Acting on a lead from the entertainment industry, the U.S. Government shut down Megaupload early 2012.

Exactly a year later Kim Dotcom made a comeback with a new file-storage venture. Together with several old colleagues and new investors, Mega was launched. The new service, which has a heavy focus on privacy and security, has expanded ever since.

This morning Dotcom posted an image showing how user uploads have increased more than 300% over the past six months. The graph doesn’t specify the scale, but the New Zealand-based entrepreneur told TF that the service now processes over half a billion uploads per month.

That’s more than 10,000 files per minute….

“We are experiencing massive growth. We can’t add new servers and bandwidth fast enough,” Dotcom tells us.

According to Mega’s founder there are several factors that have contributed to the increasing interest in the service. Ironically, Dotcom believes that the same people who destroyed Megaupload are now partly responsible for the success of Mega.

“There are several growth factors. People spend more time at the computer due to the cold weather, the lawsuits by MPAA and RIAA which advertised Mega, and the ongoing advertising from the dumbest ever U.S. Department of Justice case,” Dotcom says.

“Some users get pleasure from the fact that the US government and Hollywood hate Mega’s success and that I continue to expose them. The more people use Mega the more powerful our defense becomes. So, why wouldn’t Mega grow like crazy?” he adds.

The continuing debate about the NSA’s mass-surveillance is also likely to have helped Mega. Unlike other popular cloud hosting services, Mega encrypts all stored files so they can’t be snooped on. Similarly, the fact that former U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice joined Dropbox may have also had an impact according to Dotcom.

During the months to come Mega will work on their recently announced backdoor stock market listing, which the company hopes to complete next year. In addition, the cloud hosting service will roll out many new features, all focused on counter surveillance.

“The people of the Internet love us. And we haven’t even launched our encrypted communication suite yet. That’s like a point-to-point encrypted Skype on steroids, running in your browser,” Dotcom tells us, teasing Mega’s upcoming tools.

With the ongoing legal battle against the U.S. Government and civil cases against the MPAA and RIAA, Mega is guaranteed a regular place in the spotlight. In any case, we certainly haven’t heard the last of Dotcom and his team yet.

Source: TorrentFreak, for the latest info on copyright, file-sharing and anonymous VPN services.

For quite some time a releaser known as Secludedly was one of the most reliable sources of UFC events on file-sharing sites around the world. But after a strong run, a release in January would prove to be his last.

After interviewing Secludedly in April 2013 and subsequently hearing he was in considerable trouble, earlier this year TorrentFreak tried to reach the ripper/uploader through previously-established channels. All attempts failed and now it’s clear why.

UFC parent company Zuffa have caught up with Secludedly in a very big way indeed. In a lawsuit filed at the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York, Secludedly is revealed as Steven A. Messina, a 27-year-old from Staten Island, New York.

The lawsuit, which includes two other doe defendants and an unknown company Zuffa refers to as XYZ Corp (“a business entity, the exact nature of which is unknown”), centers around the unlawful recording (“capping”), uploading and distribution of more than 120 UFC events via two of the world’s biggest torrent sites.

“Defendants have, on over 124 occasions, used the torrent websites known as http://kickass.to and http://thepiratebay.se to upload, distribute and publicly display the Broadcasts to the users of said websites,” the lawsuit reads.

Also receiving a prominent mention from Zuffa is the fact that Secludedly allowed people to donate via a PayPal in order to help with the financing of future ripping and uploading activities.

Secludedly, who TF understood to be just one person, is repeatedly referred to as a group in the lawsuit, such as when it’s claimed that “their” aim was to become “the most well-known pirates and infringers on the internet” who were “content to profit handsomely from user payments and donations to fund their rampant piracy and copyright infringement.”

Secludedly’s profile at Kickass.to

While it’s no surprise that Zuffa is claiming statutory damages of $150,000 for each of the alleged 124 infringements (a cool $18.6m), the MMA organization is definitely not stopping there. In a second count, Zuffa goes on to claim that Secludedly violated the Federal Communications Act.

“Defendants, wishing to use Plaintiff’s Broadcasts for their own commercial gain, surreptitiously gained access to Plaintiff’s Broadcasts by purchasing the programming through their satellite TV provider, without proper authorization, at residential rates, and subsequently copying the Broadcasts and uploading them to the users of the websites known as http://kickass.to and http://thepiratebay.se,” the lawsuit reads.

For these “willful violations”, Zuffa is claiming up to the maximum of $110,000 for each of the alleged 124 offenses, potentially another $13.64m in damages. In a third count, Zuffa seeks up to $60,000 after Secludedly “willfully and unlawfully accessed, received and subsequently re-transmitted the Broadcasts over a cableTV or internet system.”

Not content with the millions already on offer, Zuffa throw in an additional claim for breach of contact after Secludedly legally purchased PPV events but went on to step over the terms and conditions.

“Upon information and belief, Defendants purchased the Broadcasts through Plaintiff’s
authorized websites or via Pay-Per-View purchase for private, residential viewing…[but then]…willfully and unlawfully copied, uploaded and distributed the Broadcasts..”

Zuffa further alleges a “civil conspiracy” in which “members” of Secludedly supposedly worked together to infringe the company’s rights and went on to violate the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act.

“[Defendants], without authorization or by exceeding such authorization as was granted, accessed a protected computer containing Plaintiff’s live internet streams of the Broadcasts knowingly and with intent to defraud, and unlawfully copied, distributed and publicly displayed said Broadcasts,” the lawsuit reads.

It seems that Zuffa has left no stone unturned in its attempts to make life as difficult as possible for Secludedly. The company is seeking statutory damages of $18.6m for copyright infringement, up to $13.64m plus $60,000 for breaches of the Federal Communications Act, plus sundry damages on the remaining counts.

That all adds up to at least $32.2m and it could get much worse, but there’s not a chance in the world that Zuffa will see that kind of money from a 27-year-old reportedly living with parents. The company will settle for big anti-piracy headlines instead, in the hope of deterring others.

Source: TorrentFreak, for the latest info on copyright, file-sharing and anonymous VPN services.

While recording a movie strictly for personal use is entirely legal in UK cinemas, the same definitely cannot be said about the United States. Recording or ‘camming’ a movie in the U.S. can result in jail-time, particularly if the activity is connected to subsequent bootlegging or illegal online distribution.

This strict approach is the result of intense Hollywood lobbying during the last decade, and there can be few cinema-goers today who haven’t been touched by the results. Bag searches and night-vision goggles are now used to deter ‘cammers’, coupled with industry-funded rewards programs aimed at vigilant theater workers.

This climate of fear hasn’t stopped cammed copies of movies turning up online, but it has sucked in a few innocent victims over the years. If a new report from Utah is to be believed, another one can now be added to the list.

According to Provo resident Enos Ledezma, his elderly parents go to the movies several times a week. They find it both entertaining and practical, since it allows them to brush up on their English.

However, this past weekend things weren’t so enjoyable when Ledezma’s mother stood accused of illegally camming a movie in a Cinemark theater.

Ledezma says that part-way through the movie his father had to leave, but before doing so handed his wife a “brick, slider-type” cellphone. She apparently put the device in her pocket, but shortly after was confronted by not only a Cinemark employee, but also two police officers.

The trio reportedly informed the woman she had been seen recording the movie and would therefore have to leave, but due to her poor grasp of English the woman didn’t fully understand what was going on. Attempting to hand over her phone for inspection didn’t ease the situation either.

The woman was eventually ejected from the theater and not allowed to watch the remainder of the film, even after the false allegations were withdrawn.

Ledezma told KSL that it’s possible that another cinema-goer saw the theater-provided closed-captioning device next to his mother and presumed it was a bootlegging tool, but that was still no excuse for mistreating a regular customer.

While it seems unlikely that the woman broke the law (the police officers would have seen any footage by accessing her cellphone), it occurred to us that she may have broken Cinemark’s policy on using cellphones in the theater.

However, this somewhat amusing footage, filmed in a Cinemark theater by someone using a Nintendo DS, seems to clear up that cellphones are allowed, as long as they’re silent.

And here’s the thing. If anything, the footage from the DS in the clip above is likely to be better than that obtained from what appears to be an old cellphone. This kind of end result is definitely not a threat to the movie industry, even if the woman had been recording, which it appears she was not.

Interestingly and this case aside, Cinemark actually approaches the cellphone-in-theater problem in an innovative way. If visitors have a smartphone with the Cinemark app installed, switching over to CineMode darkens the screen for the duration of the movie. If that state is maintained right to the end, users can pick up rewards, such as a free drink.

But even in the event Ledezma’s mother upgrades to an iPhone, it’s unlikely she’ll be taking advantage of the offer.

“At the moment, I have no intention of going back to that Cinemark. I’d rather drive 45 minutes to the Megaplex,” Ledezma concludes.

Source: TorrentFreak, for the latest info on copyright, file-sharing and anonymous VPN services.

While today Kim Dotcom appears to be doing well financially, a little over two years ago the flamboyant businessman was enjoying an even more lavish lifestyle. In January 2012, however, the bulk of his millions in cash and assets were seized following a raid on his New Zealand mansion.

Two days before the raid on Dotcom’s home, foreign restraining orders were granted to enable the seizure of the entrepreneur’s assets. Those orders ran out earlier this month and fortunately for Dotcom an attempt by the Crown to have them extended was rejected by the High Court.

Within minutes Dotcom took to Twitter to celebrate the upcoming return of his property but now, just two weeks later and on the final day the Crown could launch an appeal, the Megaupload founder is being met with renewed resistance.

This fresh appeal by the Crown will almost certainly delay if not considerably hamper the return of Dotcom’s property. It also means that the fledgling politician’s supporters will have to wait for the return of his performance and classic car collection before he can make good on a promise to hire a local racetrack.

Source: TorrentFreak, for the latest info on copyright, file-sharing and anonymous VPN services.

Most seasoned visitors of torrent sites and streaming portals know that many of the “download” and “play” buttons present are non-functional, at least in the regular sense.

In fact, many of these buttons link to advertisements of some sort, ranging from relatively harmless download managers to dubious services that ask for one’s credit card details.

A new report backed by the UK entertainment industry has looked into the prevalence of these threats. The study, carried out by the anti-piracy analysts of Intelligent Content Protection (Incopro), found that only 1 of the 30 most-visited pirate sites didn’t link to unwanted software or credit card scams.

According to a press release released this morning, the research found that of the 30 top pirate sites, “90% contained malware and other ‘Potentially Unwanted Programmes’ designed to deceive or defraud unwitting viewers.”

The “Potentially Unwanted Programmes” category is rather broad, and includes popups and ads that link to download managers. In addition, the report links one-third of the sites to credit card fraud.

“The rogue sites are also rife with credit card scams, with over two-thirds (67%) of the 30 sites containing credit card fraud,” the press release states.

While it’s true that many pirate sites link to malware and other dubious products, the sites themselves don’t host any of the material. For example, none of the top pirate sites TorrentFreak tested were flagged by Google’s Safebrowsing tool.

This nuance is left out of the official announcement, but the executive summary of the report does make this distinction.

“We did not encounter the automatic injection of any malicious program on the sites that we scanned. In all instances, the user must be tricked into opening a downloaded executable file or in the case of credit card fraud, the user needs to actively enter credit card details,” Incopro writes.

Most of the malware and “potentially” unwanted software ends up on users’ computers after they click on the wrong “download” button and then install the presented software. In many cases these are installers that may contain relatively harmless adware. However, the researchers also found links to rootkits and ransomware.

The allegation of “credit card fraud” also requires some clarification. Incopro told TorrentFreak that most of these cases involve links to services where users have to pay for access.

“There were 17 separate credit card schemes that were detected through our scanning, with many appearing to be similar or possibly related. Five of the sites had instances of two credit card fraud/scam sites, with the remaining 15 containing one credit card fraud/scam site,” Incopro told us.

“An example is someone visits one of the pirate sites and clicks a ‘Download’ or ‘Play now’ button, which is actually an advert appearing on the page, which then asks for payment details to access the content.”

This is characterized as “fraud” because these “premium” streaming or download services can result in recurring credit card charges of up to $50 per month, without an option to cancel.

The report, which isn’t available to the public, was commissioned by the UK film service FindAnyFilm and backed by several industry groups. Commenting on the findings, FACT’s Kieron Sharp noted that those who fall for these scams are inadvertently funding organized crime.

“Not only are you putting your personal security at risk, by using pirate websites you could be helping fund the organised criminal gangs who run these sites as a front for other cyber scams,” Sharp says.

It is clear that the research is used for scaremongering. Regular users of these sites know all too well what buttons not to click, so they are not affected by any of the threats.

However, there’s no denying that some pirate sites deliberately place these “ads” to confuse novice and unsuspecting visitors. Those visitors may indeed end up with adware, malware or run into scam services.

This isn’t in any way a new phenomenon though, it has been going on for more than a decade already. Ironically, the same anti-piracy groups who now warn of these threats are making them worse by cutting pirate sites off from legitimate advertisers.

—

Photo: Michael Theis

Source: TorrentFreak, for the latest info on copyright, file-sharing and anonymous VPN services.