Fmovies first appeared online in 2016 and rapidly escalated into a severe headache for Hollywood as an incredibly resilient pirate operation.

Despite early intelligence from the MPA ‘s anti-piracy arm, ACE, pinpointing the piracy ring to Vietnam, shutting down the operation required countless hours of enforcement work and significant diplomatic efforts .

This eventually paid off last year, when Fmovies and its various sister sites, good for more than 300 million monthly visits , started to crumble. A few weeks later, ACE formally confirmed that it helped Vietnamese authorities to shut down the world’s largest piracy ring.

“The takedown of Fmovies is a stunning victory for casts, crews, writers, directors, studios, and the creative community across the globe,” MPA CEO Charles Rivkin said at the time.

Fmovies Prosecution of Phan and Nguyen

The true scope of the takedown operation may never be revealed, but it was clear that getting to this point had not been easy. The same was true for the aftermath, including the prosecution in Vietnam of two Fmovies operators; the alleged mastermind Phan Thành Công, and accomplice Nguyen Tuan Anh.

According to local authorities, the defendants came up with the Fmovies plan in 2015, after meeting at Aptech vocational school. After their arrests, both men confessed in full to their involvement with the criminal piracy ring that reportedly generated around $400,000 in ad revenue over the years.

Follow-up paperwork revealed that Phan, the lead programmer and manager, took most of the spoils, leaving Nguyen, responsible for the sites’ content, with roughly 10% of the total profits.

With these confessions , subsequent convictions seemed almost certain. However, it now transpires that this didn’t provide the ending Hollywood had hoped for.

Fmovies Defendants Dodge Prison

While no new details concerning the prosecution have appeared this year, information published in a US Trade Representative (USTR) report suggested that the two Fmovies defendants were sentenced recently. Due to the slightly odd phrasing and limited detail, we were hesitant to report immediately, but after an inquiry to the MPA, we can now confirm that the information is correct.

Both Fmovies defendants received suspended prison sentences for their roles in the Fmovies piracy ring. This means that, similar to previous convictions in Vietnam, they won’t have to serve any prison time, provided that they don’t break the law going forward.

Sentencing details are not yet public, and it’s unknown whether the men are required to pay damages. The legal paperwork previously showed that they already repaid the financial “benefit” received from their crimes, which amounted to VND 406 million (approx. $15,900 total) for 30 films.

This relatively low amount, paired with the suspended sentences, must come as a disappointment to those who worked for several years to shut down the Fmovies piracy empire.

It also explains why the USTR urged Vietnam to seek prison sentences and higher monetary fines in piracy related cases going forward.

“In order to have a deterrent effect, Vietnam enforcement authorities should […] consider seeking prison sentences, monetary fines, and other criminal penalties at the higher levels that are available under Vietnamese law, in order to reflect the immense damage caused to copyright holders by these copyright infringement operations.”

Stunning Silence

The Fmovies case was watched closely by Hollywood and the U.S. authorities that also played a role in the crackdown. While the original websites remain offline today, the perceived leniency of the sentences will likely come as a major disappointment.

Thus far, there haven’t been any public statements on the sentencing; the silence speaks volumes. After securing a “stunning victory” that made headlines all over the world, the only convictions have passed quietly by.

To the best of our knowledge, the Vietnamese authorities haven’t publicly mentioned the prosecution’s outcome either. The only thing we know is that it took place more than a week ago, before the USTR report came out.

That same USTR report, which strongly urges Vietnam to take tougher action against remaining pirate sites and services, also indicates that this is a diplomatically sensitive subject. Paired with the disappointing outcome for rightsholders, this may explain the stunning silence.

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

Fmovies first appeared online in 2016 and rapidly escalated into a severe headache for Hollywood as an incredibly resilient pirate operation.

Despite early intelligence from the MPA ‘s anti-piracy arm, ACE, pinpointing the piracy ring to Vietnam, shutting down the operation required countless hours of enforcement work and significant diplomatic efforts .

This eventually paid off last year, when Fmovies and its various sister sites, good for more than 300 million monthly visits , started to crumble. A few weeks later, ACE formally confirmed that it helped Vietnamese authorities to shut down the world’s largest piracy ring.

“The takedown of Fmovies is a stunning victory for casts, crews, writers, directors, studios, and the creative community across the globe,” MPA CEO Charles Rivkin said at the time.

Fmovies Prosecution of Phan and Nguyen

The true scope of the takedown operation may never be revealed, but it was clear that getting to this point had not been easy. The same was true for the aftermath, including the prosecution in Vietnam of two Fmovies operators; the alleged mastermind Phan Thành Công, and accomplice Nguyen Tuan Anh.

According to local authorities, the defendants came up with the Fmovies plan in 2015, after meeting at Aptech vocational school. After their arrests, both men confessed in full to their involvement with the criminal piracy ring that reportedly generated around $400,000 in ad revenue over the years.

Follow-up paperwork revealed that Phan, the lead programmer and manager, took most of the spoils, leaving Nguyen, responsible for the sites’ content, with roughly 10% of the total profits.

With these confessions , subsequent convictions seemed almost certain. However, it now transpires that this didn’t provide the ending Hollywood had hoped for.

Fmovies Defendants Dodge Prison

While no new details concerning the prosecution have appeared this year, information published in a US Trade Representative (USTR) report suggested that the two Fmovies defendants were sentenced recently. Due to the slightly odd phrasing and limited detail, we were hesitant to report immediately, but after an inquiry to the MPA, we can now confirm that the information is correct.

Both Fmovies defendants received suspended prison sentences for their roles in the Fmovies piracy ring. This means that, similar to previous convictions in Vietnam, they won’t have to serve any prison time, provided that they don’t break the law going forward.

Sentencing details are not yet public, and it’s unknown whether the men are required to pay damages. The legal paperwork previously showed that they already repaid the financial “benefit” received from their crimes, which amounted to VND 406 million (approx. $15,900 total) for 30 films.

This relatively low amount, paired with the suspended sentences, must come as a disappointment to those who worked for several years to shut down the Fmovies piracy empire.

It also explains why the USTR urged Vietnam to seek prison sentences and higher monetary fines in piracy related cases going forward.

“In order to have a deterrent effect, Vietnam enforcement authorities should […] consider seeking prison sentences, monetary fines, and other criminal penalties at the higher levels that are available under Vietnamese law, in order to reflect the immense damage caused to copyright holders by these copyright infringement operations.”

Stunning Silence

The Fmovies case was watched closely by Hollywood and the U.S. authorities that also played a role in the crackdown. While the original websites remain offline today, the perceived leniency of the sentences will likely come as a major disappointment.

Thus far, there haven’t been any public statements on the sentencing; the silence speaks volumes. After securing a “stunning victory” that made headlines all over the world, the only convictions have passed quietly by.

To the best of our knowledge, the Vietnamese authorities haven’t publicly mentioned the prosecution’s outcome either. The only thing we know is that it took place more than a week ago, before the USTR report came out.

That same USTR report, which strongly urges Vietnam to take tougher action against remaining pirate sites and services, also indicates that this is a diplomatically sensitive subject. Paired with the disappointing outcome for rightsholders, this may explain the stunning silence.

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

Fmovies first appeared online in 2016 and rapidly escalated into a severe headache for Hollywood as an incredibly resilient pirate operation.

Despite early intelligence from the MPA ‘s anti-piracy arm, ACE, pinpointing the piracy ring to Vietnam, shutting down the operation required countless hours of enforcement work and significant diplomatic efforts .

This eventually paid off last year, when Fmovies and its various sister sites, good for more than 300 million monthly visits , started to crumble. A few weeks later, ACE formally confirmed that it helped Vietnamese authorities to shut down the world’s largest piracy ring.

“The takedown of Fmovies is a stunning victory for casts, crews, writers, directors, studios, and the creative community across the globe,” MPA CEO Charles Rivkin said at the time.

Fmovies Prosecution of Phan and Nguyen

The true scope of the takedown operation may never be revealed, but it was clear that getting to this point had not been easy. The same was true for the aftermath, including the prosecution in Vietnam of two Fmovies operators; the alleged mastermind Phan Thành Công, and accomplice Nguyen Tuan Anh.

According to local authorities, the defendants came up with the Fmovies plan in 2015, after meeting at Aptech vocational school. After their arrests, both men confessed in full to their involvement with the criminal piracy ring that reportedly generated around $400,000 in ad revenue over the years.

Follow-up paperwork revealed that Phan, the lead programmer and manager, took most of the spoils, leaving Nguyen, responsible for the sites’ content, with roughly 10% of the total profits.

With these confessions , subsequent convictions seemed almost certain. However, it now transpires that this didn’t provide the ending Hollywood had hoped for.

Fmovies Defendants Dodge Prison

While no new details concerning the prosecution have appeared this year, information published in a US Trade Representative (USTR) report suggested that the two Fmovies defendants were sentenced recently. Due to the slightly odd phrasing and limited detail, we were hesitant to report immediately, but after an inquiry to the MPA, we can now confirm that the information is correct.

Both Fmovies defendants received suspended prison sentences for their roles in the Fmovies piracy ring. This means that, similar to previous convictions in Vietnam, they won’t have to serve any prison time, provided that they don’t break the law going forward.

Sentencing details are not yet public, and it’s unknown whether the men are required to pay damages. The legal paperwork previously showed that they already repaid the financial “benefit” received from their crimes, which amounted to VND 406 million (approx. $15,900 total) for 30 films.

This relatively low amount, paired with the suspended sentences, must come as a disappointment to those who worked for several years to shut down the Fmovies piracy empire.

It also explains why the USTR urged Vietnam to seek prison sentences and higher monetary fines in piracy related cases going forward.

“In order to have a deterrent effect, Vietnam enforcement authorities should […] consider seeking prison sentences, monetary fines, and other criminal penalties at the higher levels that are available under Vietnamese law, in order to reflect the immense damage caused to copyright holders by these copyright infringement operations.”

Stunning Silence

The Fmovies case was watched closely by Hollywood and the U.S. authorities that also played a role in the crackdown. While the original websites remain offline today, the perceived leniency of the sentences will likely come as a major disappointment.

Thus far, there haven’t been any public statements on the sentencing; the silence speaks volumes. After securing a “stunning victory” that made headlines all over the world, the only convictions have passed quietly by.

To the best of our knowledge, the Vietnamese authorities haven’t publicly mentioned the prosecution’s outcome either. The only thing we know is that it took place more than a week ago, before the USTR report came out.

That same USTR report, which strongly urges Vietnam to take tougher action against remaining pirate sites and services, also indicates that this is a diplomatically sensitive subject. Paired with the disappointing outcome for rightsholders, this may explain the stunning silence.

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

As pirate IPTV services have continued to grow in recent years, TV broadcasters and distributors have intensified their efforts to combat piracy.

Pay TV provider DISH Network , in tandem with the International Broadcaster Coalition Against Piracy ( IBCAP ), has been particularly active on this front.

Last month, DISH filed a lawsuit against the as-yet unidentified operators of the popular ‘pirate’ streaming services Lemo TV and Kemo IPTV in a Texas federal court. This case remains pending, but is boosted by a new lawsuit targeting a hosting provider that’s allegedly linked to these and other pirate IPTV services.

DISH Sues Hosting Service Innetra

In a lawsuit filed at the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California this week, DISH accuses the UK company ‘Innetra PC’ of aiding widespread copyright infringement, while largely ignoring takedown requests.

The complaint is based on evidence gathered by IBCAP. It alleges that Innetra provides essential server and network infrastructure that enables numerous “Pirate Services” to illegally stream copyrighted content to users in the United States. This includes 22 Arabic, Hindi, and Bangla language TV channels, for which DISH holds the U.S. transmission rights.

“The scale of the Pirate Services’ direct infringement of the Works is extensive. The Pirate Services that transmitted linear streams of the Channels that aired the Works often did so 24 hours per day and 7 days per week, in some cases for several years,” the complaint reads.

Hosting companies are not automatically liable for the actions of their customers. In this case, however, DISH notes that Innetra can’t rely on safe harbor protection as it allegedly failed to properly respond to copyright infringement notices.

“Innetra possessed the means to take simple measures to stop the infringement – such as removing or disabling the infringing streams or terminating the accounts of the Pirate Services due to their repeated infringement – yet Innetra refused to take such measures, choosing instead to continue profiting from the Pirate Services’ direct infringement.”

‘DMCA Notices Ignored’

While Innetra is incorporated in the UK, DISH alleges that the company targeted its services toward the United States as well. This includes references to the DMCA, which is the only copyright law mentioned on its website.

The complaint further notes that the hosting provider appealed to customers through its alleged noncompliance with DMCA takedown notices, which is a much sought after policy by prospective pirate customers.

“Innetra deliberately attracts streaming services that violate United States copyright law, such as the Pirates Services, by promoting a policy designed to shield customers from Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) takedowns, and by keeping infringing activities online,” DISH writes.

The rightsholder reportedly sent hundreds of infringement notices to the hosting company, identifying specific infringing activities, IP addresses, and URLs. It only received a response to one of these, with Innetra responding that it would not comply.

Drawing in Pirates

While copyright infringement is prohibited by Innetra’s acceptable use policy, DISH alleges that the reality was different. The TV company believes that the host’s alleged DMCA-ignore policy acted as a draw for pirate IPTV services

“[T]he Pirate Services were drawn to Innetra’s servers and network because it did not stop their infringement, and the Pirate Services perceived Innetra’s servers and network as a place where infringement of the Works was tolerated because Innetra advertised them as such and many other Pirate Services did just that.”

The legal paperwork includes a list of allegedly infringing services, URLS and IP addresses that were linked to Innetra’s infrastructure. These include the aforementioned Lemo TV and Kemo IPTV, as well as Honeybee, Xtremehd, and Caliptostreams.

There is no mention of a DMCA ignore policy on Innetra’s website, but the company’s FAQ mentions that it protects customers from illegitimate DMCA claims .

$25 Million in Damages

All in all, DISH holds Innetra liable for contributory and vicarious copyright infringement. The same applies to the company’s director, Elna Paulette Belle, who is personally listed as a defendant in the case.

The lawsuit lists 171 copyrighted works and DISH requests the maximum statutory damages for all alleged infringement, bringing the potential damages to $25,650,000.

This isn’t the first time that DISH has targeted an intermediary in a piracy-related lawsuit. The company previously sued UK-based CDN company DataCamp, which eventually settled for $3 million . In addition, there’s a lawsuit pending against Ukrainian hosting provider Virtual Systems .

Responding to the lawsuit, IBCAP boss Chris Kuelling says that the legal efforts underscore its commitment to hold non-compliant CDNs and hosting providers accountable. At the same time, he issues a stark warning to other companies in the same business.

“Innetra blatantly disregarded IBCAP’s notices to its detriment – if you are a hosting provider or CDN and disregard our repeated notices, there is a strong chance you will be sued for copyright infringement.”

—

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

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

As pirate IPTV services have continued to grow in recent years, TV broadcasters and distributors have intensified their efforts to combat piracy.

Pay TV provider DISH Network , in tandem with the International Broadcaster Coalition Against Piracy ( IBCAP ), has been particularly active on this front.

Last month, DISH filed a lawsuit against the as-yet unidentified operators of the popular ‘pirate’ streaming services Lemo TV and Kemo IPTV in a Texas federal court. This case remains pending, but is boosted by a new lawsuit targeting a hosting provider that’s allegedly linked to these and other pirate IPTV services.

DISH Sues Hosting Service Innetra

In a lawsuit filed at the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California this week, DISH accuses the UK company ‘Innetra PC’ of aiding widespread copyright infringement, while largely ignoring takedown requests.

The complaint is based on evidence gathered by IBCAP. It alleges that Innetra provides essential server and network infrastructure that enables numerous “Pirate Services” to illegally stream copyrighted content to users in the United States. This includes 22 Arabic, Hindi, and Bangla language TV channels, for which DISH holds the U.S. transmission rights.

“The scale of the Pirate Services’ direct infringement of the Works is extensive. The Pirate Services that transmitted linear streams of the Channels that aired the Works often did so 24 hours per day and 7 days per week, in some cases for several years,” the complaint reads.

Hosting companies are not automatically liable for the actions of their customers. In this case, however, DISH notes that Innetra can’t rely on safe harbor protection as it allegedly failed to properly respond to copyright infringement notices.

“Innetra possessed the means to take simple measures to stop the infringement – such as removing or disabling the infringing streams or terminating the accounts of the Pirate Services due to their repeated infringement – yet Innetra refused to take such measures, choosing instead to continue profiting from the Pirate Services’ direct infringement.”

‘DMCA Notices Ignored’

While Innetra is incorporated in the UK, DISH alleges that the company targeted its services toward the United States as well. This includes references to the DMCA, which is the only copyright law mentioned on its website.

The complaint further notes that the hosting provider appealed to customers through its alleged noncompliance with DMCA takedown notices, which is a much sought after policy by prospective pirate customers.

“Innetra deliberately attracts streaming services that violate United States copyright law, such as the Pirates Services, by promoting a policy designed to shield customers from Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) takedowns, and by keeping infringing activities online,” DISH writes.

The rightsholder reportedly sent hundreds of infringement notices to the hosting company, identifying specific infringing activities, IP addresses, and URLs. It only received a response to one of these, with Innetra responding that it would not comply.

Drawing in Pirates

While copyright infringement is prohibited by Innetra’s acceptable use policy, DISH alleges that the reality was different. The TV company believes that the host’s alleged DMCA-ignore policy acted as a draw for pirate IPTV services

“[T]he Pirate Services were drawn to Innetra’s servers and network because it did not stop their infringement, and the Pirate Services perceived Innetra’s servers and network as a place where infringement of the Works was tolerated because Innetra advertised them as such and many other Pirate Services did just that.”

The legal paperwork includes a list of allegedly infringing services, URLS and IP addresses that were linked to Innetra’s infrastructure. These include the aforementioned Lemo TV and Kemo IPTV, as well as Honeybee, Xtremehd, and Caliptostreams.

There is no mention of a DMCA ignore policy on Innetra’s website, but the company’s FAQ mentions that it protects customers from illegitimate DMCA claims .

$25 Million in Damages

All in all, DISH holds Innetra liable for contributory and vicarious copyright infringement. The same applies to the company’s director, Elna Paulette Belle, who is personally listed as a defendant in the case.

The lawsuit lists 171 copyrighted works and DISH requests the maximum statutory damages for all alleged infringement, bringing the potential damages to $25,650,000.

This isn’t the first time that DISH has targeted an intermediary in a piracy-related lawsuit. The company previously sued UK-based CDN company DataCamp, which eventually settled for $3 million . In addition, there’s a lawsuit pending against Ukrainian hosting provider Virtual Systems .

Responding to the lawsuit, IBCAP boss Chris Kuelling says that the legal efforts underscore its commitment to hold non-compliant CDNs and hosting providers accountable. At the same time, he issues a stark warning to other companies in the same business.

“Innetra blatantly disregarded IBCAP’s notices to its detriment – if you are a hosting provider or CDN and disregard our repeated notices, there is a strong chance you will be sued for copyright infringement.”

—

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

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

As pirate IPTV services have continued to grow in recent years, TV broadcasters and distributors have intensified their efforts to combat piracy.

Pay TV provider DISH Network , in tandem with the International Broadcaster Coalition Against Piracy ( IBCAP ), has been particularly active on this front.

Last month, DISH filed a lawsuit against the as-yet unidentified operators of the popular ‘pirate’ streaming services Lemo TV and Kemo IPTV in a Texas federal court. This case remains pending, but is boosted by a new lawsuit targeting a hosting provider that’s allegedly linked to these and other pirate IPTV services.

DISH Sues Hosting Service Innetra

In a lawsuit filed at the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California this week, DISH accuses the UK company ‘Innetra PC’ of aiding widespread copyright infringement, while largely ignoring takedown requests.

The complaint is based on evidence gathered by IBCAP. It alleges that Innetra provides essential server and network infrastructure that enables numerous “Pirate Services” to illegally stream copyrighted content to users in the United States. This includes 22 Arabic, Hindi, and Bangla language TV channels, for which DISH holds the U.S. transmission rights.

“The scale of the Pirate Services’ direct infringement of the Works is extensive. The Pirate Services that transmitted linear streams of the Channels that aired the Works often did so 24 hours per day and 7 days per week, in some cases for several years,” the complaint reads.

Hosting companies are not automatically liable for the actions of their customers. In this case, however, DISH notes that Innetra can’t rely on safe harbor protection as it allegedly failed to properly respond to copyright infringement notices.

“Innetra possessed the means to take simple measures to stop the infringement – such as removing or disabling the infringing streams or terminating the accounts of the Pirate Services due to their repeated infringement – yet Innetra refused to take such measures, choosing instead to continue profiting from the Pirate Services’ direct infringement.”

‘DMCA Notices Ignored’

While Innetra is incorporated in the UK, DISH alleges that the company targeted its services toward the United States as well. This includes references to the DMCA, which is the only copyright law mentioned on its website.

The complaint further notes that the hosting provider appealed to customers through its alleged noncompliance with DMCA takedown notices, which is a much sought after policy by prospective pirate customers.

“Innetra deliberately attracts streaming services that violate United States copyright law, such as the Pirates Services, by promoting a policy designed to shield customers from Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) takedowns, and by keeping infringing activities online,” DISH writes.

The rightsholder reportedly sent hundreds of infringement notices to the hosting company, identifying specific infringing activities, IP addresses, and URLs. It only received a response to one of these, with Innetra responding that it would not comply.

Drawing in Pirates

While copyright infringement is prohibited by Innetra’s acceptable use policy, DISH alleges that the reality was different. The TV company believes that the host’s alleged DMCA-ignore policy acted as a draw for pirate IPTV services

“[T]he Pirate Services were drawn to Innetra’s servers and network because it did not stop their infringement, and the Pirate Services perceived Innetra’s servers and network as a place where infringement of the Works was tolerated because Innetra advertised them as such and many other Pirate Services did just that.”

The legal paperwork includes a list of allegedly infringing services, URLS and IP addresses that were linked to Innetra’s infrastructure. These include the aforementioned Lemo TV and Kemo IPTV, as well as Honeybee, Xtremehd, and Caliptostreams.

There is no mention of a DMCA ignore policy on Innetra’s website, but the company’s FAQ mentions that it protects customers from illegitimate DMCA claims .

$25 Million in Damages

All in all, DISH holds Innetra liable for contributory and vicarious copyright infringement. The same applies to the company’s director, Elna Paulette Belle, who is personally listed as a defendant in the case.

The lawsuit lists 171 copyrighted works and DISH requests the maximum statutory damages for all alleged infringement, bringing the potential damages to $25,650,000.

This isn’t the first time that DISH has targeted an intermediary in a piracy-related lawsuit. The company previously sued UK-based CDN company DataCamp, which eventually settled for $3 million . In addition, there’s a lawsuit pending against Ukrainian hosting provider Virtual Systems .

Responding to the lawsuit, IBCAP boss Chris Kuelling says that the legal efforts underscore its commitment to hold non-compliant CDNs and hosting providers accountable. At the same time, he issues a stark warning to other companies in the same business.

“Innetra blatantly disregarded IBCAP’s notices to its detriment – if you are a hosting provider or CDN and disregard our repeated notices, there is a strong chance you will be sued for copyright infringement.”

—

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

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

President Trump’s announcement on Sunday revealed his plan to save the U.S. movie industry, which according to him is “dying a very fast death.” The solution is tariff-based and most likely damaging to the major Hollywood studios.

Some media reports said the industry had been expecting the announcement. Others described the news sending shockwaves through Hollywood. The bottom line is President Trump’s belief that to prevent the movie industry’s imminent death, “any and all” movies produced in “foreign lands” will be subjected to a 100% tariff.

‘WE WANT MOVIES MADE IN AMERICA, AGAIN!’

In his Truth Social post, Trump blames the apparent demise of the industry on unspecified countries “offering all sorts of incentives” to draw filmmakers away from producing movies in the United States.

“Hollywood, and many other areas within the U.S.A., are being devastated. This is a concerted effort by other Nations and, therefore, a National Security threat,” he wrote.

“It is, in addition to everything else, messaging and propaganda!”

The job of instituting the 100% tariff falls to the Department of Commerce and the United States Trade Representative. Hollywood works closely with the latter when reporting overseas intellectual property threats and other barriers to business; in which report local tariffs are addressed remains to be seen.

ITIF: Here’s a Better Idea

The Motion Picture Association is yet to publish an official response to Trump’s rescue plan on its website but an organization that often shares the MPA’s views published a response on Tuesday.

Washington-based Information Technology and Innovation Foundation (ITIF) describes itself as the world’s leading think tank for science and technology policy. For the last few years ITIF has been closely aligned with Hollywood on the need for new legislation to counter online piracy in the United States.

Rodrigo Balbontin, associate director for trade, IP, and digital technology governance at ITIF, begins with a general cautionary statement concerning retaliatory measures.

“Tariffs on foreign movies will be the first measure to impose unprecedented tariffs on services. Thanks to its digital economy, the United States has a global trade surplus on services, including films and TV, and America’s top companies export digital services. Expanding the trade war to the digital service sector will create a retaliation risk to one of the United States’s unique advantages: American creativity, innovations, and specialized knowledge,” Balbontin’s response reads .

ITIF then suggests an alternative to the imposition of tariffs on foreign produced movies. The president should back legislation that aims to prevent foreign pirate sites from having free access to consumers in the United States, who they supply with pirated American-owned content, without the owners of that content receiving compensation from anyone.

Instead of tariffs, the Trump administration can protect America’s film industry by reinforcing copyright protection. For example, Trump’s administration should call for Congress to pass legislation to block foreign piracy websites that hurt U.S. creative industries.

This is a proven measure, authorized by at least 50 countries, that reduces piracy, increases legal content consumption, and safeguards America’s creative industry from theft.

Without considering the merits of tariffs, site-blocking in general, or the detail of the FADPA proposal , a broad view may conclude that they all share the common objective of protecting the U.S. movie industry.

Unfortunately, these approaches address different problems. While encouraging inward investment appears to be the main objective of tariffs, not even the total elimination of piracy by site blocking would prevent filmmakers from embracing financial packages unavailable on home soil.

Are Foreign Incentives Damaging the U.S. Movie Industry?

President Trump claims that foreign incentives are damaging, but whether the industry agrees is a different matter. Companies in the movie business have collectively benefited from various tax-linked schemes to the tune of billions of pounds in the UK alone. The system was overhauled recently but under the previous scheme providing FTR (Film Tax Relief), official government figures show payments growing in recent years.

The new Audio-Visual Expenditure Credit (AVEC) provides companies with a tax credit worth 34% of their UK production costs on a film or high-end TV program. A credit worth 39% of UK production costs applies to animation or children’s TV shows.

Starting April 1, 2025, companies producing film and high-end TV shows could also claim back 39% of their UK visual effects costs. Films with budgets of £15 million or less became eligible for an enhanced rate of 53%.

‘Trump Should Demand Strong IP Protection in Tariff Negotiations’

With countries all around the world reportedly negotiating with the Trump administration for better deals than those imposed on them recently, ITIF suggests that this could provide an opportunity to demand stronger protection for IP rights.

“The Trump administration should insist on stronger intellectual property protections, including copyright, with the countries that are now negotiating over the Trump tariffs,” ITIF’s response reads.

One only has to read the various reports compiled by the USTR to see that certain countries are considered problematic, with some showing little improvement year after year. Yet viewed through the prism of countries supposedly playing the role of Pied Piper, luring U.S. companies with promises of free cash, better IP protection isn’t really an issue.

Examples highlighted by industry specialists Entertainment Partners reveal that countries with lacking IP protection aren’t usually among those offering the best incentives. Terms and conditions vary but the incentives include:

• Ireland: 40% credit for indy films, 90% up front (effectively an interest-free loan ).
• Portugal: 30% cash refund to productions worth €2.5m+
• Spain: federal rebates of 25%-30%, regional schemes; 45%-50% rebate (Canary Islands) and 35%-70% tax credits (Basque region)
• Japan: cash rebate of up to 50% of qualifying production costs, capped at $6.7 million
• Saudi Arabia: 40% incentive
• India: 40% of production costs reimbursed

What happens next is anyone’s guess, which in itself could deter future investment, both at home and overseas.

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

President Trump’s announcement on Sunday revealed his plan to save the U.S. movie industry, which according to him is “dying a very fast death.” The solution is tariff-based and most likely damaging to the major Hollywood studios.

Some media reports said the industry had been expecting the announcement. Others described the news sending shockwaves through Hollywood. The bottom line is President Trump’s belief that to prevent the movie industry’s imminent death, “any and all” movies produced in “foreign lands” will be subjected to a 100% tariff.

‘WE WANT MOVIES MADE IN AMERICA, AGAIN!’

In his Truth Social post, Trump blames the apparent demise of the industry on unspecified countries “offering all sorts of incentives” to draw filmmakers away from producing movies in the United States.

“Hollywood, and many other areas within the U.S.A., are being devastated. This is a concerted effort by other Nations and, therefore, a National Security threat,” he wrote.

“It is, in addition to everything else, messaging and propaganda!”

The job of instituting the 100% tariff falls to the Department of Commerce and the United States Trade Representative. Hollywood works closely with the latter when reporting overseas intellectual property threats and other barriers to business; in which report local tariffs are addressed remains to be seen.

ITIF: Here’s a Better Idea

The Motion Picture Association is yet to publish an official response to Trump’s rescue plan on its website but an organization that often shares the MPA’s views published a response on Tuesday.

Washington-based Information Technology and Innovation Foundation (ITIF) describes itself as the world’s leading think tank for science and technology policy. For the last few years ITIF has been closely aligned with Hollywood on the need for new legislation to counter online piracy in the United States.

Rodrigo Balbontin, associate director for trade, IP, and digital technology governance at ITIF, begins with a general cautionary statement concerning retaliatory measures.

“Tariffs on foreign movies will be the first measure to impose unprecedented tariffs on services. Thanks to its digital economy, the United States has a global trade surplus on services, including films and TV, and America’s top companies export digital services. Expanding the trade war to the digital service sector will create a retaliation risk to one of the United States’s unique advantages: American creativity, innovations, and specialized knowledge,” Balbontin’s response reads .

ITIF then suggests an alternative to the imposition of tariffs on foreign produced movies. The president should back legislation that aims to prevent foreign pirate sites from having free access to consumers in the United States, who they supply with pirated American-owned content, without the owners of that content receiving compensation from anyone.

Instead of tariffs, the Trump administration can protect America’s film industry by reinforcing copyright protection. For example, Trump’s administration should call for Congress to pass legislation to block foreign piracy websites that hurt U.S. creative industries.

This is a proven measure, authorized by at least 50 countries, that reduces piracy, increases legal content consumption, and safeguards America’s creative industry from theft.

Without considering the merits of tariffs, site-blocking in general, or the detail of the FADPA proposal , a broad view may conclude that they all share the common objective of protecting the U.S. movie industry.

Unfortunately, these approaches address different problems. While encouraging inward investment appears to be the main objective of tariffs, not even the total elimination of piracy by site blocking would prevent filmmakers from embracing financial packages unavailable on home soil.

Are Foreign Incentives Damaging the U.S. Movie Industry?

President Trump claims that foreign incentives are damaging, but whether the industry agrees is a different matter. Companies in the movie business have collectively benefited from various tax-linked schemes to the tune of billions of pounds in the UK alone. The system was overhauled recently but under the previous scheme providing FTR (Film Tax Relief), official government figures show payments growing in recent years.

The new Audio-Visual Expenditure Credit (AVEC) provides companies with a tax credit worth 34% of their UK production costs on a film or high-end TV program. A credit worth 39% of UK production costs applies to animation or children’s TV shows.

Starting April 1, 2025, companies producing film and high-end TV shows could also claim back 39% of their UK visual effects costs. Films with budgets of £15 million or less became eligible for an enhanced rate of 53%.

‘Trump Should Demand Strong IP Protection in Tariff Negotiations’

With countries all around the world reportedly negotiating with the Trump administration for better deals than those imposed on them recently, ITIF suggests that this could provide an opportunity to demand stronger protection for IP rights.

“The Trump administration should insist on stronger intellectual property protections, including copyright, with the countries that are now negotiating over the Trump tariffs,” ITIF’s response reads.

One only has to read the various reports compiled by the USTR to see that certain countries are considered problematic, with some showing little improvement year after year. Yet viewed through the prism of countries supposedly playing the role of Pied Piper, luring U.S. companies with promises of free cash, better IP protection isn’t really an issue.

Examples highlighted by industry specialists Entertainment Partners reveal that countries with lacking IP protection aren’t usually among those offering the best incentives. Terms and conditions vary but the incentives include:

• Ireland: 40% credit for indy films, 90% up front (effectively an interest-free loan ).
• Portugal: 30% cash refund to productions worth €2.5m+
• Spain: federal rebates of 25%-30%, regional schemes; 45%-50% rebate (Canary Islands) and 35%-70% tax credits (Basque region)
• Japan: cash rebate of up to 50% of qualifying production costs, capped at $6.7 million
• Saudi Arabia: 40% incentive
• India: 40% of production costs reimbursed

What happens next is anyone’s guess, which in itself could deter future investment, both at home and overseas.

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

President Trump’s announcement on Sunday revealed his plan to save the U.S. movie industry, which according to him is “dying a very fast death.” The solution is tariff-based and most likely damaging to the major Hollywood studios.

Some media reports said the industry had been expecting the announcement. Others described the news sending shockwaves through Hollywood. The bottom line is President Trump’s belief that to prevent the movie industry’s imminent death, “any and all” movies produced in “foreign lands” will be subjected to a 100% tariff.

‘WE WANT MOVIES MADE IN AMERICA, AGAIN!’

In his Truth Social post, Trump blames the apparent demise of the industry on unspecified countries “offering all sorts of incentives” to draw filmmakers away from producing movies in the United States.

“Hollywood, and many other areas within the U.S.A., are being devastated. This is a concerted effort by other Nations and, therefore, a National Security threat,” he wrote.

“It is, in addition to everything else, messaging and propaganda!”

The job of instituting the 100% tariff falls to the Department of Commerce and the United States Trade Representative. Hollywood works closely with the latter when reporting overseas intellectual property threats and other barriers to business; in which report local tariffs are addressed remains to be seen.

ITIF: Here’s a Better Idea

The Motion Picture Association is yet to publish an official response to Trump’s rescue plan on its website but an organization that often shares the MPA’s views published a response on Tuesday.

Washington-based Information Technology and Innovation Foundation (ITIF) describes itself as the world’s leading think tank for science and technology policy. For the last few years ITIF has been closely aligned with Hollywood on the need for new legislation to counter online piracy in the United States.

Rodrigo Balbontin, associate director for trade, IP, and digital technology governance at ITIF, begins with a general cautionary statement concerning retaliatory measures.

“Tariffs on foreign movies will be the first measure to impose unprecedented tariffs on services. Thanks to its digital economy, the United States has a global trade surplus on services, including films and TV, and America’s top companies export digital services. Expanding the trade war to the digital service sector will create a retaliation risk to one of the United States’s unique advantages: American creativity, innovations, and specialized knowledge,” Balbontin’s response reads .

ITIF then suggests an alternative to the imposition of tariffs on foreign produced movies. The president should back legislation that aims to prevent foreign pirate sites from having free access to consumers in the United States, who they supply with pirated American-owned content, without the owners of that content receiving compensation from anyone.

Instead of tariffs, the Trump administration can protect America’s film industry by reinforcing copyright protection. For example, Trump’s administration should call for Congress to pass legislation to block foreign piracy websites that hurt U.S. creative industries.

This is a proven measure, authorized by at least 50 countries, that reduces piracy, increases legal content consumption, and safeguards America’s creative industry from theft.

Without considering the merits of tariffs, site-blocking in general, or the detail of the FADPA proposal , a broad view may conclude that they all share the common objective of protecting the U.S. movie industry.

Unfortunately, these approaches address different problems. While encouraging inward investment appears to be the main objective of tariffs, not even the total elimination of piracy by site blocking would prevent filmmakers from embracing financial packages unavailable on home soil.

Are Foreign Incentives Damaging the U.S. Movie Industry?

President Trump claims that foreign incentives are damaging, but whether the industry agrees is a different matter. Companies in the movie business have collectively benefited from various tax-linked schemes to the tune of billions of pounds in the UK alone. The system was overhauled recently but under the previous scheme providing FTR (Film Tax Relief), official government figures show payments growing in recent years.

The new Audio-Visual Expenditure Credit (AVEC) provides companies with a tax credit worth 34% of their UK production costs on a film or high-end TV program. A credit worth 39% of UK production costs applies to animation or children’s TV shows.

Starting April 1, 2025, companies producing film and high-end TV shows could also claim back 39% of their UK visual effects costs. Films with budgets of £15 million or less became eligible for an enhanced rate of 53%.

‘Trump Should Demand Strong IP Protection in Tariff Negotiations’

With countries all around the world reportedly negotiating with the Trump administration for better deals than those imposed on them recently, ITIF suggests that this could provide an opportunity to demand stronger protection for IP rights.

“The Trump administration should insist on stronger intellectual property protections, including copyright, with the countries that are now negotiating over the Trump tariffs,” ITIF’s response reads.

One only has to read the various reports compiled by the USTR to see that certain countries are considered problematic, with some showing little improvement year after year. Yet viewed through the prism of countries supposedly playing the role of Pied Piper, luring U.S. companies with promises of free cash, better IP protection isn’t really an issue.

Examples highlighted by industry specialists Entertainment Partners reveal that countries with lacking IP protection aren’t usually among those offering the best incentives. Terms and conditions vary but the incentives include:

• Ireland: 40% credit for indy films, 90% up front (effectively an interest-free loan ).
• Portugal: 30% cash refund to productions worth €2.5m+
• Spain: federal rebates of 25%-30%, regional schemes; 45%-50% rebate (Canary Islands) and 35%-70% tax credits (Basque region)
• Japan: cash rebate of up to 50% of qualifying production costs, capped at $6.7 million
• Saudi Arabia: 40% incentive
• India: 40% of production costs reimbursed

What happens next is anyone’s guess, which in itself could deter future investment, both at home and overseas.

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