![\"\"](\"https:\/\/www.cryptocabaret.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/05\/cloudflare-spain-s2-1.png\")
When rightsholders, broadcasters, and ISPs have a shared interest in the success of a multi-billion euro broadcasting rights deal, there\u2019s no dispute over the need for a blocking order. <\/p>\nWhen rightsholders, broadcasters, and ISPs have a shared interest in the success of a multi-billion euro broadcasting rights deal, there\u2019s no dispute over the need for a blocking order. <\/p>\n
With formalities out of the way, who argues against asking the court for anything less than the full measures the judge is prepared to authorize?<\/p>\n
When Telefonica spent billions acquiring broadcasting rights from LaLiga, the companies received full backing<\/a> from ISPs\/TV providers to protect their collective revenues. According to LaLiga\u2019s reading of the piracy blocking order subsequently obtained from the court, it authorizes the applicants to take whatever blocking actions are necessary to prevent access in Spain to around 130 pirate sites.<\/p>\n That many of the sites used Cloudflare IP addresses, each shared among hundreds or thousands of sites with no connection to piracy, came as no surprise to the applicants. Unlike blocking orders obtained outside Spain where similar issues are dealt with differently, LaLiga began instructing ISPs to block Cloudflare IP addresses used by pirate sites listed in the order.<\/p>\n Some estimates claim that over two million innocent sites were affected by blocking but whatever the true number, the decision to block Cloudflare at scale was unprecedented. <\/p>\n LaLiga\u2019s claim, that the injunction authorizes blocking of Cloudflare IP addresses, seems to be confirmed by the text of the order. It\u2019s only when attempting to reconcile LaLiga\u2019s intellectual property rights with the general and indeed fundamental rights of third parties does the situation become unfathomable. So we asked LaLiga about something else instead.<\/p>\n Since everyone seems to be on the same page concerning the blocking of shared IP addresses, we put it to LaLiga that when compared to site-blocking measures that aim to avoid collateral damage (most blocking worldwide), knowingly \u2018overblocking\u2019 must introduce new risks. Did LaLiga conduct a risk assessment before it started to block Cloudflare in February?<\/p>\n \u201cAt LALIGA we are fully aware that any blocking measure \u2014even when legally justified\u2014 requires a cautious and proportional approach,\u201d the league responded.<\/p>\n \u201cThat is precisely why we do not act indiscriminately, and why all our blocking actions are backed by judicial resolutions that assess the proportionality and potential impact before being authorized. It\u2019s relevant to highlight that these blockings are requested and implemented once there are clear proofs of piracy signals and content.\u201d<\/p>\n LaLiga\u2019s position as stated here appears to stand on its definition of proportional<\/em>, indiscriminate<\/em>, and its grounds for blocking. It seems safe to assume that the IP addresses it reports are indeed being used by pirate sites offering its content illegally. Grounds for blocking don\u2019t get any better than that.<\/p>\n If we place a tight definition on the word indiscriminate<\/em>, it\u2019s reasonable to assume that the IP addresses identified by LaLiga are obtained scientifically rather than randomly pulled out of hat. So with indiscriminate set the side for a moment, we have ourselves a question.<\/p>\n When a rights holder with legal standing demonstrates a genuine need to block, has obtained authorization from a court, and has no other immediate options available:<\/em><\/p>\n Does a proportional approach to infringement include blocking an IP address when there\u2019s a risk that dozens, hundreds, or thousands of innocent third parties are using it too?<\/em><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n Herein lies an even bigger problem, directly linked to the biggest question of all.<\/p>\n Establishing whether blocking has a positive effect on sales often prompts charts showing fewer people visiting blocked sites. Data cited by CEO Javier Tebas indicates that blocking suppressed piracy on a grand scale.<\/p>\n \u201cWeekend piracy has decreased by 40%. That doesn\u2019t mean everyone has already switched to paid channels, but\u2026 how do we know this? Barcelona-Inter semifinal in Spain: 1,200,000 viewers and a certain amount of data usage. El Cl\u00e1sico, four days later, had a much larger audience\u2014two million\u2014and resulted in 60% less piracy in consumption. In other words, it made a difference: more viewers were seen, much less illegal consumption as a result of the blocks we\u2019re implementing,\u201d he explains.<\/p>\n If this is an accurate picture, it\u2019s not unreasonable to conclude that such large percentages are likely to have some impact on Spanish football\u2019s bottom line. The immediate problem concerns the type of blocking used to achieve these results and whether similar authority would be granted again.<\/p>\n That leads to another complication.<\/p>\n Back in March when Cloudflare<\/a> and RootedCON separately attended court hoping to end LaLiga\u2019s ability to block, neither was successful<\/a>, in part due to evidential failures. In short, information presented to the court was deemed insufficient since it failed to show \u201cspecific, quantifiable damage to third parties.\u201d It\u2019s a theme that still interests LaLiga.<\/p>\n \u201cLALIGA has implemented a dedicated mailbox for complaints related to the blocking measures. This mechanism allows any third party who believes they\u2019ve been unintentionally affected by a blocking action to contact us directly, provide technical evidence, and request a review,\u201d Laliga says.<\/p>\n \u201cTo date, we have not received any formal complaints through this channel nor received any formal complaint through other legal channels, which reinforces our position that the system is working as intended: focused, precise, and without collateral impact on legitimate services.\u201d<\/p>\n At Soccerex Amsterdam last weekend, Javier Tebas said that while LaLiga\u2019s critics describe the court order as \u201cuseless\u201d and \u201cmake a lot of noise,\u201d it\u2019s an example of what can be done.<\/p>\n [The order is] dynamic and should be implemented country by country. It\u2019s very important that rights holders, UEFA, and national leagues become more united and more convinced that this is the way forward.\u201d<\/p>\n The controversial order is available here<\/a> (pdf, Spanish)<\/em><\/p>\n From: TF<\/a>, for the latest news on copyright battles, piracy and more.<\/p>\nOutlawed By Some Courts, Unprecedented Blocking Ensued<\/h2>\n
The Importance of Definitions<\/h2>\n
\n
Does TV Subscription Data Reveal Any Positive Effects of Blocking?<\/h2>\n
No Evidence to Show Overblocking<\/h2>\n