Slashdot Log In
LokiTorrent vs. MPAA
Posted by
samzenpus
on Wed Dec 29, 2004 08:55 PM
from the good-luck dept.
from the good-luck dept.
ravenspear writes "It seems that the attack on torrent sites is continuing strong. This time Lokitorrent is being sued by the MPAA. Unlike Suprnova and most of the previous sites however, they aren't planning to just roll over and die. It will no doubt be a dificult fight, but they plan to stay up for the time being. Also, they are asking for donations to cover their legal expenses. So far they have raised $8,755 out of a needed $30,000. "
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Obviously.... (Score:5, Funny)
Update (Score:5, Informative)
Also, they posted an image of the of the complaint they were served with here [img68.exs.cx].
New Image Link (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
$30K? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:$30K? (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:$30K? (Score:5, Interesting)
It depends on the lawyer, the tactics, and the case itself.
Considering that their trackers seem to be trading in copyrighted material, the only valid defense seems to be attacking section 103 of the DMCA, and that would seem to require a first amendment defense (IANAL).
A previous court has already ruled that the DMCA is not trumped by the first amendment (the 2600 case), which makes me think that they must plan a defense on some other factor.
Perhaps they will attack the selective application of the DMCA - google has never been sued, while it looks like Loki will be. Is the DMCA only going after those who can't afford to defend themselves? If so, is this illegal? (Question: has google been approached with DMCA takedown notices before and complied? RIAA: "Remove link to $X" Google: "Done." ???)
I'm almost tempted to tip Loki $25 bucks or so, just to see their defense.
Parent
Re:$30K? (Score:5, Insightful)
These people who are suing poor technophiles, could have spent that money researching ways to utilize the technology to their advantage rather than trying to stifle new innovations!
Parent
What's next? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:What's next? (Score:5, Funny)
Well, the joke's on you--my pants are already off!
Parent
Re:Huh? (Score:5, Interesting)
Work - school - malls - airports - anyplace on earth - is private property. This is madness.
If I understand the law correctly, this is currently something of a grey area, but a literal reading of the law would say you are correct. It is a gaping hole in the system as it currently exists because there are legal minefields every which way you look.
When I carefully defined "free speech" for an essay I wrote [jerf.org] I had to explicitly point this out; times have changed since the first amendment was written, and the majority of speech now takes place on private grounds. We're going to have to deal with this sooner or later because a naive interpretation of property laws does largely negate your free speech today (detailed argument in linked essay, relevant paragraph:).
Parent
hosting links isn't illegal (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:hosting links isn't illegal (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
2600.com & DeCSS (Score:5, Informative)
They lost the case.
Parent
MOD PARENT UP! (Score:5, Insightful)
In the 2600 case, the court effectively ruled that linking to something illegal is illegal. In a way, like the Bush doctrine (ie "if you harbor a terrorist, you are a terrorist"). Under this ruling, places like Google and Yahoo are conceivably liable for what you can find on them (warez, child porn, etc), however as yet, they have not been taken to court over such large things... just small issues here and there.
Parent
lokitorrent is still illegal (Score:5, Insightful)
"we're not the ones downloading, we're just facilitating."
thats like saying "i didn't make him shoot his younger brother, i just gave him the gun, and then told his brother to stand there for a few seconds, and i'd give him a cookie.
Anywho, someone enlighten me on a legal strategy
Re:lokitorrent is still illegal (Score:5, Interesting)
I suppose one could make the argument that the fact that Lokitorrent is a tracker makes them very much different, but since Trackers only facilitate the exchange of information [they don't actually contain any pieces of any of the infringing works themselves], it's difficult to sue *them* for copyright infringement (since they aren't distributing or in illegal possession of any of these copyrighted works).
Now, if there *were* a law that said that if one knew about copyright infringement they would be legally obligated to report it to the authorities, Lokitorrent would certainly be illegal. I'm not sure there is such a law.
I'm not saying what Loki is doing is *morally right*, I'm just saying it might be defensible.
Parent
Re:lokitorrent is still illegal (Score:5, Informative)
http://www.crblaw.com/GetFAQAnswer.asp?id=49 [crblaw.com] has a blurb about it.
http://www.chillingeffects.org/piracy/faq.cgi#QID
Parent
Paypal address... (Score:5, Informative)
Just FYI, their paypal address appears to be support@lokitorrent.com. If you're going to post a story about a site taking donations to fight a lawsuit, at least include a way to donate AFTER you Slashdot their site to hell and back.
Re:Paypal address... (Score:5, Interesting)
Parent
Money to the lawyers? (Score:4, Funny)
Hire a lawyer? To defend something that's blatenly illegal? People are buying this? The Internet is a great place.
Umm, guess higher (Score:5, Funny)
Actually, since they're attempting to take on the MPAA in court that really means that they've raised $8,755 out of a needed $infinity.
Good luck nonetheless, guys.
It Seems They've Already Caved To MS (Score:5, Informative)
Any and all Microsoft software and XBOX games are "banned" from the site. Check their upload page.
http://www.lokitorrent.com/torrents-upload.php [lokitorrent.com]
The Money (Score:5, Interesting)
Of course, on the other hand, the MPAA can say "You fools, if you had money you should have bought the films and saved the legal expense!".
I'm sure that this case will be followed very closely by the Slashdot crowd (and definitely me). I'm really interested to see how this will turn out.
- dshaw
P.S.: Bold of them to keep the site online during the issues...
Misperceptions abound (Score:5, Insightful)
1. Everyone accused of anything in court has a right to defend themselves and make the accuser prove it. This system protects every other right you have.
2. The folks at LokiTorrent want to exercise that right. In order to do so they need financial assistancec.
3. We all benefit from NOT having a system whereby a well funded organization cannot assume it will win because it can afford lawyers, a system where the big money always wins.
4. Ergo we all benefit from LokiTorrent exercisisng its rights. Why then should we not help them out if we are able?
All your base are imagining an ad-hoc beowulf cluster of old korean overlords welcoming YOU!
Re:Misperceptions abound (Score:5, Insightful)
1. Everyone accused of anything in court has a right to defend themselves and make the accuser prove it. This system protects every other right you have.
2. The folks at LokiTorrent want to exercise that right. In order to do so they need financial assistancec.
So, you're proud of a system that requires somebody to have a large amount of money in order that they can defend themselves?
Parent
Re:Misperceptions abound (Score:5, Insightful)
If you can defend yourself successfully, nothing.
Parent
Re:Misperceptions abound (Score:5, Insightful)
I can collect rain water.
I can stand on a street corner and yell at the top of my voice.
I can pick up a rock and throw it.
I can't stand up in court and know that I will get a fair hearing. It SHOULD cost nothing to defend myself in court as I SHOULD be able to just get up, tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth and be sure of getting justice. As it is I have to hire a professional liar to counteract the other side's professional liar.
Parent
Suspicious? (Score:5, Interesting)
Consider this scenario: Donations reach a certain point, less than $30k, where it doesn't look like they'll increase anymore, then the admin runs off with a nice chunk of pocket money, whining 'my users didn't support us enough! It's all their fault!'
I'm not saying I'm certain it's a fraud, but I'm sceptical. I'll believe it when it's reported on by a major news agency, complete with quotes from the MPAA.
shrinkwrap EULA! (Score:5, Interesting)
There's something really weird in the FAQ. In the part that tells copyright owners what to do if material that they own is being traded and they want the post removed, they say:
I sympathize with their desire to get people to talk to them first, in a civil tone, before sending take-down notices to their ISPs, but this is perfect nonsense. Reading the FAQ doesn't bind anybody to anything. This is the kind of garbage we expect from Microsoft. What is it doing on a torrent site?Keeping it simple: answer to all astroturf posters (Score:5, Insightful)
Answers for their contentions, all at once:
It's not "piracy"; it's copying without permission. If you sell copied films, then you're a pirate.
Copying without permission wasn't a criminal matter until the content producers bought such laws. It was a civil matter, and conviction required evidence of monetary loss on the complaintant's part.
Copyright was a compromise in U.S. law. One faction in the constitutional convention wanted NO copyrights, another was more of the current IP ilk's way of thinking. Compromise: copyrights were to exist for a limited time, to get the best of both worlds -- enticement to produce new works, and the graduation to public domain of old works for the common good.
With the Sonny Bono Law, the deal was destroyed. No compromise. Copyright for life of author plus 75 years for an author, a HUNDRED years for a corporation. And no guarantee at all that future congresses would keep extending the terms for ever and ever and ever...
The deal is over. And we didn't break it, the "intellectual property owners" broke it - savagely, permanently. Now works are owned for all time. No public good. Just private. No derivative works allowed. And corporate "owners" can use their profits to buy larger and larger blocks of "property" indefinitely. We may see a small handful of chummy corporations eventually owning all the published works of mankind - science, art, literature -- everything.
The law broke the deal. The corporations wanted anarchy. They got it. They have guns on their side. The Scientologists are peeing themselves with glee.
What we have here is more than downloading copies of movies or music. If copyright lasted only 20 years, I would honestly be fighting alongside the owners so that they could make a profit from their works. That is, if the artists actually owned the copyrights, rather than the corporations they signed rights over to.
But this is not what copyrights is about. It isn't about property. That's a 20th century legal fiction. Music and images are not "property"; items are property. Copyright was about licensing copies.
Fair Use law mandated that the public could copy even without paying, within limits. THAT'S out the window. If it's illegal to break encryption, you can't copy within those rights.
I will not accept the shutdown of the Constitution's purpose of copyright. I will not accept the death of Fair Use. I will not countenance the elimination of the Deal. I will not watch the works of man fall under the eternal control of immortal corporations. Science and art as we know it cannot survive the imprisonment-with-conditional parole of human endeavor. If copying files annoys them and shakes their control, then let it be so. I want this regime of control shaken and stirred until such day we can install real limits on copyright once more.
I actually have a fair amount of respect... (Score:5, Insightful)
On LokiTorrent and it's community's behalf, they seem to actually be standing up for themselves, which at least hints at a sense of them sincerely thinking there is legitimacy in what thay are doing. I disagree with them on their apparent stance in defending distribution of copyrighted works, but they seem to be playing by the rules in trying to stand up and defend and believe in what they do. Other sites just kind of rolled over, pretty much acknowledging that they were illegitimate and were just going until they get called on it. Ok, maybe that is a tad harsh as the cost of defending oneself is unwieldy, but it is at least the impression given.
On MPAA's behalf, this is probably one of the more sane ways of going against copyright infringement, *if* I'm understanding the cease and desist right. Seems they are only requesting removal of copyrighted material torrents, not shutdown of the site. Certainly not dismantling of BitTorrent technology. Of course, this is a *very* specific circumstance, and on other fronts they push for more fair-use violations in the name of protecting IP (DRM, attempts to essentially destroy/outlaw good technologies with fair use applications). This is about as fair and 'nice' as these companies have played to date (only other major thing which might have been construed as 'fair' was certainly not nice, the RIAA pursuing individual file sharer's seeking actual monetary damages). One can nitpick about whether distributing mere torrents is 'technically' violating copyright, but rather a sort of map to where the actual content is, but these specific torrents are certainly against the spirit of copyright when utilized against the wishes of the copyright holders.
Badmouth the MPAA/RIAA all we want about their price fixing, scamming the artists, overpriced crap, and their attempts to royally screw over technology for their benefit, but we can't meet their wrongs with wrongs of our own. If you think really nasty and slimy people run a store or chain of stores, you shouldn't feel you are then entitled to shoplift. I disagree with their strategies and pricing levels, and I express this via my purchasing decisions. If I think a price is too high for a crappy experience, I decline to pay. My standards for what is justified is highly increased knowing what they want to do to fair use, and I actively seek non MPAA, non RIAA entertainment over MPAA/RIAA content.
CONGRATS MPAA!!!! (Score:5, Interesting)
Wow, you guys are sure doing the job here!! Shutiing down those torrent sites, sure is slowing them up!!
But there is the thing, now normally you would hire some consultant that would cost you thousands, but I will give it to you gratis. You are in the same position that your cousin the RIAA was with Napster. See they cut the head off the dragon too - but then they found out, that it was no dragon, indeed it was a Hydra. For every head they cut off 2 more rose in its place. Now mp3's are everywhere. You may slay this beast yet, but expect encrypted clients, trackers and hosters in countries that don't care about you, and other things which I can only imagine. You have an oppertunity here like your cousin did, it seems that you are going down the same path. I have something to tell you, you are not going to like it, expect failure.
Sera
Re:Question to people who donate (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Question to people who donate (Score:5, Insightful)
Sorry, but you made such a sweeping statement I had to come out with the one thing that disproves your statement.
More seriously though, many people that will donate to this cause DO believe the law is unjust. They believe that the law is wrong. While what people are doing that the law is designed to stop may be wrong, as you so aptly pointed out "two wrongs don't make a right." Many people here believe that quite a large portion of copyright laws is wrong (Peter Jackson was not allowed to make a museum in New Zealand that would showcase many of the props used in his movie because the Tolkien Estate didn't want him too. In my opinion THAT'S wrong) and see this as the first step to fighting the laws that are wrong. Just because other people have dubious motives for breaking these laws, doesn't mean that people shouldn't support fighting the law through legal channels.
I am also dissalowed from watching Stargate: Atlantis by downloading it, even though I am not able to access it any other way. I can gurantee that the companies are not hurt by me downloading it. And yet I am still not allowed too. I believe that law is wrong. The studio has actually benefitted me from viewing it (I went to a university showing, I didn't ask how they obtained a copy of some episodes) and they have actually benefitted by me doing so as I will buy the DVD. And you'll point out I'm in the minority, but as you said "two wrongs don't make a right"
Parent
Re:Question to people who donate (Score:5, Interesting)
This is like suing Google for finding a link to a site distributing software illegally. It's silly, and it's a chilling restriction of the concept of free speech.
Parent
Defending rights to say... (Score:5, Interesting)
I know of someone who did time for a similar situation. Short version - When asked, she answered "I don't sell drugs, the guy in that apartment over there is the one selling crack." That is when she found out the skinny guy with a crack pipe was an undercover policeman, and pointing out that apartment as a source made her an accessory/accomplice(?).
Possibly a case of entrapment, and a better lawyer than hers could probably clarify a lot of the issues involved, but I believe this demonstrates a parallel as far as Free Speech is concerned.
Parent
My donation to the cause... (Score:5, Insightful)
If I go down to the local Chevy dealer and take a new Corvette in the middle of the night, they have lost actual property they could have sold to someone else and I would have an actual Corvette. If because of all their advertising I want a Corvette really bad but can not afford one so I take a picture of the Corvette down at the local dealer, print it out life size, and tape it to a cardboard box I put over my Chevette then they can still sell that Corvette to someone who can afford it, they certainly didn't lose the money I didn't have to spend in the first place, and I don't really have a Corvette.
Just as Chevy sells cars and not licenses to drive Corvette shaped vehicles, when you buy a movie on DVD you are not buying a license to watch that movie. You can't go to a theatre and present your DVD to gain enterence, nor can you present your movie stub at Walmart to pick up a copy on DVD. If your DVD breaks, so does your ability to watch the movie. You buy a DVD with a movie on it, you can sell the DVD with the movie on it. You can even sell the DVD for more than you paid for it, which then not only did you watch the movie for free, you got paid to watch the movie for free, completely legal. Yet if you download some fuzzy, jumpy, blurry copy of that DVD to watch on your 17" monitor with 1" speakers you're a thief, even though nobody has lost anything.
Personally, I subscribe to Netflix. It's easy, affordable, and I can watch movies just as fast as my mailman can drive. But if Netflix didn't exist, I sure as hell wouldn't buy DVD's for 20-30 bucks a pop. I also wouldn't rent from Blockbuster anymore after they sent a collection agency after me over a 10 dollar late fee. I hate going to the movies, I don't want to spend 20 bucks on a small Coke to stare at the back of someone's head while the person next to them explains every part of the movie. If it weren't for Netflix I'm sure I would get my movie fix on HBO and P2P.
In that case, if Kill Bill Vol. 3 were 'Coming next month to HBO...', and I downloaded it tonight, would I be a thief forever, for a few weeks, or not at all? How about this, Kill Bill was on last Thursday but I missed it, am I a thief if I download it off the net?
What really pisses me off is that Hollywood makes so much damn money off every piece of crap they put out yet they aren't content so they spend millions suing people.
If you really want to stick it to the MPAA, instead of file trading you should be DVD trading with everyone in your family, office, and neighborhood.
Or how about this, open used DVD stores across America, where you sell DVD's for 20 bucks and buy them back for $19.50. Completely legal, the store makes 50 cents on every 'sale'
Parent
Re:So.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Is it some sort of a political statement from you? If you don't like hippies, well.. That is your problem, but I don't think you find many hippies among filesharers. To bad you don't have contact with the real world.
Parent
Re:So.... (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re:So.... (Score:5, Informative)
Torrents are not "derivative works" under the definition of copyright because they are not "works." Works include:
17 U.S.C. 102(a).A Cliff's Note is a derivative work. A card in a library's card catalog telling how many pages are in a book, etc. is not a derivative work. A torrent file is much more like a library card than a Cliff's Note. As for criminal copyright violation, that requires willful violation which can be very difficult to prove, especially when the violation may occur before the site owner knows that they may be facilitating a violation.
Parent
Re:So.... (Score:4, Insightful)
I have never used bittorent but as far as I understand, the sites only hosts the torrent file and no contents, so you can continue to explain why that is illegal...
Parent
Re:So.... (Score:5, Interesting)
So now you're paying to keep an illegal site online?
And then you said:
I didn't say the site was doing anything illegal.
So which bit is illegal?
Parent
Re:So.... (Score:5, Interesting)
That makes it an entirely different ballgame in my book; while I found the RIAAs actions to be particulary loathesome, even if they did have the legal upperhand, the MPAA is being much better behaved. Sure Suprnova, LokiTorrent, et al may have carried the odd Linux ISO in their time, but the majority of their Torrents are for commercial apps, music, movies and TV shows. Last I checked, without explicit permission, the distribution of any of those was copyright infringement, which is a civil crime. What would be interesting would be the reaction to a site deleting all of its dodgy torrents and leaving just the truly free stuff before the nastygram arrives. Until we see that, or someone like LinuxISO.org [linuxiso.org] getting sued, the MPAA is entirely within its rights as far as I am concerned.
Not that I think either the RIAA or the MPAA is going to have any more luck in their endeavors than the BSA did with cracking down on the Warez sites back in the day. Still, having clamped down on the MP3 sites, at least the RIAA somewhat reluctantly got behind legitimate alternatives like iTunes, the revived Napster and so on. Hopefully the MPAA will do the same PDQ; a subscription or per-view based system where I can get the latest TV episodes over P2P would be something I'd *seriously* consider.
Parent
Re:$9940 (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Re:$9940 (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, the fact remains, that there are far more very worthwhile causes out there than most of us could ever make a meaningful donation to. There is nothing wrong with picking a few which have significance to you and making enough of a donation to make a difference on those, rather than take on the impossible task of trying to fix everything.
So, those who strongly believe that the entire concept of "intellectual property" is an aberration, an artificial monopoly created by law, and needs to be eliminated (and yes, we are out there) are far fewer in number than those who will sympathize with the terrible situation in Sri Lanka. Therefore, perhaps those few -would- be better served pooling their resources in an area where there is not already a massive public outpouring of support?
This is not to belittle the terrible tragedy that befell the Sri Lankans or to say that helping them is not extremely important. But please don't castigate someone because he can't support -every- worthwhile cause out there, I doubt if you can either.
Parent
Re:$9940 (Score:5, Funny)
Here's an idea: write MPAA and tell them to spend their lawyer money on tsunami relief.
Parent
Re:$9940 (Score:5, Insightful)
How can one pity a coporation for not making enough money, I don't know. They are turning a fine profit, or they wouldn't exist. That they have you buying their not-turning-a-profit bullshit, like they take risks on movies for us, is a sign of their marketing paying off.
Parent
Re:$9940 (Score:5, Insightful)
Saving lives > File trading.
I may not agree with what you have to say, but I will die defending your right to say it.
Parent
Re:Devil's Advocate: Derived works (Score:5, Funny)
I've noticed that you're using the number "5" in both your email address and Slashdot userid. A book I wrote hashes to the value "5". Please cease and desist distributing the number "5".
Parent
Re:What Are The Odds ? (Score:5, Insightful)
Let me tell you what's wrong: it's called waving a dead chinken [google.com].
The MPAA has hit the end of the road, and they're on a witch hunt to save their status-quo. The fucking problem is not so much rooted in these people who steal who should be sued sensless for stealing, it's rooted in the fact that Corporate America has gotten fat and greedy, and is now using 'below the belt' tactics to obtain what is 'duefully theirs'. It's a problem because America is slowly going down the hill of being industrious towards (quite ironically) the plain of being leechers themselves.
I download software *all* the time. Do I feel guilty? Absolutely not. Why? Because I'm professional in IT, and to this day I have never used software professionally (i.e. made a profit off of it) without buying it. But then again, I've never bought software that I haven't used before.
Torrent sites, are an unfortunate side effect of the grass fuckers in Hollywood, and big corporations, who think that squeezing every cent of profit out of The Consummer is the only thing that's worth a damn. Most of these people that download photoshop for free are kids in their basements, people who would not buy the software in any case. But business men and lawyers love to add those pretty numbers up and project what should have been theirs but is now 'lost' because of these nefarious social deviants... and they oh so love to make up all that lost money by suing people... because, suing after all, is the American way (oh, aren't we so proud of that).
Fuck you all who hide behind the pretense that it's wrong to steal while simultaneously and implicitly condoning this destructive corporate behaviour. You're selling your souls to Big Brother in little chunks of 8 hours in exchange for commercial blocked prime time "must see tv" crapfests all the meanwhile cheering along for America's moral saviour, the almighty MPAA/RIAA.
Hipocrisy really has no limit.
I really do hope Loki succeeds, in fact, I'm on my way to donate right now. Thanks for convincing me Anyonmous Coward.
Parent