The Spoiling Dead Fans (TSD) is a community of hardcore The Walking Dead fans who have an even greater interest in the show than most. As their name suggests, they’re dedicated to obtaining all the latest information about the hit show – including information not yet in the public domain.

There have been suggestions recently that TSDF might reveal the identity of the individual who Negan killed with ‘Lucille’, his barbed wire covered baseball bat. As the cliff-hanger from the final episode of the last series, it’s pretty important to fans. As it turns out, it’s massively important to makers AMC too.

In a posting on their Facebook page this week, the operators of The Spoiling Dead told their 364,000 followers that AMC had contacted them with legal threats.

“After two years, AMC finally reached out to us! But it wasn’t a request not to post any info about the Lucille Victim or any type of friendly attempt at compromise, it was a cease and desist and a threat of a lawsuit by AMC Holdings, LLC’s attorney, Dennis Wilson. They say we can’t make any type of prediction about the Lucille Victim,” they wrote.

TorrentFreak has obtained a copy of the letter sent to TSDF in which AMC’s attorney at Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP lays down the law. Surprisingly for a show that hasn’t aired and potentially hasn’t even been made yet, the law being laid down is copyright in nature.

“AMC is aware that The Spoiling Dead Fans site is promoting your claim that you have received copyright protected, trade secret information about the most critical plot information in the unreleased next season of The Walking Dead,” the letter begins.

“You also state that you plan to distribute this purported highly confidential information despite your knowledge that such distribution, if the information is indeed accurate, is unauthorized and will greatly damage AMC, distributors of The Walking Dead as well as Walking Dead fans awaiting the new seasons’ release who wish to watch their favorite show unspoiled.”

AMC’s claim that any spoilers will amount to copyright infringement are somewhat eyebrow raising but according to the company this ground has been covered before.

“The release of plot summaries and particularly the types of crucial plot elements that you have stated you intend to release, have been found to constitute copyright infringement. Specifically, in Twin Peaks Productions vs. Publications International, the Court ruled that publishing a work that ‘recount[s] for its readers precisely the plot details’ of a fictional work constitutes copyright infringement.”

By citing a specific case one might conclude that AMC’s attorney is confident that the cases are similar, but reading the details casts more than just a little doubt on his claims.

The historical case in question involved the publication of a book by Publications International which covered in detail the first eight episodes of the 1990/91 TV series Twin Peaks. The big question was whether this use of copyright works was protected under fair use but in the end the court decided the publisher had gone too far.

The court found that the defendant’s “detailed recounting of the show’s plotlines went far beyond merely identifying their basic outline for the transformative purposes of comment or criticism” adding:

Because the plot synopses were so detailed, and in fact lifted many sections verbatim from the original scripts, the court found that defendant copied a substantial amount of plaintiff’s original works.

This hardly seems to mirror the situation playing out alongside a potential spoiler of an unaired episode of The Walking Dead. Presumably that spoiler can be achieved by saying a single name too, which by no stretch of the imagination amounts to a substantial part of any show.

Merits of the argument aside though, AMC doesn’t appear in any mood for messing around.

“By advertising the illegal disclosure of intricate plot details of an unreleased episode of The Walking Dead without authorization, you will willfully and intentionally impair the commercial viability of the show and thus AMC’s ability and incentive to continue to produce creative works such as The Walking Dead,” the company’s attorney continues.

“In light of the above, we demand that you repudiate your intent to leak the ‘Lucille Victim’ by confirming that you will cease and desist from that illegal disclosure and/or assisting others in the illegal disclosure.

“Should you fail to do so, AMC will file a lawsuit against you to enjoin your harmful illegal activities and seek to obtain money damages and injunctive relief to address your conduct.”

Whether the threats have any legal basis will probably never be known for sure but in the meantime The Spoiling Dead crew are having a pretty awful time of it. As a result they’ve decided not to take any chances.

“AMC has been harassing us for four days now by contacting our homes, our family members and our employers; even posting on this page and personal social media accounts. We are fans of this show just like you and aren’t a commercial operation that makes profit. We have families and careers to think about,” they explain.

“After consultation with our legal counsel, we have responded to AMC that the TSDF staff will not be posting our prediction on who gets Lucilled on any of our outlets.”

Speaking with TorrentFreak, ‘Shinyfirefly’ of TSDF said that while AMC insist that a disclosure about the ‘Lucille Victim’ was about to be made, no one from the company has provided that detail.

“[AMC} say that we claimed we received some illegal, protected information and that we said we were going to disclose the Lucille Victim based on that information. But they never identified WHERE the claim they say we made was. Even in our response to them we said we could not repudiate that claim because they didn’t identify it. They still haven’t. They are guessing,” Shinyfirefly said.

“It would be stupid of us to say something like that. All we ever said is that we were close to a confirmation and should be able to post who we thought it was in a couple weeks. There are lots of ways to confirm things and plenty of them legal.”

While the identity of the ‘Lucille Victim’ has always been a hot topic among Walking Dead fans, it’s now likely that following the legal threats from AMC the interest will leak over into the wider mainstream, thus making it even less likely it will remain a secret.

It’s understandable that AMC want to protect their storylines, but this is not pre-Internet 1980 and the days of secrets like Who Shot J.R.? are long gone.

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

Dutch anti-piracy group BREIN has targeted the operators of pirate sites for more than a decade, but more recently it began going after uploaders as well.

Over the past several months the group has tracked down several prolific uploaders and has now announced intentions to take these efforts a step further.

While many efforts have focused on BitTorrent uploaders, BREIN is also keeping a close eye on other sharing platforms. This includes Usenet, which despite staying out of the piracy headlines, remains relatively popular.

Representing several large book publishers, the anti-piracy group is going after two anonymous Usenet users, who allegedly uploaded more than 2,000 books to newsgroups.

BREIN has already contacted their Usenet providers, Eweka and Usenetter, who in response cancelled the accounts in question.

However, they refused to hand over any personal details. According to the providers, they are no longer allowed to share personal data under the e-Privacy regulation if an account is disconnected.

BREIN contests this and is now taking the matter to court. According to the group this case isn’t about regular data retention policies, instead, it’s a unique situation where the enforcement rights of the publishers should outweigh privacy concerns.

A local court will now review both positions. The court has already stated that it will review the circumstances under which BREIN requested the data, when the users’ accounts were still active.

If BREIN succeeds then the group has an extra tool in their arsenal, making it easier to expose prolific uploaders. This could also spell trouble for BitTorrent uploaders, as BREIN could try to request personal information from their ISPs.

BREIN director Tim Kuik informed TorrentFreak that they are hoping to recover damages from the uploaders, as well as information on other large scale infringers.

“Our primary interest is to stop the infringements, furthermore to settle costs and damages or to sue for those on behalf of the injured right holders. Possibly the infringers may have information on other persons involved,” Kuik says.

According to Kuik, BREIN has a good chance of a successful outcome. Under Dutch jurisprudence, ISPs can be obliged to hand over personal information of customers if the infringing activity is plausible and the aggrieved party has a legitimate interest.

This isn’t the first time BREIN has gone after serial e-book infringers. Last year, a Dutch court ordered Google to hand over the personal details of a user that sold pirated books in the Play Store. In that case the court concluded that the rights of copyright holders outweigh the user’s rights.

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

Like many other countries around the world, downloading music and movies is hugely popular in the Netherlands.

In part, the popularity was facilitated by the fact that downloading pirated music has long been legal under local law.

This tolerant stance towards online piracy changed in 2014 when the European Court of Justice ruled it to be unlawful. As a result the Dutch Government quickly outlawed unauthorized downloading.

Despite this change piracy remains widespread in the country and film producer Klaas de Jong is now trying to hold four large Internet providers to account.

Last week De Jong filed a complaint with the police, holding KPN Telfort, Vodafone and Ziggo directly responsible. The producer wants the providers to be criminally prosecuted for passing on traffic to various pirate sites.

“If someone sells you an illegal bike, this fencer is also punishable,” De Jong tells Het Parool, adding that “time is running out.”

The producer, who has worked on many Dutch film projects, states that the local movie industry is losing tens of millions of euros due to piracy.

Whether the case will be prosecuted has yet to be seen.

In a civil proceeding against various ISPs a local court previously overturned the Pirate Bay blockade, concluding that it was ineffective and that it restricted the ISPs’ entrepreneurial freedoms.

This case is under appeal at the Supreme Court, which in turn has sought clarification from the EU Court of Justice on several issues.

De Jong’s complaint is not an isolated incident though and the local film industry is clearly losing its patience.

Earlier this year the Association of Professional Film Entrepreneurs (VPSO) decided to take action as well. In a letter sent to the Secretary of State for Justice they held the Government responsible for over a billion euros in piracy losses.

The Dutch Government denied these allegations and said that the film industry has plenty of options to recoup their losses. Through civil procedures against downloaders, for example.

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

In this special episode Rick Falkvinge, founder of The Pirate Party

Rick talks about the origins of the party, its relationship to The Pirate Bay and Pirate Bureau, his experience of taking it to the European Parliament, and the party’s relation to questions of privacy and surveillance looming ever larger in today’s society.

Should the Pirate Party really be called the Private Party? No, says Rick, it’s evolving into the natural home of citizens’ rights for digital freedom – and that’s just fine for pirates.

—

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

The guests for our news discussions will vary and we’ll aim to introduce voices from different backgrounds and persuasions. In addition to news, STS will also produce features interviewing some of the great innovators and minds.

Host: Jamie King

Guest: Rick Falkvinge.

Produced by Jamie King
Edited & Mixed by Eric Bouthiller
Original Music by David Triana
Web Production by Siraje Amarniss

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

Back in 2003, when file-sharing technology was still in its relative infancy, several platforms had aspirations of becoming the next Napster. One of those was Israel-based iMesh, which at four years old was practically a veteran already.

But in September that year an increasingly irritable RIAA said enough is enough and sued iMesh in the United States. At the time, both parties were defiant. The RIAA insisted that iMesh should be shut down, while iMesh’s owners claimed they’d done nothing wrong.

However, in the summer of 2014 an unusual peace was reached, with iMesh paying the RIAA more than $4m in compensation and continuing business as normal. As strange as it may seem, the RIAA appeared to have licensed people they’d already branded as pirates.

There were changes though. iMesh was forced to release a new client that carried filtering technology provided by Audible Magic, with the aim of stopping infringement on the network. From the release of iMesh v6 in October 2005, it’s almost certain that the RIAA had access to vast amounts of iMesh user data.

Now, however, some of that data has landed in the public arena. Following the sudden disappearance of iMesh in recent weeks, LeakedSource is reporting that it has obtained an iMesh database containing 51,310,759 user records.

“Each record contains an email address, a username, one password, an IP address, a Country location and a join date,” the site says.

The breach, which appears to have taken place in September 2013, lists users from 55 countries participating on iMesh. With 13.7m users, the United States was by far the most popular country.

Sadly, as is often the case when such breaches are made public, the password situation on iMesh was pretty bleak.

“Passwords were stored in multiple MD5 rounds with salting. ‘Salting’ makes decrypting passwords exponentially harder when dealing with large numbers such as these, and is better than what LinkedIn and MySpace did but MD5 itself is not nearly hard enough for modern computing. The methods iMesh used, albeit 3 years ago were still insufficient for the times,” LeakedSource notes.

Only making matters worse are the passwords deployed by users. Close to a million of iMesh’s users went for ‘123456’, with more than 330,000 going for the slightly longer variant ‘123456789’.

For what would turn into a largely crippled file-sharing network, iMesh was still attracting plenty of new users. The leak shows that in 2006, just after the release of the RIAA-approved client, iMesh had 4.8 million people sign up. During 2011, 9.4 million jumped on board. The last data available shows 2.5 million new members in 2013.

Now, however, iMesh is suddenly no more. After more than a decade of working with the RIAA (and even the MPAA who had a deal to limit movie sharing on the service), several weeks ago iMesh suddenly shut down. May 5 is the last date an active page is available on Wayback Machine, boasting access to 15 million licensed songs and videos.

Unsurprisingly, the iMesh shutdown is just one of many. At the same time several other platforms closed down including Bearshare, Shareaza and Lphant. Each show an almost identical shutdown message on their homepages since underneath they were all one and the same software operated by the same company.

But while it is customary for file-sharing fans to mourn the loss of file-sharing services, few with knowledge of how this network operated will be disappointed that these have gone, and not just because of the RIAA deal either.

The original Shareaza and Lphant projects were both subjected to hostile action by Discordia, the owners of iMesh, in circumstances that remain murky to this day. The original and safe version of Shareaza continues on Sourceforge, somewhat against the odds.

Users concerned that their data may have been compromised can check here.

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