Kim Dotcom and his three colleagues say they cannot be held responsible for others who used the filesharing site to illegally download songs and film. Photograph: Richard Robinson/AP US prosecutors have won a court case that brings them a step closer in their attempts to have the Megaupload founder and three of his colleagues extradited from New Zealand. The appeals court in Wellington overturned an earlier ruling that would have allowed Kim Dotcom and the others broad access to evidence in the case against them at the time of their extradition hearing, which is scheduled for August. The four are accused of facilitating massive copyright fraud through the internet filesharing site. The court ruled that extensive disclosure would bog down the process and that a summary of the US case would suffice. Dotcom, a German national, says he is innocent and cannot be held responsible for others using the site to illegally download songs and films. Along with him, US prosecutors are seeking the extraditions of Finn Batato, Mathias Ortmann and Bram van der Kolk, each of whom held senior positions at Megaupload before American authorities shut the site down in 2012. Paul Davison, one of Dotcom's lawyers, said he planned to appeal at New Zealand's supreme court. Dotcom's legal team must first submit an application to the court which will then decide whether an appeal has enough merit to proceed. In its ruling the appeals court found that full disclosure of evidence was not necessary at the extradition hearing because the hearing was not the venue to determine guilt or innocence. The court pointed out that the legal obligation on the US was simply to prove it had a valid case. The court also found that extradition treaties are essentially agreements between governments and "even though courts play a vital part in the process, extradition is very much a government to government process". Davison said it was vital that Dotcom had access to a wide range of documents including those that could be detrimental to the US case. The lawyer said that would help prove there was no merit to the case. The extradition hearing has already been postponed from March to August owing to the legal wrangling. It could be postponed further should the supreme court decide to hear the next planned appeal. Dotcom remains on bail pending the hearing. In January, on the anniversary of his arrest, he launched a new filesharing site called Mega.

The hip hop crew’s new mixtape debuts today on BitTorrent Bundle. In 1989, a little known group from New York released an album that would change the course of hip hop. De La Soul’s 3 Feet High and Rising sounded like nothing else: spoken word, skit, and psychedelia; sampled exhaustively, sampled from life. 25 years in, it sounds all the more remarkable. It sounds like the Internet. De La Soul’s art, predicated on sampling and redefining ordinary recorded objects, is a template for 2.0 content: the creative core of remix culture. And it still reverberates. In February, the group made their entire catalog — over seven albums — available for download. We’re collaborating with De La Soul to preserve their music’s legacy; to build the scalable, sustainable, media formats that will ensure its future. “This project means a lot to De La Soul. It’s really important for us to uphold the legacy of J Dilla. He meant so much to the group.” Brandon Hixon, Marketing Manager, De La Soul Starting today, the group’s new mixtape, Smell the DA.I.S.Y., will be accessible to fans everywhere as a BitTorrent Bundle. The new record consists of classic De La Soul lyrics over vintage J Dilla production. In honor of Jay Dee, it’s free for all. Just kick in your email. Download the BitTorrent Bundle for the 11-track mixtape, the J Dilla documentary, an audio letter, and wallpapers. And Smell Da Inner Soul of Yancy. Check out the J Dilla Foundation to learn more about Jay Dee, and his organization’s commitment to funding music programs in inner-city schools. De La Soul: Smell the DA.I.S.Y. 1. Let The King Ascend [Audio] 2. Who, featuring Redman [Audio] 3. Dilla Plugged In [Audio] 4. Goes The Word [Audio] 5. Vocabulary Spills [Audio] 6. The Pitch [Audio] 7. Taking The Train [Audio] 8. Leave Your Cares Behind [Audio] 9. O’Shut Up [Audio] 10. No More No Less [Audio] 11. Marvin Jaye [Audio] 12. Smell The DA.I.S.Y. Letter [Audio] 13. J Dilla Documentary “Still Shinning” 14. J Dilla Wallpaper [Art] About BitTorrent Bundle BitTorrent Bundle is an Alpha project, made with and for the web’s creative community. Our mission is to help artists connect directly with fans, inside the content they share. Each BitTorrent Bundle, like this one, created in partnership with De La Soul, allows artists to distribute content directly to the Internet. And each Bundle comes with a key. Fans can unlock artist content with an email address. The idea is to make each song a storefront, and each file more valuable, each time it’s shared. Got ideas for the next BitTorrent Bundle? Hit us up.

Great Review mate Keep em coming

Welcome to IH hope you like it here

Not applying but this is a great GA

Hey Ethan I apply for Great tracker Videoseed Cheers

Great news mate

Titanfall is a great one

The US Supreme Court made a unanimous ruling today in a legal dispute that originated from a controversial use of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) more than a decade ago. Printer manufacturer Lexmark sold cartridges under a "prebate" program, offering consumers a discount if they would agree to return their empty cartridges to Lexmark and not competing "remanufacturers." It enforced the program with a microchip on each cartridge that prevented the empty cartridges from working again until the microchip was replaced by Lexmark. However, a company called Static Control Components (SCC) figured out how to make microchips that would send out the same signal and allow for printer cartridges to be refilled and reused without going through Lexmark's official process. That led Lexmark to sue Static Control in 2002; Lexmark said the company violated the DMCA. Lexmark also shot out a barrage of letters to companies in the business of refilling their cartridges, letting them know that using Static Control microchips was a violation of copyright law. Essentially, Lexmark sued SCC and made it a point to let just about every SCC customer know that it thought the company was a lawbreaker. But Lexmark was wrong. An appeals court found that SCC's business didn't violate copyright law. Even though Lexmark's copyright claims had failed, SCC was still very interested in pursuing its own counterclaim against Lexmark for false advertising. The letter-writing campaign had damaged SCC's business reputation by "leading consumers and others in the trade to believe that [static Control] is engaged in illegal con*duct.” That counterclaim has been dragging through the courts for years now, in part because different courts have applied different tests for who can bring false advertising claims. Do you have to be a direct competitor of the false advertiser or merely in their "zone of interest?" Finally, the Supreme Court agreed to clear up the issue. With a 9-0 ruling published today, the court has adopted a relatively lax test based on the idea that companies in a similar "zone of interest" may have a reason to sue over false ads, even if they're not competitors. The high court didn't address the copyright issue, which was resolved in SCC's favor years ago and is no longer part of the case. Justice Antonin Scalia wrote for a unanimous court: Consider two rival carmakers who purchase airbags for their cars from different third-party manufacturers. If the first carmaker, hoping to divert sales from the second, falsely proclaims that the airbags used by the second carmaker are defective, both the second carmaker and its airbag supplier may suffer reputational injury, and their sales may decline as a result. In those circumstances, there is no reason to regard either party’s injury as derivative of the other’s; each is directly and independently harmed by the attack on its merchandise. It's a somewhat unusual ruling considering that the conservative-leaning court isn't often inclined to open the door to more lawsuits. In many arenas, including class-action cases and sex-discrimination lawsuits, the high court under Chief Justice John Roberts has narrowed what types of claims plaintiffs may bring. Notably, the only additional plaintiffs coming from this ruling will be companies, not individuals. Lanham Act false ad lawsuits like this one are only available to businesses operating in the commercial space. So while there may be slightly more legal disputes in this area between competitors, there's no chance of a flood of lawsuits from consumers over false ads. The case today was only over standing—in other words, whether Lexmark can be sued. The Supreme Court didn't consider the actual evidence of false advertising or the copyright issues that led up to it. The ruling simply means that SCC will be able to make its full case in court.

At the beginning of March, right after the Italian film The Great Beauty won an Oscar, visitors to the homepage of one of the country's largest newspapers were greeted with a large advert celebrating "the great beauty of Italy's artists". Anyone clicking on the advert ended up on a website — CopiaPrivata.it — which hosted a petition signed by more than 500 well-known Italian artists in support of the compenso per copia privata, a levy applied to all blank storage media. The levy applies to any piece of hardware that can hold photographic or video material – whether that's stand-alone storage or the hard drive of a device. In exchange for the fee, consumers are able to make private copies of copyrighted works they own — films, music and so on — for their own personal use. The money raised by the levy is subsequently handed over to the Siae, an organisation which supports artists and publishers, which then distributes the revenues among rights-holders. Piracy tax The concept of a private copy levy — sometimes called a 'piracy tax' — is present in many European countries. In Spain, the fee was abolished in 2012, although it persists in France. In Italy, the levy has always been controversial; it's perceived as an extra tax consumers end up paying on their new hardware — on every electronic device with an internal memory, from smart TVs to computers, from USB drives to set-top boxes — often without being aware of its existence. Read this Three-strikes anti-piracy law 'doesn't deter piracy' Three-strikes anti-piracy law 'doesn't deter piracy' Read more The levy is meant to be paid by "the manufacturers and importers of recording equipment and blank storage" sold in the country, but nothing prevents those companies from clawing back the levy by upping the price they change consumers for their products. The Copia Privata website is one of the latest weapons in a battle that has been raging for several months between the Siae; electronic device manufacturers, importers and suppliers' groups; and consumers' associations including Altroconsumo. The artists that have signed the CopiaPrivata.it petition — now numbering over 3,000 — are appealing to Dario Franceschini, Italy's new minister for culture, appointed recently when the Letta government gave way to the new executive led by Matteo Renzi. The point at issue: money. Upping the levy The artists want to see the levy raised as it considers the tariff for each device — set by the ministry for culture in 2009 — to be on the low side: €0.90 on a mobile phone, €1.90 for a PC. Now the Siae is asking for the levy to be increased by as much as 500 percent on some devices (the levy is tiered depending on the size of the storage involved) and wants to extend the levy to new categories of products, like tablets and smartphones. The increased royalties would amount to €5.20 for smartphones and tablets, €6 for computers and as much as €32.20 (plus VAT) for other multimedia devices equipped with hard disks of 400GB and above. As of late December, it seemed the new levy amounts would be adopted — a process that needs a new government decree to be passed — but then Altroconsumo stepped in, launching an online petition asking the then minister for culture "not to give a Christmas present" to the Siae. "We also asked the minister if he was about to sign the decree, as the rumours said, why the taskforce of technical experts [that are supposed to review the new decree before it's passed by the government] hadn't been consulted first, and why the draft decree hadn't been shared with relevant stakeholders, like Altroconsumo and other consumers' associations," Marco Pierani of Altroconsumo told ZDNet. One the main criticisms brought against the proposed increase in the levy was that consumers' habits have changed since it was brought in: people don't tend to burn DVDs and CDs to watch films and listen to music, instead accessing the same content through online download or streaming services. "And when somebody buys a song or a movie from Amazon, Apple or other companies, the right to make a certain number of copies (which varies according to the licence) is already figured into the price. So it's unfair that consumers pay twice for the same service," IT lawyer Guido Scorza told ZDNet. The Siae, on the other hand, is keen to highlight that the law that brought in the private copy levy itself stipulates that the amounts should be updated every three years and that the royalties demanded in Italy have, until now, been much lower than those in other countries. When it comes to smartphones, for instance, the levy ranges — depending on the size of the device's onboard storage — from €2.80 to €14.72 in France and from €16 to €36 in Germany. Critics, however, accuse the association of cherrypicking their examples, then claiming they represent typical levies. "A form of 'fair compensation' exists in 22 out of 28 European countries and it's applied to tablet and smartphones in only three of them," Scorza said. In January, the culture minister announced that, before taking any decision, he would wait for the results of a dedicated report, commissioned to shed light on these and other aspects of the private copy levy. Siae did not take it well. "When a national law has a timeline set for its implementation, and a minister of the republic does not respect it for many, many months, even though... the draft decree is ready, and he has publicly said he would take care of it, what are you supposed to think? I come from a planet where people keep their word," the association's president, well-known singer and author Gino Paoli, said. The stakes are high: Confindustria Digitale, the main organisation that represent Italian companies working in ICT, has estimated that the total amount of compensation collected by the Siae, if the proposed increases are approved, would jump from €72m in 2012 to roughly €200m in 2014. No wonder, then, that when Letta was substituted by Renzi, and a new minister for culture was appointed, the Siae fought back, renewing its requests to Franceschini, enlisting the newly-garlanded director of The Great Beauty Paulo Sorrentino in its battle to get the levy updated. The matter, however, remains open: Franceschini, due to ill health, has not been able to work on the update, but is expected back at the office this week. Everybody's waiting for his decision.

Notorious copyright ‘porn troll’ Malibu Media LLC, an adult film company, struck out in a Florida court last week when a Florida District Court Judge determined that an IP address does not identify a specific single individual guilty of copyright infringement. US District Judge Ursula Ungaro dismissed the lawsuit that Malibu Media had filed against an alleged movie pirate at IP address 174.61.81.171. In the court document, it stated that on March 5, 2014, the Court issued an Order for the plaintiff, Malibu Media LLC, to show good cause why the Court should reasonably rely on their usage of geolocation or other technologies to establish the identity of the Defendant, John Doe at IP address 174.61.81.171, and that the “Defendant may be found within this district; and to show good cause why this case should not be dismissed for improper venue; and show good cause as to why this case should not be dismissed for improper venue.” The judge would not issue a subpoena until they could prove this. Malibu Media pleaded its case and attempted to detail how they can actually trace an IP address back to the alleged pirate. They claimed that the geolocation tracing process used "has always been 100 percent accurate when traced to the Southern District of Florida." Malibu Media also mentioned that their methods and procedures used are the same ones used by law enforcement. Seemingly unimpressed with Malibu Media’s technical jargon argument, Judge Ungaro stated, ”Plaintiff has shown that the geolocation software can provide a location for an infringing IP address; however, Plaintiff has not shown how this geolocation software can establish the identity of the Defendant. There is nothing that links the IP address location to the identity of the person actually downloading and viewing Plaintiff's videos, and establishing whether that person lives in this district. For example, when arguing that this IP address is not a coffee shop or open Wi-Fi network, Plaintiff points to the timing of the alleged infringement and the fact that the internet service provider typically provides internet to residences." "Plaintiff then argues that a coffee shop owner could possibly identify the Defendant. Even if this IP address is located within a residence, the geolocation software cannot identify who has access to that residence's computer and who would actually be using it to infringe Plaintiff's copyright. The Court finds that Plaintiff has not established good cause for the Court to reasonably rely on Plaintiff's usage of geolocation to establish the identity of the Defendant. The Court also finds that Plaintiff has not established good cause as to why this action should not be dismissed for improper venue.” Malibu Media had previously been sanctioned in September of 2013 for trying to embarrass defendants, and Judge Conley sanctioned Malibu $200 per case for a total of $2,200 at that time. In December of 2013, the Electronic Frontier Foundation fought back against Malibu Media in an argument that stated, “EFF fought back against a particularly nasty copyright troll tactic recently. Lawyers representing the adult film producer Malibu Media, LLC file long lists of movie titles on the public record, accusing an Internet subscriber of copying those movies illegally. Among the titles on that list are many adult films with very embarrassing titles. The lawyers then send a copy of the court filing to the subscriber along with a demand for money. The threat is obvious - either pay up, point a finger at a friend or family member, or be named in a public lawsuit as a habitual user of hard-core porn. Faced with these threats, many people pay thousands to the lawyers to make the threat go away - whether they were responsible for illegal downloading or not. But more and more judges are catching on to copyright trolls' abuses of the justice system.” Malibu Media has already filed hundreds of lawsuits against alleged copyright infringers. “Copyright trolls” such as Malibu Media, the now non-existent Prenda Law, and even the former ACS Law Firm from the U.K. have often used scare tactics and tried to base their “John Doe” lawsuits on a single IP address, or even a range of IP addresses. This case from last week shows that the judge used good logical reasoning to dismiss the case rather than issue a subpoena for the alleged infringer’s information from the Internet service provider. We’re really hoping this is yet a another trend setter case for the future which may start deterring the “copyright trolls”. In January, another similar case was dismissed in Washington. In a ruling out of the Federal District Court in Washington State, the court granted the defense a motion to dismiss their case in Elf-Man, LLC v. Eric Cariveau on the basis that the “Plaintiff has not alleged that a named defendant has the BitTorrent “client” application on her computer, that the download or distribution is in some way linked to the individual subscriber (as opposed to her account), that the defendant has acknowledged personal involvement in the download and distribution, or even circumstances which might increase the likelihood that the subscriber is the infringer (such as defendant’s living arrangements or network details).” As “Fight Copyright Trolls” stated this past weekend, “If a lawyer clogs understaffed courts with lawsuits that have nothing to do with advancing justice but rather with stuffing his pockets, sooner or later the pendulum moves in the opposite direction.” We also hope that type of scenario will be more of what we see in the future; judges seeing right through the copyright trolls resulting in more dismissed cases, and/or lawyers realizing their arguments will no longer hold up in court.

Rightscorp, an anti-piracy monitoring firm acting on behalf of digital media copyright owners, has just published their 2013 financial report. They show a 236% increase in revenues of $324,016 for the full year ended December 31, 2013, as compared to 2012, in which their annual revenue was $96,565. The fourth quarter alone in 2013 made up $155,381 of the full year’s revenue. The large increase in revenue is due to the fact that they now represent more than 1,000,000 copyrights and have partnered with major motion picture studios, numerous Platinum recording artists, Academy Award-winning films, top TV shows and many others. We previously reported that Rightscorp was also now monitoring the Billboard Hot 100 Songs. That news, compiled with their description of the fact that their “revenue growth was driven by an increase in copyright representation and improvements in the Company's proprietary copyright monetization system”, tends to explain the dramatic increase in their revenue for 2013. Their business tactics have remained unchanged in the manner in which they seek their revenue. They basically get notice from a rightsholder of an alleged infringement and then inform any one of many ISPs in the United States whose service the alleged infringement occurred on. Then the ISP notifies the alleged infringer who is asked to pay a sum of $20 (some fees vary) to Rightscorp. It’s a pretty basic and simple procedure, one that seems to be working very much in Rightscorp’s favor as well as the rightsholders. Their press release details that their operating expenses for 2013 totaled $2,134,843, which was an increase of $963,121 as compared to a total of $1,171,722 for 2012. They attribute that to paying increased fees to the copyright holders. Rightscorp CEO Christopher Sabec commented, "We are pleased to report that Rightscorp ended 2013 with a very strong quarter. We attributed our year-over-year growth to our ability to successfully represent copyrights against online piracy. Our mission is to preserve the integrity of copyrighted intellectual property and help content owners monetize their assets. In a short period of time, we have been recognized by leading media partners as a turnkey solution to the problem of online copyright infringement." Mr. Sabec continued, "We are pleased that our business model maintains strong sequential quarterly growth. We expect to maintain this trend as we continue to increase the number of copyrights that we represent. Rightscorp's patent pending technology and proprietary copyright monetization system identifies repeat infringers and collects payment better than any other solution on the market. Our success is evidenced by the fact that we have successfully closed over 60,000 cases of online copyright infringement to date." And Mr. Sabec closed with, "We are currently in talks with the owners of millions of additional copyrights spanning various industries such as film, music, books, games, and software and anticipate these to be foundational catalysts that will aggressively drive our initiatives for long-term growth. Rightscorp delivers results, a fact that is being recognized by more and more industry leaders and media publications." Yes, it’s another “pay up” scheme, one that is proving to be very lucrative. And as a reminder, downloaders of the Billboard Hot 100 should take notice and beware of those “hot” songs that are being monitored. Rightscorp is representing more copyrights now than ever before, and that total is increasing almost daily.

Tracker Name : TheFoundry Signup Link : http://anonym.to/?http://thefoundry.name/signup.php?agree=yes Genre : General Closing Date : Additional Information :

Great news mate

This spring the advent of the maintenance of waking up the hibernating and provides end-users with a one-week Freeleechin . registration is also open, so there is no other word to circulate the battery to give new users to join. doors close and freeleech ends on Sunday, 03.30 and 24.00 , FinVip.Org Staff

Great Game looking forward to it

http://www.ign.com/games/assassins-creed-unity/pc-20009239 Great news

Two men associated with the "pirate" Android store Appbucket have pleaded guilty to criminal copyright infringement. The Department of Justice estimates that the site generated over $80,000 in revenue during the two years it was active. The fate of the third Appbucket defendant is still unknown. appbucketWith help from French and Dutch police, the FBI took over the “pirate” Android stores applanet.net, appbucket.net and snappzmarket.com during the summer of 2012. The domain seizures were the first ever against “rogue” mobile app marketplaces and followed similar actions against BitTorrent and streaming sites. Yesterday the Department of Justice announced that two of the three admins of the Appbucket site have plead guilty to criminal copyright infringement. Nicholas Narbone, 26, and Thomas Dye, 21, both signed a plea deal with the Government and are currently scheduled to be sentenced in June. No information was provided on the third Appbucket defendant, Thomas Pace, who was primarily responsible for finding copies of Android apps and managing the site’s servers. The authorities estimate that more than a million Apps were traded via Appbucket, with a retail value of approximately $700,000. Over the course of two years the site itself generated little over $80,000 in proceeds from subscriptions. SEIZURE BANNER seizure Acting Assistant Attorney General David O’Neil is happy with the guilty pleas, which are the first of their kind. “These mark the first convictions secured by the Justice Department against those who illegally distribute counterfeit mobile apps,” O’Neil says. “These men trampled on the intellectual property rights of others when they and other members of the Appbucket group distributed more than one million copies of pirated apps.” Besides Appbucket, there are also cases pending against the operators of Snappzmarket and Applanet. The founder of Applanet previously launched a crowdfunding campaign to pay for his defense, but only managed to raised $1,029 of the required $50,000. The FBI, meanwhile, is already on the lookout for their next targets. “The FBI will continue to work with its various law enforcement partners in identifying, investigating, and presenting for prosecution those individuals and groups engaged in such criminal activities that involve the attempt to profit from the hard work and the developed creative ideas of others,” FBI Special Agent Johnson says.

If you are getting blocked by MalwareBytes. Add our IP to Ignore List.

Great GA mate not applying tho

Great giveaway mate but not applying for this

ce again a new game to DanishBits users This time it was to "GB Lottery" Here's your chance to win 50GB Upload! You will find the new game here

Dear users! - active lotteries and prizes doubled again! The winners will receive a 200GB upload! - The SMS and PayPal support sending of double-credited to the payment plus uploads, and bonus points. Both forms of payment, please write to message to the Staff's! (Sms received fixed payments, send them a confirmation sms six-character code!) - Feltöltőversenyünk 2014.04.01. hold up! Details on the news! Sincerely, Malacka staff!

According to a report this weekend by the New York Daily News' Confidenti@l blog, several of the remaining scenes featuring recently deceased star Paul Walker will be completed using body doubles and CGI faces. “They have hired four actors with bodies very similar to Paul’s physique and they will be used for movement and as a base,” a source told Confidenti@l. It sounds similar to what director Ridley Scott had to do when actor Oliver Reed died during production of Gladiator in 1999. Filming on Fast and Furious 7 is set to resume in April.

After listening to feedback from our users we are excited to announce the introduction of non-scene content to the site, this is available in a separate section, right next to the regular browse section, just click the non-scene tab to access it. Non-scene releases are separate from our normal browse section, so it means that you can use the new section or not (similar to what we have done with adult content - xxx section). We have already made arrangements with a number of groups who will be honoring us with fresh releases so that our new section will be filled with more content daily, more groups will follow in the coming weeks. We hope that you're just as stoked as we are - times change and so do we. Time to evolve to the next level. PS. If you're a member of a Non-Scene release group and would like to join us on this journey, please contact lily for more information on how to join the ranks of our uploaders to be able to share your releases.