Amazon is not just the largest e-commerce retailer; the company also has a significant copyright portfolio.

In recent years, Amazon has increased its anti-piracy efforts, both individually and as a member of the Alliance for Creativity and Entertainment (ACE).

The company does all it can to protect popular titles such as Fallout, The Lord of the Rings: The Rings of Power, and The Boys, which are typically pirated shortly after their release.

Amazon Sues Pirate DVD Operation

The main focus of these anti-piracy efforts is on pirate streaming and download portals, but it doesn’t end there. In 2023, Amazon sued several websites that sold pirated DVDs disguised as official releases.

While pirated discs are no longer as popular as they were 20 years ago, they remain a problem, especially when illicit copies are sold as the real deal.

The piracy operation consisted of at least eight websites, including dvdshelf.com.au, dvds.trade, dvd-wholesale.com, and dvdwholesale.co.uk. These sites were all linked to the same group of defendants: DVD Trade Int. Ltd, Media Wholesale UK, and an individual named Yangchun Zhang, who reportedly resides in China.

Since Amazon has never released some of these Prime Video series on DVD, there was no doubt the discs were created from illicit sources. Amazon’s investigators conducted more than twenty test purchases, and the Motion Picture Association confirmed that every single sample was pirated.

Defendants Don’t Appear in Court

The defendants were served with the complaint in April 2024 but never appeared in court. According to Amazon’s attorneys, however, the defendants shut some domains down, trading them in for new ones, suggesting that they were aware of the legal pressure.

When Amazon eventually filed its motion for default judgment in March 2025, at least two of the piracy websites were still active. That still holds true at the time of writing, as dvd-wholesale.com and dvdshelf.com.au remain online.

Amazon argued that the defendants were willingly ignoring the lawsuit and simply refused to show up in court. The company requested millions of dollars in damages as well as domain transfers to shut the sites down. After reviewing all the evidence, the court agreed.

$6 Million in Damages

This week, Judge Fernando Aenlle-Rocha of the Central District of California granted Amazon’s motion for default judgment in full, awarding a total of $6,075,000 in statutory damages for copyright and trademark infringement.

Amazon Content Services was awarded $3,075,000 for copyright infringement covering 78 copyrighted episodes across seven television series, including The Rings of Power, The Boys, Clarkson’s Farm, and The Legend of Vox Machina.

The court awarded $75,000 per infringed work for titles Amazon exclusively owns, and proportionally lower amounts for co-owned titles. This is in line with what Amazon proposed itself.

The court also awarded Amazon Technologies an additional $3,000,000 for willful trademark infringement, at $1 million per infringed mark for three of its registered trademarks. This is also in line with what Amazon proposed.

All three defendants, DVD Trade, Media Wholesale UK, and Zhang, are jointly and severally liable for the full damages amount. However, enforcing this type of order against evasive foreign defendants might prove difficult. Therefore, Amazon also requested an injunction targeting the hosting companies and domain names.

Broad Injunction and Domain Transfers

In the order, Judge Fernando Aenlle-Rocha agrees a permanent injunction that extends well beyond the named defendants is indeed warranted.

Specifically, the order prohibits defendants from reproducing, distributing, advertising, or selling any copies of Amazon’s copyrighted works, and also targets the infrastructure behind the piracy operation.

The court directed domain registrars GoDaddy and Drop.com.au to transfer ownership of all eight piracy domains to Amazon. Meanwhile, top-level domain registries, including Verisign, auDA, Elite Registry Limited, and Nominet UK, are also ordered to assist with the transfers.

Finally, hosting providers that receive notice of the order must suspend services to the piracy websites and place administrative locks on them to prevent the sites from simply moving elsewhere.

To be Continued?

Importantly, the court also left open the option to extend the injunction to additional domains and websites in the future, if Amazon can demonstrate they are operated by the same defendants and infringe its copyrights or trademarks.

This extension might be much-needed, as the defendants have shown no signs of engaging with the legal process, and it remains to be seen whether a single penny in damages will ever be collected.

Ultimately, the broad injunction is the real prize, however, as this should make it significantly harder for them to continue operating their piracy network, at least under these domain names.

—

A copy of the court’s order granting default judgment and permanent injunction, filed at the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, is available here (pdf) .

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

Like most other countries, South Korea has a persistent piracy problem. Online streaming platforms in particular have flourished in recent years.

While several large piracy platforms such as Noonoo and TVWIKI have been shut down, new threats continue to emerge.

To deal with this problem, Korean rightsholders use advanced OSINT tools to track down offenders and hold them responsible. In addition, dedicated anti-piracy groups deployed advanced AI monitoring systems.

While anti-piracy efforts increasingly turn into an AI-assisted arms race, human involvement remains valuable too. In fact, the Korea Copyright Protection Agency ( KCOPA ) is actively recruiting more people to help monitor foreign language pirate sites.

In the current application round , KCOPA is hoping to add 25 people. These ‘K-Copyright Monitors,’ as they are called, will be paired with the agency’s automated detection systems to track down pirated Korean content overseas. The initiative, now in its fourth year, helps to flag foreign pirate sites early.

The full recruitment notice, published by the Korea Software Copyright Association on behalf of the KCOPA, notes that ten languages are targeted: Chinese, English, Thai, Vietnamese, Spanish, Indonesian, Arabic, Russian, Portuguese, and French.

Malware, Viruses & Minimum Wage

While foreign applicants are welcome, the job application is in Korean and targeted locally, which isn’t likely to invite many outsiders. The job starts next month and runs until November 27, and applicants are required to work from a registered home address.

Prospective applicants must currently be unemployed and should not expect a high salary. The hourly rate is 10,320 won, or roughly $7.50, which is South Korea’s minimum wage.

The day-to-day work involves scanning overseas websites for pirated copies of Korean films, dramas, web novels, webtoons, music, and published works, then collecting infringement data and evidence. The KCOPA shares this data with rights holders and also uses it for enforcement purposes.

One detail that stands out is that applicants must be prepared to deal with “viruses and ransomware” that can occasionally be found on pirate sites. For this reason, they may want to set up a virtual machine for the piracy monitoring job.

Why Humans Still Matter

In response to questions from TorrentFreak, KCOPA explained why it continues to rely on human monitors alongside its automated systems. The agency said that while AI-based detection is effective at identifying large volumes of infringing content, the techniques used to distribute pirated material are also evolving rapidly.

Human monitors can identify new patterns of infringement that automated systems struggle to detect, and can make more flexible judgments about whether content actually constitutes a violation, the agency said.

The experience of human monitors with analyzing pirate sites across different language regions helps to improve the automated system’s accuracy over time.

“For repetitive and standardized types of infringement, we actively utilize automated systems,” KCOPA senior official Park So-yeon told TorrentFreak, translated from Korean. “At the same time, we use human monitoring to compensate for the limitations of automated systems and to verify the accuracy of detection results.”

240,000 Links Deleted

The ten languages are picked based on survey data, identifying the foreign languages where Korean Wave content is most prevalent. According to KCOPA, the K-Copyright Monitors have been quite effective over the years.

Since the program started, link deletions have increased every year. In 2025 alone, approximately 240,000 pirated links were removed, KCOPA notes in a press release this week.

“To recognize the fair value of K-content in the global market, an immediate and systematic response to illegal distribution is essential,” KCOPA Director Park Jung-ryeol said, translated from Korean. “Through the operation of K-Copyright Monitors, we will closely analyze overseas infringement situations and respond immediately.”

—-

https://cm.asiae.co.kr/en/article/2026020909455719985

https://www.kcopa.or.kr/eng/index.do

https://www.kcopa.or.kr/eng/lay1/S120T436C508/contents.do

https://m.blog.naver.com/kcopastory/221883080121

https://m.blog.naver.com/PostView.naver?blogId=kcopastory&logNo=224156143734&navType=by

https://www.asiae.co.kr/article/life-general/2026020909455719985

https://www.spc.or.kr/ko/notification/noti/sw_sub411?no=1420

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

In September 2024, we reported on an unprecedented anti-piracy measure handed down in Argentina.

Judge Esteban Rossignoli required local ISPs to block 69 domains linked to the pirate IPTV service Magis TV. More controversially, the judge also ordered Google to remotely uninstall sideloaded Magis TV apps from all Android devices with Argentine IP addresses.

“What was achieved is an unprecedented court order, which is in the process of being analyzed by Google – we understand that they cannot deny it – which is to uninstall, through the Android operating system update, the application on all devices that have an IP address in Argentina,” prosecutor Alejandro Musso said at the time.

While the Magis TV crackdown has some effect, the brand wasn’t gone. New IPTV services continued to pop up, including an apparent rebrand: XuperTV. This week, these two services are both targeted in a new high-profile court order.

70+ Domains Blocked, Apps Go Dark

On February 10 and 11, thousands of Argentine users discovered that Magis TV and its successor Xuper TV had stopped working entirely. Channel lists wouldn’t load, connections timed out, and in some cases, the apps completely vanished from smart TVs and mobile devices.

This is the result of Judge Rossignoli’s new court order, which covers more than 70 domains. The order requires ISPs to block domains and IP-addresses and, similar to the earlier version, orders Google to disable the applications on Android devices connecting from Argentina.

Users attempting to open the apps are greeted with a blunt message:

“Due to policy limitations, the account cannot be used in your area. Contact your retailer.”

The court order is part of a broader enforcement action, led by Argentina’s Specialized Unit on Cybercrime (UFEIC) under prosecutor Musso. According to La Nación and Cadena 3 , the investigation included raids and the seizure of hundreds of TV Boxes. Those identified as responsible face up to six years in prison.

Before the full block hit, the platforms reportedly tried to limit their exposure by deleting all Argentine channels . However, that clearly didn’t work.

Operación 404

The Argentinian enforcement is part of Operación 404 , an international anti-piracy operation led by Brazil’s Ministry of Justice that has previously coordinated raids and domain seizures across Latin America.

Coinciding with the Argentinian actions, Chile’s Department of Telecommunications ordered ISPs to block all sites using the brands Magis Tv, Flujo TV, Xuper TV or their variants. That includes “any domain, subdomain, IP address, link, redirect or mirror” that reproduces the content. The dynamic blocking order gives ISPs five days to comply.

The Chilean action was triggered by a complaint from Warner Bros. Discovery. ISPs must display a notice stating the sites were blocked for intellectual property infringement.

The Milei/Trump IP Agreement

The timing of the anti-piracy actions might not be coincidental. On February 5, Argentina and the United States signed a trade and investment agreement that includes explicit commitments on intellectual property enforcement.

Argentina committed to “establish a robust standard of protection for intellectual property” and to create “effective systems for enforcement in civil, criminal, and border areas” that “combat and deter the infringement or misappropriation of intellectual property, including in the digital environment.”

The United States reportedly lodged more than 100 copyright-related demands in the negotiations. Article 1.10 specifically commits Argentina to “investigate and bring criminal proceedings against operators of Argentina-based websites that engage in commercial-scale copyright piracy.”

That language goes well beyond Magis TV. It also targets sites like Fútbol Libre and Pelota Libre, which stream Argentine football without authorization.

VPN Interest Spikes

In addition to blocking pirate sites, the actions had an immediate side effect: a surge in VPN usage.

On February 10, Proton VPN’s account on X posted a graph showing a sharp spike in Argentine connections, asking: “Is everything okay in Argentina?”

Apparently, pirates quickly began sharing workarounds on social media. A common one involves installing ProtonVPN, connecting to a Mexican server, then reopening Magis TV or Xuper TV. In some cases, the apps work again via the VPN.

Others are changing DNS settings on their smart TVs manually, though this is reportedly becoming less effective. According to FayerWayer, rights protection systems are now using AI to identify pirate IPTV traffic in real time, leaving users who reconnect with constant interruptions and degraded quality.

What’s Next

The search for workarounds in response to blocking efforts is not new. We have seen this countless times already, dating back more than a decade ago. These blocking workarounds don’t only apply to users, the operators of pirate services and apps also have to get creative.

Whether Google actually complied with the removal order and, if so, what actions it took precisely remains an open question. Magis TV apps were distributed mostly as sideloaded APK files from third-party websites. For Google to remotely disable such an app, it would need to intervene on the users’ devices directly.

App developers could likely find ways to work around it by rebranding again, simply continuing the game of whack-a-mole. But that’s nothing new, of course.

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

Anna’s Archive is generally known as a meta-search engine for shadow libraries, helping users find pirated books and other related resources.

However, last December, the site announced that it had also backed up Spotify , which came as a shock to the music industry.

Anna’s Archive initially released only Spotify metadata, and no actual music, but that put the music industry on high alert. Together with the likes of Universal, Warner, and Sony, Spotify filed a lawsuit days later, hoping to shut the site down.

Through a preliminary injunction targeting domain registrars and registries, the shadow library lost several domain names. However, not all were taken down, and with the addition of a new Greenland-based backup , the site apparently pushed through with the feared Spotify data release.

Millions of Music Files

While there hasn’t been an official announcement or a formal listing on the torrent page, several people have spotted dozens of new Spotify download links in the torrents.json file hosted on the site. These files were added on February 8, presumably with a single seeder.

At the time of writing, we count 47 new music torrents, plus a new metadata torrent. These releases all contain 60,000 files, except for a smaller batch, bringing the total to roughly 2.8 million files. That’s roughly 6 terabytes of music.

In addition, there’s a massive 29 GB ‘seekable’ metadata file, which likely acts as the index for the 2.8 million tracks that use abstract Spotify track IDs as names.

On Reddit, the mysterious releases are actively discussed in various threads. They do indeed contain music files, ranging from a few hundred kilobytes to several megabytes. The filenames reference what appear to be Spotify track IDs but contain no artist names or song titles. Instead, they likely match Spotify’s internal cache format.

The music files themselves come with embedded media information and metadata, including song, album, artist, and publisher, among others. If applicable, the cover art is also included.

The torrents are labeled “pop_0,” which, based on Anna’s Archive’s earlier blog post, refers to the popularity rank. The site previously said it planned a staggered release, based on how popular releases are, but additional batches could follow.

Defying the Injunction

The release comes despite a preliminary injunction signed by Judge Jed Rakoff on January 16. That order explicitly prohibited Anna’s Archive from hosting, linking to, or distributing the copyrighted works, and also targeted third-party intermediaries, including domain registries, hosting companies, and Cloudflare.

Anna’s Archive previously appeared to comply, at least in part. The site’s dedicated Spotify download section was removed and marked as “unavailable until further notice.” However, the new torrents suggest that this was a temporary measure rather than a lasting retreat.

Until now, only metadata had been released publicly, compressed into roughly 200GB. The actual music files, which the lawsuit specifically sought to prevent from being distributed, are of much bigger concern.

What’s Next

Given the gravity of the situation, Spotify and the labels are not expected to sit idly by. Anna’s Archive previously said it archived roughly 86 million music files, and almost 300 terabytes in total, so there could be more to come.

Whether the music companies will also monitor people who share these files for potential legal follow-ups is unknown, but they will do their best to keep the pressure on intermediaries.

The music companies already have a court-ordered injunction that compels domain name registrars and registries to make the site inaccessible. However, we have observed that companies and organizations that fall outside the U.S. jurisdiction don’t automatically comply with these.

At the time of writing, Anna’s Archive has not publicly commented on the new release yet. Spotify informed us that the company has no further comments at this time and referred us to the preliminary injunction it obtained in U.S. court last month.

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

Pirate site blocking is a common practice in dozens of countries around the world, and the Netherlands and Germany are no exceptions.

The neighboring countries rely on court-ordered blocking decisions, with a twist; ISPs in both countries voluntarily agreed to honor orders against other providers. At the start of this year, this applied to two Nintendo-related pirate sites.

Dutch Dynamic ‘NXBrew’ Blocking Order

In the Netherlands, the Rotterdam District Court granted a blocking order requested by Dutch anti-piracy group BREIN . Last week, the court ordered local ISP Delta Fiber to block access to NXBrew.net, a popular platform that reportedly links to more than 12,000 pirated Nintendo Switch games.

This is the first site blocking order against a gaming-related site in the Netherlands.

The order includes a dynamic blocking provision, requiring Delta Fiber to also block future domains, subdomains, proxies, and mirrors. This means if NXBrew shifts to new domains to evade the blockades, BREIN can add them without returning to court. For now, however, only the .net domain is targeted.

Delta Fiber made an appearance in the Dutch court, but it offered no substantive defense. The court subsequently granted BREIN’s requests in full, adding NXBrew to the national blocklist.

Nintendo was not directly involved in the legal proceeding; instead, its rights were represented by BREIN, which is the primary driver behind Dutch blocking requests.

ISPs and Google Cooperate

While Delta Fiber was the only targeted ISP, other major Dutch Internet providers have agreed to follow suit under the site-blocking covenant that was signed in October 2021.

In addition to broadening the ISP blockades, the covenant also requires BREIN to complete a step-by-step plan before taking legal action. This includes trying to contact the site operators or urging the respective hosting companies to take action. A blocking order should be used as the last resort.

In addition to notifying all ISPs, BREIN says that it also sent Google a copy of the ruling requesting removal of NXBrew links from its search results. While not part of the covenant, the search engine is known to voluntarily comply with ISP blocking orders, even when the company itself is not named. That further increases the scope of the injunction.

German Court Blocks NSWPedia

The Dutch order is not the only Nintendo-linked blocking action this year. On January 27, Cologne Regional Court in Germany ruled that NSWPedia, another piracy site, must be blocked by German ISPs.

German ISPs also agreed to cooperate through the CUII (Clearing Body for Copyright on the Internet) framework, which coordinates blocking efforts between rightsholders and ISPs. Under this system, one court order triggers voluntary blocks across participating providers, similar to the Dutch scheme.

NSWPedia was classified as a “structurally copyright-infringing website.” Through a representative random sample, the court determined that between 94.4% and 99.8% of the content was infringing.

CUII’s implementation order doesn’t mention the rightsholder and the underlying court order was not immediately available. However, we expect that Nintendo (or their affiliate) is the complainant.

Transparency Concerns

While both systems rely on judicial oversight, transparency remains a concern, especially when ISPs don’t substantially push back in court proceedings.

Transparency is particularly limited in Germany, where there is no official public blocklist. This lack of openness led a German developer named Lina to create CUIILliste.de , an unofficial monitoring site that has exposed several blocking errors.

In the Netherlands, some ISPs offer more transparency. This includes Delta Fiber, which provides a list of all blocked domain names. The list, which includes piracy and Russian propaganda blocks , is currently a few hundred entries long and publicly accessible on the company’s website.

—

A copy of the CUII blocking implementation statement on NSWPedia, referencing the Cologne court order, is available here (pdf) . TorrentFreak has seen a copy of the NXBrew ruling issued by the Rotterdam Court, but it has not been published publicly yet.

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

With an impressive 185 million visitors per month early last year, Mangajikan was one of the largest piracy sites on the Internet.

The site’s popularity did not go unnoticed by manga publisher Shueisha, which took legal action at a California federal court last summer to uncover the operator’s identity.

Shueisha filed a request for a DMCA subpoena, directed at Cloudflare, hoping to expose the operator. This appeared to yield results right away, as mangajikan.com and the related domain alammanga.com were voluntarily taken down soon after.

The DMCA subpoena was granted last October , despite fierce objections from Mangajikan’s former operator. However, Cloudflare could not hand anything over yet, as both sides disagreed on the scope of the associated protective order. This disagreement was finally resolved this week.

U.S. Enforcement Only

At the heart of the dispute was whether Shueisha could use the pirate site operator’s identity for copyright lawsuits in Japan or other foreign jurisdictions. The manga publisher argued it should have that flexibility, as it couldn’t know the operator’s location when requesting the subpoena.

Magistrate Judge Thomas S. Hixson disagreed.

In a discovery order issued this week, the court stated that the DMCA subpoena’s purpose and scope is clearly defined by the sworn declaration Shueisha made to obtain it. This legally required statement says that the subpoena “will only be used for the purpose of protecting rights under this title.”

“‘[T]his title’ means title 17 of the United States Code, so only U.S.-based copyright claims are within the purpose of the subpoena,” Judge Hixson wrote, adding that “foreign litigation is outside of that scope.”

The ruling effectively means Shueisha can identify the operator to its team in Japan, as long as this is to aid U.S. copyright enforcement. However, it cannot use the data obtained through the Cloudflare subpoena to file copyright infringement actions in foreign courts.

U.S. Lawsuit Can’t Be Used as Bypass

The court also rejected Shueisha’s argument that filing a U.S. copyright lawsuit would effectively end the protective order’s restrictions, allowing the publisher to then use the publicly filed information however it wished, including in foreign proceedings.

Judge Hixson characterized this as an impermissible bait-and-switch.

“Filing a U.S.-based copyright claim does not cause the protections of the protective order to evaporate. They remain in place; otherwise, Shueisha’s attestation was false. It is not acceptable for Shueisha to make an attestation that it will use the requested information ‘only’ for one purpose and then later change its mind,” the order states.

Mangajikan’s attorneys previously warned the court that Shueisha’s position would create a “roadmap” for rightsholders to circumvent DMCA limitations. They could simply obtain identity information through a DMCA subpoena, file a token U.S. lawsuit to make the info public, and then use it for foreign lawsuits.

No Privacy Fortress for Pirate Site Operator

While the pirate site operator won on the foreign litigation issue, the court rejected most of the operator’s proposed privacy protections as excessive. Judge Hixson called the operator’s 19-page protective order proposal “excessive,” noting it would have micromanaged Shueisha’s internal operations.

The final protective order clarifies that, while Shueisha can publicly identify the operator by name in U.S. court filings, other personal information, such as email addresses, phone numbers, and financial data, remains protected.

The order allows Shueisha to share the operator’s identity with its employees in Japan, coordinate with U.S. law enforcement, and use the information for settlement negotiations or U.S.-based copyright claims.

What’s Next

With the protective order now in place, Cloudflare must hand over the identity information to Shueisha’s lawyers. The publisher must then decide if it wants to use that information to file a U.S. copyright lawsuit, or pursue alternative enforcement options.

If Shueisha fails to file a U.S. action before the statute of limitations expires, the company must destroy all identity information.

Needless to say, the case continues to be closely watched by other rightsholders and pirate site operators. DMCA subpoenas are a widely used intelligence gathering tool, and the present order confirms they are not without boundaries.

—

A copy of Magistrate Judge Hixson’s Discovery Order is available here (pdf) . The final protective order as modified by the court is available here (pdf) .

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

In November 2015, Federal Police in Brazil launched Operation Blackbeard, a coordinated action to take down Latin America’s most popular pirate site: MegaFilmesHD.net .

Launched in 2010 and mainly catering to the Portuguese-speaking market, the movie portal had been pulling in a reported 60 million monthly visits.

At the time, the site offered a type of convenience that most legal services couldn’t match. In addition to the free and unrestricted access to content, this also included localized features such as Portuguese subtitles or dubbing.

This reign ended when police made several arrests, including the site’s presumed operators, and seized several cars, cash, and bank accounts. These actions were welcomed by Hollywood’s Motion Picture Association (MPA), which had reported the site to the U.S. Trade Representative a month earlier.

Today, more than a decade has passed since MegafilmesHD’s demise, and online piracy is arguably a much bigger problem. Popular piracy brands such as Cuevana, Redecanais, and FlujoTV are a magnet for many millions of people

This doesn’t mean that the original shutdown has no effect whatsoever. At the time, large local pirate sites were a novelty in the region, and, being the largest site by far, MegafilmesHD clearly stood out above the rest. When this went offline, many people had to scramble for alternatives, legal or illegal.

Going Pirate or Going Legal?

Ideally, rightsholders would like to see pirates flocking to legal services when these types of shutdowns occur. That is similar to the desired response to piracy site blocking. And indeed, in some instances, this appears to be true.

For example, the “ Gone in 60 Seconds ” study found that the shutdown of Megaupload in 2012 resulted in a 6 to 10% increase in digital movie revenues for two major Hollywood studios.

However, a similar study on the demise of the German streaming portal Kino.to revealed something quite different. The “ Catch Me If You Can ” paper found that this shutdown had no measurable increase in legal consumption. Instead, people simply switched to new pirate sites and continued their habit.

These seemingly conflicting findings come together in a new study on the MegafilmesHD shutdown. While the associated paper doesn’t have a title inspired by a Hollywood blockbuster, it might as well have been titled “ The Equalizer “.

“The Equalizer”: MegafilmesHD Shutdown Effect

The paper in question, published by researchers of Chapman University and Carnegie Mellon University, takes a detailed look at how the online activities of Brazilian users were affected by MegafilmesHD. To do so, they examined six months worth of clickstream data of thousands of Internet users, provided by Netquest .

The data included browsing patterns before and after the shutdown, and it included a wide variety of respondents, ranging from hardcore pirates to people who never visited MegafilmesHD at all.

After analyzing all data, the researchers found that pirates who previously used MegafilmesHD increased their visits to other pirate sites by 20% on average. Even more striking was the increase in engagement, as time spent on these alternative pirate sites surged by 61%.

This effectively confirms that high-profile shutdowns divert traffic to other pirate sites and services. This makes sense, as a single shutdown can’t realistically make all piracy go away.

However, the findings don’t end there. Additionally, the researchers also find a boost in legal use. Specifically, the data showed a 6% increase in visits to Netflix and an 11% increase in time spent on the platform among MegafilmesHD users.

Crucially, this uptick wasn’t simply caused by existing Netflix subscribers watching more content. The researchers found a causal link between high MegafilmesHD usage and the probability of someone becoming a new Netflix subscriber in the months following the raid.

The Wealth and Gender Gap

While these findings may all seem logical, the most compelling part of the research covers which people switched to legal options and who remained pirates. It appears that “The Equalizer” effect was not felt equally across all demographics.

Since costs play an important role, it makes sense that there’s a wealth factor involved. And indeed, the research found that students and unemployed individuals were less likely to sign up for Netflix, likely because price remains a primary barrier to entry.

Interestingly, gender also plays a key role. The researchers found that women were more likely to stop piracy altogether following the shutdown. Men, on the other hand, were more likely to persist, often “doubling down” by searching for new illegal sources.

It is these types of nuances that reveal the complexity of online piracy and the effectiveness of enforcement actions.

Ultimately, the researchers conclude that while a single-site shutdown can generate measurable legal gains, those gains are in part limited to users who can afford the alternative.

For rightsholders and policymakers, the “take-home” message is that enforcement is only half the battle. Without appealing and affordable legal alternatives, even the most successful police operation may be nothing more than another round of whack-a-mole, driving traffic from one pirate site to the next one.

—

Danaher, B, Hersh, J, and Smith, MD. 2025. “From Bootleg to Binge: User Migration and Legal Demand Following Brazil’s MegafilmesHD Shutdown”. Review of Economics Research on Copyright Issues , Vol 22, pp 1-32.

Note: This research was conducted as part of Carnegie Mellon University’s Initiative for Digital Entertainment Analytics (IDEA), which receives unrestricted funding from the Motion Picture Association (MPA). The authors note that all findings and any errors remain entirely their own.

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

Downloading audio and video from YouTube is generally not allowed, which the video streaming service clearly states in its terms of service.

Despite this explicit restriction, there are numerous ‘stream-ripping’ and “YouTube downloader” tools available on the web that do just that.

These ripping tools can be used to convert YouTube music videos into MP3s for example. This is seen as a major problem by the music industry, which has and is taking legal steps in response.

Specifically, music companies argue that using these stream-ripping tools violates the DMCA, as it circumvents YouTube’s copyright protection technology. This ‘rolling cipher’ can be bypassed relatively easily , but it prevents regular users from downloading videos from YouTube directly.

Creator vs. Creator

The ‘rolling cipher’ accusations are not limited to the music industry. They can also be used in other contexts, including a creator vs. creator battle. This is the case in Cordova v. Huneault, which revolved around the legality of “reaction” and “commentary” channels.

The implications could be significant. Reaction and commentary videos have become a massive part of YouTube’s ecosystem, with countless creators building entire channels around responding to, critiquing, or mocking other people’s content.

Many of these creators rely on downloading clips from other channels, often using third-party tools that bypass YouTube’s protections, to incorporate into their videos. While fair use is often cited as a defense, this case suggests that DMCA circumvention liability comes into play, regardless of whether their final use qualifies as fair.

Without going into the nature of the videos, the lawsuit pits Christopher Cordova ( Denver Metro Audits ) against Jonathan Huneault ( Frauditor Troll Channel ). Cordova alleged that Huneault didn’t just use his copyrighted footage without permission, but that he also used “ripping” tools to bypass YouTube’s technical protection to get it.

The defense disagreed with this argument and requested dismissal. They argued that, because the videos are publicly viewable on YouTube, there is no “access control” to speak of. Additionally, the defense pointed out that there is no evidence that ripping tools were used, pointing out that the defendant and many others have used screen recording to copy content.

After hearing both sides, U.S. Magistrate Judge Virginia K. DeMarchi denied the motion to dismiss the DMCA circumvention claims, allowing the case to move forward on that claim.

“Mr. Cordova has adequately pled that YouTube applies technological measures, including ‘rolling-cipher technology’ designed to prevent unauthorized downloading, to videos published on its platform that effectively control access to his videos for purposes of § 1201(a).”

“Whether the videos may be viewed by the public is immaterial; the [complaint] refers to technological measures intended to prevent unauthorized downloading,” Judge DeMarchi adds.

Caution: Reaction Channels

While the survival of the §1201 claim may seem like a mere technicality in a case that has yet to be fully litigated, it is rather significant. By accepting that the “rolling cipher” effectively controls access to the downloadable file, the court gives creators who want to sue rivals an option to sue for more than just simple copyright infringement.

For years, reaction creators have operated under the assumption that, if their commentary is fair use, the way they acquired the footage doesn’t matter. However, Judge DeMarchi’s decision suggests otherwise.

Essentially, it means that commentary and reaction channels, which are widespread, face potential liability for DMCA violations if they use ripping tools that bypass YouTube’s protections.

“No Harm, No Foul”?

The legal teams are now sharply divided on what the circumvention claims mean for the case going forward.

In a statement to TorrentFreak, defense lawyer Steven C. Vondran dismisses the circumvention claims as a tactical maneuver that may eventually fall apart, as his client didn’t use a ripping tool. The attorney further argued that, if the “reaction” video of his client is fair use, there is no “injury” or harm.

“If fair use rights apply, and if there is no cognizable injury, then what would be their grounds to have proper standing?” Vondran asked.

“Plaintiff is arguing that Defendant used ripping tools to circumvent YouTube’s content protection technology to obtain video clips,” Vondran told us. “In fact, this was not the case, but it seems anyone can allege this in a lawsuit and be able to go through discovery to see if they can find the use of these tools.”

The defense shifts the focus and counters that the plaintiff has no right to sue in the first place, because there is no harm. Vondran argues that if the final “reaction” video is fair use, then the original creator hasn’t been “injured” just because someone downloaded a clip.

Plaintiff’s attorney Randall S. Newman hit back, telling TorrentFreak that circumventing copy protections under §1201 of the DMCA, is a separate violation that is unaffected by a fair use finding.

“The injury flows from the act of bypassing technological protection measures themselves, not from the outcome of a fair-use defense asserted after the fact,” Newman says, adding that the question of whether a ripping tool was used will be answered during discovery.

While the order of the motion to dismiss is significant, for this case it means little more than that the case can now move ahead to the discovery phase, after which it will be argued on its merits. The allegations that the defendant used ripping tools to download videos will have to be backed up by evidence then.

—

A copy of the order handed down by U.S. Magistrate Judge Virginia K. DeMarchi of the Northern District of California last month is available here (pdf) .

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

Last month, we reported on an expanded class-action lawsuit in which several authors accused NVIDIA of using millions of pirated books to train its AI models.

The complaint cited internal emails showing that NVIDIA contacted Anna’s Archive seeking “high-speed access” to the shadow library’s massive collection. After being warned about the illegal nature of the materials, NVIDIA executives allegedly gave the “green light” to proceed.

Now, NVIDIA has fired back with a comprehensive motion to dismiss, calling the authors’ allegations speculative, vague, and legally insufficient.

Contact With ‘Anna’ Isn’t Enough

At the California federal court, NVIDIA argues that the authors’ complaint is built on speculation rather than facts.

While the complaint shows evidence suggesting that NVIDIA contacted Anna’s Archive about potentially accessing “millions of pirated materials,” NVIDIA points out a crucial gap: the authors never actually allege that NVIDIA downloaded their specific books from the shadow library.

“The only plausible facts alleged about Anna’s Archive are that NVIDIA ‘contacted Anna’s Archive’ about unspecified data, Anna’s Archive asked NVIDIA to confirm, and
NVIDIA gave the “green light” to ‘proceed’.”

“The mere fact that NVIDIA was in contact with representatives from Anna’s Archive does not mean that NVIDIA obtained Plaintiffs’ works from Anna’s Archive. It’s equally plausible NVIDIA did not,” the motion states.

The chip giant notes that the authors rely heavily on allegations made “upon information and belief”. This is a legal phrase that essentially means that it is an educated guess, rather than a statement that can be backed up with evidence.

Anna’s Archive ‘Backs’ NVIDIA

It’s worth noting that after our original coverage, AnnaArchivist weighed in on Reddit , stating they have not been in direct contact, suggesting the company may have used an intermediary.

“We’ve never dealt with Nvidia directly, so they likely used an intermediate party to avoid legal issues. But if Nvidia were to contact us directly, we’d happily provide them with high speed access in exchange for a donation,” the site’s representative wrote.

Whether this clarification helps or hurts the authors’ case remains to be seen. In any case, NVIDIA does not mention it in its motion to dismiss.

Catch-All Fishing Expedition

Aside from the Anna’s Archive rebuttal, NVIDIA describes the amended complaint as a fishing expedition that includes “improper catch-all allegations” that target virtually every AI model and dataset the company has ever worked with.

The original complaint focused narrowly on the NeMo Megatron model family and the Books3 dataset. But the amended version now references unidentified “NVIDIA LLMs,” unnamed “internal models,” undefined “NextLargeLLM” models, and unspecified “other shadow libraries.”

Shortly after filing their updated complaint, the authors sent new discovery requests targeting these new models and datasets.

“Plaintiffs’ bid for limitless discovery is confirmed by the blizzard of discovery requests they served after filing,” NVIDIA writes, as further evidence for the alleged fishing expedition.

No Proof Books Were Actually Used

In addition to Anna’s Archive, the amended complaint also adds various other shadow libraries, including Bibliotik, LibGen, Sci-Hub, Z-Library, and Pirate Library Mirror.

However, according to NVIDIA, the complaint lacks proof that the company downloaded the authors’ books. Similarly, it argued that there is no evidence that specific books or datasets were used to train LLMs.

For example, for the Nemotron-4 models, the authors simply speculated that because the training dataset was large and contained books, it must have included their works. NVIDIA dismissed this line of reasoning, noting that speculation is not enough.

“[T]he absence of factual allegations that the data used to train Nemotron-4 15B and Nemotron-4 340B included Plaintiffs’ works requires dismissal as to those models,” the motion to dismiss reads.

NVIDIA Requests Dismissal

All in all, NVIDIA wants the court to dismiss all the expanded claims, including the addition of the new models, the new shadow libraries, and the alleged communication with Anna’s Archive.

The company further argues that the contributory and vicarious copyright infringement claims should be dismissed completely, as there is no evidence that specific books were pirated.

Notably, the direct copyright infringement claim, which alleges that NVIDIA used the Books3 database to train its NeMo model, is not covered by the motion. NVIDIA plans to defeat that during trial or on summary judgment, likely through a defense that relies heavily on fair use.

—

A copy of NVIDIA’s motion to dismiss is available here (pdf) . It is scheduled for a hearing on April 2, 2026, before Judge Jon S. Tigar in Oakland, California.

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