This is How We Catch You Downloading
Written by enigmax on April 14, 2007All over Europe thousands of people are being threatened with court action for allegedly sharing games like Dream Pinball 3D on P2P networks. Now, documents obtained by TorrentFreak show details of the anti-piracy company’s techniques for identifying alleged file-sharers on the internet and the gathering of claimed ‘forensic quality’ evidence for use in court cases.
In March we reported in some detail about the case of 500 UK file-sharers being legally pursued following claims that they uploaded games from the German publisher ‘Zuxxez’ onto file-sharing networks.
Since then, many people have been in touch with the law firm who sent the threatening letters, demanding evidence that they actually did something. TorrentFreak has obtained copies of the latest letters and within the claimed evidence is a description of how the anti-piracy system used by Logistep AG (the company hired to track the alleged pirates) is supposed to work.
The cleverly named “File Sharing Monitor” is the system being used by Logistep to gather evidence against file-sharers. It is actually just a modified version of the Shareaza P2P application that is configured to search for infringing files, and collect the information from the hosts that share these files.
The “File Sharing Monitor” only targets Gnutella and eDonkey users, so it is still unclear how they track down BitTorrent users. Here is how it works:
1. The client connects to the P2P network, searches for sources of the infringing file, and collects the IP addresses that were gathered through the search.
2. The client requests to download (a piece of) the file from the host that was found through the search.
3. The filename, file size, IP-address, P2P protocol, P2P application, time, and the username are automatically inserted into a database, if the host permits the download.
4. This is the “best” part. The application does a WHOIS search for the ISP information and automatically sends an infringement letter to the ISP if needed.
The claim is that the “File Sharing Monitor” is totally foolproof and that it can provide forensic-quality information to a court in order that file-sharers be punished. The question remains whether an IP-address is sufficient evidence to sue a person for downloading copyrighted material. Recent cases suggest that the RIAA and the MPAA will need more evidence than that.
Here is the ‘evidence’ for the functioning of the Logistep system. You decide.
-Link to PDF.
Previously: Automatically Transcode and Import Downloaded Videos to iTunes
Next: Do P2P Blocklists Keep you Safe?
142 Responses
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 » Show All
jaduncan
what I read from the GNU FAQ is that you are probably wrong:
But since I’m only a FLOSS lover, I accept to stand corrected by a FLOSS-Guru ;-)
Does the GPL require that source code of modified versions be posted to the public?
The GPL does not require you to release your modified version. You are free to make modifications and use them privately, without ever releasing them. This applies to organizations (including companies), too; an organization can make a modified version and use it internally without ever releasing it outside the organization.
But if you release the modified version to the public in some way, the GPL requires you to make the modified source code available to the program’s users, under the GPL.
Thus, the GPL gives permission to release the modified program in certain ways, and not in other ways; but the decision of whether to release it is up to you.
If I know someone has a copy of a GPL-covered program, can I demand he give me a copy?
No. The GPL gives him permission to make and redistribute copies of the program if he chooses to do so. He also has the right not to redistribute the program, if that is what he chooses.
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html
Funny stuff….
I got a warning from NBC via my ISP, saying I had downloaded/uploaded a TV series. Then I had 24 hours to go to a site they had setup where I had to put in my name and that I had deleted the content. As I had already watched it, I had no problems cleaning up my downloads folder.
So *they* are out there watching us… funnybunnies
-Piffer
I stand corrected. So Logistep AG can modify any GPLed program and sell services based on this modified program.
They do not have to release the source modifications as long as they don’t distribute the modified program.
Now why does embedded device manufacturer have to release their modifications of GPLed code? Afterall, they are selling the device rather than distribute the modified GPLed code that runs on the device.
[quote comment="85532"]I got one of these emails from MGM for sharing movie releases. I have a static IP on the internet port of my router. This is a /30 subnet address so I its no use changing. they know whom the traffic belongs to.
I told them that I have an unencrypted wifi spot but they told me to apply proper mesaures to stop sharing or they will terminate my account. Under the evidence they had torrent files and emule stuff too. Does anyone have any useful advice for me? I dont want to stop sharing…[/quote]
yeah, go and rent some ftp or storage server space located in china. Use a guttman 35 pass disk wipe on your existing drives. This will take about a week on a 40 gig drive. I get snort packet logs daily from infected ms-sql servers located in china, those look like perfectly good hosts if your into that sort of thing.
hehe
Haha, funny stuff Bruce!
I have one idea btw. I figured that they dont actually look for 0-sec releases so I just remove the old ones but keep the latest.
Since I read about those cases regarding ‘Dream Pinball 3D’ a few months ago, I’ve been seeding that pinball sim continously. It’s a very good pinball sim (especially the table ‘Two Worlds’), and I recommend the release by ‘Postmortem’.
If I hadn’t been reading about how the game publisher ‘Zuxxez’ was suing their prospective customers (and also us who naturally want to have a backup of those games we buy), I would not be file sharing this game all the time.
I’m sure a lot of people that never heard of the game now wants to give it a try (simple publicity), but maybe they get it via bittorrent. But as usual, those who really like the game will probably also buy it.
Time will tell if Zuexxz strategy about how handle Dream Pinball 3D is correct or not.
Maybe off topic, but here’s another example of a game that I have bought, but despite the fact that I have a legit copy, I’m still using a file shared torrent copy: Toca Race Driver 3. The reason why I’m using a pirated copy is simple! The legal version i bought contains the copy protection scheme ‘Starforce’ (I saw that when I was about to install the game), and there is NO WAY I’m going to let the malware Starforce be installed in my computer! (google after ‘Starforce Problems’ for more info).
Thanks,
/T
[quote comment="86077"]Now why does embedded device manufacturer have to release their modifications of GPLed code? Afterall, they are selling the device rather than distribute the modified GPLed code that runs on the device.[/quote]
Because the device physically contains the code.
I fear a few of the respondents are making the grave mistake of believing that the complainant has to prove their accusations beyond all reasonable doubt. That is not so in civil cases such as this, the complainant merely has to demonstrate to the court, on the balance of probabilities, that the defendant did what they claim he/she did.
And it is the defendant’s job to prove, on the balance of probabilities, that he/she didn’t do what he/she is accused of.
Whoever provides the more convincing argument wins, simple as that.
This is a simple civil case, in the UK there is no general right to seize anyone’s property for evidence. The claimant has sue for actual losses only, but if they are successful they will probably recover their costs and some damages on top.
The timestamp argument is quite reasonable, but it doesn’t amount to what is known as a primary defence. The suggestion that someone else may have used your unsecured network is similarly useful, but there is again no guarantee that this will persuade the court without a lot of effort.
It seems a reasonable defence to argue that other people who had access to your pc or network may well have downloaded an incomplete - and therefore unusable- part of the infringing file, and this was subsequently and inadvertently made available.
Of course you could always argue that you bought a secondhand pc, or were repairing someone’s pc for them, or that your pc had been hacked and the settings changed without your knowledge, allowing files to be uploaded. Which, of course, you never do.
Ultimately it is down to whoever presents the more credible argument to the court, and in those cases in which I have been involved, they have all been withdrawn at the point of discovery.
I suspect the settlement figure of £300 has been pitched carefully to dissuade people that it’s easier to settle than to fight.
usenext client
Here’s an interesting thought ..
If the RIAA and MPAA continue to push this ridiculous idea into the courts - they are going to be in for a much tougher battle then they think.. With the ability to shadow, clone, mesh, and use IP ‘blipping’ - the RIAA and MPAA are going to have a bunch of hackers pointing the IP addresses they are capturing back at them…
So , lets see - how the RIAA and MPAA are going to present a lawsuit on themselves, I mean after all - they cant be ‘prejudiced’ or ‘withhold’ information when they are throwing their weight around.. If their IPs are on the list, they are going to have to present the data unaltered , and in it’s original format.. So , I wonder what their plea will be then??
Face it - if they have enough balls to keep pushing the wrong buttons, things such as this are going to occur.. If the RIAA or MPAA came at me with such a thing - I would have to request them to provide proof that I personally initiated a ‘download’ to begin with, and if they are able to produce such evidence, then they will be facing a infringement of privacy lawsuit and an entrapment lawsuit to boot…
The RIAA and MPAA are not the CIA or FBI - and unless someone is committing acts against humanity or truly targetted for federal crimes - I doubt they are going to get the support they need to walk into millions of homes to prove their point… Of course, if they did start doing that - GOOD LUCK AT THE BOX OFFICES AND SELLING YOUR MUSIC - YOU WILL BE BOYCOTTED..
But it’s not the MPAA or the RIAA or the BPI, it’s an independant software distributor.
And it’s not war, it’s a battle
But it isn’t either the mpaa or the riaa, this is not an institutional attempt to coerce people to hand over money instead of going to court - this action has been instigated by the individual distributor
so, if i were to download a certain photo production software, but not seed it, would i be infringing on copyrights? or am i in the clear…
12 references to this post
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 » Show All
Responses are closed
All remaining responses will continue to be archived. Thanks to all who made serious comments.