There’s little doubt that online businesses reliant on advertising revenue are negatively affected by increasing use of ad blocking solutions.

Yet it’s thanks to abusive and invasive ads, and threats to privacy due to incessant online tracking, that ad blockers became so popular.

There’s a good argument today that an effective ad blocking solution is not just a way to keep out an avalanche of mostly unwanted advertising. In many cases ad blockers are seen as an essential tool in the internet user’s security toolbox and as a result, people are reluctant to turn them off.

Axel Springer Acquires Target, Misses, Switches to New Weapon

For German publisher Axel Springer, ad blocking solutions are mechanisms that fundamentally undermine the company’s ability to generate revenue. Hoping to force change, over a decade ago the company took legal action against Eyeo GmbH, the company behind Adblock Plus , arguing that the software interfered with its business model. In April 2018, Adblock Plus and Eyeo came out on top, when Germany’s Supreme Court found no breach of competition law.

Still determined to take ad blocking out of the game, Springer changed tack. In a new lawsuit, the publisher alleged that AdBlock Plus removes ads by interfering with the “programming code of websites” which violates its exclusive rights under copyright law.

Eyeo dismissed the claim as “almost absurd” and in January 2022 the Hamburg Regional Court denied Springer’s request for an injunction, ruling that there was no unauthorized copying or reworking of copyrighted computer programs as defined under local law.

Springer appealed and in 2023 lost again , this time at the Higher Regional Court of Hamburg. Refusing to accept defeat, the publisher filed yet another appeal at the Federal Court of Justice (BGH).

Treatment of Software Under German Copyright Law

While competition law may have been a dead end, copyright law can offer novel opportunities for the determined.

Axel Springer’s argument is built on provisions in German copyright law for the protection of software. According to § 69a para. 3 UrhG , a piece of software (‘computer program’) is afforded protection under copyright law if it “represents an individual work to the extent that it is the result of the author’s own intellectual creation.”

Protection applies to “all forms of expression” in the program but does not extend to “ideas and principles” underlying its elements. This effectively means that people can’t copy or distribute a piece of software verbatim, but they are free to write their own version of the software as long as there’s no direct copying of the original.

In more general terms, computer programs are treated as literary works under the Copyright Act and as such enjoy the same protection. This means that the author of a computer program (or their employer) holds exclusive rights to reproduce, distribute and make the program publicly available, just as an author of a book would.

Springer Argues Websites Are Computer Programs

Axel Springer argues that the software used to create its online media presence (i.e its website) qualifies for protection as software under § 69a (1) and (2) of the Copyright Act.

Based on the assumption that its software does indeed qualify for protection under § 69a, Axel Springer notes that further protection is afforded under § 69c, with certain exclusive rights granted to the rightsholder.

Under § 69c, third parties must obtain permission for any of the following acts:

§ 69c (2) “the translation, adaptation, arrangement and other modifications of a computer program as well as the reproduction of the results obtained.”

Axel Springer’s argument is that when Adblock Plus blocks or manipulates its website code (‘computer program’) present in the user’s browser, that amounts to a violation of its exclusive right of modification available under § 69c (2) and its reproduction right under § 69c (1).

Federal Court of Justice Overturns Decision of Lower Court

The above matters and others focused on the technical issues are detailed in the ruling handed down by the Federal Court of Justice (BGH). The ruling ( Werbeblocker IV / Ad Blocker IV ) is clearly a setback for Eyeo GmbH; the Higher Regional Court of Hamburg previously ruled in favor of the Cologne-based company, a decision the BGH has just overturned.

In a nutshell, the BGH states that the Hamburg court arrived at its decision without first establishing important fundamentals. These details may support the decision of the Hamburg court or undermine it, but that can only be determined once the facts are established.

“When examining whether an infringement of a copyrighted right to a protected object (here: a computer program within the meaning of Section 69a (1) of the Copyright Act) has occurred, it is not always necessary to determine whether this protected object meets the requirements of a copyrighted work, computer program, or related right. Rather, this circumstance can be assumed, provided that there is no unlawful infringement of copyright,” the decision reads.

“It should be noted, however, that the question of an infringement of a property right may depend on a clear definition of the protected object and its features justifying protection. Denying an infringement of a copyright-protected right while simultaneously assuming that the protected object in question is eligible for copyright protection is therefore only possible in such a case if the object itself deemed to be protected by copyright and the features justifying its protection are clearly defined.”

Technical Matters

Lubberger Lehment, the law firm acting for Axel Springer, highlights a technical aspect mentioned in the BGH decision which it believes warrants much closer attention.

“In particular, the Higher Regional Court did not sufficiently consider Axel Springer’s argument that a browser is a virtual machine controlled by a website program as byte code. In its reasoning, the Federal Supreme Court quotes in unusual detail what we presented with the help of external experts,” their statement reads.

The decision notes that this is not just about “changing variable data in the memory of a computer, but rather changing code created by the bytecode of the website ‘computer program’ as a form of expression of the website programming itself.”

For those interested in the technical argument, full details are available in the decision ( pdf , German) . Which elements will make or break the case, if any, is still unclear.

Outcome Could Have Far-Reaching Implications

The scale of the fallout from an Axel Springer win could be significant and given the background, hard to balance in the bigger picture. Switching to copyright law purely because competition law proved insufficient, suggests that copyright may have been viewed as a means to an end. Whether wider disruption will find balance in the benefits claimed by the plaintiffs is another question.

Lubberger Lehment state that the case isn’t just about protecting the integrity of online media.

“It is about the question of whether at all and in what quality online journalism can be offered and used in the future – it is about freedom of information without paywalls. This is fundamental to democracy,” the company writes.

Whether the developer community will come to view the following in a positive light remains to be seen.

“[T]he case is of fundamental importance for the entire software industry. This is because all browser applications work with the same technical components, namely HTML5, CSS, PHP, and Java Script. This affects all cloud-based applications such as computer games, standard software, SAP, etc. The ad blocker trial will determine whether this future technology is protected by copyright or can be manipulated at will by third parties.”

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

Under U.S. law, rightsholders have an option to identify alleged copyright infringers without directly having to file a lawsuit.

Instead, they can request a DMCA subpoena which is typically signed by a court clerk and don’t require any judicial oversight.

Specifically, they allow rightsholders to obtain the personal details of anonymous alleged infringers from third-party internet services where the infringing material was stored or shared. That includes hosting companies and social media platforms.

DMCA Shortcut?

The DMCA specifies that these subpoenas don’t apply to all online services. Mere conduit providers that simply pass on bytes are typically excluded, for example. However, that didn’t stop some rightsholders from using this shortcut to request information from residential ISPs.

Drawing inspiration from the RIAA’s efforts to identify music pirates in the early 2000s, more recently they used the DMCA subpoena process to obtain the personal details of suspected copyright infringers.

Courts in the United States ruled out use of DMCA subpoenas in this context over two decades ago, but more recent attempts presented fresh interpretations while highlighting conflicting case law . Many court clerks granted these new subpoena requests, which required Internet providers to identify hundreds, if not thousands, of alleged pirates.

Cox Successfully Intervened, Filmmakers Appealed

After rightsholders obtained similarly broad DMCA subpoenas from courts around the U.S., Internet provider Cox Communications intervened in one of those cases to defend a subscriber who objected to the handover of their information.

In common with the opposition that ruled out the use of DMCA subpoenas in the early RIAA case, the ISP argued that these subpoenas don’t apply to mere conduit providers, as defined under § 512(a) of the DMCA.

The Hawaii District Court agreed with Cox’s reasoning last year and quashed the subpoena. The ruling concluded that DMCA subpoenas typically don’t apply to DMCA §512(a) services, but do apply to other providers that store or link to infringing content directly.

The film companies, including Capstone Studios and Millennium Funding, didn’t give up, however. After an initial motion for reconsideration failed, they filed an appeal at the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Among other things, the appeal argued that Cox also falls under the definition of DMCA §512(d) providers, as it can remove or disable ‘references or links’ to infringing content.

The rightsholders further argued that DMCA subpoenas also apply to § 512(a) service providers, so should be valid for Cox.

Court of Appeals Keeps Shortcut Closed

After hearing both sides, the Ninth Circuit ruled in favor of Cox, confirming the lower court’s decision. This means that DMCA subpoenas cannot be used to compel residential ISPs to identify subscribers who allegedly pirated content.

The Court ruled that the subpoena process is “inextricably intertwined” with the DMCA’s “notice and takedown” framework. This means that a valid subpoena can only be issued following a takedown notice that identifies content that should be removed or disabled.

Since an ISP like Cox does not store the files users share via BitTorrent, there is nothing for it to “take down”. Therefore, a valid notification cannot be sent, and a subpoena cannot be issued.

The film companies had argued that by assigning IP addresses and routing traffic, Cox was effectively “linking” subscribers to infringing content. The Court rejected this argument, noting that, based on this logic, the § 512(d) safe harbor would “completely swallow” the § 512(a) safe harbor, as every ISP performs this function.

Finally, the Court dismissed the filmmakers’ argument that Cox could “disable access” via port blocking or null routing. The Court concluded that these measures would not remove the infringing material from the internet.

MPA, RIAA, EFF and Congress

The ruling is in line with previous decisions from other circuits, solidifying the use of DMCA subpoenas as off-limits.

This is good news for subscribers who were at risk of being identified through this shortcut. Rightsholders can still request their identities, but only after filing a regular lawsuit, a more expensive process and harder to scale up.

The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), which submitted an amicus brief in the case, previously argued that allowing these subpoenas would empower “copyright trolls” and lead to coercive settlement demands against ordinary internet users. That concern is off the table now.

The MPA and RIAA will be less pleased with the Ninth Circuit’s decision. While they took no side in the dispute, they feared that the lower court’s ruling against DMCA subpoenas could interfere with their efforts to obtain details of infringers through third-party services such as Cloudflare.

The movie and music industry’s anti-piracy groups filed an amicus brief arguing for a “narrow ruling” that would not reject the possibility that an IP address could function as a “link” under the § 512(d) safe harbor.

However, the Ninth Circuit did not issue a narrow ruling. On the contrary, it confirmed that connecting a user to the internet and assigning them an IP address does not “link” or “refer” that user to any particular infringing material.

The Court did exactly what the MPA and RIAA feared it might do. Of course, this case applies to a residential ISP, Cox, and if a similar challenge is filed in cases where Cloudflare or other providers are targeted, other arguments may be brought to the table.

All in all, the Court of Appeals clarified that rightsholders will have to use the more expensive route if they want to identify alleged BitTorrent pirates. The Court did say that it understood the challenges rightsholders face, but stressed that these should be addressed by lawmakers.

“We are sympathetic to this argument, but whether the DMCA provides a sufficient remedy for copyright holders to vindicate their rights against infringers using P2P networking is ultimately a question for Congress, not the courts,” the decision concludes.

—

The decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, issued on August 15, is available here (pdf)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Creating the BeStreamWise Brand

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

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

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

BeStreamWise Video Campaign

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

4. ̶P̶R̶O̶F̶I̶T̶ Successful behavioral modification

How Did the Campaign Perform?

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

Terms used to sum up:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Open Library Remains Accessible

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

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

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

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

New Order Defers Open Library Blocking

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

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

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

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

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

Two-Step Blocking Process

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

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

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

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

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

—

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

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

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

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

A Clearer, Much Bigger Picture

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

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

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

Cloudflare Blocking Concerns Previously Obtained Injunctions

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Domains Listed For Blocking in the Remaining Injunctions

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

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

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

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

Yet Another New Batch

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“Eliminating Educational Inequality”

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

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

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

Book Publishers and Government React

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

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

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

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

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

Authorities Arrest Yubin Archive’s Operator

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

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

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

Authorities Dismiss ‘Robin Hood’ Imagery

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Reason’s Big Brother: Justification

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“We Run On English Football Time”

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

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

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

Light at the End of the Tunnel

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

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

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

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

Piracy Profits From Exclusivity

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

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

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

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

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

–

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Internet is littered with cheap IPTV services that offer access to a lot of content, for very little money.

These deals often seem too good to be true and in most cases they are, at least for those who prefer to stay on the right side of the law.

Netflix, Amazon & Hollywood Sue American IPTV Operator

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

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

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

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

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

Studios Request Default Judgment

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

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

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

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

$15 Million in Damages

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

—

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

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