Server is down,.

Server is down.

Downtime due to server issues.

Site is down. The server is not responding.

Google Translation: Information Memberships that are not online on our site are closed automatically. If you are having problems with your password logging into our site, you can get help by sending a PM to our site management on the login page. Thank you for your interest.

Server is down.

Google Translation: Control upload speed In order to create a balanced pt environment, no matter how thick your water pipe is, control the upload network speed at 12M/S, excessive speed leads to ban! PS: The speed limit refers to your overall upload speed, that is, the sum of all torrent upload speeds. No speed limit!

The website is currently experiencing login problems (probably a part of some bigger issue).

New research published by cybersecurity firm Group-IB aims to shine a light on the shadowy world of 'pirate' CDNs, the streaming sites they fuel, and the companies helping to finance their operations. Online casinos and bookmakers reportedly play a major role, with platforms using players' gambling activities and losses to keep pirate sites afloat. Over the past couple of years, cybersecurity company Group-IB has been devoting significant resources to revealing the inner workings of pirate sites. In particular, the Singapore-based company has taken a keen interest in revealing the business models of illicit streaming platforms and the pirate Content Delivery Networks (CDN) fueling many of them. Today the company delivers Jolly Roger’s Patrons, a new research study that aims to expose the financial networks of online pirates in developing countries. TF was given early access to the publication which reveals that the videos embedded in many pirate streaming sites are provided by a fairly limited number of CDNs. In many cases, these are fueled by the gambling activities of those who use illicit and semi-legal online gambling platforms after being referred to them by pirate sites and content. Background: First Major Blow Against Pirate CDNs Last year, news broke that BREIN, the MPA and ACE had teamed up to take down Moonwalk, a pirate CDN system that allegedly provided back-end services to large numbers of pirate streaming sites. BREIN described Moonwalk as a “video load balancer” which provided back-end services and also huge volumes of pirated content, including more than 26,000 movies and 10,000 TV shows, to around 80% of known Russian streaming sites. Soon after, more CDNs also shut down but that still left around ten “pirate-powered” CDNs still supplying the market, including major players HDVB, VideoCDN, and Collaps. The Basics of this Pirate Eco-System According to Group-IB, advertising networks linked to bookmakers and casinos sponsor not only pirate CDNs, but also streaming websites and even some of the content they offer, such as cammed copies of major movies. With CDNs providing the content and the ads to go with it, streaming sites embed video players that deliver both to their users, generating revenue for all involved. CDN Model Group-IB’s identifies Collaps, HDVB, VideoCDN, Kodik, Videoframe, Bazon, Ustore, Alloha and Protonvideo as major ‘pirate’ CDNs. They reportedly deploy geographically distributed infrastructures and frequently change their domains and IP address pools to avoid detection. Several Top Players Use the Services of a Single Russian Company These CDN companies also need technical resources and according to the report, ZeroCDN, which belongs to the Russian company Mnogobyte, is one of the most popular services used for placing and distributing video content. After being founded in 2015 with an aim to store and transfer large volumes of media content, the service now provides services to major pirate CDNs. “As at late 2019, the ZeroCDN project infrastructure was used by 38% to 60% of pirate websites,” Group-IB notes, adding that VideoCDN, Kodik, Videoframe and Protonvideo all use the provider. Major Players Under the Microscope Collaps is identified as one of the most popular ‘pirate’ CDNs. Group-IB believes it is operated from Ukraine by individuals who also operate a pair of pirate sites – Basinko and Hdrezka. The service currently uses a range of domains to deliver content via its video players. Group-IB identified a Google Analytics code used by Collaps and discovered that it was in use by more than 50 pirate domains, hosted in countries including the United States, Netherlands, Switzerland, France, Germany, and Russia. The report further identifies HDVB as the second most popular CDN, with Group-IB estimating that at the end of 2019, around 38% of the pirate streaming services in its report used its services. While the service is regularly blocked in Russia, it deploys technical means and even a publicly available script to create new domains. In common with Collaps, HDVB is linked to the services of many overseas hosting providers, notably in the United States and the Netherlands. VideoCDN is reportedly the third most popular pirate CDN, with 33% of the pirate streaming platforms in the study using its services as of late 2019. Kodik is identified as useful for mainly cartoons and Asian films and TV series, with VideoFrame, Bazon and Ustore operating variously from US, Russian and Europe-based providers including FDCServers, Hetzner Online, OVH, and WorldStream. Follow The Money In previous reports on the activities of pirate CDNs, illegal and semi-legal online casinos and bookmakers were identified as their major financial backers. Not much has changed with the publication of this latest study. “Although other monetization methods exist, online casino and bookmaker partner programs are still the main way to generate income in the piracy business,” reports Group-IB, adding that pirate websites act as advertising platforms designed to attract new customers. “In most gambling partner programs, compensation is a percentage of the sum lost by online players. For the largest partners, other terms can be established according to the CPA (cost per action) model. In this case, compensation is paid for an agreed list of player actions and does not depend on the sum lost.” The study found that there are three basic models to generate revenue – partner links, promo codes, and banners. Partner links and banners are mostly deployed on streaming websites while broadcasts and videos themselves can contain promo codes and ads. Banners and links have unique codes that identify which platform customers have been referred by, with promo codes embedded in videos serving a similar purpose. These codes give new customers to gambling platforms an incentive to sign up by offering a bonus, which is later subtracted from sums paid out to the platform for attracting the customer. “The main advertisers in sports streaming are 1xBet, Melbet, Parimatch, Linebet, orca88, Bwin, and others,” Group-IB says. “A streaming service’s average revenue is between 20% and 40% of the sum lost by the players it attracted. As compensation is dependent on how lucky the online players are, it is impossible to forecast the revenue for each project. Moreover, passive income from previously attracted players grows over time.” Detailing the Melbet program, Group-IB says it’s possible for partners who attract 70-80 players every day to generate revenues of around $21,000 per month. However, it’s not all sunshine and roses for the platform’s affiliates. The company says that while some partners make good money, online casinos sometimes delay or cancel payouts, as well as underreport the amounts lost by players. Furthermore, when players make a profit from the gambling platform, these losses are reflected in the affiliate accounts of pirate site operators, sometimes causing them to fall below zero, resulting in negative feedback as shown below. Annoyed Affiliates The Activities of Gambling Platform 1xBET 1xBET is a gambling brand that’s well-known among pirates as its marketing is visible in hundreds of pirate ‘cammed’ movies. In 2016 its main domain was blocked by Russian authorities yet in early 2019, 1xBET was the third most prolific online advertiser in the country. According to the report, 1xBET countered Russian blocking by deploying more than 800 mirror sites and expanding development beyond the post-Soviet region to areas such as Latin America (mainly Brazil), India and Thailand. In tandem, Group-IB says that the gambling company also increased its work with so-called ‘voiceover studios’ to release pirate movies onto the web with integrated 1xBET ads. By 2019, 17 voiceover studios were reportedly working with 1xBET. “Collaboration with voiceover studios was based on the following pattern: a voiceover studio would inform a 1xBet advertising manager about a possibility to produce content and 1xBet would pay for it. This meant that 1xBet did not participate in content production (did not order any specific content) but sponsored it. Its collaboration with camrip groups was similar,” Group-IB reveals. “Voiceover studios and their representatives searched for digital copies of content released abroad. The more relevant the content, the more 1xBet paid for it. [T]he average cost of produсing one camrip amounted to between $400 and $1,000, depending on the copy’s quality and the content’s popularity. “As for integrating ads into the pre-rolls of pirate CDNs, collaboration has been ongoing since 2016. As such, 1xBet ads have been placed on more than 80% of all pirate resources in post-Soviet countries. The total number of content items voiced over with 1xBet’s support in post-Soviet countries amounts to over 900 (movies and TV series).” 1xBET, Cammed Movies, and the ‘Koshara’ Team The report reveals that in early 2019, a Russian release group known as ‘Koshara’ began working as an intermediary between 1xBET and voiceover studios. Around the same time, Koshara began releasing cammed copies with hardcoded 1xBET ads in place. Koshara reportedly makes this content available by uploading it to eight major torrent sites and two ‘pirate’ CDNs. Since the partnership began, 100 cammed movies have been released, an average of three per week. In 2018, 1xBET reportedly began targeting overseas markets too, with 500 releases covering 270 titles. 100% of these releases were made available in English, 14% Spanish and 5% in other languages including Tamil, Portuguese, Thai, Hindi, and others. Group-IB Hopes its Report Will Deliver a Blow to Online Piracy In common with many modern anti-piracy initiatives, Group-IB says it used the ‘follow-the-money’ approach to identify those generating revenue from piracy. It says that after identifying illegal casinos and bookmakers as the main beneficiaries and drivers of illicit video streaming services, it hopes the authorities will take action. “The purpose of this report is to deliver a devastating blow to cybercrime: to expose the entire structure of online piracy, to uncover the key organizations that sponsor this activity and those behind them,” the company says. “Group-IB’s report contains confidential data, including information on individuals believed to be behind some of the key piracy industry players. Copies of this report have been provided to the Russian Prosecutor General’s office, Russian and international law enforcement agencies.” The full report, titled Jolly Roger’s Patrons, can be downloaded here (pdf).

Downtime due to server issues.

RSS subscription has added music categories RSS subscription has added music categories. Welcome everyone to subscribe to the site-wide music categories to get better uploads! Click me!

Russia's Ministry of Culture has presented draft legislation to the government designed to prevent 'camming' in cinemas. The bill, should it be passed, would prevent all acts of filming when a movie is being shown, even if that takes the form of a video 'selfie' among friends. Despite an increased desire to download and stream only the best quality copies of pirate movies, a significant number of pirates are still prepared to obtain so-called ‘cammed’ movies. These copies are mostly obtained in cinemas by pointing a recording device, usually a camcorder or mobile phone, directly at the screen. The end result is often less than optimal but despite the regularly abysmal copies, people flock to download them, since this is often the only way to watch movies at home while they’re still in their theatrical windows. The United States has cracked down on camming with strict legislation that can, in appropriate circumstances, lead to perpetrators being put behind bars. Other countries are still playing catch-up though, including Russia where current law isn’t much of a deterrent. However, the authorities there have been showing signs of a shift and this week revealed that tougher anti-camming legislation is on the horizon. Filming a ‘Fragment’ of a Movie Would be Illegal A draft proposal from the Ministry of Culture presented to the government earlier this month aims to outlaw not only obvious camming in cinemas but also any kind of filming during a presentation. Minister of Culture Olga Lyubimova described the problem of camming as “serious” and one that requires a tough response, particularly to protect local producers. “This is not just a ban on any kind of recording, we are used to these warnings before each film,” Lyubimova said, as cited by TASS. “If at the time [when a movie is showing the viewer] is filming a fragment or filming himself in some kind of video, then this is also filming inside the cinema. I think that the appeal to the audience will bring change, we will talk about it with cinemas.” Lyubimova warned that people playing with their phones during a presentation could face fines under the proposals but added in a Facebook post that previous discussion on the topic hadn’t been easy. Long Road to Draft Bill “Almost two years ago, our committee held a round table in the State Duma dedicated to improving legislative mechanisms for combating piracy,” she explained. “Following the meeting, recommendations were made. One of which sounded like this: ‘The Ministry of Internal Affairs of the Russian Federation, together with the Ministry of Culture of the Russian Federation, will prepare proposals for establishing responsibility for video recording of films on household devices (cameras, telephones) when they are shown in cinemas’.” It appears that the Ministry of Internal Affairs initially had reservations about the proposal on the basis that recording a film only amounted to “preparing for a crime” and it seemed “excessive” to introduce criminal liability for the act in isolation. This is because subsequent use of the footage is already a crime under the Criminal Code and so can be dealt with that way. Selfies Would Be Banned, Treated as Harshly as Camming Under the current regime, punishment for recording in cinemas is moderated according to intent, meaning that someone who isn’t acting for financial gain can escape prosecution. The current proposals, which are now with the lawmakers, would certainly change that, even scooping up people taking videos of themselves during a performance. That being said, Lyubimova says that it’s unlikely that the passage of the bill will be easy, adding that the precise financial penalties for those caught filming are yet to be decided. A ball-park figure of between 50,000 to 100,000 rubles is being discussed but even at the higher end of the scale, that’s just shy of US$700, a drop in the ocean compared to the punishments available in the United States. Russia’s ‘Camming’ Problem According to the USTR According to the United States Trade representative, 26 illegally camcorded movies were traced back to Russian cinemas in 2015. In 2016, this increased to 63 cammed copies and in 2017 the figure rose again to 78 movies, a 300% increase over the number reported in 2015. By 2018, however, ‘camming’ was on the way down, with the USTR’s Special 301 Report noting that ‘just’ 48 titles were recorded and subsequently appeared online. For movie studios that’s still 48 too many. Source: Torrentfreak.com

Google Translation: Server in maintainance

Site is down. The server is not responding.

Filling Requests BON contest Hi Ladies and gentlemen we have a new contest. What is the contest all about? The one who fills more requests will win. But we have two winners. Winners: 1- Will get 30000 Bons and 5 Invites and 3 Freeleech token 2- Will get 20000 bons and 3 invites and 2 Freeleech token Rules: If you want to apply, post under this topic with the following "i am in", and a screenshot that shows the number of filling requests Time: From 23 July to 6 August --- This Contest is sponsored by "y****" , thank you!

Site is down. The server is not responding.

Rules Update - TV Series Packs Hello Blutopians, Today we are implementing a change within our rules regarding Complete TV packs. Complete TV packs are now prohibited, and have become trumpable via individual season packs, with the exception of raw DVD and Blu-ray. In regards to the trumping of previously existing complete/series packs: 1. Please do not trump if you do not have the intention of seeding, or your line can't cope with such transfers. 2. Remember that normal seed requirement rules apply, at a minimum. 3. Report the season pack once ALL of the individual seasons have been uploaded; In your report, include that it's a "Season Pack Trump". 4. Deletion of the original pack will not happen until each individual seasons has at least 2 seeds. 5. Trumping of complete internal packs is not allowed unless given permission. Rather, report to notify and the internal member will replace. Please familiarise yourself with the upload rules and be sure that your uploads continue to comply with this rule set. You can see which rules have been adjusted or provide feedback by viewing the rules announcement thread in the forum here. Thank You.

Sitewide Freeleech for 2 days, 18 hours (until Jul 20 2020, 00:00) .

New contest [Free4All] 2020 FA Cup Semifinals Contest The FA Cup Semifinals will be played this weekend, july 18 and 19. So here is a little contest for ya. Predict the correct scores for the 2 matches after 90 minutes. Extra time will not be considered for this contest, so it's possible to have a draw. Don't forget to choose a tiebreaker. The winner receives 30000 credits. So this is what you do: 1) Predict the correct scores after 90 minutes. (1 point for the correct winner, 3 points for the correct score, total of 4 points possible) 2) Pick a tiebreaker: Choose a number between 1-500. If needed, the closest to the tie-breaker will be the winner. If there is still a tie, then the prize will be divided equally among the winners Why not try out your luck and who knows, maybe you'll win some credits Example Entry Manchester United vs Chelsea 2-1 Arsenal vs Manchester City 1-1 TB: Discuss this post here

Google Translation: Le Chaudron is in freeleech thanks to the Common Pot

Site is down. The server is not responding.

If you see things that change, or any errors, it is that we are doing live tests.

Free Leech Days All torrents are Free Leech between 2020-07-14 00:00:00 - 2020-08-11 00:00:00. (Please do not hit 'n' run, keep the torrents seeded!)

Server is down.

A federal court in Utah has ordered the company behind the movie "Criminal" to pay $4,420 to an accused 'pirate'. The filmmakers sued the man for illegally downloading their movie through BitTorrent, a claim that was dropped soon after the defendant fought back. Around the world, file-sharers are regularly pressed to pay significant settlement fees, often backed up by pressure from a lawsuit. These efforts, often characterized as “copyright trolling,” share a familiar pattern. Copyright holders acquire a subpoena to get the personal details of an alleged pirate and then contact the person with a settlement request. This was also the case when Darren Brinkley was sued in a Utah federal court in 2017. In a complaint filed by Criminal Productions – known for the movie Criminal – he and 31 others were accused of illegally sharing a copy of the film. Accused Pirate Fights Back Brinkley denied these claims and rejected the settlement offer. Initially, the movie company maintained its claim, but after the accused pirate fought back, Criminal Productions let the case go. The defendant, however, wasn’t prepared to walk away without getting his bills paid and submitted a motion to cover the legal fees. Brinkley’s attorneys argued that, while the filmmakers had no intention to litigate the “baseless suit,” their client was forced to run up significant costs. “These tactics should at minimum require that Defendant Brinkley be made whole for Plaintiff’s filing of litigation it clearly had no intention of pursuing and that may have had no basis in the first instance. This is the very definition of ‘cut and run’ litigation,” they argued. Brinkley’s attorneys calculated the total costs at $62,818.35 which they requested to be paid in full. A few days ago, District Court Judge David Nuffer ruled on the matter. While he agrees that the film company has to pay up, the final award is significantly lower. Court Awards $4,420 in Attorneys’ Fees Judge Nuffer granted a sum of $4,420 in attorneys’ fees and costs, which represents the costs that were incurred until December 22, 2017, plus the costs for the motion itself. According to the order, Brinkley “declined the opportunity to resolve the claims” without incurring further costs after that date. This decision is in part based on repeated offers from Criminal Productions to ‘settle’ the matter without further costs, which Briskley denied. Deterring ‘Copyright Troll’ Tactics While the relatively low amount will likely come as a disappointment to the accused ‘pirate,’ the court did agree that the movie company should be deterred from avoiding discovery obligations by dropping out of lawsuits when they are challenged. “As Brinkley argues, this avoidance of disclosure and discovery obligations is consistent with the typical litigation behavior of a ‘copyright troll’, who targets hundreds of defendants and offers quick settlements priced so that it is less expensive for the defendant to pay the settlement than to defend the claim,” the order reads. The court didn’t rule on the accuracy of the defense allegations in this specific case. However, as a deterrent, Criminal Productions will have to pay part of the defendant’s costs. “But Productions should be deterred from filing lawsuits in which it declines to provide evidence to a defendant, avoiding disclosure and discovery obligations, thus forcing defendants to incur defense costs even though the defendant will never have an opportunity to mount a defense because Productions is ready to dismiss when opposition arises,” Judge Nuffer notes. — A copy of Judge Nuffer’s order on the motion for attorneys’ fees is available here (pdf). Source: Torrentfreak.com