Unveiled earlier this year by Rep. Zoe Lofgren and Rep. Darrell Issa respectively, the Foreign Anti-Digital Piracy Act ( FADPA ) and the American Copyright Protection Act (ACPA) have underlying differences but much in common.

Both bills would enable copyright holders to request site blocking orders against foreign pirate sites, with ISPs and DNS resolvers required to prevent U.S. internet users from accessing them.

Different Bills, Same Claimed Benefits

The claimed benefits of FADPA / ACPA are simple and 100% interchangeable, likewise the stated downsides of using foreign services instead of legitimate local platforms. Overseas pirate sites ‘steal’ legitimate content, and then offer free copies to Americans via the internet, undermining business models and disrupting the legitimate market, the background goes.

Pirate sites also stand accused of involvement in malware distribution, phishing, and other scams that recognize the relative wealth of Americans, and then use various means to deprive them of it.

All pirate sites are framed as fundamentally unsafe, with site blocking measures promoted as the complete opposite. Yet in the same way that pirate sites aren’t universally dangerous, site-blocking cannot be described as universally safe either. These absolutes unhelpfully provide no room for compromise, making it more likely that the battle for and against site blocking will take place on issues of safety.

Blocking Orders, Implemented Safely

The risk of innocent sites being accidentally or even deliberately blocked ( it happens ), and the potential effect that could have on freedom of expression, is one of the key issues cited by opponents of site-blocking. Organized by pro-site blocking groups Information Technology and Innovation Foundation (ITIF) and the Digital Citizens Alliance (DCA), a policy forum held late last month offered discussion on that very issue.

Drawing on the best international practices, the discussion will explore how blocking orders can be implemented safely and effectively to protect intellectual property and promote legal content without threatening free expression.

Representative Darrell Issa was the first keynote speaker to address the audience. Without mentioning SOPA by name, Issa accepted that mistakes had been made but after much work, now is the right time to regain lost ground.

“We tried many years ago with a piece of legislation that was thoughtful but not fully thought out, and it died a painful death. We have sought now for almost two years to make sure that when we would reintroduce a form of judicial site blocking as we call it, that we fixed those errors, and we believe we have,” he explained.

“Will it do everything? No. But will it dramatically reduce the profitability of those who steal from things as broadly as live broadcasts to the everyday copyrighted material?”

“Pirate sites are actually relatively few but in fact have enjoyed unfettered profits in the United States. Well, dozens of countries around the world have sought and successfully found ways to limit it,” the architect of ACPA explained.

America – A ‘Soft Target’ For Pirates

Clearly aware of the difficulties ahead, Issa recalled a previous life in another trade where deterrence couldn’t prevent theft, but it was good enough.

“When I was in the private sector I made among other things car security systems and I have a quip that I’ve told people for years. Absolutely, I never stopped the stealing of a single car; I simply got the thief to steal someone else’s car,” he said.

“The fact is we are a soft target and because we are a soft target, profiteers in foreign countries including Russia, China, and formerly in Ukraine – although they were mostly Russians operating from Ukraine and other countries – have widely profited because we’re the soft target.

“That is going to stop, but it’s going to stop in a very careful and measured way. Most importantly we are not looking to fix every time somebody in an automated way says ‘Oh we’ve got one here we’ve got one there.’ We’re not looking to go to the site where somebody, thinking it was harmless, puts something up on YouTube. The DMCA has a process for that – and it is burdensome and it is time-consuming. However, it is fair on balance and for now we will leave it completely untouched.”

Live Blocking, Straight Off the Bat

At this relatively early stage, plans may not play out in line with expectations, or even play out at all. That being said, Rep. Issa said that the plan is to go after “the pervasive and profitable pirate” using dynamic blocking and for sports broadcasts, live blocking, currently the most advanced type of blocking available. Rightsholders will have to go before a judge and engage in a process, but after that automation will ensure that blocking targets can’t simply reappear.

“[W]hat will be different is the continuous ability to go back in an automated way and know that when it’s the same, even if slightly disguised pirate, you will be able to shut them down in moments. That means no longer will live broadcasts, for example, only get the order to shut down after the soccer game is over. That’s going to be a thing of the past.”

Level of Support Still Unclear

ACPA is being introduced on a bipartisan basis and Rep. Issa believes that it’s going to be mostly well appreciated. Reading between the lines, it sounds like some big ISPs in the U.S. are fully committed while others are proving more difficult and may even be excluded early on.

“We have put safeguards in, although it’s not a pilot; it starts with the cooperation and support of some of the largest ISPs, but not all of them. I do believe that they are the exceptions and in many cases they’re carved out of the first stage of this.”

Informative Panel Discussions, But Not Without Concerns

Full details of those on the panel can be found down below but overall their contributions were both clear and informative. The presence of lawyers from the Premier League and Rogers Communications was a smart move due to the type of high-level ‘live’ blocking they’re involved in, together in Canada and individually elsewhere.

On several occasions it was suggested that the models in Canada and the UK are of the type that could prove suitable for the United States.

Most of the safeguards in place to prevent overblocking in Canada are effectively a secret so weren’t revealed in any detail. However, Rogers’ secret weapon was openly discussed; when a rightsholder is also an ISP, the position offers an unrivalled birds eye view.

“[A]s an ISP and as a television distributor, understand that our prerogative is to protect the media business,” said Kristina Milbourn , Rogers’ head of litigation.

“We know how to do that, we have technical expertise that enables us to block in a very meaningful way and a very surgical way, because we certainly don’t want to imperil the internet in Canada. Happily our internet still works, so nothing is broken, but we do have tremendous insights sitting on both sides of the fence.”

Which ISPs have that kind of visibility in the U.S. and what are the safeguards, if indeed any are required?

Claims of Problem Free Blocking Challenged

After directly responding to questions from the audience, the panel faced a challenge to the general claim that site blocking is completely safe. If there are any issues, the narrative goes, they barely move the needle so aren’t really important enough to discuss. The person in the audience quite strongly disagreed.

“[W]hen I hear presentations about blocking around the world, and how there are no problems and how it doesn’t cause any issues, that hasn’t really been the experience we’ve seen in a lot of countries,” said Zaid Zaid, Cloudflare’s Head of U.S. Public Policy.

“There are a lot of problems when websites or IP addresses are blocked, there are tons of unintended consequences, tons of unintended blocking, you know, that could impact mom and pop shops, that will impact websites and American consumers etc.,” Zaid said.

“So we think that the best way to deal with the issue is more collaboration rather than trying to force various players along the internet stack to have to block things, block websites, block IP addresses etc, and I sort of would like to hear, you know, what are some of the remedies, what are some of the things that we can work on together?”

This statement was the first real opportunity to discuss blocking safety with a person claiming first-hand experience. And while Zaid wasn’t ignored, his claim that problems are widespread – global even – received not a single challenge from anyone in the room.

That no one meaningfully engaged on the very topic advertised as the basis of the event seems a little odd. After three solid months of site blocking in Spain, that made global headlines due to the systematic blocking of Cloudflare and the associated collateral damage, examples of unsafe blocking have never been more plentiful. On a pro rata basis, overblocking discussion is arguably at an all-time low.

In addition to the two keynote speakers, panelists for the event were (left to right): ITIF Associate Director Rodrigo Balbontine, DCA Executive Director Tom Galvin, Michael D. Smith , Professor of Information Technology and Public Policy at Carnegie Mellon University, lawyer Kristina Milbourn , head of litigation at Rogers Communications in Canada, and Stefan Sergot, Director of Legal – Enforcement at the Premier League.

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

As pirate IPTV services have continued to grow in recent years, TV broadcasters and distributors have intensified their efforts to combat piracy.

Pay TV provider DISH Network , in tandem with the International Broadcaster Coalition Against Piracy ( IBCAP ), has been particularly active on this front, filing a series of lawsuits in the United States.

DISH Sues Innetra

In May, DISH filed a copyright infringement complaint against UK hosting company ‘Innetra PC’ at a California federal court. DISH accused the company of aiding widespread copyright infringement, while largely ignoring takedown requests.

The complaint, based on IBCAP’s evidence, alleged that Innetra provides essential infrastructure for “Pirate Services”. They include Lemo TV and Kemo IPTV , which were sued by DISH earlier this year, as well as Honeybee, Xtremehd, and Caliptostreams.

DISH argued that Innetra cannot rely on safe harbor protection because it allegedly failed to respond to numerous copyright infringement notices. A notice to which it did respond indicated a refusal to comply.

The lawsuit specifically states that Innetra “possessed the means to take simple measures to stop the infringement” but “refused to take such measures, choosing instead to continue profiting.”

While Innetra is a UK company, DISH argued that the U.S. is an appropriate venue for the lawsuit, as the hosting service targeted its services towards the U.S. by, among other things, referencing the DMCA on its website.

The complaint states that Innetra is liable for contributory and vicarious copyright infringement, for which the plaintiff seeks damages that could reach $25 million. The same applies to Innnetra’s general partner, Elna Paulette Belle, who is personally listed as a defendant in the case.

Innetra Wants Case Dismissed

This week, Innetra responded to the complaint with a motion to dismiss. The company does not respond to the copyright infringement allegations in detail. Instead, it argues that the court lacks jurisdiction, as the UK company has minimal to no contacts with the United States or California.

The defendants argue that the court has neither general nor specific personal jurisdiction in this case. General jurisdiction requires “substantial” or “continuous and systematic” contacts with the U.S., but Innetra notes that its principal place of business is in the UK, while Belle is a citizen and resident of the Seychelles, with no U.S. contacts.

Innetra further notes that specific jurisdiction doesn’t apply either, as DISH cannot prove they “purposefully directed” or “purposefully availed” themselves of the United States, emphasizing that a plaintiff’s contacts with the defendant cannot be the sole basis for jurisdiction.

The company states that it doesn’t have any U.S. servers and just one U.S. user since its inception, whose account was active for just two months in early 2025.

The DMCA and other U.S. Links

The hosting company notes that the company’s main market is not the United States, but North Africa, Europe and Eastern Europe. It suggests that it’s services aren’t very appealing for American users due to the high latency, as its servers are all located in the Netherlands.

DISH argues in its complaint that Innetra’s FAQ specifically mentions the DMCA, which is a U.S. copyright law, but the hosting company doesn’t believe that its promise to “customers from illegitimate DMCA claims” warrants jurisdiction either.

“Addressing DMCA takedown notices does not confer personal jurisdiction and does not show that Innetra purposefully availed itself to United States Service Users. Moreover, there is nothing nefarious about stating that Innetra protects its customers from illegitimate DMCA Claims and such a statement does not imply that Innetra disregards the DMCA,” the hosting company writes in its motion to dismiss.

Innetra further argues that other website features, such as the default pricing in U.S. dollars, the availability of a U.S. phone number, and ties with American payment providers such as Visa, Mastercard, and PayPal, do not necessarily show that it purposefully targeted its services to the United States.

A UK Lawsuit?

The hosting provider doesn’t dismiss the notion of a lawsuit entirely but instead argues that the United Kingdom is a more appropriate venue. It stresses that both the U.S. and UK are signatories to the Berne Convention, which allows for reciprocal copyright protections.

“Dish may pursue its dispute in the United Kingdom where Innetra is located. Dish, however, may not force foreign defendants that lack minimum contacts with the United States, let alone California, to defend themselves in the United States,” the motion to dismiss reads.

Innetra’s general partner and director, Elna Paulette Belle, is a citizen and resident of the Seychelles and presumably favors a UK lawsuit as well.

In a declaration, Elna Paulette Belle notes that her name has changed to Elna Paulette Valentin . This is not the first name change, as she appears to have used the name Elna Paulette Lafortune in the past. These three names are publicly connected to dozens of UK companies.

The motion to dismiss is scheduled for a hearing on September 17, 2025. After that, the California federal court will decide whether the case can continue in the United States or not.

—

A copy of Innetra’s motion to dismiss, filed at the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, is available here (pdf)

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

While other law enforcement agencies and rightsholders can’t be ruled out, those involved in pirate IPTV in the UK should be aware of four names in particular.

A specialist unit funded in part by the private sector, the Police Intellectual Property Crime Unit (PIPCU) at City of London Police often investigates piracy of Sky TV broadcasts.

As the ultimate rightsholders of the country’s most popular football broadcasts available via Sky, the Premier League is also known for its anti-piracy operations. Likewise, the Federation Against Copyright Theft, a rights holder-funded anti-piracy group which can appear alongside any of the above at any time.

UK Raids: PIPCU Team Up With Sky

In an announcement this morning, PIPCU revealed that following an investigation into a streaming service offering Sky content illegally, last Thursday morning (July 3, 2025) PIPCU detectives executed search warrants at residential addresses near to Birmingham and a commercial address in Gloucestershire.

At one of the residential addresses in Oldbury, PIPCU says they arrested a 30-year-old man, who they believe is the operator of a thus-far unnamed IPTV service. A 32-year-old woman was also arrested at one of the addresses on suspicion of copyright offenses and receiving criminal property.

PIPCU’s press release doesn’t specifically identify the pair as a couple, nor reveal whether they were arrested at the same or different addresses. However, PIPCU says that its investigation suggests that the pair derived “significant profits” from the service.

Cheltenham Datacenter Raid

The commercial address where PIPCU executed a warrant last Thursday is reportedly a datacenter located around 50 miles south of Oldbury in Cheltenham, Gloucestershire. PIPCU hasn’t revealed its name or precise location but did post a couple of photographs taken inside to its account on X .

Presumably extracted from the rack of Supermicro servers on the right, PIPCU says that they believe the seizure of seven of those servers last Thursday “caused major disruption” to a number of pirate services, none of which are named.

Sky Thanks PIPCU

“This activity should serve as a reminder that PIPCU will pursue criminals who seek to profit from illegal streaming and disrupt their operations,” says Detective Constable Daryl Fryatt of PIPCU.

“This is a crime that diverts funds away from the creative and entertainment industries, money that supports thousands of technical and support staff. At the same time, it exposes end users to the risks of data theft, fraud and malware.”

Matt Hibbert, Group Director of Anti-Piracy at Sky, thanks PIPCU for its work protecting Sky and members of the public.

“We are extremely grateful to the Police Intellectual Property Crime Unit for taking this action against a significant pirate operation. We will continue to work alongside the police and industry partners to tackle piracy and disrupt the criminal networks behind it,” Hibbert said.

“This action helps to keep consumers safe from the serious risks that piracy can pose to devices and personal property.”

Possible Links to Previous Raid

As part of a previous operation to disrupt the supply of pirate IPTV subscriptions in the UK, last October PIPCU raided a residential address and four business addresses in the West Midlands, including a datacenter.

PIPCU withheld the name of a datacenter but using the supplied photographs, TorrentFreak was able to identify the location, the name of the company behind it, and the nature of various pieces of hardware in the images.

A closer inspection of the latest images reveals that PIPCU has blurred out potentially useful information, but there’s circumstantial evidence to suggest that the datacenter targeted last week has links to the datacenter raided last October in Wolverhampton.

Nothing further has been heard about those arrested last year but since cases often take years to reach court, that’s not unexpected.

Finally, while Sky and PIPCU highlight risks reported by Sky’s BeStreamWise anti-piracy campaign (in which PIPCU also plays a leading role), no specific allegations of fraud or identity theft were mentioned in connection with the service or services affected by last week’s operation.

In the meantime, however, one or more criminal operations not dissimilar to those described here operate perpetually via at least one datacenter in the UK, seemingly completely unhindered.

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

Obtaining a DMCA subpoena to identify an alleged infringer is relatively easy, fairly cheap, and doesn’t require a judge to get involved.

A case in California has already stomped all over that general theory, but how far it will be allowed to progress and where any effects will be felt, currently hang in the balance.

Subpoena Application Considered Sufficient

In an application dated June 2, 2025, the pro se applicant systematically ticks the required boxes. The aim was to obtain a DMCA subpoena under 17 U.S. Code § 512(h) to compel domain registrar Dynadot Inc. to hand over information sufficient to identify one or more alleged infringers.

To meet the requirement at 2(A), the applicant provided a DMCA takedown notice sent to an email address at the domain MyPornvid.fun. The takedown notice references four original copyright works on YouTube, and corresponding URLs on MyPornvid.fun where the applicant alleges his videos could be viewed without authorization.

This wasn’t the full scale of the alleged infringement; the notice mentions that since “numerous” other videos from the applicant’s YouTube channel were also present on the site without permission, all should be removed for breach of copyright.

Note:
a) The DMCA takedown notice sent to MyPornvid.fun is dated August 21, 2023
b) Nothing appears in the application to show whether the content was taken down or not
c) Out of an abundance of caution, any redactions are for reasons that will soon become clear

Information to Be Disclosed According to the Subpoena

The disclosure requests concern a single period that starts three years ago and ends at the date of the current subpoena. They relate to potential identifying information connected to Dynadot accounts (only one account is identified) used in connection with the domain mypornvid.fun, specifically:

The application concludes with the usual DMCA declarations and with that, the California court granted the subpoena. Deadline for production: June 30, 2025.

Dynadot Partially Complies

In a filing dated June 30, 2025, the applicant informs the court that Dynadot provided registration data for the person who held the domain during the period when the alleged infringement occurred (June through December 2023).

Those details include a full name, an email address, a phone number, and a physical address in Dhaka, Bangladesh.

Apparently in response to the specific request to supply “last known” address and “last known” telephone number, Dynadot handed over the details of an entity/company called Name Management Group, which appears to be the current owner of the domain.

According to public records NMG has connections to around 78,000 domains. In a recently concluded dispute with Charter Communications ( pdf ) , the entity was represented by an agent in India and described as a ‘domain investor’.

Dynadot Declines to Disclose IP Address Logs

Whether the obtained information will prove useful is unknown, but Dynadot’s reported refusal to fully comply with disclosure of IP address logs is an issue, the applicant writes.

Dynadot is reportedly claiming protection under the “transitory communications safe harbor under the DMCA” and has stated that they “will not provide any other user data absent an applicable court order.”

The applicant does note, however, that Dynadot “will not object to this order so long as no amounts are sought against Dynadot.”

Other than that, the registrar is said to have declined to engage in any “meaningful discussion.”

Domain Registrars “Are Not Transmission ISPs”

Citing various cases including Visual Supply Company v. Khimji , Recording Indus. Ass’n of Am., Inc. v. Verizon Internet Servs., Inc. , and Charter Commc’ns, Inc., Subpoena Enf’t Matter , the applicant arrives at the following conclusions:

“This Court’s explicit finding that those precedents are not applicable when dealing with domain name registrars provides direct support for rejecting Dynadot’s identical safe harbor claim. Multiple federal courts across different circuits have consistently issued and enforced § 512(h) subpoenas against domain name registrars without analyzing claimed transmission safe harbor defenses.”

Court in Illinois Granted DMCA Subpoenas Against ISPs

To emphasize his position that “domain name registrars occupy a different legal position than pure transmission ISPs,” the applicant cites a 2019 case in the Northern District of Illinois.

CME Grp. Inc. v. Nagovskiy was a trademark and copyright action in which the plaintiff reportedly requested a DMCA subpoena pursuant to 17 U.S.C. § 512(h). In response, the Court granted one, “compelling Defendants GoDaddy, OVH, and Webzilla to expeditiously disclose..[.]…information sufficient to identify Defendants.”

“If domain name registrars such as GoDaddy ‘enjoy[..] the transitory communications safe harbor under the DMCA,’ the court could not and would not have acceded to such a prayer for relief,” the applicant states.

“A Matter of Public Interest”

With those details established, the applicant asks the Court to enter “as a matter of public interest” the following order :

1. Declare that domain name registrars qualify as providers of “Information Location Tools” under 17 U.S.C. § 512(d) and are therefore subject to identification subpoenas under 17 U.S.C. § 512(h) regardless of any claimed safe harbor protections under other DMCA provisions; and

2. Based upon that determination, grant this unopposed motion and order Dynadot to provide complete compliance with the DMCA subpoena.

“[C]larification would benefit not only the instant matter, but all DMCA subpoenas issued to domain name registrars,” he adds.

Magistrate Judge Sallie Kim’s subsequent order notes the motion to compel but reminds the applicant that Dynadot has yet to file a ‘Consent or Declination’ to Magistrate Judge Jurisdiction. Until then, important matters will presumably have to wait; not so in many other proceedings active elsewhere, however.

DMCA Subpoena Everyone

The applicant in the above matter, Nima Gharavi, is the person behind the Midwest Wrestle channel on YouTube. With over 2,200 videos documenting youth wrestling matches and related content, reportedly filmed by Gharavi himself (hence the copyright claims), MidWest Wrestle has amassed an impressive 120 million views from a base of 171K subscribers.

Since at least 2024, Gharavi’s name- sometimes as an individual, sometimes together with Right Call Officials, Inc. – has appeared on a series of DMCA subpoena applications targeting videos allegedly present on the world’s largest social media platforms. Those cases include the following, all of which have a copyright focus:

Gharavi v. Tumblr, Inc ( 1:24-cv-12718 )
Gharavi v. X CORP. ( 3:25-mc-80004 )
In re DMCA Subpoena to Reddit, Inc. ( 4:25-mc-80002 )
In re DMCA Section 512(h) Subpoena to Google LLC. ( 4:25-mc-80164 )
Gharavi v. Meta Platforms ( 3:25-mc-80003 )
Gharavi v. Tumblr Inc ( 2:25-mc-00029 )
Gharavi v. X Corp. ( 1:25-mc-00150 )

One of the lawsuits is notable for its focus on the videos and related commentary made by third parties, to which Gharavi responded with a lawsuit for libel and slander.

In Gharavi v. Flosports, Inc. ( 1:24-cv-01969 ), the defendants were sued for a series of allegations, all of which concern the nature of the youth wrestling videos posted online.

Some of those videos received millions of views, in part due to a ‘different’ audience watching on platforms other than directly on YouTube.com. A judge alludes to the nature of that audience in the introduction of his recent memorandum opinion and order ( pdf ) .

Our coverage on TF focuses purely on copyright; in that respect, the above case mostly lies outside our niche. However, in the context of the DMCA subpoena, Dynadot’s partial refusal to comply, and the request for the court to examine matters concerning service provider safe harbor, the case presents small pieces of information that may punch above their weight.

Technical Matters, Matter

Due to the ongoing matter of the allegedly libelous speech, our focus is on a technical detail that not only transcends that dispute, but may offer guidance in the parallel DMCA subpoena matter.

If content of any kind was posted to YouTube and managed to attract a large audience beyond those who view via the YouTube.com front end, that would usually be achieved by embedding YouTube videos in third party sites. In the lawsuit against Flosports, screenshots of search engine results appear to show the videos embedded in third party sites.

The examples in the DMCA takedown notice clearly show that the URLs for the allegedly unauthorized ‘copies’ of the videos, contain the same YouTube video references contained in the originals.

That raises an important question: were these unauthorized ‘copies’ of videos ripped from YouTube, hosted elsewhere, and viewed in a player other than YouTube’s in clear breach of copyright; or were these the original videos embedded in the third-party site, streamed directly from YouTube?

If the latter is true, that raises the prospect of an admittedly objectionable audience watching fully-licensed content. If proven, the implications for the DMCA subpoena matter could be devastating.

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

Brazil often makes headlines for activities linked to Operation 404 , an anti-piracy initiative under the Ministry of Justice and Public Security.

Best known for the mass blocking of apps in coordination with anti-piracy and law enforcement agencies around the world, the Operation 404 framework can now boast Brazil’s most significant criminal convictions linked to the supply of pirate IPTV.

Trio Sentenced at São Paulo Court

The landmark sentences were handed down June 24 at the 2nd Court of Tax Crimes, Criminal Organization, and Money Laundering. Three defendants, found guilty of money laundering offenses committed between January 1, 2017 and January 19, 2021, were identified by their initials.

The leader of the operation was identified by the initials RMDS. He was confirmed as the provider of an illicit service delivered through the MP 2.0 meuplayer.me app following a search and seizure order executed at his home. According to site snapshots, the app was available on Android and Windows desktop.

The investigation took place over a four-year period, with anti-piracy group Alianza Contra la Piratería Audiovisual (Alianza) playing a leading role. Documents seen by TorrentFreak reveal a campaign to remove the MeuPlayer app from sites including APKCombo and APKFun after hundreds of thousands of downloads.

Firearms and ammunition, numerous electronic devices, and other valuables were also seized by the authorities.

Three-Way Money Laundering

The investigation found that RMDS benefited most with the largest share of the available revenue.

More than 5,000 individual depositors sent over R$3.2 million (US$591,000) to bank accounts he controlled and various online payment platforms.

A company run by RMDS, with a name suggesting some type of hosting, was used in an attempt to conceal the source of the money. Suspicions were raised when Top Host Soluções generated disproportionately large revenues.

RMDS reportedly liked to spend money too. A Porsche Cayenne GTS was registered to his company, around R$579,000 (US$107,000) was invested in a São Paulo property, while around R$300,000 (US$55,400) was deposited into pension funds.

Transfers Back and Forth, Illegal Evidence

RMDS and his sister TMDSB were joined in the operation by an employee/mutual friend, GFL, with funds being received and also transferred between the trio.

According to a local report , 99 bank transfers were logged between RMDS and TMDSB in the period July 2017 to November 2020.

Across 7,300 transfers and cash deposits, TMDSB received over R$1 million in the same period, with around R$134,600 of the total transferred to RMDS. DPLNews describes TMDSB’s role as fundamental to the operation. Her lack of tax returns and GFL’s use of his mother’s bank account for a number of the 33 transfers, attributed to him, were also brought to the court’s attention.

Sentenced in São Paulo

Attempts by the defendants to undermine the case against them included allegations that the state court was incompetent, and the evidence was illegal and failed to show intent. The presiding judge noted that money laundering is a crime in its own right and can stand without a direct link to an underlying crime.

Judge Marcia Mayumi Okoda Oshiro sentenced the defendants at the São Paulo Court;

• RMDS – Five year prison sentence, unspecified fine
• TMDSB – Five year prison sentence, unspecified fine
• GFL – Four year prison sentence, unspecified fine

“This case confirms that piracy is no longer invisible or unpunished,” says anti-piracy group Alianza.

“Justice is taking action and will continue to severely punish those who violate intellectual property and public safety.”

The underlying intellectual property crimes matter is still pending.

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

In May 2012, Google Search expanded its transparency report with a new section solely dedicated to DMCA takedown requests.

For the first time, outsiders were able to see details of the URLs copyright holders were targeting and in what quantity.

The decision to make this information available for public scrutiny was partly triggered by a rapid increase in removal requests. This was having an impact on the “free flow of information”, according to the search engine.

10 Billion Takedowns and Beyond!

While additional transparency helped to uncover serious errors and various abuses over the years, it didn’t curb the volume. On the contrary, legitimate DMCA takedown requests against search results shot up and thenn continued to grow.

The chart below shows the increase in takedowns over the years, with a notable uptick over the past year and a half.

Around November of last year, Google received its 10 billionth takedown request. Less than a year later, in April, this number had already increased by another 2.3 billion, or roughly 100 million takedowns per week. After that, Google’s transparency reporting updates froze.

Transparency Report ‘Freeze’

For several months now, Google’s transparency report has been stuck at 12.3 billion reported URLs. No new information has been added since mid-April, which is a clear outlier as previous updates were typically released multiple times a week.

The most recent updates in the official transparency portal are dated April 13, and the official takedown charts for senders and URLs also stop on that date.

The raw takedown statistics and details, which Google offers in bulk for academic research and related purposes, are no longer being updated either. The 9.6 gigabyte compressed archive was last updated on April 14.

It’s unlikely that Google would halt its transparency reporting efforts without good reason. Thus far, however, the company has not responded to a press inquiry we sent earlier this week, asking for more information.

What is clear is that the company hasn’t stopped its transparency efforts entirely. Google is still forwarding the DMCA notices it receives to the Lumen database , which has data as recent as yesterday.

Information [REDACTED]

As a news publication that publishes multiple articles a year on Google’s DMCA takedown effort, it would be good to see the full reporting functionality restored.

At the same time, it would also be good to know why many of the publicly shared DMCA notices have redacted rightsholders or URLs. These can make it impossible to find out what content is actually being targeted, which negates the purpose of a transparency report.

In some cases the redactions also make little sense, such as the one below, where a takedown notice sent on behalf of Netflix redacted the domain of the original work as follows: n[redacted]x.com .

A representative from the Lumen database informed us that these redactions are not added at their end, so that suggests redactions are applied by Google.

All in all, Google still offers much more transparency than most online service providers. There is a delay in reporting at the moment, as well as unexplained redactions, but we hope that regular reporting will resume as usual soon, so we can look out for new multi-billion takedown milestones.

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

Reddit has gone head-to-head with a group of filmmakers over the past two years, aiming to protect the privacy of its users.

In three separate cases, the filmmakers subpoenaed Reddit for details of users who commented on various piracy-related topics.

The movie companies said they are not planning to go after these people in court but want to use their comments as evidence in piracy liability lawsuits against ISPs, including Frontier Communications .

Anonymous Reddit Comments as Piracy Evidence

The film companies, including Killing Link Distribution and movant Voltage Holdings, argued that the Redditors’ comments were key evidence to show that ISPs didn’t implement a suitable repeat infringer policy, and that subsequently acted as a draw for pirating subscribers.

Reddit viewed the requests as intrusive. The company repeatedly objected to the subpoena requests with federal courts agreeing on three separate occasions that the Reddit users could remain anonymous .

The film companies disagreed with these decisions and took the matter to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, requesting a reversal . However, after the underlying court case against ISP Frontier was settled a few weeks ago, this appeal was moot, with the plaintiffs requesting a dismissal.

Reddit Seeks $55k in Compensation

This week, Reddit is back in a California Federal Court, requesting compensation for the fees it incurred in successfully defending its users’ right to anonymous speech. Specifically, Reddit seeks $55,204.19 in attorneys’ fees from the film companies.

“In three separate cases now, Reddit has defeated what is essentially the same motion to compel, brought by the same group of movants, by the same counsel, seeking to enforce effectively the same unnecessary and irrelevant subpoena,” Reddit starts its motion.

The fees request only applies to the last subpoena battle. After previous courts struck down similar attempts, Reddit believes that the third subpoena request was not substantially justified. To back this up, it cites the court’s ruling, which concluded that the connection between the subpoena and the underlying lawsuit was “very, very weak” and that it would have “zero impact” on the case.

Under the federal rules, recipients of subpoenas can request to be compensated for their costs if the subpoena request was not “substantially justified”. Reddit argues that applies here.

Anti-Piracy Publicity Campaign

Additionally, Reddit argues that compensation is appropriate in this case because the subpoena request was unduly burdensome and improperly motivated. The filmmakers have already tried to get Reddit to comply with three separate requests, and it fears that these attempts may not be the last..

Reddit is also concerned that the filmmakers will continue to drag Reddit into similarly ‘improper’ subpoena battles, noting that these actions appear to be an “anti-piracy publicity campaign”.

The filmmakers spent substantial time and money on these subpoenas, which Reddit suggests is an attempt to publicly threaten its users and discourage them from discussing piracy on the site. That would essentially chill free speech, the motion concludes.

“Movants’ dogged pursuit of discovery litigation despite loss after loss, together with the complete irrelevance of the information sought, demonstrates their improper purpose—an attempt to chill lawful speech by Reddit’s users,” Reddit writes.

Pseudonymity is a Reddit Feature

Reddit believes that the $55,204 it spent on costs is reasonable, as the company was trying to protect an important feature of the site: the ability for users to communicate pseudonymously without requiring their legal names or addresses.

In a declaration, attorney Hayden Schottlaender of Perkins Coie LLP, who represented Reddit, notes that the 70+ hours spent on the case, were needed to properly protect Reddit’s interests.

“This level of counsel was necessary in light of the possible significant implications on Reddit’s business and users from an adverse ruling that would permit non-party discovery to unmask pseudonymous Reddit users notwithstanding their First Amendment rights to anonymous online speech,” Schottlaender writes.

With a proposed order for fees now on the table, the filmmakers still have the option to challenge the justification or the specific amount requested. After that, the court will have to decide whether Reddit is entitled to receive compensation.

—

A copy of Reddit’s motion for fees is available here (pdf) . The cited declaration of attorney Hayden Schottlaender can be found here (pdf) .

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

Danny Boyle and Alex Garland’s highly anticipated return to their iconic post-apocalyptic universe, ‘ 28 Years Later ,’ has stormed the box office.

Despite a disappointing second weekend, the film crossed the $100 million revenue mark, surpassing its $60 million budget and setting a new record for the franchise.

The latest installment also resurrected interest in the two first movies. Data from Flixpatrol shows that ’28 Weeks Later’ was in the top ten of most streamed films on Netflix and Disney+ in the days following the premiere of its sequel.

Unfortunately, the same can’t be said for the original cult classic, ’28 Days Later.’ For years, the film was notoriously difficult to access legally, with rights disputes keeping it off major streaming platforms and even out of digital storefronts in recent years.

Sony Pictures eventually made the film available for digital purchase and rental in December 2024, and last month it also appeared on Pluto TV’s ad-supported streaming service in some countries. However, it’s not as widely available as the other films.

Movie Fans Turn to Pirate Sites

The lacking availability on the largest streaming services was noticed by many over the past few weeks, when demand for the film surged. Instead of buying a digital copy or watching the movie with ads, some fans opted to get a copy through pirate sites instead.

Based on a sample of torrent activity tracked by IKnow , we can report that pirated downloads of the film have surged since the premiere of ’28 Years Later’. This was good enough to make it into the list of top ten most pirated films over the past week, 23 year years after its release.

The chart below shows the daily estimated downloads for the first two films, with most interest going to the original.

The numbers reflect data in the BitTorrent sample, which represents just a tiny fraction of the total interest on pirate sites. Most pirates use streaming platforms now, which can’t be tracked directly. However, these were likely good for a million streams or more.

Without causal data, it is difficult to draw strong conclusions from these findings. Then again, it makes logical sense that fewer people would pirate a film if it was available on one of the streaming services they’re already subscribed to.

Movie Pirates Go to the Movie Theater

Needless to say, rightsholders are not happy to see this increased activity on pirate sites. However, there’s also a more positive spin to these findings.

Presumably, many fans rewatch the first two films before they go to the movie theater, the majority likely to do so legally. A segment of the audience might use pirate sites to ‘catch up’ or re-engage with the franchise, before purchasing tickets for ’28 Years Later.’

This can serve as a gentle reminder that many movie pirates are also avid movie fans: they are consumers who pay for streaming services and spend money at the movie theater.

In fact, it is not unthinkable that the option to rewatch the earlier films for free motivated some people to go to the theaters. If that’s the case, one could argue that piracy increased revenues, at least in this isolated example.

—

^{Note: The data used in this article comes from Iknow , which tracks torrent downloads through DHT and PEX. While it may not be able to track all downloads, it’s a substantial sample. Views on streaming platforms, direct downloads, and other piracy sources can’t be measured directly. That said, we assume that the trend will be similar there.}

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

As rightsholders in the live sports sector continue to face unprecedented levels of online piracy, Italy decided that an extraordinary challenge could only be tackled with an extraordinary response.

The ‘Piracy Shield’ blocking notification system has attracted significant criticism, although the legal and regulatory frameworks that support it, built on a theory that faster, heavier blocking will eventually solve the problem, are the real drivers behind the ongoing controversy.

Fundamental issues and legal amendments, including draft proposals published earlier this year, prompted the Computer & Communications Industry Association (CCIA) to voice its concerns at the EU Commission, highlighting significant risks to the principles of freedom of enterprise and expression.

European Commission Responds to Concerns

After several months of engagement, last month the CCIA urged the European Commission to carry out an immediate review to establish compatibility of the existing system and Italy’s draft proposals with EU law requirements.

Site-blocking within 30 minutes, limited transparency, lack of recourse for those wrongfully blocked, and new proposals potentially at odds with the Digital Services Act, could have serious consequences for the wider EU, CCIA warned.

In a letter dated June 13, 2025, Roberto Viola – the European Commission’s Director General for Communications Networks, Content and Technology – addresses Italy’s Minister of Foreign Affairs, Antonio Tajani, who is also the country’s Deputy Prime Minister.

“The Commission welcomes the efforts made by the Italian authorities in the fight against online piracy, which remains a serious concern for the creative and sports sectors across the EU,” Viola begins.

The Italian draft ‘reflects the objectives’ of the recommendations published by the Commission in 2023, which the letter suggests is another plus.

Digital Services Act

Turning to more problematic areas, Articles 8, 8-bis, 9-bis and 10 in the Italian draft are intended to meet the requirements of Article 9 of the Digital Services Act. The Commission says they fail to do so, including by falling short of “the linguistic requirements” set out in Article 9(2)(c).

However, as highlighted in the CCIA’s recent submission, the Commission also notes the following;

“[T]he DSA does not provide a legal basis for the issuing of orders by national administrative or judicial authorities, nor does it regulate the enforcement of such orders.”

The Commission adds that it “would like to remind the Italian authorities of the procedures and conditions set out in Article 9″ and invites them to “clarify these aspects in the final text of the notified draft.”

Charter of Fundamental Rights

Since site-blocking measures amount to a denial of service, restrictions should be sufficient to end or limit infringement, while taking care not to encroach on the fundamental rights of third parties. The importance of maintaining the right balance is stressed by the EC.

“The Commission would also like to emphasize that the effective tackling of illegal content must also take into due account the fundamental right to freedom of expression and information under the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU,” the letter continues, with the following excerpt from the DSA offered as guidance;

[I]n that regard, the national judicial or administrative authority, which might be a law enforcement authority, issuing the order should balance the objective that the order seeks to achieve, in accordance with the legal basis enabling its issuance, with the rights and legitimate interests of all third parties that may be affected by the order, in particular their fundamental rights under the Charter.

Blocking in 30 Mins, Blocking Blunders Assessed in 10 Days

Balancing the rights of various parties isn’t always straightforward. However, some aspects of Piracy Shield give the impression that the rights of third parties are given less than equal weight.

With 30 minute takedowns championed as essential in the fight against live sports piracy, victims of over-blocking blunders face a wait of up to 10 days before telecoms regulator AGCOM assesses the validity of their complaint.

“The Commission notes that there do not seem to be other measures available to the addressee of [a blocking order] to help prevent eventual erroneous or excessive blocking of content,” the letter notes.

“Furthermore, [..] the technical specifications of the Piracy Shield envisage unblocking procedures limited to 24 hours from reporting in the event of an error. This limitation to 24 hours does not seem, in principle, to respond to any justified need and could lead to persisting erroneous blockings not being resolved.

“In this respect, the Commission would like to invites the Italian authorities to ensure that the Piracy Shield operates with sufficient controls and safeguards to avoid overblocking and negative impact on information which is not illegal content.”

Commit to Safeguards – In Writing

Another ‘feature’ of Piracy Shield’s operations is the clarity and latitude afforded to those granted the authority to carry out blocking, versus safeguarding procedures that may receive an occasional mention but lack legal substance due to their absence from legislation.

The Commission welcomes details on safeguarding provided by Italian authorities and appears to see benefits in the measures being committed to more formally.

“The Commission therefore invite the Italian authorities to consider whether such elements could also be included in the final text. This is for example the case of the Addendum annexed to the Operating Manual of the Piracy Shield platform according to which, authorized persons are required to provide a technical report describing the methodology for obtaining evidence on the predominantly illegal nature of domain name or IP address requested to be blocked,” the letter suggests.

“Another example is the requirement for flaggers to observe the utmost diligence when submitting applications for blocking and collecting the relevant evidence and to consult the Authority in advance in cases of doubt with regard to the prevalence of illegal activities.”

Pressure on Intermediaries

While rightsholders generally believe that site-blocking measures are effective, it is just as common for intermediaries to argue that the opposite is true. A previous CCIA submission notes that blocking is easily circumvented, does not remove any infringing content from the internet, and may ultimately “serve to obscure” rather than address the root causes of piracy.

In short, targeting intermediaries isn’t the only option available, a point with which the Commission appears to agree.

“[T]he Commission notes that Recital 27 of the DSA clarifies that the problem of illegal content and activities online should not be dealt with by solely focusing on the responsibilities of providers of intermediary services online,” the letter concludes.

The EC’s letter to Antonio Tajani, Minister of Foreign Affairs, is available here (pdf)

____________________________________________

Excerpt from Recital 27: Whilst the rules on liability of providers of intermediary services set out in this Regulation concentrate on the exemption from liability of providers of intermediary services, it is important to recall that, despite the generally important role played by such providers, the problem of illegal content and activities online should not be dealt with by solely focusing on their liability and responsibilities. Where possible, third parties affected by illegal content transmitted or stored online should attempt to resolve conflicts relating to such content without involving the providers of intermediary services in question.

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