Earlier this month, a California federal court dismissed the copyright infringement lawsuit DISH had filed against UK hosting provider Innetra.

DISH has accused the company of providing its services to pirate IPTV operations, including Lemo TV and Kemo IPTV, but it failed to establish jurisdiction.

The dismissal was a clear setback for the American pay TV provider and its anti-piracy partner IBCAP. However, at a federal court in Florida, DISH Network still has a separate lawsuit pending that could impact the IPTV operations in a more direct manner.

DISH vs. Lemo, Kemo, and IPTV Reseller

Last October, DISH filed a copyright infringement complaint against the alleged operators of the Lemo TV and Kemo IPTV pirate services, as well as one of their U.S.-based resellers: ‘1 Dollar IPTV’.

DISH alleged that the Malaysian company Kemo E Marketing Sdn. Bhd and its sole shareholder, Noorhayati Binti Abdul Rahim, are driving forces behind the Lemo/Kemo operation. Ammar Towir, also from Malaysia, allegedly owns and operates the Lemo/Kemo domains and financial accounts.

Kemoiptv.shop
 

The identities of these defendants were presumably obtained through subpoenas that were obtained in a previously filed lawsuit in Texas that has since been dismissed.

In addition to the foreign defendants, DISH also names a Florida-based reseller; 1 Dollar IPTV. This is allegedly operated by Artistry Group LLC, from St. Petersburg, Florida. This company was voluntarily dissolved on February 27, 2025, but DISH notes that the company or its successors continue to run 1 Dollar IPTV.

DISH Seeks $28.65 Million Default

Because the defendants failed to respond to DISH’s complaint, while continuing their infringing activity, DISH successfully requested a default, which it now hopes to convert into a formal judgment.

In a motion filed at the Florida federal court, DISH seeks $150,000 in damages against Lemo and Kemo for each of the 181 registered works listed in the complaint. For the American reseller operating under Artistry Group, it seeks the maximum available damages for 10 works.

These damages amount to $27.15 million for the IPTV services and $1.5 million for the reseller. That is substantial, but according to DISH, it is needed to send a deterrent message.

“Defendants’ clear willfulness and the strong need for deterrence, as shown by their ongoing infringement in the face of numerous infringement notices and Defendants’ intent to operate their business on the basis of stealing the intellectual property of others, justifies an award of $150,000 for each of the registered Works,” the motion reads.

Servers Targeted Across Three Countries

Because the defendants have been unresponsive thus far, recouping the damages is not straightforward. Therefore, DISH believes that it is vital that the court issues a broad permanent injunction.

In this case, the proposed injunction has unusually specific infrastructure demands.

DISH’s enforcement partner NagraStar traced the IPTV services to three hosting providers: IPv4 Superhub Limited in Hong Kong, 24 Shells Inc. in New Jersey, and INTERKVM HOST SRL, operating as ZetServers, in Romania. DISH asks the court to order all three to disable the relevant IP addresses.

In addition, the proposed injunction also lists 19 domain names, requiring registries and registrars to transfer these to DISH. The list includes Kemoiptv.com, Lemotv.com, 1DollarIPTV.com, and 1DollarIPTV.net, along with a range of reseller and marketing storefronts.

From the proposed injunction
 

Notably, the proposed injunction is designed to be “evergreen”. It includes a provision that would require registries and registrars to automatically disable any future domain names used by the defendants, provided that DISH submits a declaration confirming the new domains are being used for infringing purposes.

At the time of writing, court has not yet ruled on the motion. However, the chances of a favorable outcome in this case are higher for the pay TV company, as the defendants all failed to appear.

—

A copy of DISH’s motion for default judgment, filed at the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida, is available here (pdf).

Source

Hope you enjoyed this news post. Feedback welcome.

Posted Sunday 22 March 2026 at 5:43 am AEST (my time).

News posts: 2023 5,800+ | 2024 5,700+ | 2025 5,700+ | 2026 (to end of February) 854

RIP Matrix

In 2007, The Pirate Bay supported “OscarTorrents,” which aimed to be a pirates’ counterweight to Hollywood’s annual awards show.

At the time, mass movie piracy was still a fringe activity, with no instant streaming options available. Nonetheless, more than 100,000 ‘pirates’ voted for their own movie favorites.

While the OscarTorrents project was a clear display of defiance, the outcome of the voting was rather mainstream. The Departed was crowned ‘Best Picture’ in the official Oscars ceremony, as well as in the pirate equivalent, and many of the other winners were also identical.

2026 Oscars

Fast forward nearly two decades, and the annual awards ceremony continues to make an impact. Typically, the winner of the Oscar for ‘best picture’ will see a boost in downloads on torrent sites and elsewhere.

Based on a sample of torrent activity tracked by IKnow, we can report that pirated downloads of “One Battle After Another” tripled the day after the awards ceremony compared to the week before. The chart below shows the daily estimated downloads for five of the Oscar nominees, with the winner clearly standing out.

Piracy Impact: 2026 Oscar Season
 

This Oscar winner’s surge doesn’t come as a surprise, as we have seen this play out before. While there is always a boost for the best picture winner, relatively speaking, this is typically greater for lesser-known films.

The 300% increase for “One Battle After Another” is larger than that of “Oppenheimer” in 2024 but less pronounced than the quadrupling of last year’s winner, “Anora”.

No Piracy Boost for Sinners

What’s more surprising in this year’s data is the absence of an Oscar boost for Sinners, which was one of this year’s favorites with a record number of sixteen nominations. The film won four Oscars last weekend, but this didn’t trigger any new activity on pirate sites.

Sinners already saw its downloads on pirate sites triple in January after the nominations were announced. The nominations surge in January appears to have already satisfied pirates’ demand.

In the piracy data sample, we also see the lack of an Oscar effect for “Marty Supreme,” which did not see any increase in interest either. That is less surprising, of course, because the film failed to win any Oscars despite receiving nine nominations.

That said, it is not only the best picture winner who enjoys a boost in pirate downloads. While less visible in the chart above, “Frankenstein” and “Bugonia” also saw temporary download spikes of close to 50%, which can be attributed to the Oscar night spotlight for these titles.

Legal Demand Rises Too

The piracy boosts observed here are typically the result of an overall increase in demand. Legal streaming platforms tell a similar story, although not the same. Streaming search engine JustWatch informs us that, with a 231% increase, “One Battle After Another” was also the big winner in terms of legal demand.

Interestingly, Sinners did get a boost in interest on legitimate streaming platforms. JustWatch reports that Sinners saw an increase of 136% following the Academy Awards. JustWatch’s data is based on activity from U.S. users but, even when looking at U.S. traffic alone, a similar piracy effect could not be observed on our end.

Legal Streaming Impact: 2026 Oscar Season
 

The graph above shows that legal demand for Marty Supreme through streaming platforms clearly dropped. That’s also different from our findings, as demand on pirate sites remained stable.

As with all trends today, these media-triggered spikes in demand don’t tend to last very long. After the initial boost on Monday, the piracy interest for most titles immediately started to level off. That said, with an Oscar for best picture in the bag, the status of “One Battle After Another” will remain permanently elevated.

—

^{Note: The data used in this article comes from Iknow, which tracks torrent downloads through DHT and PEX. While it may not be able to track all downloads, it’s a substantial sample. This sample only looks at torrent downloads. Views on streaming platforms, direct downloads, and other piracy sources can’t be measured directly. That said, we assume that the trend will be similar there.}

Source

Hope you enjoyed this news post. Feedback welcome.

Posted Saturday 21 March 2026 at 5:44 am AEST (my time).

News posts: 2023 5,800+ | 2024 5,700+ | 2025 5,700+ | 2026 (to end of February) 854

RIP Matrix

Launched in 2024, Italy’s elaborate ‘Piracy Shield‘ blocking scheme was billed as the future of anti-piracy efforts.

To effectively tackle live sports piracy, its broad blocking powers aim to block piracy-related domain names and IP addresses within 30 minutes.

While many pirate sources have indeed been blocked, the Piracy Shield is not without controversy. There have been multiple reports of overblocking, where the anti-piracy system blocked access to legitimate sites and services.

€14,247,698 ‘Piracy Shield’ Fine

Cloudflare was caught up in several of those incidents and became one of Piracy Shield’s most prominent critics. Following an amendment that extended the scheme’s reach to DNS providers and VPNs, the American Internet infrastructure company refused to filter pirate sites through its public 1.1.1.1 resolver, arguing that it was unreasonable and disproportionate.

In response to the refusal, Italy’s communications regulator AGCOM launched a formal investigation. In January, the regulator concluded that Cloudflare has all the technological expertise and resources to implement the blocking measures. AGCOM argued that the company is known for its complex traffic management, and rejected the suggestion that complying with the blocking order would break its service.

After weighing all arguments, AGCOM imposed a €14,247,698 (USD $16.4m) fine against Cloudflare for failing to comply with the required anti-piracy measures. The regulator added that this fine represents 1% of the company’s global revenue, adding that the law allows for a maximum of 2%.

Cloudflare Formally Appeals

This week, Cloudflare explained in a blog post why it formally appealed the fine on March 8. According to the company, this case is about more than money, as it believes that the Piracy Shield blocking regime puts the open Internet at risk.

The company stresses that the controversial pirate site blocking system essentially operates as a “black box”.

“This case isn’t just about a single penalty; it’s about whether a handful of private entities can prioritize their own economic interests over those of Internet users by forcing global infrastructure providers to block large swaths of the Internet without oversight, transparency, or due process,” Cloudflare notes.

Black-Box

Cloudflare further stresses that the Piracy Shield’s flaws and shortcomings are no accident. In its blog post, the company points out that Piracy Shield was “donated” to the Italian government by SP Tech, an arm of the law firm that represents several of the scheme’s direct beneficiaries, including the Serie A, Italy’s top soccer league.

Failures and Flaws

Cloudflare once again reiterates that the Piracy Shield scheme is a blunt instrument that created an unavoidable risk of overblocking. This includes many innovative sites and services, including Government websites, educational resources, and access to Google Drive, which were all blocked at some point.

This massive overblocking and collateral damage was also confirmed in a study by researchers from the University of Twente last September. They concluded that Piracy Shield is linked to “significant collateral damage to legitimate infrastructure” and may pose a “potential threat to national security.”

AGCOM has been aware of the critique, including the European Commission’s concerns, but it continues to stay the course. Instead of limiting the impact, it broadened the scheme to include DNS resolvers and VPNs.

“Even when faced with clear evidence that Piracy Shield has caused significant and repeated overblocking, AGCOM did not change course. Rather, it chose to expand Piracy Shield to apply to global DNS providers and VPNs, services which are closely associated with privacy and free expression,” Cloudflare writes.

Challenging Piracy Shield’s Legality

In addition to overblocking concerns, Cloudflare also stresses that the Piracy Shield lacks transparency. These and other issues will likely be brought up during the appeal, which will also question the amount of the fine.

AGCOM previously noted that the €14 million fine is less than the legally permitted 2% of Cloudflare’s global revenue. However, Cloudflare counters that Italian non-compliance fines are capped at 2% of a company’s revenue within the relevant jurisdiction, which would be approximately €140,000, not 100 times that.

100 times higher

All in all, the company says that it will continue to challenge the controversial piracy blocking scheme to the best of its ability.

“We are not backing down. Cloudflare is appealing the €14 million fine, pushing for full access to AGCOM’s Piracy Shield records, and will continue to challenge the underlying legality of the Piracy Shield blocking orders in the Italian administrative courts,” Cloudflare notes.

Source

Hope you enjoyed this news post. Feedback welcome.

Posted Wednesday 18 March 2026 at 5:34 pm AEST (my time).

News posts: 2023 5,800+ | 2024 5,700+ | 2025 5,700+ | 2026 (to end of February) 854

RIP Matrix

In September 2024, Apple removed the popular music streaming app Musi from its App Store, affecting millions of users.

Apple’s action wasn’t completely unexpected. Music industry groups had been trying to take Musi down for a long time, branding it a ‘parasitic’ app that skirts the rules.

Delisting from the App Store was an existential threat to Musi, which took the matter to court. Musi claimed that the App Store removal was the result of “backroom conversations” between Apple and key music industry players, including Sony, IFPI, and YouTube.

The app developer accused Apple of breach of contract and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. The company hoped that the court would agree and compel Apple to reinstate the app, but that did not happen.

Court Dismisses Musi’s Complaint

In an order issued yesterday, Judge Eumi K. Lee of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California dismissed the case with prejudice, effectively ending the lawsuit.

In its defense, Apple has argued that the terms of the Apple Developer Program License Agreement (DPLA) allowed the company to delist apps “at any time, with or without cause.” That would be sufficient to remove Musi.

Musi website
 

Musi has countered that, according to the same agreement, Apple needed to conduct a review to establish “reasonable belief” before an app would be removed from its platform. However, the court disagreed, stressing that there are no limitations to Apple’s removal rights.

Dismissed
 

“There is simply no textual basis in the DPLA to construe a limitation on Apple’s right to cease offering an application, as long as Apple provided notice,” Judge Lee writes.

Musi’s Claims Fail

Musi’s argument that Apple breached an “implied covenant of good faith” under California law also failed. While Apple was contractually allowed to remove the app, the court notes that Apple did not solely act in response to the YouTube claim.

“[T]he complaint reflects that Apple was facing pressure from multiple music industry complaints. The letter from Sony expressly states that its trade organization (the IFPI) had already tried to resolve issues with Musi through the app dispute process, but Musi was not cooperating,” the order reads.

The court already granted Musi the option to amend its complaint previously and allowed two months of discovery, including access to over 3,500 documents and depositions from Apple officials, but that was not enough. Therefore, the court dismissed the case with prejudice, meaning that it can’t be refiled.

Sanctions Against Musi’s Lawyers

In a separate order issued the same day, the court granted Apple’s motion for Rule 11 sanctions in part, ruling that one allegation in Musi’s amended complaint was factually baseless.

Musi had alleged in the first paragraph of its amended complaint that Apple “knew that this ‘evidence’ was false, as it has since admitted.”

Judge Lee found that this admission did not appear anywhere in the provided evidence. Therefore, Musi’s claim that Apple had “admitted” to knowingly relying on false evidence is sufficient to warrant sanctions.

“Claiming that Apple ‘admitted’ that it knowingly relied on false evidence conveys that discovery yielded damning evidence,” the order states, “but it did not.”

The sanctions order effectively removed the offending phrase from the amended complaint and ordered Musi’s law firm, Winston & Strawn LLP, to pay Apple’s reasonable attorneys’ fees related to the sanctions motion.

More Scrutiny

The sanctions ruling was not the first time Musi’s honesty came under scrutiny in this case. In a motion filed in May 2025, Apple alleged that Musi had previously impersonated a Universal Music Group executive to get its app reinstated after an earlier removal.

Apple claimed that Musi founder Aaron Wojnowski forwarded a fabricated email to Apple purportedly from UMG’s Jason Miller, using the address jasonmiller@umusic.solar-secure.com, which is not a UMG address.

Forwarded email

UMG later informed Apple the email was “fraudulent” and that Miller had no record of sending it. The same address was allegedly used to file a false copyright claim against a separate music streaming app, Yokee, in July 2020.

With the dismissal order now in place, the case is effectively closed. This means that the once very popular music app will not return to the App Store via this route. Musi still has the option to appeal, but whether it plans to do so is unclear. The company did not immediately return our request for comment.

—

A copy of Judge Eumi K. Lee’s order granting Apple’s motion to dismiss is available here (pdf). The order granting in part Apple’s motion for Rule 11 sanctions is available here (pdf).

Source

Hope you enjoyed this news post. Feedback welcome.

Posted Wednesday 18 March 2026 at 6:36 am AEST (my time).

News posts: 2023 5,800+ | 2024 5,700+ | 2025 5,700+ | 2026 (to end of February) 854

RIP Matrix

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

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

This week we have two newcomers on the list. “Crime 101” is the most shared title.

The most torrented movies for the week ending on March 16 are:

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

Source

Hope you enjoyed this news post. Feedback welcome.

Posted Tuesday 17 March 2026 at 5:50 am AEST (my time).

News posts: 2023 5,800+ | 2024 5,700+ | 2025 5,700+ | 2026 (to end of February) 854

RIP Matrix

In 2024, the video rental and streaming company Redbox shut down its service and filed for bankruptcy.

The service, owned by Chicken Soup for the Soul Entertainment (now CSS Entertainment), was running hundreds of millions in losses per year and no longer saw a path to profitability.

With hundreds of filings, the bankruptcy case is a complex one. While these types of proceedings typically don’t have much news value, a rather intriguing piracy-related filing caught our eye last fall.

Court Clears Path for $100 Million Piracy Litigation Deal

Last October, it was reported that a company called Grove Street Partners was offering at least $100 million for the copyright litigation rights of Redbox‘ bankrupt parent company.

However, before any deal could be signed and executed, the Delaware bankruptcy court first had to approve the sharing agreement that dictates how the proceeds of an eventual sale are shared. This happened earlier this month, when the agreement was formally approved by Judge Mary F. Walrath.

With the paperwork sorted, the rights to pursue copyright infringement claims of media titles once owned or controlled by CSS Entertainment and its subsidiaries, including Screen Media Ventures, can now be sold.

Grove Street remains the key candidate to take over the rights, which would allow the company to file lawsuits against Internet providers for turning a blind eye to piracy. This can potentially lead to hundreds of millions of dollars in damages, which would provide a decent return on investment.

Piracy lawsuits are familiar territory for Grove Street. In 2023, before Redbox went bankrupt, it announced a partnership with American Films and its subsidiary FACTERRA, to “provide data monitoring and record evidence” supporting copyright infringement cases.

Future ISP Piracy Lawsuits & the Supreme Court

During a hearing at the bankruptcy court a few days ago, the trustee confirmed that while they have reached an “agreement in principle” with Grove Street, the formal purchase agreement is still being drafted and has not been executed. This means that there is no final price tag, although $100 million has been cited as the minimum.

From the sharing agreement

$100 million is a substantial amount, especially considering that these litigation rights don’t guarantee success in court. In fact, the value of those rights largely depends on a case currently before the U.S. Supreme Court.

This case, Cox Communications v. Sony Music Entertainment, asks the Court to define when an ISP can be held liable for the infringement of its subscribers.

Cox was previously hit with a $1 billion jury verdict for failing to terminate repeat infringers despite receiving millions of DMCA notices. This led to several appeals and eventually ended up at the Supreme Court, where the Internet provider found the U.S. government on its side.

The Supreme Court heard oral arguments in December 2025, and a final decision is expected to come in later this year. That decision could either cement the value of the rights at stake here, or make it much more challenging to recoup the investment.

Private Lenders Get Most Money

The approved sharing agreement governs how proceeds will be divided between the trustee, George L. Miller, and HPS Investment Partners, the primary secured lender owed at least $500 million in principal alone.

Under the terms of the deal, the buyer of the rights will pay at least $100 million in five annual installments of $20 million each. After the trustee’s administrative costs are covered, the first $100 million in net proceeds splits 80% to the lenders and 20% to the estate. Above $100 million, the lenders’ share increases to 85%, with the estate receiving 15%

During the proceedings, a secondary lender, MidCap Financial Trust, was added as a party by the court order, and it will receive a pro-rata share of the lender share, alongside HPS.

The court also specifically preserved the rights of unions, including DGA, SAG-AFTRA, and WGA West, to ensure their outstanding payment claims remain active. However, with various parties seeking hundreds of millions in secured debt, it seems unlikely that everyone is made whole.

A Web of Legal Troubles

Speaking with TorrentFreak, Grove Street CEO Thomas Murphy confirmed that the external funds to acquire the rights are still in place, without mentioning any financial partners by name. First, however, a purchase agreement must be finalized.

This agreement is also key for a separate lawsuit that was filed against the company by a former executive. As highlighted last October, Jamie Warren, the former CFO of both American Films and Grove Street Funding (which is linked to Grove Street Partners), sued both companies over unpaid salary in 2024.

In May, 2025, a Texas federal court entered a final judgment in favor of the former employee, granting her $525,000, plus attorneys fees and costs. Thus far, the judgment has not been paid, but that could change soon.

A day after the bankruptcy court approved the sale of litigation rights, Murphy informed the Texas court that a first payment toward the outstanding judgment will follow shortly, adding that the CSS deal is ‘the only way that reasonably happens.’

Whether the sale will eventually go through has yet to be seen, but it is clear that a lot is riding on it: for Grove Street, its former CFO, Internet providers, lawyers, movie producers, and all the claim holders in the bankruptcy proceeding.

And even if the sale goes through, the profitability of the deal will depend, in no small part, on what the Supreme Court decides in the Cox case in the months ahead.

—

A copy of the order of the Delaware Bankruptcy Court, approving the sharing agreement (pdf) that effectively greenlights the deal, is available here (pdf).

Source

Hope you enjoyed this news post. Feedback welcome.

Posted Monday 16 March 2026 at 6:11 pm AEST (my time).

News posts: 2023 5,800+ | 2024 5,700+ | 2025 5,700+ | 2026 (to end of February) 854

RIP Matrix

Anti-piracy reporting tools have existed for years, but generally speaking, there is little interest from the public to expose pirates.

The Business Software Alliance previously offered people hard cash in exchange for tips, which helped, but there are other potential reward options too.

Online Pirate Hunters

The Czech anti-piracy company Warezio, which works for various international rightsholders, believes that it can motivate people to report pirate streaming links through a gamified experience. The company recently launched a new platform, inviting the public to help spot links to pirated content.

The ‘Online Hunter’ portal effectively turns people into pirate ‘hunters.’ As the name suggests, users of the site can report pirate links on various platforms and earn points when these are reviewed and approved.

There’s a wide variety of content that users can report, ranging from blockbuster movies to current live streaming events.

Report a Link
 

Newly discovered live streaming links have the most value, while previously reported content doesn’t bring in many points. With sufficient points, users can then buy vouchers for online streaming services such as Netflix, HBO, or Oktagon MMA, which is an official partner.

The new portal has not been widely promoted because Warezio prefers a soft launch. However, the first links have already been submitted. This is in part due to targeted promotion, which showed a banner to a select group of Oktagon streamers during the last event.

Banner for ‘Online Hunters’

‘Online Hunter’ is currently targeted at countries in Eastern and Central Europe, but Warezio’s Jakub Hájek informs TorrentFreak that he hopes to expand it to Western Europe in the near future. That might also open the door to more rightsholders, he says, as “reporting to the authorities” is generally frowned upon in Eastern Europe.

Pirates Knock Out?

At the moment, Oktagon MMA is the only named partner. The MMA organization operates based on a pay-per-view model, which makes it more vulnerable to piracy than traditional VOD platforms.

“The financial damages caused by piracy are noticeable,” Oktagon’s Martin Šteso tells TorrentFreak

Šteso explains that the company previously relied on its social media team to track down infringing streams. However, that approach had significant limits in scale and reach, especially when dealing with a range of semi-private communities on services such as Discord.

By crowdsourcing detection of piracy threats that automated tools typically miss, Oktagon hopes to fight back against pirate streaming.

“The main goal is to uncover piracy groups, particularly those operating on platforms like Discord, that are otherwise incredibly difficult to detect. Because many of these communities are private and restricted to smaller circles, manual detection is nearly impossible,” Šteso notes.

Points, Levels and Leaderboards

‘Online Hunter’ currently supports reporting links on nine platforms: Discord, Telegram, Facebook, Instagram, Reddit, TikTok, Twitter/X, YouTube, and ok.ru. As users report more links, they can reach new levels and climb the public leaderboard as their approved points increase.

Whether this gamified approach will appeal to the public at large has yet to be seen. Currently, there are just a few active flaggers on the platform, according to the leaderboard.

The Leaderboard
 

Warezio certainly believes in the project, and the company informs us that more rightsholders are welcome to get in touch if they actively would like to participate.

Oktagon MMA hopes that ‘Online Hunter’ will ultimately become a household tool to identify hidden pirate communities. Thus far, the MMA organization has promoted ‘Online Hunter’ to a select group of users, but a broader promotion is also being considered.

Whether crowdsourced human intelligence is a durable addition to automated anti-piracy tools remains to be seen, but a project like Online Hunters will certainly get people talking.

Source

Hope you enjoyed this news post. Feedback welcome.

Posted Monday 16 March 2026 at 6:44 am AEST (my time).

News posts: 2023 5,800+ | 2024 5,700+ | 2025 5,700+ | 2026 (to end of February) 854

RIP Matrix

The anime industry has experienced a surge in popularity, but this growth is not limited to legal streaming platforms.

A significant portion of the demand for anime arrives from unofficial channels, with several major pirate websites dedicated solely to anime content.

This includes HiAnime.to, which, with an estimated 150 million+ monthly visits is one of the most trafficked websites on the Internet. However, a message now displayed across the site’s main domains suggests that may be about to change.

“It’s time to say goodbye. And thank you for a wonderful journey with great moments,” the message reads, also shown on other official domains, such as HiAnime.me.

HiAnime.to says Goodbye
 

The HiAnime name first appeared under its current name in March 2024, as a rebranding of the Aniwatch website, which was known as Zoro.to before that. Since then, its popularity has continued to grow. Until now.

Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt

While the goodbye message seems crystal clear, the site’s official Discord server and Reddit community don’t appear convinced. While it is unclear whether the operators are moderating these communities, the mods and admins caution people not to jump to conclusions.

“We are currently aware of the situation and are actively reviewing the matter. We are monitoring the situation and attempting to obtain further clarification as of the moment,” a status message in the Discord channel reads.

Discord message

At the same time, a Reddit thread urges people not to panic and stop sharing unverified information.

Reddit thread

Legal Pressure

At TorrentFreak, we can verify that the “goodbye” message posted on the official HiAnime domains reads like a shutdown notice. Time will tell whether the site will indeed remain offline. It’s also an option that it will rebrand yet again.

HiAnime has had its fair share of legal pressure over the past two years. The MPA’s Alliance for Creativity and Entertainment has targeted the site on multiple occasions, for example.

Earlier this month, the pressure further increased as the U.S. Trade Representative added HiAnime to its annual list of notorious piracy markets.

USTR lists HiAnime.to
 

There is no evidence to suggest that the legal pressure has anything to do with the goodbye message on the site, but it would be a fitting explanation. If any new information comes in, we will update this article accordingly.

Source

Hope you enjoyed this news post. Feedback welcome.

Posted Saturday 14 March 2026 at 4:50 am AEST (my time).

News posts: 2023 5,800+ | 2024 5,700+ | 2025 5,700+ | 2026 (to end of February) 854

RIP Matrix

In March of 2024, the Dallas-based IPTV operator William Freemon was sued for copyright infringement by Amazon, Netflix, and several major Hollywood studios.

Freemon defended himself but failed to hire a lawyer for his company, Freemon Technology Industries (FTI). Instead, he responded by filing various motions while refusing to formally answer the copyright infringement complaint.

With the case not moving forward, the movie companies eventually had enough and requested a default judgment of $18,750,000 in copyright damages.

Last month, a Texas magistrate judge recommended granting this in full, and this week, the order was formally adopted by U.S. District Judge Sam A. Lindsay.

Judge Grants $18,750,000 Judgment

As detailed in our earlier coverage, Freemon allegedly operated four unauthorized streaming services: Streaming TV Now, TV Nitro, Instant IPTV, and Cash App IPTV. In addition, he was accused of running a pirate IPTV reseller operation called Live TV Resellers.

‘Streaming TV Now’ was the most popular IPTV service, according to the legal paperwork. It first appeared online in 2020 and offers access to 11,000 live channels, as well as on-demand access to over 27,000 movies and 9,000 TV series.

The studios identified a sample of 125 copyrighted works that were available through the IPTV services, including Universal’s Oppenheimer. As damages compensation, the court granted the recommended statutory maximum of $150,000 per work for willful infringement, for a total of $18,750,000.

This judgment amount will continue to grow, as the court approved a 3.51% annual post-judgment interest rate until the amount is paid in full. In addition, the attorneys’ fee award has yet to be determined and will also add to the total.

From the default judgment

In addition to the damages, Judge Lindsay also entered a permanent injunction, which bars Freemon and FTI from reproducing, distributing, or publicly performing any of the plaintiffs’ copyrighted works, and from assisting others in doing so.

Injunction Targets Domain Names

The signed injunction also requires the eight domain names to be transferred immeidately to the studios’ control: instantiptv.net, streamingtvnow.com, streamingtvnow.net, tvnitro.net, cashappiptv.com, livetvresellers.com, stncloud.ltd, and stnlive.ltd.

The associated domain registrars have five days to facilitate theese transfers. If they fail to do so, the TLD registries can be ordered to either transfer the domains to a registrar of the studios’ choosing, or place them on registry hold, which would make them inaccessible too.

To address a potential whack-a-mole scenario, the studios can also return to court to add further domains to the injunction, as long as evidence shows Freemon operates them.

All in all, the court order is a clear victory for the movie companies. Whether the defendant will be able to pay over $18 million in damages is another matter. The domain seizure order does not have an immediate effect either, as all the mentioned domains have been offline for a while already.

That said, if Freemon ever attempts to relaunch the services, the movie companies will come prepared.

—

A copy of the default judgment, signed March 11, at the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas, is available here (pdf).

Source

Hope you enjoyed this news post. Feedback welcome.

Posted Friday 13 March 2026 at 6:32 am AEST (my time).

News posts: 2023 5,800+ | 2024 5,700+ | 2025 5,700+ | 2026 (to end of February) 854

RIP Matrix

As pirate IPTV services have continued to grow in recent years, TV broadcasters and distributors have intensified their efforts to combat the problem.

Pay TV provider DISH Network, in tandem with the International Broadcaster Coalition Against Piracy (IBCAP), has been particularly active on this front, filing a series of lawsuits in the United States.

DISH vs. Innetra

In one of these cases, DISH last year filed a copyright infringement complaint against UK hosting provider ‘Innetra PC’ at a California federal court, accusing the company of aiding widespread copyright infringement while ignoring takedown requests.

Based on IBCAP’s evidence, the complaint alleged that Innetra provided essential infrastructure for pirate streaming services, including the separately targeted Lemo TV and Kemo IPTV, as well as Honeybee, Xtremehd, and Caliptostreams.

In its complaint, DISH argued that Innetra could not rely on safe harbor protection, as it largely ignored hundreds of infringement notices. Additionally, Innetra allegedly failed to designate a DMCA agent and had no policy for terminating repeat infringers.

The complaint listed 171 copyrighted works and requested damages of up to $25 million against Innetra and its general partner, Elna Paulette Valentin was also named as a defendant personally.

Innetra Requested Dismissal

In July last year, Innetra responded with a motion to dismiss. The company argued that the court lacked jurisdiction, as the UK company has minimal to no contacts with the United States or California.

Among other things, Innetra said it had no U.S. servers and had signed up just one paying U.S. customer since its founding, whose account was only active for two months.

The hosting provider did not disregard the idea of a legal battle entirely. Instead, it said that if DISH insisted on filing a lawsuit, it could do so in the United Kingdom, not in the United States.

“Dish may pursue its dispute in the United Kingdom, where Innetra is located. Dish, however, may not force foreign defendants that lack minimum contacts with the United States, let alone California, to defend themselves in the United States,” Inntra wrote in its motion last year.

Court Dismisses $25 Million Lawsuit

After the motion to dismiss was filed, the court allowed DISH sixty days of jurisdictional discovery before ruling on the motion to dismiss. However, that proved not to be enough to overcome the jurisdiction challenges.

Last week, Judge Noël Wise granted Innetra’s motion to dismiss, concluding that DISH had failed to demonstrate specific personal jurisdiction over the UK hosting company. The case was dismissed without prejudice.

The court applied the “purposeful direction” test established in recent Ninth Circuit case law, which requires a plaintiff to show that a defendant made regular sales in the forum and consciously cultivated a customer base there. However, based on the evidence provided by DISH, that is not the case here.

At the time of the alleged infringement, in 2024, Innetra had no U.S. customers at all. Two American customers briefly appeared in 2025: one paid $682 over two months before cancelling, and the other signed up for nine days without purchasing anything. The court described these contacts as “scant, fleeting, and attenuated.”

DISH also argued that Innetra’s peering arrangements with NTT and Lumen showed a deliberate effort to reach U.S. users. However, evidence provided during discovery showed that Innetra contracted with the German and Dutch branches of these companies, not their U.S. affiliates. Innetra did not use U.S.-based servers from these companies.

Finally, the court was not convinced by DISH’s evidence that nearly 49,000 instances of pirate IPTV services used Innetra’s infrastructure to transmit content into the U.S. Since these pirate services were making the connection to U.S. users, not Innetra, the hosting provider is not responsible for jurisdictional purposes.

What’s Next?

Because the case was dismissed without prejudice, DISH is allowed to refile the case, potentially with extra evidence. And as Innetra noted in its motion to dismiss, DISH can also file a lawsuit in the United Kingdom if they like.

For Innetra, putting up a defense turned out to be vital. After all, another DISH lawsuit against Ukraine-based hosting provider Virtual Systems recently showed that not responding in court can result in a multi-million-dollar default judgment.
For now, there is no sign of follow-up action against Innetra yet. However, DISH certainly continues its enforcement efforts elsewhere. Just last month, the company filed a fresh $21 million lawsuit against pirate IPTV operation DMTN, whose operator allegedly posed as Breaking Bad creator Vince Gilligan.

—

A copy of U.S. District Court Judge Noël Wise’s order on the motion to dismiss is available here (pdf).

Source

Hope you enjoyed this news post. Feedback welcome.

Posted Friday 13 March 2026 at 6:30 am AEST (my time).

News posts: 2023 5,800+ | 2024 5,700+ | 2025 5,700+ | 2026 (to end of February) 854

RIP Matrix

Through its non-profit organization, the Internet Archive (IA) aims to preserve digital history for generations to come.

The Archive’s popular Wayback Machine has archived decades of web history, and it also aims to preserve content directly: by scanning physical books or recording old gramophones, for example.

One of the more unique preservation projects centers around Myspace, which was the leading social network twenty years ago. The site was particularly popular among musicians, but today it’s a shell of its former self with virtually no new activity. In fact, quite a bit of content was permanently lost.

The Myspace Dragon Hoard

In March 2019, Myspace publicly announced that all music uploaded to the platform between 2003 and 2015 had been wiped. As the result of a failed server migration, an estimated 50 million songs from 14 million artists were gone.

Days later, Internet Archive employee Jason Scott announced on X that some files may have been preserved. An anonymous academic group had mailed him a hard drive containing roughly 490,000 of those recordings, scraped from Myspace between 2008 and 2010.

“ANNOUNCING THE MYSPACE MUSIC DRAGON HOARD, a 450,000 song collection of mp3s from 2008-2010 on Myspace, gathered before they were all ‘deleted’ by mistake,” Scott posted at the time.

The tweet
 

This collection was uploaded to archive.org and made available for free, allowing people to stream and download the music without any limits. In addition, an unnamed entity launched a companion site, lostmyspace.com, with a dedicated search and playback interface for the archived files.

‘Myspace Dragon Hoard’
 

With key historical data safely stored, the Myspace preservation effort was celebrated widely. However, not everyone was pleased.

Musician Sues Internet Archive

Two years ago, the Illinois-based musician Anthony Martino found out that several of his songs were part of the Myspace Dragon Hoard. These files were hosted by the Internet Archive without his permission and formed the basis of a legal challenge.

Last December, Martino filed a copyright infringement complaint in federal court. He argues that the recordings from his Myspace should not have been included to begin with, as he made these inaccessible to the public around 2011, long before Myspace lost the data.

An amended complaint, filed in January, accuses Internet Archive of copyright infringement, requesting the maximum statutory damages of $150,000 per work for willful infringement.

In addition to 11 works in the Myspace database, Martino also claims IA scanned and digitized his physical CD liner notes and printed lyrics, adding 48 additional works to the mix. This puts the (theoretical) maximum damages at $8,850,000.

However, in its answer, Internet Archive pointed out that potential damages should be reduced to the statutory minimum, as low as $200 per work, because any infringement was innocent. That would put the damages floor at roughly $11,800.

Internet Archive: We Didn’t Upload Anything

The Internet Archive vehemently disputes the copyright infringement claims. The organization explains that it was not directly involved in uploading the ‘Myspace Dragon Hoard’. IA notes that this was done by the anonymous academic researchers that were mentioned earlier.

“A group of academics that had saved some of the lost materials uploaded their archive onto the Internet Archive’s website,” the Archive’s attorney informed the court in a joint case management statement last week, noting that the organization is protected against third-party claims by the DMCA safe harbor.

IA does not see any outstanding issues and says that, to its understanding, all of Martino’s takedown DMCA requests were eventually processed.

In its formal answer to the complaint, Internet Archive also raises a notable counter-argument: it denies that any license Martino granted to Myspace by uploading his recordings was “fully and immediately revocable,” and denies that such a license prohibited distribution to third parties outside Myspace’s platform.

Martino, meanwhile, remains convinced that IA has a more active role. Among other things, he points to public statements by Scott himself describing his role in coordinating the collection’s upload.

To Trial

Since the case will move forward to trial, both parties will get the chance to conduct discovery to find evidence for their claims. The eventual trial date has not been scheduled yet, but both parties suggest planning it for April of 2027.

This is not the first music copyright dispute the Internet Archive is involved in. The organization was previously sued by several major music labels for digitizing gramophones. This case was settled confidentially last September.

—

A copy of Martino’s amended complaint is available here (pdf). The Internet Archive’s answer can be found here (pdf), while the case management statement is here (pdf).

Source

Hope you enjoyed this news post. Feedback welcome.

Posted Wednesday 11 March 2026 at 5:14 am AEST (my time).

News posts: 2023 5,800+ | 2024 5,700+ | 2025 5,700+ | 2026 (to end of February) 854

RIP Matrix

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

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

This week we have two newcomers on the list. “Marty Supreme” is the most shared title.

The most torrented movies for the week ending on March 09 are:

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

Source

Hope you enjoyed this news post. Feedback welcome.

Posted Tuesday 10 March 2026 at 4:49 am AEST (my time).

News posts: 2023 5,800+ | 2024 5,700+ | 2025 5,700+ | 2026 (to end of February) 854

RIP Matrix

Anna’s Archive has already faced its fair share of legal trouble and domain name problems this year.

The popular shadow library was sued by Spotify and several major record labels in late December and lost many of its domain names.

The site responded by adding new domain names. After losing its .LI domain last week, it added .VG,.PK, and .GD as new alternatives. However, this does not mean that the pressure is fading. Within a matter of days, the .VG domain was already suspended by the domain registrar.

63 Million Pirated Books

After watching the music industry’s legal push, a group of thirteen major publishers has also sprung into action. In a complaint filed at a New York federal court last week, they accuse Anna’s Archive of staggering copyright infringement by hosting 63 million books and 95 million papers, most of which are pirated.

The complaint

“Defendants shamelessly describe themselves as a collection of ‘pirates’ not ‘bound by the law’,” the complaint reads.

The publishers highlight that the site facilitated 763,000 downloads per day last Tuesday, as reported by the site’s own statistics. These downloads are predominantly unauthorized, they add.

“Plaintiffs are not aware that any of the copyright-protected works on Anna’s Archive are licensed or authorized by the copyright owners; to the contrary, their reproduction and distributions are blatantly illegal infringements,” the complaint notes.

763,000 downloads
 

The publishers also highlight the AI training angle. They note that the shadow library provided high-speed access to 140+ million texts to LLM developers in China, Russia, and elsewhere. This includes a blog post titled “If You’re an LLM, Please Read This” which specifically targets AI companies.

The complaint alleged that Anna’s Archive reportedly charges significant fees for premium access, citing a LinkedIn post that mentioned a $200,000 donation.

“The amount of the ‘enterprise-level donation’ is not specified on the Website but it is reported to be $200,000. In an e-mail exchange with a researcher inquiring about the cost of the collection for AI training, Anna’s Archive offered premium access for $200,000,” the complaint notes.

Donation

The Injunction is Key

With 130 copyrighted works mentioned in the complaint, and damages up to $150,000 per infringed work, the publishers seek up to $19.5 million in compensation. However, with the site’s operators being unknown and unreachable, chances are slim that this amount will be paid.

The publishers are aware of this. In fact, if we carefully read the framing of their complaint, it appears that the legal action is predominantly intended to target domain names and other technical infrastructure of Anna’s Archive.

In recent weeks, the music industry injunction in the Atlantic/Spotify case has helped to take out several domain names. However, Anna’s Archive has since removed music-related content from the site. Therefore, the publishers now seek a similar injunction.

“Were the Defendants to repost the contents of its illegal repository of stolen works without these audio files, the Atlantic Order would still be satisfied. Nor can the publisher Plaintiffs in this case enforce the Atlantic Order to protect their own copyrights,” the complaint reads.

Injunction Targeting Hosts, Registrars, and Registries

The publishers want to play their part in taking Anna’s Archive offline, and they therefore request an injunction to protect their copyrights. This proposed injunction requires the site and its operator to halt all infringing activity and destroy all pirated books and articles.

More importantly, the injunction would also require third-party intermediaries to stop providing services to the shadow library. This applies to data centers, and hosting and service providers, domain registrars, and domain registries.

Proposed injunctive relief
 

The proposed injunction would apply to all current domain names, as well as “any other websites that host the infringing content or directly facilitate its distribution.”

At the time of writing, the court has yet to sign off on the requested injunction. Whether that order will be enough to keep Anna’s Archive offline for good, given its track record of quickly securing new domains, has yet to be seen.

—

A copy of the complaint, filed at the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, is available here (pdf). The exhibit listing works in suit can be found here (pdf).

Source

Hope you enjoyed this news post. Feedback welcome.

Posted Tuesday 10 March 2026 at 4:43 am AEST (my time).

News posts: 2023 5,800+ | 2024 5,700+ | 2025 5,700+ | 2026 (to end of February) 854

RIP Matrix

Last May, the Guardia di Finanza announced that 2,282 pirate IPTV subscribers had been fined across 80 Italian provinces.

The user details came from a criminal investigation in Lecce that dismantled a large IPTV operation, leaving behind a subscriber database that authorities put to immediate use.

Those fines, typically starting at €154 and rising to €5,000 for repeat offenders, were only the beginning. The same pirate IPTV (Pezzotto) users were in for more trouble.

Two Bills, Same Offense

In the autumn of 2025, DAZN sent letters to many of the pirate IPTV users who were already fined, offering to settle a civil damages claim for €500. This new payment request was in addition to the state fine, not instead of it.

Taking a page from this playbook, Serie A followed with its own damages demand. In January, the league’s CEO, Luigi De Siervo, announced that lawyers sent approximately 2,000 letters to individuals who were previously identified by the Guardia di Finanza, requesting €1,000 each as a settlement for the damages caused by their illegal streaming.

In late February, Serie A CEO Luigi De Siervo confirmed that the first payments have now been received. As with the DAZN case, these payments are also linked to Criminal Case no. 7719/2022 at the Tribunal of Lecce.

“Finally, even in our country, we are restoring the rule of law,” De Siervo said in a statement, adding that this is “only the beginning.”

“Those who use the pezzotto or illegally watch matches on apps, pirate IPTV, or via VPN, must know that they will be identified by the competent authorities, will have to pay fines of up to €5,000 as provided by law, and will above all be required to pay an additional €1,000 to Serie A as compensation for damages. Piracy is theft, period.”

Serie A does not mention how many payments it has received in response to the thousands of letters it sent out. This could be less than a handful, for now.

Follow The Money

It is clear that the messaging aims to deter future IPTV pirates, suggesting that even a VPN can’t secure them. While this statement is technically correct, it deserves some nuance.

The IPTV pirates who were identified in this case did not have their connections monitored in any way. Instead, the IPTV users were identified through their payment details, banking data, and other personal information obtained as part of a criminal investigation into an IPTV operator.

This is a notable distinction, as defense lawyers in the Lecce case have argued that some of the administrative fines issued lack technical evidence of actual piracy, resting solely on the payment trail.

One lawyer filed formal correction requests with Italian media, stressing that no IP addresses were identified, no devices were seized, and no specific copyrighted work was named in the citations. However, those challenges have not prevented the compensation letters from going out, or the payments from coming in.

Looming Threat

The Lecce case is one of several active proceedings. There are several other prosecutions, and, with permission from the Prosecutor’s Office, more details of pirate subscribers are reportedly shared with rightsholders.

Italy’s Minister for Sport, Andrea Abodi, went even further in October, suggesting that the names of those caught buying illegal subscriptions could eventually be published in a public naming and shaming campaign. “It’s beyond privacy concerns; it’s a crime,” he said at the time.

For now, however, the government appears content to let the financial pressure do the work. This also serves as a deterrent message, as those who received the €1,000 letter from Serie A but chose to ignore it potentially face a more expensive civil claim.

Serie A website (dd. March 2 , 2026)

Meanwhile, the official Serie A website features a prominent advertisement for its long-running partner, 1XBET.

This is notable because the same gambling company the Motion Picture Association has flagged as a notorious piracy market, as it is frequently promoted through watermarked pirated movies and other advertisements on prominent pirate sites.

Source

Hope you enjoyed this news post. Feedback welcome.

Posted Tuesday 10 March 2026 at 4:42 am AEST (my time).

News posts: 2023 5,800+ | 2024 5,700+ | 2025 5,700+ | 2026 (to end of February) 854

RIP Matrix

In the race to build the most capable LLM models, several tech companies sourced copyrighted content for use as training data, without obtaining permission from content owners.

Meta, the parent company of Facebook and Instagram, was one of the companies to get sued. In 2023, well-known book authors, including Richard Kadrey, Sarah Silverman, and Christopher Golden, filed a class-action lawsuit against the company.

Meta’s Bittersweet Victory

Last summer, Meta scored a key victory in this case, as the court concluded that using pirated books to train its Llama LLM qualified as fair use, based on the arguments presented in this case. This was a bittersweet victory, however, as Meta remained on the hook for downloading and sharing the books via BitTorrent.

By downloading books from shadow libraries such as Anna’s Archive, Meta relied on BitTorrent transfers. In addition to downloading content, these typically upload data to others as well. According to the authors, this means that Meta was engaged in widespread and direct copyright infringement.

In recent months, the lawsuit continued based on this remaining direct copyright infringement claim. While both parties collected additional evidence through the discovery process, it remained unclear what defense Meta would use. Until now.

Seeding Pirated Books is Fair Use

Last week, Meta served a supplemental interrogatory response at the California federal court, which marks a new direction in its defense. For the first time, the company argued that uploading pirated books to other BitTorrent users during the torrent download process also qualifies as fair use.

Meta’s reasoning is straightforward. Anyone who uses BitTorrent to transfer files automatically uploads content to other people, as it is inherent to the protocol. In other words, the uploading wasn’t a choice, it was simply how the technology works.

Meta also argued that the BitTorrent sharing was a necessity to get the valuable (but pirated) data. In the case of Anna’s Archive, Meta said, the datasets were only available in bulk through torrent downloads, making BitTorrent the only practical option.

“Meta used BitTorrent because it was a more efficient and reliable means of obtaining the datasets, and in the case of Anna’s Archive, those datasets were only available in bulk through torrent downloads,” Meta’s attorney writes.

“Accordingly, to the extent Plaintiffs can come forth with evidence that their works or portions thereof were theoretically ‘made available’ to others on the BitTorrent network during the torrent download process, this was part-and-parcel of the download of Plaintiffs’ works in furtherance of Meta’s transformative fair use purpose.”

Part and parcel

In other words, obtaining the millions of books that were needed to engage in the fair use training of its LLM, required the direct downloading, which ultimately serves the same fair use purpose.

Authors and Meta Disagree over Fair Use Timing

The authors were not happy with last week’s late Friday submission and the new defense. On Monday morning, their lawyers filed a letter with Judge Vince Chhabria flagging the late-night filing as an improper end-run around the discovery deadline.

They point out that Meta had been aware of the uploading claims since November 2024, but that it never brought up this fair use defense in the past, not even when the court asked about it.

The letter specifically mentions that while Meta has a “continuing duty” to supplement discovery under Rule 26(e), this rule does not create a “loophole” allowing a party to add new defenses to its advantage after a court deadline has passed.

“Meta (for understandable reasons) never once suggested it would assert a fair use defense to the uploading-based claims, including after this Court raised the issue with Meta last November,” the lawyers write.

The letter

Meta’s legal team fired back the following day, filing their own letter with Judge Chhabria. This letter explains that the fair use argument for the direct copyright infringement claim is not new at all.

Meta pointed to the parties’ joint December 2025 case management statement, in which it had explicitly flagged the defense, and noted that the author’s own attorney had addressed it at a court hearing days later.

“In short, Plaintiffs’ assertion that Meta ‘never once suggested it would assert a fair use defense to the uploading-based claims, including after’ the November 2025 hearing, is false” Meta’s attorney writes in the letter.

Authors Admit No Harm, No Infringing Output

Meanwhile, it’s worth noting that Meta’s interrogatory response also cites deposition testimony from the authors themselves, using their own words to bolster its fair use defense.

The company notes that every named author has admitted they are unaware of any Meta model output that replicates content from their books. Sarah Silverman, when asked whether it mattered if Meta’s models never output language from her book, testified that “It doesn’t matter at all.”

Authors’ depositions
 

Meta argues these admissions undercut any theory of market harm. If the authors themselves cannot point to infringing output or lost sales, the lawsuit is less about protecting their books and more about challenging the training process itself, which the court already ruled was fair use.

These admissions were central to Meta’s fair use defense on the training claims, which Meta won last summer. Whether they carry the same weight in the remaining BitTorrent distribution dispute has yet to be seen.

‘U.S. AI Leadership at Stake’

In its interrogatory response, Meta added further weight by stressing that its investment in AI has helped the U.S. to establish U.S. global leadership, putting the country ahead of geopolitical competitors. That’s a valuable asset worth treasuring, it indirectly suggested.

As the case moves forward, Judge Chhabria will have to decide whether to allow this “fair use by technical necessity” defense. Needless to say, this will be of vital importance to this and many other AI lawsuits, where the use of shadow libraries is at stake.

For now, the BitTorrent distribution claims remain the last live piece of a lawsuit filed in 2023. Whether Judge Chhabria will allow Meta’s new defense to proceed has yet to be seen.

—

A copy of Meta’s supplemental interrogatory response is available here (pdf). The authors’ letter to Judge Chhabria can be found here (pdf). Meta’s response to that letter is available here (pdf).

Source

Hope you enjoyed this news post. Feedback welcome.

Posted Sunday 8 March 2026 at 4:26 am AEST (my time).

News posts: 2023 5,800+ | 2024 5,700+ | 2025 5,700+ | 2026 (to end of February) 854

RIP Matrix

Last month, we reported on a new push from the Motion Picture Association and the ACE anti-piracy alliance, hoping to identify several pirate site operators.

They obtained DMCA subpoenas at a California federal court, requiring Discord and Cloudflare to share all personal information they have on customers associated with domains such as hdfull.org, sflix.fi, and pstream.mov.

MPA/ACE targets
 

ACE has used these subpoenas as an intelligence-gathering tool for years. While these efforts are often fruitless, as many site owners use fake data, they occasionally have some effect. That’s also true for the latest round, which has motivated P-Stream to shut down permanently.

P-Stream Shuts Down

A few hours ago, P-stream’s operator, Pas, informed TorrentFreak that they decided to shut down the website effective immediately. This decision is a direct result of the DMCA subpoena and the added legal pressure, which previously resulted in the loss of the Discord server as well.

People who try to access the site’s official domain are now redirected to a shutdown message. Pas stresses that P-Stream never hosted any infringing material, but the operator can’t afford to mount a legal defense if it came to that.

“Although P-Stream does NOT host, control, or guarantee any media or content, I can’t afford to fight that in court. So to be safe, P-Stream will no longer host a public instance,” the operator writes.

P-Stream’s shutdown message
 

While the operator regrets the shutdown, Pas also mentions that the project was life-consuming and took its toll, so the decision to throw in the towel could be a healthy one on that front too.

Code Remains Public

P-Stream was launched in April 2024, when movie-web was shut down by legal pressure from Hollywood. It eventually grew into a popular project of its own with close to an estimated ten million visits last month.

P-Stream, 24-hours ago
 

However, two years after its predecessor’s demise, history is repeating, perhaps in more ways than we now know.

The P-Stream project was largely based on sudo-flix, which itself was a successor to the original movie-web code. Today, the (alleged) P-Stream code remains available as well, through publicly available GitHub repositories. Whether these repos are controlled by the site’s operator is unknown.

As always, there will likely be people who try to keep the project going, and once they become popular enough, these projects will come on Hollywood’s radar, repeating the same process.

Source

Hope you enjoyed this news post. Feedback welcome.

Posted Saturday 7 March 2026 at 5:12 am AEST (my time).

News posts: 2023 5,800+ | 2024 5,700+ | 2025 5,700+ | 2026 (to end of February) 854

RIP Matrix

Every year, the Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR) publishes a list of ‘notorious markets’ that facilitate online piracy and related intellectual property crimes.

Drawing on input from copyright holders, the report includes a non-exclusive overview of sites and services that are believed to be involved in piracy or counterfeiting.

For more than a decade we have covered the online section of the report. Traditionally, that includes prominent torrent sites, download portals, cyberlockers, and streaming services that offer copyrighted content without obtaining permission from rightsholders.

In recent years, the scope of the report has broadened significantly. For example, we have seen hosting companies, advertisers, and social media platforms being added. These don’t have piracy as their core business, but they allegedly facilitate infringing activity.

Issue Focus: Sports Streaming Piracy

Yesterday, the USTR published its 2025 Review of Notorious Markets for Counterfeiting and Piracy. Every year, the Office selects an ‘Issue Focus’; for 2025, the target is live sports broadcast piracy. This choice is in part triggered by the upcoming FIFA World Cup that’s hosted by the United States, Canada, and Mexico.

“With the United States co-hosting the FIFA World Cup, we are particularly attuned to sales of counterfeit merchandise and illicit streaming of sports broadcasts,” Ambassador Jamieson Greer said, commenting on the release.

The USTR report notes that the stakes are high. Pirate sites and services directly threaten the global sports broadcast rights market, which was reportedly valued at approximately $62.6 billion in 2024. Meanwhile, pirate site operators continue to get more sophisticated and evasive.

“When authorities shut down a pirate streaming website, operators can simply register new domain names, rebrand under different names, or migrate to alternative hosting providers,” the Notorious Markets report reads.

“This whack-a-mole dynamic frustrates enforcement efforts and requires sustained, resource-intensive campaigns that often exceed the capabilities of right holders and enforcement agencies.”

New Legal Frameworks

What further complicates the challenge is the fact that live broadcasts typically only have a small takedown window. This means that content removals and enforcement have to be swift and global. In some countries, this may require legislative updates.

“Current legal frameworks, while providing important protections, have not kept pace with the technological realities of modern piracy operations,” the USTR writes in its report.

These legislative measures may include expedited site-blocking powers, as we have seen in Italy and Spain recently, although these could introduce overblocking risks. The USTR does not mention these examples but notes that “traditional notice-and-takedown” frameworks are often “inadequate for live sports broadcasts.”

Interestingly, United States law does not support no-fault site-blocking measures yet. Nor are there broadly used legal tools to take livestreams down instantly. That said, USTR notes that preliminary injunctions and temporary restraining orders could help.

“For example, the United States has expedited provisions for copyright protection, primarily through temporary restraining orders (TROs) and preliminary injunctions, which a court can grant to immediately stop infringing activity,” USTR writes.

Live streaming challenges

The Notorious Pirate Sites

USTR’s strong focus on sports streaming piracy is not immediately reflected in the list of notorious markets. While there are plenty of dedicated sports piracy networks, none is mentioned in the latest notorious markets report. Instead, it mostly highlights familiar targets.

Much of the list will look familiar to anyone who followed last year’s edition. ThePirateBay, 1337X, RuTracker, and YTS.mx return in the torrent category. Filehosting platforms Krakenfiles, Rapidgator, and 1fichier are also back, while Sci-Hub and LibGen remain listed in the publishing category (full list below).

The removals compared to last year’s list also make sense. These include the prominent torrent site TorrentGalaxy, which went offline last year, as well as NSW2U, the Nintendo Switch piracy site that had its domain names seized by the FBI and Dutch authorities last year.

Meanwhile, there are some notable newcomers too. MegaCloud, for example, which is the rebranded successor to 2embed, offers a piracy video library backend system that reportedly serves over 260 streaming sites and 600 million monthly visitors. MyFlixerz, which runs on that same ‘piracy as a service’ (PaaS) infrastructure, is also listed as a newcomer.

From USTR’s report
 

Another newcomer is MIGFlash, which offers piracy-enabling Nintendo Switch devices, and Fire Video Player, which offers video player software that’s linked to a video library, so people can easily start their own pirate sites.

Pirate Sports Streaming?

As mentioned earlier, dedicated sports streaming sites are not mentioned. The notorious markets list does include IPTV services that support streaming, including MagisTV, but does not list dedicated sites, which is odd considering this year’s sports focus.

In the positive developments section, the USTR report does reference the takedown of Streameast, one of the largest online sports streaming networks with 1.6 billion annual visits, of which 80 domain names were seized last year. However, the original Streameast operation or other surviving sports streaming brands remain unmentioned.

The USTR’s mention of the FIFA World Cup is notable, however. In the past, the U.S. Government has launched several domain seizure campaigns close to the start of major sporting events, such as the Super Bowl, so it’s possible that we will see similar action this summer.

—

A copy of the USTR’s 2025 Review of Notorious Markets is available here (pdf). The full overview also includes offline markets.

A list of highlighted sites and online services, including those listed for counterfeiting, is included below. The sites mentioned are categorized by TorrentFreak for clarity purposes and listed below.

Torrent Sites

– 1337X
– RuTracker
– The Pirate Bay
– TorrentGalaxy
– YTS.mx

File-Hosting/Cyberlockers

– 1fichier
– Krakenfiles
– Rapidgator

E-Commerce

– Baidu Wangpan
– Bukalapak
– DHgate
– Douyin Mall (new)
– Indiamart
– Pinduoduo
– Shopee
– Taobao
– Avito

PaaS

– 2embed
– Fire Video Player (new)
– MegaCloud (new)
– Streamtape
– WHMCS Smarters

Streaming/IPTV

– Cuevana
– GenIPTV
– HiAnime
– MagisTV
– MyFlixerz (new)
– VegaMovies

Hosting/Infrastructure

– Amaratu
– DDoS-Guard
– FlokiNET
– Private Layer (new)
– Squitter
– Virtual Systems

Social Media

– VK

Gaming

– FitGirl-Repacks
– MIG Flash (new)
– NSW2U
– UnknownCheats

Music

– Y2Mate
– Savefrom

Publishing

– Libgen
– Sci-Hub

Source

Hope you enjoyed this news post. Feedback welcome.

Posted Thursday 5 March 2026 at 6:13 pm AEST (my time).

News posts: 2023 5,800+ | 2024 5,700+ | 2025 5,700+ | 2026 (to end of February) 854

RIP Matrix

In recent years, YggTorrent was France’s largest and most active torrent community, serving millions of users.

The torrent site was not a typical torrent indexer. The community is powered by a dedicated tracker, something that’s quite rare these days.

This thriving community was severely tested last December when its operators introduced a paid ‘Turbo Mode’. This triggered a revolt, with users and uploaders actively looking for alternative French torrent trackers.

Just as the storm appeared to have calmed, YggTorrent’s operation was shaken up by a final blow this week, after unknown people breached the site, stole data and funds, and exposed the entire operation.

YggTorrent Shuts Down Following Hack

Today, YggTorrent decided to close its doors for good. This decision comes after the torrent site was severely compromised through an elaborate hack.

According to a statement published by the site’s operators, a secondary pre-production staging server was the entry point. From there, the attackers used a privilege escalation exploit to delete and then exfiltrate the site’s database.

YggTorrent’s message (translated)
 

In addition to large amounts of site data, the hackers also stole cryptocurrency wallets. YggTorrent’s operators note that these wallets were used exclusively to fund server costs.

The hack bears signs of a targeted attack. YggTorrent notes that there was no warning or attempt at a dialogue before all its data was exposed.

According to YggTorrent, all stored user passwords were hashed and salted. However, the leak suggests that millions of legacy accounts were still stored in MD5 without salts, offering significantly weaker protection.

YggLeak

The hacker has shared a detailed summary of their achievements and findings on a dedicated leak site.

From the leak site (translated)
 

This website explains that the hackers entered YggTorrent’s infrastructure through a series of critical configuration errors by the administrator, starting at the search engine service (SphinxQL) that was left exposed on the staging server without a password.

The YggLeak site portrays YGGtorrent as a high-revenue “cash machine” rather than a simple sharing community. It claims that the site made millions of euros in revenues in 2025 alone. This revenue was reportedly converted to cryptocurrency.

The data, via Kulturegeek
 

According to the leak, this conversion was not straightforward. The site allegedly used a plugin called CardsShield to route payments through dozens of fake e-commerce storefronts to disguise the true nature of transactions from PayPal and Stripe. The proceeds then went through a circuit involving USDT, Monero and Ethereum, with funds passed through Tornado Cash to reach anonymous wallets.

While TorrentFreak can’t immediately verify any of these claims, the author of the YggLeak website suggests that the 11+ GB in data archives may be useful for law enforcement

“[N]ow that this data is public, professionals will be able to examine it, gather additional evidence, and perhaps even take legal action against those responsible for the site, as well as against hosting providers or other identified third parties,” the YggLeak author writes.

Fin.

For YggTorrent, this is the end of the road. The site’s operators note that there is a backup of all data, so it would be possible to put the site back online. However, facing a rather hostile environment, the team has chosen to shut down permanently.

“A platform can shut down. A community, however, leaves a lasting legacy. Thank you for these nine years. Thank you for your trust. Thank you for all these shared moments,” YggTorrent says in a closing note.

Source

Hope you enjoyed this news post. Feedback welcome.

Posted Thursday 5 March 2026 at 4:39 am AEST (my time).

News posts: 2023 5,800+ | 2024 5,700+ | 2025 5,700+ | 2026 (to end of February) 854

RIP Matrix

Anna’s Archive has faced a barrage of domain takedowns in recent weeks, after Spotify and several major record labels filed a high-profile lawsuit.

The lawsuit was a direct response to Anna’s Archive’s announcement that it had backed up Spotify, with plans to gradually release the data, including the music files.

Spotify and the labels aimed to stop this. They obtained a preliminary injunction targeting domain registrars and registries, which resulted in the suspension of the .org domain as well as several other domains. However, since not all domain registries and registrars comply with U.S. court orders, the .li domain name survived. Until now.

Annas-Archive.li Deleted

A few hours ago, Annas-archive.li became unreachable. The domain wasn’t simply suspended through a clientHold or serverHold ICANN code. Instead, the entire domain name entry was deleted from the record.

Domain deleted
 

As a result of the domain deletion, Anna’s Archive is down to a single domain name, the Greenland-based annas-archive.gl, which was just added last month after it lost the .pm domain. If that pattern repeats itself, the site will likely add another backup domain name soon.

Update: shortly after publication, the Anna’s Archive website lists .vg,.pk, and .gd as new alternative domains.

Given the continued pressure from the music industry through its U.S. lawsuit, as well as a separate injunction from OCLC in another lawsuit, legal pressure on the site has been relentless this year.

The Swiss Connection

At the time of writing, it is not clear who deleted the domain. Technically, domain registrars and registries both have the authority to take this action. However, neither acted when the injunction was first issued, so something must have changed.

The .li domain name was registered through Immaterialism Limited, which is connected to the domain privacy service Njalla. The same company also registered Anna’s Archive’s .gl domain, which remains online. Therefore, it seems unlikely that the registrar took action here.

That leaves the registry, the Switzerland-based Switch Foundation, as a likely candidate. However, Switch told us in January that foreign court orders don’t generally apply to its foundation.

“As a general matter, foreign court orders do not automatically have legal effect on Switch. Switch evaluates such matters solely in accordance with applicable local laws,” a Switch spokesperson said at the time.

It is possible, however, that the music industry’s global trade group, IFPI, has since gotten involved as well. The prominent music group is known for its anti-piracy work and happens to have its legal headquarters in Switzerland.

TorrentFreak reached out to both the Switch Foundation and registrar Immaterialism Limited, hoping to clarify the situation. As of publication, neither has replied to our requests for comment.

For now, the shadow library is down to a single working domain, and the pressure shows no sign of letting up.

Source

Hope you enjoyed this news post. Feedback welcome.

Posted Tuesday 3 March 2026 at 10:23 am AEST (my time).

News posts: 2023 5,800+ | 2024 5,700+ | 2025 5,700+ | 2026 (to end of February) 854

RIP Matrix

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

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

This week we have one newcomer on the list. “Mercy” is the most shared title.

The most torrented movies for the week ending on March 02 are:

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

Source

Hope you enjoyed this news post. Feedback welcome.

Posted Tuesday 3 March 2026 at 5:29 am AEST (my time).

News posts: 2023 5,800+ | 2024 5,700+ | 2025 5,700+ | 2026 (to end of February) 854

RIP Matrix

Operating a pirate IPTV service can be a dangerous endeavor, no matter where one’s located. In the United States, home to Hollywood and other major entertainment outfits, the risks are arguably even higher.

In the past, we have seen several pirate IPTV businesses being taken to court, with rightsholders almost always on the winning side. These cases can result in million-dollar damages awards or even multi-year prison sentences, if the feds get involved.

Despite this backdrop, some people are still willing to take a gamble. A lawsuit filed by Netflix, Amazon, and several major Hollywood studios at a Texan federal court in March of 2024, identified Dallas resident William Freemon as a prime example.

Hollywood Sues U.S.-Based Pirate IPTV Operation

The complaint accused Freemon and his company, Freemon Technology Industries (FTI), of being involved in widespread copyright infringement.

Freemon’s operation began between 2016 and 2019, when he allegedly sold “illegally modified Fire TV Stick devices” through two websites: firesticksloaded.biz and firesticksloaded.com. He registered these domains in his own name, at the same address where he later incorporated his company, FTI.

The defendant allegedly owned and operated four unauthorized streaming services at one point; Streaming TV Now, TV Nitro, Instant IPTV, and Cash App IPTV. In addition, the complaint linked him to a bulk reseller operation called Live TV Resellers.

‘Streaming TV Now’ was the most popular IPTV service, according to the complaint. It first appeared online in 2020 and offers access to 11,000 live channels, as well as on-demand access to over 27,000 movies and 9,000 TV series.

According to the legal paperwork, the services were clearly connected. For example, three of the four redirected paying subscribers to the same backend, hosted at stncloud.ltd. At one point, all five accused services, along with stncloud.ltd, shared the same IP address 5:183.209.216 (sic).

Freemon’s involvement was clear for multiple reasons, the plaintiffs argued. This includes evidence from a tutorial video connected to the IPTV operation, where the narrator logs into an Amazon account under the name “William Freemon”.

Defendant Responds, Evades, and Fails to Put Up a Defense

Getting Freemon into court wasn’t straightforward. It took seven service attempts, and when he was eventually served, the defendant told counsel he had no intention of filing an answer. In addition, he also failed to get an attorney for the LLC when the court instructed him to do so.

Despite never filing the required answer, Freemon submitted a stream of other motions, many of which failed to comply with local rules and were stricken by the court. This includes a motion with defenses on behalf of Freemon’s company, FTI, which came in after the court explicitly told him he could not to file it.

The movie studios eventually requested a default judgment, summarizing the troublesome legal process. This also revealed that Freemon threatened the rightsholders and demanded money if they wanted him to stop.

“Compounding this misconduct, Mr. Freemon has resorted to issuing threats and making escalating demands for payment from Plaintiffs, simply because Plaintiffs have brought this lawsuit to stop the infringement of their copyrights,” their motion stated.

Last week, Magistrate Judge Renée Harris Toliver issued various recommendations in this case. After reviewing all evidence, she advised denying Freemon’s motion to dismiss for a lack of standing and the motion to set aside the default. At the same time, Judge Toliver recommended granting the rightsholders’ motion for a default judgment.

Judge Recommends $18.75 Million and an Injunction

Without a formal defense, the magistrate judge recommends granting the motion for a default judgment in full.

The court notes that Freemon’s copyright infringement was willful. For example, when the movie companies sent a cease-and-desist letter in February 2023, he didn’t comply, but instead tried to obscure his connection to the services by claiming to have transferred domains.

The studios eventually turned that argument against him: to transfer a domain, the registrant must unlock it and provide an authorization code, meaning the admission itself proves he owned the domain during the infringement period. The services continued operating through at least January 2024, with one remaining active until the lawsuit was filed in March 2024.

As compensation for the widespread infringement, the movie studios requested statutory maximum damages of $150,000 per work for a representative set of 125 works, including prominent titles such as Universal’s Oppenheimer.

Recognizing that many more works could have been added if this case had proceeded to discovery, the court recommends granting the damages award in full, which would make Freemon liable for $18,750,000.

In addition to the damages, the plaintiffs also secured a permanent injunction that allows them to take over the IPTV-operation’s domains.

The recommended permanent injunction covers eight domains: instantiptv.net, streamingtvnow.com, streamingtvnow.net, tvnitro.net, cashappiptv.com, livetvresellers.com, stncloud.ltd, and stnlive.ltd. Once the judgment is approved, registrars have five days to transfer these domains to the movie companies.

If the registrars fail to do so, the TLD registries can be ordered to place the domains on hold. At the time of writing, none of the domains point to a working site. However, the rightsholders can add new domain Freemon-owned names to the list, should these appear online.

While the report and recommendation is a clear win for the movie companies, it is not final yet, as all the paperwork still requires approval from the district judge. Without a proper defense, however, an $18.75 million judgment appears to be the likely outcome for now.

—

The findings and recommendation on the motion for default judgment is available here (pdf). The recommendation denying Freemon’s motion to set aside the default is here (pdf), and the recommendation denying his motion to dismiss for lack of standing is here (pdf).

Source

Hope you enjoyed this news post. Feedback welcome.

Posted Tuesday 3 March 2026 at 5:12 am AEST (my time).

News posts: 2023 5,800+ | 2024 5,700+ | 2025 5,700+ | 2026 (to end of February) 854

RIP Matrix

The European football association (UEFA) protects the multi-billion-dollar interests of European football around the globe.

To better protect its content, including the prestigious Champions League competition, it joined the Alliance of Creativity and Entertainment (ACE) last October.

At the time, it seemed likely that the anti-piracy group could help UEFA with their international site-blocking quests. While the organizations did not confirm this at the time, this is precisely what happened.

UEFA Secures Broad Blocking Order

Earlier this month, UEFA obtained a new injunction at the High Court of Delhi. The order was obtained in cooperation with ACE and targets 79 live sports streaming sites, aiming to protect Champions League broadcasts.

The targets include sites such as livetv.sx, vipbox.lc, and footybite.to, which each had several million monthly visits. According to UEFA, all domain names combined were good for 2 billion annual visits, which makes this one of the most significant anti-piracy injunctions in recent times.

The order mentions 23 “rogue” piracy operations as defendants, with many using multiple domains. Indian ISPs, who are also listed as defendants, must block these domains across their network.

Importantly, the order also includes twenty domain name registrars as defendants. This includes U.S. based and globally operating intermediaries such as GoDaddy, Tucows, Squarespace Domains, and Dynadot. These companies must lock and suspend all 79 listed domains.

Lock and suspend
 

In addition to suspending the domain names, the registrars must also share any personal information they store on the operators, including their email addresses, payment details, and mobile numbers.

Global Reach

The new blocking order is valid for the remainder of the Champions League season. UEFA can notify registrars and ISPs directly when it discovers new infringing sites. These intermediaries must then lock or block the newly identified domains immediately, without the need to go back to court.

This so-called “Dynamic+” blocking mechanism, which Indian courts have been refining since at least 2019, aims to make it harder for pirate operators to simply register a new domain and continue as if nothing happened.

The strategy has proven to be effective in India, where ISPs are swift to implement the blocking orders. However, UEFA was quick to highlight that the reach of the order extends beyond Indian borders.

“Implemented in India through Internet Service Providers and also domain level intermediaries with global reach, these measures are expected to significantly disrupt access to the targeted services, including through global domain suspension mechanisms,” UEFA commented.

The phrase “global domain suspension mechanisms” refers to the fact that internationally operating registrars are defendants. This could mean that domain suspensions can take effect worldwide, not just for users in India. After all, a locked or suspended domain is inaccessible everywhere, regardless of which ISPs are blocking it locally.

Mixed Results

These types of orders have been successful in the past, with registrars including NameCheap, NameSilo, and Porkbun taking action in response to Indian court orders. However, site operators are increasingly aware of this and may choose more resilient alternatives.

At the time of writing, only the Namecheap-registered domain livetv819.me appears to have been placed on clienthold. The majority of the 79 listed domains remain active at the registrar level, with some redirecting to new domains.

This includes LiveTV and VIPBox, which had 10 and 13 million monthly visits in January of this year, according to Similarweb data.

VIPBox
 

While none of the registrars has commented publicly on the order, it seems likely that some refrain from taking action because they don’t fall under the jurisdiction of an Indian court.

UEFA and its commercial arm, UC3, remain optimistic, with Managing Director Guy Laurent Epstein celebrating the win as a step forward.

“These orders represent a clear step forward: dynamic blocking strengthens the protection of our global family of broadcast partners, preserving the value they deliver to fans and enabling continued investment throughout the European football ecosystem.”

UEFA is not alone in this assessment. Earlier this month, the International Intellectual Property Alliance applauded the Indian “lock and suspend” orders in their annual “Special 301” recommendation to the U.S. Trade Representative.

—

A copy of the order handed down by the High Court of Delhi is available here (pdf).

The order names 23 piracy operations as defendants, spread across 79 domains. The table below lists each defendant, its domains, and the registrar responsible for suspending them.

Source

Hope you enjoyed this news post. Feedback welcome.

Posted Sunday 1 March 2026 at 7:18 am AEST (my time).

News posts: 2023 5,800+ | 2024 5,700+ | 2025 5,700+ | 2026 (to end of February) 854

RIP Matrix

Flava Works is an Illinois-based adult entertainment company specializing in content featuring Black and Latino men.

The company has pursued copyright infringers aggressively for years, including a $1.5 million damages award against a defendant who shared its films on BitTorrent and a high-profile clash with an unnamed television executive that was eventually settled.

Last March, Flava, together with Blatino Media, filed a new lawsuit targeting an alleged Canadian leaker of its videos alongside 47 John Doe defendants. The rightsholders claim the maximum of $150,000 in statutory damages from each defendant, bringing the total damages claim to over $8 million.

This case stands out from the typical torrent lawsuits as the defendants were identified by their usernames on the private torrent tracker GayTorrent.ru, where they allegedly shared the pirated videos.

Today, nearly a year has passed since the case was started, and most of those Doe defendants still haven’t been formally named. According to Flava, that’s largely due to one company: Google.

Google Rejects Broad Subpoena

In a status report filed this week, Flava informs the Illinois federal court of the progress thus far. The company reports that it signed a confidential settlement with one defendant, while several others were named and formally served. However, most defendants are still “John Does.”

According to an affidavit filed by Flava’s president, Phillip Bleicher, they can’t properly name the defendants because Google raised objections and refused to fully comply with the subpoena. This, despite complying with an earlier subpoena in a similar case.

Initially, Google incorrectly claimed the subpoena was issued by a pro se party. After Flava provided documentation that a licensed Illinois attorney had signed it, Google requested a copy of the complaint. That was provided in early December.

Shortly after, Google formally objected, raising “potential First Amendment concerns,” while stating it would only provide data for the “primary user who allegedly distributed the copyrighted works,” not the broader list of “John Doe” defendants.

Google objects
 

Google’s objection affects 28 defendants whose primary or sole email addresses are Gmail accounts. Without Google’s subscriber data, Flava says it cannot confirm their identities with sufficient certainty to name them in the lawsuit.

How Flava Identifies Its Targets

It is unclear what Google means exactly by raising First Amendment concerns. The company may believe the John Doe defendants are not necessarily direct infringers, a question that touches on how they were identified in the first place.

The complaint does not explain this. Typically, rightsholders identify torrent pirates by joining a swarm, collecting IP addresses, and subpoenaing ISPs to match those IPs to account holders. In this case, however, Flava already had usernames and email addresses before any court-ordered discovery.

One possible explanation is that some of these defendants were also paid subscribers on Flava’s own platforms. Membership sites log IP addresses at login. So, if the same IP that appeared in the GayTorrent.ru swarm also appeared in Flava’s own server logs, the company could have linked a torrent username to a registered account and its associated email address entirely from its own internal records.

Wrongly Accused Pirates

Critics of BitTorrent lawsuits have long argued that IP addresses do not reliably identify individuals. In this case, Flava makes that same argument in its own favor, using the risk of misidentification as a reason for Google to hand over subscriber data.

The affidavit acknowledges that an email address alone is not sufficient to confirm an identity either. In at least one instance in a related case, a subpoena response pointed to someone who turned out not to be the infringer. The email address had been used by someone else, and the identified individual contacted prior counsel to clarify the error.

To avoid naming the wrong people, Flava needs both Google and Microsoft to comply with their subpoenas, which seek information sufficient to identify the defendants by name and current address.

From the discovery motion
 

“Naming the wrong individuals in this Case could embarrass the individuals named or expose Plaintiffs to claims of abuse of process, and waste the Court’s resources,” the affidavit cautions, using the fear of wrongful accusations squarely in its own favor.

Naming the wrong person

What’s Next

The legal paperwork notes that Microsoft, which also holds data for some of the remaining defendants, indicated it is willing to comply with its subpoena if there is an agreement on fees. Flava’s counsel is working to finalize those terms.

For the moment, however, the case for the 28 Gmail-linked defendants is effectively on hold pending Google’s cooperation. Flava says it is prepared to file a motion to compel if Google does not respond, but that hasn’t been filed yet.

If a motion to compel is filed, Google is expected to explain its stated First Amendment rationale in more detail. Then, it will be up to the federal judge to weigh the arguments from both sides.

—

A copy of the status report, filed at the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, is available here (pdf). The supporting affidavit of Phillip Bleicher can be found here (pdf).

Source

Hope you enjoyed this news post. Feedback welcome.

Posted Saturday 28 February 2026 at 4:59 am AEST (my time).

News posts: 2023 5,800+ | 2024 5,700+ | 2025 5,700+ | 2026 (to end of January) 461

RIP Matrix

Automattic, the company behind the popular blogging platforms WordPress.com and Tumblr, has been documenting DMCA takedown abuse for well over a decade.

Over the years, the company has highlighted how automated systems flood platforms with inaccurate or incomplete notices. These errors and mistakes are par for the course now, and Automattic even launched its own Hall of Shame to ‘honor’ the worst offenders.

In recent years, it appeared that takedown issues had stabilized somewhat. However, the latest transparency report, covering July through December 2025, shows that challenges remain.

2,431 Notices, 86% Rejected

This week, the company published its latest WordPress.com transparency report, revealing that it processed 2,431 takedown notices during the second half of last year. That is a 20% increase compared to the same period a year earlier.

This data only applies to the number of DMCA notices that are directed at WordPress.com services. It is also worth noting that these notices can contain multiple URLs, making the number of flagged URLs much higher.

2025: Jul 1 – Dec 31

While the takedown volume is substantial, that’s not necessarily indicative of a copyright infringement problem. According to Automattic, 86% of all takedown notices were rejected entirely due to various shortcomings.

The rejection rate for WordPress.com takedowns has always been high. Since Automattic began counting in 2014, the platform has processed a total of 123,211 DMCA takedown notices. Of these, only 27% have ever resulted in any removal.

AI-generated DMCA Notices

Over the past half year, however, Automattic saw the rejection rate tick up further due to a new phenomenon: AI-generated DMCA notices.

“We are seeing continued exploitation of the DMCA notice-and-takedown system by third-party monitoring services—in some instances, through the use of AI-generated mass reporting methods,” Automattic’s Trust & Safety team notes.

According to the blogging platform, copyright infringement reporters use AI en masse, presumably to lower costs and maximize revenue.

Automattic specifically calls out the company Enforcity, which was by far the top takedown sender with 838 ‘inactionable’ notices in the second half of last year, which represents 34% of all notices sent in that period.

AI-Driven DMCA content protection
 

Speaking with TorrentFreak, Automattic’s Head of Policy and Process, Steve Blythe, says that the first notices from Enforcity started coming in around August of 2025. These claimed to protect OnlyFans creators, but none of the reported links were associated with infringing material.

“The targets included both static pages with no content, and dynamic search query URLs with keywords pre-filled by the complainants that returned no results. This caused a significant amount of work, as our team manually reviews such notices to screen for abuse,” Blythe says.

“As of September 2025, we contacted Enforcity directly a number of times to make them aware of the issue, but despite assurances that the problems would be addressed, the notices continued.”

Automattic believes that this automated activity is largely driven by payment structures that value volume over accuracy. In January 2026, Enforcity was still sending hundreds of notices, but after repeated outreach, no new DMCA notices came in over the past weeks.

$29 / Month

Explicitly naming a sender isn’t a step that’s taken lightly, but Automattic says that it is important to call out abusive behavior, especially when it takes up valuable resources.

TorrentFreak reached out to Enforcity for a comment, but at the time of publication, the company has yet to reply. If a response comes in, we will update our article accordingly.

For now, public information confirms that the company offers AI-Driven DMCA content protection starting at $29 per month. The service indeed targets creators, specifically those on OnlyFans, for which it created a dedicated success hub.

According to Enforcity’s own website, the takedown service helped customers to remove over 350 million ‘infringements,’ with an impressive 99% success rate, while protecting $600 million in revenue in the process.

TorrentFreak was unable to verify any of these numbers independently.

Regardless, Automattic says it will continue to call out abusive or error-prone reporters, including those who use AI tools.

“The DMCA notification and takedown process is a powerful tool that enables creators to have control over the use and dissemination of their work. However, it is also frequently abused,” Blythe tells us.

“We routinely see invalid and inappropriate submissions from third-party agents that charge creators to scour the web and fire off automated notices, seemingly indiscriminately. With the rapid development of AI technology, the flaws in the DMCA are at risk of increasingly resulting in a chilling effect on freedom of expression,” he adds.

For now, it appears that Automattic’s repeated outreach has had some effect, but whether Enforcity and similar services will change their practices in the long run remains to be seen.

Source

Hope you enjoyed this news post. Feedback welcome.

Posted Friday 27 February 2026 at 6:15 am AEST (my time).

News posts: 2023 5,800+ | 2024 5,700+ | 2025 5,700+ | 2026 (to end of January) 461

RIP Matrix

In July 2025, 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, with over 350 million dollars in potential damages, specifically focuses on Meta’s BitTorrent activity that was recorded in detail through proprietary torrent tracking software. 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 based on similar evidence.

Meta responded in October by filing a motion to dismiss, arguing the sporadic downloads were consistent with ordinary ‘personal use’ by employees and visitors on the corporate network. It was certainly not a coordinated AI training effort, Meta countered.

‘Meta Employee Deleted 9TB of Torrented Files’

The motion to dismiss remains pending and, meanwhile, the case is heating up in other areas. Last week, the parties filed their joint discovery plan, which Strike 3 used to raise a rather eye-popping allegation.

Meta said that it prefers to delay written evidence discovery requests in this case until the court ruled on its motion to dismiss. However, Strike 3 would like to start gathering evidence right away, fearing that key data may otherwise disappear.

Strike 3’s legal team points out that, at a February 5 hearing in the unrelated Kadrey v. Meta book-authors case, lawyers revealed that a Meta employee had recently deleted over nine terabytes of torrented files. Fearing more deletions, Strike 3 asks the court to allow discovery in the present case to begin immediately.

“Because of the tangible risk that relevant evidence may be deleted by Meta’s employees, Plaintiffs respectfully request that they be allowed to conduct discovery immediately,” the plaintiffs write.

Deleted?

In the same filing, Meta’s legal team immediately tried to defuse the deletion claim. Meta says that no data was spoiled and clarified that it will preserve all evidence as it is legally obliged to do.

“Plaintiffs mischaracterize the Kadrey record. There was no spoliation in Kadrey, which is an unrelated case, and in any event Meta has an appropriate hold in place and is abiding by its preservation obligations,” Meta writes.

Torrent Evidence

The discovery plan also provides the clearest picture yet of what Strike 3 actually wants to find. Among the targets is Meta’s Machine Learning Hub “ML Hub,” including downloaded digital media files, torrenting-related metadata, and labeling data for content acquired from BitTorrent.

Strike 3 also wants logs of Meta servers communicating over “PySpark or Fairspark protocols,” suggesting it believes these tools were used to coordinate downloads across Meta’s infrastructure. Separately, the company is seeking records tying Meta’s alleged hidden “off-infra” IP addresses to Amazon Web Services instances.

The discovery list is broad by design, and the above are just a few examples. In essence, Strike 3 wants all policies, directives, and algorithms related to torrenting. They hope that this information will help to back up their copyright infringement claims.

Meta’s Defense & Trial Date

While Strike 3 references thousands of downloads, Meta stresses that the complaint only mentions 157 downloads from Meta’s corporate IP addresses over seven years. They note that this is illustrative of personal use, rather than an organized data collection effort.

Meta also explains that the alleged downloads began years before it started researching generative video AI, making a coordinated training effort even more implausible. In addition, Meta says that Strike 3 has “no facts whatsoever” linking it to the thousands of additional third-party IP addresses that are named in the complaint.

While Meta’s motion to dismiss is still unresolved, both parties are also looking ahead. While they differ on the exact timing of various deadlines, both believe that an eventual trial can take place in the first half of 2028, if it gets to that.

—

A copy of the parties’ 26(f) discovery plan, filed at the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, is available here (pdf). We will add a copy of the transcript as soon as we notice that it is publicly posted.

Source

Hope you enjoyed this news post. Feedback welcome.

Posted Wednesday 25 February 2026 at 3:42 am AEST (my time).

News posts: 2023 5,800+ | 2024 5,700+ | 2025 5,700+ | 2026 (to end of January) 461

RIP Matrix