Permanent Injunction Against Unauthorized Stream-Ripping Services
📌 In brief
The Federal Court granted a permanent injunction against unauthorized stream-ripping services, finding them in violation of the Copyright Act. These services allowed users to create permanent, downloadable copies of audio or video content from streaming services like YouTube, without permission from the copyright holders.
⚖️ Legal holding
Unauthorized stream-ripping services infringe on the copyright of musical recordings.
📖 What the law says
This rule allows the Federal Court to issue an injunction, which is a court order telling someone to do or not do something, if the court believes it is fair or practical to do so. The court can set any conditions it thinks are fair for this order.
Plain-English explanation — does not replace advice from a lawyer.
📖 Technical summary
The court granted a permanent injunction against unauthorized stream-ripping services.
📜 Headnote Official document
The court granted a permanent injunction against unauthorized stream-ripping services, finding them in violation of the Copyright Act and enabling users to reproduce copyrighted material without authorization.
📚 Full judgment Official document
OUTCOME: Allowed
Date: 20260615 Docket: T-4795-25 Citation: 2026 FC 801 Ottawa, Ontario, June 15, 2026 PRESENT: The Honourable Mr. Justice Fothergill BETWEEN: [NAME_1] [COMPANY_3]. [NAME_4] [COMPANY_4]. [COMPANY_4] [COMPANY_5]. [NAME_6]. [COMPANY_8]. [NAME_9] Applicants and [NAME_10] 1 dba [NAME_11].WS [NAME_10] 2 dba [NAME_11].[NAME_10] 3 dba SAVEFROM.SPACE AND OTHER UNIDENTIFIED PERSONS WHO OPERATE UNAUTHORIZED STREAM-RIPPING PLATFORMS UNDER THE [NAME_11], [NAME_11] Respondents and [COMPANY_12]. dba [COMPANY_13]. [COMPANY_14]. [COMPANY_15]. [COMPANY_17]. [COMPANY_19]. dba VMEDIA Third Party Respondents
JUDGMENT UPON the application of the Applicants pursuant to s 44 of the Federal Courts Act , RSC 1985, c F-7, and s 34(1) of the Copyright Act , RSC 1985, c C-42, for Judgment granting a permanent injunction against the [NAME_10] Respondents and other Unidentified Persons [collectively, [NAME_10] Respondents]; AND UPON reading the Applicants’ Application Record; AND UPON hearing counsel for the Applicants and giving counsel for the Third Party Respondents an opportunity to be heard, no-one appearing for the [NAME_10] Respondents; AND CONSIDERING s 18(1), 27(1) and 34 (1) of the Copyright Act ; s 36 of the Telecommunications Act , S.C. 1993, c 38; s 44 of the Federal Courts Act ; and this Court’s decisions in [COMPANY_20] v [NAME_21] , 2019 FC 1432, aff’d 2021 FCA 181, leave to appeal to SCC refused, 39876 (24 March 2022); [COMPANY_20] v [NAME_21] , 2022 FC 1695; [COMPANY_22] v [NAME_10] 1 , 2022 FC 775; [COMPANY_22] v [NAME_10] , 2024 FC 1082; and [COMPANY_20] v [NAME_10] 1 ([NAME_23]) , 2025 FC 133 [ [NAME_23] ]; AND CONSIDERING the following: the Applicants are the owners or the exclusive licensees of the Canadian rights to a vast catalogue of recordings of the performances of musical artists; the [NAME_10] Respondents are the operators of unauthorized “stream ripping” services, which allow users to create or obtain a permanent, downloadable copy of audio or video content that is intended to be available only for streaming; under the Copyright Act , performance rights and reproduction rights are treated as two distinct rights: music can be distributed through performances (such as live performances and online streaming) or through the circulation of copies of audio or video recordings (such as compact discs and downloadable digital files) – because the former is ephemeral, and the latter is permanent, the reproduction rights have a greater economic value; YouTube provides access to streams (and in some cases non-permanent downloads) of the Applicants’ audio and video recordings to the public, but is not authorized to allow its users to permanently download these recordings; the stream ripping platforms operated by the [NAME_10] Respondents circumvent the security measures implemented by YouTube in order to create a permanent, downloadable copy of audio or video content from the stream provided on YouTube, without authorisation by YouTube or the Applicants; AND UPON BEING SATISFIED that the [NAME_10] Respondents are infringing the copyright owned or licensed by the Applicants: [redacted] by inducing their users to infringe the Applicants’ copyright, including by the statements of encouragement published on their platforms; and by enabling their users to obtain unauthorized reproductions of the Applicants’ audio and video recordings by providing the public with a service, by means of the Internet, that has the sole function of making available the unauthorized reproduction those recordings; AND CONSIDERING the Applicants’ attempts to serve the Notice of Application upon the [NAME_10] Respondents using the contact e-mail addresses published on the stream ripping platforms that they operate; AND CONSIDERING the Applicants’ subsequent attempts to serve the Notice of Application upon the [NAME_10] Respondents by contacting the “abuse” e-mail addresses associated with the domain registrars of the stream ripping platforms operated by each of the [NAME_10] Respondents, the Applicants’ receipt of instructions for submitting copyright complaints from those domain registrars by way of reply e-mail, and the Applicants’ compliance with those instructions to send the Notice of Application to each of the [NAME_10] Respondents; THIS COURT’S
JUDGMENT is that : Copyright is declared to subsist in the sound recordings listed in the tables set out in Appendix 1 to the Notice of Application [Applicants’ Sound Recordings], and the Applicant specified in each of those tables is declared to be the owner or exclusive licensee of the Canadian copyright therein. The [NAME_10] Respondents are declared to have: engaged in the unauthorized reproduction of the Applicants’ Sound Recordings and authorized their users to reproduce the Applicants’ Sound Recordings, without the consent of the Applicants, in contravention of s 18(1) of the Copyright Act ; induced their users to infringe the Applicants’ reproduction rights by encouraging their users to download the Applicants’ Sound Recordings; and enabled their users to reproduce the Applicants’ Sound Recordings by providing platforms primarily for the purpose of allowing their users to make unauthorized reproductions of the Applicants’ Sound Recordings contrary to s 27(2.3) of the Copyright Act . The [NAME_10] Respondents shall immediately deactivate the [NAME_11].WS Platform, the [NAME_11].LAT Platform, the SAVEFROM.SPACE Platform and any other [NAME_11], [NAME_11] or SAVEFROM branded platform under their authority or control. The [NAME_10] Respondents, by themselves or by their employees, representatives and agents, or by any company, partnership, trust, entity or person under their authority or control, or with which they are associated or affiliated, are permanently enjoined and restrained, directly or indirectly, from: developing, operating, maintaining, promoting or providing support to the [NAME_11].WS Platform, the [NAME_11].LAT Platform, the SAVEFROM.SPACE Platform and any other [NAME_11], [NAME_11] or SAVEFROM branded platform or any other similar service; operating, maintaining, updating, hosting, or promoting the Internet domains and subdomains from which the [NAME_11].WS Platform, the [NAME_11].LAT Platform, the SAVEFROM.SPACE Platform and any other [NAME_11], [NAME_11] or SAVEFROM branded platform are directly or indirectly made available, including the Internet domains [NAME_11].ws, [NAME_11].lat, savefrom.space and spowload.cc, or any other domain, subdomain or website hosting, promoting, or providing similar services, or directing any third parties to engage in the foregoing; or otherwise: reproducing the Applicants’ Sound Recordings; authorizing the reproduction of the Applicants’ Sound Recordings; inducing anyone to infringe the Applicants’ right to reproduce the Applicants’ Sound Recordings; or enabling anyone to infringe the Applicants’ right to reproduce the Applicants’ Sound Recordings. Service of the Notice of Application upon the [NAME_10] Respondents is hereby validated. Any of the [NAME_10] Respondents may seek to stay, vary, or set aside this Judgment, or oppose on any basis any other related or similar Judgment or Order sought by any of the Applicants or any other party. At the request of the Applicants, [COMPANY_24] is hereby removed as a Third Party Respondent with immediate effect, and the style of cause is amended accordingly. Costs are awarded to the Applicants against the [NAME_10] Respondents in an amount to be quantified at a future date, upon request of the Applicants. No costs are awarded against the Third Party Respondents. blank “Simon Fothergill” blank Judge
⚖️ What tends to weigh in cases like this
✅ Tends to be accepted
- The stream-ripping services allow users to create permanent, downloadable copies of audio or video content.
- The operators of these services induce users to infringe on the copyright by encouraging unauthorized downloads.
- The services provide platforms primarily for the purpose of allowing unauthorized reproductions of copyrighted materials.
- The operators enable users to infringe on the copyright by providing tools that bypass security measures on legitimate streaming sites.
Patterns observed in similar cases in this collection — every case is unique.
❓ Frequently asked questions
What did this decision decide?
The court granted a permanent injunction against unauthorized stream-ripping services, declaring them in violation of the Copyright Act.
What was the dispute about?
The dispute was about unauthorized stream-ripping services that allowed users to create permanent, downloadable copies of audio or video content from streaming services like YouTube, without permission from the copyright holders.
How did the court decide, and why?
The court decided to grant a permanent injunction because the unauthorized stream-ripping services were found to be infringing on the copyright of musical recordings by enabling users to reproduce them without authorization.
Which laws or rules were applied?
The Copyright Act, sections 18(1), 27(2.3), and the Federal Courts Act, section 44 were applied.
What was the argument that mattered most?
The argument that mattered most was that the unauthorized stream-ripping services were enabling users to reproduce copyrighted material without authorization, thereby infringing on the copyright of musical recordings.
Was the decision for or against the person who brought the case?
The decision was for the person who brought the case, granting a permanent injunction against unauthorized stream-ripping services.
What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?
For someone in a similar situation, this means that unauthorized stream-ripping services could be subject to legal action and potentially face permanent injunctions if found to be infringing on copyrights.
What evidence or documents mattered?
The judgment does not specify the exact evidence or documents that mattered, but it likely included evidence of the unauthorized reproduction of copyrighted material and the enabling of such reproduction by the stream-ripping services.