With the advent of companies such as Rightscorp, however, demands for cash settlement now regularly arrive via email. While some recipients treat these emails as spam, they are sent by a legitimate company acting on behalf of genuine rightsholders. Whether people should pay up on presentation of a mere email is a personal matter, but there are some instances in which no payment should ever be considered.

During the past several days there have been increasing reports of Internet users in Germany receiving cash demands for alleged copyright infringement. The emails detail alleged piracy offenses on tracks from Jay-Z, R Kelly, James Blunt, Bullet for My Valentine, and metal bands Sepultura and Children of Bodom, to name just a few.

It’s a very big operation indeed. According to lawyer Christian Solmecke, a lawyer who regularly defends in piracy cases, up to 30,000 individuals are affected, with many calling his offices for legal advice.

But while the emails say they are being sent on behalf of a range of rightsholders from EMI, Sony, and Warner Bros. to DreamWorks and Paramount Pictures, drilling down into the details reveals the whole operation as a huge scam.

The ‘settlement’ mails demand between 200 and 500 euros within 48 hours to make potential lawsuits go away. One reads:

This is a warning because of your violation of § 19a of the Copyright Act on 07.06.2014. The music album ‘Bullet For My Valentine – Temper Temper’ was downloaded from your IP address 8.149.94.13 at 3:40:24.

For details see the attached document XXXXXXXXX.zip

As can be predicted from the final line, the real plan is to trick recipients into opening a file apparently containing details about their case, but which in fact carries a suspected trojan.

“It is very likely that the zip file contains a virus, designed to spy on credit card and account information. The floodgates would then be opened to online banking fraud and identity theft,” Solmecke warns.

“For this reason, all users that have opened the ZIP file attachment should check their PC immediately with a virus scanner and install the security updates for their anti-virus software,” the lawyer concludes.

Finally, by including legitimate law firms’ contact details in the emails, specifically companies that are involved in the settlement business already, the scammers are using a particularly crafty technique to come across as genuine. One lawfirm, Sasse & Partner, was forced to issue a statement denying involvement in the scheme.

“The ‘warnings’ are sent under the name of our lawyer Jan Spieldenner. The perpetrator or perpetrators are apparently making use of the fact that our firm regularly sends warnings on behalf of various clients and has thereby acquired a certain reputation. We point out that the warnings provided by us are never sent as a zip file,” the company explains.

Quite how many people will actually pay up on receipt of such an email is unknown, but by sending out tens of thousands it seems likely that a few will. At the full 500 euro rate, just a couple of dozen ‘settlements’ will net a sizable amount of cash – as ‘genuine’ copyright trolls know only too well.

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

While England basked in its somewhat traditional World Cup disappointment Thursday, viewing records were being broken, but amazingly while Brazil sizzles, some want to pour cold water on the excitement.

Allow us to introduce MarkScan, a self-described “consulting boutique dedicated to your IP requirements”. The anti-piracy company is based in India and boasts a wide range of clients including the BBC, HBO, Nokia, and other prestigious brands.

Just recently MarkScan has been doing some work for Multi Screen Media Pvt. Ltd, a Sony Entertainment Television subsidiary in India. In June, Multi Screen Media launched LIV Sports, a digital sports entertainment site that was chosen by FIFA to be the official mobile and Internet broadcaster for the 2014 World Cup.

This week, MarkScan set off on an inevitable DMCA takedown spree to protect its clients’ and FIFA’s rights. What a disaster it’s been.

Much like FIFA, MarkScan began by sending its first batch of copyright complaints to Google several days before a ball had even been kicked. The notice, which covered 46 domains allegedly streaming the World Cup, was 100% rejected by Google.

One of the complaints targeted a great article by GigaOM which helpfully offered “Where to watch the 2014 FIFA World Cup live online, and how to stream it without cable.” The article listed all legal sources, including ESPN, across several countries.

Several subsequent takedown notices targeting more than 700 other URLs saw between 90% and 100% of URLs rejected by Google. One of them was nothing short of a disaster.

The notice, sent on behalf of Sony’s Liv Sports via Multi Screen Media, targeted 610 URLs, all of which were rejected by Google. All were claimed to be infringing on Liv Sports’ and FIFA’s rights, yet what the notice actually did was target some of the web’s most respectable news sites and resources.

In the article titled “World Cup 2014: How to watch across BBC TV, radio and online”, the BBC attempted to inform its millions of readers how to legitimately access the World Cup. However, as can be seen from the image below, MarkScan had other ideas.

Sadly, this attempted takedown of a purely informational and entirely legal article wasn’t the only casualty of this notice.

An article published by Variety informing its readership that ESPN would be streaming all 64 matches was deemed to be copyright-infringing too, as was a similar attempt by Canada’s CBC.ca.

Other catastrophes would be amusing if they weren’t so awful, such as the attempt to censor this article on Bleacher Report which advised how to watch Uruguay versus Germany – a match from FIFA World Cup 2010 four years ago.

Also targeted was this 2013 article from Hollywood Reporter which detailed plans by Sony (ironically) and FIFA to broadcast the World Cup 2014 in Ultra HD. FoxSports’ interactive World Cup Schedule was also marked as infringing. Both are shown below.

Even legitimate traditional broadcasters couldn’t get the word out unhindered. Communications company Cox wanted to let its residential customers know they could “Watch the World’s Biggest Soccer Games. Any Way You Want” but MarkScan told Google the page was illegal.

The whole notice, which can be read here, has many more examples than those listed above, including the attempted censorship of EA Sports’ Twitter account and FIFA’s very own site – for FIFA Futsal World Cup Thailand 2012. Brilliant.

But, in its own unique way, one takedown is more disappointing than most.

In a post dated June 9, before the World Cup had even begun, Symantec tried to inform its readers on how to avoid various World Cup related scams. We don’t need to tell you what happened to it.

TorrentFreak contacted MarkScan whose Internet Enforcement Team told us they take care to avoid mistakes.

“We want to assure you that we deploy technology, in addition to best efforts of our teams, to ensure that we do not impact legal content on yours, or any other website,” they explained.

We suspect someone could be seeing at least a yellow card, possibly worse, in the days to come.

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

Needless to say there is plenty of interest in the BitTorrent brand, and in some cases this demand is being exploited by third-party companies. One of the outfits that has operated in this space is the German-based Bittorrent Marketing GMBH.

The company owns the German and European trademark for Bittorrent and has several related domain names such as Bit-Torent.com, Bit-Torrent.com and Bitorrent.net. These domains have been mainly used for advertising, pointing people to paid products.

This has been a thorn in the side for BitTorrent Inc. who launched a lawsuit against its German nemesis two years ago. Since the German company and its owner Harald Hochmann failed to respond in court, BitTorrent is moving for a default judgment. In a filing submitted this week they demand $5.8 million in damages.

“BitTorrent filed this action to put an end to Defendant’s use of BitTorrent’s trademarks to promote what Defendant touts as an ‘advertising affiliate program’ used to ‘post ads and earn commissions..’,” the company explains.

According to the complaint the sites don’t link people to the free software, but to sites where people have to pay for a mere redirection to third-party services.

“For example, after paying over $50 to sign up for ultimate-downloadscenter.com, U.S. users are redirected to third-party websites of other digital media providers, like Netflix.com and Hulu.com, and invited to sign up for membership with those services.”

These “scams” are a problem for BitTorrent Inc. as they reflect negatively on the company’s brand. However, there is another issue with the domains. Since the German company owns a lot of domains based on misspellings, they occasionally get emails that are intended for the U.S. company.

“Hochmann admitted that his company registered many misspellings of BITTORRENT as or as part of domain names, and that, as a result of registering these domain names, he was able to intercept internal emails of BitTorrent when employees and executives of BitTorrent misspelled “bittorrent” in typing the domain name,” the company explains in its motion.

Among other emails, the owner of Bittorrent Marketing GMBH obtained internal financial projections from early 2008. Based on this intercepted communication Hochmann allegedly suggested that BitTorrent Inc. should buy the German company for millions of dollars.

Through the U.S. federal court BitTorrent Inc. now hopes to obtain an injunction against its German namesake. In their motion for summary judgment they demand a total of $5.8 million in damages and in addition BitTorrent Inc. wants ownership of all the BitTorrent related domain names.

“BitTorrent requests an award of statutory damages in the amount of $100,000 per domain name for each of the 58 Infringing Domain Names identified in the accompanying memorandum of points and authorities, for a total statutory damages award of $5,800,000.”

Interestingly, while Hochmann and his company failed to respond to the complaint in court, he did release a long statement and supporting documents which are available via the Bittorrent.eu domain.

In the statement Hochmann details his version of the dispute, which started more than a decade ago. Among other things, he disputes that he offered BitTorrent Inc. the opportunity to buy his company for millions, and he points to domain disputes his company won in the past against BitTorrent Inc.

Talking to TorrentFreak, Hochmann said that in a week or two he will issue a more detailed response explaining why not he, but BitTorrent Inc. are the “scammers.”

For the U.S. case this may be too late, due to the lack of response in the past it’s likely that the default judgment will be entered. It’s now up to the judge to decide what the exact punishment should be.

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

Hollywood and the record labels set out to achieve their aims not be force, but by cooperation. Deals, such as the six-strikes scheme and efforts at strangling the advertising finances of ‘pirate’ sites, have proven relatively easy to reach and are even gaining approval from former SOPA rivals.

Online gaming giant Zynga, the outfit behind games including Farmville, ZyngaPoker and Mafia Wars, came out in 2012 as a SOPA opponent due to concerns that it could “freeze innovation” and damage the Internet. But now the company is joining its former pro-SOPA adversaries in championing voluntary anti-piracy initiatives.

Working together is easier than dealing with Congress

In an interview preceding his appearance at the Anti-Piracy & Content Protection Summit this June, Ted Hasse, Corporate Counsel IP at Zynga, has underlined the importance of a cooperative approach to dealing with piracy.

“[Cooperation] seems to be the best avenue for the greatest results on the largest
scale in the near term. In the last year, voluntary agreements for best practices have been hot with major activity among all industry-leading ISPs, payment processors, and ad networks,” Hasse explains.

“Legislation is slow. Voluntary agreements happen much faster.”

As an example of how stakeholders can work together, Hasse cites work by the Department of Commerce’s Internet Policy Task Force on how best to handle the millions of DMCA notices being issued everyday. With legislation off the table, working both cooperatively and voluntarily is the sole solution.

“The only path for DMCA reform in 2014 is through a process like this since nothing could make it through Congress,” he notes.

Hitting torrent and file-hosting sites, no laws required

Hasse says that while torrent and file-hosting sites still represent today’s biggest anti-piracy challenge, voluntary agreements are beginning to make their mark.

“Legitimate ad networks and payment processors are cutting off the money streams for pirate sites through voluntary commitment to the IAB’s best practices for combating piracy and the IACC Payment Processor Initiative, and it didn’t take a new laws, law enforcement or litigation,” the counsel says.

However, while “legitimate” advertisers can indeed be leaned on, less scrupulous companies are willing to take up the slack. These can generate decent revenues too, as Zynga knows only too well – in 2009 the company admitted making millions from scammy advertising, something pirate sites are being accused of today.

Turning a blind eye to infringement has its consequences

Citing the 2013 cases against both isoHunt and Hotfile, Hasse says that while turning a blind eye to infringement might lead to sites enjoying good growth, there comes a time when they have to account for their behavior.

“When a platform is willing to accommodate the infringing activity they get big and it eventually becomes too hard to avoid having to defend their practices in the
light of day,” Hasse says.

“And when that happens these platforms are not coming out on top, their practices have to change or their entire services are being disrupted, and I’m not convinced it’s that easy for would-be infringers to just move on to the next place to find pirated content.”

Getting harder to find infringing content

It’s a controversial assertion, but Hasse believes that it’s actually getting harder for people to find pirated content online.

“While years ago I think many or most people could easily find pirated content on the Internet, today I suspect many users don’t know where to find exactly what they want conveniently, so when a major site shutters or changes its practices to disallow infringing activity, many users are actually downloading less pirated content or stop altogether rather than finding a new channel,” he concludes.

Old rivals finding common ground

Two years ago rivals on both side of the SOPA debate could not have been further apart, yet now there appears to be growing consensus between stakeholders on how to achieve the same kinds of goals without causing anywhere near as much offense. As a result, also absent are many of the outrageous headlines that accompanied the often hyper-aggressive actions of Hollywood and the record labels.

Doing anti-piracy work this way, quietly, means there is far less opposition and much less controversy. And by having voluntary agreements in place that don’t involve breaking the Internet, the public (and potential dissent) is effectively taken out of the equation.

Photo: Flazingo Photos

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

Last month, for example, a report backed by the entertainment industries claimed that 90 percent of the top pirate sites link to malware or other unwanted software. In addition, two-thirds of the websites were said to link to credit card scams.

Helped by these numbers, copyright holders and anti-piracy groups are now framing torrent sites, streaming hubs and cyberlockers as a cyber threat. This presents them with a new angle to urge lawmakers to target these sites and services.

Last week the Senate Homeland Security & Government Affairs Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations organized a hearing on the “hidden hazards” of online adverting. For the MPAA, this offered an ideal opportunity to chime in with their piracy angle.

“As the Senators consider steps to address the safety and security of online advertisements, we hope they will also examine the extensive growth of these hazards on sites that offer infringing movies, television shows and other creative content,” MPAA writes.

The MPAA notes that several recent reports pointed out how these pirate sites are rife with malicious ads and urges lawmakers to take steps to address the issue. Not for Hollywood’s financial benefit, but to protect Americans from malware and scams.

“As the Subcommittee considers steps to address the safety and security of online advertisements, we urge the members to examine these reports and others which detail the numerous hazards on pirate sites,” MPAA notes.

“Unfortunately, these illicit sites continue to attract large numbers of Americans, especially young people who might not be aware of the harms they could easily encounter,” they add.

So there we have it. The MPAA, who are generally speaking not too concerned about the well-being of people who “steal” their work, are now asking Senators to take them under their protection. Apparently, the MPAA don’t want pirates to catch viruses or run into credit card scams.

A humbly presented goal, but of course it’s just another obfuscated attempt to disconnect ‘pirate’ sites from their revenue streams. Considering the recent push against advertising networks, including the London Police pirate site blacklist, this won’t be the last we’ve heard of this.

Photo: Michael Theis

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

In fact, many of these buttons link to advertisements of some sort, ranging from relatively harmless download managers to dubious services that ask for one’s credit card details.

A new report backed by the UK entertainment industry has looked into the prevalence of these threats. The study, carried out by the anti-piracy analysts of Intelligent Content Protection (Incopro), found that only 1 of the 30 most-visited pirate sites didn’t link to unwanted software or credit card scams.

According to a press release released this morning, the research found that of the 30 top pirate sites, “90% contained malware and other ‘Potentially Unwanted Programmes’ designed to deceive or defraud unwitting viewers.”

The “Potentially Unwanted Programmes” category is rather broad, and includes popups and ads that link to download managers. In addition, the report links one-third of the sites to credit card fraud.

“The rogue sites are also rife with credit card scams, with over two-thirds (67%) of the 30 sites containing credit card fraud,” the press release states.

While it’s true that many pirate sites link to malware and other dubious products, the sites themselves don’t host any of the material. For example, none of the top pirate sites TorrentFreak tested were flagged by Google’s Safebrowsing tool.

This nuance is left out of the official announcement, but the executive summary of the report does make this distinction.

“We did not encounter the automatic injection of any malicious program on the sites that we scanned. In all instances, the user must be tricked into opening a downloaded executable file or in the case of credit card fraud, the user needs to actively enter credit card details,” Incopro writes.

Most of the malware and “potentially” unwanted software ends up on users’ computers after they click on the wrong “download” button and then install the presented software. In many cases these are installers that may contain relatively harmless adware. However, the researchers also found links to rootkits and ransomware.

The allegation of “credit card fraud” also requires some clarification. Incopro told TorrentFreak that most of these cases involve links to services where users have to pay for access.

“There were 17 separate credit card schemes that were detected through our scanning, with many appearing to be similar or possibly related. Five of the sites had instances of two credit card fraud/scam sites, with the remaining 15 containing one credit card fraud/scam site,” Incopro told us.

“An example is someone visits one of the pirate sites and clicks a ‘Download’ or ‘Play now’ button, which is actually an advert appearing on the page, which then asks for payment details to access the content.”

This is characterized as “fraud” because these “premium” streaming or download services can result in recurring credit card charges of up to $50 per month, without an option to cancel.

The report, which isn’t available to the public, was commissioned by the UK film service FindAnyFilm and backed by several industry groups. Commenting on the findings, FACT’s Kieron Sharp noted that those who fall for these scams are inadvertently funding organized crime.

“Not only are you putting your personal security at risk, by using pirate websites you could be helping fund the organised criminal gangs who run these sites as a front for other cyber scams,” Sharp says.

It is clear that the research is used for scaremongering. Regular users of these sites know all too well what buttons not to click, so they are not affected by any of the threats.

However, there’s no denying that some pirate sites deliberately place these “ads” to confuse novice and unsuspecting visitors. Those visitors may indeed end up with adware, malware or run into scam services.

This isn’t in any way a new phenomenon though, it has been going on for more than a decade already. Ironically, the same anti-piracy groups who now warn of these threats are making them worse by cutting pirate sites off from legitimate advertisers.

—

Photo: Michael Theis

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

The police started by sending warning letters to site owners, asking them to go legit or shut down. Late last year this was followed by a campaign targeted at domain registrars, asking them to suspend the domain names of several “illegal” sites.

In celebration of World Intellectual Property Day, the City of London Police Intellectual Property Crime Unit (PIPCU) has today announced the first results of their anti-counterfeiting campaign. According to PIPCU more than 2,500 domains names have been suspended thus far.

The domain names are not listed, but all offered counterfeit products of major brands such as UGG boots, Abercrombie, Hollister, and Gucci.

“The fact PIPCU can announce on World IP Day that in the eight months since launching we have suspended more than 2,500 infringing websites is further evidence of the expertise of our officers and the level of their commitment to clamp down on IP crime,” Andy Fyfe commented on today’s news.

“Consumers also need to be aware that by accessing websites like this they are running the risk of their personal details being compromised and being used for other fraudulent scams, as well as the exposing their computer to malicious malware,” Fyfe adds

There’s little doubt that 2,500 domain names is a significant number. Interestingly however, the Police have had less success with domains names linked to “pirate” websites. When TorrentFreak asked the police about the suspension of pirate domains, we were told that this is still work in progress.

“With regards to digital piracy, that falls under Operation Creative which is still an ongoing investigation in its early days. Therefore at this moment in time we cannot release any figures,” a PIPCU spokeswoman said.

Previously PIPCU managed to suspend the domain name of ExtraTorrent and a handful of other sites, which continued operating under a new domain.

—

Photo Credit

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

Just a few hours ago the 10 millionth torrent was uploaded to the notorious torrent site. Considering all the legal trouble and outside pressure the site has been subjected to, this is quite an achievement.

The torrent in question is a pirated copy of a video from the “IntimateLesbians” series, and was uploaded to the site by VIP uploader “Drarbg.” The 9,999,999th upload, the extended remix of Calvin Harris’ Summer, didn’t go unnoticed either.

The Pirate Bay team told TF that the milestone came as a surprise to them and they quickly had to patch a few things to make sure that the backend was ready for the extra decimal. Among other things, the rules to fetch the .torrent files needed an update.

While The Pirate Bay has processed 10 million uploads, not all torrents are still online today.

In fact, the majority have been deleted for a variety of reasons. The Pirate Bay team informs TF that their database currently holds roughly 3,050,000 torrents. All the other torrents have been removed.

One of the main reasons why torrents disappear from the site is because they are fake. For example, many scammers upload viruses or video files that link people to malware. In addition, anti-piracy outfits have been known to flood The Pirate Bay with fake content.

The Pirate Bay has a policy in place to deal with this abuse, which prescribes that all torrents where the content doesn’t match the description should be deleted. A team of moderators works around the clock to enforce this golden rule.

Right now, nearly 10,000 daily uploads are added to The Pirate Bay. This means that if The Pirate Bay continues to grow, the next 10 million milestone will probably be reached in a year or two.

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

Servicing 400 million visitors accessing 13.1 billion pages each month is no mean feat, and with so much user-generated content on-board it’s obvious why the company has a keen interest in the DMCA and the protections it offers service providers.

Speaking today during a House Judiciary Subcommittee hearing on Section 512 of Title 17, Automattic General Counsel Paul Sieminski spoke about his company’s experiences with the notice and takedown provisions of the DMCA. Noting that the process works well overall, Sieminski said that shortcomings in the system negatively affect freedom of expression and adversly impact companies like Automattic.

Sieminski says that significant resources are being diverted away from product development at Automattic in order to deal with overbroad and abusive DMCA takedown notices. On the one hand the company wants to ensure freedom of speech, but balancing that with its legal commitments under the DMCA is not an easy task.

“At Automattic, we’ve seen an increasing amount of abuse of the DMCA’s takedown process. The DMCA’s takedown process provides what can be an easy avenue for censorship: simply send in a DMCA notice claiming copyrights in a piece of content that you don’t agree with. Regardless of whether you own the copyright, the service provider that hosts the content must take it down or risk being out of compliance with the DMCA,” the lawyer explained.

Sieminski went on to detail several cases where the DMCA had been abused to stifle speech, including one elaborate scam in which someone tried to undermine the work of science journalists by copying their work, backdating it, and claiming copyright in order to take down the original content. Although the journalists filed a counter-notice, it took the full 10 days mandated by the DMCA to get it put back online.

Another case involved a UK-based journalist who reported on a freely-given press statement. The source of the press release changed his mind on having it published, claimed copyright, and had the journalist’s work taken down under the DMCA. Concerned about submitting to the jurisdiction of a US court (those submitting a counter-notice are required to reveal their name and address and agree to be sued in federal court), the journalist chose to back down. His report remains censored to this day.

As reported here on TF on many occasions, wrongful DMCA notices are sent on a daily basis, many the product of automated systems that lack the finesse to correctly identify infringement, much less consider fair use situations. Add these notices to the millions already being sent and they often go undetected, taken down by nervous service providers wary of becoming liable for the infringements of others.

According to Automattic, a solution needs to be found.

“The DMCA system gives copyright holders a powerful and easy-to-use weapon: the unilateral right to issue a takedown notice that a website operator (like Automattic) must honor or risk legal liability,” Sieminski explained.

“The system works so long as copyright owners use this power in good faith. But too often they don’t, and there should be clear legal consequences for those who choose to abuse the system. I’d urge the Committee to add such penalties to the DMCA to deter and punish these types of abuses,” the lawyer concludes.

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

Every day thousands of “fake” torrents are uploaded from malicious sources, often labeled with the names of popular movies or TV-shows. Needless to say, those who download these torrents don’t get what they were looking for. Instead they are redirected to scam websites or lured into installing malware.

This malware problem is far from new, but most recently it has gained the attention of Symantec, one of the largest computer security vendors in the world.

Last week the company filed a patent application for a technology that aims to counter the problem. Symantec says that since most torrent sites do a bad job at keeping malicious torrents off their sites they have come up with a solution.

“While the BitTorrent protocol represents a popular method for distributing files, this protocol also represents a common means for distributing malicious software. Unfortunately, torrent hosting sites generally fail to provide sufficient information to reliably predict whether such files are trustworthy,” Symantec writes.

Symantec has developed a system than evaluates the trustworthiness of files that are downloaded via BitTorrent. Unlike traditional virus scans, where the file itself is malicious or not, the technology uses the reputation of other downloaders, and several other factors to make the evaluation.

“For example, if an entity has been involved in several torrent transactions that involved malware-infected target files, the reputation information associated with the entity may indicate that the entity has a poor reputation, indicating a high likelihood that the target file represents a potential security risk.”

The factors on which the trustworthiness of a file is based include the original uploaders, torrent sites, trackers and other peers. For example, if an IP-address of a seeder is linked to several malicious torrents, it will get a low reputation score.

The picture below shows an overview of these variables, with a reputation score ranging from 0 to 100% for each.

When a file is categorized as a potential threat based on the reputation score, several “security actions” can be taken. These range from shutting down the download to blocking access to the file in question.

“Examples of such security actions include, without limitation, alerting a user of the potential security risk, blocking access to the target file until overridden by the user, blocking network traffic associated with the torrent transaction, quarantining the target file, and/or deleting the target file,” Symantec writes.

The security vendor believes that its system is able to prevent or at least reduce the distribution of malware through BitTorrent.

While this may be the case, there certainly are downsides too. Symantec’s automated categorizing systems have sometimes provided false positives, which in this system would lead to the blocking of legitimate files. TorrentFreak learned that the hard way earlier.

Symantec is not the only computer security vendor to take an interest in BitTorrent recently. McAfee previously submitted a patent for a system that can detect and block pirated material from any website, and present users with authorized and legal alternatives instead.

At the moment it’s unclear whether Symantec has already developed the technology, or whether it has plans to bring it to the market in the near future. So for now, BitTorrent users have to follow common sense if they want to avoid trouble, which usually involves reading comments.

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