Slashdot Mirror


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."

50 of 1,332 comments (clear)

  1. Wow - that was fast! by bigtallmofo · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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?

    --
    I'm a big tall mofo.
    1. Re:Wow - that was fast! by drgonzo59 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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?"

    2. Re:Wow - that was fast! by drgonzo59 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

    3. Re:Wow - that was fast! by metamatic · · Score: 3, Insightful
      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.

      --
      GCHQ Quantum Insert installed. If only our tongues were made of glass, how much more careful we would be when we speak
    4. Re:Wow - that was fast! by l4m3z0r · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

    5. Re:Wow - that was fast! by Lord_Dweomer · · Score: 4, Insightful
      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.

      --
      Buy Steampunk Clothing Online!
    6. Re:Wow - that was fast! by drgonzo59 · · Score: 3, Insightful
      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.

    7. Re:Wow - that was fast! by xRelisH · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.

    8. Re:Wow - that was fast! by d34thm0nk3y · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.

  2. QUIT LYING! by Emrikol · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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!

    --
    You're all bastards!
    1. Re:QUIT LYING! by Frymaster · · Score: 5, Insightful
      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.

    2. Re:QUIT LYING! by ScentCone · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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?

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    3. Re:QUIT LYING! by EulerX07 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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...

    4. Re:QUIT LYING! by Cecil · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

    5. Re:QUIT LYING! by Grishnakh · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.

  3. Death by Litigation by slusich · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Death by Litigation by SlayerofGods · · Score: 3, Insightful

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

      --

      Technology, the cause of and solution to all of life's problems.
    2. Re:Death by Litigation by LurkerXXX · · Score: 3, Insightful
      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.

  4. I can see the site being shut down by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ...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?

  5. And the donated money will go... by rinkjustice · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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

    1. Re:And the donated money will go... by bmongar · · Score: 4, Insightful

      d) be used to pay the settlement with the MPAA

      --
      As x approaches total apathy I couldn't care less.
  6. This is why you need to "network" by Dancin_Santa · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  7. Not american. by LiquidCoooled · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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?

    --
    liqbase :: faster than paper
  8. Repulsive... by LakeSolon · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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

    1. Re:Repulsive... by Joey7F · · Score: 4, Insightful
      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

  9. Comin' a rain... by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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!

    --

    --
    make install -not war

  10. Before we over react by gowen · · Score: 4, Insightful
    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.
    --
    Athletic Scholarships to universities make as much sense as academic scholarships to sports teams.
  11. Re:Whew... by ElGuapoGolf · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  12. Parent is flamebait and trollish. Mod down. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Parent is flamebait and trollish. Mod down. by Blackknight · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.

    2. Re:Parent is flamebait and trollish. Mod down. by jargoone · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

    3. Re:Parent is flamebait and trollish. Mod down. by LakeSolon · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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

    4. Re:Parent is flamebait and trollish. Mod down. by Jane_Dozey · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

      --
      Silly rabbit
    5. Re:Parent is flamebait and trollish. Mod down. by XemonerdX · · Score: 3, Insightful

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

    6. Re:Parent is flamebait and trollish. Mod down. by OblvnDrgn · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.

  13. Minor correction to the story: by Golias · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

    --

    Information wants to be anthropomorphized.

    1. Re:Minor correction to the story: by EllisDees · · Score: 3, Insightful

      >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.

      --
      -- Give me ambiguity or give me something else!
    2. Re:Minor correction to the story: by Bloomy · · Score: 5, Insightful
      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.
  14. You're wrong. by ShallowThroat · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    --
    The "Insert Quote Here" line is almost as predictable as inserting an actual quote.
    1. Re:You're wrong. by arkanes · · Score: 5, Insightful
      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.

  15. legal wheel keeps on turning by spyrochaete · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:legal wheel keeps on turning by 6 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.

  16. Library analogy by IgD · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  17. You can click, and you can hide by Laurentiu · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

    --
    Just /. IT
  18. Re:BOLLOCKS! NOTHING ILLEGAL ABOUT TORRENTS by Nuskrad · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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).

  19. Parent is flamebait and trollish. Mod down by pluke · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    --
    "all through my house i set up traps, it seems like the rats have a map, so now i feed the rats crack" - Donald D
  20. MPAA doublespeak by payndz · · Score: 3, Insightful
    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!

    --
    You must think in Russian.
  21. Re:The Donations by the+arbiter · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

    --
    Boycott everything - they're all trying to fuck you one way or another
  22. No matter how hard they try, they'll never stop it by Xeleema · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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).

    --
    "When I am king, you will be first against the wall..."
  23. The Problem: Apathy by Mitaphane · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.