Tuesday, February 9, 2021

TorrentFreak's Latest News

 

Google Takes Out YouTube Ripper with WIPO Domain Dispute
Ernesto Van der Sar, 09 Feb 09:40 PM

youtube sad errorFree music is easy to find nowadays. Just head over to YouTube and one can find millions of tracks, including many of the most recent releases.

This is a problem for the major record labels which don't want tracks to leak outside YouTube's ecosystem. For this reason, YouTube rippers are seen as a major threat.

The music industry is actively tackling this issue by requesting IPS blockades and taking site operators to court. Ideally, however, the major labels would like YouTube to take more responsibility as well.

YouTube Targets Rippers

While YouTube isn't particularly vocal on the stream-ripping problem, it's certainly not ignoring the issue. The video service has sent numerous cease and desist letters to the operators of these sites and more recently it actively began blocking IP-addresses.

The blocking efforts had some limited effect but YouTube rippers swiftly found workarounds, triggering an ongoing cat and mouse game. This is perhaps why YouTube is looking into other avenues as well.

Earlier this year, YouTube informed the UK Parliament that it has started domain name disputes as well. These cases are filed at the World International Property Organization (WIPO), which has an arbitration panel to resolve domain name issues.

WIPO Domain Dispute against Youtubeconverter.io

When we searched the database we found one case against Youtubeconverter.io. This stream-ripper is a familiar name. It was previously targeted by the RIAA and was also included on the most recent EU piracy watchlist.

In the WIPO complaint, Google argued that the site uses its trademark without permission, that the owner had no legitimate interest in the domain, and that the domain was registered in bad faith. As such, the domain should be taken down.

After a careful review, WIPO panelist Stephanie Hartung sided with Google. The domain name owner, a Vietnamese resident named Ken Nguyen, failed to respond but according to Hartung, there is no indication that the domain was registered for legitimate purposes.

Not Bona Fide

"Respondent has not made use of the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services, nor has Respondent been commonly known by the disputed domain name," she writes.

youtubeconverter

While there can be exceptions for sites that have a legitimate and noncommercial use, that is not the case here. The stream-ripper clearly violates YouTube's terms of service and is actively profiting from this activity through advertisements.

"The disputed domain name resolved to a commercially active website promoting to allow to convert and download videos and audios from the 'YouTube' platform – which obviously is in contrast to, and thus violating, Complainant's Terms of Service – and also displaying pay-per-click advertisements, presumably at Respondent's financial advantage."

Private and False WHOIS Info

According to the WIPO panelist, it's also evident that the domain itself is confusingly similar to the YouTube trademark. In addition, the Vietnamese owner registered it in bad faith, using a privacy service to conceal his true identity while providing false WHOIS info.

Taken together, the WIPO panel decided that the domain name has to be transferred to Google. At the time of writing, this hasn't happened yet, but the domain isn't resolving either.

Cat and Mouse

While Google and YouTube can celebrate this outcome as a victory, the problem doesn't go away. There are hundreds of other tools and services that do exactly the same as Youtubeconverter.io.

In fact, the owner of Youtubeconverter.io hasn't thrown in the towel either. When the WIPO panel decided over the matter last week, the disputed domain name redirected to ytconv.cc, which looks exactly like its predecessor, without using the YouTube trademark in the name.

And so the cat and mouse game continues.

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

Hacker Blackmails Pirate IPTV Services, Threatens To Send User Data To Police
Andy Maxwell, 09 Feb 11:03 AM

hackerIn most countries blackmail is a very serious offense resulting in considerable jail sentences.

However, that is proving no deterrent to an individual behind a series of hacks targeting pirate IPTV providers over the past couple of years.

Two Linked Suppliers Targeted in New Hacks

During the past two days, a pair of UK-based IPTV suppliers – SapphireSecure.net and KS-Hosting.com – became victims in what appears to be a series of hacks carried out by the same individual. Apparently connected by ownership, the platforms went down and began displaying similar messages on their homepages indicating that they had been seriously compromised.

The messages that appeared on both sites are similar and it seems from the timing that SapphireSecure was taken down first, displaying a "Down for Maintenance" error and the following text.

"Your IPTV provider from [redacted] in the United Kingdom has not secured your details and put you at huge risk. All the databases will be shared with the police and copyright protection agencies and posted online shortly.

[Name redacted] has the option to still protect his customers and himself and stop this and there are two ways of him doing this, this is his choice and likely depends on how much he cares about his customers data."

The message on KS-Hosting goes a step further, again naming the individual allegedly behind both platforms while providing information relating to his current address, former address, and even his ISP. It also follows up with a threat to leak the personal information of staff members.

Considerable Ransom Demands

In common with previous attacks against IPTV providers, these IPTV brands (which appear to have the same underlying service) are being ordered to pay a bitcoin ransom to prevent the above threats being carried out. The amount is 2 BTC, which at current rates is around US$94,000, although it is not entirely clear whether this amount has to be paid overall or for each site hacked.

According to the hacker, the bitcoin demanded has been balanced to account for the amount of money generated by the service(s), with 2 BTC estimated as less than two weeks' revenue.

"[H]e has stolen huge amounts of revenue from broadcasters and the content that he steals he does not give away for free he profits from this so we are stealing from the thief [sic]," the announcement reads.

Alternative Way To Appease The Hacker

Strangely, the hacker also gives the owner of both SapphireSecure.net and KS-Hosting.com a way out without having to pay a ransom. The demand is for the services to completely shut down, with no chance of a resurrection, while refunding money back to subscribers to compensate them for their lack of service, "as this is not their fault."

On the surface, the demands seem somewhat contradictory. If the owner of the platforms doesn't pay, then customers will be punished. However, if he pays or shuts down they will not, since this is not their fault. It appears, therefore, that as long as the services' operator is punished financially, that will be considered enough not to punish the customers. This is painted as the owners' choice but quite obviously, he didn't set those terms.

No Ransom Paid – Yet

While some believe bitcoin is the holy grail of anonymous payments, transactions for a bitcoin wallet are public information and if we take a look at the hacker's wallet (which may have been set up for this purpose alone) we can see that no ransom has been paid.

Bitcoin IPTV

Blackmailing people who are already on the wrong side of the law could be an effective way to encourage payment but anecdotal evidence provided in relation to previous cases suggests that paying this particular hacker off doesn't necessarily work, since he reportedly comes back for more – and more – when people pay.

The other sizeable issue in this case is that the information leaked by the hacker already seems to allow interested parties to discover who is behind both services, meaning that beyond protecting customers' information, the damage appears to have been done, ruining any incentive to pay.

The key here, it seems, is for service operators and their customers to be more cautious when it comes to launching and/or using a pirate service. Then, when they fall victim to hacks (which are by now frequent and common knowledge), any information obtained will be of limited use. If either operates in the open, with no caution in respect of identities, then this type of blackmail will continue to prove enticing to hackers.

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

 
 
Powered by Mad Mimi®A GoDaddy® company

No comments: