Taking down a pirate website is no easy feat, but one of the most effective—albeit temporary—methods is disabling its domain name. Historically, domain registries have been hesitant to intervene, but with the right approach, they can be persuaded to act.
Domain Name Takedowns as an Anti-Piracy Strategy
For years, entertainment industry groups have pushed domain registries to assist in fighting online piracy. Some registries, such as those under agreements with the Motion Picture Association (MPA), act as “trusted notifiers” to flag pirate domains. However, not all registries are willing to cooperate.
For instance, the Public Interest Registry (PIR), which manages the .org domain, has refused to take action against sites like The Pirate Bay, citing the need for a “free, open, safe, and secure internet.” Despite such resistance, pressure continues to mount. Some domain extensions—including .cc, .io, and .tv—have even been labeled “notorious piracy markets” due to their perceived inaction.
Dutch and European Registries Take Action
Despite ongoing debate, some registries have begun responding to complaints. Dutch anti-piracy group BREIN recently announced that the Dutch SIDN (.nl) and European EURid (.eu) registries had taken action against multiple domains associated with pirate operations.
SIDN reportedly suspended several IPTV-related domains, including streamdeal.nl, iptvproviders.nl, omniptv.nl, and iptvstreamplus.nl. Meanwhile, EURid removed seven domains that facilitated access to pirated movies, music, books, and games. Many of these sites had been registered through proxy services, obscuring the true identities of their owners.
The Real Reason Behind the Suspensions
While BREIN touts these takedowns as a victory, the underlying reason for the suspensions is not strictly copyright-related. Instead, both SIDN and EURid confirmed that the domains were disabled due to inaccurate WHOIS registration information, which violates registry policies.
SIDN spokesperson Marnie van Duijnhoven explained that the domains were suspended after registrants failed to provide or verify accurate details. While BREIN’s complaints may have triggered the process, the actual enforcement was based on policy violations rather than direct copyright infringement. EURid echoed this explanation, stating that the affected domains breached their registration rules.
BREIN’s Perspective: Different Paths, Same Goal
BREIN’s director, Bastiaan van Ramshorst, acknowledged that copyright infringement was not the official reason for these takedowns. However, he noted that pirate site operators often use inaccurate WHOIS data to remain anonymous. By leveraging these registry compliance measures, BREIN effectively removes domains that facilitate large-scale copyright violations.
“Our goal remains the same: removing domains that enable large-scale copyright violations,” Van Ramshorst stated. “Whether action is taken due to copyright complaints or registration policy breaches, both approaches lead to the same outcome.”
A Growing Trend in Domain Enforcement
It remains uncertain whether domain verification takedowns will become a widespread anti-piracy tactic. However, recent data suggests that this approach may be more effective than traditional copyright-based complaints. SIDN’s latest transparency report reveals that it received only 39 copyright-related takedown requests in the first three quarters of the year. In contrast, over 5,000 domain suspension procedures were initiated under articles 16 and 18 of SIDN’s terms, which target inaccurate registrant information.
As legal complexities make direct copyright enforcement more challenging, registry compliance measures offer an alternative means of disrupting pirate operations. Whether this strategy will have a lasting impact remains to be seen, but for now, BREIN appears to have found an effective workaround in its fight against online piracy.