LokiTorrent vs. MPAA 909
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. "
Re:Paypal address... (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Here's the question... (Score:3, Interesting)
But I've never heard of Lokitorrent. Is this an example of the MPAA attacking the BitTorrent PROTOCOL, or is this as the MPAA unfairly letter [img68.exs.cx] suggests, an attempt to stop someone from illegally distributing copyrighted material? If it's the former, I think it's bullshit. If it's the latter, then, well... I'm not sure this the kind of test case I want to see setting precedent for BitTorrent's future or reputation.
Remember, copyright law, as flawed as it is (in terms of duration and other areas), is what currently gives the GPL its teeth.
Re:hosting links isn't illegal (Score:2, Interesting)
http://reference.allrefer.com/encyclopedia/A/ac
"An accessory before the fact is one whose counsel or instigation leads another to commit a crime."
If I run a criminal ring, but do not actually participate directly, I am still culpable. This really isn't any different.
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.
Devil's Advocate: Derived works (Score:1, Interesting)
These
This is how copyright law works (I think). Or am I totally off base?
joshua
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...
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?
I was worried for a minute, but (Score:3, Interesting)
Over all, what can **IA do about ultimately? I would fall on a free press defense. They don't hold the files, or even parts of the files. They 'Report' on where they are and that's sort of news.
What do you mean, "next"? (Score:3, Interesting)
Is this a serious abridgement of your right to free speech? You betcha. But so far they're getting away with it.
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?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.
Re:The Money (Score:1, Interesting)
Hey, as it happens, I don't like to listen to music by assholes - so I listen to music legitimately freely available online under open licences akin to open source software licenses. So it's unlikely anyone would come after me for copyright infringement anyway.
But if said asshole tried to claim he had a right to stop me passing on some information, I'd shoot him. Really. I take intellectual property law that seriously - just like slavery law. Just as it was right to shoot a people-owner even though slavery was legal, it is right to shoot an information-owner even if information-ownership is legal. Remember "legal" does not mean "right" and "illegal" does not mean "wrong". When the laws are written to benefit the few in the manner of present so-called intellectual "property" laws, it is right to fight them.
TOTAL FREEDOM OF INFORMATION!
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.
Re:$9940 (Score:2, Interesting)
I don't know if I agree with this. My most-watched movie ever, I have seen about 10 times or so.
My most-listened-to album? I must have heard some of them about 50-100 times or so. And certain songs on them much, much more.
They are different media, used in different ways. It's perfectly acceptable to point out that music and movies are overpriced, without resorting to false or disingenuous comparisons.
(For what it's worth, I also believe a lot of entertainment media, including books, are overpriced. But they are currently what the market will mostly bear... so no drops in the forseeable future.)
Re:Misperceptions abound (Score:3, Interesting)
Unless, of course, you are in a U.S. military tribunal- then you have no rights or counsel.
2. The folks at LokiTorrent want to exercise that right. In order to do so they need financial assistancec.
Fair enough. Although, I never understood how your right to defend yourself was dependent on how much money you had available to you at the time. Isn't a right, by nature, something that is supposed to be unconditional (see #1 above)?
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.
You're right. Let me know when you find one. There are many ways money can control the outcome of trials. For example, if I am sued by the MPAA and, as part of that suit, I am informed that I can either settle out of court for ~$3000 OR fight them, it makes sense to fight them if i am doing nothing wrong. However, the legal fees don't stop with my own costs. They also sue for recovery of their own legal fees. How is the average person supposed to defend themselves against that?
Losing $3000 will break some people for a long time- losing the case becomes too large a risk to take, whether you are wrong or not.
4. Ergo we all benefit from LokiTorrent exercisisng its rights. Why then should we not help them out if we are able?
I agree that it will be nice to see someone try adn defend themselves. I won't help them out, however, because I feel that they are using the same semantic manipulations and legal gray areas to defend themselves as the MPAA. You could argue that when things are bad, you need to fight fire with fire, but you already said that you were proud of the modern justice system.
Old moral issue (Score:4, Interesting)
For instance, does the suffering in Thailand justify ignoring the people in Florida still struggling to recover from those storms? Or the people in California and Arizona who have just been hit with record rainfall?
Does the suffering in Florida justify ignoring the homeless in my own town?
Should the suffering of the homeless justify ignoring the poor (financially), scared local women needing medical care? (Planned Parenthood performs abortions, but it's also the only medical resource for many women.)
The list goes on and on. Helping the local animal shelter or helping to stop the corporatization of American civil life might seem "less important" than helping these victims, but that doesn't mean they should be ignored entirely until there's nothing more pressing.
Torrent files (Score:3, Interesting)
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:).
Re:Keeping it simple: answer to all astroturf post (Score:3, Interesting)
-
Have you been paying attention to court cases recently? Obviously there's a legal precedent that what Lokitorrent is doing is illegal.
Really? Last I checked the RIAA lost its suits against Grokster and whoever else was involved in that one. Kazaa was found legal in its original country of origin, the new trial is underway and we have no way of knowing how it will end yet.If things like Grokster and Kazaa can be legal, exactly HOW would Lokitorrents be illegal? It's even less in control over the content than Grokster and Kazaa are.
-
Claiming the conspiracy theory that anybody who disagrees with you is an agent of the RIAA or MPAA is just odd - about on level with wearing tinfoil hats.
Actually he didn't say that, he said all the posts in support of this move seemed rather odd for Slashdot, that it looked like the MPAA might have decided to astroturf the site. I agree, normally those against anything the MPAA/RIAA does far outweights those in favor of it here, this whole discussion seems like it's from another site to be honest.And besides, he forgot one nice point, the MPAA is breaking the DMCA. They are supposed to send cease & desist letters, in the proper format, to the specified DMCA contact address, listing every link/item they find is infringing prior to suing under the common carrier provisions. They failed to do this, and even in the notice of suit have failed to specifiy exactly WHAT was infriging? "[O]ur copyrighted works" could be most anything, they are supposed to enumerate each item. Go search for Scientology on Google and go to the link about stuff removed, you'll see those letters do exactly what they're supposed to, listing every URL they find infringing and want removed.
Maybe Lokitorrents is breaking the law, maybe they aren't, but the MPAA isn't following their own laws they bought from Congress, and that is a true outrage on many fronts.
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.
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:3, Interesting)
I fail to see how it is acceptable for you to take the works of someone who is still alive and use it as you see fit without giving that creator the compensation that he desires. Maybe the laws that say a copyright exists beyond a person's life (life +20 years?) don't make sense. Maybe copyrights should be transferable but when the original author dies, all bets are off. I don't know about that. But when people are spending millions of dollars to produce a work, and you just go off and copy it without paying them, that's just wrong.
Regarding the Tolkien estate issues... Peter Jackson filmed LOTR with the permission of the Tolkien estate, correct? So then why shouldn't he be bound by their wishes? All things he wanted to do should be spelled out in the contract that he signed with them in order to make the movie. As I said earlier, maybe the copyright law that extends the copyright to the estate of the deceased for some years after death should be modified, but most piracy that's happening happens with music, movies, etc... that's currently being produced, where the authors are still alive.
Regarding Stargate: Atlantis, you said that you are not able to access it any other way, but then you say that you will buy the DVD. Apparently, you DO have a way to view it, you just chose to take a "free" way of downloading it before you buy it.
Re:Huh? (Score:3, Interesting)
If Earthlink did that, they'd be making editorial decisions about the material they were making available. They would no longer be a communications carrier, but rather a publisher. This would open them to huge liability, and Sony would not cover that expense.
There are private places where speech is protected because it could cause civil liability. Weirdly enough.
Re:$30K? (Score:2, Interesting)
When an author expresses an idea -- be it in Source Code, Words, a Painting, a Sculpture, Music, a Movie, or any other form -- they are allowed to control how that particular expression, in whole or in part, is distributed. The constitution explicitly allows congress to write the laws to make this happen.
The GPL depends on this to carry teeth, for example. Without the constitutional promise that congress can pass laws concerning protection of expression of ideas, and indead of ideas themselves, the GPL itself would be meaningless words on a paper.
For whatever reason, it seems hard to understand that a movie and bash, for example, are the same. For whatever reason, it's hard to accept it. But the fact of the matter is a movie is an expression of ideas, and those ideas are then stored on some media, and bash is, likewise, an expression of ideas stored on some media.
The only difference is in how that expression is viewed, and what it does when it is viewed.
The big problem here is that a lot of users are going "it's OK to copy the MPAA or RIAA's expressions, because they want to charge money and I don't want to pay it." But their right to charge and the Free Software and Open Source movement's right not to charge are connected, inherently glued, because the same laws and rights that allow one are the ones that allow the other.
It doesn't seem hard to understand that the MPAA has a right to prevent their individual expression of ideas from being duplicated wholesale, when it is a guaraunteed constitutional right for them to own their expression, as fundamental as the first amendment.
It doesn't seem too hard to understand that the FSF has a right to require people who are contributing to a GPL project to release their derived work under the GPL. It is their right to demand this.
If you don't like the RIAA, try out mp3.com -- most of their songs are independent, you can generally download them without paying, and you know the quality of what you're getting ahead of time.
If you don't like the RIAA, there are plenty of independent music web sites, distributing songs in MP3, OGG, etc. format. One that I frequent (bookmark is at home, I'm at work) charges $0.99 per song, just like iTunes, but gives $0.80 of that to the artist themselves. That same site, for a reasonable one-time fee, lets you buy rights to use the song in software, again giving 80% to the artists.
If you don't like the RIAA, you don't have to listen to their songs. If you want to listen to songs by their artists, however, their artists have the protected constitutional right to determine how their songs may be distributed.
This same reasoning goes to the MPAA. I buy DVDs, and I buy them only for things I actually want to watch.
All rights for all expressions of ideas are connected, as soon as you decide one shouldn't apply to one expression, you destroy the ability to apply it to other expressions that perhaps you more strongly care about.
I am not a supported of the DMCA, however what LokiTorrent was doing (and SuperNova, etc.) was primarily geared towards infringing use.
So far as Google goes, if there is a site with infringing content, there is a procedure on their website to get it removed from the index. Essentially, you contact Google, you make the claim, Google contacts the other party for a rebuttal, and then decides based on the responses if it is infringing or not.
e-Bay, Yahoo, eXcite, Lycos and every other reputable internet business has procedures for dealing with complaints from copyright holders, and that includes open source projects incidently, to lodge complaints.
For example, if company xyz is distributing a GPL DVD ripper under a commercial guise, and isn't distributing source code, you can directly complain to the search engines, and they will shut it down if you can substantiate your claim.
Technically, you could also send cease and desist letters, etc.