Around 15 years ago, the French government launched an expansive monitoring and enforcement system to fight online piracy.

With fines and internet terminations for recidivists, the so-called Hadopi system was arguably ahead of its time. Users of the peer-to-peer BitTorrent-like networks that Hadopi had been designed to prowl, almost universally hated it.

Yet, for the many pirates that had already migrated to file-hosting, indexing, and streaming platforms, and the millions more in the process of doing so, the Hadopi deterrent had arrived late to a party already underway at a new location. Since streaming services were immune to the P2P eavesdropping skills of Hadopi, blocking access to pirate sites was one of the few options left.

The Arcom Era

Mapping, understanding, and restricting the French piracy landscape now falls to regulator Arcom. At a time when sports leagues and their broadcasting partners speak of multi-billion euro annual losses, Arcom has much to do. With the provisions available under the French Sports Code, it also has the authority to do so.

Rightsholders able to show “serious and repeated infringements” of their IP rights can ask a court to demand “all appropriate measures” to prevent or limit the infringement, from any person/entity in a position to do so. As seen in recent cases involving Cloudflare and Google , third party DNS resolvers fall within that scope. A ruling earlier this month means that VPN providers will also have to comply .

Under the orders of a judge at the Court of Paris, Cloudflare and Google must restrict access to named pirate sites by blocking resolution of their domain names. A new report published by Arcom provides an overview of blocking measures in France during 2024 and the first few months of 2025. Given the scale, if Cloudflare, Google, and the VPN providers are included in future blocking applications as standard, all will become instantly busy.

The report also casts more light on Arcom’s role after blocking orders are handed down, and provides data which reveals the scale of blocking carried out to date. Whether results at the consumer end amount to victory, acceptable progress, treading water, or something much less, depends on information rarely seen in a blocking report. Unfortunately, sales data makes no appearance here either.

Headline Piracy Consumption Data

Rather than a catch-all category of ‘illegal streaming’, the report differentiates between watching streams via a traditional streaming website, and consuming streams via a pirate IPTV service more likely to cost money.

Arcom reports that 2,028 live streaming domains were blocked in 2024, compared to 1,769 IPTV domains. For context, just 77 IPTV domains were blocked in 2023.

Arcom says that 16% of French people admit to using live streaming sites, compared to just 12% for IPTV. Of immediate concern is the apparent influx of new users to the latter.

In 2023 around 26% of IPTV users had been consuming content this way for less than a year. In 2024, four in ten (41%) said they’d been using pirate IPTV services for less than 12 months. That may raise questions of whether greater awareness of piracy issues is having the intended effect.

Overall, 18% admitted to consuming live sports broadcasts from illegal sources in 2024, a small reduction on the 19% from the previous year. Whether ‘containing’ piracy year-on-year will be seen as acceptable seems unlikely. However, for governments hoping to move the needle by cracking down on end users, a finding in the report should give pause for thought.

“[T]he propensity of viewers [using illicit sources] to also subscribe to legal paid offers remains high: 60% of them pay for sports offers, twice as much as the average French person (32%, a slight decrease compared to 2023),” Arcom notes.

Headline Blocking Data

With site blocking firmly established as the anti-piracy weapon of choice, rightsholders hope that visiting blocked domains will cause inconvenience and disappointment to combine so often that paying for content becomes more attractive.

“Nearly a third of Internet users using illegal streaming sites have encountered blocking measures implemented by Arcom, an increase of five points, and 71% of them end up abandoning their attempts at illegal viewing,” Arcom reports.

Reaction to blocking notice

A blocking message exposure rate in excess of 30% doesn’t seem unreasonable; between Arcom and the Court of Paris, pirate domains are being blocked in their thousands.

Domains vs Sites

When rightsholders file blocking applications at the Court of Paris, the paperwork sets out a case in favor of blocking along with a list of infringing domains. In some cases recent applications have contained anywhere between 100 and 150 domains, which can lead to media reports conflating domains with the number of sites targeted. The data suggests that the difference is important.

When the Court of Paris approves blocking measures, the domains in the application are blocked by local ISPs. At some point, pirate site operators usually deploy countermeasures to limit the effect of the blocking.

Depending on the targets, that could mean the deployment of a new domain, ten new domains, or 10,000 unique and impossible to read subdomains, followed by a complete rebrand. Whatever the response, rightsholders and Arcom are kept busy.

Dynamic Blocking Now a Minimum Requirement

Today’s blocking orders anticipate countermeasures by providing flexibility. All rightsholders have to do is keep track of any new domains facilitating access to the sites behind the domains listed in the initial order, then provide Arcom with a new list of pirate domains. Much easier said than done.

Once Arcom’s agents have carried out relevant checks, Arcom issues notifications for those domains to be blocked along with the domains in the order. In 2024, a total of 3,797 domains were blocked following an Arcom notification, versus just 415 domains in orders issued by the Court of Paris.

When added together, domains authorized for blocking by the Court are just a fraction of domains blocked following Arcom’s notifications.

These figures are broadly similar to those seen elsewhere; when a Court orders domains to be blocked, more likely than not the number of domains that ultimately affects is several times greater than the initial order suggests.

Finally, the French have another powerful tool at their disposal. Sites subjected to blocking measures can be reported to search engines, typically Google and Bing, from where their domains are deindexed, never to be seen again. The downside is a visibility boost for malicious pirate sites and various scams, which typically target less savvy users before parting them from their money.

Arcom’s report is currently available in French and is linked below. All translations and presentation of Arcom data here should be considered unofficial.

Arcom’s Illicit Consumption of Live Sports in 2024 report is available here (pdf)

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

Torrent site uploaders come in various shapes and sizes. Only a few become so popular that their ‘brand’ is widely recognized by online pirates.

COLLECTiVE falls into the latter category. The uploader operating under this tag, Will1869, shared many high-profile titles, mostly films. He purportedly operated as a one-man team.

These releases appeared on major torrent sites including 1337x and the recently defunct TorrentGalaxy. COLLECTiVE reportedly ran a small torrent portal, Laidbackmanor, where these releases often appeared first.

Unlike regular release groups, which are often the origin of leaks, Will1869 (as COLLECTiVE) typically sourced his releases from elsewhere. This included cams with embedded ads that were carefully stripped before they were shared further.

UK Police Arrest Will1869, Shut Down Laidbackmanor

For a long time, COLLECTiVE uploads appeared at a steady pace, but that changed at the end of last month, when they suddenly stopped. At the same time, the Laidbackmanor site was taken offline and redirected to a GoDaddy landing page.

In the immediate wake of these events, rumors started to spread that Will1869, a.k.a. COLLECTiVE, had been arrested. This was reported by several unconfirmed sources and corroborated by a message sent through his website hours before it disappeared.

After reaching out to a trusted source, who asked to remain anonymous, we can now report that UK police arrested Will1869 at the end of April. He has since been released on bail but remains under investigation.

At this point, no further information on the case is available, but we are informed that additional details are expected to be released in due course. What is clear, however, is that the arrest effectively means the end for COLLECTiVE and the associated website.

Prominent Releases

It’s unknown how the authorities eventually pinpointed Will1869, but his operation under the COLLECTiVE tag has been a high-profile target for a while, as its releases have been downloaded through pirate sites many millions of times.

In January, COLLECTiVE made headlines when two Oscar-nominated screeners started to leak across various torrent sites. The most popular releases were tagged by COLLECTiVE but Will1869 wasn’t the original source. Instead, the leaks were obtained elsewhere on the open web.

These pass-through releases were typical of how COLLECTiVE operated. Instead of ripping content directly, Will1869 picked up other releases which, after some ‘improvements’, were uploaded to the public.

The arrest of Will1869 by UK police effectively puts an end to this stream of uploads.

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

After a decade of focusing on efforts overseas, the push for website blocking has landed back on American shores.

Domestic site blocking initiatives were shelved for over a decade in the U.S. following the SOPA backlash, but that hesitation appears to have evaporated.

With Representative Zoe Lofgren’s introduction of the Foreign Anti-Digital Piracy Act ( FADPA ) in February, the controversial mechanism of court-ordered blocking against foreign ‘pirate’ sites is no longer just a foreign issue. On the contrary, with more than one bill in the making, lawmakers and stakeholders are actively fleshing out the details.

MPA Spotlights Site Blocking at Senate Hearing

Thus far, most of the work on these site blocking agreements has taken place behind closed doors. We know that ISPs are involved but none have commented on the matter in public. The same is true for rightsholders who, after the massive SOPA revolt, prefer private negotiations over demands in the public spotlight.

As a pioneer of site blocking efforts around the globe, it’s no secret that the Motion Picture Association (MPA) is in favor. And indeed, at a recent hearing at the Senate Subcommittee on Intellectual Property, the MPA’s Karyn Temple reiterated the need for a U.S. site-blocking system.

The MPA’s Senior Executive Vice President explained that pirate sites generate billions of visits a year by ‘stealing’ American films and TV series. These sites are not simple hobby projects, but commercial operations run by criminal groups from foreign countries.

“They are run not by individual teens in someone’s basement, but by sophisticated foreign criminal organizations who are involved in the most heinous criminal behavior you can imagine,” Temple said.

“And they are specifically designed to target American citizens, your constituents, for their personal and financial data and to expose them to malware and identity theft,”

American consumers are specifically targeted by these sites because they are lucrative victims, Temple said. Additionally, it is of course convenient that sites are not blocked in the U.S., unlike in 55 other countries, where blocking remedies are available.

ISPs Seek Retroactive Immunity

The MPA’s testimony offers little fresh news. The group has shared similar views for several years now but this time around, it appears that progress is actually being made, albeit behind the scenes.

Democratic Senator Chris Coons, the recent recipient of an MPA Industry Champion Award , shared some new information during the hearing. He noted that “real progress” appears to have been made, while also identifying a previously undisclosed roadblock.

Discussions on potential site blocking legislation are taking place alongside a request from ISPs for both prospective and retrospective immunity. That basically boils down to a demand for an exemption on piracy liability, regardless of when any infringement took place.

“It finally feels like we’re making some real progress here on site blocking after years. One of the key roadblocks to getting a final deal is whether ISPs should benefit from immunity, both prospectively and retrospectively,” Senator Coons said.

When asked to comment on the ISPs’ request, the MPA replied that this shouldn’t be much of a problem, as the immunity issue never led to any legal claims in other countries.

“ISPs have not routinely been sued for enforcing site blocking regimes. So, you know, I think in our experience, we don’t think that this is a provision that is necessary at all,” Temple replied.

U.S. Liability Lawsuits Against ISPs

Temple is right that site blocking schemes haven’t triggered a wave of lawsuits abroad, but the ISPs may have another interest in retrospective immunity when it comes to piracy liability.

While details of their exact demands are unknown, it seems plausible that ISPs are seeking to limit the existing piracy liability lawsuits, where providers are sued for not taking appropriate action against repeat infringers.

These lawsuits involve many prominent ISPs, including Verizon and Cox. The latter was previously held liable for a billion dollars in damages and the ISP recently appealed to the Supreme Court to take on the matter.

With these cases in mind, it’s understandable that ISPs would like to make sure that, if new legislation passes, they wouldn’t find themselves worse off from a liability perspective.

Finish Line in Sight?

Unfortunately, none of these site blocking ‘deal’ discussions between stakeholders are taking place in public. So, for now, we have to make do with the snippets that come out through hearings and other commentary.

That said, it’s starting to look like a U.S. site blocking scheme is closer to reality than ever before. At the hearing, Temple sounded confident that it could pass this session, which means a matter of months, not years.

“The MPA stands ready to work with you and all stakeholders to enact judicial site blocking this session. It’s time, finally, to get this legislation over the finish line,” Temple said.

—

The full video of the hearing of the U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary’s subcommittee on Intellectual Property that took place last week is available here .

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

Rampant piracy of live sporting events has been a hot topic in Europe for several years. Anti-piracy measures against relatively static targets have their place but preventing access to pirated live streams is much more difficult.

After calling for assistance from the European Commission, many rightsholders are hoping for new legislation to hold intermediaries more accountable. Until then, most sport-linked rightsholders continue to rely on site blocking measures.

After years of fine-tuning, courts all over Europe understand the process well and most appreciate the difficulties faced by rightsholders. Cases are commonly assessed to ensure that injunctive relief is warranted, measures requested are proportionate, and any negative effects on non-infringing third parties will be as low as practically possible.

LaLiga / Telefonica Order: Massive Overblocking

Sysadmin @jaumepons has been crunching data concerning a blocking order previously obtained by LaLiga and Telefonica to block 119 streaming sites. It was granted on the basis there would be no negative effects on internet users, but in February it became clear that hundreds, potentially thousands of innocent sites and users, were being blocked at the same time.

Appeals by Cloudflare and cybersecurity group RootedCON were dismissed by the issuing court; @jaumepons’ latest estimates published on Friday suggests those decisions came at a price.

LaLiga insists that its blocking is not indiscriminate and any overblocking is minimal. Unfortunately, even if the 2.7 million estimate was slashed to just 270, blocking two legal domains for every pirate domain isn’t proportionate and the harm inflicted is likely to be significant.

RootedCON Appeals to Constitutional Court

RootedCON previously stated it wouldn’t just stand by if nothing was done to protect internet users. With a complaint filed at Spain’s Constitutional Court, it is now making good on its word.

“At RootedCON, after 15 years promoting freedom, innovation, and critical thinking in the field of cybersecurity, we cannot stand idly by in the face of this outrage,” their statement reads.

“The measures adopted, lacking transparency, proportionality, and adequate safeguards, represent an extremely dangerous precedent for citizens’ digital rights and the Spanish technological ecosystem. We urge La Liga, the operators involved, and the judiciary to reflect on the serious impact of these types of decisions, which are more similar to the practices of authoritarian regimes of the last century than those of a modern, forward-looking democracy.”

Despite the serious nature of the ongoing controversy, until now it has generally lacked a political dimension.

The Spanish government’s only comment thus far (“We respect judicial decisions”) meets the standard every democratically elected government should strive for. The fly in the ointment is that the injunction was granted on the basis it would do no harm to third parties. As RootedCON suggests, momentum is building regardless.

“[I]n our appeal to the Constitutional Court, we request precautionary measures to curb the constant harassment suffered by both companies and users in our country, and we demand a public and technical debate in the Congress of Deputies on the limits of online control, following the initiative recently proposed by Representative Néstor Rego,” the statement concludes.

Politics Enters the Equation

Néstor Rego is a politician and a member of the Congress of Deputies of Spain. He’s the leader of the Galician Nationalist Bloc and in a statement posted to the party’s website, he calls on the government to “put a stop to the abusive and uncontrolled practices.”

“The State Government must take action on the matter given the repeated blocking of thousands of web pages because, if it does not do so, it implies an abandonment of its functions, leaving them in private hands that act for their own benefit and without control,” Rego says .

“[I]t is incomprehensible that private companies can block websites. The judicial authorization is absurd at this point, but it is not even respected, because that authorization establishes that no harm can be caused to third parties, and yes it is happening. The indiscriminate blocking by LaLiga and Movistar implies a violation of the rights of users and that is why the Government must act.”

LaLiga Responds to Complaints

During the last couple of weeks, momentum has noticeably increased among those who oppose blocking for the collateral damage it causes. Among them is José Luis Porquicho Prada, a journalist working at local news outlet Cádiz Directo.

On May 18, Prada published an article titled LaLiga blocks Cádiz Directo without evidence in its uncontrolled anti-piracy crusade , which revealed that LaLiga had started blocking cadizdirecto.com for no apparent reason. Prada reported that LaLiga was initially unresponsive so he was unable to explain that a mistake had been made.

“[C]ompletely innocent media outlets are being held accountable, without due process, without the right to defense, and without a shred of evidence. Fundamental rights enshrined in Article 24 of the Spanish Constitution, which guarantees effective judicial protection and the right to defense, are being violated,” Prada wrote as part of a polite but withering diatribe on recent events.

Response Perceived as Threatening – Then Bewildering

Late last week Prada revealed that he’d received a response via burofax, a type of secure postal service. He claims that the correspondence was presented in a “markedly threatening tone and lacking any willingness to resolve the conflict.”

Prada says it was signed by none other than LaLiga president Javier Tebas, who advised that cadizdirecto.com had been blocked because it is “hosted on an IP addresses from which intellectual property rights are repeatedly violated.”

Prada clarified that the site uses a CDN and then revealed what LaLiga expected from him. Translated from Spanish ( original here ), Prada explained as follows:

It transpires that Prada wasn’t the only journalist to receive similar correspondence. Political analysis outlet El Orden Mundial was also provided with legal advice.

Posting on X, El Orden Mundial director Fernando Arancón spoke of “the barbarity that is being carried out by @LaLiga with the support of the judiciary,” before suddenly adopting a “something’s coming” tone.

“[LaLiga] have lost their way and are going to eat a Streisand textbook,” Arancón predicted.

Update: Statement from LaLiga

At LALIGA, as always, we respect and comply with the legal system. And, as it could not be otherwise, we respect the decision to file an appeal for constitutional protection before the Constitutional Court. An appeal that was already announced several weeks ago and still needs to pass the admissibility phase.

It is worth recalling that, already last March, the Commercial Court No. 6 of Barcelona fully dismissed the requests for annulment filed by Cloudflare and RootedCON, among others, against the final ruling issued on 18 December 2024, finding no violation of any fundamental rights. That decision reaffirmed that the legal action taken was in accordance with the law and is supported by the current legislation on intellectual property and information society services.

Furthermore, the court order validated the procedural legality of the case, explicitly declaring that there was no “lack of guarantees” and stating that “none of the arguments put forward by the various petitioners demonstrate any actual harm, nor is any such harm identified, quantified, or supported by any proposed evidence intended to directly or indirectly establish damage as a constituent element of the claim for annulment.”

The judicial ruling is fully reasoned and lawful, and also makes it clear that the petitioners lacked standing to invoke the rights they claimed to hold.

LALIGA remains steadfast in its commitment to combating audiovisual fraud in order to protect the audiovisual rights of the competition, its sustainability and that of the football clubs, as well as the broader sports and entertainment industry.

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

The US Copyright Claims Board launched in 2022 . Through this Copyright Office-hosted venue, rightsholders can claim damages outside the federal court system.

The board , instituted through the CASE Act, aims to make it cheaper for creators to resolve disputes. There’s no attorney required and the filing fee is limited to $100 per claim. The potential damages are capped at $30,000 and those who prefer traditional lawsuits can choose to opt-out.

Many rightsholders and related groups backed the creation of a small claims board, noting that this would help resolve copyright disputes without having to file expensive federal lawsuits. Opponents, however, feared that it could be abused by trolls and other frivolous claimants.

Now that nearly three years have passed, the Copyright Office is working on a formal review of the board’s accomplishments. In a request for comments, it asked members of the public to chime in on CCB’s effectiveness and future.

Watchdog Groups Flag CCB Problems

In response to this request, a coalition of groups including Re:Create , the American Library Association , the Association of Research Libraries , R Street , and Engine , filed a critical response. The same groups also objected to the CASE Act and warned about potential abuse by trolls.

While there hasn’t been any sign of systematic abuse of the board, the group flagged various other shortcomings. In a detailed submission, they note that the CCB costs taxpayers millions, while relatively few cases reach a final decision.

According to the groups’ analysis, the CCB has spent approximately $5.4 million in its first years of operation, while only about $75,000 has been awarded to claiming copyright holders through its decisions.

With well over 1,200 complaints, there has been no shortage of claims. However, most of these end up being dismissed and thus far the board has only reached final determinations in 35 cases, awarding little over $2,000 in damages on average.

“American taxpayers have spent around $5,500 per case to reject hundreds of frivolous claims, adjudicate the remaining 3.5%, and issue opinions awarding damages that on average amount to less than half the cost of processing the claim,” the submission states.

High Dismissal Rate

Aside from the money, the high dismissal rate also stands out. The board’s own statistics show that, of the 964 cases that were dismissed, 470 were deemed to be noncompliant. That includes many cases where filers failed to amend their claims upon the CCB’s request.

Another 187 claims were dismissed because no valid proof of service was filed. In 114 instances the respondent chose to opt out, while 99 claims were settled without the board’s involvement.

The groups describe the CCB as “mostly churning through non-compliant claims,” and suggest the $40 initial filing fee is too low to screen out potentially frivolous claims.

“The $40 filing fee is not high enough to deter frivolous claims. Hundreds of non-compliant claims are filed each year by claimants who disappear after a CCB Staff Attorney spends substantial time evaluating the claim and preparing a detailed Order to Amend,” the submission reads.

Concerning Number of Defaults

The groups also expressed alarm over the high proportion of default judgments. Their filing indicates that 60% of the CCB’s final determinations were default judgments, where the respondent did not participate.

This rate is dramatically higher than the typical 7% default rate for copyright cases in federal court. This could signal that the public is not familiar with the opt-out procedure yet and that they don’t understand the consequences.

In one of these cases, respondent Angel Jameson shared her “disbelief that the Board is a government tribunal” after missing the opt-out deadline. Despite her objections, the CCB awarded the claimant $4,500 in damages, rejecting a request to vacate the default judgment.

“The Jameson case suggests that it is possible for respondents to fail to opt out due to mistrust and misunderstanding of the CCB process,” the groups write.

Repeal?

Given these significant operational concerns, the coalition argues strongly against expanding the CCB’s jurisdiction or powers at this time. This would include the suggestion to enable the board to grant subpoenas.

“There is no reason to consider adding to the CCB’s docket or to its powers until it can be established that the CCB is capable of accomplishing its initial mandate,” they note.

“At present, the CCB appears to be drowning in frivolous claims, handing out a handful of default judgments to facially valid claims with only one party present, and slowly grinding away at a handful of disputed claims.”

If these concerns remain, or get worse, it may be best that Congress abolish the small claims board in its entirety, the coalition concludes.

“If these trends continue, Congress should consider repealing the CASE Act.”

—

A copy of the submission submitted by Re:Create, the Association of Research Libraries, Engine, R Street Institute, and the American Library Association is available here (pdf) . Other submissions, including ones who view the CCB as more favorable, can be found here .

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

Strike 3 Holdings is a familiar name in U.S. federal courts. As the most prolific copyright litigant, the adult entertainment company has filed over 15,000 lawsuits in federal courts.

These lawsuits typically target people whose Internet connections were allegedly used to download and share copyright-infringing content via BitTorrent.

Many of these cases result in private settlements and are never heard from again. Occasionally, however, a defendant decides to push back, arguing their innocence before the court. This includes defendant John R., who was sued in a Florida court last year.

‘Thousands of Pirate Downloads’

The case started as a ‘John Doe’ lawsuit, but after an IP address was linked to a Comcast account, the defendant was named. In an amended complaint, Strike 3 accused the man of sharing 25 of its copyrighted works via BitTorrent.

The complaint alleged that Strike 3’s “VXN Scan” detection software was able to download pieces of these pirated files from the IP address. In addition, the same IP address was linked to thousands of other infringements.

“Plaintiff’s Additional Evidence indicates that IP address 73.107.181.65 was used to download and distribute at least 5,595 files relating to other adult movies and mainstream media using the BitTorrent protocol during the period of infringement,” the complaint reads.

The ‘additional’ pirated files include many Star Wars related titles, a Minion movie, a Grey’s Anatomy episode, as well as albums with Halloween hits. Strike 3 doesn’t hold the rights to any of this media, but it uses the alleged downloads as circumstantial evidence to argue that the right person was identified.

Social Media Likes

Strike 3 notes that these frequent and prolonged downloads suggest that the defendant was unlikely a houseguest or passer-by. Instead, the company points out that defendant’s public social media activity “indicates strong matches” between his interests and the observed downloads.

“Defendant’s publicly available social media indicates that Defendant is a fan of Star Wars,” Strike 3 writes, adding that he is also a ‘fan’ of Minions, Grey’s Anatomy, and Halloween.

Based on these findings, Strike 3 is convinced that it identified the right defendant. However, John R. disagrees and asked the court to dismiss the case, noting that the allegations are mere speculation.

Defendant Wants Case Dismissed

The defense attorney characterized Strike 3’s evidence as an “imaginary bridge from one thought to another.” While the defendant’s social media likes may be accurate, they represent only 0.45% of the 5,595 downloads that were flagged in total.

The defense notes that this circumstantial evidence is weak, adding that there is no evidence that John R.’s devices were used to download any of the tracked files. Also, there are more people who like Halloween or the Minions.

“Therefore, all of the circumstantial evidence provided merely demonstrates a sheer possibility while there are other equally weak possibilities- like the Defendant’s wife or neighbors may like Minions, Star Wars, and Halloween,” the motion to dismiss reads.

Court: Likes Are Evidence, Case Continues

After reviewing the positions of both sides, District Court Judge Sheri Polster Chappell eventually sided with Strike 3, suggesting that the social media likes have some value at this stage of the case.

“Sure enough, Defendant’s social media shows he is a fan of Star Wars, Minions, Grey’s Anatomy, and Halloween,” the order reads, noting that this is more than mere speculation.

The order heavily cites existing jurisprudence, noting that social media interests can be used as evidence to match a defendant’s identity to BitTorrent activity. This doesn’t necessarily mean that the defendant can’t be innocent, but it’s sufficient for the case to survive a motion to dismiss.

As shown above, this means the case will move forward. The defendant is instructed to file a formal answer to the complaint by the end of the month. After that, the discovery phase will start, or alternatively, potential settlement discussions.

—

A copy of Judge Sheri Polster Chappell’s order and opinion is available here (pdf)

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

Article L. 333-10 of the French Sport Code 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.

The first logical targets were local ISPs which easily fell within scope. Then, when inevitable circumvention raised its head, utilizing infrastructure beyond the reach of regular ISPs, Article L. 333-10 already had that covered.

Following a Canal+ complaint, use of third party DNS resolvers at Cloudflare and Google headed to court in 2024 . Both were labeled intermediaries by the Court, and under the still unstressed scope of Article L. 333-10, both were considered capable of contributing to the suppression of piracy.

Canal+ / LFP Target Major VPN Providers

Having effectively added public DNS resolvers to the French blocking machine, attention turned to the next targets. In February 2025, it emerged that Groupe Canal + and Société d’édition de Canal Plus (SECP) had filed a case in November 2024 against NordVPN, CyberGhost, ProtonVPN, ExpressVPN, and Surfshark.

The Canal companies alleged that “numerous” websites, accessible from within France, illegally streamed matches from various sporting competitions to which they hold the rights.

Since the VPNs’ subscribers were among those viewing the infringing streams, the Canal companies asked the court to compel the providers to implement “all measures likely to prevent access [to the illegal streams] from French territory,” including in all French overseas territories, “by any effective means”.

The VPN providers objected to the application on various grounds. Nord and Surfshark requested a declaration that the Canal companies lacked standing to act; as such, their application should be declared inadmissible. Proton sought a similar declaration while noting that the company lacked the ability to defend the requested blocking measures. The same assertion was made by CyberGhost and Express; all argued that Article L. 333-10 does not apply to VPN providers.

Other objections concerned jurisdiction and whether French law is compatible with EU legislation. CyberGhost and Express suggested a stay of proceedings pending a response from the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) in the Dutch case, AFS et al .

Court Rejects VPN Providers’ Objections

In its decision published Thursday, the Court found that matters concerning the CJEU would have no impact on the current case. Calls for the Canal companies’ application to be declared inadmissible due to a lack of standing, were also dismissed, while a review of the allocation of rights pertaining to the various sports competitions raised no concerns.

Arguments that the VPN providers had no standing to defend themselves, due to Article L. 333-10 of the French Sports Code being inapplicable to VPN providers, fared no better.

The court notes that Article L.333-10 does not impose any restrictions on the targeted entity, adding that VPN providers are expressly covered under the Digital Services Act.

“Blocking such a service for certain domain names means that the provider of this service prevents its users from accessing the disputed domain names when using their VPN tool. Internet users using these virtual private networks would therefore no longer be able to access the disputed sites through this intermediary,” the decision reads.

“Consequently, the defendant companies, in their capacity as providers of virtual private network services, are technical intermediaries capable of contributing to remedying the harm that Groupe Canal+, SECP and Canal+ Rights claim to have suffered.”

Blocking Order Issued

The Court’s instructions and the full list of domains can be found below.

[The Court] orders the companies Cyberghost LLC, Cyberghost Srl, Expressco services, Express technologies, Nordvpn (Netherlands), Nordvpn (Republic of Panama), Surfshark Bv, Surfshark Ltd and Proton to implement, at the latest within three days following notification of this decision, all measures necessary to prevent, until the date of the last match of the championship of the Premier League for the 2024/2025 season, currently set for May 25, 2025, access to the websites and IPTV services identified [below] as well as to the IPTV sites and services not yet identified on the date of this decision, from French territory, including in the overseas communities, departments and regions, and/or by their users based on a contract taken out in this territory, by any effective means, and in particular by blocking the following domain names and associated subdomains…..

The cost of blocking will be shared between the parties, with the details to be agreed at a later date. A request by the plaintiffs to compel the VPN providers to publish details of the case on their homepages for publicity purposes, was described as “inappropriate” and rejected by the Court.

The decision reveals that many of the domain names submitted by Canal for blocking, are already subject to blocking measures by French ISPs following notification by telecoms regulator ARCOM. Familiar brands include Footy Bite, Cric HD, Buffstreams, Futbollibre, Rojadirecta, and Crackstreams, among dozens of others. In these cases widespread piracy has already been established, but it appears that in-depth proof of infringement may not be a hard requirement.

“Since the burden of proof should not be unnecessarily complex and costly, the court cannot require the claimants to demonstrate access to the disputed IPTV sites and services by using each of the defendants’ virtual private networks, just as it does not request findings by using each of the internet service providers’ networks when a blocking is requested of them on the basis of Article L. 333-10 of the Sports Code,” the court notes.

Had comprehensive checks been carried out, questions may have been raised over the need to block pirate domains previously seized by the Alliance for Creativity and Entertainment.

Other domains from the Canal+ list below were seized by ACE during the last few days, so blocking those domains will be unnecessary too.

The decision of the Court of Paris is available here (pdf, French)

aliezstream.pro
antenasport.shop
antenasports.ru
antenasports.shop
antenatv.online
antenatv.store
antennasport.ru
asportv.shop
livetv802.me
toparena.store
emb.ap1357.me
embx224539.ap1357.me
1.qwebplay.xyz
livetv807.me
cdn.livetv807.me
boxtv60.com
infinity-ott.com
vbnl23.com
footy-bite.com
freesportstime.com
livestreamlinks.cc
crichdplayer.com
crichd.sc
crichd.mobi
crichd.sx
crichd.tv
me.crichd.tv
nbabite.to
reddit.nbabite.to
s2watch.link
soccerinhd.com
sportlemons.to
sports-prime.com
topevents.us
buffsports.me
buffstreams.sx
vipbox.sx
vipbox.bz
freestreams-live.top
alkooratv.onlinekora-tv.com
onlinekora-tv.com
futbollibre.ws
kooracity.cc
ok.tvkora-online.com
tvkora-online.com
pirlotv.football
ramsportl .com
roja.football
rojadirectaenvivo.life
rojadirectaenvivo.site
rojadirectatv.at
rojadirectatv.la
rojadirectaz.top
rojadiretta.me
soccerlive.app
thesport.live
futbollibre.ws
hesgoal.watch
hesgoall .net
librefutbol.su
myp2p.tv
myp2ptv.org
myp2px.xyz
partidosenvivo.gratis
pirlotvenhd.org
rojadirecta.org.pl
rojadirectaenhd.live
rojadirectaenhd.net
rojadirectaenvivo.com
rojadirectaenvivo.watch
rojadirecta.tv
rojadirectas.org
rojadirectatv.at
rojadirectatv.top
rojadirectatvhd.site
rojadirectatvs.com
soccerstreams.cc
soccerstreams.unblockedstream.online
streameast.soccer
tarjetarojaonline.org
tarjetarojatv.run
totalsportek.one
totalsportk.org
viperplay.net
viperplay.online
viperplayhd.com
vipleague.app
vipleagues.org
vip-league.net
livetv806.me
rojadirectahdenvivo.com
streamsthunder.tv
rojadirectenvivo.me
methstreams.me
antenasports.ru
asportv.shop
toparena.store
Ishunter.net
tv1337.buzz
livetv.sx
sporttuna.pro
livetv807.me
embx224539.ap1366.me
cdn.livetv807.me
locatedinfain.com
tvhd.tutvlive.info
stream-24.net
speci41eagle.com
vl.methstreams.me
klubsports.fun
weblivehdplay.ru
buddycenters.shop
olalivehdplay.ru
1 qwebplay.xyz
sporttvls.com
eur02024direct.ru
librarywhispering.com
cdn.livetv808.me
watch.sporttuna.pro
sporttuna.sx
sporttuna.online
lewblivehdplay.ru
viwlivehdplay.ru
r365.city
fmytv.com
yalla-shootv.live
sportlemo.net
sportlemon.be
antenasport.site
sportlemons.tv
directatvhd.me
sportlemon.info
koora365.io
sport365.live
live.esportivos.one
sportlemonx.com
mip2p.top
bein-live.tv
yalla-shoot.fun
sportlemone.top
sportlemont.org
thedaddy.to
abbasport.site
h5.365streams.world
stad.yallashoot.vip
crickfree.org
drakulatv.eu
sportlemon.net
footdirect.ru
hdmatch.link
livehd7i.live
noblockaabbdd-xcktb.xyz
sportp2p.com
crichd.info
crichd-player.top
crichd. to
telerium.lol
rojatv.tv
mundialqatar2022tv.tv
hesgoal.website
redditsoccerstreams.one
redditsoccerstreams.watch
soccerbite.net
hesgoal.one
cricfree.be
cricfree.me
cricfree.pw
crickfree.net
cricfrees.com
crackstreams.dev
ronald07.me
draculastream.org
drakulastream.tv
drakulastream.org
drakulastream.xyz
drakula.top
drakula.stream
elitegoltv.run
firstrowl.xyz
thesportsl.org
livetv813.me
sportp2p.com
directatvhd.me
Ishunter.net
antenasport.shop
antenasports.ru
antenasports.shop
ilovetoplay.xyz
hoca2.com
livetv814.me
cdn.livetv814.me
streamingon.org
emb.ap1357.me
livetv815.me
cdn.livetv815.me
noblockaabbdd-xcktb.xyz
embx222304.ap1357.me
tutvlive.info
sporttvls.com
quest4play.xyz
antenasport.online
wfzrbhp.luxevpn.xyz
smart.lionsmart.cc

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

A few months ago, Italy paved the way to issue fines against subscribers of pirate IPTV services.

A memorandum of understanding between the Prosecutor’s Office, Guardia di Finanza, and AGCOM, established a “collaboration protocol” where information on IPTV users would be shared between agencies.

The source of this information wasn’t made immediately clear, but it’s likely that it applies to subscriber details obtained in IPTV raids that regularly take place in the country. These databases likely hold emails and other potentially identifiable information on (former) subscribers.

With these details in hand, authorities can now approach suspected offenders. Backed by a new anti-piracy law introduced in 2023, which enables fines of up to €5,000 for repeat offender s, no time was wasted warning IPTV pirates that their time had run out. This warning was more than a veiled threat, it now appears.

2,282 Subscribers Fined

At a press conference this week, the Guardia di Finanza announced the first concrete results of intensified anti-piracy actions targeting end-users. According to the police, 2,282 pirate IPTV users were targeted with fines across Italy.

Initial fines typically start at €154, but the authorities emphasize that these will increase to €5,000 if the same offenders are caught again.

These actions mark the first effective application of Law 93/2023 against end-users, not just operators. According to local press , the subscriber details are linked to an enforcement action in Lecce, where a large IPTV operation was dismantled last October.

The authorities have made it clear that this is not a one-off event. Activities are underway to identify other pirate IPTV subscribers and three other Prosecutors’ Offices have launched investigations to identify more targets.

Piracy & Politics

In addition to these fines, Law 93/2023 also established Italy’s Piracy Shield, a system that enables swift ISP blocking of unauthorized IPTV streams.

After its launch last year, Piracy Shield was heavily criticized by opponents, particularly for several overblocking errors. However, it remains in place today and is gradually being expanded and streamlined .

The legislation is in large part tailored towards stopping pirated live-streams of football broadcasts, which is a big deal in the country. What helps in this regard is that Senator Claudio Lotito, the author and rapporteur of the anti-piracy law, is also the owner of one of the largest Italian clubs; Lazio.

Commenting on the thousands of fines, Lotito notes that there is “no more joking around”, adding that those who cross the line will face personal and financial repercussions.

Italian Football Praises Fines

The Lazio owner is not the only football boss to welcome the news. Sky reports that Luigi De Siervo, CEO of the top league Serie A, warned that “no one who commits a crime of piracy in Italy can rest easy” .

Paolo Scaroni, president of AC Milan, stressed that the country already has some of the best anti-piracy laws; it is key to put these to use.

“We have an excellent law, but it needs to be enforced. Enforcing it means punishing those who provide piracy but also those who use and buy it,” Scaroni commented.

Finally, Inter president Beppe Marotta noted that it’s time to say ‘enough’ to piracy. Instead of asking the public to stop pirating, they should feel the consequences right away.

“This law, which was passed two years ago, is now prepared to address the priorities. Using a football metaphor: if before there was a yellow card, now there is a red card. The law will help rebalance revenues and give a boost to the movement.”

Whether these fines will indeed motivate people to start paying remains to be seen. Depending on the scale of the fines, recipients may have to save up before they can start paying for legal subscriptions.

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

In May last year, the Paris Judicial Court ordered Google, Cloudflare, and Cisco to block access to several pirate websites by effectively poisoning their DNS.

The order, requested by Canal+, compelled the tech giants to modify their resolvers or take measures that had that effect, to prevent users from accessing unauthorized sports streams.

In the months that followed, additional rightsholders such as DAZN and beIN joined in on the action with similar requests, while more DNS providers were added as targets, including Quad9 and Vercel. Transparency is limited, however, so it can be difficult to figure out who blocks what and why.

BeIN Seeks New DNS Blocking Order

This week, a new court order appeared on our radar which stands out for numerous reasons. The order was requested by a French sister company of Qatari multinational beIN and targets public DNS resolvers provided by Cloudflare, Google, and Quad9.

BeIN’s complaint alleges that the DNS services allow the public to resolve domain names linked to sports piracy. This includes unauthorized broadcasts of the Bundesliga and the WTA Tennis tournament, for which beIN claims to be the licensed rightsholder.

Domains listed: sporttvls.com, lshunter.net, premiertv.watch, line.super-signal.com, line.protv.cc, mrc10.in, streamendous.online, techydeals.online, braveo.tv, evdtv.app, and mypanel.be.

The legal paperwork is in many regards similar to that seen in previous applications; grounded in Article L. 333-10 of the French Sports Code, rightsholders are empowered to seek court orders against any entity that can help to stop ‘serious and repeated’ sports piracy.

Court Rejects Domain Blocks Citing Insufficient Proof

Previously, the Paris Judicial Court had few reservations regarding the infringing status of targeted domain names. In this case, however, several blocking requests were denied.

According to the court, beIN failed to provide sufficient proof to warrant a blocking order under Article L. 333-10 for alleged infringing activity on sporttvls.com, lshunter.net, premiertv.watch, streamendous.online, and techydeals.online.

To grant the requested blocking measures, the court needed to see evidence of “grave and repeated” infringements of beIN’s neighboring rights by these specific domains. In this case, the provided evidence fell short.

No Logo, No Blocking

This doesn’t mean that the websites can’t be labeled pirate sites. In fact, two of the domains were previously blocked in France for grave and repeated copyright infringement. In this case, beIN appears to have shown the wrong streams in court.

BeIN is not the exclusive rightsholder for these sporting events. For the WTA, for example, DAZN obtained broadcasting rights from the tennis tournament, which sublicensed it to beIN for the French territory. Similarly, beIN also holds derived rights to broadcast the Bundesliga in France.

This means that beIN has neighboring rights and, according to the Paris court, needs to show that streams infringing its neighboring rights are shown by the alleged pirate sites. For example, by displaying a beIN logo.

That was not the case for all domains. For example, the infringement evidence for streamendous.online and techydeals.online included broadcasts with the DAZN logo, while some WTA streams did not include a logo at all. Therefore, the court deemed this proof to be insufficient.

Cloudflare and Google Pushed Back

The court’s decision to reject these blockades came after Google and Cloudflare objected. While many of their counterarguments were rejected by the court, both companies challenged beIN’s claim that it holds exclusive broadcast rights for these streams.

The court agreed with this objection. It found that beIN’s evidence was insufficient to definitively prove its exclusive exploitation rights for the WTA Tour and Bundesliga competitions.

BeIn was allowed to continue the case based on the neighboring rights it holds. Google subsequently argued that these were not sufficiently backed up by the evidence, as the logos (or lack thereof) revealed, which is ultimately why several blocking requests were denied.

While neither Google nor Cloudflare will be pleased with the outcome, this case shows the importance of challenging blocking requests in court, although that’s not always feasible.

Quad9: DNS Blocks are Fundamentally Wrong

Quad9 was noticeably absent and General Manager Simon Forster informs us that his company didn’t make an appearance, simply because it lacks the resources to put up a fight.

Forster highlights the challenges faced by his small Swiss non-profit organization. With a tight budget, confronting billion-euro corporations in court presents a significant hurdle for Quad9.

Despite these financial constraints, Forster notes that Quad9 will continue to resist blocking actions to the best of its ability. He clarifies that the company’s decision not to defend itself in this particular case is due to a lack of resources, rather than an unwillingness to protect its rights and those of its users.

‘Fundamentally we believe that these blocking orders are wrong,’ Forster states, emphasizing that rightsholders have alternative methods to protect their content instead of pursuing legal action against content-neutral DNS providers.

More Blocking Action Ahead?

For now, there are no signs that rightsholders are backing down from their DNS blocking requests. On the contrary, these are rapidly expanding to other countries in Europe, and in the United States they are also part of a proposed site blocking bill.

Given the opposition to recent court orders, Google and Cloudflare are expected to oppose these efforts fiercely, until all their options are exhausted.

Whether beIN plans to partially refile its blocking request with the correct logos is unknown. If they do, a move by pirate stream operators to step up logo blurring could amount to a novel type of blocking circumvention, complicating matters further.

—

A copy of the latest blocking order, issued by the Paris Judicial Court on May 2 and published by Cloudflare in the Lumen Database is available here ( pdf )

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