parties involved in a later decision,” the order reads.

Internet Archive’s Director of Library Services, Chris Freeland, informs us that since they are working with the Belgian authorities on the next steps, no further details are being shared at this time.

Two-Step Blocking Process

This new information confirms that Belgium operates a two-step process when it comes to these types of blocking orders. The original business court orders are formal but not final. They can change significantly based on a follow-up implementation order issued by Belgium’s Federal Public Service (FPS).

In addition to the crucial pausing of blocking measures against Open Library, the follow-up order also removed intermediary Amazon as a blocking target since it provides no services to any of the targeted sites.

The order further clarifies that payment intermediaries like PayPal and Alipay will only be required to suspend services after the rightsholders share specific, detailed information (e.g., email addresses, account numbers) that allows them to reasonably identify the associated customer.

Finally, the order notes that rightsholders can request new domains and mirror sites to be added to the blocklist, with a limit of 50 new domain names per month. Once approved by the department, these will be added to the blocklist on a monthly basis.

All in all, it’s clear that the Belgian blocking process is more involved than a single court order. Whether Open Library will still face some level of blocking will become clearer in the days and weeks ahead. Whether details of the ‘consultation’ will be made available to the public in the interests of transparency remains unknown.

—

A copy of the implementation decision/order, issued by the Department for Combating Infringements of Copyright and Related Rights Committed Online and the Illegal Exploitation of Online Games of Chance, is available here (pdf) .

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

After 15 years of pirate site blocking by ISPs including BT, Virgin Media, Sky, TalkTalk, EE, and Plusnet, last month a new player quietly entered the UK site blocking arena.

Cloudflare’s blocking measures in the UK were confirmed when attempts to access pirate streaming sites returned Error 451, indicating a site unavailable for legal reasons. To help visitors understand why access had been blocked, Cloudflare provided a link on its error page to legal documents referencing blocking injunctions previously obtained by Hollywood; most were several years old and none were directed at Cloudflare.

A Clearer, Much Bigger Picture

We now have a better idea of the potential scale of Cloudflare’s blocking in the UK. Our initial estimate of 200 sites/domains was based on more recent blocking instructions and was aimed deliberately low. New information suggests that the injunctions in question may have already expanded to cover more than 1,000 domains.

The real figure could even be double that; the truth is we can’t rule anything in or out. Transparency starts and ends with the initial process, and once a blocking order has been signed, down comes the curtain. Cloudflare recently commissioned a report on the perils of mass site blocking, but our questions on the same topic remain unanswered. We didn’t ask for one, but a live list of domains requested for blocking, by whom, where, and why, isn’t expected any time soon, at least not officially.

Meanwhile, Cloudflare has submitted some relevant information to the Lumen Database. It still falls short on detail and transparency, which requires us to make a couple of assumptions we’d rather not. Nevertheless, some information is better than the alternative; if tech companies including Cloudflare, Google, GitHub, and others didn’t contribute as they currently do, the ramifications would be significant.

Cloudflare Blocking Concerns Previously Obtained Injunctions

The notice below is one of several published on the Lumen Database during the past few days. Reportedly received by Cloudflare, each notice refers to a court order issued by the High Court on August 8, 2025, followed by a reference number, in this example IL-2021-000073.

The entities responsible for sending the notice to Cloudflare are listed on the left.

The supporting PDF contains details of a successful application for a dynamic injunction obtained by Columbia Pictures, Disney, Netflix, Paramount Pictures, Universal City Studios, and Warner Bros. It requires the UK’s leading ISPs to block domain names linked to streaming sites with familiar brands, including 123movies, fmovies, sflix, and watchserieshd.

In total, the injunction requires the ISPs to block 17 domains, with broadly similar numbers requested in the other injunctions submitted by Cloudflare in the same batch.

The original orders were obtained in July 2021, December 2021, March 2023, and February 2024 respectively, but since they’re dynamic injunctions to which additional domains can be added as required, we assume they’re currently live and ongoing.

Like the example above, none of the four original orders mention Cloudflare, so we turn to the title of the notification sent to Lumen (first image above, white text on blue). Citing a High Court order issued on August 8, it seems to imply that the High Court added Cloudflare to the existing order on that date, and it’s now required to block the same domains as the ISPs.

While it’s tempting to make that assumption, no official paperwork has been made available to support it. The difference between being compelled to block and blocking voluntarily is significant anywhere; in the UK, voluntary site blocking would be a first, for an intermediary like Cloudflare, close to groundbreaking. Until we see evidence one way or another, that question remains open.

Domains Listed For Blocking in the Remaining Injunctions

Since the remaining orders are broadly the same, with the same applicants and the same ISP respondents, we now turn to the list of domains for blocking by ISPs (plus Cloudflare, of course) attached to each of the orders.

Adding up the domains in each schedule and concluding that Cloudflare only has to block around 50 domains would be a mistake. These domains are the same as those present in the original orders so years later, many are lying dormant, seemingly doing very little, parked, or completely dead.

The important domains – the ones added AFTER the injunctions are issued – don’t appear in any public paperwork in connection with any injunction, yet by volume they are by far the greatest contributors to ISP blocking lists worldwide.

The classic ‘iceberg’ analogy doesn’t even come close. Over 60 domains/subdomains have been blocked in the UK containing the word ‘bflix’, over 150 domains that contain ‘Putlocker’, and a mind-boggling 700+ with the term ‘123movie’ somewhere in its domain/subdomain, with fmovies accounting for at least another 400.

Yet Another New Batch

On or around August 11, ISPs in the UK began blocking yet another batch of domains for copyright infringement. This added more than 100 new domains/subdomains to an already stacked list.

Once again, the new list is dominated by pirate brands, including gomovies, couchtuner, 123movies, fmovies, and worthmovie, but something wasn’t performing as it should.

When attempting to access maxflip.top, a clear blocking target for the MPA, Cloudflare’s Error HTTP 451 ‘legal reasons’ page linked to a takedown notice that has nothing to do with blocking. Similar errors persist on other recently blocked domains, all from the most recently submitted batch.

Given the sheer number of blocked domains/subdomains and the endless combinations of branding options when new domains appear online, arriving at a precise number of domains blocked by Cloudflare is both difficult and time-consuming.

Without a doubt, the biggest hurdle has always been a complete lack of transparency after initial blocking orders are issued, at a time when volume of domains blocked immediately increases. Everything happens in complete darkness so when there’s an incident, there’s very little the individual can do.

High Court orders issued in the UK have a clause stating that anyone affected by overblocking has the right to apply to the Court to discharge or vary the order. For the average user it’s almost impossible to determine that an access failure was caused by erroneous blocking. The prospect of finding out who was responsible in order to file a complaint, is only marginally more comical than obtaining the evidence likely to be requested to show what happened.

As blocking escalates all over the world and the associated risks to the wider internet continue to increase (see a recent report commissioned by Cloudflare itself), vast sums are being spent on blocking systems and legislation in support of blocking systems that benefit relatively few companies.

Against that backdrop of time and expense, consider this; changing a single browser setting immediately restores access to every site currently blocked by Cloudflare in the UK.

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

Piracy of movies, TV shows, music, games and similar content, purely for the purpose of recreation, is an internet wide phenomenon that would otherwise find funding from consumers’ disposable income.

Once gainfully employed, piracy of leisure products largely becomes a matter of choice. In the educational context, textbooks can be both expensive and effectively mandatory for those seeking an education, a job, and the luxury of income to spend at some point.

For less well-off students this presents a dilemma; a) no money now and no money later either, b) go into debt and introduce a new set of problems, or c) piracy.

“Eliminating Educational Inequality”

Yubin Archive launched on Telegram in July 2023 and was an instant hit with students. Offering educational materials such as textbooks, workbooks, video lectures, and exam preparation material, its motto was Eliminating Educational Inequality .

Early 2024, Yubin Archive had already amassed over 140,000 members, mostly students and of all ages. Stories of how the unofficial library had saved the day in various ways began to appear in the media. Queues to scan textbooks and have them printed onto paper were dramatically cut. Starting out with a digital copy rather than a loaned physical book yet to be scanned, let alone printed, became a thing of the past.

A report in March 2024 reported that Yubin Archive had become popular with students at law school , proof perhaps that knowledge of the law doesn’t always precede compliance.

Book Publishers and Government React

“It is not an exaggeration to say that most of the 6,000 law school students across the country have pirated files,” commented the CEO of a book publishing company early last year.

“Although we started filing complaints in May last year [2023] and sent warnings to law schools nationwide, books published in January and February this year [2024] are already being shared as files.”

An official from the Korea Copyright Commission warned that copying and distribution would breach copyright law, before conceding that punishing individuals could be quite difficult.

“Private education is essential, but there are cases where sufficient education is not received due to the burden of costs,” the then-anonymous operator of Yubin Archive added. “We have opened a Telegram channel for equality in education for all.”

As the Commission suggested, chasing down every individual involved in this type of platform isn’t feasible; recently the channel had over 330,000 members. In situations like these, it’s much more likely that those running the service and/or contributing significant content, will eventually attract enough attention to warrant an investigation.

Authorities Arrest Yubin Archive’s Operator

An official statement confirming the operator’s arrest was published locally on August 12. The timeline suggests the arrest probably took place on or around August 9. The following notice appeared on Yubin Archive on August 11.

“The Ministry of Culture and Sports’ Copyright Crime Science Investigation Team used digital science investigation (forensics) and various investigation methods to identify the core operator, conduct simultaneous search and seizure at their homes, and fully secure the Telegram criminal activities,” the Ministry’s statement reads.

“Investigations into accomplices who participated in the operation are also underway.”

Authorities Dismiss ‘Robin Hood’ Imagery

While copyright infringement at scale is almost always a crime, regardless of content type or claimed good intention, having a Robin Hood character in the mix risks dilution of key anti-piracy messaging. No surprise then that much is being made of the existence of a ‘minority room’ within Yubin Archive, access to which was only permitted upon payment of a fee.

“The core operator of the ‘Yubin Archive’, who was arrested, was found to have created a separate paid sharing channel (also known as a minority channel) while promoting the illegal sharing of learning materials as a noble act to eliminate educational inequality,” the Ministry added .

“In addition, the illegal sharing channel was a criminal act that could instill incorrect copyright awareness in most users, including teenagers. The Ministry of Culture and Sports is committed to continuing its efforts to track and strictly respond to illegal activities that abuse anonymous channels such as Telegram, to protect the rights of creators.”

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

The most hardcore pirates rarely feel the need to justify their consumption habits. For those who are a little less militant, reasons to pirate are in plentiful supply.

Whether it’s availability, price, inconvenience, not enough choice, or too many choices, there always a reason for piracy being the more attractive offer.

For their part, opponents often dismiss these reasons as convenient excuses, places to hide while defending what some believe is straightforward theft. Take the same stance against a 3pm blackout ‘excuse’ and the argument quickly hits a dead end.

Reason’s Big Brother: Justification

The 3pm blackout refers to the period when broadcasters such as SKY cannot broadcast live football to fans in the UK.

Running from 2.45pm until 5.15pm on Saturdays, the ‘closed period’ was originally put in place to ensure that the draw of major games on TV couldn’t deprive clubs in lower leagues of their significantly smaller audiences.

Support for ‘grassroots’ football may at times be presented as benevolent, charitable even, but a failure to nurture home-grown talent risks reliance on expensive imports later down the road. Short-term ‘gains’ for not reinvesting money back into the game would’ve been worth around £170 million to the Football Association according to its last set of accounts.

Grassroots engagement, not to mention engaging the entire country in football, generation after generation, is fundamental to ensuring healthy match attendances at every level; that leads to lucrative broadcasting rights upon which the ecosystem relies.

The 3pm blackout protects all of that, at the expense of locking all clubs out of a local live broadcasting market, in which they could enjoy exclusivity. Yet through artificial restriction that prohibits the existence of a potentially lucrative market, fans happy to hand over their cash have become increasingly frustrated.

Less invested fans in overseas markets are not only free to watch matches during the blackout, they do so legally at a fraction of the prices charged in the UK generally.

So, if no money is made from UK fans during the blackout, piracy could be viewed as not just a reasonable option, but a logical common sense alternative.

Can IPTV pirates offering 3pm matches hurt a market that doesn’t even exist? And when fans watch matches, is that still straightforward theft from the Premier League, for example, and if so, what exactly are they being deprived of?

“We Run On English Football Time”

For the clearest example yet that exploiting a market that doesn’t exist is a serious crime in the UK, look no further than pirate IPTV service Flawless TV.

After its operator quipped that the Flawless team “run on English football time” and it was privately recognized that the 3pm blackout was great for business, criminal prosecutions concluded that rights can’t be exploited without first obtaining permission from the rightsholder.

Excuses, reasons, and justification ultimately proved no match for custodial sentences totaling more than 30 years which in practical terms, failed to solve the problem. Pirates don’t just exploit artificial restrictions, they thrive on them. If there was a gap in the market, it didn’t stay that way for long.

Light at the End of the Tunnel

Speaking to the press at Sky’s Premier League launch event this week, Sky Sports chief Jonathan Licht added momentum to what some believe is the beginning of the end for football’s 3pm TV ‘blackout’.

“There’s clearly a direction of travel and lots of conversation about Saturday 3pms, and I think that will perhaps increase as we go through this cycle,” Licht said. “It’s a conversation that’s coming.”

Talking is clearly important but admitting that a problem exists should make the conversation a little less complicated. This week, Licht effectively admitted that the restriction fuels piracy, arguably football’s biggest problem.

“It’s fair to say that 3pms have been a point for piracy coming into this market from various places,” he said.

Piracy Profits From Exclusivity

Some might argue that refusal to serve an exclusive market is why exclusive markets shouldn’t be allowed to exist. That’s a whole new conversation but purely from the perspective of loyal fans, it actually does something far worse; it provides unrivaled justification for piracy and a gateway to even more.

When fans offer their money and it’s refused year after year, pirate subscriptions and web-based streaming sites don’t just solve the 3pm Saturday problem, they continue to work all week.

“There’s a real concern that despite the illegality and links to organized crime, [piracy] has been normalized. That’s dangerous for everyone, the industry and rights holders,” Licht said. So what can be done?

“It’s all of our responsibility in the industry to tackle piracy, whether that’s lobbying big tech or engaging government,” Licht said.

Controversial, perhaps, but is listening to the fans still an option?

–

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

Next month, American filmmaker Julian Schnabel will be honored with the Cartier Glory to the Filmmaker award at the prestigious Venice Film Festival .

Schnabel’s latest film In the Hand of Dante will have its world premiere at the festival, with a star-studded cast including Oscar Isaac, Al Pacino, Gal Gadot, Gerard Butler, Jason Momoa, and Martin Scorsese, who is also credited as executive producer.

So far, very little official footage from the film has been released to the public; not even a trailer. Yet through unauthorized channels, including public pirate sites, a full screener copy leaked online a few days ago.

The pirated copy lists “a friend” as the source, without further context. Aside from the opening and closing scenes, the film is in black and white and clearly lists a “for screening only” watermark, as shown below.

A high-profile leak of this nature is concerning, all the more so because it’s not the only screener that was released by over the past few days. Copies of other unreleased films including The Best Thing About Christmas , Agon , Life Is , and Extreme Family also appeared online.

These are mostly independent films with relatively small budgets and limited promotion.

What further stands out is that several titles have an Italian connection. In the Hand of Dante is based on a novel about the famous Italian poet and was filmed in Sicily, Venice, and Rome. The Best Thing About Christmas is a project from Italian director Paolo Genovese, while Agon is an Italian production directed by Michele Riondino.

Life Is by prominent Mexican director Lorena Villarreal doesn’t have an obvious Italian connection. Instead, the leaked screener copy has an “EFICINE Producción” watermark, referring to the fiscal stimulus program for movies in Mexico.

Finally, it’s worth highlighting that we also spotted an screener release of Michael Shanks’ horror movie Together , which premiered earlier this year at the Sundance Film Festival and is currently in theaters.

What is clear is that someone with either authorized or unauthorized access to these screener copies is leaking them to the public. This is reminiscent of earlier screener leaks by the group EVO, which shared similar advance copies before the group was busted in late 2022.

For these independent titles, a pre-release leak can be financially devastating, impacting potential distribution deals and box office returns. Understandably, the creators and rightsholders of the recently leaked films will be determined to find out where the current breach originated.

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.

Netflix, Amazon & Hollywood Sue American IPTV Operator

To curb this unauthorized activity, several members of the Alliance for Creativity and Entertainment ( ACE ) filed a lawsuit against the alleged operator of Outer Limits IPTV. Amazon, Apple, Netflix, Disney, Paramount, and other major Hollywood studios alleged widespread copyright infringement.

The complaint , filed in a California federal court, identified Murrieta resident Zachary DeBarr as the owner of Outer Limits. The ‘pirate’ service reportedly offered access to over 4,000 live channels and a VOD library of more than 13,000 movie titles and over 3,000 TV series.

DeBarr allegedly promoted the IPTV service through his iTrustStream YouTube channel, which according to the plaintiffs had 100,000 subscribers. DeBarr’s company, iLockSports LLC, was also named as a defendant.

The studios listed a long history of infringing actions, dating back to 2017. The defendant allegedly started by selling Firesticks that had been modified to provide access to pirated content. He later moved on to reselling pirate IPTV subscriptions and, more recently, launched his own pirate IPTV service.

“DeBarr makes money by selling subscriptions to his Infringing Service directly to the public, but he pays nothing to Plaintiffs for the copyrighted works he exploits,” the complaint alleged.

Studios Request Default Judgment

The Outer Limits IPTV service went dark shortly after the lawsuit was filed. However, despite these serious allegations, the defendant did not appear in court to defend himself, and neither did his company. This prompted the rightsholders to file a motion for default judgment.

The plaintiffs argued that DeBarr engaged in willful copyright infringement, requesting maximum statutory damages of $150,000 for each of the 100 copyrighted works listed in the complaint, $15 million in total.

In addition, the Hollywood studios requested a permanent injunction to stop future infringement and sought to take control of the outerlimitsiptv.com and outerlimitshosting.net domains. An injunction was needed, they argued, as DeBarr might continue his infringing activities in the future.

“While it appears the Infringing Service is no longer operational, based on my experience investigating copyright infringers, DeBarr is very likely to engage in infringing conduct again, especially given his long history of piracy,” MPA’s Bryan Willett wrote in a declaration to the court.

$15 Million in Damages

In an order issued on August 4, 2025, Judge Josephine Staton of the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California sided with the studios, awarding the full $15 million in damages.

“The Court finds the requested amount of statutory damages reasonable in light of the seriousness of Defendants’ infringement and the harm it caused. The nature and scope of Defendants’ conduct indicates that they willfully engaged in egregious copyright infringement on a massive scale,” the order reads.

Judge Staton mentions that DeBarr initially shut down his operation in 2020 in response to a cease-and-desist notice, only to relaunch in 2021 while ignoring further communication from rightsholders. This underscores that his actions were willful.

In addition to the massive damages award, Judge Staton also granted a permanent injunction prohibiting DeBarr from infringing the studios’ copyrights moving forward, citing a significant threat of recidivism. The defendant must also hand over his domain names to the plaintiffs.

“Defendants’ non-appearance in this case, combined with Defendants’ history of willful infringement, convince the Court that there is a significant threat of future infringement,” Judge Staton concludes.

This judgment marks another victory for the studios in their ongoing fight against piracy. While taking one service offline doesn’t do much to limit pirate offerings, they hope that the multi-million dollar judgment, together with other verdicts, will send a deterrent message to other operators.

Earlier this year, many of the same studios filed a similar complaint at a federal court in Pennsylvania. This case targets Mechanicsburg resident Brandon Weibley, the alleged operator of several commercial IPTV services including ‘Shrugs’ and ‘Zing’. The case remains pending.

—

A copy of the $15 million default judgment against DeBarr, issued by the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, is available here (civil minutes, pdf)

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

Earlier this year when discussing ongoing work to block pirate sites and services, Minister of Culture Lina Mendoni said that a system of fines targeting end users in Greece would complement these efforts.

As part of an administrative system, fines would be issued against people who “illegally obtain access to audiovisual media” from an illegal source, such as a website or pirate IPTV subscription, with penalties increasing depending on the seriousness of the violation.

The framework received the green light and the full text was published in February.

Procedure for Imposing and Collecting Fines

Joint Ministerial Decision 358834/2025 published by the government this week outlines the procedure for imposing and collecting administrative fines for IP violations.

The procedure specifically targets violations of intellectual property rights as defined under paragraphs 1, 2, 2A and 2B of Article 65A of Law 2121/1993 and provides details on the authorities responsible for initiating investigations, issuing infringement notices, and the collection of fines.

The administrative procedure is initiated by ‘competent control authorities’ on their own initiative or in response to a written complaint. Authorities include the Independent Authority of Public Revenue, the General Directorate of the Financial Crime Prosecution Corps, the Interdepartmental Market Control Unit, police, and Port and Customs Authorities.

Relevant to users of pirate IPTV are violations under paragraph 2b of Article 65A (full text below) . Here, the fines procedure can also be initiated based on data received from the judicial authorities obtained as part of a separate criminal prosecution under Article 66 of Law 2121/1993. In plain language, if an IPTV provider or seller is prosecuted for more serious offenses and customer details are available to the authorities, that could trigger fines for the seller’s users.

Pirate IPTV-Related Fines

Evidence to support the imposition of a fine is reflected in a document containing the personal details of the offender and the infringement, plus details of any previous offenses. Details of how to dispute the allegations, within the allocated 10-day period, are also provided.

For the regular consumer, administrative fines start at €750 and when the full amount is paid without any objections, the matter is brought to a close. If the same consumer is flagged again, based on records held in a database, the fine doubles to €1,500 euros.

If the use is deemed to be commercial in nature, administrative fines start at €5,000 for each violation, increasing to €10,000 for each violation in the case of repeat infringement.

The same fines also apply to users of any equipment, such as decoders or software, through which they illegally gain access to audiovisual content without authorization from rightsholders.

For the most serious violations, usually involving sales, distribution, and other commercial components, fines start at €2,900. Offenders who pay double the administrative fine can avoid criminal prosecution but can still be pursued by rightsholders.

Joint Ministerial Decision 358834/2025 is available here , previous reporting with additional detail here

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

Online piracy is a constant headache for copyright holders; one that’s particularly difficult to shake.

Academic publishers are also grappling with this issue and have recently ramped up their enforcement actions.

One key strategy is to issue takedown notices to intermediaries, including the billions of requests sent to Google. Publishers have also obtained site blocking orders in several countries and, when possible, they go after the infringing sites directly.

Publishers Seek to Unmask Shadow Libraries

In a new filing at a D.C. federal court, a coalition of academic publishers is seeking to unmask pirate site operators for potential legal action. The group includes the American Chemical Society, Elsevier, Springer Nature, and Taylor & Francis Group.

The companies requested a DMCA subpoena and that was swiftly issued by a court clerk. The subpoena is directed at internet infrastructure company Cloudflare, compelling it to hand over all identifying information the company has related to various shadow library domains, as well as other sites.

The targeted domains, all presumably Cloudflare users, include those related to the major shadow libraries, such as 1lib.sk, annas-archive.org, annas-archive.se, libgen.gl, libgen.la, libgenesis.co, z-lib.fm, z-lib.fo, z-lib.gd, z-lib.gl and sci-hub.vkif.top.

The paperwork clarifies that the subpoena is sought to “obtain the identity of alleged infringers” and that the information obtained will be used to protect the publishers’ “rights under the U.S. Copyright Act”.

As is typical with DMCA subpoenas, Cloudflare is asked to produce all relevant information it has on file. This includes names, physical addresses, telephone numbers, email addresses, and any billing or account records.

More Targets, Including Uptime Monitor SLUM

The subpoena also lists other domains including collegepdf.com, dl4all.org, ebookmass.com, letmeread.net, and limetorrents.lol, which all allegedly linked to pirated books.

While many of these domains indeed appear to link to specific infringing works, the same can’t be said for the open-slum.org domain. This site is better known as SLUM, the Shadow Library Uptime Monitor.

As the name suggests, SLUM provides a status overview of various Shadow Library domains and relevant hyperlinks. However, as far as we can see, it doesn’t link to any specific infringing content.

In fact, the site itself states that its goal is to provide neutral technical status monitoring and historical analysis. It does not host, mirror, or distribute any copyrighted material.

The publishers, however, appear to see it as an infringing service. In their subpoena evidence, they mention that it “redirects to https://annas-archive.org”, a term that suggests automatic forwarding. However, at the time of writing, the site merely contains a standard hyperlink to the website, which is a crucial distinction.

Publishers ask Cloudflare to Disable Access

DMCA subpoenas are not reviewed by a judge but signed off by a court clerk, in this case a day after the request was filed. The subpoena orders Cloudflare to provide the requested information by August 21.

Cloudflare can also object to the disclosure, but that’s not typically what it does. Nor is it likely to comply with additional requests the publishers made when they first alerted the company about these domains.

Before requesting the DMCA subpoena, the publishers notified Cloudflare through a takedown notice, asking the company to disable access to the domains.

“We hereby give notice of these activities and demand that you take expeditious action to disable access to the material described above, thereby preventing the illegal reproduction and distribution of this content via your company’s services,” they wrote.

Cloudflare doesn’t host the sites in question but is known to provide services to some, though its CDN for example. Since these domains are still online using Cloudflare, that request was not immediately honored.

The subpoena is a separate process, and Cloudflare is known to respond to these. Whether the information the publishers will receive will help to identify the site owners is another question. After all, pirate site operators tend to take steps to hide their identities.

—

A copy of the DMCA subpoena signed by a clerk at the federal court in D.C is available here (pdf 1 , 2 , 3 )

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