copyright

‘Fully loaded’ devices are being used to stream paid for content including football – full list of UK areas targets most recently

The Federation Against Copyright Theft has issued warnings that it is cracking down on people using ‘dodgy’ or ‘fully loaded’ Firesticks to illegally stream sport and paid for content. It carries out raids and also monitors digital sellers of the devices in order to target suppliers.

The practice is increasingly widespread – and the most recent raids carried out in the country by FACT have been across the UK. Working with police the clampdown spanned locations across the UK, including London, Cheshire, Kent, Sussex, Norfolk, Northamptonshire, Lincolnshire, Derbyshire, Staffordshire, the East and West Midlands, Greater Manchester, Merseyside, Northumbria, and North Yorkshire.

FACT, in collaboration with police services are intensifying efforts to disrupt and dismantle piracy operations across the country by targeting suppliers who are selling unauthorised access to premium content, including film, television and live sports.

The most recent reported two-week enforcement operation saw FACT and police targeting 30 suppliers of illegal IPTV services. These individuals were visited in person and issued cease-and-desist warnings by post, instructing them to cease illegal activities immediately or face potential criminal prosecution.

As part of the enforcement action, South Wales Police arrested a 42-year-old man from Newport who was suspected of involvement in illegal IPTV operations, including the sale of illicit Firesticks. FACT and South Wales Police seized several digital devices, including Firesticks, which are now undergoing forensic examination. Additionally, FACT issued a number of takedown requests to social media platforms and online marketplaces, further disrupting illegal IPTV activity.

FACT warned that courts are increasingly imposing severe penalties for illegal streaming operations, ‘particularly those who do not heed warnings’. It said private prosecution undertaken by the Premier League resulted a 29-year-old from Liverpool, receiving a three-year and four-month prison sentence for selling and using illicit Firesticks.

The body often targets the month of November because a lot of the Firesticks are sold at this time of year. Kieron Sharp, CEO FACT said: “Our cease-and-desist measures are not just warnings—they are the first step toward holding offenders accountable. Many who ignored these notices in the past are now facing arrest and criminal charges. We strongly advise anyone involved in these activities to stop immediately.

“If you’re supplying or using illicit streaming devices or illegal IPTV subscriptions, take this as a clear warning: you are breaking the law and risk facing serious consequences.

“We will continue working with police to track down and shut down these illegal operations. The police across the UK have been unstinting in their efforts to tackle this criminality and we are grateful for their assistance.

“To those using illegal streaming services, the message is that you’re not just committing a crime; you are putting yourself at risk. These services often expose users to malware, scams, and data theft, with no recourse when things go wrong. The safest, smartest and only choice is to stick to legitimate providers for your entertainment.”

FACT gets intelligence from Crimestoppers from anonymous reports from the public and works with sports rights holders and broadcast partners, including The Premier League, Sky, TNT Sports and Virgin Media, to investigate and prosecute those involved in intellectual property crimes. Digital piracy undermines the rights of broadcasters and content creators by providing users unauthorised access to premium content without proper compensation.

Illegal streaming exposes your home to criminals, granting them access to data stored on your network, including banking details and sensitive personal information. Additionally, it can introduce malware, which can further compromise your security. Learn more about the dangers of illegal streaming at BeStreamWise.

WASHINGTON — The Trump administration on Monday asked the Supreme Court to allow it to fire the director of the U.S. Copyright Office.

The administration’s newest emergency appeal to the high court was filed a month and a half after a federal appeals court in Washington held that the official, Shira Perlmutter, could not be unilaterally fired.

Nearly four weeks ago, the full U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit refused to reconsider that ruling.

The case is the latest that relates to Trump’s authority to install his own people at the head of federal agencies. The Supreme Court has largely allowed Trump to fire officials, even as court challenges proceed.

But this case concerns an office that is within the Library of Congress. Perlmutter is the register of copyrights and also advises Congress on copyright issues.

Solicitor Gen. D. John Sauer wrote in his filing Monday that despite the ties to Congress, the register “wields executive power” in regulating copyrights.

Perlmutter claims Trump fired her in May because he disapproved of advice she gave to Congress in a report related to artificial intelligence. Perlmutter had received an email from the White House notifying her that “your position as the Register of Copyrights and Director at the U.S. Copyright Office is terminated effective immediately,” her office said.

A divided appellate panel ruled that Perlmutter could keep her job while the case moves forward.

“The Executive’s alleged blatant interference with the work of a Legislative Branch official, as she performs statutorily authorized duties to advise Congress, strikes us as a violation of the separation of powers that is significantly different in kind and in degree from the cases that have come before,” Judge Florence Pan wrote for the appeals court. Judge Michelle Childs joined the opinion. Democratic President Biden appointed both judges to the appeals court.

Judge Justin Walker, a Trump appointee, wrote in dissent that Perlmutter “exercises executive power in a host of ways.”

Perlmutter’s attorneys have argued that she is a renowned copyright expert. She has served as register of copyrights since then-Librarian of Congress Carla Hayden appointed her to the job in October 2020.

Trump appointed Deputy Atty. Gen. Todd Blanche to replace Hayden at the Library of Congress. The White House fired Hayden amid criticism from conservatives that she was advancing a “woke” agenda.

Sherman writes for the Associated Press.

Published on
21/10/2025 – 9:22 GMT+2

ADVERTISEMENT

Kenny Loggins has reacted to Donald Trump using his song ‘Danger Zone’ in the president’s “disgusting” AI-generated video showing himself wearing a crown, flying a “KING TRUMP” fighter jet and bombing a crowd of protesters with feces.

The video was published as a response to the historic “No Kings” protests which took place across the US on Saturday.

The American singer-songwriter recorded the hit song for the soundtrack of the 1986 Tom Cruise movie Top Gun. He has now called for Trump’s video to be taken down on copyright grounds.

In a statement to Variety, Loggins said: “This is an unauthorized use of my performance of ‘Danger Zone.’ Nobody asked me for my permission, which I would have denied, and I request that my recording on this video is removed immediately.”

He continued: “I can’t imagine why anybody would want their music used or associated with something created with the sole purpose of dividing us. Too many people are trying to tear us apart, and we need to find new ways to come together.”

“We’re all Americans, and we’re all patriotic. There is no ‘us and them’ — that’s not who we are, nor is it what we should be. It’s all of us. We’re in this together, and it is my hope that we can embrace music as a way of celebrating and uniting each and every one of us.”

Well put – especially considering the video has provoked widespread outrage online, with many expressing dismay over the way it shows Trump’s clear disdain for people exercising their right to protest.

Social media users accused Trump of having “the maturity and decorum of a 12-year-old boy”, while others commented: “Can’t believe that’s a president of a country.”

Many posts also pointed out that Trump’s “childish” and “disgusting” AI post revealed a transparent representation of his genuine feelings toward the American people. “It tells you everything you need to know about what he thinks about the people of America who are, in fact, America,” one person commented, while another added: “Him taking a dump on the country is the most honest thing he’s ever posted.”

This is far from the first time that Trump and his administration have used artists’ work without authorisation.

There is an extensive list of musicians who have objected to Trump’s authorized use of their songs. These include ABBA, The Rolling Stones, Bruce Springsteen, Rihanna, Neil Young, R.E.M., Woodkid, Beyoncé and Semisonic.

Sinead O’Connor’s estate previously issued Trump with cease-and-desist orders, while Isaac Hayes’ estate sued him for 134 counts of copywright infringement.

Céline Dion also condemned the use of her song from the Oscar-winning film Titanic, ‘My Heart Will Go On’, which was used at one of Trump’s rallies. Dion’s team questioned the song choice, writing: “And really, THAT song?”

Another band which added their name to the ever-growing list of artists who have sued Trump over the illegal use of their songs in campaign videos was The White Stripes. Last year, the rock band highlighted the “flagrant misappropriation” of their hit song ‘Seven Nation Army’. Jack White captioned a copy of the legal complaint in an Instagram post with: “This machine sues fascists.”

The most recent example to date is Metallica, who forced the US government to withdraw a social media video that used their song ‘Enter Sandman’ without authorisation.

This weekend’s “No Kings” protests saw millions of Americans marching against Trump’s administration, opposing the president’s “authoritarian power grab.”

The 18 October protest, the third mass mobilisation since Trump’s return to the White House, drew nearly 7 million people across all 50 states according to organisers. This figure would make it the largest single-day mobilisation against a US president in modern history.

A year after tech firm OpenAI roiled Hollywood with the release of its Sora AI video tool, Chief Executive Sam Altman was back — with a potentially groundbreaking update.

Unlike the generic images Sora could initially create, the new program allows users to upload videos of real people and put them into AI-generated environments, complete with sound effects and dialogue.

In one video, a synthetic Michael Jackson takes a selfie video with an image of “Breaking Bad” star Bryan Cranston. In another, a likeness of SpongeBob SquarePants speaks out from behind the White House’s Oval Office desk.

“Excited to launch Sora 2!” Altman wrote on social media platform X on Sept. 30. “Video models have come a long way; this is a tremendous research achievement.”

But the enthusiasm wasn’t shared in Hollywood, where the new AI tools have created a swift backlash. At the core of the dispute is who controls the copyrighted images and likenesses of actors and licensed characters — and how much they should be compensated for their use in AI models.

The Motion Picture Assn. trade group didn’t mince words.

“OpenAI needs to take immediate and decisive action to address this issue,” Chairman Charles Rivkin said in a statement Monday. “Well-established copyright law safeguards the rights of creators and applies here.”

By the end of the week, multiple agencies and unions, including SAG-AFTRA, chimed in with similar statements, marking a rare moment of consensus in Hollywood and putting OpenAI on the defensive.

“We’re engaging directly with studios and rightsholders, listening to feedback, and learning from how people are using Sora 2,” Varun Shetty, OpenAI’s vice president of media partnerships, said in a statement. “Many are creating original videos and excited about interacting with their favorite characters, which we see as an opportunity for rightsholders to connect with fans and share in that creativity.”

For now, the skirmish between well-capitalized OpenAI and the major Hollywood studios and agencies appears to be only just the beginning of a bruising legal fight that could shape the future of AI use in the entertainment business.

“The question is less about if the studios will try to assert themselves, but when and how,” said Anthony Glukhov, senior associate at law firm Ramo, of the clash between Silicon Valley and Hollywood over AI. “They can posture all they want; but at the end of the day, there’s going to be two titans battling it out.”

Before it became the focus of ire in the creative community, OpenAI quietly tried to make inroads into the film and TV business.

The company’s executives went on a charm offensive last year. They reached out to key players in the entertainment industry — including Walt Disney Co. — about potential areas for collaboration and trying to assuage concerns about its technology.

This year, the San Francisco-based AI startup took a more assertive approach.

Before unveiling Sora 2 to the general public, OpenAI executives had conversations with some studios and talent agencies, putting them on notice that they need to explicitly declare which pieces of intellectual property — including licensed characters — were being opted-out of having their likeness depicted on the AI platform, according to two sources familiar with the matter who were not authorized to comment. Actors would be included in Sora 2 unless they opted out, the people said.

OpenAI disputes the claim and says that it was always the company’s intent to give actors and other public figures control over how their likeness is used.

The response was immediate.

Beverly Hills talent agency WME, which represents stars such as Michael B. Jordan and Oprah Winfrey, told OpenAI its actions were unacceptable, and that all of its clients would be opting out.

Creative Artists Agency and United Talent Agency also argued that their clients had the right to control and be compensated for their likenesses.

Studios, including Warner Bros., echoed the point.

“Decades of enforceable copyright law establishes that content owners do not need to ‘opt out’ to prevent infringing uses of their protected IP,” Warner Bros. Discovery said in a statement. “As technology progresses and platforms advance, the traditional principles of copyright protection do not change.”

Unions, including SAG-AFTRA — whose members were already alarmed over the recent appearance of a fake, AI-generated composite named Tilly Norwood — also expressed alarm.

“OpenAI’s decision to honor copyright only through an ‘opt-out’ model threatens the economic foundation of our entire industry and underscores the stakes in the litigation currently working through the courts,” newly elected President Sean Astin and National Executive Director Duncan Crabtree-Ireland said in a statement.

The dispute underscores a clash of two very different cultures. On one side is the brash, Silicon Valley “move fast and break things” ethos, where asking for forgiveness is seen as preferable to asking for permission. On the other is Hollywood’s eternal wariness over the effect of new technology, and its desire to retain control over increasingly valuable intellectual property rights.

“The difficulty, as we’ve seen, is balancing the capabilities with the prior rights owned by other people,” said Rob Rosenberg, a partner with law firm Moses and Singer LLP and a former Showtime Networks general counsel. “That’s what was driving the entire entertainment industry bonkers.”

Amid the outcry, Sam Altman posted on his blog days after the Sora 2 launch that the company would be giving more granular controls to rights holders and is working on a way to compensate them for video generation.

OpenAI said it has guardrails to block the generation of well-known characters and a team of reviewers who are taking down material that doesn’t follow its updated policy. Rights holders can also request removal of content.

The strong pushback from the creative community could be a strategy to force OpenAI into entering licensing agreements for the content they need, legal experts said.

Existing law is clear — a copyright holder has full control over their copyrighted material, said Ray Seilie, entertainment litigator at law firm Kinsella Holley Iser Kump Steinsapir.

“It’s not your job to go around and tell other people to stop using it,” he said. “If they use it, they use it at their own risk.”

Disney, Universal and Warner Bros. Discovery have previously sued AI firms MiniMax and Midjourney, accusing them of copyright infringement.

One challenge is figuring out a way that fairly compensates talent and rights holders. Several people who work within the entertainment industry ecosystem said they don’t believe a flat fee works.

“Bring monetization that is not a one size fits all,” said Dan Neely, chief executive of Chicago-based Vermillio, which works with Hollywood talent and studios and protects how their likenesses and characters are used in AI. “That’s what will move the needle for talent and studios.”

Visiting journalist Nilesh Christopher contributed to this report.