FAQ

Rightholders and internet access providers have signed a Code of Conduct. In this Code, they have agreed on a voluntary procedure for implementing court blocking procedures and enforcing court blocking orders with regard to structurally copyright-infringing websites (hereinafter also referred to as SICWs). These are websites that operate a criminal business model with clear copyright infringements. In such cases, a rightholder always takes action against an internet access provider in order to have a court review whether the conditions for a DNS blocking of a structurally copyright-infringing website are met.

Legal proceedings are always brought against one CUII internet access provider. Within the framework of the CUII, internet access providers have agreed to comply with these blocking decisions even if they were not a party to the legal proceedings. This ensures judicial control of DNS blocking. It also avoids unnecessary parallel proceedings between infringed rightholders and internet access providers. The CUII coordinates the implementation of court decisions by internet access providers that are members of the CUII.

On the part of the internet access providers, the signatories to the Code are the companies that provide the vast majority of internet connections to internet users in Germany. On the side of the copyright holders, the signatories are either companies who suffer copyright infringements themselves as a result of the structurally copyright-infringing websites or associations that represent such companies.

Complete list of CUII members.

The CUII (Clearingstelle Urheberrecht im Internet - Clearing Body for Copyright on the Internet) is an independent German body set up and funded jointly by internet access providers and rightholders in Germany. 

The Dedicated Office of CUII manages the implementation of DNS-blocking orders by the courts for structurally copyright-infringing websites. Structurally copyright-infringing websites (SCIWs) operate a criminal business model and deliberately violate copyright. The uniform website blocking is carried out by the Internet access providers who are members of the CUII using the following procedure:

• First, a CUII rightholder applies to a competent German court to verify whether a blocking claim exists with regard to a structurally copyright-infringing website. The court independently examines whether the blocking claim is valid and, if necessary, issues a blocking order. The court blocking orders are published here: https://cuii.info/ordersofthecourt/.[JBN|N1]
• Secondly, the rightholder informs the CUII that a court blocking order has been issued. The CUII then requests the internet access providers participating in the CUII to set up the DNS block. They implement the ordered DNS blocks and inform the CUII accordingly.

 [JBN|N1]Bitte neuen Link erstellen, da sich die Bezeichnung ändert (verlinkte Unterseite heißt „Anordnungen (Gericht)“.

The intention is to block only clear cases of copyright-infringing websites. Examples include thepiratebay.org, kinox.to or goldesel.to. The service provided by such platforms is specifically aimed at the infringement of copyrighted works in Germany. If there is legal content on the platform, its quantity is insignificant in the overall ratio of lawful to unlawful content (see German Federal Court of Justice (Bundesgerichtshof, BGH), judgment of 26 November 2015 - I ZR 174/14, para. 55). The sites usually have high user numbers and thus generate high advertising revenues despite their illegality – at the expense of the legal services provided by the creative industries.

German internet access providers enable internet users to access the internet as a neutral service. They have neither knowledge of nor control over the content offered on structurally copyright-infringing website. As mere internet access providers, they also have no contractual relationship with operators of structurally copyright-infringing websites. They can neither remove content from these sites nor remove the sites themselves; however, they are able to block their customers' access to such websites via their Domain Name System (DNS).

In Germany, Section 8 of the Digital Services Act (DDG) regulates the conditions for a blocking claim. On this basis, the possibility of DNS blocking is generally recognized.

The law requires that the blocking be proportionate. The blocking of websites that operate a criminal business model with clear copyright infringements is proportionate. These are known as structurally copyright-infringing websites (SCIWs). 

Furthermore, according to the law, before blocking can take place, priority must be given, within reasonable limits, to legal action against those parties who, like the operators of the websites to be blocked, have either committed the infringement themselves or, like the host provider of the websites, have contributed to the infringement by providing services. Blocking claims against the internet access provider can only be considered if, despite taking reasonable measures, there is no prospect of success and a gap in legal protection would otherwise arise (see Federal Court of Justice, judgment of October 13, 2022 – I ZR 111/21 – DNS blocking). Judicial review of blocking claims ensures that these standards are met.

Every DNS block of a structurally copyright-infringing website (SCIW) is reviewed by a court within the framework of the CUII.

This is a voluntary commitment on the part of CUII members. This is because there is no requirement of a judge’s prior approval for blocking claims under Section 8 of the Digital Services Act (DDG). For this reason, DNS blocks under the old Code of Conduct with the involvement of the public authorities were also permissible (see questions: “What will change with the CUII Code of Conduct 2.0?” and “Why was there a system change within CUII in Juli 2025 - after several years of working together?”).

It would be conceivable for rightholders to bring separate proceedings against each internet access provider organized within the CUII. However, the requirements for a blocking order do not differ between individual internet access providers. It is therefore more efficient for rightholders and internet access providers to organize themselves in order to conduct legal proceedings jointly and ensure the uniform implementation of court blocking orders.

Yes, you can find a list of the structurally copyright-infringing websites that have been blocked so far in the Orders of the Court  section.

 [KM1]Bitte neuen Link erstellen, da sich die Bezeichnung ändert (verlinkte Unterseite heißt „Orders of the Court“)

Copyright infringements on the internet do not deprive anyone of anything (material), but the use of copyright-infringing streams harms various people: The authors, the other rights holders and sometimes yourself as a user.

• Economic damage for rightholders: Firstly, authors and other rights holders are deprived of fair remuneration. The loss of income also means that this money cannot be reinvested in the creation of new works.
• Unpleasant side effects for users: Websites with copyright-infringing content often also contain dubious advertising, for example for gambling and erotic portals. In addition, there is a risk that you may leave sensitive data with the website operators, such as your credit card details, which could then be misused. Particularly, data protection is a foreign concept on such websites! Many illegal websites host malware, i.e. malicious programs. The malware can be disguised as advertising, for example, known as malvertising. This means that not only can malicious programs be installed on your device without your consent, but sensitive data such as bank details can also be accessed, misused or sold. In addition, there is a risk that if malware infects your device, not only will malicious software be installed on your device, but connected networks, such as a company network, may also become the target of attacks. Furthermore, such websites read cookies and browser histories, for example, and can sell the data obtained in this way to third parties.
• Supporting criminal structures: Providers of copyright-infringing streams often systematically violate the copyrights and neighbouring rights of a large number of people. By using these sites, the website operators also generate profit - whether by taking out subscriptions or through advertising revenue - and are thus rewarded for their infringing behaviour.

Please find more information about the safety risks of SCIWs here: Safety risks of SCIWs.

Under the heading Information on legal content, you will find information on legal alternatives.

Copyright infringing content is not always clearly recognisable as such. However, there are indications where there is a very high probability that the content in question infringes the copyright or neighbouring rights of rights holders.

Such indications can be, for example:

• Conspicuously favourable price compared to other providers or even free offer
• Missing information about the website operator, missing imprint
• Website is aimed at German-speaking Internet users, but domain is operated far away (for example ".to" for the South Sea island of Tonga)
• Mirrored picture
• Poor sound/film quality

These tips will help you find offers that do not infringe the rights of third parties:

• The provider can be found in the Agorateka library, a European online portal that supports the search for legal online offers in the areas of music, e-books, film, TV and video games.

• If in doubt, ask the rights holder.

Similar procedures to block access to structurally infringing websites via internet access providers have already been successfully established in many European countries. Article 8(3) InfoSoc Directive (2001/29/EC) obliges EU Member States to ensure that rightholders can apply for an injunction against an internet access provider whose services are used by a third party to infringe copyright and related rights. The Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) had already ruled in 2014 that blocking websites through internet access providers is a permissible means of preventing copyright infringements.

Blocks under the Code of Conduct are implemented exclusively in the form of DNS blocks. The name refers to the "Domain Name System" (DNS), in which – similar to a telephone directory - each domain name is assigned a numerical IP address. When a user enters a domain name into the address bar of a browser, this is translated into the corresponding numerical IP address by the internet access provider’s DNS server so that the user can be directed to the correct location.

The CUII deals exclusively with the blocking of structurally copyright-infringing websites. It does not deal with breaches of the law protecting minors from harmful media. This is primarily the responsibility of the state media authorities, whose authority derives from the German Interstate Treaty on the Protection of Minors in the Media (Jugendmedienschutz-Staatsvertrag - JMStV) in conjunction with the German Interstate Broadcasting Treaty (Rundfunkstaatsvertrag - RStV). The law on the protection of minors in the media distinguishes between banned content, the possession and dissemination of which is prohibited and punishable by law for everyone in Germany, and content that is generally permitted but may not be made available to children and young people on the grounds of its negative impact on their development. This task is incumbent primarily on the German Commission for the Protection of Minors in the Media (Kommission für Jugendmedienschutz - KJM) as an official body of the state media authorities.

The Code of Conduct concerns only websites the purpose of which is to infringe copyright. It is also limited to clear cases. Any legitimate content on these websites is negligible. Internet users are only exposing themselves to risks when visiting structurally copyright-infringing websites. In addition, CUII blocks are based on the legal requirements set out in Section 8 of the Digital Services Act (DDG) and the requirements established by the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) with regard to such blocks to prevent internet access providers from interfering with the freedom of information of internet users (see CJEU, Case C-314/12, para. 56). The CUII Code of Conduct guarantees that blocking only takes place after independent judicial review.

According to net neutrality rules (under the EU Net Neutrality Regulation - Regulation (EU) 2015/2120) an internet access provider may take blocking measures to comply with national laws or measures that implement that regulation, provided this is in conformity with EU laws and any injunctions issued by courts or authorities that have the relevant powers. To ensure compliance with net neutrality rules, the competent authority, the German Federal Network Agency for Electricity, Gas, Telecommunications, Post and Railways (Bundesnetzagentur – BNetzA), is sent any CUII recommendations for review before any DNS block is implemented by German internet access providers.

The new CUII Code of Conduct 2.0 will apply from July 2025. The CUII has adopted this new Code of Conduct in order to restructure the self-regulatory procedure for DNS blocking.

Under the old Code of Conduct, blocking requests from rightholders were reviewed by a CUII Clearing Body and their recommendations were subject to subsequent review by the Federal Network Agency.

Under the current Code of Conduct, judicial review of the blocking request replaces these procedural steps. The CUII no longer reviews blocking requests but only coordinates the initiation and implementation of the procedures, the enforcement of court blocking decisions, and the unblocking of domains that no longer infringe copyright. In accordance with the Code of Conduct, only websites that structurally infringe copyright, i.e., websites with a criminal business model designed to infringe copyright, will continue to be blocked.

The Federal Network Agency has informed the CUII that it intends to focus on its core tasks in future. The reason for this change is that, due to numerous new digital tasks, the Federal Network Agency is no longer able to guarantee that the current fast and effective procedure can be continued at the usual level of quality. It has therefore asked the CUII to have the review carried out by the courts in future.

The previous CUII system was successful in combating copyright infringements on the Internet. Twenty-five websites with many hundreds of domains were blocked. These websites deliberately infringe copyright. They make criminally copyright-protected content from the fields of film, music, sports, games, books, and magazines accessible.

The DNS blocks administered by the CUII and reviewed by the BNetzA have reduced visits to such sites by up to 80%. When internet users select a blocked domain, they are redirected to the CUII landing page or to a landing page of their access provider. The landing page provides information about the reasons for the block and contains a link to the CUII website. Detailed information is available there for internet users. The CUII landing page alone had around 50 million visitors in 2024.

Since its founding in 2021, CUII has been blocking structurally copyright-infringing websites. Since then, the DNS blocks managed by CUII have prevented millions of internet users from visiting such websites. Nevertheless, the number of such websites has not decreased. These websites are no longer financed solely by advertising, but some also offer payment models. The graphic design of structurally copyright-infringing websites has improved over the years. Nevertheless, there are some clues that can help identify such websites: See question 12 above, “How can I recognize legal offers?”

Websites that structurally infringe copyright pose relevant security risks today because they operate outside the legal system. Please find more information about the security risks of SCIWs here: Security risks of SCIWs.

No. The CUII is not an association and specifically not a registered association. The CUII and its organisational structure (Gesellschaft buergerlichen Rechts – partnership under German civil law) are the result of a multilateral agreement (the Code of Conduct).

No, the Selbstregulierung Informationswirtschaft e.V. is not a member of the CUII but was entrusted with the administrative implementation of the project.

The Selbstregulierung Informationswirtschaft e.V. is fundamentally separate from the CUII. It was founded in 2011 as an independent, private supervisory body for sector-specific codes of conduct and was only entrusted by the CUII with the administrative implementation. The Selbstregulierung Informationswirtschaft e.V. provides the website on behalf of the CUII.