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

Da, pa treker je povremeno radio, znam. Ali sad radi i sam sajt.

Fejsbuk trenutno ne šljaka. Stra' me od nereda.

QuoteSorry, something went wrong.

We're working on getting this fixed as soon as we can.

Evo, vratilo se...

Quote from: Son of Man on 19-06-2014, 11:04:40
Fejsbuk trenutno ne šljaka. Stra' me od nereda.

a lepo sam ti reko da ti baš to treba ako oćeš da ikad dovršiš ZAVODNIKA!

ko koristi DC++ privatne habove je verovatno primetio da dobar deo njih ne radi već nekoliko dana, a evo i objašnjenja zašto

http://www.noip.com/blog/2014/06/30/ips-formal-statement-microsoft-takedown/

Ekonomista sa kanzaške biznis škole je uradio istraživanje da vidi koliki uticaj piraterija/ fajlšering ima na uspeh filma na bioskopskim blagajnama i njegov zaključak je da je uticaj skroman:


http://conference.nber.org/confer/2014/SI2014/PRIT/Strumpf.pdf

U Britaniji su rešili da probaju sa mekšim pristupom pirateriji, tako da sad ljudi koje uhvate da torentuju sadržaj za koji nemaju kopirajt dobijaju uljudna upozorenja gde ti ukažu da griješiš i upute te na legitimne i ekonomične alternative. Dobro, i to je progres:

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2014-07-22-uk-changing-approach-to-illegal-torrents

Nije nepoznato da su amerilki internet-provajderi šljam - imaju lokalne monopole, ponašaju se neljucki... ali ovo zvuči skoro kao vic. FCC je pitao Verizon da li je istina da provajder namerno usporava internet pretplatnicima koji su platili flet-rejt na šta su ovi odgovorili da to zaista rade jer neki pretplatnici mnogo bre koriste taj flet rejt koji su platili i nemaju nikakvu motivaciju da umesto toga lepo pređu na ograničene mesečne količine protoka... Da pojasnimo: provajder je kivan na klijenta koji koristi uslugu koju je pošteno platio pa se trudi da mu tu uslugu ogadi.


Verizon: We throttle unlimited data to provide an "incentive to limit usage"

QuoteVerizon Wireless has told FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler that its policy of throttling unlimited data users on congested cell sites is perfectly legal and necessary to give heavy data users an incentive to stop using their phones so much.
Wheeler had sent a letter to Verizon accusing the company of throttling unlimited data users in order to make more money, presumably by encouraging users to purchase new data plans. "'Reasonable network management' concerns the technical management of your network; it is not a loophole designed to enhance your revenue streams," Wheeler wrote. Wheeler didn't argue that throttling itself is never reasonable, but he called it "disturbing" that "Verizon Wireless would base its 'network management' on distinctions among its customers' data plans, rather than on network architecture or technology."


"I know of no past Commission statement that would treat as 'reasonable network management' a decision to slow traffic to a user who has paid, after all, for 'unlimited' service," Wheeler added.
Verizon no longer sells unlimited data plans to new customers, though some customers still have them. Newer and pricier data plans with limits and overage charges aren't throttled under this policy, even if customers are connected to congested cell sites and use just as much data as those with "unlimited" plans.
The policy, Verizon explained to Wheeler, "is narrowly tailored to apply (1) only at particular cell sites experiencing unusually high demand; (2) only for the duration of that high demand; and (3) only to a very small percentage of customers who are heavy data users and are on plans that do not limit the amount of data they may use during the month without incurring added data charges (and otherwise have no incentive to limit usage during times of unusually high demand)—and then only when the particular cell site serving those customers is subject to unusually high demand."
The throttling is reasonable because it prevents heavy users from using so much data that other users get bad service, Verizon wrote. Verizon Senior VP Kathleen Grillo sent the company's response (PDF) on Friday, and a Verizon spokesperson provided a copy to Ars today.
Verizon further explained that "a small percentage of the customers on these [unlimited] plans use disproportionately large amounts of data, and, unlike subscribers on usage-based plans, they have no incentive not to do so during times of unusually high demand. Rather than an effort to 'enhance [our] revenue streams,' our practice is a measured and fair step to ensure that this small group of customers do not disadvantage all others in the sharing of network resources during times of high demand."
They all do it, in various ways The throttling policy applies to the top five percent of data users and is similar though not identical to policies implemented by AT&T, Sprint, and T-Mobile. T-Mobile says it throttles customers in the top five percent of users in each rate plan, while Sprint says it throttles the top five percent of all users.
AT&T is similar to Verizon in that it reserves its throttling for unlimited data users. But there's one key difference: AT&T says that speeds are only affected for one billing cycle. Verizon applies its policy to the current "billing cycle and the following cycle." All of these policies apply only to congested cell sites.
Verizon has to follow different rules from the other carriers as a result of purchasing spectrum with special requirements. Wheeler asked Verizon how it can justify its throttling "consistent with its continuing obligation under the 700 MHz C Block open platform rules, under which Verizon Wireless may not deny, limit, or restrict the ability of end users to download and utilize applications of their choosing."
Verizon's response:

QuoteWith network optimization, our customers continue to be free to go where they want on the Internet and to use the applications, services and devices of their choice. Although the policy may result in slowed throughput under the very limited circumstances described above, neither the C Block rules nor the Open Internet rules requires any particular minimum speeds, so long as providers are transparent with their customers. And here, Verizon Wireless is clearly apprising our customers that under certain circumstances, the speeds of a few heavy users may be temporarily slowed at congested cell sites in order to provide a great wireless experience to all of our customers.

QuoteVerizon also pointed out that the FCC's Open Internet Order "endorsed precisely this type of practice, using wireline cable modem service as an example." The FCC said in the order that "we agree that congestion management may be a legitimate network management practice. For example, broadband providers may need to take reasonable steps to ensure that heavy users do not crowd out others... For example, if cable modem subscribers in a particular neighborhood are experiencing congestion, it may be reasonable for a broadband provider to temporarily limit the bandwidth available to individual end users in that neighborhood who are using a substantially disproportionate amount of bandwidth."
The FCC isn't necessarily limiting its scrutiny to Verizon. Wheeler "sent the letter to Verizon in light of their recent announcement, but our concerns are about the practice at issue, not one particular provider," an FCC spokesperson told Ars. "We're looking at whether other providers are engaging in similar practices."
The FCC is considering a new set of net neutrality rules to replace its 2010 order, which was mostly struck down in court. But the FCC's current proposal largely exempts wireless carriers from rules that would apply to fixed broadband providers.

Zato se meni kilavi skajp veza sa Tulsom! Imaju internet samo za šoping i fejsbuking. Siroti Ameri.

postoji li način da torente sa jednog kompa prebacim na drugi komp?

to jest, oni se trenutno svi nalaze na 0% u uTorentu, nemam nikakve izdvojene fajlove, već su svi samo na onom spisku, a mrzi me da njih 15-20 ponovo tražim po piratu, rutrackeru i slično

pa čisto da pitam postoji li neka opcija da ih iz tog uTorenta izvučem na flešku, pa prebacim da ih drugi komp skida?

Ако имаш .торрент фајлове, проблем ти је ријешен. Али их вјероватно немаш, пошто би их само тотална штреберчина сачувала приликом скидања фајла

Pa po defoltu se ja mislim čuvaju u nekim programima, pa Bata možda nije isključio tu opciju. Možda mu stoje u nekom folderu u My Documentsu ili tamo gde je instaliran program za torente?

pa da, nemam ništa, a hoću da stvorim .torrent fajlove

al nema ih ni u program files folderu niti u my documents

Pa ako ih nisi brisao (a setio bi se, valjda, da jesi), još uvek ti stoje negde. Možda u downloads folderu.

kad na piratu kliknem ''get this torrent'', meni se automatski otvara program uTorrent, dakle, ja nikakav fajl nemam, sem ako se on krije negdje na hard disku, kako je Jape pretpostavio, u utorrent folderu u C/program files, ili u my documents

međutim, toga nema, meni sve direktno ide i u uTorrent, i odatle ili se skine film ili nemam ništa, i samim tim ne mogu da prenesem na drugi komp

Quote from: Pizzobatto on 23-08-2014, 23:57:57
meni sve direktno ide i u uTorrent, i odatle ili se skine film ili nemam ništa, i samim tim ne mogu da prenesem na drugi komp

  ta, ako ide u program, tu je, downloadovano.

Guglaj, Batice.

https://uk.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080919155843AAgql1Q

http://help.utorrent.com/customer/portal/articles/163705-where-are-the-settings-and-torrent-files-stored-

a nije to, mada nisam znao da to postoji, sad gledam šta sam sve godinama skidao a što sam odavno izbrisao sa diska

moje pitanje je

where Utorrent stores the torrent files BEFORE the file is downloded?

i izgleda da je jedini odgovor ''I'm fucked''

 Što si se zbunio, batice?    Ovo (iz linkova) su ti folderi gde utorrent skida torrent fajlove, otvori navedene foldere i naći ćeš torrent fajlove. Iskopiraj ih na fleš, pa u novi komp. Isti su to fajlovi i pre i posle skidanja i uvek iznova možeš da ih koristiš da skineš isti sadržaj.

pričam srpski, ne pričam arapski: nema fajlova koji nisu downloadovani!

provjerio sam, u tom folderu se nalaze samo ''after download'' fajlovi

onih koji su mi sad 0% nema tamo

eeeeeeeeeeee, eo nešto radi

To je zato što si, očito, naučio i arapski. 

nisi sasvim u pravu, فارينا رئيس الإناث

mora da krene download, da se skine ''metadata'', parčence fajla, pa se tek onda pojavi u folderu. Do maloprije ih nisam imao tamo

nači sad kao uključim download za svakog, pa se poslije minut pojavi fajl u My documentsu

Ta šta znam, ja koristim Vuze. Meni se svi fajlovi, skinuti i neskinuti, nalaze na jednom mestu.

Ја користим уТоррент и увијек ме пита јел оћу да отворим фајл или да га снимим на диск, ја наравно увијек одговорим ово прво, тако да немам те торрент фајлове.

i ja sam tako mislio, ali ipak imaš u

Documents and Settings\USERNAME\Application Data\uTorrent

nakon što skineš metadata u samom programu

i to je neki konačni odgovor na ovo pitanje

negdje čuh da je Kim Dotcom zaebo pajkane, da mu vraćaju megaupload servere, al nemam link da potvrdim to

jel glasina ili je stvarno?

Ima link:

http://www.theverge.com/2014/9/9/6128457/court-rules-police-must-give-kim-dotcom-access-to-megaupload-files

Quote


Kim Dotcom, former owner of file-sharing and storage site Megaupload, is being reunited with the data from servers that were seized by police in 2012. According to The New Zealand Herald, New Zealand's Court of Appeal has ruled that police must provide copies of the data on all electronic devices that were confiscated in the raid on Dotcom's mansion "as soon as reasonably practicable." It's the latest decision in a protracted battle between Dotcom, New Zealand courts, and the US government, which is attempting to extradite him to face criminal copyright infringement charges.

Dotcom is accused of running the now defunct Megaupload as a massive piracy ring, intentionally encouraging people to post copyrighted material. Dotcom, by contrast, has described Megaupload as a Dropbox-like cloud storage service that was not responsible for what individual users uploaded. Extradition hearings were supposed to be held this year, but they've since been delayed until February of 2015. The main questions at play have instead been whether the police raid on his property was carried out legally, and whether he can reclaim seized cars, money, and data. Dotcom hasn't been successful on the first two fronts, as the Court of Appeal decided in August that the US government didn't have to end a freeze on his assets. Dotcom's legal team has argued that hard drive data is necessary to build a defense, but they're also attempting to keep US law enforcement from getting direct access to encrypted information.
     
A court has previously said that Dotcom shouldn't have to give passwords to the FBI, even if he grants access to local New Zealand legal teams. Now, there are actual provisions in place for getting the information decrypted. The Herald is oblique on this point, but per TorrentFreak's explanation, Dotcom will immediately get access to anything unencrypted, and more will follow when he gives his passwords to two police officers who are sworn to secrecy against the US government and others.

Since his original arrest, Dotcom has attempted to build new careers in cloud storage, politics, and music (as seen above). In 2013 he launched "Mega," touted as a more secure alternative to Dropbox or Google Drive. He has also founded the Internet Party, a New Zealand political group running candidates on a platform of privacy, expansion of internet access, and copyright reform among other positions. The general election is being held on September 20th.

Ja sam tek sad provalio da su pre oko dva meseca ugasili i http://www.zxcv.fm/, što je bio fantastični thebox pod drugim imenom. 

Google changes 'to fight piracy' by highlighting legal sites

Quote
Google has announced changes to its search engine in an attempt to curb online piracy.
The company has long been criticised for enabling people to find sites to download entertainment illegally.
The entertainment industry has argued that illegal sites should be "demoted" in search results.
The new measures, mostly welcomed by music trade group the BPI, will instead point users towards legal alternatives such as Spotify and Google Play.
Google will now list these legal services in a box at the top of the search results, as well as in a box on the right-hand side of the page.
Crucially, however, these will be adverts - meaning if legal sites want to appear there, they will need to pay Google for the placement.
The BPI said that while it was "broadly" pleased with Google's changes, it did not think sites should have to pay.
"There should be no cost when it comes to serving consumers with results for legal services," a spokesman told the BBC.
 


"Instead we have urged Google to use the machine-readable data on the Music Matters website, which lists all services licensed in the UK, and to promote these legal services above illegal sites and results in their search, using appropriate weighting applied fairly and equally across services."
'Legitimate sources' Google has also added extra measures to doctor its search results so that links pointing to illegal content fall lower in results, with legal sites floating to the top.
The company has been doing this for several years, but now says it has "refined the signal" for detecting these links.
To coincide with the announcement, Google published a report into the measures it has put in place across its various websites.


On YouTube, for instance, its Content ID system is able to detect the use of copyrighted material in videos - offering music labels the choice of having the content removed, or monetising it by placing advertising.
But the report stressed the long-held view from Google that the solution to piracy lay in putting effort into creating better legal services, rather than chasing off illegal ones.
"Piracy often arises when consumer demand goes unmet by legitimate supply," the report said.
"As services ranging from Netflix to Spotify to iTunes have demonstrated, the best way to combat piracy is with better and more convenient legitimate services."
Ongoing row The BPI and Google have been at logger-heads over downgrading results for several years.
The music industry has been angered by the way in which a search on Google for "listen to Katy Perry", or any artist, would sometimes produce results pointing to places to download content illegally.
Often, the illegal sites would rank higher than official outlets such as iTunes.
Google, reluctant to tamper with its "organic" results, but leant on by the government, has gradually backed down and implemented some measures, although their effectiveness is often disputed.
Other combative measures pushed by the BPI include the blocking of websites such as the Pirate Bay so that UK internet users cannot visit unless they are using specialist software.
"We will monitor the results carefully," said Geoff Taylor, chief executive of the BPI.
"But we are encouraged that Google has recognised the need to take further action and will continue to work with the search engines and government to build a stronger digital music sector.
"The BPI, together with colleagues from the film industry, will continue to meet with the search engines and government to ensure these measures make a real difference and to persuade Bing and Yahoo to take similar action."

Mađarska odlučna da naplaćuje porez na internet-saobraćaj - stopedeset forinti po gigabajtu. To je otprilike 60 dinara pa vi vidite koliko bi vas koštalo daundoludovanje tih vaših serija dodatno u odnosu na pare koje već plaćate provajderu...


Hungary plans new tax on Internet traffic, public calls for rally

vama će djeco biti najljepše
jer vi ste navikli rano u krevet
uskoro ćemo svi mi
imati besplatnih gigabajta
samo do devet

pričaće krajem 21. vijeka kako se nekad na internetu moglo i nešto besplatno pogledati

Ebre, kakav smo to narod...

Dakle, Evropa je odnedavno u zakonodavstvo uvela "pravo da budete zaboravljeni" na osnovu čega možete da tražite da firme koje prave mašine za pretragu uklone neke reference na vas iz rezultata pretrage. Ovo je naravno urađeno sa dobrom namerom, na primer da bi neko ko je bio seksualno zlostavljan mogao da utiče da se svaki put kad eventualni poslodavac gugla njegovo ime ne pojavljuje u top 20 rezultata baš svaki detalj neprijatne epizode, da klinci koji su možda privođeni jer su žvrljali grafite kad su imali 18-19 godina ne moraju i dalje da strepe da ih niko neće želeti u svojoj blizini sa 25, da ljudi koje je neko oklevetao i to mogu da dokažu, ne moraju da brinu što će svaki put kad ih neko gugluje PRVO da naleti na tvrdnju da su zaklali i pojeli sopstvenog kanarinca pre nego što su ekonomiju neke male azijske zemlje gurnuli u ponor itd. ali je naravno odmah postalo jasno da će brojni kriminalci od karijere i firme sumnjivih poslovnih navika insistirati da se uklanjaju linkovi koji legitimno upućuju na njihova sagrešenja. Put do pakla, Brus Dikinson je odavno upozorio, popločan je dobrim namerama.

Jer, evo, sad se pijanista Dejan Lazić pojavljuje da od Washington Posta traži da ukloni negativna kritika njegovog koncerta od pre neku godinu a koja mu kvari reputaciju 


Pianist asks The Washington Post to remove a concert review under the E.U.'s 'right to be forgotten' ruling


Naravno, ne samo da je kritika o kojoj je reč potpuno legitimna (kritičarka je, u suštini rekla da Lazić nije ispunio očekivanja s obzirom na svoj nabujali talenat, što je daleko blaže od stvari koje pišu ostrašćeni kritičari sa sekirom za oštrenje - ja to znam jer sam umeo da budem jedan od njih u mlađim danima) već je i urnebesno da čovek ne razume da se pravo da se bude zaboravljen odnosi na mašine za pretragu, ne na sajtove koji hostuju sadržaj, plus - Vašington nije pod jurisdikcijom EU  Al, jebiga, kad su za nas, Srbe, važili zemaljski zakoni? Nikad!!!!!!

Lazić ima opširan komentar na sve ovo na svom sajtu koji ću u interesu punog informisanaj citirati u potpunosti jer on ne omogućava da se linkuje na pojedinačan tekst:

QuoteMy commentary to The Washington Post articleFirst of all, this is not simply about a 'bad review' that I wished to be taken off the internet.
This is about data hierarchy run by major corporations that needs to be investigated.

During the past 25 years of my stage presence I have received all kinds of reviews (like every artist does) and have never complained nor commented on the negative ones as I do believe in freedom of speech and everyone's entitlement to have an opinion.
To be honest, my schedule allows me to only read certain number of reviews: the good ones do not turn my head and from the bad ones I am trying to learn. Then there are those somewhere in between.
I can certainly see constructive (negative) criticism as a vehicle to sometimes even rethink certain things I do as an artist and that can only be positive for my artistic improvement and development. Besides, it is all 'part of the game', we all know that.

Otherwise I could have in this case simply and quietly contact Google Europe and ask for this single, in my opinion defamatory article to be retracted from their search engines in the EU - something I have not done.

And I haven't done so because I strongly believe that the wider public should be aware of this particular case where a single outdated article seems to be prioritized on Google searches for years now, and on top of that, it is the article written by a journalist who is simply crossing the line of good taste and fair journalism time and time again, with countless artists involved (not only myself), all of which is also going on for years now!

So I am questioning here the 'modus operandi' of such corporations.
  I would like to thank The Washington Post though for giving me at least the opportunity to additionally comment and explain myself in this much debated article www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-intersect/wp/2014/10/31/pianist-asks-the-washington-post-to-remove-a-concert-review-under-the-e-u-s-right-to-be-forgotten-ruling/ although neither my initial letter to the editor of this newspaper nor my email to the reporter, Ms Caitlin Dewey are known to the public in their entirety. Unfortunately.

As some of my quotes have been heavily taken out of context (perhaps simply for the editing purposes) and therefore have the potential of being misinterpreted, I have to state at this point that I also consciously and deliberately contacted The Washington Post first - and not Google Europe - as I strongly believe that this issue requires to be directed to the point of origin first, and that is the newspaper and its editor.

I of course did know that this EU ruling applies only to Google search engines in Europe and not to a US newspaper, therefore in my initial letter to the editor of The Washington Post (the one that hasn't been published) I certainly have not claimed my right to apply that ruling to this US-based newspaper, but have merely mentioned the new EU law within the context of my letter and used it as a pathway in order to make my point.
I also did reflect on all the possibilities and outcomes such a critical letter of mine might generate, but that again is 'part of the game'...

I can imagine that there are no easy answers to the raised question once one is aware of all the points involved, also that a civilised discussion about this topic does make us 'better off as a society'.
But I am also aware of the fact that although EU and US are global partners on many levels and share many common moral, ethical and cultural values, there are some differences, too: health care and education systems, weapon laws, death penalty, energy and environmental policies, to a degree also the government system, and a few other issues - although some of them heavily vary from state to state. And now there is the EU Grand Court's recent Google ruling which obviously cannot be applied in the US.

But maybe differences and diversity (should) make us stronger...

This is not about censorship nor about closing down an access to information, actually Europe is cradle of democracy and many other values it is linked with and which we all sometimes seem to take for granted, such as freedom of speech. 
The mentioned article has obviously been out there for four years now and, although the new EU law was introduced in May 2014, I personally haven't commented nor complained about the defamatory, offensive and mean-spirited nature of this review in f.e. a letter to the editor or in a blog ever since it has been published in 2010. That is until recently when I learned that, when one googled my name this particular review was among the top ten Google searches, something that in my opinion isn't absolutely necessary, given its content and furthermore, the date of publication. 
Ironically, now it is amongst the top three - together with Ms Dewey's article and this one...!

In my case, I was inspired and encouraged by the dispute maestro Placido Domingo had to endure in 2011 with the same reviewer: www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/classical-beat/post/placido-domingo-and-questions-of-bias/2011/10/01/gIQAbJwhCL_blog.html

Therefore, I am not only speaking for myself here but also for many colleagues I dearly respect and/or I have made music and shared same stage with, all of which this particular reviewer criticised on so many occasions so harshly and unfairly, in a manner that is - in comparison with all the other reviews they have ever received (good, tepid, and bad) during their long and highly successful careers (in maestro Placido Domingo's case: 50 years) - simply over the top in sheer negativity and toxicity.

That simply does not comply with the principle of fairness in journalism. 

Judging from numerous readers' comments from the past, I know this is a fact that so many Washington, D.C. area concert goers couldn't agree with more!
Can it really be that all these artists performed so often so badly, and that predominantly in Washington, D.C. in presence of this particular reviewer!?

So, when can an individual, in this case a creative artist, simply say enough is enough, this journalist has crossed the line?
How powerful and successful can an individual actually be in a dispute with mass media or say, a major corporation?
Only after a scandal, or after his or her naked pictures have been shown in the newspapers or on the internet, or is there such a thing as intellectual harassment and bullying as well?
After how many years would such an article become irrelevant for the society and taken as simply outdated, perhaps downgraded from the top page on Google searches, and when can it be classified as libellous and defamatory?
And what do newspaper editors expect from reviewers?

Putting all these issues back into the context, it is evident that this case is not simply about retracting a single 'bad review' from the internet for the sake of one's own ego.

We have to be able to distinguish carefully between this and the bigger, broader picture of the whole issue and raise important questions for our interconnected society: how much can such regular, frequently horrific and highly destructive reviews by one single reviewer that has been given a chance to write for one of the most prestigious newspapers in the US affect entire generation of young, new potential concert goers, loyal longtime subscribers, sponsors, donors, art lovers and supporters in general, not to mention countless artists, orchestras and opera companies?

How much image damaging for the classical music in general can it potentially generate?
Can such common, abundant, frequent 'reviews' actually inspire anyone to come and listen for the first time Washington's National Symphony Orchestra, visit the Washington National Opera, hear one of the guest artists, or even encourage somebody to learn to play an instrument at any given age and thus become a richer human being and a potential concert goer?

When is such a thing no longer fair journalism rooted in the concept of freedom of speech, and can there still be in the 21st century such a thing as a witch hunt?

Can we like this breed new generation of potential music lovers, concert and opera subscribers for many already troubled and financially fragile classical music institutions on a global scale?

I don't think so.

I think we artists, as well as the media and the society in general should at least be allowed to be concerned about all this!


Dejan Lazic,
November 2014

Eh...


Pirate Bay co-founder arrested in northern Thailand

Quote
One of the men responsible for all of the movies, games and porn you are illegally torrenting at this very moment was arrested on Monday afternoon in northern Thailand.
Nong Khai immigration police arrested 36-year-old Fredrik Neij, aka TiAMO, who they said today was wearing the same T-shirt in his wanted photo.
Neij was trying to enter Thailand from Laos with his wife by automobile, The Nation reports. He was wearing the same shirt worn in his "wanted" photos.
Nong Khai Immigration police held a press conference at 10 am Tuesday to announce Neji's arrest.
Neij, who was on the run and believed hiding in Laos with his wife since being convicted five years ago in a copyright case, is the most recent of the site's fugitive founders to be arrested.
In 2009, Neij was convicted along with Per Svartholm Warg, Peter Sunde Kolmisoppi and Carl Lundstroem of "assisting in making copyright content available" in Stockholm, Sweden.
On Thursday, a Danish court sentenced Warg, who was also arrested in Cambodia two years ago, to more than three years in jail for hacking into an IT firm's computers. Kolmisoppi was on the run until May when he was arrested in Sweden.
Despite prosecution of the site's original founders, it continues to survive attempts led by American media groups to eliminate it.

Pa, ako ništa drugo, Obama se svrstao na pravu stranu u borbi za internet premoć:
Obama's Plan to Save the Internet

Ukratko, Obama želi da internet dobije status javnog dobra, da se izbegne uvođenje "brzih traka" za platežnije snabdevače sadržajem kao i smanjivanje protoka korisnicima od kojih se želi iscijediti koji cent više. Ovo mu svakako neće doneti mnogo novih prijatelja na republikanskoj strani, pogotovo ne sada kada su ga iscepali u kongresu (pogotovo u senatu) na izborima pre neki dan - više regulacije je za te ljude komunizam ali treba imati na umu da je američki internet dosta loš upravo jer je privatnim firmama garantovan određen stepen monopolističkog statusa na nivou država i gradova i da je ova Obamina inklinacija zapravo kretanje u smeru poboljšanja interneta za građane uz, dakako, pogoršanje uslova za provajdere... Videćemo kako će to proći kad ga ščepaju lobiji i čajankaši svako sa svoje strane... Činjenica je da već i ovde on pravi sebi neke male odstupnice, ali... videćemo.

Pirate Bay Founder Peter Sunde Released From Prison

QuoteFormer Pirate Bay spokesperson Peter Sunde is a free man again. After more than five months he was released from prison this morning. Peter is expected to take some time off to spend with family and loved ones before he continues working on making the Internet a better place.

After being on the run for two years Peter Sunde, aka brokep, was arrested during a family visit in southern Sweden late May. Despite being accused of non-violent crimes, Peter was transferred to a high-security unit. His time in prison was tough.
There was no concern for his vegan diet and he was struggling with depression. As a result Peter lost more than 15 kilograms.
"The worst thing is the boredom", Peter said in August, summing up his daily routine. "I have soy yoghurt and muesli for breakfast, which I was recently allowed to buy from my own money, as the prison doesn't offer any vegan food."
Today Peter's struggle in prison comes to an end. After more than five months he is now a free man again. A few hours ago he left prison to be reunited with his loved ones, and in a way, with himself.
"My body just got re-united with my soul and mind, the parts of me that matters and that never can be held hostage. #freebrokep #brokepfree," he Tweets.


Although there is no denying that Peter was physically and mentally impacted by his stay in prison, he is now truly free. No longer a fugitive, the former Pirate Bay spokesperson can travel the world again.
"Things will get easier once I get out," Peter said previously. "I've been a fugitive for two years and could hardly go to conferences or would have to show up unannounced."
Now that his sentence has come to an end, Peter will probably take some time to gain strength and spend time with friends and family.
After that, he will continue to work on his many Internet related projects including the micro-donation service Flattr and the encrypted chat application Heml.is. As always, activism remains a high priority too.
"I'm brimming with ideas and that one of my main goals will be to develop ethical ways of funding activism," he said in August. "You often need money to change things. But most ways of acquiring it require you to compromise on your ideals. We can do better than that."
Welcome back Peter!

How to Explain Net Neutrality to Your Relatives: A Thanksgiving Guide

Redak primer kako vlasti za promenu pokušavaju da urade ono za šta služe - da nateraju moćnike (u ovom slučaju privatan kapital) da budu malo korisni i za zajednicu, ne samo za sebe. Naravno, libertarijanci će da vrište i možda sve ovo i propadne ali je simpatično videti da Britanija pokazuje da je svesna kako se masivne korporacije praktično smeju poreznicima koristeći razne rupice i rupčage u zakonima i po prvi put pokušava da to ispravi:


Latest in Europe vs. Tech: the U.K. Introduces the 'Google Tax'       

Quote
The U.K. government Wednesday took aim at tech companies and other international firms, proposing a 25% tax on profits on "economic activity" that is shifted overseas.
Treasury chief George Osborne said in his autumn budget statement to Parliament that he wanted to make sure "big multinational businesses pay their fair share."
The proposal makes good on Mr. Osborne's warning in September that he was going to crack down on companies – particularly tech companies – that use complex structures to lower their U.K. tax bills.
"Some of the largest companies in the world, including those in the tech sector, use elaborate structures to avoid paying taxes," he said. "That's not fair to other British firms. It's not fair to British people either. Today we're putting a stop to it. My message is consistent and clear: low taxes, but low taxes that will be paid."
The tax, dubbed a "Google tax" by the British press, is expected to raise more than £1 billion ($1.56 billion) over five years, Mr. Osborne said.
It's still unclear exactly what will constitute taxable activity in the U.K. and how it might change the tax bill of companies like Google GOOGL +1.04% and Facebook FB +0.48%. Representatives from several tech companies weren't immediately available to comment.
Google and other companies have been targeted by France and other European governments for not paying enough taxes. The issue is complicated by the companies' setup: They can have sales representatives in one country selling online services, like ads, that appear in others, while the company's residence for taxation purposes might be elsewhere still.

danas ni Bata ne može da upluta u zaliv, kamoli govno!

K'o da sam znao, jutros se naskidao filmova 


http://torrentfreak.com/pirate-bay-goes-worldwide-141209/

Swedish Police Raid The Pirate Bay, Site Offline

ne znam koliko su ovi mogli da imaju na serverima kad je to ipak torrent

jel to Švedska promijenila neki kopirajt zakon ili šta?

u svakom slučaju, radi kickass

Е, јеби га. Океј је Кикес, али је на Пајратбеју често на банеру с десне стране скакутала она весела женска.

Imali su samo torent fajlove i sam sajt. Ima i drugih sajtova,  ne znam da li sam skinuo 10 torenata sa piratskog zaliva.

ja i ne znam druge sajtove sem piratbaya i kickassa, daj navedi koji

pirat je najpregledniji, bez zaebancija, iskakanja raznih reklama, kickass tu stalno ima neki pop-up

+ what Джон said


a i rapidserbia propala, sad nema đe ni domaći film da se nađe

Govna su u Zalivu, ali:

"With its founders convicted and under assault from governments and huge corporations, time might be running out for The Pirate Bay. But the site operates on virtual servers. According to Reddit users commenting on the raid, Swedish police only got access to the site's front end load balancer. If another balancer is activated, then the site could conceivably spring back to life, yet again frustrating official attempts to stamp out The Pirate Bay for good."

http://www.theverge.com/2014/12/9/7364665/the-pirate-bay-goes-offline-after-police-raid-server-room

костарика ипак не ради

https://proxybay.info/

Radi bre Kostarika, kako ne radi?

Quote from: Pizzobatto on 09-12-2014, 23:16:20
ja i ne znam druge sajtove sem piratbaya i kickassa, daj navedi koji

pirat je najpregledniji, bez zaebancija, iskakanja raznih reklama, kickass tu stalno ima neki pop-up

+ what Джон said


a i rapidserbia propala, sad nema đe ni domaći film da se nađe

Ja sam resio problem iskakanja gomile prozora tako sto vise i ne trazim torrente po sajtovima.
BitLord koji koristim za torrentiranje ima predivan search u sebi, odma tu nadjem torrente i odma skidam brez da mi ista iskace....
a ovako sam batalio Firefox , preso na google chrome i za sva vremena se za sada trenutno ne patim sa popupovanjem....

Pirate Bay cofounder Peter Sunde says he's happy to see site gone

Quote

One of the founders of The Pirate Bay (TPB) has bid good riddance to the site that he helped build a decade ago, which may have been definitively shuttered this week.

In a Tuesday blog post, Peter Sunde, who was released last month after having served five months in a Swedish prison for his role in aiding copyright infringement via The Pirate Bay, wrote:

TPB has become an institution that people just expected to be there. No one willing to take the technology further. The site was ugly, full of bugs, old code and old design. It never changed except for one thing – the ads. More and more ads was filling the site, and somehow when it felt unimaginable to make these ads more distasteful they somehow ended up even worse.
The original deal with TPB was to close it down on its tenth birthday. Instead, on that birthday, there was a party in its "honour" in Stockholm. It was sponsored by some sexist company that sent young girls, dressed in almost no clothes, to hand out freebies to potential customers. There was a ticket price to get in, automatically excluding people with no money. The party had a set lineup with artists, scenes and so on, instead of just asking the people coming to bring the content. Everything went against the ideals that I worked for during my time as part of TPB.

Sunde did not respond to Ars' request for further comment.

"The original team handed it over to, well, less soul-ish people to say the least," he concluded. "From the outside I felt that no one had any interest in helping the community if it didn't eventually pay out in cash."

More than five years ago, Sunde told Ars that in 2006, The Pirate Bay ownership was transferred to an unnamed organization, which then transferred ownership to a shady shell corporation called Reservella.

" can't reveal any details I know about Reservella because of [non-disclosure agreements], not even who's the owners," he said at the time.

Ja koristim zatvorene torent sajtove na kojima se gleda koliko si skinuo a najvažnije je koliko uplouduješ. Nema reklama nema virusa i zajebancija, sve novo izlazi gotovo odma a brzine su dobre i na starim torentima.