Main site

Media & Entertainment AI agent · Anti-piracy

Anti-piracy & Takedown AI Agent

Detect infringing copies and live streams, evidence each match against the rights record, the mandate and the territory it rests on, and hold the assembled notice for the named person who signs it.

Typical delivery
4–6 weeks
Deployment
Your stack
A person signs
Before sending
After launch
Agent Care

What this agent does

Assembles the notice, not the signature

In

  1. 01

    A copy is detected, and the hit is read from the crawlers, fingerprint feeds and monitors on file.

  2. 02

    A match is resolved by identifier to a title and a rights record, never by a title string two works share.

Reason

  1. 03

    A stream goes live, and the capture, the timestamps and the reference it matched are held as evidence.

  2. 04

    A clip that reads as review, parody or news is set aside for the fair-use consideration Lenz (2016) requires.

  3. 05

    A claim carries the right, the territory and the mandate it was checked against, wherever the packet goes.

Decide

  1. 06

    A licensed window the rights holder opened itself is checked before anything is drafted against it.

  2. 07

    A request that would act at address level waits until the resolved address is tested for shared hosting.

Out

  1. 08

    A packet is retained with its per-URL basis — what matched, which right, which territory and why.

  2. 09

    Execute write actions only inside the approval boundaries agreed during implementation.

Product statement

The agent detects, evidences and assembles; a named agent of the rights holder signs under penalty of perjury, and counsel decides escalation.

Example workflow

One detection, hit to notice

  1. 1Detection receivedCrawl hit, fingerprint match, live-stream monitor or partner referral
  2. 2Evidence assembledCapture, reference match, rights record, territory and mandate, each with its source
  3. 3Notice draftedWork, URL, right claimed, basis and confidence
  4. 4Controls appliedMandate-scope checks, licensed-window checks, fair-use consideration and confidence threshold

No human action required

Stages 1 to 4 run unaided, and nothing is sent at any of them — the agent is assembling, and the signatory's lane opens at the confidence gate.

5DecisionBranches at the confidence threshold
High confidence

Goes to the named signatory to sign.

Low confidence

Adds an anti-piracy manager read first.

Signatory approval

The packet is held with its evidence, its fair-use note and the confidence.

Sign · Amend · Send to counsel

Signed — sent to the designated agent

  1. 6Notice systems updatedOnly where write access and approval policy allow it
  2. 7Outcome evaluatedCounter notifications, put-back outcomes, challenges and corrections made after sending

Amendments

A notice withdrawn after sending is still a notice the record shows was sent, and it is counted.

What should not run autonomously

Human approval stays in control

Outside the boundary — human approval required

8 items

  • Signing a notice or making the §512(c)(3)(A)(vi) statement.
    • Forming the good-faith belief that a use is unauthorised.
    • Deciding that a use is or is not fair use.
    • Applying for a §512(h) subpoena or a blocking order.

  • Automation boundary

    Agent acts unaided

    • ✓Detect copies and live streams, and capture the evidence.
    • ✓Resolve each hit to a title, a rights record and a territory.
    • ✓Check the mandate, the licensed window and the shared hosting.
    • ✓Assemble the packet with its basis, and hold it for the signatory.

    Any write happens inside the boundaries agreed at implementation, never ahead of the signature.

    • Answering a counter notification, or deciding to sue.
    • Requesting suspension or blocking at address level.
    • Settling, withdrawing or waiving an enforcement claim.
  • Changes to matching, mandate or approval rules.

Example output

One notice, annotated

Everything the agent assembles is attached to the capture it was drawn from.

Notice packet · single URL

Illustrative example
Title
Feature film, catalogue
Matched material
Full-length copy on a hosted file locker
Right claimed
Reproduction
Mandate cited
Territory mandate on file
Confidence
91%
Disposition
Assembled — awaiting signature

As received

Taken from the capture and the rights record on file — nothing on this side is written by the agent.

Evidence used

  • Reference fingerprint
  • Timestamped capture
  • Mandate on file

Why this disposition

The mandate covers this work, this right and this territory — the belief stays with the signer.

What the score decides

Below the configured threshold the packet picks up an anti-piracy manager read.

Action

SignAmendSend to counsel

Value

Where AI adds value

The same four claims, placed at the point in the workflow where each one applies.

Where the value lands

Value 01 – 04

Every detection

From the crawl and the monitors

03Assembly

Check the mandate in force

Read the authority behind the notice, not only the match: the mandate's catalogue, territory and expiry as they stand today.

01Approved path

The oath is narrower than you think

The §512(c)(3)(A)(vi) statement swears the complaining party is authorised to act for the owner — not that the material infringes.

02Human review

Put the exposure where it lives

§512(f) reaches knowing material misrepresentation. Failing §512(i) costs a provider its safe harbour but creates no claim — Cox v. Sony, 25 March 2026, made intent, not notice volume, the test.

04

Build an evidence trail

The match, the evidence behind it and the agent who swore stay on the notice.

Integrations

Typical integrations

Five system groups connect to the same agent. Which of them are in scope is decided in discovery.

  • Detection and monitoring

    • Fingerprint and crawl feeds
    • Live-stream monitors

  • Rights and catalogue

    • Rights-management systems
    • Catalogue and window data

  • Notice delivery

    • Designated-agent directory
    • Platform notice endpoints

Agent

Anti-piracy & takedown

  • Reads the match
  • Assembles the notice
  • Holds for signature

  • Case and legal

    • Matter management
    • Counter-notice tracking

  • Observability & evaluation

    • OpenTelemetry
    • Langfuse
    • Supported monitoring/evaluation sources

Integration availability depends on the client's existing systems and API access.

Agent controls

Six layers between the model and the notice

The six nest tightly, outer to inner. What escapes the innermost is listed in the map below.

L6 · Outermost — last line of defence

Inward → L1 · closest to the model

L6Rollback / safe modeHold notices at undrafted when evaluation or production signals degrade.Roll back
L5Version monitoringTrack model, prompt, match-threshold and mandate-table changes.Track
L4TraceabilityRecord the capture, the basis, the signature and the time it was sent.Record
L3Signatory approvalHold the packet for the named signatory; a notice already sent is past every layer here.Gate
L2Policy guardrailsTest each packet against the mandate, territory and shared-hosting rules; a failure returns it unsigned.Restrict
L1Confidence thresholdsRoute low-confidence packets to an anti-piracy manager read first.Require review
Model coreNotice drafted — work, URL, right claimed, basis and confidence
L1 – L2
Test whether a packet may stand
L3
Puts the signature in a person's hands
L4 – L5
Keep the match and the capture behind it
L6
Holds the notice at undrafted when signals degrade

How Nestack evaluates it

Evaluate the assembly workflow — not only the finished notice.

Coverage runs the whole depth of the workflow, and every layer is cut by slice.

Surface — the notice the platform receives

  1. E1Final-output evaluationDid the matched material belong to the work actually claimed?
  2. E2Step-level evaluationDid the agent use the right rights record, mandate and territory?
  3. E3Tool evaluationDid it read the correct capture and the correct designated agent?
  4. E4Confidence calibrationDo low-confidence packets actually attract more amendments?
  5. E5Slice evaluationHow does performance change across specific match types?
  6. E6Business outcomeHow many notices drew a counter notification, or were withdrawn?

Floor — the notice the programme has to defend

Failure modes

Where each failure originates in the agent

Seven failure modes, placed at the stage each one originates.

Agent lifecycle

Direction of processing →

  1. 01 · Retrieval

    1 mode

    • XQ-03

      Lapsed mandate read

      Authority narrowed at renewal is still on file.

    Stage gathers

    Captures, rights records, mandates and licence windows

  2. 02 · Reasoning

    2 modes

    • XQ-04

      Title-string match

      A same-named work resolves to the wrong rights record.

    • XQ-06

      Fair use not considered

      A review or parody clip is scored on match length.

    Stage proposes

    Work, URL, right claimed, basis and confidence

  3. 03 · Tool / write

    2 modes

    • XQ-02

      Assembly taken as sending

      A packet is treated as a served notice.

    • XQ-05

      Re-sent reported URL

      A URL already reported is notified again.

    Stage writes

    Only where write access and approval policy allow it

  4. 04 · Output

    1 mode

    • XQ-01

      Wrongful takedown

      Licensed or non-infringing material is removed.

    Stage returns

    The notice the platform acts on and Lumen publishes

  5. 05 · Change / Version

    1 mode

    • XQ-07

      Silent threshold drift

      A model or threshold change widens what is claimed.

    Stage tracks

    Model, prompt, thresholds and mandate tables

  • Sev-1 · a notice sends past the boundary
  • Sev-2 · a wrongful notice reaches a platform
  • Sev-3 · source degrades, hit routes to review
See the complete Media & Entertainment failure-mode catalogue

Affected slices

One cohort can carry the wrongful notices

A campaign-level takedown rate across the platforms can look acceptable while a small number of match cohorts carry most of the wrongful notices. Nestack reports the wrongful-notice rate by slice, not only in total.

Slice performance — reported separately, not only in aggregate

Illustrative example
SliceFailure rateLiftLift vs. thresholdStatus
Commentary and reaction clips9.6%3.7×Review
Same-title foreign productions7.9%3.0×Review
Live sports restreams4.7%1.8×Watch
Full-length hosted copies2.2%0.8×Normal

Bar: wrongful-notice-rate lift vs. hosted-copy baseline · scale 0–4.0× · tick marks the 2.0× review threshold

2 of 4 slices over threshold

Evidence-linked improvement

A cycle closes on a case, not a note

A cycle closes when the wrongful notice is a case the next release has to catch. That suite is what the next notice sent is measured against.

Improvement cycle · five stages

Switchback — the path turns at Improve and returns at Learn

  1. 01

    Detect

    Wrongful-notice rate rises in a match slice.

  2. 02

    Diagnose

    The match that was a review, not a rip, is traced back to the threshold that scored it on length alone.

  3. 03

    Improve

    The correction is numbered and the notices behind it are pinned to it.

  4. 04

    Verify

    The release waits while any touched notice case is still unresolved.

  5. 05

    Learn

    The case is retained, and the notice rules change in the same commit.

  6. Learn → Detect

    The return edge. The next detection runs against a suite one wrongful-notice case longer.

Typical build scope

Twelve workstreams across six weeks

The build scope read against the delivery timeline. Week structure follows the six-week plan — discovery, sources, assembly workflow, evaluation, integration, then production validation and handover.

Workstream

Week 1Week 2Week 3Week 4Week 5Week 6

  1. 01Enforcement workflow discovery and boundary work.Week 1
  2. 02Detection and rights source review.Week 1, Week 2
  3. 03Mandate, territory and licence-window rule mapping.Week 1, Week 2
  4. 04Detection ingestion and match resolution.Week 2
  5. 05Evidence capture and basis binding.Week 2, Week 3
  6. 06Confidence scoring and flag routing.Week 3
  7. 07Signatory approval workflow.Week 3, Week 4
  8. 08Detection and notice-system integration.Week 5
  9. 09Match and evidence cases.Week 4, Week 5
  10. 10Guardrails and sending controls.Week 4
  11. 11Notice-trail instrumentation.Week 5, Week 6
  12. 12Deployment, documentation and Agent Care handover.Week 6

12 workstreams · 6 weeks · bar shows the weeks a workstream is active — several run in parallel

Final scope and sequence confirmed in discovery

Engagement tiers

What each tier includes

Rows are the capabilities named in each tier's scope. Higher tiers include everything below them.

Capability✓ in scope · — not at this tierPilotOne catalogue, one platformProductionProduction detection feedsAdvancedMultiple territories / rights
Introduced at Pilot
Assembly to your mandates✓✓✓
Signatory approval✓✓✓
Match-accuracy baseline✓✓✓
Introduced at Production
Reporting by platform—✓✓
Approval workflow in your systems—✓✓
Approved write-back—✓✓
Detection-feed integration—✓✓
Introduced at Advanced
Multi-territory mandate sets——✓
Multi-stage counsel approvals——✓
High notice volume——✓
Multi-territory enforcement controls——✓
Build priceFrom $5,000From $8,000Custom quote
Final build price
Confirmed after discovery based on integrations, workflow complexity, transaction volume, approval controls and deployment requirements.
Separate from build
Build pricing is separate from recurring Agent Care, which covers managed monitoring, evaluations, incidents and verified improvements after launch.

What we need from you

What you bring, and what we build with it

Each input maps to a piece of build scope and a week in the delivery timeline.

  1. 01Your catalogue and its rights records

    Detection ingestion and match resolution

    Week 1

  2. 02Representative notices already sent

    Match baseline and evidence-capture checks

    Week 2

  3. 03Your mandates, territories and licensed windows

    Mandate, territory and licence-window rule mapping

    Week 1

  4. 04Access to relevant APIs, feeds or exports

    Detection and rights-source assessment, then integration setup

    Week 2

  5. 05Notices you would not want answered

    Counter-notice cases and the evaluation suite

    Week 4

  6. 06What no notice may swear to

    Confidence scoring, flag routing, guardrails and sending controls

    Week 3

  7. 07Named signatories authorised to act

    Signatory approval workflow, then pilot and production validation

    Weeks 5–6

Nothing else is required

Deployment, documentation and Agent Care handover are ours.

Delivery timeline

Four phases across six weeks

The chart follows the enforcement calendar rather than the slide, so evaluation and pilot share week 5.

Phase

W1

W2

W3

W4

W5

W6

  1. DiscoveryW1
  2. BuildW2 – W3
  3. EvaluateW4 – W5
  4. Pilot & LaunchW5 – W6

Week focus

W1Enforcement workflow discovery, mandate mapping and the automation boundary

W2Detection and rights integration and the match baseline

W3Assembly workflow, confidence logic and sending controls

W4Evaluation suite, fair-use checks and failure-mode testing

W5Notice-system integration, pilot platforms and targeted corrections

W6One enforcement cycle run under the anti-piracy manager, then handover

Reading the band
Each bar covers only the weeks its work is named in. The week 5 overlap is real work, not padding.
At the end of W6
The closing checks pass on live notices, and Agent Care takes monitoring on.
Duration
Six-week plan shown · typical delivery 4–6 weeks depending on scope confirmed in discovery.

Next step · Media & Entertainment AI agent

Build a takedown agent around the mandate each notice rests on.

A notice you cannot defend is worse than one you never sent. Ask what the §512(c)(3)(A)(vi) oath covers and the answer is authority, not the infringement call — which is why the mandate check comes first.

Typical delivery
4–6 weeks
Deployment
Your detection feeds
A person signs
Before sending
After launch
Agent Care available

Nestack Agents · Anti-piracy & takedown

AGT-ME-16 · Agent Care available after launch

Build a takedown agent

Four questions so the call starts from your actual setup — then pick a time that suits you.

About you
Your catalogue

No obligation. We’ll map the workflow, name the automation boundary and tell you if an agent is the wrong answer.