LokiTorrent Shut Down

wan-fu writes "LokiTorrent, a popular torrent site, has officially been shut down. After asking for donations from users for the past couple of months to fight the MPAA's lawsuit. LokiTorrent succumbed today and the MPAA took over the website with a stern warning, stating, "You can click, but you can't hide." A variety of outlets are carrying the story."

Comments

Wow - that was fast!

[bigtallmofo]

Didn't this just happen? How in the world did they get a $1 million judgement against LokiTorrent already!?

Is it just me or do the wheels of injustice move far swifter than the wheels of justice?

Re:Wow - that was fast!

[drgonzo59]

Why doesn't he move his website to some other country (except Christmas Island of course, although lokitorrent.cx would be a good url ;) where nobody gives a crap about MPAA? Then he can accept donations to keep the website running and have extra to buy candy and ice-cream instead of paying for legal fees, which is a lot more expensive.

MPAA is fighting a loosing battle and are wasting their money. If a significat ammount of people don't think trading media is wrong then they'll find a way to do that. It is just like police and society, if everyone decided all of the sudden to go out to kill and pillage, there just won't be enough policemen around to stop them. But most people don't think that killing and pillaging is not right, that keeps the order not the fear or force of the police.

And I like MPAA's little adds in the movie theatres how they show this poor set designer who claims the pimply-faced hackers stole his money. Why don't they show the billionaire owners and executives of the studios? I can almost see the add:

[Sad marimba music in the background...]
"Because of the wide-spread piracy the poor CEO of [insert name] studio won't be able to afford a Ferrari for his 16 year old daughter. Look what piracy has done! His daughter will be forced to drive a BMW now. How does that make you feel?"

Re:Wow - that was fast!

[log0n]

You're an idiot.

You're taking away reimbursement to XYZ for whatever it was that was obtained.

YEAH, it's copying. It's copying something you would have otherwise had to have bought for you to get.

Don't be daft.

Re:Wow - that was fast!

[silas_moeckel]

Actualy your incorrect it's not theft it's not a tangable item. Copyright it a short term right of exclusive use. Read short term. Its intended to allow people a chance to make a profit on there works before they go into the public domain. This is a ballancing act of how long it needs to be there to entice people to do creative things and get rewarded for them.

At the time this was thaught up there was a fairly high cost of copping things of this nature mostly books, printing presses and such. The digital age has changed this. If you look at the law it's not even a felony theft is. It's a felony to knowingly distribute for profit but still not theft by statute.

This is not semantics the crux of the issue is how long is long enough to make people and companys want to produce a creative work.

Re:Wow - that was fast!

[drgonzo59]

I like to think there are three broad categories of people that we are talking about here.

1- People who will never buy the movie or go see it. These people can download all they want (or not) they will simply not pay the money for it.

2- People that would go buy the movie or go to the theatre unless they found a copy of it they could download, then they will be less likely to pay for it.

3- People who will go buy and see movies very often regardless if they have access to the downloads or are even offered free copies of them from their friends.

MPAA has nothing to worry about category 1, since they shouldn't expect any profit from them anyway. I am in that category. Same for software. Sure, I use Photoshop, but I could never afford to pay for it, even if I had the money I wouldn't buy it.

Some people fall in category 3. My brother, a film enthusiast is in that category. He will go buy the DVD to have it in his collection. This is the category what MPAA also doesn't have to worry about.

Now category 2 is what they raise all the fuss about. They represent the expected loss from piracy, and I don't think this category is that large compared to the other two categories.

Of course, this is an oversimplification, but it gives a general idea. Over time individuals will move between categories and change their behavior.

So I agree it is not theft, but because these studios expect such and such ammount from the movie and if they don't get it they say the pirates came and 'stole' it from them. If a director or producer did a lousy job and movie is a flop - blame the pirates. If people are sick of the same boring stuff and don't want to pay for it - blame the pirates. In other words they are an easy scape-goat. And they will get the law (makers/enforcers) to be on their side since they have all the money.

Re:Wow - that was fast!

[metamatic]

Sure, I use Photoshop, but I could never afford to pay for it, even if I had the money I wouldn't buy it.

If you're a pro graphic designer doing 4-color separations, you can afford Photoshop.

If you're not a pro graphic designer, you only need the features in Photoshop Elements--and that's $99, so you can afford it.

Sure, you'll probably carry on pirating it because you don't care, but I get fed up with people using the price of Photoshop pro version as some sort of bogus justification for not buying the consumer version.

Re:Wow - that was fast!

[Chibi]

1- People who will never buy the movie or go see it. These people can download all they want (or not) they will simply not pay the money for it.

[snip]

MPAA has nothing to worry about category 1, since they shouldn't expect any profit from them anyway. I am in that category. Same for software. Sure, I use Photoshop, but I could never afford to pay for it, even if I had the money I wouldn't buy it.

Actually, the MPAA does have something to worry about with group 1. Group 1 can influence other groups, and people can slowly shift into group 1 (as you brought up as a possibility), no longer paying for anything. As p2p has risen, more and more people have gone the route of no longer buying anything, just because it's an option to them, now. Granted, there are definitely people who buy more stuff since p2p, but you cannot deny that there are those who just consume and consume and consume (all without paying).

You're correct in that the MPAA and RIAA like to blame all of their problems on piracy, but you can't deny that it is an issue for them. And I think it's unrealistic for anyone to try to figure out how many people are in the respective groups. I'd guess that most people's judgment is based on their own personal experiences and their circles of friends.

Anyway, one final thing. Everyone likes to argue that downloading stuff from p2p isn't theft, because the original still exists. Lots of folks then rationalize that since it's not theft (by their definition), it's not bad. But what about all of these software licenses that people on Slashdot are so high and mighty about? If someone grabbed some open source code, didn't bother to follow the license instructions, told the original writers to fuck off, and argued that they (the original writers) were no worse off, Slashdotters would be screaming bloody murder. And this looks like a similar situation to me. I just wish that the people who argued it wasn't theft would admit that there is still some morality issue tied into what they are doing. And, yes, I have more respect for someone that freely admits they are doing something that some people would deem morally questionable, but they'll do it anyway. At least you are not in denial.

Re:Wow - that was fast!

[l4m3z0r]

Great. Now you should realize that what websters says has little bearing on whats enumerated in law. And honestly thats what matters not your definition, not mine and not websters(however websters may be close(r)). The lawful wording of theft is probably signifigantly different, enough so that talking about dictionary definitions because a moot point.

Re:Wow - that was fast!

[Lord_Dweomer]

The thing is that while legally, its a black and white issue, however the situation is more complex than that with Photoshop. You see, Adobe owes its popularity to the fact that not only is it incredibly good software, but that it is also the number one most pirated piece of software on the net.

How does that make them money? Well, they get the REAL dough from corporate licenses, and guess what software all these graphic designers make their companies buy when they need to do work?

So I have a hard time believing Adobe is doing anything BUT profiting from the pirating.

Re:Wow - that was fast!

[drgonzo59]

Of course we all know only the pro graphic designers would ever do 4-color separations. In fact they have to pass the 4-color separation test before they get the pro status. And I always thought K in CMYK stood "Kool Blue."

...And I get fed up with people telling what I can and cannot afford.

Re:Wow - that was fast!

[xRelisH]

Quite wrong.

There are a lot of features that a hobbyist needs from Photoshop. I was trying to help a friend earlier with some work, she was using Elements. It was very frustrating to work with it, there is no image->canvas size, you have to use a dainty crop tool, and the ability to manipulate layers is very limited.

And yet another example, Maya. Even the educational version of Maya is too expensive, it's around $498.95 (from studioca) for Maya Unlimited. Maya PLE has lots of limits, not to mention the very, very annoying ( and ugly ) watermarks ( that are mostly opaque ) in the view panels and render view. It really ruins the satisfaction of looking at your work when you have several ugly watermarks all over the render. Not to mention that you cannot export to Maya Binary or Maya Ascii, and I see no point for this since any large graphics studios would be violating the ToS by modelling in PLE and rendering in a commercial version anyway . So for the rest of us, if you are able to afford a copy of Maya after graduation and getting a job, you can't import your old work.

Maybe if Alias will drop the price down to $150 and $200 Canadian, more students like me who like to do this as a hobby will buy it.

Re:Wow - that was fast!

[d34thm0nk3y]

Great. Now you should realize that what websters says has little bearing on whats enumerated in law. And honestly thats what matters not your definition, not mine and not websters(however websters may be close(r)). The lawful wording of theft is probably signifigantly different, enough so that talking about dictionary definitions because a moot point.

Well, let me know when people start being charged with theft instead of copyright infringement. Then maybe you will have a point.

Re:Wow - that was fast!

[slumpy]

I also like shouting..."Wait, shouldn't they be showing this to people who AREN'T at the theatre?" I never understood that.

Re:Wow - that was fast!

[Anonymous Coward]

Movie houses are social experiences. However, lots of people like you see them more as a cheap way to rent a big screen. I love hearing little comments like that (during the trailers, at least) and having groups clap or scream or laugh at appropriate parts of the picture. To me that's part of the movie-going experience. It's a public thing, not a private thing; remember that.

Re:Wow - that was fast!

[Yartrebo]

What about category 4:

People who used to go to the cinema a lot and buy a lot of VHS tapes, but now don't because of the MPAA and RIAA.

The thought of licensing a DVD just carries too much guilt for me to be possibly capable of enjoying the movie, and considering that I would want to watch something to have fun, I'll just do without.

So both my standard of living is reduced, and the media industries get less money from me. Personally, I would be overjoyed if the entire film industry was decimated, because then that would leave the field open for new companies, which perhaps wouldn't trigger such hostility in me.

Re:Wow - that was fast!

[gilgongo]

> I've always been under the impression that the
> typical person who makes money off of IP has a
> rather modest income.

And why do you think that is?

Boing Boing had a link the other day to a German survey of musician's earnings showing that in 1994, PRS income distribution of its 15,500 writer members showed that only 204 made more than US$38,000 that year. Ten (10) made over US$187,000.

Now, I'd guess that there were more than a couple of hundred music executives, middle management and other staff in the German music publishing industry that made over US$38,000 that year. And they made their money from the music that those people wrote.

Whether or not you think that's fair, moral or anything else, it's an interesting fact, don't you think? I'd say that on those figures, any assertion that copyright exists to protect the earnings of artists is at best inaccurate, and at worst a big fucking lie.

QUIT LYING!

[Emrikol]

It's copyright infringement, not theft for fuck's sake!
Quit trying to make people confuse them.
That's like saying amputation is "partial murder".
Hmm, I take that back...I don't want to give them any more ideas!

Re:QUIT LYING!

[Frymaster]

Copyright infringement is a form of theft since the rightful owners of the copyrighted material aren't being compensated.

well, that's a pretty broad definition.

is someone parks in my driveway without giving me five bucks, is that theft? no. it's trespass which is a totally different crime, even though it meets your definition of theft.

they key component of theft is that the owner is denied the use of the property. if someone boosts my car i am denied the use of it. that's theft. if someone violates copyright, the original holders still have property.

bottom line: loss of alleged, potential, future revenue is not theft of a tangible, existing asset. copyright infringement is not theft.

Re:QUIT LYING!

[Golias]

is someone parks in my driveway without giving me five bucks, is that theft? no.

Not normally, but if you have a sign in your driveway that says "Parking: $5," then it is.

Re:QUIT LYING!

[SirSnapperHead]

Gosh, where is your IANAL disclaimer! Copyright infringement is not 'a form of theft', it is copyright infringement. Theft involves stealing something so that you have deprived the owner of that 'something', whether it is a bike, a car, a camera etc. When you infringe the copyright of an artist by duplicating their work you have not materially deprived them of that piece of work. They still have it, they can still sell it to others, but they MAY not have gotten a sale from you that they should have. They ARE NOT losing money, they may have just not gained one sale for every copy that is made. There is a difference. Your post is far too fishy to be insightful.

Re:QUIT LYING!

[Atzanteol]

Oh for crisakes. Do I have to read this shit anymore?

From http://www.lectlaw.com/def2/s074.htm:

STEAL - the wrongful or willful taking of money or property belonging to someone else with intent to deprive the owner of its use or benefit either temporarily or permanently. No particular type of movement or carrying away is required.

I believe copyright infringment falls under the "taking of money" portion since you are, in effect, depriving the copyright holder of legitimate sales (money).

The horse has been dead for some time. You can stop hitting it now.

Re:QUIT LYING!

[nbvb]

Could you please do me a favor? Could y ou please tell your grandparents 'thank you' for being good people?

You know, the-lowest-price isn't always the answer. Doing research, well, that's fine. But not at someone's expense, and in your example, that's the guy trying to make a living by selling cars.

I believe in paying for honest work. If people do right by me, then I'll do right by them.

It's not a religious thing, it's not a moral thing, it's just The Right Thing To Do.

Again, thank your grandparents for being decent folk, and for raising their family that way as well.

Re:QUIT LYING!

[ScentCone]

It's copyright infringement, not theft for fuck's sake!
Quit trying to make people confuse them. That's like saying amputation is "partial murder".

Am I the only one noticing that the loudest, whiniest people addressing this topic are those that seem to have some personal, vested interest in preserving their ability to avoid paying for their entertainment? Actually, they can have all the free entertainment they want, as long as the entertainer is willing to do it for free. But why bitch about the MPAA? They're powerless without the entertainers that pay them to do what they do. What you're really complaining about are the artists, writers, producers, studios, and other entities that choose to be a part of the MPAA and RIAA universes.

The material that people pirate (presumably because they respect the creators' work enough to want to listen to it or watch it), is created by people who have chosen to use an established entity to help preserve their property rights and get them a paycheck. So, you like the artist, but not the artist's chosen profession or way of making a living?

Consuming an artist's work without paying what they ask for it is just like any other theft of services. Whether or not it's copyright law that has to be used to stop it, how can so many people imply that "because it's not theft" it's somehow OK? Hopping in someone else's cab without paying, just because it's going your way... that's OK? I mean, the cab isn't stolen, so why not? And, that private shuttle bus... it's driving around and around anyway, so why pay for it? Or someone spends their lifetime building botanical gardens, knowing that people will pay to experience them... but they're just sitting there, and all you're doing if you don't pay the gardener's price is using up some photons that no one else was using anyway...

I don't give a damn which law, regulation, or statute specifically addresses this issue, or by which means the artist (and their representatives) tackle the continuing abuse of the material... anyone consuming that work without paying what the artists ask is making slaves of those artists.

That's like saying amputation is "partial murder"

So, not entirely killing someone is OK if only murderers otherwise get punished? And, making only part-time slaves out of people is OK?

Re:QUIT LYING!

[ScentCone]

So, anything that I want, but can't afford, but can still somehow get my hands on, is mine to claim?

OK: I want to use your long distance account. I wouldn't have made calls otherwise, but since I can guess your PIN, and I'm not actually taking your phone away from you, I think it's OK. And since YOU think it's OK, please provide that info, OK? No? Hmmm... so if I found a web site that DID have that info, that would be... what... OK with you, then? I'm not rich, so I should be able to have it, right? Oh, wait, you'd have to foot the bill.

Just like artists and studios have to foot the bill to create what they create, and they do it with the expectation of being able to make a living off of how people consume their work. If that expectation was false, no one would be able to raise the money it takes to pay all of the people that are involved in producing recordings, films, and so on. If your thinking is correct, than what... only a few rich people would cough up $39 for a good DVD that costs millions to produce, and all of the rest of us should just take it if we want it?

Re:QUIT LYING!

[EulerX07]

Main Entry: theft
Function: noun
Etymology: Old English thiefth
: LARCENY; broadly : a criminal taking of the property or services of another without consent

You have to know what the words of the definitions you use mean too. The filesharers do not "take", they "copy". The main difference being that the original still exists for the use of the person that had it. It's COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT, because you COPIED something that was COPYRIGHTED without having the RIGHT to do it. If I break into a movie studio, take the reels and then leave with them, that is THEFT.

If I shoplift a DVD out of bestbuy, that is also theft, it is no longer there for them to sell. If I rent a DVD from blockbuster, rip it and then take it back, it is a COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT, because blockbuster got their DVD back but I made an unlawful copy, infrining on the copyrights.

Why must some people be so god damn righteous...

Re:QUIT LYING!

[Anonym1ty]

is someone parks in my driveway without giving me five bucks, is that theft? no. it's trespass which is a totally different crime, even though it meets your definition of theft.

No. It's not theft... It's Trespassing.

Just as copying music, videos, etc isn't theft, it's copyright infringement

Just because it isn't theft doesn't mean its not wrong or bad. It's the way the music industry and the movie industry are trying to equate them to be the same level of wrong. In which case *maybe* they are right, however my whole problem with this whole thing is that:

If you can't make your case calling an apple an apple, what makes you think calling it an orange is going to help?

True, they are both fruit, but they aren't the same thing. In the end, what the public's perception is of a particular ting is what really counts. Despite all the lobbying, in the end the people are the ones who vote and no amount of money from anyone is going to change that.

The *AA had better watch out. They are continually biting the hand that feeds them and regular everyday people are starting to notice. Even after all of this... everything that has happened in the last 5 years they refuse to change the way the operate. Sure many people will suffer at the legal hands of these media giants in the mean time, but in the end they will have to evolve.

I'm already starting to download media produced by everyday people who release it on the internet free for the taking. It's only a matter of time before the entire landscape changes and MOST content is produced by "the little guy" and the *AAs fade into obscurity.

"Give the people what they want!" This is the cry of a free market. You do not have to give it away for free, but it should be available at a fare and honest price. Currently thereis nothing free and honest about the media industry and the people just don't give a damn about them losing profits over copyright infrengement.

Re:QUIT LYING!

[skarmor]

Poverty is not an excuse for violating the MPAA/RIAA's copyright. I mean, come on, you obviously can afford to own a computer and pay for an internet connection. So you have some disposable income which you could use to buy a DVD player and some DVDs if you wanted.

Why can't you just admit that you can afford to pay for movies but you don't want to because it is easier and cheaper to download them for free?

There's no need for the BS "I wanted to try it out" or "I wouldn't have paid for it anyway" excuses.

Re:QUIT LYING!

[Cecil]

is created by people who have chosen to use an established entity to help preserve their property rights and get them a paycheck.

Chosen is a strong word to use. Are you a musician? Do you know any musicians? Signing with the RIAA or MPAA is not a 'choice' in the way you're probably thinking of it. They have the entire industry by the nuts. They have distribution and radio/television advertising tied up tighter than you can possibly imagine. Their grip on clubs and tours gets tighter every day. Even with the advent of the Internet, there is still no way around them. Anything that challenges them gets sued (whether the complaint is legitimate or not), then gets bought at a bargain basement price, and finally is euthanized or utterly declawed (Select examples: mp3.com, Napster, and now LokiTorrent)

The only 'choice' in signing with the RIAA or MPAA is whether you'd like to make being an artist your full-time job, or whether you'd like to continue it as a hobby while you work at the gas station. For one, you sign with the *AA, for the other you continue being an indy. If you think it isn't really THAT bad, you're wrong. Even rich, successful, well-known artists have tried to go against the tide of the RIAA, and ended up as just so much wreckage shattered on the rocks. The RIAA is a 500 ton gorilla with a massive inferiority complex.

anyone consuming that work without paying what the artists ask is making slaves of those artists.

The RIAA is making slaves out of artists, not the "Pirates". The RIAA was making slaves out of artists long before the first bootleg tape was ever made. Please understand, Pirates (capital P) and the RIAA are at war, and it's not about getting music without paying for it. At its core it mirrors the "free software" movement in many ways. It's about artist's rights and the democratization of the music industry. This doesn't mean I agree with the tactics being used, (by either side) but this whole thing it goes much deeper than mere "stealing music is bad, mmkay?" that's just the surface of the conflict. There are clearly vendettas on both sides. Open source vs. closed source is a cold war/arms race right now, but in contrast the Pirates vs. RIAA is an all-out nuclear war.

And, making only part-time slaves out of people is OK?

Yes, yes it is. Go to any software development company for all your part-time slavery needs. Except EA, they specialize in full-time slavery.

Re:QUIT LYING!

[CommieOverlord]

Wow... I don't in any way consider shopping around and talking to salespeople unethical.

Talking to salesperson at a specialty TV store to get information and recommendation and then buying the same TV at Walmart because it's cheaper since they don't employ qualified salespeople, THAT I'll agree is kind of cheap.

But you car dealership example? Wow! If I'm spending $20K-$30K on something I'm going to make sure I get the one I want. I'm not going buy one from the first dealership I go to! That's not being 'ethical', that's being stupid. How do I know which car fits my needs better? The only way I know is to inspect them and test drive them.

When I go to rent a new apartment I need to make sure that the apartment fits my needs. Am I wasting the rental agent's time because the apartment I view is inappropriate and I go on the the next one?

Re:QUIT LYING!

[Grishnakh]

Are you suggesting that the movie someone downloads and watchs on their computer is the same quality experience as attending a movie with a huge screen and nice surround sound? It's not the same, and doesn't have the same value.

I agree. Watching a movie on my computer, or better yet a DVD in the living room, is a far more enjoyable experience.

Here's why:
1) I don't have to get there a half-hour early, or more, to get a halfway-decent seat where I'm not craning my neck or having to use binoculars.

2) I don't have to sit through 30 minutes of commercials (didn't I pay to watch this movie?) and trailers.

3) I don't have to put up with stupid, rude teenagers.

4) I don't have to worry about some jerk with a big head sitting in front of me.

5) I don't have to listen to people's cellphones ringing during the movie, or put up with people trying to squeeze past me while the movie is playing.

6) I can get any drinks and food I want from my kitchen, and it's far cheaper than the ridiculous prices they charge at the movie concessions.

7) I can pause the movie and take a piss/sh*t.

8) I can pause the movie and talk to my companion(s) about it if I didn't hear something.

9) I can replay a scene I want to see again, and zoom in.

10) I don't have to worry about finding a parking space that isn't a 30 minute walk from the theater. I also don't have to worry about getting hit by a car in the overcrowded parking lot.

11) I can lie down on the couch with my girlfriend and the cats.

I haven't been to the theater in ages, and I don't miss it a bit.

Re:QUIT LYING!

[Anonymous Coward]

Consuming an artist's work without paying what they ask for it is just like any other theft of services.

I call shenanigans.

I think you completely missed the point. Copyright infringement is exactly not like any kind of "theft" in that the victim has no less of the commodity afterwards than they did before. As such, it is perfectly reasonable to hold a different morality with respect to copyright than one holds with respect to actual physical goods.

All of your examples equate actual physical use of a piece of physical property with use of a copyrighted work. This is not reasonable. Different phyics govern physical and informational goods. If I hop in someone else's cab, then the cab has to accelerate a little bit harder burning more fuel, and the cab can carry one fewer people. This is not equivalent to making unauthorized use of someone's copyrighted work.

I'm not even arguing that copyright protections are a bad idea. All I'm saying is that you equating copyright violation with theft of physical goods and services is bullshit. The law does not treat the two actions as identical or even particularly similar, and I see no good reason to think of them that way.

Death by Litigation

[slusich]

Regardless of the legality of the site, it is down now simply because they didn't have the money to fight a lawsuit. This is a dangerous trend which has been going on for far too long.

Re:Death by Litigation

[SlayerofGods]

Of course it's hard for the guilty to fight back... it's always been like that.

Re:Death by Litigation

[gowen]

it is down now simply because they didn't have the money to fight a lawsuit.

Bull. The EFF, and various other civil rights groups -- as well as pro bono lawyers -- have come to the aid of those people wrongfully accused. DVD Jon springs to mind. The difference is, DVD Jon actually had a case. No-one is helping Loki Torrent because everyone knows they did exactly what they're accused of, and if the MPAA choose to continue litigation not even Johnny Cochrane could prevent the Loki boys getting absolutely crucified at trial.

Re:Death by Litigation

[LurkerXXX]

What else did anyone ever expect?

So you are dealing with someone who has no scruples about dealing out pirated works of other peoples copywrited material, and giving them no compensation in return...

Now you are surprised when he once again shows a lack of personal ethics and decides to sell out the people he was dealing the pirated material to?

Yeah, there's a shocker.

Lesson learned: There is no honor among thieves.

Hmmm.. That's funny . . .

[InsideTheAsylum]

What are they going to do with all the money that was donated? I belive that someone was speculating that this is EXACTLY what was going to happen. 1) Do something illegal 2) Get sued 3) ....* 4) Profit! * Make a plea to the community and then run away anyways.

I can see the site being shut down

[Anonymous Coward]

...by a court order or something, but how can the MPAA take it over and put their own blurb on it short of an actual court decision in their favor?

Why don't they provide links?

[Anonymous Coward]

Why don't they provide links to these supposed sites that provide legal downloads of movies? Seems like they're missing an easy opportunity here.

Ironic...

[boris_the_hacker]

... is it just me, or does anyone else find it ironic asking people who pirate films, music and other such downloads for money ?

And the donated money will go...

[rinkjustice]

a) back to the people who donated
b) be channeled to a fund for tsunami victims in Asia
c) get LokiTorrent owner that bitchin new plasma tv at Futureshop

Re:And the donated money will go...

[bmongar]

d) be used to pay the settlement with the MPAA

This is why you need to "network"

[Dancin_Santa]

They always tell you, when you are jumping into the job search fray, to Network, Network, Network. For the flip among us, it is taken to mean that one needs to get greasy and slimy and be generally fake with a bunch of people. These are typically network engineers, which is pretty ironic.

But the same holds true here. You need to be able to get onto networks that are private and trustworthy. The last thing anyone needs is to join a torrent network and have the RIAA or MPAA come in and seize personal hardware. You want to find the torrents that use GUIDs for URIs. You want to find the torrents that are so underground that only the people who are on it know of it. The way to do that is to Network Network Network.

Posting at Slashdot is one good way of Networking. Getting to know people, learning the habits of some posters, and generally being attentive and friendly and discrete is the way to become trustworthy yourself. Once you are seen as someone who can be trusted, you can then approach people about joining their underground torrents.

Not american.

[LiquidCoooled]

Hold on, the MPAA can tell me what to do when I'm not even American?

I know what they are trying to do is proper, and cutting the supply off at the central source is tonnes better than the underhanded suing kids and grannies, but I'm not even American.

We need copyright to protect Linux and Open Source in general, but surely only where laws are in place?

side note, can American filesharers use proxies in remote countries to protect themselves from **AA lawsuits?

Repulsive...

[LakeSolon]

This website has been permanently shut down by court order because it facilitates the illegal downloading of copyrighted motion pictures. The illegal downloading of motion pictures robs thousands of honest, hard-working people of their livelihood, and stifles creativity. Illegally downloading movies from sites such as these without proper authorization violates the law, is theft, and is not anonymous. Stealing movies leaves a trail. The only way not to get caught is to stop.

Am I the only one who is absolutely repulsed by that message? A friend just said, after reading it, "wow... how come I feel that i was just glared at by the SS?". This kind of brainwashing is the same bullshit that got Bush re-elected. Our society requires an informed populace to function properly. All the powers that be are manipulating public perception to suite their own needs and it really, really, needs to stop.

~Lake

Re:Repulsive...

[Joey7F]

A friend just said, after reading it, "wow... how come I feel that i was just glared at by the SS?"

I am guessing your friend feels like that because he is an idiot. No I am serious, this is not flamebait, why not see what the SS did

The MPAA is full of retards, but the SS were truly sadistic, evil men and as such comparisons should be used with great deliberance... not as an off the cuff remark.

--Joey

Comin' a rain...

[Doc Ruby]

But of course they can hide, as MPAA actions force torrent swarms to decentralize and truly anonymize. To the MPAA: you can sue, but you can't catch!

Before we over react

[gowen]

This website has been permanently shut down by court order because it facilitates the illegal downloading of copyrighted motion pictures.

Let's face it. Every single word of that is true. Loki didn't quit because they ran out of money, they quit because they were going to lose, and they knew it.

They knew copyrighted material was being downloaded illegally, and they were more than happy to help facilitate that -- hell, that was pretty much the raison d'etre of their site.

Google News

[MrDoh!]

Nice, lots of sites carrying the news and a link to Google news with the title put in. For a news sites, isn't it a bit too easy to just do this? I read /. to have a bit more of an insight into whats going on, and having links to actual sites carrying the news isn't expecting too much I think. If I wanted to see EVERYTHING related to the news, I'd be quiet capable of doing the search myself. What next, every news item with a link to GNews for more info? If that continues too much, I may as well set my home-page to;
http://news.google.com/news?q=news%20for%20ne rds
myself and never have to worry abour checking /.
. Bit too lazy guys, at least do a teeny weeny bit of effort, eh?

Re:Whew...

[ElGuapoGolf]

That's good for you and all, but I think there's a larger point that needs to be made...

What, really, is the difference between downloading a TV show you missed of LokiTorrent and recording it with your VCR? I've done it a few times, I'm guilty. Did I really hurt anyone? My VCR skips commercials (mostly), so that can't be an argument. It's not like the stuff I'm downloading is even available for me to purchase (or in some cases, to even see again)... but I suppose to the MPAA, I'm still some sort of terrorist.

Parent is flamebait and trollish. Mod down.

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, he's certainly a jerk for not wanting to be dragged through excessive litigation, bankrupted by lawyer fees, and probably having to pay a settlement anyway. He's a jerk for not wanting to be subject to more gestapo tactics from the MPAA. Yeah, okay.

And I suppose all those people who settle out of court against the RIAA are jerks for paying a few thousand dollars instead of risking a multi-million dollar settlement.

Ordinary people don't have the money to fight these things. It doesn't make them jerks.

You are a troll and need to get some sense of reality.

Re:Parent is flamebait and trollish. Mod down.

[Anonymous Coward]

Do you have any idea how expensive legal fees are? It doesn't say anything about what he's doing with the money. It's entirely possible he intends to pay people back their donations. If he chose not to, he could possibly be sued. And $40,000 just isn't enough to wage a court battle against the MPAA's lawyers.

As far as turning the server logs over, it's not like he volunteered to do so. That was ordered by the court.

If he chooses to pay people back their donations, will you still say he's a jerk?

Re:Parent is flamebait and trollish. Mod down.

[Blackknight]

Sorry, but the MPAA/RIAA is right. You don't have the right to distribute movies to whoever you want.

I'm not sorry to see this site go, we need to concentrate more on having LEGAL torrent sites.

Re:Parent is flamebait and trollish. Mod down.

[DenDave]

He ain't a jerk, he's an idiot. You KNOW that it's not allowed, regardless of your opinion, and you continue to do it? C'mon, grow up! It's not a speeding ticket or a parking fine, it's copyright violation.

I am not saying I agree with the current state of the law but it IS the law. Don't F8&^k with it unless you are prepared for the consequences. I hate the MPAA as much as you do. I don't watch hollywood flicks, I watch alternative and european films. Of course without the artistic circuit having a theatre in most dodgy american towns I understand that many of you don't have choice of content. That sucks.

There is no excuse to have a site up with something that breaks a law that many are willing to enforce, doing so is asking for trouble, crying about it later is simply lame. Using the site and then moaning about it's dissapearence is almost as lame. If you don;t like the law, go into politics, write a congressman/woman.. that is the legal way to go about it.

Re:Parent is flamebait and trollish. Mod down.

[LaPistola]

I kinda agree with that.

I am sad to see the site go.. but I would not be if I could pay a fee to download my TV shows and some movies via torrent. The only reason I use the sites is cause the sites give me what I want... I will pay for it!!

WHEN WILL THE MPAA/RIAA GET IT?

I won't rant here.. I am gonna go rant on my blogg...

Re:Parent is flamebait and trollish. Mod down.

[jargoone]

Good god, when will people stop with the fucking riduculous analogies. If you give a DVD to a friend, you don't have it anymore. And obviously, this has nothing to do with multiple people, in the same physical location, watching the same copy. This is about making perfect, or pretty damn good, copies, and distributing them very easily in mass quantities.

I'm not saying I'm completely against downloading stuff from torrent sites -- I do it sometimes, too. But it is trademark infringement, and it is currently against the law. Just stop with the stupid comments, okay? They only make "us" look worse.

Re:Parent is flamebait and trollish. Mod down.

[LakeSolon]

The popularity of sites like Lokitorrent are an expression of the will of the people. The fact that something illegal (but not clearly immoral) is so popular is a demonstration of how disconnected our political/legislative system is from the will of the people.

~Lake

Re:Parent is flamebait and trollish. Mod down.

[Jane_Dozey]

Yes, it was distributing copyrighted content without the permission of the copyright holders, but it was also useful for finding perfectly legel content. I'm sorry to see it go, I'm just not sorry to see copyrighted content taken down.

"I'm not sorry to see this site go, we need to concentrate more on having LEGAL torrent sites."

The MPAA needs to concentrate on setting these up themselves. People want the content and will most probably pay (a reduced) fee to download it. If the MPAA set up an iTunes type service they'd probably make a lot of money without p***ing everybody off. Their current behaviour makes me want to go download a mass of stuff just to spite them.

Re:Parent is flamebait and trollish. Mod down.

[XemonerdX]

And if your logic is sound, we shouldn't be able to use a browser anymore since it allows access to illegal content.

Re:Parent is flamebait and trollish. Mod down.

[OblvnDrgn]

Actually, the answer to your questions is a pretty much universal no. The only tricky one is whether it is legal or not to make one copy for yourself. And having that one copy and giving the original to your friend, let alone anyone else, is illegal. The boundaries themselves aren't all that vague, actually, you bought a license to a particular format and can't keep it while giving a copy to anyone else. The backup copy for personal use is the only sticking point, but most likely you can make as many copies as you want as long as no one else besides you sees them.

I will absolutely agree with you that the penalty for the crime is unreasonably harsh, but I don't think it's rather obvious what you are and aren't allowed to do for the most part.

Re:Parent is flamebait and trollish. Mod down.

[gowen]

Yeah, but when the will of the people is "We want something for nothing", what the hell do you want the legislators to do about it?

Re:Parent is flamebait and trollish. Mod down.

[iminplaya]

If you don;t like the law, go into politics, write a congressman/woman.. that is the legal way to go about it.

It doesn't work that way. It's more like, If you don't like the law, incorporate, become a billionaire, "donate" to a congressman/woman's party.. that is the (semi)legal way to go about it. This is what actually produces results. On another note, if you're going to break the law, don't be so damn blatant about it. Centralized servers are so dumb. A true P2P system is just that, no middlemen. I'm pretty sure that they're catching at best about 10% of the file sharers. There's no way they're going to find the real P2P'ers, unless they stumble upon it, or somebody snitches. Kind of like the percentages you see in prohibition violations. The message that comes all the way down from the very top of the heap(your "pillars" of society) is not "Don't break the law."(what they say). It's "Don't get caught."(what they do). This hypocrisy will cause a complete breakdown.

Re:Parent is flamebait and trollish. Mod down.

[Seehund]

The popularity of sites like Lokitorrent are an expression of the will of the people.

LOL!

Mods, you're confusing "funny" with "insightful".

Really, the popularity of free stuff is an expression of the will of people to get stuff for free.

A will that our species has had inherent for as long as we have existed.

The fact that something illegal (but not clearly immoral) is so popular is a demonstration of how disconnected our political/legislative system is from the will of the people.

The political and legislative systems of whatever place one lives in may very well be disconnected from "the will of the people", but COME ON!

If I set up a table on the street with a bunch of laptop computers and put up a sign saying "free laptops", then my table will be very popular. It's free stuff. Some people might hesitate, just as they do with regards to downloading movies. I'm not going to draw any ridiculous and pretentious conclusions about "the will of the people" against the current legislation against theft or receiving stolen goods.

(Ob. anti-knee-jerk disclaimer: Yes, I know copyright infringement is not the same as theft, and I don't try to equal the two. That was not the point of my example.)

Re:Parent is flamebait and trollish. Mod down.

[theVP]

What???? If you think for one second that abandoning a practice, regardless of how lawful or unlawful it might be, will do anything toward convincing people that you are in the right, you're going nowhere with this system. What you are implying is that we should lay down, die, and then after we've shaken hands with the enemy, attempt to fight them in legality. Why? Once all that has transpired, who will you call upon for support? It won't be the millions of P2P users, because there won't be any. Actions speak louder than words. Legality /= Morality

At the end of your post, you mention that writing our congressmen/women is the "legal way to go about it". That may be true, but what's wrong with doing that AND showing your true colors? I know that's the LEGAL way of doing it, but I'd much rather have companies like the MPAA give a shit what I think. Seems to me that if they pay more attention to my file-sharing than my comments and emails that I send them on a weekly basis, then I suppose that might be the best way to reach them, huh? I mean, I agree with you on one front, that people need to stop bitching. But I think they need to stop bitching and get back to downloading like hell, instead of laying down and then bitching about the P2P system and the MPAA. I personally have more faith in the voice of a trillion downloads at once of "Meet the Fockers" after Lokitorrent has gone down, than a million emails to congress about a bunch of geeks who want shit for free.

Minor correction to the story:

[Golias]

LokiTorrent, a popular torrent bootlegger site, has officially been shutdown.

Copyright infringement is a type of theft.

When you take something without securing permission to take it, even if you are just taking a copy of intellectual property, that is theft.

If you ask me to sign a petition to revise copyright law to be more favorable to consumers, I'll gladly sign it. If somebody rus for office saying he wants to make copyright more fair, I'll listen to his ideas. ... But what I won't do is support data piracy. I'm not at all sad to hear that LokiTorrent is gone. They were ripping people off, and those people were perfectly within their rights to unleash the lawyers.

Re:Minor correction to the story:

[swv3752]

Theft is taking physical property.

Copyright infringement is copying so called "intellectual property" without permission.

Two different things. Hammurabi would understand theft. He wouldn't recognize copyright infringement. Copyright is a relatively modern invention. It is only recently that Copyright violations were criminal instead of civil matters. The majority of Copyright violation cases are still civil matter.

Copyright infringement can be considered a type of denial of compensation. It can also be considered a type of civil disobedience.

If you favor revising copyright then you need to start recognizing the difference between physical property law and copyright law.

Re:Minor correction to the story:

[EllisDees]

>When you take something and it is not yours, it is theft.

And I'll use even smaller words:

Nothing was taken.

>The fact that the owner still has something...

Means that nothing is gone.

Re:Minor correction to the story:

[sarlen]

The stars who make $xxMillion per movie? The crew who was paid before the movie was released to theaters? Or the already rich management bastards at the movie company?

What justifies the belief that because someone makes a lot of money they eventually reach a point where you (your defintion) consider them too wealthy, and so whatever they've worked hard on should become free?

Re:Minor correction to the story:

[qeveren]

Nothing was taken.

Nothing == NO THING

Read the words that are on the screen in front of your face. :)

Under the legal definitions, they are absolutely NOT the same thing. From a semantic point of view, they are also absolutely not the same thing.

Theft is taking something away from someone else without permission, depriving them of the use of it. They no longer have it.

Copyright violation is copying a protected work without permission. The original owner is not deprived of the use of said work, therefor, it is not theft.

If I had some magical device that allowed me to clone any physical object, and I used it to make a duplicate of your car for myself, have I stolen your car? oO

Re:Minor correction to the story:

[Anonymous Coward]

The crew who was paid before the movie was released to theaters?

Yeah, the same crew who will find it harder and harder to find new work as it becomes less and less profitable to make movies.

You just don't see the big picture.

Re:Minor correction to the story:

[Bloomy]

Copyright infringement is a type of theft.

The US Supreme Court came to a different conclusion in Dowling vs. United States.

From the decision :

Since the statutorily defined property rights of a copyright holder have a character distinct from the possessory interest of the owner of simple "goods, wares, [or] merchandise," interference with copyright does not easily equate with theft, conversion, or fraud. The infringer of a copyright does not assume physical control over the copyright nor wholly deprive its owner of its use. Infringement implicates a more complex set of property interests than does run-of-the-mill theft, conversion, or fraud.

You're wrong.

[ShallowThroat]

When you take something from someone else, and they no longer have it, that's stealing.

When you go over to someones house (after they invite you in, of course) examine an object of theirs, and go home and make your own... That's copyright infringement. Assuming, of course, that object was in fact under copyright and not public domain or anything.

Quit buying into their shit.

Re:You're wrong.

[arkanes]

If you buy a Coke instead of a Pepsi, you just deprived Pepsi of a sale. That doesn't make it theft. Loss of a sale, for whatever reason, isn't theft. That's aside from the usual (often self-serving) arguments that very few sales are actually lost to P2P (although I'm certain the number is greater than zero).

Many people do use theft in this way, ie "That store down the street is stealing my customers". It's a common, emotional way of reacting when you feel like you're owed something. It's also wrong, because nobody owes you anything, least of all thier money or patronage.

Re:You're wrong.

[stinerman]

If I hear the song on the radio and then replay it over and over again in my head, is that stealing? I've never bought a lot of songs I've heard on the radio, but I can recall them note for note. Am I a thief?

Re:You're wrong.

[JofCoRe]

However when a movie distributer says "LokiTorrent users are stealing our intellectual property," they are exactly correct, because the do, in fact, own the property in question.

No, actually they are not correct. LokiTorrent users aren't stealing their intellectual property, they are making unauthorized copies of their intellectual property. Nothing is taken from the original owner. Nothing is given in compensation either, but that doesn't mean that their compensation has been "stolen", since they didn't have the compensation in the first place!

The copyright owner has just that: The right to copy. Therefore, if you aren't the copyright owner, and you don't have the copyright owner's permission, you are violating their copyright by making copies when you download, but not stealing...

Don't buy into the FUD.

legal wheel keeps on turning

[spyrochaete]

Does it really help a torrent or ED2k site if you send money to help with legal fees? I would think this would only complicate the defense - having to prove that the money was only used for the benefit of the website.

It looks like the P2P world is going to go through a bit of a shuffle until it can find the "sweet spot" country that will not prosecute, just like what happened with online bookies and casinos.

This story is getting pretty tired. Pirates figure out a smart way to distribute media, old fashioned companies too lazy to change their business model start suing the pants off of everybody, nothing changes in the long run, and in the end the company adopts the new methodologies or dies.

How many times must history repeat itself before companies learn to listen to their consumers? They know what they want better than any marketing department.

Oh yeah, and screw the proprietor of Lokitorrent for being a spineless jellyfish. He did a real disservice to his visitors by ratting them out. There needs to be a P2P code of conduct with a corresponding logo on list sites to tell users that their privacy will be protected if the site comes under legal fire.

Re:legal wheel keeps on turning

[VidEdit]

Let's be honest. Anyone who sent money was never going to see a dime anyway. The chance that $30,000 a month would permanently stave of the MPAA was nil. And using the money to stay out of prison is a reasonable use for the cash--and that may have been what he was planning the whole time.

Re:legal wheel keeps on turning

[blackmonday]

There will *never* exists a business model where companies make movies costing hundreds of millions of dollars, and you get to download them for free. Sorry.

Oh, and a P2P code of conduct? Among people who are making a living tracking illegal movie downloads? Please. Get a Netflix subscription, go to the movies if you want to watch. Don't want to pay? Don't watch. It's pretty simple.

Re:legal wheel keeps on turning

[6]

um, Television is eactly that model. Many TV movies cost that much and are indeed broadcast over the air for free.

The bigest problem RIAA/MPAA has in fact is thatradio and TV have created in society the belief that content is free.

Add to this the increase of in theatre advertising and the value proposition is becoming even more blurred in the public's eye.

Library analogy

[IgD]

This is really troubling. What ever happened to the first amendment? LokiTorrent didn't host any of the illegal contact. How is this different from...?
- Hosting a list of banned books
- A library that contains books on how to pick locks

It seems like the courts often times are fast food restaurants for big corporations. I thought the courts were supposed to be object and ensure the rights of the little guy weren't trampled on??

The real troubling thing is now from new stories the movie mafia wants to "review log files" and go after people who viewed the site. That's rediculous.

Another aspect of this is hiring 3rd party companies to collect evidence. For example all these P2P so called monitoring services. Of course they are going to find evidence in favor of the movie mafia since that is what they are being paid to do. Can you imagine Microsoft doing an objective Linux story and revealing that Linux is in fact better? The government needs to collect the evidence and everything else needs to be thrown out.

Re:Library analogy

[Erwos]

"- Hosting a list of banned books"

First off, there aren't banned books in the USA. So, this entire line of thought has no applicability whatsoever to the case.

But, let's say there were. You are knowingly and willingly providing help for breaking the law. This is called being an accessory to a crime, and you can most certainly be prosecuted for it.

"- A library that contains books on how to pick locks"

I am unaware of any laws against books which tell you how to commit an illegal act, either. Even that infamous "how to hire a hitman" book never got any legal action, AFAIK.

I think the problem is that you're confusing censorship and copyright.

"I thought the courts were supposed to be object and ensure the rights of the little guy weren't trampled on??"

I know this is unpopular to say on Slashdot, but the little guy is sometimes in the wrong. Courts should be protecting the rights of everyone, poor and wealthy, equally. The fact that you have less money than someone else doesn't make what you're saying right.

Objectively, LokiTorrent was aiding massive copyright violations knowingly and willingly. I have trouble understanding how people can get so upset at the MPAA about this. If you don't want to take the punishment, DON'T DO THE CRIME!

-Erwos

Re:Time to switch to exeem?

[WhatAmIDoingHere]

No, because eXeem is bad software that is only based on the "IDEA" of bittorrent.

Closed source and spyware? Sign me up.

Freedom!

[Anonymous Coward]

Aah, I'm proud to be an American ... land of the free where the lives of innocent people can be ruined at the whim of a corporation if they feel that their profits are being threatened.
I'm all for exporting freedom and democracy to other countries, but maybe we ought to work on freedom here at home first ...

Re:The MPAA have access to the Logs

[bmongar]

I don't know what server logs he had but he did have account information which includes what users uploaded what torrents. It was part of your profile what you uploaded. I would imagine these are the people who are in for a lawsuit since they were distributing the copyrighted goods.

You can click, and you can hide

[Laurentiu]

It will only take a bit more brains, that's all. The pure pressure of the demand is going to drive the innovation in this "field". Already the trackers go underground, and with a bit of imagination you could see how easily the sites of today could be replaced by (invite-only) IRC channels. Not to mention that the actual distribution network, from rip to release, was NOT touched by MPAA so far, so instead of going after the cause, they try to destroy the effects.

The day where zombie XP machines will be used in tracker networks is not as far as you think. The chances of stopping that are practically nil. And after a few Joe (Clueless) User types are brought to "justice" (and aquitted),the whole system will fail.

Meanwhile, MPAA can bust their heads trying to find ways to stop networks like Freenet.

Re:Whew...

[JediTrainer]

Remember...skipping commercials is stealing. What confuses me is that *distributing* commercials is also considered stealing. So you want me to watch them or not?

Re:BOLLOCKS! NOTHING ILLEGAL ABOUT TORRENTS

[Nuskrad]

A tracker site is easy to moderate to check for illegal content. It's hard to argue that the main purpose of Lokitorrent wasn't to distribute copyrighted material. How many of the torrents were for free files? 5, maybe 10%. The site was facilitating the illegal distribution of copyrighted materials without making efforts to stop it, when they could have easily been made (it's much less easy for decentralised P2P systems).

Parent is flamebait and trollish. Mod down

[pluke]

i shouldn't really reply to this but

"...C'mon, grow up! It's not a speeding ticket or a parking fine, it's copyright violation."

are you suggesting that file sharing is worse than speeding or parking in dangerous places, both which can be strongly argued as a risk to peoples lives? Compared to these, screwing major corporations out of a few dollars is absolutely meaningless, sort your analogies out. And from what i believe is having a more objective view than most americans of their political system, the government is heavily influenced by the corporations, you can't have a go at people for trying to stand up against them.

Re:Parent is flamebait and trollish. Mod down

[dynamo_mikey]

Why is stealing okay when it's "screwing major corporations out of a few dollars"? Theft is theft.

the true cost

[flacco]

the true cost of hiding behind fair use for blatant copyright infringement is that, in the popular mind, it taints legitimate fair use and other copyright issues that actually are important.

if you want entertainment media, buy it, or acquire it through other means sanctioned by the copyright holder.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:Yes, there is (probably)

[IgnoramusMaximus]

So the .torrent file contains a derivative of an unauthorised derivative of a coyrighted work, and is therefore fair game.

I know that you are not a lawyer but most people tend to miss this tidbit and so I will point it out to you. The "copyrighted material" is a string of integer numbers. There exists (as per mathematical theory) an infinite number of fuctions in form of y=f(x), where x and y are integer numbers. Furthermore, there exists an infinite number of functions in that form wich additional requirement that for any number in the domain x, say X1, a pre-determined number in domain y, say Y1 the following is true Y1=f(X1). From this one can easily conclude that any "copyrighted material" has infinite number of "derrivative works" and furthermore, any copyrighted material (as well as not copyrighted one) is a derrivative work of any other.

I would like Slashdotters to ponder that little gem.

That's wonderful!

[i41Overlord]

I love the "Big Brother Is Watching You" feel to the page now. In fact, they should make that their new marketing campaign:

"Buy Our Products- Or Else"

MPAA doublespeak

[payndz]

The illegal downloading of motion pictures robs thousands of honest, hard-working people of their livelihood

Wait, if a film's being downloaded, then it's already been made... so surely all these thousands of people have already been paid?

and stifles creativity.

Hollywood's managed that all by itself without any help from downloaders!

Hollywood says stealing is okay!

[Anonymous Coward]

For many years Hollywood has taught us that stealing is okay just as long as you steal from bad guys.

In Ocean's Eleven, just like lots of Hollywood films, the moral of the story is that it's okay to commit armed robbery as long as you're stealing from a bigger crook than you. A crook like a casino or a mobster.

So how is a movie studio different from a mobster?

Re:TheInquirer article

[Billy_D_Goat]

The question remains what they will do with those logs. For instance, the logs would show who visited the pages, what they clicked on, and what torrent files they downloaded. However, downloading a torrent file does not translate into actually downloading the copyrighted material. I'm not quite sure how it all works, but they may go after the individuals who uploaded the torrent files. That would make the most sense. -the Goat

Re:So do you believe in perpetual copyright?

[ryanjensen]

What justifies the belief that because someone creates a work, nobody else should ever be allowed to build on it?

It takes an exponentially greater amount of effort to create a work than to copy it. People who download copyrighted movies on LokiTorrent are NOT doing so to "build on it", so that is beside the point.

Thanks to the parent.

[fluxrad]

...temporary exclusive rights...

Thank you. I haven't laughed like that in days.

The thing other people forget (not the parent methinks) is that copyright isn't granted for the sole purpose of making the author money. Copyright is granted to promote the useful arts and sciences. Monetary gains are supposed to be an impetus for content creation, not the exclusive result of it. More importantly, making millions of dollars off a single work such an album only serves to undermine the perpetuation of the useful arts and sciences as the author loses some incentive to create more in order to achieve a reasonable standard of living.

Bottom line: when copyright ceases to serve creative purposes and begins to act solely as a tool of wealth generation (as many would argue it does in the case of the MPAA and RIAA), it ceases to be meaningful and should be ignored.

Fix the problems with copyright and you'll fix the problems with copyright infringement.

The Donations

[AmoHongos]

How do we know that Ed Webber intended to take the donations and run with them? Just because he decided to give up instead of fighting a legal battle with the MPAA? Regardless of the legality or illegality of Loki Torrent, the MPAA has deep pockets and would have easily won a court case against him. It sounds to me that Webber just wised up and realized that.

But even if the call for donations was a fraud, I think he deserves that money. He provided an extremely valuable service to the entire internet. Millions of people downloaded free movies, commercial software, and cool games because Webber stuck his neck out. He knew what happened to other file sharing sites, yet he did it anyway. Whether he uses that money to pay off the RIAA or for a vacation in the Bahamas, I say more power to him.

Re:The Donations

[the arbiter]

God, where to start with your post..."stuck his neck out"? More like stabbed everyone within reach in the back. It goes beyond simple fraud to tell everyone that you plan to "fight this thing all the way no matter what it takes", solicit donations to do exactly that, and then turn around, take the cash, and run. If I were Mr. Webber I'd move to an undisclosed location. There are going to be some very angry donors out there today.

The MPAA confirmed in late January that they were in negotiations with Edward Webber for at least a month prior to the "shutdown". That's why he put the site up for sale...he wanted to see how much financial leverage he was going to have with the MPAA.

So he ended up with a nice chunk of change from the MPAA to turn over his server logs and membership list, he got to keep the donation fund, and he fucked over a lot of people in the process.

I'd have a completely different view on this if he'd taken the route Bram did with Suprnova...just shut it down and be done with it. That's the honest and the right thing to do. (Frankly the honest/right thing to do would have been to never get into this in the first place, but that's another discussion) But he didn't. He saw an opportunity to commit a massive fraud on a lot of people who thought that he was going to stand up and defend their interests, and he did it.

(I think anyone who donated was a complete idiot, by the way, but commiting fraud on people who are stupid enough to be conned is still morally indefensible)

I look forward to the day Ed Webber ends up in prison for fraud. He may have cut a deal with the MPAA, but the RIAA and BSA can still go after him, as can any individual copyright holder. And if I were a donor to his "legal fund" I'd be on the phone with a lawyer this morning instead of posting this on Slashdot.

He's a criminal of the very worst sort, not a hero. Don't make him out to be one.

No matter how hard they try, they'll never stop it

[Xeleema]

This is exactly the kind of thing I love.

The RIAA/MPAA have worked so hard to master the art of "The Fad", now their cumulative work over the past 50-odd years is biting them in the ass.

Think about it; Anyone remember the BackStreet Boys? How about the posters, toys, clothes, and the rest of that flood of crap that swallowed every retail outlet? All RIAA's doing.
Now, people have found a "Bigger, Better Deal" in P2P networks. "No more CD Exchange for me, it's all on P2P, and blank CD-Rs are less than a nickel a pop!"

The **IA cannot control the horde of consumers they've created, and all their billions cannot curb the tsunami-like tide.

When Lars of Metallica raised a shitfit over Napster, what happened? Napster died, others rose to fill its place. Some were born out of hate for Lars' hypocrisy, other for the hell of it.

The point is; It will not stop, it will not collapse. The **IA will either go broke fighting this, or they'll turn a SCO and use it as a business model (which I fear is what has already happened).

No, you are not the only one.

[jotaeleemeese]

But that does not mean you are correct.

I don't download anything illegaly, and go and buy religiously my CDs and DVDs second hand since I don't feel like feeding this beast that is the entertainmen industry, but I sustain that attacking people providing a tool is immoral.

If the rapacious entertainment industry were going for the scalps of the pople copying stuff (file sharere with farms of servers sharing thousend of illegal material) they would have my full support.

But they have gone against VCRs, MP3 players, DRM hackers, all whose yield legitimate technologies for legitimate (and illegal) purposes.

That is unnacceptable, no matter if you are a vulgar pirate or an outstanding citizen that crosses the streets always in the corners and help the old ladies to reach the other side.

Don't you feel bad now?

[dfj225]

The illegal downloading of motion pictures robs thousands of honest, hard-working people of their livelihood, and stifles creativity. We make millions of dollars off of one movie alone, while you waste away trying to scrap up enough money for retirement. Actors get paid millions for any crappy movie that they star in. Yet, we want you to feel bad for us. We pay the actors exorbinent fees yet say downloading one movie, that you probably wouldn't buy anyway, keeps that key grip operator from feeding his family, while the star of the film bathes in caviar. Don't you feel bad now?

I think I need to change my .sig

[night_flyer]

Thanks to BitTorrent, I purchase more DVDs
Thanks to the MPAA, I buy them used...

Re:check out lowkee's YAHOO profile

[bindster]

In order of importance:

1. You're a dumbass.

2. As a direct consequence of (1), you missed the entire fucking point, which is that he's resisting the likes of gigantic corporations wanting to dictate to you which ones and zeroes you may and may not transmit.

3. Today, it might seem reasonable to you that the RI/MPAA can control who downloads their music and movies; tomorrow their request may be less reasonable.

The situation is really analagous to that old adage...something like first they came for this group and I didn't say anything, then that group and I didn't speak up, so on, and then they came for me, and nobody was left to speak for me.

The Problem: Apathy

[Mitaphane]

I thing a big part of the problem is apathy. No one cares what the government is doing so long as it's not stepping on them.

We invaded a country under the pretenses of self defense against a madman with WMD. A few months later it turns out he didn't have them. Did this hurt the president's reputation in anyway? Only to the people that already hated him. Most people didn't care. In fact, the majority thought he was good enough to relect...

The RIAA and MPAA are suing the hell out of people downloading their material even though they're content with letting people selling bootlegs of their product(which is actually stealing money from them). Do people make a big fuss about this waste of the court system? Only to the people who already have grudges against the MPAA/RIAA. The majority people don't care...

A substanial portion of americans (of all classes) use recreational drugs despite their illegality, especially Marijuana which is less harmful than the legal alternative of cigarettes or alcohol. Yet the people jailed for these crimes are mostly lower class. Furthermore, the "war on drugs" benefits both sides such that neither really would want it to end. The DEA people have nice government jobs and the drug cartels benefit from selling their product at black market prices. The only people that really get hurt are the small dealers or users who don't have the money to defend themselves in court. Do people care that a huge portion of their tax money is spent housing non-violent criminals? The only people who do are the same drug de-criminalization advocates who've been around for a while. The majority of people either don't take part in illegal recreational drugs enough(or at all) to care about this problem because it doesn't step on them.

People being jailed for insane amounts of time for dealing drugs? People getting killed by bombs we bought? People being sued for ludicrous amounts of money for "damages"? The majority of people in this country do not care about anything outside the scope of their own lives.

I have some bad news for you.

[HBI]

The average human life can be worth as little as $50k in settlement.

$2-4 million is only for a primary breadwinner, and taking into account their future earnings and the fact that they have children.

$100k was a fair sum that would be settled at for a negligent death in an auto accident, for instance.

I'm not suggesting you die to test this out, but you can rest assured that if you have dollarsigns in your eyes over a death through negligence, you're incorrect. It's actually much more expensive for an insurer to settle with a brain damage case than a death.

Re:Aha. "Depriving" someone of a sale

[toddestan]

Actually, the recipe for Pepsi (and many commercial food products) is a trade secret. That means it is not illegal for anyone to make Pepsi, it's just that no one except Pepsi actually knows how do it. If you somehow manage to make a liquid that tastes exactly like Pepsi, there is nothing Pepsi Co can do about it.

Not that I think Pepsi would really care. They have the name brand, the advertising budget, and the exclusive contracts. Even if you sold a beverage that was indistinguishable, you would still be a small third party that neither Pepsi or Coke would lose any sleep over.

Re:check out lowkee's YAHOO profile

[bindster]

Actually, it's not a fallacy. It would be fallacious if I said that your argument was weaker because you are a dumbass. Instead, I was merely stating a fact, irrespective of your argument.

Even if it takes inside of five seconds to encode a DVD, how does that make a damned bit of difference? If it took a guy all his might and intellectual effort would that make it okay in your book? What if, instead of copying a DVD, some guy made you crayon drawings of every scene in the movie? How about thirty of them for every second of the movie's length; would that be okay, by you, to share? What if he was a really good artist and drew them all to be as near as possible to the original material? And then he included some first-class voice acting by him and his friends, in an accompanying .wav?

What they want is to be the sole source for all your entertainment needs, to have a monopoly on mainstream culture and all creativity in the western hemisphere. Anytime someone somewhere does something creative, they want to make a dollar off of it by being an increasingly useless middleman. And seriously, fuck them and the shitty business model they rode in on.