A Belgian court has issued a final ruling that requires major public DNS resolver services to block domains linked to pirated live sports streams. The decision goes further than most previous copyright enforcement orders, which targeted internet service providers rather than the underlying infrastructure those providers use. For anyone thinking about creator rights and internet blocking orders, this case is worth paying close attention to — not because of the sports industry specifically, but because of what it signals about where enforcement is heading.
What happened
A sports rights holder obtained a court order in Belgium requiring that pirated stream domains be blocked. What made this order unusual is that it named not just internet service providers but also public DNS resolvers as parties required to comply.
DNS, in plain terms, is the system that translates a website name — like “example.com” — into the numerical address a computer needs to actually connect. Blocking at the DNS level means that when your device asks “where is this site?”, the resolver simply refuses to answer. You never reach the site.
One DNS provider chose to pull its service from Belgium entirely rather than comply with the order. The court temporarily suspended the requirement for that provider while it considered the case fully. The final ruling went against the DNS providers. The court found that DNS-level blocking is technically feasible and that the companies had not demonstrated the compliance costs were unreasonably high.
The blocking is not a fixed list. It is dynamic — tied to match schedules, with a short window before each broadcast during which new domains can be added. Fines for non-compliance are significant, counted only on days when live matches are broadcast. The court carved out limited protection from fines for cases involving geolocation errors, recognising that users near national borders might be caught by blocks that were not intended for them.
Who is affected
The most immediate impact falls on viewers in Belgium who use public DNS services — services people often choose for speed or privacy — rather than their internet provider’s default resolver. Those users will now hit the same blocks as everyone else.
DNS resolver providers face ongoing compliance obligations. They must act on updated blocklists within a short window before each broadcast, or risk substantial daily fines.
Rights holders distributing live sports content stand to benefit. But the implications for creator rights and internet blocking orders reach further than sports. Any creator whose work is protected by copyright operates in an environment where these enforcement tools now exist and are being refined.
Independent creators who rely on open internet infrastructure to reach audiences are indirectly affected whenever a court redraws the boundaries of what DNS providers must do. If a provider exits a market or changes its service in response to legal pressure, creators who depend on that provider for their own tools or platforms feel the effect.
Users near Belgium’s borders may experience over-blocking — being blocked from content they are legally entitled to access — simply because geolocation is not perfectly precise. The court acknowledged this but offered only limited protection from fines, not a solution to the underlying problem.
What the real risk is
The ruling treats DNS resolvers as active participants in copyright enforcement, not passive infrastructure. That is a meaningful shift. Courts in various countries have been moving in this direction, but pulling DNS resolvers explicitly into the compliance chain is a step beyond what most previous orders required.
If this approach spreads, creators who rely on specific DNS services for performance or privacy reasons may find those services altered or withdrawn without warning. The provider that left Belgium rather than comply is a concrete example of how this plays out in practice.
Dynamic blocklists updated on a tight schedule increase the chance of legitimate domains being caught. Creators whose work is hosted on shared platforms or infrastructure that sits near flagged content face a real risk of collateral blocking — their content disappearing not because of anything they did, but because of proximity.
The court’s rejection of cost arguments as a sufficient defence raises the bar for anyone trying to push back against future orders on proportionality grounds. That matters for small companies and individual creators who might one day need to challenge a wrongful block.
What to do today
These are concrete steps you can take this week, regardless of your technical background.
- Register your original work. Find the copyright registration authority in your country and submit your work. Registration gives you documented proof of ownership — a paper trail you can use if your content is ever wrongly blocked or taken down. This varies by country, so check what applies where you are based.
- Audit your hosting environment. Ask your hosting provider whether your content shares servers or IP addresses with other clients, and whether any of those clients have faced copyright complaints. Shared infrastructure means a block aimed at someone else can take you down too.
- Ask your hosting provider for their compliance policy in writing. Send a short email asking: “What is your process if you receive a court order or blocklist request affecting domains on your servers?” Their answer — or their silence — tells you something important.
- Diversify your DNS dependencies. If your own tools, website, or delivery systems rely on a single DNS provider, identify a backup. This is a setting change in most hosting control panels or domain management dashboards. You do not need to be technical — ask your provider to walk you through it.
- Keep a dated inventory of where your work lives. A simple spreadsheet listing every platform, marketplace, or channel carrying your work, with the date you uploaded it, gives you a starting point if something disappears and you need to trace the cause.
- If you distribute live or time-sensitive content, ask your delivery provider directly: “How would a DNS-level blocking order affect my streams, and what is your compliance policy?” You need to know before a problem occurs, not after.
None of these steps require legal expertise. They are basic hygiene that puts you in a stronger position if something goes wrong.
Why this keeps happening
Rights holders keep pushing enforcement deeper into internet infrastructure because earlier measures proved easy to work around. Blocking at the ISP level pushed users toward public DNS resolvers. Now courts are reaching those resolvers too.
Courts in multiple countries are increasingly comfortable treating technical service providers as enforceable parties, even when those providers argue they are neutral infrastructure. The Belgian ruling is one example of a broader pattern.
The legal framework for copyright was built around physical copies and fixed distribution channels. It is being stretched to cover dynamic, real-time delivery systems it was never designed for. That stretch creates friction — and creators are often caught in it.
But there is a deeper problem. Online systems have no reliable way to tie ownership of a piece of work to a real, accountable person. When you upload a video or a piece of music, the platform records that it came from your account — but your account is just a username and an email address. There is no verified link between that account and you as a legal owner. That gap is exploited constantly. Platforms and brokers fill it by claiming rights over content by default, through terms of service that most people never read. Rights holders struggle to prove what they own. Enforcement sweeps catch innocent creators because no one can quickly verify who actually made what. Until there is a trustworthy way to say “this person made this work, and here is the verified record”, enforcement will keep being blunt and broad — and creators without clear documentation will keep bearing the cost.
Creators and technology companies rarely coordinate before blocking orders are issued. The people with the most to gain from well-designed copyright protection often have no voice in how enforcement is structured.
Frequently asked questions
Can a DNS blocking order affect my own creative work even if I am not involved in piracy?
Yes. Blocking orders are applied to domain names or IP addresses, not to individual pieces of content. If your work is hosted on a platform or server that shares infrastructure with flagged content, your content can become inaccessible as a side effect. This is sometimes called collateral blocking. It is not an accusation of wrongdoing — it is a technical outcome of how broad enforcement works.
Does this Belgian ruling apply outside Belgium?
The ruling is a Belgian court decision and applies within Belgium. However, it may influence how courts in other countries approach similar cases. Legal precedent does not transfer automatically across borders, but judges and rights holders do look at what other jurisdictions have accepted. Whether a similar order could succeed in your country depends on local law — a lawyer in your jurisdiction would need to advise you on that.
What is the single most important thing a creator can do to protect themselves from wrongful blocking?
Register your work and keep dated records of where it is published. A documented ownership trail is the foundation of any challenge to a wrongful block. Without it, you are arguing from a weak position. Registration processes vary by country, so check what is available where you are based and do it before a problem arises, not after.
Related reading
- AI Training Lawsuits: When Rivals Become Your Evidence
- 74 Sports Pirates Charged: What Creators Can Learn
Originally reported by torrentfreak.com. This article summarises that reporting and adds practical guidance.
Everyone deserves authenticity and accountability online. That is the mission we are working on. Subscribe to join us, and get a free copy of Wes Kussmaul’s Escape the Plantation.
This article is general information, not legal advice. Laws differ by country — consult a qualified lawyer about your situation.
