Welcome To Greatest Invites Forum - InviteHawk Enjoy Site's features you will love it

Welcome To Greatest Invites Forum - InviteHawk Enjoy Site's features you will love it

Welcome To Greatest Invites Forum - InviteHawk Enjoy Site's features you will love it

Welcome To Greatest Invites Forum - InviteHawk Enjoy Site's features you will love it

Welcome To Greatest Invites Forum - InviteHawk Enjoy Site's features you will love it

CrazyBitch TV | CBTV | General | 2019 Review This is a new general tracker with loads on offer. There's a great team of staff and very friendly. They have a great DJ team on the radio and daily uploads. Homepage Torrents Category Requests Forum Forum Rules Site Rules Faq General Faq Account Related IRC Loterry MY RATINGS Content 8/10 Speeds 6/10 Community 8/10 OverAll 7/10

TGay | Other | 2019 Review The mission of the project is to contribute to the formation and development of the LGBT movement in Russia and the near and far abroad, to promote international contacts between people through the exchange of thematic and non-thematic films of various directions; communication and contacts on the forum of our project, the creation of the Club of friends, dating between sosytnik. Project TGay = forum + tracker Forum - a place for communication, conversations, dialogues, exchange of points of view. Tracker - where you can download, share movies and other kinoshkami. Homepage Torrents UserGroups Rules Faq Stats Users have posted a total of 724 topics Users have posted a total of 758 articles 1,329 registered users Boys: 75, Girls: 7, Others: 1247 Torrents: 596, Total size: 799.73 GB Peers: 638, Seeders: 638, Leechers: 0 Total speed: 340 KB/s MY RATINGS Content 8/10 Speeds 6/10 Community 8/10 OverAll 7/10

When a new Game of Thrones season is about to land, major news publications everywhere tend to come up with something exciting. But what if there's no obvious angle? Easy! Come up with a sensational headline claiming that Game of Thrones downloaders are going to jail but don't offer a single shred of evidence to back it up. Then sit back, and wait for the clicks. In case anyone hadn’t noticed, a new series of Game of Thrones started last week. That meant hundreds of articles about the show, especially since this is probably its last hurrah. We too did our bit, writing earlier this week how the first episode in the series had resulted in a flood of downloads via torrent sites. We’ve been writing about the show in this context for years, so the latest installment probably didn’t come as a surprise. What will have come as a surprise, to the people who had the misfortune to read it, was an article published on the Daily Mail’s site. As is customary, the piece was placed to the left of a sidebar of clickable articles focusing on the physical attributes of mainly female celebrities in various states of undress. The piece about Game of Thrones admittedly featured less flesh but sought to be just as outrageous. With a headline like the one above, this was clearly going to be a knockout story. With huge numbers of Aussies downloading Game of Thrones every week, the prospect of filling the nation’s jails with pirates must have been thought through well in advance by the nation’s authorities. So who in government had issued the stark warning? Well, if you’re hoping to find the answer in the article, you can forget it. The piece uses the words ‘jailed’ or ‘jail’ several times, yet not once does it put any more meat on the bones of the headline claim that Game of Thrones downloaders could be seeing the inside of a cell. It does cite a 7news.com.au report which claims that people “could pay a big price down the line” for pirating the show. However, we’ve been through that article with a fine tooth comb looking for any references to criminal prosecutions of downloaders by Australian authorities, and came up with absolutely nothing. That leaves us with a few possibilities. Perhaps the Daily Mail has a source inside the government that supplied the information that warranted a SHOCKING headline but asked the paper to back it up with zero details just to keep everyone on their toes. To rule that out, TorrentFreak contacted the government, to see if any statement had been made to back up the claims detailed above, specifically concerning the claim that downloaders of Game of Thrones could be thrown in jail. The Department of Communications and the Arts responded quickly. “No announcement has been made by government regarding criminal prosecution for breach of copyright law,” the team said. “Copyright owners have a number of exclusive rights, including the right to control the reproduction of their material and the right to communicate that material to the public, which includes uploading, posting or downloading content online. “A person might infringe the exclusive rights of the copyright owner of ‘Game of Thrones’ if they upload, stream, download or share unauthorized copies of the program.” Escalating the downloading of a Game of Thrones episode to a criminal offense would make huge headlines anywhere. However, apart from this single piece in the Daily Mail, no other publication has chosen to republish this unsourced claim as fact. That in itself is telling. That leaves us with another option, that there’s a secret industry source, that said (off the record, mind you) that anyone downloading Game of Thrones could be subject to incarceration. And this is where things get a bit weird. “Creative Content Australia executive director Lori Flekser told 7 News the crackdown wasn’t just about stopping revenue loss,” the Daily Mail’s original piece read. It didn’t attribute the ‘jail’ claims to Flekser, but the implication was there. We doubted that the anti-piracy group would’ve made such a comment, so we checked with Flekser herself. “You are absolutely correct – this is not something I said or endorse,” Flekser told us. “Prosecution has occurred where people have profited from the sale of pirated content, such as the reference in that article to the 2017 case of Sydney man Haidar Majid Salam Al Baghdadi who was convicted for his role in the selling of unauthorized access to Foxtel services.” After Flekser emailed her comments to TF, we checked the Daily Mail article against an indexed copy from the date it was originally published. Interestingly, the publication had removed all references to Flekser but maintained the line that Game of Thrones pirates could be put in jail. Well, let’s go along with the ‘jail’ charade and consider the feasibility of that. In Victoria, which covers Melbourne, for example, it costs in excess of AUS$328.00 per day to lock someone up. Last year, Australia had around 42,000 prisoners in totaland according to figures published earlier this week, around a million Aussies downloaded the first episode of the new Game of Thrones series – in a day. If the authorities decided to criminalize downloaders and put even 5% of these people in jail, Australia’s judicial system – if not the whole country – would be in crisis. Furthermore, if only a tiny proportion of offenders went to jail (let’s say a modest five people), there would be a public outcry, especially when one considers that shoplifting goods up to the value of AUS$600 is often dealt with via an on-the-spot fine resulting in no criminal record. That presents an uncomfortable third option, that this is a classic and pretty blatant example of fake news. Or, at the very least, an outrageous headline drawing traffic to an article that fails to come up with the goods or back itself up in any way. Make no mistake, pirating TV shows is illegal in Australia and those also sharing them with others (using BitTorrent, for example) could find themselves having to explain their actions in court in a civil case. Thus far, however, there has been very little sign of that practice making a comeback in the country. There are also criminal implications for those who commit infringement on a commercial scale, as Flekser told us. But downloading an episode of Game of Thrones doesn’t seem to fit that description for an individual, even if a million Aussies did it collectively this week. Of course, that’s much less interesting than “everyone’s going to prison”, so let’s find a ridiculous angle and mislead the public instead. Fake news is coming? It’s already arrived.

Streaming TV provider Omniverse believes that any comparisons to 'pirate' streaming box vendor Dragon Box are scandalous. The company is asking the court to strike these from the copyright infringement complaint anti-piracy outfit ACE filed earlier this year. In addition, it wants ACE to clarify what the problem is exactly. In February, several major Hollywood studios, Amazon, and Netflix filed a lawsuitagainst Omniverse One World Television. Under the flag of anti-piracy group ACE, the companies accused Omniverse and its owner Jason DeMeo of supplying pirate streaming channels to various IPTV services. Omniverse doesn’t offer any streaming boxes but sells live-streaming services to third-party distributors, such as HDHomerun, Flixon TV, and SkyStream TV, which in turn offer live TV streaming packages to customers. According to ACE, these channels are offered without permission from its members. As such, the company was branded a pirate streaming TV supplier. However, Omniverse disagrees with this assessment. In a new court filing, the company requests the California federal court to strike any comparisons to services such as “Dragon Box,” stating that these are “scandalous” and “immaterial.” Omniverse explains that it’s a technical provider for the licensed cable company Hovsat, which has a long-standing agreement with DirecTV to distribute a broad range of TV-channels with few restrictions. “The contract between Hovsat and DirecTV has no limitations with regard to geographic markets, nor innovating with regard to delivery method,” Omniverse informs the court. The streaming service provider believes that the license allows it to offer these channels to third-party companies. ACE clearly disagrees and has branded the company a pirate service, similar to the streaming box vendor Dragon Box. This comparison is rejected outright by Omniverse, which stresses that it operates entirely differently from Dragon Box. “Comparisons between Omniverse and Dragon Box are immaterial because Dragon Box is a hardware device utilizing software to search and link pirated content and Omniverse is a marketing partner of a cable company,” the company writes. Also, Dragon Box recently admitted that it offered copyright infringing software and settled its lawsuit with ACE for $14.5 million in the same court. Any comparisons may, therefore, be damaging for Omniverse. “Comparisons between Omniverse and Dragon Box are also scandalous because comparing the two unlike entities damages Omniverse through guilt by (misplaced) association,” Omniverse writes. The streaming service provider requests the court to strike all comparisons to Dragon Box. In addition, it would like ACE to update its complaint to clarify what the problem is. If ACE accuses Omniverse of outright piracy, similar to Dragon Box, it should say so in the complaint. However, if it argues that Omniverse went beyond the authority of the Hovsat license, all Dragon Box mentions should be dropped. This clarification will also help Omniverse to prepare a proper defense, the company argues. A classic piracy lawsuit is different from a lawsuit about a licensing dispute, it says. “If Plaintiffs’ Complaint is alleging Omniverse is a pirate, Omniverse needs to prepare for an action that covers multiple properties held by multiple plaintiffs. If Plaintiffs’ Complaint is alleging Omniverse does not operate under proper authorization, Omniverse needs to prepare for an action primarily involving the meaning of the Hovsat-DirecTV agreement. Or both.” The court has yet to respond to the request from Omniverse. It is clear, however, that the Hovsat license will play an important role in this case. A few days ago the court signed two subpoenas that are directed at Hovsat and DirecTV. The subpoenas were requested by ACE, which is looking for information about agreements between Omniverse, Hovsat, and DirecTV. — A copy of Omniverse’s motion to strike the scandalous claims, as well as other requests, is available here (pdf).

Digital rights group EFF has filed a brief in support of the stream-ripping sites FLVTO.biz and 2conv.com. The sites are involved in a legal battle with several record labels and appealed a district court decision to dismiss the case over a lack of jurisdiction. EFF sides with the stream ripper operator, while highlighting that these sites have plenty of legal uses. Last year, a group of prominent record labels filed a piracy lawsuit against the Russian operator of YouTube-ripping sites FLVTO.biz and 2conv.com. The labels hoped to shut the sites down, but this effort backfired. In January, US District Court Judge Claude M. Hilton dismissed the case due to a lack of personal jurisdiction. The Court carefully reviewed how the sites operate and found no evidence that they purposefully targeted either Virginia or the United States. The sites are not seen as highly interactive and their interaction with users could not be classified as commercial, the Court concluded. The record labels didn’t agree with this conclusion and took the case to the Fourth Circuit appeals court. If the verdict stands, the companies believe that Internet pirates will have “carte blanche” to facilitate copyright infringement, as they would be untouchable by U.S. courts. Tofig Kurbanov, the Russian operator of the two stream-rippers, argued against this last week, hoping to keep the current dismissal in place. Yesterday he received support from the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) which submitted an amicus curiae brief. The digital rights group takes interest in copyright cases, in particular when they get in the way of people’s ability to freely use technology. In this instance, EFF points out that the stream-rippers provide a neutral technology, that has plenty of legal uses. “Like a web browser, photocopy machine, or video recorder, the converters at issue in this case are neutral technologies, equally capable of lawful and infringing uses. And lawful uses abound, from saving a copy of a family member’s home video to downloading clips from a TV show as raw material for a critical commentary,” EFF writes. The digital rights group points out that companies such as the record labels in this suit, seek to control the use and availability of copying. To this end, they file lawsuits against foreign site operators who often don’t put up a defense. This then allows them to apply for default judgments and broad preliminary injunctions which compel third-party intermediaries such as domain registrars, or CDN providers, to take action. That can be dangerous, EFF notes, as the merits of the case are not thoroughly considered. “These injunctions, which can be legally problematic, are often granted without challenge. Through this process, difficult questions about the scope of such injunctions go unanswered,” EFF notes. While there have indeed been several default judgments in the past, that was not an issue in the present case. In fact, at this point, it’s irrelevant whether the sites at issue are infringing at all. The case was dismissed based on a lack of jurisdiction, after all. According to EFF, the District Court made the right choice in doing so and it encourages the Court of Appeals to uphold this decision. Looking at the broader picture, this may act as a safeguard against default judgments in future cases, the group explains. “Preserving the limits of personal jurisdiction to uphold due process, as the district court did in this case, also avoids default judgments against foreign defendants, and promotes the resolution of complex legal issues on a full record,” EFF writes. Focusing on the jurisdiction issue in the case at hand, EFF notes that the court made the right decision. The sites’ terms of use do not constitute a commercial relationship and geo-targeted ads are not enough to establish jurisdiction, the group argues. On top of that, the websites in question are not “interactive,” as the District Court also pointed out. “Here, the websites at issue here are semi-interactive; as explained by the district court, there is no evidence that users exchanged multiple files with the websites, and users do not need to create an account, sign in, or even register in order to use the websites,” EFF writes. EFF is not the only outside party that has taken an interest in the case. The record labels’ previously attracted support from other major copyright holders. Through amicus briefs, Hollywood’s MPAA, The Association of American Publishers, and the Copyright Alliance, all argued that the verdict should be overturned. It is now up to the Fourth Circuit appeals court, to weigh all arguments and ultimately come to a decision.

sims0729.co.uk | General | 2019 Review This is a new general tracker with community in mind. sims0729.co.uk is situated on a dedicated server in the Netherlands Login Homepage Torrents Faq Faq User Class Forum Site Rules Forum Rules MY RATINGS Content 8/10 Speeds 6/10 Community 8/10 OverAll 7/10

FutureTorrent | FT | General | 2019 Review FutureTorrent (FT) is an ITALIAN Private Torrent Tracker for MOVIES / TV / GENERAL Trackername FutureTorrent Tracker Genre General Tracker URL http://futuretorrent.org Tracker Singup Open / Invite Only Ratio requirements Ratio Based Bonus System Yes Maintaining Ratio Easy Tracker Birthday N/A Total torrents N/A Total users N/A Tracker IRC N/A SignUp Homepage Torrents Upload Request Forum Rules My Ratings Speed :   8/10 Pretimes : 8/10 Content : 8/10 Community : 8/10 Overall : 8/10

.::House of Devil | General | 2019 Review::. House of Devil is a GERMAN Private Torrent Tracker for MOVIES / TV / GENERAL Tracker name House of Devil Tracker Genre General Tracker URL http://hodtorrendworld.spdns.org/ Tracker Singup Open / Invite Only Ratio requirements Ratio Based Bonus System Yes Maintaining Ratio Easy Tracker Birthday N/A Total torrents N/A Total users N/A Tracker IRC N/A SignUp Login Homepage Torrent Categories Torrents Upload Request Rules Ratings

There's some uproar in Canada about a supposed 'novel' tactic that's being used to sue alleged BitTorrent pirates. In reality, however, these lawsuits have been ongoing for years. They are typically known as "copyright trolling" efforts and have targeted thousands of Canadians already. For the record, this has nothing to do with Game of Thrones. This week Canadian news outlets are reporting about a supposed new legal campaign against people who pirate movies and TV-shows via BitTorrent. This includes an article from CBC, which featured a still from Game of Thrones, suggesting that downloaders of the popular HBO series are at risk too. The coverage comes a bit as a surprise, because there is nothing new to these lawsuits. “Reverse class-action” suits have been ongoing for a few years in Canada now. Also, HBO or ‘Game of Thrones’ are not part of it. The lawsuits in question are a variant of what is commonly known as “copyright trolling.” This practice is limited to a few movie production companies that have targeted hundreds of thousands of alleged pirates all over the world. In Canada, we are aware of 18 of these lawsuits which target thousands of alleged pirates in total. These cases were filed by the rightsholders of films such as The Hitman’s Bodyguard, Mechanic: Resurrection, Criminal, London Has Fallen, and Dallas Buyers Club, The defendants are listed as “John Does,” who are initially only known by their IP-addresses. After the movie companies obtain a Norwich order from the court, they obtain the contact details of these people, who they can then approach with a settlement demand. This has led to settlements of thousands of dollars in some cases, where the maximum damages for non-commercial infringement is CAD$ 5,000. As said before, this isn’t new. However, the news started rolling again following a tweet from Nova Scotia-based lawyer David Fraser, who posted a copy of a “statement of claim” online. The lawyer also pointed to an article, where the law firm offered help, suggesting that this is a ‘novel’ procedure. “Using a novel legal procedure called a ‘reverse class-action’ Hollywood studios are consolidating what would otherwise be hundreds of lawsuits into just a handful of lawsuits,” the article reads. This then led to a report on Mobilesyrup, where it was again suggested that this is a new phenomenon. Interestingly, the date of the statement of claim is almost a year old now, which is a clear hint that this isn’t as fresh as some people think. Indeed, a reverse class-action lawsuit against alleged BitTorrent pirates was already filed in 2016, and many have followed since. This week’s reporting shows that the cases have progressed quietly in the courts. That’s not a complete surprise, as they generally don’t go to trial. The goal of the movie outfits is to settle the matter out of court. That brings us to a final point of confusion. These settlement requests are entirely different from the automated settlements that ISPs forward via email. The latter practice is part of the notice-and-notice system. While these automated settlement requests were outlawed last year, they’re still coming in. The letters that are part of a reverse class-action, which are delivered through the postal system, are entirely different. They are part of a legal proceeding and people who receive a statement of claim should not ignore it. Those who do face a default judgment, which is generally higher than a settlement. Attorney James Plotkin of law firm CazaSaikaley previously informed us that it’s wise to consult an attorney instead. “Get competent legal advice. It is important to understand the legal playing field. Defendants are not helpless in these actions, so ignoring the claim and allowing the plaintiff to proceed in obtaining a default judgment is probably not the best option for most people,” he said. That is the type of advice one would expect from an attorney. However, in this case, it is certainly warranted. And the outcome could be positive as well, as Plotkin has already helped one defendant to get rid of the claim, without a settlement. Summarizing, we can conclude that lawsuits continue to target alleged BitTorrent pirates in Canada. The cases are filed by a small number of movie production companies and have nothing to do with Game of Thrones. Those who are unfortunate enough to get caught up in this should carefully research their options. Unlike the “notice-and-notice” emails, ignoring the legal paperwork is generally not a good option.

This summer the UK government will attempt to ban underage access to sites that have a third or more of their content dedicated to porn. Everyone will be required to verify their age and sites that don't comply with the regime will be blocked by ISPs. However, citizens who seek to circumvent the rules with VPNs, for example, will also find pirate sites wide open again. Before the dawn of the mainstream Internet, underage access to pornographic content meant trying to sneak a glance over someone’s shoulder at a well-thumbed adult magazine. Or, if you were ‘lucky’, finding a VHS cassette in a friend’s dad’s cupboard, behind the coats and shoes, in a box, inside another box, in an envelope marked “holiday video”. Such things apparently happened. With the dawn of the Internet, things have certainly changed. With just a few clicks, one can find pornographic material, with ‘graphic’ often being the operative word. What adults choose to watch is their business, but children being able to access much of the content on today’s platforms is probably not what most parents want. So in the absence of traditional parental controls, the UK government has stepped in to prevent youngsters from inadvertently stumbling across adult content. From July 15, the country will adopt a checking scheme that will require profit-making sites with more than a third of their content pornographic in nature to verify visitors’ ages. It’s believed that the AgeID system, operated by major porn site owner Mindgeek, will one of the key facilitators of that. People who want to access porn sites will be required to provide scans of their driving licenses or passports, provide credit card details, or activate via SMS. Users’ details will then be verified by a third-party. There will be other ways to obtain verification too, since some shops will be selling special cards containing a code that people can use to access sites like Pornhub and YouPorn. However, eligible sites that refuse to play by the verification rules will be blocked by local ISPs, preventing them from doing any business in the UK. In theory, at least. While the aims are noble, circumvention of this entire scheme (for adults and children alike) lies just a few key presses away. Subscribing to a VPN will effectively drive a coach and horses through the legislation, providing no-fuss and instant access to all age-compliant websites, and those that refuse to comply too. The government acknowledges that this could happen, but it wants to be seen to be doing something. Indeed, as part of the Digital Economy Act 2017, the UK will become the first country in the world to proudly deploy such a system. However, thanks to many years of website blocking on the piracy front, large numbers of people will already have the tools at hand to make July 15 seem like life on the 14th. Herein lies the problem. As website blocking increases – whether that’s via direct ISP action or the verification scheme detailed above – people have more and more reasons to learn how to evade those blocks. It doesn’t really matter whether it’s adults or even teenagers spreading the knowledge, on July 15 (if not sooner) circumvention methods will spread like wildfire. And this can only mean bad news for those who have worked incredibly hard to have many hundreds of pirate sites blocked in the UK over the past nine years or so. Once those VPNs get fired up to access XVideos or whatever other sites tickle people’s fancies, it will soon become apparent that every single one of those previously blocked torrent and streaming portals will become accessible again too. Good VPNs do not discriminate and they don’t care what people are looking at. Their aim is to protect their users’ privacy and make web censorship a thing of the past. The only saving grace in respect of the verification scheme is that decent ones also cost money, so teenagers may not always have the means to pay for one. That raises the possibility – or even likelihood – that many people will take the easy option of downloading a ‘free’ VPN from Google Play or Apple’s variant. Many of these have a questionable track history, especially when it comes to privacy, so people flocking in this direction won’t be doing themselves any favors. All that being said, the architects of the scheme say that the potential for circumvention of the verification scheme is low. Perhaps today’s teenagers are less interested in seeing forbidden content than those that went before and will embrace the scheme with open arms. We shall see. For most adults, however, it seems likely that handing over passports, driving licenses, and credit cards will only add to the already considerable but relatively straightforward pressure of remembering browser history wiping and incognito tabs. In the meantime, there’s always The Pirate Bay, RARBG and all the other ‘pirate’ sites offering adult material. None of them will be included in the verification scheme but could see a small surge in traffic, if ‘porn-pass panic’ sweeps the country. And if it does, they’ll be easier to access than ever before.

@ROH I have kraytracker, hotvibes. I need Theplace invite.

Yeah available

Taken from "Nostalgic Torrents" forum: Yesboff Project Back On track to be online Someone else has stepped up to run it thankfully. It will not be a private tracker it will be public. It wont be a closed community like this with forums and all that mess. Software it will be running. https://github.com/NyaaPantsu/nyaa OR https://github.com/nyaadevs/nyaa/ it's an anime tracker however it can easily be modded for whatever content, it will be much less easier to troll and can stand up to a lot of bullshit. I spent the last $120 we got to make the yesboss.club so if you want to help here is their BTC address. 1DcMDTjnoqkxiQom4Pv3yykQhWA1wcTQnK Their goal is $150. Seeing that 1000's of users will signup as soon as it goes online I'm sure this wont be an issue to hit that goal and help them. It will be the same domain name most likely. That db was wiped but it doesn't matter because next site will not require a signup to download and use. If you'd like to inquire about this project contact staff so we can lead you to their project team.

Hello  Rules: 1 . Click on Like this post 2 . Reply this post for apply, don't forget to mention @arif12345 3 . Give me +1 Positive Feedback after you received the invite

I'm watching this thread to see who is the lucky one

As of right now, Oct. 18th 2018, there are NO tracker/torrent issues.

ost There! (2018-10-18 update) Much progress has been made, and finally, the end is in sight! The old database has been restored, and existing torrents are now seeding (10,000 at last count). There are still a few things that need taking care of, such as the registration page, automatic transfer of ownership to the original uploaders, setting up the email system, and optimizing system performance, but none of these things should give us any major issues. FLS, Charlie Team, Interviewers and Archive Team members that are online on IRC have been given an account to the site, in order to get things going. If you are a member of these teams, especially the Archive Team, come to the IRC network as soon as possible and contact Spine or Athena for site access. Today, we have begun to provide early access to some of biggest uploaders, even those who joined after the backup cut-off date. Keep an eye on your IRC PMs if you think you might be one of these people, but please do not ask for access. Though we make no promises, (this is a volunteer effort after all), the current ETA for opening the site is next Monday. All members that are in the database of June 2017 will be able to register using the details they remember (email address, username, password). If you sign up this way, information such as notifications, bookmarks, votes, collages from the old site will be transferred. Torrents identified in the backup as owned by you will be credited back to you. You will have to re-upload subsequent torrents. YADG will make the task easier, use it! Where possible, do not alter the torrents in any way, so that other people who snatched them can begin to reseed and join the swarm. Please concentrate on your own torrents first. If you have lots of snatched torrents that are not yet on the site, give the original uploader a month or more to find the time to upload it themselves, then join the swarm. If you are not in the site's database as of June 2017, you will be able to create an account in either of two ways: -If you are a member of 32P, BTN, EMP, GGN, MTV or PTP, you will be able to use your account on one of these sites to sign up with our automated referral system. This process is simple, and will take you about 3 minutes. If you were not a member of Apollo but you are a member of one of these sites, you are most welcome to join Orpheus. -If you are not a member of the above sites, but were a member of APL at the time it went down, you can supply as much information as possible in the registration page. If everything checks out, Staff will send an invitation link via email. If there is something that needs to be clarified, you will be requested via email to join IRC for an interview. Note that the referral system does not allow prior account stats to be restored. We still haven't heard anything from the Apollo sysops (O and W), and we now think that we will never will. This is a pity, since it also means we will never obtain the latest backup. Unless they decide to contact us and transfer the database, there is nothing we can do. We wish them all the best in any future endeavors. As usual, as soon as we have more news and a more precise ETA, we will update this page. Nothing lasts Nothing lasts Everything is changing into something else Nothing is wrong Nothing is wrong Everything is on track You know, William Blake said Nothing is lost, nothing is lost And I, I really believe that That we all move on ~OPS Staff

Earlier this month, Canadian telco regulator CRTC denied a controversial site blocking proposal put forward by the FairPlay coalition. This came as a major disappointment to Bell and Rogers, two of the main proponents of the plan, who are now trying to tackle various piracy issues through a revision of the Copyright Act. The Canadian Government is currently exploring if and how the current Copyright Act should be amended to better fit the present media landscape. One of the key issues is the compensation that artists receive for their work. This was also the focus of a hearing before the House Heritage Committee this week, at which Bell (BCE) and Rogers both made an appearance. The companies are Canada’s largest Internet providers, but both also have their own media branches. As such, they have an interest in copyright issues, which they made quite apparent during the hearing. Bell and Rogers called for several changes to the Copyright Act to address the piracy issue. Interestingly, the proposals were identical on many fronts, with both companies highlighting how piracy is causing millions in lost revenue. First up was Rob Malcolmson, Bell’s Senior Vice President of Regulatory Affairs. Instead of addressing artist compensation directly, he drew the focus to the “impact of organized content theft” instead. “This issue is fundamental to the topic the committee is studying because no matter what remuneration model you adopt, creators can never be fairly compensated if their work is being widely stolen,” Malcolmson said. He went on to cite a series of piracy statistics published in recent years, including the increased popularity of pirate streaming boxes, and the fact that more than a quarter of all Canadians are self-proclaimed pirates. To address this rampant “theft”, Bell presented three recommendations. The first is to criminalize online streaming of pirated material. This doesn’t mean that any end-users would end up in jail, but it should act as a deterrent for operators of pirate streaming sites and services. Rob Malcolmson https://torrentfreak.com/images/robmal.jpg Bell’s second suggestion is to get the authorities and public officials actively involved in anti-piracy enforcement actions. The UK and US were cited as examples where local police and special units help to deal with piracy issues. “We recommend that the government should create and consider enshrining in the Copyright Act an administrative enforcement office and should direct the RCMP to prioritize digital piracy investigations,” Malcolmson notes. Finally, Bell also reintroduces the piracy blocking proposal of the Fairplay Canada Coalition. The CRTC denied this application earlier this month, noting that it lacks jurisdiction. This is something the government could change through an update of the Telecommunications Act. Alternatively, website blocking could be addressed by an update to the Copyright Act, which would make it easier for courts to issue injunctions against ISPs and other intermediaries. This would simplify site blocking, but could also apply to search engines, hosting companies and payment processors. “In addition, a new provision could be added to the Copyright Act that would apply more broadly to intermediaries such as ISPs, web hosts, domain name registrars, search engines, payment processors, and advertising networks,” Malcolmson said. Following Bell’s testimony, the committee’s attention moved to Pam Dinsmore, Vice-President Regulatory, Cable, at Rogers Communications. She also stressed the importance of addressing piracy, mentioning various statistics and the rise of online streaming in particular. Interestingly, Rogers’ proposals to deal with this problem show a lot of overlap with those put forward by Bell. For example, the company also suggests criminalizing online streaming. “The Act should make it a criminal violation for a commercial operation to profit from the theft and making available of rights holders exclusive and copyrighted content on streaming services. In our experience, the existing civil prohibitions are not strong enough to deter this kind of content theft,” Dinsmore said. Pam Dinsmore https://torrentfreak.com/images/pamdins.jpg Rogers also raised the site-blocking issue. Specifically, it should be easier for rightsholders to obtain injunctions against intermediaries in the piracy ecosystem. This includes ISPs, domain name registrars, search engines, and content delivery networks. “For example, a rights holder should be able to quickly obtain an order from a court to require an ISP to disable access to stolen content available on pre-loaded set-top boxes without concern that the operation of section 36 of the Telecommunications Act might impede this effort,” Dinsmore added. While none of these suggestions directly impact the compensation of artists, which was the topic at hand, Rogers did present an idea at the end. According to the company, section 19.3 of the Copyright Act could be updated to change the current 50/50 royalty split between artists and labels to 75/25, favoring the artists. Not all members of the Heritage Committee were impressed by the idea, which comes at the expense of the labels, with some asking what Rogers was willing to hand out itself. “Are you willing to give up some more money as you suggested the record label should?” Conservative MP Martin Shields said. When Dinsmore replied that she didn’t know what the mechanism for that would be, the MP replied: “It’s a little strange that you’re suggesting someone else to give up money, but not your company.” MP Randy Boissonnault, in particular, was not at all impressed by the telco’s proposals and stressed that the hearing was not the right venue to call for these changes. “Your submissions to this committee ring hollow and tin ear,” Boissonnault said, noting that they are too technical and not addressing the topic at hand. “This is the place where we’re advocating for artists. You said so in your submissions and yet what we see is – go after the ISPs – shut down the piracy. We get that, we know that.” Randy Boissonnault https://torrentfreak.com/images/randy.jpg Even if the claimed $500 million in lost subscriber revenue could be recouped, artists would still get the same size of the pie, the Liberal MP noted. “There’s nothing more that’s coming from your shareholders to go into the pockets of artists. So where’s the creativity from industry to put more money in the pockets of artists? Because you won’t have things to sell from Canada if we don’t support the artists and consumers.” While Bell and Rogers likely hoped for a different response, and may not get what they want out of this hearing, it’s clear that their push for tougher anti-piracy measures didn’t end at the CRTC earlier this month. — A full copy of the hearing is available through ParlVU. Source: Torrentfreak.com

0.0x Download, 2.0x Upload buffs are on. Around 20 hours to go.