In 2019, Internet provider Cox Communications lost its legal battle against a group of dozens of record labels, including Sony and Universal.

Following a two-week trial, a Virginia jury held Cox liable for its pirating subscribers. The ISP failed to disconnect repeat infringers and was ordered to pay $1 billion in damages .

This case is one of many . Other ISPs have been accused of being similarly lax in their stance against alleged piracy. Rightsholders believe that ISPs are motivated by profit while the ISPs typically argue that they shouldn’t be held liable for the alleged wrongdoing of subscribers.

Landmark Piracy Battle

Cox challenged the verdict through several routes and in August, filed a petition at the U.S. Supreme Court asking it to hear the case. The Internet provider stressed that the current verdict ‘jeopardizes’ internet access for all Americans.

Around the same time, the music companies filed their own petition , hoping to strengthen the verdict at the Supreme Court. Specifically, the record labels argued that the ISP should also be held liable for vicarious copyright infringement.

Both petitions essentially boil down to questions on liability. Are ISPs liable for copyright infringement if they don’t disconnect subscribers accused of copyright infringement? And can ISPs be held liable for infringing subscribers, even if they don’t directly profit from their activities?

Supreme Court Shows Interest

These writs of certiorari ask the Supreme Court to clarify how current law should be interpreted. The Supreme Court typically has a high barrier to accept new cases but, once greenlighted, they could shape the law for decades to come.

Yesterday, the Supreme Court suggested that it is indeed interested in the questions. In an order where dozens of petitions were denied, those submitted by Cox and the music companies were referred to the Solicitor General.

“The Solicitor General is invited to file a brief in these cases expressing the views of the United States,” the brief comment reads.

The Solicitor General is a high-ranking official in the U.S. Department of Justice who serves as the federal government’s primary lawyer before the Supreme Court. In the present cases, it can express the government’s position on the presented legal questions.

The referral signals that the Supreme Court considers the case to have significant implications for the federal government or federal law. If the Department of Justice agrees, it is more likely that the Supreme Court will take on these cases.

What’s the U.S. Government’s View?

While it’s clear that the Supreme Court is interested in these cases, the Solicitor General’s view is unknown. Thus far, the government has mostly stayed on the sidelines in these matters.

The most concrete suggestion came in 2020, when the U.S. Copyright Office released a report calling for clearer standards on what constitutes “reasonable implementation” of a repeat infringer policy. The perceived lack of clarity has led to inconsistent practices and legal uncertainty.

Those types of legislative changes are typically something that Congress should determine, but the Supreme Court can help to shape the legal interpretation of the DMCA as we know it today.

With hundreds of millions of dollars in damages on the line, a Supreme Court opinion is poised to provide some additional clarity in the ongoing DMCA “repeat infringer” controversy.

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

In 2019, Internet provider Cox Communications lost its legal battle against a group of dozens of record labels, including Sony and Universal.

Following a two-week trial, a Virginia jury held Cox liable for its pirating subscribers. The ISP failed to disconnect repeat infringers and was ordered to pay $1 billion in damages .

This case is one of many . Other ISPs have been accused of being similarly lax in their stance against alleged piracy. Rightsholders believe that ISPs are motivated by profit while the ISPs typically argue that they shouldn’t be held liable for the alleged wrongdoing of subscribers.

Landmark Piracy Battle

Cox challenged the verdict through several routes and in August, filed a petition at the U.S. Supreme Court asking it to hear the case. The Internet provider stressed that the current verdict ‘jeopardizes’ internet access for all Americans.

Around the same time, the music companies filed their own petition , hoping to strengthen the verdict at the Supreme Court. Specifically, the record labels argued that the ISP should also be held liable for vicarious copyright infringement.

Both petitions essentially boil down to questions on liability. Are ISPs liable for copyright infringement if they don’t disconnect subscribers accused of copyright infringement? And can ISPs be held liable for infringing subscribers, even if they don’t directly profit from their activities?

Supreme Court Shows Interest

These writs of certiorari ask the Supreme Court to clarify how current law should be interpreted. The Supreme Court typically has a high barrier to accept new cases but, once greenlighted, they could shape the law for decades to come.

Yesterday, the Supreme Court suggested that it is indeed interested in the questions. In an order where dozens of petitions were denied, those submitted by Cox and the music companies were referred to the Solicitor General.

“The Solicitor General is invited to file a brief in these cases expressing the views of the United States,” the brief comment reads.

The Solicitor General is a high-ranking official in the U.S. Department of Justice who serves as the federal government’s primary lawyer before the Supreme Court. In the present cases, it can express the government’s position on the presented legal questions.

The referral signals that the Supreme Court considers the case to have significant implications for the federal government or federal law. If the Department of Justice agrees, it is more likely that the Supreme Court will take on these cases.

What’s the U.S. Government’s View?

While it’s clear that the Supreme Court is interested in these cases, the Solicitor General’s view is unknown. Thus far, the government has mostly stayed on the sidelines in these matters.

The most concrete suggestion came in 2020, when the U.S. Copyright Office released a report calling for clearer standards on what constitutes “reasonable implementation” of a repeat infringer policy. The perceived lack of clarity has led to inconsistent practices and legal uncertainty.

Those types of legislative changes are typically something that Congress should determine, but the Supreme Court can help to shape the legal interpretation of the DMCA as we know it today.

With hundreds of millions of dollars in damages on the line, a Supreme Court opinion is poised to provide some additional clarity in the ongoing DMCA “repeat infringer” controversy.

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

In 2019, Internet provider Cox Communications lost its legal battle against a group of dozens of record labels, including Sony and Universal.

Following a two-week trial, a Virginia jury held Cox liable for its pirating subscribers. The ISP failed to disconnect repeat infringers and was ordered to pay $1 billion in damages .

This case is one of many . Other ISPs have been accused of being similarly lax in their stance against alleged piracy. Rightsholders believe that ISPs are motivated by profit while the ISPs typically argue that they shouldn’t be held liable for the alleged wrongdoing of subscribers.

Landmark Piracy Battle

Cox challenged the verdict through several routes and in August, filed a petition at the U.S. Supreme Court asking it to hear the case. The Internet provider stressed that the current verdict ‘jeopardizes’ internet access for all Americans.

Around the same time, the music companies filed their own petition , hoping to strengthen the verdict at the Supreme Court. Specifically, the record labels argued that the ISP should also be held liable for vicarious copyright infringement.

Both petitions essentially boil down to questions on liability. Are ISPs liable for copyright infringement if they don’t disconnect subscribers accused of copyright infringement? And can ISPs be held liable for infringing subscribers, even if they don’t directly profit from their activities?

Supreme Court Shows Interest

These writs of certiorari ask the Supreme Court to clarify how current law should be interpreted. The Supreme Court typically has a high barrier to accept new cases but, once greenlighted, they could shape the law for decades to come.

Yesterday, the Supreme Court suggested that it is indeed interested in the questions. In an order where dozens of petitions were denied, those submitted by Cox and the music companies were referred to the Solicitor General.

“The Solicitor General is invited to file a brief in these cases expressing the views of the United States,” the brief comment reads.

The Solicitor General is a high-ranking official in the U.S. Department of Justice who serves as the federal government’s primary lawyer before the Supreme Court. In the present cases, it can express the government’s position on the presented legal questions.

The referral signals that the Supreme Court considers the case to have significant implications for the federal government or federal law. If the Department of Justice agrees, it is more likely that the Supreme Court will take on these cases.

What’s the U.S. Government’s View?

While it’s clear that the Supreme Court is interested in these cases, the Solicitor General’s view is unknown. Thus far, the government has mostly stayed on the sidelines in these matters.

The most concrete suggestion came in 2020, when the U.S. Copyright Office released a report calling for clearer standards on what constitutes “reasonable implementation” of a repeat infringer policy. The perceived lack of clarity has led to inconsistent practices and legal uncertainty.

Those types of legislative changes are typically something that Congress should determine, but the Supreme Court can help to shape the legal interpretation of the DMCA as we know it today.

With hundreds of millions of dollars in damages on the line, a Supreme Court opinion is poised to provide some additional clarity in the ongoing DMCA “repeat infringer” controversy.

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

A man who previously admitted selling pirate TV devices recently appeared at Liverpool Crown Court for sentencing.

Hoping for leniency on three counts of fraud, Jonathan Edge’s defense evoked an image of a Robin Hood character stealing from the Premier League for the benefit of Sky TV-deprived local communities.

That went as well as could be expected, especially in light of the defendant’s previous convictions for fraud. That the piracy offenses took place while the Edge was on license following a three-year sentence for dealing cocaine, didn’t help much either. In that context, none of which was mentioned in the press release , the 40-month sentence handed down by the court doesn’t sound especially excessive.

Edge’s biggest mistake, however, was thumbing his nose at the Premier League. After takedown notices removed adverts for his service from Facebook and Instagram, he simply put them back up. Two years later, after signing a cease-and-desist order, Edge posted on social media that he would carry on regardless; he then went on to ignore multiple additional warnings.

Monitoring for compliance on home soil is trivial for the Premier League, but when similar understandings may have been breached in less predictable jurisdictions thousands of miles away, that brings a new set of challenges.

Notorious Markets: beIN / Miramax Submission

Previously the target of state-sponsored piracy as part of a wider diplomatic conflict, Qatar-based broadcaster beIN now faces similar piracy threats as its competitors. The same holds true for Miramax, the film and TV company 51% owned by beIN.

Every year the companies team up in a joint submission to the USTR’s review of notorious markets, outlining what they believe are the most serious piracy threats. What caught our eye in the submission’s browser-based streaming section is the number of sites that have faced enforcement action but through various means are effectively still in business.

WeCima

MyCima was once one of the largest pirate sites in the Middle East. The operation, which was purportedly operated from Alexandria, boasted over 50 million monthly visits and offered 12,000 movies and 26,000 TV shows. Reportedly taken down in February 2023, less than a month later there were already clear signs of a revival or resurrection, maybe even some kind of rebirth, under the brand ‘WeCima’.

“Although MyCima was reportedly taken down by actions initiated by the Alliance for Creativity and Entertainment (ACE) in February 2023, WeCima, a mirror version of MyCima with same content offered, was set up shortly after. It is already recording more than 18 million monthly visits,” the submission notes.

Platforms like MyCima and WeCima use various strategies to stay online, including the use of up to hundreds of domains. The ‘cima’ domains shown below are now under the control of the MPA, which effectively puts them out of action. Under what terms control changed is unknown but it most commonly happens via some sort of agreement.

The USTR submission states that WeCima also uses multiple domains to stay online.

“Apparently as a strategy to evade further enforcement actions, several WeCima domains and subdomains (wecima.click, wecima.co, mycima.wecima.watch, wecima.icu and many more) are continuously registered pointing at WeCima.cam,” it reads.

Shahid4u and Laroza

Further action in Egypt last September led to the reported shutdown of Laroza and the arrests of two alleged operators. Laroza was reportedly the largest pirate site in the Middle East and North Africa.

“Laroza is one of the oldest and most popular pirate websites in the Middle East and has a vast library of Arabic and international movies and series. Despite Laroza [being] reportedly taken down by actions taken by rightsowners in September 2024, new copycat domains have appeared online with the most significant being www.larozaa.net,” the report notes.

“Laroza’s operators have implemented an effective URL redirection strategy with redirections to multiple subdomains and TLD extensions applied daily or every other day. Some of their numerous domains used by the Laroza website are larona.one, laroza.vip, laroza.net, laroza.cam, laroza.tv, laroza.sbs among others. This strategy appears designed to circumvent enforcement and other disruption action taken by rights owners.”

A similar situation surrounds Shahid4u, which was taken down by ACE and Egyptian authorities in February 2023.

“Despite its closure, many copycat websites quickly surfaced. As of this writing, one of the prominent replacements is the domain www.shahid4u.my, which continues to operate alongside other similar domains such as shahid4u.watch, shahid4u.to, shahiid4u.cam, and shahid4u.diy.”

Whether the sites causing issues for beIN and Miramax are run by the same operators, their affiliates, or unconnected third parties, is difficult to prove. That being said, the speed at which they reappear in various forms suggests at least some preparation and does little to dampen suspicion.

To most users of these sites, if they look and perform as they used to, nothing else really matters. Whether that will have an impact on any deterrent effect intended by similar enforcement actions remains to be seen.

And Finally

Popular live sports streaming platform Freestreams-live was targeted by none other than Homeland Security Investigations during the FIFA World Cup in 2022. Pursuant to a warrant issued by the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, US law enforcement seized freestreams-live1.com , at the time the site’s main domain.

After what appeared to be an effortless recovery, the site went on to deploy freestreams-live.ga and variants using the extensions .me, .im, .se, .top, .tv, and .nu. The submission notes that despite only being registered in April 2024, freestreams-live.my generated 11.8 million visits in August. Perhaps the seizure of a single domain should be viewed as symbolic of general intent rather than in any way effective.

The beIN and Miramax submission to the USTR is available here

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

A man who previously admitted selling pirate TV devices recently appeared at Liverpool Crown Court for sentencing.

Hoping for leniency on three counts of fraud, Jonathan Edge’s defense evoked an image of a Robin Hood character stealing from the Premier League for the benefit of Sky TV-deprived local communities.

That went as well as could be expected, especially in light of the defendant’s previous convictions for fraud. That the piracy offenses took place while the Edge was on license following a three-year sentence for dealing cocaine, didn’t help much either. In that context, none of which was mentioned in the press release , the 40-month sentence handed down by the court doesn’t sound especially excessive.

Edge’s biggest mistake, however, was thumbing his nose at the Premier League. After takedown notices removed adverts for his service from Facebook and Instagram, he simply put them back up. Two years later, after signing a cease-and-desist order, Edge posted on social media that he would carry on regardless; he then went on to ignore multiple additional warnings.

Monitoring for compliance on home soil is trivial for the Premier League, but when similar understandings may have been breached in less predictable jurisdictions thousands of miles away, that brings a new set of challenges.

Notorious Markets: beIN / Miramax Submission

Previously the target of state-sponsored piracy as part of a wider diplomatic conflict, Qatar-based broadcaster beIN now faces similar piracy threats as its competitors. The same holds true for Miramax, the film and TV company 51% owned by beIN.

Every year the companies team up in a joint submission to the USTR’s review of notorious markets, outlining what they believe are the most serious piracy threats. What caught our eye in the submission’s browser-based streaming section is the number of sites that have faced enforcement action but through various means are effectively still in business.

WeCima

MyCima was once one of the largest pirate sites in the Middle East. The operation, which was purportedly operated from Alexandria, boasted over 50 million monthly visits and offered 12,000 movies and 26,000 TV shows. Reportedly taken down in February 2023, less than a month later there were already clear signs of a revival or resurrection, maybe even some kind of rebirth, under the brand ‘WeCima’.

“Although MyCima was reportedly taken down by actions initiated by the Alliance for Creativity and Entertainment (ACE) in February 2023, WeCima, a mirror version of MyCima with same content offered, was set up shortly after. It is already recording more than 18 million monthly visits,” the submission notes.

Platforms like MyCima and WeCima use various strategies to stay online, including the use of up to hundreds of domains. The ‘cima’ domains shown below are now under the control of the MPA, which effectively puts them out of action. Under what terms control changed is unknown but it most commonly happens via some sort of agreement.

The USTR submission states that WeCima also uses multiple domains to stay online.

“Apparently as a strategy to evade further enforcement actions, several WeCima domains and subdomains (wecima.click, wecima.co, mycima.wecima.watch, wecima.icu and many more) are continuously registered pointing at WeCima.cam,” it reads.

Shahid4u and Laroza

Further action in Egypt last September led to the reported shutdown of Laroza and the arrests of two alleged operators. Laroza was reportedly the largest pirate site in the Middle East and North Africa.

“Laroza is one of the oldest and most popular pirate websites in the Middle East and has a vast library of Arabic and international movies and series. Despite Laroza [being] reportedly taken down by actions taken by rightsowners in September 2024, new copycat domains have appeared online with the most significant being www.larozaa.net,” the report notes.

“Laroza’s operators have implemented an effective URL redirection strategy with redirections to multiple subdomains and TLD extensions applied daily or every other day. Some of their numerous domains used by the Laroza website are larona.one, laroza.vip, laroza.net, laroza.cam, laroza.tv, laroza.sbs among others. This strategy appears designed to circumvent enforcement and other disruption action taken by rights owners.”

A similar situation surrounds Shahid4u, which was taken down by ACE and Egyptian authorities in February 2023.

“Despite its closure, many copycat websites quickly surfaced. As of this writing, one of the prominent replacements is the domain www.shahid4u.my, which continues to operate alongside other similar domains such as shahid4u.watch, shahid4u.to, shahiid4u.cam, and shahid4u.diy.”

Whether the sites causing issues for beIN and Miramax are run by the same operators, their affiliates, or unconnected third parties, is difficult to prove. That being said, the speed at which they reappear in various forms suggests at least some preparation and does little to dampen suspicion.

To most users of these sites, if they look and perform as they used to, nothing else really matters. Whether that will have an impact on any deterrent effect intended by similar enforcement actions remains to be seen.

And Finally

Popular live sports streaming platform Freestreams-live was targeted by none other than Homeland Security Investigations during the FIFA World Cup in 2022. Pursuant to a warrant issued by the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, US law enforcement seized freestreams-live1.com , at the time the site’s main domain.

After what appeared to be an effortless recovery, the site went on to deploy freestreams-live.ga and variants using the extensions .me, .im, .se, .top, .tv, and .nu. The submission notes that despite only being registered in April 2024, freestreams-live.my generated 11.8 million visits in August. Perhaps the seizure of a single domain should be viewed as symbolic of general intent rather than in any way effective.

The beIN and Miramax submission to the USTR is available here

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

A man who previously admitted selling pirate TV devices recently appeared at Liverpool Crown Court for sentencing.

Hoping for leniency on three counts of fraud, Jonathan Edge’s defense evoked an image of a Robin Hood character stealing from the Premier League for the benefit of Sky TV-deprived local communities.

That went as well as could be expected, especially in light of the defendant’s previous convictions for fraud. That the piracy offenses took place while the Edge was on license following a three-year sentence for dealing cocaine, didn’t help much either. In that context, none of which was mentioned in the press release , the 40-month sentence handed down by the court doesn’t sound especially excessive.

Edge’s biggest mistake, however, was thumbing his nose at the Premier League. After takedown notices removed adverts for his service from Facebook and Instagram, he simply put them back up. Two years later, after signing a cease-and-desist order, Edge posted on social media that he would carry on regardless; he then went on to ignore multiple additional warnings.

Monitoring for compliance on home soil is trivial for the Premier League, but when similar understandings may have been breached in less predictable jurisdictions thousands of miles away, that brings a new set of challenges.

Notorious Markets: beIN / Miramax Submission

Previously the target of state-sponsored piracy as part of a wider diplomatic conflict, Qatar-based broadcaster beIN now faces similar piracy threats as its competitors. The same holds true for Miramax, the film and TV company 51% owned by beIN.

Every year the companies team up in a joint submission to the USTR’s review of notorious markets, outlining what they believe are the most serious piracy threats. What caught our eye in the submission’s browser-based streaming section is the number of sites that have faced enforcement action but through various means are effectively still in business.

WeCima

MyCima was once one of the largest pirate sites in the Middle East. The operation, which was purportedly operated from Alexandria, boasted over 50 million monthly visits and offered 12,000 movies and 26,000 TV shows. Reportedly taken down in February 2023, less than a month later there were already clear signs of a revival or resurrection, maybe even some kind of rebirth, under the brand ‘WeCima’.

“Although MyCima was reportedly taken down by actions initiated by the Alliance for Creativity and Entertainment (ACE) in February 2023, WeCima, a mirror version of MyCima with same content offered, was set up shortly after. It is already recording more than 18 million monthly visits,” the submission notes.

Platforms like MyCima and WeCima use various strategies to stay online, including the use of up to hundreds of domains. The ‘cima’ domains shown below are now under the control of the MPA, which effectively puts them out of action. Under what terms control changed is unknown but it most commonly happens via some sort of agreement.

The USTR submission states that WeCima also uses multiple domains to stay online.

“Apparently as a strategy to evade further enforcement actions, several WeCima domains and subdomains (wecima.click, wecima.co, mycima.wecima.watch, wecima.icu and many more) are continuously registered pointing at WeCima.cam,” it reads.

Shahid4u and Laroza

Further action in Egypt last September led to the reported shutdown of Laroza and the arrests of two alleged operators. Laroza was reportedly the largest pirate site in the Middle East and North Africa.

“Laroza is one of the oldest and most popular pirate websites in the Middle East and has a vast library of Arabic and international movies and series. Despite Laroza [being] reportedly taken down by actions taken by rightsowners in September 2024, new copycat domains have appeared online with the most significant being www.larozaa.net,” the report notes.

“Laroza’s operators have implemented an effective URL redirection strategy with redirections to multiple subdomains and TLD extensions applied daily or every other day. Some of their numerous domains used by the Laroza website are larona.one, laroza.vip, laroza.net, laroza.cam, laroza.tv, laroza.sbs among others. This strategy appears designed to circumvent enforcement and other disruption action taken by rights owners.”

A similar situation surrounds Shahid4u, which was taken down by ACE and Egyptian authorities in February 2023.

“Despite its closure, many copycat websites quickly surfaced. As of this writing, one of the prominent replacements is the domain www.shahid4u.my, which continues to operate alongside other similar domains such as shahid4u.watch, shahid4u.to, shahiid4u.cam, and shahid4u.diy.”

Whether the sites causing issues for beIN and Miramax are run by the same operators, their affiliates, or unconnected third parties, is difficult to prove. That being said, the speed at which they reappear in various forms suggests at least some preparation and does little to dampen suspicion.

To most users of these sites, if they look and perform as they used to, nothing else really matters. Whether that will have an impact on any deterrent effect intended by similar enforcement actions remains to be seen.

And Finally

Popular live sports streaming platform Freestreams-live was targeted by none other than Homeland Security Investigations during the FIFA World Cup in 2022. Pursuant to a warrant issued by the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, US law enforcement seized freestreams-live1.com , at the time the site’s main domain.

After what appeared to be an effortless recovery, the site went on to deploy freestreams-live.ga and variants using the extensions .me, .im, .se, .top, .tv, and .nu. The submission notes that despite only being registered in April 2024, freestreams-live.my generated 11.8 million visits in August. Perhaps the seizure of a single domain should be viewed as symbolic of general intent rather than in any way effective.

The beIN and Miramax submission to the USTR is available here

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

In May, the Paris Judicial Court ordered Google, Cloudflare, and Cisco to block access to several pirate websites by poisoning their DNS .

The order, issued under Article L.333-10 of the French Sports Code, compelled the tech giants to prevent users from accessing unauthorized streams of Champions League and Premier League matches.

Applicant Canal+ argued that the alternative DNS resolvers allowed people to bypass the “regular” blocking measures implemented by internet providers.

The tech companies opposed the measures, characterizing the blocking demands as overbroad. They presented a list of concerns and caveats, none of which convinced the court. A request to postpone the measures pending appeal was also denied.

As a result, Google and Cloudflare both implemented DNS poisoning measures in France. Cisco’s OpenDNS service, meanwhile, decided to leave France altogether , impacting all users of its service in the country.

The initial blocking efforts targeted a few dozen pirate sports streaming domains, including Footybite, Hesgoal, and Livekoora. While the additional DNS blocking order made it harder to access these sites, many other pirate sites remained accessible.

DNS Poisoning Spreads

To patch these holes, Canal+ returned to court multiple times in recent weeks, securing multiple DNS blocking orders that add many other pirate streaming domains to the blocklist.

This follow-up action initially went unreported, but Cloudflare recently uploaded three Paris Judicial Court orders to the Lumen Database to provide more transparency. These orders show that once successful, Canal+ continued to expand the scope of the blocking.

In September, the court granted Canal+’s blocking request for 15 domain names, including livetv.lol, sporttune.com, and crvsport.ru. These sites offered access to Formula 1 streams without permission.

Once again the court concluded that DNS resolvers are intermediaries that contribute to the illegal streaming activity. As such, they must take action.

At the time the order was published, Cisco’s OpenDNS service had already left France, so no action was required. Cloudflare and Google, on the other hand, were given just three days to comply.

Following the “Formula 1” order, Canal+ requested two additional orders that were granted last month. These targeted dozens of other sports streaming domains, through which pirated Champions League and Premier League matches were available.

These latest orders only target Cloudflare and Google, which were again required to block the domain names within three days.

Tech Companies Defense

Both tech companies presented a defense in court. Among other things, Cloudflare and Google argued that the blocking measures are disproportionate, costly, and ineffective.

There are simpler ways to block access, they noted, pointing out that the measures would not be effective because users could use VPNs or other DNS resolvers to bypass the blocks.

The Paris Court disagreed, insisting that blocking measures are proportionate and necessary. Canal+ could choose the blocking measures it deemed appropriate and the existence of alternative solutions is irrelevant, the court said.

Cloudflare and Cisco further argued that the legal justification for these blockades, Article L. 333-10 of the French Sports Code, does not apply to DNS resolvers. They claimed that they do not provide a “transmission function” and therefore are not “intermediaries” under EU law.

Again, the Paris court disagreed. It asserted that DNS resolvers do play a role in transmitting content and can be considered intermediaries under EU law.

Google also mentioned that some pirate streaming domains are customers of Cloudflare’s CDN service, implying that its fellow defendant could take more proactive measures. However, the court ruled that this wouldn’t relieve DNS providers of their responsibilities.

While Cloudflare and Google must comply with the court orders, they will likely try to overturn the decisions on appeal. According to the tech companies, these orders fragment the global Internet , jeopardizing the trust and integrity of DNS as a core global infrastructure

—

Copies of the three additional DNS blocking order issues by the Paris judicial court are available here ( 1 , 2 , 3 , pdf)

A list of all affected domain names is available below. Some domain names such as livetv807.me, antenasports.ru, and sporttuna.sx, appear in multiple orders.

aliezstream.pro
antenasport.shop
antenasports.ru
antenasports.shop
antenatv.online
antenatv.store
antennasport.ru
aspoitv.shop
livetv802.me
toparena.store
emb.ap1357.me
embx224539.ap1357.me
1qwebplay.xyz
livetv807.me
cdn.livetv807.me
boxtv60.com
infinity-ott.com
vbn123.com
futbolenvivo.ru
centralareana.live
crvspoît.ru
livetv.lol
streameast.buffstream.io
sporttuna.sx
freestreams-live1se.nu
streamonsport.nî
26216.stunserver.net
viwlivehdplay.ru
bestmlb.buffstream.io
1.dlhd.sx
claplivehdplay.ru
sporttuna.com
sporttuna.site
livetv806.me
rojadirectahdenvivo.com
streamsthunder.tv
rojadirectenvivo.me
methstreams.me
antenasports.ru
asportv.shop
toparena.store
lshunter.net
tv1337.buzz
livetv.sx
sporttuna.pro
livetv807.me
embx224539.ap1366.me
cdn.livetv807.me
locatedinfain.com
tvhd.tutvlive.info
stream-24.net
speci4leagle.com
vl.methstreams.me
klubsports.fun
weblivehdplay.ru
buddycenters.shop
olalivehdplay.ru
Iqwebplay.xyz
sporttvls.com
euro2024direct.ru
librarywhispering.com
cdn.livetv808.me
watch.sporttuna.pro
sporttuna.sx
sporttuna.online
lewblivehdplay.ru
viwlivehdplay.ru
r365.city
finytv.com

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

In May, the Paris Judicial Court ordered Google, Cloudflare, and Cisco to block access to several pirate websites by poisoning their DNS .

The order, issued under Article L.333-10 of the French Sports Code, compelled the tech giants to prevent users from accessing unauthorized streams of Champions League and Premier League matches.

Applicant Canal+ argued that the alternative DNS resolvers allowed people to bypass the “regular” blocking measures implemented by internet providers.

The tech companies opposed the measures, characterizing the blocking demands as overbroad. They presented a list of concerns and caveats, none of which convinced the court. A request to postpone the measures pending appeal was also denied.

As a result, Google and Cloudflare both implemented DNS poisoning measures in France. Cisco’s OpenDNS service, meanwhile, decided to leave France altogether , impacting all users of its service in the country.

The initial blocking efforts targeted a few dozen pirate sports streaming domains, including Footybite, Hesgoal, and Livekoora. While the additional DNS blocking order made it harder to access these sites, many other pirate sites remained accessible.

DNS Poisoning Spreads

To patch these holes, Canal+ returned to court multiple times in recent weeks, securing multiple DNS blocking orders that add many other pirate streaming domains to the blocklist.

This follow-up action initially went unreported, but Cloudflare recently uploaded three Paris Judicial Court orders to the Lumen Database to provide more transparency. These orders show that once successful, Canal+ continued to expand the scope of the blocking.

In September, the court granted Canal+’s blocking request for 15 domain names, including livetv.lol, sporttune.com, and crvsport.ru. These sites offered access to Formula 1 streams without permission.

Once again the court concluded that DNS resolvers are intermediaries that contribute to the illegal streaming activity. As such, they must take action.

At the time the order was published, Cisco’s OpenDNS service had already left France, so no action was required. Cloudflare and Google, on the other hand, were given just three days to comply.

Following the “Formula 1” order, Canal+ requested two additional orders that were granted last month. These targeted dozens of other sports streaming domains, through which pirated Champions League and Premier League matches were available.

These latest orders only target Cloudflare and Google, which were again required to block the domain names within three days.

Tech Companies Defense

Both tech companies presented a defense in court. Among other things, Cloudflare and Google argued that the blocking measures are disproportionate, costly, and ineffective.

There are simpler ways to block access, they noted, pointing out that the measures would not be effective because users could use VPNs or other DNS resolvers to bypass the blocks.

The Paris Court disagreed, insisting that blocking measures are proportionate and necessary. Canal+ could choose the blocking measures it deemed appropriate and the existence of alternative solutions is irrelevant, the court said.

Cloudflare and Cisco further argued that the legal justification for these blockades, Article L. 333-10 of the French Sports Code, does not apply to DNS resolvers. They claimed that they do not provide a “transmission function” and therefore are not “intermediaries” under EU law.

Again, the Paris court disagreed. It asserted that DNS resolvers do play a role in transmitting content and can be considered intermediaries under EU law.

Google also mentioned that some pirate streaming domains are customers of Cloudflare’s CDN service, implying that its fellow defendant could take more proactive measures. However, the court ruled that this wouldn’t relieve DNS providers of their responsibilities.

While Cloudflare and Google must comply with the court orders, they will likely try to overturn the decisions on appeal. According to the tech companies, these orders fragment the global Internet , jeopardizing the trust and integrity of DNS as a core global infrastructure

—

Copies of the three additional DNS blocking order issues by the Paris judicial court are available here ( 1 , 2 , 3 , pdf)

A list of all affected domain names is available below. Some domain names such as livetv807.me, antenasports.ru, and sporttuna.sx, appear in multiple orders.

aliezstream.pro
antenasport.shop
antenasports.ru
antenasports.shop
antenatv.online
antenatv.store
antennasport.ru
aspoitv.shop
livetv802.me
toparena.store
emb.ap1357.me
embx224539.ap1357.me
1qwebplay.xyz
livetv807.me
cdn.livetv807.me
boxtv60.com
infinity-ott.com
vbn123.com
futbolenvivo.ru
centralareana.live
crvspoît.ru
livetv.lol
streameast.buffstream.io
sporttuna.sx
freestreams-live1se.nu
streamonsport.nî
26216.stunserver.net
viwlivehdplay.ru
bestmlb.buffstream.io
1.dlhd.sx
claplivehdplay.ru
sporttuna.com
sporttuna.site
livetv806.me
rojadirectahdenvivo.com
streamsthunder.tv
rojadirectenvivo.me
methstreams.me
antenasports.ru
asportv.shop
toparena.store
lshunter.net
tv1337.buzz
livetv.sx
sporttuna.pro
livetv807.me
embx224539.ap1366.me
cdn.livetv807.me
locatedinfain.com
tvhd.tutvlive.info
stream-24.net
speci4leagle.com
vl.methstreams.me
klubsports.fun
weblivehdplay.ru
buddycenters.shop
olalivehdplay.ru
Iqwebplay.xyz
sporttvls.com
euro2024direct.ru
librarywhispering.com
cdn.livetv808.me
watch.sporttuna.pro
sporttuna.sx
sporttuna.online
lewblivehdplay.ru
viwlivehdplay.ru
r365.city
finytv.com

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

In May, the Paris Judicial Court ordered Google, Cloudflare, and Cisco to block access to several pirate websites by poisoning their DNS .

The order, issued under Article L.333-10 of the French Sports Code, compelled the tech giants to prevent users from accessing unauthorized streams of Champions League and Premier League matches.

Applicant Canal+ argued that the alternative DNS resolvers allowed people to bypass the “regular” blocking measures implemented by internet providers.

The tech companies opposed the measures, characterizing the blocking demands as overbroad. They presented a list of concerns and caveats, none of which convinced the court. A request to postpone the measures pending appeal was also denied.

As a result, Google and Cloudflare both implemented DNS poisoning measures in France. Cisco’s OpenDNS service, meanwhile, decided to leave France altogether , impacting all users of its service in the country.

The initial blocking efforts targeted a few dozen pirate sports streaming domains, including Footybite, Hesgoal, and Livekoora. While the additional DNS blocking order made it harder to access these sites, many other pirate sites remained accessible.

DNS Poisoning Spreads

To patch these holes, Canal+ returned to court multiple times in recent weeks, securing multiple DNS blocking orders that add many other pirate streaming domains to the blocklist.

This follow-up action initially went unreported, but Cloudflare recently uploaded three Paris Judicial Court orders to the Lumen Database to provide more transparency. These orders show that once successful, Canal+ continued to expand the scope of the blocking.

In September, the court granted Canal+’s blocking request for 15 domain names, including livetv.lol, sporttune.com, and crvsport.ru. These sites offered access to Formula 1 streams without permission.

Once again the court concluded that DNS resolvers are intermediaries that contribute to the illegal streaming activity. As such, they must take action.

At the time the order was published, Cisco’s OpenDNS service had already left France, so no action was required. Cloudflare and Google, on the other hand, were given just three days to comply.

Following the “Formula 1” order, Canal+ requested two additional orders that were granted last month. These targeted dozens of other sports streaming domains, through which pirated Champions League and Premier League matches were available.

These latest orders only target Cloudflare and Google, which were again required to block the domain names within three days.

Tech Companies Defense

Both tech companies presented a defense in court. Among other things, Cloudflare and Google argued that the blocking measures are disproportionate, costly, and ineffective.

There are simpler ways to block access, they noted, pointing out that the measures would not be effective because users could use VPNs or other DNS resolvers to bypass the blocks.

The Paris Court disagreed, insisting that blocking measures are proportionate and necessary. Canal+ could choose the blocking measures it deemed appropriate and the existence of alternative solutions is irrelevant, the court said.

Cloudflare and Cisco further argued that the legal justification for these blockades, Article L. 333-10 of the French Sports Code, does not apply to DNS resolvers. They claimed that they do not provide a “transmission function” and therefore are not “intermediaries” under EU law.

Again, the Paris court disagreed. It asserted that DNS resolvers do play a role in transmitting content and can be considered intermediaries under EU law.

Google also mentioned that some pirate streaming domains are customers of Cloudflare’s CDN service, implying that its fellow defendant could take more proactive measures. However, the court ruled that this wouldn’t relieve DNS providers of their responsibilities.

While Cloudflare and Google must comply with the court orders, they will likely try to overturn the decisions on appeal. According to the tech companies, these orders fragment the global Internet , jeopardizing the trust and integrity of DNS as a core global infrastructure

—

Copies of the three additional DNS blocking order issues by the Paris judicial court are available here ( 1 , 2 , 3 , pdf)

A list of all affected domain names is available below. Some domain names such as livetv807.me, antenasports.ru, and sporttuna.sx, appear in multiple orders.

aliezstream.pro
antenasport.shop
antenasports.ru
antenasports.shop
antenatv.online
antenatv.store
antennasport.ru
aspoitv.shop
livetv802.me
toparena.store
emb.ap1357.me
embx224539.ap1357.me
1qwebplay.xyz
livetv807.me
cdn.livetv807.me
boxtv60.com
infinity-ott.com
vbn123.com
futbolenvivo.ru
centralareana.live
crvspoît.ru
livetv.lol
streameast.buffstream.io
sporttuna.sx
freestreams-live1se.nu
streamonsport.nî
26216.stunserver.net
viwlivehdplay.ru
bestmlb.buffstream.io
1.dlhd.sx
claplivehdplay.ru
sporttuna.com
sporttuna.site
livetv806.me
rojadirectahdenvivo.com
streamsthunder.tv
rojadirectenvivo.me
methstreams.me
antenasports.ru
asportv.shop
toparena.store
lshunter.net
tv1337.buzz
livetv.sx
sporttuna.pro
livetv807.me
embx224539.ap1366.me
cdn.livetv807.me
locatedinfain.com
tvhd.tutvlive.info
stream-24.net
speci4leagle.com
vl.methstreams.me
klubsports.fun
weblivehdplay.ru
buddycenters.shop
olalivehdplay.ru
Iqwebplay.xyz
sporttvls.com
euro2024direct.ru
librarywhispering.com
cdn.livetv808.me
watch.sporttuna.pro
sporttuna.sx
sporttuna.online
lewblivehdplay.ru
viwlivehdplay.ru
r365.city
finytv.com

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