MPAA Caught Uploading Fake Torrents
It is no secret that the MPAA and other anti-piracy organizations track down alleged pirates by uploading fake torrents. Up until now it was always unclear where those files came from, and how to identify them.
The MPAA and other anti-piracy watchdogs try to trap people into downloading fake torrents, so they can collect IP addresses, and send copyright infringement letters to ISPs. They hire a company to put up fake copies of popular movies, music albums, and TV series. They even use pirate like filenames such as “Battlestar Galactica S03E07 REPACK DSR XviD-ORENJi” and “Miami Vice[2006]DvDrip[Eng]-aXXo“.
One of the btjunkie admins has found a unique way to identify trackers that host these fake files, which makes it easy to efficiently remove them.
Virtually all the servers that spread these fake files are located in Southern California and Las Vegas. The administrators of these servers follow patterns that make it easy to identify them. The content of the trackers and seed amounts make them stand out. There are more unique characteristics, but we wont reveal all the tricks because they could take counter measures. Here are some examples of servers that host and track fake torrents:
Tracker 1, Tracker 2, Tracker 3 & Tracker 4. (Screenshots: One & Two)
All the information was provided to me by one of the admins of btjunkie, who works together on this with other torrent site admins. He says that the MPAA and friends use a variety of tactics. The tracker will either stall everyone at around 90% or the content will just be a blank monochrome screen.
“I really think this is being done by professionals with a budget, that’s a lot of servers to setup and it takes some expertise to setup in the manner that they did it,” says the btjunkie admin. “I don’t think I really need to say who would spend money on something like this.”
Here are some good examples of how these fake torrents clutter up the search results. Virtually all of those X marked torrents are coming from the ip-ranges we mentioned, and are fake files. The good thing is that Torrentportal’s report system is well used by their users.
The server boxes that host these torrents fall in serveral ip-ranges. Here are a few of the ranges that were discovered recently. You can easily add these to the blocklist of your torrent client (if it supports one), filewall, or blocklist manager.
The anti-piracy servers use hostnames like 101tracker.dhcp.biz, aplustorrents.qhigh.com, bitnova.squirly.info, bittorment.ocry.com, and pirate-trakkrz.leet.la. All these hostnames can be traced back to the same IP Ranges, these ranges contain possibly hundreds of fake trackers, so feel free to block them:
A list of infohashes of fake torrents can be found over here.
Note that it’s not only MPAA material that is hosted on these fake trackers. It is more likely that the servers are owned and operated by an organization that logs IP addresses for several copyright owners and or anti-piracy organizations.
Update: according to one of out readers these ip-ranges belong to “Media Defender“, a company that is hired by copyright owners, to log IP-addresses. This reader, who worked for Media Defender until recently, confirmed that some of the torrents that were mentioned, are indeed on the MPAA’s list.
Previously: The Pirate Bay: Sponsored by Wal-Mart
Next: The Pirate Bay Wants to Buy Sealand
201 Responses (Add yours or TrackBack)
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 » Show All
Could you clarify the article a little more regarding the fact that the MPAA is taking advantage of aXXo’s excellent reputation in the filesharing community?
Otherwise, it may lead newbies to think that aXXo is somehow connected to the stupid people at the MPAA which he certainly is not. I just wouldn’t want my speeds to go down on the real aXXo torrents - thank you! ;)
( aXXo’s true home is http://www.DarkSideRG.com/ )
I believe a number of the IP addresses mentioned here belong to NetSentry (I’m not sure if or how they might be related to Media Defender though). Some of those addresses are well known about by some, as they are known operators of fake files dissemination on some other networks, in particular FastTrack and WinMX, and quite possibly others too.
I know of methods of identifying them though am not going to mention it here (I wouldn’t want to give them the heads up ;)).
There’s a well-maintained list by some good people @ http://www.winmxworld.com/files/block_list.txt that cover some of those addresses. It could be worth while looking into, particularly the ‘NSC’ ranges.
[quote comment="37897"]doesn’t matter that the content is not real (copyrighted material) it’s the “intent” that would stand up in court. The “intent” of downloading, what was perceived as the copyrighted content by the individual downloading, which constitutes the alleged infringement or crime.[/quote]
And since we have read this article, we can always claim to have known that it was a junk file and were intending to download a junk file we knew was mislabeled as something copyrighted.
You’re conflating a lot of legal concepts.
There is no intent requirement for copyright infringment. None. Not a bit. Innocent infringment might lower damages but it’s not a defense.
The reason they want to tell your ISP that “so-and-so’s IP address tried to download a movie” is to that your ISP will give them the ID of the person behind the IP. (Most ISPs actually have some shred of customer respect and will not do so without, at the least, a subpoena.)
Then when they know you, they sue you and a whole new process begins. Examining hard drives, etc.
This does leave some questions unanswered, like “how can your ISP be compelled to give up your IP if you didn’t infringe anything?” (guess: b/c the standard for disclosure is low and if you’re downloading fake movies a reasonable inference is that you’re donwloading real ones) and “how can they sue you if all you’ve downloaded is fake movies?” (answer: see below + guess: they monitor that IP’s downloads that they know they can compel revelation of identity on and try to find you downloading any actual file anywhere).
And even the fake file is likely copyrighted (the standard is low–what you’re reading right now is copyrighted), although they’re probably not going to pursue you over that.
The music industry has taken advantage of both the artists and the consumer for a long time.
They lived high on the hog as parasites.
Technology both reduces the cost of expands music promotion and delivery.
Their days are numbered.
But they will go down kicking and screaming ( and trying to intimidate others) in their quest to retain their perks.
[quote comment="37897"]doesn’t matter that the content is not real (copyrighted material) it’s the “intent” that would stand up in court. The “intent” of downloading, what was perceived as the copyrighted content by the individual downloading, which constitutes the alleged infringement or crime.
Example: a police woman can pose as a prostitute, the potential customer solicits her for services, hands over the cash, then is arrested for the intent. The police woman is not a real prostitute, nor did she perfomr the service. So, it’s the “intent” of accepting something illegally/illegal, even though the product/service is a fake.[/quote]
There’s a difference though. In the case of prostitution, Solicitation, aka, the act of acquiring, is illegal. Same with drugs. Normally you’re arrested for solicitation of drugs when you’re caught in a sting. Same goes for the dateline things on pedophiles, solicitation of a minor is the normal charge.
However, there is no solicitation of copyrighted material on the books AFAIK. Yes, they can show that you intended to download a copyrighted file, but, the fact is, unless they can prove that you did, they have no case.
Typically, what this allows them to do, is this allows them to go to a judge and get a warrant to search your computer. If they find that you have downloaded illegal movies/music/games/etc then they charge you with copyright infringement and sue you. However, if the only thing you ever tried downloading was their junk file, you make a summary motion to dismiss given that no crime was committed. There’s no such crime as “Attempted Copyright Infringement.” You either do it, or you don’t.
To my knowledge, you can’t copyright “0’s” or the alphabet… but seriously…
Other than protecting the the author’s creative rights, I certainly don’t subscribe to the tactics at subject here. And I question as to who is being protected here… I would suspect the “record/publishing” firms. I think an artist should decide whether their “works” are to be distributed for fees or without fees. Personally, I’ve always felt that all this has been prompted by nervous record firms/middle men, who’s role and importance in the music business has been diminished by the low-cost recording technology currently available to producers and artist, not to mention low cost distribution, promotional (the web) and duplication methods.
Whether this agency is representing the music/movie industry “officially” or has been “hired”, and what legal rights do they have to act as “law enforcement” agents to enforce the law, is what needs more clarification. It’s under this premise that I question the legitimacy of their tactics.
Regarding “intent”, at least in the US, it varies by state, county and local communities as to the variences in the law.
Not in all jurisdictions is “soliciting” the crime they are searching for, because, again, dependent on the jurisdiction, “soliciting” takes on varied definitions relative to what “action” it constitutes. State and local authorities may grant themselves the right to legally “pretent” to solicit in their attempts to curb crime, just as local authorities can decide what type of internet “material” can be viewed in their community. Examples of such autonomy with local jurisdictiona are; whether a decoy prostitute “sticks her head in the window” of an auto is irrelevant in many communities… in the state of Illinois, in certain communities, if you are involved in a “prostitution” solicitation/intent case, your car is impounded, on the spot, and is no longer yours (for a period of time) as you were on public property, the street, when engaging in the “act” of soliciting, or the intent have, sex for hire. In many juriisdictions, as long as the “client” offers money, the decoy can respond with a “price”, once the cash changes hands, it becomes similar to a “binding contract”… a transaction has been made, the crime of “intent” to have sex with the prostitute has been confirmed and proven by the transaction of money.
“intent to commit a crime” and “intent to solicit” are 2 different things… there is the “intent to comit a crime”, and intent relative to “motive”… again, too lengthy to write about the differences here. Be assured that an “intent to solicit” to a minor carries a much lighter sentence than an “intent to commit the crime” you were soliciting for… in other words take action of what one would be soliciting for.
But relative to the subject matter here, whether the “agent”, be it government or private, is offering a download, whether “real” or “fake”, but labeled as “real”, you do not have the right to download the material. And, depending on the circumstances, they do not have to prove that you knew, or didn’t, whether the material was copyrighted in cases where they are labeling, or “promoting”, the material as the copyrighted material (there are many instances where ignorance of the law doesn”t hold up) The intent to breach copyright is when you download or posses or use (or any combination of the 3) the material… read any software user license agreement… it’s pretty clear. I can assure you, that if MS or Adobe assumes you have illegal copies of their apps, they’ll at least send you a stern letter, whether you knowingly have the material or not.
Another reason “intent” is the key here, is because it can eliminate in some cases (for the most part, hopefully!) someone inadvertantly downloading illegaly a copyrighted file. Hence the term… did you do something illegaly “with intention”. That’s why there are different degrees of “murder”/”manslaughter” and corresponding sentences (although, unfortunately, that’s not always ultimately the case!)
I agree, it’s more of a scare tactic, and most lawyers will shy away from these cases as we’re, to a certain degree, in “fuzzy” regions of the law as technology is outpacing the ability of our legislators to think!
Why don’t the big release groups (like ORENJi or aXXo) just sign content that they release with a digital certificate? That way, it would become much easier to identify fake files. It would also kill the old problem where some sleazy script kiddies would copy a release and insert a trojan and re-release it.
Of course, the MAFIAA could always host the real thing from a group with a good reputation and do the 90% thing, but it’d still be a great step to end the ability to put out fake releases.
[quote comment="37951"]
There’s a difference though. In the case of prostitution, Solicitation, aka, the act of acquiring, is illegal. Same with drugs. Normally you’re arrested for solicitation of drugs when you’re caught in a sting. Same goes for the dateline things on pedophiles, solicitation of a minor is the normal charge.
However, there is no solicitation of copyrighted material on the books AFAIK. Yes, they can show that you intended to download a copyrighted file, but, the fact is, unless they can prove that you did, they have no case.
Typically, what this allows them to do, is this allows them to go to a judge and get a warrant to search your computer. If they find that you have downloaded illegal movies/music/games/etc then they charge you with copyright infringement and sue you. However, if the only thing you ever tried downloading was their junk file, you make a summary motion to dismiss given that no crime was committed. There’s no such crime as “Attempted Copyright Infringement.” You either do it, or you don’t.[/quote]
Solicitation is usually the charge because in a “sting” operations typically the crime never occures, consequently, the charge is “solicitation” Sting operations are more of a “preventive” measure of law enforcement, before the real/actual, consequential, crime (damage) occurs.
They can, in most cases, prove a download… that’s not difficult, the “intent” is the trick.
Again, irrelevant whether the content is the real thing or junk, as long as it was advertised, labeled, described, etc. as the “real thing”, and you donwloaded it based on that premise, your “intent” was to download what you thought was “the real thing”, just because you got duped doesn’t mean you’ll get “off the hook” for it. Could you say to the judge “I really wasn’t looking to buy sex from a prostitute, even though I solicited and gave her money, because I didn’t know she was a decoy”? If you purchase “non-licensed”/counterfeit designer labeled clothing, in most jurisdictions you are held, to varrying degrees accountable for possession, as is the merchant for selling.
I assure you, I’m not on the side of MPAA, but having been an artist, both in music and film, I can appreciate some of the concerns.
[quote comment="37873"]No being a lawyer or other form of blood sucking life… here’s my 2ยข ;
I’ve been watching Dateline NBC and they have this sting operation where they get adults to chat with ‘teens’.
The adults ‘THINK’ they are typing to 13 year old girl/boys and the adults describe all the nasty things they want to do to these ‘13′ year kids. Who are actually NOT kids but adults pretending they were kids.
…
So I suspect that if you downloaded a planted movie, if you buy oregano and thought it was pot, you’ll still be arrested for attempted whatever the charge is…
In one state, just chatting with the person you thought was 13 gets you arrested and put on the sexual predator listings…[/quote]
I’m not a laywer either, BUT… There are a few problems with this analogy.
First, it is clear from their conversations with the “children” that there is INTENT to commit a criminal act. The authorities also encourage the perpetrators to ‘bring something along’ to the meeting that further demonstrates their intent to violate one ore more criminal laws.
Second, while recent additions to the copyright laws seek to enforce criminal penalties for ‘willful’ infringement, this area is still pretty much a civil action. (It’s highly doubtful that the MPAA or RIAA will be able to convince law enforcement to take you into custody and charge you with a criminal act just for a single download of what ‘could’ be a copyrighted work.)
Third, downloading a file that contains “Battlestar” in its title, doesn’t necessarily prove intent on the part of the user to commit willful copyright infringement.
I would think that the copyright holders would have to convince the courts that the downloader KNEW they were downloading a copyright work WITHOUT the copyright holder’s permission. (Copyright owner’s frequently place previews of the work up for download (movie previews, webisodes, etc.)
Of course, if you don’t have the time nor the financial fortitude to confront these bullies in a court of law, most of these points are rather moot. More often that not, it is cheaper and easier for the individual to pay the extortion fee, disconnect their internet access, and beat their children within inches of their life for committing such a heinous crime.
Don’t misunderstand me, I make my living developing creative works and find it extremely dispicable for someone to steal something that I’ve put forth much effort into simply because they can. But I find it just as dispicable for our lawmakers (Not just limited to the US, anymore) to grant these bullies what essentially amounts to a free pass for extortion.
“Why don’t the big release groups (like ORENJi or aXXo) just sign content that they release with a digital certificate? That way, it would become much easier to identify fake files.”
nforce.nl
Listen Kids:
It’s simple.
Until something like TOR on STEROIDS is perfected and we have true anonymous p2p, you’re going to have to go ()L|> sk00| — and that is this: NEWSGROUPS.
Yep. They’ve been around and functioning since before most of you peeps probably were out of diapers, and they’re going to likely be around when most of you have your first peeps in diapers.
That being said, go edumacate yourself on what NZBs, Newsgroups and news hosting accounts are. You’ll be (pleasantly) surprised.
Let’s just say I have friends who can get absoutely ANYTHING they want, any time they want, as quickly as they want (surpases torrent speeds, doh!) and it costs them a measley $20 a month for a paid (and legitimate) news account.
Sigh.
If it weren’t for the RIAA and MPAA, you guys would think Kazaa was still the way to go. I hope this has forced you to understand and go BACK to your internet roots. Port 119 for eva, niccas!
This is ridiculous. Lookup who actually owns these addresses: Comcast, PacificNet (Canada), and yes (eek!) some hosting companies in California.
Would you be so paranoid if you weren’t doing something illegal?
You people are stoopid!
Why do you sit here and discuss all the ways that you can track fakes…your just giving your secrets away and allow them to build better fakes.
Stop telling them how your detecting them, you wouldent tell an enemy how you found them would you?
ping #30. the first rule of usenet: don’t talk about usenet. kthxbye.
[quote comment="37888"]Is that kind of like a pedophile hooking up with a teenager to have sex which turns out to be officers setting up a sting?
“Well, ossifer, technically, I didn’t have sex with a 10 year old since there was no actual 10 year old that was present.”[/quote]
Its called entrapment, and very illegal.
9 references to this post
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 » Show All
Add your response