The advent of cheap Android devices such as Amazon’s Fire Stick and dozens of set-top variants means that anyone can install legal software such as Kodi and then modify it to do less legal things.

With the correct know how, all the latest movies, TV shows and live sports are just a few clicks away, all streamed over the Internet, for free. This ease of use irritates rightsholders who seem powerless to do much about the flood of illicit broadcasts.

Also complicating the situation is that individuals looking to make a quick buck are selling piracy-configured devices on eBay, Amazon and other venues, meaning that anyone can get in on the close-to-free TV action by shelling out a few pounds, euros or dollars.

Today, however, the UK’s Police’s Intellectual Property Unit (PIPCU) has made a tiny dent in this illicit market after arresting several individuals said to be involved in the sale of ‘pirate’ boxes configured to stream content including movies and sport.

Following the execution of seven search warrants at as many locations in the north of England (Consett, Lanchester, Washington, Gateshead, Middlesbrough, Sunderland and Seamer), six people were arrested.

Police say that a 37 year-old man targeted in Sunderland was arrested on suspicion of distributing an unauthorized decoder, money laundering and making and/or supplying items for use in fraud.

The investigation, which was carried out with the assistance of Trading Standards and the Federation Against Copyright Theft (FACT), led to the seizure of 42 “illegally modified” set-top boxes configured to receive subscription-only TV.

“This operation is an excellent example of multi-agency working across force boundaries to tackle piracy and those intent on making money at the expense of honest subscription payers who deserve a fair deal,” says PIPCU’s Detective Chief Inspector Peter Ratcliffe.

“We routinely seek to identify and disrupt those intent on making quick cash from piracy and will use every enforcement opportunity to bring them to justice.”

While buyers of such devices might think they’re getting value for money, both PIPCU and the Federation Against Copyright Theft are keen to point out that they’re not risk free.

“Consumers need to be aware that these cheap pre-configured TV boxes are illegal,” says FACT Director General Kieron Sharp. “They are stealing copyrighted content and starving UK businesses from revenue, as well as putting consumers’ devices at risk of malware and ransomware.”

A pirate box holding itself to ransom is an interesting concept but not one that appears to be gaining any traction on sites specializing in such topics. Indeed, in many instances using one of these boxes is much safer than visiting streaming sites directly, since much of the malicious advertising is filtered out.

This week’s arrests follow at least two previous operations (1,2) targeting the sellers of ‘pirate’ boxes in the UK.

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

Earlier this year, Warner Bros. and Intel daughter company Digital Content Protection (DCP) filed a lawsuit against LegendSky, accusing it of violating the DMCA’s anti-circumvention provisions.

LegendSky is the maker of HDFury devices which allow users to “strip” the latest HDCP encryption, according to the complaint.

This makes it much easier for pirates to circumvent the stronger HDCP content protection and release pirated copies of 4K films and series. Late last year several 4K leaks started to appear online, right after the HDFury devices went on sale.

However, the Chinese company fiercely rejects these piracy claims and has launched a counterattack in a New York federal court this week. LegendSky explains that their devices are not “stripping” any HDCP copy protection.

Instead, the HDFury devices merely convert newer versions of HDCP to older versions, such HDCP 1.4. These conversions are permitted by the DMCA as a fair use exception when they are used connect two separate computer programs.

In addition, DCP’s own license agreement specifically permits licensees to convert HDCP copy protection, the company informs the court.

In their counterclaim (pdf) LegendSky notes that several HDCP licensees including Netflix, Disney, NBC and CBS have bought their devices for legitimate purposes. “And yet Plaintiff alleges that HDFury Devices are nothing more than “strippers,” the company adds.

NBC and others use HDFury

LegendSky states that DCP’s lawsuit is an illegitimate attempt to keep its licensing monopoly intact, and the company is now countersuing the Warner and Intel daughter company for monopolization.

“Plaintiffs’ Complaint is a sham. They know, or should know, that Plaintiff DCP’s licensees, including Netflix, use HDFury Devices to convert newer to older versions of HDCP so as to enable interoperability between devices.”

“In reality, then, the Complaint is a bludgeon to use against Defendant so as to unlawfully expand the scope of Plaintiffs’ copyright monopolies, and protect Plaintiff DCP’s HDCP monopoly licensing rents in the relevant market..,” LegendSky adds.

In addition, DCP is also being sued for defamation after painting LegendSky and its customers as criminals.

“Plaintiffs have, either directly or indirectly, made knowing false statements of fact to third parties wherein they have painted Defendant as a criminal enterprise releasing the HDFury Devices with no other intent than to steal and pirate copyrighted materials,” they write.

“These imputations of intentional criminality have injured Defendant’s reputation and standing in this District,” the counterclaim adds.

The Chinese hardware manufacturer is asking the court to dismiss the original complaint and award damages and penalties against DCP, where appropriate.

Given LegendSky’s strong reply, this case could get very interesting. While there is no doubt that pirates can use HDFury devices to downgrade HDCP copy protection to a more easily crackable version, the devices also have plenty of legitimate uses.

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

Ever since the launch of Apple’s app-enabled devices, users have sought ways to run software not sourced from the official App Store. It’s been a cat-and-mouse battle, with teams of security experts trying to break Apple’s security to enable a process known as ‘jailbreaking’.

A successfully jailbroken iPhone, for example, can not only run software from third party app stores such as Cydia, but can also run pirated iOS software. Needless to say, with this feature the popularity of jailbreaking has soared, prompting Apple to do everything it can to close security holes.

However, in 2013 something unexpected happened. A new technique known as the “FairPlay Man-In-The-Middle” (MITM) attack exploited flaws in Apple’s ‘Fairplay’ DRM system to allow both pirated and third-party software (unapproved by Apple) to run on iOS devices. Crucially, this could all take place without a jailbreak being deployed on the device.

Somewhat surprisingly people with the ability to carry out the third-party software exploit have been remarkably well behaved for the past three years but all good things come to an end. Rather than using the loophole for consumer-friendly activity, attackers are now using it for evil.

According to Palo Alto Networks researcher Claud Xiao, there now exists iOS malware that is able to deploy itself to non-jailbroken devices using the man-in-the-middle attack previously used by pirates.

Named “AceDeceiver” by the researcher, the malware targets the method of transferring App Store purchases from the iTunes software installed on users’ computers to their iOS devices.

“iOS devices will request an authorization code for each app installed to prove the app was actually purchased,” Xiao explains.

“In the FairPlay MITM attack, attackers purchase an app from App Store then intercept and save the authorization code. They then developed PC software that simulates the iTunes client behaviors, and tricks iOS devices to believe the app was purchased by victim. Therefore, the user can install apps they never actually paid for, and the creator of the software can install potentially malicious apps without the user’s knowledge.”

But to do its dirty deeds AceDeceiver needs to find a way onto a user’s device in the first instance and that was achieved via Apple’s very own App Store.

Between July 2015 and February 2016 software claiming to be wallpaper apps successfully passed Apple’s vetting systems and were made available to Apple users. The way this was achieved was extremely cunning, with the App only going into malicious mode if it was run in a certain geographical area, in this case, China.

“The iOS apps of AceDeceiver mainly act as a third party app store if users access them from China. Note that some of the apps or games they provide in the store are also installed through a FairPlay MITM attack. In addition, these apps strongly suggest users input their Apple ID with password so that users could ‘directly install free apps from the App Store, execute in-app purchase, and login to Game Center’.”

That doesn’t sound like good news and indeed, the researchers found that claims that the software did not transfer login credentials were simply untrue.

“In fact, we discovered all versions of AceDeceiver will upload the Apple ID and password to [the attackers’ server],” Xiao adds.

All three apps were removed by Apple after the researchers reported them in February 2016 but their threat remains.

“The attack is still viable because the FairPlay MITM attack only requires these apps to have been available in the App Store once. As long as an attacker could get a copy of authorization from Apple, the attack doesn’t require current App Store availability to spread those apps,” Xiao explains.

“While the attack requires a user’s PC to be infected by malware first, after that, the infection of iOS devices is completed in the background without the user’s awareness. The only indication is that the new malicious app does appear as an icon in the user’s home screen, so the user may notice a new app he or she won’t recall downloading.”

The full disclosure from Claud Xiao can be found here, along with removal instructions for those concerned they may be infected by the malware.

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

Nowadays pretty much every self-respecting coffee bar has its own Wi-Fi access point, allowing customers to check their email or read the latest news.

The same is true for many other shops and establishments that offer free and open Internet access.

While most free Wi-Fi users do little harm, these unsecured networks can also be used to download and share copyrighted material. This is what happened to Tobias McFadden, who runs a local music and lighting shop in Munich, Germany.

In 2010, a music pirate on McFadden’s network was flagged by Sony, who took the owner of the shop to court. While the local German court was inclined to hold the shop operator responsible for indirect copyright infringement, EU Advocate General Szpunar disagrees.

In a lengthy advisory opinion to the EU Court of Justice, which will issue a final ruling later, Szpunar concludes that much like general ISPs, operators of commercial establishments with free Wi-Fi are not liable for pirating users.

This means that the safe harbor Internet providers enjoy also apply to members of the public who offer free Wi-Fi as part of their business.

“In his view, it is not necessary for the person in question to present himself to the public as a service provider or that he should expressly promote his activity to potential customers,” the EU Court of Justice clarifies in a press release today.

The Advocate General does leave room for local courts to impose injunctions on network operators to stop the copyright infringements. However, these should be fair and balanced, without any requirements to monitor users.

Also, the operators of free Wi-Fi should not be forced to secure their connections. This requirement would prioritize the interests of copyright holders above the public’s right to freedom of expression and information, which would not be appropriate.

“By restricting access to lawful communications, the measure would also entail a restriction on freedom of expression and information,” the Court notes.

“More generally, any general obligation to make access to a Wi-Fi network secure, as a means of protecting copyright on the Internet, could be a disadvantage for society as a whole and one that could outweigh the potential benefits for rightsholders.”

The Advocate General’s advice is not binding, but the European Court of Justice often uses such advice as the basis of its rulings.

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

Last week news broke that having dumped the recording industry on its head a decade-and-a-half ago, Napster founder Sean Parker is now turning his attentions to the world of cinema.

Unlike his now infamous file-sharing service, this time Parker intends to do things by the book, licensing content from its creators and delivering it to the public. However, disruption is still a mainstay of the entrepreneur’s business model, with Screening Room planning to offer day-and-date movies to the masses in the comfort of their own homes.

For a not unreasonable $150, Parker and his associates want to supply a set-top box with the ability to show brand new films for $50 per shot to be viewed once during a 48 hour period. It’s a proposal that has almost everyone excited but in a variety of different ways.

With the studios considering their options and yet to officially weigh in with their verdict, big name names in the industry are being less cautious. Steven Spielberg, Ron Howard, Peter Jackson and J.J. Abrams have come out in support of the plan, verbally and in some cases financially too.

But while momentum builds on the director level, opposition is mounting from the businesses that are most likely to be affected by the project. The Art House Convergence (AHC), a cinema group representing 600 theaters, has just published an open letter concerning Screening Room. AHC are clearly rattled by the proposition and the negative impact it could have on the cinema market.

“The Art House Convergence, a specialty cinema organization representing 600 theaters and allied cinema exhibition businesses, strongly opposes Screening Room, the start-up backed by Napster co-founder Sean Parker and Prem Akkaraju,” the letter begins.

“The proposed model is incongruous with the movie exhibition sector by devaluing the in-theater experience and enabling increased piracy. Furthermore, we seriously question the economics of the proposed revenue-sharing model.”

It’s clear from AHC’s announcement that they see content shown in cinemas as more effectively guarded from potential pirates. Introduce that content into the privacy of the home environment and it will necessarily herald in a whole new world of piracy.

“We strongly believe if the studios, distributors, and major chains adopt this model, we will see a wildfire spread of pirated content, and consequently, a decline in overall film profitability through the cannibalization of theatrical revenue,” AHC says.

“The theatrical experience is unique and beneficial to maximizing profit for films. A theatrical release contributes to healthy ancillary revenue generation and thus cinema grosses must be protected from the potential erosion effect of piracy.”

AHC’s argument develops with what it sees as an undermining of exhibitors’ investment in digital technology, technology that was somewhat forced upon them in the name of piracy prevention.

“The exhibition community was required to subscribe to DCI-compliance in a very material way,” AHC writes.

“Those exhibitors who were unable to make the transition were punished by a loss of product. The digital conversion had a substantial cost per theater, upwards of $100,000 per screen, all in the name of piracy eradication and lowering print, storage and delivery costs to benefit the distributors. How will Screening Room prevent piracy?”

DCI Digital Cinema Specification – Piracy

That question is yet to be answered by Screening Room but if the service is to ever get off the ground, notoriously hard-to-please studios will demand a very clear say in how content is protected throughout the entire process. While digital compliance is certainly not only for theaters, AHC believes that some adopters of Screening Room could simply go back to exploiting the analog hole.

“If studios are concerned enough with projectionists and patrons videotaping a film in theaters that they provide security with night-vision goggles for premieres and opening weekends, how do they reason that an at-home viewer won’t set up a $40 HD camera and capture a near-pristine version of the film for immediate upload to torrent sites?” the chain asks.

Of course, there’s very little Screening Room can do to stop a determined pirate from finding ways to copy their content, but it is entirely feasible for each movie screening to be embedded with watermarks similar to the ones already in place in theaters around the world. Tracing content back to an individual set-top box would then be somewhat straightforward but of course by then the damage would already be done.

But while piracy is one of AHC’s biggest complaints, it all comes boils down to what they see as a huge undermining of their business model through the wiping out of the theatrical windowing system.

“Our exhibition sector has always welcomed innovation, disruption and forward-thinking ideas, most especially onscreen through independent film; however, we do not see Screening Room as innovative or forward-thinking in our favor, rather we see it as inviting piracy and significantly decreasing the overall profitability of film releases,” the chain concludes.

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