Govna su uplutala u Piratski zaliv

[Meho Krljic]

 Feds Seize Kickass Torrents Piracy Site Domain Names, Announce Arrest of Alleged Ringleader 

The U.S. Department of Justice has seized seven domain names associated with Kickass Torrents — purportedly the most-visited piracy site in the world — and charged the man they allege is its owner and operator with criminal copyright infringement and and money laundering.
Federal authorities said Artem Valuin, 30, of Kharkiv, Ukraine, was arrested Wednesday in Poland and that the U.S. will seek to extradite him to the States. Valuin allegedly owns and operates Kickass Torrents, which since launching in 2008 has let users illegally download movies, TV shows, video games, music and other media collectively worth an estimated $1 billion.
Kickass Torrents has consistently listed movies still in theaters that can be downloaded using file-sharing apps, according to the charges. Recent titles include "Captain America: Civil War," "Now You See Me 2," "Independence Day: Resurgence," and "Finding Dory," officials said.
"Copyright infringement exacts a large toll, a very human one, on the artists and businesses whose livelihood hinges on their creative inventions," Zachary T. Fardon, U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of Illinois in Chicago, said in a statement. "Vaulin allegedly used the Internet to cause enormous harm to those artists."
Law-enforcement officials across the globe have battled pirate sites for years, but the task of shutting down such illegal operations remains challenging as pirates routinely switch up domain names and use anonymizing services that mask their identities and locations. In one of the most notorious cases, the FBI in 2012 shut down Megaupload.com, which allegedly caused more than $500 million in damages to copyright holders — while legally embattled founder Kim Dotcom has claimed he's going to relaunch the site next January. Meanwhile, the Pirate Bay, despite several raids and arrests of its organizers over the years, remains up and running today.
Kickass Torrents receives more than 50 million unique monthly visitors, according to officials. The U.S. government's complaint charges Vaulin with one count of conspiracy to commit criminal copyright infringement, one count of conspiracy to commit money laundering and two counts of criminal copyright infringement. The copyright-infringement charges carry a maximum sentence of five years in prison, and the money-laundering charge is punishable by up to 20 years.
"This criminal case is a major step to reduce illegal theft of creative content by large-scale piracy sites," MPAA chairman and CEO Chris Dodd said in a statement. "Actions like these help protect the livelihoods of the 1.9 million hard-working Americans whose jobs are supported by the motion picture and television industry – and a legal market that generates $16.3 billion in exports for the U.S. economy."
In addition to the charges, a federal court in Chicago ordered the seizure of seven domain names associated with Kickass Torrents, which operates servers around the world including in Chicago: kickasstorrents.com, kat.ph, kickass.to, kastatic.com, kickass.so, thekat.tv and kat.cr.
According the DOJ complaint, Kickass Torrents' net worth is estimated at more than $54 million, with estimated annual advertising revenue of between $12.5 million and $22.3 million. Kickass Torrents, also known as KAT, has moved its domain several times due to prior seizures and copyright lawsuits, and it has been ordered blocked by courts in the U.K., Ireland, Italy, Denmark, Belgium and Malaysia.
The KAT investigation was conducted by the DOJ in partnership with the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement's Homeland Security Investigations division and the Internal Revenue Service's Criminal Investigation division. Officials said they also received substantial assistance in the matter from the International Organized Crime Intelligence and Operations Center, the National Intellectual Property Rights Coordination Center, the DOJ Criminal Division's Office of International Affairs, and the Polish Border Guard and National Public Prosecutor's Office.

[neomedjeni]

Nooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 


I okle sad ja da nabavljam stripove?

[Meho Krljic]

Pa, migriraće se to na druge trekere. Ako ne, možeš kao i mi ostali, da ih skidaš sa Warez-bba 

[Krsta Klatić Klaja]

iptorrents.com

da li je ovo spas?

[Meho Krljic]

The Colossal Screwups That Got the Alleged Kickass Torrents Owner Busted

[Meho Krljic]

Ali evo i nečeg smešnog:



Arrgh Matey! US Navy Faces $600M Lawsuit For Allegedly Pirating 3D Software


The U.S. Government doesn't take too kindly to software piracy. The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) especially takes issue with pirates, writing on its site:>Intellectual property theft involves robbing people or companies of their ideas, inventions, and creative expressions—known as "intellectual property"—which can include everything from trade secrets and proprietary products and parts to movies, music, and software... Preventing intellectual property theft is a priority of the FBI's criminal investigative program.In a prime case of "Do as I say, not as I do," the FBI might have to do some investigating within the Department of Defense. The U.S. Navy is being accused of pirating 3D software after getting a small taste of a package offered by German company Bitmanagement Software GmbH. The Navy's actions were allegedly so egregious that Bitmanagement is suing the United States of America for over half a billion dollars.
According to the court filing, Bitmanagement licensed its BS Contact Geo software for use on 38 Navy computers from 2011 to 2012. This limited rollout was "for the purposes of testing, trial runs, and integration into Navy systems." While this test period was underway, the Navy reportedly began negotiating to license the software for use on thousands of additional computers.

However, even as the negotiations were ongoing, the Navy decided to go ahead and initiate its full-scale rollout without actually paying for the software. In total, the initial 38 computers allegedly swelled to 104,922 computers by October 2013. As of today, BS Contact GEO is claimed to be installed on 558,466 Navy computers, although "likely this unauthorized copying has taken place on an even larger scale" according to the filing.
As if the unauthorized installation of software onto hundreds of thousands of computers wasn't enough, Bitmanagement is alleging that the Navy during 2014 began disabling the Flexwrap software that is tasked with tracking the use of BS Contact Geo and helping to prevent it from being duplicated.
When this software piracy was taking place, the retail price of a single BS Contact Geo license was $1067.76. With nearly 600,000 computers now in play, Bitmanagement is seeking a whopping $596,308,103 in damages. The lawsuit, which alleges willful copyright infringement was filed on July 15^th.
Representatives for the U.S. Navy have not yet commented on the case.

[Son of Man]

Ma ko hoće nađe sve novo, a za sve ostalo staro naravno cinemagedon.

Prvo su došli po megaupload...niko se nije bunio...

[Son of Man]

Isohunt napravili miror 

http://kickasstorrents.website/

[Nightflier]

Daleko od toga da je miror kompletan. Upravo sam potražio neke opskurnije knjige kojih je ranije bilo i - nič.

[Son of Man]

Jbga, spasli su sve što se moglo spasti...

[Krsta Klatić Klaja]

obnoviće se to valjda... ja sam juče koristio otorrents, sasvim ok

ali izgleda da polako idemo ka zatvorenim sajtovima

[divča]

Daleko od toga da je miror kompletan. Upravo sam potražio neke opskurnije knjige kojih je ranije bilo i - nič.

Koje, ako nije tajna?
Ako misliš na one što su kačili korisnik/ci 'TheElves', svega toga ima i na fajlhosterima i na archive.org -- imam jedan veliki excel fajl sa linkovima -- a verovatno će uskoro da se pojavi i na nekom drugom trekeru.
A ako misliš na nešto drugo, izvinjavamo se, mlogo se izvinjavamo.

[Nightflier]

U ovom slučaju, tražio sam neke stvari za Pathfinder RPG Otkad nema Demonoida i Holyterez, ozbiljnije knjige uglavnom skidam s mIRCa

[divča]

nema Demonoida

demonoid.pw

[Nightflier]

Znam da ga ima, ali to je bleda senka nekadašnjeg Demonoida.

[Mark]

Jeste li skinuli ovaj program za skrivanje IP adrese što ga Pirate Bay ovih dana reklamira?
Je li to neophodno?

[Krsta Klatić Klaja]

taj program odavno reklamiraju, bar na kikesu

plaše narod, realno, morali bi da sagrade 15 zatvora da bi svi daunloaderi stali u njih

hapse se samo sami pirati

[Meho Krljic]

Report: Operating Systems Should Actively Block Pirated Downloads

Apple, Google and Microsoft, are in an ideal position to deter piracy, according to a new report published by Black Market Watch and the Global Initiative against Transnational Organized Crime. The controversial report opts for voluntary or mandatory blocking of pirated content on the operating system level.

When Windows 10 was launched last year, rumors spread that the operating system was equipped with a built-in piracy kill switch.

According to some reports, this would allow Microsoft to nuke all torrents downloaded from The Pirate Bay, and more. A scary outlook, but also a massive exaggeration, for now.
The controversy originated from a single line in Microsoft's Service Agreement which allows the company to download software updates and configuration changes that may prevent people from "playing counterfeit games."
Technically this allows Microsoft to block people from playing pirated games across Windows 10 and other services, but thus far there is no indication that this is happening.
However, this week the issue was highlighted again in a report published by Black Market Watch and the Global Initiative against Transnational Organized Crime, which made several recommendations on how online piracy could be tackled in Sweden.
While most of the media attention focused on the role of ISPs, there is an even more controversial proposal that has been largely overlooked. According to the report, pirated content should be banned on the operating system level.
"Other players that possess the potential ability to limit piracy are the companies that own the major operating systems which control computers and mobile devices such as Apple, Google and Microsoft," one of the main conclusions reads.
"The producers of operating systems should be encouraged, or regulated, for example, to block downloads of copyright infringing material," the report adds.
The report references last year's Windows 10 controversy, noting that these concerns were great enough for some torrent sites to block users with the new operating system.
While Sweden doesn't have enough influence to make an impact on these global software manufacturers, applying pressure through the international community and trade groups may have some effect.
"Sweden's ability to influence this as a single state is small, but it can take action through the EU and the international community. Copyright holders can also play a role in promoting this through international industry associations," the report notes.
For now, it's unlikely that the plan will become reality in the near future.
Yesterday, Swedish ISP Bahnhof responded to the report by saying that it doesn't want to act as piracy police, and Apple, Google and Microsoft are not going to be happy with this role either.
However, it's clear that anti-piracy proposals are getting more extreme year after year.

[дејан]

још једна лоша вест - ваљда ће сад хипстерски дегенерици са ио9 плачући од среће колективно оргазмирати до коначног губитка оно мало процесорске способности што им је дато

https://torrentfreak.com/torrentz-shuts-down-largest-torrent-meta-search-engine-says-farewell-160805/

Torrentz.eu, one of the world's largest torrent sites, has announced "farewell" to its millions of users. The meta-search engine, which hosted no torrents of its own but linked to other sites including The Pirate Bay, has decided to cease its operation. The surprise shutdown marks the end of an era.
torrentzFounded in 2003, Torrentz has been a stable factor in the torrent community for over 13 years.
With millions of visitors per day the site grew out to become one of the most visited torrent sites, but today this reign ends, as the popular meta-search engine has announced its shutdown.
A few hours ago and without warning, Torrentz disabled its search functionality. At first sight the main page looks normal but those who try to find links to torrents will notice that they're no longer there.
Instead, the site is now referring to itself in the past tense, suggesting that after more than a decade the end has arrived.
"Torrentz was a free, fast and powerful meta-search engine combining results from dozens of search engines," the text reads.
The site's user are no longer able to login either. Instead, they see the following message: "Torrentz will always love you. Farewell."

TorrentFreak was contacted by the operator of Torrentz, who prefers not to comment at the moment. It's clear, however, that another major torrent site is shutting down, leaving a gaping hole.
Torrentz itself never hosted any torrent files but did have a takedown procedure in place, allowing copyright holders to take down infringing links.
Not all rightsholders were happy with the site though. Both RIAA and MPAA have reported the site to the U.S. Government in recent years, which repeatedly placed it its annual "Out-of-Cycle Review of Notorious Markets."
With Torrentz.eu and KickassTorrents both shutting down, the torrent comunity lost two of the largest sites in a period of three weeks. This means that millions of users will have to find new homes.
Founded a few weeks before The Pirate Bay, Torrentz was one of the oldest torrent sites still around. When Torrentz first came online the site was hosting torrent sites, but it swiftly reinvented itself as a meta-search engine, the biggest of its kind.
Breaking story, more updates will follow

[Son of Man]

Ne radi mi sinemagedon, a na torrentz-u se neka živuljka oprašta sa nama? 

[tomat]

meni sinemagedon radi...

[Krsta Klatić Klaja]

И кад швеђани падну остаће руси, а док они нестану научићемо кинески

Нема зиме за торенте!

[Meho Krljic]

Court: US seizure of Kim Dotcom's millions and 4 jet skis will stand 

The 4th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled Friday in favor of the American government's seizure of a large number of Megaupload founder Kim Dotcom's overseas assets.
In the US civil forfeiture case, which was brought 18 months after the initial criminal charges brought against Dotcom and Megaupload, prosecutors outlined why the New Zealand seizure of Dotcom's assets on behalf of the American government was valid. Seized items include millions of dollars in various seized bank accounts in Hong Kong and New Zealand, multiple cars, four jet skis, the Dotcom mansion, several luxury cars, two 108-inch TVs, three 82-inch TVs, a $10,000 watch, and a photograph by Olaf Mueller worth over $100,000.


After years of delay, in December 2015, Dotcom was finally ordered to be extradited to the United States to face criminal charges. But his appeal is set to be heard before the High Court in Auckland on August 29. Dotcom could conceivably appeal to the New Zealand Court of Appeals and to the Supreme Court of New Zealand (if it agrees to hear the case), a process that could take many more years.

Under American law, authorities can seize cash and items of value if they are believed to be ill-gotten, even without filing any criminal charges.

    Further ReadingWhy Kim Dotcom hasn't been extradited 3 years after the US smashed Megaupload In its court filings, prosecutors argued that because Dotcom had not appeared to face the charges against him in the United States, he is therefore susceptible to "fugitive disentitlement." That legal theory posits that if a defendant has fled the country to evade prosecution, he or she cannot make a claim to the assets that the government wants to seize under civil forfeiture. But as the Dotcom legal team claimed, the US can neither use its legal system to seize assets abroad nor can Dotcom be considered a fugitive if he has never set foot in the United States.

"The [Department of Justice] in our view is trying to abuse the Fugitive Disentitlement Doctrine by modifying it into an offensive weapon of asset forfeiture to punish those who fight extradition under lawful treaties and a provocation for international discord," Dotcom's chief global counsel, Ira Rothken, wrote in July 2015.
However, the 4th Circuit disagreed:

Because the statute must apply to people with no reason to come to the United States other than to face charges, a "sole" or "principal" purpose test cannot stand. The principal reason such a person remains outside the United States will typically be that they live elsewhere. A criminal indictment gives such a person a reason to make the journey, and the statute is aimed at those who resist nevertheless.

On Friday afternoon, Rothken told Ars that he and his client have not yet decided whether they will appeal to a full panel of the 4th Circuit, known as an en banc appeal, or to the US Supreme Court.
"This opinion has the effect of eviscerating Kim Dotcom's US-NZ treaty rights by saying if you lawfully oppose extradition we will still call you a fugitive and take all of your assets, so if you ever arrive in the US you will not have your own funds to use to mount a fair defense in the largest criminal copyright case in history," Rothken wrote by text message.

[Meho Krljic]

U Indiji su se toliko uozbiljili da je sada potencijalna zakonska kazna za ne daunloudovanje torenta, nego posetu sajtu koji se smatra zabranjenim jer širi piratski materijal, i pune tri godine robije. Faking hel.


Are you a criminal now? Users may get 3 years in jail for viewing torrent site, blocked URL in India

Call it the new Digital India. The Indian government, with the help of internet service providers, and presumably under directives of court, has banned thousands of websites and URLs in the last five odd years. But until now if you somehow visited these "blocked URLs" all was fine. However, now if you try to visit such URLs and view the information, you may get three-year jail sentence as well as invite a fine of Rs 3 lakh.
This is just for viewing a torrent file, or downloading a file from a host that may have been banned in India, or even for viewing an image on a file host like Imagebam. You don't have to download a torrent file, and then the actual videos or other files, which might have copyright. Just accessing information under a blocked URL will land you in jail and leave your bank account poorer by Rs 3 lakh.

Also Read: It's over! Torrentz, world's top torrent search engine, shuts down
If you visit such a URL, you will be shown the following warning."This URL has been blocked under the instructions of the Competent Government Authority or in compliance with the orders of a Court of competent jurisdiction. Viewing, downloading, exhibiting or duplicating an illicit copy of the contents under this URL is punishable as an offence under the laws of India, including but not limited to under Sections 63, 63-A, 65 and 65-A of the Copyright Act, 1957 which prescribe imprisonment for 3 years and also fine of upto Rs. 3,00,000/-. Any person aggrieved by any such blocking of this URL may contact at urlblock@tatacommunications.com who will, within 48 hours, provide you the details of relevant proceedings under which you can approach the relevant High Court or Authority for redressal of your grievance"
This is a change compared to the earlier message that users would encounter on the blocked URLs in India. The earlier message would read that the URL has been blocked at the direction of DoT. Of late, however, the government bodies were not only experimenting in how to implement the blocks but were also trying to figure what message to show to users. Recently, the blocked URLs also gave out not reachable error without specifying any message.
In India, most of the URLs and websites were blocked using DNS-filtering. This means the DNS of the blocked site was added to a list maintained by the internet service provider and whenever a user tried connecting to that site, the DNS server of the internet service provider would block that request. However, this was easy to bypass as a lot of people started using - or were already using - third-party DNS services such as those maintained by Google. It is also ineffective if a site uses HTTPS or in other words encryption to secure the network between the user's computer and the site server.But in the last couple of years internet service providers, probably at the request of government bodies, have invested lot more in bolstering the mechanism through which they block websites. Indian government bodies too, instead of relying on internet service providers that are many, has started bring into play the big companies like Tata Communications and Airtel that manage a number of internet gateways in India.
The latest warning message clearly implies that the URL blocking is now happening at the internet gateways - in this particular case for the example the gateway is seemingly managed by Tata Communications - and that is more difficult to circumvent. The connection on which this message was served is from MTNL. But the message came from Tata Communications. We sent an email to Tata Communications at the specified address to get more information but it bounced back (see above).While the message in itself is ominous and surely must have been vetted by a government body, it is not clear how it will be enforced. It doesn't look possible that the government will be monitoring the whole world wide web, looking for people may access or try to access a blocked URL. It is also not clear how, if someone does land in trouble for accessing a blocked URL in India, will be prosecuted and what process will be followed.
Lack of clarity on it as well as no prior information on something like this, which may make, almost every web user in India a criminal, does indicate that this is just a message and not any sort of official government policy, which is going to be enforced. However, at the same, it is also clear that the mere presence of this message to web users mean that they may end up in trouble if a government body or cops do decided to follow through on anything that they believe is an "offence under the laws of India, including but not limited to under Sections 63, 63-A, 65 and 65-A of the Copyright Act, 1957".
Blame it on John DoeThe problem, for now, doesn't seem to that India is moving to block half of the internet through a policy the way China does. Instead, the issue is likely due to the John Doe orders that Indian courts are issuing at the regular interval at the request of content creators like Bollywood film makers. The lawyers of film studios often approach courts ahead of a movie's release seeking preventive blocks on the URLs they compile in the list.

Also Read: Torrentz.eu clone is up but 5 reasons why you should not use it
In reality these lists are poorly compiled and often block is sought on full websites just on the basis of whims and fancies. However, courts have regularly issued orders in the favour of film studios in India. These court orders are issued against John Doe or in other words an unnamed entity that may indulge in piracy of the film.
Once this order is issued, the copies of the order along with the list of URLs to be blocked go to DoT, which them passes an order to internet service providers to block these sites. The interesting bit here is that once a URL is blocked it remains blocked, even years after the release of the film.
Update: The new message that you may have started seeing on the "blocked" URLs in India is possibly result of a recent court directive. According to SpicyIP, Bombay High Court recently asked internet service providers in India to not just block URLs but also explain to users why the URLs are blocked and possibly warn them of consequences of illegally accessing copyright work.

The idea is to tell consumers that downloading a film is illegal. The idea is to tell them that if they download a film, they will face trouble. However, it seems that Tata, which in this case allegedly came up with the wordings of the message, slipped. It came up with a message that is incredibly poorly worded and the intend to convey something more than what was implied. The message not only implies that you may get in trouble if you download a film but may also face the law if you just manage to access that URL and "view" the content of the URL.

As of now, it is clear that you may land up in jail -- or at least in trouble -- if someone pushes for it. Now, it is possible whatever charges you face if you visit a blocked may not hold up in the court but as far as the warning message is concerned, it makes it clear that visiting any blocked URL in India -- and not just a torrent URL -- has potential to land a web user in trouble.

Also Read: The 3 years jail fiasco for torrents shows absurdity of India's John Doe orders

[Krsta Klatić Klaja]

Да винтр ис камин

[lilit]

sreća pa opera radi za nas : već odavno na desktopu, ali evo i sa telefona

https://www.engadget.com/2016/08/23/operas-free-unlimited-vpn-service-is-coming-to-android/

[Meho Krljic]

 Kim Dotcom Claims Revived Megaupload Will Run On Bitcoin Micropayments



i




Dotcom Wants Extradition Hearing Live-Streamed, U.S. Does Not

[Meho Krljic]

Sudija je dopustio da se Dotkomovo pojavljivanje pred sudom u suđenju koje se tiče izručenja SAD strimuje putem JuTjuba. What a world!!!!!

[Meho Krljic]

Heh heh...


Warner Brothers reports own site as illegal

Film studio Warner Brothers has asked Google to remove its own website from search results, saying it violates copyright laws.
It also asked the search giant to remove links to legitimate movie streaming websites run by Amazon and Sky, as well as the film database IMDB.
The request was submitted on behalf of Warner Brothers by Vobile, a company that files hundreds of thousands of takedown requests every month.
Warner Brothers has yet to comment.
The self-censorship was first spotted by news blog Torrent Freak, which said Vobile had made some "glaring errors".
In one request, Google was asked to remove links to the official websites for films such as Batman: The Dark Knight and The Matrix.
Licensed online movie portals such as Amazon and Sky Cinema were also reported for copyright infringement.
"Warner is inadvertently trying to make it harder for the public to find links to legitimate content, which runs counter to its intentions," said Ernesto van der Sar, from Torrent Freak.Transparency                                                                                                    Companies such as Vobile typically work on behalf of major film studios, reporting illegally uploaded copies of movies and television programmes.
Google's transparency report says Vobile has submitted more than 13 million links for removal.
It also reveals other potential mistakes - such as Entura International reporting on behalf of the film studio Lionsgate that a copy of the movie London Has Fallen had been found on the Microsoft download store.
"Unfortunately these kind of errors are very common," said Mr Van der Sar.
"Piracy monitoring firms often use automated systems to find and report copyright infringing websites.
"I'm fairly certain that this happened here as well, considering the obvious mistakes that were made.
"A good approach would be to white-list non-infringing sources such as warnerbros.com and amazon.com - but apparently that didn't happen."
After reviewing the Warner Brothers report, Google decided not to remove links to Amazon, IMDB and Sky Cinema from its results.

[Son of Man]

Raja,
šta se ovo dešava sa programom UTORRENT, nakačila mi se neka sranja na njega, uopšte ni ne vidim fajlove, neka ludila, zna li iko šta se dešava? Hvala.

[Meho Krljic]

Generalno, "pravi" pirati odavno više ne koriste uTorrent jer je opterećen reklamama.

Deluge se preporučuje kao alternativa, ali baci pogled ovde:


The 4 Best Alternatives to uTorrent on Windows

[Son of Man]

Ja nisam imo reklama nikad, radio adblock plus sve u 6, al aj probacu te sigurne. Fala puno Meho, mnogo sam se potreso.

[Meho Krljic]

Pa, njih je odavno kupila druga firma i od tada kreće njihov pad i potonuće 

[Meho Krljic]

TorrentHound is the latest torrent site to bite the dust

[Meho Krljic]

 It took a couple decades, but the music business looks like it's okay again


Naravno, tekst objašnjava i da to što je industrija "ponovo okej" ne znači i da je muzičarima okej...

[Meho Krljic]

Don't plan on using your autonomous Tesla to earn money with Uber or Lyft 

On Thursday night, Tesla announced the new Model X and Model S electric vehicles will now come with the necessary hardware to allow them to drive completely autonomously at a future point in time. But buried in the notes about this new functionality there was also a warning to future Tesla owners: don't expect to be able to use your EV driving for Uber, Lyft, or any other ride-sharing service that isn't owned by Tesla.
On Tesla's website, the section that describes the new "Full Self-Driving Capability" (A $3,000 option at the time of purchase, $4,000 after the fact) states "Please note also that using a self-driving Tesla for car sharing and ride hailing for friends and family is fine, but doing so for revenue purposes will only be permissible on the Tesla Network, details of which will be released next year."

In Elon Musk's "Master Plan part 2," the company's CEO included plans for a Tesla ride-sharing network, which we know will be called the Tesla Network. However, no other information about this program has escaped into the wild as yet.
While this is the first instance we can think of where a car company has preemptively banned its customers from using their vehicles for a specific use, post-sale conditions imposed by car companies are not entirely unheard of. Ferrari, for example, has been known to insist that customers buying its most expensive cars (like the Enzo or LaFerrari) promise not to resell them before a certain point, and the Italian sports car maker also famously disliked the way one of its high-profile customers had his car wrapped.
We should also note that this language does not appear to prohibit owners of the latest Model X and Model S EVs from working as drivers for ride-sharing companies as long as they're controlling the EV themselves. However, sending one's Tesla out to work for Uber while sitting in the comfort of home will apparently not be tolerated. Quite how Tesla plans to detect and enforce this ban is unclear at this time, although it's well known that the company will look into the data sent back to its servers if it feels the need.

[Meho Krljic]

Mala pobeda razuma, od pre neki dan Amerikanci ne mogu biti uspešno tuženi za hakovanje automobila, telefona ili, er, pejsmejkera koje legalno poseduju jer su sprave konačno izuzete iz DMCA:


It's Finally Legal To Hack Your Own Devices (Even Your Car)

You may have thought that if you owned your digital devices, you were allowed to do whatever you like with them. In truth, even for possessions as personal as your car, PC, or insulin pump, you risked a lawsuit every time you reverse-engineered their software guts to dig up their security vulnerabilities—until now.
Last Friday, a new exemption to the decades-old law known as the Digital Millennium Copyright Act quietly kicked in, carving out protections for Americans to hack their own devices without fear that the DMCA's ban on circumventing protections on copyrighted systems would allow manufacturers to sue them. One exemption, crucially, will allow new forms of security research on those consumer devices. Another allows for the digital repair of vehicles. Together, the security community and DIYers are hoping those protections, which were enacted by the Library of Congress's Copyright Office in October of 2015 but delayed a full year, will spark a new era of benevolent hacking for both research and repair.
"This is a tremendously important improvement for consumer protection," says Andrea Matwyshyn, a professor of law and computer science at Northeastern University. "The Copyright Office has demonstrated that it understands our changed technological reality, that in every aspect of consumers' lives, we rely on code," says Matwyshyn, who argued for the exemptions last year.
For now, the exemptions are limited to a two-year trial period. And the security research exemption in particular only applies to what the Copyright Office calls "good-faith" testing, "in a controlled environment designed to avoid any harm to individuals or to the public." As Matwyshyn puts it, "We're not talking about testing your neighbor's pacemaker while it's implanted. We're talking about a controlled lab and a device owned by the researcher."
But within those restrictions, the exemptions remove a looming fear of DMCA lawsuits that has long hung over the security research community. "There's a universe of security vulnerabilities that the law keeps researchers from figuring out and telling you about, but are nonetheless present in devices you use every day," says Kit Walsh, an attorney with the Electronic Freedom Foundation. "For the next two years, that threat will be lifted for many forms of security research that are really important."
Section 1201 of the DMCA has for years forbidden hackers from reverse-engineering many computer systems—even ones that they owned—in an attempt to prevent Americans from circumventing protections on the intellectual property of manufacturers. Sony used the law, for instance, to sue reverse-engineer George Hotz for hacking the Sony Playstation to allow it to run unauthorized software. (Sony and Hotz eventually settled that lawsuit in 2011, after Hotz agreed to stop reverse0engineering Sony's products.) Tractor manufacturer John Deere last year cited the law to argue that tractor owners couldn't repair certain software components of their vehicles.
Even important security research aimed at public safety has long fallen under the DMCA's ban, says Josh Corman, one of the co-founders of the consumer security group I Am The Cavalry. He points to recent research that has shown that Johnson and Johnson insulin pumps could be hacked to induce an overdose, that Jeeps could be hacked over the internet to control their brakes and transmission, and that Volkswagen had rigged its software to systematically cheat emissions testing.
All of the researchers behind those discoveries risked DMCA lawsuits, he says. The new exemptions, Corman argues, provide legal cover to reverse-engineers who otherwise may not explore critical subjects. "Some researchers have good lawyers, or they hope nobody takes the case," says Corman. "But for people who are more risk averse or don't want to be made an example of, this removes some risk."
It's tough to measure just how much the DMCA hacking restrictions have stymied research over the nearly two decades since its inception. But Corman points to the case of one security researcher, Brian Knopf, who held off on reporting security vulnerabilities in his wife's Medtronic neurotransmitter for fear of a DMCA lawsuit. And he notes that since GM launched a vulnerability disclosure program in January that offered some assurance it wouldn't sue helpful hackers, it's received hundreds of reports of security vulnerabilities in its cars. "Simply the act of removing the fear of reprisal allowed people to report things that could have affected GM's customers or their livelihood," says Corman.
The new DMCA exemptions don't mean open season for hackers—even the friendly, research-focused kind. Aside from the Copyright Office's "good-faith" restrictions, researchers can still be sued or prosecuted under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act if, for instance, they're determined to be gaining "unauthorized access" to a computer they don't own. The measure allows research on personal devices, but not the internet services to which they connect.
And again, the exemptions are set to expire after two years. But Corman, of I Am the Cavalry, is hopeful that the security research community can demonstrate enough research results during that time to convince the Copyright Office to lift the ban for good, a move he says would make us all safer.
"It's our belief and hope that if we can create a body of evidence for the positive effects this research brings, we can bring about a permanent exemption," Corman says. "When you remove a barrier to disclosure, you avail yourself of the opportunity to fix these things."

Good News! Fixing Your Car Isn't Illegal Anymore!

Hoist your wrenches into the air, folks. As of today, October 28, you can now hack, repair, and conduct security research on your own car—or tractor!—without risking jail time for copyright infringement.
If you're wondering what car repair has to do with copyright law—believe me, you're not the only one. People have been repairing, modifying, and tinkering with cars ever since we left horses in the dust. But cars have changed a lot since Henry Ford rolled the first Model Ts off the assembly lines just over 100 years ago. Cars aren't just pistons and pumps anymore—they are giant computers on wheels. And the software that tells those computers what to do is (you guessed it) copyrighted.




Thanks to the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, manufacturers can potentially sue you for fiddling with their copyrighted programming. Even if you just want to fix your car or tractor. Even if you just want to check your 2014 Jeep Cherokee for security vulnerabilities—on the off-chance that hackers could commandeer its operations. Because, it turns out, they can.
Last year, automotive cybersecurity researchers Charlie Miller and Chris Valasek remotely hacked and disabled a Wired reporter's Jeep while he was driving on the highway (don't panic: the reporter was a willing and unharmed participant). Miller and Valasek's work prompted Chrysler to issue a massive security update. Technically, Miller and Valasek's experiment could have violated the DMCA—and Chrysler could have prosecuted the digital do-gooders.
Obviously, most researchers wouldn't risk hacking cars if it could put them in jail. And that's troubling. We need more security researchers, not less of them. Especially in an age when manufacturers are hooking up absolutely everything (thanks, IoT) to the Internet and carmakers are teaching their vehicles to cheat emissions tests.
And the DMCA stifles more than security research. Last year, John Deere claimed that farmers didn't own the software in their own tractors. As such, Deere argued that farmers were not allowed to access the programming to repair the tractors themselves. Naturally, that rubbed a lot of people the wrong way. Including us.




iFixit, Repair.org, and the Electronic Frontier Foundation (and many others!) fought for nearly a year to have repair and security research (activities that have nothing to do with copyright) exempted from Copyright law. The US Copyright Office agreed.
Exactly one year ago, the Copyright Office granted a host of exemptions—including three-year exemptions for repairing, modifying, and conducting security research on your own vehicle. Unfortunately, the Copyright Office also decided that the vehicle exemptions wouldn't go into effect until 12 months after the initial ruling. Which is today.
Yeah we know, the year of waiting cut into those three years of freedom—but that's bureaucracy for you. The upside: For the next two years, you're legally entitled to fix your tractor and tinker around under the hood of your car—even if it requires access to the car's programming. The downside: In 2018, advocates will have to ask for permission to repair their cars again—a daunting process that costs a massive amount of time, effort, and legal fees.
But we're trying to change that. Yesterday, iFixit and Repair.org submitted comments to the Copyright Office in support of carving out a permanent exemption for all repair and security research—for cars and everything else. Hopefully, fixing your tractor or hunting for security vulnerabilities in your car won't be a jailable offence ever again.
If you want to help make the world safe for repair, join Repair.org—they're on the front lines every day, fighting for your right to fix everything you own.

[Ugly MF]

Jebemu!
Odjutros nema Warez-bb!!!
Koji su bre to agli madrfakrsi, sta 'e bre ovo, de posten covek sad da skida serije filmove i poneki strip!?

[Meho Krljic]

Ma, dešava se to njima povremeno, nije još vreme da ustajemo na oružje.

[Ugly MF]

Da ali sa najavama i odma' vidis....
ovo je nesto drugo....
sabotaza!!!
Teorija zavere!!!

[Ugly MF]

Al' ima negde još neki sličan ovom Warezu....?
Sa stranske serije?
Ni torrrenti mi ne rade kako valja,,,, bit lord minešto sjeban....nepopravljiv,,,samo se koči....
sve se urotilo odjednom protiv moje piraterije ...   
zavera, lepo kažem ja....

[Meho Krljic]

Eto nam sad Tramp...

Ima masa blogova koji šeruju serije... Pa proberi dok se Warez-BB ne povrati...

http://toptvshows.me/

http://www.todaytvseries.com

[Ugly MF]

ujebotestojedobarovaj todaytvseries !!!
thanx, man!
a za Trampa se ne sekiraj, neće on mnogo da maltretira LGTBQTSitd....

[Meho Krljic]

Evo, Warez-BB je ponovo onlajn.

[Ugly MF]

Evo, Warez-BB je ponovo onlajn.

U jeboteeee,,,, fala, još me odmah i upamtio, ne moram jurcam šifru!!!
Bingo!

[Meho Krljic]

Služimo narodu 

[Meho Krljic]

Vinil se vratio na pogolema vrata, pa je prošle nedelje u Britaniji prodato više vinilnih ploča nego daunlouda. Smatra se da je ovo jer se ploče kupuju na poklon ali slutim da je i do toga što mnogo ljudi samo strimuje muziku sa pretplatničkih servisa i ne kupuje ništa...


Vinyl Records Are Now Outselling Digital Downloads in the UK

[Meho Krljic]

Međutim:


YouTube's $1bn royalties are not enough, says music industry

[Meho Krljic]

Ne znam da li je neko ispratio relativno apsurdnu epizodu prošle nedelje u kojoj je Berkli (univerzitet) najavio da će ukloniti sa (otvorenog) interneta nekih 20.000 videa svojih predavanja javno i besplatno dostupnih za gledanje i korišćenje jer je ministarstvo pravde zaključilo da nisu u skladu sa zakonom (iz 1990. godine) koji veli da javno dostupan edukativni materijal mora biti pristupačan i američkim građanima sa invaliditetom. Pošto ovi videi nemaju titlove (za osobe sa oštećenjem sluha) niti su optimizovani za čitače (za osobe sa oštećenjem vida), ministarstvo veli da moraju da budu unapređeni da bi bili pristupačni a Berklijeva administracija je, pogledavši koliko bi ih to koštalo, odlučila da je lakše da ih ukloni sa iTunesa i javnog JuTjuba i stavi na kanal koji zahteva pristup uz nalog i lozinku, čime se dolazi u harmoniju sa zakonom.

Ovo mi deluje kao slučaj u kome su svi u pravu i niko nije kriv, a opet gomila ljudi biva oštećena: osobe sa invaliditetom zaista treba da uživaju ista prava kao i ostale osobe i insitucije koje rade u javnom interesu moraju da pronađu načine da im to obezbede, a sa druge strane ko može da krivi Berkeley što neće da potroši ogromnu količinu novca i vremena za nešto što ima samo potencijalnu vrednost itd. pa je rešenje ono najgore: učiniti sadržaj još nedostupnijim. Čini se da je ovo primer kako se teorija pravde suočava sa pukom ekonomijom i teško je ne zavapiti kako bi moglo da se odvoji malko budžeta od jebene proizvodnje interkontinentalnih nuklearnih projektila da se ovaj problem reši na opšte zadovoljstvo...

U preokretu od pre koji dan, piraterija se pokazuje kao najrazumnije rešenje, u primeru kako potez na ivici legalnog deluje kao najviše u skladu sa pravišnošću:
20,000 Worldclass University Lectures Made Illegal, So We Irrevocably Mirrored Them

[varvarin]

Ne znam da li je ovo pravo mesto za postovanje, ali:


http://www.b92.net/info/vesti/index.php?yyyy=2017&mm=03&dd=23&nav_category=16&nav_id=1242960


Krivične zbog nelegalnog gledanja serija preko interneta
Beograd -- Policija je podnela krivične prijave protiv dve osobe zbog gledanja serija preko interneta, saopštilo je Ministarstvo unutrašnjih poslova.Kako navode, dve osobe se sumnjiče da su "u dužem periodu preko internet portala serije.rs nezakonito omogućili onlajn gledanje velikog broja domaćih i stranih televizijskih serija, čime su nosiocima autorskih prava naneli veliku finansijsku štetu".