Best MP3 Music

Archive for January, 2010

Developed by BitTorrent Inc., uTorrent Falcon will bring plenty of change to the BitTorrent client currently in use by more than 50 million people a month.

Most of the upcoming features of the Falcon project are still being developed, but those who download the latest Alpha release have the option to take a peak at what to expect from the future. Below we sum up some of the key features.

Access Anywhere

Allowing users to access their BitTorrent downloads from anywhere through a simple web-interface is one of the main goals of the Falcon project. Without having to configure uTorrent and home networks so that they can be accessed remotely, users can simply head over to the Falcon page and connect to their client instantly.

The easy to use web interface is as secure as it gets, a major improvement over the Web UI currently available. When logged in, it gives users all the controls they are familiar with in their regular PC client. Torrents can be added, paused and removed using an interface with a look and feel identical to that of the uTorrent application.

Those who want to try the remote access features require an invite for now. Invites are sent out regularly and those who leave their email address behind should receive one within a few days.

Download Anywhere

Aside from the added security and easy setup, accessing your torrents via the Falcon web-interface offers another advantage – remote downloading. Once a file has finished downloading you can transfer a copy of the file to a remote computer via the web-interface.

This feature is not enabled in the current version of the Falcon web-interface. However, it has been publicly announced in the uTorrent forums so we expect that it will return soon.

Streaming

Another new feature of the Falcon project is the added option to stream video files while downloading. Instead of having to wait until a file has finished downloading, users can already start watching video provided that the download speed is sufficient.

“Our hope is to transform getting media using uTorrent from a ‘load-wait-watch-tomorrow’ to more of a ‘point-click-watch’ experience,” Simon Morris, BitTorrent’s VP of Product Management told TorrentFreak, commenting on the new feature.

Easy Sharing

Also new in the Falcon release is the “Send Torrent” feature. This feature is particularly useful when you want to share torrents with people who do not have a BitTorrent client installed yet.

Right clicking a torrent in uTorrent shows a “Send Torrent” option which then brings up a URL similar to this one. This is a direct link to a download of the uTorrent client with the torrent file included.

Finding Torrents

The Falcon release is expected to make it easier for users to find torrents. The uTorrent team didn’t want to comment on how this will be integrated, but Simon Morris has stated that they are working on “better ability for torrent sites to promote content or search within the client.”

When we asked if this means that uTorrent will come with a built in torrent search engine, Morris said that they are more interested in “APIs rather than bloating the uTorrent user experience.” We’ll see what this means in the months to come.

Further Improvements

The features listed above are just a few of many that will be added to the new uTorrent clients. The latest Alpha release also had a ‘minify interface’ option, for example, and the development team is also working on speed improvements, UI improvements and optional file security features.

Exciting times ahead for uTorrent users.

Article from: TorrentFreak, check out our new blog at FreakBits.

Newzbin is one of the original Usenet indexing sites and the creator of the ever-popular .NZB format, which opened up simplified Usenet downloading to the masses.

After years of trouble-free operation as the MPAA focused on shutting down the growing ‘threat’ of the snowballing BitTorrent scene, in May 2008 the operator of Newzbin made an announcement.

The company which owns Newzbin had received a threatening letter from the Motion Picture Association (MPA), the MPAA’s big brother. In the letter the MPA claimed that some of the site’s editors (users who report on the location of material uploaded to the worldwide Usenet system) were listing NZBs which linked to movies on Usenet which infringed their member’s copyright.

“Newzbin has recently received two serious complaints regarding the indexing we perform, and raising doubts as to its legality. It is likely that we will in the coming weeks be presented with a court case and have to defend our rights,” said ‘Caesium’, the owner of Newzbin.

Caesium added that the site had never condoned the distribution or indexing of copyright works and insisted that site staff would act immediately to remove any items found to be infringing copyright.

Noting that Newzbin would defend itself vigorously against the complainants, Caesium said he believed that linking to content on Usenet is entirely legal and that the site’s procedures for dealing with unlawful content were appropriate.

“We believe that, or we wouldn’t still be here,” he added.

In December 2008, Newzbin confirmed that it had been removing NZB files which allegedly linked to copyright works stored on Usenet. The MPA still chose to file an injunction against the site.

Now, well over a year later, the showdown of Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation & ors v Newzbin Ltd is set to begin next week before Mr Justice Kitchin in London’s High Court.

According to an announcement yesterday by Newzbin’s legal team, the case should last around a week but it’s unknown when any verdict will be handed down following its conclusion.

As we all know, the recent trial of Alan Ellis ended in an acquittal for the ex-OiNK admin and, just like Newzbin, his site hosted no copyright works and provided only meta data which linked to material hosted elsewhere.

However, Ellis’s charge was one of fraud, allegedly conducted by an individual and dealt with under criminal law, while that leveled against Newzbin is one of allowing and inducing illegal copying, i.e copyright infringement, but carried out by a bona fide company under civil law.

After Ellis’s acquittal, John Kennedy of the IFPI expressed disappointment at the “spectacular failure” of the criminal action and suggested that these type of complex cases should not be held in a crown court, but in the Chancery Division of the High Court.

This is exactly where the Newzbin case is being heard, so this is certainly one to watch. Unlike Ellis who faced possible jail time, Newzbin faces a claim for damages should it lose its case.

Article from: TorrentFreak, check out our new blog at FreakBits.

Although Comcast has been at the center of the BitTorrent blocking and Net Neutrality debate, they are certainly not the only Internet provider targeting the popular file-sharing protocol.

All around the world, hundreds of larger and smaller ISPs are actively interfering with BitTorrent traffic, allegedly to keep their networks in good shape. Thus far, only Comcast has been punished for doing so.

In 2008 the FCC looked into Comcast’s BitTorrent blocking and concluded that the company’s network management practices were unfair because they specifically targeted BitTorrent, not any other protocols.

The FCC ordered Comcast to stop blocking BitTorrent transfers, and last year the communications commission decided to take up the task of ensuring that the Internet remains neutral. At least, that was the initial plan, the reality is less hopeful.

Although it was Comcast’s anti-BitTorrent measures that sparked the current Net Neutrality debate, the FCC’s current proposals are not going to stop ISPs from slowing down or even blocking BitTorrent traffic. In fact, if these rules are implemented, BitTorrent users will be worse off than three years ago.

In the 107 page proposal detailing the Net Neutrality regulation, the FCC says that all traffic on the Internet should be treated equally, but it allows ISPs to slow down or block traffic if it’s considered to be “reasonable network management”.

So the key issue is, what are reasonable network management practices and how may these affect BitTorrent traffic? Let’s take a look at what the FCC has to say about this.

Reasonable network management consists of reasonable practices employed by a provider of broadband Internet access service to [...] (i) reduce or mitigate the effects of congestion on its network or to address quality-of-service concerns; [...] (iii) prevent the transfer of unlawful content; or (iv) prevent the unlawful transfer of content.

In short, this means that ISPs have plenty of options to target BitTorrent traffic and keep the Net Neutral at the same time. Let’s take a closer look.

As the EFF has also pointed out, the latter two conditions (iii and iv) would make it perfectly reasonable to block BitTorrent traffic for the purpose of preventing piracy. The terminology is rather vague, but we expect that when the MPAA or RIAA produce a report stating that 95% of all BitTorrent traffic involves copyright violations, blocking BitTorrent may become perfectly reasonable.

And that’s just one of the many loopholes. There are also plenty of options for ISPs to target BitTorrent traffic without going for the piracy/copyright angle. In fact, congestion issues and quality-of-service concerns are even more viable and can be implemented to target BitTorrent traffic specifically, but indirectly.

Under the proposed plans, ISPs could simply manage their networks by slowing down connections that use “too many” TCP connections, one of the key characteristics of BitTorrent traffic. There are plenty of arbitrary rules that may look reasonable and neutral, but will specifically (not exclusively) hinder BitTorrent transfers to ease the strain on the network.

In fact, the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) which develops and promotes Internet standards is working on a proposal that might kill BitTorrent traffic if implemented. The proposed protocol will mark all packets which are expected to cause congestion as “negative packets,” which is likely to apply to and slow down most peer-to-peer traffic.

One way or another, the FCC’s Net Neutrality plan is no guarantee that BitTorrent will be able to download at full speeds. On the contrary, the plans might actually encourage ISPs to use Deep Packet Inspection technologies to check if the traffic of its subscribers is lawful, if it’s the last resort to slow down BitTorrent. We don’t want that to happen do we?

Article from: TorrentFreak, check out our new blog at FreakBits.

Ever since they first reared their heads in the UK file-sharing sphere, lawyers ACS:Law have been raising eyebrows. The tiny law firm, which took over the business of chasing alleged file-sharers from Davenport Lyons, have been steeped in controversy, making countless false accusations, misleading statements and even committing copyright infringement themselves. They have even recently dropped many cases because they were going nowhere.

Although there has been some mainstream news coverage in the past, this week the press have really stepped up, helped along by the UK Lords who labeled the ACS:Law scheme “legal blackmail” – not exactly a shining endorsement.

Nevertheless, ACS:Law owner Andrew Crossley has stood his ground, telling the media that his campaign will continue. Following criticism that so far he has taken a grand total of zero cases to court, Crossley told the BBC that cases are pending.

“It has been said that we have no intention of going to court but we have no fear of it,” he said.

While Crossley may not be scared of taking a couple of cut and dried cases of infringement against minnows to court to prove his point, it’s not entirely true that in all cases he has no fear of a court battle. In the words of the Lords, Crossley is engaged in a bullying scheme and, like all bullies, when the big boys step up to fight, the bullies shrink away.

On November 19th at the Royal Courts of Justice in London, Crossley made NPO (Norwich Pharmacal Order) applications to force ISPs to hand over the names and addresses of subscribers the company claims had infringed their client’s rights. The NPO’s related to approximately 25,000 IP addresses harvested from UK ISP BT’s customer base and a further 5,000 from various other ISPs, covering approximately 291 movie titles. The order was granted and ACS:Law are now chasing these individuals for cash payments of around £500 each.

Someone present at the hearing provided TorrentFreak with information which suggested that several ISPs including Be, O2, BT, Plusnet, Enternet and Kingston were not opposed to the court order forcing them to hand over their customers’ private details to ACS:Law.

However, UK ISP Tiscali, whose customers had also been caught up in the ACS:Law dragnet, were strangely dropped from the court order. “Not seeking against Tiscali (previously respondent #8 in the application),” said the comment.

Tiscali were bought by TalkTalk for £236m last year. TalkTalk, as everyone must know by now, are absolutely against elements of the Digital Economy Bill and are refusing to sell their customers down the river on mere allegations of file-sharing. Could they be standing up to ACS:Law too?

We contacted TalkTalk and their response proved very interesting indeed.

“TalkTalk is the only major ISP which has refused to divulge customers’ information to lawyers pursuing alleged copyright infringers. We have held this position since the issue came into view and we continue to stick by this policy,” Andrew Heaney, TalkTalk’s executive director of strategy and regulation told TorrentFreak.

“If we are ever ‘instructed’ to disconnect or throttle a customer who has not been found guilty in a court of law, we will refuse to do so and challenge the instruction through the courts if necessary,” he added.

So, while the above-mentioned ISPs – and BT in particular – are collectively handing over thousands of their customers to be “legally blackmailed” by ACS:Law, TalkTalk will not and are prepared to fight for the rights of their customers.

TorrentFreak contacted BeingThreatened, a consumer group assisting those wrongfully accussed by ACS:Law.

“What the public want to see is a clear commitment from ISPs that they will protect their customers from the actions of these overly-litigious lawyers exploiting legal loopholes to demand money using groundless threats of court action. Given the tens of thousands of letters that have already been sent and the massive heartache caused as a result of this scheme, BeingTheatened would expect to see a concrete commitment from all ISPs,” spokesman James Bench told us.

“After all, TalkTalk’s stated position merely reflects the view of the wider industry (as stated by the ISPA) that the ‘evidence’ presented by these companies is unreliable,” he added.

“We are happy to see that one company has indicated an apparent willingness to display a degree of corporate integrity in looking after the data that its customers entrust to it and not to make this available to anyone that simply asks for it,” he concluded.

So, if you and your family are looking for an ISP run by people who are prepared stand up for your rights, look no further than TalkTalk. While Mr Crossley may not fear going to court against a lowly individual, it seems incredibly unlikely that he’ll take on TalkTalk’s lawyers.

Article from: TorrentFreak, check out our new blog at FreakBits.

From this year’s State of the Net Conference, Alex Curtis from Public Knowledge is reporting on a panel entitled: “Copyright Strikes: When Has a Pirate Graduated to Internet Exile?”

While the panel consisted of representatives from IFPI, Center for Democracy & Technology, Computer and Communications Industry Association and the UK government. Notably missing were representatives from the RIAA and MPAA. They were present, says Curtis, but unusually observing quietly from the audience.

Those on the panel in favor of the “graduated response” are said not to have shied away from their positions.

In a discussion on whether the punishment fits the alleged crime, Shira Perlmutter, Executive Vice-President of Global Legal Policy at IFPI said sending infringement notices just isn’t enough, adding that termination of a user’s Internet account, however, is preferable to suing them.

When asked if “3 strikes” should come to the United States, Perlmutter pointed to the existence of the DMCA (disabling access to illicit content is already provided for under the legislation) and noted that there are “many conversations going on at different levels.”

Writing on the apparent disinterest in “3 Strikes” shown by the MPAA and RIAA by their lack of participation on a panel such as this, Curtis goes on to list several filings to the FCC which contain pro-disconnection statements by the groups, indicating that they are indeed asking the government to take action. Indeed, Curtis feels that their low profile at this panel points to the existence of “back room deals” already underway and aimed at putting their plans for the US into action.

Given that the music industry has all but given up on their strategy of suing new individuals for file-sharing (the MPAA never really started) and that IFPI has put its full-blown support behind proposed “3 Strikes” legislation in several different countries (even now carefully escalating a campaign in Sweden), it seems likely that at some point the United States will follow.

If it doesn’t come via a government mandate, says Curtis, it could come via a private arrangement between your ISP and content providers. And when you think about it, with all previous plans to end online piracy having failed, there’s very little for the copyright holders left to try. At this stage there can be little doubt that Big Media wants “3 Strikes” to become the global standard.

Article from: TorrentFreak, check out our new blog at FreakBits.

South Korea was included in the International Intellectual Property Alliance’s priority piracy watchlist in 2009. It’s members, including the RIAA and MPAA, had been asking for tough action and in the middle of the year, that came to pass.

At the end of July 2009, new anti-piracy legislation took effect in South Korea which aggressively targeted illicit file-sharers and other online copyright infringers. The laws, created by the country’s Ministry of Culture, Sports and Tourism, gave the authorities the power to disconnect pirates for up to 6 months.

According to the annual report of state-run piracy monitor the Korea Copyright Commission, it detected 35,345 cases of copyright infringement from so-called ‘cyberlocker’ services and P2P sites in 2009, nearly three times as many as the 2008 total of almost 12,000. Video and music infringements accounted for around 32% of all violations. Cases against individual file-sharers are still to be revealed.

This tough legislation was welcomed by the IFPI, who in their Digital Music Report 2010 labeled the action as the correct response to a “crisis”. The music group noted that digital sales had jumped 53% in the first 9 months of 2009, although sales of the same had already risen by 18% in the first 6 months of the year – pre-legislation – largely due to the fresh availability of legal alternatives.

However, according to the results of a survey carried out by Hong Kong-based Music Matters of 8,500 people in 13 countries, South Koreans still committed the second greatest number of online music infringements in 2009.

Released at the 2010 MIDEM event, the results revealed that the top spot was taken by the Chinese, with around 68% of users admitting they had downloaded music without paying for it. The South Koreans took second position with 60% with the Spanish coming in third with 46%.

The South Korean Ministry of Culture, Sports and Tourism has cast doubt on the report though. Apparently the question asked by Music Matters to those surveyed was a rather ambiguous “Have you downloaded music from the internet without payment?”

It’s impossible to say if the respondents felt that, for example, an ad-supported service like Spotify or other legitimately free services should be taken into account when giving a response.

In the meantime, the South Korean government has asked news outlets not to publish the results of the survey until they’ve had a chance to look into its validity. Those calls have been widely ignored.

Article from: TorrentFreak, check out our new blog at FreakBits.

Since 2007, UK file-sharers have been threatened with legal action if they refused to pay several hundred pounds in damages for alleged copyright infringements. It started with the respected law firm Davenport Lyons, but when they dropped out as their reputation started to suffer, ACS:Law stepped in.

Although the threats and accusations are often sent to the wrong people due to the shoddy evidence gathering techniques employed, thousands have paid off the copyright holders fearing they would end up being in more trouble if they ignored the threats. The scheme has proven to be profitable for all parties involved, except those receiving the letters.

Leaked documents have shed light on these practices, revealing that the core motivation of the companies involved is simply to generate as much cash as possible.

It will hardly surprise anyone when we allege that ACS:Law and fellow anti-piracy outfits are clearly abusing copyright for profit. However, it is good to see that our views are being supported by several Lords in the UK.

In recent weeks the law firm sending out these mass copyright infringement notices has been discussed in the UK House of Lords. The video below shows Lord Clement-Jones labeling the operation as a scam.

It is surprising that in the UK, copyright holders – some of which have ‘leased’ copyrights from other companies for the sole purpose of cashing in on allegations of file-sharing – can demand the personal details of thousands of alleged file-sharers without having to provide hard evidence. In most other countries this would be prohibited due to privacy concerns.

Lord Lucas has raised this problematic issue, saying that the Lords must do something to ensure that citizens’ personal details are not given out to companies like ACS:Law “willy-nilly”.

Like many file-sharers, some Lords would like to put an end to this copyright abuse, with Lord Lucas accusing the law firm involved of “harassment, bullying and intrusion”. But the criticism of ACS:Law didn’t stop there.

Noting that it could cost around £10,000 for those accused to protest their innocence, but a payment of ‘only’ £500 to make the accusations go away, Lord Lucas called the scheme “straightforward legal blackmail”.

For the public’s sake we hope they come up with a solution to end this madness. In the meantime, anyone accused by ACS:Law can learn exactly how this scheme operates and how to defend themselves efficiently, by downloading the ‘Speculative Invoicing Handbook‘ from consumer group BeingThreatened.

Article from: TorrentFreak, check out our new blog at FreakBits.

Lamb of God’s Randy Blythe truly is a heavy metal renaissance man.

If fronting one of the most important bands in the genre’s history weren’t enough, Blythe is now able to add acting to his resume. Currently, Blythe is in indie horror hell-ride, The Graves alongside Bill Moseley (The Devil’s

Kevin had it all: An exciting pyrotechnic job, a caring family, and a beautiful wife. That is until a late night encounter with the savagely bloodthirsty Christine prompts him to slowly turn against his family and co-workers.

An uproar is caused when some mutilated cadavers are discovered, giving way to the legend of the “Werewolf of Allariz”. Based on the true-life story of Manuel Blanco Romasanta, the traveling vendor, who confessed to the murders of thirteen people.

In recent years we’ve seen plenty of legal action against the owners and operators of BitTorrent sites, mostly initiated by the movie and music industries.

This week, Microsoft joins the fight as the software company announces that it will pursue LinkoManija’s alleged operator Kestas Ermanas and his company in court.

The action against Lithuania’s largest BitTorrent site, which is in the top 10 of the most visited websites in the country, has been approved by the US headquarters of the software giant.

The defendant and his company are accused of facilitating copyright infringement of Microsoft’s Office 2003 and 2007 through their involvement with the BitTorrent tracker.

Together with local anti-piracy outfit LANVA, Microsoft has requested 107 million Lithuanian litas ($43 million) in damages at the Vilnius Regional Court. However, under Lithuanian law Microsoft can get up to $53,000 in damages at maximum.

In response to the demands from Microsoft, the assets of Kestas Ermanas and his company were seized and associated bank accounts frozen.

TorrentFreak briefly spoke with the defendant who is pretty shaken up by the news, but is claiming Microsoft sued the wrong people. We were told that as of 2010, he and his company no longer run LinkoManija. Kestas and his company operated the site until December last year.

Kestas further told us that Microsoft’s move surprised him, as the company has never sent a torrent takedown request to the popular BitTorrent tracker. “We informed them that we wanted to cooperate with them, they just had to give us the links to the infringing torrent files,” Kestas said, adding “they never wrote back to us.”

In addition to Kestas and his company, Microsoft is also pursuing legal action against LinkoManija’s users. In November last year, 106 users of the site were reported to the police and one of them will go on trial next month.

Article from: TorrentFreak, check out our new blog at FreakBits.

Jason Yates doesn’t mind the rain.

Looking out the window at an unseasonably wet Los Angeles landscape, he smiles, “Listen to that thunder. It’s nice!”

When you sing the blues as well as Jason does, a little thunder and rain doesn’t hurt. On his new self-titled album, Jason stirs up a storm

With the new Apple Tablet announcement just hours away, there are already millions of individuals desperate to get their hands on this super-cool device. In common with the iPhone it’s rumored that Apple’s tablet will acquire an App Store of its own, and might even be backwards compatible with the tens of thousands of apps already available.

Of course, just as was the case with the iPhone, a resourceful hacking community is standing by to tear the tablet apart too, forcing it to run their own software designed to do tricks that Apple never intended. The holy grail – running pirate software.

The original Installous application was created by a coder named Puy0. For use on jailbroken iPhones, the web-browsing, downloading and installing application was used by hundreds of thousands of iPhone users to obtain free applications.

After completely rewriting the original Installous code, Puy0 subtly renamed Installous to Install0us, left his home at the infamous Hackulo.us forum, and moved to his own forum at Install0us.com. This move caused a bit of a split in the community, with some people moving to join Puy0 at Install0us.

Although it may have appeared otherwise, in common with a web browser viewing a torrent index, Installous and Install0us only ever showed web pages which in turn provided just links to copyright works, but even this providing this functionality was enough to give Puy0 legal concerns.

Puy0 has now revealed that for some time he has been searching for a specialist copyright lawyer to find out what the legal position is with Install0us. After a three month search he finally found a good one and entered into a discussion – the outcome wasn’t good.

The conclusion is that if it came to court, it would be very difficult for Puy0 to defend his position and that of Install0us. With this in mind, the decision has been taken to discontinue the Install0us project. The forums will close along with the repositories used to access the software and everything will be deleted.

“The bad news is, however, Install0us 3 will not and cannot ever be released. It all must end here. This is extremely disappointing for all of us, considering the time and energy we have spent on it,” explains Puy0.

“Call me a coward, but as I said, hiding under covers is not a life for me. Moreover, these days in my country piracy is a hot subject among politicians… I do not want to be flamed in a trial for something that I do as a hobby, and I do not want to involve any people with me in this. I am sincerely sorry to the people who followed me thinking we were legit, my honest mistake,” he concludes.

Sites like that carry links to the downloadable apps will still be viewable through existing versions of Install0us, at least for now.

The longest-established and famous Appulous index, which runs on a single server, is maintained by an individual who hasn’t been active in the community in over 6 months due to an extremely busy personal life. This means that those who maintain the index have had no idea how long the project would continue for and have been living month to month.

iPhone app cracker most_uniQue told TorrentFreak that the solution was found with the creation of a new project. Launched just one week ago, Apptrackr.org has the same layout and features as Appulous, but operates on multiple servers with active admins. Apptrackr also acquired the database from Appulous, so it carries links to all the same apps as Appulous.

Of course, the community is super-resourceful and replacements for lost projects are never usually far away. TorrentFreak can exclusively reveal that the admins at Hackulous have confirmed that a replacement for Install0us is currently under development.

“Installr” will be released in the near future.

Article from: TorrentFreak, check out our new blog at FreakBits.

by Andrew Bird

by De La Soul

by Akon, Colby, Kardinal Offishall