Author: Ernesto Van der Sar

Every year, the office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR) publishes the National Trade Estimate Report on Foreign Trade Barriers.

The report is compiled based on input from key industry players. This includes submissions from copyright industry groups that frequently highlight piracy challenges that in their view act as barriers to trade.

In previous years, for example, the MPA and others have called for more site-blocking efforts to counter the piracy threat. Interestingly, however, other American companies now inform the USTR that foreign site-blocking measures are becoming a significant trade barrier.

Cloudflare Sees Piracy Blockades as Trade Barriers

To share its concerns, Cloudflare decided to participate in the annual trade barriers consultation for the first time this year. The company describes itself as a “leading connectivity cloud company” running one of the world’s largest networks, providing security, performance, and reliability services.

According to Cloudflare, several foreign countries disproportionately impact U.S. technology providers, with many concerns relating to site-blocking measures that aim to deter online piracy.

Spain

Cloudflare writes that Spanish courts allow rightsholders to request “overbroad court orders” that authorize IP address blocking. Since a single IP address can serve thousands of domains, disrupting pirates often means that many legitimate sites and services are blocked too, causing widespread collateral damage.

“This practice results in the widespread and repeated disruption of tens of thousands of unrelated, legitimate websites, as well as the disruption of digital services, with no judicial opportunity for remedy,” Cloudflare writes.

“These actions, designed to protect a narrow set of commercial interests, have caused significant collateral harm to businesses and users who are not the intended targets, without recourse or the possibility for affected parties to challenge the underlying order.”

The Spanish Government is aware of the problems, which Cloudflare says are at odds with international standards, but has chosen not to intervene in the issue. Therefore, it continues to present a significant trade barrier.

Italy

Cloudflare reports similar concerns in Italy, where the “Piracy Shield” site-blocking law has a direct effect on American companies. This blocking regulation requires network providers, including CDNs, to comply with blocking notices within 30 minutes.

“The failure to include adequate safeguards against collateral damage has led to the inappropriate blocking of shared services of large cloud providers, which are disproportionately American businesses,” Cloudflare notes.

“For instance, the blocking of a Cloudflare IP address resulted in tens of thousands of non-targeted websites being blocked in February 2024. Furthermore, the blocking of the domain “drive.usercontent.google.com” in October denied Italian users access to Google Drive for over 12 hours.”

Cloudflare on Italy

Efforts to expand Piracy Shield to public DNS resolvers and VPN services only make the problem worse, Cloudflare says, noting that some U.S. companies have already decided to leave the European country.

Automated piracy blocks are not the only reported trade barrier in Italy. Cloudflare also notes that the country allows rightsholders to “abuse” the courts to disrupt U.S. businesses by granting ex parte blocking orders without giving the companies a chance to oppose them.

“This coercive, penalty-based approach to removal of content, without adequate judicial review or due process protections, is a significant barrier to doing business in Italy,” Cloudflare writes.

France

In France, Cloudflare highlights Article L.333-10 of the Sports Code as a key problem. This has resulted in several pirate site blocking orders that go beyond regular Internet providers, requiring DNS resolvers and VPN services to take action as well.

Cloudflare notes that some services lack the technical capabilities to implement these orders and as a result, several U.S. companies have already left the country.

Cloudflare on France

Recently, France passed a new anti-piracy bill that opens the door to automated IP-address blocking, similar to Italy’s Piracy Shield. This is a major concern for Cloudflare, which fears that this will only lead to more collateral damage.

“It increases the risk of overblocking legitimate content or mistakenly targeting websites that operate lawfully, potentially disrupting cross-border digital services,” Cloudflare writes.

South Korea

South Korea has also created trade barriers due to its site-blocking measures, Cloudflare reports. A revision to the Network Act in 2023 now requires “CDNs to restrict access to illegal content”.

As a result, Cloudflare and other American companies are required to maintain detailed and regularly updated blocklists.

“The South Korea Communication Commission (KCC) sends U.S. CDN providers a ‘block list’ of over 1.5 million URLs (with 30,000 new additions monthly),” Cloudflare writes, noting that this places an “unprecedented compliance burden” on companies.

Conflicting Demands at the U.S. Trade Office

Cloudflare urges the USTR to take these concerns into account for its upcoming National Trade Estimate Report. Ideally, it wants these trade barriers to be dismantled.

These calls run counter to requests from rightsholders, who urge the USTR to ensure that more foreign countries implement blocking measures. With potential site-blocking legislation being considered in U.S. Congress, that may impact local lobbying efforts as well.

If and how the USTR will address these concerns will become clearer early next year, when the 2026 National Trade Estimate Report is expected to be published.

—

A copy of Cloudflare’s submission for the USTR’s 2025 National Trade Estimate Report on Foreign Trade Barriers is available here (pdf)

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

“Thou shalt not steal” is one of the Ten Commandments that many Christians hold in high regard, and other religions similarly condemn theft as a practice incompatible with religious teachings.

In general, the public doesn’t view piracy as outright stealing or morally wrong. In fact, many people see ‘unauthorized copying’ as morally justified, even if it costs rightsholders billions.

There are also religious people who pirate music, films, and software. While these people all have their own reasons, how they practice their religion appears to have a significant impact on how likely they are to pirate. In some cases, religion can even increase the tendency to pirate, a new study suggests.

Research: Piracy & Religion

A new paper titled “Software Piracy: The Effects of Neutralization and Religiosity,” published in the Journal of the Southern Association for Information Systems, investigates how an individual’s religious beliefs affect their intention to engage in software piracy.

The paper

Researchers from Pittsburg State, Kansas State, and Oklahoma State University developed a model combining religiosity theory with neutralization to examine how the effect of religion on piracy intentions can differ.

The research draws on the psychological distinction between intrinsic and extrinsic religiosity, which differs from person to person.

Intrinsic religiosity typically involves deeply internalized religious beliefs and living one’s life according to those beliefs. Extrinsic religiosity is more focused on using religion for personal or social benefits, such as being a respectable member of the community, identifying with a religious group, or finding psychological comfort in faith.

The researchers hypothesized that how people identify with their faith will affect their intention to engage in piracy. This was tested in a survey among 338 undergraduate business students in the United States, who had to review a software piracy scenario and were asked to rate the likelihood that they would do the same.

Religion Impacts Piracy Habits

The findings show that the degree of intrinsic and extrinsic religiosity has a significant impact on the intention to pirate.

Intrinsic religiosity was negatively correlated with the intention to pirate. This suggests that individuals who have deeply internalized religious and moral values are less likely to pirate software.

Extrinsic religiosity correlated positively with the intention to pirate software. This implies that individuals motivated by the social or utilitarian benefits of religion may be more likely to justify unauthorized downloading of software.

The driving factor behind these findings is the use of rationalization techniques or, boldly put, excuses. Those who pirate typically come up with rationalizations for their behavior, and that’s also shown by the research. Three rationalization techniques were significant predictors of piracy intention.

The researchers conclude that these rationalizations can directly involve religion for those who have an extrinsic religious orientation.

“Those with extrinsic religiosity are more likely to have utilitarian motives and are less likely to have genuine ethical intentions. If I attend church and do other good things, then it is all right if I pirate a little software now and then (metaphor the ledger),” the paper reads.

The Anti-Piracy Gospel

In addition to these key findings, the study also confirmed earlier research finding that men are more likely to pirate than women, and that older people are less inclined to pirate software than their younger counterparts.

The research shows that people’s tendency to pirate is influenced by a combination of internal moral compass and the ability to rationalize piracy. That said, the findings are based on a sample of business students, which means that they may not be representative of the general population.

Intriguingly, the researchers suggest that their findings could make it worthwhile to involve religious organizations in anti-piracy campaigns.

“Religious organizations can play a key role in educating communities about the ethical issues of piracy by using sacred teachings to promote honesty and respect for others’ work. They can address piracy in sermons, host educational workshops, and incorporate digital ethics into youth programs,” they write.

Whether any anti-piracy groups are eager to pick this up is unknown.

—

Sikolia, D., Bahr, G., & Biros, D. (2025). Software Piracy: The Effects of Neutralization and Religiosity. The Journal of the Southern Association for Information Systems, 12, 1-17. https://doi.org/10.17705/3JSIS.00038

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

The Internet is littered with cheap IPTV services that offer access to a lot of content, for very little money.

These deals often seem too good to be true, and in most cases they are, at least for those who prefer to stay on the right side of the law.

The operators of these services often remain in the shadows, but anti-piracy groups are actively trying to pin them down. For example, members of the Alliance for Creativity and Entertainment (ACE) identified Mechanicsburg resident Brandon Weibley as the alleged operator of several commercial IPTV services offering pirated streams.

Studios Sue U.S. IPTV Operator

In a complaint filed at a Pennsylvania federal court in March, Amazon, Netflix, Disney, Paramount, and other major Hollywood studios accused Weibley of widespread copyright infringement through various IPTV brands. The companies alleged that Weibley has a long history of illegally profiting from pirated content.

The operator’s infringing activity dates back to 2017, when he allegedly registered the domain beastmodebuilds.com and began selling subscriptions to infringing streaming services. In the years that followed, the defendant was linked to various IPTV brands, such as Beast Mode Live, BTV, Viking Media, and GreenWing Media.

While the defendant made efforts to conceal his identity, investigators followed a digital trail that led to his personal email address.

The movie studios used this lead to confront Weibley in 2023, but instead of shutting down, he switched the operation to a different domain name, vonwik.com. Meanwhile, he continued to offer thousands of TV channels through the rebranded services ‘Shrugs’ and ‘Zing’.

Shrugs and Zing (Vonwik.com)

“Weibley now provides subscribers to the Current Infringing Services with access to more than 9,000 pirated channels, featuring Plaintiffs’ television series and movies, as well as international content and live sports events. This is infringement of Plaintiffs’ copyrighted works on a massive scale,” the plaintiffs wrote in their complaint.

Defendant Ghosts Lawsuit, IPTV Services Remain Online

Weibley was served in person but filed no answer and failed to appear in court. As a result, the movie studios have now requested a default judgment and $9 million in damages.

In a motion submitted to the Pennsylvania court earlier this month, they note that, despite the lawsuit, the infringing IPTV services remain operational.

“Weibley has known since at least 2023 that his services infringe Plaintiffs’ copyrights, yet he continued to operate them. Indeed, even after being personally served with the Complaint and knowing about this action, Weibley continues to operate the Current Infringing Services,” they write.

In an associated declaration, MPA Chief Content Protection Officer Larissa Knapp noted that the defendant is still believed to be in charge of the operation.

From Knapp’s declaration

The plaintiffs hope that a default judgment will change the status quo but if that’s not sufficient, an injunction will help to take the IPTV services offline.

Studios Seek $9 Million and an Injunction

The movie studios request the maximum statutory damages of $150,000 per work for a small sample of 60 copyrighted works, totaling $9,000,000. This is the maximum statutory penalty for “willful” infringement, which they argue applies to Weibley’s conduct.

According to the plaintiffs, the operator made the decision not to put up a defense. Therefore, the infringing activity was willful and punitive damages are appropriate.

$9,000,000 (proposed order)

The rightsholders realize that the lack of response is an indication that the defendant might not be inclined to pay any damages. Therefore, they also request a permanent injunction to compel domain registrars and registries to sign over vonwik.com and related domains.

In addition, the proposed injunction compels all related hosting providers to stop serving the IPTV services.

“Plaintiffs similarly seek an order directing the hosting providers of the Infringing Domains […] to suspend services to such domains and to prevent the content on the websites associated with the domains from being transferred to another domain name or hosting service,” the studios write.

At the time of writing, the court has yet to sign off on the motion for default judgment. It will be up to U.S. District Judge Yvette Kane to review the arguments and decide whether the $9 million award and permanent injunction are warranted.

The current lawsuit is one of two parallel cases filed by the ACE coalition back in March. The defendant in the other lawsuit, ‘Outer Limits IPTV’ operator Zachary DeBarr, also failed to formally answer the complaint. In August, a California federal court granted the studios’ motion for default judgment, awarding them $15 million in statutory damages.

—

A copy of the memorandum in support of the motion for default judgment is available here (pdf) and the proposed order can be found here (pdf). Knapp’s declaration is available here (pdf).

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

For major companies like Nintendo, tackling online piracy isn’t just about punishing individual infringers; it’s about strategic deterrence.

Filing lawsuits against casual gamers who may have made an isolated mistake is not a good look and could potentially backfire. Nintendo understands that and carefully picks its battles.

The case against Jesse Keighin, better known under his gaming handle “EveryGameGuru” exemplifies this approach. Filed in a Colorado federal court last November, Nintendo’s complaint lists many alleged wrongdoings, including pre-release game streaming using pirated ROMs and distribution of circumvention tools.

“I Run The Streets”

Defending a lawsuit filed by a multi-billion dollar company can be a frightening prospect but based on messages posted online, the defendant seemed undeterred.

Instead of trying to avoid a legal disaster, Keighin apparently went on the offensive, showing no signs of giving in. Quite the contrary.

“You might run a corporation. I run the streets,” Keighin wrote in a Facebook post addressing Nintendo’s legal team. They should have done more research before taking him on, the gamer wrote.

The streets

The defendant reportedly destroyed evidence and evaded Nintendo’s attempts to serve him personally. Due to these complications, the court eventually allowed service via email and the home addresses of his mother, grandmother, and partner.

Nintendo Requests Default Judgment

Despite his defiant stance, Keighin did not respond to Nintendo’s allegations so the company requested a default judgment to continue the case without him.

The gaming giant requested $17,500 in damages for copyright infringement, including streaming pre-release games and sharing links to emulators. This was a relatively modest request, as potential maximum damages could have easily exceeded $1 million.

In addition to the modest monetary damages, Nintendo also requested a broad permanent injunction to restrain the defendant from any infringing activities going forward, including the use of emulators such as Yuzu or Ryujinx.

Nintendo said the injunction should apply to third parties working in concert with the defendant and require all infringing hardware and software to be destroyed.

Court Hands Nintendo the Final Win

In early October, Magistrate Judge Scott T. Varholak recommended granting Nintendo its requested $17,500 in damages and an order enjoining Keighin from future infringement.

At the same time, the Magistrate wrote that two of Nintendo’s broader requests should be denied. The demand to “destroy all circumvention devices” was rejected as “unclear” and “unreasonable,” as the tools in question are mainly software applications available online.

From the recommendation

The request to apply the injunction to “third parties” working in concert with Keighin should also be denied as Nintendo did not specify any third parties who worked with the defendant.

Yesterday, U.S. District Judge Gordon P. Gallagher formally adopted this recommendation, effectively handing Nintendo the win.

Final order

The Judge’s order notes that, since no party filed objections, a full de novo review was not required. After finding ‘no clear error’ in the recommendation, Judge Gallagher adopted it in full. This means that the damages award and the partially granted injunction are now final.

While this is likely not the outcome Keighin had hoped for, without putting up a defense, it was mostly a lost case from the start.

—

A copy of Magistrate Judge Scott T. Varholak’s recommendation is available here (pdf) and U.S. District Judge Gordon P. Gallagher’s final judgment can be found 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, various tech companies, and other interested parties, supported Cox’s position.

Earlier this 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.

Former Members of Congress and the Copyright Office

One of the key briefs supporting the record labels comes from a group of former members of Congress and the U.S. Copyright Office. These people have direct experience with administering U.S. copyright law, including the DMCA, which is central to the Supreme Court case.

The brief argues that Cox is trying to rewrite contributory infringement law in a way that contradicts what Congress intended. If Cox gets its way, the DMCA safe harbor structure will be effectively rendered toothless because an ISP that doesn’t act against piracy will face no repercussions.

“In practical terms, the change in law Cox asks this Court to impose would effectively eliminate service provider exposure to liability for the vast majority of online infringements,” the brief reads.

The amicus brief

The amici clearly have the required expertise and their previous work as lawmakers and copyright experts carries weight. At the same time, it should be noted that some have since moved on to new positions at organizations that have a direct interest in the legal showdown.

For example, Karyn A. Temple, who signed the letter as the former Register of Copyrights at the U.S. Copyright Office, is now the Motion Picture Association’s (MPA) Global General Counsel. Maria A. Pallante, another former Register of Copyrights, is currently President and CEO at the Association of American Publishers (AAP).

Another signee, Jacqueline C. Charlesworth, moved on from the U.S. Copyright Office and currently works as a litigator in copyright cases involving leading music companies, songwriters, and recording artists.

The signees

Motion Picture Association (and others)

The Motion Picture Association (MPA) also submitted an amicus brief urging the Supreme Court to uphold the lower court’s decision. Representing the major movie studios, Netflix, and Amazon, it describes Cox’s push for an inducement-only standard as a “tectonic change” based on “profound misreadings” of established law.

MPA argues that Cox can be held liable for not taking action against subscribers for whom it has received multiple piracy notices. This is the entire reason why the DMCA safe harbor exists.

“Cox’s brief is strewn with doom-and-gloom predictions that, absent the rule it seeks, Cox will be forced to an intolerable choice: indiscriminately terminate internet access for grandparents and military barracks, on the one hand; or risk crushing liability, on the other. That is a false dichotomy.”

“Cox could have taken many steps short of terminating internet service as part of a graduated system for addressing known instances of repeat infringement by its customers,” MPA’s brief adds.

According to the MPA, at times Cox chose not to follow its own graduated response scheme, labeling it a decision to keep generating revenue from subscribers who were repeatedly flagged as copyright infringers.

National Center on Sexual Exploitation

While most amici focus strictly on how copyright law should be interpreted, there’s also a clear outlier. The National Center on Sexual Exploitation (NCOSE), a non-profit organization fighting sexual abuse and exploitation, warns that Cox’s arguments for broad ISP immunity could inadvertently harm the fight against CSAM.

“If Petitioners and their amici successfully establish an all-contexts rule that they can never be liable for anything that can be characterized as ‘inaction,’ internet platforms could sit on their hands while knowingly profiting from criminal child sexual abuse material,” they write.

Why here?

A central theme in this Supreme Court challenge is whether ISPs can be held liable for “inaction”. In this case, that refers to not terminating Internet access of allegedly pirating subscribers.

NCOSE is advocating for a Supreme Court decision narrowly focused on copyright law. While acknowledging and, to a degree, supporting the position of the record labels, the group’s primary goal is to avoid an outcome affecting liability in general.

“This case should only be about the distinct question of contributory infringement of copyright—not blanket rules governing the liability of internet platforms for facilitating or assisting wrongdoing.”

More Amici Support the Record Labels

In addition to these three briefs, the Supreme Court received several more that side with the record labels. These largely focus on the same issues, arguing against Cox’s push to limit liability for Internet providers.

For example, the brief from SoundExchange, A2IM, AFM, and SAG-AFTRA warns that Cox’s proposed interpretation of liability would leave the music industry with no viable option to fight online piracy.

“To adopt Petitioners’ myopic view of contributory infringement would spell disaster for the music community, as it would deprive musicians and those who represent them of the only feasible means of challenging mass online infringement,” they write.

The full list of all opposition briefs, available below, underlines the importance of this landmark case and a Supreme Court decision destined to shape the future of U.S. copyright law. With all key arguments now on record, the Supreme Court will hear both sides during oral arguments in early December.

—

Here is a list of the amici curiae who filed briefs supporting the record labels in the Supreme Court case against Cox Communications.

– The Copyright Alliance

– The Motion Picture Association, Inc. (MPA)

– Prof. Bruce E. Boyden

– The Association of Amicus Counsel (AAC)

– The National Center on Sexual Exploitation (NCOSE)

– Intellectual Property Law Scholars

– Former Members of Congress and Registers and General Counsels of the U.S. Copyright Office

– SoundExchange, Inc., The American Association of Independent Music, et al.

– National Music Publishers’ Association (NMPA), Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA), et al.

– The Authors Guild, Sisters in Crime, Romance Writers of America, The Songwriters Guild of America, et al.

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

European football association UEFA was founded in 1954 to protect the interests of European football, particularly within the global FIFA body.

During the early years its powers were rather limited. UEFA was mostly an administrative union, consisting of three employees who issued non-binding recommendations to member associations.

In 1955, less than a year after UEFA was formed, journalists of the French newspaper L’Équipe proposed the launch of a European club championship. UEFA was initially hesitant to adopt the idea but eventually moved the project ahead.

The resulting European Cup was commercialized as the UEFA Champions League in 1992. This is widely recognized as the most prestigious club prize in football and with billions of euros in annual revenues, it’s also serious business.

UEFA Joins Anti-Piracy Coalition ACE

With this much money on the line, UEFA has a vested interest in protecting the competition from piracy. Many millions of fans who can’t afford paid access or prefer to use the money elsewhere, turn to free streams instead, contributing to what UEFA believes is a significant financial loss.

Over the past several years, UEFA has targeted pirate streams through site-blocking efforts and takedown requests. Yet despite these anti-piracy measures, the piracy problem only appears to have become worse. That’s likely one of the key reasons behind its partnership with anti-piracy coalition ACE announced this week.

UEFA itself is a not-for-profit operation, but UC3, a commercial joint venture with football clubs, exploits the multi-billion-euro broadcast rights contracts. By joining ACE, it can now rely on technological resources and law enforcement contacts around the globe.

The European football association is the first sports exclusive rights holder to join ACE and will play an active role in the ACE “Live Tier”. Other prominent members of the MPA-led alliance include the major Hollywood studios, Netflix, Amazon, and beIN.

“UEFA joining ACE represents a landmark moment in our global content protection strategy,” says UEFA’s Guy-Laurent Epstein, commenting on the new. “This partnership allows us to expand our enforcement capabilities, deepen our existing collaboration with industry leaders and leverage ACE’s proven capabilities to disrupt illegal services.”

Targets: Pirate IPTV and Hydra sites

As the name suggests, ACE’s ‘Live Tier’ focuses on sites and services that offer live streams. Speaking with TorrentFreak, MPA’s Deputy Chief of Content Protection Dani Bacsa notes that priority targets include pirate IPTV services and so-called hydra sites that offer live content.

These targets are typically selected in consultation with members. The potential enforcement actions are similar to those taken against other types of piracy.

“We use the same toolkit we use to tackle other forms of digital piracy, which has been tested and proven. These range from out-of-court settlements and voluntary initiatives to civil litigation and working with law enforcement agencies to dismantle major criminal networks,” Bacsa says.

“One thing that we are well aware of is that live content has a short shelf life, and we need to act expeditiously and time operations when they make the most impact. Any activity carried out by ACE is agreed upon and approved by its members.”

MPA and UEFA have previously filed their blocking requests separately in France, India, and elsewhere. In theory, MPA/ACE could take this up in the future as they do for other members. However, when we asked about this directly, we received a “no comment” instead of a more direct “no”.

Whether more sports leagues and football organizations will join ACE in the future is unknown, but the anti-piracy coalition is certainly open to it. It was always stressed that cooperation is key to defeating piracy, and a broader membership base serves this goal.

“ACE is cooperating and coordinating with multiple non-member partners, including leagues, to various extents and capacities. We would always welcome closer collaboration and partnerships to increase our collective force,” Bacsa tells us.

It’s Not Just Piracy That’s Grown

There is no denying that sports piracy is a serious and growing problem. According to EU data, 12% of EU citizens watch sports content through illegal online sources, which goes up to 27% for people between 15 and 24.

However, this doesn’t mean that the revenues from sports rights are dwindling. On the contrary, it has grown spectacularly over the past decades.

In the first Champions League season, income was a relatively modest €46 million. Roughly half of this flowed back to the clubs. By the end of the decade, as the tournament expanded from 8 to 32 teams, revenues had grown to hundreds of millions.

The 2006/2007 Champions League was a milestone, with revenues exceeding half a billion euros for the first time. For the 2013/2014 season, seven years later, revenues had doubled to a billion euros.

While these are healthy revenue numbers, growth exploded in recent years. UEFA’s men’s club competitions now bring in €4.4 billion, with UEFA already eyeing the €5 billion mark for the near future, with Netflix showing interest in the rights.

UEFA would likely argue that there could be even more potential income if piracy was defeated. However, one can also argue that the surge in revenues contributes to a key motivation to pirate. After all, the billions paid for broadcasting rights are in large part passed on to consumers whose TV subscription costs aren’t getting any cheaper.

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

In the past, rightsholders have frequently complained that takedown requests can be futile. Even if pirate sites take action, content can swiftly reappear.

Taking down entire websites has always been the weapon of choice, but that doesn’t always solve the problem either.

Pirate Site Operators On/Off the Radar

When public pirate sites first became popular at the beginning of the century, many operated as central hubs. Their operators communicated with users regularly, and many fostered a sense of community. There were competitions, merchandise, and the Pirate Bay took its early activism to the streets of Stockholm more than once.

After several prominent sites lost legal battles, the mood changed. Running a popular pirate site was much more than a public act of defiance: it was also a criminal offense with potential prison sentences attached. The Pirate Bay was a pioneer on this front too, and it wouldn’t be the last.

Legal pressure motivated public pirate site operators to stay in the shadows. If rightsholders can’t track you down, they can’t touch you, the theory went. While that is still true to a certain degree today, anti-piracy groups were busy adding site blocking to their arsenal.

The Pirate Bay was one of the prime targets of early site-blocking requests in various countries. This led to soaring popularity for Pirate Bay proxies, which facilitated access to the original site in blocked regions. Despite having no connections to the original team, many proxies adopted Pirate Bay branding, which didn’t bother users all that much.

From Pirate Sites to Pirate Brands

While proxies were often launched as a means to ‘unblock’ sites, they also provided an opportunity for outsiders to generate profit. And with more sites getting blocked, full-on copycats began to emerge. These sites typically had little to do with the originals they copied but used their branding to draw traffic and sell advertisements.

Eventually even the demise of popular sites became a potential goldmine for others, with popular brands living on and continuing to generate profit. Some of these copycats may have had more traditional pirate interests in mind, but others simply saw them as platforms for malicious ad campaigns. The problem for many users was telling them apart.

Fmovies?

Today, the exploitation of pirate brands comes in many forms. Streaming sites are particularly popular but due to various enforcement measures, domains are increasingly seen as disposable. Since branding persists, recognized brands are valuable assets.

The Motion Picture Association’s latest enforcement effort highlights several examples.

MPA Hunts Ghosts of the Past

Earlier this week, the MPA requested two DMCA subpoenas at a California federal court on behalf of its anti-piracy arm, ACE. The requests ask Cloudflare and the .to domain registry (Tonic) to hand over all identifying information they hold on alleged pirate site domains.

The Cloudflare subpoena lists 46 domain names in total. This includes sites that the MPA recently flagged to the U.S. Government as “notorious piracy markets“, such as Cineby.app and Nunflix.org, classified as major threats in the new “hydra site” category.

At the same time, the subpoena also lists names of pirate brands that the MPA and ACE targeted in the past, sometimes on more than one occasion.

Fmovies.co and Fmovies.ro, for example, are clearly inspired by the world’s largest piracy ring. ACE helped to shut this operation down in 2024, and two Vietnamese operators received suspended prison sentences for their involvement with the massive piracy network. However, the brand lives on in many forms.

Fmovies and Aniwave

The same applies to Cuevana, a popular streaming portal in Latin America, of which ACE has helped to shut down several iterations previously. Despite these efforts and the related criminal investigations, the latest subpoena application targets Cuevana.is and cuevana3cc.me.

The same is true for other domain names such as aniwave.se and 123moviesfree.net. The piracy portals that popularized these brands are long gone, but they live on through various incarnations, giving prospective pirates a familiar brand to look for.

Identifying the Operators

Through the DMCA subpoenas, MPA hopes that Cloudflare and Tonic will provide information to accurately identify the operators of these and other sites. While many sites provide false data to avoid enforcement, these efforts have also proven fruitful in the past.

All the .to domain names are targeted through both companies, which will be helpful to compare the associated user data, including names, IP addresses, payment details, and other information.

Requested information

At the time of writing, the DMCA subpoenas have yet to be signed off by a court clerk. Cloudflare and Tonic generally don’t oppose these requests, so that is merely a formality. The real challenge for MPA and ACE is to permanently bury these zombie brands. That’s not going to be as easy.

—

A list of all the targeted domain names is available below. The declarations linked to the two DMCA subpoenas can be found here (pdf) and here (pdf).

– 123moviesfree.net
– 430hdd.com
– animedefenders.me
– animekai.ac
– animekai.cc
– animekai.to
– animeyy.com
– anigo.to
– aniwave.se
– baan-series.online
– bingewatch.to
– bronat.lat
– bstsrs.in
– cineby.app
– cinecalidad.rs
– comandoplay.com
– cuevana.is
– cuevana3cc.me
– doomovie-free.com
– dopebox.to
– flixhq.to
– fmovies.co
– fmovies.ro
– goyabu.to
– hdtodayz.to
– hianime.bz
– hianime.cx
– hianime.pe
– hianimez.is
– himovies.sx
– jkanime.net
– miruro.to
– movies2watch.tv
– moviesjoy.plus
– nunflix.org
– opmovies.tv
– peelink2.com
– pelisplushd.to
– pelispop.lat
– piratetv.pro
– portalultautv.biz
– streamingunity.co
– theflixertv.to
– topsrs.day
– westream.to
– yflix.to

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

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

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

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

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

Unfazed Pirate Sites

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

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

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.