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.

LOOKING FOR HIGH QUALITY SEEDBOX? LOOK NO MORE! EVOSEEDBOX.COM PROVIDES YOU BLAZING FAST & HIGH END SEEDBOXES | INSTANT SETUP & TONS OF FREE APPS | STARTING AT $5.00/MONTH!

Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'mega'.



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 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

Categories

  • Bug Tracker
  • Suggestions Tracker

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 21 results

  1. After 2.5 years of operations the Mega cloud storage service has published its first transparency report. Aimed at inspiring confidence in how the company deals with complaints and protects privacy, the document reveals that Mega takes content down faster than Google and a maximum of 0.165% of users have been suspended. For the past several years the publication of a so-called ‘Transparency Report’ has become common on large technology focused sites. Reddit, Twitter and evenAmazon produce such documents. Perhaps the best known report is produced by Google. This giant database is updated on a daily basis and includes details of hundreds of millions of requests by third parties to have content removed from the search giant’s databases. Today, cloud-storage site Mega gets in on the act with the publication of its first transparency report since the company launched in 2012. The report, which details activities up until March 2015, focuses on content removal requests and third-party requests for information related to Mega’s users. Noting that the company is New Zealand-based and is governed by the laws of that country, Mega notes that it also aims to comply with regulatory requirements in other key areas in which it does business, notably the United States. Copyright takedowns “When Mega receives such notices it promptly removes or disables access to the offending file or files, depending on the type of request, consistent with the Terms of Service agreed to by every registered user,†Mega notes. Interestingly, Mega offers three options when accepting takedown requests: 1. Disable one link per file – the file will remain in the user’s account 2. Disable multiple URLs per file – the file will remain in the user’s account 3. Remove all underlying files of the supplied URL(s) – there is no user permitted to store this under any circumstance worldwide. These options allow for externally linked content to be taken down while respecting fair use, for example. “Many copyrighted materials provide the user with a licence to make a backup copy. Recently enacted UK law confirms this right. Uploading it to a cloud storage service is not infringing,†Mega explains. Overall, the numbers of files being taken down are small when compared to the total number of files stored on the service. “The number of files which have been subject to such take down notices continues to be very small, indicative of a user base which appreciates the speed and flexibility of Mega’s system for fully legal business and personal use.†Mega’s claims of a “very small†number of files being taken down is supported by the company’s data. Currently the company’s users upload an impressive 15 to 20 million files per day, or more than 200 files every second. During 2013 Q1, Mega took down 30,078 files, representing just 0.019% of the total number of files present on Mega’s servers. By the first quarter of 2015, files taken down numbered 107,146 but due to a further boost in total files stored, that represented just 0.002% of the company’s storage. Also noteworthy is the total number of requests Mega received for the removal of content. Starting in 2013 Q1, the company received 51,857 requests but 21,779 (42%) were either duplicate or invalid. By 2015 Q1 things had improved somewhat with ‘just’ 21% of requests rejected. However, 2014 Q4 was a particularly bad month, with more than a quarter of a million (63% of all notices sent) rejected due to being invalid or duplicate. Despite the large numbers of complaints received (valid or otherwise), Mega says that it deals with them all in a timely manner. “The DMCA requires links to be taken down expeditiously. Most cloud providers target takedown within 24 hours. Mega targets takedown within a maximum of 4 hours, with takedowns frequently being actioned much quicker than the 4 hour target,†the report reads. This timing is impressive. In a 2014 announcement, Google reported an average takedown time of six hours when the company took down 222 million results from Google Search in 2013. Repeat infringers With entertainment companies continuously breathing down the company’s neck, the way Mega deals with so-called ‘repeat infringers’ is an important public barometer of the company’s attitude towards protecting copyright. “Mega maintains market leading processes for dealing with users who upload and share copyright infringing material or breach any other legal requirements,†the company notes. “Mega suspends the account of any user with 5 takedown actions. In some cases the account can be reinstated where it is proved to be the subject of invalid takedown notices but most suspended accounts are terminated. Up to 31 March 2015, Mega had suspended 29,213 users.†Requests for personal information Mega bills itself as ‘The Privacy Company’ so users are likely to expect that their personal information will be as safe, if not safer, in the hands of Mega than similarly placed service providers. Mega says it values user privacy but in some cases the company will hand over information to relevant authorities when required. “Privacy is not an absolute right and is subject to limitations. We take all requests for the disclosure of user information seriously. In considering any request for user data, user information or action involving a Mega user, Mega starts from the position that user data and information is private,†the company writes. “Mega will generally only provide user details when required to do so by New Zealand law or a New Zealand court or law enforcement authority with appropriate jurisdiction but Mega may consider requests made by non-New Zealand law enforcement authorities and civil claimants.†However, considering how many people use Mega’s services, requests for personal information are extremely low. In 2013 the company received just a single request but handed over no data. In 2014 a total of six requests were received (all from overseas) and just two resulted in information being disclosed. Of that total, four requests were made by government or the police, two from corporate entities and one from a private individual. “Mega respects the need to openly disclose the level of non-compliant activity of the few users who breach its Terms of Service, even though many competitors don’t disclose such information,†Mega CEO Graham Gaylard informs TorrentFreak. “Mega works very hard to ensure that the legitimate rights of content owners are respected.†The full report can be found here. https://torrentfreak.com/mega-publishes-first-transparency-report-150615/
  2. After the seized Megaupload and Megavideo domains ran malicious ads last month, there is more Mega domain strangeness to report. Various domain names which previously belonged to Kim Dotcom and his companies have expired and are now listed for sale, or were sold already. When Kim Dotcom’s mansion was raided early 2012, the U.S. Government targeted various domain names that were linked to the “Mega conspiracy.†While Megaupload and Megavideo were the most prominent targets, the indictment also listed megapix.com, megacar.com, megabackup.com and various other “Mega†domains. All the above sites were pulled offline as a result of the raids, and Megaupload.com and Megavideo.com displayed a banner informing visitors that the sites were under investigation. As reported previously, the banners vanished after the U.S. Department of Justice made a mistake, which also caused the seized Megaupload and Megavideo domains to run malicious ads. After uncovering these problems with the Megaupload and Megavideo domains, we noticed something else strange. The domain name Megabackup.com was no longer listed as seized. In fact, the domain is now in use by another company that offers backup solutions, similar to what Megaupload planned. Baffled by this finding, we contacted the company behind the new backup service. They informed us that they are in no way affiliated with Kim Dotcom, Megaupload or its former employees. “We are an independent software startup with no affiliation to MegaUpload whatsoever,†a company spokesperson said. Instead, the new Megabackup simply bought the domain name through a broker after it had expired. “We have acquired this domain name through a reseller platform called ‘Sedo’ about a year ago, simply because this name looked interesting and suitable for the backup software we make.†Megabackup is not the only domain that expired. The same happened to megacar.com, megagogo.com and megapix.com. The latter is currently on sale for a cool $35,000. HugeDomains, the company currently selling Megagogo.com, informed us that they scooped up the domain after it had expired. “When the domain was not renewed by the owner after expiration, HugeDomains acquired the domain when it became publicly available on January 22, 2015,†the company informed us. So has the U.S. Department of Justice made another mistake by letting these domains slip out of their hands? Well, not so fast. While the domain names are all linked to Megaupload and mentioned in the indictment, those on sale were not officially seized unlike many others. This means that anyone could have picked them up, which has also happened to Kim Dotcom’s kimpire.com domain. Commenting on the situation Dotcom informs us that the domains were not supposed to expire. “This should not have happened,†he says, adding that someone else in his team handled the registrations. https://torrentfreak.com/kim-dotcoms-seized-mega-domains-are-now-for-sale-150613/
  3. Mega.co.nz has today published an independent report which refutes claims that the site is a piracy haven. The analysis, carried out by Olswang, an international law firm that previously worked with the UK government on copyright issues, concludes that claims in a 2014 NetNames report have “no factual basis whatsoever.†In September 2014, NetNames published a report titled Behind The Cyberlocker Door: A Report How Shadowy Cyberlockers Use Credit Card Companies to Make Millions. It accused New Zealand-based cloud-storage site Mega of being a “cyberlocker†and profiting from “content theftâ€. Mega reacted angrily to the report, branding it defamatory and warning of further action. This morning Mega revealed it had commissioned international law firm Olswang to critique the NetNames report, an interesting move considering the firm’s pedigree. In 2014 Olswang worked with the UK government’s IP advisor to publish a set of anti-piracy recommendations. They were later endorsed by the MPAA. The report “Olswang was asked to analyse the evidence and data used by NetNames in order to establish whether there was any factual basis for the claims. Olswang is renowned for its deep experience in the technology, media and telecoms sector,†Mega says. The result is a 42-page teardown of the NetNames report, clarifying Mega’s business and legal practices while leaving the brand company with plenty of questions to answer. “The NetNames report has been extremely damaging to Mega,†Oslwang begins. “Most notably, it has been relied upon by United States Senator Patrick Leahy to apply pressure to major payment providers and credit card companies to withdraw their services from those identified in the NetNames report.†Allegedly infringing content One of NetNames’ key claims is that the majority of the files stored on Mega are infringing. Olswang attacks both the claim and the company’s methodology. Describing the analysis file sample as “inherently biased towards finding infringing contentâ€, the law firm notes that only publicly available files were examined while the vast majority of files stored on Mega (encrypted and not publicly shared) were ignored. “In September 2014, when the NetNames report was published, Mega had approximately 2.5 billion files stored on its servers. This means that the sample of files analysed represents just 0.00002% of the total number of overall files,†Olswang reports. The law firm adds that NetNames took no steps to determine whether content was actually infringing. Instead, filenames were used as the lone indicator of illegality. Business model After holding NetNames to its own definition of an “illegal cyberlockerâ€, Olswang found no similarities with Mega, noting that the company’s business model is “entirely at odds with NetNames’ own description of those used by cyberlockers.†Noting that Mega’s basic service is similar to those provided by many other major legitimate cloud-hosting providers, Olswang addresses NetNames’ claims that rogue cyberlockers limit download speeds in order to encourage users to pay to upgrade to higher speeds. “Mega operates a bandwidth limit in the same way as other legitimate storage providers and does not limit download speeds,†the law firm notes. And then to advertising. “The NetNames report acknowledges that Mega does not host advertising and is therefore an ‘exception’ to the other 29 cyberlocker companies named. However it still categorizes Mega as a cyberlocker despite it being clear that Mega’s primary sources of revenue do not share any of the characteristics ascribed to cyberlockers. We therefore see no possible basis on which such a conclusion can be drawn,†the report adds. Aggressive affiliate programs, which are considered by some to be one of the hallmarks of a rogue file-hosting site, are also tackled by Olswang in the clearest possible terms. “The NetNames report estimates that Mega pays out $66,789 per month to affiliates. The source of this figure is unexplained, and it is entirely false. To date, Mega has not finalized any affiliate relationships and therefore has never paid any commission or retainer to any affiliate,†the law firm notes. Legal Of primary importance is whether Mega complies with the law, both locally in New Zealand and elsewhere internationally. The Olswang report highlights no deficiencies while noting that Mega’s policies are “fully compliant with the New Zealand Copyright Act 1994 and the equivalent intermediary liability regimes provided for in the US DMCA and European ECommerce Directive.†The company takes down infringing content on demand and reports deleting 131,377 files in the first quarter of 2015, a figure representing just 0.003% of all files stored on Mega. Site users are subjected to a “5 strikes†regime, meaning that after five reports of infringement accounts are suspended. “At the time of writing 29,290 user accounts had been suspended by Mega for this reason, comprising less than 0.16% of total Mega users,†Olswang notes. Conclusion “Having reviewed the NetNames report and undertaken analysis of Mega’s service, Olswang has found no evidence to conclude that Mega can be considered a cyberlocker, or that it knowingly, willingly or even passively assists in or condones wide scale copyright or other infringement,†the law firm writes. “In summary, Olswang has concluded that the allegations in the NetNames report are highly defamatory of Mega and appear to have no factual basis whatsoever. The NetNames report contains numerous factual inaccuracies and methodological errors and draws conclusions that are entirely wrong. “[All] of Mega’s characteristics are consistent with those of a legitimate cloud storage provider in the same way as Google Drive, Microsoft OneDrive, Apple iCloud, Dropbox and many other similar providers,†Olswang concludes. Mega says it is pleased with the findings of the report and is now considering its legal position. “It is quite clear from the comprehensive review conducted by Olswang that the assertions about Mega in the NetNames report are totally without foundation and are defamatory. We are now taking legal advice on this serious attack against Mega,†says Mega CEO Graham Gaylard. “Olswang’s credentials on anti-piracy issues are impeccable, and their conclusions totally refute the allegations made in the NetNames report.†Thus far NetNames has ignored requests for comment on the inclusion of Mega in its report. With pressure building as it now is, the company could soon be left with little choice. The full report can be downloaded here (pdf). https://torrentfreak.com/mega-rolls-out-legal-heavyweights-to-refute-piracy-claims-150515/
  4. A new Hollywood commission report investigating the revenue sources of more than 600 supposedly infringing sites has controversially included file-hosting site Mega. The listing marks the second time in a matter of months that the cloud-storage service has been accused of online piracy via an industry-connected report. Yet again, the report's authors are refusing to comment. In September 2014, NetNames published a report titled Behind The Cyberlocker Door: A Report How Shadowy Cyberlockers Use Credit Card Companies to Make Millions. While the report was informative in many respects, NetNames made the questionable decision to include cloud-hosting service Mega.co.nz. Granted, Mega’s Kim Dotcom connections might paint the site in an unfavorable light in some eyes, but the fact remains that Mega.co.nz covers all the bases when it comes to copyright law. And let’s face it – the site has had no other choice. As the most scrutinized file-hosting startup in history, any breach (even of the overseas DMCA) would prove absolutely catastrophic. Nevertheless and largely thanks to the NetNames report, payment processors including Visa, Mastercard and PayPal recently pulled the plug on the company. Then this week, just eight months after the NetNames report, came another turn of the screw. Titled The Revenue Sources for Websites Making Available Copyright Content Without Consent in the EU, a new MPA-commissioned report published by Incopro examined the money-making techniques of more than 600 ‘unauthorized’ sites in the file-sharing space. The study’s overarching tone is that the sites surveyed are criminal enterprises run by shady individuals aiming to get rich on the backs of the entertainment industries. In respect of many sites on the list it is difficult to argue with the assertion. But, yet again, Mega.co.nz finds itself on the list alongside the likes of The Pirate Bay and other similarly copyright-hostile domains. Just as we did following the NetNames report, TorrentFreak contacted the report’s authors and asked why Mega, a company with robust copyright protection mechanisms, had been included in the report. We received no response to what shouldn’t have been a particularly difficult question. It’s worth pointing out, however, that Incopro do list the factors that get hosting sites on the list. They say the factors “are drawn from case law†and are “typically used by courts†to “determine the status†of a site. They’re listed in bold below: Users are not charged for storage of files, instead revenue is accrued from subscription fees permitting download; per-download charges; and/or advertising While the above could indeed describe an infringing site if bad intent was present, it also describes the business model of YouTube. It seems unlikely that a court would find a site illegal on this basis alone. Anonymity for Users: The use of the service can be enjoyed in complete anonymity Allowing users to be anonymous is no indication of criminality, unless a service intentionally encourages its users to commit a crime. For the record, Mega users are not anonymous – the service logs user IP addresses to counter abuse. Anonymity for the Operators: Quite often the operators of the site will also be anonymous or based in jurisdictions where enforcement of the rule of law is quite difficult. Such sites tend to move less frequently, but will do so in response to perceived threats of legal action. While anonymity for operators can be an indication that facing the law isn’t a key priority, it is blatantly clear that Mega.co.nz is going nowhere. The company and its directors are registered in New Zealand, are public faces, and are currently pursuing a stock market listing. The Pirate Bay this most certainly isn’t. Inducement/Reward Scheme: Rewards for uploaders of large and popular files (with a particular emphasis on file size, i.e. additional rewards for popular files of over 200 megabytes, which are consistent with long-form copyright-protected audiovisual content). It is well known that some of the most shadowy file-hosting services use these kinds of affiliate schemes to attract uploaders of pirated content, but their presence alone is not an indicator of criminality. Again, YouTube is happy to share revenues with uploaders of popular files. In any event, Mega offers no such scheme. Ability to share files in the following formats (all consistent with long-form copyright-protected AV content): .rar, .zip, .avi, .wmv, .mpg, .mhv, .mp4, .divx, .xvid, .flv, .mov and .mpeg. That the hosting of these filetypes can result in a site being labeled as infringing is beyond ridiculous and doesn’t even warrant a detailed rebuttal. Free access for stored files is limited (in an attempt to encourage the purchase of premium membership) by methods such as increased wait times, bandwidth throttling, caps on the number of downloads freely accessed and online advertising. Again, many of these techniques are indeed employed by some of the most notorious file-hosters but on their own they are not indications of criminality. However, the important thing here is that none apply to Mega. Enabling Sharing of Links: Provision of ‘forum codes’ and ‘URL codes’ to facilitate the incorporation of links on third party indexing and linking sites. Providing a URL to stored content indicates that a site is pirate? Watch out Dropbox! THE MOST IMPORTANT FACTORS, THE ONES THAT REALLY MATTER Although not listed directly for hosting sites, Incopro does note that other factors can determine whether a site is likely infringing or not for the purposes of its report. This is where the meat of their claims against Mega and any other site should really hold up. The clear (and often stated) purpose of the sites is copyright infringement and facilitation of copyright infringement. The sites are highly structured and the content is referenced, categorized, curated and moderated. The operators are believed to exercise control over the content on the website. The sites provide guidance and deploy a variety of means of encouragement to users in accessing and making available content and advertise the availability of content on third party sites. The sites either don’t operate a takedown policy at all or such policies are mere window-dressing or even a sham. To even the most casual observer it must be clear Mega does not fit into any of these categories. Most importantly the company has a robust DMCA-style policy that has even seen it remove its own founder’s music following a bogus DMCA complaint. Conclusion When a site fails to meet any of the criteria for inclusion in a piracy report yet still finds itself included, one needs to ask why. Sadly (and like NetNames before them) the creators of this otherwise enlightening report refuse to answer that simple question. So why then have two big reports, both of which are likely to shape policy in the coming months and years, branded a legitimate file-hosting site a piracy haven? If it’s because Mega is breaking the law, the aggrieved parties should step up to the plate and say so. Better still, those funding the report (the MPA) should have their lawyers do something about it. If, however, it’s because Kim Dotcom founded Mega and everything he touches must now be destroyed at all costs, people should have the nerve to admit it. As noted earlier, both reports have their merits, but when suspicions of hidden agendas become apparent, their value is only diminished. Mega informs TorrentFreak it is analyzing the report with its lawyers. https://torrentfreak.com/mega-consults-legal-team-over-new-piracy-report-150510/
  5. Two weeks ago PayPal closed the account of cloud-storage service Mega, citing pressure from Visa and MasterCard. The ban has undoubtedly hurt Mega's business, and CEO Graham Gaylard is in Europe to discuss possible legal repercussions against a report that's partly responsible for the ban September last year the Digital Citizens Alliance and NetNames released a report that looked into the business models of “shadowy†file-storage sites. Titled “Behind The Cyberlocker Door: A Report How Shadowy Cyberlockers Use Credit Card Companies to Make Millions,†the report offers insight into the money streams that end up at these alleged pirate sites. The research claims that the sites in question are mostly used for copyright infringement. But while there are indeed many shadowy hosting services, many were surprised to see the Kim Dotcom-founded Mega.co.nz on there. For entertainment industry groups the report offered an opportunity to put pressure on Visa and MasterCard. In doing so they received support from U.S. Senator Patrick Leahy, who was also the lead sponsor of the defunct controversial Protect IP Act (PIPA). Senator Leahy wrote a letter to the credit card companies claiming that the sites mentioned in the report have “no legitimate purpose or activity,†hoping they would cut their connections to the mentioned sites. Visa and MasterCard took these concerns to heart and pressed PayPal to cut off its services to Mega, which eventually happened late last month. Interestingly, PayPal cited Mega’s end-to-end-encryption as one of the key problems, as that would make it harder to see what files users store. The PayPal ban has been a huge blow for Mega, both reputation-wise and financially. And the realization that the controversial NetNames report is one of the main facilitators of the problems is all the more frustrating. TorrentFreak spoke with CEO Graham Gaylard, who previously characterized the report as “grossly untrue and highly defamatory,†to discuss whether Mega still intends to take steps against the UK-based NetNames for their accusations. Initially, taking legal action against NetNames for defamation was difficult, as UK law requires the complaining party to show economic damage. However, after the PayPal ban this shouldn’t be hard to do. Gaylard is traveling through Europe at the moment and he notes that possible repercussions against the damaging report are high on the agenda. “Yes, I am here to see Mega’s London-based legal counsel to discuss the next steps in progressing the NetNames’ response,†Gaylard informs TF. Mega’s CEO couldn’t release any details on a possible defamation lawsuit, but he stressed that his company will fiercely defend itself against smear campaigns. “Mega has been operating, and continues to operate a completely legitimate and transparent business. Unfortunately now, with the blatant, obvious, political pressure and industry lobbying against Mega, Mega needs to defend itself and will now cease taking a passive stance,†Gaylard says. According to the CEO Mega is running a perfectly legal business. The allegation that it’s a piracy haven is completely fabricated. Like any other storage provider, there is copyrighted content on Mega’s servers, but that’s a tiny fraction of the total stored. To illustrate this, Gaylard mentions that they only receive a few hundred takedown notices per month. In addition, he notes more than 99.7% of the 18 million files that are uploaded per day are smaller than 20MB in size, not enough to share a movie or TV-show. These statistics are certainly not the hallmark of a service with “no legitimate purpose or activity,†as was claimed. While the PayPal ban is a major setback, Mega is still doing well in terms of growth. They have 15 million registered customers across 200 countries, and hundreds of thousands of new users join every month. https://torrentfreak.com/mega-ponders-legal-action-in-response-to-damaging-paypal-ban-150312/
  6. The past six months have not been good ones for some of the world's leading file-hosting sites. Many have seen their traffic plummet as a result of Google algorithm changes, but interestingly some are bucking the trend. Mega.co.nz, for example, is doing better than ever. In the file-sharing world sites tend to be split into two camps – those that facilitate access to content held elsewhere (torrent sites) and those that host the content themselves. What to call the sites in this latter category largely depends on the context. The generic “file-hoster†monicker works well for all, but the more recent term “cyberlocker†has somehow become associated with sites that have some kind of “rogue†business model attached. Last September, Netnames produced a report about ‘cyberlockers’ and annoyed the operators of Mega.co.nz by categorizing the site as some kind of illicit operation. This week, only adding to the controversy, Mega revealed that U.S. government pressure had led to PayPal withdrawing its services from the company. This week, several months after the publication of the NetNames report, we decided to take a look at how the file-hosting sites listed have been doing on the traffic front. According to Alexa they are mostly on a significant downward trend, but as we shall see that’s not universally the case. In fact, Mega appears to be doing particularly well. The big losers All of the sites in this section lost significant overall traffic during 2014 and early 2015. 4shared, Zippyshare, Turbobit, BitShare, LetitBit, FreakShare, 1fichier and 2shared all had big downward trends and, as illustrated by the charts below, October time seems to mark the beginning of most of the bad news. That date closely coincides with Google’s downranking of sites for which it receives the most infringement notices. The change hit many major torrent sites causing immediate drops in traffic, but for others the change only seems to have brought good news. The big winners Mega.co.nz, a site included in the NetNames report but not indexed by Google due to the site’s own restrictions, appears to have reaped rewards where others have failed. Following a slump in the summer of 2014, the period since October 2014 has been nothing but a success story for the Kim Dotcom-founded operation. Another site bucking the downward trend is UptoBox, a site which NetNames claims has around six million monthly users and $1.7 million in annual revenues. Despite Google receiving close to 368,000 complaints about the site, UpToBox has been doing better than ever since October 2014 when most of the other sites started to suffer. Only a small slump in January 2015 spoiled the party. The others RapidGator is one of the most popular file-hosting sites around but had a bit of a disappointing 2014. After starting the year strongly as one of the 500 most popular sites in the world, the site embarked on a steady downward trend and like most it took a big hit at the start of October when Google’s down-ranking began. Between then and the end of 2014 it regained traffic to position itself where it had been during the summer. But in January came a new slump which took the site back down to its lowest traffic levels to date. Another site on a general downward trend is Uploaded.net, but again the site’s traffic demonstrates some interesting features. After taking a big hit in October the site recovered somewhat, only to peak and begin dropping off again. Overall It’s fair to say that the majority of the big sites in the NetNames report are on a downward trend but sites like Mega are clearly able to buck the trend. Whether that’s due to the company’s charismatic founder, its end-to-end encryption or simply by being a good provider with a great service is up for debate. Nevertheless, an ability to avoid Google downranking punishments is certainly a plus and one that the company will be keen to maintain. http://torrentfreak.com/cyberlocker-traffic-plummets-but-not-mega-150308/
  7. Hi ExDesians, I hope all of you are looking fine. We come up with this wonderful plan of allowing our users to Request their Favorite Movies, Music, TV Shows, Untouched DVDs, Dubbed Movies to us which will be fulfilled by our home team, Team XMR. I know we already have a request section available in our forum, but I feel like not much people visit this section. So here are the basic Rules you need to follow in order to request to Team XMR to be fulfilled on priority basis. You can only request the Stuffs mentioned above. You need to post Movie Name, Year of Release, IMDB Link with your request over here in this thread. Number of requests from a single user are limited to 4 requests per week. Exceeding the limit will result removal of your request. All Requests are depend on the availability of the Stuff you are asking for. We can't guarantee you of providing the requested stuff. The user who is Requesting must be having a Ratio of 0.9. If you are requesting with having ratio below 1:1, your request will be deleted immediately & if you continue doing the same you may face ban from forum. Apart from these Rules you need to follow all basic Rules of our site without fail. If we can't fulfill one request we'll inform you the same on this thread. Keep checking after requesting. On successful completion of a Request the Uploder will get 500 Reputation points All the requests will be filled by proud members of Team XMR-ExD comprising -=Rangeela=-, -=ToM=-, international khiladi, nepsters, Phantom, Titan_Of_Titans,XdesiArsenal and HearTLessS. If anybody wants to join us on this, is always welcome. This request opportunity is available on trial basis until our next notice. After observing our capability of fulfilling requests we'll decide of continuing or discontinuing this. So start requesting... Thanks & Regard
  8. After coming under intense pressure PayPal has closed the account of cloud-storage service Mega. According to the company, SOPA proponent Senator Patrick Leahy personally pressured Visa and Mastercard who in turn called on PayPal to terminate the account. Bizarrely, Mega's encryption is being cited as a key problem. During September 2014, the Digital Citizens Alliance and Netnames teamed up to publish a brand newreport. Titled ‘Behind The Cyberlocker Door: A Report How Shadowy Cyberlockers Use Credit Card Companies to Make Millions,’ it offered insight into the finances of some of the world’s most popular cyberlocker sites. The report had its issues, however. While many of the sites covered might at best be considered dubious, the inclusion of Mega.co.nz – the most scrutinized file-hosting startup in history – was a real head scratcher. Mega conforms with all relevant laws and responds quickly whenever content owners need something removed. By any standard the company lives up to the requirements of the DMCA. “We consider the report grossly untrue and highly defamatory of Mega,†Mega CEO Graham Gaylard told TF at the time. But now, just five months on, Mega’s inclusion in the report has come back to bite the company in a big way. Speaking via email with TorrentFreak this morning, Gaylard highlighted the company’s latest battle, one which has seen the company become unable to process payments from customers. It’s all connected with the NetNames report and has even seen the direct involvement of a U.S. politician. According to Mega, following the publication of the report last September, SOPA and PIPA proponent Senator Patrick Leahy (Vermont, Chair Senate Judiciary Committee) put Visa and MasterCard under pressure to stop providing payment services to the ‘rogue’ companies listed in the NetNames report. Following Leahy’s intervention, Visa and MasterCard then pressured PayPal to cease providing payment processing services to MEGA. As a result, Mega is no longer able to process payments. “It is very disappointing to say the least. PayPal has been under huge pressure,†Gaylard told TF. The company did not go without a fight, however. “MEGA provided extensive statistics and other evidence showing that MEGA’s business is legitimate and legally compliant. After discussions that appeared to satisfy PayPal’s queries, MEGA authorised PayPal to share that material with Visa and MasterCard. Eventually PayPal made a non-negotiable decision to immediately terminate services to MEGA,†the company explains. What makes the situation more unusual is that PayPal reportedly apologized to Mega for its withdrawal while acknowledging that company’s business is indeed legitimate. However, PayPal also advised that Mega’s unique selling point – it’s end-to-end-encryption – was a key concern for the processor. “MEGA has demonstrated that it is as compliant with its legal obligations as USA cloud storage services operated by Google, Microsoft, Apple, Dropbox, Box, Spideroak etc, but PayPal has advised that MEGA’s ‘unique encryption model’ presents an insurmountable difficulty,†Mega explains. As of now, Mega is unable to process payments but is working on finding a replacement. In the meantime the company is waiving all storage limits and will not suspend any accounts for non-payment. All accounts have had their subscriptions extended by two months, free of charge. Mega indicates that it will ride out the storm and will not bow to pressure nor compromise the privacy of its users. “MEGA supplies cloud storage services to more than 15 million registered customers in more than 200 countries. MEGA will not compromise its end-to-end user controlled encryption model and is proud to not be part of the USA business network that discriminates against legitimate international businesses,†the company concludes. http://torrentfreak.com/under-u-s-pressure-paypal-nukes-mega-for-encrypting-files-150227/
  9. After several false takedown notices from the major record labels Mega has now terminated the cloud hosting account of its founder Kim Dotcom. The incident shows that Mega takes copyright infringement seriously, but that it's also vulnerable to abuse. New Zealand-based entrepeneur Kim Dotcom has dealt with numerous copyright infringement allegations in recent years. The United States launched a criminal case against Dotcom and wants him extradited, while the major movie and music companies filed their own suits against Megaupload’s former boss. This week he can add another allegation to this growing list, a rather unusual one too as it comes from cloud hosting service Mega, a company he founded. Dotcom has been using Mega to share his first music album “Good Times†with everyone who wants to give it a spin. While he holds all the rights, several prominent music labels kept informing Mega that the album was “infringing.†A few weeks ago we learned that the takedown requests were all inaccurate, and triggered by a prankster. However, that apparently didn’t stop them from coming in and as a result Dotcom has now had his Mega account terminated for repeatedly violating the terms of service. Those who try to grab a copy of the album via the official download link on Kim.com see the following message: “The file you are trying to download is no longer available. The associated user account has been terminated due to multiple violations of our Terms of Service.†The account termination probably won’t last as it was triggered by false takedowns. However, it shows how easy it is to abuse the takedown process to shut down people’s accounts, at least temporarily. Previously Mega told TF that they take every takedown notice seriously, but that they also plan to set up a system where repeated false takedowns can be flagged to prevent this type of abuse in the future. “We are improving our systems to monitor the takedown process and will eventually be able to identify repeated incorrect notices,†a Mega spokesperson said. For now, we hope that Dotcom has his files backed up in a safe place. Update: Kim Dotcom told us that the following takedown notices were received for his album.The account has now been reinstated. Aug 18 – IFPI – allegedly “The Golden Echo†by “Kimbra†Sep 1 – IFPI – unspecified, could be any of “DAVID BISBAL, ARIANA GRANDE, EMINEM, ALEJANDRO SANZ, VA, U2, CESAR MENOTTI E FABIANO, CARTEL DE SANTA, CRAIG DAVID, GREEN DAY, DUNCAN DHU, PLAYA LIMBO, RICARDO ARJONA†Sep 15 – Begian Anti-piracy Federation – allegedly “X†by “Ed Sheeran†Oct 11 – MarkMonitor on behalf of the Entertainment Software Association – allegedly “ALIENS†Oct 12 – NBC Universal – allegedly “Anarchy†by “The Purge†Oct 22 – MarkMonitor on behalf of HBO – allegedly “Boardwalk Empire†Oct 23 – MarkMonitor on behalf of CBS – unspecified, could be any of “NCIS: NEW ORLEANS, NCIS, STAR TREK: DEEP SPACE NINE, EXTANT (2014), PENNY DREADFUL, HAWAII FIVE-0 (2010)†http://torrentfreak.com/mega-terminates-kim-dotcoms-account-for-repeat-infringements-141115/
  10. Add Rep and Leave a feedback Reputation is the green button in the down right corner on my post
  11. Last week NetNames produced a report on "shadowy" file-hosting sites which surprisingly included Mega.co.nz. The file-hosting company responded by threatening "further action" unless it was removed from the "defamatory" report. Now, as promised, the New Zealand-based company is taking things to the next level. Last week the Digital Citizens Alliance and NetNames released a new report with the aim of shining light on the business models of “shadowy†file-storage sites. While listing some domains that may well live up to that less-than-flattering billing, the authors of Behind The Cyberlocker Door: A Report How Shadowy Cyberlockers Use Credit Card Companies to Make Millions, also decided to include New Zealand-based Mega. Mega was founded by Kim Dotcom but the site bears little resemblance to his now defunct Megaupload. Perhaps most importantly, Mega was the most-scrutinized file-hosting startup ever, so every single detail simply had to be squeaky clean. As a result the site took extensive legal advice to ensure that it complies with every single facet of the law. Nevertheless, NetNames took the decision to put Mega in its report anyway, bundling the site in with what are described as some of the market’s most dubious players. This was not received well by Mega CEO Graham Gaylard. In a TorrentFreak article he demanded a full apology from NetNames and Digital Citizens Alliance and for his company to be withdrawn from the report. Failure to do so would result in “further actionâ€, he said. TF asked NetNames’ David Price whether his company stood by its allegations. The response suggested that it did and no apology was forthcoming. It’s been a week since that ultimatum and as promised Mega is now making good on its threats. “Mega’s legal counsel has written to NetNames, Digital Citizens Alliance and The Internet Technology & Innovation Foundation (ITIF) stating that the report is clearly defamatory,†Mega CEO Graham Gaylard told TorrentFreak this morning. Given NetNames’ and Digital Citizens Alliance failure to respond, it comes as little surprise that Mega’s formalized demands now go beyond an apology and retraction. Firstly, Mega’s legal team are now demanding the removal of the report, and all references to it, from all channels under the respondents’ control. They also demand that further circulation of the report must be discontinued and no additional references to it should be made in public. That’s a tough one. NetNames’ effort is currently the most-circulated report in the ‘piracy’ space and TorrentFreak is also informed that the paper is set to become the supporting documentation to Hollywood and the labels’ follow-the-money anti-piracy drive. Mega are also demanding a list of everyone who has had a copy of the report made available to them along with details of all locations where the report has been published. Again, that will be an interesting one to see Mega’s targets fulfill. Finally, Mega is demanding a full public apology “to its satisfaction†to be published on the homepages of the respondents’ websites. What form that could take without discrediting the rest of the report is probably up for negotiation, but having Mega in there at all was bound to be a controversial and potentially damaging move. Mega has given the companies seven days to comply with the above requests. No official line has been provided as to what will happen if Mega is met with a refusal, but it seems that the company is serious about protecting its reputation and will do whatever it takes to do that. It’s perhaps of note that to our knowledge none of the other sites listed in the report have come out publicly to protest their inclusion in it. That’s not to say that some weren’t wrongfully included of course, but when a company like Mega stands up in order to protect its brand that should set off alarm bells. Do ‘pirate’ sites with “shadowy†business models ever bother to publicly defend their reputations unless they’re the ones being hauled into court?
  12. A new report which brands Mega.co.nz a "shadowy cyberlocker" has drawn a fierce response from the cloud storage site. CEO Graham Gaylard informs TorrentFreak that should the Digital Citizens Alliance refuse to remove Mega from its entire report and issue a public apology, further action will be taken. Yesterday the Digital Citizens Alliance released a new report that looks into the business models of “shadowy†file-storage sites. Titled “Behind The Cyberlocker Door: A Report How Shadowy Cyberlockers Use Credit Card Companies to Make Millions,†the report attempts to detail the activities of some of the world’s most-visited hosting sites. While it’s certainly an interesting read, the NetNames study provides a few surprises, not least the decision to include New Zealand-based cloud storage site Mega.co.nz. There can be no doubt that there are domains of dubious standing detailed in the report, but the inclusion of Mega stands out as especially odd. Mega was without doubt the most-scrutinized file-hosting startup in history and as a result has had to comply fully with every detail of the law. And, unlike some of the other sites listed in the report, Mega isn’t hiding away behind shell companies and other obfuscation methods. It also complies fully with all takedown requests, to the point that it even took down its founder’s music, albeit following an erroneous request. With these thoughts in mind, TorrentFreak alerted Mega to the report and asked how its inclusion amid the terminology used has been received at the company. Grossly untrue and highly defamatory “We consider the report grossly untrue and highly defamatory of Mega,†says Mega CEO Graham Gaylard. “Mega is a privacy company that provides end-to-end encrypted cloud storage controlled by the customer. Mega totally refutes that it is a cyberlocker business as that term is defined and discussed in the report prepared by NetNames for the Digital Citizens Alliance.†Gaylard also strongly refutes the implication in the report that as a “cyberlockerâ€, Mega is engaged in activities often associated with such sites. “Mega is not a haven for piracy, does not distribute malware, and definitely does not engage in illegal activities,†Gaylard says. “Mega is running a legitimate business alongside other cloud storage providers in a highly competitive market.†The Mega CEO told us that one of the perplexing things about the report is that none of the criteria set out by the report for “shadowy†sites is satisfied by Mega, yet the decision was still taken to include it. Infringing content and best practices One of the key issues is, of course, the existence of infringing content. All user-uploaded sites suffer from that problem, from YouTube to Facebook to Mega and thousands of sites in between. But, as Gaylard points out, it’s the way those sites handle the issue that counts. “We are vigorous in complying with best practice legal take-down policies and do so very quickly. The reality though is that we receive a very low number of take-down requests because our aim is to have people use our services for privacy and security, not for sharing infringing content,†he explains. “Mega acts very quickly to process any take-down requests in accordance with its Terms of Service and consistent with the requirements of the USA Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) process, the European Union Directive 2000/31/EC and New Zealand’s Copyright Act process. Mega operates with a very low rate of take-down requests; less than 0.1% of all files Mega stores.†Affiliate schemes that encourage piracy One of the other “rogue site†characteristics as outlined in the report is the existence of affiliate schemes designed to incentivize the uploading and sharing of infringing content. In respect of Mega, Gaylard rejects that assertion entirely. “Mega’s affiliate program does not reward uploaders. There is no revenue sharing or credit for downloads or Pro purchases made by downloaders. The affiliate code cannot be embedded in a download link. It is designed to reward genuine referrers and the developers of apps who make our cloud storage platform more attractive,†he notes. The PayPal factor As detailed in many earlier reports (1,2,3), over the past few years PayPal has worked hard to seriously cut down on the business it conducts with companies in the file-sharing space. Companies, Mega included, now have to obtain pre-approval from the payment processor in order to use its services. The suggestion in the report is that large “shadowy†sites aren’t able to use PayPal due to its strict acceptance criteria. Mega, however, has a good relationship with PayPal. “Mega has been accepted by PayPal because we were able to show that we are a legitimate cloud storage site. Mega has a productive and respected relationship with PayPal, demonstrating the validity of Mega’s business,†Gaylard says. Public apology and retraction – or else Gaylard says that these are just some of the points that Mega finds unacceptable in the report. The CEO adds that at no point was the company contacted by NetNames or Digital Citizens Alliance for its input. “It is unacceptable and disappointing that supposedly reputable organizations such as Digital Citizens and NetNames should see fit to attack Mega when it provides the user end to end encryption, security and privacy. They should be promoting efforts to make the Internet a safer and more trusted place. Protecting people’s privacy. That is Mega’s mission,†Gaylard says. “We are requesting that Digital Citizens Alliance withdraw Mega from that report entirely and issue a public apology. If they do not then we will take further action,†he concludes. TorrentFreak asked NetNames to comment on Mega’s displeasure and asked the company if it stands by its assertion that Mega is a “shadowy†cyberlocker. We received a response (although not directly to our questions) from David Price, NetNames’ head of piracy analysis. “The NetNames report into cyberlocker operation is based on information taken from the websites of the thirty cyberlockers used for the research and our own investigation of this area, based on more than a decade of experience producing respected analysis exploring digital piracy and online distribution,†Price said. That doesn’t sound like a retraction or an apology, so this developing dispute may have a way to go. http://torrentfreak.com/mega-demands-apology-over-defamatory-cyberlocker-report-140919/
  13. A new report published by the Digital Citizens Alliance estimates that the most popular cyberlockers generate millions of dollars in revenue. The research claims that the sites in question are mostly used for copyright infringement. The list of "rogue" sites includes the Kim Dotcom-founded cloud hosting service Mega, albeit based on a false assumption. The most popular file-hosting sites, also known as cyberlockers, have millions of visitors per day. In recent years many of these sites have gotten a bad reputation as they are frequently used to share copyrighted files. Today the Digital Citizens Alliance released a new report (pdf) that looks into the profitability of these sites and services. Titled “Behind The Cyberlocker Door: A Report How Shadowy Cyberlockers Use Credit Card Companies to Make Millions,†it offers insight into the money streams that end up at these alleged pirate sites. The study, carried out by NetNames and backed by the entertainment industry, uses information from the busted Megaupload service to estimate the earnings of various other sites. Based on these and other assumptions it concludes that the top cyberlockers generate an average $3.2 million per site per year. “Overall, total annual revenue across the thirty cyberlockers equated to $96.2 million or $3.2 million per site. One site gathered $17.6m per year in revenue,†the report notes, adding that it’s a conservative estimate. Estimated revenue and profit per direct download cyberlocker The report brands these sites as piracy havens based on a sample of the files they host. All the sites that are listed are used predominantly for copyright infringement, they claim. “The overwhelming use of cyberlockers is for content theft. Analysis of a sampling of the files on the thirty cyberlocker sites found that the vast majority of files were clearly infringing,†the report reads. “At least 78.6 percent of files on direct download cyberlockers and 83.7 percent of files on streaming cyberlockers infringed copyright,†it adds. Alleged “infringing†use per cyberlocker Here’s where the researchers make a crucial mistake. The sample, where the percentage of allegedly infringing files is based on, is drawn from links that are posted publicly online. These are certainly not representative for the entire site, at least not in all cases. For Mega the researchers looked at 500 files that were shared online. However, the overwhelming majority of Mega’s files, which number more than 500,000,000, are never shared in public. Unlike some other sites in the report, Mega is a rather traditional cloud hosting provider that’s frequently used for personal backup, through its desktop client or mobile apps for example. The files that are shared in public are the exception here, probably less than one percent of the total. There is no denying that there are shady and rogue sites that do profit heavily from piracy, but lumping all these sites together and branding them with a pirate label is flat-out wrong. Aside from “exposing†the estimated profitability of the cyberlockers the report also has a secondary goal. It puts out a strong call to the credit card companies Visa and MasterCard, and hosting providers such as Cloudflare, urging them to cut their ties with these supposed pirate havens. “They should take a hard look at the checkered history of their cyberlocker partners. Simply put, the businesses that simply exploit and expropriate the creative efforts of others do not occupy a legitimate place in the Internet ecosystem,†the report notes. “Content theft is a cancer on the Internet. It introduces viruses and malware to computers, robs creators who rely on the Internet to sell their products, damages brands by associating them with illegal and inappropriate content and provides seed money for criminals to engage in other illegal activities,†it adds. Hopefully future reports will have more nuance. At minimum they should make sure to have all the facts right, as that’s generally more convincing. http://torrentfreak.com/report-brands-dotcoms-mega-a-piracy-haven-140918/
  14. In what could be one of the most ironic anti-piracy mistakes this year, music industry group IFPI has asked Mega to take down Kim Dotcom's very own music album Good Times. Mega was asked to remove its founder's music twice, casting doubt over the accuracy of the record labels' takedown efforts. Mega, the cloud hosting service founded by Kim Dotcom, has been growing steadily since its spectacular launch last year. Considering the controversial reputation of its predecessor Megaupload, copyright holders have been keeping a close eye on the site. Thus far, however, the number of takedown requests received by the company has been relatively small. Perhaps not completely unexpectedly, among the takedown requests that do come in are many that wrongfully request the takedown of perfectly legitimate files. This was illustrated earlier this week when Kim Dotcom’s official album Good Times was removed following a complaint. The album was released by Dotcom earlier this year and he has been sharing it via his website ever since. The link in question points to Mega where people can download it for free, but a few days ago it suddenly disappeared. To find out why the album was removed we contacted Mega for an explanation. The company informed us that music industry group IFPI requested the removal of Dotcom’s album through a takedown request sent on September 1. Representing the major record labels, IFPI claimed that the link infringed on the copyrights of one of their artists. IFPI listed several musicians but Kim Dotcom was not one of them. “It’s clearly an incorrect takedown request,†Mega’s Chief Compliance Officer Stephan Hall tells us. TorrentFreak also contacted Kim Dotcom, who asked Mega to reinstate the album, which they did. All in all the album was unavailable for about a day. While a mistake is easily made, this is not the first time that IFPI has tried to remove Dotcom’s album from Mega. A similar request was sent on August 18, this time claiming that it was a copyright infringement of Kimbra’s “The Golden Echo.†IFPI’s actions have been sloppy, to say the least, and Mega’s Chief Compliance Officer has little faith in the accuracy of the music group’s other takedown requests. “This is an indication that someone at the IFPI is not doing their homework and that their takedown notices in general cannot be trusted,†Hall tells TorrentFreak. Unfortunately these kind of mistakes are not an isolated incident. For example, before Kim Dotcom’s Megaupload was shutdown early 2012 the site received many erroneous takedown notices. “During the Megaupload days over 20% of all takedown notices were bogus,†Dotcom told us previously. “We analyzed big samples of notices and most were automated keyword based takedowns that affected a lot of legitimate files. The abuse of the takedown system is so severe that no service provider can rely on takedown notices for a fair repeat infringer policy.†A policy to punish copyright holders who make repeated mistakes, on the other hand, might be worth considering. http://torrentfreak.com/record-labels-take-down-kim-dotcoms-official-album-from-mega-140903/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed:%20Torrentfreak%20(Torrentfreak)
  15. Tracker Name :mega-palace Genre :general Sign Up Link :http://megas-palace.pw/signup.php Additional Information : music and tv tracker
  16. More than 18% of the Dotcom-founded cloud hosting service Mega was placed under restraining order by the local authorities. The actions of the police involve multi-millionaire William Yan, one of the largest shareholders of the service. The latter is alleged to be involved in money laundering, while Dotcom’s service itself is not suspected of any wrongdoing. As you know, Kim Dotcom launched a new cloud storage service, Mega, despite facing an extradition to the US for his part in the so-called “MegaUpload Conspiracyâ€. As it turned out, now Mega is being indirectly linked to a crime ring by the police of New Zealand. The service announced that one of its major shareholders William Yan is suspected of being involved into a large crime ring. Pending further investigation the local authorities has put the 18.8% share held through Yan’s companies under restraining order. In the meantime, William Yan has not been formally charged and denied any wrongdoing. As for the storage service, it isn’t believed to be connected to any of the alleged crimes. Mega CEO Graham Gaylard was quick to comment on the news, saying that the action of the police wouldn’t affect any innocent third parties, including Mega, which have had business dealings with William Yan. Kim Dotcom’s new service has been very diligent to ensure that all its operations are in full compliance with all legal and regulatory requirements. Dotcom himself confirmed that Yan was properly screened before becoming a shareholder. Dotcom, who himself remains accused of money laundering by the US, pointed out that no alarm bells went off at the time. In the meantime, the industry observers say that the news comes at an unfortunate time for Mega, because the company is going to go public on the New Zealand stock exchange via a backdoor listing. But because of the restraining order, the trading in shares of the backdoor listing vehicle TRS has been temporarily halted. Graham Gaylard is sure that the company won’t be affected by the problems of its shareholder. Mega’s CEO emphasized that all funds received by the storage portal were paid by Yan’s lawyers via banks operating under stringent anti money laundering policies. Therefore, Mega could not even suspect that such money resulted from any unauthorized activity, and the restraining order should not affect the operations of the company. Thanks to TorrentFreak for providing the source of the article.
  17. New Zealand authorities have placed 18.8% of the Kim Dotcom-founded cloud hosting service Mega under restraining order. The actions involve multi-millionaire William Yan, one of Mega's largest shareholders, who is alleged to be involved in money laundering. Mega itself is not suspected of wrong-doing. While facing an extradition to America for his role in the so-called “Megaupload Conspiracyâ€, Kim Dotcom launched a new cloud storage venture, Mega. Now, this new service is being indirectly linked to a crime ring by local authorities. Today Mega announced that one of its major shareholders William Yan, also known as Bill Liu, is suspected of having connections to a large crime ring. Pending further investigation the police has put the 18.8% share held through Yan’s companies under restraining order. Yan has not been formally charged and through his lawyer denied any wrong-doing. Mega itself is not believed to be connected to the alleged crimes. “The Police have commented that their action does not affect any innocent third parties (such as Mega) who have had business dealings with Mr Yan,†Mega CEO Graham Gaylard says commenting on the news. “Mega has been extremely diligent to ensure that all its operations are fully compliant with all legal and regulatory requirements. Mega does not undertake any illegal activities and does not wish to be associated with any such activity,†Gaylard adds. Kim Dotcom says that William Yan was properly screened before he became a shareholder. The New Zealand entrepreneur, who himself is accused of money laundering by the United States, said that no alarm bells went off at the time. “He is an investor who put money into Mega because he believed in it. I had no idea he had any problems or issues,†Dotcom told the Herald. The news comes at an unfortunate time for Mega, which intends to go public on the New Zealand stock exchange through a backdoor listing. As a result of the restraining order the trading in shares of the backdoor listing vehicle TRS has been temporarily halted. Despite the problems of its shareholder, Mega’s CEO doesn’t believe the company will be affected. Gaylard stresses that all funds received by Mega were paid by Yan’s lawyers through banks that operate under stringent anti money laundering policies. “Mega has never had any reason to suspect that such funds resulted from any illegal activity, and the Restraining Order will not affect the operations of Mega,†Gaylard says. “For us it is business as usual.†http://torrentfreak.com/police-freeze-mega-shares-in-money-laundering-investigation-140825/
  18. Tracker Name: Megas-Palace Genre: Music and TV Shows Sign Up Link: http://megas-palace.pw/signup.php Closing Time: 3 or 4 days Additional Information: Very precious and old tracker.
  19. The MPAA recently fired shots across the bows of Popcorn Time forks by having their projects removed from Github. But what if a bigger and more advanced project existed, one with impressive extra features and impossible to monitor downloads? Following a $668m investment last year, it seems Hollywood is leaving well alone. Popcorn Time was embraced by millions following its debut earlier this year, but what if there was a similar looking service providing additional features but with a small monthly price tag? Visually, TVShowTime is clean and tidy. It allows the tracking of TV shows and provides associated content on top of community and social networking features. It’s easy to use – click a series from the 40,000 in its databases and one can quickly begin tracking – and watching. After adding a show – we chose Game of Thrones – TVShow Time gave us a link to buy the first season on DVD from Amazon. Links also appeared to download the subtitles in a convenient zip file. Simultaneously a big ‘play’ button marked “watch episode†sat invitingly in the middle of the screen. With a click a new page appeared. As can be seen from the screenshot, TVShow Time provides two options. The first is a free service offering calender and subtitling downloads, plus links to buy the shows from official online sources including Netflix and iTunes. The second allows the viewer to sign up to a $7.99 a month subscription with torrent downloading service Put.io. When integrated with TVShow Time, users can access all their TV shows from BitTorrent networks in both 480p and 720p, and collect the resulting episodes from Put.io via HTTP download. Unlike standard Popcorn Time downloads, these are impossible for anti-piracy companies to monitor. The image below shows the first three already-filled-in torrent sources for Game of Thrones as directed by TVShow Time (Put.io remains a “dumb†service and only takes instruction from users). So, what we have here, at least on the surface, is a Popcorn Time-style interface on steroids with a small price tag attached for downloads. However, while Popcorn Time is being developed pretty much for free and is visible on the radar of the MPAA, TVShow Time sits very much at the opposite end of the financial spectrum. According to reports 1, 2, TVShow Time, which operates more or less like many other streaming or torrent-like indexes (with social networking features attached), is sitting on a $668 million investment. The people who put up the money are hardly lightweights either. They include Jean-David Blanc (Allociné), Deezer founder Daniel Marhely, and telecoms giant Xavier Niel, said to be worth in excess of $8 billion. The situation provides an interesting contrast. While the hobbyists behind the several Popcorn Time forks find themselves in thecrosshairs of the MPAA, and amateur Swedish subtitlers get raided by the police, a company with massive investment can somehow offer similar functionality without incurring the wrath of the studios. But when potential rivals have this much influence, it’s probably easier to turn the other way – at least for now. http://torrentfreak.com/hollywood-hits-popcorn-time-but-leaves-the-mega-rich-alone-140807/
  20. The Court of Rome has issued a nation-wide block of two dozen sites that facilitated the distribution of pirated movies. Among the blocked domains is Kim Dotcom's cloud hosting service Mega, Firedrive (formerly known as Putlocker), and even Russia's largest email provider Mail.ru. Italian authorities and the local entertainment industry are continuing their war on piracy with yet another round of broad website blockades. This week Court of Rome Judge Constantino De Robbio ordered all local Internet providers to restrict access to 24 websites including Kim Dotcom’s Mega.co.nz. The list further includes several other cloud storage sites such as Firedrive (formerly known as Putlocker) and even Russia’s largest email provider Mail.ru. The broad anti-piracy measures were requested by a small independent Italian movie distributor Eyemoon Pictures. The company complained that the sites in question distributed two films, “The Congress†and “Fruitvale Station,†before they were released in Italian cinemas. It appears that the injunction was issued without a very careful investigation of the true nature of the sites. Kim Dotcom’s Mega.co.nz is known to be very responsive to takedown notices, and the targeting of Russia’s largest email providers is even more baffling. In a comment Mega CEO Stephen Hall tells TorrentFreak that Mega views the blockade as disproportionate and illegal. The company operates an EU and DMCA compliant takedown process which allows copyright holder to remove infringing files swiftly. “We believe that the blockade adopted by the Italian Prosecutor is illegal. The blocking order was placed on the basis of a complaint by a small distributor for two films and the effect of the total block is obviously disproportionate,†Hall says. Hall further points out that the measures are easily circumvented by using Google DNS or any other non-ISP DNS provider. However, the company hopes that it can have the blockade reversed via soon-to-be-filed appeal. “Mega is taking steps to ensure that our Italian customers regain access to their files without first having to fiddle with their nameserver settings by filing an appeal next week,†Hall adds. TorrentFreak contacted Fulvio Sarzana, a lawyer specialized in Internet and copyright disputes, who told us that the scope of the preliminary injunction is rather broad. “This is the second-largest website blocking order in Italy, but certainly the most important one considering the names involved,†Sarzana says. The lawyer is opposed to the measures and welcomes site owners who want to appeal the blockades. “I see website blocking through DNS and IP-address as a form of censorship. The block can not distinguish between licit and illicit files. It’s like using a bomb broad-spectrum to hit only one person, the collateral damage is very obvious,†Sarzana notes. The sites affected in today’s actions have an option to appeal the Court’s decision, which has been done before with success. Earlier this year Rome’s Court of Appeals recalled a blocking order against the video streaming site Filmakerz.org, arguing that it was too broad. In its order the Court specified that partial blocking of a specific URL is preferred over site-wide bans, and that copyright-infringing sites must have a for-profit angle. — The full list of blocked domain names is as follows: cineblog01.net, cineblog01.tv, ddlstorage.com, divxstage.eu, easybytez.com, filminstreaming.eu, filmstream.info, firedrive.com, mail.ru, mega.co.nz, movshare.sx, nowdownload.ag, nowdownload.sx, nowvideo.sx, piratestreaming.net, primeshare.tv, putlocker.com, rapidvideo.tv, sockshare.com, uploadable.ch, uploadinc.com, video.tt , videopremium.me and youwatch.org http://torrentfreak.com/dotcoms-mega-blocked-italy-piracy-concerns-140719/
  21. Tracker's Name: GMT-MAX (Games Mega Torrrents) Genre: Games Sign-up Link: http://gmt-max.org/index.php?do=register Closing date: N/A Additional information: Very Nice but Russian Games torrent tracker for real gamers, containing everything you need for the gamer News of the game world Descriptions of the latest games Base of the oldest and the newest games of the last generation in the gaming industry