@Special i apply for filelist

welcome aboard hope you will enjoy your stay.

welcome aboard hope you will enjoy your stay.

welcome aboard hope you will enjoy your stay.

welcome hope you will enjoy your stay.

welcome hope you will enjoy your stay.

welcome. hope you will enjoy your stay.

Tracker Name: LosslessClub Freeleech Time (Remaining) : 12 hours 19 minutes 10 seconds Freeleech

Every week we take a close look at the most pirated movies on torrent sites. What are pirates downloading? 'Ghostbusters: Afterlife' tops the chart, followed by ‘The Matrix ResurrectionsSpider-Man: No Way Home'. 'Sing 2' completes the top three. The data for our weekly download chart is estimated by TorrentFreak, and is for informational and educational reference only. These torrent download statistics are only meant to provide further insight into the piracy trends. All data are gathered from public resources. This week we have one new entry on the list. “Ghostbusters: Afterlife” is the most downloaded title. The most torrented movies for the week ending on January 10 are: Movie RankRank Last WeekMovie NameIMDb Rating / Trailer Most downloaded movies via torrent sites 1(7)Ghostbusters: Afterlife7.6 / trailer 2(1)The Matrix Resurrections5.8 / trailer 3(…)Sing 27.6 / trailer 4(2)Spider-Man: No Way Home9.0 / trailer 5(5)Venom: Let There Be Carnage6.1 / trailer 6(8)No Time to Die7.5 / trailer 7(9)Dune8.3 / trailer 8(6)Encanto7.4 / trailer 9(3)Don’t Look Up7.3 / trailer 10(4)Resident Evil: Welcome to Raccoon City5.2 / trailer

YouTube-ripping service Yout.com is suing the RIAA in an attempt to have its platform declared legal in the US. The case boils down to whether YouTube has meaningful technical protection measures and whether Yout circumvents them. According to the RIAA, there is no question that Yout.com is in the wrong and it characterizes any claims to the contrary as "wordplay". Downloading audio and video is prohibited by YouTube’s terms of service but there are numerous ‘stream-ripping’ sites available on the web that do just that. These services are a thorn in the side of music industry outfits, who see them as a major piracy threat. The operators and users of the stream-ripping tools disagree and point out that there are legal uses as well. At the end of 2020, the operator of one of the largest stream-rippers took matters into his own hands. Instead of hiding in the shadows like some competitors, Yout.com owner Johnathan Nader sued the RIAA, asking the federal court in Connecticut to declare the service as non-infringing. The case has been ongoing for more than a year now and Yout.com has filed two amended complaints, which addressed earlier shortcomings and refined the legal arguments. At the heart of the dispute is the question of whether Yout’s service violates the DMCA’s provision that prohibits the circumvention of technological protection measures (TPMs). Yout.com argues that YouTube doesn’t have meaningful technical protection measures so there is nothing to circumvent. In just a few steps, anyone can download audio and video from the site without additional tools. This argument was reiterated last month when Yout responded to RIAA’s motion to dismiss the case. RIAA Responds to ‘No TPM’ Claim The RIAA sees things quite differently as it highlighted in a response filed at the court a few days ago. The music group points out that Yout repeats many of the arguments it previously made, which the RIAA characterizes as “wordplay”. “[Yout]’s opposition to RIAA’s motion to dismiss repeats many of the same failed arguments that Plaintiff made in the prior round of briefing and again resorts to wordplay to manufacture a disputed issue of fact,” RIAA writes. The music group specifically cites the DMCA which points out that a technological measure is considered a TPM if it, “in the ordinary course of its operation” requires a process or a treatment to access copyrighted video or audio. Yout’s defense noted that people can go through a series of steps to acquire a “sequence of numbers” in the “Request URL” to then download audio video from YouTube themselves. A valid point, but the RIAA notes that this actually confirms that there are protection measures in place. “[T]hose allegations actually prove that there is a TPM (rolling cipher or by any other name),” RIAA writes. “In the ordinary course, a YouTube user does not obtain or interact with a signature value or Request URL, or reach a download button—ever. In the ordinary course, the user only sees the stream of a music video.” No Cipher Needed The RIAA stresses that, even though Yout disputes the “rolling cipher” terminology, the service still helps to bypass copyright protections. That people can also bypass these on their own through a web browser doesn’t matter. The second part of the argument is that Yout circumvents these TPMs. The stream-ripper argued that it simply uses the publicly available code of YouTube’s website without disabling or voiding anything. However, the RIAA sees things in a different light. In fact, the music group uses Yout’s own words to argue that it is indeed circumventing protection measures. “Plaintiff pleads that it interacts with these TPMs by ‘modif[ying]’ the ‘range=’ numerical sequence. That the Yout service provides its users with an ‘automated’ way to avoid or bypass the TPMs to gain access to the file —including modifying a sequence of numbers in YouTube’s source code,— is textbook circumvention.” Court Will Decide The above makes it clear that both sides agree on most facts, but not on how these should be interpreted. It is now up to the court to decide which party has the best arguments. Needless to say, this decision is crucial to the future of Yout and many other stream-ripping services. In its complaint Yout also argued that RIAA’s takedown notices defamed the service, which resulted in a loss of revenue. This could come into play later, but only if Yout’s activities are not violating the DMCA.

Cloudflare doesn't remove anything in response to DMCA takedown notices unless it stores the content permanently on its network. However, the company will hand over the personal details of customers to copyright holders who obtain a DMCA subpoena. During the first half of 2021, civil subpoenas targeted hundreds of customers linked to more than 35,000 domains. Popular CDN and DDoS protection service Cloudflare has come under a lot of pressure from copyright holders in recent years. The company offers its services to millions of sites. This includes multinationals, governments, but also some of the world’s leading pirate sites. Not all rightsholders are happy with the latter. Some have accused Cloudflare of facilitating copyright infringement by continuing to provide access to these platforms. At the same time, they call out the CDN service for masking the true hosting locations of these ‘bad actors’. Cloudflare sees things differently. The company positions itself as a neutral service provider that doesn’t ‘host’ any infringing content. They just pass on information that is cached on its services temporarily. Identifying ‘Infringing’ Customers This means that if copyright holders send DMCA takedown requests to Cloudflare, the company takes no action other than forwarding the DMCA takedown notices to its customer. The customer can then take action, if appropriate. Not all rightsholders agree with this approach and some have filed lawsuits to hold Cloudflare liable. Others have gone to court to obtain DMCA subpoenas, which require the CDN provider to hand over all personal details it has on allegedly infringing customers. We regularly report on these DMCA subpoenas, which target torrent sites, streaming sites, and many other pirate portals. In its latest transparency report, Cloudflare reveals how many accounts and domain names were impacted. Subpoenas Target 35,382 Domain Names The report shows that during the first half of 2021 the number of targeted domains skyrocketed. The subpoenas, which include DMCA subpoenas, targeted 35,382 domain names. For comparison, ‘only’ 79 domains were targeted during the same period a year earlier. Domains Targeted by Civil (DMCA) Suboenas Based on these numbers it could be easy to conclude that copyright holders are ramping up their enforcement efforts, but that’s not necessarily the case. In fact, the number of civil subpoenas Cloudflare received during the six-month period increased only slightly. During the first half of 2021, Cloudflare received 45 subpoenas and the company answered them all. Together, these affected more than 325 Cloudflare customers. A year earlier the company received 31 subpoenas, which targeted 548 accounts. To comply with the subpoenas, Cloudflare can share the IP-addresses that were used to access the site as well as the login times. In addition, it can hand over other ‘basic subscriber info.’ “This basic subscriber data would include the information our customers provide at the time they sign up for our service, like name; email address; physical address; phone number; the means or source of payment of service,” Cloudflare writes. Removal and Blocking Requests Previously, courts have ordered Cloudflare to block specific sites but no new orders came in during the first half of last year. The company did respond to several DMCA takedown requests. In these cases, the reported content is stored on Cloudflare’s network. These regular DMCA takedown requests targeted 32 accounts and 367 domain names during the reporting period. This is a significant increase compared to a year earlier when 4 accounts and 4 domain names were impacted. Domains Targeted by Regular DMCA Notices Aside from copyright issues, Cloudflare also responds to other enforcement requests, including trap and trade orders and search warrants. These have also gone up over the years. These increases are not really unexpected as Cloudflare has grown its business significantly, the company explains. “While there has been a steady increase in the number of law enforcement requests since our first transparency report in 2013, this is due in part to the exponential increase in the number of Cloudflare customer domains during that time period.”

rally

sign

round

tickling

Artsa Da

only one

Yash Gera

Django Unchained

ball

try

The FBI has arrested a man who impersonated publishers and literary agents in order to fraudulently obtain hundreds of pre-release novels and other books in electronic form. Filippo Bernardini, 29, who worked at UK publisher Simon & Schuster, was detained upon arrival at JFK International Airport yesterday. Over the years there have been many schemes to obtain movies and TV shows before their commercial release. A notable example includes members of the MiLLENiUM Release Group who were sentenced in 2019. But while pirates who obtain video content in advance of its official release tend to grab the most headlines, a case developing in the United States reveals that valuable literary content such as pre-release novels can be targeted too. FBI Arrests Italian Man at JFK Airport Late Wednesday the Department of Justice revealed that the FBI had arrested Italian citizen Filippo Bernardini at John F. Kennedy International Airport for wire fraud and aggravated identity theft. He was detained in connection with a years-long scheme to obtain novels and other literary works in electronic form before their commercial release. “Filippo Bernardini allegedly impersonated publishing industry individuals in order to have authors, including a Pulitzer prize winner, send him prepublication manuscripts for his own benefit. This real-life storyline now reads as a cautionary tale, with the plot twist of Barnardini facing federal criminal charges for his misdeeds,” said U.S. Attorney Damian Williams. According to US authorities, the scheme to obtain the pre-release content had been running for at least five years. Indictment Unsealed The indictment, unsealed Wednesday in Manhattan federal court, alleges that beginning in August 2016, Bernardini – who was based in London and worked in publishing for Simon & Schuster – began impersonating agents, editors and other individuals in the industry to obtain pre-release literary manuscripts from his targets. This type of content is considered extremely valuable within the industry. As the indictment explains, should an unfinished work leak out to the public, any piracy can dramatically undermine the economics of publishing, undermine an author’s reputation, and interfere with secondary markets such as film adaptations. According to court records, Bernardini obtained hundreds of such works from hundreds of individuals. Sophisticated Phishing Operation It’s alleged that in order to carry out the scheme, Bernardini registered more than 160 domains that impersonated real entities and individuals involved in publishing, such as talent agencies, publishing houses, and literary scouts. The domain names were designed to be confusingly similar to real entities by including subtle typographical errors (such as replacing ‘m’ with the letters ‘rn’) that were difficult to spot. In tandem with these domains, Bernardini allegedly created email addresses in the names of actual people who worked at the corresponding entities and used them to contact authors, managers, agents, publishers, and editors to solicit unpublished books, novels and other content. One of his targets was an unnamed Pulitzer Prize-winning author who handed over the requested manuscript. Email records held by the defendant show that he impersonated hundreds of people and engaged in hundreds of attempts to obtain electronic copies of unreleased content. In addition, Bernardini also lured unsuspecting targets to at least two fake websites where they were prompted to enter their usernames and passwords. These credentials were later used to gain unlawful access to a database maintained by a New York-based scouting company. Statutory Allegations According to the indictment the scheme ran from August 2016 to around July 2021 and was designed to obtain money and property under false and fraudulent pretenses, causing valuable and unpublished literary manuscripts to be sent and received by means of wire, contrary to the law. The Grand Jury charges also contain allegations of aggravated identity theft. For the wire fraud charge, Bernardini, 29, of London, United Kingdom, faces a maximum sentence of 20 years in prison. For the aggravated identity theft charge he faces a possible mandatory consecutive sentence of 2 years in prison. Simon & Schuster, which is not accused of wrongdoing, said it was “shocked and horrified” to learn of the allegations against Bernardini. “The safekeeping of our authors’ intellectual property is of primary importance to Simon & Schuster, and for all in the publishing industry, and we are grateful to the FBI for investigating these incidents and bringing charges against the alleged perpetrator,” the company said.

A new report published by the UK's Intellectual Property Office reveals that online piracy was slightly up in 2021 versus the previous year. Overall, however, online piracy figures have remained fairly stable over the past five years, with some tentative signs that hardcore pirates are still on the wane. Each year the UK Government publishes a new edition of its Online Copyright Infringement Tracker which reveals the results of an annual survey polling the piracy habits of people twelve years old and above. The UK Intellectual Property Office has just published the results of the 11th wave which took place in 2021. A different methodology has been deployed since the 9th wave in an effort to produce robust results and additional insight. In common with earlier years, its a mixed bag of good and bad news for rightsholders. Key Points in Summary Overall consumption of content (via legal and illegal sources) increased during this wave across a number of categories, particularly in streaming of content which reached the highest point seen thus far. Consumption of live sports also bounced back to pre-COVID levels and there were small increases in those downloading music, film and TV. In most cases, however, figures were still down on the pre-COVID-19 peak. Once again the main drivers for accessing content online were the choice and variety of content on offer, the ability to access content immediately, and the cost. In terms of infringing consumption, overall infringement for all content categories sat at 25%, up from the 23% reported during the 10th wave tracker. While this represents a small increase, overall infringement levels have remained relatively stable over the past five years, meaning that on average a quarter of consumers are still using illegal sources either in whole or in part. Music, Movies, TV, Live Sports This is not all bad news for rightsholders, however. In music, for example, the number of consumers who only access content from legal sources (download and streaming) increased to 85% (+3%) with only 2% using illegal sources exclusively. In respect of film consumption, 80% of respondents consumed only from legal sources, 17% consumed from a mix of legal and illegal, and a stubborn 3% refused to consume anything legally, all unchanged since 2020. The overall level of infringement also remained static at 20%. While not much has changed in the TV piracy world, the situation hasn’t worsened and there are signs of a slight improvement. While overall levels remained stable at 14% in 2021, the number of consumers accessing content purely from legal platforms increased to 86% (+1%) with just 2% downloading or streaming from only illegal sources. Live sports is an unusual category in that the availability of sporting events during the COVID-19 lockdown was severely diminished. In 2020, just 8% engaged with live sports overall but in 2021 there was a significant boost to 15%, almost double the figure in the previous year. Interestingly, however, overall levels of infringement dropped from 37% in 2020 to 29% in 2021. Video Games and Other Content Overall infringement remained stable in the video games category at 11% in 2021, with just 2% of consumers accessing content only from illegal sources. In software, overall infringement was up from 20% in 2020 to 23% in 2021 while infringement of e-books decreased by 3% from the previous year to 14%. Overall infringement of digital magazines also decreased in this wave from 28% in 2020 to 27% in 2021 but the same cannot be said about audiobooks, which jumped from 14% in 2020 to 24% in 2021. “Behaviour Change Opportunities” In addition to tracking consumption, the UK Government’s annual report also seeks to highlight areas where pirates of all kinds can be encouraged to consume more legal content. In the previous wave, the report found that alluding to the financial impact of infringement on individuals within industries was more engaging than talking about industries as a whole. There is no broad change in the 2021 report but the study adds some nuance. “The communications testing this year managed to drill down further into which individuals to focus on and showed that participants found it hard to sympathize with big artists, producers, executives etc. who are seen to have a lot of money and success. Rather, speaking about smaller artists or smaller production companies as well as those individuals employed by industries in the background elicited more positive responses,” the report reads. Interestingly, the previous report (conducted just three months into the pandemic) described an “underwhelming response” to messages related to the impact of COVID-19 on the creative industries. This time around, things had changed. “One year on, however, with the pandemic ongoing at the time of research, messages about the continued strain on funds and reports of job losses were seen as some of the most impactful messages and caused some participants to reconsider their behavior.” Concerns (or lack of) Among Pirates In an effort to deter pirates, the entertainment industries, particularly those in film, TV and broadcasting, have been pushing a narrative of malware and other cyber-related threats in recent years. The study found that while these worry some less experienced infringers, those who infringe regularly are much less concerned. While not discounting potential threats, more experienced users said they had built trust in the sources they use and after not experiencing any issues, feel safe to continue using them. “The notion of increased cyber security threats during the pandemic didn’t seem to increase concern, with many saying they would remain vigilant and knew the warning signs of untrustworthy content to look out for,” the report reads. When presented with hypothetical scenarios around potential enforcement, the most effective proposition for making participants reconsider was the possibility that internet providers might send them warnings and eventually cut off internet access, followed by “greater implementation and enforcement of fines.” At the time of writing a new ISP warning campaign seems unlikely after the most recent venture was abandoned in 2019. Fines (or more accurately settlement letters) are being sent out in the UK but currently cover a very small volume of content sent out by a handful of rightsholders.

During its heyday, Popcorn-Time.to had millions of active users but these and other forks have lost their shine. The piracy tool that once had Netflix CEO Reed Hastings worried has decided to shut down. The team informs TorrentFreak that a lack of use is the main reason behind this decision, which is likely the result of competition from other pirate tools. When the original Popcorn Time application launched eight years ago, we billed it as the “Netflix for Pirates.” The software offered a clean and easy-to-use interface to stream pirated movies and TV shows, all powered by BitTorrent. Rivaling Hollywood and Netflix In the years that followed Popcorn Time had to endure plenty of legal threats, mostly from Hollywood. The original developers were quick to throw in the towel but the open source code was widely copied with Popcorn-Time.to emerging as one of the leading forks. During those early years, millions of people used the software. This was a major concern for Hollywood and Netflix began worrying too when Google searches for Popcorn Time began rivaling those for Netflix in some regions. “Piracy continues to be one of our biggest competitors,” Netflix CEO Reed Hastings commented in 2015, specifically mentioning Popcorn Time’s growing popularity. This triggered a wave of enforcement actions including a lawsuit in the US, targeting the alleged operator of Popcorn-Time.to (later .tw). That case was eventually dismissed after the movie companies realized that they had identified the wrong person. Ultimately the fork remained online. Popcorn-Time.tw Shuts Down Despite weathering several storms, the curtain finally fell for Popcorn-Time.tw this week but legal issues didn’t play a role. Speaking with TorrentFreak, the Popcorn Time team says that decreased interest from the pirating public drove it to take this drastic decision. “It’s time to say goodbye,” the Popcorn Time team notes. “The world doesn’t need Popcorn Time anymore.” This decreased popularity is in large part the result of competition from other pirate tools that rendered the software pretty much obsolete. Pirate streaming sites and dedicated streaming boxes have surged in popularity over the years, effectively taking over the “Netflix for Pirates” role. Alternatives Take Over The shift in preference also had a clear impact on Popcorn Time usage numbers. A few years ago millions of people regularly used the software but most of those people moved on to more convenient alternatives. This evolution is also summarized by a Google Trends graph posted by Popcorn Time as part of its farewell message. Interest in the application continues to wane, and the days when it rivaled Netflix in some regions have long gone. Popcorn Time’s demise doesn’t mean that Netflix has successfully beaten online piracy of course. Pirate streaming sites and devices remain a massive challenge, and Netflix content is still widely pirated on regular torrent sites as well. Also, pirates who really insist on using Popcorn Time can probably still find a working fork somewhere. The official Popcorn Time repository on GitHub remains online, even though the associated PopcornTime.app domain has been offline for nearly a year.

A. Tell us something about yourself? i m a student B. How did you find InviteHawk? by reddit C. What Torrent Sites are you looking for? (Mention none if just browsing) D. Do you use the same username or email on InviteHawk as well as on trackers? (If yes, please fill a Username Change or Email Change form) no E. Do you have any suggestions for InviteHawk? not atm