Generally speaking, pirates tend to dislike restrictions, because more often than not, restrictions mean either less piracy or less convenient piracy.

News from Amazon last month indicated that apps linked to piracy would start to face new restrictions when sideloaded to Fire TV devices, although exactly how that would manifest itself was still unknown.

The ‘announcement’ was ‘quietly’ delivered via the media and spread quickly. That produced predictable headlines, mostly warning of an Amazon Crackdown / Piracy Ban plus additional drama conjured up from nowhere.

First Apps Flagged By Amazon

While there are reports that more than one app has been flagged by Amazon since then, one stands out for being reported most often, backed up by independent screenshots showing Amazon’s message.

BeeTV is an Android-based app providing access to pirated movies and TV shows. In one form or another, BeeTV apps have been around for years. That’s not because of longevity and continuity as a single app, but because anyone with an app looking for installs can put a BeeTV logo on it and get instantly recognized.

As the image shows, when Fire TV users tried to sideload a BeeTV app, Amazon spotted it too.

While the message is clear, Amazon’s alleged crackdown is accompanied by a convenient one-click circumvention option. This is not exactly as some have advertised, and it may, or may not, be the start of a tapered approach..

For some, that’s still enough to arouse scattered suspicions that ‘Launch Anyway’ could lead to being flagged by the authorities or reported to anti-piracy groups. Theoretical consequences such as these do give some people pause for thought, but overall deterrent value seems limited, as the disguised Reddit thread below suggests.

So does nothing happen, or does nothing appear to happen?

Something Happens: Free Movies & TV Shows plus Bonus Extras

The most popular BeeTV variants appear to be at versions 4.4.4 to 4.4.7, with various MOD versions promising no advertising. We carried out a series of tests on all three versions and can report that many things can happen, but conveniently the user sees nothing.

Our assessment here is based on what an app like this needs to function. For pragmatic reasons, allowances are made for monetization via ads etc. with additional ‘functionality’ viewed case-by-case. Declared permissions that go beyond those needed for a regular app to provide the same services are generally unacceptable by default.

Without granting permission to access the internet, not much will happen, and in the event functionality exists to download a video, denying access to external storage would be an issue too. Let’s assume all permissions are granted, and since many users will also sideload the app onto their cellphones, we will cover some of the main issues across all devices at the same time.

Permissions Permissions Permissions

Here’s just some of what the app can do, beyond what it needs to be able to do. We’ll consider the implications later.

• Location: Even with allowances made for access to localized content, identifying the user’s approximate location is not the same as always being able to identify a user’s location accurate to a few feet.

• External Storage Read/Write: The app has broad access to external storage, including read/write permissions. What people store on their devices tends to vary depending on the individual.

• Bookmarks/Browsing History: Tests indicate the app not only has permission to read bookmarks and browsing history, it can write to them as well.

Other Security Issues of Concern

• SMS/Call Logs: When providing access to a movie or TV show, there’s no reason why the app should obtain the name of the device’s network operator. Being able to query a user’s SMS messages and obtain their content definitely isn’t needed, nor is it acceptable to query a device’s contact list, or access its call logs.

There are also some serious issues on the technical side outside the scope of this article, but one apparent double standard is worth highlighting.

On one hand, the app uses SSL certificate pinning to prevent MITM attacks (eavesdropping) on communications it aims to keep private. On the other, it proactively enables cleartext traffic, which enables eavesdropping (and modification) of transmitted data it presumably wishes to see (and potentially tamper with), without being detected by the user.

What Could Possibly Go Wrong?

Apart from intercepting unencrypted network traffic, potentially including credentials, API keys, and other sensitive information, a potential attacker could track the user’s location in real-time. This could enable anything from stalking to targeted phishing attacks based on known daily routines, augmented by information from contact lists, call logs, and the content of SMS data.

If more data was needed to carry out identity theft, a simulated identity theft warning sent to the user by SMS, claiming to be from the user’s own bank (confirmed by entries in their contact list and SMS), could lead to some people clicking a link to a bogus banking page. They might even be persuaded to hand over the rest of their info.

Of course, savvy users don’t click links in unsolicited messages, it’s too risky. Instead, they visit their own bank with a communication that they themselves initiate; just quickly dig out the bookmark and……

Almost Nothing Happens?

In summary, then, aside from launching at boot and the ability to install additional software, the app can harvest personal information, obtain information on contacts, and the content of their messages on the device. It can intercept communications, manipulate device behavior, and track movements and activities in real-time, while recording locations (home, workplace, gym) and times.

On the plus side, version 4.4.4 does not appear to have the ability to use a device’s camera to photograph anything it likes, at any time, without the user’s knowledge or permission. It’s an oversight that seems to have been ‘corrected’ in 4.4.7.

There are the movies and TV shows to consider, of course, accessed from well over 200 pirate site domains embedded in the app. There’s also the superficially ‘clean’ detection reports on VirusTotal to put any remaining doubts to rest.

A fitness app carrying out 24/7 monitoring wouldn’t be flagged for being malicious, and there’s not much difference in this case either. The app asked for permission, and without considering intent, permission was granted. There’s not much that can be done about that.

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

Generally speaking, pirates tend to dislike restrictions, because more often than not, restrictions mean either less piracy or less convenient piracy.

News from Amazon last month indicated that apps linked to piracy would start to face new restrictions when sideloaded to Fire TV devices, although exactly how that would manifest itself was still unknown.

The ‘announcement’ was ‘quietly’ delivered via the media and spread quickly. That produced predictable headlines, mostly warning of an Amazon Crackdown / Piracy Ban plus additional drama conjured up from nowhere.

First Apps Flagged By Amazon

While there are reports that more than one app has been flagged by Amazon since then, one stands out for being reported most often, backed up by independent screenshots showing Amazon’s message.

BeeTV is an Android-based app providing access to pirated movies and TV shows. In one form or another, BeeTV apps have been around for years. That’s not because of longevity and continuity as a single app, but because anyone with an app looking for installs can put a BeeTV logo on it and get instantly recognized.

As the image shows, when Fire TV users tried to sideload a BeeTV app, Amazon spotted it too.

While the message is clear, Amazon’s alleged crackdown is accompanied by a convenient one-click circumvention option. This is not exactly as some have advertised, and it may, or may not, be the start of a tapered approach..

For some, that’s still enough to arouse scattered suspicions that ‘Launch Anyway’ could lead to being flagged by the authorities or reported to anti-piracy groups. Theoretical consequences such as these do give some people pause for thought, but overall deterrent value seems limited, as the disguised Reddit thread below suggests.

So does nothing happen, or does nothing appear to happen?

Something Happens: Free Movies & TV Shows plus Bonus Extras

The most popular BeeTV variants appear to be at versions 4.4.4 to 4.4.7, with various MOD versions promising no advertising. We carried out a series of tests on all three versions and can report that many things can happen, but conveniently the user sees nothing.

Our assessment here is based on what an app like this needs to function. For pragmatic reasons, allowances are made for monetization via ads etc. with additional ‘functionality’ viewed case-by-case. Declared permissions that go beyond those needed for a regular app to provide the same services are generally unacceptable by default.

Without granting permission to access the internet, not much will happen, and in the event functionality exists to download a video, denying access to external storage would be an issue too. Let’s assume all permissions are granted, and since many users will also sideload the app onto their cellphones, we will cover some of the main issues across all devices at the same time.

Permissions Permissions Permissions

Here’s just some of what the app can do, beyond what it needs to be able to do. We’ll consider the implications later.

• Location: Even with allowances made for access to localized content, identifying the user’s approximate location is not the same as always being able to identify a user’s location accurate to a few feet.

• External Storage Read/Write: The app has broad access to external storage, including read/write permissions. What people store on their devices tends to vary depending on the individual.

• Bookmarks/Browsing History: Tests indicate the app not only has permission to read bookmarks and browsing history, it can write to them as well.

Other Security Issues of Concern

• SMS/Call Logs: When providing access to a movie or TV show, there’s no reason why the app should obtain the name of the device’s network operator. Being able to query a user’s SMS messages and obtain their content definitely isn’t needed, nor is it acceptable to query a device’s contact list, or access its call logs.

There are also some serious issues on the technical side outside the scope of this article, but one apparent double standard is worth highlighting.

On one hand, the app uses SSL certificate pinning to prevent MITM attacks (eavesdropping) on communications it aims to keep private. On the other, it proactively enables cleartext traffic, which enables eavesdropping (and modification) of transmitted data it presumably wishes to see (and potentially tamper with), without being detected by the user.

What Could Possibly Go Wrong?

Apart from intercepting unencrypted network traffic, potentially including credentials, API keys, and other sensitive information, a potential attacker could track the user’s location in real-time. This could enable anything from stalking to targeted phishing attacks based on known daily routines, augmented by information from contact lists, call logs, and the content of SMS data.

If more data was needed to carry out identity theft, a simulated identity theft warning sent to the user by SMS, claiming to be from the user’s own bank (confirmed by entries in their contact list and SMS), could lead to some people clicking a link to a bogus banking page. They might even be persuaded to hand over the rest of their info.

Of course, savvy users don’t click links in unsolicited messages, it’s too risky. Instead, they visit their own bank with a communication that they themselves initiate; just quickly dig out the bookmark and……

Almost Nothing Happens?

In summary, then, aside from launching at boot and the ability to install additional software, the app can harvest personal information, obtain information on contacts, and the content of their messages on the device. It can intercept communications, manipulate device behavior, and track movements and activities in real-time, while recording locations (home, workplace, gym) and times.

On the plus side, version 4.4.4 does not appear to have the ability to use a device’s camera to photograph anything it likes, at any time, without the user’s knowledge or permission. It’s an oversight that seems to have been ‘corrected’ in 4.4.7.

There are the movies and TV shows to consider, of course, accessed from well over 200 pirate site domains embedded in the app. There’s also the superficially ‘clean’ detection reports on VirusTotal to put any remaining doubts to rest.

A fitness app carrying out 24/7 monitoring wouldn’t be flagged for being malicious, and there’s not much difference in this case either. The app asked for permission, and without considering intent, permission was granted. There’s not much that can be done about that.

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

Generally speaking, pirates tend to dislike restrictions, because more often than not, restrictions mean either less piracy or less convenient piracy.

News from Amazon last month indicated that apps linked to piracy would start to face new restrictions when sideloaded to Fire TV devices, although exactly how that would manifest itself was still unknown.

The ‘announcement’ was ‘quietly’ delivered via the media and spread quickly. That produced predictable headlines, mostly warning of an Amazon Crackdown / Piracy Ban plus additional drama conjured up from nowhere.

First Apps Flagged By Amazon

While there are reports that more than one app has been flagged by Amazon since then, one stands out for being reported most often, backed up by independent screenshots showing Amazon’s message.

BeeTV is an Android-based app providing access to pirated movies and TV shows. In one form or another, BeeTV apps have been around for years. That’s not because of longevity and continuity as a single app, but because anyone with an app looking for installs can put a BeeTV logo on it and get instantly recognized.

As the image shows, when Fire TV users tried to sideload a BeeTV app, Amazon spotted it too.

While the message is clear, Amazon’s alleged crackdown is accompanied by a convenient one-click circumvention option. This is not exactly as some have advertised, and it may, or may not, be the start of a tapered approach..

For some, that’s still enough to arouse scattered suspicions that ‘Launch Anyway’ could lead to being flagged by the authorities or reported to anti-piracy groups. Theoretical consequences such as these do give some people pause for thought, but overall deterrent value seems limited, as the disguised Reddit thread below suggests.

So does nothing happen, or does nothing appear to happen?

Something Happens: Free Movies & TV Shows plus Bonus Extras

The most popular BeeTV variants appear to be at versions 4.4.4 to 4.4.7, with various MOD versions promising no advertising. We carried out a series of tests on all three versions and can report that many things can happen, but conveniently the user sees nothing.

Our assessment here is based on what an app like this needs to function. For pragmatic reasons, allowances are made for monetization via ads etc. with additional ‘functionality’ viewed case-by-case. Declared permissions that go beyond those needed for a regular app to provide the same services are generally unacceptable by default.

Without granting permission to access the internet, not much will happen, and in the event functionality exists to download a video, denying access to external storage would be an issue too. Let’s assume all permissions are granted, and since many users will also sideload the app onto their cellphones, we will cover some of the main issues across all devices at the same time.

Permissions Permissions Permissions

Here’s just some of what the app can do, beyond what it needs to be able to do. We’ll consider the implications later.

• Location: Even with allowances made for access to localized content, identifying the user’s approximate location is not the same as always being able to identify a user’s location accurate to a few feet.

• External Storage Read/Write: The app has broad access to external storage, including read/write permissions. What people store on their devices tends to vary depending on the individual.

• Bookmarks/Browsing History: Tests indicate the app not only has permission to read bookmarks and browsing history, it can write to them as well.

Other Security Issues of Concern

• SMS/Call Logs: When providing access to a movie or TV show, there’s no reason why the app should obtain the name of the device’s network operator. Being able to query a user’s SMS messages and obtain their content definitely isn’t needed, nor is it acceptable to query a device’s contact list, or access its call logs.

There are also some serious issues on the technical side outside the scope of this article, but one apparent double standard is worth highlighting.

On one hand, the app uses SSL certificate pinning to prevent MITM attacks (eavesdropping) on communications it aims to keep private. On the other, it proactively enables cleartext traffic, which enables eavesdropping (and modification) of transmitted data it presumably wishes to see (and potentially tamper with), without being detected by the user.

What Could Possibly Go Wrong?

Apart from intercepting unencrypted network traffic, potentially including credentials, API keys, and other sensitive information, a potential attacker could track the user’s location in real-time. This could enable anything from stalking to targeted phishing attacks based on known daily routines, augmented by information from contact lists, call logs, and the content of SMS data.

If more data was needed to carry out identity theft, a simulated identity theft warning sent to the user by SMS, claiming to be from the user’s own bank (confirmed by entries in their contact list and SMS), could lead to some people clicking a link to a bogus banking page. They might even be persuaded to hand over the rest of their info.

Of course, savvy users don’t click links in unsolicited messages, it’s too risky. Instead, they visit their own bank with a communication that they themselves initiate; just quickly dig out the bookmark and……

Almost Nothing Happens?

In summary, then, aside from launching at boot and the ability to install additional software, the app can harvest personal information, obtain information on contacts, and the content of their messages on the device. It can intercept communications, manipulate device behavior, and track movements and activities in real-time, while recording locations (home, workplace, gym) and times.

On the plus side, version 4.4.4 does not appear to have the ability to use a device’s camera to photograph anything it likes, at any time, without the user’s knowledge or permission. It’s an oversight that seems to have been ‘corrected’ in 4.4.7.

There are the movies and TV shows to consider, of course, accessed from well over 200 pirate site domains embedded in the app. There’s also the superficially ‘clean’ detection reports on VirusTotal to put any remaining doubts to rest.

A fitness app carrying out 24/7 monitoring wouldn’t be flagged for being malicious, and there’s not much difference in this case either. The app asked for permission, and without considering intent, permission was granted. There’s not much that can be done about that.

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

In 2023, Lithuania amended its Code of Administrative Offenses, allowing media watchdog LRTK to fine pirates, without going to court.

This legislative change was specifically designed to deter piracy in the European country. With potential fines on the line, pirates would reconsider their habits, the idea was.

Tracking Torrent Tracker Pirates

Over the past two years, dozens of fines were handed out. The targets were mostly first-time offenders who received the minimum fine of 140 euros. For repeat offenses, however, fines can potentially reach 850 euros.

What makes these fines stand out is that LRTK predominantly targets users of the private torrent trackers Linkomanija and Torrent.lt. These are two of the most-visited pirate sites in the Eastern European country.

The media watchdog does not only target local piracy communities; it also focuses on protecting locally produced media. In a recent announcement, LRTK notes that, this year, it fined more than 30 people who shared a copy of the film “ Pietinia Kronikas ” (The Southern Chronicles).

These targets are again linked to the Linkomanija and Torrent.lt torrent trackers, and ten of them were fined in November, suggesting an increase in enforcement activity.

In most cases, the suspects were fined in their absence, as they failed to respond to inquiries from the media watchdog.

“The LRTK contacted the violators in writing, requesting explanations and inviting them to participate in the investigation of the administrative offense. However, the majority of individuals did not respond to the invitations and failed to appear for the investigation,” LRTK writes.

From 250+ Blocked Domains to Malware Threats

In addition to targeted fines, the regulator is also expanding its site blocking efforts. According to new figures, LRTK blocked more than 700 IP addresses and 250 domain names linked to pirate sites in 2025 alone.

Andrius Katinas, Head of the Supervision Division at LRTK, admits that while piracy activity has decreased, it remains a significant problem. Therefore, the regulator is adding a “consumer safety” narrative by warning that pirate sites are linked to malware and other cyber threats.

In a report by local news outlet Delfi, the watchdog links pirate sites to data theft, malicious software, ransomware, stolen credit cards or bank details, compromised accounts, and hacked social media.

“These cases constantly happen,” Katinas warns. “Individuals who lost access to their personal or work accounts often receive offers to recover them for a ransom, are threatened with the publishing of compromising content, or are otherwise manipulated.”

Changing Piracy Rates?

There is no silver bullet to stop piracy. While site blocking, fines, and awareness campaigns have some effect, some people continue to return to pirate sites. That includes the heavily targeted Linkomanija and Torrent.lt trackers.

Historically, piracy rates have always been high in Lithuania, but, according to LRTK Chairman Mantas Martišius, piracy is now clearly on the decline.

Martišius notes that enforcement has paid off. Importantly, however, the economic situation in Lithuania is improving, so people now have the opportunity to spend money on legal platforms and services.

All in all, LRTK is adamant that its efforts to curb piracy are paying off. That becaome apparent earlier this year when the watchdog publicly criticized data reported by piracy tracking firm MUSO, stressing that “Lithuania is no longer the leader in piracy”.

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

In 2023, Lithuania amended its Code of Administrative Offenses, allowing media watchdog LRTK to fine pirates, without going to court.

This legislative change was specifically designed to deter piracy in the European country. With potential fines on the line, pirates would reconsider their habits, the idea was.

Tracking Torrent Tracker Pirates

Over the past two years, dozens of fines were handed out. The targets were mostly first-time offenders who received the minimum fine of 140 euros. For repeat offenses, however, fines can potentially reach 850 euros.

What makes these fines stand out is that LRTK predominantly targets users of the private torrent trackers Linkomanija and Torrent.lt. These are two of the most-visited pirate sites in the Eastern European country.

The media watchdog does not only target local piracy communities; it also focuses on protecting locally produced media. In a recent announcement, LRTK notes that, this year, it fined more than 30 people who shared a copy of the film “ Pietinia Kronikas ” (The Southern Chronicles).

These targets are again linked to the Linkomanija and Torrent.lt torrent trackers, and ten of them were fined in November, suggesting an increase in enforcement activity.

In most cases, the suspects were fined in their absence, as they failed to respond to inquiries from the media watchdog.

“The LRTK contacted the violators in writing, requesting explanations and inviting them to participate in the investigation of the administrative offense. However, the majority of individuals did not respond to the invitations and failed to appear for the investigation,” LRTK writes.

From 250+ Blocked Domains to Malware Threats

In addition to targeted fines, the regulator is also expanding its site blocking efforts. According to new figures, LRTK blocked more than 700 IP addresses and 250 domain names linked to pirate sites in 2025 alone.

Andrius Katinas, Head of the Supervision Division at LRTK, admits that while piracy activity has decreased, it remains a significant problem. Therefore, the regulator is adding a “consumer safety” narrative by warning that pirate sites are linked to malware and other cyber threats.

In a report by local news outlet Delfi, the watchdog links pirate sites to data theft, malicious software, ransomware, stolen credit cards or bank details, compromised accounts, and hacked social media.

“These cases constantly happen,” Katinas warns. “Individuals who lost access to their personal or work accounts often receive offers to recover them for a ransom, are threatened with the publishing of compromising content, or are otherwise manipulated.”

Changing Piracy Rates?

There is no silver bullet to stop piracy. While site blocking, fines, and awareness campaigns have some effect, some people continue to return to pirate sites. That includes the heavily targeted Linkomanija and Torrent.lt trackers.

Historically, piracy rates have always been high in Lithuania, but, according to LRTK Chairman Mantas Martišius, piracy is now clearly on the decline.

Martišius notes that enforcement has paid off. Importantly, however, the economic situation in Lithuania is improving, so people now have the opportunity to spend money on legal platforms and services.

All in all, LRTK is adamant that its efforts to curb piracy are paying off. That becaome apparent earlier this year when the watchdog publicly criticized data reported by piracy tracking firm MUSO, stressing that “Lithuania is no longer the leader in piracy”.

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

In 2023, Lithuania amended its Code of Administrative Offenses, allowing media watchdog LRTK to fine pirates, without going to court.

This legislative change was specifically designed to deter piracy in the European country. With potential fines on the line, pirates would reconsider their habits, the idea was.

Tracking Torrent Tracker Pirates

Over the past two years, dozens of fines were handed out. The targets were mostly first-time offenders who received the minimum fine of 140 euros. For repeat offenses, however, fines can potentially reach 850 euros.

What makes these fines stand out is that LRTK predominantly targets users of the private torrent trackers Linkomanija and Torrent.lt. These are two of the most-visited pirate sites in the Eastern European country.

The media watchdog does not only target local piracy communities; it also focuses on protecting locally produced media. In a recent announcement, LRTK notes that, this year, it fined more than 30 people who shared a copy of the film “ Pietinia Kronikas ” (The Southern Chronicles).

These targets are again linked to the Linkomanija and Torrent.lt torrent trackers, and ten of them were fined in November, suggesting an increase in enforcement activity.

In most cases, the suspects were fined in their absence, as they failed to respond to inquiries from the media watchdog.

“The LRTK contacted the violators in writing, requesting explanations and inviting them to participate in the investigation of the administrative offense. However, the majority of individuals did not respond to the invitations and failed to appear for the investigation,” LRTK writes.

From 250+ Blocked Domains to Malware Threats

In addition to targeted fines, the regulator is also expanding its site blocking efforts. According to new figures, LRTK blocked more than 700 IP addresses and 250 domain names linked to pirate sites in 2025 alone.

Andrius Katinas, Head of the Supervision Division at LRTK, admits that while piracy activity has decreased, it remains a significant problem. Therefore, the regulator is adding a “consumer safety” narrative by warning that pirate sites are linked to malware and other cyber threats.

In a report by local news outlet Delfi, the watchdog links pirate sites to data theft, malicious software, ransomware, stolen credit cards or bank details, compromised accounts, and hacked social media.

“These cases constantly happen,” Katinas warns. “Individuals who lost access to their personal or work accounts often receive offers to recover them for a ransom, are threatened with the publishing of compromising content, or are otherwise manipulated.”

Changing Piracy Rates?

There is no silver bullet to stop piracy. While site blocking, fines, and awareness campaigns have some effect, some people continue to return to pirate sites. That includes the heavily targeted Linkomanija and Torrent.lt trackers.

Historically, piracy rates have always been high in Lithuania, but, according to LRTK Chairman Mantas Martišius, piracy is now clearly on the decline.

Martišius notes that enforcement has paid off. Importantly, however, the economic situation in Lithuania is improving, so people now have the opportunity to spend money on legal platforms and services.

All in all, LRTK is adamant that its efforts to curb piracy are paying off. That becaome apparent earlier this year when the watchdog publicly criticized data reported by piracy tracking firm MUSO, stressing that “Lithuania is no longer the leader in piracy”.

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

While Australia’s site-blocking mechanism has made few enemies since 2018, it hasn’t been known for being fast.

As discussed earlier this year , accuracy has traditionally been favored over speed, which is contrary to less cautious approaches taken in other countries.

After an unprecedented request and cooperation from the Federal Court, Australia will now step up several gears and show whether it can achieve both.

Not Just Another Blocking Order

When Justice Halley handed down his order in Universal City Studios LLC v Telstra Limited [2025] FCA 1390 on November 12, in most respects it was much like any other issued in recent years.

Member studios of the MPA – Universal, Disney, Paramount, Columbia, Warner Bros., Netflix and Apple (plus Viacom) requested an injunction under Section 115A of the Copyright Act, requiring around 50 local ISPs (operating as Telstra, Optus, Vocus, TPG Telecom, Aussie Broadband and Superloop) to block 52 overseas-based pirate streaming sites.

The copyright works applicants aim to protect necessarily play a key role in blocking proceedings. The difference in this case was the emphasis placed on the Universal Pictures movie Wicked: For Good and its inevitable appearance on high-traffic sites using familiar branding: HydraHD, Hurawatch, Braflix, Soap2Day, MyFlixer, HiAnime, OnionPlay, 123movies, SolarMovies, Gomovies, Fmovies – the list goes on……and on.

With Wicked: For Good ‘s international release scheduled for November 17, Australian ISPs agreed to take all reasonable steps to disable access to 23 sites as a matter of urgency, with the remaining 29 to be blocked within the usual span of 15 business days.

In order to have a fighting chance against adaptable piracy platforms, a dynamic blocking order was issued, meaning that new domains and IP addresses could be added to deal with the inevitable countermeasures. Under normal circumstances, that can take time but for Wicked: For Good ‘s theatrical release in Australia, time was already running out.

Additional Urgent Access Means

Less than two weeks after handing down the initial order, Justice Halley was handing down a second. Dated November 25, the order reveals that studios filed an urgent application for an order to tackle countermeasures deployed by the sites.

Operating from new domains, described in the order as “Additional Urgent Access Means”, the sites were already illegally distributing Wicked: For Good which was set to continue playing in theaters in Australia until the end of 2025.

New domains, IP addresses, and/or URLs are normally reported by rightsholders to the ISPs, who are then expected to respond within seven working days. If neither the respondent nor the court requires the matter to be relisted, the ISPs have a further 15 working days to disable access.

The prospect of the movie being distributed unhindered for free until Christmas Eve was considered unacceptable.

Urgent Additional Blocking Order

On November 28, just over two weeks after handing down the initial blocking order, Justice Halley authorized a second.

In response to the studios’ calls for urgency, Universal City Studios LLC v Telstra Limited [2025] FCA 1485 targeted the ‘Additional Urgent Access Means’ (new domain names/IP addresses/URLs) deployed by the sites to circumvent the previously implemented blocks.

The court recognized that standard procedures, which require notification and then a response period, would allow the sites to operate unhindered for at least 22 days.

“This would have the consequence that those sites would remain accessible for the majority of the theatrical release period for the film ‘Wicked: For Good’ which would have the likely effect of reducing the commercial success of the film as infringing copies of the film would be available without charge from the Additional Urgent Access Means,” Justice Halley noted in his order.

Rapid Response

To combat this, the new order required the ISPs to disable access to the new means of access, whether domain names, IP addresses, or URLs, by 4.00 pm on Friday, November 28, 2025. As far as we’re aware, a response time this short is unprecedented in Australia.

The ability to quickly respond to blocking countermeasures is crucial. For Australia, this is new territory but shouldn’t be unnecessarily difficult. However, as months of delay have decreased to weeks and now just days, rightsholders elsewhere in the world – especially in the live sports arena – still aren’t satisfied, even when blocking takes place within hours. In some areas, rightsholders consider 10 minutes to be reasonable.

Under those demands, Australia’s traditional accuracy would face challenges, with or without a reduction in overall piracy rates. Right now, despite aggressive worldwide blocking measures, piracy continues to trend up.

The orders dated November 12 and November 28 are available here and here

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

While Australia’s site-blocking mechanism has made few enemies since 2018, it hasn’t been known for being fast.

As discussed earlier this year , accuracy has traditionally been favored over speed, which is contrary to less cautious approaches taken in other countries.

After an unprecedented request and cooperation from the Federal Court, Australia will now step up several gears and show whether it can achieve both.

Not Just Another Blocking Order

When Justice Halley handed down his order in Universal City Studios LLC v Telstra Limited [2025] FCA 1390 on November 12, in most respects it was much like any other issued in recent years.

Member studios of the MPA – Universal, Disney, Paramount, Columbia, Warner Bros., Netflix and Apple (plus Viacom) requested an injunction under Section 115A of the Copyright Act, requiring around 50 local ISPs (operating as Telstra, Optus, Vocus, TPG Telecom, Aussie Broadband and Superloop) to block 52 overseas-based pirate streaming sites.

The copyright works applicants aim to protect necessarily play a key role in blocking proceedings. The difference in this case was the emphasis placed on the Universal Pictures movie Wicked: For Good and its inevitable appearance on high-traffic sites using familiar branding: HydraHD, Hurawatch, Braflix, Soap2Day, MyFlixer, HiAnime, OnionPlay, 123movies, SolarMovies, Gomovies, Fmovies – the list goes on……and on.

With Wicked: For Good ‘s international release scheduled for November 17, Australian ISPs agreed to take all reasonable steps to disable access to 23 sites as a matter of urgency, with the remaining 29 to be blocked within the usual span of 15 business days.

In order to have a fighting chance against adaptable piracy platforms, a dynamic blocking order was issued, meaning that new domains and IP addresses could be added to deal with the inevitable countermeasures. Under normal circumstances, that can take time but for Wicked: For Good ‘s theatrical release in Australia, time was already running out.

Additional Urgent Access Means

Less than two weeks after handing down the initial order, Justice Halley was handing down a second. Dated November 25, the order reveals that studios filed an urgent application for an order to tackle countermeasures deployed by the sites.

Operating from new domains, described in the order as “Additional Urgent Access Means”, the sites were already illegally distributing Wicked: For Good which was set to continue playing in theaters in Australia until the end of 2025.

New domains, IP addresses, and/or URLs are normally reported by rightsholders to the ISPs, who are then expected to respond within seven working days. If neither the respondent nor the court requires the matter to be relisted, the ISPs have a further 15 working days to disable access.

The prospect of the movie being distributed unhindered for free until Christmas Eve was considered unacceptable.

Urgent Additional Blocking Order

On November 28, just over two weeks after handing down the initial blocking order, Justice Halley authorized a second.

In response to the studios’ calls for urgency, Universal City Studios LLC v Telstra Limited [2025] FCA 1485 targeted the ‘Additional Urgent Access Means’ (new domain names/IP addresses/URLs) deployed by the sites to circumvent the previously implemented blocks.

The court recognized that standard procedures, which require notification and then a response period, would allow the sites to operate unhindered for at least 22 days.

“This would have the consequence that those sites would remain accessible for the majority of the theatrical release period for the film ‘Wicked: For Good’ which would have the likely effect of reducing the commercial success of the film as infringing copies of the film would be available without charge from the Additional Urgent Access Means,” Justice Halley noted in his order.

Rapid Response

To combat this, the new order required the ISPs to disable access to the new means of access, whether domain names, IP addresses, or URLs, by 4.00 pm on Friday, November 28, 2025. As far as we’re aware, a response time this short is unprecedented in Australia.

The ability to quickly respond to blocking countermeasures is crucial. For Australia, this is new territory but shouldn’t be unnecessarily difficult. However, as months of delay have decreased to weeks and now just days, rightsholders elsewhere in the world – especially in the live sports arena – still aren’t satisfied, even when blocking takes place within hours. In some areas, rightsholders consider 10 minutes to be reasonable.

Under those demands, Australia’s traditional accuracy would face challenges, with or without a reduction in overall piracy rates. Right now, despite aggressive worldwide blocking measures, piracy continues to trend up.

The orders dated November 12 and November 28 are available here and here

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

While Australia’s site-blocking mechanism has made few enemies since 2018, it hasn’t been known for being fast.

As discussed earlier this year , accuracy has traditionally been favored over speed, which is contrary to less cautious approaches taken in other countries.

After an unprecedented request and cooperation from the Federal Court, Australia will now step up several gears and show whether it can achieve both.

Not Just Another Blocking Order

When Justice Halley handed down his order in Universal City Studios LLC v Telstra Limited [2025] FCA 1390 on November 12, in most respects it was much like any other issued in recent years.

Member studios of the MPA – Universal, Disney, Paramount, Columbia, Warner Bros., Netflix and Apple (plus Viacom) requested an injunction under Section 115A of the Copyright Act, requiring around 50 local ISPs (operating as Telstra, Optus, Vocus, TPG Telecom, Aussie Broadband and Superloop) to block 52 overseas-based pirate streaming sites.

The copyright works applicants aim to protect necessarily play a key role in blocking proceedings. The difference in this case was the emphasis placed on the Universal Pictures movie Wicked: For Good and its inevitable appearance on high-traffic sites using familiar branding: HydraHD, Hurawatch, Braflix, Soap2Day, MyFlixer, HiAnime, OnionPlay, 123movies, SolarMovies, Gomovies, Fmovies – the list goes on……and on.

With Wicked: For Good ‘s international release scheduled for November 17, Australian ISPs agreed to take all reasonable steps to disable access to 23 sites as a matter of urgency, with the remaining 29 to be blocked within the usual span of 15 business days.

In order to have a fighting chance against adaptable piracy platforms, a dynamic blocking order was issued, meaning that new domains and IP addresses could be added to deal with the inevitable countermeasures. Under normal circumstances, that can take time but for Wicked: For Good ‘s theatrical release in Australia, time was already running out.

Additional Urgent Access Means

Less than two weeks after handing down the initial order, Justice Halley was handing down a second. Dated November 25, the order reveals that studios filed an urgent application for an order to tackle countermeasures deployed by the sites.

Operating from new domains, described in the order as “Additional Urgent Access Means”, the sites were already illegally distributing Wicked: For Good which was set to continue playing in theaters in Australia until the end of 2025.

New domains, IP addresses, and/or URLs are normally reported by rightsholders to the ISPs, who are then expected to respond within seven working days. If neither the respondent nor the court requires the matter to be relisted, the ISPs have a further 15 working days to disable access.

The prospect of the movie being distributed unhindered for free until Christmas Eve was considered unacceptable.

Urgent Additional Blocking Order

On November 28, just over two weeks after handing down the initial blocking order, Justice Halley authorized a second.

In response to the studios’ calls for urgency, Universal City Studios LLC v Telstra Limited [2025] FCA 1485 targeted the ‘Additional Urgent Access Means’ (new domain names/IP addresses/URLs) deployed by the sites to circumvent the previously implemented blocks.

The court recognized that standard procedures, which require notification and then a response period, would allow the sites to operate unhindered for at least 22 days.

“This would have the consequence that those sites would remain accessible for the majority of the theatrical release period for the film ‘Wicked: For Good’ which would have the likely effect of reducing the commercial success of the film as infringing copies of the film would be available without charge from the Additional Urgent Access Means,” Justice Halley noted in his order.

Rapid Response

To combat this, the new order required the ISPs to disable access to the new means of access, whether domain names, IP addresses, or URLs, by 4.00 pm on Friday, November 28, 2025. As far as we’re aware, a response time this short is unprecedented in Australia.

The ability to quickly respond to blocking countermeasures is crucial. For Australia, this is new territory but shouldn’t be unnecessarily difficult. However, as months of delay have decreased to weeks and now just days, rightsholders elsewhere in the world – especially in the live sports arena – still aren’t satisfied, even when blocking takes place within hours. In some areas, rightsholders consider 10 minutes to be reasonable.

Under those demands, Australia’s traditional accuracy would face challenges, with or without a reduction in overall piracy rates. Right now, despite aggressive worldwide blocking measures, piracy continues to trend up.

The orders dated November 12 and November 28 are available here and here

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