Tracker Name : Best-Core Signup Link : http://anonym.to/?http://best-core.info/kulso.php Genre : General Closing Date : Additional Information :

Tracker Name : Hentai-Loads Signup Link : http://anonym.to/?http://hentai-loads.to/signup.php Genre : Anime Closing Date : Additional Information :

WRONG news again!!!!! The named site requires PIN number, which means Not full open at all.

Wrong news again!!!! Mod's EDIT!

Tracker Name : HotVibes Signup Link : http://anonym.to/?http://hotvibes.org/register Genre : Music Closing Date : Additional Information :

FAKE news! Mod's EDIT!

Tracker Name : Movie Zone (Mz) Signup Link : http://anonym.to/?http://moviezone.ws/signup.php Genre : General Closing Date : Additional Information :

The Italian Court of Appeals has recalled a blocking order against the video streaming service Filmakerz.org. The court argued that the order was too broad and specified that partial blocking of a specific URL is preferred over site-wide blockage, while copyright infringing portals must have a for-profit angle. Back in March, the Public Prosecutor of Rome ordered national ISPs to block access to 46 torrent, streaming and other file-sharing websites. This move became the largest enforcement action against “pirate” websites in the country, and the authorities promised that it wouldn’t be the last. One of the services affected by the ban was Filmakerz.org, a video streaming service offering its subscribers a variety of films and TV-shows for free. The website was mainly popular in Italy, and its traffic plummeted as a result of the blockage. However, unlike most blocked websites, Filmakerz.org decided to appeal the decision and succeeded. A few days ago the Court of Appeals overturned the ban order against the website, confirming that it was too broad and therefore invalid. The panel of judges pointed out that each blocking request should specify the exact URLs which infringe copyrighted works, not just a single domain name. Since the court doesn’t have an exact location of the infringing material, the court cannot verify the validity of the blocking request. The attorneys of Filmakerz.org admitted that the ruling was a clear blow against the increasing censorship efforts in the country. They also cited two important ground rules specified by the court. The first was that the Public Prosecutor had to prove the existence of a for-profit motivation to block the site, while the second was that parts of the website that contain legal content must not affected. In other words, a partial seizure of an exact link is preferred over the seizure of the entire website. The ruling comes at a difficult time for Italian file-sharers: just a few days ago the country’s Electronic Communications Authority introduced new regulations that would allow foreign portals to be blocked more easily. As a result of the recent court ruling, local Internet service providers were instructed to unblock Filmakerz.org. Thus far, it is unclear if other blocked websites are going to appeal the blockade.

Although the Chinese authorities might like market forces, they still don’t want to have a method of payment they can’t control in their own country. It became known that a couple of Bitcoin exchanges dealing in the cyber currency have been forced to suspend bank transfers from citizens depositing yuan to purchase Bitcoins. One of those exchanges, FXBTC, confirmed that a number of banks had ordered it to close accounts used to take customer deposits, in accordance to the tightened regulations from the country’s Central Bank. It seems that since today all commercial banks and 3rd-party payment platforms have been ordered to close similar services tied to Bitcoin transfers. One exchange that suffered in the move, BTC38, made a similar announcement, saying that due to the “influence from China’s Central Bank”, the online service had been forced to revoke deposits made via bank transfers. Actually, this move was expected, because back in March the Chinese government said they wanted to tighten regulations covering the cyber currency. The China’s Central Bank required that all banks and 3rd-party payment firms close accounts operated by online Bitcoin exchanges by April 15. At the moment, it seems the enforcement is uneven one exchange – BTCTrade.com claimed on its website that it would temporarily suspend online currency transfer, but that bank transfers were still accepted. In addition, OKCoin also said its bank transfers were still in operation. The industry observers point out that Bitcoin was doing quite well in the country, but the country’s government is concerned with the currency’s lack of central monetary authority, as well as its potential use for laundering money. So far though the government has said people are free to buy Bitcoins.

Taking into account an election result which shows that most Turks do not care if their government is corrupt, the Turkish Prime Minister simply slammed a constitutional court ruling which lifted a ban on Twitter. While he is currently purging the state of anyone who disagrees with him, the constitutional court may find itself on his list as well. Prime Minister claimed that the court should have rejected a request to restore access to the micro-blogging website. He was cited in the news before departing on a trip to Azerbaijan that although the government did comply with the ruling, he didn’t respect it. Apparently, Twitter’s appeal should have been rejected on procedural grounds. We remind that access to Twitter was blocked last month in the run-up to national elections, but the country’s telecoms authority had to lift the 2-week-old ban after the court ruled the block breached freedom of speech. Turkish Prime Minister wanted the service offline so that opposition groups would stop using it in order to point out a corruption scandal that involved both Prime Minister and his ministers. The government had managed to silence the press, but couldn’t stop people chatting about it online. Unfortunately, his electoral base is in the less well-connected poorer regions of the country, and his voters didn’t actually care about corruption or whatever, so Prime Minister did well in the elections. Ironically enough, that means that all the politician has to do to become incredibly popular is be nicer to the well educated parts of country and allow more free speech. Perhaps, for Turkey this way is “too easy”.

City of London Police's anti-piracy campaign Operation Creative is pushing ahead with the disruption of copyright-infringing sites. On Monday, detectives arrested a man in his mid-20s on suspicion of operating several streaming links sites. The unit also suspended several domains, which now show a familiar warning banner. Speaking with TorrentFreak late last week, the Police Intellectual Property Crime Unit (PIPCU) clarified the stages behind Operation Creative, an ongoing campaign aimed at disrupting the activities of unauthorized content sites. “At the first instance of a website being identified, evidenced and confirmed as providing copyright infringing content, the site owner is contacted by officers at the PIPCU and offered the opportunity to engage with the police, to correct their behavior and to begin to operate legitimately,” a spokesperson explained. “In the contact sent to the website owners PIPCU clearly states that if a website fails to comply and engage with the police, then a variety of other tactical options may be used including; contacting the domain registrar to seek suspension of the site, disrupting advertising revenue and advert replacement.” But while disruption is clearly on the agenda, the police can also rely on the traditional investigation and arrest process. Earlier this week, that’s exactly what they did. pipcu-mapSometime on Monday morning, detectives from PIPCU carried out an arrest of a 26-year-old man in the UK. He was detained in York, England, a city located around four hours drive from PIPCU’s base in the City of London. The man was arrested on suspicion of operating a number of streaming-related domains. At the time of writing PIPCU has not responded to our requests for comment, but TF has discovered that earlier this week sports streaming domains BoxingGuru.co.uk, boxingguru.eu, boxingguru.tv and nutjob.eu were all suspended. The sites currently redirect to a page carrying a statement indicating they are under investigation for online copyright infringement. Police have not yet publicly linked their closure with the arrest on Monday.

This post will be reposted after a proper English translation. Sorry for inconvenience! Mod's edited!

Tracker Name : theshow.bz Signup Link : http://anonym.to/?http://theshow.bz/signup.php Genre : e-Learning Closing Date : Additional Information :

As first published by Fight Copyright Trolls over the past weekend, the latest new scare tactic being used by notorious porn copyright troll firm, Malibu Media, happens to be a polygraph test. We’ve discussed many times here on Slyck how atrocious it is that copyright troll law firms use scare tactics to try to get their victims to pay up “or else”, but this is the first we have heard about polygraph tests being used and it takes the definition of scare tactics to an all-time disturbing low. When it comes to alleged copyright infringement, we’ve seen how firms like Prenda Law, ACS Law and Malibu Media operate, and it’s far from impressive. When it comes to alleged porn copyright theft, it can be extremely embarrassing for any alleged infringer who does not want to risk exposure to friends and family for any porn related viewing or violation. Malibu Media has been sanctioned in the past for using embarrassing scare tactics. In a recent court document filed in the northern district of Illinois federal court by Malibu Media, an adult film company who operates website X-Art.com, Malibu cites several infringements by BitTorrent users in several cases. They state, “Plaintiff knows that during the period of January 1, 2014 through March 21, 2014, there were at least 175,000 Americans who infringed its content within the BitTorrent file distribution network, many of which reside in this district. Plaintiff has no other way to make the infringement stop and seek recourse for its losses than to bring a suit like the one before this Court.” They also stated in the complaint, “Unfortunately, many people have decided to take its movies illegally through the BitTorrent protocol instead of lawfully subscribing to its website.” Malibu explains it has adopted high standards prior to serving a defendant and in some cases has determined to not pursue a case based on insufficient evidence. Further down on page four of the document the lawyers add, “Further, Malibu will dismiss its claims against any Defendant who agrees to and passes a polygraph administered by a licensed examiner of the Defendant's choosing. Out of the entirety of polygraphs administered within the United States by Malibu, no Defendant has passed and all such examinations have subsequently led to the Defendant settling the case.” The court document also provides details on the number of cases filed, and the status of those cases. Malibu’s lawyers documented that they have “filed 268 cases within the Northern District of Illinois. Of these 268 cases, 25 cases were with joined defendants and 243cases were actions filed against a single Defendant, like the current case at hand. The 268 cases filed by Malibu had a total of 886 Defendants between them. Of these 886 defendants, 643 were within joined suits and 243 defendants were from cases against only a single defendant. Each defendant infringed, on average, 17.9 separate copyrighted works owned by Malibu between all 886 Defendants.” Of the cases, 49 defendants’ cases were dismissed for hardship, 259 were dismissed for insufficient evidence, and 304 were dismissed due to insufficient information from the ISPs. On page 14 of the court document, Malibu defends their practice by stating the following: “The undeniable fact is that some people and entities will never agree with the enforcement of copyrights on the Internet. At first, critics labeled “copyright trolls” as those who acquired copyrighted content for the sole purpose of litigation. Once Judge Baylson of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, as a component of Malibu’s Bellwether trial, determined that Malibu did not fit this definition of a “copyright troll,” the critics moved the goalposts and determined that any entity who derives an appreciable percent of their income from litigation is a “copyright troll.” Once it was disclosed that a de minimis percent of Malibu’s income is derived from litigation, the definition changed to an amorphous “anyone who files a lot of lawsuits.” With that definition, any person or entity owning content that is heavily infringed is destined to be called a “troll.” “Many internet blogs commenting on this and related cases ignore the rights of copyright owners to sue for infringement, and inappropriately belittle efforts of copyright owners to seek injunctions and damages.” While Malibu Media continues to defend their practice, we can only hope that their latest scare tactic of using a polygraph test will not set a example for other copyright trolls as well. We find this scare tactic scheme of their “business model” to be very disturbing.

Prenda Law, the firm that became controversial as a profligate "copyright troll" by suing thousands with lawsuits over downloading porn movies, has fallen apart over the course of the last year. The organization and the lawyers widely believed to be behind it—John Steele, Paul Hansmeier, and Paul Duffy—have been sanctioned by numerous federal judges. While Prenda has settled a few cases, most of the Prenda setbacks, including the original hammer-drop from US District Judge Otis Wright, are actually being appealed. Yesterday, the Prenda lawyers had their first oral argument (audio) on appeal in front of the US Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit. It went about as badly as close Prenda-watchers might expect. While it's dangerous to try to guess the results of an appeal based on questions at oral argument, it doesn't look good for Prenda. The judges repeatedly challenged the statements of Daniel Voelker—the attorney defending Steele, Hansmeier, and Duffy—and that's when things were going well for the once-vigorous copyright enforcer. The low point was probably when Judge Diane Sykes asked Voelker to describe the relationship between the three iterations of law firms that Steele and Hansmeier have gone through. "Can you describe to me, in 25 words or less, what the relationship is among these various firms: Steele Hansmeier PLLC, Prenda Law, Alpha Law?" asked Judge Diane Sykes. "I can't, Your Honor," said Voelker. "I don't know. I don't know what it is today, I don't know what it was a year ago." "That is shocking," said Sykes. Light speed toward failure The Lightspeed v. Smith case was one of several "hacking" claims that Prenda began to make in late 2012. By avoiding copyright, Prenda hoped to avoid federal court. Instead, it filed a lawsuit in state court in southern Illinois, seeking to get discovery for the names of 6,600 Internet users who Prenda claimed were somehow connected to Anthony Smith, a "master hacker" who had broken into a website owned by Lightspeed Media, a porn company. Lightspeed and Prenda failed to get the discovery they wanted when they were shot down by the Illinois Supreme Court. But they didn't back down. Instead, they sued Comcast and AT&T, saying the ISPs were "aiding and abetting" the hacking. The ISPs lawyered up, and the case ended up with Prenda losing badly and being ordered to pay more than $260,000 to cover the legal fees of Comcast, AT&T, and Smith. During the appeal, Voelker tried to move the discussion away from the murky relationships between the parties—the "shell game activity," as Sykes put it at one point. He hammered home his point that US District Judge Patrick Murphy's order amounted to assumptions and conjecture based on reading other court's orders—orders that were on appeal. Voelker also said that Judge Wright, who penned the original sanction against Prenda, had essentially reached his conclusions by surfing the Web. "[Murphy] found that the attorneys had a 'relentless willingness to lie,' and there's no support for that in the record," said Voelker. "He also found that they're 'starving attorneys with shattered law practices.' Those are basically facts that the district court in California found based upon Internet research." At least two of the judges on the three-judge panel clearly didn't see it that way. "Some of these misrepresentations were in front of him, though," said Judge Diane Wood. "There's an overall concern that this was a proceeding in bad faith. It's kind of an attempt to hold up these 6,600 people [and] see who will settle. It's a troublesome record." "The district judge... couldn't point to a single allegation they made that was untrue," said Voelker at one point. "He thought they were all frivolous, actually—as I read his opinion," said Sykes. "He may have," said Voelker. "But he still has an obligation under the law to identify what it is that's frivolous, and he just didn't do that. Instead, he just adopted conclusions from other courts and different cases involving different plaintiffs." That accusation caused Sykes to start reading the most damning part of district court judge's order aloud. "At the November 13 hearing, Hansmeier skirted the Court's questions, Steele made feigned protestations, and both flat-out lied about their association with Prenda Law, Inc. in the face of documentary evidence on the record in this case and their sworn declarations in other cases," she intoned. "That has nothing to do with whether, under [28 US Code section] 1927, the claim was baseless legally and factually," insisted Voelker. On the defense side, time was split between Bart Huffman, arguing for AT&T and Comcast, and Dan Booth, the lawyer representing defendant Anthony Smith. "Was there a reasonable inquiry?" asked Booth. "We don't believe there was. Judge Wright said they didn't have much more than a 'hunch and a rumor.' In this case, our client was misidentified. They had the wrong person. They said he conspired with 6,600 other people he didn't even know." The Lightspeed v. Smith case is one of several Prenda appeals that will be considered in the near future. In California, the Ingenuity 13 v. John Doe case that Wright oversaw has been fully briefed. Another company controlled by Prenda lawyers, AF Holdings, has an appeal being argued next week in Washington DC. While Prenda has mostly experienced setbacks since Wright's ruling last year, it was able to dodge one batch of sanctions last month when a Minnesota judge ruled that the US Magistrate Judge who had issued the sanctions overstepped his authority. Voelker tried his best to make hay out of that event yesterday, arguing that at least one judge had decided "on the merits" that sanctions against Prenda were wrong-headed. Defense lawyers said the March decision to overrule sanctions was more procedural in nature, relating to the bounds of the magistrate judge's power.