Anti-Piracy Operations Are Fabricating Links To Non-Existent Torrents In DMCA Notices
from the this-seems-like-a-problem dept
We've seen lots of stories involving various "anti-piracy" organizations sending bogus takedown notices -- often because they use lame keyword matching without any review, and it targets totally unrelated things that happen to have the same name. However, the folks over at TorrentFreak have found another form of totally bogus takedown: completely fabricated torrent links for torrents that have never existed. The issue here is that the fabricated links were targeting two torrent caching systems, Zoink.it and Torrage.com. TorrentFreak explains how they work... but also why the targeted links did not ever exist:These don’t have a searchable index of torrents, but serve as a hosting platform for torrent sites, identifying torrents by their unique hash.Okay, so you can see how this happened. The anti-piracy groups understood just enough about how the torrent cache sites worked, that they automated sending takedowns based on torrent hashes on the assumption that those torrents would also show up via the cache sites. Okay, understandable. But here's the problem: they never checked to see if those links ever existed. Hell, it sounds like they never even visited Zoink.it again for at least the past two years.
For example, a torrent for an episode of Ballers that aired a few weeks ago has the hash C87000EF73557A488D5C21BF8F9FA4CC24EC0513. This file would then be available at Zoink under the following url:
zoink.it/torrent/C87000EF73557A488D5C21BF8F9FA4CC24EC0513.torrent.
We say would be, because Zoink.it was shut down at the end of 2014. The same is true for the other torrent cache, Torrage, which has been offline for quite a while as well.
And yet they sent takedowns for links there.
So how can these companies actually claim that they know these "files" are infringing, when they clearly never even checked the links, let alone the fact that the site they're accusing of infringement, hasn't even been up for two years?
The TorrentFreak article notes that this is not a one-off thing. They found other anti-piracy groups sending takedowns for more non-existent torrents on the same non-existing sites. We know that these fly-by-night operations don't bother to check the files to see if they're actually infringing material, but now we know they don't even seem to check to see if sites or links ever actually existed in the first place.
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: bittorrent, caching sites, copyright, dmca, fabricated, takedowns
Companies: ip echelon
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Simple math and incentives
2) Being able to crow about how many 'infringing links' you demanded taken down allows you to make your company/service look more productive than competing companies/services, meaning more people use your service, leading to more profits.
3) There is no penalty whatsoever for making false DMCA claims.
Given the above three it shouldn't come as any sort of surprise that companies of this sort can be wildly inaccurate and sloppy with their claims, since all the incentives are on the side of throwing out as many claims with as little effort expended as possible, with no incentives whatsoever on the side of making sure those claims are accurate before sending them out or reporting them to their clients.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Simple math and incentives
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If only somebody with legal standing and finances...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: If only somebody with legal standing and finances...
But that's unlikely to happen in the extreme.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
But since there is absolutely no penalty under the DMCA for copyright claimants making reckless accusations (though draconian penalties for ISPs for not taking such accusations seriously) why should we expect copyright trolls go to the time and expense of actually verifying the data their automated programs generate before sending it out?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Just a link please.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Just a link please.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Just a link please.
It's not like you paid TD or something.
Wow man ... yer free stuff is shit man
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Just a link please.
How can you write when you can't read?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Just a link please.
You should have learned to read and right English correctly. Then you'd have perhaps understood that the link you're complaining about not being in the article is, in fact, in the article you're responding to.
However, it is interestingly ironic to see that the ACs have now sunk to complaining about non-existent issues on an article about takedowns for non-existent torrents.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Except he wouldn't tell them because he supports piracy and taking away copyright from artists- the only legal protection they have.
Quite the sicko, eh?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hit enter too soon
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
um, pot/kettle much ? ? ?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
If you want proof just look no further than the one sided penalty structure that works against artists that have their works falsely taken down.
You are not in favor of laws that protect artists. Otherwise you would be in favor of ensuring that artists on the receiving end of false takedown requests receive at least the same protections as the crooks that issue false takedowns. But I don't see you complaining about how IP laws harm artists. You don't care for the artists at all.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
1: Ensuring that all DMCA takedown requests are under penalty of perjury
2: If a takedown request turns out to be false the issuer is fined 100K given to the artist
3: The false issuer should also be forced to pay the service provider 50K for having to manage these takedowns. This will ensure that service providers don't go out of business due to having to manage IP laws so that artists can be protected from not having these service providers to host their content.
4: I am in favor of having Megaupload reinstated so that artists can use the service to upload their content. All of the criminals responsible for taking down Megaupload should be criminally prosecuted and sentenced. This will protect artists from having to worry about the removal of content hosts that they find useful for no good reason.
It is you that doesn't care for legal protections in favor of artists. You only care about the distributors and the legal protections written by them and for them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I like how the tardbucket who demands money for enforcing a law over something that doesn't exist is the one calling others a "sicko".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Citation needed.
Would you please present links to where you found these facts, or just admit you are a shitty troll collecting pay to try and pollute the site.
See the downside is, your IQ is actually below room temp, and any of the regulars and half of the AC's who post here could outthink you while on shrooms.
Oh and because its not worth it being nice...
Are you still raping your dog?
How many kittens will you choke to death to regain your manhood after what your uncle did to you that one summer?
Were you more hurt he did it to you, or he discarded you because you weren't any good?
Please go find a fire and die in it... in real life.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
What unit are you referring to?
Celsius (~21), Fahrenheit (~70), or Kelvin?
(OK, obviously you don't mean Kelvin since the shills around here probably don't even know what that means but that's why it's important for you to specify).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Yes, people who write about things should know how they actually work. Is this a problem? Are you saying that people who write about crime are actually committing it, or are you just another poor deluded liar who can;t deal with facts so have to make crap up about people?
"he supports piracy and taking away copyright from artists"
Oh, you're full of shit. Carry on...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
1: Look at the mass protests against SOPA
2: The mass protests against TPP
3: The fact that Hillary had to temporarily change her position to oppose the TPP to sway voters because she knows that the overwhelming majority of voters are against the TPP and they're against our overreaching IP laws
4: Where are the mass protests in favor of the TPP and in favor of expanding IP laws? They obviously don't exist because almost nobody wants these laws except the big corporate interests that are pushing for them.
5: The TPP agreements were mostly done in secret with select corporate interests invited but the public was left out. Why? Because they know the public doesn't want these laws and these laws aren't intended to serve what the public wants.
Some democracy.
and some propaganda scheme from these shills that's obviously not working. They need a new strategy obviously besides coming here and telling the same lies over and over again. It's just not working but I guess they're desperate or something.
They obviously don't care about the artists. For them to complain about 'artist protection' is a laughable joke and just reveals them for the liars they are.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
I understand the support for things like SOPA on the part of the top end of the corporate scale - they have either stayed ignorant of the actual market changes that have led to their falling profits, or are aware and just want to get the maximum personal profit they can right now, long-term consequences be damned. But, I'll never understand the people who defend them for free.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
In other words he wants to sue people for money over accusations for crimes that were never committed. Just like the RIAA used to do, then dropped the ball after realizing that the public no longer took them seriously as a result, only for the baton to be picked up by Prenda (and inadvertently lead the judges to the infestation of rot and roaches under the rug).
He's full of shit because he's realized that the only way he'll get away with being a retard is to go full retard.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Never attribute to incompetance what can be explained by malice
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
FAB LINKS: ACT ONE, SCENE TWO
.
Please!... no emails!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]