Slashdot Mirror
File-Sharing Site Was Actually an Anti-Piracy Honeypot
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."
Seriously, UploaderTalk is a no-name site.
...when it was called The Scene
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 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.
Have gnu, will travel.
There are no important people in the warez scene. That's why they can't stop it.
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.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
Let's play blackjack some time.
If they were anything serious they wouldn't have gloated that way.
Sounds so much like a whining kid trying to annoy people...
There's no way something like that could be approved by genuine rightsholders. It's just one 'pirate' trolling other 'pirates'.
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.
"Well kids, you tried your best, and you failed. The lesson is, never try." -Homer Simpson
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::
Behold, this dreamer cometh. Come now, and let us slay him... and we shall see what will become of his dreams.
Sour grapes. 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. We're already playing a vigorous game of whack-a-mole but what I think is needed is a series of third party web-sites to filter and mix comment and posted torrents from various IPs to various different user names. Torrent sites could have an API that allows such filtering. For example Joe Anypirate would use torrentfilter.net to send a torrent to thepiratebay.sx. thepiratebay.sx would have only torrentfilter.net as the source of the file information. torrentfilter would automatically assign a random user name for data to forward to thepiratebay.sx. A pirates-only proxy. These third party sites wouldn't host torrents providing a level of abstraction and safety from laws targeting torrent sites.
If video games influenced behavior the Pac Man generation would be eating pills and running away from their problems.
That is all.
Tiger4 on slashdot is the best piracy source out there. Talk to them they have all the good stuff.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
In some countries this would constitute as entrapment. And made collected evidence void for any legal purpose. Somehow im sure internet will soon reveal this persons identity, address, etc... Since he has nothing to hide, right?
Yes, "con" and "hustle" are more specific than "cheat". They both mean cheating someone by making them think they're cheating you.
I say we take off and nuke the entire site from orbit. It's the only way to be sure.
That will only serve to drive people more underground and harder to find. No one can stop the movement. Data will be free.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
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
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 watch it get dragged into court or worse blackmailed with the hassle. Thus I'm not trying to find stuff that's pirated. I just want to know how I should know?
With some common sense one can figure out that if you fand something on mega upload or a torrent site that, well, chances are pretty good one should be wary. But what about a site like CookiesandCream. Lots of TV shows there. Click to stream. no torrents, no rapidshare or mega uploader. outwardly it looks legit. SO I can't tell. And there's lots of places just like that.
Furthermore there's sites that sort of consolidate things CanIwatchIt which deeplinks things so you don't even see the site it's taking you too.
While one should suspect a free lunch it's not always possible to tell. AMC and Hulu often release some episodes or all of a series for a limited time. This happens even when Amazon is charging for the episode. So you can't just assume that some major show like breaking bad, or 30 rock or the killing should not be available somewhere for free.
It used to be easy to tell. Now it's actually reasonable that someone can make a mistake. THe rise of honeypots makes this even more perilous.
A strange game. The only winning move is not to play. How about a nice game of chess?
Well.. maybe. Or Maybe not. But Definitely not sort of.
The economy of my perfect world would be more or less Star Trek, in which the means of production far outclass material want, so the overwhelming majority of actions are taken for the purpose of self-impovement, not 'making a living.'
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 guild of publishers trying to maintain a legal monopoly, and they halfway got their wish with the Statute of Anne, which was claimed to be an act for the 'Encouragement of Learning.' Such a goal is the only justifiable reason for copyright, and the evidence that such a thing happened is incredibly weak. Copyright holders have consistently taken Luddite positions on any technology that could potentially upset their revenue model.
This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
In a universe where Song of the South and Spartakus and the Sun Beneath the Sea haven't been released on DVD yet, and Alegrijes y Rebujos hasn't been dubbed into English yet. This is such a universe.
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.
>"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 same way.
2. If you steal sweets from a shop then more have to be made to replace them. If you infringe copyright then there is no noticeable effect on the producer, as on the whole the extra "work" is all done by third parties.
3. Theft of sweets doesn't lead to extra sales, copyright infringement can. It doesn't always but there is an effect in play. Some of the greatest media buyers are also technically copyright infringers.
4. There are some limited ethical reasons for file sharing - one can rip media you own and encode it, but that's a waste of time and energy when compared with torrenting a file that is already prepared and being downloaded by others. Yes, there are ethical reasons to steal sweets - to give someone suffering a diabetic episode - but that's not the situation you offered for comparison so it's a moot point.
5. The socio-political situation is that there is often no more money available for a person to spend on media consumption than is being spent already. You've released a new movie that's made 5 times it's expenditure in the first week, why are you begrudging a poor person consuming it who wouldn't otherwise benefit from the work. With the sweets, you lose sales for sure as the theft prevents those same sweets being sold but that's not at all true with copyright infringement you still have your copy to reproduce as you will. With the media you lose nothing by allowing others to give away copies in a limited manner. [To the extreme it matters of course].
In short you made a cogent argument and then obliterated it with a silly analogy.
Let's look at your universal statement in that argument though:
>*You... are NOT ENTITLED to products or services in which you have not paid money for.* //
I disagree that people are not entitled to basic health care (a service) or clean water (a product) because they can't pay for it. You're going to have to come up with a more nuanced argument than that if you want to convince people you're speaking from a position of higher morality.
>*If you are pirating data, you should be admitting to yourself that you are stealing.* //
If you're pirating data then you're doing it wrong. You should copy data and - if and only if it's for the greater good - pirate tangible goods instead. 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.
>*If you want something so badly, pay for it, or ignore it.* //
If you want to take part in the culture of our times and are poor what then? Copyright is such that even when vast, vast, returns have been made far and above the invested amounts, far beyond the expected returns of even the greatest of wages those works that have attained a cultural relevance are still locked up and only those who pay can gain lawful access. This is wrong. Culture is more important than that. Yes it's more important than letting those who're creators of creative works to go without any reward too but the balance has been forced far to one side by crooked dealings leaving an entirely unbalanced system.
Your statement works as well for media conglomerates as for those you try to apply it to - if you want everyone to be able to afford to pay to take part in the creative culture of our times instead of falling to tort
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?
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