European football association UEFA was founded in 1954 to protect the interests of European football, particularly within the global FIFA body.

During the early years its powers were rather limited. UEFA was mostly an administrative union, consisting of three employees who issued non-binding recommendations to member associations.

In 1955, less than a year after UEFA was formed, journalists of the French newspaper L’Équipe proposed the launch of a European club championship. UEFA was initially hesitant to adopt the idea but eventually moved the project ahead.

The resulting European Cup was commercialized as the UEFA Champions League in 1992. This is widely recognized as the most prestigious club prize in football and with billions of euros in annual revenues, it’s also serious business.

UEFA Joins Anti-Piracy Coalition ACE

With this much money on the line, UEFA has a vested interest in protecting the competition from piracy. Many millions of fans who can’t afford paid access or prefer to use the money elsewhere, turn to free streams instead, contributing to what UEFA believes is a significant financial loss.

Over the past several years, UEFA has targeted pirate streams through site-blocking efforts and takedown requests. Yet despite these anti-piracy measures, the piracy problem only appears to have become worse. That’s likely one of the key reasons behind its partnership with anti-piracy coalition ACE announced this week.

UEFA itself is a not-for-profit operation, but UC3, a commercial joint venture with football clubs, exploits the multi-billion-euro broadcast rights contracts. By joining ACE, it can now rely on technological resources and law enforcement contacts around the globe.

The European football association is the first sports exclusive rights holder to join ACE and will play an active role in the ACE “Live Tier”. Other prominent members of the MPA-led alliance include the major Hollywood studios, Netflix, Amazon, and beIN.

“UEFA joining ACE represents a landmark moment in our global content protection strategy,” says UEFA’s Guy-Laurent Epstein, commenting on the new. “This partnership allows us to expand our enforcement capabilities, deepen our existing collaboration with industry leaders and leverage ACE’s proven capabilities to disrupt illegal services.”

Targets: Pirate IPTV and Hydra sites

As the name suggests, ACE’s ‘Live Tier’ focuses on sites and services that offer live streams. Speaking with TorrentFreak, MPA’s Deputy Chief of Content Protection Dani Bacsa notes that priority targets include pirate IPTV services and so-called hydra sites that offer live content.

These targets are typically selected in consultation with members. The potential enforcement actions are similar to those taken against other types of piracy.

“We use the same toolkit we use to tackle other forms of digital piracy, which has been tested and proven. These range from out-of-court settlements and voluntary initiatives to civil litigation and working with law enforcement agencies to dismantle major criminal networks,” Bacsa says.

“One thing that we are well aware of is that live content has a short shelf life, and we need to act expeditiously and time operations when they make the most impact. Any activity carried out by ACE is agreed upon and approved by its members.”

MPA and UEFA have previously filed their blocking requests separately in France, India, and elsewhere. In theory, MPA/ACE could take this up in the future as they do for other members. However, when we asked about this directly, we received a “no comment” instead of a more direct “no”.

Whether more sports leagues and football organizations will join ACE in the future is unknown, but the anti-piracy coalition is certainly open to it. It was always stressed that cooperation is key to defeating piracy, and a broader membership base serves this goal.

“ACE is cooperating and coordinating with multiple non-member partners, including leagues, to various extents and capacities. We would always welcome closer collaboration and partnerships to increase our collective force,” Bacsa tells us.

It’s Not Just Piracy That’s Grown

There is no denying that sports piracy is a serious and growing problem. According to EU data , 12% of EU citizens watch sports content through illegal online sources, which goes up to 27% for people between 15 and 24.

However, this doesn’t mean that the revenues from sports rights are dwindling. On the contrary, it has grown spectacularly over the past decades.

In the first Champions League season, income was a relatively modest €46 million . Roughly half of this flowed back to the clubs. By the end of the decade, as the tournament expanded from 8 to 32 teams, revenues had grown to hundreds of millions.

The 2006/2007 Champions League was a milestone, with revenues exceeding half a billion euros for the first time. For the 2013/2014 season, seven years later, revenues had doubled to a billion euros.

While these are healthy revenue numbers, growth exploded in recent years. UEFA’s men’s club competitions now bring in €4.4 billion, with UEFA already eyeing the €5 billion mark for the near future, with Netflix showing interest in the rights.

UEFA would likely argue that there could be even more potential income if piracy was defeated. However, one can also argue that the surge in revenues contributes to a key motivation to pirate. After all, the billions paid for broadcasting rights are in large part passed on to consumers whose TV subscription costs aren’t getting any cheaper.

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

European football association UEFA was founded in 1954 to protect the interests of European football, particularly within the global FIFA body.

During the early years its powers were rather limited. UEFA was mostly an administrative union, consisting of three employees who issued non-binding recommendations to member associations.

In 1955, less than a year after UEFA was formed, journalists of the French newspaper L’Équipe proposed the launch of a European club championship. UEFA was initially hesitant to adopt the idea but eventually moved the project ahead.

The resulting European Cup was commercialized as the UEFA Champions League in 1992. This is widely recognized as the most prestigious club prize in football and with billions of euros in annual revenues, it’s also serious business.

UEFA Joins Anti-Piracy Coalition ACE

With this much money on the line, UEFA has a vested interest in protecting the competition from piracy. Many millions of fans who can’t afford paid access or prefer to use the money elsewhere, turn to free streams instead, contributing to what UEFA believes is a significant financial loss.

Over the past several years, UEFA has targeted pirate streams through site-blocking efforts and takedown requests. Yet despite these anti-piracy measures, the piracy problem only appears to have become worse. That’s likely one of the key reasons behind its partnership with anti-piracy coalition ACE announced this week.

UEFA itself is a not-for-profit operation, but UC3, a commercial joint venture with football clubs, exploits the multi-billion-euro broadcast rights contracts. By joining ACE, it can now rely on technological resources and law enforcement contacts around the globe.

The European football association is the first sports exclusive rights holder to join ACE and will play an active role in the ACE “Live Tier”. Other prominent members of the MPA-led alliance include the major Hollywood studios, Netflix, Amazon, and beIN.

“UEFA joining ACE represents a landmark moment in our global content protection strategy,” says UEFA’s Guy-Laurent Epstein, commenting on the new. “This partnership allows us to expand our enforcement capabilities, deepen our existing collaboration with industry leaders and leverage ACE’s proven capabilities to disrupt illegal services.”

Targets: Pirate IPTV and Hydra sites

As the name suggests, ACE’s ‘Live Tier’ focuses on sites and services that offer live streams. Speaking with TorrentFreak, MPA’s Deputy Chief of Content Protection Dani Bacsa notes that priority targets include pirate IPTV services and so-called hydra sites that offer live content.

These targets are typically selected in consultation with members. The potential enforcement actions are similar to those taken against other types of piracy.

“We use the same toolkit we use to tackle other forms of digital piracy, which has been tested and proven. These range from out-of-court settlements and voluntary initiatives to civil litigation and working with law enforcement agencies to dismantle major criminal networks,” Bacsa says.

“One thing that we are well aware of is that live content has a short shelf life, and we need to act expeditiously and time operations when they make the most impact. Any activity carried out by ACE is agreed upon and approved by its members.”

MPA and UEFA have previously filed their blocking requests separately in France, India, and elsewhere. In theory, MPA/ACE could take this up in the future as they do for other members. However, when we asked about this directly, we received a “no comment” instead of a more direct “no”.

Whether more sports leagues and football organizations will join ACE in the future is unknown, but the anti-piracy coalition is certainly open to it. It was always stressed that cooperation is key to defeating piracy, and a broader membership base serves this goal.

“ACE is cooperating and coordinating with multiple non-member partners, including leagues, to various extents and capacities. We would always welcome closer collaboration and partnerships to increase our collective force,” Bacsa tells us.

It’s Not Just Piracy That’s Grown

There is no denying that sports piracy is a serious and growing problem. According to EU data , 12% of EU citizens watch sports content through illegal online sources, which goes up to 27% for people between 15 and 24.

However, this doesn’t mean that the revenues from sports rights are dwindling. On the contrary, it has grown spectacularly over the past decades.

In the first Champions League season, income was a relatively modest €46 million . Roughly half of this flowed back to the clubs. By the end of the decade, as the tournament expanded from 8 to 32 teams, revenues had grown to hundreds of millions.

The 2006/2007 Champions League was a milestone, with revenues exceeding half a billion euros for the first time. For the 2013/2014 season, seven years later, revenues had doubled to a billion euros.

While these are healthy revenue numbers, growth exploded in recent years. UEFA’s men’s club competitions now bring in €4.4 billion, with UEFA already eyeing the €5 billion mark for the near future, with Netflix showing interest in the rights.

UEFA would likely argue that there could be even more potential income if piracy was defeated. However, one can also argue that the surge in revenues contributes to a key motivation to pirate. After all, the billions paid for broadcasting rights are in large part passed on to consumers whose TV subscription costs aren’t getting any cheaper.

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

European football association UEFA was founded in 1954 to protect the interests of European football, particularly within the global FIFA body.

During the early years its powers were rather limited. UEFA was mostly an administrative union, consisting of three employees who issued non-binding recommendations to member associations.

In 1955, less than a year after UEFA was formed, journalists of the French newspaper L’Équipe proposed the launch of a European club championship. UEFA was initially hesitant to adopt the idea but eventually moved the project ahead.

The resulting European Cup was commercialized as the UEFA Champions League in 1992. This is widely recognized as the most prestigious club prize in football and with billions of euros in annual revenues, it’s also serious business.

UEFA Joins Anti-Piracy Coalition ACE

With this much money on the line, UEFA has a vested interest in protecting the competition from piracy. Many millions of fans who can’t afford paid access or prefer to use the money elsewhere, turn to free streams instead, contributing to what UEFA believes is a significant financial loss.

Over the past several years, UEFA has targeted pirate streams through site-blocking efforts and takedown requests. Yet despite these anti-piracy measures, the piracy problem only appears to have become worse. That’s likely one of the key reasons behind its partnership with anti-piracy coalition ACE announced this week.

UEFA itself is a not-for-profit operation, but UC3, a commercial joint venture with football clubs, exploits the multi-billion-euro broadcast rights contracts. By joining ACE, it can now rely on technological resources and law enforcement contacts around the globe.

The European football association is the first sports exclusive rights holder to join ACE and will play an active role in the ACE “Live Tier”. Other prominent members of the MPA-led alliance include the major Hollywood studios, Netflix, Amazon, and beIN.

“UEFA joining ACE represents a landmark moment in our global content protection strategy,” says UEFA’s Guy-Laurent Epstein, commenting on the new. “This partnership allows us to expand our enforcement capabilities, deepen our existing collaboration with industry leaders and leverage ACE’s proven capabilities to disrupt illegal services.”

Targets: Pirate IPTV and Hydra sites

As the name suggests, ACE’s ‘Live Tier’ focuses on sites and services that offer live streams. Speaking with TorrentFreak, MPA’s Deputy Chief of Content Protection Dani Bacsa notes that priority targets include pirate IPTV services and so-called hydra sites that offer live content.

These targets are typically selected in consultation with members. The potential enforcement actions are similar to those taken against other types of piracy.

“We use the same toolkit we use to tackle other forms of digital piracy, which has been tested and proven. These range from out-of-court settlements and voluntary initiatives to civil litigation and working with law enforcement agencies to dismantle major criminal networks,” Bacsa says.

“One thing that we are well aware of is that live content has a short shelf life, and we need to act expeditiously and time operations when they make the most impact. Any activity carried out by ACE is agreed upon and approved by its members.”

MPA and UEFA have previously filed their blocking requests separately in France, India, and elsewhere. In theory, MPA/ACE could take this up in the future as they do for other members. However, when we asked about this directly, we received a “no comment” instead of a more direct “no”.

Whether more sports leagues and football organizations will join ACE in the future is unknown, but the anti-piracy coalition is certainly open to it. It was always stressed that cooperation is key to defeating piracy, and a broader membership base serves this goal.

“ACE is cooperating and coordinating with multiple non-member partners, including leagues, to various extents and capacities. We would always welcome closer collaboration and partnerships to increase our collective force,” Bacsa tells us.

It’s Not Just Piracy That’s Grown

There is no denying that sports piracy is a serious and growing problem. According to EU data , 12% of EU citizens watch sports content through illegal online sources, which goes up to 27% for people between 15 and 24.

However, this doesn’t mean that the revenues from sports rights are dwindling. On the contrary, it has grown spectacularly over the past decades.

In the first Champions League season, income was a relatively modest €46 million . Roughly half of this flowed back to the clubs. By the end of the decade, as the tournament expanded from 8 to 32 teams, revenues had grown to hundreds of millions.

The 2006/2007 Champions League was a milestone, with revenues exceeding half a billion euros for the first time. For the 2013/2014 season, seven years later, revenues had doubled to a billion euros.

While these are healthy revenue numbers, growth exploded in recent years. UEFA’s men’s club competitions now bring in €4.4 billion, with UEFA already eyeing the €5 billion mark for the near future, with Netflix showing interest in the rights.

UEFA would likely argue that there could be even more potential income if piracy was defeated. However, one can also argue that the surge in revenues contributes to a key motivation to pirate. After all, the billions paid for broadcasting rights are in large part passed on to consumers whose TV subscription costs aren’t getting any cheaper.

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

In the past, rightsholders have frequently complained that takedown requests can be futile. Even if pirate sites take action, content can swiftly reappear.

Taking down entire websites has always been the weapon of choice, but that doesn’t always solve the problem either.

Pirate Site Operators On/Off the Radar

When public pirate sites first became popular at the beginning of the century, many operated as central hubs. Their operators communicated with users regularly, and many fostered a sense of community. There were competitions , merchandise , and the Pirate Bay took its early activism to the streets of Stockholm more than once.

After several prominent sites lost legal battles, the mood changed. Running a popular pirate site was much more than a public act of defiance: it was also a criminal offense with potential prison sentences attached. The Pirate Bay was a pioneer on this front too, and it wouldn’t be the last.

Legal pressure motivated public pirate site operators to stay in the shadows. If rightsholders can’t track you down, they can’t touch you, the theory went. While that is still true to a certain degree today, anti-piracy groups were busy adding site blocking to their arsenal.

The Pirate Bay was one of the prime targets of early site-blocking requests in various countries . This led to soaring popularity for Pirate Bay proxies, which facilitated access to the original site in blocked regions. Despite having no connections to the original team, many proxies adopted Pirate Bay branding, which didn’t bother users all that much.

From Pirate Sites to Pirate Brands

While proxies were often launched as a means to ‘unblock’ sites, they also provided an opportunity for outsiders to generate profit. And with more sites getting blocked, full-on copycats began to emerge. These sites typically had little to do with the originals they copied but used their branding to draw traffic and sell advertisements.

Eventually even the demise of popular sites became a potential goldmine for others, with popular brands living on and continuing to generate profit. Some of these copycats may have had more traditional pirate interests in mind, but others simply saw them as platforms for malicious ad campaigns. The problem for many users was telling them apart.

Today, the exploitation of pirate brands comes in many forms. Streaming sites are particularly popular but due to various enforcement measures, domains are increasingly seen as disposable. Since branding persists, recognized brands are valuable assets.

The Motion Picture Association’s latest enforcement effort highlights several examples.

MPA Hunts Ghosts of the Past

Earlier this week, the MPA requested two DMCA subpoenas at a California federal court on behalf of its anti-piracy arm, ACE . The requests ask Cloudflare and the .to domain registry ( Tonic ) to hand over all identifying information they hold on alleged pirate site domains.

The Cloudflare subpoena lists 46 domain names in total. This includes sites that the MPA recently flagged to the U.S. Government as “ notorious piracy markets “, such as Cineby.app and Nunflix.org, classified as major threats in the new “hydra site” category.

At the same time, the subpoena also lists names of pirate brands that the MPA and ACE targeted in the past, sometimes on more than one occasion.

Fmovies.co and Fmovies.ro, for example, are clearly inspired by the world’s largest piracy ring. ACE helped to shut this operation down in 2024 , and two Vietnamese operators received suspended prison sentences for their involvement with the massive piracy network. However, the brand lives on in many forms.

The same applies to Cuevana, a popular streaming portal in Latin America, of which ACE has helped to shut down several iterations previously. Despite these efforts and the related criminal investigations, the latest subpoena application targets Cuevana.is and cuevana3cc.me.

The same is true for other domain names such as aniwave.se and 123moviesfree.net. The piracy portals that popularized these brands are long gone , but they live on through various incarnations, giving prospective pirates a familiar brand to look for.

Identifying the Operators

Through the DMCA subpoenas, MPA hopes that Cloudflare and Tonic will provide information to accurately identify the operators of these and other sites. While many sites provide false data to avoid enforcement, these efforts have also proven fruitful in the past.

All the .to domain names are targeted through both companies, which will be helpful to compare the associated user data, including names, IP addresses, payment details, and other information.

At the time of writing, the DMCA subpoenas have yet to be signed off by a court clerk. Cloudflare and Tonic generally don’t oppose these requests, so that is merely a formality. The real challenge for MPA and ACE is to permanently bury these zombie brands. That’s not going to be as easy.

—

A list of all the targeted domain names is available below. The declarations linked to the two DMCA subpoenas can be found here (pdf) and here (pdf) .

– 123moviesfree.net
– 430hdd.com
– animedefenders.me
– animekai.ac
– animekai.cc
– animekai.to
– animeyy.com
– anigo.to
– aniwave.se
– baan-series.online
– bingewatch.to
– bronat.lat
– bstsrs.in
– cineby.app
– cinecalidad.rs
– comandoplay.com
– cuevana.is
– cuevana3cc.me
– doomovie-free.com
– dopebox.to
– flixhq.to
– fmovies.co
– fmovies.ro
– goyabu.to
– hdtodayz.to
– hianime.bz
– hianime.cx
– hianime.pe
– hianimez.is
– himovies.sx
– jkanime.net
– miruro.to
– movies2watch.tv
– moviesjoy.plus
– nunflix.org
– opmovies.tv
– peelink2.com
– pelisplushd.to
– pelispop.lat
– piratetv.pro
– portalultautv.biz
– streamingunity.co
– theflixertv.to
– topsrs.day
– westream.to
– yflix.to

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

In the past, rightsholders have frequently complained that takedown requests can be futile. Even if pirate sites take action, content can swiftly reappear.

Taking down entire websites has always been the weapon of choice, but that doesn’t always solve the problem either.

Pirate Site Operators On/Off the Radar

When public pirate sites first became popular at the beginning of the century, many operated as central hubs. Their operators communicated with users regularly, and many fostered a sense of community. There were competitions , merchandise , and the Pirate Bay took its early activism to the streets of Stockholm more than once.

After several prominent sites lost legal battles, the mood changed. Running a popular pirate site was much more than a public act of defiance: it was also a criminal offense with potential prison sentences attached. The Pirate Bay was a pioneer on this front too, and it wouldn’t be the last.

Legal pressure motivated public pirate site operators to stay in the shadows. If rightsholders can’t track you down, they can’t touch you, the theory went. While that is still true to a certain degree today, anti-piracy groups were busy adding site blocking to their arsenal.

The Pirate Bay was one of the prime targets of early site-blocking requests in various countries . This led to soaring popularity for Pirate Bay proxies, which facilitated access to the original site in blocked regions. Despite having no connections to the original team, many proxies adopted Pirate Bay branding, which didn’t bother users all that much.

From Pirate Sites to Pirate Brands

While proxies were often launched as a means to ‘unblock’ sites, they also provided an opportunity for outsiders to generate profit. And with more sites getting blocked, full-on copycats began to emerge. These sites typically had little to do with the originals they copied but used their branding to draw traffic and sell advertisements.

Eventually even the demise of popular sites became a potential goldmine for others, with popular brands living on and continuing to generate profit. Some of these copycats may have had more traditional pirate interests in mind, but others simply saw them as platforms for malicious ad campaigns. The problem for many users was telling them apart.

Today, the exploitation of pirate brands comes in many forms. Streaming sites are particularly popular but due to various enforcement measures, domains are increasingly seen as disposable. Since branding persists, recognized brands are valuable assets.

The Motion Picture Association’s latest enforcement effort highlights several examples.

MPA Hunts Ghosts of the Past

Earlier this week, the MPA requested two DMCA subpoenas at a California federal court on behalf of its anti-piracy arm, ACE . The requests ask Cloudflare and the .to domain registry ( Tonic ) to hand over all identifying information they hold on alleged pirate site domains.

The Cloudflare subpoena lists 46 domain names in total. This includes sites that the MPA recently flagged to the U.S. Government as “ notorious piracy markets “, such as Cineby.app and Nunflix.org, classified as major threats in the new “hydra site” category.

At the same time, the subpoena also lists names of pirate brands that the MPA and ACE targeted in the past, sometimes on more than one occasion.

Fmovies.co and Fmovies.ro, for example, are clearly inspired by the world’s largest piracy ring. ACE helped to shut this operation down in 2024 , and two Vietnamese operators received suspended prison sentences for their involvement with the massive piracy network. However, the brand lives on in many forms.

The same applies to Cuevana, a popular streaming portal in Latin America, of which ACE has helped to shut down several iterations previously. Despite these efforts and the related criminal investigations, the latest subpoena application targets Cuevana.is and cuevana3cc.me.

The same is true for other domain names such as aniwave.se and 123moviesfree.net. The piracy portals that popularized these brands are long gone , but they live on through various incarnations, giving prospective pirates a familiar brand to look for.

Identifying the Operators

Through the DMCA subpoenas, MPA hopes that Cloudflare and Tonic will provide information to accurately identify the operators of these and other sites. While many sites provide false data to avoid enforcement, these efforts have also proven fruitful in the past.

All the .to domain names are targeted through both companies, which will be helpful to compare the associated user data, including names, IP addresses, payment details, and other information.

At the time of writing, the DMCA subpoenas have yet to be signed off by a court clerk. Cloudflare and Tonic generally don’t oppose these requests, so that is merely a formality. The real challenge for MPA and ACE is to permanently bury these zombie brands. That’s not going to be as easy.

—

A list of all the targeted domain names is available below. The declarations linked to the two DMCA subpoenas can be found here (pdf) and here (pdf) .

– 123moviesfree.net
– 430hdd.com
– animedefenders.me
– animekai.ac
– animekai.cc
– animekai.to
– animeyy.com
– anigo.to
– aniwave.se
– baan-series.online
– bingewatch.to
– bronat.lat
– bstsrs.in
– cineby.app
– cinecalidad.rs
– comandoplay.com
– cuevana.is
– cuevana3cc.me
– doomovie-free.com
– dopebox.to
– flixhq.to
– fmovies.co
– fmovies.ro
– goyabu.to
– hdtodayz.to
– hianime.bz
– hianime.cx
– hianime.pe
– hianimez.is
– himovies.sx
– jkanime.net
– miruro.to
– movies2watch.tv
– moviesjoy.plus
– nunflix.org
– opmovies.tv
– peelink2.com
– pelisplushd.to
– pelispop.lat
– piratetv.pro
– portalultautv.biz
– streamingunity.co
– theflixertv.to
– topsrs.day
– westream.to
– yflix.to

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

In the past, rightsholders have frequently complained that takedown requests can be futile. Even if pirate sites take action, content can swiftly reappear.

Taking down entire websites has always been the weapon of choice, but that doesn’t always solve the problem either.

Pirate Site Operators On/Off the Radar

When public pirate sites first became popular at the beginning of the century, many operated as central hubs. Their operators communicated with users regularly, and many fostered a sense of community. There were competitions , merchandise , and the Pirate Bay took its early activism to the streets of Stockholm more than once.

After several prominent sites lost legal battles, the mood changed. Running a popular pirate site was much more than a public act of defiance: it was also a criminal offense with potential prison sentences attached. The Pirate Bay was a pioneer on this front too, and it wouldn’t be the last.

Legal pressure motivated public pirate site operators to stay in the shadows. If rightsholders can’t track you down, they can’t touch you, the theory went. While that is still true to a certain degree today, anti-piracy groups were busy adding site blocking to their arsenal.

The Pirate Bay was one of the prime targets of early site-blocking requests in various countries . This led to soaring popularity for Pirate Bay proxies, which facilitated access to the original site in blocked regions. Despite having no connections to the original team, many proxies adopted Pirate Bay branding, which didn’t bother users all that much.

From Pirate Sites to Pirate Brands

While proxies were often launched as a means to ‘unblock’ sites, they also provided an opportunity for outsiders to generate profit. And with more sites getting blocked, full-on copycats began to emerge. These sites typically had little to do with the originals they copied but used their branding to draw traffic and sell advertisements.

Eventually even the demise of popular sites became a potential goldmine for others, with popular brands living on and continuing to generate profit. Some of these copycats may have had more traditional pirate interests in mind, but others simply saw them as platforms for malicious ad campaigns. The problem for many users was telling them apart.

Today, the exploitation of pirate brands comes in many forms. Streaming sites are particularly popular but due to various enforcement measures, domains are increasingly seen as disposable. Since branding persists, recognized brands are valuable assets.

The Motion Picture Association’s latest enforcement effort highlights several examples.

MPA Hunts Ghosts of the Past

Earlier this week, the MPA requested two DMCA subpoenas at a California federal court on behalf of its anti-piracy arm, ACE . The requests ask Cloudflare and the .to domain registry ( Tonic ) to hand over all identifying information they hold on alleged pirate site domains.

The Cloudflare subpoena lists 46 domain names in total. This includes sites that the MPA recently flagged to the U.S. Government as “ notorious piracy markets “, such as Cineby.app and Nunflix.org, classified as major threats in the new “hydra site” category.

At the same time, the subpoena also lists names of pirate brands that the MPA and ACE targeted in the past, sometimes on more than one occasion.

Fmovies.co and Fmovies.ro, for example, are clearly inspired by the world’s largest piracy ring. ACE helped to shut this operation down in 2024 , and two Vietnamese operators received suspended prison sentences for their involvement with the massive piracy network. However, the brand lives on in many forms.

The same applies to Cuevana, a popular streaming portal in Latin America, of which ACE has helped to shut down several iterations previously. Despite these efforts and the related criminal investigations, the latest subpoena application targets Cuevana.is and cuevana3cc.me.

The same is true for other domain names such as aniwave.se and 123moviesfree.net. The piracy portals that popularized these brands are long gone , but they live on through various incarnations, giving prospective pirates a familiar brand to look for.

Identifying the Operators

Through the DMCA subpoenas, MPA hopes that Cloudflare and Tonic will provide information to accurately identify the operators of these and other sites. While many sites provide false data to avoid enforcement, these efforts have also proven fruitful in the past.

All the .to domain names are targeted through both companies, which will be helpful to compare the associated user data, including names, IP addresses, payment details, and other information.

At the time of writing, the DMCA subpoenas have yet to be signed off by a court clerk. Cloudflare and Tonic generally don’t oppose these requests, so that is merely a formality. The real challenge for MPA and ACE is to permanently bury these zombie brands. That’s not going to be as easy.

—

A list of all the targeted domain names is available below. The declarations linked to the two DMCA subpoenas can be found here (pdf) and here (pdf) .

– 123moviesfree.net
– 430hdd.com
– animedefenders.me
– animekai.ac
– animekai.cc
– animekai.to
– animeyy.com
– anigo.to
– aniwave.se
– baan-series.online
– bingewatch.to
– bronat.lat
– bstsrs.in
– cineby.app
– cinecalidad.rs
– comandoplay.com
– cuevana.is
– cuevana3cc.me
– doomovie-free.com
– dopebox.to
– flixhq.to
– fmovies.co
– fmovies.ro
– goyabu.to
– hdtodayz.to
– hianime.bz
– hianime.cx
– hianime.pe
– hianimez.is
– himovies.sx
– jkanime.net
– miruro.to
– movies2watch.tv
– moviesjoy.plus
– nunflix.org
– opmovies.tv
– peelink2.com
– pelisplushd.to
– pelispop.lat
– piratetv.pro
– portalultautv.biz
– streamingunity.co
– theflixertv.to
– topsrs.day
– westream.to
– yflix.to

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

During the past several years, sports rightsholders in Europe have made it clear that piracy of fleeting live events poses unique problems that require a strong response.

Existing site blocking measures were seen as insufficient. Standard takedown notices reportedly lacked the necessary teeth to ensure compliance, something that could be addressed under revised EU law, rightsholders said..

In 2022, requests for European Commission assistance escalated to outright demands for legal amendments, which were instantly dismissed by the Commission in favor of an extended consultation.

To what extent the EC’s response acted as a catalyst isn’t clear, but nothing has been quite the same since.

Canal+ Targets Public DNS Resolvers

Anti-piracy group AAPA was among the first to politely inform the EC that its members, including the Premier League, Sky, beIN, and Canal+, were really disappointed with the outcome. Yet, it transpired, no less motivated.

With permission from the High Court in London, Sky began targeting key IPTV providers, eventually blocking thousands upon thousands of fully qualified domains, at an unprecedented rate.

In France, Canal+ decided to close the alternative DNS loophole, reportedly undermining blocking at local ISPs. Seemingly undeterred by potential backlash, Canal+ sued Cloudflare , Google, and OpenDNS, and with the assistance of broadly crafted French law, won a first of its type injunction.

With significant fines on the table to ensure compliance, OpenDNS had seen enough and promptly shut down its services in France.

Why Stop at Public DNS? VPN Blocking Awaits

Attorney Richard Willemant is known for his work representing rightsholders in France. Recent cases include the police raids and civil lawsuit against UptoBox. By volume, lawsuits compelling intermediaries to block pirate sites and delete search results on behalf of Canal+ (and by extension, Premier League, UEFA, LFP, and Formula 1) are far more numerous.

Speaking at an event last week organized by Italian telecoms regulator AGCOM, Willamont spoke about his work with Canal+ and the importance of dynamic injunctions capable of tackling circumvention attempts more quickly. After obtaining an injunction to block pirate sites in France, post-judgment modification of blocking targets takes place with assistance from French telecoms regulator ARCOM.

“ARCOM allows us to update injunctions flexibly, adding new domains or mirror sites without having to refer to the courts each time. This system has made it possible to block thousands of illegal sites and services more quickly and effectively,” he explained.

Willemant’s more recent stand-out successes include the controversial action against Cloudflare, Google, and OpenDNS.

With that achievement already behind him, Willemant went on to successfully argue that VPN providers NordVPN, Proton, CyberGhost, ExpressVPN and Surfshark, should also be compelled to block pirate sites targeting France.

The move was certainly controversial, but more importantly, did it move the needle?

Success or Failure? Canal+ Attorney Reveals All

During his speech, which outlined experiences from the perspective of rightsholders, Willemant said that for the first time in his experience, piracy rates are now starting to come down. Citing research by regulator ARCOM, which he described as completely unbiased, Willemant reported the following results:

Piracy Reductions After Targeting Circumvention Tools (Richard Willemant/Canal+)
Method	Reduction	Details
3rd Party DNS Blocking	8%	Attributed to legal decisions against third-party DNS providers (Cloudflare/Google)
VPN Blocking	7%	Attributed to decisions targeting commercial VPNs (NordVPN/Proton/CyberGhost/ExpressVPN/Surfshark)
Total Reduction	15%	Attributed to combined effect of decisions against Third Party DNS and commercial VPNs

Which specific piracy statistic was reduced by 15% isn’t made clear.

The number of visits to the pirate websites listed in the order is one possibility, but for that figure to hold weight, traffic to other sites not yet subject to blocking would need to be measured too. Diverting traffic to another platform showing the same content has no effect on overall piracy rates.

Other VPN providers not subjected to blocking also factor into the equation. French users behind VPNs may appear to be geographically located outside France, but that’s not necessarily the case.

Nevertheless, Willemant says that when court-ordered and administrative blocking measures are both taken into account, they “clearly indicate that blocking is working” and “producing measurable results.”

Resistance Against Blocking, Enforcement Not Always Possible

After covering the successes, Willemant revealed several causes for concern. While rightsholder enthusiasm for blocking measures isn’t in doubt, opposition to blocking is being felt in the judicial, regulatory, and political arenas.

“We are facing strong resistance from intermediaries including Cloudflare. Despite being one of the respondents in blocking injunctions, Cloudflare independently decides which sites to block, and which not to block. Both the courts and ARCOM are perplexed by the company’s approach.”

For context, the injunction makes it clear that failure to comply with the court’s instructions carries a potential penalty of €30,000.

Willemant’s reference to issues at the judicial level received no elaboration. However, the issue of enforcement clearly came up at some point, hence his comment that enforcement hasn’t always been possible for “practical” reasons.

Penalties exist to incentivize compliance, but based on the comments, it’s possible that something isn’t functioning quite as intended.

Political Pushback at the Highest Level

There’s no question that President Trump’s return to the White House has unsettled United States trading partners, not to mention its long-standing strategic allies. Thus far, few if any have been spared.

The European Union’s efforts to regulate online services operating in Europe necessarily involve some of the largest online platforms; they’re mostly American companies such as X, Facebook, and Instagram, not forgetting Cloudflare and Google, of course.

“We are seeing lobbying pressure, including international pressure, in particular from the US government,” Willemant confirmed.

“The government has asked its diplomats in Europe to oppose certain provisions of the Digital Services Act (DSA), precisely those that strengthen intermediaries’ obligations to cooperate [with rightsholders].”

Willemant said that intermediaries have benefited from limited liability for many years under the E-Commerce Directive. The quid pro quo under the Digital Services Act, however, is substantially more involved. In exchange for limited liability, Willemant said, “[intermediaries] must actively collaborate in the fight against illegal activities.”

“Stop Censoring Free Speech”

In the United States, the EU’s sprawling legislation is viewed quite differently. Described by House Judiciary Committee Republicans as a ‘Foreign Censorship Threat’ that infringes on ‘American Free Speech’, the Committee produced non-public documents to show, according to their reading , “that European censors target core political speech that is neither harmful nor illegal, attempting to stifle debate on topics such as immigration and the environment.”

A diplomatic cable seen by Reuters, titled “Action Request” asked American diplomats across U.S. embassies in Europe to regularly engage with EU governments and authorities to convey U.S. concerns about the DSA.

The anti-piracy event at which Willemant made his presentation was centered around Articles 58, 59, and 60 of the Digital Services Act. The articles outline rules for cross-border cooperation, referral of issues to the European Commission, and procedures for joint investigations into suspected infringements of the DSA.

If the United States had its way, the cable suggests, there would be nothing to discuss.

“Repeal and/or Amend the DSA”

“Posts should focus efforts to build host government and other stakeholder support to repeal and/or amend the DSA or related EU or national laws restricting expression online.”

Blocking unfavorable, infringing, and illegal content is already deeply embedded across the EU. What that means for the site-blocking push currently underway in the United States is unclear. As a means to suppress foreign threats, President Trump might be persuaded to get onboard.

Admittedly, tomorrow he may see things quite differently. The fully-committed European Commission, on the other hand, will not.

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

During the past several years, sports rightsholders in Europe have made it clear that piracy of fleeting live events poses unique problems that require a strong response.

Existing site blocking measures were seen as insufficient. Standard takedown notices reportedly lacked the necessary teeth to ensure compliance, something that could be addressed under revised EU law, rightsholders said..

In 2022, requests for European Commission assistance escalated to outright demands for legal amendments, which were instantly dismissed by the Commission in favor of an extended consultation.

To what extent the EC’s response acted as a catalyst isn’t clear, but nothing has been quite the same since.

Canal+ Targets Public DNS Resolvers

Anti-piracy group AAPA was among the first to politely inform the EC that its members, including the Premier League, Sky, beIN, and Canal+, were really disappointed with the outcome. Yet, it transpired, no less motivated.

With permission from the High Court in London, Sky began targeting key IPTV providers, eventually blocking thousands upon thousands of fully qualified domains, at an unprecedented rate.

In France, Canal+ decided to close the alternative DNS loophole, reportedly undermining blocking at local ISPs. Seemingly undeterred by potential backlash, Canal+ sued Cloudflare , Google, and OpenDNS, and with the assistance of broadly crafted French law, won a first of its type injunction.

With significant fines on the table to ensure compliance, OpenDNS had seen enough and promptly shut down its services in France.

Why Stop at Public DNS? VPN Blocking Awaits

Attorney Richard Willemant is known for his work representing rightsholders in France. Recent cases include the police raids and civil lawsuit against UptoBox. By volume, lawsuits compelling intermediaries to block pirate sites and delete search results on behalf of Canal+ (and by extension, Premier League, UEFA, LFP, and Formula 1) are far more numerous.

Speaking at an event last week organized by Italian telecoms regulator AGCOM, Willamont spoke about his work with Canal+ and the importance of dynamic injunctions capable of tackling circumvention attempts more quickly. After obtaining an injunction to block pirate sites in France, post-judgment modification of blocking targets takes place with assistance from French telecoms regulator ARCOM.

“ARCOM allows us to update injunctions flexibly, adding new domains or mirror sites without having to refer to the courts each time. This system has made it possible to block thousands of illegal sites and services more quickly and effectively,” he explained.

Willemant’s more recent stand-out successes include the controversial action against Cloudflare, Google, and OpenDNS.

With that achievement already behind him, Willemant went on to successfully argue that VPN providers NordVPN, Proton, CyberGhost, ExpressVPN and Surfshark, should also be compelled to block pirate sites targeting France.

The move was certainly controversial, but more importantly, did it move the needle?

Success or Failure? Canal+ Attorney Reveals All

During his speech, which outlined experiences from the perspective of rightsholders, Willemant said that for the first time in his experience, piracy rates are now starting to come down. Citing research by regulator ARCOM, which he described as completely unbiased, Willemant reported the following results:

Piracy Reductions After Targeting Circumvention Tools (Richard Willemant/Canal+)
Method	Reduction	Details
3rd Party DNS Blocking	8%	Attributed to legal decisions against third-party DNS providers (Cloudflare/Google)
VPN Blocking	7%	Attributed to decisions targeting commercial VPNs (NordVPN/Proton/CyberGhost/ExpressVPN/Surfshark)
Total Reduction	15%	Attributed to combined effect of decisions against Third Party DNS and commercial VPNs

Which specific piracy statistic was reduced by 15% isn’t made clear.

The number of visits to the pirate websites listed in the order is one possibility, but for that figure to hold weight, traffic to other sites not yet subject to blocking would need to be measured too. Diverting traffic to another platform showing the same content has no effect on overall piracy rates.

Other VPN providers not subjected to blocking also factor into the equation. French users behind VPNs may appear to be geographically located outside France, but that’s not necessarily the case.

Nevertheless, Willemant says that when court-ordered and administrative blocking measures are both taken into account, they “clearly indicate that blocking is working” and “producing measurable results.”

Resistance Against Blocking, Enforcement Not Always Possible

After covering the successes, Willemant revealed several causes for concern. While rightsholder enthusiasm for blocking measures isn’t in doubt, opposition to blocking is being felt in the judicial, regulatory, and political arenas.

“We are facing strong resistance from intermediaries including Cloudflare. Despite being one of the respondents in blocking injunctions, Cloudflare independently decides which sites to block, and which not to block. Both the courts and ARCOM are perplexed by the company’s approach.”

For context, the injunction makes it clear that failure to comply with the court’s instructions carries a potential penalty of €30,000.

Willemant’s reference to issues at the judicial level received no elaboration. However, the issue of enforcement clearly came up at some point, hence his comment that enforcement hasn’t always been possible for “practical” reasons.

Penalties exist to incentivize compliance, but based on the comments, it’s possible that something isn’t functioning quite as intended.

Political Pushback at the Highest Level

There’s no question that President Trump’s return to the White House has unsettled United States trading partners, not to mention its long-standing strategic allies. Thus far, few if any have been spared.

The European Union’s efforts to regulate online services operating in Europe necessarily involve some of the largest online platforms; they’re mostly American companies such as X, Facebook, and Instagram, not forgetting Cloudflare and Google, of course.

“We are seeing lobbying pressure, including international pressure, in particular from the US government,” Willemant confirmed.

“The government has asked its diplomats in Europe to oppose certain provisions of the Digital Services Act (DSA), precisely those that strengthen intermediaries’ obligations to cooperate [with rightsholders].”

Willemant said that intermediaries have benefited from limited liability for many years under the E-Commerce Directive. The quid pro quo under the Digital Services Act, however, is substantially more involved. In exchange for limited liability, Willemant said, “[intermediaries] must actively collaborate in the fight against illegal activities.”

“Stop Censoring Free Speech”

In the United States, the EU’s sprawling legislation is viewed quite differently. Described by House Judiciary Committee Republicans as a ‘Foreign Censorship Threat’ that infringes on ‘American Free Speech’, the Committee produced non-public documents to show, according to their reading , “that European censors target core political speech that is neither harmful nor illegal, attempting to stifle debate on topics such as immigration and the environment.”

A diplomatic cable seen by Reuters, titled “Action Request” asked American diplomats across U.S. embassies in Europe to regularly engage with EU governments and authorities to convey U.S. concerns about the DSA.

The anti-piracy event at which Willemant made his presentation was centered around Articles 58, 59, and 60 of the Digital Services Act. The articles outline rules for cross-border cooperation, referral of issues to the European Commission, and procedures for joint investigations into suspected infringements of the DSA.

If the United States had its way, the cable suggests, there would be nothing to discuss.

“Repeal and/or Amend the DSA”

“Posts should focus efforts to build host government and other stakeholder support to repeal and/or amend the DSA or related EU or national laws restricting expression online.”

Blocking unfavorable, infringing, and illegal content is already deeply embedded across the EU. What that means for the site-blocking push currently underway in the United States is unclear. As a means to suppress foreign threats, President Trump might be persuaded to get onboard.

Admittedly, tomorrow he may see things quite differently. The fully-committed European Commission, on the other hand, will not.

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

During the past several years, sports rightsholders in Europe have made it clear that piracy of fleeting live events poses unique problems that require a strong response.

Existing site blocking measures were seen as insufficient. Standard takedown notices reportedly lacked the necessary teeth to ensure compliance, something that could be addressed under revised EU law, rightsholders said..

In 2022, requests for European Commission assistance escalated to outright demands for legal amendments, which were instantly dismissed by the Commission in favor of an extended consultation.

To what extent the EC’s response acted as a catalyst isn’t clear, but nothing has been quite the same since.

Canal+ Targets Public DNS Resolvers

Anti-piracy group AAPA was among the first to politely inform the EC that its members, including the Premier League, Sky, beIN, and Canal+, were really disappointed with the outcome. Yet, it transpired, no less motivated.

With permission from the High Court in London, Sky began targeting key IPTV providers, eventually blocking thousands upon thousands of fully qualified domains, at an unprecedented rate.

In France, Canal+ decided to close the alternative DNS loophole, reportedly undermining blocking at local ISPs. Seemingly undeterred by potential backlash, Canal+ sued Cloudflare , Google, and OpenDNS, and with the assistance of broadly crafted French law, won a first of its type injunction.

With significant fines on the table to ensure compliance, OpenDNS had seen enough and promptly shut down its services in France.

Why Stop at Public DNS? VPN Blocking Awaits

Attorney Richard Willemant is known for his work representing rightsholders in France. Recent cases include the police raids and civil lawsuit against UptoBox. By volume, lawsuits compelling intermediaries to block pirate sites and delete search results on behalf of Canal+ (and by extension, Premier League, UEFA, LFP, and Formula 1) are far more numerous.

Speaking at an event last week organized by Italian telecoms regulator AGCOM, Willamont spoke about his work with Canal+ and the importance of dynamic injunctions capable of tackling circumvention attempts more quickly. After obtaining an injunction to block pirate sites in France, post-judgment modification of blocking targets takes place with assistance from French telecoms regulator ARCOM.

“ARCOM allows us to update injunctions flexibly, adding new domains or mirror sites without having to refer to the courts each time. This system has made it possible to block thousands of illegal sites and services more quickly and effectively,” he explained.

Willemant’s more recent stand-out successes include the controversial action against Cloudflare, Google, and OpenDNS.

With that achievement already behind him, Willemant went on to successfully argue that VPN providers NordVPN, Proton, CyberGhost, ExpressVPN and Surfshark, should also be compelled to block pirate sites targeting France.

The move was certainly controversial, but more importantly, did it move the needle?

Success or Failure? Canal+ Attorney Reveals All

During his speech, which outlined experiences from the perspective of rightsholders, Willemant said that for the first time in his experience, piracy rates are now starting to come down. Citing research by regulator ARCOM, which he described as completely unbiased, Willemant reported the following results:

Piracy Reductions After Targeting Circumvention Tools (Richard Willemant/Canal+)
Method	Reduction	Details
3rd Party DNS Blocking	8%	Attributed to legal decisions against third-party DNS providers (Cloudflare/Google)
VPN Blocking	7%	Attributed to decisions targeting commercial VPNs (NordVPN/Proton/CyberGhost/ExpressVPN/Surfshark)
Total Reduction	15%	Attributed to combined effect of decisions against Third Party DNS and commercial VPNs

Which specific piracy statistic was reduced by 15% isn’t made clear.

The number of visits to the pirate websites listed in the order is one possibility, but for that figure to hold weight, traffic to other sites not yet subject to blocking would need to be measured too. Diverting traffic to another platform showing the same content has no effect on overall piracy rates.

Other VPN providers not subjected to blocking also factor into the equation. French users behind VPNs may appear to be geographically located outside France, but that’s not necessarily the case.

Nevertheless, Willemant says that when court-ordered and administrative blocking measures are both taken into account, they “clearly indicate that blocking is working” and “producing measurable results.”

Resistance Against Blocking, Enforcement Not Always Possible

After covering the successes, Willemant revealed several causes for concern. While rightsholder enthusiasm for blocking measures isn’t in doubt, opposition to blocking is being felt in the judicial, regulatory, and political arenas.

“We are facing strong resistance from intermediaries including Cloudflare. Despite being one of the respondents in blocking injunctions, Cloudflare independently decides which sites to block, and which not to block. Both the courts and ARCOM are perplexed by the company’s approach.”

For context, the injunction makes it clear that failure to comply with the court’s instructions carries a potential penalty of €30,000.

Willemant’s reference to issues at the judicial level received no elaboration. However, the issue of enforcement clearly came up at some point, hence his comment that enforcement hasn’t always been possible for “practical” reasons.

Penalties exist to incentivize compliance, but based on the comments, it’s possible that something isn’t functioning quite as intended.

Political Pushback at the Highest Level

There’s no question that President Trump’s return to the White House has unsettled United States trading partners, not to mention its long-standing strategic allies. Thus far, few if any have been spared.

The European Union’s efforts to regulate online services operating in Europe necessarily involve some of the largest online platforms; they’re mostly American companies such as X, Facebook, and Instagram, not forgetting Cloudflare and Google, of course.

“We are seeing lobbying pressure, including international pressure, in particular from the US government,” Willemant confirmed.

“The government has asked its diplomats in Europe to oppose certain provisions of the Digital Services Act (DSA), precisely those that strengthen intermediaries’ obligations to cooperate [with rightsholders].”

Willemant said that intermediaries have benefited from limited liability for many years under the E-Commerce Directive. The quid pro quo under the Digital Services Act, however, is substantially more involved. In exchange for limited liability, Willemant said, “[intermediaries] must actively collaborate in the fight against illegal activities.”

“Stop Censoring Free Speech”

In the United States, the EU’s sprawling legislation is viewed quite differently. Described by House Judiciary Committee Republicans as a ‘Foreign Censorship Threat’ that infringes on ‘American Free Speech’, the Committee produced non-public documents to show, according to their reading , “that European censors target core political speech that is neither harmful nor illegal, attempting to stifle debate on topics such as immigration and the environment.”

A diplomatic cable seen by Reuters, titled “Action Request” asked American diplomats across U.S. embassies in Europe to regularly engage with EU governments and authorities to convey U.S. concerns about the DSA.

The anti-piracy event at which Willemant made his presentation was centered around Articles 58, 59, and 60 of the Digital Services Act. The articles outline rules for cross-border cooperation, referral of issues to the European Commission, and procedures for joint investigations into suspected infringements of the DSA.

If the United States had its way, the cable suggests, there would be nothing to discuss.

“Repeal and/or Amend the DSA”

“Posts should focus efforts to build host government and other stakeholder support to repeal and/or amend the DSA or related EU or national laws restricting expression online.”

Blocking unfavorable, infringing, and illegal content is already deeply embedded across the EU. What that means for the site-blocking push currently underway in the United States is unclear. As a means to suppress foreign threats, President Trump might be persuaded to get onboard.

Admittedly, tomorrow he may see things quite differently. The fully-committed European Commission, on the other hand, will not.

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