Downloading a movie, a series, or software without paying the rights holders remains a common practice in France. The legal consequences, however, have changed. The graduated response procedure led by Arcom is no longer the only risk: civil actions taken directly by producers and platforms now complement the repressive arsenal.
Civil actions by rights holders: the financial risk that the graduated response does not cover
You are probably familiar with the principle of the graduated response. Arcom (formerly Hadopi) detects an infringement on a peer-to-peer network, sends a first warning by email, then a second, and can forward the case to the prosecutor if the user persists. This administrative procedure still exists.
You may also like : Tips for Playing Clue in Duo
What has changed since 2024-2025 is the increase in civil actions initiated by the rights holders themselves. Specifically, major players in music, cinema, or software are directly suing individuals in civil courts to obtain damages. These procedures are independent of Arcom.
The financial stakes far exceed the theoretical criminal fine. Some specialized lawyers mention precautionary seizure measures on PayPal accounts or cryptocurrency wallets. In other words, illegal downloading can trigger a freeze on your digital assets even before the judgment.
Recommended read : Discover the must-see trends and innovations in the beauty world for 2024
To better understand the risks associated with cracked software and discover the alternatives to cpasbien on InnovoTech, the topic deserves to be taken seriously right now.
Technical providers under pressure: VPNs, DNS, and IPTV in the crosshairs
Piracy no longer relies solely on traditional peer-to-peer. Illegal IPTV, stream-ripping, and alternative DNS resolvers have taken over. The French justice system and European institutions are adapting to this.
Extended liability for technical intermediaries
Recent European decisions and positions from EUIPO tend to seek the liability of technical actors who facilitate access to illegal content. A pirate IPTV provider, a stream-ripping service, or a specialized DNS resolver can be prosecuted even if they do not store the files themselves.
In France, several IPTV providers have faced lawsuits between 2023 and 2025. The sanctions imposed include prison sentences, server confiscations, and DNS blocks ordered to telecom operators.
What this means for the end user
When a pirate IPTV service is seized, payment traces from its customers remain in the files retrieved by the justice system. Using a VPN does not protect against everything: a payment by credit card or PayPal directly links the subscriber to the illegal service. Investigators trace the financial chain, not just the technical chain.
- An IPTV subscription paid by bank transfer or card can serve as evidence in a civil or criminal proceeding.
- Seizures of servers abroad sometimes lead to international letters rogatory, even for modest amounts.
- Simply accessing a clearly illegal catalog can constitute the concealment of counterfeiting, distinct from downloading in the strict sense.
Graduated response from Arcom: the administrative procedure still active
The procedure managed by Arcom remains the first line of defense. It primarily targets peer-to-peer sharing, as it is on these networks that the user’s IP address is directly visible to sworn agents.
The process is known: a first warning email, then a second in case of recidivism. If the behavior persists, Arcom can forward the case to the public prosecutor. Counterfeiting through illegal downloading is punishable by criminal sanctions.
Arcom does not monitor streaming in real-time or pirate IPTV in the same way. Its technical competence focuses on peer-to-peer. For other forms of piracy, it is the rights holders and the public prosecutors who act through other channels: complaints, preliminary investigations, site blocks ordered in summary proceedings.
Counterfeiting and criminal penalties: what French law provides for in 2026
Illegal downloading falls under intellectual property law. The infringement of counterfeiting covers the act of reproducing, distributing, or making a protected work available without authorization. The user who downloads AND shares (which is automatic in peer-to-peer) finds themselves in a situation of counterfeiting.
The theoretical penalties are severe. However, in practice, courts rarely impose the maximum on an individual who downloads a few movies. The real financial danger now comes from civil actions for damages, where the amounts claimed depend on the harm estimated by the rights holder.
Two distinct offenses coexist:
- The failure to secure the internet connection (characterized negligence), punishable by a fine. This is the basis of Arcom’s graduated response.
- Counterfeiting itself, a criminal offense, which can lead to more severe prosecutions, especially in cases of large-scale distribution.
- The concealment of counterfeiting, applicable to anyone who knowingly accesses a clearly illegal service, even without downloading in the technical sense.
The boundary between illegal streaming, pirate IPTV, and traditional downloading no longer holds much legal significance. Voluntary access to counterfeited content is enough to engage the user’s liability, regardless of the technical method used.
The landscape of piracy in France has fragmented between streaming platforms, IPTV services, and peer-to-peer networks. The judicial response has followed the same movement: Arcom continues its work of graduated response, rights holders multiply civil lawsuits, and public prosecutors pursue technical providers. Subscribing to a pirate service for a few euros a month can now cost much more than a legal subscription to Netflix or Disney+.