Author: Andy

Last week officers from the UK’s Police Intellectual Property Crime Unit (PIPCU) arrested six individuals suspected of being involved in the supply of ‘pirate’ Internet-enabled set-top boxes.

Aimed at hampering the popularity of Android and similar devices used to access free movies, TV shows and live sports, the multi-location raids netted just 42 devices. Now it appears that the police have hit a relative jackpot.

PIPCU say that after executing two search warrants at a business premises and home address in East London, more than 500 Internet-enabled ‘pirate’ boxes have been seized. Police say they had been configured to illegally access subscription-only services.

Police have also confirmed the arrest of a 38-year-old man who was detained on suspicion of making and/or supplying articles for use in fraud, conspiracy to defraud, and two further offenses under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act and Proceeds of Crime Act.

PIPCU say that its investigation began in February 2016 after a broadcaster complained that modified devices were being sold both on the Internet and from a shop in Walthamstow. Details coming out of PIPCU are scarce but it’s possible that the broadcaster in question was either Sky TV and/or the Premier League, whose content is widely offered for streaming via these kinds of units.

Police have not yet made public the name of the business that was raided in Walthamstow but TorrentFreak is aware that one of the most popular sellers of Kodi-enabled Android devices operates from a shop in that same area. That could be a coincidence of course but TF’s request for comment sent to that shop’s website remains unanswered.

While we wait for more information, PIPCU says it will be asking the vendor raided yesterday to remove all illegal set top boxes from online sale. Interestingly, however, if that doesn’t happen PIPCU says it will take further action that could have a crippling effect on the business.

“Officers at PIPCU will be ordering the vendor to take the appropriate action to remove any illegal set top boxes from online sales sites,” PIPCU says.

“If the items continue to be sold online, then action will be taken to suspend the site by working closely with Nominet, the UK’s central registry for all .uk domains. This remains protocol for any site in breach of the Copyright and Trademark Act.”

The recent action carried out by PIPCU against sellers of IPTV devices is not unexpected. While modified editions of the legal Kodi software have been used on desktop machines for many years, the advent of cheap Android-based equipment has brought the streaming of movies, TV shows, sports and other content into the living rooms of countless non-tech savvy individuals.

With software like Popcorn Time and Showbox also gaining in popularity due to their placement on these devices, plug-and-play piracy is now a reality and rightsholders everywhere are more than tired of it.

Source: TF, for the latest info on copyright, file-sharing, torrent sites and ANONYMOUS VPN services.

Every single day millions of takedown notices are sent by copyright holders to online services ranging from YouTube and Google to KickassTorrents. The aim is to have copyright-infringing content removed, quickly.

As Internet usage has grown, the volume of notices being sent has exploded and as a result the debate over DMCA takedown procedures has become a hot topic, to the point that U.S. authorities are involved once again.

Under pressure from rightsholders, on the final day of 2015 the U.S. Copyright Office launched a public consultation with the aim of assessing the costs and burdens of the notice-and-takedown process on copyright owners, online service providers, and the general public.

As a free and public repository of a wide range of media (26 petabytes overall), the Internet Archive has a keen interest in how U.S. copyright law is shaped. In its just-published submission to the Copyright Office the Archive is quite clear – without the Safe Harbor provisions of the DMCA its valuable work would become impossible.

The certainty of Safe Harbor

“As we move increasingly towards a world where human knowledge is stored digitally, we are likely to see more libraries playing the role of host and curator of content posted by users. As such, it is important to understand how library interests intersect with the DMCA safe harbors and to ensure that libraries continue to enjoy the protection of these safe harbors in the future,” the Archive writes.

With some reservations the Archive believes that the DMCA and its system of shared responsibility is “working well” and should not be significantly overhauled. It notes that as a curator of everything from feature length films, old radio programs and cylinder recordings, to pre-1964 architectural trade catalogs, house plan books, and technical building guides, the Archive deals with an almost unprecedented range of material. That is only possible due to the “important certainty” offered by the DMCA.

“Without the protection of the DMCA safe harbors, we might not be able to host collections like these — despite the fact that no one has complained about the vast majority of the materials,” the Archive warns.

‘Notice and Staydown’ will chill free speech and fair use

While acknowledging that burdens are felt on both sides, with copyright holders keen to have content taken down and third-party organizations expected to respond swiftly in doing so, the Archive expresses concern over proposals for a “notice and staydown” system in which content that has been taken down once must never reappear again.

“The DMCA’s express provision that service providers have no affirmative duty to monitor for infringing activity remains an extremely important safeguard both for free speech and for the continuation of traditional library activities in the digital age,” the Archive says.

In its submission the Archive goes to some lengths to highlight differences between those engaging in commercial piracy and those who seek to preserve and share cultural heritage. As a result the context in which a user posts content online should be considered before attempting to determine whether an infringement has taken place. This, the organization says, poses problems for the ‘staydown’ demands gaining momentum with copyright holders.

“This is why proposals for ‘notice and staydown,’ which would appear to require platforms to use automated processes to make sure certain materials are never again able to be posted to the internet — regardless of context — threaten to chill legitimate speech and fair uses of materials,” the organization warns.

Interestingly the Internet Archive cites the Library Bill of Rights, which encourages libraries to “challenge censorship in the fulfillment of their responsibility to provide information and enlightenment.” A ‘notice and staydown’ regime would violate these fundamental principles, the Archive says.

Reducing erroneous, sloppy and cynical takedowns

While warning against changes to the law that could increase non-profit service providers’ liability for infringing content, the Archive has some suggestions as to how the DMCA could protect against improper takedown notices.

Noting that incomplete and/or erroneous notices are received by the organization every week, the Archive concludes that the major culprits are agents of major studios and publishers. Over the years their notices have demanded the takedown of public domain works such as Jane Eyre, Sense and Sensibility, Bram Stoker’s Dracula and Moby Dick, while ‘dumb’ keyword matching continues to claim innocent victims.

“For example, we received a takedown notice regarding an old Salem cigarette commercial based on the term ‘Salem’ which is also the title of a major television series. Similar keyword misidentifications frequently show up as “matches” for music, concerts, home movies, and public domain books,” the Archive explains.

“We are deeply concerned that automated filtering could lead to taking down many materials that are being used in reasonable, legitimate and legally protected ways — especially when the underlying purpose of the complaint is not copyright related but rather an attempt to silence critical speech.”

To this end the Archive is calling for a tweak to the DMCA which would allow providers to leave content up as long as they have a genuine belief that the takedown notice they have received is erroneous.

“It might make sense to create a provision in the law that would grant the service provider the ability to refuse to take material down when they have a reasonable, good faith belief that the material identified in a DMCA notice is non-infringing,” the Archive writes.

“For example, if a work appears to be in the public domain, or if the use of the material appears to be a fair use, then the service provider could refuse to take the material down without risking the imposition of statutory damages.”

The Internet Archive’s submission (full text here) is an excellent example of what is at stake in respect of possible amendments to the DMCA. While the fight between copyright holders and hardcore pirates might be the key issue, the battle has the potential to wreak havoc elsewhere and the Internet Archive and similar groups are desperate to avoid the crossfire.

Source: TF, for the latest info on copyright, file-sharing, torrent sites and ANONYMOUS VPN services.

British science fiction writer Arthur C. Clarke is credited with the penning of three laws, one of which declares that any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.

While not quite magic for those who understand how it works, Google Now can be both impressive and spooky.

On mobile devices (Android and iOS) Google Now and its ‘Card’ notifications often pop up at the most opportune times, offering advice about things that haven’t yet happened in a users life – but are about to.

It’s not unusual for Google Cards to let you know how long it will take you to get home – from a restaurant you haven’t quite arrived at yet. And it can also advise what the weather will be like tomorrow, in a place that more often that not you’ve planned to visit only in your head.

Google can’t read people’s minds but it does harvest data from Google accounts in order to provide its Now services. That includes your search and location history, sites you’ve visited and the content of Gmail messages. It can also access your phone contacts, calendar entries and even certain apps.

“To know when to display cards and reminders, Google Now uses information from your device and from other Google products,” the company explains.

But while Google Now does some predictable things, like offering news about a favorite sporting event or offering appropriate stock listings, it can also serve up the odd surprise. One of those landed on the phone of TorrentFreak reader Ryan Raab this past weekend.

While using his Nexus 6 (loaded with the latest Android N beta), Ryan received a serving of Google Cards. After Google noticed he’d “shown an interest” in Olivia Munn, he was advised of her upcoming role in the X-Men Apocalypse movie as documented by Engadget. Nice.

But it was his interest in the movie Deadpool that delivered the surprise. Sandwiched between a Guardian article about Barack Obama and a New York Post piece about Donald Trump, Google Now advised Ryan where he could watch the hit movie. (Hint: Not in a theater)

As can be seen from the screenshot, Ryan’s interest in Deadpool resulted in a Google Card being presented to him referencing one of the world’s largest torrent sites, 1337x. Indeed, clicking on the Card landed Ryan on the site in question, as shown below.

Obviously there isn’t a team at Google hand-crafting Google Cards designed to promote unauthorized torrents. However, this does appear to show that Google’s algorithms are smart enough to put together interesting advice based on multiple and diverse information sources.

TorrentFreak sent Ryan’s findings to Google for comment but at the time of publication we were yet to hear back. However, it does appear that in this instance simply having an interest in both torrents and a particular movie was enough to trigger a custom Card linking to a pirate site.

While a feature like this won’t annoy too many torrent fans, they may change their tune when more sensitive information is picked up by Google in future editions.

“You showed an interest in ‘having an affair’ – here’s a link to AdulteryX4u.com.”

Source: TF, for the latest info on copyright, file-sharing, torrent sites and ANONYMOUS VPN services.

The European Union wants companies selling digital content to citizens in EU Member States to do so across the entire region. Instead, companies continue to ring-fence their content, making material available in one region and not another.

The practice is known as geo-blocking and is carried out by checking users’ IP addresses and other data against commercial blocklists. A decision is then taken by providers as to which country’s content to serve to the user. This means that when an England-based Netflix user travels to mainland Europe, he can no longer access the same content he can when he’s at home.

In part to discover more about geo-restriction, last year the European Commission launched its Digital Single Market Strategy alongside an antitrust sector inquiry into e-commerce. After sending out questionnaires to both retailers of physical goods and companies offering digital content, the EU Commission has now published its initial findings.

Responses from more than 1,400 companies from all 28 Member States reveals widespread geo-blocking. In respect of physical goods, the EU reports that geo-blocking is often based on the “unilateral business decisions of retailers”, i.e simply not wanting to do business abroad.

“Where a non-dominant company decides unilaterally not to sell abroad, that is not an issue for competition law,” says European Competition Commissioner Margrethe Vestager.

However, the situation with digital content supply is somewhat different. While the decision not to sell physical goods elsewhere is mainly the decision of the retailers, it was found that agreements between suppliers and distributors are often the cause of geo-blocking of digital content.

While 68% of digital content providers told the Commission that they geo-block users located in other Member States, 59% admitted that they are contractually bound to do so by their suppliers. The Commission says that these kinds of agreements have the potential to restrict competition in the EU Single Market and breach EU antitrust rules.

While all digital content covered by the EU inquiry was found to be affected by geo-blocking, the chart below clearly shows that worst offenders can be found in the fiction TV, films and sports sectors, with almost three-quarters of suppliers of the former engaged in contractual blocking.

“The information gathered as part of our e-commerce sector inquiry confirms the indications that made us launch the inquiry: Not only does geo-blocking frequently prevent European consumers from buying goods and digital content online from another EU country, but some of that geo-blocking is the result of restrictions in agreements between suppliers and distributors,” Vestager says.

“Where geo-blocking occurs due to agreements, we need to take a close look whether there is anti-competitive behavior, which can be addressed by EU competition tools.”

The Commission notes that if specific competition concerns arise it could open investigations into restrictive practices and abuse of dominant market positions. However, any enforcement measures would need to be carried out on a case-by-case basis.

Margrethe Vestager will offer a more detailed analysis of the inquiry in a preliminary report set to be published and opened for public consultation mid-2016. The final report is scheduled for publication in the first quarter of 2017.

Source: TF, for the latest info on copyright, file-sharing, torrent sites and ANONYMOUS VPN services.

These days there are essentially two ways to obtain music on-demand. One can buy MP3s from places like iTunes or for those looking to make their pennies stretch further, streaming solutions like Spotify are just what the doctor ordered.

Services that allow users to download MP3s are more expensive than streaming options and no wonder. Offline listening features notwithstanding, streaming is somewhat transient. Like a diamond, an MP3 is forever.

No surprise then that Spotify users squealed with excitement back in March 2013 when a new Chrome extension hit the web. Downloadify by Robin Aldenhoven allowed Spotify users to permanently download MP3s to their devices from the Spotify web interface, a move that sparked a frenzy of people doing just that.

Now, three years on, it appears that downloading MP3s from Spotify is a thing again. This time around it’s not quite as easy as installing a simple extension but for those with a PC and a modicum of patience it shouldn’t prove too much of a problem.

The original code for the aptly named Spotify Playlist Downloader (SPD) was created by Lordmau5 and has been kicking around for a few weeks. Given a few parameters it happily dumps playlists full of 160 kbps MP3s to the host machine in seconds and names them nicely too.

However, SPD requires people to fiddle around using a command line, something the majority simply can’t be bothered with. So, what SPD needed was for someone to come along and augment it with a nice Windows GUI to make the whole thing more user-friendly.

Thanks to dekiller82, Spotify Playlist Downloader now happily runs via a basic GUI, provided people also install NodeJS and Microsoft’s .NET framework up front.

Spotify Playlist Downloader

Admittedly it’s a bit clunky but it definitely works and does so with both premium and even free Spotify accounts. There are reports that free accounts can seize up after vigorous SPD use but eventually they begin to work again although no one seems to know why.

So with tens of millions of tracks now available to anyone with a PC, one might expect there are celebrations to be had. Indeed, in some quarters they’re probably going on right now.

But without the whole Spotify package, complete with recommendations, superb music discovery opportunities and a beautiful interface, the hand stacking, sorting and categorizing of MP3s feels somewhat primitive. Sure, the tracks come at a bargain price, but using them seems like a step back in time.

There’s little doubt that sooner or later Spotify will plug the hole exploited by SPD but in the meantime thousands of people will be greedily filling their hard drives with MP3s. For some it will entail grabbing some treasured classics but for others it will mean revisiting a life filled with soulless Windows Explorer folders that lead first to excitement and then musical dead ends.

Everyone knows that forbidden fruit is alluring but sometimes the realization dawns that while it’s definitely exciting, it’s not necessarily more tasty.

The license-bending, label-annoying Spotify Playlist Downloader project can be found here.

Source: TF, for the latest info on copyright, file-sharing, torrent sites and ANONYMOUS VPN services.

This week following further intense discussions on how to bring Internet piracy under control, rights holders submitted new proposals for amendments to local copyright law.

Supported by communications watchdog Roskomnadzor, one of the key aims of the working group is to bring an end to the game of whac-a-mole caused by the country’s site blocking regime.

Ending the proxy wars

Like other countries, once pirate sites are blocked by local ISPs, proxies, mirrors and clones of those sites reappear elsewhere, rendering the blockades ineffective. This means that copyright holders have to head back to court to obtain a new blocking order if they are to keep up with the pirates.

As is already loosely the case in the UK, rightsholders with interests in Russia want mirror and proxy sites to be classified as extensions of the original blocked site and given the same illegal standing. This would mean they could be quickly blocked without need for a new trial.

Currently the courts require an individual process for each site, a position highlighted recently when ISPs were ordered to permanently block huge torrent site RuTracker but several sites appeared online which effectively circumvented the blockade.

“The Working Group proposes to simplify the blocking procedures in respect of mirrors of sites that have already been recognized by the court as illegal resources,” National Federation of the Music Industry (Sony, Universal, Warner, EMI) chief Leonid Agronov explains.

Circumventing blockades? You can’t talk about that

While the proposed measures against mirrors, clones and reverse proxy sites are not unexpected, demands being made by anti-piracy group Association for the Protection of Copyright on the Internet (AZAPO) really take things to the next level.

Just as sites can take measures to avoid being blocked, users can circumvent blocks with a variety of tools including VPNs, TOR and other proxies. People learn about these techniques online but if AZAPO has its way – and that looks likely – telling people how to circumvent web-blocking measures will become an illegal act.

In a document penned by AZAPO, approved by telecoms watchdog Rozkomnadzor, and seen by Gazeta.ru, the anti-piracy group says that banning discussion of workarounds will enhance the country’s blocking regime.

“The introduction of [a system of fines] for those who promote methods for bypassing Internet blockades will enhance the effectiveness of blocking prohibited Internet resources,” the group writes.

At this stage the proposals suggest fines ranging from around $70 for “entrepreneurial individuals” right up to $14,500 for those operating within a legal entity but it’s not yet clear how these fines will be managed or enforced.

While discussion of circumvention could soon be off-limits, there’s no intention of banning circumvention tools outright. Noting that they have legitimate uses, Rozkomnadzor says it simply wants to draw a line in the sand over the way they’re promoted online.

“These technical software tools have a wide range of useful applications. But advertising these as a way to bypass website blocks should not be a legitimate action,” a spokesperson said.

Not surprisingly, representatives from the Internet industry see things somewhat differently. Karen Ghazaryan, principal analyst at the Russian Association of Electronic Communications, told Gazeta that tightening of the law will only lead to further dissemination of information detailing how to bypass blockades.

Indeed, there would be little the authorities could do about advice pages appearing outside the country, unless they wanted to enter into the biggest game of whac-a-mole ever seen.

Crucially, clamping down on discussion is unlikely to stimulate the market for legal content consumption among consumers, Ghazaryan says.

Presented this week, the draft proposals will now be sent to the Ministry of Communications for subsequent discussion in the State Duma.

Source: TF, for the latest info on copyright, file-sharing, torrent sites and ANONYMOUS VPN services.

It’s hard to believe but it was more than eight years ago when a court in Denmark ordered a local Internet service provider to begin blocking The Pirate Bay.

The court found that ISP Tele2 had assisted in the file-sharing infringements of its customers, a decision that put Denmark on the map as the first European country to block the notorious site.

Since then most of the major torrent and streaming sites have also been blocked in Denmark but piracy has continued, much to the disappointment of rights holders.

Services like Popcorn Time haven’t improved the situation either, so it came as little surprise that users of the application were eventually targeted by trolls through the Danish legal system. Shortly after though, the state itself got tough, arresting the operators of two sites which allegedly spread information about the popular application.

In December, Denmark’s largest torrent site shutdown too, but that doesn’t appear to have had much of an effect either.

So for Rights Alliance, the anti-piracy outfit that counts all the big Hollywood studios and record labels among its members, much more needs to be done. Normally the group addresses its issues in private but this week took the unusual step of openly criticizing the authorities for their piracy failures.

In an open letter to the Prosecutor General, Rights Alliance director Maria Fredenslund says that not enough emphasis is being placed on the plight of the entertainment industries.

“As you know, we at Rights Alliance have worked to ensure that intellectual property crime is a priority focus, including that police and prosecutors take better care of intellectual property cases,” Fredenslund begins.

“However, we find that distribution of pirated copies is still extensively used as a platform and source of income for criminals.”

The Rights Alliance director says that public prosecution initiatives from 2013 and 2015 have failed to hit the mark and promises haven’t been kept.

“We write now because we do not see positive results in terms of the specific handling of intellectual property cases, as we were promised,” she writes.

Fredenslund wants public prosecutions of pirates to become a priority for the authorities and wants discussion to begin soon.

“There is from our side an urgent need to see concrete results in terms of cases handled, and a very clear communication from the authorities on what is illegal on the Internet,” she adds.

In publicly asking for a meeting with the Prosecutor General, Rights Alliance are clearly attempting to bring the issue of online piracy into the public eye. Quite what can be done remains up for debate.

With site blocking already in place and international efforts to physically remove sites such as The Pirate Bay from the internet failing, only targeting end users remains.

It’s understood that sending warning notices to Internet users caught pirating is still favored by rightsholders but whether those schemes have had any major effect on sales in other regions is still an unknown quantity.

The so-called “six strikes” system in the United States is still ongoing and has just been extended, but proclamations of the scheme’s successes have been almost entirely absent.

Source: TF, for the latest info on copyright, file-sharing, torrent sites and ANONYMOUS VPN services.

The advent of cheap Android devices such as Amazon’s Fire Stick and dozens of set-top variants means that anyone can install legal software such as Kodi and then modify it to do less legal things.

With the correct know how, all the latest movies, TV shows and live sports are just a few clicks away, all streamed over the Internet, for free. This ease of use irritates rightsholders who seem powerless to do much about the flood of illicit broadcasts.

Also complicating the situation is that individuals looking to make a quick buck are selling piracy-configured devices on eBay, Amazon and other venues, meaning that anyone can get in on the close-to-free TV action by shelling out a few pounds, euros or dollars.

Today, however, the UK’s Police’s Intellectual Property Unit (PIPCU) has made a tiny dent in this illicit market after arresting several individuals said to be involved in the sale of ‘pirate’ boxes configured to stream content including movies and sport.

Following the execution of seven search warrants at as many locations in the north of England (Consett, Lanchester, Washington, Gateshead, Middlesbrough, Sunderland and Seamer), six people were arrested.

Police say that a 37 year-old man targeted in Sunderland was arrested on suspicion of distributing an unauthorized decoder, money laundering and making and/or supplying items for use in fraud.

The investigation, which was carried out with the assistance of Trading Standards and the Federation Against Copyright Theft (FACT), led to the seizure of 42 “illegally modified” set-top boxes configured to receive subscription-only TV.

“This operation is an excellent example of multi-agency working across force boundaries to tackle piracy and those intent on making money at the expense of honest subscription payers who deserve a fair deal,” says PIPCU’s Detective Chief Inspector Peter Ratcliffe.

“We routinely seek to identify and disrupt those intent on making quick cash from piracy and will use every enforcement opportunity to bring them to justice.”

While buyers of such devices might think they’re getting value for money, both PIPCU and the Federation Against Copyright Theft are keen to point out that they’re not risk free.

“Consumers need to be aware that these cheap pre-configured TV boxes are illegal,” says FACT Director General Kieron Sharp. “They are stealing copyrighted content and starving UK businesses from revenue, as well as putting consumers’ devices at risk of malware and ransomware.”

A pirate box holding itself to ransom is an interesting concept but not one that appears to be gaining any traction on sites specializing in such topics. Indeed, in many instances using one of these boxes is much safer than visiting streaming sites directly, since much of the malicious advertising is filtered out.

This week’s arrests follow at least two previous operations (1,2) targeting the sellers of ‘pirate’ boxes in the UK.

Source: TF, for the latest info on copyright, file-sharing, torrent sites and ANONYMOUS VPN services.

Ever since the launch of Apple’s app-enabled devices, users have sought ways to run software not sourced from the official App Store. It’s been a cat-and-mouse battle, with teams of security experts trying to break Apple’s security to enable a process known as ‘jailbreaking’.

A successfully jailbroken iPhone, for example, can not only run software from third party app stores such as Cydia, but can also run pirated iOS software. Needless to say, with this feature the popularity of jailbreaking has soared, prompting Apple to do everything it can to close security holes.

However, in 2013 something unexpected happened. A new technique known as the “FairPlay Man-In-The-Middle” (MITM) attack exploited flaws in Apple’s ‘Fairplay’ DRM system to allow both pirated and third-party software (unapproved by Apple) to run on iOS devices. Crucially, this could all take place without a jailbreak being deployed on the device.

Somewhat surprisingly people with the ability to carry out the third-party software exploit have been remarkably well behaved for the past three years but all good things come to an end. Rather than using the loophole for consumer-friendly activity, attackers are now using it for evil.

According to Palo Alto Networks researcher Claud Xiao, there now exists iOS malware that is able to deploy itself to non-jailbroken devices using the man-in-the-middle attack previously used by pirates.

Named “AceDeceiver” by the researcher, the malware targets the method of transferring App Store purchases from the iTunes software installed on users’ computers to their iOS devices.

“iOS devices will request an authorization code for each app installed to prove the app was actually purchased,” Xiao explains.

“In the FairPlay MITM attack, attackers purchase an app from App Store then intercept and save the authorization code. They then developed PC software that simulates the iTunes client behaviors, and tricks iOS devices to believe the app was purchased by victim. Therefore, the user can install apps they never actually paid for, and the creator of the software can install potentially malicious apps without the user’s knowledge.”

But to do its dirty deeds AceDeceiver needs to find a way onto a user’s device in the first instance and that was achieved via Apple’s very own App Store.

Between July 2015 and February 2016 software claiming to be wallpaper apps successfully passed Apple’s vetting systems and were made available to Apple users. The way this was achieved was extremely cunning, with the App only going into malicious mode if it was run in a certain geographical area, in this case, China.

“The iOS apps of AceDeceiver mainly act as a third party app store if users access them from China. Note that some of the apps or games they provide in the store are also installed through a FairPlay MITM attack. In addition, these apps strongly suggest users input their Apple ID with password so that users could ‘directly install free apps from the App Store, execute in-app purchase, and login to Game Center’.”

That doesn’t sound like good news and indeed, the researchers found that claims that the software did not transfer login credentials were simply untrue.

“In fact, we discovered all versions of AceDeceiver will upload the Apple ID and password to [the attackers’ server],” Xiao adds.

All three apps were removed by Apple after the researchers reported them in February 2016 but their threat remains.

“The attack is still viable because the FairPlay MITM attack only requires these apps to have been available in the App Store once. As long as an attacker could get a copy of authorization from Apple, the attack doesn’t require current App Store availability to spread those apps,” Xiao explains.

“While the attack requires a user’s PC to be infected by malware first, after that, the infection of iOS devices is completed in the background without the user’s awareness. The only indication is that the new malicious app does appear as an icon in the user’s home screen, so the user may notice a new app he or she won’t recall downloading.”

The full disclosure from Claud Xiao can be found here, along with removal instructions for those concerned they may be infected by the malware.

Source: TF, for the latest info on copyright, file-sharing, torrent sites and ANONYMOUS VPN services.

Last week news broke that having dumped the recording industry on its head a decade-and-a-half ago, Napster founder Sean Parker is now turning his attentions to the world of cinema.

Unlike his now infamous file-sharing service, this time Parker intends to do things by the book, licensing content from its creators and delivering it to the public. However, disruption is still a mainstay of the entrepreneur’s business model, with Screening Room planning to offer day-and-date movies to the masses in the comfort of their own homes.

For a not unreasonable $150, Parker and his associates want to supply a set-top box with the ability to show brand new films for $50 per shot to be viewed once during a 48 hour period. It’s a proposal that has almost everyone excited but in a variety of different ways.

With the studios considering their options and yet to officially weigh in with their verdict, big name names in the industry are being less cautious. Steven Spielberg, Ron Howard, Peter Jackson and J.J. Abrams have come out in support of the plan, verbally and in some cases financially too.

But while momentum builds on the director level, opposition is mounting from the businesses that are most likely to be affected by the project. The Art House Convergence (AHC), a cinema group representing 600 theaters, has just published an open letter concerning Screening Room. AHC are clearly rattled by the proposition and the negative impact it could have on the cinema market.

“The Art House Convergence, a specialty cinema organization representing 600 theaters and allied cinema exhibition businesses, strongly opposes Screening Room, the start-up backed by Napster co-founder Sean Parker and Prem Akkaraju,” the letter begins.

“The proposed model is incongruous with the movie exhibition sector by devaluing the in-theater experience and enabling increased piracy. Furthermore, we seriously question the economics of the proposed revenue-sharing model.”

It’s clear from AHC’s announcement that they see content shown in cinemas as more effectively guarded from potential pirates. Introduce that content into the privacy of the home environment and it will necessarily herald in a whole new world of piracy.

“We strongly believe if the studios, distributors, and major chains adopt this model, we will see a wildfire spread of pirated content, and consequently, a decline in overall film profitability through the cannibalization of theatrical revenue,” AHC says.

“The theatrical experience is unique and beneficial to maximizing profit for films. A theatrical release contributes to healthy ancillary revenue generation and thus cinema grosses must be protected from the potential erosion effect of piracy.”

AHC’s argument develops with what it sees as an undermining of exhibitors’ investment in digital technology, technology that was somewhat forced upon them in the name of piracy prevention.

“The exhibition community was required to subscribe to DCI-compliance in a very material way,” AHC writes.

“Those exhibitors who were unable to make the transition were punished by a loss of product. The digital conversion had a substantial cost per theater, upwards of $100,000 per screen, all in the name of piracy eradication and lowering print, storage and delivery costs to benefit the distributors. How will Screening Room prevent piracy?”

DCI Digital Cinema Specification – Piracy

That question is yet to be answered by Screening Room but if the service is to ever get off the ground, notoriously hard-to-please studios will demand a very clear say in how content is protected throughout the entire process. While digital compliance is certainly not only for theaters, AHC believes that some adopters of Screening Room could simply go back to exploiting the analog hole.

“If studios are concerned enough with projectionists and patrons videotaping a film in theaters that they provide security with night-vision goggles for premieres and opening weekends, how do they reason that an at-home viewer won’t set up a $40 HD camera and capture a near-pristine version of the film for immediate upload to torrent sites?” the chain asks.

Of course, there’s very little Screening Room can do to stop a determined pirate from finding ways to copy their content, but it is entirely feasible for each movie screening to be embedded with watermarks similar to the ones already in place in theaters around the world. Tracing content back to an individual set-top box would then be somewhat straightforward but of course by then the damage would already be done.

But while piracy is one of AHC’s biggest complaints, it all comes boils down to what they see as a huge undermining of their business model through the wiping out of the theatrical windowing system.

“Our exhibition sector has always welcomed innovation, disruption and forward-thinking ideas, most especially onscreen through independent film; however, we do not see Screening Room as innovative or forward-thinking in our favor, rather we see it as inviting piracy and significantly decreasing the overall profitability of film releases,” the chain concludes.

Source: TF, for the latest info on copyright, file-sharing, torrent sites and ANONYMOUS VPN services.