Monday, September 13, 2010

TorrentFreak Email Update

TorrentFreak Email Update


Top 10 Most Pirated Movies on BitTorrent

Posted: 13 Sep 2010 12:46 AM PDT

The top 10 most downloaded movies on BitTorrent, 'Iron Man 2' tops the chart this week, followed by 'Robin Hood'. 'The Expendables' completes the top three.

iron man 2This week there are four newcomers in the list. Iron Man 2 is the most downloaded movie on BitTorrent this week.

The data for our weekly download chart is collected by TorrentFreak, and is for informational and educational reference only. All the movies in the list are DVDrips unless stated otherwise.

RSS feed for the weekly movie download chart.

Week ending September 12, 2010
Ranking (last week) Movie Rating / Trailer
torrentfreak.com
1 (2) Iron Man 2 7.4 / trailer
2 (1) Robin Hood 7.0 / trailer
3 (3) The Expendables (DVDscr) 7.4 / trailer
4 (…) Frozen 6.7 / trailer
5 (3) Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time 6.9 / trailer
6 (…) Splice 6.4 / trailer
7 (9) Sex and the City 2 3.9 / trailer
8 (10) The Last Seven 3.7 / trailer
9 (4) Salt (R5) 6.7 / trailer
10 (7) MacGruber 5.8 / trailer

Article from: TorrentFreak.

Anti-Piracy Boss Denies DoS Attacks, Torrent Site Refutes Claim

Posted: 12 Sep 2010 01:54 PM PDT

Anti-piracy outfit AiPlex Software made the news last week when its boss was quoted in the press admitting that his company launched DoS attacks against uncooperative torrent sites. Although the reports and quotes were quite specific, the company is now trying to distance itself from the claims. However, correspondence obtained by TorrentFreak shows another side to these unorthodox Bollywood anti-piracy enforcers.

"When we detect a website offering a link or a download, we contact the server hosts and intimate them about the illegal activity. They issue a notice to the site owner," said AiPlex Software’s Girish Kumar a couple of weeks ago. "If the site owner does not comply, the site is either suspended or dismissed.

AiPlex, a company working for Bollywood studios and charging between $4,290 and $8,580 to protect a movie, go further than your average anti-piracy outfit when people don’t co-operate with them.

"The problem is with torrent sites, which usually do not oblige," said Kumar. "In such cases, we flood the website with requests, which results in database error, causing denial of service as each server has a fixed bandwidth capacity. At times, we have to go an extra mile and attack the site and destroy the data to stop the movie from circulating further.”

Understandably there’s a bit of a ‘wow factor’ associated with these claims, not least that carrying out DoS attacks against sites is a criminal offense in many countries around the world, even if you do happen to be working for the all-powerful movie industry.

Although TorrentFreak contacted AiPlex for a comment but never received a reply, others have had more luck. Last week AiPlex contacted the BitSnoop torrent site with a copyright takedown demand for a movie they are protecting on behalf of a studio. In their correspondence, BitSnoop took the opportunity to ask AiPlex about their unorthodox approach to dealing with uncooperative torrent sites. Surprisingly Managing Director Girish Kumar denied the claims.

“Our claim with the Editor [of the publication originally publishing his comments, article still online, unedited] was pointblank that we go an extra mile in identifying the IP addresses & other contact info of such illegal sites & pass such information to the production houses to pursue with the cyber crime police,” he told BitSnoop.

“Further if the govt. provides a permission to cyber police to attack such sites, Aiplex can help the cyber police in providing the technical inputs. That said, one of the common method one can bring down the site is DDOS attack is what was explained. This does not mean that we are doing such illegal activates while we are sending the copyright notices to Infringed sites.”

So given this statement it was quite interesting to speak with the admins at ICTorrent, a private Desi tracker mentioned specifically as an AiPlex target in the original article.

“This company has contacted us 100s of times in the past; None of their emails had a PROPER Copyright Infringement Notice,” TorrentFreak was told. Indeed, we saw copies of several emails where AiPlex demanded proactive action from ICTorrent to remove movie torrents that weren’t even on the site yet.

But scrappy takedown notices aside, what happened when ICTorrent failed to comply with AiPlex’s demands? Did they DoS the site or not?

“Yes, they have done it many times and failed,” an admin explained while showing us an email from AiPlex which stated simply: ict attack on. enjoy :)

“We have been dealing with this shit since Dec/2009 from them. We usually get attacked Thursday night till Sunday as this is our primetime to release PDVDs. They DDoS attacked us by sending 1 million requests from 10 to 100 IPs, we had to block all IPs. Our servers are installed with all modules so they will block automatically.”

“I have also made a call to the company and had talked to them to stop DDOS attacks,” an admin told us.

TorrentFreak was also shown a particularly surprising email exchange where a member of AiPlex’s staff asked for a copy of a movie due to him being “a die hard fan” of a particular Bollywood actor. ICTorrent refused the request and told him to download it from the site instead.

Another email clearly suggested that money could be made by both parties if an agreement was reached and ICTorrent was “helpful” with takedowns.

ICTorrent also showed TorrentFreak other documents which showed which movie company AiPlex were acting on behalf of, but asked us not to publish them. Yet.

Reading between the lines it seems that ICTorrent want to give AiPlex another opportunity to stop their DoS attacks.

Article from: TorrentFreak.

Sunday, September 12, 2010

TorrentFreak Email Update

TorrentFreak Email Update


Privacy Ruling Won’t Save Large Scale File-Sharers

Posted: 11 Sep 2010 12:54 PM PDT

This week a ruling from Switzerland's Federal Court said that an anti-piracy company broke privacy laws when they monitored file-sharers and then used the collected data to extract payments from alleged infringers. While some may think this gives a green light to file-sharers, those sharing large amounts of media should think again - the police might just start showing an interest.

This week an important ruling was handed down by the Swiss Federal Court. The majority of a panel of five judges decided that anti-piracy company Logistep breached Switzerland’s strict privacy laws when it monitored and gathered information on file-sharers.

The ruling, which is final and cannot be appealed, made clear that it is illegal to collect IP addresses in Switzerland with the aim of later filing a lawsuit. While Logistep said that this would make the country a safe-haven for pirates, things may not be quite as safe as some people imagine.

While obtaining evidence for civil lawsuits will be hugely problematic for private companies, the state can still take action against file-sharers. The police in Europe are only usually interested in file-sharers if they are deemed to be pirating media on a commercial scale or are committing other criminal offenses, and Switzerland is no different.

Just this week, Swiss police closed in on a woman who made available thousands of music tracks on the Internet. The 21 year-old is suspected of sharing more than 3,100 music tracks without the permission of copyright holders.

According to the police, the woman said that she had no commercial intentions and only downloaded the songs for her own personal use. However, the woman did not know that as well as just downloading music, by default her (unnamed) file-sharing software was also making the tracks available for upload.

As we’ve seen in recent cases in Sweden, sharing a few thousand tracks is certainly enough to get the authorities to take action – if, of course, they are pushed in the right direction by the likes of the IFPI in the first place.

Yet again, and in common with similar Swedish cases, this woman will have been using a ‘shared folder’ type application, possibly Direct Connect but more likely something like LimeWire or Bearshare. As we’ve pointed out here a dozen times on TorrentFreak, people using this type of software to share large quantities of music are a sitting duck for file-sharing investigators.

In the music sector piracy investigators aren’t interested in petty file-sharers, they want to be able to prove to the police that their target is big-time and worth pursuing with state resources. By sharing their entire music collections in these type of programs – often many thousands of tracks at a time – people are playing with fire.

People are drawn to ‘shared-folder’ P2P programs like LimeWire because they are easy to operate, but as illustrated above, that ease of use can come at a price. On the other hand (and as pointed out earlier by frustrated Swedish authorities), proving large scale infringement against a regular BitTorrent user is a much more complicated task, so much so that there have been no arrests to date. BitTorrent may have a steeper learning curve, but many will consider it to be worth it.

As anti-piracy groups digest what has happened in Switzerland this week, the focus may well shift away from private cases but anti-piracy actions won’t go away. Groups such as IFPI will not give in, but instead change the way they operate. Rather than chase file-sharers through the courts themselves, they will probably identify large scale infringers and get the police to do their work for them.

Article from: TorrentFreak.

Saturday, September 11, 2010

Rocketboom Daily Delivery!

Rocketboom Daily Delivery!

Link to Rocketboom Daily

Molly Reads the Dictionary

Posted: 10 Sep 2010 12:50 PM PDT

Molly reads the dictionary. You wanted to see this. Subscribe to our YouTube Channel for more Rocketboom Daily with Molly! Follow us on Twitter for the latest updates! Join us on Facebook for behind the scenes pics and videos!

This posting includes an audio/video/photo media file: Download Now

TorrentFreak Email Update

TorrentFreak Email Update


Vodafone Prohibits P2P Use for Broadband Customers

Posted: 11 Sep 2010 12:14 AM PDT

At a time where content producers are increasingly using peer-to-peer technology to distribute data, there are still Internet providers that wont allow such traffic on their networks. This type of discrimination is not limited to mobile or cellular networks either. In Ireland, Vodafone users are not permitted to use peer-to-peer services on their broadband connection.

vodafoneFor years the term peer-to-peer has been a synonym for piracy to most of the mainstream public. More recently, however, content distributers and websites such as Facebook and Twitter have become aware that it’s an ideal way to transfer data cheaply and efficiently.

One of the more notable usages of P2P-assisted downloads is that utilized by Blizzard’s hit game StarCraft 2 which went on sale a few weeks ago. All downloadable copies of this title have been distributed through Blizzard's BitTorrent downloader. With the custom downloader gamers download the full game and subsequent patches.

This type of peer-to-peer distribution service benefits both the consumer who gets faster downloads, and the distributer who saves on bandwidth costs. Unfortunately, however, not all Internet providers are happy with these types of transfers.

In the United States both Verizon and AT&T prohibit the use of peer-to-peer services on their wireless networks. Despite the large Net Neutrality lobby, nobody calls them out for it. But across the pond there are even worse examples. In Ireland, for example, broadband users with a monthly download limit of 300GB are still not allowed to use peer-to-peer transfers.

In the tariffs and price list for Vodafone, the second largest ISP in the country, there’s an unusual sentence at the bottom that prohibits the use of all P2P transfers, legitimate or illegitimate.

“The service may not be used for peer to peer data usage,” it reads.

To find out why this limitation is in place and what purpose it serves, TorrentFreak contacted the Irish ISP a few days ago. Unfortunately, the company failed to respond to us before publication. Meanwhile, customers of Vodafone have also taken notice of this unusual limitation. One TorrentFreak reader who has a Vodafone subscription asked his ISP whether there are any penalties for those who dare to use P2P, but this inquiry went unanswered as well.

Without an official comment we can only guess at the true reason behind Vodafone’s decision to prohibit certain types of traffic. What we do know is that Vodafone is currently negotiating with the music industry to install a three-strikes policy for repeated copyright infringers. However, banning all peer-to-peer traffic at once seems to go a bit far. Even the music industry would agree with that.

There is hope for Irish Vodafone customers though. While researching the issue we noticed that references to its peer-to-peer prohibition started to disappear from some parts of the Vodafone website. The text is still listed at the bottom of this page, but was removed recently from another section (Google cache September 3rd).

Perhaps Vodafone has silently responded to our inquiries and those of worried customers? That would be good news.

Article from: TorrentFreak.

The War Against Movie and TV Show Linking Websites

Posted: 10 Sep 2010 06:23 AM PDT

In June 2010, several well known websites that linked to movies and TV shows lost their domain names as the U.S. Government's 'Operation in Our Sites' bared its teeth. But the war against linking sites has been going on for some time, much of it off the mainstream radar, with site owners being hit by negative decisions and damages awards running to millions of dollars.

As part of a initiative cracking down on Internet piracy and counterfeiting, at the end of June U.S. Immigration and Customs and the Department of Justice took action against nine web portals suspected of linking to first-run movies. Seven sites had their domains seized – TVShack.net, Movies-Links.TV, FilesPump.com, Now-Movies.com, PlanetMoviez.com, ThePirateCity.org and ZML.com. Raids were also carried out against the popular NinjaVideo site.

But these were only the most recent steps taken by movie industry companies and their agents to take down such websites. Action against a significant number of others has been going on for some time. Several large linking websites operated by mostly U.S. citizens have been sued in recent times.

In this article we take a look at some of them, and the large damages awards ordered against operators. The summaries below are followed up with some analysis and the uneasy realization that although cases are being ‘lost’ all the time, the law remains untested.

Paramount Pictures / Universal Studios v Omegatube.com / Atomicmovies.com

These two sites were sued in December 2008. The studios got a court order and discovered the owners’ idenitities – they were Canadians. The studios could not discover any contact information for Pilippe Bruno and 9190-3864 Quebec Inc. The third defendant, Michaud, was served but did not respond to the studios’ letters or emails. Since Michaud did not reply but was served, he lost by default. In the end, the studios simply dismissed the lawsuit against all parties, most likely because the owners were not U.S. citizens.

Warner Bros. / Paramount Pictures v Movies-On-Demand.TV ( Began 2008)

Salman Haque, the owner of Movies-On-Demand.TV, entered negotiations with the studios. He pleaded guilty to contributory copyright infringement and agreed to pay 2.1 million USD to the studios. The trial ended in January 2010.

Warner Bros. / Paramount Pictures v Watch-movies-online.tv (Began 2008)

‘Vladimir Kramskoy’ lost by default, since no one was able to discover his true identity. Assumed to be in Russia. Studios did nothing, trial ends 2010.

Universal City Studios v VideoHybrid.com (Began 2007)

Defendants engaged in contributory copyright infringement and inducement of copyright infringement by identifying, organizing, and indexing on the website (www.videohybrid.com) links to infringing material, which had been posted on third-party websites. Defendant was found liable for damages of $1,075,000.

Disney v FOMDB.com (Began 2008)

Defendant found liable for damages totaling $300,000.

Universal City Studios Productions LLLP et al v. YouTVpc.com et al (Began 2007)

Defendants Billy Duran and Sam Martinez lost their case by not defending themselves. They were ordered to pay statutory damages of $875,000.00, attorneys fees of $21,100.00 and plaintiff’s costs of $6,017.17.

Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc. et al v. Nabolister.com et al

Based on Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc. and Disney Enterprises, Inc.'s Notice of Voluntary Dismissal, which was filed on February 22, 2010, the Court dismissed the case without prejudice. Owners were Canadians, and later closed the site.

Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc. et al v. Peekvid.com et al

The MPAA hired private investigators who presented testimony in the trial. Defendant Frank Meadows represented himself, did not have a lawyer and was unable to defend his point of view. A Default Judgment was issued against Peekvid. Frank Meadows was found liable for damages totaling $2,500,000.

Disney Enterprises, Inc. et al v. 66Stage.com et al

Defendants were found liable for damages to the studios of $500,000 after a ‘consent judgment’. This meant that both parties agreed to settle without a trial.

Discussion

All lawsuits listed above called for the determination of the same question of law. Each lawsuit involved claims of “contributory copyright infringement” because the owners of the sites provide links to copyrighted TV shows or movies.

Initially, studios do not know who owns a site so they obtain a court order to find out. This is an action that cannot take more than 60-90 days. If they fail to identify and serve the owners, the lawsuit will be dismissed due to lack of prosecution. After the owners are discovered, they are added to the lawsuit.

All of the cases that had a favorable outcome for the studios involved US citizens who operated the sites in the US. The lawsuits against websites with Canadian owners were dismissed voluntarily by the studios.

In all of the cases presented, the websites lost by default judgment or they decided to settle in favor of the studios in order to avoid a lawsuit. This means that a crucial question of law remains unanswered:

Is it contributory copyright infringement to provide links to copyrighted content?

There are many facets to this question but all remain unanswered because a full trial did not take place. Among the faces and facets of this question are;

Is it infringement if:

- You link to copyrighted content but you don’t know it’s copyrighted?
- You operate a search engine which links to vast content, some copyrighted? (Google says no!)
- If you use and apply all the directions of the DMCA?

Furthermore, how do the safe harbors for Search Engines apply in such cases? (see OCCILA)

The problem is very complex and we still have no answer even in the US, the most litigious country and the spearhead of copyright/intellectual property law. Instead, new questions have to be answered.

How are ICE/US Customs able to seize domain names when there is no legal precedent and no judgment (even in the US) on the legality of such websites? This seems more like an abuse of power. Also, why is a taxpayer-funded institution serving the interests of private industry and studios?

An interesting side note is that the UK site TV-Links.co.uk was sued in UK and won it’s lengthy trial. This would set a precedent at least in the UK/European Union that in some conditions, these website owners do not do anything illegal. In relation to Section 17 of the European Commerce Directive 2000, TV-Links was a conduit of information and was afforded a complete defense in criminal proceedings for linking to other websites.

Despite extensive legal action, the question of legality of linking websites in the United States still remains unanswered.

This was a guest post from Searchfreek, a keen observer of developing linking sites and law. Editing by TorrentFreak.

Article from: TorrentFreak.