In the light of the many tracker shutdowns we have experienced the last months, HoundDawgs is taking some steps to insure both our and your safety. This can mean that the site is unresponsive at times during the next days, not worry, just leave you torrents seeding and we will be back online shortly.Thanks to everyone who has bought the Christmas Offer, Its because of you we have the money to protect us all even more.-Site Team

Popular file-hosting service 4shared is a true piracy haven, according to some copyright holders. Following numerous complaints the site has had more than 50 million of its URLs removed from Google's search index. However, according to 4shared many of these are the result of abusive takedown requests. As one of the largest online file-sharing services, 4sharedis closely watched by copyright holders whose work is made available on the site. The site itself has a DMCA takedown procedure in place so rightsholders can remove files directly, but interestingly, most complaints about the site are directed at Google’s search index. Over the past several years the search engine has received a mind-boggling 50 million takedown requests for 4shared URLs, more than any other website out there. An unusually high amount, especially considering that 4shared only has about 2 million pages indexed. TorrentFreak had a chance to speak with 4shared, which isn’t proud of this record. However, the company believes that the numbers are massively inflated due to various dubious takedown practices. One of the issues that was brought up first, is the question why rightsholders would target Google at all if they can remove infringing files directly from the site itself. According to 4shared, the top reporting agencies know very well that 4shared has a strict removal policy. In fact, some even have direct delete access, allowing them to remove files from the site straight away. “Complaining to Google is not effective if your goal is to remove a file asap,” 4shared’s Mike tells us. “It only removes the link from search results in Google, while sending a complaint directly means a quick block of the link itself.” According to 4shared, the high number of takedown requests is in part driven by bogus reports. The company used the Lumen Database to review several takedown notices and quickly realized that many reported links are pointing to the same files, or none at all. “What we can see is that numerous complaints provide a redundant volume of links that look like some machine-built template as well as a large amount of non-informative links to various parts of the 4shared website,” Mike says. “The organization APDIF do Brasil, which is the top reporter, submits absolutely meaningless complaints where obviously a bot cycles some keyword through all possible variations of search requests without leading to any specific file which may be copyright-protected.” One of the examples 4shared mentions (among many) is this link, which simply points to a 4shared search for the keyword “video.” APDIF do Brasil alone is responsible for 35 million of the reported 4shared links Google received, so their submissions weigh heavily on the total number. “In other words, 70% of delisting requests were sent by this organization and apparently numerous requests, if not all, contain meaningless links artificially increasing the volume of complaints in terms of links included,” Mike notes. These automated claims are not new of course. At TorrentFreak we also repeatedly report on similar examples, where non-existent files or dead sites are targeted by copyright claims. 4shared says that broad or inflated request are rather common, highlighting several other reporting agencies such as Digimarc and Muso. The latter repeatedly targets links that ultimately point to the same file, such as in this notice. “It includes numerous links to exactly the same 4shared’s page in one claim (#8). These are the same page because each page (file) has its unique ID. And in this example it is H8HJ_FJXce. Yes, links look different but this is the same page with parameter variations,” Mike says. 4shared believes that this is the result of automated takedown templates. Not least because files can only be in one category, not in multiple ones, as is the case here. Perhaps just as strange, Muso has access to a direct removal account on 4shared, so in theory there shouldn’t be any reason to target Google. After all, they can easily remove the source file directly. However, Muso informs TorrentFreak that they prefer to do both. The 4shared files that are reported to Google are also removed directly. According to the company, they do this to prevent people from finding other infringing content on the site. Whether that’s what the DMCA reporting system is intended for is doubtful. All in all, 4shared believes that some copyright holders abuse Google’s system. The 50 million record should, therefore, be taken with a grain of salt, or a spoonful. “Taking into account that duplicates for our examples were found relatively easy makes us think that copyright owners substantially abuse Google’s DMCA reporting system,” Mike says. Instead of bombarding Google with dubious requests, 4shared encourages rightsholders to reach out to them directly. https://torrentfreak.com/4shared-copyright-holders-abuse-googles-dmca-takedown-system-161123/

The Opera web browser feature 'Turbo Mode' is designed to speed up browsing. As a side effect, it also bypasses website blocks, something popular with pirates. However, it appears that the company has been in talks to integrate a blacklist which could stop access to blocked domains. With website blockades gaining in popularity around the world, web users are finding tools and techniques which enable them to access blocked sites. One of the easiest, consistent, and privacy conscious methods is to use a VPN, but other alternatives are available. Holding a couple of percent of the desktop market and ten percent of mobile, Opera is a reasonably significant player in the browser market. It also has a unique trick up its sleeve. Turbo Mode is designed to speed up website browsing but is also able to unblock sites that have been hit by ISP court orders. As a result, Opera has a cult following in places where pirate sites are blocked, such as the UK, mainland Europe, and Russia. However, this hasn’t gone unnoticed by certain authorities who now want Opera to take action. It transpires that earlier this year, Opera’s owners were approached by Russian telecoms watchdog Roskomnadzor who aired concerns about the browser’s ability to unblock banned sites. It was suggested that Opera should introduce some kind of filtering/blacklist mechanism to disallow blocked sites from accessing ‘Turbo Mode.’ Russian publication Kommersant says that it was able to confirm the nature of the discussions with sources within Opera. And according to Roskomnadzor’s Vadim Ampelonsky, a meeting took place between the parties early in the fall. Ampelonsky says that discussion surrounded the technical issues of keeping blocked sites inaccessible when ‘Turbo Mode’ is activated. Representatives from Opera reportedly confirmed that this kind of filtering is possible. “We are ready to periodically send a list of sites to enter into such a filter at the conclusion of a bilateral agreement [with Opera],” Ampelonsky says, adding that discussions continue. It’s understood that no formal agreement has yet been reached due to the sale of part of Opera’s business earlier this year to Chinese company Qihoo. According to Kommersant, negotiations over the ‘Turbo Mode’ issue were complicated when Opera closed down its Russian office. A source within Opera confirmed that no final deal has been done to implement a blacklist “because there is no deal with the new shareholders.” However, should one be reached, it’s conceivable that Opera’s reputation could be on the line. The addition of a blacklist would not only worry information advocates, but copyright holders from all over the world could also seek to add their own lists of sites, which could easily and quickly run to thousands of domains. Earlier this year, Opera integrated a free VPN into its software. It too can bypass site blockades, but it is not currently under discussion for similar tampering. https://torrentfreak.com/opera-browser-asked-to-blacklist-pirate-sites-in-turbo-mode-161122/

Detectives from the UK's Police Intellectual Property Crime Unit say they have arrested a man attempting to sell the movie Brotherhood on the dark web. The 35-year-old is suspected of offering the movie , which is the follow-up to the successful Kidulthood and Adulthood, in advance of its retail release. The Police Intellectual Proprty Crime Unit is well known in the UK for its action against torrent and streaming sites and other larger players in the piracy scene. Today, however, they bring news of a more focused action. In a statement this afternoon, PIPCU announced the arrest of a man from Maidenhead who allegedly offered a movie for sale on the dark web. The 35-year-old is said to have offered Brotherhood, the Lionsgate-distributed crime-drama sequel to Kidulthood and Adulthood. It’s still showing in cinemas in the UK following its late August release. According to police, the copy was spotted by UK anti-piracy outfit Entura International, which focuses on cyberlocker, streaming, and BitTorrent piracy. Entura passed its information to the police who arrested the man last Thursday on suspicion of copyright offenses. At this stage, several questions remain unanswered, not least why the UK’s most elite anti-piracy unit sprang into action for a single movie. The movie isn’t available for retail release until December 26th, so that may have played a part, but PIPCU are usually involved in much bigger operations. What’s also unclear is the type of copy being made available. TorrentFreak asked Entura if the copy had CAM, DVDSCR or retail origins, but at the time of publication we had received no response. However, according to police, counterfeit goods were seized from the suspect’s address during the raid, which might indicate a bigger operation. “Protecting the creative industries is of paramount importance to the UK and the Government estimates that it contributes £84.1 billion to the economy,” said Detective Inspector Michael Dodge of PIPCU. “Intellectual property crime is not a victimless crime as not only do hundreds of thousands of jobs rely on it but the money made funds organized crime groups that can also be involved in people and drug trafficking.” Jason Maza, who plays Daley in the movie, also welcomed the arrest, thanking Entura and the police for protecting his film from piracy. “The importance of protecting film from theft is something I have always felt strongly about as without it the industry has no future. “I’m so happy that the Police Intellectual Property Crime Unit (PIPCU) and Entura were able to act so quickly to stop this thief in their tracks and hope that this arrest acts as a warning to those out there considering such behavior in the future.” PIPCU say the 35-year-old has been released on police bail until January 2017. https://torrentfreak.com/police-arrest-man-trying-to-sell-brotherhood-on-the-dark-web-161122/

The lawsuit between Paramount Pictures and the crowdfunded Star Trek spin-off "Prelude to Axanar" is heating up again. With a trial scheduled for early next year, both parties have submitted motions for summary judgment. The defendants argue, among other things, that their fan-film clearly falls under fair use. Earlier this year Paramount Pictures and CBS Studios filed a lawsuit against the makers of a Star Trek inspired fan film, accusing them of copyright infringement. The dispute centers around the well-received short film Star Trek: Prelude to Axanar and the planned follow-up feature film Axanar. Among other things, the Star Trek rightsholders claim ownership over various Star Trek related settings, characters, species, clothing, colors, shapes, words, short phrases and even the Klingon language. After some confusion about a possible early settlement, based on comments made by J. J. Abrams, the case is far from over. A trial is scheduled for early next year which means that the ultimate decision may lay in the hands of a jury. Hoping to have a decision on some of the crucial matters, before the trial starts, both parties submitted a motion for summary judgment to the court. The Axanar team argues that their films are not infringing Star Trek copyrights. One of the main reasons, according to the makers, is that it clearly fall under fair use. The fan-films are not in direct competition with other Star Trek works, they note. Instead, Paramount Pictures’ and CBS Studios’ own Star Trek films may benefit from the hype. “Plaintiffs have not and will not suffer any market harm as a result of the creation and distribution of Defendants’ Works. Instead, these works offer free promotional value to Plaintiffs,” Axanar writes. “The works are not intended to be commercialized, and will not be competing against Plaintiffs’ Works in movie theaters or otherwise sold for profit,” they add. The Axanar team notes that their films are transformative and non-commercial in nature, and therefore not infringing. In addition, they stress that they do not use substantial portions of other copyrighted Star Trek films. “Most notably, the entire plotline and characters in the unfinished Potential Fan Film scripts are original, except for the limited number of characters that come from the obscure edges of the Star Trek Universe.” As an example of originality the Axanar team highlights that the forthcoming film, which is still unfinished, uses 50 original characters of a total 57 characters. In determining whether fair use applies, original works that are still unpublished tend to get broader protection. However, according to the Axanar team that is clearly not the case here. “The allegedly infringed works have been publicized over the course of the last fifty years, thus weighing this factor in favor of Defendants,” they write. Overall, the Axanar team states that the totality of circumstances supports fair use and they hope the court will agree. Paramount Pictures and CBS Studios clearly disagree. In their motion for summary judgment they ask the court to rule that the Axanar works are infringing, arguing that fair use doesn’t apply. “It is beyond dispute that Defendants’ works were not created for purposes of criticism, comment, news reporting, or teaching. Similarly, the Axanar Works do not constitute either parody or satire, and (prior to this lawsuit) Defendants never claimed they were. “Indeed, Defendants expressly set out to create an authentic and ‘independent Star Trek film’ that stayed true to Star Trek canon down to excruciating details,” the studios add. The court will now have to review both summary motions and is likely to issue its final rulings in the weeks to come. — Axanar’s motion for default judgment is available here (pdf), and a copy of the Paramount Pictures and CBS Studios can be found here (pdf). https://torrentfreak.com/fan-funded-star-trek-film-claims-fair-use-as-defense-161122/

A report commissioned by the Australian government has found a drop in piracy rates for 2016. The fall is being attributed to improved availability of legal streaming alternatives, but in a juicy twist, the report also reveals that the much reviled Aussie pirate is often the industry's best customer. For years, Australian citizens have been subjected to intense criticism over their eager consumption of unauthorized content. Anti-piracy groups have insisted that Aussies simply don’t want to pay, but anecdotal evidence suggested otherwise. Many of those frequenting torrent, streaming, and similar portals have often stated their motivations in different terms. Content providers treat Aussies as second class citizens, they argue, debuting material later, less conveniently, and at increased cost. More recently, however, the situation has been improving and new research from the government suggests that when people are presented with sensible legal alternatives, they are prepared to give up, or at least reduce, their pirating ways. Conducted on behalf of the Department of Communications and the Arts between January and March 2016, the survey sampled 2,400 people aged 12 and up. It aimed to understand consumption of four types of online content – music, movies, TV shows, and video games. It also sought to understand attitudes to piracy, including the role pricing plays in media consumption. As a starting point, the survey found that 6 out of 10 Internet users (62%) consumed at least one item of digital content during the period, up from 60% in the same period 2015. While those volumes are relatively static, there was a difference in how that content was consumed. In 2015, 43% obtained content by downloading but in 2016 that had reduced to 39%. Despite it being the most popular download category overall, the largest drops were witnessed in the music sector, from 29% last year to 26% in 2016. Streaming, on the other hand, increased from 54% to 57% year on year, with TV shows and movies making the biggest gains. “The proportion of internet users who streamed TV programs increased from 34% to 38% (making TV the most commonly accessed content type via online streaming) and the proportion of internet users who streamed movies increased from 25% to 29%,” the report reads. This year the most-consumed content were TV shows (41%, up from 38% in 2015), music (39%, down from 42% in 2015) and movies (33%) and video games (15%). When all four content types were considered, the survey found that consumers streaming content on a weekly basis increased significantly, with 71% doing so for music and videos games, 55% for TV programs and 51% for movies. YouTube remained the most popular services, followed by iTunes/Apple platforms. Unsurprisingly, Netflix is doing particularly well in third place. “In 2016, 27% of consumers or sharers had used Netflix, up from 9% in 2015, and making it the third most popular service overall. The proportion using Netflix for movies increased from 16% in 2015 to 41% in 2016, and the percentage using Netflix for TV programs rose from 12% in 2015 to 31% in 2016, meaning it was the most popular service for both movies and TV programs,” the report reads. Infringement Of course, even while authorized content consumption continues to increase, there are still those who choose to frequent unauthorized sources. There has been another decrease this year and drilling down into the figures shows that the situation is far from the catastrophy painted by the entertainment industries. “We estimate that, over the first 3 months of 2016, 23% of Australian internet users aged 12+ consumed at least one item of online content unlawfully, which equates to approximately 4.6 million people. This was a significant drop from the 26% who had consumed unlawful content in 2015,” the report reads. However, in yet another blow to those who believe that genuine consumers and pirates are completely different and separate animals, the survey also reveals that millions of pirates are also consumers of legitimate content. In 2016, just 6% of Internet users exclusively obtained content from pirate sources. And there was improvement in other areas too. When the survey presents figures from Internet users who consumed content in the period (instead of just ‘all Internet users 12+’), 37% consumed at least one unlawful file, down from 43% in the same period in 2015. Using the same parameters, 9% consumed all of their files unlawfully, down from 12% in 2015. Movies continued to be the most popular content on pirate networks, but there was a decrease this year over 2015. “Although movies continued to have the highest rate of unlawful consumption amongst consumers in 2016 (39%), this had declined significantly from 48% in 2015, driven by a significant decline in the proportion consuming ‘100% unlawful’ content from 32% in 2015 down to 23% in 2016,” the survey reports. “There were similar declines for music (in any unlawful consumption from 37% to 32%; in 100% unlawful consumption from 20% to 15%) and for TV programs (in any unlawful consumption from 33% to 26%; in 100% unlawful consumption from 21% to 15%). The rate of unlawful consumption for video games remained the same as in 2015, but was the lowest of the four content types.” But while there have been improvements in a number of areas, the volume of content being consumed illegally is not coming down across the board. According to the report, an estimated 279m music tracks, 56m TV shows, 34m movies, and 5m video games were consumed in the three month period. “This represented a drop in volumes for video games and TV programs but an increase for music and movies,” the report notes. “Across all consumers of unlawful content, the median number of files downloaded or streamed unlawfully in the first three months of 2016 was 16, which matched the result from 2015. The median number of files downloaded or streamed without permission was highest for music (20 tracks – equivalent to two albums), followed by TV programs (7), movies (5) and video games (3), which were all broadly consistent with findings from 2015.” However, despite their reputation for being terrible consumers, the majority of Internet pirates are again shown to be the industry’s best customers. In line with similar findings in Sweden recently, people who pirate some content are also more likely to pay. “For each content type, those who consumed a mix of lawful and unlawful content spent more money over a 3 month period than those who consumed 100% of their content lawfully,” the survey found. “This is comparable to the figures from 2015, and suggests that those who consume 100% of their content lawfully tend to consume less content (and hence spend less money) than those who consume a mix of lawful and unlawful content.” Unsurprisingly, those who pirated everything spent the least money, but even they have something to offer. “Since the majority of spend on music and movies was not from content purchases but from concerts and gigs and the cinema, those who consumed 100% of their content unlawfully still spent a substantial amount of money on music and movies. In contrast, they did not spend very much money on either video games or TV programmes.” Motivations for using paid or illicit services Half of the consumers cited convenience as the main reason to use paid services, with 39% citing speed. Wanting to support creators and not wanting to use pirate sites tied at 37% each but the former was down from 43% in 2015. In line with 2015, pirates said their prime motivations for using infringing sites was due to the content being free (52%), convenient (44%) and quick (41%). However, convenience was down from 51% in 2015, with “try-before-you-buy” collapsing from 35% in 2015 to 24% in 2016. How to make pirates stop In line with 2015, 43% of infringers said that better pricing would be the factor that would be most likely to reduce their consumption of illicit content. Availability came second, with 35% complaining about content not being available in Australia at the same time as elsewhere, and 31% complaining about availability, period. “Only 1 in 20 infringers (6%) said that nothing would make them stop, rising to 1 in 10 (10%) of those consuming 100% of their content unlawfully,” the report concludes. The full report is available here (pdf) https://torrentfreak.com/surprise-aussie-internet-pirates-are-the-best-customers-161121/

Earlier this month Swedish police took down Rarat.org, one of the largest private torrent trackers in the country. With help from PayPal the authorities were able to identity and arrest the prime target, who also happens to be an organizer of the upcoming winter edition of Dreamhack. While Rarat.org is relatively unknown in most countries, it gained local fame in Sweden as one of the top private trackers. This ended abruptly a few weeks ago when the site’s homepage was replaced with a worrying message, indicating the site’s operators were in trouble. “The week Rarat was subject to a search, seizure, and arrest. This follows a 2013 complaint from a film company that tracked down our PayPal payments. Damages in the millions of krona are feared. The site will now be closed.” This weekend, Rights Alliance lawyer Henrik Pontén, who represents several copyright holders, informed DN that Nordisk Film, SF, and Disney filed a criminal complaint back in 2013. Initially, there wasn’t much progress in the case. However, a breakthrough came when PayPal, with help from Rights Alliance, identified the person who received Rarat’s donations. With this information in hand a special unit of Sweden’s Department of National Police Operations, NOA, managed track down one of the alleged operators of the torrent site. Interestingly, this prime suspect is also one of the organizers of the winter edition of Dreamhack, the largest computer festival in the world. The upcoming Dreamhack event, which takes place in Jönköping, is expected to draw 50,000 computer and gaming fanatics. Earlier this month the Dreamhack organizer was arrested and taken in for questioning on suspicion of copyright infringement. In addition, several computers were seized as evidence during a house search. “The investigation is still at an early stage, and there could be more people involved. We will now carry out a cyber forensic investigation. The suspect has been released pending a possible prosecution,” a representative of Stockholm’s Public Prosecution Office told DN. The alleged torrent site operator denies his involvement with the site but has been put on leave from work by Dreamhack, pending the investigation. “I’m not worried. The police have the wrong person,” the man commented, noting that the Rarat site shut down while the police were interrogating him. Rights Alliance lawyer Henrik Pontén says that the complaint lists five films. As a result, the total scale of the damages could reach 10 million Swedish krona, which is well over a million dollars. https://torrentfreak.com/dreamhack-organizer-arrested-in-torrent-site-crackdown-161121/

Tracker's Name : Shellife (SL) Genre : NON MAINSTREAM MUSIC Sign-up Link : https://shellife.eu/new_account.php Additional information : Shellife (SL) is a Private Torrent Tracker for NON MAINSTREAM MUSIC

Pirate sites have a tendency to carry advertising for gambling services but in some regions, notably Russia, online gambling is illegal. So, when torrent and streaming sites carry ads for these services, copyright holders are now reporting them to the authorities who are forcing lSPs to block them. Regular visitors to the world’s largest pirate sites will be acutely aware of how they generate their revenue. Advertising is commonplace, ranging from simple unintrusive images to horribly aggressive popups and similar plagues. What is also glaringly obvious is the kind of companies that advertise on such portals. From those who offer a date after a couple of clicks to those offering gentlemanly extensions, ‘pirate’ advertisers tend to reside towards the bottom of the barrel. This is largely due to the pressure being applied to well-known brands to keep their ads off pirate sites but for some reason, gambling companies still make regular appearances. While they provide a valuable source of revenue, their presence on pirate sites is providing a new leverage point for anti-piracy outfits. While gambling faces restrictions in most territories, over in Russia the practice has been completely outlawed online since 2006. However, gambling companies are still advertising on Russian pirate sites, something which has not gone unnoticed by anti-piracy groups. As a result, some rightsholders have been reporting the rogue advertisers and the sites they appear on to Internet watchdog Roskomnadzor. If the complaint is upheld, Russia’s Federal Tax Service, the body responsible for carrying out state registration of legal entities, gets informed. It carries out its own checks and if illegal advertising is discovered, the pirate site displaying it is earmarked for blocking. According to news outlet Izvestia, several video-related rightsholder groups have already reported a batch of pirate sites in this manner. As a result, three sites (lostfilmonline.ru, zerx.co and hdrezka.me) have already been blocked. “After receiving the complaint, Roskomnadzor notifies the site that online casinos cannot be advertisers,” a spokesperson explains. “If a site responds and removes the casino advertising, it is not blocked. If they do not remove it, Roskomnadzor will have it blocked. If there is no response, then the site is stored in the blacklist and is blocked in Russia.” Under current legislation the site will be removed from the blocklist after it removes the illegal advertising. However, for many that also means a hit in revenue. “If you keep in mind how many pirate sites carry such advertising, it can dramatically affect their income and contribute to two positive things: firstly, Russian citizens will not be involved in gambling and dubious financial schemes. Secondly, pirate Internet businesses cease to be attractive and thereby decrease,” a spokesperson told Izvestia. According to Maxim Ryabyko from anti-piracy outfit AZAPO, such illegal advertising is widespread. “We have made an assessment of the inventory. It is safe to say that more than half of such advertising is located on the most prominent and expensive placement positions, for example, in the header,” Ryabyko says. “If pirate sites with similar advertising are reported to the Federal Tax Service through Roskomnadzor, the [pirate site operators] will have to look for an alternative, for example, by increasing the volume of other, lower-cost advertising on their sites. Ideally, this would lead to discussions with them about the creation of partnerships with legitimate sites.” What is interesting about this process is the reported ease of having a block put in place. Ryabyko says that a regular copyright blocking case has costs attached and can take six to eight months to complete. On the other hand, reporting and having a site blocked for illegal advertising is not only much quicker, but also essentially free. Only time will tell how effective the practice will prove, but it’s a good example of how anti-piracy outfits are prepared to innovate in order to achieve their goals. https://torrentfreak.com/pirate-sites-blocked-for-showing-gambling-advertising-161120/

Tracker's Name : Le Saloon Genre : MOVIES / TV / GENERAL Sign-up Link : http://lesaloon.co/signup.php Additional information : Le Saloon is a FRENCH Private Torrent Tracker for MOVIES / TV / GENERAL

UK Internet providers have added close to 500 URLs to the national pirate site blocklist. The expansion follows a request from copyright holders who frequently add new proxies for sites that have previously been barred. Despite this mass-update, the ongoing blocking whack-a-mole is far from over. Over the past several years hundreds of websites have been blocked in the UK for facilitating copyright infringement, and this list is getting longer and longer. Just a few weeks ago, 123movies and several other streaming portals were targeted by yet another High Court order. These blocks have some effect, at least in preventing subscribers from accessing the domains directly. However, there are plenty of alternative routes people can use instead. Blocked sites and people who support them often create so called reverse proxies. These allow users to access blocked pages through a new domain name, bypassing the restrictions put in place by the court. At least, for as long as it lasts. Copyright holders are well-aware of the proxy sites and frequently send ISPs lists of new domains to add to the blocklist. Over the past weeks, we have seen one of the largest blocklist expansions to date, targeting hundreds of new domains. The expansions often happen silently but are covered under the existing court orders. One UK ISP was kind enough to share an overview of the new additions, published in full below. The new targets include a wide variety of proxies for popular pirate sites such as The Pirate Bay, 123Movies, ExtraTorrent, RARBG, Tubeplus, EZTV, CouchTuner and Putlocker. TorrentFreak spoke to a torrent site owner who had several of his proxy sites blocked by the recent update. As a result, traffic dropped significantly last week, and it may drop even further once it’s implemented by all ISPs. Proxy traffic The question remains whether this new round of updates will have much of an effect. The proxy sites are setup with the intention to bypass blockades, so many will simply move to a new domain. The popular proxy link site “Unblocked,” which offers an up-to-date overview of working proxies, is a good example. The site’s unblocked.ist domain was added to the blocklist, but it already moved to a new home at unblocked.uno. Unblocked’s owner told us that he has no intention of backing down, labeling the blocking efforts as futile. “Anytime we receive multiple reports of the site being blocked, we redirect to a new domain that same day. It’s become quite a simple routine now and we don’t expect to give up anytime soon,” he says. “Considering the popularity of Unblocked in the UK, I don’t think their strategy is an effective way to deal with piracy. Our traffic data doesn’t show any major changes after our many domain changes.” And so, after yet another update, the whack-a-mole continues. Copyright holders will keep adding new domains to the blocklists, while site owners continue to hop from domain to domain. — Below is an overview of all the domain names that were added over the past three weeks in two batches, 480 in total. Some have a duplicate entry, listing both the www and non-www version. Batch 1 123movies.party 123movies.ru 123movies.to 365movies.net 7torrents.unblockall.xyz 7torrents.unblockmyproxy.site 7torrents.win axxomovies.bypassed.cc axxomovies.immunicity.cc axxomovies.immunicity.rocks axxomovies.proxydots.com axxomovies.proxysafe.eu axxomovies.ukbypass.host axxomovies.ukbypass.loan axxomovies.ukbypass.us axxomovies.ukbypass.win axxomovies.unblocked.ist axxomovies.unblocked.party axxomovies.unblockedall.cc axxomovies.unblockerproxy.xyz axxomovies.usbypass.host axxomovies.usbypass.loan axxomovies.usbypass.us axxomovies.usbypass.win chilet.xyz coolfunnys.xyz couch-tuner.proxydots.com couch-tuner.proxysafe.eu couchtuner.bypassed.cc couchtuner.bypassed.rocks couchtuner.immunicity.cc couchtuner.immunicity.faith couchtuner.immunicity.rocks couchtuner.immunicity.stream couchtuner.streaminghub.xyz couchtuner.ukbypass.loan couchtuner.ukbypass.us couchtuner.ukbypass.win couchtuner.unblocked.ist couchtuner.unblocked.party couchtuner.usbypass.us couchtuner.usbypass.win cucirca.us demonoid.tormirror.bid demonoid.tormirror.online demonoid.tormirror.space demonoid.tormirror.tech demonoid.ukbypass.host demonoid.ukbypass.loan demonoid.ukbypass.us demonoid.ukbypass.win demonoid.unblocked.ist demonoid.unblockproxy.bid demonoid.unblockproxy.download demonoid.unblockproxy.space demonoid.usbypass.host demonoid.usbypass.loan demonoid.usbypass.us demonoid.usbypass.win dl4all.streaminghub.xyz dl4all.ukbypass.us dl4all.ukbypass.win dl4all.usbypass.us dl4all.usbypass.win dnoid.me eztv.bypassed.cc eztv.bypassed.rocks eztv.immunicity.cc eztv.immunicity.rocks eztv.proxydots.com eztv.streaminghub.xyz eztv.tormirror.bid eztv.tormirror.online eztv.tormirror.space eztv.tormirror.tech eztv.ukbypass.host eztv.ukbypass.loan eztv.ukbypass.us eztv.ukbypass.win eztv.unblocked.ist eztv.unblocked.party eztv.unblockedall.cc eztv.unblockerproxy.xyz eztv.unblockproxy.bid eztv.unblockproxy.download eztv.unblockproxy.space eztv.usbypass.host eztv.usbypass.loan eztv.usbypass.us eztv.usbypass.win f9movies.com geektv.ma genvideos.org gowatchseries.biz gowatchseries.to hdmovie14.net hdmovie14.net.prx.proxyunblocker.org hdmovieswatch.net icefilms.bypassed.cc icefilms.bypassed.faith icefilms.bypassed.party icefilms.bypassed.rocks icefilms.immunicity.cc icefilms.immunicity.faith icefilms.immunicity.party icefilms.immunicity.rocks icefilms.immunicity.stream icefilms.streaminghub.xyz icefilms.unblocked.ist icefilms.unblocked.party icefilms.unblocked.stream icefilms.unblocktall.com isohunt.bypassed.cc isohunt.bypassed.club isohunt.bypassed.date isohunt.bypassed.download isohunt.bypassed.faith isohunt.bypassed.party isohunt.bypassed.pw isohunt.bypassed.rocks isohunt.immunicity.cc isohunt.immunicity.faith isohunt.immunicity.party isohunt.immunicity.rocks isohunt.immunicity.stream isohunt.streaminghub.xyz isohunt.tormirror.bid isohunt.tormirror.online isohunt.tormirror.space isohunt.tormirror.tech isohunt.ukbypass.host isohunt.ukbypass.loan isohunt.ukbypass.us isohunt.ukbypass.win isohunt.unblocked.ist isohunt.unblocked.party isohunt.unblocked.stream isohunt.unblockerproxy.xyz isohunt.unblockproxy.bid isohunt.unblockproxy.download isohunt.unblockproxy.space isohunt.usbypass.host isohunt.usbypass.loan isohunt.usbypass.us isohunt.usbypass.win iwatchonline.unblocked.ist mail.gowatchseries.biz mail.gowatchseries.to movie25.unblocked.ist movie4k.bypassed.cc movie4k.bypassed.rocks movie4k.immunicity.cc movie4k.immunicity.faith movie4k.immunicity.party movie4k.immunicity.rocks movie4k.immunicity.stream movie4k.ukbypass.host movie4k.ukbypass.loan movie4k.ukbypass.us movie4k.ukbypass.win movie4k.unblocked.ist movie4k.unblocked.party movie4k.unblockedall.cc movie4k.unblocktall.com movie4k.usbypass.host movie4k.usbypass.loan movie4k.usbypass.us movie4k.usbypass.win moviesub.net moviesub.org moviesub.org.prx.proxyunblocker.org moviesub.tv movietubenow.biz movietubenow.biz.prx.proxyunblocker.org movietubenow.ws ns.gowatchseries.to ns1.gowatchseries.biz ns1.gowatchseries.to ns2.gowatchseries.biz ns2.gowatchseries.to primewire.bypassed.cc primewire.bypassed.rocks primewire.immunicity.cc primewire.immunicity.rocks primewire.streaminghub.xyz primewire.unblocked.ist primewire.unblocked.party primewire.unblockedall.cc primewire.unblocktall.com putlocker.com rapidmoviez.unblocked.ist rarbg.bypassed.cc rarbg.bypassed.rocks rarbg.immunicity.cc rarbg.immunicity.rocks rarbg.proxydots.com rarbg.unblocked.ist rarbg.unblocked.party rarbgunblock.com rmz.cr.prx.webanonymizer.org rmz.proxydots.com s-s.www.iwatchonline.cr.prx.proxyunblocker.org s-s.www.iwatchonline.cr.prx.proxywebsite.co.uk s-s.www.iwatchonline.cr.prx.torrentunblock.com scenesource.bypassed.cc scenesource.bypassed.download scenesource.bypassed.faith scenesource.bypassed.party scenesource.bypassed.pw scenesource.bypassed.rocks scenesource.immunicity.cc scenesource.immunicity.faith scenesource.immunicity.party scenesource.immunicity.rocks scenesource.immunicity.stream scenesource.unblocked.party scenesource.unblocked.stream scnsrc.proxydots.com scnsrc.unblocked.ist series-cravings.me series-cravings.tv seventorrents.bypassed.cc seventorrents.bypassed.rocks seventorrents.immunicity.cc seventorrents.immunicity.faith seventorrents.immunicity.rocks seventorrents.immunicity.stream seventorrents.proxydots.com seventorrents.streaminghub.xyz seventorrents.unblocked.ist seventorrents.unblocked.party seventorrents.unblocktall.com spacemov.com spacemov.net spacemov.net.prx.derproxy.com spacemov.net.prx.proxyunblocker.org streamallthis.is sumotorrent.streaminghub.xyz sumotorrent.ukbypass.loan sumotorrent.ukbypass.us sumotorrent.ukbypass.win sumotorrent.usbypass.loan sumotorrent.usbypass.us sumotorrent.usbypass.win themovie4u.live themovie4u.ms tinklepad.bypassed.cc tinklepad.immunicity.cc tinklepad.immunicity.rocks tinklepad.streaminghub.xyz tinklepad.ukbypass.loan tinklepad.ukbypass.us tinklepad.ukbypass.win tinklepad.unblocked.party tinklepad.usbypass.us tinklepad.usbypass.win torrentbutler.bypassed.cc torrentbutler.bypassed.faith torrentbutler.bypassed.rocks torrentbutler.immunicity.cc torrentbutler.immunicity.rocks torrentbutler.immunicity.stream torrentbutler.proxydots.com torrentbutler.streaminghub.xyz torrentbutler.tormirror.bid torrentbutler.tormirror.online torrentbutler.tormirror.space torrentbutler.tormirror.tech torrentbutler.ukbypass.host torrentbutler.ukbypass.loan torrentbutler.ukbypass.us torrentbutler.ukbypass.win torrentbutler.unblocked.ist torrentbutler.unblocked.party torrentbutler.unblocked.stream torrentbutler.unblockproxy.bid torrentbutler.unblockproxy.download torrentbutler.unblockproxy.space torrentbutler.usbypass.host torrentbutler.usbypass.loan torrentbutler.usbypass.us torrentbutler.usbypass.win torrentcd.webypass.xyz torrentcd2.com torrentcd2.com.prx.proxywebsite.co.uk torrentcd2.com.prx.torrentunblock.com torrentday.unblocktall.com torrentzpro.streaminghub.xyz tubeplus.ag.prx.torrentunblock.com tubeplus.bypassed.cc tubeplus.bypassed.rocks tubeplus.immunicity.cc tubeplus.immunicity.rocks tubeplus.proxydots.com tubeplus.streaminghub.xyz tubeplus.ukbypass.host tubeplus.ukbypass.us tubeplus.ukbypass.win tubeplus.unblocked.ist tubeplus.unblockedall.cc tubeplus.unblocktall.com tubeplus.usbypass.us tubeplus.usbypass.win vidics.streaminghub.xyz vidics.ukbypass.us vidics.ukbypass.win vidics.unblocked.ist vidics.unlockproject.us vidics.usbypass.us vidics.usbypass.win vodly.streaminghub.xyz vodly.unblockerproxy.xyz watchfree.bypassed.cc watchfree.bypassed.club watchfree.bypassed.date watchfree.bypassed.download watchfree.bypassed.faith watchfree.bypassed.me watchfree.bypassed.party watchfree.bypassed.pw watchfree.bypassed.rocks watchfree.immunicity.cc watchfree.immunicity.faith watchfree.immunicity.party watchfree.immunicity.rocks watchfree.streaminghub.xyz watchfree.ukbypass.host watchfree.ukbypass.loan watchfree.ukbypass.us watchfree.ukbypass.win watchfree.unblocked.ist watchfree.unblocked.party watchfree.unblocked.stream watchfree.unblockedall.cc watchfree.unblockerproxy.xyz watchfree.unblocktall.com watchfree.usbypass.host watchfree.usbypass.loan watchfree.usbypass.us watchfree.usbypass.win watchfree.webypass.xyz watchfreemovies.streaminghub.xyz watchfreemovies.unblocked.ist watchfreemovies.unblockedall.cc watchfreemovies.unblockerproxy.xyz watchfreemovies.unblocktall.com watchmovie.cd watchmovie.cz watchmovie.is watchmovie.si watchmovie.so watchmovie.watch watchseries.bypassed.cc watchseries.immunicity.cc watchtvseries.unblocked.ist watchtvseries.unblockerproxy.xyz www.123movies.cz www.123movies.party www.123movies.ru www.123movies.to www.365movies.net www.7torrents.win www.cucirca.us www.dnoid.me www.dnoid.me.prx.proxyunblocker.org www.dnoid.me.prx.proxywebsite.co.uk www.dnoid.me.prx.torrentunblock.com www.dnoid.me.prx2.unblocksites.co www.f9movies.com www.geektv.ma www.genvideos.org www.gowatchseries.biz www.gowatchseries.to www.hdmovieswatch.net www.moviesub.net www.moviesub.org www.moviesub.org.prx.proxyunblocker.org www.moviesub.tv www.movietubenow.biz www.movietubenow.biz.prx.proxyunblocker.org www.movietubenow.ws www.primewire-tv.com www.putlocker.com www.series-cravings.me www.series-cravings.tv www.spacemov.com www.spacemov.net www.spacemov.net.prx.derproxy.com www.spacemov.net.prx.proxyunblocker.org www.themovie4u.live www.themovie4u.ms www.torrentcd2.com www.torrentcd2.com.prx.proxywebsite.co.uk www.torrentcd2.com.prx.torrentunblock.com www.tubeplus.ag.prx.torrentunblock.com www.watchmovie.cd www.watchmovie.cz www.watchmovie.is www.watchmovie.si www.watchmovie.so www.watchmovie.watch www.xmovies8.ru www.zmovie.co www.zmovie.se www_dnoid_me.unblocked.lol xmovies8.ru yourbittorrent.unlockproject.online yts.bypassed.cc yts.immunicity.cc yts.immunicity.rocks yts.proxydots.com yts.streaminghub.xyz yts.tormirror.bid yts.tormirror.online yts.tormirror.space yts.tormirror.tech yts.ukbypass.host yts.ukbypass.loan yts.ukbypass.us yts.ukbypass.win yts.unblocked.ist yts.unblocked.party yts.unblockedall.cc yts.unblockproxy.bid yts.unblockproxy.download yts.unblockproxy.space yts.usbypass.host yts.usbypass.loan yts.usbypass.us yts.usbypass.win zmovie.co zmovie.se Batch 2 avxhome.unblocked.ist avxhome_se.unblocked.lol ebookee.unblocked.ist ebookee.unblockedall.cc ebookee.usbypass.download firstrowi.eu firstrowsportes.com firstrowsportes.tv firstsrowsports.eu freebookspot.bypassed.club freebookspot.bypassed.date freebookspot.bypassed.download freebookspot.bypassed.faith freebookspot.bypassed.party freebookspot.bypassed.pw freebookspot.immunicity.faith freebookspot.immunicity.party freebookspot.immunicity.rocks freebookspot.immunicity.stream freebookspot.unblocked.ist freebookspot.unblocked.stream freebookspot.unblockedall.cc justfirstrowsports.com libgen.bypassed.club libgen.bypassed.date libgen.bypassed.download libgen.bypassed.faith libgen.bypassed.me libgen.bypassed.party libgen.bypassed.pw libgen.bypassed.rocks libgen.immunicity.faith libgen.immunicity.party libgen.immunicity.stream libgen.unblocked.ist libgen.unblocked.stream lsh.drakulastream.eu tarjetaroja.eu tarjetarojaonline.es www.Firstrowsports.ge www.livetv111.net www.lshunter.net www.Robinwidget.com www.tarjetaroja-tv.net www.tarjetarojaonline.me www.tarjetarojatv.net www.xn--frstrow-oza.eu https://torrentfreak.com/uk-piracy-blocklist-silently-expands-with-hundreds-of-domains-161120/

Rightscorp's dream of turning piracy into profit continues to be a nightmare. In its latest quarterly filing the anti-piracy outfit reports revenue down 35% over the same period last year, alongside a loss of $385,433. Year to date, the company has lost almost $1.4m and only has enough money to last until December. It’s probably fair to say that outside its extremely limited customer base, Rightscorp is not a popular company. For years the anti-piracy outfit has been bombarding ISPs all over the United States with copyright infringement notices. Rightscorp expects these to be forwarded to the ISPs’ customers so that an attached ‘pay-up-or-else’ warning results in a cash payment. Sadly for Rightscorp, this is a business model that simply isn’t paying off. The company has just published its latest quarterly report, and it makes for grim reading. During the three months ended September 30, Rightscorp generated just $139,834. That’s down from $215,196 during the same period in 2015, a drop of 35%. Losing a third of revenue year-on-year is clearly a huge problem, but once again the company insists this is due to circumstances beyond its control. Just as the company reported for the three months ending March 2016, Rightscorp’s woes are down to three elements. The first, it says, are “changes in the filesharing software intended to defeat detection of copyrights being illegally distributed.” The statement is almost certainly deliberately vague, but it seems likely that this is a reference to more users turning to VPNs and similar technology to avoid detection. The second is down to ISPs, who are refusing to forward Rightscorp’s settlement demands to their subscribers. This is particularly interesting. Rightscorp customer BMG won a case against Cox Communications which at its core centered on Cox not terminating users that Rightscorp claimed were repeat infringers. It appears that not even a $25m verdict in BMG’s favor has the power to push Rightscorp’s settlement demands in front of more subscribers. The final element is Rightscorp’s claims that “the shutting down of some filesharing network infrastructure” is affecting their ability to get subscribers to settle. Again, the statement is deliberately vague, but with millions of torrent users operating without VPNs in the United States, finding pirates should still be like shooting fish in a barrel. With these three elements at play, Rightscorp is under-serving its clients. For the three months ended September 30, 2015, the company returned $107,598 to copyright holders. In the same period this year, that had dropped 35% to just $69,143. What Rightscorp desperately needs is a larger pool of copyrighted titles to monitor, but the company isn’t doing enough to get itself noticed. For the three months ended September 30, 2015, the company spent a measly $5,396 on advertising and marketing. During the same period in 2016 it invested just £337. The company has tightened its belt in other areas too, including in general and administrative expenses, salaries and other professional fees. However, unlike the apparent neglect of sales and marketing, this isn’t necessarily a bad thing. Total wage and related expenses for the three months ended September 30, 2016 were $294,262. Legal fees were ‘just’ $68,161, down from $318,211 in the same period last year. In total the company spent $386,865 on expenses, down from $729,724 in the same period last year. But with revenues drastically down, the expense-cutting measures still aren’t enough. As a result, for the three months that ended September 30, 2016, Rightscorp recorded a net loss of $385,433, a modest improvement over the $424,168 loss it managed in the same period last year. So, from January to September 30, 2016, this is how things are looking for the anti-piracy group versus the same period in 2015. Revenues: $354,160, down 53% from $756,916 Payments to copyright holders: $174,878, down 53% from $378,458 Operating expenses: $1,939,982 versus $2,027,545 Bottom line: Net loss of $1,380,698 versus net loss of $3,120,197 in same period 2015 To date, Rightscorp has never turned a profit and the way things are looking it doesn’t seem likely to anytime soon. However, time is running out. The company has less than $7,000 in the bank and needs a cash injection real soon to have any hope of continuing as a going concern. “Management believes that our existing cash on hand and ongoing revenues will be sufficient to fund our operations through December 2016. Management believes that the Company will need at least another $500,000 to $1,000,000 in 2017 to fund operations based on our current operating plans,” Rightscorp’s filing concludes. https://torrentfreak.com/rightscorp-only-has-enough-cash-to-last-until-december-161119/

Donald Trump isn't in the White House yet is but already under pressure from people hoping to benefit from his influence. Among them Google, Facebook, and Twitter, which have written to the president-elect hoping that he'll uphold the safe harbor provisions of the DMCA to prevent service providers from being held liable for user-uploaded content. The Internet Association is a US-based organization comprised of the country’s leading Internet-based businesses. Google, Facebook, Twitter, Amazon, Reddit and Yahoo are all members. In an open letter published this week, Internet Association president and CEO Michael Beckerman urges President-elect Donald Trump to consider the importance of the connected industries and their contribution to the economy. “Congratulations on your recent election. The Internet Association and its 40 member companies are writing to you today because innovation emerging from America’s internet industry drives significant economic growth throughout our economy,” Beckerman writes. “Businesses of all sizes are able to connect with new customers at the touch of a button and compete on a global scale in ways impossible just a decade ago.” Noting that the internet sector accounted for nearly $1 trillion of GDP in 2014, Beckerman says that the Internet was built on an open architecture that lowers barriers to entry, fosters innovation, and empowers choice. He urges Trump to consider the importance of the connected industries alongside a “roadmap of key policy areas,” compiled by the Internet Association (IA), that will allow the Internet to thrive. Considering that Association members including Google, Facebook, Twitter, and LinkedIn all generate revenue from content posted by users, it’s no surprise that they want Trump to uphold intermediary liability, should that content be infringing. This freedom to operate, they explain, is central to growth and development. “It is not by accident or chance that the U.S. is the global leader in online innovation. Twenty years ago, internet platforms began to flourish because new laws protected platforms from being held liable for information posted and shared by users,” Beckerman says. “Intermediary liability laws and policies protect free speech and creativity on the internet. This, in turn, generates substantial value for our economy and society through increased scale, greater diversity, and lowered barriers to entry for creators and entrepreneurs. “Threats of excessive liability can transform internet service providers and companies, which often lack the knowledge necessary to make legal decisions about the nature of content, into enforcement agents that block user content and make the web less free, innovative, and collaborative.” The Internet Association says that weakening liability laws would chill innovation and free expression, warning that if its members were held liable for user-uploaded content, 80% of investors would be “less likely” to fund startups. A similar percentage would be wary of investing in companies where legal action might be more likely. Specifically, the Internet Association asks Trump to uphold Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (CDA) but of course there is another piece of key legislation that affords Internet Association safe harbors from user-uploaded content – the DMCA. “The safe harbors included in Section 512 of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) provide flexible yet robust parameters from which responsible internet companies can operate in good faith in order to grow and adapt across time and technical evolution,” Beckerman writes. “Under Section 512, internet platforms receive liability protection only if they meet certain requirements, including the expeditious removal of specific identified content flagged by rights-holders. Safe harbors provide flexibility that creates a future-proof framework in which private parties are incentivized to efficiently comply with the law and work collaboratively on private sector efforts tailored to the unique needs of platforms and creators.” The Internet Association chief goes on to describe the legal certainty provided by the DMCA’s safe harbors as the “gold standard worldwide” for fostering innovation, adding that its takedown mechanisms assist both copyright holders and service providers to provide platforms for lawful consumption. “Under the shared responsibilities of the notice and takedown system, both rights holders and digital platforms have flourished as consumers increasingly rely on the internet for access to legal content. Efforts to weaken the safe harbors would create legal uncertainty, force internet companies to police the web, chill innovation and free expression online, and undermine the collaborative framework of the law,” he explains. “Copyright policies must prioritize the public interest by protecting innovation and freedom of expression online, encouraging new forms of follow-on creative works, and ensuring users have access to legal content. Threats to the flexible framework, such as weakening limitations or exceptions to safe harbors, would create barriers to entry for internet startups and creators, which would deny users the ability to access content online.” The open letter, which covers a broad range of advice for President-elect Trump, can be found here (pdf), but only time will tell if it will have any effect on current consultations over the future of the DMCA. https://torrentfreak.com/tech-companies-urge-trump-to-protect-dmca-safe-harbors-161118/

The site will be up and down over the next 3-4 days as we aim to make several site improvements.With recent events at fellow trackers we thought it best to let you know in advance so as to avoid any panic.The security of our users is of the highest importance and we aim to strengthen that even more during this downtime.Keeping these sites alive is become far more risky and far harder and even more expensive than ever before. We shall keep going for as long as we can.

The French music industry group SACEM has confirmed that several servers, which allegedly belong to What.CD, were confiscated in a raid yesterday. The group applauds the police action, which they say has put an end to millions of dollars in losses caused by the popular music tracker. What.CD, meanwhile, assures its former members that all user data is safe. Yesterday the hugely popular private music torrent tracker What.CD shut down. The site’s staff cited “recent events” as the reason for the shutdown, but didn’t confirm that some of its servers were seized by French police, as was reported. Today the French Society of Authors, Composers, and Publishers of Music (SACEM) officially confirmed the raid. The music group informs TorrentFreak that 12 servers were targeted by the police. “This is a follow up to the investigative work carried out by SACEM for more than two years, as part of its anti-piracy activities. It puts an ends to an estimated damage of €41 million to music creators,” a spokesperson said. As previously reported, the raid was carried out by the Cybercrime Unit of the Gendarmerie, with assistance from SACEM. “SACEM is satisfied with having contributed to end this mass online piracy phenomenon committed by an organized group, unprecedented in its scope and international dimension. “SACEM will keep fighting relentlessly and tirelessly to combat online piracy and defend the interests of music creators and publishers,” the spokesperson added. While the above may worry the site’s former members, a What.CD representative informs TorrentFreak that all user data is safe. This likely means that the site’s database was stored elsewhere, not on the servers that were seized. The raids and shutdown have caused quite a stir in the private tracker community over the past 24 hours. And adding to the confusion, What.CD is not the only site to go offline. Shortly after What.CD shut down, popular gaming tracker Gazelle Games also pulled the plug. While What.CD’s troubles are not mentioned, the timing suggests that the events could be somehow related. “All GGn servers will be preemptively shutting down until further notice. We hope for this to be only temporary. Stay tuned for updates,” the site’s staff posted on Twitter a few hours ago. GGn’s tweet Similarly, the private tracker Del.ish also vanished. At first, the page showed an error message, but at the time of writing it is redirecting to a Google search. Thus far the site’s staff haven’t commented on the reason for the downtime. Finally, Feral Hosting, where many private tracker users rent a seedbox, also ran into trouble. The company’s front-end server was taken down by hosting company OVH, where What.CD’s servers were also located. It’s unknown at this point whether these two events are related. It will probably take a few days or even weeks before the dust properly settles. One thing that does seem certain is that What.CD will not return online anytime soon. For now, the end of the road has come for the site that once started as a replacement for OiNK, and grew out to become one of the largest digital music libraries that ever existed. The question is, will history repeat itself once more? https://torrentfreak.com/music-group-confirms-what-cd-raid-claims-millions-in-losses-161118/

The hugely popular private music torrent tracker What.CD has shut down. After a reported raid on several of its servers in France, What.CD says it has destroyed all site and user data. The tracker itself hasn't confirmed the police action but cites "recent events" as the reason for its drastic actions. Earlier today the popular music tracker What.cd became inaccessible. While the reason for the sudden outage remained a mystery for a while, a message that was just posted on the site and official Twitter account shows that the downtime is likely to be permanent. What.cd appears to have shut down effective immediately, and the site’s operators say they’ve destroyed all data in the process. “Due to some recent events, What.CD is shutting down. We are not likely to return any time soon in our current form. All site and user data has been destroyed. So long, and thanks for all the fish,” the announcement reads. What.cd farewell message According to the French news site Zataz, the cybercrime unit of the Gendarmerie (C3N) raided twelve servers operated by the tracker at hosting provider OVH, and one server that was stored at Free. TorrentFreak spoke to Damien Bancal, the author of the article, who noted that the information came from credible and trusted sources. Also, C3N confirmed that there was a police operation this morning, but didn’t specifically mention What.cd. The French music industry group SACEM was reportedly involved in the investigation, which has been ongoing for two years. No arrests have been reported, and it’s unclear if any of the seized data is readable. TorrentFreak reached out to SACEM, What.cd’s hosting provider, and one of the site’s operators, and we will update this article if a response is forthcoming. With the apparent demise of What.cd, the torrent world will lose one of its biggest icons. What.cd first appeared online in the fall of 2007, just a handful of days after the demise of the largest music tracker at the time, OiNK. What.cd’s founders wanted to give nearly 200,000 homeless music fans somewhere to go, a place they could call home – a torrent site to fill the void left by the closure of the Pink Palace. In the years that followed, What.cd grew beyond all expectations, outgrowing OiNK and establishing itself as the greatest music-sharing torrent site the world has ever known. Today, this journey appears to have come to an end. https://torrentfreak.com/what-cd-shuts-down-following-reported-raids-in-france-161117/

Tracker's Name : Latino BT (LBT) Genre : DVD-R / BLURAY MOVIES Sign-up Link : http://latino-bt.net/signup.php Additional information : Latino BT (LBT) is a SPANISH Private Torrent Tracker for DVD-R / BLURAY MOVIES

Mega, the cloud storage site originally founded by Kim Dotcom, was hacked this week. Outsiders gained access to part of the site's infrastructure and plan to release source code, and possibly user details as well. Mega confirmed the hack but says that no user data was compromised When the cloud-storage service Mega was launched in January 2013, it branded itself “the privacy company.” The company’s main focus is to keep the files and other information of its users secure. However, this couldn’t prevent its own systems from being compromised. This week Mega was hacked by outsiders who gained access to part of the company’s infrastructure. According to the hackers, they have access to roughly two gigabytes of data, which they plan to release in public. “We have been digging into some Mega developers account and started to escalate into their systems. We plan to release all the proprietary source code for public analysis,” the hackers informed TorrentFreak. “This is around 2 GB of source code, including the Mega Chat source code and other services.” TorrentFreak reached out to Mega Chairman Stephen Hall, who confirmed the hack. However, the company denies that any critical data has been compromised. Hall says that the affected systems were quickly patched and notes that the hackers did not gain access to user data. “One of our contractors working on independent systems to maintain the public material on our blog and the help center has been compromised,” Hall told TF. “This person did not have access to user data, neither does the person have access to critical source code and so the impact is very low.” Mega’s chairman is confident that the user data is safe and notes that all files that are uploaded to the site are encrypted before they reach their servers. The hackers, however, suggest that they do have some user data in hand. They might release partial user data in the future, they say, but don’t plan to release any on short notice. The hackers will make some source code available and have already released admin login details in a Pastebin post. According to Mega, this is related to an older system that delivers blog posts, help center content, and translations. Time will reveal the true scope and severity of the hack, and if it will affect Mega’s system or users. https://torrentfreak.com/file-storage-service-mega-compromised-by-hackers-161117/

Last year, Dutch anti-piracy group BREIN announced a broad crackdown on torrent pirates, which resulted in the first settlement this week. The person in question paid 4,800 euros for sharing 12 TV-show episodes. According to BREIN, hundreds of thousands of pirates are now at risk of receiving similar treatment. Compared to many other countries around the world, pirating movies and TV-shows is hugely popular in the Netherlands. Up to a third of the population is estimated to download or stream copyrighted content without paying for it. This high percentage is not surprising as the Netherlands has traditionally been a relative safe haven for pirates. Downloading movies without permission was not punishable by law until two years ago and individual uploaders were not targeted legally either. This has now changed, with local anti-piracy group BREINannouncing the first settlement in a new torrent piracy crackdown. Over the past months the group has used elaborate tracking software to monitor the IP-addresses of torrenting pirates. With help from ISPs, they can then obtain the identity of the account holder tied to these infringements. This week the elaborate tracking effort resulted in the first settlement. The person in question was accused of sharing 12 episodes via BitTorrent and agreed to pay 400 euros for each, for a settlement of 4,800 euros in total. According to BREIN director Tim Kuik, this is just the start of a broad crackdown, noting that hundreds of thousands of other uploaders are at risk. “We intend to work our way up to larger numbers. We will not shirk from addressing hundreds or thousands or even more,” Kuik informs TorrentFreak. The anti-piracy group remains vague on how the personal details of the uploader were obtained in this case. Previously, various residential ISPs refused to hand over information without a valid court order. In this ‘trial’ case no court order was issued, so BREIN likely targeted a hosting provider or other intermediary which cooperated voluntarily. “Most hosting providers disclose identity details voluntarily, it is only most of the access providers that say they require a court order,” Kuik tells us. “In the clear and serious matter at hand, BREIN used a combination of information obtained from an intermediary voluntarily and further investigative work,” he adds. The anti-piracy group is not willing to share the name of the intermediary which shared the personal details, but several hosting providers have proven to be rather cooperative in copyright infringement cases. According to Dutch case law, Internet providers must cooperate when there are serious copyright infringement allegations. However, thus far this has been untested on a larger scale where thousands of IP-addresses of multi-person households are harvested. If BREIN goes ahead with its large-scale crackdown, this issue will likely be fought out in court. Ultimately, that will determine how easy and effective the campaign will be. https://torrentfreak.com/breins-new-torrent-piracy-crackdown-results-in-first-settlement-161117/

A broad range of industry associations, academic institutions, libraries and digital rights groups have submitted their opinions on the landmark piracy case between Cox Communications and BMG. They all warn the court that the district court's decision to hold the ISP available for pirating subscribers can have disastrous implications. 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. Last week Cox filed its appeal arguing that the district court made several errors that may ultimately restrict the public’s access to Internet services. This week it became apparent that the Internet provider is not alone in this assessment. Today, several industry associations, academic institutions, libraries and digital rights groups submitted amicus briefs to the court of appeals, voicing their concerns. The submissions total roughly 200 pages, and the overall theme is that if the current verdict stands, many Internet providers and services will unjustly face similar liability claims based on an incorrect interpretation of the law. The CCIA, which represents global tech firms including Google, Facebook, and Microsoft, submitted a brief together with the Consumer Technology Association (CTA). According to both groups, the district court ignored Supreme Court rulings which limit contributory infringement for service providers. “An Internet service provider does not infringe copyrights merely by providing households access to the Internet,” the CCIA and CTA write (pdf). “Yet the district court allowed such a case to go to the jury, and asked the jury only whether Cox ‘materially contributed’ to infringement in any of the millions of households to which Cox offered Internet access,” they add. As expected, several stakeholders from the telco industries have also chimed in to support Cox’s appeal. The U.S. Telecom Association, for example, urges the appeals court to reverse the verdict as it would require other ISPs to disconnect subscribers based on one-sided piracy accusations. “The decision […] forces ISPs like Cox and USTelecom’s member companies to restrict consumers’ access to the internet based on nothing more than unproven allegations of copyright infringement in the form of invalid DMCA notices. “It upsets the careful balance of the interests of copyright holders, internet users, and ISPs that Congress struck in the DMCA,” the Telco association adds (pdf). Similar arguments were submitted in separate briefs by the American Cable Association and the Internet Commerce Coalition, with the latter highlighting the dubious nature of the millions of standardized copyright infringement claims some copyright holders send. “If the decision […] is not reversed, conduit ISPs, when they receive unverified, machine-generated infringement claims from profit-seeking agents of copyright holders, will be strongly incentivized to cut off vital Internet service to users, rather than face costly damages suits. “This is not the system Congress intended when it enacted the DMCA, and it should not be one imposed through a misinterpretation of Congress’s plain words,” the Internet Commerce Coalition adds (pdf). The Amicus Briefs submitted today In their submissions, digital rights groups the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) and Public Knowledge highlight the risk the verdict poses for Internet users at large. “Just as a tenant’s water should not ordinarily be cut off when a landlord alleges nonpayment of rent, a subscriber’s connection to the Internet should not be terminated in response to alleged copyright infringement except in the most extenuating circumstances,” the groups note (pdf). The district court’s interpretation of ISP obligations under the DMCA was too strict, they argue, and should be reversed. Not doing so could ultimately violate the fundamental right of people to have Internet access. “Termination impedes the subscriber’s ability to exercise one of our most cherished liberties, the right of free expression. And termination potentially imposes those far-reaching effects on an entire household sharing the subscriber’s Internet connection.” Finally, there is a detailed brief from several academic groups and institutions, including several library organizations. The American Council on Education and the American Library Association, among others, fear that educational access to the Internet may become restricted if the verdict stands. “It could force educational institutions to restrict student access to the Internet unreasonably. Similarly, it could require libraries to limit broadband availability to people who have no other way of accessing information they need,” they write (pdf). “The DMCA does not mandate a uniform repeat infringer policy, and such uniformity would conflict with the flexibility afforded under the Higher Education Opportunity Act,” the groups add. The barrage of submissions clearly shows the importance of this case, and it’s likely that many more will follow. It is now up to the appeals court to decide if and how these opinions should be factored in. With the stakes being this high, it would be no surprise if this case went all the way up to the Supreme Court, to clearly define ISPs’ obligations when it comes to processing DMCA notices and dealing with repeat infringers. Interestingly, no amicus briefs have been submitted in support of copyright holder BMG thus far. https://torrentfreak.com/widespread-protest-against-dangerous-repeat-infringer-piracy-verdict-161115/

In July, the U.S. military was accused of unlawfully installing 'pirated' copies of 3D virtual reality software onto hundreds of thousands of computers. Facing billions in potential damages, the Navy has now returned fire, accepting it installed the software 558,000 times without paying but denying it did so without permission. In 2011 and 2012, the US Navy began using BS Contact Geo, a 3D virtual reality application developed by German company Bitmanagement. The Navy reportedly agreed to purchase licenses for use on 38 computers but things began to escalate. Amid negotiations to sell additional licenses to the Navy, the software vendor said that it discovered that the Navy had already installed the software on more than 100,000 computers. According to a federal claims court complaint filed by Bitmanagement in July, that figure later increased to 558,466 computers. As a result, Bitmanagement demanded compensation totaling a cool $600 million. Now the US Navy has returned fire, denying Bitmanagement’s allegations. In a response filed yesterday, the Navy admitted purchasing 38 licenses for BS Contact Geo but denies that the licenses were “limited” to installations on 38 Navy computers. “Concurrent-use network-installation licenses” of the software were obtained, it says. “Defendant admits that the Navy installed BS Contact Geo onto hundreds of thousands of computers within its network starting on or about August 2013. Defendant denies that BS Contact Geo was installed on the Navy’s networked computers without Bitmanagement’s knowledge or authorization,” the filing reads. “Defendant further avers that Bitmanagement modified BS Contact Geo for the purpose of allowing such installation, and that Bitmanagement received multiple updates regarding the status of this installation. Defendant denies that Bitmanagement did not license or consent to such installation and use of its software.” In the original complaint, it was stated that Bitmanagement executives were “surprised” to discover that amid licensing negotiations the Navy had already installed almost 105,000 copies of the software on an equal number of machines. In its response, the Navy said that since Bitmanagement had already modified the software for this use, the installations should have been expected. “Defendant admits that emails were provided to Bitmanagement in the summer and fall of 2013 advising Bitmanagement regarding the deployment of BS Contact Geo on the Navy’s network. Defendant admits that one such email indicated a successful deployment to 104,922 Navy computers,” the response reads. “Defendant denies that the installations should have been surprising to Bitmanagement’s executives, and Defendant further avers that Bitmanagement modified BS Contact Geo for the purpose of allowing the deployment.” Via the government, the Navy further denies that it accepted it had installed the software on more machines that it had licenses for, denies it knew that a license was required for each machine, denies that it knew that each unlicensed installation was an instance of willful infringement, and denies that Bitmanagement has suffered any loss. In conclusion, the Navy insists that no copyrights have been infringed since Bitmanagement authorized reproduction and distribution of the software both “expressly and impliedly.” The government also adds that as a German corporation, Bitmanagement’s claim “may be jurisdictionally” barred by 28 U.S.C. § 2502(a), but it doesn’t stop there. “To the extent that Plaintiff’s claims are premised on ‘willful infringement’ or any other basis beyond the scope of 28 U.S.C. § 1498(b)…Plaintiff’s claims are barred by sovereign immunity,” it adds. Finally, the government adds that Bitmanagement’s claim could be rendered null due to its failure to act when it knew any alleged infringement was taking place. “To the extent that Plaintiff seeks recovery for any alleged infringement that resulted from Plaintiff’s failing or refusing to take such actions as is reasonably necessary to minimize any loss which it may have sustained, Plaintiff is precluded from any such recovery due to its failure to mitigate damages,” the response reads. In closing, the government demands that the complaint against the Navy should be dismissed, with the government awarded all expenses including costs and attorney’s fees. With the sides so far apart, this one looks set to run and run. https://torrentfreak.com/us-navy-returns-fire-in-600m-vr-piracy-lawsuit-161115/

Tracker's Name : BTArg Genre : MOVIES / TV / GENERAL Sign-up Link : http://www.btarg.com.ar/version6.1/signup.php Additional information : BTArg is an ARGENTINIAN Private Torrent Tracker for MOVIES / TV / GENERAL

Tracker's Name : Redemption Genre : MOVIES / GENERAL Sign-up Link : http://redemption.pw/index.php?page=account Additional information : Redemption is a Private Torrent Tracker for MOVIES / GENERAL

Tracker's Name : AvistaZ (AsiaTorrents) Genre : ASIAN MOVIES / TV / GENERAL Sign-up Link : https://avistaz.to/auth/register Additional information : AvistaZ (AsiaTorrents) is a Private Torrent Tracker for ASIAN MOVIES / TV / GENERAL

AvistaZ.to will be open for registration starting 15th till 30th Nov 2016. Please invite your friends, share on your wall, tweet and blog it! This will be last open registration for 2016! HAPPY HOLIDAYS!