Welcome to Invitehawk!!

Welcome to Invitehawk!!

Tracker Name: LosslessClub Tracker URL: https://losslessclub.com/

Pirate site blocking is a reasonable way for rightsholders to protect their rights in a highly targeted fashion. Importantly, external supervision isn't needed because everyone knows what they're doing. In a twist no one saw coming, Austrian ISPs are currently blocking Cloudflare after a rightsholder obtained a court order to render pirate sites inaccessible and included the CDN's IP addresses. Page BlockedIn common with many countries in Europe, Austria couldn’t escape pressure from rightsholders to implement site blocking to prevent piracy. Local ISPs didn’t like the idea but following a ruling by the European Court of Justice in 2014, rightsholders took legal action to have sites blocked. ISPs fought all the way to the Supreme Court, but to no avail. Concerns over net neutrality were also brushed aside. Movie companies went on to target several major streaming sites and then in 2015, The Pirate Bay, 1337x and other torrent sites were blocked following action by music industry group IFPI. In the years that followed, many more domains were blocked following rightsholder complaints. Publishers also joined the action with Sci-Hub and Libgen blocks but at the end of 2019, instructions for ISPs to block pirate sites suddenly stopped after several domains belonging to notorious streaming site Movie4K were added to the register. Blocking Resumes – Badly After a considerable pause, last week ISPs were instructed to block a new batch of domains following legal action by Satel Film GmbH. They included domains operated by BurningSeries, SerienStream, Fmovies and SeasonVar – around 30 overall. Another blocking order, obtained by DOR Film, targeted another 40 domains. This batch was closely followed by yet another blocking order obtained by collecting society Wahrnehmung von Leistungsschutzrechten GmbH (LSG). Austrian ISPs were instructed to block music piracy site NewAlbumReleases.net and 10 additional unblocking site domains facilitating access to it. The ISPs also received instructions to block music piracy site Canna Power. If the instructions had stopped at Canna-Power.to and Canna.to, that would’ve been the end of the matter, but that wasn’t the case here. austrian blocking The court-sanction blocking instructions also contained a list of IP addresses to be blocked at the same time – all of them belonging to Cloudflare and used by a large number of innocent sites, as well as the piracy site in question. After more than a decade of blocking orders around the world, this was a rookie mistake but that didn’t reduce the consequences. ISPs Had No Choice But to Obey The Court After internet users in Austria began to complain of unexpected website outages on Sunday, Der Standard says it began asking questions. Up until now, ISPs have been given lists of domains so that blocking can be conducted by DNS. This time IP addresses were supplied in addition to domains and because non-compliance can lead to legal action, ISPs had no choice but to follow the orders. Worryingly, ISP Magenta said that the whole thing could’ve been avoided. Previously, through a process involving the Austrian Regulatory Authority for Broadcasting and Telecommunications (RTR), it was possible for ISPs to offer their input on blocking. That is no longer the case. “In the past, RTR had the option of a determination procedure. Internet providers could use this to check in advance whether a block is permissible or not. However, this procedure no longer exists due to a supreme court ruling,” the company told Der Standard. In this case, RTR can check whether the blocks are admissible, but only after the damage has been done. Cloudflare Works on Technical Solution, Calls for Action Approached for comment, Cloudflare said it was working hard to find a way around the blocks. It also called for the public to get involved in the debate while putting pressure on the government. “We are currently working on finding a technical solution for the affected websites. At the same time, Austrian Internet users are being asked to put pressure on politicians. Perhaps then the knowledge will prevail there that the blocking of IP addresses always has undesirable side effects,” the company’s statement reads. Blocking can have undesirable side effects but the more fundamental problem is the drive to conduct site blocking via agreements between stakeholders, negotiated in private processes, with no public oversight. If Austrian ISPs hadn’t published the details of what they are required to block, the public would’ve had blank screens and no answers today. Publishing blocking lists for scrutiny should be required wherever blocking is put in place but according to rightsholders, that only serves to encourage piracy.

YouTube says it will seek summary judgment to shut down a lawsuit headed by musician Maria Schneider which alleges mass copyright infringement. YouTube's motion reveals that Schneider's publisher granted YouTube a blanket license covering the musician's entire back catalog, but that's just the beginning. YouTubeA class action lawsuit filed by Maria Schneider against YouTube more than two years ago has support from artists who believe big tech should do better. While that opinion is widespread in the music industry, no musical artists of any description joined Schneider in the class action, despite the plaintiffs oozing confidence in their allegations. Mass copyright infringement, failure to suspend repeat infringers, and breaches of the DMCA are all featured in a case that seems to have one key goal – Content ID access for all artists no matter how popular, so they can defend their work from pirates on YouTube. YouTube hasn’t given an inch and believes all of the claims in the class action are without merit. At least one of the members of the putative class acted fraudulently, YouTube claims, and it can easily dismiss every other allegation. On Friday, YouTube informed the court that it will move for summary judgment in October. If the claims in its motion are deemed credible, a YouTube win is almost inevitable. It’s Not Infringement if You Have Permission According to YouTube, Maria Schneider’s allegations of mass copyright infringement plus violations of the DMCA due to YouTube’s removal of Copyright Management Information (CMI) simply cannot succeed. In 2008, Schneider reportedly gave her publisher, Modern Works Music Publishing (MWP), the exclusive right to license her compositions. In turn, MWP granted YouTube/Google a blanket license to use all MWP-controlled works, which included Schneider’s entire back catalog. Furthermore, YouTube says it holds separate licenses to Schneider’s works, relating to any content uploaded by the musician or her agents to YouTube. Schneider claims the MWP license is invalid, YouTube says, since her publisher didn’t get permission from her to license anything to YouTube. “Even assuming that were true, it makes no difference because Schneider’s consent was not a condition precedent to MWP’s right to license her works. The license is valid and dispositive. And as to the other license, Schneider has said nothing at all,” YouTube’s motion reads. Part of Schneider’s claims relate to YouTube’s removal of CMI from uploaded tracks but YouTube says the musician refuses to identify the tracks where this supposedly happened. Nevertheless, YouTube says Schneider’s claim still fails because the blanket rights license obtained from her publisher granted the company permission to reformat videos containing her works. Schneider can’t prove intent either (17 U.S.C. § 1202(b)), YouTube says. Schneider Didn’t Move Quickly Enough Do people ever read the Terms of Service on sites like YouTube? Sometimes perhaps, but if anyone is considering legal action, giving them the once over first can reveal some interesting restrictions. “When Schneider created her YouTube account and uploaded videos to YouTube, she agreed to YouTube’s TOS, including its provision that any claim relating to YouTube’s services be brought within one year of accrual,” YouTube says. “Beyond that, the governing statute of limitations requires her claims be brought within three years of accrual (17 U.S.C. § 507(b)) — that is, when a plaintiff has actual or constructive knowledge of the claims. “Schneider admits to having actual knowledge of dozens of her infringement claims years before she sued, and discovery shows she had constructive knowledge of even more. She also had actual knowledge of YouTube’s supposed § 1202 violations [CMI] more than three years before she sued.” Supporting Evidence According to YouTube, Schneider agreed to its Terms of Service (TOS) on several occasions, including when she created the ‘Maria Schneider Official Page” in 2012. When users agree to the TOS, they give YouTube “extensive rights” to any content they upload, including a license for YouTube and YouTube users to use the content across the YouTube service. Any claims relating to the service must be brought within a year. Schneider’s copyright infringement claims against YouTube relate to 78 works. 76 of those works are musical compositions but according to YouTube, Schneider’s copyrights only cover the musical compositions (i.e sheet music), not sound recordings. In respect of the two remaining works where she does own rights to the sound recordings, no infringement allegations are within the statute of limitations period. One of Schneider’s central claims, that she was denied access to Content ID, is incorrect according to YouTube. MWP, which granted YouTube a blanket license covering her back catalog, used Content ID on Schneider’s behalf. When ‘infringing’ content was monetized, Schneider received payments from MWP. “Schneider’s infringement claims fail on multiple grounds. The Works-in-Suit were licensed through MWP and the Terms of Service,” YouTube notes in summary. “Schneider’s CMI claim fails because she cannot make out a prima facie case and because any removal of CMI by YouTube was authorized. And both her CMI claim and many of her infringement claims are also time-barred. Together, these overlapping grounds dispose of all of Schneider’s claims against YouTube.”

avatar Do you find yourself with an avatar and you don't? Don't worry, your account hasn't been hacked, it's part of an effort to restore some fun at Cinemagddon. The forum has been very quiet recently, and many posters do not have avatars. When we found out that there was a collection of famous heads that were not being used, we had the idea of using these blank canvases to share them. If you like your new avatar, please keep it. If you don't like it, you can easily change or delete it. (Sorry for the trouble) If you don't have an avatar, maybe consider adding one. Stay tuned for more avatar-related news as it happens. Rewards thread Another ongoing effort to brighten this place is taking care of the reward thread. You may have noticed that they are being followed again. While much remains to be done, we are making progress. Over the past few weeks, we've been improving torrent descriptions/gaining GB! Over 60 torrent improvements have been handled in , but there are still about 400 torrents that need to be improved and paid for. We are doing everything we can to make your Cinemageddon experience as good as possible. And we don't stop trying to keep making it better. SM

Bump!! Still available!!

Bump!! Still available!!

351

897

Welcome and enjoy!!

Welcome and enjoy!!

Welcome and enjoy!!

Welcome and enjoy!!

Welcome and enjoy!!

Welcome and enjoy!!

Welcome and enjoy!!

807

270

719

951

902

Following an anti-piracy crackdown in early June, Egyptian authorities have shut down nine additional sports streaming portals. Local police received support from anti-piracy coalition ACE and broadcaster beIN. While the results are significant, the largest Egyptian sports piracy portal remains online. ball oldThe Alliance for Creativity and Entertainment (ACE) is the most active anti-piracy coalition, assisting enforcement efforts around the world. The group is backed by prominent rightsholders such as Apple, BBC, Canal+, Disney, Sky, Netflix, and Warner Bros, as it systematically hunts down key piracy players. Earlier this year ACE expanded its scope into the sports arena by adding sports broadcaster beIN to its list of members. The partnership was put to work immediately in Egypt, where the coalition teamed up with local law enforcement to tackle several large streaming portals. In June, this led to early successes. The domains of 18 websites, including Yalla-Shoot-7sry.com, yalla-shoot.us, and Yallashoot-news.com, were taken offline and three people were arrested. New Sports Piracy Crackdown While this crackdown was significant, many other sites remained online. However, the enforcement actions continued after the first wave, with new seizures and arrests announced by ACE and BeIN this week. In a new enforcement wave, nine additional sports streaming sites were pulled offline. In addition, 16 Egyptian police officers, backed by the country’s Ministry of Internal Affairs, arrested the operators of two of the streaming portals. The targeted domain names are mostly popular among soccer fans. These include yalla-shoot-kora.com, yalla-shoot-arabia.com, yalla-shoot-arabia.net, hdkoora.com, kooora4k.com, kooora4k.com, korawatch.com, kooralive-online.com and alqnassport.com. Together, these are good for millions of monthly views. ace seized Yalla-shoot.today had the biggest audience with a reported 1.8 million visits in June this year. The site’s traffic appeared to be waning already, as ACE reported that the site had 125 million visits in the last two years. ACE and BeIN Praise Egypt As the largest sports rightsholder in the region, BeIN is happy with the result and the help it received from Egypt. “It is hugely encouraging to see continued anti-piracy operations undertaken by our Egyptian colleagues. This is another victory for sports fans, players and clubs of all levels in across the sporting eco-system,” a BeIN spokesperson notes. Commenting on the results, ACE’s Jan van Voorn also thanks the Egyptian authorities for prioritizing online piracy as a serious crime. At the same time, he recognizes that the job isn’t done yet. “ACE and beIN take an extremely active approach to tackling piracy, customizing our actions to most effectively combat various piracy methods – in Egypt, across the entire region, and globally,” van Voorn notes. “This is just the beginning of the work we’re going to do together to bring these illegal operations to justice.” Largest Sports Streaming Sites Remain Online There is indeed more work to be done. Without downplaying the recent enforcement actions, it is worth mentioning that the largest pirate sports streaming portal in Egypt, yalla-shoot.io, remains operational. Yalla-shoot.io has millions of monthly visitors and is the largest sports website in the country, beating many legal alternatives. The same is true for Yalla-shoot.com, which has been in operation for years. This isn’t news to ACE. Van Voorn informs TorrentFreak that the work in Egypt isn’t done yet and he adds that the alliance will continue to assist anti-piracy initiatives around the world.

Digital creators may choose to distribute their files along with additional data identifying them as the owner. The DMCA prohibits the removal of this metadata but according to a lawsuit filed against YouTube, the platform removed metadata from MP3 uploads. A recent opinion from the US Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit appears to tip the scales in YouTube's favor. dataMany digital file formats allow creators to embed additional data to provide details of ownership or any other relevant information. This metadata might include the name of the person who created the file but it can be much more comprehensive. Photographs may carry metadata identifying the exact location where they were taken, while MP3 files could include the title, artist, album, track number, and BPM, to name just a few possibilities. This metadata can be useful to copyright holders, from conveying something as simple as their name and website address to management and monitoring functions. The problem is that metadata can be removed, so once third parties have access to a file, all bets are off. The DMCA recognizes metadata (and other related marks) as Copyright Management Information (CMI) when “conveyed in connection with” a creative work. 17 U.S. Code § 1202 prohibits the intentional removal of CMI without obtaining permission from the copyright owner, when it is known that will “induce, enable, facilitate, or conceal an infringement.” CMI Claims Against YouTube A class action lawsuit filed by musician Maria Schneider against YouTube contains many copyright infringement allegations, including claims relating to CMI. While YouTube denies them all, at some point the CMI matter will need to be addressed. In a 2017 blog post, Schneider described YouTube as a Wood Chipper on Steroids, complaining that when MP3s are uploaded to YouTube, they are converted into a different format and in the process, all metadata – Copyright Management Information – is lost. “To strip CMI metadata ‘knowingly,’ or to distribute such works knowing CMI has been stripped, is potentially criminal under the law,” Schneider wrote. “But until there is an actual court case on this issue, YouTube will continue to strip away metadata from literally billions of files, like a power chipper on steroids.” Schneider ultimately took YouTube to court over its removal of CMI, but other cases dealing with similar issues were concluded first. One is of particular interest. Photographer’s CMI Erased Victor Elias specializes in hotel and resort photography. Between 2013 and 2017, Elias took photographs of hotels and licensed their owning companies to use them in promotional activities. All of the photographs contained embedded metadata, i.e Copyright Management Information. The owners of the hotels later made the licensed images available to another company, Ice Portal, to facilitate their appearance on travel agents’ websites for promotional purposes. As part of that process, the original images were downloaded from the hotels’ servers and converted to a faster-loading format used by the travel agents. The conversion from one format to another meant that metadata was sometimes lost. This meant that images on the travel agents’ websites didn’t always contain CMI as Elias intended. Copies of his images also appeared on other websites, again without the metadata. Copyright Lawsuit, Violations of DMCA In 2019, Elias sued Ice Portal (owned by Shiji Group) in a Florida district court for violations of the DMCA under 17 U.S. Code § 1202(a) and (b). Ice Portal/Shiji’s motion for summary judgment was successful. Elias failed to show that Shiji knew, or should have reasonably known, that its actions (removal of CMI) would “induce, enable, facilitate, or conceal a copyright infringement.” The US Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit agreed, noting that liability under the DMCA is reliant on two factors – that the defendant knew that CMI had been removed and also knew that the removal would either cause or conceal an instance of future infringement. “The court explained that the statute’s plain language requires some identifiable connection between the defendant’s actions and the infringement or the likelihood of infringement,” Stanford Libraries explains. “To hold otherwise would create a standard under which the defendant would always know that its actions would ‘induce, enable, facilitate, or conceal’ infringement because distributing protected images wrongly cleansed of CMI would always make infringement easier in some general sense.” Implications Moving Forward A Bloomberg Law report says the Eleventh Circuit adopted a “heightened standard” towards CMI, with Trace Jackson, an intellectual property attorney at Rogers Towers, offering his understanding of what that means. “It has to be the case that the person stripping the photograph of the CMI knows of some specific infringement that will or may occur because of that,” the attorney told Bloomberg Law. Jackson believes the nature of the platform where the content was published could also provide guidance. Removing a photo’s CMI and putting it on a travel agent’s website would be different from placing it on “some website labeled ‘free public domain pictures here,’ where you’re kind of asking for infringement.” Jackson also believes that to protect artists’ interests, future licensing agreements should carry clear language that prohibits the removal of CMI. Copyright Management Information is protected under the DMCA for a reason but Schneider’s claims against YouTube won’t have been helped by the Eleventh Circuit’s affirmation of the lower court’s ruling in the Elias matter. The Eleventh Circuit opinion can be found here (pdf) ——- In Maria Schneider’s CMI article she talks about the moral rights of artists, including the right to attribution and the right of integrity. Few people would argue against these fundamentals and their importance to an artist’s identity. But artists have another basic right – the freedom to choose who to do business with. When business partners refuse to meet problems half way, another business partner might be a better option.

Posted 2 days ago! Finaly running from the new server, We had a problem with the last back up so we had to use the one we made the day before. I estimate that we have lost about 12 hrs of the last operation to old server before we stop the site. It will take at least another day till we set the site to operate properly. Update: Our restore was not complete unfortunately. So it does not matter if you put new request or new torrent up. It will be in the system but it's not available on the main pages. We are bleeding from many wounds. As our techs are working in their normal job, actual healing should be at eow only...