when I started on the internet I had lists with IP numbers of servers on a page
dns and domainnames only came later
the copyrightholders want to go back to that
they want to marginalize copyrightinfringing sites like that
but it can bring down one of the most essential parts of the internet as we know it today
"The MPAA’s legal argument centers on the claim that DNS records are working as an index or directory rather than simply routing data. If that argument holds, then the DNS links could be vulnerable to the same takedown notices used to strike torrent links from Google searches. The net effect would be similar to site-blocking, making it as easy to unplug a URL as it is to take down a YouTube video. It would also cast DNS providers as legally responsible for all the sites on the web, the same way YouTube is responsible for every video uploaded to its network. For many providers, simply managing the flood of notices might create a logistical nightmare.
the numbers speak for themselves
Fury is in the States in the theatres while annie still had to be released worldwide
“Fury,” a war film that stars Brad Pitt and Shia LaBeouf, has reportedly been downloaded by over 1.2 million unique IP addresses, while “Annie” has been downloaded by an estimated 206,000 unique IP’s, according to the piracy-tracking firm Excipio. http://conservativeblogscentral.com/archives/7389
this is a disaster
and proof that if you don't use anonimizing software your torrent traffic will be kept somewhere for some time
if you don't find it here, it will be very hard to find (and it will surely not be in Google)
networks from firms should control that access to these sites is blocked to limit their responsabilities, if they have a proxy there should be some categories that would allow this. Allowing P2P traffic in a netwerk is just asking for huge legal and securityproblems (and sometimes networkproblems)
MPAA is spending millions to find them, calculate their importance and hunt them down to get at least their links out of Google as fast as possible (this is the reason for the renewed popularity of the sites that only have links to pirated content - which is illegal in Belgium under some conditions and maybe illegal in your country too, so be careful before you want to jump on the bandwagon)
some sites are really located in astonishing places of which you would have thought that it would be easy to take them down using the copyright laws (Sometimes the FBI and now the London Police take down hundreds of websites in sweeps but those yearly actions aren't very effective because the search only goes to other places)
at another note, there is also some evidence that when there are professional, global and great alternatives like spotify and netflix the amount of illegal downloading reduces enormously
Direct Download and Streaming Cyberlockers:
VK.com – Russia
Uploaded.net – Netherlands
Rapidgator.net – Russia
Firedrive.com – New Zealand
Nowvideo.sx and the “Movshare Group” – Panama/Switzerland/Netherlands
Netload.in – Germany
Peer-to-Peer Networks & BitTorrent Portals:
Kickass.to – Several locations
Thepiratebay.se – Sweden
Torrentz.eu – Germany/Luxembourg
Rutracker.org – Russia
Yts.re – Several locations
Extratorrent.cc – Ukraine
Xunlei.com – China
Free-tv-video-online.me – Canada
Movie4k.to – Romania
Primewire.ag – Estonia
Watchseries.lt – Switzerland
Putlocker.is – Switzerland
Solarmovie.is – Latvia
Megafilmeshd.net – Brazil
Filmesonlinegratis.net – Brazil
Watch32.com – Germany
Yyets.com – China
Viooz.ac – Estonia
Cuevana.tv – Argentina
Degraçaemaisgostoso.org – Brazil
Telona.org – Brazil
Oracle tries to get billions from Google for using API's from java in its code (millions of lines of code) and the judges have been going back and forth on this issue and the case has been sent to another court now
but Google has decided to cut the long story short and has asked the Supreme Court of the US to consider to consider the case.
"Many of the deliberations in the case have since focussed on whether it is possible to copyright an API, a matter of no small interest in these API-happy times.
The last judicial word on the matter came in May this year, when the Court of Appeals decided APIs can indeed be copyrighted, before handing the matter back to a lower court for another round of argument about fair use.
Google's now gone all the way to the Supreme and according to Reuters, which has seen its filing, is now arguing that “Early computer companies could have blocked vast amounts of technological development by claiming 95-year copyright monopolies over the basic building blocks of computer design and programming.” The Chocolate Factory seems to be suggesting that Oracle is unfairly crimping innovation with its actions regarding Java in Android.
the ramifications if Oracle wins are enormous and could turn the whole webservices infrastructure and everything that uses java somewhere (billions of instances) into moneymachines for Oracle
next time a patent lawyer says you have to go to sue and not look for an agreement, sue him for bad advice
"Patent litigation costs companies millions of dollars in time and lawyer fees, but just how effective are the “patent wars” anyway? Florian Mueller, the founder of the FOSS Patents blog, analyzed 222 smartphone patent assertions — with Android being a major target of many of them — only to find that 90% of those cases have gone absolutely nowhere.
this is also important because all of them have some copyright clauses with privacy impacts
this is a big revolution because if there was one place where you could find any kind of garbage content it was there
this is the message that appears
this is something that has been happening with other services that have started first with a limited paywall and than in fact limited their free service to only content that was so stupid that it wasn't even Worth using it
so Youtube will start soon with a paid music service and will take everything down that is also on the paid service or doesn't want to be on it meaning that in fact all new and good musicvideos placed by the firms itself can't be on the official free channels of the artists or the labels and everything similar uploaded by their fans will be tracked, silenced and taken down with all the Tools they have and they are developing
"Google-owned YouTube is threatening to pull down music videos by artists on independent (i.e., non–Big Three) record labels that have refused to sign on to its upcoming subscription streaming service. Major acts such as Adele, Radiohead, Jack White, and Vampire Weekend could all disappear from the site “in a matter of days,” according to YouTube exec Robert Kyncl.
The indies say they are holding out because YouTube has offered them far worse licensing deals than it's offered the major labels (though they’re light on details). This, they claim, is a departure from the standards set by companies like Spotify and Rdio, which treat them on the same terms as Universal, Sony, and Warner. According to Billboard, meanwhile, YouTube executives "argue that they cannot offer music on the free service without it also being available on the paid service as this would disappoint its subscribers. The solution? To take down songs that can’t be available on both services." (If this sounds to you like a tenuous excuse for simply driving a hard bargain, join the club.)
but expect this also to be the case for movies, series, documentaries, cartoons and all the rest that is interesting
there is quite some freeware (never pay for this stuff) to download the videos from Youtube I like this one
and if you don't upload it to a torrent or a fileserver afterwards, you are not doing anything different from watching it ........
those who know where to look know where to find the interesting links to the interesting stuff on Youtube (surprise me :))
download in the flv format with a flv player and an external harddrive isn't that expensive anymore
the last standing opposition browser - Firefox - had to concede under the enormous pressure
"It's official: the last holdout for the open web has fallen. Flanked on all sides by Google, Microsoft, Opera, and (it appears) Safari's support and promotion of the EME DRM-in-HTML standard, Mozilla is giving in to pressure from Hollywood, Netflix, et al, and will be implementing its own third-party version of DRM. It will be rolled out in Desktop Firefox later this year. Mozilla's CTO, Andreas Gal, says that Mozilla "has little choice." Mozilla's Chair, Mitchell Baker adds, "Mozilla cannot change the industry on DRM at this point."
At EFF, we disagree. We've had over a decade of watching this ratchet at work, and we know where it can lead. Technologists implement DRM with great reticence, because they can see it's not a meaningful solution to anything but rather a font of endless problems. It doesn't prevent infringement, which continues regardless. Instead, it reduces the security of our devices, reduces user trust, makes finding and reporting of bugs legally risky, eliminates fair use rights, undermines competition, promotes secrecy, and circumvents open standards.
It's clear from the tone of Gal and Baker's comments, and our own discussions with Mozilla, that you'll find no technologist there who is happy with this step. The fact that Mozilla, in opposition to its mission, had to prepare and design this feature in secret without being able to consult the developers and users who make up its community is an indication of how much of a contradiction DRM is in a pro-user open-source browser.
Unchecked, that contradiction is only going to grow. Mozilla's DRM code, imported from Adobe as a closed-source binary, will sit in a cordoned sandbox, simultaneously Mozilla's responsibility but beyond its control. Mozilla will be responsible for updates to the DRM blackbox, which means users will have to navigate browser updates that will either fix security bugs or strip features from their video watching. Mozillians have already been warned of the danger of talking too much about how DRM works (and doesn't work), lest they trigger the provisions in the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) that forbid "trafficking" in circumvention knowledge.
They have tried to stop P2P but that didn't work - even if they have fined thousands of people, still milloins of people are using it
They have tried to stop the filesharing platforms and they have succeeded in closing down the big pioneers but now a whole bunch of smaller ones are popping up every month (and going)
They have tried to stop torrents and piratebay but even if they have had big successes in courts and brought many sites down or obliged to comply, still millions of people are using it
They have tried to bring streaming sites down and have succeeded with millions of links blocked every year in the searchengines
They have triend to impliment the DMCA infringement mechanism and they are retiring by search or automatically millions of links and files a year but millions of new files appear (even if they disappear faster)
now they are trying to do the following
as most of these things are done through the browser (torrent, filesharing, streaming) they want to control the browser and be sure that a blackbox in the browser would control the material you are trying to see, listen to or do something with
well it will only means that ..... there is an app for that and you won't need a browser
sidenote : having a blackbox in Firefox at which the developers have no access is something in these NSA times that I find really scary
first it is so much because he doesn't have the money to pay the offer to buy himself out of trial for 10.000 to 15.000 euro
it is not that he placed them online or that he was a major downloader, he only downloaded some films for his girls, something that probably is done by a lot of dads and moms
it proofs another time that the trackers in the p2P system that are placed on the files are sometimes connecting to the copyrightcontrol firms that are paid by the studios and the owners
so it may be dangerous to use torrents if you are not using some precautions
at the other side, he said he watched the films on youtube before
one can ask what is the link between the sum and the infraction ? isn't this over the top ?
today those new ones have been added
but the full list of all the new domainextensions you can see on this page
but as they say, the more choice, the lesser alternatives because you can find whatever beautiful play of words with these new domainextensions - not so sure people will start clicking on them
but what is the popularity of them
site:bike 74.000 links
site:clothing 24.000 links
site:.guru 174 real links
site:holdings 1700 links
site:plumbings 2400 links
site:sexy 119 real links
so now great revolutions
Police have created an online database of websites "verified" as being illegal.
It is hoped that firms that handle advertising will use the resource to make sure they do not serve advertising on those sites, cutting off revenue.
Top piracy sites generate millions of pounds thanks to advertising.
One estimate, from the Digital Citizens Alliance - a group backed by rights holders - suggested that piracy websites worldwide generated $227m (£137m) from advertising revenue each year.
if you can't beat them, you can at least starve them
this is how dropbox keeps copyrighted work from being shared - they think (it is all make believe)
But if you change the file (make it a second shorter for example) than the hashtag changes
at the other hand using names everybody knows or any system can understand is stupid as well
this is not to say that you should share copyrighted material
it is just to say that this system is only to stop the stupid and lazy uploaders
too lazy to cut a second from their file, change the hash and upload it
look out for more hashchanging tools coming your way (changing every file in your library, adding x bits to every file and changing the hash afterwards)
one is http://www.portablefreeware.com/?id=1535
this is all make-believe
they are going to digitalize 40.0000 VHS tapes with news shows starting in 1972 that some woman taped around the clock for whatever reason.
but who do you go to in Belgium or Europe if you have such an archive - yeah the big tvstations will say that they still have their archives - which they hardly liberate - but what if you have another archive they don't have or anyone has
everybody is collecting and digitalizing in their corner and there is no real coordination, not a one point where you can go to with whatever news or internetmaterial you may have
"A Philadelphia woman’s collection of over 40,000 VHS and Betamax tapes will live on forever thanks to a group of volunteers and digitization.
The Internet Archive is a San Francisco-based nonprofit that catalogues everything from websites to TV shows. Michael Metelits contacted the organization last fall after his mother, Marion Stokes, passed away. She left her family an incredible compilation of recorded television programs spanning almost four decades.
Stokes began her collection in 1976. Tapes are as recent as 2012; she died that December from lung disease at the age of 83. Over the 36 years, Stokes recorded anything she thought might one day be important. Her son told The Daily Dot that the two events that prompted this were the Iran Hostage Crisis and the start of CNN, the first 24-hour cable news network.
According to Fast Company, Stokes ran as many as eight recorders simultaneously and around the clock following the advent of cable news. The recording would start late at night with six-hour tapes that would be replaced when she woke up, and then switched throughout the day either by her or a family member.
European Union antitrust regulators ordered Luxembourg on Monday to hand over information on its corporate tax practices as part of their investigation into tax loopholes which have allowed companies such as Starbucks and Apple to cut their tax bills.
The move by the European Commission came after Luxembourg failed to provide data on its tax rulings in 2011 and 2012, and also details about the 100 largest companies which came under its intellectual property tax regime.
"As Luxembourg failed to adequately answer previous requests for information, the Commission has now adopted two information injunctions ordering Luxembourg to deliver the requested information within one month," the EU executive said.
in fact the system is that ll the subsidaries in Europe where there are higher taxes have to pay enormous royalties to the headoffice in Luxembourg (or another country with the same scheme) for being able to use the logo's and all the rest the company provides for
this way billions of dollars are shipped out of countries with a high tax rate to states like Luxembourg
De digitale markt bracht in 2013 evenmin soelaas. Zo schaften 269 mensen een digitale Humo aan. Nochtans maakte bladmanager Lisbeth Rillaerts zich vorig jaar bij het vertrek van Van Driessche sterk dat het verlies aan printkopers de voorbije jaren "ruimschoots gecompenseerd werd met een relevant bereik via andere platformen".
De digitale versie van Story moest het wekelijks met 258 lezers stellen. Knack verkocht wekelijks 349 digitale exemplaren, P-Magazine 118.
well you would have understood the numbers, it means that only 269 people subscribed to the digital version of Humo which has now 134.000 readers
I used to read Humo during decennia but now I don't know why I should because there no more really investigative articles in it (which was the reason it became a household name attracting the best investigative journalists and the best interviewers) nor any qualitative commentary about the programs.
but it also means that those paywalls are enormous moneylosers and that it would be much cheapier to throw their enormous and very interesting archives online (and for Humo their fabuluous artistic covers) and get money by traffic and selling prints and re-use of articles.
the populair daily press is just sensational rubbish I don't care about and that has been reduced elsewhere to pennypress (one euro in fact) not worth any cent more - even not the paper it is written on
no not an illegal site
in an official study of where the advertising money goes online
to where the people are - and that is also en mass on movie and downloadsites
and that even for the biggest brands
and at the end of the report in the addendums are the long lists of the 576 sites they have studies
neatly organised what they are and if they are big or small
stupid, but interesting and probably very popular soon