File-Sharing Site Was Actually an Anti-Piracy Honeypot 225
An anonymous reader writes "The administrator of file-sharing site UploaderTalk shocked and enraged his userbase a few days ago when he revealed that the site was nothing more than a honeypot set up by a company called Nuke Piracy. The main purpose of the site had been to gather data on its users. The administrator said, 'I collected info on file hosts, web hosts, websites. I suckered $#!&loads of you. I built a history, got the trust of some very important people in the warez scene collecting information and data all the time.' Nobody knows what Nuke Piracy is going to do with the data, but it seems reasonable to expect lawsuits and the further investigation of any services the users discussed. His very public betrayal is likely meant to sow discord and distrust among the groups responsible for distributing pirated files."
Good thing no one used it (Score:5, Insightful)
Seriously, UploaderTalk is a no-name site.
Re:Good thing no one used it (Score:5, Insightful)
Gotta agree there. I've more or less gotten out of that life-style and only occasionally keep track of file-sharing news when it was something big. I'd never heard of this guy or his sites.
That said, now that this story is Slashdotted... what will the Internet vigilantes do to this guy?
Re:Good thing no one used it (Score:5, Interesting)
Well, it's likely he won't stay anonymous for long.
The whole thing makes me scratch my head though. Seems like a bad and unprofessional idea to just announce it's a honeypot. If I were setting it up I'd just say the site is closing down then dish out lawsuits or what have you or whatever else, I don't know. An anti-piracy stance (in the typical MPAA fashion) is a very unpopular one on the internet. There's nothing to gain.
But he even announced he's doing it again, and it's likely he'll be tracked down and effortlessly exposed.
Sounds more like some script kiddie who is pulling some prank or what have you. But apparently tracking down who was behind was just handed to us on a silver platter, right here [arkansas.gov]. Names and address included.
So it's a legitimate business. Well good luck against the internet, if they even take your vBulletin forum and website that was coded by fifth grader seriously. I wonder if they even know how to extract the data in any meaningful way.
Re: Good thing no one used it (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: Good thing no one used it (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: Good thing no one used it (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Good thing no one used it (Score:5, Insightful)
Seems like a bad and unprofessional idea to just announce it's a honeypot.
Not if you're an attention whore and a wanna-be internet vigilante.
An anti-piracy stance (in the typical MPAA fashion) is a very unpopular one on the internet. There's nothing to gain.
Well, there is something to gain; it's blackmail material. That's what the MPAA/RIAA use it for, and there's no reason you couldn't sell the information to a third party to try and extort money from them "If you don't pay us to keep quiet, we'll reveal your illegal activity to the authorities." I mean, that's pretty much classic blackmail. The data he has does have value, and if you view this announcement as a bid for potential buyers of his data, then it suddenly makes sense.
The announcement is a false flag; It isn't a signal to us that he's turning the information over to authorities, it's a signal to the criminal community to come forward and begin bidding. Now instead of it being "bad and unprofessional", it's a clever way of acquiring plausible deniability by appearing to be retarded.
Sounds more like some script kiddie who is pulling some prank or what have you. But apparently tracking down who was behind was just handed to us on a silver platter, right here. Names and address included.
Not a script kiddie; a paid industry shill. And as is typical for idiot hacktivists, a simple google search without a deeper understanding of business filings reveals that it's fingering the wrong guy; They failed to check for legally registered aliases. Incomplete investigations are incompetent investigations. Hasn't the Boston Bomber Reddit Witchunt taught us anything, Internet?
You cannot conduct a proper investigation using just google. Google is exploratory not confirmatory, and if you act on this information you will likely be exposing yourself to far more legal liability than using some badly designed "honeypot" website.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
There's another angle that hasn't been brought up yet:
The announcement is sowing mistrust amongst the various sites. People are going to be less willing to blindly trust whatever new sites just pop up. In turn, this will reduce the number of sites that need to be watched, allowing a reduction in costs and an increase in results.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
An anti-piracy stance (in the typical MPAA fashion) is a very unpopular one on the internet. There's nothing to gain.
There is something to gain. After going public with this, the pirates will be nervous about joining new 'piracy' sites. Just what his kind wants.
Re:Good thing no one used it (Score:4, Interesting)
Entrapment doesn't really exist as a legal defense any more. The courts accept the catch-22 logic that taking an action is absolute evidence of predisposition to take that action. To win with a defense of entrapment, you'd pretty much have to prove that they held a gun to your head to make you do it. Even then modern courts probably wouldn't consider it entrapment.
Re: (Score:2)
They coated them with watered-down glue?
Re:Good thing no one used it (Score:5, Funny)
Maybe he's trying to start a vigilante honeypot.
Re:Good thing no one used it (Score:5, Insightful)
I can (partially) forgive The Guardian for taking this story at face value, but Slashdot ought to be a bit more selective. Looks like this guy got kicked out of WJunction, set up his own site (which failed to attract much traffic), and is now claiming it was all part of a Cunning Plan to join the antipiracy industry (working for a company nobody has ever heard of, with a website that must have taken all of 15 minutes to set up). He can probably be reached for comment at his Top Model girlfriend's Manhattan penthouse (or more likely, in his mom's basement).
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Good thing no one used it (Score:4, Insightful)
There have been no updates on the journalist's files being seized illegally. No new information has come out about it since that story. Nothing has come out since the story to make it seem that it's a hoax.
"Googling for where that story came from" reveals that it was first reported at The Daily Caller. (So would clicking on the link in the Slashdot story, for that matter.) If, in your mind, the very fact that the story comes from a conservative outlet is reason to believe the opposite of the story is true, you're a hyperpartisan troll.
Re:Good thing no one used it (Score:5, Funny)
Does he say "you're an Australopithecus, and they're all liars"?
tastes like (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
However many or few people used the site this is a real betrayal and it's necessary for pirates and torrenters to find way to become even more robust against this kind of activity
Torrenters aren't warez pups. Anyone with half a clue knows better than to conduct your piracy using bit torrent, unless you want to get caught. Where you download the .torrent from doesn't matter one bit ... its the fact that hosts in that swarm could very well be police or other law enforcement agencies and by participating in the torrent, you incriminate yourself and provide them with solid evidence of what you're doing. You're an idiot if you actually get your warez through torrents unless you're a s
Re: (Score:2)
okay you steal the imaginary/intangable value society assigns it and i will keep the physical representation of it.
the difference is stealing is taking the physical copy, (disks, books, etc,) where copyright infringement is make an exact duplicate which is "illegitimate" without altering anyone else's. All I did is arrange electrons in silicon in pattern that happens to be the same pattern that you claim to hold exclusive rights to.
Re: (Score:2)
well, they still managed to get a couple of more guys into filesharing.
also they must operate outside of eu(having some laws on databases about people is actually worthwhile)
How can one tell? (Score:3, Interesting)
Occasionally I'm looking for a TV show I want to watch. It's often hard to know where to find it. Hulu, crackle, netflix, amazon are big names but there's lots of other little ones as well. So how can one tell when one clicks on a link to watch something if it's a legit site or a copyright violator. Regardless of how you feel about copyrights, my main goal is to avoid some hassle-- not worth it to me. The last thing I want is some honeypot offering me Game Of Thrones season 3 for free and then after
I liked this story better... (Score:4, Funny)
Implicit permission? (Score:5, Insightful)
Don't you believe it. (Score:2)
So for the months that the site was active these files (and links) were being shared with the implicit permission of the copyright umbrella groups? Neat. Bless 'em.
The same permission a mouse gets when nanny baits a snap trap with a piece of cheese. The permission to die from a broken spine.
Re:Don't you believe it. (Score:4, Interesting)
Not when you have to go through the "justice" system.
If you are a copyright holder, or acting on his/her/its behalf, and you seed a torrent for me to download, you have, in fact, given me the file. Since you are the copyright holder, that file was given lawfully. You cannot now turn around and sue me for taking from you what you have lawfully given. Your harm, such that there is, is entirely self inflicted.
Honeypots are a useful tool to learn techniques that the other side uses, but they are, by and large, useless as a technique to sue over copyright infringement.
IANAL
Shachar
Re: (Score:2)
>IANAL
Good, because you're wrong about pretty much everything that you wrote.
Re:Don't you believe it. (Score:5, Insightful)
Not when you have to go through the "justice" system.
If you are a copyright holder, or acting on his/her/its behalf, and you seed a torrent for me to download, you have, in fact, given me the file. Since you are the copyright holder, that file was given lawfully. You cannot now turn around and sue me for taking from you what you have lawfully given. Your harm, such that there is, is entirely self inflicted.
Honeypots are a useful tool to learn techniques that the other side uses, but they are, by and large, useless as a technique to sue over copyright infringement.
IANAL
Shachar
They won't sue you for downloading the torrent, they will sue you for uploading to others without permission.
Re: (Score:2)
If you are a copyright holder, or acting on his/her/its behalf, and you seed a torrent for me to download, you have, in fact, given me the file. Since you are the copyright holder, that file was given lawfully. You cannot now turn around and sue me for taking from you what you have lawfully given. Your harm, such that there is, is entirely self inflicted.
I sometimes wonder how the geek manages to survive his own bullshit.
The sting works by offering the geek a free movie or a link to a free movie under circumstances which can't possibly be legitimate. Greed kicks in and he downloads "Iron Man 3" and a half dozen or so other flicks each of which sells for $25 at Walmart.
Bonus points for leaving these unlicensed downloads in his shared file folders to be fed back into the P2P nets.
Re: (Score:2)
The sting works by offering the geek a free movie or a link to a free movie under circumstances which can't possibly be legitimate.
Do elaborate, please.
Shachar
Re: (Score:2)
They did not provide any sort of implicit permission. The copyright holders may have contracted with Nuke Piracy, and Nuke Piracy may very well have had express permission to use it to setup a honey pot, but the users who got caught in the trap had no way of knowing that.
Copyright law does not follow a "use it or lose it" doctrine like trademark law does and to some extent patent law as well. Many people confuse these three sections of law, but they are almost completely disjoint.
Copyright owners are under
User data? (Score:5, Insightful)
The main purpose of the site had been to gather data on its users.
So they have a bunch of anonymous IP addresses from a bunch of public WiFi sites. Even a trusted file sharing site can put people at risk if the FBI kicks the door down and seizes the servers. So any smart pirates will take measures to protect their anonymity, honey pot or not.
In the meantime, thanks for all the disk space. It was fun while it lasted.
Re: (Score:2)
How very narrow minded of you. They probably are not getting good info from the majority of users, who downloaded a bunch of stuff. On that I can agree with you.
There were probably forums, which provided good info on user relationships if you can data mine it. The original uploaders, even if they used different accounts, could be tied together by IP address and other data, to form either single users with multiple accounts or suspected groups of cohorts. And of course forums may be a great way to link p
Re: User data? (Score:2)
You're missing the point. If the idea was primarily to sue people, then they wouldn't gloat about it. You're not gonna stop the people who are really into it, but if you get a few hundred people who are new the idea of pirating software/music/movies/whatever, and you scare them into stopping pirating, then you've just made those content creators millions upon millions if dollars, at least according to magical RIAA fantasyland accounting.
But really, even the idea behind the lawsuits isn't to make money fro
Whaaa? (Score:5, Insightful)
There are no important people in the warez scene. That's why they can't stop it.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Didn't you notice it's always the same groups that release your TV shows?
LOL, ASAP, AFG, DIMENSION, mSD?
Take those down and it will become quite annoying.
Re:Whaaa? (Score:4, Insightful)
Take those down and it will become quite annoying.
For about five minutes until another springs up. Groups such have these have become less and less important as fibre becomes more prevalent.
Re:Whaaa? (Score:4, Informative)
Re: Whaaa? (Score:2)
The hard part is delivering consistent quality on a fast and regular basis. No, that's not possible for anyone, and people with a little of experience downloading know they should prefer releases from reliable subgroups than from nobodies.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Seriously what can Disney say about the people sharing Pirates of the Caribbean?
Would 28 days later really be the same movie without all the sharing?
How would Independence day have ended if there was no uploaders?
Re: (Score:2)
Didn't you notice it's always the same groups that release your TV shows?
Dunno... The groups that release *my* shows are the TV broadcasters, my TV provider's on-demand service, Netflix and DVD retailers.
Re: Whaaa? (Score:2)
Enjoy your sub-par service then.
Re: Whaaa? (Score:5, Informative)
Internet piracy: choose what you want to watch and watch it. Available on the day it is aired on or released, in any country or region around the world, best quality, all versions available, subtitles for all languages, no ads, transferable to any device.
DVDs: find a shop that has what you want and is willing to sell it in your region, or order them online. Go to the shop or wait. Put the DVD in your current DVD reader in its box. Put the DVD you just bought inside the DVD reader. Watch the mandatory ads. Go through some horrible and unpractical menu. Bad subtitles. Not transferable. Bad resolution and often interlaced video. No easy way to keep track of which version of the video it is and whether there are better ones that got released later or in other regions. Must use the DRM-locked interface of your DVD reader to do anything.
Blurays: pretty much like DVDs, except the quality is better and the non-transferability and ads are even worse.
TV channels: you must be present at the time of broadcast to see the show, or set up the appropriate recording with an inept interface (assuming you have paid the premium to be allowed to do this). If your connectivity fails or stutters during the broadcast, you've missed the bit in question. Ridiculous amounts of advertisements (especially in the US). Very bad subtitles, if they're even available. Not transferable to another device. Must use the DRM-locked interface of your TV box to do anything.
Video on Demand: Number of shows available fairly limited, even with the best services, since only the shows for which the provider has struck a deal are available. Shows only available quite after they've been aired or released. Not transferable to another device. Services tied to particular geographic regions. Some problems similar to that of TV channels with some services. Must use the DRM-locked interface of your TV box to do anything.
Re: (Score:2)
In the meantime, while you are enjoying your "superior service" you can thank me for having the content available in the first place. It's people like us who consume content through legitimate outlets that make it possible for the shows to exist in the first place. If everyone resorts to piracy then producing valuable content becomes a loosing proposition. No dollars no new content.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Find me these 3 on your preferred service (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
well that isn't this one because: http://www.raredvds.biz/Song_Of_The_South_DVD_1946_Ruth_Warrick_Bobby_p/song_south.htm [raredvds.biz] [raredvds.biz]
That's a bootleg.
Re: (Score:2)
raredvds.biz
From the linked page: "Disney may never release this title on DVD or Blu Ray. This is a fantastic transfer from a Laser Disc source." It doesn't look anything like a legit Disney DVD release.
and in the us Spartakus and the Sun Beneath the Sea is called under the sun.
Under the Sun is a surfing documentary. Spartakus is a trippy animated series [wikipedia.org] titled Les Mondes Engloutis in francophone markets.
HDHomeRun (Score:2)
Unless you pay alot extra for a dvr.
Why would you need to buy an expensive TiVo DVR from an alot [blogspot.com] instead of just plugging an HDHomeRun receiver [silicondust.com] into your existing living room PC?
Re: (Score:2)
Spoken like someone who's never actually spent any time in the zero-day scene.
Have a nice day thinking you have a clue though, must be nice.
Re: (Score:2)
The zero-day scene is entirely automated, doesn't change the fact that if you take down the bot providers, it falls down.
Re: (Score:2)
"Didn't you notice it's always the same groups that release your TV shows?
LOL, ASAP, AFG, DIMENSION, mSD?"
And well before those fucking amateurs we had PhrozenICE, EZWarez, and more.
Give me a break, child.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
They don't need to. They only need to get someone inside the US to record the show and send it to them, so they can do whatever editing they do and release it.
Re: (Score:2)
My 73 year old dad rips disks. I'm sure if he bothered, he would upload too.
I rip disks, but I've never uploaded, and never will. Too much risk for no benefit.
Re: (Score:2)
I can name one Kim Dotcom. Though admittedly that's the only one.
No name fake site that has no rep is a honeypot... (Score:5, Insightful)
News at 11.
Honestly they were barely known and had ZERO rep in the community. In fact most people never even knew about them or knew to stay away because it was too new and too unknown.
If this is the best they got, then there is no worries out there. Now find out that TPB was a BSA sting operation.... THAT is real news.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Honestly they were barely known and had ZERO rep in the community.
So, perhaps you'd care to share who does have the best rep? ::recorder ON::
Re:No name fake site that has no rep is a honeypot (Score:4, Funny)
Tiger4 on slashdot is the best piracy source out there. Talk to them they have all the good stuff.
Re: (Score:2, Redundant)
Now find out that TPB was a BSA sting operation.... THAT is real news.
So the Boy Scouts of America is really a shell organization for the government!? Holy Double Deception Batman!
boasting isnt the best idea. (Score:2)
The administrator said, 'I collected info on file hosts, web hosts, websites. I suckered $#!&loads of you. I built a history, got the trust of some very important people in the warez scene collecting information and data all the time.'
and he was never heard from again
serious ? (Score:5, Insightful)
If they were anything serious they wouldn't have gloated that way.
Sounds so much like a whining kid trying to annoy people...
Re: (Score:2)
If they were anything serious they wouldn't have gloated that way.
Have you ever known a geek who could keep his big mouth shut? ---- DPR
Re: (Score:2)
This.
They would start sueing people while keeping the site running until it was found out and/or no longer produced useful information.
I smell troll (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Why make an entire site for it? (Score:3)
I mean people get busted all the time on piratebay when someone collecting data joins a torrent and logs ip's. Anyone smart enough to use a proxy or public wifi is going to use it both places anyways.
VPN (Score:3)
Poor fellow (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Name one.
In every system I'm aware of, it's entrapment only if law enforcement (not some random private party) encourages you to violate a law you wouldn't have broken otherwise (which providing a forum for folks to discuss their violations of the law is not).
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
He's probably thinking of the unclean hands doctrine [thefreedictionary.com].
unclean hands n. a legal doctrine which is a defense to a complaint, which states that a party who is asking for a judgment cannot have the help of the court if he/she has done anything unethical in relation to the subject of the lawsuit. Thus, if a defendant can show the plaintiff had "unclean hands," the plaintiff's complaint will be dismissed or the plaintiff will be denied judgment.
The police can provoke you to commit a crime and arrest you for it in a classic non-entrapment sting operation. A copyright holder can't provoke you into committing copyright infringement and then sue you in court for damages, it doesn't make it legal but it's an affirmative defense meaning they can't collect any damages from it. Basically you will never get rewarded in court for causing damages to yourself, it creates far too much potential for abuse.
sow discord and distrust (Score:3)
That will only serve to drive people more underground and harder to find. No one can stop the movement. Data will be free.
Why? (Score:2, Interesting)
Why are essentially all of the above comments pro-piracy?
If you dreamed up your perfect world, would it contain piracy, or no piracy, or something between? Explain calmly and specifically, why.
Thanks.
Re: (Score:3)
In regards to the ideal economics that are more bound to our current reality, I would still prefer to not have copyright. It was originally a means of censorship to protect kings and churches against heretical works spreading. Eventually, it became more about a powerful gu
Re: (Score:2)
Mine wouldn't have any because it wouldn't be necessary due to reasonable copyright.
Shows are available online almost as soon as they air. You believe "reasonable copyright" is fifteen minutes or so then?
Advertising would be banned in my perfect world though also.
So you believe only speech you agree with should be allowed?
Entrapment (Score:2)
Re:Entrapment (Score:4, Informative)
The site smells of entrapment to me.
There is more to making good a defense of entrapment than being caught in the trap.
In criminal law:
A valid entrapment defense has two related elements: (1) government inducement of the crime, and (2) the defendant's lack of predisposition to engage in the criminal conduct. Of the two elements, predisposition is by far the more important.
Inducement is the threshold issue in the entrapment defense. Mere solicitation to commit a crime is not inducement. Nor does the government's use of artifice, stratagem, pretense, or deceit establish inducement. Rather, inducement requires a showing of at least persuasion or mild coercion.
Even if inducement has been shown, a finding of predisposition is fatal to an entrapment defense. The predisposition inquiry focuses upon whether the defendant "was an unwary innocent or, instead, an unwary criminal who readily availed himself of the opportunity to perpetrate the crime."
Entrapment --- Elements [justice.gov]
I'd say it's a fair bet (Score:2)
Anti-piracy group complicit in...piracy? (Score:2)
Yeah. Help me to understand that.
An anti-piracy group establishing ANYTHING that enables piracy, so they can get people's IDs?
Okay. Great. Now they know who some of these guys are!
But that still doesn't get them out of the fact that they were complicit in piracy operations.
All that, eventually, happens is that real pirates migrate to The Next Big Thing, and you get a bunch of little fish.
I suckered $#!&loads of you (Score:2)
WTF, Slashdot? Why are you censoring the quote?
Obviously.... (Score:2)
....there are such sites out there.... That's Plural...
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Let's play blackjack some time.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
A strange game. The only winning move is not to play. How about a nice game of chess?
Basic strategy + card counting (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
According to the casino owners, that's cheating.
Re: (Score:3)
Yes, "con" and "hustle" are more specific than "cheat". They both mean cheating someone by making them think they're cheating you.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Good, piracy is wrong... period.
Nope. Not always wrong. Abandonware comes to mind.
And there are very legitimate arguments that the term of copyright has been extended beyond sane limits, violating the social contract that we agreed to for copyright to exist in the first place.
You... are NOT ENTITLED to products or services in which you have not paid money for.
If I see a shirt at the store I like I can make one myself just like it. Yet I have taken the idea from someone else. Copyright says I am entitled to
Re: (Score:3)
>"Kids in grocery stores crying, yelling, in tantrums on the floor, trying to get their mothers to get them some candy is not a basis for how we should be acting as adults on the internet." //
You were doing alright with your argument until this.
1. Sweets are generally bad for you, they contain additives and such that give you no benefit and may be harmful. Excessive processed sugar consumption certainly doesn't seem to help a child. Consuming culturally relevant works may be bad for you, but not in the s
Since when does "piracy" imply crime? (Score:2)
If you're a pirate then admit that, if you're [merely] committing the tort of copyright infringement then admit that. Admitting the truth to yourself is better than labelling yourself as a criminal when what you are is a tortfeasant.
I thought the term "piracy" for copyright infringement was used even in places where and times when copyright infringement was only a tort, not a crime.
If you want to take part in the culture of our times and are poor what then?
Dave Ramsey might recommend that you first become no longer poor. First eat beans and rice and drive a beater car until you have paid off all debt. Then use your growing savings to get trade certifications to get a better job.
William Shakespeare (Score:3)
You... are NOT ENTITLED to products or services in which you have not paid money for.
Am I entitled to the script of the play Romeo and Juliet? This is an extreme example from which I intend to argue inward.
If you want something so badly, pay for it
Who's selling a lawfully made copy of the film Song of the South and for how much?
Re: (Score:2)
Who's selling a lawfully made copy of the film Song of the South and for how much?
Hundreds of people on eBay, for maybe $30-40 at the high end.
Region coding (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That's either a badly encoded covert communication between parties or a very dyslexic troll.