Author: Ernesto Van der Sar

With an impressive 185 million visitors in May this year, Mangajikan was one of the largest piracy sites on the Internet.

The site’s popularity did not go unnoticed by manga publisher Shueisha, which took legal action at a California federal court this summer to uncover the operator’s identity.

Shueisha filed a request for a DMCA subpoena, directed at Cloudflare, hoping to expose the operator. This appeared to yield results right away, as mangajikan.com and the related domain alammanga.com were voluntarily taken down soon after.

Motion to Quash / Protect

While Shueisha must have been pleased with the quick result, the publisher was still eager to identify the culprit. The operator, in turn, filed a motion to quash, hoping to protect their identity.

In court, the parties disagreed on whether Cloudflare is a proper recipient for DMCA subpoenas. In October, the California federal court eventually ruled that Cloudflare’s caching made it a valid subpoena target.

As a result, Cloudflare is required to share all information it holds on the pirate site operator. However, before any information was handed over, the court instructed the pirate site operator and Shueisha to agree on the terms of a protective order. That’s easier said than done.

Recently, the parties failed to reach an agreement on what Shueisha is allowed to do with the operator’s identifying information. To resolve this new dispute, they are now back in court, seeking a breakthrough.

Pirate Site Operator Seeks Privacy Fortress

Seeking maximum privacy, the pirate site operator wants the information handed over by Cloudflare classified as “Attorneys’-Eyes-Only”.

This restriction effectively means that the operator’s identity would only be revealed to Shueisha’s external U.S. lawyers. The information would be explicitly hidden from Shueisha’s own employees, in-house lawyers, and executives in Japan.

The proposed protective order would forbid Shueisha’s lawyers from sharing the identifying information with anyone else, including other copyright holders, who may have had their pirated content appear on the site.

Importantly, Mangajikan’s operator proposes a 180-day ultimatum to use the obtained details to file a U.S. copyright lawsuit. If Shueisha’s lawyers don’t take action within this timeframe, they must destroy all copies of the identifying information.

Shueisha Wants Broad and Global Action

In its submission, Shueisha fiercely opposes these strict limitations. The company argues that an extreme protective order rewards concealment efforts and obstructs enforcement. Their proposal is the polar opposite, and aims to facilitate a global enforcement strategy.

Specifically, Shueisha is demanding the right to share the name of the operator internally, including with its employees in Japan. This ‘confidential’ information may also be used for legal action abroad, not just in the United States.

In addition, Shueisha should be able to share the name with law enforcement and other affected parties when that’s appropriate.

“Shueisha must be free to use identifying information to pursue claims wherever appropriate, coordinate with law enforcement, seek additional subpoenas if the identifying information in the production is insufficient, or notify others whose works were infringed,” they note.

The Court Decides

Since the parties failed to reach a compromise, the terms of the protective order will be determined by Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers.

This isn’t just a procedural squabble. The judge’s ruling will set a precedent for how much power a DMCA subpoena can truly hold. Are they only designed to help U.S. legal efforts, or can information be used globally?

Needless to say, other rightsholders will monitor the outcome of this battle with great interest. The same holds for pirates who may want to put up a similar defense in the future.

—

A copy of the Joint Discovery Letter, where both parties explain their respective positions to the court, is available here (pdf). The associated proposed protective orders can be found here (operator) and here (Shueisha)

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

In 2004, the online piracy epidemic was becoming more serious for the movie industry, largely due to the spectacular growth of bandwidth-efficient torrent sites.

This concern was recognized by the Motion Picture Association (MPA[A]) and its renowned CEO, Jack Valenti, who had been in charge of the Hollywood group since 1966.

“If we don’t react promptly to an ascending curve of illegal uploading and downloading soon to be reinforced with dazzling speeds rising from file-trafficking networks, we will live with an intense regret,” Valenti said in June 2004.

Valenti’s warning came two weeks before his official retirement. As the founding father of the MPA’s anti-piracy division, he saw a combination of increased enforcement, new legislation, and public awareness campaigns as the key to tackling the piracy scourge.

You Wouldn’t Steal a Car

These words were put into action as the MPA worked on an aggressive educational campaign. At the ShoWest industry conference, held in Las Vegas in March 2004, attendees were shown a preview of two new PSAs that equated movie piracy to other types of stealing.

The now-iconic “You Wouldn’t Steal a Car” PSA was created under the MPA’s wings, but the group never promoted it publicly through its main website. Via various international partners, however, the PSA soon became a global phenomenon.

“You Wouldn’t Steal a Car” PSA

As far as we know, the first public mention dates back to July 12, when the Industry Trust for IP Awareness launched a broad campaign at the piracyisacrime.com website. This effort was partly funded by the main Hollywood studios, including MPA members.

The “You Wouldn’t Steal a Car” PSA wasn’t just featured by the UK campaign, it also inspired its name and logo.

Piracyisacrime.com

The MPA obviously didn’t mind the global exposure. In fact, a few days after the UK launch, the MPA teamed up with Singapore’s Intellectual Property Office to share the “you wouldn’t steal” mantra there as well.

Who Created the PSA?

While the MPA’s role is clear from historical documents, neatly preserved by the invaluable Internet Archive, the true origins of the campaign always remained a mystery. None of the public announcements mention who created the iconic PSA. That is, until two French journalists dove into it.

Nicolas Delage and Christophe Wilson embarked on a two-year investigation that they summarize in a YouTube video. Ironically, even the MPA seemed to have forgotten that the PSA idea originated at an MPA meeting, as they pointed to the UK anti-piracy group FACT instead.

The French journalists persevered nonetheless. They discovered that the PSA was filmed at the Paramount backlot in Los Angeles, and after numerous inquiries, they eventually learned that Warner Bros. was behind the production. They spoke to several people who were involved, including creative director Ricky Mintz.

“When we made that video, I thought it would play in theaters for a week, maybe. In a million years, I never would have imagined it would end up on almost every DVD in the 2000s. Until my kids told me, I had no idea,” Mintz recalls in the video.

Ricky Mintz (from the video)

Speaking with TorrentFreak, journalist Nicolas Delage says that he and Christophe reached out to over 70 people during their investigation. Many people declined to talk, and those who did could often only fill in some of the blanks.

“The studios and the MPA were such large organizations that no one really seemed to know who was responsible for what, which made things a lot more complicated when we started digging for specific information.”

“For the team at Warner Bros. in charge of producing it, it was apparently just a quick gig between two movie trailers,” Nicolas says.

The documentary includes many more intriguing details that we won’t spoil here, and it is a must-watch for those who are interested in the history of the iconic PSA. The journalists deserve all the credit for finding many missing pieces of the puzzle, which greatly help to update the historical record.

The ‘Stolen’ Font Controversy

There is one key element in the video for which we would like to provide some additional context. This relates to allegations that surfaced earlier this year, which suggested that the piracyisacrime.com website used a ‘copied’ font in their campaign PDF material.

The French journalists note in the video that “piracyisacrime.com has nothing to do with the Piracy It’s a Crime ad” and that the PSA had “zero connection” with piracyisacrime.com. That’s a bit of an overstatement.

While piracyisacrime.com was not involved in the creation of the PSA, it did promote the video in its campaign material and hosted the videos, with permission from the MPA. This makes sense, as the UK website was funded by MPA members through the Industry Trust for IP Awareness.

From the piracyisacrime.com campaign PDF

As we mentioned in our earlier coverage on the font controversy, there is no evidence that the PSA video itself used the ‘copied’ font, so in that sense the creators are not “connected” to these allegations.

More History, To be Continued

Needless to say, after more than two decades, the “You Wouldn’t Steal a Car” PSA continues to intrigue. Or should we say the “Downloader” PSA, which was the official title for the online piracy ad, as mentioned by the French journalists.

While researching the various claims for this article, we stumbled upon a form from the movie theater organization NATO (now Cinema United), where members could order copies of the PSA to show before films. This form confirms the “Downloader” name and also lists the name of the counterfeit DVD version: “Street Vendor“.

NATO’s order form

The same document, published in August 2004, also confirms that the MPA provided these videos, offering theaters the option to order a DVD if they had trouble accessing the copies online.

It appears that there are still plenty of intriguing details to uncover about the iconic PSA. The French journalists realize this too. At the end of their video, they tease a follow-up about the PSA’s music. This will likely cover the debunked claim that the music was “pirated”, a certain Prodigy track, and much more.

We’re looking forward to it already.

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

In July, adult content producers Strike 3 Holdings and Counterlife Media filed a copyright infringement lawsuit against Meta.

The complaint accused the tech company of using adult films to assist its AI model training. Similar claims have been made by other rightsholders, including many book authors.

This latest case specifically focuses on Meta’s BitTorrent activity. That’s no surprise, as plaintiff Strike 3 is the most active copyright litigant in the United States, known for targeting thousands of alleged BitTorrent pirates.

Meta Wants Lawsuit Dismissed

In late October, Meta responded to the allegations by filing a motion to dismiss at a California federal court. Taking a page from the BitTorrent piracy defense playbook, Meta argues that the IP address evidence presented by the plaintiffs is meaningless without context.

The porn producers had linked numerous Meta IP addresses to unauthorized sharing activity. According to Meta, however, there is no evidence that the alleged activity on its corporate network was centrally orchestrated by the company. In fact, it countered that many alleged downloads predate Meta’s AI training activity.

In addition to denying the allegations, the tech company offered an alternative explanation. Meta suggested that employees or visitors may have downloaded the pirated videos for personal use.

“[T]he small number of downloads—roughly 22 per year on average across dozens of Meta IP addresses—is plainly indicative of private personal use, not a concerted effort to collect the massive datasets Plaintiffs allege are necessary for effective AI training,” Meta wrote.

Porn Producers Counter Personal Use Defense

The plaintiffs responded to Meta’s defense this week, characterizing the “personal use” explanation as implausible, given the amount of data involved and the piracy patterns they observed.

“Plaintiffs provide data demonstrating unique patterns of Meta’s piracy suggestive of a centralized algorithm coordinating the infringements. Meta’s excuse that employees must be infringing Plaintiffs’ copyrights for ‘personal use’ does not fit the facts,” they write.

The rightsholders point out several download patterns that they believe suggest non-human involvement. Interestingly, these patterns are not linked to their own works, but to those of other rightsholders.

For example, they highlight data from June 29, 2024, suggesting that Meta’s corporate, residential, and “hidden” IP addresses all downloaded multiple different versions of Microsoft Office within hours of each other.

“No reasonable person needs this many versions of a word processing software,” they write.

Additionally, the rebuttal mentions that on April 7, 2024, various IP addresses downloaded content linked to the word “origin”, without any other obvious connection. This includes Dan Brown’s book “Origin” the game “Origin Offline Start,” and the 2023 movie “Origin”.

“This is the kind of systematic, hyper-literal search consistent with an algorithm, and not just a person casually searching for files,” the adult companies note. They suggest that downloading data for AI training, as Meta previously admitted in the books lawsuit, is the ultimate goal.

The “Tit-for-Tat” Motive

The rightsholders also offer a secondary motive to explain why Meta might want to use its videos as part of the broader AI training scheme. They suggest that the tech giant allegedly used popular adult films as ‘BitTorrent currency’.

The companies allege that these downloads would benefit BitTorrent’s reciprocal “tit-for-tat” mechanism. They previously explained in their complaint that this could boost Meta’s other download efforts.

“Meta does not produce popular creative works and thus has no ‘currency’ for the swarm of peers in the BitTorrent network. As a result, Meta must steal someone else’s cachet to stay in these swarms so that it can download files,” the opposition brief reads.

“Plaintiffs’ works are ideal. Not only do they serve as unique data for AI training, they are popular both commercially and in the BitTorrent network, ensuring that Meta could stay in swarms and download even more files,” they add.

While this is an interesting argument, our understanding of the BitTorrent protocol is that the reciprocal “tit-for-tat” advantages are limited to single torrent swarms. This means that the “currency” benefits do not extend to other downloads in different swarms. We assume that Meta’s legal team will have some thoughts on this as well.

All in all, the porn producers believe that Meta’s defenses are not up to par. They argue there is sufficient ground to survive a motion to dismiss and move the case forward, so it can be argued on its merits.

“Meta’s Motion is an attempt to thwart the protections Congress enacted in the Copyright Act. Respectfully, Plaintiffs simply ask for their day in court and ask this Court to deny the Motion.”

—

A copy of the opposition brief Strike 3 Holdings and Counterlife Media filed in response to Meta’s motion to dismiss is available here (pdf). A hearing on the motion to dismiss is scheduled for January 21, 2026.

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

Pirate site blocking is a common practice in dozens of countries around the world, and the Netherlands is no exception.

After a decade-long legal battle between anti-piracy group BREIN and three local Internet providers, the latter were ordered to block access to The Pirate Bay in 2020.

This was a pivotal moment, as it opened the door to more blocking requests targeting other torrent sites, streaming portals, and shadow libraries. A year later, the blocking process was further streamlined when all major ISPs signed a covenant where they agreed to block pirate sites when rightsholders obtain a blocking order against one of their fellow providers.

Blocking Music Pirate Sites

Today, BREIN obtained a fresh site-blocking injunction at the Rotterdam Court. The order requires Internet provider Ziggo to block access to music piracy platforms ‘newalbumreleases’ and ‘Israbox’ that reportedly had 100,000 monthly visits in the country.

Ziggo was one of the ISPs that previously pushed back against BREIN’s blocking requests in the Pirate Bay case. This time around, the ISP also objected, again without the desired result.

In court, Ziggo argued that the underlying Pirate Bay jurisprudence should not apply to this case, as the targeted music sites rely on cyberlocker links instead of torrents. The court firmly rejected this line of reasoning. It ruled that the technology doesn’t matter as long as a site “deliberately and with a profit motive” links to unauthorized content.

New Album Releases

Ziggo also argued that BREIN failed the “subsidiarity” test by not doing enough to stop the sites before it requested the injunction. Again, the court disagreed and concluded that BREIN had “done more than was expected” based on the agreed covenant.

The legal paperwork reveals that BREIN reached out to the owners of both sites. The anti-piracy group also contacted their hosting providers, domain name registrars, several related cyberlockers, and the registrants and registrars of various proxies and mirror sites, among others.

Finally, Ziggo’s concerns over effectiveness and proportionality were also rejected. The court sees DNS blocking as a “clear and verifiable” measure with sufficient protections against overblocking. While blockades can be circumvented by subscribers, they are “sufficiently effective” to block casual pirates.

Blocklist Expands for All Major ISPs

The injunction requires Ziggo to block the ‘newalbumreleases’ and ‘Israbox’ domain names within five working days. This is a dynamic order, so any new (sub)domains, proxies, or mirrors that BREIN reports to the ISP will be added to the blocklist too.

Under the agreed covenant, these blockades will also apply to other Dutch Internet providers, including KPN, DELTA, and Odido. This means that, without workarounds, the two music piracy sites will soon be inaccessible in the Netherlands.

While Ziggo is likely disappointed with the outcome, in a comment to TorrentFreak a spokesperson for the company indicates that it will not fight the ruling.

“We have taken note of the verdict of Rotterdam Court regarding the blocking of several unauthorized music websites. We respect the ruling and will comply, in accordance with the agreements in the Website Blocking Covenant,” Ziggo informs us.

‘Site Blocking Is Essential’

BREIN director Bastiaan van Ramshorst is pleased with the outcome, and he frames these types of measures as a necessary last resort.

“When illegal services ignore takedown requests… and hide behind non-cooperative foreign hosts and domain registrars, there is no other option than to block these via Dutch access providers,” van Ramshorst says, adding that ISPs are the ‘best placed’ party to effectively counter these infringements.

Following this victory, BREIN will likely share the court order with Google, which has an unwritten policy of voluntarily removing court-ordered blocked domains from its Dutch search results. That further increases the scope of the injunction.

—

TorrentFreak has seen the injunction, but a redacted copy of the court order has yet to be published online by the Rotterdam court. We will update this article accordingly when it is available.

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

Twenty years ago, the first post was published on TorrentFreak.

At the time, I was a young graduate student, eager to learn and research. My interest soon exceeded the academic world and was drawn to a vibrant digital playground: the Internet.

In the early 2000s, new technologies and communications channels were suddenly at everyone’s fingertips. There was a whole new world to explore. Being somewhat of a digital late bloomer, I was completely fascinated by it all.

When torrents first crossed my path, they felt like a genuine revolution. Earlier file-sharing technologies already shown what was technically possible, but the web-based nature of torrents spawned online communities everywhere. This was a time when “pirates” were still seen as digital revolutionaries, who freed information from physical shackles such as CDs and DVDs.

TorrentFreak Est. 2005

The rise of public torrent sites and private torrent trackers was fascinating to watch. In 2005, it eventually led to the launch of TorrentFreak. There wasn’t much in-depth coverage of the file-sharing space at the time, and the goal was to document the developments in this ecosystem with a strong focus on news.

In the mid-2000s, copyright industry groups were already quite vocal and their anti-piracy messaging was generally repeated in the media without question. TorrentFreak’s goal was to critically assess the information and add, in our view, more balance to the discourse.

In hindsight, the timing for TorrentFreak’s launch was perfect. The Internet had torn down the information barriers. Writing news and opinions was no longer exclusive to companies that had access to a printing machine or a TV channel; everyone could become their own news publisher.

This self-publishing power may seem obvious today, but, in 2005, it felt both empowering and liberating.

TorrentFreak in 2007

In the early years, TorrentFreak had a strong focus on the rapidly growing file-sharing landscape. We never endorsed piracy in any shape or form but did try to fill information gaps, offering a counterweight to polarized claims and unbalanced studies.

A Changing Landscape

TorrentFreak started as a solo journey, but after a year, Andy Maxwell joined. While many others have contributed to the site along the way, today the two of us work independently and are still the site’s backbone, writing all news stories for the site.

As the years passed, the file-sharing ecosystem itself changed. The name of the site still includes ‘torrent’ but most of our coverage today is on the broader piracy ecosystem and related copyright challenges, which are nothing like they were twenty years ago.

The ‘pirate’ hobbyists of the early days were increasingly replaced by individuals and groups trying to make a quick buck — or even millions. This introduced more criminal elements to the piracy scene, which continue to run rampant today, as is evidenced by the many lawsuits and criminal prosecutions we report on.

Rightsholders and anti-piracy groups have also become much more active, both on the enforcement and lobbying fronts. They point out various threats and concerns, demanding action. At the same time, their anti-piracy actions and enforcement efforts cause concerns for legitimate companies and the public at large.

As time passed, TorrentFreak has mostly adopted the role of a neutral, yet critical, observer. We don’t shy away from highlighting extremes on both ends of any issue. Because if I’ve learned anything over the past two decades, it’s that there are always multiple sides to a story, and the most extreme positions are usually the least effective.

TorrentFreak’s Next Chapter

If I look back at the past two decades, I realize how much luck played a role in getting TorrentFreak to survive. The key to building a lasting site is to keep writing, but that would not have been possible without the help and advice from the many people who crossed my path along the way. Not all would appreciate a public callout, but you know who you are.

I would like to thank all readers who followed us on our journey. The same is true for all sources, tipsters, and other friends we made along the way. You all served as a key motivator that helped TorrentFreak to get where it is today.

Today, the 20-something-year-old person who started TorrentFreak is a few years away from turning 50. That’s a scary thought, but a blessed one at the same time. The countless hours of work have taken their toll at times, but the writing spark is still there.

This brings me to the next chapter….

In a way, I feel that TorrentFreak has already accomplished its mission. That’s a reassuring thought, but I intend to keep the site online indefinitely. It’s a life’s work, not just for me but also for Andy.

Regular readers may have already noticed that our article output decreased over the past year. This helped us to cope with the regular writing pressure while focusing on the topics where we can add value. We were never fond of regurgitating press releases or rewriting mainstream news. Instead, we prefer to follow our interests and expertise.

TorrentFreak thrives in its own small niche, and we hope to keep our spot for the next few years, documenting whatever crosses our path at our own pace. We’re grateful for every reader who follows along, as you are ultimately what makes our work count. Thank you!

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

Every day, millions of clips from movies and TV shows are shared on social media and other online platforms.

These short clips may qualify as fair use when used as part of memes or parodies, for example. Depending on context, they can also trigger a criminal investigation, as happened in Denmark.

In 2023, police started looking into a dedicated subreddit called ‘SeDetForPlottet’ (WatchItForthePlot) that shared sexually explicit scenes of actresses taken from movies and TV series. This community was highlighted by the local radio program “Kulturen,” where over a dozen actresses complained about it.

While the actresses were fine with the original sex or nude scenes, they never intended for them to be displayed online, without context. Some reported feeling molested or abused after seeing the curated clips that were clearly intended to be consumed in a sexualized way.

Criminal Conviction for Nude Clips and Superbits Uploads

The controversy motivated anti-piracy group Rights Alliance to report the issue to the police on behalf of the Danish Actors’ Association, broadcasters DR and TV2, and other rightsholders. The group noted that copyright protection extends beyond financial considerations to encompass moral rights – including the right to respect and integrity.

Danish police launched a criminal investigation and apprehended a now 40-year-old man from Valby. Known as “KlammereFyr” on Reddit, he was the moderator of ‘SeDetForPlottet’ where at least 347 clips featuring over 100 actresses were shared and viewed millions of times.

The man, who uploaded the clips to redgifs.com, eventually confessed to the charges last month, including the moral rights violations. This week the Court of Frederiksberg handed down a 7-month conditional prison sentence, as well as 120 hours of community service.

The criminal conviction wasn’t just for the nude clips shared on Reddit. The man was also found guilty of sharing over 25 terabytes of pirated content via the private torrent tracker Superbits.org.

Landmark Moral Rights Copyright Conviction

The verdict is unique in Denmark as it goes beyond typical piracy charges. It’s the first criminal conviction based on the copyright law’s “right of respect” (respektret), which protects an artist’s integrity.

The prosecution successfully argued that by taking scenes out of their original artistic context and sexualizing them, the defendant violated the integrity of the actors and directors. This includes edits such as cropping the clips and changing the lighting to accentuate certain features.

One scene featured actress Signe Egholm Olsen in ‘Nordkraft’ (© movie still, Nimbus)

Commenting on the verdict, special prosecutor Jan Østergaard says that he is pleased with the outcome, as it confirms that the court takes these types of offenses seriously.

Maria Ventegodt, director of the Danish Actors’ Association, is also happy with the outcome, as it confirms that the moral rights of their members were violated by these clips.

“The decision is also important for the art of film and the opportunity to make good stories on film, because the actors can now have confidence that the authorities will crack down hard on the screening of nude scenes out of context,” Ventegodt notes.

Future Consequences

It’s not immediately clear how this sentencing will translate to other countries, such as the United States. While Hollywood’s sex scenes are generally less explicit, there are entire subreddits and other communities dedicated to sharing nude clips from American productions too.

Rights Alliance Director Maria Fredenslund notes that the Danish verdict clearly signals that the integrity of actors can be protected. This will also be important in the future, where deepfakes and other manipulated content will become increasingly common.

“Respect for artists’ rights is a fundamental prerequisite for a well-functioning digital society, and in a future where we expect far more AI-generated and manipulated content, it is crucial that the legal system, as clearly as is the case here, marks where the line is drawn,” Fredenslund commented.

The case isn’t completely over. On behalf of the rightsholders, Rights Alliance also sought 15,000 to 30,000 Danish kroner ($2,300 – $4,600 USD) in damages per nude clip. That request will be handled in a separate civil lawsuit.

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

The Supreme Court case between several major record labels and Internet provider Cox Communications is one of the landmark copyright battles of this decade.

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, various tech companies, and other interested parties, supported Cox’s position.

Last month, 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. They also received broad support, including from lawmakers and legal experts.

Cox: Labels Must Defend Two-Strike Rule

Before the Supreme Court Justices hear the case, Cox took the opportunity to have the final word. The Internet provider submitted a reply brief where it doubled down on its earlier arguments while accusing the labels of distancing themselves from the “two-notices-and-terminate” rule that won them the $1 billion verdict at trial.

The labels wrote in their response brief that they are not pushing for a “two-notices-and-terminate theory,” nor are they asking for mass terminations of subscribers. Instead, they characterized Cox as a hypocritical bad actor that should take responsibility.

Cox suggests that, with this positioning, the labels are effectively trying to reframe the judicial history. The ISP argues that Sony’s brief confirms this, noting that the labels sued over subscribers with “at least three notices,” which legally means Cox is being held liable for failing to act after the second piracy notice.

This relatively low threshold would lead to mass suspensions, according to Cox, and the labels should effectively defend this position at the Supreme Court.

“For years, Plaintiffs have deluged the nation’s ISPs with automated notices, then sued those ISPs on the same flawed theory: Once an ISP receives two notices for any internet account, it must terminate the account—or become a willful contributory infringer
for all future infringement,” Cox informs the Court.

“They cannot deny that the courts below applied this two-notice threshold uniformly across 57,000 homes and businesses. The record unquestionably shows that included ‘hospitals’ and ‘senior citizens,’ dorms and barracks, and even regional ISPs.”

Cox forces the labels to own the most extreme version of their argument. If they do so, the ISP can point out that this will lead to many disconnections of innocent users. Alternatively, if the labels abandon the “two-notices-and-terminate” rule, Cox can argue that the $1 billion verdict should be invalidated.

Knowledge vs. Culpable Purpose

At the core of the Supreme Court battle is the question of whether ISPs can be held liable for having “passive knowledge” about infringements or if liability requires “culpable intent” to facilitate those infringements. Cox argues the latter.

The reply brief reiterates many of these arguments, and as a sign of strength, Cox explicitly mentions that it has the U.S. government on its side.

“Cox and the Government have laid out a simple culpable-conduct rule derived from this Court’s copyright and aiding-and-abetting cases: Contributory liability depends on proof of an affirmative act demonstrating a culpable intent to further infringement,” the reply brief reads.

Not a Bad Actor

The brief also addresses the record labels’ bad actor arguments. This includes an email in which a manager responsible for the company’s DMCA compliance told his team, “F the dmca!!!”. Cox notes that these frustrated, private emails do not suggest that the company actively encouraged or fostered copyright infringement.

Similarly, Cox also dismissed the profit-related bad actor argument, including the accusation that it failed to disconnect pirates to retain revenue. The ISP points out that the Fourth Circuit already rejected the profit argument when it threw out the separate vicarious liability verdict.

Finally, the ISP points out that it did have a graduated response system in place where subscribers suspected of piracy were issued with warnings. This had a 98% deterrence rate, Cox argues, which directly contradicts the ‘bad actor’ narrative.

“Cox’s anti-infringement program suspended over 67,000 accounts during the claim period alone, and deterred 98% of infringers,” the reply brief reads.

“If Plaintiffs can now vilify that program as a failure to ‘tak[e] any serious effort to stop these infringers from infringing,’ no ISP is safe.”

Government Agrees It’s Not “Willful”

In addition to the liability question, the Supreme Court will also review whether Cox’s actions were willful. This is relevant to the damages calculations, which ultimately resulted in the $1 billion verdict. Here, Cox again uses the government’s position as a key argument.

Cox argues it cannot be found “willful” just for knowing its customers were infringing if it did not believe that its failure to act was unlawful. That was a reasonable belief, Cox argues, especially since the U.S. Government now agrees with it.

“Plaintiffs are also wrong in repeatedly conflating an ISP’s knowledge that a specified user is infringing with knowledge that the ISP is itself illegally ‘facilitating’ the misuse unless it cuts the cord. If the United States Government rejects that equation, then surely
an ISP can reasonably reject it.”

With the final reply brief filed, all the key written arguments are now on the record. The Supreme Court is scheduled to hear oral arguments from Cox, the record labels, and the U.S. Government, in a few weeks. A final decision in this landmark case is expected next year.

—

A copy of Cox’s reply brief, filed with the Supreme Court, is available here (pdf)

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

In May 2024, the Paris Judicial Court ordered Google, Cloudflare, and Cisco to block access to several pirate sports streaming sites.

The move was a major enforcement escalation by French rightsholders, but in hindsight it was only the beginning.

In the months that followed, additional rightsholders such as DAZN and beIN joined in on the action with similar requests, while more DNS providers were added as targets, including Quad9 and Vercel. This pitted notably smaller players against these billion-dollar companies in court.

An Existential Threat

Quad9 was no stranger to site blocking requests, having previously dealt with a similar legal battle in Germany. That said, for the small Swiss non-profit organization, these proceedings are more than a legal disagreement. They present an existential threat.

For billion-dollar tech companies Google and Cloudflare, dealing with these legal challenges is a nuisance, but they have the means to fight back. In a recent blog post, Quad9 explains that its foundation doesn’t have this luxury.

“For large commercial players such as Google, Cloudflare, or Cisco, these costs — legal, lobbying, or engineering — are absorbed as part of their business overhead.

“For small, mission-driven nonprofits like Quad9, they represent an existential threat,” the DNS provider adds.

Ideally Quad9 would like to defend itself in these blocking cases, as Google and Cloudflare have done. However, since it doesn’t have the financial resources to do so, it chose not to make an appearance in one of the recent site-blocking cases.

Breaking the Internet’s Plumbing

Quad9 argues that copyright holders are increasingly trying to hold neutral intermediaries liable for piracy. Instead of going after the infringers directly, ISPs, VPNs, and DNS providers have to take on the enforcement burden.

This is particularly problematic for smaller operations that, according to Quad9, simply don’t have the means to do so indefinitely. Not only that, by going after DNS providers, these orders also directly affect key internet infrastructure providers.

“Instead of targeting the platforms that profit from infringement, IP owners are increasingly going after the neutral infrastructure providers that simply make the internet work,” Quad9 writes.

Breaking the Internet’s Plumbing

In response to the French blocking efforts, Cisco decided to leave France, so the effects of these measures are already being felt.

Other companies, such as Google and Cloudflare, have the technical means to restrict the blockades to France, but not all providers can do so easily. That includes Quad9, which had no other choice than to apply the French blocking request worldwide.

Big Questions

In France, the courts have clearly decided that these blocking orders are warranted, and while some are under appeal, there’s no indication that they will be reversed anytime soon. That said, Quad9 believes that a broader discussion is warranted, and it poses several questions that go to the heart of how the internet should function.

In its blog post, the foundation asks, among other things:

“Should neutral, technical infrastructure be held responsible for the actions of others?”

“How far should courts reach across jurisdictions to impose national laws on global networks?”

“Can small nonprofits survive under legal obligations designed for global corporations?”

“What happens to privacy and resiliency when only a handful of corporations can afford to comply?”

“At what point does legal compliance become de facto censorship?”

These are not just rhetorical questions for the Swiss non-profit. After fighting and winning a multi-year, costly legal battle against Sony in Germany, Quad9’s “existential threat” has reemerged in France.

Ultimately, Quad9 warns that these blocking battles may lead to a less open, less private, and more centralized internet, leaving the “plumbing” in the hands of a few corporate giants who can afford to pay the legal bills.

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

At the start of the year, TorrentGalaxy was one of the most-visited torrent sites, welcoming millions of users every day.

Launched by former members of ExtraTorrent which had shut down in 2018, TorrentGalaxy soon established itself as one of the most stable torrent sites.

TorrentGalaxy’s Mystery Shutdown

In the summer of 2014, things changed when the original founders sold the site to a new, undisclosed party. The handover was immediately noticeable to outsiders, as the typically stable site suddenly began experiencing repeated stretches of downtime.

The site’s troubles escalated in January 2025, when the new operators posted a message claiming they were in “financial difficulties“, asking users to chip in for server costs. In late February, the site became unreachable, and by March, the site’s popular upload bots also stopped working.

The reason for the sudden shutdown was a mystery and couldn’t be explained by financial issues. The site’s staffers were also left in the dark, and there was no farewell message of any kind to officially mark the site’s ending.

In March, the staffers still had hope for a miracle comeback, but the chances of that were not seen as very high and dramatically shrank in the passing months. Meanwhile, what truly happened behind the scenes was still unknown.

A Memecoin Promo

Today, the TorrentGalaxy saga gets an unexpected new chapter. The main torrentgalaxy.to domain is suddenly operational again. However, it does not list any torrents.

Instead, it now promotes a memecoin project for a token named $1 on the Solana network. Whether TorrentGalaxy’s new owners are connected to this or if the site changed hands is unknown.

Needless to say, this has nothing to do with the original TorrentGalaxy site. We can’t guarantee that the site is free of trouble, aside from the inherent crypto risks, so potential visitors should tread with caution.

Memecoin

A look at the site’s source code reveals it is powered by a standard configuration script that’s used for memecoin projects. For now, most links on the page are not functional either. They simply point to a “#” placeholder, suggesting that it is still work in progress.

We see no point in scrutinizing this memecoin in detail, as there are better outlets for that. However, the sudden TorrentGalaxy comeback does strongly suggest that the torrent site has been abandoned completely, marking the end of an era.

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

There’s a common belief that people pirate content to save money, whether on another streaming subscription or a pricey box office ticket.

That said, movie theaters still draw millions of visitors, many of whom may also turn to pirate sites occasionally.

Since piracy isn’t going away, understanding what drives a person to choose the theater over a ‘free’ pirate option, and vice versa, is crucial for the industry.

A new paper aims to take on this task. Through a structural econometric model that relies on real-world data from 2014 to 2019, it tries to quantify the choice between the movie theater and piracy. It considers the quality of piracy releases, but also the price and quality of the movie theater experience.

Accepted peer-reviewed paper

The study was conducted by researchers from Carnegie Mellon University, the University of California, Davis, and Boston University. The paper will be published in the Manufacturing & Service Operations Management journal, but an early copy was already published through SSRN, which allows us to take a look at the results.

Instead of conducting surveys to model consumer behavior, the researchers use official box office figures, demographic data, and piracy data, covering both volume and quality, differentiating between low-quality (e.g. CAM) and high-quality (e.g. HDRip) releases.

Through a series of simulations, the researchers looked at what types of movie industry interventions could help to address the piracy challenge and which ones proved futile.

HDRips Are a Bigger Threat than CAMs

The study largely confirms the intuitive notion that quality matters. If high-quality pirated copies are available within a week of a movie’s theatrical release, it leads to an average 7.9% reduction in box office revenue over the first 8 weeks, compared to a scenario where only low-quality “cam” rips are available.

This finding isn’t all that surprising. After all, high-quality releases are much more popular among pirates, resulting in many more downloads and streams. This logically draws more people away from the box office.

Interestingly, the paper shows that the revenue decrease caused by high-quality piracy is most problematic for “smaller-grossing” movies. Films that earn between $100M-$200M face a 9.4% revenue loss, which is more than double the 4.3% loss for blockbusters.

“This result implies that high-quality unauthorized content may hurt creativity in film production in the motion picture industry, as it does greater harm to smaller-budget movies and independent movies,” the paper reads.

Box Office Discounts Are Not the Answer

Pirates often cite high costs as a reason to pirate, so it would seem to make sense that lower prices reduce piracy rates. Indeed, that is what the researchers found. However, lower prices eventually reduce overall revenue, so that’s not the answer.

The researchers found that cutting box office prices by 10% reduces overall revenue by 4.6%, as the increase in sales doesn’t cover the per-ticket loss. Similarly, efforts to reduce travel costs by increasing the number of screens had no meaningful effect either.

“Based on our results, we argue that theaters and/or studios can not effectively compete against “free” by reducing the costs of consuming legal content in the theatrical channel,” the researchers note.

Competing on Quality Works

Instead of competing on price, it appears movie theaters are better off competing on quality; investing in better seating, improved audio-visual technology, or other theater features, for example.

The study’s simulations show that a “modest improvement” in the quality of the movie theater experience can completely evaporate the negative effects of early high-quality piracy releases.

Specifically, the researchers found that a 3.7% increase in the consumer’s preference (utility) for the theater experience is enough to fully offset the 7.9% revenue loss.

“We therefore recommend that theater chains and studios prioritize investments in upgrading equipment and in-theater technologies to create a more immersive, comfortable, and engaging environment,” the paper concludes.

The study’s findings offer a clear opportunity for the movie industry. While theaters can’t compete with ‘free’, they can win by offering a premium experience that pirates can’t replicate.

A copy of the forthcoming paper, which discusses several additional findings and methodological limitations, is on SSRN.

—

Zeng, Helen and Huang, Yan and Burtch, Gordon and Smith, Michael D., Operational Decision-making Around Movie Piracy & Theatrical Release A Structural Model of Movie Piracy vs. Legal (in-Theater) Consumption (October 08, 2025). Accepted at Manufacturing & Service Operations Management.

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