“They must capture important evidence on a computer at the scene of an investigation before it is powered down and removed for later analysis. ‘Live’ evidence, such as active system processes and network data, is volatile and may be lost in the process of turning off a computer. How does an officer on the scene effectively do this if he or she is not a trained computer forensics expert?”

Using COFEE, of course.

The Computer Online Forensic Evidence Extractor (COFEE) is a piece of software designed for the use of law enforcement agencies, and provided to the same free of charge by Microsoft. And, largely because of its mystique, has been a much sought-after piece of code.

Indeed, on the private tracker What.cd, users had offered a huge bounty (a reward for finding and sharing something) of 1.6 terabytes.

During the last day or so, a user – who had only been a member for a matter of weeks – uploaded COFEE.

However, What.cd then took the unusual step of removing the torrent. Not just an unusual step but, in my opinion, a very sensible step indeed.

“Suddenly, we were forced to take a real look at the program, its source, and the potential impact on the site and security of our users and staff,” said What.cd management in a statement.

“And when we did, we didn’t like what came of it. So, a decision was made. The torrent was removed (and it is not to be uploaded here again),” they added.

According to the site’s staff, neither them or their host was threatened by Microsoft or law enforcement. The decision was taken purely on the issue of site and member security.

Of course, the tool is now widely available from other sources and while some are saying that the tool is useless to regular Internet users, there are others who disagree. It certainly won’t take long for a detailed analysis to appear.

There will doubtless be lots of finger-wagging and complaints that this tool has become available in this way, but as with unexpected leaks of anything from software, to movies, to music, rarely is the finger pointed at the initial supplier of the material. That is usually way too embarrassing to reveal.

Article from: TorrentFreak, check out our new blog at FreakBits.

With no legal basis, ISPs were extremely reluctant to comply, so government-mandated talks on the issue came to an end. On this particular battle, at least for the time being, the Coalition had to concede defeat, but they weren’t about to give up on the war.

Since it could not force sanctions on the end users, the Coalition – which includes the likes of Promusicae and SGAE – began to focus on Spain’s BitTorrent sites. In his first public appearance as Coalition president, Aldo Olcese noted there were 200 of them, up from 70 in just a few months.

However, as we mentioned in our earlier report, the Coalition’s ability to deal with these sites in the current climate is limited. Spanish courts have ruled time and again that if profits aren’t made directly from copyright infringements, BitTorrent sites are perfectly legal. Add this to the Chief Prosecutor’s May 2006 official instruction that effectively decriminalized non-commercial file-sharing, and the Coalition have an even steeper mountain to climb.

According to a new report, yesterday the names of the 200 sites were handed to the Spanish industry minister following the presentation of a report called Parasites’ Business (video below in Spanish), which was made jointly by the Coalition and CoPeerRight, who claim to be the world’s ‘premier’ anti-piracy company.

Coalition president Olcese pointed out the difficulties his group faces, describing Spain as a “piracy paradise” with “no legal, civil or administrative measures in place to combat this problem.”

CoPeerRight then gave a presentation based on its own research which it says shows that the average Spanish pirate web site can earn an absolutely astonishing €1.5 million ($2.2 million) a year in revenue, this based on an average of 150,000 users each, with some of them drawing 4 million unique visitors in a single month.

However, as we highlighted earlier, pure BitTorrent and other similar ‘linking’ sites do not profit directly from infringements, which means they are entirely legal. The Coalition hopes to be instrumental in changing this position.

Last week the Spanish government announced the creation of a commission to consider legislation to deal with the issue of copyright infringement. Coalition president Olcese told Billboard that he believes “there is a correlation between the setting up of this commission, with the fact the Spain’s assumes the six-month presidency of the European Union next January 1, and with the improved relationship between the leaders of the Spanish and U.S. governments”.

Indeed, earlier this year a very impatient US government growing tired with what it sees as a total lack of inaction on the issue, said that part of Spain’s “priority action” to decrease online piracy should include an agreement between ISPs and copyright holders to prevent infringing content being available on the Internet – code for “3 strikes”, a measure that not even the US has implemented.

While that option has disappeared, last week saw Spanish prime minister José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero make his first visit to the White House in his six years in office – the first by a Spanish leader since the country’s 2004 Iraq pullout, an event which didn’t go down well with the US. Zapatero is now offering to assist with the closure of Guantanamo Bay, a sign that relations are beginning to warm.

It seems now that the only savior of the Coalition and its partners will be a change in the law, but Coalition president Olcese couldn’t resist mixing up terms in order to create the impression that the 200 BitTorrent sites are currently illegal.

“We gave the government last April our proposals to establish an official register of legal Web sites and act against illegal sites. When we meet the commission, we shall reiterate our position,” he said.

Illegal is not the same as unauthorized or unofficial, as much as the Coalition would like it to be so.

Article from: TorrentFreak, check out our new blog at FreakBits.

isoHunt founder Gary Fung is not intimidated by the movie industry scare tactics that started back in 2006, and he is willing to fight until the end. “I’m doing this for the future,” Fung said recently, while explaining that isoHunt is not much different than search engines like Google.

“When we talk about copyright we should be more forward thinking. It is a huge issue for the culture. The current state of copyright might not be the future state. And there’s increasing adoption of BitTorrent, even by large media. That is a glimpse of the future,” Fung commented.

The MPAA has a totally different view on the matter, and sees torrent sites as commercial operations with the sole intention of cashing in on copyright infringement. Steven Fabrizio, the MPAA lawyer who also represented the RIAA in their case against Napster is very clear about MPAA’s battle plan.

It is not so much about taking the site offline, the ultimate goal is to scare those who operate BitTorrent sites by pursuing exorbitant damages. In their case against TorrentSpy they continued to push for damages in court even though the site had been taken down, and now they are coming for a piece of the next torrent site.

isoHunt has no plans to discontinue its operations voluntarily, but should they lose in court against the MPAA and ordered to pay a fine, Fabrizio promises that the movie industry lobby will do everything it can to come and collect.

Fabrizio is well aware that Fung wont be able to pay millions if isoHunt ends up losing, but the MPAA is patient. “The judgment doesn’t go away. If Gary Fung creates a legitimate website, we’ll be there. If he sells that company for $100 million, we’ll be there. For the rest of his life we’ll be able to pursue that judgment,” the MPAA lawyer told the Financial Post.

The comments made by the MPAA lawyer and their dealing with the cases against TorrentSpy and isoHunt almost suggests that this is a personal vendetta of the entertainment industry lobby.

In the case of TorrentSpy the MPAA is indeed keeping its word for now. TorrentSpy owner Justin Bunnell was ordered to pay a $110 million fine last year after the court terminated the case against the movie industry. This decision is currently under appeal but the MPAA has already started pursuing the awarded damages.

In isoHunt’s case a ruling has yet to be made so all the talk about damages is purely hypothetical. We hope that isoHunt scores a victory, but it is not an easy battle in a country where lobbyists and Hollywood funded politicians are in power.

Article from: TorrentFreak, check out our new blog at FreakBits.

The Pirate Bay trial started on February 16 with lots of press coverage, protesting pirates and people handing out free candy. As the days went by, plenty of information was presented by both the prosecution and defense.

So which elements are most relevant, and which side is ahead in the polls?

On day two of the trial the prosecutor announced that half of the charges against the four defendants had been dropped. The prosecutor couldn’t prove that the .torrent files that were submitted as evidence actually used The Pirate Bay’s tracker, and he had to let go of all charges that accused the Pirate Bay folks of ‘assisting copyright infringement’.

What remained is the claim that they were ‘assisting in making copyright content available’. Armed with several screenshots of web pages and torrents downloading films and music albums, the prosecution argued that this was indeed the case. The torrent files hosted on The Pirate Bay allow people to download and share copyrighted material – period – they argued.

The crucial part here of course is whether the defendants actually ‘assisted’ in making any files available, this will eventually be up to the judge to decide. The prosecution has shown that there are indeed torrent files hosted on The Pirate Bay, and that some of these indirectly link to copyrighted material. However, whether the defendants are assisting in making copyright content available remains doubtful.

The defense has argued that they are not ‘assisting’, and dragged a giant primate into court to prove it. On the third day of the trial Carl Lundström’s lawyer, Per E Samuelsson pointed out that the prosecution failed to prove that Lundström had been involved in any transfers of any copyrighted material. This became known as the now famous King Kong defense.

“The admins of The Pirate Bay don’t initiate transfers. It’s the users that do and they are physically identifiable people. They call themselves names like King Kong,” Samuelsson told the court.

“According to legal procedure, the accusations must be against an individual and there must be a close tie between the perpetrators of a crime and those who are assisting. This tie has not been shown. The prosecutor must show that Carl Lundström has personally interacted with the user King Kong, who may very well be found in the jungles of Cambodia,” the lawyer added.

During the days that followed both sides tried to strengthen their case, but not much that was actually related to the ‘assisting in making available’ charges that are central to the case. The prosecution brought in more screenshots and some actual torrent files as evidence, and tried to get a better grip on the Pirate Bay’s anarchic ‘management’ structure.

The defense on the other hand, argued that there are many ways to share torrent files online. By playing a video in court they showed that The Pirate Bay is just one of many torrent trackers, and a tiny part of the download chain. One of the witnesses, Kristoffer Schollin from Gothenburg University, told the court that the Pirate Bay is an “open database” of .torrent files which he described as simply an advanced type of hyperlink.

In addition to detailing the charges, there was further debate on the damages claims from last week. While music and movie industry insiders claimed that piracy was responsible for a large part of the decline in sales of their respective industries, media professor Wallis told the court that the file-sharing is actually beneficial to the entertainment industry.

It is now up to the judge to review all the information presented by both parties and decide whether the defendants are guilty of ‘assisting in making copyright content available’.

If the decision was based purely on a big win via the media during the trial, there can be no question that The Pirate Bay won a decisive victory and proved to be even more popular than ever expected. However, as it stands, it’s difficult to find anyone – no matter where their preferences lie – who is willing to step out and say who they believe is going to prevail in the case overall.

What is pretty much certain is that this won’t end with the verdict that is due on April 17. No matter what the outcome it seems unthinkable that either side will accept a defeat. An appeal seems almost inevitable.

Stay tuned.

Article from: TorrentFreak, check out our new blog at FreakBits.

TorrentFreak asked Samo, the founder of Usniff, why he started the site. “My inspiration was YouTorrent.com, before it sailed to clean waters,” he told us. “It is simple to use, responsive and has loads of good results for almost any search query. At that time I didn’t know about other similar meta-search engines, so I decided i’d try to make one myself – mostly for fun.”

The list of sites that can be searched through Usniff is currently limited to four, but Samo told us he plans to add more torrent sites in the near future. “I have not yet made a complete wish-list, but btmon.com, bitenova.nl and torrentbox.com will definitely be added in September,” he said.

Usniff does indeed have a similar look and feel as the old YouTorrent design. YouTorrent, launched in January 2008, quickly becoming the most successful new torrent site. The site initially indexed all the popular torrent sites, but switched to purely ‘verified’ torrents this April, after receiving legal threats.

Samo anticipates legal threats, but that’s not going to hold him back. “I actually do expect legal problems,” Samo told us. He thinks, however, that his site is completely legal, as it does not link to copyrighted material. “Worst case scenario is that i’ll have to move it to a server in a less strict country.”

We’ve seen a lot of new BitTorrent meta-search engines this year. Sites like this are a great resource to search multiple BitTorrent sites at once. Never forget though, that meta-search engines like this depend heavily on public trackers and sites that host the .torrent files – BitTorrent’s backbone. There aren’t too many of those left.

Usniff search results

Article from: TorrentFreak, check out our new blog at FreakBits.

Around two weeks ago, a message appeared on the site, written by Rachel Faith Anderson, “Owner, SysOp and Chief Admin of the Vortex Network”. In it were thanks to the ‘heroes’ who put the site together along with statements about Vortex Network becoming something unique and something different, a standard claim for a new BitTorrent site trying to get off the ground. “Welcome to the eye of the storm my friend” ends the notice from Rachel, which has turned out to be quite the prophetic greeting.

The Start of the Storm

A few days ago the first rumblings of dissatisfaction started to appear from within the userbase of Vortex Network. Although donations are an absolute requirement for most BitTorrent communities to stay afloat, there are many differing opinions on how this issue should be approached. It’s safe to say that some of the community were not happy with the site’s ‘donation’ page. While it’s not compulsory for users to pay to use Vortex Network, there is a page where users can pay cash to fix their share ratio, enabling them to opt-out of seeding and get ‘customer’ or ‘patron’ status.

Some other members who won’t (or can’t) seed have cautiously welcomed the scheme. However, it seems that most are not in favor of it, labeling Rachel Faith – a self-confessed BitTorrent newcomer – as greedy. For her part, Rachel denies that the site is accepting payments in this fashion, indicating that the code was already present in ‘Gazelle’.

The P2L debate will rage on here and elsewhere, but this is really just a distraction. Following this discussion came an announcement from Rachel Faith Anderson herself. It’s quite long but in order to present the entire picture, here it is in full. To fully appreciate the nuances, a detailed read is required:

A Discussion not a Debate

That is what I shall be doing. In a debate, sides present their case and then some other party gets to decide. In a discussion, both sides can present their case and then that is that. They are each understood. But there is not the presumption that persuasion will occur.

I know this “debate” has been around for longer than p2p. I know the roots run deep and no one post can persuade those whose minds are already made up. Thus, this is a discussion. Feel free to discuss for as long as you wish. Feel free to ‘debate’ if you wish. Know that I am not interested in debate.

With that being said, let me make the brief introduction and outline the points I hope to present. There are many issues, and not all of them are even related, so keeping this as a discussion not a debate, allows the latitude to include all the points being raised even if some are not germane.

The list of points:

P2L is bad, impure, and somehow against the spirit of something greater. It makes others (those who pay not seed) who are for this reason not as good as others (those who see seeding as the ultimate sign) equal.

Yeah, it does exactly that. It says, just because you seed and do not donate, you are not better than someone who donates and does not seed as much as you. If you are offended by the equality of the two different ways in which status can be obtained, that is your personal feeling. But a feeling is not a fact. Choose to act upon a feeling and not a fact, and you act irrationally. That is also a fact.

The fact is, we fully declare that there is no superiority between those who seed and those who donate. None. We are neutral, unbiased and blind to any such thought, rejecting totally and without repentance the notion that seeders are “better” than “donors”.

That this is a point of contention for those who would like to think they are better than someone else , because their way is pure , is a very old elitist mentality which we fully intend to eradicate. In short such thinking is beyond bullshit, and the mark of juvenile thinking and weak egos who cannot bear the thought that they are not superior to someone else.

This is why we do not have the titles as plain as other sites.

Take the word user, or power user. What is a user? Someone who uses something or someone. This too has been rejected. You will never see the word user in any of our rules or guides. You, the people are not users. You are not using us, using each other, or using the community. You are members, each equal under the rules and given the same opportunity to succeed or fail in your own right.

Now the other end. The VIPs. We do not have this term either. Rejected is the idea that someone is more important or very important beyond anyone else. All members are part of the same body. Any opinion from any member is received with the same hope, optimism and credibility as is any other. Each will be weighed on the merits of the idea, not on some favored status. You are all Very Important People. Words have meaning, and we have chosen the theme and the words for the titles with that care in mind.

What are the other problems? The red herring. Server costs. Let us be very clear. Vortex Network is not a tracker. It has a tracker. True enough. And we come to existence from the ashes of a tracker. Also true. But this is not who we are, where we are going and what is to be the future.

We are more than a tracker. We are more than 22,000 members. Not yet, not today, not this hour. But sooner than later. Sooner than many but a very small few who really understand what is going on, would dare to believe. So let us be clearer for all.

We are a legal and legitimate Tax Exempt Corporation. Any other site taking money of any kind for any reasons and not filing with the authorities needs to face the facts that p2p may not have ever put anyone in prison, but tax evasion has done so to the best of mice and men.

There are two schools of thought. One is old and is the conventional thinking. One is new and is the wisdom we present.

The first school of thought says this: Our technology is forbidden by most authorities, we must be small, quiet, hidden and meek. If we get caught we must lie and erase our activities. We, by these actions admit our guilt and we believe ourselves to be criminals. Nothing, will or can change and we must act in this belief.

We reject every element of that thought. We embrace a better future. We believe the statutes change. We believe public perception changes. We are students of the law, of history and we are agents of change.

Like those before us who stood for the right of men to be free of slavery, like those before us whose suffrage was to bring the right of women to vote, and like those before us who have stood even for their most basic of human rights under much worse oppression and tyranny, we stand to bring the necessary changes to the use of p2p technology and to the common sense rights for intellectual property as well.

We do not hide. We are not criminals. Our behavior will not be that of cowards, criminals or those who are ashamed to speak out truth in this, a darkened night.

Your donation is not for access to a tracker. That access is free. And as the seeder club has pointed out, a donation is not needed at all to seed or even to build a ratio, provided you are willing to wait long enough.

Your donation will fund this change. It will provide us the opportunity to build a community far beyond 22,000 members, beyond 220,000 members. It will change the whole misunderstanding about what p2p technology is, does and who and why we are doing what we do.

Our effort will be public, it will be open, it will be legal, and you will see exactly where your contributions are going. And we use the word contribution, because it is not just a donation of money, but of time and effort, which will be rewarded as well.

This is just a single small step into a new world vision. This is but the tiniest spark of hope in a hopeless future. We are asking you to be part of that spark. To be keen to lighting the brush fire which then can never be extinguished!

And to our dear friends who cannot. To those whom we still love and respect, we wish you the best in your efforts. We bear no ill will to those who, in their own belief cannot see, cannot hear and will not act. We ask only, that you let us do so. We ask this in friendship and sincerity.

We know these are real differences and they are real points of objection. We understand the thinking of fear. Do not think we are deaf to it or ignorant of it. We know you are uncomfortable with our choice, and you feel safer in your isolation. That is the freedom we all share. The choice we all make. You can go in peace or stay and be peaceful.

This is not a debate. This is a direction and a path. You are welcome to walk it with us, or stop and wait and watch, or run and hide as far as you may need to run. We will not hold it against you in any path you choose.

And should providence shine a blessing upon us, we will never ask “Where were you?” We will embrace it together, welcoming you to this future as brothers/sisters, family.

For those who understand, who see what could be and seek with us to pursue it, to embrace the future: You have reached the calm… the eye of the storm.

Rachel Faith Anderson

We are a Legal and Legitimate Tax Exempt Corporation

In this headline and statement from Rachel lies the real controversy. It appears that in order to supposedly protect Vortex Network from legal action, it (or a parent organization) has been incorporated in the US as a non-profit Subchapter “S” corporation, which was necessary to “open a bank account, purchase equipment and report revenue to the taxing authorities”. We can find no evidence to suggest that Rachel is worried about copyright laws, which is an interesting approach.

The mere thought of being registered or linked to some sort of tax-exempt charity/organization has sent shockwaves through the Vortex Network community. Add to this that she is suggesting that tracker admins should no longer hide in the shadows, but join her to face the world head on, has seen many of the staff deleting their accounts and leaving the site in disbelief.

Rachel Faith’s Plan for World BitTorrent Domination

Although previously we’ve spoken about non-profit organizations, Rachel actually wants prominent people and existing sites from the BitTorrent community to unite to join her in a new, “for-profit entity” which has already been registered in the US. Labeling herself as a “visionary” she proposes – either by creation, merger or acquisition – the establishment of a network of private trackers which will operate together, combining resources, members and staff.

Her theory is that the unified resources of these sites will prove a more difficult target for the authorities to take down. By making the sites “99% community and 1% tracker”, Rachel feels legal issues surrounding the tracker can be mitigated. She also hopes that by combining the sites – hopefully hundreds – the whole operation will become more secure and “profitable”. Those enjoying a small club-like feel to their favorite tracker better get used to becoming a small cog in a huge wheel – if Rachel gets her way, that is.

Additionally, she views large and overly vocal public trackers as a menace and proposes that steps should be taken to put “embarrassing” sites (such as The Pirate Bay) “out of business”.

Rachel and her ever decreasing team believe that the way regular trackers operate is doomed to failure and so they intend to embark on a mission to change the public’s perception of BitTorrent in order to encourage legal change to allow their plan to grow. They aim to do this in 12 months, while at the same time amassing a minimum of 250,000 members as a base to work from.

Whatever this new plan for BitTorrent is, it’s not calming nerves and there is growing opposition to this plan, before it even gets off the ground. Rachel may want to take on the world in a blaze of glory, but most seem to want a quiet life.

We are students of the law, of history and we are agents of change.

According to sources close to the situation, Rachel Faith (possibly Rachel Faith Anderson, possibly something else) has a background in banking and is a lawyer (or at least a law student) using her real name. Using real names consistently on the Internet has its problems. As does hosting your avatar on your AOL page, which in turn reveals your AOL account name. Unless, of course, this is all some elaborate case of misdirection. But there again, Rachel said she isn’t hiding but it seems crazy to believe someone would be as open as this.

In any event, it’s clear that the majority of staff and members who have expressed a preference are not happy to be treated as “guinea pigs” in Rachel’s worldwide BitTorrent laboratory, especially when they now view the “BrokenStones replacement” line as a simple “bait and switch” tactic to get a solid base for her plans for domination.

Time will tell what will come of these plans, but in the meantime the opinions of others in the community are plain to see, especially if one visits any of the #crazybitch channels that have appeared on IRC, or the many outraged posters on the Vortex forums.

Or maybe Rachel Faith Anderson is sane and everyone else is crazy? Stranger things have happened…

…or if you read ‘Scene’ notices…..

RachelFaith.Registers.VortexNetwork.org.As.Business.To.Make.Money.Off.Scene
.Releases.DDOS.Immediately

Update: TorrentFreak managed to catch up with Rachel Faith Anderson but with other ‘real-life’ commitments (hey, we all have them), she didn’t really have much time for much other than a very brief chat. We’ve offered her a full right of reply and even delayed this article for her to do so, but we have heard nothing further.

However, she has finally responded to the ex-BrokenStones community and staff. Here is a small part of it which seems to have hit a raw nerve:

But there was existing, trained, competent staff from BS looking for a new home and so we tried to make it fit and tried to make it work. But from the very beginning, I could tell that it would not. The end was not unexpected, though it was untimely and unplanned. And this is the sadness I share with many. It is a loss and it came at a terrible time. Such is the nature of life.

So long ex-BrokenStones staff who worked hard to put the new site together, seems the Vortex Network doesn’t want you anymore…..

You can read Rachel’s full announcement here.

Article from: TorrentFreak, check out our new blog at FreakBits.

Most people seem to be interested in what happens after a letter is received, but who decides who gets a letter in the first place? Well, that’s the self-appointed job of the BPI (the British Phonographic Industry), a completely commercial organization set up to serve the interests of the music business and they don’t want you to know (in any detail) how their file-sharing tracking systems work. The same systems would’ve been used should they have been successful in their demands for “3 strikes and you’re out” yet there is zero transparency – everyone is supposed to blindly accept what they say as truth and that simply can’t be healthy.

In recent comments, a Carphone Warehouse spokesman further indicated that it is expected to take action against its customers based purely on the ‘evidence’ provided by the BPI. “What we have agreed to do is to write to our customers and advise them there’s been an alleged infringement,” he said. “We’re very clear that we don’t know if that’s the case or not, we’ve just been told there has been and we want to advise them of that.”

So in a nutshell, the BPI provide all the ‘evidence’, and the ISPs have to blindly believe it and take action against their own customers. To think that a commercial organization like the BPI is allowed to provide its own unchallenged allegations in such a completely non-transparent manner is the real outrage in all of this. If the BPI is to be trusted with such power, it has to be held accountable. If it is to remain credible in its role as the “UK MP3 Police” its systems must be opened up to public scrutiny. Once they are proved to be accurate by a panel of independent experts, then all well and good, but the fact remains that the BPI only give a vague indication of how they operate and have no intentions of elaborating.

Matt Philips, Director of Communications at the BPI refused to tell TorrentFreak how they gather their evidence, so any right-minded individual with an interest in this issue might find themselves asking: “What exactly are they afraid of?”

Clearly, it should be possible from their detailed records for an ISP to confirm or deny the technical evidence provided by the BPI. However, they aren’t in a position to do this since it would be a massive breach of customer privacy. Instead, the word of the BPI is taken at face value.

In a response, some Swedish ISPs have voiced their opinions too. “We don’t want to act like police and feel that a system similar to that in the UK is a deep invasion of privacy,” said Annika Kristersson of Tele2, adding: “It would entail us having to spy on our customers.”

Everyone makes mistakes and no system is flawless so it’s essential to have a verification process before throwing accusations around. Until then, take comfort in knowing that the file-sharing equivalent of home-made, untested, uncalibrated police speed cameras of unknown design and ability are operated by people with a vested interest and are passing judgment on you, your children and potentially (should the BPI get its way) your whole Internet future. A little transparency to inspire confidence isn’t too much to ask.

Article from: TorrentFreak, check out our new blog at FreakBits.

TorrentFreak heard that Indiana had a message for The Pirate Bay, the BitTorrent community and file-sharers in general, so we caught up with her to find out exactly what. She told us that although she agrees with the concept of file sharing, she believes that musicians and writers need to make a living or at least enough money to enable them to re-invest into their creation. She also gave us her opinions about how file-sharing will be ‘policed’ in the future and notes that the methods may not be 100% fair. “With all forms of change, there are always the up-sides and down-sides,” she told us.

It’s not very often an artist will speak as openly or at such length on this subject as Indiana has. Some people are going to like what she has to say. Thousands, maybe millions are going to hate it, but there isn’t a debate when only one side speaks – so here it is – uncensored, controversial, outrageous and thought provoking.

Something tells us this debate is far from over…..

I felt misrepresented in the first article and obviously, my attempt at humor by stating I’m a ‘millionaire’ wasn’t appropriately quantified. Am I a millionaire because I have millions of ants in my garden? Is it because I have had millions of people listen to my music on sites like MySpace or YouTube? Is it because I’m grateful to be healthy? How people quantify ‘richness’ in their lives depends on how people perceive value. And, yes, I’m guilty of fueling Peter Sunde’s fire and animosity. I can image it’s not easy in his position just now considering the amount of angry artistic people who are fronting against his cause. I’m sure he has his core values that he wants to defend… I have mine… and I’m not afraid to speak about them… for the sake of music.. and the common good.

The Pirate Bay: The Sinking Ship…..My Response

The Wild West of the Internet seems to be getting seriously out of hand and i’ve been wondering if and when the Internet Police will come and sort it all out. I mean… this is the new Wild West…

We’ve all heard and read every form of complaint about the Internet. From cyber-bullying, to child pornography sites, to copyright theft in the form of ‘file-sharing’.

Imagine….What if the Internet had ‘frontiers’. Why can we go all over the world on the Internet without a passport? Why are cybernauts allowed to steal goods from the store ’shelves’ and ’shop windows’ and justify it as ’sharing’? Since the birth of the Internet, people have been hacking software, stealing music, books, films, television shows, credit card numbers, eBay accounts, IP addresses… you name it, if it’s out there and can be downloaded, it’s being virtually stolen from under your nose.

So, why is this Wild West so hard to monitor? Why are people up in arms and waiving their guns wildly… … Are these new pirate ships sharing other people’s goods for gold? Of course they are… yes, I’m speaking about the torrent sites… and all the other sites who are making money on other people’s back…

Is the Internet really that much ‘bigger’ than the ‘real’ world? I think not. I believe that in the near future, we will all be using our Internet passports. If the government can do it in the real world, what’s stopping them from monitoring this new ‘Wild West’ phenomenon of the Internet in every town, city, state and country. I mean… Don’t we have just as much right as citizens to be protected on the Internet as we would be anywhere else? And really, the only people who would disagree with this idea are people who either are engaging in illegal activity or people who claim ‘civil liberty and freedom of speech’ on the Internet, but remember guys, those freedoms are only good until you begin to harm other people.

You don’t have freedom to shout from the rooftops at 3am outside your neighbor’s house…. and it’s certainly not your civil right to steal from your local baker and share his cream puffs outside his shop window…either, is it? Allow me to explain.

Let’s take one of the major forces on the Internet for example. Let’s look at all of the big music content sites (such as MySpace, Yahoo Music, etc) who seem to be huge driving swarms of traffic on the Internet. When you see the amount of advertisements per page and click, you know you can almost hear the ‘kerching’. These sites are like interstate junctions at rush hour (24 hours a day) so to speak. Torrents are no different…. Kerching kerching… They are giving away things like films, music, tv programs, software…. If it can be downloaded, it can be found… for free…

Thousands upon thousands of websites, sharing sites, and torrent sites exist. These websites are making a constant steady flow of income by using other people’s goods…they are pointing people to the goods (music) for free and selling masses of advertisement because people come to ‘leech’ the goods…these sites are basically allowing people to steal and destroy the music industry (which is in fact like shooting themselves in their own foot). The sites themselves claim to be ‘legal’. It is the user’s responsibility not to share copyrighted files.

So, you’d be silly to think that the Internet police are not planning on coming. How easy would it be to simply find all these people who are illegally ’sharing’ and slap a lawsuit on them. They can do that with a virtual push of a button. How hard do you think it will be for the ISP’s to hand over your Internet passport over to the new frontier police? They can see how much you’ve ’shared’ and potentially fine every single torrent user. I bet the torrent sites wouldn’t like that very much. Suddenly all their users would disappear.

Last year, in an article on Sky News, I read that a woman received a massive fine for file sharing on the KaZaA network. I thought, great! The police are coming.Then my husband sent me a link to another article titled “Should You Pay For Music?” I instantly thought….eh? Has the world gone mad? It’s like saying “Should you pay for petrol?” or “Should you pay for bread?” Hey, maybe I was being too ‘traditional’? I guess you could compare it to you, yourself, working all week long. You go to the bank and cash your check, and the banker takes your money without putting it into your account.

But, it’s much deeper than this. Whether or not the public is offered music for free or at a cost is not the real issue. The real problem lies in the fact that ’share’ sites are making money by pointing to other people’s copyrighted content… The end user gets it for free… the torrents make money…. And the musicians and artists?? Well, they get to live off of ‘fresh air’. Put simply, musicians will not be able to exist financially in order to create music if income streams are cut off (whether or not a record label comes to play).

And this is exactly what is happening.

As a musician and an independent record-label, I see my livelihood being sucked away every day through file-sharing and torrent sites which are allowing copyright material to flow in and out of their sites. All they have to do is claim that it’s the responsibility of the user to make sure the content they are sharing is not copyright protected material. Last year, in a period of two weeks, we tracked and found over 100,000 leechers of my album alone. Since then, we’ve found about 150,000 more, of which I, the artist, who put my heart and soul, time and sweat into an album and raising money to market that album, haven’t received a dime, not one red cent. Full torrent files of a complete album! Since it’s so easy to ’share’ the music….

In the real world, if everyone walked into HMV and took as many albums as they like… and said they were ’sharing’…errr… shoplifting? I really don’t see how people think they can give music or any other form of media for ‘free’ without it hurting the livelihoods of musicians. Sharing of copyright protected material is 100% illegal. However, since it’s not being regulated, it’s as if all of us musicians have just left the shop door open so that anybody can lift our guitars and gear out on the street and drive off with it. Isn’t that what’s happening? If you can’t make a dime from that album you just spent all your money, time and effort on because everyone is ’sharing’ it, then how are you going to buy your guitar strings, pay your landlord, or eat? You’ll be selling your gear soon and asking the boss for overtime. Right?

Torrent sites are claiming that they are creating ‘free promotion’ for musicians…. that’s right.. they claim that by giving all these people the opportunity to “share” the music, they are doing all of us musicians a big huge favor. In fact, they think that musician’s, songwriters, sound engineers, mastering companies, etc… should all live on ‘pure fresh air’. They blatantly state that they think it should be enough for a musician to make music out of their ‘passion’ for music… and well, since it’s ‘art’ it shouldn’t have a price….. er, ok….. maybe we should go and see if Fender will start giving away free guitars? Free gear for everybody!!! Yipppeee…. Free strings, free amplifiers, free microphones and drum kits……awww… how novel.

Here’s another funny one…the torrent site’s answer to how musicians are supposed to earn a living is: .. well, musician’s will just need to go out and gig some more in order to make a living. Maybe the band can sell a few more T-shirts, etc. etc. They rationalize stealing by stating that they go to gigs and buy tickets…(or that they plan to do so if ever their favorite band can finally afford to come and do a tour in their country). They claim that by allowing sharing, they are ‘leveling the playing field’.

Well, torrent sites are absolutely NOT leveling the playing field. They are just moving the field and reaping the benefits due to a temporary loophole in the law. I’ll bet that when all their users get slapped a fine for ’sharing’ in their respective countries the torrent sites won’t be there to support them. I doubt that they are planning to send all their users a bunch of ‘gold’ off of their pirate ship. So far, there have only been a few ‘examples’ made with users being slapped heavy fines. I have a hunch that this will CHANGE.

Aww, now there’s a word “CHANGE”.

Well, let’s talk about CHANGE for a moment. The torrent people even go as far as to quote Charles Darwin in an effort to justify theft:

“In nature, it’s not the strongest nor the most intelligent who survives. It’s the most adaptable to change.” (a quote from a torrent fanatic referring to Darwins theory).

Hmmm………..well, I assume that the torrent sites are planning to be adaptable pretty soon then, considering the number of pending lawsuits from pretty strong and intelligent companies who have not only proven their adaptability to change, but have changed the world as we know it (companies like Microsoft, for example).

Please.. spare us this kind of rhetoric guys. With the likes of Microsoft, Prince, and the IFPI going after you, any outsider might begin to wonder when YOU plan to adapt to ‘change’. It’s becoming evident that your business model is a sinking ship. Pretty soon, your users will be slapped with fines and more big companies will be slapping on lawsuits. Why not just sink your ship yourselves..eh? That’s really what you’re doing.. Your resistance to ‘change’ is in complete conflict with your very survival… Oh the irony. “Let’s have all our users quote Darwin”.

“Sharing is caring”, so they say. Torrent sites are promoting the idea that if people are taking the time to ’share’ other peoples copyright material it means they care. So, what’s stopping the torrent pirates from ’sharing’ the revenue from the advertising on their sites? Funny how it’s ok for musicians to live off of ‘fresh air’ but these pirates are meanwhile filling their boat with loot on the backs of other people’s hard work. Let’s see how adaptable to ‘change’ they decide to become… and put their Darwin theory where their mouth is….

Free promotion? Basically, torrents are promoting music that has ‘already been promoted’, so it’s not ‘free promotion’. There will be a small percentage of people who go through the millions of songs that are being seeded and perhaps discover something new because they searched for something they had already heard about. So, torrents are not only ‘moving’ the playing field, they are, in reality, making the playing field so un-even that bands are going to be the new “Sysiphus’s” trying to roll a ball uphill for eternity – although the sites would like to fool us all into believing otherwise.

Article from: TorrentFreak, check out our new blog at FreakBits.

Pirate Bay’s Peter Sunde (brokep) said in a response to the unusual move by the officer: “He [Keyzer] confirmed that he is an employee there [Warner Bros'] and we can’t see it in any other way than this being the reward for work well done from the new employer of the police, the entertainment industry”

In the days to come new information surfaced, as it became clear that Keyzer was not quitting his police job, but that he was only hired by Warner Bros. for six months. Unsurprisingly, the rumors that the job at the movie studio was a reward for his investigation into The Pirate Bay, became even stronger.

In a short statement, Warner Bros. state that the investigator was not employed or paid by the movie studio while he was still working on the case. A spokesman says the claims of the policeman having affected the investigation for his own ends is pure speculation.

Warner Bros. refuses to comment on questions regarding the job and salary negotiations, which must have started before the investigation came to an end. This is not the first time the copyright industry has hired filesharing investigators from the police, and in some cases the job negotiations indeed began while the investigations were still ongoing.

According to prosecutor, HÃ¥kan Roswall, this is exactly what the Swedish anti-piracy organization AntipiratbyrÃ¥n did a couple of years ago. “That policeman was recruited during the investigation as well, so this is nothing unusual. He testified at the trial and the court didn’t take that into consideration,” Roswall said.

When asked why these companies are so interested in hiring the police investigators, Roswall said: “Because they are exceptionally skilled people.”

“It could be seen as a positive thing that the policeman has worked for Warner. That will broaden his competence in filesharing cases.” he added. Perhaps The Pirate Bay should hire an IT-forensics specialist from the police as well?

Article from: TorrentFreak, check out our new blog at FreakBits.

Pirate Bay’s Peter Sunde (brokep) stated: “He [Keyzer] confirmed that he is an employee there and we can’t see it in any other way than this being the reward for a work well done from the new employer of the police, the entertainment industry”

“This is a legal outrage. Talk about biased,” Sunde continues. “Keyzer is in charge of the investigation. No matter the reasons to switch employer, this investigation has not been fair. We have felt that the investigation has concentrated on trying to locate something to point out as wrong with The Pirate Bay instead of determining if the activities of the site are unlawful or not,” he added.

“This is pure, classic corruption,” says Rickard Falkvinge leader of the Swedish pirate party. “Big companies from foreign nations trying to affect the outcome in a Swedish Court of Justice with straightforward bribes. Now the copyright lobby is showing its true face”

Peter Athlin, Sunde’s laywer, thinks that the consequence of the new information could be that the investigation -which took nearly two years- has to be redone. If so, this will be a huge setback for the Swedish police.

The legal investigation into the Pirate Bay started nearly two years ago, after the controversial raid on the Pirate Bay in May 2006. At the time the Swedish police confiscated 180 servers, most of which had nothing to do with the BitTorrent tracker. Last December the investigation finally came to an end, resulting in 4,000 pages of legal paperwork.

Article from: TorrentFreak, check out our new blog at FreakBits.

Trey Harrison is a 29 year old, living in Los Angeles with his girlfriend and a couple of cats. He enjoys writing music and creating music videos and has just invested the last 7 years to bring out a PC application called ‘Salvation‘.

“I imagined it as a tool for creating custom video and lighting controls at music venues” says Trey. “My first customer Denne continues to please crowds with his mixes at club Rai in Moscow, and recently the Inside Us All VJ collective began using it to power some awesome multi-projector HD displays in the UK. It’s a rather powerful realtime graphics tool now, and one of my next goals is to make that power accessible within After Effects and Final Cut.”

Then came the inevitable news – ‘Salvation’ had been cracked and made available on the internet by a release group known as BlueBeta3D who actually displayed their email address in the .NFO. So Trey dropped them a line, to see if they could come to some sort of arrangement…..
___________________________________________

Subject: Is there any negotiating with pirates?
From: Trey Harrison
Date: Wed, 16 May 2007 20:56:27 -0700
To: BlueBeta3D@hushmail.com

http://www.harrisondigitalmedia.com

___________________________________________

Trey explains, “I was pretty sure I’d never hear from them, so I sent off an email to the company I purchased my anti-piracy protection tool from, as well as an email to the hosting company that is hosting the warezed copy. Who responded first? The pirates.”

___________________________________________

Subject: Re: Is there any negotiating with pirates?
From:
Date: Thu, 17 May 2007 17:11:27 +0100
To: “Trey Harrison”

Greets
___________________________________________

As Trey just achieved what the RIAA and MPAA can’t achieve with millions of dollars, we decided to ask him a few questions about this unique moment.

1. Considering the huge amount time and effort you put into this project, it’s no surprise there were some strong emotions when you realized your work had been pirated. You mentioned your emotions cycled through being pissed, to vengeful to honored. Could you tell us a little about the background to those emotions?

I felt proud and victimized at the same time. Most of my time is spent implementing features and fixing bugs at the request of paying customers, so when a cracking group puts the program out there free for anyone to download, it has a real impact on the investment that my customers have made, that potential customers might make, and the time that I’ve put into it. But at the same time, getting that recognition by the warez groups as being crack-worthy is a milestone that I’m proud to have reached.

2. You mentioned that Salvation was protected by a 3rd party anti-piracy tool. Which tool was it, what were your considerations when choosing it and do you feel that you’ve received good value for money?

I wanted to distribute Salvation online as shareware with a 30 day expiration. I purchased “Armadillo Software Passport” hoping it would catch and stop the average person who tries to set their system clock back in time, but I knew it would probably be cracked by a warez group at some point. There are more expensive anti-piracy tools out there but I think they are all equally useless against a determined cracker. The Armadillo guys provided great tech support along the way, so up until the day it was pirated I was very satisfied with their product and service.

3. You emailed the warez release group, anti-piracy company and hosting company to complain about your product being pirated. When the warez group responded first and in a very polite and positive manner, what were your feelings?

I was pleasantly surprised! I always thought warez groups were elusive and impossible to get in touch with. The fact that they responded was amazing, but the idea of them putting a halt on the release and promising not to do it anymore… it really blew my mind. I think I may have stumbled across a revolutionary business strategy.

4. Hundreds of millions of dollars are spent on copy-protection and DRM mechanisms. Have your anti-piracy company responded yet and if so, what did they say about Salvation now being available on the internet DRM-free, despite your investment?

I sent the Armadillo guys an email that included the pirated .zip package. I was hoping they would thank me, offer an apology, and study it to improve their protection scheme, but they didn’t even respond. I’m not sure what to expect from them at this point. Maybe they’ll have something to say after this interview is published. =)

5. Without a big marketing budget, it can be very hard indeed to get your product noticed on the internet. Even big artists such as Kylie Minogue appear to be using internet leaks to gain publicity. Have you considered that the extra publicity your software will get due to it’s availability on the internet (and articles like this), might actually improve your exposure and sales figures?

It’s an unusual story so it will probably attract attention. I just hope the attention is from paying customers rather than pirates. TorrentFreaks pay for all of their software, right? =)

6. One school of thought suggests that far from being all bad, pirate software users can be useful, providing a valuable source of knowledge about software products on internet discussion forums, even going as far to offer a kind of free-of-charge product support for paying customers. What are your general feelings about piracy and have your recent experiences changed the way you feel about it?

I’ll admit I’ve copied an mp3 here and there without giving it much thought. All the work that goes into creating a good song is easily taken for granted when your computer brings it to you in a matter of seconds. When Salvation was pirated it really opened my eyes to the fact that piracy has a real impact on real people. I used to think anti-piracy organizations like the RIAA and MPAA were pure evil but I’ve realized now that we share the same basic interest in preventing piracy. I just wish they would wake up and realize that suing grandmas and little girls isn’t going to increase sales. Maybe they should bring me on as a consultant – I’m cheaper than a team of lawyers and I have proven success in the field. =)

We contacted BlueBeta3D and they said “Our release are aimed for purely for people who wish to learn and do not have the benefits/or just help to extend an evaluation.” They also made it quite clear that they are against any commercialization of piracy and maybe, just maybe, they’re also men of their word in respect of leaving Trey alone in the future.

Who said you can’t negotiate with pirates?

Article from: TorrentFreak, check out our new blog at FreakBits.

Jon seems to be out of options. He’s decided that it’s time to sell the site. On his site, he says that he is “looking for offers starting at $30,000.” Can you really put a price on years of hard work? I don’t know. $30,000 seemed outrageous to me initially, but after thinking about it, I’m not sure. What really got to me was the fact that if the site isn’t bought, he’s going to take it offline. To do that would be a crying shame. Even though people have offered Jon free hosting, he’s made up his mind. The only other option would be for his readers to pool together enough funds and make sure that even if Jon stops writing, the archives remain online.

We decided the best thing would be to talk to Jon himself about his decesion. He was gracious enough to take a few minutes to tell us all about it.

TF: In our minds, p2pnet.net is one of the top 3 filesharing news sites. Why quit the race while you’re in the lead?

Jon: I’m not quitting. This is all about keeping p2pnet online. Getting to this point means I’m already substantially in debt and I just can’t go any further by myself. I need help and if selling the site to keep it online is the only way I can get it, then that’s the way it’ll have to be. If I can somehow get $20,000 Canadian without selling, I’ll be able to hang in for another five months or so. I’ve had several offers for hosting, so I wouldn’t have to worry about that. I’d also try and find someone to take on the tech end, and someone else to look after advertising. In addition, I and a friend on the island recently started up a purely commercial offline project which has zero to do with the Net, p2p or anything else even vaguely like it. So far it’s cost us about $500 so it’s not capital intensive either : ) It’ll be a couple of months before we know if it’s going to take off but if it does, it may well provide funding for p2pnet.

TF: The founders of the popular filesharing application, Kazaa filed a lawsuit against your site last year. Is this one of the things that made you decide to sell?

Jon: Not even nearly. A domain name is a piece of property which can be bought and sold. It isn’t a legal entity like a company which carries with it all of its debts and obligations. If you bought a TV from someone who happened to be in a lawsuit, that doesn’t make you party to, or liable for, the suit. The parties in my case are: JON NEWTON, INTERSERVER, INC., JOHN DOE, JANE DOE, RICHARD ROE and JANE ROE. They don’t include p2pnet.net.

TF: All TorrentFreak posts are published under a Creative Commons license. You often republish our posts on p2pnet.net, and we’re very grateful for this, because in our minds it doesn’t matter if we make a buck off each reader, P2P news is about getting the message out. Don’t you agree?

Jon: I do indeed. Absolutely. Torrentfreak does so well because it’s needed. It fills a gap. Sites like ours are about disseminating good information and unspinning spin —– getting the message out quickly and accurately. We’re not here to beat each other by getting something out ‘first’. I’ve always believed that’s for the lamescream offline media, and people who think like them. We’re here to tell our friends what’s really happening as soon as possible and in as many outlets as possible. We want others to spread the information ASAP.

TF: On your site, you say that you intend to “continue talking” to your reader base. What are your plans for the future and where can people find you once p2pnet.net is sold?

Jon: You know that saying about the Fat Lady? Well, she hasn’t sung yet : ) At this point in time, I’m not thinking much further ahead than the next month or two. If I can survive that, and $20K would do it, I’m pretty sure I’d be able to survive the rest. This isn’t about dying, it’s about changing. I also have another site called p2pnet.ca, which I haven’t even looked at since well before Christmas. If I end up having to sell p2pnet.net, I still have p2pnet.ca and my approach to that would be a bit different: It wouldn’t be full time, and it wouldn’t carry ads. I’d concentrate on my main areas of interest and forget about posting ‘other’ news like what’s happening with Bill and the Boyz, and with iRule Jobs.

TF: Lastly, who do you think is most likely to buy your site? A large Internet portal? Or a blog network like Weblogs, Inc? Personally, I think p2pnet.net would be a great addition to their network, since their P2P blog was shut down last year. They also have the backing of AOL, if they ever needed a team of ferocious lawyers.

Jon: I really don’t mind who gets involved, or whether they’re the owner or an investor. I know this sounds arrogant, but I believe losing p2pnet would be a serious blow to freedom of speech online. There aren’t many dissenting voices and we can’t afford to lose even one. So Big or Small, as long as it helps me to keep p2pnet online.

TF: Thanks, and all the best!

Jon: Cheers!

Article from: TorrentFreak, check out our new blog at FreakBits.

Empornium

Targetpoint has nothing to do with Empornium.us’s recent changes. The fact is that a former Targetpoint employee Oded Daniel was involved in the transfer and sale of empornium.us to its new owner. Daniel operates as a broker and he is listed as the registrant of the site, but the site is owned by a group of people, not related to Daniel. It might look suspicious that Oded Daniel is the domain registrant, but as a domain and site broker he is the registrant of more sites which he does not own.

At least, this is what we learned from my recent conversation with Mr. Daniel. He told that the present owner prefers to stay out of the picture. He also stressed that empornium still is a free site, but that new members can buy their way into the community when registration is closed.

So basically it is a paysite when registration is closed, but people can join for free when it’s open.

So Daniels statement on Slyck

Registration will continue to be free for all users, new and old

is not completely true… (Update: Slyck fixed it)

Wait a minute… How can he make these statements anyway if he is not involved with targetpoint or empornium? Ah… he is in charge of the monetizing of empornium.

Targetpoint Buying BitTorrent Sites

In our initial article three months ago we reported that Targetpoint tried to buy several BitTorrent sites. The fact is that three unrelated torrentsite owners told TorrentFreak that Targetpoint opted to buy their site. Among these sites is one of the biggest players in the BitTorrent scene and Meganova. Meganova who posted Targetpoints attempts to buy their site openly on their blog.

According to Meganova owner Bogaa he spoke to Ran Yehud from Targetpoint. Bogaa quotes the email correspondance at Slyck forums my emails

Quote:

Hi Bogaa,
It’s Ran from Targetpoint.
I wanted to speak with you about something please contact me or leave me a phone where I can reach you.
Thanks,
Ran

Bogaa continues: “Later on when we made the news public, we received this email:”

Quote:

Hi Bogaa,
I got this earlier this week: http://TorrentFreak.com/targetpoint-is-buying-BitTorrent-sites/
I see you are doing nice PR for you site, as long as you didn’t made us look bad that is fine with me!
Anyhow, happy holidays.
Bye and best regards,
Ran

When we contacted Targetpoint about these actions they stated:

Targetpoint is an advertising network. We do not own any commercial/content sites. For that matter, we do not own any of the following sites:Empornium.us, puretna.com, imagefap.com, Thepiratebay.org and mininova.org.

However, Oded Daniel, a former Targetpoint employee and related to all the sites Targetpoint mentions told TorrentFreak:

Targetpoint’s CEO indeed confirmed to me that they tried to buy Meganova. This is not unique, these deals happen all the time. Direct deals, external deals, partner agreements and exclusive ownerships are a part of out bussiness.

So we’ve got a little contradiction here.

The Piratebay and Mininova

This is probably one of the more sensitive points, implying that “pirates cuddle toy” the Piratebay is partly owned by a third party is pretty controversial.

Let me start with saying that Targetpoint does NOT own any part of mininova.org. The only relation Mininova has with Targetpoint is strictly business; they deliver the ads, that’s all.

The Piratebay case is more complicated; two credible sources reported to TorrentFreak that former Targetpoint employee Oded Daniel has a share (37%) in The Piratebay. One of these sources got this information directly from one of The Piratebay owners.

This means that it is not Targetpoint that owns a piece of TPB, but Oded Daniel. The same person who happens to be the CEO of Random Media. A recent article on rixstep.com argued that it is Oded Daniel’s company who handles TPB’s ad revenues.

When SvD rang Oded Daniel he refused to reveal what Random Media are and why the company have an address in Switzerland but a telephone number in Stockholm. And he refused to reveal where the ad revenues for The Pirate Bay disappear to.

‘Who said I take care of the money? There are a lot of bit torrent sites. They all work the same way. Go after them instead’, said Oded.

An interesting detail is that randommedia’s website is hosted at PRQ, TPB’s hosting provider…

In our recent conversation with Oded Daniel he said that his company is delivering the ads (url: clicktorrent.info) on TBP but that there are no shares. This is actually a good point because TBP doesn’t have any shares, the only thing they can share are server costs and ad revenues. Perhaps the 37% is the shared ad revenue figure?

It is funny to see that Mr. Daniel and TPB respond exactly the same to the question about the relationship between Targetpoint and TBP:

TPB/Targetpoint used to work with Targetpoint/TPB before, currently we do not. We might in the future again

…

So lets wrap it up.

1. Targetpoint does not own Emponium, some guy who doesn’t wants to reveal his identity does. Mr Daniel, a former employee of Targetpoint is monetizing empornium.

2. Several sources confirm that Targetpoint is buying BitTorrent sites. Targetpoint denies these allegations.

3. Targetpoint has no shares in TPB. TPB probably has a shared ad revenue agreement with mr. Oded, but that’s pretty common. Mr. Daniel had strong links with The Piratebay and other torrentsites, the website of his company randommedia is hosted at TPB’s hosting provider.

This is what I found out, there are a lot more (minor) details, and there’s always room for conspiricy theories and other wild fantasies, but that’s why we have comments.

To quote a former admin at Empornium (slyck forums):

Like Broham said, I never claimed Oded owned anything. I personally had discussions with Oded a couple times while I was an Emp admin, and he represented himself to me as an employee of Targetpoint. Targetpoint was always represented as the investor, not Oded.

He also made it perfectly clear on more than one occasion that he did not want Targetpoint’s involvement with the site publicly disclosed, even going so far as to have Noos log into our boxes and delete forum threads and threaten anyone, including admins, with box-banning if they said anything negative about Targetpoint. The latter occasion is when the “Targetpoint is full of shit” avatars disappeared.

So it comes as no surprise to me that he is desperately trying to deny Targetpoint’s involvement. They know that corporate involvement in peer-to-peer, in porn, and a corporation asking for “donations” stinks.”

…

Article from: TorrentFreak, check out our new blog at FreakBits.

TorrentFreak asked Meganova owner Bogaa if these rumors are true. And indeed, Bogaa confirmed the story:

Yes, Targetpoint made an offer to buy Meganova. They offered $20.000, 30% of the ad revenues and an additional $1000 per month. We do however prefer to continue working with Targetpoint on a pay per click basis.

Meganova is not the only BitTorrent site that Targetpoint is interested in. They are currently working with sites like Isohunt, The Piratebay and Mininova. And according to a our source they even have a 37% share in The Piratebay .

It started a couple of months ago when Targetpoint contracted two major adult content BitTorrent sites Empornium and PureTna. Empornium has approximately 650,000 active users; they moved their servers from the US to The Netherlands after the acquisition by Targetpoint in August 2005.

So it seems that Targetpoint is willing to invest in sites that have trouble getting advertisers through other channels such as Google’s Adsense because these sites are (assumed to be) associated with copyright infringement.

Targetpoint was founded in 2004 and is an Israeli company, with servers located in the Netherlands. In these countries offering .torrent files is not considered to be act of copyright infringement.

Article from: TorrentFreak, check out our new blog at FreakBits.