
Universal asks Google to take down 127.0.0.1 for piracy - clessg
https://www.chillingeffects.org/notices/10969223
======
logfromblammo
I wonder how long it will be before the majority of this planet's computing
power is devoted to automated processes interacting with other automated
processes in such a way that the end result is complete nonsense.

Imagine spambots communicating with honeypotbots. Adbots serving
clickfraudbots. Recommendations engines suggesting new content to ratingbots.
Chatbots lying to each other in channels devoid of actual humans.

~~~
Impl0x
That's basically how the stock market works already

------
jngreenlee
...the call is coming from INSIDE the house...

~~~
samspenc
For anyone who doesn't understand the context: [1] This is a quote from the
movie "When a Stranger Calls" [2] 127.0.0.1 is the IP address for "localhost",
one's own computer.

~~~
tvon
Total nitpick on my part, but the line is from an urban legend, which "When a
Stranger Calls" (among others) is based upon.

A few references:

[http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TheCallsAreComing...](http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TheCallsAreComingFromInsideTheHouse)

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Babysitter_and_the_Man_Ups...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Babysitter_and_the_Man_Upstairs)

[http://www.snopes.com/horrors/madmen/babysitter.asp](http://www.snopes.com/horrors/madmen/babysitter.asp)

------
anilshanbhag
Going on a tangent: Checking DMCA notices seems like this is a good way to
find sites which have a copy of the move ?

~~~
Artemis2
Is is, and Google even gives you a link at the bottom of search results when
some results have been censored by the DCMA.

------
JoshTriplett
Considering that all DMCA notices must include various dire assertions under
penalty of perjury, has anyone _ever_ tried to sue/prosecute over a
negligently false DMCA notice?

~~~
M2Ys4U
It's simply not true that DMCA claims are covered by penalty of perjury, at
least not in the way that nearly everybody thinks.

The _only_ part that is covered by penalty of perjury is that the person
making the claim is, or is authorised by, the copyright holder.

This means that you commit perjury if you issue an otherwise legitimate DMCA
claim for a work that is not yours, but you don't if you submit a completely
false claim for a work that is.

That part of the DMCA is just smoke a mirrors, designed to make the censorship
regime _look_ like it's fair and balanced.

~~~
ikeboy
You still need to pay damages for lying about other parts, though.

------
nickthemagicman
OH NO! 127.0.0.1 THATS ME!

------
dogma1138
Universal might not be as "stupid" as people think...

That address is most likely for a client that the most popular french language
pirate streaming Cacaoweb site uses.
[http://cacaoweb.org/](http://cacaoweb.org/)

Basically if you go to that site and download the client you will have a web
service running on port 4001 which will accept certain parameters.

The links for that service (and other similar services) are published on the
internet pointing to the local loopback address with a resource identifier of
the specific content in question e.g.
[http://127.0.0.1:4001/?f=4a3aba6e5e7cff2825347f7293a462ae](http://127.0.0.1:4001/?f=4a3aba6e5e7cff2825347f7293a462ae)

Pressing that link on an machine on which the client is installed will allow
you to instantly view the content, on machines on which the client isn't
installed it won't do anything (think of it as a torrent magnet link).

So while it's a bit silly to see that you see a local loopback address on a
DMCA request what they want Google to do is to not display search results that
actually provide the link to the content, even if that link requires dedicated
software.

I've encountered this while doing some investigating into several breaches on
some sites, the breaches didn't deface anything and they didn't seem like they
cared to compromise the content of the site either. What they did leave is
allot of JSON content which was looking like this:

"episodelinks": [ { "link":
"[http://127.0.0.1:4001/?f=73b2ca67915c6e6f7cc67dd75379bab6","...](http://127.0.0.1:4001/?f=73b2ca67915c6e6f7cc67dd75379bab6","lang"):
"en","subs": "" }] }, { "episode": "2", "episodelinks": [ { "link":
"[http://127.0.0.1:4001/?f=4a3aba6e5e7cff2825347f7293a462ae","...](http://127.0.0.1:4001/?f=4a3aba6e5e7cff2825347f7293a462ae","lang"):
"en","subs": "" }] }] }, { "season": "2",

That content was then accessed over and over by multiple different clients
from mostly french speaking countries oddly enough more from Africa and Canada
than France (which there is also quite an interesting anecdotal reasons to
why, Africa well can't afford and doesn't have Netflix and Canada rarely gets
decent french Dubs these days as most American shows will be only broadcast in
English even if they are dubbed in French for France or other regions.)

Some of the HTTP clients were sending User Agent's of various streaming apps
including the cacaoweb client.

What Universal seems to want is to make sure Google doesn't display these
lists on forums and various sites and there's not really a better way to do it
than to include $HOME:1337/agrirpirate! currently :<

What people need to understand with the DMCA requests is that it's not
intended to only remove the URL from showing up in google results as that is
ineffective it prevents any website with that url in it's content from showing
up as a result especially when tied to certain keywords.

Blocking say the piratebay or whateversiteahsreplacedrapidshare.com on google
ins't effective making sure that all of the 10000's of forums that are used to
actually publish the links wont be displayed when people search for Taylor
Swift New CD Torrent on Google is.

~~~
scintill76
Interesting. I wonder if this should be considered as a different category
that may not be covered by the law. I mean, it's one thing to block a URL at
thepiratebay.com because it's one DNS entry in the global shared DNS
namespace. A URL on 127.0.0.1 can reference something unique on literally
every device that uses it. I can't honestly say this is inherently terrible in
this particular instance, but I worry about the precedent of censoring the
entire web because of what some systems serve on certain private URLs.

~~~
leni536
You can pretty much treat
"[http://127.0.0.1:4001/?f="](http://127.0.0.1:4001/?f=") as a quasi protocol.
The DMCA takedown request is for the URL
"[http://127.0.0.1:4001/#/fr/"](http://127.0.0.1:4001/#/fr/"), they are almost
taking down a whole protocol, not just specific contents. It's like wanting to
take down "magnet://" from search results.

------
tylrmac
Might want to take down localhost too just to be sure.

~~~
abjorn
And ::1 while they're at it.

------
waldirbj
Actually it's not uncommon...

[https://www.chillingeffects.org/notices/search?utf8=%E2%9C%9...](https://www.chillingeffects.org/notices/search?utf8=%E2%9C%93&term=127.0.0.1)

------
sprkyco
Also it wasn't Universal per se, but Trident Media Group on behalf of
Universal. However, in link provided by @waldirbj
[https://www.chillingeffects.org/notices/search?utf8=%E2%9C%9...](https://www.chillingeffects.org/notices/search?utf8=%E2%9C%93&term=127.0.0.1)
there have been instances of Universal doing such a thing.

------
alanh
I’ll bite: How do you think this happened?

~~~
JadeNB
Other replies have indicated, surely incontrovertibly, that this is some sort
of automated framework gone wrong (or wrong-er); but, in that case, I think a
question is: what's _changed_ so that that automated framework has discovered
127.0.0.1 now, and not before?

~~~
oddevan
My money's on someone running a Plex server (or something similar) on their
own machine, then going to reddit and saying "I have a copy of [X], you can
watch it here:" with a link to 127.0.0.1 (since that's how _they_ watch it, so
why wouldn't it work for anyone else?).

I.E. We're dealing with the intersection of an automated framework with a
"normal."

------
meeper16
Now it becomes a true loopback

------
aaronferrucci
rm -rf $HOME - it's the only way to be sure.

