Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive


Forgot your password?
The Courts Government The Internet News Your Rights Online

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. "
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

LokiTorrent vs. MPAA

Comments Filter:
  • by 2.7182 ( 819680 ) on Wednesday December 29, 2004 @09:57PM (#11215006)
    Loki is the god of mischief, so the names says it all. Now if it was Odintorrent, I'd side with them.
  • Update (Score:5, Informative)

    by ravenspear ( 756059 ) on Wednesday December 29, 2004 @09:57PM (#11215008)
    Since I submitted this they updated the site and have now have received $9,940 in donations.

    Also, they posted an image of the of the complaint they were served with here [].
  • $30K? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Neil Blender ( 555885 ) <> on Wednesday December 29, 2004 @09:58PM (#11215016)
    What'll that cover? A week?
    • Re:$30K? (Score:5, Funny)

      by PoopJuggler ( 688445 ) on Wednesday December 29, 2004 @10:31PM (#11215261)
      It'll cover the drugs and hookers, that's for sure.
    • Re:$30K? (Score:5, Interesting)

      by dasunt ( 249686 ) on Thursday December 30, 2004 @02:52AM (#11216842)

      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.

      • Re:$30K? (Score:3, Informative)

        by pangel83 ( 598985 ) *
        Yes. Google has been approached to remove links, due to DMCA, and very frequently actually. And it seems that they always agree. Just look at the notice in the bottom of this [] page. Here [] actually is a nice archive of a lot of DMCA notices sent to a number of sites.
  • $9940 (Score:3, Insightful)

    by tyleroar ( 614054 ) on Wednesday December 29, 2004 @09:59PM (#11215018) Homepage
    They've got $9940 now. How much do you think the slashdot attention will help them out? Personally I'd rather see people donate to help out with the Tsunami relief [].
    • Re:$9940 (Score:4, Insightful)

      by JNighthawk ( 769575 ) <`NihirNighthawk' `at' `'> on Wednesday December 29, 2004 @10:06PM (#11215076)
      Whining because people would prefer donating to something that directly affects them while having a pyramid scheme link in your .sig. Oh, the irony. If you really cared, you wouldn't participate in the pyramid scheme.
    • Re:$9940 (Score:5, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 29, 2004 @10:12PM (#11215127)
      Tsunamis are already against the law. There isn't any need for activism against tsunamis. MPAA, on the other hand, is a recurring problem that still has some remaining support from certain undesirable elements of society.

      Here's an idea: write MPAA and tell them to spend their lawyer money on tsunami relief.

    • Re:$9940 (Score:5, Insightful)

      by sinner0423 ( 687266 ) <> on Wednesday December 29, 2004 @10:15PM (#11215153)
      This is Slashdot, my man.

      Saving lives > File trading.

      I may not agree with what you have to say, but I will die defending your right to say it.
    • Old moral issue (Score:4, Interesting)

      by coyote-san ( 38515 ) on Wednesday December 29, 2004 @10:56PM (#11215442)
      It's been a long time since my college philosophy course, but your position is a fallacy. It does great harm to focus on a single problem, or even a single category.

      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.

  • by mg2 ( 823681 ) on Wednesday December 29, 2004 @09:59PM (#11215020)
    Dear AIMUser304921, It has come to our attention that on December 12th, 2004, you had an AOL Instant Messenger conversation with AIMUser201192 about how some of your buddies have a bootleg copy of Spiderman 2. To avoid legal action, you must cease and desist communicating with anybody ever again about anything possibly illegal. That, or be ready for us to sue your pants off.
    • by fm6 ( 162816 )
      As I understand it, the DMCA forbids any exchange of information relating to circumvention of copyright. And note that AOL has every right to monitor conversations on its servers. The only thing that prevents this from happening is the difficulty of monitoring millions of online conversations. And possibly somebody is working on that.

      Is this a serious abridgement of your right to free speech? You betcha. But so far they're getting away with it.

      • As I understand it, the DMCA forbids any exchange of information relating to circumvention of copyright.

        Absolutely not. At least not yet.

        The DMCA is bad, but it isn't quite that bad.
        What is restricted is any exchange of information relating to circumvention of copy prevention mechanisms -- like CSS or macrovision. Simply talking about how to "circumvent copyrights" aka make copies, is not restricted.
    • by Thing 1 ( 178996 ) on Wednesday December 29, 2004 @10:47PM (#11215381) Journal
      That, or be ready for us to sue your pants off.

      Well, the joke's on you--my pants are already off!

  • by mrterrysilver ( 826735 ) on Wednesday December 29, 2004 @10:00PM (#11215022) Homepage
    how is hosting links to illegal files illegal? all torrents files are, are links which tell users with bittorrent where they are able to download illegal files (obviously many torrents are for legal files too). since the torrents sites aren't hosting any actual files how is this any different from google linking to a webpage that hosts pirated music or movies or images?
    • by zalas ( 682627 ) on Wednesday December 29, 2004 @10:03PM (#11215051) Homepage
      Google indexes everything. Sites which knowingly serve torrents which point to trackers that serve copyright infringing materials do not.
    • & DeCSS (Score:5, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 29, 2004 @10:17PM (#11215171) had a similar case [] where they were ordered not to link to any site that had decss. Never mind the fact that google and pletny of other sites did and still do.

      They lost the case.
      • MOD PARENT UP! (Score:5, Insightful)

        by DaHat ( 247651 ) on Wednesday December 29, 2004 @10:30PM (#11215255) Homepage
        The parent has hit the nail on the head.

        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.
    • Lokitorrent has a torrent for White Chicks.

      How can you not be against this sort of thing?
  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 29, 2004 @10:00PM (#11215024)
    What are the odds that people who won't pay for movies or software will stick their hands in their pockets and fund a legal fight ? Not very high methinks ...
  • by dextr0us ( 565556 ) <dextr0us&spl,at> on Wednesday December 29, 2004 @10:00PM (#11215026) Homepage Journal
    Basically, i don't see how their legal defense would go. "we only provide links to the torrents" would be suprnovas, but isn't loki a tracker?

    "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
    • by Ieshan ( 409693 ) <ieshan AT gmail DOT com> on Wednesday December 29, 2004 @10:06PM (#11215085) Homepage Journal
      The strategy is the same as if you were to sue Google for providing links to torrent files (like this: google link to search for harry potter []).

      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.
      • by toastyman ( 23954 ) <> on Wednesday December 29, 2004 @10:24PM (#11215208) Homepage
        What you're referring to is called "Contributory Infringement". Basically through your actions you're allowing/facilitating copyright infringement to take place by someone else. [] has a blurb about it. 89 [] goes into more detail too.
      • The strategy is the same as if you were to sue Google for providing links to torrent files

        No, not at all.

        Google is registered with the Copyright Office as a service provider and generally qualifies for the protection offered by 17 USC 512.

        Lokitorrent is not registered, and anyway probably isn't eligible anyway.

        The law is that you are liable for copyright infringement if:

        1) You directly infringe on a copyright by, e.g. reproducing it or distributing it.

        2) Someone else directly infringes on a copyright
        • The law is that you are liable for copyright infringement if:
          1) You directly infringe on a copyright by, e.g. reproducing it or distributing it.
          2) Someone else directly infringes on a copyright, and you materially contribute to that infringement, while knowing of the infringement.
          3) Someone else directly infringes on a copyright, and you have the right and ability to control their infringement, and you directly benefit from the infringement.

          Well, I see it this way:
          1) They are not reproducing or dis
          • 1) They are not reproducing or distributing the work (the work is never on their servers).

            I agree. But it is important that someone is doing this; you need a direct infringement to have a contributory or vicarious infringement.

            2) They could claim that they do not know of the infringement. They do not download the file, verify the content, and screen it themselves. They allow others to connect ans use their servers without content verification.

            I suggest taking a look at the Napster opinion.

            First, the
  • Paypal address... (Score:5, Informative)

    by nuclear305 ( 674185 ) * on Wednesday December 29, 2004 @10:00PM (#11215028)
    Now that it's on slashdot, I'm sure they'll need that $30,000 for bandwidth bills :(

    Just FYI, their paypal address appears to be 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.
  • by Matt2k ( 688738 ) on Wednesday December 29, 2004 @10:01PM (#11215039)
    I don't know about the people that are donating, but it seems a little silly to just hand over money and actually expect them to get a lawyer. If anything I'd just as likely expect them to take the 30K and run. Thanks for the donations!

    Hire a lawyer? To defend something that's blatenly illegal? People are buying this? The Internet is a great place.
  • by mrpuffypants ( 444598 ) * <`mrpuffypants' `at' `'> on Wednesday December 29, 2004 @10:04PM (#11215062)
    So far they have raised $8,755 out of a needed $30,000.

    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.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 29, 2004 @10:05PM (#11215073)
    If this is a site that is using BitTorrent as a method for downloading 100% legit material like public domain movies, linux distributions, creative commons licensed songs, etc., I'd be pretty sympathetic and probably throw in some financial support.

    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 [] 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.
  • by Aoverify ( 566411 ) on Wednesday December 29, 2004 @10:08PM (#11215096) Homepage
    All the sudden they want to stand up for our rights? Why didn't they do so when MS contacted them and demanded they stop tracking MS related torrents?

    Any and all Microsoft software and XBOX games are "banned" from the site. Check their upload page. []
    • by ravenspear ( 756059 ) on Wednesday December 29, 2004 @10:14PM (#11215138)
      They have a policy that allows anyone to have their stuff removed if they don't want links to torrents of it hosted on their site. If someone submits a request to have something taken down, they put it in a "banned files" area and after that if anyone posts a torrent to any of those files they are banned from the site.

      I'm not sure how this policy will figure into their legal defense, but I imagine it will in some capacity.
  • The Money (Score:5, Interesting)

    by dshaw858 ( 828072 ) on Wednesday December 29, 2004 @10:08PM (#11215097) Homepage Journal
    The fact that they've raised so much money I think will help them in their case. Why? It shows that what they're doing can be seen as a fight for freedom, whether it is or not. The donations show that people are willing to pay money, but the quality of films (and music?) is not worth paying for.

    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...
  • My opinion (Score:3, Informative)

    by Datasage ( 214357 ) * <{moc.yergsidlroweht} {ta} {egasataD}> on Wednesday December 29, 2004 @10:10PM (#11215112) Homepage Journal
    The only possible legal avenue is the fact that they are only providing means to access copyrighted material and not the material itself. INAL, but but that could possibly be considered illegal under the DMCA. I know IP is diffrent, but its like providing a key to a car someone else is going to steal. Generally that would make you an accomplice.

    I think bittorrent(as well as other P2P) has the power to subvert the coporate hold on media and provide an avenue for indie media to get thier art out in the public space. But its been given a bad name when its used in copyright infringment.

    Im not exactly a fan of the MPAA or DMCA but I dont think copyright infringment is the way to change the landscape of art. It sends the wrong message.

    You can help give bittorrent a better name by clicking the link in my sig.
  • by Thunderstruck ( 210399 ) on Wednesday December 29, 2004 @10:14PM (#11215145)
    IAAL, and darned proud of the modern justice system...

    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!

    • by RonnyJ ( 651856 ) on Wednesday December 29, 2004 @10:43PM (#11215348)
      IAAL, and darned proud of the modern justice system...

      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?
    • 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.

      But that is very close to what you have! I agree totally on your points, if they were valid, but the fact remains that you have to pay to play, and far from everyone can do that, donations or not. I hope these guys make enough to play, but we don't know that yet.

      That is not a fair system. Exercising its rights my ass. The rights to ro
    • 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.

      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
  • by infonography ( 566403 ) on Wednesday December 29, 2004 @10:19PM (#11215180) Homepage
    most of what i was looking for isn't anything that they would care about. Now Microsoft might get mad about my looking for ISO of SUSE but it's not actionable.

    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.

  • by Zocalo ( 252965 ) on Wednesday December 29, 2004 @10:24PM (#11215213) Homepage
    Why not just contact these guys [] for legal counsel. Apparently they are a sucker for hopeless legal causes [] and will work for a sliding scale of percentages of any settlement when suing multi-billion dollar adversaries [] if your own funds don't quite cover the costs...
  • Suspicious? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Aero Leviathan ( 698882 ) on Wednesday December 29, 2004 @10:27PM (#11215233) Journal
    Doesn't this seem just a little suspicious to ANYONE? They were already collecting donations BEFORE they were 'sued', just in CASE they were to get sued. And then, a few days after they put up the PayPal bar, like magic, it suddenly happens. (Yes, I've seen the 'legal paper', gee, it's not like that could be easily forged or anything.)

    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.
    • Re:Suspicious? (Score:3, Insightful)

      They also put up the donation bar for legal defense at the same time all of the other sites were being sent legal notices. They were preparing for the inevitable, i'm just glad to see that at least on of these sites is taking a stand. Regardless of what the true legality is, a legal move this large should not go uncontested.
  • shrinkwrap EULA! (Score:5, Interesting)

    by belmolis ( 702863 ) <<billposer> <at> <>> on Wednesday December 29, 2004 @10:36PM (#11215303) Homepage

    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:

    Note that, by reading this FAQ, you have already agreed to our terms and conditions and sneding DMCA letters to our hosting providers is in direct violation of those terms and will only result in your requests being ignored.
    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?
  • Very specific... (Score:4, Informative)

    by tomstdenis ( 446163 ) <> on Wednesday December 29, 2004 @10:47PM (#11215378) Homepage

    Read the C&D letter. They are VERY SPECIFIC as to what their gripe is ... "...MPAA members studios' copyrighted works..." They never said to shut down all of the torrents or even the site. People who pledge money are just retarded.

  • Torrent files (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Punker22 ( 844641 ) on Wednesday December 29, 2004 @11:11PM (#11215518) Homepage
    hosting .torrent files is in no way illegal and therefor neither is lokitorrent, we are glad to see Lowkee standing up for torrent sites everywhere that are crumbling due to the MPAA interference, we[] will be helping Loki with the donation drive as well, don't let the MPAA take down another great site.
  • by Catbeller ( 118204 ) on Wednesday December 29, 2004 @11:32PM (#11215653) Homepage
    There are so many here hammering the "it's illegal - it's piracy - " meme injection that I strongly suspect the MPAA has hired astroturfing agents to dominate the thread. Holy Scientology, Batman.

    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.
  • by Junta ( 36770 ) on Thursday December 30, 2004 @12:24AM (#11215975)
    For both sides this time.

    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)

    by Seraphim_72 ( 622457 ) on Thursday December 30, 2004 @03:32AM (#11217032)

    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.


Where it is a duty to worship the sun it is pretty sure to be a crime to examine the laws of heat. -- Christopher Morley