TorrentFreak Email Update |
- Lawyer: BREIN Anti-Piracy Spy Uploaded Pirated Movie To Usenet
- Pirate Party Leader and Anti-Piracy Boss Clash in Twitter Fight
- Police Repeat OiNK Mistake, Mulve Accusation “Conspiracy To Defraud”
- Pirate Bay Prosecution Calls for Jail Time and Damages
- Pirate Bay Appeal Day 6: Is Piracy Hurting Music Sales?
| Lawyer: BREIN Anti-Piracy Spy Uploaded Pirated Movie To Usenet Posted: 13 Oct 2010 02:26 PM PDT In the legal battle between Usenet community FTD and Dutch anti-piracy group BREIN, some controversial allegations have been made. There are claims that not only did BREIN have as many as 15 undercover investigators working at FTD masquerading as regular users, but one of them - allegedly a direct BREIN employee - actually uploaded a 'pirate' movie to Usenet and posted its whereabouts on the site. In the Court of Haarlem last week, Dutch anti-piracy group BREIN began its face-off with the operators of Usenet community FTD in the hearing of their long-standing copyright dispute. According to BREIN, FTD is a service which allows users to illegally download movies, TV shows and music. Interestingly, the anti-piracy outfit also claimed in court proceedings that FTD facilitates uploading. This somewhat unusual accusation is made on the basis that ‘spots’ – reports made by FTD users which indicate where material may be found on Usenet – are made by people who also upload the material to Usenet and not innocent third parties that just happen to see material there. In their defense, FTD argues that they are a community for spotters, who under Dutch law may download legally and hence should be entitled to point out the location of material on Usenet. FTD insists that their users do not upload material to Usenet, but this assumption is now being tested since FTD didn’t count on ‘piracy’ being carried out by some special users in its community who were actually working for those they now face in court – BREIN. It appears that the Dutch anti-piracy group had as many as 15 undercover investigators operating inside FTD, working as any regular members might by ‘spotting’ media. BREIN’s Tim Kuik admits that these people were on the site but insists they were there to observe how the service operates. However, according to FTD lawyer Arnoud Engelfriet, things went a significant step further. “Some interesting items have come to light. Most notably, the anti-piracy outfit actually posted a movie on Usenet in order to ‘spot’ it on FTD so as to claim this kind of thing happens on FTD,” Engelfriet told TorrentFreak. The claims center around one particular ‘spy’ who went by the username of ‘NieZoekeNie’. FTD logged this user’s IP address and following checks it was traced back to an IP owned by BREIN. FTD say that the ‘NieZoekeNie’ account was operated by Mr Van Habraken, a BREIN employee. According to site records, NieZoekeNie ‘spotted’ a movie on Usenet – Laurel and Hardy’s ‘Big’ – and reported it on FTD. However, as can be seen from the screenshot below and an actual Usenet search, a user with the very same name also uploaded the movie to Usenet.  Staff also discovered that the same IP address used by NieZoekeNie was in use on three other user accounts on FTD – hackstatic, BamBamIam and Gab2009. The first two of this trio – hackstatic and BamBamIam – were confirmed in court as anti-piracy operatives when BREIN provided screenshots of FTD ‘in action’ but neglected to blank out the names of user accounts they used to gather the evidence.  While it could be considered a coincidence that a username associated with a Usenet movie upload could be ‘spotted’ by a different individual that just happened to be utilizing the same name, it raises an interesting issue. BREIN earlier matched some FTD usernames with those used by some Usenet uploaders and has presented that information as ‘proof’ that they are the same people. That particular evidential knife seems to cut both ways, but BREIN boss Tim Kuik is having none of it. “No this is nonsense. FTD appears to be trying to draw attention away from its own dubious and illegal activity with irrelevant and spurious allegations,” he told TorrentFreak earlier this evening. “We have not nor will ever illegally upload any content. This is totally irrelevant for the case just like the previous story about putting an NZB button or torrent search function on the BREIN site. The issue at hand and before the court is the dubious and illegal activity of FTD. These allegations actually serve as a further example of FTD’s deliberate obfuscation.” A decision in the case is expected during November. Article from: TorrentFreak. |
| Pirate Party Leader and Anti-Piracy Boss Clash in Twitter Fight Posted: 13 Oct 2010 01:00 PM PDT Twitter can be a great tool to keep friends and total strangers updated on your life, to gather support for a cause or to pass on interesting content. However, as became apparent yesterday, the micro-blogging service is also an excellent medium for a fight off between people on different sides of the 'war on piracy'. By now we assume that most of our readers are familiar with BREIN, the Dutch anti-piracy organization that purged well over a thousand torrent sites from the Internet and single-handedly brought Mininova to its knees. Think what you want of them, but unlike their counterparts at IFPI they are at least willing to comment to TorrentFreak and others skeptical of their anti-piracy actions. On the opposing side of the war on piracy we have groups like The Pirate Party. The political outfit has its roots in Sweden but is active in more than 30 countries worldwide, including BREIN’s home The Netherlands where it participated in the general elections earlier this year without success. The Dutch Pirate Party is headed by Samir Allioui who formerly led Pirate Party International, an umbrella organization for all Pirate parties worldwide. As is his job, Allioui carefully watches the local media for piracy related discussions and he’s not too shy to respond to writings he doesn’t approve of. So, when the Dutch newspaper De Pers published a column detailing why sharing copyrighted movies and music is wrong, he was quick to respond with a rebuttal piece. On Twitter, he alerted BREIN’s head Tim Kuik to his article, since Kuik had plugged the original piece a few hours earlier. This tweet was the start of an interesting conversation between the two, starting with the following response from Tim Kuik. TimKuik: @SamirAllioui ehh, let me think…it’s hard…added a nice drawing…bullshit?…yeah that’s it .. bullshit!” Kuik’s tweet (translated)SamirAllioui: @TimKuik Good to know you don’t have any arguments against it content wise :) TimKuik: @SamirAllioui ouch, you are so sharp, no wonder you’ve won so many seats, but now I am going back to serious issues SamirAllioui: @TimKuik The Greens were not taken seriously either. But what they’ve done in 30 years, the Pirates did in 4 years. Time will tell. TimKuik: @SamirAllioui But Samir … I believe you even applied for a job with us This last tweet of Kuik doesn’t make much sense. TorrentFreak asked Allioui if he has any clue what BREIN’s boss is referring to, but he drew a blank as well. Our best guess is that Kuik is jokingly referring to Allioui’s byline, where he says he’s doing freelance work as a ‘information security’ expert. We also asked Tim for clarification and are awaiting a response. After the last tweet the conversation moved on to other accusations. Allioui indirectly accuses BREIN of rent seeking and abusing the legal system in favor of the entertainment industry. Kuik obviously sees things differently and says they only ask the courts to uphold the law. After some tweets back and forth and a good night sleep (to sober up?) the discussion ended this morning. TimKuik: @SamirAllioui well, I’ve had enough fun with the Claptrap Party, I’m going back to real work Claptrap in Dutch is ‘prietpraat’ which is phonetically close to ‘piet piraat’, a Dutch/Belgian kids show about a pirate. It’s needless to say that both sides don’t have much respect for the opinion of the other, but it’s remarkable that they fought this out in public on Twitter. There seems to be quite a bit of unvented frustration that needed to be released. However, they can throw as much mud as they want but it is unthinkable that they’ll come even an inch closer to agreeing. Article from: TorrentFreak. |
| Police Repeat OiNK Mistake, Mulve Accusation “Conspiracy To Defraud” Posted: 12 Oct 2010 01:30 PM PDT After last week's shock news that police had arrested an individual connected with the Mulve music software, we can now confirm that the grounds - as with the failed OiNK case - are Conspiracy to Defraud. As we try to understand this decision we speak at length with Mulve's programmer, but his revelations only support the notion that something has gone badly wrong with this investigation. In the meantime, Mulve alternatives are hitting the web.
Although it had been around for a few months, this ‘second coming’ of Mulve was very well received and it was covered by dozens of news outlets. Last week, however, things turned sour. TorrentFreak learned that police in the UK had arrested an individual in connection with the application and it was made very clear to us immediately – Mulve would never, ever be coming back. Clearly someone had put the fear of God into those behind the software. We can now reveal exactly where that fear came from. In common with the case against OiNK admin Alan Ellis, the arrest was made not on copyright issues, but on grounds of Conspiracy to Defraud. After the case against Ellis ended in complete failure, the police – who had undoubtedly been prompted into action by the Big Four record labels – had unbelievably chosen to go with the same accusation against Mulve. But, as we will read, on even more tenuous grounds. To understand exactly how fragile the accusations are, TorrentFreak has been speaking with ‘ms3arch’, a programmer who wrote a very interesting piece of code two years ago. The relevance of this open source work will soon become clear.
“I did not like the interface of Vkontakte. It was too simplistic for me. So I created a different interface to it. At first it was single-threaded and really slow, but then I evolved it.” Up until this year, the code created by ms3arch had a hardcoded login and password for Vkontakte (VK). However, once logged in it acquired a cookie from VK which actually didn’t expire for a year, so all further access to the site could be achieved by using that cookie. When operating the software, users could carry out a search which went off in the form of an HTTP request to VK’s on-site search. The results that it returned were sent back to the software and displayed for the user. Further code enabled the software to work out the bitrate of the track and a link where it can be found on VK. Then in 2010, ms3arch’s code was rebranded and Mulve was born. Along with this change came a modification to the code. Every VK account has a limit on the amount of music that can be searched for, so rather than having a single hard-coded user account buried inside the application, a server was set up containing the login details for around 1,000 previously acquired VK accounts. “So basically, the Mulve client connected to the central server and fetched login details from it,” ms3arch explained. “If any login was invalid, and the client could not log in using those details, it told the server and received a new login. After 15 reports the account was blacklisted and taken out of the loop. However, if before those 15 tries accumulated another client was able to login with the same details, then the re-try count was reset, making the system abuse-resistant.” So at this point, let’s just recap a few key facts. 1) Mulve nor its almost identical predecessor ever hosted in any music And yet the police, almost certainly prompted by the BPI with the backing of IFPI, went on to arrest a man in the UK last week (we will call him John for the moment) on suspicion of Conspiracy to Defraud. “I am the sole author of the program. John has never even seen the source code, neither does he know how to program,” ms3arch told TorrentFreak. “The reason they went for John was because the domain was in his name for 1 day.” Ms3arch told us that he had considered telling this story using his real name, but decided against it – for now at least. “Instead, I decided to add a cryptic entry to Facebook (if you look at the last one, you will see a SHA1 hash there at the end). Only I know how [to access] that cryptic entry, and if I ever need to use the ‘fame’ received from Mulve, I can.” So what, if anything, is John guilty of? Well it seems that he made the tutorial video and registered the Mulve domain name to show a piece of software that isn’t even a search engine, but merely an alternative interface for one aspect of one of the world’s biggest social networking sites. John, who is understandably extremely upset, told TorrentFreak that Mulve had hoped to partner with Thumbplay and use the app’s popularity to help new artists get discovered. Instead, John faces charges of Conspiracy to Defraud and that dream lies in shreds. Did the BPI, IFPI and the police learn anything after filing exactly the same charges against Alan Ellis of OiNK and failing miserably? Can they not see that this case is hugely weaker? Mulve isn’t even a search engine, it’s an interface for a search engine! Let’s just hope that the Crown Prosecution Service, who will decide whether to take this case to court, will see some sense. If the music industry had left Mulve alone, with zero marketing budget the app would’ve probably bounced along largely under the mainstream radar, but instead they have succeeded in attracting even more attention it to. The outcome is predictable. Today, FileShareFreak brings news that Mulve has been resurrected in at least two different ways. PirateAppWe haven’t tested PirateApp or Mulve Phoenix, but something we have been playing with is a rather handy plug in for Firefox. After installing the VKontakte.ru Downloader and spending 5 mins making an account at VK.com, you’re ready to go. Simply click in the ‘Search’ box at the top of the page and choose “by audio file” from the drop down box.
TorrentFreak recommends using these tools to find music on VK that isn’t on IFPI, BPI and RIAA labels. One, we don’t want to be the next people subjected to baseless accusations of Conspiracy to Defraud, and two, because there is quality musical life beyond the Big Four if only people would take the time to look for it. Article from: TorrentFreak. |
| Pirate Bay Prosecution Calls for Jail Time and Damages Posted: 12 Oct 2010 07:51 AM PDT The Pirate Bay appeal is nearly coming to an end as we enter the 7th day. Today the prosecution has been giving the court its closing arguments. Håkan Roswall, Peter Danowsky, Henrik Pontén and Monique Wadsted all appeared. The prosecution called for jail time and substantial damages to cover the losses the entertainment industries claim to have suffered due to the operations of the world's most famous torrent site.
Today, during the second to last hearing at at the Appeal Court, the trial went over to live action again as the prosecution made its final pleas. Members of the prosecution and representatives for the music and movie industries presented their closing statements to the court. Prosecutor Håkan Roswall stepped up first, claiming that the evidence against the four defendants is now even stronger than before. He further laid out why each of the defendants had been actively involved in the operation, maintenance or financing of the site. The prosecutor said that both Fredrik Neij and Gottfrid Svartholm have admitted their role in the operation, but there’s also strong evidence that the other two defendants are complicit. Roswall doesn't believe Peter Sunde's statements that he was just the site's spokesman. He said that Peter was deeply involved, referring to claims that Peter worked on technical issues for the site. In addition the prosecutor noted that advertiser Daniel Oded communicated with Fredrik and Gottfrid through Peter. Roswall also said that Peter helped to design and develop the site and had contact with some advertisers. Lundstrom was also actively involved according to the prosecutor. Some computers that were found during the raid on The Pirate Bay were bought by Lundstrom’s company Rix Telecom, Rosswall said. In addition he claimed that there were other financial ties, including those to the Israeli advertiser Daniel Oded. Lundstrom also gave business advice and operational suggestions to the other defendants. Roswall further argued that the E-Commerce Directive doesn’t apply to The Pirate Bay because it’s not simply transmitting data like an ISP does. The Pirate Bay is actually involved in the communication between downloaders, he said. The prosecutor compared the site to an electronic bulletin board where users and moderators interact with each other, which would not fall under the directive. Concluding his final arguments Roswall demanded jail sentences for all four defendants. "The correct punishment is a year in prison," he said. Next up to make his closing statement was Peter Danowsky of the IFPI. He began by saying that the music labels want more compensation than the amount awarded to them by the District Court. The margin of error that the District Court applied to the Pirate Bay’s download counters resulted in less damages than the record companies are entitled to, Danowsky argued. Danowsky further suggested a compensation of 6.5 Euro per downloaded album, which means that every download is counted as a lost sale. In addition, he wants the recording industry to be compensated for the damage The Pirate Bay has cost the music industry in general. Danowsky went on to state that The Pirate Bay offers a service that is very similar to that offered by legal online music stores. However, the site doesn't charge for the music and keeps the advertizing revenue to themselves instead of compensating the rights holders. Physical piracy is exactly the same as illicit file-sharing according to the music industry lawyer, it simply utilizes newer technology. Danowsky went on to note that The Pirate Bay was founded with only one (ideological) purpose: "Not to respect copyright." Next, Danowsky stressed a slightly contradicting statement that The Pirate Bay is strictly a commercial operation. Comparing The Pirate Bay to Google doesn't make any sense according to Danowsky, because Google works with the rights holders to prevent piracy. The Pirate Bay on the other hand constantly mocks rights holders and does not cooperate with takedown requests, he said. After the lunch break Henrik Pontén made his final plea. Pontén claimed that The Pirate Bay clearly operated as a business, making money from advertising revenue. “It was probably Sweden’s best-known brand at the time,” he said. He argued that the defendants deserve a prison sentence because they “need a reboot” after their criminal activities. Pontén continued saying that imprisonment will also deter others from starting similar sites. He claimed that this effect already became apparent after the District Court verdict. The damages claim should cover the loss in revenue for the entertainment industry, as well as the damage in goodwill that the site has caused, Pontén noted. The police can't possibly go after all The Pirate Bay users and the defendants are therefore responsible for the whole damage claim, he further argued. Finally Monique Wadsted took the stand for her closing comments. She said that the defendants were running a massive copyright infringement operation. The purpose of the site and tracker was to attract as many users as possible, and turn this traffic into a profit, Wadsted added. Wadsted further elaborated on the role each of the defendants played in the site’s operation, and why they should be held accountable for the copyright infringements that were committed by the site’s users. The defendants willingly damaged the movie industry, she argued. Siding with the prosecutor, Wadsted said that the E-Commerce Directive doesn’t apply to The Pirate Bay, since the site isn’t fully automated and passive. The Pirate Bay has added categories to make it easier to index files, users can add comments, and moderators actively remove files, she said. After having laid out the details of the damages requested by the movie companies, Wadsted added that the total sum of their request is not excessive. “This is about an intentional crime committed by adult men,” she noted. That concluded the day, the appeal will continue on Friday with the final arguments of the defense. Article from: TorrentFreak. |
| Pirate Bay Appeal Day 6: Is Piracy Hurting Music Sales? Posted: 11 Oct 2010 10:40 AM PDT Day 6 of The Pirate Bay appeal mostly dealt with the question of whether piracy is doing any financial damage to the music industry. Ludwig Werner of the IFPI and Universal Music's Per Sundin both claimed it is, while media professor Roger Wallis informed the court that file-sharing is actually beneficial to the artists.
The day started off with presentations by Ludwig Werner of IFPI Sweden and the CEO of Universal Music Per Sundin, who talked about the damage The Pirate Bay has done to the music industry. Kristoffer Schollin from Gothenburg University then discussed BitTorrent and was followed by media professor Roger Wallis who informed the court about the effect of music piracy on sales. Due to the fact that some sensitive information was discussed today, the Appeal Court did not make any audio feeds available. This means that our report is based solely on information from people who were present at the hearing, and recordings from the hearings at the District Court last year. Ludwig Werner of IFPI Sweden was the first to take the stand. Most questions to him dealt with the amount of damages the entertainment industry suffered, with the defense questioning whether or not the figures presented by the entertainment industry are justified. Werner said that music sales declined in 2002 and 2003 and that illegal file-sharing was the main reason for the decline in sales in recent years. He further confirmed that artists are allowed to upload their own music to the Pirate Bay if their contracts permits them to do so. Werner’s questioning was followed by the hearing of Per Sundin, the CEO of Universal Music. Again, this was a recorded hearing of the questioning that took place during the 2009 trial. When Per Sundin was asked whether the decline in sales could be fully attributed to illegal filesharing, he said yes. Sundin went even further and claimed that 50% of the loss in sales the music industry has suffered can be linked to The Pirate Bay. He had to admit, however, that he has no evidence to back these claims up. "It is what they see and experience every day," Sundin said. Sunde vs. Sundin (taken last year)Sundin’s hearing was followed by that of Kristoffer Schollin, who spoke via telephone from Gothenburg University. Schollin was interviewed about the technology behind The Pirate Bay, and BitTorrent in general. Schollin explained that he is a lecturer in IT law with a particular interest in file-sharing and has written a paper on Digital Rights Management (DRM). He also made a special witness report for the Court. Answering questions from the defense, Schollin explained that .torrent files are a more sophisticated type of Internet link (such as an http hyperlink) and that The Pirate Bay is an "open database" of .torrent files. Several large companies are using BitTorrent technology said Schollin, including Blizzard who use it for World of Warcraft. When asked about TPB specifically, Schollin noted that the site is essentially a BBS (Bulletin Board) for .torrent files, attached to a forum for debate. He was also asked, in his opinion, if TPB is illegal. "That's for the court to decide," he said, while noting that the technology behind the site is not illegal in any way. When asked about the type of content indexed on TPB, Schollin said: "My God, everything," noting that both copyright and copyright-free material can be found. When speaking with Carl Lundstrom's lawyer Per E Samuelsson, Schollin admitted that while searching for .torrents via Google (using Harry Potter as an example) more results could be found than with TPB's search alone. Indeed, said Schollin, EU law documents are easier for him to find via Google than they are on the EU's own website. Touching again on the issue of exactly whose tracker is used when a torrent file is activated, Schollin said that just because a .torrent is available on TPB, it doesn't automatically follow that the file uses TPB's tracker. Schollin went on to explain how to make a .torrent file which links to content. He said that in the creation stage, it doesn't even require an Internet connection and everything is done on the user's PC with a torrent client, not on TPB. Once created the .torrent file could then be uploaded on to the Internet. It would then be indexed by Google, which then allows anyone to access the .torrent via a Google search. Then it was Prosecutor Håkan Roswall's turn to question Schollin. He put it to Schollin that kudos could be achieved in file-sharing circles if an individual put pre-release material up on the Internet, a point with which Schollin agreed. Next up to question Schollin was Monique Wadsted, representing the movie companies. She asked Schollin if he had heard the rumor that 40% of the Internet's traffic is down to TPB. Schollin said this was incorrect and it was more likely that they were responsible for 40% of all BitTorrent traffic. Wadsted then put it to Schollin that 50% of all the world's .torrent files sit on TPB, and he denied this amount too, but recognized that there would be a significant number. Schollin was then asked by the defense if he believed that TPB has a role in transmitting communications on the Internet. Schollin agreed it did. When asked if TPB might be considered a 'service provider' under the law, he said that was for the Court to decide. Up next was the District Court recording of Roger Wallis. Wallis is a media professor, composer and Chairman of the Swedish Composers of Popular Music and is involved in other outfits dedicated to the rights of musicians. However, Wallis previously said that he did not see the difference between TPB and other search engines such as Google and has criticized the music industry for being too slow in adopting technology. Speaking with Peter Altin (Peter Sunde's lawyer), Wallis said he specializes in developing the music industry on the Internet and because of this some have incorrectly drawn the assumption that he works for the industry – he doesn't. Wallis referred to a report he wrote which detailed the music industry's approach to digital technology. He said there were elements who would do anything to smother it, referring to the backlash against cassette tapes in the 1970′s. Mr. Wallis and his wife, who received hundreds of flowers from Pirate Bay supporters.Altin asked Wallis if there is any connection between illicit downloads and lost sales in the music industry. Contradicting the opinion of John Kennedy of the IFPI in his testimony yesterday, Wallis said that downloading caused an increase in sales of live event tickets and although there has been a reduction in CD sales, this won't continue. Wallis went on to explain that while some people download, these people also tend to buy more CDs than others that don't. It's not just downloading causing competition for the industry, other things have an effect such as the growth of computer games, he said. Wallis believes the music industry is shooting itself in the foot by going after file-sharers, for the reasons mentioned in the previous paragraph. He said that on the whole, file-sharing is beneficial to the music and movie industries, while pointing out that the movie industry just had its most successful year ever. But the music industry doesn't help itself he argues. Anyone who has bought a Beatles single in the past, simply cannot buy the same single in the digital domain due to licensing issues. "This is madness," he said. Next up to question Wallis was IFPI’s Peter Danowsky, who immediately started to annoy him by questioning his credentials. Danowsky mused if Wallis was even a proper professor, while disputing the year when Wallis qualified as such, calling him into doubt and criticizing him. "Have you no better questions to ask?" Wallis replied, reportedly visibly annoyed. Media professor Roger Wallis was then questioned by Henrik Pontén from Sweden's Anti-Piracy Office. Pontén continued where Danowsky left off and asked the professor if he could elaborate a bit more on how he acquired his title. "Can you use Google? Wallis replied. "Then you could easily find my CV," he added, and the Court agreed with his assessment that they have already been over this. Pontén then showed some graphs from a study that showed that 18% of those who download copyrighted music buy less, while only 8% buy more. These figures caused some confusion in Court, and Wallis responded by saying that they do not correspond with his findings. "I believe that it has no relevance," Wallis added. The prosecution asked some more questions about the contradicting results of the other study, but Wallis didn’t want to go into it. That concluded the day, the trial continues tomorrow. Article from: TorrentFreak. |
Last month, what first appeared to be a relatively new music downloading application burst onto the scene. Mulve carried no music of its own, but instead allowed users to make their own searches and download material from servers owned by Russia's biggest social networking site, Vkontakte.
“In 2008, I found out that Vkontakte had this huge database of music, and that most Internet-savvy Russians no longer download music, they just stream using Vkontakte,” ms3arch told TorrentFreak.
All search results will be displayed with the usual ‘play’ icon for streaming and right next to that will be a new icon. Press that and the chosen track is downloaded. It really is that simple and absolutely no Mulve in sight.
Up until today most of the hearings during the Pirate Bay appeal were simply copied from last year’s District Court hearings. Although this is somewhat ironic considering the topic at hand, the proceedings did not bring much new information, let alone the spectacle that evolved last year.
| You are subscribed to email updates from TorrentFreak To stop receiving these emails, you may unsubscribe now. | Email delivery powered by Google |
| Google Inc., 20 West Kinzie, Chicago IL USA 60610 | |
No comments:
Post a Comment