Archive for March, 2011

Wolverine Uploader Pleads Guilty, Set to See Out 2011 in Jail

In 2009 an unfinished copy of the latest in the X-Men movie series hit the Internet. The controversy was unprecedented and as expected the leak has since been thoroughly milked by Hollywood, who even referencing it in a failed case against a BitTorrent tracker. As the claimed original uploader now officially pleads guilty, he faces seeing out 2011 in jail. But after months of FBI investigations, unsurprisingly, no one else faces any charges.

Image is Loading....By now the beginning of the Wolverine leak story is a well-worn tale. In April 2009 an unfinished ‘workprint’ copy of the movie appeared online and spread like wild fire, a month before it was due its official release.

Not surprisingly, Fox – the studio behind the production – went ballistic. The villain behind this crime would be made to pay dearly, they vowed.

Eventually the accusatory fingers began pointing at Gilberto Sanchez, a glass installer and musician from The Bronx. The now 48-year-old said he bought the movie for $5 from a Korean in the street. For the hell of it and against the advice of his friends, he then uploaded it to MegaUpload. A couple of weeks later the FBI turned up and by December 2009 Sanchez was under arrest.

So here we are, exactly 2 years to the day that Sanchez made his somewhat fateful ‘mega upload’ to MegaUpload (the FBI say he also posted two links to the file on public sites), and as expected he has kept his word by pleading guilty.

According to the FBI, Sanchez has admitted to “one count of uploading a copyrighted work being prepared for commercial distribution.” This felony charge carries a statutory maximum penalty of three years in federal prison. It could also be accompanied by “a $250,000 fine or twice the gross gain or gross loss attributable to the offense, whichever is greater.”

But while it took the FBI a matter of hours to arrest the people who uploaded a workprint of Star Wars Episode III after it was leaked in 2005, it took two weeks to track down Sanchez and a whole 8 months to arrest him. What the FBI were doing in that two-thirds of a year is anyone’s guess, but one might presume that given 20th Century Fox’s vow to prosecute to the fullest extent of the law “the source of the initial leak and any subsequent postings” that might provide a clue.

Yet Sanchez is the only person to be facing charges and he falls into neither category.

The post-production studio from where the workprint copy leaked would have been incredibly easy for the FBI to identify – even more so than Sanchez himself – yet they have never even been mentioned. Indeed, someone there must’ve been directly responsible for leaking the movie out (in Fox’s terminology “the source of the initial leak”) but there have been no arrests.

Unsurprisingly, though, the studios didn’t miss the opportunity to try and punish those allegedly making “subsequent postings” of Wolverine. The administrators of FileSoup were charged with conspiracy to infringe copyright on the movie but were recently acquitted.

It now seems almost inevitable that Sanchez will go to jail following his sentencing by United States District Judge Margaret M. Morrow on September 19th this year. However, the movie industry source of the initial leak can sit comfortably, safe in the knowledge that his or her paymasters rarely seek to punish their own.

They have a certain image to maintain.

Read

Prominent Torrent Site ‘Scamvertiser’ Calls It Quits

Those in the entertainment industries would have people believe that it’s impossible to compete with ‘free’, that if someone offers something for nothing then charging a fee for the same product becomes hugely difficult. But for years companies have made a business out of doing just that, selling access to otherwise free file-sharing software. However, with little to no explanation, one of the market leaders has suddenly shut down, cutting off funding to many file-sharing related sites.

Upon double-clicking the familiar white and green ‘micro’ icon, millions of users of the massively popular uTorrent client are greeted by a now-familiar message.

“This program is freeware,” says the notice. “If you paid for it you have been scammed.” uTorrent is indeed freeware, but over the years untold thousands of people new to file-sharing have handed over money to companies selling this otherwise free software. So why do people fall for it?

 

Image is Loading....The practice has been going on for many years and has taken on quite a few shapes during that time, but in basic terms this is how it works. People turn up at a flashy looking site which offers “Free Downloads! Free Music! Free Movies!” and after clicking through various links they discover that a “membership” is on offer.

However, after signing up for a few dollars (ostensibly for access to the free media) users find themselves directed to downloads of software like uTorrent or, as was the case for many years, apps like LimeWire, Shareaza, BearShare, WarezP2P and Soulseek. Many customers also found themselves the proud owner of dubious ‘anti-spyware’ software.

Once people discover they have bought freeware, they tend to shout loudly about being scammed. Indeed, in the early days there could have been little doubt that was the case, but in more recent times these companies have become more sophisticated with their offerings, often portraying the charge they make as being not for the file-sharing app itself, but for subsequent customer support or ‘training’. Many potential file-sharers, it seems, don’t read the small print.

For YottaCash – one of the biggest companies in this market – these relatively ignorant file-sharing ‘n00bs’ have been the source of significant amounts of money over the years. YottaCash has been running much of its business through affiliate programs and, since it likes to attract file-sharers, what better place to find them than on file-sharing sites and forums?

As a result, many genuine file-sharing sites collected good income from their affiliation with YottaCash, and vice-versa. As can be seen from this screenshot from the archive of the YottaCash website, converting a single user to a sale could yield very decent revenue.

Image is Loading.....

But for the owners of YottaCash and their affiliates, all ‘good’ things come to an end.

“We have taken the important and unfortunate business decision to shut down our services and DISCONTINUE ALL related products and affiliate programs,” began the announcement from YottaCash last week.

“We are unable to continue offering the level of service that our customers are expecting and it has become impossible to verify all the links and promises posted by our affiliate traffic sites.”

An additional part of the announcement, which appears to have since been removed, read as follows:

“Recent events, changes as well as challenges in the online landscape are forcing us to take this drastic & regrettable decision.”

No further explanation for the sudden closure has been offered by YottaCash in public or in private but it’s hard to come to a conclusion that selling free products suddenly became an unprofitable business in itself. Other factors are at play here but what exactly remains to be seen.

It will be interesting to see how the other players in the market react and adapt as they quickly (and probably very easily) take up the slack. But are there people left on the Internet these days who are incapable of using the wisdom of Google before handing over cash to companies like this in future?

Yes, of course there are. Absolutely millions of them.

Read

Movie Studio Sues BitTorrent Swarm in Civil Conspiracy Suit

As the dozens of mass-lawsuits against BitTorrent users move through the U.S. courts, lawyers are slowly optimizing their strategies. This week an interesting case was filed at the Southern California District Court, as the movie studio Liberty Media filed a lawsuit against a BitTorrent swarm, “Swarm of November 16, 2010″ to be precise.

Image is Loading....The movie outfit Liberty Media has been very active in going after alleged BitTorrent users in recent months.

In January we reported that the studio wanted file-sharers to hand themselves in and pay $1000, an ‘amnesty’ scheme that mysteriously appeared to work. In addition, the company has started over a dozen (mass) lawsuits against thousands of BitTorrent users who allegedly shared their content without permission.

In a recent case filed on Monday, Liberty Media and their lawyer tried something new. Instead of simply joining the various defendants in one suit, the company is actually suing a BitTorrent swarm in the case tiled: “Liberty Media Holdings, LLC v. Swarm of November 16, 2010 et al.”

In the complaint they explain:

Image is Loading....“The defendants are a group of BitTorrent users or peers whose computers are collectively interconnected for the sharing of a unique file, otherwise known as a ‘swarm’. The particular file a BitTorrent swarm is associated with has a unique hash,” Liberty Media’s lawyer writes.

“The torrent swarm in this case is not an actual entity, but is rather made up of at least 95 individuals, acting in concert with each other, to achieve the common goal of infringing upon the Plaintiff’s copyright both by illegally duplicating the Plaintiff’s Motion Picture and illegally distributing the Plaintiff’s Motion Picture.”

The lawyers then continue with a very detailed reconstruction of how the swarm came about. For every defendant they list the IP-address and the exact time when they joined the swarm. As the title of the case already suggests, all infringements took place on the same day – November 16, 2010.

Liberty Media’s lawyer then continues the complaint by describing how BitTorrent works, and how the alleged defendants worked together to distribute the files. Not only for their own pleasure, but also to the benefit of the entire swarm.

“In the BitTorrent world, there is honor among thieves. Those who merely download files, without publishing and sharing files, are derisively called ‘leechers’,” Liberty Media’s lawyer writes. “Being a leecher is not only negative due to the pejorative terminology, but leechers are also punished by the torrent swarm.”

According to the complaint the swarm and the 95 ‘does’ are, aside from copyright infringement, also believed to be guilty of a civil conspiracy. “The center of this conspiracy is the scheme to traffic in infringing content,” the complain reads, adding that the role of the torrent swarm is essential in this process.

Although it’s not explicitly stated, we assume that the emphasis on the swarm and the conspiracy are an attempt to circumvent the jurisdiction and improper joinder issues that led to the dismissal of previous suits.

By arguing that all defendants shared bits and pieces in the Southern District of California, even those who live elsewhere, the plaintiffs claim that the Court has jurisdiction. Similarly, it is argued that, since all defendants were part of the same swarm on the same day, joining them in one case should be justified.

Despite this innovative “sue a swarm” approach, the end-game of Liberty Media is the same. They want to know who the people behind the IP-addresses are, to kindly ask them for a few hundred or thousand dollars to settle the dispute. Pay up or else..

Read

Yahoo! Messenger Censors FilesTube Links

Censoring the Internet on behalf of the entertainment industries appears to be a growing trend. Talks about Internet blocklists, domain seizures of alleged pirate sites, and Google’s proactive filter of “infringing” searches are just a few examples. Today it appears that Yahoo! has hopped on the bandwagon with its censoring of links to FilesTube, one of the largest media search engines.

Image is Loading....Imagine that you found this great new TV-show “Pioneer One,” which the makers decided to give away for free. You’re actually so excited about it that you want to share it with a friend by pasting them a FilesTube link in Yahoo! Messenger.

Although this might sound like a good idea to some, Yahoo! appears to disagree. Those who try to paste a FilesTube link to their contacts in the Messenger app will notice that it never reaches its destination. The link goes directly into Yahoo’s dark hole and neither end of the conversation is alerted to this “feature”.

For those not familiar with the site, FilesTube is arguably the largest meta-search engine for content hosted on cyberlockers. Founded in 2007, the Polish-operated search engine serves millions of users every day, and this number is on the up.

The big question of course is why Yahoo! Messenger users are prohibited from sending their contacts links to the site. FilesTube is merely a meta-search engine and does not host any content on its servers. It even abides by the U.S. DMCA by honoring takedown requests from copyright holders.

We contacted Yahoo! to try and shed some light on the issue, but since we haven’t heard back yet all we can do at this point is speculate. Theoretically there could be a non-copyright related reason for the blocking, but we have failed to come up with one. On the other hand, in tests where we sent our contacts links to similar sites did not produce the same results, which is odd.

Although not very logical, such a selective censorship attempt would not be entirely new. Just a few months ago Google decided to arbitrarily block a few piracy related keywords from their “instant” and “suggest” features while leaving direct and just as popular alternatives unharmed.

Whatever the reason is for Yahoo! monitoring private conversations and then swallowing FilesTube links, censorship is an up and coming tool that will be used increasingly to protect the interests of the entertainment industries. It complements other indirect but effective anti-piracy strategies, and despite the constitutional issues that may arise, the anti-piracy lobby will not rest before their goals are completed.

Update: Arkadiusz Senko, CEO of Red – Sky, the owner FilesTube got back to us with the following message:

“I was surprised to have adopted information about blocking FilesTube.com by Yahoo Messenger. FilesTube.com is a legal search engine, meets all the legal requirements of both European and American. We are shocked by Yahoo Messenger to censor the Internet, and thus the actions of our users who use FilesTube.com for legal media. We would like to point out that we also have a video section, where the aggregated videos from YouTube or Dailymotion are placed. It seems to us that Yahoo has taken action to block links to competing sites. In such a situation it lefts us nothing but to recommend users to use other instant messengers, respectful of freedom of the Internet. You can find the alternatives for Yahoo Messenger on our new search engine alternative.to.”

Read

As Enlightening 3 Strikes Data Appears, Authorities Raid Top Cyberlocker Sites

In mid-2009, South Korea made the pioneering move of implementing a 3 strikes style regime for dealing with illicit file-sharing. As statistics become available for the first time, authorities have conducted one of the biggest piracy crackdowns involving so-called cyberlocker sites. The Ministry of Culture says that 19 of the country’s top services were targeted which together served up to 4 million users.

For the past several years, the music industry has championed the need for a 3 strikes-style regime in order to combat illicit file-sharing. The idea is that when someone is monitored illegally sharing files, they are sent a warning letter via their ISP. On receipt of a third such warning the recipient will find his connection to the Internet temporarily severed.

On April 1st 2009, South Korea took a step into the unknown by passing legislation to begin such a regime. By July 2009, warnings were being delivered to users via their ISPs and now, thanks to work by Heesob Nam, the results of the first 6 months of the scheme are available, as shown in the table below:

 

Image is Loading....Interestingly, ‘Suspension of User Account’ – the 3rd strike – hasn’t been used at all in any case. So, while on one side people will argue that a 3 strikes regime was never necessary, others in the music industry will no doubt frame it differently – that the threat was necessary to force compliance and has been proven to be 100% effective. Whether that trend continued for the rest of 2010 remains to be seen.

However, a unique aspect of the South Korean implementation of 3 strikes is that it applies to websites too. If found to be continually hosting infringing content, either as reported by copyright holders or at the discretion of the government, sites run the risk of being shut down by the authorities.

It is of great interest, then, that while the above figures show zero disconnections for the the first 7 months of the scheme, the same will not be true when March 2011′s figures are reported.

The South Korean authorities have just announced they have conducted a major crackdown on some of the country’s top cyberlocker/file-hosting services.

According to the Ministry of Culture, 19 “die-hard” sites were targeted in the operation which was carried out by dozens of investigators over the past several days.

Together the sites are reported to have served between 2 million and 4 million users, and in common with pending cases in the United States, prosecutors in South Korea claim that the sites encouraged those users to upload infringing material.

So far around 1000 TB of data has been seized and the prosecutors say work is now underway to identify the heaviest uploaders. Since South Korea’s 3 strikes law allows action to be taken against those who continually upload infringing content even to file-hosting sites, Internet suspensions could be on the way.

Read