{"id":86715,"date":"2026-07-24T09:05:37","date_gmt":"2026-07-24T09:05:37","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.cryptocabaret.com\/?p=86715"},"modified":"2026-07-24T09:05:37","modified_gmt":"2026-07-24T09:05:37","slug":"canadas-expanded-scope-blocking-order-targets-existing-and-future-pirate-sites","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.cryptocabaret.com\/?p=86715","title":{"rendered":"Canada\u2019s \u2018Expanded Scope\u2019 Blocking Order Targets Existing and Future Pirate Sites"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"logos\"Canada\u2019s approach to pirate site blocking has evolved quite a bit since the Federal Court issued the first \u2018GoldTV\u2019 order<\/a> in 2019. <\/p>\n

That original order targeted a specific service and a fixed set of domain names. If rightsholders wanted to add a domain to the blocklist, they had to go back to court. <\/p>\n

Later orders against Soap2Day<\/a> and, more recently, various stream-ripping sites<\/a>, went a step further. Instead of targeting specific operations run by the same people, they allowed rightsholders to update the blocklist with alternative domains that would pop up, as well as copycats of the already named brands.<\/p>\n

These new orders streamlined the site blocking process. Rightsholders no longer had to file a new case for every domain that popped up. They did, however, still have to go back to the Federal Court, which had to issue a new order before anything new could be blocked.<\/p>\n

Rightsholders say these types of blocking orders are needed to effectively curb piracy. However, they are not without criticism. Opponents including the Canadian ISP TekSavvy have previously complained that site blocking is a slippery slope<\/a>, where more sites might eventually get blocked with less oversight. <\/p>\n

Hollywood Seeks Broad Blocking Order<\/h2>\n

Thus far the global trend has indeed been to expand blocking powers and the latest Federal Court order, issued earlier this month, is no exception. <\/p>\n

The blocking order, requested by Rogers, TVA, Netflix and various Hollywood studios such as Disney and Warner Bros., targets thirteen named piracy brands. This includes existing domain names, but also any future domains that use the same brands, whether these are linked to the original operation or not. <\/p>\n

The order requires Canadian ISPs, including Bell, Rogers, Telus, and TekSavvy, to block an initial list of 18 domains and subdomains. It is also the first Canadian blocking order to cover both IPTV subscription services and public streaming sites in a single proceeding.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

The Canadian Blocking Order<\/em><\/center>
\"suit\"<\/center><\/p>\n

The order splits its targets into two groups. Six are IPTV subscription services: Apollo Group TV, Diablo IPTV, GLO TV, IPGuys, Jio TV, and Smart4K\/Platinum. The other seven pirate streaming sites are 123Movies, Cineby, FMovies, HydraHD, Putlocker, TheTVApp, and WatchSeries.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

The initial blocklist<\/em><\/center>
\"schedule1\"<\/center><\/p>\n

After the first site blocking order survived several appeals, there hasn\u2019t been any significant opposition from ISPs to the follow-up orders. That also applies here, as the most recent blocking order was approved without any notable pushback. <\/p>\n

Schedule 1 lists 13 domains and five subdomains. With more than 50 million<\/a> global monthly visitors, 123moviesfree.net is one of the prime targets. However, the value of this order lies less in what it blocks today than in what it can block tomorrow.<\/p>\n

The Catch-All \u2018Expanded Scope\u2019 Order<\/h2>\n

The blocking order adds a new feature which is framed as an \u201cExpanded Scope.\u201d Earlier Canadian orders reached a single brand and its copycats. The latest blocking order goes further, as it also covers \u201csimilarly infringing platforms operating under other brands.\u201d <\/p>\n

This effectively means that the movie studios and other rightsholders can add new pirate sites and services to the blocklist. Justice Southcott agreed that this is needed to deal with the piracy whac-a-mole problem where new pirate sites swiftly take the place of blocked ones.<\/p>\n

\u201c[W]hen access to infringing platforms is blocked, other similarly infringing platforms appear and\/or increase in popularity,\u201d the order reads.<\/p>\n

To justify the expansion, Justice Southcott looked at a recent UK High Court order<\/a>, described as an \u201comnibus order,\u201d which we covered in May. According to the Motion Picture Association, which represents its member studios in site blocking efforts, this order makes it possible to block any \u201cstructurally infringing audiovisual piracy service\u201d without naming it in advance. <\/p>\n

The UK judgment itself has still not been published on BAILII or the National Archives, as far as we know, but it is clearly seen as the new frontier in site blocking efforts.<\/p>\n

Adding New Brands<\/h2>\n

The order explains how new brands are added through what it calls a \u201cSimplified Procedure.\u201d To add a platform, rightsholders must file an affidavit which confirms that the new target meets the order\u2019s conditions. <\/p>\n

In this case, it means that the target\u2019s sole or predominant purpose is the unauthorized distribution of the studios\u2019 film and television works, that it operates like the IPTV or open-web services already named, that it is reachable in Canada, and that the operator was sent a notice of infringement and given seven days to respond.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

Some of the conditions<\/em><\/center>
\"conditions\"<\/center><\/p>\n

If no targeted ISP files a notice of motion to object within five business days, the updated list takes effect without any hearing and no further order from the court. These new submissions can be made every ten business days.<\/p>\n

That last part is a subtle but notable change. Under the stream-ripper order<\/a> issued last month, ISP silence meant the Court \u201cmay grant an Order amending Schedule 1 as proposed by the Applicants without further proceedings.\u201d A judge still signed off, even if nobody argued.<\/p>\n

Under the new order, silence alone is enough. The proposed list \u201cshall be considered Schedule 1 under this Order,\u201d with no involvement from the court at all.<\/p>\n

Together, the two changes remove both limits that applied before. The court no longer has to sign off on blocklist updates, and the additions no longer have to involve a brand that was already named in the case.<\/p>\n

Justice Southcott describes this as \u201can incremental modification to precedent site-blocking orders.\u201d<\/p>\n

A Judicial Guardrail<\/h2>\n

Justice Southcott did not grant everything the studios asked for. The rightsholders wanted the new order to also apply to \u201cany works for which the Applicants own the copyright.\u201d <\/p>\n

The order limits its scope to \u201cthe Applicants\u2019 Works,\u201d meaning the specific titles mentioned in the judgment. In practice, that prevents the studios from using copyrights they acquire later to justify new additions, without first going back to court.<\/p>\n

Not everyone is convinced that the safeguards go far enough.<\/p>\n

TekSavvy, which previously fought back<\/a> against site blocking in Canada, published a critical compliance page<\/a> for the order. While the company did not oppose the current order, it remains highly skeptical. <\/p>\n

\u201c[W]e see blocking orders as a grave violation of network neutrality and a fundamental change to what we do as an ISP. The principles of common carriage and network neutrality mean ISPs carry traffic to and from end users in as neutral a fashion as possible,\u201d TekSavvy notes.<\/p>\n

The latest order runs for two years, with the blocklist starting at 13 domains and five subdomains. The more telling figure may be how many names get added before it expires.<\/p>\n

\u2014<\/em><\/p>\n

A copy of the site-blocking order, issued by Justice Southcott, is available here (pdf)<\/a>. The full domain list can be found here (pdf)<\/a>.<\/p>\n

From: TF<\/a>, for the latest news on copyright battles, piracy and more.<\/p>\n

Powered by WPeMatico<\/a><\/small><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Canada\u2019s approach to pirate site blocking has evolved quite a bit since the Federal Court issued the first \u2018GoldTV\u2019 order in 2019. That original order targeted a specific service and a fixed set of domain names. If rightsholders wanted to add a domain to the blocklist, they had to go back to court. Later orders […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":86716,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[308],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-86715","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-torrent"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.cryptocabaret.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/86715","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.cryptocabaret.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.cryptocabaret.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.cryptocabaret.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.cryptocabaret.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=86715"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.cryptocabaret.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/86715\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.cryptocabaret.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/media\/86716"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.cryptocabaret.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=86715"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.cryptocabaret.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=86715"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.cryptocabaret.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=86715"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}