Four weeks ago in the wake of a Netflix price hike in Nigeria, the third in two years, there were fears that the persistent struggle between affordability and legality had reached a critical point once again.

With reports that Nigerian movie lovers were simply dealing with economic realities as they flocked to a local MovieBox-branded platform, urgent questions concerning piracy and the future of an entire movie industry came to the fore once again.

Barely a month later, MovieBox.ng was gone.

First of a Kind Action, Won’t Be The Last

The disappearance of MovieBox was credited to the Nigerian Copyright Commission (NCC) with assistance from the Nigeria Internet Registration Association (NiRA). Their collaboration resulted in the disabling of the domain MovieBox.ng, over which NiRA has control as country’s domain registry.

Celebrated as a big win for the ongoing Stand Together Against Online Piracy (STOP) campaign, simultaneous mention of “clones and multiple mirror domains” and MovieBox’s general resilience, didn’t bode well. Tracked down and confirmed alive two minutes later, MovieBox seemed none the worse for its ordeal.

The row of logos from left to right in the image above shows that no platform’s content is off limits: Netflix, Prime, Disney, Apple, Hulu – the list goes on. MovieBox’s subtle attempt at deflecting liability by allocating usernames to each category and declaring the site legal, has no track record of success.

Strategic domain switches, on the other hand, are known to help platforms stay online, a must if traffic levels are to be preserved. SimilarWeb data reveals that the old .NG domain topped 29.5 million visits in April, 33.7 million in May, and 37.8 million in June.

Jump Around

An alternative domain – moviebox.ph – has already been published in Nigerian media. Others connected to the platform are easy to find, including the sample below.

At this point things become a little more interesting; often a dead end of redactions, in this case WHOIS records are unusually helpful. While there are some differences in respect of domain registrars, most identify the same company as the owner.

At least in public, WHOIS records are supposed to protect domain owners’ privacy but even when protected by anonymity services, it’s not difficult for credible entities to access whatever’s hidden underneath.

For that reason, those who register ‘pirate’ domains tend not to hand over accurate personal details, especially not their own. Records indicate that the domain owner is an active company that celebrated its two-year-anniversary on August 4 this week.

In this case, no effort has been made to obscure the domain owners’ identity or their claimed address in Hong Kong. Both are consistent in WHOIS records across domains and appear to be accurate, as we’ll see in a moment. Given other publicly available information, exposure doesn’t appear to be an issue, which in itself is pretty rare.

And the rarities keep on coming.

1. Piracy | 2. Trademark | 3. ?? | 4. Profit

From uploaders embedding their online handles into filenames and watching them spread around the world, to the more formal tagging adopted by Scene release groups, branding has always carried some level of importance in piracy circles. How those traditions morphed into today’s practices of picking someone else’s brand, and then launching 50 sites with virtually the same name, may be a sign of the times.

Yet the value of branding and trademarks isn’t poorly understood either. For example, the owner of the MovieBox domains above recently filed applications for MovieBox trademarks at the African Intellectual Property Organization (OAPI).

Serving 17 regional member states in various areas of intellectual property protection, trademarks included, OAPI published the MovieBox applications in its official bulletin last month ( pdf ) .

Translated from French, the classes suggest that in the event trademarks are awarded, the MovieBox software system, related mobile phone apps, actual mobile phones and laptops, plus TV equipment and loudspeakers, would all receive valuable protection under trademark law.

For those who enter into a MovieBox contract (terms and conditions here ) respect for those marks includes an agreement not to “remove, obscure, or alter any proprietary notices (including trademark and copyright notices) that may be affixed to or contained within MovieBox.”

Plenty of Business Opportunities

For the right company with the right branding, the market in Africa could prove quite lucrative, especially one with a well-known trademark to associate with mobile phones.

In Nigeria, Android users have access to Google Play but for owners of TECNO, itel, and Infinix-branded devices, manufactured by China-based Transsion, the PalmStore claims to be the official platform for free apps, “security guaranteed.”

Mid-July, the discovery of a high severity authentication vulnerability in the Store’s mobile app warned of information leakage. Whether that has any connection to the thousands of pages of logs uploaded to Scribd isn’t clear.

Whatever the reason, it appears that normally hidden backend events concerning MovieBox and an unknown number of additional apps, are now available for public consumption. Meanwhile, hundreds of domains, pointing to platforms and apps that claim to be the real MovieBox, carry on regardless.

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

The frontline of online piracy liability keeps moving and core internet infrastructure providers are increasingly finding themselves in the crosshairs.

Since last year, the Paris Judicial Court has ordered Cloudflare, Google and other intermediaries to actively block access to pirate sites through their DNS resolvers, confirming that third-party intermediaries can be required to take responsibility.

These blockades are requested by sports rights holders, covering Formula 1, football Ligue 1, MotoGP, and other major sporting brands. They claimed that public DNS resolvers could help users to bypass existing ISP blockades, and the court agreed.

This year, rightsholders including beIN and Canal+ extended their list of problematic intermediaries by targeting VPN providers with similar blocking demands. Again, the Paris Court acknowledged the threat of circumvention, and CyberGhost, ExpressVPN, NordVPN, ProtonVPN, and Surfshark were ordered to start blocking access to specific websites in France.

New VPN blocking orders

These blocking efforts didn’t stop after the first blocking order was granted in May . A similar order followed in June, and on July 18, two new orders targeting VPNs were handed down by the Paris Court.

beIN vs. Nordvpn, Proton, Cyberghost ( July 18 )

The first blocking request lists seven domains accused of sharing pirated WTA Tennis Tournament streams. They are freestreams-live.mp, topliga.net, tennis-open.ru, line.super-signal.com, line.protv.cc, 115680073183.d4ktv.info and line.trx-ott.com .

Like previous blocking cases, the request is grounded in Article L. 333-10 of the French Sports Code, which enables rightsholders to seek court orders against any entity that can help to stop ‘serious and repeated’ sports piracy.

After reviewing the evidence and hearing argument from both sides, the Paris Court granted the blocking request, ordering the VPN providers to block all seven domains.

Canal+ Group vs. NordVPN, Proton, CyberGhost, Surfshark and ExpressVPN ( July 18 )

The Canal+ request aims to block pirated Formula One streams accessible via 16 domains; f1livestream.best, f1box.me, calmatv.ru, rojadirectatvdh.online, totalsportek.stream, rojadirecta.website, antenavip.online, antenacentral.store, livetv822.me, lshunter-iframe.com, totalsportek.dad, totalsportek.games, kakarotfoot.ru, totalsportek.pro, f1.totalsportek.pro, cdn.livetv822.me .

In common with the beIN case, Canal+ targets NordVPN, Proton, and CyberGhost, with Surfshark and ExpressVPN as additional VPN providers.

Justifications for blocking are also similar to those in the beIN case, but the outcome was different. While the Paris Court granted the blocking request, it did so only for five domains, with the remaining eleven running into evidence issues.

These five domain names had to be blocked within three days of the July 18 order, with the same applying to the beIN case. In both cases, all parties were ordered to bear their own legal costs.

Not All Blocking Requests Were Granted

The Canal+ case stands out because the Paris Court refused to issue a blocking order for 11 domains. For these sites, there was no definite proof that the illegal Formula 1 streams were using the Canal+ broadcast feed.

Canal+ is not an exclusive rightsholder of Formula 1, and the absence of a Canal+ logo makes it impossible to verify that its ‘related’ rights were infringed by these sites.

Previously, the Paris Court partly declined to issue a blocking order in favor of beIN for similar reasons. This indicates that, while the legal door is now open to compel VPNs to comply with blocking orders, victory isn’t automatic. The burden of proof is high and requires meticulous, site-by-site evidence from the rights holder.

Court Rejects Defenses and Request to Stay

The VPNs presented various defenses to the court. They argued that blocking measures are ineffective, costly, and technically difficult to limit to just France. The Paris Court was not convinced by any of these arguments.

Notably, CyberGhost and ExpressVPN asked the court to stay the proceedings to request clarification from the European Court of Justice. They cited a Dutch case pending at the CJEU, but also asked to refer specific questions regarding the blocking language in the French Sports Code.

In simplified terms, the VPNs want to ask the EU’s top court if France’s law can use “general and abstract” language to require “any person likely to contribute” to piracy to implement blocking measures.

They argue that Article L. 333-10 of the French Sports Code may violate the EU’s E-Commerce Directive, which aims to create a single market, preventing countries like France from creating their own special rules that restrict online services from other EU nations.

The Paris Court rejected the request to stay the case and declined to refer any questions to the CJEU.

The Court stressed that the E-Commerce Directive doesn’t have a ‘horizontal direct effect,’ meaning one private company (the VPNs) cannot use it to invalidate a national law in a lawsuit against another private company (Canal+). It further stressed that the blocking order is a specific, proportionate, and targeted measure to stop a proven infringement.

Finally, in a small win for the VPNs, the Court rejected a separate request from Canal+ that would have required them to publish the ruling on their websites, deeming that specific measure disproportionate.

Whether the VPN companies plan to appeal is not clear. ProtonVPN previously said that it is prepared to take this case all the way to Europe’s highest court , and it will likely find other VPNs on its side. Alternatively, leaving France is also a viable option for some .

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

Many countries are currently tackling above average piracy rates, usually with a mix of education, site blocking, civil action, and criminal enforcement, but not necessarily in that order.

Typically, members of the public are warned that purchasing a pirate TV box risks fueling organized crime. With the threshold for criminality seemingly lower than ever, they could even step over the line themselves.

Greece, for example, seems intent on criminalizing people who simply watch pirate streams. They risk stiff fines and at least on paper, 12 months in prison. Brazil is nowhere near ready to do that, especially in areas where ISPs and TV companies face threats for attempting to carry out repairs to their own equipment, or whatever remains of it.

Operation Praedo

Better known as Anatel, the National Telecommunications Agency is a financially independent authority tasked with supervising, guiding, and regulating communications in Brazil.

Anatel also decides through a certification process whether set-top boxes can be made available to the public, or destroyed on sight. Even if they carry no pirated content, devices face confiscation for failing electrical safety and other standards; that’s probably one the reasons devices are now being smuggled into the country.

Using the Latin word for ‘pirate’, Federal Police launched Operation Praedo to crack down on the importation, distribution, and sale of illegal TV devices, including the appropriately named ‘TV Box’, a Chinese-manufactured, pre-configured device popular locally.

Last Tuesday, 38 Federal Police officers supported by Anatel agents executed a total of 12 search and seizure warrants, eight in Curitiba, three in Foz do Iguaçu, and one in Brasília.

Precautionary measures issued by the 9th Federal Court of Curitiba ensured that assets worth around US$6 million were frozen, vehicles and real estate were seized, and websites used by the suspects were blocked by ISPs.

Complaint Triggered Investigation

Anatel reports that a complaint from an entity representing the telecommunications sector, led police to a sales website managed by an unnamed couple in Curitiba, who reportedly used shell companies to hide their income.

Police later identified another couple and found that additional family members were also involved, working together to sell the pirate devices throughout Brazil after being smuggled in from neighboring Paraguay.

“The devices entered Brazil clandestinely, coming from the border with Paraguay via Foz do Iguaçu, through smugglers. The merchandise entered without the proper payment of taxes and, as it does not have approval from Anatel, its commercialization is irregular, constituting a crime of smuggling,” Anatel reports.

“The Federal Police identified an organized criminal structure, with a clear division of functions between importers, logistics operators, financial intermediaries and digital merchants. Large financial transactions were detected, incompatible with the declared income of those involved.”

Illicit income for just one of the couples is said to have reached US$91,000; that’s over twelve times the average salary in Brazil at the time of writing, the equivalent of US$7,000 per year. The money appears to have gone a long way; Anatel says the couple acquired real estate, vehicles and luxury items, much or even all of it is likely to have been seized.

The potential charges mentioned by Anatel include copyright infringement, clandestine development of telecommunications, criminal organization, and smuggling.

Anti-Piracy PSAs Released

Discouraging citizens from using pirate set-top boxes in Brazil has been in vogue for some time and for good reason . The country has one of the highest malware infection rates anywhere on the planet, helped along by a toxic mix of cheap, insecure, and uncertified Chinese-manufactured set-top boxes, many of which receive zero security updates.

No access to Google Play means that users have little choice but to obtain APK files from unverified sources. While infection isn’t 100% guaranteed through use of a third-party store, for some it might already be too late. According to reports, some devices arrive infected straight from the factory.

People getting more than they’d bargained for, or less than they were promised, is the theme in three new PSAs released by Anatel recently. All three use humor instead of the well-worn fear factor approach, an interesting choice given that the scale of the problem is no laughing matter. Whether they’ll prove any more effective is unknown, but they seem unlikely to provoke instant pushback, which is something at least.

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

There hasn’t been much to report on the Piracy Shield front in recent weeks. After Napoli walked away with the title back in May, the Serie A season began winding down ahead of preparations to do it all over again in August.

Unlike Serie A’s football players, Piracy Shield didn’t immediately disappear on a luxury vacation. Records show hundreds of fully qualified domains being blocked every two or three days until the second week of July, aiming to protect other live sports continuing through the summer.

Briefly listing just one domain per blocking ticket, semi-normal service was soon resumed when hundreds of domains and IP addresses were blocked to protect last weekend’s broadcast of the Hungarian Grand Prix.

Blocking will likely return to normal levels when the new Serie A season starts in August, but legal amendments adopted by AGCOM last week are likely to further increase Piracy Shield’s workload moving forward. Of course, that’s on the assumption that pirates don’t exhaust the dwindling supply of IPv4 addresses first.

Piracy Shield Widens Scope

It’s been understood for some time that Italy’s live blocking system would expand to protect a wider range of content. As regulator AGCOM noted in its most recent annual report , as much was written into Italian law.

“As known, in fact, Law No. 93/23 further expanded the scope of the Authority’s action by strengthening its functions for a more effective and timely countering of piracy actions online with reference to all events broadcast live on the network,” AGCOM wrote.

“To this end, the Authority will proceed, after public consultation, with the necessary amendments to the Regulations […] and with the technical activities of updating and implementing the live blocking platform (Piracy Shield) functionality to achieve the objectives set by the law.”

During a meeting on July 30, legislative amendments that among other things expand the availability of dynamic injunctions to rightsholders of all live events, were put to the vote. Despite notable opposition, the amendments were adopted by AGCOM.

“With these measures, it will be possible to disable access to illegally disseminated content, during the first thirty minutes of the transmission of live content and premieres of cinematographic and audiovisual works or entertainment programs, as well as similar audio works,” AGCOM confirmed.

Controversial Amendments

The usual methods of blocking – interference with DNS resolution for domain names and routing/blocking of network traffic for IP addresses – are familiar and set to continue. Other aspects of the amendments (Omnibus Decree/October 2024) are much more controversial and are set to come into play for the first time.

• Widened scope: VPN services and publicly available DNS providers are required to deploy blocking measures consistent with those already in place at ISPs. The requirement to block within 30 minutes applies regardless of a providers’ location or residence.

• Obligations for Indirect Providers: Information Society Service providers (ISS)* involved in any capacity in enabling access to an infringing site or service, are required to block access in response to orders from AGCOM, including those reported via Piracy Shield, within 30 minutes.

• Technological Measures: Even when online search engines and Information Society Service* providers are not involved in enabling access to infringing sites and services, notifications to disable access must be executed using “all necessary technical measures” within 30 minutes.

• As amended by the Ominibus Decree , the law clarifies that all recipients of disabling orders must use the Piracy Shield platform to ensure timely and effective action.

AGCOM’s definition of an ISS includes “mere conduit and hosting service providers, as well as caching service providers…..VPN service providers and publicly available DNS service providers, as well as search engine operators.”

* EU Directive 2015/1535 describes an Information Society Service (ISS) as a service normally provided for remuneration, at a distance, by electronic means and at the individual request of a recipient of services.

Early Warning For Rightsholders

Sanctions for non-compliance with AGCOM blocking orders still have no direct equivalent when rightsholders use Piracy Shield to block non-infringing IP addresses. AGCOM’s statement indirectly addresses this criticism, by confirming that it still takes overblocking seriously.

“[Reporters of infringing content] are still required to report on the Piracy Shield platform with the utmost diligence and rigor and to avoid reporting assets that present a high risk of overblocking. In the event of non-compliance with the requirements and conditions governing the operation of the Piracy Shield platform, the Authority will suspend accreditation to the same,” AGCOM notes.

As far as the law goes, nothing has changed. Service providers and other intermediaries can be penalized for not tackling infringement to the required standard, whereas penalties for blocking an innocent party are at AGCOM’s discretion.

Voices of Opposition

General concerns over Piracy Shield have been aired since its launch, but a January 2025 appeal by the Computer & Communications Industry Association to the European Commission ensured that concerns were also heard in Brussels.

The CCIA, which represents global tech firms including Amazon, Cloudflare and Google, later asked the European Commission to issue a detailed opinion to ensure Piracy Shield’s compatibility with EU law .

The EC’s response highlighted several concerns and strongly suggested that work needed to be done. Meanwhile, a lone voice inside AGCOM itself continues to oppose the platform.

Lone Voice Inside AGCOM

AGCOM Commissioner Elisa Giomi was appointed to the board of the regulator in September 2020 but despite the passing of time, a chasm remains between Giomi’s position on Piracy Shield and that of her colleagues. In addition to numerous transparency failings, Giomi believes that the public resources consumed by the project are disproportionate, with any benefit returned to a small group of interested parties.

For more than two years and at every stage, Giomi says she has voted against Piracy Shield, despite “the often virulent reactions of colleagues.” The Commissioner’s position clearly hasn’t changed much since she went public last November ; during the vote last week, Giomi voted against adopting the amendments.

With a new sanctioning procedure on the horizon, “for infringements of copyright and related rights by Audiovisual Media Service Providers,” increasing regulation led to the definition of an Audiovisual Media Service Provider being expanded recently.

If a user of YouTube or any social media platform reaches 500,000 followers, or their videos average one million monthly views, they can be personally categorized as an Audiovisual Media Service Provider, and therefore subject to AGCOM regulation.

Commissioner Giomi voted against adoption of this influencer-focused measure but, once again, appears to have been outnumbered. She’s making her opinions known on LinkedIn.

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

Movie studio Voltage Pictures has targeted alleged movie pirates in court for well over a decade.

The company and its subsidiaries filed numerous lawsuits against internet subscribers in the United States, Australia, and Europe, using various strategies.

In Canada, Voltage and other film companies attempted to target a large group of copyright infringers through a reverse class-action lawsuit, which is relatively rare. The movie company argued that this is a cheaper way to target large numbers of infringers at once.

The lawsuit in question, filed in 2016 , revolves around a representative defendant, Robert Salna, who provides WiFi services to his tenants. Through Mr. Salna, Voltage hoped to catch a larger group of infringers.

The case garnered the interest of the Canadian Internet Policy and Public Interest Clinic (CIPPIC) which intervened in the Federal Court proceeding to represent anonymous defendants. The intervention was a success and the Federal Court dismissed the class action attempt in 2019.

Filmmakers Don’t Give Up

While the filmmakers lost their first battle in court, that was just the beginning. The case went through a series of appeals and cross-appeals, and Voltage also petitioned the Supreme Court to take on the matter.

Last year, the Federal Court of Appeal in Toronto took on what now appears to be the final proceeding. The filmmakers hoped to overturn an earlier dismissal by the Federal Court.

One of the contested issues relates to how the class action defendants are notified. Voltage argued that this could be done through the piracy notices ISPs are required to forward under subsection 41.25(2) of Canada’s Copyright Act.

The filmmakers hoped to utilize Canada’s notice-and-notice regime to reach out to proposed defendants. Under their proposal, a hyperlink to contact the rightsholder’s attorney would be added to the notices.

Overall, Voltage argued that the reverse class action approach is doable and should be certified.

Federal Court of Appeal Rejects Reverse Class Action

After hearing both sides, Justices Gleason, Goyette, and Biringer disagreed with Voltage. In their decision issued on July 16, they conclude that the proposed class action is not permitted under the Copyright Act.

More fundamentally, they ruled that a reverse class action is not the preferred procedure for these types of cases, leading to the dismissal of the case in its entirety.

Citing Supreme Court jurisprudence, the Court of Appeal concluded that, to identify alleged copyright infringers, these types of lawsuits should use Norwich orders , not the notice-and-notice system.

“The Supreme Court of Canada […] noted that a copyright owner who wishes to sue a person alleged to have infringed copyright online must proceed by way of a Norwich order to obtain details about them and cannot use the notice-and-notice regime in the Copyright Act for this purpose,” Justice Mary Gleason concludes.

The federal court previously ruled that Voltage’s proposed use of the “notice-and-notice” regime is not permitted. The Copyright Act specifically states that these notices can’t be used to offer settlements, demand payments, or to request personal information.

Similar to piracy warnings that ISPs forward in other countries, the notices are mainly aimed to act as a deterrent.

“In short, the context of the notice-and-notice regime demonstrates an intention to limit the involvement of ISPs to the initial delivery of a notice aimed at deterrence,” the Court of Appeal verdict reads.

“This context does not suggest that a copyright owner who wishes to pursue enforcement against the suspected infringer could use the notice-and-notice regime as a litigation tool,” the order adds.

IP Address Is Not Sufficient

The verdict also cites jurisprudence holding that an IP address alone is not sufficient to establish copyright infringement. It also requires proof that the defendant authorized or controlled the alleged infringements, instead of merely being the listed subscriber connected to an IP address.

This is a critical finding when it comes to the class action approach where all defendants are treated similarly, as these nuances may differ greatly from person to person.

“I cannot see how there is any basis in fact to conclude that the proposed class proceeding is preferable to individual actions because the individual issues in this case swamp whatever common issues there might be,” Justice Gleason writes.

Case Closed, Costs Owed

The Federal Court of Appeal denied the appeal brought by Voltage Pictures and the other film studios therefore the Federal Court’s decision to deny certification of the proposed reverse class stands.

Crucially, the Court issued the dismissal without leave to reapply , permanently ending the legal battle. In doing so, the Court of Appeal effectively closed the door on the strategy being used in mass copyright lawsuits against individuals in Canada.

This doesn’t mean that BitTorrent users can no longer be sued, but reverse class action lawsuits of this type appear off-limits.

In addition to ending this long-running lawsuit, the court also upheld the Federal Court’s decision to award Mr. Salna CAD$50,710 in costs for the previous proceedings, noting that this was warranted by the “exceptional circumstances” and novel issues in the case. The film companies must also pay Mr. Salna’s appeal costs.

All in all, this final decision is a clear victory for Robert Salna and the thousands of people who could’ve been targeted through this and future cases.

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

In 2012, America missed a golden opportunity to show the world how site blocking and other internet restrictions could be deployed at scale to protect rightsholders’ revenues.

Vast opposition led to the SOPA bill being withdrawn but elsewhere, site blocking was being introduced in one country after another, driven by the same core rightsholders.

Claims that the United States needed to catch up led to a new push towards site blocking. After publicly getting underway in January, a key statistic concerning the common use of blocking outside the U.S. seems to have changed its appearance.

Blocking Democracy

Confirmation that site-blocking was back on the political agenda was announced at CinemaCon in April 2024.

“Site-blocking is a common tool in almost 60 countries, including leading democracies and many of America’s closest allies,” MPA Chairman and CEO Charles Rivkin informed the audience.

“So today, here with you at CinemaCon, I’m announcing the next major phase of this effort: the MPA is going to work with Members of Congress to enact judicial site-blocking legislation here in the United States.”

The FADPA bill, the yet-to-be-published ACPA bill, and new addition Block BEARD bill, represent three different takes on a familiar site-blocking recipe.

Each bill contains more or less of the same core ingredients utilized in countries engaged in blocking elsewhere. The headline figure of 60 countries may have needed some initial adjustment, and potentially even more after democracy entered the site-blocking equation.

“This targeted legal tool mirrors successful approaches used in over 50 democratic countries,” the background text for the Block BEARD bill explains .

Site Blocking and Democracy

If site blocking is a common tool in 60 countries around the world, having 50 democracies in the mix seems to imply that blocking is compatible with democratic values.

While that may well be the case, it doesn’t explain the sudden disappearance of 10 countries, which in theory could include “leading democracies” and/or close American allies.

In reality, quietly disposing of a few isn’t such a bad idea. While many countries block pirate sites, some also have a tendency to block other sites for different reasons, including around election time to ensure a ‘fair’ vote. These countries swell the numbers, but on balance the optics aren’t that great.

Framing site blocking as popular in democracies isn’t new. However, the headline figure of 60 countries in which the MPA previously reported positive site-blocking experiences, “with one of the most effective tools” in the toolbox , has no corresponding public list of countries for reference.

As a result, determining how 60 sites became 50 isn’t straightforward. That being said, presentations made available by the World Intellectual Property Organization show blocking countries on a map of the world, and color coded to show the blocking mechanisms they use.

The only thing left to do was add them all up.

Site-Blocking Countries Part 1

Using the presentation slides, data from other sources, and a more clearly defined map, we attempted to identify every country present in the most recent original dated February 2025 (above/far right, below/grayed out) to compile a more detailed list.

Countries potentially identified: Australia, Austria, Belgium, Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Malaysia, Netherlands, Norway, Philippines, Portugal, Romania, Russia, Slovakia, South Korea, Spain, Sweden, Thailand, Turkey, United Kingdom, Vietnam (30 countries)

Based on the original map, all of these countries block sites on copyright grounds, but how many are democracies?

We assume the 22 full democracies above are among the ~50 countries referenced in the bill, but since there’s no official list with every country named, we don’t know which of the remaining countries are accounted for.

Site-Blocking Countries Part 2

Countries potentially identified: Argentina, Benin, Bolivia, Brazil, Canada, Colombia, Democratic Republic Of Congo, Ecuador, Equatorial Guinea, Gabon, Guinea, Ivory Coast, Kenya, Madagascar, Mali, Mexico, Niger, Paraguay, Peru, Republic Of Congo, Senegal, Uruguay, Venezuela (23 countries)

Based on the original map, all of these countries block sites on copyright grounds, but how many are democracies?

We assume the pair of full democracies are among the ~50 countries referenced in the bill, but since a comprehensive list remains elusive, we draw no firm conclusions.

Overall, we’ll also assume that both full and flawed democracies from both sets qualify for inclusion, which leaves us with 22 full democracies and 14 flawed democracies. That’s 36 countries in total but still short of the ~50 required. If anyone has any additional details to share, please feel free to contact us .

Additional Countries and Aggressive Blockers

Countries that allow site blocking that we initially missed include Israel (barely visible but indeed present on the MPA’s map) and Egypt, which was not identified as included according to the February 2025 presentation.

Whether the latter currently allows site blocking in a usable format isn’t clear. Nor does it help us get closer to the increasingly unlikely target of 50 site-blocking democracies, which comes under further pressure from countries heavily engaging in non-copyright blocking.

Indeed, many countries in the list use their pirate site-blocking capabilities to target other sites for reasons that have nothing to do with copyright. Some clearly need no encouragement to do so.

Furthermore, there are numerous countries that despite having site-blocking ‘on the books’, haven’t blocked any sites in years or haven’t made use of their blocking mechanism at all. Nevertheless, it appears that some must’ve been counted in the overall total.

Blocking Can Always Be Justified

In Europe, full democracies overwhelmingly use their blocking abilities as intended, i.e they’re used to block access to copyright infringing sites. However, most if not all EU countries (plus the UK) currently block access to a number of Russian news outlets in response to the invasion of Ukraine. Rather than censorship, the official reason for blocking is sanctions/misinformation.

Whether one agrees or disagrees that from a perspective of conflict new rules inevitably come into play, blocking access to information on political grounds, using systems designed to block something else, was always inevitable. Every government in the world has some information it would like to suppress, for a wide range of reasons, and the system of government – democracy or otherwise – doesn’t mean much when blocking is presented as justified.

Strategic Friction

Just as regular site-blocking is meant to put an obstacle in the path of a potential infringer, no access to an instant blocking system reduces the likelihood that blocking becomes a go-to solution for all kinds of problems.

Putting a system and/or new legislation in place increases the risk of blocking being used to solve an ‘off-brand’ problem unrelated to its original purpose. Some may argue that would be impossible in a full democracy but events in the UK ( 1 , 2 ) show how quickly things can go in the wrong direction.

It was recently revealed that the government hoped to censor certain types of social media content by having Big Tech do it for them . Of course, that would’ve had a similar effect to the unthinkable and exposes clear underlying intent. In the event of non-compliance and a perceived need to demonstrate strength, it would be better if instant blocking options didn’t exist.

But they do exist, and democracy failed to prevent that. A law that denied any and all additional uses would’ve been useful at the start, at least in hindsight.

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

Rightsholders call them illicit streaming devices , others prefer the catch-all term pirate boxes . Millions are happy with Firesticks , a name so well known that in some cases it’s used to describe other devices, regardless of manufacturer.

But of all names used to describe piracy-configured TV devices, the default option in Ireland – dodgy boxes – is short, descriptive, memorable, and on home soil, almost universally understood.

For broadcaster Sky, which according to media reports has 700,000 local subscribers, 400,000 local dodgy box users is a significant problem. Or, from a business perspective, the most significant obstacle between Sky’s shareholders and news of one million paying customers.

Sky Ramps Up the Pressure

Whether Sky is seriously preparing to chase down users of dodgy boxes , or simply laying the groundwork in case that becomes necessary , is still uncertain. What is clear right now is Sky’s determination to suppress availability of dodgy boxes , the subscription packages purchased by consumers, and anyone involved in the supply, distribution, and sale of illegal streams fueling the entire system.

In June The Irish Times reported on a civil case at the High Court in Dublin that seemed to appear out of nowhere for a case of such significance. Plaintiff Sky claims that defendant David Dunbar of Wexford is a “top level” pirate who operates an illegal streaming service generating up to €450,000 a year. Such numbers are usually worth a closer look since they may offer clues on the size of the service involved and provide a rough idea of potential sentences.

Big Money, Calculated Neatly

Sky’s underlying calculations aren’t provided but based on €450,000 in annual revenue, every month the service would need to generate exactly €37,500 based on Sky’s estimate of 5,000 subscribers overall. A monthly payment of exactly €7.50 for every subscriber, without any breaks for an entire year, would indeed yield exactly €450,000.

In this case, however, only the prices of annual packages appear in the initial report, one costing €80 and the other €100. If 50% of customers opted for the former, and the remainder only purchased the latter, that’s exactly €450,000 in annual revenue and perhaps a little too tidy to be based on real data.

Indeed, according to the initial report, Sky’s investigator could only show that Dunbar had “at least 1,682 customers” but believed it was likely much more than that. A 50/50 subscription split based on this figure would mean annual revenue of €151,380, just a third of the headline claim of €450,000, which still managed to retain its significance as the case moved on.

The Luck of The Irish

The investigation into Dunbar’s activities reportedly dates back to November 2024, although it’s suggested that probably wasn’t recognized right at the beginning.

According to reports, Sky investigators had become aware of a social media account selling dodgy boxes which investigators subsequently linked to Dunbar. Separately, a perfectly-timed anonymous tip was received from across the water in the UK. As Irish Times explains:

“Separately, Sky investigators were informed of an anonymous tip-off received by UK-based charity Crime Stoppers, alleging Mr Dunbar’s operation of the service.”

Which service still isn’t clear, but the tip seems to have been quite valuable. Sources aren’t usually revealed in these types of cases, but this one received a prominent mention in The Irish Times and then a subsequent correction to clarify that the tip was received in the UK, not in Ireland itself. What followed next was a controversial move seen only rarely in piracy cases.

Sky Obtains an Anton Piller Order

Whenever a plaintiff obtains an Anton Piller order, controversy is rarely far behind. Awarded by a court, Anton Piller orders allow a plaintiff to enter a defendant’s premises to search for and seize evidence relevant to their case, to prevent it from being destroyed or tampered with.

The execution of an Anton Piller order can be highly intrusive, so courts require the plaintiff to present a strong case. Equally, Anton Piller orders are sought only rarely, usually in the most important of cases, because when things go wrong, plaintiffs can risk significant penalties.

Plaintiffs also need to show evidence that any documents sought actually exist on the premises, and are likely to be destroyed if action isn’t taken. Applications are heard ex parte and in most cases, defendants are taken completely by surprise. That being said, Anton Piller orders are not supposed to be used to scoop up evidence as part of a fishing expedition, assuming the defendant even lets anyone inside.

No Cooperation

After obtaining an Anton Piller order and others that aimed to secure evidence, an independent solicitor attended Dunbar’s home to explain what they meant and to clarify his obligations. According to The Irish Times, Dunbar refused to comply. He refused to allow the solicitor inside and then reportedly went about destroying evidence and “dissipating funds” that according to one of the orders, had been frozen by the court.

Counsel for Sky say that Dunbar knew exactly what he was doing, and he understood that failure to comply with orders issued by a court meant that he risked being held in contempt.

Dunbar said he only understood the seriousness of the situation after a full explanation from his own legal team. At that point, he immediately sought to comply.

Dunbar Decides Not to Defend His Case

During a hearing at the High Court earlier this week, it was revealed that Dunbar had decided not to fight Sky’s infringement lawsuit. Instead, after reaching an agreement with Sky, Dunbar consented to a judgment in Sky’s favor, meaning that he instantly lost the case. The judgment was accompanied by a damages award of €480,000 against Dunbar for provision of an illegal streaming service since 2018.

That’s a full six years before the anonymous tip, and a damages amount quite close to the revenue amount previously estimated, and no mention of any new evidence since the ‘1,682 customers’ claim last month. It seems reasonable to assume that destruction of evidence played some part in that.

The figure indicating 1,682 customers seems particularly accurate, so how it was obtained is an interesting question. In theory, it’s also two-thirds less financially damaging than the headline amount but doesn’t appear to have helped much.

Justice Mark Sanfey said that Dunbar’s infringement isn’t in doubt, so in line with the consent judgment, he was ordered to pay Sky €480,000 in damages and cover Sky’s legal costs of around €100,000. For breaching various orders, Sky reportedly filed a motion to have Dunbar sent to prison, but the judge is yet to render his decision.

The Hidden Costs of Non-Compliance

On two significant occasions, both in Canada, the owners of TVAddons and Vader Streams were shocked when lawyers brandishing Anton Piller orders turned up out of the blue and demanded to be let inside.

In a third case against the alleged operators of SmoothStreams, two men were held in contempt for failure to comply with the terms of an Anton Piller order. Even after years of litigation at huge expense, the main case still hasn’t started, with penalties for contempt of court likely to be extremely painful indeed.

Coincidentally, a significant pirate IPTV case prosecuted outside Europe in the past few months, involved the prosecution of one of two known operators of a significant pirate IPTV service. The second operator, previously identified by law enforcement and confirmed as a business partner in Ireland, wasn’t mentioned at the time at all.

The service in the other case may have been equally successful as Dunbar’s, however; estimates suggest an annual revenue figure for that service, generated by two people, just shy of double the annual revenue figure Dunbar reportedly made alone.

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

Traditional site-blocking measures that require local ISPs to block subscriber access to popular pirate sites are in common use around the world.

The aim is to deter piracy by making sites more difficult to find, but these measures are only partially effective.

More recently, site-blocking requests have begun to target other intermediaries. This includes DNS providers, such as Google and Cloudflare, which were ordered to block sites in France, Italy, and elsewhere.

A few months ago DNS blocking arrived in Belgium, where several orders required both ISPs and DNS resolvers to restrict access to pirate sites. This prompted significant pushback, most notably Cisco’s OpenDNS ceasing operations in the country.

Broad Blocking Order Targets Internet Archive’s ‘Open Library’

A new order, issued by the Brussels Business Court in mid-July, targets an even broader set of intermediaries and stands out for other reasons as well.

Requested by various publishing and author organizations, the order aims to block access to known pirate libraries including Anna’s Archive, LibGen, OceanofPDF, and Z-Library. In addition, it also targets the Internet Archive’s Open Library project.

Open Library was created by the late Aaron Swartz and Internet Archive’s founder Brewster Kahle, among others. As an open library its goal is to archive all published books, allowing patrons to borrow copies of them online.

The library aims to operate similarly to other libraries, loaning only one copy per book at a time. Instead of licensing digital copies, however, it has an in-house scanning operation to create and archive its own copies.

The Open Library project was previously sued by publishers in the United States, where the Internet Archive ultimately losing the case. As a result, over 500,000 books were made unavailable.

However, many other books remain available to patrons. The authors and publishers in Belgium argue that, since this is done without permission, the site should be blocked alongside Anna’s Archive, LibGen and Z-Library.

Clear and Significant Infringement

The rightsholders describe Open Library as a website where registered members of the public can easily access and download their books. This includes 1,542 works from the publisher Dupuis, over 5,000 works from the publisher Casterman, and many others.

According to the publishers, the operators of the Open Library are not easily identified, while legally required information is allegedly missing from the site, which they see as an indication that the site is meant to operate illegally.

This description seems at odds with the fact that Open Library is part of the Internet Archive, which is a U.S.-registered 501(c)(3) non-profit.

The publishers also reference a U.S. court order in favor of other publishers, which allegedly confirms the unlawful nature of Open Library.

The Brussels court, after reviewing these arguments and the submitted evidence, concluded that there was a prima facie case of “clear and significant infringement,” which justified granting a provisional blocking order against Open Library and the other targeted sites.

Broad Blocking Order Targets ISPs, Search, Payments, and More

Internet Archive was not heard in this case, as the blocking order was issued ex parte , without its knowledge. This is remarkable, as the organization is a legal entity in the United States, which receives support from many American libraries.

The broad nature of the order doesn’t stop there either. In addition to requiring ISPs, including Elon Musk’s Starlink, to block the library’s domain names, it also directs a broad range of other intermediaries to take action.

This includes search engines, DNS resolvers, advertisers, domain name services, CDNs, and hosting companies. An abbreviated overview of the requested measures is as follows;

—

Search Engines

Google must remove the target sites from search results, deactivate related Google Ads, remove an infringing app from the Google Play Store, and block DNS requests for the associated domains.

Microsoft is ordered to remove the target sites from the “Bing” search engine and block related DNS queries.

Hosting, DNS, CDNs, and Domain Name Services

The following companies must terminate hosting, and deactivate or suspend the domain names of the target sites: Hostinger, GoDaddy, Amazon Web Services, SEDO, Cloudflare, Unmanaged Ltd, AlexHost, and Internet Archive.

Payment Intermediaries

These companies are ordered to suspend all payment services benefiting the target sites: Alipay (Europe), Cash App and Squareup Europe, and PayPal (Europe).

ISPs including Starlink

The following ISPs, active in Belgium, are required to implement DNS blocking measures: Telenet, Proximus, Mobile Vikings, Orange Belgium, Voo, DIGI Communications, Cybernet, EDPnet, CENTREA, Yoin, Tchamba Refinder, IPTelecom, United Mobile, SkyDSL Europe, Starlink Internet Services.

—

Given the broad nature of the order, pushback from some of the intermediaries is expected. The Internet Archive’s Open Library won’t be pleased either, as the order effectively blocks their service in Belgium, including all access to public domain content.

—

A copy of the order from the Business Court in Brussels (in Dutch) is available here (pdf)

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

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

Earlier this year, U.S. Rep. Zoe Lofgren introduced a new pirate site blocking bill, titled the Foreign Anti-Digital Piracy Act ( FADPA ).

This week, a similar proposal was introduced by Senators Tillis, Coons, Blackburn, and Schiff. The bipartisan bill, titled Block Bad Electronic Art and Recording Distributors (Block BEARD), aims to introduce a legal mechanism for rightsholders to request site blocking orders.

Block BEARD

The site-blocking proposal seeks to amend U.S. copyright law, enabling rightsholders to request federal courts to designate online locations as a “foreign digital piracy site”. If that succeeds, courts can subsequently order U.S. service providers to block access to these sites.

Pirate site designation would be dependent on rightsholders showing that they are harmed by a site’s activities, that reasonable efforts had been made to notify the site’s operator, and that a reasonable investigation confirms the operator is not located within the United States.

Additionally, rightsholders must show that the site is primarily designed for piracy, has limited commercial purpose, or is intentionally marketed by its operator to promote copyright-infringing activities.

If the court classifies a website as a foreign pirate site, rightsholders can go back to court to request a blocking order. At this stage, the court will determine whether it is technically and practically feasible for ISPs to block the site, and consider any potential harm to the public interest.

The granted orders would stay in place for a year with the option to extend if necessary. If blocked sites switch to new locations, the court can also amend blocking orders to include new IP addresses and domain names.

Blocking Through Service Providers

The Block BEARD bill broadly applies to service providers as defined in section 512(k)(1)(A) of the DMCA. This is a broad definition that applies to residential ISPs, but also to search engines, social media platforms, and DNS resolvers.

Service providers with fewer than 50,000 subscribers are explicitly excluded, and the same applies to venues such as coffee shops, libraries, and universities that offer internet access to visitors.

Unlike the FADPA bill introduced by Representative Lofgren earlier this year, the Senate bill does not specifically mention DNS resolvers. Block BEARD does not mention VPNs, but its broad definition of “service provider” could be interpreted to include them.

The proposal states that providers have the option to contest their inclusion in a blocking order. Once an order is issued, they would have the freedom to choose their own blocking techniques. There are no transparency requirements mentioned in the bill, so if and how the public is informed is unclear.

Companion Bill with MPA and RIAA Support

The Senate’s Block BEARD bill is substantially similar to the House version, FADPA, and could be considered a companion bill. Since legislation has to pass both the House and the Senate, a combination of both proposals may ultimately lead to the final blocking legislation.

Commenting on the introduction, Senator Tillis hinted at this cooperation, mentioning that collaboration between the Senate and the House is already ongoing.

“I’m proud to lead this bipartisan discussion to protect our creative economy and digital security and I look forward to continuing to work with my colleagues in the House to address this important matter,” Sen. Tillis said .

Rightsholder groups have also responded positively to the bill. Mitch Glazier, CEO of the music industry’s RIAA, thanked the Senators for their efforts to protect consumers and rightsholders.

“Similar tools have been proven effective around the world over the last ten years with no harm to speech, Internet infrastructure or security, or participation online, and we strongly support this effort to create a simple, effective, judicial remedy with due process in the U.S,” Glazier said.

Motion Picture Association CEO Charles Rivkin is equally pleased.

“With bold leadership from Senators Tillis, Coons, Blackburn, and Schiff, the Block BEARD Act will equip our nation with a tool that’s worked in dozens of countries worldwide: a narrow, targeted means to fight the worst forms of foreign piracy while protecting free speech and the rule of law,” Rivkin said.

Notably, the press release did not include any comments from service providers. However, they are likely to chime in as the bill makes its way through the legislative process.

—

A copy of the “Block Bad Electronic Art and Recording Distributors Act of 2025” (Block BEARD) is available here (pdf)

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