Connect with us

News

Popular Torrent and Streaming Sites Blocked in Denmark * TorrentFreak

Published

on

Home > News >

Following a complaint from Rights Alliance, a Danish court has ordered ISPs to block 12 pirate sites including KickassTorrents, RARBG and TubePlus. With these blockades rightsholders hope to steer people towards legal content. One of the affected site owners, however, believe it serves as free advertising.

stop-blocked

For nearly a decade Denmark has been a testbed for pirate site blockades. The first blocks were ordered back in 2006 after music industry group IFPI filed a complaint targeting the Russian MP3 sites AllofMP3 and MP3sparks.

Not much later Denmark became the first European country to force an ISP to block access to The Pirate Bay.

After some small additions during the years that followed, a Danish Court has now ordered another round of pirate site blocks, the largest one thus far.

Following a complaint from the local Rights Alliance (RettighedsAlliancen) group the blocklist was updated with 12 popular torrent, streaming and MP3 download sites.

The new domains are free-tv-video-online.me, watchseries.lt ,solarmovie.is, tubeplus.me, mp3vip.org, rarbg.com, extratorrent.cc, isohunt.to, eztv.ch, kickass.to, torrentz.eu and music-bazaar.com.

Due to a recent agreement the sites will be blocked by all ISPs, even those not mentioned in the lawsuit. Late last year Rights Alliance and the telecommunications industry signed a Code of Conduct which ensures that blockades are put in place country-wide.

Speaking with TF, Rights Alliance head Maria Fredenslund says that their primary goal is to limit piracy through education. For this reason, the blocking page includes links to legal stores and services.

“Right Alliance doesn’t merely take an enforcement approach. We want to understand user behavior offer people legal alternatives,” Fredenslund says.

“We are quite happy that there are so many people who are looking for online entertainment. Our goal is to steer them in the right direction, instead of simply blocking access,” she adds.

For the affected sites there will be a drop in Danish visitors. Interestingly, however, not all site owners are disappointed.

TF spoke with the operator of one of the torrent sites on condition of anonymity. He says that these blocking efforts are free advertising and that users can still access the blocked domains through proxies or anonymizing services.

“Blocking is the greatest thing that can happen to a site. It is free advertising for your site. People want the things they can’t have,” the operator says.

“Whoever is blocking the sites is actually doing us a favor by telling the users that they can’t open the site, thus making the users want to open the site even more.”

Rights Alliance sees things differently and points to the results of a test on the effectiveness of blocking efforts.

“There are clear signs that our approach works. A recent test revealed that if people were warned that they had attempted to visit an unauthorized site, 84% chose not to continue,” Fredenslund tells us.

danishnudge

The test in question was conducted at various Danish schools. Instead of completely blocking access the schools inserted a notification which allowed users to visit legal alternatives or continue to the illegal sites. The majority of the people who saw this notice decided not to visit the page.

Whether the result will also translate to people’s non-monitored home connections is not clear. In any case, the new blockades in Denmark are throwing up an extra hurdle.

Continue Reading

News

David Dastmalchian boards cast of Keira Knightley-led ‘Boston Strangler’ movie

Published

on

Los Angeles:

The film is inspired by the infamous Boston Strangler murders that happened between June 1962 and January 1964. 13 women were murdered during that period by a serial killer.

The film will follow the true story of Loretta McLaughlin (Knightley), the first reporter to connect the murders and break the story of the Strangler.

She and fellow reporter Jean Cole challenged the sexism of the early 1960s to report on the city”s most notorious serial killer and worked tirelessly to keep women informed.

Loretta pursued the story at great personal risk and uncovered corruption that cast doubt on the true identity of the Boston Strangler.

The film’s cast also includes Carrie Coon, Alessandro Nivola and Chris Cooper.

”Boston Strangler” will be produced by veteran filmmaker Ridley Scott along with Kevin Walsh through their Scott Free banner. Tom Ackerley and Josey McNamara of LuckyChap Entertainment are also backing the film.

The film will start production later this month.

Continue Reading

News

Nandamuri Balakrishna’s Akhanda sets release date- Cinema express

Published

on


Nandamuri Balakrishna in Akhanda

Nandamuri Balakrishna’s upcoming high-voltage action entertainer, Akhanda, will release in theatres on December 2, say reports. With this, the Boyapati Sreenu directorial will now hit the screens a day ahead of Varun Tej’s upcoming boxing drama, Ghani.

Also featuring Pragya Jaiswal, Poorna, Jagapathi Babu, and Srikanth in prominent roles, the film showcases Balayya as an IAS officer, who takes a spiritual path due to some unforeseen circumstances.

Akhanda is bankrolled by Dwaraka Creations and has music by SS Thaman and cinematography by Ram Prasad.

Meanwhile, Balakrishna’s new film, NBK 107, directed by Gopichand Malineni will start rolling in December. The makers are reportedly in talks with Kannada actor Duniya Vijay to play the antagonist of the film. Incidentally, the film marks the debut of Vijay in Telugu cinema.

Continue Reading

News

January 6 Trump documents case: Takeaways from the appeals court hearing

Published

on

The case is before the US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit, after a federal judge earlier this month declined to halt the release of the Trump documents from the National Archives. President Joe Biden is declining to assert executive privilege on the documents, so Trump is asking the court to consider his assertion of privilege instead.

The case touches on some unsettled law around whether a former president can litigate executive privilege claims when the incumbent sides with transparency. And the three judges on the appellate panel — all Democratic appointees — signaled that they found some of the case’s questions difficult, even as they expressed doubt about Trump’s claims.

It’s nearly guaranteed that, however they rule, the case will end up appealed to the Supreme Court.

Judges ask why a former president should get to overrule the current one

The appeals court showed little sympathy for Trump’s arguments for blocking the documents’ release.

“Why should the former president be the one to make that determination when you’re talking about accommodating another branch of government?” Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson said while the Trump team was arguing its case.

“It would seem that the current president has not only the confidentiality factor that he’s thinking about, but the current duty to the interests of the United States even broader than those that the former president would be concerned about,” she added.

Judge Patricia Millett grilled Trump lawyer Justin Clark on what else the court is supposed to weigh in considering these kinds of disputes.

“You’re going to have to come up with something with more power to outweigh the incumbent president’s decision to waive,” Millett said. “You’re going to have to change the score on that scoreboard,” which, the judge said, would already be stacked with points in the president’s favor according to Supreme Court precedent.

The court appeared very uninterested in reviewing the White House records document by document.

In a series of troubling signs for Trump, the judges pushed back strongly on a request from the former President’s legal team that the court review records from his presidency, document by document, to determine whether they should be withheld from Congress.

Trump’s approach would have likely dragged out court proceedings — effectively blocking the House from access for an extended time. The trial-level judge previously rejected this suggestion.

“The issue, as I understood, before us was not about the content of the documents or when you look at them, but simply what happens when the current incumbent president says I’m not going to invoke executive privilege as to these documents with respect to this particular request,” Millett said early in Tuesday’s hearing.

Judge Robert Wilkins said Trump’s arguments for a document-by-document review were “inconsistent” with Nixon-era court precedent.

“That’s not the way we say we do this, at least the way I read those cases,” Wilkins said. He pointed out that the court considering Nixon’s case didn’t listen to the Watergate tapes one by one.

There are big questions this court may need to address if a former president and current president disagree

As rocky as the hearing went for the Trump side, the panel’s judges signaled that they were struggling with what a court could ultimately do to settle a standoff between former and current presidents.

“We don’t just flip a coin or draw straws or something. What, what tests are we supposed to use?” Wilkins asked Doug Letter, the lawyer representing the House January 6 committee.

The judges pointed out that the law governing historical records going to Congress doesn’t spell out what should happen if a former president keeps pushing a challenge against the current president on a privilege decision.

They also challenged the lawyers with several hypothetical scenarios — a current president releasing documents to “avenge” his predecessor, a former president claiming a release of his White House documents would endanger the lives of US agents abroad, or four former presidents imploring a current president to keep sensitive information private — to grill Trump’s opponents on whether there was any situation in which an incumbent’s privilege determination could be second-guessed by a court.

The judges also asked whether the court could stop Congress from publicly releasing White House documents it obtained from the National Archives. In this case, Congress couldn’t guarantee absolute secrecy, Letter, the House lawyer, pointed out.

Letter brushed off the hypothetical scenarios, describing them as far afield from the case before the court. He stressed that in this dispute there was no clash between the legislative and executive branches, so there was no separation-of-powers question that the court needed to resolve.

Brian Boynton, a lawyer for the Justice Department, took a different approach to helping the court navigate those questions. He suggested that it avoid making any sweeping conclusion about whether courts can ever side with a former president in privilege disputes with incumbents.

“We don’t think you need to or should issue a ruling that says the incumbent always wins, because this is an unsettled area of the law and there’s no need to reach that conclusion here,” Boynton said.

Still, Boynton maintained that few scenarios exist where a former president could override the decisions of the current office-holder.

A request that the Supreme Court get involved could be coming very soon

Since Trump brought the lawsuit last month, he’s had to act quickly in seeking court orders that would stop the documents’ disclosure, as the National Archives had originally planned to release the first tranche of the hundreds of pages in question on November 12.

US District Judge Tanya Chutkan, who oversaw the first round of the litigation, ruled against Trump before that deadline, but the appeals court put an administrative hold on the documents’ release and so far has moved very quickly to advance the case.

The pause was already affecting the House’s investigation, with subpoenaed witnesses such as Steve Bannon and former Trump White House chief of staff Mark Meadows pointing to the ongoing court case to either avoid or delay cooperating with the House.

As Tuesday’s hearing was wrapping up, Millett acknowledged that the case was “very, very urgent and everyone needs to proceed on a very tight timeline.” She suggested that if the court were to rule against Trump, it could still put in place a two-week hold preventing he National Archives from releasing the documents, so the case could be appealed to the Supreme Court.

Continue Reading

Trending