Tag: piracy

Putin accuses France of piracy

Russian President Vladimir Putin has denounced France’s detention of an oil tanker that it claims carried Russian cargo as “piracy,” noting the seizure took place in neutral waters without justification.

Speaking at the Valdai Discussion Club in Sochi on Thursday, Putin argued that investigators were searching for “military cargo, drones, or something of that kind,” but insisted “none of that is there, never was, and never could be.”

Media reports have suggested the investigation may be linked to unidentified drones spotted near Danish airports and military sites last month. There have been suggestions that the UAVs may have been Russian, an accusation Moscow has denied.

Putin also noted that the tanker was sailing under a foreign flag with an international crew, questioning whether it had any connection to Russia at all.

The vessel in question, the Boracay, is sanctioned by the EU and was sailing under a Benin flag when French naval forces boarded it last week. It remains anchored near Saint-Nazaire, with its captain and first mate in custody as prosecutors investigate “serious irregularities.”

Keep reading

LaLiga’s Anti-Piracy Crackdown Triggers Widespread Internet Disruptions Across Spain

LaLiga, Spain’s top football league, is facing a firestorm of criticism after boasting about a staggering 142% increase in anti-piracy takedown notices in early 2025 while simultaneously causing extensive collateral damage across the internet.

As the 2025/2026 season began on August 15, LaLiga ramped up its enforcement strategy, triggering widespread outages for entirely lawful websites, services, and platforms.

These disruptions are tied to a controversial anti-piracy scheme operated in partnership with telecom giant Telefónica.

The initiative, which enjoys judicial backing in Spain, allows LaLiga to instruct major internet service providers, including Movistar, Vodafone, Orange, and DIGI, to block IP addresses suspected of hosting unauthorized streams.

The fallout is that entire chunks of the internet go dark for Spanish users, often during match broadcasts.

LaLiga doesn’t target specific infringing content. Instead, it flags entire IP ranges, many of which are shared by thousands of unrelated domains.

When one site is accused of hosting pirated material, everyone else sharing that IP address gets swept up in the block.

The result is a digital dragnet that has ensnared companies as diverse as Amazon, Cloudflare, GitHub, Twitch, and even Google Fonts.

TorrentFreak has documented repeated weekly blocks of platforms like Vercel since early 2025, while Catalonia’s own .cat domain registry has also reported service disruptions.

The issue became so disruptive that iXsystems, the team behind TrueNAS, a widely used open-source NAS operating system, was forced to shift its distribution model entirely. After its CDN IPs were repeatedly blocked in Spain, making critical security updates inaccessible to users, the developers resorted to distributing their software via BitTorrent.

“These locks have a significant collateral damage about legitimate services, which have nothing to do with football piracy,” TrueNAS noted. Their solution not only bypasses censorship but hands the bandwidth burden back to the same ISPs complicit in the blocking.

Keep reading

Anthropic broke the law by using pirated books to train its AI and agrees to create $1.5 billion fund to compensate authors

AI upstart Anthropic has agreed to create a $1.5 billion fund it will use to compensate authors whose works it used to train its models without seeking or securing permission.

News of the settlement emerged late last week in a filing [PDF] in the case filed by three authors – Andrea Bartz, Charles Graeber, and Kirk Wallace Johnson – who claimed that Anthropic illegally used their works.

We’re going to see a lot more of this. AI companies wIll create ‘slush funds’

Anthropic admitted to having bought millions of physical books and then digitizing them. The company also downloaded millions of pirated books from the notorious Library Genesis and Pirate Library Mirror troves of stolen material.

The company nonetheless won part of the case, on grounds that scanning books is fair use and using them to create “transformative works” – the output of an LLM that doesn’t necessarily include excerpts from the books – was also OK. But the decision also found Anthropic broke the law by knowingly ingesting pirated books.

Plaintiffs intended to pursue court action over those pirated works, but the filing details a proposed settlement under which Anthropic will create a $1.5 billion fund which values each pirated book it used for training at $3,000. Anthropic also agreed to destroy the pirated works.

In the filing, counsel observes that this is the largest ever copyright recovery claim to succeed in the USA and suggest it “will set a precedent of AI companies paying for their use of alleged pirated websites.”

This settlement is indeed significant given that several other major AI companies – among them Perplexity AI and OpenAI – face similar suits. It may also set a precedent that matters in Anthropic’s dispute with Reddit over having scraped the forum site’s content to feed into its training corpus.

The filing asks the court to approve the settlement, a request judges rarely overrule.

Keep reading

Ninth Circuit Rules ISPs Can’t Be Forced to Unmask Users Under DMCA

The Ninth Circuit has ruled that internet service providers cannot be compelled to unmask users through subpoenas under the DMCA, reinforcing long-standing precedent that these subpoenas were never meant to apply to providers that simply offer access to the internet.

The decision blocks an increasingly common tactic copyright owners use to sidestep due process and extract user identities without judicial oversight.

We obtained a copy of the opinion for you here.

The case came about after a copyright owner targeted 29 Cox Communications subscribers accused of sharing the film Fall (2022) through BitTorrent. Rather than filing a lawsuit or seeking a judge’s permission, the copyright holder went straight to a court clerk to obtain a subpoena.

Although Cox was under no obligation to do so, the company notified the affected subscribers. Only one responded to object, triggering a legal dispute that has now resulted in a firm ruling from the Ninth Circuit.

The dispute is a simple but critical distinction. The DMCA outlines separate protections depending on the type of service provided.

Web hosts fall under Section 512(c) and can receive takedown notices for content they store, while IAPs are covered under Section 512(a), which protects them from liability as long as they are acting as neutral conduits for internet traffic.

Keep reading

This Hollywood-Backed Bill Would Give Government Power To Block Websites

Lawmakers in Washington are once again attempting to give the United States a legal pathway to block websites, a power the federal government has never officially held on a broad scale.

The latest push comes in the form of the Block Bad Electronic Art and Recording Distributors Act, better known as “Block BEARD,” introduced in the Senate by Thom Tillis, Chris Coons, Marsha Blackburn, and Adam Schiff.

We obtained a copy of the bill for you here.

On its face, the bill targets foreign websites accused of piracy. But the mechanism it creates would establish something far more significant: a formal, court-approved process that could be used to make entire websites vanish from the American internet.

Under the proposal, copyright owners could go to federal court to have a site labeled a “foreign digital piracy site.” If successful, the court could then order US service providers to block access to that site.

The reach is broad. The term “service provider” here mirrors the broad definition in the DMCA, potentially covering everything from ISPs and search engines to social media platforms, and perhaps even VPNs.

Proponents say this is about protecting the entertainment industry. In reality, it’s about setting a precedent. Once the government has a tool to block certain sites, history shows the definition of “unacceptable” content can expand. Piracy today could easily become something else tomorrow.

The ramifications go beyond the music and movie business. If courts can order an ISP to make a site disappear from view, the same logic could eventually apply to other types of content deemed problematic.

And because the bill has no public transparency requirements, the public could be kept entirely in the dark about which sites are blocked, why they’re blocked, or how long the blocks remain in place.

Supporters in the entertainment industry, including the RIAA and Motion Picture Association, are openly cheering the bill, pointing to similar measures overseas they claim have worked without harming free speech.

But the US is not the same as other countries. The First Amendment’s protection of speech and access to information means this kind of censorship tool carries far more constitutional baggage here than it does elsewhere.

What Block BEARD really represents is a milestone. If passed, it would be the first time the US creates a standing legal process for cutting off access to entire websites at the network level.

Keep reading

5 Men Sentenced in America’s Largest Internet Piracy Case: DOJ

Final judgments for five men accused of operating “one of the largest illegal television streaming services” in the United States were issued on Monday, with the individuals having already been sentenced to probation and prison terms of up to 84 months, the Department of Justice (DOJ) said in a July 22 statement.

Defendants in the case operated Jetflicks, a subscription-based site that allowed users to stream or, at times, download copyrighted content, with the service never having secured permission from the copyright holders, according to the DOJ.

They used automation to scour sites hosting pirated content, downloaded it, processed and stored it, and eventually made it available “to tens of thousands of paid subscribers” across the United States, said the department. Episodes of popular shows were often made available for streaming or download a day after their original airing date.

“At one point, Jetflicks claimed to have 183,285 different television episodes, significantly more than Netflix, Hulu, Vudu, Amazon Prime, or any other licensed streaming service,” it said.

“This was the largest internet piracy case—as measured by the estimated total infringement amount and total number of infringements—ever to go to trial as well as the first illegal streaming case ever to go to trial.”

According to the DOJ, the defendants’ conduct harmed every major copyright owner of a television program in America, with owners losing millions of dollars.

Keep reading

Pirate Bay co-founder dies

The co-founder and financial backer of file-sharing website The Pirate Bay, Carl Lundstrom, died when the plane he was piloting crashed in the mountains of Slovenia, a nationalist Swedish political party with which the entrepreneur was linked announced on Wednesday.

Slovenian police later confirmed to Agence France-Presse (AFP) on Wednesday that a body found at the crash site is “likely of the pilot, a Swedish citizen,” but declined to identify the remains pending forensic research.

The Alternative for Sweden party said in a post on Facebook that the fatal accident, which claimed the life of “a legend and veteran of Swedish nationalism” occurred on Monday.

The party cited a close friend of Lundstrom, who said that the 64-year old businessman, who had taken off in his Mooney M-20 aircraft from the Croatian capital of Zagreb, had been heading to Zurich, Switzerland.

The plane crashed into a wooden cabin in the Velika Planina area of northern Slovenia, splitting the structure in two, AFP reported, adding that bad weather conditions had prevented rescuers from recovering the body before Tuesday.

Keep reading

“Torrenting from a corporate laptop doesn’t feel right”: Meta emails unsealed

Last month, Meta admitted to torrenting a controversial large dataset known as LibGen, which includes tens of millions of pirated books. But details around the torrenting were murky until yesterday, when Meta’s unredacted emails were made public for the first time. The new evidence showed that Meta torrented “at least 81.7 terabytes of data across multiple shadow libraries through the site Anna’s Archive, including at least 35.7 terabytes of data from Z-Library and LibGen,” the authors’ court filing said. And “Meta also previously torrented 80.6 terabytes of data from LibGen.”

“The magnitude of Meta’s unlawful torrenting scheme is astonishing,” the authors’ filing alleged, insisting that “vastly smaller acts of data piracy—just .008 percent of the amount of copyrighted works Meta pirated—have resulted in Judges referring the conduct to the US Attorneys’ office for criminal investigation.”

Seeding expands authors’ distribution theory

Book authors had been pressing Meta for more information on the torrenting because of the obvious copyright concern over Meta seeding, and thus seemingly distributing, the pirated books in the dispute.

But Meta resisted those discovery attempts after an order denied authors’ request to review Meta’s torrenting and seeding data. That didn’t stop authors from gathering evidence anyway, including a key document that starts with at least one staffer appearing to uncomfortably joke about the possible legal risks, eventually growing more serious about raising his concerns.

“Torrenting from a corporate laptop doesn’t feel right,” Nikolay Bashlykov, a Meta research engineer, wrote in an April 2023 message, adding a smiley emoji. In the same message, he expressed “concern about using Meta IP addresses ‘to load through torrents pirate content.'”

By September 2023, Bashlykov had seemingly dropped the emojis, consulting the legal team directly and emphasizing in an email that “using torrents would entail ‘seeding’ the files—i.e., sharing the content outside, this could be legally not OK.”

Emails discussing torrenting prove that Meta knew it was “illegal,” authors alleged. And Bashlykov’s warnings seemingly landed on deaf ears, with authors alleging that evidence showed Meta chose to instead hide its torrenting as best it could while downloading and seeding terabytes of data from multiple shadow libraries as recently as April 2024.

Meta allegedly concealed seeding

Supposedly, Meta tried to conceal the seeding by not using Facebook servers while downloading the dataset to “avoid” the “risk” of anyone “tracing back the seeder/downloader” from Facebook servers, an internal message from Meta researcher Frank Zhang said, while describing the work as being in “stealth mode.” Meta also allegedly modified settings “so that the smallest amount of seeding possible could occur,” a Meta executive in charge of project management, Michael Clark, said in a deposition.

Now that new information has come to light, authors claim that Meta staff involved in the decision to torrent LibGen must be deposed again because the new facts allegedly “contradict prior deposition testimony.”

Keep reading

Record labels unhappy with court win, say ISP should pay more for user piracy

The big three record labels notched another court victory against a broadband provider last month, but the music publishing firms aren’t happy that an appeals court only awarded per-album damages instead of damages for each song.

Universal, Warner, and Sony are seeking an en banc rehearing of the copyright infringement case, claiming that Internet service provider Grande Communications should have to pay per-song damages over its failure to terminate the accounts of Internet users accused of piracy. The decision to make Grande pay for each album instead of each song “threatens copyright owners’ ability to obtain fair damages,” said the record labels’ petition filed last week.

The case is in the conservative-leaning US Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit. A three-judge panel unanimously ruled last month that Grande, a subsidiary of Astound Broadband, violated the law by failing to terminate subscribers accused of being repeat infringers. Subscribers were flagged for infringement based on their IP addresses being connected to torrent downloads monitored by Rightscorp, a copyright-enforcement company used by the music labels.

The one good part of the ruling for Grande is that the 5th Circuit ordered a new trial on damages because it said a $46.8 million award was too high. Appeals court judges found that the district court “erred in granting JMOL [judgment as a matter of law] that each of the 1,403 songs in suit was eligible for a separate award of statutory damages.” The damages were $33,333 per song.

Record labels want the per-album portion of the ruling reversed while leaving the rest of it intact.

Keep reading