TorrentFreak

The place where breaking news, BitTorrent and copyright collide

Portuguese Government Creates Honeypot To Combat Piracy

Rights holders often take extreme measures to combat piracy, but that a Government institution creates a ‘pirate’ honeypot is quite exceptional. In Portugal, a collaboration between a Ministry of Culture affiliated organization and the local music industry has resulted in a protocol that calls for such a honeypot, in order to shame, scare and threaten those who download music without authorization.

beesAmong file-sharers the term ‘honeypots’ is used to describe sites and services that are specifically set up to lure people into downloading copyrighted files. The label is often applied to suspicious looking sites, but proof of the existence of live honeypots is never provided.

People have alleged that some of the pay-up-or-else lawsuits against BitTorrent users came in part from torrents that were uploaded or seeded by the copyright holders themselves, but this hasn’t been proven either.

This does not mean that honeypots are a myth. Indeed, in Portugal their existence is now confirmed, as a previously held back agreement between the Portuguese Phonographic Association (AFP) and the General Inspection of Cultural Activities (IGAC) reveals. This agreement is of special interest, since the latter organization falls under the Ministry of Culture.

The protocol, which was announced a few weeks ago, was initially framed as an attempt to combat piracy under which AFP would provide ‘anti-piracy’ training to IGAC inspection officers. However, the fact that the actual text of the agreement was never publicized led the Portuguese Pirate Party to believe that something more was going on.

And they were right.

After filing a complaint with the authorities, the protocol was finally released by IGAC, as they are required to do by law. The Pirate Party believes that it was kept a secret for a reason, and after their analysis of the contents this suspicion was strengthened.

Among other things, the agreement promotes a honeypot scheme where the music industry will grant the Government organization the right to upload tracks to file-sharing networks. These ‘traps’ will then be used to collect the IP-addresses of Portuguese file-sharers.

The file-sharers who are caught by this honeypot scheme can expect a notification from their Internet provider, which may eventually lead to a disconnection due to a breach of the terms of service. The sad part about this, is that the evidence that the authorities gather is not very solid.

In the agreement it’s stated that IGAC will rely on screenshots to prove which unauthorized material people are sharing. A rather simplistic and easy to forge method of evidence collection, The Pirate Party commented in their analysis. To prove their point, the Pirates offer a simple PHP script that can generate forged evidence on the fly.

Towards the end of the agreement, it is revealed that the main purpose of the collaboration is to influence public opinion through the media.

“The IGAC and the AFP agreed that the results obtained under this Protocol shall be disseminated to the media, particularly on the enforcement actions taken, the number and type of complaints, the number of notifications sent to ISP’s and other important aspects to achieve the objectives of this Protocol,” it reads.

According to the Pirate Party the Ministry of Culture’s IGAC is acting undemocratically and possibly illegally too, while putting the interests of a few music labels before the rights of individual citizens.

That stings.

Related Posts

Previous Post | Next Post

  • Arb

    first, if they upload it them selves that is BS they can sue you, its like handing your car keys to someone then calling police on them after they leave

  • Arb

    first, if they upload it them selves that is BS they can sue you, its like handing your car keys to someone then calling police on them after they leave

    • Anonymous

      Exactly. If they upload the music themselves, then aren’t they explicitly authorizing people to download it? How can “copyright infringment” be claimed when the copyright holders are giving the tracks away for free?

      Oh wait, that’s right. The honeypot was supposed to be a secret, so nobody would know they were being threatened over downloading music the Portuguese Phonographic Association had actually given them every legal right to download. How classy.

    • Anonymous

      Exactly. If they upload the music themselves, then aren’t they explicitly authorizing people to download it? How can “copyright infringment” be claimed when the copyright holders are giving the tracks away for free?

      Oh wait, that’s right. The honeypot was supposed to be a secret, so nobody would know they were being threatened over downloading music the Portuguese Phonographic Association had actually given them every legal right to download. How classy.

    • http://otester.myopenid.com/ PiRat

      They sue you for uploading it, if you could do it without uploading then technically they couldn’t do anything.

    • http://disqus.com/ Rob8urcakes

      Why should they bother uploading anything when the politicians they’ve paid for COULD simply pass more so-called laws that we’re supposed to respect and adhere to stating,
      “At the very moment of conception (whether or not it leads to the birth of a child) you will be found guilty of copyright infringement and liable to pay the MAFIAA everything they so desire and demand until your death.”

      Seems like a simpler method of getting our ‘legitimate business’ to me.

    • Whatever

      No, it’s more like giving you a copy of the car itself (not just the keys).

    • Whatever

      No, it’s more like giving you a copy of the car itself (not just the keys).

  • Guest

    someone should configure a linux box to masqurade as a fake ip address, then connect to the honeypot. Then the linux box should loop through all combinations of ip addresses, therefore making the honeypot’s data completely worthless. Epic lulz to be had if they released data that 12125% of the world’s population pirates music/movies/programs/data etc.

  • Guest

    someone should configure a linux box to masqurade as a fake ip address, then connect to the honeypot. Then the linux box should loop through all combinations of ip addresses, therefore making the honeypot’s data completely worthless. Epic lulz to be had if they released data that 12125% of the world’s population pirates music/movies/programs/data etc.

    • Anonymous

      When I used to run a tracker (many moons ago), I used to run two on the same address. I would separate out all the known-bad addresses (mostly by using the PG2 blocklists along with some custom code which looked for multiple connections from the same IP address with incremental port numbers) and place them on the background tracker. They effectively ended up in their own little swarm and only ever received peer lists consisting of other trackers on their network.

      It worked a treat, and it kept the real swarms relatively free of fake peers and bad data.

      • Anonymous

        Oops, my mistake.

        Correction:

        “consisting of other trackers” == “consisting of other peers”

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_KYCXNFOAVZHOU3YCMAQDGWWTTA cuebert1981

    in my opion if they did not want us to download they never shoud have uploaded its ripe for the taking piss on goverment

  • Anonymous

    Hang on a minute.

    “the music industry will grant the Government organization the right to upload tracks to file-sharing networks”

    Doesn’t this mean that the tracks are being released with permission and carry the blessing of the industry, and therefore that downloading them is therefore perfectly acceptable? Especially if they are known to have been released with said permission (which if they are on a ‘government tracker’ or otherwise identified as being ‘government releases’ will certainly be the case)?

    • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_PFCI5VRUCYT6AVBT3P6ILV3COI Ophelia Millais

      By law, infringement occurs whenever a copy is made of an original work without license from the copyright owner. It’s likely that they would reply to your defense by claiming that if you downloaded the file, then infringement has still taken place, since their permission was only granted to this one uploader for their role in enabling a copy to be obtained on demand; no permission was granted to the downloader for their role in causing the copy to be made.

      • Anonymous

        “permission was only granted to this one uploader for their role in enabling a copy to be obtained on demand”.

        So ‘making available’ does not constitute an offer or incitement?

        That’s good to know. I guess all those “Don’t download this unless you have the legal right to do so” notices we see everywhere are valid then.

        Another point which I think will cause problems is, if the tracks are made available, and if they are obviously provided on, or by, or linked from, a government-controlled site or account then I find it very hard to believe that any sane court or jury would find anyone guilty.

        “The government provided it,freely, and in a public place. How was I to know they didn’t want anyone to download it?”

        And if by some insane reasoning they did manage to find a defendant guilty I’d be taking it all the way to the ECJ and EHCR.

        This how ‘honeypot’ idea is so obviously going to backfire on both the music industry and the government at some point. I wait with anticipation to enjoy the show, and the media circus that will undoubtedly surround it.

        • Pietra Ahead

          ‘…I find it very hard to believe that any sane court or jury would find anyone guilty.’
          If you know a little about justice in Portugal you’ll doubt about that!
          In Portugal, my country as a matter of fact, the real guilty leave the courts on parole, cause they have money and social position, alied to political connections (don’t matter what)!
          In my country tap recordings are court ordered to be destroyed when some politician asshole is envolved or even mentioned on!
          In my country the people are considered guilty on the media before the proper trial takes place, just to serve the interests of a few!
          In my country the judges ‘sleep’ in the same dirty bed as the politicians, all along with the economic agents, but the one who is ‘screwed’ is the PEOPLE!
          In my humble opinion, my country is just READY for a proper REVOLUTION!

        • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_PFCI5VRUCYT6AVBT3P6ILV3COI Ophelia Millais

          Copyright law is written such that the determination of whether you infringed is independent of whether you knew, considered, or guessed the work’s copyright status. So if you were to claim “because this authorized distributor made it available, I thought I had permission”, they could just say, “it doesn’t matter.” Even if it did matter, you’d be implying that you knew that if anyone else had made it available, you wouldn’t have had permission to download. So you’d have to prove that you knew it was coming from the honeypot at the time you started the download. More than likely, the honeypot won’t be obvious; it’ll be made to look like any other peer. IANAL though, and I don’t know if Portugal has judicial precedent or variations in their law that would affect things.

        • Anonymous

          You keep speaking of ‘copyright law’. Can we assume that you mean a specific law, in a specific country. Given the topic here, it’s probably reasonable to assume that you mean Portugal. What is their plan for catching me and prosecuting people who are outside Portugal?

          As for “because this authorized distributor made it available, I thought I had permission” implying “that I knew that if anyone else had made it available, I wouldn’t have had permission to download” is both nonsense and irrelevant.

          How would I assume that?

          If they stuck a label on it saying “Only this torrent, from here, is a legal distribution” then maybe you might have a point, but that in itself is implicit authorisation to download.

          If the authorised distributor made it available then they made it available. If I get it from them, then they gave it to me. Simply as that.

          “So you’d have to prove that you knew it was coming from the honeypot at the time you started the download” is also false. I’d only have to know that they’d started the distribution, after that it’s out in the wild, with implicit permission.

          Really, have you and they not thought this through. People from *all*over*the*world* will be on these torrents, not just the Portuguese. What is their plan for containment? As far as I can see it would be impossible to restrict the data transfer to only those in Portgual. Even if the initial seeder did manage to do so, which is technically feasible, all the other peers will simply distribute the data between themselves and outside of the control of the ‘honeypot’.

          This project has FAIL written all over it.

        • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_PFCI5VRUCYT6AVBT3P6ILV3COI Ophelia Millais

          I’m only relying on the PPP rant linked to from this article, but the AFP-IGAC protocol apparently only speaks of “P2P services” in general, not BitTorrent, specifically. So it may be assuming too much to think that they’re focusing on BitTorrent.

          I doubt they’re so naive as to believe that they’d be able to contain distribution. They don’t care about that. They’re just out to punish downloaders of specific content from IGAC agents. This, and the fact that the ‘punishment’ is merely the threat of terminating the downloaders’ ISP accounts, undermines their moral position; they’re effectively admitting that the content has no monetary value in this marketplace, and that it’s not about the money. Also clearly it’s ridiculous for them to think that disconnecting even a few thousand downloaders is anything more than pissing into the wind.

          Anyway, their plan is doomed to fail for many reasons, but not because of the soundness of the argument that “it was OK for the agents to upload, therefore it must be OK for me to download.” As much sense as that excuse makes to you, it’s not taking into account the letter of the law, which is what matters in court. How many buyers of drugs from undercover cops would love to get off the hook with the argument “the cop was authorized to give it to me, so I must be authorized to receive it!”

          And of course I’m speaking of the law. You expect to go into court and argue a case without taking into account the letter of the law? I can only guess about the peculiarities of the Portuguese system, but copyright law is pretty similar in most countries, because they’re all party to the same international conventions (Berne, etc.) which commit those countries to enacting legislation that embodies certain principles. Naturally, there are differences in both statutory and case law from country to country, some of them significant (e.g., exemptions for private copying, and how long works are protected), but for the purposes of determining whether infringement has occurred, they’re mostly the same: there’s a reproduction right, and a separate distribution right. If a copy of an original work was made without ‘license’, and it wasn’t an exempted situation (Fair Use, non-first-sale, exempted work, whatever), then whoever made the copy has infringed the reproduction right, period. If they distributed the copy without license, then they infringed the distribution right. The AFP probably granted both rights to the IGAC. They haven’t granted any such rights to any other parties, and from their point of view, the law is on their side in saying that the downloaders didn’t have explicit permission for their role in infringing the reproduction right. You and the PPP are claiming that the technical requirements of P2P services prevent the separation of the distribution right from the reproduction right, that an upload can’t occur without a download, so authorizing one means authorizing both. AFAIK, the law doesn’t say that; instead, there’s a body of case law (in countries where that matters) where judges and juries have come down on one side or the other for specific situations. Nothing’s impossible, but it’s foolish to assume that a court would hear your argument and would have no choice but to opt for a loose interpretation of the law, when the default is a strict interpretation.

        • Anonymous

          You keep speaking of ‘copyright law’. Can we assume that you mean a specific law, in a specific country. Given the topic here, it’s probably reasonable to assume that you mean Portugal. What is their plan for catching me and prosecuting people who are outside Portugal?

          As for “because this authorized distributor made it available, I thought I had permission” implying “that I knew that if anyone else had made it available, I wouldn’t have had permission to download” is both nonsense and irrelevant.

          How would I assume that?

          If they stuck a label on it saying “Only this torrent, from here, is a legal distribution” then maybe you might have a point, but that in itself is implicit authorisation to download.

          If the authorised distributor made it available then they made it available. If I get it from them, then they gave it to me. Simply as that.

          “So you’d have to prove that you knew it was coming from the honeypot at the time you started the download” is also false. I’d only have to know that they’d started the distribution, after that it’s out in the wild, with implicit permission.

          Really, have you and they not thought this through. People from *all*over*the*world* will be on these torrents, not just the Portuguese. What is their plan for containment? As far as I can see it would be impossible to restrict the data transfer to only those in Portgual. Even if the initial seeder did manage to do so, which is technically feasible, all the other peers will simply distribute the data between themselves and outside of the control of the ‘honeypot’.

          This project has FAIL written all over it.

  • Krow

    Isn’t this considered Entrapment?

    “Hey big boy, want to have some fun?”
    *Reach in pocket for Cell phone*
    “DOWN ON THE GROUND!!!”

  • Marcus

    I assume there’s no such thing as entrapment in Portuguese law then.
    I also can’t see how offering their stuff for free then accusing the people who take it is going to win public support.
    Surely it’s the sort of underhand and sneaky trick that could easily set people against them.

    • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_PFCI5VRUCYT6AVBT3P6ILV3COI Ophelia Millais

      This doesn’t affect your point, but entrapment involves the state inducing someone to commit a crime they wouldn’t have committed otherwise. Giving someone the opportunity to infringe copyright by putting something copyrighted right in front of them is not entrapment. Making it difficult or impossible for them not to commit the infringement would be. This is why in the U.S. there are TV shows like “Bait Car”.

      • Marcus

        You might have a point there, the means are a lot sneakier than just parking a car in a high crime area but like you say, there is no actual inducement to download the IP.
        However I do find it hard to understand how they cannot be said to have legally distributed their IP via torrent and therefore anyone who downloads it does so with the IP owners implied permission.
        I know which way I would vote if it were left up to me in a trial.

        I guess that’s why they will just rely on ISPs to do the dirty work rather than the courts.

        • Anonymous

          “implied permission.”

          That’s the one. As long as it’s known that the torrent was released by the government then I don’t see how that ‘implied permission’ isn’t a reasonable defence.

        • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_PFCI5VRUCYT6AVBT3P6ILV3COI Ophelia Millais

          I’m just not convinced that any permission was implied. The technology involved is a red herring. I’m never authorized to give or receive certain kinds of drugs, but if an undercover cop is authorized to give me the same drugs for the purpose of getting me in trouble, then it doesn’t follow that I’m authorized to receive them, just because the act of him giving them to me can’t be separated from the act of me receiving them.

      • BogeyBear

        Where we put line here, “Bait women, Bait child, Bait politic”… so some one can lure unstable essence out, is it fair (well life is not fair). Can we call it “Conspiracy Against Citizen” if Govt. allow it happen?
        And what happen if there is hundred thousands BogeyBears like me who like honey… where is that Pot, I want that honey… 8-P

  • No

    The government gives a shit about this, as they have much more important things to take care now. This is just something to make the industry happy, so they don’t complaint about the laws on piracy not being enforced.

    I actually do not worry about this, and they even say to us that this really exists and don’t pick you by surprise.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_RRYM2J7GCHAQQPDQVWCXGOIPXI Crafty

    Welcome to blocklists Guys!

    • http://otester.myopenid.com/ PiRat

      That’s going to get you sued.

      Stop being cheap and get a VPN.

  • http://www.facebook.com/honoriopedro João Carlos Honório Pedro

    Portuguese man here, and I be lolin’. First Spain, now us. Then again, our gov DID let the US use one of our bases for transfer of Guantanamo prisoners “off the record”.

  • Violated

    The wonders of entrapment.

    Since these uploads were done approved then people cannot be punished for downloading them.

    No court around would see this scheme as valid when it is only entrapment.

    I can only wonder what moron thought up this scheme.

    • sherboil

      You know, whether you like piracy or not…this is as much “entrapment” as a sting op or a bait car.

      • Scary Devil Monastery

        No, not really. It’s much like a sting op where the “evidence” you gather is a hand-drawn crayon made of the license plate someone thought they saw on the car the accused person was driving – without providing any further satisfactory evidence as to the identity of the presumed perpetrator.

        Honestly, if that’s the criteria you set for jurisprudence why don’t i just tell the government you “stole” my car and they should send some cops over to seize the one in your driveway?

      • Boil Cher

        No, it’s different, because taking a bait car would be stealing, but we’re talking about copyright infringement. They’re about as similar as a paediatrician and a paedophile.

        • Fk

          “…They’re about as similar as a paediatrician and a paedophile.”

          SHIT THEY AIN’T THE SAME?!!!

          I better opt-out of the paediatrician education! Thank you for informing me, almost made a serious mistake there!

      • Anonymous

        Or maybe like that police officer who once played an unconscious drunk tramp on a New York tube station with a gold watch hanging out of his pocket. Many did take it and were arrested. The court did rule it was unlawful entrapment.

        In this case if they upload it to a public file distribution system then it will be… distributed. They and the copyright holder would have gave permission to do this making it a case of non-infringement. Then they try to blame and punish others for what they did.

        Doomed to fail. Doomed to fail.

  • Vpnfreak

    Solution: VPN in another country. If I understand correctly, they will only go after Portuguese downloaders… If this is the case, a VPN hosted in another country would solve the problem.

    • Anonymous

      Always go over the borders, also for a seedbox for example. Pay them with unregistered paypal accounts! But if they catch that IP in that country they still have to file international requests and lawsuits. Anyway who cares, IP addresses are not proof. I suggest we all set up a linux box and have it cycle through all existing IP’s on all possible swarms.

  • Pingback: Portuguese Government Creates Honeypot To Combat Piracy - Torrent Invites - Get your free private torrent tracker invites!

  • uhbo

    So… they’ve resort to fighting dirty

  • uhbo

    In the agreement it’s stated that IGAC will rely on screenshots to prove which unauthorized material people are sharing
    I have a screenshot to prove one of their ministers download pirated gay donkey porn

  • uhbo

    In the agreement it’s stated that IGAC will rely on screenshots to prove which unauthorized material people are sharing
    I have a screenshot to prove one of their ministers download pirated gay donkey porn

  • Anonymous

    This is aimed at Portuguese citizens and Portuguese ISPs isn’t it? So what about people who download these files from other countries?

    Have they taken into account that the network is global and that these files will almost certainly make it outside Portugal? How will that help them combat file sharing?

    They may, of course, use fake or dummy files, but they won’t last long before being flagged as such and abandoned.

    And if they do use fakes, is any law has being broken by someone who downloads them?

    And if someone outside Portugal does download them, fake or otherwise, and then gets prosecuted what will the courts in their own country say when it transpires that the files were originally made available by the Portuguese government, and that the rights-holder were complicit to that act?

    This whole scheme seems to be built on fail, and reminds me of the tactics that Media Defender used to use.

    • Anonymous

      Yeah someone could download them in the Netherlands where that is legal and make a new torrent. Takes 5 minutes.

  • None

    Remember Miivi? Those dumbasses couldn’t even hide the registration correctly! Would be funny to know what that assclown Randy is up to these days. Probably spending his days talking retarded kids into the back of his van with the promise of free candy.

  • http://twitter.com/uJonesing Utah Jones

    If government uses my tax dollars to buy music with the intent to disseminate to the public…

    … then does that not mean that I own a share in said file?

    • Handclown

      exactly the point that some made. not without merit, owning culture

  • Tron

    It’s like fishing with bait, you’ll catch something eventually. It seems to me that they are the real uploaders of pirated material, maybe they also run top sites…..who knows? Anyhow, if sites that link to pirated material can earn money from advertising, why don’t they make a site with original material, that can be downloaded for free, and make money from advertising? It’s the same principle….. so in conclusion, they don’t want to stop piracy, cause with piracy comes money. You don’t make a car to last 50 years without needing a repair, cause the money is in parts, not the car itself.

  • Pingback: Portugal crea un Honeypot para combatir la piratería en Bitelia (Internet)

  • John von Neumann

    That is most certainly illegal.
    If it happened to my site I would Jared Loughner the corrupt cunt responsible.

  • Pingback: Netzwelt-Ticker: Schadsoftware-Alarm im Android Market | Flash News

  • Public Domain

    Well, if the copyright owners give away music to the government, specifically to be disseminated to the population (for free), then in effect the music is given away to the public domain. It’s a donation. A gift. Charity…

  • Pingback: Portugal tiende una trampa a los usuarios P2P | ReadWriteWeb España

  • Anonymous

    lol, all the more reason to mask your real IP address in anything you do online. Let them chase ghosts :)

    http://www.Privacy-Web.tk

    • We Hate Spam

      Hey! Spammy!

      fsck off with it.

  • Anonymous

    They are only going to catch Swedish IP’s from Ipredator anyway.

  • http://twitter.com/SmoothMarx SmoothMarx

    So if their only evidence is a screenshot of the filenames you’re sharing, if one is to change the files name to something legitimate, then we’re off the hook, no?

    Kinda like swtiching the plates on the car my “old friend” gave me the keys before calling the cops.

  • http://twitter.com/SmoothMarx SmoothMarx

    So if their only evidence is a screenshot of the filenames you’re sharing, if one is to change the files name to something legitimate, then we’re off the hook, no?

    Kinda like swtiching the plates on the car my “old friend” gave me the keys before calling the cops.

  • Timkuik

    Wonder where my cockbuddy Tim ‘noBrein’ Kuik says about all this.

  • MoPortuguese

    I am Portuguese, using 100MB fibre class without limits…( yea Canadian, i mean, NO LIMITS).
    This all star with the delivery of more of 1000ip`s, allegedly of downloads by pirates.
    This was made by a Portuguese association of Videoclub`s (kind of Blocbusters).However, things star badly for them, because the catch of IP`s, violates the rights of Portuguese citizens.
    Almost like someone open a letter, read it, looking for anything or something illegal…
    Result:
    Probably this association will have legal problems, for violation of constitutional rights, like the right of privacy, and use of illegally software to do it …lolol

    This is all a bluff to scare those who don`t understand nothing about internet, laws, or how the things work …….
    Except people making money with piracy, nobody has ever, or can be arrested…..
    I love Europe, i love my internet, i love my speed internet freedom!!

    Oy yieee! GGGGGggggggigasssss! :)))))

  • Anonymous

    Bluff or not, this “entrapment” they are thinking about, or trying to do, is probably also illegal in some ways. As for the association (ACAPOR), they are screwed because they had no legal right to do what they did so those IP’s are probably going down the toilet.

  • Rickcain2320

    So if they offer a real file in a honeypot, they’re essentially giving it to you for free which wouldn’t be illegal.

    If they offer a fake file in a honeypot, they’re giving you nothing which is not illegal either.

  • Johndue

    Does this affect popular services that are outside of portugal but do operate in portugal.

    RS, MU, HF, ETC…

  • Pingback: Portugal crea un Honeypot para combatir la piratería « BN

  • Pingback: Portugal crea un Honeypot para combatir la piratería | SOLO INFORMATICA, POR MANUEL MURILLO GARCIA

  • Pingback: Online Global Week in Review 4 March 2011 from IP Think Tank

  • Bocas

    I’m Portuguese as well and there are some points that most people here are missing (due to different laws).

    The most serious crime regarding piracy in Portugal (and UE for that matter) is distribution. This means that if the IGAC has permission to distribute, then the downloads are perfectly legal and no one can be charged. If they don’t, well, then they’re the ones committing the crime.
    It’s the same as buying stollen goods. Here no one is guilty, unless they can prove the buyer was aware that the goods where stollen. If anyone happens to buy a stollen computer, the only thing they can do is take that computer back.
    That’s why in europe they go after trackers, like PirateBay or BTtuga/BTNext (portuguese trackers) and not after downloaders.

    There are also laws about negligence that say that if you don’t try to protect your assets, then your are also partially guilty and becomes much more difficult to sue others.
    I.e. if you willingly give your car keys to someone you think is a thief, without any kind of threat from him, then you cannot sue him, not even file a complaint against him.
    So, if they give music away to be stollen, then they are neglecting their rights.

    Finally, the only ones that can legally use “traps” to get to criminals are the police. No one else, not even the government, can do that. And even the police needs a court order, clearly stating what they can and can’t do. And to get that court order they have to obtain previous evidence against a person, a group or an entity.
    That’s why even recordings of politicians talking about their crimes where orderer to be destroyed by the court itself. Because the police didn’t have permission to tap their phones.

    As you can see, even the law is not on their side. The only people that can actually be arrested are the ones that distribute with intent of profit, like selling copies of DVDs on the streets. And even them have to be caught red handed by the police.

    So tough luck!

    PS: If they really try to come after my IP adress, I hope they enjoy the trip to Seychelles. :p

  • Pingback: tugaleaks.com: Portuguese Government Creates Honeypot To Combat Piracy

  • Pingback: ZWAMEcast #89 — Grossura menor que zero | ZWAME Podcasts

  • Pingback: Portugal infiltrará archivos en redes P2P para denunciar a los usuarios que los descarguen - Ofertas ADSL

  • BTGuard - BitTorrent Anonymously

NewsBits

Even more news...

  • Blu-ray Anti-Piracy Tech Stops Discs and Promotes Purchases

    An anti-piracy system present in all official Blu-ray players since 2012 has received a fresh update...

  • Foxtel Breeds Pirates by Locking Up Game of Thrones

    One of the main reasons why people turn to piracy is the lack of legal alternatives....

  • UK Student Admits Breaching Sony Copyrights With Leak of PS3 SDK

    Last year an Internet user known as El Nomeo leaked version 3.70 of Sony’s Playstation3 SDK...

  • Pirates Can Be Identified Despite Sharing IP Addresses, ISP Claims

    Carrier-Grade Network Address Translation is a network mechanism through which many Internet subscribers can share the...

  • Feds Seize Cash from Major Bitcoin Exchange’s Dwolla Account

    The U.S. Government has taken a significant action against the web’s top Bitcoin exchange by seizing...

MostDiscussed

Below are TorrentFreak's most discussed articles of the past month. Join the discussion if you like.

CopyQuote

Left Quote

“The Pirate Bay has been one of the most important movements in Sweden for freedom of speech, working against corruption and censorship.

Peter Sunde Left Quote

PopularArticles

A selection of some TorrentFreak's classics dug up from our archives.