Author: Ernesto Van der Sar

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.

From USTR’s 2008 report

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.

From Cloudflare’s 2025 rebuttal

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.”

From CDA’s 2025 rebuttal

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.

Lemo/Kemo defendants

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.

Kemo pricing

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.

The data for our weekly download chart is estimated by TorrentFreak, and is for informational and educational reference only.

Downloading content without permission is copyright infringement. These torrent download statistics are only meant to provide further insight into piracy trends. All data are gathered from public resources.

This week we have one newcomer on the list. “The Fantastic Four: First Steps” is the most shared title.

The most torrented movies for the week ending on October 20 are:

Movie Rank	Rank last week	Movie name	IMDb Rating / Trailer
Most downloaded movies via torrent sites
1	(1)	The Fantastic Four: First Steps	7.1 / trailer
2	(2)	The Conjuring: Last Rites	6.3 / trailer
3	(4)	F1: The Movie	7.8 / trailer
4	(3)	Superman	7.7 / trailer
5	(6)	Mission: Impossible – The Final Reckoning	7.3 / trailer
6	(5)	Weapons	7.6 / trailer
7	(…)	The Woman in Cabin 10	5.9 / trailer
8	(7)	Nobody 2	6.4 / trailer
9	(8)	The Naked Gun	6.7 / trailer
10	(10)	Caught Stealing	7.1 / trailer

Note: We also publish an updating archive of all the list of weekly most torrented movies lists.

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

To combat online piracy, copyright holders frequently use DMCA subpoenas to compel service providers to unmask alleged infringers.

Because these requests don’t require a judge’s approval and are typically signed off by a court clerk, they offer a swift and powerful tool to identify pirates.

In recent years, Internet infrastructure company Cloudflare has been targeted with DMCA subpoenas dozens of times. While the personal information it discloses may not always be accurate, it has been instrumental in several enforcement actions.

Shueisha vs. Mangajikan

In some instances, the mere threat of potential legal trouble may already be sufficient. This was the case a few months ago when the massively popular manga piracy site Mangajikan.com shut its doors days after publisher Shueisha obtained a DMCA subpoena directed at Cloudflare.

While Shueisha must have been pleased with the quick result, the publisher still didn’t know who was running the site. Shortly after Shueisha obtained the DMCA subpoena, the anonymous operator of mangajikan.com and related domain alammanga.com, submitted a motion to quash at a California federal court.

Anonymous Operator Relies on Cox Precedent

The ‘John Doe’ operator’s motion to quash cited several reasons why disclosure of their personal data should be denied. This includes the Cox precedent confirmed by the Court of Appeals in August, which held that DMCA subpoenas don’t apply to Section 512(a) service providers, i.e mere conduits that simply pass on bytes.

“Cloudflare is not a proper DMCA target in this instance because here, it only provides DNS and CDN services to the Domains and cannot remove or disable access to content,” Doe’s attorney explained.

“[F]ederal courts have repeatedly held that DMCA subpoenas cannot compel disclosure from service providers acting solely as conduits or CDNs, as they do not host or control the allegedly infringing content.”

The non-hosting argument appears to align with Cloudflare’s own policy. The company does not disable access to allegedly infringing URLs that use its CDN service because it doesn’t host the content permanently. Instead, Cloudflare forwards DMCA notices to the affected subscribers.

Shueisha Counters: Caching is Key

In its response, Shueisha pointed out that since Cloudflare temporarily stores the contested materials in its cache and then serves the content to the site’s visitors, Cloudflare qualifies as a Section 512(c) service.

The manga publisher backed up its claim by simply submitting a screenshot from Cloudflare’s own website describing how its cache “stores copies of frequently accessed content.”

“Cloudflare does, in fact, store content on its servers in the form of cached data which allows for faster loading of sites. Courts, particularly in this district, routinely issue DMCA subpoenas to Cloudflare that Cloudflare does not move to quash,” Shueisha argued.

From Shueisha’s filing

Shueisha further argued that the pirate site’s operator failed to cite a single case in which Cloudflare was seen as an “improper recipient” of a DMCA subpoena in this context.

Jurisdiction, Fair Use, and Retaliation

In addition to the disagreement over the correct application of a DMCA subpoena, the operator argued that a U.S. court is not the right venue. In a declaration, they explained that Mangajikan.com allegedly blocked U.S. visitors, had a non-commercial nature, and has already been shut down.

The underlying DMCA notice is also invalid, they argued, because it didn’t properly identify the infringing content and failed to take fair use into account.

Finally, the John Doe operator asked the court for a protective order to shield his identity, noting that he feared retaliation since Shueisha had released personal details of adversaries in the past.

These additional arguments were contested by Shueisha. Crucially, the publisher said that since their declaration was submitted anonymously, the operator can’t be held to the standard of “penalty of perjury” so should be ignored.

Other defenses, such as fair use claims, do not need to be considered for a motion to quash, the publisher added.

Court: Caching Qualifies for a DMCA Subpoena

After reviewing the filings from both sides, the court ultimately sided with the manga publisher.

Firstly, Judge Gonzalez Rogers ruled that Shueisha sufficiently identified a copyrighted work. In addition, its takedown notice included the required statement of good faith belief that Mangajikan’s use was unauthorized.

Finally, the court found that Cloudflare is not a mere conduit service provider under Section 512(a), as it stores cached content. Siding with Shueisha’s argument that Cloudflare functioned as a Section 512(c) service provider, the Court confirmed that a DMCA subpoena can be used.

From Judge Gonzalez Rogers’ order

“The parties offer limited evidence to demonstrate what functions Cloudflare performed for Doe’s websites. Still, Shueisha has made a prima facie showing that Cloudflare stores content on its servers in the form of cached data to support faster loading of sites.”

“Because there is no evidence to the contrary, the Court accepts Shueisha’s prima facie showing and concludes that Cloudflare functioned as a Section 512(c) service provider,” Judge Gonzalez Rogers added.

DMCA: A, B, C…

Interestingly, the order didn’t mention Section 512(b), which specifically references caching. That likely wouldn’t have changed the outcome, however, as DMCA subpoenas also apply to these services.

Cloudflare likely sees itself as a caching service in relation to its CDN services, as it typically does not remove cached content, unlike content that it hosts permanently. Therefore, the court’s ruling here should be seen as limited to this particular case.

For Mangajikan’s operator, the ruling effectively means that their battle for anonymity is over. However, the court did order the parties to create a protective order, which will limit how Shueisha can use Doe’s identity, particularly in public.

—

A copy of U.S. District Court Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers’ order 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!!!”.

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.”

Waxing Poetics about Grandmothers

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.

A Nullity

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.

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.

DMCA Notices

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 Poems

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.

Since 1997, the Tonga Network Information Center (Tonic) has been responsible for the .to top-level domain

This country-specific extension is linked to the Kingdom of Tonga but the Tonic registry is incorporated in the United States and operating from the California city of Burlingame.

Compared to more than 160 million .com registrations, use of .to is relatively modest with just over 60,000. Interestingly, however, .to domain names appear to be somewhat of a magnet for pirate site operators.

This unusual attraction is a thorn in the side of rightsholders. Earlier this month, the MPA listed the registry in its overview of notorious piracy markets submitted to the U.S. Government, highlighting Tonic’s alleged inaction over piracy-related issues.

Warezio Sees Tonic as a Piracy Haven

Today, the .to registry is again at the center of a complaint. The Czech anti-piracy firm Warezio, which works on behalf of many local rightsholders, wrote a letter to the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), urging it to take action, or else.

“As an anti-piracy company, we frequently encounter .to domains in our enforcement activities, which has given us firsthand insight into the registry’s problematic practices. This is not a coincidence but a direct result of the registry’s operational approach that prioritizes anonymity over accountability,” Warezio writes.

Warezio’s letter complains that the Tonic registry lacks basic transparency and accountability mechanisms. For example, there is no public Whois database and no formal terms and conditions for domain owners, which frustrates anti-piracy actions.

Fundamental deficiencies

The letter adds that the .to registry also lacks a dispute-resolution mechanism, does not publish sufficient contact information, and fails to comply with European privacy legislation.

Warezio Threatens ICANN with Legal Action

While complaints about Tonic are not new, Warezio addresses ICANN directly and suggests that the organization can be held legally responsible under the Czech Republic’s unfair competition law.

Warezio argues that by “knowingly tolerating a registry operator that facilitates unlawful commercial activities,” ICANN risks being regarded as an “auxiliary participant” in the alleged unfair competition that takes place through the .to domain ecosystem.

“Should ICANN continue to remain inactive despite having been duly informed of these facts, it would expose itself to potential legal actions for unfair competition before the competent Czech courts,” Warezio writes.

“Such proceedings could seek injunctive relief, corrective measures, and compensation for the ongoing market distortion and harm suffered by Czech rights holders and legitimate businesses.”

Threat and call to action

Warezio calls on ICANN to require domain registry operators to provide Whois data and take additional measures to guarantee transparency and accountability. This applies to Tonic, but also more generally to other registries that have similar shortcomings.

“The internet community deserves domain registries that balance legitimate privacy concerns with the need for accountability and legal compliance. We trust that ICANN will take swift and decisive action to address these critical issues.”

The anti-piracy outfit demands a response within seven days. If no action is taken, it reserves the right to follow up on the unfair competition claims.

ICANN’s Limited Authority Over ccTLDs

ICANN has yet to respond to the letter, but Warezio’s allegations appear to go beyond how the organization sees its own role in the domain name ecosystem.

Warezio wants ICANN to enforce new standards on the .to registry but ICANN has repeatedly stated that it lacks the authority to do so. According to ICANN, its compliance department “does not have contract authority to take compliance action against ccTLD operators.”

ICANN has significant influence over generic top-level domains (gTLDs), such as .com and .net, accrediting registrars and overseeing relevant policies for these domains. In contrast, country-code top-level domains (ccTLDs) operate differently.

These ccTLDs and their registries operate under local laws and regulations. This also applies to the implementation of policies concerning Whois requirements and domain name disputes.

“The ccTLD policies regarding registration, accreditation of registrars and Whois are managed according to the relevant oversight and governance mechanisms within the country, with no role for ICANN’s Compliance department in these areas,” ICANN writes.

Notably, the anti-piracy outfit is not threatening to take legal action against Tonic directly. At least, there is no mention of any direct threats against the registry or Tonga’s authorities.

Instead, Warezio’s letter appears to challenge ICANN’s policy, suggesting that it can be held liable for ccTLD-related issues under the Czech Republic’s unfair competition law. Whether this approach will work is unclear, but if it results in a legal battle, that would certainly be one to watch.

—

A copy of the letter, sent by Warezio’s CEO Jakub Hájek to ICANN’s legal department, is available here (pdf). This also includes more detail on a potential claim against ICANN.

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

Over the years, we’ve witnessed dozens of anti-piracy campaigns. Despite these efforts, reported piracy rates appear to increase, seemingly undeterred.

Research has indicated that piracy is a complex phenomenon that’s not always easy to grasp. However, understanding the motivations of pirates can be key to changing their behavior, new research suggests.

Piracy Study: Social Risks & Norms

An academic study recently published in Frontiers in Behavioral Economics, explores the social drivers of digital piracy, focusing on gender differences. The research, conducted by Kate M. Whitman and Joe Cox, looked at how perceptions of social norms and risks can impact people’s intention to pirate.

The rising tide of piracy

The researchers tackled the issue from two different angles, using an online survey of 684 participants.

First, they looked for a link between participants’ personal feelings and their past piracy consumption. They then checked if this was linked to people’s perceived “social risk,” including concerns that pirating would make them look cheap or unethical.

For the second angle, the researchers tested if they could change people’s minds about their future behavior. The respondents had to guess how common piracy is, and some of them were then shown the real piracy rate, taken from a large UK government survey.

This setup effectively created two experimental groups. One was explicitly told that their estimate of the piracy rate among their peers was “too high”, while the others were informed that theirs was “too low”. Finally, a control group received no comparison message at all.

Men Pirate More

The results of the study confirm the existing perceptions on gender differences. Men use pirate sources more often when they consume music or live sports, which are the two content categories addressed in the research.

In the music category, the rate was 3% for women versus 7% for men. The gender gap was even more pronounced for live sports, where men say that 21% of their consumption comes from pirate sources, compared to 8% for women.

“These results show that even when controlling for legal demand, men tend to pirate more than women. They also show that live sport consumers derive more of their consumption from illegal sources than music consumers,” the researchers conclude.

“Social Risk” & The Fear of Looking “Cheap”

The study also examined the link between perceived social risk and piracy. This was measured by asking to what degree friends and family would think the respondent was “unethical,” a “criminal,” or “couldn’t afford legal content” if they knew they pirated.

The perceived social risk score was not correlated with music piracy for men and women. Whether they pirated a lot or barely at all was not linked to these social drawbacks.

For live sports piracy, however, higher perceived social risk was associated with a lower piracy rate, particularly among men. While this is a correlational finding, the researchers suggest that it may be due to male sports culture.

“This aligns with masculine norms that emphasize status, independence, and financial competence, especially within male-dominated, group-oriented social contexts like sports fandom.

“In these settings, the reputational cost of appearing “cheap” or socially deviant may be particularly salient,” the researchers add.

Appearing cheap

Experiment: Piracy Statistics Can Backfire

The second part of the study was an experiment. It examined whether explicitly pointing out that people over- or underestimate the piracy statistics of their peers, would change their intention to pirate in the future. This led to some key results.

Those who overestimated the official Government data, thinking that piracy was more common among their peers, did not change their future piracy plans. That was true for both men and women.

Intriguingly, however, men who had underestimated how common piracy was increased their willingness to pirate in the future after they were informed that piracy is more prevalent than they thought. On women, this had little effect.

This means that campaigns, studies, and other reports that highlight how widespread piracy is, can actually backfire. Some men may see this as a justification to pirate more themselves.

“These findings highlight the risks of campaigns that emphasize how common piracy is, particularly among men, without considering how such information may inadvertently normalize and license the behavior,” the researchers write.

Limitations and Future Research

While these findings are new and noteworthy, this type of research, which relies on self-reported intentions and behavior, always comes with caveats. The authors of the paper realize this and mention it as one of the limitations.

For example, the social risk questions were asked before participants reported their past piracy behavior. This may have primed participants, influencing their own piracy score.

While not directly mentioned in the paper, the experimental part of the study could also be impacted. By putting participants in a “social risk” mindset, it may have influenced how they estimated peer piracy rates, systematically affecting who was placed in the “underestimator” and “overestimator” groups.

All in all, the study presents a clear takeaway for anti-piracy organizations. For decades, campaigns have focused on highlighting the massive scale of the piracy problem, but this research suggests that revealing how common piracy is could actually backfire.

—

Whitman KM and Cox J (2025) The rising tide of piracy: the influence of social roles, risks and norms on illegal consumption. Front. Behav. Econ. 4:1631329. doi: 10.3389/frbhe.2025.1631329

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

In 2021, German Internet providers agreed to voluntarily block structurally infringing pirate sites.

The ISPs teamed up with rightsholder groups and launched the “Clearing Body for Copyright on the Internet” (CUII), which became responsible for handing down blocking ‘decisions’.

In June, signatories to the blocking agreement amended their code of conduct, which fundamentally changed how CUII operates. Going forward, all blocking action will take place after a court orders at least one Internet provider to block a website. While the addition of judicial oversight is laudable, transparency remains lacking.

Fitgirl Repacks, RPG Only, and Anna’s Archive

In late August, many people noticed that the popular game piracy site FitGirl Repacks was unavailable through many German ISPs. The blocking action had all the hallmarks of an official blockade, but there was no mention of a new order on the CUII website.

The same was true for RPG Only, which was blocked last month, again without an official notice at the time. This pattern repeated itself a few weeks later, when shadow library Anna’s Archive was presumably added to the German blocklist.

These ‘surprise’ blockades were discussed on social media, attracting attention from German news site Tarnkappe. However, all this time there was no official confirmation from CUII, the organization responsible for coordinating blocking efforts across ISPs and transparently informing the public.

Needless to say, this lack of communication doesn’t make it easier for the public to follow these developments. It also makes it harder for the press to accurately explain what is going on.

Transparency on Demand

Last week, there appeared to be some movement in the transparency process as CUII published official confirmation on the RPG Only blockade. It confirmed that DNS blocking was implemented following an order by the Cologne court, which deemed the site to be structurally infringing.

There is no mention of the complaining rightsholder, but the German game industry group is a member of CUII, so that’s a likely candidate.

While researching the matter, we looked for official confirmation on the FitGirl and Anna’s Archive blocks, but nothing appeared. At least, not until we asked.

We asked CUII for clarification on September 30 and the next day, official confirmation of the FitGirl and Anna’s Archive blockades was published on the CUII website.

CUII’s spokesperson, subsequently responded to our questions. She confirmed that the Anna’s Archive blockade is based on an order from the Cologne Regional Court. The block against FitGirl Repacks, however, predates the updated agreement and was implemented based on a decision from CUII’s own panel.

While the documents themselves are dated earlier, our observation of CUII’s website shows the notice for RPG Only was published on September 24. The confirmations for FitGirl and Anna’s Archive only appeared on October 1, the day after our inquiry.

Not tipping Off Pirate Site Operators

In the case of the FitGirl blockade, the official announcement comes more than three months after the order was signed, which is a rather long delay.

After requesting an explanation for this delay, CUII’s spokesperson clarified that their goal is to “ensure the greatest possible transparency,” but that its orders are only published after all participating ISPs have implemented the blocks.

According to CUII, they do this for two reasons. First, to ensure that the public documentation accurately reflects the real-world status of the blockade. Secondly, it’s a tactical measure to prevent site operators from learning about a block before all of their domains are rendered inaccessible.

While these procedural and strategic reasons explain the delay, the effect on the public remains the same: a period of uncertainty where blocks are active without any official, public confirmation.

Opaque Transparency

The delay between the implementation of the blockades and CUII’s official publication is not the only point of frustration. Transparency is rather limited too, as the names of the parties involved, including the rightsholders and the targeted domain names, are all shielded from the public.

The underlying court orders are often anonymized as well, which is typical in Germany. Moreover, these orders are not made publicly available.

The website of the Regional Court in Cologne explains that interested parties can request a copy at NRWE, which we did last week. On Monday, NRWE informed us that they don’t have a copy, redirecting our inquiry back to the court. Since then, we haven’t heard anything new.

Opaque transparency is not very useful, to say the least. Ideally, blocking schemes should publish a full list of all currently blocked domain names so outsiders can scrutinize the measures and correct errors, which do happen.

Amidst all the opacity, there remains a glimmer of transparency. A German student previously launched CUIIListe, a monitoring portal where all blocked domain names are monitored. This homebrew transparency portal picks up blocked domains long before they are confirmed by CUII.

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

Pintere.com is a straightforward tool that enables users to download images, videos, and boards from Pinterest.

The service also works with other platforms, including Facebook, Imgur, and Instagram, but its name suggests that Pinterest is of prime interest.

The site is a project from developer Johnathan Nader, a name that regular readers may recognize. Nader is also the owner of stream-ripper Yout.com, which is actively engaged in a legal battle with the RIAA currently pending at the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.

Nader initiated the lawsuit in 2020, alleging that the music group sent “abusive” DMCA anti-circumvention notices to Google. Through the lawsuit, the developer aims to establish that the site does not violate U.S. law.

Pinterest Targets Pintere.com

Pintere.com is not linked to music downloads, but that doesn’t mean that the service is immune to copyright issues. Unhappy with Pintere’s downloading capabilities, Pinterest sent DMCA anti-circumvention notices to Google search, hoping to delist site URLs from the company’s indexes.

Last week, Google informed Nader that it had removed various Pintere.com URLs from its search results following complaints, noting that the downloading tool might circumvent protections for copyrighted content.

Google’s Notice

The takedown notices (e.g.) appear to have been sent in August and according to information in the Lumen Database, the sender was Pinterest Inc. A quick check on Google reveals that the reported URLs were indeed removed.

Pintere Returns Fire

Disappointed that another one of his services has become a target for anti-circumvention notices, Nader sent a counter-notice to Google, requesting the search engine to reinstate the URLs.

The site’s lawyer, Frank Scardino, argues that Pinterest’s claims are “categorically false”. The letter accuses Pinterest of making false statements, arguing that its “representations to Google are false and that they materially misrepresent the Website’s activities”.

The letter

According to the letter, no circumvention is involved. Pintere is a “general purpose” tool that merely interacts with the publicly available Pinterest website using legitimate web requests.

“The Website does not descramble scrambled works, decrypt encrypted works, or otherwise avoids, bypasses, removes, deactivates, or impairs a technological measure that effectively controls access to copyrighted works,” the letter reads.

Like VCRs and DVRs

The lawyer compares Pintere.com to “VCRs and DVRs,” arguing the service is “capable of substantial noninfringing uses.” Based on these arguments, the letter formally requests Google to fully restore all URLs that were removed.

Pintere.com

After sending this formal notice, the ball is now in Google’s court. If these were regular DMCA notices, the search engine would be legally required to reinstate the URLs unless Pinterest takes further legal steps. That is not the case here, however.

Pinterest sent takedown notices under Section 1201 of the DMCA. They do not claim that the content on pintere.com is infringing, they say the service it provides is an illegal circumvention tool.

There’s no legal requirement for intermediaries to restore content in response to a counter-notice disputing the validity of an anti-circumvention takedown notice. As a result, it’s up to Google to decide what steps to take next.

To hear Pintrest’s side of the story, TorrentFreak requested comment on the counter-notice and the serious allegation it filed “false” claims with Google. Pintrest is yet to respond and for now, Pintere.com’s URLs are still missing from Google Search.

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