With an impressive 185 million visitors per month early last year, Mangajikan was one of the largest piracy sites on the Internet.

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

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

The DMCA subpoena was granted last October, despite fierce objections from Mangajikan’s former operator. However, Cloudflare could not hand anything over yet, as both sides disagreed on the scope of the associated protective order. This disagreement was finally resolved this week.

U.S. Enforcement Only

At the heart of the dispute was whether Shueisha could use the pirate site operator’s identity for copyright lawsuits in Japan or other foreign jurisdictions. The manga publisher argued it should have that flexibility, as it couldn’t know the operator’s location when requesting the subpoena.

Magistrate Judge Thomas S. Hixson disagreed.

In a discovery order issued this week, the court stated that the DMCA subpoena’s purpose and scope is clearly defined by the sworn declaration Shueisha made to obtain it. This legally required statement says that the subpoena “will only be used for the purpose of protecting rights under this title.”

“‘[T]his title’ means title 17 of the United States Code, so only U.S.-based copyright claims are within the purpose of the subpoena,” Judge Hixson wrote, adding that “foreign litigation is outside of that scope.”

The ruling effectively means Shueisha can identify the operator to its team in Japan, as long as this is to aid U.S. copyright enforcement. However, it cannot use the data obtained through the Cloudflare subpoena to file copyright infringement actions in foreign courts.

U.S. Lawsuit Can’t Be Used as Bypass

The court also rejected Shueisha’s argument that filing a U.S. copyright lawsuit would effectively end the protective order’s restrictions, allowing the publisher to then use the publicly filed information however it wished, including in foreign proceedings.

Judge Hixson characterized this as an impermissible bait-and-switch.

“Filing a U.S.-based copyright claim does not cause the protections of the protective order to evaporate. They remain in place; otherwise, Shueisha’s attestation was false. It is not acceptable for Shueisha to make an attestation that it will use the requested information ‘only’ for one purpose and then later change its mind,” the order states.

Mangajikan’s attorneys previously warned the court that Shueisha’s position would create a “roadmap” for rightsholders to circumvent DMCA limitations. They could simply obtain identity information through a DMCA subpoena, file a token U.S. lawsuit to make the info public, and then use it for foreign lawsuits.

No Privacy Fortress for Pirate Site Operator

While the pirate site operator won on the foreign litigation issue, the court rejected most of the operator’s proposed privacy protections as excessive. Judge Hixson called the operator’s 19-page protective order proposal “excessive,” noting it would have micromanaged Shueisha’s internal operations.

The final protective order clarifies that, while Shueisha can publicly identify the operator by name in U.S. court filings, other personal information, such as email addresses, phone numbers, and financial data, remains protected.

The order allows Shueisha to share the operator’s identity with its employees in Japan, coordinate with U.S. law enforcement, and use the information for settlement negotiations or U.S.-based copyright claims.

What’s Next

With the protective order now in place, Cloudflare must hand over the identity information to Shueisha’s lawyers. The publisher must then decide if it wants to use that information to file a U.S. copyright lawsuit, or pursue alternative enforcement options.

If Shueisha fails to file a U.S. action before the statute of limitations expires, the company must destroy all identity information.

Needless to say, the case continues to be closely watched by other rightsholders and pirate site operators. DMCA subpoenas are a widely used intelligence gathering tool, and the present order confirms they are not without boundaries.

—

A copy of Magistrate Judge Hixson’s Discovery Order is available here (pdf). The final protective order as modified by the court is available here (pdf).

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

In November 2015, Federal Police in Brazil launched Operation Blackbeard, a coordinated action to take down Latin America’s most popular pirate site: MegaFilmesHD.net.

Launched in 2010 and mainly catering to the Portuguese-speaking market, the movie portal had been pulling in a reported 60 million monthly visits.

At the time, the site offered a type of convenience that most legal services couldn’t match. In addition to the free and unrestricted access to content, this also included localized features such as Portuguese subtitles or dubbing.

This reign ended when police made several arrests, including the site’s presumed operators, and seized several cars, cash, and bank accounts. These actions were welcomed by Hollywood’s Motion Picture Association (MPA), which had reported the site to the U.S. Trade Representative a month earlier.

Today, more than a decade has passed since MegafilmesHD’s demise, and online piracy is arguably a much bigger problem. Popular piracy brands such as Cuevana, Redecanais, and FlujoTV are a magnet for many millions of people

This doesn’t mean that the original shutdown has no effect whatsoever. At the time, large local pirate sites were a novelty in the region, and, being the largest site by far, MegafilmesHD clearly stood out above the rest. When this went offline, many people had to scramble for alternatives, legal or illegal.

Going Pirate or Going Legal?

Ideally, rightsholders would like to see pirates flocking to legal services when these types of shutdowns occur. That is similar to the desired response to piracy site blocking. And indeed, in some instances, this appears to be true.

For example, the “Gone in 60 Seconds” study found that the shutdown of Megaupload in 2012 resulted in a 6 to 10% increase in digital movie revenues for two major Hollywood studios.

However, a similar study on the demise of the German streaming portal Kino.to revealed something quite different. The “Catch Me If You Can” paper found that this shutdown had no measurable increase in legal consumption. Instead, people simply switched to new pirate sites and continued their habit.

These seemingly conflicting findings come together in a new study on the MegafilmesHD shutdown. While the associated paper doesn’t have a title inspired by a Hollywood blockbuster, it might as well have been titled “The Equalizer“.

“The Equalizer”: MegafilmesHD Shutdown Effect

The paper in question, published by researchers of Chapman University and Carnegie Mellon University, takes a detailed look at how the online activities of Brazilian users were affected by MegafilmesHD. To do so, they examined six months worth of clickstream data of thousands of Internet users, provided by Netquest.

The data included browsing patterns before and after the shutdown, and it included a wide variety of respondents, ranging from hardcore pirates to people who never visited MegafilmesHD at all.

After analyzing all data, the researchers found that pirates who previously used MegafilmesHD increased their visits to other pirate sites by 20% on average. Even more striking was the increase in engagement, as time spent on these alternative pirate sites surged by 61%.

This effectively confirms that high-profile shutdowns divert traffic to other pirate sites and services. This makes sense, as a single shutdown can’t realistically make all piracy go away.

However, the findings don’t end there. Additionally, the researchers also find a boost in legal use. Specifically, the data showed a 6% increase in visits to Netflix and an 11% increase in time spent on the platform among MegafilmesHD users.

Crucially, this uptick wasn’t simply caused by existing Netflix subscribers watching more content. The researchers found a causal link between high MegafilmesHD usage and the probability of someone becoming a new Netflix subscriber in the months following the raid.

The Wealth and Gender Gap

While these findings may all seem logical, the most compelling part of the research covers which people switched to legal options and who remained pirates. It appears that “The Equalizer” effect was not felt equally across all demographics.

Since costs play an important role, it makes sense that there’s a wealth factor involved. And indeed, the research found that students and unemployed individuals were less likely to sign up for Netflix, likely because price remains a primary barrier to entry.

Interestingly, gender also plays a key role. The researchers found that women were more likely to stop piracy altogether following the shutdown. Men, on the other hand, were more likely to persist, often “doubling down” by searching for new illegal sources.

It is these types of nuances that reveal the complexity of online piracy and the effectiveness of enforcement actions.

Ultimately, the researchers conclude that while a single-site shutdown can generate measurable legal gains, those gains are in part limited to users who can afford the alternative.

For rightsholders and policymakers, the “take-home” message is that enforcement is only half the battle. Without appealing and affordable legal alternatives, even the most successful police operation may be nothing more than another round of whack-a-mole, driving traffic from one pirate site to the next one.

—

Danaher, B, Hersh, J, and Smith, MD. 2025. “From Bootleg to Binge: User Migration and Legal Demand Following Brazil’s MegafilmesHD Shutdown”. Review of Economics Research on Copyright Issues, Vol 22, pp 1-32.

Note: This research was conducted as part of Carnegie Mellon University’s Initiative for Digital Entertainment Analytics (IDEA), which receives unrestricted funding from the Motion Picture Association (MPA). The authors note that all findings and any errors remain entirely their own.

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

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 music industry giants filed the case after the shadow library planned to release hundreds of terabytes of scraped Spotify data, including full tracks.

While Anna’s Archive has since taken its initial Spotify metadata release offline, the legal pressure hasn’t been lifted. On the contrary, the preliminary injunction issued by the New York court, targeting domain registries, registrars, and other intermediaries, has proven to be quite effective.

The .org domain was the first to fall, followed by the .se and .in variants. However, not all intermediaries were eager to comply with the U.S. injunction. As we reported last week, AFNIC, the French registry responsible for the .pm domain, made clear that U.S. court orders carry no direct legal weight in France.

Enforcing the injunction would require the music companies to petition a French court; as far as we know, that hasn’t happened yet. Instead, the jurisdictional barrier appears to have been sidestepped entirely through a different route.

.PM Domain Goes Next

Earlier this week, Anna’s Archive’s .pm domain became unreachable. WHOIS records confirm that the domain now has a “blocked” status, with a hold flag preventing it from resolving.

AFNIC, the French registry responsible for the .pm extension, previously told TorrentFreak that U.S. court orders carry no direct legal weight in France. This makes it unlikely that the registry itself took action.

Instead, the suspension may have been issued on the registrar level by the Dutch company Hosting Concepts B.V., also known as Openprovider. Thus far, neither Openprovider nor AFNIC has responded to our requests for comment.

International Pressure & U.S. Injunctions

It is clear that there is no shortage of U.S. court orders targeting Anna’s Archive. In addition to the preliminary injunction in the Spotify case, library catalog company OCLC won a default judgment and permanent injunction against the shadow library last month in the WorldCat scraping lawsuit. That order also includes provisions that could be used to target intermediaries.

As highlighted earlier, however, not all domain registries and registrars fall under the jurisdiction of U.S. courts. Because of this, rightsholders and anti-piracy groups in other countries have added their own pressure.

In the Netherlands, anti-piracy group BREIN repeatedly urged the local domain registrar Openprovider to take down the .se and .pm domains in January. Openprovider informed BREIN that it had forwarded the request for closure to its customer.

BREIN doesn’t know for certain whether its pressure led directly to the .pm domain going offline, nor is it certain that Openprovider is the party that pulled the plug. However, the result is the same.

“In any case, the result counts. It’s good that the sites are offline. These shadow libraries are very harmful to authors,” BREIN director Bastiaan van Ramshorst informed TorrentFreak.

Regardless of who took action, the .pm domain is now out of rotation. That left Anna’s Archive down to a single working domain earlier this week, but that didn’t last very long.

Greenland Backup

According to domain records, Anna’s Archive registered annas-archive.gl earlier this week. This new domain uses Njalla’s nameservers and is registered through Immaterialism Limited, a familiar setup from the site’s working .LI domain.

The choice of a Greenland-based domain is notable. With ongoing tensions between Greenland and the United States, the .gl registry may not be eager to subject itself to U.S. court jurisdiction. Whether that assumption holds remains to be seen.

Previously, The Pirate Bay also moved to a .GL domain briefly. However, the Greenlandic telecoms company that manages the registry decided to suspend it soon after, over alleged illegal use.

For now, Anna’s Archive continues its game of domain whack-a-mole, staying one step ahead of the takedowns for the moment. At the same time, it is expected that rightsholders will do everything in their power to maintain pressure.

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

Downloading audio and video from YouTube is generally not allowed, which the video streaming service clearly states in its terms of service.

Despite this explicit restriction, there are numerous ‘stream-ripping’ and “YouTube downloader” tools available on the web that do just that.

These ripping tools can be used to convert YouTube music videos into MP3s for example. This is seen as a major problem by the music industry, which has and is taking legal steps in response.

Specifically, music companies argue that using these stream-ripping tools violates the DMCA, as it circumvents YouTube’s copyright protection technology. This ‘rolling cipher’ can be bypassed relatively easily, but it prevents regular users from downloading videos from YouTube directly.

Creator vs. Creator

The ‘rolling cipher’ accusations are not limited to the music industry. They can also be used in other contexts, including a creator vs. creator battle. This is the case in Cordova v. Huneault, which revolved around the legality of “reaction” and “commentary” channels.

The implications could be significant. Reaction and commentary videos have become a massive part of YouTube’s ecosystem, with countless creators building entire channels around responding to, critiquing, or mocking other people’s content.

Many of these creators rely on downloading clips from other channels, often using third-party tools that bypass YouTube’s protections, to incorporate into their videos. While fair use is often cited as a defense, this case suggests that DMCA circumvention liability comes into play, regardless of whether their final use qualifies as fair.

Without going into the nature of the videos, the lawsuit pits Christopher Cordova (Denver Metro Audits) against Jonathan Huneault (Frauditor Troll Channel). Cordova alleged that Huneault didn’t just use his copyrighted footage without permission, but that he also used “ripping” tools to bypass YouTube’s technical protection to get it.

The defense disagreed with this argument and requested dismissal. They argued that, because the videos are publicly viewable on YouTube, there is no “access control” to speak of. Additionally, the defense pointed out that there is no evidence that ripping tools were used, pointing out that the defendant and many others have used screen recording to copy content.

After hearing both sides, U.S. Magistrate Judge Virginia K. DeMarchi denied the motion to dismiss the DMCA circumvention claims, allowing the case to move forward on that claim.

“Mr. Cordova has adequately pled that YouTube applies technological measures, including ‘rolling-cipher technology’ designed to prevent unauthorized downloading, to videos published on its platform that effectively control access to his videos for purposes of § 1201(a).”

“Whether the videos may be viewed by the public is immaterial; the [complaint] refers to technological measures intended to prevent unauthorized downloading,” Judge DeMarchi adds.

Caution: Reaction Channels

While the survival of the §1201 claim may seem like a mere technicality in a case that has yet to be fully litigated, it is rather significant. By accepting that the “rolling cipher” effectively controls access to the downloadable file, the court gives creators who want to sue rivals an option to sue for more than just simple copyright infringement.

For years, reaction creators have operated under the assumption that, if their commentary is fair use, the way they acquired the footage doesn’t matter. However, Judge DeMarchi’s decision suggests otherwise.

Essentially, it means that commentary and reaction channels, which are widespread, face potential liability for DMCA violations if they use ripping tools that bypass YouTube’s protections.

“No Harm, No Foul”?

The legal teams are now sharply divided on what the circumvention claims mean for the case going forward.

In a statement to TorrentFreak, defense lawyer Steven C. Vondran dismisses the circumvention claims as a tactical maneuver that may eventually fall apart, as his client didn’t use a ripping tool. The attorney further argued that, if the “reaction” video of his client is fair use, there is no “injury” or harm.

“If fair use rights apply, and if there is no cognizable injury, then what would be their grounds to have proper standing?” Vondran asked.

“Plaintiff is arguing that Defendant used ripping tools to circumvent YouTube’s content protection technology to obtain video clips,” Vondran told us. “In fact, this was not the case, but it seems anyone can allege this in a lawsuit and be able to go through discovery to see if they can find the use of these tools.”

The defense shifts the focus and counters that the plaintiff has no right to sue in the first place, because there is no harm. Vondran argues that if the final “reaction” video is fair use, then the original creator hasn’t been “injured” just because someone downloaded a clip.

Plaintiff’s attorney Randall S. Newman hit back, telling TorrentFreak that circumventing copy protections under §1201 of the DMCA, is a separate violation that is unaffected by a fair use finding.

“The injury flows from the act of bypassing technological protection measures themselves, not from the outcome of a fair-use defense asserted after the fact,” Newman says, adding that the question of whether a ripping tool was used will be answered during discovery.

While the order of the motion to dismiss is significant, for this case it means little more than that the case can now move ahead to the discovery phase, after which it will be argued on its merits. The allegations that the defendant used ripping tools to download videos will have to be backed up by evidence then.

—

A copy of the order handed down by U.S. Magistrate Judge Virginia K. DeMarchi of the Northern District of California last month is available here (pdf).

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

Last month, we reported on an expanded class-action lawsuit in which several authors accused NVIDIA of using millions of pirated books to train its AI models.

The complaint cited internal emails showing that NVIDIA contacted Anna’s Archive seeking “high-speed access” to the shadow library’s massive collection. After being warned about the illegal nature of the materials, NVIDIA executives allegedly gave the “green light” to proceed.

Now, NVIDIA has fired back with a comprehensive motion to dismiss, calling the authors’ allegations speculative, vague, and legally insufficient.

Contact With ‘Anna’ Isn’t Enough

At the California federal court, NVIDIA argues that the authors’ complaint is built on speculation rather than facts.

While the complaint shows evidence suggesting that NVIDIA contacted Anna’s Archive about potentially accessing “millions of pirated materials,” NVIDIA points out a crucial gap: the authors never actually allege that NVIDIA downloaded their specific books from the shadow library.

“The only plausible facts alleged about Anna’s Archive are that NVIDIA ‘contacted Anna’s Archive’ about unspecified data, Anna’s Archive asked NVIDIA to confirm, and
NVIDIA gave the “green light” to ‘proceed’.”

“The mere fact that NVIDIA was in contact with representatives from Anna’s Archive does not mean that NVIDIA obtained Plaintiffs’ works from Anna’s Archive. It’s equally plausible NVIDIA did not,” the motion states.

The chip giant notes that the authors rely heavily on allegations made “upon information and belief”. This is a legal phrase that essentially means that it is an educated guess, rather than a statement that can be backed up with evidence.

Anna’s Archive ‘Backs’ NVIDIA

It’s worth noting that after our original coverage, AnnaArchivist weighed in on Reddit, stating they have not been in direct contact, suggesting the company may have used an intermediary.

“We’ve never dealt with Nvidia directly, so they likely used an intermediate party to avoid legal issues. But if Nvidia were to contact us directly, we’d happily provide them with high speed access in exchange for a donation,” the site’s representative wrote.

Whether this clarification helps or hurts the authors’ case remains to be seen. In any case, NVIDIA does not mention it in its motion to dismiss.

Catch-All Fishing Expedition

Aside from the Anna’s Archive rebuttal, NVIDIA describes the amended complaint as a fishing expedition that includes “improper catch-all allegations” that target virtually every AI model and dataset the company has ever worked with.

The original complaint focused narrowly on the NeMo Megatron model family and the Books3 dataset. But the amended version now references unidentified “NVIDIA LLMs,” unnamed “internal models,” undefined “NextLargeLLM” models, and unspecified “other shadow libraries.”

Shortly after filing their updated complaint, the authors sent new discovery requests targeting these new models and datasets.

“Plaintiffs’ bid for limitless discovery is confirmed by the blizzard of discovery requests they served after filing,” NVIDIA writes, as further evidence for the alleged fishing expedition.

No Proof Books Were Actually Used

In addition to Anna’s Archive, the amended complaint also adds various other shadow libraries, including Bibliotik, LibGen, Sci-Hub, Z-Library, and Pirate Library Mirror.

However, according to NVIDIA, the complaint lacks proof that the company downloaded the authors’ books. Similarly, it argued that there is no evidence that specific books or datasets were used to train LLMs.

For example, for the Nemotron-4 models, the authors simply speculated that because the training dataset was large and contained books, it must have included their works. NVIDIA dismissed this line of reasoning, noting that speculation is not enough.

“[T]he absence of factual allegations that the data used to train Nemotron-4 15B and Nemotron-4 340B included Plaintiffs’ works requires dismissal as to those models,” the motion to dismiss reads.

Secondary Infringement Claims Fail

The amended complaint added two new legal theories: contributory and vicarious copyright infringement. Both claims allege that NVIDIA helped customers infringe by providing tools to download ‘The Pile’ dataset.

NVIDIA argues these claims fail from the start. Both require an underlying act of direct infringement by a third party, but the authors only speculate “on information and belief” that NVIDIA’s customers downloaded and used The Pile.

The complaint names three purported NVIDIA customers but “does not identify any customer alleged to have downloaded or used The Pile,” the motion states.

Even if third-party infringement occurred, NVIDIA argues the authors fail to show the company had knowledge of specific infringing acts or materially contributed to them. The NeMo framework provides optional tools that customers can choose to use with any dataset—including licensed or public domain materials.

“The NeMo framework is capable of substantial non-infringing uses,” NVIDIA writes, citing legal precedent that bars liability when products have legitimate purposes.

NVIDIA Requests Dismissal

All in all, NVIDIA wants the court to dismiss all the expanded claims, including the addition of the new models, the new shadow libraries, and the alleged communication with Anna’s Archive.

The company further argues that the contributory and vicarious copyright infringement claims should be dismissed completely, as there is no evidence that specific books were pirated.

Notably, the direct copyright infringement claim, which alleges that NVIDIA used the Books3 database to train its NeMo model, is not covered by the motion. NVIDIA plans to defeat that during trial or on summary judgment, likely through a defense that relies heavily on fair use.

—

A copy of NVIDIA’s motion to dismiss is available here (pdf). It is scheduled for a hearing on April 2, 2026, before Judge Jon S. Tigar in Oakland, California.

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

Pirate sites and services can be a real challenge for rightsholders to deal with. In India, however, recent court orders have proven to be quite effective.

Indian courts have issued pirate site blocking orders for over a decade. Initially, these orders were relatively basic, requiring local Internet providers to block specific domain names. However, these early orders have evolved quite a bit since then.

In 2023, several Hollywood studios obtained a seminal court order that significantly expanded the scope. In addition to requesting Indian Internet providers to block pirate sites, it also required domain registrars to “lock and suspend” the domain names while sharing registrant data with the rightsholders.

This broad Delhi court order became a new standard going forward. American rightsholders used it against a wide variety of pirate sites and, through this Indian route, they targeted American domain registrars such as Namecheap and Porkbun. Effectively, the Delhi High Court now has the power to take domains offline worldwide.

U.S. Rightsholders Praise Indian Model

Thus far, U.S. rightsholders have not commented in great detail on these Indian efforts. However, the International Intellectual Property Alliance (IIPA), which represents the interests of prominent rightsholder groups, including the MPA and RIAA, recently highlighted it.

IIPA makes its remarks in its annual “Special 301” recommendation to the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR). This inquiry allows rightsholders to flag shortcomings and concerns in foreign countries.

The IIPA traditionally sees India as a problematic country, and this year it also recommends the USTR put it on the Priority Watch List. However, there is praise too, especially for the site-blocking efforts.

The “lock and suspend” orders, in particular, have helped to (temporarily) take out hundreds of pirate sites. This includes targets such as Animeflix, Vegamovies Fmovies, SFlix, VidSrc, and many others.

“To date, more than 400 piracy domains have been completely wiped from the Internet, representing billions of global piracy visits,” IIPA writes.

“Rights holders are encouraged by the Delhi High Court’s progressive understanding of the technologies involved in modern digital piracy and its resolve to grant creative relief to truly tackle piracy on a global scale.”

Effective Disruption

IIPA notes that these court orders are “unusually disruptive for pirate operators”. This is in part because they target domain names through U.S. domain registrars. This means that the impact of these court orders is felt globally.

Also, since the domain registrars are required to share the personal details of the domain registrants, these orders can help with follow-up enforcement actions.

These Delhi High Court orders have helped to tackle movie and TV-show piracy, and IIPA suggests that this is also showing in the numbers. Anime and manga are now the dominant piracy categories, with less than 30% of the top pirate sites (ex. music) focused on U.S. movies and TV content.

“This can be said to be at least in part attributable to the consistent orders being made by the Delhi High Court to disable access to all the top pirate film, TV, and streaming sites,” IIPA writes.

Additionally, IIPA highlights enforcement achievements by the local authorities. For example, the high-profile action against the alleged operator of the streaming platform iBomma, who was arrested soon after he landed at Hyderabad Airport.

More Can Be Done

Of course, IIPA’s report isn’t just a summary of positive notes. After all, the group lists India as a high-priority threat, so there is plenty of room for improvement.

“While these promising developments raise hopes that concerted actions can have a positive impact to disrupt the piracy ecosystem, more needs to be done to ensure deterrence becomes the norm to drive would-be pirates from these damaging activities,” IIPA writes.

For example, IIPA complains that some Indian Internet Service Providers (ISPs) are slow to implement the blocking orders passed by the Delhi High Court and calls for tighter timelines.

In addition, not all foreign domain name registrars are complying with the Indian court orders. This means that the global reach of these orders remains limited.

Finally, since broad blocking orders are limited to the Delhi Court, rightsholders recommend replicating these state-level blocking successes nationally across all Indian states.

The site-blocking recommendations are just the tip of the iceberg, however. The IIPA recommends India to undertake a long list of actions, ranging from taking action against illegal camcording in movie theaters to improving the proposed Digital India Act by adding anti-piracy measures.

IIPA’s conclusion is that India deserves to be called out on the USTR’s “Priority Watch List” in the upcoming Special 301 Review. Whether the U.S. government agrees has yet to be seen, but it wouldn’t be a surprise, as India has consistently been marked as a priority threat in recent years.

—

IIPA’s 2026 Special 301 Report on Copyright Protection and Enforcement, which includes all India references, is available here (pdf).

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