Biggest BitTorrent Downloading Case in U.S. History Targets @ Least 23,000 Defendants

[HOLLYWOOD]

Here's the pdf link on collected IPs: http://www.wired.com/images_blogs/threatlevel/2011/05/expendibleipaddresses.pdf

IP checker to see if you're on the list... I don't know how this is accurate with DHCP: http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2011/05/bittorrent-lawsuit-checker/

http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2011/05/biggest-bittorrent-case/


Biggest BitTorrent Downloading Case in U.S. History Targets 23,000 Defendants

http://www.wired.com/images_blogs/threatlevel/2011/05/Screen-shot-2011-05-09-at-1.33.39-PM-288x406-custom.png (http://www.wired.com/images_blogs/threatlevel/2011/05/Screen-shot-2011-05-09-at-1.33.39-PM.png)
At least 23,000 file sharers soon will likely get notified they are being sued for downloading the Expendables in what has become the single largest illegal-BitTorrent-downloading case in U.S. history.
A federal judge in the case has agreed to allow the U.S. Copyright Group to subpoena internet service providers to find out the identity of everybody who had illegally downloaded (http://www.wired.com/images_blogs/threatlevel/2011/05/nuimagediscovery.pdf) (.pdf) the 2010 Sylvester Stallone flick (http://www.imdb.com/media/rm2584972032/tt1320253) — meaning the number of defendants is likely to dramatically increase as new purloiners are discovered. Once an ISP gets the subpoena, it usually notifies the account holder that his or her subscriber information is being turned over to the Copyright Group, which last year pioneered the practice (http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2011/03/bittorrent/) of suing BitTorrent downloaders in the United States.
Subpoenas are expected to go out this week.
All told, more than 140,000 BitTorrent downloaders are being targeted in dozens of lawsuits across the country, many of them for downloading B-rated movies and porn.

Many lawyers are mimicking the Copyright Group’s legal strategy, which includes offering online settlement payments (http://dglegal.force.com/SiteLogindglegal), in hopes of making quick cash. The litigation can be so lucrative — with settlements around $3,000 per infringement — that two companies are both claiming ownership (http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2011/05/nude-nuns-brouhaha/) to a low-budget movie called Nude Nuns with Big Guns, and both firms are suing the same downloaders.
Not all federal judges, are agreeing to allow a massive number of subpoenas in a single case, but many are. The U.S. Copyright Act allows damages of up to $150,000 per infringement, and the cases all demand the maximum.
“It is well beyond time that the courts take control of these automated enterprises being run at great taxpayer expense with the active assistance of the federal court system,” said Lory Lybeck, a Washington state attorney defending about 100 BitTorrent defendants.
The IP addresses of the alleged copyright scofflaws are easily discoverable. Film companies pay snoops to troll BitTorrent sites, dip into active torrents and capture the IP addresses of the peers who are downloading and uploading pieces of the files.
The closest single lawsuit in size to the Expendables case targets 15,551 BitTorrent users (http://www.wired.com/images_blogs/threatlevel/2011/05/ottporn.pdf) for downloading a handful of porn flicks with titles such as Bi+++oles and Spin +++ck. A judge has not decided whether to authorize subpoenas in that case.
Thomas Dunlap, who heads the Copyright Group in Washington, D.C., did not return phone messages. He informed the court Wednesday that, so far, he’s obtained 23,322 IP addresses (http://www.wired.com/images_blogs/threatlevel/2011/05/expendibleipaddresses.pdf) (.pdf) that have allegedly infringed the Expendables, up from 6,500 when he initially filed the District of Columbia federal court case in February.

[aGameOfThrones]

Wasn't even that good...

[Dr.3D]

I wouldn't doubt much of the distribution is done on line by those holding the copyright. What a great gimmick, provide someone the ability to download their product, and then have them busted for doing so. Great money can be made that way.

[Nate-ForLiberty]

Maybe this is how Stallone will fund his sequel.

[Wesker1982]

http://mises.org/books/against.pdf

http://mises.org/media/category/226/Against-Intellectual-Property

[COpatriot]

Whew! Glad I avoided that movie. And for multiple reasons.

[smartguy911]

how do they target these users? So IPS now have to search for 23000 users in their system and notify them. Isn't this going to cost ISP's a lot of money?

[HOLLYWOOD]

What is unsafe is a tyrannical system gone amuk "protecting purloined property', just as ol' Ben predicted.

Superfluous Property is the Creature of Society. Simple and mild Laws were sufficient to guard the Property that was merely necessary. The Savage's Bow, his Hatchet, and his Coat of Skins, were sufficiently secured without Law by the Fear of personal Resentment and Retaliation. When by virtue of the first Laws Part of the Society accumulated Wealth and grew Powerful, they enacted others more severe, and would protect their Property at the Expense of Humanity. This was abusing their Powers, and commencing a Tyranny -- Benjamin Franklin (1785) unpublished

[CAKochenash]

I thought a recent case got rid of all this..

http://torrentfreak.com/ip-address-not-a-person-bittorrent-case-judge-says-110503/

[fade]

It was my neighbors on my wireless router!!

[Vessol]

Do they honestly think that your IP address can link you to a crime now?

[specsaregood]

Whew! Glad I avoided that movie. And for multiple reasons.

Hell, I didn't even know that movie existed.

[iGGz]

Couldn't you just go buy the movie and say you downloaded it to have a copy?

[HOLLYWOOD]

how do they target these users? So IPS now have to search for 23000 users in their system and notify them. Isn't this going to cost ISP's a lot of money?First, they have recordings of 23,000+ IP addys, but the total suit targets 115,000+ IPs/downloaders, so they may be waiting on the ISPs to provide the additional logs.

Now Correct me if I'm wrong IT/Network folks, the only way this works is if ISP's keep DHCP server logs. There is no legal requirement to do so at this time, just hope your ISP doesn't keep the logs and the problem solved. Obviously from reviewing the pdf file on IPs and Time-Tagged connections, some ISPs are logging and saving/archiving all users of their services and now providing them to Plaintiffs.

The music industry pretty much nuked itself with it's fans for doing this very same thing. There sales NEVER recovered. I'm sure HOLLYWOOD will do the same. Between my ISP wanting download/upload limits, asymetrical connection speeds crimping my freedom to publish, and the incessant overpaid actors in HOLLYWOOD, etc etc... I've almost decided to forgo all the "technology" and get a tv tuner and antenna. I grew up with 8 channels, no TIVO, and somehow we survived.


If you're paranoid and know your field service techs @ your ISP, you could ask them about this and/or DHCP server logs, the suit, etc.

[TCE]

Do they honestly think that your IP address can link you to a crime now?

After reading the article, it doesn't look like they plan on winning. They want to scare the $3,000 settlements out of as many people as possible then see where it goes. Lessons learned: Don't download anything, screaming is better. And if you think there is even a smidgen of a chance you're doing something wrong, the government will find you, threaten you, and bring you to court. So make sure to do everything the nice government people say.

I'm also beginning to think "Nude Nuns with Big Guns" isn't referring to their latest weapon purchase...sadness.

[TCE]

Couldn't you just go buy the movie and say you downloaded it to have a copy?

The government can counter by stating the person's IP address is on the list. Creative, though.

[Matt Collins]

They are being sued for uploading, NOT downloading.

[TCE]

They are being sued for uploading, NOT downloading.

Uh...from the article:

"At least 23,000 file sharers soon will likely get notified they are being sued for downloading the Expendables in what has become the single largest illegal-BitTorrent-downloading case in U.S. history."

"All told, more than 140,000 BitTorrent downloaders are being targeted in dozens of lawsuits across the country, many of them for downloading B-rated movies and porn."

[smartguy911]

They are being sued for uploading, NOT downloading.

Where did you get that? Arent torrents in chunks? Torrents never upload 1 complete file, so when users download, they get chucks from different users.

[evilfunnystuff]

I thought a recent case got rid of all this..

http://torrentfreak.com/ip-address-not-a-person-bittorrent-case-judge-says-110503/
...

This week, however, an interesting ruling was handed down by District Court Judge Harold Baker that, if adopted by other judges, may become a major roadblock for similar mass-lawsuits.

In the case VPR Internationale v. Does 1-1017, the judge denied the Canadian adult film company access to subpoena ISPs for the personal information connected to the IP-addresses of their subscribers. The reason? IP-addresses do not equal persons, and especially in ‘adult entertainment’ cases this could obstruct a ‘fair’ legal process.

Among other things Judge Baker cited a recent child porn case where the U.S. authorities raided the wrong people, because the real offenders were piggybacking on their Wi-Fi connections. Using this example, the judge claims that several of the defendants in VPR’s case may have nothing to do with the alleged offense either.

[specsaregood]

Where did you get that? Arent torrents in chunks? Torrents never upload 1 complete file, so when users download, they get chucks from different users.

Doesn't matter if it is the complete thing or not. 1 chunk == copyright violation.

[Vessol]

Doesn't matter if it is the complete thing or not. 1 chunk == copyright violation.

By that logic I could break a CD into 20 different pieces and throw them on the ground. Anyone who picks them up I can then charge for theft.

[PreDeadMan]

Oh boy now i have to download adobe reader... i hope i'm not on this fucking nazi list

[Matt Collins]

Uh...from the article:

"At least 23,000 file sharers soon will likely get notified they are being sued for downloading the Expendables in what has become the single largest illegal-BitTorrent-downloading case in U.S. history."

"All told, more than 140,000 BitTorrent downloaders are being targeted in dozens of lawsuits across the country, many of them for downloading B-rated movies and porn."



Where did you get that? Arent torrents in chunks? Torrents never upload 1 complete file, so when users download, they get chucks from different users.
I know, but the people who write these articles don't understand "Copyright" law.

In the US it is unlawful to upload, not download. However, the way BitTorrent works is that when one downloads, they automatically upload too. Therefore by downloading they are uploading simultaneously. The idea that one gets sued for downloading is ignorance of the media, and propaganda spread by the content industry. They want everyone to be fearful of downloading when in reality uploading is the unlawful act.

[specsaregood]

By that logic I could break a CD into 20 different pieces and throw them on the ground. Anyone who picks them up I can then charge for theft.

only if it was a copy of the original

[smartguy911]

I know, but the people who write these articles don't understand "Copyright" law.

In the US it is unlawful to upload, not download. However, the way BitTorrent works is that when one downloads, they automatically upload too. Therefore by downloading they are uploading simultaneously. The idea that one gets sued for downloading is ignorance of the media, and propaganda spread by the content industry. They want everyone to be fearful of downloading when in reality uploading is the unlawful act.

what if a person download a full movie and upload like 10 MB. Do they still get in trouble?

[Aldanga]

Now Correct me if I'm wrong IT/Network folks, the only way this works is if ISP's keep DHCP server logs. There is no legal requirement to do so at this time, just hope your ISP doesn't keep the logs and the problem solved. Obviously from reviewing the pdf file on IPs and Time-Tagged connections, some ISPs are logging and saving/archiving all users of their services and now providing them to Plaintiffs.
This isn't actually correct. BitTorrent works quite simply: there are "seeders" (those who have downloaded the file or files and are uploading to others) and there are "leechers" (those who are actively downloading the file or files). Anyone who is connected to the "swarm" (the combination of seeders and leechers) can see the IP addresses of others within the swarm. It's likely that those bringing those copyright case connected to the swarm and mined for IP addresses.

An interesting note: it's entirely possible to connect to a swarm and never download or upload anything.


I know, but the people who write these articles don't understand "Copyright" law.

In the US it is unlawful to upload, not download. However, the way BitTorrent works is that when one downloads, they automatically upload too. Therefore by downloading they are uploading simultaneously. The idea that one gets sued for downloading is ignorance of the media, and propaganda spread by the content industry. They want everyone to be fearful of downloading when in reality uploading is the unlawful act.
Matt is almost totally right, but only because of a technicality. It's possible to download without uploading, but only if there aren't any other active leechers. Almost any time one downloads from a swarm one will also be uploading. Otherwise his analysis is spot-on.

[PreDeadMan]

My ip address isn't on the list but i recently built a new computer my ip address shouldn't change because i built a new pc right? it's not a static ip address... i need to be 100 % sure lol...

[Brian in Maryland]

My ip address isn't on the list but i recently built a new computer my ip address shouldn't change because i built a new pc right? it's not a static ip address... i need to be 100 % sure lol...

It has to do with the public IP address of your router, which doesn't change. That can be found by logging into your router or going to a website like http://whatismyipaddress.com/ ( faster )

[smartguy911]

This isn't actually correct. BitTorrent works quite simply: there are "seeders" (those who have downloaded the file or files and are uploading to others) and there are "leechers" (those who are actively downloading the file or files). Anyone who is connected to the "swarm" (the combination of seeders and leechers) can see the IP addresses of others within the swarm. It's likely that those bringing those copyright case connected to the swarm and mined for IP addresses.

An interesting note: it's entirely possible to connect to a swarm and never download or upload anything.


Matt is almost totally right, but only because of a technicality. It's possible to download without uploading, but only if there aren't any other active leechers. Almost any time one downloads from a swarm one will also be uploading. Otherwise his analysis is spot-on.

by one are you referring to complete file or just a chunk of the file

[HOLLYWOOD]

This isn't actually correct. BitTorrent works quite simply: there are "seeders" (those who have downloaded the file or files and are uploading to others) and there are "leechers" (those who are actively downloading the file or files). Anyone who is connected to the "swarm" (the combination of seeders and leechers) can see the IP addresses of others within the swarm. It's likely that those bringing those copyright case connected to the swarm and mined for IP addresses.
Yeah you get the IP addy by mining the torrents, but you need to find the exact location and that can only be done by going to the ISP and saying on this day and time, this IP address was uploading, so we need your logs to tell us what internet account/location/address was using this IP address at that specific time.

It would be kewl if the ISPs say, we don't have the logs, but I think they all archive network activity now

[Aldanga]

by one are you referring to complete file or just a chunk of the file
By "one" I was referring to an individual. But downloading anything is done is chunks. The main difference with BitTorrent is that it doesn't necessarily download in order. So, while a standard download in your browser would download 1-2-3-4-..., BitTorrent could download 3-1-2-4-... and so on.

Generally speaking, any client that is actively involved in a BitTorrent swarm will be uploading and/or downloading at any given time.


Yeah you get the IP addy by mining the torrents, but you need to find the exact location and that can only be done by going to the ISP and saying on this day and time, this IP address was uploading, so we need your logs to tell us what internet account/location/address was using this IP address at that specific time.

It would be kewl if the ISPs say, we don't have the logs, but I think they all archive network activity now
You can actually find a general location and ISP based solely on the IP address. But you're right about obtaining specific identification requiring information from the ISP.

Given how often ISPs are tracking data usage these days, they pretty much have to keep information on your IP addresses. It's part of good network management. I don't think many ISPs would not keep track of such data.

[Matt Collins]

what if a person download a full movie and upload like 10 MB. Do they still get in trouble?Any sharing of "copyrighted" material constitutes "copyright" infringement.

[guitarlifter]

Any sharing of "copyrighted" material constitutes "copyright" infringement.

I can turn off uploading altogether. It's frowned upon in the file sharing world to not "seed," but it's done with a couple of clicks. If I solely download and don't even upload a byte because of disabled uploading, is it copyright infringement? Let's make it even easier. There are plenty of online forums that share links to filesharing host sites such as megaupload, and one can download copyrighted material from there. No uploading is necessary at all. Is this copyright infringement?

[Dr.3D]

Technically, what people are downloading doesn't even remotely resemble the copyrighted material. Only after it has been completely downloaded and then unpacked, does it resemble the copyrighted material. Wouldn't they have to show what was downloaded is actually copyrighted?

[Southron]

So how many of you are guilty?:p

[Aldanga]

Innocent until proven guilty. :D

[HOLLYWOOD]

A little more FYI on P2P:

http://dmca.cs.washington.edu/images2/dmca_header.jpg



New: Check out OneSwarm (http://oneswarm.cs.washington.edu/), our new, privacy-preserving P2P software release.
Overview (http://dmca.cs.washington.edu/#overview) | FAQ (http://dmca.cs.washington.edu/faq.html) | Sample complaint (http://dmca.cs.washington.edu/sample.html) | Paper (http://dmca.cs.washington.edu/#papers) | People (http://dmca.cs.washington.edu/#people) | Acknowledgments (http://dmca.cs.washington.edu/#acknowledgments)
Overview

As people increasingly rely on the Internet to deliver downloadable music, movies, and television, content producers are faced with the problem of increasing Internet piracy. To protect their content, copyright holders police the Internet, searching for unauthorized distribution of their work on websites like YouTube or peer-to-peer networks such as BitTorrent. When infringement is (allegedly) discovered, formal complaints are issued to network operators that may result in websites being taken down or home Internet connections being disabled.
Although the implications of being accused of copyright infringement are significant, very little is known about the methods used by enforcement agencies to detect it, particularly in P2P networks. We have conducted the first scientific, experimental study of monitoring and copyright enforcement on P2P networks and have made several discoveries which we find surprising.


Practically any Internet user can be framed for copyright infringement today. By profiling copyright enforcement in the popular BitTorrent file sharing system, we were able to generate hundreds of real DMCA takedown notices for computers at the University of Washington that never downloaded nor shared any content whatsoever. Further, we were able to remotely generate complaints for nonsense devices including several printers and a (non-NAT) wireless access point. Our results demonstrate several simple techniques that a malicious user could use to frame arbitrary network endpoints.
Even without being explicitly framed, innocent users may still receive complaints.Because of the inconclusive techniques used to identify infringing BitTorrent users, users may receive DMCA complaints even if they have not been explicitly framed by a malicious user and even if they have never used P2P software!
Software packages designed to preserve the privacy of P2P users are not completely effective.To avoid DMCA complaints today, many privacy conscious users employ IP blacklisting software designed to avoid communication with monitoring and enforcement agencies. We find that this software often fails to identify many likely monitoring agents, but we also discover that these agents exhibit characteristics that make distinguishing them straightforward.

While our experiments focus on BitTorrent only, our findings imply the need for increased transparency in the monitoring and enforcement process for all P2P networks to both address the known deficiencies we have exposed as well as to identify lurking unknown deficiencies.
More details about our findings and our experimental methodology are available in our online FAQ (http://dmca.cs.washington.edu/faq.html). A more thorough treatment is available in our paper (http://dmca.cs.washington.edu/dmca_hotsec08.pdf).
Paper

Challenges and Directions for Monitoring P2P File Sharing Networks –or– Why My Printer Received a DMCA Takedown Notice [ pdf (http://dmca.cs.washington.edu/dmca_hotsec08.pdf) ]
HotSec 2008 (http://www.usenix.org/event/hotsec08/)
(Previously appeared as UW TR#08-6-01)
Michael Piatek (http://www.cs.washington.edu/homes/piatek/), Tadayoshi Kohno (http://www.cs.washington.edu/homes/yoshi/), Arvind Krishnamurthy
(http://www.cs.washington.edu/homes/arvind/) People

Contact us (http://www.cs.washington.edu/htbin-post/unrestricted/mailto2.pl?to=dmca-study;sub=DMCA%20Study)
Graduate student Faculty Michael Piatek (http://www.cs.washington.edu/homes/piatek/) Tadayoshi Kohno (http://www.cs.washington.edu/homes/yoshi/) Arvind Krishnamurthy (http://www.cs.washington.edu/homes/arvind/) Acknowledgments

This work is supported by the NSF (http://www.nsf.gov/) - National Science Foundation (CNS-0720589, 0722000, 0722004) and UW CSE (http://www.cs.washington.edu/).

[Matt Collins]

I can turn off uploading altogether. It's frowned upon in the file sharing world to not "seed," but it's done with a couple of clicks. If I solely download and don't even upload a byte because of disabled uploading, is it copyright infringement? Let's make it even easier. There are plenty of online forums that share links to filesharing host sites such as megaupload, and one can download copyrighted material from there. No uploading is necessary at all. Is this copyright infringement?
From my understanding of the law, no it is not. But I am not an attorney and this is not legal advice. I have merely studied it formally and as a hobby.

[Matt Collins]

Innocent until proven guilty. :D
In most cases it's not a criminal transgression, it's a civil tort. There is no guilt or innocence in that case, it's whether or not you're liable. And the burden of proof is lower too. Preponderance of the evidence vs beyond a reasonable doubt.

[Aldanga]

Oh, I know. I was being facetious.

[KurtBoyer25L]

Nude Nuns with Big Guns -- best porn/cheese-violence title ever

[torchbearer]

It was my neighbors on my wireless router!!

i hate when that happens.

[Razmear]

After getting a few notices from my ISP for downloading movies, I discovered a bit of a trick to avoid being caught.
When downloading edit the trackers for each file and remove all the trackers. How you do this varies depending on the software you are using.
Some of the trackers are named *.istolethismovie.* or *.imatheif.* or similar names. Just remove all the trackers, your files will still download just as fast but your not leaving as much of a trail.
You are generally tracked and identified by these trackers, not by people downloading the torrent and looking at the list of IPs.
It's not a perfect solution, but it might help.

btw, The Expendables was one of the worst movies I've ever downloaded.
eb

[smartguy911]

Technically, what people are downloading doesn't even remotely resemble the copyrighted material. Only after it has been completely downloaded and then unpacked, does it resemble the copyrighted material. Wouldn't they have to show what was downloaded is actually copyrighted?

yeah wondering the same. After looking into it, it looks like files are divided in multiple pieces. I remember in old days, it was just 1 file that people will download. Torrents are different.

[Zatch]

I know, but the people who write these articles don't understand "Copyright" law.

In the US it is unlawful to upload, not download. However, the way BitTorrent works is that when one downloads, they automatically upload too. Therefore by downloading they are uploading simultaneously. The idea that one gets sued for downloading is ignorance of the media, and propaganda spread by the content industry. They want everyone to be fearful of downloading when in reality uploading is the unlawful act.

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2009/09/p2p-downloading-is-it-legal.ars


The record industry position is clear: both uploads and downloads are illegal, and both can result in lawsuits. We checked in with Electronic Frontier Foundation's Fred von Lohmann to see if he agreed with the music business legal position.

"Does it infringe US copyright law to download music without authorization from a P2P network?" he said. "It depends. If you're a teacher who needs a clip for use in a class presentation, I think there's a good chance it's a fair use. But if you're downloading just because you don't want to pay for the song, then you're probably an infringer. Intermediate cases can be imagined, but that gives a pretty good idea of the two poles."

(When it comes to appropriate penalty for infringement, though, von Lohmann parts ways with the record industry.)

So much for the legality of downloading. Practically speaking, though, mere downloading has not been enough to trigger RIAA attention, due largely to the difficulty of detecting it. MediaSentry and other RIAA investigators can see the files that they download from others, and the IP addresses of those offering the files, but seeing what files those people are themselves downloading can be difficult or impossible.

[Matt Collins]

Nude Nuns with Big Guns -- best porn/cheese-violence title everThat doesn't even sound remotely appealing.... for a variety of reasons.

[Zatch]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T0gw2XCZmW0

[Sentient Void]

This is why folks must use a combination of PeerBlock and a *solid* ProxyServer (usually you must pay for them) if they wish to download bit torrents.

[torchbearer]

This is why folks must use a combination of PeerBlock and a *solid* ProxyServer (usually you must pay for them) if they wish to download bit torrents.

btguard private vpn service.

[Sentient Void]

btguard private vpn service.

lol that's the one I use ;)

[akforme]

Just curious if they ever go after TV show downloads, anyone ever heard?

[torchbearer]

lol that's the one I use ;)

it gives me peace of mind to know i can surf anonymous, download anonymous.

[Dreamofunity]

Whew! Glad I avoided that movie. And for multiple reasons.

This.

[smartguy911]

btguard private vpn service.

Cant they go to Btguard and say give us logs of IP's that were hidden behind btguard IP?

[Sentient Void]

Cant they go to Btguard and say give us logs of IP's that were hidden behind btguard IP?

They have no jurisdictional authority to do so. BTGuard is based in Canada, that's part of the reason why I use it.