It is my preferred VPN service and the one I personally use, IPVanish and now offers also a 250 GB of free SugarSync® cloud storage! For the next week, until 29th of February 2020, IPVanish celebrates their birthday with an incredible 67% OFF on their annual subscription, just for $3.99/month! The offer is available to new users only.

With this amazing bundle you will get not only the best VPN service but also the 250GB cloud storage which can come useful for a lot of usages. But the main benefit of course is the super-low price, thanks to the 8th birthday of IPVanish. So, with the 67% OFF, if you are looking for the best VPN out there, this is an offer you just shouldn’t miss.

With IPVanish and 250GB of SugarSync in this offer you get:

Continuous file syncing
Folder sharing permissions
Remote device wiping
Automatic photo and video uploads
Restore data
User-friendly apps for all of your devices
Access to the world’s fastest VPN
40,000+ shared IPs, 1,300+ VPN servers in 75+ locations
Unlimited bandwidth
256-bit AES encryption
Zero traffic logs
SOCKS5 web proxy
Access to censored apps & websites
IKEv2, OpenVPN, and L2TP/IPsec VPN protocols
Unlimited server switching
10 simultaneous connections on multiple devices
24/7 customer support
7-day money-back guarantee

The offer is expiring on 29th of February 2020 and you can access it here: IPVanish 8th Birthday Offer.

Finally, now we can turn off autoplay on Netflix on Previews and Trailers as well as we can disable the Next Episode function when watching TV Shows. While a lot of people love some of these two functions on Netflix, thousands if not millions do not. Especially the preview of a movie or TV show when you browse through the library with autoplay of the trailer is sometimes very annoying. But thankfully now we can disable this autoplay feature on Netflix and truly control the autoplay functions.

Disable Autoplay On Netflix Guide

Step by step guide on How To Turn Off Autoplay On Netflix:

Subscribe To Tech Is My Passion YouTube Channel For More Amazing Videos:

And To The Dimitrology Youtube Channel:

Android TV Box / Streaming devices:

Recommended TV Boxes:

Recommended Remotes:

Best Value/Money Gamepad:

My recommendations for 100% secure VPN are:

IP Vanish

Private Internet Access

My Setup:

Contact Me:

Twitter –

Facebook –

Instagram –

Reddit –

Email – [email protected]

Website –

Netflix has finally made a change that millions of people have been asking for! Now you can turn off autoplay on netflix, the function of trailers from the main menu as well as the next episode function.

This is a great thing for anyone who’s spent any time with Netflix. Something as simple as loading Netflix kicks off the autoplay function, automatically starting whatever shows or movies Netflix chooses to highlight on the home screen. The same could be said for when a show or movie ends — Netflix automatically starts playing whatever is next in a series and, if what you watched isn’t part of a series, automatically starts playing something else of Netflix’s choosing.

But all of this now can be disabled / turned off easily from the settings of each Netflix user profile. Let’s see how below, on an internet browser as well as on the Android app.

Turn Off Autoplay On Netflix Using An Internet Browser

  1. Log-in into your Netflix account
  2. Go to Account, under your profile picture
  3. Under “My Profile” select Playback Settings
Turn Off Autoplay On Netflix Playback Settings

4. Now choose if you want to have autoplay off for previews, next episode or both.

Turn Off Autoplay On Netflix Internet Browser

Turn Off Autoplay On Netflix Using The Android App

1. Open the Netflix app on your Android Smartphone.

2. Select your profile.

3. Select the More Option.

Turn Off Autoplay On Netflix Account Settings

4. And now Account

5. Now under Profile select Playback Settings

Turn Off Autoplay On Netflix Android app

6. Now choose if you want to have autoplay off for previews, next episode or both.


If for some reason this fails, then you will need to use a computer with the previous method inside an Internet Browser.

More Streaming Apps Like Netflix

Are you looking for more Android streaming apps? Then make sure to visit our dedicated section with Android Downloads. Also, a great tip for more content on netflix, try using a VPN and set country as USA. In this way you will have the full library of Netflix with amazing collection of Movies and TV Shows!

Netflix switches to the new AV1 video codec in its Android app, which the company claims compresses video 20 percent more efficiently than the VP9 codec it currently uses. The company says the codec can be enabled now for “selected titles” by enabling the “Save Data” option, although it doesn’t detail exactly which titles are supported. Eventually, Netflix says it plans to roll out AV1 on all its platforms, and is working with device and chipset manufacturers to broaden compatibility. The VP9 codec currently is used by most streaming services as for example YouTube. But also YouTube is now offering the AV1 codec for specific qualities too, you can find the setting by clicking here.

What Is The AV1 codec

In other words, with the transition to the newest codec AV1, you will enjoy the same quality but spending less data, a life saver especially for mobile devices that use mobile data. Also major benefit for those Netflix users that have a slower connection. Also on the 4K UHD streams the data compression is impressive and this will be appreciated by users even more. With AV1, the alliance promises it can deliver 4K UHD video using 30 percent less data. The AV1 codec is a result of a major giants in the sector of streaming including Google, Netflix, Amazon and Apple.

av1 codec netflix

Where Is AV1 Available Right Now

For now, you can get enjoy the benefits of the AV1 codec on Netflix only in the Android app. But as it happened in the past with the VP9 codec, the predecessor of AV1, the upgrade will happen gradually to every device and to the whole Netflix library. After all, the library needs to be converted to the new format.

The Downsides Of The AV1

It is said that the new codec needs more powerful devices. That is maybe also the reason of this gradual upgrade. While this may not be a concern to a lot of users, another thing we need to consider is to a possible elevated battery consumption to our mobile devices. Since the new option has just been rolled out, we will need some time to make a safe conclusion but for now it seems the battery is affected a little to none.

Those looking for a way to obtain otherwise premium subscription TV packages at a cheap price will find that piracy-configured TV devices are easily available online. Equally, those who prefer to see the goods before buying them can often find them for sale at markets up and down the UK.

Markets that develop a reputation for pirated and counterfeit goods can attract the attention of the authorities, including local councils. That was the case in July 2017 when Hertfordshire Trading Standards officers carried out a covert operation at Bovingdon Market.

According to Hertfordshire Council, the officers carried out a filmed, undercover purchase from traders operating from a stand under the banner. The piracy-configured device was sold on the premise that it gave access to movies and sports without the buyer having to pay a subscription.

The case took two-and-a-half years to go to trial but following a four-day hearing, two men – Thomas Tewelde and Mohamed Abdou, both from London – have now been found guilty of offenses under the Serious Crime Act 2007 and Fraud Act 2006.

During the trial, jurors were shown the covert video recorded by Trading Standards and unanimously found that the men had intentionally encouraged buyers of the devices to obtain paid TV services dishonestly. Or, in Serious Crime Act terms, they “encouraged or assisted the commission of an offense.”

Furthermore, after tests carried out by Trading Standards reportedly revealed electrical safety issues with the supplied devices, the pair were found guilty of supplying devices that failed to comply with Electrical Equipment Safety Regulations.

“We’re keen to support the growth of the creative industries which is significant in Hertfordshire. The sale of these boxes, allowing free access to copyrighted material, puts this industry and Hertfordshire jobs at risk,” commented Terry Hone, Cabinet Member for Community Safety.

“People who are buying these boxes may not be aware that they too could be committing a serious act of fraud as well as the associated risk of buying a box, which may not have been subject to safety checks, as in this case. If the deal appears too good to be true it likely is.”

In a tweet welcoming the convictions, Andrew Butler, Head of Regulatory Services at Hertfordshire County Council, revealed that the Federation Against Copyright Theft had been involved in the prosecution of the men. FACT Chief Executive Kieron Sharp issued a warning to others considering the same line of business.

“The message is very clear,” Sharp said. “If you sell a device that provides access to content that is not licensed or owned by you, you will face a criminal conviction and we thank Hertfordshire Trading Standards for their work on this case.”

The two men will be sentenced on February 28, 2019, at St. Albans Crown Court.

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

Source link

A newly identified coronavirus called 2019-nCoV (2019 Novel Coronavirus) has been spreading in China, and has now reached multiple other countries. It seems it is just a matter of time before coming to more countries all over the world.

There a lot of products shipping from China and with the spread of the 2019 Novel Coronavirus people are concerned. And it comes to mind, Is It Possible To Catch The 2019 Coronavirus From A Package From China? After all, it is a legitimate question since we all import a ton of products from China. Thankfully, even the CDC (Centers for Disease Control and Protection) addressed this issue as well other specialists from the US and worldwide.

“In general, because of poor survivability of these coronaviruses on surfaces, there is likely very very low risk of spread from products or packaging that are shipped over a period of days or weeks at ambient temperatures,” said Dr. Nancy Messonnier, director of the Center for Disease Control’s Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases, in a press briefing.

And what about animals or animal products imported from China? The CDC does not have any evidence to suggest they pose a risk. In any case, the shipment of animals and animal products into the U.S. as well as in most countries is much more strictly regulated than other trades, such as electronics.

More information on “Can I get coronavirus from a package delivered from China?” below:

CDC 2019 Novel Coronavirus FAQ:

No, You Won’t Catch The New Coronavirus Via Packages Or Mail From China by NPR:

Subscribe For More:

Dimitrology Youtube Channel:

Android TV Box / Streaming devices:

Recommended TV Boxes:

Recommended Remotes:

Best Value/Money Gamepad:

My recommendations for 100% secure VPN are: IP Vanish

Private Internet Access

My Setup:

Contact Me: Twitter –

Facebook –

Instagram –

Reddit –

Email – [email protected]

Website –

#coronavirus #2019coronavirus #package

Last year, several major Hollywood studios filed a piracy lawsuit against Omniverse One World Television.

Under the flag of anti-piracy group ACE, the companies accused Omniverse and its owner Jason DeMeo of supplying pirated streaming channels to various IPTV services.

Omniverse offered live-streaming services to third-party distributors, such as Dragon Box and HDHomerun, which in turn offered live TV streaming packages to customers. According to ACE, the company was a pirate streaming TV supplier, offering these channels without permission from its members.

The IPTV supplier initially denied the allegations and countered that it did everything by the book. The company pointed to a licensing deal it had with cable company Hovsat, which relied on a long-standing agreement with DirecTV to distribute TV content.

As the case progressed, the Hovsat deal didn’t turn out to be as solid as expected. After several IPTV providers distanced themselves from Omniverse, it threw in the towel. Last November the company agreed to a liability judgment of $50 million for the copyright infringements it caused.

While Omniverse agreed to the monstrous judgment, it mostly blames Hovsat, as it made clear in a separate complaint that was filed against the company last summer. The IPTV supplier always believed that it was properly licensed and wants Hovsat to cover the multi-million piracy bill.

As time went by it became apparent that Hovsat, a revoked New Jersey corporation, wasn’t responding in court. The same is true for its alleged owner Shant Hovnanian. This lack of response has now prompted Omniverse to request a default judgment.

In a new filing submitted at a federal court in California, Omniverse is demanding $50 million, the exact damages amount it agreed with the Hollywood studios last November.

“HovSat is the party responsible for the copyright infringement alleged by the Plaintiffs by way of misrepresenting to Omniverse that HovSat actually received a license to distribute the copyrighted content through agreements with DirecTV,” Omniverse writes.

The defunct IPTV supplier accuses Hovsat of fraudulently claiming that it had a valid and lawful copyright license from DirecTV. This breach of contract made Omniverse liable for millions of dollars in damages.

“Had HovSat not made the misrepresentations regarding acquiring the distribution licenses for the copyrighted content, and thus not breached their contract with Omniverse, Omniverse would have never been subject to the above-caption lawsuit raised by Plaintiffs. It logically follows that HovSat’s misrepresentations thus proximately and directly caused the $50,000,000 in damages suffered by Omniverse,” the filing adds.

The court has yet to sign off on the default judgment. However, since Hovsat is not defending itself in court, there is a good chance that the IPTV supplier will indeed come out the winner. Whether it will ever recoup any of the potential damages from Hovsat is another question.

A copy of the proposed default judgment, which has yet to be signed off, is available here (pdf).

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

Source link

In the weeks and months leading up to and beyond the 2012 raid on Kim Dotcom and his former associates, the Megaupload founder was being spied on by the authorities in New Zealand.

Between December 2011 and March 2012, the highly secretive Government Communications Security Bureau (GCSB) spy agency listened in on the private communications of Kim and former wife Mona Dotcom, plus Megaupload co-defendant Bram van der Kolk.

Given the US-instigated investigation into Dotcom and Megaupload, this type of eavesdropping may seem little out of the ordinary. However, GCSB’s powers are limited by law, including that it may not conduct surveillance on New Zealand citizens or permanent residents. Since Dotcom is a permanent resident, that made the spying illegal.

Ever since the authorities accepted that potential evidence had been illegally obtained, the Megaupload founder has put considerable effort into finding out exactly what was captured by the GCSB. At every turn, however, he has been declined access to the material.

In 2017, for example, the High Court rejected Dotcom’s request, claiming that the release of the intercepted communications would undermine national security. Overall, the ruling added, withholding the information would be in the public interest, even if that was at the expense of Dotcom’s rights.

Predictably, Dotcom refused to back down, immediately taking the matter to the Court of Appeal. Unfortunately for him, the result was the same.

While accepting that the intercepted communications are “relevant” and could be “put to use”, in a 2019 ruling the Court determined that Dotcom’s right to access the information was outweighed by national security concerns.

With the Supreme Court the only avenue left for Dotcom, an appeal was subsequently filed there. In a written judgment published today, the Supreme Court sided with the decisions of the lower courts and refused to hear the appeal.

“We are not satisfied that it is necessary in the interests of justice to hear the
proposed appeal. While there may be questions arising about the scope and
application of s 70 of the Evidence Act, the present case is not the appropriate case to consider those issues,” the panel of three judges writes.

“No question of principle arises. Rather, the matters the applicant wishes to raise relate to whether natural justice was met in this particular case and as to the weight given to the competing public interests on these facts.”

Rejecting the notion that there had been a miscarriage of justice, the judges note that since the case has been examined in detail by the lower courts and justice will be done by compensating Dotcom for his loss of dignity, the Supreme Court will not review the matter.

“Mr Dotcom’s arguments would reprise matters all of which have been carefully examined in the Courts below and, as the Court of Appeal noted, the ‘general nature of the disputed information is known to Mr Dotcom’. In addition, these issues would arise in a context where the respondent has been held to account having accepted liability and the central question is as to the level of damages,” the judges add.

In a statement on the decision to deny his appeal, this morning Dotcom criticizes the entire process, drawing particular attention to the fact that his lawyers have been prevented from doing their jobs properly on the grounds of national security.

“[T]hey have not been permitted to have any meaningful input into this process because, at every stage, the GCSB has required its evidence and submissions to be treated as classified and heard only in a secret hearing from which my counsel and I were excluded,” Dotcom writes.

“The Courts’ reasons were also classified and not stated in their decisions. We have been blindfolded, with one hand tied behind our backs, while up against the fully equipped and limitlessly funded GCSB and Crown lawyers seeking to keep us all in the dark and away from the truth.”

While at some point Dotcom will be awarded damages for the illegal spying, he says this process has never been about money, not least since it ceased being economically viable a long time ago.

“For me, it has always been about ensuring that we know what has happened and, as a result, the GCSB is held accountable publicly for its unlawful conduct under John Key’s National government. I want to make sure that this never happens again.

“We shouldn’t be kept in the dark when state agencies act unlawfully and they should never get away with not being fully accountable to us, as the GCSB has now achieved. They don’t care about paying some money to me and my family, although they will fight to limit that also. They just care about you and I not getting to know what they did, or the actual harm they caused,” he adds.

But while today’s ruling was handed down by New Zealand’s top court, Dotcom believes that interference from the United States played an important role in denying him access to the illegally captured communications. As a result, he’s now embarking on a new mission, one to change the law in New Zealand.

“I don’t like the United States influencing what we all should be entitled to as people of New Zealand, as I fear may have happened here. No one should. But, they, and the GCSB, has stopped me from knowing the truth, at least for now. If the Court of Appeal’s decision represents the law in New Zealand, then the law must change. I will fight for that change. Please join me,” he concludes.

As reported last week, Dotcom is awaiting another decision from the Supreme Court regarding his extradition to the United States. He doesn’t believe the decision will go in his favor but is preparing for a long battle, one that could see him fight in New Zealand for another seven years.

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

Source link

This week we have two newcomers in our chart.

Ford v Ferrari is the most downloaded movie.

The data for our weekly download chart is estimated by TorrentFreak, and is for informational and educational reference only. All the movies in the list are Web-DL/Webrip/HDRip/BDrip/DVDrip unless stated otherwise.

RSS feed for the articles of the recent weekly movie download charts.

This week’s most downloaded movies are:
Movie RankRank last weekMovie nameIMDb Rating / Trailer
Most downloaded movies via torrents
1(…)Ford v Ferrari8.2 / trailer
2(1)Terminator: Dark Fate6.4 / trailer
3(3)Doctor Sleep7.5 / trailer
4(2)Joker8.8 / trailer
5(…)Uncut Gems7.9 / trailer
6(4)1917 (DVDscr)8.6 / trailer
7(8)Frozen 2 (DVDScr)7.2 / trailer
8(9)Once Upon a Time … in Hollywood7.9 / trailer
9(6)Playing With Fire4.7 / trailer
10(5)Maleficent: Mistress of Evil6.8 / trailer

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

Source link

Some of the world’s largest music companies have taken several ISPs to court, accusing them of not doing enough to curb piracy.

This legal campaign, which is supported by the RIAA, resulted in a massive windfall for the copyright holders last month.

Following a two week trial, Cox was found guilty by a jury that awarded a billion dollars in damages. Soon after this win, the music companies shifted their focus to the next battle, the upcoming trial against ISP Grande Communications.

Similar to the Cox case, the music companies, including Capitol Records, Warner Bros, and Sony Music, argue that the Internet provider willingly turned a blind eye to pirating customers. As such, it should be held accountable for copyright infringements allegedly committed by its users.

Grande will start the trial at a severe disadvantage. The court previously granted summary judgment in favor of the record labels, ruling that the ISP will go to trial without a safe harbor defense. This means that it can be held secondarily liable for the pirating activity of its users.

This week both parties submitted their ‘voir dire’ questions for potential trial jurors. The jury consists of members of the public, but the legal teams from both sides are allowed to ask questions during the selection process, to ensure that jurors are unbiased.

The music companies, for example, will ask whether potential jurors or people close to them, ever worked for Grande Communications. That makes sense. The same is true for the question that asks whether they have any negative opinions of record labels.

While browsing through the 40 questions for the jurors, we also noticed that the labels are interested in anyone reading this article right now. Apparently, being a reader of TorrentFreak or Ars Technica is something prospective jurors must disclose.

“Have you ever read or visited Ars Technica or TorrentFreak?” question 33 reads.

What the labels plan to do with the answers remains a guess. We have covered these and other piracy liability lawsuits in great detail over the years. So, perhaps the labels want to pick our readers, many of whom are legal experts. On the other hand, our news selection and the associated knowledge may also be seen as bias.

Whatever the reason, we’ll take it as a compliment.

Reading through the rest of the questions we see more interesting mentions. The labels want to know whether the jurors have ever downloaded anything from torrent sites such as The Pirate Bay and RARBG, for example. In addition, they are asked whether they support the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) or if they ever worked for a technology company.

What also stands out is the question that asks prospective jurors if they believe there are “too many frivolous lawsuits nowadays,” while asking the candidates to give examples.

The record labels are not the only ones asking questions of course. Grande Communications has also prepared a list, hoping to signal bias or other disqualifying factors.

The ISP asks, for example, if the candidates have ever worked at a record label or in the music industry. The company also asks whether they believe it’s an ISP’s responsibility to monitor and police online piracy.

Grande doesn’t ask about TorrentFreak, but it does want to know whether the prospective jurors have ever heard of BitTorrent.

The jury selection for the upcoming trial is scheduled to take place on February 24th and the trial will start a day later. In the coming weeks, both parties will work on their final preparations.

The record label’s questions are available here (pdf) and Grande Communication’s questions can be found here (pdf).

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

Source link