Japan’s government has never been shy about expanding its “ Cool Japan ” campaign, in which manga and anime have become increasingly important export products.

According to a new government-backed strategy, Japan aims to quadruple its overseas sales of anime, manga, and video games by 2033.

The goal is to reach 20 trillion yen (~US$133 billion) in overseas sales by 2033. To put that figure in perspective, Japanese officials now explicitly compare this target to the current value of the country’s massive car export industry.

However, before manga and anime can overtake Toyota and Honda, there’s a massive roadblock to pass.

The U.S. Piracy Roadblock

A report on the latest global piracy statistics, released by anti-piracy group Authorized Books of Japan ( ABJ ) and conducted by Photonic System Solutions, shows that manga piracy sites alone draw 2.85 billion monthly visits globally.

The majority of this traffic goes to English web reading portals, and of all English-speaking countries, the United States is the top consumer of pirated manga, with 317 million monthly visits. That puts the U.S. in third place in terms of global manga piracy consumption, just behind Japan and Indonesia.

American consumers on average have more to spend than their Indonesian counterparts. So it’s safe to say that U.S. piracy is the main concern for Japan’s export ambitions.

Rank	Country	Total Monthly Visits (Millions)	Share of Global Traffic
1	Japan	390.2	13.7%
2	Indonesia	327.0	11.5%
3	United States	317.6	11.2%
4	Thailand	144.6	5.1%
5	Vietnam	120.2	4.2%

^{Source report : Photonic System Solutions / ABJ (June 2025 Data)}

What’s equally concerning for publishers is the apparent normalization of online piracy among manga fans. A separate ABJ behavioral survey found that 30% of U.S. manga readers admit to using unauthorized apps or websites to read content.

When asked why, American respondents often mention “saving money” as the primary reason. These manga pirates are not necessarily oblivious to copyright concerns, but the survey suggests that they typically make a calculated financial choice.

The $55 Billion Question

The piracy visits data is based on June 2025 survey data, in which 914 active manga pirate sites were examined. The majority of these (over 90%) were online reading portals, but some direct download and torrent sites were included too.

In an attempt to put a number on the financial damage these sites cause, the report uses a rather basic formula to calculate the estimated losses.

Specifically, the report calculates financial “damage” by taking the time spent on pirate (reading) sites, and multiplying that by the number of mangas that can be read per hour. This figure is then multiplied by the average cost of a manga book: 500 yen (~$3.25).

The Formula: Hours Spent on Pirate Sites × 2 Books × 500 Yen = Financial Damage

For June 2025, the report calculated that 700 million hours were spent on pirate sites, resulting in a calculated loss of 704.8 billion yen ($4.5 billion) for that single month. That’s $55 billion annually.

This means that manga piracy losses alone exceed piracy damage estimates cited by the movie or music industries, which seems rather high.

This report’s damages calculation relies on the classic and controversial “lost sale” fallacy. It assumes that for every hour spent on a pirate site, a user would have otherwise purchased two manga volumes at full retail price.

In reality, however, there’s no 100% replacement effect. Also, the report does not consider any regional differences, suggesting that piracy in the U.S., Indonesia, and elsewhere is equally damaging.

Regardless of the economic accuracy, the $55 billion damages figure certainly helps to grab the attention of the Japanese authorities, while also increasing the pressure on other rightsholders.

U.S. Piracy Intermediaries?

Not coincidentally, the ABJ report also looked at the domain registrars used by pirate sites. The American company Namecheap came out on top as it’s used by 27% of the sites, followed at a distance by two other U.S. businesses: Namesilo (5%) and GoDaddy (5%).

Similarly, the earlier-mentioned behavioral survey already identified American platforms as a primary gateway for pirate traffic. It listed Google Search as the number one discovery method for pirate sites, while YouTube was ranked second, with nearly half of surveyed users using the video platform to find pirate mangas.

Looking at the front-facing IP-addresses of these sites, Cloudflare was linked to 73% of the sites. While the California company doesn’t necessarily host these sites, it is commonly used as a CDN.

The report doesn’t explicitly state that these intermediaries are liable for pirate sites, but that is ultimately what many rightsholders want.

Last month, Japanese manga publishers Shueisha, Kodansha, Kadokawa, and Shogakukan booked a key success in this regard. The Tokyo court held Cloudflare liable for damages after it failed to sufficiently prevent manga piracy.

In response to that court order, Cloudflare warned that it had “serious implications for the efficiency, security, and reliability of the internet”. However, the publishers clearly disagree, and with billions of dollars of export revenues at stake, they have backing from the government and AI technology .

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

Japan’s government has never been shy about expanding its “ Cool Japan ” campaign, in which manga and anime have become increasingly important export products.

According to a new government-backed strategy, Japan aims to quadruple its overseas sales of anime, manga, and video games by 2033.

The goal is to reach 20 trillion yen (~US$133 billion) in overseas sales by 2033. To put that figure in perspective, Japanese officials now explicitly compare this target to the current value of the country’s massive car export industry.

However, before manga and anime can overtake Toyota and Honda, there’s a massive roadblock to pass.

The U.S. Piracy Roadblock

A report on the latest global piracy statistics, released by anti-piracy group Authorized Books of Japan ( ABJ ) and conducted by Photonic System Solutions, shows that manga piracy sites alone draw 2.85 billion monthly visits globally.

The majority of this traffic goes to English web reading portals, and of all English-speaking countries, the United States is the top consumer of pirated manga, with 317 million monthly visits. That puts the U.S. in third place in terms of global manga piracy consumption, just behind Japan and Indonesia.

American consumers on average have more to spend than their Indonesian counterparts. So it’s safe to say that U.S. piracy is the main concern for Japan’s export ambitions.

Rank	Country	Total Monthly Visits (Millions)	Share of Global Traffic
1	Japan	390.2	13.7%
2	Indonesia	327.0	11.5%
3	United States	317.6	11.2%
4	Thailand	144.6	5.1%
5	Vietnam	120.2	4.2%

^{Source report : Photonic System Solutions / ABJ (June 2025 Data)}

What’s equally concerning for publishers is the apparent normalization of online piracy among manga fans. A separate ABJ behavioral survey found that 30% of U.S. manga readers admit to using unauthorized apps or websites to read content.

When asked why, American respondents often mention “saving money” as the primary reason. These manga pirates are not necessarily oblivious to copyright concerns, but the survey suggests that they typically make a calculated financial choice.

The $55 Billion Question

The piracy visits data is based on June 2025 survey data, in which 914 active manga pirate sites were examined. The majority of these (over 90%) were online reading portals, but some direct download and torrent sites were included too.

In an attempt to put a number on the financial damage these sites cause, the report uses a rather basic formula to calculate the estimated losses.

Specifically, the report calculates financial “damage” by taking the time spent on pirate (reading) sites, and multiplying that by the number of mangas that can be read per hour. This figure is then multiplied by the average cost of a manga book: 500 yen (~$3.25).

The Formula: Hours Spent on Pirate Sites × 2 Books × 500 Yen = Financial Damage

For June 2025, the report calculated that 700 million hours were spent on pirate sites, resulting in a calculated loss of 704.8 billion yen ($4.5 billion) for that single month. That’s $55 billion annually.

This means that manga piracy losses alone exceed piracy damage estimates cited by the movie or music industries, which seems rather high.

This report’s damages calculation relies on the classic and controversial “lost sale” fallacy. It assumes that for every hour spent on a pirate site, a user would have otherwise purchased two manga volumes at full retail price.

In reality, however, there’s no 100% replacement effect. Also, the report does not consider any regional differences, suggesting that piracy in the U.S., Indonesia, and elsewhere is equally damaging.

Regardless of the economic accuracy, the $55 billion damages figure certainly helps to grab the attention of the Japanese authorities, while also increasing the pressure on other rightsholders.

U.S. Piracy Intermediaries?

Not coincidentally, the ABJ report also looked at the domain registrars used by pirate sites. The American company Namecheap came out on top as it’s used by 27% of the sites, followed at a distance by two other U.S. businesses: Namesilo (5%) and GoDaddy (5%).

Similarly, the earlier-mentioned behavioral survey already identified American platforms as a primary gateway for pirate traffic. It listed Google Search as the number one discovery method for pirate sites, while YouTube was ranked second, with nearly half of surveyed users using the video platform to find pirate mangas.

Looking at the front-facing IP-addresses of these sites, Cloudflare was linked to 73% of the sites. While the California company doesn’t necessarily host these sites, it is commonly used as a CDN.

The report doesn’t explicitly state that these intermediaries are liable for pirate sites, but that is ultimately what many rightsholders want.

Last month, Japanese manga publishers Shueisha, Kodansha, Kadokawa, and Shogakukan booked a key success in this regard. The Tokyo court held Cloudflare liable for damages after it failed to sufficiently prevent manga piracy.

In response to that court order, Cloudflare warned that it had “serious implications for the efficiency, security, and reliability of the internet”. However, the publishers clearly disagree, and with billions of dollars of export revenues at stake, they have backing from the government and AI technology .

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

Japan’s government has never been shy about expanding its “ Cool Japan ” campaign, in which manga and anime have become increasingly important export products.

According to a new government-backed strategy, Japan aims to quadruple its overseas sales of anime, manga, and video games by 2033.

The goal is to reach 20 trillion yen (~US$133 billion) in overseas sales by 2033. To put that figure in perspective, Japanese officials now explicitly compare this target to the current value of the country’s massive car export industry.

However, before manga and anime can overtake Toyota and Honda, there’s a massive roadblock to pass.

The U.S. Piracy Roadblock

A report on the latest global piracy statistics, released by anti-piracy group Authorized Books of Japan ( ABJ ) and conducted by Photonic System Solutions, shows that manga piracy sites alone draw 2.85 billion monthly visits globally.

The majority of this traffic goes to English web reading portals, and of all English-speaking countries, the United States is the top consumer of pirated manga, with 317 million monthly visits. That puts the U.S. in third place in terms of global manga piracy consumption, just behind Japan and Indonesia.

American consumers on average have more to spend than their Indonesian counterparts. So it’s safe to say that U.S. piracy is the main concern for Japan’s export ambitions.

Rank	Country	Total Monthly Visits (Millions)	Share of Global Traffic
1	Japan	390.2	13.7%
2	Indonesia	327.0	11.5%
3	United States	317.6	11.2%
4	Thailand	144.6	5.1%
5	Vietnam	120.2	4.2%

^{Source report : Photonic System Solutions / ABJ (June 2025 Data)}

What’s equally concerning for publishers is the apparent normalization of online piracy among manga fans. A separate ABJ behavioral survey found that 30% of U.S. manga readers admit to using unauthorized apps or websites to read content.

When asked why, American respondents often mention “saving money” as the primary reason. These manga pirates are not necessarily oblivious to copyright concerns, but the survey suggests that they typically make a calculated financial choice.

The $55 Billion Question

The piracy visits data is based on June 2025 survey data, in which 914 active manga pirate sites were examined. The majority of these (over 90%) were online reading portals, but some direct download and torrent sites were included too.

In an attempt to put a number on the financial damage these sites cause, the report uses a rather basic formula to calculate the estimated losses.

Specifically, the report calculates financial “damage” by taking the time spent on pirate (reading) sites, and multiplying that by the number of mangas that can be read per hour. This figure is then multiplied by the average cost of a manga book: 500 yen (~$3.25).

The Formula: Hours Spent on Pirate Sites × 2 Books × 500 Yen = Financial Damage

For June 2025, the report calculated that 700 million hours were spent on pirate sites, resulting in a calculated loss of 704.8 billion yen ($4.5 billion) for that single month. That’s $55 billion annually.

This means that manga piracy losses alone exceed piracy damage estimates cited by the movie or music industries, which seems rather high.

This report’s damages calculation relies on the classic and controversial “lost sale” fallacy. It assumes that for every hour spent on a pirate site, a user would have otherwise purchased two manga volumes at full retail price.

In reality, however, there’s no 100% replacement effect. Also, the report does not consider any regional differences, suggesting that piracy in the U.S., Indonesia, and elsewhere is equally damaging.

Regardless of the economic accuracy, the $55 billion damages figure certainly helps to grab the attention of the Japanese authorities, while also increasing the pressure on other rightsholders.

U.S. Piracy Intermediaries?

Not coincidentally, the ABJ report also looked at the domain registrars used by pirate sites. The American company Namecheap came out on top as it’s used by 27% of the sites, followed at a distance by two other U.S. businesses: Namesilo (5%) and GoDaddy (5%).

Similarly, the earlier-mentioned behavioral survey already identified American platforms as a primary gateway for pirate traffic. It listed Google Search as the number one discovery method for pirate sites, while YouTube was ranked second, with nearly half of surveyed users using the video platform to find pirate mangas.

Looking at the front-facing IP-addresses of these sites, Cloudflare was linked to 73% of the sites. While the California company doesn’t necessarily host these sites, it is commonly used as a CDN.

The report doesn’t explicitly state that these intermediaries are liable for pirate sites, but that is ultimately what many rightsholders want.

Last month, Japanese manga publishers Shueisha, Kodansha, Kadokawa, and Shogakukan booked a key success in this regard. The Tokyo court held Cloudflare liable for damages after it failed to sufficiently prevent manga piracy.

In response to that court order, Cloudflare warned that it had “serious implications for the efficiency, security, and reliability of the internet”. However, the publishers clearly disagree, and with billions of dollars of export revenues at stake, they have backing from the government and AI technology .

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

In common with many countries in Europe, rightsholders in Sweden are attempting to tackle demand for pirate IPTV services and the many suppliers more than willing to meet it.

Assisted by rightsholders, Swedish law enforcement only has the resources to pursue a relatively small number of cases all the way to prosecution and trial. The case against a man said to be behind one of the most popular platforms was among a select handful of similar cases in recent years.

Indicted for Copyright Violations

In 2023, the man was indicted for his alleged ‘involvement’ in Viking IPTV, a pirate IPTV service popular in Sweden and recognized across the Scandinavian region.

Viking provided access to a wide range of content, and with demand from the public only increasing, the service had no shortage of customers. Anti-piracy group Rights Alliance reported that Viking IPTV had become a well-known brand in Sweden, with a level of business befitting that of a leading provider.

During the trial at Sweden’s Patent and Market Court (PMD) in May 2024, much evidence was presented to establish the man’s guilt. He had logged into the service’s support email and managed Viking’s Facebook page, among other things. The court also heard that he generated substantial profits from the service.

Making Money, Moving Cryptocurrency

In common with similar services, customers of Viking had options to pay: the convenience of PayPal or cryptocurrency.

Those who opted for Bitcoin sent cash via Swedish mobile payment service Swish to an exchange, with Bitcoin forwarded to wallets operated by unnamed individuals further up the chain. Rights Alliance and the police agreed that the success of the service meant there was plenty of Bitcoin to send.

Viking IPTV had several thousand customers and turned over a significant amount of money. A police cryptocurrency analysis revealed clusters of Bitcoin wallets linked to the man, which received roughly 308 Bitcoin in the period 2018 to 2022, and worth over US$20 million at the rates prevailing at the time, authorities said.

Convicted and Sentenced

In comments to local tabloid Expressen in 2020, the man reportedly boasted of an annual turnover of 12 million kronor, with 80% of that amount being profit. The paper also published snippets of chats which it linked to the operation of Viking IPTV. One message claimed that it had taken just 20 days to generate €75,000, an amount subsequently spent on a new Italian kitchen.

After being convicted of copyright crimes in May 2024, a total of 12.7 Bitcoin seized by the police were always headed in the wrong direction. Yet, things could’ve been much worse. Rights Alliance reported that the man was handed a suspended prison sentence and ordered to pay daily fines. The length of the suspended sentence and level of daily fines weren’t revealed.

State Disposes of Pirate Booty

In an announcement on Monday, Rights Alliance said the convicted man filed an appeal against his conviction but subsequently withdrew it. That meant that the judgment handed down by the Patent and Market Court in 2024 became legally binding.

In late November, revealed that the Swedish Enforcement Authority ( Kronofogden ) was preparing to dispose of four batches of digital assets in separate auctions.

The 12.7 bitcoin from the Viking case would have a reserve price of 9 million kronor (US$958.3K) versus a market price at the time estimated at 10.6 million kronor (~US$1.13 million)

“The preliminary investigation indicates that the man earned significant proceeds from the crime,” Rights Alliance commented on Monday.

“That criminals earn enormous sums from illegal IPTV is not news; it is evident in most judgments and investigations. The convicted man withdrew his appeal last autumn, and the Patent and Market Court’s ruling thus became legally binding. The Swedish Enforcement Authority has now sold the seized 12.77 Bitcoins for SEK 9,550,000 [~US$1.02 million]. The media describes the sale as a “record auction.”

While the film and TV company plaintiffs in the case won’t see any return from the money now headed to the public purse, the Court awarded damages to Svensk Filmindustri, Nordisk Film, and several companies from the TV sector.

Rights Alliance previously said that total damages claims were just under US$1.5 million.

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

In common with many countries in Europe, rightsholders in Sweden are attempting to tackle demand for pirate IPTV services and the many suppliers more than willing to meet it.

Assisted by rightsholders, Swedish law enforcement only has the resources to pursue a relatively small number of cases all the way to prosecution and trial. The case against a man said to be behind one of the most popular platforms was among a select handful of similar cases in recent years.

Indicted for Copyright Violations

In 2023, the man was indicted for his alleged ‘involvement’ in Viking IPTV, a pirate IPTV service popular in Sweden and recognized across the Scandinavian region.

Viking provided access to a wide range of content, and with demand from the public only increasing, the service had no shortage of customers. Anti-piracy group Rights Alliance reported that Viking IPTV had become a well-known brand in Sweden, with a level of business befitting that of a leading provider.

During the trial at Sweden’s Patent and Market Court (PMD) in May 2024, much evidence was presented to establish the man’s guilt. He had logged into the service’s support email and managed Viking’s Facebook page, among other things. The court also heard that he generated substantial profits from the service.

Making Money, Moving Cryptocurrency

In common with similar services, customers of Viking had options to pay: the convenience of PayPal or cryptocurrency.

Those who opted for Bitcoin sent cash via Swedish mobile payment service Swish to an exchange, with Bitcoin forwarded to wallets operated by unnamed individuals further up the chain. Rights Alliance and the police agreed that the success of the service meant there was plenty of Bitcoin to send.

Viking IPTV had several thousand customers and turned over a significant amount of money. A police cryptocurrency analysis revealed clusters of Bitcoin wallets linked to the man, which received roughly 308 Bitcoin in the period 2018 to 2022, and worth over US$20 million at the rates prevailing at the time, authorities said.

Convicted and Sentenced

In comments to local tabloid Expressen in 2020, the man reportedly boasted of an annual turnover of 12 million kronor, with 80% of that amount being profit. The paper also published snippets of chats which it linked to the operation of Viking IPTV. One message claimed that it had taken just 20 days to generate €75,000, an amount subsequently spent on a new Italian kitchen.

After being convicted of copyright crimes in May 2024, a total of 12.7 Bitcoin seized by the police were always headed in the wrong direction. Yet, things could’ve been much worse. Rights Alliance reported that the man was handed a suspended prison sentence and ordered to pay daily fines. The length of the suspended sentence and level of daily fines weren’t revealed.

State Disposes of Pirate Booty

In an announcement on Monday, Rights Alliance said the convicted man filed an appeal against his conviction but subsequently withdrew it. That meant that the judgment handed down by the Patent and Market Court in 2024 became legally binding.

In late November, revealed that the Swedish Enforcement Authority ( Kronofogden ) was preparing to dispose of four batches of digital assets in separate auctions.

The 12.7 bitcoin from the Viking case would have a reserve price of 9 million kronor (US$958.3K) versus a market price at the time estimated at 10.6 million kronor (~US$1.13 million)

“The preliminary investigation indicates that the man earned significant proceeds from the crime,” Rights Alliance commented on Monday.

“That criminals earn enormous sums from illegal IPTV is not news; it is evident in most judgments and investigations. The convicted man withdrew his appeal last autumn, and the Patent and Market Court’s ruling thus became legally binding. The Swedish Enforcement Authority has now sold the seized 12.77 Bitcoins for SEK 9,550,000 [~US$1.02 million]. The media describes the sale as a “record auction.”

While the film and TV company plaintiffs in the case won’t see any return from the money now headed to the public purse, the Court awarded damages to Svensk Filmindustri, Nordisk Film, and several companies from the TV sector.

Rights Alliance previously said that total damages claims were just under US$1.5 million.

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

In common with many countries in Europe, rightsholders in Sweden are attempting to tackle demand for pirate IPTV services and the many suppliers more than willing to meet it.

Assisted by rightsholders, Swedish law enforcement only has the resources to pursue a relatively small number of cases all the way to prosecution and trial. The case against a man said to be behind one of the most popular platforms was among a select handful of similar cases in recent years.

Indicted for Copyright Violations

In 2023, the man was indicted for his alleged ‘involvement’ in Viking IPTV, a pirate IPTV service popular in Sweden and recognized across the Scandinavian region.

Viking provided access to a wide range of content, and with demand from the public only increasing, the service had no shortage of customers. Anti-piracy group Rights Alliance reported that Viking IPTV had become a well-known brand in Sweden, with a level of business befitting that of a leading provider.

During the trial at Sweden’s Patent and Market Court (PMD) in May 2024, much evidence was presented to establish the man’s guilt. He had logged into the service’s support email and managed Viking’s Facebook page, among other things. The court also heard that he generated substantial profits from the service.

Making Money, Moving Cryptocurrency

In common with similar services, customers of Viking had options to pay: the convenience of PayPal or cryptocurrency.

Those who opted for Bitcoin sent cash via Swedish mobile payment service Swish to an exchange, with Bitcoin forwarded to wallets operated by unnamed individuals further up the chain. Rights Alliance and the police agreed that the success of the service meant there was plenty of Bitcoin to send.

Viking IPTV had several thousand customers and turned over a significant amount of money. A police cryptocurrency analysis revealed clusters of Bitcoin wallets linked to the man, which received roughly 308 Bitcoin in the period 2018 to 2022, and worth over US$20 million at the rates prevailing at the time, authorities said.

Convicted and Sentenced

In comments to local tabloid Expressen in 2020, the man reportedly boasted of an annual turnover of 12 million kronor, with 80% of that amount being profit. The paper also published snippets of chats which it linked to the operation of Viking IPTV. One message claimed that it had taken just 20 days to generate €75,000, an amount subsequently spent on a new Italian kitchen.

After being convicted of copyright crimes in May 2024, a total of 12.7 Bitcoin seized by the police were always headed in the wrong direction. Yet, things could’ve been much worse. Rights Alliance reported that the man was handed a suspended prison sentence and ordered to pay daily fines. The length of the suspended sentence and level of daily fines weren’t revealed.

State Disposes of Pirate Booty

In an announcement on Monday, Rights Alliance said the convicted man filed an appeal against his conviction but subsequently withdrew it. That meant that the judgment handed down by the Patent and Market Court in 2024 became legally binding.

In late November, revealed that the Swedish Enforcement Authority ( Kronofogden ) was preparing to dispose of four batches of digital assets in separate auctions.

The 12.7 bitcoin from the Viking case would have a reserve price of 9 million kronor (US$958.3K) versus a market price at the time estimated at 10.6 million kronor (~US$1.13 million)

“The preliminary investigation indicates that the man earned significant proceeds from the crime,” Rights Alliance commented on Monday.

“That criminals earn enormous sums from illegal IPTV is not news; it is evident in most judgments and investigations. The convicted man withdrew his appeal last autumn, and the Patent and Market Court’s ruling thus became legally binding. The Swedish Enforcement Authority has now sold the seized 12.77 Bitcoins for SEK 9,550,000 [~US$1.02 million]. The media describes the sale as a “record auction.”

While the film and TV company plaintiffs in the case won’t see any return from the money now headed to the public purse, the Court awarded damages to Svensk Filmindustri, Nordisk Film, and several companies from the TV sector.

Rights Alliance previously said that total damages claims were just under US$1.5 million.

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

When Napster found its way to millions of desktop computers 25 years ago , the music industry was terrified by this apparent existential threat.

Determined to make the problem disappear, the legal response was swift. Within a year, the RIAA sued Napster, and artists such as Metallica and Dr. Dre soon followed.

This strategy seemed to work, as the RIAA lawsuit effectively shut down Napster two years after it launched. However, the genie was out of the bottle, and the ‘magic’ of unlimited access inspired many new sharing apps, such as LimeWire and Kazaa. These new applications eventually ran into trouble as well.

Report: The Economics of Copyright and AI

The massive legal response against file-sharing software in the early 2000s shows parallels with today’s copyright clashes between rightsholders and AI companies. Many rightsholders see AI as an existential threat, and there are dozens of high-profile lawsuits on the way. Meanwhile, lawmakers are considering if they need to intervene.

According to a new report prepared for the European Parliament, lawsuits were not the right answer to piracy, and they are not going to solve the current AI challenges either. Titled “The Economics of Copyright and AI” , the report was commissioned by the European Parliament’s Committee on Legal Affairs (JURI) to help shape future legislation.

The report’s author, Christian Peukert , Professor of Digitization, Innovation, and Intellectual Property, has extensively researched both AI and piracy-related copyright challenges in the past.

Enforcement Doesn’t Work

The general conclusion is that creating too many barriers to using content for AI training data will harm the economy and the public. Instead, the EU should look to the “lessons from history” provided by online piracy.

One of the lessons is that early anti-piracy actions and legislation, such as the lawsuits against Napster or new anti-piracy laws in France and Sweden, were largely ineffective. These measures typically led to short-lived sales increases that quickly disappeared, as pirates simply switched to new sites and services.

The turning point came when licensed downloads and streaming services were made available to the public. Starting with iTunes, which pioneered music downloads, later spreading to streaming services such as Spotify and Netflix.

“These innovations successfully shifted consumer behavior towards legal consumption. Aggregate data indicate that unlicensed music consumption has been continuously decreasing since 2010, while consumption of unlicensed movie and TV show content has been stagnant and slower to decrease,” Professor Peukert writes.

Compulsory, Statutory Licensing

Instead of slowing down AI development by restricting access to copyrighted content, the report suggests a system of compulsory, statutory licensing. This would effectively give AI developers the guaranteed right to use all published works. In exchange, an independent authority would set a royalty rate to compensate rightsholders.

This would effectively authorize the use of copyrighted works for AI training, as some countries are already doing. However, in this case, rightsholders would receive compensation.

Statutory licensing is different from the licensing deals reached with online streaming services such as Spotify and Netflix. The report recognizes that but notes that direct licensing models are not a great solution for the scale of AI training.

While Spotify deals with a manageable number of record labels and publishers, AI models require training data from the entire internet, including billions of texts, images, and videos. The report argues that identifying and negotiating with millions of individual website owners, creators, and photographers is effectively impossible.

This individual license approach would be particularly problematic for smaller AI startups, which don’t have the resources to negotiate thousands of deals.

No Opt-Out

Perhaps most controversially, the report warns against an “opt-out” model where rightsholders can exclude their content. It argues that opt-outs create “holes” in training data, which will lead to biased AI models.

From an economic welfare perspective, the report ranks the “opt-out” model as the worst possible option, even worse than doing nothing.

“When a rightsholder exercises opt-out, they do not take into account that this decreases value for society,” the report notes. The report concludes that rightsholders should not be allowed to opt-out from AI-training under any circumstance.

Napster Lessons

In the Napster case 25 years ago, the court explicitly rejected statutory licensing because it would allow an infringer to essentially pay a fine to keep breaking the law.

The report suggests that, this time around, the logic should be reversed. AI promises massive consumer benefit, estimated at $97 billion annually in the US alone, which is why the report argues that AI development should not be hindered.

For AI training, companies should be allowed to “continue operations” by paying a fee, because restricting access to copyrighted works would destroy too much economic value.

“… AI is very different from historical cases of online piracy, as it creates large net benefits for society while using copyrighted works as input. Hence, a regime that allows to ‘continue operations’ is in the best interest of society,” the report reads.

Based on these historical lessons and detailed economic welfare models, the report sees compulsory statutory licensing as the best way to tackle the AI copyright challenges in Europe. Whether rightsholders and lawmakers will agree has yet to be seen, of course.

—

Peukert, C. (2025). The Economics of Copyright and AI. European Parliament, Policy Department for Justice, Civil Liberties and Institutional Affairs. doi:10.2861/0246137 ( pdf )

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

When Napster found its way to millions of desktop computers 25 years ago , the music industry was terrified by this apparent existential threat.

Determined to make the problem disappear, the legal response was swift. Within a year, the RIAA sued Napster, and artists such as Metallica and Dr. Dre soon followed.

This strategy seemed to work, as the RIAA lawsuit effectively shut down Napster two years after it launched. However, the genie was out of the bottle, and the ‘magic’ of unlimited access inspired many new sharing apps, such as LimeWire and Kazaa. These new applications eventually ran into trouble as well.

Report: The Economics of Copyright and AI

The massive legal response against file-sharing software in the early 2000s shows parallels with today’s copyright clashes between rightsholders and AI companies. Many rightsholders see AI as an existential threat, and there are dozens of high-profile lawsuits on the way. Meanwhile, lawmakers are considering if they need to intervene.

According to a new report prepared for the European Parliament, lawsuits were not the right answer to piracy, and they are not going to solve the current AI challenges either. Titled “The Economics of Copyright and AI” , the report was commissioned by the European Parliament’s Committee on Legal Affairs (JURI) to help shape future legislation.

The report’s author, Christian Peukert , Professor of Digitization, Innovation, and Intellectual Property, has extensively researched both AI and piracy-related copyright challenges in the past.

Enforcement Doesn’t Work

The general conclusion is that creating too many barriers to using content for AI training data will harm the economy and the public. Instead, the EU should look to the “lessons from history” provided by online piracy.

One of the lessons is that early anti-piracy actions and legislation, such as the lawsuits against Napster or new anti-piracy laws in France and Sweden, were largely ineffective. These measures typically led to short-lived sales increases that quickly disappeared, as pirates simply switched to new sites and services.

The turning point came when licensed downloads and streaming services were made available to the public. Starting with iTunes, which pioneered music downloads, later spreading to streaming services such as Spotify and Netflix.

“These innovations successfully shifted consumer behavior towards legal consumption. Aggregate data indicate that unlicensed music consumption has been continuously decreasing since 2010, while consumption of unlicensed movie and TV show content has been stagnant and slower to decrease,” Professor Peukert writes.

Compulsory, Statutory Licensing

Instead of slowing down AI development by restricting access to copyrighted content, the report suggests a system of compulsory, statutory licensing. This would effectively give AI developers the guaranteed right to use all published works. In exchange, an independent authority would set a royalty rate to compensate rightsholders.

This would effectively authorize the use of copyrighted works for AI training, as some countries are already doing. However, in this case, rightsholders would receive compensation.

Statutory licensing is different from the licensing deals reached with online streaming services such as Spotify and Netflix. The report recognizes that but notes that direct licensing models are not a great solution for the scale of AI training.

While Spotify deals with a manageable number of record labels and publishers, AI models require training data from the entire internet, including billions of texts, images, and videos. The report argues that identifying and negotiating with millions of individual website owners, creators, and photographers is effectively impossible.

This individual license approach would be particularly problematic for smaller AI startups, which don’t have the resources to negotiate thousands of deals.

No Opt-Out

Perhaps most controversially, the report warns against an “opt-out” model where rightsholders can exclude their content. It argues that opt-outs create “holes” in training data, which will lead to biased AI models.

From an economic welfare perspective, the report ranks the “opt-out” model as the worst possible option, even worse than doing nothing.

“When a rightsholder exercises opt-out, they do not take into account that this decreases value for society,” the report notes. The report concludes that rightsholders should not be allowed to opt-out from AI-training under any circumstance.

Napster Lessons

In the Napster case 25 years ago, the court explicitly rejected statutory licensing because it would allow an infringer to essentially pay a fine to keep breaking the law.

The report suggests that, this time around, the logic should be reversed. AI promises massive consumer benefit, estimated at $97 billion annually in the US alone, which is why the report argues that AI development should not be hindered.

For AI training, companies should be allowed to “continue operations” by paying a fee, because restricting access to copyrighted works would destroy too much economic value.

“… AI is very different from historical cases of online piracy, as it creates large net benefits for society while using copyrighted works as input. Hence, a regime that allows to ‘continue operations’ is in the best interest of society,” the report reads.

Based on these historical lessons and detailed economic welfare models, the report sees compulsory statutory licensing as the best way to tackle the AI copyright challenges in Europe. Whether rightsholders and lawmakers will agree has yet to be seen, of course.

—

Peukert, C. (2025). The Economics of Copyright and AI. European Parliament, Policy Department for Justice, Civil Liberties and Institutional Affairs. doi:10.2861/0246137 ( pdf )

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

When Napster found its way to millions of desktop computers 25 years ago , the music industry was terrified by this apparent existential threat.

Determined to make the problem disappear, the legal response was swift. Within a year, the RIAA sued Napster, and artists such as Metallica and Dr. Dre soon followed.

This strategy seemed to work, as the RIAA lawsuit effectively shut down Napster two years after it launched. However, the genie was out of the bottle, and the ‘magic’ of unlimited access inspired many new sharing apps, such as LimeWire and Kazaa. These new applications eventually ran into trouble as well.

Report: The Economics of Copyright and AI

The massive legal response against file-sharing software in the early 2000s shows parallels with today’s copyright clashes between rightsholders and AI companies. Many rightsholders see AI as an existential threat, and there are dozens of high-profile lawsuits on the way. Meanwhile, lawmakers are considering if they need to intervene.

According to a new report prepared for the European Parliament, lawsuits were not the right answer to piracy, and they are not going to solve the current AI challenges either. Titled “The Economics of Copyright and AI” , the report was commissioned by the European Parliament’s Committee on Legal Affairs (JURI) to help shape future legislation.

The report’s author, Christian Peukert , Professor of Digitization, Innovation, and Intellectual Property, has extensively researched both AI and piracy-related copyright challenges in the past.

Enforcement Doesn’t Work

The general conclusion is that creating too many barriers to using content for AI training data will harm the economy and the public. Instead, the EU should look to the “lessons from history” provided by online piracy.

One of the lessons is that early anti-piracy actions and legislation, such as the lawsuits against Napster or new anti-piracy laws in France and Sweden, were largely ineffective. These measures typically led to short-lived sales increases that quickly disappeared, as pirates simply switched to new sites and services.

The turning point came when licensed downloads and streaming services were made available to the public. Starting with iTunes, which pioneered music downloads, later spreading to streaming services such as Spotify and Netflix.

“These innovations successfully shifted consumer behavior towards legal consumption. Aggregate data indicate that unlicensed music consumption has been continuously decreasing since 2010, while consumption of unlicensed movie and TV show content has been stagnant and slower to decrease,” Professor Peukert writes.

Compulsory, Statutory Licensing

Instead of slowing down AI development by restricting access to copyrighted content, the report suggests a system of compulsory, statutory licensing. This would effectively give AI developers the guaranteed right to use all published works. In exchange, an independent authority would set a royalty rate to compensate rightsholders.

This would effectively authorize the use of copyrighted works for AI training, as some countries are already doing. However, in this case, rightsholders would receive compensation.

Statutory licensing is different from the licensing deals reached with online streaming services such as Spotify and Netflix. The report recognizes that but notes that direct licensing models are not a great solution for the scale of AI training.

While Spotify deals with a manageable number of record labels and publishers, AI models require training data from the entire internet, including billions of texts, images, and videos. The report argues that identifying and negotiating with millions of individual website owners, creators, and photographers is effectively impossible.

This individual license approach would be particularly problematic for smaller AI startups, which don’t have the resources to negotiate thousands of deals.

No Opt-Out

Perhaps most controversially, the report warns against an “opt-out” model where rightsholders can exclude their content. It argues that opt-outs create “holes” in training data, which will lead to biased AI models.

From an economic welfare perspective, the report ranks the “opt-out” model as the worst possible option, even worse than doing nothing.

“When a rightsholder exercises opt-out, they do not take into account that this decreases value for society,” the report notes. The report concludes that rightsholders should not be allowed to opt-out from AI-training under any circumstance.

Napster Lessons

In the Napster case 25 years ago, the court explicitly rejected statutory licensing because it would allow an infringer to essentially pay a fine to keep breaking the law.

The report suggests that, this time around, the logic should be reversed. AI promises massive consumer benefit, estimated at $97 billion annually in the US alone, which is why the report argues that AI development should not be hindered.

For AI training, companies should be allowed to “continue operations” by paying a fee, because restricting access to copyrighted works would destroy too much economic value.

“… AI is very different from historical cases of online piracy, as it creates large net benefits for society while using copyrighted works as input. Hence, a regime that allows to ‘continue operations’ is in the best interest of society,” the report reads.

Based on these historical lessons and detailed economic welfare models, the report sees compulsory statutory licensing as the best way to tackle the AI copyright challenges in Europe. Whether rightsholders and lawmakers will agree has yet to be seen, of course.

—

Peukert, C. (2025). The Economics of Copyright and AI. European Parliament, Policy Department for Justice, Civil Liberties and Institutional Affairs. doi:10.2861/0246137 ( pdf )

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