Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'and'.



More search options

  • Search By Tags

    Type tags separated by commas.
  • Search By Author

Content Type


Forums

  • Invite Scene Official Information
    • Announcements
    • Suggestions and Ideas
    • Member Introductions
    • Competitions
  • Invite Scene Premium Membership
    • Make a Donation: Grab Your Premium Membership Now
  • Invite Scene VIP Giveaways & Requests
    • VIP Giveaways
    • VIP Requests
  • Invite Scene The Official Store
    • Invite Scene Store: The Official Store for Private Torrent Invites
  • Invite Scene Marketplace
    • Premium Sellers Section
    • Buyer's Section
    • Trader's Section
    • Webmaster Marketplace
    • Service Offerings
    • Other Stuffs
  • Invite Scene Giveaways & Requests Section
    • Giveaways
    • Requests
  • Invite Scene Bittorrent World
    • Private Tracker News
    • BitTorrent World Discussion
    • Private Tracker Help
    • Tracker Reviews
    • Open Trackers
  • Invite Scene SeedBox Forum
    • Exclusive SeedBox Sellers Section
    • SeedBox Sellers Section
    • SeedBox Reviews
    • SeedBox Discussions
  • Making Money
    • Monetizing Techniques
    • Crypto Currency
    • Free Money Making Ebooks
  • Webmasters
    • Website Construction
  • Invite Scene General Topics
    • The Lounge
    • Movies, TV, and Videos
    • Melody, Harmony, Rhythm, and MP3
    • General PC Chat and Help
    • Security Hive
    • Guides and Tutorials
    • Gamers Hangout
    • The Graphic Design
  • Invite Scene Deal Disputes & Limitations
    • Deal Disputes
    • Archives

Find results in...

Find results that contain...


Date Created

  • Start

    End


Last Updated

  • Start

    End


Filter by number of...

Joined

  • Start

    End


Group


Website URL


Google+ Hangouts


Yahoo Messenger


Skype


Discord


AIM


ICQ


Interests

Found 181 results

  1. I have invites for TorrentDay and IPTorrents and I want an invite to MyAnonamouse or ebooks-heaven. Thank you!
  2. Hey guyz! [HAVE]: BitHumen invite MyAnonaMouse invite TranceTraffic invite TorrentLeech invite TNetwork invite 3DTorrents invite AudioNews account TorrentVault invite Ethor.net invite XThor.net invite LearnFlakes invite ABTorrents invite IPTorrents invite Bit-Italia invite Indietorrents invite SDBits invite Secret-Cinema invite HDclub invite BitSpyder invite Avistaz (ex AsiaTorrents) invite [WANT]: BrokenStones invite ThePlace invite BitHQ invite SCC invite or account + PIN GazelleGames invite or account + email P.S. I don`t monitor this thread, so only way to contact with me - PM me
  3. amazinghorse

    Rare and interesting sites

    If you find something interesting or even unique on the net -> share it with your friends here!
  4. The MPAA is refusing to hand over documentation discussing the legal case it helped Mississippi State Attorney General Jim Hood build against Google. According to the Hollywood group, Google is waging a PR war against Hollywood while facilitating and profiting from piracy. Late last year leaked documents from the Sony hack revealed that the MPAA helped Mississippi State Attorney General Hood to revive SOPA-esque censorship efforts in the United States. In a retaliatory move Google sued the Attorney General, hoping to find out more about the secret effort. As part of these proceedings Google also demanded internal communication from the MPAA, but the Hollywood group has been hesitant to share these details. After several subpoenas remained largely unanswered Google took the MPAA to court earlier this month. The search giant asked a Columbia federal court to ensure that the MPAA and its law firm Jenner & Block hands over the requested documents. The MPAA and its law firm responded to the complaint this week, stressing that Google’s demands are overbroad. They reject the argument that internal discussions or communications with its members and law firm will reveal Attorney General Hood’s intent, not least due to the Attorney General not being part of these conversations himself. According to the Hollywood group, Google’s broad demands are part of a public relations war against the MPAA, one in which Google inaccurately positions itself as the victim. “Google portrays itself as the innocent victim of malicious efforts to abridge its First Amendment rights. In reality, Google is far from innocent,†the MPAA informs the federal court (pdf). The MPAA notes that Google is knowingly facilitating and profiting from distributing “illegal†content, including pirated material. “Google facilitates, and profits from, the distribution of third-party content that even Google concedes is ‘objectionable.’ ‘Objectionable’ is Google’s euphemism for ‘illegal’,†the MPAA writes. The opposition brief states that for a variety of reasons the subpoenaed documents are irrelevant to the original lawsuit and are far too broad in scope. The MPAA’s initial searches revealed that 100,000 documents would likely require review, many of which it believes are protected by attorney-client privilege. The MPAA says that Google is trying to leverage the information revealed in the Sony hack to expose the MPAA’s broader anti-piracy strategies in public, and that this is all part of an ongoing PR war. “The purpose of these Subpoenas is to gather information — beyond the information that was already stolen via the Sony hack on which it relies — on the MPAA’s strategies to protect its members’ copyrighted material and address violations of law on the Internet affecting its members’ copyrights and the rights of others,†they write. “Moreover, Google openly admits that it opposes any order to keep these discovery materials in confidence, revealing its goal to disseminate these documents publicly as part of its ongoing public relations war.†Positioning itself as the victim, the MPAA goes on to slam Google for going after anyone who “dares†to expose the search engine’s alleged facilitation of piracy and other unlawful acts. “…the most fundamental purpose of these Subpoenas is to send a message to anyone who dares to seek government redress for Google’s facilitation of unlawful conduct: If you and your attorneys exercise their First Amendment right to seek redress from a government official, Google will come after you.†In conclusion, the MPAA and its law firm ask the court to reject Google’s broad demands and stop the “abuse†of the litigation process. It’s now up to the judge to decide how to proceed, but based on the language used, the stakes at hand and the parties involved, this dispute isn’t going to blow over anytime soon. It’s more likely to blow up instead. http://torrentfreak.com/mpaa-google-assists-and-profits-from-piracy-150617/
  5. Hi, i need bitspyder buffered account only please have bithumen account and other good offers pm me
  6. Have IPTorrents, but looking to pickup some of the other torrent sites supported by Sonarr.
  7. Popular CDN service CloudFlare has denied allegations from the RIAA that accuse the company of aiding and abetting piracy. Warning against a SOPA-like precedent, the company has asked the court not to include CloudFlare in the restraining order which aims to stop a reincarnation of music service Grooveshark. After Grooveshark shut down earlier this month it was quickly replaced by a “new†Grooveshark, much to the annoyance of the major record labels. Headed by the RIAA, the operators of the new site were quickly taken to court. The group filed a sealed application for a temporary restraining order (TRO) targeting the site’s domain name and hosting services. The court granted the RIAA’s request earlier this month, allowing the music group to demand that hosting companies and registrars stop offering their services to the ‘rogue’ site. Namecheap swiftly complied and seized the initial domain name. However, popular CDN service CloudFlare refused to take any action, claiming that the TRO doesn’t apply to them. The new Grooveshark, meanwhile, moved to another domain and is still using CloudFlare’s services. Hoping to compel CloudFlare to comply with the order, the RIAA asked the court to expand it by specifying that the CDN service has to take action. According to the RIAA, CloudFlare is “aiding and abetting†piracy. However, in an opposition brief CloudFlare clearly disagrees. With help from the EFF, the company argues that even if it terminates its services, the ‘Grooveshark’ site would remain available. “Even if CloudFlare—and every company in the world that provides similar services—took proactive steps to identify and block the Defendants, the website would remain up and running at its current domain name,†CloudFlare argues (pdf). The request to include CloudFlare in the restraining order goes way too far, the company believes. If granted, this may lead to a snowball effect of orders against automated Internet services that are not actively assisting illegal activity. “Given that CloudFlare clearly is not in ‘active concert or participation’ with Defendants, it appears Plaintiffs are effectively attempting to expand the traditional boundaries of Rule 65,†the lawyers write. “That attempt, if accepted by this Court, could have implications well beyond this case. Other parties may seek the same remedy, using allegations of trademark or copyright infringement to obtain orders against the world.†The RIAA is demanding SOPA-like powers with its request, CloudFlare argues. The company highlights that the SOPA bill was turned down after heavy criticism, but that the RIAA is now acting as if it’s become law. “The [sOPA] bill was met with widespread public criticism from Internet users, technology companies, law professors, and software pioneers who helped create the Internet. Congress tabled the bill and did not advance it further,†CloudFlare notes. “Here, Plaintiffs ask the Court to construe its injunction power as though H.R. 3261 had in fact become law. But lacking explicit statutory authority for such an order against a nonparty, the TRO cannot be construed to reach so far.†CloudFlare therefore asks the court not to expand the restraining order. The company warns that any contrary ruling could set a dangerous precedent, putting many infrastructure providers and other services at risk. For the RIAA and other copyright holders the case is an important test for future anti-piracy efforts against other pirate sites. The new Grooveshark is barely getting any visitors after the initial hype, but it has certainly triggered a crucial legal battle. https://torrentfreak.com/cloudflare-were-not-aiding-and-abetting-piracy-100530/
  8. A new report from the United Nations has underlined the importance of encryption and anonymity in the digital age. Penned by a UN special rapporteur on freedom of expression, the document underlines the importance of private communications and calls on member states to protect their use under law. For the past several years and particularly in the wake of the Edward Snowden revelations, interest in encrypted and anonymous communications has spread to a much wider audience. More than ever before the ability to send and receive information both privately and anonymously is viewed as crucial in the digital age, enabling all corners of society – especially those most persecuted – to exercise their right to freedom of opinion and expression. On the other hand, however, there are those who abuse those freedoms and the rights of others. And then, rightly or wrongly, there are those who communicate privately in order to undermine their governments. This leads some nations to restrict or even ban encryption, while others seek to introduce laws which allow law enforcement to tap into citzens’ communications. A new report from David Kaye, a UN special rapporteur on freedom of expression, seeks to shine light on these complex issues by asking two questions: – Do the rights to privacy and freedom of opinion and expression protect secure online communication, specifically by encryption or anonymity? – Assuming an affirmative answer, to what extent may Governments, in accordance with human rights law, impose restrictions on encryption and anonymity? Acknowledging that some states impose draconian measures to restrict citizens’ abilities to send and impart knowledge without fear, Kaye says that journalists and activists often need specialist tools to make their voices heard. “A VPN connection, or use of Tor or a proxy server, combined with encryption, may be the only way in which an individual is able to access or share information in such environments,†Kaye says. Noting that individuals should be able to send and receive information beyond their borders, the rapporteur states that some member states act to deny those freedoms by restricting communications using aggressive filtering. “Encryption enables an individual to avoid such filtering, allowing information to flow across borders. Moreover, individuals do not control — and are usually unaware of — how or if their communications cross borders. Encryption and anonymity may protect information of all individuals as it transits through servers located in third countries that filter content,†Kaye writes. Of course, in the online environment encryption and anonymity are often spoken of in the same breath, and just as encryption can often beat the censors, in some cases staying anonymous is vital to continued freedom of expression. “Anonymity has been recognized for the important role it plays in safeguarding and advancing privacy, free expression, political accountability, public participation and debate,†Kaye writes. “Some States exert significant pressure against anonymity, offline and online. Yet because anonymity facilitates opinion and expression in significant ways online, States should protect it and generally not restrict the technologies that provide it.†Kaye notes that several states have attempted to combat anonymity tools such as TOR, VPNs and proxies, with Russia even offering significant cash bounties for techniques which would enable it to unmask TOR users. However, due to their human rights value, use of such tools should actually be encouraged. “Because such tools may be the only mechanisms for individuals to exercise freedom of opinion and expression securely, access to them should be protected and promoted,†Kaye advises. “States should revise or establish, as appropriate, national laws and regulations to promote and protect the rights to privacy and freedom of opinion and expression.†In respect of encryption and anonymity, Kaye says that member states should adopt policies of “non-restriction or comprehensive protectionâ€, and only introduce restrictions on a proportional, court-order supported, case-by-case basis. Adding that states and companies alike should actively promote strong encryption and anonymity, Kaye says that measures that weaken individual’s online security, such as backdoors, weak encryption standards and key escrows, should be avoided. Finally, Kaye advises member states to not only encourage the use of encryption, but also make it the norm. “The Special Rapporteur, recognizing that the value of encryption and anonymity tools depends on their widespread adoption, encourages States, civil society organizations and corporations to engage in a campaign to bring encryption by design and default to users around the world and, where necessary, to ensure that users at risk be provided the tools to exercise their right to freedom of opinion and expression securely,†the report concludes. https://torrentfreak.com/un-encryption-and-anonymity-must-be-protected-150529/
  9. The Department of Justice has made a grave error as several seized Megaupload domains are now being exploited for nefarious purposes. A few days ago both Megaupload.com and Megavideo.com began directing visitors to scams and malware, presumably because the FBI's cybercrime unit lost control of the main nameserver. Well over three years have passed since Megaupload was shutdown, but there is still little progress in the criminal proceedings against the operation. The United States hopes that New Zealand will extradite Kim Dotcom and his colleagues, but the hearings have been delayed several times already. Meanwhile, several domain names including the popular Megaupload.com and Megavideo.com remain under the control of the U.S. Government. At least, that should be the case. In reality, however, they’re now being exploited by ‘cyber criminals.’ Instead of a banner announcing that the domains names have been seized as part of a criminal investigation they now direct people to a Zero-Click adverting feed. This feed often links to malware installers and other malicious ads. One of the many malicious “ads†the Megaupload and Megavideo domain names are serving links to a fake BBC article, suggesting people can get an iPhone 6 for only £1. And here is another example of a malicious ad prompting visitors to update their browser. The question that immediately comes to mind is this: How can it be that the Department of Justice is allowing the domains to be used for such nefarious purposes? Looking at the Whois records everything seems to be in order. The domain name still lists Megaupload Limited as registrant, which is as it was before. Nothing out of the ordinary. The nameserver PLEASEDROPTHISHOST15525.CIRFU.BIZ, on the other hand, triggers several alarm bells. CIRFU refers to the FBI’s Cyber Initiative and Resource Fusion Unit, a specialized tech team tasked with handling online crime and scams. The unit used the CIRFU.NET domain name as nameserver for various seized domains, including the Mega ones. Interestingly, the CIRFU.NET domain now lists “Syndk8 Media Limited†as registrant, which doesn’t appear to have any connections with the FBI. Similarly, CIRFU.BIZ is not an official CIRFU domain either and points to a server in the Netherlands hosted by LeaseWeb. It appears that the domain which the Department of Justice (DoJ) used as nameserver is no longer in control of the Government. Perhaps it expired, or was taken over via other means. As a result, Megaupload and Megavideo are now serving malicious ads, run by the third party that controls the nameserver. This is quite a mistake for one of the country’s top cybercrime units, to say the least. It’s also one that affects tends of thousands of people, as the Megaupload.com domain remains frequently visited. Commenting on the rogue domains, Megaupload founder Kim Dotcom notes that the people who are responsible should have known better. “With U.S. Assistant Attorney Jay Prabhu the DOJ in Virginia employs a guy who doesn’t know the difference between civil & criminal law. And after this recent abuse of our seized Mega domains I wonder how this guy was appointed Chief of the Cybercrime Unit when he can’t even do the basics like safeguard the domains he has seized,†he tells TF. “Jay Prabhu keeps embarrassing the U.S. government. I would send him back to law school and give him a crash course in ‘how the Internet works’,†Dotcom adds. Making matters worse for the Government, Megaupload.com and Megavideo.com are not the only domain names affected. Various poker domains that were previously seized, including absolutepoker.com and ultimatebet.com, also link to malicious content now. While the Government appears to have lost control of the old nameservers, it can still correct the problem through a nameserver update at their end. However, that doesn’t save those people who had their systems compromised during recent days, and it certainly won’t repair the PR damage. https://torrentfreak.com/seized-megaupload-domains-link-to-scam-ads-and-malware-150528/
  10. The purpose of public libraries is exactly the same as the effect of file-sharing. You cannot defend one while opposing the other. Public libraries started appearing in the mid-1800s. At the time, publishers went absolutely berserk: they had been lobbying for the lending of books to become illegal, as reading a book without paying anything first was “stealingâ€, they argued. As a consequence, they considered private libraries at the time to be hotbeds of crime and robbery. (Those libraries were so-called “subscription librariesâ€, so they were argued to be for-profit, too.) British Parliament at the time, unlike today’s politicians, wisely disagreed with the publishing industry lobby – the copyright industry of the time. Instead, they saw the economic value in an educated and cultural populace, and passed a law allowing free public libraries in 1850, so that local libraries were built throughout Britain, where the public could take part of knowledge and culture for free. In other words, they made explicit exceptions to the copyright monopoly for the benefit of public access to culture and knowledge. In most copyright monopoly legislation today, it says explicitly that monopoly holders to not have any kind of right to object to their works being displayed, read, and lent from public libraries. This can be traced back to the insights of 1850. So how is this different from file-sharing? From manufacturing your own copies of knowledge and culture from others’ sources? Is it different at all? Yes, it is different. It differs in efficiency. Where public libraries can educate one citizen at a time from one original book, file-sharing has the potential to educate millions at a time with the same effort spent. Libraries and file-sharing do not differ in payment to copyright monopoly holders. You would frequently hear that authors are paid royalties when their books are borrowed from a library. This claim is not true. Authors do indeed get some slush money in most European countries, and this is based on library statistics, but it is no form of compensation for that library activity. The difference is crucial. Rather, that money “from libraries†is a unilateral cultural grant that happens to use library statistics for data. It is not true that authors get money when their books are borrowed from libraries. In some cases, they do, but that’s mostly a coincidence. When Harry Potter in Swedish is borrowed from a Swedish library, for example, J.K. Rowling does not get a single penny for that. (The translator does, though. It’s a grant to promote culture availability in the local language, not to reward the author.) So the equivalence – the connection between lending and compensation – can be trivially disproven through examples. Libraries and file-sharing do not differ in principle. The purpose of libraries was – is – to make culture and knowledge available to as many as possible, as efficiently as possible, for free – simply because of the greater socioeconomic benefit of an educated and cultural populace. How is this not file-sharing? So we can observe that public libraries and file-sharing differ in scale and efficiency – and only in scale and efficiency. Quite a bit, even. But that’s a quantitative difference, not a qualitative difference. I sometimes hear people trying to defend the copyright monopoly by saying that file-sharing makes public libraries too efficient, and therefore cannot be allowed. I can’t do anything but shake my head at that. That has to be a first in the public debate: Are those people actually standing up and demanding that public services, such as public libraries, be made less efficient, to have less output for the tax money spent on it? No. That does not make sense. And they deserve to hear it, to hear the absolute silliness of their own argument. You just cannot defend public libraries and oppose file-sharing at the same time. They are one and the same phenomenon. One is just vastly more efficient. In a quote from the 1850s that went past my information flow in February 2009, I noted that a publisher of the time had argued, paraphrased, that “you cannot possibly allow people to read books for free! If you pass this law, no author will ever make a penny from books again! Not a single more book will be written if you pass this law!†(Sadly, I have lost the source of that quote. If somebody recognizes it, I would love to re-source it.) Indeed, no book has been written since 1850. And no movie or piece of music has been created since large-scale file sharing with the Internet arrived around 1999. Either that, or these arguments are completely bogus, and there are only gains to be had from enabling the largest library ever created. History does repeat itself. As do the people trying to defend obsolete guild-like privileges, even across centuries. We have built the most amazing public library ever created. All of humanity is able to access the collective culture and knowledge of all of humanity, twenty-four by seven, as well as contribute to that collective pool. All the tools are already in place, all the infrastructure already rolled out, all the training already completed. Not a single tax penny needs to be spent to accomplish this. The only thing we need to do is to remove the ban on using it. Why are we letting a cartoon industry stand in the way of this? ABOUT THE AUTHOR Rick Falkvinge is a regular columnist on TorrentFreak, sharing his thoughts every other week. He is the founder of the Swedish and first Pirate Party, a whisky aficionado, and a low-altitude motorcycle pilot. His blog at falkvinge.net focuses on information policy. https://torrentfreak.com/you-cant-defend-public-libraries-and-oppose-file-sharing-150510/
  11. An intriguing case dating back more than 3.5 years ended this week when two men went on criminal trial in Sweden. One was the former sysop of a 26,000 member private BitTorrent tracker. The other provided the site with web hosting and allegedly refused to take the site down when copyright holders asked. In 2009 during the wake of the original Pirate Bay trial and the jail sentences for its operators, Swedish anti-piracy group Antipiratbyrån sent out a batch of warnings to other sites hosted in Sweden. One of the sites that initially decided to shut down was known as The Internationals, or TTi for short. In the event the closure was short-lived and just a month later the 26,000 member site was back online and operating largely as usual. The return lasted for more than two years, but then it all fell apart. A police investigation led to November 2011 raids against TTi in two locations in Sweden, Borås and Växjö. In addition to the seizure of servers housing the site’s tracker and community data, two men were also arrested. The man detained in Borås was the alleged operator of TTi but interestingly the second individual, Patrik Lagerman from Växjö, was the person providing TTi’s webhosting. The owner of local web-hosting outfit Patrikweb, Lagerman previously gained worldwide attention for being involved in bandwidth supply to The Pirate Bay. In the TTi case, Lagerman was handed a demand by Antipiratbyrån to disconnect the tracker. He requested a court order but none was forthcoming. The reaction almost a year later was an 06:30am alarm call carried out by five police officers followed by several hours of questioning. “Trying to prosecute the hosting provider for assisting [in infringement] shows just how stupid they are,†Lagerman said at the time. But this week that’s exactly what happened when Lagerman and the as-yet unnamed TTi sysop went on trial for their alleged crimes. The hearing lasted for two days. “Two men were prosecuted,†prosecutor Fredrik Ingblad informs TorrentFreak. “The alleged main administrator of the TTi site and the second one – Lagerman – was prosecuted for aiding and abetting the infringement, by renting out server space, Internet services etc, and helping the administrators in some other ways (as an intermediary). “The rights holders contacted [Lagerman] and informed him of the site and the infringement, but he still continued with his services to the site owner,†the prosecutor notes. Although the site tracked many more titles including plenty of Hollywood blockbusters, the case itself now involves just 28 Swedish films. TorrentFreak spoke with Lagerman who said he’d hold back on a comment until the verdict is handed down in two weeks time. Fortunately for both defendants he should be able to do that as a relatively free man since the prosecution are not pressing for custodial sentences. “Due to the long time that has passed since the crimes (the investigation unfortunately took a bit too long), I didn´t request for an unconditional imprisonment,†Ingblad says. “I requested for a conditional sentence and community services for the alleged main administrator, and a conditional sentence plus fines for Mr. Lagerman.†The case is an intriguing one and the eventual decision will be of great interest to other local ISPs in similar positions. https://torrentfreak.com/trial-of-torrent-site-admin-and-hosting-provider-concludes-150509/
  12. The makers of the Indian movie "Piku" have obtained a blocking order against several popular websites including Vimeo, The Pirate Bay and KickassTorrents. The order issued by the Indian High Court prohibits the sites and various ISPs from linking to pirated versions of the movie, but may not be as effective as it sounds. Today sees the theatrical premiere of the highly anticipated Bollywood blockbuster “Piku.†As is the case with most movies, unauthorized copies the film will eventually end up being made available from various websites. However, the makers of Piku hope that a recent High Court order will limit the fallout. Multi Screen Media, one of the companies behind the movie, has obtained a restraining order against 13 websites and a blocking order against some of the country’s largest Internet providers (pdf). Similar orders have been granted in the past, but this one stands out because of the sites it targets. The order lists the following domain names: Vimeo.com, Thepiratebay.org, Torrentz.eu, Thiruttuvcd.biz, Merotv.net, Novamov.com, Videotanker.co, Cloudy.ec, Vidto.me, Zuzvideo.com, Video.tt, Kickasstoreents.com and Torrentfunk.com. The owners of the domains are restrained from “making available†or otherwise distributing Piku without a proper license. In addition, India’s largest Internet providers are ordered to block access to the sites. The most surprising target is the popular video sharing platform Vimeo, a site mostly used by independent filmmakers to share their work. While Piku’s makers describe the site as a piracy hub, the site rarely hosts infringing material. However, there even more worrying issues with the order that will severely limit its effectiveness. For example, it lists Pirate Bay’s .org domain even though the site is currently operating from thepiratebay.se. Similarly, the domain name of KickassTorrents is both outdated and misspelled as kickasstoreents.com. As a result, the blocking order may not be as successful as the filmmakers would have hoped. According to the order ISPs must block the mentioned domains within 24 hours. A new hearing is scheduled for July 31 where it will be decided if the measures can be lifted, or if they must stay in place. At the time of writing no pirated copies of Piku have leaked online yet, but if one surfaces this current order will do very little to stop it from spreading. https://torrentfreak.com/india-orders-piracy-blackout-of-vimeo-pirate-bay-and-more-150508/
  13. The European Commission adopted a new Digital Single Market Strategy today, which aims to improve consumer access to digital services and goods. Among other things, Europe vows to end geo-blocking and lift other unwarranted copyright restrictions. Due to complicated licensing agreements Netflix is only available in a few dozen countries, all of which have a different content library. The same is true for many other media services such as BBC iPlayer, Amazon Instant Video, and even YouTube. These geo-blocking practices have been a thorn in the side of the European Commission, who now plan to abolish these restrictions altogether. Today the EU’s governing body adopted the new Digital Single Market Strategy. One of the main pillars of the new strategy is to provide consumers and businesses with better access to digital goods and services. Among other things the Commission plans “to end unjustified geo-blocking,†which it describes as “a discriminatory practice used for commercial reasons.†“I want to see every consumer getting the best deals and every business accessing the widest market – wherever they are in Europe,†Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker says. Another key element on the new strategy is a modern and more European copyright law. The Commission notes that the legislative proposals to achieve this will follow before the end of the year. Under the revamped copyright law it should be easier for consumers to access and enjoy content online. This means that consumers will have the right to access content they purchased at home in other European countries. According to the Commission various industries need to adapt to the new realities of the digital age, indirectly hinting at the restrictive and conservative movie industry. “Europe has strengths to build on, but also homework to do, in particular to make sure its industries adapt, and its citizens make full use of the potential of new digital services and goods, Commissioner for the Digital Economy and Society Günther Oettinger says. “We have to prepare for a modern society and will table proposals balancing the interests of consumers and industry,†he adds. The new Digital Single Market Strategy doesn’t come as a surprise. Previously, several insiders called for the lifting of many unnecessary copyright restrictions. With the plans now being official it will be interesting to see what concrete proposals will follow and how the copyright industries respond. https://torrentfreak.com/europe-will-abolish-geo-blocking-and-other-copyright-restrictions-150506/
  14. Kim Dotcom has succeeded in getting more of his seized funds released by the courts in New Zealand. In addition to millions for legal expenses, the entrepreneur will receive $128K per month including $60K to pay mansion rent, $25,600 to cover staff and security, plus $11,300 for grocery and other expenses. How much does it cost to enjoy a reasonable standard of living in the modern world? A couple of thousand dollars a month? Three thousand? Four? For Megaupload founder Kim Dotcom, none of these amounts scratch the surface, a problematic situation considering all of his assets were previously seized by the U.S. and New Zealand governments. In February a “broke†and “destitute†Dotcom appeared before Justice Patricia Courtney, asking for living expenses and a massive cash injection to pay historical and current legal fees. Dotcom was previously granted around US$15,000 per month to live on but high costs had left him “pennilessâ€. Following the hearing Justice Courtney’s ruling is largely good news for Dotcom, with the Judge taking into consideration claims by authorities that the entrepreneur has funds in a trust that could help pay his expenses. “The trust’s major asset is its shareholding in Mega Ltd, said to be worth more than $30m (US$22.6m). In evidence Mr Dotcom said that there were difficulties in selling Mega shares because they were blocked from being sold until the planned listing of Mega, which is now scheduled for late May 2015 (though it is possible that this date will be pushed back). There was no evidence to the contrary,†the Judge’s ruling reads. “I have concluded that Mr Dotcom does not have the ability to meet his legal and reasonable living expenses from trust assets because, on the evidence, those assets are not sufficiently liquid.†Noting that he still owes former lawyers around US$1.5m, the Judge said that Dotcom’s estimate for financing his legal battle against extradition is between US$1.5m and US$3m. This amount will be released from currently restrained government bonds. Next up was the Dotcom family’s accommodation costs. Rent on the now-famous mansion amounts to US$754,000 per annum under a lease Dotcom signed in February 2013 and which expires in the same month 2016. The Judge decided that terminating that lease would result in additional costs. “If [Dotcom] were to terminate the lease in order to find a more modest home, he would immediately be exposed to a significant contractual liability for the existing rental in addition to the costs of any new accommodation,†the Judge writes. “Little would be saved by requiring Mr Dotcom to move into more modest accommodation pending the expiry of the lease; it is more likely that the total amount required to house Mr Dotcom and his children and meet his lease commitment would actually prove greater than simply remaining where he is. “I therefore accept that, in the particular circumstances of this case, a figure of $80,000 (US$60,300) per month is reasonable for accommodation.†The Judge also considered Dotcom’s claims for items like security, staff wages and other general expenses. Dotcom currently has eight staff but the Judge felt that five would be sufficient to assist with cleaning, cooking, shopping, managing the grounds and caring for Dotcom’s children. “I allow $25,000 ($18,850) per month for staff,†the Judge said. Turning to Dotcom’s request for $20,000 (US$15,000) for groceries, fuel and maintenance etc, the Judge said this was a little high considering Dotcom’s estranged wife Mona could be expected to chip in. “On the basis that the children’s mother can be expected to contribute to some of these costs I consider that the figure of $20,000 (US$15,000) is a little high and would reduce that to $15,000 (US$11,300) per month,†the Judge added. In addition to the legal fees mentioned earlier, in total Dotcom was awarded $170,000 (US$128,000) per month to cover living expenses. “Mr Dotcom may have access to that figure each month pending the expiry of the lease on the property,†the Judge said. “At that point I would expect that the position will be reviewed.†https://torrentfreak.com/kim-dotcom-awarded-millions-plus-128k-per-month-expenses-150502s/
  15. HBO and Showtime are not known to go after pirate sites, but the upcoming Mayweather v Pacquiao fight has proven to be an exception. Together with Mayweather Promotions and Top Rank Boxing the companies have sued two websites that announced intentions to stream the fight this weekend. HBO and Showtime are no stranger to online piracy. Their TV-shows are pirated millions of times each month. Nevertheless, both companies are not known for suing pirates or website owners, until now. Yesterday the two companies filed a complaint at a federal court in Florida targeting the websites boxinghd.net and sportship.org. Both are accused of planning to stream the upcoming Mayweather v Pacquiao fight. In a unique pre-piracy case, the companies accuse the sites’ owners of various copyright related offenses of an event that has yet to take place. The suing parties have invested many millions of dollars which they hope to earn back in part through pay-per-view sales. But instead of the $89 to $100 people in the U.S. have to pay, both sites promise free access. “There are no authorized online streams of the Coverage for delivery to United States audiences,†the complaint clarifies, adding that the defendants “are seeking to benefit from this high profile, live Fight by infringing the rights of Plaintiffs.†The site’s owners would then profit from these free streams though various advertisements. The example below includes a screenshot of the boxinghd.net site, which has since been removed. HBO and Showtime argue that the anticipated stream of the fight will infringe on their rights and cause irreparable damage. To stop the sites’ operators from linking to streams of the event the companies have asked the court for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction. In addition, HBO and Showtime demand damages to compensate for the expected losses. The lawsuit has already had some effect as boxinghd.net has thrown in the towel and is no longer advertising the fight. Time will tell whether sportship.org will be knocked down too. https://torrentfreak.com/showtime-and-hbo-sue-over-pre-piracy-150429/
  16. This is an automated message to make sure this seller really got the stuff what he/she is trying to sell, Please read it very carefully. PM Staff member all of your trackers unedited screenshot along with profile links, till then topic will remain closed. Best regards, Invite Scene Staff!
  17. In a submission to the Copyright Amendment (Online Infringement) Bill 2015, the Australian Communications Consumer Action Network has addressed site blocking and potential threats to VPN use. While the former could descend into an expensive consumer-funded game of whac-a-mole, clarification is required to remove potential threats to VPNs. After Attorney-General George Brandis and Communications Minister Malcolm Turnbull asked the Australian Cabinet to approve the development of a new legal mechanism allowing rightsholders to obtain site-blocking injunctions, legislation was introduced to parliament last month. What followed is a still-current six-week consultation period for additional submissions, with various groups invited to voice their opinions and concerns. While the site-blocking elements of the Copyright Amendment (Online Infringement) Bill 2015 are likely to please rightsholders, concerns remain that not only will the legislation fail to achieve its aims, but may also have unintended consequences that could stifle consumer choice. In its submission the Australian Communications Consumer Action Network (ACCAN), the body that represents the interests of consumers on communications issues including broadband and emerging Internet services, three key issues are raised – VPN use, efficacy and cost of blocking, plus consumer interests. The VPN problem ACCAN is concerned over some of the wording employed in the amendments. Instead of referencing “website blockingâ€, the legislation speaks about “online locationsâ€. While this appears to be an effort to future-proof the Bill, it also has the potential for additional consequences should rightsholders decide to exploit the ambiguity. “Our first concern relates to the scope of activities that may be picked up by an interpretation of an ‘online location’ which ‘facilitates an infringement’ of copyright,†ACCAN writes. “Without clear legal precedent, there is ambiguity under the Copyright Act about what constitutes infringement in relation to the use of a Virtual Private Network (VPN) to gain access to geo-blocked products and services. If this ambiguity is not cleared up, this amendment may have the unintended consequence of blocking these services and in turn harm competition and consumer choice.†And confusion does exist. On his website Minister for Communications Malcolm Turnbull says that the Copyright Act does not make it illegal to use a VPN to access overseas content. On the other hand, the Australian Copyright Council believes that using a VPN to download content licensed overseas is “likely to be an infringement of copyright in Australia.†While it was previously reported that the Bill had been delayed due to modifications aimed at protecting VPN-like services, ACCAN says that it would prefer clarity on the matter. “While this ambiguity exists there is a risk that rights holders will attempt to use this injunctive power to block VPN websites and limit consumer access to paid content overseas,†the group writes. And the threat is real. As reported last week, New Zealand based media companies report that they are on the verge of suing local ISPs who provide VPN services designed to unlock overseas content. Avoiding the same thing Down Under is a priority for ACCAN. Protecting the public interest In most countries where rightsholders have demanded site blocking on copyright grounds, ISPs have refused to block voluntarily and have insisted on a court order. This has resulted in processes where movie and recording industry companies become the plaintiffs and ISPs the defendants. The sites themselves aren’t involved in the process, and neither are their users. “[We] remain concerned that a judge in an ex parte hearing will not have the requisite evidence at hand to weigh the public interest against those of rights holders,†ACCAN writes. “The amendment creates no right for legitimate users of a site to present evidence on any adverse consequences of an injunction. There should be a presumption in the Bill in favor of allowing parties to become interveners or amicus curiae in the context of these injunction applications.†Efficacy and costs of blocking Like many other similarly focused groups, ACCAN is concerned that not only will site / online location blocking prove ineffective when it comes to stopping infringement, but the bill for the exercise will ultimately fall at the feet of the consumer. Citing Dutch studies which found that blocking The Pirate Bay enjoyed only short-lived success, ACCAN voices concerns that once one site is blocked, users will simply migrate elsewhere. “This research confirmed the findings in other studies which found that legal action against file sharing often has an immediate effect, but this typically fades out after a period of six months as new sources for pirated content emerge. ACCAN’s concern is that this website blocking bill may devolve into an expensive game of ‘whack-a-mole’, which consumers will end up paying for through higher internet bills,†the group writes. Similar fears over consumers picking up costs for online infringement enforcement have been voiced across Europe and in the United States, but in no cases has that caused a court to deny rightsholders the opportunity to protect their copyrights. It is guaranteed that one way or another – via their Internet bill or through the cost of media – Aussies will eventually pay for the proposed enforcement measures The Bill is currently under review by the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee, with a report due in a little under a month. https://torrentfreak.com/vpn-and-site-blocking-attacked-by-consumer-group-150420/
  18. First of all, if you know anyone register with us on our open registration time, BUT now they cannot login to our site, just say "BYE-BYE" to them. I saw a lot off account been remove. We not save anything, we delete it all by auto. So we have some update to you guys about user class and rules. 1. User class update. - Peasant class User would be demoted to this class under any of the following circumstances: 1.Downloaded more than 10 GB and with ratio below 0.4 2.Downloaded more than 50 GB and with ratio below 0.5 3.Downloaded more than 100 GB and with ratio below 0.6 4.Downloaded more than 200 GB and with ratio below 0.7 5.Downloaded more than 500 GB and with ratio below 0.8 Power user until Veteran user will get 1 invite if been promoted. see FAQ for more information. 2. Rules update. Account will be disable if not login 30 days in a row. Park Account will be disable if not login 152 days in a row. New registered but haven't start download/upload in 5 days. (automatic disable by system) - user must have at least 1GB (+-) download stats and 1GB (+-) upload stats after complete registrations and have 5 days to completes this task or your account will be disable by system. Email us with a solid reason, to enable back your account. for reference please visit our forum : https://mnbvcxz.eu/forums.php?action=viewtopic&forumid=4&topicid=1950
  19. New research published by the African Governance and Development Institute shows that piracy increases literacy and the spread of knowledge. The researchers warn against the adoption of strict anti-piracy policies, but note that not all copyright protection is bad. In Western countries piracy is often seen as a leisure tool, granting people unauthorized access to the latest hits and Hollywood blockbusters. However, there are also parts of the world where piracy is frequently used as a means to gather and spread knowledge. In parts of Africa, for example, where legal access to educational books and software is often restricted or unavailable. Over the years we have seen various illustrations of the educational importance of piracy in developing countries. When the e-book portal Library.nu was shut down, for instance, we were contacted by a United Nations worker in Kenya, who voiced his disappointment. “I am very concerned about the recent injunction against library.nu. The site was particularly useful for people like me working in Nairobi, a city that has no more than four bookshops with nothing but bestsellers,†the UN worker informed TF at the time. In an effort to determine how piracy affects literacy and the spread of knowledge, the African Governance and Development Institute conducted an in-depth study comparing piracy and human development data from 11 African countries. The findings, presented in a paper titled “The Impact of Software Piracy on Inclusive Human Development: Evidence from Africa†show that “software piracy increases literacyâ€. “Adoption of tight IPRs regimes may negatively affect human development by diminishing the literacy rate and restricting diffusion of knowledge,†the authors write. Not all copyright protection measures have a negative effect though, and the researchers found that is negatively linked to the human development index. “Adherence to international IPRs protection treaties (laws) may not impede per capita economic prosperity and could improve life-expectancy,†the paper reads. The paper reports mostly correlational data so it’s not unthinkable that countries where human development is higher have less need to pirate, as there are better alternatives. The reverse effect could also apply to the literacy findings but according to the researchers this is unlikely. Researcher Simplice Asongu informed TF that his previous work showed a causal effect from piracy on scientific publications. “I tested the impact of piracy on scientific publications and established a positive causality flowing from the former to the latter,†Asongu says. From that research, it was concluded that African countries with less copyright restrictions on software will substantially boost the spread of knowledge through scientific and technical publications. The findings reported here are limited to the effect of software piracy, but it’s not hard to see how book piracy may also positively influence literacy and the spread of knowledge. In sum, the research suggests that piracy does have its positive sides, especially in terms of human development. Still, it seems unlikely that rightsholders will take that into account when lobbying for new policy changes. https://torrentfreak.com/research-piracy-increases-literacy-and-access-to-knowledge-150405/
  20. Both Paul McCartney and Yoko Ono have posted their thoughts on Cynthia Lennon, following her death at age 75 today. Sir Paul said, 'the news of Cynthia's passing is very sad. She was a lovely lady who I've known since our early days together in Liverpool. She was a good mother to Julian and will be missed by us all, but I will always have great memories of our times together.' In a statement, Yoko Ono wrote, 'I'm very saddened by Cynthia's death. She was a great person and a wonderful mother to Julian. She had such a strong zest for life and I felt proud how we two women stood firm in the Beatles family. Please join me in sending love and support to Julian at this very sad time'. Ringo Starr tweeted: Cynthia Lennon was the first wife of John Lennon. The couple married on 23 August 1962. George Harrison and Paul McCartney attended the service. Beatles manage Brian Epstein was the Best Man. Their son John Charles Julian Lennon was born on 8 April 1963. John and Cynthia divorced on 8 November 1968. John married Yoko on 20 March 1969. John Lennon's first wife and the mother of Julian Lennon, Cynthia Lennon, died on Wednesday from cancer at her home in Majorca, Spain. Her son Julian was at her side. She was 75. A statement was posted on Julian's official site saying: Cynthia Lennon passed away today at her home in Mallorca, Spain following a short but brave battle with cancer. Her son Julian Lennon was at her bedside throughout. The family are thankful for your prayers. Please respect their privacy at this difficult time. A video was also posted on Julian's YouTube channel. https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=fsyYqJxf9Qk
  21. A federal court in Virginia has granted Megaupload's request to place the cases filed by the music and movie companies on hold for another six months. The request was made after the New Zealand extradition hearings of Kim Dotcom and his colleagues were postponed several times. Well over three years have passed since Megaupload was shutdown, but aside from Andrus Nomm’s plea deal there has been little progress in the criminal proceedings. Dotcom and his fellow Megaupload defendants are still waiting to hear whether they will be sent to the U.S. to stand trial. The extradition hearing is currently scheduled to start early June after a request from Dotcom’s lawyers to postpone was turned down last month. But there’s more legal trouble for the defunct file-hosting service. In addition to the criminal case, Megaupload and Kim Dotcom were sued last year by the major record labels and Hollywood’s top movie studios. Fearing that they might influence criminal proceedings, Megaupload’s legal team previously managed to put these civil actions on hold. After being delayed for a year the proceedings were expected to continue this month. However, since the extradition hearing has yet to take place, Megaupload asked the court to freeze the MPAA and RIAA cases until October. This week District Court Judge Liam O’Grady granted the request under the same conditions as the previous order. The ruling means that both the MPAA and RIAA cases will now be delayed for another six months. The movie and music studios consented to the freezing request, which made it a relatively straightforward decision. A stay has not yet been granted in a third civil suit filed by the music group Microhits. In this separate case Megaupload’s legal team was ordered to present an oral argument in support of its motion, which will take place later this month. https://torrentfreak.com/megaupload-freezes-mpaa-and-riaa-lawsuits-for-six-months-150403/
  22. Following a complaint from Rights Alliance, a Danish court has ordered ISPs to block 12 pirate sites including KickassTorrents, RARBG and TubePlus. With these blockades rightsholders hope to steer people towards legal content. One of the affected site owners, however, believe it serves as free advertising. For nearly a decade Denmark has been a testbed for pirate site blockades. The first blocks were ordered back in 2006 after music industry group IFPI filed a complaint targeting the Russian MP3 sites AllofMP3 and MP3sparks. Not much later Denmark became the first European country to force an ISP to block access to The Pirate Bay. After some small additions during the years that followed, a Danish Court has now ordered another round of pirate site blocks, the largest one thus far. Following a complaint from the local Rights Alliance (RettighedsAlliancen) group the blocklist was updated with 12 popular torrent, streaming and MP3 download sites. The new domains are free-tv-video-online.me, watchseries.lt ,solarmovie.is, tubeplus.me, mp3vip.org, rarbg.com, extratorrent.cc, isohunt.to, eztv.ch, kickass.to, torrentz.eu and music-bazaar.com. Due to a recent agreement the sites will be blocked by all ISPs, even those not mentioned in the lawsuit. Late last year Rights Alliance and the telecommunications industry signed a Code of Conduct which ensures that blockades are put in place country-wide. Speaking with TF, Rights Alliance head Maria Fredenslund says that their primary goal is to limit piracy through education. For this reason, the blocking page includes links to legal stores and services. “Right Alliance doesn’t merely take an enforcement approach. We want to understand user behavior offer people legal alternatives,†Fredenslund says. “We are quite happy that there are so many people who are looking for online entertainment. Our goal is to steer them in the right direction, instead of simply blocking access,†she adds. For the affected sites there will be a drop in Danish visitors. Interestingly, however, not all site owners are disappointed. TF spoke with the operator of one of the torrent sites on condition of anonymity. He says that these blocking efforts are free advertising and that users can still access the blocked domains through proxies or anonymizing services. “Blocking is the greatest thing that can happen to a site. It is free advertising for your site. People want the things they can’t have,†the operator says. “Whoever is blocking the sites is actually doing us a favor by telling the users that they can’t open the site, thus making the users want to open the site even more.†Rights Alliance sees things differently and points to the results of a test on the effectiveness of blocking efforts. “There are clear signs that our approach works. A recent test revealed that if people were warned that they had attempted to visit an unauthorized site, 84% chose not to continue,†Fredenslund tells us. The test in question was conducted at various Danish schools. Instead of completely blocking access the schools inserted a notification which allowed users to visit legal alternatives or continue to the illegal sites. The majority of the people who saw this notice decided not to visit the page. Whether the result will also translate to people’s non-monitored home connections is not clear. In any case, the new blockades in Denmark are throwing up an extra hurdle. https://torrentfreak.com/popular-torrent-and-streaming-sites-blocked-in-denmark-150327/
  23. Graphics process AMD celebrated its thirtieth anniversary yesterday, and the company decided to inaugurate a new graphics processor chip that would offer the kind of power that hardcore gamers desire. To this end, AMD introduced the new Radeon R9 285 GPU that offers excellent specs for a more affordable price. The Radeon R9 285 graphics processor, built from 28nm GPU architecture, features 1,792 stream processors, 3.92 teraflops (or TFLOPS) of compute performance, 112 texture units, 32 ROPs, 128 Z/Stencil, 256-bit memory, 2GBs of DDR5 memory, two 6-pin power connectors, 190 watts of typical board power, DirectX 12 and Mantle support, utilizes the PCI-Express (or PCI-E) 3.0 standard, and has a memory speed of 5.5 gigabits per second (Gbps) with a clocked engine speed of 918Mhz. While the current R9 285 graphics processor comes with 2GBs of memory, AMD says that it looks to produce a 4GB DDR5 memory model at some point in the near future. As far as how AMD’s new Radeon R9 285 stacks up against AMD’s other graphics processors, the R9 285 matches the R9 280 in terms of stream processors, but offers smaller memory bandwidth and a slower clocked speed than any graphics processor AMD currently offers. You also sacrifice the DDR5 memory, seeing that AMD’s first Radeon R9 285 out of the gate will only have 2GB – not even the 3GB or 4GB of DDR5 memory that would help the new processor compete with AMD’s older products. AMD’s newest graphics chip sits between the 2GB R9 270/R9 270X graphics chip ($179, $199) and the 3GB R9 280X ($399) graphics chip, so it’ll provide a budget-friendly option for those looking for a gaming-intensive graphics card that won’t sacrifice a stellar, mind-blowing on-screen experience for a shocking price tag. The new Radeon R9 285 graphics processor will ship on September 2, and to encourage sales for its newest GPU, AMD is offering a “Never Settle: Space Edition†bundle that includes the games “Alien Invasion†and access to the development process for the “Star Citizen†game along with a ship gaming toy.
  24. The UK's Police Intellectual Property Crime Unit says it has arrested the world's most prolific uploader of World Wrestling Entertainment (WWE) and Ultimate Fighting Championship (UFC) content. The 55-year-old, who TorrentFreak believes it has identified, was arrested at his home in Leicestershire this morning. World Wrestling Entertainment (WWE) and Ultimate Fighting Championship (UFC) events are without doubt the most popular combat-based content available today. These enterprises are big business. WWE had revenues in excess of half a billion dollars in 2014 and while UFC parent Zuffa is rather more tight-lipped about its financial position, the company is believed to be worth several billion dollars. Both companies’ revenues rely heavily on TV-focused content. In 2013, UFC-parent company Zuffa’s revenues were split roughly 58% for PPV events and ticket sales with the remaining 42% derived from TV, sponsorships and various distribution agreements. Predictably the company has a track record of reacting furiously to its content being uploaded to the Internet and has active programs to remove links and prosecute individuals, mainly in the United States. Today police in the UK have been doing the organization’s work for them. This morning officers from the UK’s Police Intellectual Property Unit arrested an individual said to be one of the world’s most prolific uploaders of both UFC and WWE content. Traveling hundreds of miles north to the tiny market town of Coalville in Leicestershire, officers descended on the home of the 55-year-old man. According to police the man is “believed to be one of the internet’s biggest offenders†when it comes to uploading wrestling and mixed martial arts content to both peer-to-peer and user-generated content sites. The man’s home was searched and several computers were seized. He was then taken to a local police station for questioning. ufcUpload monitoring by TorrentFreak reveals there are only a limited number of players in the combat sports release game who act alone. There are fewer still who are relatively easy to identify and are located in the UK. We gave PIPCU a name and asked if that person had been arrested this morning. “We do not release the name or identity of suspects at arrest stage. This information is only released once an individual has been charged,†a PIPCU spokesperson said. In any event, PIPCU are throwing some big numbers around. The unit claims that the individual is responsible for uploading more than 3.2 terabytes of data, which is the equivalent of more than 3,000 videos. Of course, that’s just his uploading. When it comes to total videos distributed things get much, much worse. PIPCU estimates that the files uploaded generated in excess of two million downloads at a cost to the industry of several million pounds. “Today’s operation serves as a clear warning to anyone thinking of uploading copyrighted material to pirate sites. This is not a victimless crime as copyright infringement is costing our creative industries hundreds of millions of pounds,†said PIPCU chief DCI Danny Medlycott. “Our team is dedicated to combating criminals ripping off other’s intellectual property and so those who are thinking of taking this path should think twice, as it might result in a knock on the door from our officers.†Jim Langham, WWE Senior Vice President & Assistant General Counsel expressed thanks for PIPCU’s action this morning. “WWE provides many options for our fans to watch our content lawfully – on television, pay-per-view, and digitally via YouTube and the WWE Network. We will continue to protect our intellectual property aggressively and combat piracy in any form,†Langham said. UFC Chief Legal Officer Kirk Hendrick said that he hoped that this morning’s arrest would lead to a “significant decrease†in the unlawful online distribution of UFC events. “We take online piracy very seriously and will continue to work with law enforcement officials around the world to prevent illegal sharing of UFC content,†Hendrick said. If the individual does indeed turn out to be the person we believe he is, a significant “brand name†will now disappear from the UFC and WWE uploads scene during the coming week. That will no doubt disorient some downloaders, but plenty more uploaders exist. At least 10 different groups uploaded last weekend’s UFC 185 PPV event, with the majority capturing the event from non-UK sources. Viewers in the UK are able to view events relatively cheaply via the subscription channel BT Sport, but illegal captures from this source are now likely to disappear, at least in the short term. https://torrentfreak.com/police-arrest-worlds-most-prolific-ufc-and-wwe-pirate-150318/
  25. The UK's Police Intellectual Property Crime Unit says it has arrested the world's most prolific uploader of World Wrestling Entertainment (WWE) and Ultimate Fighting Championship (UFC) content. The 55-year-old, who TorrentFreak believes it has identified, was arrested at his home in Leicestershire this morning. World Wrestling Entertainment (WWE) and Ultimate Fighting Championship (UFC) events are without doubt the most popular combat-based content available today. These enterprises are big business. WWE had revenues in excess of half a billion dollars in 2014 and while UFC parent Zuffa is rather more tight-lipped about its financial position, the company is believed to be worth several billion dollars. Both companies’ revenues rely heavily on TV-focused content. In 2013, UFC-parent company Zuffa’s revenues were split roughly 58% for PPV events and ticket sales with the remaining 42% derived from TV, sponsorships and various distribution agreements. Predictably the company has a track record of reacting furiously to its content being uploaded to the Internet and has active programs to remove links and prosecute individuals, mainly in the United States. Today police in the UK have been doing the organization’s work for them. This morning officers from the UK’s Police Intellectual Property Unit arrested an individual said to be one of the world’s most prolific uploaders of both UFC and WWE content. Traveling hundreds of miles north to the tiny market town of Coalville in Leicestershire, officers descended on the home of the 55-year-old man. According to police the man is “believed to be one of the internet’s biggest offenders†when it comes to uploading wrestling and mixed martial arts content to both peer-to-peer and user-generated content sites. The man’s home was searched and several computers were seized. He was then taken to a local police station for questioning. Upload monitoring by TorrentFreak reveals there are only a limited number of players in the combat sports release game who act alone. There are fewer still who are relatively easy to identify and are located in the UK. We gave PIPCU a name and asked if that person had been arrested this morning. “We do not release the name or identity of suspects at arrest stage. This information is only released once an individual has been charged,†a PIPCU spokesperson said. In any event, PIPCU are throwing some big numbers around. The unit claims that the individual is responsible for uploading more than 3.2 terabytes of data, which is the equivalent of more than 3,000 videos. Of course, that’s just his uploading. When it comes to total videos distributed things get much, much worse. PIPCU estimates that the files uploaded generated in excess of two million downloads at a cost to the industry of several million pounds. “Today’s operation serves as a clear warning to anyone thinking of uploading copyrighted material to pirate sites. This is not a victimless crime as copyright infringement is costing our creative industries hundreds of millions of pounds,†said PIPCU chief DCI Danny Medlycott. “Our team is dedicated to combating criminals ripping off other’s intellectual property and so those who are thinking of taking this path should think twice, as it might result in a knock on the door from our officers.†Jim Langham, WWE Senior Vice President & Assistant General Counsel expressed thanks for PIPCU’s action this morning. “WWE provides many options for our fans to watch our content lawfully – on television, pay-per-view, and digitally via YouTube and the WWE Network. We will continue to protect our intellectual property aggressively and combat piracy in any form,†Langham said. UFC Chief Legal Officer Kirk Hendrick said that he hoped that this morning’s arrest would lead to a “significant decrease†in the unlawful online distribution of UFC events. “We take online piracy very seriously and will continue to work with law enforcement officials around the world to prevent illegal sharing of UFC content,†Hendrick said. If the individual does indeed turn out to be the person we believe he is, a significant “brand name†will now disappear from the UFC and WWE uploads scene during the coming week. That will no doubt disorient some downloaders, but plenty more uploaders exist. At least 10 different groups uploaded last weekend’s UFC 185 PPV event, with the majority capturing the event from non-UK sources. Viewers in the UK are able to view events relatively cheaply via the subscription channel BT Sport, but illegal captures from this source are now likely to disappear, at least in the short term. Torrentfreak