Thursday, February 29, 2024

TorrentFreak's Latest News

 

Pirate Sites With Malicious Ads Face Restrictions Under New Initiative
Andy Maxwell, 29 Feb 11:27 AM

malware-s1There was a time when visiting a pirate site was much like visiting any other. Keen to attract eyeballs wherever they might be, many of the world's biggest brands exchanged cold hard cash for an appearance on prominent pirate portals.

Over time and as the thorny issue of funding illicit platforms gained traction, companies including Ford, Toyota, Nissan, Mazda and Volvo came under increasing pressure. The same held true for other household names, such as tech giant Samsung, along with Nokia, Canon, Carlsberg, even Coca Cola.

These companies weren't deliberately placing ads on pirate sites, but their ads kept turning up on them nonetheless.

Goodbye Quality Brands

As brand protection became increasingly important during the previous decade, companies such as White Bullet provided intelligence on which sites to avoid, with similar lists deployed to facilitate the work of the UK's Infringing Website List, among others. In the United States, the formation of the Trustworthy Accountability Group (TAG) in 2015 saw advertisers and advertising agencies come together to clean up the system and prevent ad revenue from reaching pirate sites.

TAG enjoys considerable support; Amazon, Disney, Google, Meta, NBC, Sky, and Spotify, among others, sit on TAG's Leadership Council. Most were around in 2019 when TAG launched Project Brand Integrity, an initiative to prevent valuable brands' advertising ending up next to potato-quality copies of Hollywood movies and other unauthorized content.

Half a Decade Later, TAG Upgrades

While TAG says that v1.0 has performed well, on Wednesday it announced Project Brand Integrity 2.0. More easily scalable than its predecessor, PBI 2.0 still aims to defund pirate sites and protect advertisers from undesirable associations. If all goes to plan, it will be quicker to react and more responsive to domain hopping too.

"Project Brand Integrity 1.0 was incredibly effective but hard to scale, as it involved a time-consuming manual process of notifying advertisers when their ads were found on pirate sites," says Mike Zaneis, CEO of TAG.

"Although most advertisers took action when alerted to such misplacements, the money often had already changed hands, and the criminals quickly moved their efforts to new domains."

Excluded From Ads, Pirates Welcomed to Exclusion List

Also receiving an upgrade is TAG's database of pirate sites, which is shared within the industry to help advertisers avoid undesirable platforms. This 'exclusion list' is maintained and developed through intelligence sharing at TAG's AdSec Threat Exchange, where members collaborate with participating companies, utilize open source resources, and share information on pirate domains.

The resulting list aims to limit pirate sites' access to advertisers, thereby reducing their ability to generate revenue from advertising.

tag-pbi2

"Through PBI 2.0, TAG will leverage new partnerships with the industry's major ad tech intermediaries to cut off funding from pirate websites through a comprehensive pre-bid exclusion list, thus preventing pirate sites from monetizing stolen intellectual property (IP)," TAG says.

"By incorporating real-time intelligence on new pirate domains from TAG's Ad Sec Threat Exchange and TAG member companies, PBI 2.0 will protect brands while preventing ad dollars from reaching those illegitimate sites."

Malvertising Everywhere

In an interview with EMA last December, Michael Lydon, TAG's Vice President of Threat Intelligence, spoke of the constant battle against malvertising, a portmanteau of 'malware' and 'advertising.' Scam ads, auto-redirections, cloaking, and drive-by downloads all received a mention. Not exclusively in connection with pirate sites, though, the problem is much broader than that.

Given the nature of this pervasive adversary, TAG's v2.0 exclusion list will also combine data originally collected by anti-malware vendors, with the intelligence providing an enhanced view of pirate sites that combine free downloads with malicious or deceptive ads. Once that information is placed in the hands of advertisers, it's hoped that having two reasons not to fund pirate sites will be better than having just one.

Proactively Eliminating Malvertising

What kind of effect the project will have at the consumer end is unclear. One of the great ironies of the pirate site/malware debate is that by driving trusted advertisers away, anti-piracy groups not only removed revenue but also opened up the market for less inhibited advertising agencies to do more business with pirate sites.

Lower ad rates made available to pirate sites with fewer opportunities elsewhere, can lead to an elevated chance of risky ads, on web-based portals in particular. Since TAG's system will only make things worse and the rest of the internet isn't getting any better, some sites may need to be tackled more directly.

The good news is that plenty of solutions for disappearing bad ads, malvertising, endless trackers, and other stuff some sites just can't get enough of, are readily available for free. Since they don't discriminate, they're just as happy removing all hot girls in your area to the 80 advertising partners imposed on visitors by too many mainstream sites.

quad9

For those really averse to abusive advertising, moving away from ISP-provided DNS to Quad9's threat-blocking alternative is a good start.

For the more adventurous, a self-hosted DNS server like Pi-Hole, loaded with various hand-picked blocking lists, is something that few people think they need. At least until they see how even seemingly regular ads, not to mention things like smart TVs, can really abuse their trust.

pi-hole

Finally, uBlock Origin on top is an essential for every browser, and if all goes to plan, malvertising will be a thing of the past. Then, working from a nice clean sheet, unblocking the sites worthy of support seems the way to go, while enjoying the internet all over again.

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

Nintendo's Yuzu Lawsuit Aims to Pour Banana Peels Over All Emulators
Andy Maxwell, 28 Feb 04:55 PM

yuzu-tropicIt's not uncommon for people to wander into some corner of the overall emulation scene with a specific question: Are emulators legal?

While not necessarily true, the most common answer is: yes, emulators are completely legal but distributing the games (ROMs) is most definitely not, so don't request them here.

In response to questions from those interested in the DIY approach, gamers are often advised to rip only the games they actually own, or only download games they intend to rip, for which they already own the original.

The endless caveats that tend to go unmentioned are even more important. Nintendo knows them all but rarely strays from its fundamental position that, as far as its games and consoles are concerned, the process is illegal.

Nintendo Targets Company Behind Switch Emulator, Yuzu

Targeting developers who reverse-engineer and decompile code, to support an open source project, for which no money needs to be paid, is one way to view the lawsuit Nintendo filed this week. At the heart of the complaint is Switch emulator software Yuzu and Tropic Haze LLC, the United States company allegedly behind the project.

yuzu-github

Available on Windows, Linux, and Android, Yuzu claims to be the most popular open-source Switch emulator in the world. The software is completely free and readily available (caveats apply), but the games it plays are not part of the offer (see above).

Instead, users of Yuzu need to obtain Nintendo games from elsewhere, in most cases those pre-ripped by others and placed online for download.

In all cases, whether on physical cartridges or supplied as digital downloads, Switch games contain security measures designed to prevent copying or being run on unauthorized devices. Technological protection measures (TPM) are also present in the Switch console, which has layers of encryption to restrict access to vital cryptographic files known as 'prod.keys'.

Circumvention and Decryption

Just as Yuzu distances itself from pirated copies of Nintendo's games, Yuzu users must also independently obtain prod.keys, sourced from hacked Switch consoles and made available online.

After these keys are fed into Yuzu, Nintendo claims that the emulator uses them to unlawfully circumvent its technological measures, decrypting Switch game files before and during runtime. This allows copies of Switch games to be played on Windows, Linux, and Android, contrary to Nintendo's terms and conditions and in violation of the anti-circumvention provisions of the DMCA.

yuzu-code

"Only because Yuzu decrypts a Nintendo Switch game file dynamically during operation can the game be played in Yuzu. In other words, without Yuzu's decryption of Nintendo's encryption, unauthorized copies of games could not be played on PCs or Android devices," the complaint reads.

"With Yuzu in hand, nothing stops a user from obtaining and playing unlawful copies of virtually any game made for the Nintendo Switch, all without paying a dime to Nintendo or to any of the hundreds of other game developers and publishers making and selling games for the Nintendo Switch. In effect, Yuzu turns general computing devices into tools for massive intellectual property infringement of Nintendo and others' copyrighted works."

Tropic Haze LLC and Yuzu Lead Dev, Bunnei

Tropic Haze LLC is described as a Rhode Island company that develops and distributes Yuzu. Nintendo says the company uses a network of paid coders/developers who maintain the software and issue updates to improve the software's ability to replicate the gameplay experience offered by Nintendo's official products.

These individuals are described as agents of Tropic Haze LLC and Nintendo holds the company liable for their conduct. That includes Bunnei, the alleged lead developer of Yuzu, whose conduct receives significant attention in the complaint.

Nintendo's Laundry List of Allegations

Nintendo's first mention of Bunnei includes a claim that the developer "publicly acknowledged most users pirate prod.keys and games online" while the Yuzu website offers instructions to users on how to "unlawfully hack their own Nintendo Switch and how to make unauthorized copies of Nintendo games and unlawfully obtain prod.keys."

While advice doesn't amount to circumvention, Nintendo says it can show that Bunnei and other developers used Yuzu to decrypt and play Nintendo games. That required them to obtain prod.keys from a hacked console (circumvention violation under the DMCA), and make at least one unauthorized copy of a game (copyright infringement).

Nintendo says that agents including Bunnei are "fully aware" of the use of Yuzu by others "in performing circumvention, and in facilitating piracy at a colossal scale." Moreover, in addition to providing Yuzu and instructions to complete various tasks, the importance of decryption keys is acknowledged on the Yuzu website, along with links to various pieces of software designed to extract those keys.

Nintendo claims that decisions regarding new Yuzu features, which platforms to launch on, and which games to provide compatibility with, are made by Bunnei. Nintendo also provides a quote; when acknowledging that the Yuzu Quickstart guide can be confusing, Bunnei allegedly said, "users probably just pirate a yuzu folder with everything."

The Quickstart guide itself also contains the following: "[t]o start playing commercial games, yuzu needs a couple of system files from a HACKABLE Nintendo Switch console in order to play them properly."

Zelda: TotK Leak Provided Patreon Earnings Boost

The Legend of Zelda: Tears of the Kingdom was released by Nintendo on March 12, 2023, but was available to pirate online on May 1, 2023. Nintendo says 100% of the copies available were necessarily pirated copies and every user who obtained a copy did so without paying for the game.

Over one million copies of the game were downloaded and Nintendo claims that over 20% of download links referenced playing the game on an emulator, Yuzu included. Meanwhile, Yuzu's Patreon – where early builds of Yuzu are made available to members – had a sudden increase in membership.

yuzu patreon

Nintendo claims this was a direct result of the leaked Zelda: TotK being played on Yuzu and Bunnei understood that, not least since Yuzu has a telemetry feature that relays the titles of games being played.

"Indeed, Bunnei implemented a ban on discussing Zelda: TotK emulation in Yuzu's Discord server because so many Yuzu users were trying to seek support emulating it," Nintendo claims.

Nintendo notes that 7,000 patrons now generate around $30,000 per month for those who develop Yuzu, with early versions accessible via Patreon generating an additional $50,000.

Nintendo's Claims

Nintendo's claims are comprehensive. Trafficking in circumvention technology in violation of 17 U.S.C. § 1201(a)(2)) is supported by allegations that the defendant and its agents are aware that Yuzu is designed, implemented and used to circumvent encryption, while they market Yuzu for the purpose of circumventing TPMs.

A claim of trafficking in circumvention technology in violation of 17 U.S.C. § 1201(b)(1)), notes that Yuzu has "only limited commercially significant purpose or use" other than to circumvent protection measures.

Circumvention of technological measures in violation of 17 U.S.C. § 1201(a)(1)) relates to Bunnei and other developers circumventing Nintendo's protection measures themselves, while additional claims under the Copyright Act relate to Bunnei and the other developers dumping Nintendo games, copying them into Yuzu, and sending them to each other.

A final count alleging contributory and inducement of infringement relate to secondary liability for Yuzu users' alleged infringements. Overall, the complaint amounts to a comprehensive sweep against almost everything that the modern emulation scene relies on, without directly tearing out the beating heart of emulation itself. If successful, the truck loads of banana peels left behind could prove difficult for other projects to avoid, however.

Nintendo seeks significant damages and an injunction to restrain Tropic Haze LLC from infringing its rights moving forward. That raises a slightly puzzling matter evident throughout the entire complaint.

Nobody Positively Identified in the Complaint

Despite Bunnei's alleged importance, the only defendant listed in the complaint is Tropic Haze LLC and Nintendo provides almost no information about the company, including details of ownership or control, despite claiming that its sole business is to "develop and distribute unlawful circumvention software."

It necessarily follows that 'Bunnei' is not listed as a defendant, Doe or otherwise. In fact, the language used by Nintendo throughout the complaint suggests that it either has no idea of Bunnei's true identity or may have gone to considerable lengths to give that impression.

What lies behind this, if anything, is unclear, but there's a strong possibility that sooner or later, pressure to settle will likely enter the equation. Right now, there are no real names in the complaint, but that could be changed in an instant, at least if any are currently known.

Nintendo's complaint can be found here (pdf)

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

270x90-blue

Are you looking for a VPN service? TorrentFreak sponsor NordVPN has some excellent offers.

 
 
Powered by Mad Mimi®A GoDaddy® company

Wednesday, February 28, 2024

TorrentFreak's Latest News

 

Video of New 'Masters of the Air' Episode Leaks on Pirate Sites
Ernesto Van der Sar, 28 Feb 12:12 PM

motaOver the years, plenty of TV show episodes have leaked online in advance of their official release.

Game of Thrones had several prominent episodes come out early, sometimes several at once, and successor 'House of the Dragon' saw the season finale debut early.

In most cases, these leaks are broadly advertised by the pirate groups who put them online. Being the first to release a prominent leak, is a key accolade in a business where everything revolves around releasing new content faster than others.

'Masters of the Air' Leak

As one of the hit shows of the year, the Apple TV+ series "Masters of the Air" is a key target of pirate groups. However, the leaked episode that appeared a few hours ago wasn't advertised as such.

Information received by TorrentFreak confirms that pirated copies of the latest episode of Apple's series "The New Look" are not what they seem. Instead, these early pirated copies of 'The New Look S01E05' include the video track of an unreleased episode of another series.

These erroneous releases include video from the eighth episode of "Masters of the Air," which is set to be released on March 8. The audio track, however, is from "The New Look", which likely makes it a confusing watch.

There are rumors that there are also full copies available, including the leaked audio track, but we could not confirm those.

Leaked video (click for unblurred version)

mastblur

It's not clear how this 'mistake' came about, but it seems likely that Apple or another party accidentally put the wrong video online. This error was fixed as soon as the issue was noticed, but not before pirate groups grabbed their copies.

While some pirate release groups are eager to get leaks out to the public, the content of the release amounts to an unintentional Apple mashup and an unwatchable episode. There are subtitles available on some releases, but they're from "The New Look."

Many release groups were swift to fix the unusual error and released "repacks" to fix the earlier mistake. These updated releases include the correct video track, removing the inadvertent "Masters of the Air" leak. Some added comments further corroborate the error.

"Apple fucked up and put up the video for masters of the air episode 8," we read in one of the notes that comes with a repack release.

repack

Even if the leak was a full copy, one can only wonder how welcome it would be. The seventh episode of "Masters of the Air" is scheduled to be released this Friday and true fans typically like to follow the chronological storyline.

We reached out to Apple for a comment on the accidental leak but the company didn't immediately reply.

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

OpenAI: 'The New York Times Paid Someone to Hack Us'
Ernesto Van der Sar, 27 Feb 04:15 PM

openai logoIn recent months, rightsholders of all ilks have filed lawsuits against companies that develop AI models.

The list includes record labels, individual authors, visual artists, and more recently the New York Times. These rightsholders all object to the presumed use of their work without proper compensation.

A few hours ago, OpenAI responded to The New York Times complaint, asking the federal court to dismiss several key claims. Not just that, the defendants fire back with some rather damning allegations of their own.

OpenAI's motion directly challenges the Times's journalistic values, putting the company's truthfulness in doubt. The notion that ChatGPT can be used as a substitute for a newspaper subscription is overblown, they counter.

"In the real world, people do not use ChatGPT or any other OpenAI product for that purpose. Nor could they. In the ordinary course, one cannot use ChatGPT to serve up Times articles at will," the motion to dismiss reads.

'NYT Paid Someone to Hack OpenAI'?

In its complaint, the Times did show evidence that OpenAI's GPT-4 model was able to supposedly generate several paragraphs that matched content from its articles. However, that is not the full truth, OpenAI notes, suggesting that the newspaper crossed a line by hacking OpenAI products.

"The allegations in the Times's complaint do not meet its famously rigorous journalistic standards. The truth, which will come out in the course of this case, is that the Times paid someone to hack OpenAI's products," the motion to dismiss explains.

nyt hacked

OpenAI believes that it took tens of thousands of attempts to get ChatGPT to produce the controversial output that's the basis of this lawsuit. This is not how normal people interact with its service, it notes.

It also shared some additional details on how this alleged 'hack' was carried out by this third-party.

"They were able to do so only by targeting and exploiting a bug […] by using deceptive prompts that blatantly violate OpenAI's terms of use. And even then, they had to feed the tool portions of the very articles they sought to elicit verbatim passages of, virtually all of which already appear on multiple public websites."

'Hired Guns Don't Stop Evolving Technology'

The OpenAI defendants continue their motion to dismiss by noting that AI is yet another technical evolution that will change the world, including journalism. It points out that several publishers openly support this progress.

For example, OpenAI has signed partnerships with other prominent news industry outlets including the Associated Press and Axel Springer. Smaller journalistic outlets are on board as well, and some plan to use AI-innovations to their benefit.

The Times doesn't have any agreements and uses this lawsuit to get proper compensation for the use of its work. However, OpenAI notes that the suggestion that its activities threaten journalism is overblown, or even fiction.

"The Times's suggestion that the contrived attacks of its hired gun show that the Fourth Estate is somehow imperiled by this technology is pure fiction. So too is its implication that the public en masse might mimic its agent's aberrant activity," the defense writes.

Fair Use

None of the allegations above address the copyright infringement allegations directly. However, OpenAI stresses that its use of third-party texts should fall under fair use. That applies to this case, and also to many other AI-related lawsuits, it argues.

This fair use defense has yet to be tested in court and will in great part determine the future of OpenAI and other AI technologies going forward.

To make its point, OpenAI aptly compares its use of third-party works in the journalistic realm. Newspapers, for example, are allowed to report on stories that are investigated and first reported by other journalists, as the Times regularly does.

"Established copyright doctrine will dictate that the Times cannot prevent AI models from acquiring knowledge about facts, any more than another news organization can prevent the Times itself from re-reporting stories it had no role in investigating," OpenAI writes.

The fair use defense will eventually be argued in detail when the case is heard on its merits. With the current motion to dismiss, OpenAI merely aims to limit the scope of the case.

Among other things, the defense argues that several of the copyright allegations are time-barred. In addition, the DMCA claim, the misappropriation claim, and the contributory infringement claim either fail or fall short.

Note: An earlier version of the article mistakenly mentioned Microsoft in relation to this motion. While the company is a defendant together with OpenAI, it is NOT part of this motion to dismiss.

A copy of OpenAI's motion to dismiss is available here (pdf). TorrentFreak broke this story, but other journalists are welcome to use it. A link would be much appreciated, of course, but we won't sue anyone over it

TorrentFreak asked the Times for a response to the 'hack' allegations but the company didn't immediately respond.

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

ISPs Request Records to Show How Piracy Fight Blocked Legitimate Sites
Andy Maxwell, 27 Feb 01:13 PM

italy-blackoutWhen attempting to block pirated content online, there is always a significant risk that legitimate content will be blocked too.

Proponents of a tough new law in Italy that granted significant powers to rapidly block sites, waved away such concerns last year. However, after less than a month in full operation, the Piracy Shield system made its biggest blunder thus far last Saturday. Rather than opt for a surgical strike, someone rolled out a blunderbuss.

It Could Never Happen…

IP address 188.114.97.7 belongs to Cloudflare and is used by many sites, including legitimate ones, so shouldn't have been targeted at all. However, when that IP was blocked by Italy's ISPs, under orders of telecoms regulator AGCOM, just 15 minutes later the effect was significant.

RIP-188.114.97.7

From people whose innocent sites were rendered inaccessible, to networking experts, ISPs, and regular Italian internet users, all want to know why this happened, why it was allowed to happen, and how something similar will be prevented moving forward.

As far as we're aware, no official comments from AGCOM, rightsholders, or indeed anyone responsible for the blunder have even mentioned it in public, let alone that they provided an explanation.

ASSOProvider Files Access to Information Request

In a letter dated Monday seen by TorrentFreak, independent ISP association ASSOProvider calls on AGCOM to grant access to information under relevant law.

"According to these resolutions, anyone with a personal and concrete interest in the protection of legally relevant situations may exercise the right of access to documents held by the Authority by sending a written and reasoned request. The person in charge of the procedure shall do so within 30 days and inform the Council," the letter reads.

To illustrate the association's legitimate interest, the letter lays out ASSOProvider's participation in working groups related to the law introduced last year, and the legal appeal it subsequently filed to protest its site-blocking provisions. The association further notes that its own members are impacted by the actions of the Piracy Shield system since they're required to use it.

"As of February 1, 2024, the Piracy Shield platform for combating piracy is active. Moreover, among ASSOprovider's Associates, there are providers affected by the activities put in place by the Piracy Shield platform as they are members of the same platform, and also in this way the Association makes this petition," the letter continues.

Legitimate Request For Data Relating to Two Events

ASSOProvider's request seeks data connected to two reported overblocking events. The first, against IP addresses belonging to Zenlayer CDN, with the second relating to last weekend's blocking of the Cloudflare IP address. Since there have been suggestions that ISPs could find themselves targeted with legal claims related to unlawful blocking, having AGCOM hand over relevant records is a reasonable request.

"It is therefore in the interest of the Association, engaged on the judicial front and for its own and its members' protection, to know the acts and documents that gave rise to these inhibitions," the letter continues.

Information Requested

ASSOProvider requests access to the following documents:

• The list of FQDN domain names and IP addresses submitted to Piracy Shield from February 1, 2024, to date.
• Specifically, all documents related to IP blocking issued, communicated and implemented, on Feb. 14, 15 and 24.
• The reports and all documents received from rights holders that resulted in blocking tickets on the same dates.
• The notice sent by AGCOM to the owner of the officially targeted site.
• Copies of blocking tickets sent to the Piracy Shield platform on Feb. 14, 15 and 24.
• Copies of blocking revocation tickets sent on the same days.

Given that AGCOM hasn't yet released domain and IP address information on its website to allow relevant parties to appeal against blocking instructions, it will be interesting to see its response to this official request. The request seeks significantly more information than AGCOM has provided thus far, including that which AGCOM is required to publish.

Official Declarations Fail to Indicate Scale of Blocking

The table below shows the bare details of information released thus far, plus information that should be declared relating to post-order blocking, but to date has not. AGCOM may provide additional details at a later date but since that information is available the moment domains and IP addresses are blocked, providing them quickly shouldn't be an issue.

AGCOM-Blocking to 240221-image

The big question is how the above table translates to the actual number of domains and IP addresses blocked.

Information made available to TorrentFreak shows that from February 1 to last week (not including events last weekend), over 1,200 IP addresses have been blocked by Piracy Shield. The volume of domain names, which includes subdomains, is considerably larger, well over 1,600.

We understand that the law does not specify or recognize unblocking of domains or IP addresses and no system is in place to remove blocks that are out of date. Cursory tests show that some IP addresses on the list no longer facilitate access to pirate services, assuming that was initially the case.

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

270x90-blue

Are you looking for a VPN service? TorrentFreak sponsor NordVPN has some excellent offers.

 
 
Powered by Mad Mimi®A GoDaddy® company