In recent years file-sharers around the world have been ordered to pay significant settlement fees, or face legal repercussions.

These so-called “copyright trolling” efforts have been a common occurrence in several countries, with Sweden one of the latest hunting grounds.

One of the organizations leading the way is Spridningskollen (Distribution Check). Using data gathered by German anti-piracy outfit Excipio, they plan to start by targeting around 1,000 alleged pirates, offering them settlements of around $233 (2,000 kronor).

While many Internet providers don’t put up a real fight to protect their subscribers, privacy conscious Bahnhof is. Not only does Bahnhof delete all logs that could link IP-addresses to alleged infringements, the company is also pushing back in other creative ways.

Previously they accused Spridningskollen of trademark infringement and this week they followed up this threat with a more concrete warning.

Giving the “trolls” a taste of their own medicine, Bahnhof sent them an invoice for the exact amount they also ask from accused pirates, to settle the alleged trademark infringement.

“You’re infringing our trademark ‘Spridningskollen.’ Bahnhof filed for the trademark on 2016-08-31, with the launch of the website Spridningskollen.org,” the settlement invoice reads.

The anti-piracy outfit uses Spridningskollen.se for their website and Bahnhof urges the company to pay up and take it down, or else.

“Choose to pay 2,000 kronor and switch off your site Spridningskollen.se as soon as possible, or face legal action when the trademark application has been processed,” they write.

“You can say that this letter is a settlement offer. If the infringer of the trademark does not pay the rightsholder the case can proceed to trial, which is far more costly for all involved.”

It’s unlikely that the anti-piracy coalition is going to comply voluntarily, as the trademark application can be disputed. Nevertheless, Bahnhof’s provocative approach is refreshing to say the least.

When asked, most ISPs will say that they have the best interests of their subscribers at heart, but very few companies are willing to go above and beyond and highlight possible abuse.

And adding some irony in the mix makes it all the better.

Source: TF, for the latest info on copyright, file-sharing, torrent sites and ANONYMOUS VPN services.

Yesterday the RIAA announced the biggest growth in recorded music sales since the late 1990s, a healthy 8.1% increase compared to the year before.

The record numbers were achieved despite the widespread availability of pirated music. So what happened here? Did all those pirates suddenly grow a conscience?

The answer to this question is partly given by new research published in the journal Risk Analysis.

Researchers from the University of East Anglia, Lancaster University, and Newcastle University found that perceived risk has very little effect on people’s piracy habits. This means that stricter punishments or tough copyright laws are not the answer.

Instead, unauthorized file-sharing (UFS) is best predicted by the supposed benefits of piracy. As such, the researchers note that better legal alternatives are the best way to stop piracy.

The results are based on a psychological study among hundreds of music and ebook consumers. They were subjected to a set of questions regarding their file-sharing habits, perceived risk, industry trust, and online anonymity.

By analyzing the data the researchers found that the perceived benefit of piracy, such as quality, flexibility of use and cost are the real driver of piracy. An increase in legal risk was not directly associated with any statistically significant decrease in self-reported file-sharing.

“Given that we observe a much more powerful predictor of behavior in perceived benefit, changes to legal frameworks may not be the most effective route to change behaviour,” lead author Dr Steven Watson says.

“Specifically, one strategy to combat unlawful file-sharing would be to provide easy access to information about the benefits of legal purchases or services, in an environment in which the specific benefits UFS offers are met by these legal alternatives.”

Alternatively, there is a more indirect route to influence piracy, by increasing the “trust” people have in regulators. This could increase risk perception and also lower the perceived benefits of piracy. However, the researchers note that this isn’t the most efficient option.

In their paper, the researchers mention subscription services such as Spotify as the most compelling alternatives.

This brings us back to the record revenue the RIAA reported yesterday, which can be attributed to the growth of legal services. The RIAA notes that with the introduction of Tidal and Apple Music, subscription service revenues doubled compared to last year.

So it’s legal options that drive the recent revenue growth, not anti-piracy enforcement.

Of course, the idea that subscription services can compete with piracy isn’t new. When Spotify launched its first beta in the fall of 2008, we billed it as “an alternative to music piracy,” and various reports have shown that pirates gladly switch over to good legal services.

The UK researchers also conclude that legal alternatives are a viable option to decrease piracy, one that’s preferred over legal threats.

“It is perhaps no surprise that legal interventions regarding UFS have a limited and possibly short-term effect, while legal services that compete with UFS have attracted significant numbers of consumers,” says co-author Dr Piers Fleming.

Techdirt’s Mike Masnick, who published a “The carrot or the stick” report last year, notes that the findings are in line with their conclusions.

According to Masnick, there is now ample evidence showing that enforcement is not the answer to piracy, but thus far the relevant stakeholders continue to hide their heads in the sand.

“And yet, politicians, regulators and legacy industry folks still insist that ratcheting up enforcement is the way to go. What will it take for them to actually follow what the evidence says, rather than continuing with faith-based copyright policies?” Masnick writes.

Source: TF, for the latest info on copyright, file-sharing, torrent sites and ANONYMOUS VPN services.

More than 35 years after 15-year-old high school student Rich Skrenta created the first publicly spread virus, millions of pieces of malware are being spread around the world.

Attackers’ motives are varied but these days they’re often working for financial gain. As a result, popular websites and their users are regularly targeted. Security company InfoArmor has just published a report detailing a particularly interesting threat which homes in on torrent site users.

“InfoArmor has identified a special tool used by cybercriminals to distribute malware by packaging it with the most popular torrent files on the Internet,” the company reports.

InfoArmor says the so-called “RAUM” tool is being offered via “underground affiliate networks” with attackers being financially incentivized to spread the malicious software through infected torrent files.

“Members of these networks are invited by special invitation only, with strict verification of each new member,” the company reports.

InfoArmor says that the attackers’ infrastructure has a monitoring system in place which allows them to track the latest trends in downloading, presumably so that attacks can reach the greatest numbers of victims.

“The bad actors have analyzed trends on video, audio, software and other digital content downloads from around the globe and have created seeds on famous torrent trackers using weaponized torrents packaged with malicious code,” they explain.

RAUM instances were associated with a range of malware including CryptXXX, CTB-Locker and Cerber, online-banking Trojan Dridex and password stealing spyware Pony.

“We have identified in excess of 1,639,000 records collected in the past few months from the infected victims with various credentials to online-services, gaming, social media, corporate resources and exfiltrated data from the uncovered network,” InfoArmor reveals.

What is perhaps most interesting about InfoArmor’s research is how it shines light on the operation of RAUM behind the scenes. The company has published a screenshot which claims to show the system’s dashboard, featuring infected torrents on several sites, a ‘fake’ Pirate Bay site in particular.

“Threat actors were systematically monitoring the status of the created malicious seeds on famous torrent trackers such as The Pirate Bay, ExtraTorrent and many others,” the researchers write.

“In some cases, they were specifically looking for compromised accounts of other users on these online communities that were extracted from botnet logs in order to use them for new seeds on behalf of the affected victims without their knowledge, thus increasing the reputation of the uploaded files.”

According to InfoArmor the malware was initially spread using uTorrent, although any client could have done the job. More recently, however, new seeds have been served through online servers and some hacked devices.

In some cases the malicious files continued to be seeded for more than 1.5 months. Tests by TF on the sample provided showed that most of the files listed have now been removed by the sites in question.

Completely unsurprisingly, people who use torrent sites to obtain software and games (as opposed to video and music files) are those most likely to come into contact with RAUM and associated malware. As the image below shows, Windows 7 and 10 packs and their activators feature prominently.

“All of the created malicious seeds were monitored by cybercriminals in order to prevent early detection by [anti-virus software] and had different statuses such as ‘closed,’ ‘alive,’ and ‘detected by antivirus.’ Some of the identified elements of their infrastructure were hosted in the TOR network,” InfoArmor explains.

The researchers say that RAUM is a tool used by an Eastern European organized crime group known as Black Team. They also report several URLs and IP addresses from where the team operates. We won’t publish them here but it’s of some comfort to know that between Chrome, Firefox and MalwareBytes protection, all were successfully blocked on our test machine.

InfoArmor concludes by warning users to exercise extreme caution when downloading pirated digital content. We’d go a step further and advise people to be wary of installing all software from any untrusted sources, no matter where they’re found online.

Source: TF, for the latest info on copyright, file-sharing, torrent sites and ANONYMOUS VPN services.

Despite the availability of many legal services, piracy remains rampant among millennials in the United States.

This is one of the main conclusions of the “Millennials at the Gate” report, released by Anatomy Media. The report is based on a comprehensive survey of 2,700 young millennials between 18 and 24, and zooms in on piracy and ad-blocking preferences in this age group.

The results show that more than two thirds, a whopping 69%, admit to using at least one form of piracy to watch video.

Online streaming is by far the most popular choice among these pirates, whether it’s on the desktop (42%) or via mobile (41%). Torrenting, on the other hand, is on the decline and is stuck at 17% in this age group.

Piracy preferences

Streaming from unofficial sources is so dominant now that Anatomy Media decided to come up with a new word for those who engage in it: striminals. Whether they seriously considered the better fitting “striminalennials” is unclear.

“These streaming millennial criminals, or what we call ‘striminals,’ watch what they want, when they want, where they want, and they don’t pay for it,” the company explains.

Interestingly, 67% of all millennials believe that streaming unauthorized content is perfectly legal. Only 18% believe that it is wrong to stream content without paying for it.

It’s worth highlighting that it’s up for debate whether the term “criminal” accurately describes people who casually stream unauthorized videos. Attempts to make streaming a felony previously failed in the United States congress.

In addition to online piracy, young millennials are quite fond of ad-blockers. The report shows that two out of three use a mobile or desktop ad-blocker, or both.

Ad-blocking preferences

Interestingly, there is a direct link between the use of ad-blockers and online piracy. Millennials who are into mobile piracy use mobile ad-blockers more often, while desktop pirates have a higher preference for desktop ad-blockers.

Anatomy Media suggest that piracy and ad-blocking might reinforce each other. Online pirates may be more likely to use ad-blockers because pirate sites are often ad-ridden, they argue. However, this causal relationship wasn’t researched.

Piracy and ad-blocking

While the above paints a grim picture for media companies, not all is lost according to Anatomy Media. The company, which conveniently specializes in “creative advertising,” says that a better viewing experience could encourage millennials to move over to the right side.

“Young millennials’ dissatisfaction with their viewer experience and their overwhelming adoption of ad blockers is a call-to-action to improve the viewer experience and review the nature of the digital ad experience,” the report concludes.

“Millennials will accept advertising as long as it is restrained, targeted and relevant,” the company self-servingly adds.

Source: TF, for the latest info on copyright, file-sharing, torrent sites and ANONYMOUS VPN services.

The takedown provisions of the Digital Millenium Copyright Act are most closely associated with alleged infringement in the file-sharing space. As a result, millions of notices are sent to a wide range of websites, not least Google’s search.

As a recent case involving Warner illustrated, erroneous notices can prove controversial, but perhaps the most egregious examples involve efforts to silence critics under the guise of protecting copyrights. One such situation appears to be underway between two players in the website security sector.

In the blue corner stands SiteLock, the self-professed “Global Leader in business website security solutions.” With more than 8,000,000 customers worldwide, it’s more than likely that its logo (shown bottom right in the image below) is familiar to readers.

Sitelock’s product range is impressive but no matter what it does, the company cannot seem to impress White Fir Design, its rival in the blue corner.

For the past few years, web design and security company White Fir has been publishing articles critical of SiteLock. In 2014, for example, the company published a piece declaring that Sitelock was poor at protecting its clients.

This was followed by several others continuing on the same theme, including a May 2016 piece declaring that Sitelock was scamming its customers. Clearly, things were beginning to heat up.

It’s not clear whether Sitelock disagrees with any of White Fir’s critique but the company has certainly noticed the articles published web outfit. That became evident this week when Sitelock filed DMCA notices against two pieces published by White Fir.

“We have seen a lot of ridiculous stuff from SiteLock recently, but this has to take the cake,” White Fir said in a statement.

“They have now filed a DMCA takedown notice against our website for including a screenshot of their homepage in one [of] our posts.”

The screenshot posted by White Fir originally appeared in an article which claimed how Sitelock had placed their seal of approval on a site, despite it being dangerous for visitors. The screenshot has now been removed but a copy can be seen below.

The allegedly-infringing screenshot

The resulting DMCA notice from SiteLock claims that White Fir’s use of the screenshot is infringing.

“My name is Logan Kipp, I am contacting you on behalf of my company SiteLock, LLC. A website that your company hosts at IP *66.39.94.41 (WHITEFIRDESIGN.COM) is infringing on at least one copyright owned by SiteLock, LLC,” the complaint to White Fir’s hosting company reads.

“Content has been taken from our official websites, SiteLock.com and wpdistrict.sitelock.com, and used without the authorization of SiteLock, LLC on the website WHITEFIRDESIGN.COM.”

The second complaint Sitelock filed against White Fir concerned a piece published early September which alleged that SiteLock had reported certain versions of WordPress as having “critical” vulnerabilities when in fact they did not.

To support their critique, White Fir included a screenshot of a table published by SiteLock. It’s clear that White Fir had the right to do so under Fair Use but SiteLock’s Logan Kipp felt otherwise, filing a complaint with White Fir’s host.

“I request that you immediately notify the infringer of this notice and inform them of their duty to remove the infringing material immediately, and notify them to cease any further posting of infringing material to your server in the future,” SiteLock told the host.

“If service providers do not investigate and remove or disable the infringing material [safe harbor] immunity is lost. Therefore, in order for you to remain immune from a copyright infringement action you will need to investigate and ultimately remove or otherwise disable the infringing material from your servers with all due speed should the direct infringer, your client, not comply immediately.”

Quite why White Fir chose to comply with SiteLock’s takedown demands is unclear, as the usage of the screenshots is legal for the purposes of news reporting and critique. However, as White Fir point out, if the aim was to silence them, that has backfired.

“What makes this even more ridiculous is [SiteLock] clearly now know that their post is showing that they lack a basic understanding of WordPress security, but instead of fixing their post, they are trying to hide you from seeing an image on our website,” White Fir explain.

“The only reasonable explanation we can think of for them doing this is that they thought they could get the pages those images were on removed by filing [the complaint], because removing the images alone doesn’t do anything to cover up what they are up to.”

And so the DMCA wars continue….

Source: TF, for the latest info on copyright, file-sharing, torrent sites and ANONYMOUS VPN services.