Torrents PLEASE BE AWARE THAT IT YOU DOWNLOAD A TORRENT MAKE SURE YOU DOWNLOAD IT ALL. OTHERWISE YOU MAY HAVE YOUR D/L DISABLED.

The Vipers Nest Freeleech is ON until 4 Sep 2020

Freeleech is ON until 4 Sep 2020

Purchase of VIP, as well as the opportunity to buy 2000GB for distribution or download: Sound and Translation - Mulan / Mulan (2020) / Focus Studio: From September 4, web-dl will be on the network. Disney moved the rental in Russia to September 10, now there is a chance to get voice acting simultaneously with the start in cinemas. ~ 8 voices of professional actors from St. Petersburg will be involved. User Release Suggestions - Tales from the Dark Side. Movie / Tales From The Darkside: The Movie (1990) BD-Remux 1080p: Workshop - Night Falls on Manhattan (1996) BD-Remux 1080p: Sound and Translation - Spartacus: Blood and Sand (2010) Andrey Dolsky: Piggy bank - Battle for Anzio / Lo sbarco di Anzio (1968) BDRemux: Scoring and Translation - Battle of Okinawa / Gekido no showashi: Okinawa kessen / Battle Of Okinawa (1971) BDRemux: Voice over and Translation - Red Ball Express (1952) BDRemux: Voice over and Translation - Magic of the Beast / Seules les bêtes / Only the Animals (2019) - Yuri Nemakhov: Voiceover and Translation - Enola Holmes / Enola Holmes (2020) - Yuri Nemakhov: We also want to remind you about some points of the Rules: 1.10.1 By default, materials from the sections " Piggy bank "," Workshop "," Sound and Translation "," Dubbing "is prohibited to post on third-party resources. Non-compliance is a ban. An exception is the posting of materials agreed with the Administration of the tracker. 3.2 It is forbidden to use modified torrent clients, repacks, assemblies and portable versions other than the official ones. PS Everyone understands that you need to use only clients downloaded from OFFICIAL sites (links to sites can be seen here Clients downloaded from RuTracker, nnm, etc. are STRICTLY PROHIBITED !!! Please do not tempt fate, hoping for luck (it might blow), risking being banned. Be sure to change the client to the official one.

Tonight (2020-09-03) 22:00~22:30 site maintenance, please save your information in time.

News So, we search for uploaders, the function would be open for them to upload to the tracker the contributions that would be provided to those interested. More information in the forum Greetings

HDAtmos | HD | 2020 Review Name: HDAtmos URL: https://hdatmos.club/ Genre: HD Ratio Requirements: Ratio Based Signup: Invite/ Open Signup Maintaining Ratio: Easy Bonus System: Available |--- DESCRIPTION ---| HDAtnos is a new Chinese tracker for TV / movie releases. It has currently 600 torrents ND 3K registered users. You can find different relases from popular Chinese releasers like CHD, HDChina, CHDBits, HDHome etc. All torrents are well seeded. The site is now frequently opened for singup. |--- HOME ---| |--- TORRENTS ---| |--- UPLOAD ---| |--- SUBTITLES ---| |--- USER CLASSES ---| |--- FAQ ---| |--- RULES ---| |--- SEED BONUS ---|

BRING UP MY POST

BRING UP MY POST

Order will force UK's major ISPs to tackle servers hosting illegal streams of Premier League matches The Premier League has been granted a significant High Court Order that will enable it to disrupt and block illegal streams of its content across the whole of the next football season. On 19 July 2018, Justice Arnold granted an Order that will require the UK’s major internet service providers (ISPs) – including Sky, BT, Virgin Media, TalkTalk, plusnet and EE – to block and disrupt servers that host illegal streams of the Premier League’s matches. A similar Order was granted for the entirety of the 2017/18 season and was hugely successful, enabling the League to disrupt or block nearly 200,000 illegal streams of its content. This new Order is enhanced and will allow us to block more servers in a more effective manner. The League’s wider anti-piracy programme is one of the most comprehensive in the world and saw hugely successful results in 2017/18, including 450,000 illegal clips of Premier League content being removed from social and digital media outlets. Targeted investigations into suppliers of illicit streaming devices (ISDs) have resulted in significant criminal convictions. Only last week a Premier League and FACT investigation led to a supplier of ISDs and an illegal streaming service being jailed for five years. "Last season the Premier League operated one of the biggest and most successful anti-piracy programmes in the world and this decision by the High Court is a significant factor in being able to continue that approach," Premier League Director of Legal Services, Kevin Plumb, said. "A similar Order granted last year was a game-changer for our work in this area, enabling us to block or disrupt nearly 200,000 illegal streams across the 2017/18 season. "The ability that Premier League clubs have to develop and acquire talented players, to build and improve stadiums and to support communities and schools, is predicated on being able to market, sell and protect commercial rights. "This makes the protection of our copyright hugely important to the future health of English football and beyond."

WHAT PIRACY BLOCKS ARE IN PLACE IN THE UK? Premier League The latest High Court order allows internet providers, including BT, EE, Plusnet, Sky, TalkTalk and Virgin Media to block and disrupt servers hosting illegal streams of Premier League matches the moment they are detected. The blocking order, which was granted by the court under Section 97a of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act, will cover the entire 2018/19 season. It builds on a similar High Court order issued last season. According to the Premier League, it was able to disrupt or block nearly 200,000 illegal streams of its content during the 2017/18 football season. Elsewhere, it also took down 450,000 illegal clips of Premier League content from social and digital media outlets. UEFA Last year, football body Union of European Football Associations (UEFA) was granted an injunction, which called on BT, Virgin Media, Sky, TalkTalk, EE and Plusnet to block illicit streams of UEFA matches. Instead of targeting the tube-style sites hosting the illegal football streams, the anti-piracy measure allows ISPs to stops the signal at the server level. This is essentially killing the weed at its root. The UEFA injunction covered the 2017/18 season and has yet to be renewed for the upcoming football season. GOVERNMENT ADVICE ON KODI AND IPTV BOXES What is 'illicit streaming' and what devices are commonly used? 'Illicit streaming' as the watching of content without the copyright owner's permission by any means. Illicit streaming devices are physical boxes that are connected to your TV or USB sticks that plug into the TV such as adapted Amazon Fire sticks and so called 'Kodi' boxes or Android TV boxes. While they are legal if they are used to watch legitimate content, they are illegal once they are adapted to stream illicit content, How do you identify an illicit streaming device? If you are watching TV shows, films or sporting events where you would normally be paying to view them and you have not paid, you are likely to be using an illicit streaming device. 'These devices are often purchased online and described as "Fully Loaded, Jail Broken, Plug and Play or Subscription Gift"', according to the IPO. 'They are described using these terms to show that they have been adapted and are functioning as an illicit streaming device.' 'In some cases consumers buy devices and subsequently add the software, this also makes it an illicit streaming device.' Why you should not buy these devices? Children are at risk of being exposed to explicit or age inappropriate content. There are also concerns over fire safety. Some devices from the black market have failed EU safety standards and could cause a fire in the home. Using an illegal Kodi box also means 'you are depriving industry of the revenue it needs to fund the next generation of TV programmes, films and sporting events we all enjoy', said the IPO. 'Instead it provides funds for the organised criminals who sell or adapt these illicit devices.' What should you do if you already have an illegal Kodi box? These devices can be used legally by removing the software, the IPO says. You can also approach the relevant provider to find out about legal ways to watch your favourite shows. Where can you report sellers of illegal Kodi boxes? The IPO says if you see these devices being offered for sale, tell Crimestoppers on 0800 555 111. Citizens Advice also provides free, confidential and independent advice. Source: Intellectual Property Office HOW WILL THE BIG MONEY DEAL FOR PREMIER LEAGUE MATCHES AFFECT FOOTBALL FANS? 2019-22 PREMIER LEAGUE UK BROADCASTING RIGHTS BT SPORT – £975million 32 – matches at 12.30pm on Saturday 15 – matches from two midweek fixture programmes 5 - matches from the split weekend SKY SPORTS – £3.579bn 32 – matches at 5.30pm on Saturday 8 – matches at 7.45pm on Saturday 32 – matches at 2pm on Sunday 32 – matches at 4pm on Sunday 24 – matches at either 8pm on Monday or 7.30pm/8pm on Friday AMAZON - cost undisclosed 20 – matches on Boxing Day and from one midweek fixture programme HOW MUCH WILL IT COST FANS? *at current prices Sky Sports Customers: Sky Sports - £38 a month BT Sport - £27.99 a month Amazon Prime - £5.99 a month Total - £71.98 a month / £863.76 a year Sky customers will be able to add BT Sport to their subscription from early 2019 but the cost of a complete sports package has not been revealed BT Sport Customers: BT Sport - from £6 a month plus additional broadband cost Sky Sports - £27.50 a month Amazon Prime - £5.99 a month Total - £39.49 a month / £473.88 a year (plus additional broadband cost) HOW DO YOU ACCESS AMAZON PRIME? Customers can access Amazon Prime through their television using FireTV or a FireTV Stick. It is also possible to access the service through a smart television using the Prime Video app. Subscribers can log in and watch content directly from the Amazon Prime website. Users can also watch on their smartphones using the Prime Video app as well as games consoles and other streaming media players such as Apple TV and Roku.

The Premier League has won another blocking order to shut down pirate streams of football matches during the upcoming 2018/19 season. The blocking order was granted by the UK High Court in an effort to stop unauthorised streams distributing coverage of the games across the web. An earlier iteration of the court order, which was branded 'game-changing' at the time, was handed out to the Premier League in 2017. In total, some 200,000 illegal streams were blocked last season. The High Court order allows broadcasters including Sky, BT Sport and Virgin Media to block and disrupt servers that host illegal streams of Premier League’ matches. Previously, internet companies had to target the websites hosting the streams, however, the blocking orders allow firms to stop the signal at the server level – killing the feed at its source. Illicit streams are tracked using a variety of methods, including digital watermarks embedded in the original video to trace any streams being shared for free, as well as known databases of popular pirate websites and apps for mobile devices and Kodi. The Premier League is clamping down on fans watching games illegally via pirate streams. It has been granted a piracy blocking order from the UK High Court to stop unauthorised streams from cropping up on the web (stock) Piracy is a major issue for the Premier League, with thousands of fans refusing to pay monthly subscription fees to services including Sky Sports, BT Sport and Amazon to gain lawful access to coverage of the games. Online streams, including those viewed with illicit Internet Protocol television (IPTV) boxes, like those powered by Kodi, have becoming increasingly popular. IPTV boxes also allow fans to watch the games that kick-of at 3pm, when official broadcasters are in an enforced blackout. An earlier test of the blocking order rolled-out in March 2017 and saw almost 5,000 streams blocked in the first two months. The ban, which was granted by the court under Section 97a of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act, allowed internet service providers (ISPs), such as Sky, BT, TalkTalk and Virgin Media, to turn streams off. The High Court order gave the Premier League permission to 'target the suppliers of illegal streams to IPTV boxes, and the internet, in a proportionate and precise manner'. After its success, it was renewed in July 2017 for its first full season. Speaking at the time, Premier League Director of Legal Services, Kevin Plumb, said: 'This blocking Order is a game-changer in our efforts to tackle the supply and use of illicit streams of our content. 'It will allow us to quickly and effectively block and disrupt the illegal broadcast of Premier League football via any means, including so called "pre-loaded Kodi boxes".' A pioneering version of the court order was first handed out in 2017, and this renewal will be its third iteration. This court restriction will allow broadcasters such as Sky, BT Sport and Virgin Media to shut down the shady streams This covered the 2017-2018 season and expired when the season did on May 13. According to the Premier League, was able to disrupt or block nearly 200,000 illegal streams, as well as 450,000 illegal clips of Premier League content from social and digital media outlets, during the season. A clause in the court order allowed the Premier League to apply for a renewal, which it did, and has now been approved in court. It has been expanded to include more internet providers and will affect customers of BT, EE, Plusnet, Sky, TalkTalk and Virgin Media. Citing evidence provided by the Premier League, Mr Justice Arnold, who made the decision, said that the second order was 'very effective in achieving the blocking of access to the Target Servers during Premier League matches.' He also noted that there was no evidence of over-blocking. The latest iteration of the blocking order 'enlarges the subset of infringing streaming servers to be blocked' and also modifies the way in which hosts are notified of infringement. '[T]he requirement to notify hosting providers is made subject to a short delay. This is in order to prevent the order being circumvented,' Justice Arnold writes. 'The evidence filed by FAPL in support of the application demonstrates that there have been attempts to circumvent the Second Order, and therefore this concern is a very real one.' The move comes as the Premier League is available to stream legitimately on more services than ever before. The ban on illegal streaming comes as the Premier League is embracing legitimate streaming. US tech giants Amazon have dipped their toes into the Premier League waters by agreeing a three-year deal to stream 20 Premier League matches a season US tech firm Amazon has signed a three-year deal to stream 20 Premier League matches a season. This is a considerable coup for the top flight and its departing executive chairman Richard Scudamore. Amazon are understood to have only paid £30million a year for broadcasting simultaneously a full round of midweek fixtures in early December followed by a full festive programme — one of two unwanted packages that went unsold at the Premier League rights auction last February when bids failed to reach the reserve price. Having Amazon on board means the Premier League has every opportunity over the next three years of attracting the Seattle-based company to invest a lot more when the TV rights are sold again in another competitive market. Amazon will also stream a weekly highlights show and have begun preliminary talks about additional football programming to support their new content which starts in the 2019-2020 season. The football will be shown on Amazon Prime Video in the UK at no extra cost to Prime members. Jay Marine, vice-president of Prime Video in Europe, said: ‘We are always looking to add more value to Prime and we are delighted to now offer live Premier League matches. 'Over those two December fixture rounds, Prime members will be able to watch every team.’ Pep Guardiola celebrates Man City's Premier League title win WWW.DAILYMAIL.CO.UK

Video software provider Synamedia has launched a new intelligence-first security model suggesting it is “laser-focused” on eradicating streaming pirates’ businesses and protecting legitimate providers’ revenues. Suggesting it is an industry first, this data-led model also makes it possible to measure the efficacy and ROI of anti-piracy initiatives. The new approach combines digital and human intelligence to zero in on the increasingly sophisticated streaming piracy underworld that is threatening the media industry. It provides what Synamedia says is “unparalleled” forensic insights into the minds, motivations and behaviors of pirates, and their infrastructure and business models, for a more powerful, targeted anti-piracy response. The model is already fuelling technology innovations across Synamedia’s security portfolio, helping customers protect revenues, negotiate fair content licence terms such as sports rights, and ensure compliance. Several new product enhancements that are already benefiting from this methodology are: · A redesigned counter-piracy operations centre – Synamedia EverGuard – the beating heart of Synamedia’s intelligence and analysis platform and Streaming Piracy Disruption (SPD) managed service. Incorporating big data analytics, Synamedia EverGuard creates a list of recommended actions against a set of devices, user accounts and pirate streaming sites. It supports multiple ways of disrupting services and analyses the effectiveness of each disruption mechanism for better future outcomes. The choice of action and time of enforcement is designed to cause maximum impact to pirates and nudge viewers back to legitimate services. · A rich new UI for the SPD service, allowing operational security personnel to fine-tune the counter-piracy operations centre recommendations if required to meet specific business needs. · A new generation of intelligence agents including new client- and/or headend-based watermarking agents that are resistant to pirates’ evasion techniques, and a new analytics agent. · A new raft of disruption agents for a broader choice of responses, including new quarantining agents in the CDN and the control plane, as well as device revocation agents for turning off and de-registering devices proven to have been used by pirates. · CSFEye, a credentials sharing and fraud solution that is an extension to the Credentials Sharing Insight service. CSFEye specifically targets fraudsters engaged in stealing or abusing accounts for commercial purposes, who compromise the privacy and identity of legitimate subscribers and pose a legal and commercial risk to service providers. CSFEye now includes the ability to identify all shadow users (both sharers and fraudsters), recommend and execute a range of actions in order to mitigate the risk, and convert them into paying customers. “Video piracy is becoming an existential threat to the media industry because the barrier to entry is low and the return on investment very high,” notes Yael Fainaro, Senior Vice President, Security at Synamedia. “Eradicating these businesses is made more difficult by the fact that they have sophisticated operations, are well organised, and make extensive use of the latest technologies.” “With a blend of human and digital intelligence we can build a detailed picture of the pirate ecosystem, crack the criminal mind-set and – working closely with law enforcement agencies – ultimately shut down pirates’ businesses,” she advises. “This hard data is an industry gamechanger, making it possible to move away from a best-effort cost model to one that proves the efficacy and ROI of any anti-piracy spend.” Separately, Synamedia has launched Synamedia VN Cloud, a managed service for its entire video network portfolio. VN Cloud brings together broadcast quality of service with the latest cloud technologies to provide the flexibility and scale broadcasters and video service providers expect today. According to Synamedia, VN Cloud is the industry’s first solution to offer end-to-end video network functionality on any public, private or hybrid cloud, and breaks new ground by delivering the high availability customers demand on a single platform for both broadcast and OTT. “Our managed service proposition allows service providers, content owners and broadcasters to reinvent themselves by delivering broadcast quality services with the cost control and flexibility of the cloud,” explains Julien Signès, Senior Vice President and General Manager, Video Network at Synamedia. “As we designed VN Cloud, we focused on providing total control of complex, hybrid workflows from scene to screen while managing costs and with the insurance policy of cloud-based disaster recovery.”

The new Premier League season will begin without crowds due to the coronavirus yet 160 games will not be televised in the UK, a gap that pirate IPTV providers will fill using broadcasts from abroad. The Premier League has recently obtained a new ISP blocking injunction but the Football Supporters' Association is begging for the obvious: Don't give fans no other option than to turn to illegal services. While there’s no doubt that humans have been kicking objects around for fun for thousands of years, organized football as we know it today has existed in the UK since the 19th century. Today, however, football faces a threat like never before. The coronavirus pandemic has thrown the sport into chaos, with schedules massively disrupted and leagues thrown into turmoil. In an effort to return to some kind of normality the new Premier League season is set to start on September 12. However, with social-distancing restrictions still in place, fans will be banned from stadiums for the foreseeable future. In the 21st century, the logical solution would be to air all Premier League matches on TV or via the Internet for UK fans to enjoy. At it stands, however, 160 of the planned 380 top-tier games will not be shown in the UK, leaving fans frustrated that they’re being left behind. And there are good reasons for that upset. If fans want to watch the limited matches that are available, they’ll have to subscribe to several services – Sky Sports, BT Sport and Amazon Prime – at a cost of around £100 per month. If they want the rest, there’s no legal option so combined with the price and lack of choice, some fans turn to pirate IPTV providers instead. That’s something the Premier League is working to prevent. Premier League Obtains a New Blocking Order Over the past several years, the Premier League has obtained blocking orders from the High Court, which give it permission to compel ISPs to block pirate streaming services. The last order, which aimed to cover the 2019/2020 season, ran out on July 27, 2020. However, ISP Virgin Media’s portal now reports that new permission has been granted by the High Court via a “sealed order”, which will cover the 2020/2021 season. Virgin will be required to block “Various Target Servers notified to Virgin Media by FAPL or its appointed agent for the duration of the FAPL 2020/2021 competition season.” While yet to publicly report the new order, all other major ISPs will be required to follow suit. We’ve previously covered how these blocking orders work from a technical perspective. Their sole aim is to prevent people from watching matches via illegal providers but the plans for limited legal airings in the UK under pandemic conditions places these efforts into a whole new light. UK Fans Are Being Backed Into a Corner With significantly higher prices, a limited legal offering, and a stadium ban in full effect, UK fans are not only being backed into a corner, on the world stage they’re being treated as second-class supporters of their own sport. All Premier League matches are available to watch live in other countries and at vastly cheaper prices. Citizens of the US, for example, will be able to use NBC channels and streaming services to watch all 380 matches at a vastly reduced price. Other international services showing matches unavailable in the UK include DAZN, Optus Sport, QQ Sports, Sport TV1, and fuboTV, but it is impractical and/or impossible for UK fans to access them all. Legally that is. Pirate IPTV Providers Are The Ultimate One-Stop-Shop By their very description, it’s clear that pirate IPTV providers are illegal. That aside, what they do very effectively is cut through all the red tape. Football fans are not only greeted with the live matches offered by Sky and BT Sport, but also all of the matches offered by NBC and, where necessary, any and/or all of those shown by the other legal providers mentioned above. While price is clearly a huge factor for UK fans, freedom to choose which matches to watch live is a massive draw too. The Premier League knows this, the government knows this, as does the Football Supporters’ Association, which is campaigning for all games to be shown live in the UK. “We all want to get back to games when it’s safe to do so,” said FSA Chief executive Kevin Miles in comments to the BBC this week. “But it’s not in anyone’s interests to have a situation where fans excluded from grounds for reasons of health or Covid-related capacity reductions feel they have no option but to resort to illegal pirate broadcast schemes.” Comments from an IPTV Insider Last evening TorrentFreak spoke with someone with inside knowledge of IPTV providers and he agreed that the new season will be covered in depth by pirate suppliers. “All the games will be available through different providers like the ones you mentioned and many more, and will almost definitely increase the amount of people using illicit options. It’s almost like [the Premier League] are trying to make more people use illicit options,” he said, demanding anonymity. “Illegal IPTV providers will use the legitimate sites to take the streams and redistribute them either via the original source URL or they will simply use HDMI encoders to do so. This is nothing new and in effect the illegitimate providers will continue most likely un-affected in obtaining the content. “We cannot forget however that many people who watch the Premier League illicitly actually have a legit subscription and only use these services to watch the content that they are not able to watch legitimately,” he added. What Next and Will the Premier League Change Its Position? At the moment, the Premier League has declined to comment but it does have a shareholders’ meeting today so it’s at least possible that something positive may come from that. Our IPTV insider is less optimistic, since he believes that any decisions made will be in the interests of the Premier League, not in the interests of fans. A glaring and persistent error, he says. Whatever the outcome, at some point in the future the Premier League and indeed all providers of live sporting content will have to realize that if they are underserving supporters, someone else will come along and exploit that service gap. Blocking and pirate supplier crackdowns have a limited effect so it seems logical that in order to defeat them holistically, the consumer has to be played onside. And that, as always, means putting all content into a convenient package and making that available to fans at a reasonable price. Until then, pirate suppliers have all the oxygen they need to keep taking a piece of the pie, not to mention a not insignificant slice of the revenue.

I now have a temporary invite of Danishbits

Downtime We very much regret Tuesday's downtime, a trainee had ripped a network cable out from a server and afterwards taken a well-deserved nap. He has given "beer" in the form of 1 day VIP to all of you dear users and we hope he has learned to be a little more careful in the future.

Eddy Grant argues his signature hit was used without permission in a campaign video. "This is copyright 101," his lawyer tells Billboard. Singer Eddy Grant filed a copyright lawsuit against Pres. Donald Trump's campaign on Tuesday (Sept. 1) over a campaign video that his lawyers say illegally uses the singer's iconic 1983 song "Electric Avenue." The suit is tied to a bizarre animated ad posted on Twitter by Trump's campaign on Aug. 12 which depicts a cartoon version of Trump's White House rival, former Democratic Vice President Joe Biden, driving an old-fashioned train car while a speeding train that says "Trump Pence" and "KAG 2020" zips through a desolate town. There is no context for the use of the song, which plays as the animated Biden hand-pumps his way through the empty streets in a handcar labeled "Biden President: Your Hair Smells Terrific" while random snippets of old quotes and interviews are played. The lyrics of the song, which include the lines, "Down in the streets there is violence/ And a lot of work to be done," were written by the Black Guyanese-British singer in reaction to the 1981 race riots in Brixton, England. The track spent five weeks at No. 2 on the Billboard Hot 100 chart in 1983. The suit, filed by attorney Brian Caplan of Reitler Kailas & Rosenblatt LLC in U.S. District Court in the Southern District of New York on Tuesday morning, came after Caplan tells Billboard another attorney for Grant, Wallace Collins III, sent a cease and desist letter to the president's attorney asking that the 55-second video denigrating Biden be taken down the day after the clip was posted. "You need to get a synchronization license when you sync music to video," says Caplan, noting that Grant owns the master recording and was not asked for permission to use the song, which the suit stresses has a "valid and subsisting" copyright. "Defendants have infringed and continue to infringe Plaintiffs’ copyrights in the Composition and the Recording by creating, producing, distribution, promoting, advertising, performing by means of digital audiovisual transmission, and otherwise commercially exploiting the Infringing Video, and/or authorizing others to do the same, without Plaintiffs’ authority or consent," reads the lawsuit. Unlike threats of action and complaints from artists including the Rolling Stones, Elton John and Guns 'N Roses' Axl Rose about Trump playing their songs at his campaign rallies, which those artists could claim amounts to a "false endorsement," Caplan says Grant's action was filed under a different banner. "That theory is that when you play a song by Neil Young, that gives anybody at the rally or anyone covering it the false impression that Neil Young endorsed Trump's campaign," he says. "That's not a copyright infringement case. Caplan is adamant that the Trump campaign will not have a viable fair use defense in this case. Young did actually sue the Trump campaign in early August for copyright infringement, citing unauthorized use of his songs "Rockin' in the Free World" and "Devil's Sidewalk" for what he termed "a divisive, un-American campaign of ignorance and hate." In his research about the claims against Trump's unsanctioned use of music at his events, Caplan says he has not seen a case like the one he has brought on Grant's behalf, which also names the singer's Green Heart Music Limited publishing company as a plaintiff. "This is copyright 101," he says. "You need to have a license and nobody in his campaign with a straight face could say he has the absolute right to do this." The suit demanding a jury trial seeks the disgorgement of profits, the payment of reasonable licensing fees and statutory damages, as well as a takedown of the video -- which at press time was still up -- and injunctive relief. And while the ultimate goal is to have the video taken down, that "cow is out of the barn," and the damage has already been done, according to Caplan, considering the clip has been up for several weeks and has racked up more than 352,000 likes and 95,000 retweets to date on the President's account, which has more than 85 million followers. "Neither the President nor [Donald Trump For President Inc.] is above the law," the suit states, with Caplan noting that he sent a cease and desist order to Trump's legal team the day after the video went up, with no response to the request to date. The action notes that "numerous comments" on the Aug. 12 tweet linked to "articles reporting on the infringement." The claims in the suit include two counts of copyright infringement, with a judgement demand of actual damages of up to $150,000, a permanent injunction, impounding/destruction of all copies of the video and attorney's fees. "Eddy stands for peace and justice and this ad is not consistent with the ideals Eddy has stood for and sung about for years," says Caplan. A spokesperson for the Trump campaign could not be reached for comment at press time. See the infringing ad and original "Electric Avenue" video below.

Nine people in Shanghai were sentenced up to six years in prison on Wednesday for infringing on the copyright of Danish toymaker LEGO, as China looks to take strict measures to protect intellectual property. The business' illegal turnover amounted to 330 million yuan ($48.31 million), Shanghai No.3 Intermediate People's Court said in their verdict. The toys the group designed, produced and sold were under the brand name LEPIN, similar to LEGO. What's more, LEPIN's packaging, design and color were all similar to that used by LEGO. "We appreciate the continued focus on intellectual property protection and enforcement by the Chinese courts and authorities. It is important for the continued development of a favourable business environment for all companies operating in China. We will continue to take action against companies that breach our copyrights and seek to mislead our consumers," LEGO Group told the Global Times Wednesday. The gang started their illegal operation in 2015. They purchased new LEGO sets, dismantled and studied them, and then produced "copycat" versions at a 1:1 scale at their registered factories. The group members took on different roles in the operation with an end-to-end process; that is, the group members designed the toys and molds, registered factories, rented warehouses, produced the toy sets, applied for trademarks, packaged and stored the sets, and also operated their own shops on e-commerce platforms such as Taobao. The gang produced and sold nearly 4.25 million boxes of their copycat products worth over 300 million yuan, including 634 different models, from September 11, 2017 to April 23, 2019. Moreover, Shanghai police seized 603,875 Lepin toy products worth about 31.5 million yuan in a factory leased by the main culprit, surnamed Li, on April 23, 2019. There were also 88 injection molds used to replicate Lego toys, 68 spare parts used to assemble the molds, 289,411 packing boxes, 175,141 manuals for Lepin toys, and over 50,000 sales orders. "Such crimes are extremely serious and they can really damage society," the verdict said. It added that "most of the counterfeit toys in the case have already made their way into the market, infringing upon intellectual property rights, causing significant losses to other business' reputations and economic interests, and disrupting the market order." Li was sentenced to 6 years in prison and fined 90 million yuan. All their illegal gains will be recovered, and the goods and properties used in the crime will be confiscated, the verdict said.

The United States Copyright Office recently released a New Group Registration Option for Short Online Literary Works (GRTX), which would allow an applicant to register up to 50 short online literary works with one application and one filing fee. A group registration covers the copyrightable text in each literary work submitted with the group registration, such that the copyright owner may seek a separate award for each work infringed. GRTX Overview In general, a short online literary work must contain at least 50 and no more than 17,500 words in order to qualify as an online literary work eligible for group registration. In addition, the “work must be first published as part of a website or online platform, such as an online newspaper, social media website, or social networking platform.” In particular, the requirements of the GRTX include: 1. The group must contain at least two and up to 50 separate works. 2. Each work must contain between 50 and 17,500 words. 3. The claim is limited to the text that appears in each work. 4. All the works in the group must be first published online. 5. All the works must be published within three consecutive months. 6. The text in all the works must be written by the same individual author or co-written by the same joint authors. 7. The author or joint authors must be named as the claimant(s) for each work, even if an author is not the current copyright owner of one or more works in the group. 8. The works in the group cannot be works made for hire. 9. Each individual work must have a title and each title must be on the application. 10. The applicant must include a title for the group as a whole. In order for a work to satisfy the requirement of being part of an online platform, the work must have been “first distributed to the public as part of a website or online platform, first distributed on a website or platform protected by a paywall or password, or published simultaneously online and in physical form.” However, a work would not be eligible if published only in physical form or if published in physical form prior to being published online. Further, a website or online platform itself cannot be registered using the GRTX option and the following works are not eligible: emails, podcasts, audiobooks, computer programs, compilations, and collective works. Publication Requirement Since a work must be “published” in order to be registered using the GRTX option, the mechanism has been criticized as not benefiting the individual authors and bloggers who need it the most. According to an article by Aaron Moss “[t]he definition of ‘publication’ hasn’t changed since the 1976 Copyright Act was first enacted, even though our conception of publishing certainly has evolved in the digital age [and] the statutory definition is clear that the public performance or public display of a work does not, in and of itself, constitute publication.” Therefore, “the act of hitting ‘publish’ and displaying a blog or online article on a live website does not in and of itself constitute publication under the Copyright Act.” The Final Rule in the Federal Register explained that the “Copyright Alliance and the Authors Guild argued that authors should be allowed to register their works under this option regardless of whether they are published or unpublished [noting that] many authors struggle with the complex legal distinctions between published and unpublished works [and] that the distinction serves no apparent need and exacerbates the potential for confusion.” The Copyright Office acknowledged that determining “the fact and timing of publication may present difficult legal questions, especially in the online context”, but noted that the statute, 17 U.S.C. 409(8), “requires that the registration application include, for published works, the date and nation of the work’s first publication.” The Office further explained that including both published and unpublished works in the GRTX option “would undermine the efficiency of the examination process.” Noting that the final rule retained the requirement that that works be published, the Office explained that it ‘‘will accept the applicant’s representation that website content is published or unpublished, unless that statement is implausible or is contradicted by information provided elsewhere in the registration materials or in the Office’s records or by information that is known to the registration specialist.’’ The Office also noted that it is exploring the general issues regarding publication in order to provide greater guidance to registration applicants.

As we adjust to the restrictive measures wrought by the COVID-19 pandemic, many events and performances have abruptly migrated online. Although online delivery offers many advantages, it also brings a multitude of challenges especially with regard to copyright, licensing and the protection of original works. Presenters, artists, their agents and managers must adapt quickly to understand unfamiliar contractual terms in order to avoid the pitfalls inherent to the digital medium. For insight into the legal issues surrounding the online delivery of performing arts, Gowling WLG's Entertainment and Sports Law Group, in partnership with CAPACOA and NAPAMA, is pleased to present this webinar featuring: Susan Abramovitch, Head of Gowling WLG's Entertainment and Sports Law Group Alexis Vaughan, Associate at Gowling WLG And moderated by: Eoin Ó Catháin, Chair of NAPAMA's Canadian Executive committee and Vice-President of Latitude 45 Arts Promotion. Discussion on a variety of topics, including: Understanding common contractual provisions Ownership of copyright Protecting and exploiting copyright in original works Licensing the works of others for use in on-demand and live streams

Background Rallysport Direct LLC (RSD) is a wholesaler and direct-to-consumer supplier of aftermarket automotive components and accessories. It sells its products on its website using photographs of RSD's products created by its employees under its direction. The defendants also carried on business as an aftermarket automotive components and accessories supplier. In 2016, one of the individual defendants directed third party contractors to copy RSD's photographs for the defendants' website, which was owned by the first corporate defendant, 2424508 Ontario Ltd. (242 Ontario Ltd.). When RSD became aware of the infringement, it sent 242 Ontario Ltd. a cease and desist letter and brought this action for copyright infringement against 242 Ontario Ltd. in early 2017. Several months later, the individual defendants incorporated 2590579 Ontario Ltd. (NewCo), transferred ownership of the defendants' website from 242 Ontario Ltd. to NewCo, and commenced bankruptcy proceedings for 242 Ontario Ltd. When RSD became aware of NewCo and 242 Ontario Ltd.'s impending bankruptcy, it successfully brought a motion to amend its pleadings to add claims against NewCo and the individual defendants. The defendants then brought a motion for summary judgement, alleging that copyright did not protect RSD's photographs. The defendants were unsuccessful, and the Court awarded summary judgement in favour of RSD (Rallysport Direct LLC v 2424508 Ontario Ltd, 2019 FC 1524). Statutory Damages RSD elected to pursue statutory damages for infringement for commercial purposes at a rate of $500 per infringement under paragraph 38.1(1)(a) of the Copyright Act. Statutory damages recognize that actual damages for copyright infringement are often difficult to prove. They are supposed to incentivize copyright owners to invest in and enforce copyright, while deterring would-be infringers. Statutory damages for infringement for commercial purposes range from $500 to $20,000 per infringement. Subsection 38.1(3) gives the Court the discretion to award statutory damages of less than $500 per commercial infringement if either there is more than one work in a single medium or the infringement is done by way of the Internet, and awarding the minimum amount would be grossly out of proportion to the infringement. In this case, the Court decided to exercise this discretion and awarded statutory damages at an amount of $250 per infringement, totaling $357,500. The Court arrived at this rate by taking into account RSD's labour costs to create its 1,430 photographs, the defendants' bad faith, and the amount of damages that would deter future infringement. The Court found that production costs are a relevant factor when determining whether the statutory minimum is grossly disproportionate in the e-commerce context, because the copyrighted works were created to sell other products and not to be sold themselves. The defendants' evolving explanations regarding their actions led the Court to conclude that they were acting in bad faith. The Court also held that deterrence is particularly important where technology makes it easy to infringe, as was the case here. Punitive Damages Subsection 38.1(7) allows the Court to award punitive and/or aggravated damages in addition to statutory damages. Punitive damages "should only be awarded where the evidence shows that there has been high-handed, malicious, arbitrary or highly reprehensible conduct that departs to a marked degree from the ordinary standards of decent behaviour", which is a high threshold. Aggravated damages aim to compensate parties for intangible injuries such as distress or humiliation. There is doubt as to whether corporations can claim aggravated damages. The Court found that RSD was not entitled to aggravated damages but was entitled to $50,000 in punitive damages. The Court considered six factors in determining whether the defendants' actions met the threshold for awarding punitive damages: was the conduct planned and deliberate; the intent and motive of the defendant; whether the defendant persisted in the outrageous conduct over a lengthy period of time; whether the defendant concealed or attempted to cover up its misconduct; the defendant's awareness that what it was doing was wrong; and whether the defendant profited from its misconduct. The award of punitive damages was based on the defendants' efforts to "judgment-proof" their actions by creating NewCo, transferring their website to it, and putting 242 Ontario Ltd. into bankruptcy during litigation when it was the only defendant. The Court found that this behaviour engaged factors (a), (b), (d), and (e) above. Punitive damages of $50,000 were consistent with awards in previous cases the Court reviewed and which ranged from $10,000 to $100,000. About Norton Rose Fulbright Canada LLP Norton Rose Fulbright is a global law firm. We provide the world's preeminent corporations and financial institutions with a full business law service. We have 3800 lawyers and other legal staff based in more than 50 cities across Europe, the United States, Canada, Latin America, Asia, Australia, Africa, the Middle East and Central Asia. Recognized for our industry focus, we are strong across all the key industry sectors: financial institutions; energy; infrastructure, mining and commodities; transport; technology and innovation; and life sciences and healthcare. Wherever we are, we operate in accordance with our global business principles of quality, unity and integrity. We aim to provide the highest possible standard of legal service in each of our offices and to maintain that level of quality at every point of contact.

Radhika Kumaraswamy has filed a complaint with the North CEN police station against an unknown person after someone uploaded one of her movies on youtube without her permission. The movie, Sweety Nanna Jodi, produced by Radhika Kumaraswamy with Rs 3 crore budget where she played the lead, was released in 2013. The movie was uploaded by an unknown person on YouTube without her permission. In her complaint, she said, “We had invested Rs. 3 crore on the movie. Some unknown person has illegally uploaded our movie without our permission and has cheated us.”

Yet another President Trump tweet has been removed following a complaint. This one, however, is now part of a copyright lawsuit filed by British singer-songwriter Eddy Grant over the unlicensed use of his 1982 song 'Electric Avenue'. According to the complaint, which demands up to $150,000 in damages, the video containing the track remained live on Twitter, despite demands it was taken down. For the overwhelming majority of Twitter users, receiving even a very small number of copyright complaints against their account can mean its loss, with Twitter invoking its repeat infringer policy to avoid liability under the DMCA. For US President Donald Trump, however, special treatment is available on the platform. While contentious tweets do get removed, Trump’s account remains intact, despite a steady stream of rightsholders filing DMCA notices. Yesterday, however, one of his allegedly-infringing tweets resulted in more robust action. Allegedly-Infringing Tweet Was Posted in August With the 2020 United States presidential election campaign in full swing, Trump is taking every opportunity to paint Democratic opponent Joe Biden in an unfavorable light. These political attacks often take place via Twitter and last month Trump kept up the pressure, posting an animated video of a speedy train carrying his campaign logo ahead of Joe Biden on a railroad handcar, struggling to keep up. While that kind of imagery is nothing new in US politics and seems to have been custom-created, the background music in the video – the 1982 hit ‘Electric Avenue’ by British singer-songwriter Eddy Grant – was a previously-existing work. In fact, according to a lawsuit filed by the artist in a New York court yesterday, the use of the track was an act of blatant copyright infringement. Copyright Infringement Lawsuit Filed in New York The complaint, filed in the Southern District of New York, has Edmond Grant, two companies named Greenheart Music Limited (one based in the UK, the other Antigua, both owned by Grant) suing both Donald Trump and his campaign, Donald J. Trump For President Inc. The complaint states that after Trump tweeted the video on August 12, the next day Grant and Greenheart Music sent a letter to the defendants demanding the removal of the video and insisting that they refrain from using Electric Avenue moving forward. The lawsuit further alleges that at the time of its filing on September 1, the video was still available on Twitter. This is curious since according to information published by the Lumen Database, on August 13 Twitter received a DMCA takedown notice from Sony/ATV Music Publishing demanding the removal of the tweet. It has now been actioned with the offending tweet being removed, but Lumen only received a copy from Twitter today, perhaps suggesting something unusual with its processing. “Plaintiffs’ Recording, which embodies the Composition, can be heard on the Infringing Video starting at the 15 second mark and continues for the duration of the video. The Infringing Video therefore makes unauthorized use of the Composition and the Recording and infringes upon Plaintiffs’ copyrights in both,” the complaint reads. “Defendants’ conduct is unlawful; it is proscribed as such by the United States Copyright Act. Neither the President nor the Company is above the law,” it adds. A Very Popular Video, Complaint Alleges According to estimates presented by the plaintiffs, the video has been viewed more than 13.7 million times, “liked” more than 350,000 times, and re-tweeted 139,000 times. This, despite Trump and his campaign being put on notice via an August 13 letter sent by Grant’s attorney to cease-and-desist their infringing conduct. “Defendants have failed and/or refused to comply with Plaintiffs’ demands set forth in the August 13, 2020 letter, have continued to infringe Plaintiffs’ copyrights in the Composition and the Recording, and, upon information and belief, will continue to infringe Plaintiffs’ copyrights in the Composition and the Recording unless enjoined by this Court,” the complaint adds. Permanent Injunction and Damages Describing the actions of Trump and his campaign as “willful and intentional”, the lawsuit demands a permanent injunction to prevent further infringement plus a damages amount to be determined at trial. That could range from a minimum of $750 per infringement but could stretch to $150,000 per infringement in statutory damages, plus costs and attorneys’ fees, the complaint warns. Interestingly, the cease-and-desist sent by Grant’s legal team on August 13 offered to settle the matter quickly, in order to avoid the relatively expensive option of a lawsuit. Whether that option remains on the table is unclear but from its text, it appears that Grant was personally upset, not just by the alleged infringement of Electric Avenue, but also by the context in which it was used. Perhaps More Than ‘Just Another’ Copyright Lawsuit Electric Avenue was written by Grant in response to the now-historic riots that took place in Brixton, London, during 1981. They were widely attributed to racism, poverty, and tensions between black youths and the mainly white police force of the time. The cease-and-desist sent by Grant’s team in August suggests that the use of Electric Avenue in the Trump campaign video “indicates a fundamental misunderstanding of the very meaning of the underlying work” and notes that just by being affiliated with Trump’s campaign, Grant’s reputation is being damaged. As a result, a large response could follow. “If you know my client’s reputation then you know that this Infringing Use in connection with the name ‘Trump’ in a political context is a serious transgression and could subject you to upwards of $100,000,000 in monetary damages,” the letter warned.

Twitter confirmed that it removed a campaign video President Trump had retweeted Saturday over a copyright complaint. The Linkin Park song “In the End” was featured in the background of the video, which included images of President Trump and excerpts from his inauguration speech. “Per our copyright policy, we respond to valid copyright complaints sent to us by copyright owner or their authorized representative,” a Twitter spokesperson said in an email to The Verge on Sunday. The band tweeted Saturday that it was pursuing a “cease and desist” and that it had not authorized use of its song in the video: “Linkin Park did not and does not endorse Trump.” The copyright notice has been posted to the nonprofit transparency initiative Lumen Database. White House deputy chief of staff for communications Dan Scavino tweeted the video Friday evening and President Trump’s official Twitter retweeted it Saturday. The retweet is no longer visible on the president’s Twitter feed, but Scavino’s original tweet is still live as of Sunday morning (minus the video). It’s not the first time Twitter has taken action against one of Trump’s tweets over a copyright complaint. Last month, it disabled a four-minute campaign video that included images of George Floyd, the Minneapolis man who died May 25th after a police officer kneeled on his neck. Facebook and Instagram removed posts from their platforms that featured the video. The president called the removal “illegal,” in a tweet, but Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey responded: “Not true and not illegal. This was pulled because we got a DMCA complaint from copyright holder.”

The tracker needs your help. Account security and cleanliness on the tracker. Dear users, dear friends! 1) We ask you to support the section "Piggy bank" - at the moment the expenses have exceeded income, some of the releases were bought "for future use" and with the hope of your support. Some other releases will also be purchased by uploaders at their own expense, but without filling the section, most new products will simply not be purchased due to a banal lack of finances ... We sincerely hope that you also understand: our resource provides the vast majority of new releases in Runet, despite the absence of references to the original source. We also thank the users who supported the "Moneybox" earlier and, thereby, the development of the tracker, which is regularly updated with new products as it regularly needs your support. Traditionally, those who are going to do this will receive incentive bonuses. You can view the report for the previous period here. 2) There were several account hijackings on the tracker, the scheme was as follows: a) the attacker had your password (there were no messages about attempts to guess passwords); b) logged in with your credentials and c) with simple manipulations changed the old email to a new one. "c)" is completely disabled, but nothing prevents attackers from further using the remaining two points. According to the data we have, the passwords of a number of users were leaked from similar trackers by dishonest persons who have access to the authorization data of users, provided that the login / password pair are identical ... we think you understand yourself. Therefore, we kindly ask you to use different passwords with us and on other resources (you can change the password to a new one in your account settings, and the paid email change will now be verified with the previous email address). 3) The number of users trying to download / distribute torrents "past the tracker" began to grow. In order not to impose harsh sanctions, for example: in the absence of peers, what is distributed will not go to a plus, but to a minus, or forced double verification of an account with an inevitable change of passkey - we ask you to pay attention to the activity of distributions in your torrent client when the distribution is in progress, and there are no peers on the given distribution on the tracker. In this case, just make a print screen of the "peers" torrent client tab (sometimes you have to wait a couple of minutes to "catch" the "peers") and write in a personal message to ADmin. We think and hope that Decency is not an empty phrase for you. Thank you for being with us!