Posts by Prophet

Google has claimed its first victory against Mississippi State Attorney General Jim Hood, who called for SOPA-like Internet filters in the U.S. After the court put Hood's subpoena on hold, Google called out the MPAA who they see as the main instigator behind the censorship efforts.

mpaa-logoWith help from the MPAA, Mississippi State Attorney General Jim Hood launched a secret campaign to revive SOPA-like censorship efforts in the United States.

The MPAA and Hood want Internet services to bring website blocking and search engine filtering back to the table after the controversial law failed to pass.

The plan became public through various emails that were released in the Sony Pictures leaks and in a response Google said that it was “deeply concerned” about the developments.

To counter the looming threat Google filed a complaint against Hood last December, asking the court to prevent Hood from enforcing a subpoena that addresses Google’s failure to take down or block access to illegal content, including pirate sites.

This week Google scored its first victory in the case (pdf) as U.S. District Judge Wingate granted a preliminary injunction to put the subpoena on hold.

This means that Hood can’t yet use the investigative powers that were granted in the subpoena. In addition, the injunction also prohibits Hood from filing civil or criminal charges, at least for the time being.

While the Court still has to rule on the merits of the case Google is happy with the first “win.” What stands out most, however, is Google slamming the MPAA’s efforts to censor the Internet.

“We’re pleased with the court’s ruling, which recognizes that the MPAA’s long-running campaign to censor the Web — which started with SOPA — is contrary to federal law,” Google’s general counsel Kent Walker notes.

While the MPAA wasn’t mentioned in the court’s decision, Google wants to make it clear that they see the Hollywood group as the driving force behind Hood’s “censorship” campaign.

Google’s harsh words are illustrative of the worsening relationship between the search giant and the Hollywood lobby group.

After a previous clash, a top executive at Google’s policy department told the MPAA that his company would no longer “speak or do business” with the movie group.

Thus far, the MPAA has remained relatively silent on the court case, at least in public. But given the stakes at hand it’s probably all hands on deck behind the scenes.

Viacom has decided to get tough with a website streaming its content online without permission. In a lawsuit filed at a California court the media giant complains not only of copyright and trademark infringement but also cyber-squatting and unfair competition. Time will tell if Nick-Reboot.com's 'fair use' defense will prevail.

spongepirateNickelodeon is perhaps one of the world’s most recognizable brands when it comes to children’s entertainment. Its shows reach all corners of the globe and with characters such as SpongeBob Squarepants its a firm fan favorite with the younger generation.

A website that has clearly spotted the potential of exploiting of Nicklodeon’s content is Nick Reboot. Founded in 2012, NickReboot.com offers 24/7 live streaming of classic Nickelodeon TV shows from the 1990s and 2000s. Once on the site viewers are immediately confronted with a random Nick show playing alongside a chatbox.

“We air shows (both cartoons and live action) from the 90s and early 2000s that were shown on the United States Nickelodeon TV channel during that time (we also show some 80s content as well). This includes syndicated programming, original programming, station IDs, bumpers, and commercials,” the site explains.

“Shows are aired live and in random order, meaning that you are seeing what everyone else is seeing – just like live TV. There is no schedule set for when shows will be played.”

c24ed207035c2b67ed2d111e.png

Free service aside, however, the site also offers a subscription service to those who don’t like the random order in which shows are played.

“Nick Reboot On Demand lets you watch what you want, when you want. Choose from our extensive library of shows, movies, and specials and re-live your childhood on your own schedule,” the site explains.

The site’s offers, both free and paid, have not gone unnoticed by Viacom. The media giant has just filed a lawsuit at United States District Court in California claiming not only copyright and trademark infringement but also cyber-squatting and unfair competition.

“Viacom, which owns the copyrights and trademarks in Viacom content,
including content airing on the Nickelodeon networks, never authorized Defendants’ use of Viacom’s copyrighted content or any Nickelodeon trademarks on the [Nickreboot.com] website. Viacom therefore brings this action to prevent the
continued willful infringement of its copyrights and trademarks,” the complaint reads.

“[Nickreboot.com] offers paid on-demand viewing to subscribers at the following price options: (a) $3.99 per month; (b) $9.99 for three months; (c) $19.99 for six months; and (d) $35.99 for one year. The [Nickreboot.com] website also accepts donations and offers extended site features for members who donate.”

ff3f20ce1278ca273c8a.png

Viacom says that the NickReboot website is operated out of San Diego and is causing damage to a business which currently reaches “more than 550 million households across approximately 140 territories” with products such as Yu-Gi-Oh!, Digimon, Power Rangers, Invader Zim and SpongeBob SquarePants.

In its complaint Viacom concedes it does not know the names of the John Does 1-5 targeted in its lawsuit but believes that the discovery process will reveal their true identities. First, the website’s registration details are currently obscured by the Whoisguard privacy service. Second, several payment processors and service providers also deal with the site.

Viacom want to compel these companies to give up the information they have on file so that action can be taken on several fronts.

Copyright and trademarks

“Viacom is informed and believes and on that basis alleges that Defendants are fully aware of Viacom’s exclusive rights, and have infringed Viacom’s rights willfully, maliciously and with wanton disregard,” the complaint notes, adding the company will seek the maximum statutory damages, actual damages and attorneys’ fees.

Next, Viacom wants to be compensated for abuse of its trademarks since Nick Reboot demonstrates “an intentional, willful, and malicious intent” to trade on the goodwill associated with Viacom’s IP.

“Defendants’ use of confusingly similar imitations of Viacom’s Nickelodeon Marks is likely to cause confusion, deception, and mistake by creating the false and misleading impression that Defendants’ pirated Viacom Works are produced, distributed, endorsed, sponsored, approved, or licensed by Viacom, or are associated or connected with Viacom,” the complaint reads.

“Defendants have caused and are likely to continue causing substantial injury to the public and to Viacom, and Viacom is entitled to injunctive relief and to recover Defendants’ profits, actual damages,enhanced profits and damages, costs, and reasonable attorneys’ fees.”

Cybersquatting

Viacom’s legal team states that the selection of the NickReboot.com domain name constitutes a deliberate effort to trade on the goodwill of Nickelodeon and cause confusion among the brand’s customers.

“Defendants registered the [Nickreboot.com] domain name, which fully incorporates the NICK word mark and is confusingly similar to the Nickelodeon Marks, with a bad faith intent to profit from the Nickelodeon Marks and the consequent confusion of Internet users without any reasonable grounds to believe that Defendants’ use and registration of the [Nickreboot.com] domain name was fair,” the company adds.

“In addition to costs and injunctive relief, Viacom is entitled to an order directing Defendants to forfeit the [Nickreboot.com] domain name and to transfer it to Viacom, and awarding Viacom statutory damages under 15U.S.C. § 1117(d).”

The media giant rounds off its complaint with a wave of claims based in unfair competition law. Viacom requests a permanent injunction to stop the defendants operating the website in question and using Viacom trademarks without permission.

All associated service providers, advertising agencies and financial institutions connected to the website should be added to the injunction, the media company says, and the domain name Nickreboot.com should be handed over immediately.

According to a page on the Nick Reboot site, the service “operates strictly under certain provisions listed in the doctrine of ‘fair use’ as codified in section 107 of the copyright law, and monitors the status of related industry legislation such as Bill S.978 (pending) for compliance,” but whether this means much to Viacom remains to be seen.

“Viacom respectfully demands a trial by jury on all claims and issues so triable,” the company concludes.

At the time of publication, NickReboot had not responded to our request for comment.

Difficult choice this, Just my opinion but for i would say the Wetek Play edges it for me

The Pirate Bay is still having difficulty keeping the ship afloat. After a curious login problem redirected users to the wrong accounts this weekend, the upload functionality now appears to be broken. As a result, no new files have been added to the site for half a day.

38db5a8bf8c3bc13.jpg

More than a month has passed since The Pirate Bay returned online, but the notorious torrent site continues to face problems.

Aside from a persistent hosting whac-a-mole the site is also dealing with failing features.

For example, a few days ago several users were surprised to see that they were being redirected to other user’s accounts after logging in.

Several users panicked fearing that their accounts had been hijacked or breached, but luckily the users were only redirected. They didn’t actually gain access to the accounts of others.

Today another issue popped up, one that’s blocking new content from being added to the site. Starting roughly 12 hours ago the The Pirate Bay’s upload functionality broke, displaying a “500 Internal Server Error” instead.

The upload problem appears to be global as no new files have been added to the site since. The most recent upload listed on The Pirate Bay is from 5:15 CET.

109966deea97cc3dd58af.png

It’s not clear what’s causing the upload issue. It appears to be a misconfiguration or related technical error, possibly the result of a recent move to a new hosting company.

TorrentFreak reached out to The Pirate Bay’s admin and we will update this article if we hear back. For the time being Pirate Bay users will have to do without fresh uploads.

Following a European trend, the Portuguese Intellectual Property Court has ordered local ISPs to block access to The Pirate Bay. The legal action, brought by copyright holders, resulted in an injunction which orders the ISPs to block access to the popular torrent site and dozens of its proxies.

pirate bayAs the archrival of many copyright groups, The Pirate Bay has become one of the most censored websites on the Internet in recent years.

Courts all around the world have ordered Internet providers to block subscriber access to the torrent site and the list continues to expand.

Last month French ISPs started blocking The Pirate Bay and last week the Intellectual Property Court in Portugal ordered a similar measure against local Internet providers.

The case was brought by the Association for Copyright Management, Producers and Publishers (GEDIPE), who argued that their members are financially hurt by TPB’s services.

In its verdict the court ruled that Vodafone, MEO and NOS have to prevent users from visiting the torrent site within 30 days. If they fail to do so the ISPs face a fine of 2,500 euros per day.

The injunction marks the first time that Internet providers in Portugal are required to block a website on copyright grounds. Previously there were cases against unknown website owners, but not ISPs.

“In the case of Pirate Bay, the judge decided to blame the Internet provider, which now face a financial penalty,” GEDIPE boss Paulo Santos comments.

Pirate Bay is currently among the 100 most visited sites in Portugal. Whether the blockade will stop people from pirating has yet to be seen. Several other TPB proxies remain available, and so are dozens of other torrent sites.

GEDIPE is urging the Internet providers to discuss voluntary actions to target other pirate sites. If they refuse to do so, the group will go back to court to demand more injunctions.

“Internet providers are not our enemies. If they combat pirate sites they will also be defending their own content distribution businesses. It is time to sit down and negotiate blocking measures that don’t require the courts to get involved,” Santos says.

“If Internet providers don’t want to go down down this road we have to move forward with injunctions targeting dozens of sites that promote sharing of pirated content,” he adds.

The ISPs have previously spoken out against blocking measures, arguing that they will block legitimate content as well. They still have the option to appeal the injunction but thus far it’s unclear if they will.

The full listed of blocked domains is listed below.

—

thepiratebay.org; www.thepiratebay.org ; thepiratebay.com; thepiratebay.net; thepiratebay.se, piratebay.org; piratebay.net; www.thepiratebay.com ; www.thepiratebay.net ; www.thepiratebay.se; ikwilthepiratebay.org; www.piratebay.org ; www.piratebay.net ; tpb.partipirate.org; pirateproxy.net; tpb.me; kuiken.co; dieroschtibay.org; bayproxy.org; tpb.cryptocloud.ca; proxie.co.uk; come.in; proxybay.net; tpb.ninja.so; proxy.rickmartensen.nl; malaysiabay.org; lanunbay.org: tpb.dbpotato.net; pirateproxy.se; pirateshore.org.

Quote from Meira

no my card is sharing by a dm500s allways worked good but a few months back the channels dont clear and i put the card in my sly original box and it works

It sounds like your card may well now be paired to the original receiver

Quote from Meira

what i mean is a few mounths back my card stop playing all channels hd and sd and someone told me that was it

Have you contacted sly to see if your account is active still?

Quote from sync

What a joke, those reporters are idiots - "Hacker" my arse

About time these "Gift Sellers" who have murdered our hobby are being clamped down upon

Computer expert cost *** TV £236,000 by selling hundreds of hacked decoder boxes via his brother's eBay account

Aron Lees is a computer expert and hacked into *** TV decoder boxes
Made a *** TV card work repeatedly through a 'card sharing' technique
Lees then sold cut-price *** packages through his brother's eBay account
Packages were listed at £110, when they would normally cost around £700
In less than a year sold more than 300, making around £30,000 from sales
He made around £3,000 a month by selling the hacked decoder boxes
Lees admitted he had breached the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act

A computer expert tampered with *** TV boxes to sell pirated packages through eBay, costing the company almost £250,000.
Aron Lees, of Urmston near Manchester, used his coding expertise to hack into boxes and make one account work again and again in a technique called 'card sharing' so he could sell cut prices boxes to customers for £110 a time.
He listed the items on his brother Sean's eBay account and sold more than 300 boxes in less than a year, netting almost £30,000.
The fraud was uncovered after B***B investigators posed as a customer to buy a fake box and then tracked down Lees' IP address from his computer.
*** calculated that they would have charged around £700 for each box with subscription for a year - meaning they lost around £590 on each eBay sale. Over 338 transactions were completed between March and December 2013, with a total of £28,176 deposited into qualified mechanic Sean Lees' bank account.
The company received no money from the sale of the boxes, and would have lost around £236,000 over the course of the fraud.
Aron Lees, who made around £3,000 a month from the enterprise, admitted hacking into the boxes and selling them online, contravening the copyright and patents act.
Sentencing him to a 12 month prison sentence, suspended for 18 months, Judge Timothy Mort said he had used his university education in a 'good way and bad way.'
Minshull Street Crown Court heard that the frauds took place between March 2013 and December 2013 when police raided Aron Lees' home.
Jennifer Birch, prosecuting, told Minshull Street Crown Court: 'From March 2013 an eBay username under slees2012 had made 338 transactions through the sale of decoder boxes, a user name registered to Sean Lees' home address.
'In August 2013 B***B became aware that the username slees2012 was selling satellite equipment that gave access to *** premium packages without subscription - known as card sharing.
'This is when a legitimate *** user has the encryption key stolen which is then shared with decoder boxes over the internet which are then added to the network.'

4743c97d7c.jpg

Under an agreement between the two companies, eBay passed details of the account used by Lees to B***B so they could track him down.
On December 4 2013, police raided Aron Lees' home and found dozens of decoder boxes. He admitted the fraud and his computers were seized, which even showed emails between him and customers when they complained that their boxes were malfunctioning.
Ms Birch added: 'This was a fully-functioning business. Aron Lees was interviewed and made full admissions, he accepted buying the boxes, programming them and selling them on eBay using his brother's account. He denied he would be charging customers for a renewal as they were sold on the basis of a 12-month package.'
Aron Lees, 29, admitted offering unauthorised decoders for sale contrary to the Copyright, Designs and Patent Act. He was sentenced to 12 months in prison suspended for 18 months and ordered to carry out 100 hours of unpaid work.

4eb5c9.jpg

A separate hearing will take place to determine how much money he must pay back from his criminal enterprise.
Sean Lees, 25, from Streford pleaded guilty to money laundering and was ordered to carry out 120 hours of unpaid work
Michael Lavery, defending said: ' It was his enterprise. It is sophisticated in the sense that most people probably could not do it because of the coding, but you can measure the sophistication in that he was using his own brother's PayPal account and email which meant it was very easy to track what he was doing.
'A sophisticated enterprise it may be in the code itself, but a sophisticated criminal premise it clearly is not.'

20a502fb9b496.jpg

Philip Barnes, defending Sean Lees, said he acted out of 'misplaced loyalty to his older brother.'
He said he initially didn't know what his brother was doing was illegal and later allowed him to continue when he found out.
Judge Mort said: 'What you did Aron Lees, it has to be said, you simply used your university education in a good way and a bad way. Having acquired your skills in computers, you bought *** decoders and reprogrammed them so people could have *** premium without paying the cost of it.
'Really, the nearest analogy is that it is a form of fraud so far as *** are concerned. I'm astonished it has taken until January this year for you to be charged with the offence and the mental trauma you have been through is significant punishment.'

Quote from Meira

HI i would like to know if there is any news on the system as i lost most of my channels only watchable now on sly box not om my slybox f5 thanks

Could you provide us a little bit more detail please so we can offer you more assistance

It shouldn't even be controversial. If you're lying about holding a copyright monopoly to something, you're infringing on that work's distribution, and should suffer the same penalties as any other infringer does today.

copyright-brandedLast week there was a story on TorrentFreak about a copyright monopolist who had gone absolutely insane and sent so-called “takedown notices” to everybody and their brother, from EFF to TOR – basically anybody with a download page.

It’s a complete mystery why this isn’t a criminal behavior. The fact that it isn’t is why it continues and harms innovation, creativity, free speech, and the Internet.

The Swedish Pirate Party had a very clear policy on crimes like this: if you lied about holding an exclusive right to something, the same penalty that would have applied to an infringer of that exclusive right would instead apply to you. This is only fair, after all: you are infringing on the distribution of a creative work by dishonest means.

For repeat offenders, or organizations that committed this crime on a commercial basis or commercial gain, like that idiot record label in the TorrentFreak story – they would be declared criminal organizations and have all their assets seized. The individuals doing so for commercial gain would go to jail for a couple of years.

The thing is, this should not even be contentious. This is how we deal with this kind of criminal act in every – every – other aspect of society. If you lie as part of commercial operations and hurt somebody else’s rights or business, you are a criminal. If you do so repeatedly or for commercial gain, direct or indirect, you’re having your ill-gotten gains seized. This isn’t rocket science. This is standard bloody operating procedure.

The copyright industry goes ballistic at this proposal, of course, and try to portray themselves as rightsless victims – when the reality is that they have been victimizing everybody else after making the entire planet rightsless before their intellectual deforestation.

The irony is that at the same time as the copyright industry opposes such penalties vehemently, arguing that they can make “innocent mistakes” in sending out nastygrams, threats, and lawsuits to single mothers, they are also arguing that the situation with distribution monopolies is always crystal clear and unmistakable to everybody else who deserve nothing but the worst. They can’t have it both ways here.

It’s a matter of incentives, at the end of the day. If there’s no risk at all in lying and causing pain to other people, along with a very small reward, then sociopaths – like those in the copyright industry – will do so at an industrial scale, accompanied by the most Stalinesque of laughters. This is also the behavior we observe now. There must to be a risk associated with willfully lying and causing injury or damage. Today, there isn’t.

And because there isn’t, Google alone receives on the order of thirty million nastygrams per month. Most or all of them automated at the sender’s end. There’s no cost or risk in sending them, after all, and that has to change.

The U.S. DMCA – what a horrible mistake that was – does state that somebody sending a takedown notice does so under penalty of perjury. However, that only applies to the claim of representing the person believing to hold the copyright monopoly to the work; not to the claim of actually holding the exclusive right you claim to hold. A bare legislative minimum would be to extend the penalty of perjury to include the actual – not believed, but actual – holding of the copyright monopoly somebody claims to hold.

The very least you can ask is that committing a crime such as fraudulent exclusive rights carries a risk with it. It’s not rocket science.

A new study into IP litigation over the past 20 years has revealed that file-sharing has transformed copyright litigation in the United States. In particular, attacks against anonymous file-sharers dominated the landscape of the past decade, with just three companies now responsible for 93% of all John Doe lawsuits.

pirate-cardThanks to the development of advanced file-sharing systems and fast Internet connections, lawsuits aimed at alleged Internet pirates have become commonplace over the past decade and are showing no signs of disappearing anytime soon.

The statistics behind the threats have been documented periodically but now a detailed study of IP litigation as a whole has painted a clearer picture of trends during the past 10 years.

Published by Matthew Sag, Professor of Law at Loyola University Chicago School of Law, IP Litigation in United States District Courts: 1994 to 2014 provides a review of all IP litigation in U.S. district courts over the past two decades to include copyright, patent and trademark lawsuits over 190,000 case filings.

Perhaps unsurprisingly one of the paper’s key findings is that Internet file-sharing has transformed copyright litigation in the United States, in one area in particular.

“To the extent that the rate of copyright litigation has increased over the last two decades, that increase appears to be entirely attributable to lawsuits against anonymous Internet file sharers,” the paper reads.

In broad terms the paper places lawsuits against alleged pirates into two categories – those with an aim of discouraging illegal file-sharing and those that exist to monetize online infringement.

Category one is dominated by lawsuits filed by the RIAA against users of software such as Kazaa and LimeWire who downloaded and shared tracks without permission. Announced in 2003, the wave seriously got underway during 2004 and persisted until 2008, straggling cases aside.

Category two is dominated by the so-called copyright trolls that have plagued file-sharing networks since 2010. These companies, largely from the adult movie sector, track down alleged file-sharers with the aim of extracting cash settlements.

As illustrated by the chart below, so-called ‘John Doe’ lawsuits witnessed their first big boost during 2004, the year the RIAA began its high-profile anti-P2P scare campaign. The second big wave can be seen from 2011 onwards.

“John Doe litigation in the second wave appears to be aimed primarily, if not exclusively, at monetizing infringement—i.e., creating an independent litigation revenue stream that is unrelated to compensation for the harms of infringement and unconcerned with deterrence,” the paper reads.

“The availability of statutory damages is essential to the infringement monetization strategy. United States copyright law allows a plaintiff to elect statutory damages ranging from $750 to $150,000 for willful copyright infringement, regardless of the extent of the copyright owner’s actual damage.”

Needless to say, this situation has encouraged some companies to file more and more lawsuits over the past several years in pursuit of profit. However, they have been required to adapt along the way.

Between 2010 and 2012 lawsuits were typically filed against hundreds or even thousands of John Doe defendants at once, but due to increased scrutiny from District Court judges the average number of Does per suit has declined dramatically.

“[In] 2010 the average number of John Doe defendants per suit was over 560; by 2014 it was just over 3,” the paper notes. “2014 still witnessed the occasional mass-joinder suit, but by this time the model had almost entirely shifted to suits against individual unnamed defendants.”

Also under the spotlight are the types of content being targeted by trolls. Pornographic titles were behind the lion’s share of lawsuits since 2010 and in 2014 accounted for 88% of all ‘John Doe’ actions.

What is also startling about this second category is how it has become increasingly dominated by a tiny number of plaintiffs. Back in 2010 the top three plaintiffs accounted for less than 25% of John Doe lawsuits but it wouldn’t stay that way for long.

“In 2011 and 2012, the top three plaintiffs accounted for just under 50% of John Doe cases. In 2013, Malibu Media, alone accounted for 64% of John Doe cases and the top three in that year accounted for more than 75% of such cases. The top three plaintiffs in 2014 account for more than 93% of John Doe litigation filings in copyright,” the paper adds.

Conclusion

Despite the large number of lawsuits being filed against John Doe defendants, the paper dismisses the notion that litigation since 2010 is a broad-based phenomenon. In fact, it draws quite the opposite conclusion, noting that a tiny number of plaintiffs are effectively making a huge noise.

“The trend from 2012 to 2014 is one of increasing concentration of plaintiff activity. In fact, the pornography producer Malibu Media is such a prolific litigant that in 2014 it was the plaintiff in over 41.5% of all copyright suits nationwide,” the paper notes.

Finally, in respect of the activities of the plaintiffs listed above, Matthew Sag’s study arrives at an opinion long held by many ‘troll’ critics.

“John Doe litigation is not a general response to Internet piracy; it is a niche entrepreneurial activity in and of itself,” Sag concludes.

In an attempt to make it harder for people to find pirated copies of its movies, NBC Universal has tried to remove several TorrentFreak articles from Google's search results. Apparently, talking about piracy is already enough for websites to be hit by takedown requests.

censorshipEarlier this year an unprecedented flood of leaked movies hit the net, including screener copies of popular titles such as American Sniper, Selma and Unbroken.

Hoping to steer people away from these unauthorized copies the copyright holders sent out thousands of takedown notices.

These efforts generally target URLs of torrent sites, cyberlockers and streaming services that link to the unauthorized movies. However, some requests go a little further, targeting news publications such as the one you’re reading at the moment.

Last week NBC Universal sent a series of takedown notices to Google including one for the leaked movie “Unbroken.” Aside from the usual suspects, the list of allegedly infringing URLs also included our recent coverage of the screener leaks.

As with the other pages, NBC Universal urged Google to remove our news report from its search results.

Luckily, Google appears to have whitelisted our domain name so the search giant didn’t comply with the request. However, other sites may not be so lucky and could have their articles removed.

The overreaching takedown request doesn’t appear to be an isolated incident. Two days earlier NBC Universal sent another takedown notice targeting our coverage of the “Taken 3″ leak.

But there’s more. Aside from our news articles there are also other dubious claims in the notices, such as the request to remove a live concert from the band “Unbroken.”

The question remains whether NBC Universal intentionally targeted our news articles our not.

While the latter seems to be the most likely explanation, it doesn’t change the fact that the overbroad censorship requests go too far.

Based on the fact you tried another box that works, perhaps the box with no signal is now gone, it does happen with these cheaper boxes m8

US actor Leonard Nimoy, who played Mr Spock in the cult sci-fi series Star Trek, has died at the age of 83 in Los Angeles, his family has said.

His son, Adam, said he died on Friday morning of end-stage chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.

Nimoy had a long career as both an actor and director.

However he was best known for his portrayal of the half-human, half-Vulcan character in both the TV franchise and series of films.

After coming under intense pressure PayPal has closed the account of cloud-storage service Mega. According to the company, SOPA proponent Senator Patrick Leahy personally pressured Visa and Mastercard who in turn called on PayPal to terminate the account. Bizarrely, Mega's encryption is being cited as a key problem.

During September 2014, the Digital Citizens Alliance and Netnames teamed up to publish a brand new report. Titled ‘Behind The Cyberlocker Door: A Report How Shadowy Cyberlockers Use Credit Card Companies to Make Millions,’ it offered insight into the finances of some of the world’s most popular cyberlocker sites.

The report had its issues, however. While many of the sites covered might at best be considered dubious, the inclusion of Mega.co.nz – the most scrutinized file-hosting startup in history – was a real head scratcher. Mega conforms with all relevant laws and responds quickly whenever content owners need something removed. By any standard the company lives up to the requirements of the DMCA.

“We consider the report grossly untrue and highly defamatory of Mega,” Mega CEO Graham Gaylard told TF at the time. But now, just five months on, Mega’s inclusion in the report has come back to bite the company in a big way.

Speaking via email with TorrentFreak this morning, Gaylard highlighted the company’s latest battle, one which has seen the company become unable to process payments from customers. It’s all connected with the NetNames report and has even seen the direct involvement of a U.S. politician.

leahyAccording to Mega, following the publication of the report last September, SOPA and PIPA proponent Senator Patrick Leahy (Vermont, Chair Senate Judiciary Committee) put Visa and MasterCard under pressure to stop providing payment services to the ‘rogue’ companies listed in the NetNames report.

Following Leahy’s intervention, Visa and MasterCard then pressured PayPal to cease providing payment processing services to MEGA. As a result, Mega is no longer able to process payments.

“It is very disappointing to say the least. PayPal has been under huge pressure,” Gaylard told TF.

The company did not go without a fight, however.

“MEGA provided extensive statistics and other evidence showing that MEGA’s business is legitimate and legally compliant. After discussions that appeared to satisfy PayPal’s queries, MEGA authorised PayPal to share that material with Visa and MasterCard. Eventually PayPal made a non-negotiable decision to immediately terminate services to MEGA,” the company explains.

paypalWhat makes the situation more unusual is that PayPal reportedly apologized to Mega for its withdrawal while acknowledging that company’s business is indeed legitimate.

However, PayPal also advised that Mega’s unique selling point – it’s end-to-end-encryption – was a key concern for the processor.

“MEGA has demonstrated that it is as compliant with its legal obligations as USA cloud storage services operated by Google, Microsoft, Apple, Dropbox, Box, Spideroak etc, but PayPal has advised that MEGA’s ‘unique encryption model’ presents an insurmountable difficulty,” Mega explains.

As of now, Mega is unable to process payments but is working on finding a replacement. In the meantime the company is waiving all storage limits and will not suspend any accounts for non-payment. All accounts have had their subscriptions extended by two months, free of charge.

Mega indicates that it will ride out the storm and will not bow to pressure nor compromise the privacy of its users.

“MEGA supplies cloud storage services to more than 15 million registered customers in more than 200 countries. MEGA will not compromise its end-to-end user controlled encryption model and is proud to not be part of the USA business network that discriminates against legitimate international businesses,” the company concludes.

The U.S Department of Justice has accused a 28-year-old Dutchman of stealing pre-release digital copies of the Hollywood blockbusters “How Do You Know,” "Rango" and “Megamind.” The indictment comes on the heels of the Sony hack, which prompted Hollywood to demand tougher cybersecurity laws.

hackedYear in and year out dozens of movies leak online, some long before they are set to appear in theaters.

These pre-release leaks are of great concern to Hollywood and the cases often see the FBI become involved. But despite law enforcement’s best efforts the leakers are seldom identified.

This week, however, a federal grand jury in Los Angeles indicted Dutch resident Joey Vogelaar for unlawfully obtaining three Hollywood movies back in November 2010.

The now 28-year-old from Delft allegedly accessed the Sony Pictures Entertainment film “How Do You Know,” Paramount’s “Rango” and the Dreamworks movie “Megamind,” all of which were unreleased at the time.

A copy of the indictment obtained by TF (pdf) shows that Vogelaar, also known under the aliases “TyPeR” and “neXus”, is accused of computer hacking and identity theft. Interestingly, no copyright infringement charges have been filed.

The Dutchman allegedly “hacked” into the computer of a company involved in the production of the three movies. The term “hacking” should be used loosely here, as Vogelaar appears to have accessed the computer with the login credentials of an employee, who’s mentioned by the initials T.H.

How the man obtained the login credentials is unknown, but it’s not unlikely that they were already available online.

For the computer hacking charge Vogelaar faces five years in prison, and a possible identity theft sentence could add two more years – if he’s extradited to the United States.

First the defendant will have to be served but according to his father, Ben, they haven’t yet been informed of the charges. “We’ll wait, it’ll be okay,” he says.

The Department of Justice is taking the case very seriously, especially with the Sony hack fresh in mind. This hack put cybersecurity firmly back on top of the political agenda and in part triggered President Obama’s new cybersecurity plans.

MPAA CEO Chris Dodd said that because of hackers certain companies have their “digital products exposed and available online for anyone to loot.”

“That’s why law enforcement must be given the resources they need to police these criminal activities,” Dodd noted at the time.

Kim Dotcom was in court today pleading for access to his seized assets. A reportedly "destitute" Dotcom asked for the release of US$152,000 a month for living expenses and as much as US$3m for legal fees. The Megaupload founder said if funds aren't forthcoming, living in a mansion may no longer be an option.

dotcom-laptopAfter years of enjoying a lifestyle most people could only dream of, Kim Dotcom’s name has become almost synonymous with spending to excess.

There are dozens of photos showing the Megaupload founder on yachts surrounded by exotic beauties and specially commissioned films depicting his passion for high performance cars.

In 2012, however, the brakes were applied somewhat when United States and New Zealand authorities shutdown Megaupload and seized millions in assets. Ever since, Dotcom has periodically requested access to those funds, and has succeeded in obtaining large sums on a number of occasions.

But after reportedly burning through almost all released funds, a “broke and destitute” Dotcom was back in the High Court today seeking the release of yet more cash from the US$9m seized by New Zealand authorities three years ago.

Appearing before Justice Patricia Courtney, Dotcom requested living expenses and a massive cash injection to pay historical and current legal fees. Dotcom was previously granted around US$15,000 per month to live on but the entrepreneur said that the cost of running a family and a mansion had left him “penniless”.

And, according to RadioNZ, Dotcom still owes a small fortune to his former legal team who quit last year when the entrepreneur previously ran out of funds. QC Paul Davison, who had fought Dotcom’s corner since the 2012 raid, is reportedly owed around US$380,000 while lawfirm Simpson Grierson is owed around US$1.5m.

To cover his living expenses, at least for now, Dotcom today requested the release of US$152,000 per month plus up to US$3m to put towards his legal defense. Needless to say, the Crown has been putting up a fight, but in common with all things Dotcom, there are other complexities to consider.

Last year Dotcom and his wife Mona separated in a wave of publicity, with the latter allegedly fleeing their shared mansion on a golf cart in the middle of the night. Since her ‘escape’ the former model has appeared in several magazine articles in which she provided insight into her life with Kim. The latest, which reported her new love life and a $60,000 Mercedes gift to a “toyboy lover”, inspired Dotcom to take to Twitter.

mona-dotcom“I helped & hired a 17yr old troubled kid to play Xbox with Mona’s brothers. 1 year ago he decided to play with Mona,” Kim wrote.

On February 20, the apparent problems continued, with Dotcom reporting that Mona had applied to the High Court asking that it should “decline Mr Dotcom’s application… to release frozen assets for his legal defense.’

Mona Dotcom’s position is an interesting one. Even though she’s not part of the U.S. copyright case against her estranged husband and reportedly not part of Kim’s life anymore, she is the controller of the family trust and the millions it contains.

Mona withdrew her opposition to Kim’s application today which prompted Crown lawyer David Boldt to suggest that Mona could release funds from the trust to her husband. However, the fact that the couple are in a “separation battle” over their shared assets was quickly pointed out by a reportedly “amused” Kim Dotcom.

Turning to Dotcom’s current home, the now-famous Coatesville mansion, Boldt asked Kim Dotcom if moving to something more frugal might be an option.

“Have you thought about moving into a house that doesn’t cost you $1m a year?” he said.

“Which landlord is going to rent to me? I don’t have even a bank account,” Dotcom replied.

Noting that he didn’t want to uproot his children and that the family had spent $6.8m improving the place, Dotcom conceded that if his financial situation didn’t improve, he may have to relocate.

A decision will be handed down shortly.

Proposals for dealing with Australia's online piracy issue have not been well received by a leading local consumer group. Describing the scheme as a grave risk to consumers and a gateway to unlimited fines, Choice has sent Communications Minister his first ever piracy warning.

choice-downAfter years of complaints from mainly Hollywood-affiliated companies and anti-piracy groups, Australia is now having to deal with its online piracy issues.

Faced with deadlock the government ordered ISPs and entertainment companies to find a solution and against a backdrop of failed negotiations, last week telecoms body Communications Alliance published a draft proposal on behalf of its ISP members.

Titled ‘Copyright Notice Scheme Industry Code‘, the document outlined a graduated response “three strikes”-style mechanism to deal with file-sharers. It was put together in concert with rightsholders, so it’s fair to assume Hollywood is somewhat satisfied with the framework.

The same cannot be said about Australia’s leading consumer group, however.

Choice, which has long warned against a file-sharing crackdown, says that current proposals raise the specter of a streamlined conveyor belt of consumers heading towards a notoriously litigious entertainment industry.

“Although an ‘education scheme’ to stop piracy sounds harmless, the proposed Code will actually funnel internet users into court actions where industry can seek unlimited amounts of money for alleged piracy, and provide a way for rights holders to gain access to your internet records and personal details so they can sue you or send you a letter demanding payment,” the group warns this morning.

Highlighting mechanisms already in place in the US, UK and New Zealand, Choice says that the proposals for Australia are the worst of the bunch. ‘Education’, ‘Warning’ and ‘Final’ notices could be followed by rightsholder access to subscriber details alongside threats of legal action and potentially limitless fines.

“The system proposed by the industry purports to be educational, but clearly has a focus on facilitating court actions. There is no limit on the amount of money that a rights holder can seek from the customer,” Choice explains.

Also under fire is consumer access to remedy should they have complaints about notices received in error, for example. While there is a system being proposed, access costs Internet subscribers $25, and even then the adjudication panel is far from impartial.

“If a consumer objects to any notice received, they can lodge a complaint with a largely industry-controlled body. There is no avenue for appeal if the consumer disagrees with the decision made,” Choice complains.

In order to raise awareness of these shortcomings, Choice says it has now implemented its own “three-strikes” program. And the first notice is about to go out.

“CHOICE is concerned that this scheme will funnel consumers into legal action, bypassing ordinary checks and balances. We’re sending an Education Notice to the Minister for Communications to let him know about the dangers of these ‘education’ measures for consumers,” the group says.

The notice to Malcolm Turnbull reads as follows:

EDUCATION NOTICE
You are receiving this Education Notice due to a complaint from the Australian public that it has detected the development of a damaging, industry-run internet policing scheme in your portfolio.
This scheme will allow big Hollywood corporations to obtain consumers’ contact details and internet records from Internet Service Providers, based on unproven accusations.

There is no limit to the amount of money that could be sought in court. In the US, a student was recently ordered to pay $675,000 for downloading and sharing 30 songs.

You may not be aware of this anti-consumer scheme. Perhaps somebody else in your household accessed your internet account and provided instructions to your Department without your knowledge.

If you believe this is the case, please forward this notice to the person who may be responsible. If the Government is serious about addressing piracy, it needs to address the real causes of the problem: the fact that Australians pay far too much for content that is often delayed or completely unavailable..

We know that you are a well-educated consumer, so we ask you to step in before it is too late.

This Education Notice is your first warning. If Australian consumers detect further infractions, we reserve the right to take further action.

The warning letter is being “authorized” by the Australian public who are being asked to sign a petition in support of Choice’s position.

After just a few hours online the petition is already close to reaching its initial target but whether it will make any difference remains to be seen. It’s taken so long for the ISPs and Hollywood to agree on any action against piracy, it will take something huge to derail it now.

The Pirate Bay is having trouble keeping the ship afloat and is suffering downtime and displaying odd error messages. Over the past weeks the notorious torrent site has struggled to find a good hosting location and this morning it started to redirect to themobilebay.org domain name.

186ca0fc5b678f8c.jpg

Nearly a month has passed since The Pirate Bay returned online, but this comeback hasn’t been without trouble.

Last week TF spoke to Pirate Bay admin Winston who informed us that “getting stable hosting” is one of the main challenges the site has faced since its return.

On several occasions the site has been kicked out by various hosting companies due to takedown requests. TPB’s hosting providers have been hidden behind CloudFlare’s CDN, but the US-based company forwards any DMCA notices it gets to the associated company.

Over the past 24 hours the site displayed 403 error messages on several occasions and this morning TPB ran into trouble again.

Users who try to the visit thepiratebay.se are redirected to themobilebay.org, which has an invalid SSL certificate and isn’t loading either.

The MobileBay domain belongs to The Pirate Bay and was previously used to serve its mobile site. The domain was updated earlier today and the NS records are the same as those for thepiratebay.se.

13a7930ec.png

The precise cause of the current issues is unknown at the moment. Perhaps TPB is planning to change domain names, or it could be that the problems are the results of hosting problems or a misconfiguration.

Aside from TPB’s main site many of its proxies have gone down as well.

TorrentFreak reached out to The Pirate Bay’s admin and we will update this article if we hear back.

Update: The mobile bay redirect is gone now and the main domain displays a “403 forbidden” error again, most likely caused by more hosting troubles.

Update: TPB seems to have recovered now, although there still may be occasional outages.