Nostr notes by TorrentFreak (RSS/Atom feed)

Premier League Wants Domain Registrar Tucows to Unmask Sports ...

2026-05-24T14:56:27+02:00

Premier League Wants Domain Registrar Tucows to Unmask Sports Streaming Pirates

[ballnetblock]This weekend features the final round in the Premier League football season, but the league’s anti-piracy enforcement machine is showing no signs of slowing down.

On Wednesday, the Premier League took its legal concerns to a California federal court. Specifically, it requested a DMCA subpoena to compel domain registrar Tucows to identify the operators of a fresh batch of pirate sports-streaming sites.

## Premier League’s Subpoena

The legal paperwork lists a web of pirate sports streaming domains and redirects, identifying 25 targets. Many of these sites use well-known sports pirate brands, including Totalsportek, Sportsurge, and Rojadirecta, which are not necessarily linked to the original operations.

**Tucows domains targeted:** antenasport.org, abcsport.top, totalsportek777.com, totalsportekfree.com, cricfree.online, deporte-libre.click, dlhd.link, dlstreams.top, dlstreams.com, dlhd.dad, warpfootball.com, doballkub.com, crichdbest.com, footystream.top, foxtrend.net, sportytrend.net, foxtrend.co, gamestrend.net, gamescentral.top, freeshot.live, futbolandres.xyz, futbollibre.org, sportsurge.bz, hitslink.xyz, totalsportek.events, monoomax.com, olympicstreams.co, ovogoal.plus, ovogoal.org, ovogoaal.com, rojadirectafhd.com, yacin.net, sports-now.top, telegratishd.com, tupelotalibre.com, tvhdlibre.com, tvpass.org

Futbollibre.org was one of the most trafficked domains, with more than 12 million monthly visits last month, according to Similarweb. The domain, along with several others on the list, was already suspended and placed on “clienthold” roughly two weeks before the Premier League’s subpoena request, a registrar-level status that disables the domain.

Whether these suspensions were connected to the Premier League’s complaint is unknown. Other domains in the list remain online at the time of writing.

## ‘Disable Access’

According to the Premier League, these sites all streamed football matches without permission. This was also made clear in a copyright infringement notification that was sent to domain name registrar Tucows by the Premier League’s legal team at Hagan Noll & Boyle.

This notification is mandatory in order to obtain a DMCA subpoena and asks Tucows to disable the listed domains.

“Tucows is asked to remove or disable access to Premier League’s copyrighted works, which, based on the infringement that has occurred to date through the websites and domain names identified above, will continue to be infringed in this same manner throughout the Premier League season and into future seasons,” the letter reads.

*Copyright infringement notification*
[tucows ask]

Additionally, the legal paperwork includes a detailed investigation into the infringing nature of the sites. According to the Premier League, this paperwork is sufficient for a court clerk to sign the DMCA subpoena, without putting it before a judge.

## Exposing the Operators

If the proposed DMCA subpoena is granted, it would require Tucows to share all personally identifying information it has on the registrants of these domains. That includes names, physical addresses, IP addresses, telephone numbers, emails, addresses, payment information, and account history.

*Proposed DMCA subpoena*
[[proposed subpoena]][1]

At the time of writing, a court clerk has yet to sign off on the subpoena, which is typically a formality.

Whether DMCA subpoenas can reach intermediaries that don’t store infringing content has been contested before. Last year, the Ninth Circuit [ruled][2] that this route was not valid when movie companies used it to demand data from internet provider Cox, because it was a mere conduit for its subscribers’ traffic. How this logic applies to a registrar has yet to be tested.

## The Streams Use Amazon and Google

At this point, it is worth pointing out that the pirated streams are not hosted on the domain names that are targeted in the subpoena. This is also evident from the Premier League’s own investigation package, which points to other American tech companies.

For example, the antenasport.org domain streamed the match between Fulham and Aston Villa from a backend link at Amazon Web Services. As shown below, the .m3u8 playlist was loaded through s3.dualstack.us-east-2.amazonaws.com. The same applies to content streamed from other domains.

*From the evidence package*
[[amazonstream]][3]

Amazon is not alone, as Google’s cloud storage URL “storage.googleapis.com” also appeared in the evidence package, linked to a pirated stream for the Sunderland vs Nottingham Forest match.

Whether the Premier League also attempted to get information through these companies is unknown.

*From the notice*
[[googleapi]][4]

Regarding the Premier League’s DMCA subpoena request, Tucows informed TorrentFreak that it complies when legally required to.

“Tucows is a staunch advocate for free speech and the freedom of expression on the Internet however, when served with valid due process, like any business, Tucows complies,” writes Reg Levy, the company’s Associate General Counsel for Domains.

Tucows declined to comment further, citing potential ongoing or active investigations. For now, the Premier League’s request awaits a clerk’s signature. Whether the operators behind these sites are eventually unmasked is another question.

*—*

* *

*The Premier League’s DMCA subpoena request is [available here (pdf)][5], along with the [notification of claimed infringement (pdf)][6], which were both filed at the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.*

From: [TF][7], for the latest news on copyright battles, piracy and more.

[1]:
[2]: https://torrentfreak.com/court-of-appeals-dmca-subpoena-shortcut-to-unmask-pirates-remains-closed-250818/
[3]:
[4]:
[5]: https://torrentfreak.com/images/req.pdf
[6]: https://torrentfreak.com/images/pltocow.pdf
[7]: https://torrentfreak.com/

https://torrentfreak.com/premier-league-wants-domain-registrar-tucows-to-unmask-sports-streaming-pirates/

Spanish Court Declines to Fine NordVPN Over LaLiga Piracy ...

2026-05-22T16:00:09+02:00

Spanish Court Declines to Fine NordVPN Over LaLiga Piracy Blocking Order

[nordvpn]In February, the Commercial Court No. 1 of Córdoba labeled VPN services as “technological intermediaries,” ordering them to [actively block IP addresses][1] that host illegal LaLiga matches.

The “dynamic” injunction specifically targeted NordVPN and ProtonVPN and it was granted without the companies being heard. In addition, there was no immediate right of appeal either.

Both VPN providers questioned the Spanish court’s jurisdiction, as they are both incorporated outside the EU. [NordVPN][2] called the approach unacceptable and warned of overblocking.

LaLiga, in its turn, pointed out that NordVPN failed to fully implement the Spanish interim order, and it asked the court to punish the VPN provider with fines.

## Fines Rejected

According to NordVPN, the court declined this request. In a blog post published today, the company says the Córdoba judge dismissed LaLiga’s request for coercive fines, because it could not conclude that NordVPN had deliberately and without justification breached the February order.

The technical evidence that NordVPN presented in court relied on two points.

*1. The flagged IP addresses changed frequently, often within hours, so the provided lists no longer matched the live addresses by the time blocking could take effect. *

*2. The blanket IP-level blocking demanded would have resulted in broad overblocking, rendering thousands of lawful websites inaccessible to users in Spain and beyond.*

“What the ruling does is confirm something we said openly from day one — the technical concerns are real and evidenced, and a Spanish court has now recognized that,” the [blog][3] post reads.

The court’s findings, as described to TorrentFreak by NordVPN, are more measured. The company says the judge accepted its technical evidence as relevant to compliance but stopped short of ruling its experts right and LaLiga’s wrong, instead finding that the two reports deserved “the same consideration” while reaching “the opposite conclusion.”

For a closer look, TorrentFreak asked NordVPN for a copy of the order, but the company said it could not share it at this stage. We also approached our LaLiga contact, requesting a comment, but they have not responded at the time of publication.

## Not the Final Word

By NordVPN’s own account, the decision is narrow. The company describes it as a procedural ruling at the preliminary stage, not a judgment on the merits. This means that the main proceedings are still ahead.

At the same time, the VPN provider also points out that there is broader opposition growing against the Spanish blocking effort, where overblocking affected legal sites and services at Cloudflare, Vercel, GitHub, Docker, and elsewhere.

“Inside Spain, the consequences of indiscriminate IP blocking have become almost impossible to ignore,” NordVPN writes.

The friction has reached parliament. On April 29, a congressional committee passed a non-binding motion urging the government to reform Spain’s Digital Services Law, introducing a principle of “technological proportionality” to address and limit overblocking.

For now, however, the original February injunction remains in place and the underlying case continues. Whether the technical objections that NordVPN presented in court will also hold up when they are reviewed on the merits has yet to be seen.

From: [TF][4], for the latest news on copyright battles, piracy and more.

[1]: https://torrentfreak.com/spanish-court-orders-protonvpn-and-nordvpn-to-block-pirate-football-streams/
[2]: https://nordvpn.com/
[3]: https://nordvpn.com/blog/spanish-court-rejects-fines-against-nordvpn/
[4]: https://torrentfreak.com/

https://torrentfreak.com/spanish-court-declines-to-fine-nordvpn-over-laliga-piracy-blocking-order/

Hollywood Secures Broad “Omnibus” Pirate Site Blocking Order ...

2026-05-21T10:10:42+02:00

Hollywood Secures Broad “Omnibus” Pirate Site Blocking Order in UK High Court

[ukflag]The Motion Picture Association (MPA) has been the driving force behind pirate site blocking around the world for more than fifteen years.

With blocking powers in more than 50 countries, the group sees the enforcement option as a key anti-piracy tool that it hopes the United States will also adopt soon.

Last year, for example, the MPA’s Senior Executive Vice President Karyn Temple discussed an overview of [site-blocking ‘best practices’][1] at the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO). Among other things, this includes the inclusion of dynamic blocking, automated processes, all with proper safeguards.

For the upcoming 18th WIPO session next month, the MPA has also prepared a presentation on site blocking. Delfos Visser’s contribution discusses the role of intermediaries. This includes the gradually expanding role of ISPs, search engines, VPNs, DNS resolvers, domain name registrars, and content delivery networks.

The involvement of these intermediaries is regularly discussed, both in and outside of courts. However, the MPA’s presentation also includes a notable new site-blocking angle that has not been covered in the press, until now.

## UK’s New ‘Omnibus’ Blocking Order

In his contribution, Delfos Visser highlights a new UK High Court ruling that has not yet been published publicly on BAILII or the National Archives. The case, *Columbia Pictures and others v British Telecommunications and others*, was filed in December 2025, seeking broader site-blocking powers in the UK.

The MPA notes that this case resulted in a new judgment on May 7, which will reportedly allow rightsholders to better respond to evolving piracy threats.

In the MPA’s framing, the ruling represents a new generation of UK blocking orders. Traditional applications under Section 97A of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 required studios to identify specific pirate sites by domain name and ask the court to order the major UK ISPs to block them.

A 2022 ruling by Mr. Justice Meade extended that to also include orders covering “pirate brands,” which allowed rightsholders to also target mirror and copycat domains with similar names.

The new order goes even further. According to the MPA, it allows Hollywood studios to seek blocking of any “structurally infringing audiovisual piracy services that meet defined criteria, without having to bring a fresh court application for each new domain or site name available in the future.”

*From the MPA contribution*
[flexorder]

The order remains in place for six months, with the option to request an extension. To qualify for a renewal, the studios are required to submit reports on the implementation and effectiveness to the court.

## Shapeshifting & Agentic-AI-Powered Pirate Sites

The MPA presentation notes that these expanded blocking capabilities are much needed to be able to handle the ever-evolving piracy threats. Delfos Visser notes that this could include AI-amplified piracy tools in the future.

“While fully autonomous “agentic AI” systems are not yet known to be widely used in the piracy ecosystem, several technological developments are already materially lowering the barriers to large-scale domain hopping and evasive schemes,” it notes.

The submission points out that services such as bulk registration APIs can make it easier for pirates to counter blockades. Operators can rapidly deploy new streaming sites and rotate through networks of new and non-brand-related domain names to evade standard blocking orders, the MPA writes.

“As a result, infringing services increasingly operate through rotating networks of domains, including generic or non-brand-related names specifically designed to evade traditional domain-specific or brand-based blocking measures,” Delfos Visser writes.

This framing matters, as traditional s.97A orders and the more recent pirate-brand orders both require some link between a target domain and a previously identified pirate operation. The new order, as suggested by the MPA, breaks that link. Sites can be added to the blocklist based on whether they meet structural-infringement criteria, not whether they share a name or branding with an existing target.

## Limited Transparency

While this does indeed read like a significant court order, the full text remains unavailable. We reached out to Delfos Visser and Wiggin, the law firm that represented the studio in this case, but neither responded to our inquiry. None of the targeted ISPs have publicly mentioned the order either.

The ruling will eventually be published online, and we will update this article accordingly when that happens. However, going forward, it would be welcome to have more transparency from the get-go.

Questions also remain about the transparency of these types of court orders. IorrentFreak has [previously documented][2] how dynamic blocking orders are quietly updated to add new domains. This makes it hard for outsiders to check the accuracy of these measures.

This transparency concern will be further elevated when rights holders can add new domains to existing orders that seemingly have no link to the domains that were initially targeted.

The MPA does not address the transparency angle in its WIPO submission. Last year, however, the group [told the same forum][3] that it is “of paramount importance that site blocking injunctions are rendered in the most transparent way possible.” For now, the new UK order falls short of that standard.

*—*

* *

*A copy of the MPA’s WIPO contribution, WIPO/ACE/18/26: Involvement of Intermediary Services in Site Blocking, is available [here (pdf)][4].*

From: [TF][5], for the latest news on copyright battles, piracy and more.

[1]: https://torrentfreak.com/mpa-shares-pirate-site-blocking-best-practices-at-wipo-meeting-250203/
[2]: https://torrentfreak.com/cloudflare-starts-blocking-pirate-sites-for-uk-users-thats-a-pretty-big-deal-250715/
[3]: https://torrentfreak.com/mpa-shares-pirate-site-blocking-best-practices-at-wipo-meeting-250203/
[4]: https://torrentfreak.com/images/wipo_ace_18_26.pdf
[5]: https://torrentfreak.com/

https://torrentfreak.com/hollywood-secures-broad-omnibus-pirate-site-blocking-order-in-uk-high-court/

Anna’s Archive Hit With $19.5m Default Judgment and Global ...

2026-05-20T13:40:33+02:00

Anna’s Archive Hit With $19.5m Default Judgment and Global Domain Takedown Order

[dollars]Earlier this month, a group of high-profile publishers, including Penguin Random House, Elsevier, and HarperCollins, asked a federal court in New York for a [broad default judgment][1] against [Anna’s Archive][2].

The publishers argued that, in addition to [sharing pirated books][3] with the public, the shadow library is serving as a primary training data hub for AI companies like Meta and NVIDIA.

Because the site’s operators failed to show up in court to defend themselves, the publishers requested the court to rule in their favor.

Yesterday, U.S. District Judge Jed S. Rakoff signed a default judgment granting the publishers exactly what they asked for. This includes a multi-million-dollar damages award and a far-reaching technical injunction to take out the site’s surviving domain names.

## A $19.5 Million Paper Victory

At first glance, the damages award is the headline figure. Judge Rakoff granted the maximum statutory damages of $150,000 for each of the 130 “Works in Suit”.

This brings the final damages bill amount to a staggering $19,500,000. However, as with the [$322 million judgment][4] won by the music industry against Anna’s Archive in the related [Spotify case][5], it’s highly unlikely that this money will be recouped.

*$19,500,000*
[default granted]

For now, the operators of Anna’s Archive remain strictly anonymous, which doesn’t help either. The default judgment addresses this and requires the operators to unmask their identities and provide a sworn statement with valid contact information to the court within 10 days.

However, since the operators have previously stated they hide their identities to avoid “[decades of prison time][6],” it is safe to assume that the operators will simply ignore this request.

## Targeting Global Intermediaries

The true power of this default judgment lies in the permanent injunction. Anna’s Archive is known to evade enforcement and change domain names when needed, so the injunction targets the technical intermediaries that keep the site online.

Specifically, the injunction orders “all domain name registries and registrars of record” to permanently disable access to Anna’s Archive’s domains and prevent their transfer to anyone other than the publishers or the music industry plaintiffs in the related case.

In addition to domain name services, the order also extends to international hosting providers, who are also ordered to stop working with the site.

Leaving no room for interpretation, the order specifically names more than twenty companies and organizations. This includes familiar names like Cloudflare, Njalla, and DDOS-Guard, as well as the domain name registries of the site’s current active domains:

*– TELE Greenland/Tusass (managing the .gl domain)*

*

– PKNIC (managing the .pk domain)

*

*– National Telecommunications Regulatory Commission (managing Grenada’s .gd domain)*

The names include some intermediaries that were already listed in the Spotify default judgment, as well as new ones.

*Named intermediaries*
[named intermediaries]

Unlike the Spotify scrape, which Anna’s Archive removed after the music industry’s lawsuit, the publishers’ books remain actively available on the site. That distinction may make this injunction harder for intermediaries to ignore.

The injunction will be most effective against American companies that are subject to the jurisdiction of the New York federal court. That includes Cloudflare and OwnRegistrar, among others.

However, most of the intermediaries are foreign entities. Whether they voluntarily comply with a U.S. court order remains to be seen. While some foreign companies have taken action following U.S. injunctions, others have historically ignored them, citing a lack of local jurisdiction.

For now, however, the publishers have gotten everything they asked for from the court, which gives them a chance to take action against the shadow library’s current setup. If history is any indicator, Anna’s Archive will likely have a new batch of backup domains ready to deploy.

At the time of writing, Anna’s Archive’s three domain names remain active and online.

*—*

* *

*A copy of the default judgment, signed by Judge Rakoff on May 19, 2026, is available [here (pdf)][7].*

From: [TF][8], for the latest news on copyright battles, piracy and more.

[1]: https://torrentfreak.com/publishers-seek-19-5-million-and-domain-takedown-order-against-annas-archive/
[2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anna%27s_Archive
[3]: https://torrentfreak.com/major-publishers-sue-annas-archive-over-staggering-copyright-infringement-seek-injunction/
[4]: https://torrentfreak.com/annas-archive-loses-322-million-spotify-piracy-case-without-a-fight/
[5]: https://torrentfreak.com/unsealed-spotify-lawsuit-triggered-annas-archive-domain-name-suspensions/
[6]: https://web.archive.org/web/20240308014324/https://annas-blog.org/blog-how-to-become-a-pirate-archivist.html
[7]: https://torrentfreak.com/images/defaultgranted.pdf
[8]: https://torrentfreak.com/

https://torrentfreak.com/annas-archive-hit-with-19-5m-default-judgment-and-global-domain-takedown-order/

Sky Sends Cease-and-Desist Letters to 200 Irish IPTV Subscribers ...

2026-05-19T16:28:11+02:00

Sky Sends Cease-and-Desist Letters to 200 Irish IPTV Subscribers Exposed via Revolut

[tv]Last August, Irishman David Dunbar [consented][1] to a €480,000 damages judgment after Sky exposed his illegal IPTV operation.

This legal action effectively shut down the “IPTV is Easy” service. However, [Sky Ireland][2] wasn’t done yet, and had also set its sights on the service’s subscribers.

This was no veiled threat. In March, we reported that, based on Revolut records uncovered during proceedings against the operator, Ireland’s High Court had [ordered Revolut to hand over the details][3] of 304 IPTV subscribers connected to the now-defunct IPTV service. At the time, Sky said it intended to take legal action against some of those named.

While no lawsuit has been filed yet, this morning The Irish Independent [reported][4] that Sky has indeed sent out its first legal demand letters.

## ‘Prepared to Take Legal Action’

Speaking with TorrentFreak, Sky confirms that roughly 200 people have been targeted. Most of them are located in Wexford, but letters have also gone to people in Carlow, Clare, Cork, Dublin, Galway, and various other counties.

“Sky can confirm it has issued a first wave of cease-and-desist letters to c.200 individuals who paid for an unlawful subscription to the illegal IPTV is Easy service,” a Sky spokesperson informed us.

“Where an individual does not engage with us following receipt of this letter, Sky is prepared to pursue legal action. This may include seeking an injunction, damages arising from the infringement, and recovery of legal costs.”

*Sky’s Notice of Copyright Infringement*
[[ceaseandesist]][5]

While the paperwork is directly tailored to Sky, the text explicitly mentions local sports rightsholders. It notes that Clubber TV, LOITV, GAA+, and Premier Sports are ‘wholly aware’ of the situation and warns that failure to sign leaves them ‘with no other option but to take firm action’ independently.

## 14 Days to Sign Settlement

The letter, posted in full [below][6], is sent by Sky’s Legal Litigation and Anti-Piracy Division. The recipients are told that they were identified as a subscriber of “IPTV Is Easy”.

Importantly, the cease-and-desist urges the former subscribers to sign and return a legally binding settlement agreement within 14 days.

With this settlement, recipients promise to “immediately and permanently disable” all IPTV subscriptions, to “never again infringe Sky’s copyright in any way including by watching any of its content or channels without paying the correct subscription fee,” and to never again subscribe to an illegal IPTV service.

*From the letter*
[[action to take]][7]

If recipients comply, Sky says it will not name them publicly. If they do not, the company says it is “fully prepared to take further legal action, including issuing court proceedings.” In addition, a breach of the agreement might also result in follow-up legal action.

## Deterrence Over Damages

With these warning letters, Sky likely hopes for a direct and indirect deterrent effect. By announcing publicly that IPTV subscribers are not untouchable, Sky hopes that IPTV subscribers will reconsider their habit.

In any case, the letter notes that Sky will retain a permanent record of the infringer’s name, address, and signed undertaking for as long as necessary. This means that signing the settlement will effectively place someone permanently on Sky’s radar.

The letter also warns recipients that their activity ‘may also involve criminal offences’ under Ireland’s Copyright and Related Rights Act 2000.

Sky is not seeking monetary damages, which stands in sharp contrast to recent approaches in Italy and France. Earlier this year, a French Public Prosecutor’s Office [fined 19 IPTV subscribers][8] between €300 and €400 after their identities were exposed through a reseller bust.

In Italy, the Guardia di Finanza [identified thousands of subscribers][9] following the dismantling of a pirate network, and rightsholders [subsequently sent requests for €1,000 in damages][10] on top of the criminal fines.

Sky’s approach is softer, at least for now. The Irish Independent’s technology editor Adrian Weckler told [Newstalk Breakfast][11] this morning that Sky had deliberately chosen not to pursue full civil prosecution, which would have been a more costly endeavor.

“They’re trying to walk a bit of a tightrope,” Weckler said. “They hope users will be freaked out by the letters and simply stop using them.”

Whether that strategy will work has yet to be seen. At the same time, it also remains unclear how Sky plans to verify whether the targeted users do indeed stay away from pirate IPTV services going forward.

In any case, the 200 letters represent a tiny fraction of an estimated 400,000 dodgy box households in Ireland. This means that there are plenty of targets remaining.

*—
*

* *

*A copy of the official template for Sky’s cease-and-desist letter is available [here (pdf)][12]*

From: [TF][13], for the latest news on copyright battles, piracy and more.

[1]: https://torrentfreak.com/pirate-iptv-operator-destroys-evidence-then-agrees-to-pay-sky-e580000-250802/
[2]: https://www.sky.com/
[3]: https://torrentfreak.com/sky-wins-irish-court-order-to-unmask-300-pirate-iptv-users-via-revolut-bank/
[4]: https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/first-200-dodgy-box-owners-targeted-by-sky-legal-letters/a/152042073.html
[5]:
[6]: #skyletter
[7]:
[8]: https://torrentfreak.com/france-fines-first-batch-of-pirate-iptv-subscribers-following-reseller-bust/
[9]: https://torrentfreak.com/italy-fines-over-2200-pirate-iptv-subscribers-in-new-crackdown-250516/
[10]: https://torrentfreak.com/italian-iptv-pirates-pay-e1000-in-damages-to-football-league-serie-a/
[11]: https://www.newstalk.com/news/dodgy-box-4-2261240
[12]: https://torrentfreak.com/images/Sky-notice.pdf
[13]: https://torrentfreak.com/

https://torrentfreak.com/sky-sends-cease-and-desist-letters-to-200-irish-iptv-subscribers-exposed-via-revolut/

ACE Subpoena Targets French Private Tracker, Chinese Pirate ...

2026-05-19T08:14:11+02:00

ACE Subpoena Targets French Private Tracker, Chinese Pirate Forum, and Vietnamese APIs

[cale]The Alliance for Creativity and Entertainment ([ACE][1]) established itself as the world’s leading anti-piracy coalition.

The Motion Picture Association-led organization united rightsholders from all over the world, forming a united front against online copyright infringement.

While much of the enforcement work takes place behind closed doors, DMCA subpoenas are a staple information-gathering tool of ACE. Through these subpoenas, the organization requests third-party intermediaries to hand over information they have on various alleged pirate sites.

Earlier this year, ACE obtained a DMCA subpoena, [compelling Discord][2] to identify the operators of community servers attached to pirate streaming portals HDFull. This was paired with a broader subpoena, asking Cloudflare to share details on HDFull’s domain operator, as well as those of other sites.

## DMCA Subpoenas

A few days ago, ACE requested a new DMCA subpoena against Cloudflare, targeting 29 new domain names. The legal paperwork is filed by the Motion Picture Association and names Columbia, Disney, Paramount, Universal, and Warner Bros., who are all ACE members too.

Specifically, the subpoena demands identifying information, such as physical addresses, IP addresses, phone numbers, email addresses, payment information, and account history, related to the Cloudflare accounts associated with these sites.

**DOMAINS NAMED IN THE MPA’S MAY 15 SUBPOENA**

1lou.me, 5movierulz.codes, 5movierulz.holiday, 5movierulz.theater,
kino.pub, kkk1.lat, kkphim.com, la-cale.space, motchillic.io,
motchillk.mov, motchillkc.fm, motchills.now, motchillws.net,
movidy.wiki, nanamovies.org, netcinevu.lat, ophim17.cc,
phim.nguonc.com, rrrv.lol, series.ly, subserieshd.com,
vegamovies.market, vegamovies.vodka, vvv1.lat, wizja.cc,
wookafr.wales, wookafr.zip, xk4l.mzt4pr8wlkxnv0qsha5g.website,
xprime.stream

The list of domain names is a testament to the global nature of the anti-piracy coalition, targeting French, Chinese, Vietnamese, Russian, Spanish, and Hindi-language sites, among others.

## A Young French Torrent Tracker

One of the targeted domain names is *la-cale.space*, a French private BitTorrent tracker that launched in late December 2025. The site stands out because it’s a relatively new invitation-only community whose reach is more limited than public torrent or streaming sites.

*Private Port, No Mercy for Informants*

The private tracker has grown quite significantly recently, particularly after [the collapse ][3]of the French YggTorrent tracker. The subpoena will test how well the operators have shielded their identities.

*Domains, Works & URLs*
[domain]

The subpoena request lists “Moana” and “Gladiator 2” as two titles that are shared on the site. The legal paperwork also lists the private URLs, suggesting that the anti-piracy group has access to the private community.

## A Veteran Chinese Torrent Forum

ACE’s subpoena also targets another pirate community that is the opposite of the French tracker in many ways. The Chinese forum known as “BT Home / 1LOU Station”, currently operating from 1lou.me, is far from a newcomer.

The veteran community has been operating in various incarnations for around two decades, hopping through domains including BTBTT, BTBBT, 1lou.icu, 1lou.pro, and now 1lou.me. It was one of the first torrent-oriented communities and remains online today, with millions of monthly visitors.

*BT Home*
[bthome]

The long-running Chinese forum is also an unusual target, as it is predominantly popular in mainland China. As far as we know, ACE does not have any members there. That said, the Hollywood movie studios have commercial interests around the globe.

## Vietnamese APIs & Other International Targets

The list of domain names also includes kkphim.com, ophim17.cc, and phim.nguonc.com, which are not typical pirate streaming sites. Kkphim.com openly markets itself as a developer API, supplying movie metadata, posters, and m3u8 stream links for use by third-party streaming sites.

Technically, these sites can also be used directly by end users, but they are marketed as a “Piracy as a Service” platform, allowing others to easily launch their own pirate sites.

The international nature of the subpoena targets doesn’t end in Vietnam. The legal paperwork also lists the Russian site Kino.pub, the Thai nanamovies.org, various domains of the Indian streaming portal Movierulz, the Polish wizja.cc, and several Brazilian streaming outlets, including rrrv.lol.

To top it off, ACE also brings back a familiar target in the form of series.ly. The Spanish-language streaming portal has been around for over a decade, and its admins were [acquitted twice][4] over the past few years, in part because linking to copyrighted content wasn’t a crime in Spain when the alleged offenses took place.

At the time of writing, the subpoena has yet to be signed by a court clerk, which is typically just a formality. After it’s signed, ACE will have to wait and see how accurate the information is that Cloudflare has on file.

Operators of pirate sites are known to use false data with their hosting and infrastructure providers, which often limits the value of these subpoenas. That said, ACE had success with this enforcement tool in the past, and even minor leads can be useful when paired with information from other sources.

*—*

* *

*A copy of the MPA’s §512(h) subpoena application is available [here (pdf)][5], along with the associated [declaration (pdf)][6] and the [notice to Cloudflare (pdf)][7].*

From: [TF][8], for the latest news on copyright battles, piracy and more.

[1]: https://www.alliance4creativity.com/
[2]: https://torrentfreak.com/ace-targets-pirate-streaming-site-hdfull-through-cloudflare-and-discord-subpoenas/
[3]: https://torrentfreak.com/yggtorrent-shuts-down-after-hack-leak-and-stolen-crypto/
[4]: https://torrentfreak.com/pirate-site-admins-arrested-in-2015-now-acquitted-for-second-time-230404/
[5]: https://torrentfreak.com/images/043ask.pdf
[6]: https://torrentfreak.com/images/043dec.pdf
[7]: https://torrentfreak.com/pirate-site-admins-arrested-in-2015-now-acquitted-for-second-time-230404/
[8]: https://torrentfreak.com/

https://torrentfreak.com/ace-subpoena-targets-french-private-tracker-chinese-pirate-forum-and-vietnamese-apis/

Lithuania Pitches Pirate Site Blocking as Defense Against ...

2026-05-17T13:15:35+02:00

Lithuania Pitches Pirate Site Blocking as Defense Against “Hybrid Warfare,” Including Russian Disinformation

[lrtk]The Radio and Television Commission of Lithuania ([LRTK][1]), the Baltic country’s media watchdog, has been one of Europe’s most active anti-piracy enforcers.

In recent years, it blocked hundreds of domains and thousands of IP addresses, fined users without going to court, and froze bank accounts tied to pirate operations.

Next month, LRTK will share some of its hard learned lessons in Geneva. At a meeting of the World Intellectual Property Organization’s Advisory Committee on Enforcement (ACE), LRTK’s Andrius Katinas will describe the Lithuanian approach as a template for other countries.

According to the contribution, which is publicly shared in advance of the June meeting, copyright enforcement in Lithuania is no longer just about copyright. It is “a method of hybrid warfare,” which can also counter Russian disinformation and safeguard the privacy of citizens.

## Russian Disinfo as a “Hybrid Threat”

The hybrid-threat framing rests on two separate claims, which both are unrelated to copyright infringement. The first is that pirate IPTV services can, willingly or not, be used as distribution channels for Russian propaganda.

LRTK explains that many of the IPTV services it monitors operate from hostile countries and retransmit Russian state channels, which are sanctioned and formally banned by the European Union.

“Those channels include EU-sanctioned outlets that not only spread propaganda and disinformation, but also broadcast numerous national channels and live sports without the consent of the rights holders.”

“In blocking broadcasts because of copyright infringement, the Commission also blocks access to hostile information (and vice versa), which is a method of hybrid warfare,” LRTK’s abstract of the upcoming presentation reads.

*A Blocked IPTV channel*
[russ]

As a direct neighbor of Russia, Lithuania has been very active in taking down Russian disinformation. In addition to blocking numerous sites and services, LRTK also fined hosting provider UAB Melbikomas €10,000 for breaching EU sanctions by hosting more than 50 sports channels.

## Filmai.in and other Privacy Threats

Pirate site blocking can also serve another purpose, as it prevents potential security breaches. Lithuania has experience with this, as user data of the popular local pirate site Filmai leaked online, including 645,000 email addresses, usernames, and plain text passwords.

This breach happened more than 5 years ago, and blocking the site does not remove the leaked data from the darknet. However, it may help to limit the fallout of future breaches at Filmai or other pirate sites.

These privacy issues are a serious concern, LRTK notes, stressing that pirate sites generally don’t have the best security.

Leaked credentials end up on the dark web, with LRTK suggesting that they can be picked up by hostile-state cyber groups for use in operations against state institutions and strategic companies. And since credentials of government officials have also been found in the Filmai leak, state security might become an issue.

“It has even been found that Government officials had registered on the Filmai website using official email addresses, creating security concerns, such as the potential for unauthorized access to State institutions, the signing of documents, or responding to residents’ inquiries,” LRTK writes.

Filmai is blocked now, and one of the administrators of the site was [convicted in 2023][2]. However, the site itself remains online and, according to [Similarweb][3], it remains among the [top 100 visited sites][4] in the country.

## The Lithuanian Model

LRTK explains that it has broad experience with fighting piracy threats, using a wide variety of OSINT skills. It specifically mentions tools such as domaintools.com, oxylabs.io, epieos.com, Wireshark, and SimilarWeb, which help to identify perpetrators or monitor for illegal activities.

In recent years, the watchdog has blocked more than 400 domains and 7,000 IP addresses. In addition, it imposed fines in over 250 cases since 2023.

Much of this blocking system is centralized and automated. When LRTK identifies a new site, or a mirror of a previously blocked site, a blocking instruction is sent to all Internet service providers. Within twenty minutes, the domain or IP is blocked across the country.

LRTK has also frozen bank accounts linked to pirate operations, delisted URLs from Google Search, removed advertisements from pirate sites, and suspended illegal IPTV apps from Google Play and the Apple App Store.

## The Dutch Export Problem

According to the presentation, Lithuania’s experience can “serve as a model for other national authorities and rights holders”. While that may be true, a Dutch example should show that blocklists should not be copied blindly.

In December 2025, the Dutch ISP trade association NLconnect tried to help ISPs by compiling a master blocklist, to comply with the EU’s ban on Russian disinformation. Because the Dutch government did not provide guidance, it compiled a reference blocklist of 797 domains, using blocklists from regulators in Germany, Austria, Estonia, Finland, and Lithuania.

As [we reported at the time][5], this effort resulted in some unexpected blocks. Dutch users of Ziggo lost access to ShareChat, India’s largest homegrown social media platform with hundreds of millions of users. The same applied to Odysee.com, online radio aggregators Streema and Viaway, and various pirate IPTV domains including IPTV-home.net, Ottclub.tv, and Limehd.tv.

Most of those domains traced back to a single source: LRTK’s blocklist.

Responding to the issue, the Dutch regulator ACM informed us in December that it does not monitor the actual execution or the content of the sanctions list. However, after ISPs started to complain as well, ACM formally investigated the matter, concluding that LRTK’s blocklist is too broad for the Netherlands.

As reported by [Tweakers][6] in February, ACM eventually concluded that the Lithuanian list had been compiled under both the EU sanctions regulation and a broader Lithuanian national law banning Russian-financed television content.

This means that the Lithuanian list is not usable outside Lithuania, and NLconnect dropped the entire Lithuanian source list, shrinking their reference list from 797 domains to 335.

The Dutch overblocking example can’t be blamed on Lithuania, but it shows that when it comes to cross-border blocking efforts, caution is warranted. In any case, it is clear that blindly copying third-party blocklists is not the best approach.

*—*

* *

*The WIPO contribution, “Combating Digital Piracy: Strategic Enforcement through DNS/IP Blocking and OSINT Tools,” is available[ here (pdf)][7].*

From: [TF][8], for the latest news on copyright battles, piracy and more.

[1]: https://www.rtk.lt/en/
[2]: https://torrentfreak.com/pirate-site-admin-convicted-after-5-years-another-acquitted-site-lives-on-230131/
[3]: http://similarweb.com
[4]:
[5]: https://torrentfreak.com/eu-ban-on-russian-war-propaganda-misfires-blocks-social-media-giants-pirate-iptv/
[6]: https://tweakers.net/nieuws/244296/nlconnect-schrapt-ruim-helft-geblokkeerde-russische-domeinen-van-lijst.html
[7]: https://torrentfreak.com/images/wipo_ace_18_25.pdf
[8]: https://torrentfreak.com/

https://torrentfreak.com/lithuania-pitches-pirate-site-blocking-as-defense-against-hybrid-warfare-including-russian-disinformation/

Universal Wins Delhi Court Order Against IMDb-Themed Pirate ...

2026-05-15T19:34:06+02:00

Universal Wins Delhi Court Order Against IMDb-Themed Pirate Streaming Sites

[imdb logo]For more than two decades, pirates have used the Internet Movie Database, better known as [IMDb][1], in ways its operators never intended.

Back in 2005, for example, there was already a popular Greasemonkey browser script called “[IMDb torrent linker][2],” which added links to torrents directly on the site.

Similar scripts still exist today and, with streaming sites being far more popular now, the IMDb connections have evolved as well. Instead of linking to torrents, IMDb URLs can now be tweaked to stream pirated content directly in the browser.

## Add ‘Play’ to the URL

One of the sites that openly uses the IMDb connection is Playimdb. This site can be used by simply adding the IMDb link to a search box, which then redirects users to a pirate stream.

*PlayIMDb*
[playimb]

In addition, people can also use the official IMDb site as their main navigation tool. Then, they can simply “add” play to the URL, which will then trigger the redirect.

*Add Play*
[add play to imdb]

“Just modify the URL and start watching instantly,” PlayIMDb’s operator explains.

And indeed, at the time of writing, Playimdb points visitors to pirated movies that are streamed through streamimdb.ru, which loads the video from vidapi.ru.

Aside from the usual malware concerns that always come with untrusted sites, movie studios and other rightsholders are not happy with this ‘playful’ use of IMDb, which infringes the copyrights of their movies.

## Indian Block, Suspend, and Expose Order

This prompted Universal City Studios to take action against the site and similar pirate portals. At the High Court of Delhi, the movie studio requested an injunction that targets PlayIMDb, StreamIMDb, and a cluster of associated embed and streaming domains from several angles.

Universal complained that, through these sites, pirated copies of its films, including “Fast X,” “F9: The Fast Saga,” and “The Secret Life of Pets 2” were widely shared.

Justice Tushar Rao Gedela granted the interim injunction against the sites’ operators last week. In addition to copyright infringement, the order notes that these sites exploit the goodwill of IMDb.

“The material on record demonstrates that the defendants have devised a mechanism whereby users are redirected from legitimate IMDb title pages to unauthorized streaming interfaces merely by altering the domain structure while retaining the same IMDb Title ID.”

“Such conduct, coupled with the use of domain names incorporating the expression “IMDb”, prima facie reflects dishonest adoption intended to exploit the goodwill and recognition associated with IMDb and to induce users into accessing infringing streams under the guise of legitimacy,” the order adds.

The order targets 17 unique domain names, and it directs Indian ISPs to block access to all of them within 72 hours. This also applies to several popular embed services, including VIDSRC and MoviesAPI.

───────┬─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┬──────────────
Def No.│Domains │Registrar
───────┼─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┼──────────────
1 │vidsrc.icu │NameSilo
───────┼─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┼──────────────
2 │vidsrc.vip, godriveplayer.com, and moviesapi.club │Namecheap
───────┼─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┼──────────────
3 │vidsrc.me and streamimdb.me │Immaterialism
───────┼─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┼──────────────
4 │playimdb.com, www.playimdb.com, vidsrc.stream, vidsrc.xyz and vidsrc.net │Tucows Domains
───────┼─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┼──────────────
5 │vidsrc.to and moviesapi.to │Tonic Registry
───────┼─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┼──────────────
6 │streamimdb.ru, vidsrcme.ru, vsembed.ru, vidrock.ru, and vidapi.ru │R01-RU
───────┴─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┴──────────────

As we have seen before with these types of broad court orders, the injunction also expanded to domain name registrars, including American companies such as NameSilo, Namecheap, and Tucows, which are instructed to suspend the associated domains.

At the time of writing, Namecheap has indeed suspended the listed domain names by placing them on [Clienthold][3]. The other domain names remain active.

*Clienthold*
[clienthold]

The Indian court order also requires all the named registrars and registries to share the available personal details of the associated account holders, including credit card information and mobile numbers, within 72 hours.

## Dynamic Injunction Extends to Mirrors

As with previous blocking orders from the Delhi High Court, the injunction is dynamic. If Universal identifies additional domains [while the lawsuit is ongoing][4], it can request additional blocks through the Department of Telecommunications without going back to court.

Among others, it covers any “mirror/redirect/alphanumeric website which appears to be associated with any of the rogue defendants, either based on its name, branding, the identity of its operator, or source of the content..,” the order explains.

*From the Court Order*
[order]

Through this dynamic extension process, the Indian Government quietly [approves][5] hundreds, if not thousands, of new domain blockades every month.

For now, the effect of the IMDb-themed order is limited. While local ISPs in India are blocking the site, most foreign domain registrars have not taken action, likely because they fall outside the jurisdiction of the Delhi High Court. This means that these domains remain operational.

—

A copy of the Delhi High Court’s order in *Universal City Studios Productions LLLP v. Playimdb.com & Ors.*, CS(COMM) 492/2026, is available here (pdf). Thanks to [Bar and Bench][6] for sharing the order.

From: [TF][7], for the latest news on copyright battles, piracy and more.

[1]: https://www.imdb.com/
[2]: https://web.archive.org/web/20051121020614/https://userscripts.org/scripts/show/881
[3]: https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/epp-status-codes-2014-06-16-en
[4]: https://torrentfreak.com/indias-expanding-site-blocking-orders-hit-legal-wall-at-delhi-high-court/
[5]: https://www.dot.gov.in/documents/orders-and-notices?page=1
[6]: https://www.barandbench.com/
[7]: https://torrentfreak.com/

https://torrentfreak.com/universal-wins-delhi-court-order-against-imdb-themed-pirate-streaming-site/

Real-Debrid’s Renewed Piracy Crackdown Follows Corporate ...

2026-05-14T19:49:15+02:00

Real-Debrid’s Renewed Piracy Crackdown Follows Corporate Restructuring

[real debrid][Real-Debrid][1] is a French-operated premium link generator that can download files from cyberlockers and cache torrents for instant streaming.

The service has long been a key tool for many Stremio and Kodi, and is also widely used as unlimited cloud storage by Plex, Jellyfin, and Emby users who pair it with Sonarr and Radarr.

At the [end of 2024][2], the service made headlines by implementing far-reaching anti-piracy measures, including hash and keyword filters. These changes were made to appease rightsholders following a formal notice from the Fédération Nationale des Éditeurs de Films (FNEF), the French film distributors’ trade body. Despite user backlash, Real-Debrid retained much of its user base.

A few days ago, complaints about Real-Debrid’s filtering started rearing their head again. Now it appears to be worse. Cached torrents that previously played without problems now return an error message: “File was removed from debrid service due to copyright infringement.”

*Stremio error*
[stremio error]

Real-Debrid has taken action, whether voluntarily or not, but the operators have not commented publicly and did not respond to our request for comment either. The company’s most recent public communication, on its official X account, is close to six months old.

## A New and Broader Piracy Filter

According to user reports circulating on Reddit and elsewhere, the new filter does not target specific torrent hashes, as the 2024 measures did. Instead, it appears to screen against [filename patterns][3] common to almost all scene and P2P releases.

[ElfHosted][4], a managed hosting provider that offers Stremio and Plex stacks, among others, has [published][5] a documented list of names that it linked to the new Real-Debrid filter. The list includes names of release groups such as [rartv], [rarbg], and [eztv], as well as source markers including WEB-DL, WEBDL, WEB-Rip, WEBRip and AMZN.

This suggests that the removals are based on characteristics that are not directly triggered by the content itself, but by the filename. This means that files without ‘forbidden’ keywords or tags should survive, for now.

That theory is confirmed by a [r/Piracy][6] user who notes “only 4k or 4k HDR kind of streams have been removed and not 1080p ones” for the same shows. This does not mean that lower-quality releases are safe by definition; it all depends on whether the keyword filter is triggered.

## “Most Users Lost 50-70% of Their Libraries”

ElfHosted built a tool called [LitterBox][7] that checks a user’s Real-Debrid library and counts how many cached torrents now return the infringement error. The company’s founder [commented][8] on Reddit that “most users have lost 50-70% of their libraries.”

*Litterbox*
[litterbox]

ElfHosted has a commercial interest in the matter, as it points users to the bundles it sells for a Real-Debrid competitor. However, it is also the only named third-party source publishing technical details.

Exactly how bad users are impacted appears to differ per setup. Stremio users don’t appear to be hit as hard as those using Plex, Jellyfin, or Emby with Sonarr and Radarr. The latter try to load cached files, which has been removed.

## Real-Debrid’s Corporate Restructure

While the user impact is serious and undeniable, it is not immediately clear why Real-Debrid took this action. There is a largely [unconfirmed and unverified][9] report on an anonymous Netlify subdomain that appears to offer a timeline and context. While we can’t confirm most of it, the mention of a corporate restructuring is correct.

Information obtained by TorrentFreak from the Institut National de la Propriété Industrielle (INPI), which maintains the French company registry, shows that Real-Debrid’s parent company,* XT Network*, underwent some legal changes recently.

On April 27, the registered office had already moved from Levallois-Perret to Montreuil. Ten days later, on May 7, the company was converted from a société à responsabilité limitée (SARL) to a société par actions simplifiée (SAS).

*XT NETWORK*
[xt]

The two founders no longer appear as managers of the new company. Their roles are now held by holding companies: HOWLOO, a single-shareholder SARL based in Saint-Avertin, and DEVIUS, a single-shareholder SARL based in Saint-Herblain.

These types of restructuring operations can be done to change the liability of the persons and entities involved. What the reason is in this case is unknown, but it happened mere days before the renewed piracy crackdown.

The legal page on Real-Debrid’s website confirms the change and now identifies the owner as “XT Network SAS, Société par Actions Simplifiée au capital de 7000€, 86 Rue Voltaire, 93100 Montreuil,” where it previously listed XT Network SARL as the owner.

## What’s Next

There has been no shortage of speculation or user complaints. Initially, the Real-Debrid subreddit ran a megathread covering the situation, but this has since been removed, and the posts now require approval from a moderator.

The discussion continues elsewhere, but real answers can only come from XT Network. If those come in, we will update the article accordingly.

For now, however, it appears that Real-Debrid is starting to toughen its stance against piracy even further. Last time, its actions only resulted in a [relatively mild drop in traffic][10], but if the current situation continues, that will be much worse this time around.

*—*

* *

*A copy of the INPI attestation for XT Network, dated May 14, 2026, is available [here][11] (pdf).*

From: [TF][12], for the latest news on copyright battles, piracy and more.

[1]: https://real-debrid.com/
[2]: https://torrentfreak.com/real-debrid-implements-extreme-anti-piracy-filters-to-appease-film-companies-241122/
[3]: https://www.reddit.com/r/debridmediamanager/comments/1t9l96i/realdebrids_infringing_file_errors_are/
[4]: https://store.elfhosted.com/
[5]: https://litterbox.elfhosted.com/
[6]: https://www.reddit.com/r/Piracy/comments/1tbd504/fao_users_of_real_debrid/
[7]: https://litterbox.elfhosted.com
[8]: https://www.reddit.com/r/Piracy/comments/1tbd504/comment/oljplc7/
[9]: https://rd-rug-pull.netlify.app/
[10]: https://torrentfreak.com/real-debrid-traffic-falls-16-in-3-months-anti-piracy-action-painful-but-non-fatal-250216/
[11]: https://torrentfreak.com/images/Export_Portail_Data_XT_NETWORK_Du_14-05-2026.pdf
[12]: https://torrentfreak.com/

https://torrentfreak.com/real-debrids-renewed-piracy-crackdown-follows-corporate-restructuring/

Publishers: Google’s Ebook Ad “Ban” Blocked Legitimate ...

2026-05-13T14:00:34+02:00

Publishers: Google’s Ebook Ad “Ban” Blocked Legitimate Sellers, Not Pirates

[google paperwork colors]In June 2024, Cengage Learning, Macmillan Learning, Elsevier, and McGraw Hill [sued Google][1] over Shopping ads that promoted pirated copies of their textbooks.

Last month, Google asked the court to [throw out the last surviving copyright claim][2], arguing that the [Supreme Court’s recent ruling][3] in Cox Communications v. Sony Music had effectively killed the publishers’ theory of liability.

The publishers clearly disagree. In the opposition brief filed a few days ago, they accept the Supreme Court’s Cox framework and argue that their facts fit the stricter requirements anyway. They also note that an effort by Google to limit advertisements for pirated ebooks had the opposite effect.

## Inducement

Under the new Cox standard, contributory copyright infringement applies if one of two conditions is met. This includes inducement, which requires evidence that a defendant actively encouraged copyright infringement. According to the publishers, that is the case here.

The publishers argue the entire Google Shopping platform fits that description. For each of the 7,359 textbooks they identified, Google created an ad promoting an infringing copy, placed it at the top of search results, targeted it at users it predicted would click, and linked it to a pirate site that delivered the book.

Google previously noted that the shopping platform is largely automated and content neutral, which would disfavor inducement. However, the publishers’ brief cites several examples of “specific acts” by Google that “actively encourage” infringement.

## ‘Ad Ban Only for Legitimate Sellers’

The first act is what the publishers describe as Google’s inverted ebook advertisement policy. Google [banned ebook ads][4] from its Shopping platform in 2021, citing piracy concerns. According to the publishers, the ban didn’t have the desired effect.

The publishers say that the ban worked as advertised against legitimate ebook sellers, who were blocked from promoting licensed copies through Google Shopping. Pirate sellers, meanwhile, continued to advertise infringing copies on the same platform.

“Google was well-aware (including because Plaintiffs told Google) that its ‘ban’ was not really a ban, since Google was blocking ads for legitimate ebooks, but running ads for pirated ebooks, thus showing consumers only pirated ebook products,” the opposition brief reads.

The publishers don’t go into detail on how pirate sellers were able to circumvent the ban, but the result is that people were shown ads for pirate books, not legitimate ones.

Running ads for the very products a policy was meant to block, the publishers argue, is evidence of the intent that inducement requires. A company that flouts its own anti-piracy ad policy cannot then claim it had no idea what was happening on its platform.

## ‘No Neutral Conduit’

Google positioned itself as a neutral conduit that simply displays advertisements that are supplied by third parties. However, the publishers reject this and note that the search engine has a much more active role.

“Google is not a list-serve or modern-day bulletin board like Craigslist, passively allowing users to post listings. Google is a sophisticated ad agency at scale, actively deciding what to advertise, how to advertise it, and to whom to target the advertisement,” they note, in favor of their inducement argument.

*No Craigslist*
[no craigslist]

As a third category, the publishers stress that Google had the required knowledge of the allegedly infringing activities. They sent Google “hundreds of notices” identifying thousands of specific infringing ads and pirate merchants. These ads allegedly stayed online after the takedown notices were sent.

When the publishers complained to Google, the company allegedly flagged notices as “duplicative”, while threatening to stop reviewing all the publishers’ infringement notices for up to six months.

## Tailored to Infringement

While satisfying the inducement prong would be sufficient, the publishers also argue that the second Cox element applies here. They argue that Google’s ads were “tailored to infringement” and not capable of “substantial or commercially significant noninfringing uses.”

Google’s motion applied that standard at the platform level: Google Shopping overall has obvious non-infringing uses, so it cannot be ‘tailored to infringement.’ The publishers, however, counter that the standard applies one level down.

The publishers note that each shopping ad for pirate ebooks was individually tailored. These ads, created by Google, were used to promote pirate books and served no purpose other than to induce copyright infringement.

“Plaintiffs are suing Google for knowingly creating and serving specific advertisements for known pirate sellers that include links to known infringing products, thereby inducing infringement. That Google also advertises non-infringing fishing-poles and garden-hoses does not exempt Google from liability for advertising infringing ebooks,” they write.

## Redactions and Reply

Google’s argument that much of its shopping platform is automated should also be rejected, the publishers note. They stress that there are still decision-making humans involved in the process.

The opposition brief includes large portions of redacted text, so there is likely more evidence than what’s shared in public.

*Redacted text in the publishers’ brief*
[redact]

Overall, however, the publishers ask the court to deny Google’s motion for partial judgment on the pleadings. This decision will determine whether the final copyright infringement claim survives. Before that decision is issued, Google will get the chance to reply.

*—*

* *

*A copy of the publishers’ opposition to Google’s motion for partial judgment on the pleadings, filed at the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, is available [here (pdf)][5].*

From: [TF][6], for the latest news on copyright battles, piracy and more.

[1]: https://torrentfreak.com/google-profits-from-pirated-textbooks-publishers-lawsuit-claims-240610-240610/
[2]: https://torrentfreak.com/google-uses-cox-ruling-to-kill-last-copyright-claim-in-textbook-piracy-lawsuit/
[3]: https://torrentfreak.com/supreme-court-wipes-out-record-labels-1-billion-piracy-judgment-against-cox/
[4]: https://www.seroundtable.com/google-shopping-bans-digital-books-31360.html
[5]: https://torrentfreak.com/images/googleoppo.pdf
[6]: https://torrentfreak.com/

https://torrentfreak.com/publishers-googles-ebook-ad-ban-blocked-legitimate-sellers-not-pirates/

Broadcaster Loses FIFA World Cup Rights After 20 Years, Citing ...

2026-05-12T11:12:39+02:00

Broadcaster Loses FIFA World Cup Rights After 20 Years, Citing “Rampant Piracy”

[ballnetblock]In Malaysia, Astro has been the dominant pay-TV operator that held the FIFA World Cup broadcast rights since the early 2000s.

During the previous tournaments in Russia (2018) and Qatar (2022), the company marketed itself as “the Home of the World Cup” but that changed for the 2026 tournament this summer.

Last week, Malaysia’s Minister of Communications, Datuk Fahmi Fadzil, announced that the 2026 World Cup rights had gone to public broadcaster [Radio Televisyen Malaysia][1] and IPTV service Unifi TV, which is operated by Telekom Malaysia.

This means that, with help from the government, which paid RM24 million for the rights (~$6.1 million), many Malaysians will have access to free streams.

Shortly after the deal was announced, Astro confirmed that it lost the rights. While the company said that it remains determined to be the home for Malaysian sports fans, paying millions of dollars for the broadcasting rights was not economically viable.

## Astro: Piracy Devalued Broadcast Rights

Unlike the publicly funded broadcaster RTM, Astro would have had to recoup its investment in the World Cup rights commercially. That’s a significant challenge, according to the broadcaster, which explains that rights costs and piracy are both on the rise.

“Rising costs, driven by inflation and escalating international sports broadcasting rights, have significantly increased the financial investment required,” the company wrote.

“Meanwhile, rampant piracy has diminished the value of such rights to all legitimate platforms. In particular, the 2018 and 2022 World Cup were extensively pirated events in Malaysia,” the broadcaster added in its [press release][2].

It is rare for a major broadcaster to publicly cite online piracy as one of the reasons why their bid for the licensing rights has reached a clear ceiling. They clearly believe that at the current price point, piracy has eroded the value of the broadcast rights too much.

## Piracy Might Drop Now

Intriguingly, piracy could drop significantly now that Astro no longer has the FIFA World Cup broadcasting rights. Through MyTV, matches will be publicly available to millions of Malaysians rather than sitting behind a paywall. That removes one of the strongest piracy incentives: the costs.

Competing with piracy is much easier for a public broadcaster with government funding, which can offer matches for free. As a result, people who pirated the World Cup in 2018 and 2022 may now move back to freely available licensed broadcasts, lowering the piracy rate.

Of course, those piracy rates could easily pick up again when matches end up behind a paywall in the future.

## Piracy Incentives in China, India, and Elsewhere

With roughly a month until kickoff, FIFA has reportedly finalized broadcast deals in more than 175 territories, but final agreements have yet to be signed in [China and India][3].

Reports suggest that disagreements about FIFA’s licensing fees have proven to be a stumbling block. With billions of views at stake, these countries are two of FIFA’s most important markets in terms of audience demand.

This demand would not simply disappear when there are no formal broadcasters. Instead, it would redirect to unofficial streaming, including pirate ones. This adds an interesting element to the negotiations, as rightsholders and FIFA certainly don’t want to breed piracy habits.

For now, the FIFA World Cup begins on June 11, with broadcasts through both legal and pirate channels. Whether 2026 turns out to be the most pirated World Cup yet has yet to be seen.

From: [TF][4], for the latest news on copyright battles, piracy and more.

[1]: https://www.rtm.gov.my/
[2]: https://corporate.astro.com.my/mediaroom-releases/astro-reaffirms-commitment-to-malaysian-sports-fans-amid-an-evolving-broadcast-landscape
[3]: https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cp9py4k8mllo
[4]: https://torrentfreak.com/

https://torrentfreak.com/broadcaster-loses-fifa-world-cup-rights-after-20-years-citing-rampant-piracy/

Publishers Seek $19.5 Million and Domain Takedown Order Against ...

2026-05-11T10:57:43+02:00

Publishers Seek $19.5 Million and Domain Takedown Order Against Anna’s Archive

[anna's archive]In March, a coalition of thirteen major publishers, including Penguin Random House, Elsevier, and HarperCollins, [filed a fresh lawsuit][1] against Anna’s Archive.

The publishers allege the shadow library is facilitating “staggering” levels of piracy, including the use of their books as training material for AI models.

This lawsuit follows on the heels of a case various music companies [filed][2] against the site a few months earlier. They sprung into action when Anna’s Archive said it would publish material from [a Spotify scrape][3] it had obtained earlier.

As a result of the legal pressure and an injunction released in favor of the music companies, Anna’s Archive lost several domain names. Faced with a U.S. court order, the site eventually moved to [.GL, .PK, and .GD domains][4], which remain active today.

The music companies won a massive [$322 million][5] default judgment against Anna’s Archive in April. However, while the site reportedly removed the Spotify files that triggered the music case, it continued to offer many millions of books.

## The Publishers Seek $19.5 Million Judgment

The books are still being pirated, and widely used as AI training material, so the publishers now seek their own default judgment. This includes a broad permanent injunction targeting the surviving domains.

After Anna’s Archive failed to respond in court, the publishers now ask for the maximum $150,000 per work in statutory damages for 130 works, which adds up to a total of $19,500,000. That’s $1.5 million for each of the thirteen plaintiff publishers.

*$19.5 Million*
[19million]

The financial compensation is little more than a footnote, as the site’s operators remain unknown and unlikely to pay anything. The permanent injunction the publishers request is more important, as that could help to take Anna’s Archive’s domains offline.

The music companies already obtained a similar injunction in their case, but that is no longer as effective, since Anna’s Archive stopped actively offering the Spotify files through its website. The books, however, remain available.

## Injunction Targets More Than 20 Intermediaries

The publishers ask the court to issue an injunction targeting Anna’s Archive and all domain registries, registrars, hosts, and internet service providers connected to the three remaining domains. The order would prevent the transfer of the domains to anyone other than the publishers or the music companies.

The proposed injunction names more than twenty specific companies, including familiar names from the music lawsuit such as Cloudflare, Public Interest Registry, Tucows, Njalla, the Switch Foundation, The Swedish Internet Foundation, and the National Internet Exchange of India.

The list also adds new entities that are linked to the surviving domains: TELE Greenland/Tusass for .gl, PKNIC for .pk, and Grenada’s National Telecommunications Regulatory Commission for .gd. Several hosting and registrar companies are also mentioned, including DDOS-Guard, IQWeb FZ-LLC, Hosting Concepts B.V., OwnRegistrar, Neterra, Webglobe, and CentralNic Registry.

*The intermediaries*
[nmaes]

The order would require these parties to permanently disable the domains and authoritative nameservers, cease all hosting services, preserve identifying evidence, and “refrain from frustrating” the judgment.

## Will It Work?

Without a formal defense from Anna’s Archive, the chances are high that the publishers will win this legal battle. However, whether they will get the desired result is a different matter.

Even if the permanent injunction is granted, it depends on whether they are intermediaries who will fall under the U.S. jurisdiction, or whether they will comply voluntarily.

The [permanent injunction][6] obtained by the music companies, which also targeted the .GL, .PK, and .GD domains, hasn’t reached the desired result yet. Whether a new order targeting more intermediaries will fare any better has yet to be seen.

*—*

* *

*A copy of the publishers’ memorandum of law supporting the motion for default judgment is available [here (pdf)][7]. The proposed default judgment can be found [here (pdf)][8]. *

From: [TF][9], for the latest news on copyright battles, piracy and more.

[1]: https://torrentfreak.com/major-publishers-sue-annas-archive-over-staggering-copyright-infringement-seek-injunction/
[2]: https://torrentfreak.com/unsealed-spotify-lawsuit-triggered-annas-archive-domain-name-suspensions/
[3]: https://torrentfreak.com/annas-archive-backed-up-spotify-plans-to-release-300tb-music-archive/
[4]: https://torrentfreak.com/annas-archive-loses-pm-domain-adds-greenland-gl-backup/
[5]: https://torrentfreak.com/annas-archive-loses-322-million-spotify-piracy-case-without-a-fight/
[6]: https://torrentfreak.com/annas-archive-loses-pm-domain-adds-greenland-gl-backup/
[7]: https://torrentfreak.com/images/annamol.pdf
[8]: https://torrentfreak.com/images/annaprop.pdf
[9]: https://torrentfreak.com/

https://torrentfreak.com/publishers-seek-19-5-million-and-domain-takedown-order-against-annas-archive/

Court Awards Aylo $4.2 Million, Not $84 Million, in Pornhits ...

2026-05-10T21:39:58+02:00

Court Awards Aylo $4.2 Million, Not $84 Million, in Pornhits Piracy Case

[aylobrands]Adult entertainment is big business on the internet, and several of the largest brands in this niche are owned by the Aylo conglomerate.

Formerly known as Mindgeek, Aylo is the driving force behind free ‘tube’ sites such as Pornhub, YouPorn, and RedTube. It also owns many adult brands, including Brazzers and Reality Kings, that charge for subscriptions.

Over the years, the company has built an impressive library of more than 40,000 registered copyright works. The company’s enforcement arm, Aylo Premium, protects this content by various means. It has sent many millions of takedown requests and also targets pirate sites in court, hoping to shut these down.

Earlier this year, Aylo [won a $90 million default judgment][1] against a porn piracy network that included ‘Freshporno,’ ‘Kojka,’ and ‘PornHeal,’ among others. While that was a major win, at least on paper, plenty of targets remained.

That included Pornhits.com, which Aylo sued in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington last December. The complaint named Anatoly Chernov as the alleged operator, along with twenty unidentified Doe defendants, and accused them of displaying 5,635 of Aylo’s registered works on the site without authorization.

According to Aylo, Pornhits misleadingly suggests that it is a user-generated content platform. The complaint alleges the upload feature visible on the site is “inoperative and illusory,” which means that all infringing content was added by the site’s operator directly. Aylo also said it sent 44,934 DMCA takedown notices, which were all ignored.

## Aylo’s $84 Million Demand

As is often the case in these types of lawsuits, the defendant did not appear in court to defend himself. As a result, Aylo requested a default judgment, asking for $15,000 in statutory damages per infringed work, which is less than the maximum of $150,000 per work.

However, with 5,635 works at issue, the total does add up to $84,525,000.

To justify the figure, Aylo pointed to SimilarWeb data showing that Pornhits attracted approximately 1.7 million U.S. visitors in October 2025 alone. If all these visitors signed up for official subscriptions, the company said it would earn roughly $17 million per month.

While pirate views do not directly translate to lost sales, Aylo also referenced that the same court awarded $15,000 per work in near-identical adult content piracy defaults. This includes the Yespornplease case, which was also handled by the same U.S. District Court Judge Benjamin Settle.

## “More Than Mere Guesswork”

Last week, Judge Settle granted the default judgment but rejected the damages calculation. Instead of $15,000 per work, he awarded the statutory minimum of $750, bringing the total to $4,226,250.

The order recognizes Aylo’s previous wins in the same court, but it also signals a clear shift in approach.

“The Court acknowledges these cases but determines that, upon further review, a lower award is warranted here,” Judge Settle wrote.

He noted that other district courts have begun requiring more rigorous evidence to support above-minimum awards in these types of cases. That includes evidence of its own lost profits or the infringer’s profit increase, which is clearly not available here.

“Calculating damages is difficult but the Court requires more than mere guesswork. Aylo fails to offer any concrete evidence of lost profits, relying instead upon conjecture as to the effect of Chernov’s piracy on its bottom line,” the order adds.

*More than Guesswork*
[guesswork]

Judge Settle pointed out that Aylo had also failed to estimate the added profits of Pornhits, the number of visitors who might have actually paid for an Aylo subscription, or how much of the Pornhits site is dedicated to Aylo’s content.

“It is unclear to the Court whether Aylo’s works constitute even a substantial portion of pornhits’ overall content. Without such evidence, an award of $84 million would be an inappropriate windfall,” the order reads.

## Domain Transfer Granted

The damages reduction clearly stands out, but the practical impact is limited. Chernov never appeared in the case, lives outside the United States, and is unlikely to pay any damages amount, whether $84 million or $4 million.

The injunction that comes with the order, on the other hand, is enforceable.

Specifically, Judge Settle ordered Verisign, the registry operator for the .com top-level domain, to change the registrar of record for pornhits.com to EuroDNS, which has to transfer the domain to Aylo Premium Ltd. The current registrar, Namecheap, was also ordered to cooperate.

The order also includes a ‘dynamic’ aspect, as we’ve seen previously, allowing Aylo to return to court to extend the injunction to additional domains, subdomains, or IP addresses that the Pornhits operator might use to continue or evade the infringing activity.

This permanent injunction is much needed because, at the time of writing, Pornhits.com remains up and running.

—
*A copy of Judge Benjamin Settle’s order on the motion for default judgment is available [here][2] (pdf).*

From: [TF][3], for the latest news on copyright battles, piracy and more.

[1]: https://torrentfreak.com/aylo-wins-90-million-default-judgment-against-porn-piracy-network/
[2]: https://torrentfreak.com/images/aylohist.pdf
[3]: https://torrentfreak.com/

https://torrentfreak.com/court-awards-aylo-4-2-million-not-84-million-in-pornhits-piracy-case/

GitHub Reports DMCA Takedown Record and Surging ...

2026-04-19T12:47:57+02:00

GitHub Reports DMCA Takedown Record and Surging Anti-Circumvention Claims

[github logo]GitHub, home to hundreds of millions of code repositories, takes pride in being the largest and most advanced development platform in the world.

Like other platforms that host user-generated content, this massive code library occasionally runs into copyright infringement issues too.

As an intermediary, GitHub allows rightsholders to submit DMCA takedown notices to get infringing content removed. In addition, it also accepts DMCA anti-circumvention notices, requesting the removal of projects that bypass copy controls and restrictions.

The best-documented anti-circumvention claim on GitHub was sent by the RIAA back in 2020. At the time, the music industry group requested the [removal of the open-source youtube-dl][1] project, which is used by YouTube ripper software.

After initially removing the repository, GitHub later decided to [reinstate the project][2], arguing that it doesn’t violate the DMCA’s anti-circumvention provisions. This decision [still holds today][3], as the project remains on GitHub, despite having [its website taken down][4] by similar complaints.

## Circumvention Claims Increased 41%

When the RIAA sent its anti-circumvention notices, these were still rare. In that year, GitHub only received 63 of these per year. That has increased more than tenfold since.

GitHub’s full-year [transparency report][5] that was just released reveals that it received 645 circumvention claims in 2025. That’s up 41% from a year earlier, and the bar chart shared by GitHub shows that these removal requests are clearly in an upward trend.

*Circumvention Claims*
[github dmca]

The initial boost in reports came in 2022, after GitHub updated its DMCA takedown submission form with questions explicitly related to circumvention. Providing that option triggered many more submitters to tick that box, raising the number of ‘circumvention’ claims.

Processing circumvention notices is quite costly for the company, as they are carefully reviewed by legal experts and engineers, to ensure that developers’ projects are not taken down without valid reasons.

“In cases where we are unable to determine whether a claim is valid, we will err on the side of the developer, and leave the content up,” GitHub writes in [its policy][6], also pointing out that it has a million-dollar [Developer Defense Fund][7] for those who need it.

## Surge in DMCA removals

The transparency report also covers ordinary takedown notices, which are much more common. In 2025, GitHub processed 2,661 takedown notices in 2025, which affected 47,228 repositories.

The number of targeted repositories surged 51.6% compared to 2024, while the number of notices also went up by roughly a third.

*Repos Affected by Takedowns*
[project takedown]

As shown above, August and November accounted for nearly half the year’s total, with 12,030 and 11,357 repositories taken down respectively. That pattern strongly suggests a small number of bulk complaints against projects with many forks, rather than a broad industry-wide surge.

*Taken down*
[github dmca]

## GitHub Applauds Landmark DMCA Liability Ruling

The latest transparency report was announced in a blog post this week, where GitHub also referenced the Supreme Court ruling in Cox v. Sony. Which also affects its platform.

Previously, copyright holders had successfully pushed expansive theories of secondary liability, arguing that platforms could be held contributorily liable for user infringement even without direct involvement. That made intermediaries less likely to defend or protect users. The Supreme Court decision changed this.

“The Court’s opinion reinforced that service providers are not automatically liable for copyright infringement by users without evidence of intent to encourage or materially contribute to infringement,” GitHub’s Margaret Tucker [noted][8].

This echoes comments it made earlier, where GitHub characterized the ruling as a key victory.

“This is a landmark victory for the open internet and for every developer who depends on platforms like GitHub to build, share, and collaborate on code. GitHub will always stand up for developers and for keeping the internet open,” GitHub [wrote][9].

This doesn’t mean that GitHub will fundamentally change its DMCA policy, of course; this just gives them more room to side with developers, when appropriate.

From: [TF][10], for the latest news on copyright battles, piracy and more.

[1]: https://torrentfreak.com/riaa-takes-down-popular-open-source-youtube-dl-software-201024/
[2]: https://torrentfreak.com/github-reinstates-youtube-dl-and-puts-1m-in-takedown-defense-fund-201116/
[3]: https://github.com/yt-dlp/yt-dlp
[4]: https://torrentfreak.com/youtube-dl-hosting-ban-paves-the-way-to-privatized-censorship-230411/
[5]: https://transparencycenter.github.com/dmca/?date_dmca_projects_affected=2025#dmca-projects-affected
[6]: https://docs.github.com/en/site-policy/content-removal-policies/dmca-takedown-policy#c-what-about-circumvention-claims
[7]: https://torrentfreak.com/github-reinstates-youtube-dl-and-puts-1m-in-takedown-defense-fund-201116/
[8]: https://github.blog/news-insights/policy-news-and-insights/developer-policy-update-intermediary-liability-copyright-and-transparency/
[9]: https://github.blog/news-insights/policy-news-and-insights/how-github-protects-developers-from-copyright-enforcement-overreach/
[10]: https://torrentfreak.com/

https://torrentfreak.com/github-reports-dmca-takedown-record-and-surging-anti-circumvention-claims/

Anna’s Archive Loses $322 Million Spotify Piracy Case Without a ...

2026-04-15T09:56:32+02:00

Anna’s Archive Loses $322 Million Spotify Piracy Case Without a Fight

[spotify logo][Anna’s Archive][1] is generally known as a meta-search engine for shadow libraries, helping users find pirated books and other related resources.

However, last December, the site announced that it had also [backed up Spotify][2], which came as a shock to the music industry.

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

Through a preliminary injunction targeting domain registrars and registries, the shadow library lost several domain names. However, not all were taken down, and the site registered various [new domain names as backups][3].

The legal pressure also appeared to pay off in other ways. Not long after the lawsuit was filed, the shadow library removed the Spotify listing for their torrents page. The same applies to the first batch of music files that was accidentally [released][4] in February.

The site’s operator, Anna’s Archivist, hoped that these removals would motivate the music industry to [back down][5], but that wasn’t the case. Instead, they returned to court [requesting][6] a $322 million default judgment after the defendant failed to show up in court.

## $322 Million, Granted in Full

Yesterday, Judge Jed Rakoff of the Southern District of New York entered a default judgment against the site’s unknown operators, awarding Spotify and the major labels the requested $322 million damages award in full.

*Default judgment*
[default judgment]

The music labels get the statutory maximum of $150,000 in damages for around 50 works. Spotify adds a DMCA circumvention claim of $2,500 for 120,000 music files, bringing the total to more than $322 million.

The plaintiff previously described their damages request as “extremely conservative.” The DMCA claim is based only on the 120,000 files, not the full 2.8 million that were released. Had they applied the $2,500 rate to all released files, the damages figure would exceed $7 billion.

────────────┬────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┬───────────────
Plaintiff(s)│Damages Sought │Amount
────────────┼────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┼───────────────
Warner │Statutory damages for willful copyright infringement (17 U.S.C. § 504(c)) at $150,000 for 48 sound recordings │$7,200,000.00
────────────┼────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┼───────────────
Sony │Statutory damages for willful copyright infringement (17 U.S.C. § 504(c)) at $150,000 for 50 sound recordings │$7,500,000.00
────────────┼────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┼───────────────
UMG │Statutory damages for willful copyright infringement (17 U.S.C. § 504(c)) at $150,000 for 50 sound recordings │$7,500,000.00
────────────┼────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┼───────────────
Spotify │Statutory damages for circumvention of a technological measure (17 U.S.C. § 1203(c)(3)(A)) at $2,500 for 120,000 music files│$300,000,000.00
────────────┴────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┴───────────────

Anna’s Archive did not show up in court, and the operators of the site remain unidentified. The judgment attempts to address this directly, by ordering Anna’s Archive to file a compliance report within ten business days, under penalty of perjury, that includes valid contact information for the site and its managing agents.

Whether the site will comply with this order is highly uncertain.

For now, the monetary judgment is mostly a victory on paper, as recouping money from an unknown entity is impossible. For this reason, the music companies also requested a permanent injunction.

## Permanent Injunction Targets Domains

In addition to the damages award, Rakoff entered a permanent worldwide injunction covering ten Anna’s Archive domains: annas-archive.org, .li, .se, .in, .pm, .gl, .ch, .pk, .gd, and .vg.

Domain registries and registrars of record, along with hosting and internet service providers, are ordered to permanently disable access to those domains, disable authoritative nameservers, cease hosting services, and preserve evidence that could identify the site’s operators.

*Domain names*
[domain names]

The judgment names specific third parties bound by those obligations, including Public Interest Registry, Cloudflare, Switch Foundation, The Swedish Internet Foundation, Njalla SRL, IQWeb FZ-LLC, Immaterialism Ltd., Hosting Concepts B.V., Tucows Domains Inc., and OwnRegistrar, Inc.

Anna’s Archive is also ordered to destroy all copies of works scraped from Spotify and to file a compliance report within ten business days, under penalty of perjury, including valid contact information for the site and its managing agents. That last requirement could prove significant, given that the identity of the site’s operators remains unknown.

## A Way Out, at a Price

In theory, Anna’s Archive has the option to prevent the domain suspension. The permanent injunction allows the site to seek relief from this measure, after showing that it has paid the full $322 million damages award and complied with all injunctive obligations.

That’s an unlikely option, to say the least. At the same time, however, it is not guaranteed that the site’s domain names will be suspended.

As reported previously, several domain names, including the [Greenland-based .gl version][7], are linked to registries and registrars outside the jurisdiction of the U.S. court. As such, they previously did not comply to the preliminary injunction, and it is unknown whether the latest order changes that.

*—*

* *

*A copy of the default judgment entered by Judge Rakoff is available [here (pdf)][8]. *

From: [TF][9], for the latest news on copyright battles, piracy and more.

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anna%27s_Archive
[2]: https://torrentfreak.com/annas-archive-backed-up-spotify-plans-to-release-300tb-music-archive/
[3]: https://torrentfreak.com/annas-archive-loses-pm-domain-adds-greenland-gl-backup/
[4]: https://torrentfreak.com/annas-archive-quietly-releases-millions-of-spotify-tracks-despite-legal-pushback/
[5]:
[6]: https://torrentfreak.com/spotify-and-labels-seek-322-million-default-judgment-against-annas-archive/
[7]: https://torrentfreak.com/annas-archive-loses-pm-domain-adds-greenland-gl-backup/
[8]: https://torrentfreak.com/images/aadefault.pdf
[9]: https://torrentfreak.com/

https://torrentfreak.com/annas-archive-loses-322-million-spotify-piracy-case-without-a-fight/

EU Pirate Site-Blocking Is Broken: Report Calls for IP Blocking ...

2026-04-14T19:36:11+02:00

EU Pirate Site-Blocking Is Broken: Report Calls for IP Blocking Ban and Rightsholder Liability

[Page Blocked]Since the [late 2000’s][1], European countries have been at the forefront of site-blocking efforts.

These blocking measures initially relied on court orders that required Internet providers to restrict access to notorious pirate sites. More recently, however, blocking requirements spread to other online intermediaries.

For example, in several countries, blocking injunctions expanded to third-party DNS resolvers such as Cloudflare, OpenDNS and Google. Not much later, VPN services became a target, as these could also be used to circumvent blocking orders.

While major rightsholders argue these measures are effective and proportionate, critics have documented cases of overblocking, where anti-piracy systems restricted access to legitimate sites and services. They raised concerns about collateral damage to the free flow of information.

A new report published by the Centre for European Policy Studies ([CEPS][2]) today adds substantial weight to that critique. CEPS is not part of the EU, but it operates as a leading independent think tank that advises on EU policy.

## Benefits and Costs of Website-Blocking Legislation

[The study][3], titled *The Benefits and Costs of Website-Blocking Legislation: An Economic, Legal and Policy Assessment* examines website-blocking measures across all 27 EU Member States and assesses whether those measures are effective, proportionate, and compatible with EU law.

The report’s central finding is blunt. It concludes that site blocking is associated with substantial risk of unintended consequences and harmful side effects. These adverse effects, including overblocking, are not always fully recognized before site-blocking measures are enacted.

*The report*
[ceps report site blocking]

The report suggests that blocking schemes are prone to overblocking because these rightsholders are not liable for mistakes, nor do they bear the costs, which are typically paid by the ISPs or other intermediaries.

“These problems are exacerbated by the fact that rightsholders bear none of the costs of website blocking and are thus incentivised to pursue stringent blocking orders without concern for the collateral damage they cause – there is no back-pressure,” the report reads.

## Italy and Spain: A Pattern of Collateral Damage

The report examines six EU jurisdictions in detail, and in each case, the findings are critical of site blocking.

Italy’s Piracy Shield, operated by regulator AGCOM, requires ISPs to block notified domains and IP addresses within 30 minutes, with no prior court order. This system has repeatedly resulted in overblocking, where the anti-piracy system blocked access to [legitimate][4] sites [and services][5].

Instead of addressing the collateral damage concerns, AGCOM fined Cloudflare [€14.2 million in January][6], after the company refused to globally filter its 1.1.1.1 DNS resolver. Cloudflare has since [appealed the fine][7], while challenging the legitimacy of the Piracy Shield system.

Spain has also seen reports of similar collateral damage through its blocking regime. For example, the report notes that when LaLiga was granted a court order in its favor, it targeted a series of Cloudflare-owned IP addresses starting in February 2025. These blocked pirate streams, but also 3,300 lawful services that used the same infrastructure.

“The collateral damage was significant for ordinary users, businesses, and services that had no connection whatsoever to piracy,” the report notes, adding that the court formally dismissed Cloudflare’s appeal in March 2025.

Meanwhile, in Belgium, site-blocking orders have targeted DNS resolvers, which led to OpenDNS temporarily exiting the country in April 2025. The company eventually returned as the ruling was suspended pending appeal, but by then it had already done its damage.

“The episode illustrates how overreaching court orders can have unintended consequences for the broader digital ecosystem, and how disproportionate liability exposure can sometimes incentivise service provider withdrawal rather than compliance,” the report writes.

## Report Questions Blocking Effectiveness

Beyond the collateral damage, the report also questions whether blocking achieves its stated objective of stopping piracy. After all, users are typically good at bypassing blocking measures.

The report cites various academic studies, including a 2023 paper published by researchers from Chapman University and Carnegie Mellon University, which found that site blocking led to a modest increase in visits to legal sites. According to the report, it’s unclear if these effects last.

“Recent research confirms that blocking can sharply reduce access to targeted IPTV and streaming piracy services, but no study in the past five years provides a rigorous estimate of how long these effects persist,” the report reads.

*Interpret with caution*
[not once]

The report does find that illegal consumption of films and music has declined substantially over time. However, it attributes this to increasing availability and affordability of legal content, not to enforcement.

Rightsholders are well aware of the limits of site blocking. In response, they expanded their blocking requests to also cover DNS resolvers and VPN providers, as we have seen in [France][8], [Belgium][9], [Italy][10], [Spain][11], and elsewhere.

The CEPS report does not see stricter blocking measures as a solution; it suggests a wide range of other recommendations for the EU, member states, and copyright holders.

## IP Blocking Should Be Abolished

The report makes 12 formal recommendations. The most significant is that IP-based blocking should be avoided altogether, due to its inherent tendency to block large numbers of legitimate service sites. DNS-level or URL-level blocking should be used instead.

CEPS points out that this conclusion was also reached following reviews conducted by local telecoms regulator TKK, which effectively [banned IP-address blocking][12] in the country.

“To the extent that blocking is used at all, better targeted mechanisms such as DNS-level or URL-level blocking should be used instead, consistent with the Austrian TKK’s reasoning. IP-based blocking is inherently overinclusive because shared IP addresses serve thousands or millions of legitimate domains,” the report reads.

Other recommendations include a requirement for rightsholders to contribute to the costs of implementing blocking measures, and the option to be held liable for damages caused by overblocking at their request.

──┬──────────────────────────────┬───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
# │Target │Recommendation Summary
──┼──────────────────────────────┼───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
1 │Rightsholders │Reflect on pricing schemes and restrictions on availability and convenience, such as geo-blocking. Widespread availability of affordable content is the most effective means of combating piracy.
──┼──────────────────────────────┼───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
2 │Member States │Measures to assist users in distinguishing legal from illegal content, including improved education, should be part of a comprehensive strategy.
──┼──────────────────────────────┼───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
3 │European Union │Whether content is illegal or infringing should be judged under the laws of the country of use, not the country of origin.
──┼──────────────────────────────┼───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
4 │Rightsholders │Whenever legally and practically feasible, rightsholders should first pursue infringers who reproduce content without consent before addressing intermediaries.
──┼──────────────────────────────┼───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
5 │European Union │Additional EU-level guidance is needed on whether and how to block, taking into account the principle of subsidiarity and the need to avoid market fragmentation.
──┼──────────────────────────────┼───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
6 │Member States │Blocking orders should be subject to prior or rapid judicial review, as a standard to be required across Member States.
──┼──────────────────────────────┼───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
7 │European Union │IP-based blocking should be avoided altogether. If blocking is used, better targeted mechanisms like DNS-level or URL-level blocking should be used instead.
──┼──────────────────────────────┼───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
8 │Member States │Any delegation of blocking authority to private entities must be accompanied by meaningful oversight and safeguards.
──┼──────────────────────────────┼───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
9 │Member States │Blocking orders should be time-limited with periodic review, and the geographical scope should be clearly defined and limited.
──┼──────────────────────────────┼───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
10│European Union │Rightsholders should contribute to implementation costs and bear liability for damages caused by overblocking implemented at their request.
──┼──────────────────────────────┼───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
11│Member States │National regulators should assess blocking orders for compliance with Article 3(3) of the Open Internet Regulation before implementation, not merely after the fact.
──┼──────────────────────────────┼───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
12│European Union / Member States│Enforcement and coordination of hybrid warfare content blocking should be strengthened at EU level, and national regulators should be provided with sufficient technical capacity and clear guidance for consistent implementation.
──┴──────────────────────────────┴───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────

The report also calls for all blocking orders to be subject to prior or rapid judicial review, to be time-limited with periodic reviews, and narrow in scope.

According to the report, the UK blocking model comes closest to its ideal. English High Court orders are time-limited, technically evidenced, and require rightsholders to demonstrate that proposed blocking methods will not affect legitimate content. There hasn’t been any significant overblocking reported in the UK either.

## Nord Security Funded the Study

CEPS writes that the study was conducted at the request of and with the support of [Nord Security][13], parent company of NordVPN. However, the think tank states that the analysis and conclusions are entirely independent and reflect the views of the authors alone.

Speaking with TorrentFreak, a Nord Security spokesperson confirmed its support of the study while stressing that the research was conducted independently.

“Website-blocking measures are expanding across Europe, yet there has been limited independent analysis of whether they are effective, proportionate, and compatible with EU law. Nord Security funded this CEPS study because we believe policy in this area should be shaped by evidence, not assumptions,” Nord told us.

As one of the world’s most widely used VPN services, NordVPN has a major stake in the blocking debate. The company has been targeted by blocking orders, including in France, where it recently [lost its appeal][14] together with other VPN services.

Nord Security was also present in Brussels this afternoon, where its Regulatory Policy & Compliance Counsel Emilija Beržanskaitė was critical about site-blocking efforts. At the same [hearing][15], the EU’s Intellectual Property Office and the EU’s Directorate-General for Communications Networks, Content and Technology were also present.

For now, the report arrives at a moment when intermediaries are pushing back against blocking regimes across Europe, while the European Commission is yet to issue harmonized guidance on how member states should address blocking concerns.

From: [TF][16], for the latest news on copyright battles, piracy and more.

[1]: https://torrentfreak.com/pirate-bay-blocked-by-isp-080204/
[2]: https://www.ceps.eu/
[3]: https://www.ceps.eu/ceps-publications/the-benefits-and-costs-of-website-blocking-legislation-an-economic-legal-and-policy-assessment/
[4]: https://torrentfreak.com/google-drive-blackout-in-italy-after-another-major-anti-piracy-blunder-241020/
[5]: https://torrentfreak.com/piracy-shield-cloudflare-disaster-blocks-countless-sites-fires-up-opposition-240226/
[6]: https://torrentfreak.com/italy-fines-cloudflare-e14-million-for-refusing-to-filter-pirate-sites-on-public-1-1-1-1-dns/
[7]: https://torrentfreak.com/cloudflare-challenges-legality-of-italys-piracy-shield-appeals-e14-million-fine/
[8]: https://torrentfreak.com/court-expands-google-and-cloudflare-dns-blocking-to-combat-piracy-241125/
[9]: https://torrentfreak.com/hollywood-netflix-and-apple-are-behind-latest-pirate-brand-blockades-in-belgium/
[10]: https://torrentfreak.com/tag/piracy-shield/
[11]: https://torrentfreak.com/laliga-cloudflare-crisis-isps-urged-to-action-amid-mass-overblocking-250404/
[12]: https://torrentfreak.com/ip-address-blocking-banned-after-anti-piracy-court-order-hit-cloudflare-230811/
[13]: https://nordsecurity.com/
[14]: https://torrentfreak.com/google-cloudflare-cisco-lose-pirate-site-dns-blocking-appeal-in-france/
[15]: https://www.ceps.eu/ceps-events/the-cost-of-website-blocking/
[16]: https://torrentfreak.com/

https://torrentfreak.com/eu-pirate-site-blocking-is-broken-report-calls-for-ip-blocking-ban-and-rightsholder-liability/

Top 10 Most Pirated Movies of The Week – 04/13/2026 [hailm]The ...

2026-04-13T09:43:47+02:00

Top 10 Most Pirated Movies of The Week – 04/13/2026

[hailm]The data for our weekly download chart is estimated by TorrentFreak, and is for informational and educational reference only.

Downloading content without permission is copyright infringement. These torrent download statistics are only meant to provide further insight into piracy trends. All data are gathered from public resources.

This week we have one newcomer on the list. “Project Hail Mary” is the most shared title.

## The most torrented movies for the week ending on April 13 are:

──────────┬──────────────┬────────────────────────────────┬──────────────────────
**Movie │**Rank last │**Movie name** │**IMDb Rating /
Rank** │week** │ │Trailer**
──────────┼──────────────┼────────────────────────────────┼──────────────────────
**1** │(…) │Project Hail Mary │[8.4][1] /
│ │ │[trailer][2]
──────────┼──────────────┼────────────────────────────────┼──────────────────────
**2** │(1) │Hoppers │[7.5][3] /
│ │ │[trailer][4]
──────────┼──────────────┼────────────────────────────────┼──────────────────────
**3** │(7) │Avatar: Fire and Ash │[7.4][5] /
│ │ │[trailer][6]
──────────┼──────────────┼────────────────────────────────┼──────────────────────
**4** │(3) │Crime 101 │[7.0][7] /
│ │ │[trailer][8]
──────────┼──────────────┼────────────────────────────────┼──────────────────────
**5** │(2) │Peaky Blinders: The Immortal Man│[6.9][9] /
│ │ │[trailer][10]
──────────┼──────────────┼────────────────────────────────┼──────────────────────
**6** │(4) │Send Help │[7.0][11] /
│ │ │[trailer][12]
──────────┼──────────────┼────────────────────────────────┼──────────────────────
**7** │(6) │Scream 7 │[5.7][13] /
│ │ │[trailer][14]
──────────┼──────────────┼────────────────────────────────┼──────────────────────
**8** │(…) │The Super Mario Galaxy Movie │[6.5][15] /
│ │ │[trailer][16]
──────────┼──────────────┼────────────────────────────────┼──────────────────────
**9** │(8) │One Battle After Another │[7.7][17] /
│ │ │[trailer][18]
──────────┼──────────────┼────────────────────────────────┼──────────────────────
**10** │(9) │Wuthering Heights │[6.2][19] /
│ │ │[trailer][20]
──────────┴──────────────┴────────────────────────────────┴──────────────────────

Note: We also publish an updating archive of all the list of [weekly most torrented movies lists][21].

From: [TF][22], for the latest news on copyright battles, piracy and more.

[1]: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt12042730/
[2]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m08TxIsFTRI
[3]: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt26443616/?
[4]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PypDSyIRRSs
[5]: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt1757678/
[6]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nb_fFj_0rq8
[7]: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt32430579/?
[8]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f5y-cziwmMwM
[9]: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt15574124/?
[10]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lcvUGs3xaDM
[11]: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt8036976/
[12]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R4wiXj9NmEE
[13]: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt27047903/
[14]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UJrghaPJ0RY
[15]: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt28650488/
[16]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Rcl0aiwixw
[17]: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt30144839/
[18]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=feOQFKv2Lw4
[19]: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt32897959/
[20]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3fLCdIYShEQ
[21]: https://torrentfreak.com/most-pirated-movies-of-2026-weekly-archive/
[22]: https://torrentfreak.com/

https://torrentfreak.com/top-10-most-torrented-pirated-movies/

Paris Court Issued Simultaneous Site Blocking Orders Against ...

2026-04-13T09:24:24+02:00

Paris Court Issued Simultaneous Site Blocking Orders Against ISPs, DNS Resolvers and VPNs

[justice]Since 2024, the Paris Judicial Court has gradually expanded the typical piracy site blocking orders beyond residential Internet providers.

The initial order required [Cloudflare, Google, and Cisco][1] 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][2] to the blocking roster.

Initially, these orders were to address circumvention techniques for domains that were already blocked through ISPs. The DNS resolver and VPN provider blockades limited these loopholes. Several blocking orders have followed since, but a series of orders that came out at the Paris Judicial Court take a different approach.

On March 18, Judge Jean-Christophe Gayet issued seven simultaneous rulings, targeting a broad range of online intermediaries that enable access to pirate sports streams in France. The cases were filed by the Spanish professional football league LaLiga, which requested blocking measures against 35 domain names of sports streaming sites.

The pirate sites listed include librefutboltv.su, which has over 27 million monthly visits, as well as smaller ones such as tflix.live, daddylive.dad, yallashooot.video, ballcontrol.click, and kora-live.im.

The targeted intermediaries span every layer of the technical stack: this includes major French ISPs, alternative DNS resolvers such as Google, Cloudflare, and Quad9, as well as several of the world’s largest VPN providers.

## Court: LaLiga Lacks Standing

Interestingly, however, LaLiga was not victorious in court. In each of the seven cases, the court declared the league’s claims inadmissible.

The court explained that, under [Article L. 333-10][3] of the French Sports Code, the right to bring blocking injunctions applies to rightsholders, broadcasting companies, and professional sports leagues. However, the court interprets that last category narrowly.

To qualify for protection, sports leagues must be created by a state-delegated federation under French law, specifically under Articles L. 131-14 and L. 132-1 of the Sports Code. As a Spanish association with no delegation from the French state, LaLiga does not meet that definition.

LaLiga argued that the law should also cover foreign leagues that commercialize their audiovisual rights, and that reading it otherwise would discriminate against non-French rights holders. However, the court rejected these arguments.

The restriction has nothing to do with LaLiga’s nationality, the court noted; the league simply needs a subdelegation from the French state to qualify for protection via site-blocking orders. Additionally, the court concluded that LaLiga is not directly harmed by piracy in France, as it assigned its exclusive French broadcast rights to beIN Sports France.

This same reasoning applied to all seven cases and initially appears to be a major setback for the football league. However, help was just around the corner.

## beIN Sports Steps In

[beIN Sports France][4], which holds exclusive broadcast rights to LaLiga in France as part of a deal with the Spanish league, intervened voluntarily in all seven cases.

As the company that acquired exclusive French broadcasting rights for LaLiga, it qualifies under the second category in Article L. 333-10. Unlike LaLiga, beIN could also point to documented harm, including evidence that 35 disputed domain names were streaming LaLiga matches, with beIN Sports branding visible in the pirate feeds.

The court ultimately concluded that there was grave and repeated infringement of beIN Sports France’s exclusive rights in all seven cases and granted the blocking orders in its name.

## Blocking The Full Stack

What further stands out is the fact that these orders all came out on the same day, targeting nineteen French ISPs, three DNS resolvers, a CDN provider, and four VPN services. This broad approach ensures that the most popular circumvention options are immediately cut off.

The orders run until June 21, 2026, and are also dynamic in nature. This means that new domain names can be added in the future, once they are approved for blocking by France’s audiovisual regulator, ARCOM.

The **ISP order** will have the most direct impact. It includes France’s largest providers, such as Orange, SFR, Free, and Bouygues Telecom, as well as various smaller ones.

If subscribers try to circumvent these blocking measures by switching to alternative DNS resolvers, orders against **Google**, **Cloudflare**, and **Quad9** will prevent this.

VPN providers are not necessarily an option either, as the court granted blocking orders against **ProtonVPN**, as well as **CyberGhost** and **ExpressVPN**. LaLiga also [referenced orders against][5] NordVPN and Surfshark jointly, but TorrentFreak was unable to locate these.

The Cloudflare order is the most technically comprehensive of the batch. It covers not only Cloudflare’s public DNS resolver but also its CDN, reverse proxy service, and WARP service under a single ruling. The court requires Cloudflare to block the domains across its infrastructure, by whatever technical means it chooses.

Some of the defendants raised counterarguments in court. For example, several VPN providers argued that Article L. 333-10 conflicts with the EU E-Commerce Directive, while others sought a referral to the Court of Justice. However, none of these arguments convinced the court.

## Site Blocking Evolution

The seven court orders represent the most comprehensive single-day blocking action under France’s sports piracy framework, as far as we know. Whereas initial orders targeted single intermediary categories, these come in one full sweep.

LaLiga president Javier Tebas is pleased with the outcome and thanks beIN for their cooperation.

“These rulings represent a significant step forward because they extend protection to the entire technical ecosystem that piracy currently relies on. The fight against audiovisual fraud must grow through collaboration, as is the case here with beIN Sports France, which has been key to developing a solid and effective defense in the French market,” Tebas said.

After multiple successful site-blocking petitions, it’s clear that the French court sees a blocking role for a wide variety of intermediaries. This was recently confirmed by the Paris Court of Appeal too.

*—-*

*

A copy of the ISP blocking order (RG 25/10055) is [available here (pdf)][6]. The Cloudflare order (RG 25/08543) can be [found here (pdf)][7]. The Google order (RG 25/08548) is [available here (pdf)][8]. The Quad9 order (RG 25/10053) is [available here (pdf)][9]. The ProtonVPN order (RG 25/10054) is [available here (pdf)][10]. The CyberGhost/ExpressVPN order (RG 25/08569) is [available here (pdf)][11].

Below is a list of all 35 targeted domain names:

* daddylive.dad
* daddylive2.top
* daddylivehd.world
* daddyliveru.top
* rojadirecta.at
* rojadirectaenvivo.me
* rojadirectaenvivo.sx
* la12hd.com
* jalaace2.cc
* jalaliveace3.cc
* stream196tp.com
* hoca4u.xyz
* bfpc.jllivetx.cc
* bienkoora.live
* kora-live.im
* yalla1shoot.com
* camel1.live
* yacine-tv.com
* ppv.to
* live-match-tv.net
* librefutboltv.su
* yallashooot.video
* tv.tflix.app
* hesgoal.im
* rojadirecta-tv.net
* directfr.sbs
* koora-live.net
* live.sia-live.live
* s3.stream-on.live
* yacine-tv.watch
* ar.kora-top.space
* envivolibre.com
* pl.yalashoot.xyz
* tflix.live
* ballcontrol.click
*

**

From: [TF][12], for the latest news on copyright battles, piracy and more.

[1]: https://torrentfreak.com/court-expands-google-and-cloudflare-dns-blocking-to-combat-piracy-241125/
[2]: https://torrentfreak.com/french-court-orders-vpns-to-block-more-pirate-sites-rejects-eu-court-referral/
[3]: https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/codes/article_lc/LEGIARTI000044247629/
[4]: https://www.beinsports.com/fr-fr
[5]: https://www.laliga.com/noticias/laliga-y-bein-sports-france-obtienen-siete-resoluciones-judiciales-de-alto-valor-en-francia-contra-la-pirateria
[6]: https://torrentfreak.com/images/tribunal-judiciaire_n°2510055_18_03_2026.pdf
[7]: https://torrentfreak.com/images/tribunal-judiciaire_n°2508543_18_03_2026.pdf
[8]: https://torrentfreak.com/images/tribunal-judiciaire_n°2508548_18_03_2026.pdf
[9]: https://torrentfreak.com/images/tribunal-judiciaire_n°2510053_18_03_2026.pdf
[10]: https://torrentfreak.com/images/tribunal-judiciaire_n°2510054_18_03_2026.pdf
[11]: https://torrentfreak.com/images/tribunal-judiciaire_n°2508569_18_03_2026.pdf
[12]: https://torrentfreak.com/

https://torrentfreak.com/paris-court-issued-simultaneous-site-blocking-orders-against-isps-dns-resolvers-and-vpns/

RapidIPTV Kingpin ‘Dash the Iranian’ Gets Two Years Prison ...

2026-04-11T18:55:55+02:00

RapidIPTV Kingpin ‘Dash the Iranian’ Gets Two Years Prison Under Spanish Plea Deal

[iptv]In June 2020, Spanish police led a Europe-wide operation that arrested 11 people connected to a pirate IPTV platform with two million subscribers.

Europol and Eurojust announced the action with considerable fanfare but declined to name the service. However, at the time we [confirmed][1] that a key target was RapidIPTV, a platform that had been quietly running an IPTV streaming empire since at least 2014.

The authorities saw Amir Z. as the alleged mastermind behind the empire, which also offered a ‘franchise’ model. The man, known to his colleagues as “[Dash the Iranian][2],” was arrested, and this week, after nearly six years of pre-trial proceedings, the prosecution formally started in court.

## RapidIPTV Kingpin Goes to Trial

Spain’s National Court ([Audiencia Nacional][3]) began hearing the case on Tuesday against five defendants, all of Iranian origin. The charges cover membership of a criminal organization, intellectual property crimes, offenses against the market and consumers, as well as money laundering.

In sharp contrast to the multi-year wait following the arrests, the trial was relatively short-lived.

After three hours of negotiation, all defendants reached an agreement with prosecutors, according to [EFE][4]. The prosecution agreed to drop the most serious charge, membership of a criminal organization, after the defendants pleaded guilty to the three other charges.

This resulted in a large sentencing reduction. The prosecution had originally sought 22 and a half years of prison time for Amir Z., but the agreed sentence was just over two years. Similarly, the money-laundering fine that initially could be as high as €70 million was reduced to €8 million as part of the deal.

Because all sides agreed to the plea deal, it cannot be appealed by any party. This effectively ends the prosecution. The sentences for the remaining defendants were not reported.

## €12 Million for the Rights-Holders

In addition to the €8 million fine to the state, the sentence also includes a damages fee of €12 million for the affected companies. The court also ordered the confiscation of all material seized during the raids, as well as all funds and accounts held by the defendants.

The [private prosecution][5] coalition was an unusually large one. Warner Bros, Universal, Columbia, Sony Pictures, Paramount, New Line, Netflix, Amazon, Disney, and LaLiga had all joined the action under Spain’s acusación particular mechanism, to hold the IPTV operators responsible.

How much money can eventually be recouped has yet to be seen, but with an estimated 2 million subscribers, the operation generated substantial revenue.

## A Building in Iran, a Flat in Barcelona

The money-laundering element of the case was also notable. Prosecutors alleged that the group moved approximately €25.1 million through payment processors, cryptocurrency exchanges, shell companies, and falsified invoices.

Specific transactions identified by investigators included the construction of a residential building in Iran, the purchase of a Barcelona property valued at €1.6 million, and the purchase of two luxury vehicles worth a combined €400,000.

[[rapidiptv-seize]][6]

Those figures partially overlap with what was already public: at the time of the 2020 raids, [Europol reported][7] that police seized real estate, cars, jewelry, cash, and cryptocurrency worth approximately €4.8 million, and €1.1 million frozen in bank accounts.

The platform used various domain names, including rapidiptv.com, rapidiptv.net, iptvstack.com, and the iptv.community forum. According to the prosecution, it captured signals from licensed pay-TV platforms and routed them through a private server network of 50 servers in at least 13 countries across Europe and North America.

Interestingly, iptvstack.com and iptv.community both remain operational at the time of writing.

From: [TF][8], for the latest news on copyright battles, piracy and more.

[1]: https://torrentfreak.com/police-shut-down-pirate-iptv-operation-with-2-million-subscribers-200610/
[2]: https://torrentfreak.com/dash-the-iranian-busted-pirate-iptv-kingpin-allegedly-owns-rapidiptv-220828/
[3]: https://www.poderjudicial.es/cgpj/es/Poder-Judicial/Audiencia-Nacional/
[4]: https://efe.com/ciencia-y-tecnologia/2026-04-07/acusados-piratear-trama-ilegal-aceptan-cargos/
[5]: https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acusaci%C3%B3n_particular
[6]:
[7]: https://www.europol.europa.eu/media-press/newsroom/news/illegal-streaming-service-over-2-million-subscribers-worldwide-switched
[8]: https://torrentfreak.com/

https://torrentfreak.com/rapidiptv-kingpin-dash-the-iranian-gets-two-years-prison-under-spanish-plea-deal/

HBO Obtains DMCA Subpoena to Unmask ‘Euphoria’ Spoiler ...

2026-04-11T00:00:37+02:00

HBO Obtains DMCA Subpoena to Unmask ‘Euphoria’ Spoiler Account on X

[euphoria]HBO has a history of being plagued by high-profile leaks.

Several [Game of Thrones episodes leaked][1] in the past, and the same applies to the sequel, [House of the Dragon][2].

With the long-awaited third season of HBO’s hit series [Euphoria][3] coming up this weekend, the company was on high alert. So, when it saw several ‘spoilers’ being posted by an X account operating under the name “Lexi howard’s cat”, it wasted no time to take action.

*Not the infringing tweet*
[lexi]

The Lexi-inspired fan account has been around for a long time, sharing various Euphoria-related updates. However, a series of posts that were published in late March appeared to have hit too close to home.

On March 31, HBO’s parent company, Warner Bros. Discovery (WBD) sent a takedown notice to X, flagging several posts. According to Michael Bentkover, WBD’s Director of Worldwide Online Enforcement, these were “spoilers for unaired episodes of our Euphoria TV Series”.

TorrentFreak was unable to find out what was posted exactly, but the DMCA notice identifies it as *video/audiovisual recording*.

*The DMCA notice*
[takedown]

X confirmed receipt on the same day and presumably removed the posts. However, that was not the end of it. A week later, on April 7, the company requested a DMCA subpoena at a California federal court, with the goal to identify the person behind the [@maudesfancat][4] account.

DMCA subpoenas are relatively easy to obtain, as they only require a court clerk to sign off, which indeed happened a day later.

The issued subpoena requires X to share information sufficient to identify the person behind the account. This includes names, addresses, telephone numbers, email addresses, account numbers, IP addresses, and any other contact or billing records held by the platform.

*The signed subpoena*
[subp]

Unlike the DMCA notice, where WBD used “video” to describe the content, the declaration to the court by Michael Bentkover classifies the infringing content as “summaries of unpublished, character, setting, and plots of a forthcoming series”.

This distinction may matter, as a summary of a plot may not enjoy the same protection as a leaked video. Copyright generally protects the expression of a work, not the underlying ideas or plot descriptions.

Then again, Bentkover also states that the user in question “posted access to HBO’s unpublished, copyright protected work from its forthcoming series,” which sounds substantial.

For now, X Corp. has until April 23 to respond. Legally, both X and the account holder can challenge the subpoena, but no objections have been submitted in court yet. Meanwhile, the ‘Lexi howard’s cat’ account is no longer online.

*—*

* *

*A copy of the subpoena, filed April 8 at the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, is available [here (pdf)][5]. The notice of filing and supporting declaration can be found [here (pdf)][6].*

From: [TF][7], for the latest news on copyright battles, piracy and more.

[1]: https://torrentfreak.com/pre-release-game-of-thrones-leaks-bred-pirates-research-shows-180427/
[2]: https://torrentfreak.com/house-of-the-dragon-season-finale-leaks-early-on-pirate-sites-221021/
[3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euphoria_(American_TV_series)
[4]: https://x.com/maudesfancat
[5]: https://torrentfreak.com/images/hbox1iss.pdf
[6]: https://torrentfreak.com/images/hbox.pdf
[7]: https://torrentfreak.com/

https://torrentfreak.com/hbo-obtains-dmca-subpoena-to-unmask-euphoria-spoiler-account-on-x/

Yout.com Hopes Supreme Court’s Cox Ruling Helps Its Case; RIAA ...

2026-04-03T16:32:37+02:00

Yout.com Hopes Supreme Court’s Cox Ruling Helps Its Case; RIAA Disagrees

[yout logo]YouTube downloaders and other nifty tools are seen as a major piracy threat by the music industry.

To curb this trend, music companies have taken legal action against various stream-ripping services. This includes [Yout.com][1], which is operated by the American developer Johnathan Nader.

Nader is not easily defeated, however. In 2020 he [took the RIAA to court][2] in an attempt to have the site declared legal.

## Appeal Pending

At the end of 2022, the district court handed a win to the RIAA and [dismissed the matter][3] at an early stage. Judge Stefan Underhill concluded that Yout had failed to show that it doesn’t circumvent YouTube’s technological protection measures. As such, it could be breaking the law. That wasn’t the end though.

Yout’s operator [opted to appeal][4] at the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, asking it to reverse the lower court’s decision. The stream-ripper’s arguments are partly supported by amicus briefs from [GitHub and the EFF][5], both of which joined the case.

On the other side of the aisle, the RIAA dug in its heels. The music group saw [no reason to doubt the lower court’s position][6] and, in its response to the appeal, found the Copyright Alliance [at its side][7].

## Yout Flags Cox Supreme Court Precedent

The Second Circuit appeal has been [pending for a while][8], but some fresh arguments appeared this week, after the Supreme Court issued its ruling in *[Cox v. Sony][9]*, reversing a billion-dollar verdict against the internet service provider and narrowing the standard for contributory copyright liability.

Yout’s lawyers were quick to flag the decision to the Second Circuit via a supplemental authority letter. They argued that the Supreme Court’s discussion of when a service is ‘tailored to infringement’ has bearing on Yout’s own situation.

“Although Cox Communications is not an anti-circumvention case, it nonetheless may provide useful guidance to the Court in the present case as the Supreme Court discusses when a ‘service is tailored to infringement’,” Yout’s counsel wrote.

*From the letter*
[letter]

The Supreme Court held that a service that has noninfringing uses cannot be held liable, even if the operator knows that the service may be used for copyright infringement. Yout suggests the same logic should apply in its case.

## RIAA: Cox Does Not Apply

Shortly after Yout informed the court, the RIAA sent a direct response.

“Yout’s letter is not helpful to the resolution of this case,” RIAA writes. “The Cox decision addresses common law contributory liability for infringement. Yout’s complaint involves statutory anti-circumvention claims.”

The distinction matters according to the RIAA, as the anti-circumvention of the DMCA (Section 1201) operates independently of the contributory liability doctrine. This means that a technology with noninfringing uses can still be prohibited under Section 1201, if it meets one of three criteria.

Under 17 U.S.C. §§ 1201(a)(2) and 1201(b)(1), liability for trafficking exists if a technology or service meets any one of these three disjunctive criteria:

* It is **primarily designed** to circumvent technological measures that effectively control access to copyrighted works.
* It has **only limited commercially significant purposes** other than to circumvent.
* It is **marketed** as circumvention tool.

RIAA argues that all these criteria are met here, as Yout is designed to let users save local copies of YouTube content, its revenue model depends on that downloading functionality, and it markets itself explicitly as a stream recording tool, while borrowing the first four letters of YouTube’s name.

Whether this exchange of opinions will influence the Second Circuit’s eventual decision has yet to be seen. The key issue on appeal remains whether YouTube’s rolling cipher qualifies as a technological protection measure under Section 1201 of the DMCA, and whether Yout circumvents it.

*—*

* *

*A copy of Yout’s Rule 28(j) letter is available [here (pdf)][10]. The RIAA’s response can be found [here (pdf)][11].*

From: [TF][12], for the latest news on copyright battles, piracy and more.

[1]: https://yout.com/
[2]: https://torrentfreak.com/riaa-sued-by-youtube-ripping-site-over-dmca-anti-circumvention-notices-201027/
[3]: https://torrentfreak.com/riaa-thwarts-youts-attempt-to-declare-youtube-ripping-legal-221002/
[4]: https://torrentfreak.com/yout-com-reignites-riaa-stream-ripping-dispute-at-court-of-appeal-230203/
[5]: https://torrentfreak.com/github-and-eff-back-youtube-ripper-in-legal-battle-with-the-riaa-230210/
[6]: https://torrentfreak.com/riaa-counters-yout-com-stream-ripper-brief-at-u-s-court-of-appeal-230505/
[7]: https://torrentfreak.com/copyright-alliance-backs-riaa-in-key-youtube-ripper-lawsuit-230515/
[8]: https://torrentfreak.com/appeals-court-hears-riaa-and-yout-in-high-stakes-streamripper-case-240209/
[9]: https://torrentfreak.com/supreme-court-wipes-out-record-labels-1-billion-piracy-judgment-against-cox/
[10]: https://torrentfreak.com/images/TransportRoomyout-1.pdf
[11]: https://torrentfreak.com/images/TransportRoomriaa.pdf
[12]: https://torrentfreak.com/

https://torrentfreak.com/yout-com-hopes-supreme-courts-cox-ruling-helps-its-case-riaa-disagrees/

X Asks Court to Dismiss Music Piracy Lawsuit After Supreme ...

2026-04-02T09:30:31+02:00

X Asks Court to Dismiss Music Piracy Lawsuit After Supreme Court’s Cox Ruling

[x twitter]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][1].

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][2] 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][3] 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][4] 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)][5].

Update: The music companies filed a response in court, agreeing to stay the matter temporarily, until the court decides [how to move forward (pdf)][6].

*

**

From: [TF][7], for the latest news on copyright battles, piracy and more.

[1]: https://torrentfreak.com/music-companies-sue-twitter-over-mass-copyright-infringement-230615/
[2]: https://torrentfreak.com/x-partially-defeats-music-piracy-liability-claims-in-nashville-federal-court-240306/
[3]: https://torrentfreak.com/music-companies-sue-twitter-over-mass-copyright-infringement-230615/
[4]: https://torrentfreak.com/x-sues-music-publishers-over-weaponized-dmca-takedown-conspiracy/
[5]: https://torrentfreak.com/images/x-supreme.pdf
[6]: https://torrentfreak.com/images/concreplyx.pdf
[7]: https://torrentfreak.com/

https://torrentfreak.com/x-asks-court-to-dismiss-music-piracy-lawsuit-after-supreme-courts-cox-ruling/

Google, Cloudflare, Cisco Lose Pirate Site DNS Blocking Appeal in ...

2026-04-01T14:43:35+02:00

Google, Cloudflare, Cisco Lose Pirate Site DNS Blocking Appeal in France

[france]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][1], confirming that [third-party intermediaries][2] can be required to take responsibility.

## Article L. 333-10

The DNS blocking order is grounded in [Article L. 333-10][3] 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][4], which also published [the orders][5].

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][6] 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][7] 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)][8], via [L’Informé][9] journalist Marc Rees.*

From: [TF][10], for the latest news on copyright battles, piracy and more.

[1]: https://torrentfreak.com/google-cloudflare-cisco-will-poison-dns-to-stop-piracy-block-circumvention-240613/
[2]: https://torrentfreak.com/court-expands-google-and-cloudflare-dns-blocking-to-combat-piracy-241125/
[3]: https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/codes/article_lc/LEGIARTI000044247629/
[4]: https://www.linforme.com/tech-telecom/article/piratage-sportif-victoire-majeure-de-canal-contre-google-cisco-et-cloudflare_3840.html
[5]: #orders
[6]: https://torrentfreak.com/opendns-suspends-service-in-france-due-to-canal-piracy-blocking-order-240629/
[7]: https://torrentfreak.com/france-escalates-war-on-sports-piracy-with-real-time-ip-blocking/
[8]: https://torrentfreak.com/images/informepoastedorders.pdf
[9]: https://www.linforme.com/tech-telecom/article/piratage-sportif-victoire-majeure-de-canal-contre-google-cisco-et-cloudflare_3840.html
[10]: https://torrentfreak.com/

https://torrentfreak.com/google-cloudflare-cisco-lose-pirate-site-dns-blocking-appeal-in-france/

Game Pirates Beat Denuvo with Hypervisor Bypasses — Irdeto ...

2026-03-31T09:33:55+02:00

Game Pirates Beat Denuvo with Hypervisor Bypasses — Irdeto Promises Countermeasure

[denuvo logo]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][1] has been the prime anti-piracy solution. The [Irdeto-owned][2] 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][3], the tables have completely turned now.

*Hypervisor leaks*
[hypervisor]

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][4] (CS.RIN.RU) being a central hub.

The forum does not only facilitate pirate releases; it also offers detailed [educational resources][5] 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.

*One of the many warnings*
[hypervisor]

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][6] 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][7] 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][8], 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][9].

*Release requirements *
[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][10], for the latest news on copyright battles, piracy and more.

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denuvo
[2]: https://irdeto.com/video-games
[3]: https://torrentfreak.com/no-more-pirate-games-in-two-years-group-warns-160106/
[4]: https://cs.rin.ru/
[5]: https://cs.rin.ru/forum/viewtopic.php?t=156407
[6]: https://torrentfreak.com/meet-fitgirl-the-repack-queen-of-pirated-games-200604/
[7]: https://fitgirl-repacks.site/about-hypervisor-cracks/
[8]: https://fitgirl-repacks.site/hypervisor-cracks-status-update/
[9]: https://cs.rin.ru/forum/viewtopic.php?t=156419
[10]: https://torrentfreak.com/

https://torrentfreak.com/game-pirates-beat-denuvo-with-hypervisor-bypasses-irdeto-promises-countermeasure/

Judge Allows BitTorrent Seeding Claims Against Meta, Despite ...

2026-03-30T09:31:35+02:00

Judge Allows BitTorrent Seeding Claims Against Meta, Despite Lawyers ‘Lame Excuses’

[meta-logo]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][1] filed by authors including Richard Kadrey, Sarah Silverman, and Christopher Golden, which accused Meta of using [libraries of pirated books][2] as training material.

## Court Dismisses AI Training Claims

Last summer, Meta scored a [key victory][3] 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][4], 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.

*Anna’s Archive torrents (illustrative)*
[aa torrent]

## 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.

*Lame excuse…*
[lame excuse]

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][5], 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.

*Wait a Minute…*
[wait a minute]

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)][6].*

From: [TF][7], for the latest news on copyright battles, piracy and more.

[1]: https://torrentfreak.com/meta-admits-use-of-pirated-book-dataset-to-train-ai-240111/
[2]: https://torrentfreak.com/meta-admits-use-of-pirated-book-dataset-to-train-ai-240111/
[3]: https://torrentfreak.com/meta-secures-bittersweet-fair-use-victory-in-ai-piracy-case-250626/
[4]: https://torrentfreak.com/meta-secures-bittersweet-fair-use-victory-in-ai-piracy-case-250626/
[5]: https://torrentfreak.com/uploading-pirated-books-via-bittorrent-qualifies-as-fair-use-meta-suggests/
[6]: https://torrentfreak.com/images/kadreyamend.pdf
[7]: https://torrentfreak.com/

https://torrentfreak.com/judge-allows-bittorrent-seeding-claims-against-meta-despite-lawyers-lame-excuses/

Top 10 Most Pirated Movies of The Week – 03/30/2026 ...

2026-03-30T09:11:49+02:00

Top 10 Most Pirated Movies of The Week – 03/30/2026

[hoppers]The data for our weekly download chart is estimated by TorrentFreak, and is for informational and educational reference only.

Downloading content without permission is copyright infringement. These torrent download statistics are only meant to provide further insight into piracy trends. All data are gathered from public resources.

This week we have three newcomers on the list. “Hoppers” is the most shared title.

## The most torrented movies for the week ending on March 30 are:

──────────┬──────────────┬────────────────────────────────┬──────────────────────
**Movie │**Rank last │**Movie name** │**IMDb Rating /
Rank** │week** │ │Trailer**
──────────┼──────────────┼────────────────────────────────┼──────────────────────
**1** │(…) │Hoppers │[7.5][1] /
│ │ │[trailer][2]
──────────┼──────────────┼────────────────────────────────┼──────────────────────
**2** │(1) │Crime 101 │[7.0][3] /
│ │ │[trailer][4]
──────────┼──────────────┼────────────────────────────────┼──────────────────────
**3** │(4) │Peaky Blinders: The Immortal Man│[6.9][5] /
│ │ │[trailer][6]
──────────┼──────────────┼────────────────────────────────┼──────────────────────
**4** │(…) │Send Help │[7.0][7] /
│ │ │[trailer][8]
──────────┼──────────────┼────────────────────────────────┼──────────────────────
**5** │(2) │One Battle After Another │[7.7][9] /
│ │ │[trailer][10]
──────────┼──────────────┼────────────────────────────────┼──────────────────────
**6** │(3) │Scream 7 │[5.7][11] /
│ │ │[trailer][12]
──────────┼──────────────┼────────────────────────────────┼──────────────────────
**7** │(5) │War Machine │[6.5][13] /
│ │ │[trailer][14]
──────────┼──────────────┼────────────────────────────────┼──────────────────────
**8** │(6) │The Housemaid │[6.9][15] /
│ │ │[trailer][16]
──────────┼──────────────┼────────────────────────────────┼──────────────────────
**9** │(7) │Marty Supreme │[8.0][17] /
│ │ │[trailer][18]
──────────┼──────────────┼────────────────────────────────┼──────────────────────
**10** │(…) │Avatar │[7.4][19] /
│ │ │[trailer][20]
──────────┴──────────────┴────────────────────────────────┴──────────────────────

Note: We also publish an updating archive of all the list of [weekly most torrented movies lists][21].

From: [TF][22], for the latest news on copyright battles, piracy and more.

[1]: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt26443616/?
[2]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PypDSyIRRSs
[3]: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt32430579/?
[4]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f5y-cziwmMwM
[5]: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt15574124/?
[6]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lcvUGs3xaDM
[7]: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt8036976/
[8]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R4wiXj9NmEE
[9]: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt30144839/
[10]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=feOQFKv2Lw4
[11]: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt27047903/
[12]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UJrghaPJ0RY
[13]: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt15940132/
[14]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AFuE1LRxm80
[15]: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt27543632/
[16]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kdDdlY2VPxw
[17]: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt32916440/
[18]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s9gSuKaKcqM
[19]: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt1757678/
[20]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nb_fFj_0rq8
[21]: https://torrentfreak.com/most-pirated-movies-of-2026-weekly-archive/
[22]: https://torrentfreak.com/

https://torrentfreak.com/top-10-most-torrented-pirated-movies/

The Pirate Bay’s Oldest Torrent Turned 22…. [piratebay old ...

2026-03-29T19:47:52+02:00

The Pirate Bay’s Oldest Torrent Turned 22….

[piratebay old logo]The Pirate Bay was once the [leading pirate site][1], with a [hubris][2] matching its millions of monthly visitors.

After the verdict that sent its [founders to prison][3], 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][4], 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][5], [Mininova][6], [isoHunt][7], [Torrentz][8], [KickassTorrents][9], [ExtraTorrent][10], [RARBG][11] and [TorrentGalaxy][12] all fell, The Pirate Bay continues to serve many millions of monthly users.

*The galaxy’s most resilient BitTorrent site*
[galaxy]

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][13]” 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.

*22 Years Later*
[chaparall]

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][14] a pirated copy of the documentary “[Revolution OS][15]” 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][16] 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”][17], 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][18], for the latest news on copyright battles, piracy and more.

[1]: https://torrentfreak.com/pirate-bay-king-torrents-160814/
[2]: https://torrentfreak.com/the-pirate-bays-rebellious-history-in-doodles-180429/
[3]: https://torrentfreak.com/the-pirate-bay-trial-the-verdict-090417/
[4]: https://torrentfreak.com/the-pirate-bay-promotes-mysterious-piratetoken-tpb-210513/
[5]: https://torrentfreak.com/torrentspy-shuts-down-080327/
[6]: https://torrentfreak.com/torrent-legend-mininova-will-shut-down-for-good-170226/
[7]: https://torrentfreak.com/isohunt-shuts-down-after-110-million-settlement-with-the-mpaa-131017/
[8]: https://torrentfreak.com/torrentz-shuts-down-largest-torrent-meta-search-engine-says-farewell-160805/
[9]: https://torrentfreak.com/the-kickasstorrents-shutdown-one-year-later-170720/
[10]: https://torrentfreak.com/extratorrent-shuts-down-for-good-170517/
[11]: https://torrentfreak.com/iconic-torrent-site-rarbg-shuts-down-all-content-releases-stop-230531/
[12]: https://torrentfreak.com/torrentgalaxy-drama-continues-with-days-of-downtime-250216/
[13]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_Chaparall
[14]:
[15]: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0308808/
[16]: https://torrentfreak.com/the-pirate-bays-oldest-torrent-is-revolution-os-130317/
[17]: https://torrentfreak.com/the-worlds-oldest-active-torrent-turns-20-years-old-230924/
[18]: https://torrentfreak.com/

https://torrentfreak.com/the-pirate-bays-oldest-torrent-turned-22/

Sky Wins Irish Court Order to Unmask 300+ Pirate IPTV Users via ...

2026-03-27T09:56:38+01:00

Sky Wins Irish Court Order to Unmask 300+ Pirate IPTV Users via Revolut Bank

[tv]Last August, we reported on [the case of David Dunbar][1], 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][2] 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][3]” 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][4] between €300 and €400 after their identities were exposed through a reseller bust.

In Italy, the Guardia di Finanza [identified thousands of subscribers][5] following the dismantling of a pirate network, and rights holders [subsequently ][6]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][7] 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][8], for the latest news on copyright battles, piracy and more.

[1]: https://torrentfreak.com/pirate-iptv-operator-destroys-evidence-then-agrees-to-pay-sky-580000-250802/
[2]: https://torrentfreak.com/judge-fines-pirate-iptv-man-e30000-owing-sky-e500k-is-punishment-enough-250828/
[3]: https://www.irishtimes.com/crime-law/courts/2026/03/25/details-of-300-dodgy-box-users-to-be-provided-to-sky-high-court-hears/
[4]: f"https://torrentfreak.com/france-fines-first-batch-of-pirate-iptv-subscribers-following-reseller-bust/";
[5]: https://torrentfreak.com/italy-fines-over-2200-pirate-iptv-subscribers-in-new-crackdown-250516/
[6]: https://torrentfreak.com/italian-iptv-pirates-pay-e1000-in-damages-to-football-league-serie-a/
[7]: https://ww2.courts.ie/view/Judgments/f974cd74-3185-4b52-b59a-d4beb6bf99c5/0b5e8b9d-d9b7-40be-be7d-1a6dc881722f/2025_IEHC_465.pdf/pdf
[8]: https://torrentfreak.com/

https://torrentfreak.com/sky-wins-irish-court-order-to-unmask-300-pirate-iptv-users-via-revolut-bank/

Spotify and Labels Seek $322 Million Default Judgment Against ...

2026-03-26T15:48:58+01:00

Spotify and Labels Seek $322 Million Default Judgment Against Anna’s Archive

[spotify logo][Anna’s Archive][1] is generally known as a meta-search engine for shadow libraries, helping users find pirated books and other related resources.

However, last December, the site announced that it had also [backed up Spotify][2], which came as a shock to the music industry.

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

Through a preliminary injunction targeting domain registrars and registries, the shadow library lost several domain names. However, not all were taken down, and the site registered various [new domain names as backups][3].

The legal pressure also appeared to pay off in other ways. Not long after the lawsuit was filed, the shadow library removed the Spotify torrents. The same applies to the first batch of music files that was [released][4] in February.

According to a [message posted][5] on Reddit by the site’s operator, Anna’s Archivist, these Spotify releases were published accidentally and were put [temporarily on hold][6] because they are “not worth the additional trouble the music industry’s lawyers are bringing.”

## ‘Extremely Conservative’ $322 Million Default Judgment

Despite taking the torrents offline, Spotify and the labels are not letting the case go. On the contrary, without a response from Anna’s Archive in court, they seek a massive default judgment this week.

“Defendant’s blatant and willful disregard for Plaintiffs’ rights and the Court’s authority warrants imposition of statutory damages against Defendant for copyright infringement in the amount of $22,200,000, and for violation of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act in the amount of $300,000,000, as well as permanent injunctive relief,” they write.

────────────┬────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┬───────────────
Plaintiff(s)│Damages Sought │Amount
────────────┼────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┼───────────────
Warner │Statutory damages for willful copyright infringement (17 U.S.C. § 504(c)) at $150,000 for 48 sound recordings │$7,200,000.00
────────────┼────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┼───────────────
Sony │Statutory damages for willful copyright infringement (17 U.S.C. § 504(c)) at $150,000 for 50 sound recordings │$7,500,000.00
────────────┼────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┼───────────────
UMG │Statutory damages for willful copyright infringement (17 U.S.C. § 504(c)) at $150,000 for 50 sound recordings │$7,500,000.00
────────────┼────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┼───────────────
Spotify │Statutory damages for circumvention of a technological measure (17 U.S.C. § 1203(c)(3)(A)) at $2,500 for 120,000 music files│$300,000,000.00
────────────┴────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┴───────────────

The music labels each seek the maximum of $150,000 in statutory damages for around 50 works. Spotify adds a DMCA circumvention claim of $2,500 for 120,000 music files, bringing the total to more than $322 million.

The plaintiff describes their damages request as “extremely conservative.” The DMCA claim is based only on the 120,000 files actually downloaded during their investigation, not the full 2.8 million released. Had they applied the $2,500 rate to all released files, the damages figure would exceed $7 billion.

Similarly, the copyright claim covers only 148 tracks, which is only a tiny fraction of the files Anna’s Archive claimed to have scraped.

## RIAA’s Senior Vice President Downloaded 120,000 files

The temporary release of the music files plays a key role. The music companies note that the release of the nearly three million music files is evidence for their copyright infringement claim. Additionally, it shows that Anna’s Archive successfully circumvented Spotify’s DRM.

According to the legal paperwork, RIAA Senior Vice President of Technology Jeremy Landis personally downloaded the first two torrents, confirming 120,000 files were accessible and included Spotify metadata identifying artist, track, album, and label.

*From the declaration of Landis*
[landis]

The music companies confirm that the torrent links were eventually removed from Anna’s Archive’s website around February 11. However, they stress that files distributed via BitTorrent remain available through the peer-to-peer network, regardless of whether the original posting site removes them.

## DRM Circumvention at Scale

Spotify Principal Engineer Richard Titmuss states in a declaration that each audio file on the platform is protected by encryption and digital rights management technology. The files Landis downloaded could be played on a standard media player outside the Spotify platform, meaning that Anna’s Archive effectively circumvented the DRM on each file.

“In order to make each of these individual music files available through the BitTorrent network, Defendant necessarily had to circumvent and disable the technological DRM protections that Spotify had implemented with respect to each such music file,” Titmuss writes.

This declaration is used as evidence for Spotify’s damages claim under the DMCA’s anti-circumvention provision, which allows for statutory damages of up to $2,500 per act of circumvention, bringing the total to $300 million.

## Broad Injunction

In addition to the damages, plaintiffs seek a permanent injunction covering ten (current and previous) Anna’s Archive domains: annas-archive.org, .li, .se, .in, .pm, .gl, .ch, .pk, .gd, and .vg.

The proposed order names every registry, registrar, and host that would be bound by the judgment, including Public Interest Registry, Cloudflare, Switch Foundation, The Swedish Internet Foundation, Njalla, Immaterialism Ltd., and several others. All would be required to permanently disable access to the named domains and cease hosting services for the site.

To reach these third parties, the plaintiffs cite several legal bases, including the All Writs Act (28 U.S.C. § 1651), which grants federal courts the power to issue orders to non-parties that can help to enforce judgments.

The labels argue this is justified given because Anna’s Archive deliberately ignores U.S. law and bypasses the authority of the court.

Anna’s Archive can seek relief from the domain seizures. However, that would require the site’s operator to pay the full $322 million judgment, which seems a rather unlikely scenario at this point.

*—*

* *

*A copy of the memorandum of law supporting the motion for a default judgment is available [here (pdf)][7]. The statement of damages can be found [here (pdf)][8]. The declarations of Jeremy Landis and Richard Titmuss are available [here (pdf)][9] and [here (pdf)][10].*

From: [TF][11], for the latest news on copyright battles, piracy and more.

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anna%27s_Archive
[2]: https://torrentfreak.com/annas-archive-backed-up-spotify-plans-to-release-300tb-music-archive/
[3]: https://torrentfreak.com/annas-archive-loses-pm-domain-adds-greenland-gl-backup/
[4]: https://torrentfreak.com/annas-archive-quietly-releases-millions-of-spotify-tracks-despite-legal-pushback/
[5]: https://www.reddit.com/r/Annas_Archive/comments/1rj50kg/goodbye_li_welcome_new_domains/
[6]:
[7]: https://torrentfreak.com/images/atlant-default-memo.pdf
[8]: https://torrentfreak.com/images/atlant-default-memo.pdf
[9]: https://torrentfreak.com/images/landis.pdf
[10]: https://torrentfreak.com/images/titmuss.pdf
[11]: https://torrentfreak.com/

https://torrentfreak.com/spotify-and-labels-seek-322-million-default-judgment-against-annas-archive/

Supreme Court Wipes Out Record Labels’ $1 Billion Piracy ...

2026-03-25T16:58:30+01:00

Supreme Court Wipes Out Record Labels’ $1 Billion Piracy Judgment Against Cox

[supremecourt]When a Virginia jury ordered internet provider Cox to pay [$1 billion][1] in damages for failing to take appropriate actions against pirating subscribers, shockwaves rippled through the ISP industry.

The verdict, in favor of major record labels including Sony and Universal, was a catalyst for many other ‘repeat infringer’ lawsuits. This resulted in yet more multi-million dollar claims and awards, with many still in the pipeline today.

Meanwhile, Cox did everything it could to fight the verdict, all the way up to the Supreme Court, which formally heard the case last December. The panel had to decide whether an ISP can be held liable for not taking any action in response to piracy notices, which which the Court answered today with a clear no.

## Supreme Court Reverses: Knowledge is Not Intent

In a 7-2 decision handed down this morning, the Court reversed the Fourth Circuit decision, ruling that Cox is not contributorily liable for the infringing actions of its pirating subscribers. The opinion was written by Justice Thomas and is joined by six other justices. Justices Sotomayor and Jackson concurred, but disagreed sharply with the majority’s reasoning.

[scot]

The opinion states 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.

In the present case Cox met neither test. It never encouraged its subscribers to pirate anything. And internet access, as the Court noted, is used for countless lawful purposes.

“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 writes.

[scotus]

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. The Supreme Court called this an improper expansion of copyright law that conflicted with decades of precedent.

This means that Cox may have known about the infringing activity of its subscribers, but that they are not liable for not taking action in response.

## The “IP Address” Problem

In a concurring opinion, Justice Sotomayor agreed that Cox shouldn’t be held liable, but for a more practical reason. Under the common-law aiding-and-abetting doctrine, which she argued the majority should have applied, liability requires proof that a defendant intended to help a specific wrongful act succeed.

Sotomayor noted that when the anti-piracy tracking company MarkMonitor flagged an infringing IP address, it only identified a connection, not an individual. Whether the infringer was a specific account holder, a roommate, or a neighbor stealing Wi-Fi remained a mystery.

Without knowing who was actually infringing, Sotomayor argued, it is impossible to prove Cox intended to help that specific person succeed in their “wrongful act”.

## Is the DMCA Safe Harbor Now “Obsolete”?

The ruling leaves a massive question mark over the future of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA). Sony argued that the DMCA’s “safe harbor” provisions, which require ISPs to terminate “repeat infringers”, would be meaningless if ISPs weren’t already liable for serving those infringers in the first place.

Justice Sotomayor went even further, warning that the majority’s new rule “consigns the safe harbor provision to obsolescence”, adding that ISPs now have little incentive to take any action against online pirates.

“The majority’s decision thus 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,” she notes.

## What Happens Next

With today’s opinion, the case is reversed and remanded to the Fourth Circuit for further proceedings. Whether the music labels will pursue further litigation on remand, and what that would look like, remains to be seen.

For rightsholders, the ruling removes the primary legal tool they have used to pressure ISPs to terminate infringers more aggressively. For ISPs, however, it resolves years of uncertainty about how far they have to go in response to copyright infringement notices. Whether that means that they will indeed take less action has yet to be seen.

*—*

* *

*A copy of the Supreme Court’s opinion is available [here (pdf)][2]. This is a developing story; more quotes, comments, and notes may be added later.*

From: [TF][3], for the latest news on copyright battles, piracy and more.

[1]: https://torrentfreak.com/cox-is-liable-for-pirating-subscribers-hit-with-1-billion-damages-verdict-191220/
[2]: https://torrentfreak.com/images/supreme-court-opinion-cox-v-sony.pdf
[3]: https://torrentfreak.com/

https://torrentfreak.com/supreme-court-wipes-out-record-labels-1-billion-piracy-judgment-against-cox/

France Fines First Batch of Pirate IPTV Subscribers Following ...

2026-03-25T09:43:59+01:00

France Fines First Batch of Pirate IPTV Subscribers Following Reseller Bust

[france]France has been at the forefront of the fight against online piracy for years.

It pioneered the three-strikes “graduated response” system back [in 2009][1], where the Hadopi agency tracked, warned, and fined online pirates, mostly those using BitTorrent.

As piracy shifted to streaming, however, enforcement became more complicated. Unlike BitTorrent, IPTV services don’t broadcast users’ IP addresses publicly, which has made individual subscribers difficult to identify and prosecute.

However, IPTV operators and resellers keep records. When investigators reach those records, subscribers can find themselves exposed.

## 19 IPTV Subscribers Fined

Last week, the French football league [LFP][2] announced that the Arras Public Prosecutor’s Office reached financial settlements with 19 subscribers of a pirate IPTV service. These users signed a [criminal settlement][3] that requires them to pay a fine ranging from €300 to €400.

The criminal investigation was started following a complaint from LFP. The prosecutors eventually identified 21 defendants and have now settled with 19 of them. The remaining two defendants are resellers, who are summoned to appear before the Arras criminal court in April, Zataz [reports][4].

This is the first case in France where IPTV users are sanctioned. While the plea agreements are relatively modest, LFP stresses that the law provides for penalties of up to €7,500.

The authorities did not disclose how the subscribers were identified, but IPTV resellers typically hold customer records including email addresses and payment details. If the authorities collected this as evidence, they could effectively expose the subscribers.

## Mafia-like Ecosystem

The Arras case is not the first time European IPTV subscribers have faced consequences. 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.

Last May, the authorities [announced][5] that 2,282 pirate IPTV subscribers had been fined across 80 Italian provinces. Following this action, rightsholders [collected][6] additional damages settlements of [up to €1,000 ][7]from a number of the same people.

France has followed a different path, but the Arras prosecutions suggest the gap may be narrowing. In its official communiqué, the LFP made clear the intent behind the action, while warning that more actions are underway.

“The LFP and LFP Media welcome this strong message to users of piracy services, who mistakenly believe they can act with impunity when in fact they are knowingly contributing to a mafia-like ecosystem that seriously harms the entire sports sector,” the organization writes.

“Many criminal actions targeting resellers of IPTV subscriptions are underway, and their customers may, as such, be questioned and prosecuted,” the league added (TF translated).

## Millions of LFP Pirates Remain

While LFP hopes that the prosecutions and the associated fines against 19 IPTV subscribers will send a deterrent message, there is still a long way to go.

At a sports piracy conference held at Roland-Garros on March 23, LFP Media’s Douglas Lowenstein presented survey data showing that around two million people in France watched [Ligue 1 via pirate services][8] this season, making it the most pirated competition in the country.

Prosecuting millions of people isn’t very practical, which is why rightsholders are also continuing to push for expanded site-blocking powers.

[Arcom][9], France’s broadcasting regulator, has blocked more than 12,600 domain names since 2022, but rightsholders argue that real-time automated blocking is needed to keep pace with live match piracy. This is particularly important with the 2026 FIFA World Cup in mind.

The French football league is pushing for Article 10 of a pending sports law, which would allow automated blocking without manual approval. Sports Minister Marina Ferrari has indicated the legislation could move before June, ahead of the 2026 World Cup.

If LFP’s warnings are correct, we may also see more prosecutions of IPTV pirates in the near future. In any case, the two resellers in the Arras case will have made their appearance in court by then, which is scheduled for April 7.

From: [TF][10], for the latest news on copyright battles, piracy and more.

[1]: https://torrentfreak.com/france-passes-new-3-strikes-anti-piracy-bil-090915/
[2]: https://www.lfp.fr/
[3]: https://www.service-public.gouv.fr/particuliers/vosdroits/F1461
[4]: https://www.zataz.com/iptv-pirate-la-lfp-frappe-aussi-les-abonnes/
[5]: https://torrentfreak.com/italy-fines-over-2200-pirate-iptv-subscribers-in-new-crackdown-250516/
[6]: https://torrentfreak.com/dazn-letters-to-iptv-pirates-demand-e500-and-full-compliance-in-7-days-or-else-251009/
[7]: https://torrentfreak.com/italian-iptv-pirates-pay-e1000-in-damages-to-football-league-serie-a/
[8]: https://www.footmercato.net/a7305709606576721412-les-chiffres-fous-du-piratage-dans-le-foot-francais
[9]: https://www.acturoubaix.fr/societe/8889
[10]: https://torrentfreak.com/

https://torrentfreak.com/france-fines-first-batch-of-pirate-iptv-subscribers-following-reseller-bust/

GitHub Nukes 900+ Anime Piracy Repos and Forks, But Rejects ...

2026-03-24T10:56:52+01:00

GitHub Nukes 900+ Anime Piracy Repos and Forks, But Rejects ‘Circumvention’ Claims

[anime shutdown]Earlier this month, HiAnime surprised friends and foes by [shutting down][1] its website, which clocked more than 150 million monthly visits.

“It’s time to say goodbye. And thank you for a wonderful journey with great moments,” the operators announced.

The decision was a major setback for anime pirates, including many third-party tools and services that relied on the site, [formerly known as Aniwatch][2]. This includes unofficial “API” tools that could be used by other pirate sites to serve anime content.

## Anti-Circumvention Takedown

With HiAnime gone, these third-party tools presumably stopped working too. And even if that was not the case, a recent takedown notice sent by Remove Your Media LLC, on behalf of Crunchyroll, VIZ Media, and other anime rightsholders, would have rendered them useless.

The takedown notice, [published yesterday][3], lists several high-profile repositories, including [aniwatch and aniwatch API][4], which offered access to HiAnime streams. These partially worked by using keys from the MegacloudKeys repository, which was also targeted.

*Circumvention Device Repos*
[[circum]][5]

The takedown notice targets several repositories, which taken together have more than 900 forks. While it is not clear whether the notice was sent before or after HiAnime’s shutdown, the outcome is the same. After reviewing the allegations, the repos and forks were removed.

*Taken Down*
[takeodwn]

## Anti-Circumvention Claim Fails

It is important to note that the notice is not a standard DMCA takedown request, but a DMCA anti-circumvention claim. *Remove Your Media* explicitly suggests that the tools bypass various copyright protections.

According to the takedown notice, these repositories facilitate the “circumvention of technological protection measures implemented by authorized streaming services”. Because they provide access to pirated content, they circumvent “subscription paywalls, digital rights management, and access controls”.

This anti-circumvention claim was rejected by GitHub, potentially because there are no direct rightsholder DRM circumventions involved. However, because the developer platform found other issues, all repositories were removed anyway.

“While GitHub did not find sufficient information to determine a valid anti-circumvention claim, we determined that this takedown notice contains other valid copyright claim(s),” GitHub notes.

## Youtube-dl & Notorious Markets

The takedown notice explicitly made a distinction between the anime repositories and youtube-dl, which was reinstated by GitHub after it was targeted by an [RIAA circumvention notice][6] in October 2020.

The notice is redacted and doesn’t mention youtube-dl by name, but the context makes it rather clear.

*Distinction from *
[youtube]

This description did not help with the anti-circumvention claim. However, GitHub did flag copyright issues. This may be in part due to the fact that HiAnime and MegaCloud were both listed as a notorious market by the MPA and the [U.S. Trade Representative][7] recently.

The USTR described MegaCloud as a pirate content management system that provides access to a large library of infringing content.

“The network reportedly acts as a backend hosting system delivering infringing video files —including more than 46,000 movies and 16,000 TV series— directly to more than 260 pirate streaming sites around the world,” USTR wrote.

For now, the repositories are gone, and HiAnime remains offline, leaving the third-party tools that depended on both without a clear path forward. However, since we have already seen many rebrands of these services in the past, it would not be a surprise to see a new service pop up in the future.

From: [TF][8], for the latest news on copyright battles, piracy and more.

[1]: https://torrentfreak.com/piracy-giant-hianime-to-announces-mysterious-goodbye/
[2]: https://torrentfreak.com/piracy-moghul-aniwatch-rebrands-to-hianime-240301/
[3]: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/github/dmca/refs/heads/master/2026/03/2026-03-23-crunchyroll.md
[4]:
[5]:
[6]: https://torrentfreak.com/riaa-takes-down-popular-open-source-youtube-dl-software-201024/
[7]: https://torrentfreak.com/u-s-lists-notorious-piracy-threats-with-focus-on-sports-streaming/
[8]: https://torrentfreak.com/

https://torrentfreak.com/github-nukes-900-anime-piracy-repos-and-forks-but-rejects-circumvention-claims/

Top 10 Most Pirated Movies of The Week – 03/23/2026 [crime ...

2026-03-23T09:49:54+01:00

Top 10 Most Pirated Movies of The Week – 03/23/2026

[crime 101]The data for our weekly download chart is estimated by TorrentFreak, and is for informational and educational reference only.

Downloading content without permission is copyright infringement. These torrent download statistics are only meant to provide further insight into piracy trends. All data are gathered from public resources.

This week we have two newcomers on the list. “Crime 101” is the most shared title.

## The most torrented movies for the week ending on March 23 are:

──────────┬──────────────┬────────────────────────────────┬──────────────────────
**Movie │**Rank last │**Movie name** │**IMDb Rating /
Rank** │week** │ │Trailer**
──────────┼──────────────┼────────────────────────────────┼──────────────────────
**1** │(1) │Crime 101 │[7.0][1] /
│ │ │[trailer][2]
──────────┼──────────────┼────────────────────────────────┼──────────────────────
**2** │(8) │One Battle After Another │[7.7][3] /
│ │ │[trailer][4]
──────────┼──────────────┼────────────────────────────────┼──────────────────────
**3** │(…) │Scream 7 │[5.7][5] /
│ │ │[trailer][6]
──────────┼──────────────┼────────────────────────────────┼──────────────────────
**4** │(…) │Peaky Blinders: The Immortal Man│[6.9][7] /
│ │ │[trailer][8]
──────────┼──────────────┼────────────────────────────────┼──────────────────────
**5** │(2) │War Machine │[6.5][9] /
│ │ │[trailer][10]
──────────┼──────────────┼────────────────────────────────┼──────────────────────
**6** │(5) │The Housemaid │[6.9][11] /
│ │ │[trailer][12]
──────────┼──────────────┼────────────────────────────────┼──────────────────────
**7** │(4) │Marty Supreme │[8.0][13] /
│ │ │[trailer][14]
──────────┼──────────────┼────────────────────────────────┼──────────────────────
**8** │(…) │Sinners │[7.5][15] /
│ │ │[trailer][16]
──────────┼──────────────┼────────────────────────────────┼──────────────────────
**9** │(3) │Mercy │[6.1][17] /
│ │ │[trailer][18]
──────────┼──────────────┼────────────────────────────────┼──────────────────────
**10** │(9) │28 Years Later: The Bone Temple │[7.5][19] /
│ │ │[trailer][20]
──────────┴──────────────┴────────────────────────────────┴──────────────────────

Note: We also publish an updating archive of all the list of [weekly most torrented movies lists][21].

From: [TF][22], for the latest news on copyright battles, piracy and more.

[1]: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt32430579/?
[2]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f5y-cziwmMwM
[3]: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt30144839/
[4]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=feOQFKv2Lw4
[5]: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt27047903/
[6]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UJrghaPJ0RY
[7]: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt15574124/?
[8]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lcvUGs3xaDM
[9]: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt15940132/
[10]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AFuE1LRxm80
[11]: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt27543632/
[12]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kdDdlY2VPxw
[13]: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt32916440/
[14]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s9gSuKaKcqM
[15]: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt31193180/
[16]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bKGxHflevuk
[17]: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt31050594/
[18]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7H7Djx17l8Y
[19]: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt32141377/
[20]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EOwTdTZA8D8
[21]: https://torrentfreak.com/most-pirated-movies-of-2026-weekly-archive/
[22]: https://torrentfreak.com/

https://torrentfreak.com/top-10-most-torrented-pirated-movies/

Cloudflare Reports Surge in Geo-Blocked Pirate Site Domains As ...

2026-03-23T09:26:14+01:00

Cloudflare Reports Surge in Geo-Blocked Pirate Site Domains

As one of the leading Internet infrastructure companies, [Cloudflare][1] finds itself at the center of various copyright disputes.

The American company says it powers nearly 20% of the web. This includes several Fortune 500 companies, but also many pirate sites and services.

For years, rightsholders have urged Cloudflare to do something about these pirate sites. However, the company typically doesn’t take action against customers that use its ‘pass-through’ CDN services. Instead, it simply forwards takedown notices to their respective hosting services.

According to some rightsholders forwarding is not enough. To compel Cloudflare to take action against pirate sites, they requested formal blocking orders in France, Spain, South Korea, and elsewhere.

## Cloudflare Adds 2,791 Geoblocked Domain Names

Cloudflare’s latest transparency report, covering the second half of 2025, shows that 2,791 domain names that use its pass-through services were geoblocked. This means that these sites of Cloudflare customers are effectively rendered inaccessible in these countries.

Nearly 2,800 is a significant increase compared to the same period a year earlier, when 308 domain names were geo-blocked.

* From Cloudflare H2 2025 Transparency Report*
[table cloudflare]

When Cloudflare geoblocks a domain, the company posts an interstitial page linking to the relevant order so that visitors can see why access has been restricted.

*Error 451*
[error 451]

It’s worth noting that not all geo-blocks are equal. In the UK, for example, Cloudflare is taking action [voluntarily][2] based on an older High Court order against ISPs, to which it is not a party. This is similar to the voluntary blocking approach Google takes.

In Belgium and France, Cloudflare does respond to orders where it is named. These predominantly cover pirate sites, but in Belgium Cloudflare is also compelled to geo-block several illegal gambling sites.

In Korea, a new law requires CDN providers, including Cloudflare, to implement a government-mandated blocklist. This prohibits the CDNs from facilitating access to these sites through servers in South Korea, which resulted in hundreds of blocks in the second half of 2025.

Cloudflare clarifies that these South Korean sites are not “blocked” in the traditional sense. Instead, they are restricted from being served through equipment located physically in South Korea.

## DNS Blocking

Interestingly, these geo-blocking measures are sometimes also used by Cloudflare to comply with DNS (1.1.1.1) blocking orders. If the sites are geo-blocked, Cloudflare doesn’t have to block these through its DNS.

“Cloudflare has sometimes taken action to geoblock access to websites through Cloudflare’s pass-through CDN and security services, in response to orders directing Cloudflare to block through its public DNS resolver,” the transparency report reads.

As in previous transparency reports, Cloudflare separately confirms that it “has not blocked content through the 1.1.1.1 Public DNS Resolver.”

## Automated Hosting Takedowns

In addition to blocking domains for which Cloudflare acts as a CDN or pass-through, the company also takes more direct action if it is hosting sites. In the second half of 2025, rightsholders sent 121,681 copyright infringement reports, with Cloudflare taking action in 67,941 instances.

Notably, these removals are mostly the result of automatic processes, which were put in place last year.

“In H2 2025, Cloudflare used automated means to action 64,161 of the 67,941 copyright infringement reports actioned,” the company reports in a footnote, adding that it also terminated 59,843 accounts of R2 storage services.

## Italy’s €14 Million Fine

The transparency report makes no mention of the recently appealed [€14,247,698 fine][3] that was imposed on Cloudflare in January by Italy’s communications regulator, AGCOM. Cloudflare received this fine as it refused to implement blocking measures through its 1.1.1.1 DNS resolver under Italy’s Piracy Shield measures.

AGCOM concluded that Cloudflare’s cooperation is “essential” for the enforcement of Italian anti-piracy laws, as its services allow pirate sites to evade standard blocking measures.

In response to the fine, Cloudflare’s CEO Matthew Prince considered pulling out of Italy entirely. While that hasn’t happened yet, Cloudflare firmly draws a line at their public DNS resolver, and it recently [appealed AGCOM’s fine][4] in court.

*—*

* *

*A copy of Cloudflare’s H2 2025 Transparency Report (Abuse Processes) is available [here (pdf)][5].*

From: [TF][6], for the latest news on copyright battles, piracy and more.

[1]: https://www.cloudflare.com/
[2]: https://torrentfreak.com/cloudflare-starts-blocking-pirate-sites-for-uk-users-thats-a-pretty-big-deal-250715/
[3]: https://torrentfreak.com/italy-fines-cloudflare-e14-million-for-refusing-to-filter-pirate-sites-on-public-1-1-1-1-dns/
[4]: https://torrentfreak.com/cloudflare-challenges-legality-of-italys-piracy-shield-appeals-e14-million-fine/
[5]: https://torrentfreak.com/images/2H_2025_Cloudflare_s_Transparency_Report_Abuse-v2.pdf
[6]: https://torrentfreak.com/

https://torrentfreak.com/cloudflare-reports-surge-in-geo-blocked-pirate-site-domains/

DISH Seeks $28.65 Million Default Judgment in Lemo/Kemo IPTV ...

2026-03-21T09:48:43+01:00

DISH Seeks $28.65 Million Default Judgment in Lemo/Kemo IPTV Lawsuit

[tv]Earlier this month, a California federal court [dismissed][1] the copyright infringement lawsuit DISH had filed against UK hosting provider Innetra.

DISH has accused the company of [providing its services to pirate IPTV operations][2], including Lemo TV and Kemo IPTV, but it failed to establish jurisdiction.

The dismissal was a clear setback for the American pay TV provider and its anti-piracy partner IBCAP. However, at a federal court in Florida, [DISH Network][3] still has a separate lawsuit pending that could impact the IPTV operations in a more direct manner.

## DISH vs. Lemo, Kemo, and IPTV Reseller

Last October, DISH filed a [copyright infringement complaint][4] against the alleged operators of the Lemo TV and Kemo IPTV pirate services, as well as one of their U.S.-based resellers: ‘1 Dollar IPTV’.

DISH alleged that the Malaysian company Kemo E Marketing Sdn. Bhd and its sole shareholder, Noorhayati Binti Abdul Rahim, are driving forces behind the Lemo/Kemo operation. Ammar Towir, also from Malaysia, allegedly owns and operates the Lemo/Kemo domains and financial accounts.

*Kemoiptv.shop*
[[kemo]][5]

The identities of these defendants were presumably obtained through subpoenas that were obtained in a previously filed [lawsuit in Texas][6] that has since been dismissed.

In addition to the foreign defendants, DISH also names a Florida-based reseller; 1 Dollar IPTV. This is allegedly operated by Artistry Group LLC, from St. Petersburg, Florida. This company was voluntarily dissolved on February 27, 2025, but DISH notes that the company or its successors continue to run 1 Dollar IPTV.

## DISH Seeks $28.65 Million Default

Because the defendants failed to respond to DISH’s complaint, while continuing their infringing activity, DISH successfully requested a default, which it now hopes to convert into a formal judgment.

In a motion filed at the Florida federal court, DISH seeks $150,000 in damages against Lemo and Kemo for each of the 181 registered works listed in the complaint. For the American reseller operating under Artistry Group, it seeks the maximum available damages for 10 works.

These damages amount to $27.15 million for the IPTV services and $1.5 million for the reseller. That is substantial, but according to DISH, it is needed to send a deterrent message.

“Defendants’ clear willfulness and the strong need for deterrence, as shown by their ongoing infringement in the face of numerous infringement notices and Defendants’ intent to operate their business on the basis of stealing the intellectual property of others, justifies an award of $150,000 for each of the registered Works,” the motion reads.

## Servers Targeted Across Three Countries

Because the defendants have been unresponsive thus far, recouping the damages is not straightforward. Therefore, DISH believes that it is vital that the court issues a broad permanent injunction.

In this case, the proposed injunction has unusually specific infrastructure demands.

DISH’s enforcement partner NagraStar traced the IPTV services to three hosting providers: IPv4 Superhub Limited in Hong Kong, 24 Shells Inc. in New Jersey, and INTERKVM HOST SRL, operating as ZetServers, in Romania. DISH asks the court to order all three to disable the relevant IP addresses.

In addition, the proposed injunction also lists 19 domain names, requiring registries and registrars to transfer these to DISH. The list includes Kemoiptv.com, Lemotv.com, 1DollarIPTV.com, and 1DollarIPTV.net, along with a range of reseller and marketing storefronts.

*From the proposed injunction*
[[regist]][7]

Notably, the proposed injunction is designed to be “evergreen”. It includes a provision that would require registries and registrars to automatically disable any future domain names used by the defendants, provided that DISH submits a declaration confirming the new domains are being used for infringing purposes.

At the time of writing, court has not yet ruled on the motion. However, the chances of a favorable outcome in this case are higher for the pay TV company, as the defendants all failed to appear.

*—*

* *

*A copy of DISH’s motion for default judgment, filed at the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida, is [available here (pdf)][8].*

From: [TF][9], for the latest news on copyright battles, piracy and more.

[1]: https://torrentfreak.com/court-dismisses-dishs-25-million-iptv-piracy-lawsuit-against-uk-hosting-provider/
[2]: https://torrentfreak.com/dish-sues-uk-hosting-provider-in-25-million-pirate-iptv-lawsuit/
[3]: https://www.dish.com/
[4]: https://torrentfreak.com/dish-identifies-lemo-kemo-pirate-iptv-operators-sues-u-s-reseller-for-27m/
[5]:
[6]: https://torrentfreak.com/dish-sues-pirate-iptv-services-lemo-and-kemo-in-u-s-court-250408/
[7]:
[8]: https://torrentfreak.com/images/dish-art-default.pdf
[9]: https://torrentfreak.com/

https://torrentfreak.com/dish-seeks-28-65-million-default-judgment-in-lemo-kemo-iptv-lawsuit/

Oscar Winner ‘One Battle After Another’ Sees Piracy Surge, ...

2026-03-20T08:18:34+01:00

Oscar Winner ‘One Battle After Another’ Sees Piracy Surge, While ‘Sinners’ Stays Flat

[one battle after another]In 2007, The Pirate Bay supported “[OscarTorrents][1],” which aimed to be a pirates’ counterweight to Hollywood’s annual awards show.

At the time, mass movie piracy was still a fringe activity, with no instant streaming options available. Nonetheless, more than 100,000 ‘pirates’ voted for their own movie favorites.

While the OscarTorrents project was a clear display of defiance, the outcome of the voting was rather mainstream. The Departed was crowned ‘Best Picture’ in the official Oscars ceremony, as well as in the pirate equivalent, and many of the other winners were also identical.

## 2026 Oscars

Fast forward nearly two decades, and the annual awards ceremony continues to make an impact. Typically, the winner of the Oscar for ‘best picture’ will see a boost in downloads on torrent sites and elsewhere.

Based on a sample of torrent activity tracked by [IKnow][2], we can report that pirated downloads of “One Battle After Another” tripled the day after the awards ceremony compared to the week before. The chart below shows the daily estimated downloads for five of the Oscar nominees, with the winner clearly standing out.

**Piracy Impact: 2026 Oscar Season**
[oscar 2026]

This Oscar winner’s surge doesn’t come as a surprise, as we have seen this play out before. While there is always a boost for the best picture winner, relatively speaking, this is typically greater for lesser-known films.

The 300% increase for “One Battle After Another” is larger than that of “Oppenheimer” in 2024 but less pronounced than the quadrupling of last year’s winner, “Anora”.

## No Piracy Boost for Sinners

What’s more surprising in this year’s data is the absence of an Oscar boost for Sinners, which was one of this year’s favorites with a record number of sixteen nominations. The film won four Oscars last weekend, but this didn’t trigger any new activity on pirate sites.

Sinners already saw its downloads on pirate sites [triple in January][3] after the nominations were announced. The nominations surge in January appears to have already satisfied pirates’ demand.

In the piracy data sample, we also see the lack of an Oscar effect for “Marty Supreme,” which did not see any increase in interest either. That is less surprising, of course, because the film failed to win any Oscars despite receiving nine nominations.

That said, it is not only the best picture winner who enjoys a boost in pirate downloads. While less visible in the chart above, “Frankenstein” and “Bugonia” also saw temporary download spikes of close to 50%, which can be attributed to the Oscar night spotlight for these titles.

## Legal Demand Rises Too

The piracy boosts observed here are typically the result of an overall increase in demand. Legal streaming platforms tell a similar story, although not the same. Streaming search engine JustWatch informs us that, with a 231% increase, “One Battle After Another” was also the big winner in terms of legal demand.

Interestingly, Sinners did get a boost in interest on legitimate streaming platforms. [JustWatch][4] reports that Sinners saw an increase of 136% following the Academy Awards. JustWatch’s data is based on activity from U.S. users but, even when looking at U.S. traffic alone, a similar piracy effect could not be observed on our end.

**Legal Streaming Impact: 2026 Oscar Season**
[[stream]][5]

The graph above shows that legal demand for Marty Supreme through streaming platforms clearly dropped. That’s also different from our findings, as demand on pirate sites remained stable.

As with all trends today, these media-triggered spikes in demand don’t tend to last very long. After the initial boost on Monday, the piracy interest for most titles immediately started to level off. That said, with an Oscar for best picture in the bag, the status of “One Battle After Another” will remain permanently elevated.

—

^{Note: The data used in this article comes from [Iknow][6], which tracks torrent downloads through DHT and PEX. While it may not be able to track all downloads, it’s a substantial sample. This sample only looks at torrent downloads. Views on streaming platforms, direct downloads, and other piracy sources can’t be measured directly. That said, we assume that the trend will be similar there.}

From: [TF][7], for the latest news on copyright battles, piracy and more.

[1]: https://torrentfreak.com/bittorrent-oscars-pans-labyrinth-big-winner/
[2]: https://iknowwhatyoudownload.com/en/contacts/
[3]: https://torrentfreak.com/the-oscar-surge-sinners-piracy-triples-following-record-breaking-16-nominations/
[4]: https://www.justwatch.com/
[5]:
[6]: https://iknowwhatyoudownload.com/
[7]: https://torrentfreak.com/

https://torrentfreak.com/oscar-winner-one-battle-after-another-sees-piracy-surge-while-sinners-stays-flat/

Cloudflare Challenges Legality of Italy’s “Piracy Shield”, ...

2026-03-18T08:19:13+01:00

Cloudflare Challenges Legality of Italy’s “Piracy Shield”, Appeals €14 Million Fine

[cloudflare logo]Launched in 2024, Italy’s elaborate ‘[Piracy Shield][1]‘ blocking scheme was billed as the future of anti-piracy efforts.

To effectively tackle live sports piracy, its broad blocking powers aim to block piracy-related domain names and IP addresses within 30 minutes.

While many pirate sources have indeed been blocked, the Piracy Shield is not without controversy. There have been multiple reports of overblocking, where the anti-piracy system blocked access to [legitimate][2] sites [and services][3].

## €14,247,698 ‘Piracy Shield’ Fine

[Cloudflare][4] was caught up in several of those incidents and became one of Piracy Shield’s most prominent critics. Following an amendment that extended the scheme’s reach to DNS providers and VPNs, the American Internet infrastructure company refused to filter pirate sites through its public 1.1.1.1 resolver, arguing that it was unreasonable and disproportionate.

In response to the refusal, Italy’s communications regulator AGCOM launched a formal investigation. In January, the regulator concluded that Cloudflare has all the technological expertise and resources to implement the blocking measures. AGCOM argued that the company is known for its complex traffic management, and rejected the suggestion that complying with the blocking order would break its service.

After weighing all arguments, [AGCOM imposed a €14,247,698 (USD $16.4m) fine][5] against Cloudflare for failing to comply with the required anti-piracy measures. The regulator added that this fine represents 1% of the company’s global revenue, adding that the law allows for a maximum of 2%.

## Cloudflare Formally Appeals

This week, Cloudflare explained [in a blog post][6] why it formally appealed the fine on March 8. According to the company, this case is about more than money, as it believes that the Piracy Shield blocking regime puts the [open Internet at risk][7].

The company stresses that the controversial pirate site blocking system essentially operates as a “black box”.

“This case isn’t just about a single penalty; it’s about whether a handful of private entities can prioritize their own economic interests over those of Internet users by forcing global infrastructure providers to block large swaths of the Internet without oversight, transparency, or due process,” Cloudflare notes.

*Black-Box*
[blackbox]

Cloudflare further stresses that the Piracy Shield’s flaws and shortcomings are no accident. In its blog post, the company points out that Piracy Shield was “donated” to the Italian government by SP Tech, an arm of the law firm that represents several of the scheme’s direct beneficiaries, including the Serie A, Italy’s top soccer league.

## Failures and Flaws

Cloudflare once again reiterates that the Piracy Shield scheme is a blunt instrument that created an unavoidable risk of overblocking. This includes many innovative sites and services, including Government websites, educational resources, and access to Google Drive, which were all blocked at some point.

This massive overblocking and collateral damage was also [confirmed in a study][8] by researchers from the University of Twente last September. They concluded that Piracy Shield is linked to “significant collateral damage to legitimate infrastructure” and may pose a “potential threat to national security.”

AGCOM has been aware of the critique, including the [European Commission’s concerns][9], but it continues to stay the course. Instead of limiting the impact, it broadened the scheme to include DNS resolvers and VPNs.

“Even when faced with clear evidence that Piracy Shield has caused significant and repeated overblocking, AGCOM did not change course. Rather, it chose to expand Piracy Shield to apply to global DNS providers and VPNs, services which are closely associated with privacy and free expression,” Cloudflare writes.

## Challenging Piracy Shield’s Legality

In addition to overblocking concerns, Cloudflare also stresses that the Piracy Shield lacks transparency. These and other issues will likely be brought up during the appeal, which will also question the amount of the fine.

AGCOM previously noted that the €14 million fine is less than the legally permitted 2% of Cloudflare’s global revenue. However, Cloudflare counters that Italian non-compliance fines are capped at 2% of a company’s revenue within the relevant jurisdiction, which would be approximately €140,000, not 100 times that.

*100 times higher*
[100 times higher]

All in all, the company says that it will continue to challenge the controversial piracy blocking scheme to the best of its ability.

“We are not backing down. Cloudflare is appealing the €14 million fine, pushing for full access to AGCOM’s Piracy Shield records, and will continue to challenge the underlying legality of the Piracy Shield blocking orders in the Italian administrative courts,” Cloudflare notes.

From: [TF][10], for the latest news on copyright battles, piracy and more.

[1]: https://torrentfreak.com/tag/piracy-shield/
[2]: https://torrentfreak.com/google-drive-blackout-in-italy-after-another-major-anti-piracy-blunder-241020/
[3]: https://torrentfreak.com/piracy-shield-cloudflare-disaster-blocks-countless-sites-fires-up-opposition-240226/
[4]: https://www.cloudflare.com/
[5]: https://torrentfreak.com/italy-fines-cloudflare-e14-million-for-refusing-to-filter-pirate-sites-on-public-1-1-1-1-dns/
[6]: https://blog.cloudflare.com/standing-up-for-the-open-internet/
[7]: https://blog.cloudflare.com/standing-up-for-the-open-internet/
[8]: https://torrentfreak.com/piracy-shield-study-reveals-massive-overblocking-collateral-damage-250909/
[9]: https://torrentfreak.com/piracy-shield-concerns-prompt-eu-commission-to-engage-italian-govt-250702/
[10]: https://torrentfreak.com/

https://torrentfreak.com/cloudflare-challenges-legality-of-italys-piracy-shield-appeals-e14-million-fine/

Court Dismisses Musi’s Apple Lawsuit, Sanctions Law Firm for ...

2026-03-17T10:02:53+01:00

Court Dismisses Musi’s Apple Lawsuit, Sanctions Law Firm for “Baseless” Claims

[musi logo]In September 2024, [Apple removed][1] the popular music streaming app Musi from its App Store, affecting millions of users.

Apple’s action wasn’t completely unexpected. Music industry groups had been trying to take Musi down for a long time, [branding it a ‘parasitic’ app][2] that skirts the rules.

Delisting from the App Store was an existential threat to Musi, which [took the matter to court][3]. Musi claimed that the App Store removal was the result of “backroom conversations” between Apple and key music industry players, including Sony, IFPI, and YouTube.

The app developer accused Apple of breach of contract and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. The company hoped that the court would agree and compel Apple to reinstate the app, but that did not happen.

## Court Dismisses Musi’s Complaint

In an order issued yesterday, Judge Eumi K. Lee of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California dismissed the case with prejudice, effectively ending the lawsuit.

In its defense, Apple has argued that the terms of the Apple Developer Program License Agreement (DPLA) allowed the company to delist apps “at any time, with or without cause.” That would be sufficient to remove Musi.

*Musi website*
[musi]

Musi has countered that, according to the same agreement, Apple needed to conduct a review to establish “reasonable belief” before an app would be removed from its platform. However, the court disagreed, stressing that there are no limitations to Apple’s removal rights.

*Dismissed*
[dismissed]

“There is simply no textual basis in the DPLA to construe a limitation on Apple’s right to cease offering an application, as long as Apple provided notice,” Judge Lee writes.

## Musi’s Claims Fail

Musi’s argument that Apple breached an “implied covenant of good faith” under California law also failed. While Apple was contractually allowed to remove the app, the court notes that Apple did not solely act in response to the YouTube claim.

“[T]he complaint reflects that Apple was facing pressure from multiple music industry complaints. The letter from Sony expressly states that its trade organization (the IFPI) had already tried to resolve issues with Musi through the app dispute process, but Musi was not cooperating,” the order reads.

The court already granted Musi the option to amend its complaint previously and allowed two months of discovery, including access to over 3,500 documents and depositions from Apple officials, but that was not enough. Therefore, the court dismissed the case with prejudice, meaning that it can’t be refiled.

## Sanctions Against Musi’s Lawyers

In a separate order issued the same day, the court granted Apple’s motion for [Rule 11 sanctions][4] in part, ruling that one allegation in Musi’s amended complaint was factually baseless.

Musi had alleged in the first paragraph of its amended complaint that Apple “knew that this ‘evidence’ was false, as it has since admitted.”

Judge Lee found that this admission did not appear anywhere in the provided evidence. Therefore, Musi’s claim that Apple had “admitted” to knowingly relying on false evidence is sufficient to warrant sanctions.

“Claiming that Apple ‘admitted’ that it knowingly relied on false evidence conveys that discovery yielded damning evidence,” the order states, “but it did not.”

The sanctions order effectively removed the offending phrase from the amended complaint and ordered Musi’s law firm, Winston & Strawn LLP, to pay Apple’s reasonable attorneys’ fees related to the sanctions motion.

## More Scrutiny

The sanctions ruling was not the first time Musi’s honesty came under scrutiny in this case. In a [motion filed in May 2025][5], Apple alleged that Musi had previously impersonated a Universal Music Group executive to get its app reinstated after an earlier removal.

Apple claimed that Musi founder Aaron Wojnowski forwarded a fabricated email to Apple purportedly from UMG’s Jason Miller, using the address jasonmiller@umusic.solar-secure.com, which is not a UMG address.

*Forwarded email*
[umg]

UMG later informed Apple the email was “fraudulent” and that Miller had no record of sending it. The same address was allegedly used to file a false copyright claim against a separate music streaming app, Yokee, in July 2020.

With the dismissal order now in place, the case is effectively closed. This means that the once very popular music app will not return to the App Store via this route. Musi still has the option to appeal, but whether it plans to do so is unclear. The company did not immediately return our request for comment.

*—*

* *

*A copy of Judge Eumi K. Lee’s order granting Apple’s motion to dismiss is available [here (pdf)][6]. The order granting in part Apple’s motion for Rule 11 sanctions is available [here (pdf)][7].*

From: [TF][8], for the latest news on copyright battles, piracy and more.

[1]: https://torrentfreak.com/apple-removes-parasitic-streaming-app-musi-following-persistent-complaints-240926/
[2]: https://torrentfreak.com/music-industry-puts-pressure-on-parasitic-streaming-app-musi-240726/
[3]: https://torrentfreak.com/musi-sues-apple-over-app-store-removal-following-youtube-complaint-241007/
[4]: https://torrentfreak.com/musi-alleges-apples-app-store-removal-was-orchestrated-seeks-sanctions/
[5]: https://torrentfreak.com/musi-faked-umg-email-to-stay-on-app-store-apple-claims-in-sanctions-motion-250506/
[6]: https://torrentfreak.com/images/musiappledismiss.pdf
[7]: https://torrentfreak.com/images/musiapplesanctions.pdf
[8]: https://torrentfreak.com/

https://torrentfreak.com/court-dismisses-musis-apple-lawsuit-sanctions-law-firm-for-baseless-claims/

Top 10 Most Pirated Movies of The Week – 03/16/2026 [crime ...

2026-03-16T12:29:00+01:00

Top 10 Most Pirated Movies of The Week – 03/16/2026

[crime 101]The data for our weekly download chart is estimated by TorrentFreak, and is for informational and educational reference only.

Downloading content without permission is copyright infringement. These torrent download statistics are only meant to provide further insight into piracy trends. All data are gathered from public resources.

This week we have two newcomers on the list. “Crime 101” is the most shared title.

## The most torrented movies for the week ending on March 16 are:

──────────┬──────────────┬───────────────────────────────┬──────────────────────
**Movie │**Rank last │**Movie name** │**IMDb Rating /
Rank** │week** │ │Trailer**
──────────┼──────────────┼───────────────────────────────┼──────────────────────
**1** │(…) │Crime 101 │[7.0][1] /
│ │ │[trailer][2]
──────────┼──────────────┼───────────────────────────────┼──────────────────────
**2** │(3) │War Machine │[6.5][3] /
│ │ │[trailer][4]
──────────┼──────────────┼───────────────────────────────┼──────────────────────
**3** │(2) │Mercy │[6.1][5] /
│ │ │[trailer][6]
──────────┼──────────────┼───────────────────────────────┼──────────────────────
**4** │(1) │Marty Supreme │[8.0][7] /
│ │ │[trailer][8]
──────────┼──────────────┼───────────────────────────────┼──────────────────────
**5** │(4) │The Housemaid │[6.9][9] /
│ │ │[trailer][10]
──────────┼──────────────┼───────────────────────────────┼──────────────────────
**6** │(9) │Cold Storage │[6.2][11] /
│ │ │[trailer][12]
──────────┼──────────────┼───────────────────────────────┼──────────────────────
**7** │(5) │Shelter │[6.2][13] /
│ │ │[trailer][14]
──────────┼──────────────┼───────────────────────────────┼──────────────────────
**8** │(back) │One Battle After Another │[7.7][15] /
│ │ │[trailer][16]
──────────┼──────────────┼───────────────────────────────┼──────────────────────
**9** │(6) │28 Years Later: The Bone Temple│[7.5][17] /
│ │ │[trailer][18]
──────────┼──────────────┼───────────────────────────────┼──────────────────────
**10** │(7) │Zootopia 2 │[7.6][19] /
│ │ │[trailer][20]
──────────┴──────────────┴───────────────────────────────┴──────────────────────

Note: We also publish an updating archive of all the list of [weekly most torrented movies lists][21].

From: [TF][22], for the latest news on copyright battles, piracy and more.

[1]: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt32430579/?
[2]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f5y-cziwmMwM
[3]: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt15940132/
[4]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AFuE1LRxm80
[5]: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt31050594/
[6]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7H7Djx17l8Y
[7]: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt32916440/
[8]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s9gSuKaKcqM
[9]: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt27543632/
[10]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kdDdlY2VPxw
[11]: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt8879928/
[12]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kea7gnh1uYA
[13]: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt32357218
[14]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PPMawzJxKF4
[15]: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt30144839/
[16]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=feOQFKv2Lw4
[17]: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt32141377/
[18]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EOwTdTZA8D8
[19]: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt26443597/
[20]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A-7RMaQaygI
[21]: https://torrentfreak.com/most-pirated-movies-of-2026-weekly-archive/
[22]: https://torrentfreak.com/

https://torrentfreak.com/top-10-most-torrented-pirated-movies/

Bankruptcy Court Clears Path for $100 Million Sale of Redbox’s ...

2026-03-16T08:40:50+01:00

Bankruptcy Court Clears Path for $100 Million Sale of Redbox’s Piracy Lawsuit Rights

[cashbox]In 2024, the video rental and streaming company Redbox shut down its service and filed for bankruptcy.

The service, owned by Chicken Soup for the Soul Entertainment (now CSS Entertainment), was running hundreds of millions in losses per year and no longer saw a path to profitability.

With hundreds of filings, the bankruptcy case is a complex one. While these types of proceedings typically don’t have much news value, a rather intriguing piracy-related filing caught our eye last fall.

## Court Clears Path for $100 Million Piracy Litigation Deal

Last October, it was [reported][1] that a company called Grove Street Partners was offering at least $100 million for the copyright litigation rights of [Redbox][2]‘ bankrupt parent company.

However, before any deal could be signed and executed, the Delaware bankruptcy court first had to approve the sharing agreement that dictates how the proceeds of an eventual sale are shared. This happened earlier this month, when the agreement was formally approved by Judge Mary F. Walrath.

With the paperwork sorted, the rights to pursue copyright infringement claims of media titles once owned or controlled by CSS Entertainment and its subsidiaries, including Screen Media Ventures, can now be sold.

Grove Street remains the key candidate to take over the rights, which would allow the company to file lawsuits against Internet providers for turning a blind eye to piracy. This can potentially lead to hundreds of millions of dollars in damages, which would provide a decent return on investment.

Piracy lawsuits are familiar territory for Grove Street. In 2023, before Redbox went bankrupt, it announced a partnership with American Films and its subsidiary FACTERRA, to “provide data monitoring and record evidence” supporting copyright infringement cases.

## Future ISP Piracy Lawsuits & the Supreme Court

During a hearing at the bankruptcy court a few days ago, the trustee confirmed that while they have reached an “agreement in principle” with Grove Street, the formal purchase agreement is still being drafted and has not been executed. This means that there is no final price tag, although $100 million has been cited as the minimum.

*From the sharing agreement*
[agreement]

$100 million is a substantial amount, especially considering that these litigation rights don’t guarantee success in court. In fact, the value of those rights largely depends on a case currently before the U.S. Supreme Court.

This case, [Cox Communications v. Sony Music Entertainment][3], asks the Court to define when an ISP can be held liable for the infringement of its subscribers.

Cox was previously hit with a $1 billion jury verdict for failing to terminate repeat infringers despite receiving millions of DMCA notices. This led to several appeals and eventually ended up at the Supreme Court, where the Internet provider found the U.S. government on its side.

The Supreme Court heard oral arguments in December 2025, and a final decision is expected to come in later this year. That decision could either cement the value of the rights at stake here, or make it much more challenging to recoup the investment.

## Private Lenders Get Most Money

The approved sharing agreement governs how proceeds will be divided between the trustee, George L. Miller, and HPS Investment Partners, the primary secured lender owed at least $500 million in principal alone.

Under the terms of the deal, the buyer of the rights will pay *at least* $100 million in five annual installments of $20 million each. After the trustee’s administrative costs are covered, the first $100 million in net proceeds splits 80% to the lenders and 20% to the estate. Above $100 million, the lenders’ share increases to 85%, with the estate receiving 15%

During the proceedings, a secondary lender, MidCap Financial Trust, was added as a party by the court order, and it will receive a pro-rata share of the lender share, alongside HPS.

The court also specifically preserved the rights of unions, including DGA, SAG-AFTRA, and WGA West, to ensure their outstanding payment claims remain active. However, with various parties seeking hundreds of millions in secured debt, it seems unlikely that everyone is made whole.

## A Web of Legal Troubles

Speaking with TorrentFreak, Grove Street CEO Thomas Murphy confirmed that the external funds to acquire the rights are still in place, without mentioning any financial partners by name. First, however, a purchase agreement must be finalized.

This agreement is also key for a separate lawsuit that was filed against the company by a former executive. As highlighted last October, Jamie Warren, the former CFO of both American Films and Grove Street Funding (which is linked to Grove Street Partners), sued both companies over unpaid salary in 2024.

In May, 2025, a Texas federal court entered a final judgment in favor of the former employee, granting her $525,000, plus attorneys fees and costs. Thus far, the judgment has not been paid, but that could change soon.

A day after the bankruptcy court approved the sale of litigation rights, Murphy informed the Texas court that a first payment toward the outstanding judgment will follow shortly, adding that the CSS deal is ‘the only way that reasonably happens.’

Whether the sale will eventually go through has yet to be seen, but it is clear that a lot is riding on it: for Grove Street, its former CFO, Internet providers, lawyers, movie producers, and all the claim holders in the bankruptcy proceeding.

And even if the sale goes through, the profitability of the deal will depend, in no small part, on what the Supreme Court decides in the Cox case in the months ahead.

*—*

* *

*A copy of the order of the Delaware Bankruptcy Court, approving the [sharing agreement (pdf)][4] that effectively greenlights the deal, is [available here (pdf)][5].*

From: [TF][6], for the latest news on copyright battles, piracy and more.

[1]: https://torrentfreak.com/company-offers-100-million-for-the-right-to-sue-isps-using-redboxs-piracy-claims/
[2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redbox
[3]: https://torrentfreak.com/cox-brief-asks-supreme-court-to-reverse-draconian-piracy-liability-ruling/
[4]: https://torrentfreak.com/images/checkenagree.pdf
[5]: https://torrentfreak.com/images/chicken-approve.pdf
[6]: https://torrentfreak.com/

https://torrentfreak.com/bankruptcy-court-clears-path-for-100-million-sale-of-redboxs-piracy-lawsuit-rights/

Rightsholders Crowdsource Piracy Link Reporting With ‘Online ...

2026-03-15T14:05:36+01:00

Rightsholders Crowdsource Piracy Link Reporting With ‘Online Hunter’ Game

[logohunter]Anti-piracy reporting tools have existed for years, but generally speaking, there is little interest from the public to expose pirates.

The Business Software Alliance previously [offered people hard cash][1] in exchange for tips, which [helped][2], but there are other potential reward options too.

## Online Pirate Hunters

The Czech anti-piracy company [Warezio][3], which works for various international rightsholders, believes that it can motivate people to report pirate streaming links through a gamified experience. The company recently launched a new platform, inviting the public to help spot links to pirated content.

The [‘Online Hunter’][4] portal effectively turns people into pirate ‘hunters.’ As the name suggests, users of the site can report pirate links on various platforms and earn points when these are reviewed and approved.

There’s a wide variety of content that users can report, ranging from blockbuster movies to current live streaming events.

*Report a Link*
[report]

Newly discovered live streaming links have the most value, while previously reported content doesn’t bring in many points. With sufficient points, users can then buy vouchers for online streaming services such as Netflix, HBO, or [Oktagon MMA][5], which is an official partner.

The new portal has not been widely promoted because Warezio prefers a soft launch. However, the first links have already been submitted. This is in part due to targeted promotion, which showed a banner to a select group of Oktagon streamers during the last event.

*Banner for ‘Online Hunters’*
[banner]

‘Online Hunter’ is currently targeted at countries in Eastern and Central Europe, but Warezio’s Jakub Hájek informs TorrentFreak that he hopes to expand it to Western Europe in the near future. That might also open the door to more rightsholders, he says, as “reporting to the authorities” is generally frowned upon in Eastern Europe.

## Pirates Knock Out?

At the moment, Oktagon MMA is the only named partner. The MMA organization operates based on a pay-per-view model, which makes it more vulnerable to piracy than traditional VOD platforms.

“The financial damages caused by piracy are noticeable,” Oktagon’s Martin Šteso tells TorrentFreak

Šteso explains that the company previously relied on its social media team to track down infringing streams. However, that approach had significant limits in scale and reach, especially when dealing with a range of semi-private communities on services such as Discord.

By crowdsourcing detection of piracy threats that automated tools typically miss, Oktagon hopes to fight back against pirate streaming.

“The main goal is to uncover piracy groups, particularly those operating on platforms like Discord, that are otherwise incredibly difficult to detect. Because many of these communities are private and restricted to smaller circles, manual detection is nearly impossible,” Šteso notes.

## Points, Levels and Leaderboards

‘Online Hunter’ currently supports reporting links on nine platforms: Discord, Telegram, Facebook, Instagram, Reddit, TikTok, Twitter/X, YouTube, and ok.ru. As users report more links, they can reach new levels and climb the public leaderboard as their approved points increase.

Whether this gamified approach will appeal to the public at large has yet to be seen. Currently, there are just a few active flaggers on the platform, according to the leaderboard.

*The Leaderboard*
[leaderboard]

Warezio certainly believes in the project, and the company informs us that more rightsholders are welcome to get in touch if they actively would like to participate.

Oktagon MMA hopes that ‘Online Hunter’ will ultimately become a household tool to identify hidden pirate communities. Thus far, the MMA organization has promoted ‘Online Hunter’ to a select group of users, but a broader promotion is also being considered.

Whether crowdsourced human intelligence is a durable addition to automated anti-piracy tools remains to be seen, but a project like Online Hunters will certainly get people talking.

From: [TF][6], for the latest news on copyright battles, piracy and more.

[1]: https://torrentfreak.com/pay-off-your-credit-card-debts-by-ratting-on-software-pirates-150322/
[2]: https://torrentfreak.com/tipster-gets-10000-reward-for-reporting-software-piracy-181214/
[3]: https://warezio.com/en/sw/#contact
[4]: https://onlinehunter.net/
[5]: https://oktagonmma.com/en/
[6]: https://torrentfreak.com/

https://torrentfreak.com/rightsholders-crowdsource-piracy-link-reporting-with-online-hunter-game/

Piracy Giant HiAnime.to Announces Mysterious ‘Goodbye’ ...

2026-03-13T11:57:58+01:00

Piracy Giant HiAnime.to Announces Mysterious ‘Goodbye’

[hianime]The anime industry has experienced a surge in popularity, but this growth is not limited to legal streaming platforms.

A significant portion of the demand for anime arrives from unofficial channels, with several major pirate websites dedicated solely to anime content.

This includes HiAnime.to, which, with an estimated [150 million+][1] monthly visits is one of the most trafficked websites on the Internet. A message now displayed across the site’s main domains suggests that may be about to change.

“It’s time to say goodbye. And thank you for a wonderful journey with great moments,” the message reads, also shown on other official domains, such as HiAnime.me.

HiAnime.to says Goodbye
[hianime goodbye]

The HiAnime name first appeared under its current name in March 2024, as a rebranding of the [Aniwatch][2] website, which was known as [Zoro.to][3] before that. Since then, its popularity has continued to grow.

## Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt

While the goodbye message seems crystal clear, the site’s official Discord server and Reddit community don’t appear convinced. While it is unclear whether the operators are moderating these communities, the mods and admins caution people not to jump to conclusions.

“We are currently aware of the situation and are actively reviewing the matter. We are monitoring the situation and attempting to obtain further clarification as of the moment,” a status message in the Discord channel reads.

Discord message
[discord]

At the same time, a [Reddit thread][4] urges people not to panic and stop sharing unverified information.

Reddit thread
[reddit]

## Legal Pressure

At TorrentFreak, we can verify that the “goodbye” message posted on the official HiAnime domains reads like a shutdown notice. Time will tell whether the site will indeed remain offline. It’s also an option that it will rebrand yet again.

HiAnime has had its fair share of legal pressure over the past two years. The MPA’s Alliance for Creativity and Entertainment has [targeted][5] the site on multiple occasions, for example.

Earlier this month, the pressure [further increased][6] as the U.S. Trade Representative added HiAnime to its annual list of notorious piracy markets.

USTR lists HiAnime.to
[ustr]

There is no evidence to suggest that the legal pressure has anything to do with the goodbye message on the site, but it would be a fitting explanation. If any new information comes in, we will update this article accordingly.

From: [TF][7], for the latest news on copyright battles, piracy and more.

[1]: https://www.similarweb.com/website/hianime.to/
[2]: https://torrentfreak.com/piracy-moghul-aniwatch-rebrands-to-hianime-240301/
[3]: https://torrentfreak.com/zoro-to-worlds-largest-pirate-site-suddenly-acquired-rebranded-230704/
[4]: https://www.reddit.com/r/HiAnimeZone/comments/1rsh113/website_issue/?share_id=BTIE8cNwlhAbUUqWUUZ9i
[5]: https://torrentfreak.com/ace-targets-piracy-giant-hianime-to-and-dozens-of-other-streaming-sites-241008/
[6]: https://torrentfreak.com/u-s-lists-notorious-piracy-threats-with-focus-on-sports-streaming/
[7]: https://torrentfreak.com/

https://torrentfreak.com/piracy-giant-hianime-to-announces-mysterious-goodbye/

Court Officially Orders U.S.-Based IPTV Operator to Pay Amazon ...

2026-03-12T18:58:46+01:00

Court Officially Orders U.S.-Based IPTV Operator to Pay Amazon & Netflix $18.75 Million

[tvnitro]In March of 2024, the Dallas-based IPTV operator William Freemon [was sued for copyright infringement][1] by Amazon, Netflix, and several major Hollywood studios.

Freemon defended himself but failed to hire a lawyer for his company, Freemon Technology Industries (FTI). Instead, he responded by filing various motions while refusing to formally answer the copyright infringement complaint.

With the case not moving forward, the movie companies eventually had enough and requested a default judgment of $18,750,000 in copyright damages.

Last month, a Texas magistrate judge [recommended granting][2] this in full, and this week, the order was formally adopted by U.S. District Judge Sam A. Lindsay.

## Judge Grants $18,750,000 Judgment

As [detailed in our earlier coverage][3], Freemon allegedly operated four unauthorized streaming services: Streaming TV Now, TV Nitro, Instant IPTV, and Cash App IPTV. In addition, he was accused of running a pirate IPTV reseller operation called Live TV Resellers.

‘Streaming TV Now’ was the most popular IPTV service, according to the legal paperwork. It first appeared online in 2020 and offers access to 11,000 live channels, as well as on-demand access to over 27,000 movies and 9,000 TV series.

The studios identified a sample of 125 copyrighted works that were available through the IPTV services, including Universal’s Oppenheimer. As damages compensation, the court granted the recommended statutory maximum of $150,000 per work for willful infringement, for a total of $18,750,000.

This judgment amount will continue to grow, as the court approved a 3.51% annual post-judgment interest rate until the amount is paid in full. In addition, the attorneys’ fee award has yet to be determined and will also add to the total.

*From the default judgment*
[default]

In addition to the damages, Judge Lindsay also entered a permanent injunction, which bars Freemon and FTI from reproducing, distributing, or publicly performing any of the plaintiffs’ copyrighted works, and from assisting others in doing so.

## Injunction Targets Domain Names

The signed injunction also requires the eight domain names to be transferred immeidately to the studios’ control: instantiptv.net, streamingtvnow.com, streamingtvnow.net, tvnitro.net, cashappiptv.com, livetvresellers.com, stncloud.ltd, and stnlive.ltd.

The associated domain registrars have five days to facilitate theese transfers. If they fail to do so, the TLD registries can be ordered to either transfer the domains to a registrar of the studios’ choosing, or place them on registry hold, which would make them inaccessible too.

To address a potential whack-a-mole scenario, the studios can also return to court to add further domains to the injunction, as long as evidence shows Freemon operates them.

All in all, the court order is a clear victory for the movie companies. Whether the defendant will be able to pay over $18 million in damages is another matter. The domain seizure order does not have an immediate effect either, as all the mentioned domains have been offline for a while already.

That said, if Freemon ever attempts to relaunch the services, the movie companies will come prepared.

*—*

* *

*A copy of the default judgment, signed March 11, at the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas, is available [here (pdf)][4].*

From: [TF][5], for the latest news on copyright battles, piracy and more.

[1]: https://torrentfreak.com/hollywood-studios-amazon-and-netflix-sue-evasive-pirate-iptv-operator-from-texas-240328/
[2]: https://torrentfreak.com/hollywood-amazon-netflix-set-to-secure-18-75-million-damages-in-iptv-lawsuit/
[3]: https://torrentfreak.com/hollywood-amazon-netflix-set-to-secure-18-75-million-damages-in-iptv-lawsuit/
[4]: https://torrentfreak.com/images/amazon-freemon-appr.pdf
[5]: https://torrentfreak.com/

https://torrentfreak.com/court-officially-orders-u-s-based-iptv-operator-to-pay-amazon-netflix-18-75-million/

Court Dismisses DISH’s $25 Million IPTV Piracy Lawsuit Against ...

2026-03-12T08:33:59+01:00

Court Dismisses DISH’s $25 Million IPTV Piracy Lawsuit Against UK Hosting Provider

[ukflag]As pirate IPTV services have continued to grow in recent years, TV broadcasters and distributors have intensified their efforts to combat the problem.

Pay TV provider [DISH Network][1], in tandem with the International Broadcaster Coalition Against Piracy ([IBCAP][2]), has been particularly active on this front, filing a series of lawsuits in the United States.

## DISH vs. Innetra

In one of these cases, DISH last year filed a copyright infringement complaint [against UK hosting provider ‘Innetra PC’][3] at a California federal court, accusing the company of aiding widespread copyright infringement while ignoring takedown requests.

Based on IBCAP’s evidence, the complaint alleged that [Innetra][4] provided essential infrastructure for pirate streaming services, including the separately targeted [Lemo TV and Kemo IPTV][5], as well as Honeybee, Xtremehd, and Caliptostreams.

In its complaint, DISH argued that Innetra could not rely on safe harbor protection, as it largely ignored hundreds of infringement notices. Additionally, Innetra allegedly failed to designate a DMCA agent and had no policy for terminating repeat infringers.

The complaint listed 171 copyrighted works and requested damages of up to $25 million against Innetra and its general partner, Elna Paulette Valentin [ was also named][6] as a defendant personally.

## Innetra Requested Dismissal

In July last year, Innetra responded with a [motion to dismiss][7]. The company argued that the court lacked jurisdiction, as the UK company has minimal to no contacts with the United States or California.

Among other things, Innetra said it had no U.S. servers and had signed up just one paying U.S. customer since its founding, whose account was only active for two months.

The hosting provider did not disregard the idea of a legal battle entirely. Instead, it said that if DISH insisted on filing a lawsuit, it could do so in the United Kingdom, not in the United States.

“Dish may pursue its dispute in the United Kingdom, where Innetra is located. Dish, however, may not force foreign defendants that lack minimum contacts with the United States, let alone California, to defend themselves in the United States,” Inntra wrote in its motion last year.

## Court Dismisses $25 Million Lawsuit

After the motion to dismiss was filed, the court allowed DISH sixty days of jurisdictional discovery before ruling on the motion to dismiss. However, that proved not to be enough to overcome the jurisdiction challenges.

Last week, Judge Noël Wise granted Innetra’s motion to dismiss, concluding that DISH had failed to demonstrate specific personal jurisdiction over the UK hosting company. The case was dismissed without prejudice.

[conclusion]

The court applied the “purposeful direction” test established in recent Ninth Circuit case law, which requires a plaintiff to show that a defendant made regular sales in the forum and consciously cultivated a customer base there. However, based on the evidence provided by DISH, that is not the case here.

At the time of the alleged infringement, in 2024, Innetra had no U.S. customers at all. Two American customers briefly appeared in 2025: one paid $682 over two months before cancelling, and the other signed up for nine days without purchasing anything. The court described these contacts as “scant, fleeting, and attenuated.”

DISH also argued that Innetra’s peering arrangements with [NTT][8] and [Lumen][9] showed a deliberate effort to reach U.S. users. However, evidence provided during discovery showed that Innetra contracted with the German and Dutch branches of these companies, not their U.S. affiliates. Innetra did not use U.S.-based servers from these companies.

Finally, the court was not convinced by DISH’s evidence that nearly 49,000 instances of pirate IPTV services used Innetra’s infrastructure to transmit content into the U.S. Since these pirate services were making the connection to U.S. users, not Innetra, the hosting provider is not responsible for jurisdictional purposes.

## What’s Next?

Because the case was dismissed without prejudice, DISH is allowed to refile the case, potentially with extra evidence. And as Innetra noted in its motion to dismiss, DISH can also file a lawsuit in the United Kingdom if they like.

For Innetra, putting up a defense turned out to be vital. After all, another DISH lawsuit against Ukraine-based hosting provider Virtual Systems recently showed that not responding in court can result in a [multi-million-dollar default judgment.][10]
For now, there is no sign of follow-up action against Innetra yet. However, DISH certainly continues its enforcement efforts elsewhere. Just last month, the company filed a [fresh $21 million lawsuit against pirate IPTV operation DMTN][11], whose operator allegedly posed as Breaking Bad creator Vince Gilligan.

*—*

* *

*A copy of U.S. District Court Judge Noël Wise’s order on the motion to dismiss is available [here (pdf)][12].*

From: [TF][13], for the latest news on copyright battles, piracy and more.

[1]: https://www.dish.com/
[2]: https://www.ibcap.org/
[3]: https://torrentfreak.com/dish-sues-uk-hosting-provider-in-25-million-pirate-iptv-lawsuit/
[4]: https://innetra.com/
[5]: https://torrentfreak.com/dish-sues-pirate-iptv-services-lemo-and-kemo-in-u-s-court-250408/
[6]: https://torrentfreak.com/uk-hosting-provider-asks-court-to-dismiss-25-million-pirate-iptv-lawsuit/
[7]: https://torrentfreak.com/uk-hosting-provider-asks-court-to-dismiss-25-million-pirate-iptv-lawsuit/
[8]: https://www.nttdata.com/global/en/
[9]: https://www.lumen.com/en-us/services/google-internet-peering.html
[10]: https://torrentfreak.com/dish-wins-42m-default-judgment-against-dmca-ignored-host-virtual-systems-251114/
[11]: https://torrentfreak.com/dish-sues-dmtn-iptv-in-21m-piracy-lawsuit-operator-posed-as-breaking-bad-creator/
[12]: https://torrentfreak.com/images/innetra-dismiss-1.pdf
[13]: https://torrentfreak.com/

https://torrentfreak.com/court-dismisses-dishs-25-million-iptv-piracy-lawsuit-against-uk-hosting-provider/

Internet Archive Faces Copyright Lawsuit Over ‘Myspace Dragon ...

2026-03-10T14:32:27+01:00

Internet Archive Faces Copyright Lawsuit Over ‘Myspace Dragon Hoard’

[myspace]Through its non-profit organization, the [Internet Archive][1] (IA) aims to preserve digital history for generations to come.

The Archive’s popular Wayback Machine has archived decades of web history, and it also aims to preserve content directly: by scanning physical books or recording old gramophones, for example.

One of the more unique preservation projects centers around Myspace, which was the leading social network twenty years ago. The site was particularly popular among musicians, but today it’s a shell of its former self with virtually no new activity. In fact, quite a bit of content was permanently lost.

## The Myspace Dragon Hoard

In March 2019, Myspace publicly announced that all music uploaded to the platform between 2003 and 2015 had been wiped. As the result of a failed server migration, an estimated 50 million songs from 14 million artists were gone.

Days later, Internet Archive employee Jason Scott announced on X that some files may have been preserved. An anonymous academic group had mailed him a hard drive containing roughly 490,000 of those recordings, scraped from Myspace between 2008 and 2010.

“ANNOUNCING THE MYSPACE MUSIC DRAGON HOARD, a 450,000 song collection of mp3s from 2008-2010 on Myspace, gathered before they were all ‘deleted’ by mistake,” Scott [posted][2] at the time.

*The tweet*
[tweet]

This collection was [uploaded to archive.org][3] and made available for free, allowing people to stream and download the music without any limits. In addition, an unnamed entity launched a companion site, lostmyspace.com, with a dedicated search and playback interface for the archived files.

*‘Myspace Dragon Hoard’*
[dragon hoard]

With key historical data safely stored, the Myspace preservation effort was celebrated widely. However, not everyone was pleased.

## Musician Sues Internet Archive

Two years ago, the Illinois-based musician Anthony Martino found out that several of his songs were part of the Myspace Dragon Hoard. These files were hosted by the Internet Archive without his permission and formed the basis of a legal challenge.

Last December, Martino filed a copyright infringement complaint in federal court. He argues that the recordings from his Myspace should not have been included to begin with, as he made these inaccessible to the public around 2011, long before Myspace lost the data.

An amended complaint, filed in January, accuses Internet Archive of copyright infringement, requesting the maximum statutory damages of $150,000 per work for willful infringement.

In addition to 11 works in the Myspace database, Martino also claims IA scanned and digitized his physical CD liner notes and printed lyrics, adding 48 additional works to the mix. This puts the (theoretical) maximum damages at $8,850,000.

However, in its answer, Internet Archive pointed out that potential damages should be reduced to the statutory minimum, as low as $200 per work, because any infringement was innocent. That would put the damages floor at roughly $11,800.

## Internet Archive: We Didn’t Upload Anything

The Internet Archive vehemently disputes the copyright infringement claims. The organization explains that it was not directly involved in uploading the ‘Myspace Dragon Hoard’. IA notes that this was done by the anonymous academic researchers that were mentioned earlier.

“A group of academics that had saved some of the lost materials uploaded their archive onto the Internet Archive’s website,” the Archive’s attorney informed the court in a joint case management statement last week, noting that the organization is protected against third-party claims by the DMCA safe harbor.

IA does not see any outstanding issues and says that, to its understanding, all of Martino’s takedown DMCA requests were eventually processed.

In its formal answer to the complaint, Internet Archive also raises a notable counter-argument: it denies that any license Martino granted to Myspace by uploading his recordings was “fully and immediately revocable,” and denies that such a license prohibited distribution to third parties outside Myspace’s platform.

Martino, meanwhile, remains convinced that IA has a more active role. Among other things, he points to public statements by Scott himself describing his role in coordinating the collection’s upload.

## To Trial

Since the case will move forward to trial, both parties will get the chance to conduct discovery to find evidence for their claims. The eventual trial date has not been scheduled yet, but both parties suggest planning it for April of 2027.

This is not the first music copyright dispute the Internet Archive is involved in. The organization was previously sued by several major music labels for digitizing gramophones. This case was [settled confidentially][4] last September.

*— *

* *

*A copy of Martino’s amended complaint is available [here (pdf)][5]. The Internet Archive’s answer can be found [here (pdf)][6], while the case management statement [is here (pdf)][7].*

From: [TF][8], for the latest news on copyright battles, piracy and more.

[1]: https://archive.org/
[2]: https://x.com/textfiles/status/1113600880585129985
[3]: https://archive.org/details/myspace_dragon_hoard_2010
[4]: https://torrentfreak.com/internet-archive-vs-music-labels-693m-copyright-battle-ends-with-confidential-settlement/
[5]: https://torrentfreak.com/images/martinoamended.pdf
[6]: https://torrentfreak.com/images/answer-1.pdf
[7]: https://torrentfreak.com/images/casemanagement.pdf
[8]: https://torrentfreak.com/

https://torrentfreak.com/internet-archive-faces-copyright-lawsuit-over-myspace-dragon-hoard/

Top 10 Most Pirated Movies of The Week – 03/09/2026 [marty]The ...

2026-03-09T11:19:50+01:00

Top 10 Most Pirated Movies of The Week – 03/09/2026

[marty]The data for our weekly download chart is estimated by TorrentFreak, and is for informational and educational reference only.

Downloading content without permission is copyright infringement. These torrent download statistics are only meant to provide further insight into piracy trends. All data are gathered from public resources.

This week we have two newcomers on the list. “Marty Supreme” is the most shared title.

Note: We also publish an updating archive of all the list of [weekly most torrented movies lists][1].

## The most torrented movies for the week ending on March 09 are:

──────────┬──────────────┬───────────────────────────────┬──────────────────────
**Movie │**Rank last │**Movie name** │**IMDb Rating /
Rank** │week** │ │Trailer**
──────────┼──────────────┼───────────────────────────────┼──────────────────────
**1** │(2) │Marty Supreme │[8.0][2] /
│ │ │[trailer][3]
──────────┼──────────────┼───────────────────────────────┼──────────────────────
**2** │(1) │Mercy │[6.1][4] /
│ │ │[trailer][5]
──────────┼──────────────┼───────────────────────────────┼──────────────────────
**3** │(…) │War Machine │[6.5][6] /
│ │ │[trailer][7]
──────────┼──────────────┼───────────────────────────────┼──────────────────────
**4** │(3) │The Housemaid │[6.9][8] /
│ │ │[trailer][9]
──────────┼──────────────┼───────────────────────────────┼──────────────────────
**5** │(4) │Shelter │[6.2][10] /
│ │ │[trailer][11]
──────────┼──────────────┼───────────────────────────────┼──────────────────────
**6** │(5) │28 Years Later: The Bone Temple│[7.5][12] /
│ │ │[trailer][13]
──────────┼──────────────┼───────────────────────────────┼──────────────────────
**7** │(7) │Zootopia 2 │[7.6][14] /
│ │ │[trailer][15]
──────────┼──────────────┼───────────────────────────────┼──────────────────────
**8** │(8) │The Bluff │[5.8][16] /
│ │ │[trailer][17]
──────────┼──────────────┼───────────────────────────────┼──────────────────────
**9** │(…) │Cold Storage │[6.2][18] /
│ │ │[trailer][19]
──────────┼──────────────┼───────────────────────────────┼──────────────────────
**10** │(6) │Predator: Badlands │[7.5][20] /
│ │ │[trailer][21]
──────────┴──────────────┴───────────────────────────────┴──────────────────────

From: [TF][22], for the latest news on copyright battles, piracy and more.

[1]: https://torrentfreak.com/most-pirated-movies-of-2026-weekly-archive/
[2]: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt32916440/
[3]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s9gSuKaKcqM
[4]: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt31050594/
[5]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7H7Djx17l8Y
[6]: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt15940132/
[7]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AFuE1LRxm80
[8]: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt27543632/
[9]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kdDdlY2VPxw
[10]: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt32357218
[11]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PPMawzJxKF4
[12]: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt32141377/
[13]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EOwTdTZA8D8
[14]: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt26443597/
[15]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A-7RMaQaygI
[16]: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt14181714/
[17]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uUYMqRjNxhM
[18]: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt8879928/
[19]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kea7gnh1uYA
[20]: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt31227572/
[21]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=43R9l7EkJwE
[22]: https://torrentfreak.com/

https://torrentfreak.com/top-10-most-torrented-pirated-movies/

Major Publishers Sue Anna’s Archive Over ‘Staggering’ ...

2026-03-09T11:06:13+01:00

Major Publishers Sue Anna’s Archive Over ‘Staggering’ Copyright Infringement, Seek Injunction

[books][Anna’s Archive][1] has already faced its fair share of legal trouble and domain name problems this year.

The popular shadow library was [sued by Spotify][2] and several major record labels in late December and lost [many of its domain names][3].

The site responded by adding new domain names. After losing its .LI domain last week, [it added .VG,.PK, and .GD as new alternatives][4]. However, this does not mean that the pressure is fading. Within a matter of days, the .VG domain was already suspended by the domain registrar.

## 63 Million Pirated Books

After watching the music industry’s legal push, a group of thirteen major publishers has also sprung into action. In a complaint filed at a New York federal court last week, they accuse Anna’s Archive of staggering copyright infringement by hosting 63 million books and 95 million papers, most of which are pirated.

*The complaint*
[the complaint]

“Defendants shamelessly describe themselves as a collection of ‘pirates’ not ‘bound by the law’,” the complaint reads.

The publishers highlight that the site facilitated 763,000 downloads per day last Tuesday, as reported by the site’s own statistics. These downloads are predominantly unauthorized, they add.

“Plaintiffs are not aware that any of the copyright-protected works on Anna’s Archive are licensed or authorized by the copyright owners; to the contrary, their reproduction and distributions are blatantly illegal infringements,” the complaint notes.

*763,000 downloads*
[stats]

The publishers also highlight the AI training angle. They note that the shadow library provided high-speed access to 140+ million texts to LLM developers in China, Russia, and elsewhere. This includes a blog post titled “[If You’re an LLM, Please Read This][5]” which specifically targets AI companies.

The complaint alleged that Anna’s Archive reportedly charges significant fees for premium access, citing a [LinkedIn post][6] that mentioned a $200,000 donation.

“The amount of the ‘enterprise-level donation’ is not specified on the Website but it is reported to be $200,000. In an e-mail exchange with a researcher inquiring about the cost of the collection for AI training, Anna’s Archive offered premium access for $200,000,” the complaint notes.

*Donation*
[linkedin]

## The Injunction is Key

With 130 copyrighted works mentioned in the complaint, and damages up to $150,000 per infringed work, the publishers seek up to $19.5 million in compensation. However, with the site’s operators being unknown and unreachable, chances are slim that this amount will be paid.

The publishers are aware of this. In fact, if we carefully read the framing of their complaint, it appears that the legal action is predominantly intended to target domain names and other technical infrastructure of Anna’s Archive.

In recent weeks, the music industry injunction in the Atlantic/Spotify case has helped to take out several domain names. However, Anna’s Archive has since removed music-related content from the site. Therefore, the publishers now seek a similar injunction.

“Were the Defendants to repost the contents of its illegal repository of stolen works without these audio files, the Atlantic Order would still be satisfied. Nor can the publisher Plaintiffs in this case enforce the Atlantic Order to protect their own copyrights,” the complaint reads.

## Injunction Targeting Hosts, Registrars, and Registries

The publishers want to play their part in taking Anna’s Archive offline, and they therefore request an injunction to protect their copyrights. This proposed injunction requires the site and its operator to halt all infringing activity and destroy all pirated books and articles.

More importantly, the injunction would also require third-party intermediaries to stop providing services to the shadow library. This applies to data centers, and hosting and service providers, domain registrars, and domain registries.

*Proposed injunctive relief*
[injunction]

The proposed injunction would apply to all current domain names, as well as “any other websites that host the infringing content or directly facilitate its distribution.”

At the time of writing, the court has yet to sign off on the requested injunction. Whether that order will be enough to keep Anna’s Archive offline for good, given its track record of quickly securing new domains, has yet to be seen.

*—*

* *

*A copy of the complaint, filed at the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, is [available here (pdf)][7]. The exhibit listing works in suit can be found [here (pdf)][8].*

From: [TF][9], for the latest news on copyright battles, piracy and more.

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anna%27s_Archive
[2]: https://torrentfreak.com/unsealed-spotify-lawsuit-triggered-annas-archive-domain-name-suspensions/
[3]: https://torrentfreak.com/spotifys-crackdown-on-annas-archive-domains-hits-a-jurisdiction-snag/
[4]: https://torrentfreak.com/annas-archive-loses-li-domain-as-legal-pressure-mounts/
[5]: https://annas-archive.gl/blog/llms-txt.html
[6]: https://www.linkedin.com/posts/ed-newton-rex_a-few-months-ago-i-was-curious-to-know-how-activity-7420048307655200768-buoq/
[7]: https://torrentfreak.com/images/cengage-anna.pdf
[8]: https://torrentfreak.com/images/cengage-anna-exh.pdf
[9]: https://torrentfreak.com/

https://torrentfreak.com/major-publishers-sue-annas-archive-over-staggering-copyright-infringement-seek-injunction/

Italian IPTV Pirates Pay €1,000 in Damages to Football League ...

2026-03-09T10:37:17+01:00

Italian IPTV Pirates Pay €1,000 in Damages to Football League Serie A

[italy flag]Last May, the Guardia di Finanza [announced][1] that 2,282 pirate IPTV subscribers had been fined across 80 Italian provinces.

The user details came from a criminal investigation in Lecce that dismantled a large IPTV operation, leaving behind a subscriber database that authorities put to immediate use.

Those fines, typically starting at €154 and rising to €5,000 for repeat offenders, were only the beginning. The same pirate IPTV (Pezzotto) users were in for more trouble.

## Two Bills, Same Offense

In the autumn of 2025, [DAZN sent letters][2] to many of the pirate IPTV users who were already fined, offering to settle a civil damages claim for €500. This new payment request was in addition to the state fine, not instead of it.

Taking a page from this playbook, Serie A followed with its own damages demand. In January, the league’s CEO, Luigi De Siervo, [announced][3] that lawyers sent approximately 2,000 letters to individuals who were previously identified by the Guardia di Finanza, requesting €1,000 each as a settlement for the damages caused by their illegal streaming.

In late February, Serie A CEO Luigi De Siervo confirmed that the [first payments][4] have now been received. As with the DAZN case, these payments are also linked to Criminal Case no. 7719/2022 at the Tribunal of Lecce.

“Finally, even in our country, we are restoring the rule of law,” De Siervo said in a statement, adding that this is “only the beginning.”

“Those who use the pezzotto or illegally watch matches on apps, pirate IPTV, or via VPN, must know that they will be identified by the competent authorities, will have to pay fines of up to €5,000 as provided by law, and will above all be required to pay an additional €1,000 to Serie A as compensation for damages. Piracy is theft, period.”

Serie A does not mention how many payments it has received in response to the thousands of letters it sent out. This could be less than a handful, for now.

## Follow The Money

It is clear that the messaging aims to deter future IPTV pirates, suggesting that even a VPN can’t secure them. While this statement is technically correct, it deserves some nuance.

The IPTV pirates who were identified in this case did not have their connections monitored in any way. Instead, the IPTV users were identified through their payment details, banking data, and other personal information obtained as part of a criminal investigation into an IPTV operator.

This is a notable distinction, as defense lawyers in the Lecce case [have argued][5] that some of the administrative fines issued lack technical evidence of actual piracy, resting solely on the payment trail.

One lawyer filed formal correction requests with Italian media, stressing that no IP addresses were identified, no devices were seized, and no specific copyrighted work was named in the citations. However, those challenges have not prevented the compensation letters from going out, or the payments from coming in.

## Looming Threat

The Lecce case is one of several active proceedings. There are several other prosecutions, and, with permission from the Prosecutor’s Office, more details of pirate subscribers are reportedly shared with rightsholders.

Italy’s Minister for Sport, Andrea Abodi, went even further in October, suggesting that the names of those caught buying illegal subscriptions could eventually be published in a public [naming and shaming][6] campaign. “It’s beyond privacy concerns; it’s a crime,” he said at the time.

For now, however, the government appears content to let the financial pressure do the work. This also serves as a deterrent message, as those who received the €1,000 letter from Serie A but chose to ignore it potentially face a more expensive civil claim.

*Serie A website (dd. March 2 , 2026)*
[serie x]

Meanwhile, the official Serie A website features a prominent advertisement for its [long-running partner][7], 1XBET.

This is notable because the same gambling company the Motion Picture Association has flagged as a [notorious piracy market][8], as it is frequently promoted through [watermarked][9] pirated movies and other advertisements on prominent pirate sites.

From: [TF][10], for the latest news on copyright battles, piracy and more.

[1]: https://torrentfreak.com/italy-fines-over-2200-pirate-iptv-subscribers-in-new-crackdown-250516/
[2]: https://torrentfreak.com/dazn-letters-to-iptv-pirates-demand-e500-and-full-compliance-in-7-days-or-else-251009/
[3]: https://www.fanpage.it/sport/calcio/la-serie-a-chiede-soldi-a-chi-usa-il-pezzotto-abbiamo-inviato-duemila-lettere-chi-le-ricevera/
[4]: https://www.calciomagazine.net/pirateria-primi-utenti-risarciscono-la-serie-a-1000-euro-a-testa-241295.html
[5]: https://www.trmtv.it/cronaca/2025_05_15/480998.html
[6]: https://torrentfreak.com/iptv-pirates-may-be-named-and-shamed-italian-minister-says-251020/
[7]: https://torrentfreak.com/football-chief-slams-iptv-pirates-while-sponsored-by-piracy-supporter-220526/
[8]: https://torrentfreak.com/hollywood-and-netflix-report-piracy-threats-to-the-eu-call-for-intermediary-action-240909/
[9]: https://torrentfreak.com/1xbet-the-bizarre-cam-brand-that-movie-pirates-love-to-hate-190526/
[10]: https://torrentfreak.com/

https://torrentfreak.com/italian-iptv-pirates-pay-e1000-in-damages-to-football-league-serie-a/

Uploading Pirated Books via BitTorrent Qualifies as Fair Use, ...

2026-03-07T09:59:10+01:00

Uploading Pirated Books via BitTorrent Qualifies as Fair Use, Meta Suggests

[meta-logo]In the race to build the most capable LLM models, several tech companies sourced copyrighted content for use as training data, without obtaining permission from content owners.

Meta, the parent company of Facebook and Instagram, was one of the companies to get sued. In 2023, well-known book authors, including Richard Kadrey, Sarah Silverman, and Christopher Golden, [filed a class-action lawsuit][1] against the company.

## Meta’s Bittersweet Victory

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][2], 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 both parties collected additional evidence through the discovery process, it remained unclear what defense Meta would use. Until now.

## Seeding Pirated Books is Fair Use

Last week, Meta served a supplemental interrogatory response at the California federal court, which marks a new direction in its defense. For the first time, the company argued that uploading pirated books to other BitTorrent users during the torrent download process also qualifies as fair use.

Meta’s reasoning is straightforward. Anyone who uses BitTorrent to transfer files automatically uploads content to other people, as it is inherent to the protocol. In other words, the uploading wasn’t a choice, it was simply how the technology works.

Meta also argued that the BitTorrent sharing was a necessity to get the valuable (but pirated) data. In the case of Anna’s Archive, Meta said, the datasets were only available in bulk through torrent downloads, making BitTorrent the only practical option.

“Meta used BitTorrent because it was a more efficient and reliable means of obtaining the datasets, and in the case of Anna’s Archive, those datasets were only available in bulk through torrent downloads,” Meta’s attorney writes.

“Accordingly, to the extent Plaintiffs can come forth with evidence that their works or portions thereof were theoretically ‘made available’ to others on the BitTorrent network during the torrent download process, this was part-and-parcel of the download of Plaintiffs’ works in furtherance of Meta’s transformative fair use purpose.”

*Part and parcel*
[part and parcel]

In other words, obtaining the millions of books that were needed to engage in the fair use training of its LLM, required the direct downloading, which ultimately serves the same fair use purpose.

## Authors and Meta Disagree over Fair Use Timing

The authors were not happy with last week’s late Friday submission and the new defense. On Monday morning, their lawyers filed a letter with Judge Vince Chhabria flagging the late-night filing as an improper end-run around the discovery deadline.

They point out that Meta had been aware of the uploading claims since November 2024, but that it never brought up this fair use defense in the past, not even when the court asked about it.

The letter specifically mentions that while Meta has a “continuing duty” to supplement discovery under Rule 26(e), this rule does not create a “loophole” allowing a party to add new defenses to its advantage after a court deadline has passed.

“Meta (for understandable reasons) never once suggested it would assert a fair use defense to the uploading-based claims, including after this Court raised the issue with Meta last November,” the lawyers write.

*The letter*
[lettermeta]

Meta’s legal team fired back the following day, filing their own letter with Judge Chhabria. This letter explains that the fair use argument for the direct copyright infringement claim is not new at all.

Meta pointed to the parties’ joint December 2025 case management statement, in which it had explicitly flagged the defense, and noted that the author’s own attorney had addressed it at a court hearing days later.

“In short, Plaintiffs’ assertion that Meta ‘never once suggested it would assert a fair use defense to the uploading-based claims, including after’ the November 2025 hearing, is false” Meta’s attorney writes in the letter.

## Authors Admit No Harm, No Infringing Output

Meanwhile, it’s worth noting that Meta’s interrogatory response also cites deposition testimony from the authors themselves, using their own words to bolster its fair use defense.

The company notes that every named author has admitted they are unaware of any Meta model output that replicates content from their books. Sarah Silverman, when asked whether it mattered if Meta’s models never output language from her book, testified that “It doesn’t matter at all.”

*Authors’ depositions*
[deposition]

Meta argues these admissions undercut any theory of market harm. If the authors themselves cannot point to infringing output or lost sales, the lawsuit is less about protecting their books and more about challenging the training process itself, which the court already ruled was fair use.

These admissions were central to Meta’s fair use defense on the training claims, which Meta won last summer. Whether they carry the same weight in the remaining BitTorrent distribution dispute has yet to be seen.

## ‘U.S. AI Leadership at Stake’

In its interrogatory response, Meta added further weight by stressing that its investment in AI has helped the U.S. to establish U.S. global leadership, putting the country ahead of geopolitical competitors. That’s a valuable asset worth treasuring, it indirectly suggested.

As the case moves forward, Judge Chhabria will have to decide whether to allow this “fair use by technical necessity” defense. Needless to say, this will be of vital importance to this and many other AI lawsuits, where the use of shadow libraries is at stake.

For now, the BitTorrent distribution claims remain the last live piece of a lawsuit filed in 2023. Whether Judge Chhabria will allow Meta’s new defense to proceed has yet to be seen.

*—*

* *

*A copy of Meta’s supplemental interrogatory response is available[ here (pdf)][3]. The authors’ letter to Judge Chhabria can be found [here (pdf)][4]. Meta’s response to that letter is available [here (pdf)][5].*

From: [TF][6], for the latest news on copyright battles, piracy and more.

[1]: https://torrentfreak.com/meta-admits-use-of-pirated-book-dataset-to-train-ai-240111/
[2]: https://torrentfreak.com/meta-secures-bittersweet-fair-use-victory-in-ai-piracy-case-250626/
[3]: https://torrentfreak.com/images/meta-fairuse-c.pdf
[4]: https://torrentfreak.com/images/meta-fairuse-brief.pdf
[5]: https://torrentfreak.com/images/metaresponse.pdf
[6]: https://torrentfreak.com/

https://torrentfreak.com/uploading-pirated-books-via-bittorrent-qualifies-as-fair-use-meta-suggests/

Pirate Streaming Portal ‘P-Stream’ Shuts Down Following ...

2026-03-06T09:36:48+01:00

Pirate Streaming Portal ‘P-Stream’ Shuts Down Following ACE/MPA Pressure

[logo pstream]Last month, we [reported][1] on a new push from the Motion Picture Association and the ACE anti-piracy alliance, hoping to identify several pirate site operators.

They obtained DMCA subpoenas at a California federal court, requiring Discord and Cloudflare to share all personal information they have on customers associated with domains such as hdfull.org, sflix.fi, and pstream.mov.

*MPA/ACE targets*
[pstreamsub]

ACE has used these subpoenas as an intelligence-gathering tool for years. While these efforts are often fruitless, as many site owners use fake data, they occasionally have some effect. That’s also true for the latest round, which has motivated P-Stream to shut down permanently.

## P-Stream Shuts Down

A few hours ago, P-stream’s operator, Pas, informed TorrentFreak that they decided to shut down the website effective immediately. This decision is a direct result of the DMCA subpoena and the added legal pressure, which previously resulted in the loss of the Discord server as well.

People who try to access the site’s [official domain][2] are now redirected to a [shutdown message][3]. Pas stresses that P-Stream never hosted any infringing material, but the operator can’t afford to mount a legal defense if it came to that.

“Although P-Stream does NOT host, control, or guarantee any media or content, I can’t afford to fight that in court. So to be safe, P-Stream will no longer host a public instance,” the operator writes.

*P-Stream’s shutdown message*
[shutdown]

While the operator regrets the shutdown, Pas also mentions that the project was life-consuming and took its toll, so the decision to throw in the towel could be a healthy one on that front too.

## Code Remains Public

P-Stream was launched in April 2024, when [movie-web was shut down][4] by legal pressure from Hollywood. It eventually grew into a popular project of its own with [close to an estimated ten million][5] visits last month.

*P-Stream, 24-hours ago*
[p-stream]

However, two years after its predecessor’s demise, history is repeating, perhaps in more ways than we now know.

The P-Stream project was largely based on sudo-flix, which itself was a successor to the original movie-web code. Today, the (alleged) P-Stream code remains available as well, through [publicly available GitHub repositories][6]. Whether these repos are controlled by the site’s operator is unknown.

As always, there will likely be people who try to keep the project going, and once they become popular enough, these projects will come on Hollywood’s radar, repeating the same process.

From: [TF][7], for the latest news on copyright battles, piracy and more.

[1]: https://torrentfreak.com/ace-targets-pirate-streaming-site-hdfull-through-cloudflare-and-discord-subpoenas/
[2]:
[3]: https://rentry.co/rkkvxesm
[4]: https://torrentfreak.com/movie-web-domain-shut-down-by-hollywood-complaint-240224/
[5]: https://www.similarweb.com/website/pstream.mov/
[6]: https://github.com/p-stream
[7]: https://torrentfreak.com/

https://torrentfreak.com/pirate-streaming-portal-p-stream-shuts-down-following-ace-mpa-pressure/

U.S. Lists Notorious Piracy Threats, With Focus on Sports ...

2026-03-05T07:39:47+01:00

U.S. Lists Notorious Piracy Threats, With Focus on Sports Streaming

[ustr notorious 2025]Every year, the Office of the United States Trade Representative ([USTR][1]) publishes a list of ‘notorious markets’ that facilitate online piracy and related intellectual property crimes.

Drawing on input from copyright holders, the report includes a non-exclusive overview of sites and services that are believed to be involved in piracy or counterfeiting.

For more than a [decade][2] we have covered the online section of the report. Traditionally, that includes prominent torrent sites, download portals, cyberlockers, and streaming services that offer copyrighted content without obtaining permission from rightsholders.

In recent years, the scope of the report has broadened significantly. For example, we have seen hosting companies, advertisers, and social media platforms being added. These don’t have piracy as their core business, but they allegedly facilitate infringing activity.

## Issue Focus: Sports Streaming Piracy

Yesterday, the USTR published its 2025 Review of Notorious Markets for Counterfeiting and Piracy. Every year, the Office selects an ‘Issue Focus’; for 2025, the target is live [sports broadcast piracy][3]. This choice is in part triggered by the upcoming FIFA World Cup that’s hosted by the United States, Canada, and Mexico.

“With the United States co-hosting the FIFA World Cup, we are particularly attuned to sales of counterfeit merchandise and illicit streaming of sports broadcasts,” Ambassador Jamieson Greer said, commenting on the release.

The USTR report notes that the stakes are high. Pirate sites and services directly threaten the global sports broadcast rights market, which was reportedly valued at approximately $62.6 billion in 2024. Meanwhile, pirate site operators continue to get more sophisticated and evasive.

“When authorities shut down a pirate streaming website, operators can simply register new domain names, rebrand under different names, or migrate to alternative hosting providers,” the Notorious Markets report reads.

“This whack-a-mole dynamic frustrates enforcement efforts and requires sustained, resource-intensive campaigns that often exceed the capabilities of right holders and enforcement agencies.”

## New Legal Frameworks

What further complicates the challenge is the fact that live broadcasts typically only have a small takedown window. This means that content removals and enforcement have to be swift and global. In some countries, this may require legislative updates.

“Current legal frameworks, while providing important protections, have not kept pace with the technological realities of modern piracy operations,” the USTR writes in its report.

These legislative measures may include expedited site-blocking powers, as we have seen in Italy and Spain recently, although these could introduce [ overblocking risks][4]. The USTR does not mention these examples but notes that “traditional notice-and-takedown” frameworks are often “inadequate for live sports broadcasts.”

Interestingly, United States law does not support no-fault site-blocking measures [yet][5]. Nor are there broadly used legal tools to take livestreams down instantly. That said, USTR notes that preliminary injunctions and temporary restraining orders could help.

“For example, the United States has expedited provisions for copyright protection, primarily through temporary restraining orders (TROs) and preliminary injunctions, which a court can grant to immediately stop infringing activity,” USTR writes.

*Live streaming challenges*
[challenge]

## The Notorious Pirate Sites

USTR’s strong focus on sports streaming piracy is not immediately reflected in the list of notorious markets. While there are plenty of dedicated sports piracy networks, none is mentioned in the latest notorious markets report. Instead, it mostly highlights familiar targets.

Much of the list will look familiar to anyone who followed last year’s edition. ThePirateBay, 1337X, RuTracker, and YTS.mx return in the torrent category. Filehosting platforms Krakenfiles, Rapidgator, and 1fichier are also back, while Sci-Hub and LibGen remain listed in the publishing category.

The removals also make sense. These include the prominent torrent site TorrentGalaxy, which went offline last year, as well as NSW2U, the Nintendo Switch piracy site that had its domain names seized by the FBI and Dutch authorities last year.

Meanwhile, there are some notable newcomers too. MegaCloud, for example, which is the rebranded successor to 2embed, offers a piracy video library backend system that reportedly serves over 260 streaming sites and 600 million monthly visitors. MyFlixerz, which runs on that same ‘piracy as a service’ (PaaS) infrastructure, is also listed as a newcomer.

*From USTR’s report*
[megacloud]

Another newcomer is MIGFlash, which offers piracy-enabling Nintendo Switch devices, and Fire Video Player, which offers video player software that’s linked to a video library, so people can easily start their own pirate sites.

## Pirate Sports Streaming?

As mentioned earlier, dedicated sports streaming sites are not mentioned. The notorious markets list does include IPTV services that support streaming, including MagisTV, but does not list dedicated sites, which is odd considering this year’s sports focus.

In the positive developments section, the USTR report does reference the [takedown of Streameast][6], one of the largest online sports streaming networks with 1.6 billion annual visits, of which 80 domain names were seized last year. However, the [original Streameast operation][7] or other surviving sports streaming brands remain unmentioned.

The USTR’s mention of the FIFA World Cup is notable, however. In the past, the U.S. Government has launched several domain seizure campaigns close to the start of major sporting events, such as the Super Bowl, so it’s possible that we will see similar action this summer.

*—*

*

A copy of the USTR’s 2025 Review of Notorious Markets is available [here (pdf)][8]. The full overview also includes offline markets.

*

*A list of highlighted sites and online services, including those listed for counterfeiting, is included below. The sites mentioned are categorized by TorrentFreak for clarity purposes and listed below.*

**Torrent Sites**

– 1337X
– RuTracker
– The Pirate Bay
– TorrentGalaxy
– YTS.mx

**File-Hosting/Cyberlockers**

– 1fichier
– Krakenfiles
– Rapidgator
-Savefrom

**E-Commerce**

– Baidu Wangpan
– Bukalapak
– DHgate
*– Douyin Mall (new)*
– Indiamart
– Pinduoduo
– Shopee
– Taobao

**PaaS**

– 2embed
*– Fire Video Player (new)
– MegaCloud (new)*
– Streamtape
– WHMCS Smarters

**Advertising**

– Avito

**Streaming/IPTV**

– Cuevana
– GenIPTV
– HiAnime
– MagisTV
*– MyFlixerz (new)*
– VegaMovies

**Hosting/Infrastructure**

– Amaratu
– DDoS-Guard
– FlokiNET
*– Private Layer (new)*
– Squitter
– Virtual Systems

**Social Media**

– VK

**Gaming**

– FitGirl-Repacks
*– MIG Flash (new)*
– NSW2U
– UnknownCheats

**Music**

– Y2Mate

**Publishing**

– Libgen
– Sci-Hub

From: [TF][9], for the latest news on copyright battles, piracy and more.

[1]: https://ustr.gov/
[2]: https://torrentfreak.com/us-government-targets-large-bittorrent-sites-and-trackers-110301/
[3]: https://torrentfreak.com/u-s-governments-focus-on-sports-piracy-puts-spotlight-on-streameast-saga/
[4]: https://torrentfreak.com/cloudflare-tells-u-s-govt-that-foreign-site-blocking-efforts-are-digital-trade-barriers/
[5]: https://torrentfreak.com/fears-of-overblocking-unite-critics-of-u-s-pirate-site-blocking-bill/
[6]: https://torrentfreak.com/ace-shuts-down-giant-streameast-piracy-ring-but-the-original-survives-250903/
[7]: https://torrentfreak.com/ace-shuts-down-giant-streameast-piracy-ring-but-the-original-survives-250903/
[8]: https://torrentfreak.com/images/2025-Notorious-Markets-List-final.pdf
[9]: https://torrentfreak.com/

https://torrentfreak.com/u-s-lists-notorious-piracy-threats-with-focus-on-sports-streaming/

YggTorrent Shuts Down After Hack, Leak and Stolen Crypto [ygg]In ...

2026-03-04T11:15:54+01:00

YggTorrent Shuts Down After Hack, Leak and Stolen Crypto

[ygg]In recent years, YggTorrent was France’s largest and most active torrent community, serving millions of users.

The torrent site was not a typical torrent indexer. The community is powered by a dedicated tracker, something that’s quite rare these days.

This thriving community was severely [tested last December][1] when its operators introduced a paid ‘Turbo Mode’. This triggered a revolt, with users and uploaders actively looking for alternative French torrent trackers.

Just as the storm appeared to have calmed, YggTorrent’s operation was shaken up by a final blow this week, after unknown people breached the site, stole data and funds, and exposed the entire operation.

## YggTorrent Shuts Down Following Hack

Today, YggTorrent decided to close its doors for good. This sudden decision comes after the torrent site was severely compromised through an elaborate hack.

According [to a statement][2] published by the site’s operators, a secondary pre-production staging server was the entry point. From there, the attackers used a privilege escalation exploit to delete and then exfiltrate the site’s database.

*YggTorrent’s message (translated)*
[closedygg]

In addition to large amounts of site data, the hackers also stole cryptocurrency wallets. YggTorrent’s operators note that these wallets were used exclusively to fund server costs.

The hack bears signs of an targeted attack by an adversary. YggTorrent notes that there was no warning or attempt at a dialogue before all its data was exposed.

According to YggTorrent, all stored user passwords were hashed and salted. However, the leak suggests that millions of legacy accounts were still stored in MD5 without salts, offering significantly weaker protection.

## YggLeak

The hacker has shared a detailed summary of their achievements and findings on a dedicated [leak site][3].

*From the leak site (translated)*
[ygg leak]

This website explains that the hackers entered YggTorrent’s infrastructure through a series of critical configuration errors by the administrator, starting at the search engine service (SphinxQL) that was left exposed on the staging server without a password.

The YggLeak site portrays YGGtorrent as a high-revenue “cash machine” rather than a simple sharing community. It claims that the site made millions of euros in revenues in 2025 alone. This revenue was reportedly converted to cryptocurrency.

According to the leak, this conversion was not straightforward. The site allegedly used a plugin called CardsShield to route payments through dozens of fake e-commerce storefronts to disguise the true nature of transactions from PayPal and Stripe. The proceeds then went through a circuit involving USDT, Monero and Ethereum, with funds passed through Tornado Cash to reach anonymous wallets.

*The data, via [Kulturegeek][4]*
[leakeddata]

While TorrentFreak can’t immediately verify any of these claims, the author of the YggLeak website suggests that the 11+ GB in data archives may be useful for law enforcement

“[N]ow that this data is public, professionals will be able to examine it, gather additional evidence, and perhaps even take legal action against those responsible for the site, as well as against hosting providers or other identified third parties,” the YggLeak author writes.

## Fin.

For YggTorrent, this is the end of the road. The site’s operators note that there is a backup of all data, so it would be possible to put the site back online. However, facing a rather hostile environment, the team has chosen to shut down permanently.

“A platform can shut down. A community, however, leaves a lasting legacy. Thank you for these nine years. Thank you for your trust. Thank you for all these shared moments,” YggTorrent says in a closing note.

From: [TF][5], for the latest news on copyright battles, piracy and more.

[1]: https://torrentfreak.com/french-torrent-giant-yggtorrent-faces-user-revolt-after-introducing-paid-turbo-mode/
[2]: https://yggtorrent.org/
[3]: https://yggleak.top/
[4]: https://kulturegeek.fr/news-348169/yggtorrent-ferme-portes-apres-enorme-piratage-yggleak
[5]: https://torrentfreak.com/

https://torrentfreak.com/yggtorrent-shuts-down-after-hack-leak-and-stolen-crypto/

Anna’s Archive Loses .LI Domain As Legal Pressure Mounts ...

2026-03-02T20:37:20+01:00

Anna’s Archive Loses .LI Domain As Legal Pressure Mounts

[vinyl][Anna’s Archive][1] has faced a barrage of domain takedowns in recent weeks, after Spotify and several major record labels filed a high-profile lawsuit.

The lawsuit was a direct response to Anna’s Archive’s announcement that it had [backed up Spotify][2], with plans to gradually release the data, including the music files.

Spotify and the labels aimed to stop this. They obtained a [preliminary injunction][3] targeting domain registrars and registries, which resulted in [the suspension of the .org domain][4] as well as several other domains. However, since not all domain registries and registrars comply with U.S. court orders, the .li domain name survived. Until now.

## Annas-Archive.li Deleted

A few hours ago, Annas-archive.li became unreachable. The domain wasn’t simply suspended through a clientHold or serverHold ICANN code. Instead, the entire domain name entry was deleted from the record.

*Domain deleted*
[deleted]

As a result of the domain deletion, Anna’s Archive is down to a single domain name, the Greenland-based annas-archive.gl, which was just [added last month][5] after it lost the .pm domain. If that pattern repeats itself, the site will likely add another backup domain name soon.

Given the continued pressure from the music industry through its U.S. lawsuit, as well as a [separate injunction from OCLC][6] in another lawsuit, legal pressure on the site has been relentless this year.

## The Swiss Connection

At the time of writing, it is not clear who deleted the domain. Technically, domain registrars and registries both have the authority to take this action. However, neither acted when the injunction was first issued, so something must have changed.

The .li domain name was registered through Immaterialism Limited, which is connected to the domain privacy service Njalla. The same company also registered Anna’s Archive’s .gl domain, which remains online. Therefore, it seems unlikely that the registrar took action here.

That leaves the registry, the Switzerland-based Switch Foundation, as a likely candidate. However, [Switch told us][7] in January that foreign court orders don’t generally apply to its foundation.

“As a general matter, foreign court orders do not automatically have legal effect on Switch. Switch evaluates such matters solely in accordance with applicable local laws,” a Switch spokesperson said at the time.

It is possible, however, that the music industry’s global trade group, IFPI, has since gotten involved as well. The prominent music group is known for its anti-piracy work and happens to have its legal headquarters in Switzerland.

TorrentFreak reached out to both the Switch Foundation and registrar Immaterialism Limited, hoping to clarify the situation. As of publication, neither has replied to our requests for comment.

For now, the shadow library is down to a single working domain, and the pressure shows no sign of letting up.

From: [TF][8], for the latest news on copyright battles, piracy and more.

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anna%27s_Archive
[2]: https://torrentfreak.com/annas-archive-backed-up-spotify-plans-to-release-300tb-music-archive/
[3]: https://torrentfreak.com/unsealed-spotify-lawsuit-triggered-annas-archive-domain-name-suspensions/
[4]: https://torrentfreak.com/annas-archive-loses-org-domain-after-surprise-suspension/
[5]: https://torrentfreak.com/annas-archive-loses-pm-domain-adds-greenland-gl-backup/
[6]: https://torrentfreak.com/u-s-court-order-against-annas-archive-spells-more-trouble-for-the-site/
[7]: https://torrentfreak.com/spotifys-crackdown-on-annas-archive-domains-hits-a-jurisdiction-snag/
[8]: https://torrentfreak.com/

https://torrentfreak.com/annas-archive-loses-li-domain-as-legal-pressure-mounts/

Top 10 Most Pirated Movies of The Week – 03/02/2026 [mercy ]The ...

2026-03-02T13:13:17+01:00

Top 10 Most Pirated Movies of The Week – 03/02/2026

[mercy ]The data for our weekly download chart is estimated by TorrentFreak, and is for informational and educational reference only.

Downloading content without permission is copyright infringement. These torrent download statistics are only meant to provide further insight into piracy trends. All data are gathered from public resources.

This week we have one newcomer on the list. “Mercy” is the most shared title.

## The most torrented movies for the week ending on March 02 are:

──────────┬──────────────┬───────────────────────────────┬──────────────────────
**Movie │**Rank last │**Movie name** │**IMDb Rating /
Rank** │week** │ │Trailer**
──────────┼──────────────┼───────────────────────────────┼──────────────────────
**1** │(4) │Mercy │[6.1][1] /
│ │ │[trailer][2]
──────────┼──────────────┼───────────────────────────────┼──────────────────────
**2** │(2) │Marty Supreme │[8.0][3] /
│ │ │[trailer][4]
──────────┼──────────────┼───────────────────────────────┼──────────────────────
**3** │(3) │The Housemaid │[6.9][5] /
│ │ │[trailer][6]
──────────┼──────────────┼───────────────────────────────┼──────────────────────
**4** │(…) │Shelter │[7.5][7] /
│ │ │[trailer][8]
──────────┼──────────────┼───────────────────────────────┼──────────────────────
**5** │(1) │28 Years Later: The Bone Temple│[7.5][9] /
│ │ │[trailer][10]
──────────┼──────────────┼───────────────────────────────┼──────────────────────
**6** │(5) │Predator: Badlands │[7.5][11] /
│ │ │[trailer][12]
──────────┼──────────────┼───────────────────────────────┼──────────────────────
**7** │(6) │Zootopia 2 │[7.6][13] /
│ │ │[trailer][14]
──────────┼──────────────┼───────────────────────────────┼──────────────────────
**8** │(…) │The Bluff │[8.1][15] /
│ │ │[trailer][16]
──────────┼──────────────┼───────────────────────────────┼──────────────────────
**9** │(7) │One Battle After Another │[8.1][17] /
│ │ │[trailer][18]
──────────┼──────────────┼───────────────────────────────┼──────────────────────
**10** │(9) │Anaconda │[5.7][19] /
│ │ │[trailer][20]
──────────┴──────────────┴───────────────────────────────┴──────────────────────

Note: We also publish an updating archive of all the list of [weekly most torrented movies lists][21].

From: [TF][22], for the latest news on copyright battles, piracy and more.

[1]: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt31050594/
[2]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7H7Djx17l8Y
[3]: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt32916440/
[4]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s9gSuKaKcqM
[5]: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt27543632/
[6]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kdDdlY2VPxw
[7]: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt32141377/
[8]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EOwTdTZA8D8
[9]: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt32141377/
[10]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EOwTdTZA8D8
[11]: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt31227572/
[12]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=43R9l7EkJwE
[13]: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt26443597/
[14]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A-7RMaQaygI
[15]: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt30144839/
[16]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=feOQFKv2Lw4
[17]: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt30144839/
[18]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=feOQFKv2Lw4
[19]: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt33244668/
[20]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=az8M5Mai0X4
[21]: https://torrentfreak.com/most-pirated-movies-of-2026-weekly-archive/
[22]: https://torrentfreak.com/

https://torrentfreak.com/top-10-most-torrented-pirated-movies/

Hollywood, Amazon & Netflix Set to Secure $18.75 Million ...

2026-03-02T11:03:23+01:00

Hollywood, Amazon & Netflix Set to Secure $18.75 Million Damages in IPTV Lawsuit

[tvnitro]Operating a pirate IPTV service can be a dangerous endeavor, no matter where one’s located. In the United States, home to Hollywood and other major entertainment outfits, the risks are arguably even higher.

In the past, we have seen several pirate IPTV businesses being [taken to court][1], with rightsholders almost always on the winning side. These cases can result in million-dollar damages awards or even [multi-year prison sentences][2], if the feds get involved.

Despite this backdrop, some people are still willing to take a gamble. A lawsuit filed by Netflix, Amazon, and several major Hollywood studios at a Texan federal court in March of 2024, identified Dallas resident William Freemon as a prime example.

## Hollywood Sues U.S.-Based Pirate IPTV Operation

[The complaint][3] accused Freemon and his company, Freemon Technology Industries (FTI), of being involved in widespread copyright infringement.

Freemon’s operation began between 2016 and 2019, when he allegedly sold “illegally modified Fire TV Stick devices” through two websites: firesticksloaded.biz and firesticksloaded.com. He registered these domains in his own name, at the same address where he later incorporated his company, FTI.

The defendant allegedly owned and operated four unauthorized streaming services at one point; Streaming TV Now, TV Nitro, Instant IPTV, and Cash App IPTV. In addition, the complaint linked him to a bulk reseller operation called Live TV Resellers.

‘Streaming TV Now’ was the most popular IPTV service, according to the complaint. It first appeared online in 2020 and offers access to 11,000 live channels, as well as on-demand access to over 27,000 movies and 9,000 TV series.

According to the legal paperwork, the services were clearly connected. For example, three of the four redirected paying subscribers to the same backend, hosted at stncloud.ltd. At one point, all five accused services, along with stncloud.ltd, shared the same IP address 5:183.209.216 (sic).

[ip address]

Freemon’s involvement was clear for multiple reasons, the plaintiffs argued. This includes evidence from a tutorial video connected to the IPTV operation, where the narrator logs into an Amazon account under the name “William Freemon”.

## Defendant Responds, Evades, and Fails to Put Up a Defense

Getting Freemon into court wasn’t straightforward. It took seven service attempts, and when he was eventually served, the defendant told counsel he had no intention of filing an answer. In addition, he also failed to get an attorney for the LLC when the court instructed him to do so.

Despite never filing the required answer, Freemon submitted a stream of other motions, many of which failed to comply with local rules and were stricken by the court. This includes a motion with defenses on behalf of Freemon’s company, FTI, which came in after the court explicitly told him he could not to file it.

The movie studios eventually requested a default judgment, summarizing the troublesome legal process. This also revealed that Freemon threatened the rightsholders and demanded money if they wanted him to stop.

“Compounding this misconduct, Mr. Freemon has resorted to issuing threats and making escalating demands for payment from Plaintiffs, simply because Plaintiffs have brought this lawsuit to stop the infringement of their copyrights,” their motion stated.

[payment]

Last week, Magistrate Judge Renée Harris Toliver issued various recommendations in this case. After reviewing all evidence, she advised denying Freemon’s motion to dismiss for a lack of standing and the motion to set aside the default. At the same time, Judge Toliver recommended granting the rightsholders’ motion for a default judgment.

## Judge Recommends $18.75 Million and an Injunction

Without a formal defense, the magistrate judge recommends granting the motion for a default judgment in full.

The court notes that Freemon’s copyright infringement was willful. For example, when the movie companies sent a cease-and-desist letter in February 2023, he didn’t comply, but instead tried to obscure his connection to the services by claiming to have transferred domains.

The studios eventually turned that argument against him: to transfer a domain, the registrant must unlock it and provide an authorization code, meaning the admission itself proves he owned the domain during the infringement period. The services continued operating through at least January 2024, with one remaining active until the lawsuit was filed in March 2024.

As compensation for the widespread infringement, the movie studios requested statutory maximum damages of $150,000 per work for a representative set of 125 works, including prominent titles such as Universal’s Oppenheimer.

Recognizing that many more works could have been added if this case had proceeded to discovery, the court recommends granting the damages award in full, which would make Freemon liable for $18,750,000.

[18m]

In addition to the damages, the plaintiffs also secured a permanent injunction that allows them to take over the IPTV-operation’s domains.

The recommended permanent injunction covers eight domains: instantiptv.net, streamingtvnow.com, streamingtvnow.net, tvnitro.net, cashappiptv.com, livetvresellers.com, stncloud.ltd, and stnlive.ltd. Once the judgment is approved, registrars have five days to transfer these domains to the movie companies.

If the registrars fail to do so, the TLD registries can be ordered to place the domains on hold. At the time of writing, none of the domains point to a working site. However, the rightsholders can add new domain Freemon-owned names to the list, should these appear online.

While the report and recommendation is a clear win for the movie companies, it is not final yet, as all the paperwork still requires approval from the district judge. Without a proper defense, however, an $18.75 million judgment appears to be the likely outcome for now.

*—*

* *

*The findings and recommendation on the motion for default judgment is [available here (pdf)][4]. The recommendation denying Freemon’s motion to set aside the default is [here (pdf)][5], and the recommendation denying his motion to dismiss for lack of standing is [here (pdf)][6].*

From: [TF][7], for the latest news on copyright battles, piracy and more.

[1]: https://torrentfreak.com/hollywood-demanded-16-3m-from-pirate-iptv-services-judge-awards-just-272500-211027/
[2]: https://torrentfreak.com/omi-in-a-hellcat-sentenced-to-66-months-in-prison-for-iptv-scheme-forfeits-30m-230308/
[3]: https://torrentfreak.com/hollywood-studios-amazon-and-netflix-sue-evasive-pirate-iptv-operator-from-texas-240328/
[4]: https://torrentfreak.com/images/freemon-findings-rec.pdf
[5]: https://torrentfreak.com/images/177118387744.pdf
[6]: https://torrentfreak.com/images/177118387764.pdf
[7]: https://torrentfreak.com/

https://torrentfreak.com/hollywood-amazon-netflix-set-to-secure-18-75-million-damages-in-iptv-lawsuit/

UEFA Secures Pirate Site Blocking and (Global) Domain Suspension ...

2026-02-28T22:00:47+01:00

UEFA Secures Pirate Site Blocking and (Global) Domain Suspension Order in India

[champions league]The European football association (UEFA) protects the multi-billion-dollar interests of European football around the globe.

To better protect its content, including the prestigious Champions League competition, it joined the Alliance of Creativity and Entertainment (ACE) last October.

At the time, it seemed likely that the anti-piracy group could help UEFA with their international site-blocking quests. While the organizations did not confirm this at the time, this is precisely what happened.

## UEFA Secures Broad Blocking Order

Earlier this month, UEFA obtained a new injunction at the High Court of Delhi. The order was obtained in cooperation with ACE and targets 79 live sports streaming sites, aiming to protect Champions League broadcasts.

The targets include sites such as livetv.sx, vipbox.lc, and footybite.to, which each had several million monthly visits. According to UEFA, all domain names combined were good for 2 billion annual visits, which makes this one of the most significant anti-piracy injunctions in recent times.

The order mentions 23 “rogue” piracy operations as defendants, with many using multiple domains. Indian ISPs, who are also listed as defendants, must block these domains across their network.

Importantly, the order also includes twenty domain name registrars as defendants. This includes U.S. based and globally operating intermediaries such as GoDaddy, Tucows, Squarespace Domains, and Dynadot. These companies must lock and suspend all 79 listed domains.

*Lock and suspend*
[lock and suspend]

In addition to suspending the domain names, the registrars must also share any personal information they store on the operators, including their email addresses, payment details, and mobile numbers.

## Global Reach

The new blocking order is valid for the remainder of the Champions League season. UEFA can notify registrars and ISPs directly when it discovers new infringing sites. These intermediaries must then lock or block the newly identified domains immediately, without the need to go back to court.

This so-called “Dynamic+” blocking mechanism, which Indian courts have been refining since at least 2019, aims to make it harder for pirate operators to simply register a new domain and continue as if nothing happened.

The strategy has proven to be effective in India, where ISPs are swift to implement the blocking orders. However, UEFA was quick to highlight that the reach of the order extends beyond Indian borders.

“Implemented in India through Internet Service Providers and also domain level intermediaries with global reach, these measures are expected to significantly disrupt access to the targeted services, including through global domain suspension mechanisms,” UEFA commented.

The phrase “global domain suspension mechanisms” refers to the fact that internationally operating registrars are defendants. This *could* mean that domain suspensions can take effect worldwide, not just for users in India. After all, a locked or suspended domain is inaccessible everywhere, regardless of which ISPs are blocking it locally.

## Mixed Results

These types of orders have been [successful][1] in the past, with registrars [including NameCheap][2], NameSilo, and Porkbun taking action in response to Indian court orders. However, site operators are increasingly aware of this and may choose more resilient alternatives.

At the time of writing, only the Namecheap-registered domain livetv819.me appears to have been placed on clienthold. The majority of the 79 listed domains remain active at the registrar level, with some redirecting to new domains.

This includes LiveTV and VIPBox, which had 10 and 13 million monthly visits in January of this year, according to [Similarweb][3] data.

*VIPBox*
[vipbox]

While none of the registrars has commented publicly on the order, it seems likely that some refrain from taking action because they don’t fall under the jurisdiction of an Indian court.

UEFA and its commercial arm, UC3, remain optimistic, with Managing Director Guy Laurent Epstein [celebrating the win][4] as a step forward.

“These orders represent a clear step forward: dynamic blocking strengthens the protection of our global family of broadcast partners, preserving the value they deliver to fans and enabling continued investment throughout the European football ecosystem.”

UEFA is not alone in this assessment. Earlier this month, the International Intellectual Property Alliance [applauded][5] the Indian “lock and suspend” orders in their annual “Special 301” recommendation to the U.S. Trade Representative.

*—*

*

A copy of the order handed down by the High Court of Delhi is available here ([pdf][6]).

*

*The order names 23 piracy operations as defendants, spread across 79 domains. The table below lists each defendant, its domains, and the registrar responsible for suspending them.*

──┬───────────────────────┬────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┬────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
# │Defendant │Domains │Registrar(s)
──┼───────────────────────┼────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┼────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
1 │livetv.sx │livetv.sx, cdn.livetv860.me, cdn.livetv861.me, cdn.livetv863.me, livetv819.me, livetv872.me, livetv869.me, livetv863.me, livetv868.me, livetv854.me, livetv855.me, livetv858.me │Ascio Technologies Inc.; Hosting Concepts B.V.; NameCheap Inc.
──┼───────────────────────┼────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┼────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
2 │streameast100.is │streameast100.is, istreameast.app │N/A
──┼───────────────────────┼────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┼────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
3 │strmd.link │strmd.link, streamed.pk, streamed.su, streamed.st, streami.su │Tucows Inc.; R01-Su; Immaterialism Limited; Rucenter-SU
──┼───────────────────────┼────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┼────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
4 │librefutboltv.su │librefutboltv.su, librefutbol.su, futbollibre-tv.su, futbollibre.mx, futbollibreonline.org, futbollibre-tv.org │Active-Su; Ardis-Su; R01-Su; Hosting Concepts B.V.; Tucows Inc.
──┼───────────────────────┼────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┼────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
5 │totalsportek.army │totalsportek.army, live4.totalsportek007.com, totalsportek007.com, totalsportekfree.com, totalsportek7.com, totalsportek1000.com, live3.totalsportek777.com │Tucows Inc.
──┼───────────────────────┼────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┼────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
6 │pirlotv2.pl │pirlotv2.pl, pirlotv.pl │Key-Systems GmbH
──┼───────────────────────┼────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┼────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
7 │rojadirecta.golf │rojadirecta.golf, rojadirecta.men, pirlotv.cc, www.futbolgratis.de, pirlotv.business, rojadirectaenvivo.pl, rojadirecta.ec, rojadirect.site, pirlotvhd.vip, rojadirectatv.lol, rojadirectatvenvivo.me, rojadirectaenvivo.de, rojadirectatv.cv, tarjetarojaenvivo.cx, rojadirectatv.de, rojadirectafhd.com, rojadirecta-tv.net, rojadirectahd.com│Dynadot LLC; Key-Systems GmbH; GoDaddy.com LLC; DonDominio; NameSilo; CentralNic Ltd; Tucows Inc.; TurnCommerce Inc.
──┼───────────────────────┼────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┼────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
8 │tarjetarojaenvivo.club │tarjetarojaenvivo.club │Squarespace Domains II LLC
──┼───────────────────────┼────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┼────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
9 │viprow.nu │viprow.nu │Hosting Concepts B.V.
──┼───────────────────────┼────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┼────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
10│vipleague.pm │vipleague.pm, vipleague.st │Hosting Concepts B.V.; Immaterialism Limited
──┼───────────────────────┼────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┼────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
11│livesports088.com │livesports088.com │GoDaddy.com LLC
──┼───────────────────────┼────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┼────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
12│pelotalibrevivo.net │pelotalibrevivo.net, pelotalibretv.su, pelotalibre.org, pelotalibrehd.org │Squarespace Domains LLC; Ardis-Su; NameCheap Inc.; Tucows Inc.
──┼───────────────────────┼────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┼────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
13│fawanews.sc │fawanews.sc │Name.com Inc.
──┼───────────────────────┼────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┼────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
14│redditsoccerstreams.biz│redditsoccerstreams.biz, redditsoccerstreams.name │TLD Registrar Solutions Ltd.; Key-Systems GmbH
──┼───────────────────────┼────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┼────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
15│streambtw.live │streambtw.live │N/A
──┼───────────────────────┼────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┼────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
16│footybite.to │footybite.to │Government of the Kingdom of Tonga
──┼───────────────────────┼────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┼────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
17│sportsurge100.is │sportsurge100.is │N/A
──┼───────────────────────┼────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┼────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
18│hesgoal.footybite.to │hesgoal.footybite.to, hesgoal.watch │Government of the Kingdom of Tonga; TLD Registrar Solutions Ltd.
──┼───────────────────────┼────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┼────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
19│soccer-1000.com │soccer-1000.com, soccer-free.com, socceronline.me │Tucows Inc.; Immaterialism Limited
──┼───────────────────────┼────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┼────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
20│daddyhd.com │daddyhd.com, dlhd.dad, daddylivestream.com, dlhd.link │Tucows Inc.
──┼───────────────────────┼────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┼────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
21│streameasthd.com │streameasthd.com │Tucows Inc.
──┼───────────────────────┼────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┼────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
22│vipbox.lc │vipbox.lc │Immaterialism Limited
──┼───────────────────────┼────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┼────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
23│vipstand.pm │vipstand.pm │Hosting Concepts B.V.
──┴───────────────────────┴────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┴────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────

From: [TF][7], for the latest news on copyright battles, piracy and more.

[1]: https://torrentfreak.com/hollywood-takes-down-animeflix-vegamovies-and-others-with-broad-anti-piracy-order-240523/
[2]: https://torrentfreak.com/mass-pirate-site-domain-suspensions-aim-to-slay-the-streaming-hydra-251008/
[3]: http://similarweb.com
[4]: https://www.uefa.com/uefachampionsleague/news/02a2-1ff6af82b53a-43a491e1d816-1000--uefa-secures-india-dynamic-blocking-order-enabling-global-/
[5]: https://torrentfreak.com/u-s-rightsholders-applaud-indias-lock-and-suspend-piracy-blockades/
[6]: https://torrentfreak.com/images/uefaorder.pdf
[7]: https://torrentfreak.com/

https://torrentfreak.com/uefa-secures-pirate-site-blocking-and-global-domain-suspension-order-in-india/

Google Invokes First Amendment to Shield Gmail Users from Piracy ...

2026-02-27T13:13:36+01:00

Google Invokes First Amendment to Shield Gmail Users from Piracy Subpoena

[google]Flava Works 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][1] against a defendant who shared its films on BitTorrent and a [high-profile clash][2] with an unnamed television executive that was eventually settled.

Last March, Flava, together with Blatino Media, filed a new lawsuit targeting an alleged Canadian leaker of its videos alongside 47 John Doe defendants. The rightsholders claim the maximum of $150,000 in statutory damages from each defendant, bringing the total damages claim to over $8 million.

This case stands out from the typical torrent lawsuits as the defendants were identified by their usernames on the private torrent tracker GayTorrent.ru, where they allegedly shared the pirated videos.

Today, nearly a year has passed since the case was started, and most of those Doe defendants still haven’t been formally named. According to Flava, that’s largely due to one company: Google.

## Google Rejects Broad Subpoena

In a status report filed this week, Flava informs the Illinois federal court of the progress thus far. The company reports that it signed a confidential settlement with one defendant, while several others were named and formally served. However, most defendants are still “John Does.”

According to an affidavit filed by Flava’s president, Phillip Bleicher, they can’t properly name the defendants because Google raised objections and refused to fully comply with the subpoena. This, despite complying with an earlier subpoena in a similar case.

Initially, Google incorrectly claimed the subpoena was issued by a *pro se* party. After Flava provided documentation that a licensed Illinois attorney had signed it, Google requested a copy of the complaint. That was provided in early December.

Shortly after, Google formally objected, raising “potential First Amendment concerns,” while stating it would only provide data for the “primary user who allegedly distributed the copyrighted works,” not the broader list of “John Doe” defendants.

*Google objects*
[googleobject]

Google’s objection affects 28 defendants whose primary or sole email addresses are Gmail accounts. Without Google’s subscriber data, Flava says it cannot confirm their identities with sufficient certainty to name them in the lawsuit.

## How Flava Identifies Its Targets

It is unclear what Google means exactly by raising First Amendment concerns. The company may believe the John Doe defendants are not necessarily direct infringers, a question that touches on how they were identified in the first place.

The complaint does not explain this. Typically, rightsholders identify torrent pirates by joining a swarm, collecting IP addresses, and subpoenaing ISPs to match those IPs to account holders. In this case, however, Flava already had usernames and email addresses before any court-ordered discovery.

One possible explanation is that some of these defendants were also paid subscribers on Flava’s own platforms. Membership sites log IP addresses at login. So, if the same IP that appeared in the GayTorrent.ru swarm also appeared in Flava’s own server logs, the company could have linked a torrent username to a registered account and its associated email address entirely from its own internal records.

## Wrongly Accused Pirates

Critics of BitTorrent lawsuits have long argued that IP addresses do not reliably identify individuals. In this case, Flava makes that same argument in its own favor, using the risk of misidentification as a reason for Google to hand over subscriber data.

The affidavit acknowledges that an email address alone is not sufficient to confirm an identity either. In at least one instance in a related case, a subpoena response pointed to someone who turned out not to be the infringer. The email address had been used by someone else, and the identified individual contacted prior counsel to clarify the error.

To avoid naming the wrong people, Flava needs both Google and Microsoft to comply with their subpoenas, which seek information sufficient to identify the defendants by name and current address.

*From the discovery motion*
[disco motion]

“Naming the wrong individuals in this Case could embarrass the individuals named or expose Plaintiffs to claims of abuse of process, and waste the Court’s resources,” the affidavit cautions, using the fear of wrongful accusations squarely in its own favor.

*Naming the wrong person*
[justified]

## What’s Next

The legal paperwork notes that Microsoft, which also holds data for some of the remaining defendants, indicated it is willing to comply with its subpoena if there is an agreement on fees. Flava’s counsel is working to finalize those terms.

For the moment, however, the case for the 28 Gmail-linked defendants is effectively on hold pending Google’s cooperation. Flava says it is prepared to file a motion to compel if Google does not respond, but that hasn’t been filed yet.

If a motion to compel is filed, Google is expected to explain its stated First Amendment rationale in more detail. Then, it will be up to the federal judge to weigh the arguments from both sides.

—

A copy of the status report, filed at the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, is available[ here (pdf)][3]. The supporting affidavit of Phillip Bleicher can be found [here (pdf)][4].

From: [TF][5], for the latest news on copyright battles, piracy and more.

[1]: https://torrentfreak.com/sharing-7-movies-on-bittorrent-1-5-million-damages-121201/
[2]: https://torrentfreak.com/public-figure-threatened-with-exposure-over-gay-piracy-fine-170817/
[3]: https://torrentfreak.com/images/flavasta.pdf
[4]: https://torrentfreak.com/images/flavaex.pdf
[5]: https://torrentfreak.com/

https://torrentfreak.com/google-invokes-first-amendment-to-shield-gmail-users-from-piracy-subpoena/

WordPress.com Flags Concerning Spike in AI-Generated DMCA ...

2026-02-26T10:07:54+01:00

WordPress.com Flags Concerning Spike in AI-Generated DMCA Takedowns

[wordpress spam]Automattic, the company behind the popular blogging platforms WordPress.com and Tumblr, has been documenting DMCA takedown abuse for [well over a decade][1].

Over the years, the company has highlighted how automated systems flood platforms with inaccurate or incomplete notices. These errors and mistakes are par for the course now, and Automattic even launched its own [Hall of Shame][2] to ‘honor’ the worst offenders.

In recent years, it appeared that takedown issues had stabilized somewhat. However, the latest transparency report, covering July through December 2025, shows that challenges remain.

## 2,431 Notices, 86% Rejected

This week, the company published its latest [WordPress.com transparency report][3], revealing that it processed 2,431 takedown notices during the second half of last year. That is a 20% increase compared to the same period a year earlier.

This data only applies to the number of DMCA notices that are directed at WordPress.com services. It is also worth noting that these notices can contain multiple URLs, making the number of flagged URLs much higher.

*2025: Jul 1 – Dec 31*
[totals]

While the takedown volume is substantial, that’s not necessarily indicative of a copyright infringement problem. According to Automattic, 86% of all takedown notices were rejected entirely due to various shortcomings.

The rejection rate for WordPress.com takedowns has always been high. Since Automattic began counting in 2014, the platform has processed a total of 123,211 DMCA takedown notices. Of these, only 27% have ever resulted in any removal.

## AI-generated DMCA Notices

Over the past half year, however, Automattic saw the rejection rate tick up further due to a new phenomenon: AI-generated DMCA notices.

“We are seeing continued exploitation of the DMCA notice-and-takedown system by third-party monitoring services—in some instances, through the use of AI-generated mass reporting methods,” Automattic’s Trust & Safety team notes.

According to the blogging platform, copyright infringement reporters use AI *en masse*, presumably to lower costs and maximize revenue.

Automattic specifically calls out the company Enforcity, which was by far the top takedown sender with 838 ‘inactionable’ notices in the second half of last year, which represents 34% of all notices sent in that period.

*AI-Driven DMCA content protection*
[enforcity]

Speaking with TorrentFreak, Automattic’s Head of Policy and Process, Steve Blythe, says that the first notices from Enforcity started coming in around August of 2025. These claimed to protect OnlyFans creators, but none of the reported links were associated with infringing material.

“The targets included both static pages with no content, and dynamic search query URLs with keywords pre-filled by the complainants that returned no results. This caused a significant amount of work, as our team manually reviews such notices to screen for abuse,” Blythe says.

“As of September 2025, we contacted Enforcity directly a number of times to make them aware of the issue, but despite assurances that the problems would be addressed, the notices continued.”

Automattic believes that this automated activity is largely driven by payment structures that value volume over accuracy. In January 2026, Enforcity was still sending hundreds of notices, but after repeated outreach, no new DMCA notices came in over the past weeks.

### Example of an “Inactionable” AI Notice

The “infringing” URL is simply a dynamic search query. It contains no hosted content and returns a “No results found” page on the WordPress platform.

**Reported Copyrighted Work:**
https://onlyfans.com/jane_redacted

**Claimed Infringing URL:**
https://[wordpress-site].com/search/jane_redacted

## $29 / Month

Explicitly naming a sender isn’t a step that’s taken lightly, but Automattic says that it is important to call out abusive behavior, especially when it takes up valuable resources.

TorrentFreak reached out to Enforcity for a comment, but at the time of publication, the company has yet to reply. If a response comes in, we will update our article accordingly.

For now, public information confirms that the company offers AI-Driven DMCA content protection starting at [$29 per month][4]. The service indeed targets creators, specifically those on OnlyFans, for which it created a [dedicated success hub][5].

According to Enforcity’s own website, the takedown service helped customers to remove over 350 million ‘infringements,’ with an impressive 99% success rate, while protecting $600 million in revenue in the process.

TorrentFreak was unable to verify any of these numbers independently.

[proof]

Regardless, Automattic says it will continue to call out abusive or error-prone reporters, including those who use AI tools.

“The DMCA notification and takedown process is a powerful tool that enables creators to have control over the use and dissemination of their work. However, it is also frequently abused,” Blythe tells us.

“We routinely see invalid and inappropriate submissions from third-party agents that charge creators to scour the web and fire off automated notices, seemingly indiscriminately. With the rapid development of AI technology, the flaws in the DMCA are at risk of increasingly resulting in a chilling effect on freedom of expression,” he adds.

For now, it appears that Automattic’s repeated outreach has had some effect, but whether Enforcity and similar services will change their practices in the long run remains to be seen.

From: [TF][6], for the latest news on copyright battles, piracy and more.

[1]: https://torrentfreak.com/wordpress-wins-25000-from-dmca-takedown-abuser-150305/
[2]: https://transparency.automattic.com/tag/hall-of-shame/
[3]: https://transparency.automattic.com/wordpress-dot-com/intellectual-property/intellectual-property-2025-jul-1-dec-31/
[4]: https://www.enforcity.com/#pricing
[5]: https://www.enforcity.com/onlyfans-success
[6]: https://torrentfreak.com/

https://torrentfreak.com/wordpress-com-flags-concerning-spike-in-ai-generated-dmca-takedowns/

Meta Employee Deleted 9TB of Torrented Files, Adult Film ...

2026-02-24T14:20:32+01:00

Meta Employee Deleted 9TB of Torrented Files, Adult Film Producers Claim

[moviegen]In July 2025, adult content producers Strike 3 Holdings and Counterlife Media [filed a copyright infringement lawsuit][1] against Meta.

The complaint accused the tech company of using adult films to assist its AI model training. Similar claims have been made by other rightsholders, including many [book authors][2].

This latest case, with over 350 million dollars in potential damages, specifically focuses on Meta’s BitTorrent activity that was recorded in detail through proprietary torrent tracking software. That’s no surprise, as plaintiff Strike 3 is the [most active][3] copyright litigant in the United States, known for targeting thousands of [alleged BitTorrent pirates][4] based on similar evidence.

Meta responded in October by filing a [motion to dismiss][5], arguing the sporadic downloads were consistent with ordinary [‘personal use’][6] by employees and visitors on the corporate network. It was certainly not a coordinated AI training effort, Meta countered.

## ‘Meta Employee Deleted 9TB of Torrented Files’

The motion to dismiss remains pending and, meanwhile, the case is heating up in other areas. Last week, the parties filed their joint discovery plan, which Strike 3 used to raise a rather eye-popping allegation.

Meta said that it prefers to delay written evidence discovery requests in this case until the court ruled on its motion to dismiss. However, Strike 3 would like to start gathering evidence right away, fearing that key data may otherwise disappear.

Strike 3’s legal team points out that, at a February 5 hearing in the unrelated [Kadrey v. Meta][7] book-authors case, lawyers revealed that a Meta employee had recently deleted over nine terabytes of torrented files. Fearing more deletions, Strike 3 asks the court to allow discovery in the present case to begin immediately.

“Because of the tangible risk that relevant evidence may be deleted by Meta’s employees, Plaintiffs respectfully request that they be allowed to conduct discovery immediately,” the plaintiffs write.

*Deleted?*
[kadrey delete]

In the same filing, Meta’s legal team immediately tried to defuse the deletion claim. Meta says that no data was spoiled and clarified that it will preserve all evidence as it is legally obliged to do.

“Plaintiffs mischaracterize the Kadrey record. There was no spoliation in Kadrey, which is an unrelated case, and in any event Meta has an appropriate hold in place and is abiding by its preservation obligations,” Meta writes.

## Torrent Evidence

The discovery plan also provides the clearest picture yet of what Strike 3 actually wants to find. Among the targets is Meta’s Machine Learning Hub “ML Hub,” including downloaded digital media files, torrenting-related metadata, and labeling data for content acquired from BitTorrent.

Strike 3 also wants logs of Meta servers communicating over “PySpark or Fairspark protocols,” suggesting it believes these tools were used to coordinate downloads across Meta’s infrastructure. Separately, the company is seeking records tying Meta’s alleged hidden “off-infra” IP addresses to Amazon Web Services instances.

The discovery list is broad by design, and the above are just a few examples. In essence, Strike 3 wants all policies, directives, and algorithms related to torrenting. They hope that this information will help to back up their copyright infringement claims.

## Meta’s Defense & Trial Date

While Strike 3 references thousands of downloads, Meta stresses that the complaint only mentions 157 downloads from Meta’s corporate IP addresses over seven years. They note that this is illustrative of personal use, rather than an organized data collection effort.

Meta also explains that the alleged downloads began years before it started researching generative video AI, making a coordinated training effort even more implausible. In addition, Meta says that Strike 3 has “no facts whatsoever” linking it to the thousands of additional third-party IP addresses that are named in the complaint.

While Meta’s motion to dismiss is still unresolved, both parties are also looking ahead. While they differ on the exact timing of various deadlines, both believe that an eventual trial can take place in the first half of 2028, if it gets to that.

*—*

* *

*A copy of the parties’ 26(f) discovery plan, filed at the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, is [available here (pdf)][8].*

From: [TF][9], for the latest news on copyright battles, piracy and more.

[1]: https://torrentfreak.com/copyright-lawsuit-accuses-meta-of-pirating-adult-films-for-ai-training/
[2]: https://torrentfreak.com/meta-secures-bittersweet-fair-use-victory-in-ai-piracy-case-250626/
[3]: https://torrentfreak.com/strike-3-filed-a-record-number-of-piracy-lawsuits-in-2024-250110/
[4]: https://torrentfreak.com/strike-3-filed-a-record-number-of-piracy-lawsuits-in-2024-250110/
[5]: https://torrentfreak.com/tit-for-tat-porn-producers-counter-metas-personal-use-piracy-defense/
[6]: https://torrentfreak.com/meta-pirated-adult-film-downloads-were-for-personal-use-not-ai-training/
[7]: https://torrentfreak.com/meta-secures-bittersweet-fair-use-victory-in-ai-piracy-case-250626/
[8]: https://torrentfreak.com/images/metastrikeup.pdf
[9]: https://torrentfreak.com/

https://torrentfreak.com/meta-employee-deleted-9tb-of-torrented-files-adult-film-producers-claim/

Top 10 Most Pirated Movies of The Week – 02/23/2026 [tbonet]The ...

2026-02-23T13:13:36+01:00

Top 10 Most Pirated Movies of The Week – 02/23/2026

[tbonet]The data for our weekly download chart is estimated by TorrentFreak, and is for informational and educational reference only.

Downloading content without permission is copyright infringement. These torrent download statistics are only meant to provide further insight into piracy trends. All data are gathered from public resources.

This week we have one newcomer on the list. “28 Years Later: The Bone Temple” is the most shared title.

## The most torrented movies for the week ending on February 23 are:

──────────┬──────────────┬───────────────────────────────┬──────────────────────
**Movie │**Rank last │**Movie name** │**IMDb Rating /
Rank** │week** │ │Trailer**
──────────┼──────────────┼───────────────────────────────┼──────────────────────
**1** │(…) │28 Years Later: The Bone Temple│[7.5][1] /
│ │ │[trailer][2]
──────────┼──────────────┼───────────────────────────────┼──────────────────────
**2** │(1) │Marty Supreme │[8.0][3] /
│ │ │[trailer][4]
──────────┼──────────────┼───────────────────────────────┼──────────────────────
**3** │(2) │The Housemaid │[6.9][5] /
│ │ │[trailer][6]
──────────┼──────────────┼───────────────────────────────┼──────────────────────
**4** │(…) │Mercy │[6.1][7] /
│ │ │[trailer][8]
──────────┼──────────────┼───────────────────────────────┼──────────────────────
**5** │(3) │Predator: Badlands │[7.5][9] /
│ │ │[trailer][10]
──────────┼──────────────┼───────────────────────────────┼──────────────────────
**6** │(4) │Zootopia 2 │[7.6][11] /
│ │ │[trailer][12]
──────────┼──────────────┼───────────────────────────────┼──────────────────────
**7** │(9) │One Battle After Another │[8.1][13] /
│ │ │[trailer][14]
──────────┼──────────────┼───────────────────────────────┼──────────────────────
**8** │(6) │The Wrecking Crew │[6.5][15] /
│ │ │[trailer][16]
──────────┼──────────────┼───────────────────────────────┼──────────────────────
**9** │(5) │Anaconda │[5.7][17] /
│ │ │[trailer][18]
──────────┼──────────────┼───────────────────────────────┼──────────────────────
**10** │(7) │Greenland Migration │[5.3][19] /
│ │ │[trailer][20]
──────────┴──────────────┴───────────────────────────────┴──────────────────────

Note: We also publish an updating archive of all the list of [weekly most torrented movies lists][21].

From: [TF][22], for the latest news on copyright battles, piracy and more.

[1]: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt32141377/
[2]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EOwTdTZA8D8
[3]: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt32916440/
[4]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s9gSuKaKcqM
[5]: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt27543632/
[6]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kdDdlY2VPxw
[7]: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt31050594/
[8]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7H7Djx17l8Y
[9]: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt31227572/
[10]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=43R9l7EkJwE
[11]: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt26443597/
[12]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A-7RMaQaygI
[13]: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt30144839/
[14]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=feOQFKv2Lw4
[15]: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt33046197/
[16]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v8R0xDczERo
[17]: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt33244668/
[18]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=az8M5Mai0X4
[19]: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt14850054/?
[20]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hiD3zk0ZRFg
[21]: https://torrentfreak.com/most-pirated-movies-of-2026-weekly-archive/
[22]: https://torrentfreak.com/

https://torrentfreak.com/top-10-most-torrented-pirated-movies/

Belgian Pirate Site Blocking Order Targets Cloudflare and Google, ...

2026-02-23T12:56:08+01:00

Belgian Pirate Site Blocking Order Targets Cloudflare and Google, But Not Their DNS

[cloudgoogle]Belgium has become one of Europe’s most active testing grounds when it comes to pirate site-blocking enforcement.

The country’s [two-step system][1], where a court issues an injunction and a government department ([BAPO][2]) then determines how it is implemented, has resulted in a series of diverse site-blocking orders since the framework launched in 2025.

## An Eclectic Site Blocking Push

The first order, obtained by sports broadcaster DAZN in April 2025, started quite aggressively. It required ISPs and third-party DNS resolvers, [including Cloudflare, Google, and Cisco’s OpenDNS][3], to stop resolving over 100 pirate domains. If not, they would risk a fine of €100,000 per day.

Cisco refused to comply with the order and instead [pulled OpenDNS out of Belgium][4] entirely. Cloudflare and Google remained in Belgium and cooperated, though each did so in its own way.

A second blocking order followed in July last year, requiring various intermediaries, including ISPs, hosting companies, and payment services, [to block shadow libraries][5]. Initially, Internet Archive’s Open Library was also targeted, but [this decision][6] was eventually reversed after the U.S. non-profit [agreed to geo-block][7] certain content on its service.

Meanwhile, Cisco reportedly appealed the initial site-blocking order and returned to Belgium. While this appeal remains ongoing, the Belgian site-blocking machine didn’t stop.

Last November, an order obtained by [Disney, Netflix, Sony, Apple, and others][8], targeted popular movie piracy sites, including 1337x and Soap2day. Notably, this order only applied to Belgium’s five major ISPs. [DNS resolvers were nowhere on the list][9], likely due to Cisco’s appeal.

## First IPTV Blocking Order

A new order, issued by the Court of Brussels, targets five illegal IPTV services: LEMEILLEURIPTV, BESTIPTVABO, ATLASPRO12, OTT PREMIUM, and MIJNIPTV. The order was obtained by Belgian broadcasters RTL Belgium and RTBF, whose broadcasts were distributed by these services without permission.

*IPTV targets*[iptv block]

The implementation decision, published by Belgium’s Department for Combating Infringements of Copyright and Related Rights Committed Online (BAPO), described the IPTV services as “structurally dedicated to the mass infringement of audiovisual content”.

**Note:** While the BAPO implementation order does not explicitly name the rightsholders, it lists specific content from **RTL Belgium** and **RTBF**. Both broadcasters [confirmed][10] obtaining an IPTV blocking order against Belgian ISPs at the Brussels court earlier this month.

According to information shared by the rightsholders, the services used cryptocurrency, which they see as a sign of illegality. In addition, the IPTV services showed users how to circumvent blocking measures.

All in all, the implementation order requires Belgium’s five major ISPs, Proximus, Telenet, Orange Belgium, Mobile Vikings, and DIGI Communications, to block domain names associated with these IPTV services. This also applies to mirror sites and redirect domains that can be added to the blocklist in future updates.

## Cloudflare and Google Are Back, But Not for DNS

The ISPs will have to use DNS-based blocking measures, as is standard procedure in most countries. However, DNS blocking measures are not requested from Cloudflare and Google, which are also covered by the injunction.

The order names the American tech companies as intermediaries and requires them to help stop the IPTV services through other routes.

Specifically, if Cloudflare acts as a CDN or hosting provider, it must take measures to prevent Belgian users from accessing the named IPTV services. Crucially, Cloudflare’s DNS resolver and WARP service are not covered.

Google is not required to block the domains on its DNS resolver either. Instead, Google must de-index the relevant domains from its search results, deactivate associated Google Ads, and block access through Google Sites and Google Cloud services where applicable.

This omission of any third-party DNS restrictions is almost certainly not accidental. Cisco’s appeal of the April 2025 order resulted in a Brussels court suspending enforcement of the DNS blocking requirement, allowing OpenDNS to resume operations in Belgium pending a final ruling.

With that legal challenge still unresolved, rightsholders appear to have opted for a more defensible scope, targeting Cloudflare and Google in their roles as infrastructure providers rather than as DNS operators.

## Exploring the Blocking Limits

The latest blocking order shows how Belgium’s blocking regime continues to calibrate itself in real time. Each new order is seemingly shaped by the legal and practical fallout from the last.

**April 2025:** Initial DAZN order aggressively targets ISPs and third-party DNS resolvers. Cisco pulls OpenDNS from Belgium.

**July 2025:** Second order requires various intermediaries to block shadow libraries.

**Summer 2025:** Cisco appeals; court suspends DNS blocking requirement, allowing OpenDNS to return.

**Nov 2025:** Broad order against movie piracy sites applies strictly to ISPs. DNS resolvers are omitted.

**Current:** Broadcasters RTL & RTBF obtain IPTV blocking order. Cloudflare and Google are targeted, but are not required to block DNS.

Whether the broader DNS blocking orders will return depends in part on how Cisco’s appeal resolves. A ruling against DNS blocking obligations could permanently reshape the scope of future Belgian orders, and there may be even broader repercussions.

Increasingly, European countries are granting ever more far-reaching pirate site blocking orders, covering a broad range of intermediaries, including DNS resolvers, but also VPN providers.

While these orders have been given the green light in France, Spain, and elsewhere, they are not uncontested. Given what’s at stake, the European Court of Justice will likely be asked to weigh in eventually to lay out the ground rules.

*—*

* *

*A copy of the latest blocking implementation order, published by the Department for Combating Infringements of Copyright and Related Rights Committed Online, is available [here (pdf)][11].*

From: [TF][12], for the latest news on copyright battles, piracy and more.

[1]: https://torrentfreak.com/how-a-court-order-to-block-internet-archives-open-library-was-put-on-hold/
[2]: https://economie.fgov.be/en/themes/intellectual-property/intellectual-property-rights/copyright-and-related-rights/sanctions-and-legal-actions/online-piracy
[3]: https://torrentfreak.com/dazn-pirate-iptv-action-coincided-with-massive-public-dns-blockade-250407/
[4]: https://torrentfreak.com/opendns-quits-belgium-under-threat-of-piracy-blocks-or-fines-of-e100k-per-day-250416/
[5]: https://torrentfreak.com/belgium-targets-internet-archives-open-library-in-sweeping-site-blocking-order/
[6]: https://torrentfreak.com/how-a-court-order-to-block-internet-archives-open-library-was-put-on-hold/
[7]: https://torrentfreak.com/internet-archive-ordered-to-block-books-in-belgium-after-talks-with-publishers-fail/
[8]: https://torrentfreak.com/hollywood-netflix-and-apple-are-behind-latest-pirate-brand-blockades-in-belgium/
[9]: https://torrentfreak.com/belgiums-latest-pirate-site-blocking-order-spares-dns-providers/
[10]: https://www.mm.be/news-nl-89458-iptv-rtbf-en-rtl-voeren-druk-op-illegale-diensten-op
[11]: https://torrentfreak.com/images/20260212-BAPO-D-FR-011-EN.pdf
[12]: https://torrentfreak.com/

https://torrentfreak.com/belgian-pirate-site-blocking-order-targets-cloudflare-and-google-but-not-their-dns/

ProtonVPN Fights French Pirate Site Blockades, But Court Rejects ...

2026-02-22T09:35:51+01:00

ProtonVPN Fights French Pirate Site Blockades, But Court Rejects Overblocking Fears

[protonvpn]Earlier this week, a Spanish court ordered ProtonVPN and NordVPN to block pirate LaLiga streams on their networks.

The VPN providers were not involved in the legal proceedings, and the orders were granted without a defense. In fact, ProtonVPN learned about it from news reports and questioned its legal validity.

While the Spanish order made headlines due to its novelty, France has seen several of these orders already. This includes two new decisions issued in late January, where ProtonVPN fought back tooth and nail but still lost.

## ProtonVPN Faces Two New Blocking Orders in France

The Paris Judicial Court issued two separate orders on January 28 and 29, both targeting Proton AG individually as the sole defendant. Both cases involved various rightsholders, including Canal+ companies, who sought to protect their interest in sports broadcasts.

In one case, they want ProtonVPN to block 16 pirate sites ([full list here][1]) that streamed Premier League matches, and the other case targets the same number of domain names, focusing on sites that stream the Top 14 Rugby competition.

*From the Rugby case*
[[proton order]][2]

The Paris Judicial Court ultimately granted both orders, which is in line with previous blocking injunctions. In the Rugby case, one domain was excluded from the blocklist due to an oversight; the court noted that the URL tested during the investigation didn’t match the domain name Canal+ actually requested to be blocked.

─────────────────┬──────────────────────────────────┬────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
Feature │Premier League Case │Top 14 Rugby Case
─────────────────┼──────────────────────────────────┼────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
**Case Number** │RG nº 25/12499 │RG nº 25/10983
─────────────────┼──────────────────────────────────┼────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
**Plaintiffs** │Canal+ entities │Canal+ entities and the Ligue Nationale de Rugby (LNR) as intervener
─────────────────┼──────────────────────────────────┼────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
**Targeted │Premier League (2025/2026 season) │Top 14 Rugby (2025/2026 season)
Content** │ │
─────────────────┼──────────────────────────────────┼────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
**Domains │16 pirate domains │16 domains initially listed (one rejected)
Targeted** │ │
─────────────────┼──────────────────────────────────┼────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
**Duration of │Until May 24, 2026 (end of season)│Until June 27, 2026 (end of season)
Block** │ │
─────────────────┴──────────────────────────────────┴────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────

## ProtonVPN Fought Back Hard

While Proton was excluded from the legal process in Spain, the Swiss company was allowed to defend itself before the Paris court. This is precisely what it did, with the VPN provider raising a wide variety of defenses.

The VPN provider raised jurisdictional questions and also requested to see evidence that Canal+ owned all the rights at play. However, these concerns didn’t convince the court.

The same applies to Proton’s net neutrality defense, which argued that Article 333-10 of the French sports code, which is at the basis of all blocking orders, violates EU Open Internet Regulation. This defense was too vague, the court concluded, noting that Proton cited the regulation without specifying which provisions were actually breached.

“Under these circumstances, the argument is unfounded. There is no basis for granting Proton’s subsidiary claim of non-compliance with European law,” the court concluded.

Additionally, Proton argued that forcing a Swiss company to block content for French users restricts cross-border trade in services under the WTO’s [General Agreement on Trade in Services][3]. The court dismissed this argument, as the proposed blocking measures are limited in scope and duration, which should be allowed under the WTO agreement.

## Overblocking Concerns Dismissed

Proton’s defense didn’t stop there; the company also argued that the blocking measures are technically unrealizable, costly, and unnecessarily complex.

Crucially, the VPN provider argued that a block cannot be technically restricted to France. Therefore, forcing the company to block these domains in France would effectively force an international, global blockade, which is highly disproportionate to the localized rights Canal+ holds.

The Paris Court was not swayed by these technical and cost-related concerns, including the fears of a global blockade.

“It must be noted that no quantifiable and verifiable technical evidence corroborates the technical difficulties of implementation cited by the defense,” the court concluded.

## The Battle Continues

While ProtonVPN was allowed to defend itself, unlike in Spain, the end result is similar. The VPN provider has to block access to the 31 domain names.

That said, the court didn’t grant Canal+ everything it asked for. The broadcaster wanted ProtonVPN to publish the ruling on its website for three months, but the court concluded that this would unfairly put the VPN provider in a bad light, disproportionately associating it with the pirate sites. Canal+’s €30,000 cost claim didn’t survive either.

Both orders are dynamic in nature, meaning that rightsholders can report new pirate domains or mirror sites directly to ARCOM, the French media regulator. After ARCOM verifies these new domains, ProtonVPN has to add them to their blocklist.

The legal battle over VPN blocking is far from over yet. Proton previously said it would take VPN blocking to Europe’s highest court.

Meanwhile, however, French rightsholders show no sign of slowing down. These two Proton orders came alongside a parallel Google DNS blocking order for the same Premier League domains, as well a massive ISP blocking order covering 150+ IPTV domains.

At this point, the question isn’t whether French courts will keep ordering VPN blocks. They will. The question is whether Europe’s highest court will eventually set any limits or not.

*—*

*

Copies of the court orders (in French) are linked below, alongside all targeted domain names.

**[Premier League Case][4] (16 Domains):**

– abbasport.online
– antenaplanet.store
– antenawest.store
– daddylive.dad
– foot22.ru
– miztv.top
– tous-sports.ru
– andrenalynrushplay.cfd
– vidembed.re
– bleedfilter.net
– alldownplay.xyz
– catchthrust.net
– 4kultramedia.fr
– smart.stella.cx
– franceiptvabonnement.fr
– slayvision.xyz

**[Top 14 Rugby Case][5] (15 Domains):**

– abbasport.online
– antenashop.site
– antenawest.store
– canalsport.ru
– daddylive2.top
– sporttuna.click
– antenaplanet.store
– veplay.top
– catchthrust.net
– lefttoplay.xyz
– home.sporttuna.vip
– sporttuna.website
– zukiplay.cfd
– iptv-pro.co
– atlaspro.tv

*

*(Additionally, here is the simultaneous [Google DNS order][6] that targets the same 16 Premier League domains, and the massive ISP order targets [roughly 150+ domains][7] tied to seven major IPTV operations).*

From: [TF][8], for the latest news on copyright battles, piracy and more.

[1]: #domains
[2]:
[3]: https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/serv_e/gatsintr_e.htm
[4]: https://torrentfreak.com/images/tribunal-judiciaire_n°2512499_28_01_2026.pdf
[5]: https://torrentfreak.com/images/tribunal-judiciaire_n°2510983_29_01_2026.pdf
[6]: https://torrentfreak.com/images/tribunal-judiciaire_n°2512368_28_01_2026.pdf
[7]: https://torrentfreak.com/images/tribunal-judiciaire_n°2514258_29_01_2026.pdf
[8]: https://torrentfreak.com/

https://torrentfreak.com/protonvpn-fights-french-pirate-site-blockades-but-court-rejects-overblocking-fears/

Ukraine Paves the Way for Pirate Site Blocking, Despite Ongoing ...

2026-02-20T13:28:53+01:00

Ukraine Paves the Way for Pirate Site Blocking, Despite Ongoing War

[ukraine]Every year, the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative ([USTR][1]) invites governments and copyright holders to share input for its [Special 301 Report][2], which identifies countries that fail to protect copyrights.

For many years, Ukraine was a regular entry on this list, seen as a safe haven for pirate sites by rightsholders. The IIPA, for one, called for [sanctions and the suspension of trade benefits][3], while the MPAA and RIAA routinely flagged Ukraine-hosted sites in their annual filings.

In previous years, Ukraine has made progress on the anti-piracy front, but, since Russia’s full-scale invasion in February 2022, the USTR has [suspended its annual review of Ukraine][4]. The country had other, more existential priorities, after all.

However, that hasn’t stopped Ukraine from taking steps forward. In a 25-page submission ahead of the 2026 Special 301 Report, the Ukrainian government details a broad range of IP reforms it has pursued despite the ongoing war.

## Paving the Way for Site Blocking

Among the most notable items in Ukraine’s submission is a set of proposed copyright amendments that would implement Article 8(3) of the EU’s Copyright Directive (2001/29/EC). The provision allows rightsholders to seek injunctions against intermediaries whose services are used by third parties to infringe copyright. This essentially is the [framework for Europe’s ISP site-blocking efforts][5].

While Ukraine is not part of the European Union, it informed the U.S. that it will use this EU framework for the planned amendments, which are “intended to strengthen anti-piracy mechanisms, enhance the effectiveness of judicial enforcement, and ensure the prompt cessation of copyright and related rights infringements on the Internet.”

Notably, Ukraine’s submission doesn’t explicitly mention ISP blocking, but cites website owners and/or hosting service providers instead.

*From Ukraine’s Submission*
[ukraine]

The proposals are part of a broader package of copyright amendments, which bring Ukraine’s policies in line with EU directives. Other changes address additional compensation for authors and performers, and an extension of the term of protection for performances and phonograms to 70 years.

## A Decade of Broken Promises?

Ukraine has proposed site blocking legislation before. In October 2015, the Cabinet of Ministers [approved a draft law][6] that explicitly included provisions for “restriction of access” to infringing content, along with heavy fines for non-compliant services. At the time, officials said that the bill was designed to avoid U.S. economic sanctions and bring Ukraine’s legislation “into line with EU countries.”

That law never made it through parliament. However, the current proposals arrive in a different context. Ukraine is now an EU candidate country, actively preparing to bring their legislation in line with the EU. Meanwhile, the U.S. interests are also kept in mind. The submission notes that a representative of the American Chamber of Commerce in Ukraine is involved in the process too.

## WIPO ALERT and the Ad-Revenue Approach

While ISP blocking is no reality yet, Ukraine already operates an active anti-piracy mechanism by taking part in [WIPO ALERT][7], a program that targets the advertising revenue of pirate sites. In 2025, UANIPIO received 17 applications from rightsholders and included 15 websites in the national advertising blocklist, which is shared with the WIPO database.

Ukraine’s [Clear Sky initiative][8], run by a coalition of local media companies, has been a driving force behind these efforts. The group has also pushed for the blocking of hundreds of pirate and pro-Russian streaming sites under Ukraine’s Media Law, which prohibits the distribution of “aggressor state” media services.

According to recent reports, more than[ 570 websites][9] have been blocked by Ukrainian ISPs under this framework. That mechanism is rooted in national security and media regulation, not copyright law. The proposed EU Directive-based amendments would create a separate, copyright-specific site-blocking tool.

## The American Irony

Ukraine and other countries are gladly reporting their pirate site blocking progress to the USTR, signaling the progress that they make when it comes to copyright protections. Interestingly, however, the United States itself still lacks a pirate site blocking regime.

Over the past year, several [site-blocking bills][10] have been proposed by U.S. lawmakers, Rep. Zoe Lofgren’s [FADPA bill][11] that was first announced in January 2025. However, these have yet to move forward.

We expect that the American proposals will move forward this year, as lawmakers previously indicated that they would like to see site-blocking legislation implemented during the current Congress session, which ends in a few months.

Meanwhile, Ukraine will continue to fight battles on multiple fronts. The 25-page USTR submission addresses a wide variety of IP enforcement efforts to show that, despite facing existential threats, Ukraine continues to pay attention to its place in the international IP system.

—

A copy of Ukraine’s USTR submission is available [here][12] (pdf).

From: [TF][13], for the latest news on copyright battles, piracy and more.

[1]: https://ustr.gov/
[2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_301_Report/
[3]: https://torrentfreak.com/ukraine-faces-call-us-trade-sanctions-over-online-piracy-170918/
[4]: https://ustr.gov/about/policy-offices/press-office/press-releases/2025/april/ustr-releases-2025-special-301-report-intellectual-property-protection-and-enforcement
[5]: https://www.lexgo.be/en/news-and-articles/2372-european-court-of-justice-specifies-conditions-under-article-8-3-of-the-copyright-directive-governing-an-injunction-against-isps
[6]: https://torrentfreak.com/ukraine-copyright-amendments-aim-to-please-united-states-151024/
[7]: https://torrentfreak.com/ukraine-commits-to-piracy-crackdown-draws-up-blacklist-joins-wipo-alert-240328/
[8]: https://torrentfreak.com/advertising-on-pirate-sites-outlawed-in-ukraine-under-new-law-230920/
[9]: https://media.1plus1.ua/en/news/v-ukrayini-zablokuvali-ponad-550-piratskix-i-prorosiiskix-saitiv-zvit-iniciativi-ciste-nebo
[10]: https://torrentfreak.com/u-s-senators-introduce-new-pirate-site-blocking-bill-block-beard/
[11]: https://torrentfreak.com/new-bill-aims-to-block-foreign-pirate-sites-in-the-u-s-250129/
[12]: https://torrentfreak.com/images/USTR-2025-UKRAINE.pdf
[13]: https://torrentfreak.com/

https://torrentfreak.com/ukraine-paves-the-way-for-pirate-site-blocking-despite-ongoing-war/

DISH Sues ‘DMTN IPTV’ in $21m Piracy Lawsuit; Operator Posed ...

2026-02-18T23:35:41+01:00

DISH Sues ‘DMTN IPTV’ in $21m Piracy Lawsuit; Operator Posed as Breaking Bad Creator

[[elkas]][1]With the continued growth of pirate IPTV services in recent years, TV broadcasters and distributors have been ramping up their anti-piracy efforts.

The International Broadcaster Coalition Against Piracy ([IBCAP][2]) has been particularly active. It’s also the main driver behind a new lawsuit filed yesterday by [DISH Network][3] at a New York federal court.

## Dish Sues Pirate IPTV Operation

The American pay-TV provider accuses Moroccan resident Idriss Elkasmi and various unnamed defendants of running the IPTV operation, using various brands, including DMTN IPTV, Idriss Premium TV and Manx TV.

These services allegedly offered access to thousands of live channels and up to 100,000 movies and series on demand.

*100,000+ movies and series*
[100k]

In addition, the complaint names Ali Ezzaary and various John Does as co-defendants. They allegedly promoted and enabled access to the pirate IPTV services as secondary infringers by collecting payments, among other things.

*The complaint*
[maroc complaint]

Dish has been aware of the IPTV services for years already and repeatedly issued takedown notices, hoping to stop the infringing activity. However, that didn’t yield the desired result, after which Dish decided to take legal action.

“Even after receiving 68 cease-and-desist notices from DISH between 2021 and 2026, Elkasmi and the other Defendants have defiantly continued to operate the Infringing Service, willfully infringing DISH’s copyrights on a massive scale with actual knowledge that their activities are unlawful,” the complaint reads.

## Leather Backpack & Breaking Bad

According to the International Broadcaster Coalition Against Piracy (IBCAP), which coordinates the legal action on behalf of Dish, the operators also used various deceptive tactics to hide the nature of their operation.

When an undercover Dish investigator purchased an IPTV subscription, Elkasmi’s WhatsApp account sent instructions to send the payment to another business called “Genuine Leather”.

When finalized, the investigator received a receipt falsely stating the purchase was for a “Philos Brown Leather BackPack.” Soon after, the same investigator received working credentials to access the pirate IPTV service.

As DISH’s investigative activity intensified ahead of filing, Elkasmi allegedly took additional steps to obscure his identity. He took down his LinkedIn profile and replaced his Facebook profile photo with an image of someone else entirely.

“The new photo used by Defendant Elkasmi is in fact an image of a famous Hollywood director named Vince Gilligan, who gained notoriety as the creator of a popular television show called ‘Breaking Bad,’ as well as its spinoff, ‘Better Call Saul.’ The same image appears on Mr. Gilligan’s IMDB page,” the complaint reads.

“There is no indication that Mr. Gilligan has any connection whatsoever to Defendant Elkasmi or the Infringing Service,” the complaint adds.

*Fakebook profile*
[[vince]][4]

## $21 Million & a Broad Injunction

The lawsuit mentions that at least 145 registered copyrighted works were infringed, and DISH seeks the maximum of $150,000 in statutory copyright infringement damages for each, totaling over $21 million.

Beyond the multi-million damages figure, DISH requests a permanent injunction and the transfer of domains including dmtn4k.com, dmtn-tv.net, and dmtn8k.com. In addition, it would like the injunction to cover third parties enabling the service. That includes hosting providers, CDNs, ISPs, and payment processors.

*One of the IPTV portals*
[iptv]

IBCAP executive director Chris Kuelling said the organization expects the case to follow the pattern of previous successful actions. In addition to a victory in court, he hopes that intermediaries, ranging from payment providers to CDNs, will help to keep the IPTV services offline.

“In line with past lawsuit wins, we expect a similar outcome in this case, including a broad injunction that can be enforced against third parties, such as hosting providers, CDNs, ISPs, and payment processors, to stop this infringement,” Kuelling said.

The involvement of third-party intermediaries could be key, as the Moroccan defendants have not been very responsive thus far. They allegedly ignored previous takedown requests from rightsholders in the past, so there’s a realistic chance that they will not appear in court either.

As of the filing date, dmtn8k.com and dmtniptv.net remain active, and these services continue to operate.

*
—-*

* *

*A copy of the complaint filed by Dish Network at the Southern District of New York is available [here (pdf)][5].*

From: [TF][6], for the latest news on copyright battles, piracy and more.

[1]:
[2]: https://www.ibcap.org/
[3]: https://www.dish.com/
[4]:
[5]: https://torrentfreak.com/images/dish-dmtn.pdf
[6]: https://torrentfreak.com/

https://torrentfreak.com/dish-sues-dmtn-iptv-in-21m-piracy-lawsuit-operator-posed-as-breaking-bad-creator/

Spanish Court Orders ProtonVPN and NordVPN to Block Pirate ...

2026-02-17T22:02:27+01:00

Spanish Court Orders ProtonVPN and NordVPN to Block Pirate Football Streams

[laliga]VPNs have long been a thorn in the side of LaLiga, as they are used to circumvent the ISP blocking measures it has spent years securing in local courts.

To address this problem, the Spanish football league has recently gone to court to target the VPNs themselves.

Today, the Commercial Court No. 1 of Córdoba granted LaLiga and its broadcasting partner Telefónica Audiovisual Digital (TAD) an emergency injunction, targeting [NordVPN][1] and [ProtonVPN][2]. The VPN companies must block IP addresses linked to illegal streaming of LaLiga matches, making these inaccessible from Spain.

The orders offer no immediate appeal option, according to [El Economista][3], and there is one significant caveat. Neither VPN company was present in court when the ruling was handed down.

## VPNs Not Heard

The court orders were issued *inaudita parte*, which is Latin for “without hearing the other side.” Citing urgency, the Córdoba court did not give NordVPN and ProtonVPN the opportunity to contest the measures before they were granted.

Without a defense, the court reportedly concluded that both NordVPN and ProtonVPN actively advertise their ability to bypass geo-restrictions, citing match schedules in their marketing materials. The VPNs are therefore seen as active participants in the piracy chain rather than passive conduits, according to local media reports.

The order is dynamic, which means that LaLiga and Telefónica can update the list of IP addresses the VPNs must block at any time, when new illegal streams are identified. In practice, this would require NordVPN and ProtonVPN to continuously receive and apply new blocklists during live match windows, effectively mirroring the real-time blocking infrastructure already imposed on Spanish ISPs.

In the past, Spanish blocking measures have been [heavily criticized][4], as they also affected innocent parties that shared IP addresses with pirate services.

The court acknowledged this risk. It obligated LaLiga and Telefónica to preserve sufficient digital evidence that the IPs they report are genuinely tied to illegal content, a requirement designed to reduce collateral damage. It is not immediately clear how effectively this will prevent overblocking.

## “We Have Not Been Formally Notified”

ProtonVPN apparently learned about the ruling from news reports, the same way everyone else did.

“We have become aware of recent reports concerning legal proceedings in Spain that may affect VPN services, including Proton VPN,” the company [wrote on X][5]. “At this stage, we were not aware of any proceedings that may have been underway prior to these reports coming to light and have not been formally notified of any proceedings or judgment.”

The company questions whether the order has any legal validity at all.

“Spanish courts, like all courts operating under the rule of law, are bound by procedural safeguards that ensure parties are given a fair opportunity to present their case before any binding judgment is rendered,” the VPN company noted.

[proton response]

NordVPN, speaking to Spanish tech outlet [Bandaancha][6], called the approach “unacceptable” and also confirmed that it had not been involved in any legal proceedings in Spain.

## Outside EU Jurisdiction

While the current orders are a first in Spain, we have seen similar blocking injunctions in France already. In May 2025, the Paris Judicial Court [ordered][7] five major VPN providers to block access to more than 200 illegal sports streaming sites, and [similar orders followed][8].

In France, the orders are still under appeal. What options are available in Spain is unclear, however. The providers can comply, but they might also explore indirect options to challenge the injunctions, including jurisdictional concerns.

Enforcing the order is far from straightforward. ProtonVPN is operated by Proton AG, a Swiss company based in Geneva. NordVPN is operated by Nord Security, incorporated in Panama. Neither country is an EU member state.

This jurisdiction issue raises significant questions about enforcement. While the court has ordered the rulings to be translated and sent to the companies’ headquarters, it remains unclear what leverage a Spanish commercial court has over entities in Panama or Switzerland.

For now, the orders are in effect, and the companies are officially on notice. Whether any football match in Spain will actually become harder to pirate as a result remains to be seen, but [LaLiga is pleased][9] with the outcome and called it a landmark victory.

*—*

* *

*The original court filing from Juzgado Mercantil No. 1 de Córdoba was not immediately available to us.*

From: [TF][10], for the latest news on copyright battles, piracy and more.

[1]: https://nordvpn.com/
[2]: https://protonvpn.com/
[3]: https://www.eleconomista.es/telecomunicaciones/noticias/13780155/02/26/el-juez-bloquea-el-futbol-pirata-que-regatea-las-restricciones-geograficas-de-internet.html
[4]: https://torrentfreak.com/piracy-blocking-victims-empowered-by-platform-which-aims-to-make-laliga-pay-250922/
[5]: https://x.com/ProtonVPN/status/2023737986899472551
[6]: https://bandaancha.eu/articulos/laliga-telefonica-escalan-bloqueos-11668
[7]: https://torrentfreak.com/french-court-orders-vpns-to-block-more-pirate-sites-rejects-eu-court-referral/
[8]: https://torrentfreak.com/french-court-orders-popular-vpns-to-block-more-pirate-sites-despite-opposition/
[9]: https://www.laliga.com/en-GB/news/information-note-on-the-precautionary-measures-granted-to-laliga-against-nordvpn-and-protonvpn
[10]: https://torrentfreak.com/

https://torrentfreak.com/spanish-court-orders-protonvpn-and-nordvpn-to-block-pirate-football-streams/

ACE Targets Pirate Streaming Site ‘HDFull’ Through Cloudflare ...

2026-02-17T19:12:54+01:00

ACE Targets Pirate Streaming Site ‘HDFull’ Through Cloudflare and Discord Subpoenas

[hdfull logo]HDFull is a pirate streaming portal that has served Spanish-speaking audiences for years, offering a massive library of movies and TV shows.

Despite being the target of court-ordered ISP blocks in Spain [going back to 2018][1], the site has proven remarkably resilient, hopping from domain to domain to stay accessible.

The site also maintained an active Discord community, “HDFull Oficial,” with roughly 33,000 members. However, while the main site remained operating, the Discord server abruptly disappeared last week.

On February 11, HDFull’s official X account [posted a message][2] informing users that there was an ‘issue’ with the original Discord community, directing them to a newly created replacement server.

*HDFull’s message (translated)*
[hdfullnew]

The admins and moderators of the site and Discord server didn’t go into detail on this apparent ‘issue,’ but it didn’t take long before the culprit was identified. As it turns out, [anti-piracy group ACE][3] requested Discord to take action.

## DMCA Subpoena Targets Discord

On February 13, the MPA filed a request for a DMCA subpoena at the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, targeting Discord. On behalf of ACE members Warner Bros. and Universal, MPA asked the company to identify two key users who operated the HDFull Oficial server.

The targeted accounts belong to the Discord user “hdfull”, who appears to be the server owner and primary moderator, and “xenus9999”, a moderator with “Mod” and “Uploaders” roles.

The filing includes a DMCA notice sent to Discord on February 9, two days before the server went dark. This notice explicitly asks Discord to disable the HDFull server, which is precisely what happened.

The notice came with a 23-page exhibit documenting the server’s activities in detail. Screenshots show the “hdfull” account sharing direct links to infringing streams of Warner Bros.’ The Batman and It Chapter Two on the HDFull website. The “xenus9999” account allegedly posted links to The Batman and Universal’s Furious 7.

*Batman link.. (click to enlarge)*
[[batman]][4]

Through the DMCA subpoena, ACE asks Discord to hand over names, physical addresses, IP addresses, telephone numbers, and email addresses for the individuals behind both accounts.

## Cloudflare Subpoena Targets 19 Domains

The Discord subpoena was not the only filing submitted by MPA and ACE last Friday. They filed a separate DMCA subpoena at the Central District of California Court, targeting Cloudflare. This subpoena seeks to unmask the operators of 19 pirate streaming domains, including HDFull.org.

Cloudflare is asked to identify the customers connected to the pirate site accounts, with the MPA citing various copyright-infringing links that appear on these platforms.

*Cloudflare subpoena*
[subpoena]

The 19 targeted domains are noticeably diverse, covering multiple languages and regions. For example, in addition to English portals, they include the German streaming veteran [kinox.to][5], mirrors of Spanish-language site Pelisflix, Turkish streaming sites, and an Arabic anime portal, among others.

**Cloudflare domains targeted:** cinego.co, hdfull.org, sflix.fi, soap2day.fi, soap2day.day, kinox.to, pelisflix1.help, pelisflix1.best, pelisflix1.club, anime4up.rest, motchiill.la, motchillk.la, motchillk.ac, 456movie.net, hdfilmcehennemi.nl, vduapk.com, dizigom104.com, pstream.mov, streamingunity.tv

The pirated titles range from recent blockbusters like Moana 2, Gladiator 2, Nobody 2, and Venom: The Last Dance, to older catalog titles including Tenet, Frozen II, The Lion King, and Tangled.

For all 19 domains, Cloudflare is asked to provide names, physical addresses, IP addresses, telephone numbers, email addresses, payment information, account updates, and account histories. While many pirate sites are known to share false data, ACE hopes to find sufficient information to expose some of the operations.

## HDFull’s Long and Resilient History

HDFull has been a thorn in Hollywood’s side for the better part of a decade. In 2018, following complaints from Disney, Fox, Paramount, Sony, Universal, and Warner, [a court in Barcelona ordered][6] Spanish ISPs including Telefónica, Vodafone, and Orange to block the site along with fellow pirate portal Repelis.tv.

The site responded by doing what many pirate sites do: going on a domain hopping spree.

The court filing’s exhibit documents this in vivid detail. [Screenshots][7] from the Discord server show the “hdfull” account periodically posting updated lists of working domains for its users. An October 2025 screenshot shows at least 13 active mirror domains, from hdfull.org and hdfull.one to hdfull.love, hdfull.monster, and hdfull.buzz.

*Presented evidence*
[[hdfull]][8]

The Discord server, in other words, helped to evade the very ISP blocks that courts had ordered. Other messages also recommend Spanish users install Cloudflare’s WARP VPN to circumvent blocks imposed by their internet providers.
This dual role, as both a community hub and an anti-blocking tool, likely made the Discord server a key target for ACE.

## What Happens Next?

Both subpoenas have yet to be signed off on by a court clerk. Interestingly, the Discord subpoena requires a response by February 27, “2025” rather than 2026. The request for subpoena and the declaration were also signed and dated February 13, *2025*, suggesting that the MPA is struggling to adapt to the new year. These errors will have to be corrected.

*Wrong date*
[wrong date]

Whether Cloudflare and Discord will comply without resistance remains to be seen, but both companies are usually responsive to valid subpoenas issued by a U.S. court.

ACE has used this playbook before. Late last year, the MPA filed a [similar DMCA subpoena][9] targeting Discord over pirate streaming site OnionPlay, successfully getting the server shut down while seeking to unmask its operator.

For HDFull’s operators, being targeted from multiple directions at once likely puts them on high alert. For now, however, the site remains online, with over a dozen operational backup domains in place. In addition, the team has set up a new Discord server to replace the one that was taken down.

*—*

* *

*A copy of the Discord DMCA subpoena request, filed at the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, is available[ here (pdf)][10]. The Cloudflare DMCA subpoena request, filed at the Central District of California, is available [here (pdf)][11].*

From: [TF][12], for the latest news on copyright battles, piracy and more.

[1]: https://torrentfreak.com/spanish-authorities-launch-new-campaign-to-block-pirate-websites-180223/
[2]: https://x.com/HDFulloficial/status/2021701361088299025
[3]: https://www.alliance4creativity.com/
[4]:
[5]: https://torrentfreak.com/court-orders-vodafone-to-block-pirate-streaming-portal-kinox-180216/
[6]: https://torrentfreak.com/court-orders-spanish-isps-to-block-pirate-sites-for-hollywood-180216/
[7]:
[8]:
[9]: https://torrentfreak.com/mpa-shut-down-onionplays-discord-tries-to-unmask-pirate-site-operator/
[10]: https://torrentfreak.com/images/discoreq.pdf
[11]: https://torrentfreak.com/images/mpacloud031147003353.pdf
[12]: https://torrentfreak.com/

https://torrentfreak.com/ace-targets-pirate-streaming-site-hdfull-through-cloudflare-and-discord-subpoenas/

South Korea Seeks Multilingual Talent to Hunt Down K-Content ...

2026-02-14T08:09:22+01:00

South Korea Seeks Multilingual Talent to Hunt Down K-Content Piracy

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

While several large piracy platforms such as [Noonoo and TVWIKI][1] have been shut down, new threats continue to emerge.

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

While anti-piracy efforts increasingly turn into an AI-assisted arms race, human involvement remains valuable too. In fact, the Korea Copyright Protection Agency ([KCOPA][2]) is actively recruiting more people to help monitor foreign language pirate sites.

In the current [application round][3], KCOPA is hoping to add 25 people. These ‘K-Copyright Monitors,’ as they are called, will be paired with the agency’s automated detection systems to track down pirated Korean content overseas. The initiative, now in its fourth year, helps to flag foreign pirate sites early.

*K-Copyright Monitors*
[dejtookrjob]

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

## Malware, Viruses & Minimum Wage

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

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

From the application
[copy monitor]

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

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

## Why Humans Still Matter

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

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

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

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

## 240,000 Links Deleted

The ten languages are picked based on survey data, identifying the foreign languages where [Korean Wave][4] content is most prevalent. According to KCOPA, the K-Copyright Monitors have been quite effective over the years.

Since the program started, link deletions have increased every year. In 2025 alone, approximately 240,000 pirated links were removed, KCOPA notes in a [press release][5] this week.

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

—-

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

From: [TF][6], for the latest news on copyright battles, piracy and more.

[1]: https://torrentfreak.com/piracy-kingpin-behind-noonoo-tv-and-tvwiki-arrested-in-korea-241112/
[2]: https://www.kcopa.or.kr/
[3]: https://www.spc.or.kr/ko/notification/noti/sw_sub411?no=1420
[4]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_Wave
[5]: https://www.kcopa.or.kr/lay1/bbs/S1T12C38/F/38/view.do?article_seq=7311&cpage=1&rows=10&condition=&keyword=
[6]: https://torrentfreak.com/

https://torrentfreak.com/south-korea-seeks-multilingual-talent-to-hunt-down-k-content-piracy/

Argentina Blocks Pirate Streaming Services Magis TV and Xuper TV, ...

2026-02-12T21:26:53+01:00

Argentina Blocks Pirate Streaming Services Magis TV and Xuper TV, VPN Usage Skyrockets

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

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

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

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

## 70+ Domains Blocked, Apps Go Dark

On February 10 and 11, thousands of Argentine users [discovered][1] that Magis TV and its successor Xuper TV had stopped working entirely. Channel lists wouldn’t load, connections timed out, and in some cases, the apps completely vanished from smart TVs and mobile devices.

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

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

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

The court order is part of a broader enforcement action, led by Argentina’s Specialized Unit on Cybercrime (UFEIC) under prosecutor Musso. According to [La Nación][2] and [Cadena 3][3], the investigation included raids and the seizure of hundreds of TV Boxes. Those identified as responsible face up to six years in prison.

Before the full block hit, the platforms reportedly tried to limit their exposure by [deleting all Argentine channels][4]. However, that clearly didn’t work.

## Operación 404

The Argentinian enforcement is part of [Operación 404][5], an international anti-piracy operation led by Brazil’s Ministry of Justice that has previously coordinated raids and domain seizures across Latin America.

[TVs]

Coinciding with the Argentinian actions, Chile’s Department of Telecommunications [ordered][6] ISPs to block all sites using the brands Magis Tv, Flujo TV, Xuper TV or their variants. That includes “any domain, subdomain, IP address, link, redirect or mirror” that reproduces the content. The dynamic blocking order gives ISPs five days to comply.

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

## The Milei/Trump IP Agreement

The timing of the anti-piracy actions might not be coincidental. On February 5, Argentina and the United States [signed][7] a trade and investment agreement that includes [explicit commitments][8] on intellectual property enforcement.

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

The United States reportedly [lodged more than 100 copyright-related demands][9] in the negotiations. Article 1.10 specifically commits Argentina to “investigate and bring criminal proceedings against operators of Argentina-based websites that engage in commercial-scale copyright piracy.”

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

## VPN Interest Spikes

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

On February 10, [Proton VPN’s account on X][10] posted a graph showing a sharp spike in Argentine connections, asking: [“Is everything okay in Argentina?”][11]

Apparently, pirates quickly began [sharing workarounds][12] on social media. A common one involves installing ProtonVPN, connecting to a Mexican server, then reopening Magis TV or Xuper TV. In some cases, the apps work again via the VPN.

Others are [changing DNS settings][13] on their smart TVs manually, though this is reportedly becoming less effective. According to FayerWayer, rights protection systems are now using AI to identify pirate IPTV traffic in real time, leaving users who reconnect with constant interruptions and degraded quality.

## What’s Next

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

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

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

From: [TF][14], for the latest news on copyright battles, piracy and more.

[1]: https://www.infobae.com/tecno/2026/02/11/xuper-tv-y-magis-tv-dejan-de-funcionar-tras-un-bloqueo-judicial-masivo-en-argentina/
[2]: https://www.lanacion.com.ar/tecnologia/adios-a-magis-tv-y-xuper-tv-por-que-bloquearon-todos-los-canales-de-argentina-nid10022026/
[3]: https://www.cadena3.com/noticia/sociedad/fin-de-la-pirateria-el-motivo-detras-del-bloqueo-de-magis-tv-y-xuper-tv_518185
[4]: https://www.eldestapeweb.com/cultura/television/despues-del-bloqueo-magis-tv-y-xuper-tv-boraron-los-canales-argentinos-202628222045
[5]: https://www.bragadoinforma.com.ar/nota/29768/adios-a-magis-tv-y-xuper-tv-el-quot-apagon-quot-masivo-que-deja-a-miles-de-usuarios-sin-senales-piratas.html
[6]: https://www.latercera.com/pulso/noticia/subtel-ordena-a-proveedores-de-internet-bloquear-a-magis-tv-y-todas-sus-versiones/
[7]: https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/argentina-and-us-sign-major-trade-deal-targeting-tariffs-and-boosting-political-alliance
[8]: https://piracymonitor.org/us-argentina-trade-agreement-specifies-intellectual-property-anti-piracy-protections/
[9]: https://www.minutouno.com/tecno/magis-tv-xuper-tv-futbol-libre-y-pelota-libre-seran-bloqueados-argentina-el-acuerdo-eeuu-n6243847
[10]: https://www.cronica.com.ar/sociedad/tras-el-bloqueo-de-magis-tv-y-otras-plataformas-ilegales-se-disparo-el-uso-de-vpn/
[11]: https://x.com/ProtonVPN/status/2021027758919516668
[12]: https://noticiasargentinas.com/interes-general/el-truco-para-seguir-usando-magis-tv-y-xuper-tv-en-argentina_a698b9be4c331fb2518e9f310
[13]: https://www.fayerwayer.com/entretenimiento/2026/02/11/el-truco-para-seguir-usando-magis-tv-y-xuper-tv-en-argentina-una-solucion-temporal-cargada-de-riesgos/
[14]: https://torrentfreak.com/

https://torrentfreak.com/argentina-blocks-pirate-streaming-services-magis-tv-and-xuper-tv-vpn-usage-skyrockets/

Anna’s Archive Quietly ‘Releases’ Millions of Spotify ...

2026-02-11T10:45:22+01:00

Anna’s Archive Quietly ‘Releases’ Millions of Spotify Tracks, Despite Legal Pushback

[spotify dice][Anna’s Archive][1] is generally known as a meta-search engine for shadow libraries, helping users find pirated books and other related resources.

However, last December, the site announced that it had also [backed up Spotify][2], which came as a shock to the music industry.

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

Through a preliminary injunction targeting domain registrars and registries, the shadow library lost several domain names. However, not all were taken down, and with the addition of a new [Greenland-based backup][3], the site apparently pushed through with the feared Spotify data release.

## Millions of Music Files

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

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

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

*Some of the torrent data*
[torrent json]

On Reddit, the mysterious releases are [actively discussed][4] in various threads. They do indeed contain music files, ranging from a few hundred kilobytes to several megabytes. The filenames reference what appear to be Spotify track IDs but contain no artist names or song titles. Instead, they likely match Spotify’s internal cache format.

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

*Media information*
[media information]

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

## Defying the Injunction

The release comes despite a [preliminary injunction][5] signed by Judge Jed Rakoff on January 16. That order explicitly prohibited Anna’s Archive from hosting, linking to, or distributing the copyrighted works, and also targeted third-party intermediaries, including domain registries, hosting companies, and Cloudflare.

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

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

## What’s Next

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

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

The music companies already have a court-ordered injunction that compels domain name registrars and registries to make the site inaccessible. However, we have observed that companies and organizations that fall outside the U.S. jurisdiction [don’t automatically comply][6] with these.

At the time of writing, Anna’s Archive has not publicly commented on the new release yet. Spotify informed us that the company has no further comments at this time and referred us to the [preliminary injunction][7] it obtained in U.S. court last month.

From: [TF][8], for the latest news on copyright battles, piracy and more.

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anna%27s_Archive
[2]: https://torrentfreak.com/annas-archive-backed-up-spotify-plans-to-release-300tb-music-archive/
[3]: https://torrentfreak.com/annas-archive-loses-pm-domain-adds-greenland-gl-backup/
[4]: https://www.reddit.com/r/DataHoarder/comments/1qzwnze/annas_archive_releasing_spotify_torrents/
[5]: https://torrentfreak.com/spotifys-crackdown-on-annas-archive-domains-hits-a-jurisdiction-snag/
[6]: https://torrentfreak.com/annas-archive-loses-pm-domain-adds-greenland-gl-backup/
[7]: https://torrentfreak.com/spotifys-crackdown-on-annas-archive-domains-hits-a-jurisdiction-snag/
[8]: https://torrentfreak.com/

https://torrentfreak.com/annas-archive-quietly-releases-millions-of-spotify-tracks-despite-legal-pushback/

Nintendo Piracy: NXBrew and NSWPedia Targeted in European ...

2026-02-10T08:48:35+01:00

Nintendo Piracy: NXBrew and NSWPedia Targeted in European Blocking Efforts

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

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

## Dutch Dynamic ‘NXBrew’ Blocking Order

In the Netherlands, the Rotterdam District Court granted a blocking order requested by Dutch [anti-piracy group BREIN][1]. Last week, the court ordered local ISP Delta Fiber to block access to NXBrew.net, a popular platform that reportedly links to more than 12,000 pirated Nintendo Switch games.

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

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

*NXBrew*
[nxbrew]

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

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

## ISPs and Google Cooperate

While Delta Fiber was the only targeted ISP, other major Dutch Internet providers have agreed to follow suit under the [site-blocking covenant][2] that was signed in October 2021.

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

In addition to notifying all ISPs, BREIN says that it also sent Google a copy of the ruling requesting removal of NXBrew links from its search results. While not part of the covenant, the search engine is known to [voluntarily comply][3] with ISP blocking orders, even when the company itself is not named. That further increases the scope of the injunction.

## German Court Blocks NSWPedia

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

German ISPs also agreed to cooperate through the [CUII ][4](Clearing Body for Copyright on the Internet) framework, which coordinates blocking efforts between rightsholders and ISPs. Under this system, one court order triggers voluntary blocks across participating providers, similar to the Dutch scheme.

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

*NSWPedia*
[nswpedia]

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

## Transparency Concerns

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

Transparency is particularly limited in Germany, where there is no official public blocklist. This lack of openness led a German developer named Lina to create [CUIILliste.de][5], an [unofficial monitoring site][6] that has exposed several blocking errors.

In the Netherlands, some ISPs offer more transparency. This includes Delta Fiber, which provides a list of all blocked domain names. The list, which includes piracy and [Russian propaganda blocks][7], is currently a few hundred entries long and [publicly accessible][8] on the company’s website.

*—*

* *

*A copy of the CUII blocking implementation statement on NSWPedia, referencing the Cologne court order, is available [here (pdf)][9].* TorrentFreak has seen a copy of the NXBrew ruling issued by the Rotterdam Court, but it has not been published publicly yet.

From: [TF][10], for the latest news on copyright battles, piracy and more.

[1]: https://stichtingbrein.nl/
[2]: https://torrentfreak.com/brein-signs-landmark-pirate-site-blocking-agreement-with-dutch-isps-211105/
[3]: https://torrentfreak.com/dutch-court-orders-isp-to-block-music-piracy-sites-newalbumreleases-and-israbox/
[4]: https://cuii.info/en/about-us/
[5]: https://cuiiliste.de/
[6]: https://torrentfreak.com/homebrew-transparency-portal-reveals-needlessly-blocked-pirate-sites-240928/
[7]: https://torrentfreak.com/eu-ban-on-russian-war-propaganda-misfires-blocks-social-media-giants-pirate-iptv/
[8]: https://www.delta.nl/geblokkeerd/
[9]: https://torrentfreak.com/images/Stellungnahme_NWSMEDIA_14_O_323_25.pdf
[10]: https://torrentfreak.com/

https://torrentfreak.com/nintendo-piracy-nxbrew-and-nswpedia-targeted-in-european-blocking-efforts/

Top 10 Most Pirated Movies of The Week – 02/09/2026 [the ...

2026-02-09T09:57:41+01:00

Top 10 Most Pirated Movies of The Week – 02/09/2026

[the housemaid]The data for our weekly download chart is estimated by TorrentFreak, and is for informational and educational reference only.

Downloading content without permission is copyright infringement. These torrent download statistics are only meant to provide further insight into piracy trends. All data are gathered from public resources.

This week we have one newcomer on the list. “The Housemaid” is the most shared title.

## The most torrented movies for the week ending on February 9 are:

──────────┬──────────────┬────────────────────────┬──────────────────────
**Movie │**Rank last │**Movie name** │**IMDb Rating /
Rank** │week** │ │Trailer**
──────────┼──────────────┼────────────────────────┼──────────────────────
**1** │(…) │The Housemaid │[6.9][1] /
│ │ │[trailer][2]
──────────┼──────────────┼────────────────────────┼──────────────────────
**2** │(1) │Anaconda │[5.7][3] /
│ │ │[trailer][4]
──────────┼──────────────┼────────────────────────┼──────────────────────
**3** │(6) │The Wrecking Crew │[6.5][5] /
│ │ │[trailer][6]
──────────┼──────────────┼────────────────────────┼──────────────────────
**4** │(3) │Zootopia 2 │[7.6][7] /
│ │ │[trailer][8]
──────────┼──────────────┼────────────────────────┼──────────────────────
**5** │(2) │Greenland Migration │[5.3][9] /
│ │ │[trailer][10]
──────────┼──────────────┼────────────────────────┼──────────────────────
**6** │(5) │Predator: Badlands │[7.5][11] /
│ │ │[trailer][12]
──────────┼──────────────┼────────────────────────┼──────────────────────
**7** │(…) │Hamnet │[8.0][13] /
│ │ │[trailer][14]
──────────┼──────────────┼────────────────────────┼──────────────────────
**8** │(4) │The Rip │[6.9][15] /
│ │ │[trailer][16]
──────────┼──────────────┼────────────────────────┼──────────────────────
**9** │(10) │Bugonia │[7.4][17] /
│ │ │[trailer][18]
──────────┼──────────────┼────────────────────────┼──────────────────────
**10** │(7) │One Battle After Another│[8.1][19] /
│ │ │[trailer][20]
──────────┴──────────────┴────────────────────────┴──────────────────────

Note: We also publish an updating archive of all the list of [weekly most torrented movies lists][21].

From: [TF][22], for the latest news on copyright battles, piracy and more.

[1]: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt27543632/
[2]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kdDdlY2VPxw
[3]: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt33244668/
[4]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=az8M5Mai0X4
[5]: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt33046197/
[6]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v8R0xDczERo
[7]: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt26443597/
[8]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A-7RMaQaygI
[9]: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt14850054/?
[10]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hiD3zk0ZRFg
[11]: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt31227572/
[12]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=43R9l7EkJwE
[13]: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt14905854/
[14]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xYcgQMxQwmk
[15]: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt32642706/
[16]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ARU2WHyOPxE
[17]: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt12300742/
[18]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bd_5HcTujfc
[19]: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt30144839/
[20]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=feOQFKv2Lw4
[21]: https://torrentfreak.com/most-pirated-movies-of-2026-weekly-archive/
[22]: https://torrentfreak.com/

https://torrentfreak.com/top-10-most-torrented-pirated-movies/

DMCA Subpoenas Can’t Be Used for Foreign Piracy Lawsuits, Court ...

2026-02-09T09:29:08+01:00

DMCA Subpoenas Can’t Be Used for Foreign Piracy Lawsuits, Court Rules

[one piece logo]With an impressive [185 million visitors][1] per month early last year, Mangajikan was one of the largest piracy sites on the Internet.

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

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

The DMCA subpoena was granted [last October][2], despite fierce objections from Mangajikan’s former operator. However, Cloudflare could not hand anything over yet, as both sides [disagreed on the scope][3] of the associated protective order. This disagreement was finally resolved this week.

## U.S. Enforcement Only

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

Magistrate Judge Thomas S. Hixson disagreed.

In a discovery order issued this week, the court stated that the DMCA subpoena’s purpose and scope is clearly defined by the [sworn declaration][4] Shueisha made to obtain it. This legally required statement says that the subpoena “will only be used for the purpose of protecting rights under this title.”

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

*Out of Scope*
[out of scope]

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

## U.S. Lawsuit Can’t Be Used as Bypass

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

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

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

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

## No Privacy Fortress for Pirate Site Operator

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

*Excessive*
[excessive]

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

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

## What’s Next

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

*Permitted Uses*
[permitted]

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

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

*—*

* *

*A copy of Magistrate Judge Hixson’s Discovery Order is available [here (pdf)][5]. The final protective order as modified by the court is available [here (pdf)][6].*

From: [TF][7], for the latest news on copyright battles, piracy and more.

[1]: https://torrentfreak.com/piracy-giant-mangajikans-website-closed-after-185m-visits-in-may-alone-250613/
[2]: https://torrentfreak.com/manga-pirate-site-operator-fails-to-dodge-dmca-subpoena-over-cloudflare-cache/
[3]: https://torrentfreak.com/pirate-site-op-wants-shueisha-to-file-a-u-s-lawsuit-in-180-days-or-restore-their-privacy/
[4]: https://www.google.com/search?q=dmca+subpoena+requirements+%22sworn%22
[5]: https://torrentfreak.com/images/hixorder.pdf
[6]: https://torrentfreak.com/images/issuedorder.pdf
[7]: https://torrentfreak.com/

https://torrentfreak.com/dmca-subpoenas-cant-be-used-for-foreign-piracy-lawsuits-court-rules/

Research: Major Pirate Site Shutdown Boosted Visits to other ...

2026-02-07T19:50:15+01:00

Research: Major Pirate Site Shutdown Boosted Visits to other Pirate Sites (and Netflix)

[cueflix]In November 2015, Federal Police in Brazil launched Operation Blackbeard, a coordinated action to take down Latin America’s [most popular pirate site: MegaFilmesHD.net][1].

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

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

This reign ended when police made several arrests, including the site’s presumed operators, and seized several cars, cash, and bank accounts. These actions were welcomed by Hollywood’s Motion Picture Association (MPA), which had [reported the site][2] to the U.S. Trade Representative a month earlier.

*MegafilmesHD in 2015*

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

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

## Going Pirate or Going Legal?

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

For example, the “[*Gone in 60 Seconds*][3]” study found that the shutdown of Megaupload in 2012 resulted in a 6 to 10% increase in digital movie revenues for two major Hollywood studios.

However, a similar study on the demise of the German streaming portal Kino.to revealed something quite different. The “[Catch Me If You Can][4]” paper found that this shutdown had no measurable increase in legal consumption. Instead, people simply switched to new pirate sites and continued their habit.

These seemingly conflicting findings come together in a new study on the MegafilmesHD shutdown. While the associated paper doesn’t have a title inspired by a Hollywood blockbuster, it might as well have been titled “[The Equalizer][5]“.

## “The Equalizer”: MegafilmesHD Shutdown Effect

The paper in question, [published][6] by researchers of Chapman University and Carnegie Mellon University, takes a detailed look at how the online activities of Brazilian users were affected by MegafilmesHD. To do so, they examined six months worth of clickstream data of thousands of Internet users, provided by [Netquest][7].

*From Bootleg to Binge*
[bootleg to binge]

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

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

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

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

*Key results*
[results]

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

## The Wealth and Gender Gap

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

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

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

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

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

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

*—*

* *

*Danaher, B, Hersh, J, and Smith, MD. 2025. “From Bootleg to Binge: User Migration and Legal Demand Following Brazil’s MegafilmesHD Shutdown”. [Review of Economics Research on Copyright Issues][8], Vol 22, pp 1-32.*

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

From: [TF][9], for the latest news on copyright battles, piracy and more.

[1]: https://torrentfreak.com/arrests-as-police-target-latin-americas-largest-pirate-site-151119/
[2]: https://torrentfreak.com/riaa-and-mpaa-report-notorious-piracy-sites-to-u-s-government-151007/
[3]: https://torrentfreak.com/megaupload-shutdown-boosted-movie-revenues-130307/
[4]: https://research-api.cbs.dk/ws/files/57343396/j_rg_claussen_et_al_catch_me_if_you_can_acceptedversion.pdf
[5]: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0455944/
[6]: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=5800542
[7]: https://www.netquest.com/
[8]: https://www.serci.org/rerci.php
[9]: https://torrentfreak.com/

https://torrentfreak.com/research-major-pirate-site-shutdown-boosted-visits-to-other-pirate-sites-and-netflix/

Anna’s Archive Loses .PM Domain, Adds Greenland (.GL) Backup ...

2026-02-06T10:22:20+01:00

Anna’s Archive Loses .PM Domain, Adds Greenland (.GL) Backup

[greenland]Anna’s Archive has faced a barrage of domain takedowns in recent weeks, after Spotify and several major record labels [filed a high-profile lawsuit][1].

The music industry giants filed the case after the shadow library [planned to release][2] hundreds of terabytes of scraped Spotify data, including full tracks.

While [Anna’s Archive][3] has since taken its initial Spotify metadata release offline, the legal pressure hasn’t been lifted. On the contrary, the preliminary injunction issued by the New York court, targeting domain registries, registrars, and other intermediaries, has proven to be quite effective.

The [.org domain was the first to fall][4], followed by the .se and .in variants. However, not all intermediaries were eager to comply with the U.S. injunction. As we [reported last week][5], AFNIC, the French registry responsible for the .pm domain, made clear that U.S. court orders carry no direct legal weight in France.

Enforcing the injunction would require the music companies to petition a French court; as far as we know, that hasn’t happened yet. Instead, the jurisdictional barrier appears to have been sidestepped entirely through a different route.

## .PM Domain Goes Next

Earlier this week, Anna’s Archive’s .pm domain became unreachable. WHOIS records confirm that the domain now has a “blocked” status, with a hold flag preventing it from resolving.

AFNIC, the French registry responsible for the .pm extension, previously told TorrentFreak that U.S. court orders carry no direct legal weight in France. This makes it unlikely that the registry itself took action.

*.PM domain*
[pmwhois]

Instead, the suspension may have been issued on the registrar level by the Dutch company Hosting Concepts B.V., also known as [Openprovider][6]. Thus far, neither Openprovider nor AFNIC has responded to our requests for comment.

## International Pressure & U.S. Injunctions

It is clear that there is no shortage of U.S. court orders targeting Anna’s Archive. In addition to the preliminary injunction in the Spotify case, library catalog company OCLC won a default judgment and [permanent injunction][7] against the shadow library last month in the [WorldCat scraping lawsuit][8]. That order also includes provisions that could be used to target intermediaries.

As highlighted earlier, however, not all domain registries and registrars fall under the jurisdiction of U.S. courts. Because of this, rightsholders and anti-piracy groups in other countries have added their own pressure.

In the Netherlands, anti-piracy group [BREIN][9] repeatedly urged the local domain registrar Openprovider to take down the .se and .pm domains in January. Openprovider informed BREIN that it had forwarded the request for closure to its customer.

BREIN doesn’t know for certain whether its pressure led directly to the .pm domain going offline, nor is it certain that Openprovider is the party that pulled the plug. However, the result is the same.

“In any case, the result counts. It’s good that the sites are offline. These shadow libraries are very harmful to authors,” BREIN director Bastiaan van Ramshorst informed TorrentFreak.

Regardless of who took action, the .pm domain is now out of rotation. That left Anna’s Archive down to a single working domain earlier this week, but that didn’t last very long.

## Greenland Backup

According to domain records, Anna’s Archive registered [annas-archive.gl earlier this week][10]. This new domain uses Njalla’s nameservers and is registered through Immaterialism Limited, a familiar setup from the site’s working .LI domain.

*.GL domain*
[GL new]

The choice of a Greenland-based domain is notable. With ongoing tensions between Greenland and the United States, the .gl registry may not be eager to subject itself to U.S. court jurisdiction. Whether that assumption holds remains to be seen.

Previously, The Pirate Bay also moved to a .GL domain briefly. However, the Greenlandic telecoms company that [manages the registry][11] decided to [suspend it soon after][12], over alleged illegal use.

For now, Anna’s Archive continues its game of domain whack-a-mole, staying one step ahead of the takedowns for the moment. At the same time, it is expected that rightsholders will do everything in their power to maintain pressure.

From: [TF][13], for the latest news on copyright battles, piracy and more.

[1]: https://torrentfreak.com/unsealed-spotify-lawsuit-triggered-annas-archive-domain-name-suspensions/
[2]: https://torrentfreak.com/annas-archive-backed-up-spotify-plans-to-release-300tb-music-archive/
[3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anna%27s_Archive
[4]: https://torrentfreak.com/annas-archive-loses-org-domain-after-surprise-suspension/
[5]: https://torrentfreak.com/spotifys-crackdown-on-annas-archive-domains-hits-a-jurisdiction-snag/
[6]: https://www.openprovider.com/
[7]: https://torrentfreak.com/u-s-court-order-against-annas-archive-spells-more-trouble-for-the-site/
[8]: https://torrentfreak.com/lawsuit-accuses-annas-archive-of-hacking-worldcat-stealing-2-2-tb-data-240207/
[9]: https://stichtingbrein.nl/
[10]: https://www.whoxy.com/annas-archive.gl
[11]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tusass
[12]: https://torrentfreak.com/new-pirate-bay-greenland-domains-about-to-be-seized-130410/
[13]: https://torrentfreak.com/

https://torrentfreak.com/annas-archive-loses-pm-domain-adds-greenland-gl-backup/

‘Ripping’ Clips for YouTube Reaction Videos can Violate the ...

2026-02-05T13:13:22+01:00

‘Ripping’ Clips for YouTube Reaction Videos can Violate the DMCA, Court Rules

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

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

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

Specifically, music companies argue that using these stream-ripping tools violates the DMCA, as it circumvents YouTube’s copyright protection technology. This ‘rolling cipher’ can be bypassed [relatively easily][1], but it prevents regular users from downloading videos from YouTube directly.

## Creator vs. Creator

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

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

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

Without going into the nature of the videos, the lawsuit pits Christopher Cordova (*[Denver Metro Audits][2]*) against Jonathan Huneault (*[Frauditor Troll Channel][3]*). Cordova alleged that Huneault didn’t just use his copyrighted footage without permission, but that he also used “ripping” tools to bypass YouTube’s technical protection to get it.

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

[rippinf]

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

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

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

*From the order*
[order]

## Caution: Reaction Channels

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

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

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

## “No Harm, No Foul”?

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

In a statement to TorrentFreak, defense lawyer [Steven C. Vondran][4] dismisses the circumvention claims as a tactical maneuver that may eventually fall apart, as his client didn’t use a ripping tool. The attorney further argued that, if the “reaction” video of his client is fair use, there is no “injury” or harm.

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

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

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

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

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

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

*—*

* *

*A copy of the order handed down by U.S. Magistrate Judge Virginia K. DeMarchi of the Northern District of California last month is available [here (pdf)][5].*

From: [TF][6], for the latest news on copyright battles, piracy and more.

[1]: https://torrentfreak.com/deciphering-youtubes-rolling-cypher-in-your-browser-is-a-piece-of-cake-201030/
[2]: https://www.youtube.com/c/DenverMetroAudits
[3]: https://www.youtube.com/@frauditortroll
[4]: https://www.vondranlegal.com/
[5]: https://torrentfreak.com/images/Cordova-v.-Huneault-25-cv-04685-VKD-Order-on-Motion-to-Dismiss.pdf
[6]: https://torrentfreak.com/

https://torrentfreak.com/ripping-clips-for-youtube-reaction-videos-can-violate-the-dmca-court-rules/

NVIDIA: Contact With Anna’s Archive Doesn’t Prove Copyright ...

2026-02-04T10:54:01+01:00

NVIDIA: Contact With Anna’s Archive Doesn’t Prove Copyright Infringement

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

The complaint cited internal emails showing that NVIDIA [contacted Anna’s Archive][1] seeking “high-speed access” to the shadow library’s massive collection. After being warned about the illegal nature of the materials, NVIDIA executives allegedly gave the “green light” to proceed.

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

## Contact With ‘Anna’ Isn’t Enough

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

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

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

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

*Not Enough*
[annagreen]

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

## Anna’s Archive ‘Backs’ NVIDIA

It’s worth noting that after our original coverage, AnnaArchivist [weighed in on Reddit][2], stating they have not been in direct contact, suggesting the company may have used an intermediary.

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

*AnnaArchivist’s comment*
[anna]

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

## Catch-All Fishing Expedition

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

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

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

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

## No Proof Books Were Actually Used

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

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

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

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

## NVIDIA Requests Dismissal

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

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

*Dismiss*
[dismiss]

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

*—*

* *

*A copy of NVIDIA’s motion to dismiss is available [here (pdf)][3]. It is scheduled for a hearing on April 2, 2026, before Judge Jon S. Tigar in Oakland, California.*

From: [TF][4], for the latest news on copyright battles, piracy and more.

[1]: https://torrentfreak.com/nvidia-contacted-annas-archive-to-secure-access-to-millions-of-pirated-books/
[2]: https://www.reddit.com/r/Annas_Archive/comments/1qhwfrs/comment/o0pyc0a/
[3]: https://torrentfreak.com/images/nviddiss-1.pdf
[4]: https://torrentfreak.com/

https://torrentfreak.com/nvidia-contact-with-annas-archive-doesnt-prove-copyright-infringement/

U.S. Rightsholders Applaud India’s “Lock and Suspend” ...

2026-02-03T15:42:44+01:00

U.S. Rightsholders Applaud India’s “Lock and Suspend” Piracy Blockades

[iipa26]Pirate sites and services can be a real challenge for rightsholders to deal with. In India, however, recent court orders have proven to be quite effective.

Indian courts have issued pirate site blocking orders for over a decade. Initially, these orders were relatively basic, requiring local Internet providers to block specific domain names. However, these early orders have evolved quite a bit since then.

In 2023, several Hollywood studios obtained a seminal court order that significantly expanded the scope. In addition to requesting Indian Internet providers to block pirate sites, it also required domain registrars to “lock and suspend” the domain names while sharing registrant data with the rightsholders.

This broad Delhi court order became a new standard going forward. American rightsholders used it against a wide variety of pirate sites and, through this Indian route, they targeted American domain registrars such as Namecheap and Porkbun. Effectively, the Delhi High Court now has the power to take domains offline worldwide.

## U.S. Rightsholders Praise Indian Model

Thus far, U.S. rightsholders have not commented in great detail on these Indian efforts. However, the International Intellectual Property Alliance ([IIPA][1]), which represents the interests of prominent rightsholder groups, including the MPA and RIAA, recently highlighted it.

IIPA makes its remarks in its annual “[Special 301][2]” recommendation to the U.S. Trade Representative ([USTR][3]). This inquiry allows rightsholders to flag shortcomings and concerns in foreign countries.

[recomm]

The IIPA traditionally sees India as a problematic country, and this year it also recommends the USTR put it on the Priority Watch List. However, there is praise too, especially for the site-blocking efforts.

The “lock and suspend” orders, in particular, have helped to (temporarily) take out hundreds of pirate sites. This includes targets such as [Animeflix, Vegamovies][4] [Fmovies][5], SFlix, [VidSrc][6], and [many others][7].

“To date, more than 400 piracy domains have been completely wiped from the Internet, representing billions of global piracy visits,” IIPA writes.

“Rights holders are encouraged by the Delhi High Court’s progressive understanding of the technologies involved in modern digital piracy and its resolve to grant creative relief to truly tackle piracy on a global scale.”

## Effective Disruption

IIPA notes that these court orders are “unusually disruptive for pirate operators”. This is in part because they target domain names through U.S. domain registrars. This means that the impact of these court orders is felt globally.

Also, since the domain registrars are required to share the personal details of the domain registrants, these orders can help with follow-up enforcement actions.

These Delhi High Court orders have helped to tackle movie and TV-show piracy, and IIPA suggests that this is also showing in the numbers. Anime and manga are now the dominant piracy categories, with less than 30% of the top pirate sites (ex. music) focused on U.S. movies and TV content.

“This can be said to be at least in part attributable to the consistent orders being made by the Delhi High Court to disable access to all the top pirate film, TV, and streaming sites,” IIPA writes.

Additionally, IIPA highlights enforcement achievements by the local authorities. For example, the [high-profile action][8] against the alleged operator of the streaming platform iBomma, who was arrested soon after he landed at Hyderabad Airport.

## More Can Be Done

Of course, IIPA’s report isn’t just a summary of positive notes. After all, the group lists India as a high-priority threat, so there is plenty of room for improvement.

“While these promising developments raise hopes that concerted actions can have a positive impact to disrupt the piracy ecosystem, more needs to be done to ensure deterrence becomes the norm to drive would-be pirates from these damaging activities,” IIPA writes.

For example, IIPA complains that some Indian Internet Service Providers (ISPs) are slow to implement the blocking orders passed by the Delhi High Court and calls for tighter timelines.

In addition, not all foreign domain name registrars are complying with the Indian court orders. This means that the global reach of these orders remains limited.

Finally, since broad blocking orders are limited to the Delhi Court, rightsholders recommend replicating these state-level blocking successes nationally across all Indian states.

The site-blocking recommendations are just the tip of the iceberg, however. The IIPA recommends India to undertake a long list of actions, ranging from taking action against illegal camcording in movie theaters to improving the proposed Digital India Act by adding anti-piracy measures.

*IIPA’s suggested priority actions for India*
[prio]

IIPA’s conclusion is that India deserves to be called out on the USTR’s “Priority Watch List” in the upcoming Special 301 Review. Whether the U.S. government agrees has yet to be seen, but it wouldn’t be a surprise, as India has consistently been marked as a priority threat in recent years.

*—*

* *

*IIPA’s 2026 Special 301 Report on Copyright Protection and Enforcement, which includes all India references, is [available here (pdf)][9].*

From: [TF][10], for the latest news on copyright battles, piracy and more.

[1]: https://www.iipa.org/
[2]: https://ustr.gov/issue-areas/intellectual-property/special-301
[3]: https://ustr.gov/
[4]: https://torrentfreak.com/hollywood-takes-down-animeflix-vegamovies-and-others-with-broad-anti-piracy-order-240523/
[5]: https://torrentfreak.com/fmovies-and-other-piracy-streaming-giants-switch-to-new-domains-240503/
[6]: https://torrentfreak.com/global-piracy-injunction-targets-vidsrc-domains-hydra-regenerates-in-russia-251029/
[7]: https://torrentfreak.com/disney-netflix-crunchyroll-try-to-take-pirate-sites-down-globally-through-indian-court/
[8]: https://torrentfreak.com/ace-anti-piracy-coalition-takes-credit-for-sudden-mkvcinemas-shutdown-251212/
[9]: https://torrentfreak.com/images/IIPA-2026-Special-301-Comments-for-Publication-2-1.pdf
[10]: https://torrentfreak.com/

https://torrentfreak.com/u-s-rightsholders-applaud-indias-lock-and-suspend-piracy-blockades/

Top 10 Most Pirated Movies of The Week – 02/02/2026 ...

2026-02-02T12:50:42+01:00

Top 10 Most Pirated Movies of The Week – 02/02/2026

[anaconda]The data for our weekly download chart is estimated by TorrentFreak, and is for informational and educational reference only.

Downloading content without permission is copyright infringement. These torrent download statistics are only meant to provide further insight into piracy trends. All data are gathered from public resources.

This week we have one newcomer on the list. “Anaconda” is the most shared title.

## The most torrented movies for the week ending on February 2 are:

──────────┬──────────────┬────────────────────────┬──────────────────────
**Movie │**Rank last │**Movie name** │**IMDb Rating /
Rank** │week** │ │Trailer**
──────────┼──────────────┼────────────────────────┼──────────────────────
**1** │(…) │Anaconda │[5.7][1] /
│ │ │[trailer][2]
──────────┼──────────────┼────────────────────────┼──────────────────────
**2** │(…) │Greenland Migration │[5.3][3] /
│ │ │[trailer][4]
──────────┼──────────────┼────────────────────────┼──────────────────────
**3** │(2) │Zootopia 2 │[7.6][5] /
│ │ │[trailer][6]
──────────┼──────────────┼────────────────────────┼──────────────────────
**4** │(1) │The Rip │[6.9][7] /
│ │ │[trailer][8]
──────────┼──────────────┼────────────────────────┼──────────────────────
**5** │(3) │Predator: Badlands │[7.5][9] /
│ │ │[trailer][10]
──────────┼──────────────┼────────────────────────┼──────────────────────
**6** │(…) │The Wrecking Crew │[6.5][11] /
│ │ │[trailer][12]
──────────┼──────────────┼────────────────────────┼──────────────────────
**7** │(6) │One Battle After Another│[8.1][13] /
│ │ │[trailer][14]
──────────┼──────────────┼────────────────────────┼──────────────────────
**8** │(4) │Wicked: For Good │[6.8][15] /
│ │ │[trailer][16]
──────────┼──────────────┼────────────────────────┼──────────────────────
**9** │(5) │Sinners │[7.5][17] /
│ │ │[trailer][18]
──────────┼──────────────┼────────────────────────┼──────────────────────
**10** │(8) │Bugonia │[7.4][19] /
│ │ │[trailer][20]
──────────┴──────────────┴────────────────────────┴──────────────────────

Note: We also publish an updating archive of all the list of [weekly most torrented movies lists][21].

From: [TF][22], for the latest news on copyright battles, piracy and more.

[1]: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt33244668/
[2]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=az8M5Mai0X4
[3]: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt14850054/?
[4]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hiD3zk0ZRFg
[5]: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt26443597/
[6]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A-7RMaQaygI
[7]: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt32642706/
[8]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ARU2WHyOPxE
[9]: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt31227572/
[10]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=43R9l7EkJwE
[11]: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt33046197/
[12]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v8R0xDczERo
[13]: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt30144839/
[14]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=feOQFKv2Lw4
[15]: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt19847976/
[16]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vt98AlBDI9Y
[17]: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt31193180/
[18]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bKGxHflevuk
[19]: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt12300742/
[20]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bd_5HcTujfc
[21]: https://torrentfreak.com/most-pirated-movies-of-2026-weekly-archive/
[22]: https://torrentfreak.com/

https://torrentfreak.com/top-10-most-torrented-pirated-movies/

Danish Students Face Legal Action and Fines Over Textbook Piracy ...

2026-02-02T09:32:55+01:00

Danish Students Face Legal Action and Fines Over Textbook Piracy

[textbook]Online piracy is often associated with entertainment, such as movies, games, and music. However, there are millions pirating content for educational purposes too.

This isn’t a new phenomenon at all. Roughly two decades ago, there were already [dedicated torrent sites][1] that specialized in textbook releases. Since then, book piracy has become much more widespread.

In Denmark, local anti-piracy group [Rights Alliance][2] has had this issue on its radar for a while. In the past, the group has been tracking down individuals said to have profited from the sale of pirated textbooks. This resulted in several convictions against suppliers and sellers.

Despite these high-profile convictions, student sharing habits have remained remarkably stagnant. According to the most recent 2025 survey from [Epinion][3], textbook sharing is widespread. Of all students who use digital textbooks, more than half (57%) have acquired at least one textbook illegally.

*Survey results* (TF translated)

Most students are well aware of the fact that sharing textbooks, either online or offline, is illegal. Regardless, the survey found that 74% of the students nonetheless believe that it is acceptable to do so.

## Anti-Piracy Group Will Sue Pirating Students

The Rights Alliance has clearly had enough of the continued popularity of textbook piracy. To send a clear message on behalf of publishers, the group will [start filing lawsuits][4] against pirating students this month.

“For many years we have tried to reach students through dialogue and information, but the effect cannot be seen in the measurements we have conducted over a seven-year period,” Rights Alliance director Maria Fredenslund says.

“When more than half are still sharing textbooks illegally, we need to send a clearer signal. There must be consequences if the law is broken – just like in all other areas of society.”

The Rights Alliance plans to file civil lawsuits based on the local Copyright Act and will focus on cases where it is clear that the textbook sharing is illegal. The anti-piracy group notes that, if found guilty, students can be ordered to pay a fine to the state.

Speaking with TorrentFreak, Rights Alliance said that these fines are estimated to be several thousand Danish kroner (1000DKK = 160USD), in part dependent on how much textbooks are shared.

## ‘Zero Tolerance’

People who share dozens of books are understandably risking a higher fine than those who share a single copy. However, Rights Alliance stresses that there’s a zero-policy stance, as even a single instance of unlawful sharing is enough to trigger a lawsuit.

Crucially, this is not a traditional “settlement” scheme. The Rights Alliance confirmed to TorrentFreak that they are not seeking damages or private settlements. There is no profit motive; the goal is simply to force a cultural change through the court system.

Rights Alliance preferred not to tell us how many students it expects to target. Similarly, the anti-piracy group did not want to mention which platforms or services are monitored to gather evidence. Instead, it simply said that it maintains an active presence on multiple platforms and in various groups.

The publishers believe that if textbook piracy continues at the current pace, there might not be a market for Danish textbooks in the future. This is not just a problem for publishers but also for educational institutions, which are asked to help teach their students about these concerns.

“We do not want to punish individuals, but to create a cultural change where students understand that illegal sharing has consequences,” Fredenslund says, adding that institutions are also encouraged to sanction copyright infringement under their roof.

In closing, it’s worth stressing that the textbook ‘piracy’ problem isn’t just limited to students. The Danish Epinion survey found that for students who received an illegal book via their official study intranet, 37% received the file directly from their teachers, lecturers, or professors.

From: [TF][5], for the latest news on copyright battles, piracy and more.

[1]: https://torrentfreak.com/textbooktorrents-makes-a-comeback-080805/
[2]: https://rettighedsalliancen.dk/
[3]: https://epinionglobal.com/
[4]: https://rettighedsalliancen.dk/pressemeddelelse-rettighedsalliancen-tager-nye-midler-i-brug-mod-ulovlig-deling-af-studieboger/
[5]: https://torrentfreak.com/

https://torrentfreak.com/danish-students-face-legal-action-and-fines-over-textbook-piracy/

Piracy Crackdown in Italy Shuts Down IPTV Services Ahead of ...

2026-01-31T09:56:00+01:00

Piracy Crackdown in Italy Shuts Down IPTV Services Ahead of Winter Olympics

[milano cortina]No other country in Europe generates as much noise around physical anti-piracy crackdowns as Italy, where ‘boots-on-the-ground’ operations have become a regular occurrence.

While the number of affected users doesn’t always [seem to add up][1], it is clear that Italy can and is willing to take action, where other countries do not see IPTV as a priority.

This week, the local authorities announced another major crackdown. Led by the District Prosecutor’s Office of Catania and the Italian Postal Police, “[Operation Switch Off][2]” involved raids in 11 Italian cities and 14 countries, including the UK, India, Canada, and Romania.

## Operation Switch Off

With support from Eurojust, Europol, and Interpol, the operation dismantled a global network allegedly generating between €8 million and €10 million in illicit revenue every month. Authorities say that they identified 31 key suspects and reportedly disconnected more than 125,000 users in Italy alone, with millions more affected globally.

*Video: Polizia di Stato*

While the police press release does not [mention any names][3], several sources confirm that the popular IPTV services IPTVItalia, DarkTv, and migliorIPTV are affected. In addition, reseller panels and associated Telegram accounts have been taken offline.

## A “Preventive” Strike for the Winter Olympics?

The timing of the raids is also worth highlighting. While the police do not mention the Olympics, this preventive strike a week before the opening ceremony certainly does not hurt.

Coincidence or not, the crackdown can also be seen as a proactive measure to secure the broadcasting market. Italy’s Minister for Sport and Youth, Andrea Abodi, directly connected the operation to the Olympics.

“I thank the State Police, the Catania Prosecutor’s Office, and the international authorities for the results achieved by this raid, which is particularly significant less than ten days before the 2026 Milan Cortina Olympics,” Abodi [said][4].

While this week’s actions are new, the evidence is not. According to Italian tech outlet [DDay.it][5], the investigation was fueled by forensic analysis from “[Operation Taken Down][6]” in November 2024.

Investigators spent over a year mining data from the seized devices, tracking cryptocurrency flows, and monitoring communication channels. This eventually resulted in a good overview of the broader organization, which led to the crackdown and arrests throughout this week.

## International Tentacles

In addition to hardware in Italy, including a SIM farm in Naples that was used to create Telegram bots, the operation also relied on servers elsewhere. This reportedly included six servers strategically placed across Eastern Europe and an unnamed African country to evade law enforcement.

In Kosovo, a local report from [Telegrafi][7] confirms that raids also hit Pristina and the village of Zaplluxhë, where police seized computers and hard drives belonging to a suspect identified only as “P.B.”

All in all, Operation Switch Off is yet another successful Italian crackdown. Understandably, the actions received praise from local and international rightsholder groups, [including ACE][8], which sees it as evidence that sustained cross-border cooperation in the fight against piracy pays off.

From: [TF][9], for the latest news on copyright battles, piracy and more.

[1]: https://torrentfreak.com/police-hit-900k-user-pirate-iptv-network-8-top-level-suspects-arrested-251001/
[2]: https://www.poliziadistato.it/articolo/operazione--switch-off---spento-lo-streaming-delle-iptv-illegali
[3]: https://www.poliziadistato.it/articolo/operazione--switch-off---spento-lo-streaming-delle-iptv-illegali
[4]: https://sport.tiscali.it/altrisport/articoli/abodi-oggi-ulteriore-passo-avanti-nella-lotta-pirateria-00001/#:~:text=%22Ringrazio%20la%20Polizia%20di%20Stato,elemento%20del%20motto%20olimpico%20communiter
[5]: https://www.dday.it/redazione/56147/iptvitalia-darktv-e-miglioriptv-sequestrate-e-chiuse-smantellata-rete-di-streaming-pirata-125mila-utenti-al-buio
[6]: https://torrentfreak.com/e3bn-pirate-iptv-network-serving-22m-users-dismantled-in-massive-operation-241127/
[7]: https://telegrafi.com/en/kosova-pjese-e-operacionit-nderkombetar-switch-off-bastisje-ne-prishtine-dhe-dragash/
[8]: https://www.alliance4creativity.com/
[9]: https://torrentfreak.com/

https://torrentfreak.com/piracy-crackdown-in-italy-shuts-down-iptv-services-ahead-of-winter-olympics/

Bulgarian Torrent Giants Zamunda, Zelka, and ArenaBG Seized in ...

2026-01-30T00:35:10+01:00

Bulgarian Torrent Giants Zamunda, Zelka, and ArenaBG Seized in Joint U.S.-Bulgarian Operation

[zamunda]Five years ago, Bulgaria informed the U.S. authorities that it [would like to shut down prominent torrent trackers][1] such as ArenaBG, Zamunda, and Zelka.

To get that done, the Eastern European country specifically asked the U.S. Government for assistance.

Today, it appears that these shutdown plans have finally come to fruition, at least as far as the domain names go. A few hours ago, three of the largest torrent trackers became unreachable, directing users to a seizure banner.

“This domain has been seized by Homeland Security Investigations as part of an international law enforcement operation in accordance with a court order issued by the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi,” the banner reads.

*Seized*
[seized]

The listed law enforcement logos are, from left to right:

* **U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ)** – United States
* **Homeland Security Investigations (HSI)** – United States
* **National IPR Coordination Center** – United States
* **Europol** – European Union
* **GDBOP (General Directorate for Combating Organized Crime)** – Bulgaria
* **National Investigative Service (НСлС)** – Bulgaria
* **State Agency for National Security (DANS)** – Bulgaria
* **Prosecutor’s Office of the Republic of Bulgaria** – Bulgaria

The order issued by the Mississippi federal court purportedly compelled the domain name registrars or the domain registries to take action. With domain names linked to American domain intermediaries, this explains why it would be crucial for the U.S. to be involved.

At the time of writing, ArenaBG.com, Zamunda.net, and Zelka.org all point to *seizedservers.com* nameservers, which means that the domains are now controlled by the U.S. authorities.

*Zamunda’s nameservers*
[dns]

To give an idea of the popularity of these sites, Zamunda.net was up until recently the 11th most visited website in Bulgaria with millions of monthly visitors.

In the past, Bulgaria has asked the U.S. for assistance to seize torrent tracker servers as well. However, thus far there is no information about additional enforcement actions. We have also yet to see a press release from the authorities formally confirming the action.

The authorities in Bulgaria previously said that “pre-trial proceedings were opened” against torrent trackers for “intellectual property and tax crimes.” However, it is not clear if today’s actions go beyond the domain seizures.

If the current action is limited to the domain names, the sites will likely switch to alternative ones soon enough.

—

*Note: This is a breaking story, and we will continue to monitor the situation and add updates when more information comes in. *

From: [TF][2], for the latest news on copyright battles, piracy and more.

[1]: https://torrentfreak.com/bulgaria-plans-to-take-down-top-torrent-sites-with-u-s-assistance-200403/
[2]: https://torrentfreak.com/

https://torrentfreak.com/bulgarian-torrent-giants-zamunda-zelka-and-arenabg-seized-in-joint-u-s-bulgarian-operation/

Operator of Bato.to Criminally Investigated in China Following ...

2026-01-29T10:52:26+01:00

Operator of Bato.to Criminally Investigated in China Following CODA Piracy Complaint

[coda logo]Last week, many Babato-related communities [threw in the towel][1], following legal pressure from Kakao Entertainment.

That sealed the deal for many Batoto followers who still had hopes that the site would return to its former glory after its operator, “Larry”, suddenly disappeared last November. This disappearance was triggered by an entirely different force.

## CODA Reported Bato.to Operator in China

Today, the Japanese [anti-piracy group CODA][2] steps forward as the main driver behind Bato.to’s demise. The group, which represents publishers Kadokawa, Kodansha, Shueisha, Shogakukan, and Square Enix, filed a criminal complaint against the alleged operator in China.

The complaint was submitted to the public security bureau of China in September 2025. After talks with CODA, the local publisher China Literature Limited filed an additional complaint, adding to the pressure.

These high-profile criminal referrals eventually led to a police raid on the suspect’s home in the Guangxi Zhuang Autonomous Region. The operator was detained, questioned, and eventually admitted to operating the sites.

The operator is currently out on bail awaiting a formal indictment, which has yet to be filed. Initially, Babo.to also remained operational, and CODA now noted that this was for evidence preservation purposes. Earlier this month, it finally shut down.

Bato.to
[batoto]

## World’s Largest Manga Piracy Operation

It is worth stressing that this crackdown is not limited to Bato.to. The same Chinese man is also accused of running roughly 60 other manga pirate sites, including mangapark.io.

CODA notes that this effectively formed the largest manga piracy ring on the Internet, which was good for an estimated 350 million visits in May 2025.

While the criminal prosecution has yet to start, CODA issued a [press release][3] that reveals several intriguing details. For example, it notes that the operator blocked visitors from China, presumably not to upset local rightsholders and the authorities.

“The site employed geoblocking to prevent access from within China, thereby creating the appearance that no infringement was occurring domestically, while in reality attracting massive global traffic and generating substantial illicit advertising revenue,” CODA writes.

In addition, the operator reportedly confessed that the site generated significant revenue, which exceeded 400,000 RMB (~$58,000) a month at its peak.

## CODA’s Detailed Investigations

Speaking with TorrentFreak, CODA notes that it was not in any way involved in the earlier reported enforcement actions by Kakao Entertainment, which focused on remaining communities on Reddit and Discord. Similarly, Kakao was not involved in the high-profile criminal referral in China.

CODA’s case originally started in the summer of 2024. At the time, the anti-piracy group signaled Bato.to as a key threat under its Cross-Border Enforcement Project (CBEP), which kicked off the investigations. This eventually identified the operator.

“Through collaboration with cybersecurity experts, including ethical hackers, CODA conducted open-source intelligence (OSINT) investigations. Upon discovering that Chinese services were being used, CODA worked with a Chinese investigative firm to identify the operator, leading to the filing of a criminal complaint with China’s public security bureau.”

Bato.to and related sites rely in large part on scanlations. These are effectively translations of manga comics in other languages. While these have always been a major concern, AI technologies have made this even easier, effectively worsening the problem.

## Legal Sales Surge

According to CODA, the takedown of Bato.to and the pending criminal investigation in China are groundbreaking. They believe it will serve as a significant deterrent, and, thus far, the first signs are indeed positive.

[NTT Solmare][4], which operates the legal ebook store [Mangaplaza][5] in the U.S., reported that its daily sales numbers doubled following Bato.to’s shutdown.

Responding to the news, CODA’s Representative Director Takero Goto thanks the Chinese and Japanese authorities for their assistance

“The closure of the world’s largest manga piracy site through criminal enforcement is highly significant for cross-border anti-piracy efforts. I would like to express my sincere gratitude to the Chinese authorities, Japan’s Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry, and all others involved who devoted their efforts to this case,” Goto notes.

While the effect of this massive shutdown should not be underestimated, CODA and others need to stay vigilant. New manga portals that are willing to take the risk will likely be eager to pick up millions of new visitors.

From: [TF][6], for the latest news on copyright battles, piracy and more.

[1]: https://torrentfreak.com/kakao-entertainment-behind-the-bato-to-piracy-crackdown-operator-identified/
[2]: https://coda-cj.jp/
[3]: https://coda-cj.jp/en/news/830/
[4]: https://www.nttsolmare.com/e/
[5]: https://mangaplaza.com/
[6]: https://torrentfreak.com/

https://torrentfreak.com/manga-piracy-giant-bato-to-china-coda-complaint/

Spotify’s Crackdown on Anna’s Archive Domains Hits a ...

2026-01-28T14:08:06+01:00

Spotify’s Crackdown on Anna’s Archive Domains Hits a Jurisdiction Snag

[njalla]Njalla is the name for a traditional Sámi hut, specifically designed to function as a safe storage location, keeping food away from bears and other predators.

On the web, the Njalla name was adopted by a privacy-focused domain name service that helps to shield website operators from external threats, including takedown efforts and foreign court orders.

## Music Industry vs. Anna’s Archive

Earlier this month, this feature of [Njalla][1] was brought to the fore again in the lawsuit Spotify and several record labels filed against [Anna’s Archive][2]. Fearing the publication of [millions of scraped tracks][3], the music companies obtained a preliminary injunction to shut off the archive’s domain names.

The case was [filed under seal to prevent tipping off Anna’s Archive][4]. This partially worked, as the suspension of the .ORG and .SE domain names came as a surprise. However, Anna’s Archive was certainly not planning to throw in the towel.

After the federal court in New York issued an *ex parte* temporary restraining order on January 2, the [.ORG registry suspended][5] the official annas-archive.org domain. Around the same time, Cloudflare also complied with the court order, disabling the nameservers for the targeted domains, including annas-archive.li.

*Njalla nameservers*
[njalla snag]

## U.S. Domain Suspension Injunction

While these actions rendered several of Anna’s Archive unreachable, the .LI variant soon became accessible again. Instead of relying on Cloudflare’s nameservers, it switched to Njalla. The same also applies to the .PM and .IN domains, which were registered as a backup.

Spotify and the labels also noticed this switch to Njalla and, while the case was still under seal, they applied for a broad preliminary injunction to cover the new domains. This also included Njalla as a targeted intermediary, alongside hosting services, domain registrars, and registries.

This injunction, signed by U.S. District Court Judge Jed Rakoff on January 16, does not only cover existing domain names but also any domain names that will be registered in the future.

*The preliminary injunction*
[injunction]

To get an idea of how these domains and services are connected, TorrentFreak compiled the following non-exhaustive and unverified overview. This also includes the new .in domain that was suspended by the National Internet Exchange of India.

─────────────────┬───────────────────────────────────┬────────────────────────────────────┬─────────────────────────────────
Domain Name │Registry │Registrar │Proxy / DNS
─────────────────┼───────────────────────────────────┼────────────────────────────────────┼─────────────────────────────────
annas-archive.org│Public Interest Registry (PIR) │Tucows Domains Inc. │Unknown
─────────────────┼───────────────────────────────────┼────────────────────────────────────┼─────────────────────────────────
annas-archive.li │Switch Foundation │Immaterialism Ltd. │Njalla
─────────────────┼───────────────────────────────────┼────────────────────────────────────┼─────────────────────────────────
annas-archive.se │The Swedish Internet Foundation │Hosting Concepts B.V. (Registrar.eu)│Cloudflare Inc.
─────────────────┼───────────────────────────────────┼────────────────────────────────────┼─────────────────────────────────
annas-archive.in │National Internet Exchange of India│Tucows Domains Inc. │Njalla; IQWeb FZ-LLC (DDoS-Guard)
─────────────────┼───────────────────────────────────┼────────────────────────────────────┼─────────────────────────────────
annas-archive.pm │Registry of record │Hosting Concepts B.V. (Openprovider)│Njalla; IQWeb FZ-LLC (DDoS-Guard)
─────────────────┴───────────────────────────────────┴────────────────────────────────────┴─────────────────────────────────

## U.S. Courts Have Limited Jurisdiction

The U.S. court order spurred American organizations into action (.ORG registry and Cloudflare) and also helped to get the .IN domain offline. However, not all intermediaries were eager to respond. In fact, the .PM and .LI versions remain accessible today.

While none of the intermediaries would encourage piracy, it appears that they don’t automatically comply with foreign court orders either. Njalla, for example, is [operated by Njalla.srl][6], which is based in Costa Rica, may require a local court order to take action.

We don’t know for certain that the music companies sent the injunction to all named intermediaries involved, but given the gravity of their concerns, that would make sense.

To get more clarity, we asked Njalla for a comment on the situation, but due to privacy issues, it could not share any further information at this stage. The company did note that, generally speaking, it’s not against sharing culture.

“Since we are privacy focused people it is not possible for us to comment on this. However, we can say that we in general think the world becomes a better place when people share what they have with each other, be it food, water, money or culture.”

We also contacted the Switzerland-based [Switch Foundation][7], which is the registry for the .LI domain, but did not receive a reply. Spotify, which previously responded to our inquiries, has also stopped responding.

## AFNIC Confirms Jurisdiction Challenge

The AFNIC registry did respond to our request for clarification. The company is not mentioned in the injunction directly, but as the ‘registry of record’ for the .PM domain name, it should be covered.

AFNIC informs us that they have not received a request to comply with the injunction, nor have they been informed about the court order. However, even if it were to receive the U.S. injunction, AFNIC clarified that it would not comply.

“Decisions from U.S. courts are not directly applicable to Afnic regarding actions concerning .fr domain names or the French overseas extensions under its jurisdiction. To be enforceable, a foreign decision must be recognized by the French court,” an Afnic spokesperson informed us.

This effectively means that the plaintiffs must hire French counsel and petition a French court to recognize the U.S. judgment under Article 509 of the French Civil Code.

Whether Spotify and the music companies plan to go through this trouble is unknown. Anna’s Archive, meanwhile, has disabled the Spotify torrent downloads until further notice, which may have defused the situation somewhat.

That said, thus far the music industry’s enforcement efforts show that the reach of U.S. courts has its limitations. While it is possible to expand the scope through mutual legal assistance requests in foreign courts, these have yet to surface.

At this stage, the music industry doesn’t appear to know who is behind the site. The RIAA previously discovered that “Cyberdyne S.A.” was the registrant for the .se domain. However, that trace doesn’t appear to lead anywhere either.

“‘Cyberdyne’ is also the name of the fictional technology company in the ‘Terminator’ movie series behind the ‘Skynet’ artificial intelligence network that achieved super intelligence and self-awareness, leading to nuclear devastation,” RIAA’s content protection chief informed the court, noting that this may be a fabricated name.

*—*

*

Copies of the various unsealed court documents referenced in this article are available below.

*

*– [Temporary Restraining Order][8] (TRO)
– [Declaration of Mark McDevitt][9] (RIAA)
– [Reply memorandum][10] requesting to expand the injunction*

From: [TF][11], for the latest news on copyright battles, piracy and more.

[1]: https://njal.la/
[2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anna%27s_Archive
[3]: https://torrentfreak.com/annas-archive-backed-up-spotify-plans-to-release-300tb-music-archive/
[4]: https://torrentfreak.com/unsealed-spotify-lawsuit-triggered-annas-archive-domain-name-suspensions/
[5]: https://torrentfreak.com/annas-archive-loses-org-domain-after-surprise-suspension/
[6]: https://njal.la/about/
[7]: https://www.switch.ch/en
[8]: https://torrentfreak.com/images/TRO.pdf
[9]: https://torrentfreak.com/images/15.pdf
[10]: https://torrentfreak.com/images/reply-decl.pdf
[11]: https://torrentfreak.com/

https://torrentfreak.com/spotifys-crackdown-on-annas-archive-domains-hits-a-jurisdiction-snag/

The Oscar Surge: ‘Sinners’ Piracy Triples Following ...

2026-01-27T09:31:07+01:00

The Oscar Surge: ‘Sinners’ Piracy Triples Following Record-Breaking 16 Nominations

[sinners]The Oscars remain the most anticipated movie awards show of the year, followed closely by hundreds of millions of film enthusiasts around the globe.

In March, the [98th Academy Awards][1] ceremony will return to the Dolby Theatre in Los Angeles, where millions of fans will watch the crowning of this year’s “Best Picture”.
.
There are currently ten contenders in the race for the prestigious award. The nominees range from Hollywood heavyweights such as *F1* and *One Battle After Another*, to international critical darlings such as Norway’s *Sentimental Value* and Brazil’s *The Secret Agent*.

## Sinners’ Oscar Nominations Record

While these are all serious contenders, Ryan Coogler’s *[Sinners][2]* clearly stands out. The movie received a record-breaking number of sixteen nominations last week, including one for the best picture category.

The record elevated the press attention for the film, which directly impacted legal demand. After the nominations, *Sinners* immediately shot back into the Top 10 on Max, while VOD sales on Prime Video and Apple TV also got a boost.

There is also a darker side to this increased exposure in the form of online piracy. Pirates are simply a subset of movie fans, and when legal demand increases, interest in pirate sites follows in the same direction.

We have reported on [this phenomenon][3] in the past, but this year offers one of the most clear examples.

## Sinners’ Piracy Triples

By looking at the BitTorrent download estimates collected through a large sample of data, we can see the interest in *Sinners* tripling after the nominations were announced last Thursday.

**Oscar Nominations Piracy** (sample)
[sinners oscars]

These data, collected with help from [Iknow][4], also show a healthy 50% boost in downloads for *Bugonia*, another best picture nominee. However, that pales in comparison to the *Sinners* surge.

Meanwhile, the 2025 *Superman* release, which acts as a control group because it wasn’t nominated, saw no download boost at all. This confirms that the other observed increases are triggered by the Oscars nominations.

These findings once again show how the Oscar nominations can have a clear and direct effect on piracy numbers. And if *Sinners* can convert its record number of nominations into a record number of wins, we can expect an even bigger surge.

In closing, it is worth stressing that the download estimates reported here are based on a large sample of BitTorrent activity. This represents merely a fraction of the overall piracy interest, which also includes pirate streaming portals that are good for many millions of unauthorized views.

From: [TF][5], for the latest news on copyright battles, piracy and more.

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/98th_Academy_Awards
[2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sinners_(2025_film)
[3]: https://torrentfreak.com/oscar-contenders-get-piracy-boost-from-best-picture-nominations-240125/
[4]: https://iknowwhatyoudownload.com/en/contacts/
[5]: https://torrentfreak.com/

https://torrentfreak.com/the-oscar-surge-sinners-piracy-triples-following-record-breaking-16-nominations/

Aylo Wins $90 Million Default Judgment Against Porn Piracy ...

2026-01-26T14:55:45+01:00

Aylo Wins $90 Million Default Judgment Against Porn Piracy Network

[fresh]In recent years, [Aylo][1] has taken an aggressive stance against pirate sites, doing everything possible to shut these down.

The parent company of Pornhub, which owns popular brands such as “Reality Kings”, “Brazzers”, “MOFOS”, has already won several lawsuits against high profile targets such as [Daftsex][2] and [Goodporn][3].

Early last year, Aylo filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington against a collection of pirate adult websites, including ‘Freshporno,’ ‘Kojka’, ‘PornHeal’. These eight sites were allegedly operated by someone named Anton Popravkin.

*The complaint*
[complaint]

To stop the infringing activity, Aylo’s copyright enforcement arm sent more than 10,000 DMCA takedown notices to the piracy ring. However. These notices failed to get the infringing videos removed, so Aylo decided to take the matter to court.

## Aylo Requests Multi-Million Dollar Default

Aylo accused the piracy network, which reportedly received more than three million monthly visits, of publicly displaying many thousands of works without permission. This was done with a profit motive, making the operator liable for willful copyright infringement.

“Popravkin Anton willfully infringed Plaintiff’s Works at least 9,006 times: Plaintiff identified 9,006 of its copyrighted registered works being displayed across 27,105 infringing URLs on the Websites,” the complaint read.

“The sheer volume of infringements demonstrates Popravkin Anton’s deliberate and willful disregard for copyright law, as well as his ongoing operation of a business that operates by monetizing copyright infringement.”

The operator of the site never responded to the lawsuit, which left Aylo no other option than to request a default judgment. While Aylo could theoretically request $150,000 per work, for a total of more than a billion dollars in damages, it settled for a tenth of that.

In its motion for a default judgment, Aylo requested $15,000 in statutory damages per work infringed. With 9,006 works, this brings the total to $135,090,000 in statutory damages.

## Court Awards $90,060,000 in Damages

Last Friday, U.S. District Judge Kymberly K. Evanson granted Aylo’s motion for default judgment. However, instead of awarding $15,000 per work, she reduced it to $10,000 per infringed work. In addition, Aylo was granted attorney’s fees and costs of $20,350.

[90m]

In the order, Judge Evanson notes that Aylo hasn’t shared any persuasive evidence to justify its $15,000 claim. In addition, the court deems $10,000 per work sufficient to send a deterrent message to other prospective pirates.

“Because Plaintiff has not presented persuasive evidence to support its $15,000 valuation of each infringed work, the Court declines to assume that the full amount requested is appropriate,” the order reads.

“The amount awarded will nonetheless discourage wrongful conduct and uphold the integrity of copyright laws,” Judge Evanson adds.

## Domain Name Seizures

While a $90 million damages award sounds good, it is unlikely that Aylo will recoup this, as the main defendant was not located. And since Anton Popravkin likely doesn’t reside in the United States, they will likely ignore the court order.

Therefore, the real value of the default judgment lies in the domain name transfers that were granted in response to the “willful” and “malicious” copyright ingringement.

The court issued a broad permanent injunction ordering the U.S.-based domain name registry Verisign to change the registrar for the eight targeted domains to EuroDNS. EuroDNS is subsequently instructed to change the registrant for those domain names directly to Aylo Premium Ltd.

“Verisign, Inc. shall change the registrar for the domain names 3prn.com, freshporno.net, frprn.com, homexvideo.com, kojka.com,mojva.com, onlineporno.cc, and pornheal.com to EuroDNS, and instruct EuroDNS to change the registrant for those domain names to Aylo Premium Ltd,” the order reads.

[domains]

At the time of writing, all domains remain linked to the piracy ring, but it is expected that these will become unavailable later this week, when Aylo takes them over. Whether that will permanently keep the pirate sites offline remains to be seen.

*—*

* *

*A copy of the order granting the default judgment, issued by U.S. District Judge Kymberly K. Evanson, is available [here (pdf)][4]. The order signed by the court clerk can be found [here (pdf)][5].*

From: [TF][6], for the latest news on copyright battles, piracy and more.

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aylo
[2]: https://torrentfreak.com/mindgeek-wins-32m-in-damages-from-adult-pirate-site-daftsex-com-221110/
[3]: https://torrentfreak.com/pornhub-sister-company-wins-2-1m-piracy-damages-but-no-blocking-order-240213/
[4]: https://torrentfreak.com/images/motion-order.pdf
[5]: https://torrentfreak.com/images/anton-decidion.pdf
[6]: https://torrentfreak.com/

https://torrentfreak.com/aylo-wins-90-million-default-judgment-against-porn-piracy-network/

Top 10 Most Pirated Movies of The Week – 01/26/2026 [the ...

2026-01-26T13:10:18+01:00

Top 10 Most Pirated Movies of The Week – 01/26/2026

[the rip]The data for our weekly download chart is estimated by TorrentFreak, and is for informational and educational reference only.

Downloading content without permission is copyright infringement. These torrent download statistics are only meant to provide further insight into piracy trends. All data are gathered from public resources.

This week we have one newcomer on the list. “Zootopia 2” is the most shared title.

## The most torrented movies for the week ending on January 26 are:

──────────┬──────────────┬────────────────────────┬──────────────────────
**Movie │**Rank last │**Movie name** │**IMDb Rating /
Rank** │week** │ │Trailer**
──────────┼──────────────┼────────────────────────┼──────────────────────
**1** │(2) │The Rip │[6.9][1] /
│ │ │[trailer][2]
──────────┼──────────────┼────────────────────────┼──────────────────────
**2** │(1) │Zootopia 2 │[7.6][3] /
│ │ │[trailer][4]
──────────┼──────────────┼────────────────────────┼──────────────────────
**3** │(3) │Predator: Badlands │[7.5][5] /
│ │ │[trailer][6]
──────────┼──────────────┼────────────────────────┼──────────────────────
**4** │(4) │Wicked: For Good │[6.8][7] /
│ │ │[trailer][8]
──────────┼──────────────┼────────────────────────┼──────────────────────
**5** │(…) │Sinners │[7.5][9] /
│ │ │[trailer][10]
──────────┼──────────────┼────────────────────────┼──────────────────────
**6** │(9) │One Battle After Another│[8.1][11] /
│ │ │[trailer][12]
──────────┼──────────────┼────────────────────────┼──────────────────────
**7** │(5) │Rental Family │[7.7][13] /
│ │ │[trailer][14]
──────────┼──────────────┼────────────────────────┼──────────────────────
**8** │(…) │Bugonia │[7.4][15] /
│ │ │[trailer][16]
──────────┼──────────────┼────────────────────────┼──────────────────────
**9** │(7) │Dust Bunny │[6.6][17] /
│ │ │[trailer][18]
──────────┼──────────────┼────────────────────────┼──────────────────────
**10** │(6) │Avatar: Fire and Ash │[7.4][19] /
│ │ │[trailer][20]
──────────┴──────────────┴────────────────────────┴──────────────────────

Note: We also publish an updating archive of all the list of [weekly most torrented movies lists][21].

From: [TF][22], for the latest news on copyright battles, piracy and more.

[1]: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt32642706/
[2]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ARU2WHyOPxE
[3]: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt26443597/
[4]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A-7RMaQaygI
[5]: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt31227572/
[6]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=43R9l7EkJwE
[7]: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt19847976/
[8]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vt98AlBDI9Y
[9]: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt31193180/
[10]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bKGxHflevuk
[11]: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt30144839/
[12]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=feOQFKv2Lw4
[13]: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt14142060/
[14]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n0pqP6ClcE8
[15]: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt12300742/
[16]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bd_5HcTujfc
[17]: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt23172090/
[18]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lQqmOjPDlWg
[19]: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt1757678/
[20]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nb_fFj_0rq8
[21]: https://torrentfreak.com/most-pirated-movies-of-2026-weekly-archive/
[22]: https://torrentfreak.com/

https://torrentfreak.com/top-10-most-torrented-pirated-movies/

Adviser of EU’s Highest Court Backs VPN Neutrality in Anne ...

2026-01-25T10:14:49+01:00

Adviser of EU’s Highest Court Backs VPN Neutrality in Anne Frank Copyright Battle

[anne frank][The Diary of Anne Frank][1], written by a young girl hiding from the Nazis in Amsterdam during World War II, is one of the best-known literary works in history.

While the diary’s importance is widely agreed upon, the accessibility of its digital likeness remains at the center of a modern-day copyright battle.

These copyrights are controlled by the Swiss-based Anne Frank Fonds, which was the sole heir of Anne’s father, Otto Frank. The Fonds states that many print versions of the diary remain [protected for decades][2], and even the manuscripts are not freely available everywhere.

In the Netherlands, for example, certain sections of the manuscripts remain protected by copyright until 2037, even though they have entered the public domain in neighboring countries like Belgium.

## Anne Frank ©

To navigate these conflicting laws, the Dutch [Anne Frank Stichting][3] published a scholarly edition online using “state-of-the-art” geo-blocking to prevent Dutch residents from accessing the site. Visitors from the Netherlands and [other countries where the work is protected][4] are met with a clear message, informing them about these access restrictions.

“The scholarly edition of the Anne Frank manuscripts cannot be made available in all countries, due to copyright considerations,” is the message disallowed visitors get to see.

[sorry]

Despite these blocking measures, the Swiss-based Anne Frank Fonds was not pleased. The Fonds essentially argued that if a block isn’t 100% bypass-proof, the content shouldn’t be online at all.

The Dutch lower court [dismissed][5] this argument, stating the defendants had taken reasonable measures to prevent access from the Netherlands. The Fonds appealed, without result, and the case is now before the Dutch Supreme Court, [which referred several questions][6] to the EU’s top court (CJEU) to decide the fate of VPN neutrality and the sufficiency of geo-blocking.

## Court Adviser Backs VPN Neutrality

In an opinion published this month, Advocate General Rantos of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) sides with common sense, concluding that geo-blocking is a sufficient measure to protect against unauthorized access.

The opinion concludes that digital copyright protections can always be broken or bypassed. That by itself should not automatically mean that the publisher is liable, especially if ‘state-of-the-art’ geo-blocking measures are in place, as the Anne Frank Stichting argued.

“Liability would only arise if the technical measures were found to be deliberately ineffective so that they could be easily circumvented,” the opinion reads.

Equally important, Rantos concludes that a VPN provider isn’t liable for the unlawful actions of users who use their service to bypass geographical restrictions.

“The mere fact that those or similar services may be used for [unlawful] purposes is not sufficient to establish that the service providers themselves communicate the protected work to the public,” the Advocate General writes.

“It would be different if those service providers actively encouraged the unlawful use of their services. In that case, the service providers could be regarded as playing an essential role in making the works in question available.”

*From the opinion*
[it would be different]

In other words, the opinion concludes that VPNs are neutral services and that they can only be held liable if they actively encourage copyright infringement or other wrongdoing.

## What’s Next?

The opinion is not binding for the CJEU, which is expected to issue its final ruling later this year. This final ruling will be key for the digital future of the Anne Frank Diary, as well as all other geo-blocked content on the Internet.

If the court agrees with the opinion of Advocate General Rantos, the status quo will remain. However, if geo-blocking were somehow not to be sufficient, this would impact hundreds of popular sites and services, including all popular video streaming platforms.

Even worse, if VPNs were to be held liable for the actions of users without the providers’ awareness, that would create some significant backlash.

*—*

* *

*A copy of the opinion of Advocate General Athanasios Rantos, delivered on 15 January, is available [here (pdf)][7].*

From: [TF][8], for the latest news on copyright battles, piracy and more.

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Diary_of_a_Young_Girl
[2]: https://www.annefrank.ch/en/q-and-a
[3]: https://www.annefrank.org/
[4]:
[5]: https://www.ie-forum.nl/artikelen/hof-oordeelt-publicatie-dagboek-anne-frank-op-website-niet-in-strijd-met-auteursrecht
[6]: https://torrentfreak.com/anne-frank-copyright-dispute-triggers-vpn-and-geoblocking-questions-at-eus-highest-court-240924/
[7]: https://torrentfreak.com/images/af-rant-opinion.pdf
[8]: https://torrentfreak.com/

https://torrentfreak.com/adviser-of-eus-highest-court-backs-vpn-neutrality-in-anne-frank-copyright-battle/

Kakao Entertainment Behind the Bato.to Piracy Crackdown, Operator ...

2026-01-23T10:55:59+01:00

Kakao Entertainment Behind the Bato.to Piracy Crackdown, Operator Identified

[redemption]For fans of manga and manhwa comics, Bato.to has been an icon for many years.

The pirate site has reportedly changed owners over the years, but through the main site and dozens of mirrors, it kept its many millions of monthly visitors on board.

Since last November, the site has not been running smoothly, however. Several moderators reported that the site’s operator, Larry, had become unreachable, which resulted in various technical problems.

## Batoto Communities Shut Down

Earlier this week, the trouble appeared to worsen when the official Batoto Discord server, run by the moderation team, announced that it would shut down as well, [citing][1] legal challenges and ongoing issues with the site. This effectively confirmed that the site’s moderators were throwing in the towel.

***Legal challenges*
[legal issues]

Not much later, the official [Batoto subreddit][2] followed the same route. While it would not shut down completely, the moderators officially cut its ties with anything piracy or Batoto-related.

“Due to recent legal developments, it is clear that all activity, discussion, or support related to the former website and its services has permanently ended,” the subreddit mods wrote.

“Out of respect for creators, rights holders, and applicable laws, this subreddit will no longer be affiliated with, connected to, or associated with the website in any way.”

*Subreddit Compliance*
[comply]

The seemingly obligatory mention of supporting legal services suggests that this soft shutdown was also the result of legal action. In fact, it appears that Batoto-related people and communication channels are targeted across the board.

This includes newly launched Discord channels. Only those who abide by a strict set of rules to ban any type of infringement appear to survive. This includes the newly launched Yoru reading community, which specifically prohibits illegal content, [pointing people][3] to official Webtoon and Tapas releases instead.

## Kakao Entertainment Takes Credit

While it is clear that legal pressure is being applied, the source remained unmentioned. Today we can officially confirm that Kakao Entertainment is driving the action.

Through its dedicated anti-piracy enforcement arm, P.CoK, the South Korean entertainment giant is categorically targeting Bato.to and many related people and services.

The most significant blow to the operation is the identification of Bato.to’s founder and core developer. P.CoK confirmed to TorrentFreak that they have tracked the individual to their country of residence, where legal proceedings are now active.

Responding to this threat, the P.CoK team tackled the problem from multiple sides. In addition to preparing a lawsuit against the operator, it went after other key channels, including the aforementioned communities on Reddit and Discord.

“We adopted a strategy that categorizes individuals involved in the operation into multiple tiers and applies tailored countermeasures to each group. Legal proceedings are currently underway in the country of residence of the founder and core developer,” P.CoK notes.

***The P.CoK team*
[pcok]

## Cease and Desist

The people in lower tiers, including admins and moderators, were also identified. These all received personalized cease-and-desist letters, urging them to shut down their operation, or else.

“We have identified the majority of individuals who are directly or indirectly involved in the operation—such as sub-developers, moderators, and community administrators—and have sequentially issued Cease and Desist (C&D) letters to them,” P.CoK told us.

These cease-and-desist notices came with the relevant legal justification and a specific set of actions these people were expected to take. That likely means showing respect for rightsholders, as we have seen in a few of the public responses.

## New Targets?

A [final update][4] by the subreddit team confirms the pressure from Kakao Entertainment. Clearly worried that ‘Reddit mods could be next,’ the subreddit was set to restricted.

The subreddit also clearly distances itself from a new Batoto-‘inspired’ site that surfaced online this week.

***New?*
[distance]

P.CoK, which has a history of [unconventional but effective anti-piracy actions][5], will undoubtedly keep an eye on any new sites that emerge. At the same time, it is also going after MangaPark and AniXL, which have repeatedly been linked to Batoto. In fact, the anti-piracy group notes that new legal proceedings are already being prepared.

“We are aware that some of these individuals are also involved in the operation of MangaPark and AniXL, and we are preparing strong legal actions against Mangapark as well as newly established Bato-affiliated sites,” P.CoK concludes, suggesting that their work is not done yet.

From: [TF][6], for the latest news on copyright battles, piracy and more.

[1]: https://x.com/MangaAlerts/status/2013283218213024251/photo/1
[2]: https://old.reddit.com/r/Batoto/
[3]:
[4]: https://old.reddit.com/r/Batoto/comments/1qjgc52/final_update_from_rbatoto_mod_team/
[5]: https://torrentfreak.com/p-cok-webtoon-piracy-fighters-display-plumage-as-unorthodox-tactics-pay-off-250525/
[6]: https://torrentfreak.com/

https://torrentfreak.com/kakao-entertainment-behind-the-bato-to-piracy-crackdown-operator-identified/

IPTV Piracy Crackdown in Sweden ‘Exposes’ 4,886 Subscribers ...

2026-01-22T08:58:11+01:00

IPTV Piracy Crackdown in Sweden ‘Exposes’ 4,886 Subscribers

[swede-iptv1s]Originally the home of The Pirate Bay, Sweden has a long and well-documented history when it comes to online piracy.

As in other countries, however, many Swedish pirates have made the switch from relatively cumbersome torrents to on-demand streaming. That includes pirate IPTV services.

According to recent estimates, some [700,000 Swedish households][1] have access to illegal IPTV services. These low-cost subscriptions are substantially cheaper than those offered by legitimate streaming services, but they nonetheless bring in serious revenue for the operators.

To curb the IPTV problem, Sweden has [convicted operators][2] and issued [blocking orders][3]. In addition, the Government plans to update local law to make it possible to issue fines to IPTV subscribers, effectively outlawing the purchase of these subscriptions.

## New IPTV Crackdown

These potential fines are relevant again after Swedish authorities recently toppled the high-profile IPTV operation Nordicplay. As reported by [Expressen][4], the prosecution has charged a 43-year-old man and a 55-year-old associate with gross accounting fraud.

The younger man is the main suspect, and he reportedly earned an estimated 35 million Swedish Kronor (approx. $3.8 million USD) in revenue. These IPTV payments came in through several companies, which acted as a front to disguise the operation.

Many of these payments came in through the Swedish mobile payment system [Swish][5], as shown below. Swish is tied directly to a personal identity number, which likely explains why the subscribers could be accurately identified.

*Some payments ([screenshot][6] via Expressen)*
[swish]

The men, who both deny any wrongdoing, are not being prosecuted for copyright-related crimes, but for fraud. According to the prosecution, they failed to report the proceeds for tax purposes.

The 43-year-old, who was previously convicted of fraud, was a relatively large reseller of Nordic One, which reportedly serves half of the Swedish IPTV market. And indeed, with many thousands of subscribers, the size of the operation was substantial.

## 4,886 Subscribers

When investigators searched the computer and phone of the main suspect, they found a list of more than 20,000 contact details. After follow-up investigations, 4,886 of these could be linked to payments.

These subscribers are not being prosecuted, but Sara Lindbäck of the local anti-piracy outfit [Rights Alliance][7], suggests that the police could reach out to these subscribers to send a warning.

“If the police would inform them that ‘Hi, your customer information is found in a criminal investigation,’ I think people might become a little more aware,” Lindbäck told Expressen.

This type of outreach would not be unprecedented. Previously, [similar warnings][8] went out to IPTV customers in the UK.

In the near future, however, Sweden could have an even stronger deterrent. As announced last September by Minister of Culture, Parisa Liljestrand, new legislation aims to make it possible to fine IPTV subscribers.

This updated legislation explicitly outlaws the consumption/viewing of pirate IPTV services, which is largely seen as a legal grey area now. If approved, this proposal will go into effect on July 1, 2026.

From: [TF][9], for the latest news on copyright battles, piracy and more.

[1]: https://torrentfreak.com/pirate-iptv-consumed-by-30-of-swedes-including-50-of-men-under-35-290529/
[2]: https://torrentfreak.com/pirate-iptv-owners-sentenced-to-36-months-in-prison-18m-damages-231012/
[3]: https://torrentfreak.com/swedish-iptv-crackdown-tested-as-users-seek-workarounds-250505/
[4]: https://www.expressen.se/nyheter/sverige/tjanade-35-miljoner-pa-ip-tv-4-886-kundnamn-hittade/
[5]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swish_(payment)
[6]: https://www.expressen.se/nyheter/sverige/tjanade-35-miljoner-pa-ip-tv-4-886-kundnamn-hittade/
[7]: https://rattighetsalliansen.se/en/home/
[8]: https://torrentfreak.com/police-send-warning-letters-to-pirate-iptv-customers-citing-fraud-act-200916/
[9]: https://torrentfreak.com/

https://torrentfreak.com/iptv-piracy-crackdown-in-sweden-exposes-4886-subscribers/

Unsealed: Spotify Lawsuit Triggered Anna’s Archive Domain Name ...

2026-01-21T10:40:49+01:00

Unsealed: Spotify Lawsuit Triggered Anna’s Archive Domain Name Suspensions

[vinyl][Anna’s Archive][1] is generally known as a meta-search engine for shadow libraries, helping users find pirated books and other related resources.

However, in December, the site announced that it had also [backed up Spotify][2], which came as a shock to the music industry.

While Anna’s Archive initially released only Spotify metadata, and no actual music, the industry was on high alert. Over Christmas, Spotify and the major labels prepared a legal response in U.S. federal court.

## Music Companies File Complaint Under Seal

On December 29, Spotify, UMG, Sony, Warner, and other labels filed their complaint at the Southern District of New York. They accuse Anna’s Archive of mass copyright infringement, breach of contract, DMCA violations, and violations of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act.

*The complaint*
[spotify-lawsuit]

The lawsuit alleges that Anna’s Archive “brazenly” circumvented Spotify’s DRM. The site scraped 86 million music files and metadata for 256 million tracks from Spotify, which would all eventually be released publicly.

“…Anna’s Archive has threatened to imminently mass-release and freely distribute its pirated copies of the sound recording files to the public, without authorization from or compensation to the relevant rights holders. Such widespread and illegal infringement would irreparably harm the music industry..,” the complaint reads.

The complaint comes with a request for a preliminary injunction and a restraining order that aim to take Anna’s Archive offline. All these documents were filed under seal, as the shadow library might otherwise be tipped off and take countermeasures.

These documents were filed *ex-parte* and kept away from Anna’s Archive. According to Spotify and the labels, this is needed “so that Anna’s Archive cannot pre-emptively frustrate” the countermeasures they seek.

## Restraining Order Takes Out Anna’s Domains

The lawsuit, which was unsealed recently, explains directly why Anna’s Archive lost several of its domain names over the past weeks. The [.ORG domain][3] was suspended by the U.S.-based Public Interest Registry (PIR) in early January, while a domain registrar took the [.SE variant][4] offline a few days later.

“We don’t believe this has to do with our Spotify backup,” AnnaArchivist [said at the time][5], but court records prove them wrong.

The unsealed paperwork shows that the court granted a temporary restraining order (TRO) on January 2, which aimed to target Anna’s Archive hosting and domain names. The sealed nature of this order also explains why the .ORG registry informed us that it could not comment on the suspension last week.

While the .ORG and the .SE domains are suspended now, other domains remain operational. This suggests that the responsible registrars and registries do not automatically comply with U.S. court orders.

## Injunction Also Targets Hosting Companies and Cloudflare

While the TRO was not public, a preliminary injunction that was issued by U.S. District Court Judge Jed Rakoff on January 16th shows how broad the granted powers are.

After reviewing the evidence, and without a defense, the court concluded that the music companies’ copyright infringement claim will hold up. Therefore, the court ordered that Anna’s Archive is enjoined from ‘hosting, linking to, [or] distributing’ the copyrighted works.

Since it’s uncertain whether Anna’s Archive will comply, the injunction also targets many third-party intermediaries, including domain registries and registrars, hosting companies, and other service providers.

These companies should assist in stopping the infringing activity on Anna’s Archive.

*Third parties*
[third parties]

To avoid uncertainty, the court explicitly mentions that the targeted companies include the Public Interest Registry; Cloudflare Inc.; Switch Foundation; The Swedish Internet
Foundation; National Internet Exchange of India; Njalla SRL; IQWeb FZ-LLC; Immaterialism Ltd.; Hosting Concepts B.V.; and Tucows Domains Inc.

The addition of Cloudflare stands out because the company operates a proxy service, without hosting Anna’s Archive’s content permanently. However, that was sufficient for the court to issue the order.

## Spotify Downloads Disappear from Anna’s Archive

While the unsealed documents resolve the domain suspension mystery, it is only the start of the legal battle in court. It is expected that Spotify and the music companies will do everything in their power to take further action, if needed.

Interestingly, however, it appears that the lawsuit may have reached its goal already. A few days ago, the Spotify download section was removed by Anna’s Archive.

*Unavailable until further notice*
[torrent]

Whether this removal is linked to the legal troubles is unknown. However, it appears that Anna’s Archive stopped the specific distribution of Spotify content alleged in the complaint, seemingly in partial compliance with the injunction’s ban on ‘making available’ the scraped files.

Whether this will mean that all troubles are now over has yet to be seen.

*—*

* *

*A copy of the unsealed complaint filed by Spotify and the labels is available [here (pdf)][6]. The preliminary injunction can be found [here (pdf)][7].*

From: [TF][8], for the latest news on copyright battles, piracy and more.

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anna%27s_Archive
[2]: https://torrentfreak.com/annas-archive-backed-up-spotify-plans-to-release-300tb-music-archive/
[3]: https://torrentfreak.com/annas-archive-loses-org-domain-after-surprise-suspension/
[4]: https://torrentfreak.com/annas-archive-loses-org-domain-after-surprise-suspension/
[5]: https://torrentfreak.com/annas-archive-loses-org-domain-after-surprise-suspension/
[6]: https://torrentfreak.com/images/spotify-anna-complaint.pdf
[7]: https://torrentfreak.com/images/injunctiion-issues.pdf
[8]: https://torrentfreak.com/

https://torrentfreak.com/unsealed-spotify-lawsuit-triggered-annas-archive-domain-name-suspensions/

Top 10 Most Pirated Movies of The Week – 01/19/2026 [zootopia ...

2026-01-19T12:00:52+01:00

Top 10 Most Pirated Movies of The Week – 01/19/2026

[zootopia 2]The data for our weekly download chart is estimated by TorrentFreak, and is for informational and educational reference only.

Downloading content without permission is copyright infringement. These torrent download statistics are only meant to provide further insight into piracy trends. All data are gathered from public resources.

This week we have one newcomer on the list. “Zootopia 2” is the most shared title.

## The most torrented movies for the week ending on January 19 are:

──────────┬──────────────┬──────────────────────────────────────┬──────────────────────
**Movie │**Rank last │**Movie name** │**IMDb Rating /
Rank** │week** │ │Trailer**
──────────┼──────────────┼──────────────────────────────────────┼──────────────────────
**1** │(1) │Zootopia 2 │[7.6][1] /
│ │ │[trailer][2]
──────────┼──────────────┼──────────────────────────────────────┼──────────────────────
**2** │(…) │The Rip │[6.9][3] /
│ │ │[trailer][4]
──────────┼──────────────┼──────────────────────────────────────┼──────────────────────
**3** │(2) │Predator: Badlands │[7.5][5] /
│ │ │[trailer][6]
──────────┼──────────────┼──────────────────────────────────────┼──────────────────────
**4** │(3) │Wicked: For Good │[6.8][7] /
│ │ │[trailer][8]
──────────┼──────────────┼──────────────────────────────────────┼──────────────────────
**5** │(…) │Rental Family │[7.7][9] /
│ │ │[trailer][10]
──────────┼──────────────┼──────────────────────────────────────┼──────────────────────
**6** │(6) │Avatar: Fire and Ash │[7.4][11] /
│ │ │[trailer][12]
──────────┼──────────────┼──────────────────────────────────────┼──────────────────────
**7** │(…) │Dust Bunny │[6.6][13] /
│ │ │[trailer][14]
──────────┼──────────────┼──────────────────────────────────────┼──────────────────────
**8** │(8) │Nuremberg │[7.6][15] /
│ │ │[trailer][16]
──────────┼──────────────┼──────────────────────────────────────┼──────────────────────
**9** │(9) │One Battle After Another │[8.1][17] /
│ │ │[trailer][18]
──────────┼──────────────┼──────────────────────────────────────┼──────────────────────
**10** │(7) │Wake Up Dead Man: A Knives Out Mystery│[7.5][19] /
│ │ │[trailer][20]
──────────┴──────────────┴──────────────────────────────────────┴──────────────────────

Note: We also publish an updating archive of all the list of [weekly most torrented movies lists][21].

From: [TF][22], for the latest news on copyright battles, piracy and more.

[1]: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt26443597/
[2]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A-7RMaQaygI
[3]: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt32642706/
[4]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ARU2WHyOPxE
[5]: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt31227572/
[6]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=43R9l7EkJwE
[7]: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt19847976/
[8]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vt98AlBDI9Y
[9]: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt14142060/
[10]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n0pqP6ClcE8
[11]: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt1757678/
[12]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nb_fFj_0rq8
[13]: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt23172090/
[14]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lQqmOjPDlWg
[15]: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt29567915/
[16]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WvAy9C-bipY
[17]: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt30144839/
[18]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=feOQFKv2Lw4
[19]: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt14364480/
[20]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eHM1K1JByBI
[21]: https://torrentfreak.com/most-pirated-movies-of-2026-weekly-archive/
[22]: https://torrentfreak.com/

https://torrentfreak.com/top-10-most-torrented-pirated-movies/

NVIDIA Contacted Anna’s Archive to Secure Access to Millions of ...

2026-01-19T11:41:26+01:00

NVIDIA Contacted Anna’s Archive to Secure Access to Millions of Pirated Books

[nvidia logo]Chip giant NVIDIA has been one of the main financial beneficiaries in the artificial intelligence boom.

Revenue surged due to high demand for its AI-learning chips and data center services, and the end doesn’t appear to be in sight.

Besides selling the most sought-after hardware, NVIDIA is also developing its own models, including NeMo, Retro-48B, InstructRetro, and Megatron. These are trained using their own hardware and with help from large text libraries, much like other tech giants do.

## Authors Sue NVIDIA for Copyright Infringement

Like other tech companies, NVIDIA has also seen significant legal pushback from copyright holders in response to its training methods. This includes authors, who, in various lawsuits, accused tech companies of training their models on pirated books.

In early 2024, for example, several authors [sued NVIDIA][1] over alleged copyright infringement.

Through the class action lawsuit, they claimed that the company’s AI models were trained on the Books3 dataset that included copyrighted works taken from the ‘pirate’ site Bibliotik. Since this happened without permission, the authors demanded compensation.

In response, NVIDIA [defended its actions ][2]as fair use, noting that books are nothing more than statistical correlations to its AI models. However, the allegations didn’t go away. On the contrary, the plaintiffs found more evidence during discovery.

## ‘NVIDIA Contacted Anna’s Archive’

Last Friday, the authors filed an amended complaint that significantly expands the scope of the lawsuit. In addition to adding more books, authors, and AI models, it also includes broader “shadow library” claims and allegations.

The authors, including [Abdi Nazemian][3], now cite various internal Nvidia emails and documents, suggesting that the company willingly downloaded millions of copyrighted books.

The new complaint alleges that “competitive pressures drove NVIDIA to piracy”, which allegedly included collaborating with the controversial Anna’s Archive library.

*Competitive pressures*
[pressure]

According to the amended complaint, a member of Nvidia’s data strategy team reached out to Anna’s Archive to find out what the pirate library could offer the trillion-dollar company

“Desperate for books, NVIDIA contacted Anna’s Archive—the largest and most brazen of the remaining shadow libraries—about acquiring its millions of pirated materials and ‘including Anna’s Archive in pre-training data for our LLMs’,” the complaint notes.

“Because Anna’s Archive charged tens of thousands of dollars for ‘high-speed access’ to its pirated collections […] NVIDIA sought to find out what “high-speed access” to the data would look like.”

[what data?]

## Anna’s Archive Points Out Legal ‘Concern’

According to the complaint, Anna’s Archive then warned Nvidia that its library was illegally acquired and maintained. Because the site previously wasted time on other AI companies, the pirate library asked NVIDIA executives if they had internal permission to move forward.

This permission was allegedly granted within a week, after which Anna’s Archive provided the chip giant with access to its pirated books.

“Within a week of contacting Anna’s Archive, and days after being warned by Anna’s Archive of the illegal nature of their collections, NVIDIA management gave ‘the green light’ to proceed with the piracy. Anna’s Archive offered NVIDIA millions of pirated copyrighted books.”

[green light]

The complaint states that Anna’s Archive promised to provide NVIDIA with access to roughly 500 terabytes of data. This included millions of books that are usually only accessible through Internet Archive’s digital lending system, which itself has been [targeted in court][4].

The complaint does not explicitly mention whether NVIDIA ended up paying Anna’s Archive for access to the data.

Additionally, it’s worth mentioning that NVIDIA also stands accused of using other pirated sources. In addition to the previously included Books3 database, the new complaint also alleges that the company downloaded books from LibGen, Sci-Hub, and Z-Library.

## Direct and Vicarious Copyright Infringement

In addition to downloading and using pirated books for its own AI training, the authors allege NVIDIA distributed scripts and tools that allowed its corporate customers to automatically download “[The Pile][5]“, which contains the Books3 pirated dataset.

These allegations lead to new claims of vicarious and contributory infringement, alleging that NVIDIA generated revenue from customers by facilitating access to these pirated datasets.

Based on these and other claims, the authors request to be compensated for the damages they suffered. This applies to the named authors, but also to potentially hundreds of others who may later join the class action lawsuit.

As far as we know, this is the first time that correspondence between a major U.S. tech company and Anna’s Archive was revealed in public. This will only raise the profile of the pirate library, which just [lost several domain names][6], even further.

*—*

* *

*A copy of the first consolidated and amended complaint, filed at the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, is available [here (pdf)][7]. The named authors include Abdi Nazemian, Brian Keene, Stewart O’Nan, Andre Dubus III, and Susan Orlean.
*

From: [TF][8], for the latest news on copyright battles, piracy and more.

[1]: https://torrentfreak.com/authors-sue-nvidia-for-training-ai-on-pirated-books-240311/
[2]: https://torrentfreak.com/nvidia-copyrighted-books-are-just-statistical-correlations-to-our-ai-models-240617/
[3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abdi_Nazemian
[4]: https://torrentfreak.com/internet-archive-loses-landmark-e-book-lending-copyright-appeal-against-publishers-240905/
[5]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Pile_(dataset)
[6]: https://torrentfreak.com/u-s-court-order-against-annas-archive-spells-more-trouble-for-the-site/
[7]: https://torrentfreak.com/images/naznvid-amend.pdf
[8]: https://torrentfreak.com/

https://torrentfreak.com/nvidia-contacted-annas-archive-to-secure-access-to-millions-of-pirated-books/

Storm Chasers Sue Meta for Ignoring Repeat Infringements of ...

2026-01-18T13:19:28+01:00

Storm Chasers Sue Meta for Ignoring Repeat Infringements of Popular Accounts

[cyclone]It is rare for a “legal threat” made in a news article to actually materialize into a class-action lawsuit years later, but that is precisely what has happened with Brandon Clement and his fellow storm chasers.

Back in 2022, we [reported][1] on the “never-ending stream of infringements” these independent videographers were facing on Facebook and Instagram.

At the time, Clement was deeply frustrated with a system where billions of views were being siphoned off by “copyright hijackers”. He warned them that legal action might be needed to force a breakthrough, asking copyright lawyers to reach out.

Fast-forward to January 2026, and that early warning has escalated into a class-action complaint filed in a Texas federal court. The lawsuit accuses Facebook and Instagram’s parent company, Meta Platforms, of various types of copyright infringement.

## Meta Fails to Take Down Infringing Videos

Filed by a group of extreme weather videographers, whose content often spreads virally, the complaint alleges that Meta often fails to enforce its own terms, which prohibit copyright infringement.

*The complaint*
[complaint]

In this case, the plaintiffs are not referring to an occasional takedown notice that was ignored. The plaintiffs claim to have sent ‘hundreds of thousands’ of notices over the years, and the lawsuit identifies hundreds of specific DMCA requests that Meta allegedly ignored or improperly handled.

“Despite submitting compliant DMCA take-down requests, Meta, for various improper reasons, failed to take-down the unauthorized uses of Plaintiffs’ various works by the Infringing Users,” the complaint reads.

Allegedly, the content that was not removed by Meta could often be linked to popular accounts that presumably earned the social media giant significant revenues.

“Meta, without providing any reasoning, has numerous times incorrectly determined that a conflicting party with millions of followers has ‘won’ a video ownership conflict as to certain videos, which then precludes Plaintiffs from using Rights Manager to locate infringing uses for their copyrighted videos,” the complaint notes.

According to the complaint, Meta temporarily blocked one of the videographers from using its “Rights Manager” takedown tool because they were “misusing this feature by going too fast.

*Too Fast*
[too fast]

In addition, Meta also allegedly acted as the ‘judge and jury’ by making fair use determinations, often without providing any legal reasoning or an opportunity for the creators to appeal.

One of the videos referenced in the evidence list was shot and copyrighted by Max Olson, covering a 2022 storm surge. A watermarked clip featuring more than two minutes of this footage was posted on Facebook by Ariana News. It [remains online today][2], after Facebook effectively brushed aside the infringement claim by citing fair use.

Information shared with TorrentFreak shows Facebook’s full response below. Despite the length of the clip and the original creator’s watermark, the company claims it is not clear whether the video infringes any copyrights.

*Facebook’s response*
[response]

## Leaked Documents as a Smoking Gun

The complaint lists more than 200 specific instances where Meta allegedly failed to act. In doing so, it also mentions various popular accounts by name, some of which the videographers see as persistent infringers with millions of followers.

*One of the examples*
[canal]

To further bolster the allegation that Meta willingly ignores abuse, the complaint cites leaked documents that were [reported][3] by Reuters last November. These documents showed that fraudulent advertising was a multi-billion-dollar revenue stream for Meta.

While this is not directly linked to copyright infringement, it reportedly revealed that scams of small advertisers would be shut down after eight warnings, while so-called ‘High Value Accounts’ could accrue more than 500 strikes before Meta would take action.

This allegedly shows that Meta can sometimes prioritize its own profits over protecting the legitimate interests of others. The plaintiffs believe that this also applies to their case.

## Infringements and Damages Claims

The plaintiffs accuse Meta of failing to properly respond to DMCA takedown notices, which means that it no longer should be able to claim Safe Harbor protection. In addition, the company’s alleged arbitrary fair use determinations make it liable for direct copyright infringement too.

“Meta has failed to comply with the take-down requirements under the DMCA and its own intellectual property policies regarding repeat infringers, indicating gross negligence in its legal compliance which is essential for a company with Meta’s reach, capabilities, and level of sophistication.”

“Meta’s failure to effectively enforce its own copyright policies indicates de facto willful infringement,” the complaint adds.

The lawsuit includes various claims, including direct copyright infringement, contributory infringement, vicarious infringement, and inducement. The videographers don’t ask for a specific damages amount, but with potential damages of $150,000 per work, this can easily run into the millions of dollars.

Meta has yet to respond formally to the complaint, but it is expected to contest these allegations to the best of its abilities.

*—*

* *

*A copy of the class action complaint, filed this week at the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, is [available here (pdf)][4].*

From: [TF][5], for the latest news on copyright battles, piracy and more.

[1]: https://torrentfreak.com/extreme-weather-videographer-faces-copyright-infringement-hurricane-221016/
[2]: https://www.facebook.com/ariananews/videos/1268074897359818/
[3]: https://www.reuters.com/investigations/meta-is-earning-fortune-deluge-fraudulent-ads-documents-show-2025-11-06/
[4]: https://torrentfreak.com/images/meta-class.pdf
[5]: https://torrentfreak.com/

https://torrentfreak.com/storm-chasers-sue-meta-for-ignoring-repeat-infringements-of-popular-accounts/

U.S. Court Order Against Anna’s Archive Spells More Trouble for ...

2026-01-16T10:48:55+01:00

U.S. Court Order Against Anna’s Archive Spells More Trouble for the Site

[anna's archive][Anna’s Archive][1] has had its fair share of [domain troubles][2] over the past two weeks.

First, the site lost control over its original annas-archive.org domain after the U.S.-based Public Interest Registry (PIR) placed it on [*serverHold*][3].

PIR typically only takes these kinds of measures based on a court order. However, when we asked for more details, the registry [informed us][4] that it was “unable to comment on the situation at this time,” only adding to the mystery.

A few days ago, the domain trouble continued when Anna’s Archive’s .SE domain suddenly became unresponsive after being operational for years. For this domain, the registrar took action, as the site was put on *clientHold*. While we tried to get additional information from the registrar, our requests remained unanswered.

While it is clear that ‘something’ is going on, it’s not clear what. The troubles started not long after Anna’s Archive announced that it had [backed up Spotify][5], but there is no concrete link to a music industry push against the site.

## OCLC Seeks Permanent Injunction

What we do know for certain is that Anna’s Archive’s troubles are not over yet. Yesterday, a federal court in Ohio issued a default judgment and permanent injunction against the site’s unidentified operator(s).

This order was requested by OCLC, which owns the proprietary WorldCat database that was [scraped and published][6] by Anna’s Archive more than two years ago. OCLC initially demanded millions of dollars in damages but eventually dropped this request, focusing on taking the site down through an injunction that would also apply to intermediaries.

“Anna’s Archive’s flagrantly illegal actions have damaged and continue to irreparably damage OCLC. As such, issuance of a permanent injunction is necessary to stop any further harm to OCLC,” the request read.

This pivot makes sense since Anna’s Archive did not respond to the lawsuit and would likely ignore all payment demands too. However, with the right type of court order, third-party services such as hosting companies and domain registrars might come along.

## Court Grants Default Judgment

The permanent injunction, issued by U.S. District Court Judge Michael Watson yesterday, does not mention any third-party services by name. However, it is directed at all parties that are “in active concert and participation with” Anna’s Archive.

Specifically, the site’s operator and these third parties are prohibited from scraping WorldCat data, storing or distributing the data on Anna’s Archive websites, and encouraging others to store, use or share this data.

Additionally, the site has to delete all WorldCat data, which also includes all torrents.

The order
[anna conclude]

Judge Watson denied the default judgment for ‘unjust enrichment’ and ‘tortious interference.’ However, he granted the order based on the ‘trespass to chattels’ and ‘breach of contract’ claims.

The latter is particularly noteworthy, as the judge ruled that because Anna’s Archive is a ‘sophisticated party’ that scraped the site daily, it had constructive notice of the terms and entered into a ‘[browsewrap][7]‘ agreement simply by using the service.

While these nuances are important for legal experts, the result for Anna’s Archive is that it lost. And while there are no monetary damages, the permanent injunction can certainly have an impact.

## More Trouble Ahead?

It is expected that OCLC will use the injunction to motivate third-party intermediaries to take action against Anna’s Archive.

Whether intermediaries are considered in “active concert” with Anna’s Archive will differ based on who you ask. However, OCLC previously said that it intends to “take the
judgment to website hosting services to remove WorldCat data from Anna’s Archive’s websites”.

The injunction that was issued yesterday obviously cannot explain the earlier domain name troubles. That said, it’s not unthinkable that OCLC will also send the injunction to domain registrars and registries, to add further pressure.

*—*

* *

*A copy of the opinion and order issued by U.S. District Court Judge Michael Watson is available [here (pdf)][8].*

From: [TF][9], for the latest news on copyright battles, piracy and more.

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anna%27s_Archive
[2]: https://torrentfreak.com/annas-archive-loses-org-domain-after-surprise-suspension/
[3]: https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/epp-status-codes-2014-06-16-en
[4]: https://torrentfreak.com/annas-archive-loses-org-domain-after-surprise-suspension/
[5]: https://torrentfreak.com/annas-archive-backed-up-spotify-plans-to-release-300tb-music-archive/
[6]: https://torrentfreak.com/annas-archive-scraped-worldcat-to-help-preserve-all-books-in-the-world-231003/
[7]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Browsewrap
[8]: https://torrentfreak.com/images/anna-oclc-default-judgment.pdf
[9]: https://torrentfreak.com/

https://torrentfreak.com/u-s-court-order-against-annas-archive-spells-more-trouble-for-the-site/

French Court Orders Popular VPNs to Block More Pirate Sites, ...

2026-01-15T09:40:47+01:00

French Court Orders Popular VPNs to Block More Pirate Sites, Despite Opposition

[goal]Since 2024, the Paris Judicial Court has expanded the typical piracy site blocking orders beyond Internet providers.

Initially, rightsholders set their aim at DNS resolvers. This resulted in orders targeted at Cloudflare, Google, and others, requiring them to actively block access to pirate sites through their public DNS resolvers.

These blocking expansions were requested by sports rights holders, covering Formula 1, football Ligue 1, MotoGP, and other major sporting brands. They claimed that public DNS resolvers could help users to bypass existing ISP blockades, and the court agreed.

Last year, rightsholders cast their net even wider by targeting VPN providers with similar blocking demands. Again, the Paris Court acknowledged the threat of circumvention, ordering CyberGhost, ExpressVPN, NordVPN, ProtonVPN, and Surfshark to start blocking access to specific websites in France.

## VPN Blocking Expands

The VPN blocking effort was not a one-off. After the first order was granted in May, more [followed in June and July][1]. These additional orders target various sports piracy sites as requested by the French entertainment powerhouse Canal Plus (SECP) and beIN Sports.

After this initial barrage, the blocking activity seemed to have quieted down, but it is far from over. On December 18, the Paris Judicial Court issued a new blocking order. This time around, the French top football league (LFP) and its commercial arm are the requesting parties.

As in previous orders, ProtonVPN, Nordvpn, Cyberghost, Surfshark and ExpressVPN are the main targets. These VPN providers have to block access to several domains that provide access to pirated sports streams.

The order covers 13 initial domains, including miztv.top, strikeout.im, and prosmarterstv.com. However, it is a ‘dynamic’ order in the sense that, through the overseeing body ARCOM, LFP can add new domains in case additional mirrors and proxies are launched. These blocks remain active for the entire 2025/2026 football season.

The court concludes that these VPNs help people to bypass existing site-blocking measures, rendering ISP blocking ineffective. While the VPN blockades are no silver bullet, combined with other blocking measures they should make it more difficult to access these pirate sites.

## The No-Log Defense

All VPN providers, except ProtonVPN, appeared in court to argue a defense. They raised various arguments, with the “no-log” defense from Surfshark and NordVPN standing out.

Specifically, the VPNs argued that their “no-log” policy means they do not track user IP addresses or geolocate their users. Therefore, a court order to block access only for French users would violate their contractual obligations.

The court was not very receptive to this argument. Instead, it bluntly concluded that “the contractual stipulations binding VPN service providers to their clients cannot be invoked against [the plaintiffs] who have demonstrated an infringement of their rights.”

The court stressed that blocking the domains does not require the service to permanently store information on its users. The VPNs simply have to make sure that the sites are blocked from France.

In addition, the court rejected the notion that the blocking measures would constitute a “general monitoring obligation”, which is not allowed under the EU’s DSA, because the measures are limited to specific domains and end after the 2025-2026 football season.

## Court Rejects Other Defenses

The VPNs also argued that their services don’t qualify as “technical intermediaries” under Article L. 333-10 of the Sports Code, but that was denied by the Paris court as well. The same applies to the proportionality and effectiveness arguments, which all failed.

The court’s logic throughout the order is that technical neutrality does not equal legal immunity.

By citing the DSA and the Sports Code, the judge effectively argues that VPN services can be key intermediaries in the piracy ecosystem. Therefore, they are legally obligated to act.

“Contrary to the assertions of Surfshark and NordVPN, the mere act of serving as a bridge to enable access to the pirate sites fulfills the function of transmission. Even if an intermediary acts in a passive, automatic, and neutral manner during the connection between internet domains, it nonetheless remains an essential agent in the transmission of data from one domain to another,” the (translated) order reads.

## What Happens Next?

The latest ruling confirms that VPN providers can be obligated to block pirate sites, at least in France. However, the final word hasn’t been said.

Speaking with TorrentFreak this week, a NordVPN spokesperson confirms that their appeal is already underway. The company did not directly explain how it complies with the court order but instead said that site-blocking measures are futile.

“While it may address superficial cases, it fails to tackle the root causes of piracy. Pirates can easily circumvent these blocks by using subdomains: blocking does not eliminate the content itself or reduce the incentives for piracy,” [NordVPN][2] notes.

“Effective piracy control should focus on eliminating the source of the content, targeting hosting providers, cutting off financing for illegal operations, and increasing the availability of legitimate content.”

In addition, NordVPN notes that, since the French order targets reputable VPNs, users may choose lower-quality free VPNs that will remain a loophole for pirates.

For now, however, the targeted VPN providers have to find a way to implement the blocking order. The court order doesn’t specify any technical measures, so they are free to do as they please, as long as the targeted sites are unavailable.

If the French VPN blockades are ultimately upheld, some providers may choose to leave the country entirely, but none have made this drastic step yet.

*—*

*

A copy of the order issued by the Tribunal Judiciaire de Paris in favor of LFP is available [here (pdf)][3]. A list of all the targeted domain names is available below.

*

*1. miztv.top
2. strikeout.im
3. qatarstreams.me
4. iptvfrancai.com
5. vip.kata17.xyz
6. iptv-france4k.fr
7. front-main.4k-drm.com
8. prosmarterstv.com
9. line.line-dino.com
10. iptvninja.fr
11. cdnhome.pro
12. elitetv.fr
13. smatest.xyz*

From: [TF][4], for the latest news on copyright battles, piracy and more.

[1]: https://torrentfreak.com/french-court-orders-vpns-to-block-more-pirate-sites-rejects-eu-court-referral/
[2]: https://nordvpn.com/
[3]: https://torrentfreak.com/images/tribunal-judiciaire_n°2513712_18_12_2025-2.pdf
[4]: https://torrentfreak.com/

https://torrentfreak.com/french-court-orders-popular-vpns-to-block-more-pirate-sites-despite-opposition/

Groupon ‘Redeems’ Itself With Rapid Takedown of Pirate IPTV ...

2026-01-14T10:20:44+01:00

Groupon ‘Redeems’ Itself With Rapid Takedown of Pirate IPTV Deal

[groupon]The battle against online piracy takes place on many fronts.

In addition to tackling infringing content at the source, copyright holders are increasingly focused on the platforms where these services are advertised and promoted.

These advertisements increase the exposure of illegal services, including pirate IPTV subscriptions. Additionally, advertisements on mainstream sites and platforms can give the impression that these pirate services are legitimate deals.

## A Groupon IPTV Deal?

Dutch anti-piracy group [BREIN][1] is one of the organizations that scours the web for these types of pirate ads. This includes monitoring the traditional advertising platforms such as Google, but also indirect promotion hubs such as Groupon.

Groupon offers its users a wide variety of deals, and BREIN recently spotted one for an IPTV service that was too good to be true. BREIN reported its findings to Groupon, which took [“almost immediate” action][2], according to the anti-piracy group.

BREIN does not name the IPTV service, but the only Dutch IPTV-related advertisement we see on Groupon is for OpliTV. This now-removed deal offered a 32% discount on top of an already extremely cheap annual plan.

OpliTV offer (translated & now offline)
[Opli]

Needless to say, these types of services have serious drawbacks. They may be linked to criminal activity and can be pulled offline at any minute, for example, which may also make them rather expensive in hindsight.

## Trusted Flagger

BREIN is pleased with Groupon’s swift action, noting that this is essential to stop promotions for these types of services.

“It is crucial that online infringements are stopped quickly to prevent irreparable damage. This is especially true for well-known, legal platforms where consumers can be confused about the legality of the offering,” BREIN notes.

Interestingly, BREIN suggests that its status as “trusted flagger” under the EU Digital Services Act helps to get intermediaries to act quickly.

“This swift action underscores the importance of the BREIN Foundation’s status as a ‘Trusted Flagger,’ which requires intermediaries to take action as a matter of priority,” the anti-piracy group writes.

BREIN officially received the trusted flagger status [last September][3] which raised its profile. According to BREIN Director Bastiaan van Ramshorst, this immediately made a difference.

Speaking with TorrentFreak, Van Ramshorst says that intermediaries such as Groupon now treat BREIN as a trusted party, which typically means that takedown notices are handled with priority, as the IPTV example shows.

The rapid takedown does not prevent similar deals from showing up at Groupon, however. While writing this article, we spotted a deal for another dirt-cheap IPTV service that offers access to 29,000+ channels. According to Groupon, this ‘hot’ deal has been sold more than 1,000 times already.

Premium IPTV Subscription Offer (still online)
[iptv deal]

From: [TF][4], for the latest news on copyright battles, piracy and more.

[1]: https://stichtingbrein.nl/
[2]: https://stichtingbrein.nl/groupon-stopt-kortingsactie-voor-illegaal-iptv/
[3]: https://stichtingbrein.nl/brein-verkrijgt-trusted-flagger-status/
[4]: https://torrentfreak.com/

https://torrentfreak.com/groupon-redeems-itself-with-rapid-takedown-of-pirate-iptv-deal/

Court Orders Porkbun and Other Registrars to Hand Over PornXP ...

2026-01-13T16:00:45+01:00

Court Orders Porkbun and Other Registrars to Hand Over PornXP Domains to Aylo

[pornhub]Formerly known as Mindgeek, [Aylo][1] is the driving force behind free ‘tube’ sites such as Pornhub, YouPorn, and RedTube. It also owns many adult brands, including Brazzers and Reality Kings, that charge for subscriptions.

The company controls an impressive library of more than 40,000 registered copyrighted works. When this content appears on third-party sites, it doesn’t hesitate to take legal action.

Last summer, for example, [Aylo Premium sued][2] the operators of PornXP, who were initially identified as “John Does.” As the case moved forward, Aylo pinpointed the alleged operator, Alex Abdullaev, in Kyrgyzstan. However, when Aylo sent someone to personally serve their suspect in the Central Asian country, no one answered the door.

Without a formal response from the defendant, Aylo eventually requested a default judgment at the U.S. District Court in Tacoma, Washington. According to Aylo, the pirate site network cost them over $172 million per month in potential lost subscriptions, based on PornXP’s 17 million monthly visitors.

In an attempt to recoup part of the damage, the adult entertainment company requested $15,000 in damages for each of the 2,040 infringing works, totaling more than $30 million.

## Court Grants $10m and Domain Seizures

In an order issued last month, U.S. District Court Judge Benjamin Settle issued a default judgment in favor of Aylo. While the Kyrgyzstani operator is held liable, the court reduced the requested damages by a third, to a little over $10 million.

“Aylo has demonstrated Abdullaev willfully infringed its copyrighted works and a statutory damages award is warranted and required. However, the Court in its discretion declines to award Aylo the $30.6 million it requests,” Judge Settle writes.

“The Court finds that only a fraction of the visitors would have paid for Aylo’s services. In its discretion and in the interests of justice, the Court will award $5,000 for each of the 2,040 offending works, totaling $10,200,000,” the order adds.

*From the court’s order*
[10 million]

In these types of cases it is highly unlikely that the defendant will pay anything. More important, perhaps, is the domain seizure order that was also granted by Judge Settle. Specifically, the order specifies that registries have to disable and transfer the PornXP domains.

## Porkbun Does Not (Have to) Comply

At first glance, it appeared that the order allowed Aylo to seize control of the PornXP domains. However, Aylo’s enforcement arm immediately ran into trouble when it asked the American domain registrar Porkbun to comply.

On December 19, Aylo’s attorney, Ethan Jacobs, asked Porkbun to transfer a dozen domain names, including pornxp.click, pornxp.club, pornxp.download, pornxp.lat, pornxp.one, and pornxp.pics. However, that didn’t go as planned, as Porkbun refused to comply.

In a response to Aylo, the company argued that the court’s order only commanded “registries” (which manage the domains) to disable and transfer the domains, not “registrars”, which are the companies that sell these domain names.

No registrars
[no registrars]

This distinction is more than just semantics. In the Internet ecosystem, registries and registrars have different technical capabilities and legal obligations. By specifically naming registries in the permanent injunction, registrars such as Porkbun are not required to comply.

## Aylo Requests Amended Court Order

For Aylo, it is key that domain registrars are covered. Many of these companies, such as Porkbun, Namesilo, and GoDaddy, are based in the U.S. and directly subject to the court’s jurisdiction. The same doesn’t automatically apply to foreign domain registries, which may not comply with American court orders.

In response to Porkbun’s refusal, Aylo filed an ex parte motion last Friday, asking the court to amend the order to explicitly include the “registrars”. This would compel Porkbun to disable the PornXP domains. Yesterday, this amended order was signed by Judge Settle.

The updated injunction now outlines a specific technical process and names the registrars and registries. For example, it requires registrars like Porkbun, NameSilo, and Spaceship to change the registrar of record to EuroDNS, which will then move the domains into Aylo’s name.

*Amended Judgment*
[amend order]

For now, most of the roughly three-dozen PornXP domains listed in the legal paperwork remain active, either directly or through a redirect. That includes the Porkbun-linked domains, which will likely go offline soon after the registrar processes the amended order.

Interestingly, several domains that are linked to foreign domain registries remain online too. For example, PornXP’s .eu domain is managed by EURid which is linked to the European Commission, while the .me domain is sponsored by the Government of Montenegro. This suggests that these foreign entities
have not complied with the original injunction either. Whether that will change now that they are directly named has yet to be seen.

The American registries Verisign (.com) and the Public Interest Registry (.org) did comply with the injunction, however.

This isn’t Aylo’s first legal go-around. The company followed a nearly identical playbook in its previous battles against [Goodporn][3] and [Daftsex][4], securing judgments of $2.1 million and $32 million, respectively. These sites also proved to be rather difficult to shut down, and their remnants can still be found online.

*—*

* *

*A copy of the initial court order issued by U.S. District Court Judge Benjamin Settle is available [here (pdf)][5]. The amended judgment can be found [here (pdf)][6].*

From: [TF][7], for the latest news on copyright battles, piracy and more.

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aylo
[2]: https://torrentfreak.com/aylo-sues-pirate-site-pornxp-wants-domains-transferred-or-blocked/
[3]: https://torrentfreak.com/pornhub-owner-obtains-pirate-site-blocking-order-from-u-s-court-240712/
[4]: https://torrentfreak.com/mindgeek-wins-32m-in-damages-from-adult-pirate-site-daftsex-com-221110/
[5]: https://torrentfreak.com/images/orderayloxp.pdf
[6]: https://torrentfreak.com/images/amendissued.pdf
[7]: https://torrentfreak.com/

https://torrentfreak.com/court-orders-porkbun-and-other-registrars-to-hand-over-pornxp-domains-to-aylo/

Top 10 Most Pirated Movies of The Week – 01/12/2026 [zootopia ...

2026-01-12T09:09:37+01:00

Top 10 Most Pirated Movies of The Week – 01/12/2026

[zootopia 2]The data for our weekly download chart is estimated by TorrentFreak, and is for informational and educational reference only.

Downloading content without permission is copyright infringement. These torrent download statistics are only meant to provide further insight into piracy trends. All data are gathered from public resources.

This week we have one newcomer on the list. “Zootopia 2” is the most shared title.

## The most torrented movies for the week ending on January 12 are:

──────────┬──────────────┬──────────────────────────────────────┬──────────────────────
**Movie │**Rank last │**Movie name** │**IMDb Rating /
Rank** │week** │ │Trailer**
──────────┼──────────────┼──────────────────────────────────────┼──────────────────────
**1** │(1) │Zootopia 2 │[7.6][1] /
│ │ │[trailer][2]
──────────┼──────────────┼──────────────────────────────────────┼──────────────────────
**2** │(3) │Predator: Badlands │[7.5][3] /
│ │ │[trailer][4]
──────────┼──────────────┼──────────────────────────────────────┼──────────────────────
**3** │(6) │Wicked: For Good │[6.8][5] /
│ │ │[trailer][6]
──────────┼──────────────┼──────────────────────────────────────┼──────────────────────
**4** │(5) │Wake Up Dead Man: A Knives Out Mystery│[7.5][7] /
│ │ │[trailer][8]
──────────┼──────────────┼──────────────────────────────────────┼──────────────────────
**5** │(2) │The Running Man │[6.0][9] /
│ │ │[trailer][10]
──────────┼──────────────┼──────────────────────────────────────┼──────────────────────
**6** │(7) │Avatar: Fire and Ash │[7.4][11] /
│ │ │[trailer][12]
──────────┼──────────────┼──────────────────────────────────────┼──────────────────────
**7** │(4) │Now You See Me: Now You Don’t │[6.5][13] /
│ │ │[trailer][14]
──────────┼──────────────┼──────────────────────────────────────┼──────────────────────
**8** │(8) │Nuremberg │[7.6][15] /
│ │ │[trailer][16]
──────────┼──────────────┼──────────────────────────────────────┼──────────────────────
**9** │(9) │One Battle After Another │[8.1][17] /
│ │ │[trailer][18]
──────────┼──────────────┼──────────────────────────────────────┼──────────────────────
**10** │(…) │Bugonia │[7.5][19] /
│ │ │[trailer][20]
──────────┴──────────────┴──────────────────────────────────────┴──────────────────────

Note: We also publish an updating archive of all the list of [weekly most torrented movies lists][21].

From: [TF][22], for the latest news on copyright battles, piracy and more.

[1]: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt26443597/
[2]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A-7RMaQaygI
[3]: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt31227572/
[4]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=43R9l7EkJwE
[5]: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt19847976/
[6]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vt98AlBDI9Y
[7]: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt14364480/
[8]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eHM1K1JByBI
[9]: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt4712810/
[10]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KD18ddeFuyM
[11]: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt1757678/
[12]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nb_fFj_0rq8
[13]: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt14107334/
[14]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-E3lMRx7HRQ
[15]: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt29567915/
[16]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WvAy9C-bipY
[17]: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt30144839/
[18]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=feOQFKv2Lw4
[19]: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt12300742/
[20]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bd_5HcTujfc
[21]: https://torrentfreak.com/most-pirated-movies-of-2026-weekly-archive/
[22]: https://torrentfreak.com/

https://torrentfreak.com/top-10-most-torrented-pirated-movies/

Disney, Netflix & Crunchyroll Try to Take Pirate Sites Down ...

2026-01-12T08:41:51+01:00

Disney, Netflix & Crunchyroll Try to Take Pirate Sites Down Globally Through Indian Court

[lolo]Pirate sites and services can be a real challenge for rightsholders to deal with. In India, however, recent court orders have proven to be quite effective.

Indian courts have issued pirate site blocking orders for over a decade. Initially, these orders were relatively basic, requiring local Internet providers to block specific domain names.

## Super Dynamic++ Anti-Hydra Injunctions

These regular injunctions were only partially effective. After the High Court granted a blocking injunction, pirate sites would often switch to new domains, requiring rightsholders to return to court to get these blocked as well.

To deal with this problem, the dynamic injunction was invented. These orders were issued to more effectively deny access to content made available on pirate sites. ISPs were not only required to block original domains but also any clones and mirror sites that surfaced after the order was signed.

When dynamic injunctions were no longer sufficient to [slay the piracy hydra][1], rightsholders suggested upgrading the Indian blocking regime with Dynamic ++ injunctions. These orders also protect copyrighted content that has yet to be registered.

In addition, Dynamic++ orders and their ‘[superlative][2]‘ variant also include [domain name registrars as defendants][3]. This includes blocking orders targeted at U.S. domain registrars.

## Hollywood Targets U.S. Companies Through India

The ability to target domain name registrants proved to be a game changer. Over the past two years, it allowed rightsholders to disable domains of various prominent pirate sites, some with dozens of millions of visitors. While these sites could simply register new domains, the legal efforts certainly affected their operation.

For this reason, it is no surprise to see that several American movie industry players have ramped up their enforcement actions in India, targeting [hundreds of domains][4] at a time. And since these orders effectively suspend domains at various domain name registrars, new requests keep coming in.

As reported by [Verdictum][5] a few days ago, the High Court in New Delhi issued a new blocking injunction on December 18, targeting [more than 150 pirate site domains][6], including yflix.to, animesuge.bz, bs.to, and many others.

[batman]

The complaint is filed by Warner Bros., Apple, Crunchyroll, Disney, and Netflix, which are all connected to the MPA’s anti-piracy arm, ACE. The referenced works include some of the [most pirated titles][7], such as Stranger Things, Squid Game, and Silo.

## Global Kill Switch Fails

In addition to targeting Indian ISPs, the order also lists various domain name registries and related organizations as defendants. This includes American registrars such as Namecheap and GoDaddy, but also the government of the Kingdom of Tonga, which is linked to .to domains.

By requiring domain name registrars to take action, the Indian court orders have a global impact.

In addition to suspending the domain names within three days days, the domain name registrars are given four weeks to disclose the relevant subscriber information connected to these domains.

“[The registrars] shall lock and suspend Defendant Nos. 1 to 47 websites within 72 hours of being communicated with a copy of this Order and shall file all the Basic Subscriber Information, including the name, address, contact information, email addresses, bank details, IP logs, and any other relevant information […] within four weeks of being communicated with a copy of this Order,” the High Court wrote.

## Not All Domain ‘Registrars’ Comply

While the “Dynamic+” injunction is designed to be a global kill switch, its effectiveness depends entirely on the cooperation of the domain name registrars. Since most of these are based outside of India, their compliance is not guaranteed.

By now, the 72-hour deadline to comply has long passed, so we can effectively see which registrars have taken action and which ones haven’t.

According to our analysis, it appears that most domain names have not been suspended. These pirate sites domains continue to be accessible today. Some continue running from their original domains, while others redirect to new ones, suggesting that they remain controlling their original owners.

This includes domains that are linked to Namecheap, Tucows, GoDaddy, NameSilo, Dynadot, OVH and others. The government of the Kingdom of Tonga did not comply with the Indian court order either.

*Tonga!*
[tonga]

As far as we can see, domains linked to the American registrar Porkbun, the UK-based WHG Hosting services, and the Lithuanian registrar Hostinger were fully suspended. Registrar.eu also put some domains on clientHold, and the one that remains accessible (animesuge.bz) is linked to Namecheap now.

*Non-compliant registrars*
[registrats]

It’s not unprecedented for foreign companies, including American ones, not to comply with Indian court orders. However, in this case, it is worth noting that Namecheap previously appeared [to comply][8] with [similar orders][9] from the Delhi High Court.

The non-compliance must come as a disappointment to Netflix, Warner Bros. and the others. However, they will likely be back in court for more blocking and suspension orders son enough.

All in all, it is clear that India’s High Court has a streamlined process in place that effectively orders local ISPs to block pirate sites. However, the intended global reach seems to be restricted to a few registrars, for now.

*—*

* *

*A copy of the High Court order, issued on December 18, 2025, by Justice Tejas Karia, is available [here (pdf)][10]. The court order includes 163 unique domain names, some of which are not linked to a registrar. An overview of the 125 domains that are linked to targeted registrars and related entities is provided below. . *

─────────────────────────────────────────┬─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
Domain Name Registrar │Domain Names
─────────────────────────────────────────┼─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
Porkbun LLC │hdmoviehub.beer
─────────────────────────────────────────┼─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
Tucows Domains Inc. │hdtoday-to.lol, hdtoday-tv.lol
─────────────────────────────────────────┼─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
NameSilo, LLC │movies4u.vip, desiremovies.party, desiremovies.ist, desiremovies.onl, desiremovies.faith, desiremovies.review, animeacademy.in, uhdmovies.stream, toono.in, watchanimeworld.in, fmovies-co.net, animesalt.com, flixmomo.org, flixbaba.net, boredflix.com, wmovies.one, cuevana3.vip, animeworld-india.me, moviemaze.cc, streamingunity.co, pelisflix1.ink, pelisflix1.fun, pelisflix1.lol, pelisflix1.fit, pelisflix1.icu, pelisflix1.xyz, pelisflix1.site, pelisflix1.work, pelisflix1.com, pelisflix20.hair
─────────────────────────────────────────┼─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
Government of Kingdom of Tonga │pelisflix20.casa, pelisflix20.press, pelisflix20.help, pelisflix20.onl, pelisflix20.mom, pelisflix20.buzz, pelisflix20.pics, yflix.to, anigo.to, watchflix.to, 24drama.to, s.to, bs.to
─────────────────────────────────────────┼─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
OVH, SAS │pelisflix20.autos, pelisflix20.lol, pelisflix20.xyz, pelisflix20.icu, pelisflix20.rest, pelisflix20.one, pelisflix20.wiki, pelisflix20.bid, pelisflix20.ceo, pelisflix20.co, pelisflix20.fun, pelisflix20.top, pelisflix20.cam, pelisflix20.club, pelisflixhd.icu, pelisflix3.org, www.cuevana2espanol.net, cuevana2espanol.net, streamingcommunity.garden, streamingcommunityz.me, streamingcommunityz.si, streamingcommunityz.casa, streamingcommunityz.bz, streamingunity.bid, streamingunity.blog
─────────────────────────────────────────┼─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
Spaceship, Inc. │animesugez.to, animesalt.cc, hdmoviehub.co, lordsanime.in
─────────────────────────────────────────┼─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
Immaterialism Limited │fmovies.gd, fmovies-tv.tv, bingeflix.tv
─────────────────────────────────────────┼─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
R01-RU │veloratv.ru, hydrahd.ru
─────────────────────────────────────────┼─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
Hosting Concepts B.V. d/b/a Registrar.eu │1shows.ru, 1flex.ru, animesuge.bz
─────────────────────────────────────────┼─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
Dynadot LLC │dorawatch.net, pelisflix.cat
─────────────────────────────────────────┼─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
Namecheap, Inc. │movies4u.sx, [suspicious link removed], cuevana.uno, netmirror.art, mmodlist.com, nekohd.com, dramadrip.com, movies4f.com, 1337x-official.com, yarrlist.com, ogomovies.gg, moviesnation.study, streamingunity.to, www1.playdede.ws, playdede.ws, pelisflix20.me, pelisflix20.com, pelisflix2.ac, pelisflix2.ws, cuevana.biz, w5nv.cuevana.biz, play.cuevana3cc.me, cuevana3cc.me, cuevana3cc.co
─────────────────────────────────────────┼─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
Ascio Technologies Inc. │ww4.seeflix.to, seeflix.to
─────────────────────────────────────────┼─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
Hostinger Operations, UAB │anitown4u.com, moonflix.in
─────────────────────────────────────────┼─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
NETIM │hdtoday.gg, desiremovies.cologne
─────────────────────────────────────────┼─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
Key Systems GmbH │animesugetv.se, pelisflix20.at
─────────────────────────────────────────┼─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
Gandi SAS │prmovies-to.lol, hdhub4u-to.lol
─────────────────────────────────────────┼─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
Internet Domain Service BS Corp. │cinemadeck.com
─────────────────────────────────────────┼─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
ua.drs │9anime.org.ua
─────────────────────────────────────────┼─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
GoDaddy.com, LLC │moviehd.us
─────────────────────────────────────────┼─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
Dreamscape Networks International Pte Ltd│moviepire.net
─────────────────────────────────────────┼─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
WHG Hosting services Ltd │anikoto.tv
─────────────────────────────────────────┼─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
Webglobe d.o.o. │cuevana3.rs
─────────────────────────────────────────┴─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────

From: [TF][11], for the latest news on copyright battles, piracy and more.

[1]: https://torrentfreak.com/mass-pirate-site-domain-suspensions-aim-to-slay-the-streaming-hydra-251008/
[2]: https://torrentfreak.com/the-superlative-injunction-indias-pirate-site-blockades-go-next-level/
[3]: https://torrentfreak.com/namecheap-suspends-zorox-to-upmovies-to-and-other-pirate-to-domains-240305/
[4]: https://torrentfreak.com/mass-pirate-site-domain-suspensions-aim-to-slay-the-streaming-hydra-251008/
[5]: https://www.verdictum.in/court-updates/high-courts/delhi-high-court/warner-bros-entertainment-inc-v-animesugez-to-illegal-streaming-films-1603273
[6]: #domains
[7]: https://torrentfreak.com/stranger-things-is-the-most-pirated-tv-show-of-2025/
[8]: https://torrentfreak.com/hollywood-used-dynamic-injunction-to-shut-down-movie-web-and-other-pirate-sites-240226/
[9]: https://torrentfreak.com/hollywood-takes-down-animeflix-vegamovies-and-others-with-broad-anti-piracy-order-240523/
[10]: https://torrentfreak.com/images/high_court_order-8.pdf
[11]: https://torrentfreak.com/

https://torrentfreak.com/disney-netflix-crunchyroll-try-to-take-pirate-sites-down-globally-through-indian-court/

X Sues Music Publishers Over “Weaponized” DMCA Takedown ...

2026-01-10T17:19:15+01:00

X Sues Music Publishers Over “Weaponized” DMCA Takedown Conspiracy

[x twitter]The legal battle between X Corp. and the music industry has just escalated from a straightforward [copyright lawsuit][1] into a full-blown antitrust war.

The dispute started in 2023, with various music publishers accusing X of ‘breeding’ mass copyright infringement, and appeared to [steer toward a settlement][2] last summer.

## X Sues Music Publishers

That settlement never came. Instead, the legal battle motivated X to gather sufficient evidence for a counterstrike, where many key industry companies and music publishers are accused of a conspiracy to weaponize the DMCA.

In a scathing 53-page complaint filed in the Northern District of Texas today, X Corp. is suing the National Music Publishers’ Association ([NMPA][3]) and a coalition of major music publishers, including Sony, Universal, and Warner Chappell, for alleged violations of the Sherman Antitrust Act.

*X Corp vs. Music Inc.*
[complaint]

The lawsuit essentially argues that the NMPA didn’t send thousands of DMCA takedown notices to protect artist rights. Instead, X claims the notices were used as an “extortionate campaign” to motivate X into paying “supracompetitive” licensing fees.

“As part of this conspiracy, Defendants weaponized the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (the “DMCA”) against X, using the DMCA as a pretext for their extortionate campaign,” the complaint reads.

## Weaponize the DMCA

The core of X’s argument is that the NMPA and many its members allegedly agreed not to make individual deals with the platform. Instead of negotiating separate licenses, X alleges the industry colluded to get a much better price.

According to the complaint, NMPA President David Israelite emailed X in October 2021 (when it was still Twitter), threatening 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.

*Massive*
[messive]

When X refused to sign a deal, the floodgates opened. X claims that starting in December 2021, the NMPA began sending weekly notices identifying thousands of posts. In the first year alone, these notices targeted over 200,000 posts. Since the scheme began, the campaign has resulted in the suspension of more than 50,000 users.

X describes this as a “weaponization” of the DMCA, aimed not at curbing piracy, but at hurting X’s business by targeting its “most popular users”.

*Weaponize*
[weaponize]

## Allegations of Hypocrisy

Perhaps the most colorful allegations in the new complaint focus on the NMPA’s supposed hypocrisy. X argues that, while the NMPA was demanding the removal of fan-made content, its own executives were posting the exact same material.

The complaint cites an instance where an NMPA Senior Vice President reposted a “remix” video by a user known as “KylePlantEmoji,” which featured copyrighted songs by Nelly and Papa Roach.

“The NMPA lawyer did not report this post as infringing a copyright. Quite the opposite: the lawyer supported the video by reposting it on her own feed,” the complaint notes.

*Remix*
[remix]

In another example, X points to a takedown notice issued for a video of a high school sports award ceremony. The video was flagged because of brief background music played while a student walked on stage to accept an award.

*Ceremony*
[baseless]

“Although there is no reasonable basis for censoring this video focused on a high school athlete’s achievement based on the de minimis, non-commercial use of background music in the video, X had to take it down because of Defendants’ scheme,” the complaint notes.

## The Majors Joined the “Conspiracy”

X’s lawsuit also explains how the major music publishers, Universal, Sony, and Warner Chappell, allegedly joined the conspiracy later. Initially, these labels were not part of the NMPA’s takedown blitz.

However, X claims that the publishers eventually joined when their desired licensing deals did not come to fruition.

With this antitrust action, X is seeking damages and a permanent injunction to stop the alleged anticompetitive conduct. With claims for civil conspiracy, unfair competition, and attempted monopolization, among others, this is a high-stakes case.

*—-*

* *

*The full complaint filed today by X Corp. at a federal court in the Northern District of Texas is available [here (pdf)][4].*

From: [TF][5], for the latest news on copyright battles, piracy and more.

[1]: https://torrentfreak.com/music-companies-sue-twitter-over-mass-copyright-infringement-230615/
[2]: https://torrentfreak.com/x-vs-music-publishers-settlement-looms-in-copyright-clash-after-maximum-pain-revelation/
[3]: https://www.nmpa.org/
[4]: https://torrentfreak.com/images/twitter-nmpa.pdf
[5]: https://torrentfreak.com/

https://torrentfreak.com/x-sues-music-publishers-over-weaponized-dmca-takedown-conspiracy/