MPAA bullys

[Demosthenez]

'Tracker' Site Loses Piracy Judgment

By Jon Healey, Times Staff Writer

The major Hollywood studios have drawn their first blood in court against a popular new type of online piracy, obtaining a $1-million judgment against a website that steered people to downloadable copies of bootlegged movies.

Edward Webber, operator of LokiTorrent.com, agreed not only to pay the damages to studios and shut down his site, but also to give the Motion Picture Assn. of America voluminous records his site has collected over the last two years.

These records could lead investigators to tens of thousands of people who distributed and downloaded unauthorized copies of digital goods, said John G. Malcolm, head of the MPAA's anti-piracy efforts.

Malcolm said the site had more than 750,000 registered users and helped distribute more than 35,000 movies, songs and other items.

"It will have a lot of records as to who these people are and what they provided, and that information will be of great interest to our members," Malcolm said. He said the MPAA would turn over information to prosecutors "in appropriate cases," but did not elaborate.

Webber did not respond to a request for comment. His website describes him as a 28-year-old computer-network consultant in New England whose main hobby is building websites. He agreed to the judgment to settle the lawsuit the MPAA brought against him, but there was no indication Thursday that he could afford to pay the $1 million in damages.

The judgment, which a federal judge in Dallas signed Thursday, came less than three months after the MPAA launched an international crackdown on "tracker" sites for people using the BitTorrent file-sharing software. The effort in December also targeted people offering bootlegged Hollywood movies on powerful computer servers connected to eDonkey, the most widely used file-sharing network.

Also Thursday, the MPAA announced that it had filed a second wave of lawsuits against BitTorrent tracker sites in the United States and more lawsuits against individual file sharers. The organization also said it filed more notices asking Internet providers to shut down eDonkey servers on their networks and lawsuits against four websites that sold file-sharing programs. The MPAA also prompted authorities in Austria to raid operators of BitTorrent trackers and eDonkey servers. Malcolm declined to say how many individuals or sites were reached by the crackdown.

BitTorrent has skyrocketed in popularity over the last year because it can deliver large files faster than other file-sharing technologies. But the software has no built-in method for finding files; instead, users rely on people who run tracker websites such as LokiTorrent that act as directories.

These tracker sites compile links to digital files that are being shared online as "torrents," the format used by the BitTorrent software. The links connect users to the Internet addresses of the people supplying copies of the file.

Charles S. Baker, Webber's attorney, said at least parts of LokiTorrent were defensible in court. In particular, he said, Webber offered to drop links to any pirated goods that copyright owners found on the site.

But the studios had plenty of money for legal fees, and "there was nobody coming to the table willing to write a check for him to defend this lawsuit," Baker said. "Like a lot of David vs. Goliath situations, he's got stones to throw, but he didn't have any money to go get a slingshot."

The MPAA and RIAA is just not able to keep up with a changing culture and now they are fighting tooth and nail to destroy anyone taking a piece from their price fixing and disgusting profits. Like any goddamn actor deserves 10 million for 2-3 months of work.

And anyone remember when they were trying to do this back when betamax showed up? Now they make huge profits from this business. Maybe one day they will accept a new way to market thier products and sell them because they currently are nothing more than bullys trying to keep the old ways going.

[Demosthenez]

Err, the last 2 paragrapsh are mine. I should have italicized them or something. Not from the guys article.

[N0mbre]

Time to find a new p2p protocol...

[jmaster306]

Looks they really want to make an example out of this guy. I can understand going after him, but they are just going to pound him into oblivion. The worst part is that I doubt this is really doing that much to stop sales of movies. If I really like a movie/song, I'll go out and buy it. But if it's something I've never heard of before or it's only so so in my taste, then I would consider downloading it. Hell, I remember back to the days of morpheus where I download several movies that I ended up buying because I liked them so much. Oh well, their loss.

[TheShrike]

First of all, bootlegged movies are illegal. No ifs ands or buts. They're illegal. It's not even comparable to music, since anyone can make a studio-quality cd for less than a grand. The MPAA were well within in their rights, and just because it's a 'david vs GOLIATH' situation, doesn't mean david is right.

Second, consider the name...
LOKItorrent
Who is loki?
Norse god of strife and spirit of evil, the mischeif maker, first father of lies

<.<
>.>
<.<

OH YEAH, THEY'RE INNOCENT, AND THE WORLD KNOWS IT.
pft. I wouldn't be surprised if lokitorrent was run by an MPAA mole. Looks like he has bent over backwards to help their court battle, despite a huge fine.

As much as I hate to admit it, the big corporations behind the MPAA are right. Theft is theft.

Fourth, you misspelled bullies.

[TheShrike]

HAHA

Third, BitTorrent isn't a p2p client. If you think it is, you don't understand how p2p works, or what it is.

[AbstractVagabond]

The MPAA stuff doesn't change my downloading habits at all. Yup. I never d/led movies. Never have the patience to.

[bcdemon]

Ahh but it is the same as music, digital media. The RIAA has thier lawsuits aswell, same shit different toilet.

What got me was the lawsuits against the companies 'that sold file sharing programs'. Then why arent they busting every single LEGAL download site that offers ftp clients/servers, and trying to dismantle the FTP protocol? Now that would make a mark on warez.

Doesn't matter to me anyway, as a Canadian, it's not illegal for me to download music, just uploading is illegal and deemed "sharing".

[JudoHobo]

At 2/28/05 08:05 PM, bcdemon wrote: The RIAA has thier lawsuits aswell, same shit different toilet.

Quoted for great justice.

[ctrlkey]

i shall miss lokitorrent...

the games, the applications, the music albums, the movies.......i dont care if they were illegal.

i love them <3 <3 <3 <3

[BrickMurus]

Hurry, get rid of all the evidence before SWAT makes a raid!

[Jercurpac]

I honestly don't understand why people get so upset about the MPAA and RIAA fighting against the people illeagally downloading music and movies. You can call them whatever you want and get angry at them for all the money they make, but what it boils down to is that all they're doing is protecting thier interests. You also can't get mad the actors who get paid millions or the people who pay them. Its human nature to raise certain people up on a pedestal so its really our fault that big celebrities are such a big draw and in turn demand so much money. And although I doubt illegal downloading hurts the big studios it no doubt has a larger effect on the smaller ones.

[TheShrike]

At 2/28/05 11:13 PM, jercurpac wrote: You can call them whatever you want and get angry at them for all the money they make, but what it boils down to is that all they're doing is protecting thier interests.

Quoted for great justice.

Besides, why would you want to download a movie anyway? To make files small enough to expedite digital transfer, the quality ends up much lower than VHS.

[Evark]

At 2/28/05 11:38 PM, TheShrike wrote: Besides, why would you want to download a movie anyway? To make files small enough to expedite digital transfer, the quality ends up much lower than VHS.

I never had the patience for it, whenever I do get a movie in a slightly less than acceptable way I usually go for something like someone lets me borrow a copy they already had on their computer, or I just rent it and watch it. I never got big into having movies and watching them more than once. To me, if you've seen it once and want to see it again, rent it again. If it isn't worth the rental fee, then why would you waste your time anyway if you obviously didn't enjoy it. By the same token, if you want to see a movie often, then you should just go out and buy it, because it isn't like 10-20 dollars is a lot when it comes to having something like that you can watch over and over again and enjoy for the rest of your life.

Music, however, is a different story for a different day.

[bcdemon]

At 2/28/05 11:38 PM, TheShrike wrote: To make files small enough to expedite digital transfer, the quality ends up much lower than VHS.

A DVD ripped to SVCD is way better than a VHS.
And you don't need patience to transfer large files on the internet, you just need something to do while its transfering.
And I don't really agree that the industry is hurting to terribly much, heck when Spiderman came out in theatres on a friday night, a very high quality warez version was out the following saturday, that movie still sits in position #1 for teh biggest weekend at the boxoffice ($114mil)

[Demosthenez]

At 2/28/05 07:34 PM, TheShrike wrote: First of all, bootlegged movies are illegal.

Im not sure if its still illegal once the movies are out on DVD or whatever. When they are in theatres, it is most definately illegal, but once it hits mainstream, I think it is safe to download.

It's not even comparable to music, since anyone can make a studio-quality cd for less than a grand.

It is in the sense that they both have been price gouging the hell out of people. Maybe they will learn.

I wouldn't be surprised if lokitorrent was run by an MPAA mole. Looks like he has bent over backwards to help their court battle, despite a huge fine.

Wouldnt suprise me much either. However, I dont think they will get much anything from the logs unless the guy started keepin different logs before his demise. Not that I care, never downloaded a movie (except from MuffTorrent lol).

As much as I hate to admit it, the big corporations behind the MPAA are right. Theft is theft.

Like I said earlier, I think it depends what kind of movie you download and how much it is distributed.

Fourth, you misspelled bullies.

Lol damn :)

And I am not to sure how the hell this guy got taken to court unless he was really a mole or he was running some top site or warez thing. Cause just databasing where you can download illegal things is in itself not illegal, as far as I know. So I think there were some things going on in the case we really dont know to much about.

And funniest of all, this douchbag started a legal defense fund then used it to pay som of his 1 million fine. Talk about backstabing. He takes his peoples money then uses it to help pay his negotiations hand over their possible logs of what they downloaded. And I know this guy has got offers of free representation. Its not like he couldnt carry on the fight because he was cash strapped. He really was probably into some wierd shit or was really a mole through and through.

[TheShrike]

At 3/1/05 02:00 AM, bcdemon wrote: A DVD ripped to SVCD is way better than a VHS.

SURE IT IS. Unless you want more than 30 minutes of video on a CD, then it drops below VHS quality pretty quickly. Variable bit rates are a bitch.

And I don't really agree that the industry is hurting to terribly much

Hypothetical situation:
MPAA condones digital piracy.
Most likely outcome:
No one buys full-priced dvds anymore, instead buying cheap bootlegs, movie theatre chains collapse when ticket sales plummet because high-quality DVD bootlegs are available before most movies' premiers. Recession

Y'see, they have to pursue a piracy-free market, it's not only in their interests, it's also in yours.

[TheShrike]

At 3/1/05 02:28 AM, FAB0L0US wrote: Im not sure if its still illegal once the movies are out on DVD or whatever. When they are in theatres, it is most definately illegal, but once it hits mainstream, I think it is safe to download.

Wrong.

It is in the sense that they both have been price gouging the hell out of people. Maybe they will learn.

$10-$20 for a high-quality copy of a full-length movie that cost millions to produce? Oh, that's robbery, it is. </sarcasm>

Like I said earlier, I think it depends what kind of movie you download and how much it is distributed.

How much it's distributed? What kind of movie? It doesn't matter how often it is copied, it is a crime to copy a copyrighted movie ONCE.

Cause just databasing where you can download illegal things is in itself not illegal, as far as I know.

Is driving the getaway car from a bank robbery illegal?

hint: YES

[fli]

At 2/28/05 07:35 PM, TheShrike wrote: HAHA

Third, BitTorrent isn't a p2p client. If you think it is, you don't understand how p2p works, or what it is.

What is a BitTorrent?
I Napster is a p2p (or used to be).

[Maus]

Do you guys steal stuff from Wal-Mart? Or any other large national chain?

[fli]

my bad...
"I know Napster is a p2p (or used to be)."

At 3/1/05 02:50 AM, Maus wrote: Do you guys steal stuff from Wal-Mart? Or any other large national chain?

Who would want to steal from Wal-Mart?
I mean, it's like one of the cheapest stores out there.

I wouldn't really know,
I hold a grudge against there business conduct.

[Maus]

At 3/1/05 02:55 AM, fli wrote: Who would want to steal from Wal-Mart?
I mean, it's like one of the cheapest stores out there.

They've made this point that since they sell so much of it, they don't need the money. I could say the same about Wal*Mart. Most people don't steal from there because they are afraid they'll get caught. So basically, people are whinging about not being able to steal stuff without being caught. I don't understand how stealing movies over the internet is okay, but stealing DVDs straight from a store is not.

[Demosthenez]

Heres why I am unsure. I am sure as hell gonna read usc 17 and 18 tomorrow but I am tired.

Ok I am going to explain in small detail usc 17 and 18.. in a nutshell the grey area lies within "is downloading copyrighted material a crime"?

we according to usc 17 and 18, yes and no, Ill explain;

the usc here is written a bit off here and disagrees with prior legal precedence.. I would like to see the actaul statute and see if the codifiers altered the natural meaning of both these usc's

basically they say..

If a person distributes, OR (there is where the language in my mind deviates form prior supreme court language, refer to "fair use")

makes 10 copies and/or those copies have a commercail worth of over 2500, the person shall be charged with a felony"

However here, with prior rulling (precendence) in terms of fair use, the implied language here, not the plain text (done on purpose by the codifiers)

seems to suggest that 10 copy limit is for the purpose of distribution, and the spirit of the law is somewhat consistent with a more plain language of;

"if that person basically is uploading, copying for the purpose to distribute, DOWNLOADING FORTHE PURPOSE TO SELL AND/OR DISTRIBUTE" << THERE WOULD BE a violation.. the legislative intent here does seems consisten with fair use..

Fair use would cover most if not all the downloaders here WHO USE THE STUFF THEY GET FOR ENTERTAINMENT and/or educational purposes only."

in other words, IF YOU downloaded stuff just toi collect for yourself and do not share that publically, YOU HAVE NOTHING TO WORRY ABOUT AT ALL..

even if you seeded, DID YOU PROVIDE THE ORIGINAL WORK?

even if you did seed they can come after you but they want to get the sources on this stuff. trhat why the MPAA guy basically said "we will turn over the logs in CERTAIN CASES"

they will not come after you if you dl a movie and did not seed it but if you seeded allot of movies, mp3's and somehow was the first link to the copyrighted work being MADE PUBLIC, YOU GOT SOMETHING TO WORRY ABOUT!!

befire i continue, by law I will RE-issue a disclaimer;

DISCLAIMER; THIS ARTICLE IS FOR EDUCATIONAL INFORMATION ONLY, AND NOT INTENDED FOR OTHERWISE RATHER THEN FREEDOM OF INFORMATION;

COPYRIGHT LAW, in its intention, is to protect the marketing of copyrighted works.. in othe words it protects the co's marketing rights so of course they can make money. The certainly have a right to. Here is where I think many of you are a bit misinformed between what is fair use and what is copy right infringment"

If I buy a dvd at the store and/or i legally buy it from any source, and I wish to share it with PRIVATE PARTIES, friends, etc, ONLY FOR non profit use thats sharing.. its completly legal IN SPITE OF WHAT THE MPAA WOULD HAVE YOU BELEIVE, they do not have absolute copy control following?

However these 2 points, and please follow them carefully;

If i am an MPAA member and I take a PRIVATE SCREENER and distribute it for public use THATS COPY RIGHT INFRINGMENT.. i.e new movies NOT YET AVAILABLE FOR PURCHASE AT A DVD STORE.. follow?

if i did that, I am circumventing their future profits and have decided to market(distribute) on my own terms when I am NOT THE COPY RIGHT HOLDER? follow? = ILLEGAL..

point 2 on illegal dsitrubution;
If I make avaible TO NON PRIVATE PARTIES, i,e put copyrighted files to make ready to dl, people WHO ARE NOT PRIVATE FRIENDS, THAT NOT SHARING, THATS COPY RIGHT INFRINGMENT.. I dont care how much you guys "FEEL" differently about it, it is, and no court would rule otherwise.

However, if you dl this stuff from these people, for the purpose OF NON PROFIT NONT COMMERCIAL USE, and YOU DO NOT DISTRIBUTE THE PROTECTED WORKS, NO COURT WOULD FIND YOU GUILTY OF COPY RIGHT INFRINGMENT.... if one does the supreme court has precedence here, it simply should not happen.. following still?

[cylon]

At 3/1/05 03:02 AM, Maus wrote: I don't understand how stealing movies over the internet is okay, but stealing DVDs straight from a store is not.

The reasoning for this distinction is something along these lines:
-----------------------------------------
Shoplifting would be taking a physical product with real value - if you take that dvd, Wal-Mart is out $20 or so that they would have if a consumer had bought it.

Downloading a movie is copying a digital representation of the movie - you're getting 1s and 0s. No one loses any money because no product is actually taken.

The anti-piracy counter-argument here is that a downloaded movie is a lost sale.

The pirate's retort to that would be that if they wouldn't buy the movie anyway, a sale isn't lost when they download it and no one is deprived of any money they'd otherwise have.

There's also some argument that it's not theft because it's not being charged as theft because they can't charge it as theft because it's not theft, which seems pretty circular and stems from lawsuits against downloaders/uploaders being copyright infringement suits and not theft or something like that.
-----------------------------------------------

[fli]

At 3/1/05 03:30 AM, ben_dont_jump wrote:

Downloading a movie is copying a digital representation of the movie - you're getting 1s and 0s. No one loses any money because no product is actually taken.

The anti-piracy counter-argument here is that a downloaded movie is a lost sale...

People whom download movies or music do not need to buy the movie since they already have them.

Even if people don't buy the DVD form, money is made from releasing it into the movie theaters, movie rentals, and PPV, and final release to public broadcast. Money is made in each transaction, and when a person downloads that movie, they are essentially not paying the middle man (movie theaters, movie renters, PPV, and advirtisers on TV networks).

CDs and DVDs are pretty cheap to make, and to mass produce these isn't expensive.
But why are they selling movies for 15 to 20 bucks? Or renting them out for 5 dollars for 3 days, or whatever?

Not to pay for the the CD or DVD, but the content that's on them.

[cylon]

At 3/1/05 03:42 AM, fli wrote: People whom download movies or music do not need to buy the movie since they already have them.

Their logic is that they wouldn't already have them if they had to pay for it, because they wouldn't have paid for it.

Even if people don't buy the DVD form, money is made from releasing it into the movie theaters, movie rentals, and PPV, and final release to public broadcast. Money is made in each transaction, and when a person downloads that movie, they are essentially not paying the middle man (movie theaters, movie renters, PPV, and advirtisers on TV networks).

The "I wouldn't pay to see it" argument comes into play here again - theatres, rental stores, and PPV companies wouldn't get money from the downloaders, because the downloaders wouldn't pay to see it in the first place, and so according to the argument no one is losing out on any money when the downloader does see it after downloading.

CDs and DVDs are pretty cheap to make, and to mass produce these isn't expensive.
But why are they selling movies for 15 to 20 bucks? Or renting them out for 5 dollars for 3 days, or whatever?

Not to pay for the the CD or DVD, but the content that's on them.

They're not paying for the content so much as the cd/dvd containing the content.

The DVD format is what gives the disc its value, allowing the content to be accessible through dvd players. Do you see VHS tapes of new movies often now? The VHS format has less value, and less revenue potential, despite the content of the movie itself being the same.

I think I may have used up pretty much all the pro-piracy arguments I remember. This last bit especially being crap. :B
==========

Now personally, I don't like the "downloading == shoplifting" comparison because they are different crimes with different victims and different punishments.

[bcdemon]

At 3/1/05 02:37 AM, TheShrike wrote: SURE IT IS. Unless you want more than 30 minutes of video on a CD, then it drops below VHS quality pretty quickly. Variable bit rates are a bitch.

I disagree. Maybe you should check out a sample from a dvdrip movie (1.5 hours) that fits on 2 cd-r. Might not be 100% dvd quality, but it beats the shit out of VHS. And 2 cd-r is still cheaper than a VHS tape.

Ok, heres another side to the arguement.
Shouldnt the MPAA and the RIAA investigate thier own people, because it is one of them making this stuff available before it hits the street. Sure some people goto the theatre with thier camcorder and record a movie, which are of VHS quality imo. But for the most part, these dvdrips wouldnt be made possible 2-3 weeks before retail if someone on the inside didn't get it to the outside.
It's the same as the war on drugs, leave the kingpins alone and go after the lil guy buyin a gram on the street.

[Maus]

At 3/1/05 03:42 AM, fli wrote: CDs and DVDs are pretty cheap to make, and to mass produce these isn't expensive.
But why are they selling movies for 15 to 20 bucks? Or renting them out for 5 dollars for 3 days, or whatever?

That's not true. A DVD is actually pretty expensive to make, even if it is mass produced. The cases, the covers, the physical DVD, the encoding process, the duplication process...that all costs money.

Rental...you'd have to crab at places like Blockbuster. The movie companies have no say in how much they can/can't charge for movies.

CDs on the other hand are relatively inexpensive.

It still doesn't change the fact that it is stealing. Everytime somebody steals a movie, a physical one sits on the shelf. That's a loss of revenue. For every person that uploads a movie, hundreds download it. That's a lot of dough at the end of the day.

It's theft. No amount of rationalisation will change that. Whether it's a stream of binary code or not, it is not yours to just take. Intangible things are just as worthy, otherwise we wouldn't bother with a patent process. Who needs to copyright ideas, right?

[Ravens-Grin]

At 3/1/05 03:42 AM, fli wrote: People whom download movies or music do not need to buy the movie since they already have them.

Truly false statement. I personally bought the movie "Half Baked" shortly after I bought it. Why? The copy that I got was decent, but not great quality. As well as that, I wanted all of the bonus features that was on the DVD.

The funny story about this, Columbia Pictures had my ISP take my internet taken away from me for 2 days, even though I bought the DVD. Downloading the DVD influenced me into purchasing the DVD, and there was no logical reasoning to have them shut my internet off.

By the way, this was about a year and a half ago, before this crackdown started with the MPAA.

[fli]

At 3/1/05 09:53 AM, Ravens_Grin wrote:

At 3/1/05 03:42 AM, fli wrote: People whom download movies or music do not need to buy the movie since they already have them.

Truly false statement. I personally bought the movie "Half Baked" shortly after I bought it. Why? The copy that I got was decent, but not great quality. As well as that, I wanted all of the bonus features that was on the DVD.

Just because a few bought a DVD even if they have a pirated copy,
don't mean that everyone is gonna buy a DVD even if they have a pirated version.

The point of buying the DVD, or renting it out, or whatever, is to watch the movie.
If people have already seen a movie, they're gonna say, "I've seen it. It's stupid. Let's download another movie." A sale isn't made, directly due to the fact that someone saw the movie for free.

I'm starting the sense just a few persons, "Piracy, it's nothing big really." Well then, if it's nothing too big, then why not buy a legit copy?