I have Hdcenter account..pm me your peice,.

waffles + TT invites?

I WTB cs.go ( counter strike global ofensive items ). i can buy or give tracker invites accounts for them. If you have cs.go items...shot me a PM.

wrong topic ! here you can buy not trade.....if you wanna buy..i have an invite..pm me your price.

if you need an account ..pm me

wrong topic....here you can buy invites not trades.

Just as discussion moves away from the punitive measures that did little to curtail piracy in the last decade, an Australian minister has urged a return. Communications Minister Malcolm Turnbull says that in order to send a clear message, rightsholders need to "roll up their sleeves" and strategically sue some "moms, dads and students." When countries and major rightsholders have announced their new anti-piracy strategies in recent times, several approaches have become apparent. Instead of pure head-on attacks against websites, their finances are being undermined through deals with advertisers and their sites blocked online. Rather than attempting to batter ISPs into submission through the courts, partnerships are sought instead. And when it comes to the end user, it’s largely education and more education. In Australia the debate is familiar. On top of a legal framework to have websites blocked at network level, rightsholders are now seeking friendly cooperation from ISPs in order to deliver a message to subscribers that content should be purchased, not pirated. The debate is well underway with the government seeking input from interested parties. Communications Minister Malcolm Turnbull has been putting pressure on rightsholders to ramp up their game in respect of pricing and availability too, which is definitely a step in the right direction. But yesterday, during a televised interview with Rupert Murdoch’s Sky News, Turnbull made comments that transport the debate back many years, raising the specter of tough punitive action to send an anti-piracy message. At first things started as expected, with the Minister telling Sky that people need to be educated. He raised the usual shoplifting and stealing analogies, noting that taking content from supermarkets is no different from downloading content online. Then, after outlining New Zealand’s “three strikes” system, he noted that if content owners are suffering losses, then it should be them who foot the bill for any introduced anti-piracy measures. Content owners aside, few would disagree there. Turnbull also noted that disconnections for persistently pirating Internet users would be met with a lot of resistance so were probably off the table, but then the bombshell. “Rightsholders are not keen on taking people to court, because it doesn’t look good, because it’s bad publicity. What happens if the person you sue is a single mother, what happens if it’s a teenager, what happens if it’s a retiree on a low income?” Turnbull said. “The bottom line is though, rightsholders are going to have to be tactical about who they take to court, who they want to sue.” Education, it seems, only goes so far in Turnbull’s eyes. In addition there will need to be punishments for those who don’t get the message and that in turn will help to solve the problem. “What you do is that when you raise awareness of this, and as people recognize that there is a risk that they will be sued, and have to pay for what they have stolen, then the level of infringement and theft will decline,” the Minister said. So who should the rightsholders “strategically” target? “It is absolutely critical that rightsholders…are prepared to actually roll their sleeves up and take on individuals. They have got to be prepared to sue people. Sue moms and dads and students who are stealing their content. They can’t expect everybody else to do that for them,” Turnbull said. This kind of aggression from a key Minister in this debate is bound to raise alarm bells. As rightholders head down the cooperation and education route, here is a clear sign that the government thinks that yet more legal action against the public will solve the problem. It won’t, and ISPs such as iiNet almost certainly won’t like the sound of this either. Whether this will hurt cooperation moving forward remains to be seen, but it’s likely to paint a picture of a government and an industry holding up new carrots, but keeping the same old tired stick in reserve, just in case. The whole interview can be seen here. ←Previous Post…

Government communication obtained through a Freedom of Information inquiry reveals that several people have asked the authorities to shut down The Pirate Bay. The requests were originally sent to the FBI, who were also contacted by a mother looking for advice on how to deal with the pirating father of her son. There is no doubt that copyright holders repeatedly press the authorities to take action against The Pirate Bay. So, when a Pirate Bay-related Freedom of Information request was sent to Homeland Security’s National Intellectual Property Rights Coordination Center, we expected to see letters from the major music labels and Hollywood studios. Interestingly that was not the case. Late June Polity News asked Homeland Security to reveal all information the center holds on the notorious torrent site. Earlier this week the responses were received, mostly consisting of requests from individuals to shut down The Pirate Bay. In total the center received 15 emails, and all appear to have been forwarded by the FBI, where they were apparently first sent. Some of the emails only list a few pirate site domains but others are more specific in calling for strong action against The Pirate Bay. “Why don’t you seize all THE PIRATE BAY domains? Starting with thepiratebay.se. You have no idea how much good that would do to writers, artists, musicians, designers, inventors, software developers, movie people and our global economy in general,” one email reads. The emails are all redacted but the content of the requests sometimes reveals who the sender might be. The example below comes from the author of “The Crystal Warrior,” which is probably the New Zealand author Maree Anderson. “The Pirate Bay states that it can’t be held responsible for copyright infringement as it is a torrent site and doesn’t store the files on its servers. However the epub file of my published novel The Crystal Warrior has been illegally uploaded there,” the email reads. The author adds that she takes a strong stand against piracy, but that her takedown notices are ignored by The Pirate Bay. She hopes that the authorities can take more effective action. “Perhaps you would have more luck in putting pressure on them than one individual like myself. And if you are unable to take further action, I hope this notification will put The Pirate Bay in your sights so you can keep an eye on them,” the author adds. Most of the other requests include similar calls to action and appear to come from individual copyright holders. However, there is also a slightly more unusual request. The email in question comes from the mother of a 14-year-old boy whose father is said to frequently pirate movies and music. The mother says she already visited an FBI office to report the man and is now seeking further advice. Apparently she previously reached out to the MPAA, but they weren’t particularly helpful. “MPAA only wanted to know where he was downloading and could not help. I ask you what can I do, as a parent, to prevent a 14-year-old from witnessing such a law breaking citizen in his own home?” the mother writes. “It is not setting a good example for him and I don’t think that it is right to subject him to this cyber crime. Devices on websites used: www.piratebay.com for downloads and www.LittleSnitch.com so he won’t be detected. This is not right. Any help would be appreciated,” she adds. All of the revealed requests were sent between 2012 and 2014. Thus far, however, the Department of Homeland Security nor the FBI have taken any action against the Pirate Bay. Whether the pirating dad is still on the loose remains unknown for now, but chances are he’s still sharing music and movies despite the FBI referral. Tagged in: fbi, tpb

The top 10 most downloaded movies on BitTorrent are in again. 'Divergent‘ tops the chart this week, followed by ‘Captain America: The Winter Soldier.' 'The Expendables 3' completes the top three. This week we have three newcomers in our chart. Divergent is the most downloaded movie this week. The data for our weekly download chart is estimated by TorrentFreak, and is for informational and educational reference only. All the movies in the list are BD/DVDrips unless stated otherwise. RSS feed for the weekly movie download chart. Ranking (last week) Movie IMDb Rating / Trailer torrentfreak.com 1 (2) Divergent 7.2 / trailer 2 (…) Captain America: The Winter Soldier 8.1 / trailer 3 (1) The Expendables 3 (DVDscr) ?.? / trailer 4 (8) Dawn of the Planet of the Apes (TS) 8.3 / trailer 5 (5) The Amazing Spider-Man 2 7.4 / trailer 6 (3) The Other Woman 6.5 / trailer 7 (…) 22 Jump Street (TS) 7.8 / trailer 8 (4) Need For Speed 7.1 / trailer 9 (…) Batman: Assault on Arkham 7.4 / trailer 10 (7) Noah 6.3 / trailer

Yesterday marked the one year anniversary of Russia's controversial anti-piracy law. Figures released by Russia's telecoms agency reveal that in the past year 12 sites, mainly torrent trackers, were blocked under the legislation. Critics say that web-blocking has changed very little, with pirate content just as easy to find as before. Following intense pressure from local and international rightsholders, on August 1, 2013, Russia introduced a brand new anti-piracy law. The key strength of the legislation is that provides a mechanism for sites to be blocked should they not comply with rightsholder takedown requests within 72 hours. This element of the framework caused widespread fear and speculation. Would thousands of sites, some carrying legitimate content, find themselves censored at the hands of over-broad legislation tipped heavily in favor of “corporate interests”? Frankly, no. Concern that rightsholders would stampede to court to quickly wipe out as many sites as possible proved unfounded. Out of 19 complaints filed in the first three weeks of the law, just 11 were correctly presented and processed. Torrent site Rutor.org was one of the earliest casualties. After five months in action, rightsholders had filed around 75 official complaints. In 30 cases the targeted sites complied with official removal orders and in 19 others a decision was taken by the authorities to block offending URLs. Then, just six months later, Minister of Communications Nikolai Nikiforov announced that the law was having the required effect. “The law has actually brought us serious results,” he said. “We found that [the law's introduction] resulted in an increase of 30% in the number of people who pay for legal content. This is a major achievement. Our country plans to increase the number of consumers of legal content on the Internet to 30 million people by 2018.” Critics remain doubtful of the dramatic turnaround and throughout the year there has been little downturn in the number of rightsholders complaining about piracy. Yesterday marked the one year anniversary of the new law’s introduction and it’s fair to say there were no festivities. According to figures obtained by Izvestia from telecoms watchdog Roscomnadzor, during the past year the Moscow City Court imposed preliminary interim measures against 175 sites following copyright complaints. The Court went on to block a total of 12 file-sharing related domains, most of them BitTorrent trackers. This number is far below the numbers predicted one year ago. Perhaps unsurprisingly a far greater number of IP addresses were eventually blocked, 99 in total. “This is due to the fact that the sites tried to avoid blocking by migrating to other IP-addresses that Roscomnadzor also monitors and places on the registry,” a spokesman said. But despite all the complaints and blocking, pirated content is still easy to find, a key issue that doesn’t appear to be going away anytime soon. Nevertheless, the watchdog says that things are improving. “If you want to find illegal content on the web, you still can today. But rightsholders now have the opportunity to make an impact on legal grounds, which is most critical for them in terms of the spread of pirated content. They are also beginning to unite to close pirated resources for longer,” the spokesman said. Furthermore, fears expressed by search engines that the law would negatively impact the web have not come to pass. “As for the dissatisfaction shown by Internet companies following the entry into force of the law, neither Google, Mail.ru, or Yandex has suffered from it. Many areas, where earlier there was illegal content, are now beginning to build into legitimate businesses.” But despite positivity from the watchdog, critics remain. “If you want to download any movie and can spend five minutes and still download it, then the law has brought no benefits,” Wikimedia executive director Stanislav Kozlovsky told Izvestia. “Also remaining are the problems caused by the very principle of blocking IP-addresses. If a pirate site is suddenly blocked, it costs nothing to move to a different address. This problem is solved in just a day.” Only time will tell if Russia’s legislative moves will pay off in the end, but if the first 12 months are anything to go by, they will have to wait considerably longer yet.

Last week The Expendables 3 leaked online and thousands shared it illegally. While most sat in the shadows, David Pierce, an editor at The Verge, admitted to engaging in what amounts to the criminal distribution of an unreleased copyright work. Is it now OK to confess to jailable offenses as long as they're piracy-related? Last week’s leak of The Expendables 3 was a pretty big event in the piracy calendar and as TF explained to inquiring reporters, that is only achieved by getting the right mix of ingredients. First and foremost, the movie was completely unreleased meaning that private screenings aside, it had never hit a theater anywhere in the world. Getting a copy of a movie at this stage is very rare indeed. Secondly, the quality of the leaked DVD was very good indeed. Third, and we touched on this earlier, are the risks involved in becoming part of the online distribution mechanism for something like this. Potentially unfinished copies of yet-to-be-released flicks can be a very serious matter indeed, with custodial sentences available to the authorities. And yet this week, David Pierce, Assistant Managing Editor at The Verge, wrote an article in which he admitted torrenting The Expendables 3 via The Pirate Bay. PIRATE CONFESSIONS – UNCUT “The Expendables 3 comes out August 15th in thousands of theaters across America. I watched it Friday afternoon on my MacBook Air on a packed train from New York City to middle-of-nowhere Connecticut. I watched it again on the ride back. And I’m already counting down the days until I can see it in IMAX,” he wrote. Pierce’s article, and it’s a decent read, talks about how the movie really needs to be seen on the big screen. It’s a journey into why piracy can act as promotion and how the small screen experience rarely compensates for seeing this kind of movie in the “big show” setting. Pierce is a great salesman and makes a good case but that doesn’t alter the fact that he just admitted to committing what the authorities see as a pretty serious crime. The Family Entertainment and Copyright Act of 2005 refers to it as “the distribution of a work being prepared for commercial distribution, by making it available on a computer network accessible to members of the public, if such person knew or should have known that the work was intended for commercial distribution.” The term “making it available” refers to uploading and although one would like to think that punishments would be reserved only for initial leakers (if anyone), the legislation fails to specify. It seems that merely downloading and sharing the movie using BitTorrent could be enough to render a user criminally liable, as this CNET article from 2005 explains. So with the risks as they are, why would Pierce put his neck on the line? Obviously, he wanted to draw attention to the “big screen” points mentioned above and also appreciates plenty of readers. It’s also possible he just wasn’t aware of the significance of the offense. Sadly, our email to Pierce earlier in the week went unanswered so we can’t say for sure. But here’s the thing. There can be few people in the public eye, journalists included, who would admit to stealing clothes from a Paris fashion show in order to promote Versace’s consumer lines when they come out next season. And if we wrote a piece about how we liberated aHonda Type R prototype from the Geneva Motor Show in order to boost sales ahead of its consumer release next year, we’d be decried as Grand Theft Auto’ists in need of discipline. What this seems to show is that in spite of a decade-and-a-half’s worth of “piracy is theft” propaganda, educated and eloquent people such as David Pierce still believe that it is not, to the point where pretty serious IP crimes can be confessed to in public. At the very least, the general perception is that torrenting The Expendables 3 is morally detached from picking up someone’s real-life property and heading for the hills. And none of us would admit to the latter, would we? Hollywood and the record labels will be furious that this mentality persists after years of promoting the term “intellectual property” and while Lionsgate appear to have picked their initial targets (and the FBI will go after the initial leakers), the reality is that despite the potential for years in jail, it’s extremely unlikely the feds will be turning up at the offices of The Verge to collar Pierce. Nor will they knock on the doors of an estimated two million other Expendables pirates either. And everyone knows it. As a result, what we have here is a crazy confession brave article from Pierce which underlines that good movies are meant to be seen properly and that people who pirate do go on to become customers if the product is right. And, furthermore, those customers promote that content to their peers, such as the guy on the train who looked over Pierce’s shoulder when he was viewing his pirate booty. “He won’t be the last person I tell to go see The Expendables 3 when it hits theaters in August,” Pierce wrote. “And I’ll be there with them, opening night. I know the setlist now, I know all the songs by heart, but I still want to see the show.” Pierce’s initial piracy was illegal, no doubt, but when all is said and done (especially considering his intent to promote and invest in the movie) it hardly feels worthy of a stay in the slammer. I venture that the majority would agree – and so the cycle continues.

People sometimes ask how the artists will get paid if - no, when - the copyright monopoly is abolished. This question is not based on facts. Every time somebody questions the copyright monopoly, and in particular, whether it’s reasonable to dismantle freedom of the press, freedom of assembly, freedom of speech, freedom of information, and the privacy of correspondence just to maintain a distribution monopoly for an entertainment industry, the same question pops up out of nowhere: “How will the artists get paid?”. The copyright industry has been absolutely phenomenal in misleading the public in this very simple matter, suggesting that artists’ income somehow depend on a distribution monopoly of publishers. If the facts were out, this debate would have been over 20 years ago and the distribution monopoly already abolished quite unceremoniously. There are three facts that need to be established and hammered in whenever somebody asks this question. First: Less than one percent of artists’ income comes from the copyright monopoly. Read that sentence again. The overwhelming majority of artists get their income today from student loans, day jobs, unemployment benefits, and so on and so forth. One of the most recent studies (“Copyright as Incentive”, in Swedish as “Upphovsrätten som incitament”, 2006) quotes a number of 0.9 per cent as the average income share of artists that can be directly attributed to the existence of the copyright monopoly. The report calls the direct share of artists’ income “negligible”, “insignificant”. However, close to one hundred per cent of publishers’ income – the income of unnecessary, parasitic middlemen – is directly attributable to the copyright monopoly today. Guess who’s adamant about defending it? Hint: not artists. Second: 99.99% of artists never see a cent in copyright monopoly royalties.Apart from the copyright industry’s creative accounting and bookkeeping – arguably the only reason they ever had to call themselves the “creative industry” – which usually robs artists blind, only one in ten thousand artists ever see a cent in copyright-monopoly-related royalties. Yes, this is a real number: 99% of artists are never signed with a label, and of those who are, 99% of those never see royalties. It comes across as patently absurd to defend a monopolistic, parasitic system where only one in ten thousand artists make any money with the argument “how will the artists make money any other way?”. Third: Artists’ income has more than doubled because of culture-sharing. Since the advent of hobby-scale unlicensed manufacturing – which is what culture-sharing is legally, since it breaks a manufacturing monopoly on copies – the average income for musicians has risen 114%, according to a Norwegian study. Numbers from Sweden and the UK show the same thing. This shift in income has a direct correlation to hobby-based unlicensed manufacturing, as the sales of copies is down the drain – which is the best news imaginable for artists, since households are spending as much money on culture before (or more, according to some studies), but are buying in sales channels where artists get a much larger piece of the pie. Hobby-based unlicensed manufacturing has meant the greatest wealth transfer from parasitic middlemen to artists in the history of recorded music. As a final note, it should be told that even if artists went bankrupt because of sustained civil liberties, that would still be the way to go. Any artist that goes from plinking their guitar in the kitchen to wanting to sell an offering is no longer an artist, but an entrepreneur; the same rules apply to them as to every other entrepreneur on the planet. Specifically, they do not get to dismantle civil liberties because such liberties are bad for business. But as we see, we don’t even need to take that into consideration, for the entire initial premise is false. Kill copyright, already. Get rid of it. It hurts innovation, creativity, our next-generation industries, and our hard-won civil liberties. It’s not even economically defensible.

The Federation Against Copyright Theft has claimed yet another victim on the private torrent site scene. In order to avoid being dragged through the courts, this week the admin of TorrentShack will close down the site and hand over its domain to the Hollywood-backed anti-piracy group. When it comes to closing down torrent sites, two anti-piracy groups stand out as achieving that in numbers. Dutch anti-piracy group BREIN has closed dozens of smaller sites located in the Netherlands and the Federation Against Copyright Theft has been carrying out similar work in the UK. FACT’s tactics of hunting down, identifying and then threatening torrent site operators have proven very successful in the past. The impact of having FACT’s representatives at the front door has resulted in the closure of many sites, while emailed threats have only added to the tally. Yesterday came news of another closure, this time of TorrentShack, a long-standing and loved-by-many private tracker. The exact mechanism of FACT’s contacts with the site’s operator haven’t been made public, but it’s clear that the anti-piracy group has placed the site under a lot of pressure. “It seems once again that FACT (Federation Against Copyright Theft) have gone after the small site rather than those that make thousands each and every month in profit,” the site’s operator announced over the weekend. “I have been under investigation by FACT for some time it seems and to avoid being dragged through the courts and having huge legal fee’s I have to adhere to their demands.” FACT’s usual demands involve closing the site and handing over the site’s domain, and in TorrentShack’s (TSH) case they have kept to their usual format. “They have said that I need to hand them over the domain to this site and to cease my involvement with running such a site. If I comply then any and all charges against me will be dropped,” TSH’s admin explained. It’s predicted that the TorrentShack.net domain will be handed over to FACT during the next few days. It’s possible a FACT ‘warning’ page will replace the site but many ‘seized’ domains simply lie dormant. While the site’s users will no doubt be disappointed by the site’s closure, those concerned about FACT getting their hands on the site’s database can rest easy – the TSH admin has assured users that no such request has been made. “In simple terms, the Domain is simply the URL you type in to visit the site. It has no connection with your accounts, your security. There is no reason fro anyone to worry,” TSH assures site users. “It’s been a great run and I have really enjoyed what we have done here over the last few years. I want to thank everyone that has made it possible. I guess I proved that what they said ‘Couldn’t’ be done…. Actually ‘Could’ be done.” OpenTrackers has further information on the site here.

Continuing its attacks on piracy-related domains, the UK Police Intellectual Property Crime Unit has shut down the proxy service Immunicity and several torrent site proxies. The domain names have been suspended by their registrar eNom and now display a banner warning that the police are investigating the matter. Since last year City of London Police have been working together with copyright holders to topple sites that provide or link to pirated content. The police started by sending warning letters to site owners, asking them to go legit or shut down. Late last year this was followed by a campaign targeted at domain registrars, asking them to suspend the domain namesof several “illegal” sites. A few days ago police sent out another round of requests to U.S.-based domain name registrar eNom, asking it to suspend the domains of several allegedly infringing sites. Although the requests were made without a court order or other authority, eNom has complied and effectively shut down the sites. Among the new targets is Immunicity, a general proxy server that was set up as a censorship circumvention tool. The police action against Immunicity is concerning as the service merely allows users to route their traffic through a proxy network, much like other anonimizing services such as TOR and VPNs do. The service itself doesn’t host or link to infringing content. In addition in Immunicity the Pirate Bay proxy Piratereverse.info and KickassTorrents proxies Kickassunblock.info and Katunblock.com were taken down as well. The same happened with movie2kproxy.com, h33tunblock.info and several other sites. The DNS entries of the domains have all been replaced and now point at a PIPCU IP-address which displays a warning banner. Based on letters that were sent out to registrars previously, the police accuse proxy services and sites of running a criminal operation. While no court order has been obtained, PIPCU claims to have launched an investigation into the sites and has asked the domain registrar to cooperate. “The owners of the aforementioned domains are suspected to be involved in the criminal distribution of copyrighted material either directly or indirectly and are liable to prosecution under UK law for the following offences: Conspiracy to Defraud, Offences under the Fraud Act 2006, Copyright, Design & Patents Act 1988,” PIPCU states. “Should a conviction be brought for the above offences, UK courts may impose sentences of imprisonment and/or fines. PIPCU has criminal and civil powers in UK law to seize money, belongings and any property in connection with these offences.” It’s important to note that the City of London Police has no authority to order domain registrars to take action since there is no court order or other warrant underlying the request. However, it turns out that police letterhead is sometimes enough to throw due process concerns overboard. TorrentFreak has asked PIPCU for a comment on the most recent actions, but we have yet to hear back.

A series of ads created by a New Zealand-based ISP has been rejected by Sky TV on copyright grounds. The ban on the ads, which contain references to a VPN-like service providing access to geo-blocked content such as Netflix, has been decried as "unjustified and petty" by ISP Slingshot. For millions of Internet users around the world the Internet has broken down geographical borders like no other invention in history. Nevertheless, for those looking to consume entertainment online, digital checkpoints still exist in many countries. Restricting content availability to certain ranges of IP addresses, or ‘geo-blocking’ as it’s know, allows content providers to dictate who gets access to films, TV shows and music, at what price, and when. As a result, citizens of countries such as Australia regularly complain that they’re denied content quickly and then charged more for it when it arrives. As expected, however, many citizens choose to break down these borders by using VPNs and proxies, which enable them to access services such as Netflix regardless of their region. Last month, Kiwi ISP Slingshot admitted that its VPN-like ‘Global Mode’ service was actually designed to provide its customers with access to Amazon Prime, Hulu, Netflix US, and BBC iPlayer. Now it appears that the admission will have consequences for Slingshot after a major broadcaster refused to run its ads on copyright grounds. A spokeswoman for Sky TV confirmed to Stuff that a series of advertisements containing references to Slingshot’s Global Mode were rejected by the company. “We are a business that pays people who create television so we are against any form of piracy or the undermining of intellectual property rights,” Sky TV spokeswoman Kirsty Way said. Slingshot general manager Taryn Hamilton decried the move as “unjustified and petty” and said there would be no need for Global Mode if providers would offer content in a timely fashion at a fair price. “When and if local companies manage to finally crack that, then there will be no need for the service. But, until that time, people will use services like Global Mode so that they can see decent TV without having to get a second mortgage,” Hamilton said.