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. "
Obviously.... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Obviously.... (Score:4, Funny)
Re:holy crap (Score:3, Funny)
Where's that +1, Thor's Hammer, moderation when you need it?
Update (Score:5, Informative)
Also, they posted an image of the of the complaint they were served with here [img68.exs.cx].
Re:Update (Score:3, Funny)
So I choose to not give money in order to keep the true spirit of file-sharing alive. It's like an open source VS free software sort of thing.
Re:Update (Score:3, Funny)
Update #2 - Up to $11,520 now (Score:4, Informative)
New Image Link (Score:5, Informative)
$30K? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:$30K? (Score:5, Funny)
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.
Re:$30K? (Score:3, Informative)
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!
$9940 (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:$9940 (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re:$9940 (Score:5, Funny)
Here's an idea: write MPAA and tell them to spend their lawyer money on tsunami relief.
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.
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.
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.
What's next? (Score:5, Funny)
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.
Re:What do you mean, "next"? (Score:3, Informative)
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.
Re:Huh? (Score:4, Insightful)
Um, that logically means that you have no free speech rights. At all. What -- we only have the right not to be silenced by the government, but anyone else can shut you up at will because you are on their property? Put a roof over land, and the constitution ends at the parking lot?
Work - school - malls - airports - anyplace on earth - is private property. This is madness.
The only place you can "speak" freely would be your house! IF it wasn't a rental!
This isn't freedom. This isn't America. If you can't speak outside your home, can't distribute speech, can't speak at work, can't speak freely on a private company's communications equipment - which applies to ALL ISPs and phone companies -- then the first ammendment is a dead letter. Game over. The United States is over.
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:Huh? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:What's next? (Score:5, Funny)
Well, the joke's on you--my pants are already off!
hosting links isn't illegal (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:hosting links isn't illegal (Score:5, Insightful)
2600.com & DeCSS (Score:5, Informative)
They lost the case.
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.
Re:hosting links isn't illegal (Score:3, Funny)
How can you not be against this sort of thing?
Re:hosting links isn't illegal (Score:4, Insightful)
Here's a link to a DOJ document [usdoj.gov] that specifically lays out the conditions for being considered a felony criminal offense in the second paragraph.
I'm not sure how precisely the technical aspects of "Torrents" (or Grokster) work, but it's not like a judge couldn't re-examine the situation and come up with a different ruling from what the ruling in Grokster came up with. Last I heard, 2600 lost their case for providing links to source code that could help you facilitate copyright infringement. If only because Grokster might have had some other legitimate uses, where as, Loki might not have such mitigating circumstances. At some point, I believe Loki will (and should) have to prove that it does provide a useful service that isn't blatant copyright infringement. If they can show that I think they have a right to exist. However, if they can't, I sure think that's tantamount to letting a landlord knowningly let a crime family use his facilities as a hang out. No crimes might be committed there, but it sure seems in the interest of the public to stop such places from existing.
Kirby
Re:hosting links isn't illegal (Score:3, Insightful)
I'd find it fairly hard to believe they d
Re:hosting links isn't illegal (Score:3, Insightful)
And torrent sites are significantly different from Grokster in that they actively maintain a site, which is not the same as writing software and letting people use it. If you have a site, you can stop contributing, and you're more likely to have knowledge. If you make software and don't touch the network, you never have knowledge while contributing at the same time.
Napster actively ran a networ
What Are The Odds ? (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
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.
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
Re:lokitorrent is still illegal (Score:3, Informative)
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
Re:lokitorrent is still illegal (Score:3, Insightful)
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
Re:lokitorrent is still illegal (Score:3, Insightful)
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)
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)
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.
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.
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]
Re:It Seems They've Already Caved To MS (Score:4, Insightful)
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)
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)
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.
[plug]
You can help give bittorrent a better name by clicking the link in my sig.
[/plug]
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?
Re:Misperceptions abound (Score:5, Insightful)
If you can defend yourself successfully, nothing.
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.
Police officers with guns own you (Score:4, Funny)
I can grow a tree and pick my own food.
Not necessarily. Local authorities with guns can tell you to stop farming on your land, citing zoning regulations.
I can collect rain water.
Not necessarily. In Colorado [repp.org], authorities with guns can tell you to enforce the rights of downstream property owners to receive the rainwater in the form of river water.
I can stand on a street corner and yell at the top of my voice.
Not necessarily. Local authorities with guns can enforce a noise ordinance.
I can pick up a rock and throw it.
Not necessarily. Guns beat rocks.
Re:Your point is totally irrelevant (Score:3, Insightful)
It should not be.
1. Are you suggesting there should be no justice system? Then why bother having civilization?
A justice system is a necessary part of a civilized nation, but all citizens should have equal access. The poorest person in the country ought to have the same ability to defend their legal rights as the mightiest corporation.
2. Are you suggesting that people should mete out their own justice
Re:Misperceptions abound (Score:3, Insightful)
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
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
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 they need $30,000 for, again? (Score:3, Funny)
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.
Re:Suspicious? (Score:3, Insightful)
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?Dear MPAA... (Score:4, Funny)
Dear MPAA
By reading this you are hereby granting me full permission to share any of your members works over any electronic or other media in any way I see fit without paying you a single cent.
Thank you.
Very specific... (Score:4, Informative)
Read the C&D letter. They are VERY SPECIFIC as to what their gripe is
Tom
Torrent files (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
Re:Keeping it simple: answer to all astroturf post (Score:3, Interesting)
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 co
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)
Re:Question to people who donate (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm pretty sure that 99.999% of the people who download movies, music, e-books, software, and
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"
Re:Question to people who donate (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Question to people who donate (Score:3, Informative)
Since Paypal is the company that charged your card, Paypal would be the company that would be the subject of the chargeback. I agree that Paypal is a shady organization, but I wouldn't call them a non-existant entity.
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.
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:Question to people who donate (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:That would be stupid, too. (Score:4, Insightful)
Let's back up and look at the big picture. What's the argument here? That it should be illegal to link to illegal material? In other words, that it should be illegal to say "There is illegal activity going on at such-and-such location"? Obviously that entirely cripples the ability to report crimes, and is ridiculous, so lets confine this to the internet.
So a link to illegal material is itself illegal? Ok, then LokiTorrent is illegal, because it hosts files which point out where illegal material can be found. So LokiTorrent itself is illegal material. Uhoh, Slashdot just linked to it, and it's illegal to link to illegal material, because otherwise someone might find their way to it. So Slashdot is illegal. But wait, the entire internet is nothing but an interconnected web of links. Oh noes, the internet is illegal.
Linking to millegal material is illegal is the dumbest meme to come down the pipe in a long time.
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'
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.
Re:So.... (Score:3, Insightful)
He's certainly a potential juror, anyway. Or do you think they don't count, any more? I think OJ would say otherwise.
Re:So.... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:So.... (Score:3, Informative)
"Distributing copyrighted materials without a license is not a criminal offense. It is a violation of a civil right that gives rise to a civil cause of action."
It carries both civil and criminal penalties. Here's where one can learn about criminal copyright infringement [copyright.gov].
"And, as others have pointed out, these sites are not distributing copyrighted content, but links to information detailing ways to obtain copyrighted content, subtle difference, but nothing worse than what Grokster is doing and that h
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.
Re:So.... (Score:4, Insightful)
I don't know everything about LokiTorrent but if they are like other tracker sites, explain to me how they distribute the copyrighted material first hand? The point here is not the pirating - it is shutting down services that have legitimate uses simply because a huge organization of corporations is threatened by it.
The individuals who knowingly give away copyrighted material to unlicensed recipients are the "damned hippies" or damned criminals. The tracker sites that provide a way for a legitimate p2p network to operate are not.
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...
Re:So.... (Score:3, Informative)
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?
Re:So.... (Score:4, Insightful)
It's worth standing up and fighting it, if you have legitimate purposes behind your software. Identified copyrighted material should obviously be taken down. What would you say if they showed up to taken down all of the PoP's for your local ISP's. Obviously, they are facilitating copyright infringement. They are willfully participating in it. What would you say if they started taking computers away? What would you say if they started taking away copy machines? They are targetting a particular type of software that has highly legitmate uses. I think someone should stand up and get a court case to establish what the boundaries are for what a copyright holder can accomplish against someone whom they feel is infringing. It'd be wonderful to establish boundaries. The MPAA as far as I personally know, hasn't done the willfully stupid things that the RIAA has (recently at least, Jack Valentti was an idiot about technology as nearly as I can tell).
It is appearent that some of these sites need to have fairly stringent policies about posting copyrighted material. LokiTorrent might be one that has nothing to do but distribute copyright material. However, I'd guess that there are Torrent sites out there that act as seeds/mirrors/whatever they are called in the lingo, for legitimate purposes. If Loki feels it is one of those, they should stand up and fight for themselves. Bully for them. If they aren't, I hope they get smacked around legally before any really stupid legal precedence get set. A quick perusal of their site leads me to believe, they are an obvious copyright infringer and the MPAA has a legitimate beef. At least the MPAA appears to be targetting the proper people, unlike the RIAA.
Kirby
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:So.... (Score:3, Informative)
Too late, the way Bittorrent works the actual files are not hosted on the trackers, the tracker contains only info on peers who are participating in the torrent and a hash of the file/file segments so users can verify parts downloaded. If the MPAA wanted to go after the actual infringers, they would be s
Re:Devil's Advocate: Derived works (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Devil's Advocate: Derived works (Score:3, Insightful)
Not to mention that there is no artistic value in this hash, so it can't be a derived work, since it is not a work.
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".
Re:Right on the fucking torrent page (Score:3, Insightful)
Difference: Dumb Statute (Score:4, Insightful)
If you want some extra cash, there's a bunch in the register at the Circle K.
Re:Right on the fucking torrent page (Score:3, Insightful)