HR目前已经开始人工审核阶段！ 各位HDUER: 话说，本站自由和任性是永恒不变的准则，然而，自由从来都是相对的，为了大家的自由和任性就必须牺牲个别和 大家不同自由方式。 我们新种从来都有较长时间的FREE时间，但是个别小伙伴呢，存在下了就跑的现象，为了让后来的朋友有粥喝 ，因此，我们内部HR已经开始了人工抽查阶段。也就是，每当你完成一个种子后，从完成种子算起，你必须在3 天内，保证做种12个小时。 第一次会给予警告，第二次可能会被BAN哦！这个要求我想不算高，3天做种12个小时，随便开机时间打开软 件就能完成吧！ 由于自动的HR系统不太完善，我们目前采用的是人工抽查和举报处理的方式，还请大家注意。 为了大家的幸福，希望个别没有做种习惯的亲养成这种习惯把！3天内12个小时的小要求，相信没 问题的！ Translation HR has begun a manual review stage! Members HDUER: Saying that the site is the eternal freedom and capricious criteria, however, it has always been relative freedom, to everyone's freedom and capricious and everyone must sacrifice individual freedom in different ways. We never have a new species FREE longer time, but individual small partners do, in the presence of the phenomenon of the run, in order to allow later drinking porridge friends, therefore, we have begun an internal HR manual checks stages. That is, every time you finish a seed, the seed from the completion date, you have three days to ensure that species do 12 hours. The first will be given a warning, the second may be BAN Oh! I think this requirement is not high, three days do kind of 12 hours, just boot time will be able to complete it open software! Because automated HR system is not perfect, the way we are currently using manual sampling and reporting process, also please note. To everyone's happiness, I hope individual habits that did not make the habit of the pro! 3 days, 12 hours of small claims, we believe that no problem!

The top 10 most downloaded movies on BitTorrent are in again. 'Insurgent' tops the chart this week, followed by ‘Furious 7.' 'Jurassic World' completes the top three. This week we have two newcomers in our chart. Furious 7 came out as a DVDrip and made a comeback. Insurgent is the most downloaded movie for the second week in a row. The data for our weekly download chart is estimated by TorrentFreak, and is for informational and educational reference only. All the movies in the list are BD/DVDrips unless stated otherwise. RSS feed for the weekly movie download chart. Ranking (last week) 1 (1) Insurgent 2 (back) Furious 7 3 (2) Jurassic World (TS/Subbed HDrip) 4 (…) True Story 5 (3) Ted 2 (Subbed HDrip) 6 (4) Home 7 (6) The Longest Ride 8 (…) Terminator Genisys (TS) 9 (7) Mad Max: Fury Road (WEB-DL) 10 (5) Spy (Subbed HDrip) Source torrentfreak.com

The Government has today published its fifth wave study into the extent of online copyright infringement by broadband ISP and mobile data consumers, which estimates that 18% of UK Internet users aged 12+ (7.8 million people) had consumed at least one item of “illegal” online content and 6% “exclusively consumed illegal content“. The new report, which was funded by the UK Intellectual Property Office (IPO) and carried out by Kantar Media, is actually the “fifth wave” of a related consumer research study that first began in 2012 (here) as part of a requirement handed down by the Government’s troubled Digital Economy Act 2010 (DEAct). Overall more than 4,500 people were surveyed for the report via various different forms of communication (phone, online etc.) and the news seems to suggest the consumption of both legal and “illegal” content (although we think unlawful might be a better word) seems to have increased. But the picture is mixed. Overall Volumes of Illegal Content Consumed W5 Music Tracks – 343 million (319 million in W4) TV Programmes – 135 million (98 million in W4) Films – 79 million (81 million in W4) The proportion of consumers who are accessing 100% illegal content has increased from 8% in the last study (W4) to 10% for the current wave (W5), which is mostly being driven by access to illegal content in the TV programmes category (from 11% in W4 to 14% for W5). By comparison there has been a “significant decline” in illegal content access in the films category (from 21% in W4 to 16% for the current wave), although it’s worth remembering that the highest level of infringement comes via music content (26%). It’s also noted that over half (56%) of those who consumed any type of content during the past three months paid for at least some of it, which has held steady since the last report. Netflix use increased significantly among infringers from 13% in wave 4, to 21% for W5, whistle Spotify use remained stable among this group, at 14%. But the use of Apple’s online products (iTunes or App store) has declined from 26% (W4) to 19% (W5). In addition, some 26% of those who consumed any content illegally claimed to use P2P File Sharing services (compared to 6% of those who only consumed legally) and this is the lowest level seen since the first wave in 2012 (it was 32% in W4). Meanwhile the most commonly highlighted reasons for infringing were because it is free (49%), convenient (43%) and quick (37%). As we know the big ISPs are already trying to get a grip on the problem of Internet piracy by blocking websites involved in copyright infringement (after a court order) and a new education campaign is also about to begin (here), which among other things will involve sending email warnings to customers that have been spotted taking part in such activity (these letters / alerts will not carry any threats). So how effective is this likely to be?

Tracker's Name: SportsCult.Org Genre: Sports Sign-up Link: http://sportscult.org/index.php?page=signup Additional information: NBA ;FIBA; EPL; NFL ; NHL; World Cup Soccer ; UEFA ; ATP Tennis ; UFC ; Professional Boxing ;Formula 1; Olympic Games; Champions League; Swimming ; Diamond League Athletics; Cycling; Volleyball ; Rugby ; Winter Sports ; Motor Sports ; Forum with all the sports that you requests now and classics from the past!

The Final Goodbye Dear Beathau5 users, It is with great sadness that we, the staff, have decided it's time to close our doors for good. This is mostly due to a combination of our inability to have enough donations! in order to keep the site afloat and with understandably diminishing user activity as time went on. For the past few months, staff have personally kept the site going by donating out of our own pockets, but it's unfortunately come to a point that we're unable to continue to support the site by ourselves. We discussed having another donation drive, but eventually agreed that it would only be a temporary fix and only delay the inevitable. It's sad to see the site go, but what a ride it's been. In just over two years, we've done so much as a small community, and succeeded for awhile in achieving our original goal: to share kickass electronic music with like-minded individuals. We wanted to go out on a somewhat positive note, so we're enabling Global Freeleech until the site's (and our IRC's) final day online, on August 1st. So please by all means, download to your heart's content. We loved being a part of this wonderful community, and we wish you all the best. Regards, Beathau5 staff

Want ? Have FFFFound.account - EOTI.account

very good part in accordance with the new Star Wars

由于近日来服务器机房硬件不稳定导致多次掉线，目前正在全力排查故障原因，请各位稍安勿躁 We are now repairing the server failure, please be patient if the server disconnected.

This week several Hollywood studios and pay TV giant Sky found themselves on the wrong end of an EU antitrust investigation for blocking cross-border access to TV shows and movies. Yet twenty years ago Sky was doing the same thing, a stubbornness that sparked a huge wave of piracy right across Europe. Due to complex licensing agreements between content creators and distributors, movies and TV shows are often locked down to a specific region. A prime example is the U.S. edition of Netflix which offers a better selection than versions available elsewhere. It’s a frustrating situation for consumers who are forced to jump through hoops to access the content they want to buy. The problem is amplified in Europe, where citizens of member states – sometimes located just a few miles apart – are regularly denied access to cross-border digital content. This week, however, the European Commission sent a strong signal to the world’s largest movie studios and a powerful broadcaster that geo-restriction won’t be tolerated. Sky UK, Disney, NBC Universal, Paramount Pictures, Sony, Twentieth Century Fox and Warner Bros. were all put on notice with the launch of an EU antitrust investigation into the practice. When one considers the history it’s difficult to feel sympathy for these companies. Just as geo-locking, blocking and local release windows fuel piracy today, licensing and geo-restriction fueled massive movie and TV show piracy two decades ago. Dr Markus Kuhn currently works as a senior lecturer in Computer Science at the University of Cambridge. He made the headlines in 2010 when he was asked to analyze a controversial ‘bomb detector’ deployed in Iraq and concluded it could detect nothing. Twenty years ago, however, his skills were being deployed against content providers who simply refused to make their content widely available. As a German citizen keen to view English language sci-fi content undubbed, Kuhn approached UK-based Sky TV in the early 1990s and offered to buy an official viewing smartcard from the company. Due to licensing conditions and their geo-blocking policy, Sky refused to sell him one. It was a move the company would later come to regret. Faced with a completely inflexible market, Kuhn decided that if Sky wouldn’t provide its content for a price, then he would gain access to it for free. As a result the undergraduate began investigating the VideoCrypt encryption system used by Sky. After what must’ve been hundreds of hours work, in March 1994 Kuhn debuted Season7, a piece of decryption software using a simple hardware interface that would enable viewers across Europe to watch Sky programming for free. “This software was primarily written for European Star Trek fans outside Great Britain who don’t have a chance to get a regular Sky subscription and have no other way of watching the undubbed version of their favorite [sci-fi] series,” Kuhn said in a June 1994 announcement. kuhn“I don’t want to cause any harm to Sky and I even asked them for a regular subscription some time ago, but they refused to sell one to Germany. So they have to live with the consequences of attracting the interest of high-tech freaks to the technical details of their access control system.” Despite Kuhn’s best intentions, what followed was a Sky viewing free-for-all. With Kuhn’s software being spread between bulletin board systems and passed around on floppy discs, electronics enthusiasts across Europe began making and selling so-called “Season interfaces” for users to plug into their video decoders. For those lucky enough to own a computer (a PC with a 12 MHz i286 processor was required to run a Season setup) what followed were some magical times. Satellite TV was a luxury item for most families so watching Kuhn’s software do its work (decoding was displayed live on-screen) was a hypnotic and exciting experience. Sadly for Sky, however, Kuhn’s tools didn’t remain isolated in Germany where the company was doing zero business. Soon, large quantities of potential Sky customers in the UK and across Europe were also enjoying the service for free. That was exactly what Sky wanted to avoid but thanks to geo-blocking, that’s what it got. Of course, like most hacks the fun eventually came to an end when Sky’s crypto experts threw a wrench in the works but the significance of Kuhn’s work lives on today. Rather than being driven by a ‘pirate’ ethos, Kuhn simply wanted to pay for a product that should have been freely available. When primitive licensing arrangements and restrictive business practices stopped him from doing so, Sky and its partners paid the price. Today, more than two decades on, it seems that neither Sky nor its Hollywood allies have changed their ways. Still, it remains a possibility that the EU investigation launched this week will help them understand a thing or two about a free market while reminding them of Kuhn’s disruptive response to restriction 20 years ago. Source torrentfreak.com

racker's Name: HD-Bits.ro Genre: HD Sign-up Link: http://www.hd-bits.ro/signup.php Additional information: HD-bits.ro is a Private Torrent Tracker for HD MOVIES / TV / GENERAL

Hi everyone, I'm sure you've all been wondering what has been going on with Bibliotik these past few months - the tracker and website have been struggling, and we haven't really commented on it. This was our mistake and we apologize. Our long-time members will know that this isn't the first time we've had such issues; Bibliotik has a long history of these sorts of errors, and while they've been fixed in the past, they seem to always creep back in. We've known about the errors, and we've tried to resolve them, but until very recently it has simply not been possible with our small team of volunteers. Many of our wonderful members have offered us their assistance, but we've been too damn proud to accept it. We know that this was a mistake and apologize that our hubris has nearly destroyed a place we all love. The problems all stem from the rapid (and unexpected) growth of the site, which is not in itself a bad thing, but the tracker is not scalable enough to handle it. We've expanded enormously since our last server upgrade, now boasting over 150,000! torrents and thousands of awesome users. As staff, it was our job to make sure that the site could cope, and in that regard we have failed. Another of our biggest failures is the lack of transparency around this whole situation, but today that all ends. Simply put, the tracker is just not coping with the stress and has drastically affected the performance of the site itself as well. That won't come as much of a surprise to anyone who has tried to seed or download, or even just use the site. There are several options for how to continue: Try adapting a more performant tracker to our system, or vice versa: Bibliotik was built completely from scratch - our website and tracker are both custom systems which weren't designed for a site as big as this. Ocelot is a popular alternative that many of you will have seen elsewhere. It is currently our top choice, but our database is very different from Gazelle's, and it will require a lot of reworking to make everything play nice. Move to entirely new hardware: this is the great dream. Unfortunately it is a logistical nightmare and something to only be undertaken if absolutely necessary. Throw in the towel and shut down: despite the fact that we've been silent for so long, this is simply not something we are willing to consider. Bibliotik is a great resource, and its loss is not something we want on our consciences. We value any advice you may have on these matters, we were too stubborn to accept help before, but that ends now. The option we are currently pursuing is the improvement/ change of our tracker. We've reached out to staff at other trackers who have offered their insights, and we really appreciate the work that they're doing to help us. We're going to open up a suggestions thread where the community can voice their ideas and we can evaluate potential solutions. We need your help, and we're happy to admit it. The idea of donations has been thrown around a lot, and if we decide to move to new hardware, they will likely be necessary. In the past we have been against donations (again, our own fault) and if we do decide to open them up, we will need to do some investigation into what the best options are, as PayPal is no longer safe. It may not come to a hardware change if we can fix our problems with a new tracker, so we may not need donations at all. If you have any expertise that you feel can help the site, please PM SierraX, alevevia, dionymnia, devnull or prettygreat. In the meantime, we will be temporarily suspending invites and recruitment as of 11:59 UTC today, 2015-07-25. We love bringing new people in, but this is not how new users should experience the tracker.

Bitsoup Members! Before I get down to business, Id like to take a moment and reach out to each and every member who heard the call that Bitsoup was and still is in financial problems. To date we have been able to secure funding from members that have mostly paid the June bills off. However, we still need much help to cover the bills for July As stated a few days ago we had until July 21st! to pay our internet bill. As feared because of summer not many donations came in. People assume that someone else will donate so why bother. For years people abused the services bitsoup offered and now we are paying the price for it. The little monies we collected bought us a few more days. There will be no more extensions allowed. If we are not caught up by end of business July 27th Bitsuop will go offline for many. There is only 72hrs left before possible shut down. We understand that some do not want to donate but it is times like this that everyone regardless of class needs to support what they enjoy to use. You all know how hard it has been over past few months. We need all the help we can get to get through summer. Im saying this now. In the event we are unable to pay the monies owned Bitsoup will be forced offline. PCVIP and VIP have covered for everyone else. If you enjoy bitsoup show your support. Thank you.

The MPAA has revived its legal campaign against piracy sites with a new lawsuit against movie streaming platform MovieTube. The people behind MovieTube allegedly operate a group of infringing sites and the studios are demanding millions of dollars in damages. The first success may have already been booked, as all mentioned sites are currently offline. Unauthorized movie streaming sites have been a thorn in the side of Hollywood for many years, and yesterday the MPAA decided to take one of the most prominent players to court. MPAA members 20th Century Fox, Columbia Pictures, Disney, Paramount, Universal and Warner Bros filed a lawsuit against a group of MovieTube affiliated websites, which operate from more than two dozen domain names. In the complaint, filed at a New York District Court a few hours ago, the movie studios describe MovieTube as a business that’s designed and operated to promote copyright infringement for profit. The MPAA lists several popular websites including MovieTube.cc, TuneVideo.net, Watch33.tv, MovieTube.cz, Anime1.tv, MovieTube.pm, FunTube.co, MovieTube.la and KissDrama.net. These sites share hosting facilities and a similar design and the studios believe that they are operated by the same people. The websites in question are typical streaming sites, where users can watch videos and in some cases download the source files to their computers. “Defendants, through the MovieTube Websites, aggregate, organize and provide embedded links to extensive libraries of Infringing Copies of Plaintiffs’ Works,” the compliant (pdf) reads. “…users can watch Infringing Copies without leaving the MovieTube Websites. The MovieTube Websites even allow users, in some instances, to download Infringing Copies by clicking on a selection from a menu built into the video player software supplied by Defendants.” According to the MPAA, MovieTube’s operators are well aware of the infringing nature of their site. On one of their Facebook pages they write that it’s not a problem that many films are pirated, since they are not bound by U.S. laws. https://torrentfreak.com/images/facebookadmit.png The complaint accuses MovieTube of various counts of copyright and trademark infringement. This means that the site’s operators face millions of dollars in statutory damages. Perhaps more importantly, the MPAA is also demanding a broad preliminary injunction to make it virtually impossible for the operators to keep their sites online. Among other things, the proposed measures would prevent domain registrars, domain registries, hosting companies, advertisers and other third-party outfits from doing business with the site. If granted, MovieTube’s operators will have a hard time keeping the sites afloat, but it appears that the injunction may not even be needed. At the time of writing all MovieTube domain names are unreachable. It is unclear whether the operators took this decision themselves, but for now the future of these sites looks grim. — The full list of sites mentioned in the complaint is as follows: MovieTube.tw, MovieTube.ph, TVStreaming.cc, MovieTube.sx, MovieTube.pw, MovieTubeNow.com, MovieTube.tf, MovieTube.co, MovieOnDrive.com, MovieTube.vc, TuneVideo.net, MovieTube.mn, MovieTube.cc, Watch33.tv, MovieTube.cz, Anime1.tv, MovieTube.pm, FunTube.co, MovieTube.la, KissDrama.net, MovieTube.so, MovieTube.click, MovieTubeHD.co, MovieTubeHD.net, MovieTubeHD.org, MovieTubeHD.tv, MovieTubeHD.us, MovieTubenow.in and TuneMovie.me. https://torrentfreak.com/mpaa-sues-m...piracy-150725/

We are looking for Dedicated staff , dedicated means staff member! should be online daily and as much as he can Staff member who can also help to upload torrent , moderate torrents , helpful to other user , active on shout box interested member can pm me or contact in helpdesk.

A five year-old case billed by prosecutors as the largest of its kind to go trial in Sweden has ended in disappointment for Hollywood. Accused of administering an infamous 'Scene' topsite known as 'Devil', the defendant faced copyright infringement charges on more than 2,200 movies. He's just received probation and community service. After tracking down hundreds of Internet pirates over the years, a case that came to a head at the turn of the decade was shaping up to be one of the most important for anti-piracy group Antipiratbyrån (now Rights Alliance). More often focused on lower-hanging fruit, Antipiratbyrån had their eyes on the “warez scene”, the people and infrastructure at the very top of the so-called “piracy pyramid” from where content trickles down to the masses. In 2010 and following a lengthy investigation by Antipiratbyrån, police raided a topsite known as ‘Devil’. Topsites are top-secret, high-speed servers used by piracy release groups and their affiliates for storing and distributing unauthorized copyrighted content. When Devil went down dozens of servers were seized, together containing an estimated 250 terabytes of pirate content. One man was also arrested but it took until 2014 for him to be charged with unlawfully making content available “intentionally or by gross negligence.” According to police the 50-something year old man from Väsby, Sweden, acted “in consultation or in concert with other persons, supplied, installed, programmed, maintained, funded and otherwise administered and managed” the Devil file-sharing network. Before its shutdown, Devil was reported to service around 200 elite members. Considering Antipiratbyrån’s links with the movie industry it came as no surprise that the charges included the unlawful making available of 2,250 mainly Hollywood movies. According to the prosecutor, those numbers made the case a record breaker. “We have not prosecuted for this many movies in the past. There are many movies and large data set,” prosecutor Fredrik Ingblad commented earlier. “It is also the largest analysis of computers ever made in an individual case.” Given the scale of the case it was expected that punishments would be equally harsh but things did not play out that way. Despite admitting that he operated servers at his home and in central Stockholm and the court acknowledging that rightsholders had suffered great damage, the man has just been sentenced to probation and 160 hours of community service. According to Mitti.se, two key elements appear to have kept the man’s punishment down. Firstly, he cooperated with police in the investigation. Secondly – and this is a feature in many file-sharing prosecutions – the case simply dragged on for too long. “It is worrying that the bottleneck at the police has affected the sentence,” says Sara Lindbäck of Rights Alliance. Defense lawyer Henrik Olsson Lilja says that he’s pleased his client has avoided jail but adds that no decision has yet been made on any appeal. That being said, an end to the criminal case doesn’t necessarily mean the matter is completely over. Last year Rights Alliance indicated that the six main studios behind the prosecution might initiate a civil action against the man and demand between $673,400 and $2.69m per title infringed, albeit on a smaller sample-sized selection of the 2,250 movies involved in the case. No announcement has been made on that front and Rights Alliance did not respond to our requests for comment. Source torrentfreak.com

Tracker's Name: GFXNews.org Genre: Other Sign-up Link: http://forum.gfxnews.org/profile.php?mode=register

Tracker's Name: RaNsAcKeD CrEw (RSC) Genre: General Sign-up Link: http://ransackedcrew.info/register Closing date: 4 Days Additional information: RaNsAcKeD CrEw (RSC) is a Private Torrent Tracker for 0DAY / GENERAL RaNsAcKeD CrEw is the internal tracker for the release group! CrEwSaDe

It has been just three days after the launch of www.reelmonk.com, the online movie releasing site, that a movie screened there was uploaded to torrentz, the free movie downloading site. Njan Steve Lopez by Rajeev Ravi was the movie seen on Torrentz within hours of the movie being screened on Reelmonk. But the tracker system on the site traced the piracy within 12 minutes of it being uploaded to Torrentz and could even trace the person who uploaded. The reelmonk staff called the person from Kasargod and asked him to withdraw the movie version from Torrentz. However, he expressed his inability as once uploaded to Torrentz it could not be withdrawn. The staff members immediately handed over the details of the person to the anti-piracy cell and registered a complaint with them. In the inquiry that followed, it was found that this person used to upload movies to Torrentz very often. “The site which was launched on Monday has achieved record number of viewers in a very short span,” says Blaise M Crowly, CEO, Xincoz, the promoting company of reelmonk. The site now offers five movies including NeeNa by Lal Jose and Compartment by Salim Kumar apart from Njan Steve Lopez.

South Africa is ranked 14th in the world for illegal downloads. There's no getting away from it: South Africans clearly think pirating movies and music is acceptable. The big question is why, and whether it's possible to change the national mindset. It's a real problem. South Africans are estimated as downloading one million pirated movies a month from sites such as Pirate Bay, KickAss Torrent and others. SA is apparently ranked 14th in the world for illegal downloads: a "hall of shame" in which Brazil takes top honours. The figure is worrying for reasons as diverse as illegal downloads fill the coffers of organised crime to society failing to support creative endeavours. However, it still doesn't tell the whole story, because a new breed of sites have emerged which allow films and music to be streamed, and thus, technically, not downloaded. Trade in counterfeit DVDs is also brisk in SA. Rationalising wrongdoing One explanation that has been floated for the root of the problem lies in the fact that, for a long time, South Africans had no way to access digital content legally. However, this explanation really doesn't hold water, as this phenomenon is and has been shared by many other countries worldwide. There is also the fact that many people assume that with paying for Internet access comes the unlimited right to consume any and all content, at no charge. This is similar to another national mindset that says it's alright to pay once-upon-a-time for municipal services, and then just stop paying for them when other priorities are deemed to have gotten in the way of people's monthly utility commitments. Another factor in "legitimising" pirating is that even though legal channels for obtaining digital content are now available – iTunes has now launched locally, for example, and premier local video-on-demand (VOD) service VIDI has launched the first local online movie-streaming service – South Africans typically have to wait some time to access the latest global content on VOD. According to previous media articles, the South African Federation against Copyright Theft estimates illegal downloads cost the film industry R300 million to R600 million, depending on whether one uses video rentals or cinema tickets as the basis of the calculation. The impact on local artists' creativity and general motivation to produce work is probably impossible to calculate. A faceless corporation which is perceived to be making too much profit is fair game. Unfortunately, the person in the street believes the only losers are big businesses which can afford to lose their heard-earned rands. The only problem with this erroneous thinking is that it's, well... wrong. Artists produce creative content, not corporations, and with that production comes the expectation of fair reward. Wasn't me People typically find it easier to rationalise illegal activities when the impact of these activities is diffused. Certain crimes are incorrectly seen as ‘victimless', because the direct consequence of these actions on individuals cannot be seen. Following this logic, it's easy to bribe an official even though it's been shown that society as a whole is harmed. Similarly, downloading a song or video from a pirate site is not perceived to harm an individual directly – a faceless corporation which is perceived to be making too much profit is fair game. The effect on individual artists is conveniently ignored. It is also easier for people to steal information than physical items (such as DVDs) or money. In this way, the immorality of illegal actions is disguised – and once that occurs, it is hard to reverse. People need to think hard about the impact of their decisions, and this is especially important – and more difficult – in an environment where there is a belief that ‘everyone does it'. South Africans have to accept that ethical behaviour must be consistent. The public cannot rail against corporate and government corruption if they act unethically and download films illegally. People cannot justify piracy by conveniently arguing that legal avenues to access digital content do not exist, or that the costs are too high. There is a local streaming solution to support, and everyone needs to contribute to changing the moral climate of the country. Finally, and reassuringly, enforcement of copyright laws in the digital realm is becoming more vigorous in SA. A South African was recently criminally convicted for the uploading of a film to Pirate Bay. While downloading a film isn't necessarily criminal, it is illegal and opens one up to a civil action.

Animal-shaped pillows are cute and fluffy, except when they spur litigation. Recently, the Milo & Gabby brand sued Amazon for IP infringement because merchants allegedly sold knockoffs of its “Cozy Companion Pillowcases.” Amazon has successfully avoided IP liability for its marketplace, and a recent ruling rejected most of Milo & Gabby’s claims. However, a key piece of Milo & Gabby’s claim survived Amazon’s dismissal attempt, leaving the possibility that Amazon could be liable for merchants’ IP violations. The case In 2013, Milo & Gabby sued Amazon in 2013 alleging a variety of intellectual property claims. In 2014, the judge dismissed several of those claims and narrowed the lawsuit to three claims: * copyright infringement. Merchants allegedly used Milo & Gabby’s copyrighted marketing photos to advertise their knockoff goods. Even if true, the court says this isn’t Amazon’s direct responsibility because “the content of the detail pages and advertisements was supplied by third parties via an automated file upload system, and did not originate from Amazon.” In addition, Amazon qualified for the online safe harbor for user-caused copyright infringement (17 USC 512©) that Congress created in 1998 as part of the DMCA. On the key question of Amazon’s ability to control merchants’ infringing behavior, the court concluded that Amazon lacked “practical” control because it can’t “analyze every image it receives from third party sellers, compare the submitted image to all other copyrighted images that exist in the world, and determine whether each submitted image infringes someone’s copyright interest.” * trademark infringement. Among other things, the court says Amazon wasn’t the seller of the allegedly infringing items because its “third-party sellers retain full title to and ownership of the inventory sold by the third party.” Thus, Amazon didn’t commit trademark infringement. * design patents. Design patents protect non-functional “ornamental” product designs. In contrast to utility patents, which get lots of attention, most academics and practitioners routinely ignored design patents–until Apple scored a huge damage award in its fight against Samsung based on design patents. Now, lots of folks are keenly interested in design patents. A design patentholder has an exclusive right to offer the patented item for sale. The court says a factfinder could conclude that Amazon offered the knock-offs for sale, even though the merchants posted the listings. The court explains: While Amazon notes that the item is “sold” by a third-party vendor and “fulfilled” by Amazon, the fact that the item is displayed on the amazon.com website and can be purchased through the same website, could be regarded as an offer for sale….Likewise, looking at the website, a potential purchaser may understand that his or her assent is all that is required to conclude the deal. Indeed, the website notes the price, allows the buyer to choose a quantity, and allows the buyer to then conclude the purchase. As a result, the court sends the design patent issues to trial. Implications This case implicates a perennial cyberlaw issue: is an online marketplace just a venue provider for its merchants, or is it the actual retailer? However we might have answered these questions in the past, marketplace operators play increasingly greater roles in merchant transactions–not only do they provide advertising services to merchants, but they may run the ordering software and process the payments. In Amazon’s case, merchants often store their inventory in Amazon’s warehouses and have the orders fulfilled by Amazon’s warehouse workers. So while merchants nominally set the item’s price and retain inventory ownership risks, Amazon provides many of the other functions we associate with “retailers.” On that basis, Amazon faces constant–and perhaps growing–exposure that it will be treated like the retailer of marketplace offerings, with all of the associated legal risks. This court’s opinion demonstrates this schizophrenia over how to characterize Amazon’s marketplace. When discussing trademarks, the court says Amazon wasn’t the seller; while regarding design patents, Amazon may have offered the items for sale. Arguably, these conclusions are difficult to reconcile. If Amazon defeats the design patent claims at trial, this case may become an expensive but ultimately inconsequential lawsuit for it. However, should the trial conclude that Amazon did “offer for sale” the design patented items, then the holding will put significant pressure on Amazon’s characterization of its marketplace. Many major vendors supplement their copyright and trademark protection with design patent protection, and those vendors could pursue Amazon for design patent infringement even if Amazon can completely avoid copyright and trademark liability. Amazon’s options to mitigate any design patent risk are unappealing. There’s no notice-and-takedown requirement for direct design patent liability, so Amazon might need to prescreen merchant items for design patents; or it might ignore the problem and hope that works out OK, knowing that it may not. As a result, Amazon really, really wants to win the design patent claims; and should it lose at trial, Amazon will certainly seek an appeal that would have high stakes. (Then again, this case probably will be appealed no matter what happens at trial). I reached out to both sides for their comments about this ruling. Philip P. Mann, Milo & Gabby’s counsel, wrote me: It is amazing the lengths the courts will go to these days to protect companies like Amazon. Without her knowledge or permission, the “largest Internet-based retailer in the United States” runs on-line ads showing not only my client’s actual copyrighted products but her own children as well. Amazon collects and pockets money from would-be buyers. It substitutes a cheap knock-off product for the one actually shown. It puts the knock-off in a box clearly marked “Amazon” and delivers it to the buyer in place of the genuine product depicted. And to top it off, my client gets a bad review when the buyer is disappointed in the knock-off. According to the court, this is perfectly all right and beyond the reach of the law — because Amazon doesn’t actually sell anything. Got it. As usual, Amazon didn’t respond to my inquiries.

Sure, the wide range of cloud services such as Dropbox, Google Drive and Microsoft OneDrive are great and all, but what if you're not entirely sure you can trust your data to them. Also, you don't like paying yet another annual service fee, on top of all the other ones you're currently paying. Still, the convenience of cloud syncing is pretty great, ensuring that all your important stuff is kept on all your devices, up to date and immediately accessible. It also lets you share your stuff with other people really easily. That's why you might be tempted to create your own personal cloud syncing system. Here we're going to walk through using our favourite tool for doing just that: BitTorrent Sync 2.0. Currently in Beta, Sync 2.0 uses BitTorrent peer to peer technology to get your devices to talk directly to each other over the internet, sharing files so that a copy of selected folders is stored on each device. Transfers are encrypted with a private key and no data is ever stored on a third-party server. There are no limits on the amount of data you can sync, or on file sizes. There are Sync clients for desktops (Windows, Mac, Linux, FreeBSD), mobiles (iOS, Android, Windows Phone) as well as major network attached storage devices like those from QNAP, WD, Seagate and Synology. Here we'll talk about using a Windows PC as the starting device, but you can really use any platform.

Online piracy punishments will be scrapped in the UK as of next year. Under a new scheme, people caught unlawfully file-sharing video games, music and movies will be educated rather than punished. As part of the voluntary copyright alert programme (VCAP), file-sharers will be issued with up to four warnings annually. However, according to CVG, there will be no sanctions for ignoring them. The VCAP scheme falls into the wider Creative Content UK initiative, which aims to promote legal sources of online entertainment. Plans to introduce harsher punishments, such as shutting off a user's internet, were scrapped in favour of the advisory scheme. Business Secretary Vince Cable described the UK's creative industries as one of the country's "brilliant global success stories". "We have unrivalled creativity - from record-breaking musicians to box office films - that excite and inspire people all over the world," he continued. "Yet too often that content is open to abuse by some who don't play by the rules. Software Piracy: The Greatest Threat to the Gaming Industry? "That is why we are working with the industry to ensure that intellectual property rights are understood and respected. "Education is at the heart of this drive so people understand that piracy isn't a victimless crime - but actually causes business to fail, harms the industry and costs jobs." A 2012 study revealed that two in five UK adults have admitted to illegally downloading or streaming content online. Another report said that while video game piracy was widespread, it was not as high as previously suggested. http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/gaming/n...pjmcYLhAYOkdxG

Tracker's Name: TV Chaos UK (TVCUK) Genre: TV Sign-up Link: https://tvchaosuk.com/signup.php?agree=yes&invitehash= Closing date: Soon Additional information: TV Chaos UK (TVCUK) is a UK Private Torrent Tracker for UK TV

Tracker's Name: 49-3 Genre: General Sign-up Link: http://49-3.be/signup.php?agree=yes&invitehash= Additional information: 49-3 is a FRENCH Private Torrent Tracker for MOVIES / GENERAL

The European Union has today launched an antitrust investigation against several large U.S. movie studios and Sky UK. The European Commission wants to abolish geographical restrictions and has sent a statement of objections over the geo-blocking practices of six major US film studios including Disney, Paramount Pictures and Warner Bros. Due to complicated licensing agreements many movies and TV-series are only available online in a few selected countries, often for a limited period. The movie studios often restrict broadcasters and streaming services to make content widely available, a practice which the European Commission wants to stop. Today the European Commission sent a statement of objections to Sky UK and six large US film studios: Disney, NBCUniversal, Paramount Pictures, Sony, Twentieth Century Fox and Warner Bros. The Commission believes that the geo-restrictions the parties agreed upon are violating EU competition rules. “European consumers want to watch the pay-TV channels of their choice regardless of where they live or travel in the EU,” says Margrethe Vestager, EU Commissioner in charge of competition policy. “Our investigation shows that they cannot do this today, also because licensing agreements between the major film studios and Sky UK do not allow consumers in other EU countries to access Sky’s UK and Irish pay-TV services, via satellite or online.” Under European rules consumers should be able to access the services of Sky and other service providers regardless of where they are located. At the moment, most online services block access to content based on the country people are located, something Sky and the movie studios also agreed on. The geo-blocking practices are a thorn in the side of the European Commission who now hope to abolish these restrictions altogether. In parallel to the antitrust investigation the EU’s governing body adopted the new Digital Single Market Strategy earlier this year. One of the main pillars of the new strategy is to provide consumers and businesses with better access to digital goods and services. The Commission plans “to end unjustified geo-blocking,” which it describes as “a discriminatory practice used for commercial reasons.” “I want to see every consumer getting the best deals and every business accessing the widest market – wherever they are in Europe,” Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker said at the time. Sky UK and the six major studios will now have to respond to the concerns. The current statement of objections is only the start of the antitrust investigation, a final decision will take at least several months. https://torrentfreak.com/eu-starts-g...tudios-150723/