ZNAK SAGITE — više od fantastike — edicija, časopis, knjižara...

Izmet je na putu da udari u fen: američki sudac traži da se suđenjem utvrdi je li IP adresa dovoljan dokaz protiv osobe u slučajevima koji se tiču kršenja prava na kopiranje i koji se često završavaju bansudskim poravnanjem jer studiji ucenjuju ljude govoreći im da imaju dokaz da je nešto deljeno preko njihove IP adrese. S obzirom koliko novca industrija zabave ima u priči... biće gusto. Naravno, mi, slobodni ljudi, smatramo da IP adresa ne može da se poistoveti sa čovekom, ali...

US judge orders piracy trial to test IP evidence

Quote
A landmark case in the US will test whether internet piracy claims made by copyright firms will stand up in court.
Such cases rely on identifying the IP address of machines from which content was illegally downloaded as evidence of wrongdoing.
Experts have questioned whether the IP address is sufficient evidence because it identifies an internet connection rather than an individual.
An adult film studio must take cases to court, a judge has ruled.
Malibu Media has instigated 349 mass lawsuits, 43 in Pennsylvania this year.
Most of the cases are settled out of court.

In one lawsuit, five of the anonymous defendants protested when their internet service providers were ordered to reveal their identities.
In a motion filed to the court they accuse Malibu Media of pursuing the cases "to extort settlements".
Judge Michael Baylson, of the Pennsylvania District Court, summarised their issues: "Among other things, the declaration asserts that the BitTorrent software does not work in the manner plaintiff alleges, and that a mere subscriber to an ISP is not necessarily a copyright infringer, with explanations as to how computer-based technology would allow non-subscribers to access a particular IP address."
He went on: "In other words... there is no reason to assume an ISP subscriber is the same person who may be using BitTorrent to download the alleged copyrighter material."
Because of these doubts, he said that a trial was needed "to decide who's right".
Because an IP address is assigned to a connection rather than a device it is often unclear who is using it. It is also possible, if a householder has not secured his or her wi-fi connection, for a neighbour or passerby to use it.
The TorrentFreak news site, which first reported the news, said: "Without a doubt, the trial is expected to set an important precedent."
Disrepute
Increasingly copyright holders in the US have begun mass lawsuits against thousands of individuals accusing them of illegally downloading copyrighted material via file-sharing service BitTorrent.
By studying BitTorrent sites the copyright owners gather IP addresses linked to illegal files. Via court orders they force ISPs to reveal the identities of the owners of the computers.
The UK faced a similar case in 2011 when solicitor Andrew Crossley brought a trial against a group of alleged illegal downloaders.
The use of IP evidence was raised but the focus of the case became the way ACS Law had conducted itself, described by the judge as "amateurish and slipshod".
Judge Colin Birss QC accused Mr Crossley of bringing the "legal profession into disrepute" and the case was dismissed.
Currently, UK-based Ben Dover Productions is pursing claims against 2,845 O2 customers accused of illegally downloading pornographic films.

Ali ovi Australijanci su majstori komedije. Dakle, vlasti pripremaju nacrt zakona o prismotri nad građanima ali odbijaju zahteve parlamentarne stranke da se nacrt obnaroduje jer smatraju da to nije u interesu javnosti 

Govt censors pre-prepared data retention bills

Quote
The Federal Attorney-General's Department has rejected a request by the Pirate Party of Australia to release draft legislation associated with the Government's controversial data retention and surveillance proposal, with the department stating that public interest factors did not outweigh the need to keep the material private as it was still being deliberated on.
The Federal Attorney-General's Department is currently promulgating a package of reforms which would see a number of wide-ranging changes made to make it easier for law enforcement and intelligence agencies to monitor what Australians are doing on the Internet. For example, one new power is a data retention protocol which would require ISPs to retain data on their customers' Internet and telephone activities for up to two years, and changes which would empower agencies to source data on users' activities on social networking sites.

The Pirate Party, which is an activist and political organisation which lobbies to maintain and extend Australians' digital rights and freedoms, issued a media release this morning noting that it had filed a Freedom of Information request with the department, seeking draft national security legislation which had been prepared in 2010 with respect to the current proposal. The draft legislation had been mentioned by the Sydney Morning Herald in an article in August.
However, the Attorney-General's Department wrote back to the organisation this weke, noting that the request had been denied. Logan Tudor, a legal officer with the department, wrote that he had decided that the draft legislation was exempted from being released because it contained material which was being deliberated on inside the department. "... the release of this material would, in my view, be contrary to the public interest," Tudor wrote.
In the Pirate Party's statement, its treasurer Rodney Serkowski described the response by the Attorney-General's Department as "disgraceful and troubling".
"They have completed draft legislation, prior to any transparent or consultative process, and are now denying access to that legislation, for reasons that are highly dubious and obviously politically motivated," wrote Serkowski. "The Department is completely trashing any semblance or notion of transparency or participative democratic process of policy development."
The Parliament's Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security commenced an inquiry into the proposed reforms several months ago, following a request by Federal Attorney-General Nicola Roxon to do so. However, the inquiry has not been provided with the text of any associated legislation, and is only discussing the issues on the basis of a discussion paper provided by the department on the proposal.
"Where the legislative proposals almost certainly mean the complete erosion of fundamental freedoms like privacy, it is in the public interest that we are able to access the text of such proposals so as to properly inform public debate," wrote Serkowski. "We want transparent government and private citizens, not the opposite." The party noted that it would appeal the department's decision to the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner, seeking to have the draft legislation and associated preparatory texts released.
On a related issue, the Pirate Party noted that a supplemental it made regarding the National Security Inquiry to the parliamentary committee in response to an open letter made by Attorney General Nicola Roxon and a submission made by ASIO had not yet been accepted by the parliamentary committee. "Despite being received by the Committee Secretary over a week ago, it is yet to be accepted by the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security," the organisation wrote. "The Pirate Party notes that ASIO were able to make a submission after the deadline."
"The so-called clarifications of the data retention regime by both ASIO and Nicola Roxon did nothing to allay our fears of having everything we do online tracked," said Simon Frew, Pirate Party Australia's Deputy President. "We felt it necessary to respond explaining how meta-data amounts to tracking every website every person visits, not by content, but by providing the IP address or web domain."  "The fact that our supplemental submission has yet to be accepted heightens concerns that the Committee will rubber stamp legislation that we are being denied access to. The whole Inquiry is starting to look like a charade of a consultation with the result being pre-ordained long before the terms of reference were even announced."
Background
The denial of the Pirate Party's FoI request comes as opposition to the data retention and surveillance proposal continues to grow. This week, Shadow Communications Minister Malcolm Turnbull broke his silence regarding the package, declaring that he has "grave misgivings" about a project which he feels "seems to be heading in precisely the wrong direction".
"Without wanting to pre-empt the conclusions of the Parliamentary Committee, I must record my very grave misgivings about the proposal," Turnbull told the audience. "It seems to be heading in precisely the wrong direction. Surely as we reflect on the consequences of the digital shift from a default of forgetting to one of perpetual memory we should be seeking to restore as far as possible the individual's right not simply to their privacy but to having the right to delete that which they have created in the same way as can be done in the analogue world."
In general, the Government's data retention and surveillance package has attracted a significant degree of criticism from the wider community over the past few months since it was first mooted. Digital rights lobby group Electronic Frontiers Australia has described the new powers as being akin to those applied in restrictive countries such as China and Iran, while the Greens have described the package as "a systematic erosion of privacy".
In separate submissions to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security inquiry into the reforms, a number of major telecommunications companies including iiNet and Macquarie Telecom, as well as telco and ISP representative industry groups, have expressed sharp concern over aspects of the reform package, stating that "insufficient evidence" had been presented to justify them. And Victoria's Acting Privacy Commissioner has labelled some of the included reforms as "being characteristic of a police state".
The Institute of Public Affairs, a conservative and free market-focused think tank, wrote in its submission to the parliamentary inquiry on the matter that many of the proposals of the Government were "unnecessary and excessive. "The proposal ... is onerous and represents a significant incursion on the civil liberties of all Australians," wrote the IPA in its submission, arguing that the data retention policy should be "rejected outright". And one Liberal backbencher, Steve Ciobo, has described the new proposal as being akin to "Gestapo" tactics.
In addition, several weeks ago The Australian newspaper reported that about a dozen Coalition MPs had bitterly complained about the data retention proposals in a passionate party room meeting, with Opposition Leader Tony Abbott being urged to directly pressure the Government on the issue.
Roxon and agencies such as the Australian Federal Police have attempted to justify the need for a data retention scheme by stating that the increasing use of the Internet by criminals has made traditional telecommunications interception powers less useful.
"The need to consider a data retention scheme has come about because of changes in technology that have affected the behaviour of criminal and national security suspects," said Roxon recently. "Targets of interest now utilise the wide range of telecommunications services available to them to communicate, coordinate, manage and carry out their activities. The ability to lawfully access telecommunications data held by the telecommunications industry enables investigators to identify and build a picture of a suspect, provides vital leads of inquiry and creates evidence for alibis and prosecutions."
opinion/analysis
It's hard not to conclude that the whole data retention and surveillance issue, the so-called 'National Security Inquiry', is rapidly descending into a farce.
The Federal Parliament is examining the issue but does not have any access to the draft legislation which details how the proposal will actually be implemented. The Federal Attorney-General's Department wrote the legislation several years before it even asked the Parliament to examine the issue, and now won't release that draft legislation. And meanwhile, the Federal Attorney-General continues to insist she is maintaining an objective stance on the issue, despite having pushed it publicly. In the meantime, at least one commentator has alleged – and I agree – that the whole proposal has nothing much to do with the current politicians running the Federal Government, but is in fact being backed by the Attorney-General's Department itself, which is using Roxon herself as a front for its data retention plans.
At the same time, almost every organisation or individual which has commented on the proposal has stridently opposed it, and the only organisations actually pushing for it are law enforcement bodies such as the Australian Federal Police and Australian Security and Intelligence Organisation, both of which have not provided evidence for how the current data retention system is failing. To make matters worse, the Government only boosted its data retention powers several months ago with the enactment of new cybercrime legislation. Meanwhile, the proposal remains unpopular with the general population, who are overwhelmingly opposed to it. Is there anything else which could demonstrate that this whole situation is a farce?

 

Ima li neko od vas problema sa www.warez-bb.org? Meni stalno izbacuje da se stranica ne može učitati....

http://warez-bb.org.netirk.com/

Definitivno se problematično učitava poslednjih dana, nije samo nama, vidim da i na samom bordu juzeri kukaju da se opravi situacija.

Privremeno rešenje za Warez-BB:

Quote
Got to C:\Windows\System32\drivers\etc

Open hosts file using notepad, add this

119.42.146.34 www.warez-bb.org
119.42.146.34 warez-bb.org

119.42.146.36 www.warez-bb.org
119.42.146.36 warez-bb.org

Save it, clear your browser cache, login! Working fine

Credits to the guy who made this patch...

Pirate Bay Moves to The Cloud, Becomes Raid-Proof

The Pirate Bay has made an important change to its infrastructure. The world's most famous BitTorrent site has switched its entire operation to the cloud.  From now on The Pirate Bay will serve its users from several cloud hosting providers scattered around the world. The move will cut costs, ensure better uptime, and make the site virtually invulnerable to police raids -- all while keeping user data secure.Source: Pirate Bay Moves to The Cloud, Becomes Raid-Proof

http://torrentfreak.com/pirate-bay-moves-to-the-cloud-becomes-raid-proof-121017/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+Torrentfreak+%28Torrentfreak%29

Ono što svi znaju i što je na krakju krajeva potpuno logično. Troše pare oni koji su zainteresovani i troše onoliko koliko imaju. Ma znaju to i kompanije.


http://www.b92.net/tehnopolis/vesti.php?yyyy=2012&mm=10&nav_id=652519

Ovo je sve tačno, ali problem je što se u masi sve manje muzike prodaje. Dakle, pirati kupuju više od ostalih ali svi, i pirati i ostali, kupuju manje nego ranije.

Dakle, nije ovo tako jednostavan problem.

Evo još malo statistike koja je u najmanju ruku interesantna:

Have we lost 41 percent of our musicians? Depends on how you (the RIAA) count

Quote
He appeared before the Personal Democracy conference in New York City on June 12 of this year. Such was the tension in the audience as Cary Sherman approached the stage that the moderator offered some cautionary words.
"The world changed this winter with the fight over SOPA and PIPA, and everybody is evaluating what that means," his introduction to the guest began. "To some degree it is a cliche; it is a little bit like Daniel entering the lion's den... I also think we owe him the same civility that we would respond to any controversial speaker no matter how controversial their views, so I'm expecting you all to treat him with respect."
With that, the CEO of the Recording Industry Association of America took the podium and, to no one's surprise, inveighed against copyright infringement and piracy. No sparks flew. The audience treated Sherman in a cordial and friendly manner. They even laughed at his jokes, which is probably why his presentation didn't get much immediate news play.
One factoid from the speech, however, has taken on a life of its own. Sherman offered it alongside a chart about 14 minutes into the speech.
"The fact that I think is very interesting, but I think that most people don't know, is that there are fewer people trying to make money as musicians today," he explained.
"According to BLS [Bureau of Labor Statistics] data from the Federal government, the number of people who self describe themselves as musicians has declined since 1999 by 41 percent. Obviously piracy is not just a problem for our economy, but for our culture too."

A difficult reality to stomach I didn't hear about this revelation at Sherman's talk. Like lots of other tech industry observers, I first learned about it on a Twitter log, mine coming from indie radio station @WFMU in New Jersey: "US Bureau of Labor Statistics:" the @WFMU tweet solemnly declared, "There Are 41% Fewer Paid Musicians Today Than in 1999."
The missive's hyperlink pointed to a post at Digital Music News, founded by former Epic Records marketer Paul Resnikoff.
"There's more music being created than ever before, but paradoxically, musicians are making less," Resnikoff's commentary explained. "Which means there are also fewer musicians and music professionals enjoying gainful employment, thanks to a deflated ecosystem once primed by major labels and marked-up CDs."
"It's a difficult reality to stomach, especially given years of misguided assumptions about digital platforms. But it's not really a revolution if it's not getting people paid. And according to stats supplied by the US Department of Labor, there are 41 percent fewer paid musicians since 1999."
Below this sad declaration came the following chart, which shows a long drop in paid musicians and in recorded music shipment sales, followed by a link to Sherman's presentation.

Digital Music News Disturbed by this revelation, I followed the trail of comments stemming from Resnikoff's missive, which quarreled over the ethics of illegal file sharing and the efficacy of various business models. But what struck me was that none of these debaters double checked the arithmetic construed from the table. After all, if you think about it, this is an astounding claim to make: that the United States has lost something approaching half of its paid musicians since 1999.
So I checked the figures myself, using the basic percentage change formula that I was taught in high school (which, admittedly, was a long time ago): (P2 - P1) / P1 x 100 = percentage change.
If you look at the Digital Music News version of the chart, it looks like the orange bar over 1999 comes to about 49,000 "musicians & artists." Let's call that our P1. The orange bar over 2011 comes to around 34,000 or so. That's our P2.
Next, plug in the numbers: 34,000 minus 49,000 equals negative 15,000, that difference divided by 49,000, then multiplied by 100 equals negative 30.6 percent.
In other words: a 30.6 percent decline. To be fair, a 30 percent drop isn't 41 percent, but it is still a big fall. Given the discrepancy, however, I began wondering about the numbers themselves. So I went to the Bureau of Labor Statistics' web site myself. The first and most obvious numbers I found were the Occupation Employment Statistics National Cross Industry figures for "musicians and singers" in 2011 (ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/special.requests/oes/oesm11nat.zip) (zip / excel): 42,530, and the OES figures for 1999 (ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/special.requests/oes/oesnat99.zip) (zip / excel): 46,440.
And I ran that formula again.
42,530 (P2) - 46,440 (P1) / 46,440 (P1) x 100 = 8.4 percent decline.
8.4 percent, I'm sure most readers will agree, is a long way from 41 percent.
Working over time At this point I realized that it was time for me to contact the RIAA itself, and ask them to explain where they got their figures and how they did their math. In response, RIAA executive Jonathan Lamy pointed me to this chart, published on the trade association's blog pages in 2010.

Enlarge / source: RIAA Music Notes [riaa.com] RIAA His e-mail cc'ed RIAA marketing expert Josh Friedlander. "Josh tells me that particular BLS data comparison of July '99 vs August 2011 yields 41% decline," Lamy wrote.
This table (above) is somewhat different from the Digital Music News display. Aside from the fact that it doesn't mention 2011 (having been produced a year earlier), it reverses the graphics indicators for "musicians and artists" (they're now declining in linear rather than orange bar fashion). But by my simple percentage change formula, the descent is fairly mild. If there were 45,000 "musicians and artists" in 1999 and about 39,000 in 2009, the drop comes to about 13.33 percent.
So I wrote to RIAA yet again. How did you produce 41 percent, and where did you get your data figures? (After all, I was looking at "musicians and singers" and they said they were tracking "musicians and artists.").
"As far as the 41%, from that data set," came Friedlander's reply, "if you look at any of a variety of months between late 1999 and 2011 and 2012 (such as July '99 vs Aug '11) you can see declines around the 41% level (different months yield different figures, but some are even higher than 41%)."
As for the data, I was told that they came from North American Industry Classification System categories. NAICS is basically a cross agency/industry system for studying sectors of the North American economy.
"Although I don't know if anyone outside the agency can call themselves experts on Bureau labor data," Friedlander explained, "my understanding is that the occupational statistics you link to below are simply a different way of looking at the same underlying data that I used characterized by the industry NAICS codes. I think the NAICS codes provide better aggregation across fields, while the OES charts break out the data in a way that is more difficult to work with over time."
Indeed, the BLS advises statisticians that the OES figures I used should be taken with a grain of salt, in large part because job classifications keep changing as industries change.
For example: "Workers in newly classified occupations, such as systems software engineers and applications software engineers, may have been reported as computer programmers in the past," BLS warns. "Therefore, even occupations that appear the same in the two systems may show employment shifts due to the addition or deletion of related occupations."
But in 2002, the BLS transitioned to the very NAICS classification system that RIAA says that it used. So I plugged in the national estimates for "musicians and singers" for that year up to 2011, a pretty solid chunk of time. 53,940 for 2002; 42,530 for 2011. That gave me a 21 percent decline.
Not either/or I decided to show RIAA some of my numbers and press for more details on theirs' one more time.
"You are looking at YEAR vs. YEAR," came the reply. "Please read Josh's note closely: we looked at MONTHLY data: one month in a year vs. another month a year. Comparison between July '99 vs. August 2011. What you find AND what we said can BOTH be right. It's not either/or. It depends on what date you compare."
The problem with this response was that Sherman's categorical statement that we've seen a 41 percent drop in the number of musicians and artists since 1999 wasn't based on a monthly chart. It was based on the yearly table that he showed the Personal Democracy conference.

It's hard to make out the figures on this screenshot from Cary Sherman's presentation at the Personal Democracy conference. But the chart clearly tracks job decline in years, rather than months. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mSUsiVnvS2w&feature=youtu.be But the second part of RIAA's response is spot on. Both the RIAA and I could be right. More likely: we could both be wrong. It would be irresponsible for me to conclude that, based on my earlier mentioned OES figures and personal calculations, the US has seen a decline in musicians and singers of "only" 8.4 percent. Equally dubious is the assertion that the drop came to 41 percent, "according to BLS data"—not to mention the corollary assertion that the fall, whatever the percentage, can be clearly linked to illegal downloads.
In the end, there is just too much conflicting information to produce a single, simple sound bite or tweet quality number. That's why the Bureau of Labor Statistics puts all its occupation related tables on its archives page—so that social scientists will see the variant ways in which jobs and professions have been tracked over the last decade.
> 17,000 musicians needed It is worth ending this cautionary tale with a review of the BLS's own occupational handbook projection for musician/singer employment in the near future. Note that the handbook cites a much higher employment figure for both trades in 2010 than mentioned in the above tables: about 176,200 musicians and singers. That's because it comes from the Bureau's National Employment Matrix, I was told, which adds additional data sources.

Bureau of Labor Statistics Employment for musicians and singers is expected to grow by ten percent over the decade—"about as fast as the average for all occupations," the government notes:

The number of people attending musical performances, such as orchestra, opera, and rock concerts, is expected to increase from 2010 to 2020. As a result, more musicians and singers will be needed to play at these performances.
There will be additional demand for musicians to serve as session musicians and backup artists for recordings and to go on tour. Singers will be needed to sing backup and to make recordings for commercials, films, and television.

It's not all good news. "Growth will likely be limited as orchestras, opera companies, and other musical groups have difficulty getting funding," the agency warns. And although some musicians will work for non-profits or seek corporate sponsorships, "during economic downturns, these organizations may have trouble finding enough funding to cover their expenses."
A very mixed bag, but the summary does not mention the impact of illegal downloading anywhere. "Musicians and singers with exceptional musical talent should have the best opportunities," the assessment concludes.

Kad bolje razmislimo, zaista je apsurdno da neke zemlje izručuju svoje građane SAD zato što su optuženi za prestupe koji su se desili izvan teritorije SAD:

The Long Reach Of US Extradition 

Quote
Should foreign governments give up their nationals to the US to 'face justice' over minor crimes committed outside US borders? What about in civil matters, like copyright infringement? Kellie Tranter on America's thirst for extradition He was hailed as "incredibly brave" to stand up to the United States, but British computer hacker Gary McKinnon only narrowly avoided being extradited there. He had already been indicted by a US federal grand jury in Virginia in November 2002. UK home secretary Theresa May halted his extradition because of medical reports warning that McKinnon would kill himself were he to stand trial in the United States.
The US state department was disappointed with the decision not to extradite McKinnon for "long overdue justice". His case highlights unanswered questions about political extradition cases more generally. In 2007 former NSW Chief Judge in Equity, Justice Peter Young, highlighted in the Australian Law Journal "the bizarre fact that people are being extradited to the US to face criminal charges when they have never been to the US and the alleged act occurred wholly outside the US".
Justice Young's comments were raised in the context of the case of Hew Griffiths, an Australian who was the first person in the world to be extradited and criminally prosecuted in the United States for copyright infringement. Griffiths had been involved with the group Drink or Die, which decoded copy-protected software and media products and distributed them free of cost. He was indicted by the now infamous US District Court in Alexandria, Virginia for copyright infringement and conspiracy to infringe copyright under the US Code.
Griffiths was clinically depressed, unemployed, had never made money from his activities, had no prior convictions, and was incarcerated in Silverwater and Parklea for three years, because there is no presumption of bail in extradition cases. British-based members of Drink or Die were tried in Britain, just as Griffiths could have been charged, and tried, in an Australian court.
Justice Young pointed out at the time that:

"...although International copyright violations are a great problem... there is also the consideration that a country must protect its nationals from being removed from their homeland to a foreign country merely because the commercial interests of that foreign country are claimed to have been affected by the person's behaviour in Australia and the foreign country can exercise influence over Australia.. Assuming this decision is correct, should not the Commonwealth Parliament do more to protect Australians from this procedure?"

The Howard government was widely criticised at the time for forsaking Hew Griffiths. Australia's negotiations for a free trade agreement with the United States were then underway. They covered cooperation on intellectual property issues and theoretically enhanced the risk of Australian citizens being extradited and prosecuted in the United States for copyright infringement carried out here. But the focus was on harmonising copyright laws and there was nothing specifically providing for the extradition of nationals from one country to the other.
Justice Young's surprise remains well founded. There appears to be a trend to use extradition laws in US copyright and intellectual property cases. If copyright and/or intellectual property laws are not enforced they are worth nothing. Some may argue that global enforcement of IP rights is a new form of economic imperialism, with the long arm of the Government using criminal enforcement powers to enforce commercial interests at the behest of corporations and their lobbyists. It's about power.
The 2010 US Joint Strategic Plan (pdf) on Intellectual Property Enforcement describes the use of foreign based and foreign controlled websites and web services to infringe American intellectual property rights as a growing problem that undermines America's national security, particularly national economic security, and vowed to increase international collaborative efforts through international organisations, such as the World Intellectual Property Organisation, the World Trade Organisation, the World Customs Organisation, the World Health Organisation, the Group of Twenty Finance Ministers and Central Bank Governors, INTERPOL (used by some to pursue political dissenters), Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation and the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.
Add to that the possible ratification of the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA), criticised by Australia's Joint Standing Committee on Treaties because of the ambiguity of its language, the disproportionality of criminal offences for copyright infringement and the need for independent economic analysis of the anticipated costs and benefits to Australia.
And to cap it off there's Australia's participation in negotiations for the secretive, multi-national Trans Pacific Partnership Agreement which contains an intellectual property chapter. Members of the press are barred from attending the sessions but 600 corporations are directly participating.
In March this year Australia's lead negotiator, Hamish McCormick, reportedly declined to give assurances that participants will not agree to anything that undermines Australian law.
All of these developments fit the international trend towards the enactment of harmonised laws that give multinational protection to commercial interests to the detriment of national sovereignty. 
And is it any coincidence that the international IP protective matrix is being constructed in tandem with a co-ordinated international move towards increased social media monitoring and data gathering, and hugely expanded data retention and analysis capabilities? According to the Electronic Frontier Foundation, unnamed parties are even seeking to broaden the uses of European Union Data Retention Directive to include prosecution of copyright infringement.
As recently amended, Australia's extradition laws enable a person to be extradited for minor offences (punishable by less than 12 months imprisonment); any offence proscribed by Australian regulations are among those that will no longer be considered political, and extradition is not precluded if the person faces cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment that is not severe enough to amount to torture. The level of proof required for US extradition isn't high: "evidence sufficient to cause a person of ordinary prudence and caution to conscientiously entertain a reasonable belief of the accused's guilt".
Justice Young's comments reflected concerns about basic conceptions of laws and individual liberty. The game has changed, and is changing, for the worse. What is to become of kids who blithely ignore intellectual property rights online? What is to become of individuals who engage in non-violent political protest on the internet? How many of us really consider the potential risks of our online activities? Will our Attorney-General use the discretion she has to stop extradition of an Australian citizen? Into what other areas will extraditable offences stretch merely to protect commercial interests reframed as "national economic security"?

 The Pirate Bay Founder's Jailing Sounds a Little Extreme  

Quote
Things aren't looking awesome for Pirate Bay founder Gottfrid Svartholm, who's currently under lock and key in a newly built jail about 15 minutes north of Stockholm. Svartholm's mother Kristina says that her 28-year-old boy is being held in solitary confinement for 23 hours a day without any human contact other than his interactions with the guards. It's been nearly two months since Svartholm was arrested in Cambodia, where he'd been living for years, and extradited back to Sweden, where he's due to spend a year behind bars and pay a $1.1 million for copyright offenses related to his role at the Pirate Bay. But that's not why Sweden's being so tough on him in prison. Authorities believe he may have played a role in the hacking of Logica, a Swedish technology company with ties to the country's tax authorities. They haven't charged him with any crimes yet in that case, however.
As he awaits his fate — or at least an indication of what crime he might be tried for next — Svartholm sounds pretty bored. Swedish authorities first threw him in solitary in order "to prevent him from having contact with other people" because they feared he may "continue with criminal activities" if left to wander the Earth like a free man. They're also afraid that he might "might destroy evidence and disturb the investigation" into the crime he's not yet been charged for. For at least the first month of his detainment, Svartholm was kept away from all media and denied visitors.
That situation's loosened up a little bit, but Svartholm's life in the Häktet i Sollentuna prison certainly doesn't sound like a vacation at Club Med. "He is kept under restrictions as decided by the prosecutor. TV in his cell. He can buy cigarettes and sweets from a kiosk that comes Monday and Wednesdays," his mother told TorrentFreak. "He is offered one hour 'outdoors' each day in some kind of exercise yard with high concrete walls. That is all he is allowed to leave his cell for. No gym, no opportunities to meet other people except for the guards. ... I have got permission so far from the prosecutor to meet him once a week for an hour each time, together with two policemen who listen to our conversations and stop us if we get close to the 'case', which we happened to do in the beginning."
Governments love to go hard on hackers. Whether it's Bradley Manning being held without charges for years, sometimes in solitary confinement, and Julian Assange hiding out in an Ecuadorian embassy for fear of extradition to the United States, it's unclear exactly how extreme authorities are willing to get to keep geeks-deemed-dangerous at bay. There's even been discussion about giving hackers the death penalty. In lieu of that, it seems like government officials have decided that breaching information security is enough of a crime to lock these guys up and throw away the key.

A koliko je muzičara ostalo u Srbiji? To sigurno nije zbog piraterije nego zbog monopola.

Швецки дегенерици.

Kim Dotcom se vraća:

Dotcom Outs Mega Teaser Site, Finalizes Me.ga as Domain Name

Quote
Kim Dotcom has let out more information about the launch of Megaupload's successor Mega, which he claims will be "bigger, better, faster, stronger, [and] safer."  Previously, through a tweet Dotcom revealed that Mega will be launching on the anniversary of Megaupload's closure i.e. January 20 next year. The teaser site claims that the documents uploaded by users on the new service will be a lot safer as they will be encrypted and decrypted in the users' browser, rather than through the site. "You hold the keys to what you store in the cloud, not us," reads the site.


Mega is currently looking for partners those are willing to provide servers, supports and connectivity and become "Mega Storage Nodes." The prime requirement, according to Dotcom, is that the servers should be located outside of the US and that the companies should also be based outside of the US.


The site notes, "It is not safe for cloud storage sites or any business allowing user-generated content to be hosted on servers in the United States, or on domains like .com/.net. The US government is frequently seizing domains without offering service providers a hearing or due process." For this reason, Dotcom has decided that the new service will be launching with "Me.ga" domain name.


Mega is also looking for investors in a bid to keep the service free. Mega's software development kit will be available to those enrolling as API partners.


In related news, the Prime Minister of New Zealand apologized to Dotcom in September, after an internal investigation into the Megaupload case revealed that the NZ Government Communications Security Bureau had illegally spied on Dotcom which led to his arrest. 

Дакле, све очи пиратског света биће упрте у досад за тај свет безначајну државу Габон! 

Videćemo, navodno, marokanski Maroc telecom zapravo polaže pravo na .ga domen, a njega opet poseduje Vivendi, dakle francuska korporacija, tako da, mislim siguran sam da je Kim Dotkom sve procenio, ali da li je ovo dovoljno odmaknuto od Amerike, videće se.

Quote from: Джон Рейнольдс on 03-11-2012, 11:06:45
Дакле, све очи пиратског света биће упрте у досад за тај свет безначајну државу Габон! 

Вјероватно неће проћи много времена прије него што се испостави да се тамо жестоко крше права жена/црнаца/хомосексуалаца/ју-нејм-ит и америчке власти одлуче да им донесу демократију Либија-стајл.

Много је битније где ће сервери бити, регистровани домен је од мањег значаја. Имам на Фајерфоксу апликацију која ми показује где се налази сервер сајта на коме сам (заправо, показује заставицу) и ту има занимљивих података типа да је ifolder, то јест сад rusfolder, иако потпуно на руском, заправо лоциран у Чешкој. DepositFiles је на Кипру. Али је зато Mediafire, наравно, у САД.

Или сајтови с линковима... Avax је регистрован у Самои (.ws домен), али им је сервер у Русији. Rlslog је сав у Шведској. Rapidmoviez - Немачка.

итд.

Mikrosoft podnosi patent koji smrdi nečovještvom    Naime, dok gledate televiziju, i ona će gledati vas, putem kinect kamere ili nečeg sličnog i ako prebroji da u sobi ima više ljudi nego što ste platili da gleda dati film na kablovskoj, tražiće dodatnu uplatu ili prestati sa emitovanjem filma:

Xbox team's 'consumer detector' would dis-Kinect freeloading TV viewers 

Quote
A newly surfaced patent filing from Microsoft's Xbox Incubation team details one of the new innovations they've been thinking about. This one could be very popular among major movie and television studios. But it probably wouldn't generate much excitement among Xbox users.
The patent application, filed under the heading "Content Distribution Regulation by Viewing User," proposes to use cameras and sensors like those in the Xbox 360 Kinect controller to monitor, count and in some cases identify the people in a room watching television, movies and other content. The filing refers to the technology as a "consumer detector."
In one scenario, the system would then charge for the television show or movie based on the number of viewers in the room. Or, if the number of viewers exceeds the limits laid out by a particular content license, the system would halt playback unless additional viewing rights were purchased.
The system could also take into account the age of viewers, limiting playback of mature content to adults, for example. This patent application doesn't explain how that would work, but a separate Microsoft patent application last year described a system for using sensors to estimate age based on the proportions of their body.
Xbox Incubation GM Alex Kipman (Microsoft File Photo) Inventors listed on the latest application include Xbox Incubation GM Alex Kipman, who led the development of Kinect. The others are Andrew Fuller, Xbox director of incubation; and Kathryn Stone Perez, executive producer of Xbox Incubation.
Also notable are references in the application to a glasses-style head-mounted display as one of the viewing options — another possible clue to the types of things the Xbox Incubation team is working on.
The patent application, made public this week, was originally submitted in April 2011. Filings such as these provide a sense for what a company's engineers and researchers have been contemplating, but it's not clear if Microsoft actually plans to roll out the "consumer detector" as part of the next generation of Xbox or Kinect or anything else.
Even if the technology were introduced, it seems like there would be endless ways of avoiding it, unless a broad base of technology and content providers were on board.
But who knows, maybe someday you'll need to be extra careful how many people you invite to your big Super Bowl party ... unless you're willing to pony up a few more bucks.

 

Ali zato Kim Dotcom planira da krene u plemenitu misiju da obezbedi Novozelanđanima besplatan broudbend internet, tako što će se postaviti novi optički kabl po pacifičkom dnu koji će voditi do SAD. Projekat bi koštao oko 400 milijuna dolara ali Kim veli da će pare namaći tako što će da tuži holivudske studije i američku vladu za nezakonito i politizovano uništenje Megauploada    Kakva trolčina!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Očekivano, vlasti Gabona su odmah suspendovale domen me.ga jer se (Amerikanci) plaše da će Kim Dotkom putem istoga omogućavati kršenje autorskih prava:

Me.ga Suspended, Dotcom Says "We Have Alternative Domain"  

Quote
  Kim Dotcom's plan of launching a "bigger, better, faster, stronger, safer" Megaupload successor, Mega, is already in peril as Gabon's government has suspended the domain www.me.ga.  Announcing his decision, Gabon's Communication Minister Blaise Louembe said "I have instructed my departments... to immediately suspend the site www.me.ga" in a bid to "protect intellectual property rights" and "fight cyber crime effectively" notes AFP.


"Gabon cannot serve as a platform or screen for committing acts aimed at violating copyrights, nor be used by unscrupulous people," the minister added.


Dotcom unveiled his plans of using the me.ga domain name last week along with an announcement that the new site will be launching on January 20, 2013.  Louembe revealed that me.ga was being held by someone in France and that it was then transferred to Dotcom. Currently the domain is getting redirected to some twitter account.


Dotcom didn't stay silent following the suspension and has tweeted that he is in possession on an alternative domain name and that the recent suspension   

hm... torent Polarisovog CD-a koji sam skinuo sa demonoida mi je iznenada postao aktivan. pokazuje da ima sidere i ličere, kao i da je treker u funkciji, mada demonoid.me i dalje ne radi.

Demonoid Is Back, BitTorrent Tracker is Now Online

Čovek u Misisipiju dobio 15 godina zatvora jer je prodavao rezane DVDjeve   Petnaest. Godina. Zatvora.

Quote from: Meho Krljic on 15-11-2012, 13:10:05
Čovek u Misisipiju dobio 15 godina zatvora jer je prodavao rezane DVDjeve   Petnaest. Godina. Zatvora.

Kladio bih se u saku stidnih dlacica da je u pitanju neki garagan. 

Naravno:

http://www.a-w-i-p.com/index.php/news/2012/11/14/copyright-terror-man-sentenced-to




Pritom, da ne bude zabune, čovek je kriv, već je osuđivan zbog prodaje piratskih diskova, a jednom zbog napada na policajca, a Misisipi je "threes strikes" država gde ti treća osuda donosi grdnu zatvorsku kaznu...

Svejedno: petnaest godina je ludilo kad znamo da je u Americi prosek osude za silovanje 11,8 godina...

jbg famozni treći put

Adama i Evu su izbacili iz Raja zbog istog prekršaja. I ne samo njih, nego i njihovo potomstvo.

Prodavali su piracke DVDjeve??? Znači Biblija nas laže??? 

iOS dictionary app maker working on new way to shame pirates

QuoteEarlier this week, we reported the story of an iOS app maker intent on shaming pirates by hijacking users' Twitter accounts in order to post a message saying "How about we all stop using pirated iOS apps? I promise to stop. I really will. #softwarepirateconfession."

This anti-piracy campaign was certainly unique, but it backfired. Many customers who paid as much as $50 for dictionary applications for their iPhones and iPads were targeted, because the system went into place without being capable of distinguishing between pirates and non-pirates.

We've exchanged a few e-mails with Enfour, the company in question, to find out how the anti-piracy system was supposed to work, and whether the company plans to try again. In short, Enfour blamed the problem on "old code" that has now been taken out of the apps and thrown in the trash. But Enfour isn't done—it's busy working on a new and better way of targeting pirates.

Rapidshare za svaki slučaj uvodi određene restrikcije:

How RapidShare Plans To Avoid MegaUpload's Fate  

Quote
It's not everyday an Internet company watches its traffic numbers plummet - and rejoices. But that is precisely the scenario that cloud storage service RapidShare finds itself in as it seeks to draw a clear distinction between its business model and that of the now-defunct Megaupload.
Since the raid that saw Megaupload shut down and its founder arrested last last year, RadidShare and similar services have been taking measures to reduce piracy on their networks, in many cases limiting their functionality and potentially sacrificing the overall user experience. If it means avoiding the fate of Megaupload, even drastic changes are worth it to these companies.
On November 27, RapidShare will start putting a tight cap on outbound downloads for its free users. Paid members will still have 30 gigabytes in outbound downloads per day, but everybody else will be capped at one gigabyte. This will apply to public downloads, whereas direct Dropbox-style sharing between users won't be affected. The change is expected to further deter pirates from using RapidShare to distribute copyright material on a large scale.
An Ongoing, Newly Urgent Battle The download caps are just the latest in a list of anti-piracy moves the company has made, as Chief Legal Officer Daniel Raimer outlined in a presentation at the Future of Music Summit in Washington, D.C. earlier this week. Those earlier efforts include a three-strike policy for repeat infringers and Web-crawling technology that helps RapidShare find links to illegal content so it can take corrective measures with those accounts.
"That's really helpful to delete a lot of accounts in a short amount of time and to get rid of a lot of piracy that happens on a large scale," Raimer told ReadWrite in an interview after his talk. "It's kind of hard to identify guys who do piracy on a very low level, like some Norwegian kid who has a music blog with very low traffic. Sooner or later that guy is going to be detected."
Earlier this year, RapidShare published a document titled "Responsible Practices For Cloud Storage Services" (see below), which outlines an anti-piracy framework for cyberlockers like to use in dealing with DMCA (Digital Millennium Copyright Act) takedown requests to remove allegedly pirated content and policing activity on their services.
RapidShare Handicaps Itself To Save Its Own Life In the case of RapidShare, the association with piracy is difficult to shake. For years, links to RapidShare pages containing movies and albums have littered the Web. According to Google Trends, the second most closely related search term to "RapidShare" is "Megaupload." Included on the list of top-ten related search terms are "rapidshare movies" and "rapidshare crack." It's this close association with piracy that RapidShare is hoping to change with its download caps, three-strike policy and Web-crawling technology.
The company has already seen a substantial drop-off in traffic as a result of the company's existing anti-piracy measures, Raimer said. Their goal is to make using RapidShare as unpalatable as possible for copyright infringers, and the initial response to its anti-infringement measures suggest that the strategy is working. The pirates are not happy.
RapidShare isn't the only company taking these kinds of precautions. In the aftermath of the Megaupload shutdown, FileSonic and FileServe stopped allowing users to download files uploaded by other users, and MediaFire went on a PR offensive in an attempt to draw a line between itself and Megaupload.
This is an odd and risky position for a business to be in, deliberately handicapping its own product in a bid to shoo away some users while hoping to cling to enough members to avoid a detrimental drop in revenue. 
RapidShare is trying to strike a very delicate balance. How effectively it's able to do that depends, in part, on how much of the content on RapidShare infringes on copyrights, and how much does not. That's a difficult thing to measure, but no doubt the company's crawlers and other anti-piracy technology is starting to illuminate. Come November 27, the picture will start to get even clearer.

http://pescanik.net/2012/11/pocetak-sezone-krivolova-na-internetu/

 

Police raid home of 9-year-old Pirate Bay user, confiscate her 'Winnie the Pooh' laptop

Quote
Copyright enforcement might be getting out of hand in Scandinavia. As anti-piracy groups and copyright owners continue to work with authorities to curtail piracy in the region, police this week raided the home of a 9-year-old suspect and confiscated her "Winnie the Pooh" laptop. TorrentFreak reports that the girl's home was raided after local anti-piracy group CIAPC determined copyrighted files had been downloaded illegally at her residence. Her father, the Internet service account holder, was contacted by CIAPC, which demanded that he pay a 600 euro fine and sign a non-disclosure agreement to settle the matter. When the man did not comply, authorities raided his home and collected evidence, including his 9-year-old daughter's notebook computer. So what exactly happened here?
According to TorrentFreak, the girl tried to download a number of songs by Finnish pop star Chisu using The Pirate Bay, where she was led after searching for the songs on Google (GOOG). The downloads failed, according to the girl's father, and the two went to a local store the following day to purchase a Chisu album. ISPs working with CIAPC flagged the activity, however, and the group's anti-piracy procedures went into effect.
"I got the feeling that there had been people from the Mafia demanding money at the door," the girl's father said when recounting the police raid. "We have not done anything wrong with my daughter. If adults do not always know how to use a computer and the web, how can you assume that children or the elderly – or a 9-year-old girl – knows what they are doing at any given time online?"
He continued, "This is the pinnacle of absurdity. I can see artists are in a position, but this requires education and information, not resource-consuming lawsuits."

I dodatak:

http://www.techspot.com/news/50888-police-raid-targets-9-year-old-pirate-winnie-the-pooh-laptop-seized.html

Quote
Indeed upon hearing about the situation Chisu apologized to the 9-year-old and pointed to a link on Spotify where her music can be played for free. Electronic Frontier Finland also took note of the case and said it is an indication of just how far copyright enforcement has progressed in Finland.

 

Nemcima bi neko trebalo da kaže da nije teško ne biti svinja:
Anonymous" File-Sharing Darknet Ruled Illegal by German Court 

Quote
A court in Hamburg, Germany, has granted an injunction against a user of the anonymous and encrypted file-sharing network RetroShare . RetroShare users exchange data through encrypted transfers and the network setup ensures that the true sender of the file is always obfuscated. The court, however, has now ruled that RetroShare users who act as an exit node are liable for the encrypted traffic that's sent by others.
Anonymous file-sharing is booming. Whether it's BitTorrent through a VPN, proxy, or other anonymizing services, people are increasingly looking to hide their identities online.
One application that gained interest earlier this year is RetroShare. Despite being actively developed for more than half a decade, its user-base suddenly increased tenfold in just a few months.
The RetroShare network allows people to create a private and encrypted file-sharing network. Users add friends by exchanging PGP certificates with people they trust. All the communication is encrypted using OpenSSL and files that are downloaded from strangers always go through a trusted friend.
In other words, it's a true Darknet and virtually impossible to monitor by outsiders. At least, that's the idea.
This week a Hamburg court ruled against a RetroShare user who passed on an encrypted transfer that turned out to be a copyrighted music file. The user in question was not aware of the transfer, and merely passed on the data in a way similar to how TOR works.
The court, however, ruled that the user in question, who was identified by the copyright holder, is responsible for passing on the encrypted song.
The judge ordered an injunction against the RetroShare user, who is now forbidden from transferring the song with a maximum penalty of €250,000 or a six month prison term. Since RetroShare traffic is encrypted this means that the user can no longer use the network without being at risk.
"The defendant is liable for the infringement of troublemakers," the court explained in its ruling.
The Hamburg court's decision goes quite far according to some legal experts. IT lawyer Thomas Stadler, for example, writes on his blog that the legal opinion is "quite risky" as it puts all users of RetroShare in danger.
"It ultimately accuses the offender of failing to secure his Internet connection by running RetroShare, and allowing other users of the RetroShare network to transfer copyright-protected works via his computer," Stadler writes.
While the ruling is obviously a threat to RetroShare users, in part it's also a human error by the user in question.
RetroShare derives its security from the fact that all transfers go through "trusted friends" who users themselves add. In this case, the defendant added the anti-piracy monitoring company as a friend, which allowed him to be "caught."
More troubling is the precedent the ruling sets for people who run open wireless networks, as the same issues arise there. According to this ruling Internet subscribers are responsible for the transfers that take place on their networks, making them liable for the copyright infringements of others.
Update: Contrary to the U.S. and elsewhere, a previous ruling in Germany already makes wireless network operators liable for copyright infringements of others.

Ako je verovati Kimu Dotkomu, igra je protiv njega bila nameštena od samog početka i on to može da dokaže!

Dotcom: We've hit the jackpot 

Quote
Indication of FBI double-cross coup in extradition fight, says internet mogul

A fresh legal bid to throw out the case against Kim Dotcom in the United States is being made after claims of an FBI double-cross.
Evidence has emerged showing the Department of Homeland Security served a search warrant on Mr Dotcom's file-sharing company Megaupload in 2010 which he claims forced it to preserve pirated movies found in an unrelated piracy investigation.
The 39 files were identified during an investigation into the NinjaVideo website, which had used Megaupload's cloud storage to store pirated movies.
When the FBI applied to seize the Megaupload site in 2012, it said the company had failed to delete pirated content and cited the earlier search warrant against the continued existence of 36 of the same 39 files.
The details emerged after the US District Court in East Virginia allowed partial access to the FBI application which led to the shutdown of the Mega family of websites.
Other information from the case to emerge this week includes a collection of photographs from the day of the raid at Mr Dotcom's Coatesville property on January 20 this year.


The High Court released the material after applications from the Herald.
Mr Dotcom said Megaupload co-operated with the US Government investigation into copyright pirates NinjaVideo and was legally unable to delete the 39 movies identified in the search warrant.
Mr Dotcom said: "We were informed by (the US Government) we were not to interfere with the investigation. We completely co-operated.
"Then the FBI used the fact the files were still in the account of the ... user to get the warrant to seize our own domains. This is outrageous."
He said the revelation was the first insight into the FBI's case against Megaupload and it showed bad faith on the part of the US Government. "Immediately we hit the jackpot - the first little piece of paper is this super-jackpot."
New Zealand's district court has ordered the FBI to provide documents relating to its investigation through an order for discovery. It was currently being appealed.
"I understand why the US is working so hard to appeal the discovery decision."
Mr Dotcom said the warrant obliged Megaupload to keep the files. It was among a string of legal requests from law enforcement agencies around the world.
"We have always co-operated. We have responded to takedown requests, we have been a good corporate citizen."
The FBI application to seize the sites said the "Mega Conspiracy" members were told by "criminal search warrant" in June 2010 "that 39 infringing copies of copyrighted motion pictures were present on their leased servers". The application was approved to allow the seizure of the domain names.
However, the application to seize the domain names, made on January 13, 2012, did not state the earlier search warrant was not issued against Megaupload.
Instead, the Department of Homeland Security application sought the help of Megaupload to track down files of interest in its investigation of NinjaVideo. The warrant application was by Special Agent William Engel and stated that the data storage company Carpathia "will work with its customer Megaupload to access content to provide in response to the search warrant".
The investigation was a success and saw its central figure Hana Amal "Queen Phara" Beshara sentenced to prison for 22 months and ordered to pay $256,000 of her illegally gained money to the Motion Picture Association of America - the same Hollywood lobby group blamed for pitting the FBI against Megaupload.
The access was granted after a bid by the Electronic Frontier Foundation on behalf of a Megaupload customer whose business files were lost when the cloud storage site was shut down.
Mr Dotcom's US-based lawyer Ira Rothken said he would ask the US court to return the Megaupload websites.
He said the discovery of the FBI's evidence of wrongdoing was part of a "trail of misconduct" stretching from the US to New Zealand which would ultimately lead to asking for the FBI charges to be dismissed.
"What we have uncovered, in our view, is misleading conduct. It looks like the Government wants the confidentiality because they would be concerned their conduct would be scrutinised."
The 39 files were not only used by NinjaVideo, according to the FBI affidavit. The Megaupload system identified files which were already on the system and kept only one copy of each. Unique weblinks were produced for each user providing multiple paths to the same file. The FBI indictment cited an email by Mr Dotcom's co-accused Mathias Ortman in which he said more than 2000 users had uploaded the 39 files.
A month after Homeland Security sought MegaUpload's help, NinjaVideo and a range of other sites were shutdown without warning. Coverage of the action led to Mr Dotcom emailing staff about the domain seizures, saying the manner of the US action posed "a serious threat to our business". He asked: "Should we move our domain to another country (Canada or even HK?)." The company, which has maintained it operated inside the law, stayed in the US.

A tu su i neki zaludni naučnici da utrljaju so na ranu. Navodno, istraživanje je pokazalo da je zatvaranje Megauploada smanjilo prihod na bioskopskim blagajnama.

Da ne kačim sam tekst, kratak je al je PDF fajl, pokarabasiće se format a ima tabela. Naravno, koliko je ozbiljno uzeti naučnike koji u radu od tri strane naprave takve greške da piracy napišu privacy, to je sad pitanje.

to ih je sjebao autokorekt.

Ma, da se ne lažemo, ma koliko ja volio da jedna ovakva studija postoji i da mogu da je koristim kad se sa nekim raspravljam, ova je krajnje neozbiljna. Njome se jednako može dokazati da nesreća u Fukušimi uzrokuje pad box office zarade.

zbogom rapidšere i fala na svim ribama i svemu, ali sad je stvarno KRAH! 

Šta se sad desilo sa rapidom?

Pa, ja prijavio još pre neki dan:

http://readwrite.com/2012/11/19/how-rapidshare-plans-to-avoid-megauploads-fate

Dakle, premium juzeri sad imaju limit na to koliko od njih može dnevno da se skine, naime 30 GB. To važi za "javne" linkove, dakle ono što svi koristimo za pirateriju. Limit se uklanja za ljude koje lično stavite na belu listu, koristeći njihovu imejl adresu.

Hvala na svim ribama, što reče gul.

Dnevno 30giga za javni link je više nego dovoljno za (moje opskurne) muzičke i knjižne potrebe, koje daj bože da toliki promet naprave *ukupno*

Bolje bi vam bilo da "skidate" nešto drugo 

Bilderke?

Quote from: zakk on 28-11-2012, 13:29:03
Bilderke?

Ko smije njemu dvije   

Quote from: zakk on 28-11-2012, 13:08:10
Dnevno 30giga za javni link je više nego dovoljno za (moje opskurne) muzičke i knjižne potrebe, koje daj bože da toliki promet naprave *ukupno*

Da, pa ovo je najviše da se ogadi postovanje filmova i igara. Tu su fajlovi tako veliki da samo dva skidanja dnevno mogu da budu realistična. I evo, rezultati su već tu - ja koji imam RS premium nalog skidam Far Cry 3 sa billionuploads. O gorka ironijo  Kako je krenulo uskoro ću posegnuti za torentima