Around 15 years ago, the French government launched an expansive monitoring and enforcement system to fight online piracy.

With fines and internet terminations for recidivists, the so-called Hadopi system was arguably ahead of its time. Users of the peer-to-peer BitTorrent-like networks that Hadopi had been designed to prowl, almost universally hated it.

Yet, for the many pirates that had already migrated to file-hosting, indexing, and streaming platforms, and the millions more in the process of doing so, the Hadopi deterrent had arrived late to a party already underway at a new location. Since streaming services were immune to the P2P eavesdropping skills of Hadopi, blocking access to pirate sites was one of the few options left.

The Arcom Era

Mapping, understanding, and restricting the French piracy landscape now falls to regulator Arcom. At a time when sports leagues and their broadcasting partners speak of multi-billion euro annual losses, Arcom has much to do. With the provisions available under the French Sports Code, it also has the authority to do so.

Rightsholders able to show “serious and repeated infringements” of their IP rights can ask a court to demand “all appropriate measures” to prevent or limit the infringement, from any person/entity in a position to do so. As seen in recent cases involving Cloudflare and Google , third party DNS resolvers fall within that scope. A ruling earlier this month means that VPN providers will also have to comply .

Under the orders of a judge at the Court of Paris, Cloudflare and Google must restrict access to named pirate sites by blocking resolution of their domain names. A new report published by Arcom provides an overview of blocking measures in France during 2024 and the first few months of 2025. Given the scale, if Cloudflare, Google, and the VPN providers are included in future blocking applications as standard, all will become instantly busy.

The report also casts more light on Arcom’s role after blocking orders are handed down, and provides data which reveals the scale of blocking carried out to date. Whether results at the consumer end amount to victory, acceptable progress, treading water, or something much less, depends on information rarely seen in a blocking report. Unfortunately, sales data makes no appearance here either.

Headline Piracy Consumption Data

Rather than a catch-all category of ‘illegal streaming’, the report differentiates between watching streams via a traditional streaming website, and consuming streams via a pirate IPTV service more likely to cost money.

Arcom reports that 2,028 live streaming domains were blocked in 2024, compared to 1,769 IPTV domains. For context, just 77 IPTV domains were blocked in 2023.

Arcom says that 16% of French people admit to using live streaming sites, compared to just 12% for IPTV. Of immediate concern is the apparent influx of new users to the latter.

In 2023 around 26% of IPTV users had been consuming content this way for less than a year. In 2024, four in ten (41%) said they’d been using pirate IPTV services for less than 12 months. That may raise questions of whether greater awareness of piracy issues is having the intended effect.

Overall, 18% admitted to consuming live sports broadcasts from illegal sources in 2024, a small reduction on the 19% from the previous year. Whether ‘containing’ piracy year-on-year will be seen as acceptable seems unlikely. However, for governments hoping to move the needle by cracking down on end users, a finding in the report should give pause for thought.

“[T]he propensity of viewers [using illicit sources] to also subscribe to legal paid offers remains high: 60% of them pay for sports offers, twice as much as the average French person (32%, a slight decrease compared to 2023),” Arcom notes.

Headline Blocking Data

With site blocking firmly established as the anti-piracy weapon of choice, rightsholders hope that visiting blocked domains will cause inconvenience and disappointment to combine so often that paying for content becomes more attractive.

“Nearly a third of Internet users using illegal streaming sites have encountered blocking measures implemented by Arcom, an increase of five points, and 71% of them end up abandoning their attempts at illegal viewing,” Arcom reports.

A blocking message exposure rate in excess of 30% doesn’t seem unreasonable; between Arcom and the Court of Paris, pirate domains are being blocked in their thousands.

Domains vs Sites

When rightsholders file blocking applications at the Court of Paris, the paperwork sets out a case in favor of blocking along with a list of infringing domains. In some cases recent applications have contained anywhere between 100 and 150 domains, which can lead to media reports conflating domains with the number of sites targeted. The data suggests that the difference is important.

When the Court of Paris approves blocking measures, the domains in the application are blocked by local ISPs. At some point, pirate site operators usually deploy countermeasures to limit the effect of the blocking.

Depending on the targets, that could mean the deployment of a new domain, ten new domains, or 10,000 unique and impossible to read subdomains, followed by a complete rebrand. Whatever the response, rightsholders and Arcom are kept busy.

Dynamic Blocking Now a Minimum Requirement

Today’s blocking orders anticipate countermeasures by providing flexibility. All rightsholders have to do is keep track of any new domains facilitating access to the sites behind the domains listed in the initial order, then provide Arcom with a new list of pirate domains. Much easier said than done.

Once Arcom’s agents have carried out relevant checks, Arcom issues notifications for those domains to be blocked along with the domains in the order. In 2024, a total of 3,797 domains were blocked following an Arcom notification, versus just 415 domains in orders issued by the Court of Paris.

When added together, domains authorized for blocking by the Court are just a fraction of domains blocked following Arcom’s notifications.

These figures are broadly similar to those seen elsewhere; when a Court orders domains to be blocked, more likely than not the number of domains that ultimately affects is several times greater than the initial order suggests.

Finally, the French have another powerful tool at their disposal. Sites subjected to blocking measures can be reported to search engines, typically Google and Bing, from where their domains are deindexed, never to be seen again. The downside is a visibility boost for malicious pirate sites and various scams, which typically target less savvy users before parting them from their money.

Arcom’s report is currently available in French and is linked below. All translations and presentation of Arcom data here should be considered unofficial.

Arcom’s Illicit Consumption of Live Sports in 2024 report is available here (pdf)

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

Around 15 years ago, the French government launched an expansive monitoring and enforcement system to fight online piracy.

With fines and internet terminations for recidivists, the so-called Hadopi system was arguably ahead of its time. Users of the peer-to-peer BitTorrent-like networks that Hadopi had been designed to prowl, almost universally hated it.

Yet, for the many pirates that had already migrated to file-hosting, indexing, and streaming platforms, and the millions more in the process of doing so, the Hadopi deterrent had arrived late to a party already underway at a new location. Since streaming services were immune to the P2P eavesdropping skills of Hadopi, blocking access to pirate sites was one of the few options left.

The Arcom Era

Mapping, understanding, and restricting the French piracy landscape now falls to regulator Arcom. At a time when sports leagues and their broadcasting partners speak of multi-billion euro annual losses, Arcom has much to do. With the provisions available under the French Sports Code, it also has the authority to do so.

Rightsholders able to show “serious and repeated infringements” of their IP rights can ask a court to demand “all appropriate measures” to prevent or limit the infringement, from any person/entity in a position to do so. As seen in recent cases involving Cloudflare and Google , third party DNS resolvers fall within that scope. A ruling earlier this month means that VPN providers will also have to comply .

Under the orders of a judge at the Court of Paris, Cloudflare and Google must restrict access to named pirate sites by blocking resolution of their domain names. A new report published by Arcom provides an overview of blocking measures in France during 2024 and the first few months of 2025. Given the scale, if Cloudflare, Google, and the VPN providers are included in future blocking applications as standard, all will become instantly busy.

The report also casts more light on Arcom’s role after blocking orders are handed down, and provides data which reveals the scale of blocking carried out to date. Whether results at the consumer end amount to victory, acceptable progress, treading water, or something much less, depends on information rarely seen in a blocking report. Unfortunately, sales data makes no appearance here either.

Headline Piracy Consumption Data

Rather than a catch-all category of ‘illegal streaming’, the report differentiates between watching streams via a traditional streaming website, and consuming streams via a pirate IPTV service more likely to cost money.

Arcom reports that 2,028 live streaming domains were blocked in 2024, compared to 1,769 IPTV domains. For context, just 77 IPTV domains were blocked in 2023.

Arcom says that 16% of French people admit to using live streaming sites, compared to just 12% for IPTV. Of immediate concern is the apparent influx of new users to the latter.

In 2023 around 26% of IPTV users had been consuming content this way for less than a year. In 2024, four in ten (41%) said they’d been using pirate IPTV services for less than 12 months. That may raise questions of whether greater awareness of piracy issues is having the intended effect.

Overall, 18% admitted to consuming live sports broadcasts from illegal sources in 2024, a small reduction on the 19% from the previous year. Whether ‘containing’ piracy year-on-year will be seen as acceptable seems unlikely. However, for governments hoping to move the needle by cracking down on end users, a finding in the report should give pause for thought.

“[T]he propensity of viewers [using illicit sources] to also subscribe to legal paid offers remains high: 60% of them pay for sports offers, twice as much as the average French person (32%, a slight decrease compared to 2023),” Arcom notes.

Headline Blocking Data

With site blocking firmly established as the anti-piracy weapon of choice, rightsholders hope that visiting blocked domains will cause inconvenience and disappointment to combine so often that paying for content becomes more attractive.

“Nearly a third of Internet users using illegal streaming sites have encountered blocking measures implemented by Arcom, an increase of five points, and 71% of them end up abandoning their attempts at illegal viewing,” Arcom reports.

A blocking message exposure rate in excess of 30% doesn’t seem unreasonable; between Arcom and the Court of Paris, pirate domains are being blocked in their thousands.

Domains vs Sites

When rightsholders file blocking applications at the Court of Paris, the paperwork sets out a case in favor of blocking along with a list of infringing domains. In some cases recent applications have contained anywhere between 100 and 150 domains, which can lead to media reports conflating domains with the number of sites targeted. The data suggests that the difference is important.

When the Court of Paris approves blocking measures, the domains in the application are blocked by local ISPs. At some point, pirate site operators usually deploy countermeasures to limit the effect of the blocking.

Depending on the targets, that could mean the deployment of a new domain, ten new domains, or 10,000 unique and impossible to read subdomains, followed by a complete rebrand. Whatever the response, rightsholders and Arcom are kept busy.

Dynamic Blocking Now a Minimum Requirement

Today’s blocking orders anticipate countermeasures by providing flexibility. All rightsholders have to do is keep track of any new domains facilitating access to the sites behind the domains listed in the initial order, then provide Arcom with a new list of pirate domains. Much easier said than done.

Once Arcom’s agents have carried out relevant checks, Arcom issues notifications for those domains to be blocked along with the domains in the order. In 2024, a total of 3,797 domains were blocked following an Arcom notification, versus just 415 domains in orders issued by the Court of Paris.

When added together, domains authorized for blocking by the Court are just a fraction of domains blocked following Arcom’s notifications.

These figures are broadly similar to those seen elsewhere; when a Court orders domains to be blocked, more likely than not the number of domains that ultimately affects is several times greater than the initial order suggests.

Finally, the French have another powerful tool at their disposal. Sites subjected to blocking measures can be reported to search engines, typically Google and Bing, from where their domains are deindexed, never to be seen again. The downside is a visibility boost for malicious pirate sites and various scams, which typically target less savvy users before parting them from their money.

Arcom’s report is currently available in French and is linked below. All translations and presentation of Arcom data here should be considered unofficial.

Arcom’s Illicit Consumption of Live Sports in 2024 report is available here (pdf)

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

Around 15 years ago, the French government launched an expansive monitoring and enforcement system to fight online piracy.

With fines and internet terminations for recidivists, the so-called Hadopi system was arguably ahead of its time. Users of the peer-to-peer BitTorrent-like networks that Hadopi had been designed to prowl, almost universally hated it.

Yet, for the many pirates that had already migrated to file-hosting, indexing, and streaming platforms, and the millions more in the process of doing so, the Hadopi deterrent had arrived late to a party already underway at a new location. Since streaming services were immune to the P2P eavesdropping skills of Hadopi, blocking access to pirate sites was one of the few options left.

The Arcom Era

Mapping, understanding, and restricting the French piracy landscape now falls to regulator Arcom. At a time when sports leagues and their broadcasting partners speak of multi-billion euro annual losses, Arcom has much to do. With the provisions available under the French Sports Code, it also has the authority to do so.

Rightsholders able to show “serious and repeated infringements” of their IP rights can ask a court to demand “all appropriate measures” to prevent or limit the infringement, from any person/entity in a position to do so. As seen in recent cases involving Cloudflare and Google , third party DNS resolvers fall within that scope. A ruling earlier this month means that VPN providers will also have to comply .

Under the orders of a judge at the Court of Paris, Cloudflare and Google must restrict access to named pirate sites by blocking resolution of their domain names. A new report published by Arcom provides an overview of blocking measures in France during 2024 and the first few months of 2025. Given the scale, if Cloudflare, Google, and the VPN providers are included in future blocking applications as standard, all will become instantly busy.

The report also casts more light on Arcom’s role after blocking orders are handed down, and provides data which reveals the scale of blocking carried out to date. Whether results at the consumer end amount to victory, acceptable progress, treading water, or something much less, depends on information rarely seen in a blocking report. Unfortunately, sales data makes no appearance here either.

Headline Piracy Consumption Data

Rather than a catch-all category of ‘illegal streaming’, the report differentiates between watching streams via a traditional streaming website, and consuming streams via a pirate IPTV service more likely to cost money.

Arcom reports that 2,028 live streaming domains were blocked in 2024, compared to 1,769 IPTV domains. For context, just 77 IPTV domains were blocked in 2023.

Arcom says that 16% of French people admit to using live streaming sites, compared to just 12% for IPTV. Of immediate concern is the apparent influx of new users to the latter.

In 2023 around 26% of IPTV users had been consuming content this way for less than a year. In 2024, four in ten (41%) said they’d been using pirate IPTV services for less than 12 months. That may raise questions of whether greater awareness of piracy issues is having the intended effect.

Overall, 18% admitted to consuming live sports broadcasts from illegal sources in 2024, a small reduction on the 19% from the previous year. Whether ‘containing’ piracy year-on-year will be seen as acceptable seems unlikely. However, for governments hoping to move the needle by cracking down on end users, a finding in the report should give pause for thought.

“[T]he propensity of viewers [using illicit sources] to also subscribe to legal paid offers remains high: 60% of them pay for sports offers, twice as much as the average French person (32%, a slight decrease compared to 2023),” Arcom notes.

Headline Blocking Data

With site blocking firmly established as the anti-piracy weapon of choice, rightsholders hope that visiting blocked domains will cause inconvenience and disappointment to combine so often that paying for content becomes more attractive.

“Nearly a third of Internet users using illegal streaming sites have encountered blocking measures implemented by Arcom, an increase of five points, and 71% of them end up abandoning their attempts at illegal viewing,” Arcom reports.

A blocking message exposure rate in excess of 30% doesn’t seem unreasonable; between Arcom and the Court of Paris, pirate domains are being blocked in their thousands.

Domains vs Sites

When rightsholders file blocking applications at the Court of Paris, the paperwork sets out a case in favor of blocking along with a list of infringing domains. In some cases recent applications have contained anywhere between 100 and 150 domains, which can lead to media reports conflating domains with the number of sites targeted. The data suggests that the difference is important.

When the Court of Paris approves blocking measures, the domains in the application are blocked by local ISPs. At some point, pirate site operators usually deploy countermeasures to limit the effect of the blocking.

Depending on the targets, that could mean the deployment of a new domain, ten new domains, or 10,000 unique and impossible to read subdomains, followed by a complete rebrand. Whatever the response, rightsholders and Arcom are kept busy.

Dynamic Blocking Now a Minimum Requirement

Today’s blocking orders anticipate countermeasures by providing flexibility. All rightsholders have to do is keep track of any new domains facilitating access to the sites behind the domains listed in the initial order, then provide Arcom with a new list of pirate domains. Much easier said than done.

Once Arcom’s agents have carried out relevant checks, Arcom issues notifications for those domains to be blocked along with the domains in the order. In 2024, a total of 3,797 domains were blocked following an Arcom notification, versus just 415 domains in orders issued by the Court of Paris.

When added together, domains authorized for blocking by the Court are just a fraction of domains blocked following Arcom’s notifications.

These figures are broadly similar to those seen elsewhere; when a Court orders domains to be blocked, more likely than not the number of domains that ultimately affects is several times greater than the initial order suggests.

Finally, the French have another powerful tool at their disposal. Sites subjected to blocking measures can be reported to search engines, typically Google and Bing, from where their domains are deindexed, never to be seen again. The downside is a visibility boost for malicious pirate sites and various scams, which typically target less savvy users before parting them from their money.

Arcom’s report is currently available in French and is linked below. All translations and presentation of Arcom data here should be considered unofficial.

Arcom’s Illicit Consumption of Live Sports in 2024 report is available here (pdf)

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

Torrent site uploaders come in various shapes and sizes. Only a few become so popular that their ‘brand’ is widely recognized by online pirates.

COLLECTiVE falls into the latter category. The uploader operating under this tag, Will1869, shared many high-profile titles, mostly films. He purportedly operated as a one-man team.

These releases appeared on major torrent sites including 1337x and the recently defunct TorrentGalaxy. COLLECTiVE reportedly ran a small torrent portal, Laidbackmanor, where these releases often appeared first.

Unlike regular release groups, which are often the origin of leaks, Will1869 (as COLLECTiVE) typically sourced his releases from elsewhere. This included cams with embedded ads that were carefully stripped before they were shared further.

UK Police Arrest Will1869, Shut Down Laidbackmanor

For a long time, COLLECTiVE uploads appeared at a steady pace, but that changed at the end of last month, when they suddenly stopped. At the same time, the Laidbackmanor site was taken offline and redirected to a GoDaddy landing page.

In the immediate wake of these events, rumors started to spread that Will1869, a.k.a. COLLECTiVE, had been arrested. This was reported by several unconfirmed sources and corroborated by a message sent through his website hours before it disappeared.

After reaching out to a trusted source, who asked to remain anonymous, we can now report that UK police arrested Will1869 at the end of April. He has since been released on bail but remains under investigation.

At this point, no further information on the case is available, but we are informed that additional details are expected to be released in due course. What is clear, however, is that the arrest effectively means the end for COLLECTiVE and the associated website.

Prominent Releases

It’s unknown how the authorities eventually pinpointed Will1869, but his operation under the COLLECTiVE tag has been a high-profile target for a while, as its releases have been downloaded through pirate sites many millions of times.

In January, COLLECTiVE made headlines when two Oscar-nominated screeners started to leak across various torrent sites. The most popular releases were tagged by COLLECTiVE but Will1869 wasn’t the original source. Instead, the leaks were obtained elsewhere on the open web.

These pass-through releases were typical of how COLLECTiVE operated. Instead of ripping content directly, Will1869 picked up other releases which, after some ‘improvements’, were uploaded to the public.

The arrest of Will1869 by UK police effectively puts an end to this stream of uploads.

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

Torrent site uploaders come in various shapes and sizes. Only a few become so popular that their ‘brand’ is widely recognized by online pirates.

COLLECTiVE falls into the latter category. The uploader operating under this tag, Will1869, shared many high-profile titles, mostly films. He purportedly operated as a one-man team.

These releases appeared on major torrent sites including 1337x and the recently defunct TorrentGalaxy. COLLECTiVE reportedly ran a small torrent portal, Laidbackmanor, where these releases often appeared first.

Unlike regular release groups, which are often the origin of leaks, Will1869 (as COLLECTiVE) typically sourced his releases from elsewhere. This included cams with embedded ads that were carefully stripped before they were shared further.

UK Police Arrest Will1869, Shut Down Laidbackmanor

For a long time, COLLECTiVE uploads appeared at a steady pace, but that changed at the end of last month, when they suddenly stopped. At the same time, the Laidbackmanor site was taken offline and redirected to a GoDaddy landing page.

In the immediate wake of these events, rumors started to spread that Will1869, a.k.a. COLLECTiVE, had been arrested. This was reported by several unconfirmed sources and corroborated by a message sent through his website hours before it disappeared.

After reaching out to a trusted source, who asked to remain anonymous, we can now report that UK police arrested Will1869 at the end of April. He has since been released on bail but remains under investigation.

At this point, no further information on the case is available, but we are informed that additional details are expected to be released in due course. What is clear, however, is that the arrest effectively means the end for COLLECTiVE and the associated website.

Prominent Releases

It’s unknown how the authorities eventually pinpointed Will1869, but his operation under the COLLECTiVE tag has been a high-profile target for a while, as its releases have been downloaded through pirate sites many millions of times.

In January, COLLECTiVE made headlines when two Oscar-nominated screeners started to leak across various torrent sites. The most popular releases were tagged by COLLECTiVE but Will1869 wasn’t the original source. Instead, the leaks were obtained elsewhere on the open web.

These pass-through releases were typical of how COLLECTiVE operated. Instead of ripping content directly, Will1869 picked up other releases which, after some ‘improvements’, were uploaded to the public.

The arrest of Will1869 by UK police effectively puts an end to this stream of uploads.

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

Torrent site uploaders come in various shapes and sizes. Only a few become so popular that their ‘brand’ is widely recognized by online pirates.

COLLECTiVE falls into the latter category. The uploader operating under this tag, Will1869, shared many high-profile titles, mostly films. He purportedly operated as a one-man team.

These releases appeared on major torrent sites including 1337x and the recently defunct TorrentGalaxy. COLLECTiVE reportedly ran a small torrent portal, Laidbackmanor, where these releases often appeared first.

Unlike regular release groups, which are often the origin of leaks, Will1869 (as COLLECTiVE) typically sourced his releases from elsewhere. This included cams with embedded ads that were carefully stripped before they were shared further.

UK Police Arrest Will1869, Shut Down Laidbackmanor

For a long time, COLLECTiVE uploads appeared at a steady pace, but that changed at the end of last month, when they suddenly stopped. At the same time, the Laidbackmanor site was taken offline and redirected to a GoDaddy landing page.

In the immediate wake of these events, rumors started to spread that Will1869, a.k.a. COLLECTiVE, had been arrested. This was reported by several unconfirmed sources and corroborated by a message sent through his website hours before it disappeared.

After reaching out to a trusted source, who asked to remain anonymous, we can now report that UK police arrested Will1869 at the end of April. He has since been released on bail but remains under investigation.

At this point, no further information on the case is available, but we are informed that additional details are expected to be released in due course. What is clear, however, is that the arrest effectively means the end for COLLECTiVE and the associated website.

Prominent Releases

It’s unknown how the authorities eventually pinpointed Will1869, but his operation under the COLLECTiVE tag has been a high-profile target for a while, as its releases have been downloaded through pirate sites many millions of times.

In January, COLLECTiVE made headlines when two Oscar-nominated screeners started to leak across various torrent sites. The most popular releases were tagged by COLLECTiVE but Will1869 wasn’t the original source. Instead, the leaks were obtained elsewhere on the open web.

These pass-through releases were typical of how COLLECTiVE operated. Instead of ripping content directly, Will1869 picked up other releases which, after some ‘improvements’, were uploaded to the public.

The arrest of Will1869 by UK police effectively puts an end to this stream of uploads.

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

After a decade of focusing on efforts overseas, the push for website blocking has landed back on American shores.

Domestic site blocking initiatives were shelved for over a decade in the U.S. following the SOPA backlash, but that hesitation appears to have evaporated.

With Representative Zoe Lofgren’s introduction of the Foreign Anti-Digital Piracy Act ( FADPA ) in February, the controversial mechanism of court-ordered blocking against foreign ‘pirate’ sites is no longer just a foreign issue. On the contrary, with more than one bill in the making, lawmakers and stakeholders are actively fleshing out the details.

MPA Spotlights Site Blocking at Senate Hearing

Thus far, most of the work on these site blocking agreements has taken place behind closed doors. We know that ISPs are involved but none have commented on the matter in public. The same is true for rightsholders who, after the massive SOPA revolt, prefer private negotiations over demands in the public spotlight.

As a pioneer of site blocking efforts around the globe, it’s no secret that the Motion Picture Association (MPA) is in favor. And indeed, at a recent hearing at the Senate Subcommittee on Intellectual Property, the MPA’s Karyn Temple reiterated the need for a U.S. site-blocking system.

The MPA’s Senior Executive Vice President explained that pirate sites generate billions of visits a year by ‘stealing’ American films and TV series. These sites are not simple hobby projects, but commercial operations run by criminal groups from foreign countries.

“They are run not by individual teens in someone’s basement, but by sophisticated foreign criminal organizations who are involved in the most heinous criminal behavior you can imagine,” Temple said.

“And they are specifically designed to target American citizens, your constituents, for their personal and financial data and to expose them to malware and identity theft,”

American consumers are specifically targeted by these sites because they are lucrative victims, Temple said. Additionally, it is of course convenient that sites are not blocked in the U.S., unlike in 55 other countries, where blocking remedies are available.

ISPs Seek Retroactive Immunity

The MPA’s testimony offers little fresh news. The group has shared similar views for several years now but this time around, it appears that progress is actually being made, albeit behind the scenes.

Democratic Senator Chris Coons, the recent recipient of an MPA Industry Champion Award , shared some new information during the hearing. He noted that “real progress” appears to have been made, while also identifying a previously undisclosed roadblock.

Discussions on potential site blocking legislation are taking place alongside a request from ISPs for both prospective and retrospective immunity. That basically boils down to a demand for an exemption on piracy liability, regardless of when any infringement took place.

“It finally feels like we’re making some real progress here on site blocking after years. One of the key roadblocks to getting a final deal is whether ISPs should benefit from immunity, both prospectively and retrospectively,” Senator Coons said.

When asked to comment on the ISPs’ request, the MPA replied that this shouldn’t be much of a problem, as the immunity issue never led to any legal claims in other countries.

“ISPs have not routinely been sued for enforcing site blocking regimes. So, you know, I think in our experience, we don’t think that this is a provision that is necessary at all,” Temple replied.

U.S. Liability Lawsuits Against ISPs

Temple is right that site blocking schemes haven’t triggered a wave of lawsuits abroad, but the ISPs may have another interest in retrospective immunity when it comes to piracy liability.

While details of their exact demands are unknown, it seems plausible that ISPs are seeking to limit the existing piracy liability lawsuits, where providers are sued for not taking appropriate action against repeat infringers.

These lawsuits involve many prominent ISPs, including Verizon and Cox. The latter was previously held liable for a billion dollars in damages and the ISP recently appealed to the Supreme Court to take on the matter.

With these cases in mind, it’s understandable that ISPs would like to make sure that, if new legislation passes, they wouldn’t find themselves worse off from a liability perspective.

Finish Line in Sight?

Unfortunately, none of these site blocking ‘deal’ discussions between stakeholders are taking place in public. So, for now, we have to make do with the snippets that come out through hearings and other commentary.

That said, it’s starting to look like a U.S. site blocking scheme is closer to reality than ever before. At the hearing, Temple sounded confident that it could pass this session, which means a matter of months, not years.

“The MPA stands ready to work with you and all stakeholders to enact judicial site blocking this session. It’s time, finally, to get this legislation over the finish line,” Temple said.

—

The full video of the hearing of the U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary’s subcommittee on Intellectual Property that took place last week is available here .

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

After a decade of focusing on efforts overseas, the push for website blocking has landed back on American shores.

Domestic site blocking initiatives were shelved for over a decade in the U.S. following the SOPA backlash, but that hesitation appears to have evaporated.

With Representative Zoe Lofgren’s introduction of the Foreign Anti-Digital Piracy Act ( FADPA ) in February, the controversial mechanism of court-ordered blocking against foreign ‘pirate’ sites is no longer just a foreign issue. On the contrary, with more than one bill in the making, lawmakers and stakeholders are actively fleshing out the details.

MPA Spotlights Site Blocking at Senate Hearing

Thus far, most of the work on these site blocking agreements has taken place behind closed doors. We know that ISPs are involved but none have commented on the matter in public. The same is true for rightsholders who, after the massive SOPA revolt, prefer private negotiations over demands in the public spotlight.

As a pioneer of site blocking efforts around the globe, it’s no secret that the Motion Picture Association (MPA) is in favor. And indeed, at a recent hearing at the Senate Subcommittee on Intellectual Property, the MPA’s Karyn Temple reiterated the need for a U.S. site-blocking system.

The MPA’s Senior Executive Vice President explained that pirate sites generate billions of visits a year by ‘stealing’ American films and TV series. These sites are not simple hobby projects, but commercial operations run by criminal groups from foreign countries.

“They are run not by individual teens in someone’s basement, but by sophisticated foreign criminal organizations who are involved in the most heinous criminal behavior you can imagine,” Temple said.

“And they are specifically designed to target American citizens, your constituents, for their personal and financial data and to expose them to malware and identity theft,”

American consumers are specifically targeted by these sites because they are lucrative victims, Temple said. Additionally, it is of course convenient that sites are not blocked in the U.S., unlike in 55 other countries, where blocking remedies are available.

ISPs Seek Retroactive Immunity

The MPA’s testimony offers little fresh news. The group has shared similar views for several years now but this time around, it appears that progress is actually being made, albeit behind the scenes.

Democratic Senator Chris Coons, the recent recipient of an MPA Industry Champion Award , shared some new information during the hearing. He noted that “real progress” appears to have been made, while also identifying a previously undisclosed roadblock.

Discussions on potential site blocking legislation are taking place alongside a request from ISPs for both prospective and retrospective immunity. That basically boils down to a demand for an exemption on piracy liability, regardless of when any infringement took place.

“It finally feels like we’re making some real progress here on site blocking after years. One of the key roadblocks to getting a final deal is whether ISPs should benefit from immunity, both prospectively and retrospectively,” Senator Coons said.

When asked to comment on the ISPs’ request, the MPA replied that this shouldn’t be much of a problem, as the immunity issue never led to any legal claims in other countries.

“ISPs have not routinely been sued for enforcing site blocking regimes. So, you know, I think in our experience, we don’t think that this is a provision that is necessary at all,” Temple replied.

U.S. Liability Lawsuits Against ISPs

Temple is right that site blocking schemes haven’t triggered a wave of lawsuits abroad, but the ISPs may have another interest in retrospective immunity when it comes to piracy liability.

While details of their exact demands are unknown, it seems plausible that ISPs are seeking to limit the existing piracy liability lawsuits, where providers are sued for not taking appropriate action against repeat infringers.

These lawsuits involve many prominent ISPs, including Verizon and Cox. The latter was previously held liable for a billion dollars in damages and the ISP recently appealed to the Supreme Court to take on the matter.

With these cases in mind, it’s understandable that ISPs would like to make sure that, if new legislation passes, they wouldn’t find themselves worse off from a liability perspective.

Finish Line in Sight?

Unfortunately, none of these site blocking ‘deal’ discussions between stakeholders are taking place in public. So, for now, we have to make do with the snippets that come out through hearings and other commentary.

That said, it’s starting to look like a U.S. site blocking scheme is closer to reality than ever before. At the hearing, Temple sounded confident that it could pass this session, which means a matter of months, not years.

“The MPA stands ready to work with you and all stakeholders to enact judicial site blocking this session. It’s time, finally, to get this legislation over the finish line,” Temple said.

—

The full video of the hearing of the U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary’s subcommittee on Intellectual Property that took place last week is available here .

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

After a decade of focusing on efforts overseas, the push for website blocking has landed back on American shores.

Domestic site blocking initiatives were shelved for over a decade in the U.S. following the SOPA backlash, but that hesitation appears to have evaporated.

With Representative Zoe Lofgren’s introduction of the Foreign Anti-Digital Piracy Act ( FADPA ) in February, the controversial mechanism of court-ordered blocking against foreign ‘pirate’ sites is no longer just a foreign issue. On the contrary, with more than one bill in the making, lawmakers and stakeholders are actively fleshing out the details.

MPA Spotlights Site Blocking at Senate Hearing

Thus far, most of the work on these site blocking agreements has taken place behind closed doors. We know that ISPs are involved but none have commented on the matter in public. The same is true for rightsholders who, after the massive SOPA revolt, prefer private negotiations over demands in the public spotlight.

As a pioneer of site blocking efforts around the globe, it’s no secret that the Motion Picture Association (MPA) is in favor. And indeed, at a recent hearing at the Senate Subcommittee on Intellectual Property, the MPA’s Karyn Temple reiterated the need for a U.S. site-blocking system.

The MPA’s Senior Executive Vice President explained that pirate sites generate billions of visits a year by ‘stealing’ American films and TV series. These sites are not simple hobby projects, but commercial operations run by criminal groups from foreign countries.

“They are run not by individual teens in someone’s basement, but by sophisticated foreign criminal organizations who are involved in the most heinous criminal behavior you can imagine,” Temple said.

“And they are specifically designed to target American citizens, your constituents, for their personal and financial data and to expose them to malware and identity theft,”

American consumers are specifically targeted by these sites because they are lucrative victims, Temple said. Additionally, it is of course convenient that sites are not blocked in the U.S., unlike in 55 other countries, where blocking remedies are available.

ISPs Seek Retroactive Immunity

The MPA’s testimony offers little fresh news. The group has shared similar views for several years now but this time around, it appears that progress is actually being made, albeit behind the scenes.

Democratic Senator Chris Coons, the recent recipient of an MPA Industry Champion Award , shared some new information during the hearing. He noted that “real progress” appears to have been made, while also identifying a previously undisclosed roadblock.

Discussions on potential site blocking legislation are taking place alongside a request from ISPs for both prospective and retrospective immunity. That basically boils down to a demand for an exemption on piracy liability, regardless of when any infringement took place.

“It finally feels like we’re making some real progress here on site blocking after years. One of the key roadblocks to getting a final deal is whether ISPs should benefit from immunity, both prospectively and retrospectively,” Senator Coons said.

When asked to comment on the ISPs’ request, the MPA replied that this shouldn’t be much of a problem, as the immunity issue never led to any legal claims in other countries.

“ISPs have not routinely been sued for enforcing site blocking regimes. So, you know, I think in our experience, we don’t think that this is a provision that is necessary at all,” Temple replied.

U.S. Liability Lawsuits Against ISPs

Temple is right that site blocking schemes haven’t triggered a wave of lawsuits abroad, but the ISPs may have another interest in retrospective immunity when it comes to piracy liability.

While details of their exact demands are unknown, it seems plausible that ISPs are seeking to limit the existing piracy liability lawsuits, where providers are sued for not taking appropriate action against repeat infringers.

These lawsuits involve many prominent ISPs, including Verizon and Cox. The latter was previously held liable for a billion dollars in damages and the ISP recently appealed to the Supreme Court to take on the matter.

With these cases in mind, it’s understandable that ISPs would like to make sure that, if new legislation passes, they wouldn’t find themselves worse off from a liability perspective.

Finish Line in Sight?

Unfortunately, none of these site blocking ‘deal’ discussions between stakeholders are taking place in public. So, for now, we have to make do with the snippets that come out through hearings and other commentary.

That said, it’s starting to look like a U.S. site blocking scheme is closer to reality than ever before. At the hearing, Temple sounded confident that it could pass this session, which means a matter of months, not years.

“The MPA stands ready to work with you and all stakeholders to enact judicial site blocking this session. It’s time, finally, to get this legislation over the finish line,” Temple said.

—

The full video of the hearing of the U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary’s subcommittee on Intellectual Property that took place last week is available here .

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