Pirate Pay torrent 'blocker' backed by Microsoft

BBC News, 14 May 2012

Related Stories 

• Dutch court bans Pirate Bay links
• UK ISPs must block The Pirate Bay
• Virgin Media suffers hack attack

Blocking tool Pirate Pay draws its
name from controversial piracy site
The Pirate Bay

A Russian company has developed software it says can disrupt and prevent people from downloading pirated content.

Pirate Pay has been backed by Microsoft and has so far worked with Walt Disney Studios and Sony Pictures to stop "thousands" of downloads.

The tool poses as real bit torrent users but then "confuses" peer-to-peer networks, causing disconnections.

Critics argue that the method will be ineffective in the long term.

The entertainment industry claims that the downloading of pirated material costs copyright holders billions of pounds in lost revenue every year.

Last month, the British Phonographic Industry won a court battle to force UK internet service providers to block its customers from accessing high-profile piracy site The Pirate Bay.

However, the true extent of the financial impact is strongly questioned by internet rights campaigners.

Swamping

Bit torrent blog Torrent Freak reported that Pirate Pay began life as traffic management software for internet service providers.

From here they discovered it could be used to swamp peer-to-peer networks - which are used to share the files - with false information.

"After creating the prototype, we realised we could more generally prevent files from being downloaded, which meant that the program had great promise in combating the spread of pirated content," said Andrei Klimenko, the company's chief executive, in an interview with Russia Beyond the Headlines.

The technology has received high-profile praise from the president of Microsoft Russia - Pirate Pay was awarded one million rubles (£62,000, $100,000) from a seed investment fund set up by the company behind Windows.

A recent campaign saw Pirate Pay "protect" recent Russian film Vysotsky. Thanks to God, I am Alive, made by Walt Disney Studios.

Pirate Pay said it blocked 44,845 attempted illegal downloads of the film.

However, as the Torrent Freak blog pointed out, the blocked downloaders might have simply just tried again later.

'Social issues'

Although exact details on how the system operates are not known outside of the company, security researcher Richard Clayton from the University of Cambridge told the BBC it was a process that could work, if only in the short term.

"If you flood the network with lots of lies, then you will be short of real things.

"[But] the networks are robust about this in the long term because you will say to your peer 'please give me this data', and when it gives you the data it will say 'this doesn't match' and throw it away."

Mr Clayton, who blogs about such issues, said peer-to-peer networks would eventually adapt, sharing information about "bogus" peers such as those reportedly utilised by companies like Pirate Pay.

Mr Clayton added: "You don't solve social issues with technical fixes.

"The social issue here is that a lot of people think that the legal offerings are too expensive and don't provide what they want.

"Once you solve that, nobody's going to want to mess around with complicated bits of software to get what they need."

Related Articles:

Internet providers ordered to block Pirate Bay

Hollywood studios lose landmark download case

Megaupload Trial May Never Happen, Judge Says

Cispa cybersecurity bill opposed by Obama administration

Hillary Clinton adviser reiterates president's opposition to Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act ahead of vote

guardian.co.uk, James Ball, Tuesday 24 April 2012

Alec Ross Senior Advisor for Innovation to Secretary of State
Hillary Clinton Photograph: Ramin Talaie/Corbis

A senior State Department official has stressed the Obama administration's opposition to a controversial cybersecurity bill ahead of a vote in the House of Representatives later this week.

The Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act (Cispa) is intended to facilitate sharing of information on online threats across different federal agencies and private companies. It has been criticised by both activists and politicians of both Democrats and Republicans for vague wording and insufficient safeguards.

Ahead of the bill coming in front of the House of Representatives alongside three other cybersecurity bills, Alec Ross, a senior adviser for innovation to Hillary Clinton, reiterated the administration's opposition to the proposals in more explicit language than previous statements from officials.

"The Obama administration opposes Cispa," he told the Guardian. "The president has called for comprehensive cybersecurity legislation. There is absolutely a need for comprehensive cybersecurity legislation.

"[But] part of what has been communicated to congressional committees is that we want legislation to come with necessary protections for individuals."

Ross refused to be drawn, however, on whether the White House would consider vetoing the bill were it to pass through Congress

Ross's comments came as Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul set out his own strident opposition to Cispa.

"Cispa permits both the federal government and private companies to view your private online communications without judicial oversight provided that they do so of course in the name of cybersecurity," he said on Monday.

"Simply put, Cispa encourages some of our most successful internet companies to act as government spies, sowing distrust of social media and chilling communications in one segment of the world economy where Americans still lead."

The open internet group EFF has warned that Cispa's broad wording could class many routine internet activities, such as using encryption on emails or enabling anonymity using a service called TOR, as potential threats. The act could also indemnify companies acting for security purposes from civil and criminal liability, including violating a user's privacy, provided these were not intentional, the group warned.

Despite the opposition, Mike Rogers, the chairman of the house intelligence committee and primary sponsor of the bill, remains confident it will be passed by the House of Representatives this week.

"I feel pretty confident that we'll close out the bill," he told the Talking Points Memo blog on Monday. Rogers also reportedly told the site he was not aware of a final stance from the Obama administration regarding his bill, and said he had met with some advocacy groups and modified Cispa as a result.

"There's some people who aren't interested in having any bill happen," Rogers told TPM. "But we've had an open and transparent dialogue with everyone who has chosen to engage with us, and there's been major progress made. This has always been a collaborative effort."

Three other cybersecurity-related bills are passing through the house this week – the Data act, which creates more oversight on security of federal computer systems and data; the Cybersecurity Enhancement Act, aimed at targeting federal cybersecurity research, and a third computer research and design bill.

Related Article:

Cispa will give US unprecedented access, internet privacy advocates warn

German court case fails to settle YouTube copyright controversy

Deutsche Welle, 21 April 2012

A German court has ruled that YouTube must erase seven contested videos over copyright issues. However, the decision has failed to settle the protracted copyright row raging on the Internet.

Hamburg's State Court ruled on Friday that YouTube will have to take seven videos offline, including "Rivers of Babylon" by Boney M.

The verdict strengthens the position of Germany's royalty collections body GEMA which has been battling Google-owned YouTube over copyright issues for years.

The last agreement expired in 2009 and the conflicting parties have since been at loggerheads over the proper method to collect copyright fees.

However, Friday's verdict is not the landmark ruling which some had hoped would once and for all settle the contentious issue of copyright protection in the Internet.

Limited culpability 

From Germany, many Youtube searches
 will lead you to this page rather than
the music video

The Hamburg court decided that Internet platforms like YouTube are not directly liable for the breach of copyrights committed by users uploading protected material. However, the platform is now obliged to "deactivate immediately any illegal videos" once alerted by those holding the copyright.

Notably, the ruling does not oblige YouTube to check all content that has already been uploaded to its site – a key GEMA demand.

The judges said YouTube was not the main culprit because it does not upload or steal any content. Rather it facilitated the copyright breaches by offering and operating the online platform.

In order to prevent further copyright breaches, the judges called on YouTube to employ specific software capable of detecting songs in videos.

Mixed reactions

GEMA lawyer Kerstin Bäcker described the verdict as a "great success" because YouTube could now be held liable for its online content. GEMA spokesman Peter Hempel said the decision had created a firm legal basis for further negotiations with YouTube.

Kay Overbeck, spokesperson for Google Germany also viewed the ruling as a partial success. "The court has confirmed that YouTube is a hosting platform which cannot be forced to monitor all the uploaded video." 

YouTube owner Google claims the ruling
is in fact victory for them

The high-tech industry federation Bitkom took a similar view, describing the verdict by and large as a "good signal for the Internet community." The judges had clarified that YouTube was merely providing a platform for users and in legal terms was not the supplier of the uploaded data, said Bitkom chief executive Bernhard Rohleder.

Initially most German media viewed the outcome as an important victory for GEMA. But lawyer and copyright expert Till Kreutzer dissented in an interview with DW, describing the verdict as a victory for YouTube. "What really matters is which legal status YouTube has," said Kreutzer, adding that the row over 12 videos clips was superficial and negligible. "Does it provide content or is it just an online platform facilitating the publication of videos? The former is liable, the latter is not."

If anything the decision has shifted liability away from YouTube to the users who upload the respective videos, according to Kreutzer. Now there are legal requirements for operating the platform, but there is no liability to charges, which means GEMA has failed to achieve its main goal of collecting fees for YouTube content. GEMA failed to convince the judges with its argument that YouTube was using the content for advertizing purposes which rendered it more than just a "service provider."

However, the Hamburg ruling is not set in stone yet. Should either party decide to appeal, a higher court could overturn the verdict. The struggle to find a copyright legislation that is accepted both by internet users as well as artists, musicians and publishers is far from over.

Author: Günter Birkenstock / nk

Editor: Andreas Illmer

Related Articles:

Hollywood studios lose landmark download case

Google and Twitter can't police web content, says attorney general

Get rid of 'digital handcuffs', says European Commission vice-president

Hollywood studios lose landmark download case

Google/AFP, by Martin Parry (AFP), 20 Apr 2012

SYDNEY — Top Hollywood film studios Friday failed in their attempt to stem the flow of illegal downloads when they lost a landmark appeal against an Australian Internet provider.

A group of 34 companies, including 

Warner Bros and Disney, alleged iiNet 

authorised the infringement of their

copyright (AFP, Jean-Pierre Muller)

A group of international and Australian companies, including Warner Bros, Disney and 20th Century Fox, alleged that iiNet authorised the infringement of their copyright when its customers downloaded movies and television programmes.

In a world-first judgement in 2010, Australia's Federal Court ruled iiNet did not authorise the downloads or have the power to stop them, thwarting the studios' attempt to staunch losses they say run into billions of dollars.

The Australian Federation Against Copyright Theft (AFACT), made up of 34 film, television and music companies, appealed, claiming it set a dangerous precedent that allowed Internet companies to ignore copyright theft.

But in a serious blow to their fight against piracy it was thrown out by Australia's highest court Friday.

"The High Court held that the respondent, an Internet service provider (ISP), had not authorised the infringement by its customers of the appellants' copyright in commercially released films and television programmes," the unanimous ruling said.

It added that iiNet had no direct technical power to prevent its customers from using the BitTorrent file sharing system to infringe copyright, by downloading content to watch on their laptops and PCs.

"Rather, the extent of iiNet's power to prevent its customers from infringing... copyright was limited to an indirect power to terminate its contractual relationship with its customers," the court said.

The case was seen as an ambitious attempt to force ISPs to act against piracy.

It hinged on thousands of downloads over the Perth-based iiNet network over 59 weeks from June 2008 involving nearly 90 films and TV series including "Batman Begins", "Transformers" and "Heroes".

The movie studios had hoped to set a worldwide precedent forcing ISPs to act against offenders, while Internet rights groups feared it would compel the firms to cut customers' web access without having to take them to court.

AFACT managing director Neil Gane said the judgement exposed the failure of copyright law to keep pace with the online environment.

"Both judgements in this case recognise that copyright law is no longer equipped to deal with the rate of technological change we have seen since the law of authorisation was last tested," he said.

Gane added that the global film and television industry, represented by the Los Angeles-based Motion Picture Association, was pursuing other avenues including targeting the software developers behind BitTorrent technology.

iiNet chief executive Michael Malone said the best way for the film industry to protect copyright was to boost the availability of lawful, online content in a more timely and affordable way.

He added that there was strong evidence that content partnerships and agreements between ISPs, legal websites and copyright holders was the best way to reduce piracy, rather than costly legal battles.

"Increasing the availability of licensed digital content is the best, most practical approach to meet consumer demand and protect copyright," Malone said.

"We have consistently said we are eager to work with the studios to make their very desirable material legitimately available to a waiting customer base and that offer remains the same today."

Related Article:

Disney film studio chief Ross steps down

Get rid of 'digital handcuffs', says European Commission vice-president

Neelie Kroes echoes comments made by Sir Tim Berners-Lee, backing open web and saying rigid approach can limit innovation

guardian.co.uk, Ami Sedghi, Thursday 19 April 2012

EC vice-president Neelie Kroes has voiced support for the open web.
Photograph: Georges Gobet/AFP/Getty Images

The openness of the web needs to be protected and "digital handcuffs" need to be removed, Neelie Kroes, the vice-president of the European Commission with responsibility for Europe's digital agenda, has said.

Speaking at the World Wide Web (WWW2012) conference in Lyon on Thursday, Kroes examined the idea of an open web and spoke of its benefits. "With a truly open, universal platform, we can deliver choice and competition; innovation and opportunity; freedom and democratic accountability," she said.

Holding up a pair of handcuffs sent to her the previous day by the Free Software Foundation along with a letter asking if she was "with them on openness", she said: "Let me show you, these handcuffs are not closed, not locked. I can open them if and when I want. That's what I mean by being open online, what it means to me to get rid of 'digital handcuffs'."

In her keynote speech, she stressed the value of an open web, adding that Europe was "only beginning to discover what openness means". The benefits, she said would affect consumers and help boost the economy as well as informing voters. Privacy was another key thought on Kroes' mind, believing that openness should not come at the price of privacy or safety, "When you go online, you aren't stripped of your fundamental right to privacy," she said.

The commissioner also spoke strongly about copyrighted material and the complex licensing systems, explaining that "these guarantee that Europeans miss out on great content, they discourage business innovation, and they fail to serve the creative people in whose name they were established."

Kroes stressed that people should become more open to online models, allowing creators to make their work accessible but also recognising the price of a product or a service, "Whatever you're producing, whether it's a scientific experiment or a new video mash-up, making it isn't free. It is legitimate and right to reward and recognise creation and innovation."

"If we are too rigid or too constraining in our approach, we will put artificial limits on innovation and discovery. And that's not being open." Kroes echoes comments made by web founder Sir Tim Berners-Lee who delivered hisspeech at the event on Wednesday.

"Human discourse depends on an open internet" said Berners-Lee. "I want you thinking about what you're leaving behind for the next generation after this." He was also present at the panel that followed Kroes's speech and expressed once again his concerns over surveillance of the internet.

The WWW2012 event srun until Friday at the Lyon Convention Centre in France and is aimed at bringing together developers, business, media and analysts.

Related Articles:

Open or closed society is key dividing line of 21st century, says Hillary Clinton

Web inventor warns UK on surveillance plans

Google and Twitter can't police web content, says attorney general
Web freedom faces greatest threat ever, warns Google's Sergey Brin

Cispa will give US unprecedented access, internet privacy advocates warn

CISPA Is the New SOPA: Help Kill It This Week

Cispa will give US unprecedented access, internet privacy advocates warn

With echoes of Sopa, critics charge that bill will overturn US privacy protections in government attempts to track hackers

guardian.co.uk, Dominic Rushe in New York, Wednesday 18 April 2012

Wikipedia joined other major sites in going dark on 18 January to protest
 Sopa, but so far internet giants such as Wikipedia and Google have
remained silent on Cispa. Photograph: Rex Features

Washington looks set to wave through new cybersecurity legislation next week that opponents fear will wipe out decades of privacy protections at a stroke.

The Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act (Cispa) will be discussed in the House of Representatives next week and already has the support of 100 House members.

It will be the first such bill to go to a vote since the collapse of the Stop Online Piracy Act (Sopa) in January after global protests and a concerted campaign by internet giants such as Google, Wikipedia and Twitter.

The author of the new bill, Mike Rogers, the Republican chair of the House intelligence committee, has said it is aimed at tracking the nefarious activities of hackers, terrorists and foreign states, especially China. But its critics charge the bill will affect ordinary citizens and overturn the privacy protections they now enjoy.

Opponents fear the way it is currently drafted will open up ordinary citizens to unprecedented scrutiny. The bill uses the wording: "Notwithstanding any other provision of law," a phrase that if it became law would trump all existing legislation, according to critics.

In one section, the bill defines "efforts to degrade, disrupt or destroy" a network as an area that would trigger a Cispa investigation. Opponents argue something as simple as downloading a large file – a movie for example – could potentially be defined as an effort to "degrade" a network.

The bill also exempts companies from any liability for handing over private information.

"As it stands the bill allows companies to turn over private information to the government and for them to use it for any purpose that they see fit, all without a warrant," said Michelle Richardson, with the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU). "For 40 years we have had legislation about wiretapping that protects people. This would overturn that and make a cyber exception."

Privacy advocates are especially concerned about what they see as the overly broad language of the bill. As people increasingly use services like Skype and other internet telephony services, Twitter and Facebook to communicate, advocates fear the bill is a land grab that would give US authorities unprecedented access to private information while removing a citizen's legal protection.

The White House has called for the bill to be tightened. In a statement, national security council spokeswoman Caitlin Hayden said any legislation should include "robust safeguards to preserve the privacy and civil liberties of our citizens".

But Richardson said with wide support in the House, the bill could still pass. "The Senate has already said it is looking at this bill as it drafts its own legislation. There is a real danger it will be rushed through," she said.

"Our concern is not about what the bill is aiming to do, it's about the way it is crafted," said Rainey Reitman, activism director at the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), a digital-rights organisation.

She said the EFF has three main concerns with the bill:

• First, there is a lack of any standard for the type of information that can be collected.

• Second, all the information will go to the national security agency, the US defense department's online intelligence arm. In 2010, the NSA was found guilty of conducting surveillance programmes without warrants.

• Third, there is no clarity in the bill as to what the information will be used for. "It should be used for cybersecurity purposes only, but the bill doesn't say that," Reitman said.

Rogers claims Google has been supportive of Cispa, but the search giant has not commented. He has amended the bill, most recently taking out references to theft of intellectual property. Sopa, the last bill to try and tackle such theft, was scrapped after a global revolt. He added an amendment allowing people and companies to sue the US government if it violates the terms of use for the information.

The homeland security department was also given a greater role in collecting information, although critics noted that information would still be passed to the NSA.

Richardson called the changes "cosmetic" and said the fundamental issues remained. She said: "This bill is simply too broadly defined and overturns vital protections."

The EFF, ACLU and others have been attempting to coordinate a revolt against Cispa similar to the one that overthrew Sopa, but so far the campaign has not gathered the same momentum. Rogers has said the privacy protests are "liketurbulence on the way down to landing" for the bill.

Related Articles:

Cispa approved by House but critics urge Senate to block 'horrible' bill

CISPA Is the New SOPA: Help Kill It This Week

Web inventor warns UK on surveillance plans

The online copyright war: the day the internet hit back at big media