With over 120 million daily users, Reddit is undoubtedly one of the most visited sites on the Internet.

The community-oriented social sharing platform, founded twenty years ago, has since transformed from a hobby project to the publicly traded multi-billion-dollar company it is today.

This growth also brought added responsibility. In addition to the billions of casual, insightful, and heartwarming messages, Reddit’s popularity was also embraced by those who color outside the lines of the law, including copyright infringers.

Reddit’s Transparency Report

To show the public how it responds to copyright complaints, takedown notices, and other removals, it publishes a biannual transparency report. The latest version, covering the second half of 2025, shows some interesting new trends.

Overall, the transparency report reveals the massive volume of content that’s added to the site. In just six months, Redditors shared over 2.2 billion posts and comments. More than 150 million of these were removed by moderators and site admins for various reasons.

In addition, Reddit received 69,154 DMCA takedown notices from rightsholders, identifying 425,471 pieces of allegedly infringing content. Reddit removed 217,787 of those, which is an actionability rate of 51% on all reported content.

These DMCA takedown numbers are roughly on par with previous years and down significantly from the 2022-2023 period, as seen below.

Bans Shift From Subreddits to Users

While the overall takedown volume remains relatively steady, the number of accounts and communities banned for repeat infringement reveals a notable change.

In the second half of 2025, Reddit banned 1,595 user accounts for repeat copyright violations. That’s a 90% increase compared to the first half of the year, when 837 user accounts were terminated.

The number of subreddits banned for repeat copyright violations went the other way. Reddit banned 563 subreddits in the second half of 2025, down 25% from the 709 subreddits removed in the first half.

The pattern flips the picture from six months ago , when subreddit bans more than doubled year-over-year while user bans grew at a more modest pace. This time, it’s the user bans that surge while subreddit takedowns are lower.

Reddit doesn’t explain the divergence in its transparency report, but today’s user and subreddit bans remain well below the 2022 peak. In the first half of 2022, 3,859 user accounts and 1,543 subreddits were banned for repeat copyright violations. That’s more than double the current numbers in both categories.

Notable Refusals and Fair Use

In addition to these headline figures, Reddit’s transparency report flags several takedown requests it declined to act on.

For example, someone representing an Indian religious leader filed a takedown notice targeting an AI-animated video that showed them being showered with money, paired with a post title hinting at greed. Reddit didn’t take action, characterizing it as fair use.

Another fair use call involved a mobile app developer who tried to take down a post sharing a screenshot of the app’s source code. Since the post was meant to warn that the app was quietly sharing user data without permission, Reddit refused to remove it.

Notable Examples

The examples Reddit shared are meant to illustrate that the company doesn’t take down content blindly, but that it makes fair use calls when it sees fit.

Some of the granted removals are also worth a callout. Reddit highlights, for example, that it removed multiple posts that shared social media recruitment videos for U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). These posts were taken down because they used music from MGMT without the band’s permission , as was widely reported in the media last year.

Reddit’s full breakdown, including notable government and law enforcement requests, is available in the report linked below.

—

A copy of Reddit’s H2 2025 transparency report is available here (pdf) .

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

Each year the Office of the United States Trade Representative ( USTR ) publishes a new update of its Special 301 Report , highlighting countries that fail to live up to U.S. copyright protection standards.

The annual overview is meant to urge foreign governments to improve policy and legislation in favor of U.S. copyright holders.

The process has shown itself to be an effective diplomatic tool and has helped to kick-start copyright reforms around the globe. Not all governments are equally susceptible to critique, and Canada once described the process as flawed . Still, no country wants to be included in the list.

U.S. Elevates Vietnam to ‘Priority Foreign Country’

USTR’s latest Special 301 Report reiterated much of the critique we have seen in past years. China and Russia, for example, remain on the Priority Watch List, as they were previously. However, for the first time in thirteen years, the rarely used Priority Foreign Country (PFC) category was added.

The PFC label is reserved for the most serious cases, and according to USTR’s latest report, Vietnam falls into this category. The report flags several IP-related concerns, including counterfeiting, but the country’s failure to combat online piracy is at the top of the list.

These concerns are not new, and over the past years, the U.S. and Vietnam have come together in an attempt to resolve the concerns. The U.S. first proposed an IP Work Plan to Vietnam in 2020, which was revised in 2023, but that didn’t book sufficient results.

The USTR notes that online piracy is not just popular among the country’s own residents; many operators of major pirate sites also reportedly reside in the country.

“Vietnam remains a significant source of online piracy and continues to host popular English-language copyright infringement sites and services that target a global audience,” the report reads, providing various examples.

As shown above, the USTR report specifically mentions the piracy-as-a-service provider MegaCloud and the popular pirate streaming site MyFlixerz as key problems. Interestingly, these prominent targets went dark in April , just a few days before the USTR released its report.

Whether the sudden disappearance of these pirate services, which have millions of monthly users, is a mere coincidence or if it’s related to the diplomatic pressure is unknown.

U.S. Wants More Deterrent Prosecutions

To address these and other piracy concerns, the USTR would like the Vietnamese authorities to step up their enforcement actions. This includes the subsequent prosecutions, which have lacked a deterrent effect thus far.

“The operators of these sites and services likely based themselves in Vietnam because enforcement efforts there historically lacked the follow-through and substantial penalties needed to deter infringement,” the report notes.

The USTR specifically mentions the takedown of Fmovies, which once was one of the largest pirate sites. This landmark case resulted in the prosecution of two operators, who received suspended sentences and criminal fines of around $2,700 and $770, respectively.

These sentences lack a deterrent effect, USTR argues, noting that the country could also increase the number of prosecutions.

“Vietnam must provide effective enforcement and take persistent and effective enforcement actions to combat online piracy, including by bringing significantly more criminal prosecutions against online piracy operations; seeking deterrent-level prison sentences, monetary fines, and other criminal penalties; and addressing obstacles to pursuing effective enforcement.”

Recent Shutdowns

USTR report acknowledges a series of recent enforcement actions in Vietnam. In 2025, the music industry group IFPI took action against Y2Mate and 11 other stream-ripping websites , for example.

In March 2026, after the Ministry of Public Security sought feedback on a draft decree on book piracy, several Vietnamese pirated e-book platforms, including TVE-4U, VCTVEGroup, and Ebookvie, ceased operations or stopped sharing copyrighted material.

Interestingly, the report also references the recent shutdown of HiAnime.to , the popular anime streaming site that was widely believed to be operated from Vietnam. However, as far as we know, no authority or rightsholder has publicly claimed responsibility, and no arrests or operator identifications have been announced.

HiAnime went dark in mid-March 2026, posting a brief farewell message, without any clear sign of an enforcement action.

The Clock is Ticking

In addition to addressing online piracy, USTR also flags counterfeiting, border enforcement, use of unlicensed software in the government, and cable and satellite signal theft as key concerns. Together, these put Vietnam in the Priority Foreign Country category.

The PFC label is not symbolic. Within 30 days of the identification, USTR has to decide whether it will launch an investigation under Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974, which can result in tariffs and sanctions.

For now, the designation itself sends a strong signal: take action or else.

Vietnam-related piracy concerns have been a recurring item in Special 301 reports for years, but stepping from the Priority Watch List into the Priority Foreign Country category is a rather significant escalation, which no other country has faced in well over a decade.

—

A copy of the U.S. Trade Representative’s 2026 Special 301 Report is available here (pdf) .

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

FlavaWorks is an Illinois-based adult entertainment company specializing in content featuring Black and Latino men.

The company has pursued copyright infringers aggressively for years, including a $1.5 million damages award against a defendant who shared its films on BitTorrent and a high-profile clash with an unnamed television executive that was eventually settled.

This week, the company continues its legal pressure with a complaint filed last week at the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. The lawsuit targets the owner and administrators of private BitTorrent tracker Gay-Torrents.org, the company that allegedly receives the site’s revenue, and 325 individual members identified only by their site usernames.

Site Owner, Admins, and a Bulgarian Company

Gay-Torrents.org is a private, invite-only BitTorrent tracker that has operated since June 2009. According to the complaint, more than 146,000 members registered at the site since its launch, of which 20,671 members are currently active.

The complaint largely targets unnamed defendants, including the site’s alleged operator, who goes by the handle “TheMan”. According to Flava, “TheMan” was one of the first registered members, using the site’s official email address as the main contact.

In addition to the operator, seven administrators are also named as John Doe defendants, identified only by their site usernames: sgmusuk, jasepl, Marius, ams_guy, lucasneo, simlacroix, and matthewmancs. According to the complaint, matthewmancs alone has generated more than 470 terabytes of upload and download traffic, the largest sharing volume of any user.

Flava does not only list unnamed defendants; it also identifies BYZONA LTD, a Bulgarian company, as being involved. This company and its operator are allegedly linked to 247host.eu and cloud2max.club. These are shell entities, which Flava believes are used to route VIP-membership payments through Skrill and PayPal, while concealing the site’s true beneficiaries.

The complaint alleges that the two shells together have generated more than €7 million in revenue since 2009. This is not an exact calculation, but based on Flava’s analysis of the site’s VIP pricing, donation records, and the registered member data.

“Straight-Up Extortion”

This is not the first time that Flava has targeted users of the private torrent tracker. In fact, the complaint quotes the site’s owner characterizing FlavaWorks’ enforcement as a scam. Last December, TheMan posted on the Gay-Torrents.org forum in response to a member who had received a cease and desist letter from the studio.

Posting under his “Owner” account, TheMan wrote: “This is straight-up extortion, and people shouldn’t fall for it.”

TheMan also told users the studio had been “uploading their own shitty content themselves just so they can blackmail users afterwards,” and claimed: “We deleted all of their stuff a long time ago.”

Flava’s complaint points out that the private tracker did not remove all contested content, as 47 of the 56 infringing links it reported in February 2024 remained active on the site twenty months later. Some of the infringing content remained accessible when the lawsuit was filed, the company adds.

A French Uploader and 325 Registered Users

The lawsuit doesn’t only focus on the alleged owner and administrators; it also lists a prolific uploader who is identified as the Frenchman Ludovic D. This defendant allegedly purchased two paid subscriptions to FlavaWorks-affiliated sites in 2004 and 2013, which were both traceable to the same email address and other personal details.

Since Flava uses a forensic-watermarking system to link videos to registered users, it could track the man’s account to more than thirty videos that were uploaded to the torrent tracker.

“Defendant [D.] cancelled his subscription approximately thirty days after purchase, on the same day as his final download session—a pattern consistent with bulk acquisition for redistribution rather than ordinary consumption,” the complaint reads.

In addition to the named Frenchman, the complaint also lists 325 “John Doe” defendants who are only known by their usernames. These users all allegedly shared Flava’s copyrighted works, are based in the U.S., were active in the Gay-Torrents forums, and purchased VIP memberships.

Courts have previously been wary of joining this many Doe defendants in a single lawsuit. Flava recognizes this and specifically notes that this isn’t part of a mass settlement scheme, while promising to dismiss all defendants who don’t fall under the court’s jurisdiction.

“This is not a mass-joinder action seeking to extract settlements from non-resident Doe defendants in a distant forum,” the complaint reads.

‘$7 Million’ Asset Freeze and More

Flava also requests an asset freezing order targeting the assets in the Skrill account associated with BYZONA and the PayPal account associated with cloud2max.club. Those can be as high as €7,000,000, the complaint notes. That is an estimation based on Flava’s calculations, assuming that no funds were spent or taken out in 17 years.

In addition, the complaint also asks the court to direct Cloudflare to preserve all records relating to the gay-torrents.org domain, including DNS configuration records and customer communications, without taking the site offline.

In total, the complaint lists seven counts, including copyright claims for direct, contributory, and vicarious infringement, and a separate inducement count against the alleged operator and administrators.

To support these secondary liability claims, Flava cites the Supreme Court’s recent ruling in Cox Communications v. Sony , arguing that the Bulgarian shell entities are “tailored to infringement” and without any “substantial noninfringing use.”

The remaining three are state-law claims for unjust enrichment, civil conspiracy, and fraudulent concealment. The latter is built around the alleged payment-routing scheme through 247host.eu and cloud2max.club.

As compensation, Flava requests statutory damages of up to $150,000 per work for willful infringement. The exact number of works is not listed, but with hundreds of titles in Flava’s catalog, the potential damages run into the many millions of dollars.

Finally, it is worth noting that this is not Flava’s only case against a private torrent tracker. Last March , the adult company filed a copyright lawsuit against an alleged Canadian leaker of its videos, as well as 47 users of the private torrent tracker GayTorrent.ru. This lawsuit remains pending at the Illinois federal court.

—

A copy of the complaint, filed this week by FlavaWorks Entertainment, Inc. at the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, is available here (pdf) .

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

Links between piracy and organized crime have been around for several decades.

The framing first emerged in the late 1990s, when the IFPI raised concerns about transborder smuggling of pirated CDs by criminal networks. Back then, most piracy took place offline.

A terrorism angle was added to the mix in 2003, when the U.S. House held a hearing on piracy’s “links to organized crime and terrorism.” Four months later, Interpol Secretary General Ronald Noble told Congress that intellectual property crime had become “the preferred method of funding for a number of terrorist groups.”

In December that year, the messaging made it into a new campaign by the UK anti-piracy group FACT, warning moviegoers that “piracy funds organised crime” and “piracy funds terrorism.”

The most pivotal study appeared in 2009, when a RAND report linked film piracy, organized crime, and terrorism . This movie industry-funded report was not without critique, as it blurred the line between counterfeiting and piracy , while evidence for structural crime connections was missing.

Nonetheless, the RAND study introduced case studies that have been cited ever since. This includes the Barakat Network in the Tri-Border Area, D-Company in India, and the Provisional IRA in Northern Ireland, which all reappeared in a new study this week.

Report: Organized. Piracy. Crime.

The new report titled “ Organized. Piracy. Crime. ” was released by anti-piracy group IP House and the Digital Citizens Alliance ( DCA ). Despite the long history described here, the report describes online piracy as “a new flavor of organized crime,” not something that has been around for decades.

Or, as IP-House puts it on LinkedIn: “Piracy is not what it used to be. It has evolved into something far more structured and sophisticated.”

While the old counterfeiting references are not completely gone, the new report offers several new insights and confirms that times have changed. In 2009, the largest pirate sites were still operated by people who started out as hobbyists with a passion for technology and file-sharing. The same can’t be said for many large pirate streaming networks that operate today.

Piracy Networks as Organized Crime

The new report cites more than a dozen recent enforcement actions to argue that today’s pirate streaming networks meet the formal definitions of organized crime set by Interpol, Europol, and the UN. The cases come from Spain, Italy, Brazil, Canada, India, and the United States, among others.

The most prominent example is the high-profile European “Kratos” takedown that took place in November 2024, which targeted an IPTV operation that reportedly served 22 million subscribers across multiple countries.

The report mentions that raids across eleven countries found $1.9 million in cryptocurrency, $46,000 in cash, and “drugs and weapons.” The report sees this as evidence that piracy operators now sit alongside more traditional criminal trades.

Several other IPTV operations have also been connected to other types of crime. The Spanish ‘Operation Fake,’ for example, targeted an IPTV enterprise that allegedly combined content theft with cryptocurrency mining, property fraud, drug trafficking, and money laundering.

Italy is prominently featured too, with the report referencing a former pirate operator turned informant who told Italian television that “those who pay for IPTV are funding the Camorra.” These links between IPTV operations and the Mafia are not new , but they remain difficult to verify through public records.

A Multi-Layered Model

A clear line needs to be drawn between hard evidence, such as weapons and drug seizures, and hearsay. However, those who have been observing the piracy landscape over the past 20 years have clearly seen more organized and money-driven operations emerge.

Where pirate sites would previously foster a sense of community, modern streaming operations often use a franchise model, sourcing pirated content and complete pirate site scripts through a “Piracy as a Service” model.

The report recognizes and documents this shift and argues that piracy has adopted a franchise structure that mirrors organized crime more broadly. Among other things, it mentions the 2019 takedown of Xtream Codes , a management platform that powered thousands of IPTV brands worldwide, as a key example. Wholesale operators sold turnkey kits to retail-level resellers, the report says, leaving the core operation insulated when downstream services were shut down.

This organizational structure, where various parts of piracy operators are compartmentalized, was also used by KickassTorrents, Z-Library, and the SPARKS group, the report notes. Importantly, however, it does not connect these examples to other types of crime.

The IP House and DCA report offers a detailed overview of the piracy landscape, moving toward organized and profit driven operations. It is fair to say that piracy is no longer the realm of copyleft or anarchist hobbyists. At the same time, not all piracy operations are created equal, and the cases collected in the report cover a wide range of business models, scales, and degrees of sophistication.

This will be something for policymakers to keep in mind when the report lands on their desks.

Report Calls on U.S. Congress to Implement Site Blocking

After spending most of its 42 pages arguing that piracy networks are now organized crime, the report closes with a policy section directed at the U.S. Congress. Specifically, the report recommends site-blocking legislation, noting that this blocking approach is already adopted by “more than 50 countries.”

In addition to site blocking, the report also calls for harsher penalties, payment-processor obligations, and expanded Treasury Department authority to designate foreign piracy operations as “primary money laundering concerns.”

There is some tension between the report’s threat model and its proposed solution.

The report describes piracy operations as sophisticated, adaptive criminal organizations that diversify across revenue streams. If site blocking works by lowering that revenue, these criminals may shift their focus to other endeavors, such as drug trafficking, human trafficking, and weapons smuggling.

Speaking with TorrentFreak, IP House CEO Jan van Voorn says that site blocking doesn’t answer all problems and that other crimes remain a separate challenge. However, he notes that doing nothing is worse.

“By cutting off a low-risk, high-margin revenue stream, site-blocking targets how organized networks monetize piracy to fund broader transnational activity. It’s not a silver bullet, but a practical tool to add friction and reduce illicit income,” he says.

“Doing nothing leaves a highly profitable channel intact. More broadly, different criminal activities require the right legal tools. Site-blocking addresses piracy, and where additional measures are needed to combat other crimes, those should be considered as well.”

The recommendation comes at a time when lawmakers in U.S. Congress are working on a bipartisan and bicameral site-blocking bill. As a result, the lobbying efforts have clearly started to pick up.

Earlier this week, the Motion Picture Association (MPA) used World IP Day to make a similar site-blocking pitch . In addition, a new MPA-funded study on the links between piracy and cyberthreats in Latin America ( pdf ) also references site blocking as a potential countermeasure.

Whether the renewed U.S. site-blocking push will succeed, and whether it can address the organized crime or cybersecurity threats it claims to target, remains to be seen.

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

For a long time, pirate site blocking was regarded as a topic most U.S. politicians would rather avoid.

This lingering remnant of the SOPA debacle drove copyright holders to focus on the introduction of blocking efforts in other countries instead, and not unsuccessfully.

More than 14 years after the last serious try, site-blocking calls have gained momentum once again.

As we reported in early April, lawmakers, including Representative Zoe Lofgren (D-CA) and Senator Tillis (R-NC) are working on a unified, bipartisan site-blocking bill . Both sides initially started working on their own bills, FADPA and Block BEARD , but together they will have a stronger front.

MPA Flags Live Sports Piracy Challenge

The site blocking lobby has mostly taken place behind closed doors. Slowly but gradually, however, stakeholders are also commenting in public. This week, the Motion Picture Association used World IP Day to make a fresh case for U.S. site-blocking legislation.

In a blog post , MPA Senior Executive Vice President and Global General Counsel Karyn Temple addressed the planned U.S. site-blocking push, with a particular focus on live sports. According to Temple, these live events deserve all the protection they can get due to their time-sensitive nature.

“All forms of online piracy are harmful. But live sports piracy is uniquely corrosive. Matches and live events are extremely time sensitive—their value drops sharply after that final whistle blows, the clock runs out, and the winning team is announced,” Temple writes.

The MPA, ACE, and others have already booked some decent successes on this front. Most notable is the takedown of a massive Streameast-branded live sports piracy network last year. While that was a major win, the original Streameast operation and many other sports piracy threats remained online.

MPA, ACE, and other stakeholders will do their best to address these and other piracy threats through their enforcement efforts. However, they also hope that U.S. lawmakers will also offer a helping hand by implementing site-blocking legislation.

Congress Should Create a Site Blocking Tool

Temple recognizes that Congress is trying to bridge the gaps and get site blocking passed. This is much needed and long overdue, she argues, pointing out that dozens of other countries have similar powers in place.

“To truly protect American sports fans, teams, and rightsholders in the era of live piracy, the U.S. Congress should create a judicially supervised website blocking tool similar to those proven to work in over 55 nations around the world, including many of our strongest allies,” Temple writes.

“By blocking access to lawless foreign piracy sites from inside the U.S., judicial site blocking shuts down piracy in real time, critical in all cases but especially so in the case of live sports events,” she adds.

MPA’s Senior Executive Vice President notes that more than 28,000 websites are now blocked globally in these countries, without sharing further detail.

To get a complete picture of the global site-blocking efforts, we asked the MPA for more information about the 55 countries that were mentioned, but that request remained unanswered. There is no doubt, however, that site blocking is relatively widespread, particularly in Europe.

Unintended Consequences

Thus far, there hasn’t been a lot of public opposition against the U.S. site-blocking plans from intermediaries. Internet providers remain silent on the issues, and the same applies to large DNS resolvers such as Google, Cisco, and Cloudflare, who will likely be targeted as well.

These intermediaries might wait with a formal response until they know what the final text of the law will be that Congress will have to decide on.

According to MPA’s Karyn Temple, there is little to be concerned about. She suggests that unintended consequences, affecting free speech, are no longer much of an issue after years of foreign site-blocking experience.

“While questions were once raised about unintended consequences or the impact of site blocking tools on free speech, it is now clear based on well over a decade of experience around the globe, that we can establish a safe, effective, judicial site blocking remedy that protects consumers, distributors, and rightsholders, without any meaningful risk to lawful expression and participation online,” Temple writes.

This is partly true when looking at countries such as Belgium, where site blocking is fully transparent and limited to domain names. However, recent site-blocking efforts in Spain and Italy have shown that IP address blocking can harm many legitimate sites and services, if they target shared server infrastructure.

How risk-free the American site-blocking proposal will be depends on the details, which, thus far, have yet to be finalized.

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

Since 2024, the Paris Judicial Court has gradually expanded France’s piracy site blocking orders beyond residential Internet providers.

First, it 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. Not much later, VPN providers were added to the blocking roster, as well as search engines.

These intermediaries were targeted because they could help pirates to bypass other blocking measures. If these alternative routes are cut off as well, the overall effectiveness of the anti-piracy injunction would improve.

This broader blocking push was further strengthened in March when the Paris court issued a series of blocking measures all at once. By ordering ISPs, DNS resolvers, and VPN providers to block pirate sites all at once, it should be even more effective.

These bundled orders appear to be the new standard. On April 17, the Paris court issued a series of 18 orders, with half protecting pirate Formula 1 streams and the other half targeting MotoGP infringers.

The series of 18 separate court orders, which we conveniently list in a table below , were all handed down on the same day. They include a wide variety of intermediaries, including a notable new name: DNS4EU .

DNS4EU Must Block Pirate Sites

DNS4EU is a public DNS resolver service co-funded by the European Commission and operated by a consortium led by Czech cybersecurity company Whalebone . The service, which officially launched last June, is presented as a sovereign European alternative to non-EU resolvers such as Google Public DNS and Cloudflare.

“The goal of DNS4EU is to ensure the digital sovereignty of the EU by providing a private, safe, and independent European DNS resolver,” the project’s website states.

On April 17, the Paris court issued two rulings against DNS4EU/Whalebone, requiring the DNS resolver to block 16 pirate streaming domains linked to pirated MotoGP streams and 21 domains linked to Formula 1 streams.

“Order Whalebone to implement, within the framework of its domain name resolution system called ‘Dns4eu,’ all blocking measures to prevent access from French territory, including all overseas territories of France, by any effective means to the identified internet sites and IPTV services accessible from [these domain names],” the translated order reads.

These orders were requested by French broadcaster Canal+, which holds the rights to these broadcasts, and the orders remain valid until the end of the season.

The list of targeted domains includes pirate IPTV and streaming sites such as antenawest.store, daddylive3.com, rereyano.ru, iptvsupra.com, king365tv.me, sportzonline.live, and smartbox-tv.com, with many of the same domains appearing in both orders.

Default Judgment

The rulings against Whalebone are default judgments. The company did not appear at the February 19 hearing and filed no defense. As a result, the Paris court ruled in Canal+’s favor without any opposing arguments.

DNS4EU is not the only DNS provider to forfeit a defense in the French proceedings. Quad9 , a Swiss-based non-profit foundation that operates a privacy-focused public DNS resolver, also defaulted in a parallel ruling handed down the same day.

Other intermediaries did put up a fight. Google, NordVPN, Surfshark, ProtonVPN, and Cloudflare (referred to in the published ruling under the pseudonym) all contested the blocking requests, without result.

Other intermediaries did put up a fight. Google, NordVPN, Surfshark, ProtonVPN, and Cloudflare all contested the blocking requests, without result. Cloudflare appears in the published rulings under pseudonyms, possibly due to French anonymization rules.

The Paris court rejected claims that VPNs and DNS resolvers fall outside the scope of Article L. 333-10 of the French Sports Code, which permits dynamic site blocking against “any person likely to contribute” to remedying infringement.

The court also rejected the defendants’ technical arguments about cost, encryption, and general monitoring obligations, citing the lack of “quantified and verifiable” evidence.

Google and Cloudflare previously objected to similar rulings, but their opposition was also rejected on appeal . The companies’ request to refer the case to the EU’s highest court has also been rejected.

DNS4EU has not explained why it chose not to defend itself. The organization did not respond to a request for comment, and parent company Whalebone did not return our request for clarification either.

Global Blocking Fallout

While we do not know for sure what DNS4EU’s official position is, TorrentFreak’s tests of the DNS4EU public resolvers from outside France showed that, as of this writing, several targeted domains show SSL errors.

This includes Rightflourish.net, which shows the following error message, also to users outside of France

Visitors who proceed to ignore the SSL warning and continue to the blocked domain will eventually see a blocking notification , confirming that DNS4EU is complying with the French court order. The blocking message was added this week.

The block also appears to extend beyond France, applying to users in other EU member states. Technically, that could be considered overblocking. However, without a response from the EU-funded project, it remains unclear whether this cross-border application is intentional or an oversight.

We will update this article accordingly when DNS4EU responds.

—

An overview of all orders handed down by the Paris Court on April 17, protecting the Formula 1 and MotoGP broadcasts, is available in the table below.

Case Number (RG)	Defendants	Sport Competition	Category	Measure
26/00502	Major French ISPs (Orange, SFR, Free, Bouygues, etc.)	MotoGP	Internet Service Providers	Domain Blocking
26/00503	Google, Microsoft (Bing)	MotoGP	Search Engines	De-indexing
26/00504	Google LLC & Google Ireland (Public DNS)	MotoGP	DNS Resolver	DNS-level Blocking
26/00505	Quad9 Foundation	MotoGP	DNS Resolver	DNS-level Blocking
26/00506	Whalebone	MotoGP	DNS Resolver	DNS-level Blocking
26/00507	[O] INC (Cloudflare)	MotoGP	DNS / CDN / Reverse Proxy	Blocking
26/00508	NordVPN, Surfshark	MotoGP	VPN Providers	Domain Blocking
26/00509	Cyberghost, ExpressVPN	MotoGP	VPN Providers	Domain Blocking
26/00510	Proton AG	MotoGP	VPN Provider	Domain Blocking
26/00511	Major French ISPs (Orange, SFR, Free, Bouygues, etc.)	Formula 1	Internet Service Providers	Domain Blocking
26/00512	Google, Microsoft (Bing)	Formula 1	Search Engines	De-indexing
26/00514	Google LLC & Google Ireland (Public DNS)	Formula 1	DNS Resolver	DNS-level Blocking
26/00515	Quad9 Foundation	Formula 1	DNS Resolver	DNS-level Blocking
26/00516	Whalebone	Formula 1	DNS Resolver	DNS-level Blocking
26/00517	[L] INC	Formula 1	DNS, CDN, & Reverse Proxy	Blocking
26/00519	Cyberghost, ExpressVPN	Formula 1	VPN Providers	Domain Blocking
26/00520	Proton AG	Formula 1	VPN Provider	Domain Blocking
26/00681	NordVPN, Surfshark	Formula 1	VPN Providers	Domain Blocking

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

In 2021 , a group of independent movie companies, including the makers of The Hitman’s Wife’s Bodyguard, London Has Fallen, and Rambo V, sued RCN Telecom Services at a New Jersey federal court.

The filmmakers alleged that RCN failed to disconnect repeat infringers on its network, making the ISP liable for its subscribers’ copyright infringement.

The lawsuit was one of several filed by the same group of filmmakers against U.S. Internet providers, including Grande Communications, Frontier Communications, and Verizon. These all alleged that the ISPs failed to terminate accounts of repeat infringers, which made the providers secondarily liable for these pirating subscribers.

Stipulation of Dismissal

A few days ago, the RCN case came to an end. In a joint stipulation filed on April 21, the movie companies agreed to dismiss the lawsuit. The dismissal is final, which means that the claims cannot be refiled, while each side covers its own costs and expenses.

“[A]ll parties to this matter […] hereby stipulate that this action is dismissed with prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii). Each party will bear its own costs, expenses, and attorneys’ fees,” the filing reads.

The legal paperwork does not reference a settlement agreement, nor is a reason mentioned. However, similar to the record label lawsuits against Verizon and Altice that were dropped last week, the Cox Supreme Court decision likely plays a role.

In all these cases, rightsholders argued that the ISPs’ knowledge of the infringing activity, combined with their failure to act, was sufficient to hold them liable for contributory copyright infringement. However, the new Supreme Court ruling narrowed this standard.

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 is tailored to piracy without substantial non-infringing uses.

Reddit Comments and Site Blocking

The RCN case was a substantial one. The filmmakers secured an early win in 2022 when Judge Georgette Castner denied RCN’s motion to dismiss, allowing the contributory and vicarious infringement claims to proceed. The case later expanded through amended complaints and a parallel lawsuit filed by Screen Media Ventures, which was dismissed in 2024.

To gather further evidence, the filmmakers also requested discovery subpoenas against Reddit at the Northern District of California, to unmask users who had posted piracy-related comments. Those efforts largely failed , with Magistrate Judge Laurel Beeler ruling that the Redditors’ First Amendment right to anonymous speech outweighed the filmmakers’ interest in the data.

In addition, the case was notable because the filmmakers sought a site-blocking injunction that would have required RCN to block access to The Pirate Bay, 1337x, YTS, RARBG, and other foreign pirate sites. That request was denied as a standalone cause of action, but it remained available as a potential remedy if the filmmakers won the case.

Further Cox Fallout

With this legal battle being dropped, these site-blocking requests will not be considered. However, the Cox ruling has increased the broader call of rightsholder representatives to implement site-blocking legislation in the United States.

There are currently several site-blocking bills in the works, and it is expected that U.S. Congress will seriously consider passing site-blocking legislation before the end of the current term.

Meanwhile, the Cox ruling continues to ripple through U.S. court dockets, with companies including Google and X Corp also arguing the ruling should benefit their pending cases.

—

A copy of the stipulation of dismissal with prejudice, filed at the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey, is available here (pdf) . The dismissal was signed by Judge Edward S. Kiel late last week.

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

In June 2024, major publishers, including Cengage Learning, Macmillan Learning, Elsevier, and McGraw Hill, filed a copyright lawsuit against Google in federal court in New York.

The companies accused the search giant of running Shopping ads for so-called “Pirate Sellers,” merchants who used Google’s platform to promote infringing copies of their textbooks.

The lawsuit has been narrowed significantly since it was first filed. Last June, Judge Jennifer L. Rochon dismissed the publishers’ vicarious copyright infringement claim and their alleged violations of New York General Business Law.

A trademark infringement claim and the core contributory copyright infringement claim survived. However, Google now argues that last month’s Supreme Court ruling in Cox Communications v. Sony Music Entertainment renders the remaining copyright claim legally viable.

Google: Cox Changes Everything

In a motion for partial judgment, filed at the Southern District of New York last week, Google argues that the publishers’ contributory copyright infringement claim rests entirely on a now-defunct theory.

Previously, some lower courts held that “”knowledge of” plus “material contribution” to infringing activities or others could be sufficient to be held liable for contributory copyright infringement. However, the new Supreme Court ruling narrowed this standard.

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 is tailored to piracy without substantial non-infringing uses.

Dismiss Final Copyright Claim

According to Google, the publishers can’t meet this standard. Therefore, their final copyright infringement claim should be dismissed.

“Plaintiffs do not (and cannot) claim that Google provided a service ‘tailored to’ infringement; the Shopping platform plainly has noninfringing uses. And they do not even use the word ‘induce’ or its variants in the complaint. Nor do they assert that Google intended the Shopping platform to be used for infringement,” Google writes.

“Instead the theory Plaintiffs set forth in their complaint is one of material contribution: that Google can be deemed to have the requisite intent to cause infringement because Google continued to run ads from merchants knowing that those merchants were advertising infringing content. This is precisely the theory that Cox rejected.”

Legal Battle Continues

Whether the court agrees with Google’s arguments has yet to be seen, but the request makes clear how far the impact of the Cox Supreme Court ruling can potentially reach.

That said, even if Google’s motion succeeds, the case is not over. The trademark infringement claim under the Lanham Act survived the previous dismissal order and is not addressed in the current motion. The publishers allege that Google Shopping ads displayed unauthorized images of their trademarked textbook covers, and Judge Rochon found that claim was adequately pleaded.

In a separate filing last week, Google also answered the second amended complaint. Among other things, the company cited fair use and innocent infringement as defenses against the trademark claim.

Google also questions whether the publishers have the right to sue at all. The company argues that the textbooks were created as works-made-for-hire, meaning the universities that employed the authors own the copyrights, not the publishers.

Whether that angle will need to be pursued in detail depends on whether the copyright claim will survive the dismissal request, of course.

—

A copy of Google’s motion for partial judgment on the pleadings, filed April 17 at the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, is available here (pdf) . Google’s second amended answer, filed April 14, can be found here (pdf) .

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

In piracy circles, names like Sflix, Watchseries, HDtoday, and Fmovies are essentially “zombie” brands.

While the original iterations of these sites were shut down or “retired” years ago, their names remain immensely popular with users.

The pirate streaming sites continue to draw in millions of monthly visitors without much hassle. However, that changed this week when dozens of domains suddenly became unreachable, all pointing to a Cloudflare 521 error.

The error indicates that the origin web server refuses the connection. This does not mean that Cloudflare intervened. Instead, it suggests that the backend server, which hosts the website, has stopped responding.

None of the affected sites have offered an explanation, nor has any anti-piracy organization claimed credit for a takedown. However, it is clear that these sites were seen as a major threat.

The Motion Picture Association (MPA), for example, identified the Myflixerz and Sflix networks as a priority threat in its notorious markets submission to the U.S. Trade Representative last fall . This piracy ring alone was good for 622 million visits in August 2025, MPA reported.

Those domains, including sflix.to, sflix2.to, moviesjoytv.to, myflixerz.to, and hdtodayz.to, are now among those returning 521 errors.

A Shared Backend

Why would so many sites go down simultaneously? They are not necessarily all operated by the same people. However, there is likely a common denominator, which was also cited by the MPA’s report.

Many of the affected sites rely on a shared backend infrastructure, which anti-piracy groups have dubbed “Piracy-as-a-Service” (PaaS). Instead of hosting video files themselves, the front-end piracy sites use services such as MegaCloud and VidCloud that actually serve the streams. And more recently, these PaaS services have also offered website hosting.

The MPA described exactly this setup in its notorious markets recommendation, specifically referring to the Sflix and Myflixerz network:

“These sites rely on their own PaaS infrastructure (formerly known as 2embed[.]to, which ACE took down in June 2023) and despite enforcement, they continue to thrive through alternative domains and backend hosting on platforms such as MegaCloud, VidCloud, and RapidCloud. Unlike the previous CMS model, which explicitly enabled pirate sites to embed movies and monetize streams, this new model functions as a backend hosting network powering popular pirate domains such as those mentioned above. These services act as a media source server, serving video files directly allowing a myriad of sites to provide streams to users.”

If many sites indeed rely on the same backend hosting network, similar Cloudflare errors would appear across all dependent sites if the backend service goes offline. This would explain what we’re seeing today.

If the backend PaaS infrastructure has indeed been targeted, it would represent one of the most significant blows to the streaming piracy landscape since the original 2embed takedown in 2023.

For now, the cause of this massive outage remains unconfirmed. Whether the affected domain names will make their way back online or if the 521 error is the final curtain call has yet to be seen. However, the “zombie” brands will likely reappear in some shape or form.

—

Below is an example of some of the affected domain names, but there are many more.

– myflixerz.to
– sflix.to
– moviesjoytv.to
– flixhq.to
– hdtoday.cc
– hdtoday.tv
– watchseries.pe
– watch32.sx
– myflixtor.tv
– theflixertv.to
– zoechip.cc
– fmovie.ws
– 9animetv.to
– hdtodayz.to
– fboxtv.com
– freehdmovies.to
– freemoviesfull.com
– actvid.rs
– dopebox.to

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