P2P sting operation exposed

[Jack]

Peer-to-peer (P2P) poisoning company MediaDefender suffered an embarrassing leak this weekend, when almost 700MB of internal company e-mail was distributed on the Internet via BitTorrent. The e-mails reveal many aspects of MediaDefender's elaborate P2P disruption strategies, illuminate previously undisclosed details about the MiiVi scandal, and bring to light details regarding MediaDefender's collaboration with the New York Attorney General's office on a secret law enforcement project. We have been reviewing the data for days and will have multiple reports on the topic. MediaDefender specializes in file-sharing mitigation—practices that disrupt and deter infringing uses of P2P file-sharing networks. Music labels and movie studios pay the company millions of dollars to temporarily impede the propagation of new releases in order to compel consumers to pursue legitimate commercial distribution channels. MediaDefender accomplishes this task by using its array of 2,000 servers and a 9GBps dedicated connection to propagate fake files and launch denial of service attacks against distributors. The e-mail was leaked to the public by a group that calls itself MediaDefender-Defenders. In a text file distributed with the mail, the group explains how the e-mails were obtained and why they are being distributed. Apparently, MediaDefender employee Jay Mairs forwarded all of his company e-mails to a Gmail account, which was eventually infiltrated. "By releasing these e-mails we hope to secure the privacy and personal integrity of all peer-to-peer users," writes the group behind the disclosure. "So here it is; we hope this is enough to create a viable defense to the tactics used by these companies." It's not surprising that MediaDefender was targeted in this manner. The company was accused of using shady tactics earlier this year when BitTorrent community site TorrentFreak revealed that the anti-piracy company was surreptitiously operating a video upload service called MiiVi that offered high speed downloads of copyright-protected content. Critics accused MediaDefender of using the site to perpetrate an entrapment scheme, an allegation that the company has vigorously denied. MediaDefender founder Randy Saaf personally assured Ars that MiiVi was an internal project that was never intended for public use. Back in July when we covered the MiiVi scandal, we knew Saaf's story didn't quite add up, and now the general public has evidence that blows holes in Saaf's claims. The MediaDefender e-mails leaked this weekend confirm beyond doubt that the company intentionally attempted to draw traffic to MiiVi while obscuring its own affiliation with the site. The e-mails also show that MediaDefender immediately began to recreate the site under a different name and corporate identity soon after the original plan was exposed.

Full story

This isn't the only case of major studios, and even individual artists, trying to interfere with P2P transfers. Even malware distributors are using file sharing applications to spread their wares. Bottom line: if you file share, be cautious.

[ZNFYRH]

I find this interesting.

MediaDefender's tactics are, technically, illegal.

The reason they get away with them is because the people that fall victim to them are attempting to do something illegal.

Sorta like getting shot during a drug deal. You don't want to report it because you were breaking the law at the time.

The bigger problems fall with the studios and labels who pay MD. They are, technically, paying for illegal activity.

Some states are already looking into what kinds of laws protect people from this sort of thing.

In essence, they are pursuing their right to break the law without their other rights being infringed, if you can believe that one.

In the end, I think the P2P community is good about purchasing when the product is good, and it creates a better market for consumers who want to try before they buy.

[Praxius]

Which is why I stick to Torrent sites, which regulate what they have to download, rather then P2P programs like Imesh, Morpheus, WinMX, Bearshare, Kazzaa, etc...... with those programs you have more uncertainty in what you are getting until you can open it, and by that time, it could be too late.

And none of it is an illegal activity, so long as you don't download something illegal or copywritten.... these P2P programs don't regulate what is shared on other people's computers, they just offer the ability to connect to the share folders on other peers. It's not their fault people are using the programs to share illegal programs.

[ruksak]

This is unrelated, but aren't P2P services often used for the sharing of child pornography? I heard something awhile back about the government trying to squeeze companies like Bearshare into preventing this activity.

[Thanatos]

Sigh. I've been watching the P2P networks and I have known that some of the attempts at obstruction were organized for quite some time. The good news is that this is the information age and you can no more stop data traffic than you can stop a hurricane. The age of Hollywood and the music industry is at a close.

[Praxius]

Quote by: ruksak This is unrelated, but aren't P2P services often used for the sharing of child pornography? I heard something awhile back about the government trying to squeeze companies like Bearshare into preventing this activity.

It's technically possible, since there is no current regulation of what you store on your own computer.

You could have a pile stored on your computer, and all you gotta do is share the main folder containing what you wish to share, and anybody searching for one of those files, or similar, would find them in the search, and begin to download form your computer.

If one was so inclined to share child porn, then this is probably one of the more easier methods..... but it does come with the possibility of tracking..... for example:

If I was a police officer scanning for general online offenses or a paticular case of child abuse, all I'd have to do is go onto a P2P such as Bearshare, Morpheus, Imesh, etc... type in the search words I am looking for and then they pop up in my list. Now I can click to download these files, but at the same time, you can also click on those files and select "Browse Host" and then you can locate all the files that one person has on their storage. I then in turn contact the company and issue a warrent for the IP and identity of the member of that program in which had the files in question, locate where they live, track back all the things they have done, accumulate a large list of charges, and then come down on the freak with no abandon.

If they are not in my jurisdiction, then I send my findings and reports to the proper authorities in the person's jurisdiction and let them take over.

Of course, technically anybody can do this to a degree.... and some programs already display the other person's IP address, so all one would have to do is to pass the info to the proper authorities.

The reason why there isn't anything in place for many P2P programs, is because:

#1 - It'd take to long to manually check the millions of computers connected to the system, to download each file off their systems and confirm their contents of each of the billions of files available in all shapes, sizes and forms.

#2 - Any programs used to block certain kinds of files, would also in turn, block many other file formats which are not illegal.

Most movies and music you download, are in their designated file extensions, like Mp3, Mpeg, AVI, JPG, yadda yadda..... the programs know which file extension is for what, but they can not determine by the media content what is in those files, without actually having to manually view each file.

[Chancellor]

Quote by: Thanatos Sigh. I've been watching the P2P networks and I have known that some of the attempts at obstruction were organized for quite some time. The good news is that this is the information age and you can no more stop data traffic than you can stop a hurricane. The age of Hollywood and the music industry is at a close.

So, you think the people who write and perform the songs or those who produce movies shouldn't be allowed to control their intellectual property? (Notice that this is a question for the purpose of clarification). If so, why should songwriters write or musicians play or singers sing or actors act?

The P2P networks serve only one purpose: to violate copyright and intellectual property laws.

[Praxius]

Quote by: Chancellor So, you think the people who write and perform the songs or those who produce movies shouldn't be allowed to control their intellectual property? (Notice that this is a question for the purpose of clarification). If so, why should songwriters write or musicians play or singers sing or actors act? The P2P networks serve only one purpose: to violate copyright and intellectual property laws.

A true artist should not care primarily about money and profit, but the fact that their art is spreading across the globe, that everybody would know your art and yourself, forever being wirtten in time.

Art is to be remembered, not to get rich..... take the mona lisa. DaVinci is long dead, but we all know him and the art.

If I was a musician or actor, I wouldn't care about my art being shared freely.... it's more exposure and more of an audience..... if I wasn't make enough money to make ends me, then I'd do things the old fasion way.......

..... getting off my ass and touring.

[ZNFYRH]

Chancellor

Movies and music are the only products where you basically are expected to purchase the entire product based on a terribly limited sample.

Almost anything else you can, given the right circumstances, put your hands on and try for yourself.

You walk through a house, or test drive a car, or sample a piece of pie.

As long as I'm expected to take a small sample and commit to the entire product, I'll find a way to sample the entire product and decide if it's worth my money.

[ruksak]

Quote by: Chancellor So, you think the people who write and perform the songs or those who produce movies shouldn't be allowed to control their intellectual property? (Notice that this is a question for the purpose of clarification). The P2P networks serve only one purpose: to violate copyright and intellectual property laws.

Heh. I remember copying songs off the radio and making my own tapes. I guess that was criminal too, aye?

If so, why should songwriters write or musicians play or singers sing or actors act?

Because they're artist? They do it for the love of the art? YA RIGHT!
In all fairness, I understand when they crack down on bootlegger, people that profit by distributing others material for their own gain without license. But, why the hell would Metallica care if some kids download their songs? Because now they can't afford a sixth house, they can only afford 5? They can't afford the Lier Jet 3000, with deluxe amenities. Instead they have to settle for the Lier Jet 2000, that doesn't even have a sushi bar.

Its the difference between getting rich, and getting real really stinking rich.
As far as Hollywood is concerned. Movies are 98% total sh!t anymore, and yet they wonder why the box office returns aren't strong. People download the movies because there is a 98% chance that it sucks, and they aren't willing to pay the freakin $20 for a crappy movie.

I don't know. I see both sides of it. But in the end, its just a bunch of rich arseholes bitching because they would be richer, if not for this activity.

[Chancellor]

Quote by: ruksak Heh. I remember copying songs off the radio and making my own tapes. I guess that was criminal too, aye?

Yes, it was.

Because they're artist? They do it for the love of the art? YA RIGHT! In all fairness, I understand when they crack down on bootlegger, people that profit by distributing others material for their own gain without license. But, why the hell would Metallica care if some kids download their songs? Because now they can't afford a sixth house, they can only afford 5? They can't afford the Lier Jet 3000, with deluxe amenities. Instead they have to settle for the Lier Jet 2000, that doesn't even have a sushi bar.

But the purpose of copyright and intellectual property laws is to protect the artist so that he can reap the benefits of his work. What you are suggesting is that an artist should not be allowed to benefit from his work. Never mind Metallica: what about the local garage band trying to sell its first CD? If everyone was just downloading it off the Internet then they wouldn't have any reason to buy it and, so, the band wouldn't make any money.

Its the difference between getting rich, and getting real really stinking rich. As far as Hollywood is concerned. Movies are 98% total sh!t anymore, and yet they wonder why the box office returns aren't strong. People download the movies because there is a 98% chance that it sucks, and they aren't willing to pay the freakin $20 for a crappy movie.

It has nothing to do with getting rich, it has to do with you denying the artist the right to benefit from his work.

I don't know. I see both sides of it. But in the end, its just a bunch of rich arseholes bitching because they would be richer, if not for this activity.

Well, no, it has nothing to do with certain artists being rich, it's about the other artists who will never get rich because no one will buy their music if they can just download it onto their iPods for free!

[Chancellor]

Quote by: ZNFYRH Chancellor Movies and music are the only products where you basically are expected to purchase the entire product based on a terribly limited sample.

I go into a grocery store and there's a woman standing there with samples of a new brand of dip (or cheese or sausage or something else). I try one; I like it and decide to buy some. Now, the choice to buy that product was based on that terribly limited sample and yet in order to buy some I have to buy an entire package.

Almost anything else you can, given the right circumstances, put your hands on and try for yourself.

Well, you can go to a library and read a book but you won't own a copy yourself until you actually go to the store (or online) and buy it.

You walk through a house, or test drive a car, or sample a piece of pie.

But eating a piece of pie is still a terribly limited sample.

As long as I'm expected to take a small sample and commit to the entire product, I'll find a way to sample the entire product and decide if it's worth my money.

So, you'll find a way to eat the whole pie instead of just a piece? That seems awfully selfish of you.

There's a bookstore I sometimes go to where I can pick up a CD, run it the barcode across a scanner, and listen to a portion of every song on the CD. That's enough for me to decide whether or not I want to buy the CD. Why do you think you have to have the right to violate an artist's copyright and actually download the entire song onto your computer (or the entire CD) for free?

[Chancellor]

Quote by: Praxius A true artist should not care primarily about money and profit, but the fact that their art is spreading across the globe, that everybody would know your art and yourself, forever being wirtten in time. Art is to be remembered, not to get rich..... take the mona lisa. DaVinci is long dead, but we all know him and the art. If I was a musician or actor, I wouldn't care about my art being shared freely.... it's more exposure and more of an audience..... if I wasn't make enough money to make ends me, then I'd do things the old fasion way....... ..... getting off my ass and touring.

But if an artist makes his living off his art then should he not reap the profits on the sale of his art? Leaving groups like Metallica out of it (because the "oh, they're super-rich so it's okay to steal from them" argument is not a valid argument), what about the garage band that is trying to sell its first CD? If everyone is downloading the songs off the Internet for free then why should they bother to buy the CD? Thus, the band doesn't make any money off its work. They can't go out on tour because the venues will think that since they haven't sold any CDs no one is going to like them (and, since they haven't sold any CDs they don't have any money to go on tour - it costs money to rent the use of a stadium or concert hall).

[ruksak]

Quote by: Chancellor what about the garage band that is trying to sell its first CD? If everyone is downloading the songs off the Internet for free then why should they bother to buy the CD? Thus, the band doesn't make any money off its work. They can't go out on tour because the venues will think that since they haven't sold any CDs no one is going to like them (and, since they haven't sold any CDs they don't have any money to go on tour - it costs money to rent the use of a stadium or concert hall).

You make good points, but I wanna be devils advocate here. Record companies will see interest in their work, thus they will sign them to a deal. If they are good and people are interested, they WILL make money. Lots of it.

If I download a song by an artist and I like it, I'm going to want to buy their CD. I got a sample and I want to support them and have the original artwork and contents of the CD. Not some cheap knock-off I ripped from the NET. But thats just me I guess.

I suppose what I'm saying is, the people that refuse to download songs and movies for free, rarely refuse due to fear of legal reprisal.

Watching a movie in the theater is always better than watching it at home.

Listening to your favorite band is always better live in concert, than a recorded playback.

Owning an authentic CD or DVD is always better than owning a cheap ripped copy.

[Thanatos]

Quote by: Chancellor So, you think the people who write and perform the songs or those who produce movies shouldn't be allowed to control their intellectual property? (Notice that this is a question for the purpose of clarification). If so, why should songwriters write or musicians play or singers sing or actors act? The P2P networks serve only one purpose: to violate copyright and intellectual property laws.

I'll miss big-budget space operas and fantasy epics, but I won't miss synthetic profit-driven pop-culture. I am a firm believer in the foolish romantic notion of ars gratia artis. History backs me in that piracy failed to stop Mozart, and that photography and copy/paste and inkjet printers failed to stop people from painting.

[Jack]

Not that signing with a major label is going to guarantee that you'll see all that much of the profit from your sales. P2P is a technology that is going to be hard to legislate away. It would serve the fans and labels more to learn how to use P2P as a valid distribution medium. Obviously, the major labels are reluctant to look into this, since it could lead to a reduction in some of the profits they currently make of their stable of artists.

[ZNFYRH]

Quote by: Chancellor So, you'll find a way to eat the whole pie instead of just a piece? That seems awfully selfish of you.

You are trying so hard to argue that you missed the point.

I can eat a slice of pie and I know how the whole pie will be. You can eat a sample in the store and that's the whole product.

But a movie trailer... or 10 seconds from a song on a CD... are not enough to determine spending money on.

Unlike food, which is designed to be consistent throughout, a movie or CD represents dynamic art. That means that you might see a great scene from a shitty movie, or hear an uninteresting part of a great CD.

I agree with Isherwood as far as using P2P. I think it shows how interested people are in the media in question.

Why not release an entire feature film on a small, 320x200 video download? Let someone decide if it's worth seeing on the big screen. The video rental industry is booming right now because people would rather pay $5 to rent and watch at home than $10 per person, plus food and gas, to watch in a theater on someone else's terms.

[nm420]

People should get back to their roots and start using IRC or the newsgroups. Or, maybe not. If too many people start using those venues I suppose the same crap will happen all over again.

[Gods_Mercenary]

I fileshare like a demon, then transfer the files from my junky puter to my song player of choice. It's illegal and possibly immoral stealing, but I don't like music enough to carry around cd's, much less buy them, and I didn't buy my music playing cell phone so i could spend more money actually paying for the music.

[Muckraker]

I will back Chancellor up on this one 100%.

I used to manage a computer service department and the "greedy" music, movie, and software industry estimates of loss to piracy are definitely on the low end.

80% of the computers I worked on had Kazaa and a large quantity of songs.

Many people say that piracy makes no difference but it really does. The people that are getting hurt the most are the smaller artists because studios are less likely to roll the dice on a nichey piece of work, especially when the target audience is most likely a bunch of pirates.

I hate to say it but the porn industry has taken the brunt of it and is a perfect example of the ultimate problem. There is very little good, creative, and high quality porn out there because there is no funding for anything that is not going to be a "sure thing" for the creator. If all consumers of porn actually paid for it I would bet that the industry would be at least 10,000 times as large as it is now.

People need to pay for what they consume. It's that simple. The only reason people pirate is because it is anonymous and there is little chance they will get caught. All other arguments are out the window. If there was the same risk involved as stealing a CD from the store then there would be no pirates.

Regarding the comments about "previewing" something to decide if you want it. I actually agree on this BUT we already have great preview systems in place. At Amazon you can listen to a 30 second snip of just about everything they have. Most movie websites have a trailer listed and there are numerous websites and blogs that rate and review movies so you don't have to fly blind into it. Remember, with these forms of entertainment, the consumption of it is the product. People go to movie theaters to watch a movie. The ability to "preview" the entire movie before deciding if you want to see the movie in the theater defeats the purpose.

I see no justifiable argument on the other side in this case. The thing that disgusts me the most is people who "love" an album, movie, or book but have never spent a single cent of their money supporting it. Then they go off and load up on Mountain Dew, Big Macs, and fabric softener. Piracy is horrible right now and it is only getting worse.

Watch the effects as the music and movie industry start turning into the porn industry and are only able to pump out the generic garbage that caters to the lowest common denominator audience - the ones who can't figure out how to steal it online.