Earlier this week we published an article on the quite puzzling situation surrounding one of the world’s largest streaming movie sites.

In a nutshell, some time ago LetMeWatchThis changed its name to 1Channel. Then more recently it changed back again after the 1Channel domain was hijacked. After more shenanigans the site changed its domain to PrimeWire.ag and then this week, reportedly changed to Vodly.to

After receiving lots of emails on the topic, mostly asking which is the real site, we have now unraveled the mystery. We can confirm that of the domains currently operating, PrimeWire.ag and LetMeWatchThis.ch are ‘real’ and the others should all be disregarded as either dead or fake.

So what on earth has been going on?

On Friday, TorrentFreak managed to get in touch with the admin of the real sites who told us a quite astonishing story of how his domains were stolen from under his nose – not once, not twice, but an amazing three times.

It all started off a year ago when the site was operating from LetMeWatchThis.com, a domain that was hijacked and now diverts to WatchFreeMovies.com, a clone site presumably operated by the hijackers.

Then in May, after the site had moved to the replacement 1Channel.ch, that domain was also hijacked. LetMeWatchThis.ch, yet another replacement, suffered the same fate. This week PrimeWire.ag, the latest substitute domain, was hijacked too but is now back in safe hands.

So is poor security on the admin’s side to blame here or are there other factors at play? Apparently, domain name registrars are very easy to fool if you know how.

“The state of domain registrars is simply terrible,” the PrimeWire admin explains.

“We have had three domains hijacked from three separate registrars in the past two years. Every single registrar was given very specific instructions to prevent these hijackings, however every single one simply handed over the domain based on badly doctored ‘proof’, completely disregarding the warning given to them in regards to scenarios exactly like this.”

So how exactly are the registrars being convinced to hand over domains to impostors?

“This is actually a scary thing, since you can pretty much gain control (at least temporarily) of any domain you choose by pretending to be the owner of the domain,” our admin reveals.

“You don’t have to have access to any emails, passwords, or any other credentials. You simply grab the information from the WHOIS, write a letter with an attached photo-shopped ID with the same name, send it from a random email address, and the domain will be handed to you fairly quickly.”

So what can be done to avoid having your domain taken?

“Domains with no WHOIS at all (.to .so, etc) or protected WHOIS would probably do the trick, however after seeing how registrars just hand over domains without warning to random people, I wouldn’t bet on this 100% either,” the admin says.

“I think the best thing to do is build a strong community on the site, which cannot be stolen, and they will always keep the site alive no matter how many name changes it goes though,” he concludes.

So finally, the wrap up users of the sites have been waiting for:

LetMeWatchThis.com – Hijacked in 2012, still hijacked – AVOID
LetMeWatchThis.ch – Hijacked in 2013, now retrieved – BACK IN SAFE HANDS
1Channel.ch – Hijacked in 2013, now frozen – FROZEN
Vodly.to – Owned by hijackers – AVOID

PrimeWire.ag – Hijacked in 2013, now retrieved – BACK IN SAFE HANDS (Official site)

Source: How Do You Hijack a Popular Streaming Movie Site? With Ease, Apparently

After years of negotiating and planning the “six strikes” copyright alert system finally went live in February. Since then, many alerts have been sent out to U.S. subscribers, although the exact number remains a mystery.

The evidence at the base of the accusations is provided by copyright holders who hired a company called MarkMonitor (DtecNet) to snoop on BitTorrent users.

This information then goes to the Internet providers, who forward it to their customers in the form of a “copyright alert”. Repeat offenders can be punished through a wide variety of mitigation measures, ranging from mandatory copyright courses to temporary Internet restrictions.

To guarantee the accuracy of the evidence behind the accusations the parties agreed to hire an impartial and independent technology expert, but October last year their commitment to this promise was questioned when the expert turned out to be Stroz Friedberg, a former RIAA lobbying group.

The Center for Copyright Information (CCI) realized that this was an unfortunate pick and the group quickly announced that a new expert would be hired do a fresh evidence review. The goal of this re-examination was to restore the public’s faith in the system, but after the initial announcement things went awfully quiet.

In recent months TorrentFreak asked several times whether a new expert had been picked, but every time CCI replied that it was working on the issue. This week, progress was finally made with CCI informing us that it had picked a new expert to conduct a fresh review.

“The Center for Copyright Information is pleased to have signed an agreement with a new, independent technology expert to begin a second review of the content methodology employed by the content community to identify potential copyright infringement on peer-to-peer sites for the Copyright Alert System,” CCI’s Executive Director Jill Lesser tells TorrentFreak.

To prevent more public scrutinizing, the CCI has made sure that there are no past or active ties to the entertainment industries or anti-piracy groups. After a long and thorough search, the group eventually hired Professor Avi Rubin‘s company Harbor Labs.

“The new expert is Professor Avi Rubin, who will work with his team at Harbor Labs. Professor Rubin has no prior connection to CCI and is not affiliated in any way with its member companies, but comes highly recommend by several technologists and experts in our field.”

“CCI is committed to the continued improvement and transparency of our system, and we feel strongly that this second independent review will help us maintain those commitments,” Lesser adds.

CCI has yet to release any official numbers but thus far the number of alerts being sent out under the program appears to be minimal. We previously received a copy of a warning email sent out by Comcast and later stumbled upon a Time Warner Cable notice, but that’s it.

Interestingly, Comcast also appears to be working on a separate anti-piracy system through which downloaders will be alerted to legal alternatives when they’re caught pirating. CCI told TorrentFreak that it supports the initiative.

“The new Comcast anti-piracy program is not something that was developed through the CCI but we support efforts that further CCI’s mission and are consistent with the important principles of transparency and protection of customer privacy on which the CCI was founded,” Lesser says.

For now the Copyright Alert System will continue to operate as is. The new review is expected to be published when it’s completed, which may take a few more months. Those who are interested in how the evidence gathering works should watch MPAA’s detailed presentation.

Source: Six-Strikes Anti-Piracy System Gets New Evidence Review

If the revelations of Edward Snowden have taught us anything, it’s that our activities online can hardly be considered private.

When we write private emails or fire off instant messages, someone somewhere has the ability to access their contents and, if necessary, act on what they’ve seen.

We’re told that this is a necessary evil, that our countries’ security depends on us giving up some of our freedoms, indeed some of our rights – including the right to privacy – in order to keep us all safe from the ill intentions of the world’s bogeymen.

But despite the assurances of our leaders, most of us simply don’t want to be spied on.

You almost certainly can’t tell, but this article was placed on TorrentFreak’s servers using an encrypted connection. There’s nothing illegal about this article or the way it was written and its author isn’t wanted for crimes anywhere and isn’t trying to cover any up. Encryption has simply become part of life and turning on a VPN here is now as natural as firing up a browser.

But with the perhaps needlessly over-cautious cast aside for a moment, there are those who really do need to stay encrypted for genuinely important reasons. For dissidents around the globe privacy can be a matter of life and death and for whistle-blowers the need to remain in the shadows is paramount, as the unfortunate cases of Manning and Snowden illustrate.

Sadly, and despite all the good carried out via encrypted communications such as Tor, there’s a bitter pill to swallow. There are criminals – serious criminals committing horrible crimes – that use these very same systems in order to hide their identities. What’s to be done about these individuals when their online activities are cloaked? Swedish police think they have the answer.

“We must have a law that allows us to get access to the encrypted services. We need to get a key to access the serious crime,” says Per-Åke Wecksell from the Cybercrime Section of the National Criminal Investigation Department.

Wecksell says gaining back-door access to encryption services is necessary to clamp down on the growing problem of child abuse. Those who engage in such activities are now acutely aware they’re targets for the police so they’re increasingly taking special steps to ensure they remain untraceable.

But of course, once police have the authority to decrypt encryption (and it’s currently extremely unclear how that could be achieved from a technical standpoint), the security of non-abusers using these systems take a massive hit too, through no fault of their own.

“In the world outside the Internet, the police do not go to any lengths to try to chase criminals, for the simple reason that it would hurt other people. It’s the same online,” says Anna Troberg, chairman of the Pirate Party.

“For example, I have talked with a lot with human rights organizations that are totally dependent on having encrypted information to do their work with activists in other countries, that opportunity would surely be threatened if the police have the ability to decrypt things.”

Of course, it could be argued that restraints could be put on the police so that any new law states clearly that decryption could only take place in cases of suspected child abuse. However, during the crafting of any new legislation there would be calls by interested parties to throw other crimes into the mix – terrorism and issues of national security for instance.

A likely catch-all term of decryption for only “serious crimes” would then be wide open for manipulation by interested parties, meaning that while today abusers and terrorists would be hunted down, tomorrow’s targets would include whistleblowers traitors such as Edward Snowden and alleged copyright infringers master criminals such as Kim Dotcom.

Russia is currently grappling with the same issue, although they appear to be going down a different route. According to local news reports, the head of the Federal Security Service (FSB) has initiated a process which will see the introduction of laws that will not allow the decryption of Tor and other anonymous networks, but will ban them completely from the Russian controlled Internet.

The process was uncovered when a request to have Tor blocked on the grounds it is used by child abusers was sent to the FSB by the Bounty Hunters civil movement. But even the movement have their doubts about blocking. Their chief, Sergey Zhuk, told Russian media that he would prefer it if Tor operators were forced to work with the authorities instead.

So it appears we are left with three current approaches.

1 – The status quo where everyone keeps their privacy, serious criminals included.
2 – Trusting the police with the keys in the hope they only go after the really bad guys.
3 – Blocking anonymity tools altogether.

The battle now, to maintain a free and open Internet and the privacy rights of millions, is to find a way to weed out the bad guys without ruining it for everyone else. It might be the most complicated Internet task ever carried out, but someone is going to have to find a fourth option.

Source: Should Authorities Decrypt VPNs and Tor – or Ban Them Altogether?

Every year the United States government produces its Special 301 report. Prepared by the Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR), the report identifies countries which are under-performing on issues such as intellectual property protection.

After being present on the standard ‘Watch List’ in 2011, Ukraine found itself upgraded to the Priority Watch List in 2012. The United States complained that Ukraine had done little to address counterfeiting and piracy and in some cases had actually taken steps backwards, such as when it took down large file-hosting site EX.ua and then allowed it to reopen days later. The U.S. said that Ukraine had also failed to introduce a formal notice-and-takedown regime.

By 2013 things had failed to improve, in fact so much so that in May Ukraine was designated a Priority Foreign Country by the USTR, meaning that the United States government could impose trade sanctions.

“This designation is the culmination of several years of growing concern over widespread
IP theft, including the growing entrenchment of IPR infringement that is facilitated by government actors,” the damning report read.

Amid an extremely long list of criticisms, the USTR said Ukraine needed to establish a “predictable and transparent system” to combat online piracy, including consultation with rightsholders, legal reform, and deterrent-level sentences for infringement.

Now, three months after its 301 disaster, the Ukranian government says it’s prepared to address its online piracy issues.

“Today, all countries have to solve a complex dilemma between the free dissemination of information and the violation of intellectual property rights. Many are forced to take legislative measures against piracy on the Internet,” says Volodymyr Seminozhenko, head of Ukraine’s State Agency on Science, Innovations and Information.

“It is logical, because with more rapid development of information technology general Internet users are able to share any audio visual material, texts or computer programs online. It is clear that among the array of information available will be pirated content, which naturally causes concern to rightsholders.”

Seminozhenko, a former Vice Premier Minister of Ukraine and current head of the Association of Ukrainian Scientists, says that a similar law to the one just implemented by Russia is being prepared by the State Intellectual Property Service.

However, having seen the backlash over Russia’s site and content blocking provisions (and a failure to properly engage the information technology sector when preparing legislation) it seems likely that Ukraine will tread more cautiously.

“The status quo on this complex issue can only be achieved when taking into account all stakeholders – that includes rightsholders, representatives of the IT community, and users of the network. The fact that such a compromise is necessary is confirmed by the recent events surrounding the Russian anti-piracy law,” the minister adds.

Semynozhenko has worked hard for more than a decade promoting innovation and a thriving business environment in Ukraine and says that in any regime the interests of citizens should be paramount, including their right to freely access information.

“Fighting Internet piracy should not create artificial conditions for blocking of Internet resources that are fully transparent and legitimate, and even more so should not restrict the freedom of citizens to access information,” Seminozhenko says.

The exact system Ukraine has mind is still not finalized, but there are suggestions that current law will be amended to allow rightsholders to file complaints against pirate sites with the State Intellectual Property Service. Within 10 days of receipt of the complaint an investigation will be launched to determine if content is indeed online illegally.

In the final step – and one likely to cause controversy if it’s pushed through – there are suggestions that those putting content online illegally will be required to pay some kind of fee for the items listed in copyright complaints, with the money raised being transferred directly into state coffers.

Since the USTR has already criticized the Ukranian government for allowing “rogue” music collection societies to operate freely in the country (even going as far as stating that one such outfit has “strong ties” to government officials), further enrichment of the state at the expense of copyright holders isn’t likely to be well received.

Only time will tell if the reforms will be enough to downgrade Ukraine in the 2014 Special 301 report, or if they will be viewed by the U.S. as a day late and a dollar short.

Source: US Copyright Foe to Address Piracy, But Won’t Restrict Citizens’ Freedom

As one of the largest file-sharing services online 4shared is closely watched by copyright holders who vigorously try to scrub pirated files from the site.

The file-hosting service offers a standard DMCA takedown procedure but recently decided to go a step further by developing its own content identification technology based on audio fingerprints.

Under the new system copyright holders can upload their files to 4shared’s backend. The company then makes a unique fingerprint of each file to prevent them from being shared in public by its users.

“4shared has always been a personal online file storage service and has never endorsed online piracy,” 4shared’s Mike Wilson tells TorrentFreak.

“So we have decided to introduce a music identification system, among the other steps, to maintain the reputation of a legitimate file storage and further prevent illegal usage of our service,” he adds.

4shared’s system is based on the open source solution Echoprint, which is powered by the music intelligence company Echo Nest. This technology allows 4shared to identify files based on audio characteristics instead of just a file hash.

“The algorithm calculates special code for each music file, based on its acoustic properties rather than on a digital hash code, thus making the code or ‘fingerprint’ a unique identifier of a certain title, no matter which properties or format the file has,” Wilson says.

When an attempt is made to share a pirated file in public it will be blocked, assuring copyright holders that their content won’t be distributed without permission. The system only scans public files meaning that it’s still possible for users to backup their own files privately.

The system 4shared has developed works in a similar way to YouTube’s Content ID system, which also offers filtering based on files copyright holders upload to the site.

4shared plans to expand the music identification system with an option to monetize pirated files in the future. This means that in addition to blocking pirated transfers, copyright holders will have an option to replace them with links to sites where the content can be bought legally.

“In the nearest future we will also provide a monetization option instead of simply blocking the file so the users can get the content in a legal way and the owners can make their profit,” Wilson told us.

Aside from audio files, 4shared can also offer similar services for video although these are expected to be rolled out at a later stage. For now, the company is focused on signing up content owners to its music identification account.

Source: 4Shared Uses Unique Fingerprinting Tech to Scan For Pirated Files