The Supreme Court case between several major record labels and Cox Communications is a landmark legal battle.

The outcome will determine how Internet providers should deal with pirating subscribers on their networks.

Should alleged pirates be disconnected from the Internet after repeated third-party allegations of copyright infringement? Or does that go too far?

In its opening brief , Cox argued that the company should not be held liable for contributory copyright infringement because it failed to terminate subscribers after multiple warnings. The U.S. Government and various tech companies support Cox’s position.

Record Labels Fire Back in Supreme Court

Yesterday, the major record labels, including Sony and Universal Music, countered these arguments in their response brief. Describing Cox as a company that willingly prioritized profits over piracy, they argued that the $1 billion verdict against the ISP should be upheld.

Citing internal communication records handed over by Cox during discovery, the labels said that Cox viewed potential terminations through a commercial lens.

“Cox made a deliberate and egregious decision to elevate its own profits over compliance with the law, supplying the means for massive copyright infringement to specific users that it knew were ‘habitual offenders’ because ‘we want to hold on to every subscriber we can’,” the labels said.

To illustrate this stance, the labels quoted comments made by a Cox manager. He was responsible for the company’s compliance with the DMCA but told his team, “F the dmca!!!”.

The labels claim that it was this context that eventually led the Virginia jury to hold the company liable, and they see no reason why the Supreme Court should reverse the decision.

Termination Hypocrisy

A key issue highlighted by Cox and the U.S. Government is the risk of innocent subscribers having their Internet access terminated over third-party piracy allegations.

The record labels don’t dispute the importance of Internet connectivity, but after disconnecting hundreds of thousands of subscribers who didn’t pay their bills, they claim that Cox’s stance is hypocritical.

“While Cox waxes poetic about the centrality of internet access to modern life, it neglects to mention that it had no qualms about terminating 619,711 subscribers for nonpayment over the same period that it terminated just 32 for serial copyright abuse. And while Cox stokes fears of innocent grandmothers and hospitals being tossed off the internet for someone else’s infringement, Cox put on zero evidence that any subscriber here fit that bill.”

Contributory Liability is ‘Bedrock Law’

A key question before the Supreme Court is whether ISPs can be held contributorily liable. According to Cox and the U.S. government, they should not if there is no culpable action that facilitates copyright infringement.

According to the labels, Cox’s decision to ignore piracy and prioritize profits qualifies as culpable conduct.

The music companies note that contributory infringement is bedrock law that dates back more than a century. It has previously been applied to cases where parties supplied products that were used for copyright infringement.

They cite a 1912 case ( Henry v. A.B. Dick Co. ) where the Supreme Court held that selling mimeograph ink to a known infringer “with the expectation that it would be used” to infringe was enough for liability. The labels argue that Cox continuing to provide internet service to known “habitual offenders” is the modern equivalent.

DMCA’s Safe Harbor Presupposes Liability

One of the labels’ critical counterarguments is that the very existence of the DMCA’s safe harbor for ISPs suggests that Congress understood that these services could be held liable for their subscribers’ infringements.

The labels note that the U.S. government’s concern, that ISPs would be more inclined to avoid liability and terminate customers without much scrutiny, could also be turned on its head.

While terminations of alleged pirates are clearly seen as a problem by Cox and the U.S., disconnecting subscribers that refuse to pay their bills isn’t mentioned as a concern.

“All of that makes the government’s professed concern about not ‘giv[ing] ISPs a powerful incentive to err on the side of termination,’ mystifying. Cox itself had no hesitation about erring on the side of termination when it came to late-paying customers.

“And Congress acted to curb the true problematic incentive—namely, that ISPs’ profit motives will leave them with ‘a powerful incentive to err on the side’ of retaining known infringers as long as they pay their monthly bills,” the labels added.

According to the labels, the DMCA safe harbor would be a “nullity” or “nonsensical” if there were no underlying liability to be shielded from. The provision, which requires ISPs to implement a reasonable policy to terminate repeat infringers, was created to “incentiv[ize]” ISPs to cooperate.

Finally, the labels add that the jury also correctly held that Cox’s actions were willful. The extensive internal discussions about the DMCA and the legal risk show Cox was fully aware of the law and its potential liability, but simply decided to give its profits priority.

With the main briefs from both sides now filed, the Supreme Court is scheduled to hear oral arguments from Cox, the record labels, and possibly the U.S. Government later this fall. A final decision on the billion-dollar verdict, which will define the responsibilities of Internet providers in the digital age, is expected next year.

—

A copy of the record labels’ brief, submitted yesterday to the Supreme Court, is available here (pdf)

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

The Supreme Court case between several major record labels and Cox Communications is a landmark legal battle.

The outcome will determine how Internet providers should deal with pirating subscribers on their networks.

Should alleged pirates be disconnected from the Internet after repeated third-party allegations of copyright infringement? Or does that go too far?

In its opening brief , Cox argued that the company should not be held liable for contributory copyright infringement because it failed to terminate subscribers after multiple warnings. The U.S. Government and various tech companies support Cox’s position.

Record Labels Fire Back in Supreme Court

Yesterday, the major record labels, including Sony and Universal Music, countered these arguments in their response brief. Describing Cox as a company that willingly prioritized profits over piracy, they argued that the $1 billion verdict against the ISP should be upheld.

Citing internal communication records handed over by Cox during discovery, the labels said that Cox viewed potential terminations through a commercial lens.

“Cox made a deliberate and egregious decision to elevate its own profits over compliance with the law, supplying the means for massive copyright infringement to specific users that it knew were ‘habitual offenders’ because ‘we want to hold on to every subscriber we can’,” the labels said.

To illustrate this stance, the labels quoted comments made by a Cox manager. He was responsible for the company’s compliance with the DMCA but told his team, “F the dmca!!!”.

The labels claim that it was this context that eventually led the Virginia jury to hold the company liable, and they see no reason why the Supreme Court should reverse the decision.

Termination Hypocrisy

A key issue highlighted by Cox and the U.S. Government is the risk of innocent subscribers having their Internet access terminated over third-party piracy allegations.

The record labels don’t dispute the importance of Internet connectivity, but after disconnecting hundreds of thousands of subscribers who didn’t pay their bills, they claim that Cox’s stance is hypocritical.

“While Cox waxes poetic about the centrality of internet access to modern life, it neglects to mention that it had no qualms about terminating 619,711 subscribers for nonpayment over the same period that it terminated just 32 for serial copyright abuse. And while Cox stokes fears of innocent grandmothers and hospitals being tossed off the internet for someone else’s infringement, Cox put on zero evidence that any subscriber here fit that bill.”

Contributory Liability is ‘Bedrock Law’

A key question before the Supreme Court is whether ISPs can be held contributorily liable. According to Cox and the U.S. government, they should not if there is no culpable action that facilitates copyright infringement.

According to the labels, Cox’s decision to ignore piracy and prioritize profits qualifies as culpable conduct.

The music companies note that contributory infringement is bedrock law that dates back more than a century. It has previously been applied to cases where parties supplied products that were used for copyright infringement.

They cite a 1912 case ( Henry v. A.B. Dick Co. ) where the Supreme Court held that selling mimeograph ink to a known infringer “with the expectation that it would be used” to infringe was enough for liability. The labels argue that Cox continuing to provide internet service to known “habitual offenders” is the modern equivalent.

DMCA’s Safe Harbor Presupposes Liability

One of the labels’ critical counterarguments is that the very existence of the DMCA’s safe harbor for ISPs suggests that Congress understood that these services could be held liable for their subscribers’ infringements.

The labels note that the U.S. government’s concern, that ISPs would be more inclined to avoid liability and terminate customers without much scrutiny, could also be turned on its head.

While terminations of alleged pirates are clearly seen as a problem by Cox and the U.S., disconnecting subscribers that refuse to pay their bills isn’t mentioned as a concern.

“All of that makes the government’s professed concern about not ‘giv[ing] ISPs a powerful incentive to err on the side of termination,’ mystifying. Cox itself had no hesitation about erring on the side of termination when it came to late-paying customers.

“And Congress acted to curb the true problematic incentive—namely, that ISPs’ profit motives will leave them with ‘a powerful incentive to err on the side’ of retaining known infringers as long as they pay their monthly bills,” the labels added.

According to the labels, the DMCA safe harbor would be a “nullity” or “nonsensical” if there were no underlying liability to be shielded from. The provision, which requires ISPs to implement a reasonable policy to terminate repeat infringers, was created to “incentiv[ize]” ISPs to cooperate.

Finally, the labels add that the jury also correctly held that Cox’s actions were willful. The extensive internal discussions about the DMCA and the legal risk show Cox was fully aware of the law and its potential liability, but simply decided to give its profits priority.

With the main briefs from both sides now filed, the Supreme Court is scheduled to hear oral arguments from Cox, the record labels, and possibly the U.S. Government later this fall. A final decision on the billion-dollar verdict, which will define the responsibilities of Internet providers in the digital age, is expected next year.

—

A copy of the record labels’ brief, submitted yesterday to the Supreme Court, is available here (pdf)

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

The Supreme Court case between several major record labels and Cox Communications is a landmark legal battle.

The outcome will determine how Internet providers should deal with pirating subscribers on their networks.

Should alleged pirates be disconnected from the Internet after repeated third-party allegations of copyright infringement? Or does that go too far?

In its opening brief , Cox argued that the company should not be held liable for contributory copyright infringement because it failed to terminate subscribers after multiple warnings. The U.S. Government and various tech companies support Cox’s position.

Record Labels Fire Back in Supreme Court

Yesterday, the major record labels, including Sony and Universal Music, countered these arguments in their response brief. Describing Cox as a company that willingly prioritized profits over piracy, they argued that the $1 billion verdict against the ISP should be upheld.

Citing internal communication records handed over by Cox during discovery, the labels said that Cox viewed potential terminations through a commercial lens.

“Cox made a deliberate and egregious decision to elevate its own profits over compliance with the law, supplying the means for massive copyright infringement to specific users that it knew were ‘habitual offenders’ because ‘we want to hold on to every subscriber we can’,” the labels said.

To illustrate this stance, the labels quoted comments made by a Cox manager. He was responsible for the company’s compliance with the DMCA but told his team, “F the dmca!!!”.

The labels claim that it was this context that eventually led the Virginia jury to hold the company liable, and they see no reason why the Supreme Court should reverse the decision.

Termination Hypocrisy

A key issue highlighted by Cox and the U.S. Government is the risk of innocent subscribers having their Internet access terminated over third-party piracy allegations.

The record labels don’t dispute the importance of Internet connectivity, but after disconnecting hundreds of thousands of subscribers who didn’t pay their bills, they claim that Cox’s stance is hypocritical.

“While Cox waxes poetic about the centrality of internet access to modern life, it neglects to mention that it had no qualms about terminating 619,711 subscribers for nonpayment over the same period that it terminated just 32 for serial copyright abuse. And while Cox stokes fears of innocent grandmothers and hospitals being tossed off the internet for someone else’s infringement, Cox put on zero evidence that any subscriber here fit that bill.”

Contributory Liability is ‘Bedrock Law’

A key question before the Supreme Court is whether ISPs can be held contributorily liable. According to Cox and the U.S. government, they should not if there is no culpable action that facilitates copyright infringement.

According to the labels, Cox’s decision to ignore piracy and prioritize profits qualifies as culpable conduct.

The music companies note that contributory infringement is bedrock law that dates back more than a century. It has previously been applied to cases where parties supplied products that were used for copyright infringement.

They cite a 1912 case ( Henry v. A.B. Dick Co. ) where the Supreme Court held that selling mimeograph ink to a known infringer “with the expectation that it would be used” to infringe was enough for liability. The labels argue that Cox continuing to provide internet service to known “habitual offenders” is the modern equivalent.

DMCA’s Safe Harbor Presupposes Liability

One of the labels’ critical counterarguments is that the very existence of the DMCA’s safe harbor for ISPs suggests that Congress understood that these services could be held liable for their subscribers’ infringements.

The labels note that the U.S. government’s concern, that ISPs would be more inclined to avoid liability and terminate customers without much scrutiny, could also be turned on its head.

While terminations of alleged pirates are clearly seen as a problem by Cox and the U.S., disconnecting subscribers that refuse to pay their bills isn’t mentioned as a concern.

“All of that makes the government’s professed concern about not ‘giv[ing] ISPs a powerful incentive to err on the side of termination,’ mystifying. Cox itself had no hesitation about erring on the side of termination when it came to late-paying customers.

“And Congress acted to curb the true problematic incentive—namely, that ISPs’ profit motives will leave them with ‘a powerful incentive to err on the side’ of retaining known infringers as long as they pay their monthly bills,” the labels added.

According to the labels, the DMCA safe harbor would be a “nullity” or “nonsensical” if there were no underlying liability to be shielded from. The provision, which requires ISPs to implement a reasonable policy to terminate repeat infringers, was created to “incentiv[ize]” ISPs to cooperate.

Finally, the labels add that the jury also correctly held that Cox’s actions were willful. The extensive internal discussions about the DMCA and the legal risk show Cox was fully aware of the law and its potential liability, but simply decided to give its profits priority.

With the main briefs from both sides now filed, the Supreme Court is scheduled to hear oral arguments from Cox, the record labels, and possibly the U.S. Government later this fall. A final decision on the billion-dollar verdict, which will define the responsibilities of Internet providers in the digital age, is expected next year.

—

A copy of the record labels’ brief, submitted yesterday to the Supreme Court, is available here (pdf)

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

Under the international umbrella of IFPI, the RIAA in the United States, and the BPI in London, the world’s leading recording labels have been on a constant upwards trajectory for a decade.

After the likes of Napster, Grokster, and LimeWire gatecrashed the party and introduced unwelcome (not to mention illegal) competition into the equation, in 2002 revenues tumbled and somehow managed to keep going south until 2014.

Making peace with YouTube was a necessary step that contributed billions of dollars to the overall recovery. The turning point came in 2015, marking the start of ten consecutive years of growth. Revenues more than doubled, from a low of US$12.9 billion in 2014 to a high of US$29.6 billion in 2024.

Piracy hasn’t gone away, but visible legal action against traditional pirate adversaries has been minimal, at least when compared to the periods when revenue was headed in the opposite direction.

Increased Threat, Unfinished Business

IFPI’s reporting in 2019 was upbeat; piracy had fallen dramatically and music consumption was on the up. Yet a relatively new form of consumption was already causing alarm and was soon described as a greater threat than pirate sites.

So-called stream-ripping was nothing new, but when fueled by the massive repository of recorded music on YouTube, the preferred tactic of shutting down the source was effectively obsolete. So, continuing along lines similar to those that had shuttered YouTube-MP3 in 2017, the industry took what action it could against sites that converted YouTube links into MP3 downloads.

One of the most notable disputes saw the RIAA take on the Russian owner of 2conv.com and FLVTO.biz. In an ideal world, the $83 million judgment in the labels’ favor back in 2022 would’ve dampened enthusiasm among those tempted by the same line of business. Ongoing streaming-ripping complaints in the RIAA’s annual reports to the USTR suggested minimal deterrent effect.

Y2Mate and Eleven Similar Sites Call it Quits

In an announcement Tuesday, IFPI confirmed that one of the most persistent threats with the greatest volume of online traffic, has now been shut down.

Y2Mate.com had been featured in the RIAA’s reports to the USTR for several years, and while its traffic had shown signs of decline more recently, 620 million visits per year between Y2Mate and eleven other sites (under common ownership), is clearly significant.

“Y2mate has been subject to website blocking actions in 13 countries and has appeared in numerous editions of the USTR Notorious Markets Report and the EU Counterfeit and Piracy Watchlist. The shutdown of the sites is a result of targeted enforcement action by IFPI against the operator of the sites,” IFPI reported.

“The operator of Y2mate and the other 11 websites agreed to shut down the sites for good and to stop infringing IFPI’s members rights in the future. Most of the domains are now in IFPI’s possession, including Y2mate.com, Yt1s.com, Utomp3.com, Tomp3.cc, and Y2mate.gg.”

Finer Details Go Unmentioned

Other than an agreement to shut down and a promise not to infringe IFPI’s members’ rights in the future, IFPI’s announcement offers no further detail on the agreement or the assumed change in circumstances that led to it. It’s reasonable to assume that domains were handed over as part of a deal, however.

The full list of domains is available below. Records suggest that several were updated recently, with at least one currently displaying the message below.

Given the record industry’s complaints over registrant details being hidden away, it’s somewhat ironic that most of the domains have WHOIS records displaying ‘Withheld for Privacy’. That being said, there are more significant gaps in the information being made available. The absence of a lawsuit is unusual; the lack of a large settlement amount, even more so.

Sites Operated From Vietnam

Considering that IFPI’s multi-year mission to shut down Y2Mate led them to Vietnam, and despite the chances of obtaining anything close to a deterrent custodial sentence being close to minimal, IFPI still managed to obtain the sites’ domain names.

In theory, this should make it more difficult to relaunch the sites, but in practical terms, Y2Mate has been evading site blocking measures for years and is unlikely to consider the loss of a few domains as especially problematic. Nevertheless, control of the domains means millions of eyes on the shutdown notice and any benefits that might bring.

None of this means that the return of the sites is inevitable. Yet, if that was the chosen path, preventing it would be almost impossible. Enforcement with lasting results remains elusive in Vietnam, and sites like these can be launched, torn down, and relaunched in the time it takes to eat a sandwich.

The full list of websites shut down by IFPI:

9convert.com
In-y2mate.com
Tomp3.cc
Ump3.cc
utomp3.com
y2mate.gg
yt1s.gg
youtubepp.com
y2mate.com
yt1s.com
vidcombo.com
Y2mates.com

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

Under the international umbrella of IFPI, the RIAA in the United States, and the BPI in London, the world’s leading recording labels have been on a constant upwards trajectory for a decade.

After the likes of Napster, Grokster, and LimeWire gatecrashed the party and introduced unwelcome (not to mention illegal) competition into the equation, in 2002 revenues tumbled and somehow managed to keep going south until 2014.

Making peace with YouTube was a necessary step that contributed billions of dollars to the overall recovery. The turning point came in 2015, marking the start of ten consecutive years of growth. Revenues more than doubled, from a low of US$12.9 billion in 2014 to a high of US$29.6 billion in 2024.

Piracy hasn’t gone away, but visible legal action against traditional pirate adversaries has been minimal, at least when compared to the periods when revenue was headed in the opposite direction.

Increased Threat, Unfinished Business

IFPI’s reporting in 2019 was upbeat; piracy had fallen dramatically and music consumption was on the up. Yet a relatively new form of consumption was already causing alarm and was soon described as a greater threat than pirate sites.

So-called stream-ripping was nothing new, but when fueled by the massive repository of recorded music on YouTube, the preferred tactic of shutting down the source was effectively obsolete. So, continuing along lines similar to those that had shuttered YouTube-MP3 in 2017, the industry took what action it could against sites that converted YouTube links into MP3 downloads.

One of the most notable disputes saw the RIAA take on the Russian owner of 2conv.com and FLVTO.biz. In an ideal world, the $83 million judgment in the labels’ favor back in 2022 would’ve dampened enthusiasm among those tempted by the same line of business. Ongoing streaming-ripping complaints in the RIAA’s annual reports to the USTR suggested minimal deterrent effect.

Y2Mate and Eleven Similar Sites Call it Quits

In an announcement Tuesday, IFPI confirmed that one of the most persistent threats with the greatest volume of online traffic, has now been shut down.

Y2Mate.com had been featured in the RIAA’s reports to the USTR for several years, and while its traffic had shown signs of decline more recently, 620 million visits per year between Y2Mate and eleven other sites (under common ownership), is clearly significant.

“Y2mate has been subject to website blocking actions in 13 countries and has appeared in numerous editions of the USTR Notorious Markets Report and the EU Counterfeit and Piracy Watchlist. The shutdown of the sites is a result of targeted enforcement action by IFPI against the operator of the sites,” IFPI reported.

“The operator of Y2mate and the other 11 websites agreed to shut down the sites for good and to stop infringing IFPI’s members rights in the future. Most of the domains are now in IFPI’s possession, including Y2mate.com, Yt1s.com, Utomp3.com, Tomp3.cc, and Y2mate.gg.”

Finer Details Go Unmentioned

Other than an agreement to shut down and a promise not to infringe IFPI’s members’ rights in the future, IFPI’s announcement offers no further detail on the agreement or the assumed change in circumstances that led to it. It’s reasonable to assume that domains were handed over as part of a deal, however.

The full list of domains is available below. Records suggest that several were updated recently, with at least one currently displaying the message below.

Given the record industry’s complaints over registrant details being hidden away, it’s somewhat ironic that most of the domains have WHOIS records displaying ‘Withheld for Privacy’. That being said, there are more significant gaps in the information being made available. The absence of a lawsuit is unusual; the lack of a large settlement amount, even more so.

Sites Operated From Vietnam

Considering that IFPI’s multi-year mission to shut down Y2Mate led them to Vietnam, and despite the chances of obtaining anything close to a deterrent custodial sentence being close to minimal, IFPI still managed to obtain the sites’ domain names.

In theory, this should make it more difficult to relaunch the sites, but in practical terms, Y2Mate has been evading site blocking measures for years and is unlikely to consider the loss of a few domains as especially problematic. Nevertheless, control of the domains means millions of eyes on the shutdown notice and any benefits that might bring.

None of this means that the return of the sites is inevitable. Yet, if that was the chosen path, preventing it would be almost impossible. Enforcement with lasting results remains elusive in Vietnam, and sites like these can be launched, torn down, and relaunched in the time it takes to eat a sandwich.

The full list of websites shut down by IFPI:

9convert.com
In-y2mate.com
Tomp3.cc
Ump3.cc
utomp3.com
y2mate.gg
yt1s.gg
youtubepp.com
y2mate.com
yt1s.com
vidcombo.com
Y2mates.com

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

Under the international umbrella of IFPI, the RIAA in the United States, and the BPI in London, the world’s leading recording labels have been on a constant upwards trajectory for a decade.

After the likes of Napster, Grokster, and LimeWire gatecrashed the party and introduced unwelcome (not to mention illegal) competition into the equation, in 2002 revenues tumbled and somehow managed to keep going south until 2014.

Making peace with YouTube was a necessary step that contributed billions of dollars to the overall recovery. The turning point came in 2015, marking the start of ten consecutive years of growth. Revenues more than doubled, from a low of US$12.9 billion in 2014 to a high of US$29.6 billion in 2024.

Piracy hasn’t gone away, but visible legal action against traditional pirate adversaries has been minimal, at least when compared to the periods when revenue was headed in the opposite direction.

Increased Threat, Unfinished Business

IFPI’s reporting in 2019 was upbeat; piracy had fallen dramatically and music consumption was on the up. Yet a relatively new form of consumption was already causing alarm and was soon described as a greater threat than pirate sites.

So-called stream-ripping was nothing new, but when fueled by the massive repository of recorded music on YouTube, the preferred tactic of shutting down the source was effectively obsolete. So, continuing along lines similar to those that had shuttered YouTube-MP3 in 2017, the industry took what action it could against sites that converted YouTube links into MP3 downloads.

One of the most notable disputes saw the RIAA take on the Russian owner of 2conv.com and FLVTO.biz. In an ideal world, the $83 million judgment in the labels’ favor back in 2022 would’ve dampened enthusiasm among those tempted by the same line of business. Ongoing streaming-ripping complaints in the RIAA’s annual reports to the USTR suggested minimal deterrent effect.

Y2Mate and Eleven Similar Sites Call it Quits

In an announcement Tuesday, IFPI confirmed that one of the most persistent threats with the greatest volume of online traffic, has now been shut down.

Y2Mate.com had been featured in the RIAA’s reports to the USTR for several years, and while its traffic had shown signs of decline more recently, 620 million visits per year between Y2Mate and eleven other sites (under common ownership), is clearly significant.

“Y2mate has been subject to website blocking actions in 13 countries and has appeared in numerous editions of the USTR Notorious Markets Report and the EU Counterfeit and Piracy Watchlist. The shutdown of the sites is a result of targeted enforcement action by IFPI against the operator of the sites,” IFPI reported.

“The operator of Y2mate and the other 11 websites agreed to shut down the sites for good and to stop infringing IFPI’s members rights in the future. Most of the domains are now in IFPI’s possession, including Y2mate.com, Yt1s.com, Utomp3.com, Tomp3.cc, and Y2mate.gg.”

Finer Details Go Unmentioned

Other than an agreement to shut down and a promise not to infringe IFPI’s members’ rights in the future, IFPI’s announcement offers no further detail on the agreement or the assumed change in circumstances that led to it. It’s reasonable to assume that domains were handed over as part of a deal, however.

The full list of domains is available below. Records suggest that several were updated recently, with at least one currently displaying the message below.

Given the record industry’s complaints over registrant details being hidden away, it’s somewhat ironic that most of the domains have WHOIS records displaying ‘Withheld for Privacy’. That being said, there are more significant gaps in the information being made available. The absence of a lawsuit is unusual; the lack of a large settlement amount, even more so.

Sites Operated From Vietnam

Considering that IFPI’s multi-year mission to shut down Y2Mate led them to Vietnam, and despite the chances of obtaining anything close to a deterrent custodial sentence being close to minimal, IFPI still managed to obtain the sites’ domain names.

In theory, this should make it more difficult to relaunch the sites, but in practical terms, Y2Mate has been evading site blocking measures for years and is unlikely to consider the loss of a few domains as especially problematic. Nevertheless, control of the domains means millions of eyes on the shutdown notice and any benefits that might bring.

None of this means that the return of the sites is inevitable. Yet, if that was the chosen path, preventing it would be almost impossible. Enforcement with lasting results remains elusive in Vietnam, and sites like these can be launched, torn down, and relaunched in the time it takes to eat a sandwich.

The full list of websites shut down by IFPI:

9convert.com
In-y2mate.com
Tomp3.cc
Ump3.cc
utomp3.com
y2mate.gg
yt1s.gg
youtubepp.com
y2mate.com
yt1s.com
vidcombo.com
Y2mates.com

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

With many millions of daily users, Reddit is undoubtedly one of the most visited sites on the Internet.

The platform celebrated its 20th anniversary this summer and has grown from a hobby site, started by two college roommates, to a billion-dollar company.

This growth also brought added responsibility. In addition to the billions of casual, insightful, and heartwarming messages, Reddit’s popularity was also embraced by those who color outside the lines of the law.

Reddit’s Transparency

One of the issues Reddit has to deal with is copyright infringement, a relatively small task early on. In the first transparency report published ten years ago , Reddit reported that it received 176 takedown requests in an entire year.

Most of these DMCA notices did not lead to any removals, with Reddit stating that the infringing content was often stored on external sites and that “links do not generally infringe copyright.”

Today, that perspective has changed. Reddit’s current copyright overview clearly states that hyperlinks can trigger copyright violations. This is also evident from the many subreddits that warn members not to link to pirated material.

2025: DMCA Notices Up, Removals Down

The volume of takedown notices has also evolved quite a bit. According to Reddit’s latest transparency report , the company received 58,920 copyright takedown notices in the first half of 2025, a 5% increase over the 56,210 notices in the same period last year.

Despite receiving more takedown notices, Reddit actually removed less content, in part due to notices containing fewer links. In the first half of 2025, the platform removed 220,233 pieces of content – a 31% drop from the same period last year.

More Fair Use

Reddit’s reasons for declining to remove content in response to some takedown requests reveal an interesting trend. The number of instances where the company declined to remove content for fair use reasons increased more than 1000%, from 110 to 1,243.

This suggests that Reddit is devoting more attention to defending user-generated commentary and criticism. The transparency report lists several examples of fair use cases, including a discussion about copyrighted poems.

“We received a removal request from the creator of multiple poems, for a Reddit image post featuring said poems. The Reddit post also contained interpretations and criticism of the author’s intent. We declined to remove this content because we believe it made fair use of the poems,” Reddit writes.

Fair use remains a relatively rare reason to decline takedown requests. Most of the time Reddit takes no action is because the content has already been removed or no infringement was found.

Subreddit and User Bans

The latest transparency report also shows a significant increase in the number of subreddits that were banned for repeat copyright violations. In the first half of 2025, the company removed 709 subreddits, more than double the number it removed in the same period last year.

While subreddit bans skyrocketed, bans against individual user accounts for repeat copyright infringements grew at a more modest pace. Reddit banned 837 user accounts in the first half of the year, up from 757 bans in H1 of 2024.

These swings may suggest that copyright-infringement-related bans are reaching new highs, but that is not the case. If we zoom out further, we see that Reddit banned 3,215 subreddits and 5,853 users for excessive copyright infringement in 2022, which was the all-time high.

A Speck on the Radar

Zooming out further, it soon becomes clear that a few hundred users and subreddits banned for infringement are little more than a speck on the radar. Reddit and its moderators remove many more for other reasons, including spam, violent content, and harassment.

In the first half of 2025, Reddit mods and admins removed more than 158 million pieces of content from the site, while over 2 billion new posts and comments were added.

During the same period, Reddit admins banned 430,544 subreddits, mostly related to spam, while 2,613,473 users were issued temporary and permanent account bans, with ‘violent content’ the most cited reason. From this perspective, a few hundred copyright-related bans sound rather insignificant.

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

With many millions of daily users, Reddit is undoubtedly one of the most visited sites on the Internet.

The platform celebrated its 20th anniversary this summer and has grown from a hobby site, started by two college roommates, to a billion-dollar company.

This growth also brought added responsibility. In addition to the billions of casual, insightful, and heartwarming messages, Reddit’s popularity was also embraced by those who color outside the lines of the law.

Reddit’s Transparency

One of the issues Reddit has to deal with is copyright infringement, a relatively small task early on. In the first transparency report published ten years ago , Reddit reported that it received 176 takedown requests in an entire year.

Most of these DMCA notices did not lead to any removals, with Reddit stating that the infringing content was often stored on external sites and that “links do not generally infringe copyright.”

Today, that perspective has changed. Reddit’s current copyright overview clearly states that hyperlinks can trigger copyright violations. This is also evident from the many subreddits that warn members not to link to pirated material.

2025: DMCA Notices Up, Removals Down

The volume of takedown notices has also evolved quite a bit. According to Reddit’s latest transparency report , the company received 58,920 copyright takedown notices in the first half of 2025, a 5% increase over the 56,210 notices in the same period last year.

Despite receiving more takedown notices, Reddit actually removed less content, in part due to notices containing fewer links. In the first half of 2025, the platform removed 220,233 pieces of content – a 31% drop from the same period last year.

More Fair Use

Reddit’s reasons for declining to remove content in response to some takedown requests reveal an interesting trend. The number of instances where the company declined to remove content for fair use reasons increased more than 1000%, from 110 to 1,243.

This suggests that Reddit is devoting more attention to defending user-generated commentary and criticism. The transparency report lists several examples of fair use cases, including a discussion about copyrighted poems.

“We received a removal request from the creator of multiple poems, for a Reddit image post featuring said poems. The Reddit post also contained interpretations and criticism of the author’s intent. We declined to remove this content because we believe it made fair use of the poems,” Reddit writes.

Fair use remains a relatively rare reason to decline takedown requests. Most of the time Reddit takes no action is because the content has already been removed or no infringement was found.

Subreddit and User Bans

The latest transparency report also shows a significant increase in the number of subreddits that were banned for repeat copyright violations. In the first half of 2025, the company removed 709 subreddits, more than double the number it removed in the same period last year.

While subreddit bans skyrocketed, bans against individual user accounts for repeat copyright infringements grew at a more modest pace. Reddit banned 837 user accounts in the first half of the year, up from 757 bans in H1 of 2024.

These swings may suggest that copyright-infringement-related bans are reaching new highs, but that is not the case. If we zoom out further, we see that Reddit banned 3,215 subreddits and 5,853 users for excessive copyright infringement in 2022, which was the all-time high.

A Speck on the Radar

Zooming out further, it soon becomes clear that a few hundred users and subreddits banned for infringement are little more than a speck on the radar. Reddit and its moderators remove many more for other reasons, including spam, violent content, and harassment.

In the first half of 2025, Reddit mods and admins removed more than 158 million pieces of content from the site, while over 2 billion new posts and comments were added.

During the same period, Reddit admins banned 430,544 subreddits, mostly related to spam, while 2,613,473 users were issued temporary and permanent account bans, with ‘violent content’ the most cited reason. From this perspective, a few hundred copyright-related bans sound rather insignificant.

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

With many millions of daily users, Reddit is undoubtedly one of the most visited sites on the Internet.

The platform celebrated its 20th anniversary this summer and has grown from a hobby site, started by two college roommates, to a billion-dollar company.

This growth also brought added responsibility. In addition to the billions of casual, insightful, and heartwarming messages, Reddit’s popularity was also embraced by those who color outside the lines of the law.

Reddit’s Transparency

One of the issues Reddit has to deal with is copyright infringement, a relatively small task early on. In the first transparency report published ten years ago , Reddit reported that it received 176 takedown requests in an entire year.

Most of these DMCA notices did not lead to any removals, with Reddit stating that the infringing content was often stored on external sites and that “links do not generally infringe copyright.”

Today, that perspective has changed. Reddit’s current copyright overview clearly states that hyperlinks can trigger copyright violations. This is also evident from the many subreddits that warn members not to link to pirated material.

2025: DMCA Notices Up, Removals Down

The volume of takedown notices has also evolved quite a bit. According to Reddit’s latest transparency report , the company received 58,920 copyright takedown notices in the first half of 2025, a 5% increase over the 56,210 notices in the same period last year.

Despite receiving more takedown notices, Reddit actually removed less content, in part due to notices containing fewer links. In the first half of 2025, the platform removed 220,233 pieces of content – a 31% drop from the same period last year.

More Fair Use

Reddit’s reasons for declining to remove content in response to some takedown requests reveal an interesting trend. The number of instances where the company declined to remove content for fair use reasons increased more than 1000%, from 110 to 1,243.

This suggests that Reddit is devoting more attention to defending user-generated commentary and criticism. The transparency report lists several examples of fair use cases, including a discussion about copyrighted poems.

“We received a removal request from the creator of multiple poems, for a Reddit image post featuring said poems. The Reddit post also contained interpretations and criticism of the author’s intent. We declined to remove this content because we believe it made fair use of the poems,” Reddit writes.

Fair use remains a relatively rare reason to decline takedown requests. Most of the time Reddit takes no action is because the content has already been removed or no infringement was found.

Subreddit and User Bans

The latest transparency report also shows a significant increase in the number of subreddits that were banned for repeat copyright violations. In the first half of 2025, the company removed 709 subreddits, more than double the number it removed in the same period last year.

While subreddit bans skyrocketed, bans against individual user accounts for repeat copyright infringements grew at a more modest pace. Reddit banned 837 user accounts in the first half of the year, up from 757 bans in H1 of 2024.

These swings may suggest that copyright-infringement-related bans are reaching new highs, but that is not the case. If we zoom out further, we see that Reddit banned 3,215 subreddits and 5,853 users for excessive copyright infringement in 2022, which was the all-time high.

A Speck on the Radar

Zooming out further, it soon becomes clear that a few hundred users and subreddits banned for infringement are little more than a speck on the radar. Reddit and its moderators remove many more for other reasons, including spam, violent content, and harassment.

In the first half of 2025, Reddit mods and admins removed more than 158 million pieces of content from the site, while over 2 billion new posts and comments were added.

During the same period, Reddit admins banned 430,544 subreddits, mostly related to spam, while 2,613,473 users were issued temporary and permanent account bans, with ‘violent content’ the most cited reason. From this perspective, a few hundred copyright-related bans sound rather insignificant.

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