Copyright Industry Publishes Data-Free Report Claiming Pirate Sites Will Damage Computers
from the and-its-'fix'-only-makes-things-worse dept
When incumbents whose legislative future depends on the portrayal of piracy as the destroyer of worlds commission a report on infringement, you can be sure it will be light on info and heavy on implication. Cold, hard facts generally aren't as conducive to swaying political opinion as scare tactics are. So, instead of verifiable data, the public receives this sort of thing instead.
Nearly all the UK's favourite movie and TV piracy sites "contain malware or credit card scams", according to a study published by the media industry.The report (a summary of which is embedded below) makes a lot of claims, none of them verifiable. Why? Because the irrational fear of piracy led to this stupid decision:
It analysed 30 of the most visited sites offering access to copyright infringing material, and indicated only one was free of such threats.
The report was commissioned by the Industry Trust for Intellectual Property Awareness, whose members include Amazon, BBC Worldwide, HMV, BSkyB, Sony and Walt Disney.So, the Industry Trust expects everyone to just believe that the 30 "most visited" sites will hit users with anything from "download managers" to ransomware. But the industry's fear of piracy is so great that it refused to name the sites, presumably to keep more people from heading to them. This makes the information presented highly questionable. There's no way to verify whether these sites perform in this manner or if, indeed, they are the "30 most visited." (The dearth of information included indicates Alexa was used to make this determination -- an entity whose site-ranking methodology has been depicted as "questionable," at best.)
It declined to name the sites involved.
The report fails to acknowledge that many legitimate sites and services do the same thing. Sure, they may not drop ransomware and malware on your computer, but they'll serve up unwanted toolbars and other spyware in exchange for a download. Take Java, for example. The always-in-need-of-an-update software bundles an Ask.com toolbar with the download, pre-clicked for "convenience." Free flash game sites throw popups all over the place, some of them designed to look like system dialog boxes. For quite some time, CNET's shareware/freeware site has attempted to push spyware and other assorted crapware/malware on users who clicked the "wrong" download button. So, this behavior is by no means limited to "illegitimate" sites.
The industry also fails to recognize that naming the sites could have a detrimental effect on their traffic, especially those deploying malware, rootkits and ransomware. Instead, the industry believes that any publicity is good publicity for "piracy sites." The report's sole reason for existence appears to be to serve as an advertisement for the industry's FindAnyFilm website, which guides visitors to legitimate sites to purchase/stream/etc. the content they're seeking.
FindAnyFilm.com may not load you up with spyware, but it's not much of a solution either. New movie releases seem to be handled competently, but anything out of that range results in a lot of dead ends. BBC political satire "The Thick of It" is nowhere to be found. A quick Google search will find you plenty of legitimate sources, however, including both digital and physical releases listed at Amazon.co.uk.
How about Game of Thrones, the most-pirated content in the history of content piracy? Nothing. FindAnyFilm claims there are no sources, not even a thumbnail.
But a quick search elsewhere shows that it's available from Amazon (UK) on a per episode basis, via DVD and can be rented from LoveFilm.
If anything, FindAnyFilm seems to be worse at delivering legitimate options than that supposed "pirate's best friend," Google's search engine.
FindAnyFilm's browse function itself is mostly broken as well. Trying to bypass the somewhat useless search engine and browse my way to The Thick of It, I discovered that the site files every offering starting with the word "the" under T. Every letter gives you the option to see the Top 50 or All, but "All" is completely misnamed. The "All" option lists the first 50 titles alphabetically but gives you no way to navigate to the next page of listings.
This solution is no solution. It may send a few infringers toward legitimate sources, but it needs to be significantly better if it's ever going to displace other search methods. Dumping a super-scary report into people's laps without providing either a.) verifiable information or b.) a better option than the half-assed FindAnyFilm site isn't going to stem the bleeding. FindAnyFilm actually contributes to the problem with its own ineptness, presenting movies and TV shows with legitimate sources as being completely unavailable.
You can't scare people straight by presenting a one-sided report with no data to back up the claims. People surfing with ad blockers and not suckered by bordering ads, fake dialog boxes, etc. will continue to download infringing material without negatively affecting their computers. As the report itself points out, no site delivers anything bad without someone clicking something. The sites aren't infected, even if the ads and bright, shiny, fake download buttons are.
That it uses this report to push its "solution" is even worse. It just makes the industry look immoral, like car dealers commissioning a study on the "deceptive sales practices" of Tesla in an attempt to portray the upstart as somehow worse than an industry with a long history of deceptive practices. No one believes the results and quite possibly will take their business elsewhere simply because they don't like being treated like idiots by liars.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: copyright, malware, methodology, studies
Companies: industry trust, industry trust for intellectual property awareness
Reader Comments
The First Word
“I understand, it's much clearer now.
"The report was commissioned by the Industry Trust for Intellectual Property Awareness, whose members include Amazon, BBC Worldwide, HMV, BSkyB, Sony and Walt Disney."So...if I only go to sites operated/owned by those companies, then I won't have to deal with malware, spyware, toolbars, data breaches, or anything else unpleasant? Fabulous. Sign me right up for that.
Except, ummm:
http://www.techspot.com/news/47060-amazon-owned-zappos-hacked-24-million-accounts-compromised.h tml
and
http://www.her.ie/entertainment/hmv-twitter-account-is-hacked-by-employees/
and
http://www.ibtim es.co.uk/google-play-store-bskyb-apps-hacked-syrian-471601
and
http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2 013/dec/29/bbc-server-hacked-at-christmas
and
http://www.bit-tech.net/news/2008/07/03/sony-site-offers -up-malware/1
and
http://voices.yahoo.com/disney-email-database-hacked-guest-information-compromised-8 213409.html
I'm sure those were all completely isolated incidents, though, and there is no possibility whatsoever that they'll be repeated in the future.
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
As for the lack of facts on MAFIAA studies it can't be solved that easily.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Hmm... Sounds like a perfect description of the DRM that the publishing industry likes to saddle us with on their "legitimate" products. Why didn't they count that in their research?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Pirating == NSA backed?
Considering that the NSA wants to be able to snoop on all their enemies (IE: everyone) and a compromised system is easier to snoop on than not. Shouldn't the US government ultimately be encouraging copyright theft then?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
I understand, it's much clearer now.
So...if I only go to sites operated/owned by those companies, then I won't have to deal with malware, spyware, toolbars, data breaches, or anything else unpleasant? Fabulous. Sign me right up for that.
Except, ummm:
http://www.techspot.com/news/47060-amazon-owned-zappos-hacked-24-million-accounts-compromised.h tml
and
http://www.her.ie/entertainment/hmv-twitter-account-is-hacked-by-employees/
and
http://www.ibtim es.co.uk/google-play-store-bskyb-apps-hacked-syrian-471601
and
http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2 013/dec/29/bbc-server-hacked-at-christmas
and
http://www.bit-tech.net/news/2008/07/03/sony-site-offers -up-malware/1
and
http://voices.yahoo.com/disney-email-database-hacked-guest-information-compromised-8 213409.html
I'm sure those were all completely isolated incidents, though, and there is no possibility whatsoever that they'll be repeated in the future.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
free pirate sites MAY damage your computer, DRM malware WILL damage your computer.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Pirating == NSA backed?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
FTFY
[ link to this | view in thread ]
You tend to find what you put there.
I've seen it a few times on The Pirate Bay where a virus laden torrent has been tracked back to the producers. Granted, that's not evidence, but I wouldn't put it past these people.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
It's bloody iLivid, isn't it?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Pirating == NSA backed?
We can steal whole copyrights now?!? Somebody, quick, tell the authors and songwriters whose copyright has been locked up by the cartels. They may finally be able to get their copyright back and earn some money!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Sony calling ketlle black? Irony?
Kettle calling black anyone?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Hypocrisy
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: It's bloody iLivid, isn't it?
If you are a n00b, you won't likely realize that the top search results are pad advertisements for spamware pushers.
The whole web has become infested with this crap. It's not just the "bad guys" you have to watch out for.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Pirating == NSA backed?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Microsoft added another tab to the properties for the license. Only they didn't add any security assuming that those who could access it were legitimate copyright holders. If the license wasn't there, it would send you to the legitimate site to buy a license. Loudeye instead set up a fake site serving up trojans.
After almost no one would take a wma file, Microsoft finally got around to putting in security to end Loudeye's practices.
Everyone knows of Sony and it's rootkit problem.
Harder to prove but most likely very much the truth, is that most are protecting their income streams by putting out poisoned digital offering. Movies with bad codec, programs with malware, and other little dastardly deeds to try and get paid. There's just too much of it, in too many ways, for it to be otherwise.
Then there is the recent City of London move to remove reputable advertisers from file sharing sites. So who is going to advertise in their place? Demonoid just shut down all their advertisement after Google claimed they were serving up malware through ads. You can point the finger right back at the copyright industry for that occurrence.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Disney ect don't get it
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Malware Source
Seriously, one should be wary of many sites that often have dodgy wares. It is not limited to pirate sites, however.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
You'll forgive me if I feel safer with the pirates.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Disney ect don't get it
What credibility?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Sita Sings the Blues
"Not Available"
hmm...
oh well, I guess I can't get that one online legally.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Exhibit B: early SecuROM.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Disney ect don't get it
[ link to this | view in thread ]
The site list
...or to keep people from realizing that the 30 sites they've fingered are not actually "pirate sites". They have a really terrible track record at determining if a given site is a pirate site or not.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
see: Celine Dion kills i-macs
http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/17697
[ link to this | view in thread ]
The Answer is obvious
If I claim site X has malware or CC scams and said operator wanted to he could easily sue and claim defamation.
By not naming names the report doesn't have any type of risk for scrutiny.
Not to mention if they named the one site that doesn't have scams/malware you can bet people would flock to that site.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
Exhibit D: tages, that DRM scheme that used undocumented system functions and vulnerabilities, leading to incompatibilities up to preventing booting all together.
Exhibit E: obscure self made DRM that is so broken, that you NEED to crack them so that it works at all.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: The site list
1) Does the site make content available to visitors?
If 'yes', move on to 2.
2) Is site owned, operated or controlled by a major label and/or studio?
If 'yes', go to 3a. If 'no', go to 3b.
3a) Site is not a pirate site.
3b) Site is a pirate site.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
"...Claiming Pirate Sites Will Damage Computers"
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: You tend to find what you put there.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
In a related story...
"Yes, pirate sites are perfectly safe!" - Iraqi Information Ministry
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: In a related story...
- The rightsholders
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Disney ect don't get it
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: The Answer is obvious
Yep. The real reason is that they've finally started to learn from at least one of their own mistakes. Every major lawsuit against a piracy site has led to a big increase in the people using that site. The legal action often works as free advertising.
They're not scared of lawsuits, they just want to avoid giving free publicity to those 30 sites.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: the Celine Dion CD that destroyed iMacs
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: In a related story...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Our tactics need some changing.
"Dear editors,
Really, I don't know why I still read newspapers. But I do (or used to). I'm beginning to feel as if I'm a modern-day Diogenes, in a Quixotic quest for some considered, cogent, and honest reporting.
But yesterday's article about (fill in latest lies) was the last straw. Your reporter and editors feel that their jobs are to quote, verbatim, industry news releases. None of your fact-checkers verified, and no one provided any historical analysis of all the other times in the recent past that the (BCC, MPAA, RIAA, whichever) issued a fact-free 'report'.
If your reporters and editors don't think that it's vitally important, in a modern, open, and vibrant democracy, that news organizations check their sources and check their information and report their findings, then I may as well just get my news for free from wild-eyed, paranoid bloggers living in their parents' basement.
At least, in their case, I get what I pay for. In your case, I pay you and you spit in my face by repeating these copyright industry lies.
Sir, please cancel my subscription, forthwith."
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: It's bloody iLivid, isn't it?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: In a related story...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: In a related story...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Federally Poisoned Booze
They dream of the day they can insert killer code that will cause your computer to malfunction, as punishment for your audacity to download from a P2P website.
These phony 'P2P Downloads Cause Computer Damage' "news" stories are an attempt to make people think that the damage is coming from the P2P sites and shared wares, rather than coming from Anti-P2P code insertion.
This is exactly what the Fed did during Prohibition. They poisoned captured booze stocks with various toxins and then put the poisoned booze back on the market so the press could write stories about how bootleg booze caused blindness and death.
If you would like to see a massive example of this government approved criminal vigilante activity, simply install PeerBlock on your computer for a day, and then scan the PeerBlock logs.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: In a related story...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: In a related story...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]