We are quite aware of the situation that the much-talked about film Toilet: Ek Prem Katha has been leaked, way before its release. The cast of the movie is on a promotional spree; they are travelling to various cities to promote their film on various platforms. Reportedly, the movie was being circulated through pendrives, and it landed in director and choreographer Remo D’Souza‘s hands, who then brought it to the filmmaker Shree Narayan Singh’s notice. Speaking of the leak of Akshay Kumar starrer (upcoming) movie Toilet: Ek Prem Katha, the actor (Akshay) during the press conference cleared it to his fans that the movie has not been leaked. At the promotional event, that took place in PVR Juhu, said, “The movie hasn’t been leaked. Crime branch ne kuch hone se pehle hi rok lia (the crime branch has controlled the situation before it could have gotten worse).” Akshay was present along with Bhumi Pednekar, Anupam Kher and Divyendu Sharma at the event today. This is really saddening that there is no way that we could stop piracy. In a statement to a leading online portal, Remo said, “I met someone who told me that he already has the movie (Toilet Ek Prem Katha) on his pen drive. Initially, I didn’t believe him, but he seemed serious, and told me to check that for myself. When I checked the pen drive, it contained Toilet Ek Prem Katha, and I was shocked.” He further added, “I first called Akshay sir, but since he was in London, he was unavailable. Then I called up Prerna Arora, the producer, told her about the situation, Director Shree Narayan Singh came and collected the pen drive from me. They will be taking legal action against piracy, and I will talk to Akshay sir once he is back.” Remo went on to say, “This implied that if this pen drive had started doing the rounds, it would have created havoc. I am a filmmaker and I know how the world comes crashing down if anybody’s film from my fraternity is exposed before it hits theatres.” The movie is slated to release on August 11. Well, this is not the first time that a movie has been leaked before its official release. Such ugly attempts of pirates have been encountered in the past too. Movies like Udta Punjab, Great Grand Masti, to name a few, were also leaked a day prior to its release. It’s high time that we watch real entertainment on-screen.

Dave Martins’ article in the Sunday Stabroek of July 23 highlighted an issue that is long overdue for action. Like thousands of people in the Caribbean and the wider world, I enjoy Dave Martins’ music tremendously. Dave gave me a copy of his ‘At Home’ CD when it was released, and my staff loves it so much that I play the entire disc most Saturday mornings. Everyone leaves work in high spirits after hearing the tunes, especially ‘Rupununi Man’, ‘Tell Me You Love Me’, ‘Is We Own, Ow Beta’. As a bookseller I am a fellow sufferer at the hands of pirates since 2001. I can therefore empathize with Dave Martins for feeling let down by the past administration as well as the current one ‒ so far. It is my hope that there will be the political will, in our lifetime, to have this copyright lawlessness put right. I wish to emphasize political will for in 2012 the state itself showed such contempt for copyright that it tried to award contracts to printers to produce tens of thousands of books published by international companies without their approval. Astonishingly, page 62 of the tender document stipulated that “All Text and workbook must be done to a similar likeness of the original”. A court action was mounted by five of the affected publishers, viz Oxford University Press, Cambridge University Press, Macmillan, Pearson (Longman) and Nelson Thornes. That action resulted in an order made by Justice Rishi Persaud on the 20th April 2016. It is a permanent injunction against all the defendants (Abbisham Boodhoo, Gandhi Sales & Investments, Metro Office & Computer Supplies, Terrence Nicholas and J Nicholas trading as T&J Bookstores & Giftland Office Max) restraining them from reproducing or offering for sale the plaintiffs’ copyrighted textbooks. Despite the 2016 injunction, book piracy continues to flourish across the country, and the main reason for this is because it is widely known that the penalty for copyright infringement is a paltry $60. The penalty in Barbados is US$250,0000. I wonder when Dave Martins will make another CD at home in Guyana. When? According to calypsonian Crazy it has to be “In Time to Come”.

PHILADELPHIA – A Nevada limited liability company claims that unknown persons residing in Pennsylvania have unlawfully uploaded one of its movies online. Headhunter LLC filed a complaint on July 3 in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania against John Does 1-11 alleging copyright infringement. According to the complaint, the plaintiff alleges that it sustained damages to its business because its film "A Family Man" was unlawfully transmitted online via BitTorrent by the defendants. It alleges geolocation technology has tracked the defendants' Internet Protocol addresses to a location in the court's district. The plaintiff requests a trial by jury and seeks enjoin the defendants, statutory damages, court costs and any further relief the court grants. It is represented by Charles Thomas and Lee M. Herman of Creative Rights Law Group PLLC in Media, Pennsylvania.

Tracker's Name: AussieRul.es Genre: Sports Sign-up Link: https://aussierul.es/signup.php?agree=yes&invitehash= Closing date: Soon Additional information: AussieRul.es is a Private Torrent Tracker for Australian Football League AussieRul.es is the internal tracker for multiple release groups AussieRul.es is the sister-site of Tasmanit.es

As per the industry experts, volumes have shredded to one tenth in the past decade Piracy and digitalisation has hit the Rajasthan folk music industry hard. According to the industry stakeholders, the industry volumes have shredded to one tenth in the past decade. “There were nearly 300 big and small music companies active in the state a decade ago, today less than dozen of them are in business,” KC Malu, of Veena Cassettes told. The digital music in early decade of 21st century had arrived as a blessing for the traditional music. Digitally recorded folk music assured better quality and access to music players helped spread the folk music. However, digital format also spurred mass piracy. Today, it is mostly being exchanged on memory cards. “If piracy could be prevented, the industry will earn tremendous volume but in the absence of a robust network the companies are forced to cut down production cost in order to survive,” he adds. According to industry sources, the cost of video production has also fallen drastically, directly impacting earnings for the local artistes. The situation is grim for smaller players. “We are unable to recover even the amount we spend on the recording of musical tracks,” says Ravi Kasana of Dev Music, who was forced to sell the company. So has been the fate of several others. “Our target audience is usually limited to cultural regions, the songs are in local dialect and thus the audience is limited to couple of neighboring district. The online channel model is also not very rewarding,” says folk music video producer, Gopal Natraj. The Copyright Act provides some shelter from piracy. However for these small music companies, enforcement of the act is a tricky task. Few companies have ventured in this direction. “The state government has issued directives against piracy and even the senior officials are cooperative. But lack of public awareness and apathy on the part of the local police station levels makes enforcement difficult,” says Kanhaiya Sharma of KS Music Securities. Nearly 200 police cases get registered each year in state relating to piracy and unauthorised download of music. The number though is minuscule compared to the violation. “Downloading music has today become a local business, we try to convince such offenders to purchase license from companies concerned. We go for police exercise as last resort,” he says. However, for small music companies pursuing police exercise and copyright cases are not viable options. In such a condition, a robust network is thus required to help artists prosper and keep industry alive or else soon despite its growing popularity the folk music will lose its tracks.

A copyright amendment approved by the Italian authorities breaches the EU convention on human rights, an ISP organization has warned. The law allows the Italian Communications Regulatory Authority to issue "take down, stay down" instructions to websites listing allegedly infringing content but without intervention from the judiciary. After being spoken of in unfavorable terms by the United States Trade Representative in its Special 301 Reports, Italy achieved a sudden breakthrough in 2014. “Italy’s removal from the Special 301 List reflects the significant steps the Government of Italy has taken to address the problem of online piracy, and the continued U.S. commitment to meaningful and sustained engagement with our critical partner Italy,” the USTR said in a special announcement. This praise was in part due to the way Italy promised to deal with online piracy. Instead of legislating to make a piracy crackdown easier, the government handed AGCOM, the Italian Communications Regulatory Authority, the power to deal with infringement based on complaints filed by rightsholders. Without any need for legal cases or court injunctions, at the end of March 2014, AGCOM was granted the power to have allegedly infringing content removed from sites and to have domains blocked at the ISP level. Now, just over three years later, AGCOM has been granted even more power. Passed last week, Amendment 1.022 effectively gives AGCOM the power to order sites to not only take allegedly infringing content down but to keep it down permanently, all without intervention from the judiciary. The decision has provoked a furious response from a body representing the country’s ISPs, which describes the “unconstitutional rules” as a way to protect the economic interests of right holders behind various creative works and live sporting events. “This measure abolishes procedural safeguards for citizens, imposes interception obligations to Internet providers, and damages consumers by imposing technical measures that will result in increased costs,” the Italian Association of Internet Providers (AIIP) said in a statement. According to AIIP, it is the judiciary that should have sole power over copyright infringement disputes in Italy. When other bodies such as AGCOM are given control over criminal issues, it represents a violation of both constitutional principles and EU law. “Any rule that would require Internet Providers to filter and carry out preventive checks – as well as to remove content generated by users without a court order – is in violation of the European Convention on Human Rights, Community legislation on electronic communications services, and case law of the European Court of Justice,” AIIP says. The ISP body says that AGCOM now possesses discretionary powers that even magistrates do not have, which from a technical perspective includes monitoring, interception, and blocking of user activity, a position that amounts to “gigantic state censorship.” Only time will tell how the situation pans out but it’s crystal clear that ISPs feel that unlike the views of the copyright industry, their concerns have not been taken into consideration. Source: Torrentfreak.com

Those offering illegal streams of films and sport to customers have been taken down - but XBMC has 'no sympathy' The crackdown against Kodi boxes is continuing - as the foundation responsible for overseeing the service says it has “zero sympathy” for those who use pirated content. Police in London arrested a 53-year-old man this week, taking possession of a stash of 40 Android-powered set-top boxes containing the Kodi media streaming software along with other apps. According to Westminster Council, the arrest was made after police raided a property in West London and secured the gadgets, which were being sold online for as much as £100 each. They were loaded with the free Kodi software and had been configured with third-party add-ons that allowed owners to stream copyrighted material such as films and live football for free. But over the summer, many of the illegal add-ons have been shut down. Although the Kodi media player is totally legal, there is a vast array of third-party apps available that offer access to these illegal streams. As a result, Kodi has gained a reputation as a “piracy facilitator”, meaning many legitimate content publishers like Netflix and Amazon refuse to work with it. In recent months, there has been a major crackdown on these third-party apps by copyright owners, with some of the most popular add-ons - such as Phoenix and TVAddons - shutting down. Now many Kodi users are flooding Kodi’s online forums and social media, complaining that their “Kodi boxes” are no longer working. But the XBMC Foundation, which oversees the Kodi software, appears to be utterly fed up with the situation, stating that it is not interested in hearing users’ complaints, and labelling those who sell these fully-loaded Kodi boxes as “criminals”. “If you post in our forums or social channels about a pirate add-on or streaming service not working please expect ZERO sympathy or support,” it said in a blog post. A report by the UK’s Intellectual Property Office (IPO) estimates that 15% of UK internet users - approximately 7 million people - still stream or download material that infringes copyright. In particular, streaming boxes that can be easily adapted to illegally stream premium TV content such as blockbuster movies are now used by 13% of online infringers. This threatens to undermine recent progress in tackling online piracy by legitimate streaming services such as Netflix and Spotify . “There has never been more choice or flexibility for consumers of TV and music, however illicit streaming devices and stream-ripping are threatening this progress,” said Ros Lynch, Copyright and IP Enforcement Director at the IPO.

Tracker's Name: ImmortalSeed Genre: General Sign-up Link: https://immortalseed.me/signup.php?a...es&invitehash= Closing date: Very soon! Additional information: ImmortalSeed (iS) is a Private Torrent Tracker for Movies / TV / General Releases.

Tracker's Name: TorrentLeech.gr Genre: General Sign-up Link: http://torrentleechgr.com/signup.php Closing date: N/A Additional information: TorrentLeechGR is a GREEK Private Torrent Tracker for MOVIES / TV / GENERAL TorrentLeechGR is the internal tracker for multiple release groups

Tracker's Name: BTmaniac Genre: General Sign-up Link: https://www.btmaniac.org/signup.php Closing date: N/A Additional information: BTmaniac is a GREEK Private Torrent Tracker for MOVIES / TV / GENERAL *Only available to Greek Residents

Tracker's Name: Torrentmasters Genre: General Sign-up Link: https://torrentmasters.net/regisztracio.php Closing date: 01.08.2017

Tracker's Name: Share Friends Projekt (SFP) Genre: General Sign-up Link: http://s-f-p.dyndns.dk/signup.php Closing date: N/A Additional information: Share Friends Projekt (SFP) is a German Private Torrent Tracker for Movies / General Releases.

Bit-HDTV is currently recruiting encoders for internal remux releases. If you meet the requirements please pm me with "Encoder" in the subject. 1. Decent upload speed 2. Basic knowledge of encoding 3. Time to commit to remuxing a minimum of 2 movies per week Training will be provided to the selected members if necessary. Regards BitHD

Net neutrality activists have no problem using aggressive tactics to vilify companies and government officials who aren’t all in on a government takeover of the internet. Their corporate allies and financial backers have historically looked the other way. But now, factions of Silicon Valley heavyweights are taking notice of what’s really going on, and they seem less than pleased. Fight for the Future, and other groups warn that net neutrality is in danger because the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) seeks to rollback Obama-era regulation of the internet. What they want to preserve is not a framework that breeds a free and open internet. But rather, it’s the reclassification of internet services as public utilities. Think about problems typically associated with public utility services; crumbling roads, rusted pipes – services in disrepair that are unreliable, take forever to fix, and are less likely to keep pace with the speed of innovation. Do you really want those qualities to hamstring the internet? The obvious answer should be, no. With nothing less than freedom of speech supposedly at stake, Fight for the Future spearheaded a “Day of Action” on July 12, that was hyped to be thought of in the same vein as a well-organized online demonstration by Facebook, Reddit, Netflix, Wikipedia, and other tech companies five years ago. Many popular sites went “dark” on January 18, 2012, helping to thwart the passage of anti-piracy legislation, the Stop Internet Piracy Act (SOPA) and the Protect Internet IP Act (PIPA). Google’s doodle that day featured a black censor bar across its iconic logo. In contrast, on July 12, 2017, the doodle celebrated the work of the late artist and designer Eiko Ishioka. There was no morphing of FCC Chairman Ajit Pai or a tech company logo into an Orwellian Big Brother figure. All due respect to Ishioka, Google’s decision to use that prime spot to note what would have been her 79th birthday was a statement in and of itself. Google simply posted a blog and sent an email directing recipients to a take action page. Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg was similarly low key with a Facebook post in support of net neutrality. These two companies can reach literally billions of people with flare, but they settled for the equivalent of carefully worded memos – ones that were apparently easy to miss – and by Fight for the Future’s own admission, they weren’t even official members of the Day of Action like Amazon and Twitter. Early on the Day of Action, Techdirt’s Karl Bode even tweeted looking for “any example” of Facebook or Google’s participation. One reason this would-be red-letter day turned into a red herring is that the grownups who own and run the big internet companies know this is a complex policy matter that must ultimately be dealt with in a prudent manner. They have hundreds of billions of dollars at stake. They need more certainty and less drama. There is a deepening awareness that this issue needs to be addressed by carefully crafted, bipartisan legislation, not regulatory fiat. As Zuckerberg’s Facebook post noted, “We’re also open to working with members of Congress and anyone else on laws to protect net neutrality.” He’s not alone in his thinking. Ironically, some of the big telecommunications companies vilified by net neutrality activists seem to agree. AT&T, Verizon, and Comcast don’t want the FCC to classify Internet service as a public utility, but they do support an open internet, and they want legislation to codify basic net neutrality principles. Like the tech companies, they want more regulatory certainty because without it, investment is in jeopardy of going down. Another reason the Day of Action fell short could be that Silicon Valley is growing wary of activists’ tactics, which feed into the cultural divide that has helped bring policymaking to a halt. Fight for the Future, for example, is erecting billboards that lambast members of Congress. The Internet Association, the trade group that represents companies like Google and Facebook, distanced itself from the campaign, stressing the need to work with Congress and commenting: “In contrast, the tactics being used by Fight for the Future are not constructive. It is disingenuous for Fight for the Future to oppose working with Congress on legislation, while at the same time attacking members of Congress on this issue.” Net neutrality activists, with the help of late night comic John Oliver, stirred millions of activists to flood the FCC with comments in May. It turns out many comments were computer generated, duplicates, or bogus. Worse than that, many more were profane, racist, and even threatened violence. Voters don’t see themselves in these kinds of crusades. They see elites on the other side of the digital divide telling them they know best what average Americans want and need from their online experience. Even Silicon Valley elites, who proudly embrace immigrants, were likely taken aback when some of the activists they fund called for the deportation of the FCC chairman, an U.S.-born citizen of Indian heritage. Net neutrality activists are ready to soldier on passionately, flooding the FCC with bogus and insulting comments, and berating those who hold different views. That’s what they do. But they do it to make money – lots of it. And now that tech billionaires are ready to get serious and engage with all stakeholders on a permanent, legislative solution – one that could actually be good for business and good for consumers – will we see a change in direction? Stay tuned.

The English Premier League has won a new High Court Order in London this week that will require broadband ISPs in the United Kingdom to block servers that are hosting “illegal streams” of its football matches, specifically those involving the entire 2017/18 Premier League season. An existing blocking order for this already exists, although it only applied for the final two months of the 2016/17 season and the new order is effectively an extension of that approach for the new season. The EPL claims that the original order was “highly effective” and succeeded in limiting access to 5,000 servers (IP addresses), which disrupted live streams on various copyright infringing websites and modified Kodi boxes etc. Kevin Plumb, Premier League Director of Legal Services, said: “This blocking Order is a game-changer in our efforts to tackle the supply and use of illicit streams of our content,” said Premier League Director of Legal Services, Kevin Plumb. “It will allow us to quickly and effectively block and disrupt the illegal broadcast of Premier League football via any means, including so called ‘pre-loaded Kodi boxes’. The protection of our copyright, and the investment made by our broadcast partners, is hugely important to the Premier League and the future health of English football. The ability that clubs have to develop and acquire talented players, to build and improve stadiums, and to support communities and schools is all predicated on being able to market, sell and protect commercial rights. We are pleased the Courts have recognised this with the granting of this significant blocking Order.” However the blocks imposed by broadband ISPs (e.g. BT, Virgin Media, Sky Broadband, Plusnet, TalkTalk and EE) are only effective when the end-user doesn’t know how to circumvent them by using a Virtual Private Network (VPN), Proxy Server or other method. Similarly the blocked servers usually re-emerge in new locations, although the court order allows for additional blocks to be imposed as that happens and on goes the game of whack-a-mole.

Kodi streams of Premier League matches to be blocked this season after High Court order ALEX EVANS Email Published: 15:52 Thursday 27 July 2017 0 HAVE YOUR SAY Football fans who illegally watch Premier League matches on Kodi boxes could have their internet cut off thanks to a new High Court blocking order. The High Court has issued an order which will allow the Premier League to cut off online streams for people watching matches illegally. The Premier League was awarded a High Court blocking order for the upcoming 2017-18 season. In what is being called 'the largest ever crackdown on illegal streams', the order will target users of 'Kodi boxes' and other software which searches for illicit or foreign streams. The order means internet service providers (ISPs), like BT, EE, Virgin, TalkTalk, Sky et al, will have to identify and cut off illegal streams by law. The same order was put in place for the last two months of the 2016-17 season, and 5,000 server IP addresses hosting illegal streams were cut off. Earlier this year, it was reported that the Digital Economy Act had become law. In the act, changes were made around piracy, meaning users now face up to a decade behind bars for illegally streaming copyrighted content. Anyone caught streaming TV shows, films and sports events using torrents, websites and Kodi boxes could be jailed for ten years. It is thought that the new law, which also covers online pornography and broadband rollouts, will be used to mostly target sellers, but technically anyone streaming is now punishable by the law. Technically, the Kodi software is not illegal, but streaming any copyrighted content using one is illegal and carries a maximum 10-year jail sentence. But there is a lot you can do with Kodi that isn't illegal.

A report from online brand and content protection specialist INCOPRO indicates that Portugal’s regulatory site blocking orders have successfully reduced use of large-scale piracy websites by 69.7 per cent. Site blocking has become a recognised practice in countries across Europe over the past few years. In 2015, a memorandum of understanding was reached in Portugal between local rightsholders, internet service providers (ISPs) and the government according to which access to copyright infringing sites can be blocked by ISPs following an order of governmental body IGAC (Inspeção Geral das Atividades Culturais). The new report was commissioned by the Motion Picture Association (MPA) jointly with Associação Portuguesa de Defesa de Obras Audiovisuais (FEVIP) – the Portuguese Defence Association of Audiovisual Works. The findings show that, following the implementation of site blocking orders between November 2015 and June 2016, there was a significant reduction in users accessing infringing websites. The study was completed with a global control group as a point of comparison to what may have happened had the sites not been blocked. Additional key highlights of the report show: Out of the top 250 unauthorised sites in Portugal, 65 were blocked and decreased in usage by a total of 56.6 per cent in the time frame, but increased by 3.9 per cent globally. Usage of the top 250 unauthorised sites in Portugal has decreased overall by 9.3 per cent; however, the global control group showed a 30.8 per cent increase globally. The usage of the 30 blocked Portuguese language sites that are listed in the top 250 unauthorised sites in Portugal has decreased by 41.8 per cent, while they increased by 39.2 per cent in Brazil. The findings of this study are in line with similar reports undertaken in the United Kingdom demonstrating that site blocking is effective and decreases the use of infringing sites. “We were incredibly excited to continue our work with the MPA, and that we are seeing such positive results,” commented Helen Saunders, Head of Intelligence and Operations at INCOPRO. “It’s important to highlight that the impact of these blocks can be felt not just in Portugal, but globally. It’s fantastic to see that more countries are starting to take action against piracy, and are getting great results. We hope that this report will inspire even more geographies to take similar action in a concerted effort to safeguard the global entertainment industry.” “Piracy continues to be a serious threat to the health of a European core copyright-intensive sector that employs 11 million people and generates €914 billion in economic activity,” advised Stan McCoy, President and Managing Director of the MPA EMEA. “Yet research shows that this problem can be curbed. At the MPA, we take a three-pronged approach: make legal content easy to access, engage consumers about the negative impact of piracy, and deter piracy through the appropriate legal avenues. All stakeholders must work together as joint stewards of the creative ecosystem. “All forms of piracy generate huge losses for every player in the value chain, including authors, artists, editors, producers, moviegoers, distributors, providers of pay TV and audiovisual services on demand, and the government,” added Paulo Santos, Managing Director of FEVIP. “This is why it is important to work with all these players as they are directly interested in this issue and have a common and collaborative interest in taking actions against large scale commercial operators that make money off the back of the creators. The MOU signed in 2015 between IGAC, collective management entities, FEVIP, ISPs and other entities, within the applicable legal framework, implemented this joint vision through a simple, feasible mechanism of action, being therefore of the greatest relevance in the fight against piracy, and in the interests of all.”

MTV Accounts Purge: http://i.imgur.com/eqQhbns.png

Fans attempting to stream live football matches illegally through services like Kodi will be banned by their internet providers. The move - which comes amid an ongoing battle by the Premier League to eradicate piracy from the sport - comes after a landmark ruling on Wednesday, the Liverpool Echo reports. Internet service providers (ISP) have been ordered by the High Court to prevent people from watching Premier League games for the 2017-18 season. The news is a devastating blow to thousands of football fans who obtain the footage via the illicit sale and use of pre-loaded IPTV and Kodi boxes, reports the BBC. It now means your ISP will likely ban thousands of server IP addresses that have been caught streaming Premier League content. Kodi has been the subject of a mass of legal pressure over the last few months even though the neutral software has nothing to do with piracy. It is a free way of distributing content that has become the preferred choice for third-party apps illegally streaming copyrighted material. Rights holders have begun to work with internet service providers to try and stamp out the spread of pirate streams by threatening legal action against those who supply them. As a result, several well-known Kodi add-ons have been taken offline. More than a third of Premier League football fans watch live matches on illegal internet streams once a month, according to a survey. The poll by BBC Radio 5 live found that nearly half of the 1,000 fans questioned online had streamed matches illegally at least once through a service other than Sky or BT Sport, which hold the rights to broadcast games live in the UK. Kieron Sharp, director general of the Federation against Copyright Theft (Fact), said a ruling in April by the European Court of Justice made the law on streaming paid-for content clear. He told the broadcaster: "People need to be aware that this is no longer a grey area, in fact it is very black and white. "If you are accessing content for free such as sport, TV and films for which you'd normally need a subscription, or go to the cinema, or buy a DVD, this is illegal. "As the old saying goes, if it looks too good to be true, then it probably is." A Premier League spokesman told the BBC: "Fans should know that these pre-loaded boxes enable pirate broadcasts of Premier League football, and other popular content, and are illegal. "People who supply them have been jailed or ordered to pay significant financial penalties. "We are increasingly seeing prominent apps and add-ons being closed down as the law catches up with them leading to consumers being out of pocket. "The Premier League will continue to protect its copyright, and the legitimate investment made by its broadcasting partners."

Anti-piracy programmes that allow ISPs to automatically block piracy sites could reduce their traffic by nearly 70 percent, brand protection specialist Incopro has found. Incopro, following a commission from the the Motion Picture Association (MPA) and Portuguese audiovisual association the FEVIP, looked at Portugal, where government-organised piracy blocks are in effect. Between November 2015 and June 2016, Portugal’s site blocking orders resulted in a reduction in large-scale piracy websites of 69.7 percent, according to Incopro. This practice is becoming more recognised in countries across Europe and, in 2015, a memorandum of understanding was reached in Portugal between local rights holders, ISPs and the government. Out of the top 250 unauthorised sites accessible in Portugal, 65 were blocked and suffered usage drops of 56.6 percent domestically, although their usage increased by 3.9 percent globally. Helen Saunders, head of intelligence and operations at Incopro, said: “We were incredibly excited to continue our work with the MPA, and that we are seeing such positive results. “It’s fantastic to see that more countries are starting to take action against piracy, and are getting great results. We hope that this report will inspire even more geographies to take similar action in a concerted effort to safeguard the global entertainment industry.” Stan McCoy, president and managing director of the MPA in Europe, the Middle East and Africa, added: “Piracy continues to be a serious threat to the health of a European core copyright-intensive sector that employs 11 million people and generates €914 billion in economic activity. Yet research shows that this problem can be curbed.” He said: “At the MPA, we take a three pronged approach: make legal content easy to access, engage consumers about the negative impact of piracy, and deter piracy through the appropriate legal avenues. All stakeholders must work together as joint stewards of the creative ecosystem.”

For many years now Facebook has remained much dedicated to helping combat online piracy on its platform. At the moment, the social media provider is making moves to boost its anti-piracy portfolio. This is pretty clear looking at the acquisition of Source3, which happens to be a New York City-based start-up. It is associated with developing technologies for the detection of intellectual property (IP) in unrelated content. This new acquisition according to some trusted sources might be what Facebook has always looked forward to over the years. The Menlo Park, California-based company will succeed in its quest to bar users on its platform from reproducing videos as well as other forms of content. As a matter of fact, they will need to first of all get the required permission from creators before proceeding to do what they need to do. The acquisition comprises of the people behind the startup as well as the IP management technology. Source3 a short while back made an announcement disclosing that it was planning to bring its IP and expertise to the industry leader. It goes without saying that this will help much towards serving the large number of users with top services. These will include the sharing of music, photos as well as videos each and every day according to Androidheadlines. But one thing is not yet very clear. No one till this moment knows how many employees will be joining Facebook from Source3 and stay in the offices in New York City. While speaking to a number of news reporters recently, one of the officials working with Facebook said, “In May, Facebook was one of the Internet companies that have been criticized by the United Kingdom‘s Home Affairs Select Committee for their allegedly lax behavior toward illegal content posted on their platforms. .” It is high time Facebook beefs up its rights management system and the new acquisition is expected to help much towards that. The way in which the social media provider chooses to implement the start-up’s technology into its own platform is something that we will have to wait and see.

After hitting 1000 torrents, we will run a site-wide freeleech until we get to 2500 torrents. The freeleech will include all existing torrents and all new uploads. But first, we need to get there. We're sitting at 934 torrents now, help us build our archive and upload your favorite films to get us to the three zero club. Because getting to that sweet thousandaire status is where it's at! We'll also throw in some additional goodies - all users (be it VIP or regular) will receive extra invites to bring on board your friends. Cheers, Staff

https://4dpavshx5ly3quwy2v9yv83i-wpe...-Ed-Uthman.jpg Following a controversial court ruling in Canada over piracy links, Google has fought back in California. Last month, Digital Music News reported on a controversial court ruling against Google. The Canadian Supreme Court ordered the search giant to take down piracy links worldwide. Now, Google has fought back, this time in a California courtroom. In 2014, a Canadian court ruled that Google would have to remove a Canadian firm from its search results. Through Equustek’s ex-employees, Datalink Technologies illegally sold their competitor’s products. Employees would set-up sites indexed on Google to sell the goods, sharing a strong percentage with Datalink. After losing the initial court battle in British Columbia, Google filed, and subsequently lost, multiple appeals. Last month, the Canadian Supreme Court ruled against the search giant. It determined that Google was a “determinative player” in harming Equusteek. The high court ruled that the search giant would have to de-index links from its search engine worldwide. Now, Google has fought back. The search giant filed an injunction on Monday with the US District Court for Northern California. Digital Music News has obtained the documents. Google filed the injunction to prevent enforcement of the Canadian ruling in the United States. It believes that the Canadian Supreme Court has compelled the search engine to wrongfully censor its information. “The Canadian trial court recognized that Google is an “innocent bystander” to the case. Nevertheless, it issued a novel worldwide order against Google, restricting what information an American company can provide to people inside of the United States and around the world.” Lawyers for the company claim that the court singled out Google, while leaving alone other search engines. They claim that people can still find links to the infringing sites through Yahoo and Bing. “Removing a website link from the Google search index neither prevents public access to the website, nor removes the website from the internet at large. Even if a website link does not show up in Google’s search results, anyone can still access a live website via other means…finding the website through other search engines (such as Bing or Yahoo).” In the complaint, lawyers for the company claim that “Google is not the internet.” It doesn’t have the power to take down sites, as the ruling would suggest. Yet, the Canadian Supreme Court only found the search engine liable, leaving alone other websites. “Google is not the internet. The vast majority of internet websites are hosted by and operated through service providers other than Google. The entities with the technical ability to remove websites or content from the internet altogether are the websites’ owners, operators, registrars, and hosts—not Google.” Lawyers for the company laid out three causes of action. In the first, search engine results are protected under the First Amendment. The complaint reads, “The First Amendment provides: “Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press.” U.S. CONST. Amend. I. Internet search results are fully protected speech under the First Amendment.” Enforcing the Canadian ruling in the United States would violate the company’s First Amendment rights. The Canadian ruling, claims Google, “furthers no compelling interest (nor a substantial interest).” The existence of Datalink’s search engine results remain “a matter of public record.” Equustek has filed a claim only against the search engine; it has yet to file claims against Bing and Yahoo. It also hasn’t gone after third-party websites that prominently display the infringing links, including social media and press websites. Equustek also hasn’t filed a claim to stop the sale of Datalink products on Amazon. Enforcement of the Canadian ruling, says Google, will cause it “irreparable injury absent injunctive relief.” For the second cause of action, Google cites the Communications Decency Act. This act provides “clear legal immunity to providers of…computer services for content on their services created by others.” The Communcations Decency Act reads, “No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.” Equustek’s initial filing is grounded in Canadian trade secret law, not US federal intellectual property or trade secret laws. Therefore, it can’t enforce the order against Google in the United States. Once again, enforcement of the ruling will cause the search giant irreparable injury absent injunctive relief. For the third cause of action, the search giant claims that enforcement of the ruling trespasses on comity. Siding with Google, the Canadian Attorney General said that the order “constitutes an impermissible exercise of extraterritorial enforcement jurisdiction.” The Canadian Supreme Court disregarded this statement, however. Instead, it declared that “the Internet has no borders—its natural habitat is global.” By saying this, the high court justified its global injunction against the company. Equustek’s counsel argued on the same principle. “Whether the order might be enforceable in the United States is a question for US courts and has nothing to do with this case.” Google calls the Canadian order “repugnant” to US public policy surrounding the First Amendment. The First Amendment gives the search giant immunity against imposing liability. Once again calling the order repugnant, the company claims that the high court singled it out. It issued an order against “an innocent non-party” for the sake of convenience. Continuing on, lawyers claim, “The Canadian Order purports to place the Canadian court in the position of supervising the law enforcement activities of a foreign sovereign nation (the United States) against the United States’ own citizens on American soil.” Canadian courts failed to extend “proper comity” to the United States. Thus, the United States does not need to defer the order. Google requests that the US District Court rule the Canadian order “unenforceable” in the United States. It also wants the court to issue a ruling in Google’s favor and against the defendants, Equustek. Finally, lawyers want the court to grant the company preliminary and permanent injunctive relief from further enforcement.

Mobile app piracy still happens to remain a grey area for many developers. As per the report, 70 billion installs across alternative app stores and a USD 20 billion revenue forecast includes a 15 to 20 percent share of pirated apps Moneycontrol News Mobile app developers and publishers are losing around USD 3 to 4 billion every year all thanks to piracy of their apps across alternative app stores, as per data from Tapcore, a report in the Forbes website states. Data reveals that up to 14 billion apps installs a year are pirated installs and are completely stolen from their original creators. Mobile app piracy still happens to remain a grey area for many developers. As per the report, 70 billion installs across alternative app stores and a USD 20 billion revenue forecast comprise of a 15 to 20 percent share of pirated apps. Worldwide distribution The hub of app piracy happens to be the third party app stores that exist in China and other countries. The market for private apps is not prominent in North America and Europe, where the primary sources of installing apps remain Google Play Store and the iOS app, which have mostly safe and genuine installations. There are approximately 200 app stores in China serving the Android phone owners, that are owned by China’s tech ‘trio’ of Baidu, Alibaba and Tencent (collectively called BAT) and hardware companies such as Xiaomi and Huawei. In April this year, China had closed 18 live streaming apps for disseminating illegal content. In January this year, The New York Times reported that Beijing introduced regulations for upcoming app stores to undergo registration and a verification process. How complicated is App piracy? Pirate developers download apps from the Google Play Store, set up a monetisation mechanism inside the app by altering its programming and release it across the alternative app stores. When such a pirated app is downloaded by people, they rake in money for the pirated app creators through the generated ads. The entire case of privacy in the case of mobile apps is, however, expensive. What can developers do? The report suggests several tips for developers offering protection against such cases of privacy – # Installing a hidden code inside apps that detects whenever it has been pirated and in turn makes it display ads that benefit the original developer # Regular monitoring of the top 20-30 alternative app stores for pirated versions of the company’s app and issue takedown orders against them

Hola a todos Se informa que el dia uno de Agosto los registros se abriran desde las 8:00 de la mañana hasta las 23:00 de la noche. La administracion de xBytes V2 GOOGLE TRANSLATE: Hello everyone It is reported that on August 1st, registrations will be open from 8:00 am to 11:00 pm. The administration of xBytes V2