Just one week ago, customers and resellers of ‘pirate’ IPTV service Helix Hosting were handed bad news via the service’s homepage.

A message, placed there by a hacker, warned that Helix had been hacked and its operator had been given the option to either pay a ransom or face the personal details of his subscribers being leaked out onto the Internet.

Initial reports suggested that Helix refused to pay but precisely what went on behind the scenes was hard to confirm. Nevertheless, just a week later, a second IPTV service has found itself in a similar position and has cast some additional light on the earlier attack against Helix.

Last evening the operator of IPTV service PrimeStreams made an announcement to its customers that it too had suffered a hack, albeit not a very complex one. The attacker exploited a password on the service’s billing panel and then advised the service through its own ticketing system what had happened.

“Well you have changed the password so it is obvious you have ready my ticket [sic],” a communication from the hacker read, according to a screenshot of the discussion. “Do I not get a reply or a thank you.”

The operator of PrimeStreams was polite in response, thanked the hacker for the heads-up, and offered a free account for advising the vulnerability. But that wasn’t enough.

“The bad news for yourselves is that this mistake is going to cost you,” the person replied.

Detailing internal information about how many subscribers’ the service has on the books, including around 121,000 with active subscriptions, the attacker went on to state that the business had a responsibility to protect its customers “and this is a responsibility you have failed.”

PrimeStreams’ operator did the responsible thing and didn’t attempt to hide anything from his customers. Knowing that the information would probably leak out anyway, he took full responsibility for the breach.

“100% my fault and I accept 100% responsibility,” he wrote.

Nevertheless, the attacker wanted to make PrimeStreams pay. Claiming that he/she was the same person that had targeted Helix last week, the person demanded that PrimeStreams should either shut down or pay a significant ransom.

“They are now demanding 10BTC from me 70K lol,” PrimeStreams’ operator wrote. “I have no idea if it’s the same person, I have no idea if they actually were able to use the info in the store site to get into the [database] and download it, I will say that it would be possible though.”

Interestingly the brief chat with the hacker also revealed two further pieces of information. Firstly, it claims that Helix tried to “outsmart” the attacker last week so, in response, the attacker “made a leak to torrentfreak that destroyed there business [sic].”

While we have no information about Helix’s actions behind the scenes, we can categorically deny the claim that any leak of any kind was made to TF. All of the information in our earlier report came from the notice placed by the attacker on Helix’s homepage or was culled from other public sources. At no time have we been offered, seen, or published any private information relating to the alleged hack.

The final detail is that Helix allegedly paid the ransom after the attacker began leaking information online, claims that we have been unable to confirm. Equally, we have been unable to confirm whether PrimeStreams paid a ransom after they were given just six hours to pay a huge amount in bitcoin or shut down their business.

Last evening, PrimeStreams was said to be “working diligently” to see if any logs could be found to indicate what the attacker may have downloaded or had obtained access to. This, its operator said, was to see “if this is a legit threat or just someone trolling.”

The outcome of that work isn’t clear but the latest report from PrimeStreams indicates that the issue has now been sorted out.

Given this is the second time in a week that an IPTV provider has suffered a security breach, questions will no doubt be raised about security at other suppliers.

We spoke to someone involved in the IPTV supply chain who informs us that while he prefers not to comment on operational security matters at specific providers, at the bare minimum customers should be signing up to services with a fake name and address, using a ‘clean’ email address, while avoiding PayPal, whenever possible.

“It won’t stop these low-level attacks but if they happen again only less useful info will be dumped,” he concludes.

Source: TF, for the latest info on copyright, file-sharing, torrent sites and more. We also have VPN reviews, discounts, offers and coupons.

Source link

Pirated copies of the latest Hollywood movies leak all year round, often ripped from DVDs, Blu-rays or online streaming platforms.

Towards the end of the year, however, some real ‘gems’ appear online in advance of their theatrical debut in what many have dubbed “screener season.”

Screeners are advance copies of recent movies that are generally sent out to critics and awards voters. These high-quality releases are subjected to intense security precautions by the studios, as they are highly sought after by online pirates.

The start of these leaks is usually around December, which is also the case this year. Just a few hours ago a copy of the crime thriller “Uncut Gems appeared online. The movie, which premiered at the Telluride Film Festival this summer, is scheduled for a nationwide release in the US on December 25.

The leak comes with the typical screener “for your consideration” mark and no other marks are visible, as far as we know. Early reports of the leak came in yesterday and a few hours later the first public torrents appeared online.

Interestingly, there is both a DVD screener release and a (seemingly) higher-quality Web Screener available. The latter is likely sourced from an online screening platform. Both releases carry the tag of the pirate release group EVO, which suggests that it may have access to both formats.

TorrentFreak reached out to EVO for more information (also to confirm that these are their releases) on this release but, at the time of writing, we have yet to hear back. The release notes don’t provide much detail either, as it merely mentions “Thanks friend!” in the source section.

If this is indeed a leak from an online screener then it shows that they may not be as secure as some had hoped. This is notable, as the Emmys announced a few months ago that DVD screeners would be replaced with online streaming versions in an effort to curb piracy.

At the time we doubted that this move would make much of a difference, partly based on comments from the pirate release group EVO.

“We had access to digital screeners and they are indeed easy to leak. The DRM on it is a joke. We had an account last year with three screeners on it and they were pretty much MP4 ready to encode,” the EVO team told us at the time.

Source: TF, for the latest info on copyright, file-sharing, torrent sites and more. We also have VPN reviews, discounts, offers and coupons.

Source link

The World Intellectual Property Organisation (WIPO) was founded more than 50 years ago with the aim of protecting intellectual property.

The organization, which is part of the United Nations, brings countries together to share ideas about important copyright issues, including combating online piracy. In addition, it also helps to shape new policy by facilitating information sharing.

A hot topic in the intellectual property world at the moment is Artificial Intelligence (AI). Specifically, everything that is created by such ‘autonomous’ technologies, without concrete input from human beings.

In recent years AIs have advanced quickly and they are now very capable of creating content on their own. This includes unique material that would otherwise qualify to be copyrighted by persons. The question is, can it still be copyrighted if an AI creates it?

These and other questions are at the center of a public consultation that was just launched by the WIPO. The organization is asking the public for input on a wide range of topics which are detailed in a related draft issues paper.

The topics include patents, data, and designs, but our interest is focused on the copyright section. While it is still early days for most AIs, the WIPO’s involvement shows that this is an issue that will be part of future copyright law.

One of the WIPO’s most basic questions is whether content autonymously created by an AI should enjoy copyright protection. This is a crucial question, as it determines whether human and machine creativity is valued equally, or not.

“If AI-generated works were excluded from eligibility for copyright protection, the copyright system would be seen as an instrument for encouraging and favoring the dignity of human creativity over machine creativity,” the WIPO writes.

This automatically leads to the crucial question, whether or not AI-generated works can be copyrighted in a similar way as their human-created counterparts.

“Should copyright be attributed to original literary and artistic works that are autonomously generated by AI or should a human creator be required?” And if copyright can be attributed to AI-generated works, “in whom should the copyright vest?”

The WIPO requests input on these and several related questions. The organization also has a special interest in ‘deep fakes’. While these are generally created based on human input, they often rely on copyrighted content from third-parties.

Do the owners of the deep fake sources have a claim to any copyrights? Should they be otherwise be compensated?

“Since deep fakes are created on the basis of data that may be the subject of copyright, to whom should the copyright in a deep fake belong? Should there be a system of equitable remuneration for persons whose likenesses and ‘performances’ are used in a deep fake?” WIPO writes.

These questions also apply in a broader sense. A lot of AI-generated content relies on data-input from other copyrighted content. If AIs use third-party content, can they then infringe copyrights as well?

Similar topics were also raised in a related public consultation that was launched by the US Patent and Trademark Office a few weeks ago. This consultation is still open for submissions.

The full list of the WIPO’s questions and issues, including additional background information, is available on the WIPO website. For those who want to chime in, the comment period closes on February 14.

Source: TF, for the latest info on copyright, file-sharing, torrent sites and more. We also have VPN reviews, discounts, offers and coupons.

Source link

Two decades ago, the music industry was presented with an unprecedented threat. Napster made it possible for the public at large to share tracks with people they didn’t have to meet in person.

While sharing was already commonplace on bulletin boards and IRC, Napster opened it up to an audience of millions.

In the years that followed, torrent sites, download portals, and other pirate services only made things worse. To counter this threat the music industry began filing lawsuits and lobbied for modern anti-piracy laws, which France was one of the first countries to adopt.

Ten years ago the French Government approved the HADOPI law. Among other things, it included a graduated response system where Internet subscribers face fines and even criminal convictions if they get caught repeatedly.

According to initial studies, the legislation wasn’t very effective. However, a new paper set to be published in a forthcoming issue of the academic journal Information, Economics and Policy, sings a different tune.

To measure the impact of Hadopi on music consumption, KU Leuven researcher Ruben Savelkoul analyzed music sales in France during the years following the introduction of the law and compared that data with sales in Belgium and the Netherlands.

The research specifically looks at digital download purchases during the early years of Hadopi. The results, shared in an article titled “Superstars vs the Long Tail”, shine an interesting light on the potential impact the anti-piracy law had during this time.

One of the main findings is that Hadopi had a positive effect on the sales of digital music tracks in France compared to the two control countries. This effect was the strongest for popular artists.

In addition, the findings suggest that the effect of Hadopi on sales decreased over time, except for bigger artists.

“The introduction of the Hadopi anti-piracy law in France had a positive effect on sales for all artists, superstars as well as artists lower in the sales distribution,” Savelkoul writes.

“The effect is stronger for superstars, suggesting that smaller or niche artists gain exposure from illegal downloading, partly offsetting the negative substitution effect on sales,” he adds.

The weaker effect on smaller artists suggests that these may also see some benefits from piracy. For example, because piracy allows music fans to discover new content more easily.

This leads to the second hypothesis tested by Savelkoul. Did the anti-piracy measures lead to a reduction in variation when it comes to music consumption? This indeed turned out to be the case.

“We found that in the absence of piracy, consumers tend to concentrate more on genre and style,” Savelkoul writes.

The researcher suggests that piracy makes it easier to discover newer music. As a result, people consume more different types of music. Stricter anti-piracy measures limit this effect and as a result music fans buy more ‘popular’ music.

“In absence of the possibility to sample ‘adventurous’ music, consumers might not be willing to pay and purchase these music items to discover its quality and instead opt for ‘safer’ purchases, thus consuming less variety,” Savelkoul notes.

Overall, the findings suggest that stricter anti-piracy measures can positively impact digital sales revenue. At the same time, however, they decrease variation in music consumption.

While these are intriguing findings, the paper’s author cautions against generalizing the results. The findings only cover a relatively short period of a few years. In the long run, the effect may be different.

In addition, the research only looks at digital music sales. It’s unclear what the effect is on touring revenue for example. Related research has found that revenue from live performances is growing for smaller artists and Savelkoul suggests that piracy may have a net positive effect for this group.

Finally, it’s worth noting that the music industry has changed quite a bit since the introduction of Hadopi. Streaming subscriptions are now the main digital revenue source, which has made it easier for consumers to discover new content. As such, the ‘discovery’ benefit of piracy may not be the same today.

—

A copy of the article titled “Superstars vs the Long Tail: How Does Music Piracy Affect Digital Song Sales for Different Segments of the Industry?” can be found behind a paywall.

Source: TF, for the latest info on copyright, file-sharing, torrent sites and more. We also have VPN reviews, discounts, offers and coupons.

Source link

Earlier this week we reported on a notable finding. For some reason, the two most active copyright litigants in the US had stopped filing new lawsuits in federal courts.

Instead of seeing hundreds of new cases each month targeting alleged BitTorrent pirates, there were none.

While the reason for this hiatus is unknown, we can now confirm that at least one of the companies hasn’t halted its efforts at all. Instead, it changed the venue, which isn’t without controversy.

In the U.S, copyright-related court cases are exclusively a matter of federal law, which is something every first-year law student knows. You can’t bring a copyright suit in state court, period. However, that’s exactly where Strike 3 has moved.

After filing over 1,000 cases in federal courts earlier this year, the adult entertainment company moved its activities to a Florida state court. In recent weeks, it has filed more than a dozen new cases.

Although these cases relate to copyright infringement, Strike 3 submits them as a complaint for “a pure bill discovery.” This essentially means that it asks the court to give it the right to figure out who the defendants are.

In this case, this means a subpoena directed at ISPs to identify the account holder that’s linked to the allegedly infringing IP-addresses. This tactic provides the same result as going through a federal court and allows Strike 3 to demand settlements as well.

While the number of cases in state court is relatively modest, these cases target a substantially higher number of defendants per case. That’s also one of the main advantages. By filing a single case with dozens or hundreds of defendants, the filing fee per defendant is very low.

In federal court, the company generally targets one defendant per complaint, which is far more expensive. And while Strike 3 mentions that it is requesting the information for a subsequent copyright lawsuit, it will likely try to get a settlement first.

Another advantage is that the company doesn’t have to deal with the federal courts that are increasingly reluctant to grant discovery. Just a few weeks ago, Strike 3 was denied a subpoena, for example.

The question is whether this shortcut is appropriate. While we have seen it being used in Florida a few years ago, it certainly isn’t common. And this time there is pushback as well.

TorrentFreak spoke to several attorneys who represent defendants in these cases. They believe that Strike 3 is wrong to use the state court for this purpose. However, in several cases, the Miami-Dade County Court has already granted subpoenas against a variety of ISPs, including AT&T and Comcast.

Attorney Jeffrey Antonelli and his firm Antonelli Law‘s local counsel Steven Robert Kozlowski objected to these subpoenas on behalf of several defendants. In his motion to quash he highlights a variety of problems, including the earlier observation that copyright cases don’t belong in a state court.

“This Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the copyright claims at issue in the lawsuit which the subpoena to Comcast is premised upon. Federal courts have original and exclusive jurisdiction over civil actions arising under federal copyright law,” the motion reads.

Another problem is that the purpose of the “pure bill of discovery” is to obtain facts or information a defendant has. However, the targeted ISPs are not defendants in these cases.

Finally, the motions highlight that the IP-addresses may not even be linked to Florida, where the court is based. Strike 3 should have known this, as they always disclose the location in federal court. However, they may have omitted it on purpose, the defense argues.

“In fact, Plaintiff’s failure to allege that Defendant has sufficient contacts with the state of Florida or is a Florida resident is likely a purposeful omission as Defendant is not a resident of Florida,” the motion to quash reads, showing that the IP-address is linked to Minnesota.

TorrentFreak spoke to Florida-based attorney Cynthia Conlin who has dealt with these ‘trolling’ lawsuits, both in federal and state court. She believes that Strike 3 has moved its efforts to the Miami-Dade County court in an attempt to save costs.

“The most obvious advantage in filing a multi-doe case is economic. Strike 3 need only pay a single filing fee to obtain identifying information for several dozen defendants, as opposed to $400 for each single-doe federal lawsuit,” Conlin says.

In federal courts, these cases typically include one defendant. So filing 50 cases would cost $20,000 in filing fees alone. In the recent state court cases, all defendants are grouped in a single case, which is much cheaper.

“By filing multi-doe suits, Strike 3 is increasing its odds of receiving settlements exponentially. So far it has filed 17 lawsuits in Miami-Dade County, and counting,” Conlin notes.

While Conlin doesn’t believe that these cases are allowed in state courts, judges often sign off on the subpoenas since they are not well-versed in copyright litigation. This is a loophole Strike 3 tried to exploit.

“Strike 3 would not be able to get away with filing a multi-doe lawsuit in federal court. Mass-doe cases have been done before in many federal jurisdictions, and the federal courts will no longer allow them. State court is the only place Strike 3 can get away with it,” she says.

This isn’t the first time this maneuver has been carried out. A few other companies have done so and some argue that it’s a win-win for all, as it can result in lower settlements as well.

Conlin and other defense attorneys don’t buy that and will continue to file motions to quash. At the time of writing, the Miami-Dade County Court has yet to rule on these subpoenas.

Source: TF, for the latest info on copyright, file-sharing, torrent sites and more. We also have VPN reviews, discounts, offers and coupons.

Source link