LokiTorrent vs. MPAA

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. "

Comments

$30K?

[Neil Blender]

What'll that cover? A week?

Re:$30K?

[Anonymous Coward]

On the MPAA's side, $30k might cover a single short forensic analysis of the sites logs.

You are right, $30k to fight the MPAA is silly. I would imagine the truth is, the $30k will be used for the out-of-court settlement and nothing more. Since $30k is NOTHING if you want to fight the MPAA on something they can 1. easily win and 2. be willing and able to fund from here to kingdom come.

What's more, lokitorrent is by far in the wrong when it comes to the legal and moral side of things.

If you don't agree to copyright terms, don't accept them, which means don't accept the work either! I feel no sympathy for these morons who think their actions are part of a "revolution". People are starving and fighting for their lives and freedom, from corrupt governments and natural disasters, yet meanwhile, in the rich west, people who can afford internet connections, computers, portable music players and hell, electricity, people who NEVER go hungry, are "fighting a revolution" to be able to steal a luxury item.

These people who are donating money, could have spent that money legitimately purchasing the products they have been stealing!

lokitorrent says "Every penny of this fund will be going towards legal and other costs associated with saving peer-to-peer as a whole.", yet this has nothing to do with saving P2P or bittorrent! It has everything to do with only stopping the sharing of the copyrighted materials in question. No legal teams are going after bittorrent or P2P, just the systems or sites which actively allow or encourage copyright infringement.

I want to vomit.

Re:$30K?

[Anonymous Coward]

I feel no sympathy for these morons who think their actions are some way to "protect the artists". People are starving and fighting for their lives and freedom, from corrupt governments and natural disasters, yet meanwhile, in the rich west, people who can afford internet connections, computers, portable music players and hell, electricity, people who NEVER go hungry, are "protecting the artists" by suing anyone who dares try out a technology that challenges their government granted monopoly status.

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

[tyleroar]

They've got $9940 now. How much do you think the slashdot attention will help them out? Personally I'd rather see people donate to help out with the Tsunami relief.

Re:$9940

[JNighthawk]

Whining because people would prefer donating to something that directly affects them while having a pyramid scheme link in your .sig. Oh, the irony. If you really cared, you wouldn't participate in the pyramid scheme.

Re:$9940

[sinner0423]

This is Slashdot, my man.

Saving lives > File trading.

I may not agree with what you have to say, but I will die defending your right to say it.

Re:$9940

[Zebbers]

Umm no. The movie industry is most notorious for cooking the books, they are the master of it. Do not be fooled that their movies "fail to turn a profit", they are doing quite well. How do you think they pay the million dollar actors?

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

[laughingcoyote]

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

[dargon]

Sorry, the tsunami didn't effect me and maybe I'm just a cold, calloused bastard, but I'm not giving any of my meager savings to any relief fund for it.

Didn't effect you? How about when that area becomes a hotbed of all manner of communicable diseases which will rather quickly circumnavigate the globe. This disaster effects EVERYONE. Maybe not today, maybe not tomorrow, but eventually you'll feel some form of effect from it.

hosting links isn't illegal

[mrterrysilver]

how is hosting links to illegal files illegal? all torrents files are, are links which tell users with bittorrent where they are able to download illegal files (obviously many torrents are for legal files too). since the torrents sites aren't hosting any actual files how is this any different from google linking to a webpage that hosts pirated music or movies or images?

Re:hosting links isn't illegal

[zalas]

Google indexes everything. Sites which knowingly serve torrents which point to trackers that serve copyright infringing materials do not.

Re:hosting links isn't illegal

[ComputerSlicer23]

That's not accurate. Copyright infringement has both criminal and civil aspects to it. I believe if you are committing copyright infringement for profit, you can in fact go to jail for it. People don't go to jail for civil offenses.

Here's a link to a DOJ document 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

[cpt kangarooski]

Actually, it is frequently a crime. Check out 17 USC 506 for a good example. Been a crime since the 1890's, IIRC.

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 network -- they're most like these torrent sites. And they got destroyed.

Re:hosting links isn't illegal

[ComputerSlicer23]

That might all be true, however, your blanket statement that copyright infringement isn't a crime was blantantly inaccurate (it irritates me that people say it isn't a crime it's merely a civil offense, just like it irritates others that it's called theft, when it is in fact copyright infringement). If you had said, this doesn't qualify as criminal copyright infringement you'd have an argument to make. You are obviously knowledgable enough to konw the difference.

I'd find it fairly hard to believe they don't fit the legal definitions of "knowing infringement". For starters, at least 90% of the content was obviously in copyright violation once I went to look at it (assuming it is what it appears to be). That'd be like a bar owner saying, "I had no idea that gambling was happening in my backroom, I never go back there. All this despite the fact that I see people carry in poker books, cards, and gambling chips.". That a violation of the law is happening is obvious to even the most casual of observers in the case described above, and in the case of LokiTorrent.

This is a relatively new area, heck if nothing else, they could probably get charged with conspiracy (that's the fairly standard charge they get people who aren't involved in a crime but essentially facilitate or organize a crime in Organized Crime all the time). After taking a look, I think the MPAA has a legal right to tell these people: "You are infringing on my rights, stop it. If you won't, I'll get a court order that tells you to stop it". I think the court would be well within it's rights to explain that these people have an obligation not to continue letting this happen. How, and what parameters are set upon it, I'm not sure.

All that said, I'd have no problem with Congress enacting a law saying that this is criminal. That the technical minutia about where the bits are and went didn't exist when the original law was written.

Kirby

What Are The Odds ?

[Anonymous Coward]

What are the odds that people who won't pay for movies or software will stick their hands in their pockets and fund a legal fight ? Not very high methinks ...

Re:What Are The Odds ?

[pVoid]

What's wrong with us?

Let me tell you what's wrong: it's called waving a dead chinken.

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

[dextr0us]

Basically, i don't see how their legal defense would go. "we only provide links to the torrents" would be suprnovas, but isn't loki a tracker?

"we're not the ones downloading, we're just facilitating."

thats like saying "i didn't make him shoot his younger brother, i just gave him the gun, and then told his brother to stand there for a few seconds, and i'd give him a cookie.

Anywho, someone enlighten me on a legal strategy

Re:lokitorrent is still illegal

[AK Marc]

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

Well, I see it this way:
1) They are not reproducing or distributing the work (the work is never on their servers).
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.
3) I'm not sure how that site is run, but I imagine that it would be easy to claim that they do not directly benefit from an infringement. That is, if someone were to post a bittorrent to an infringing file, there is no payment to or from Lokitorrent. Some places have donation pages and such, but that isn't benefiting from an infringement.

So, from a quick read of that, they aren't liable under the law you posted. I think that old white male technophobes that sit on the bench won't give the benefit of the doubt to such a site, but that doesn't change my read of how the law should be applied.

Re:lokitorrent is still illegal

[cpt kangarooski]

1) They are not reproducing or distributing the work (the work is never on their servers).

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

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

I suggest taking a look at the Napster opinion.

First, the issue is one of actual or constructive knowledge -- that is, whether they knew or should have known. The mere capability of their site to infringe won't result in knowledge being imputed towards them under Sony. But their active operation of it may. And furthermore, their knowledge from other sources can be held against them.

Probably the best form of actual knowledge is if they're informed of the infringing materials by the copyright holder; failure to take them down would result in a fatal combination of knowledge and contribution.

But if they have other sufficient knowledge, that'll get them too. And I suspect that it can be found that they do have or should have had knowledge even without having actually exhaustively verified each and every file.

3) I'm not sure how that site is run, but I imagine that it would be easy to claim that they do not directly benefit from an infringement. That is, if someone were to post a bittorrent to an infringing file, there is no payment to or from Lokitorrent. Some places have donation pages and such, but that isn't benefiting from an infringement.

No, not really. It has to be attributable.

If you rent space to a pirate for a flat fee, it's not a direct benefit. If you rent space to a pirate for a share of his profits, then it is a direct benefit.

If your ad views go up based on the number of users you've got actively using the site, and you use infringing materials to draw in users, that's a direct benefit. That's exactly how Napster was found liable for vicarious infringement.

I think that old white male technophobes that sit on the bench won't give the benefit of the doubt to such a site

That's true. If you are flouting the law left and right, you are not going to be treated nicely by the court. After all, such a person is an asshole. If he's genuinely not liable, it won't matter. But if the only thing helping him is the indulgence of the court, and he hasn't been a good guy, he's not going to have a good time.

Anyway, I'd suggest reading how the law is applied ALL the time in this sort of situation. I don't care what your 'read of how the law should be applied' is. It's not connected to reality. It's just your personal fantasy.

I care about how it routinely does get applied. And having read a lot of cases, I'm inclined to think that torrent sites are screwed.

Re:Question to people who donate

[Anonymous Coward]

Because we disagree with the law.

Re:So....

[IdleTime]

I just wonder what hippies got to do with this?

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.

Right on the fucking torrent page

[the_mad_poster]

First five listings:

Half Life 2
The Grudge
White Chicks
Blade 3
Exorcist, The Beginning

Whatever, man. Boo hoo. They're getting sued. Maybe they should have thought about that before they started riding the legal fence like that.

They will not get a dime from me, and this has nothing to do with my rights.

Re:Right on the fucking torrent page

[Paradise Pete]

this has nothing to do with my rights.

Nope.
Not yet, anyway.

Re:Right on the fucking torrent page

[Breakfast Pants]

You just told me that if I want those files I can find links to them over there. You have now committed contributory infringement if the MPAA gets its way in the suit against LokiTorrent. At least your post was right about one thing, this has everything to do with your rights. Oh wait, you didn't say that did you? Perhaps you should reconsider.

Re:Right on the fucking torrent page

[Black Art]

They should get life in front of the firing squad for distributing copies of "White Chicks".

Re:So....

[artifex2004]

Explain how they are criminals? Are you a lawyer or a judge maybe?

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....

[IdleTime]

And you still don't make any sense at all....

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....

[Bradee-oh!]

Well lets see.. Distributing copyrighted material without permission, for starters.

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:Question to people who donate

[Anonymous Luddite]

>> TOTAL FREEDOM OF INFORMATION!

by all means, please start the ball rolling, AC. reply with your:

credit card numbers
banking info
social insurance number
full legal name
date of birth

It's just information, and it wants to be free.

asshat.

Re:Devil's Advocate: Derived works

[GrAfFiT]

Think about the purpose of the hash. It's like a title. It's a mean for identification of the material. The ISBN of a book is not a derived work of the book.

Re:It Seems They've Already Caved To MS

[ravenspear]

They have a policy that allows anyone to have their stuff removed if they don't want links to torrents of it hosted on their site. If someone submits a request to have something taken down, they put it in a "banned files" area and after that if anyone posts a torrent to any of those files they are banned from the site.

I'm not sure how this policy will figure into their legal defense, but I imagine it will in some capacity.

Misperceptions abound

[Thunderstruck]

IAAL, and darned proud of the modern justice system...

1. Everyone accused of anything in court has a right to defend themselves and make the accuser prove it. This system protects every other right you have.

2. The folks at LokiTorrent want to exercise that right. In order to do so they need financial assistancec.

3. We all benefit from NOT having a system whereby a well funded organization cannot assume it will win because it can afford lawyers, a system where the big money always wins.

4. Ergo we all benefit from LokiTorrent exercisisng its rights. Why then should we not help them out if we are able?

All your base are imagining an ad-hoc beowulf cluster of old korean overlords welcoming YOU!

Re:Misperceptions abound

[RonnyJ]

IAAL, and darned proud of the modern justice system...

1. Everyone accused of anything in court has a right to defend themselves and make the accuser prove it. This system protects every other right you have.
2. The folks at LokiTorrent want to exercise that right. In order to do so they need financial assistancec.

So, you're proud of a system that requires somebody to have a large amount of money in order that they can defend themselves?

Re:Misperceptions abound

[Kristoffer Lunden]

We all benefit from NOT having a system whereby a well funded organization cannot assume it will win because it can afford lawyers, a system where the big money always wins.

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

That is not a fair system. Exercising its rights my ass. The rights to roll over and die unless you can raise enough money? Where's the justice in that?

A real justice system, like many in Europe, would not require you to pay to defend yourself up front! You might still have to pay court costs afterwards if you lose, but that's fair enough and a rule in place to prevent clearly losing cases from taking up the courts time.

Now that is having rights - for every citizen.

Re:Misperceptions abound

[RonnyJ]

How much SHOULD it cost to defend yourself in court?

If you can defend yourself successfully, nothing.

Re:Misperceptions abound

[Anonymous Coward]

I can grow a tree and pick my own food.

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.

Re:So....

[ComputerSlicer23]

Disclaimer: I've never used LokiTorrent, or any sort of BitTorrent software. So my premise that BitTorrent has uses other then distributing movies might be flawed. However, I know several smaller Linux distributions use bittorent as a method of distribution.

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

On a slightly off-topic note.. Legal Expenses.

[Polarism]

I believe our judicial system should be a factor of government, and not economy.

Currently, if you have an unlimited budget you are usually on higher ground in the legal world, you can hire better lawyers, drag the case out longer, and generally spend your opponent to their bankruptcy if you chose to.

Why is this?

Re:Question to people who donate

[Anonymous Coward]

Correction:

We wish to determine what the law really is. With a bit more fairness.

Re:Question to people who donate

[Anonymous Luddite]

>> This is like suing Google for finding a link to a site distributing software illegally

With all respect, that logic seems spurious.

The vast majority of google's links will point to mundane, fully legal content. No reasonable judge or jury will believe Google exists as an entity solely to facilitate illegal acts.

What percentage of P2P traffic do you suppose is legal?

If (_if_) they can make a case that Lokitorrent was knowingly facilitating illegal filesharing, I think they are screwed.

oh yeah, IANAL

Re:That would be stupid, too.

[Senjutsu]

And I'm saying it'd be stupid even then. The links aren't the problem, the thief is. Take him out and the link is irrelevant. Don't take him out, and the link is the least of your worries.

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.

Re:Question to people who donate

[Anonymous Coward]

Tell me, just what exactly, are they stealing?
Answer: nothing, no theft is involved.
Ignorant 'tards who think they know the law...

Re:Question to people who donate

[MarkByers]

Instead of donating money to people violating the law,

The whole point is to try to prove that they are not violating the law. Let's wait to see what the outcome is first.

MOD PARENT UP!

[DaHat]

The parent has hit the nail on the head.

In the 2600 case, the court effectively ruled that linking to something illegal is illegal. In a way, like the Bush doctrine (ie "if you harbor a terrorist, you are a terrorist"). Under this ruling, places like Google and Yahoo are conceivably liable for what you can find on them (warez, child porn, etc), however as yet, they have not been taken to court over such large things... just small issues here and there.

Re:Devil's Advocate: Derived works

[Bloater]

The same hash can be calculated via a systematic method from an infinite number of other byte sequences of various lengths.

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.

Difference: Dumb Statute

[bill_mcgonigle]

You just told me that if I want those files I can find links to them over there. You have now committed contributory infringement

If you want some extra cash, there's a bunch in the register at the Circle K.

Re:Question to people who donate

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, quite simple.

They have proven to us already that they'll keep standing, whatever the cost. Just spitting in the MPAA's and RIAA's faces proves that. And, furthermore, that lokitorrent didn't wave the white flag when everybody else shut down. They intend to make a stand, they have proven their good intentions, and I will support them in their cause, and so should everybody else. Right now, for example,

I'm downloading something huge from Lokitorrent's tracker that isn't Warez or related to the RIAA or MPAA.

Should I be punished by having that download bonkered when the tracker is forced to shut down? Hell no, I'm just an innocent bystander, but the fact that they offer all this variety and do so freely and willingly and are willing to fight for it proves to me that they deserve that money. And if they take the money and run with it, what did it cost us?

Maybe 500 DVDs that we would have bought from the MPAA among a Slashdot crowd of a few hundred thousand. So, your point is exactly?

Re:Question to people who donate

[1000StonedMonkeys]

No, it's like suing napster for saying "There's a guy over there in that place illegally distributing software." If you remember, that worked out pretty well for the RIAA.

Re:Suspicious?

[wildchild07770]

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

Re:Question to people who donate

[Anonymous Coward]

Idiot.

One, TOTAL FREEDOM OF INFORMATION includes the freedom not to disclose information if you don't want to. It means, however, that you should have no say over the use and dissemination of information by other parties once disclosed to other parties.

Two, In a system designed properly for security, none of the items you listed would be need to be secret - because they are NAMES - long-lived, hard-to-change data that serve as a label for you.

NAMES are different from PASSWORDS. Passwords are a "shared secret" form of security, and should be short-lived and easy to change.

It is an unfortunate fact of current society that there are many uses of NAMES where PASSWORDS or, god forbid, PUBLIC/PRIVATE KEY PAIRS, would be much more appropriate. So the fault lies with the system, not the concept of TOTAL FREEDOM OF INFORMATION.

Re:Question to people who donate

[drawfour]

You diagree with the law or you disagree with the prices? You really disagree that companies can spend millions of dollars in set design, computer animation, sound systems, camera equipment, actors, extras, and all the hundreds or thousands of other people, but they're not entitled to receive compensation for their work? They should have control over their creation, and that's exactly what the law provides for.

I'm pretty sure that 99.999% of the people who download movies, music, e-books, software, and other copyrighted works without paying for them do so because they do not want to PAY for them. "Oh, $16 is too much for a CD! Oh, $20 is too much for a DVD! Oh, $200 is too much for a piece of software."

If you don't like your money going large organizations, then go get indie music and films. There are a ton of them, and many of them give away their work to garner interest. Go to a local bar, grab a drink, and enjoy some music.

If you don't want to pay for it, don't use it at all. You are NOT entitled to free entertainment.

Keeping it simple: answer to all astroturf posters

[Catbeller]

There are so many here hammering the "it's illegal - it's piracy - " meme injection that I strongly suspect the MPAA has hired astroturfing agents to dominate the thread. Holy Scientology, Batman.

Answers for their contentions, all at once:

It's not "piracy"; it's copying without permission. If you sell copied films, then you're a pirate.

Copying without permission wasn't a criminal matter until the content producers bought such laws. It was a civil matter, and conviction required evidence of monetary loss on the complaintant's part.

Copyright was a compromise in U.S. law. One faction in the constitutional convention wanted NO copyrights, another was more of the current IP ilk's way of thinking. Compromise: copyrights were to exist for a limited time, to get the best of both worlds -- enticement to produce new works, and the graduation to public domain of old works for the common good.

With the Sonny Bono Law, the deal was destroyed. No compromise. Copyright for life of author plus 75 years for an author, a HUNDRED years for a corporation. And no guarantee at all that future congresses would keep extending the terms for ever and ever and ever...

The deal is over. And we didn't break it, the "intellectual property owners" broke it - savagely, permanently. Now works are owned for all time. No public good. Just private. No derivative works allowed. And corporate "owners" can use their profits to buy larger and larger blocks of "property" indefinitely. We may see a small handful of chummy corporations eventually owning all the published works of mankind - science, art, literature -- everything.

The law broke the deal. The corporations wanted anarchy. They got it. They have guns on their side. The Scientologists are peeing themselves with glee.

What we have here is more than downloading copies of movies or music. If copyright lasted only 20 years, I would honestly be fighting alongside the owners so that they could make a profit from their works. That is, if the artists actually owned the copyrights, rather than the corporations they signed rights over to.

But this is not what copyrights is about. It isn't about property. That's a 20th century legal fiction. Music and images are not "property"; items are property. Copyright was about licensing copies.

Fair Use law mandated that the public could copy even without paying, within limits. THAT'S out the window. If it's illegal to break encryption, you can't copy within those rights.

I will not accept the shutdown of the Constitution's purpose of copyright. I will not accept the death of Fair Use. I will not countenance the elimination of the Deal. I will not watch the works of man fall under the eternal control of immortal corporations. Science and art as we know it cannot survive the imprisonment-with-conditional parole of human endeavor. If copying files annoys them and shakes their control, then let it be so. I want this regime of control shaken and stirred until such day we can install real limits on copyright once more.

Re:Update

[Anonymous Coward]

So noone donates to open source projects? I bet to differ. For you it sounds like a "Freeloader" vs "Cheap Bastard" sort of thing.

Re:Huh?

[Catbeller]

"You have no right to "free speech" using non-government controlled facilities. Yes, that means you can be told to be quiet and a private security guard can make it stick. Not a "government-employed police officer". So don't be silly."

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:So....

[Anonymous Coward]

Why? Again, why?

I don't understand. Seriously.

If something CAN be used illegally, I am responsible that it is not?

Ok, so, I decide to go into the steak knife business. Do I have to go to everyone's house and ensure that they don't stab someone with it?

And I don't get the argument that "you can assume some people will do illegal things"... I assume that if I make steak knives, someone, somewhere is going to stab someone. So, now, I am responsible?

Where and HOW do we draw the line?

I actually have a fair amount of respect...

[Junta]

For both sides this time.

On LokiTorrent and it's community's behalf, they seem to actually be standing up for themselves, which at least hints at a sense of them sincerely thinking there is legitimacy in what thay are doing. I disagree with them on their apparent stance in defending distribution of copyrighted works, but they seem to be playing by the rules in trying to stand up and defend and believe in what they do. Other sites just kind of rolled over, pretty much acknowledging that they were illegitimate and were just going until they get called on it. Ok, maybe that is a tad harsh as the cost of defending oneself is unwieldy, but it is at least the impression given.

On MPAA's behalf, this is probably one of the more sane ways of going against copyright infringement, *if* I'm understanding the cease and desist right. Seems they are only requesting removal of copyrighted material torrents, not shutdown of the site. Certainly not dismantling of BitTorrent technology. Of course, this is a *very* specific circumstance, and on other fronts they push for more fair-use violations in the name of protecting IP (DRM, attempts to essentially destroy/outlaw good technologies with fair use applications). This is about as fair and 'nice' as these companies have played to date (only other major thing which might have been construed as 'fair' was certainly not nice, the RIAA pursuing individual file sharer's seeking actual monetary damages). One can nitpick about whether distributing mere torrents is 'technically' violating copyright, but rather a sort of map to where the actual content is, but these specific torrents are certainly against the spirit of copyright when utilized against the wishes of the copyright holders.

Badmouth the MPAA/RIAA all we want about their price fixing, scamming the artists, overpriced crap, and their attempts to royally screw over technology for their benefit, but we can't meet their wrongs with wrongs of our own. If you think really nasty and slimy people run a store or chain of stores, you shouldn't feel you are then entitled to shoplift. I disagree with their strategies and pricing levels, and I express this via my purchasing decisions. If I think a price is too high for a crappy experience, I decline to pay. My standards for what is justified is highly increased knowing what they want to do to fair use, and I actively seek non MPAA, non RIAA entertainment over MPAA/RIAA content.

My donation to the cause...

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't know about you, but I don't have thousands of dollars to spend on movies and software, therefore it would be impossible for movie and software companies to lose thousands of my dollars.

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' :::cough cough wink wink::: and people get to 'own' :::cough cough wink wink::: DVD's for a short amount of time for a net of 50 cents a pop.

Illegal before ruling?

[eretan]

Just a few things I want to note:

1. Apparently people has established the notion that Lokitorrent is already "illegal" even before any sort of court ruling. If you are going to argue about this issue with regards to the law behind it, at least do so after there has been any sort of decision, instead of proclaiming that LokiTorrent is illegal before any court ruling.

I don't like to muddle the boundary between law and ethics. LokiTorrent is NOT illegal. Not until the court says so. What happened to innocent until proven gilty?

2. I personally don't see how this can kill bittorrent; basically people will migrate from "weak" trackers such as LokiTorrent and Suprnova ("weak" because of their location) to "stronger" trackers such as PirateBay. That's basically what's going to happen. And when BT becomes untenable (something which I doubt highly), people will go to completely decentralized networks, and will hasten the development and maturity of such networks (which are still relatively immature atm). I think the main point I am trying to make here is that regardless of what MPAA or RIAA does, P2P will continue to exist. I think MPAA and RIAA are stuck in the past; there are many ways to change their business model (ex. focusing on merchandise instead of the intellectual property) to cooperate with P2P rather then against it. I see that as almost a no-brainer: what's the point of going against them when you'll never completely get rid of them anyway? Sure BT traffic might wane for a few months, but it will eventually go back to what it was very soon... that is, if another P2P protocol hasn't already replaced it then.

Re:Your point is totally irrelevant

[Brightest Light]

My point is that we cannot expect free food, water, or other rights. Why would justice be any different?
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? Then the one with the most money always wins, because he can afford the biggest guns.
Isn't this how our current justice system works? I find it disturbing that many lawsuits seem to turn into wars of attrition where the first party to run out of money loses.

3. Are you suggesting that I should pay for EVERYONE's justice? All lawyers would have to be government employees. Do you want government employees protecting your civil rights from the government that pays them?
There is nothing wrong with people hiring private lawyers to help them exercise or defend their legal rights. There is something wrong with a legal system that makes it possible for a person to lose a dispute even when they're in the right because they can't afford to pay the legal fees associated with an extended court battle.

4. Perhaps you're suggesting lawyers get paid too much? How much should a person who goes through 7 gruelling years of post-secondary education get paid?
I don't have a problem with lawyers, I have a problem with our legal system. Lawyers deserve to be well paid for their knowledge and ability, but should not be used as a means of driving a person to financial ruin should they wish to defend their legal rights.

5. But I think you're suggesting that you want all of the benefits of our justice system, but without any cost to you.
I'm suggesting that every single person in this nation ought to have the ability to defend their legal rights, and that our current legal system does not make this possible.

Re:Question to people who donate

[aussie_a]

I'm pretty sure that 99.999% of the people who download movies, music, e-books, software, and other copyrighted works without paying for them do so because they do not want to PAY for them. "Oh, $16 is too much for a CD! Oh, $20 is too much for a DVD! Oh, $200 is too much for a piece of software."

You know what. You're completely right. I don't want to pay $10.00 for a book. So I'm going to download it for free. Thankfully with the current laws I'm allowed to download HG Wells "The Time Machine" for free :)

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"

Thanks Slashdot - You're killing BitTorrent for us

[Anonymous Coward]

Thanks Slashdot - you've managed to destroy suprnova by posting direct links and having millions of otherwise uninterested individuals give useless hits to a site that catered to a community that wasn't bothering you ...

And you're doing it again with Lokitorrent. By posting the link, you're destroying a technology, ala Napster, which works fine until fools like you decide it's time to kill it.

There is no better alternative to Bit Torrent. But when that alternative does come along, rest assured Slashdot will inform everyone how to destroy it, rather then post how the RIAA can take advantage of the technology to show how money can be generated through high-quality downloads, rather than the crap we're forced to watch when we download.

Thanks, really. Idiots.

Re:Question to people who donate

[y0ta]

Total Freedom of non-personal information. If some info is public, it shouldn't be restricted by law. y0ta

Re:Question to people who donate

[hkmwbz]

"and the site is seriously expecting these people to cough up cash to fight a court case against the MPAA?"

You are missing the point.

People aren't necessarily opposed to paying for things. Now, some of the people downloading movies over BT will probably never pay, as long as they can get away with it. But others may be downloading movies because they are opposed to the way the MPAA behaves, or because they have to wait for ages until they get to watch the movie, and they want it right away, or they have bought the DVD, but it was region encoded, and couldn't be played on their player, and so on.

These "pirates" are not a group of homogenous people. The reasons for downloading movies for free and the willingness to pay for something worthwile differs from person to person.

You should also realize that this case does not appear to be only about this particular torrent site, but it could be an important case, since they are challenging the evil and customer/individuality hostile DMCA.

I can imagine that some of the most hardcore "pirates" will gladly pay to see the evil fuckers (excuse my French) who keep lobbying to remove individual rights getting their asses handed to them in court. I know I would be thrilled if the MPAA went straight to Hell. These organizations are nothing more than corporate propaganda machines working to make corporations more powerful, and remove the rights of individual human beings. They want to reduce you and I to mindles drones whose only purpose is to strenthen the corporations. I want to reduce them to rubble.

Pirate, arr?

[StrawberryFrog]

It's not "piracy"; it's copying without permission. If you sell copied films, then you're a pirate.

No. If you sell copied films, then you're a thief of intellectual property. If you raid ships at sea; plunder, rape and murder, then you're a pirate.

Laugh, but it's also sad - unknowingly, you are using loaded language chosen for you.

Re:Keeping it simple: answer to all astroturf post

[mjh49746]

Bravo! It's about damned time that somebody tells it like it is.

All I've heard from the pro-**AA and the pro-DRM crowd is that it's about protecting their 'rights'. Nothing can be further from the truth! It's not about rights, it's about control, and all this talk about 'piracy' and 'intellectual property' is all a bunch of mindfuck bullshit to further advance their iron fist agenda. If anyone thinks that the Sonny Bono Copyright Act and the DMCA is really all about protecting their rights is either a dumbass, or a mindless, parroting shill.

There are two historically opposing concepts at work here....

1. Information wants to be free.

2. Content creators want financial incentive to keep creating.

Copyright is supposed to strike a fair balance between the two, but when you have corporate content providers buying creative works like property, deciding who 'makes it or breaks' it in the business, spoonfeeding what's hot and what's not to the public with payola and etc., and buying laws that chill free speech and the free flow of information as well as further obstruct people's rights, then it's only a matter of time until people start fighting back.

It's too bad that the creators are caught in the middle of this mess, but as long as people consider ideas as transferable property, and not as what they're supposed to be, then the creators will always be caught in the middle between the likes of the RIAA and such, and the filesharing public. Therefore, either the law is broken and needs to change, or that the p2p war will continue until either the big content providers die off, or else there'll be a Big Brother type policeman stationed at every internet connected computer in the world, just waiting to beat your ass with his/her nightstick just in case you might do sonething 'questionable'.

...and I agree. There's plenty of **AA astroturfing going on here, absolutely convinced that their 'opinions' should be accepted as facts without debate, and all 'nay-sayers' should be shunned, ostracized, and spied upon without warrants or due process. After all, if you don't agree with the RIAA, the MPAA, and the BSA or WTF ever AA that comes down the pike, then you MUST be a thief and a pirate and you deserve to be shot, your family imprisoned, and your house burned down. Where's the rationale behind all this? Whatever happened to justice? Or is the Nazi way the ONLY way now, too? When do we start putting people in death camps for listening to music, or watching TV "The Wrong Way(TM)?"

Here's hoping that level headed, rational people will step in and actually fix the problem, but I won't hold my breath. This 'war' is going to stay bloody for a long, long time and it will probably still rage on by the time I'm old, gray, and no longer give a damn.

Please, donate

[Anonymous Coward]

Please, won't you donate and give money to these pirates instead of giving your money to the store where you can buy the product instead of pirating it?

These pirates are the victims. We should have the ability to ruin people's lives by downloading their product and not paying them for it. It's our right.

Slashdot's backhanded plea to fund these guys is sickening. I remember back in the day when Slashdot didn't cloud the difference between Free Software and free warez. Now that the readership is mostly high school kiddies and dorm room anti-capitalists, suddenly you're applying the financial principles of free software to the commercial world, just because you don't want to pay for stuff. It's lame and pathetic.

Please, won't you think of...the pirates? Donate to their fund now!

Re:What do you mean, "next"?

[Minna Kirai]

The DMCA is bad, but it isn't quite that bad.

No, it's WORSE. Regardless of whether copyrighted material is involved, you still can't describe how to avoid a copy-prevention mechanism. This means that Fair Use can become essentially outlawed- sure, you're technically allowed to copy short bits for criticism, but the technology to make such copies is prohibited...