A few face-to-face visits could resolve a lot of the big tube issues that plague this industry.

I don't normally condone violence, but when someone steals your shit, and ruins your livelihood... I'm just sayin....

you missed http://hottorrent.net/
Daniel, Oded [email protected]
Daniel, Oded [email protected]
or contact

Arjan Wijnveen
Aalberselanen 7
Woerden
Utrecht
3445 TA
NL
phone: +31620420622
fax:
[email protected]

VIA whois history..

Why would I look up who USED to own it, when the current people are infringing?

TNA Flix does not give a flying fuck.

We have tons of vids on there and cant do anything about it.

I was looking up information for the ip range, not the domain name. And where do you get hottorrent.net from? The discussion is regarding tnaflix.com.

how about PureTNA.com - porn torrent site with more than 1 million registered users!
you can download whole site memberships from there and latest updates!

maybe because this big ass company that can afforded its own data ceneter/IPs etc .. is sharing it IP with http://hottorrent.net/
whois info = Daniel, Oded
the address used for tnaflix etc.. also over laps with

But oh no they updated the whois info to 3 dif corp names all with the same address..
and there couldn't be anything like any overlap of this corp info that is in any way connected to Daniel, Oded...

Dropping a quick email takes 2 sec. its not like the other emails resulted in anything.. may as well kick a few other doors..

sorry http://hottorrent.net/ is a secondary site oned by them.. Startstream.com is the one hosted on the same IP..

I posted the whois for the WHOLE IP RANGE, not just one domain name. The abuse for that ip range should be able to take care of it, and if they don't, then contact info for some other domain won't do shit :2 cents:

They're hiring programmers:
www . tnaflix.com/job_advert.php

maybe someone could get on the "inside"?

Kick his ass Sea Bass!

it absolutely does
your registration is valid due to the berne convention but you still must comply with that countries IP LAWS.

why do you spend all your time defending criminal organizations, aaron?

ignoring the DCMA is not a crime, dumb ass

it just pisses me off when americans expect that their laws should override every other countries laws.

the entire send DCMA to the host bullshit that is being argued in this thread is based on that insuferable position.

File a takedown notice that is compliant with that countries laws, dumb ass, then and only then would their actions be criminal.

What is the alleged offending link?

pretty much every major torrent site has it basis in organized crime, i am obviously a dumbass as why a nice ontario boy would spend all it's time defending that, eh aaron?

So is startstream their hosting provider or their own company? I sent take down request to them too, and never got a reply - no wonder if they run it themselves.

Has anybody tried to report a site for possible chil*d porn to the police and claiming that the models might be underage - I mean the tube owners does not have age proof ?

Might only work for teen content, but still worth a try ?

I love they write different on their pages, to "cover" their ass:

:1orglaugh

Cool idea.

Links to report them to the police in Netherlands anyone?

Found a link:

http://www.meldpuntcybercrime.nl

Will find some suspiciously young models now and report them.

:thumbsup

bump Bumb

I submitted several links for the NL police to review - wouldn't even post them here because they're indeed suspicious, I'd say I'm 70% positive they feature underage models.

Do your own research and submit your complaint too - the more the better, the more chances they'll go ahead and take some actions.

Nice idea. I think it would work:thumbsup

your right and all pornographers are cp producers,

generalizations don't become anyone. There are tons of torrent sites dedicated to tv shows

tvtorrent
eztv.it
nothing but using torrent like a vcr
more than 50% of all torrent traffic is tv shows.
if they were organized crime you could get them shut down with rico you moron.

fair use rights should be technologically agnostic, i have as much of a right to use torrents as a timeshifting device as my parents had to use a vcr.

Just because the US wrote a law that is so out of wack that it is now being used to take way the right of backup from people doesn't mean that every country should have to obey it.

canada doesn't have a DMCA abusive law yet, and i am glad of that, the absurd arguement that we have to comply with takedown request especially the person filing the request doesn't agree to be bound by the counter restriction (all legal expenses if it is fair use).

Got them finally.

E-mail address [email protected] worked, thanks CYF for finding it out for all of us to use :thumbsup

The damn thing got like 20 pages thinner after our DMCA request was finally processed.

I'll report all necessary details in the copyright forum later, meanwhile feel free to hit me up for an advise if you have problems removing your stuff from tnaflix.

the big difference between vcr's and torrents is that blank vcr tapes were needed and a portion of the price was a tax to cover lost advertising revenue.

So if you hack their site is there not they can legally do about it? :)

totally ignorant comparison. We have all seen every torrent site has stolen content, i have never seen a porn site with cp.



public domain tv shows ? or stolen copyright tv shows ?



besides the whole "sharing it" with people who don't have the right to view it.


I wasn't aware the rico act extended to the netherlands, but now that you have made us aware we will simply push the "rico arrest button" under our chairs..

You may believe you do , but others dont agree. A computer and a vcr are vastly differen't things.
isn't your whole excuse (timeshifting) based on an american law decision ? Funny how you pick and choose which laws to agree with. Last i heard the netherlands were not in the usa , neither is canada :)

bullshit when vcr first came out no such tax existed.
so that arguement is total crap.

really tvtorrents.com
that site removes any content that has not aired on tv
direct to dvd stuff like bsg the plan are not allowed until they air on tv (and therefore fall under the fair use doctrine of timeshifting)

fuck nut, you have a right to timeshift copyright protected content. A tv show that is protected by copyright is legally allowed to be timeshifted. With a VCR or a CLOUD.

it doesn't have to be public domain to be legal. It not stolen period.



and those people should be prosecuted
like i keep saying

leave the tracker alone
leave the seeders alone
leave the leachers with a fair use right alone
go after the leachers with no fair use right

given the fact that 99.5% (according to the US census) have at least 1 tv (95% have two tvs or more) that only .5% of the population.


every country has organized crime statutes moron, of course since fucknut who started this thread wanted them to honor US laws even though they were not US citizens.

It is interesting how you are calling me on doing the exact same thing as the thread starter

Gotcha

fair use rights and the exclusive rights of the copyright holder were granted by the exact same act. If i told you that all your exclusive right disappeared every time it was distributed over a new technology, you would scream bloody murder.

So why the fuck do you believe that it ok to take away the fair use right that have ALREADY BEEN ESTABLISHED every time a new technology is created to allow you take advantage of that right.



The US law was the last one to make that decision

Canada made that ruling years ago

The EU is further a head not only making that ruling years before canada, but establish the bases for ACCESS SHIFTING (1 download != 1 lost sale).

I have predicted for more than 2 years that US ruling would happen BASED ON THE PREVIOUS RULINGS from CANADA and EU.

Now that it finally equal to every where else your trying to argue that those previous ruling disappeared.

WTF.

look theres a guy selling crack in the ghetto, thus it must be legal.

i have never seen any such "right" given, a long ago case was won based on that argument for a vcr, not for torrent sites that profit from the theft of copyright material.

please post proof, highlight the words "legally allowed" , "tv show" , "timeshifted", "vcr" and "cloud" please

i bet you are all talk jack..




and all the shows on tv are free right ? everyone gets every channel free ?






actually he didnt try and defend copyright theft with one law and and ignore copyright laws based on another countries law sorry.
Gotcha


and none of them say anything about timeshifting tv shows.


well first off i never said anything remotely close to what you just said. Just to be clear.

Nobody is trying to "take away" fair use, timeshifting for yourself should be legal. The problem arises in the "cloud". The "cloud" is vastly different now and we KNOW the cloud is being abused, yes laws should reflect the fact that the "cloud" had very little impact on the revenue of the copyright material in the "cloud" years ago. Now the "cloud" is having a huge impact on the ability for copyright holders to profit from their material.




if i was gonna buy something and instead i download it for free then 1 download = 1 lost sale idiot.


you should start one of those phone psychic gigs.. you could make alot of money with your abilities.

Congrats on getting something done!

Thanks :)

Same thing worked for empflix too btw, got a bunch of our videos removed from there.

your not that stupid so stop pretending

you made the arguement that every torrent site has stolen content on it
i pointed you to a torrent site that was dedicated to tv shows after they aired only.
Where the only purpose was the moving of the viewing time of show from day 1 to day 2
Since moving a show from day 1 to day 2 is the definition of timeshifting...


the only way you can argue that meets your definition is to argue that right doesn't exist.
Which is the point i was making with the CP reference, it only by reclassifying fair use out of existance that you can claim that EVERY torrent site is filled with stolen content.


broadcast time-shifted by private viewers (i.e., recorded at a time when the VTR owner cannot view the broadcast so that it can be watched at a later time

satisfies this standard of noninfringing uses both because respondents have no right to prevent other copyright holders from authorizing such time-shifting for their programs and because the District Court's findings reveal that even the unauthorized home time-shifting of respondents' programs is legitimate fair use

http://supreme.justia.com/us/464/417/case.html

as for the cablevision case

i discussed it quite completely

http://www.gofuckyourself.com/showth...a+cloud&page=4

i quoted from the ruling multiple times and covered all the points you made and some you haven't yet (but suspect you will given your later statements)
and all the shows on tv are free right ? everyone gets every channel free ?







so you believe RICO is part of copyright law :1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh

i defend fair use, not copyright theft, there is no theft because as i pointed out fair use is not an infringement.

each country has fair use doctrine in their copyright act, the commonality is what i am referencing when i mention one ruling will (future tense) apply when the issue is addressed in that country.




so now your arguing that none of the court established fair use exist.
timeshifting
format shifting
backup recovery

all court established, they could be established because the copyright act specified rules for the creation of new fair uses. Those rules make any of those court established fair use JUST AS VALID AS THE ONES GRANTED EXPLICTLY by the act.


but that exactly what your doing
re read the quote
"a new technology is created to allow you take advantage of that right."

the new technology is the swarm. Timeshifting using a swarm is superior to the old pvr way because their is no limit on storage space (swarm = infinite storage), it never loses power, misses a show due to user error, never loses the content due to accidental deletion, allows me to jump into a show after it aired for months, etc.

Your talking about denying a person who only torrents tv shows that he bought a right to view (by subscribing to the cable stations necessary) the extra benefits of the new technology simple because you don't want to go after the people who didn't buy that right to view.

THAT IS EXACTLY what i was talking about.



you set a precondition, before that ruling every download was considered an automagic lost sale, without such proof. Even if there was no way for you to buy the content (because of regional restrictions). copyright laws were never ment to be a censorship tool, they were designed to protect your income. IF you don't sell the content to person A, there is no sale to lose. ergo there is no infringement.


not psychic just logic
if country a makes ruling 1
and country b relevent copyright laws are worded the same as country a laws
then when ruling one goes in front of the courts a similar ruling should LOGICALLY happen

That the bases of my predictions (all of which have been right so far)

Glad I could help :thumbsup:thumbsup

i am sending those fuckers an email as well

Make sure to send properly formatted DMCA (otherwise they woudn't respond), send it to [email protected] and cc it to [email protected] to let their hoster know their client has some files to remove.

amd i pointed out that just because someone is doing it doesn't make it legal, there is no provision in the copyright laws saying its ok to give away tv shows after they air.

cept all the people that dont have the right to the show that download it..






actually i did just above.



so in a nutshell you changed all the words around to make it into something completely different, there is no law that says anything about timeshifting or clouds or any of the other nonsense. you are quoting a case result about vcr's, highly doubtfull thats going to be a precedent over a completely unrelated item.



yet you cant actually quote it.. ok then

lets see this LAW that says timeshifting tv shows is fair use, post it , dont post links to other links that you spin more bullshit.

If you search a crack dealer without telling him his rights, the case will likely be thrown out , doesnt make selling crack legal.


and all the shows on tv are free right ? everyone gets every channel free ?

so you believe boiling old ladies in hot oil is legal :1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh

oh wait you never said that and i never said rico was part of the copyright act..


i could call anything fair use , doesn't make it fair use.

if thats what i said , then yes, the slight problem in your thinking is i never said anything remotely similar to that, makes me wonder whether any of the giberish you spit has any basis.

the courts may have ruled for or against certain cases , doesnt make other cases legal.

but dont take my word for it. start an hbo timeshift website and see how long you last, you talk alot of talk yet i dont see any action..

in the specific examples ruled upon. just as why parody fair use cases often go either way , why , because just cuz you call it "fair use" doesnt make it so. Just cuz you call it a pardoy doesnt make it one.






and it has no ability to discern if the people using the swarm have the legal right to do so.




please tell me the logical ruling of every court case currently awaiting trial as you are obviously much smarter than a judge or any lawyer.. as you can predict results without having even heard evidence or sat at a trial.


i probably don't need to tell you this but , you are seriously deluded. You may want to seek professional help..

If you talk yourself in circles because its fun to do , then by all means go right ahead , if you actually believe half of what you say, you have serious problems.

He is the 310th busiest web site on teh Internets! Do you really think he has time to pay attention to DMCA notices from someone with a site way back in the 40,000's?

Bitch please... He is going to send you a bill for his hookers and coke since you killed his buzz!

This adult biz is so funny.

So, where is that fucking link?

Oded if you are reading this pls msg me, thanks. -Cory

Got a producer account from them today, it works accross their network of sites (tnaflix.com, empflix.com and moviefap.com) - allows to flag content as infringing and it gets immediatly removed (for later review by their administrators, if they confirm removal will stay permanent).

Asking them for a producer account was really a long shot in the dark, I'm actually quite surprised I got it, given their reputation.

But now I have to admit that within the current laws, they did their due diligence - they complied with DMCA request, they hooked us up with the producer account, and they've also added our sites to the list of forbidden content. However sad, but within the current legal environment we cannot press for more.

hense why i said

which is exactly what you did just now


your so right, vcr were illegal because they could be used to bootleg movies.

oh wait vcr were legal and only the people using them in that illegal way were convicted

sort of like

"go after the leachers without a fair use right to the content"


nothing about that ruling says it only applies to VTR it established a right irregardless of the technology that was used to do it.
IF what you were saying was legitimate and the precedent would have to be established with every new technology
Tivo /pvr would have had to gone to the supreme court too. The precedent (with the established right of timeshifting) protected all the other technology that came after it.

http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2008/08/victory-dvrs-cloud

that the way legal precedents work

there is no law that makes selling porn legal either, it was a court case that did that
just because there is no law that explictly saying that timeshifting is legal doesn't make it illegal.


two different issues and you know it
the court case doesn't say that it would be a crime if they had been notified but because they weren't they get off
it says that the action was not an infringement.

If you want to use your drug analogy, the crack dealer example you gave would be not complying with the appropriate takedown request of the country in question.

And fair use arguement would be trying to bust a medical marijuana store for selling weed.


again

what exactly about
go after the leechers who don't have a fair use right to the content do you not understand.



your first quote
my response
your response to the above

since the beginning of the conversation was simply pointing out that the thread starter should file a complaint complient with that countries laws, and not expect them to comply with the DMCA take down notice. there is no way you can get to your last statement without arguing that rico was part of copyright law.

the fact is you don't have a right to force people to obey US laws, they don't take precedents over the other countries laws.
The subsequent arguements about the legality of timeshifting under US laws don't change that fact.


and you can call anything you want to be an infringement, totally irrelevent to the point i am making because i am taking about case law and SHOWING HOW THE SWARM MEETS THE SAME PRECONDITIONS.

you on the other hand have done no such thing. Show me one case where the issue was brought up and a judge actually ruled it doesn't apply. The only convictions you can point to are ones where those key issues are hidden.



sure you are
you are demanding that i show a law that says timeshifting tv shows is legal
but when i show you a court case you say that doesn't count

you ignore the fact that timeshifting ruling from 24 years ago was just recently extended to the cloud

significantly extending timeshifting to other cloud technologies like a swarm.

you argue that they are "completely unrelated" but fail to document one failed precondition that could be used to argue that timeshifting in a cloud ruling doesn't apply.




http://www.tvtorrents.com/loggedin/show.do?id=559

6 years and counting.


bullshit, the only way in which parody get overruled is when it is proven it doesn't meet one of the established court preconditions.
go thru the previously quoted thread where i discussed this stuff with Nautilus he brought up a laundry list of "failures" that would make swarm illegal while still allowing ruling to be true. I answered every one of them, sometimes multiple times.

If you want to make that arguement you need to show a difference that was not covered by the court case, one that is distinct enough to justify a ruling of liability

Your next one is most definately not it because





just like a vcr which could not tell if you were using it for the legitimate purpose of timeshifting or the infringing actitity of bootleg cassettes.

It didn't make VCR illegal hense it doesn't make the torrents illegal either.





That the principle of the legal system, precedents are established you try and extend them to apply in new ways. However once they have been extended they DO apply to all cases. Can i predict the extension no, can i predict the ruling after the extension has happened yes.

Judges are bound by those previous rulings. Lawyers are paid to know those rulings. IF the legal system was a crap shoot where any judge could make up a ruling how he feels the world would be chaos.


says the guy who advices admitting to a criminal act of fraud to get out of a civil liability of a false takedown request.

Yeah, well... the owners of piratebay also thought they were in a "safe" environment. Look at them today... now they are even banned by the court from running a website.
I guess it all depends on how big the pressure is :)

Yes but they laughed at the faces of copyright owners and never removed a single torrent - they even had a page where they MOCKED at all the DMCAs they got, it's still there btw:

http://thepiratebay.org/legal

Now their arrogant attitude was stuck up their own asses, hopefully those skinny farts will suck some Bubba's cock all the while they're in jail.

But they were not compliant, while the tubes in question ARE, that's what makes all the difference. They comply with takedown requests, they have producer accounts with the immediate take down option, and they have a no-upload list. What else could be required of a public service under the current DMCAish legal climate worldwide? Not much I guess.

Of course we'd want them to be responsible for checking the legality of every uploaded video - but that's not required of them by law and they're not going to do that. They're only required to do their due diligence in assisting the copyright holders (which they did), and thus they're clean until the laws get changed. Aside from patroling their sites daily, there isn't much more that we can do now.

That's a lie. You haven't answered the last and the most important question, which makes all of your torrent cloud fair use arguments an utmost bullshit:

http://www.gofuckyourself.com/showpo...&postcount=258

Seeder IS and infringer because he has no business sharing his copy with others (outside of the usual circle of family and friends).

If you want to continue please either bump this old thread or start a new one - do not post in this thread anymore, it is for people who need to actually have some business done.