Month: January 2018

Windows RT may be a dead platform, but it is a desktop version of Microsoft Windows designed to run on computers with ARM-based processors. So it’s not all that surprising that one of the first things people started to do after WP Internals 2.3 made it possible to flash custom ROMs on Lumia smartphones was to try […]

This is what Windows RT looks like on a Lumia 640 XL phone is a post from: Liliputing

Read 5 remaining paragraphs | Comments

Read 37 remaining paragraphs | Comments

Ein Gesetzentwurf im US-Bundesstaat Washington sieht vor, dass Hersteller ab 2019 keine Geräte mit schwer austauschbarem Akku mehr verkaufen dürfen. Der 'Substitude House Bill 2279' ist allerdings keine direkte Reaktion auf Apples Tauschaktion. (Smartphone, iPhone)

Erst in einigen Monaten wird bei Intel die Serienproduktion von Prozessoren mit 10-nm-Technik anlaufen. Bisher ist die Chipausbeute gering, Intel liefert nur wenige CPUs an Partner. Die Ice Lake genannte Generation dürfte 2019 erscheinen. (Prozessor, Intel)

There’s a persistent theory that people exist who are using pirate sites but don’t realize that they’re unauthorized and/or illegal. While that seems likely, it’s hard to believe the volumes are particularly significant.

Nevertheless, numerous campaigns have attempted to enlighten consumers as to what is and isn’t legal and this week the Federation Against Copyright Theft raised the issue once again.

Tagging onto UK anti-fraud awareness campaign Take Five, the anti-piracy outfit asked people to take five minutes to consider the legality of the site or service they’re currently consuming.

FACT’s advice above is basically sound. They ask people to do their research on the sites FindAnyFilm and GetItRight, both of which should give consumers an idea of where content can be obtained legally. Trouble is, neither resource is comprehensive, so five minutes of research could turn into ten or fifteen, by which time people could get bored of trying to do the right thing.

So, with this in mind, here are a few light-hearted tips to help people spot whether the site they’re using is authorized by the movie industry or a product of a swashbuckling mind.

Does the site want your name, address and life history?

If the site you’re accessing looks really polished, has a positive Wikipedia page, but won’t give you anything more than a trailer without handing over your full identity and credit card details, this is probably a legal platform.

Since they have to license movies from Hollywood and other filmmakers, sites like these cost a lot of money to run. As a result, they want your money to pay the bills and they like to make sure you can pay up front.

When you think about it, it makes perfect sense. No money, no access – capiche?

Does the site look polished but doesn’t ask for a dime?

If the site you’re looking at seems like the one mentioned above but doesn’t seem to care who you are, this is starting to look like a pirate site. If it then offers up thousands of movies and TV shows without accessing your wallet or dental records, you’re definitely on the high seas.

While this position is pleasurable for people with a penchant for piracy, there are plenty of points to ponder.

Is the site already starting to get on your nerves a bit?

You’re browsing a site, looking at all the beautiful movies and TV shows on offer, then one takes your fancy. You click it with both anticipation and excitement but instead of the video appearing, a new tab or popup appears in your browser.

If this unexpected visitor offers a penis extension, a night out with a girl in your area, or a get-rich-quick scheme you feel you need but don’t understand, this is probably a pirate site.

These stupid offers are the price you pay for not paying. This is how it works.

While movies and TV shows cost money to create and require financial support from the consumer, pirate sites use various techniques to obtain that content for free. Then, with a wave of a magic wand, they cover the costs of delivering it to pirates using advertising.

However, due to pressures put on them by the content industries, pirate sites generally have to serve up poor quality ads. Crappy ads everywhere = almost definitely a pirate site.

The movie site i’m using is really confusing, is it legal?

After obtaining your banking details, mother’s maiden name, and blood type, legal sites are generally very straightforward. Pleasurably content and feature-rich, services like Netflix and Spotify are simplicity itself to use. Their interfaces are clean, tidy, and don’t do anything unexpected. These are just some of the key features you get in return for handing over your money to a legal service.

On the other hand, however, if you’re on a site that has six different download buttons and none of them seem to actually download anything, this is probably a pirate site, and a low grade one at that.

Back away quickly, regroup, and never go back – unless you have an ad-blocker turned all the way up to 11, of course.

Wow! This site has all the latest movies! Is it legal?

Some of Hollywood’s greatest assets are its just-released movies. It holds these tightly, like a protective mother, restricting viewing only to those who pay large amounts of money for the privilege.

As a general rule, if you’re watching them for free on the Internet, chances are it’s not only unauthorized but probably illegal too. That being said, most people don’t give a damn due to all the excitement, free content, and tiny chances of being caught.

Note: If a movie came out today, last week, or even last month, and you’ve spent a large sum of money to watch it alongside hundreds of noisy others in a big room while eating over-priced taste-free snacks, CONGRATULATIONS! You’ve found the only way to watch the latest movies legally.

I really love this site, it has everything I want in one place. Is that legal?

STOP. This is definitely an illegal site. While it is the movie and TV industries’ job to entertain the masses, it also has a side mission to ensure that you will never – EVER – find all the content you want in one place.

Remember: to stay legal and have access to the broadest range of video content, you need to subscribe to several official services while handing over handfuls of cash every month.

If you find that after parting with large sums of cash you still can’t find all the content you want, then you can be sure you’re doing this by the book and entirely legally. Only people using pirate services find all the stuff they need in one or two places.

A service is offering me every TV channel for £10/$10/€10 per month. Legal?

If your local TV cable or satellite provider demands a pile of cash an inch thick to access every channel they have for a month, please be informed they have worked very hard to achieve that monopoly position.

There is no way on planet earth that another legal supplier will be able to undercut them by 90%. Yes, that includes fully-loaded Fire TV Sticks bought off Pete down the pub.

As a rule of thumb, if you’re delighted with the ‘special’ TV service you bought off Facebook yet still have enough money to take the family out for a meal at a half decent restaurant, alarm bells should be ringing.

Legal buyers can generally afford to gorge on either TV or food. If you’re full to bursting due to excessive consumption of both, you’re either using a pirate service or have enough money not to need one.

These tips are not exhaustive – feel free to add your own in the comments

Source: TF, for the latest info on copyright, file-sharing, torrent sites and more. We also have VPN discounts, offers and coupons

Microsoft arbeitet an Windows Core OS, welches das klassische Windows 10 auf vielen Geräten ersetzen und auf natives Win32 verzichten soll. Das modulare Betriebssystem soll für Smartphones (Andromeda) und Desktops (Polaris) erscheinen. (Windows 10, Microsoft)

Game crackers have finally had success with the latest version of the Denuvo, the anti-tampering technology that has been helping to protect AAA titles such as 'Football Manager 2018' and 'Star Wars Battlefront 2' from piracy.

Unlike traditional anti-piracy DRM, Denuvo prevents hackers from tampering with the game code to remove the game's existing copy protection. A cat and mouse game has been going on between game crackers and Denuvo, in which both sides have had their victories.

After the last few versions of Denuvo were easily cracked, sometimes within hours of release, the latest version, version 4.8, has remained strong, allowing games such as 'Assassin's Creed: Origins' to be protected months after release.

But just this week, a cracking group calling themselves "CPY" has claimed a Denuvo 4.8 scalp in the form of 'Sonic Forces'. But instead of being a clean crack that removes Denuvo protection, the method used by CPY has allowed Denuvo to be bypassed completely.

In the workaround, Denuvo will still run in the background, but it has been disabled to the point that it no longer does its main job - to prevent pirated copies of the game from being played.

A complaint about Denuvo's tendency to run in the background is that some gamers are reporting performance issues, that they believe are linked to the anti-tampering technology. This workaround by CPY looks unlikely to alleviate these concerns.

In unrelated news, the company behind Denuvo, also called Denuvo, has been acquired by global anti-piracy outfit Irdeto. The day to day operations of Denuvo is not expected to change following the takeover.

[via Techspot, TorrentFreak]

Game crackers have finally had success with the latest version of the Denuvo, the anti-tampering technology that has been helping to protect AAA titles such as 'Football Manager 2018' and 'Star Wars Battlefront 2' from piracy.

Unlike traditional anti-piracy DRM, Denuvo prevents hackers from tampering with the game code to remove the game's existing copy protection. A cat and mouse game has been going on between game crackers and Denuvo, in which both sides have had their victories.

After the last few versions of Denuvo were easily cracked, sometimes within hours of release, the latest version, version 4.8, has remained strong, allowing games such as 'Assassin's Creed: Origins' to be protected months after release.

But just this week, a cracking group calling themselves "CPY" has claimed a Denuvo 4.8 scalp in the form of 'Sonic Forces'. But instead of being a clean crack that removes Denuvo protection, the method used by CPY has allowed Denuvo to be bypassed completely.

In the workaround, Denuvo will still run in the background, but it has been disabled to the point that it no longer does its main job - to prevent pirated copies of the game from being played.

A complaint about Denuvo's tendency to run in the background is that some gamers are reporting performance issues, that they believe are linked to the anti-tampering technology. This workaround by CPY looks unlikely to alleviate these concerns.

In unrelated news, the company behind Denuvo, also called Denuvo, has been acquired by global anti-piracy outfit Irdeto. The day to day operations of Denuvo is not expected to change following the takeover.

[via Techspot, TorrentFreak]

The copyright holders of Dallas Buyers Club have sued thousands of BitTorrent users over the past few years.

The film company first obtains the identity of the Internet account holder believed to have pirated the movie, after which most cases are settled behind closed doors.

It doesn’t always go this easily though. A lawsuit in an Oregon federal court has been ongoing for nearly three years but in this case the defendant was running a Tor exit node, which complicates matters.

Tor is an anonymity tool and operating a relay or exit point basically means that the traffic of hundreds or thousands of users hit the Internet from your IP-address. When pirates use Tor, it will then appear as if the traffic comes from this connection.

The defendant in this lawsuit, John Huszar, has repeatedly denied that he personally downloaded a pirated copy of the film. However, he is now facing substantial damages because he failed to respond to a request for admissions, which stated that he distributed the film.

Not responding to such an admission means that the court can assume the statement is true.

“An admission, even an admission deemed admitted because of a failure to respond, is binding on the party at trial,” Dallas Buyers Club noted in a recent filing, demanding a summary judgment.

The unanswered admissions

Huszar was represented by various attorneys over the course of the lawsuit, but when the admissions were “deemed admitted” he was unrepresented and in poor health.

According to his lawyer, Ballas Buyers Club is using this to obtain a ruling in its favor. The film company argues that the Tor exit node operator admitted willful infringement, which could cost him up to $150,000 in damages.

The admissions present a serious problem. However, even if they’re taken as truth, they are not solid proof, according to the defense. For example, the portion of the film could have just been a trailer.

In addition, the defense responds with several damaging accusations of its own.

According to Huszar’s lawyer, it is unclear whether Dallas Buyers Club LLC has the proper copyrights to sue his client. In previous court cases in Australia and Texas, this ownership was put in doubt.

“In the case at bar, because of facts established in other courts, there is a genuine issue as to whether or not DBC owns the right to sue for copyright infringement,” the defense writes.

As licensing constructions can be quite complex, this isn’t unthinkable. Just last week another U.S. District Court judge told the self-proclaimed owners of the movie Fathers & Daughters that they didn’t have the proper rights to take an alleged pirate to trial.

Another issue highlighted by the defense is the reliability of witnesses Daniel Macek and Ben Perino. Both men are connected to the BitTorrent tracking outfit MaverickEye, and are not without controversy, as reported previously.

“[B]oth parties have previously been found to lack the qualifications, experience, education, and licenses to offer such forensic or expert testimony,” the defense writes, citing a recent case.

Finally, the defense also highlights that given the fact that Huszar operated a Tor exit-node, anyone could have downloaded the film.

The defense, therefore, asks the court to deny Dallas Buyers Club’s motion for summary judgment, or at least allow the defendant to conduct additional discovery to get to the bottom of the copyright ownership issue.

Source: TF, for the latest info on copyright, file-sharing, torrent sites and more. We also have VPN discounts, offers and coupons