Slashdot Mirror

It's the MPAA pushing for this. Google has recently decided that they will cease any and all cooperation with this entity, and instead work on more feasible and sane measures with the individual studios.

  https://torrentfreak.com/furio...

working magnet links

That's by definition. A magnet link is hash of the data, in this case a torrent file, not the file itself. TPB switched to magnet for new torrents in 2012 to save space and increase resiliency. Furthermore, torrent clients search for data in the DHT/PEX swarm instead of relying on trackers. TPB shut down its own tracker in 2009.

In short, The Pirate Bay will live on for as long as its users want it to.

working magnet links

That's by definition. A magnet link is hash of the data, in this case a torrent file, not the file itself. TPB switched to magnet for new torrents in 2012 to save space and increase resiliency. Furthermore, torrent clients search for data in the DHT/PEX swarm instead of relying on trackers. TPB shut down its own tracker in 2009.

In short, The Pirate Bay will live on for as long as its users want it to.

Why are you so angry? Also, The Pirate Bay isn't "back" as per https://torrentfreak.com/can-p... - "Update: Just to be clear, thepiratebay.ee, thepiratebay.cr, thepiratebay.mobi and others are mirrors not affiliated with the original site. They serve old content (no new uploads) and are not TPB resurrections. If the site reappears it will be on the original .se domain."

Over a year ago, they released a 75MB full backup of the site that contained all of the torrents.[1] Does anyone know if a more recent on exists for others to build upon?

[1] http://torrentfreak.com/downlo...

Ah, wait, http://thepiratebay.cr/ is just a proxy/mirror. That now makes sense why it hasn't been updated.

At time of posting this, "The" Pirate Bay still hasn't officially come back online. Source.

I see these articles, which seem dated about Sept 2014:

Pirate Bay fools the system with cloud technology

The Pirate Bay runs on 21 “raid-proof” virtual machines

I'm lowercasing some of those titles, so it doesn't look like RAID-proof. This is referring to police raids, not RAID (disk redundancy).

So I guess now we may get to see just how “raid-proof” this really is(n't).

Then again, Pirate Bay moves to the cloud, becomes raid-proof shows a date of October 2012. So their cloudiness might not be a brand new thing.

I see these articles, which seem dated about Sept 2014:

Pirate Bay fools the system with cloud technology

The Pirate Bay runs on 21 “raid-proof” virtual machines

I'm lowercasing some of those titles, so it doesn't look like RAID-proof. This is referring to police raids, not RAID (disk redundancy).

So I guess now we may get to see just how “raid-proof” this really is(n't).

Then again, Pirate Bay moves to the cloud, becomes raid-proof shows a date of October 2012. So their cloudiness might not be a brand new thing.

I just worry that all these Netflix wannabes is going to fracture the content market (with content being hopelessly split amongst competing streaming services thanks to a morass of exclusive deals). It's fine now, with just Netflix and Amazon Prime being serious contenders (and Hulu's half-assed effort pulling up the distant rear). But I see a possible future where I've got 300 different streaming services on my box, all of them wanting a monthly fee--and with me trying to remember which one of those 300 has the movie or TV show I want to watch tonight.

That's the point. No one provider will "have it all" and the content producers have intentionally done it this way. The movie industry saw what iTunes did to the music industry when it basically became the way to get music and the immense power Apple had to force the industry to accept its terms.

So the movie industry is intentionally splitting their catalog across multiple services - Netflix gets some, Amazon gets others, etc., so no one of them will end up being a monopsony.

As for finding which one of the servers? Multi-library search should be available on popular devices. I mean, the Xbox can do it (it you search for a movie or TV show, it'll show you which providers have it), and I think Amazon's FireTV can too as well.

For those kids who got shipped out to the USA for linking videos. If only they had embedded them.

In fact, the same court had already ruled in a earlier case (Svensson) that linking to a file does not constitute copyright infringement either.

The court doesn't seem - at least from this report - to have taken into account that the uploader on YouTube has the ability to permit or deny this embedding, which would have strengthened the argument that it is that uploader who was to blame, not others linking to the video there. I wonder if the copyright owner went after them as well - considering a copyright takedown against the video on YouTube would have disabled the embedded view anyway?

What could be interesting here is how this relates to recent UK court orders forcing the largest UK ISPs to censor access to "pirate" websites like TPB, some of which also merely link to files which may be online in breach of copyright?

Not really telling us anything we didn't already know though, is it? They've been saying this for months. (although I'll admit not in the NYT or PBS - it's something I follow since it was my research for TorrentFreak that started all this when we proved Comcast were screwing with Bittorrent traffic back in the summer of 07)

It does seem like a lot. In 2012 someone ran a scaper on tpb to grab all of their magnet links, it came in at under 100MB compressed. Of course this didn't include the comments or the .torrent files. https://torrentfreak.com/downl... The torrent is available at https://thepiratebay.se/torren...

Fair enough. Some interesting material I came-up with while searching on this topic:
1) In 2013, Comcast proposed a system where Comcast does the monitoring:
http://variety.com/2013/digita...
2) Comcast actually stood up for it's users against a copyright troll.
https://torrentfreak.com/comca...

Go type in your favorite search engine "DCMA [sic] bogus requests" and a treasure trove will appear. There are plenty of citations available to back my statement.

So there are a [vague, undefined] number of bogus takedown requests - but how does that translate to "The overwhelming majority of the take down requests are for censorship purposes"? That was your original claim - not that there are simply a notable number of bogus requests.

Torrentfreak doesn't seem to agree: "Most requests are legitimate, aimed at disabling access to copyright-infringing material."

GP stated that anyone receiving take downs is posting illegal content, and that is an outright lie.

No he didn't. He said:

No one forces you to provide a search engine that accepts illegal content. Just screen everything before it goes into the index or don't host it, as simple as that.

Which is not the same thing (I see no assumption in the first sentence, and the second is a suggestion), and makes your assertion an outright mistake.

Do you think that the exponential growth in requests is all magically legit?

Why do you claim it isn't*? What's the evidence?

*no, I don't think it's all legit. I don't think bad takedowns outnumber good ones, but I've never looked into it, so won't be making a solid claim to that effect.

I suggest you read the Photographer's Rights site.

There have been security guards who have harassed photographers for taking photos of buildings because the building designs are "copyrighted." You are allowed to take a photo of a copyrighted object. (If you couldn't, someone wearing a shirt bearing the likeness of any copyrighted fictional character could end all street photography in an area.) You may or may not be able to publish said photo (depending on the circumstances), but you can certainly take the photo and enjoy it for your own private use. Nobody is saying that the copyright of the original changes hands, but you own the copyright of any photo you take.

Awhile back, Toyota tried to claim that they owned a copyright on any Toyota vehicle and so any photographs containing Toyotas were owned by them regardless of who took the picture. (They actually used the DMCA to take down photos involving Toyotas.) Needless to say, they didn't succeed and you can take a photograph of any Toyota in public without having to turn said photo over to Toyota.

Private places can tell you up front that photography is not allowed (e.g. museums where the exhibits would suffer from the flashes or movie theaters). If they do, they can kick you out for photographing where you were told not to. What they can't do, though, is order you to delete those photos. They can contact the police, try to have you arrested, and sue for the photos to be destroyed. They can't demand that you hand over your camera so that they can delete the photos or detain you until you delete the photos yourself.

Jesus Christ, were you guys paid to write this or are you just bored and stupid? Let's review:

City of London at Wikipedia

The local authority for the City, namely the City of London Corporation, is unique in the UK and has some unusual responsibilities for a local council, such as being the police authority. It is also unusual in having responsibilities and ownerships beyond its boundaries. The Corporation is headed by the Lord Mayor of the City of London, an office separate from (and much older than) the Mayor of London.

The City has a unique political status, a legacy of its uninterrupted integrity as a corporate city since the Anglo-Saxon period and its singular relationship with the Crown. Historically its system of government was not unusual, but it was not reformed by the Municipal Reform Act 1835 and little changed by later reforms.

It is administered by the City of London Corporation, headed by the Lord Mayor of London (not the same as the more recent Mayor of London), which is responsible for a number of functions and owns a number of locations beyond the City's boundaries. Unlike other English local authorities, the Corporation has two council bodies: the (now largely ceremonial) Court of Aldermen and the Court of Common Council. The Court of Aldermen represents the wards, with each ward (irrespective of size) returning one Alderman. The chief executive of the administrative side of the Corporation holds the ancient office of Town Clerk of London.

The City is a ceremonial county, although it has a Commission of Lieutenancy, headed by the Lord Mayor, instead of a Lord-Lieutenant, and it has two Sheriffs instead of a High Sheriff (see list of Sheriffs of London), quasi-judicial offices appointed by the Livery Companies, an ancient political system based on the representation and protection of trades. Senior members of the Livery Companies are known as Liverymen and form a special electorate called the Common Hall, which chooses the Lord Mayor, the Sheriffs and certain other officers.

The City has a unique electoral system. Most of its voters are representatives of businesses and other bodies that occupy premises in the City. Its ancient wards have very unequal numbers of voters. In elections, both the businesses based in the City and the residents of the City vote.

The principal justification for the non-resident vote is that about 330,000 non-residents constitute the day-time population and use most of its services, far outnumbering residents, who number around 7,000. Nevertheless, the system has long been controversial. The business vote was abolished in all other UK local council elections in 1969.

City_of_London_Corporation
http://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=5501455&cid=47620723
A Tale of Two Londons

and finally, the Police Intellectual Property Crime Unit tag at TorrentFreak, because this crap has been going on for some time. Older stories:

June 28, 2013: UK Government Announces New Intellectual Property Crime Unit
October 8, 2013: Police Demand Summary Domain Takedown, Traffic Redirection
October 9, 2013: UK Police Orders Registrars to Suspend Domains of Major Torrent Sites
December 9, 2013:

Jesus Christ, were you guys paid to write this or are you just bored and stupid? Let's review:

City of London at Wikipedia

The local authority for the City, namely the City of London Corporation, is unique in the UK and has some unusual responsibilities for a local council, such as being the police authority. It is also unusual in having responsibilities and ownerships beyond its boundaries. The Corporation is headed by the Lord Mayor of the City of London, an office separate from (and much older than) the Mayor of London.

The City has a unique political status, a legacy of its uninterrupted integrity as a corporate city since the Anglo-Saxon period and its singular relationship with the Crown. Historically its system of government was not unusual, but it was not reformed by the Municipal Reform Act 1835 and little changed by later reforms.

It is administered by the City of London Corporation, headed by the Lord Mayor of London (not the same as the more recent Mayor of London), which is responsible for a number of functions and owns a number of locations beyond the City's boundaries. Unlike other English local authorities, the Corporation has two council bodies: the (now largely ceremonial) Court of Aldermen and the Court of Common Council. The Court of Aldermen represents the wards, with each ward (irrespective of size) returning one Alderman. The chief executive of the administrative side of the Corporation holds the ancient office of Town Clerk of London.

The City is a ceremonial county, although it has a Commission of Lieutenancy, headed by the Lord Mayor, instead of a Lord-Lieutenant, and it has two Sheriffs instead of a High Sheriff (see list of Sheriffs of London), quasi-judicial offices appointed by the Livery Companies, an ancient political system based on the representation and protection of trades. Senior members of the Livery Companies are known as Liverymen and form a special electorate called the Common Hall, which chooses the Lord Mayor, the Sheriffs and certain other officers.

The City has a unique electoral system. Most of its voters are representatives of businesses and other bodies that occupy premises in the City. Its ancient wards have very unequal numbers of voters. In elections, both the businesses based in the City and the residents of the City vote.

The principal justification for the non-resident vote is that about 330,000 non-residents constitute the day-time population and use most of its services, far outnumbering residents, who number around 7,000. Nevertheless, the system has long been controversial. The business vote was abolished in all other UK local council elections in 1969.

City_of_London_Corporation
http://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=5501455&cid=47620723
A Tale of Two Londons

and finally, the Police Intellectual Property Crime Unit tag at TorrentFreak, because this crap has been going on for some time. Older stories:

June 28, 2013: UK Government Announces New Intellectual Property Crime Unit
October 8, 2013: Police Demand Summary Domain Takedown, Traffic Redirection
October 9, 2013: UK Police Orders Registrars to Suspend Domains of Major Torrent Sites
December 9, 2013:

Jesus Christ, were you guys paid to write this or are you just bored and stupid? Let's review:

City of London at Wikipedia

The local authority for the City, namely the City of London Corporation, is unique in the UK and has some unusual responsibilities for a local council, such as being the police authority. It is also unusual in having responsibilities and ownerships beyond its boundaries. The Corporation is headed by the Lord Mayor of the City of London, an office separate from (and much older than) the Mayor of London.

The City has a unique political status, a legacy of its uninterrupted integrity as a corporate city since the Anglo-Saxon period and its singular relationship with the Crown. Historically its system of government was not unusual, but it was not reformed by the Municipal Reform Act 1835 and little changed by later reforms.

It is administered by the City of London Corporation, headed by the Lord Mayor of London (not the same as the more recent Mayor of London), which is responsible for a number of functions and owns a number of locations beyond the City's boundaries. Unlike other English local authorities, the Corporation has two council bodies: the (now largely ceremonial) Court of Aldermen and the Court of Common Council. The Court of Aldermen represents the wards, with each ward (irrespective of size) returning one Alderman. The chief executive of the administrative side of the Corporation holds the ancient office of Town Clerk of London.

The City is a ceremonial county, although it has a Commission of Lieutenancy, headed by the Lord Mayor, instead of a Lord-Lieutenant, and it has two Sheriffs instead of a High Sheriff (see list of Sheriffs of London), quasi-judicial offices appointed by the Livery Companies, an ancient political system based on the representation and protection of trades. Senior members of the Livery Companies are known as Liverymen and form a special electorate called the Common Hall, which chooses the Lord Mayor, the Sheriffs and certain other officers.

The City has a unique electoral system. Most of its voters are representatives of businesses and other bodies that occupy premises in the City. Its ancient wards have very unequal numbers of voters. In elections, both the businesses based in the City and the residents of the City vote.

The principal justification for the non-resident vote is that about 330,000 non-residents constitute the day-time population and use most of its services, far outnumbering residents, who number around 7,000. Nevertheless, the system has long been controversial. The business vote was abolished in all other UK local council elections in 1969.

City_of_London_Corporation
http://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=5501455&cid=47620723
A Tale of Two Londons

and finally, the Police Intellectual Property Crime Unit tag at TorrentFreak, because this crap has been going on for some time. Older stories:

June 28, 2013: UK Government Announces New Intellectual Property Crime Unit
October 8, 2013: Police Demand Summary Domain Takedown, Traffic Redirection
October 9, 2013: UK Police Orders Registrars to Suspend Domains of Major Torrent Sites
December 9, 2013:

Here is one that is ongoing now.

> Right now the network is more or less open, except that we block access (by court order) to certain sites at the request of various copyright holder

Look into the history of DMCA "takedown orders". It can get quite odd: take a look at https://torrentfreak.com/fox-d... for how mentioning the takedown orders can lead to a takedown order.

Google already filters content (Try looking for porn images) they are able to filter torrents as well: harry potter filetype:torrent shows that they are unwilling to do so.
I also looked at torrenz.eu and I did not find that they are promoting piracy. They are a seachengine. Yes, they are focussed on torrents. Just read https://torrentz.eu/help
The real issue here is however not if what they do is legal or not and if it is, so is what Google is doing. The issue is that the police abused their power.

This is a standard way for police to try to get things done. This is NOT illegal and THAT is the reasl problem. From torrentfreak.com t the first instance of a website being confirmed as providing copyright infringing content, the site owner is contacted by officers at PIPCU and offered the opportunity to engage with the police, to correct their behaviour and to begin to operate legitimately. which means that the police decide who is guilty and who is not. That is NOT their job. What they must do is see if they THINK a crime has been done and then ask if that was reala the case or not and THAT is what the court is for. They will be deciding what action to take.

http://torrentfreak.com/pirate...

Why is there no link to the f* article in the summary?

At least on new GoT nights this would really help.

Season 4 episode 2 of game of thrones created a new record, with over 193000 concurrent seeds and over 1.5 million downloads in the first day.

as mentioned on torrentfreak, some shops use bittorrent for updating servers, for example, twitter and facebook:

According to Tom Cook of Facebookâ(TM)s systems engineering group, the daily code updates for Facebook used to cause a lot of trouble until they discovered BitTorrent.

âoeBitTorrent is fantastic for this, itâ(TM)s really great,â Cook said. âoeItâ(TM)s âsuperduperâ(TM) fast and it allows us to alleviate a lot of scaling concerns weâ(TM)ve had in the pastâ

source: http://torrentfreak.com/facebo... ....while they MAY be looking for p2p stuff for spreading video around... it is also possible job applicants would just be doing stuff behind the scenes, like theyve been doing elsewhere.

... heard the best software is AnyDVD, which is Windows only. Haven't tried it.

AnyDVD is great. It'll handle anything you throw at it, and the team releases frequent updates to handle new discs. They sell a yearly subscription to a lifetime subscription, and usually have some kind of discount promotion going on. "All" it does though is remove the encryption; you'll need something else to manipulate the now in-the-clear files. (I suggest HandBrake to MKV. Omit the startup menu and forced-leading ads, too.)

Imgburn states there's some occasional interaction with AnyDVD and it's after-burn disc verification, but I've never, ever seen that.

Be aware that 8 years ago when I bought the software direct from the vendor, the CC was disabled afterwards because the purchase originated from an odd place to them. Now-a-days I'd imagine they forward the purchase info to the MPAA for their "future reference and action".

Then again, DVDFab was some of their competition, but recently they've been forcibly "disappeared".

Really, the easiest thing to do is to buy the DVD/BR and then find a rip. They're normally available in different sizes and resolution and then you don't even have to go to the bother of opening the case, never mind the time and energy for a re-encode.

Not that I'd know about any of this. I've got a friend that told me about all that. Yeah, that's right; a friend.

And gues what happend with VPN services over the last few days? http://torrentfreak.com/turkey...

It also caused a huge jump in VPN signups. http://torrentfreak.com/turkey...

Ghostery
VPN
Delete cookies on exit
Telegram not Facebook
Don't play angry-birds!!

Join site(s) like 38 Degrees, Avaaz even with the god-awful tories in power, 38 Degrees have made a substantial difference many times.

Donate to EFF, UCL, etc.

http://torrentfreak.com/torren...

Of course, that's just more evidence that if only the industry made their material legally accessible in unrestricted forms (and save themselves some money by leaving subtitling to the masses, not bothering with behind-the-scenes and extras that aren't exactly the target of 'pirates', etc.), they could have had this revenue instead.

*flips coin on whether or not such a legal offering would end up costing more on lost sales and licensing from those who choose the legal path for legal path sake now, which would have to be substituted by ad revenue then*

New Zealand is playing the role of US puppy, as proved the Kim Dotcom house raid, breaking their own laws in the process as anyway the priority was coming from outside.

You won't fix US attitude from outside, and if you really want to run, don't do it to one of its own colonies.

Here you go:

http://torrentfreak.com/isps-n...

Just to clarify, the crime Vickerman was prosecuted for is Conspiracy to Defraud, purely for running SurfTheChannel, a streaming links site. This is quite a different law from Fraud, it's vaguer and much more prone to abuse - it seems to be FACT's go-to law whenever they realise a suspect they've spent time and money investigating isn't breaking any actual laws. Without it, Vickerman would probably never have been prosecuted for anything, although civil action would have been likely, IMO. If some defendant somewhere ever gets an appeal up to the ECJ, I think it quite possible they'll shoot the law down in flames, just for being so badly written. More information: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy_to_defraud http://torrentfreak.com/surfthechannel-owner-sentenced-to-four-years-in-jail-120814/

An excellent point. Thank you for correcting me. Civil action is appropriate in these situations. Unfortunately, content owners have co-opted our system to benefit themselves at the expense of the rest of us -- hence the criminalization of copyright infringement

Just to clarify, the crime Vickerman was prosecuted for is Conspiracy to Defraud, purely for running SurfTheChannel, a streaming links site.

This is quite a different law from Fraud, it's vaguer and much more prone to abuse - it seems to be FACT's go-to law whenever they realise a suspect they've spent time and money investigating isn't breaking any actual laws.

Without it, Vickerman would probably never have been prosecuted for anything, although civil action would have been likely, IMO.

If some defendant somewhere ever gets an appeal up to the ECJ, I think it quite possible they'll shoot the law down in flames, just for being so badly written.

More information:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy_to_defraud
http://torrentfreak.com/surfthechannel-owner-sentenced-to-four-years-in-jail-120814/

More than that, it creates a network effect, fans in places where it would be none, some of which getting the paid content, and there is, also, associated revenues (dvd/extended versions, merchandising, being first in the queue for the next release/season).

Your business don't exist in a vacuum, must take into account current reality and technology. Use that it can be copied and shared as an advantage, like Iron Maiden. After all, a good part of what defines us as humans is spreading memes, if you want to create a culture you must let it be distributed/copied/imitated/etc freely.

I'm pretty sure none of that was willful, more likely an extension of the pressure the US had been putting on the country ever since they managed to cave Sweden in over the Pirate Bay situation. Threatening trade restrictions and the destruction of one's economy is a grave grave thing, and once a country is broken and bows to your will, it doesn't change for a long time.

See: http://torrentfreak.com/wikileaks-cable-shows-us-involvement-in-swedish-anti-piracy-efforts-101207/

How many different BitTorrent clients are there? How did that happen...?

It would appear that Bittorrent the company considers the healthy bittorrent/client ecosystem to be a mistake not to be repeated. Like this chat protocol, they have also announced a P2P Streaming protcol - their implimentation will be closed source encumbered with patents that they have threated to use against anyone wishing to start an alternative open client. So even when they openly publish the protocol, it is still of no use the open source community. Don't believe me, take this quote from the horses mouth:

“We want people to use and adopt BitTorrent Live. But we aren’t planning on encouraging alternative implementation because [Insert pathetic excuse here]. We want to ensure a quality experience for all and this is the best approach for us to [i.e more pathetic excuses to close source the system],” Cohen told TorrentFreak.

So, yeah, You can read the protocol spec but try to impliment it and we will "discourage" you - i.e. use out patent(s) to clobber your OS project to oblivion. Personally I hope the open source community can take these interesting initiatives, design around the patents and make a true P2P Streaming and secure chat system ecosystem - because it appears that Bittorrent the company has fallen far from its early success of kicking off the truly open bittorrent protocol, sadly.

This entire thing really only makes sense if you take a look at it in terms of court costs. He was being prosecuted on 517 counts, which makes him, in my mind, much more than just a casual media pirate (as suggested by the summary). If the evidence was pretty much equally clear on each of the 517 movies, it probably saved a lot of court time and money to pin all of the substantial penalties on a single count and then suspend the rest of them. The downside for the court is that a huge amount of publicity it generated because of the "$650,000 for one movie" angle, whereas this might have caused less outrage if it had been a $1250 fine per movie, even if the total had been the same. If somebody else has another explanation as to why they would choose this bizarrely lopsided penalty, I'd like to hear it. Okay, scratch all of that. I read the related article, http://torrentfreak.com/largest-ever-bittorrent-tracker-movie-uploader-trial-concludes-131120/ and it says that only a single producer seeked damages. What an asshole, destroying someone's life for the sake of a 25 year old shitty horror movie.

In fact it's only the Guardian that mentions the words "temporary" and "accidentally". Stands to reason that regaining access in July is only a temporary loss, after all.

...[Amazon] gave him a different reason: "Amazon has explained to me that Disney can pull their content at any time and 'at this time they've pulled that show for exclusivity on their own channel.'" - The Guardian

..."Amazon has explained to me that Disney can pull their content at any time and 'at this time they've pulled that show for exclusivity on their own channel.' In other words, Amazon sold me a Christmas special my kids can't watch during the run up to Christmas. It'll be available in July though!" - Customer as quoted by Boing Boing

It's in my nature to believe what a company first tells a single angry customer over what they try to say in a PR backpedal.

Well, there's a couple of technical problems with that. While I'm certainly not a lawyer, I have informally discussed the issue with a friend of mine that is a lawyer. He raised a few of the following points, which I've supplemented.

First, it's not clear that this is actually theft. The crime of theft typically denies the owner of the property access to the property, which isn't the case with electronic documents. Rather, it's more likely to be a violation of the No Electronic Theft (NET) act. NET criminalizes copyright infringement. This may not be a bad approach given what kind of punishments one sees for copyright infringement Massachusetts. More often, the punishment for copyright infringement is fines and I think the prosecutor was looking for jail time.

As far as breaking and entering goes, that seems doubtful. The networking closet he accessed was unlocked. In fact, a homeless man used the area to store belongings. Again, I'm not a lawyer, but it seems to me that breaking and entering would be difficult to argue. Trespassing might be a more successful charge. Trespassing, though, is a relatively minor offense that's unlikely to produce a lengthy jail sentence.

Gottfrid Svartholm (amongst others) was held in solitary for months, without charge, despite the ruling of Stockholm's Tingsr. So it is hardly a red herring, we have a clear example of solitary being used without charge. If you dispute this or wish to claim you would have to prove beyond doubt that they cannot apply the same treatment to Assange, and empty promises will not suffice.

I read your other comment. The facts we have on hand don't support it. If we look at what Swedens justice system has done in similar cases we see that they are fully capable and willing to interview suspected murderers in Serbia, so they are perfectly capable of interviewing a "minor rape" accusation in London if they really cared about resolving the case for the girls. Claiming it is a translation issue ignores this fact and is indeed just a red herring, but I am sure you know that already.

One google and we see that Borgström was fired by Wilén, and he even said so himself so I am not sure what lie your referring to. Also you provide no evidence that there WAS DNA found - all reports show that there was none found and the forensics on the condom show that it was cut with a knife/scissors. If your claiming all these reports are lies you had better come up with some references.

It is just a matter of weighing up the facts we have on hand and calling out the bullshit when we see it, and this case reeks to high heaven from the moment Marianne Ny reopened the case after it had been dropped. You may very well be right about the charges not being dropped and that the case is in a holding pattern despite the enormous damage it is doing to Swedens reputation and credibility as each month passes. Too many powerful vested interests here.

He is probably referring to the mass-seizures of domain names wihtout due process, mostly used in intellectual property disputes against foreign entities without any defense against the US government.

He is probably referring to the mass-seizures of domain names wihtout due process, mostly used in intellectual property disputes against foreign entities without any defense against the US government.

He is probably referring to the mass-seizures of domain names wihtout due process, mostly used in intellectual property disputes against foreign entities without any defense against the US government.

According to this he is being charged in Denmark. The extradition is not just for question. Denmark wants to put him on trial.

(from TFA) It turned out that some things have been removed manually, including some Open Source software and people involved did this knowing that WB has absolutely no copyrights. So they lied to court that "it was done by computer" and now they argue they have right to censor works they don't have copyright rights without penalties. I don't have to stress how bad it would be if they set such precedent and defend it in courts. It's pretty much like going back to feudal times.

they were likely worried that the archive had scraped ISOHunt the way ArchiveTeam did.

http://movies.netflix.com/WiMovie/Grosse_Pointe_Blank/1153034?locale=en-US

That just takes me to the home page. Perhaps because Netflix detects I'm in .nl, realizes that it's not part of their offer in .nl, and so just dumps me to the main page.

The other two work fine, but I think you took 'most popular' a bit too literal, and perhaps a bit too narrow.

Since Netflix doesn't seem to actually allow you to see their full library unless you log in (I can see a small selection - this alone is a good reason to give Netflix a thumbs down over torrents), perhaps we could give the 'Top 10 this week' from torrentfreak a try through http://www.flicksery.com/ ?
http://torrentfreak.com/top-10-most-pirated-movies-of-the-week-131014/
1-10. no.

Or, if you want to stay on the legal avenue, the top 10 of 2012 according to imdb, rather than just the #1 slot?
http://www.imdb.com/year/2012/
1. Avengers - yes
2. Pitch Perfect - no
3. The Hunger Games - yes
4. The Dark Knight Rises - no
5. The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey - no
6. Argo - no
7. Django Unchained - no
8. The Place Beyond the Pines - no
9. Spring Breakers - no
10. The Motel Life - no

2013, according to box office*, then?
( * because new releases are heavily skewed toward high scores on imdb, and via box office we get to the same #1 for 2013 so far, Iron Man 3 )
http://www.imdb.com/search/title?at=0&sort=boxoffice_gross_us&title_type=feature&year=2013,2013
1. Iron Man 3 - no? Weird - though after some googling, perhaps it's only available from Netflix in DVD form, rather than streaming - canistream.it seems to suggests so as well? Perhaps you could clarify that one.
2-10. - no

Don't get me wrong, Netflix is a wonderful service and people who just want to watch whatever movies or TV shows will find more material there than they can watch in a year. But it's not all going to be material they want to watch, the material they want to watch may not be on there, and overall it's just a poor comparison - gets even worse when you're in .nl ;)

Even death by torture didn't stop copying. Time to eliminate copyright completely.

uh - think again.

http://torrentfreak.com/six-strikes-anti-piracy-scheme-starts-monday-130223/

Time Warner Cable will temporarily interrupt people's ability to browse the Internet.

https://ixquick.com/do/search?q=host%3Atorrentfreak.com+six+strikes+piracy&lui=english