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.
A copy is detected, and the hit is read from the crawlers, fingerprint feeds and monitors on file.
02
A match is resolved by identifier to a title and a rights record, never by a title string two works share.
Reason
03
A stream goes live, and the capture, the timestamps and the reference it matched are held as evidence.
04
A clip that reads as review, parody or news is set aside for the fair-use consideration Lenz (2016) requires.
05
A claim carries the right, the territory and the mandate it was checked against, wherever the packet goes.
Decide
06
A licensed window the rights holder opened itself is checked before anything is drafted against it.
07
A request that would act at address level waits until the resolved address is tested for shared hosting.
Out
08
A packet is retained with its per-URL basis — what matched, which right, which territory and why.
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
AgentHuman
1Detection receivedCrawl hit, fingerprint match, live-stream monitor or partner referral
2Evidence assembledCapture, reference match, rights record, territory and mandate, each with its source
3Notice draftedWork, URL, right claimed, basis and confidence
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▼
6Notice systems updatedOnly where write access and approval policy allow it
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A notice withdrawn after sending is still a notice the record shows was sent, and it is counted.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 required8 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 boundaryAgent 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 URLIllustrative example
Title
Matched material
Right claimed
Mandate cited
Confidence
Disposition
Feature film, catalogue
Full-length copy on a hosted file locker
Reproduction
Territory mandate on file
91%
Assembled — awaiting signature
As receivedTaken from the capture and the rights record on file — nothing on this side is written by the agent.
Evidence usedReference fingerprintTimestamped captureMandate on file
Why this dispositionThe mandate covers this work, this right and this territory — the belief stays with the signer.
ActionSignAmendSend to counsel
What the score decidesBelow the configured threshold the packet picks up an anti-piracy manager read.
Value
Where AI adds value
The same four claims, placed at the point in the workflow where each one applies.
Where the value landsValue 01 – 04
Every detectionFrom 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.
04Build 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 monitoringFingerprint and crawl feeds Live-stream monitors
Rights and catalogueRights-management systems Catalogue and window data
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 aggregateIllustrative example
Slice
Failure rate
Lift
Lift vs. threshold
Status
Commentary and reaction clips
9.6%
3.7×
Review
Same-title foreign productions
7.9%
3.0×
Review
Live sports restreams
4.7%
1.8×
Watch
Full-length hosted copies
2.2%
0.8×
Normal
Bar: wrongful-notice-rate lift vs. hosted-copy baseline · scale 0–4.0× · tick marks the 2.0× review threshold2 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 stagesSwitchback — the path turns at Improve and returns at Learn
01Detect
Wrongful-notice rate rises in a match slice.
02Diagnose
The match that was a review, not a rip, is traced back to the threshold that scored it on length alone.
03Improve
The correction is numbered and the notices behind it are pinned to it.
04Verify
The release waits while any touched notice case is still unresolved.
05Learn
The case is retained, and the notice rules change in the same commit.
Learn → DetectThe 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.
WorkstreamWeek 1Week 2Week 3Week 4Week 5Week 6
01Enforcement workflow discovery and boundary work.
02Detection and rights source review.
03Mandate, territory and licence-window rule mapping.
04Detection ingestion and match resolution.
05Evidence capture and basis binding.
06Confidence scoring and flag routing.
07Signatory approval workflow.
08Detection and notice-system integration.
09Match and evidence cases.
10Guardrails and sending controls.
11Notice-trail instrumentation.
12Deployment, documentation and Agent Care handover.
12 workstreams · 6 weeks · bar shows the weeks a workstream is active — several run in parallelFinal 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 priceConfirmed after discovery based on integrations, workflow complexity, transaction volume, approval controls and deployment requirements.
Separate from buildBuild 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.
You bringWe build with it
01Your catalogue and its rights records→Detection ingestion and match resolutionWeek 1
02Representative notices already sent→Match baseline and evidence-capture checksWeek 2
03Your mandates, territories and licensed windows→Mandate, territory and licence-window rule mappingWeek 1
04Access to relevant APIs, feeds or exports→Detection and rights-source assessment, then integration setupWeek 2
05Notices you would not want answered→Counter-notice cases and the evaluation suiteWeek 4
06What no notice may swear to→Confidence scoring, flag routing, guardrails and sending controlsWeek 3
07Named signatories authorised to act→Signatory approval workflow, then pilot and production validationWeeks 5–6
Nothing else is requiredDeployment, 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.
PhaseW1W2W3W4W5W6
DiscoveryW1
BuildW2 – W3
EvaluateW4 – W5
Pilot & LaunchW5 – W6
Week focusW1Enforcement workflow discovery, mandate mapping and the automation boundaryW2Detection and rights integration and the match baselineW3Assembly workflow, confidence logic and sending controlsW4Evaluation suite, fair-use checks and failure-mode testingW5Notice-system integration, pilot platforms and targeted correctionsW6One enforcement cycle run under the anti-piracy manager, then handover
Reading the bandEach bar covers only the weeks its work is named in. The week 5 overlap is real work, not padding.
At the end of W6The closing checks pass on live notices, and Agent Care takes monitoring on.
DurationSix-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.
