Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

The NFL Playoffs Are Prime Time for Digital Piracy

Opinion

The NFL Playoffs Are Prime Time for Digital Piracy

Patrick Mahomes #15 of the Kansas City Chiefs celebrates during the first half of the AFC Divisional playoff game against the Houston Texans at GEHA Field at Arrowhead Stadium on January 18, 2025 in Kansas City, Missouri.

(Photo by Aaron M. Sprecher/Getty Images)

The NFL playoffs are an exciting time for football fans to watch the chase for the Super Bowl. It was a uniquely American obsession that has increasingly captured the attention of live sports fans worldwide.

It’s also prime time for live sports piracy, and American lawmakers must enact measures to protect these live broadcasts.


Professional and amateur sports are among the most popular live-streamed content—watched by 61% of viewers who subscribe to streaming services. Yet a study of 6,000 sports fans across 10 countries also found that 51% of the group pirated live sports monthly, despite 89% having at least one streaming subscription.

A 2023 Harvard Business Review study found that 35% of NFL fans surveyed watch football games on pirated streaming services.
Digital piracy costs streaming services companies approximately $30B in annual revenue, which is expected to rise to $113B by 2027. Live sports streaming piracy alone generates an estimated $28B in annual losses.

Many consumers may not sympathize with these streaming companies, but the impact goes much deeper than the boardrooms and stockholders of these companies. Athletic staff and trainers, creatives who produce advertisements, support staff, and thousands of other workers lose when their work is pirated. Piracy costs jobs and threatens the future of creative content, especially when a creator determines their unique work won’t be protected by copyright.

Many countries have taken regulatory action to protect content creators and streaming services. Over fifty countries allow their courts to block websites hosting pirated content through Internet Service Providers (ISPs), effectively shutting them down, including Canada, Italy, and the U.K.

Last year, India strengthened its anti-piracy protections further by criminalizing film pirating and adding significant financial penalties. The European Union recently proposed strengthening its Digital Services Act to fight digital piracy of sporting events and other live entertainment.

The U.S. must adopt a more aggressive approach to identifying, stopping, and prosecuting digital piracy, primarily since so much pirated content is produced in the U.S. by American content creators.

The current Digital Millennium Copyright Act empowers streaming services and copyright owners to send notices to websites identifying pirated content and demanding its removal. Still, the law is powerless against foreign-owned domains. Since so much digital piracy is driven by foreign actors, more must be done to block pirated content overseas.

In 2011, Congress considered building on the Digital Millennium Copyright Act by introducing the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA), which would have allowed U.S. Courts to block websites as over 50 other countries allow. However, critics of the legislation were concerned that SOPA infringed on First Amendment rights and would lead to legal trouble for websites like Wikipedia, Google, and YouTube. Critics have also expressed concern about not impinging on the established fair use doctrine that allows copyrighted material to be used under limited circumstances, further chilling free speech.

The blatant theft of publishers', athletes', and creators' works shouldn’t be an issue of free speech, but ensuring legal measures are aimed at websites and streaming services focused on pirating content should strike an appropriate free speech balance. Congress must reconsider legislation allowing pirated content blocking while establishing a process that respects the rights of domains, including dominant providers like YouTube and Google.

The Motion Picture Association (MPA) recently outlined a process that a federal judge would supervise. Copyright holders could request a court order to block specific websites. ISPs and the public would have the opportunity to respond if they disagree. The copyright holder would be responsible for demonstrating that the site primarily engages in piracy. This process is expected to last months rather than years. If a block order is issued, ISPs would decide how best to block consumer access to the site.

This approach would allow streaming companies, publishers, and content creators to protect their content from piracy, preserving job creation and sustaining income while ensuring consumers continue receiving and paying for the content they’ve come to expect and enjoy.

Max Eisendrath is the CEO of Redflag AI.


Read More

news video camera
black video camera
Photo by Matt C on Unsplash

When the Cameras Went Dark: What a Press Ban Reveals About American Journalism

When I came to the United States from India in 1982, I did not trust newspapers. Back home, everyone knew which party a paper favored before reading a line. American television felt different. My family watched Peter Jennings every evening, and later I found Larry King on CNN, who let his guests talk instead of telling viewers what to think. That habit of holding everyone to one standard has mostly faded.

On Sept. 18, President Trump announced he was banning CNN, MS NOW and Politico from the White House, saying their reporting was fake news. The next morning the Secret Service took reporters’ badges at the gate. The outlets sued on Monday, and Fox, ABC, NBC and CBS declined to take CNN’s turn in the television pool. On Sept. 24, Judge Timothy Kelly, whom Trump appointed, blocked the ban for 14 days. He found the outlets likely to win on due process, because reporters got no notice and no chance to respond, and he doubted the government’s national security explanation. Trump’s answer was to call the judge “totally disloyal.”

Keep ReadingShow less
Woman sitting and typing on laptop on her lap.

AI chatbots are always guessing, even when they sound sure. Experts and Claude itself explain the AI trust gap, bias and why to check sources.

Oscar Wong/Getty Images

AI’s Information Crisis: Why Trust Is Harder to Sustain Than Ever

In all the debates about human and machine intelligence, one thing has become clear: We humans love to talk about AI. We’ve speculated whether AI will create or eliminate jobs, revolutionize or destroy science, comfort or torment us, entertain us brilliantly or rot our brains, or some combination of all these things. But amid the noise, we may have paid too little attention to a subtler impact: how AI is disrupting our relationship to information and making it harder to know what to believe.

The problem isn’t just deepfakes, the malicious manipulation of images, video, and audio. Even benign, well-intentioned AI applications can be profoundly misleading. The nature of the large language models that power chatbots means that they are always guessing, however confident they seem. How can we use AI to produce reliable information that improves public discourse rather than distorting it?

Keep ReadingShow less
Digital illustration of robot's hand holding and supporting man who is working on his desk using computer, represent themes of artificial intelligence (AI), the future of work, and the intersection of humanity and technology.

Universal basic income would cost trillions. Wage insurance, a bigger child tax credit, and a tax break for work could help workers left behind by AI at a fraction of the price.

Andriy Onufriyenko / Getty Images

AI’s Costs: The Human Element & the Response

The age of AI will be a revolutionary age. In medicine, engineering, and more, there is the possibility of great benefit to humanity. Consider some Wall Street Journal headlines: “The Quest to Use AI to Help Find New Drugs,” and “Fusion Startup Gets an AI Boost.” Already, AI is a substantial portion of GDP growth.

Yet a rising tide will not lift the boats with holes in their hulls, as Jack Kemp once said. Artificial intelligence is challenging our leaders to think about those possibly left behind. Within the AI community itself, Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei expresses concern that we could see 5-10% GDP growth with 10% unemployment.

Keep ReadingShow less
An illustration of a block with the words, "AI," on it, surrounded by slightly smaller caution signs.

Efficient AI may not mean less energy. The Jevons paradox shows why demand can grow, and why no one can say yet where AI’s real limits will be.

Getty Images, J Studios

The People Selling You the Future Don’t Know It Either

Artificial Intelligence is everywhere and can no longer be avoided. Will there ever be a ceiling for the expansion of this technology? AI companies are not just selling software. The story about the inevitability that AI will have in transforming work, education, medicine, art, government, and daily life is much more profitable. People must accept the transformation or be left behind. They are selling behind a mask of certainty.

The court of public opinion on AI has concluded that this technology is too energy-consuming for the benefits it allegedly brings and the ways many people use it. Therefore, companies have shifted their agendas to presenting efficiency as a solution to the technology’s enormous need for power. Smaller, better models and chips, and more efficient data centers may reduce the energy required for a single text-based request or generated image. If those improvements make AI cheaper to use, it will be invited into more daily life right?

Keep ReadingShow less