Court Orders Big UK ISPs to Block Pirated Israel TV Streaming Sites
Most of the major broadband ISPs in the United Kingdom (BT, Sky Broadband, Virgin Media, TalkTalk, EE and Plusnet) have just been handed a new court order to block an Israel TV video streaming site, which was found to have been facilitating internet copyright infringement (piracy).
At present such blocking orders, which in the UK flow from Section 97A of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act (CDPA), aren’t cheap to bring but have over the past 15 years or so become very common. Hundreds of websites have been blocked through this approach (thousands if you include their associated proxies and mirrors), which usually include illegal file sharing (P2P / Torrent), streaming sites, Sci-Hub and those that sell counterfeit goods etc.
In this case, the UK and international law firm, Penningtons Manches Cooper, which was acting on behalf of United King Film Distribution (1990) Limited, Keshet Broadcasting Limited, Hot Telecommunications Systems Limited and Reshet Media Limited, were successful in securing a blocking injunction against the providers.
Advertisement
The injunction itself, which was granted by Richard Smith (Judge), targets an unlicensed website called Israel TV (inc. various associated domains) that had been live-streaming, as well as offering a large unlicensed collection of recorded content, the claimants’ broadcasts and content without their permission.
Justice Richard Smith said:
“On the basis of the evidence that has been presented and the submissions made, I am satisfied that the legal requirements for the grant of the injunction sought in this case have been met, that the exercise of that power would be proportionate and that I should exercise my discretion to do so in this case.
I accept that such blocking as the injunction envisages would be an effective means of reducing infringement, not least in light of the alternative steps taken previously with the same objective. Those standing behind Israel TV have proved to be elusive and persistent, as shown by them, for example, switching to cryptocurrency subscription once credit card payment services had been blocked.
Overblocking is not a risk. The evidence shows that there is no legitimate material on the Target Websites.
The order contains conventional safeguards such as notification requirements, permission to apply by those who may be affected by it and a sunset clause, as well as a cross-undertaking in damages.
Finally, the order has been agreed between the parties and it is readily capable of being put into effect by the ISPs.
In all the circumstances I have described, I am satisfied that the order should be made.”
The judgement itself was handed down after a hearing on 23rd January 2025 and the ISPs have since introduced the new block. Such restrictions don’t always stop the targeted websites, and indeed they may even help to advertise their existence. Naturally, those who actively engage in internet piracy will no doubt still be able to circumvent the restrictions by using all sorts of different approaches.
Mark is a professional technology writer, IT consultant and computer engineer from Dorset (England), he also founded ISPreview in 1999 and enjoys analysing the latest telecoms and broadband developments. Find me on X (Twitter), Mastodon, Facebook, BlueSky, Threads.net and Linkedin.
« Virgin Media UK Expand FTTP Broadband to 6,000 Homes in Falconwood
Advertisement
Leave a Reply
Privacy Notice: Please note that news comments are anonymous, which means that we do NOT require you to enter any real personal details to post a message. By clicking to submit a post you agree to storing your entries for comment content, display name, IP and email in our database, for as long as the post remains live.
Only the submitted name and comment will be displayed in public, while the rest will be kept private (we will never share this outside of ISPreview, regardless of whether the data is real or fake). This comment system uses submitted IP, email and website address data to spot abuse and spammers. All data is transferred via an encrypted (https secure) session.
Maybe if the legit TV services weren’t so expensive, people would not feel the need to use these types of services
Sky TV on the low end, is £20 a month…. That’s £240 a year for a basic package, these illegal sites are at best £60 a year, Sky could very easily sell it for the same price as still make an immense profit
How are all of those footballers going to afford their next Rolls Royce?
TNT Sports, the new home of Eurosport, is £30.99 pcm so £372 annually with no discount for annual subscription.
Compared to the previous Eurosport offer that’s a lot of WBD corporate greed. It would fund football but I don’t care about that. We shall see how that works out…
Most cycle fans online are out on that hike. There’s good reason why channels are a thing and why all in one sucks.
As of last results Sky were making an operational loss. The cost of programming, network used delivering that programming and staff salaries alone was more than half their entire revenue before any expenses. Sky have a few more costs than a dodgy site rebroadcasting content and the basic package is probably the least profitable.
Cost is not always the driver.
Availability of content (especially foreign language content) not otherwise available in the UK also drives use of pirate streaming. Some of that content can have other legal issues, of course.
I have spotted a flaw with you using the price of a piracy service (costs include bandwidth, account management, and payment processing) as some sort of benchmark against which the legit one (costs include purchasing content rights, producing live broadcasts) should be judged.
Argue that it’s expensive if you want but the complaint should probably be targeted at the rights holders.
I just went to this now, and unless I went to the wrong website, it is not a free pirate service at all. They are selling subscriptions to watch Israeli TV channels online for $20 or $30 per month. This feels a bit dodgy this ruling, as in the Labour Party trying to ruin business for Israeli companies (I bet they wouldn’t get a court injunction to block Al-Jazeera!!). I honestly feel like signing up for this to show support and solidarity with Israel.
Says you, the least qualified to comment when this has been in front of a judge and through a legal process. Pipe down. There’s no bias, they did something wrong and got shut down. Or are they antisemetic?
How have you managed to blame Labour for this. I think you imagination is running wild seeing conspiracy everywhere. Mental
Agreed, this is nothing to do with content, this is our government against Israel.
Looking on the site, there is 0 English channels or vod.
Also on the site it’s based in Malaysia (see terms of service, address on bottom of page)
They are selling access to content for which they haven’t paid the legitimate rights holders. Just because it isn’t free doesn’t mean it’s legit. I’m sure you know you can buy Sky TV “subscriptions” for £60 a year in this country too. Also it’s nothing to do with the government and even if it was how can you say it’s “against Israel” when the order protects Israeli content creators from piracy?
Good lord, don’t be so naive. Any service trying to hide their illegal activities are hardly going to advertise what they do on their public-facing pages. These sites rely on word-of-mouth for business. There may be some that are blatant about what they do, however those are the ones who are easy to get shut down.
Think about it – it’s just like shops which are primarily money laundering fronts for organised crime. They are hardly going to advertise those activities to the general public!
For anyone defending the use of pirate sites, please consider:
(1) The action was initiated through the courts by rights holders and is nothing to do with the government.
(2) There is nothing on offer that you need, only things that you want. You are justifying why you shouldn’t pay the going rate rather than living within your means.
(3) Many of these sites are fronts for organised crime. You are channelling money to them and also sharing your personal details, this does not seem like a wise choice!