Invite Scene - #1 to Buy, Sell, Trade or Find Free Torrent Invites

#1 TorrentInvites Community. Buy, Sell, Trade or Find Free Torrent Invites for Every Private Torrent Trackers. HDB, BTN, AOM, DB9, PTP, RED, MTV, EXIGO, FL, IPT, TVBZ, AB, BIB, TIK, EMP, FSC, GGN, KG, MTTP, TL, TTG, 32P, AHD, CHD, CG, OPS, TT, WIHD, BHD, U2 etc.



  • Content Count

  • Donations

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

  • Feedback

  • Points

    0 [ Donate ]

pindra last won the day on December 7 2018

pindra had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

8 Neutral

About pindra

  • Rank

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. @BlackCondom I like to apply for this invite. thank you
  2. send me pm with proofs. thanks
  3. Sorry for late reply.. I was away if still needed pm me an email. thanks
  4. For years, we've noted that the major record labels have been drooling over the idea that the DMCA might allow them to force ISPs to kick people entirely off the internet based on mere accusations of piracy. This is problematic for all sorts of reasons (as you might imagine). However, the record labels feared testing this idea in court, because it might not turn out the way they wanted it to. However, as we covered on Techdirt, a few years back, music publisher BMG, with the assistance of copyright trolling operation Rights Corp. went after ISP Cox, claiming that it had failed to kick people off under the DMCA. That case was an utter mess, not helped at all by the fact that it was handled by Judge Liam O'Grady, who flat out mocked the idea that the internet was important, and made it clear he didn't see any issue at all with banning people from the internet. Here's how he responded to an attempt by the EFF to file an amicus brief pointing out the problems with kicking people off the internet: I read the brief. It adds absolutely nothing helpful at all. It is a combination of describing the horrors that one endures from losing the Internet for any length of time. Frankly, it sounded like my son complaining when I took his electronics away when he watched YouTube videos instead of doing homework. And it's completely hysterical. The whole case was a complete mess -- and it was made worse by some bad choices by Cox, including not really following its own stated DMCA repeat infringer policy. O'Grady's ruling was bad, and unfortunately the appeals court upheld it. However, at least the Appeals Court made it more or less clear that they weren't saying every ISP had to kick people off the internet -- but rather that Cox lost its DMCA safe harbors by not following its own DMCA policy. While much attention was paid to the claim that Cox's policy amounted to a "13 strike" policy before you might lose access, the appeals court notes it's not the number of strikes that matters, so much as whether or not the company follows its own policy -- and Cox did not. Of course, another part that came out during the trial is that Cox was getting so completely bombarded by Rights Corp takedown notices (which doubled as demands for money), that Cox felt it needed to put in place systems to deal with the spam, which included limiting how many notices it would accept each day. Between the ruling in the original BMG case, and the revelations about Cox's own practices, the RIAA clearly sensed blood in the water, and a chance to prove its point. And, thus, it has a massive lawsuit against Cox. It's basically all of the major labels using the earlier case as evidence of some grand conspiracy to profit off of piracy. Cox is one of the largest Internet service providers (“ISPs”) in the country. It markets and sells high-speed Internet services to consumers nationwide. Through the provision of those services, however, Cox also has knowingly contributed to, and reaped substantial profits from, massive copyright infringement committed by thousands of its subscribers, causing great harm to Plaintiffs, their recording artists and songwriters, and others whose livelihoods depend upon the lawful acquisition of music. Cox’s contribution to its subscribers’ infringement is both willful and extensive, and renders Cox equally liable. Indeed, for years, Cox deliberately refused to take reasonable measures to curb its customers from using its Internet services to infringe on others’ copyrights—even once Cox became aware of particular customers engaging in specific, repeated acts of infringement. Plaintiffs’ representatives (as well as others) sent hundreds of thousands of statutory infringement notices to Cox, under penalty of perjury, advising Cox of its subscribers’ blatant and systematic use of Cox’s Internet service to illegally download, copy, and distribute Plaintiffs’ copyrighted music through BitTorrent and other online file-sharing services. Rather than working with Plaintiffs to curb this massive infringement, Cox unilaterally imposed an arbitrary cap on the number of infringement notices it would accept from copyright holders, thereby willfully blinding itself to any of its subscribers’ infringements that exceeded its “cap.” Cox also claimed to have implemented a “thirteen-strike policy” before terminating service of repeat infringers but, in actuality, Cox never permanently terminated any subscribers. Instead, it lobbed “soft terminations” with virtually automatic reinstatement, or it simply did nothing at all. The reason for this is simple: rather than stop its subscribers’ unlawful activity, Cox prioritized its own profits over its legal obligations. Cox’s profits increased dramatically as a result of the massive infringement that it facilitated, yet Cox publicly told copyright holders that it needed to reduce the number of staff it had dedicated to anti-piracy for budget reasons. Given the mess of how Cox handled DMCA notices and its repeat infringer policy, this case is going to be a tough one for it to fight off. But the actual stakes are huge. The RIAA wants to be able to kick people entirely off the internet based purely on accusations -- even if they're bullshit. We should be very concerned about it. And to increase the level of concern: this new case has been assigned to... Judge Liam O'Grady. Needless to say we'll be watching it closely.
  5. US Based movie producer, Ofu Obekpa has called on the federal budget to enact laws that will help tackle Piracy. He believes this will aid the growth of the industry. This submission was made at the screening of his movie ‘Klippers’ which has WWE legend Kevin Nash among the cast. He says the Nigeria movie industry will grow beyond its current state if piracy can be tackled head on and producers are able to reap from their investments.
  6. Walt Disney Studios has teamed up with pro—copyright education body the Industry Trust for IP Awareness to create an exclusive trailer for the live action adventure Christopher Robin as part of the ‘Moments Worth Paying For campaign’, aimed at combatting film piracy. The trailer features brand-new, never-seen-before footage made especially for the campaign, where Winnie the Pooh stars in a behind the scenes interview telling fans that he too enjoys watching films on the big screen, with the key message that bringing the whole family together for a trip to the cinema, are always moments worth paying for. The Industry Trust’s consumer education campaign continues to deliver the core message – inspiring audiences to choose the big screen experience. Like the others in the Moments Worth Paying For series, the trailer directs audiences to the industry-funded film search engine,, which signposts legal content sources, so they can book, buy and watch at their convenience. “Our latest collaboration with the Industry Trust perfectly delivers the message to family audiences that the films they love should be seen together on the big screen,” commented Lee Jury, Managing Director UK & Ireland, Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures. “Christopher Robin is a film full of ‘Moments Worth Paying For’ – a journey of escapism filled with love, laughter and huge emotion and we can’t wait for audiences to get reacquainted with Winnie the Pooh, Eeyore and the rest of the gang on 17th August.” “We’re delighted to be working with Walt Disney Studios once again and partnering up with Christopher Robin, which features characters beloved by audiences of all ages,” added James Gallagher, Senior Marketing Manager, The Industry Trust. “The ongoing mission of ‘Moments Worth Paying For’ is to highlight the movie going experience as a shared activity and that the big screen is the best way to watch the latest release. Christopher Robin is a movie that the whole family can enjoy, across nostalgic parents and children alike, and is the perfect title to help drive families away from pirating content and encourage them towards the many legal ways in which they can access creative content from cinema to the home. Having Jim Cummings as the voice of Pooh providing a unique voiceover for our trailer adds authenticity and helps promote our need for talent to help push the anti-piracy message.” Disney’s Christopher Robin will be released the in UK on August 17th, 2018
  7. Japan's major publishing companies are joining together for an anti-piracy campaign. The "STOP! Piracy Edition" campaign is a joint effort by Kadokawa Shoten, Kodansha, Shogakukan, and Shueisha to distribute information about the damages caused by pirated manga. The campaign opened a website with detailed information on piracy's effects on the publishing industry and the various types of piracy that currently exist, like illegal hosting websites. According to the site, the now defunct FreeBooks received 17.5 million monthly visitors before it was shut down, and the recently shut down Mangamura site had as many as 160 million people a month visiting its site. As a result, the sites had the potential to earn hundreds of millions of yen a month in advertisement revenue. Another version of piracy sites that currently exist in a legal grey area are "leech sites." These sites don't use advertising for revenue, instead earning funds from cyberlocker file storage services. The sites function as a file search engine where visitors find the manga they want and are redirected to a third-party file-hosting site to download it. Publishers are currently pushing to have these type of websites outlawed. Users' ability to download files from cyberlockers are limited; the sites limit download speed and the number of files a user can download simultaneously unless they pay a membership fee. The fee is approximately US$40 per six months. Publishers have found the only way to combat leech sites is to remove the uploaded files from the file-hosting sites. In October 2017, publishers removed 33,000 files and approximately 430,000 files were removed in 2016. Files are often reuploaded after their removal. Some pirates upload manga chapters to YouTube by changing the reading format into a video, and they then earn revenue from advertisements. The site also mentions manga chapter leaks as a previous significant source of piracy. Two major leak sites were taken down in 2017, but prior to the sites' removals, they had earned a combined 379 million yen (about US$3.40 million) in ad revenue. Peer-to-peer programs like Winny, Share, Perfect Dark, and Cabos are used in Japan. However, they are not as popular as the other piracy alternatives because of the need to download software, ease of use, and risk of viruses. The site also says users dropped drastically after rights holders worked with police to detect illegal file sharing, leading to multiple arrests. Since the STOP! Piracy Edition's website launched, popular manga magazines have shown their support for the initiative. The official Twitter account for Akita Shoten's Weekly Shōnen Champion magazine shared an image of Yowamushi Pedal's Sakamichi Onoda and the Baki manga's title character with the campaign's logo. The official account for the Bungō Stray Dogs manga and anime also shared the website with the comment, "Utilizing pirate sites not only reduces manga creators' income, there is also concern that it will cause harm to the sites' users themselves." The official account for Naoko Takeuchi's Sailor Moon manga and anime franchise also shared a link, asking readers to stop using illegal means to read manga. Shogakukan launched its separate "NO! Piracy & Illegal Website" campaign in June. The publisher hoped to help eradicate the use of such websites by clearly posting announcements and ads for all of the company's magazines and digital media hubs. The pirate manga site Mangamura was shut down in April, and police began investigating the site for criminal activity after Japanese publishers filed charges last year. Since the site went down, manga artists are claiming increases in sales of their respective series, alleging that more users are turning to legal means to read manga with the piracy site's demise. Sci-fi shōjo manga creator Toriko Gin, light novel writer Akinori Satake, comedy manga artist Sakuya Amano, and Shonen Onmyouji original creator Mitsuru Yuuki all thanked readers after seeing an increase in sales this year. Thanks Haha Confused Sad Upvote
  8. Mark Mulready, VP, Cybersecurity Services at digital platform security specialist Irdeto, has called on payment platforms to support legitimate media organisations, following research that suggests pirates depend heavily on leading payment platforms to help them gather subscription and pay-per-view revenue. In an Irdeto Perspective blog post, Mulready notes that investigators often get told to ‘follow the money’. “The time has come to extend this approach to the fight against online piracy, as new Irdeto research reveals the scale at which payment platforms are being used to enable illegal streaming,” he writes. According to Mulready, it’s no secret that online piracy is big business, diverting vast revenues from genuine content providers every year. “Illegal streaming services are increasingly sophisticated, with slick websites and advertising, secure payment facilities and money-back guarantees. It’s often hard for consumers to be sure if they are subscribing to a genuine or illegal service,” he suggests. “Those secure payment facilities are a big part of the pirates’ veneer of respectability, with many supporting transactions via industry big hitters like Visa, Mastercard, PayPal, American Express and the rest. The Irdeto anti-piracy team has now revealed the scale at which different payment platforms are enabling pirates to get away with content theft,” he reports. “Irdeto conducted test purchases and research from our existing database of known pirate IPTV streaming sites to see what payment patterns emerged. An example site and the payment methods they advertise are included below. After identifying more than 400 pirate IPTV streaming supplier sites that are currently active, Irdeto analysis revealed 76 per cent of them openly advertised the payment methods that they support. The majority of sites offered multiple payment methods. Visa and MasterCard were the clear leaders, each accounting for 21 per cent of all payment methods advertised. PayPal was next at 14 per cent, followed by American Express (9 per cent) and Discover (7 per cent). Cryptocurrencies only accounted for around 4 per cent of payment method mentions on the sites analyed, with Bitcoin by far the most popular option. “What this data confirms is that pirates depend heavily on leading payment platforms to help them gather subscription and pay per view revenue. But of course, legitimate media companies also process a huge volume of payments online. In many cases, they’re relying on exactly the same financial platforms that pirates are using to rip them off,” he observes. “Surely, it’s time for the payment platforms to support legitimate media organisations by conducting better due diligence and stopping support for these pirate IPTV streaming sites. These platforms should be able to identify and suspend sites that are offering illegal content. But they won’t unless there’s something in it for them,” he contends. “If media organisations threaten to vote with their feet against payment platforms that enable piracy, it’ll be fascinating to see who blinks first,” he concludes.
  9. 1 Aug 2013 in Russia came into force the legislative mechanisms of protection of copyright and (or) related rights on the Internet The Federal service for supervision in the sphere of Telecom, information technologies and mass communications (Roskomnadzor) has told about, how effective were the measures introduced to combat piracy, reports 3Dnews”. To date, the anti-piracy law protects against the illegal distribution network for all types of intellectual property, in addition to the rights in photographic works and works obtained by processes analogous to photography. In five years, Roskomnadzor has received 3702 definitions of the Moscow city court on adoption of provisional measures aimed at protecting copyright. Was 8454 statements of rights holders in the framework of the already existing definitions of the Moscow city court. A total of definition of Moscow city court and the statements of the right holders concerned 116 298 sites or pages. The owners of these resources would prefer to remove pirated content without waiting for the access restriction. Currently, the blocking only applies to 8 % of the sites or pages of sites that have adopted anti-piracy measures. From 1 October 2017, there is a norm about restriction of access on the basis of the decision of the Ministry of communications to “mirrors” pirate sites blocked earlier by the Moscow city court on a permanent basis. Now blocked almost 2.5 thousand “mirrors” resources with illegal content.
  10. SEOUL - The country's biggest portal Naver has filed a civil suit worth 1 billion won (US$890,789) against a piracy site that illegally distributed its webtoons, IT industry officials said Friday. The suit was formally filed on July 26 with the Seoul Central District Court against the operator of the site Bam Tokki, identified only by his last name Huh, according to the officials. Naver claimed that the number of subscribers to its paid-for webtoon service fell from some 19.7 million in May 2017 to 16.8 million a year later because of the piracy, causing immense damage to its business. The portal said it will determine the exact amount of requested compensation as the suit proceeds. Bam Tokki first opened in October 2016. It has since illegally uploaded some 90,000 strips of local webtoons and was able to make an additional 950 million won from shady advertisements, such as betting sites, as the number of subscribers increased. It had 61 million users and page views of over 137 million as of December last year. The page views exceeded Naver's 120 million as of then. Webtoon Guide, which analyzes the industry, estimated that the country's 58 webtoon companies suffered more than 200 billion won in losses in April alone from piracy. "We filed the suit as the representative of the webtoon platforms and authors," Naver said. "We will pursue operators of illegal sites to the end to hold them accountable and take legal action."
  11. Two Dutch organizations, the University of Amsterdam’s Institute for Information Law and the research firm Ecorys, just released a Global Online Piracy Study concluding that increasing the availability of content from legal channels is the most effective means of reducing online infringement. The study examines the acquisition and consumption of music, film, books and games through legal and illegal channels in thirteen countries in Europe, the Americans and Asia. The study first conducted comparative legal research based on questionnaires on the legal status of online copyright infringement and enforcement completed by legal experts in the thirteen countries studied. Although there was an “abundance of enforcement measures,” the study concluded that “their perceived effectiveness is unclear.” Thus, “it is questionable whether the answer to successfully tackling online copyright infringement lies in additional rights or enforcement, especially if these will not lead to additional revenue for copyright holders and risk coming into conflict with fundamental rights of users and intermediaries.” Rather, the legal survey suggests that the answer to piracy lies “in the provision of affordable and convenient legal access to copyright-protected content.” This suggestion is confirmed by a finding in the consumer survey of 35,000 respondents in the thirteen countries that “online piracy correlates remarkably strongly with a lack of purchasing power.” Further, between 2014 and 2017, when affordable streaming services became available, the number of pirates decreased in all European countries except Germany. The study also wrestled with the thorny issue of the impact of infringement on legal consumption. The study “confirms earlier studies in finding statistical evidence that illegal consumption of music, books, and games displaces legal consumption.” At the same time, “the displacement coefficients are surrounded with substantial uncertainty.” In other words, infringement appears to displace lawful sales, but it is difficult to determine with any precision the amount of displacement. This is because “there are several opposing interactions between piracy and legal consumption, some of which have a negative impact on sales, some positive and some neutral.” Infringement could have a positive effect through sampling: “consumers are introduced to new music, actors and genres, and this creates new demand.” Infringement could also “enhance the demand for complementary products such as live concerts and merchandise.” The divergent effects of infringement on legal consumption result in infringement having a different impact on different segments of the same industry. Thus, illegal consumption of music displaces legal downloads and physical carriers—i.e., it has a negative impact on record labels. But the sampling effect of infringement has a positive impact on live concerts and music festivals, and their promotors and performers. Consumer expenditures on live concerts are growing in most of the countries studied, and live concerts generate revenues comparable to those for recorded music. The study, therefore, demonstrates that in addition to responding to infringement by supplying attractive alternative business models such as streaming, content providers are emphasizing channels that actually benefit from infringement, such as live concerts. The key takeaway is that businesses must innovate to survive. The technological context, prevailing economic conditions, consumer preferences, and the competitive landscape are in a constant state of flux. Successful businesses adapt to these changes. Innovation, of course, is difficult, and requires experimentation, including failed experiments. We are witnessing this experimentation right now with movie subscription services such as MoviePass. MoviePass initially offered subscribers one movie ticket a day for a fee of $10 a month. Although it gained 3 million subscribers, MoviePass was losing money because it was paying movie theatres the full price for a ticket, and thus lost money if a subscriber went to more than one film a month. (The average ticket price is $9.) Accordingly, MoviePass just increased its fee to $15 a month. Industry analysts doubt MoviePass will be profitable even with this higher subscription fee because it will still lose money on a subscriber that goes to more than two movies a month. However, movie theatre company AMC has announced that it would offer a similar service, allowing subscribers to see three movies a week for a fee of $20 a month. Analysts believe this service is far more likely to succeed because the subscription would tie subscribers to AMC theatres, and encourage them to see more movies, where they would buy more from the concession stands—the real source of movie theatre profits. Properly designed movie subscription services will enable movie theatres to compete with online subscription services such as Netflix and Amazon Prime, and the proliferation of these affordable distribution channels will lure consumers away from infringing sources.
  12. In an international enforcement operation several years ago, the FBI took down three pirate Android app 'stores'. The action resulted in the arrest and indictment of several operators, all based in the US. While the criminal prosecutions progressed slowly, the final case just concluded, resulting in a six month prison sentence. During the summer of 2012, the FBI took down Appbucket, Applanet, and SnappzMarket, some of the largest pirate app stores at the time. In the years that followed several people connected to the Android app sites were arrested and indicted, resulting in prison sentences for some. Aside from the initial announcement, the cases have been handled relatively quietly by the US Government. We can report, however, that after six years all cases that we know of have now been closed. The last remaining case was that of Gary Sharp, who was indicted in two separate cases. The Massachusetts man, who’s now in his early thirties, worked as “super moderator” on Applanet’s servers and Facebook page, for which he received a video game as compensation. At SnappzMarket he had a more important role, dealing with finances and the administrative side of the operation. Sharp never denied his involvement with any of these sites and pleaded guilty to conspiring to commit criminal copyright infringement in both cases. In addition, he provided the FBI with detailed background information and testified in the trial of another defendant. Based on this cooperative stance, Sharp’s attorney requested a lower sentence, which was granted. A few weeks ago, he was sentenced to a six months prison term, which started on July 14th. This means that, without any appeals, all pirate app store cases have now been closed. While the enforcement efforts led to convictions in most instances, the Department of Justice isn’t publicly celebrating. Perhaps that’s due to the stories of the defendants being littered with personal problems and them being far from the hardcore criminals some might expect. The convicts did, however, help to distribute hundreds of thousands of pirated apps. And while they haven’t made millions, the Government found that they caused substantial losses to the respective copyright holders. For example, a defendant in Appbucket case, Mr. Blocker, earned $7,222 from his involvement with the site. However, he was held liable for over $750,000 in damages. The defendant faced years in prison, but he eventually received a sentence of two years probation earlier this year. Two other operators of Appbucket were also sentenced to probation this year, while the founder received a prison sentence of a year and a day. Two Applanet defendants walked free, while two Snapzmarket operators previously received prison sentences of 16 and 46 months. Most cases ended in successful convictions which will likely deter others from starting similar sites. However, as is often the case with pirate ventures, there will always be people still willing to take the risk.
  13. Five years ago this week, Russia embarked on a site-blocking regime that was designed to drastically slow the piracy phenomenon. Currently, more than 5,000 sites remain blocked on copyright grounds, but is the country any closer to a solution than it was in 2013? For reasons best known to rightsholders internationally, site-blocking is now one of the most favored anti-piracy mechanisms. Five years ago, Russia decided that it too would join the movement, hoping to put a dent in rampant online sharing of copyrighted content. August 1, 2013, new legislation came into force which allowed rightsholders to block video content that had been posted online illegally. A year later, the same protections were extended to other kinds of intellectual property, excluding photographic works. In the months that followed, it became clear that some sites were being reported for copyright infringement on multiple occasions. This led to calls for repeat offenders to receive special treatment from the courts. On May 1, 2015, new rules made it possible for sites to be permanently blocked. Thousands of platforms have been affected. Last October yet more legislative amendments came into force. These allowed rightsholders to target so-called ‘mirrors’, platforms that are functionally similar to sites that have already been blocked but manage to evade that fate. According to figures supplied by telecoms watchdog Roscomnadzor and published by Russia’s RBC, 2,421 mirror sites have been blocked under the legislation. Just a month later during November 2017, Russia tightened the law up once again, this time targeting VPN and anonymizer services that provide access to blocked sites. These must now connect to a national register of blocked sites to ensure they don’t facilitate access to such platforms. If they fail to do so, they can also be blocked. Search engines haven’t escaped the clutches of the authorities either. They too must interface with government systems listing blocked sites in order to prevent any from appearing in search engine results. After a period of uncertainty as to how this should be carried out, search engines should be fully compliant by the end of September. During the five years between Aug 1, 2013 and Aug 1, 2018, Roscomnadzor reports that it received 3,702 blocking orders from the Moscow City Court following 8,454 complaints by rightsholders. “In total, the Moscow City Court’s rulings and applications by rightholders concerned 116,298 sites or pages of websites,” the watchdog reports. “After receiving a notification from Roskomnadzor to prevent violation of the law, the vast majority of Internet resources remove pirated copies of films, music, etc.” Roscomnadzor says that access is currently limited to around 8% (5,058) of web pages that previously had measures taken against them. The owners of 60,834 other web pages independently took measures to restrict access to pirated content, without waiting to be blocked by the authorities. According to RBC, the Gazprom-Media owned channel TNT was the most active rightsholders over the past five years. The broadcaster filed 447 applications at the Moscow City Court for interim measures and 489 full claims. The majority of respondents in cases handled by the Court were foreign hosting companies. However, getting these companies to appear in Russia seems to have proven impossible in the majority of cases. “Neither foreign hosting providers, nor the overwhelming majority of their domestic colleagues bothered to attend the sessions of the Moscow City Court. For example, from August 2013 to August 2014, only three cases were recorded, when the defendant appeared in court,” RBC reports. The defendant listed on most occasions in connection with blocking efforts was US-based CDN company Cloudflare. The company was named in 554 lawsuits with a further 300 relating to Russia-based hoster, uCoz and British Virgin Islands-based Compubyte. Hosting provider Inferno Solutions appeared in third place. But despite many thousands of actions, it appears that copyright holders remain unhappy with the system. “There are results, but there is no effectiveness,” says Dmitry Sychugov, general director of Amedia TV, a company that filed 169 applications for interim measures plus 60 lawsuits. “In technical terms, [tools for rightsholders] are far behind the advanced solutions of pirates. The majority of users still turn to pirated sites for viewing video content.” With other rightsholders describing the current system as effective as a “sieve”, Roscomnadzor is trying to remain upbeat. “For five years anti-piracy legislation was supplemented by new norms, the implementation of which increased the effectiveness of copyright protection on the Internet,” the watchdog concludes. It’s interesting to note that despite Russia’s site and content blocking system being one of the toughest in the world, rightsholders still aren’t happy. Whether additional legislative measures will move into place during the next five years will remain to be seen but until then, content will continue to leak through the mesh, at pace.
  14. Transmission 2.94 & qBittorrent 4.1.1 added to allowed clients list
  15. Promo VIP august 2018 Do you wanna be vip? Discover our exclusive promotion for users who have never been vip at Click here Staff TTR