Slashdot Mirror
Following up on Torrent Shutdowns
dantheman82 and others have submitted a number of links about the recent closure of torrent mega sites like suprnova and torrentbits.
The
Unofficial Suprnova Closure FAQ comments that some torrent site maintainers have been arrested and that Suprnova was closed over fear of similiar fate.
DeHavilland notes that the finnish police raided an unnamed torrent site. There's a lot of scary things here, but to me what is most scary is that American copyright owners can mobilize foreign police to do their bidding.
So that makes two of us who are opposed to a unified world government.
9/11 Eyewitnesses to Explosive WTC Demolition 1 of 2
please note that if you are viewing this faq at any other location than http://www.silentdragz.net/suprfaq then it is not authorised. please report it to this address, thank you.
Isn't it slightly ironic a site, outlining the demise of a site to enable IP violations, is worried about someone stealing their IP?
I mean, c'mon. They were ostentatiously peddling links to illegal stuff. It was only a matter of time until the MPAA got its act together to scare these sites into shutting down, with little more than a threat. The submission of these sites (pun unintended) is what's scary.
A blog like any other.
"There's a lot of scary things here, but to me what is most scary is that American copyright owners can mobilize foreign police to do their bidding."
Well, I'm not sure how it's scary. If I'm the owner of some digital item that has a copyright on it and some other country where copyrights are valid has people breaking it I hope the police would do something about it.
What did you think they were paid to do, pull over and beat minorities?
Mathematics is made of 50 percent formulas, 50 percent proofs, and 50 percent imagination.
There's a lot of scary things here, but to me what is most scary is that American copyright owners can mobilize foreign police to do their bidding.
MPAA & friends have offices in these countries and they use the laws that are available to them.
Boohooohoo American Corporations can mobilize foreign police to do their bidding.
What kind of fairy land do you live in? These sites were CLEARLY offering illegal content. Was it wrong now for the corporations to shut them down? OMG The corporations are out to get us! They don't want us to get their intellectual property for free anymore, whaat?? we have to pay?!!?! ONOS!!!!
Seriously people, Im pretty sure most people here aren't that naive to think that shutting down these sites was "the wrong thing to do", so why come up with these doomsday saying articles?
Media in 2014, you see the news you want to see I guess. I guess everyone here just wants to here about how evil M$ are, and horrible EA is, and woohooo go Open Source and whatnot.
The truth hurts.
This "trading" (theft) of copyrighted material needs to stop. Many of us depend on making money from this IP for income. As an independent software developer, I have seen my individual income from software sales drop from $1.25 million annually five years ago, to under $800,000 this year.
This has a large effect on who I can hire, and how I can grow my business.
To me, what is most scary is that people think they flaunt copyright laws on such a massive scale and get away with it.
Furthermore, this is exactly what should be happening: the government attacks those who break the law, rather than those who create the tools. Bit torrent and p2p applications have legal, useful purposes; by seeking those who use them in illegal ways rather than banning them altogther is appropriate, rather than trying to ban them.
I wonder why you didn't use your real name to put forth this information ...
Generally, those "American copyright owners" are also the German copyright owners, and the French copyright owners, and the Japanese copyright owners, and the Russian copyright owners. About the only place they aren't the copyright owners is Gilligan's Island.
The public has a hard enough time in most first world nations keeping the governments that are over them in check, now imagine a global bureacracy. Ever wonder why it is that so many parties are opposed to the WTO? The irony of it is that the WTO, GATT, NAFTA and other deals are opposed usually by the most rabidly capitalist groups for this very reason. It's usually the "moderates" (whatever the hell that means), "liberals" (in America) and others with no strong support of property rights that support these groups. Michael Badnarik for example, opposed our involvement in all three of those groups and probably the UN as well for those reasons.
Face it, global government exists only to serve global elites. If you think that the UN really cares about the poor and destitute, then ask why Kofi Annan and company were personally involved in the Oil for Food scandal. "Mr. America sucks because we're rich and powerful" who then turns around and dips from a food fund for poor, literally starving Iraqi children. This is the face of global government. He won't get nailed by the ICC, but private Joe Smith who shoots a civilian under questionable circumstances will be all but denied due process under the ICC.
Global government: the worst of capitalism and communism mixed together under one roof, with no accountability and ultimately no pretense of the rule of real law.
Click here or a puppy gets stomped!
What makes you think MPAA didn't already know of the existence of these sites before this list was posted?
Man is a slave because freedom is difficult, whereas slavery is easy.
Those sites were havens for illegal material. The administrators of those sites had ample opportunity (and the ability) to remove torrents that linked to copyrighted material.. but they chose not to.
Good riddance to bad rubish.
I am the maverick of Slashdot
You can criticize the law all you want, I'm not about to debate the pros and cons of IP law on /. (hey, my karma has to be worth something), but the fact is copying protected works is illegal. Thus it is the job of the cops to enforce that law.
Mathematics is made of 50 percent formulas, 50 percent proofs, and 50 percent imagination.
There's a lot of scary things here, but to me what is most scary is that American copyright owners can mobilize foreign police to do their bidding.
No, that's not the most scary thing. Many here will critisize the current incarnation of near perpetual copyright and many will critisize how the Big Media have treated that right--as well as their customers.
But to say that I -- as an American -- should not be able to protect a work of art/media across a foreign boundry is a pretty extremest view. And in my view, it would be quite harmful.
Remember the ability to create your own terms of an open source project is made possible only because the creator is GRANTING those rights to add, change and distribute source code. It's copyright that protects that code from just being taken by Microsoft without the company agreeing to contribute back to the project.
Copyright is also what protects some huge media corp from stealing a young artist's song without even "signing" him. They just take it and give it to Pop Artist #122b.
What scares ME is that this is an attack on the freedom of speech and information. SuprNova was linking to illegal media, but it wasn't hosting it. It should not be illegal to say where the red light district is and it shouldn't be illegal to point someone to one of the prostitutes.
It should only be illegal when one actually gets into the act.
So close and yet so far from the world's perfect ID number
"There's a lot of scary things here, but to me what is most scary is that American copyright owners can mobilize foreign police to do their bidding."
Perhaps dantheman82 needs to understand the concept of international copyright law. Many countries, including those in the story, have agreements to enforce each other's copyrights.
The sites being shut down were rampantly violating the copyrights of an organization big enough to fight back.
What's scary is that the submitter thinks shutting these sites down is somehow wrong and unjust. There are a lot of things wrong with the big music companies, but this is not one of them.
If there's something to be angry about, be angry that these governments wouldn't take the time and effort to protect your small time products in the same manner they protect the big big time products.
This would be scary, if you think that taking sites down was not just and legitimate.
No, it's scary full-stop. The problem isn't that the sites were shut down, it's that police have been arrseting people. This should be a civil matter, not a criminal one. I was under the impression that copyright infringement was only a criminal matter in the USA - what are local police doing getting involved? It should be lawyer letters to their ISP, not people with guns coming to take you away.
Yet, more people then ever before have no health insurance, more children then ever are starving, AIDS is running rampant all over Africa, American kids are dying every day in Iraq because the govt. can't provide the proper armored vehicles, more Americans are homeless then ever before, people are having heart attacks from Aleve, gas and heating oil is almost twice what it was a year ago, and on and on.
What is America's response to this? To ignore all of the above and concentrate on such "important" things as busting movie and song 'pirates', drugs, and Janet Jackson's nipple.Something is wrong and really, really fucked up in America
There's a lot of scary things here, but to me what is most scary is that American copyright owners can mobilize foreign police to do their bidding.
Did you miss out on the CIA campaigns of assassination in the 1960's and 1970's? If the US government can mobilize foreign coups d'etat to snuff the democratically-elected leftist leaders of nascent democracies, then taking down a bunch of pimply-faced warez monkeys is neither surprising nor newsworthy.
Proud member of the Weirdo-American community.
Unfortunately, the timing of Suprnova and other torrent sites shutting down corresponds to the end of the fall term for most universities - so there is bound to be a decrease in internet and p2p traffic ANYWAY. I'm sure **AA will take credit for it anyway.
The situation is murky at best under Finnish law.
.torrents.
Basically, copying without intent towards financial gain is a misdemeanor, punishable (as a maximum) with fines. This on top of any civil liabilities.
Problem is, you can't get search warrants in such cases. The crime is too minor.
Police thinks in this case that they can prove a bigger crime (with intent towards financial gain). That remains to be seen.. as does the fact that can they nail the finreactor admins for actual distribution, or just for linking to
I personally think they did the searches with some rather baseless claims, but we'll see what the courts say.
Why is this anymore scary than American oil interests setting policy in places like Nigeria or Iraq or many other number of countries. Or America killing it's own people in brutal and often unnecessary standoffs.
I have said it before and I will say it again, and I will get labeled a troll. Over the entire history the USA has proven it willingness to acquire military force and use the overwhelming advantage to destroy anyone who opposes it. This is no different from the superpowers that preceded it. Therefore, anyone that pisses off the US, or cuts a special deal with the US, and then is surprised when the US acts with overwhelming force, is in a dreamland. It is probably not right, it is probably not a healthy way to exist, but it is not surprising.
When the FBI comes in and annihilates a group of people that has been taunting the US government, this is not surprising. When the military comes in and bombs a a city back to the dark ages, killing untold number of civilians, this is not surprising. When the US policy makers create a system that will allow a retail chain to create a class of indentured servants, this is not surprising.
Many of us believe this is wrong, and are trying to change it. But this is the way it is right now. If you want change, use your wallet and your feet. The system only works because consumers buy the products of the people who want to oppress us. Stealing *AA products is not going to help. Buying non-*AA might. Complaining that an illegal warehouse has been raiding is not going to help. Help creating a competing counter culture might.
Complaining about this when international humanitarian rights are being violated on a daily basis is just narcissistic beyond belief. Corporate music and video is not a basic human right. Try to make you won jam.
"She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
It sure is convenient that American law enforcment can mobilize foreign law enforcement to do their bidding with the situation benefits large corperations, but refused to do ANYTHING when I lost a laptop to escrow fraud. The FBI wouldn't do anything withou FIVE HUNDRED complaints first.
Electrons are free; it is moving them that becomes expensive.
When people are stealing my stuff, I would do everything in my power to stop them whether I was a large company or a single individual. The law exist to protect us from people stealing our stuff. If you establish a site that essential does nothing but facilitate the stealing of stuff then you should be arrested. If people do not like the current market arrangements, prices, etc, then they should not buy the product, not steal the product and self-riteously say the theft was justified. This behavior harms me as a huge user of leagal bit torrent sites, which will now be under unjustified scrutiny.
Actually, I work at a university and we've noticed a sharp decrease in the amount of bandwidth being used in the past week.
of course, all of the students are gone for x-mas...
Badass Resumes
Depends on your definition of criminal... go down to your public library, and pick up a copy of 1984, please.
Check out boxofficemojo. It is not the US release alone that makes money. Most of the movies esp. big hits and even some abysmal failures such as Troy or King Arthur are making good money abroad. Forget MPAA; these movies are big revenue generators for the local economy abroad. Foreign govt/police will be happy to shut down for two reasons -
make sure local theater owners are happy
take advantage of any opp. to brown nose MPAA
Freedom of speech - screw it - it didnt work for the Americans - it will never work here.
It's probably somewhere in between. The MPAA tries to get everyone to take action when possible. If anyone does take action, regardless of whether they even read what the MPAA sends them, the MPAA takes credit and feels good about itself.
Where a 'busness' has more power than a government.. And exerts its will with out any concern for the law, knowing it can sue anyone into oblivion if they overstep the boundries.
It will only get worse until the people stand up and say 'enough'.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Suprnova can claim that it didn't have the time to download every torrent file that was posted and check the material for copyright violations. Which they obviously didn't because of the sheer number of torrents.
No more then google can check every website for infringing material.
The fact that there was a wide verity of torrents, including many legal ones really helps their case. Linux distros for example.
It's not an open and shut case but a good lawyer should be able to keep them safe.
Because on the most basic level they were a search engine; one that happened to specialize in torrents, and is no different then if you went to google and search for torrents.
Technology, the cause of and solution to all of life's problems.
The online equivalent of stealing should be a crime. But copyright infringment is not stealing. It's reproducing duplicates.
1.61803398
The job of cops is ultimately to act in the best interests of our society - that's what we have laws for in the first place. If we see our government acting as hired guns for whichever lobby group has the most cash, I would say we have a good reason to get pissed off.
I consider this to be a decent example of said phenomenon. As far as independent (non-RIAA-funded) studies can find, filesharing hasn't harmed the music industry at all. On a personal level, I can vouch for filesharing promoting quality - the "free demo" theory. This is a good thing for society as a whole, but not for the RIAA.
Hence, when the police and judiciary start to stamp heavily on people whose actions are not (IMO) particularly immoral, I consider it to be acceptable to protest loudly and often.
For the love of God, please learn to spell "ridiculous"!!!
I'm sure this will get mod'd a troll or flamebait, but let's face it. These torrent sites may of not of been hosting copyrighted information, but they were definately providing people the means to download copyrighted content without paying for it; often against their local laws.
I have hard time pittying them trying to make money by selling ads while trying to help others to break the law. Note that "helping someone break the law" is generally considered an "accomplice" which is illegal in many countries. Not to mention trying to profit from such assitance often incurs additional penalties.
The reality is that they knew they were helping people break the law and they tried to rub the noses of the RIAA/MPAA/etc in it and their bluff was called.
Honestly, if these sites contained a significant percentage of torrents for works which could be freely shared (freeware, BSD, GPL'd, software, etc) then I'd be upset at their closure. But at least 95% of the torrents were for porn, games, movies, music, etc for which the creater wishes to be paid for.
I agree with most people's opinion though, all this means is that someone will come up with some new P2P technology that either decentralizes the indexes or allows them to hide (freenet or tor anyone?)
That's just more deliberate conspiracy-mongering by the loons who run Slashdot. Their position, and that of the crowd they want to attract is this: We don't agree with copyright law, so we think we ought to be allowed to violate the law with impunity and that anyone who enforces the law in their own interests is a Greedy Bastard.
/.legions rant about.
None of these clowns ever manages to explain how they obtain rights that they haven't purchased and that no one has given them. They're pretending that buying a copy of something also means they've bought the right to copy and re-market it. Most times that's not the case, obviously. Sometimes it is, though, if that's what the author wants, and his wishes will be protected by the same copyright laws that the
-- Slashdot: When Public Access TV Says "No"
How convenient for you to ignore the immorality of copyright, prohibition, or Jim Crow laws. Some of those laws were repealed(we're working on the rest) due to the "immorality" of the people who had the guts to tell the lawmakers and police to go to hell and to ignore or openly violate bad law. As one that's dependant on the status quo, you could hardly know or care who the bad guys really are. You just believe what the authorities tell you.
What?
That's exactly the rationale the drug companies use to deny AIDS treatment to poor people. Would you argue against helping humanity as well?
Together, we will drive the rats from the tundra.
but the fact is copying protected works is illegal. Thus it is the job of the cops to enforce that law.
The FACT is that copying protected works is a grey area of the law. Sometimes thw work is protected, sometimes it's not. Sometimes it is fair use and sometimes it is criminal infringement.
It is NOT the job of the police to interpret the law; cops end up getting sued into the ground when they do.
but the fact is copying protected works is illegal
No, its not.
Drinking habits can be dangerous. You can choke on the cloth and the nuns will wonder where their clothes are.
Referencing something completely unrelated doesn't prove your point. Jim Crow laws are somehow related to basic copyright protection? Am I violating your civil rights because I want to be protected in selling my music? Give me a break.
I note that you don't actually explain your position on what makes copyright immoral. Emotively mentioning prohibition and Jim Crow laws without actually explaining the relation just makes your argument nothing more than emotion-based piracy justification because you don't want the free ride to get taken away and get bitter at the suggestion.
You just believe what the authorities tell you.
Sure. I'm the one parroting the groupthink.
Oh, how humanitarian of you. Its quite easy for you to sit back and proclaim how the lives of innocents are being overshadowed by those nasty greedy american corporations. Its not your property!!!!
Without a profit incentive, no drugs for anyone rich or poor PERIOD
A great example of government price fixing adversely impacting public health is the US fixing the price of flu shots. After the price fix, manufacturers left the market (because the price was set too low compared to current cost structures, for new companies to enter the market or to incent risk taking to develop new technologies), leaving just a handful of makers of the vacine. Fast forward to this year and one of those makers (in the UK) has a Quality issue. Ooops, no one else to make it. But that is something you don't consider. Its too easy to be the humanitarian with money that isn't yours.
B O R I N G
I note that you don't actually explain your position on what makes copyright immoral.
I actually agree with limited forms of copyright, but you seem to think that copyright could not possibly be immoral. I can't see why. You need to justify laws against their absence; i.e. the state of nature. Copyright is the act of taking away people's right to copy. That alone is an immoral nasty act. To justify copyright laws, you need to explain how it is adequately compensated for.
I am happy with the justification that it helps promote the public domain, however more recent revisions to copyright law and their poor application to computer software have sent them out of balance and I can't justify such extreme measures.However, I can easily see that people who value the public domain less, or believe that promotion of its growth is unnecessary would disagree with copyright laws.
Copying protected works might be illegal in the USA, but it's not wrong. Also, it's not illegal where I live.. we still have fair use. And the *AA's get paid whenever I buy a blank CD (almost always for HDD backup, FYI) anyways, so it's actually everybody BUT the *AA who gets ripped off.
Believe it or not, some things are illegal while others aren't. Recording a show off television for personal use was always legal and is still legal. This is why you can legally own a Tivo. Distributing copies of movies on a massive scale and getting moeny for it (as these advertising- and donation-driven sites are doing) was always illegal and still is. In the 1980's if you were selling pirated video cassettes or tapes on the streets of New York, you were doing something illegal and could be arrested. Today, if you are offering pirated movies or music online, that is a crime and you can be arrested. The fact that it is happening online does not magically change things. It would appear that it is you who can't remember the past. What these sites were doing has never been permitted.
I'd rather be lucky than good.
Where is the freedom? I thought we lived in a "free country" I thought our soldiers are dying to help other people be free. But what kind of freedom are we giving them?
We the people have, or should have, more rights then companys. Yet, we don't. Why? Why aren't we fighting harder against this. This isn't my piracy, this is about control. Controlling what we publish, and what we download. We don't live in Nazi Germany but why are we treated like it?
I don't fear Big Brother, I fear Big Business, because no one is controlling it and no one is fighting it. God help us all.
Let's assume that you have just developed some fancy new piece of closed-source software that everyone really wants and you are intending to sell it online for a hefty price. Then someone manages to make a copy of the source and starts distributing it for free, thus removing commercial market for the product. However you still have the original copy. Now I'd love to see you try and convince me how you wouldn't be royally pissed off at this act of piracy, even though you still retain the originals.
I find this logic just as flawed as the BSA's version of the same. IMO piracy does lead to significant lost sales but not every pirated copy equates a lost sale.
First example: a friend of mine used to rent lots and lots of movies. Now he doesn't anymore because he can download high-quality copies of those movies via P2P-networks. That's lost sales right there.
Another example: I used to copy lots of games when I was younger. Some of those games I would have bought if a pirated copy would not have been available. So clearly piracy lead to some lost sales, but not in 1:1 ratio.
Basically the question comes down to reasonable profit margins, or how much money can copyright owners expect to make with their intellectual property. Now the problem is that copyright owners are making more money than ever but still want more while lots of consumers want everything for free. Also, consumers are not yet used to the idea of licensing a creative work for a certain amount of time instead of buying a physical copy that becomes their property for ever. I believe it just takes a while for the demands of consumers and producers to converge.
What are we going to do tomorrow night? The same thing we do every night, Pinky. Try to take over the world!
Uh huh - a _real_ capitalist would just laugh at the pharma industry at not being able to compete.
Uh, what capitalist business model that does not use intellectual property law can deal with a product that costs $2 billion to R&D (that is probably what is spent for each drug that makes it to market) and 5 cents per unit to manufacture and is commonly sold to maybe 1,000,000 unique people in a year?
Just to break even you have to get $2000 from each person on average. If competitors are allowed to undercut on manufaturing costs, you make $0 per person (since nobody buys from the original innovator).
Pharma either requires patent law and private research, or fully public research with no patents. Either that $2 billion comes from government coffers, or companies must be allowed to recoup it. Alternatively we just don't have any new drugs, which obviously isn't what we want.
Drugs are expensive to develop - you're really not going to solve that problem. All you can do is argue over who pays for it (healthy taxpayers or sick people whose lives are saved by the drug). There really isn't a right or wrong answer, and while the public funding might sound more fair, you still have the problem that a drug developed using UK taxpayer funds can ultimately end up benefitting people in the US who didn't pay a dime for R&D.
(Note - most statistics tend to toss around lower numbers like a few hundred million, but that is just the money spent on the drug itself, and doesn't count the fact that for each drug that makes it to market there are usually 4-5 which had just as much money spent on them just to find out that it doesn't work).
I thought this urban myth was dead. Unless you're talking about finnish law (which I don't know)
You gotta love Americans. Even in a discussion of matters happening in another country, they can't believe that the discussion might actually be about their laws, and not those of the US.
there *is* someone else to make it. And they can do it cheaper.
Not really - unless you just call making a drug pressing out pills. There wouldn't be a flu shot shortage if people were falling over themselves to make it.
Ironically people were getting arrested for selling flu shots on the black market. The fact that a black market exists demonstrates that people are willing to pay more for the shots. Now, black markets for drugs aren't good due to quality issues, but if the legitimate market were allowed to raise prices, there would be incentives to make more shots, and there wouldn't be a shortage.
For the most part, drug sales aren't a monopoly. Take statins, for example - there are three major products on the market, and that forces prices down. Sure, you pay more for them than Tylenol, but if you want to save money you can choose a generic cholesterol medication (which isn't as effective, but is better than anything even the richest people in the world had available 20 years ago).
The current model is that the rich get drugs first, and then in 10 years everybody else can have them. It raises the standard of living for everyone, while letting the rich pay drug development costs.
It is a shame that people die, but that is just nature. Everybody reading this one day will die one day. Blame God or your parents - I didn't make you mortal. Some people invest in prolonging life, and merely ask for some money in exchange. Are they morally bound to save lives?
The fact of the matter is that everybody reading this post could sponsor a child in another country and save a life. If you already sponsor one, you could sponsor two more. Or 10. Is it morally wrong to buy a DVD when that money could go to feed the poor? Most people accept that there is a balance. Especially when talking about their own money. On the other hand, when somebody else's money is at stake, it is easy to suggest that they be more generous...
Already? Could that be proof that the RIAA are hiring hackers? :-)
First I will say that I am not interested in downloading the vast bulk of stuff out there - Its way less hassle just to hire the DVD or tape it off TV or whatever.
However I have always found the whole idea that just providing *links* (going right back to Napster) is some sort of criminal or civil offence.
Look at it this way. If you sell ripped off CDs or DVD at a market & get caught, thats a copyright offence - ok.
But if I just say to someone "I know of a guy in such-and-such a place that sells ripped off CDs or DVD " - should just providing that info (or link) an offence? So why just limit the principle to Copyright? Why not *ANY* sort of offence? If you provide a link (for whatever reason, and by this logic maybe even inadvertently) to a place that is engaged in some "illegal" activity, that becomes an offence, right?
Essentially we just end up with a situation of "legislation creep" where the bounds of law expand to such an extent that it is impossible to avoid breaking the law in some trivial way - and you can be arrested on the whim of the authorities.
And have you noticed the ever swelling prison populations (increasingly harvested as cheap/slave labour) around the world - UK, USA, maybe China..
Orwell anyone?
"You lied to me! There is a Swansea!"
You're basically advocating that the public research funding. No group of companies would foot the bill (since companies outside the group would spring up and undercut them on costs). Organizations paying for development is possible, but none are really doing it now, so what would make one think that would change? Individuals is always a wild-card - there are probably only 100-200 on the planet who'd even come close to being able to fund anything significant, and if you're already in your 50's, why start on a 30 year R&D program that might extend your life a few years? Better to just let somebody else do it since you'll benefit anyway.
The problem with your method is the tragedy of the commons - it is in every individual's interest to let somebody else do the R&D. It is in every nation's interest to let another nation do the R&D. Kind of like Kyoto - let somebody else reduce emissions.
The free software model doesn't work, since that requires that individual contributions be possible with minimal capital investment (there would be no linux if a computer capable of compiling software cost $100k and it were impossible to make it cheaper). You can't develop drugs without a fairly expensive lab - nobody can do this at home. And the most expensive part is the clinical trials - good luck finding volunteers to drink something you just brewed in the garage.
I'm all for reducing IP laws when other business models which are more efficient are emerging to take their place. With music and software we have GPL-like licenses which have shown themselves to be fairly successful. Note that everybody is pushing for the laws to be changed AFTER the open source model has been proven.
Once somebody comes up with a model for drugs and proves it by actually developing some drugs and shows that it works, then people will line up to get rid of drug patents. Right now people just seem to think that if we get rid of the patents then everything will just magically work out. Sure, it will cause prices to crash right now (and big pharma companies to go out of business), but will it lead to new drugs? Why not get the alternative system in place before we start messing with something that we know at least works reasonably well for average people (though not for poor people).
Trust me, I'm all for open source, and I think it works well. The problem with open-drugs is that the capital costs and expenses are VERY high. And having governments fund it sounds like a recipie for political correctness more than efficiency...
If you're duplicating money, that's called counterfeiting. Actually now that you mention it, counterfeiting is a better term for copying music/games/movies than piracy.
Not Meta-modding due to apathy.
True that the money was spent on paying their expenses running the dedicated server abroad, but it was still income from distributing copyrighted material.
Point being you're not allowed to receive any income or donations from illegal material or byproducts of such, no matter what your expenses are while getting the material.
Hosting torrents is not distributing copyrighted material. There isn't one single bit of copyrighted material in any of the torrents, ergo on the entire site. All the can be accused, logically, of is from profiting by aiding and abetting a crime, which is copyright infringement.
Phillip.