top of page
Online piracy is rising again: why it happened and what it means

Online piracy is rising again: why it happened and what it means

23 October 2025

Paul Francis

Want your article or story on our site? Contact us here

Bram Stoker: The Man Who Gave the World Dracula
Mary Shelley: The Woman Who Created a Monster and Defined an Era
The Lost Art of Being Bored: Why Doing Nothing Might Be Good for You

After a decade in which legal streaming cut piracy rates, recent data suggest online piracy is on the rise again. The causes are complex: rising subscription costs, fragmentation of content across multiple services, the explosion of easy live streams for sport, and more sophisticated pirate tools. This article explains what changed, who is affected, which piracy formats are growing, and what rights holders and regulators are doing in response.


Computer screens display a pirate-themed website with neon graphics. A person types on a keyboard at a wooden desk, phone nearby.

How streaming briefly won the battle against piracy

In the 2010s and early 2020s, the growth of affordable, convenient streaming services helped reduce piracy. A single subscription gave users safe, high-quality access to large catalogues of film, TV and music, and the model undercut the old incentives to download or torrent. Music piracy fell particularly sharply after Spotify and similar services reached scale. The relative convenience and low friction of legal services made piracy less attractive for many users.


Why piracy is rising again

There is no single cause. Several trends converged to make piracy attractive once more.


1. Rising subscription costs and stacked services:

Streaming prices have climbed in recent years, and many households now subscribe to several platforms to watch everything they want. That perceived loss of value has nudged some viewers back to illegal sources, especially in a tighter economic climate. Industry commentators and analysts have explicitly linked price rises and subscription complexity to growing piracy traffic.


2. Fragmentation and exclusive rights:

Producers increasingly sell shows and sports rights to different platforms. A single season may be split across services or geo-locked to particular markets. For viewers, that means multiple subscriptions to follow a single show or live event. When the content you want appears behind an additional paywall, some viewers turn to pirate feeds instead. Research and reporting identify limited legal access as a key driver of piracy in several markets.


3. Live sports and real-time streaming:

Live sport is especially vulnerable. Rights holders spend billions to secure live broadcast deals, but analysts now describe pirated sports streams as being of “industrial scale”, with illegal feeds drawing tens of thousands of viewers each for major fixtures. That problem is acute because live streams provide a near-perfect substitution for the authorised broadcast and are very hard to police in real time. Reports by media analysts and industry bodies have highlighted the huge scale and financial impact.


4. New distribution methods and cheap tools:

Pirates are not limited to P2P torrents. A shift towards instant streaming, rebuilt indexing sites, “stream-host” platforms, pirate apps and modified streaming devices now enables easy, low-latency access to new releases and live events. These methods tend to lower the technical barrier for casual users who would once have avoided torrents. Monitoring firms report that while classic torrent downloads fell in some categories, streaming-centric piracy has grown.


What the numbers say

Industry tracking firms show a mixed picture but a worrying trend overall. MUSO, a large piracy monitoring firm, recorded hundreds of billions of visits to piracy sites in recent years and noted that while some year-to-year figures fluctuate, the long-term trend is upwards for certain formats and regions.


Independent analysis and consultancy reports that track user behaviour have also linked the recent upward movement in piracy traffic to consumer frustration around cost and access. One recent industry summary concluded that price rises at major streaming services have contributed materially to renewed piracy growth.


For live sports specifically, Enders Analysis and reporting in the Financial Times have shown that pirated feeds are now a significant share of consumption for some high-profile events. The industry talks in terms of “industrial scale theft” when describing these one-to-many illegal streams.


Popular piracy hubs and formats

For context, piracy today is enabled by a variety of sites and platforms. Reporting and monitoring outlets list a mixture of legacy torrent sites, new indexers, stream-hosting portals and modified app ecosystems. Examples frequently cited in industry and trade reporting include established torrent indexes and trackers such as YTS, 1337x, The Pirate Bay, and NYAA; streaming and link-aggregation sites that host or index illegal live and on-demand streams; and apps or “add-ons” for open platforms that facilitate access on cheap set-top devices. These names appear in regular lists of the most trafficked piracy services, though exact rankings change frequently.


Note: this piece names popular services where they are already widely reported, but it does not offer instructions on how to access them or advice that would facilitate infringement.


Who is harmed and how

Rights holders such as studios, broadcasters and sports leagues see direct financial impact from piracy, particularly when live audiences and subscription sales are lost. Broadcasters arguing for higher rights fees are concerned that widespread unauthorised viewing reduces the commercial case for expensive exclusive deals. Advertisers and platforms also argue that piracy undermines the incentives that fund original production.


Consumers face risks too. Many pirate feeds carry malware, poor-quality streams, or surprise charges. Modified devices and unofficial apps often expose users to security and privacy threats, and they can breach the terms of service of legitimate platform providers. Reports from industry bodies emphasise the security danger to users of jailbroken set-top boxes and pirating apps.


What rights holders and governments are doing

The response has multiple strands:

  • Enforcement and takedowns. Industry coalitions and enforcement groups continue to pursue legal action, takedowns and domain seizures. The International Broadcaster Coalition Against Piracy (IBCAP) and other organisations publish regular reports and action lists showing recent lawsuits and takedowns.

  • Technical countermeasures. Rights holders employ watermarking, automated detection, and “war rooms” to identify and terminate pirate feeds in real time, particularly for high-value live events.

  • Industry pressure on platforms. Broadcasters have urged platform providers and marketplaces to do more to block the distribution of pirating apps and to remove listings for illicit devices. Some calls have focused on vendors of popular streaming hardware where jailbroken apps are distributed.

  • Policy and legislation. In some jurisdictions, courts and regulators are enabling faster blocking and takedown orders, and some governments have strengthened penalties for commercial piracy operations. Efforts to increase platform accountability are under discussion in multiple markets, though progress varies.


Why enforcement alone will not solve it

Experience shows enforcement is necessary but not sufficient. Pirates adapt quickly, and takedowns often produce short-term disruption only for new mirrors, indexes or hosting arrangements to appear. Industry bodies increasingly argue that platform design, supply chains for illicit devices, and the economics of access must be addressed alongside enforcement. In some markets, La Liga’s technical and legal measures to block IPs in real time have reduced particular forms of piracy, suggesting that a mix of legal and technical responses can work when applied at scale. Still, these measures can be controversial when they risk collateral blocking of legitimate services.


What might reduce piracy again?

The evidence points to an integrated approach:

  • Make lawful access easier and more valuable. When content is simple to find and affordable to access, piracy falls. Bundling, fair regional licensing and more consumer-friendly pricing models will help.

  • Improve platform and marketplace controls. Tech platforms and device retailers can do more to stop the sale and distribution of modified devices and unauthorised apps.

  • Rapid technical detection for live streams. Investing in real-time detection and disruption for live event piracy reduces the immediate incentive to watch illegal feeds.

  • Public information and safer alternatives. Educating consumers about the security risks of pirate streams and offering attractive, legal short-duration passes for premium events would reduce demand.



Piracy has not returned to its early 2000s peak, but recent trends show it is adapting and, in some areas, growing again. The reasons are economic and structural: higher and fragmented subscription costs, stronger incentives to pirate live sports, new distribution channels and persistent regional access barriers. Rights holders, platforms and policymakers face a moving target. Reducing piracy sustainably will require pragmatic pricing, better legal access, technical measures and more cooperation between industry and tech platforms. The alternative is an escalation in enforcement action that risks being expensive, inconsistent and ultimately only partially effective.

Current Most Read

Online piracy is rising again: why it happened and what it means
Bram Stoker: The Man Who Gave the World Dracula
Mary Shelley: The Woman Who Created a Monster and Defined an Era

Disposable Vapes Found to Contain Toxic Levels of Lead, Say Scientists

  • Writer: Paul Francis
    Paul Francis
  • Jul 16
  • 4 min read
Vape gear on a cluttered table with colorful e-liquid bottles, a red mod labeled "dotMod," and various accessories. Bright, busy atmosphere.

New research has revealed that some of the most popular disposable vape brands on the market today are emitting dangerously high levels of toxic metals, including lead, prompting renewed health warnings and accelerating regulatory crackdowns.


The study, led by researchers at the University of California, Davis and published in late June 2025, examined seven popular disposable vaping devices including brands such as Elf Bar, Flum Pebble, and EscoBar. The findings were stark: several devices released lead concentrations that far exceeded health safety thresholds, with some generating more lead in a single day of vaping than what would be inhaled by smoking 20 traditional cigarettes.


According to the researchers, as disposable vapes are used over time, the levels of toxic metals in their aerosol emissions increase significantly. This is largely due to the degradation of internal components such as heating coils and solder joints. In some cases, the levels of lead, nickel and chromium in the vapour were found to be over 1,000 times higher than at the start of the device’s life.


These metals, when inhaled, are not harmless by-products. Lead, in particular, is a potent neurotoxin that can damage virtually every system in the human body. Prolonged or high-level exposure can affect brain development, reduce cognitive function, damage the kidneys and liver, and increase the risk of cardiovascular disease. In children and teenagers, whose nervous systems are still developing, exposure to lead is especially dangerous. Even low levels of lead can result in long-term developmental and behavioural issues.


Nickel and chromium, both also identified in the study at harmful levels, carry their own significant risks. Nickel exposure through inhalation has been linked to lung inflammation, bronchitis and increased cancer risk. Chromium, depending on its chemical form, is classified as a human carcinogen. These findings suggest that far from being a safer alternative to cigarettes, many disposable vapes could be introducing a new set of serious health hazards.


Close-up of red lips exhaling vapor from a red vape pen against a dark background, highlighting the smoky atmosphere and glossy lipstick.

In light of these revelations, the UK government moved ahead with its planned ban on disposable vapes, which officially came into effect on 1 June 2025. The decision was made on both environmental and public health grounds, with mounting concerns over youth vaping, poor product quality, and the unrecyclable nature of the devices. Public health officials welcomed the move, describing it as a necessary step in tackling what they termed a "rapidly escalating health crisis".


While the ban addresses the growing popularity of colourful, sweet-flavoured disposable devices among younger users, it leaves open the market for reusable and refillable vaping products. Many adult smokers who have switched to vaping now rely on pod-style or refillable devices, often marketed as cleaner and more reliable alternatives.

But are these alternatives truly safer?


Studies into refillable vaping devices have found that they also emit toxic metals, including lead, though usually at lower levels than their disposable counterparts. Research conducted by Johns Hopkins University and others indicates that the level of metal contamination in refillable devices is highly variable and dependent on several factors, including the materials used in the coil, how often the device is used, and how hot it gets during operation.


In a typical session of 15 puffs on a refillable vape, users may inhale between 0.003 to 0.057 micrograms of lead. By comparison, a single cigarette delivers roughly 0.004 micrograms. For nickel, refillable vapes have been measured between 0.011 to 0.029 micrograms per 15 puffs, closely matching the 0.019 micrograms found in cigarette smoke. These figures highlight that while refillable devices might avoid the worst-case contamination scenarios seen in cheap disposable vapes, they are not free from concern.


Traditional cigarettes, of course, have long been known to contain and emit heavy metals. Tobacco plants absorb metals like cadmium and lead from the soil, which are then released in smoke. The difference, however, is that cigarette composition and emissions are highly regulated and well-documented, while the fast-moving vape market has remained relatively unchecked until recently.


Critics of the vaping industry argue that manufacturers have prioritised aesthetics, flavour and low cost over product safety. The popularity of vapes among younger demographics has outpaced public understanding of what exactly is being inhaled. As evidence of metal toxicity mounts, scientists are calling for stricter testing requirements and long-term health studies to assess the cumulative effects of vaping across different device types.


The health implications are becoming harder to ignore. While vaping was initially promoted as a less harmful alternative to smoking, these new findings suggest that the risk profile is more complex than once believed. Toxic metal exposure, particularly from cheap and poorly manufactured devices, could pose risks equal to or even exceeding those associated with traditional tobacco use.


Ultimately, public health experts continue to reiterate one key message: the safest option is not to smoke or vape at all. While nicotine replacement therapies and prescription aids are available for those looking to quit, neither cigarettes nor e-cigarettes can be considered risk-free. As the UK and other countries move towards tighter regulation, the goal remains to reduce dependency on all nicotine products, not just the most dangerous ones.

bottom of page