Archive for the ‘Illegal & BitTorrent Network’ Category

Leaked Report Reveals Music Industry’s Global Anti-Piracy Strategy

A confidential internal report of the music industry outfit IFPI has been inadvertently made available online by the group itself. Penned by their Head of Internet Anti-piracy Operations, the report details the global strategy for the major recording labels of IFPI. Issues covered include everything from torrent sites to cyberlockers, what behavior IFPI expects of Internet service providers, the effectiveness of site blocking, and how pirates are accessing unreleased music from industry sources.

Dated April 2012, the IFPI report obtained by us was put together by the music Image is Loading.....industry group’s chief anti-piracy officer Mo Ali.

The 30-page report presents a global view of IFPI’s “problems”, “current and future threats” and the industry’s responses to them.

IFPI says it has five possible reactions to a threat: Take down, Disruption, Investigation, Lobbying and Litigation.

The Threats: P2P

Initially IFPI splits illicit content availability into two sections. The first they classify as “content held on users’ computers” and distributed via P2P networks such as BitTorrent, Gnutella, DirectConnect, eDonkey and Ares.

It says it has taken “strategic action” against The Pirate Bay (BitTorrent), LimeWire (Gnutella) and also the semi-private tracker Demonoid (BitTorrent). IFPI doesn’t elaborate on action against the latter, but it was rumored that a member of the site’s staff was targeted a while back.

Central hosting/cyberlockers

The second category is content held on central servers, including file-hosts and cyberlockers. Interestingly, the IFPI diagram below shows that when the group examined allegedly infringing URLs on the world’s major cyberlockers, Megaupload’s stats paled into insignificance when compared to the others.

Image is Loading.....
IFPI is clear on their requirements for cyberlockers to operate to their liking. Their number one desire is that they “proactively filter for infringing content” but if they don’t they must “operate an effective and efficient notice and take down system.” Failure to implement either means sites will be required to “shut down”.

Hacking and phishing attacks

One of the other threats detailed by IFPI include hacking and phishing attacks against email accounts of artists and their management. Through these techniques individuals are apparently obtaining unauthorized access to pre-release music.

IFPI say a number of techniques are being used, from bogus emails claiming to be from social networking, email, or cyberlocker sites, to the compromising of password reset features. Once accessed, mail is forwarded to other accounts, either with the music attached or with valuable information which allows other systems to be accessed.

The rise of mobile data and applications

IFPI is also keeping a close eye on the downloading and sharing of content across mobile data and other wireless networks. IFPI worries that these networks are providing here-and-now streaming of content via all-you-can-eat plans. Making matters worse is that IFPI reports “challenges” when it comes to matching an IP address to a subscriber.

The recording group also reports that Apple and Android architectures are encouraging the creation of 3rd party music apps. IFPI say they are crawling both the App Store and Google Marketplace and are focusing on “quick take down agreements” with Apple, Google, Microsoft, Nokia and Palm to remove apps they don’t like. They are also mulling an expansion of their “payment provider program” to target “rogue” Android app developers.

Unauthorized pay MP3 sites

IFPI say they have identified in excess of 50 Russian and Ukrainian pay MP3 download sites. The group reports that law enforcement authorities have “secured evidence that the illegal sites are annually stealing hundreds of millions of dollars” which is creating opportunities for money laundering and tax evasion investigations. IFPI say their next steps will include strangling the sites’ finances with the help of payment processors, recovering proceeds of crime, and developing asset confiscation.

Advertisers and payment processors

IFPI’s advertiser strategy is based around the “disruption of revenue streams” to unauthorized sites by several methods. In the report they speak of a “structured notice and take down programme targeting Google’s AdSense and DoubleClick advertising networks,” plus “out reach” to IASH and IAB to implement “comprehensive infringing block lists.” IFPI says it also initiates direct contact with advertisers to flag when their ads appear on infringing sites.

Agreements are said to be in place with VISA, MasterCard, PayPal, CTIA, Monitise, PaySafeCard and PhonePayPlus to strangle finances to unauthorized sites.

Dealing with Internet service providers

In common with cyberlockers, IFPI have a set of rules they’d like to impose on Internet service providers. According to the industry group, ISPs should not provide Internet access to infringing sites, services or even unidentified customers. Furthermore, ISPs are required to “Implement a system of graduated response for infringing P2P users including warnings to an effective deterrent sanction.”

Site Blocking

ISPs are also required by IFPI to block access to infringing sites and services “located outside the local jurisdiction.” The chart below shows where blocking orders have been obtained (prior to April 2012) and how they are carried out.

Image is Loading.....
Surprisingly, despite reports mounting to the contrary, IFPI seems to think that site blocking is an almost perfect solution to counter infringement.

“The effectiveness of such a ‘block’ will depend on the determination of the ISP subscriber
and the content/website provider to maintain access to each other and to use circumvention techniques to bypass blocking techniques,” they write.

“There is evidence to suggest that there is limited (between 3% and 5%) adoption of these circumvention techniques although subscribers with more technical knowledge could look to circumvent ISP controls using virtual private networks (VPN) or anonymous proxies.”

Conclusions

IFPI finishes up by stressing the importance of “co-operation, partnerships and information exchange” and the building of relationships with law enforcement, judges and legal bodies in order to “provide training built around ‘real world’ experiences and challenges rather than focusing on theory.”

Image is Loading.....
Amendments to relevant laws need to be planned for the future, but in the short term IFPI should “consider ‘quick, curve ball’ solutions to impact more complex operations as
complement to long term investigations,” the group concludes.

One Man Army On a Mission To Destroy The Cyberlocker Market

By design the porn industry is often to be found at the extremes of the human race’s moral compass. So recently, when one industry man began a campaign with a stated aim of bringing the cyberlocker market to its knees, one might expect things to have gotten a little dirty. Well they have – absolutely filthy – just ask Putlocker, ExtaBit, TurboBit and a growing list of others, all victims of a concerted operation to strangle their finances and put them out of business.

The mainstream music and movie industries have their own preferred techniques to make Image is Loading.....life difficult for cyberlocker services. From the wholesale destruction method employed against Megaupload, to the more subtle inclusion of sites such as RapidShare in government-directed reports, there are a number of strategies employed to put sites under pressure.

At times, the MPAA and RIAA are accused of using dirty tricks, but their outright denials and favorable framing of controversial issues means that the mud often fails to fully stick. But compare that to the action currently being taken by elements of the adult industry against a wide range of file-hosters, and we have a veritable mudbath in which the players not only relish the dirty tricks, but cheerfully admit to them at every turn.

For the past couple of weeks, Australian-born adult industry businessman Robert King (known online as AdultKing) has been doing everything in his power to screw up the lives of what he calls the “bad players” of the cyberlocker market. The 45-year-old has no qualms about his mission, or the methods he’s employing to complete it.

“What I hope to achieve is very simple. I want to tear apart the illegal file locker industry by removing its supply of funds and then ultimately removing its supply of network connectivity,” King told us.

King’s tactics focus on sites that sell premium subscriptions in order to provide users with improved access to user-uploaded content even though, importantly, those sites have no part in providing it. Secondly, he’s aiming for sites that pay members cash for uploading content that achieves many downloads.

“I decided to take this action because I was fed up with watching businesses profiting from stolen content and illegal content while doing so under the guise of ‘user uploaded’ or ‘internet freedom’,” King adds.

And the Internet, King says, is something he feels strongly about. Not only does he claim to be a vocal opponent of Australia’s proposed Internet censorship laws, he says he also played a part in building it.

“I was involved in the embryonic stages of the Internet in Australia having a role within APANA which provided network access when almost nobody could get it unless they were in University. Julian Assange was also one of many Australians involved in APANA and most of us ran APANA nodes which let people dial in and connect to the Internet all connected to central hubs.”

But ‘internet freedom’ and what some file-hosters and their users are doing couldn’t be further apart, King insists.

“In the main file lockers are simply modern-day ‘fences’ of stolen goods. Just like a thief Image is Loading.....would take a stolen television or car radio to the pub and sell it for a few dollars, there are thousands of people around the world who take copyright content, upload it to an incentivized file locker, then get a few dollars to as much as $30 for 1000 downloads of that content.”

In an attempt to bring these sites down, King has been utilizing a hugely controversial approach. One by one, King has waded through a laundry list of sites, searching their indexes for files that appear to contain not only regular copyright-infringing material, but also animal and child pornography. He then reports his findings to PayPal and other payment processors.

“Not content with merely hosting child porn, many file locker sites also host bestiality,” King explained at the start of his campaign. “Our friends at PayPal make money from each premium sale of this material to people who download it.”

At first, King got nowhere with PayPal, but through persistence something changed recently. During the last week or so King says that PayPal has been cutting off services and freezing the funds of a wide range of file-hosting sites including Putlocker, ExtaBit, TurboBit, UptoBox, Cloudnator, RYUShare, BulletUpload, BackUpload, RGHost, NitroBits, FireGet, FileMates….and the list goes on and on.

Also raising eyebrows is the impression that King appears to have detailed, presumably private, information on the nature of measures taken by PayPal against the sites in question. For example, against PutLocker, the 346th most popular site in the world.

“PutLocker have had their Paypal accounts terminated. All funds have been frozen for 180 days and in that time they cannot withdraw or transfer funds. They may no longer process any payments through Paypal,” King reported today. So how is he getting information like this?

“I worked hard to develop relationships with people from all sectors of the payment processing sector. Initially I had no luck reaching anyone at PayPal who could help me, however I persevered until I was placed into contact with the right person and now have ongoing dialog with them. I have also established dialog with several other credit card companies and 3rd party payment processing services,” King explains.

Image is Loading.....
“Unfortunately I cannot go into how information is exchanged or shared as I do not wish to give the targets of my campaign any insight into the methods or strategies we employ to remove their payment processing ability. Suffice to say, these companies do their own independent investigations and do not solely rely on our information.”

But a nagging question remains, and it’s raised time and again by King’s reports on his campaign site StopFileLockers. What real proof does he have that the files he’s finding on these file-hosting sites do indeed contain the content that their titles suggest, especially when there is reference to children and animals?

The answer, it seems, is none whatsoever. Nevertheless, King insists that’s irrelevant.

“Personally I don’t know whether a file entitled ’12yogirlraped.avi’ actually contains a movie of a 12-year-old girl being raped or a legal adult video being named a misleading file name. It would be stupid of anyone to download it to find out unless they were involved in law enforcement in that field.

“However the mere connotation that there are files named this way is, in itself, unconscionable. Where we find a systematic pattern of what appears to be child pornography based upon file names we refer the matters where possible. We are not about to download the material ourselves to find out what the file actually contains. This is a job for policing and child protection agencies,” King notes.

King’s activities are causing fury among both users and the file-hosting companies themselves but none approached by us would comment on the record. However, some appear to be taking their own action in response. One locker, NitroBits, has threatened to sue King.

“If this is how you want to destroy our legal business you are wrong,” the company told King. “We do not allow any kind of illegal material, and if you have uploaded illegal material to NitroBits, and reported it to PayPal I will make sure I will take you to the European Supreme Court!”

Others are less straightforward. King says he’s been DDoS’d and has received threats against his life, but he doesn’t appear to be taking them too seriously. With the help of a team of volunteers he says he will continue and at the moment envisages a three month campaign – which he is funding – to achieve his goals.

So should other file-lockers be concerned at the prospect of having their PayPal and other payment processing facilities withdrawn too? King says he’s pushing hard for all file-hosting sites to be an unacceptable use of PayPal but currently the processor isn’t going that far, instead preferring to move on a case-by-case basis.

And that case-by-case basis, once PayPal have been informed that a problem even exists, raises an interesting point.

King says that PayPal are doing a “fairly good” job in their response considering the millions of accounts and transactions they have to process – after all, they can’t monitor everything that goes on via their service.

So, applying the same reasoning, the vast majority of file-lockers will not have anything to do with the content being uploaded and, once they are alerted to a problem, will take action as the law requires. However, rather than being given the benefit of the doubt and the same room to move as PayPal, they’re finding their finances strangled instead.

For King, it sounds like a no-brainer. Why bother with a million DMCA notices when a concerted effort can cut off a company’s ability to do business in one swoop? Filth sticks, it seems, and the adult industry has that – and determination – in spades.

Court Orders RapidShare to Filter User Uploads

A Higher Regional Court in Germany has ruled that file-hosting service RapidShare must proactively filter thousands of files uploaded by its users. The Court confirmed three separate verdicts by a lower court, in cases that were started by book publishers and a music rights group. RapidShare has yet to decide whether it will appeal the verdicts, and informs us that there’s also positive news to report.

In common with every file-sharing service, RapidShare is used by some of its members to Image is Loading....host infringing material.

During the past several years the Swiss-based cyberlocker has made tremendous efforts to cooperate with copyright holders and limit copyright infringements. But for some their efforts don’t go far enough. This has resulted in a variety of rightsholders starting legal proceedings against RapidShare, and not without success.

The most recent win came yesterday when a Higher Regional Court in Hamburg confirmed three rulings of a lower court. According to these verdicts, the file-hoster hasn’t done enough to prevent copyrighted material from being uploaded to its servers.

The cases, which involve thousands of titles, were started by music rights group GEMA and book publishers De Gruyter and Campus.

The Higher Regional Court in Hamburg reportedly ruled that RapidShare has to monitor user uploads to ensure that none of these titles are put onto their servers, which implies a mandatory filter and monitoring of all user uploads.

While a written copy of the verdict has not yet been made public, the book industry celebrated the outcome as a landmark victory.

“Internet sites can no longer avoid their responsibilities, and profit from copyright infringing uploads of anonymous users,” says Alexander Skipis, chief executive of the German Booksellers Association.

RapidShare is irked by this early celebration, which its spokesman Daniel Raimer describes as unprofessional.

“We consider it as unprofessional to assess a judgement before the written reasons for the judgment are available. Only then you can determine which party can indeed celebrate a verdict as a success,” Raimer told us.

Raimer explains that the copyright holders are leaving out essential details that are actually quite positive for the cyberlocker. Previously the lower court described RapidShare’s entire business as unlawful, but that decision has not been overturned.

“There is a possible reason for the rushed approach, particularly that of the Booksellers Association. In the hearing, the Higher Regional Court indicated that it would deviate from its former position according under which RapidShare’s business model was not tolerated by the legal system.”

“That shows that the release of a ‘jubilation announcement’ by the plaintiffs after the publication of the reasons for the judgment would simply not be possible anymore. We are relaxed and look forward to reading the written reasons for the judgment that are expected to be published within the next few days,” Raimer said.

It’s worth nothing that the German verdicts appear to contradict an earlier ruling by the highest European court. In February the European Court of Justice ruled that hosting sites can’t proactively filter copyrighted content as that would violate the privacy of users and hinder freedom of information.

RapidShare further informed us that they have yet to decide whether they’ll appeal the verdicts. Considering the European Court of Justice ruling, this might not be such a bad idea.

#1

BitTorrent Case Judge Is a Former RIAA Lobbyist and Pirate Chaser

Less than a week after her investiture ceremony, U.S. District Court Judge Beryl Howell laid down a landmark verdict that will make it easy for copyright holders to send cash demands to people they suspect of copyright infringement. Many people called the decision into doubt, and the revelation that Judge Howell previously worked as an RIAA lobbyist and as the Managing Director of a pirate-chasing outfit hints at a conflict of interest.

Image is Loading....

Last week, the freshly appointed U.S. District Court Judge Beryl Howell gave copyright holders carte blanche to continue their profitable settlement schemes. This verdict weakens the position of thousands of alleged BitTorrent users, some of whom may be completely innocent.

Despite opposition from ISPs and consumer rights groups who described the tactics as “extortion,” Howell decided in favor of the copyright holders. An extremely unfortunate precedent to say the least, and this is confirmed by lawyer Robert Cashman who represents several defendants in similar cases.

“I believe the judge is giving the plaintiff attorneys the benefit of the doubt on all accounts, which is unfortunate because she is turning a blind eye to the abuses defendants are suffering with threats and harassment while plaintiff attorneys attempt to scare them into a settlement,” Cashman told us.

The big question is why Judge Howell came to this conclusion. Although we can’t see inside her mind, looking at her career before she was appointed as a judge a few months ago may give us some insight.

Howell’s resume immediately reveals that she is no stranger to copyright law. As General Counsel of the Senate Committee on the Judiciary she helped with the drafting of several prominent intellectual property protection laws, including the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), Digital Theft Deterrence and Copyright Damages Deterrence Act and the No Electronic Theft Act.

The above clearly indicates that Howell is familiar with protecting the interests of copyright holders, but there is more. Until 2009 she also held the position of Executive Managing Director and General Counsel at Stroz Friedberg, a consulting firm that specializes in the management of digital crimes.

Among other areas of expertise, Stroz Friedberg is very familiar with the technology required to hunt down file sharers. Next month the firm is hosting a lecture titled “The Power of Digital Forensics in Intellectual Property Cases” in which they explain how “specialized forensic processes” can help to find “infringing copies of protected music.”

It doesn’t take a genius to realize that Judge Howell’s former employee may directly benefit from her decision to allow the mass-infringement lawsuits to continue. And that’s not all.

In recent years Stroz Friedberg has lobbied extensively in Washington on behalf of the RIAA. This consulting job earned the company more than half a million dollars. And yes, one of the leading lobbyists on record was Beryl Howell, who was paid $415,000 between 2004 and 2008.

Although judges are deemed to be objective, the above is troubling information which at the least hints at a slight bias in judgement. This is fueled by the fact that less than a week after her investiture ceremony as a judge, Howell opened the door for copyright holders to send out settlements to tens of thousands of alleged file-sharers without first having evidence against them tested in court.

As a lobbyist there was only so much Howell could do, but as a U.S. District Court Judge she can really make a difference it seems.

In layman’s terms her ruling means that copyright holders can easily request the personal details of people who have allegedly downloaded copyrighted works on BitTorrent. With this decision in hand the copyright holders have all they need. After all, the intention of these lawsuits was never to take the defendants to court, but to send them settlement letters to resolve the issue for a few thousand dollars.

Whether this represents fair practice is not for us but a judge to decide – U.S. District Court Judge Beryl Howell in this case.

We’re no lawyers here, but if we see the information as presented above we can’t help but feel that there might be a conflict of interest here. At the least, some might consider that spending years defending the rights of major copyright holders has the potential to slightly blur one’s objectivity.

Read

iiNet Fights Off Hollywood, ISP Not Responsible For Online Piracy

The Federal Court of Australia has dismissed the movie industry’s appeal against a 2010 ruling which found that Internet service provider iiNet is not responsible for copyright infringements carried out by its file-sharing customers. iiNet boss Michael Malone described the decision as a relief while AFACT boss Neil Gane said “it cannot be right” that the ISP takes no responsibility.

The Full Bench of the Federal Court in Australia has just dismissed the movie industry’s appeal against last year’s judgment which found that ISP iiNet did not authorize the copyright infringements of its file-sharing customers.

Represented by anti-piracy group AFACT, nearly three dozen Hollywood and local studios took iiNet to court in 2008. In a 2009 trial the ISP was accused of doing nothing to stop its customers downloading films and TV shows but in February 2010 the Federal Court decided that iiNet was not responsible for their activities. An appeal was heard later that year and today the decision was handed down.

Justice Emmett said that the Court continued to agree that the rights of the movie companies had been infringed but could not find in their favor.

“While I disagree with the primary judge’s reasoning in significant respects, I am nevertheless of the opinion that his Honour’s decision to dismiss the proceeding was correct,” the ruling reads. “In my opinion the appeal should be dismissed.”

The ruling itself is an absolutely huge affair and will take a considerable time to digest, but at this early stage it seems quite clear that even after two years of legal battles, this fight is probably still not over.

“Even though the Copyright Owners are not entitled to the relief claimed in this proceeding, it does not follow that that is an end of the matter. It is clear that the questions raised in the proceeding are ongoing,” the ruling reads.

“It does not necessarily follow that there would never be authorisation within the meaning of s 101 of the Copyright Act by a carriage service provider, where a user of the services provided by the carriage service provider engages in acts of infringement such as those about which complaint is made in this proceeding.

“It does not necessarily follow from the failure of the present proceeding that circumstances could not exist whereby iiNet might in the future be held to have authorised primary acts of infringement on the part of users of the services provided to its customers under its customer service agreements.”

Nevertheless, on the thorny demand by AFACT that iiNet should have blindly sent out warnings and suspend customer accounts based on the information it provided, the ruling is clear.

“I do not think [iiNet] could reasonably be expected to issue warnings, or to terminate or suspend particular accounts, in reliance upon any such notice in circumstances where it has been told nothing at all about the methods used to obtain the information which lead to the issue of the notice,” it reads. “Nor should it be up to the respondent to seek out this information from a copyright owner who chooses not to provide it in the first place.”

iiNet chief executive Michael Malone said he was “relieved” at the outcome.

“Our original contention was upheld that we don’t believe we ever authorised or did anything to encourage customers to breach copyright,” he said. “We’ve won at the lower court, we’ve won at the Federal Court now in the appeal, but all this legal action hasn’t stopped one customer from downloading anywhere in Australia.”

“Same as we said last time, invite the rights holders back, let’s make the content available legally and legitimately so customers can get access to it, and let’s find a better way to be able to police those who don’t do the right thing.”

Malone went on to state that the overall problem of deciding to what extent ISPs can be held liable will have to be solved by the government.

AFACT boss Neil Gane was clearly disappointed at the decision.

“It cannot be right that, in effect, the ISP, who has the power to prevent copyright infringement online and admitted they were taking place, does not share the responsibility to stop them,” he said. “Copyright infringement now goes on unabated on the Internet.”

While Justice Emmett and Justice Nicholas dismissed the appeal, Gane said he was encouraged that Justice Jagot had sided with the movie industry.

“We take heart however, that Justice Jagot found for us and that Justice Emmett said that we were successful on many grounds.

“We will be taking our time now to examine the judgment in detail and consider all of our options.”

It is widely believed that the case will now proceed to Australia’s High Court.

Read