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

With billions in potential damages at stake, these cases have also drawn the interest of Strike 3 Holdings.

As the most prolific copyright litigant in the United States, the adult film producer has filed tens of thousands of lawsuits against alleged BitTorrent pirates. This summer it expanded its scope by taking aim at Meta .

2,396 Movies, $359 Million in Damages

Strike 3 Holdings and Counterlife Media, which are known for popular adult brands including Vixen, Tushy, Blacked, and Deeper, filed a copyright infringement complaint at a California federal court. The companies allege that Meta downloaded at least 2,396 of their films since 2018, allegedly to aid their AI video training.

The adult producers discovered the alleged infringements after Meta’s BitTorrent activity was revealed in a lawsuit filed by several book authors . In that case, Meta admitted that it obtained content from pirate sources.

This prompted Strike 3 and Counterlife Media to search for Meta-linked IP addresses in their archive of collected BitTorrent data. This scan revealed that forty-seven IP addresses, identified as owned by Facebook, allegedly infringed their copyrighted works.

If Meta is indeed found liable for these alleged infringements, the adult content producers could seek as much as $359 million in damages. However, this week the company returned fire, asking the court to dismiss what it describes as a ‘nonsensical’ complaint for various reasons.

Meta Hits Back at “Copyright Troll”

This week, Meta responded to the complaint by filing a motion to dismiss. The tech giant describes Strike 3 as a prolific copyright litigator that some have labeled a “copyright troll”. These lawsuits against alleged BitTorrent pirates also served as inspiration for one of Meta’s defenses.

Taking a page from the BitTorrent piracy defense playbook, Meta counters that the IP address evidence presented by the plaintiffs is meaningless without context. The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit previously ruled that an IP address alone is not sufficient to prove who the ‘direct’ infringer is. Rightsholders need “ something more “.

According to Meta, there is no evidence that the alleged infringing activity on its corporate network is centrally orchestrated. This would be “nonsensical”, it counters, noting that Strike 3 already logged infringing activity in 2018, years before Meta started training its video models.

“Plaintiffs do not explain how sporadic torrenting activity that purportedly commenced in 2018— years before Meta allegedly ‘began researching Multimodal Models and Generative Video’ in 2022 could have been intended for ‘purposes of acquiring content to train’ such models,” Meta notes.

“Plaintiffs’ supposition that Meta must have instigated these downloads for AI training is implausible on its face. All Plaintiffs have are IP addresses, which is insufficient to state a claim.”

Likely for “Private Personal Use”

Meta clearly denies that the adult video downloads were used for AI purposes. Since there is no evidence that Meta directed this activity, it can’t be held liable for direct copyright infringement.

The tech company doesn’t just deny the allegations; it also offers an alternative explanation. Meta suggests that employees or visitors may have downloaded the pirated videos for personal use.

The personal use angle also makes sense considering that the download volume was rather small, especially for AI training purposes.

“[T]he small number of downloads—roughly 22 per year on average across dozens of Meta IP addresses—is plainly indicative of private personal use, not a concerted effort to collect the massive datasets Plaintiffs allege are necessary for effective AI training,” Meta writes.

The complaint also referenced thousands of IP addresses outside of Meta’s network that were allegedly used to conceal its BitTorrent activities. These addresses showed correlational activity, which the plaintiffs painted as more evidence of wrongdoing.

Meta, however, refutes this allegation, noting that the timing of this activity also points to personal use instead of an orchestrated scheme.

“And there is yet another conundrum Plaintiffs fail to address: why would Meta seek to ‘conceal[]’ certain alleged downloads of Plaintiffs’ and third-party content, but use easily traceable Meta corporate IP addresses for many hundreds of others, including 157 of Plaintiffs’ works?”

“The obvious answer is that it would not do so; Plaintiffs’ entire AI training theory is nonsensical and unsupported,” Meta concludes.

Contributory or Vicarious Infringement?

Meta does not rule out that its network was used to download the pirated adult videos. However, the company again cites jurisprudence from other BitTorrent piracy lawsuits, to argue that it is not secondarily liable for this activity.

The rightsholders’ vicarious copyright infringement claim fails, Meta argues, because the company has no financial interest in these ‘personal use’ downloads. Nor was it required to supervise or intervene, as the Ninth Circuit ‘Cobbler’ case made clear.

Meta uses the same Cobbler precedent to counter the contributory infringement claim. This falls flat, as Meta says that it has no “knowledge” of the pirating activity, nor did it materially contribute to it.

All in all, Meta sees no reason why this case should go any further and asks the court to dismiss the complaint in full.

“[T]hese claims fail not only for lack of supporting facts, but also because Plaintiffs’ theory of liability makes no sense and cannot be reconciled with the facts they do plead. The entire complaint against Meta should be dismissed with prejudice,” Meta concludes.

Strike 3 Holdings and Counterlife Media have the opportunity to oppose the motion to dismiss within two weeks, after which Meta will be allowed to file a follow-up response. After that, the California federal court will decide whether this case moves forward, or if it ends here.

—

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

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

The Supreme Court case between several major record labels and Cox Communications is a landmark legal battle.

The outcome will determine how Internet providers should deal with pirating subscribers on their networks.

Should alleged pirates be disconnected from the Internet after repeated third-party allegations of copyright infringement? Or does that go too far?

In its opening brief , Cox argued that the company should not be held liable for contributory copyright infringement because it failed to terminate subscribers after multiple warnings. The U.S. Government, various tech companies, and other interested parties , supported Cox’s position.

Earlier this month, the major record labels, including Sony and Universal Music, countered these arguments in their response brief . Describing Cox as a company that willingly prioritized profits over piracy, they argued that the $1 billion verdict against the ISP should be upheld.

Former Members of Congress and the Copyright Office

One of the key briefs supporting the record labels comes from a group of former members of Congress and the U.S. Copyright Office. These people have direct experience with administering U.S. copyright law, including the DMCA, which is central to the Supreme Court case.

The brief argues that Cox is trying to rewrite contributory infringement law in a way that contradicts what Congress intended. If Cox gets its way, the DMCA safe harbor structure will be effectively rendered toothless because an ISP that doesn’t act against piracy will face no repercussions.

“In practical terms, the change in law Cox asks this Court to impose would effectively eliminate service provider exposure to liability for the vast majority of online infringements,” the brief reads.

The amici clearly have the required expertise and their previous work as lawmakers and copyright experts carries weight. At the same time, it should be noted that some have since moved on to new positions at organizations that have a direct interest in the legal showdown.

For example, Karyn A. Temple, who signed the letter as the former Register of Copyrights at the U.S. Copyright Office, is now the Motion Picture Association’s (MPA) Global General Counsel . Maria A. Pallante, another former Register of Copyrights, is currently President and CEO at the Association of American Publishers (AAP).

Another signee, Jacqueline C. Charlesworth, moved on from the U.S. Copyright Office and currently works as a litigator in copyright cases involving leading music companies, songwriters, and recording artists .

Motion Picture Association (and others)

The Motion Picture Association (MPA) also submitted an amicus brief urging the Supreme Court to uphold the lower court’s decision. Representing the major movie studios, Netflix, and Amazon, it describes Cox’s push for an inducement-only standard as a “tectonic change” based on “profound misreadings” of established law.

MPA argues that Cox can be held liable for not taking action against subscribers for whom it has received multiple piracy notices. This is the entire reason why the DMCA safe harbor exists.

“Cox’s brief is strewn with doom-and-gloom predictions that, absent the rule it seeks, Cox will be forced to an intolerable choice: indiscriminately terminate internet access for grandparents and military barracks, on the one hand; or risk crushing liability, on the other. That is a false dichotomy.”

“Cox could have taken many steps short of terminating internet service as part of a graduated system for addressing known instances of repeat infringement by its customers,” MPA’s brief adds.

According to the MPA, at times Cox chose not to follow its own graduated response scheme, labeling it a decision to keep generating revenue from subscribers who were repeatedly flagged as copyright infringers.

National Center on Sexual Exploitation

While most amici focus strictly on how copyright law should be interpreted, there’s also a clear outlier. The National Center on Sexual Exploitation (NCOSE), a non-profit organization fighting sexual abuse and exploitation, warns that Cox’s arguments for broad ISP immunity could inadvertently harm the fight against CSAM.

“If Petitioners and their amici successfully establish an all-contexts rule that they can never be liable for anything that can be characterized as ‘inaction,’ internet platforms could sit on their hands while knowingly profiting from criminal child sexual abuse material,” they write.

A central theme in this Supreme Court challenge is whether ISPs can be held liable for “inaction”. In this case, that refers to not terminating Internet access of allegedly pirating subscribers.

NCOSE is advocating for a Supreme Court decision narrowly focused on copyright law. While acknowledging and, to a degree, supporting the position of the record labels, the group’s primary goal is to avoid an outcome affecting liability in general.

“This case should only be about the distinct question of contributory infringement of copyright—not blanket rules governing the liability of internet platforms for facilitating or assisting wrongdoing.”

More Amici Support the Record Labels

In addition to these three briefs, the Supreme Court received several more that side with the record labels. These largely focus on the same issues, arguing against Cox’s push to limit liability for Internet providers.

For example, the brief from SoundExchange, A2IM, AFM, and SAG-AFTRA warns that Cox’s proposed interpretation of liability would leave the music industry with no viable option to fight online piracy.

“To adopt Petitioners’ myopic view of contributory infringement would spell disaster for the music community, as it would deprive musicians and those who represent them of the only feasible means of challenging mass online infringement,” they write.

The full list of all opposition briefs, available below, underlines the importance of this landmark case and a Supreme Court decision destined to shape the future of U.S. copyright law. With all key arguments now on record, the Supreme Court will hear both sides during oral arguments in early December.

—

Here is a list of the amici curiae who filed briefs supporting the record labels in the Supreme Court case against Cox Communications.

– The Copyright Alliance

– The Motion Picture Association, Inc. (MPA)

– Prof. Bruce E. Boyden

– The Association of Amicus Counsel (AAC)

– The National Center on Sexual Exploitation (NCOSE)

– Intellectual Property Law Scholars

– Former Members of Congress and Registers and General Counsels of the U.S. Copyright Office

– SoundExchange, Inc., The American Association of Independent Music, et al.

– National Music Publishers’ Association (NMPA), Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA), et al.

– The Authors Guild, Sisters in Crime, Romance Writers of America, The Songwriters Guild of America, et al.

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

In many respects a lawsuit filed in November 2024 by DISH Network and Sling TV was similar to others filed by the companies in recent years.

Filed at a federal court in Illinois, the lawsuit targeted Richard Moy, the alleged owner of CLVPN LLC, which traded under the name City Lights Entertainment.

According to the complaint, Moy had invested considerable sums of money obtaining servers and streams in order to provide a “top notch” IPTV service, fueled by TV channel content illegally obtained direct from the plaintiffs’ servers.

Since that necessarily involves circumvention of technical measures, DISH and Sling claimed violations of the DMCA under 17 U.S.C. § 1201(a)(2) and 17 U.S.C. § 1201(b)(1) . Unusually, the companies also alleged violations of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA), specifically 18 U.S.C. §§ 2511(1)(c)-(d) , which concerns interception of a real-time transmission.

Complaint Suggested a Massive Operation

Subscriptions were reportedly sold both in bulk to a network of resellers, and on an individual basis direct to end users. A claim reportedly made by Moy himself, that his network had “over 500 sellers” made it into the complaint. The allegation that Moy’s service had over 450,000 users, apparently wasn’t guesswork. DISH and Sling somehow gained direct access to Moy’s IPTV management panel and saw the data for themselves.

Even when one month subscriptions (credits) were sold to resellers for just $5 each, that’s $2.25 million in monthly revenue; $27 million on an annual basis. On top of that eye watering amount, the complaint alleged that “Moy held himself out as a Chicago-area law enforcement officer,” when selling to customers, “to mitigate potential concerns over the unlawfulness of the Service.”

Whatever the intent, there were no signs of mitigation in DISH and Sling’s claim for damages; statutory damages up to $2,500 for each violation of the DMCA’s anti-circumvention provisions (usually assessed on a per-subscriber basis), plus $100 for each day of violations under ECPA, or $10,000, whichever was greater.

Moy Answers Complaint, Confidentiality Ensues

On January 27, 2025, Moy filed his answer to the complaint, admitting that he served as the sole manager of CLVPN and accepting that the Court had personal jurisdiction over the defendants.

The remainder of the allegations and claims were either denied outright, or denied on the basis that the defendants lacked sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations.

On the same date, an agreed confidentiality order was submitted to the court to ensure that sensitive information obtained during discovery – including how the content was obtained and details concerning Moy’s business – wouldn’t see the light of day.

Early June 2024 it was reported that the parties had exchanged initial disclosures and written discovery, and there had been no disputes.

“The parties have exchanged settlement positions, but do not request a settlement conference at this time,” Magistrate Judge Beth W. Jantz reported.

Defendants Run Out of Funds

Mid-August 2025, counsel for the defense filed an unopposed motion to withdraw. Noting that the parties had conducted settlement negotiations and extensive written discovery has been undertaken, the motion stated that the defendants no longer had “sufficient financial resources to continue the representation.”

The motion indicated that not only would the attorney not be paid for any further work, but was still owed for work already done. A motion filed by Moy late August in respect of future representation was swiftly denied by District Judge Edmond E. Chang.

“On review of Defendant Moy’s motion for attorney representation, the motion is denied without prejudice. First, the motion was not accompanied by a financial affidavit, even though the Court explained that requirement at the prior hearing,” the Judge wrote.

“Second, on review of the complaint and the stage of the case, right now a high-school graduate like Defendant Moy can defense this case adequately on his own. The alleged facts are detailed in the complaint and are straightforward, and the cited statutes for the three claims also have, as applicable to this case so far, straightforward elements.”

Parties Agree to Settle

The prospect of conducting an “adequate” solo defense in a case like this, against plaintiffs DISH and Sling, does seem a little optimistic. Fortunately, it appears that Moy was spared the experience.

Last Friday, the parties filed a joint motion for final judgment and permanent injunction.

“The parties entered into a confidential settlement in this case. Under that settlement, the parties have agreed to the Court’s entry of a final judgment awarding statutory damages and a permanent injunction that enjoins Defendants from providing any infringing streaming service,” the motion reads.

The motion continues by noting that the permanent injunction and statutory damages are both authorized by the DMCA. For each violation of section 1201, statutory damages of not less than $200 or more than $2,500 are available for “each act of circumvention, device, product, component, offer, or performance of service.”

The final amount is less than the maximum, based on a “conservative” estimate that aligns with damages calculations deemed acceptable in previous DISH/Sling lawsuits.

“The parties request that the Court enter the agreed final judgment and permanent injunction, which resolves all claims in this case, as doing so will conserve judicial resources and allow the parties to avoid the expense and other burdens of continued litigation,” the motion concludes.

The complaint and motion for final judgment and injunction are available here ( 1 , 2 , pdf)

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

The most enduring questions in the online piracy debate loosely center on what causes it, who is to blame, who can be held liable for it, and what can be done to address it.

Depending on variables including who asks and who answers, answers to these questions can differ quite wildly and are often subject to change. The one constant is that rightsholders’ answers ultimately carry more weight.

They select targets for direct enforcement and identify third parties in a position to assist, or at least, who could be compelled to do so if necessary.

Having a lasting impact at the top end of the piracy supply chain is notoriously difficult. However, move a short distance downstream, placing continuous pressure on intermediaries can eventually pay off. Many can and should do more to fight piracy, the commentary goes, while the remainder are guilty of not doing enough.

Once content cascades down to the masses, ISPs face potential liability, and consumers are blamed for fueling an illegal market. In fact, anti-piracy challenges at this end of the supply chain are so numerous, one might conclude that problems exist almost nowhere else.

The Silent Crisis Costing Billions

For the past several years, site-blocking measures have attempted to build a barrier between pirate sites/services and pirate consumers. These are usually implemented by local ISPs, and in terms of location, could not be further away from the original pirate source.

The Herculean task of building the equivalent of anti-piracy firewalls around ISPs globally is considered necessary, especially in light of an ongoing “silent crisis” that reportedly costs the content industries billions of dollars.

Late August, cloud technology company Velocix cited an estimate from Parks Associates, which predicted cumulative revenue losses of $113 billion for streaming video providers by the end of 2027.

“What’s often overlooked is that a substantial portion of this pirated content is served using legitimate CDN infrastructure,” Velocix continued. “Some platforms report that up to 30% of their CDN traffic is being consumed by unauthorized users, draining network capacity, degrading service quality, and silently eating into service margins.”

The phenomenon is called ‘CDN Leeching’ and while some describe it as a new threat, for some time consumers have been reporting pirate streams of such great quality, they could even pass for the real deal. There’s a very good reason for that; they come from the same source, and only legality sets them apart.

From the rightsholders’ perspective, the situation could hardly be any worse. After producing or buying content, and building a distribution platform to deliver it to the masses, unauthenticated users escape with pristine content at close to zero cost, from an extremely reliable source, which also picks up the tab for the bandwidth consumed.

The Triple Threat

A report published late 2022 by content security company Viaccess-Orca was one of the first to publicly acknowledge what had been known privately for some time.

“Starting around the tail end of 2020, our experts started noticing a new technique being used for the first time: CDN Leeching. Due to its complexities, it has spread comparatively slowly throughout the pirate community since,” the company reported.

“But, as we start to approach the first in a new cycle of large, global sporting events, we are seeing more and more incidents of it occurring. What’s more, these are increasingly coupled with sophisticated front-end operations that, to all intents and purposes, look like legitimate streaming providers with subscriber offers, discounts, advertising, and more. The trend is concerning.”

These quotes are almost three years old, and they describe a problem that was already at least two years old at the time. In 2023, Viaccess-Orca described CDN Leeching as a ‘Triple Threat’ based on the following;

1) Subscriptions loss: Users choose pirate services instead of legitimate platforms.
2) Increased Expense: Pirates access streams from the CDN, but pay for nothing.
3) Service impacts: Pirates consume resources allocated to legitimate customers.

To a background of sports rightsholders warning of an existential threat, how is CDN Leeching carried out, and more importantly, why is it still possible in 2025?

Piracy-as-a-Service

Reports on why consumers need to stop financing criminal streaming services are as common as commentary explaining why intermediaries, including ISPs, DNS providers, and domain registrars, need to step up and take the piracy problem much more seriously. The lack of open discussion on what is clearly a major contributor to the piracy ecosystem is unusual, to say the least.

Anti-piracy companies promote their products and solutions as one might expect, but it’s beyond clear that as a topic for open discussion, rightsholders prefer to talk about other things. There’s no mention in public-facing anti-piracy campaigns, for example, and even when platforms that rely on CDN Leeching are discussed in public, the focus is the services they offer rather than the source of the content upon which they rely.

Under the umbrella term ‘Piracy-as-a-Service’, these platforms are very cheap or even free to access and are more functional and better looking than their legitimate counterparts. For those interested in making the transition from viewer to pirate site operator, a full platform package makes the switch worryingly easy.

Worryingly Easy vs. Regular Worry

With all content piped in (including via CDN Leeching) and the necessary admin/billing/support panels included, anyone can start their own subscription service and begin selling access to others. Verimatrix suggests the price is around ~$45,000 to get started with the potential to make 90% profit moving forward. Maybe other potential outcomes shouldn’t be immediately ruled out.

It’s not unreasonable to assume that a payment of ~$45,000 to an anonymous internet stranger will not always go according to plan. Even if the transaction did live up to expectations, generating $45,000 to break even in a year requires 375 customers paying $10 each per month from Day One.

According to Verimatrix, the going rate for lifetime access starts at $75, with regular access costing as little as $1 per month. That sounds like 1000 customers and a break even celebration almost four years later. Assuming that the ecosystem makes it that far, of course.

Recent comments by the MPA and ACE suggest this general area is considered a top priority. It certainly sounds serious enough to warrant special attention, not unsurprising either, given that the barrier to entry is so low.

“Your grandma’s dog could be trained to do it,” Maria Malinkowitschas at Verimatrix concludes.

Recent reports from various anti-piracy/cybersecurity companies reveal the basics of CDN Leeching, techniques/methods used, and the reasons why it can be difficult to stop. Details of particularly serious and persistent exploits published elsewhere have been excluded (Full original statements linked under the company names cited at the end of each quote)

[Pirates] typically reverse engineer video applications (e.g., browsers) to understand how to access and extract the CDN content, enabling them to distribute pirated material more efficiently. CDN access serves as an entry point for pirates to obtain copyrighted content. ( Irdeto )

Stolen tokens & keys: When authentication tokens or encryption keys are intercepted, they can be reused to access video streams. Open access points: Misconfigured CDN endpoints or caching policies can expose content to anyone who knows where to look. Referrer spoofing: Attackers disguise requests to appear as if they come from trusted domains. ( Velocix )

Device diversity and compatibility challenges: A wide array of devices for accessing video content, with its own specifications, security capabilities and operating systems, presents a significant challenge in terms of ensuring compatibility across the industry for streaming video providers. As users seek seamless access to content on their preferred devices, the pressure to address compatibility issues compounds, sometimes leading to unauthorized means of access when official support is lacking. ( Irdeto )

Pirates hijack legitimate CDNs by hotlinking or proxying origin URLs, piggybacking on bandwidth OTTs pay for, while degrading QoS, inflating bills, and muddying audience analytics. What allows this to happen? Static tokens, loose referrer settings, shared keys across events, and weak origin shielding. ( ICC )

DRM Exploitation: The media and entertainment industry is currently facing serious challenges with content protection and cybersecurity, the most pressing of which is the exploitation of software-native Digital Rights Management (DRM). This technical vulnerability allows pirates to bypass DRM protections, leading to unauthorized access and distribution of content. This not only undermines revenue streams but also the integrity of content distribution. ( Verimatrix )

Feature Exploitation: An example is where operators need to allow consumers to continue watching content across multiple devices that share an IP address. This consumer demand for content portability creates a loophole that pirates can exploit. Unsecure apps without solid code obfuscation expose valuable DRM license files that pirates will hack to extract the keys and then create their own license files for illicit distribution. ( Nagra )

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

After obtaining a court order that granted permission to block pirate streaming services, top-tier football league LaLiga faced a dilemma.

Many of its targets were using Cloudflare’s reverse proxy service, which in basic terms allows a webhost’s IP address to remain private while one of Cloudflare’s IP address is exposed to site users. Since hundreds of sites can share the same Cloudflare IP address, blocking one pirate site would end up blocking them all.

Since no compromise could be reached with Cloudflare, LaLiga went ahead with its blocking campaign, which included blocking Cloudflare’s shared IP addresses .

Courts Unsympathetic,

After the blocking campaign began in earnest, complaints calling for the courts to take action to prevent collateral damage were rejected on various grounds. In June, the Mixed Parliamentary Group, at the request of Néstor Rego Candamil, the deputy of the Galician Nationalist Bloc (BNG), presented a Non-Legislative Proposal (PNL) in an attempt to build momentum.

The proposal explained the shared-IP address situation at Cloudflare and went on to describe what can go wrong on match day.

“The BNG believes the State Government must take action on this issue in response to the repeated blocking of thousands of websites. Failure to do so would constitute a dereliction of duty, leaving them in private hands, which act solely for their own benefit and, without regard, hand them over to third parties,” the proposal continued.

A summary of the three main requests in the proposal:

1. Blocking must be performed precisely, targeting domain names and DNS only
2. Establish protocols for hosts to shut down sites and/or hand over operator details
3. Disallow IP address blocking to prevent blocking of innocent sites .

Proposal Put to the Vote on Wednesday

Presented by the Mixed Group at the request of BNG, the proposal to ensure accurate, collateral damage-free blocking of exclusively pirate sites, received 6 votes in favor, 17 against, and 12 abstentions.

Despite the Socialist Group’s ( Grupo Socialista ) abstention, a representative said that the blocking measures comply with requirements, ensure that the clubs and broadcasters can protect their rights, and have safeguards to protect legitimate access to the internet for citizens and companies.

The Popular Party and Vox groups rejected the proposal outright, stating that it disregards the damage suffered by football clubs and therefore puts the economy in jeopardy.

A spokesperson for Vox said the government doesn’t get involved when matters are under the eye of the judiciary, adding, “I don’t know if you’re defending piracy.”

Proposal Rejected

The Economy, Trade and Digital Transformation Committee of Congress rejected the non-legislative proposal. In a statement Thursday, LaLiga described that as support for its anti-piracy strategy, including IP address blocking.

In line with comments made by the Popular Party and Vox groups, LaLiga also expressed concern that the proposal failed to address “both the critical impact of audiovisual fraud on the country’s social and economic infrastructure and the origin of this issue, including the actors who profit from this illegal business.”

LaLiga’s statement makes no mention of the internet users the proposal aimed to protect. Instead, it restates its position that all blocking “is proportional, targeted, and time-limited, being enforced only during matches….in strict compliance with the relevant court order.”

Cloudflare Animosity Continues

LaLiga also had further sharp words for Cloudflare, mostly along the same lines as those made earlier in the year which appeared to mark the end of civil discussion, assuming that had ever been the case. There’s clearly a huge difference of opinion in respect of how Cloudflare views its obligations and what LaLiga believes they should be.

At an event in Italy last week , José Ignacio Carrillo de Albornoz, Global Content Protection Manager at LaLiga, said that collaboration is the key to success and that partnerships with other companies are proving effective.

Mentioning no company in particular, he noted that “Not all intermediaries are willing to cooperate,” before revealing a new angle to LaLiga’s strategy and a likely source of future friction.

“We’ve decided to seek legal injunctions globally,” he said.

With a direct reference to European Union Regulation 2015/2120 , de Albornoz said that ISPs can block ‘certain types of traffic’ in compliance with a court order.

“We have done so, and it’s proven very effective. Collaboration is the key.”

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

In the past, rightsholders have frequently complained that takedown requests can be futile. Even if pirate sites take action, content can swiftly reappear.

Taking down entire websites has always been the weapon of choice, but that doesn’t always solve the problem either.

Pirate Site Operators On/Off the Radar

When public pirate sites first became popular at the beginning of the century, many operated as central hubs. Their operators communicated with users regularly, and many fostered a sense of community. There were competitions , merchandise , and the Pirate Bay took its early activism to the streets of Stockholm more than once.

After several prominent sites lost legal battles, the mood changed. Running a popular pirate site was much more than a public act of defiance: it was also a criminal offense with potential prison sentences attached. The Pirate Bay was a pioneer on this front too, and it wouldn’t be the last.

Legal pressure motivated public pirate site operators to stay in the shadows. If rightsholders can’t track you down, they can’t touch you, the theory went. While that is still true to a certain degree today, anti-piracy groups were busy adding site blocking to their arsenal.

The Pirate Bay was one of the prime targets of early site-blocking requests in various countries . This led to soaring popularity for Pirate Bay proxies, which facilitated access to the original site in blocked regions. Despite having no connections to the original team, many proxies adopted Pirate Bay branding, which didn’t bother users all that much.

From Pirate Sites to Pirate Brands

While proxies were often launched as a means to ‘unblock’ sites, they also provided an opportunity for outsiders to generate profit. And with more sites getting blocked, full-on copycats began to emerge. These sites typically had little to do with the originals they copied but used their branding to draw traffic and sell advertisements.

Eventually even the demise of popular sites became a potential goldmine for others, with popular brands living on and continuing to generate profit. Some of these copycats may have had more traditional pirate interests in mind, but others simply saw them as platforms for malicious ad campaigns. The problem for many users was telling them apart.

Today, the exploitation of pirate brands comes in many forms. Streaming sites are particularly popular but due to various enforcement measures, domains are increasingly seen as disposable. Since branding persists, recognized brands are valuable assets.

The Motion Picture Association’s latest enforcement effort highlights several examples.

MPA Hunts Ghosts of the Past

Earlier this week, the MPA requested two DMCA subpoenas at a California federal court on behalf of its anti-piracy arm, ACE . The requests ask Cloudflare and the .to domain registry ( Tonic ) to hand over all identifying information they hold on alleged pirate site domains.

The Cloudflare subpoena lists 46 domain names in total. This includes sites that the MPA recently flagged to the U.S. Government as “ notorious piracy markets “, such as Cineby.app and Nunflix.org, classified as major threats in the new “hydra site” category.

At the same time, the subpoena also lists names of pirate brands that the MPA and ACE targeted in the past, sometimes on more than one occasion.

Fmovies.co and Fmovies.ro, for example, are clearly inspired by the world’s largest piracy ring. ACE helped to shut this operation down in 2024 , and two Vietnamese operators received suspended prison sentences for their involvement with the massive piracy network. However, the brand lives on in many forms.

The same applies to Cuevana, a popular streaming portal in Latin America, of which ACE has helped to shut down several iterations previously. Despite these efforts and the related criminal investigations, the latest subpoena application targets Cuevana.is and cuevana3cc.me.

The same is true for other domain names such as aniwave.se and 123moviesfree.net. The piracy portals that popularized these brands are long gone , but they live on through various incarnations, giving prospective pirates a familiar brand to look for.

Identifying the Operators

Through the DMCA subpoenas, MPA hopes that Cloudflare and Tonic will provide information to accurately identify the operators of these and other sites. While many sites provide false data to avoid enforcement, these efforts have also proven fruitful in the past.

All the .to domain names are targeted through both companies, which will be helpful to compare the associated user data, including names, IP addresses, payment details, and other information.

At the time of writing, the DMCA subpoenas have yet to be signed off by a court clerk. Cloudflare and Tonic generally don’t oppose these requests, so that is merely a formality. The real challenge for MPA and ACE is to permanently bury these zombie brands. That’s not going to be as easy.

—

A list of all the targeted domain names is available below. The declarations linked to the two DMCA subpoenas can be found here (pdf) and here (pdf) .

– 123moviesfree.net
– 430hdd.com
– animedefenders.me
– animekai.ac
– animekai.cc
– animekai.to
– animeyy.com
– anigo.to
– aniwave.se
– baan-series.online
– bingewatch.to
– bronat.lat
– bstsrs.in
– cineby.app
– cinecalidad.rs
– comandoplay.com
– cuevana.is
– cuevana3cc.me
– doomovie-free.com
– dopebox.to
– flixhq.to
– fmovies.co
– fmovies.ro
– goyabu.to
– hdtodayz.to
– hianime.bz
– hianime.cx
– hianime.pe
– hianimez.is
– himovies.sx
– jkanime.net
– miruro.to
– movies2watch.tv
– moviesjoy.plus
– nunflix.org
– opmovies.tv
– peelink2.com
– pelisplushd.to
– pelispop.lat
– piratetv.pro
– portalultautv.biz
– streamingunity.co
– theflixertv.to
– topsrs.day
– westream.to
– yflix.to

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

During the past several years, sports rightsholders in Europe have made it clear that piracy of fleeting live events poses unique problems that require a strong response.

Existing site blocking measures were seen as insufficient. Standard takedown notices reportedly lacked the necessary teeth to ensure compliance, something that could be addressed under revised EU law, rightsholders said..

In 2022, requests for European Commission assistance escalated to outright demands for legal amendments, which were instantly dismissed by the Commission in favor of an extended consultation.

To what extent the EC’s response acted as a catalyst isn’t clear, but nothing has been quite the same since.

Canal+ Targets Public DNS Resolvers

Anti-piracy group AAPA was among the first to politely inform the EC that its members, including the Premier League, Sky, beIN, and Canal+, were really disappointed with the outcome. Yet, it transpired, no less motivated.

With permission from the High Court in London, Sky began targeting key IPTV providers, eventually blocking thousands upon thousands of fully qualified domains, at an unprecedented rate.

In France, Canal+ decided to close the alternative DNS loophole, reportedly undermining blocking at local ISPs. Seemingly undeterred by potential backlash, Canal+ sued Cloudflare , Google, and OpenDNS, and with the assistance of broadly crafted French law, won a first of its type injunction.

With significant fines on the table to ensure compliance, OpenDNS had seen enough and promptly shut down its services in France.

Why Stop at Public DNS? VPN Blocking Awaits

Attorney Richard Willemant is known for his work representing rightsholders in France. Recent cases include the police raids and civil lawsuit against UptoBox. By volume, lawsuits compelling intermediaries to block pirate sites and delete search results on behalf of Canal+ (and by extension, Premier League, UEFA, LFP, and Formula 1) are far more numerous.

Speaking at an event last week organized by Italian telecoms regulator AGCOM, Willamont spoke about his work with Canal+ and the importance of dynamic injunctions capable of tackling circumvention attempts more quickly. After obtaining an injunction to block pirate sites in France, post-judgment modification of blocking targets takes place with assistance from French telecoms regulator ARCOM.

“ARCOM allows us to update injunctions flexibly, adding new domains or mirror sites without having to refer to the courts each time. This system has made it possible to block thousands of illegal sites and services more quickly and effectively,” he explained.

Willemant’s more recent stand-out successes include the controversial action against Cloudflare, Google, and OpenDNS.

With that achievement already behind him, Willemant went on to successfully argue that VPN providers NordVPN, Proton, CyberGhost, ExpressVPN and Surfshark, should also be compelled to block pirate sites targeting France.

The move was certainly controversial, but more importantly, did it move the needle?

Success or Failure? Canal+ Attorney Reveals All

During his speech, which outlined experiences from the perspective of rightsholders, Willemant said that for the first time in his experience, piracy rates are now starting to come down. Citing research by regulator ARCOM, which he described as completely unbiased, Willemant reported the following results:

Piracy Reductions After Targeting Circumvention Tools (Richard Willemant/Canal+)
Method	Reduction	Details
3rd Party DNS Blocking	8%	Attributed to legal decisions against third-party DNS providers (Cloudflare/Google)
VPN Blocking	7%	Attributed to decisions targeting commercial VPNs (NordVPN/Proton/CyberGhost/ExpressVPN/Surfshark)
Total Reduction	15%	Attributed to combined effect of decisions against Third Party DNS and commercial VPNs

Which specific piracy statistic was reduced by 15% isn’t made clear.

The number of visits to the pirate websites listed in the order is one possibility, but for that figure to hold weight, traffic to other sites not yet subject to blocking would need to be measured too. Diverting traffic to another platform showing the same content has no effect on overall piracy rates.

Other VPN providers not subjected to blocking also factor into the equation. French users behind VPNs may appear to be geographically located outside France, but that’s not necessarily the case.

Nevertheless, Willemant says that when court-ordered and administrative blocking measures are both taken into account, they “clearly indicate that blocking is working” and “producing measurable results.”

Resistance Against Blocking, Enforcement Not Always Possible

After covering the successes, Willemant revealed several causes for concern. While rightsholder enthusiasm for blocking measures isn’t in doubt, opposition to blocking is being felt in the judicial, regulatory, and political arenas.

“We are facing strong resistance from intermediaries including Cloudflare. Despite being one of the respondents in blocking injunctions, Cloudflare independently decides which sites to block, and which not to block. Both the courts and ARCOM are perplexed by the company’s approach.”

For context, the injunction makes it clear that failure to comply with the court’s instructions carries a potential penalty of €30,000.

Willemant’s reference to issues at the judicial level received no elaboration. However, the issue of enforcement clearly came up at some point, hence his comment that enforcement hasn’t always been possible for “practical” reasons.

Penalties exist to incentivize compliance, but based on the comments, it’s possible that something isn’t functioning quite as intended.

Political Pushback at the Highest Level

There’s no question that President Trump’s return to the White House has unsettled United States trading partners, not to mention its long-standing strategic allies. Thus far, few if any have been spared.

The European Union’s efforts to regulate online services operating in Europe necessarily involve some of the largest online platforms; they’re mostly American companies such as X, Facebook, and Instagram, not forgetting Cloudflare and Google, of course.

“We are seeing lobbying pressure, including international pressure, in particular from the US government,” Willemant confirmed.

“The government has asked its diplomats in Europe to oppose certain provisions of the Digital Services Act (DSA), precisely those that strengthen intermediaries’ obligations to cooperate [with rightsholders].”

Willemant said that intermediaries have benefited from limited liability for many years under the E-Commerce Directive. The quid pro quo under the Digital Services Act, however, is substantially more involved. In exchange for limited liability, Willemant said, “[intermediaries] must actively collaborate in the fight against illegal activities.”

“Stop Censoring Free Speech”

In the United States, the EU’s sprawling legislation is viewed quite differently. Described by House Judiciary Committee Republicans as a ‘Foreign Censorship Threat’ that infringes on ‘American Free Speech’, the Committee produced non-public documents to show, according to their reading , “that European censors target core political speech that is neither harmful nor illegal, attempting to stifle debate on topics such as immigration and the environment.”

A diplomatic cable seen by Reuters, titled “Action Request” asked American diplomats across U.S. embassies in Europe to regularly engage with EU governments and authorities to convey U.S. concerns about the DSA.

The anti-piracy event at which Willemant made his presentation was centered around Articles 58, 59, and 60 of the Digital Services Act. The articles outline rules for cross-border cooperation, referral of issues to the European Commission, and procedures for joint investigations into suspected infringements of the DSA.

If the United States had its way, the cable suggests, there would be nothing to discuss.

“Repeal and/or Amend the DSA”

“Posts should focus efforts to build host government and other stakeholder support to repeal and/or amend the DSA or related EU or national laws restricting expression online.”

Blocking unfavorable, infringing, and illegal content is already deeply embedded across the EU. What that means for the site-blocking push currently underway in the United States is unclear. As a means to suppress foreign threats, President Trump might be persuaded to get onboard.

Admittedly, tomorrow he may see things quite differently. The fully-committed European Commission, on the other hand, will not.

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

Every year, the US Trade Representative ( USTR ) issues an updated overview of “Notorious Markets” that allegedly facilitate copyright infringement.

This review is put together based on recommendations from copyright holders and other interested stakeholders. The ultimate goal of the annual report, which was first released in 2006, is to help combat piracy.

The USTR’s report is meant to highlight economic harm and raise awareness. Ideally, it should urge the affected sites and services to take action or, alternatively, motivate foreign governments to step up.

“In the absence of good faith efforts, responsible government authorities should investigate reports of piracy and counterfeiting in these and similar markets and pursue appropriate action against such markets and their owners and operators,” USTR wrote in its most recent report.

Unfazed Pirate Sites

Ideally, the USTR’s review should help to find solutions for existing concerns. However, after covering the submissions for many years, their repetitive nature stands out most. While new piracy players enter the scene occasionally, many arguments and rebuttals are repeated over and over.

While it is understandable that copyright holders see persistent piracy as a major concern, listing a website such as The Pirate Bay every year for nearly two decades raises questions of effectiveness. At this point, yet another listing seems unlikely to move the needle.

No one appears to be concerned by yet another callout. The Pirate Bay’s operators don’t seem to care, and neither do any of the other services that continue to work with the ‘notorious’ pirate site.

Therefore, we can likely expect The Pirate Bay to be listed again this year, alongside other ‘pirate’ markets that have been featured for more than a decade, including 1337x, Rutracker, Rapidgator, and others. Whether USTR’s clout will help to change the status quo is doubtful.

Accuse, Rebut, Repeat

A more problematic trend in this diplomatic process is the continued standoff between rightsholders and parties they accuse of wrongdoing, resulting in formal challenges over purported mischaracterizations of their business.

For more than a decade, copyright holders have called out U.S. infrastructure company Cloudflare in their recommendations. While the company is not seen as a notorious piracy market directly, it stands accused of helping pirate sites to shield their hosting locations.

The MPA and RIAA are among the rightsholder groups that persistently highlight Cloudflare’s involvement. Despite rebuttals from Cloudflare, the allegations have continued for many years.

In 2016, the California company responded for the first time, noting that these groups present “distorted descriptions” of the services Cloudflare provides. The company further noted that both the MPAA and RIAA use its “trusted notifier” program to obtain information on pirate sites from Cloudflare.

A year later, the process repeated itself during the next notorious markets review. Rightsholders characterized Cloudflare as a key intermediary in the piracy ecosystem, while Cloudflare rebutted their claims.

At the time, Cloudflare highlighted that the MPA and RIAA had essentially repeated the same arguments, to which the company had already provided a response.

“Most surprising is that their comments were basically the same complaints they filed in 2016 and contain the same mistakes and distortions that we pointed out in our rebuttal comments from October 2016. Simply repeating the same mischaracterizations for a second year in a row does not convert them into facts,” Cloudflare noted.

… 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021, 2022, 2023, 2024, and 2025.

The same allegations were made in 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021, 2022, 2023, 2024, and in 2025, not much has changed. Both the MPA and RIAA continue to highlight Cloudflare’s role, without flagging the company as a notorious market directly.

Again, Cloudflare highlights mischaracterizations in recent submissions, while stressing that it provides rightsholders with options to identify hosting locations and the operators of alleged pirate sites.

The company claims that rightsholders are using the USTR notorious markets process as a means to exert pressure on Cloudflare to conduct enforcement beyond legal requirements, which is not what the process is intended for.

“We firmly believe that the continued use of the Notorious Markets process to pressure Cloudflare and other Internet infrastructure companies into taking actions neither expected nor required by U.S. law is both misguided and a misuse of this vital trade tool,” Cloudflare notes.

Anti-Piracy Groundhog Day

This type of back and forth, with no apparent progress, is not unique to Cloudflare. The Computer & Communications Industry Association (CCIA), which represents prominent tech firms including Google, Meta, and Amazon, finds itself in a similar loop.

More than a decade ago , CCIA was particularly concerned with the mention of domain name registrars as Notorious Markets. This later expanded to U.S. tech firms in general , after rightsholders pinpointed the role of Amazon, Facebook, Namecheap, and others in their submissions.

The CCIA states that the Notorious Markets review should not include American companies. The USTR’s Special 301 process does not target local companies, many of which already have extensive anti-piracy policies in place.

These repetitive circular arguments are not limited to U.S. companies. Polish streaming service CDA has also submitted multiple rebuttals. This service has actually been featured as a Motorious Market by the USTR, a description the company vehemently rejects.

Without going into the arguments from both sides, CDA’s most recent rebuttal illustrates the ‘groundhog day’ nature of the process.

“[I]t should be noted MPA has already submitted almost identical statements regarding cda.pl in previous years. This year’s submission of MPA is almost a copy-paste of previously rebutted claims from [2024, 2023, 2022, and 2021],” CDA’s attorney writes.

“Similar allegations have been made by MPA in the comments on the [2020, 2019, and 2018 reviews]. In response to all those letters, my client successfully and extensively rebutted MPA’s claims in letters to the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative.”

High Stakes Standoffs

This decade-long loop of accusations and rebuttals says nothing about the validity of the arguments from either side. However, it is a signal that USTR’s goal to motivate the key players to tackle piracy issues, ideally through cooperation, does not work in these instances.

The USTR does not report any legal findings in its annual reviews, and takes no direct position on the rightsholders’ arguments or their rebuttals. That said, there are also dozens of examples of sites and services shutting down after they appeared on the Notorious Markets list. Whether the Notorious Markets process facilitated those shutdowns isn’t clear, but the USTR’s involvement certainly didn’t hurt.

As Cloudflare pointed out, rightsholders can use the process to exert pressure. And as with all tools, this one can be used for good and bad. Whether that’s the case here depends on who you ask.

—

A copy of Cloudflare’s rebuttal in response to the 2025 Notorious Markets review can be found here (pdf) , CDA’s letter is available here (pdf) , and CCIA’s response is here (pdf) .

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 has been at the forefront of these efforts. In April, the company sued then-unknown operators of popular ‘pirate’ streaming services Lemo TV and Kemo IPTV.

Through a lawsuit filed at a federal court in Texas, and various subpoenas to obtain information from hosting providers, domain registrars, payment processors, and social media services, and Google, DISH hoped to identify the operators.

The subpoenas were directed at Lemo TV and Kemo IPTV directly but also targeted some resellers. For example, the Google subpoena requested information related to the Gmail addresses of bestusiptv and 1dollariptv .

While the Texas court approved the subpoena request in July, the underlying lawsuit was suddenly dismissed last week. Having successfully identified the alleged operators of both IPTV providers, plus a US-based reseller, DISH refocused its action elsewhere.

DISH Identifies Lemo/Kemo, also Sues ‘1 Dollar IPTV’

Shortly after the initial lawsuit against Lemo TV and Kemo IPTV was dismissed without context, DISH filed a new complaint at a Florida federal court. This time, it names the alleged operators of the Lemo TV and Kemo IPTV pirate services, as well as one of their U.S.-based resellers: ‘1 Dollar IPTV’.

DISH alleges that the Malaysian company Kemo E Marketing Sdn. Bhd and its sole shareholder, Noorhayati Binti Abdul Rahim, are driving forces behind the Lemo/Kemo operation. Ammar Towir, also from Malaysia, allegedly owns and operates the Lemo/Kemo domains and financial accounts.

The identities of these defendants were presumably obtained with help from the earlier-mentioned subpoenas. This includes 1 Dollar IPTV, which was allegedly operated by Artistry Group LLC, a company based in St. Petersburg, Florida.

Artistry Group was voluntarily dissolved on February 27, 2025, but DISH notes that the company or its successors continue to run 1 Dollar IPTV.

Direct, Contributory, and Vicarious Copyright Infringement

The Malaysian defendants are accused of direct copyright infringement. They allegedly offered access to thousands of live channels and on-demand content through their pirate IPTV service.

“Direct Infringers offer United States Subscribers a 36-hour trial to the Service and sell Service Subscriptions for one device for one month, three months, six months, and one year at prices ranging from $11 to $69,” the complaint reads.

In addition to selling directly to consumers, both services operate reseller programs. This allows third parties to launch their own custom-branded IPTV streaming sites and apps for under $200. Resellers purchase credits for use with their branded services, which they can resell to their own customers at a significant markup.

According to the complaint, Artistry Group’s ‘1 Dollar IPTV’ is one of these resellers. The Florida-based company is accused of contributory and vicarious copyright infringement. According to DISH, the company willfully continued its infringing activities after being notified.

1 Dollar IPTV, which remains online today, advertises itself as the “Best IPTV Service USA”. DISH notes that it sent at least seven infringement notices to the Florida reseller. While the company responded to one notice, the infringing activities allegedly continued.

DISH writes that it sent at least 96 infringement notices to the Lemo/Kemo operators over the years. However, these all remained unanswered. Meanwhile, the operators allegedly switched hosting locations to evade enforcement actions.

$27 Million in Damages

The complaint accuses all defendants of infringing its exclusive rights to “at least” 181 copyrighted works. For these willful infringements, DISH requests the maximum statutory damages of $150,000 per infringed work, for a total of $27.15 million in potential damages.

In addition to the monetary damages, DISH requests a broad permanent injunction to shut the services down. This would include an order to transfer all domain names used in the infringing operations, such as Kemoiptv.io, Lemotv.io, and 1Dollariptv.com.

In addition to this new lawsuit in Florida, DISH previously filed a separate $25 million lawsuit against UK-based hosting provider Innetra. The hosting company allegedly provided the server infrastructure for Lemo/Kemo and other services, while advertising a policy of ignoring DMCA takedown notices.

By targeting the Lemo/Kemo operators directly, suing their U.S.-based resellers, and going after a hosting provider, DISH is trying to cover all bases. For now, however, they have yet to defeat the pirate IPTV operations.

—

A copy of the complaint, filed at the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida, is available here (pdf) .

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