Hubbry Logo
MininovaMininovaMain
Open search
Mininova
Community hub
Mininova
logo
7 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Mininova
Mininova
Mininova
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia

Key Information

Part of a series on
File sharing
Technologies
Video on demand sites
BitTorrent sites
Academic/scholarly
File sharing networks
P2P clients
Streaming programs
Anonymous file sharing
Development and societal aspects
By country or region
Comparisons

Mininova was a website offering BitTorrent downloads. Mininova was once one of the largest sites offering torrents of copyrighted material, but in November 2009, following legal action in the Dutch courts, the site operators deleted all torrent files uploaded by regular users[3] including torrents that enabled users to download copyrighted material.[4]

On April 4, 2017, Mininova shut down, saying that it had been running at a loss "for some years".[5]

Site history

[edit]

The site was based in the Netherlands and was launched in January 2005 as a successor to Suprnova.org, which went offline at the end of 2004 following legal difficulties. In April 2007, Mininova B.V. (the company running Mininova.org) won a domain dispute about the domain mininova.com, which had been exploited by a phisher.[6]

The word ‘mininova’ ranked 9 on Google's list of most queried terms in 2006.[7] In May 2008, Mininova indicated that there had been over 5 billion downloads via the site.[8] Mininova also ran a video sharing site, called Snotr.[9]

[edit]

In May 2009, the Dutch copyright enforcement organization BREIN started a civil procedure against Mininova demanding that Mininova filter torrent files pointing to copyrighted works. During the proceedings, Mininova stated that it was not feasible for the site to identify such files, but said that it would remove torrent files that BREIN identified as infringing copyright. On May 6, 2009, Mininova began a trial of a content recognition system, which was intended to remove any torrents that were flagged as infringing copyright.[10] On August 26, 2009, the court in Utrecht ruled that Mininova should remove all torrent files pointing to copyrighted material within three months or face damages of up to 5 million €.[11]

On November 26, 2009, Mininova announced that it could not find a foolproof filtering system against copyrighted content, and limited its platform to Content Distribution torrents only, in compliance with the ruling of the Utrecht court. This resulted in more than 99.3% of the torrents on the site being removed. As a consequence, the website traffic dropped by 66% in a few days, and daily downloads fell down to 4% of the previous total.[12] According to Alexa Internet, the daily traffic rank in the USA dropped from within the top 100 ranked sites in early November 2009 to below 1000 on January 30, 2010.[13]

Mininova appealed against the court ruling,[14] and in December 2010 reported that a settlement had been reached under which Mininova paid BREIN an undisclosed amount of money, ending the lawsuit.[15]

See also

[edit]

References

[edit]
[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Mininova

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
Mininova was a Netherlands-based website founded in early 2005 by five Dutch students as a hobby project that rapidly grew into one of the world's largest platforms for indexing and distributing torrent files via networks. The site facilitated the sharing of vast quantities of , including movies, music, software, and games, attracting millions of users at its peak and generating significant revenue—reportedly €1.1 million in 2007 before taxes. However, Mininova faced intense legal scrutiny for enabling widespread , culminating in a 2009 Dutch ruling that held the site liable for user-uploaded infringing torrents and mandated the removal of all links to unauthorized material under penalty of fines up to €5 million. In response, operators pivoted to a "Content Distribution" model restricting uploads to verified legal torrents from authorized partners, delisting over 100,000 infringing files and effectively curtailing its original scale. Despite this adaptation, sustained financial losses led to its complete shutdown on April 4, 2017, ending 12 years of operation.

History

Founding and Early Operations (2005)

Mininova was founded in 2005 by Dutch developers Erik Dubbelboer and Niek van der Maas as a torrent directory and . The site emerged in the wake of Suprnova.org's shutdown due to legal pressures, positioning itself as an alternative for indexing and searching .torrent files. Its initial public release occurred on January 15, 2005, with development beginning in late 2004. The platform operated by allowing users to upload and index .torrent metadata files, which facilitated sharing of content via the protocol without Mininova hosting the actual media files. Uploads were user-generated, with optional registration required only for advanced features such as personalized lists or enhanced search options; anonymous submissions were permitted from launch. At inception, the site imposed no explicit restrictions on indexed content types, aligning with the decentralized, open principles of early P2P networks that prioritized over curation or enforcement. Early monetization relied solely on , displayed alongside search results and torrent listings to sustain operations without subscription fees or premium tiers. This ad-supported model supported free access while the site focused on for growing user submissions, though specific 2005 traffic or indexing volume figures from that period remain undocumented in contemporaneous reports.

Growth and Peak Popularity (2005–2008)

Mininova saw explosive growth in its early years, establishing itself as a leading . In 2006, the site's name ranked ninth on Google's list of most queried terms globally, reflecting widespread user interest and adoption. metrics underscored this expansion, with visits doubling from 57.6 million in March 2007 to over 115 million in March 2008, alongside a proportional increase in pageviews. By mid-2008, Mininova attracted over 30 million unique monthly visitors, solidifying its position as one of the top torrent indexing platforms. The platform's download volume surged dramatically, reaching the milestone of 5 billion total downloads by May 27, 2008, following 4 billion just three months earlier. This growth was supported by revenue of €1 million in 2007, derived primarily from , which funded expanded server infrastructure to manage a vast torrent index—exceeding 190,000 entries by April 2007. Community-driven features, including user ratings and comments on torrents, cultivated an active of uploaders and downloaders. These tools facilitated of diverse content categories, with videos (movies and TV shows) comprising about 60% of downloads, followed by at roughly 20%, software, , and other media. This engagement drove Mininova's operational scale-up, enabling it to handle peak loads without significant downtime during this period. On August 26, 2009, the District Court of ruled in favor of anti-piracy organization BREIN, holding Mininova liable for facilitating through user-uploaded torrents and ordering the site to remove all links to copyrighted material within three months or face daily fines of €25,000. To meet this deadline without implementing comprehensive ongoing filtering—which the court had mandated but proved technically challenging—Mininova on November 26, 2009, purged its database of all publicly submitted torrents, retaining only those in its pre-existing "Content Distribution" program for verified partners uploading licensed content such as independent films, games, and software. This action eliminated approximately 99% of the site's torrent listings, shifting operations exclusively to authorized distribution verified for legal compliance. The abrupt content purge led to an immediate and severe decline in site traffic, dropping 66% within days—from over 5 million daily visits to about 1.8 million—as users migrated to unfiltered alternatives. Mininova had experimented with automated tools earlier in to detect and block copyrighted uploads based on metadata and hash matching, but these proved insufficient for the court's standard, prompting the decisive pivot to a closed of pre-approved uploaders who self-certify content legality. In December 2010, Mininova reached a settlement with BREIN, paying an undisclosed sum to resolve the ongoing litigation and appeals, solidifying its transition to a compliant platform focused solely on non-infringing content distribution without further legal challenges from the suit. This agreement closed the primary enforcement action, though it did not reverse the operational constraints imposed by the 2009 ruling.

Decline and Shutdown (2011–2017)

Following the 2009 court-mandated shift to hosting only verified legal torrents, Mininova experienced a sharp decline in user traffic and activity. In the immediate aftermath, site visits dropped by 66%, with daily downloads falling to less than 4% of previous levels. By late , Mininova's daily traffic had dwindled to a fraction of its pre-compliance peak of approximately 5 million visits per day, rendering it a minor player compared to competitors. The reduced traffic led to persistent shortfalls in advertising revenue, the site's primary income source, making operations financially unsustainable over the ensuing years. Mininova persisted by maintaining its repository of legal content distribution torrents and operating a companion video-sharing platform, Snotr.com, launched around the time of the legal transition. However, these efforts failed to generate sufficient funds to offset hosting and maintenance costs without reverting to infringing material. On February 26, 2017, Mininova announced its impending closure, stating that the site had operated at a loss for several years and could not remain viable solely on legal content. The torrent distribution service ceased seeding on April 4, 2017, after which uploaders were encouraged to migrate data elsewhere. In anticipation of the shutdown, the activist group initiated preservation efforts, capturing site metadata, torrents, and forum content to prevent total data loss.

Technical Features

Core Functionality as a BitTorrent Tracker

Mininova functioned primarily as a centralized and torrent index, hosting user-uploaded .torrent files that contained essential metadata such as info hashes, file names, piece lengths, and announce URLs, without storing or distributing the actual content files shared via swarms. The site's tracker server, accessible via the announce http://tracker.mininova.org/announce, processed HTTP GET requests from clients, which included parameters like the info hash, peer ID, uploaded/downloaded amounts, and event status (e.g., started, completed, stopped). In response, the tracker returned a compact binary list of active peers' IP addresses and ports, enabling clients to connect directly for data exchange while the tracker aggregated swarm statistics like seeder and leecher counts for indexing purposes. To support decentralization and resilience, torrents indexed on Mininova often incorporated (DHT) extensions, where clients could query a distributed network of nodes using the info hash as a key to locate peers independently of the central tracker, reducing single points of failure. Complementing this, (PEX) allowed connected clients to directly share lists of known peers in the swarm, enhancing discovery efficiency and download resumption even if the primary tracker was overloaded or offline. These protocol features, standardized in implementations, enabled Mininova's indexed swarms to operate hybrid centralized-decentralized models, with DHT and PEX handling fallback peer . The backend infrastructure relied on to store and categorize torrent metadata by file type (e.g., audio, video, applications) and popularity metrics derived from tracker reports, facilitating scalable query handling for torrent searches and uploads. This setup supported efficient swarm management by updating statistics in real-time from periodic client announces, ensuring the index reflected current swarm health without requiring content hosting.

User Interface and Additional Tools

Mininova's consisted of a clean, web-based that allowed users to query torrent files by keywords, with results displaying details such as , seeder and leecher counts, and upload dates. The platform categorized content into sections including (e.g., action and comedy subcategories), games, TV shows, ebooks, and applications, facilitating targeted searches. Standard filters enabled sorting by popularity metrics like seeders, aiding efficient navigation. User registration was optional but provided features for uploading new torrents, leaving comments on listings, and accessing personalized feeds for categories or search terms, which integrated with clients like uTorrent for automated downloads. In 2008, Mininova introduced a bookmarking tool for remote of downloads and trialed BitTorrent-based video streaming, allowing previews without full downloads. Following the 2009 court ruling, Mininova implemented verification processes, marking compliant torrents with badges indicating permission from copyright holders and adding reporting tools for potential infringements to enforce its content distribution service. These additions emphasized legal uploads, distinguishing verified content from previously unfiltered listings.

BREIN Lawsuit and Court Proceedings

In 2009, Stichting BREIN, a Dutch foundation representing copyright holders in music, , and software industries, filed a civil against Mininova B.V. in the District Court of , claiming the torrent indexing site unlawfully facilitated widespread by enabling users to upload unverified .torrent files that linked to pirated content without implementing adequate filtering or verification mechanisms. Mininova's defense centered on its status as a neutral online intermediary, arguing it qualified for safe harbor exemptions under Article 6:196c of the Dutch Civil Code—which transposes Article 14 of the EU E-Commerce Directive (2000/31/EC)—by not initiating the storage of torrent files, lacking specific knowledge of individual infringements beyond user reports, and promptly removing flagged content upon notice. On August 26, 2009, the District Court of Utrecht (case ECLI:NL:RBUTR:2009:BJ6008) rejected Mininova's safe harbor claim, ruling that the site acted unlawfully toward BREIN's member rightholders by knowingly hosting and distributing torrent files to millions of infringing works, deriving direct financial benefit from tied to such traffic, and failing to proactively monitor or block uploads despite awareness of the platform's predominant use for . The court determined Mininova functioned more like a publisher than a mere host, given its encouragement of unverified uploads through a reliant on volume and lack of effective systems beyond reactive notices, which were insufficient to mitigate the scale of infringement. It mandated that Mininova cease making available all torrent files infringing copyrights held by BREIN's represented parties and remove existing infringing links within three months, imposing a penalty of €1,000 per undetected infringing torrent thereafter, with a maximum fine of €5 million.

Ruling Enforcement and Settlements

Following the August 26, 2009, ruling by the District Court of , which held Mininova liable for facilitating and mandated the implementation of effective filtering measures against known infringing torrents, the site promptly deployed a hash-based filtering system in late 2009. This system blocked uploads matching cryptographic hashes of copyrighted content identified by rights holders, aiming to comply with the court's order to prevent future liability for user-uploaded torrents. On December 10, 2010, Mininova reached a settlement with BREIN, agreeing to an undisclosed financial payment and withdrawing its against the 2009 . In exchange, BREIN abandoned its pursuit of additional damages, citing Mininova's demonstrated compliance efforts through the filtering implementation as evidence of , thereby resolving all outstanding claims without further escalation to higher courts. The enforcement outcomes underscored operator liability for torrent trackers under Dutch and broader , establishing that platforms must proactively filter identifiable infringing content to mitigate secondary liability, a principle that informed subsequent cases involving P2P intermediaries across European jurisdictions by emphasizing technical feasibility over mere passive hosting.

Controversies

Mininova was alleged to have facilitated widespread by indexing and hosting torrent files that enabled users to unauthorized copies of copyrighted , , and software without permission from rights holders. Stichting BREIN, representing Dutch and industries, claimed Mininova incited users to violate copyrights through its platform, which at its peak drew over 30 million unique visitors monthly and served billions of torrent , a significant portion linking to protected content. Empirical analysis of traffic, with Mininova identified as a primary index site hosting torrents for copyrighted material prior to its 2009 filtering, revealed substantial volumes of unauthorized distribution: approximately 57 million movie copies transferred daily (26.1% of total BitTorrent volume), 358 million song copies (20.4%), and significant software shares (16.8%), nearly all infringing given that legal content comprised only 0.55% of transfers. Specific cases on Mininova included high-demand recent releases, such as the film (2009) with over 53,000 downloads tracked in March 2009, alongside other top DVD rentals like (2008) at 10,482 downloads, demonstrating concentration on current copyrighted titles rather than or older works. Mininova's role as a proxy was further evidenced in studies showing spikes in episode downloads (e.g., 11.5% increase post-legal channel removal, equating to ~53,000 additional daily downloads) that outpaced legal sales, suggesting displacement of revenue for content owners. Operators demonstrated awareness of infringing activity through receipt of takedown notices from holders, including BREIN's pre-litigation demands, yet initially resisted comprehensive filtering, relying on user self-reporting and limited voluntary removal until legal mounted. In May 2009, Mininova began testing automated filters to identify and block infringing uploads, but full compliance awaited court mandates, reflecting reluctance to proactively police content despite documented exposure to claims. This approach drew criticism from industry groups like the RIAA and MPAA, who attributed broader P2P —including via trackers like Mininova—to billions in annual global revenue losses for , , and software sectors, though exact per-site attribution remained aggregate.

Debates on File-Sharing Legality and Ethics

Proponents of file-sharing platforms like Mininova argue that such services democratize access to , particularly for users in regions with limited or censored content, by enabling low-cost dissemination of cultural works. They further contend that torrenting aids cultural preservation, as it creates decentralized copies of potentially ephemeral digital files, including obscure or out-of-print materials that might otherwise vanish due to publisher decisions or format obsolescence. These views, often advanced by advocates, draw analogies to historical practices like communal lending of , positing that 's non-rivalrous —where one copy does not diminish another's availability—undermines strict claims on ideas or expressions. Critics counter that these benefits are overstated, with showing file-sharing predominantly displaces legitimate sales rather than expanding markets through sampling or discovery effects. For instance, a peer-reviewed analysis of piracy found that pre-release unauthorized sharing causes an average 19.1% reduction in revenue, indicating direct substitution rather than net promotion. Broader studies across music and video sectors similarly document displacement rates where unauthorized copies replace paid acquisitions at rates exceeding incidental exposure gains, particularly for high-value recent releases that dominate torrent traffic. While archival advantages may exist for niche, abandoned works, data reveal minimal such activity on trackers, with most downloads targeting current commercial hits, thus failing to substantiate preservation as a primary outcome. Ethically, defenders of intellectual property enforcement emphasize that creators and producers require exclusive rights to recoup investments in content generation, as unprotected copying erodes the streams causal to new works. Absent such incentives, first-mover disadvantages amplify, leading to underinvestment in original production—evidenced by correlations between surges and stalled growth in sectors like recorded music, where declines have constrained development budgets. Open-source parallels invoked by file-sharing advocates falter under scrutiny, as they rely on voluntary contributor incentives rather than coerced redistribution of efforts, highlighting a principled distinction between consented sharing and uncompensated appropriation. -dependent independent artists, unlike subsidized or legacy entities, bear disproportionate harm, underscoring that ethical access must balance preservation ideals against verifiable disincentives to creation.

Impact and Legacy

Technological Contributions to P2P Networks

Mininova demonstrated the potential of centralized trackers in managing large-scale swarms, indexing over 1 million torrents by February 2009 and serving 26.2 million unique visitors worldwide that month. This infrastructure handled peak daily traffic exceeding 5 million visitors and cumulative downloads surpassing 5 billion by 2008, enabling coordination of global file-sharing activities without immediate collapse under load. Such performance provided real-world benchmarks for P2P researchers analyzing swarm dynamics and tracker , influencing evaluations of centralized architectures' limits and the need for hybrid or distributed enhancements in later systems. In response to the November 2009 Dutch court ruling, Mininova pioneered a manual content verification protocol, restricting uploads to those proven legal—such as materials or content with uploader-provided rights documentation—effectively filtering out unverified files while preserving the site's indexing role. This approach offered a practical template for integrating compliance mechanisms into P2P trackers, demonstrating how centralized oversight could enable selective legal distribution amid decentralized file propagation, though it highlighted challenges in scaling verification without automating trust signals. The site's user incentives, including ratio enforcement for premium status, educated participants on sustaining seeding beyond downloads, with empirical from Mininova swarms revealing typical seeder-to-leecher s that underscored the value of prolonged sharing for content availability. By embedding these norms alongside support for DHT-enabled trackerless modes in compatible clients, Mininova indirectly enhanced P2P resilience, as users adopted extensions that reduced dependency on single trackers and mitigated downtime risks in volatile networks.

Economic and Cultural Effects

Mininova's operations as a major from 2005 to 2009 facilitated billions of downloads, many involving copyrighted music, films, and software, contributing to substantial revenue losses for the entertainment industry. By February 2008, the site had surpassed four billion total downloads, with a significant portion estimated to be infringing material based on its role in hosting torrents for popular media. Globally, piracy during this period correlated with annual U.S. losses exceeding $6 billion for motion pictures in 2005 alone, of which 38% stemmed from internet-based distribution like . Music industry revenues similarly declined from $12.8 billion in 1999 to $5.5 billion by 2008, with file-sharing platforms displacing sales and reducing earnings for creators and labels. These losses disincentivized in new content production, as reduced returns lowered the expected profitability of high-budget projects. The site's shutdown in late 2009, following Dutch court rulings requiring removal of infringing torrents, highlighted piracy's role in delaying the adoption of legal digital models while underscoring their post-piracy viability. Mininova's dropped 66% within days of compliance, reflecting user migration to other illicit platforms but also accelerating industry shifts toward authorized services. Empirical analyses indicate that P2P piracy reduced film output and , as lower revenues led producers to favor safer, lower-risk projects over innovative or diverse content. This dynamic persisted until streaming platforms like expanded in the , capturing demonstrated consumer demand for on-demand access but only after years of revenue erosion from sites like Mininova had constrained upstream innovation. Culturally, Mininova democratized media access in regions with limited official distribution, fostering global fan communities through rapid of films and music that bypassed traditional gatekeepers. However, this erosion of distribution monopolies came at the cost of creator incentives, with studies linking file- prevalence to diminished in cultural output diversity and . Long-term, the platform's legacy prompted enhanced enforcement, including site blocks and lawsuits, which correlated with declines and streaming's dominance by the mid-2010s, though persistent revenue challenges for independent creators underscored ongoing tensions between access and sustainability.

References

  1. https://www.ispreview.co.uk/talk/threads/mininova-deletes-all-infringing-torrents-and-goes-%25E2%2580%2598legal%25E2%2580%2599.29712/
  2. https://mybroadband.co.za/news/internet/200518-former-torrent-giant-mininova-is-shutting-down.html
  3. https://torrentfreak.com/torrent-legend-mininova-will-shut-down-for-good-170226/
  4. https://www.theregister.com/2009/08/26/mininova_loses_lawsuit/
  5. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2009/aug/26/netherlands-court-mininova-filesharing-website
  6. https://www.theregister.com/2009/11/26/mininova/
  7. https://www.bleepingcomputer.com/news/legal/mininova-torrent-portal-will-be-shutting-down-on-april-4th-2017/
  8. https://www.crunchbase.com/organization/adperium
  9. https://torrentfreak.com/mininova/
  10. https://www.theregister.com/2008/05/19/mininova_faces_legal_action
  11. https://pulse2.com/mininova-surpasses-a-billion-downloads/
  12. https://www.gen.uk/index.php?page=Home&option=Blog&article=20190828
  13. https://www.benh.org/techblog/2006/12/top-10-popular-torrent-sites-of-2006/comment-page-1/
  14. https://torrentfreak.com/mininova-the-9th-most-googled-word-in-2006/
  15. https://torrentfreak.com/mininovas-traffic-doubles-in-a-year-080430/
  16. https://www.theregister.com/2008/05/19/mininova_faces_legal_action/
  17. https://thenextweb.com/news/torrent-site-mininova-breaks-the-5-billion-downloads-barrier
  18. https://www.techdigest.tv/2008/02/torrent_site_mi.html
  19. https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2009/03/torrent-search-engine-mininova-earning-1-million-a-year/
  20. https://wlalng.wordpress.com/2007/12/29/the-top-35-torrent-sites-of-2007/
  21. https://techcrunch.com/2008/05/04/mininova-heads-towards-5-billion-downloads/
  22. https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2009/11/mininova-buries-pirate-booty-in-its-index-aims-to-go-legit/
  23. https://torrends.to/site/mininova
  24. https://torrentfreak.com/mininova-traffic-plummets-after-going-legal-091205/
  25. https://www.afterdawn.com/news/article.cfm/2009/08/27/mininova_is_dead_must_filter_torrents
  26. https://torrentfreak.com/mininova-pays-settlement-to-brein-to-end-bittorrent-lawsuit-101210/
  27. https://torrentfreak.com/mininova-dwarfed-a-year-after-going-legal-101127/
  28. https://wiki.archiveteam.org/index.php/Mininova
  29. https://www.giac.org/paper/gcia/1896/detecting-torrents-snort/101391
  30. https://stackoverflow.com/questions/13697317/how-to-send-a-get-request-to-bit-torrent-tracker
  31. https://wiki.theory.org/BitTorrent_Tracker_Protocol
  32. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/224144607_Unraveling_the_BitTorrent_Ecosystem
  33. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/224173879_Understanding_Peer_Exchange_in_BitTorrent_Systems
  34. https://www.saashub.com/compare-limetorrents-vs-mininova
  35. https://eng.ox.ac.uk/media/5142/pam12.pdf
  36. https://torrentfreak.com/torrentem-torrent-search-080125/
  37. https://forum.utorrent.com/topic/29896-update-making-utorrent-rss-downloader-work-with-mininova/
  38. https://askubuntu.com/questions/24229/is-there-an-rss-feed-of-ubuntu-release-torrent-files
  39. https://torrentfreak.com/automate-your-bittorrent-downloads-with-mininova-bookmarks-080709/
  40. https://torrentfreak.com/mininova-bittorrent-video-streaming-080319/
  41. https://news.slashdot.org/story/09/11/26/151243/Mininova-Removes-All-Copyright-Infringing-Torrents
  42. https://www.cbc.ca/news/science/mininova-removes-links-to-copyrighted-files-1.845817
  43. https://news.slashdot.org/story/09/05/08/0512246/mininova-starts-filtering-torrents
  44. https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=444ca887-fabd-48ee-8309-b8a975207b77
  45. https://torrentfreak.com/mininova-court-trial-postponed-until-june-090518/
  46. https://wilmap.stanford.edu/entries/rechtbank-utrecht-district-court-utrecht-civil-law-brein-v-mininova-eclinlrbutr2009bj6008
  47. https://www.osnews.com/story/22060/dutch-court-orders-mininova-to-remove-offending-torrents/
  48. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1985737
  49. https://www.academia.edu/882410/Copyright_Violation_on_the_Internet_Extent_and_Approaches_to_Detection_and_Deterrence
  50. https://www.law.stanford.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/default/files/publication/300252/doc/slspublic/farano_wp14-4.pdf
  51. https://techenclave.com/t/mininova-breaks-10-billion-torrent-downloads/156743
  52. https://users.ece.cmu.edu/~peha/quantifying_global_P2P.pdf
  53. https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/pdf/10.1086/605852
  54. http://www.serci.org/congress_documents/2009/danaher.pdf
  55. https://www.billboard.com/music/music-news/report-bittorrent-site-mininova-tests-filtering-1270880/
  56. https://scholarworks.uttyler.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1003&context=accounting_fac
  57. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/01972243.2019.1616019
  58. https://www.cmu.edu/entertainment-analytics/impact-of-piracy-on-sales-and-creativity/index.html
  59. https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/full/10.1086/674020
  60. https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/full/10.1086/663157
  61. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0167624512000030
  62. https://torrentfreak.com/mininova-one-million-torrents-strong-090209/
  63. https://techcrunch.com/2009/04/17/as-court-prepares-shackles-for-the-pirate-bay-other-torrent-sites-are-ready-to-replace-it/
  64. https://www.yorku.ca/osgoode/iposgoode/2009/12/11/mininova-bit-torrent-site-shut-down/
  65. https://www.comparitech.com/blog/vpn-privacy/mininova-alternatives/
  66. https://www.forbes.com/2009/12/01/pirate-bay-fung-technology-internet-isohunt.html
  67. https://forums.whirlpool.net.au/archive/1329850?p=5
  68. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/224173899_Unraveling_BitTorrent%27s_File_Unavailability_Measurements_and_Analysis
  69. http://netecon.seas.harvard.edu/NetEcon07/Papers/ramachandran_07.pdf
  70. http://www.eecs.qmul.ac.uk/~tysong/files/P2P10.pdf
  71. https://arxiv.org/pdf/0912.0625
  72. https://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1329&context=vlr
  73. https://www.cmu.edu/entertainment-analytics/documents/impact-of-piracy-on-sales-and-creativity/digital-pirac-film-quality.pdf
  74. https://techpolicyinstitute.org/publications/intellectual-property/how-piracy-can-hurt-consumers/
  75. https://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/Ups_And_Downs_authorised_translation.pdf
  76. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228225313_Ups_and_Downs_Economic_and_Cultural_Effects_of_File_Sharing_on_Music_Film_and_Games
  77. https://www.cmu.edu/entertainment-analytics/documents/effectiveness-of-anti-piracy-efforts/uk-blocking-misq.pdf
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.