Slashdot Mirror
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. "
Loki is the god of mischief, so the names says it all. Now if it was Odintorrent, I'd side with them.
Since I submitted this they updated the site and have now have received $9,940 in donations.
Also, they posted an image of the of the complaint they were served with here.
What'll that cover? A week?
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.
Portland, North Dakota Puppies
Dear AIMUser304921, It has come to our attention that on December 12th, 2004, you had an AOL Instant Messenger conversation with AIMUser201192 about how some of your buddies have a bootleg copy of Spiderman 2. To avoid legal action, you must cease and desist communicating with anybody ever again about anything possibly illegal. That, or be ready for us to sue your pants off.
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?
-mr silver
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 ...
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
"Martha Stewart can lick my Scrotum......do i have a scrotum?" -- Sharon Osbourne
Because we disagree with the law.
Now that it's on slashdot, I'm sure they'll need that $30,000 for bandwidth bills :(
Just FYI, their paypal address appears to be support@lokitorrent.com. If you're going to post a story about a site taking donations to fight a lawsuit, at least include a way to donate AFTER you Slashdot their site to hell and back.
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.
If you mod me down, I *will* introduce you to my sister!
What's the bet a site like this takes their $9,000 and runs? Is there any onus on Loki once they receive the money?
I don't know about the people that are donating, but it seems a little silly to just hand over money and actually expect them to get a lawyer. If anything I'd just as likely expect them to take the 30K and run. Thanks for the donations!
Hire a lawyer? To defend something that's blatenly illegal? People are buying this? The Internet is a great place.
Because this is about defending the right to say "There's a guy over there in that place illegally distributing software", not about getting access to said software. LokiTorrent wasn't distributing software, they were just hosting torrent files that pointed the way to people who were.
This is like suing Google for finding a link to a site distributing software illegally. It's silly, and it's a chilling restriction of the concept of free speech.
So far they have raised $8,755 out of a needed $30,000.
Actually, since they're attempting to take on the MPAA in court that really means that they've raised $8,755 out of a needed $infinity.
Good luck nonetheless, guys.
If this is a site that is using BitTorrent as a method for downloading 100% legit material like public domain movies, linux distributions, creative commons licensed songs, etc., I'd be pretty sympathetic and probably throw in some financial support.
But I've never heard of Lokitorrent. Is this an example of the MPAA attacking the BitTorrent PROTOCOL, or is this as the MPAA unfairly letter suggests, an attempt to stop someone from illegally distributing copyrighted material? If it's the former, I think it's bullshit. If it's the latter, then, well... I'm not sure this the kind of test case I want to see setting precedent for BitTorrent's future or reputation.
Remember, copyright law, as flawed as it is (in terms of duration and other areas), is what currently gives the GPL its teeth.
He's certainly a potential juror, anyway. Or do you think they don't count, any more? I think OJ would say otherwise.
All the sudden they want to stand up for our rights? Why didn't they do so when MS contacted them and demanded they stop tracking MS related torrents?
Any and all Microsoft software and XBOX games are "banned" from the site. Check their upload page.
http://www.lokitorrent.com/torrents-upload.php
The fact that they've raised so much money I think will help them in their case. Why? It shows that what they're doing can be seen as a fight for freedom, whether it is or not. The donations show that people are willing to pay money, but the quality of films (and music?) is not worth paying for.
Of course, on the other hand, the MPAA can say "You fools, if you had money you should have bought the films and saved the legal expense!".
I'm sure that this case will be followed very closely by the Slashdot crowd (and definitely me). I'm really interested to see how this will turn out.
- dshaw
P.S.: Bold of them to keep the site online during the issues...
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...
If you mod me down, I *will* introduce you to my sister!
Distributing copyrighted materials without a license is not a criminal offense. It is a violation of a civil right that gives rise to a civil cause of action. And, as others have pointed out, these sites are not distributing copyrighted content, but links to information detailing ways to obtain copyrighted content, subtle difference, but nothing worse than what Grokster is doing and that has already been ruled not to be contributory infringement.
There was Cowboy Neal at the wheel of a bus to never-ever land.
Nope.
Not yet, anyway.
The only possible legal avenue is the fact that they are only providing means to access copyrighted material and not the material itself. INAL, but but that could possibly be considered illegal under the DMCA. I know IP is diffrent, but its like providing a key to a car someone else is going to steal. Generally that would make you an accomplice.
I think bittorrent(as well as other P2P) has the power to subvert the coporate hold on media and provide an avenue for indie media to get thier art out in the public space. But its been given a bad name when its used in copyright infringment.
Im not exactly a fan of the MPAA or DMCA but I dont think copyright infringment is the way to change the landscape of art. It sends the wrong message.
[plug]
You can help give bittorrent a better name by clicking the link in my sig.
[/plug]
In America we are imprisoned by our fear of them.
Some users are, just because the MPAA claims copyright over something doesn't totally validate their copyright. If I tape a movie or television show off of broadcast TV and redistribute it without profitting from it, in many countries that's perfectly legal.
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.
"This is Zombo Com, and welcome to you who have come to Zombo Com" - www.zombo.com
>> 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.
http://request-header.info
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.
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!
Trying to use sarcasm in text-based forums does not work.
You said:
So now you're paying to keep an illegal site online?
And then you said:
I didn't say the site was doing anything illegal.
So which bit is illegal?
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
2600.com had a similar case where they were ordered not to link to any site that had decss. Never mind the fact that google and pletny of other sites did and still do.
They lost the case.
Over all, what can **IA do about ultimately? I would fall on a free press defense. They don't hold the files, or even parts of the files. They 'Report' on where they are and that's sort of news.
Sorry about the writing. Robot fingers, you know? Cliff Steele in DOOM PATROL #23
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?
All your base are belong to Google.
Correction:
We wish to determine what the law really is. With a bit more fairness.
"Distributing copyrighted materials without a license is not a criminal offense. It is a violation of a civil right that gives rise to a civil cause of action."
It carries both civil and criminal penalties. Here's where one can learn about criminal copyright infringement.
"And, as others have pointed out, these sites are not distributing copyrighted content, but links to information detailing ways to obtain copyrighted content, subtle difference, but nothing worse than what Grokster is doing and that has already been ruled not to be contributory infringement."
The thing about the law is that those subtle differences can make all the difference. "A is kind of like B, so if A is legal/illegal, so must B" should not be assumed to be true. Torrents are derived from the works in question; they contain hashes of the file and other data. They're more than just an HTML link.
Either way, a quick look at their torrent page makes it pretty darn obvious they know what they're doing. Compare their operation to one of the dozens of legitimate sites like legaltorrents.com.
Sitting in my day care, the art is decopainted.
>> 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
http://request-header.info
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.
So are you proposing that a number that happens to be the hash of something copyrighted should be illegal to use?
I've noticed that you're using the number "5" in both your email address and Slashdot userid. A book I wrote hashes to the value "5". Please cease and desist distributing the number "5".
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.
I'll probably be modded down for this...
Why not just contact these guys for legal counsel. Apparently they are a sucker for hopeless legal causes and will work for a sliding scale of percentages of any settlement when suing multi-billion dollar adversaries if your own funds don't quite cover the costs...
UNIX? They're not even circumcised! Savages!
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.
--
WHO ATE MY BREAKFAST PANTS?
Unlike SuprNova, Loki's registration required a valid email address. I know they have one of the gmail accounts I use. I hope they will at least be kind and purge their logs before they get raided.
Is this a serious abridgement of your right to free speech? You betcha. But so far they're getting away with it.
Doesn't this seem just a little suspicious to ANYONE? They were already collecting donations BEFORE they were 'sued', just in CASE they were to get sued. And then, a few days after they put up the PayPal bar, like magic, it suddenly happens. (Yes, I've seen the 'legal paper', gee, it's not like that could be easily forged or anything.)
Consider this scenario: Donations reach a certain point, less than $30k, where it doesn't look like they'll increase anymore, then the admin runs off with a nice chunk of pocket money, whining 'my users didn't support us enough! It's all their fault!'
I'm not saying I'm certain it's a fraud, but I'm sceptical. I'll believe it when it's reported on by a major news agency, complete with quotes from the MPAA.
~ Aero
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.
Help Brendan pay off his student loans
Torrents are not "derivative works" under the definition of copyright because they are not "works." Works include:
17 U.S.C. 102(a).A Cliff's Note is a derivative work. A card in a library's card catalog telling how many pages are in a book, etc. is not a derivative work. A torrent file is much more like a library card than a Cliff's Note. As for criminal copyright violation, that requires willful violation which can be very difficult to prove, especially when the violation may occur before the site owner knows that they may be facilitating a violation.
There was Cowboy Neal at the wheel of a bus to never-ever land.
There's something really weird in the FAQ. In the part that tells copyright owners what to do if material that they own is being traded and they want the post removed, they say:
I sympathize with their desire to get people to talk to them first, in a civil tone, before sending take-down notices to their ISPs, but this is perfect nonsense. Reading the FAQ doesn't bind anybody to anything. This is the kind of garbage we expect from Microsoft. What is it doing on a torrent site?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.
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.
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
Because this is about defending the right to say "There's a guy over there in that place illegally distributing software", not about getting access to said software.
I know of someone who did time for a similar situation. Short version - When asked, she answered "I don't sell drugs, the guy in that apartment over there is the one selling crack." That is when she found out the skinny guy with a crack pipe was an undercover policeman, and pointing out that apartment as a source made her an accessory/accomplice(?).
Possibly a case of entrapment, and a better lawyer than hers could probably clarify a lot of the issues involved, but I believe this demonstrates a parallel as far as Free Speech is concerned.
That makes it an entirely different ballgame in my book; while I found the RIAAs actions to be particulary loathesome, even if they did have the legal upperhand, the MPAA is being much better behaved. Sure Suprnova, LokiTorrent, et al may have carried the odd Linux ISO in their time, but the majority of their Torrents are for commercial apps, music, movies and TV shows. Last I checked, without explicit permission, the distribution of any of those was copyright infringement, which is a civil crime. What would be interesting would be the reaction to a site deleting all of its dodgy torrents and leaving just the truly free stuff before the nastygram arrives. Until we see that, or someone like LinuxISO.org getting sued, the MPAA is entirely within its rights as far as I am concerned.
Not that I think either the RIAA or the MPAA is going to have any more luck in their endeavors than the BSA did with cracking down on the Warez sites back in the day. Still, having clamped down on the MP3 sites, at least the RIAA somewhat reluctantly got behind legitimate alternatives like iTunes, the revived Napster and so on. Hopefully the MPAA will do the same PDQ; a subscription or per-view based system where I can get the latest TV episodes over P2P would be something I'd *seriously* consider.
UNIX? They're not even circumcised! Savages!
People....
... "...MPAA members studios' copyrighted works..." They never said to shut down all of the torrents or even the site. People who pledge money are just retarded.
Read the C&D letter. They are VERY SPECIFIC as to what their gripe is
Tom
Someday, I'll have a real sig.
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.
It's been a long time since my college philosophy course, but your position is a fallacy. It does great harm to focus on a single problem, or even a single category.
For instance, does the suffering in Thailand justify ignoring the people in Florida still struggling to recover from those storms? Or the people in California and Arizona who have just been hit with record rainfall?
Does the suffering in Florida justify ignoring the homeless in my own town?
Should the suffering of the homeless justify ignoring the poor (financially), scared local women needing medical care? (Planned Parenthood performs abortions, but it's also the only medical resource for many women.)
The list goes on and on. Helping the local animal shelter or helping to stop the corporatization of American civil life might seem "less important" than helping these victims, but that doesn't mean they should be ignored entirely until there's nothing more pressing.
For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong. -- H L Mencken
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.
hosting .torrent files is in no way illegal and therefor neither is lokitorrent, we are glad to see Lowkee standing up for torrent sites everywhere that are crumbling due to the MPAA interference, we[radiofusion.org] will be helping Loki with the donation drive as well, don't let the MPAA take down another great site.
ImagePut - Free, Simple, Fast Image Hosting
They should get life in front of the firing squad for distributing copies of "White Chicks".
"Trademarks are the heraldry of the new feudalism."
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.
"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.
I can grow a tree and pick my own food.
Not necessarily. Local authorities with guns can tell you to stop farming on your land, citing zoning regulations.
I can collect rain water.
Not necessarily. In Colorado, authorities with guns can tell you to enforce the rights of downstream property owners to receive the rainwater in the form of river water.
I can stand on a street corner and yell at the top of my voice.
Not necessarily. Local authorities with guns can enforce a noise ordinance.
I can pick up a rock and throw it.
Not necessarily. Guns beat rocks.
As if you'd be able to get money back from a non-existant entity.
Since Paypal is the company that charged your card, Paypal would be the company that would be the subject of the chargeback. I agree that Paypal is a shady organization, but I wouldn't call them a non-existant entity.
Learn to love Alaska
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.
XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
You know, there's the thing called "radio". It's how you get to listen to songs for free.
Commercial FM radio is thoroughly owned by Clear Channel Communications and the other major broadcasters, and getting a song added to Clear Channel playlists is cost prohibitive for independent artists and smaller labels. Therefore, all one hears on commercial radio is ads for major label records and ads for other products.
Oh, there's this new-fangled thing called "internet radio" too. It's free too!
No it isn't; you have to lose your allowance to get your parents to upgrade from dial-up to broadband, and you have to be sitting at a computer to listen, as mobile wireless Internet access is still cost prohibitive.
Ok, if it will make you feel any better I will host a mirror of it on my server. Get it here.
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.
:::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.
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'
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.
Work - school - malls - airports - anyplace on earth - is private property. This is madness.
If I understand the law correctly, this is currently something of a grey area, but a literal reading of the law would say you are correct. It is a gaping hole in the system as it currently exists because there are legal minefields every which way you look.
When I carefully defined "free speech" for an essay I wrote I had to explicitly point this out; times have changed since the first amendment was written, and the majority of speech now takes place on private grounds. We're going to have to deal with this sooner or later because a naive interpretation of property laws does largely negate your free speech today (detailed argument in linked essay, relevant paragraph:).
Someone in their IRC said they had received over $4,000 since this story had been posted, so I'm sure that will be revised higher.
Where's that +1, Thor's Hammer, moderation when you need it?
How come Slashdot never gets Slashdotted?
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.
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"
Well, if that works, then what the hell...
Dear MPAA
By reading this you are hereby granting me full permission to share any of your members works over any electronic or other media in any way I see fit without paying you a single cent.
Thank you.
-
-
Have you been paying attention to court cases recently? Obviously there's a legal precedent that what Lokitorrent is doing is illegal.
Really? Last I checked the RIAA lost its suits against Grokster and whoever else was involved in that one. Kazaa was found legal in its original country of origin, the new trial is underway and we have no way of knowing how it will end yet.If things like Grokster and Kazaa can be legal, exactly HOW would Lokitorrents be illegal? It's even less in control over the content than Grokster and Kazaa are.
-
Claiming the conspiracy theory that anybody who disagrees with you is an agent of the RIAA or MPAA is just odd - about on level with wearing tinfoil hats.
Actually he didn't say that, he said all the posts in support of this move seemed rather odd for Slashdot, that it looked like the MPAA might have decided to astroturf the site. I agree, normally those against anything the MPAA/RIAA does far outweights those in favor of it here, this whole discussion seems like it's from another site to be honest.And besides, he forgot one nice point, the MPAA is breaking the DMCA. They are supposed to send cease & desist letters, in the proper format, to the specified DMCA contact address, listing every link/item they find is infringing prior to suing under the common carrier provisions. They failed to do this, and even in the notice of suit have failed to specifiy exactly WHAT was infriging? "[O]ur copyrighted works" could be most anything, they are supposed to enumerate each item. Go search for Scientology on Google and go to the link about stuff removed, you'll see those letters do exactly what they're supposed to, listing every URL they find infringing and want removed.
Maybe Lokitorrents is breaking the law, maybe they aren't, but the MPAA isn't following their own laws they bought from Congress, and that is a true outrage on many fronts.
-
However, while the RIAA went after the entire P2P network, despite the legal uses that is could, and to some extent was being put to, the MPAA is just going after copyright infringers. So far at least.
Too late, the way Bittorrent works the actual files are not hosted on the trackers, the tracker contains only info on peers who are participating in the torrent and a hash of the file/file segments so users can verify parts downloaded. If the MPAA wanted to go after the actual infringers, they would be suing the people on the torrent, not the trackers, or the sites that are basically torrent trackers (like Suprnova was, it didn't run any tracker, just linked to the torrent files on whatever tracker they were on).I think the problem here is not everyone understands fully how Bittorrent works, or they'd be just as pissed as they were about suits against Napster, Kazaa, Grokster, etc. since they trackers are similar to those. The tracker only provides info to find the copyrighted matierial, it does not reside on the server.
It's interesting to note that Lokitorrents keeps a blacklist and rejected torrents (and banned users uploading them) for items on it. They had a policy of adding anything to the blacklist if asked to by the rights holders, most of the stuff on it was from Microsoft since they actually bothered to ask. The MPAA didn't, they just sued instead. Not everyday you can say something is more evil than Microsoft. :)
Wow, you guys are sure doing the job here!! Shutiing down those torrent sites, sure is slowing them up!!
But there is the thing, now normally you would hire some consultant that would cost you thousands, but I will give it to you gratis. You are in the same position that your cousin the RIAA was with Napster. See they cut the head off the dragon too - but then they found out, that it was no dragon, indeed it was a Hydra. For every head they cut off 2 more rose in its place. Now mp3's are everywhere. You may slay this beast yet, but expect encrypted clients, trackers and hosters in countries that don't care about you, and other things which I can only imagine. You have an oppertunity here like your cousin did, it seems that you are going down the same path. I have something to tell you, you are not going to like it, expect failure.
Sera
Slashdot, where armchair scientists get shouted down and armchair theologians get modded up.
Total Freedom of non-personal information. If some info is public, it shouldn't be restricted by law. y0ta
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.
Clever signature text goes here.
Doing well so far.
I can buy a tape recorder to copy music --> taxes are included on tapes to compensate the music industry
I can Buy a DAT recorder to copy music --> taxes are included on tapes to compensate the music industry
I can buy a CD-recorder, DVD recorder to copy anything --> taxes are included on CD's to compensate the music industry
I can get an ADSL connection to the internet, buy a harddrive etc. to copy music and the rest. Now please tell me WHY all of a sudden this is a problem???
FACT:
- downloading music has increased in 2004
- CD and DVD sales have increased in 2004
Conclusions:
dowloading music has no negative effect on sales of CD and DVD, maby even increases it.
Prices are Too high: i.e. a regular audio CD in the Netherlands is 23-25 euro. That is about the price of the cheapest adsl connection....you do the math
It is a losing battle if record companies keeps the prices up.
I am off to allofmp3, latersss
Message from god, Please logoff, rebooting the Universe
You didn't disprove anything. My statement was about COPYRIGHTED WORKS. "The Time Machine" is no longer copyrighted. Why? Cause HG Wells is dead.
I fail to see how it is acceptable for you to take the works of someone who is still alive and use it as you see fit without giving that creator the compensation that he desires. Maybe the laws that say a copyright exists beyond a person's life (life +20 years?) don't make sense. Maybe copyrights should be transferable but when the original author dies, all bets are off. I don't know about that. But when people are spending millions of dollars to produce a work, and you just go off and copy it without paying them, that's just wrong.
Regarding the Tolkien estate issues... Peter Jackson filmed LOTR with the permission of the Tolkien estate, correct? So then why shouldn't he be bound by their wishes? All things he wanted to do should be spelled out in the contract that he signed with them in order to make the movie. As I said earlier, maybe the copyright law that extends the copyright to the estate of the deceased for some years after death should be modified, but most piracy that's happening happens with music, movies, etc... that's currently being produced, where the authors are still alive.
Regarding Stargate: Atlantis, you said that you are not able to access it any other way, but then you say that you will buy the DVD. Apparently, you DO have a way to view it, you just chose to take a "free" way of downloading it before you buy it.
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.
My Karma: ran over your Dogma
StrawberryFrog
No, it's a link to a .php script that has a JPEG file as one of its parameters. But it's a perfectly legitimate link, and the JPEG does indeed appear to be a letter from an MPAA lawyer. No tomfoolery detected.
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'.
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.
I've said it before, and I'll say it again: piracy _does_ harm business and the economy. In fact, it harms it in the most insidious way: by helping those corporations stay the monopolies that they are.
My favourite example of how the economy _could_ work, is the Via C3. Precisely _because_ you can't download a CPU on P2P.
The C3 is, to put it mildly, a dog. It's not only low MHz, it's also low IPC (Instructions Per Cycle.) It doesn't even start to compete with an AMD or Intel CPU. It makes the Celeron look fast.
But Via still sells a lot of them in China. Why? Because the same Chinese who'll gladly pirate software, can't possibly pirate a CPU. So when they can't afford an Athlon 64 or Pentium 4, they either go buy a C3 or they won't have a computer at all.
So _because_ there is no piracy in that market, a smaller company and a less powerful product can find their niche. Which in turn provides jobs and taxes.
And the same _could_ apply to software, music or movies. People who can't afford MS Office, _could_ have went and bought Star Office instead. It wasn't as powerful, but it was good enough to write a resume and cost a tenth of what MS Office costs. That company could have found a good niche _and_ prevented MS from having a monopoly on file formats.
Except it didn't because of piracy. All those small companies _could_ have competed in a scenario like "do I buy MS Office for 500$ or Star Office for 50$". But they couldn't compete with "do I buy Star Office for 50$ or download MS Office for 0$". Guess which option has won? Guess why the MS Office wantonly-changing file formats are now a de-facto "standard"?
So Star was only saved by Sun, and an independent competitor basically disappeared: now it's a battle between two equally soulless corporations instead. Others weren't that lucky. There were a lot of good products that didn't get bought by a Sun or IBM, and just disappeared.
The same applies to music or movies. Everyone bemoans about how independent labels and artists are better, and how the MPAA and RIAA just rehash the exact same crap that sold before. But everyone goes and downloads Britney Spears and N'Sync and Eminem and god knows what other corporate-blessed crap on P2P. So instead of giving those independents a chance to make _some_ living, and maybe help supply us with new stuff instead of the corporate rehashes... we're all just helping reinforce the status quo where everyone listens to what RIAA wants us to listen to.
Sad.
And to go in a full circle and return to China, Russia and other countries which actively support piracy: that all goes double for them. They could have a thriving local market in locally-produced software, music and movies. A Russian or Chinese family who can't pay 50$ on HL2 or Doom3, could have paid 5$ for a locally produced game with cheap local programmers and artists. Providing jobs and taxes to their own country. But instead they all pirate Doom 3 and HL2, and that market never even started.
A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
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!
Not gonna go read your essay, friend, but...
If Earthlink did that, they'd be making editorial decisions about the material they were making available. They would no longer be a communications carrier, but rather a publisher. This would open them to huge liability, and Sony would not cover that expense.
There are private places where speech is protected because it could cause civil liability. Weirdly enough.
There are no trails. There are no trees out here.