In a legal dispute now at the U.S. Supreme Court, the world’s leading record labels and Cox Communications disagree on many things, including how to respond to online piracy.

The labels’ preferred solution is to sever subscribers’ access to the internet. Cox believes that denying internet access is excessive. The case is much more complex than that as the venue suggests, but one aspect seems clearer when viewed in its own light.

When a person gets caught pirating music online, should everyone in their household be denied access to banking, health care, education, and everything else people need to simply exist? Is collective punishment the right way to satisfy a commercial dispute, between a record company and an ISP, over alleged activity of which the family likely had zero knowledge, and were never in a position to control or prevent?

Collective Punishment, Every Single Week

The proposition above sounds fundamentally unfair, because punishing innocent people is always unfair. Billions of people understand and respect the principle of individual responsibility and violations are quite rightly viewed with contempt.

Yet, some will argue that life is full of unfairness. Inconvenience for a few people is inevitable when solving important copyright disputes involving a lot more money than most people have ever seen.

In Spain, an important copyright dispute and accompanying site-blocking order certainly don’t authorize collective punishment on an unprecedented level. Yet, for several hours, several times each week, local ISPs now block hundreds of Cloudflare IP addresses to prevent access to unidentified pirate streaming services run by unidentified people.

There’s no discrimination; ISP’s deploy blocking measures that affect their own customers, denying access to websites using Cloudflare’s services and any others that also happen to be blocked.

There appears to be no warning and little transparency. ISPs never inform customers of incoming blocking, and it’s not uncommon for questions about suspected blocking to be brushed aside or simply ignored. Fingers invariably point to an unspecified court order, obtained by an unspecified entity, on unspecified grounds. As a solution to their current access problems, the information is totally useless to any customer.

The Blocking of NO-IP’s Dynamic DNS

For well over a week, users in Spain have been reporting problems with ddns.net, a dynamic DNS service offered for free by NOIP.com . DDNS.net and similar services offer a solution to an issue affecting anyone with an IP address that periodically changes.

When not at home, for example, gaining access to CCTV cameras might suddenly prove impossible when an ISP allocates a new IP address. Using a service like DDNS.net allows users to associate their IP address with a DDNS.NET subdomain (examplemyaddress@ddns.net) with future IP address updates handled automatically.

Not only are services like these useful, some routers have them built in, so people may be using and benefiting from them without even knowing.

Some users recognized the problem immediately, and with records showing almost 350,000 URLs associated with the ddns.net domain, there’s plenty of scope for disruption.

The above post on X is a fairly typical report with some useful additional detail. It mentions an ISP called Digi, which, instead of returning the correct IP address associated with the user’s DDNS.net subdomain, points it to the 127.0.0.1 loopback address that refers to the user’s current device.

A follow-up post by the same user a day later reveals that blocking actually began on October 8, and despite requesting information from Digi, no explanation had been forthcoming. Another user affected by the issue eventually received a response earlier this week.

While a court order was confirmed as the root issue, refusal to elaborate any further isn’t just common; it’s the standard across all ISPs in Spain. To our knowledge, blocking orders to date haven’t carried any non-disclosure conditions, so in most cases, there’s no legal reason underpinning the lack of transparency.

DDNS.net is Definitely Subject to Blocking

Confirmation that Digi continues to block at the time of writing is available via the unofficial third-party blocking transparency portal hayahora.futbol .

Current information shows that Digi continues to block the service, but details reported elsewhere show that this wasn’t a lone action.

Local reports state that Movistar displayed Error 451 (Unavailable for Legal Reasons), MásOrange displayed the message “Content blocked at the request of the Competent Authority, communicated to this Operator,” while Vodafone said it could do nothing about the outage: “For reasons beyond Vodafone’s control, this website is unavailable.”

Alone in the Dark

The lack of transparency is pervasive, and the indifference to the problems experienced by subscribers all over Spain is evident every week. People with zero connection to any of the parties involved in blocking disputes continually pay the price, wasting hours finding workarounds to bypass deliberate network blockages that, for no good reason, are shrouded in secrecy.

A user who could no longer access his server using Wireguard reported the problems to his ISP, Digi, on October 13. He was informed that, having looked into it, no issues could be found. That led to an entire thread of potential solutions, including replacing the ISP’s DNS with another service and replacing DDNS.net with a similar service operated by DuckDuckGo.

Consolation: Could’ve Been Significantly Worse

Tests suggest that the blocking efforts target the DDNS.net domain, but how far the damage goes in respect of subdomains is difficult to determine by users of non-blocking ISPs.

Digi operates at least two public DNS servers, but remote tests yielded no useful information. Fortunately, domain blocking doesn’t appear to be accompanied by IP address blocking, at least in this case. DDNS.net has thousands of subdomains, but if its IP address had been targeted too, the exponential scale of the fallout could’ve been extraordinary.

The situation in Spain has no parallel in Europe. Blocking is expanding elsewhere, including in the UK, most recently to protect a company behind several well-known weight loss drugs. However, avoidable collateral damage on this scale has never happened.

That it takes place in a member state of the increasingly heavily regulated European Union remains completely unfathomable.

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

In a legal dispute now at the U.S. Supreme Court, the world’s leading record labels and Cox Communications disagree on many things, including how to respond to online piracy.

The labels’ preferred solution is to sever subscribers’ access to the internet. Cox believes that denying internet access is excessive. The case is much more complex than that as the venue suggests, but one aspect seems clearer when viewed in its own light.

When a person gets caught pirating music online, should everyone in their household be denied access to banking, health care, education, and everything else people need to simply exist? Is collective punishment the right way to satisfy a commercial dispute, between a record company and an ISP, over alleged activity of which the family likely had zero knowledge, and were never in a position to control or prevent?

Collective Punishment, Every Single Week

The proposition above sounds fundamentally unfair, because punishing innocent people is always unfair. Billions of people understand and respect the principle of individual responsibility and violations are quite rightly viewed with contempt.

Yet, some will argue that life is full of unfairness. Inconvenience for a few people is inevitable when solving important copyright disputes involving a lot more money than most people have ever seen.

In Spain, an important copyright dispute and accompanying site-blocking order certainly don’t authorize collective punishment on an unprecedented level. Yet, for several hours, several times each week, local ISPs now block hundreds of Cloudflare IP addresses to prevent access to unidentified pirate streaming services run by unidentified people.

There’s no discrimination; ISP’s deploy blocking measures that affect their own customers, denying access to websites using Cloudflare’s services and any others that also happen to be blocked.

There appears to be no warning and little transparency. ISPs never inform customers of incoming blocking, and it’s not uncommon for questions about suspected blocking to be brushed aside or simply ignored. Fingers invariably point to an unspecified court order, obtained by an unspecified entity, on unspecified grounds. As a solution to their current access problems, the information is totally useless to any customer.

The Blocking of NO-IP’s Dynamic DNS

For well over a week, users in Spain have been reporting problems with ddns.net, a dynamic DNS service offered for free by NOIP.com . DDNS.net and similar services offer a solution to an issue affecting anyone with an IP address that periodically changes.

When not at home, for example, gaining access to CCTV cameras might suddenly prove impossible when an ISP allocates a new IP address. Using a service like DDNS.net allows users to associate their IP address with a DDNS.NET subdomain (examplemyaddress@ddns.net) with future IP address updates handled automatically.

Not only are services like these useful, some routers have them built in, so people may be using and benefiting from them without even knowing.

Some users recognized the problem immediately, and with records showing almost 350,000 URLs associated with the ddns.net domain, there’s plenty of scope for disruption.

The above post on X is a fairly typical report with some useful additional detail. It mentions an ISP called Digi, which, instead of returning the correct IP address associated with the user’s DDNS.net subdomain, points it to the 127.0.0.1 loopback address that refers to the user’s current device.

A follow-up post by the same user a day later reveals that blocking actually began on October 8, and despite requesting information from Digi, no explanation had been forthcoming. Another user affected by the issue eventually received a response earlier this week.

While a court order was confirmed as the root issue, refusal to elaborate any further isn’t just common; it’s the standard across all ISPs in Spain. To our knowledge, blocking orders to date haven’t carried any non-disclosure conditions, so in most cases, there’s no legal reason underpinning the lack of transparency.

DDNS.net is Definitely Subject to Blocking

Confirmation that Digi continues to block at the time of writing is available via the unofficial third-party blocking transparency portal hayahora.futbol .

Current information shows that Digi continues to block the service, but details reported elsewhere show that this wasn’t a lone action.

Local reports state that Movistar displayed Error 451 (Unavailable for Legal Reasons), MásOrange displayed the message “Content blocked at the request of the Competent Authority, communicated to this Operator,” while Vodafone said it could do nothing about the outage: “For reasons beyond Vodafone’s control, this website is unavailable.”

Alone in the Dark

The lack of transparency is pervasive, and the indifference to the problems experienced by subscribers all over Spain is evident every week. People with zero connection to any of the parties involved in blocking disputes continually pay the price, wasting hours finding workarounds to bypass deliberate network blockages that, for no good reason, are shrouded in secrecy.

A user who could no longer access his server using Wireguard reported the problems to his ISP, Digi, on October 13. He was informed that, having looked into it, no issues could be found. That led to an entire thread of potential solutions, including replacing the ISP’s DNS with another service and replacing DDNS.net with a similar service operated by DuckDuckGo.

Consolation: Could’ve Been Significantly Worse

Tests suggest that the blocking efforts target the DDNS.net domain, but how far the damage goes in respect of subdomains is difficult to determine by users of non-blocking ISPs.

Digi operates at least two public DNS servers, but remote tests yielded no useful information. Fortunately, domain blocking doesn’t appear to be accompanied by IP address blocking, at least in this case. DDNS.net has thousands of subdomains, but if its IP address had been targeted too, the exponential scale of the fallout could’ve been extraordinary.

The situation in Spain has no parallel in Europe. Blocking is expanding elsewhere, including in the UK, most recently to protect a company behind several well-known weight loss drugs. However, avoidable collateral damage on this scale has never happened.

That it takes place in a member state of the increasingly heavily regulated European Union remains completely unfathomable.

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

In a legal dispute now at the U.S. Supreme Court, the world’s leading record labels and Cox Communications disagree on many things, including how to respond to online piracy.

The labels’ preferred solution is to sever subscribers’ access to the internet. Cox believes that denying internet access is excessive. The case is much more complex than that as the venue suggests, but one aspect seems clearer when viewed in its own light.

When a person gets caught pirating music online, should everyone in their household be denied access to banking, health care, education, and everything else people need to simply exist? Is collective punishment the right way to satisfy a commercial dispute, between a record company and an ISP, over alleged activity of which the family likely had zero knowledge, and were never in a position to control or prevent?

Collective Punishment, Every Single Week

The proposition above sounds fundamentally unfair, because punishing innocent people is always unfair. Billions of people understand and respect the principle of individual responsibility and violations are quite rightly viewed with contempt.

Yet, some will argue that life is full of unfairness. Inconvenience for a few people is inevitable when solving important copyright disputes involving a lot more money than most people have ever seen.

In Spain, an important copyright dispute and accompanying site-blocking order certainly don’t authorize collective punishment on an unprecedented level. Yet, for several hours, several times each week, local ISPs now block hundreds of Cloudflare IP addresses to prevent access to unidentified pirate streaming services run by unidentified people.

There’s no discrimination; ISP’s deploy blocking measures that affect their own customers, denying access to websites using Cloudflare’s services and any others that also happen to be blocked.

There appears to be no warning and little transparency. ISPs never inform customers of incoming blocking, and it’s not uncommon for questions about suspected blocking to be brushed aside or simply ignored. Fingers invariably point to an unspecified court order, obtained by an unspecified entity, on unspecified grounds. As a solution to their current access problems, the information is totally useless to any customer.

The Blocking of NO-IP’s Dynamic DNS

For well over a week, users in Spain have been reporting problems with ddns.net, a dynamic DNS service offered for free by NOIP.com . DDNS.net and similar services offer a solution to an issue affecting anyone with an IP address that periodically changes.

When not at home, for example, gaining access to CCTV cameras might suddenly prove impossible when an ISP allocates a new IP address. Using a service like DDNS.net allows users to associate their IP address with a DDNS.NET subdomain (examplemyaddress@ddns.net) with future IP address updates handled automatically.

Not only are services like these useful, some routers have them built in, so people may be using and benefiting from them without even knowing.

Some users recognized the problem immediately, and with records showing almost 350,000 URLs associated with the ddns.net domain, there’s plenty of scope for disruption.

The above post on X is a fairly typical report with some useful additional detail. It mentions an ISP called Digi, which, instead of returning the correct IP address associated with the user’s DDNS.net subdomain, points it to the 127.0.0.1 loopback address that refers to the user’s current device.

A follow-up post by the same user a day later reveals that blocking actually began on October 8, and despite requesting information from Digi, no explanation had been forthcoming. Another user affected by the issue eventually received a response earlier this week.

While a court order was confirmed as the root issue, refusal to elaborate any further isn’t just common; it’s the standard across all ISPs in Spain. To our knowledge, blocking orders to date haven’t carried any non-disclosure conditions, so in most cases, there’s no legal reason underpinning the lack of transparency.

DDNS.net is Definitely Subject to Blocking

Confirmation that Digi continues to block at the time of writing is available via the unofficial third-party blocking transparency portal hayahora.futbol .

Current information shows that Digi continues to block the service, but details reported elsewhere show that this wasn’t a lone action.

Local reports state that Movistar displayed Error 451 (Unavailable for Legal Reasons), MásOrange displayed the message “Content blocked at the request of the Competent Authority, communicated to this Operator,” while Vodafone said it could do nothing about the outage: “For reasons beyond Vodafone’s control, this website is unavailable.”

Alone in the Dark

The lack of transparency is pervasive, and the indifference to the problems experienced by subscribers all over Spain is evident every week. People with zero connection to any of the parties involved in blocking disputes continually pay the price, wasting hours finding workarounds to bypass deliberate network blockages that, for no good reason, are shrouded in secrecy.

A user who could no longer access his server using Wireguard reported the problems to his ISP, Digi, on October 13. He was informed that, having looked into it, no issues could be found. That led to an entire thread of potential solutions, including replacing the ISP’s DNS with another service and replacing DDNS.net with a similar service operated by DuckDuckGo.

Consolation: Could’ve Been Significantly Worse

Tests suggest that the blocking efforts target the DDNS.net domain, but how far the damage goes in respect of subdomains is difficult to determine by users of non-blocking ISPs.

Digi operates at least two public DNS servers, but remote tests yielded no useful information. Fortunately, domain blocking doesn’t appear to be accompanied by IP address blocking, at least in this case. DDNS.net has thousands of subdomains, but if its IP address had been targeted too, the exponential scale of the fallout could’ve been extraordinary.

The situation in Spain has no parallel in Europe. Blocking is expanding elsewhere, including in the UK, most recently to protect a company behind several well-known weight loss drugs. However, avoidable collateral damage on this scale has never happened.

That it takes place in a member state of the increasingly heavily regulated European Union remains completely unfathomable.

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

Every year, the US Trade Representative ( USTR ) issues an updated overview of “Notorious Markets” that allegedly facilitate copyright infringement.

This review is put together based on recommendations from copyright holders and other interested stakeholders. The ultimate goal of the annual report, which was first released in 2006, is to help combat piracy.

The USTR’s report is meant to highlight economic harm and raise awareness. Ideally, it should urge the affected sites and services to take action or, alternatively, motivate foreign governments to step up.

“In the absence of good faith efforts, responsible government authorities should investigate reports of piracy and counterfeiting in these and similar markets and pursue appropriate action against such markets and their owners and operators,” USTR wrote in its most recent report.

Unfazed Pirate Sites

Ideally, the USTR’s review should help to find solutions for existing concerns. However, after covering the submissions for many years, their repetitive nature stands out most. While new piracy players enter the scene occasionally, many arguments and rebuttals are repeated over and over.

While it is understandable that copyright holders see persistent piracy as a major concern, listing a website such as The Pirate Bay every year for nearly two decades raises questions of effectiveness. At this point, yet another listing seems unlikely to move the needle.

No one appears to be concerned by yet another callout. The Pirate Bay’s operators don’t seem to care, and neither do any of the other services that continue to work with the ‘notorious’ pirate site.

Therefore, we can likely expect The Pirate Bay to be listed again this year, alongside other ‘pirate’ markets that have been featured for more than a decade, including 1337x, Rutracker, Rapidgator, and others. Whether USTR’s clout will help to change the status quo is doubtful.

Accuse, Rebut, Repeat

A more problematic trend in this diplomatic process is the continued standoff between rightsholders and parties they accuse of wrongdoing, resulting in formal challenges over purported mischaracterizations of their business.

For more than a decade, copyright holders have called out U.S. infrastructure company Cloudflare in their recommendations. While the company is not seen as a notorious piracy market directly, it stands accused of helping pirate sites to shield their hosting locations.

The MPA and RIAA are among the rightsholder groups that persistently highlight Cloudflare’s involvement. Despite rebuttals from Cloudflare, the allegations have continued for many years.

In 2016, the California company responded for the first time, noting that these groups present “distorted descriptions” of the services Cloudflare provides. The company further noted that both the MPAA and RIAA use its “trusted notifier” program to obtain information on pirate sites from Cloudflare.

A year later, the process repeated itself during the next notorious markets review. Rightsholders characterized Cloudflare as a key intermediary in the piracy ecosystem, while Cloudflare rebutted their claims.

At the time, Cloudflare highlighted that the MPA and RIAA had essentially repeated the same arguments, to which the company had already provided a response.

“Most surprising is that their comments were basically the same complaints they filed in 2016 and contain the same mistakes and distortions that we pointed out in our rebuttal comments from October 2016. Simply repeating the same mischaracterizations for a second year in a row does not convert them into facts,” Cloudflare noted.

… 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021, 2022, 2023, 2024, and 2025.

The same allegations were made in 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021, 2022, 2023, 2024, and in 2025, not much has changed. Both the MPA and RIAA continue to highlight Cloudflare’s role, without flagging the company as a notorious market directly.

Again, Cloudflare highlights mischaracterizations in recent submissions, while stressing that it provides rightsholders with options to identify hosting locations and the operators of alleged pirate sites.

The company claims that rightsholders are using the USTR notorious markets process as a means to exert pressure on Cloudflare to conduct enforcement beyond legal requirements, which is not what the process is intended for.

“We firmly believe that the continued use of the Notorious Markets process to pressure Cloudflare and other Internet infrastructure companies into taking actions neither expected nor required by U.S. law is both misguided and a misuse of this vital trade tool,” Cloudflare notes.

Anti-Piracy Groundhog Day

This type of back and forth, with no apparent progress, is not unique to Cloudflare. The Computer & Communications Industry Association (CCIA), which represents prominent tech firms including Google, Meta, and Amazon, finds itself in a similar loop.

More than a decade ago , CCIA was particularly concerned with the mention of domain name registrars as Notorious Markets. This later expanded to U.S. tech firms in general , after rightsholders pinpointed the role of Amazon, Facebook, Namecheap, and others in their submissions.

The CCIA states that the Notorious Markets review should not include American companies. The USTR’s Special 301 process does not target local companies, many of which already have extensive anti-piracy policies in place.

These repetitive circular arguments are not limited to U.S. companies. Polish streaming service CDA has also submitted multiple rebuttals. This service has actually been featured as a Motorious Market by the USTR, a description the company vehemently rejects.

Without going into the arguments from both sides, CDA’s most recent rebuttal illustrates the ‘groundhog day’ nature of the process.

“[I]t should be noted MPA has already submitted almost identical statements regarding cda.pl in previous years. This year’s submission of MPA is almost a copy-paste of previously rebutted claims from [2024, 2023, 2022, and 2021],” CDA’s attorney writes.

“Similar allegations have been made by MPA in the comments on the [2020, 2019, and 2018 reviews]. In response to all those letters, my client successfully and extensively rebutted MPA’s claims in letters to the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative.”

High Stakes Standoffs

This decade-long loop of accusations and rebuttals says nothing about the validity of the arguments from either side. However, it is a signal that USTR’s goal to motivate the key players to tackle piracy issues, ideally through cooperation, does not work in these instances.

The USTR does not report any legal findings in its annual reviews, and takes no direct position on the rightsholders’ arguments or their rebuttals. That said, there are also dozens of examples of sites and services shutting down after they appeared on the Notorious Markets list. Whether the Notorious Markets process facilitated those shutdowns isn’t clear, but the USTR’s involvement certainly didn’t hurt.

As Cloudflare pointed out, rightsholders can use the process to exert pressure. And as with all tools, this one can be used for good and bad. Whether that’s the case here depends on who you ask.

—

A copy of Cloudflare’s rebuttal in response to the 2025 Notorious Markets review can be found here (pdf) , CDA’s letter is available here (pdf) , and CCIA’s response is here (pdf) .

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

Every year, the US Trade Representative ( USTR ) issues an updated overview of “Notorious Markets” that allegedly facilitate copyright infringement.

This review is put together based on recommendations from copyright holders and other interested stakeholders. The ultimate goal of the annual report, which was first released in 2006, is to help combat piracy.

The USTR’s report is meant to highlight economic harm and raise awareness. Ideally, it should urge the affected sites and services to take action or, alternatively, motivate foreign governments to step up.

“In the absence of good faith efforts, responsible government authorities should investigate reports of piracy and counterfeiting in these and similar markets and pursue appropriate action against such markets and their owners and operators,” USTR wrote in its most recent report.

Unfazed Pirate Sites

Ideally, the USTR’s review should help to find solutions for existing concerns. However, after covering the submissions for many years, their repetitive nature stands out most. While new piracy players enter the scene occasionally, many arguments and rebuttals are repeated over and over.

While it is understandable that copyright holders see persistent piracy as a major concern, listing a website such as The Pirate Bay every year for nearly two decades raises questions of effectiveness. At this point, yet another listing seems unlikely to move the needle.

No one appears to be concerned by yet another callout. The Pirate Bay’s operators don’t seem to care, and neither do any of the other services that continue to work with the ‘notorious’ pirate site.

Therefore, we can likely expect The Pirate Bay to be listed again this year, alongside other ‘pirate’ markets that have been featured for more than a decade, including 1337x, Rutracker, Rapidgator, and others. Whether USTR’s clout will help to change the status quo is doubtful.

Accuse, Rebut, Repeat

A more problematic trend in this diplomatic process is the continued standoff between rightsholders and parties they accuse of wrongdoing, resulting in formal challenges over purported mischaracterizations of their business.

For more than a decade, copyright holders have called out U.S. infrastructure company Cloudflare in their recommendations. While the company is not seen as a notorious piracy market directly, it stands accused of helping pirate sites to shield their hosting locations.

The MPA and RIAA are among the rightsholder groups that persistently highlight Cloudflare’s involvement. Despite rebuttals from Cloudflare, the allegations have continued for many years.

In 2016, the California company responded for the first time, noting that these groups present “distorted descriptions” of the services Cloudflare provides. The company further noted that both the MPAA and RIAA use its “trusted notifier” program to obtain information on pirate sites from Cloudflare.

A year later, the process repeated itself during the next notorious markets review. Rightsholders characterized Cloudflare as a key intermediary in the piracy ecosystem, while Cloudflare rebutted their claims.

At the time, Cloudflare highlighted that the MPA and RIAA had essentially repeated the same arguments, to which the company had already provided a response.

“Most surprising is that their comments were basically the same complaints they filed in 2016 and contain the same mistakes and distortions that we pointed out in our rebuttal comments from October 2016. Simply repeating the same mischaracterizations for a second year in a row does not convert them into facts,” Cloudflare noted.

… 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021, 2022, 2023, 2024, and 2025.

The same allegations were made in 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021, 2022, 2023, 2024, and in 2025, not much has changed. Both the MPA and RIAA continue to highlight Cloudflare’s role, without flagging the company as a notorious market directly.

Again, Cloudflare highlights mischaracterizations in recent submissions, while stressing that it provides rightsholders with options to identify hosting locations and the operators of alleged pirate sites.

The company claims that rightsholders are using the USTR notorious markets process as a means to exert pressure on Cloudflare to conduct enforcement beyond legal requirements, which is not what the process is intended for.

“We firmly believe that the continued use of the Notorious Markets process to pressure Cloudflare and other Internet infrastructure companies into taking actions neither expected nor required by U.S. law is both misguided and a misuse of this vital trade tool,” Cloudflare notes.

Anti-Piracy Groundhog Day

This type of back and forth, with no apparent progress, is not unique to Cloudflare. The Computer & Communications Industry Association (CCIA), which represents prominent tech firms including Google, Meta, and Amazon, finds itself in a similar loop.

More than a decade ago , CCIA was particularly concerned with the mention of domain name registrars as Notorious Markets. This later expanded to U.S. tech firms in general , after rightsholders pinpointed the role of Amazon, Facebook, Namecheap, and others in their submissions.

The CCIA states that the Notorious Markets review should not include American companies. The USTR’s Special 301 process does not target local companies, many of which already have extensive anti-piracy policies in place.

These repetitive circular arguments are not limited to U.S. companies. Polish streaming service CDA has also submitted multiple rebuttals. This service has actually been featured as a Motorious Market by the USTR, a description the company vehemently rejects.

Without going into the arguments from both sides, CDA’s most recent rebuttal illustrates the ‘groundhog day’ nature of the process.

“[I]t should be noted MPA has already submitted almost identical statements regarding cda.pl in previous years. This year’s submission of MPA is almost a copy-paste of previously rebutted claims from [2024, 2023, 2022, and 2021],” CDA’s attorney writes.

“Similar allegations have been made by MPA in the comments on the [2020, 2019, and 2018 reviews]. In response to all those letters, my client successfully and extensively rebutted MPA’s claims in letters to the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative.”

High Stakes Standoffs

This decade-long loop of accusations and rebuttals says nothing about the validity of the arguments from either side. However, it is a signal that USTR’s goal to motivate the key players to tackle piracy issues, ideally through cooperation, does not work in these instances.

The USTR does not report any legal findings in its annual reviews, and takes no direct position on the rightsholders’ arguments or their rebuttals. That said, there are also dozens of examples of sites and services shutting down after they appeared on the Notorious Markets list. Whether the Notorious Markets process facilitated those shutdowns isn’t clear, but the USTR’s involvement certainly didn’t hurt.

As Cloudflare pointed out, rightsholders can use the process to exert pressure. And as with all tools, this one can be used for good and bad. Whether that’s the case here depends on who you ask.

—

A copy of Cloudflare’s rebuttal in response to the 2025 Notorious Markets review can be found here (pdf) , CDA’s letter is available here (pdf) , and CCIA’s response is here (pdf) .

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

Every year, the US Trade Representative ( USTR ) issues an updated overview of “Notorious Markets” that allegedly facilitate copyright infringement.

This review is put together based on recommendations from copyright holders and other interested stakeholders. The ultimate goal of the annual report, which was first released in 2006, is to help combat piracy.

The USTR’s report is meant to highlight economic harm and raise awareness. Ideally, it should urge the affected sites and services to take action or, alternatively, motivate foreign governments to step up.

“In the absence of good faith efforts, responsible government authorities should investigate reports of piracy and counterfeiting in these and similar markets and pursue appropriate action against such markets and their owners and operators,” USTR wrote in its most recent report.

Unfazed Pirate Sites

Ideally, the USTR’s review should help to find solutions for existing concerns. However, after covering the submissions for many years, their repetitive nature stands out most. While new piracy players enter the scene occasionally, many arguments and rebuttals are repeated over and over.

While it is understandable that copyright holders see persistent piracy as a major concern, listing a website such as The Pirate Bay every year for nearly two decades raises questions of effectiveness. At this point, yet another listing seems unlikely to move the needle.

No one appears to be concerned by yet another callout. The Pirate Bay’s operators don’t seem to care, and neither do any of the other services that continue to work with the ‘notorious’ pirate site.

Therefore, we can likely expect The Pirate Bay to be listed again this year, alongside other ‘pirate’ markets that have been featured for more than a decade, including 1337x, Rutracker, Rapidgator, and others. Whether USTR’s clout will help to change the status quo is doubtful.

Accuse, Rebut, Repeat

A more problematic trend in this diplomatic process is the continued standoff between rightsholders and parties they accuse of wrongdoing, resulting in formal challenges over purported mischaracterizations of their business.

For more than a decade, copyright holders have called out U.S. infrastructure company Cloudflare in their recommendations. While the company is not seen as a notorious piracy market directly, it stands accused of helping pirate sites to shield their hosting locations.

The MPA and RIAA are among the rightsholder groups that persistently highlight Cloudflare’s involvement. Despite rebuttals from Cloudflare, the allegations have continued for many years.

In 2016, the California company responded for the first time, noting that these groups present “distorted descriptions” of the services Cloudflare provides. The company further noted that both the MPAA and RIAA use its “trusted notifier” program to obtain information on pirate sites from Cloudflare.

A year later, the process repeated itself during the next notorious markets review. Rightsholders characterized Cloudflare as a key intermediary in the piracy ecosystem, while Cloudflare rebutted their claims.

At the time, Cloudflare highlighted that the MPA and RIAA had essentially repeated the same arguments, to which the company had already provided a response.

“Most surprising is that their comments were basically the same complaints they filed in 2016 and contain the same mistakes and distortions that we pointed out in our rebuttal comments from October 2016. Simply repeating the same mischaracterizations for a second year in a row does not convert them into facts,” Cloudflare noted.

… 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021, 2022, 2023, 2024, and 2025.

The same allegations were made in 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021, 2022, 2023, 2024, and in 2025, not much has changed. Both the MPA and RIAA continue to highlight Cloudflare’s role, without flagging the company as a notorious market directly.

Again, Cloudflare highlights mischaracterizations in recent submissions, while stressing that it provides rightsholders with options to identify hosting locations and the operators of alleged pirate sites.

The company claims that rightsholders are using the USTR notorious markets process as a means to exert pressure on Cloudflare to conduct enforcement beyond legal requirements, which is not what the process is intended for.

“We firmly believe that the continued use of the Notorious Markets process to pressure Cloudflare and other Internet infrastructure companies into taking actions neither expected nor required by U.S. law is both misguided and a misuse of this vital trade tool,” Cloudflare notes.

Anti-Piracy Groundhog Day

This type of back and forth, with no apparent progress, is not unique to Cloudflare. The Computer & Communications Industry Association (CCIA), which represents prominent tech firms including Google, Meta, and Amazon, finds itself in a similar loop.

More than a decade ago , CCIA was particularly concerned with the mention of domain name registrars as Notorious Markets. This later expanded to U.S. tech firms in general , after rightsholders pinpointed the role of Amazon, Facebook, Namecheap, and others in their submissions.

The CCIA states that the Notorious Markets review should not include American companies. The USTR’s Special 301 process does not target local companies, many of which already have extensive anti-piracy policies in place.

These repetitive circular arguments are not limited to U.S. companies. Polish streaming service CDA has also submitted multiple rebuttals. This service has actually been featured as a Motorious Market by the USTR, a description the company vehemently rejects.

Without going into the arguments from both sides, CDA’s most recent rebuttal illustrates the ‘groundhog day’ nature of the process.

“[I]t should be noted MPA has already submitted almost identical statements regarding cda.pl in previous years. This year’s submission of MPA is almost a copy-paste of previously rebutted claims from [2024, 2023, 2022, and 2021],” CDA’s attorney writes.

“Similar allegations have been made by MPA in the comments on the [2020, 2019, and 2018 reviews]. In response to all those letters, my client successfully and extensively rebutted MPA’s claims in letters to the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative.”

High Stakes Standoffs

This decade-long loop of accusations and rebuttals says nothing about the validity of the arguments from either side. However, it is a signal that USTR’s goal to motivate the key players to tackle piracy issues, ideally through cooperation, does not work in these instances.

The USTR does not report any legal findings in its annual reviews, and takes no direct position on the rightsholders’ arguments or their rebuttals. That said, there are also dozens of examples of sites and services shutting down after they appeared on the Notorious Markets list. Whether the Notorious Markets process facilitated those shutdowns isn’t clear, but the USTR’s involvement certainly didn’t hurt.

As Cloudflare pointed out, rightsholders can use the process to exert pressure. And as with all tools, this one can be used for good and bad. Whether that’s the case here depends on who you ask.

—

A copy of Cloudflare’s rebuttal in response to the 2025 Notorious Markets review can be found here (pdf) , CDA’s letter is available here (pdf) , and CCIA’s response is here (pdf) .

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

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

Pay TV provider DISH Network has been at the forefront of these efforts. In April, the company sued then-unknown operators of popular ‘pirate’ streaming services Lemo TV and Kemo IPTV.

Through a lawsuit filed at a federal court in Texas, and various subpoenas to obtain information from hosting providers, domain registrars, payment processors, and social media services, and Google, DISH hoped to identify the operators.

The subpoenas were directed at Lemo TV and Kemo IPTV directly but also targeted some resellers. For example, the Google subpoena requested information related to the Gmail addresses of bestusiptv and 1dollariptv .

While the Texas court approved the subpoena request in July, the underlying lawsuit was suddenly dismissed last week. Having successfully identified the alleged operators of both IPTV providers, plus a US-based reseller, DISH refocused its action elsewhere.

DISH Identifies Lemo/Kemo, also Sues ‘1 Dollar IPTV’

Shortly after the initial lawsuit against Lemo TV and Kemo IPTV was dismissed without context, DISH filed a new complaint at a Florida federal court. This time, it names the alleged operators of the Lemo TV and Kemo IPTV pirate services, as well as one of their U.S.-based resellers: ‘1 Dollar IPTV’.

DISH alleges that the Malaysian company Kemo E Marketing Sdn. Bhd and its sole shareholder, Noorhayati Binti Abdul Rahim, are driving forces behind the Lemo/Kemo operation. Ammar Towir, also from Malaysia, allegedly owns and operates the Lemo/Kemo domains and financial accounts.

The identities of these defendants were presumably obtained with help from the earlier-mentioned subpoenas. This includes 1 Dollar IPTV, which was allegedly operated by Artistry Group LLC, a company based in St. Petersburg, Florida.

Artistry Group was voluntarily dissolved on February 27, 2025, but DISH notes that the company or its successors continue to run 1 Dollar IPTV.

Direct, Contributory, and Vicarious Copyright Infringement

The Malaysian defendants are accused of direct copyright infringement. They allegedly offered access to thousands of live channels and on-demand content through their pirate IPTV service.

“Direct Infringers offer United States Subscribers a 36-hour trial to the Service and sell Service Subscriptions for one device for one month, three months, six months, and one year at prices ranging from $11 to $69,” the complaint reads.

In addition to selling directly to consumers, both services operate reseller programs. This allows third parties to launch their own custom-branded IPTV streaming sites and apps for under $200. Resellers purchase credits for use with their branded services, which they can resell to their own customers at a significant markup.

According to the complaint, Artistry Group’s ‘1 Dollar IPTV’ is one of these resellers. The Florida-based company is accused of contributory and vicarious copyright infringement. According to DISH, the company willfully continued its infringing activities after being notified.

1 Dollar IPTV, which remains online today, advertises itself as the “Best IPTV Service USA”. DISH notes that it sent at least seven infringement notices to the Florida reseller. While the company responded to one notice, the infringing activities allegedly continued.

DISH writes that it sent at least 96 infringement notices to the Lemo/Kemo operators over the years. However, these all remained unanswered. Meanwhile, the operators allegedly switched hosting locations to evade enforcement actions.

$27 Million in Damages

The complaint accuses all defendants of infringing its exclusive rights to “at least” 181 copyrighted works. For these willful infringements, DISH requests the maximum statutory damages of $150,000 per infringed work, for a total of $27.15 million in potential damages.

In addition to the monetary damages, DISH requests a broad permanent injunction to shut the services down. This would include an order to transfer all domain names used in the infringing operations, such as Kemoiptv.io, Lemotv.io, and 1Dollariptv.com.

In addition to this new lawsuit in Florida, DISH previously filed a separate $25 million lawsuit against UK-based hosting provider Innetra. The hosting company allegedly provided the server infrastructure for Lemo/Kemo and other services, while advertising a policy of ignoring DMCA takedown notices.

By targeting the Lemo/Kemo operators directly, suing their U.S.-based resellers, and going after a hosting provider, DISH is trying to cover all bases. For now, however, they have yet to defeat the pirate IPTV operations.

—

A copy of the complaint, filed at the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida, is available here (pdf) .

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

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

Pay TV provider DISH Network has been at the forefront of these efforts. In April, the company sued then-unknown operators of popular ‘pirate’ streaming services Lemo TV and Kemo IPTV.

Through a lawsuit filed at a federal court in Texas, and various subpoenas to obtain information from hosting providers, domain registrars, payment processors, and social media services, and Google, DISH hoped to identify the operators.

The subpoenas were directed at Lemo TV and Kemo IPTV directly but also targeted some resellers. For example, the Google subpoena requested information related to the Gmail addresses of bestusiptv and 1dollariptv .

While the Texas court approved the subpoena request in July, the underlying lawsuit was suddenly dismissed last week. Having successfully identified the alleged operators of both IPTV providers, plus a US-based reseller, DISH refocused its action elsewhere.

DISH Identifies Lemo/Kemo, also Sues ‘1 Dollar IPTV’

Shortly after the initial lawsuit against Lemo TV and Kemo IPTV was dismissed without context, DISH filed a new complaint at a Florida federal court. This time, it names the alleged operators of the Lemo TV and Kemo IPTV pirate services, as well as one of their U.S.-based resellers: ‘1 Dollar IPTV’.

DISH alleges that the Malaysian company Kemo E Marketing Sdn. Bhd and its sole shareholder, Noorhayati Binti Abdul Rahim, are driving forces behind the Lemo/Kemo operation. Ammar Towir, also from Malaysia, allegedly owns and operates the Lemo/Kemo domains and financial accounts.

The identities of these defendants were presumably obtained with help from the earlier-mentioned subpoenas. This includes 1 Dollar IPTV, which was allegedly operated by Artistry Group LLC, a company based in St. Petersburg, Florida.

Artistry Group was voluntarily dissolved on February 27, 2025, but DISH notes that the company or its successors continue to run 1 Dollar IPTV.

Direct, Contributory, and Vicarious Copyright Infringement

The Malaysian defendants are accused of direct copyright infringement. They allegedly offered access to thousands of live channels and on-demand content through their pirate IPTV service.

“Direct Infringers offer United States Subscribers a 36-hour trial to the Service and sell Service Subscriptions for one device for one month, three months, six months, and one year at prices ranging from $11 to $69,” the complaint reads.

In addition to selling directly to consumers, both services operate reseller programs. This allows third parties to launch their own custom-branded IPTV streaming sites and apps for under $200. Resellers purchase credits for use with their branded services, which they can resell to their own customers at a significant markup.

According to the complaint, Artistry Group’s ‘1 Dollar IPTV’ is one of these resellers. The Florida-based company is accused of contributory and vicarious copyright infringement. According to DISH, the company willfully continued its infringing activities after being notified.

1 Dollar IPTV, which remains online today, advertises itself as the “Best IPTV Service USA”. DISH notes that it sent at least seven infringement notices to the Florida reseller. While the company responded to one notice, the infringing activities allegedly continued.

DISH writes that it sent at least 96 infringement notices to the Lemo/Kemo operators over the years. However, these all remained unanswered. Meanwhile, the operators allegedly switched hosting locations to evade enforcement actions.

$27 Million in Damages

The complaint accuses all defendants of infringing its exclusive rights to “at least” 181 copyrighted works. For these willful infringements, DISH requests the maximum statutory damages of $150,000 per infringed work, for a total of $27.15 million in potential damages.

In addition to the monetary damages, DISH requests a broad permanent injunction to shut the services down. This would include an order to transfer all domain names used in the infringing operations, such as Kemoiptv.io, Lemotv.io, and 1Dollariptv.com.

In addition to this new lawsuit in Florida, DISH previously filed a separate $25 million lawsuit against UK-based hosting provider Innetra. The hosting company allegedly provided the server infrastructure for Lemo/Kemo and other services, while advertising a policy of ignoring DMCA takedown notices.

By targeting the Lemo/Kemo operators directly, suing their U.S.-based resellers, and going after a hosting provider, DISH is trying to cover all bases. For now, however, they have yet to defeat the pirate IPTV operations.

—

A copy of the complaint, filed at the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida, is available here (pdf) .

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

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

Pay TV provider DISH Network has been at the forefront of these efforts. In April, the company sued then-unknown operators of popular ‘pirate’ streaming services Lemo TV and Kemo IPTV.

Through a lawsuit filed at a federal court in Texas, and various subpoenas to obtain information from hosting providers, domain registrars, payment processors, and social media services, and Google, DISH hoped to identify the operators.

The subpoenas were directed at Lemo TV and Kemo IPTV directly but also targeted some resellers. For example, the Google subpoena requested information related to the Gmail addresses of bestusiptv and 1dollariptv .

While the Texas court approved the subpoena request in July, the underlying lawsuit was suddenly dismissed last week. Having successfully identified the alleged operators of both IPTV providers, plus a US-based reseller, DISH refocused its action elsewhere.

DISH Identifies Lemo/Kemo, also Sues ‘1 Dollar IPTV’

Shortly after the initial lawsuit against Lemo TV and Kemo IPTV was dismissed without context, DISH filed a new complaint at a Florida federal court. This time, it names the alleged operators of the Lemo TV and Kemo IPTV pirate services, as well as one of their U.S.-based resellers: ‘1 Dollar IPTV’.

DISH alleges that the Malaysian company Kemo E Marketing Sdn. Bhd and its sole shareholder, Noorhayati Binti Abdul Rahim, are driving forces behind the Lemo/Kemo operation. Ammar Towir, also from Malaysia, allegedly owns and operates the Lemo/Kemo domains and financial accounts.

The identities of these defendants were presumably obtained with help from the earlier-mentioned subpoenas. This includes 1 Dollar IPTV, which was allegedly operated by Artistry Group LLC, a company based in St. Petersburg, Florida.

Artistry Group was voluntarily dissolved on February 27, 2025, but DISH notes that the company or its successors continue to run 1 Dollar IPTV.

Direct, Contributory, and Vicarious Copyright Infringement

The Malaysian defendants are accused of direct copyright infringement. They allegedly offered access to thousands of live channels and on-demand content through their pirate IPTV service.

“Direct Infringers offer United States Subscribers a 36-hour trial to the Service and sell Service Subscriptions for one device for one month, three months, six months, and one year at prices ranging from $11 to $69,” the complaint reads.

In addition to selling directly to consumers, both services operate reseller programs. This allows third parties to launch their own custom-branded IPTV streaming sites and apps for under $200. Resellers purchase credits for use with their branded services, which they can resell to their own customers at a significant markup.

According to the complaint, Artistry Group’s ‘1 Dollar IPTV’ is one of these resellers. The Florida-based company is accused of contributory and vicarious copyright infringement. According to DISH, the company willfully continued its infringing activities after being notified.

1 Dollar IPTV, which remains online today, advertises itself as the “Best IPTV Service USA”. DISH notes that it sent at least seven infringement notices to the Florida reseller. While the company responded to one notice, the infringing activities allegedly continued.

DISH writes that it sent at least 96 infringement notices to the Lemo/Kemo operators over the years. However, these all remained unanswered. Meanwhile, the operators allegedly switched hosting locations to evade enforcement actions.

$27 Million in Damages

The complaint accuses all defendants of infringing its exclusive rights to “at least” 181 copyrighted works. For these willful infringements, DISH requests the maximum statutory damages of $150,000 per infringed work, for a total of $27.15 million in potential damages.

In addition to the monetary damages, DISH requests a broad permanent injunction to shut the services down. This would include an order to transfer all domain names used in the infringing operations, such as Kemoiptv.io, Lemotv.io, and 1Dollariptv.com.

In addition to this new lawsuit in Florida, DISH previously filed a separate $25 million lawsuit against UK-based hosting provider Innetra. The hosting company allegedly provided the server infrastructure for Lemo/Kemo and other services, while advertising a policy of ignoring DMCA takedown notices.

By targeting the Lemo/Kemo operators directly, suing their U.S.-based resellers, and going after a hosting provider, DISH is trying to cover all bases. For now, however, they have yet to defeat the pirate IPTV operations.

—

A copy of the complaint, filed at the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida, is available here (pdf) .

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