VCAST advertises itself as a VCR for the cloud, allowing users to record terrestrial TV into online storage to watch at a later point. But is it legal? According to a new ruling from the European Court of Justice, making TV shows available to consumers in this fashion must be authorized by rights holders. Over the years, many useful devices have come along which enable the public to make copies of copyright works, the VCR (video cassette recorder) being a prime example. But while many such devices have been consumed by history, their modern equivalents still pose tricky questions for copyright law. One such service is VCAST, which markets itself as a Video Cloud Recorder. It functions in a notionally similar way to its older cousin but substitutes cassette storage for that in the cloud. VCAST targets the Italian market, allowing users to sign up in order to gain access to more than 50 digital terrestrial TV channels. However, rather than simply watching live, the user can tell VCAST to receive TV shows (via its own antenna system) while recording them to private cloud storage (such as Google Drive) for subsequent viewing over the Internet. VCAST attracted the negative interests of rightsholders, including Mediaset-owned RTI, who doubted the legality of the service. So, in response, VCAST sued RTI at the Turin Court of First Instance, seeking a judgment confirming the legality of its operations. The company believed that since the recordings are placed in users’ own cloud storage, the Italian private copying exception would apply and rightsholders would be compensated. Perhaps unsurprisingly given the complexity of the case, the Turin Court decided to refer questions to the European Court of Justice. It essentially asked whether the private copying exception is applicable when the copying requires a service like VCAST and whether such a service is allowed to operate without permission from copyright holders. In September, Advocate General Szpunar published his opinion, concluding that EU law prohibits this kind of service when copyright holders haven’t given their permission. Today, the ECJ handed down its decision, broadly agreeing with Szpunar’s conclusion. “By today’s judgment, the Court finds that the service provided by VCAST has a dual functionality, consisting in ensuring both the reproduction and the making available of protected works. To the extent that the service offered by VCAST consists in the making available of protected works, it falls within communication to the public,” the ECJ announced. “In that regard, the Court recalls that, according to the directive, any communication to the public, including the making available of a protected work or subject-matter, requires the rightholder’s consent, given that the right of communication of works to the public should be understood, in a broad sense, as covering any transmission or retransmission of a work to the public by wire or wireless means, including broadcasting.” The ECJ notes that the original transmission made by RTI was intended for one audience. In turn, the transmission by VCAST was intended for another. In this respect, the subsequent VCAST transmission was made to a “new public”, which means that copyright holder permission is required under EU law. “Accordingly, such a remote recording service cannot fall within the private copying exception,” the ECJ concludes. The key ruling reads as follows: Directive 2001/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001 on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society, in particular Article 5(2)(b) thereof, must be interpreted as precluding national legislation which permits a commercial undertaking to provide private individuals with a cloud service for the remote recording of private copies of works protected by copyright, by means of a computer system, by actively involving itself in the recording, without the rightholder’s consent. source: torrentfreak

Tracker's Name: HDHome Genre: General Sign-up Link: https://hdhome.org Closing date: 2017/12/01

Sky TV is pioneering 'pirate' site-blocking in New Zealand after applying for an injunction against several local ISPs. But the move hasn't been well received, with one group of ISPs reacting with anger to the move. Vocus Group says Sky is acting like a dinosaur, with an Internet censorship effort more suited to North Korea. Entertainment companies have been taking legal action to have pirate sites blocked for more than a decade so it was only a matter of time before New Zealand had a taste of the action. It’s now been revealed that Sky Network Television, the country’s biggest pay-TV service, filed a complaint with the High Court in September, demanding that four local Internet service providers block subscriber access to several ‘pirate’ sites. At this point, the sites haven’t been named, but it seems almost inevitable that the likes of The Pirate Bay will be present. The ISPs are known, however. Spark, Vodafone, Vocus and Two Degrees control around 90% of the Kiwi market so any injunction handed down will affect almost the entire country. In its application, Sky states that pirate sites make available unauthorized copies of its entertainment works, something which not only infringes its copyrights but also undermines its business model. But while this is standard fare in such complaints, the Internet industry backlash today is something out of the ordinary. ISPs in other jurisdictions have fought back against blocking efforts but few have deployed the kind of language being heard in New Zealand this morning. Vocus Group – which runs the Orcon, Slingshot and Flip brands – is labeling Sky’s efforts as “gross censorship and a breach of net neutrality”, adding that they’re in direct opposition to the idea of a free and open Internet. “SKY’s call that sites be blacklisted on their say so is dinosaur behavior, something you would expect in North Korea, not in New Zealand. It isn’t our job to police the Internet and it sure as hell isn’t SKY’s either, all sites should be equal and open,” says Vocus Consumer General Manager Taryn Hamilton. But in response, Sky said Vocus “has got it wrong”, highlighting that site-blocking is now common practice in places such as Australia and the UK. “Pirate sites like Pirate Bay make no contribution to the development of content, but rather just steal it. Over 40 countries around the world have put in place laws to block such sites, and we’re just looking to do the same,” the company said. The broadcaster says it will only go to court to have dedicated pirate sites blocked, ones that “pay nothing to the creators” while stealing content for their own gain. “We’re doing this because illegal streaming and content piracy is a major threat to the entertainment, creative and sporting industries in New Zealand and abroad. With piracy, not only is the sport and entertainment content that we love at risk, but so are the livelihoods of the thousands of people employed by these industries,” the company said. “Illegally sharing or viewing content impacts a vast number of people and jobs including athletes, actors, artists, production crew, customer service representatives, event planners, caterers and many, many more.” ISP Spark, which is also being targeted by Sky, was less visibly outraged than some of its competitors. However, the company still feels that controlling what people can see on the Internet is a slippery slope. “We have some sympathy for this given we invest tens of millions of dollars into content ourselves through Lightbox. However, we don’t think it should be the role of ISPs to become the ‘police of the internet’ on behalf of other parties,” a Spark spokesperson said. Perhaps unsurprisingly, Sky’s blocking efforts haven’t been well received by InternetNZ, the non-profit organization which protects and promotes Internet use in New Zealand. Describing the company’s application for an injunction as an “extreme step”, InternetNZ Chief Executive Jordan Carter said that site-blocking works against the “very nature” of the Internet and is a measure that’s unlikely to achieve its goals. “Site blocking is very easily evaded by people with the right skills or tools. Those who are deliberate pirates will be able to get around site blocking without difficulty,” Carter said. “If blocking is ordered, it risks driving content piracy further underground, with the help of easily-deployed and common Internet tools. This could well end up making the issues that Sky are facing even harder to police in the future.” What most of the ISPs and InternetNZ are also agreed on is the need to fight piracy with competitive, attractive legal offerings. Vocus says that local interest in The Pirate Bay has halved since Netflix launched in New Zealand, with traffic to the torrent site sitting at just 23% of its peak 2013 levels. “The success of Netflix, iTunes and Spotify proves that people are willing to pay to access good-quality content. It’s pretty clear that SKY doesn’t understand the internet, and is trying a Hail Mary to turnaround its sunset business,” Vocus Consumer General Manager Taryn Hamilton said. The big question now is whether the High Court has the ability to order these kinds of blocks. InternetNZ has its doubts, noting that it should only happen following a parliamentary mandate. source: torrentfreak

For many people The Pirate Bay has been hard to reach over the past few days, causing concern among some BitTorrent users. The outages are likely caused by technical issues, which will be resolved in the near future. Meanwhile, some proxies and the Tor domain are still working fine. The crew of The Pirate Bay has had a hard time keeping the ship afloat over the past few days, something which has caused considerable downtime. For a lot of people, the site still displays a Cloudflare error message across the entire site, and many proxies are affected by the downtime as well. Not everyone is affected equally though. In some regions, the site loads just fine. That said, there are reports that, even then, uploads are broken and searches turn up blank. TorrentFreak reached out to the TPB team but we have yet to hear more about the issue. Judging from past experience, however, it’s likely down to a small technical issue with part of the infrastructure that needs fixing. The Pirate Bay has had quite a few stints of downtime in recent months. The popular torrent site usually returns after several hours, although it can take longer on occasion. But there’s some good news for those who desperately need to access the notorious torrent site. TPB is still accessible through some proxies and its .onion address on the Tor network, via the popular Tor Browser, for example. The Tor traffic goes through a separate connection and works just fine. New uploads are coming through as well, although these appear to be mostly from upload bots. As always, the site’s admins and moderators are asking people to refrain from panicking while waiting patiently for the storm to subside, but seasoned TPB users will probably know the drill by now… source: torrentfreak

The Alliance For Creativity and Entertainment and the Coalition Against Piracy have teamed up to shut down an illicit IPTV operation in Australia. The company allegedly sold devices bundled with a 12-month subscription to pirated movies, TV shows, and sports but under pressure, agreed to close down. Instead of companies like the MPAA, Amazon, Netflix, CBS, HBO, BBC, Sky, CBS, Foxtel, and Village Roadshow tackling piracy completely solo, this year they teamed up to form the Alliance for Creativity and Entertainment (ACE). This massive collaboration of 30 companies represents a new front in the fight against piracy, with global players publicly cooperating to tackle the phenomenon in all its forms. The same is true of CASBAA‘s Coalition Against Piracy (CAP), a separate anti-piracy collective which to some extent shares the same members as ACE but with a sharp of focus on Asia. This morning the groups announced the results of a joint investigation in Australia which targeted a large supplier of illicit IPTV devices. These small set-top boxes, which come in several forms, are often configured to receive programming from unauthorized sources. In this particular case, they came pre-loaded to play pirated movies, television shows, sports programming, plus other content. The Melbourne-based company targeted by ACE and CAP allegedly sold these devices in Asia for many years. The company demanded AUS$400 (US$305) per IPTV unit and bundled each with a year’s subscription to pirated TV channels and on-demand movies from the US, EU, India and South East Asia markets. In the past, companies operating in these areas have often been met with overwhelming force including criminal action, but ACE and CAP appear to have reached an agreement with the company and its owner, even going as far as keeping their names out of the press. In return, the company has agreed to measures which will prevent people who have already invested in these boxes being able to access ACE and CAP content going forward. That is likely to result in a whole bunch of irritated customers. “The film and television industry has made significant investments to provide audiences with access to creative content how, where, and when they want it,” says ACE spokesperson Zoe Thorogood. “ACE and CAP members initiated this investigation as part of a comprehensive global approach to protect the legal marketplace for creative content, reduce online piracy, and bolster a creative economy that supports millions of workers. This latest action was part of a series of global actions to address the growth of illegal and unsafe piracy devices and apps.” Neil Gane, General Manager of the CASBAA Coalition Against Piracy (CAP), also weighed in with what are now becoming industry-standard warnings of losses to content makers and supposed risks to consumers. “These little black boxes are now beginning to dominate the piracy ecosystem, causing significant damage to all sectors of the content industry, from producers to telecommunication platforms,” Gane said. “They also pose a risk to consumers who face a well-documented increase in exposure to malware. The surge in availability of these illicit streaming devices is an international issue that requires a coordinated effort between industry and government. This will be the first of many disruption and enforcement initiatives on which CAP, ACE, and other industry associations will be collaborating together.” In September, TF revealed the secret agreement behind the ACE initiative, noting how the group’s founding members are required to commit $5m each annually to the project. The remaining 21 companies on the coalition’s Executive Committee put in $200,000 each. While today’s IPTV announcement was very public, ACE has already been flexing its muscles behind the scenes. Earlier this month we reported on several cases where UK-based Kodi addon developers were approached by the anti-piracy group and warned to shut down – or else. While all complied, each was warned not to reveal the terms of their agreement with ACE. This means that the legal basis for its threats remains shrouded in mystery. That being said, it’s likely that several European Court of Justice decisions earlier in the year played a key role. source: torrentfreak

A Canada-based site dedicated to mashups lost use of its main domain last week following a copyright complaint from the IFPI. The music industry group contacted UK-based registrar Domainbox, citing copyright infringement on Sowndhaus.com. The registrar then removed the site's DNS entries. Sowndhaus insists that under Canadian law, it acts entirely legally. Mashups are musical compositions, usually made up of two or more tracks seamlessly blended together, which bring something fresh and new to the listener. There are hundreds of stunning examples online, many created in hobbyist circles, with dedicated communities sharing their often brilliant work. However, the majority of mashups have something in common – they’re created without any permission from the copyright holders’ of the original tracks. As such they remain controversial, as mashup platform Sowndhaus has just discovered. This Canada-based platform allows users to upload, share and network with other like-minded mashup enthusiasts. It has an inbuilt player, somewhat like Soundcloud, through which people can play a wide range of user-created mashups. However, sometime last Tuesday, Sowndhaus’ main domain, Sowndhaus.com, became unreachable. The site’s operators say that they initially believed there was some kind of configuration issue. Later, however, they discovered that their domain had been “purposefully de-listed” from its DNS servers by its registrar. “DomainBox had received a DMCA notification from the IFPI (International Federation of the Phonographic Industry) and immediately suspended our .com domain,” Sowndhaus’ operators report. At this point it’s worth noting that while Sowndhaus is based and hosted in Canada, DomainBox is owned by UK-based Mesh Digital Limited, which is in turn owned by GoDaddy. IFPI, however, reportedly sent a US-focused DMCA notice to the registrar which noted that the music group had “a good faith belief” that activity on Sowndhaus “is not authorized by the copyright owner, its agent, or the law.” While mashups have always proved controversial, Sowndhaus believe that they operate well within Canadian law. “We have a good faith belief that the audio files allegedly ‘infringing copyright’ in the DMCA notification are clearly transformative works and meet all criteria for ‘Non-commercial User-generated Content’ under Section 29.21 of the Copyright Act (Canada), and as such are authorized by the law,” the site says. “Our service, servers, and files are located in Canada which has a ‘Notice and Notice regime’ and where DMCA (a US law) has no jurisdiction. However, the jurisdiction for our .com domain is within the US/EU and thus subject to its laws.” Despite a belief that the site operates lawfully, Sowndhaus took a decision to not only take down the files listed in IFPI’s complaint but also to ditch its .com domain completely. While this convinced DomainBox to give control of the domain back to the mashup platform, Sowndhaus has now moved to a completely new domain (sowndhaus.audio), to avoid further issues. “We neither admit nor accept that any unlawful activity or copyright infringement with respect to the DMCA claim had taken place, or has ever been permitted on our servers, or that it was necessary to remove the files or service under Section 29.21 of the Copyright Act (Canada) with which we have always been, and continue to be, in full compliance,” the site notes. “The use of copyright material as Non-commercial User-generated Content is authorized by law in Canada, where our service resides. We believe that the IFPI are well aware of this, are aware of the jurisdiction of our service, and therefore that their DMCA notification is a misrepresentation of copyright.” Aside from what appears to have been a rapid suspension of Sowndhaus’ .com domain, the site says that it is being held to a higher standard of copyright protection that others operating under the DMCA. Unlike YouTube, for example, Sowndhaus says it pro-actively removes files found to infringe copyright. It also bans users who use the site to commit piracy, as per its Terms of Service. “This is a much stronger regime than would be required under the DMCA guidelines where users generally receive warnings and strikes before being banned, and where websites complying with the DMCA and seeking to avoid legal liability do not actively seek out cases of infringement, leading to some cases of genuine piracy remaining undetected on their services,” the site says. However, the site remains defiant in respect of the content it hosts, noting that mashups are transformative works that use copyright content “in new and creative ways to form new works of art” and as such are legal for non-commercial purposes. That hasn’t stopped it from being targeted by copyright holders in the past, however. This year three music-based organizations (IFPI, RIAA, and France’s SCPP) have sent complaints to Google about the platform, targeting close to 200 URLs. However, at least for more recent complaints, Google hasn’t been removing the URLs from its indexes. Noting that corporations are using their powers “to hinder, stifle, and silence protected new forms of artistic expression with no repercussions”, Sowndhaus says that it is still prepared to work with copyright holders but wishes they would “reconsider their current policies and accept non-commercial transformative works as legitimate art forms with legal protections and/or exemptions in all jurisdictions.” While Sowndhaus is now operating from a new domain, the switch is not without its inconveniences. All URLs with links to files on sowndhaus.com are broken but can be fixed by changing the .com to .audio. DomainBox did not respond to TorrentFreak’s request for comment. source: torrentfreak

A recent takedown notice submitted on behalf of Netflix brands the popular Stranger Things community on Reddit as a 'pirate haven.' The streaming service lists the subreddit in a recent takedown request that was sent to Google, alongside several other unusual sites. Google, wisely, has not taken any action. Netflix offers a great selection of movies and TV-shows and dozens of millions of people can’t go a week without it. Netflix is seen as an alternative to piracy. However, since Netflix’s priorities are shifting more to the production of original content, piracy is also a problem. The streaming service now has its own anti-piracy unit and works with third-party vendors to remove unauthorized content from the Internet. This includes links to their shows in Google’s search results. While most requests are legitimate, a recent takedown notice targeting “Stranger Things,” was a bit off. Tucked in between various pirate sites, we spotted articles from news sites Express and The Wrap. The Express article has an obvious clickbait title aimed to attract freeloaders: “Stranger Things season 2 streaming – How to watch Stranger Things online for FREE in UK.” While there are no references to infringing content in the piece, it’s at least understandable that Netflix’ anti-piracy partner “IP Arrow” was confused by it. The Wrap article, however, doesn’t even hint at anything piracy related. That’s not all though. Netflix’s takedown request also lists the “Stranger Things” subreddit. This community page has nearly a quarter million followers and explicitly forbids any pirated content. Still, Netflix wanted it removed from Google’s search results. To give Netflix and IP Arrow the benefit of doubt, it’s always possible that a link to pirated content slipped through at the time the notice was sent. But, if that was the case they should have at least targeted the link to the full Reddit post as well. The more likely scenario is that there was some sort of hiccup in the automated takedown software, or perhaps a human error of some kind. Stanger things have happened. The good news is that Google came to the rescue. After reviewing the takedown notice, the three mentioned links were discarded. This means that the subreddit is still available in Google’s search results. For now. Reddit itself is also quite skilled at spotting faulty takedown requests. While it’s unknown whether they were contacted directly by Netflix’s anti-piracy partner, the company rejects more than half of all DMCA takedown requests it receives. source: torrentfreak

Copyright trolling in Poland has taken on a sinister twist. A local journalist informs TorrentFreak that as many as 300 people have had their computers seized by police over an alleged movie download four years ago. Furthermore, the lawyer involved in this case is currently subject to a disciplinary inquiry after some of his copyright work was seen as potentially undermining trust in the legal profession. Late October 2016, we reported on an alarming situation in Poland, where police had visited hundreds of homes across the country, seizing computers alleged to have been involved in the sharing of a comedy movie titled “Screwed“. In some cases, police reportedly advised suspects to settle with copyright holders rather than face legal action, something critics felt was particularly inappropriate in an unproven copyright case. Now it appears that history is repeating itself in the region, with people being targeted over downloads of a local thriller titled “Drogówka”. While this is of concern in itself, the alleged offenses took place via BitTorrent way back in 2013, four whole years ago. Local journalist Marcin Maj at Bezprawnik, who’s also an IT security instructor at Niebezpiecznik, has been documenting the activities of copyright trolls in Poland for some time. He picked up the story this week after he learned that police had seized an alleged file-sharer’s computer. After speaking with local police, he subsequently discovered that 200 to 300 other people had been given the same treatment. Maj says that after presenting a long list of questions to authorities, he learned that these seizures have been going on continuously for about a year, following a criminal complaint filed by a law firm. It’s that this point that the uncomfortable nature of this whole operation becomes apparent. “In 2013-2014, lawyer Artur Glass-Brudziński reported numerous copyright infringements (movie sharing) to the prosecutor’s office, and the prosecutor’s office started to identify people behind the indicated IP addresses,” Maj informs TF. “It’s important to understand that in the Polish legal system, it’s impossible to sue someone who is unknown to a plaintiff [John Doe]. But you can always start a criminal proceeding.” Such a criminal proceeding was filed in 2014 but it appears that Glass-Brudziński used the process to gain a secondary advantage. “As a barrister of the [copyright holder], Artur Glass-Brudziński had access to the prosecutor’s documentation. So he used this to obtain identified names and addresses, without waiting for the end of the criminal proceeding. Those people were just witnesses, but Glass-Brudziński sent thousands of letters to them, suggesting they are suspects, which was not true,” Maj says. So, in effect, a criminal action was used to gain access to personal details that were subsequently used in civil actions. That’s completely legal and quite common in Poland but many view the process as problematic. “Polish lawyers see this as something not quite ethical,” Maj reports. “Now Glass-Brudziński faces a disciplinary court because his letters were quite misleading. Regardless of that, however, criminal proceedings are still underway.” A hearing took place before the Disciplinary Court November 13 but a resolution will take some time to reach since there around 80 people involved in the case. In the meantime the current criminal case continues, with several problems. For example, it’s quite likely that many people will have changed their computers since 2013, but the police are required to seize the ones people currently have. Also, Maj reports that after speaking to people who received demands for cash payment, many report having had nothing to do with the alleged offenses. But there is a broader problem around such cases in general. As we reported last year, prosecutors admit that they do not verify the technical processes that the copyright holders use to identify the alleged infringers, meaning that hundreds of members of the public are subjected to property seizures based on untested evidence. “Polish prosecutors often decide to seize computers just because they got an IP address list from a lawyer. Sometimes even prosecutors don’t want to do that, but copyright owners complain to the courts, and the courts issue an order to seize machines. That’s deeply absurd,” Maj says. “Many times I have asked prosecutors if they check the method used to track pirates. Many times I have asked prosecutors if they have found evidence on every seized computer. The answers? No. They don’t check the method of tracking pirates, and evidence is found only ‘sometimes’.” There are clearly mounting problems in Poland with both evidence and discovery-based loopholes providing copyright holders with a significant advantage. While questionable, it’s currently all legal, so it seems likely that as long as ‘victims’ can gain access to private information via criminal cases, the cash threats will continue. It’s a topic covered in a report compiled by Maj and the Modern Poland Foundation (Polish, pdf) “Computer seizures and our report were discussed in the lower house of the Polish parliament in 2016, at the meeting of the Commision of Digitalization, Innovation and New Technologies. Many politicians are aware of the problem and they declare we should do something to stop bullying and seizures. Unfortunately, it all ended with was declarations,” Maj concludes. source: torrentfreak

AIDA64 has added a list of unreleased Intel CPUs for support in their latest Beta release. The new AIDA64 Extreme Beta version can identify a list of CPUs that have not been released to consumers yet but may be headed for launch soon. AIDA64 BETA Adds Support For Several Unreleased Intel CPUs – An Entire Army of 8th and 9th Generation Desktop / Mobile CPUs Launching Soon? So just to make clear, these chips may or may not launch anytime soon but they have been defined by Intel themselves as indicated by Videocardz. Generally, such CPUs end up showing in databases early in production when they are tested by the manufacturer themselves or information is passed along. Intel Coffee Lake-H Gets Core i9-8000 Series Processors – Flagship To be Called Core i9-8950HK So starting off with the details, first up, we have a clear mention of the Core i9-8000H series CPUs that are part of the Coffee Lake-H MB (Mobile) family. These are the high-end processors designed for mobility users. Generally, this tier of processors are dedicated for high-performance laptops as such, we are looking at the first Core i9 series processor on a laptop solution. The flagship chip is said to the Core i9-8950HK and we aren’t sure about the specifications as of yet but previous leaks over at Geekbench state that we are possibly looking at a 6 core, 12 thread model. Why call it a Core i9 though when the mainstream 6 core Coffee Lake chips fall under the Core i7 brand? Well, for laptops, a 6 core, 12 thread chip would be a first in a long time. Unlike desktop that gets a HEDT treatment, the notebook platform has been getting a quad core solution for more longer than the desktop platforms. As such, Intel is promoting their Coffee Lake-H flagship chips with the Core i9 tag. There will be Core i7 and Core i5 parts too but the top end will be falling under the Core i9 designation. Tons of Intel 8th Generation and 9th Generation CPUs Also Added For Support in AIDA64 Aside from the Core i9-8000 series mobility family, there are a ton of other 8th and even 9th gen CPUs added to the support list. There are little details of the 9th generation family but most of the processors listed here include mobility and desktop variants. The Intel 9th generation family is said to be supported by both Coffee Lake and Cannonlake PCHs (expected in 1H 2018). Following is a list of all unreleased Intel 8th and 9th generation processors that were listed: Intel 8th Generation Unreleased Processors: Intel Core i3-8000 Intel Core i3-8000T Intel Core i3-8020 Intel Core i3-8020T Intel Core i3-8100T Intel Core i3-8120 Intel Core i3-8120T Intel Core i3-8300T Intel Core i3-8320 Intel Core i3-8320T Intel Core i5-8300H Intel Core i5-8400B Intel Core i5-8400H Intel Core i5-8400T Intel Core i5-8420 Intel Core i5-8420T Intel Core i5-8500 Intel Core i5-8500B Intel Core i5-8500T Intel Core i5-8550 Intel Core i5-8650 Intel Core i5-8650K Intel 9th Generation Unreleased Processors: Intel Core i3-9000 Intel Core i3-9000T Intel Core i3-9100 Intel Core i3-9100T Intel Core i3-9300 Intel Core i3-9300T Intel Core i5-9400 Intel Core i5-9400T Intel Core i5-9500 Intel Core i5-9600 Intel Core i5-9600K

US-based movie company Voltage Pictures is using a reverse class action in Canada, hoping to obtain settlements from alleged pirates. The case requires Internet provider Rogers to expose many alleged pirates, but the ISP wants $100 per hour to make this happen. This resulted in a dispute between the movie company and Rogers, which is now heading to the Supreme Court. Movie studio Voltage Pictures is no stranger to suing BitTorrent users. The company has filed numerous lawsuits against alleged pirates in the United States, Europe, Canada and Australia, and is estimated to have made a lot of money doing so. Voltage and other copyright holders who initiate these cases generally rely on IP addresses as evidence. This information is collected from BitTorrent swarms and linked to an ISP using an IP-database. With this information in hand, they then ask the courts to direct Internet providers to hand over the personal details of the associated account holders, in order to go after the alleged pirates. In Canada, this so-called copyright trolling practice hasn’t been without controversy. Last year Voltage Pictures launched a “reverse class action” to demand damages from an unspecified number of Internet users whom they accuse of sharing films, including The Cobbler, Pay the Ghost, Good Kill, Fathers and Daughters, and American Heist. The application of a reverse class action in a copyright case was unprecedented in itself. In a single swoop, many of Internet subscribers were at risk of having their personal details exposed. However, Internet provider Rogers was not willing to hand over this information freely. Instead, Rogers demanded compensation for every IP-address lookup, as is permitted by copyright law. The provider asked for $100 per hour of work, plus taxes, to link the addresses to subscriber accounts. The Federal Court agreed that the charges were permitted under the Copyright Act. However, when Voltage Pictures appealed the decision, this was reversed. The Appeals Court noted that there’s currently no fixed maximum charge defined by law. As long as this is the case, ISPs can charge no fees at all, the argument was. In addition, the court stressed that it’s important for copyright holders to be able to protect their rights in the digital era. “The internet must not become a collection of safe houses from which pirates, with impunity, can pilfer the products of others’ dedication, creativity and industry,” the appeal court Justice David Stratas wrote. Not happy with the decision, Rogers decided to take the matter to the Supreme Court, which just decided that it will hear the case. The Supreme Court hasn’t given an explanation for its decision to take the case. For the accused BitTorrent pirates in Canada, it’s certainly one to watch though. The case will in large part determine how profitable the copyright trolling scheme is in Canada. When ISPs can charge a substantial fee for the IP-address lookups the efforts might not bring in enough money through settlements, making them less likely to continue. source: torrentfreak

US-based movie company Voltage Pictures is using a reverse class action in Canada, hoping to obtain settlements from alleged pirates. The case requires Internet provider Rogers to expose many alleged pirates, but the ISP wants $100 per hour to make this happen. This resulted in a dispute between the movie company and Rogers, which is now heading to the Supreme Court. Movie studio Voltage Pictures is no stranger to suing BitTorrent users. The company has filed numerous lawsuits against alleged pirates in the United States, Europe, Canada and Australia, and is estimated to have made a lot of money doing so. Voltage and other copyright holders who initiate these cases generally rely on IP addresses as evidence. This information is collected from BitTorrent swarms and linked to an ISP using an IP-database. With this information in hand, they then ask the courts to direct Internet providers to hand over the personal details of the associated account holders, in order to go after the alleged pirates. In Canada, this so-called copyright trolling practice hasn’t been without controversy. Last year Voltage Pictures launched a “reverse class action” to demand damages from an unspecified number of Internet users whom they accuse of sharing films, including The Cobbler, Pay the Ghost, Good Kill, Fathers and Daughters, and American Heist. The application of a reverse class action in a copyright case was unprecedented in itself. In a single swoop, many of Internet subscribers were at risk of having their personal details exposed. However, Internet provider Rogers was not willing to hand over this information freely. Instead, Rogers demanded compensation for every IP-address lookup, as is permitted by copyright law. The provider asked for $100 per hour of work, plus taxes, to link the addresses to subscriber accounts. The Federal Court agreed that the charges were permitted under the Copyright Act. However, when Voltage Pictures appealed the decision, this was reversed. The Appeals Court noted that there’s currently no fixed maximum charge defined by law. As long as this is the case, ISPs can charge no fees at all, the argument was. In addition, the court stressed that it’s important for copyright holders to be able to protect their rights in the digital era. “The internet must not become a collection of safe houses from which pirates, with impunity, can pilfer the products of others’ dedication, creativity and industry,” the appeal court Justice David Stratas wrote. Not happy with the decision, Rogers decided to take the matter to the Supreme Court, which just decided that it will hear the case. The Supreme Court hasn’t given an explanation for its decision to take the case. For the accused BitTorrent pirates in Canada, it’s certainly one to watch though. The case will in large part determine how profitable the copyright trolling scheme is in Canada. When ISPs can charge a substantial fee for the IP-address lookups the efforts might not bring in enough money through settlements, making them less likely to continue. source: torrentfreak

Tracker's Name: xspeeds.eu Genre: General Sign-up Link: https://www.xspeeds.eu/signup.php?agree=yes

Tracker's Name: torrentkings.org Genre: General Sign-up Link: https://torrentkings.org/signup.php

Tracker's Name: hdme.eu Genre: HD Sign-up Link: http://hdme.eu/signup.php

Tracker's Name: Team-HuSh Genre: General Sign-up Link: http://team-hush.org/signup.php Closing date: Soon Additional information: Team-HuSh is a French Private Torrent Tracker for Movies / General Releases.

As Switzerland tries to amend copyright law in a way that will appease copyright holders without alienating the public, a new draft compromise is on the table. While it will remain legal for people to download or stream pirated content privately, webhosts will be required to reject pirate sites while operating a takedown, staydown mechanism. Site-blocking will not be allowed, however. While Switzerland sits geographically in the heart of Europe, the country is not part of the European Union, meaning that its copyright laws are often out of touch with those of the countries encircling it. For years this has meant heavy criticism from the United States, whose trade representative has put Switzerland on the Watch List, citing weaknesses in the country’s ability to curb online copyright infringement. “The decision to place Switzerland on the Watch List this year is premised on U.S. concerns regarding specific difficulties in Switzerland’s system of online copyright protection and enforcement,” the USTR wrote in 2016. Things didn’t improve in 2017. Referencing the so-called Logistep Decision, which found that collecting infringers’ IP addresses is unlawful, the USTR said that Switzerland had effectively deprived copyright holders of the means to enforce their rights online. All of this criticism hasn’t fallen on deaf ears. For the past several years, Switzerland has been deeply involved in consultations that aim to shape future copyright law. Negotiations have been prolonged, however, with the Federal Council aiming to improve the situation for creators without impairing the position of consumers. A new draft compromise tabled Wednesday is somewhat of a mixed bag, one that is unlikely to please the United States overall but could prove reasonably acceptable to the public. First of all, people will still be able to ‘pirate’ as much copyrighted material as they like, as long as that content is consumed privately and does not include videogames or software, which are excluded. Any supposed losses accrued by the entertainment industries will be compensated via a compulsory tax of 13 Swiss francs ($13), levied on media playback devices including phones and tablets. This freedom only applies to downloading and streaming, meaning that any uploading (distribution) is explicitly ruled out. So, while grabbing some streaming content via a ‘pirate’ Kodi addon is just fine, using BitTorrent to achieve the same is ruled out. Indeed, rightsholders will be able to capture IP addresses of suspected infringers in order to file a criminal complaint with authorities. That being said, there will no system of warning notices targeting file-sharers. But while the authorization of unlicensed downloads will only frustrate an already irritated United States, the other half of the deal is likely to be welcomed. Under the recommendations, Internet services will not only be required to remove infringing content from their platforms, they’ll also be compelled to prevent that same content from reappearing. Failure to comply will result in prosecution. It’s a standard that copyright holders everywhere are keen for governments to adopt. Additionally, the spotlight will fall on datacenters and webhosts that have a reputation for being popular with pirate sites. It’s envisioned that such providers will be prevented from offering services to known pirate sites, with the government clearly stating that services with piracy at the heart of their business models will be ripe for action. But where there’s a plus for copyright holders, the Swiss have another minus. Previously it was proposed that in serious cases authorities should be able to order the ISP blocking of “obviously illegal content or sources.” That proposal has now been dropped, meaning no site-blocking will be allowed. Other changes in the draft envision an extension of the copyright term from 50 to 70 years and improved protection for photographic works. The proposals also feature increased freedoms for researchers and libraries, who will be able to use copyrighted works without obtaining permission from rightsholders. Overall the proposals are a pretty mixed bag but as Minister of Justice Simonetta Sommaruga said Wednesday, if no one is prepared to compromise, no one will get anything. source: torrentfreak

Tracker's Name: bitGAMER Genre: Games Sign-up Link: https://bitgamer.ch/signup.php

Tracker's Name: Hit-N-Run Genre: General Sign-up Link: https://hitnrun.org/signup.php Closing date: soon

The FCC is determined to repeal US net neutrality rules. If this happens, Internet providers will have the freedom to restrict or charge for access to certain sites and services, if they please. It also means BitTorrent throttling and blocking could become commonplace again, which would set us back a good ten years. Ten years ago we uncovered that Comcast was systematically slowing down BitTorrent traffic to ease the load on its network. The Comcast case ignited a broad discussion about net neutrality and provided the setup for the FCC’s Open Internet Order, which came into effect three years later. This Open Internet Order then became the foundation of the net neutrality regulation that was adopted in 2015 and still applies today. The big change compared to the earlier attempt was that ISPs can be regulated as carriers under Title II. These rules provide a clear standard that prevents ISPs from blocking, throttling, and paid prioritization of “lawful” traffic. However, this may soon be over as the FCC is determined to repeal it. FCC head Ajit Pai recently told Reuters that the current rules are too restrictive and hinder competition and innovation, which is ultimately not in the best interests of consumers “The FCC will no longer be in the business of micromanaging business models and preemptively prohibiting services and applications and products that could be pro-competitive,” Pai said. “We should simply set rules of the road that let companies of all kinds in every sector compete and let consumers decide who wins and loses.” This week the FCC released its final repeal draft (pdf), which was met with fierce resistance from the public and various large tech companies. They fear that, if the current net neutrality rules disappear, throttling and ‘fast lanes’ for some services will become commonplace. This could also mean that BitTorrent traffic could become a target once again, with it being blocked or throttled across many networks, as The Verge just pointed out. Blocking BitTorrent traffic would indeed become much easier if current net neutrality safeguards were removed. However, the FCC believes that the current “no-throttling rules are unnecessary to prevent the harms that they were intended to thwart,” such as blocking entire file transfer protocols. Instead, the FCC notes that antitrust law, FTC enforcement of ISP commitments, and consumer expectations will prevent any unwelcome blocking. This is also the reason why ISPs adopted no-blocking policies even when they were not required to, they point out. Indeed, when the DC Circuit Court of Appeals decimated the Open Internet Order in 2014, Comcast was quick to assure subscribers that it had no plans to start throttling torrents again. Yes, that offers no guarantees for the future. The FCC goes on to mention that the current net neutrality rules don’t prevent selective blocking. They can already be bypassed by ISPs if they offer “curated services,” which allows them to filter content on viewpoint grounds. And Edge providers also block content because it violates their “viewpoints,” citing the Cloudflare termination of The Daily Stormer. Net neutrality supporters see these explanations as weak excuses and have less trust in the self-regulating capacity of the ISP industry that the FCC, calling for last minute protests to stop the repeal. For now it appears, however, that the FCC is unlikely to change its course, as Ars Technica reports. While net neutrality concerns are legitimate, for BitTorrent users not that much will change. As we’ve highlighted in the past, blocking pirate sites is already an option under the current rules. The massive copyright loophole made sure of that. Targeting all torrent traffic is even an option, in theory. If net neutrality is indeed repealed next month, blocking or throttling BitTorrent traffic across the entire network will become easier, no doubt. For now, however, there are no signs that any ISPs plan to do so. If it does, we will know soon enough. The FCC will require ISPs to be transparent under the new plan. They have to disclose network management practices, blocking efforts, commercial prioritization, and the like. source: torrentfreak

Tracker's Name: Torrenting.com Genre: General Sign-up Link: https://torrenting.com

Popular instant messaging service Telegram has for the first time blocked access to an entire channel following pressure from Google and Apple. It's understood that following complaints from Universal Music, that the channel was offering illegal downloads of the Taylor Swift album Reputation, the companies ordered Telegram to take action. Financed by Russian Facebook (vKontakte) founder Pavel Durov, Telegram is a multi-platform messaging system that has grown from 100,000 daily users in 2013 to an impressive 100 million users in February 2016. “Telegram is a messaging app with a focus on speed and security, it’s super-fast, simple and free. You can use Telegram on all your devices at the same time — your messages sync seamlessly across any number of your phones, tablets or computers,” the company’s marketing reads. One of the attractive things about Telegram is that it allows users to communicate with each other using end-to-end encryption. In some cases, these systems are used for content piracy, of music and other smaller files in particular. This is compounded by the presence of user-programmed bots, which are able to search the web for illegal content and present it in a Telegram channel to which other users can subscribe. While much of this sharing files under the radar when conducted privately, it periodically attracts attention from copyright holders when it takes place in public channels. That appears to have happened recently when popular channel “Any Suitable Pop” was completely disabled by Telegram, an apparent first following a copyright complaint. According to channel creator Anton Vagin, the action by Telegram was probably due to the unauthorized recent sharing of the Taylor Swift album ‘Reputation’. However, it was the route of complaint that proves of most interest. Rather than receiving a takedown notice directly from Big Machine Records, the label behind Swift’s releases, Telegram was forced into action after receiving threats from Apple and Google, the companies that distribute the Telegram app for iOS and Android respectively. According to a message Vagin received from Telegram support, Apple and Google had received complaints about Swift’s album from Universal Music, the distributor of Big Machine Records. The suggestion was that if Telegram didn’t delete the infringing channel, distribution of the Telegram app via iTunes and Google Play would be at risk. Vagin received no warning notices from any of the companies involved. According to Russian news outlet VC.ru, which first reported the news, the channel was blocked in Telegram’s desktop applications, as well as in versions for Android, macOS and iOS. However, the channel still existed on the web and via Windows phone applications but all messages within had been deleted. The fact that Google played a major role in the disappearing of the channel was subsequently confirmed by Telegram founder Pavel Durov, who commented that it was Google who “ultimately demanded the blocking of this channel.” That Telegram finally caved into the demands of Google and/or Apple doesn’t really come as a surprise. In Telegram’s frequently asked questions section, the company specifically mentions the need to comply with copyright takedown demands in order to maintain distribution via the companies’ app marketplaces. “Our mission is to provide a secure means of communication that works everywhere on the planet. To do this in the places where it is most needed (and to continue distributing Telegram through the App Store and Google Play), we have to process legitimate requests to take down illegal public content (sticker sets, bots, and channels) within the app,” the company notes. Putting pressure on Telegram via Google and Apple over piracy isn’t a new development. In the past, representatives of the music industry threatened to complain to the companies over a channel operated by torrent site RuTracker, which was set up to share magnet links. source: torrentfreak

FCC has released the final draft of its proposal to kill net neutrality. The full document is nearly 200 pages long, so it will take some time for everyone to go through it all. So far, it’s clear that the Commission is stripping itself off the powers that enable it to keep ISPs in check in the name of more investments. The Commission also believes that there shouldn’t be any concerns about ISPs misbehaving since there are consumer protection and antitrust federal laws that could be used for these issues. Ajit Pai says 2015 net neutrality rules were “legally flawed” – welcomes fast lanes The proposal calls the landmark 2015 net neutrality ruling as a “legally flawed approach.” Ajit Pai, the Chairman of the FCC, also wants to reclassify broadband internet service as an information service and not a utility. “In the communications industry, incumbents have often used Commission regulation under the direction of the “public interest” to thwart innovation and competitive entry into the sector and protect existing market structures,” the proposal reads. “Given the unknown needs of the networks of the future, it is our determination that the utility – style regulations potentially imposed by Title II run contrary to the public interest.” This means that if this proposal is approved in December, Title II regulations would no longer apply. The new proposal also empowers internet providers to introduce fast lanes and kill the startups who are unable to pay for these lanes. Pai argues that those small tech companies can fight such issues under antitrust or consumer rights federal laws. The Commission is, in fact, suggesting that startups might even benefit from these fast lanes as they could demand more money from their investors. Under this new proposal broadband companies with their monopolistic powers can prioritize their own services and products and block any competitive content. According to the Commission’s own data shared in 2016, 51% of Americans have only one choice of broadband service and 38% have just two choices. In such a market, it would be impossible for a user to simply switch to a better option. The only thing that the new proposal is keeping from the existing net neutrality rules is for the ISPs to publicly disclose when they are engaging in any of the above. FTC will be the responsible body The Commission is also shifting enforcement of rules from itself to the Federal Trade Commission. “By reinstating the information service classification of broadband Internet access service, we return jurisdiction to regulate broadband privacy and data security to the Federal Trade Commission (FTC),” the proposal reads. “Restoring FTC jurisdiction over ISPs will enable the FTC to apply its extensive privacy and data security expertise to provide the uniform online privacy protections that consumers expect and deserve.” Enforcing rules becomes complicated under the trade authority as it just routes the complaints to courts. Former FCC chairman had previously warned that replacing FCC with a more lenient FTC, won’t be enough to police ISPs. The FTC “has enforcement authority, not rulemaking authority,” ex-Chairman Tom Wheeler had said earlier this year. “They can say, ‘we think this is an unfair and deceptive act or practice,’ but they can’t say, ‘here’s how networks have to operate so they’re fast, fair, and open’.” Comcasts of the US will able to block BitTorrents of the internet When Comcast first started to discriminate against online content in 2008, an Associated Press report and a subsequent campaign run by the Electronic Frontier Foundation had pushed the agency to stop Comcast from blocking BitTorrent on its network. The internet provider was found interfering with “certain sorts of traffic on its network,” that included but wasn’t limited to BitTorrent. Under the new proposal, FCC won’t have any powers to stop Comcast and other internet providers from blocking what they want to block. The proposal suggests that the companies can challenge these cases under – again – antitrust or consumer protection laws on a case-by-case basis. However, as The Verge notes, it doesn’t say exactly who “would bring that suit against Comcast and bear the costs.” Would it be the users of BitTorrent or FTC? While Pai has continued to say for the past several months that nothing was wrong with the internet before 2015 when the net neutrality rules were passed, a lot actually happened that had finally given way to those rules. Since its inception, internet access was guided on the principle of freedom and no-interference. Once the ISPs started to interfere with the applications and content, it became critical for the government to enforce actions that stopped such discriminatory conduct. The government imposed merger conditions (now removed by Pai) and introduced enforceable rules. The goal has remained the same – no one should be able to decide what the consumer sees on the internet. ISPs should not be able to pick winners and losers favoring some content and blocking the rest. However, all of this is going to change when these new rules get approved. FCC ignored public comments on net neutrality Before repealing these rules that were passed after “actual” problems started to arise from unfettered powers that ISPs had, the Commission was also required to take public comments, which it did. It now says that over 7 million out of 21 million comments were “fake” and had reported a DDoS attack during the comment period. However, it is unclear why the Commission is failing to provide any evidence or give access to the systems when the New York State Attorney General Eric Schneiderman has continued to offer assistance. The AG’s office during its investigation contacted the FCC at least 9 times over 5 months but didn’t receive any response from the Commission. It remains clear that the agency isn’t willing to take into account what the public wants. In the end, nothing can potentially be done after this new proposal (full text) is approved, but Americans have until mid December to call their representatives. The voting will be conducted in an open meeting on December 14. source: wccftech

Tracker's Name: Pandora-Place Genre: General Sign-up Link: http://pandora-place.me/signup.php Closing date: N/A Additional information: Pandora-Place is a Dutch Private Torrent Tracker for Movies / TV / General Releases

Tracker's Name: CrnaBerza Genre: General Sign-up Link: http://www.crnaberza.com/signup.php Closing date: Soon Additional information: CrnaBerza. is a Croatian Private Torrent Tracker for Movies / TV / General Releases

Tracker's Name: HD-Forever (HD-F) Genre: HD Sign-up Link: https://hdf.world/register.php Closing date: Very soon Additional information: HD-Forever (HD-F) is a French Private Torrent Tracker for HD Movies Releases