Sunday, May 31, 2020

TorrentFreak's Latest News

 

How Anonymous Are Cloud Torrenting Services?
Ernesto, 31 May 10:14 PM

cctv cameras surveillanceEvery day, millions of people download files through BitTorrent. This works well but there is one major drawback; everything you download can be tracked.

To bypass this privacy concern many people have started to use VPNs, many of which provide good anonymity. Others prefer cloud torrenting tools, which also help to hide users' IP-addresses.

Over the past few years we've regularly asked VPN providers how anonymous they really are. However, little is known about the privacy policies and logging practices of cloud torrenting services. Today, we hope to fill this gap.

At the start of the week we reached out to several of the leading cloud torrenting services to ask some detailed questions. In particular, we wanted to know what information they store and if that can expose users.

The list of all questions, including the answers from providers, is listed below. At the bottom of the article we provide a summary, as well as a list of those who failed to respond at all.


1. Does your service collect any temporary or permanent data that can link a timestamp and IP-address to a specific user on your service? If so, what information do you collect and how long is that stored?

2. Does your service store any personally identifiable information of users (including IP-addresses)? If so, what information do you store, and for how long?

3. Does your service store the names/hashes or other identifying information of downloaded content (stored on your servers) that can be connected with a specific user? If so, for how long?

4. Does your service store the names/hashes or other identifying information of previously downloaded content (after being removed from the user's account) that can be connected with a specific user? If so, for how long?

5. How does your service respond to DMCA notices or similar takedown requests?

6. Do you have a repeat infringer policy? If so, what does it entail?

Premiumize

premiumize logo1. No, we don't log any IP access data. Our whole service is built to have minimal logging and is very light on the database level. That keeps things simple.

2. The most unique userkey is the user's email address. We keep that for obvious reasons – to secure the account and reach the user. We keep it until the account is deleted. Apart from that we don't store anything, but other information might be stored by our payment gateways. Nothing really can be done there except moving to Bitcoin – which we support and love.

3. There are two parts to our service. One is for fetching (eg a transfer job for importing the files into cloud storage) and then there's the actual cloud storage. There is obviously a database that links the files to the user's account but that connection is gone once the user deletes(removes) the file from their cloud. We cannot restore files and cannot backtrack who added/transferred what.

4.No, we do not.

5. Luckily we don't have this problem since our business model does not contain any sort of sharing or publishing. Generated filelinks are locked to the user's account and cannot be accessed externally.

6. We do not and it would be pretty hard since we do not have the logs. For now, we are content with the current legal situation.

TorrentFreak summary: There are no logs that can connect a person's IP-address to an account. Premiumize can link files to user accounts and information

Transfercloud

transfercloud logo1. The last IP address is registered when the user logs on and it is cleared when the user logs out. This IP is only used to permit access to their downloaded files, and it is correlated with the login cookie. This is temporary and the privacy of the user is assured when they logout. The email is used to register and as an account recovery mechanism.

2. Each account is associated with an email address. Even though we frown on 'temporary' or 'disposable' emails, we make no effort in collecting the real name. In fact, if the user logs in with a Facebook account and refuses to share their email address, we don't store any address at all. Email is only used to ensure the ownership of the account and allow users to 'recover' their own account and not be available for anyone else.

At any point, users can change their email address or delete it. Also, at any point any user can ask for account deletion and all information will be purged on request. We are working on adding an automatic mechanism for this.

Now, if the user upgrades their account, our payment processor asks for PII to ensure the identity of the user to protect against credit card fraud. This information STAYS on their servers and is not available from ours. We don't use that information at all, we just receive the activation for a specific account.

3. See the next answer.

4. On all active or previous transfers the original request is stored as long as the user leaves them on their 'downloaded' list. As soon as they clear this list, that information is purged and can no longer be connected with the user.

5. We respond as soon as the request is received. We delete the referred content and comply, informing the user why it was deleted and suggesting they do not try downloading any copyrighted content.

6. We have not had to enforce any "repeat infringer" policies, but we do not disclose the limits we would consider as abuse to avoid users trying to "pass below the radar". To be clear, although we do have a "fair use" policy for bandwidth usage, we have not had to impose any limits, as we try to permit the users to use the service to their maximum potential, and instead, we are really happy to see users enjoy it that much.

TorrentFreak summary: There are temporary logs that can connect a person's IP-address to an account. TransferCloud can link non-deleted files and download histories to user accounts and information

Put.io

1. Since we are a Turkish company we are required to abide by Turkish laws, which are more concerned about curtailing free speech than privacy. And since there is no speech at put.io we're not keeping a list of ['all'] used IP addresses.

We do keep the last used IP address to generate a download token that invalidates download links when requested from other IP addresses. We keep this last IP address as long as the user is logged in. It is erased when the user logs out or is inactive for 7 days. This is a precaution against abuse. We are currently working on a solution that will make it unnecessary to keep the last IP address.

2. We keep the username, reported email address and the last IP address for the purpose explained above. We have no access to users' payment information. These are stored by our payment providers

3. There is an association with the account and the transfer jobs as long as they are displayed on the transfers page, and there is an association between the account and the files as long as they are stored under that account. There is also a history page that lists the latest transfer jobs, but it can be turned off.

These associations disappear the moment the transfers page is cleared, the files are deleted or the history page is cleared (or disabled). We wouldn't be able to answer the question "What has this user downloaded?" after that.

Also, if the user ever destroys their account, we destroy everything related to the account. The only record we keep is a log entry that states that an account with that username was destroyed on that date. We had to add this to solve some mysteries with unintended account deletions.

4. No. If it's not visible in the user interface we don't keep it.

5. After 10 years in operation we have received only one DMCA request and that was meant for another service called Putlocker. The copyright holder had mixed up the services. We don't receive DMCA requests, but if we ever did, we would comply and remove the content from our servers. That would be the end of it.

6. We have never had to develop a policy to deal with this.

TorrentFreak summary: There are temporary logs that can connect a person's IP-address to an account. Put.io can link the non-deleted files and download history to user accounts and information.

Summary: How Anonymous Are Cloud Torrenting Services

Cloud torrenting services help people to hide their IP-addresses from the public. By doing so, they add an extra privacy layer. Outsiders can't see what people download. However, true anonymity is a different matter.

The services can link stored files – and in some cases non-deleted download histories – to the personal information they store in their database. In that regard, they are similar to cloud hosting services. This is worth keeping in mind, as services can be compromised or legally required to share information.

Cloud Torrenting Services That Haven't Responded (fully)

The following services didn't respond to our questions. If they do, we will update the article accordingly. Bitport submitted a partial response after our deadline, we will add the full response if it comes in.

– Boxopus
– Cloudload
– Filestream
– Seedr
– Offcloud
– Torrentsafe
– Transfercloud
– Zbigz

From: TF, for the latest news on copyright battles, piracy and more.

ACE/MPA Seize Four More Sites For Facilitating Movie & TV Show Piracy
Andy, 31 May 11:44 AM

MPA logoDomain takeovers and seizures have been part of the piracy landscape for at least 15 years.

Previously implemented mostly by government agencies, including the Department of Justice and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) as part of criminal investigations, seizure banners are used as messages to deter former and would-be pirates.

Given the finite resources of law enforcement agencies and their tendency to focus on high-profile targets, domain seizures/takeovers are now much more likely to be actioned privately. This usually involves an approach to a site owner by entertainment industry lawyers, who politely request that all infringing activity ceases and domains are handed over to avoid more punishing action.

The Alliance for Creativity and Entertainment (ACE) is now emerging as the leader in this type of enforcement tactic. Comprised of the world's leading video-focused entertainment companies, ACE has shut down dozens of platforms in this manner. However, instead of shouting its achievements from the rooftops, ACE prefers to conduct most of this activity behind the scenes.

Four More Domains Officially 'Seized' by ACE/MPA This Month

1. Rokuenmexico.com

Until recently, visitors to 'Roku in Mexico' were greeted with an offer to buy what appears to have been an unlicensed IPTV product called Future TV.

"Premium TV at the best price. Forget about SKY and Netflix," the site declared. "The largest catalog of films including some that are still in the cinema. Access the latest movies from your home."

Priced at 230 pesos (around $10) per month, the service claimed to be compatible with Android, iOS, Windows and Mac devices, playable on up to three at any one time. The service could be 'activated' via WhatsApp with payments accepted via PayPal and other means.

Curiously, however, the underlying Future TV portal seems to have been unaffected by the MPA's seizure of the Rokuenmexico.com domain. That remains available today, as the image below shows.

Future TV

2. Android-Latino.com

The MPA's takeover of Android-Latino.com is more difficult to decipher. The minimal volume of cached pages available on the Wayback Machine suggest that the site published news and reviews of pirate IPTV services and apps. It may have also published links to URLs where people could watch IPTV channels for free.

In any event, the original page (which wasn't professionally presented) is long gone and now diverts to the ACE anti-piracy portal.

3. TVnota10.net

In common with the above seizure, the takeover of TVnota10.net isn't immediately straightforward either. While the main site is down and redirecting to ACE citing breaches of copyright law, it appears to have functioned as a sales/promotional platform for a similarly-named service, TVN10.com.

That site appears to be completely functional, offering access to an almost certainly unlicensed IPTV service offering everything from live TV channels and movies, to TV shows and international sports.

4. Crowdstream.ml

To complete this weird quartet of domain takeovers we have Crowdstream.ml. Not only had we never heard of this platform before, it seems that the major companies of ACE may have only heard of it recently too. Google's Transparency Report reveals that Twentieth Century Fox and Disney sent a handful of takedown notices in December 2019 with French free-to-air television channel TF1 taking an interest at roughly the same time.

Major search engines only have a handful of Crowdstream pages indexed but the suggestion is that the service hosted or linked to mainstream movies and may have been directed at the French market.

Coverage of previous ACE/MPA domain seizures can be found here.

From: TF, for the latest news on copyright battles, piracy and more.

 
 
Powered by Mad Mimi®A GoDaddy® company

Saturday, May 30, 2020

TorrentFreak's Latest News

 

Netflix Impostor Bombards Google With Fake DMCA Takedown Notices
Ernesto, 30 May 08:07 PM

Earlier this month we reported on an interesting trend. Suddenly, the number of DMCA takedown notices sent by Netflix to Google shot through the roof.

As a possible explanation, we suggested an increase in enforcement following the surge of piracy during the COVID-19 pandemic. However, there were also some signs that hinted towards possible abuse by a third party.

After our publication, the number of 'Netflix' DMCA notices sent to Google only increased. Two weeks ago the streaming platform reportedly flagged 1.2 million pirate URLs in a month, a sharp contrast to the few thousand it filed a few weeks earlier.

Google Takes Action

At the same time, however, Google started to pick up the issue as well. Where all reported pirate links sent by "Netflix" were previously removed, the search engine has now started to reject more and more requests.

In fact, Google's Transparency Report is actively flagging several Netflix notices as abusive. While they do contain links to pirated material, Google believes they were sent by impostors.

"We believe that an impostor or someone else abusing the process submitted this request. We report it here for the sake of completeness and to provide a view into one kind of abuse of the DMCA process," Google writes.

netflix impostor

The notices that are flagged show the same fishy characteristics we highlighted in our earlier article. They generate separate 'reporting organization' listings in Google's transparency report, submit long lists of URLs from the same domains, and often identify content that's not owned by Netflix.

Also, the message that comes with these notices isn't exactly proper English and reads: "All works on this website is copyrighted for netflix and this website not allowed to share this content."

Competing Pirate Sites?

Who is responsible for these abusive notices remains a question. It seems very likely, however, that they're being sent by the owner of a pirate streaming site, who wants links from competing sites removed from Google search.

Given that most reported sites are French we assume that the sender – pirate or not – is French-speaking as well.

It's good to see that Google is now aware of the problem. However, this is not the first time this type of abuse has come up, so it would be good to know if it can be prevented going forward.

Google Is Taking Action

Google obviously doesn't like this type of abuse, but in some cases it's unavoidable. The company says its DMCA removals process aims to strike a balance between making it easy and efficient for rightsholders to report infringing content, and protecting free expression on the web.

"This system has been effective at significantly reducing access to infringing content via Search, but there are bad actors who attempt to abuse this system and limit access to information, which is something we actively fight against," a Google spokesperson informed TorrentFreak.

"Over the years, we've continued to invest in new tools and establish processes like the Trusted Copyright Removal Program to tackle this issue at scale, while also developing new ways to counter abuse, which continues to evolve."

As a result of these measures, Google rejects all requests it believes were sent by impostors. That said, many of the 'dubious' notices that were sent previously have not been flagged, or the URLs that were reported remain deindexed.

Google says that there are various types of abuse, some effecting legitimate content, and others target pirate content. While reported links form abusers are not always reinstated, affected sites can always submit counternotices. However, Google will not reinstate pirate URLs.

From: TF, for the latest news on copyright battles, piracy and more.

Watch Tower DMCA Subpoena Row Settled After Judge Hands Out Vulgarity Warning
Andy, 30 May 12:55 PM

Back in March we reported that the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society, the publisher for the Jehovah's Witness religious group, had gone to court to obtain a DMCA subpoena.

The aim of the group was to discover the personal details of a self-declared 'apostate' who uploaded Jehovah's Witness sermons to YouTube in breach of copyright. These are usually open-and-shut cases but when an anonymous movant stepped in to contest the application, things got pretty stormy to say the least.

As reported in April, the anonymous individual filed a series of documents with the court, branding leaders of the religious group as 'pedophiles' and suggesting that Judge Cathy Seibel's alleged friendship with Watch Tower's attorney could be undermining the judicial process. While largely irrelevant to our copyright-focused reporting, it should be noted that those claims were just the tip of the iceberg.

Profanities aside (and they were present in abundance), the anonymous movant declared protection under fair use doctrines and drew attention to the fact that despite filing applications for 59 DMCA subpoenas, Watch Tower had never followed up with an actual copyright lawsuit. These matters and more were subsequently addressed by Watch Tower and Judge Seibel.

Watch Tower: DMCA Subpoena Process Was Used in Good Faith

In a memorandum and declaration, Watch Tower attorney Paul D. Polidoro said that beginning June 2018, the religious group undertook "concentrated efforts" to address the "global theft" of its intellectual property. Part of this was exercising its rights under the DMCA, including applying for subpoenas. According to Polidoro, however, these didn't bear much fruit.

Using the words of the anonymous movant against him, the attorney noted that things like "VPNs, anonymous proxies, and TOR exit nodes" frustrate Watch Tower's enforcement efforts to discover the true identities of alleged infringers.

"When some identifying information was obtained, usually the infringer resided outside of the United States, such as in South America or Europe," Polidoro wrote.

"At the end of last year, Watch Tower's Legal Department was finally able to identify a few potential domestic defendants to bring a copyright infringement action. Undertaking litigation with its attendant expenses was and is carefully considered because Jehovah's Witnesses' efforts are 'supported entirely by voluntary donations'."

In the end, however, Watch Tower decided that legal action against someone was required and in December 2019 took the decision to sue an alleged copyright infringer. According to the filing, work on the case has been taking place since the beginning of 2020 but due to the coronavirus pandemic, the complaint was delayed.

"Watch Tower's forthcoming copyright infringement lawsuit will not end its efforts to take steps to address other ongoing continued infringements. To this end, Watch Tower will continue to avail itself of its statutory rights to pursue DMCA subpoenas to identify other potential defendants," Polidoro warned.

Watch Tower: No Fair Use in This Case

What followed was a case-by-case analysis of five videos posted by the movant to YouTube. In previous filings, the movant stated that the videos were "undercover" recordings of Jehovah's Witness sermons but according to the religious group, they were all posted in their entirety and without criticism, as might be the case when attempting to make a fair use claim.

Only making matters more complicated was a subsequent motion to quash by the anonymous movant which stated that the DMCA subpoena itself was invalid because the five videos referenced by Watch Tower had already been removed from YouTube by YouTube itself, before the notices had been issued.

"[B]y the time Watch Tower had issued its DMCA notices for the five allegedly infringing videos in the case at hand, the five videos had already been removed by Google/YouTube because Google is a huge piece of shit who doesn't have to do their fucking jobs right," the motion notes.

"So 'Hooray for the pieces of shit at Google for being so quick on the trigger and heavy-handed with their ban hammer!' But I guess that means that this subpoena must be quashed."

No, Possibly, and Mind Your Language, Judge Declares

"Having heard further from the parties, I deny the motion to quash," Judge Siebel wrote in her recent order settling the matter.

"Watch Tower has provided an explanation for why it has not pursued more cases, as well as evidence that the alleged infringement would not constitute fair use because the videos are full-length and not accompanied by criticism. That there may be criticisms in the comments section [on YouTube] does not render the initial postings fair use."

On the validity of the DMCA subpoena, the anonymous movant may enjoy more success, but only within tight parameters.

"Movant argues that the subpoena is unenforceable because the videos were all taken down before Google received notice. I am dubious, because this allegation contradicts what Movant alleges elsewhere — that the videos were taken down only after the notices were received — and because in Watch Tower's initial declaration, it attached a letter it sent to Google asking it to take down the videos," the Judge notes.

"But the subpoena would be unenforceable if the material had been taken down before the notices were received, so Watch Tower's counsel should provide Google with a copy of this text order, and Google is advised that compliance with the subpoena is not required if in fact the videos were taken down before Google received any notice of the possible infringement."

With the matter of the DMCA subpoena now apparently over, Judge Siebel took the time to add some personal advice to conclude her order. Having made no attempt to rein in any of the language used in the dispute thus far, she had the last word indicating she was far from happy.

"Finally, some free advice for Movant: Inflammatory, vulgar and abusive language in court filings is not a good idea."

Related court filings can be found here and here (pdf)

Image credit: Pixabay

From: TF, for the latest news on copyright battles, piracy and more.

 
 
Powered by Mad Mimi®A GoDaddy® company