When Italy passed new anti-piracy legislation in the summer of 2023, football fans were warned that anyone involved in the supply, sale or consumption of illicit IPTV streams should consider themselves a target for enforcement.

IPSOS research had previously estimated that around 25% of the adult population consume pirate streams in Italy. On one hand, that means there are millions of potential targets for fines starting at around €150 , and increasing depending on the severity of the alleged offense.

On the other, a large pool of potential targets still meets the finite resources available to the authorities, and the reality that they can’t fine them all. Inevitably, some pirates would’ve noted the odds, rolled the dice, and carried on pirating regardless.

Lack of Action and Clarity

From the perspective of the general public, a series of warnings claiming that fines were ‘imminent’ began in the summer of 2023 and continued for almost two years.

A seemingly credible announcement in September 2024 indicated that when fines arrived they would be part of an automated system. Unfortunately, a March 2024 announcement previously claimed that people could also be fined for downloading apps from legal marketplaces operated by Google, Apple, and Amazon.

2,282 Alleged IPTV Pirates Fined

Whether the series of delays, lack of clarity, diminishing credibility, or general public apathy had any effect on behavior is hard to say. What became crystal clear in May 2025 is that fines were already being issued, and the initial batch had targeted 2,282 alleged IPTV pirates spread across the country.

In line with earlier predictions, the targets were subscribers of a service shut down in an October 2024 law enforcement operation in Lecce.

Since administration of an IPTV business is not dissimilar to running any other with thousands of customers, it appears that documents seized by the authorities made the investigation somewhat easier. That led to the positive identification of over two thousand subscribers who subsequently received a fine in the mail.

Surprisingly Reasonable Fines With a Surprisingly Bitter Aftertaste

Receiving a fine in the mail for a subscription terminated in October 2024 would’ve been a double blow for any pirates who paid up front. However, many received a fine of just €154, right at the very bottom of the scale, which may have helped to soften the blow.

While mostly still unwelcome, €154 represents a mere drop in the ocean compared to the expense of defending a rightsholder-led copyright lawsuit, which may not have even crossed the minds of those who paid up to put the episode behind them.

Yet, in an unlikely, maybe even unprecedented development, rightsholders DAZN, SKY, and Serie A, appear to have spotted an opportunity to further punish pirates; specifically, those whose pirate IPTV transgressions led to them being fined by the Italian state.

Two Bites of the Same Cherries

A local report referencing the action in Lecce in 2024, reveals that the subscribers of the shuttered pirate IPTV service were traced through a detailed analysis of their personal information, banking details, and geographic data.

From the beginning of 2025 to date, nearly 2,500 pirate IPTV subscribers have been fined by the authorities, a figure in line with earlier reports. An even larger number of subscribers, over 3,000 according to the report, are currently in the process of being identified and presumably yet to face fines.

The details of those previously identified and subsequently fined are reportedly in the hands of the rightsholders. A request filed at the Prosecutor’s Office for access to the data collected as part of a criminal investigation, led to it being handed over to the rightsholders for use in civil action and the pursuit of damages.

It’s Not Smart. It’s Not Free. It’s Not Without Consequences

DAZN, SKY and Serie A showed zero sympathy for the plight of those about to be double-tapped for the same offense. Having issued several warnings in the past, it’s now time for them to deliver.

“Watching content illegally puts those who do it at risk and strikes at the very foundations of sport. It’s not smart. It’s not free. It’s not without consequences,” said Stefano Azzi, CEO of DAZN Italy.

“A compensation claim, which can amount to several thousand euros, is equivalent to about ten years of legal season tickets. Cheering legally from the stadium or from home is a safe option for those who watch and the only way to keep the spectacle we love alive. A heartfelt thanks to law enforcement and all the institutions for their work.”

Andrea Duilio, CEO of Sky Italia, warned that fighting piracy means targeting both suppliers and consumers, noting that only greater awareness can change attitudes that have become ingrained in Italian society.

“The fight against piracy isn’t just about those who manage illegal platforms: those who choose to use them must also be aware that they’re committing actual theft, with real consequences,” Duilio said. “These illicit behaviors not only harm rights holders, but also undermine entire economic sectors and put the jobs of many people at risk. Only greater awareness can contribute to a cultural shift that is now essential.”

Fines and Compensation

Never one to shy away from saying whatever he believes needs to be said, Luigi De Siervo, CEO of Serie A, removed any doubt over what will come next.

“What we’ve always said is coming true: whoever makes a mistake pays. From today, in fact, anyone who chooses to watch pirated content, in addition to being prosecuted and fined by the Guardia di Finanza, will also have to compensate the licensees for the rights they have unlawfully exploited,” De Siervo said.

“The era of impunity is finally coming to an end: the net around digital pirates is tightening month by month, marking a decisive step forward in the fight against piracy.”

“Positive Shift in Pirates’ Attitudes”

Gen. B. Crescenzo Sciaraffa is Commander of the Guardia di Finanza’s Nucleo Speciale Beni e Servizi , a unit tackling everything from ticket scalping and counterfeiting, to the seizure of 365 tons of low-quality foreign honey to prevent disruption of the local market.

In contrast to the position adopted by the rightsholders, Sciaraffa says his unit has observed how fines delivered directly to people’s homes can have a positive effect on their attitudes towards piracy. So much so that some spontaneously began cooperating with the police.

“It’s worth noting a positive effect the Corps has observed during the home delivery of fines,” Gen. Sciaraffa said.

“It shows the willingness of those fined to cooperate. In some cases, in addition to regularizing the payment of the fine to the Treasury, they have responsibly communicated new data and information to the Guardia di Finanza regarding the organizers of the illicit activities, allowing them to update their piracy investigations.”

Whether the shift in behavior continued after those who willingly paid fines were informed of the rightsholders’ plans, isn’t made clear.

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

The Internet Archive (IA) is widely known for its Wayback Machine, which preserves copies of the web for future generations.

These archiving efforts, which started decades ago, will become more valuable over time. The same could apply to IA’s other projects, including the digitization of old books and records.

Six years ago, the Archive began archiving the sounds of long obsolete 78 rpm gramophone records. In addition to capturing their unique audio, including all ‘crackles and hisses’, the Archive aimed to preserve these recordings for future generations before their vinyl or shellac disintegrates.

$693m in Potential Damages

The ‘ Great 78 Project ‘ received praise from curators, historians, and music fans, but elements of the recording industry viewed the project quite differently. Major record labels, including Sony and UMG, sued the Internet Archive for copyright infringement in federal court in 2023.

In 2024, IA responded to these allegations with a motion to dismiss. According to the Archive, many of the claims were simply too late as the infringements had occurred over three years earlier. However, this request to end the case early was denied by California District Court Judge Maxine Chesney.

The case moved forward and in March of this year, the music labels filed a second amended complaint that would significantly raise the stakes. The updated version covered 4,624 works that were allegedly infringed by the Great 78 Project, as opposed to the 2,749 recordings listed in the original complaint.

The music companies requested maximum statutory damages of $150,000 per work for each of these recordings, increasing potential damages to an astronomical $693 million.

Settlement Reached

With a massively increased damages award hanging in the air, the parties worked towards an early resolution of their dispute. In April, they informed the court that they had entered into settlement discussions, and after a few extensions, a deal has now been signed.

Yesterday, September 15, the record label plaintiffs and the Internet Archive informed the federal court that agreement had been reached. A few hours later, Judge Chesney formally dismissed the lawsuit.

Dismissal without prejudice is a temporary procedural step while the settlement is finalized; the parties expect to file for a permanent dismissal within 45 days.

None of the filings provide any details on the conditions of the settlement. It’s not clear whether any compensation will be paid, as all details remain confidential.

“The parties have reached a confidential resolution of all claims and will have no further public comment on this matter,” Internet Archive’s Chris Freeland wrote in a short statement on the case.

The lawsuit definitely had a major impact on the Great 78 Project. Since the start of the lawsuit, many thousands of digitized recordings, including many Elvis Presley albums, have reportedly been removed .

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

After riding a wave of popularity, fame and fortune, in 2012 Kim Dotcom’s file-storage empire, with Megaupload as the centerpiece, was dismantled in a high-profile law enforcement operation.

Coordinated action in North America, Europe, Asia, and Oceania was unprecedented in a copyright case. The extent of the collaboration between the United States and New Zealand authorities was always controversial, with some aspects of the local investigation subsequently declared illegal.

Yet despite years of legal wrangling and the inevitable appeal against every adverse ruling, nothing could completely derail the case against Dotcom, or prevent New Zealand’s Supreme Court giving extradition the green light in 2020 .

Minister of Justice Authorizes Extradition

Four years after the Supreme Court rendered its decision, in August 2024 New Zealand’s Minister of Justice authorized Dotcom’s surrender to the United States.

What followed was an inevitable appeal by Dotcom, in this case an application for judicial review of the Minister of Justice’s decision. Dotcom claimed the decision was tainted by bias and bad faith, and further complicated by the favorable treatment of his former co-defendants.

Application for Judicial Review

Until 2023, Megaupload coders Mathias Ortmann and Bram van der Kolk were also fighting extradition. After striking a deal with the New Zealand authorities, they admitted crimes attracting comparatively lighter sentences than those they would’ve faced in the U.S. Importantly, the deal eliminated extradition altogether.

Dotcom’s request for judicial review described the disparity between U.S. and New Zealand sentencing as intrinsically “grossly disproportionate”.

However, had Dotcom also been prosecuted in New Zealand, he believes he would’ve still been treated more harshly and received a far stiffer sentence than the 2.5 year prison terms handed to Ortmann and van der Kolk. He had previously asked the authorities to charge him in New Zealand but the police refused to do so.

Six Causes of Action as Detailed in the Request For Judicial Review

Dotcom’s request raised seven causes of action; the seventh was dismissed leaving six for the consideration of the High Court. They appear here heavily summarized with additional detail available in the 59-page High Court decision linked below.

1. Mandatory restrictions (error of law): Justice Minister Paul Goldsmith’s “surrender decision” violated a statutory mandatory restriction. The Minister erred in failing to find that the offenses for which his extradition is sought are of a political character.

Dotcom further claimed that the aim of the extradition decision was to appease U.S. copyright holders, affect interpretation of the DMCA, while depriving him of safe harbor protections under New Zealand law to ensure a disproportionate sentence. Due to a civil forfeiture order in the United States, Dotcom will not be able to fund his defense there, his submission added. The largest criminal copyright case in history would be required to rely on the under-resourced public defense service, the Court was informed.

2. Discretionary restriction (error of law): The Minister misapplied the discretionary powers granted to him. The United States prosecution was not brought in good faith or in the interests of justice, but was politically motivated. Being on bail for 12 years amounts to an undue delay in the extradition process and Dotcom’s deteriorating health makes surrender unjust and oppressive.

3. Unreasonableness: The surrender decision was unreasonable due to the disparity in treatment of Dotcom and that of his former colleagues. They ultimately spent less than a year in prison, Dotcom faces up to life in prison in the United States.

4. and 5. BOTH ABANDONED After discovery requests against the Minister of Justice and Commissioner were denied, both causes were abandoned. Both concerned the charges and plea agreements of Dotcom’s former colleagues and were rejected due to the privilege attached to their plea agreements. Other components were deemed a “fishing exercise”. Claims that local charges were denied to appease the United States lacked “evidentiary foundation.”

6. Refusal to charge and prosecute in New Zealand: The Police Commissioner’s refusal to charge Dotcom under New Zealand law amounts to unlawful discrimination. Ortmann and van der Kolk were granted a domestic prosecution for the same conduct as Dotcom, but Dotcom’s request was denied. This is disproportionate treatment under a decision made for an improper purpose.

Decision of the High Court

A High Court ruling by Justice Christine Grice dated September 10 roundly rejects Dotcom’s allegations.

The Minister did not disregard any mandatory restrictions under s 7 of the Extradition Act in reaching his Surrender Decision. There is no evidence to support Mr Dotcom’s allegation that the United States prosecution was politically motivated or carried out for any other improper purpose.

The Court found no evidence of any conduct amounting to a breach of the Extradition Treaty, bad faith, or an abuse of process.

The Minister did not fail to take into account any discretionary restrictions under s 8 of the Extradition Act. Mr Dotcom’s contention that he will face grossly disproportionate treatment, thus making his surrender unjust and oppressive, is not made out

If convicted, Dotcom’s sentence in the United States is likely to be substantially higher than a sentence for similar offenses in New Zealand. The Court acknowledges that but indicates that the assumed severity is not enough to affect the decision to extradite.

While Mr Dotcom’s likely sentence if convicted in the United States is substantially higher than what he would expect to receive in New Zealand, this is not such that it would “shock the conscience” of properly informed New Zealanders, nor does the likely United States sentence amount to an “irreducible life sentence”, so as to constitute a grossly disproportionate punishment.

The Court further found that the disparity between the sentences received by Dotcom’s former colleagues and his likely sentence in the U.S. is not a relevant factor. The Court also found that there has been no undue delay in the extradition process, and that the surrender decision itself was not unreasonable.

In relation to the Commissioner’s decision to charge Messrs Ortmann and van der Kolk in New Zealand, but not Mr Dotcom, that decision was a proper exercise of the Police’s discretion.

There were differences in circumstances between Messrs Ortmann and van der Kolk and Mr Dotcom which entitled the Police to reach different conclusions with respect to the alleged co-offenders.

There is no evidentiary basis for Mr Dotcom’s allegations of bias or unreasonableness. It is not appropriate for this Court to engage in what effectively amounts to a merits review of the Police’s prosecution decision.

What happens next has not been disclosed, but options at this stage are much more limited than they were. The exhaustion of every available option seems the most likely outcome but on what timeline is even more difficult to predict.

DOTCOM v MINISTER OF JUSTICE [2025] NZHC 2634 / CIV-2024-485-583 ( pdf )

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

ReVanced is a massively popular tool that allows users to add a range of new features and customizations for third-party Android apps including YouTube, Reddit, Instagram, and Spotify.

The project gained significant traction as the spiritual successor to YouTube Vanced, a similar project that was discontinued in 2022 after receiving a cease and desist letter from Google.

ReVanced has not been without controversy either. The project has been targeted by DMCA notices in the past, but its flagship patches have remained accessible for years, seemingly without pushback from the large tech companies. That’s no longer the case following pushback from Spotify.

Spotify Targets ReVanced

A few days ago, Spotify sent a takedown notice (pdf) to GitHub asking it to take down ReVanced’s “Unlock Premium” patch that it believes to be infringing.

“Spotify contends that the files identified […] are made via unauthorized copying of Spotify’s Copyrights and/or are unauthorized derivative works of Spotify’s Copyrights, and directly infringe Spotify’s Copyrights,” Spotify wrote.

The full takedown notice has not yet been published on GitHub, but the ReVanced team published a copy through its website. In addition to informing users about the enforcement action, the developers say they are seeking legal assistance to better understand their position.

ReVanced Disagrees but Complies

ReVanced disagrees with the claim that it copied Spotify’s code and stresses that all music tracks accessible through the patched app are also available on the free version of Spotify. The premium features ReVanced provides access to mostly affect convenience.

The developers believe the core question in this dispute appears to be whether ReVanced’s attestation bypass, which essentially bypasses Spotify’s tampering protection, is a violation of the DMCA’s anti-circumvention provision.

Interestingly, based on our reading of the notice, that argument is not clearly made in the takedown request, where Spotify cites unauthorized copying and derivative works based on its copyrights.

Speaking with TorrentFreak this weekend, the ReVanced team said that while it believes that the notice might be invalid, it is a clear warning from Spotify that could spell further trouble. Therefore, they have complied with the request for now.

“If we counter notice, they could drag all this to court if they got actual reasons for the patch being illegal. So we comply, do legal counsel, and reinstate if possible,” Ohan from ReVanced said.

Legal Help & GitHub’s Position

ReVanced’s public request for assistance from legal experts hasn’t resulted in any signed defense deals, but the team says that it has managed to get some informal legal counsel.

The goal now is to get a clear picture of their rights and the potential risks involved. Ideally, the developers would like to reinstate the code and fight back, but that’s only an option if they can make a strong case that their patches are legal.

The ReVanced team plans to engage with GitHub on the matter once they have a clearer legal strategy. The company is known to protect developers from DMCA overreach, but its views are on this particular situation are unclear.

GitHub previously launched a $1 million developer defense fund , which was established to help projects fight unwarranted DMCA claims. Whether this case will be eligible for support is unknown, but the ReVanced team notes that this could be useful.

If ReVanced decides to fight back, it will likely issue a counter-notice to get the code restored. That will open the door to a lawsuit from Spotify, so the team will take the time to properly deliberate all options before taking that step.

While that process takes its course, ReVanced’s official Spotify patch will remain unavailable.

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

The sheer number of piracy studies conducted over the past three decades is a testament to the complexity and allure of the puzzle.

By any reasonable means available today, piracy has proven itself unsolvable. Yet there’s one inescapable constant that holds true across all products, in every single market.

If a product is unavailable to buy legally, piracy will create a market that didn’t previously exist and then become its only supplier. That’s the inevitable outcome when content owners refuse to compete, but when the same happens to an existing legitimate market under extreme circumstances, it certainly isn’t pretty.

Licensed Market Transformed into 100% Piracy

Following the invasion of Ukraine, Hollywood, Netflix and most Western movie and TV show companies pulled out of Russia, as the following excerpt from an IIPA report to the U.S. Government briefly explains.

Since the withdrawal from the market, regular movie releases enjoyed in the West have had no corresponding official release in Russia. Yet movies have been playing regularly both in cinemas and online, in breach of Russian law and in violation of the studios’ intellectual property rights.

In short, the content that fueled the largest share of Russia’s cinema sector was licensed one minute, and 100% pirated the next.

Study: Piracy Traffic and Profits Take a Hit

The findings of new study reported by Kommersant on Wednesday, suggest that making money from pirate sites isn’t as easy as it once was. That’s an interesting premise.

Since the most popular content in Russia is unavailable to view on legal platforms, at least in theory it has no competition either. Under these conditions piracy usually thrives but according to the study, it’s a bit of a struggle.

Cybersecurity company F6 (formerly known as Group-IB) claims that advertising revenue in the first half of 2025 fell by 14.5% when compared to the same period last year, and 26.5% when compared to 2023. The F6 chart below shows pirate site ad revenue in dollars, with total revenue expressed as the size of the market (translations by TF)

Kommersant’s report provides no further context, such as which sites or services generate the revenue. F6’s report doesn’t provide specific detail on that front either, but does offer two reasons why revenue is falling.

“Payments for displaying advertising are reduced. Last year, the cost of payments for advertising to visitors of pirated resources remained at about the same level, but in 2025 it began to decline again. In the first half of the year, the average CPM was $3.11 – 0.6% and 2.2% less than in the same period of 2024 and 2023, respectively,” F6 explain.

Search Query Traffic Down

The second factor is a reported reduction in search query traffic. In the first half of 2025, traffic was reportedly down 13.9% compared to the same period last year. We assume that most of the traffic usually originates from Yandex but again, details haven’t been made available so drawing an independent conclusion is much more difficult.

However, since site/URL blocking measures can indeed remove content from Yandex’s indexes, comments from F6 that pirated content is being detected more quickly, should in theory lead to faster blocking and deindexing. If that leads to lower quality search results, less search query traffic should be the end result. F6 reports that some pirates have even been using morse code to make their uploaded content harder to detect.

The prospect of Russian pirates routinely searching Yandex in morse code seems unlikely, but there seems to be more serious issues that aren’t directly addressed.

Hollywood Free-For-All?

Some time ago we were informed (unofficially) that blocking claims relating to Western movies weren’t being filed in Russia, therefore searches in local search engines have always returned useful results. Since nothing gets blocked, nothing is removed either, we were told.

Yet whatever the reasons, the bottom line right now is that Yandex and probably other search engines too, are awash with links to pirated Hollywood movies. Case in point, the recently released Naked Gun.

Beyond blocking and deindexing, the F6 study cites another reason for the decrease in traffic to pirate sites.

“This is due to the growing number of users of legal streaming platforms,” the company notes.

The study doesn’t name those legal platforms, mention their traffic volumes, or indicate how much their presence has helped in the bigger picture. But as their presence on Russia’s version of YouTube reveals, competition is fierce right now.

RuTube: The One-Stop-Shop For Everything

Launched in 2006 and ultimately owned by Gazprom-Media , RuTube is effectively Russia’s domestic version of YouTube but on a much smaller scale. Users upload content, just as they do on YouTube, and apparently some moderation takes place to ensure certain content doesn’t appear on the platform.

Beyond the obvious, the criteria aren’t clear but visit RuTube while using a VPN, and the site makes it clear that there are benefits when VPNs are turned off. Since under certain conditions VPNs are illegal in Russia, compliance is a matter of personal choice. As will become clear later on, choosing to keep a VPN on can have consequences.

User Uploads vs. Legal Streaming Service Channels

Heading into the film section on RuTube reveals many channels dedicated to the latest movies from the United States. In many cases direct links to movies available on RuTube can be found when searching Yandex. Russia’s piracy blocklist shows no sign of removals but even if that was the case, between 10 and 20 links on most titles is a clear sign of ineffective measures.

Whether any takedown notices have been sent for these or any similar titles is unknown, but there’s no question that they’re extremely popular. The table below shows the viewing figures for a single copy/upload of each movie, the viewing figures for all copies of the same title would obviously be much bigger.

The legal streaming sites in Russia (known locally as ‘Online Cinemas) no longer offer big Western movies of any kind, so those listed above are completely off limits. Most online cinemas do have channels on RuTube, however.

A visit to their respective channels doesn’t provide access to movies, those appear to be exclusively available on their own independent platforms. The content they provide there appears to be advertised on RuTube via trailers etc.

Yet even a loose comparison of the viewing figures shows that the legal services simply cannot compete with the unlicensed Hollywood movie uploads, not on RuTube for free or via their own subscription-based platforms.

No Good Outcomes

Returning to the F6 study, it cites a reported collapse of piracy on social media and hosting sites, from 12.1% of all piracy in 2024 to just 1.6% of the total in 2025. The remaining 98.4% is allocated to pirate sites of various kinds.

This could mean that RuTube isn’t considered a social media site and may not be viewed as a pirate site either. The latter makes more sense given the nature of the platform, but there’s still a risk that at least dozens of millions of pirate movie views aren’t being counted.

Two other possibilities paint a much darker picture: 1) RuTube is indeed covered by the 1.6% meaning that the overall piracy rate is unfathomably massive, or 2) Hollywood movies no longer have standing and as such, piracy is simply ignored or not counted. The only plus we’re aware of is that the content on RuTube isn’t as readily accessible as it first seems.

For those who haven’t yet tried to view something on RuTube using a VPN, the screenshot below shows a translated version of the puzzling message that appears.

It seems to imply that a copyright holder might allow its movies to be shown on RuTube, provided the viewer’s location can be properly identified, presumably inside Russia.

It might also be just another attempt to see the user’s real IP address but for what reason, is harder to say. Since all movies have to go through a vetting process to ensure they meet traditional Russian family values, that raises questions over the legal standing of every movie, pirated or not. We’re yet to hear of any arrests, but that doesn’t mean nothing ever happens.

Unavoidable Conclusions

The bottom line conclusions seem unavoidable. Aside from the death and destruction caused by the invasion, moviemakers cannot participate in their own market and therefore generate nothing from it. Having won the race to the bottom and ended up on a tube site, any revenue generated will be almost as low as it gets. Any perceived added value built up over the years is long gone, effectively eliminating any chance of a financial return for local cinemas and every one else in the same chain.

Not only are Online Cinemas unable to compete with piracy using international content in their own market, free pirate viewing across the board on RuTube is bound to have an inmact on consumption of domestic cinema too. If nothing else, time is at a premium and few people have time to watch several movies each week, let alone find time to go the cinema on top.

A scenario where almost everyone loses is rare, yet apparently not impossible.

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

Today, pirate site blocking is commonplace in dozens of countries. The United States has been noticeably absent from this list, but that could change soon.

With Block-BEARD and FADPA, two blocking bills are currently in the legislative process. These proposals aim to offer a streamlined option for rightsholders to have online service providers block access to infringing sites and services.

The last time U.S. lawmakers proposed blocking legislation was thirteen years ago, with the SOPA bill. This attempt stranded after massive public protests. However, times have changed, and major stakeholders have started to adapt to this new reality. While they still may be fundamentally opposed to IP- and DNS blocking, the focus is more on limiting potential damage and overblocking.

Internet Society: A Cautionary Policy Brief

The Internet Society also takes this cautionary approach. Founded in 1992 by internet pioneers including Vint Cerf and Bob Kahn, the organization represents over 70,000 individual members as well as major internet infrastructure companies including Amazon, ARIM, Cloudflare, Google, RIPE, and Verisign.

In a policy brief ( pdf ) released this month, Internet Society shares its perspective on site blocking. The organization makes it clear that it is still against these types of technical measures.

The policy brief stresses that blocking doesn’t remove the problematic content, which remains accessible at the source. Instead, blocking hides it while potentially making legitimate content unavailable as collateral damage.

“While content blocking may seem like a quick fix for preventing access to illegal material, it is often ineffective and frequently causes the blocking of legitimate services, impacting both users and businesses,” Internet Society writes.

“Further, DNS and IP blocking do not remove the content from the Internet, rendering the material still accessible to determined individuals. Attempts to circumvent blocking may put users’ privacy, security, and safety at risk.”

Italy’s Problems and other Threats

The Internet Society specifically mentions Italy as an example of how things can get out of hand. Last year, the country launched its elaborate ‘Piracy Shield‘ blocking scheme, granting broad powers to block piracy-related domain names and IP addresses within 30 minutes.

While many pirate sources have indeed been blocked, this policy also resulted in collateral damage, the policy report warns.

“[T]his policy repeatedly over-blocked legitimate services, including Google domains, Cloudflare-hosted sites, and Google Drive, causing widespread disruption for businesses, everyday Internet users, and cloud services.”

The policy brief also highlights that these measures can require substantial investment from service providers. Meanwhile, users who try to circumvent these and other blocking measures may end up using less secure VPNs and DNS resolvers, eroding public security.

Internet Society Issues Blocking Recommendations

Despite its continued opposition against IP and DNS blocking, the Internet Society realizes that blocking is now widespread. The brief doesn’t specifically mention the U.S. proposals, but the timing suggests that it is also intended to inform lawmakers on the Hill.

In this regard, it is noteworthy that the policy brief includes a list of guiding principles and recommendations for those who consider implementing blocking measures.

This list starts with forgoing the blocking plans altogether and focusing on taking down the source material, often pirate sites. If that doesn’t yield results, alternative approaches can be tried, including cooperation with service providers and national law enforcement authorities.

If any blocking measures (or laws) are implemented, the Internet Society notes that these should be transparent, temporary, and limited in scope. In addition, stakeholders should be involved, users should be empowered, and due process should be respected.

Below is an abbreviated overview of the principles and recommnedations , intended to lessen the negative impact of blocking, as provided in the policy brief.

Principle	Description (paraphrased)
Prioritize Non-Blocking Options	Exhaust all practical options to address content at its source before considering blocking. Blocking must be a necessary and proportionate last resort.
Be Transparent	Maintain transparency about blocking policies and their objectives. Make sure users can raise concerns about negative impacts on their rights and interests.
Empower Users	Ensure users have access to online tools and digital skills training to filter content on their own devices.
Limit the Scope	Implement any content blocks as locally as possible to minimize global impact and prevent overreach.
Involve Stakeholders	Involve a broad set of technical, economic, and consumer rights specialists in policy development to minimize negative side-effects.
Follow Due Legal Process	Ensure any blocking order is supported by law, independently reviewed, and narrowly targeted to a legitimate aim. Internet providers should not be required to determine illegality.
Keep it Temporary	All blocking measures should be temporary and must be removed as soon as the reason for the block ceases to exist.

The policy brief is yet another signal that not all stakeholders agree with the current and proposed blocking plans, but that this is a reality they have to deal with. If blocking is put in place, it is better to influence how it’s done rather than not being part of the discussions at all.

In the closing paragraphs, Internet Society stresses that it remains opposed to DNS and IP-based blocking, as this undermines its vision of how the Internet Way of Networking is supposed to work.

“These blocking methods disrupt the technical architecture that makes the Internet open, globally reachable, and resilient,” it concludes.

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

Three years ago, pirated Blu-ray copies of “Spider-Man: No Way Home” began circulating on pirate sites, weeks before their official release.

Such high-profile leaks are rare, and the source of the breach remained unknown until earlier this year.

In February, the U.S. Department of Justice indicted 37-year-old Steven Hale from Tennessee, a former employee of a disc manufacturing and distribution company in Memphis. While working at the unnamed company between 2021 and 2022, Hale allegedly stole numerous “pre-release” DVD and Blu-ray discs from his employer.

These stolen discs contained many high-profile movie titles including “Spider-Man: No Way Home”.

In addition to the copyright infringement charge, Hale was also indicted for a firearm offense. When raiding his premises, law enforcement found a gun in a car that was registered in his name, which, for a felon, is a separate criminal offense.

57 Month Prison Sentence

Hale was sentenced at a federal court in Memphis yesterday, where Chief Judge Sheryl H. Lipman handed down a 57-month prison term, exactly in line with the U.S. government’s recommendation .

Two separate sentences will be served concurrently. Hale received 21 months for the theft and distribution of hundreds of pre-release movie discs. A longer sentence of 57 months was handed down for the firearm charge, which ultimately defines the total prison term.

Judge Lipman also granted several requests by the defense. The court recommended that Hale be housed in a facility as close to Memphis as possible so he can be near his family. In addition, the defendant will be allowed to remain on bond and self-surrender to prison at a later date.

Hale Pleaded Guilty

The 21-month sentence for the copyright infringement charge is substantially lower than the maximum of 60 months. This is in part the result of a guilty plea the defendant signed in May. After accepting responsibility, the prosecution agreed to drop other charges and recommend a sentence at the low end of the guideline range.

Hale entered his guilty plea to Count Two of the indictment. The charge relates to his distribution of ten or more copies of copyrighted works, including pre-release movies, for commercial advantage and private financial gain. This includes the pre-release ‘Spider-Man: No Way Home’ disc, which is likely the source of the public leak.

The other films covered by this count are ‘Jungle Cruise,’ ‘Venom: Let There Be Carnage,’ ‘Encanto,’ ‘Eternals,’ ‘The King’s Man,’ ‘Shang-Chi and the Legend of the Ten Rings,’ ‘Resident Evil: Welcome to Raccoon City,’ ‘Marry Me,’ ‘Sing 2,’ and ‘The Matrix Resurrections.’

EVO

The “Spider-Man: No Way Home” leak is extra noteworthy, as it was one of the last films released online by the notorious piracy group EVO. This group was dismantled by the Portuguese authorities in late 2022 , leading to multiple arrests.

There is no indication that Hale was in direct contact with EVO but, in the sentencing recommendation, the prosecution explicitly linked the Blu-ray theft to the copies that were leaked on pirate sites.

“At least one of the DVDs—that of ‘Spider Man: No Way Home,’ one of the most popular movies of all time—was ‘ripped’ and distributed tens of millions of times over the internet through pirate sites, causing the copyright owner tens of millions of dollars in damages,” the prosecution wrote .

The timing of the events also suggests that the leaked pirated copies may be linked to the stolen discs.

The EVO release of ‘Spider Man: No Way Home’ leaked online in early March 2022. A few days later, on or around March 14, the authorities searched Hale’s house and seized hundreds of pre-release discs that were still in his possession. The EVO group was eventually busted at the end of 2022.

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

Earlier this year, accounting firm Grant Thornton published a report in partnership with the Live Content Coalition to evaluate the effectiveness of takedown notices.

One of the main conclusions was that, in 2024, only a small fraction of takedown notices sent by a group of select rightsholders resulted in suspensions of pirated live streams.

Of the 10.8 million notices recorded last year, only 19% resulted in suspensions of pirated live streams. Even when online services responded, it often took more time than rights holders would like. Only a small fraction of the reported live streams, 2.7%, were suspended within 30 minutes of a takedown notice being sent.

These findings were used by rightsholders to argue that current policy doesn’t work. They hoped that by sounding the alarm bell, things would change, but new data covering the first half of 2025 doesn’t provide any evidence that this is the case.

More Takedowns, Fewer Suspensions

In a new industry-backed report, Grant Thornton finds that the number of takedown notices sent to online intermediaries grew by more than 15 million in the first half of 2025, which is roughly triple the number of takedowns that were recorded in the two previous periods.

The bar chart below shows that in 2025, the majority of the notices were sent to “other” service providers, which includes Cloudflare. Dedicated service providers were good for 42% of the notices, while online platforms only received a tiny fraction.

The report regularly combines the 2025 findings with those from last year’s reports, noting that since January 2024, rightsholders have sent 26.2 million takedown notices for live streaming broadcasts. While the suspension rate was 19% in the second half of 2024, that figure decreased to just 5% in the first half of 2025.

The bar chart below displays the actions per intermediary, revealing that the low percentage of suspensions is largely driven by the popular “others” category. This category includes proxy services such as Cloudflare, which typically takes no action when the allegedly infringing content is not hosted by Cloudflare itself.

Based on the new findings, the report concludes that “online piracy continues to escalate, while progress in the effectiveness of mitigation efforts remains limited.” While this appears to be a logical conclusion, there are some important caveats.

Methodological Concerns

The report is based on data provided by ten rightsholders, who are either major sports leagues or broadcasters. This is an increase of two rightsholders over the eight featured in the previous report, which likely has an effect on the takedown notice volume, regardless of piracy developments.

These companies have direct control over how many notices they send and can, in theory, increase the volume while piracy rates are falling.

This means that the drastic increase in notices might mostly be a reflection of increased or improved enforcement efforts, rather than an unprecedented tripling of the number of available pirated live streams.

There’s also a clear bias risk. These rightsholders have a vested interest in showing that piracy is a large and worsening problem, to support their lobbying efforts for stricter regulations. The methodology does not account for this.

The inclusion of Cloudflare as a nonresponsive intermediary also raises questions. It is well known that Cloudflare does not take action against reported pirated content that it doesn’t host. The company believes that, under U.S. law, it is not legally required to do so for its proxy services.

By including an ever-increasing number of notices sent to services like Cloudflare, which they know will not result in a suspension for policy reasons, the report’s methodology effectively “bakes in” a lower success rate.

Although the data is not inaccurate, it’s less of a measure of the evolving piracy landscape than it is a reflection of the rightsholders’ enforcement strategy, particularly their decision to target Cloudflare and similar platforms, which are known for not taking action.

LaLiga Rethinks Its Headline

That the report leaves room for multiple explanations, or framing options, was illustrated by the Spanish football league LaLiga. On Tuesday, it initially pushed out a concerning press release mentioning that “piracy of live sports events soars”.

That’s not completely accurate, however, as the research only looks at the volume of takedown notices. It appears that LaLiga understands this nuance, as the headline was changed a few hours later to: Piracy Detection in Sports and Other Live Events Hits Record Levels Thanks to Greater Investment in Resources and Technology

This new headline suggests that the ‘escalation of online piracy’ reported by Grant Thornton, might be an escalation in anti-piracy detections, rather than an increase in piracy. That’s quite an important distinction, considering its intended goal.

EU Advocacy

The report was written specifically to address the impact of a recommendation by the EU Commission published two years ago. This policy document encouraged member states to introduce measures to facilitate prompt takedowns of live streams.

The recommendation, which doesn’t include any legislative requirements, also encouraged service providers and rightsholders to collaborate and tackle the challenge together.

In its report, which references the EU’s non-binding recommendation in its title, Grant Thornton indirectly suggests that it failed to curb the negative piracy trends.

“During the period of analysis, there has been a negative trend in key metrics, such as an increase in the number of notices issued and a decrease in the percentage of those resulting in suspension.

“This suggests that, despite the European Commission’s Recommendation, the issue of online piracy continues to escalate, while progress in the effectiveness of mitigation efforts remains limited,” the report concludes.

This is an interesting conclusion, since LaLiga now cites the same takedown data to show that piracy detection hit record levels with help from investments in resources and technology. That means that piracy itself may not have worsened at all.

When the data is this flexible and open to interpretation, the cleanest and only truly verifiable conclusion is simple. In the first half of 2025, a small group of rightsholders sent a lot more takedown notices. Why? That depends on who you ask and what their goal is.

—

A copy of the latest progress report, titled “Two Years On: Online Piracy Trends Worsen Despite the European Commission’s Recommendation” is available here (pdf)

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

Major sports rightsholders and broadcasters are building momentum for what could be a crucial couple of years ahead.

The USTR has promised to focus on live sports in its Notorious Markets review before rightsholders’ eyes turn to the European Commission, hoping that their endless patience for measures to curtail live streaming leads to something substantial that justifies the wait .

In the meantime, enforcement operations continue. With the ink barely dry on last week’s Streameast announcement , developments reported this week will be seen as another plus for live sports.

Calcio: Italian For ‘Football’ and Italy’s #1 Pirate Sports Site

The Alliance for Creativity and Entertainment (ACE) and broadcaster DAZN, which is also a member of ACE, report that a coordinated investigation has led to the shutdown of Calcio, the most popular live sports piracy site in Italy.

According to ACE, Calcio received more than 123 million visits during the past 12 months, with Italians responsible for six million of those visits every month. For many, free access to premium Serie A football (‘calcio’ in Italian) would’ve been the main reason for visiting the site, together providing 80% of Calcio’s traffic.

Remaining traffic consisted of visitors from Spain, the United States, Germany, and France. Earlier action by DAZN to have the domains Calcio.ws and Calcio.la blocked in Italy were authorized ( 1 , 2 ) by telecoms regulator AGCOM in 2023. However, using a mountain of backup domains, Calcio remained stubbornly accessible.

Calcio Stockpiled Domains

ACE says that Calcio operated 134 domains but identified none in its press release. From our own limited research, domains now under MPA control appear to have a similar number of unique domain extensions. From calcio.autos to calcio.baby, through calcio.beauty, .best, .buzz and .hair, Calcio had many other domains besides, hoping to undermine any and all efforts to block it.

Based on records correct at the time of writing, a likely incomplete list of ‘calcio’ domains, showing the MPA as their new owner, appears in the first table below.

While ACE doesn’t specify an exact date when Calcio was reportedly shut down, WHOIS records suggest that the domain transfer process likely began around the third week of June and then continued through July and August.

The volume of domains acquired by Calcio’s operator indicates determination to keep the site online. With this many domains, it’s possible to evade regular blocking tactics and minimize the effects of a potential, although somewhat less likely, bulk domain seizure.

Yet despite these preparations and considerable levels of traffic, Calcio appears to have disappeared off the radar, just like that.

Italy’s Favorite Sports Piracy Site, Run from Moldova

The circumstances of Calcio’s closure are completely absent from the press release. Indeed, the description seems unusually casual for such an important shutdown, to the extent that it immediately stands out.

The Moldova-based operator of the service agreed to cease operations after being approached.

While some kind of legal process can’t be completely ruled out, current copyright-related turbulence of various types could dampen enthusiasm. If nothing else, the timing isn’t great and probably won’t be for several years to come.

Even when all else fails, opportunities to send a deterrent message are considered valuable, and as such are rarely overlooked. In this case a clear messaging opportunity sails right by, drawing attention to another press release absentee; the customary ‘well done’ and ‘thank you’ to local authorities for their invaluable input.

A second oversight can’t be completely ruled out, but other explanations for not dwelling on the details seem more persuasive. When considering Moldova’s traditional lack of focus on piracy issues, and its future planning where the opposite is unavoidable, the backdrop to Calcio’s shutdown is interesting, whether it played a major role here or not.

EU Membership and the Future of Moldova

Following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, in March 2022 the Republic of Moldova applied for EU membership. With only a river separating Moldova from a breakaway state to its east, one with its own government, army, and a heavy Russian military presence, the former Soviet state had understandably seen enough.

After achieving candidate status in June 2022, Moldova set a target date of 2030 for EU Accession and negotiations officially began late June 2024. Even without consideration of guaranteed interference from Russia, Moldova has an extraordinary workload ahead; from democratic reforms to the alignment of national legislation with that of the bloc, everything is more easily said than done.

On the thorny issue of intellectual property rights, an area requiring work beyond the latest copyright amendment draft, Moldova has little room for maneuver. Collaboration with the EU Intellectual Property Office and EU member states is just one of the requirements and already underway.

Among many other examples, on 12 and 13 June 2025 representatives attended the International IP Enforcement Summit 2025 in Athens, Greece, which took place just two weeks before Calcio’s domains began transferring to ACE. That might be coincidence, not unlike two years ago when RARBG disappeared around the same time.

Yet no matter how Calcio met its demise, cooperation with the EU and, interestingly, a non-EU partner thousands of miles away, is already embedded in Moldova’s future. The situation in Moldova is changing, making shutdowns like this even more likely in the future.

Moldova’s 2025 Work Plan

A document published by the State Agency for Intellectual Property (AGEPI) details Moldova’s action plan for 2025 ( pdf ) . It contains commitments to implement provisions in international treaties and to collaborate with overseas governments and rightsholders in the private sector.

2.2. Ensuring cooperation with the associations of rights holders and other associations with responsibilities in the IP field abroad

2.3. Monitoring to ensure the implementation of the provisions of international treaties and agreements in the field of IP to which the Republic of Moldova is a party

2.4. Ensuring bilateral collaboration in the field of IP, with IP offices of EU Member States, EFTA [European Free Trade Association], and the United States

In the context of potential EU membership, it’s not hard to imagine Moldova reacting favorably following a request from the EU, or from DAZN via ACE/MPA, to see if a site like Calcio could be persuaded to shut down. In the context of full EU membership, something similar may be viewed as an obligation.

EU Membership or Not, The Piracy Wars Wait For Nobody

What these changes will mean for the many pirate sites currently hosted in Moldova, where DMCA takedown notices are routinely ignored to the frustration of rightsholders, will become clearer in time. Right now, DAZN and ACE will view this as a big win, and most likely it won’t be the last.

“Shutting down illegal operations like Calcio is vital for protecting fans, safeguarding jobs, and preserving the value and integrity of live sports,” says Ed McCarthy, COO of DAZN Group. “ACE and DAZN’s decisive action in removing this site has prevented further harm to the wellbeing of the sports ecosystem.”

“Piracy diminishes the commercial value of a live sports broadcast well before the final whistle blows, harming broadcasters, sports leagues, and fans alike,” says Larissa Knapp, Executive Vice President and Chief Content Protection Officer for the Motion Picture Association (MPA).

“With the start of the Italian football season, I commend the team for the timely takedown of this notorious operation.”

Update: Additional Table 2 below contains ‘calciostreaming’ domains, apparently seized over a period of months, the most recent this week. Connection to ‘Calcio’ domains currently unclear

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