Archive for the ‘BitTorrent Network’ Category

Paypal Seizes BitTorrent Friendly ISP Accounts

Paypal has hit out at PRQ, the ISP setup by Pirate Bay founders Fredrik Neij and Gottfrid Svartholm, by banning it from using its online payment PRQ_logoservice and seizing all funds in its accounts – not once, but twice.

Initially PRQ was hit with an account freeze for up to 180 days. At that point, TorrentFreak claims, Paypal recommended that PRQ set up a second account while the dispute was being sorted out, suggesting that afterwards the two accounts and their funds would be merged. However after PRQ did this and began taking payments again, Paypal froze that one too.

“First they froze our primary account without any prior notice – we can’t even receive funds to it,” PRQ said in a statement. “After we contacted their ‘support’ they stated that the support could not help us, BUT the person who was responsible for our account should contact us within a couple of days.”

Apparently PRQ is still waiting on that call. This is despite over three years of service with the company, where there have been almost zero problems.

While Paypal is still suggesting that after 180 days the funds will be returned and the dispute – whatever it is – resolved, PRQ has now opted to stop using the service altogether. From now on it will take payments in Bitcoin, bank transfer and through its own credit card system once it’s setup.

Men Face Deportation For Running World’s Least-Visited Torrent Site

Many people have a dream to the see the world and a few years ago Michel, a Canadian from Montreal, decided to turn his into reality. torrentfind

After spending the past few years traveling around Europe, eight months ago the service industry worker decided to spread his wings further still, moving first to Mauritius then on to Johannesburg and Cape Town.

From sunny South Africa, Michel moved on to Melbourne, Australia, where he met up with two friends. These fellow Canadians – ‘K’ a website designer and ‘N’ who was happy to bounce from job to job – were already in the country, one on a working holiday and the other just passing through.

A little while ago this trio of travelers, all in their early twenties, decided to pause their globe-trotting adventures for a little while to work on a new project.

On November 29 2012 the friends launched their webpage, a BitTorrent meta-search engine called TorrentFind. Obviously since it was so new the site had almost zero traffic so to boost visitor numbers Michel decided to invest in some modest advertising with ad company adBrite.

“I was willing to put $5 a day in advertising to start,” Michel told us.

Michel says that he tried to charge the small sum to his credit card but it was constantly rejected by adBrite. He began to suspect there was a problem with his credit account.

“I changed my phone number a few times while traveling and never bothered calling the bank to update my file. I didn’t use the card all that much either, i’ve made that mistake before,” he explained.

But that wasn’t really the problem. After using the card a few times in South Africa Michel decided to go cash only since that’s how he was being paid at the time. It turns out that sometime after his last use of the card someone managed to use his credit account fraudulently.

“I first tried to use it again to pay for hosting and the site domain but it didn’t work so ‘N’ put it on his card. The next day or two we kept trying to set up adBrite but my card kept getting rejected,” Michel recalls.

Then, less than two weeks after the launch of the site, it became clear that the trio were in serious trouble. On December 9, two police officers and a representative from IP Australia arrived at the friends’ Melbourne apartment.

“They were questioning us about what we were doing and who we were, and I had to get I.D to prove it was my credit card,” says Michel.

“Then they asked what TorrentFind was.”

torrentfindtrafficMichel says that overall the police were “not too bad” although he recalls being less than happy when the IP Australia representative decided to seize his computer.

“I lost it a bit when they started taking my laptop so I got cuffed,” Michel says.

All three were placed under arrest on suspicion of fraud and taken away.

“We were brought to the station where we spent most of the morning and early afternoon,” he said. “We were detained for about 5 hours or so.”

Fortunately Michel was able to prove that he was the rightful owner of the credit card that was defrauded in South Africa, so the fraud charges were dropped. But despite the clarification the issue is far from over.

“Supposedly copyright and piracy is taken seriously in Australia and is one of the fine prints on our visas. They explained to us that we’re not in trouble for any specific copyright products but that offering links to ‘infringed copies’ is not allowed,” Michel explained.

But linking to anything is not something the site has been doing much of at all. As can be seen from this screenshot of the site’s Google Analytics data, from the date of the launch until the police raid on December 9 the site had much less than a hundred visitors once search engine hits were excluded.

The site’s most-frequent user with 30 visits was vic.gov.au, an Australian government-run site. Michel presumes that this is where the investigation against him was being run. But it seems that the authorities don’t really care.

“Now they are voiding our tourist visas for ‘abusing piracy’. We are all facing deportation. All this over a new site that has not even really done anything yet.”

Michel says that both he and his friends are no longer allowed to work and have less than a month before their presence in the country becomes illegal.

“If we cant reverse the decision they will come to arrest us in 30 days and force us out of the country. We are also facing a fine but those details are still being worked out. We have a summons to appear in front of a judge in the immigration court next week so we’ll find out more then,” he concludes.

According to the official seizure notice seen by us, Michel and his friends stand accused of breaching Australia’s Copyright Act of 1968, specifically “transmitting a computer program to enable it to be copied when received.”

Of course this is not what a torrent site does at all. We’ll have to wait to see whether the judge agrees.

Warner Bros and Intel Sue Freedom USA Over HDCP Crack Piracy

Two years ago there was a huge uproar in the tech community when the HDCP master key was cracked, opening the door to mass circumvention SIIGof high-definition content protection.

The crack was Hollywood’s worst nightmare as it opens an “analog hole” that allows everyone to copy digital video, including pay-per-view streams. Intel, the developers of HDCP, were also outraged and promised to crack down on abusers of the key.

“There are laws to protect both the intellectual property involved as well as the content that is created and owned by the content providers. Should a circumvention device be created using this information, we and others would avail ourselves, as appropriate, of those remedies,” Intel warned.

Soon after the master key was published the first circumvention devices were put on the market but neither Intel or the Hollywood studios took any action against manufacturers or retailers. That position has now changed.

Yesterday Warner Bros. and Intel’s daughter company Digital Content Protection filed a lawsuit at a federal court in Ohio against the technology company Freedom USA and its CEO Alex Sonis. The Hollywood studio and the chip maker accuse the Ohio company of copyright infringement and violating the DMCA’s anti-circumvention provisions.

Freedom USA, which also operates under the names AVADirect and AntaresPro, makes several devices which allow consumers to convert HDCP-encrypted digital signals to analog signals. This means that users could potentially record pay-per-view broadcasts, including Hollywood movies.

“Warner Bros. requires the use of HDCP in many of its distribution licenses for pay-per-view, video-on-demand and other premium digital content delivery services to which Warner Bros. licenses its film and television programming,” the movie studio writes in the complaint.

According to Warner the bypassing of HDCP leads to more pirated copies being made available, which in turn decreases the demand for legal movies.

“When HDCP is circumvented, the risk of unauthorized copying and redistribution of the content formerly protected by HDCP is dramatically increased,” Warner Bros. writes.

“This damages Warner Bros. because the unauthorized and uncompensated reproduction and distribution of Warner Bros. copyrighted content decreases the demand for such content through legitimate distribution channels, such as home video, video-on-demand, premium broadcast channels and the like.”

The defendant is accused of selling devices that allow for this circumvention. Although the earlier referenced leaked master key is not mentioned, the complaint does explain that the devices are capable of decrypting HDCP.

“The [device] transmits HDCP-protected content to non-HDCP devices by performing HDCP decryption, without the authorization of either the copyright owner of the HDCP-protected content or DCP, and by avoiding, bypassing, removing, deactivating, and/or impairing the HDCP authentication process,” the complaint reads.

Both Warner Bros. and Intel accuse Freedom USA of violating the DMCA’s anti-circumvention provisions, and the movie studio also holds the company responsible for the copyright infringements that were induced by these devices.

Both plaintiffs ask the court to prohibit these devices from being sold and want to be compensated for the damages they’ve suffered.

Considering the ongoing debate on the legality of these circumvention devices for fair use, this case is going to be one to watch. Aside from the “piracy” element brought up in the complaint the devices sold by Freedom USA also have legitimate uses, such as connecting a new set-top box to an older TV or monitor.

BitTorrent INc. is Distancing Itself From Piracy

BitTorrent Inc. has an image problem, or at least that’s what some people appear to believe.bittorrent-piracy

Today the San Francisco company launched a website to answer the question of whether or not BitTorrent equals piracy.

“We hear this question all the time,” BitTorrent Inc. CEO Eric Klinker explains.

“We hear we’ve killed film, the radio star, and the content industry. We hear we’re the web’s dark matter, and the Internet’s seedy underbelly. We are not.”

Invented more than a decade ago by the founder of BitTorrent Inc., BitTorrent has become the protocol of choice for file-sharers. This includes those who download copyrighted material.

However, the technology itself is neutral and does a lot of good for content creators as well. This is the message BitTorrent Inc. is trying to communicate.

“We are scientists, engineers, developers and designers committed to building a better Internet. We are photographers, musicians, writers and gamers. We came to work here because we wanted to change the way the Internet works for us. How it works for all of us.”

Their message is that BitTorrent does not equal piracy. The company is distancing itself from those who download infringing content, including the majority of their 150+ million users.

“We do not endorse piracy. We do not encourage it. We don’t point to piracy sites. We don’t host any infringing content,” BitTorrent’s CEO says.

Over the past year BitTorrent has been very active in championing the legal use of its software through their artist promotions. The company further points out that major technology companies such as Twitter and Facebook are utilizing BitTorrent as well.

BitTorrent Inc. is right of course. A technology shouldn’t be blamed for how users engage with it. However, having plenty of legal uses doesn’t necessarily prevent one from running into legal trouble. Just ask The Pirate Bay, Kim Dotcom or the people from Limewire.

Sharing Even 7 Handful Movies can Cost $1.5 Million

BitTorrent piracy is widespread and some copyright holders in the United States have begun to aggressively enforce their rights via legal action.

In most instances the resulting lawsuits end in a settlement of a few thousand dollars. However, over the past few weeks several judges have awarded monstrous damages claims to a maker of adult movies.

Earlier this month Kywan Fisher from Virginia and Cormelian Brown of Delaware were ordered to pay $1.5 million each for sharing 10 movies, the maximum statutory damages possible under copyright law.

Yesterday there was another default judgment due to another defendant failing to defend himself. However, in this case the infringer, Anwar Ogiste from Maryland, must pay $1.5 million for sharing “just” 7 movies.

The order handed down by Illinois District Court Judge George Lindberg is by far the largest file-sharing related damage award in U.S. history.

As with the other two cases, this is not one of the classic mass-BitTorrent lawsuits. All defendants had paid accounts at the website of Flava Works where they could legally download movies. However, they were explicitly forbidden to share the movies with others, and this is where things went wrong for them.

Ogiste was accused of sharing seven movie “clips” on a popular gay torrent site, and Flava had more than just an IP-address as evidence. The company was able to trace the illicit copies directly back to his paid account through a unique code embedded in the videos.

“In this case, every time the Defendant downloaded a copy of a copyrighted video from Plaintiff’s website, it inserts an encrypted code that is only assigned to Defendant. The encrypted code for Defendant is: ‘oxfglyrf’,” Flava explained to the court.

The Screenshot

Loading

Since Ogiste failed to respond to the accusations the copyright holder asked for a “very reasonable” default judgment of no less than $1.5 million, or $214,000 per infringed movie.

“Plaintiff seeks total statutory damages of $1,500,0000 for the infringements of its copyrights. Plaintiff, Flava Works, Inc.’s request for an award of $1,500,000 is very reasonable given that Plaintiff’s copyrighted videos were downloaded — or infringed on – thousands of time by third parties on gay-torrents.net,” Flava informed the court.

According to Flava the amount is fair because the movies in question were downloaded a total of 6,632 times. Although it’s debatable whether statutory damages can be demanded for every infringement, the movie studio believed that they could potentially have asked for nearly a billion dollars.

“$150,000 times 6,632 infringements is well over $1,500,000. Thus, Plaintiff, Flava Works, Inc.’s request for an award of $1,500,000 is very reasonable,” they write.

And Judge George Lindberg agreed.

The verdict will be welcomed by Flava and the many other copyright holders involved in BitTorrent lawsuits in the United States. It’s the ultimate pressure method to convince defendants to settle, and as we witnessed last week these verdicts are already used as such.

For Anwar Ogiste the ruling most likely means paying off a debt for many years.

Source