you know..it really is a moot point as to whom you think is the best uploading site because everyone has their favourites whether they pay for membership or not. It's a matter of preference. SO..for the actual people here that contribute the most sound way of providing you all with viable downloads the mirroring sites are really the best as it allows us to give you MANY options.

 

Or you can just use Mobilism's downloader, for which we buy multiple accounts to various filehosts and let people use all of them.

/me is apparently dense when it comes to this. LOL Tell me MORE!

Mobilism Premium for PC (direct download of filehosts)
viewtopic.php?f=1&t=284351&start=0

merci.

Dont worry about it. If http based cloud sharing dies off something will come to replace it. Always does. Killing Napster oh so many years ago did nothing to stop the spread of mp3 piracy.

If everyone else is raving, here's mine:
All we users of Mobilism (aka PPCwarez) are here for ONE reason!
And 99% of these filehosters currently under the American attack were there for the SAME reason.
Yet the claim that our 'wrongdoing' was causing trillion dollar losses in the movie, audio and software industry are utter B.S.. As is the claim of Rolex, or Nike, or Gucci, or DishNetwork etc. about profit losses in the billions due to fake products or hacks! Customers of fake stuff and 'leechers' are no REAL customers. They don't steal, as not a single original product is missing in the shelves!
They can and will live without these products, but for a price!

All these ultra-rich corporations, artists and software moguls became rich DESPITE this 'gray' market.
Their prices included the expected losses due to piracy, fakery or sharing.

And OTHER markets prospered JUST BECAUSE of the open markets: the PC hardware industry sold oodles of desktops to private people because these people would be able to snatch a copy of GatesWarez e.a.!
Without these readily available software bundles most would NEVER have bought these billions of PCs or harddisks! 90% of all Windows machines run with bootlegged softeware, Gates became a billionaire anyway, millions of people got jobs in the computer industry to create all these PCs for everyone!
I was in the hard disk industry for decades - as the supplier of mass storage we benefit A LOT from this situation, legally and with profit for all of us workers!

Customers of fake Rolex watches would never buy the real thing, Dishnet hackers will hardly ever want to pay the stiff price for sat TV and simply walk away (as I did) when the emulator fails.
Same goes for movies, videos, CDs - I will certainly NOT buy a DVD, CD, or MP3 if I cannot get it through sites and servers like this. This market is a moot point by itself - there is no revenue increase to be expected as everyone has to scrape his bucks to pay the real piper (gas station, utility, health care).
The 'free' ride may be taken away with such efforts by the every-greedy U.S. puppets of the industry, it will NOT create an economic boom for them, promised!

The only reason I bought my several PocketPCs and now a Smartphone was THIS SITE! Without this site I would have never bought any of these toys! The makers of these devices benefitted from this very nicely!
Luckily I kept archives of every app and program I need and can use them for another decade if I wish.

The touted 'liberal' and 'free' markets will disappear, one step closer to Mr Orwell's 1984.
It WILL backfire, people will always find workarounds and - as a final straw (the one that breaks the camel's back) - fight violently for their freedom of choice again! The next revolution will be a little different than 1789's - the power of the internet will change it all.
Just wait, relax and watch it all unfold.

m

Today the European Commission (EC) has signed the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA). Although the treaty mainly deals with counterfeited physical goods, it also includes provisions related to digital goods. The Treaty was negotiated in secret. Negotiations which began during the Bush Administration and were finalized under the Obama Administration.

However, the treaty is still to be approved by the European Parliament (EP). Again however, we shouldn't expect major internet blackouts in a protest against this treaty. It is mainly aimed at consumers directly and will force ISPs to forward data from infringing customers without a court notice. The EP will vote on this proposal in June 2012.

In addition to the European Union signing this treaty all member states have already signed this treaty (which is also a treaty which shows 'the intent' to implement ACTA, not the actual treaty). However in most member states negotiations about the actual treaty are being held behind closed doors, away from the public, by design. For the member states the same applies: the parliaments will still have to approve the law. There is little doubt that, should the EP ratify this treaty, most member states will follow suit.

In October 2011, these eight countries signed: Australia, Canada, Japan, South Korea, Morocco, New Zealand, Singapore and the U.S. However, in the U.S., treaties must be ratified by the Senate. Obama claims that ACTA isn’t a treaty but is, instead, an “executive agreement” and thus does not require ratification.

For those who want to learn more about ACTA: http://dereferer.ws/?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Counterfeiting_Trade_Agreement

Sources:

http://dereferer.ws/?http://webwereld.nl/nieuws/109317/europese-commissie-tekent-acta.html

(Dutch (NL) Source, Google Translate (EN): http://dereferer.ws/?http://goo.gl/9uScO

(Old article, some background.) http://dereferer.ws/?http://themoderatevoice.com/136376/europe-to-sign-acta-thursday-poland-protests/

The Mountain View based search giant is moving to unify its service policy soon, which is great news for simplification of the services they offer. However, it may not be as good as it sounds.



Today, Google announced on their Official Blog that they have redesigned their privacy policies for their services (numbering well over 70), and are looking to unify the bulk of them under one privacy policy. It's actually great news. Under the newly announced policy, Google services can share information gathered about you with other Google services.

The policy is generally innocent, but there's a specific paragraph that could be used for good, or not so good purposes:


Our new Privacy Policy makes clear that, if you're signed in, we may combine information you've provided from one service with information from other services. In short, we'll treat you as a single user across all our products, which will mean a simpler, more intuitive Google experience.

The great



Under the new policy, data you have anywhere stored on your Google Account will still appear under Dashboard, but any of the services in the Google world can interact with this data without notifying you.

For example, when you look up a location on Google Maps and are signed into your Google Account, when you later go to YouTube you could be shown relevant videos to the location you searched on the homepage. Google gives the example that they could give you a meeting reminder on Google Calendar due to your Google Latitude location, or the company can offer spelling suggestions in search based on your contacts usernames.

All of these are useful things, and will enhance Google's services over time. Google isn't unifying some products, though, with Wallet, Books, Chrome and Chrome OS having their own seperate policies still. Simply put, the new policy makes understanding the privacy rules very simple. They've even been cut right down and can be read through in less than 15 minutes now.

The not so great

Despite this, we need to look at what Google's really doing here but not saying. We've seen the company pushing integration across services lately, such as the desperate push of Google+ search results in the companys redesigned search pages. What does it mean we'll see the company attempting to share in the future?

Google already has the rights to read your email for advertising in Gmail, but the new privacy rules mean that it can extend this information past the walled garden of your inbox. Technically, if you were talking about getting married with your friends in an email, Google could show you videos on YouTube that are related to weddings next time you visit, and sponsored stories on Google.com could be wedding related too. This could get you in trouble, especially if your fiance-to-be didn't know yet.

That's an extreme example, but with Google's wide variety of services, they can now share data between sites about where you were today, what you purchased, who you talked to, what you watched, what you searched and who you were with. It definitely seems like the company wants to know everything.

It particularly comes into question with Android, where the privacy policy is also being merged under the umbrella. Android can constantly record your location and associated data, and now many Google services may have unfettered access to this, without being required to tell you if they're doing so.

"You went to the sex shop this morning in town? Great! Maybe you'll like these related toys?" could become a reality. The privacy policy doesn't state that Google will need to notify you or ask for your permission to use any data they gather on their services now. Nor does it say if they'll provide an opt-out.

The enterprise



These changes give new levels of information access to system administrators, too. They will now have access to any service you access and that data belongs to them. Where you travel with your work Android device could now have job implications. What you view at home, while accidentally being logged into your Enterprise Google Apps account could mean you have an awkward conversation with your boss.

Unification is great, if you can disable it or are aware of it. The power should be in the users hands to link the data accounts together, or they should be aware of the implications of their actions. Organizations need to be able to break the link between search history and YouTube's reccomendations if they choose.

It's too early to say now if this is Google's plan, or even if the company is considering this, but the policy is so loosely worded it could be an option.

The reality of free

Sure, we can get all up in arms about this, and start grabbing our torches and pitchforks and storming the Google castle doors, but the choice is really down to the user in this situation. Will the privacy policy upset users? Probably. Will users leave? Probably not.

Users love free services, and many of us are willing to just hand over information without batting an eyelid if it means that it's free. The more technical minded among us may shout "Google is evil" and "abandon ship" but the average user really doesn't understand the implications of such a change (nor do they care), and will click the "I agree" option to just get to their inbox, or watch that YouTube video.

Original Article: http://dereferer.ws/?http://www.neowin.net/news/google039s-new-privacy-policy-may-make-them-evil

Things are changing folks get ready for Armageddon

Crocko: Closed Affiliate Program
Oron: Closed Affiliate Program
Uploading: Closed Affiliate Program
Wupload: Closed Affiliate Program
SlingFile: Closed Affiliate Program
FilePost: Closed Affiliate Program

Bitshare: works

I don't wont to pay for a premium account to download.
Depositfiles,filepost and letitBit have resume without paying.
Yeah I'm cheap.


Thank you.

hope filesonic will back to us

MegaUpload Alternatives See Surge in Traffic After Shutdown

After losing access to their favorite file-hosting service last week, millions of former MegaUpload users have fled to the many alternatives available. Filefactory, Depositfiles and many of the other top cyberlockers have seen an unprecedented surge in traffic in recent days, showing that people haven’t stopped sharing even though the authorities have closed one of the main players in the business.



With a self-proclaimed 50 million users a day, MegaUpload was one of the largest file-hosting sites on the Internet.

Last week the feds shut down the popular site accusing its founder and six others of money-laundering and several copyright related crimes. The site’s former users, meanwhile, are left without their files and forced to find a new place to share.

The big question is, where do these millions of people go now?

The RIAA hopes that the people who used MegaUpload to share copyrighted music are turning to iTunes, but this is not the case for everyone. A look at the traffic of some of the MegaUpload alternatives shows that millions have simply migrated to other file-hosting sites.

The graph below shows a sharp increase in traffic for four popular MegaUpload ‘replacements’ since last week. Based on data from various traffic measurement sites, Depositfiles, Uploaded.to, Hotfile.com and Rapidshare.com welcomed hundreds of thousands of extra visitors.



The example above is just the tip of the iceberg, as there are many other sites that experienced a surge in traffic including Filepost.com, Hulkshare.com, Netload.in, Uploading.com, zShare.net and many others. Whether the newcomers will remain on board has yet to be seen, but it is clear that millions of former MegaUpload users are migrating to other sites.

As the cyberlocker landscape stands now, 4shared.com remains by far the largest site on the Internet. With an estimated 2.5 billion page views, 4Shared is more than twice the size of MegaUpload before it was shut down.

Needless to say, 4Shared is deeply concerned about the recent developments, but the company also told TorrentFreak that they have nothing to worry about themselves.

“This case has a great negative impact on file storage services and the Internet overall,” a spokesman said, adding that “4shared has some of the most strict house rules among all other file storage services and there’s no need for any changes.”

With many sites still in a state of shock, it might take a few weeks to see what the precise effect of the MegaUpload shutdown is. One thing is for sure though, many of MegaUpload’s former users haven’t given up downloading and sharing just yet.

Original Article : http://dereferer.ws/?http://feed.torrentfreak.com/~r/Torrentfreak/~3/CniNjnVNges/

Explainer: How can the US seize a "Hong Kong site" like Megaupload?



The Megaupload takedown, and the arrest of its key employees, might seem to vindicate late 1990s worries about the Internet and jurisdiction. Does putting a site on the 'Net, though it might be hosted anywhere in the world, subject you simultaneously to the laws of every country on earth? Why would Megaupload, based in Hong Kong, be subject to US copyright laws and to the Digital Millenium Copyright Act?

"Because events on the Net occur everywhere but nowhere in particular," wrote law professors David Johnson and David Post in a 1996 Stanford Law Review article, "no physical jurisdiction has a more compelling claim than any other to subject these events exclusively to its laws." The flip side was that every jurisdiction might make a claim—after all, Internet publishing is "borderless," right?

But there were some principles useful for thinking through questions of jurisdiction. For instance: where did the actual harm occur? As law professor Jack Goldmsith countered in another well-known law review article from the time ("Against Cyberanarchy"), Internet issues aren't unique from traditional international harms. "Both involve people in real space in one territorial jurisdiction transacting with people in real space in another territorial jurisdiction in a way that sometimes causes real-world harms," he wrote. "In both contexts, the state in which the harms are suffered has a legitimate interest in regulating the activity that produces the harms."

Surely there must be limits, though. It would be absurd for some resident of Australia to build a perfectly legal site for other Australians but to be arrested and extradited to the US for violating US law. But it's not so absurd once a "nexus" has ben established between our mythical Australian and the US. Say the site advertises in the US, or accepts payments in US dollars, or splashes a big banner on its front page saying, "Welcome, Yanks!" All are evidence of a US "nexus" that goes beyond incidental and unintentional contact, and all might weigh against the Australian's plea that the US has no jurisdiction over his actions.

The nexus

Which brings us to Megaupload. Several readers asked under what basis the site could be taken down and its employees hauled from New Zealand to a federal court in Virginia. The indictment provides answers. We'll let a judge rule on the merits, but it's worth understanding the government's position here, which is: Megaupload purposely did business in the US and with US residents, and it targeted its sites (in part) toward the US. You generally can't gain the benefits of doing business in a jurisdiction without complying with its laws, and being subject to its enforcement efforts (assuming that the jurisdiction can physically gets its hands on you).

The indictment makes these points repeatedly. Megaupload wasn't just some Hong Kong enterprise that "happened" to be used by US residents. The site had leased more than 1,000 servers in North America alone; 525 were at Carpathia Hosting and were located in Virginia. Between 2007 and 2010, Carpathia received $13 million from Megaupload. (Cogent Communications in the US supplied a few additional US servers and bandwidth.)

The money was mainly routed through US-based PayPal, which is how Megaupload collected subscriptions from users looking for premium accounts. This wasn't chump change; the government claims that the Megaupload PayPal account has "received in excess of $110,000,000 from subscribers and other persons associated with Mega Conspiracy."

Megaupload also made money through ads, using services like Google's AdSense (until 2007) and the AdBrite network. Both are based in the US. AdBrite alone paid at least $840,000 to Megaupload.

Payments were made to top uploaders, including those who lived in Virginia. The indictment describes one:


Starting as early as February 11, 2008, a member of the Mega Conspiracy made multiple transfers in and affecting interstate and foreign commerce through PayPal Inc. to ND, a resident of Falls Church, Virginia, which is in the Eastern District of Virginia, as part of the Mega Conspiracy's “Uploader Rewards” program. ND Received total payments from the Conspiracy of $900.

By sending the money to a US address, the indictment suggests that Megaupload had actual knowledge that it was doing business in the US and exposing itself to US jurisdiction. Megaupload also received money from US users through PayPal.

The indictment also alleges that members of the conspiracy themselves infringed copyright in the movies Thor and Bad Teacher by making them available on Carpathia servers in Virginia.

The government is following Goldsmith's principle: the harm of copyright infringement took place in Virginia, from servers in Virginia, and the company made and sent money to people in Virginia. Why should it not be subject to federal law in Virginia?

No doubt the jurisdiction question will be litigated by the Megaupload defendants and will get its day in court, but it's worth pointing out that this is not a case about some totally foreign company just minding its business in Hong Kong before being randomly swept up to answer to US law. Like it or loathe it, countries have been going after foreigners who violate local ordinances at least since the famous French case against Yahoo in 2000. And it's not going to change anytime soon.

Original Article : http://dereferer.ws/?http://feeds.arstechnica.com/~r/arstechnica/index/~3/p9E9WkS-zyo/explainer-how-can-the-us-seize-a-hong-kong-site-like-megaupload.ars

I consider that kinda slanderous, Mister If anyone is a shoplifter its my mom, Lois. She's been caught doing it before.

What I wrote (above) is simple logic. It does not make me a shoplifter. Shoplifters take physical items that the shop has then lost. That is stealing. copyright 'crime' is no crime philosophically speaking as nothing but an idea is used and it is not removed from the owner's grasp, merely duplicated. Like the wheel, or the aeroplane. You cannot steal an idea. Only a twisted control-freak would consider you could.

And for what it is worth, I am a software writer myself. I give my software to the world for free. I chose to put in the thousands of hours of work. But when I release it to the world it belongs to the world. I consider music in the same way. If you release an ideal, song or story to the world you cannot then call it theft when it is used by the world as a public 'world' dynamic. Only a control-freak would consider otherwise (or some control freak government type).

But this is just my philosophical take on the whole copyright issue. And that issue is too complex for a simplistic and rather blue-sky view like mine.


I just hope Mobilism can get back on its feet. At present probably 90 percent of stuff is dead-linked.

We need old posters to repost again with the rar/zip files password protected and with folder names obfuscated to stop easy scanning of what is uploaded.

WinRAR has a feature that allows encrypting of filenames within the RAR/zip file.

We should be making a plan for peeps who will post new stuff on how to protect the file from discovery and thus protect the server from claims of holding copyright material.