@Ashitaka have you tried Contacting them on there IRC to get your account undisabled ? trying to work out all the places they recruit .......

fantastic Site loads of members and content Fast as well easy and fair

@Ashitaka Just What are all the Ways of Getting access to this tracker in 2023 ?

€2/m - €23/m options Can you please List what those options Are since everything is in french ?

@Horel those Seem to Be sold out .... is there anyone Else selling around that Price and Spec ?

could i have one thanks ? this should be useful

is this Site Still useful and Functional For people ? thinking i might want to give the site a go but wondering if its streaming only or other things as well ?

The MPA's Global Content Protection team and the connected Alliance for Creativity and Entertainment are on a mission to disrupt video content piracy and those behind it. Job listings reveal openings at the MPA for OSINT investigators, with one position stating a strong preference for a candidate with IPTV experience. The MPA and strongly-affiliated Alliance for Creativity and Entertainment are the sworn enemies of illegal streaming sites, IPTV services, and torrent portals. Still, when everything boils down, the hunter and the hunted ultimately find themselves on the same digital battlefield, equipped with broadly similar tools, underpinned by mostly the same technical rules. Tradition seems to allow pirates to break and make up rules as they go along, while Hollywood is free to amend legislation to take up the slack. There’s no one-size-fits-all scenario in the piracy wars, but in general, pirates need their services to stay visible at all times while staying invisible themselves. The challenge for MPA/ACE investigators is almost exactly the opposite. Find a chink in the armor, obtain information, and then exploit every possible resource to remove anonymity. Victory in the endgame – rendering once-visible sites permanently invisible via a binding legal agreement – relies on meticulous evidence. The MPA wants to add two more people to its Global Content Protection team to help harvest that from the internet. Internet Investigator (OSINT) On a basic level, most internet users have dabbled in the world of Open Source Intelligence (OSINT). A Google search will return information retrieved from the open internet, but that’s just one tool out of the hundreds available to OSINT investigators, including those working in the anti-piracy niche. “The Internet Investigator (OSINT) is primarily responsible for conducting detailed investigations of key players and other global targets involved in copyright infringement, including the investigation of individuals and organizations,” the MPA’s job listing reads. The position demands someone with skills in OSINT and attribution methods. In a nutshell, this means leveraging openly available information to identify an individual and/or a group/organization and then being able to link those targets to illegal activity, direct or secondary infringement, for example. Social media research is unsurprisingly cited by the MPA as an area of interest. Many pirate service operators use platforms such as Facebook and Twitter to attract customers and service existing ones. On the plus side for investigators, the volume of data that can be extracted from these platforms and their users is extraordinary. Key Responsibilities Gathering information on pirate services and those who run them can be relatively easy, but that’s only part of the job. Any specific intelligence collected may also be utilized more broadly, requiring the candidate to produce “forensically sound and actionable investigative reports.” After obtaining intelligence on a target, a decision must be taken on how to proceed. Is civil action appropriate or is behavior more suited to a criminal investigation? The candidate will offer recommendations based on the intelligence at hand. As pirate services disappear or get taken down, new ones tend to appear. The successful candidate will be required to proactively hunt for potential future targets and analyze them, which sounds easy but almost certainly isn’t. The skill here is to identify a new site’s potential for growth, based on factors available today. An approach that treats all new entrants equally risks the misallocation of resources to dozens of low-key threats. That doesn’t mean MPA/ACE won’t happily take them down but priority targets are called that for a reason. Of course, hindsight is always 20/20 and some initially innocuous players will inevitably slip through the gaps. Datasets that indicate disproportionate interest on social media may help to reduce that – in tandem with dozens…and dozens of other sources. Investigations Manager A second managerial position will see the successful candidate “assist the Global Content Protection team in shaping, contributing to, and executing the team’s enforcement strategy.” Other responsibilities include the following: – Supervise a team of investigators working on detailed investigations of key players and other global targets involved in copyright infringement, including the investigation of individuals, organizations, and technical infrastructures – Assist in identifying cases suitable for escalated actions, civil and criminal – Collaborate with MPA member studios, industry partners, law enforcement, vendors, attorneys, and various internal departments to work towards the resolution of cases – Supervise the proactive identification of new potential targets. Monitor, analyze, and report on emerging trends and technologies in online piracy For anyone interested in OSINT and/or piracy, the above sounds like exciting work. Of course, the MPA will know everything about most potential candidates before they’re invited for an interview, largely thanks to the trails almost everyone leaves behind.

This month millions of people read that two UK men had been sentenced to 16 months in prison "for watching unauthorized streams." Since the actual risk of prosecution was never explained, today we'll reveal the information that everyone should've been told from the start. Context is indeed everything. As outlined again only this month, people who simply watch pirate streams break UK law. If the content comes from an illegal source, it’s illegal to consume it under copyright law. That is a fact – there is no debate. The problem for rightsholders is that copyright cases are complex, difficult to prove, and won’t end in a prison sentence under civil law. A stronger, criminal angle might prove more persuasive. The Federation Against Copyright Theft, which acts for the Premier League, SKY, and BT Sport, came up with a solution – Section 11 of the Fraud Act 2006, which criminalizes the act of obtaining any kind of service dishonestly. With a potential crime now part of the equation, the logical conclusion for Joe Public is that people risk being arrested in their own homes for watching an unlicensed stream. Of course, people also need to be persuaded that an underfunded police force doesn’t have bigger fish to fry. Press Hysteria Early January, FACT sent out a press release titled “Police visit homes across the UK to issue warnings to subscribers of illegal sports streaming services.” The image below shows the first two paragraphs; We’ll return to the first paragraph shortly, but as anyone can see, there are two distinct statements. One says that FACT and police will be visiting homes. The second says that 1,000 people were identified after a raid on a streaming service. Nowhere does it say that FACT and police will be visiting the homes of 1,000 people. Dozens of articles just like these perpetuated the idea of a massive crackdown but the truth is more mundane. Some people will indeed get a personal visit, but the rest will be contacted by email, as confirmed by FACT when TorrentFreak questioned the volume. Prison “For Watching Unauthorized Streams” Let’s get this absolutely clear. While it is illegal under both civil and criminal law, nobody has ever gone to prison for simply watching an unauthorized stream in the UK. That doesn’t mean it won’t eventually happen, but the snippet (below) from FACT’s press release shouldn’t have been reported in isolation. Important and relevant information about these men was made available by FACT at the same time but given no weight in popular media. That led to widespread misinformation that could’ve been avoided. The prospect of ordinary people going to prison for simply viewing an unlicensed stream is an extraordinary claim and it’s a journalist’s job to investigate extraordinary claims. If it’s true that simply viewing unlicensed streams will put UK internet users in prison for months, millions of families face the prospect of seeing loved ones behind bars. That’s the bigger story that needed to be investigated, and it would’ve been ridiculously easy too. Simply scrolling to the bottom of the FACT press release reveals that both jailed men were operators of illegal streaming services and both pleaded guilty to multiple copyright and fraud offenses. The prosecution in Millington’s trial alone estimated damages running to well over £10 million. Instead, the ‘news’ that two men were arrested and sent to jail for 16 months for simply watching streams went all around the world, almost completely unchallenged. As the snippets above show, news outlets in Brazil, Russia, Poland, China, Greece, Italy, Thailand, Spain, Indonesia and beyond, not only repeated the statement without any context, but helped to make it an established and uncontested ‘fact’ around the world. Now here’s what actually happened, to set the record straight. No Ordinary Pirate Stream Watcher The details in Millington’s case reveal that the opportunity for a “watching streams” conviction came gift-wrapped and tied up in gold ribbon. The most serious charges against him related to his Kodi-based ‘stephen-builds’ software packages, which included the ‘Supremacy’ and ‘Supremacy Sports’ addons that provided his users with free access to illegal streams. For context, Supremacy was one of the most-used pirate addons on the entire planet and, according to the lawyer who prosecuted Millington, was responsible for causing more than £10 million in damages to rightsholders. Millington pleaded guilty to charges under Section 7 of the Fraud Act (making or supplying articles for use in fraud) and under the Copyright Act for distributing movies and other content via a Plex server. He also pleaded guilty to watching illegal streams under Section 11 of the Fraud Act (obtaining a service dishonestly) but the background shows this was no ordinary case. For several months after his home was raided, Millington’s defense was that the software and equipment he had accumulated existed for his own personal use. He was a keen gamer but also admitted that he used the equipment for viewing pirate streams via software he developed. Millington later changed his plea to guilty but there was a pivotal moment: To advertise his Kodi-related products online, Millington recorded a video of himself as he used his own pirate software to access illegal streams. That video was found on his phone during the investigation. The prosecution then took the opportunity to add a charge of viewing illegal streams to a case where the defendant ultimately had no choice but to plead guilty, due to a mountain of evidence. It’s still a conviction for watching unlicensed streams but in this case, context is everything. The source of this information is vitally important too. UK’s Leading Prosecutor of Streaming Pirates Ari Alibhai is the lawyer of choice when it comes to the private prosecution of pirates in the UK and his track record speaks for itself. Among many others, he’s conducted multiple successful pirate IPTV prosecutions on behalf of FACT, Premier League, BT Sport and SKY. It’s important to note that Mr Alibhai did not take part in the public announcements earlier this month, no reference was made to his work, and he has never claimed that Millington and Faulkner were sent to prison for simply viewing unlicensed streams. And he should know – he prosecuted both of them. Webinar Published on the Millington Case Late November 2021, Mr Alibhai conducted a webinar. The video of that presentation was posted more than a year ago on his company’s public website, together with other information on Millington’s case. Given the importance of the victory, the promotional value of the video is obvious and, as such, it’s still available today. For those who don’t have time to watch the entire video, discussion on the possibility of prosecuting people who simply watch unlicensed streams appears around 40 minutes into the 48-minute recording. It begins with a question from a man assisting Mr Alibhai from behind the camera. “You mentioned about the difficulty of prosecuting end-users,” he said. “Someone asked if there any reasonable risks of prosecution or penalty to the end-users, the ones watching the content?” Mr Alibhai’s response, as reported below, represents just a tiny fraction of a very informative presentation. In light of the reporting on this month’s events, and especially given the authoritative nature of the source, his opinion holds considerable value. In order to provide the most clarity, the response is cited verbatim. Ari Alibhai webinar on Millington/Supremacy prosecution Ari Alibhai: I’m assuming that question means, is there a risk to the user? So, is there a realistic risk to someone who’s watching TV that you will be prosecuted. Now, again, there’s an academic answer and then there’s a real answer. In theory you can be prosecuted for watching unlawful television. You can be prosecuted under the Copyright Act under section 297 (I think, I haven’t used it for a long time), but you can also be prosecuted under section 11 of the Fraud Act (obtaining services dishonestly). In fact, in the explanatory notes [of section 11] mention is made of illegal television viewing boxes being part-and-parcel of section 11. Section 11 carries a maximum penalty of five years in imprisonment so, you know, in theory you face imprisonment if you watch TV illegally. In practice, the idea of someone being prosecuted who isn’t also concerned in the trade, so they aren’t also concerned in supplying illicit television services, is minimal. This opinion from arguably the UK’s leading expert stands on its own two feet. Why overt public messaging sits in such stark contrast is puzzling to say the least. That being said, Mr Alibhai wasn’t quite done. Risk and Benefits of Viewer Prosecutions In follow-up comments, Mr Alibhai questioned whether the idea of NOT prosecuting viewers would be the right approach but then laid out the risks associated with that type of strategy. “I often feel that if you do you want to send a message out then maybe you’d have to take on pure prosecutions against end users. But clearly there is a reputation issue here, there’s a David and Goliath issue that’s going to come up for the broadcaster that takes that on. And there’s potential adverse press to consider,” he said during the webinar. “So in the round, I would say that it’s unrealistic to expect that, if anyone is watching it, then you’ll get prosecuted.” Scary Stories, Reputation, Animosity Finally, on the matter of reputational issues, the Twitter thread linked here contains an article from UK tabloid The Mirror. It states quite clearly that 1,000 homes will be visited as part of a “major ongoing criminal investigation” and that two people “were sentenced to a total of 16 months for watching illegal streams in 2021.” At the time of writing it has been viewed 6.3m+ times but the overwhelming majority of the comments on the tweet are negative. They either put the blame at the feet of the Premier League and/or the broadcasters, or criticize the police for taking this on when so many other ‘real crimes’ go unsolved. The above may suggest that even when presented with the prospect of going to prison, the public response isn’t to hand over their cash. Instead they list their demands – better access to matches (including at 3pm on Saturdays) and – overwhelmingly – don’t expect normal working people to spend £100+ every month to see a limited number of matches. Universal access to football at a fair price? It might just work. A commercial solution to what is essentially a commercial problem seems reasonable. The problem for the Premier League is the prospect of devaluing a premium product in the mere hope of gaining enough subscribers to maintain its financial position. Given that pirate services won’t simply go away, the difficult bottom line seems almost inevitable. The risk of being prosecuted for simply watching pirate streams may be low today, but that will almost certainly change. If those who currently stream illegally can afford it, perhaps they might consider supporting the sport they love. For those who don’t have the resources to buy what is essentially a luxury product, millions will sympathize. If the decision is to continue with illegal streams regardless, rightsholders most definitely will not.

Online piracy lawsuits against individual file-sharers rarely make it to trial, but a case in Florida between Strike 3 Holdings and an alleged pirate is moving strongly in that direction. A recent order provides positive news for the rightsholder but that won't prevent the defense from being able to use the term "copyright troll" in court. Strike 3 Holdings is a familiar name in U.S. federal courts. Last year alone the adult entertainment company filed a record-breaking number of lawsuits against alleged BitTorrent pirates. While many of these lawsuits have resulted in private settlements, Strike 3 also encountered pushback from some of the people it sued. In the Middle District of Florida, for example, a “John Doe” defendant denied any wrongdoing and fought back. The previously unnamed adversary came out of the shadows as John Adaire last week, as both parties prepare to go to trial. Heading to Trial It’s rare for this type of case to make it this far without being settled. As a result, the parties are fighting tooth and nail to obtain the best possible position in preparation for a public showdown. According to Strike 3, it is clear as day that the man downloaded and shared 36 of Strike 3’s porn videos without permission. Backed up by technical evidence and testimony, Strike 3 explains that it repeatedly found an IP address, assigned to Adaire, sharing the pirated movies. The adult company further accused the defendant of destroying electronic evidence by deleting data from his desktop computer, mishandling a hard drive, and reinstalling the operating system on his laptop “Even if Doe were not the infringer, he made sure to destroy and conceal evidence of his innocence,” Strike 3 wrote in its pretrial statement. The defendant, now identified as Mr. Adaire, denied any wrongdoing and alleged that Strike 3’s evidence is unreliable. The adult company developed its “VXN” tracking technology in-house, which makes it little more than ‘circumstantial’ evidence. “VXN had no user’s manual, no design documentation, and was never verified by an independent third party. There is no known false positive rate of VXN, since it was never measured,” the defense argued. Excluding Homebrew Piracy Evidence? In preparation for a trial later this year, both parties submitted a motion in limine asking the court to withhold evidence from the jury. Among other things, the defense asked to exclude the VXN tracking evidence. In addition, the defense asked the court to exclude evidence taken from Doe’s social media profiles and comments from his neighbors, who testified on the strength of his WiFi signal. Last week the court delivered a mixed ruling. US District Court Judge Mary Scriven denied the request to exclude the VXN data. This means that Strike 3’s main evidence, which links the defendant’s IP-address to pirated films, remains intact. However, the court granted the request to prohibit the use of information from the defendant’s social media profile. On top of that, testimony by non-experts such as neighbors is, in principle, not allowed either. Copyright Troll & Press Strike 3 also asked the court to exclude information from the upcoming trial. As reported previously, the company doesn’t want the defense to use the term “troll,” which is often used to describe its sue-and-settle practice. According to Strike 3, it’s clear that being called a ‘troll’ is derogatory, so it wants to prevent a jury from being influenced by ‘prejudicial’ language. “Name-calling has no place in civil litigation,” Strike 3’s lawyers wrote, noting that the label is inaccurate and thus irrelevant. In her order, Judge Scriven doesn’t agree that this term is off-limits so denied the request. This means that the defense can freely use the ‘copyright troll’ moniker in their arguments. Aside from the troll worries, the adult entertainment company also wanted to exclude all blogs, media, and other Internet coverage from the potential pool of evidence. These online news articles often contain subjective comments that put the company in a bad light, which could present the wrong picture to the jury, Strike 3 argued. “The Internet and media articles target Plaintiff and its counsel and contain comments that are biased, slanderous, and prejudicial, and should not be referred to at trial for any purpose,” it wrote. The court was more sympathetic to this argument and granted the request “on stipulation”. This stipulation isn’t detailed further in the written order, but it’s a win for Strike 3 nonetheless. Summary Judgment and Sanctions The good news for Strike 3 doesn’t stop there. In addition to the motion in limine, the court also ruled on the motions for summary judgment from both sides, handing an early victory to the adult company. After reviewing all arguments, Judge Mary Scriven denied Mr. Adaire’s request for a judgment that he didn’t engage in any copyright-infringing activity. This question will be decided by the jury instead. Strike 3’s own request for summary judgment was denied along with most of Mr. Adaire’s counterclaims. The only remaining counterclaim is the accusation that Strike 3 misused its copyrights, by using the Florida State Court as a preliminary process to attempt to acquire federally protected subscriber information. This argument can be presented to the jury. Finally, Judge Scriven ruled that the alleged pirate will be sanctioned for failing to preserve electronically stored evidence. This is based on Strike 3’s arguments that the defendant destroyed evidence by wiping data from his desktop computer and other devices. Details of the sanctions aren’t revealed in the court order but they certainly won’t help the defense during trial. All in all, the case can still go either way. It will ultimately be up to the jury to decide on the copyright infringement allegations but Strike 3 will likely feel emboldened by the court’s recent orders. — A copy of U.S. District Court Judge Mary Scriven’s full order, which also touched on other subjects, is

good old Eric never Quite forgave himself for what happened all those Years ago - Made life Hell for all his Friends by his own admission via all his odd beliefs and gas lighting did anyone here forgive the madman ?

welcome indeed Stay for the Hawks

Ralph( wreck it Ralph)

A. Tell us something about yourself? i have been around the Block a few times B. How did you find InviteHawk? search engines C. What Torrent Sites are you looking for? (Mention none if just browsing) animebytes,cartoon chaos,blue topia 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? i will let you know when i figure that out