Downtime due to database crash.

Google Translation:

Champions League

Click on the image to join the play

here

CrazyHour All torrents free and triple upload credit!
starts in 19:14:05

Freeleech is activated

WELCOME!

Welcome
To All Our New and Returning Members
- - - - - - - - - - -
Please take a few moments to read these topics:
ILC Beginners Guide
How to Increase Your Ratio
and Please say Hello here:
New Members Say Hello Thread

--------------------------------------------------------------

Recommendations

Recommendations
Browsers
Chrome does not allow downloads of .torrent files that have a comma (,) in the file name.
Use a different browser for downloading any such .torrent files; we recommend Mozilla Firefox.
- - - - - - - - - - -
Bittorrent Client
We strongly recommend qBittorrent.
---------------------
Image Hosting
ILC has its own image hosting site. Use ILCPicHost to host the images in the descriptions of your uploads here at ILC.

--------------------------------------------------------------

Donations

DONATIONS

From now on it is possible again to make donations. These will help pay the hosting costs of our main site and the image site. For more information see the Donate page.

Google Translation:

Choose the movie you want to see in Freeleech

FREELEECH

Choose the movie you want to see in Freeleech

Make your picks here

For all !!

Google Translation:

Prohibited releases

The following material must not be uploaded to the site from today:

- Cristina Alger - The banker's wife
- Jonathan Ames - You've never been here
- Michelle Frances - The new coworker

MASS-PM-FOOTBALL-TODAY

### MASS-PM ### LIVE STREAMS/FOOTBALL ###

Hello members

New Upcoming Football Games have been scheduled for today, discovered by System

Vist our Live Football Streams page for more details.

Or if your not into football or just not into notifications you can visit your

Account Settings(Football Notifications) to disable this notification in future.

--------------------------------------------
Thanks for being part of our site hope everything is as you like,
if not or you have any ideas for improvements etc just let us know

Downtime due to database crash.

Google Translation:

Maintenance work on 21.09.2019

On 21.09.2019 at 8 o'clock until ?

So stay in the Seed and Leech.

There are now 50 seed points per upload

Crazyhour...All torrents free
and triple upload credit!
starts in 1:10:32

Crazyhour...All torrents free
and triple upload credit!
starts in 17:46:06

Server is down

Downtime due to server issues.

Sorry, the website will be down until sunday morning some time. in the mean time check out the eti discord or the bad thread zone

TV viewers in the UK are blessed with a wealth of channels provided free-to-air, such as the world-famous BBC and ITV selections. Interestingly, however, the operator of a 'pirate' IPTV service says that people are increasingly turning to platforms like his to access the same channels due to a better viewing experience.

While the TV licensing system in the UK is viewed as an unpopular tax by many citizens, millions hand over money every year in order to receive broadcasts into their homes.

For the sum of £154.50 for a color TV license and £52 for a black and white equivalent, residents can potentially obtain access to dozens of channels via satellite (Freesat) or antenna (Freeview), none of which come with a subscription charge. In fact, those who don’t pay the license fee can still receive them, just not entirely legally.

Of course, those subscribing to a ‘pirate’ IPTV provider gain access to thousands of channels, including all the premium channels that would otherwise add hundreds of pounds of costs to the average bill.

There’s no doubt that gaining access to Sky’s premium offerings for next to nothing is an attractive proposition for customers. However, a UK-based IPTV provider informs TorrentFreak that these aren’t always the most popular channels with his subscribers.

Perhaps surprisingly, when looking at the Top 10 most-watched channels on the service, BBC One, BBC Two, ITV, Channel 4 and Channel 5 all get a prominent position. Every single one is not only available for free (license permitting) via satellite or antenna but also available via the Internet for UK residents.

TF was able to review data from the IPTV provider’s panel which listed the service’s most popular streams from a few weeks ago. It showed that the most-viewed channel was ITV HD with just over 16%, with BBC1 HD in second place with close to 13%. National Geographic, a non-free to air channel, sat in third with just under 10%, closely followed by free to air Channel 4 HD.

Of the top 12 most popular channels listed in a provided chart, six are already free to air – ITV, BBC1 One, Channel 4, BBC Two, 4seven, Channel 5, ITV2, E4, Quest Red, and Quest. So why the inflated interest in channels already covered by a TV license and free-to-air?

The IPTV provider said it polled some customers, with a number of interesting reasons reportedly coming up, most of which appear to center around service-related issues. Firstly, and perhaps unsurprisingly, users of Freeview complained about not being able to get a good enough signal.

The digital Freeview service is supposedly available to 98% of the population but anecdotal evidence suggests that many are left with a poor signal, a reduced channel offering, picture break up, or not being able to receive the service at all.

Freesat (satellite) users can usually overcome most of these issues but many televisions don’t come with an appropriate tuner and in all cases, an external satellite dish must be installed, which presents another barrier to entry.

IPTV services, on the other hand, require a broadband connection and a cheap subscription, no external equipment (satellite dishes, antenna, or tuners) required.

It could be countered that several of the main BBC channels can be acquired via the Internet using the BBC iPlayer, which unquestionably provides a first-class service. However, online offerings from ITV (ITV Hub), Channel 4 (All 4), and Channel 5 (My5) only come in SD quality and in some cases, that’s a best-case scenario.

Most of the rest of the channels in the ‘free’ range (outside the regular TV license fee) have no online offer at all but an IPTV service can provide them all, in most cases in HD quality.

Only adding to the hassle of going legal is the fact that most if not all of the above channels’ online offerings now require registration, meaning that users have to have accounts with them all to receive them on a TV. On the other side, a subscription with an IPTV provider requires a single sign-up.

According to the provider, users don’t like to have accounts with all of these different official suppliers and they don’t enjoy the low-quality images on offer from their online portals, even if they are free to access. They also prefer the flexibility of being able to watch channels on any device they like, rather than being restricted to the platforms supported by various providers.

A UK user with experience of all of the systems above confirmed that while having Freeview or Freesat is a nice option, switching from app to app to receive other channels on various devices is a sub-standard experience when compared to that offered by unlicensed providers. He also questioned whether “any harm was being done” to the legitimate providers by accessing their channels from an IPTV provider.

“I pay my license for the BBC and I don’t use up any of their Internet [bandwidth]. I watch all the adverts on everything else same as everyone. Where’s the negative, I don’t see any?” he said.

In common with the provider we spoke with, the TV viewer pointed out that having everything in one place (a single IPTV subscription) is much more convenient than having to switch around various sources, even if that means paying a few pounds per month.

So while some people clearly latch on to unlicensed IPTV subscriptions for premium content usually offered by companies such as Sky, it seems that at least, in this case, convenience is also playing a big factor.

Source: Torrentfreak.com

Google Translation:

FREELEECH! Time left: 8h 0m 11s

CrazyHour All torrents free and triple upload credit!
starts in 1d 04:21:35

Google Translation:

New survey, thank you for participating.
More in the forums here

Freeleech is ON until 17 Sep 2019
DoubleUpload is ON until 17 Sep 2019

Google Translation:

Update:

In this connection, we will shut down NB while the data transfer is in progress and we will then open the locks for you users.

We make a guide on how to go from NB v1> NB v2

// STAFF

New information about the practicalities of transitioning from NB v1 to NB v2 will be continuously updated. It can be followed in this thread. PRESS HERE

Next Happy Hour Starts Sunday 15th September 2019 at 1:29 pm

Google Translation:

Closure of invitation registration and visitor login notification:

Be careful:

From now on to October 10, the invitation registration will be closed and the page login will be closed. Please let you know and inform each other.

If you accidentally lose cookies, please visit the site after October 10.

A long running piracy lawsuit between a piracy-accused Tor Exit Node operator and the makers of the Oscar-winning movie Dallas Buyers Club has yet to see a breakthrough. A Magistrate Judge from a federal court in Oregon recommends to deny motions for summary judgment filed from both sides. This means that a jury may eventually have the final say.

Tor is an anonymity tool used by millions of people. Dubbed the “Onion Router”, it operates by sending traffic through various nodes, after which it enters the public Internet again.

This setup makes the source of the traffic pretty much impossible to trace. However, it also means that people who operate a Tor exit node have their IP-address associated with a lot of traffic they’re not the source of.

When pirates use Tor, for example, it will appear as if the copyright-infringing activity comes from the exit node address. While the operators are generally aware of this, recent history has shown that his can lead to serious liability issues.

This is what Oregon resident John Huszar found out the hard way.

Back in 2015, the company behind the movie Dallas Buyers Club filed a federal lawsuit against the IP-address 173.11.1.241. A few months later, this complaint was amended to list “Integrity Computer Services” as the defendant, and in 2016, it was eventually replaced with the company’s owner, John Huszar.

While Huszar denied that he personally downloaded the film, there was a problem. Early on in the case, the filmmakers served a request for admissions, asking the defendant to respond to several statements. This request remained unanswered, which was a mistake, as it typically means that the court can then assume the statements are true.

Dallas Buyers Club used this to its advantage. Among other things, the admissions stated that Huszar unlawfully distributed a copy of the Dallas Buyers Club movie, which seemed to open the door to a substantial financial claim.

That would be true in most cases, but Huszar is not the only one who made a crucial error – Dallas Buyers Club did the same. As noted by US District Judge Michael Simon, earlier this year, Huszar wasn’t yet a named defendant when the filmmakers issued their request for admissions.

Following this conclusion, Judge Simon sent the case back to Magistrate Judge John Acosta, who this week issued his report and recommendations on the motions for summary judgment from both the plaintiff and the defendant.

First up is the film company, which requested a summary judgment finding that Huszar is guilty of copyright infringement. This request relied pretty much exclusively on the admissions which are no longer valid. As such, the motion was denied.

“It is evident Dallas’s motion was reliant on Huszar’s admissions. Judge Simon’s withdrawal of the deemed admissions based on Huszar’s failure to respond to Dallas’s requests for admissions was fatal to Dallas’s motion,” Magistrate Judge Acosta writes in his recommendation.

While this is great news for the defendant, there was a disappointment as well. Huszar also requested summary judgment, ruling that he is not liable. After a careful review, Judge Acosta denied this too.

Among other things, Huszar claimed that he was shielded by the DMCA because he was acting as an ISP. However, Judge Acosta notes that to benefit from such protections, he has to show that he’s eligible for such immunity. This includes having a repeat infringer policy, of which the court found no evidence.

Huszar further argued that the monitoring software used by the filmmakers
was unreliable. While the defense provided an expert report to back this up, Dallas Buyers Club submitted an opposing report, which leads Judge Acosta to the conclusion that summary judgment based on the reliability of the evidence is not appropriate.

This means that after a battle of almost five years in court, the case can still go either way. Judge Acosta’s recommendations are not the final judgments. They will be referred to a District Judge who has the final say.

After that, the case will likely move to trial. If that the case, it will be up to a Jury to decide whether the Tor exit node operator is guilty or not.

—

A copy of Magistrate Judge John Acosta’s findings and recommendations is available here (pdf).

Source: Torrentfreak.com