The latest wave of the UK government’s Copyright Infringement Tracker study was expected a year ago. There’s still no indication when it will arrive, or even if it will arrive at all, a shame considering interest generated by previous reports.

That said, the first three weeks of 2025 has seen the publication of other IP-focused reports, including the Intellectual Property Office’s (IPO) 2022/23 Report and Accounts and its Innovation and Growth Report 2023/24 .

Neither provide fuel for our reporting niche quite like the Infringement Tracker, but one interesting nugget concerning the funding of the Police Intellectual Property Crime Unit (PIPCU) warranted a closer look.

IPO’s ‘Surplus’ Millions Fund PIPCU

The IPO’s publicatiob notes that BEIS, the Department for Business, Energy & Industrial Strategy, ” can utilize IPO surpluses through taking additional dividends and currently does so to fund other IP related initiatives.”

The report states that the arrangement covers PIPCU’s funding requirements, as shown in the extract below.

While BEIS no longer exists, having been replaced by three new departments in 2023 , PIPCU’s funding arrangement seems unchanged. City of London Police currently lists the IPO as PIPCU’s funding provider, with an annual figure of £2,053,000.

Whether that figure covers all operational costs is unclear. PIPCU launched in 2013 with annual funding of £2.56 million, with an increase to £3.39 million reported in 2019. Since City of London Police can generate income through commercial partnerships, charging for services, and recovery through the Proceeds of Crime Act (POCA), additional funding may be available from elsewhere ( pdf ) .

With fraud online now at record highs, City of London Police as a whole is clearly busy. On the IP crime front lines specifically, PIPCU may be busier that its intermittent press releases seem to suggest.

PIPCU Fights Fraud First, Pirates Handled Later

Details of some PIPCU activities appear in several official reports; the National Lead Force Performance Report, and the Economic & Cyber Crime Committee’s Communications & Strategic Engagement report, for example.

From the volumes reported, tackling online scams and insurance fraud consumes significant resources at City of London Police. At least in public reporting, tackling online piracy seems to receive less attention. However, when police engage the public on issues that include piracy, a dedicated social media team monitors for engagement and the results are reported accordingly.

One example featured an appearance in the media, which aimed to highlight the dangers of illegal streaming in support of a “partner agency.”

“DCI Gary Robinson was quoted in ITV News, Independent, Express, The Sun, Mirror, Daily Star, Daily Mail, Metro, LADbible and several others after [City of London Police] contributed to a partner agency’s press announcement on the risks associated with using illegal streaming services,” a Communications & Strategic Engagement update notes.

The ‘partner agency’ goes unnamed but ‘Federation Against Copyright Theft’ seems a perfect fit for the scenario. It may also go some way towards explaining the sudden and massive interest in piracy over the past couple of years, much of it on display in the publications mentioned above.

Police Authority Board – Commissioner’s Update Reports

A subsequent Commissioner’s Update Report reveals significant action against a pirate IPTV provider. While there are similarities with reported events, we can’t be 100% sure which case this refers to, and the same goes for the other cases mentioned below. There’s no doubting their importance, however.

“The team took down a very large Internet Protocol Television (IPTV) provider alongside partners at Sky TV. This was one of the UK’s biggest illegal streaming operations,” the statement reads.

“Losses to the TV broadcaster will be counted in the millions of pounds. Over two operations there have been three arrests and large data capacity servers seized.”

A similar update three months later notes that “PIPCU attended a EUROPOL conference in Romania to discuss joint Investigations/operations against criminal activities concerning IPTV” and other illegal streaming.

“PIPCU advised on how European law enforcement authorities can enhance their response against the threat of illegal television streaming networks and to identify and tackle Organized Crime Groups behind this criminality.”

Further Updates on Pirate IPTV Cases

Subsequent reports provide additional information on what appears to be the same case. There’s no additional information available beyond the following quotes, but the combination of details sound very familiar.

“[The case is an] investigation into illegal IPTV streaming involving the top tier, which includes a father and son and an in- law. Similarly, the suspected benefit figure runs over £4m with a restraint order of £1.68m. There are 86 accounts so far identified.”

“Op Talos – Very large Internet Protocol Television (IPTV) illegal TV streaming and money laundering – Final restraint figure now confirmed at £1.6m, this is the biggest restraint in PIPCU’s 10 year history”

In addition to [Op]eration Talos, PIPCU also mentioned [Op]eration Delaware, which reportedly targeted what was “believed to be the UK’s largest Illegal streaming service causing losses to the industry of £17 million a year.”

This illegal TV network “had millions of global users,” the report concludes.

In another PIPCU case, the restraint and confiscation of £186,182, relating to the sale of ‘counterfeit IPTV set-top boxes’, sits among others in the shade of the cases detailed above. Nevertheless, it still carries value as a potential source of additional funding, on top of any surplus cash supplied by the Intellectual Property Office.

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

The latest wave of the UK government’s Copyright Infringement Tracker study was expected a year ago. There’s still no indication when it will arrive, or even if it will arrive at all, a shame considering interest generated by previous reports.

That said, the first three weeks of 2025 has seen the publication of other IP-focused reports, including the Intellectual Property Office’s (IPO) 2022/23 Report and Accounts and its Innovation and Growth Report 2023/24 .

Neither provide fuel for our reporting niche quite like the Infringement Tracker, but one interesting nugget concerning the funding of the Police Intellectual Property Crime Unit (PIPCU) warranted a closer look.

IPO’s ‘Surplus’ Millions Fund PIPCU

The IPO’s publicatiob notes that BEIS, the Department for Business, Energy & Industrial Strategy, ” can utilize IPO surpluses through taking additional dividends and currently does so to fund other IP related initiatives.”

The report states that the arrangement covers PIPCU’s funding requirements, as shown in the extract below.

While BEIS no longer exists, having been replaced by three new departments in 2023 , PIPCU’s funding arrangement seems unchanged. City of London Police currently lists the IPO as PIPCU’s funding provider, with an annual figure of £2,053,000.

Whether that figure covers all operational costs is unclear. PIPCU launched in 2013 with annual funding of £2.56 million, with an increase to £3.39 million reported in 2019. Since City of London Police can generate income through commercial partnerships, charging for services, and recovery through the Proceeds of Crime Act (POCA), additional funding may be available from elsewhere ( pdf ) .

With fraud online now at record highs, City of London Police as a whole is clearly busy. On the IP crime front lines specifically, PIPCU may be busier that its intermittent press releases seem to suggest.

PIPCU Fights Fraud First, Pirates Handled Later

Details of some PIPCU activities appear in several official reports; the National Lead Force Performance Report, and the Economic & Cyber Crime Committee’s Communications & Strategic Engagement report, for example.

From the volumes reported, tackling online scams and insurance fraud consumes significant resources at City of London Police. At least in public reporting, tackling online piracy seems to receive less attention. However, when police engage the public on issues that include piracy, a dedicated social media team monitors for engagement and the results are reported accordingly.

One example featured an appearance in the media, which aimed to highlight the dangers of illegal streaming in support of a “partner agency.”

“DCI Gary Robinson was quoted in ITV News, Independent, Express, The Sun, Mirror, Daily Star, Daily Mail, Metro, LADbible and several others after [City of London Police] contributed to a partner agency’s press announcement on the risks associated with using illegal streaming services,” a Communications & Strategic Engagement update notes.

The ‘partner agency’ goes unnamed but ‘Federation Against Copyright Theft’ seems a perfect fit for the scenario. It may also go some way towards explaining the sudden and massive interest in piracy over the past couple of years, much of it on display in the publications mentioned above.

Police Authority Board – Commissioner’s Update Reports

A subsequent Commissioner’s Update Report reveals significant action against a pirate IPTV provider. While there are similarities with reported events, we can’t be 100% sure which case this refers to, and the same goes for the other cases mentioned below. There’s no doubting their importance, however.

“The team took down a very large Internet Protocol Television (IPTV) provider alongside partners at Sky TV. This was one of the UK’s biggest illegal streaming operations,” the statement reads.

“Losses to the TV broadcaster will be counted in the millions of pounds. Over two operations there have been three arrests and large data capacity servers seized.”

A similar update three months later notes that “PIPCU attended a EUROPOL conference in Romania to discuss joint Investigations/operations against criminal activities concerning IPTV” and other illegal streaming.

“PIPCU advised on how European law enforcement authorities can enhance their response against the threat of illegal television streaming networks and to identify and tackle Organized Crime Groups behind this criminality.”

Further Updates on Pirate IPTV Cases

Subsequent reports provide additional information on what appears to be the same case. There’s no additional information available beyond the following quotes, but the combination of details sound very familiar.

“[The case is an] investigation into illegal IPTV streaming involving the top tier, which includes a father and son and an in- law. Similarly, the suspected benefit figure runs over £4m with a restraint order of £1.68m. There are 86 accounts so far identified.”

“Op Talos – Very large Internet Protocol Television (IPTV) illegal TV streaming and money laundering – Final restraint figure now confirmed at £1.6m, this is the biggest restraint in PIPCU’s 10 year history”

In addition to [Op]eration Talos, PIPCU also mentioned [Op]eration Delaware, which reportedly targeted what was “believed to be the UK’s largest Illegal streaming service causing losses to the industry of £17 million a year.”

This illegal TV network “had millions of global users,” the report concludes.

In another PIPCU case, the restraint and confiscation of £186,182, relating to the sale of ‘counterfeit IPTV set-top boxes’, sits among others in the shade of the cases detailed above. Nevertheless, it still carries value as a potential source of additional funding, on top of any surplus cash supplied by the Intellectual Property Office.

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

The latest wave of the UK government’s Copyright Infringement Tracker study was expected a year ago. There’s still no indication when it will arrive, or even if it will arrive at all, a shame considering interest generated by previous reports.

That said, the first three weeks of 2025 has seen the publication of other IP-focused reports, including the Intellectual Property Office’s (IPO) 2022/23 Report and Accounts and its Innovation and Growth Report 2023/24 .

Neither provide fuel for our reporting niche quite like the Infringement Tracker, but one interesting nugget concerning the funding of the Police Intellectual Property Crime Unit (PIPCU) warranted a closer look.

IPO’s ‘Surplus’ Millions Fund PIPCU

The IPO’s publicatiob notes that BEIS, the Department for Business, Energy & Industrial Strategy, ” can utilize IPO surpluses through taking additional dividends and currently does so to fund other IP related initiatives.”

The report states that the arrangement covers PIPCU’s funding requirements, as shown in the extract below.

While BEIS no longer exists, having been replaced by three new departments in 2023 , PIPCU’s funding arrangement seems unchanged. City of London Police currently lists the IPO as PIPCU’s funding provider, with an annual figure of £2,053,000.

Whether that figure covers all operational costs is unclear. PIPCU launched in 2013 with annual funding of £2.56 million, with an increase to £3.39 million reported in 2019. Since City of London Police can generate income through commercial partnerships, charging for services, and recovery through the Proceeds of Crime Act (POCA), additional funding may be available from elsewhere ( pdf ) .

With fraud online now at record highs, City of London Police as a whole is clearly busy. On the IP crime front lines specifically, PIPCU may be busier that its intermittent press releases seem to suggest.

PIPCU Fights Fraud First, Pirates Handled Later

Details of some PIPCU activities appear in several official reports; the National Lead Force Performance Report, and the Economic & Cyber Crime Committee’s Communications & Strategic Engagement report, for example.

From the volumes reported, tackling online scams and insurance fraud consumes significant resources at City of London Police. At least in public reporting, tackling online piracy seems to receive less attention. However, when police engage the public on issues that include piracy, a dedicated social media team monitors for engagement and the results are reported accordingly.

One example featured an appearance in the media, which aimed to highlight the dangers of illegal streaming in support of a “partner agency.”

“DCI Gary Robinson was quoted in ITV News, Independent, Express, The Sun, Mirror, Daily Star, Daily Mail, Metro, LADbible and several others after [City of London Police] contributed to a partner agency’s press announcement on the risks associated with using illegal streaming services,” a Communications & Strategic Engagement update notes.

The ‘partner agency’ goes unnamed but ‘Federation Against Copyright Theft’ seems a perfect fit for the scenario. It may also go some way towards explaining the sudden and massive interest in piracy over the past couple of years, much of it on display in the publications mentioned above.

Police Authority Board – Commissioner’s Update Reports

A subsequent Commissioner’s Update Report reveals significant action against a pirate IPTV provider. While there are similarities with reported events, we can’t be 100% sure which case this refers to, and the same goes for the other cases mentioned below. There’s no doubting their importance, however.

“The team took down a very large Internet Protocol Television (IPTV) provider alongside partners at Sky TV. This was one of the UK’s biggest illegal streaming operations,” the statement reads.

“Losses to the TV broadcaster will be counted in the millions of pounds. Over two operations there have been three arrests and large data capacity servers seized.”

A similar update three months later notes that “PIPCU attended a EUROPOL conference in Romania to discuss joint Investigations/operations against criminal activities concerning IPTV” and other illegal streaming.

“PIPCU advised on how European law enforcement authorities can enhance their response against the threat of illegal television streaming networks and to identify and tackle Organized Crime Groups behind this criminality.”

Further Updates on Pirate IPTV Cases

Subsequent reports provide additional information on what appears to be the same case. There’s no additional information available beyond the following quotes, but the combination of details sound very familiar.

“[The case is an] investigation into illegal IPTV streaming involving the top tier, which includes a father and son and an in- law. Similarly, the suspected benefit figure runs over £4m with a restraint order of £1.68m. There are 86 accounts so far identified.”

“Op Talos – Very large Internet Protocol Television (IPTV) illegal TV streaming and money laundering – Final restraint figure now confirmed at £1.6m, this is the biggest restraint in PIPCU’s 10 year history”

In addition to [Op]eration Talos, PIPCU also mentioned [Op]eration Delaware, which reportedly targeted what was “believed to be the UK’s largest Illegal streaming service causing losses to the industry of £17 million a year.”

This illegal TV network “had millions of global users,” the report concludes.

In another PIPCU case, the restraint and confiscation of £186,182, relating to the sale of ‘counterfeit IPTV set-top boxes’, sits among others in the shade of the cases detailed above. Nevertheless, it still carries value as a potential source of additional funding, on top of any surplus cash supplied by the Intellectual Property Office.

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

File-hosting platform 1fichier.com appeared around 2009 and since then has seen no shortage of copyright complaints.

Most recently, it was highlighted by the U.S. Trade Representative as a notorious piracy market. The site’s response to takedown notices is seen as insufficient by rightsholders, the USTR concluded.

These allegations are nothing new to 1Fichier and parent company Dstorage. However, where other services typically evade legal threats, 1fichier has defended itself in court, albeit with little success.

Nintendo previously sued the file hosting company and won, both in first instance and on appeal. 1fichier now owes the gaming giant hundreds of thousands of euros in damages, which has yet to be confirmed in a follow-up proceeding.

A Decade of Payment Troubles

Long before Nintendo appeared into view, 1fichier already had plenty of other worries. The shutdown of Megaupload in 2012 put a spotlight on the cyberlocker industry and, urged by rightsholders, major payment companies started to intervene.

PayPal notably increased its enforcement efforts, banning dozens of services, and in the background banks were cutting their ties too. Société Générale terminated its contract with 1fichier in 2015 due to concerns over piracy.

The French ban followed an alert by Mastercard and complaints from Zee Entertainment, which alleged that hundreds of links to copyrighted works were being shared on the site. The bank referred these complaints to 1fichier, asking it to take appropriate action.

While the file-hosting site claimed it responded to these takedowns, it couldn’t prevent similar files from being shared. That was a problem. After new complaints were received, Société Générale decided to terminate its contact with 1fichier.

Anti-Piracy Provision in Bank Contract

The French bank didn’t just arbitrarily cut its ties. The company had previously updated its contracts with clients to include a section where they agreed to stay away from illegal activities, including “acts of counterfeiting and infringements of works protected by intellectual property rights.”

Most cyberlockers would have taken termination for granted, but not 1fichier. The French site went to court, arguing that it should not be held responsible for third-party copyright infringements without being notified about specific instances first.

In court, 1fichier argued that hosting services are only at fault when they fail to remove content after being specifically notified about concrete infringements. In addition, the service claimed to have taken steps to prevent pirated content from reappearing.

The French courts disagreed and ultimately ruled that the bank was within its right to terminate the contract based on the copyright infringement clause. This conclusion was confirmed by the court of appeal in 2023, which determined that 1fichier’s response to the reported infringements was insufficient.

Supreme Court Affirms

1fichier’s parent company Dstorage took the case to the French Supreme Court ( Cour de Cassation ), hoping for a reversal. However, in a decision handed down this week, the court affirmed the appeal court’s verdict.

The Supreme Court notes that the bank warned the hosting company of copyright infringements, including a link to content that was previously reported, concluding that 1fichier failed to demonstrate that it had implemented appropriate anti-piracy measures.

“Based on the findings and the statements, which indicated that Dstorage had failed to comply with its contractual undertaking not to publish or store any illicit content, the court of appeal was able to hold that Société Générale had rightly terminated the contract. The plea is therefore unfounded,” the Supreme Court’s decision reads.

The Supreme Court saw no need to refer any questions to the Court of Justice of the European Union. Instead, it dismissed the case and ordered Dstorage to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Monitoring Obligation?

1fichier is disappointed with the outcome. Speaking with TorrentFreak the hosting platform says that the court effectively ruled that it has an obligation to monitor its service for potential copyright infringements. The company views that as problematic and a violation of EU law.

This is reminiscent of the indirect ‘upload filter’ requirements referenced in Article 17 of the EU Copyright Directive. However, under Article 15 of the EU E-Commerce Directive, member states cannot impose a general monitoring obligation on service providers.

For 1fichier, this is sufficient ground to take the case to the EU authorities for clarification. But even if the EU takes the case on, it will likely take years before a decision is reached. Meanwhile, the site still accepts PayPal, Visa, and Mastercard payments through third parties.

—

A copy of the decision from the Cour de Cassation Chambre commerciale financière et économique is available here (pdf)

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

File-hosting platform 1fichier.com appeared around 2009 and since then has seen no shortage of copyright complaints.

Most recently, it was highlighted by the U.S. Trade Representative as a notorious piracy market. The site’s response to takedown notices is seen as insufficient by rightsholders, the USTR concluded.

These allegations are nothing new to 1Fichier and parent company Dstorage. However, where other services typically evade legal threats, 1fichier has defended itself in court, albeit with little success.

Nintendo previously sued the file hosting company and won, both in first instance and on appeal. 1fichier now owes the gaming giant hundreds of thousands of euros in damages, which has yet to be confirmed in a follow-up proceeding.

A Decade of Payment Troubles

Long before Nintendo appeared into view, 1fichier already had plenty of other worries. The shutdown of Megaupload in 2012 put a spotlight on the cyberlocker industry and, urged by rightsholders, major payment companies started to intervene.

PayPal notably increased its enforcement efforts, banning dozens of services, and in the background banks were cutting their ties too. Société Générale terminated its contract with 1fichier in 2015 due to concerns over piracy.

The French ban followed an alert by Mastercard and complaints from Zee Entertainment, which alleged that hundreds of links to copyrighted works were being shared on the site. The bank referred these complaints to 1fichier, asking it to take appropriate action.

While the file-hosting site claimed it responded to these takedowns, it couldn’t prevent similar files from being shared. That was a problem. After new complaints were received, Société Générale decided to terminate its contact with 1fichier.

Anti-Piracy Provision in Bank Contract

The French bank didn’t just arbitrarily cut its ties. The company had previously updated its contracts with clients to include a section where they agreed to stay away from illegal activities, including “acts of counterfeiting and infringements of works protected by intellectual property rights.”

Most cyberlockers would have taken termination for granted, but not 1fichier. The French site went to court, arguing that it should not be held responsible for third-party copyright infringements without being notified about specific instances first.

In court, 1fichier argued that hosting services are only at fault when they fail to remove content after being specifically notified about concrete infringements. In addition, the service claimed to have taken steps to prevent pirated content from reappearing.

The French courts disagreed and ultimately ruled that the bank was within its right to terminate the contract based on the copyright infringement clause. This conclusion was confirmed by the court of appeal in 2023, which determined that 1fichier’s response to the reported infringements was insufficient.

Supreme Court Affirms

1fichier’s parent company Dstorage took the case to the French Supreme Court ( Cour de Cassation ), hoping for a reversal. However, in a decision handed down this week, the court affirmed the appeal court’s verdict.

The Supreme Court notes that the bank warned the hosting company of copyright infringements, including a link to content that was previously reported, concluding that 1fichier failed to demonstrate that it had implemented appropriate anti-piracy measures.

“Based on the findings and the statements, which indicated that Dstorage had failed to comply with its contractual undertaking not to publish or store any illicit content, the court of appeal was able to hold that Société Générale had rightly terminated the contract. The plea is therefore unfounded,” the Supreme Court’s decision reads.

The Supreme Court saw no need to refer any questions to the Court of Justice of the European Union. Instead, it dismissed the case and ordered Dstorage to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Monitoring Obligation?

1fichier is disappointed with the outcome. Speaking with TorrentFreak the hosting platform says that the court effectively ruled that it has an obligation to monitor its service for potential copyright infringements. The company views that as problematic and a violation of EU law.

This is reminiscent of the indirect ‘upload filter’ requirements referenced in Article 17 of the EU Copyright Directive. However, under Article 15 of the EU E-Commerce Directive, member states cannot impose a general monitoring obligation on service providers.

For 1fichier, this is sufficient ground to take the case to the EU authorities for clarification. But even if the EU takes the case on, it will likely take years before a decision is reached. Meanwhile, the site still accepts PayPal, Visa, and Mastercard payments through third parties.

—

A copy of the decision from the Cour de Cassation Chambre commerciale financière et économique is available here (pdf)

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

File-hosting platform 1fichier.com appeared around 2009 and since then has seen no shortage of copyright complaints.

Most recently, it was highlighted by the U.S. Trade Representative as a notorious piracy market. The site’s response to takedown notices is seen as insufficient by rightsholders, the USTR concluded.

These allegations are nothing new to 1Fichier and parent company Dstorage. However, where other services typically evade legal threats, 1fichier has defended itself in court, albeit with little success.

Nintendo previously sued the file hosting company and won, both in first instance and on appeal. 1fichier now owes the gaming giant hundreds of thousands of euros in damages, which has yet to be confirmed in a follow-up proceeding.

A Decade of Payment Troubles

Long before Nintendo appeared into view, 1fichier already had plenty of other worries. The shutdown of Megaupload in 2012 put a spotlight on the cyberlocker industry and, urged by rightsholders, major payment companies started to intervene.

PayPal notably increased its enforcement efforts, banning dozens of services, and in the background banks were cutting their ties too. Société Générale terminated its contract with 1fichier in 2015 due to concerns over piracy.

The French ban followed an alert by Mastercard and complaints from Zee Entertainment, which alleged that hundreds of links to copyrighted works were being shared on the site. The bank referred these complaints to 1fichier, asking it to take appropriate action.

While the file-hosting site claimed it responded to these takedowns, it couldn’t prevent similar files from being shared. That was a problem. After new complaints were received, Société Générale decided to terminate its contact with 1fichier.

Anti-Piracy Provision in Bank Contract

The French bank didn’t just arbitrarily cut its ties. The company had previously updated its contracts with clients to include a section where they agreed to stay away from illegal activities, including “acts of counterfeiting and infringements of works protected by intellectual property rights.”

Most cyberlockers would have taken termination for granted, but not 1fichier. The French site went to court, arguing that it should not be held responsible for third-party copyright infringements without being notified about specific instances first.

In court, 1fichier argued that hosting services are only at fault when they fail to remove content after being specifically notified about concrete infringements. In addition, the service claimed to have taken steps to prevent pirated content from reappearing.

The French courts disagreed and ultimately ruled that the bank was within its right to terminate the contract based on the copyright infringement clause. This conclusion was confirmed by the court of appeal in 2023, which determined that 1fichier’s response to the reported infringements was insufficient.

Supreme Court Affirms

1fichier’s parent company Dstorage took the case to the French Supreme Court ( Cour de Cassation ), hoping for a reversal. However, in a decision handed down this week, the court affirmed the appeal court’s verdict.

The Supreme Court notes that the bank warned the hosting company of copyright infringements, including a link to content that was previously reported, concluding that 1fichier failed to demonstrate that it had implemented appropriate anti-piracy measures.

“Based on the findings and the statements, which indicated that Dstorage had failed to comply with its contractual undertaking not to publish or store any illicit content, the court of appeal was able to hold that Société Générale had rightly terminated the contract. The plea is therefore unfounded,” the Supreme Court’s decision reads.

The Supreme Court saw no need to refer any questions to the Court of Justice of the European Union. Instead, it dismissed the case and ordered Dstorage to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Monitoring Obligation?

1fichier is disappointed with the outcome. Speaking with TorrentFreak the hosting platform says that the court effectively ruled that it has an obligation to monitor its service for potential copyright infringements. The company views that as problematic and a violation of EU law.

This is reminiscent of the indirect ‘upload filter’ requirements referenced in Article 17 of the EU Copyright Directive. However, under Article 15 of the EU E-Commerce Directive, member states cannot impose a general monitoring obligation on service providers.

For 1fichier, this is sufficient ground to take the case to the EU authorities for clarification. But even if the EU takes the case on, it will likely take years before a decision is reached. Meanwhile, the site still accepts PayPal, Visa, and Mastercard payments through third parties.

—

A copy of the decision from the Cour de Cassation Chambre commerciale financière et économique is available here (pdf)

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

Launched last year, Italy’s elaborate ‘ Piracy Shield ‘ blocking scheme was billed as the future of anti-piracy efforts.

To effectively tackle live sports piracy, broad blocking powers aim to block piracy-related domain names and IP addresses within 30 minutes.

While many pirate sources have indeed been blocked, Piracy Shield is not without controversy. There have been multiple reports of overblocking, where the anti-piracy system blocked access to Google Drive , Cloudflare , and other legitimate sites and services. Meanwhile, calls for more transparency and accountability are growing.

Tech Industry Sounds Alarm Bell

Yesterday, the Computer & Communications Industry Association ( CCIA ) sounded the alarm. In a letter addressed to the EU Commission, the coalition of tech industry companies, including Amazon, Cloudflare and Google, shared grave concerns.

The European branch of CCIA acknowledges that Piracy Shield aims to protect rightsholders. However, they argue that the ‘blunt’ DNS and IP blocking measures represent a threat to other companies and the public.

“While this approach aims to protect intellectual property and reduce online piracy, it relies on IP address and domain name system (DNS)-level blocking, making it a potentially extremely blunt instrument to address online copyright infringement,” CCIA writes.

In addition, extending the blocking scheme to DNS resolvers and VPN providers is seen as a major concern. These tools are not suited to carry out blocking measures, CCIA says, as they are fundamental to the protection of free expression.

CCIA emphasizes that concerns about overblocking are not hypothetical, as the Piracy Shield is already wreaking havoc. It cites the aforementioned Google Drive blockade, which affected millions of Italians and took hours to resolve.

“On 20 October 2024, Google Drive was mistakenly blocked by the Piracy Shield system, causing a three-hour blackout for all Italian users, while 13.5% of users were still blocked at the IP level, and 3% were blocked at the DNS level after 12 hours.”

Transparency, Verification & Accountability

While European Courts have previously greenlighted pirate site blocking schemes, CCIA highlights that Italy’s implementation lacks sufficient safeguards and transparency. That makes the prevention and swift correction of errors much more difficult.

The tech group also notes that Piracy Shield was developed by a company affiliated with local football league Serie A, one of the few rightsholders currently allowed to use the system. This raises concerns of whether the system adequately considers all stakeholders’ interests.

CCIA says that AGCOM, the regulator that manages Piracy Shield, should take measures to address these concerns.

“The Italian Piracy Shield should at the very least incorporate more robust verification protocols and significantly enhance transparency, as well as adequate redress mechanisms for affected users, to reduce these negative impacts.”

Problematic Reporting Obligations

In addition to matters directly related to blocking, the tech industry is concerned about recent amendments to Italian copyright law that introduce obligations that contradict the principles set forth in the EU’s Digital Services Act (DSA).

These amendments mandate all intermediary providers to report any knowledge of illegal activity, including minor copyright infringements. Failure to comply could result in up to one year of imprisonment .

According to the CCIA, these requirements introduce new obligations for companies that simply pass on traffic. It argues that these requirements go beyond EU law and will create a chilling effect on freedom of expression and innovation online.

Withdraw Piracy Shield

CCIA believes that Piracy Shield and the recent legal amendments violate several EU laws. They were not submitted under the TRIS procedure either, a key element of the European Union’s single market policy when it comes to rules regarding online services.

To properly address these concerns, CCIA urges the EU Commission to engage with the Italian Government to put a halt to the anti-piracy measures, so their lawfulness can be thoroughly checked.

“The Italian government should withdraw the above-mentioned legislation in order to go through the TRIS procedure, allowing the Commission and other Member States to review the substance of these flawed and ineffective initiatives, and address their infringement of European laws,” CCIA concludes.

—

A copy of CCIA Europe’s letter is available here (pdf)

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

Launched last year, Italy’s elaborate ‘ Piracy Shield ‘ blocking scheme was billed as the future of anti-piracy efforts.

To effectively tackle live sports piracy, broad blocking powers aim to block piracy-related domain names and IP addresses within 30 minutes.

While many pirate sources have indeed been blocked, Piracy Shield is not without controversy. There have been multiple reports of overblocking, where the anti-piracy system blocked access to Google Drive , Cloudflare , and other legitimate sites and services. Meanwhile, calls for more transparency and accountability are growing.

Tech Industry Sounds Alarm Bell

Yesterday, the Computer & Communications Industry Association ( CCIA ) sounded the alarm. In a letter addressed to the EU Commission, the coalition of tech industry companies, including Amazon, Cloudflare and Google, shared grave concerns.

The European branch of CCIA acknowledges that Piracy Shield aims to protect rightsholders. However, they argue that the ‘blunt’ DNS and IP blocking measures represent a threat to other companies and the public.

“While this approach aims to protect intellectual property and reduce online piracy, it relies on IP address and domain name system (DNS)-level blocking, making it a potentially extremely blunt instrument to address online copyright infringement,” CCIA writes.

In addition, extending the blocking scheme to DNS resolvers and VPN providers is seen as a major concern. These tools are not suited to carry out blocking measures, CCIA says, as they are fundamental to the protection of free expression.

CCIA emphasizes that concerns about overblocking are not hypothetical, as the Piracy Shield is already wreaking havoc. It cites the aforementioned Google Drive blockade, which affected millions of Italians and took hours to resolve.

“On 20 October 2024, Google Drive was mistakenly blocked by the Piracy Shield system, causing a three-hour blackout for all Italian users, while 13.5% of users were still blocked at the IP level, and 3% were blocked at the DNS level after 12 hours.”

Transparency, Verification & Accountability

While European Courts have previously greenlighted pirate site blocking schemes, CCIA highlights that Italy’s implementation lacks sufficient safeguards and transparency. That makes the prevention and swift correction of errors much more difficult.

The tech group also notes that Piracy Shield was developed by a company affiliated with local football league Serie A, one of the few rightsholders currently allowed to use the system. This raises concerns of whether the system adequately considers all stakeholders’ interests.

CCIA says that AGCOM, the regulator that manages Piracy Shield, should take measures to address these concerns.

“The Italian Piracy Shield should at the very least incorporate more robust verification protocols and significantly enhance transparency, as well as adequate redress mechanisms for affected users, to reduce these negative impacts.”

Problematic Reporting Obligations

In addition to matters directly related to blocking, the tech industry is concerned about recent amendments to Italian copyright law that introduce obligations that contradict the principles set forth in the EU’s Digital Services Act (DSA).

These amendments mandate all intermediary providers to report any knowledge of illegal activity, including minor copyright infringements. Failure to comply could result in up to one year of imprisonment .

According to the CCIA, these requirements introduce new obligations for companies that simply pass on traffic. It argues that these requirements go beyond EU law and will create a chilling effect on freedom of expression and innovation online.

Withdraw Piracy Shield

CCIA believes that Piracy Shield and the recent legal amendments violate several EU laws. They were not submitted under the TRIS procedure either, a key element of the European Union’s single market policy when it comes to rules regarding online services.

To properly address these concerns, CCIA urges the EU Commission to engage with the Italian Government to put a halt to the anti-piracy measures, so their lawfulness can be thoroughly checked.

“The Italian government should withdraw the above-mentioned legislation in order to go through the TRIS procedure, allowing the Commission and other Member States to review the substance of these flawed and ineffective initiatives, and address their infringement of European laws,” CCIA concludes.

—

A copy of CCIA Europe’s letter is available here (pdf)

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

Launched last year, Italy’s elaborate ‘ Piracy Shield ‘ blocking scheme was billed as the future of anti-piracy efforts.

To effectively tackle live sports piracy, broad blocking powers aim to block piracy-related domain names and IP addresses within 30 minutes.

While many pirate sources have indeed been blocked, Piracy Shield is not without controversy. There have been multiple reports of overblocking, where the anti-piracy system blocked access to Google Drive , Cloudflare , and other legitimate sites and services. Meanwhile, calls for more transparency and accountability are growing.

Tech Industry Sounds Alarm Bell

Yesterday, the Computer & Communications Industry Association ( CCIA ) sounded the alarm. In a letter addressed to the EU Commission, the coalition of tech industry companies, including Amazon, Cloudflare and Google, shared grave concerns.

The European branch of CCIA acknowledges that Piracy Shield aims to protect rightsholders. However, they argue that the ‘blunt’ DNS and IP blocking measures represent a threat to other companies and the public.

“While this approach aims to protect intellectual property and reduce online piracy, it relies on IP address and domain name system (DNS)-level blocking, making it a potentially extremely blunt instrument to address online copyright infringement,” CCIA writes.

In addition, extending the blocking scheme to DNS resolvers and VPN providers is seen as a major concern. These tools are not suited to carry out blocking measures, CCIA says, as they are fundamental to the protection of free expression.

CCIA emphasizes that concerns about overblocking are not hypothetical, as the Piracy Shield is already wreaking havoc. It cites the aforementioned Google Drive blockade, which affected millions of Italians and took hours to resolve.

“On 20 October 2024, Google Drive was mistakenly blocked by the Piracy Shield system, causing a three-hour blackout for all Italian users, while 13.5% of users were still blocked at the IP level, and 3% were blocked at the DNS level after 12 hours.”

Transparency, Verification & Accountability

While European Courts have previously greenlighted pirate site blocking schemes, CCIA highlights that Italy’s implementation lacks sufficient safeguards and transparency. That makes the prevention and swift correction of errors much more difficult.

The tech group also notes that Piracy Shield was developed by a company affiliated with local football league Serie A, one of the few rightsholders currently allowed to use the system. This raises concerns of whether the system adequately considers all stakeholders’ interests.

CCIA says that AGCOM, the regulator that manages Piracy Shield, should take measures to address these concerns.

“The Italian Piracy Shield should at the very least incorporate more robust verification protocols and significantly enhance transparency, as well as adequate redress mechanisms for affected users, to reduce these negative impacts.”

Problematic Reporting Obligations

In addition to matters directly related to blocking, the tech industry is concerned about recent amendments to Italian copyright law that introduce obligations that contradict the principles set forth in the EU’s Digital Services Act (DSA).

These amendments mandate all intermediary providers to report any knowledge of illegal activity, including minor copyright infringements. Failure to comply could result in up to one year of imprisonment .

According to the CCIA, these requirements introduce new obligations for companies that simply pass on traffic. It argues that these requirements go beyond EU law and will create a chilling effect on freedom of expression and innovation online.

Withdraw Piracy Shield

CCIA believes that Piracy Shield and the recent legal amendments violate several EU laws. They were not submitted under the TRIS procedure either, a key element of the European Union’s single market policy when it comes to rules regarding online services.

To properly address these concerns, CCIA urges the EU Commission to engage with the Italian Government to put a halt to the anti-piracy measures, so their lawfulness can be thoroughly checked.

“The Italian government should withdraw the above-mentioned legislation in order to go through the TRIS procedure, allowing the Commission and other Member States to review the substance of these flawed and ineffective initiatives, and address their infringement of European laws,” CCIA concludes.

—

A copy of CCIA Europe’s letter is available here (pdf)

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