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.

Comments

Irony?

[Anonymous Coward]

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?

Re:Irony?

[tomjen]

How many times must it be said?
It is not stealing it is copyrigth infrigment.

Re:Irony?

[lothar97]

Isn't it slightly ironic a site, outlining the demise of a site to enable IP violations, is worried about someone stealing their IP?

No it's not. Getting the word out that the 'official' FAQ is located at one address, then it's made known that other versions located elsewhere could be modified, changed, etc. I imagine there's a lot of disinformation flying around about this topic right now, and they want to make sure everyone knows where the proper resource is located.

Re:Irony?

[SlayerofGods]

That's more of hypocrisy than irony.
I sware, no one really knows what irony means.

Re:Irony?

[Tassach]

If you wish to make the point that "copyright infringement" is less worse than "stealing", use your time to say *why*.

If I steal your CD, you no longer have it. I've deprived you of the use of your property.

If I copy your CD without your permission, YOU STILL HAVE IT. You've been deprived of *nothing*, except the highly speculative "loss" a sale (which presumes that I would have paid your asking price in the first place, and that I won't buy a "legitimate" copy later)

Checking a book out of the library and scanning the contents is fair use.

Capturing a song or TV show off the air neither stealing nor copyright infringement, it's fair use.

Giving away your fair-use copies CAN also be legal fair use as well in some circumstances; it can also be illegal copyright infringement in others. It is a legal grey area -- giving a copy to a relative is unquestionably OK. Giving a copy to 10 casual accquaintances is probably OK. Giving a copy to everyone in a class you are teaching might be OK. *SELLING* a copy is *NOT* OK.

Did anyone NOT expect this?

[mOoZik]

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.

Re:Did anyone NOT expect this?

[Donoho]

Yup, only a matter of time.

But this has little to do with right and wrong and much more to do with balance of power. Those with money and infrastructure (MPAA is only an example) will do everything in their power to maintain control over profitable media. Are content producers being hurt by torrents? Marginally. I think a balance will be struck in the distant future where content providers and consumers interact directly, with publishers taking diminished (not eliminated) role. Half-Life 2 is an early example.

Abuses will diminish when the proper channels are available.

Not that scary

[Anonymous Coward]

"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.

Re:Not that scary

[MSTCrow5429]

If I made a product that I put effort and thought into, and I could charge $100 for each, is it lawful if someone in another nation can steal my work and produce straight copies for $10 each, thereby bypassing the entire R&D costs, of which I'm stuck paying for myself as well as freeloaders? Other nations should not be havens for those who engage in the theft of other people's property. Would you argue against all extradition treaties as well?

Doing their bidding

[nwbvt]

Thats what law enforcement agents exist for. To enforce the law. If in these cases the law was indeed broken (I don't personally know the details), then they were doing their job.

What did you think they were paid to do, pull over and beat minorities?

Re:Doing their bidding

[Ziviyr]

What did you think they were paid to do, pull over and beat minorities?

The moment someone makes unbeaten minorites illegal, yes.

Re:Doing their bidding

[Martin Blank]

There is the issue of civil vs. criminal law. Police should not, IMHO, be involved in enforcing civil law to any greater extent than ensuring compliance with court orders (sheriffs or marshals accompanying people seeking to get property returned, for example, if violence is a reasonable possibility).

Until recently, copyright law in the US was a purely civil matter (I cannot speak for other nations). While I shed no tears for the sites that have shut down whether under actual or possible threat of litigation, I do object to using the police to enforce these kinds of things. They should be working on other things related to public safety, and even in the safe cities of Europe, I'm sure there are open cases, and even cold cases, that could be worked rather than sending them to do what the lawyers should be doing.

Re:Doing their bidding

[Spad]

But the point is that in some of these cases, at least, no laws were being broken - not in the country of operation no, most likely in the US (although it's getting pretty tough not to break any laws there these days).

The MPAA et al are getting foreign law enforcement agencies to arrest people will little or no evidence that they've actually committed a crime in the coutry that they're being arrested.

That's like me ringing up the French police and demanding that they raid someone in France that I think might have some involvement in the unauthorised distribution of my "IP". I'd be laughed off the phone.

Re:Doing their bidding

[Martin Blank]

As Kaseijin states above, copyright infringement for financial gain is the criminal offense. If you make copies of the latest LotR DVD and start selling them, then you're breaking criminal law. If you make copies and pass them out, that's a civil matter.

Your point on homicide departments is a false dichotomy.

Furthermore, how would you feel if a crime were commited against you and the police told you that they had better things to do than arrest and charge the perpitrator(s)?

If they were violating my copyrights, then I wouldn't expect the police to go after them. I'd expect my lawyer to pursue them until the rights are restored and appropriate damages recovered. If my house or car is broken into, then I expect the cops to respond, but if they're busy cornering a murder suspect, then I'll cut them some slack because that's more important at the time.

Priorities matter. Getting police involved in copyright infringement cases that do not involve financial gain (or intent of financial gain, for those enterprises that go broke) is a misallocation of what are often scarce resources. There are thousands of unsolved murders, rapes and other assaults in Los Angeles, New York, Washington, Miami, and a hundred other major cities around the world. I'd rather resources be devoted to that.

Good.

[ThousandStars]

but to me what is most scary is that American copyright owners can mobilize foreign police to do their bidding.

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.

copyright is not american only

[harlows_monkeys]

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

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.

Re:Listing substitute sites? Smart

[daniil]

What makes you think MPAA didn't already know of the existence of these sites before this list was posted?

Re:I guess the issue is

[nwbvt]

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.

International Copyright Law

[StormReaver]

"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.

Re:International Copyright Law

[hyphz]

> "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.

I think it's more the fact that they can get the police in another country to shut down a copyright violator, whereas Joe Average can't get the police in their own country to catch the person who burgled him..

Re:What does mobilizing foreign police actually me

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Easily impressed?

[Angst Badger]

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.

Re:numbers??

[casuist99]

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.

Re:What does mobilizing foreign police actually me

[qtcp]

The online equivalent of stealing should be a crime. But copyright infringment is not stealing. It's reproducing duplicates.

Re:What does mobilizing foreign police actually me

[iminplaya]

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.

Where do you draw the line?

[lysium]

That's exactly the rationale the drug companies use to deny AIDS treatment to poor people. Would you argue against helping humanity as well?

Re:What does mobilizing foreign police actually me

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:You gotta wonder....

[RatBastard]

You gotta wonder with all of the people dieing of cancer, why are peopel wasting time and money curing the common cold or alergies to cats? Don't they know that people are falling over dead?

Law enforcement is not about just concentrating on the worst offenders any more than medical research is restricted to just curing the most horrible of illnesses. ALL laws need to be enforced just as all illnesses need to be cured.

None of your other arguments have anything to do with enforcement of any laws and are irrelevant in this discussion.

Please try and pull your head out of your ass and take a realistic look at the world around you.

Re:What does mobilizing foreign police actually me

[Frizzle Fry]

So, it's been illegal to tape movies broadcast on television, all along? Illegal to tape radio? Illegal to copy your own VHS tapes?

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.

Re:What does mobilizing foreign police actually me

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:OWNED!!!!!!

[adeyadey]

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?