4 ms·

Interesting tidbit: the hash they have for the infringed work it's the correct hash for ubuntu-20.04.2.0-desktop-amd64.iso [0] - this removes any good faith arg

Interesting tidbit: the hash they have for the infringed work it's the correct hash for ubuntu-20.04.2.0-desktop-amd64.iso [0] - this removes any good faith argument on their part. There is an infinitely small chance of collisions - but I would like them to produce a DMCA notice with the actual name of the infringed upon protected media, not just the hash. I believe Canonical should step in, since this is someone claiming to act to protect their interests. [0] https://torrent.ubuntu.com/tracker_index https://torrent.ubuntu.com/tracker_index Edit: searching for the hash returns two odd links; the first one is indexed by Google as a link to a software - Rebirth - that comes under the same hash as Ubuntu [1]; the other is the usual Lumen link for removed content [2] -- a DMCA notice from Disney. Could this be a case of "automated DMCA notice" gone wrong? [1] https://kat.rip/torrent/4ba4fbf7231a3a660e86892707d25c135533a16a.html https://kat.rip/torrent/4ba4fbf7231a3a660e86892707d25c135533... [2] https://www.lumendatabase.org/notices/22636605?access_token=wUUjcNCAcirZCscdqJ8J4g# https://www.lumendatabase.org/notices/22636605?access_token=...

mijoharas 5y ago
I was interested and also searched the hash ( 4ba4fbf7231a3a660e86892707d25c135533a16a ). I didn't see the second link you posted? and I can't find the hash by CTRL+F on the page when clicking the link? Am I missing something?
- ProtoAES256 5y ago
  It's on the [0] link, with the line 4ba4fbf7231a3a660e86892707d25c135533a16a ubuntu-20.04.2.0-desktop-amd64.iso 2.67GiB 120 8 1 2.67GiB
  - mijoharas 5y ago
    yep, but the comment I replied to said they searched for the hash and found [2] (I presume they searched on google from context). When I search for the hash I don't find [2] coming up in my search results, and when I click through to [2] I don't see the hash in the page.
    - ProtoAES256 5y ago
      Pardon for my misinterpretation. Although I don't use google much these days, but I'd assume it be due to location/preference tailor. And yes, I don't see the hash in the page too, I should read it more carefully before commenting. Sorry for the confusion.
      - mijoharas 5y ago
        No worries, simple mistake. (I felt that I probably wasn't clear enough with my comment!).
- fabbari 5y ago
  You can see the results I see [0] -- and I am now on a different device. That's the Ubuntu torrent - with the correct hash - but indexed by Google as a Rebirth torrent. At the bottom of the page [1] there is a link to the Lumen Database. The first link has the hash in the URL. The Lumen Database one - even if I look at the full URLs - doesn't have the hash in the list. I am guessing that one of the pages had a link to the Ubuntu torrent. This seems like a good reminder that Google decides what we see out of the interwebs! [0] https://postimg.cc/30R85HHy https://postimg.cc/30R85HHy [1] https://postimg.cc/Z9MjF8K1 https://postimg.cc/Z9MjF8K1
  - mijoharas 5y ago
    Definitely a good reminder. I only see [0] (I'm only including the bottom bit, it doesn't appear in the rest of the page either) which doesn't appear to have it. Thanks for resolving my "not happening on my machine" issue! :) [0] https://postimg.cc/kVsGC5Yk https://postimg.cc/kVsGC5Yk
johnchristopher 5y ago
Could it be some pictures or sound or some firmware blob or something like that this is in that particular ISO is the actual content they consider to be pirated ?
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
JohnTHaller 5y ago
It's an incorrect HTML title ("Download Rebirth 2016 HDRip XviD AC3-EVO Torrent - Kickass Torrents") on the Ubuntu ISO download on kickasstorrents.
burk96 5y ago
I haven't downloaded the torrent (and won't download it), but looking at the kat link, something weird is going on here. It says the torrent was uploaded and last updated 5 years ago in the video category of the site? Ubuntu 20.04 was released in, well, April of 2020. Unless I'm missing something that torrent can't possibly be Ubuntu 20.04, but it sure lines up that it could be Rebirth (2016) after all.
- kevincox 5y ago
  I downloaded the torrent from KAT and confirmed that the filename and hash match the Ubuntu torrent. It appears that some metadata on that site is incorrect. 93bdab204067321ff131f560879db46bee3b994bf24836bb78538640f689e58f /mnt/downloads/ubuntu-20.04.2.0-desktop-amd64.iso
  - hedora 5y ago
    Interesting. If someone were to intentionally publish indexes that associate pirate titles with non-pirate SHAs, I imagine they’d be able to cause a lot of trouble for the DMCA takedown industry.
    - meowface 5y ago
      Who knows, maybe that's exactly what happened here. Could be a vigilante trolling the copyright trolls. (Not all copyright firms are necessarily trolls. The ones that recklessly automate things so heavily that they'd make this mistake probably are, though.)

mijoharas 5y ago

I was interested and also searched the hash ( 4ba4fbf7231a3a660e86892707d25c135533a16a ). I didn't see the second link you posted? and I can't find the hash by CTRL+F on the page when clicking the link? Am I missing something?

ProtoAES256 5y ago
It's on the [0] link, with the line 4ba4fbf7231a3a660e86892707d25c135533a16a ubuntu-20.04.2.0-desktop-amd64.iso 2.67GiB 120 8 1 2.67GiB
- mijoharas 5y ago
  yep, but the comment I replied to said they searched for the hash and found [2] (I presume they searched on google from context). When I search for the hash I don't find [2] coming up in my search results, and when I click through to [2] I don't see the hash in the page.
  - ProtoAES256 5y ago
    Pardon for my misinterpretation. Although I don't use google much these days, but I'd assume it be due to location/preference tailor. And yes, I don't see the hash in the page too, I should read it more carefully before commenting. Sorry for the confusion.
    - mijoharas 5y ago
      No worries, simple mistake. (I felt that I probably wasn't clear enough with my comment!).
fabbari 5y ago
You can see the results I see [0] -- and I am now on a different device. That's the Ubuntu torrent - with the correct hash - but indexed by Google as a Rebirth torrent. At the bottom of the page [1] there is a link to the Lumen Database. The first link has the hash in the URL. The Lumen Database one - even if I look at the full URLs - doesn't have the hash in the list. I am guessing that one of the pages had a link to the Ubuntu torrent. This seems like a good reminder that Google decides what we see out of the interwebs! [0] https://postimg.cc/30R85HHy https://postimg.cc/30R85HHy [1] https://postimg.cc/Z9MjF8K1 https://postimg.cc/Z9MjF8K1
- mijoharas 5y ago
  Definitely a good reminder. I only see [0] (I'm only including the bottom bit, it doesn't appear in the rest of the page either) which doesn't appear to have it. Thanks for resolving my "not happening on my machine" issue! :) [0] https://postimg.cc/kVsGC5Yk https://postimg.cc/kVsGC5Yk

johnchristopher 5y ago

Could it be some pictures or sound or some firmware blob or something like that this is in that particular ISO is the actual content they consider to be pirated ?

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

JohnTHaller 5y ago

It's an incorrect HTML title ("Download Rebirth 2016 HDRip XviD AC3-EVO Torrent - Kickass Torrents") on the Ubuntu ISO download on kickasstorrents.

burk96 5y ago

I haven't downloaded the torrent (and won't download it), but looking at the kat link, something weird is going on here. It says the torrent was uploaded and last updated 5 years ago in the video category of the site? Ubuntu 20.04 was released in, well, April of 2020. Unless I'm missing something that torrent can't possibly be Ubuntu 20.04, but it sure lines up that it could be Rebirth (2016) after all.

kevincox 5y ago
I downloaded the torrent from KAT and confirmed that the filename and hash match the Ubuntu torrent. It appears that some metadata on that site is incorrect. 93bdab204067321ff131f560879db46bee3b994bf24836bb78538640f689e58f /mnt/downloads/ubuntu-20.04.2.0-desktop-amd64.iso
- hedora 5y ago
  Interesting. If someone were to intentionally publish indexes that associate pirate titles with non-pirate SHAs, I imagine they’d be able to cause a lot of trouble for the DMCA takedown industry.
  - meowface 5y ago
    Who knows, maybe that's exactly what happened here. Could be a vigilante trolling the copyright trolls. (Not all copyright firms are necessarily trolls. The ones that recklessly automate things so heavily that they'd make this mistake probably are, though.)