TorrentFreak's Latest News

25 Private Torrent Trackers Went Offline After BREIN Tracked Down 'Scripter'Ernesto Van der Sar, 05 Jan 12:30 PM Streaming piracy has taken over fro

25 Private Torrent Trackers Went Offline After BREIN Tracked Down 'Scripter' Ernesto Van der Sar, 05 Jan 12:30 PM Streaming piracy has taken over from BitTorrent in most parts of the world, but this traditional file-sharing technology remains popular in the Netherlands. Anti-piracy group BREIN is well aware of BitTorrent's popularity. In addition to targeting public torrent sites with site-blocking measures, BREIN has kept an eye on private torrent trackers too. BREIN Targets Scripter This week, BREIN reports that action against the latter led to a breakthrough last year, eventually leading to the decimation of the entire local 'private' torrent tracker scene. The anti-piracy group says that the identification of a key person with connections to 25 private torrent trackers led to the current situation of most being offline. The unnamed man, who personally owned some of the trackers, coded and maintained the scripts these sites were running on. In addition to the coding work, the developer also offered hosting services, seedboxes, and VPN accounts to the torrent sites and their users. BREIN doesn't mention any of the private trackers by name. However, around the same time that this enforcement action went down, several of the largest Dutch-language torrent communities went offline. Those include Filmpaleis en Ebookparadijs, with the former publicly mentioning BREIN as the reason. Shortly after receiving a house visit from BREIN, the torrent tracker dev signed an agreement to halt his activities, with a maximum €50,000 penalty for breach of promise. This week, the man further agreed to pay €12,000 in 'damages', payable in installments. Zooming in on Prive Trackers Private torrent trackers are typically much smaller than their public counterparts but can harbor some of the most active sharers. These people are drawn to the trackers because of the superior download speeds and the absence of spam and viruses, BREIN notes. BREIN director Tim Kuik is pleased with these latest achievements. In recent years the group carried out many enforcement actions to cripple the Dutch Usenet community, and it plans to do the same with Dutch torrent trackers. "Our approach to Dutch private trackers is an extension of our approach to Usenet indexing sites, which has already delivered a major blow to illegal communities and uploaders. We want to achieve the same in the illegal BitTorrent scene," Kuik says. BREIN stresses that its investigation has already resulted in actions against other players in the ecosystem, without providing any further detail at this stage. These actions are likely targeted at the management of the trackers. The anti-piracy group confirms that it typically goes after the bigger fish, stressing that this also includes prolific uploaders. From: TF, for the latest news on copyright battles, piracy and more. Twitter Hit With $228.9m Copyright Infringement / Repeat Infringer Lawsuit Andy Maxwell, 04 Jan 09:00 PM Any platform that allows users to upload and share content runs the risk of some users uploading content for which they hold no rights. Under copyright law, platforms can limit liability for the actions of their users provided they respond to DMCA takedown notices in a timely fashion and suspend or terminate users who repeatedly infringe copyright. If a platform fails in either respect, rightsholders may attempt to hold it liable for infringements that it had the ability to stop, but failed to do so. Celebrity Photo Agency Sues Twitter On December 30, 2022, celebrity photo agency Backgrid filed a lawsuit against Twitter at the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. The complaint alleges that Backgrid sent more than 6,700 DMCA notices to Twitter requesting the removal of its copyrighted images, but Twitter failed to take down a single one. Backgrid further alleges that its images were posted continuously by some Twitter users, but Twitter failed to suspend any accounts under its 'repeat infringer' policy. The complaint notes that Backgrid attempted to resolve its dispute with Twitter directly, but when the company failed to respond, the photo agency launched this action. Backgrid: No Action in Response to DMCA Notices The complaint describes Backgrid as "the world's premier celebrity-related photograph agency." The company says that its celebrity images are regularly licensed by publications including Vogue, Ella, TMZ, and Harper's Bazaar. Backgrid says that websites using its copyrighted and registered celebrity images increase their traffic and viewer engagement. According to the complaint, Twitter receives similar benefits when users upload Backgrid images to the platform, but when those images are unlicensed, Twitter must take action to prevent further infringement. Backgrid alleges that in thousands of cases, Twitter did nothing. "Despite having received DMCA notices from Backgrid, Twitter has not expeditiously taken down Backgrid's Celebrity content," the complaint notes. "For example, Backgrid sent over 6,700 DMCA notices, but Twitter has not expeditiously taken down content in response to the same and cannot seek protection under the DMCA." Complaint Details Specific Accounts' Alleged Infringements Twitter accounts that allegedly posted Backgrid content on multiple occasions are mentioned directly in the complaint. The first named account in the lawsuit (@BSO) is of immediate interest since it belongs to Robert Littal, former co-host of the TMZ Sports show and founder/editor of news site BlackSportsOnline.com. The complaint alleges that the account was targeted by 73 DMCA notices in connection with 49 copyrighted Backgrid images, posted between September 2021 and November 2022. (small sample below) Checks on two dozen links reveal that all remain intact, as does the account. The second named account (@foochia) is operated by the news site Foochia.com. It describes itself as a platform "concerned with the affairs and concerns of Arab women, from which we look at the world of fashion, beauty, grace and elegance, and we follow celebrity news, art and culture." "Backgrid sent Twitter at least 101 DMCA take-down notifications encompassing at least 42 timely registered photographs on the 'foochia' account," the complaint reads. DMCA notices cover the same September 2021 to November 2022 period, and the related URLs on Twitter seem intact. The tweets contain images of celebrities including Kanye West, Justin Beiber, Rihanna, Kendall Jenner, and Jennifer Lopez, among others. "Notwithstanding the receipt of the take-down notices described herein, the 'foochia' account remains live and active," the complaint notes. Repeat Infringer Allegations Twitter's copyright policy states that the company responds to copyright complaints submitted under the DMCA and under certain conditions may take action against user accounts. "If multiple copyright complaints are received about an account, or other evidence suggests a pattern of repeat infringement, Twitter may suspend that account in accordance with our Repeat Infringer Policy. Our Repeat Infringer Policy takes valid retractions and counter-notices into account," Twitter's policy reads. To benefit from limitations on liability under the DMCA (17 U.S. Code § 512), services providers like Twitter must have "adopted and reasonably implemented" a policy that provides for the termination in "appropriate circumstances" of subscribers who are "repeat infringers." The terms reasonable, appropriate, and repeat are not clearly defined in law, so Backgrid offers its own guidelines for the court's consideration. "Industry standard practices have resulted in the widespread adoption and implementation by legitimate ISPs of a 'three-strikes' policy with respect to repeat infringers," Backgrid says. "The industry standard requires that to qualify for the DMCA safe harbor protection, ISPs must terminate the accounts of users that have been the subject of three infringement complaints. Defendant, however, regularly fails and refuses to comport with the industry standard. "Stunningly, all of the accounts remain live and online today while Twitter continues to profit from the blatant, repeated, and ongoing infringements of the copyrighted works of others, including without limitation the timely registered Celebrity Photographs [in suit]," the complaint adds. "Direct, Contributory, and Vicarious Infringement" According to the lawsuit, Twitter infringed "at least 1,526" of Backgrid's celebrity images, with infringement "continuous and on-going." Backgrid alleges direct infringement due to Twitter failing to remove images "long after being apprised of their infringing status" and contributory infringement for encouraging users to upload and edit photographs found on the internet, failing to advise users of the consequences, and for removing metadata from the images. "Defendant is aware of the massive scale of copyright infringement it facilitates and encourages, and of the revenue and profits such infringement generates for it," the image company adds. Backgrid seeks a declaration that Twitter infringes its copyrights and an injunction under 17 U.S.C. § 502 to prevent any further acts of infringement. Based on its allegations that Twitter neither adopted nor reasonably implemented a repeat infringer policy, Backgrid requests a declaration that Twitter is liable for each of the works infringed on its platform. Describing Twitter's infringement as willful and egregious, Backgrid believes it's entitled to maximum statutory damages of $150,000 per image – $228.9 million in total. Backgrid's complaint can be found here (1,2, pdf) From: TF, for the latest news on copyright battles, piracy and more. ©2023 TorrentFreak | Office 21338 PO Box 4336 Manchester, North West M61 0BW United Kingdom Web Version   Preferences   Forward   Unsubscribe     Powered by Mad Mimi®A GoDaddy® company

TorrentFreak's Latest News

RIAA Wants $250,000 in Attorneys' Fees from Yout, Without DelayErnesto Van der Sar, 04 Jan 11:51 AM In 2020, YouTube-ripper Yout.com sued the RIAA,

RIAA Wants $250,000 in Attorneys' Fees from Yout, Without Delay Ernesto Van der Sar, 04 Jan 11:51 AM In 2020, YouTube-ripper Yout.com sued the RIAA, asking a Connecticut district court to declare that the site does not violate the DMCA's anti-circumvention provision. This was a bold move, but not one without consequences. After a legal battle of nearly two years, the verdict meant disappointment for Yout. Last October, Judge Stefan Underhill ultimately concluded that the service had failed to show that it doesn't circumvent YouTube's technological protection measures. Soon after, the RIAA submitted a request to have Yout pay $250,000 in attorneys fees incurred by the RIAA thus far. Motion to Stay Yout is not giving up on the case. Site operator Johnathan Nader will appeal the case as he believes that YouTube rippers don't violate the DMCA. A few weeks ago, his legal team requested the court to put the attorney fees decision on hold while his appeal is pending. The appeal could be crippled if any fees have to be paid right away, Yout argued. This would cause irreparable harm, one of the factors that weigh in favor of granting a stay. The RIAA has a different outlook on the matter. The music group asked the court to deny Yout's request because, among other things, it doesn't believe that Yout lacks the means to fund its legal campaign. "The record in this case suggests that Yout does not lack resources: Yout admits that its service is still operational and it has hired three new lawyers for the appeal," the RIAA writes in its opposition brief. Even if Yout does lack resources, it wouldn't necessarily be irreparably harmed. It has the option of posting a bond and appealing that decision while the appeal is pending, which will conserve financial resources, the RIAA says. The RIAA further argues that Yout is unlikely to win on appeal, which weighs against a stay. In addition, the RIAA says that it would be harmed by any further delays because it's already $250,000 out of pocket after defending itself against the "meritless suit". Public Interest? Yout told the court that staying the matter would be in the public interest, as many other site operators and the public at large are affected by the verdict, which essentially declared commonly used YouTube ripping tools illegal. The RIAA's response turns this argument on its head. The music group says that protecting artists' copyrights is in the public interest too. "Yout correctly states that copyright protection serves the public interest — but has the analysis exactly backward. Those interests are served by protecting creators of music from the massive circumvention of technological measures for which Yout is liable." The Copyright Act allows rightsholders to request attorneys' fees to deter parties from bringing unreasonable claims without repercussions. That is exactly what's at stake here, the RIAA believes. — A copy of RIAA's opposition to Yout's request to stay the motion for attorneys fees is available here (pdf) From: TF, for the latest news on copyright battles, piracy and more. Major Private Torrent Sites Have a Security Disaster to Fix Right Now Andy Maxwell, 03 Jan 10:10 PM Private torrent sites, or private trackers as they're commonly known, are designed to be difficult to access. In many cases, prospective members will need an invitation from someone who is already a member, although some sites will open their front doors when people open their wallets. This presents a challenge for people who want to give them valuable, urgent information but must pay to do so. Background and Dilemma Just a few hours ago, TorrentFreak received a rather detailed tip from a security researcher who prefers to remain anonymous. The information relates to three major/well-known private trackers and their users directly, but from the evidence presented, the security debacle exposes other sites too. The researcher came to us with the story because, after trying to get the attention of the sites' operators, even through other sites that might forward the message, nothing has been done. Surprising, given the scale of the problem. The researcher's goal is to protect the sites' users but if we publicly name the sites here, that will not buy enough time for the admins to hear about the news and plug the gaps. Instead, we'll provide enough information for the sites' operators to recognize their own site from the inside and then one minute later, the problem should be fixed. The Security Issue To get their hands on the latest releases as quickly as possible, trackers often rely on outside sources that have access to so-called 0-Day content, i.e, content released today. The three affected sites seem to have little difficulty obtaining some of their content within minutes. At least in part, that's achieved via automation. When outside suppliers of content are other torrent sites, a piece of software called Torrent Auto Uploader steps in. It can automatically download torrents, descriptions, and associated NFO files from one site and upload them to another, complete with a new .torrent file containing the tracker's announce URL. The management page above has been heavily redacted because the content has the potential to identify at least one of the sites. It's a web interface, one that has no password protection and is readily accessible by anyone with a web browser. The same problem affects at least three different servers operated by the three sites in question. Web Interface For Torrent Clients Torrent Auto Uploader relies on torrent clients to transfer content. The three sites in question all use rTorrent clients with a ruTorrent Web UI. We know this because the researcher sent over a whole bunch of screenshots and supporting information which confirms access to the torrent clients as well as the Torrent Auto Uploader software. The image above shows redactions on the tracker tab for good reason. In a regular setup, torrent users can see the names of the trackers coordinating their downloads. This setup is no different except that these URLs reference three different trackers supplying the content to one of the three compromised sites. Can it Get Any Worse? Rather than publish a sequence of completely redacted screenshots, we'll try to explain what they contain. One begins with a GET request to another tracker, which responds with a torrent file. It's then uploaded to the requesting site which updates its SQL database accordingly. From there the script starts checking for any new entries on a specific RSS feed which is hidden away on another site that has nothing to do with torrents. The feed is protected with a passkey but that's only useful when nobody knows what it is. The same security hole also grants direct access to one of the sites tracker 'bots' through the panel that controls it. Then there's access to 'Staff Tools' on the same page which connect to other pages allowing username changes, uploader application reviews, and a list of misbehaving users that need to be monitored. That's on top of user profiles, the number of torrents they have active, and everything else one could imagine. Another screenshot featuring a torrent related to a 2022 movie reveals the URL of yet another third-party supplier tracker. Some basic queries on that URL lead to even more torrent sites. And from there, more, and more, and more – revealing torrent passkeys for every single one on the way. Security holes need to be fixed sooner rather than later but getting hold of operators in this niche is difficult by design. Users of all sites might want to make a bit of noise in the hope that the three that matter actually do something. Update: Two shut down, one to go From: TF, for the latest news on copyright battles, piracy and more. ©2023 TorrentFreak | Office 21338 PO Box 4336 Manchester, North West M61 0BW United Kingdom Web Version   Preferences   Forward   Unsubscribe     Powered by Mad Mimi®A GoDaddy® company

TorrentFreak's Latest News

SoccerStreams Throws in the Towel Following U.S. Domain SeizuresErnesto Van der Sar, 03 Jan 12:09 PM Last month, we reported on a series of FIFA Wor

SoccerStreams Throws in the Towel Following U.S. Domain Seizures Ernesto Van der Sar, 03 Jan 12:09 PM Last month, we reported on a series of FIFA World Cup-themed domain name seizures by US law enforcement. In the initial wave, Homeland Security Investigations took down 55 domain names operated by pirate sports streaming sites, and several more followed later. Many of the sites had millions of regular visitors who were suddenly confronted with a seizure banner featuring seals of prominent law enforcement outfits. This was also the case for SoccerStreams, one of the main targets. SoccerStreams Targeted The seizure banner shocked many regular visitors, but like some of the other platforms, SoccerStreams didn't immediately concede defeat. Instead, it appeared to relocate to reddit-soccerstreams.net where it continued as usual. The SoccerStreams operators are no strangers to legal pressure. The site has its roots in a Reddit community that amassed more than 400,000 members. After repeated complaints from rightsholders including the Premier League, the subreddit was eventually banned in 2019. Following the Reddit ban, a "SoccersStreams" site was launched, presumably by the founders of the subreddit. This turned out to be a successful move as it soon became the UK's most popular pirate site. The Premier League was also determined to deal with SoccerStreams, however. In a recent submission to the U.S. Government, it branded the site a "notorious market" among a list of other piracy targets. The Premier League's complaint may not have been the direct cause, but the U.S. Government did eventually seize SoccerStreams.net and SoccerStreams.to. And while the site's operators staged a near-immediate comeback, this didn't last. Game Over for SoccerStreams A few hours ago SoccerStreams shut down, replacing its sports stream inventory with a short farewell message for its loyal supporters. "We are sad to announce that soccerstreams will be shutting down immediately. There will be duplicate websites that pop up to replace us, no doubt, but none of them will be by us. "Goodbye old friends, see you in another life," the message concludes, without providing any further detail. The timing of the shutdown suggests that it may have been motivated by recent domain name seizures carried out by U.S. law enforcement. Fears of criminal prosecution may have played a role too. However, as the farewell message makes clear, there is no shortage of 'unofficial' SoccerStreams clones. And it wouldn't be a surprise to see 'loyal' SoccerStreams users moving on to these or other alternatives. Whether the SoccerStreams team has given up for good is unknown. There's always a possibility for sites to continue their activities under a new brand, to shake off the pressure, but in this case that would be pure speculation. From: TF, for the latest news on copyright battles, piracy and more. Piracy Lawsuit Will Be Dismissed Unless Copyright Troll Fixes Corporate Suspension Ernesto Van der Sar, 02 Jan 09:08 PM A few years ago, Malibu Media was one of the most active 'copyright trolls' in the United States. The California-based company behind the adult brand 'X-Art' filed thousands of lawsuits targeting Internet subscribers whose accounts were allegedly used to share Malibu's films via BitTorrent. In recent years this activity ground to a halt, and in the cases that remained active, things didn't go to plan. After plenty of drama, Malibu was ordered to pay more than $100,000 to a wrongfully accused internet user in 2021. Last Cases Standing At the start of 2023, only two Malibu Media cases remain open. In one, the court denied a default judgment last summer, instructing the rightsholder to provide more evidence of infringement beyond a simple IP-address. After that, things went quiet. In the other case, the accused file-sharer went on the offensive. The "John Doe" defendant filed a long list of counterclaims against Malibu Media, accusing the company of abuse of process and misuse of copyright, among other things. "Plaintiff monetizes its alleged copyrights through coercive and needless litigation and by extracting settlements from that litigation disproportionate to the minimal value of Plaintiff's works," the defense wrote. Corporate Status Suspended The Doe defendant also asked the court to dismiss Malibu Media's claims, arguing that the company can't be involved in a lawsuit due to its corporate status. California's Franchise Tax Board suspended Malibu Media in 2021 over tax deficiencies. "Plaintiff lacks the capacity to sue. Specifically, Plaintiff is suspended in its state of incorporation, California. Under California law, a suspended corporation cannot maintain a lawsuit," the defense wrote. The suspension came to the forefront in 2021. The court initially allowed Malibu some time to get its paperwork in order to get the suspension lifted, but that doesn't appear to have happened. At the time of writing, California's Franchise Tax Board continues to list Malibu Media's status as suspended. In a recent advisory to the court, Malibu Media confirms that its corporate powers are still suspended. However, it argues that courts have previously held that suspensions are a "mere technicality" that, once fixed, return a company's status "back to good standing". Malibu sees no reason why the present case should not be able to proceed to trial due to a technicality. Dismissal Looming U.S. District Court Judge Ezra agrees that previously suspended companies successfully continued lawsuits, but only after their suspensions had been resolved. That's not the case here. "Corporate status may be a 'mere technicality,' but courts in California and the Fifth Circuit only deem it so after the corporation has cured the defect in its corporate status," the order reads. "Therefore, if Malibu Media's corporate status is not reinstated by Friday, January 20, 2023, the case will be dismissed without prejudice," Judge Ezra adds. A dismissal "without prejudice" means that Malibu will be allowed to refile its claims after the suspension is lifted. Based on the lack of recent progress, it's doubtful that will happen anytime soon. The underlying issues aren't entirely clear but Malibu CEO Colette Pelissier is no stranger to corporate troubles. Other companies under her control – Colette Productions, Colette Holdings and Colette Properties – are all listed as suspended. The order issued by U.S. District Court Judge David Alan Ezra is available here (pdf) From: TF, for the latest news on copyright battles, piracy and more. ©2023 TorrentFreak | Office 21338 PO Box 4336 Manchester, North West M61 0BW United Kingdom Web Version   Preferences   Forward   Unsubscribe     Powered by Mad Mimi®A GoDaddy® company