In May, TF broke the news that Justin Sun, the entrepreneur behind the popular cryptocurrency Tron, was in the process of acquiring BitTorrent Inc.

The San-Francisco based file-sharing company confirmed the interest from Sun, but it took until July before the deal was officially confirmed.

While no formal figures have been publicly released, the deal was reportedly worth $140 million. This figure was later corrected to roughly $120 million by BitTorrent co-founder Ashwin Navin.

While that is still a substantial amount, Tron was not the only company bidding. In fact, there was another cryptocurrency with a desire to take over BitTorrent. The startup Neo, often referred to as the Ethereum of China, put in a higher bid as well.

New details revealed by Coindesk show that Neo Global Capital (NGC), the cryptocurrency’s venture capital firm, was willing to pay $170 million for BitTorrent. This was made up of $115 million for all preferred stock and $55 million of common stock.

This revelation was shared by Neo Blockchain’s head of investment, Weiyu “Wayne” Zhu. Neo planned to use BitTorrent to create a decentralized file-storage system which could be used for blockchain related projects. Despite the higher offer, however, no deal was made.

According to BitTorrent and venture capital firm DCM, which owned most of the preferred stock, Neo’s bid was seen as less favorable. It involved more risk and included a clause that would nullify the entire agreement if the acquisition was not completed in six months.

Documents, seen by Coindesk, state that “the risk of the transaction not being consummated due to the projected closing of such proposed transaction being late in 2018 and [NGC’s] primary assets being cryptocurrency holdings, which required an additional foreign currency conversion prior to the closing of the proposed transaction.”

Neo, for its part, was concerned about the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS), which could interfere with the acquisition.

In addition, BitTorrent inventor Bram Cohen’s plans to leave the company probably didn’t help, as Neo wasn’t sure whether BitTorrent could deliver what it envisioned without him. As first reported here last month, Cohen moved away from BitTorrent, which means that the company lost its original technical visionary.

“We were not so sure that BitTorrent is technically advanced enough to become the decentralized file project we had hoped it would be,” Zhu said.

In the end, BitTorrent and Tron reached an agreement in February where the latter would pay $90 million for the preferred stock and $30 million for the stock. After finalizing the paperwork, the deal was eventually made public a few weeks ago.

It remains to be seen whether current BitTorrent users will notice any change following the shift in ownership. While the BitTorrent protocol will remain free and open to anyone, Tron now controls the popular uTorrent clients, including the new web version.

The company previously announced that nothing will significantly change in the short term. However, Tron’s founder Justin Sun also said that he plans to add financial incentives for those who seed content, which could, in theory, come to uTorrent as well.

Whatever direction Tron will go in, the core BitTorrent protocol remains open and cryptocurrency free.

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

While the desktop client of uTorrent hasn’t been updated much in recent years, there is a new uTorrent product that brings plenty of change.

Earlier this year BitTorrent Inc. quietly released uTorrent web, a piece of software that allows users to download and stream torrents directly in their default web browser.

The project was first teased by BitTorrent inventor Bran Cohen, who said that browser-based torrenting is “just a nicer experience.”

The leap to the browser is a large one for die-hard torrenters who’ve been using desktop applications for well over a decade. However, with browser-based streaming being so familiar now, it will likely feel more intuitive to newcomers.

This week, BitTorrent Inc. announced that uTorrent Web is now out of beta. And with the first full release, the company hopes to better meet the streaming demands of today’s users.

“When we first started the project, our vision was to build a torrent client with simplicity and quick playability,” BitTorrent Inc. notes.

“With a simple download to play experience as the focal point of µTorrent Web, we see more users successfully downloading and playing torrents than with any other product in BitTorrent’s history.”

Currently, uTorrent Web is only available for Windows, but there are plans to release a Mac version in the future. The application works across all major browsers including Chrome, Firefox, and Internet Explorer.

As noted previously, uTorrent Web works pretty well for its intended use. In terms of features, it’s not as advanced as the regular desktop version, but the intuitive streaming interface works out of the box.

Those who prefer to tinker a bit more with their client can still use the classic uTorrent, BitTorrent assures its 100 million+ users.

“As µTorrent Web now comes out of Beta and into full release, we know that millions of our users are familiar with and love the desktop version of µTorrent, also known as µTorrent Classic. Our long term plan is to continue development across both products and make them available on utorrent.com,” the company notes.

More details on the new release are provided in a YouTube video by uTorrent Web Product Designer Cory Keller, which is embedded in the news release.

Bizarrely, there’s no torrent link for the video available. A head-scratching omission, as that would be a prime opportunity to show what uTorrent Web can do as a video streaming tool.

uTorrent Web

<style>.embed-container { position: relative; padding-bottom: 56.25%; height: 0; overflow: hidden; max-width: 100%; } .embed-container iframe, .embed-container object, .embed-container embed { position: absolute; top: 0; left: 0; width: 100%; height: 100%; }

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

Founded by Kim Dotcom in 2013, the MEGA file-hosting site was an overnight success, attracting hundreds of thousands of users in a matter of hours.

The platform launched on a wave of concerns over Internet snooping so with tight encryption and privacy as a policy, it went on to become a roaring success. Now, however, it’s reporting a serious breach that affects a currently unknown number of users.

“On 4 September 2018 at 14:30 UTC, an unknown attacker uploaded a trojaned version of MEGA’s Chrome extension, version 3.39.4, to the Google Chrome webstore,” the company reports.

MEGA says that whenever a user installed or auto-updated to the rogue extension, it sought permissions that the official extension does not. That included the ability to read and change ALL data on websites the user visits. While for experienced users that should’ve set alarm bells ringing, many people would not have understood the risks. As it turns out, they were huge.

The rogue extension was programmed to steal user credentials for a range of sites including Amazon, Live (Microsoft), Github, and Google’s webstore, meaning that anyone with accounts on these sites could’ve had their usernames and passwords stolen. Things got worse, however.

According to a user posting on Reddit, the extension also has the ability to steal private keys to cryptocurrency wallets affecting MyEtherWallet, MyMonero, and Idex.market utilizing the following code.:

“content_scripts”: [ {
“js”: [ “mega/jquery.js”, “mega/content.js” ],
“matches”: [ “file:///*”, “https://www.myetherwallet.com/*”, “https://mymonero.com/*”, “https://idex.market/*” ],
“run_at”: “document_end”
} ]

In a security update, MEGA confirmed the findings, noting that the extension had been sending credentials to a server located in Ukraine, previously identified by Monero developer SerHack as www.megaopac.host.

@MyMonero @myetherwallet @aurora_dao keys will be logged too! PLEASE UNINSTALL MEGA AS SOON AS POSSIBLE. @fluffypony pic.twitter.com/V8T6NVV8rO

— SerHack (@serhack_) September 4, 2018

<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8">

MEGA says it is currently investigating how its Chrome webstore account was compromised to allow the attacker to upload the malicious code. However, as soon as it became aware of the problems, the company took immediate action.

“Four hours after the breach occurred, the trojaned extension was updated by MEGA with a clean version (3.39.5), autoupdating affected installations. Google removed the extension from the Chrome webstore five hours after the breach,” the company reports.

This serious breach affects two sets of people; those who had the MEGA Chrome extension installed at the time of the incident, had auto-update enabled (and accepted the new elevated permissions), plus anyone who freshly installed version 3.39.4 of the extension.

While credentials for the sites detailed above were specifically targeted, MEGA says that these could be the tip of the iceberg due to the extension attempting to capture information destined for other platforms.

“Please note that if you visited any site or made use of another extension that sends plain-text credentials through POST requests, either by direct form submission or through a background XMLHttpRequest process (MEGA is not one of them) while the trojaned extension was active, consider that your credentials were compromised on these sites and/or applications,” the company warns. (see note below)

TorrentFreak contacted MEGA for comment and company chairman Stephen Hall pointed us to technical advice and an apology from the company. MEGA says it has strict release procedures with multi-party code review. However, limitations in place at Google means that security isn’t as tight as it could be.

“Google decided to disallow publisher signatures on Chrome extensions and is now relying solely on signing them automatically after upload to the Chrome webstore, which removes an important barrier to external compromise,” the company notes.

Since MEGAsync and MEGA’s Firefox extension are both signed and hosted by the company, they are unaffected by this attack. MEGA’s mobile apps, which are hosted by Apple, Google, and Microsoft are also unaffected.

Also in the clear is MEGA itself. The extension didn’t have the ability to steal users’ MEGA credentials and any users accessing MEGA without the Chrome extension remain unaffected.

Note: TorrentFreak has asked MEGA for additional clarification on the “plain-text credentials through POST requests” statement and details on why MEGA itself isn’t at risk. We’ll update when we receive a response.

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

For more than a decade, alleged file-sharers around the world have been pressured to pay significant settlement fees.

These so-called copyright trolling efforts are pretty straightforward. Copyright holders obtain a list of ‘pirating’ IP-addresses and then request a subpoena from the court, compelling ISPs to hand over the associated customer data.

In recent years several news reports have appeared on these cases in the US, Sweden, Denmark and elsewhere. In Canada, things have remained quiet, but that doesn’t mean that these cases don’t exist there.

While the volume of lawsuits is relatively modest, thousands of Canadians have been targeted since 2016. The lawsuits in question are filed by the rightsholders of films such as The Hitman’s Bodyguard, Mechanic: Resurrection, Criminal, London Has Fallen, and Dallas Buyers Club,

These outfits are also active in other countries and many have a connection to Voltage Pictures, another familiar name. Voltage sued over 50,000 Canadian John Does in a reverse class action in 2011. This ‘Hurt Locker‘ case is still ongoing.

After the initial lawsuit, things went quiet, however. In the courts at least.

Initially, the movie companies focused their efforts on the so-called “notice-and-notice” scheme. This allows rightsholders to send settlement requests to alleged pirates through their ISPs. However, no personal details would be exposed. That meant that these could be easily ignored by the accused.

In recent years more than 300,000 of these “notice-and-notice” warnings were sent out by just one law firm, but the total could be over a million. This even grabbed the attention of lawmakers and legal experts.

What’s less known, however, is that in 2016 these movie companies and other rightsholders started taking cases to court again. Court records reveal that at least 16 separate lawsuits were filed since, with some targeting hundreds of people at once.

These cases are similar to the “copyright troll” efforts we see in other countries. They are litigated by the law firm Aird & Berlis and have fewer defendants than the initial Hurt Locker suit. Perhaps that’s why they remained largely under the radar.

The fallout is very real though. While none of the cases have gone to trial yet, some defendants have settled their cases for thousands of dollars.

TorrentFreak reached out to James Plotkin of law firm CazaSaikaley, who represented two defendants. He warns that from a consumer protection standpoint, the biggest problem is ignorance.

For example, many defendants may not realize that these cases are filed against John Does. This means that they are technically not being sued yet unless their name is added to the suit, which rarely happens. But it gets worse.

“I have also seen a number of consent judgments for $5,000. This is the maximum liability under the Copyright Act for non-commercial infringement. I am therefore puzzled as to why individuals would agree to settle for their likely maximum liability at trial,” Plotkin adds.

The latter is a particularly worrisome issue. It means that accused file-sharers admit guilt and agree to pay $5,000, which is the maximum damages amount they could get in court.

“I see no rational basis for paying that amount,” Plotkin notes, suggesting that some defendants are not represented by attorneys who know the ins and outs of IP law.

In most other countries the legal pressure is used to get Internet subscribers to pay a settlement fee. The matter rarely goes to trial. According to Plotkin, the same is likely to happen in Canada.

“It is difficult to say for certain, but I do not think any of these cases will go all the way,” Plotkin tells us.

“The business model so far seems to have been lifting off as many claims and letters as possible in the hopes of scaring out settlements. It has worked. I don’t see why the plaintiffs would jeopardize that by actually litigating one of these claims.”

Thus far the cases have been ongoing for years, without much resistance. Those who are unfortunate enough to get caught up in this should carefully research their options. Unlike the “notice-and-notice” emails, ignoring the legal paperwork is not a good option.

According to Plotkin, it would be wise to consult an attorney instead.

“Get competent legal advice. It is important to understand the legal playing field. Defendants are not helpless in these actions, so ignoring the claim and allowing the plaintiff to proceed in obtaining a default judgment is probably not the best option for most people,” Plotkin notes.

That is the type of advice one would expect from an attorney of course. However, in this case, it is certainly warranted. And the outcome could be positive as well, as Plotkin has already helped one defendant to get rid of the claim, without a settlement.

TorrentFreak also reached out to attorney Ken Clark of the law firm Aird & Berlis, which represents the movie outfits. He couldn’t provide any further details on how many people have been sued thus far and preferred not to disclose any further information.

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

While dozens of torrents sites have come and gone over the years, TNTVillage has managed to stay online for more than a decade. Focused on the Italian market, the site had a clear mission.

TNTVillage was created in 2005 to offer Italians, especially those living abroad, an opportunity to maintain access to “culture, art and intellectual works” via non-profit sharing using peer-to-peer networks.

“The main aim of this site was to highlight the now obsolete copyright law, which, due to the long duration of the protection of these rights, turns out to be a brake on culture and the spread of knowledge,” an early statement from its operators reads.

“Therefore, a drastic reduction of these ‘guarantee times’ is essential to ensure that some works can be freely disseminated, both for cultural purposes but also more simply for hedonistic purposes.”

TNTVillage’s operators sought a change in the law to free up access to content, particularly material that may have been forgotten or not made available at all, yet still subject to restrictions due to copyright terms.

However, TNTVillage set its own boundaries, ones which prevented the site from making content available in the months following its initial release, in order to respect the right of creators to make a living.

Now, however, TNTVillage is under intense legal pressure after a group of media and publishing companies filed a complaint against the platform at the Tribunale di Milano (Court of Milan).

Among the complainants are the Italian Publishers Association, Federation for the Protection of Audiovisual and Multimedia Content (FAPAV), Edi. Ermes (scientific publisher), Eagle Pictures (Italian film distribution and production company), plus at least eight other companies and groups.

Their complaint targets Associazione Scambio Etico (Ethical Exchange Association), the Italian association connected to TNTVillage that has long campaigned for the freedom to share knowledge. It also names Luigi Di Liberto, the operator of TNTVillage, who is believed to be around 65-years-old.

Di Liberto posted the complaint himself on Facebook some weeks ago but since TNTVillage has seemingly remained up without significant interruption, the news is only now filtering through.

The complaint against TNTVillage

The heavyweight companies behind the complaint claim that TNTVillage uses BitTorrent technology to spread their copyrighted works between members of the site, something which infringes their rights and damages their business.

According to photographs posted by Di Liberto to Facebook, authorities visited what appears to be Di Liberto’s home, carrying out a search and examining and copying the contents of his computer hard drive.

Search underway

Quite how this situation will now play out isn’t yet clear. Legal wheels can turn slowly and in some cases, don’t actually result in any progress, as the history of TNTVillage shows.

Back in 2006, authorities seized the site’s server but more than a year later it was returned, with no legal action taken against its operators. Only time will tell if this action in 2018 will have a different outcome but meanwhile, there is some fallout.

On August 31, fellow Italian platform TNTRip announced that following TNTVillage’s problems, it would be closing its doors.

“As a precautionary measure, given the bad time TNTVillage is passing, TNTRip will remain offline until further notice,” its statement reads.

“At the moment we can not provide a service that guarantees complete safety for both the provider and those who use it. We trust that you the users will understand why, while we are all waiting for new developments.”

Finally, while TNTVillage is undoubtedly involved in the spread of copyrighted content, nine years ago the site itself experienced its own data being shared in public.

In July 2009, around 50,000 usernames, passwords and email addresses belonging to site members were uploaded to various torrent sites after the site was hacked.

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