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

An aerial view of a Flock camera

An aerial view of a Flock camera in Burbank, California. U.S. President Donald Trump expressed support for Flock cameras, saying he likes the AI-powered surveillance technology because of its use by law enforcement, despite concerns that it infringes on privacy.

(Photo by Justin Sullivan/Getty Images)

Flock Cameras Are Coming Down – but We Need More To Dismantle the Surveillance State

Chances are, you’ve seen one in your neighborhood. Flock cameras have become a major flashpoint for voters in the leadup to the midterms. The concept sounds straight out of 1984 — a network of government-owned cameras that track your movements — it’s no wonder that Americans across party lines are demanding their states and towns sever ties with the controversial company. Surveillance fears are only getting stronger as we enter the AI era.

But the problem isn’t just Flock. These cameras, Automated License Plate Readers or ALPRs to be exact, are a symptom of a larger “surveil first, ask questions later” attitude that has been adopted by local and federal government for decades. In recent years, the federal government has been dramatically expanding the nation’s surveillance infrastructure. This has taken many forms, from facial recognition technology at the airport, to law enforcement monitoring your mail, to the government watching what you’re posting on your personal social media pages. Since April, many Democrats and Republicans in Congress have united to stop what would effectively be a blank check for surveillance via FISA reauthorization, demanding surveillance reforms such as closing the “data broker loophole”, which allows the government to buy Americans’ personal data without a warrant.

Keep ReadingShow less
​Young adult woman accessing artificial intelligence

Young adult woman accessing artificial intelligence, managing digital information, and exploring future technology within an office setting

Getty Images

When One Person Can Do the Work of a Team

The harder question is how many capable people organizations will need. My latest lesson about artificial intelligence did not come from a research report or technology conference. It came from running the Security and Sustainability Forum.

Until recently, I depended heavily on an assistant to manage much of the website and webinar production process. Now I can do many of those tasks myself with Claude and ChatGPT. They help me develop content, revise web pages, solve technical problems, and manage projects that once required considerably more human support.

Keep ReadingShow less
Robot Holding a Resume Doing HR Work Vector Illustration

AI résumé screening can filter out qualified candidates before a human ever looks. Here's why transparency and human oversight in hiring matter.

nicoletaionescu/Getty Images

When AI Screens the Resume, Who Gets a Fair Shot at Work?

A job seeker can spend hours tailoring a résumé, checking qualifications and writing a thoughtful application, believing the next step will be a person deciding whether to schedule an interview.

Increasingly, that assumption may be wrong.

Keep ReadingShow less
President Trump answers questions from reporters.

U.S. President Donald Trump answers questions from reporters before boarding Air Force One on August 21, 2026 in Joint Base Andrews, Maryland.

(Photo by Win McNamee/Getty Images)

Trump’s White House Press Ban Violates 1st Amendment

The principle is simple. Just like politicians are not supposed to pick their voters, government officials don’t get to pick the reporters who cover them.

If they did, the First Amendment would be meaningless. and we would no longer live in anything resembling a constitutional republic. That is why President Trump’s September 18 announcement that he is banning reporters from CNN, MSNow, and Politico from the White House is so dangerous.

Keep ReadingShow less