How Hollywood Caught the UK's Most Prolific Movie Pirates

https://torrentfreak.com/how-hollywood-caught-the-uks-most-prolific-movie-pirates-151227/

by dsr12 • 11 years ago

67 44 11 years ago

jamescun• 11 years ago

What is bothering me is that supposedly a private organisation (FACT) was able to approach another private organisation (Equifax) with a name and acquire further details including a home address, without warrant or personal authorisation.

Can somebody explain to me how this is not a breech of the Personal Data clauses of the Data Protection Act 1998[1]?

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data_Protection_Act_1998

sandworm1012• 11 years ago

From wikipedia above >> Section 29 – Crime and taxation. Data processed for the prevention or detection of crime, the apprehension or prosecution of offenders, or the assessment or collection of taxes are exempt from the first data protection principle.

Note that the exception does not state that a warrant is needed for the collection or sharing in such circumstances.

cabalamat2• 11 years ago

Somehow I suspect if I wanted to do an investigation on whether FACT were breaking any laws, Equifax would deny me information.

In many ways we have a society where it is one rule for the rich and another for the ordinary person. A good recent example of this is Facebook, which is happy to let Donald Trump say things they class as hate speech on their platform, but won't let their ordinary users do so.

marme• 11 years ago

i am wondering what kind of evidence other than this information they had against them. Because if it is that easy just to link a username to a person and convict based on that it seems way too easy to just make an account linking to someone you hate, throw in a few random references to their family members and/or the city they live in and in a couple months they will be arrested

mpeg4• 11 years ago

There are two main ways to access names and addresses in the UK, the electoral register, and the open register. The electoral register is the one that has more limited access and uses [0] while the open register is readily available for many other purposes such as direct marketing.

You can opt-out of the open register, so it would be interesting to know if in this case the person in question had opted out, or not.

Edit: a quick search on the open register for Wolverhampton reveals Sahil's full address from the 2009 and 2011 electoral rolls. Which means you could have used 192.com [1] or whitepages.com [2] to find him and thus very unlikely he had opted out, as those sites use open (edited) register data.

[0] https://ico.org.uk/for-the-public/electoral-register/

[1] http://www.192.com/

[2] http://www.whitepages.co.uk/electoral-roll-search-and-electo...

DISCLAIMER: I work for one of the major credit bureaus but views are my own, and my understanding of the regulations around access to this kind of data is very shallow.

Nursie• 11 years ago

The opt-out nature of the open register is a disgrace, IMHO.

wpietri• 11 years ago

For those wondering, the sentences were 4.5 years, 4.2 years, 3.5 years, and 3.5 years. I'm not sure what the conversion rate between sentence and typical time served is in the UK, though.

DanBC2• 11 years ago

Roughly, for people sentenced to over two years: you serve half the time in jail, you serve the rest "on licence" in the community. This means you can be taken back to jail to serve the rest of your sentence if you break any conditions.

http://www.offendersfamilieshelpline.org/index.php/sentence/

http://www.prisonreformtrust.org.uk/Portals/0/Documents/PIB%...

__david__• 11 years ago

Is it just me or does that seem like an awfully long for file-sharing? Were these guys doing more than just passing files around that would justify that amount of jail time?

prodmerc• 11 years ago

Supposedly stealing money from (already) rich people. Which is the worst offense and a big no-no. /s

DanBC2• 11 years ago

As I understand it just file sharing isn't criminal - no criminal conviction and no possibility of fines or jail time. (Although the rights owners can sue for loss of earnings.)

To tip it into criminal law you need to either sell the files, or to distribute enough to affect the trade of the rights owners.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright,_Designs_and_Patents...

Copyright infringement that may be criminal offences under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 are the:
Making copies for the purpose of selling or hiring them to others[11]
Importing infringing copies (except for personal use)[12]
Offering for sale or hire, publicly displaying or otherwise distributing infringing copies in the course of a business[13]
Distributing a large enough number of copies to have a noticeable effect on the business of the copyright owner[14]
Making or possessing equipment for the purposes of making infringing copies in the course of a business[15]
Publicly performing a work in knowledge that the performance is unauthorised[16]
Communicating copies or infringing the right to "make available" copies to the public (either in the course of a business, or to an extent prejudicial to the copyright owner)[17]
Manufacturing commercially, importing for non-personal use, possessing in the course of a business, or distributing to an extent that has a noticeable effect on the business of the copyright holder, a device primarily designed for circumventing a technological copyright protection measure.[18]

I agree that these people should not be in prison, and certainly not for that long. Prison should be reserved for violent criminals.

mindslight5• 11 years ago

Communicate within voluntary relationships, get forced into a cage for years. Sounds like justice to me!

ceejayoz3• 11 years ago

That's a pretty absurd framing of the situation.

mindslight5• 11 years ago

Perhaps if you've drank the imaginary property kool aid. How does what they actually did differ from what I said? I see nothing about them stealing the original copies or forcing people to download from them.

cabalamat2• 11 years ago

Why do you think it's absurd (genuine question)?

Lawtonfogle• 11 years ago

I find it accurate enough. The very nature of data is absurd, when even far more awful stuff than merely a pirated movie can be reduced to a single (albeit large) number. It is one area where I feel our morality has not caught up with our technology.

For example, we think of trading stolen credit card numbers as wrong, but only because we have bought the narrative of identity theft, which was constructed to pass the burden onto the populace instead of the people handing out goods/services/money to verify identity. If you disregard the concept of identity theft, and think that instead it should be considered just theft, not from the one who possesses the identity used, but from the entity that handed out goods/services/money, then we need to reevaluate the ethics/morality of trading credit card numbers.

pdoconnell• 11 years ago

An impressive amount of OPSEC fail. This is why you shouldn't mix real names with activity that gets you noticed!

justinjlynn2• 11 years ago

Indeed. Never ever contaminate. If you do, it's a matter of when - not if - the link will be made. Always rotate your identities as you would your keys and credentials.

sandworm1012• 11 years ago

"when - not if" narratives are often pushed by enforcement groups as a scare tactic. The reality is that so many people are engaged in these activities that, even without any opsec, most will live out their careers unpunished.

The flip side to this problem is that anyone with any notion of security is practically immune. With so many easy targets out there, the hard targets go untouched year after year.

alexandrerond• 11 years ago

The funniest of all is that most of the identity leaks happened thanks to NFO files, which are useless except for boasting (the name of the group being usually on filenames already).

Some of these people are serving jail time because their nicks were in a useless text file next to the pirated movies presenting them as proud members of a group (and hopefully with some ascii art).

This is not a mistake, it's pure stupidity...

yoodenvranx• 11 years ago

This is also why you should never select a unique nickname. If you are 'DerEliteHacker83723' then it is very easy to find all your stuff with a simple search, but if your nick is 'gwbush' then all your posts will drown in the sea of unrelated search results.

mpeg4• 11 years ago

It's actually surprisingly hard to get OPSEC right, because most of the time you either don't think what you're doing warrants a huge amount of resources spent prosecuting you, or you don't realise how big it is until it's too late.

One of the biggest links from the Silkroad owner's identity outside of tor was the fact that he promoted his own site in the early days, using an alias he had used to ask questions on stackoverflow. He probably didn't realise how important good OPSEC was until much later in the game.

I recently had the chance to help the FBI in an effort to catch a child abuser in collaboration with an NGO. It was very interesting to see how "techies" can piece together a scary level of detail about someone's identity using everyday things like the clothes they wear (if they bought them online) or how their house is decorated. Details of how were withheld from us, but the suspect got caught.

biot• 11 years ago

  > ... the actions taken by these men to hide their
  > identities aren’t shining examples of the art.

I look forward to Torrent Freak's follow-up article, detailing the shining examples of pirates we all should aspire to become.

voltagex_3• 11 years ago

You won't hear about them. I note that these guys were all P2P pirates - direct to torrent. The real pirates are still trading over FTP sites, which then filter down to UseNet, private forums and are then "leaked" to torrents.

robk• 11 years ago

Torrent often beats usenet in freshness

0x4a422• 11 years ago

The real pirates are all retired.

mpeg4• 11 years ago

I used to run a FTP server back in the day, I don't see how we the operators or the scene uploaders had any better OPSEC than these guys, we were just too obscure for anyone to care about.

These guys get caught because their releases reach millions of users, while FTP scene servers that have two-digit user numbers are not exactly killing the industry.

ozy123• 11 years ago

Just out of curiosity what's the motivation for these pirates to take these risks to share movies? Are they profiting from it financially?

joolze• 11 years ago

No, it's community service-- just with people that are willing to go a bit further than the archive. There's also an amount of pride associated with being well known for quick releases like ettv or rartv -- or with having the smallest encoding like yify or nezu or something.

Game of Thrones is a good example. Everyone loves GOT, right? Shit some people even read the books. But you can only watch GoT if you have an HBO subscription right? Up until this year I think (?) that meant you had to be a US resident, with a physical cable subscription, and HBO service. What about people in fucking Thailand? Should they not get to watch GoT even though the whole internet is posting memes and whatever all over the place?

Or what about Django Unchained, lots of people in China went to see that film in theatres in China... minus about half an hour of edited footage. These Tarantino fans cannot legally obtain the entire version of the newest movie from their favorite director. Does that seem fair? Pirates to the rescue.

Most groups do accept bitcoin donations, but I have no clue how much that actually nets.

Honestly, it's just like a library, no clue why people get so worked up about free books, movies, music, etc. The only issue I really see is prereleases -- like cams and especially dvd screeners of films still in theatres, those can do some serious profit damages.

I fully plan on downloading this new star wars shit when it comes out. I also fully plan on going to see it in theatres because _that_ is what a movie is -- I spend 30 bucks on new movies wvery month. I download Ozzy music. I also paid fucking 150 pounds to see him in concert.

The war on pirates is just a pointless exercise by do-gooders with superiority complexes that for some reason think that copyright law as it stands is reasonable and are somehow deluded into thinking that the revenue stream of entertainment is working in a reasonable fashion. In reality that 10$ you spend on a DVD is just 10$ going into the hands of a corporation that does not actually produce anything but just runs around frantically trying to justify its own existence -- usually by harassing fans like this.

How Hollywood Caught the UK's Most Prolific Movie Pirates

Related Stories