@raphjd You're like a parody at this stage. You're so blinded with rage you can't understand what I'm saying and continue to rant at me because you think I'm a leftist 
Thanks for the laughs. I'm taking a self imposed holiday. I suggest you take a few breaths and look at the wider world and perhaps release some of the rage at another target.
"Forum administrator" hahaha
@raphjd It's a political topic. Move it to the politics section. You're an admin 
@raphjd Criticising one law and the newspaper which has championed it is not "bashing conservatives". It was literally a criticism of the law in the title of the thread! You have made a grossly incorrect assumption about me and my politics based on this single comment. This particular law happens to have been passed by a rightwing government, had it been passed by a leftwing government and promoted by virtue signallers at The Guardian newspaper I would have been equally critical of it. A bad law is a bad law regardless of who passed it. There is no need to take such criticism so personally as an attack on your personal beliefs.
The whole world is not a toxic left v right, us v them contest like you seem to see it. Like I said, I come from a different political culture and this pointless trench warfare is something which adds literally nothing to political discourse.
BTW What you did is the epitome of a strawman argument. You brought up negative things done by someone else to draw attention away from the issue at hand. As a forum admin I thought you would at least be able to grasp that basic concept.
@raphjd I didn't say I wasn't being political. It's a discussion about a law. But what I said was related to the law under discussion. You brought up a whole litany of unrelated people, entities and proposed laws in an attempt to drag the conversation into a left v right mud slinging contest. I'm not from that political culture, and I don\t care to engage with it. If you have anything to add to the conversation, that is actually related to the law under discussion, besides strawman arguments and rhetoric, then please do.
@raphjd I didn't mention the UK Labour Party or The Guardian newspaper (I'm aware the article the OP linked to is from there, but I was talking about the actual law, not the newspaper article), the US Democrats, "Trudeau's party" (the Liberal Party fyi), Tony Blair, The Snooper's Charter, or the BBC. None of those have anything to do with the current law. So there is literally nothing of any substance in your post, just strawman arguments and empty rhetoric. I don't believe there is any point engaging in that level of political mud slinging, because it contributes nothing to any political debate. Enjoy the rest of your day. 
Hi twinkerzzz
A lot of the law seems to be about preventing people seeing porn who don't want to see it, and ensuring that under 18s can't access porn. I can see it having two outcomes: 1. UK users will be bombarded by even more pop-ups like those annoying cookie ones, asking to verify they are over 18 and willing to view adult content when they visit any site that may have a nipple or an arse cheek on view, or 2. some sites will just block UK users to avoid the bother and the only dick you'll be able to see without a VPN will be Piers Morgan.
This part of the law seems to be an attempt to pander to the moral outrage brigade who are in a perpetual state of Daily Mail induced panic or rage. Its only impact will be to annoy adults who are trying to do something perfectly legal.
There is another part which covers the distribution of material which includes a person who hasn't given their consent for the material to be distributed. This doesn't refer to anything mainstream (like OF or cam videos) that is being pirated (there are plenty of other insufficient laws for that) but rather material like revenge porn, private sex tapes or WhatsApp images, baited images or videos etc. Basically anything that you have received in confidence without the explicit consent to share it, or anything recorded secretly like in public toilets, changing rooms or on nude beaches. Some of this is already illegal to record, but this law now makes it illegal for anyone to send it on to another person. Most of this is already illegal here in Ireland, and punishable by up to 7 years in prison, and there is currently a public information campaign on TV and online. Judging by the reactions online nobody here had a clue about the law until they saw the TV campaign, including myself.
One thing to keep in mind when torrenting is that you are not just a downloader, you are also an uploader, so anything currently active in your client is being distributed by you. This site isn't a content distributor, it just facilitates the transfer from user to user, and no files are hosted by the site. So ultimately you are responsible for whatever material you download and distribute, and you are always responsible for complying with whatever laws apply in your country. Remember the vast majority of users here will be outside the UK and oblivious to your laws, just as I can't do anything if somebody from Saudi Arabia downloads a file I am hosting and gets prosecuted (or worse) for it.
@lololulu19 Because while you were downloading other segments the high priority segments were downloaded by one of the peers that you can connect to, and they were downloaded by you once your other downloading segments completed. The high priority only works when these files are available from a peer you can connect to, if they are not available your client will download other available files. This is particularly apparent when a torrent is new with only one seeder. 
@lololulu19 It's simply because the peers that you are connected to don't have the high priority segments that you are missing. You may not be connected to any seeder, but instead other leechers so only the files / segments they have downloaded will be available to you.
@AlexDemand It usually takes a few minutes for the tracker to update after you delete a torrent from your client. 
@AlexDemand It sounds like you may not have had a download slot available when you added the torrent to your client, so it didn't begin downloading until there was a slot available, by which time the free leech period was over.
Remember if you don't download all the files included in a torrent, and leave the partial download seeding, it will still count as a leeching torrent, and occupy one of your download slots until it is paused or removed from your torrent client. You can see a list of your leeching torrents towards the bottom of the Details & Stats section in the main site. You can also check the number of download slots you have available to you in the Details & Stats section.
No joke, but this was shared today as Upscaled to 4K (click to view it in full 2160p). 
What are people thinking when they are creating and sharing garbage like this?
@NF16 There are a few points here I can add something to.
About studios remastering old movies, it's just not going to be cost effective for them in the current market. I mentioned before that the cost of re-digitising old movies, that were originally shot on film, with modern technology would be prohibitively high, considering the tiny amount they would sell. I would also guess that getting a pro to remaster old movies wouldn't be very cost effective either, because there really isn't a market for individual titles anymore. Consumers are used to an "all you can eat" model like Netflix or Spotify, so expecting consumers to pay the price of a subscription for just one old movie doesn't make any business sense these days. It makes far better sense for the studios to put all their old content, in whatever digital format they have, either on their own subscription site or one one of the subscription streaming platforms. That way they can still make a few cents from their old titles without making any effort.
I have seen a few legal sites with 720p and 1080p versions of older movies that would have been shot in SD. One user here shared a load of Pacific Sun movies from one of those sites, and they were all just 480i DVDs ripped at the wrong resolution, and often the wrong aspect ratio and not deinterlaced. Absolute garbage and not worth anyone's money. Imagine a musician releasing a remastered lossless version of their classic 1970s album, and finding out that it was just an old 8-track copied to a PC in 128kbps and then converted to 24-bit FLAC.
I mentioned the Falcon series further up, it's funny you mention it too, because I'm still not over how bad they are, and that Falcon thought they were good enough to release. I actually wouldn't consider them studio remasters, because they haven't used the original recordings. They used DVD rips, and not even high quality rips, because they weren't deinterlaced correctly, so the combing artefacts are now burned into the image forever. How exactly they were "remastered" isn't at all clear, because they just look like they were very crudely processed with a load of Instagram style filters. It's 100% an amateur job, because I don't know any professional who would do that.
You're absolutely right about the quality of the source video for remastering or upscaling. There is a golden rule: 
in = out, and that is 100% true. You don't need to be a professional, there are some forums I am on where amateurs are restoring old videos to an amazing quality, but they have been doing it for years, and sharing their failed attempts for advice. Anyone remastering older content should want the best quality, as close to the source as possible, ideally the original tapes (if they have the equipment to play them), or at least a good quality transfer. I don't know if most porn studios kept tapes or reused them, because some formats would have been pretty expensive so if they wanted to save money they would have reused the tapes once the content was transferred. There are a million variables that would affect the quality of that transfer, so it may be really good or it may be so bad that a professional with any integrity wouldn't touch it. In a lot of cases really poor transfers are still being used to produce DVDs and for web content, because that is all that exists. Take one of these poor transfers, burn it to a DVD, rip it to a compressed format, upload it to a streaming site where it's encoded again, download it and pass it through AI software to turn it into "HD". You might expect the results to be quite poor, but did you think they would be this terrifying?
Try not to have nightmares!
@blablarg18 It all depends on the quality of the source video, and how much useable data there is in the video stream, as opposed to noise. There is a point at which there is too much noise in the video stream for the AI to function as intended, which results in all the Frankenstein faces and porcelain skin we see in most of the uploads on here lately. This will happen regardless of trying to upscale or not.
Upscaling is really only possible with a high quality, minimally compressed, and clean source video. From what I have seen very few of the upscaled videos shared here have come from high quality sources, indeed one was a low res rip from a streaming site, and others were highly compressed with legacy codecs, so any attempt at upscaling will fail. That said, trying to upscale any 480i video to 1080p or higher is just madness, and shows that the user has no understanding of what they are doing. I think some users of the software become disillusioned with the upscaling very quickly because they are either using very poor source videos or aiming way beyond what is possible with the video they are using.
I too use an external program to compress Topaz output, because I don't like how there is virtually no control over the compression in Topaz. It's worth keeping in mind though that you need to export your video from Topaz in a lossless format and not already compressed. Compressing an already compressed video is never recommended because you will begin to add back more of the compression artifacts you have been trying to remove, undoing all the days of processing. I'd recommend using Hybrid (https://www.selur.de/downloads) for compressing, it takes a little time to learn but it's far better than Handbrake, and gives you much more control. BTW If your source was h.264, h.265, AV1 or some other modern codec it's always best compress it with the same codec. Each codec has its own limitations and drawbacks so it's never a good idea to add a new codec with all its issues into the mix.
@john32123666 I would have agreed with you until I saw the "Origins" series from Falcon. Those studio remasters are appalling and clearly done without any care or skill. I have seen much better remasters of some of those movies made by users on this site, but it's becoming impossible to find the good ones among all the garbage.
@NF16 You weren't imagining it, I saw one which was a highly compressed 360p file upscaled to "4K", complete with melting faces and anime backgrounds. I guess the person who is making these videos doesn't understand the technical side of what they are doing, and they are just using the presets in Topaz VEAI and expecting the result to be what the preset promised, and not actually looking at the result. When I was testing the recommendations were not to upscale beyond 150% or one step above the source video, two steps in the case of a high res source video. That limitation definitely isn't being communicated to end users of the software.
To answer your initial question, the duplicate rules are sufficiently vague to allow upscaled versions. It's really not clear what they are referring to when they say "format".
I would take it to mean the file container, like mp4 o4 mkv, but they are allowing users to share amateur re-encodes of videos that are already shared in the same resolution and in the same format, because they have used a different codec (which is madness to anyone who understand how video encoding works), so it seems to be interpreted pretty broadly. In the same way "size" could refer to the file size, or the resolution, and again there are multiple versions of the same video, in the same format, with similar file sizes, but different resolutions, and these are allowed. So I would assume that any upscaled version has been sufficiently altered from the original for it to be considered a different video. Then again it may just depend on which mod gets the duplicate report and how they interpret the rules.
@eobox91103 The quality of transfers from film to digital varies drastically. Original film, with the right equipment, can be digitised nowadays in 4K, and major Hollywood studios have the means to re-digitise their old films where the old reels still exist and have been stored properly. The problem is that digitising film is an expensive process and it's no longer financially viable for any porn producer to re-digitise old movies given the minimal return that they would make on them. So most of what we have was digitised back in the 1980s for VHS, and the same versions were used for DVD. There's a few movies which were re-digitised in the 1990s for DVD but these are pretty rare.
AI software can be used to enhance movies recorded on film, if they were professionally digitised in good quality, and if the software is used sparingly. There will always be film grain on anything recorded on film, and the problem most people upscaling make it trying to remove that grain, which takes all the detail from the video too.
@NF16 If we\re looking at the same post, it's probably the worst example of an upscaled video on this site so far. You can see from the preview images that the poster is using terrible quality source videos that are too low res and too noisy to waste time and effort on, and they are upscaling them way, way beyond what would be possible even with a very good quality source video.
Perhaps they are using a very small, or low res screen to work on and are not seeing the results of their work in full resolution. Because I am at a loss to understand how they can look at their finished video and think it looks good, and indeed good enough to share with other people.
@lololulu19 No, no, no, no, no. AI models have no function to restore colour. They use learned algorithms to remove noise and interpolate pixels to improve fidelity - that is all. With a poor quality source video, like a VHS transfer, they just cannot differentiate between noise and picture and will remove detail and enhance noise.
Anyone who wants to restore old VHS tapes will need a professional grade cassette player to digitise the tapes and should be using conventional software to stabilise the picture and balance the colour, and to fix VHS issues like signal noise, haloing, ringing etc. As a final step AI software can be used, but in most cases VHS picture quality is too low res for AI processing to be effective and the processed video comes out either looking like anime, or like an oil painting left out in the rain.
@john32123666 The vast majority of upscaled content that is being shared on here ranges from pretty poor to downright terrible. It's at epidemic levels these days and since Topaz made their software more basic and cheaper there are users with no experience thinking they are suddenly digital video experts. I blame how Topaz are advertising their software, as some kind of magic solution than can turn anything to HD or 4K, when in reality it can do nothing of the sort. Most of what I have seen on here has been destroyed by the software (by the person using the software in fact) and it looks like anime or an oil painting.
I've been working with digital video for almost two decades and started using AI enhancement as a part of my workflow for some restoration jobs about 2 years ago. It's a fantastic tool when used correctly, but unfortunately I rarely see it used correctly here, I stopped sharing my own AI enhanced videos some time ago because I was embarrassed to be associated with the "AI Enhanced" label. I assume most users see that and scroll on by.
Lately when I see a bad AI enhanced video, I try and get the original version seeding again (if I can find it), because in most cases the original is considerably better.
@kingjamking It's actually already been shared here: https://www.gaytor.rent/details.php?id=d6bcc52f4e8dfea2ca092975cb9998a18705f09dc50a265b, so there was no need to break the rules 
Sadly though it's a long time dead 
I hit the re-seed button, so maybe a kind soul will decide to reseed it for you, but in my experience only about 1 in 5 reseed requests actually results in any seeders being found. If the torrent does come back to life, you can contact the helpdesk and ask them to freeleech it, which will help it stay alive.