In late 2022, several of the world’s largest music companies, including Warner Bros. and Sony Music prevailed in their lawsuit against Internet provider Grande Communications.

The record labels accused the Astound-owned ISP of not doing enough to stop pirating subscribers. Specifically, they alleged that the company failed to terminate repeat infringers.

The trial lasted more than two weeks and ended in a resounding victory for the labels. A Texas federal jury found Grande liable for willful contributory copyright infringement, and the ISP was ordered to pay $47 million in damages to the record labels. The copyright infringement verdict was confirmed by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, though the Fifth Circuit ordered a new trial on damages.

The verdict was not the final word yet, as Grande petitioned the Supreme Court last year, urging the justices to take up the case and review the Fifth Circuit’s decision.

Grande’s petition centered on the crucial question of ISP liability in cases of contributory copyright infringement. Grande framed the issue as an “exceptionally important question under the Copyright Act,” highlighting a “nationwide litigation campaign by the U.S. recording industry” to hold ISPs liable for copyright violations carried out by their customers.

The central question is as follows:

“Whether an ISP is liable for contributory copyright infringement by (i) providing content-neutral internet access to the general public and (ii) failing to terminate that access after receiving two third-party notices alleging someone at a customer’s IP address has infringed.”

Knowledge is Not Intent

The case and the questions are similar to the Cox v. Sony case , which the Supreme Court decided in favor of the Internet provider last month. In a 7-2 decision, it concluded that an ISP cannot be held contributorily liable for copyright infringement merely because it kept providing service to subscribers that were flagged for piracy.

In Cox, the Supreme Court stated that contributory liability requires proof that the provider intended its service to be used for infringement. That intent can only be shown in one of two ways. Either the provider actively induced infringement, or the service is one that has no substantial non-infringing uses.

“Under our precedents, a company is not liable as a copyright infringer for merely providing a service to the general public with knowledge that it will be used by some to infringe copyrights. Accordingly, we reverse,” Justice Thomas wrote in the opinion last month.

The Court also directly countered the Fourth Circuit’s reasoning, which held that supplying a product with “knowledge” of future infringement was enough to establish liability.

Supreme Court Sends Grande v. UMG Back to Fifth Circuit

With Cox v. Sony now settled, the Supreme Court turned its attention to Grande’s pending petition. Rather than taking up the case on the merits, the Court issued a GVR order , granting the petition, vacating the Fifth Circuit’s judgment, and remanding the case for reconsideration under the Cox standard.

The order effectively removes the case from the Supreme Court docket, urging the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals to take another look at its decision in light of the new ruling.

Given the similarities between the two cases, it is no surprise that the Supreme Court came to this conclusion.

It is now up to the Fifth Circuit to revisit whether Grande’s conduct meets the intent threshold that was established in Cox. That is a significantly higher bar than the one applied in the original verdict, which found that continuing to provide service to known infringers was enough to establish material contribution.

The music companies previously said they sent over a million copyright infringement notices, but that Grande failed to terminate even a single subscriber account in response. However, without proof of active inducement, these absolute numbers carry less weight now.

Whether this translates into a win for Grande on remand remains to be seen. For now, however, the original $47 million verdict is further away than ever.

This week’s GVR order is just one of the many ripple effects of the Sony ruling on other contributory infringement cases. Last week, we reported how X already asked the court to dismiss its liability battle with several music publishers. Meanwhile, the ruling will also directly impact Verizon’s repeat infringer battle with the music industry.

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

Last week, X asked a federal court in Tennessee to dismiss a music piracy lawsuit , arguing that the Supreme Court’s ruling in Cox v. Sony, rendered the music companies’ contributory infringement theory futile.

The music publishers, meanwhile, were busy in a different court, asking a Texas judge to throw out X’s antitrust complaint against them with similar finality.

The motion to dismiss, filed in the Northern District of Texas, argues that X’s lawsuit doesn’t hold up and the music companies want all eight counts dismissed with prejudice.

A Conspiracy Built on One Word

X filed its antitrust complaint in January , accusing the National Music Publishers’ Association (NMPA) and a coalition of major music publishers, including Sony, Universal, and Warner Chappell, of coordinating a “weaponized” DMCA takedown campaign to coerce X into industry-wide licensing deals.

The conspiracy claim rested heavily on a pre-litigation email sent by NMPA President David Israelite to Twitter in October 2021. X alleged that Israelite threatened a “massive program” of DMCA notices on a scale “larger than any previous effort in DMCA history” if X did not agree to a partnership.

However, the publishers have now submitted the full email chain to the court, arguing that X’s complaint “selectively crops, paraphrases, and misconstrues” it. They note that the complete exchange tells a more nuanced story.

In his October 6 email, Israelite warned Twitter that the NMPA was preparing a “massive program” of DMCA notices, adding that his “preference is not to go down that road, but instead to develop a partnership.” He closed by writing (emphasis added): “If you are interested in engaging in such a conversation, please let me know. If you choose not to do so, then please know we are open to starting a conversation at any point during the future process.”

The publishers argue that X’s conspiracy theory rests almost entirely on that final word.

“X argues that by using the word ‘we,’ NMPA meant that X could only deal with the Music Publishers collectively for a license and that no individual Music Publisher would negotiate separately. That inference is not only implausible, it is completely devoid of factual basis or allegation. An antitrust claim cannot rest on such a tenuous thread.”

Same Judge, Same Problem

One of the key reasons for a dismissal is the argument that there can be no antitrust injury, as X and the music publishers do not compete. The music companies argue that antitrust law requires a competitor to be involved in a refusal-to-deal claim.

The argument has already succeeded once against X, in the same courthouse, before the same judge. In February, District Judge Jane Boyle dismissed X’s antitrust lawsuit against the World Federation of Advertisers with prejudice, finding that X had failed to allege antitrust injury because no competitor was involved in the alleged boycott.

The publishers quote that ruling extensively and argue the present case is largely similar.

“Specifically, X does not allege that any participant in the alleged conspiracy is its competitor, a necessary requirement for antitrust injury to flow from an alleged refusal to deal,” the motion states.

The proposed order submitted alongside the motion has Judge Boyle’s name pre-filled.

Retaliation, Not Antitrust

The music publishers take their motion to dismiss beyond simply refuting X’s claims. They also suggest that X filed the antitrust suit as leverage in the copyright infringement case the music companies filed in the Tennessee federal court.

“The paucity of factual allegations supporting an antitrust claim is no accident. X’s motivation in filing suit was different: retaliation and leverage for the copyright suit the Music Publishers filed against it, which is currently pending in Tennessee federal court,” the motion notes.

X argues that the music companies sent a flood of “baseless” DMCA notices, targeting over 200,000 posts and suspending 50,000 users. However, the music publishers motion counters that none of the takedown notices was objectively baseless.

The Sham Exception

The music companies argue that their takedown campaign was a First Amendment-protected pre-litigation activity. They invoke the Noerr-Pennington doctrine , which shields things such as pre-litigation notices and cease-and-desist letters from antitrust liability.

DMCA takedown notices, they argue, fall in the same category, especially since these were used as key evidence in the the copyright lawsuit currently pending in Tennessee.

This type of protection does not apply if the notices themselves are “baseless” or a “sham,” which X argued is the case here. The original complaint pointed to several examples, including a takedown notice targeting a video where the non-commercial use of background music was flagged as copyright infringement.

The music companies, however, counter that X does and cannot claim that any notices were baseless. This includes the background music example: this may qualify for fair use defense, but the publishers add that “infringing use of incidental background music is still infringing.”

All in all, the motion to dismiss concludes that the music companies used the DMCA as Congress intended, and that it is not an antitrust violation. The complaint should therefore be dismissed with prejudice on all counts.

It is now up to Judge Boyle to decide whether the antitrust case can continue or whether it should be dismissed outright. The same is true for the Nashville case, where X asked the court to completely dismiss the music companies’ copyright infringement lawsuit.

—

A copy of the motion to dismiss, filed April 2, 2026 at the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas, is available here (pdf) . The supporting memorandum can be found here (pdf) .

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

The Supreme Court’s decision to reverse the billion-dollar piracy liability verdict against Cox Communications is a major win for Internet service providers.

It confirms that they can’t be held liable for pirating activities of subscribers or customers unless they actively induce copyright infringement through specific acts, or if their service has no substantial non-infringing uses.

For rightsholders, however, the ruling represents a significant setback, as it makes it much harder to hold ISPs liable for pirating subscribers.

Or, as Justice Sotomayor noted in her concurring Supreme Court opinion, the majority’s decision “permits ISPs to sell an internet connection to every single infringer who wants one without fear of liability and without lifting a finger to prevent infringement.”

The ruling reshapes the liability landscape, giving new urgency to site-blocking efforts.

Internet providers have previously opposed such legislation over liability concerns. Have those concerns been resolved by the Supreme Court? And where do the U.S. site-blocking legislative efforts stand today?

A Bicameral, Bipartisan Site Blocking Push

Last year, several new site-blocking proposals emerged in Congress. In January 2025, Lofgren had filed her Foreign Anti-Digital Piracy Act ( FADPA ) in the House. A few months later, Senator Tillis announced a draft of the Block BEARD Act , with bipartisan support from Senators Chris Coons, Marsha Blackburn, and Adam Schiff.

At the time, the House and Senate efforts were not coordinated. That has changed.

TorrentFreak has learned that, over the past months, Senator Tillis and Representative Lofgren have been working on a draft that would combine their separate site-blocking proposals into a single piece of legislation.

The unified approach marks a significant shift from the fragmented approach of the past year.

No draft text has been circulated publicly, and sources could not provide a specific timeline for introduction beyond noting it would need to happen before Tillis’s term ends in January 2027.

One possibility mentioned by sources is that the legislation could be attached to an omnibus spending bill. For now, however, that remains speculative.

Targeting ISPs and DNS Resolvers

While detailed specifics on the bill will have to wait until a draft is circulating, it is expected that the legislation will require both ISPs and large DNS providers to block foreign pirate sites.

This is in line with Lofgren’s original FADPA bill, which specifically included DNS resolvers with more than $100 million in annual revenue. Tillis’s Block BEARD act does not mention DNS resolvers, but uses the Section 512(k)(1)(A) DMCA service provider definition, which is wide enough to capture them.

The inclusion of DNS resolvers is significant, as it brings tech companies such as Google and Cloudflare into the mix. Targeting DNS resolvers is relatively novel internationally, as most site-blocking regimes do not explicitly include DNS providers.

We reached out to Google and Cloudflare, requesting comment, but they did not reply before publication. However, these companies have appealed similar blocking requests elsewhere, including in France , so they likely have reservations.

Notably, last year the Internet Infrastructure Coalition ( I2Coalition ), which represents major tech companies including Amazon, Cloudflare, and Google, launched its DNS at Risk campaign, warning the public about such DNS blocking threats.

Support and Opposition

Rightsholder groups including the RIAA , MPA , and Creative Future have supported the site-blocking efforts, while consumer advocates have raised concerns. However, the public discourse has been relatively quiet compared to the SOPA debates in 2012.

Times have changed and site blocking is much more common today than it was back then. That said, discussions, support, and critique will likely pick up when the legislation moves forward.

It is notable, however, that Representative Lofgren’s leading role is a shift from her position during the SOPA debates. At the time, she was among the fiercest opponents of SOPA in 2012, warning that blocking threatened the open internet.

Lofgren believes that her FADPA proposal is a “ smart, targeted approach ” that is mindful of due process, and respects free speech while using a narrow and targeted blocking approach.

Rep. Issa’s Wild Card

Running parallel to the Tillis-Lofgren effort is a separate proposal from Representative Darrell Issa, chairman of the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Property, and the Internet.

Issa’s American Copyright Protection Act (ACPA) has been circulated in draft form for a while but has not been formally introduced. The bill takes a different procedural path. Rather than relying on standard district court jurisdiction, ACPA proposes that the Judicial Conference of the United States maintain a roster of designated judges to hear all piracy blocking cases.

Whether the Tillis-Lofgren framework and Issa’s separate effort will eventually converge remains unclear. Sources indicate that, in earlier stages, these were two separate, uncoordinated tracks.

Issa’s proposal also includes DNS resolvers. At the same time, it also addresses overblocking concerns directly. If a third party’s site is blocked due to an error caused by the copyright owner, the third party could request up to $250,000 in compensation from the rightsholder.

The Timeline

At the time of writing, the introduction timeline for the bicameral bill is unknown. However, Senator Tillis is not running for reelection. That gives him until January 2027 to advance the legislation and also creates a hard deadline.

Whether the bill surfaces as standalone legislation, gets attached to an omnibus spending package, or eventually blends with Issa’s separate ACPA proposal has yet to be seen. But it’s clear that, behind the scenes, lawmakers are still working on getting it ready.

With the Cox decision reshaping the legal landscape, site-blocking efforts have gained new urgency for both ISPs, DNS providers, and rightsholders.

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

In a complaint filed at a Nashville federal court in 2023, Universal Music, Sony Music, EMI and others, accused X Corp of ‘breeding’ mass copyright infringement .

The social media company allegedly failed to respond adequately to takedown notices and lacked a proper termination policy.

The National Music Publishers Association (NMPA), for example, claimed it had sent over 300,000 formal infringement notices, many of which didn’t lead to immediate removals.

“Twitter routinely ignores known repeat infringers and known infringements, refusing to take simple steps that are available to Twitter to stop these specific instances of infringement of which it is aware,” the music companies alleged.

X Won the First Battle

In 2024, X scored a partial win when the court dismissed the music publishers’ direct and vicarious copyright infringement claims, and partially dismissed claims of contributory infringement.

The court concluded that X can’t be held liable for making it ‘very easy’ to upload infringing material or for monetizing pirated content. Those characteristics are not exclusive to infringing material and apply to legitimate content.

While this was a partial win for X, most of the contributory infringement claim remained intact, and the lawsuit was allowed to move forward on those grounds.

Among other things, the music companies argued that X is liable because it willingly turned a blind eye to pirating users, especially those who have a blue checkmark. However, according to a new filing by X this week, new legal developments warrant a full dismissal now.

Cox Sets the New Standard

Last Friday, X informed the Tennessee federal court about the Supreme Court decision in Cox v. Sony, which was decided in favor of the ISP last week. This ruling also concerns a ‘repeat infringer’ case, and it sets a clear standard for contributory copyright infringement.

Under the Supreme Court’s new standard, a service provider can only be held contributorily liable if it intended its service to be used for infringement. That intent can be shown in just two ways: the provider actively induced copyright infringement through specific acts, or the service has no substantial non-infringing uses. Nothing else qualifies.

X argues that the music publishers’ surviving claim fails both tests. Social media is clearly capable of substantial non-infringing uses, and the publishers never alleged that X took specific steps to actively encourage infringement.

The social media platform argues that, under the new Cox precedent, the contributory infringement claim fails as a matter of law and the entire case should be dismissed.

“F the DMCA”

To stress that there is a high bar for these infringement claims, X directly references some of the most damning evidence in the Cox case, which was not enough to establish liability.

“Cox even expressed contempt for copyright law, writing emails with comments like ‘F the DMCA.’ Despite these facts, the Supreme Court had no trouble reversing the jury’s contributory-infringement verdict, because such facts were not ‘evidence of express promotion, marketing, and intent to promote infringement,” X notes in its filing.

The comparison is somewhat ironic, as Elon Musk himself once publicly described the DMCA as a “plague on humanity”, which the music publishers cited in their original complaint as evidence of a hostile attitude toward copyright.

While controversial, these statements don’t appear to matter for a contributory infringement claim, as they don’t actively induce copyright infringement. Therefore, X believes that the present case should be dismissed.

“If the Supreme Court had issued this opinion three years ago, X believes this Court would have dismissed Plaintiffs’ contributory-infringement claim in its entirety. Indeed, virtually every contributory-infringement case Plaintiffs cited in opposing X’s motion to dismiss – including the Fourth Circuit case on which this Court relied – is no longer good law,” X writes.

Millions at Stake

X is not simply flagging the Supreme Court ruling for the record. The social media platform asks Judge Trauger for a status conference before both sides spend millions more on a case that may have already been rendered pointless.

There are various motions pending while the case is heading to summary judgment, and X asks the court to reconsider whether the new Cox precedent warrants a more streamlined process.

“If the Court would prefer to address these issues at summary judgment, X is prepared to do so. But both sides are now poised to spend millions of dollars in fees and expert expenses in the coming months on issues that Cox makes irrelevant as a matter of law,” X writes.

X says that it plans to move for judgment on the pleadings, or alternatively, it will ask the court to reconsider its earlier motion to dismiss ruling in light of new legal reality. For now, X is proposing a hearing to find the most efficient path forward.

Whatever the court decides, the legal standoff between X and the music industry will be far from over. Earlier this year, Elon Musk’s company filed a landmark antitrust complaint against the NMPA, Sony, Universal, and other major music publishers, alleging that they “weaponized” the DMCA to force licensing deals.

—

—

A copy of X’s notice, filed earlier this week at the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee, is available here (pdf) .

Update: The music companies filed a response in court, agreeing to stay the matter temporarily, until the court decides how to move forward (pdf) .

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

Traditional site-blocking measures that require local ISPs to block subscriber access to pirate sites have been commonplace in France for years.

By blocking pirate domains through ISP DNS resolvers, subscriber access is effectively cut off. However, the measures were only partially effective, as many users simply switched to third-party DNS resolvers to get around them.

In 2024, an order from the Paris Judicial Court, requested by football and rugby rightsholder Canal+, aimed to patch that loophole. The order required Cloudflare, Google, and Cisco to actively block access to pirate sites through their own DNS resolvers , confirming that third-party intermediaries can be required to take responsibility.

Article L. 333-10

The DNS blocking order is grounded in Article L. 333-10 of the French Sport Code, which enables rightsholders to request blocking measures against named pirate sites if they can demonstrate “serious and repeated infringement” of their exploitation rights.

To prevent pirate sites from being accessed on French soil, rightsholders may request that “all proportionate measures” are implemented by any online entity in a position to help.

The scope of Article L. 333-10 was always meant to be broad. There was little doubt that it included regular consumer ISPs. However, applying it to DNS resolvers was a different matter, and all three companies fought back.

Cisco was the most extreme in its response. The American company decided to stop offering its OpenDNS service in France, pending appeal. Google and Cloudflare kept their DNS resolvers online in the country but joined Cisco at the Paris Court of Appeal.

Five Appeals, Five Rejections

Last week, the Paris Court of Appeal ruled on five separate appeals, where Cisco, Cloudflare, and Google appealed blocking orders that the French pay-TV provider Canal+ obtained. The court rejected all appeals and concluded that DNS blocking measures are both technically feasible and proportionate.

The news was first reported by the French news outlet L’Informé , which also published the orders .

This is the first time a French appeals court has validated the DNS blocking approach under Article L. 333-10, giving the strategy a considerably stronger legal basis. Specifically, the appeals court repeatedly stressed that DNS resolvers can be required to block pirate sites.

Defense Arguments Fail

The DNS providers raised various arguments in their defense. According to the court’s summary, Cloudflare and Cisco argued that their services have “only a neutral and passive function” and “neither transmit nor participate in infringement.” They compared their role to an address book: they translate domain names into IP addresses, and their involvement ends the moment they return that result to a user’s browser.

This argument failed to convince the court, which found that the “neutral and passive” nature of the DNS resolvers is simply irrelevant to Article L. 333-10. The law isn’t about liability at all. What matters is whether a service can help to block access to pirate sites, which DNS resolvers clearly can.

“The DNS resolution service allows its users, via the translation of a domain name into an IP address, to access websites on which sports competitions are broadcast in violation of rights-holders’ rights, and in particular to circumvent the blocking of those sites by ISPs,” the court wrote.

Google also argued that blocking pirate sites via third-party DNS services is not an effective deterrent, since it can be circumvented by using a VPN or switching to yet another DNS resolver.

The appeals court wasn’t moved by this argument either. French law doesn’t require blocking measures to be perfect, as long as they stop a subset of the visitors to pirate sites, it’s good enough.

“Any filtering measure can be circumvented, and this possibility does not render the measures in question ineffective,” the Paris Court of Appeal wrote.

Intermediaries Pick Up the Bill

Cisco, which shut down its OpenDNS service in France instead of complying with the original order, argued on appeal that implementing geo-targeted DNS blocking would require 64 person-weeks of engineering work.

However, the court was not swayed by this cost argument, noting in its decision that the estimate was “not supported by any objective evidence.” The court also pointed out that Cisco already offers a DNS filtering service to enterprise customers, which undermined the argument that there’s a significant technical challenge.

Cloudflare, meanwhile, offered no figures at all to quantify the cost, the court noted, adding that they also offer filtering options already.

At the end of the day, Cisco, Cloudflare, and Google will have to implement the blocking measures for hundreds of pirate site domains while covering the implementation costs themselves.

More IP Blocking Battles Ahead

Canal+ is pleased with the five appeals court rulings. The pay-TV service Canal+ said in a statement that the rulings are “more than a victory,” forming part of “a global approach that will be reinforced by the progressive deployment of complementary measures, including IP blocking.”

In France, the next anti-piracy frontier is automated IP-address blocking, which is expected to go live later this year, ahead of the FIFA football World Cup. According to L’Informé, the Roland Garros tennis tournament will serve as a trial opportunity.

In addition to DNS providers, Canal+ and other rightsholders have also obtained blocking orders against VPN providers. These are still under appeal.

—

The five orders of the Paris Court of Appeal (RG 24/09372), dated March 27, 2026, are available here (pdf) , via L’Informé journalist Marc Rees.

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

For as long as protected computer games have existed, people have tried to break or bypass these digital locks with patches, loaders, and keygens.

With gaming as a multi-billion-dollar industry today, protecting games is more important than ever. Especially during the early release window when most sales are generated.

In the past decade, Denuvo has been the prime anti-piracy solution. The Irdeto-owned protection software managed to delay pirate releases seriously. Despite being a nuisance to many legitimate customers, gaming companies were pleased to pay for this first line of defense.

That is, until everything suddenly appeared to change a few weeks ago with the pirate leak of ‘Resident Evil Requiem,’ mere hours after its official release.

Hypervisor Bypasses Break Denuvo on Day Zero

The early leak was not a one-off. A wave of hypervisor-based Denuvo bypasses came out recently, including day-zero releases of major titles, including Crimson Desert and Life is Strange: Reunion. Meanwhile, long-protected titles like Assassin’s Creed Shadows also fell to the new method.

The speed and scale of the breaches, which also bypass other DRM software, are unprecedented. Where some reputable game crackers previously feared that Denuvo would effectively end game piracy , the tables have completely turned now.

Traditionally, crackers were required to reverse engineer Denuvo’s DRM paths to patch the game, which is a labor-intensive process that could take months.

Hypervisor bypasses take a fundamentally different approach. They don’t interfere with the game directly, but they operate beneath the operating system’s standard security visibility level, in what security researchers call Ring -1.

At this fundamental level, with key security features disabled, the hypervisor bypasses can intercept Denuvo’s CPU instructions and feed back false data to make the game believe that the tampering protection is still in place.

Because these bypasses are much easier to develop, these new ‘cracks’ come out faster than ever. Where pirates previously had to wait for weeks, they can now play pirated games within hours. That’s unprecedented.

Security Concerns

The hypervisor bypasses are a breakthrough, but they are not without concern. Right off the bat, critics warned that for them to work, pirates essentially have to turn off a key protection layer on their computer.

The bypasses are also plagued by hardware-specific problems and limitations that make them far from a simple patch. AMD systems are currently more stable, while Intel users face significant performance and stability issues, leading to other dangerous “tweaks”.

This cracking approach is still relatively young, and new developments surface nearly daily, with the game piracy forum Steam Underground (CS.RIN.RU) being a central hub.

The forum does not only facilitate pirate releases; it also offers detailed educational resources on potential security issues, warning that there are serious risks involved.

“[E]ven if you trust the authors of the hypervisor driver and even compile it yourself from source, a serious vulnerability in its code could instantly provide maximum and undetectable access to your system,” forum administrator RessourectoR writes.

The question remains, of course, whether the average game pirate will read these warnings at all.

Denuvo’s Response

The scale of the bypasses has not gone unnoticed. While pirates try to navigate the security issues, Denuvo is working on an update that will counter the new hypervisor ‘cracks’.

Denuvo’s parent company, Irdeto, informs TorrentFreak that they are actively working on a countermeasure to address the Denuvo bypasses.

“We’re already working on updated security versions for games impacted by hypervisor bypasses. For players, performance will not be compromised by these strengthened security measures,” says Daniel Butschek, Irdeto’s head of communications.

Further details on these countermeasures will come out in due course. Some have speculated that to counter hypervisor cracks Denuvo would also has to operate in Ring -1, under the Windows kernel, but that is not the case.

“Addressing hypervisor-based workarounds will not require Denuvo to move into Ring -1 or deeper kernel level, and that is not the direction we’re pursuing,” Butschek says.

Since people in the pirate ecosystem already warn about security issues, it is no surprise that Irdeto also highlights these concerns.

“Hypervisor‑based bypasses rely on installing a custom, self-signed hypervisor that operates below the Windows kernel, giving it far broader control than a normal driver,” Butschek notes, warning that this makes systems more vulnerable.

“To run, users must disable major Windows security protections such as Virtualization‑Based Security (VBS), Hypervisor‑Enforced Code Integrity (HVCI) and driver signature enforcement, which are designed to prevent kernel‑level malware, rootkits, and ransomware.”

FitGirl Embraces Hypervisor Bypasses

Initially, popular game repacker FitGirl was also rather cautious due to the widespread security concerns.

“You won’t see any HV-cracks repacks from me until you won’t need to actually disable security features,” FitGirl wrote in an early post, adding that no game is worth the potential irrecoverable damage it can do to one’s computer.

However, as bypass development by KiriGiri and the broader MKDEV team continued, the security situation improved. When the requirement to disable Secure Boot or use the EfiGuard tool was eliminated, FitGirl shifted their position , while recognizing the drawbacks.

FitGirl began publishing hypervisor repacks shortly after, tagging each one visibly with a HYPERVISOR label and committing to replace them with traditional cracks if and when those become available.

Speaking with TorrentFreak, FitGirl further pointed to the ongoing technical improvements, while remaining cautious.

“The team behind those cracks is now working on maturing both the VBS.cmd part and the cracks themselves,” they told us. “So I think that most of the issues coming from Intel or older CPU will be resolved shortly.”

“Caution is still needed with hypervisor bypasses. Mostly for what you download and run. But that is true for any download; it is not hypervisor-specific,” FitGirl adds.

Strict Rules

FitGirl notes that people should never run anything on their computer until they’ve verified that it’s from a trusted source. This raises the question of whether one can trust semi-anonymous pirate sources, but for now no major incidents have been reported linked to hypervisor bypasses.

What stands out is the high level of community rules and moderation. CS.RIN.RU has always been very strict, and with these hypervisor bypasses, forum administrator RessourectoR maintains oversight through detailed release requirements and best practices .

According to FitGirl, these strict rules are reassuring. However, trust can always be broken in the future, and that’s also a risk here.

“Trust can be broken, yes, but we’re not there yet. And hope we won’t, considering how strict rules for publishing those cracks on CS.RIN.RU now are,” FitGirl tells us.

The Cat-and Mouse Game Continues

While Irdeto has several options to respond, the exact countermeasures remain a question for now. Denuvo could check if third-party hypervisors are running by checking CPUIDs or measuring CPU latency, for example.

FitGirl suggested that Irdeto can also respond by shifting to daily license ticket checks, but that would be a nuisance to legitimate players while it may also be bypassed. Alternatively, the company might ask Microsoft for help by restricting Driver Signature Enforcement (DSE) mode, but that doesn’t seem viable either.

One thing is for certain: Denuvo will try to tackle the problem as best as they can, continuing the seemingly endless cat-and-mouse game. While Irdeto knows that it can’t defeat piracy, it would like to go back to the situation where games remained crack-free for weeks.

For now, however, the hypervisor bypasses have made Day-0 pirate releases a reality. For those who are willing to take the risk.

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

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

Most of these cases allege that AI developers used copyrighted works to train LLMs without first obtaining authorization.

Meta is among a long list of companies now being sued for this allegedly infringing activity. This includes a class action lawsuit filed by authors including Richard Kadrey, Sarah Silverman, and Christopher Golden, which accused Meta of using libraries of pirated books as training material.

Court Dismisses AI Training Claims

Last summer, Meta scored a key victory in this case, as the court concluded that using pirated books to train its Llama LLM qualified as fair use, based on the arguments presented in this case. This was a bittersweet victory , however, as Meta remained on the hook for downloading and sharing the books via BitTorrent.

By downloading books from shadow libraries such as Anna’s Archive, Meta relied on BitTorrent transfers. In addition to downloading content, these typically upload data to others as well. According to the authors, this means that Meta was engaged in widespread and direct copyright infringement.

In recent months, the lawsuit continued based on this remaining direct copyright infringement claim. While this was unfolding, the authors’ legal team also ‘discovered’ a new claim

Authors Pivot to Seeding Claim

Last December, the authors, through their attorneys, requested leave to file a fourth amended complaint. Specifically, they want to add a contributory copyright infringement claim, alleging that Meta facilitated third-party copyright infringement by seeding pirated books to others.

While the BitTorrent angle is not new, the authors previously only included a ‘distribution’ claim based on direct copyright infringement. This claim has a higher evidence standard, as it typically requires evidence that the infringer shares a whole work with a third party.

Since BitTorrent transfers break up files into smaller chunks before they are shared, it might be difficult to prove that a whole work is shared. However, the same transfers can be evidence that an infringer facilitated torrent transfers to third parties.

Court Grants BitTorrent Pivot, Despite Doubletalk

This week, U.S. District Court Judge Vince Chhabria granted the motion, but made little effort to hide his frustration with how plaintiffs’ counsel handled it.

The judge acknowledged that the contributory infringement claim could and should have been added back in November 2024, when the authors amended their complaint to include the distribution claim. After all, both claims arise from the same factual allegations about Meta’s torrenting activity.

“The lawyers for the named plaintiffs have no excuse for neglecting to add a contributory infringement claim based on these allegations back in November 2024,” Judge Chhabria wrote.

The lawyers of the book authors claimed that the delay was the result of newly produced evidence that had “crystallized” their understanding of Meta’s uploading activity. However, that did not impress the judge.

He called it a “lame excuse” and “a bunch of doubletalk,” noting that if the missing discovery truly prevented the contributory claim from being added in November 2024, the same logic would have prevented the distribution claim from being added at that time as well.

“Rather than blaming Meta for producing discovery late, the plaintiffs’ lawyers should have been candid with the Court, explaining that they missed an issue in a case of first impression..,” the order reads.

Judge Chhabria went further, noting that the authors’ law firm, Boies Schiller, showed “an ongoing pattern” of distracting from its own mistakes by attacking Meta. He pointed specifically to the dispute over when Meta disclosed its fair use defense to the distribution claim, which we covered here recently , characterizing it as a false distraction.

“The lawyers for the plaintiffs seem so intent on bashing Meta that they are unable to exercise proper judgment about how to represent the interests of their clients and the proposed class members,” the order reads.

Counsel “Lucked Into” a Pass

Despite the criticism, Chhabria granted the motion. The judge anticipated the obvious question from readers of his order.

“By now, the reader might be thinking, ‘Wait a minute, you started off saying that the motion to amend the complaint was difficult. It seems like an easy deny to me,'” Chhabria wrote.

The primary reason to grant the motion is the risk to the other potential members of the class action. If the contributory infringement claim were excluded and the class later lost on the distribution claim at trial, those class members could potentially be barred from ever bringing the contributory claim separately.

A second factor also made the decision easier. Meta has separately requested the court to align the schedule in this case with a separate but similar lawsuit filed by Entrepreneur Media. This case covers a similar contributory infringement claim and shares discovery the authors’ lawsuit. Granting the motion to amend, therefore, adds little practical burden to Meta.

However, the judge stresses that this is the result of luck, rather than the skill of the authors’ counsel.

“Plaintiffs’ counsel has lucked into a situation where Meta will not be meaningfully prejudiced by the failure to add a contributory infringement claim back in November 2024,” Chhabria wrote.

The authors’ motion to open the class discovery process was denied. That will only be considered if the named plaintiffs survive the next round of summary judgment on both the distribution and contributory infringement claims.

For now, the case moves forward with a fourth amended complaint, three new loan-out companies added as named plaintiffs, and a growing list of BitTorrent-related claims for Judge Chhabria to resolve.

—

A copy of the order, filed at the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, is available here (pdf) .

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

The Pirate Bay was once the leading pirate site , with a hubris matching its millions of monthly visitors.

After the verdict that sent its founders to prison , the site slowly started to decay. The option to comment or register as a new user eventually broke down, and aside from promoting a fishy token , public outreach ground to a halt.

Despite this downward spiral, the site continues to live up to its official tagline: the galaxy’s most resilient torrent site. Where TorrentSpy , Mininova , isoHunt , Torrentz , KickassTorrents , ExtraTorrent , RARBG and TorrentGalaxy all fell, The Pirate Bay continues to serve many millions of monthly users.

It’s safe to say that The Pirate Bay witnessed quite a bit of change. When the site launched, roughly 10% of the world’s population was connected to the Internet, and in the United States, the majority of all ‘world wide web’ users were still using a dial-up connection.

At the time, all popular entertainment was consumed offline. People interested in watching a movie could use the Internet to buy a DVD at one of the early webshops, or sign up with Netflix, which shipped discs through the mail. However, on-demand access was simply not a thing. At least, not legally.

With enough patience, file-sharing software allowed people to share large video files, and BitTorrent excelled at this, as transfer speeds typically picked up with more demand. This is why torrent sites popularized the on-demand downloading of movies and TV-series for millions of people.

Pirate Bay’s Oldest Torrent

Today, most files shared on The Pirate Bay in the early years are no longer available. BitTorrent requires at least one person to share a full file copy, which is difficult to keep up for decades.

Surprisingly, however, several torrents have managed to stand the test of time and remain actively shared. Earlier this week, the site’s longest surviving torrent turned 22 years old.

While a few candidates have shown up over the years, we believe that an episode of “ High Chaparral ” featuring Uri Geller has the honor of being the oldest Pirate Bay torrent that’s still active today. The file was originally uploaded on March 25, 2004, and several people continue to share it today.

At this point, the torrent in question appears to have reached a cult status, with pirates sharing the release simply because it is the oldest torrent on The Pirate Bay. Despite the record, however, the Swedish TV series is shared without permission of the creators.

Revolution OS & The Fanimatrix

There are also other pirate releases on The Pirate Bay that continue to thrive. On March 31, 2004, someone uploaded a pirated copy of the documentary “ Revolution OS ” to the site, which is alive and kicking today.

“Revolution OS” covers the history of Linux, GNU, and the free software movement, which was a good fit for the early Pirate Bay crowd. Thirteen years ago, we spoke to director J.T.S. Moore, who wasn’t pleased that people were pirating the documentary but was nevertheless glad to see it hadn’t lost its appeal.

Fast-forward to the present day, and Revolution OS still has plenty of interest, with more than 33 people actively seeding the torrent.

While these torrents are certainly dated, they’re not the oldest active torrents available on the Internet. That honor goes to “The Fanimatrix” , which was created in September 2003 and, after being previously resurrected, continues to be available today with dozens of people seeding. We’ll check back in 2028 for its 25th anniversary.

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

Last August, we reported on the case of David Dunbar , a Wexford man who consented to a €480,000 damages judgment after Sky exposed his illegal IPTV operation.

The initially defiant IPTV operator had destroyed evidence and was fined €30,000 for contempt of court. This penalty followed Dunbar’s refusal to allow investigators to search his home, despite a High Court-sanctioned Anton Piller order.

While much of the internal service data was reportedly lost, the man’s Revolut account revealed that he received €118,992 from resellers over a period of three and a half years. During this time, subscribers also paid €72,414 and £9,256.

While Sky was pleased with the actions against the man who they describe as a “top level” pirate, the company was not done yet.

Revolut Must Unmask IPTV Pirates

This week, the story moved to the next stage. On Wednesday, Ireland’s High Court granted Sky a Norwich Pharmacal order requiring Revolut Bank UAB to hand over the names, addresses, and banking details of 304 IPTV subscribers and 10 resellers connected to Dunbar’s service, “IPTV is Easy.”

The application was supported by Premier Sports, GAA+, LOITV, and Clubber TV, which shows that the affected content extends well beyond Sky’s own channels.

To obtain the identities of these IPTV resellers and subscribers, Sky initially approached Revolut directly. However, the bank said it could only disclose information following a court order, and on Wednesday Judge Brian Cregan granted one.

Sky’s barrister, Theo Donnelly, told the court that it expects to use the personal information to take legal action against the resellers and some of the end users of these pirate boxes.

For Sky, it would not be possible to take legal action against all 304 subscribers, he said. However, legal action against IPTV users is new in Ireland, which makes this a key change in tactics.

Deterrent Effect

By unmasking the IPTV subscribers, Sky hopes to create a deterrent effect on the country’s estimated 400,000 pirate IPTV users, or “dodgy boxes,” as they are known in Ireland. At the same time, some of the resellers are arguably in more trouble.

In an affidavit, Sky investigator Damien Gilmore notes that there is information suggesting that at least five of the resellers continue to sell the IPTV services to this day. The company expects to take action against all these active resellers.

The timing is also no accident; with the Premier League season nearing its climax and major golf and Formula 1 events on the horizon, Gilmore said that Sky is anxious to take “ decisive action ” while interest in premium sport is at its peak.

Broadening IPTV Subscriber Crackdown

For Ireland’s pirate IPTV users, this is the first time that they have come in the crosshairs of rightsholders. While only a few will face legal action, Sky hopes that the looming threat will have a deterrent effect.

On paper, Ireland’s Copyright and Related Rights Act 2000 allows fines of up to €127,000 and up to five years imprisonment for those who use illegal streaming services. However, it’s worth stressing that there is no jurisprudence for action against subscribers.

The Irish action appears to be part of a trend to hold IPTV subscribers accountable. Earlier this week, a French Public Prosecutor’s Office fined 19 IPTV subscribers between €300 and €400 after their identities were exposed through a reseller bust.

In Italy, the Guardia di Finanza identified thousands of subscribers following the dismantling of a pirate network, and rights holders subsequently sent civil damages demands on top of the criminal fines.

In Ireland, it appears that Sky can’t simply demand money without any oversight, as the judge’s order restricts use of the personal details to start legal proceedings against alleged infringers.

The August judgment had already pointed in this direction. Mr Justice Sanfey warned that anyone running similar operations should consider how vulnerable they are to discovery and exposure, “with potentially calamitous consequences.”

This week’s ruling suggests those consequences now extend to subscribers too.

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