EU Pirate-Site List Remains Current—but It Is Not a Malware Blacklist

The European Commission’s 2025 Counterfeit and Piracy Watch List remains the current edition. A replacement is planned for 2027, so the list is still relevant—but it is not a newly released catalogue of the internet’s “most dangerous” sites, a malware blacklist or a set of final legal judgments.

For readers and creators, the useful distinction is simple: inclusion signals reported intellectual-property problems that may warrant caution and investigation. It does not establish that every named service is malicious, illegal in every jurisdiction or still operating under the same domain and ownership.

What the Commission actually published

The fourth edition was released on May 22, 2025. The Commission’s 2025 announcement says the document describes piracy and counterfeiting trends and identifies websites and physical marketplaces reported by stakeholders as offering pirated content or counterfeit goods.

That purpose is broader than warning people about unsafe streaming pages. The document addresses an ecosystem that includes linking sites, stream-ripping tools, cyberlockers, unlicensed download services, IPTV operations, hosting providers and infrastructure that may be used by third parties. It also covers physical markets selling counterfeit products, which have different consumer risks from an online video portal.

The list’s intended audience extends beyond casual users. It gives rights holders, authorities, governments and service operators a common set of reported problems to examine. For an independent filmmaker, musician, game developer or publisher, it can help identify distribution channels where unauthorized copies may circulate; it does not replace evidence collection, a takedown procedure or legal advice.

Why “most dangerous sites” is the wrong label

The Commission does not rank the entries by danger. It also does not present a comparative malware test, publish infection rates or certify that every visit to every named service will compromise a device. Describing the document as a definitive security blacklist therefore turns an intellectual-property watch list into something it was not designed to be.

The current Commission consultation for the 2027 edition states the limitation explicitly: the watch list is non-exhaustive and does not purport to make findings of legal violations. It identifies services and marketplaces outside the EU that are reported to engage in, facilitate or benefit from substantial intellectual-property infringement.

This qualification matters because the entries are not all the same kind of entity. A site whose main offering is unauthorized films is different from a general-purpose storage provider, hosting company or distributed technical system that can have legitimate users alongside alleged misuse. Inclusion should prompt scrutiny of the precise service, conduct and domain described in the document—not a blanket conclusion about every user or every function associated with a name.

None of that makes unknown download and streaming pages safe. Unexpected installers, aggressive redirects, requests for payment details and demands to disable browser protections are sensible reasons to leave a page. Those are direct warning signs, however; they should not be attributed to every watch-list entry without service-specific evidence.

Fmovies shows how quickly domain lists can age

Fmovies illustrates why a familiar name is not a stable identifier. On August 29, 2024—almost nine months before the EU list appeared—the Alliance for Creativity and Entertainment reported the Fmovies shutdown by Hanoi Police with ACE support; the coalition said the operation and associated domains had received more than 6.7 billion visits between January 2023 and June 2024.

The 2025 working document nevertheless uses the Fmovies name when discussing clone domains. That is not evidence that the original operation quietly returned. It demonstrates a recurring enforcement problem: recognizable brands, interfaces and domain variations can survive or reappear without continuity of ownership.

Readers should therefore avoid treating a brand name as proof that they have found the service described in an older report. A copycat can inherit the reputation of a defunct platform while having different operators, data practices and technical behavior. Publishing clickable pirate-domain directories can compound that confusion by directing traffic toward whatever currently controls an address.

How readers and creators should use the watch list

The document works best as a research and enforcement signal. It can tell a creator that a category of intermediary or a named operation has attracted repeated complaints, but the next step depends on the goal.

• For viewers: choose a legitimate distributor identified by the film, label, broadcaster, publisher or game studio. Do not assume that an unfamiliar site is authorized merely because it is absent from a non-exhaustive list.
• For creators: preserve the exact page address, date, title and relevant screenshots when documenting a suspected unauthorized copy. A watch-list entry alone does not prove that a particular upload infringes your rights.
• For publishers and platforms: distinguish the content-facing service from its registrar, host, storage layer and payment provider. Each intermediary has a different role and may require a different notice or escalation route.
• For security decisions: rely on current browser, operating-system and security warnings. An intellectual-property allegation is not a substitute for technical analysis of malware, phishing or credential theft.

Legal availability also changes by country and over time. A title may move between streaming services, become available through a broadcaster, or be sold directly by its creator. Checking the rights holder’s current channels is more reliable than following a third-party page that promises free access.

The current status in 2026

As of August 13, 2026, the Commission is accepting stakeholder submissions for the next watch list. The consultation opened on June 11, closes on September 11, 2026 at 23:59 CEST, and says the new edition is planned for the second quarter of 2027.

That timetable supplies the meaningful update: the 2025 document has not been replaced, but the next review cycle is underway. Operators named in the current edition are invited to describe measures they have taken to reduce infringement, meaning entries can be reassessed rather than treated as permanent verdicts.

The safest accurate reading is consequently narrower than the original “dangerous sites” framing. The EU list remains a current map of reported piracy and counterfeiting concerns outside the Union. It is useful to creators and consumers when read with its stated limitations—and unreliable when recast as proof that every listed name is a live, malware-infected pirate site.

Also read:

• Eight Email List Tactics Built for Inbox Access, Not Just Sign-Ups
• Free Web Hosting Works for Tests, but Business Sites Need More
• Inbound Marketing Still Matters—but Traffic Alone Is Not Lead Generation