Hey hey hey peeps!         

join jpopsuki chat

DMCA takedown notices are designed to take down infringing content, but they regularly target legitimate content as well. Just recently a local distributor of Dreamworks' "Trolls" movie tried to have several TorrentFreak links removed from Google for merely referencing "copyright trolls."

Week in and week out copyright holders scour the Internet to detect and report millions of alleged infringements.

They report these links to Google and other services, with requests to take them offline.

Unfortunately, not all of these allegations are correct. Over the years, we have written dozens of articles on DMCA takedown abuse and mistakes. While these usually focus on other sites, we are sometimes targeted as well.

For example, a few days ago Estonian Theatrical Distribution tried to have two Torrentfreak.com URLs removed from Google’s search results.

The outfit in question owns the local distribution rights for the Dreamworks’ movie Trolls and indirectly accused us of spreading pirated copies.

Of course, reality is a bit more nuanced. If we take a look at the reported URLs it’s immediately clear that they’re not infringing at all. In fact, they’re not even about the movie in question.

As can be seen below, one of the “infringing” links points to a news report about the Swedish invasion of copyright trolls that was canceled last week. The other link is harmless as well, referencing our archive of “copyright trolls” articles.

 

The takedown notice
 

 

Apparently mentioning the word “trolls” in a news article can put you at risk of being scrapped from Google’s search results. Needless to say, these type of mistakes are quite worrisome.

And it’s not the only mistake they’ve made. The same notice also lists a link to a Boxtrolls torrent. While this may be pointing to infringing content, it’s an entirely different movie that’s accidentally targeted for using the word trolls.

Luckily for us, we have Google on our side.

The company wisely decided not to take any action and has kept our content in its search results. However, it’s easy to see how a mistake like this get missed in the millions of reports that come in every week.

File-sharers are often portrayed as destroyers of the creative industries but new research suggests that isn't the case. According to the survey, 60% of music pirates also buy music, a figure that drops to 44% among non-sharers. Movie pirates continue the trend by being much more likely to pay than their law-abiding counterparts.

Each year, The Internet Foundation In Sweden (IIS) produces a report titled ‘Swedes and the Internet.’ As its name suggests, the report aims to shine light on how people behave online.

Covering issues from social media to smartphones, gambling, and of course, content consumption and file-sharing, the survey of 3,000 citizens aged 11-years-old and up has provided interesting insights in previous years. 2016 is no different.

“We continue to use the Internet to listen to music and watch movies. Eight out of ten listen to music and just over six out of ten watch movies. This is most popular among the young where almost everyone is doing it,” the report reads.

“Youtube is the most popular site for all ages. It begins in the pre-school years and almost all four-year-olds are using Youtube, but also the oldest are frequent users.

“With the arrival of streaming services more have begun to pay for music and film, but nevertheless file-sharing remains around 20 percent of the population, which it has done for almost ten years.”

 

 

But while the survey indicates that peer-to-peer file-sharing has remained static, other areas of unauthorized content consumption have been on the increase. Notably, web-based streaming services are gaining traction, particularly among lower age groups.

 

 

But of course, people obtaining content for free is only part of the puzzle. People paying for official online services has been on the increase since their inception. In 2011, for example, 15% of the population streamed music. That had increased to 38%, 42% and 44% in 2014, 2015 and 2016 respectively.

In 2015, after a late start for video, 28% were subscribing to a Netflix-like service and this year that figure reached 38%. Roughly speaking, four-out-of-ten now pay for a music or video streaming service but it is the young (and traditionally the most likely to pirate) who are the most enthusiastic customers.

 

 

In fact, IIS says that those who engage in illegal file-sharing and unauthorized streaming are also more likely to pay.

“File-sharers previously bought at least as many CDs as those who do not file-share and today we can see that it is more common for file-sharers to subscribe to streaming services for music and movies than those who do not,” the organization explains.

“60 percent of file-sharers pay for music streaming services, compared with 39 percent of those who do not share files and 44 percent of the population.

“The ratio is similar for those who use the sites where you can download movies for free. 53 percent of those pay for a Netflix-like streaming service, compared with 34 percent of those who are not downloading movies for free,” IIS notes.

The figures are an improvement on those reported in last year’s survey.

In 2015, 58% of music pirates put their hands in their pockets to pay versus just 39% of non-filesharers. The figures for the movie sector were 46% and 24% respectively.

The full report can be downloaded here (pdf, Swedish)

1st Quadrennial US Election Competition!!!

Internet provider Cox Communications has filed its appeal to overturn the $25 million damages verdict in its case against music publisher BMG. The ISP argues that the district court made several errors. As a result, millions of people now risk having their Internet access terminated based on one-sided evidence.

Last December a Virginia federal jury ruled that Internet provider Cox Communications was responsible for the copyright infringements of its subscribers.

The ISP was found guilty of willful contributory copyright infringement and ordered to pay music publisher BMG Rights Management $25 million in damages.

The verdict was a massive victory for the music licensing company and a disaster for Cox.

After the Virginia federal court had denied Cox’s request for a new trial, the Internet provider elevated the case to the Court of Appeals where it hopes to have the verdict reversed.

In a 93-page filing submitted to the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals this week, the company warns that the case has brought a lot of uncertainty to the industry, based on a verdict that’s rooted in erroneous conclusions.

“This case involves an unprecedented attempt to impose liability on an Internet service provider (ISP) for its subscribers’ alleged copyright infringement,” Cox begins, nothing that the district court was well aware of the stakes.

“Yet the court sanctioned a novel expansion of contributory liability to ISPs, based not on evidence that the ISP actually knew of specific infringing acts or took affirmative steps to foster infringement, but on the ISP’s constructive knowledge of the existence of infringing activity on its network.”

With the appeal, Cox hopes to reverse the judgment or at least have the opportunity to have a new trial.

The company explains that the case started when the ISP refused to forward infringement notices which contained “extortionate” settlement requests. They asked BMG’s anti-piracy partner Rightscorp to remove the settlement demands if they would like the notices to be forwarded, but they refused to do so.

The dispute over the settlement language eventually led to a guilty verdict by the jury, which according to Cox is based on several reversible errors.

First, Cox argues that the district court misread a binding Supreme Court authority, which prevents contributory copyright liability if a technology has substantial non-infringing uses.

“Cox’s Internet service has endless legal uses, and BMG failed to prove either that Cox actually knew of specific infringing acts by specific subscribers or that it took active steps to promote infringement,” the ISP writes.

In addition, the court took away the Internet provider’s safe harbor protection as it failed to terminate repeat infringers. However, Cox doesn’t believe that subscribers can be seen as such, solely based on one-sided accusations from Rightscorp.

Finally, Cox argued that the jury instructions on the damages aspect were incorrect on several points which led to an inflated $25 million verdict.

With the appeal, the ISP hopes to turn around the negative judgment. If not, the company fears that its subscribers, as well as those of other U.S. Internet providers, risk having their Internet access terminated based on ‘flimsy’ evidence.

“If allowed to stand, that judgment would force ISPs to terminate subscribers’ Internet access—and with it access to critical information, e-commerce, and entertainment—based on the say-so of third parties. This Court should reverse.”

The case will be crucial in determining what obligations ISPs have when it comes to repeat copyright infringers. Up until now, several Internet providers have argued that only a court could determine if a subscriber is a repeat infringer, but this has now become uncertain.

—

Cox Communication’s full filing is available here (pdf)

Police in Italy have taken action to block more than 150 sites involved in the unauthorized streaming of movies and sports. The Special Units of the Guardia di Finanza obtained a mass injunction from a judge in Rome, marking the start of the largest ever blocking operation since measures began in 2008.

The Guardia di Finanza (GdF) is a department under Italy’s Ministry of Economy and Finance. Tasked with dealing with financial crime, in recent years the department has also been at the forefront of anti-piracy operations.

In order to disrupt the activities of pirate sites, the GdF takes direct action against site operators, with raids of sites deemed to be locally significant. Sites considered to be operated from elsewhere are regularly targeted with legal action, with most major sites now blocked by ISPs.

Now, according to lawyer Fulvia Sarzana, a lawyer with the Sarzana and Partners law firm which specializes in Internet and copyright disputes, the GdF is engaged in the largest action yet against pirate sites.

Describing the move as “sensational”, Sarzana says 152 sites involved in the unauthorized streaming of movies and sports have been targeted by police.

Far-reaching injunctions were signed by Judge Alessandro Boffi in Rome today, which according to Sarzana are the most important since Italy began its piracy crackdown eight years ago.

“It is the most important police operation involving copyright since 2008, when this type of order was introduced in Italy,” Sarzana told TF.

“The seizures concern the largest football and movie streaming sites and covers roughly the first four pages of results on Google with regard to the search terms streaming, football and films.”

Sarzana says that the injunction orders local ISPs to block subscriber access to the sites, something that has happened many times before in the country but never on this scale in a single act.

In January 2015, around 120 sites were targeted following a complaint from 21st Century Fox’s Sky TV but this latest action is even bigger. It also challenges the total blocking efforts of local telecoms watchdog AGCOM.

“To give you a comparison, just think that in three years of activities on copyright, the Authority for the Communications Authority (AGCOM), with a lot of energy and personnel, carried out more or less the same number of injunctions of what happened today with a single Judicial Authority act,” Sarzana says.

For now the injunctions concern only blockades and there are no instructions for domain seizures. However, more trouble could lie ahead.

“The novelty of the measure is that they were also given the IP addresses of the servers, which could mean that more detailed investigations on the origin of the content were undertaken,” Sarzana says.

“At the moment it is unknown whether investigations have been made on the advertising activities related to the sites but this is the most recent trend of the Italian Financial Authorities,” he concludes.

为了促进魔力值消费和给会员更好的体验，现提供会员使用魔力值购买种子促销的方案。当用户遇到某些种子欲下载却苦于速度不佳或者担心分享率的情况，可以通过消耗魔力的方式置顶种子或（和）给予种子促销。
  Quote
PS：可以前往规则了解种子促销规则:https://www.hdarea.co/rules.php


具体规则：
1：每次最多放置3个非官方种在置顶位置（且做种人数低于10人），如果是只购买种子促销但不购买置顶则不受约束。
2 ：购买置顶会附送相同时间的free/免费。若置顶大于6个月且做种人数少于5人的种子，置顶购买价格减半。
3 ：种子申请置顶的要求（其中之一满足即可）：
 

4：有意愿后请跟帖回复欲加速的种子链接，置顶天数（0 — ∞），优惠类型及天数（ps：管理组有权决定是否给予促销或者置顶）。
(PPS:如果是申请官方种置顶，则可以免费置顶加2xfree3天)。


格式示例（你无视格式我选择无视回帖）：
  Quote
种子链接：https://www.hdarea.co/details.php?id=2348&hit=1
置顶天数：0天
优惠类型及天数：50% (2天)


5：具体每种加速方式所对应魔力的消耗程度：
  Quote
置顶：3000/小时                      60000/天  
2xfree： 500/小时                        10000/天 
2x&50%:   400/小时                         8000/天  
free：   300/小时                                 6000/天 
30%或者2x： 200/小时                             4000/天 
50%： 100/小时                                            200/天


当然，看完你会觉得有点费事/麻烦，所以，希望有能力的程序猿能站出来直接开发新功能，一键式操作，简单，省事，一目了然。

******************************************************************************************************************

   
   In order to increase bonus point consumption and to provide a better experience for users we now provide a TEST-PLAN for every user to increase the visibility/popularity of certain torrents. When users want certain torrents and they’re hard to download because of bad speed or because the user has a low buffer, you can place these torrents at the top and/or give them torrent promotion.

PS：Click  here to understand torrent promotion rules. 

detailed  Rules: 

1: A maximum of 3 unofficial torrents seeded by less than 10 people can be placed at the top and given torrent promotion.

2:Top-set-torrents will be set the same time of free. Only when the torrent is older than 6 months and seeded by less than 5 people, the cost will be cut in half.

3: requirement for top-set-torrent:  Quote

 Release from foreign trackers
 no official-release in other trackers of Chinese 
 original release


4: Please post the torrent link you want to promote, amount of top days and/or which torrent promotion. Promotion can last anywhere from 0 days to ∞ days if you have enough bonus points. (PS: Staff reserves the right to decide whether a torrent gets top and/or promotion). 

Sample format (If you ignore format,I chose to ignore replies  ):  Quote
Torrent link: https://www.hdarea.co/details.php?id=2348&hit=1
 Top days: 0 days 
 Type and number of days: 50%  (2days)


5:  The cost of bonus points per promotion type
  Quote
Top: 3000/ hour      60000/day 
2xfree:500/ hour     10000/day
2x&50%: 400/ hour    8000/day 
Free:300/ hour       6000/day 
30% or 2x:200/hour      4000/day 
50%:100/hour           200/day


Of course after reading this you might feel overwhelmed but we are currently looking for people to develop the program so that it will be a simple one-click system and a user-friendly experience.

Last edited by 懒羊羊先森 at 3 days 14 hours ago

To all members,

 

This announcement is to clarify the criteria for VIP membership as many have asked what the requirements are.

 

First of all at this time we have no plans to sell VIP membership and existing VIP members will continue with no time restrictions on their access.

 

TmGHub staff continually monitor member’s activity and at their discretion will grant VIP privileges to any member who we feel is greatly contributing to the site and deserves something extra to encourage his activity here.

 

This would include, but not limited to, torrents uploaded, seeding, activity on forums, as well as general behavior on the site. All these factors are taken into consideration before a decision is made.

 

For example if a member is very active in the forums, has made a lot of releases and seeds for a long time but is rude to others on the site, then he  would not be considered for VIP status.

 

VIP members have access to certain sections of the site that are not available to regular members and VIP membership is only given at the discretion of staff.

Once VIP status is granted to any member, he/she is still fully expected to follow all rules and any violation will result in their VIP status being revoked without warning.

 

Staff decision will be final in the selection of VIP members as well as anytime if we have to revoke their access.

 

Note that these are the current requirements and based on circumstances, they can be amended without notice in future

 

Thanks for your support

TmGHub Staff