PROJET AUTOBLOG


TorrentFreak

Archivé

Site original : TorrentFreak

⇐ retour index

Microsoft Sues ‘Does’ For Activating Pirated Software

lundi 8 décembre 2014 à 11:53

microsoft-pirateDespite being one of the most pirated software vendors in the world, Microsoft doesn’t have a long track record of cracking down on individual pirates.

In fact, two months ago Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella noted that in some cases piracy can act as a conversion tool.

“We’ve always had freemium. Sometimes our freemium was called piracy,” Nadella said, adding that the usage first approach has its advantages.

This doesn’t mean that all pirates can have their way though. Microsoft does keep a close eye on the unauthorized use of its products with help from its in house cybercrime center.

Late last week Microsoft filed a copyright infringement lawsuit against a person (or persons) who activated pirated copies of Windows 7 and Office 10 from an AT&T Internet connection.

“Microsoft’s cyberforensics have identified a number of product key activations originating from IP address 76.245.7.147, which is presently assigned to ISP AT&T Internet Services..,” the complaints (pdf) reads.

“These activations have characteristics that on information and belief, establish that Defendants are using the IP address to activate pirated software.”

While many people believe that unauthorized copies are hard for Microsoft to detect, the company explains that its cybercrime team leverages state-of-the-art technology to detect software piracy.

The company describes its investigative approach as cyberforensics. Among other things, they look for activation patterns and characteristics which make it likely that certain IP-addresses are engaged in unauthorized copying.

“As part of its cyberforensic methods, Microsoft analyzes product key activation data voluntarily provided by users when they activate Microsoft software, including the IP address from which a given product key is activated,” the company writes.

According to the complaint, the defendant(s) in this case have activated numerous copies of Windows 7 and Office 2010 with suspicious keys. These keys were likely stolen from Microsoft’s supply chain, used without permission from the refurbisher channel, and used more often than the license permits.

Microsoft is now looking to identify the person or persons responsible for the copyright and trademark infringements, to recoup the damage they’ve suffered.

From the descriptions used in the complaint it seems likely that the target is not an average user, but someone who sells computers containing pirated software. Time will tell whether that’s indeed the case.

Source: TorrentFreak, for the latest info on copyright, file-sharing and anonymous VPN services.

Top 10 Most Pirated Movies of The Week – 12/08/14

lundi 8 décembre 2014 à 09:06

mazerunnerThis week we have three newcomers in our chart.

The Maze Runner is the most downloaded movie.

The data for our weekly download chart is estimated by TorrentFreak, and is for informational and educational reference only. All the movies in the list are BD/DVDrips unless stated otherwise.

RSS feed for the weekly movie download chart.

Ranking (last week) Movie IMDb Rating / Trailer
torrentfreak.com
1 (2) The Maze Runner 7.1 / trailer
2 (…) Nightcrawler (DVDscr) 8.2 / trailer
3 (1) Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles 6.1 / trailer
4 (3) Guardians of the Galaxy 8.5 / trailer
5 (…) This Is Where I Leave You 6.7 / trailer
6 (5) Fury (DVDscr) 8.0 / trailer
7 (…) Stonehearst Asylum 6.9 / trailer
8 (4) Predestination 7.6 / trailer
9 (6) Lucy 6.5 / trailer
10 (7) Dawn of the Planet of the Apes 8.0 / trailer

Source: TorrentFreak, for the latest info on copyright, file-sharing and anonymous VPN services.

Piracy ≠ Theft? Movie Industry Workers Speak Out

dimanche 7 décembre 2014 à 20:48

A few weeks ago we published an interview with Hollywood director Lexi Alexander in which she explained her support for file-sharers.

This resulted in a lively discussion on Twitter and other media, so we decided to explore the topic a little further. Instead of letting movie industry bosses speak, we solicited the thoughts of various filmmakers.

There are just as many opinions as there are people working in the film business and we aimed to cover a broad spectrum. Our main goal is to show that the piracy issue isn’t as black and while as it’s sometimes portrayed.

The real challenge, perhaps, is to let people have their say without condemning their views. While this won’t solve the issue it’s a good way to move forward. That’s true for both “sides” of the debate.

Below are the four filmmakers who were kind enough to participate and answer five questions about piracy, how it affects the movie industry, and what can be done in response.

joshuaJoshua Caldwell (@Joshua_Caldwell) won an MTV Movie Award for Best Film in 2006. Recent films he produced, wrote and directed are Layover (2014), Resignation (2014) and Assassin (2015).

kevinKevin Koehler: (@kevrockcity) is a screenwriter whose work has been featured on the Hollywood blacklist. He worked with several well-known filmmakers including Wim Wenders and Gregg Araki.

brentBrent Weichsel (@bsweichsel) is a Local 600 camera assistant. He worked on several popular movies and TV-shows including Person Of Interest and White Collar.

johnkentJohn Kent (@JohnDoctorKent) works as a producer at Potent Media. He is known for his work on the films Booley (2010), Deer Crossing (2012) and Apocalypse Kiss (2014).

Do you think piracy equals theft?

Joshua Caldwell: No. I believe the Supreme Court has been very clear on the issue of whether file-sharing constitutes ‘theft’ or ‘copyright infringement.’ I harp on this because it seems to be the core argument from a lot of people. “It’s stealing. They’re thieves.” Even when presented with this ruling they say, “Well, I don’t believe that.” Okay, well the court system you’re supposedly relying on to “enact justice” on file-sharers does, so now what?

It’s an important distinction for me and how I think about this issue because of how it frames file-sharers. It’s a psychological thing. Thinking of someone as a thief is very different than thinking of them as an infringer. It’s much easier to think of a ‘thief’ as being an inherently bad person who must be punished by the law. Not to say that those who infringe upon copyright aren’t subject to consequences, but as a creator, I think of them as audience that we just haven’t been able to capture yet. So, I start from a place of “Why?” and ask questions in search of solutions rather than “sue them all and put them in jail.”

Kevin Koehler: No, they are not equivalent. Piracy is copyright infringement. I know this is a boring, pedantic answer. Sorry. However, while it is not theft, it is taking compensation from the folks that make the content and shifting it to the folks that distribute the content – not just piracy sites, but also legal streaming sites (Netflix, Spotify, iTunes, et cetera) who can leverage the threat of piracy into more favorable deals.

Brent Weichsel: Piracy in and of itself is not theft. It’s also not a loss. Studies have shown that people who pirate often spend far more money on media than those that do not. Now if you make money because of your piracy well that’s a gray area where I do not know what to think.

John Kent: Piracy of media is theft, in the legal sense of the word, but I do not think it is always “illegal”. Films and television shows are created for corporations and investors to realize a financial return, or for artistic purposes. The financial return cannot be realized if the media is experienced without viewers paying for it.

Without a financial return, no further media can be made. So everything can’t be free. However, there are thousands of hours of media which would be lost without YouTube, from old television shows their corporate masters no longer wish to exploit to a commercial fondly remembered from childhood. Should the films which were owned by Vestron Video in the 80s be lost forever because they are now a line item on the sheet of a corporation which put them out of business?

My personal stance and practice is that if a film or television show is available from the legal owner for a fee, it should be paid for.

How do you think piracy is affecting the movie industry?

Joshua Caldwell: It’s affecting it without a doubt. Whether it’s doing so to such a degree that it’s having an overall impact? I don’t think we know for sure yet. For one, the jury’s still out on whether it has a negative or positive impact. On a film-by-film basis, it’s easy to suggest that it might have a negative impact, but for the industry as a whole? It’s hard to make that case when the films that make the most money at the box office are also the most pirated. No one complains about piracy when the movie does well, but when a movie tanks and it was leaked online, it becomes an easy place to point fingers. And yes, I’m sure it has some impact; but at the same time, maybe the film just wasn’t very good.

I can’t say for sure, but I wouldn’t be surprised if the audiences that most studios rely on for box office aren’t file-sharers. I mean, /Film recently posted about how 70% of moviegoers don’t plan on a specific movie when going to the movie theater. It’s really, really difficult to equate a free download to a lost sale. There are just too many other factors. But piracy is an easy target for blame specifically because no one really knows.

On the flipside, if piracy is as harmful financially and as widespread as is being argued, I can’t figure out why you would want to alienate such a large audience further than you already have.

Kevin Koehler: Well, it has certainly helped obliterate the movie industry’s former business model, which was based around theatrical distribution (followed by timed DVD and television broadcast releases). This is no longer a workable model, so the industry is in search of a new one. For some releases – large studio tentpoles, franchised, with branded tie-ins, often in 3-D – they’ve found a successful model. For other kinds of films, they’re still looking, which is why the studios have stopped making certain genres altogether. Piracy isn’t the only reason, obviously, but it’s a contributing factor.

Brent Weichsel: It’s become a scapegoat. People blame dwindling sales on it. The studios use it as an excuse to pay the crew and talent less. Producers use it in negotiations to have shittier contracts with the unions. Has it had a truly negative impact that doesn’t have to do with its perception? Probably not much. Not any more than the folks selling dvds or VHS on Canal Street.

John Kent: Piracy has an effect on the film industry in different ways, depending on the genesis of the film. Downloading “The Avengers” probably doesn’t hurt the movie – it made a billion dollars in the theaters, and millions more through the secondary revenue streams. The people who worked on the film were paid for their work.

Piracy might kill off some sequels – the revenue that would have made the studio heads greenlight part two was lost in no-pay downloads. But what I can tell you for sure is that piracy hurts the independent filmmaker financially. I produced a direct-to-DVD movie called DEER CROSSING – a horror film, no artistic masterpiece, but something people might want to kill an evening watching.

During the first week of DVD release, on one popular torrent site only, there were over 30,000 downloads of the film. How many of these downloads could have been paid rentals or DVD purchases? When you add this to the deals that distributors offer for independent films, there is no way to make back the money the investors put in – and forget about a profit or paying off deferred deals.

(continue reading on page 2)

Source: TorrentFreak, for the latest info on copyright, file-sharing and anonymous VPN services.

Concern Over Russian “Piracy Buster” Internet Tax

dimanche 7 décembre 2014 à 10:49

russiaOver the years there have been many strategies put forward aimed at reducing online piracy.

Rightsholders have often pushed for tough legislation in the hope that hefty fines and lengthy jail sentences will encourage the masses to buy rather than download for free. Recent proposals in Russia, however, look at the problem from another direction.

During October the Russian Union of Right Holders (RUR) suggested that a fixed royalty fee should be paid to rightsholders in exchange for people receiving certain freedoms to deal with online content.

“[People would] get the right to freely and lawfully use for private purposes – including to receive, distribute and share – absolutely any content that is not excluded from the system of global licensing,” RUR told Izvestia.

The proposals envision Internet service providers obtaining “universal licenses” from rightsholders or their collecting societies in order to legitimize the ‘infringements’ of their subscribers.

While nothing has been set in stone, figures appearing in the press suggest an annual fee of anything up to $5 per subscriber. While the ‘tax’ could inflate ISP subscriptions by as much as 5% per year, reports suggest it could also bring in $860m for rightsholders.

Unsurprisingly, the proposals have a number of potential pitfalls.

Every Internet subscriber would be required to pay the tax, whether they are downloading copyrighted material for free or purchasing it legitimately. Also, public sharing of content would not be licensed, a serious limitation for most file-sharers.

Furthermore, royalty charges would be “per device”, including home connections and cellphones, meaning some people could end up paying multiple times, whether they ‘pirate’ or not.

For their part, ISPs have also expressed concerns that by accepting the proposals the Internet piracy ‘problem’ would be placed on their shoulders as they would have to collect fees from customers.

Even copyright holders seem to have issues with the proposals. Some say that no suitable system for distribution of royalties exists. Others are expressing concerns that the tax would amount to the legalization of piracy and the undermining of fledgling digital services.

Still, reports now coming out of Russia suggest that the whole thing won’t easily or quickly get off the ground.

Late Friday Mail.ru reported First Deputy Prime Minister Igor Shuvalov as saying that the government “won’t be rushed” into a decision on the licensing model.

All stakeholders need to negotiate, Shuvalov said.

Source: TorrentFreak, for the latest info on copyright, file-sharing and anonymous VPN services.

LionsGate Targets Reddit Over Christmas Movie Piracy

samedi 6 décembre 2014 à 17:31

madeachristSome jobs are never done. Whether it’s cleaning up after kids or shifting leaves in the fall, as soon as one mess is dealt with along comes another. And another. And another.

Copyright holders know the feeling only too well. While it may traditionally come around on February 2, for them every day is Groundhog Day. Check torrent and other file-sharing sites for infringing content, send takedown notices. Hope content disappears. Rinse and repeat.

No one knows how many DMCA notices are sent in total each week, but during the past seven days Google alone received 8.68 million. It’s believed that the majority of these notices are accurate, but the truth is no one really knows. Google rejects thousands every day, often due to notices targeting the same URLs time and again.

Other errors are more easily spotted, such as when copyright holders target content they don’t own the rights to. Another ‘trick’ is not targeting infringing content precisely – why send a DMCA notice for a single URL when one can move up a level and take out a whole bunch of content in a single swoop?

This week that’s exactly what LionsGate tried to do. In a single DMCA notice to Google the movie studio targeted 9,000 URLs spread over 379 domains. As usual dozens of URLs were duplicates and as such were rejected by Google, but a trio of links targeting Reddit were dismissed for different reasons.

Each targeted a Reddit sub called BestOfStreamingVideo after someone posted a link to the LionsGate movie ‘Tyler Perry’s A Madea Christmas‘.

However, instead of targeting the precise link as required under the DMCA, LionsGate tried to have the whole sub-reddit delisted from Google. It didn’t pay off.

Faced with wiping the very existence of /r/BestOfStreamingVideo from its search results, Google refused to go full nuclear and rejected all three attempts by LionsGate.

lions-reddit

It’s not clear why the search engine refused to comply but it’s possible that by being over-broad the studio shot itself in the foot. That being said, one of the URLs does link to the content in question so other factors could be at play.

The “over-broad” strategy has certainly paid off in the past, though. The MPAA previously managed to have the homepages of several popular sites removed from Google’s search results, including that of KickassTorrents.

On the other hand, more recent efforts have produced less impressive results, with Google rejecting an MPAA attempt at removing dozens of ‘pirate’ site homepages just last month.

So at least for now /r/BestOfStreamingVideo remains findable using Google, but it’s quite possible that it will be targeted again before the Christmas period is over……

stream-christmas

Source: TorrentFreak, for the latest info on copyright, file-sharing and anonymous VPN services.