Last week it became evident that a new crackdown against IPTV providers based in the UK and Southern Ireland was underway.

In the first wave of action, a 41-year-old man and a 30-year-old woman were arrested in Bursledon, Hampshire, and detained under suspicion of offenses under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 and money laundering. The pair were accused of illegally offering content from companies including Sky and BT Sport.

Soon after, four more arrests were announced in Southern Ireland. Two men, aged 42 and 45, and two women, aged 37 and 40, were detained following house searches in Crumlin, Dublin and Ashbourne, Co Dublin. All were arrested and questioned under the Copyright and Related Rights Act 2000 and the Criminal Justice (Money Laundering and Terrorist Financing) Act 2010.

Shortly after, a Europol statement said the arrests had taken place after a complex year-long investigation involving the Garda National Bureau of Criminal Investigation, Police Scotland, Trading Standards, the UK Intellectual Property Office, the Audiovisual Anti-Piracy Alliance (AAPA) and Federation Against Copyright Theft (FACT).

The law enforcement agency also noted that a warrant had been executed in Scotland but provided no additional detail. A statement just published on the official website of FAB IPTV, an IPTV provider known to operate from addresses in Scotland, appears to fill in the blanks.

“On the morning of Tuesday September 11th a co-operation raid took place on one of the administrators homes whilst on holiday led by EUROPOL/Police Scotland and members from SKY/BT/Virgin/Possibly HBO and other Film/TV organizations. A number of devices were seized,” the statement reads.

“It is on that note we will no longer be operational and will come to a COMPLETE close. Unfortunately nothing else is known right now as no information will be given on the case and that this will take many months.”

FAB IPTV was incorporated in Scotland under the name FAB Hosting Ltd on February 22, 2017. A notice for compulsory strike-off was published on May 15, 2018. On July 30, 2018, the company was dissolved after filing no accounts.

The service continued to operate but during August its operators advised customers that it would eventually shut down.

“Unfortunately we are no longer accepting new subscriptions or renewals of current subscriptions due to closure. Any active subs will be honored until expiry,” the announcement noted.

“We are sorry for any inconvenience this has caused and we wish you luck with your future viewing.”

The statement

With some of FAB’s customers having purchased subscriptions that are yet to expire, many are going to be out of pocket following the closure announcement. Equally, resellers of FAB’s service, who will have invested much greater sums, will also find themselves in the red. However, FAB indicates that funds could be reclaimed.

“I/We would advise that anyone whom would like a refund and are within 180 days as per PayPal limitations you should raise a dispute as we have zero access to any financial accounts associated with FAB,” the statement reads.

Whether former subscribers and resellers will choose to elevate their heads above the parapet will remain to be seen, but given what FAB has to say next, the option to cut their losses might be easiest for most.

“Please note this is an active investigation and doing so [asking for a refund] may bring action towards you so proceed with caution,” FAB warns.

“I/We highly suggest taking precautions if you have used your REAL information with us or any IPTV service as this is only the beginning of what is a huge fight against illicit services. More information will come in due course no doubt on EUROPOL’s website and other IPTV related media sites. Thank you for being loyal to FAB and stay safe,” the announcement concludes.

While it’s simplicity itself to fill in fake details when signing up to a service like FAB, many people use their real identities. However, the operator of a similar service previously told TF that they never check if names and addresses are real, meaning that people can fill anything in with no consequences.

Finally, it’s worth noting that at least as far as TF’s previous investigations revealed, FAB IPTV and its administrators were extremely easy to track down and identify. Quite why such services operate with such a low level of security and privacy isn’t immediately clear but now the perhaps inevitable costs will have to be counted.

Source: TF, for the latest info on copyright, file-sharing, torrent sites and more. We also have VPN reviews, discounts, offers and coupons.

In this episode we meet Emin Gün Sirer. We discuss the current state of cryptocurrency, and just what Emin means when he says that Satoshi Nakamoto is ‘dead.’

We discover the secret shared lineage between BitTorrent and Cryptocurrency, and how they both tackle the ‘chaos of the commons’.

Of course, TRON’s recent acquisition of BitTorrent, Inc. comes in for some scrutiny — Emin remains, let’s say, skeptical. And, finally, we look at Emin’s work on and around the all-new Avalanche protocol, which he sees as the most significant contribution to cryptocurrency since Bitcoin itself.

—

Steal This Show aims to release bi-weekly episodes featuring insiders discussing crypto, privacy, copyright and file-sharing developments. It complements our regular reporting by adding more room for opinion, commentary, and analysis.

Host: Jamie King

Guest: Emin Gün Sirer

^{If you enjoy this episode, consider becoming a patron and getting involved with the show. Check out Steal This Show’s Patreon campaign: support us and get all kinds of fantastic benefits!}

Produced by Jamie King
Edited & Mixed by Lucas Marston
Original Music by David Triana
Web Production by Eric Barch

Source: TF, for the latest info on copyright, file-sharing, torrent sites and more. We also have VPN reviews, discounts, offers and coupons.

As part of their strategy to deter the public from using pirate sites, entertainment industry groups have often painted these portals as havens for malware. A new study carried out by the EU Intellectual Property Office investigates the phenomenon.

In the first phase of the research, the United Nations Interregional Crime and Justice Research Institute (UNICRI) collaborated with the European Observatory on Infringements of Intellectual Property Rights to form an expert support group established to provide advice on methodology and to select the websites to be analyzed.

The group was comprised of representatives from Observatory stakeholders, rights holder organizations, academia, law enforcement, and EU agencies. As research spanning all EU Member States wasn’t possible, 10 sample countries were randomly selected from the 28 in the block.

Five movies, TV shows, music, and video games were selected (20 titles in all) for their popularity in one or more of the ten countries at the start of the collection period in June 2017. The titles were subsequently used in online searches to find infringing websites and applications.

Websites suspected of offering infringing content (including streaming, linking, hosting, cyberlockers, and torrent platforms) were selected on the basis that they were popular in the ten sample countries or worldwide and were accessible by the “average user.” These were later studied for the presence of malware and “potentially unwanted programs”, such as those that provide advertisements.

A concurrent analysis of malware and PUPs specific to Android devices focused on streaming, torrent, and hosting applications, providing they facilitated access to a broad range of “suspected” copyright-infringing content.

“The data acquisition phase included two rounds of malware collection and analysis performed during the summer of 2017,” the report reads.

“The first round of malware collection resulted in 1,054 unique domain names and the second round gave 1,057 unique domain names across 10 selected EU Member States. Malware was collected in both a manual and automated manner in order to simulate an average user’s experience.”

The researchers used the Tor browser and a sandbox to collect the malware and PUPs and carried out searches “in a manner consistent with low security-awareness internet browsing.” No ad-blockers were used and all suspicious links and buttons were pressed.

During the two rounds of analysis, the researchers checked their chosen infringing sites (none are named in the study) against VirusTotal’s database, to see whether they were already suspected of “performing malicious activities” or distributing malicious or otherwise unwanted software targeting the end-user. The table below reveals that around 8% had been previously flagged.

“In addition, during the two rounds of malware collection from the identified copyright-infringing websites, several malicious and suspected-of-being-malicious files were collected,” the paper reads.

“These were files directly downloaded from the websites. In addition, several files were acquired upon installation of the directly downloaded files. Those included any kind of side packages, software libraries, and other files that can pose threats to end-users wanting to use them.”

The researchers found 4,000 files in their search, broken down into about 100 different types. (Note: The files for the second round contain only new unique files that were not discovered during the first round of malware collection)

The report details a number of the techniques used by sites to deploy malware and PUPs, or to persuade users to part with personal details such as names, addresses, and email addresses. Some were contained in “useful” tools that may claim to block ads, provide installation or license key files, or facilitate access to infringing content.

After obtaining 60 anti-virus reports from VirusTotal on the files acquired during the collection stage, the researchers decided on the following categories:

• Benign — software that does not cause any harm to users, designed for specific good purposes, such as content-distribution platforms or office programs.
• Potentially unwanted program (PUP) — software that provides advertisements, etc.
• Malware — harmful software that tampers and steals personal data and accesses files on the computer without proper authorization.
• Malware/PUP — a piece of software that can be included equally in both categories.

All pieces of software collected by the researchers were further categorized.

• Fake installers — software that lures users into disclosing personal information or providing payment card details by simulating game installation processes.

• Streaming — software that provides free access to pirated video or audio content.

• ‘Useful’ software — programs that may or may not improve something, yet promote a functionality that may be perceived as useful by some users.

“Most of the programs are known as ‘useful’ software, which advertises various benefits to end-users, such as installing missing drivers and cleaning old files from PCs. Fake game installers and streaming services follow with a smaller share, yet one that is still considerable in comparison with the rest of the analyzed programs,” the study reads.

“Four general categories [of malware] can be distinguished: Trojan, adware, backdoor, and agent. Additionally, ‘-’, in the figure below, means that there was no information available on community accepted malware type even though multiple anti-virus vendors marked files as malicious,” the report adds.

“In this case, the labeling includes following general keywords such as ‘not trusted’, ‘unsafe’, ‘unwanted’, etc., which does not provide any additional semantic information about specific functionality or characteristics of malware. Therefore, in this study, such files were considered as generally malicious without a specific type.”

The researchers say they found “no profoundly harmful” malware samples, such as ransomware, botnets or others. However, most of the collected malware samples were identified as trojans, with some potentially containing additional adware and/or backdoors. Additional analysis also revealed some malware with multiple payloads, including keyloggers, network tampering efforts, and rootkits.

While the existence of malware on any site or service is a cause for concern, the report offers this relatively calming summary, with cautionary advice moving forward.

“At present, suspected copyright-infringing websites and streaming services are not normally considered to be dominant sources of malware or otherwise unwanted software distribution.

“However, considering the increasing popularity of streaming services, increased bandwidth of broadband networks, and the deployment of 4G networks, it cannot be ruled out that they may pose a growing risk moving forward,” the report notes.

The EUIPO notes that the study isn’t designed to provide an assessment of the likelihood of malware or PUP infection from using infringing sites, nor does it seek to offer advice to consumers. That being said, common sense deployed alongside a good anti-virus program and adblocker can nullify many of the threats on sites where the user is especially concerned about security.

It’s also worth noting that the practices of the EUIPO researchers during the study – deliberately clicking all suspect links and buttons while deliberately installing suspect programs – should be avoided at all costs. Equally, users of Android software not distributed by Google Play or Amazon should carefully consider the permissions requested by each application and deny any and all that require access to personal information.

The report is available here (pdf)

Source: TF, for the latest info on copyright, file-sharing, torrent sites and more. We also have VPN reviews, discounts, offers and coupons.

As one of the leading CDN and DDoS protection services, Cloudflare is used by millions of websites across the globe, some of which are notorious pirate sites.

The company has taken a lot of heat from copyright holders over the past few years, who want it to expose the operators of these platforms.

However, instead of taking a proactive stance, Cloudflare maintains its position as a neutral service provider. If copyright holders want it to take action, they have to follow the legal process.

This usually means obtaining a subpoena, ordering the company to share the personal details of its customers.

This is exactly what a group of movies companies, including Bodyguard Productions, Cobbler Nevada, Criminal Productions, Dallas Buyers Club, and Venice PI, recently did through a federal court in Hawaii.

These companies are involved in a series of piracy lawsuits. Best known are the so-called “copyright trolling” cases against alleged BitTorrent pirates, but more recently they began expanding their horizons to the people behind piracy services, such as the popular streaming app Showbox.

The subpoena was issued in the latter case after being filed last May.

The documents were not posted publicly but TorrentFreak managed to obtain a copy, which shows that the movie companies want details of the operators behind Showboxbuzz.com, Showbox.software, Rawapk.com, Popcorn-time.to, Popcorntime.sh, YTS.ag, and YTS.gg.

From the DMCA subpoena

Some additional digging revealed that no motion to quash was filed by Cloudflare, so it is likely that the requested information will be handed over.

The subpoena itself doesn’t reveal anything about the intentions of the movie companies, however.

The targeted sites are not listed in the original lawsuit, but it’s possible the owners are suspected of being linked to the defendants. In any case, it is clear that the movie outfits see the information as potentially valuable evidence in their legal battle.

The question remains, of course, whether the information Cloudflare has on record will be of use. Many operators of pirate sites and services do their best to shield the true operators from being exposed.

Source: TF, for the latest info on copyright, file-sharing, torrent sites and more. We also have VPN reviews, discounts, offers and coupons.

First announced in the summer of 2013, the City of London Police Intellectual Property Crime Unit (PIPCU) said it had a mission to tackle IP crime wherever it may take place.

With a special focus on online infringement, PIPCU has always been closely in step with the music, movie, and publishing industries and it didn’t take long for its presence to be felt. Even before its official launch in December 2013, PIPCU began writing letters to torrent and streaming sites, advising them to shut down – or else. But that was just the beginning.

Over the past five years the unit has publicised various actions against alleged infringers including streaming arrests, attempted domain seizures, torrent site closures and advertising disruptions. PIPCU also shut down several sports streaming and ebook sites plus a large number of proxies.

Now, however, with its fifth official birthday looming, PIPCU has received prestigious recognition from overseas.

During the U.S. Chamber of Commerce Global Innovation Policy Center’s (GIPC) 6th annual IP Champions event in Washington, PIPCU was among 11 “innovators and creators” to be honored for their contribution to the intellectual property arena. Two key players from PIPCU were handed the IP Champion for Excellence in Enforcement award.

Detective Chief Superintendent Pete O’Doherty, the head of the City of London Police’s Economic Crime Directorate, was recognized for his leadership at PIPCU which has “successfully swept millions of pounds’ worth of counterfeit goods off the streets.”

Nick Court, PIPCU’s Acting Detective Chief Inspector, was credited for combating illegal online streaming and other digital piracy, while suspended 30,000 websites linked to the sale of counterfeit goods.

The GIPC award is notable in itself but PIPCU will be particularly pleased that this is the first year that the award has been handed to an international law enforcement body outside the United States.

“This is a significant achievement for the Police Intellectual Property Crime Unit (PIPCU) which has gone from strength to strength since its inception in 2013,” said Detective Chief Superintendent Pete O’Doherty.

“The dedication of the officers in this unit is a credit to the force and it is an honor to have that recognized as the first recipient of this award within the international law enforcement community.”

Dr. Ros Lynch, Director of Copyright and Enforcement at the Intellectual Property Office, congratulated PIPCU on their achievement.

“I’m delighted to hear that PIPCU has won the Excellence in Enforcement award. To be the first international law enforcement body to win this award is a huge achievement,” Lynch said.

“I’d like to congratulate and thank PIPCU’s officers for helping to protect UK industries and the public from counterfeit goods.”

While PIPCU was initially very aggressive against torrent and streaming platforms, it later became involved in a number of cases against people selling streaming devices containing modified Kodi setups, free illegal streaming apps, and premium illicit IPTV subscriptions. It has been quieter on this front lately but the unit certainly hasn’t gone away.

Last August, the Intellectual Property Office confirmed that PIPCU had received £3.32m in additional government funding, safeguarding the unit until June 30, 2019.

Source: TF, for the latest info on copyright, file-sharing, torrent sites and more. We also have VPN reviews, discounts, offers and coupons.