Friday, March 31, 2017

Amazon Bans Sales of “Pirate” Media Players, Will Destroy Them

Streaming piracy is on the rise with popular media player Kodi at the center of attention.

While Kodi itself is a neutral platform, millions of people use third-party add-ons to turn it into the ultimate pirate machine.

In some cases, the pirate add-ons are put onto the devices by vendors, who sell these “fully-loaded” boxes through their own stores or marketplaces such as Amazon. While Amazon has never explicitly allowed the sale of copyright-infringing devices, they are not hard to find in its store.

This is a thorn in the side of major copyright holders, who have repeatedly complained about fully-loaded boxes.

Amazon appears to be well aware of the controversy, as it recently published an updated policy clarifying that pirate media players are not permitted on the platform. Merely ‘suggesting’ that devices can be used for infringing purposes is enough to have them delisted.

“Products offered for sale on Amazon should not promote, suggest the facilitation of, or actively enable the infringement of or unauthorized access to digital media or other protected content. Any streaming media player or other device that violates this policy is prohibited from sale on Amazon,” the company writes.

Amazon states that it is up to the vendor to determine whether their products meet these standards. Those who still cross the line are in for an unpleasant and costly surprise. Amazon states that it will destroy the devices without reimbursement.

“If you sell these products, we may immediately suspend or terminate your selling privileges and destroy inventory in our fulfillment centers without reimbursement,” Amazon writes.

In addition, if there’s proof that the vendors were engaging in illegal activity, any pending payments may be withheld or forfeited under the policy.

Amazon

While the announcement was published without fanfare, it hasn’t gone unnoticed. Anti-piracy company Irdeto, which works with several major copyright holders on pirate streaming box cases, sees the new policy as a breakthrough.

“This first of its kind preventative measure aims to minimize the pirates’ promotional reach. It’s a policy I hope the other e-Commerce sites will emulate,”‎ Mark Mulready, Senior Director Cyber Services and Investigations at Irdeto, notes.

Despite Amazon’s strong language the site still features many devices marketed as fully-loaded streaming media players. Some, including the one below, even use pirate sources such as Icefilms, Primewire and the Genesis Kodi add-on to market their products.

Amazon

According to Irdeto, the media player software itself is not at fault. In a way, they are a victim of the pirates too, much like copyright holders. The pirate sources and the rogue vendors are the ones that create and maintain the problem.

This is also reflected in the legal cases that have been launched thus far over the misuse of Kodi players. Both in the UK and the Netherlands, test cases against sellers of “fully-loaded” devices are aiming to stop the phenomenon.

In the United States, the problem is also on the radar now. MPAA boss Chris Dodd recently said that finding a solution to the illegal use of Kodi is one of the main piracy questions the industry currently faces, so it’s likely that more enforcement actions will follow.

Source: TF, for the latest info on copyright, file-sharing, torrent sites and ANONYMOUS VPN services.



from TorrentFreak http://ift.tt/2nTnwCg
via IFTTT

HTPC News Roundup 2017 Wk 12: Pirate Bay Torrents Become Teens, PS4 Media App 4K Support, 5 Best Kodi Alternatives

Welcome to the htpcBeginner HTPC News Roundup, Mar. 31, 2017 edition! This week saw Pirate Bay torrents hit their teenage years, 4K PlayStation 4 media player app updates, and Plex for Android updates. Read on for the latest in HTPC news and updates! htpcBeginner Recap It has been a busy week for us with sever […]

HTPC News Roundup 2017 Wk 12: Pirate Bay Torrents Become Teens, PS4 Media App 4K Support, 5 Best Kodi Alternatives is a post from htpcBeginner.



from htpcBeginner http://ift.tt/2nnqjjl
via IFTTT

Parents Must Identify Pirate Kids Or Pay Their Fines, Court Rules

Copyright trolling continues around the world in 2017, with file-sharers the prime targets. From the United States to Europe and beyond, people are still receiving letters in the mail which demand a cash settlement to make a supposed court case disappear.

No country has been harder hit than Germany. Hundreds of thousands of citizens, probably more, have received these so-called pay-up-or-else demands. And, due to strict interpretations of copyright liability, many people find themselves digging deep.

One such case dating back six years has been more complicated than most. In 2011, a family received a letter from Universal Music, demanding cash alongside claims that Rihanna’s album ‘Loud’ had been illegally shared via their Internet connection.

The parents, to whom the letter was addressed, indicated that they had no interest whatsoever in the R&B star. However, one of their three children apparently did, and the parents knew which one had committed the infringement.

Perhaps understandably, however, the parents didn’t want to throw their child to the lions. It’s a position that’s supported by a local law which protects family members from having to testify against each other.

The case ended up at the Munich Court of First Instance and the parents were held liable for copyright infringement and ordered to pay almost 3,900 euros. From there the case progressed to the Federal Court of Justice (Bundesgerichtshof – BGH), which handed down its ruling Thursday.

In a big win for Universal, the BGH upheld the decision of the lower court, holding the parents liable for copyright infringement.

According to the Federal Court, if a person knows which other people in his or her residence (typically family members) shared files illegally, they should reveal the name of that person to the Court. If they do not wish to do so, they must accept liability and pay the fine themselves, no matter whether the offender is a child or an adult.

The Court did throw potential future defendants a lifeline, however. If the Internet account holder does not know the name of the infringer, he or she is not obliged to monitor the Internet usage of other family members or to examine computers for the existence of file-sharing software.

Source: TF, for the latest info on copyright, file-sharing, torrent sites and ANONYMOUS VPN services.



from TorrentFreak http://ift.tt/2nqKDkE
via IFTTT

ISP RCN and BMG Agree to Settle Internet Piracy Lawsuit

In common with many other Internet service providers in the United States, RCN receives its fair share of copyright infringement notices, including sizeable numbers from anti-piracy outfit Rightscorp.

These notices, sent on behalf of music rights group BMG, are paired with settlement demands which Rightscorp expects RCN customers to pay at around $30 per shot. On top, the anti-piracy outfit and its client previously warned the ISP that if it did not take appropriate action against its allegedly infringing subscribers, it could be held liable.

That claim lit a fire under RCN who responded with a lawsuit filed against BMG at a New York federal court last summer.

“The central question for this Court’s determination is whether an Internet service provider should be held liable for copyright infringement simply because it provides Internet connectivity to its customers,” RCN wrote.

“BMG’s repeated assertions that RCN is liable for copyright infringement lack merit. RCN therefore seeks a judgment from this Court declaring that it is not liable to BMG for copyright infringement.”

Last September, RCN submitted an amended complaint which revealed how BMG put it under pressure take action against subscribers while demanding compensation. The rights group said that RCN had failed to terminate the accounts of repeat infringers, despite receiving millions of notices.

“We are hopeful that a resolution of this ongoing and damaging infringement can be reached. To that end, we suggest the parties meet to discuss a settlement that would include a means of preventing or limiting future infringement and appropriate compensation to BMG,” the letter from BMG read.

Since then the case has continued with filings back and forth. However, two weeks ago it was revealed that progress had been made, with lawyers for both RCN and BMG informing the court that an agreement had been reached in principle to settle the matter peacefully.

“We write to inform Your Honor that the parties have reached an agreement in principle to settle this matter without Court intervention and are in the process of executing the same. We expect a dismissal with prejudice of this matter to be filed shortly,” the letter dated March 16 reads.

Then, on Wednesday this week, the previously warring factions informed the court it was all over.

Neither party has indicated what the settlement entails but since the case has been dismissed with prejudice, it cannot be revived again in the future.

With the parties paying their own legal bills there’s a suggestion that things might stop there financially, but it remains unclear whether RCN has agreed to deal with its pirating subscribers in a more aggressive manner, as originally requested by BMG.

In any event, it seems likely that the BMG v Cox Communications case has hung heavy on this dispute, at least from RCN’s perspective. That case is currently going to appeal but with a $25m ruling in BMG’s favor (not to mention $8m bill in legal costs for Cox), taking big risks along similar lines was probably not high on the agenda for RCN.

Source: TF, for the latest info on copyright, file-sharing, torrent sites and ANONYMOUS VPN services.



from TorrentFreak http://ift.tt/2npxloG
via IFTTT

Thursday, March 30, 2017

Court: Megaupload’s Failing Drives Can Be Fixed, But Not Accessed

After Megaupload was shut down more than five years ago, data from hundreds of the site’s servers were put in storage by several hosting facilities, Cogent included.

While the original machines are no longer intact, the company has backed up all data which it will keep in storage pending the various lawsuits against Megaupload and its former employees.

However, as time has dragged on, the condition of the hard drives has significantly deteriorated. Last year, Cogent first warned that sixteen of them have actually become unreadable.

Over the past months the MPAA, RIAA and Megaupload have worked on a mutual agreement to secure the data. This is important because of the pending civil and criminal lawsuits, where the information could be used as vital evidence.

Earlier this month the MPAA and RIAA submitted nearly identical filings, asking the court for a preservation order. The rightsholder groups informed the court that they had reached an agreement with Megaupload on “nearly all” terms of the restoration and backup process, to be carried out by the independent forensics company DriveSavers.

A few days ago Megaupload replied that they indeed agree to the backup and preservation procedure. However, the order proposed by the rightsholders would also prevent Megaupload from accessing its data afterward, which they see as a violation of their constitutional rights.

Megaupload, therefore, submitted a revised version of the preservation order specifying that it can access the data, but for litigation purposes only. If the MPAA or RIAA disagree, they can then share their concerns with the court on a case by case basis.

After hearing both arguments, District Court Judge Liam O’grady chose to side with the rightsholders, siging their version of the preservation order (pdf).

This means that after months of negotiating the failing drives can finally be repaired and preserved. However, when that process is complete no party will be able to access the files, Megaupload included.

“Once the drives and devices have been returned to Cogent’s custody and stored in Cogent’s facility, no person […] shall have access to those drives and devices, or to the data contained on those drives and devices, absent further order from this Court,” the order reads.

The data, and thus the evidence, can only be accessed with permission from the court. While the MPAA and RIAA will be pleased with the ruling, Megaupload is not.

“We are disappointed that the court is still preventing Megaupload from accessing its own server data to independently preserve and use in its own defense,” Megaupload’s counsel Ira Rothken tells TorrentFreak.

The good news, for Megaupload, is that they don’t have to pay for the data preservation. The MPAA and RIAA both agreed to share the cost associated with it and will pick up the full tab.

“We are pleased that the parties that contributed to the Megaupload data loss, by objecting in 2012 to Megaupload’s efforts to access and preserve its own data, are now paying for its recovery,” Megaupload’s counsel says.

“We are also pleased that the Court approved DriveSavers, a world class data recovery firm, as the vendor to handle data restoration,” Rothken adds.

As things stand now it could take years before a trial gets underway, so this is likely not the last time we hear about the data issue. In this regard, Megaupload is also disappointed in the US Government.

The authorities previously prevented the file-hosting service from accessing the files that are hosted at Carpathia. The US Government made backups of the data it wants to use as evidence, but repeatedly prevented Megaupload from doing the same.

“The US after bringing the largest criminal copyright in history is dead set on making sure that Megaupload and the other defendants cannot have access to the evidence they need to defend themselves,” Rothken tells us.

All in all, Megaupload’s counsel is still concerned that Kim Dotcom and the other defendants will not get a fair trial in the United States.

Rothken worries that other data, including the files stored at Carpathia, could become unreadable as well in the future, noting that this could have been prevented if they were allowed preserve it themselves in 2012.

Source: TF, for the latest info on copyright, file-sharing, torrent sites and ANONYMOUS VPN services.



from TorrentFreak http://ift.tt/2nPXRud
via IFTTT

DMCA Helps YouTube Avoid Up to $1bn in Royalties Per Year, Study Claims

With much at stake, one gets the impression that the debate over the safe harbor provisions of the DMCA is likely to boil over before it goes away.

In a nutshell, rightsholders believe that some Internet platforms that allow users to upload audio-visual content abuse their immunity in order to make money from copyrighted content for which they hold no licenses.

Given the recent hostility shown by Hollywood and the music industry towards Google, it’s no surprise that YouTube has become the focal point in this war of words.

In particular, the world’s leading record labels argue that YouTube draws a massive commercial benefit from infringing songs uploaded by its users since it avoids paying for the kinds of licenses ‘fairly’ negotiated with the likes of Spotify and Apple.

In its defense, YouTube says it does all it can to combat infringement, quickly taking down unlawful content when asked to and spending small fortunes on systems like Content ID, which allows creators to monetize otherwise infringing content, should they choose to do so. It also pays huge sums to the labels.

It’s a problem that may eventually be settled by a change in the law but in the meantime the entertainment industries are working hard to paint Google and YouTube as freeloaders making a fortune from other people’s hard work.

Exactly how much money is at stake is rarely quantified but a new study from the Phoenix Center in Washington claims to do just that. The numbers cited in ‘Safe Harbors and the Evolution of Music Retailing’ by authors T. Randolph Beard, PhD, George S. Ford, PhD, and Michael Stern, PhD, are frankly enormous.

“Music is vital to YouTube’s platform and advertising revenues, accounting for 40% of its views. Yet, YouTube pays the recording industry well-below market rates for this heavy and on-demand use of music by relying on those ‘safe harbor’ provisions,” the paper begins.

Citing figures from 2016 provided by IFPI, the study notes that 68 million global subscriptions to music services (priced as a result of regular licensing negotiations) generated $2 billion in revenues for artists and labels at around $0.008 per track play.

On the other hand, the 900 million users of ad-based services (like YouTube) are said to generate just $634 million in revenues, paying the recording industry just $0.001 per play.

“It’s plainly a huge price difference for close substitutes,” the paper notes.

What follows in the 20-page study is an economist-pleasing barrage of figures and theories that peak into what can only be described as an RIAA-friendly conclusion. As an on-demand music service, YouTube should be paying nearer the same kinds of royalties per spin as its subscription-based rivals do, the paper suggests.

“More rational royalty policies would significantly and positively affect the recording industry, helping it recover from the devastating consequences of the Digital Age and outdated public policies affecting the industry,” the paper notes.

“Simulating royalty rate changes for YouTube, one of the nation’s largest purveyors of digital music, we estimate, using 2015 data, that a plausible royalty rate increase could produce increased royalty revenues in the U.S. of $650 million to over one billion dollars a year.

“This is a sizeable effect, and lends credence to the recording industry’s complaints about YouTube’s use of the safe harbor,” it concludes.

Given the timely nature of this report from an industry perspective, TF asked co-author George S. Ford what motivated the study and if any music industry entity had commissioned or been involved in its financing.

“We do a lot of work in copyright and I’ve run into this type of problem in numerous settings, including the recent SDARS III case before the CRB. I’ve wanted to write on this topic for ages and finally got around to it,” Ford told TF.

“The Phoenix Center does not take money to do specific projects, except for instances where a government asks us to do something, and then we indicate funding was received for that project. As noted in the paper, we relied on the RIAA for data.”

Since that did not specifically answer our question we tried again, asking whether the RIAA, IFPI, or any of their member labels are donors to and/or supporters of The Phoenix Center. We received no reponse.

The Phoenix Center has produced a number of pro-industry reports in recent years, including a study applauded by the MPAA which attacked earlier research concerning Megaupload.

The full paper can be downloaded here (pdf)

Source: TF, for the latest info on copyright, file-sharing, torrent sites and ANONYMOUS VPN services.



from TorrentFreak http://ift.tt/2oBfOtV
via IFTTT

Wednesday, March 29, 2017

Install Madsonic on Ubuntu – Streaming Server Music and Videos

Madsonic in UbuntuWhile some people love Plex, because it streams your Movies, TV Shows and Music on your devices, that does not mean that it’s for everybody. In fact, there are over 10 media streaming apps to pick from. In our previous article we talked about how you can install Subsonic on Ubuntu. Madsonic, a fork of […]

Install Madsonic on Ubuntu – Streaming Server Music and Videos is a post from htpcBeginner.



from htpcBeginner http://ift.tt/2nB4MXS
via IFTTT

‘Piracy Filters Are Expensive and Far From Perfect’

Signed into law nearly twenty years ago, the DMCA is one of the best known pieces of Internet related legislation.

The law introduced a safe harbor for Internet services, meaning that they can’t be held liable for their pirating users as long as they properly process takedown notices and deal with repeat infringers.

In recent years, however, various parties have complained about shortcomings and abuse of the system. On the one hand, rightsholders believe that the law doesn’t do enough to protect creators, while the opposing side warns of increased censorship and abuse.

To address these concerns, the U.S. Copyright Office hosted a public consultation asking stakeholders to submit comments as well as research. One of the organizations participating is Engine, a non-profit organization representing the interests of the startup and tech communities.

Previously, several copyright industry representatives suggested that piracy filters are an efficient and effective way to deal with piracy. This would save rightsholders a lot of work, and in part shift the ‘policing’ burden to Internet services. However, not everyone in the tech community agrees.

Balancing the scale, Engine teamed up with Professor Nick Feamster of Princeton University to show that automated filters are far from perfect. In their research report titled “The limits of Filtering,” they list a wide variety of drawbacks.

“Before considering dangerous mandatory content filtering rules, policymakers should understand the inherent limitations of filtering technologies,” they write in their report.

“Reversing two decades of sensible copyright policy to require OSPs to deploy tools that are costly, easily circumvented, and limited in scope would deeply harm startups, users, and content creators alike.”

The researchers point out that filtering has a limited scope. File-formats continuously change or can be masked, for example, and even in the ideal case where a site only hosts straightforward audio files, it’s not perfect either.

The report cites a recent case study which found that the music fingerprinting system Echoprint misidentifies between 1 and 2 percent of all files. This might not sound like a lot, but when a site hosts millions of files, it adds up quickly.

With these numbers, tens of thousands of files would be taken down in error, which is far from ideal.

“Given the reported error rates, one could thus expect the state of the art fingerprinting algorithm to misidentify about one or two in every 100 pieces of audio content,” the researchers write.

“Accordingly, a 1–2 percent false positive rate for an automated filtering procedure is problematic for the same reasons, as such a technique would result in filtering legitimate content at rates that would frequently obstruct speech.”

That’s in an ideal situation. The reality is more complicated. An automated filtering tool can’t effectively decide fair use cases, for example. And for some types of content there are no good filtering options available to begin with.

On a broader scale, Engine’s research also predicts an overall negative impact on Internet services. The costs involved could prove to be problematic for smaller startups, for example. Medium-sized file-sharing services would have to pay between $10,000 and $25,000 in licensing fees alone.

A filtering requirement will also create uncertainty among startups. Are they required to filter, to what degree, and is their fingerprinting technology sufficient?

Finally, there’s an elephant in the room. Even if filtering magically works 100%, there will always be plenty of rogue pirate sites in foreign jurisdictions that still offer infringing content.

Speaking with TorrentFreak, Engine’s Executive Director Evan Engstrom, who co-authored the report, hopes that lawmakers will seriously consider the concerns. Not just the US Copyright Office, but also the European Commission (EC) which has concrete plans to make piracy filters mandatory.

“All filtering technologies are limited in significant ways: they are only able to process a relatively narrow range of content files and all can be circumvented through encryption or basic file manipulation. And contrary to the EC’s belief, fingerprinting technologies can be quite expensive, particularly for startups,” Engstrom says.

“We hope this paper provides policymakers considering such mandatory filtering proposals with the technical and economic evidence necessary to fully understand their implications.”

Source: TF, for the latest info on copyright, file-sharing, torrent sites and ANONYMOUS VPN services.



from TorrentFreak http://ift.tt/2nMJMhs
via IFTTT

VPN Searches Soar as Congress Votes to Repeal Broadband Privacy Rules

In a blow to privacy advocates across the United States, the House of Representatives voted Tuesday to grant Internet service providers permission to sell subscribers’ browsing histories to third parties.

The bill repeals broadband privacy rules adopted last year by the Federal Communications Commission under the Obama administration, which required ISPs to obtain consumer consent before using their data for advertising or marketing purposes.

The House of Representatives voted 215-205 in favor of overturning the regulations after the Senate voted to revoke the rules last week. President Donald Trump’s signature is needed before it can go into law but with the White House giving its full support, that’s a given.

“The Administration strongly supports House passage of S.J.Res. 34, which would nullify the Federal Communications Commission’s final rule titled ‘Protecting the Privacy of Customers of Broadband and Other Telecommunication Services’,” the White House said in a statement yesterday.

“If S.J.Res. 34 were presented to the President, his advisors would recommend that he sign the bill into law.”

If that happens, the US will free up the country’s Internet service providers to compete in the online advertising market with platform giants such as Google and Facebook. Of course, that will come at the expense of subscribers’ privacy, whose every browsing move online can be subjected to some level of scrutiny.

While supporters say that scrapping the regulations will mean that all Internet companies will operate on a level playing field when it comes to privacy protection, critics say that ISPs should be held to a higher level of accountability.

Whereas consumers have a choice over which information can be shared with websites, browsing history via an ISP is total, potentially exposing sensitive issues concerning health, finances, or even sexual preferences.

With this in mind, it’s no surprise that US Internet users are beginning to realize that everything they do online could soon be exposed to third-parties intent on invading their privacy in the interests of commerce. Predictably, questions are being raised over what can be done to mitigate the threat.

Aside from cutting the cord entirely, there’s only one practical way to hinder ISPs, and that’s through the use of some form of encryption. Importantly, visitors to basic HTTP websites will have no browsing protection whatsoever. Those using HTTPS can assume that although ISPs will still know which URLs they’ve visited, content exchanged will be cloaked.

Of course, for those looking for a more workable solution, VPNs – Virtual Private Networks – can provide a much greater level of encrypted protection, especially among providers who promise to keep no logs.

As a result, various providers, including blackVPN, ExpressVPN, LiquidVPN, StrongVPN and Torguard, have weighed in on the debate via social media. NordVPN have also spoken out against the bill in the press, and Private Internet Access even took out a full page ad in the New York Times this week.

It’s now becoming clear that while it was once a somewhat niche activity, VPN use could now be about to hit the mainstream.

Taking a look at Google Trends results for the search term ‘VPN’, we can see that interest across the United States is now double what it was back in 2012. The significant surge to the right of the chart is likely attributable to the past few weeks of debate surrounding the repeal of broadband privacy rules.

While most VPN providers have been campaigning against the changes, there can be no doubt that the signing of the bill into law will be extremely good for business. As seen from the above, record numbers of people are learning about VPNs and there’s even encouragement coming in from people at the very top of Internet commerce.

Following the vote yesterday, Twitter general counsel Vijaya Gadde took to her company’s platform to‏ suggest that citizens should take steps to protect their privacy.

Her tweet, which was later attributed to her own opinion and not company policy, was retweeted by Twitter Chief Executive Jack Dorsey.

It will be interesting to see how the new rules will affect VPN uptake longer term when the fuss around the debate this month has died down. Nevertheless, there seems little doubt that VPN use will rise to some extent and that could be bad news for copyright holders seeking to enforce their rights online.

In addition to stopping ISPs from spying on users’ browsing histories, a good VPN also prevents users being monitored online when using BitTorrent. A further handy side-effect is that they also render site-blocking efforts useless.

Source: TF, for the latest info on copyright, file-sharing, torrent sites and ANONYMOUS VPN services.



from TorrentFreak http://ift.tt/2ng2Oc8
via IFTTT

Pirate Streaming Site 123Movies Rebrands as GoMovies

Pirate movie streaming sites and services continue to gain popularity, with 123movies at the forefront of this trend.

However, growth doesn’t always come easy. Over the past week the site has been suffering significant downtime, for unknown reasons. The site eventually returned during the weekend on the domain 123movieshd.to, but that wasn’t the end of the upheaval.

Yesterday the site switched to a new home, first renaming itself to Memovies, only to switch to Gomovies a few hours later.

While the site’s operators are staying quiet on the exact reason for the downtime, a site representative told TorrentFreak that GoMovies.to will be the site’s official domain, at least for the time being.

When asked about the reason for the name change, the representative said that it is in part to set itself apart from the many fake sites and proxies that appeared online recently.

The operators grew tired of the many fake sites that ranked very high in search engines with the 123movies brand. With the change, GoMovies will try to regain momentum.

The old 123movies.is and 123movies.to domain names are now linking to the new GoMovies one, and the site also confirmed the surprising brand change on its official Twitter account.

“We’re back at GoMovies.to – This is our Official Domain – new Home for 123Movies users. Old data remains the same. Please spread.”

123movies / Gomovies on Twitter

While GoMovies has a new domain name and logo, the rest of the site is pretty much intact. In fact, most of the references to 123movies are still present on the site, even in the site title and the FAQ section.

Although the turbulent week with several days of downtime remains largely unexplained, the site representative hopes that they will remain on the new domain for a while. However, we were told that it’s possible that they will have to change again in the future.

In addition to the site’s millions of users, 123movies / GoMovies developments are also being closely watched by copyright holders, who see the site as one of their main targets.

Hollywood previously reported the site to the U.S. Government’s Trade Representative, labeling it one of the most “notorious” pirate markets, and the site is blocked by UK ISPs as well. Last week, the US Ambassador to Vietnam turned up the pressure by urging a local minister to prosecute the site’s operators, who allegedly reside there.

Source: TF, for the latest info on copyright, file-sharing, torrent sites and ANONYMOUS VPN services.



from TorrentFreak http://ift.tt/2ng723p
via IFTTT