Slashdot Mirror


Was the Lokitorrent Suit a Hoax?

kamhp writes "Recently earthreactor.com published an article stating that the whole Loki Torrent suit was a fraud and that it was all staged to collect donations toataling in the tens of thousands then sell the domain. "It seems that the owner of LokiTorrent decided to take the donation money and run, and to cover his tracks, scare the hell out of the entire p2p community. The scare tactic was probably nothing but a decoy to convince intelligent people not to ask the right questions" "

55 of 457 comments (clear)

  1. Class-action lawsuit, anyone? by Celestial+Avenger · · Score: 3, Interesting

    If I recall correctly, wasn't there a Paypal donate button? Fairly sure they can find out each and every person that donated to that POS. Glad I didn't give him my $0.02.

    1. Re:Class-action lawsuit, anyone? by One+of+the+abnormals · · Score: 5, Funny

      If you gave $0.02, Paypal would have taken it away in fees anyway ;)

      --

      2b || !2b =?
    2. Re:Class-action lawsuit, anyone? by Celestial+Avenger · · Score: 5, Funny

      Oh crap, I hope I didn't offend that Macromedia Flash artist I donated to then when I said that was all I could afford..

  2. Simple solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Shoot him.

    1. Re:Simple solution by ThePDW · · Score: 5, Funny

      Or Lok him and up and throw away the ki! Sorry, I know, that was bad...

    2. Re:Simple solution by OrangeTide · · Score: 5, Funny

      Next time don't hit "Submit".

      --
      “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
  3. example of capitalism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    I've been looking for a good example of pure capitalism to follow. Now I have my new religion :)

  4. Does anyone bother checking facts? by nuclear305 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    If it's such a hoax what exactly do you call this? (Google's HTML Version)

    "The MPAA's efforts to date have resulted in a 40 percent reduction in the number of servers that continue to operate. One such site that will no longer exist is LokiTorrent?one of the largest BitTorrent host servers. The operator of that site, Edward Webber, agreed to not only pay a substantial settlement with even greater financial penalties for any further such actions, but by Court Order must provide the MPAA with access to and copies of all logs and server data related to his illegal BitTorrent activities, which will provide a roadmap to others who have used LokiTorrent to engage in illegal activities."

    The premise of the article is based entirely on the fact that there is no documentation from the MPAA--but indeed there is such documentation. I know we'd all love to believe the MPAA created that release to capitalize on this so-called hoax but no doubt that would be subject to legal action for such blatant lies.

    The article also states "If LokiTorrent.com had been sued in Dallas Federal Courts, then some type of public record would appear. NO ONLINE RECORD APPEARS WHATSOEVER!"

    So...if it's not on the internet, it must not exist right....right!?

    Did anyone bother contacting the MPAA for a comment on the Lokitorrent case rather than providing more fire to the rumor mill?

    1. Re:Does anyone bother checking facts? by Jeremiah+Cornelius · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Who trusts a site named after the Norse god of TRICKS and MISCHIEF?

      --
      "Flyin' in just a sweet place,
      Never been known to fail..."
    2. Re:Does anyone bother checking facts? by SlayerofGods · · Score: 5, Informative

      It does exist on line.
      I'm looking at the docketing sheet right now.
      3:04-cv-02642
      Columbia Pictures Industries, Inc et al v. Edward Webber
      Someone didn't check their facts.
      I would provide linkage but you need an account to view it.
      https://ecf.txnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/login.pl

      --

      Technology, the cause of and solution to all of life's problems.
    3. Re:Does anyone bother checking facts? by SlayerofGods · · Score: 3, Interesting

      P.S. I just finished reading the judgement.
      It orders him to pay 1 million dollars in damages and he has to turn over all the logs.
      It also states he isn't allowed to sell the source code for loki torrent.
      Though he wasn't required to turn over the domain name or servers to the MPAA just the logs. So the notice on the website looks to be his own doing?
      If anyone wants me to email a copy to them so they don't have to pay the 64 cents to download and can post it some where let me know.

      --

      Technology, the cause of and solution to all of life's problems.
    4. Re:Does anyone bother checking facts? by chris_mahan · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I wonder whether loki was really a giant honeypot...

      Mmm...

      Too sneaky for the MPAA...

      In any case... I think the reverse would be fun. A honey pot for the MPAA. name a bunch of linux files after celebrities names and movie titles. So that they will sue for Independece_Day.exe, Madonna.c, and Eminem.class, bittorented all over the internet.

      Actually, no. I think what needs to happen is that people stop bying movies and music for a month. Pick a month, like July, and advertise the "NO MPAA PURCHASE MONTH", and buy only independents and so on. The press will eat that up as "Public Decries MPAA Tactics, Boycotts DVDs!"

      That, or send letters (on paper) to the President, hum, to your local representative... No, to his political party headquarter, and tell them that the situation is untenable and that you will... Hum, nothing... They don't CARE about you.

      So I guess P2Ping is an Act of Civil Disobedience and thus the Voice of the People calling for Redress from an Oppressive and Corrupt Government!!!

      whew, need to catch my breath...

      Ok, that's better.

      And now, [with my finest british accent:]
      "Gentlemen, synchronize your servers. We attack at oh-six-hundred."

      --

      "Piter, too, is dead."

    5. Re:Does anyone bother checking facts? by dreamword · · Score: 5, Informative

      I downloaded PDFs of the complaint and the judge's order from PACER. They're definitely real, and they're linked from my blog:

      http://www.joegratz.net/archives/2005/02/24/lokito rrent-lawsuit-no-hoax/

    6. Re:Does anyone bother checking facts? by Fnkmaster · · Score: 5, Informative

      Seeing as I have an account on the PACER system already set up, here's the case summary:

      3:04-cv-02642 Columbia Pictures Industries, Inc et al v. Edward Webber
      David C Godbey, presiding
      Date filed: 12/14/2004
      Date terminated: 02/16/2005 Date of last filing: 02/16/2005

      Case Summary
      Office: Dallas Filed: 12/14/2004
      Jury Demand: None Demand:
      Nature of Suit: 820 Cause: 17:501 Copyright Infringement
      Jurisdiction: Federal Question Disposition: Judgment - Judgment on Consent
      County: XX US, Outside State Terminated: 02/16/2005
      Origin: 1 Reopened:
      Lead Case: None
      Related Case: None Other Court Case: None
      Def Custody Status:
      Flags: CLOSED, COPYRIGHT, RAMIREZ

      Plaintiff Columbia Pictures Industries, Inc ...
      (followed by contact info and list of other movie studios, presumably all the MPAA members).

      The last document filed in the case is a "Consent Judgment and Permanent Injunction", signed and dated February 8th 2005. The guy's attorney signed it on his behalf, and apparently Mr. Webber *AGREED* to pay a million dollar judgement to the plaintiff - there was no trial ever held. I have to assume there is some side agreement that waives the financial agreement if he complies with their terms and plays nice or something like that, as I'm presuming this guy doesn't just have a million dollars to throw at the MPAA.

      Oh yeah, and the Consent Judgment states that the defendent waives any and all right to appeal the Judgment, to have it set aside, or to obtain a new trial. So I don't understand how this guy claims he was going to put up a legal fight when it sounds like he rolled over like a fifty cent whore.

  5. Remember what LokiTorrent was? by Rei · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ...There's no honor among thieves.

    --
    Don't take a knife to a gunfight, or even a knife to a knife fight. Take a gun to a knife fight.
  6. What did you expect? by October_30th · · Score: 5, Funny
    "Intelligent people"? What else did you expect when you're dealing with people whose stated goal is defending against a blatant case of copyright infringement in court.

    Where can I find these intelligent people? I have a bridge to sell to them...

    --
    The owls are not what they seem
  7. OMG! by RaboKrabekian · · Score: 4, Funny

    Purveyors of Bittorrents can be unscrupulous?! WTF!! Where's the honor amongst thie^^^^H content aggregators!?

    --
    "Moderate drinking can help prevent amputated limbs" -- Abigail Zuger, NYTimes, 12/31/02
  8. of course he could cover his tracks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    because in teh internet ur anonymus & supr leet.

  9. Article Text by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    LOKI TORRENT LAWSUIT :: A HOAX
    Written by: SharePro

    At the end of December 2004, the RIAA and MPAA began an international rampage in efforts to close down major bit torrent and ed2k file sharing sites.

    Some sites like Suprnova.org, Youceff.com, ShareTv.com, and others went down without a fight while other sites, including ShareConnector and Releases4U were closed down by authorities.

    The lawsuits set off a wide spread of panic and dismay within the p2p community as many of the veteran ed2k and torrent contributing societys soon found themselves "homeless" and their works "confisquated" by investigative authorities.

    During the turmoil, one such MPAA targeted Bit Torrent site claimed it was willing to stand up against the evil powers of motion picture media thugs by fighting the legal issues in a court of law. LokiTorrent.com began accepting donations from the p2p community to support what they called "necessary legal fee's".

    According to a Slyck.com - January 3, 2005 (Slyck.com promoted people to donate to Loki Torrent), within two weeks (5 days public) of announcing their fund raising campaign, Loki Torrents was only $710.00 dollars away from reaching their initial goal. At the time of writing Slyck.com's initial article, Loki Torrent claimed to have raised an impressive $29,290.00 from the p2p community.

    Today, just weeks after the initial Slyck.com interview with Edward Webber, owner of LokiTorrent.com, the entire p2p file share community is back in turmoil.

    Quote:
    A) Are the logs of Lokitorrent.com in the hands of the MPAA?
    B) Where is the money that was donated to the legal fund?
    C) Can P2P'rs who uploaded / downloaded torrents be tracked down via the logs.

    The above and more were the initial questions most p2pr's had in mind when news broke that the MPAA had gained control of Loki Torrent.

    As the writing of this article began to gain momentum, many inconsistencies began arising that clearly show that Lokitorrent is not in the hands of the MPAA (At least not because of a court order), nor we're the owners fined a million dollars.

    1) LokiTorrent never provided the name or details of any lawyer representing the internet site. No federal judge's name has been listed anywhere throughout the so-called proceedings. Texas courts have no record of any filed judicial proceedings on behalf of the MPAA against Loki Torrent and/or Ed Webber.

    2) During the same period of time that Loki was making tens of thousands of dollars monthly via donations, the owners of Loki Torrent were also actively trying to sell the domain. LokiTorrent.com for Sale :: Sedo.com

    In effort to convince p2p'rs to continue donating and not to believe Loki's intent to sell, this is what the owner published in his defense:

    Loki Torrent's Selling on Sedo.com :: Explanation
    Quote:
    If some guy offers me $75K for the domain name, he's more than welcome to it, and I'll simply move the site to a different domain. Selling the entire site will never happen. I have way too much of myself in this site to sell it for any price (well, 2 million could get me to part with it, lol.. but let's live in reality).

    3) The only reports of this so-called "law suit" are based entirely on the front page of the LokiTorrent.com internet site. The MPAA and Texas Federal Court list no public record of a lawsuit nor is the MPAA or the courts willing to back up Lokitorrent claims of being ordered to hand over webserver ip logs and pay a 1 million dollar penalty. J. Borland of News.com (and other related news resources) apparently based their entire news articles by information received directly from Mr. Ed Webber (the owner of LokiTorrent.com). This information was received by calling Mr. Webber directly at telephone number (207) 752-3481.

    4) Was LokiTorrent ever actually sued by the MPAA? According to the initial reports published via various websites, most people were led to have believed that the

    1. Re:Article Text by Kaorimoch · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I wonder if the author wrote the original article with his tin foil hat on or without? At least he can't be accused of being a journalist, they actually research their stories before writing them. This one is loaded with potholes.

      The name of the lawyer is Charles S. Baker
      http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-pirac y11feb1 1,1,1373904.story?ctrack=1&cset=true

      The post further up detailed where it was mentioned in court.

      If it was a hoax, why is he using his name to register all these domains? Why did he run so many torrents and have so many features on the site? Why would the MPAA, an organisation already denigrated by many net residents, blatantly lie in its press release?

      It was already found within an hour of the site becoming an MPAA ad that everything was still being hosted on lokitorrent servers. Is this evidence of wrong doing, or MPAA cost cutting? Besides, with all the PeerGuardian users around, they would have MPAA IP blocks and would not have seen the ad if it was hosted on MPAA servers.

      Point 6 is pretty dumb. Apparently the site is hoax because they didn't announce the name of the webmaster they were suing....um, duh, isn't Ed Webber the webmaster? And isn't the MPAA going after tracker sites at the moment to shut them down?

      I'd say he was running a website, saw he was going to get into trouble and decided to find ways to profit.

  10. 21st century existancialism by Scrameustache · · Score: 5, Funny

    So...if it's not on the internet, it must not exist right....right!?

    I can be googled, therefore I am.

    --

    You can't take the sky from me...

    1. Re:21st century existancialism by Kaeva · · Score: 5, Funny

      If people like Paris Hilton have taught us anything it's that the original declaration of "I think, therefore I am" also does not work in reverse...

    2. Re:21st century existancialism by Black+Copter+Control · · Score: 4, Funny

      I can be googled too, but I'm just an AI program attempting to pass the turing test.

      --
      OS Software is like love: The best way to make it grow is to give it away.
  11. Clairify that comment,plz by TiggertheMad · · Score: 5, Funny

    ...Are you taking about Lokitorrent or the RIAA?

    --

    HA! I just wasted some of your bandwidth with a frivolous sig!
    1. Re:Clairify that comment,plz by Rei · · Score: 4, Funny

      Now that you mention it, both, :)

      --
      Don't take a knife to a gunfight, or even a knife to a knife fight. Take a gun to a knife fight.
    2. Re:Clairify that comment,plz by MightyMartian · · Score: 3, Insightful

      > Most of the people I swap warez with are folks I'd
      > trust my life with.

      Clearly you are not a developer.

      I support open source projects because I want to give the dishonest big guys a kick in the nuts. I have no desire to actually behave in a similar manner.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
  12. RTFA's Comments by Short+Circuit · · Score: 5, Informative

    There's a link to the related press release on the MPAA's website.

  13. The MPAA will be interested + 3 steps to profit! by javaxman · · Score: 5, Funny

    Someone found a business model to get pirates to pay for content!!

    Step 1) set up torrent site
    Step 2) claim MPAA takedown
    Step 3) collect money from torrent downloaders, then run away and PROFIT !!!

    The process probably can't be repeated too many times, though... do you figure they made more money than they would have through advertisements ? I'm guessing they did...

  14. Anyone got a copy? by thebra · · Score: 4, Funny

    The site is blocked for "sexuality" by websense. Thanks

  15. Lokitorrent + PayPal + Illegal Downloads + Hoax by loggia · · Score: 4, Funny

    Can we add a Nigerian email to this story, please?

    1. Re:Lokitorrent + PayPal + Illegal Downloads + Hoax by FunWithHeadlines · · Score: 5, Funny
      "Can we add a Nigerian email to this story, please?"

      My most esteemed colleague,

      I find myself so grateful in the knowledge that such persons as yourself exists and are willing to add such value to group conversations. I myself have been such a man, and it warms my hear to deal with a fellow man of honor.

      It grieves me to say that such conversations are threatened by those who would profit from misfortune. I speak specifically of the president of my country who has forbidden the same. It is not easy in these troubling circumstances, but rest assured that I have powerful friends who are in a position to help. They lack on the means to a vast sum that can free up all such conversations. I know a professional man such as yourself will be in a position to help free my country from such dire matters, and reap a huge reward for your troubles.

      I am contacting you because of a business concerning a huge sum of money from a deceased deposit in the Security and Finance company where a colleague of mine works in the Netherlands. Though I know that a transaction of this magnitude will make any one apprehensive and worried, but I am assuring you that all will be well at the end of the day. I actually decided to contact you due to the urgency of this transaction.

      I shall be compensating you with 30% of the total money while 10% will be for any expenses incurred the rest will be mine on final conclusion of this project. Please note that your share stays while the rest shall before me for investment purposes.

      If this proposal is acceptable by you, do not take undue advantage of the trust I have bestowed in you, I await your urgent mail. Please reply to my private and confidential email.

  16. slashdot gets pwned again... by bani · · Score: 5, Informative

    quoting from this mpaa press release:

    "The MPAA's efforts to date have resulted in a 40 percent reduction in the number of servers that continue to operate. One such site that will no longer exist is LokiTorrent -- one of the largest BitTorrent host servers. The operator of that site, Edward Webber, agreed to not only pay a substantial settlement with even greater financial penalties for any further such actions, but by Court Order must provide the MPAA with access to and copies of all logs and server data related to his illegal BitTorrent activities, which will provide a roadmap to others who have used LokiTorrent to engage in illegal activities."

    took all of like 3 seconds to find this.

    in keeping with the usual /. tradition of journalistic excellence, we'll probably see this same "story" reposted several times in the next few days.

  17. I hear that. by gandell · · Score: 4, Funny

    I mean, if I were paying a thief, I'd expect him to be honest with me.

    --
    Mercy was given to me by Christ...I must give the same to others.
  18. Re:Doesn't make sense! by pavera · · Score: 3, Insightful

    because you can't "buy" all episodes of all tv shows, that is the main thing my wife looks for on torrent sites, you can buy some really popular shows, but most you can't buy.... so how else are you supposed to get the content?

  19. Re:This is disgusting by anonicon · · Score: 3, Insightful

    "Its disgusting as to how some people make money by stealing from the very people who decided to help them out. I'm yet to do my research on the authenticity of this news bit."

    As you and many of your preceding posters are testament to, you will fly half way around the world with a lie or rumor before bothering to check to see if it's actually true.

    It appears this rumor is false, but you /could/ take a moment to actually check it for yourself.

  20. Hmmmm... Loki..... by PHAEDRU5 · · Score: 4, Funny

    Norse god of, among other things, practical jokes.

    Hmmmmmm....

    --
    668: Neighbour of the Beast
  21. Claims against what exactly? by lxt · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Like so many here, IANAL - but how exactly would you mount such a case?

    "Your Honour, I used this website to knowingly violate copyright law, and then gave the owner of said site some money in the belief it was in order to defend a case against him, and therefore keep the site up. I want my money back, because no such case existed".

    Response:
    "So, you gave money in exchange for the possibility of continued use of an illegal service"

    It would be very, very hard to argue that you gave money without previously using the site to download illegal material, or that when you parted with your money you had no hope at all it would result in the continued usage of the illegal service LokiTorrent provided.

    1. Re:Claims against what exactly? by Jhon · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Since the donations were requested to help fight a legal battle on the grounds that the **PA were misusing copyright law, or the law itself was flawed, I think the argument would be different than you lampoon.

      Many people believe that the law is wrong, or poorly written or poorly executed -- and noone has followed a legal battle from beginning to end -- except maybe napster. Even they settled in the end, no? They didn't go 'all they way'.

      I believe copyrights are being abused -- by those downloading copyrighted materials, but also the copyright holders, too. There is NO logical reason why Mickey Mouse isn't in the public domain now. The 'bittorrents' and p2p in general are just a symptom of a much larger problem...

    2. Re:Claims against what exactly? by Dorothy+86 · · Score: 5, Funny
      but how exactly would you mount such a case?

      man mount will tell all

  22. On Lokitorrent's side they did have other revenue by infonography · · Score: 4, Interesting
    One thing they did was to tie in prizes to donations.

    Donate X amount or more and win some prize. It was innovative and I may use it in the future myself. As to the hoax? I got nothing.

    --
    Sorry about the writing. Robot fingers, you know? Cliff Steele in DOOM PATROL #23
  23. The countersuit was a hoax, but... by Stop+Or+I'll+Noop · · Score: 4, Informative
    The article makes numerous references to the MPAA never even bothering Loki or mentioning Loki in their press releases. Well, what does this press release say? http://www.mpaa.org/CurrentReleases/2005_02_10_Bit TorrentLokitorrent.doc
    The MPAA's efforts to date have resulted in a 40 percent reduction in the number of servers that continue to operate. One such site that will no longer exist is LokiTorrent--one of the largest BitTorrent host servers. The operator of that site, Edward Webber, agreed to not only pay a substantial settlement with even greater financial penalties for any further such actions, but by Court Order must provide the MPAA with access to and copies of all logs and server data related to his illegal BitTorrent activities, which will provide a roadmap to others who have used LokiTorrent to engage in illegal activities.
    So unless the MPAA is also in on this hoax (which wouldn't really surprise me), there are some issues with this story.
  24. Slashdot sued for fraud and slander by cyberlotnet · · Score: 4, Insightful

    http://www.mpaa.org/CurrentReleases/2005_02_10_Bit TorrentLokitorrent.doc

    To link to a article about someones opinion is one thing but to support and spread lies and slander is just plain wrong

  25. Trusting the source? by PktLoss · · Score: 3, Informative

    Isn't Earth Reactor an Earth Station 5 satelite site? With all the unsubstantiated anonimity claims (amid clients with remote file deletion exploits), and a long history of mud slinging. Why are they a credible news source?

  26. Loki....hmm something comes to mind. by madsatod · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Remember Loki, the norse trickster god and a master of deception.
    Not saying anything about the truth of these accusations, but maybe this guy's choice of domain name could (ironically enough) turn out to be fitting...

  27. Story is a troll by the_rev_matt · · Score: 5, Informative

    Remind me again why we can't mod down stories? The submitter is an idiot for believing what an uninformed 12 year old wrote on some random site. The editor is an idiot for approving such a bullshit "story". We're all idiots for bothering to read past the first post linking to the MPAA press release.

    --
    this is getting old and so are you

    blog

  28. Hold on for a second... by Nicholas+Evans · · Score: 5, Informative

    This article is written by SharePro of ES5 -- the same fellow who was threatening to post pictures and personal information about the bloke who found the 'remote file deletion' utility in the ES5 p2p program awhile back.

    Take whatever this man says with a grain of salt and call me in the morning...

    1. Re:Hold on for a second... by miner60 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Yes SharePro is not to be trusted. That mp3 search engine on earthreactor.com's first page was written completely by my friend and myself. We were having financial problems and posted the fact on our website, which is when SharePro offered to help out. We were happy to have a new host at no cost and we hadn't heard anything of SharePro at that point. After a while we raised enough money to move onto our own server again, but when we did that, SharePro decided to keep the search engine online and then decided to change the graphics to his own. You will however notice that his mp3 database is quite out of date due to the fact that he did not get a copy of our spider. The second I saw that SharePro had anything to do with this, I figured it was a big lie.

  29. Meta-hoax by serutan · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The new generation of hoaxes that label real events as hoaxes and hoaxes as real. Perhaps the above post is a hoax too?

    Side note from the MPAA's war-cry page: "By deeply cutting into revenues, movie piracy limits the choices for consumers at the box office. Sixty percent of all movies never recoup their production and marketing costs which average well over $100 million."

    Sigh. The fact that most movies didn't recoup production costs in the decades before p2p, the Web or VCRs ever existed seems to have slipped under the radar.

    1. Re:Meta-hoax by ScrewMaster · · Score: 4, Interesting

      So, almost two-thirds of Hollywood's output loses money. Bah. In the age of video distribution I sincerely doubt that. But, okay ... taking them at their word, if I were the CEO of a company that had a track record that poor I'd expect to be relieved of my duties, and have the straps cut on my golden parachute just before being pushed out of my top floor office window. By crying poor they're trying to make their customers accept responsibility for whatever is really wrong with the industry, as well as justify continued high prices and lawsuits. However, what that comment really tells us is that the studios have fundamentally incompetent management. They've been intoxicated by their monopoly high for so long that they are terrified of having to come down, get efficient, and actually compete. Oh sure, they can come up with all the justifications in the world as to why the business is run the way it is. But if that sixty percent figure is anywhere near accurate then the studios' stockholders should simply vote these people out since they're obviously doing a poor job. And if they are lying (that would be a huge surprise) and they are more profitable than they are claiming, then they have even less rationale for this "war on piracy."

      What this really comes down to is "We don't have the control we're accustomed to, we're not making as much money as we feel entitled to, and we don't care who we hurt as long as we get what we want." You'd get a similar line of reasoning from your average Mafioso, I'm sure.

      The movie studios will get little sympathy from me, and anyone that bothers to understand the damage that has already been done at the hands of the motion picture industry would be hard-pressed to defend it.

      What continually amazes me is the degree of arrogance these people exhibit, the remarkably high regard in which they hold themselves and their products. Jack Valenti exemplified this sort of "we are an international treasure that must be preserved at all costs" attitude that belies the fact that what they are selling are "luxuries" that all of us could easily do without. Regardless, if by some miracle the MPAA and all of its' member organizations disappeared overnight, it really wouldn't take long for a new business model to take over and the flow of movies to continue.

      The idea that a good movie has to cost a hundred million dollars is a bit extreme anyway. Take the TV series' Stargate SG-1 and Stargate Atlantis. The production team for those shows produces cinematic-quality special effects week after week on a fraction of the budget of a typical third-rate movie. Sure, the actors don't command the same prices that the big boys do, but so what ... good movies were made before actors started getting multimillion-dollar paychecks and they'll still be making good movies after that particular bubble bursts. Most businesses, when faced with an economic downturn, have to tighten their belts, economize. Hollywood seems to have the idea that they can avoid having to do that if they can just squeeze us hard enough.

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
  30. No, it wasn't. by SmokeHalo · · Score: 5, Informative
    This story from cnet mentions the results of the lawsuit:
    Earlier this month, the studio trade association announced that file-swapping site LokiTorrent, one of the hubs supporting BitTorrent technology, had agreed to pay a $1 million settlement and give its server logs to the MPAA.
    --
    I'm not good in groups. It's difficult to work in a group when you're omnipotent. - Q
  31. Re:The lawsuit is not a hoax... by Rei · · Score: 5, Interesting

    That's the problem with centralized distribution methods :P Torrents are a great design... but they're only part of what you need. You also need an effective torrent distribution method which guarantees anonymity. It's not impossible.

    I'm working on a library called Uso designed to send encrypted data from fake source IPs/ports to fake dest IPs/ports (faking as much as physically possible while still allowing the information to make it; it does various network probes to determine what it can and cannot do). You use libnet to write raw packets to the network and use pcap to sniff them back off; clients don't recognize each other by the source and destination IPs, but by codes contained in the UDP headers. The codes are unique per client, but not across the system, making recognizing the packets to firewall them quite a challenge (easily recognizable content is inside the encrypted section). I'm about half-done (I've got my encryption classes (Blowfish and RSA - both wrappers around openssl) done and tested, and have sent basic packets back and forth with part of the probing done; I need to do remote probing and implement the full protocol spec - plus some arp flooding and cache poisoning would be nice options). It should be able to tunnel through most NAT setups, although I won't know for sure until I get the full protocol spec implemented.

    Another option is limited proxying. If you proxy a small but significant percentage of your traffic, you can't tell who was requesting the content and who was just being an unwitting proxy. It makes mass lawsuits unfeasable. Plus, proxying can confer some advantages on its own, especially if you use a "smart" target selection method.

    --
    Don't take a knife to a gunfight, or even a knife to a knife fight. Take a gun to a knife fight.
  32. Court documents by Guanix · · Score: 5, Informative

    It's perfectly real. I downloaded the court documents from Pacer (the online docket system of the US Courts) and put on my website. It includes the permanent injunction signed by the judge that closed the case.

  33. Re:I have a hard time trusting people by xiando · · Score: 4, Interesting

    This is a great illustration of how the MPAA fail to acknowledge reality. BitTorrent and other protocols who allow evil corporations like MPAA to find your identity are already drawing their last breaths, these are on the way out. They are currently being replaced by I2P, Freenet and other systems who allow users to anonymously share what ever they want. By attacking their customers instead of providing real alternatives (I have yet to find a site where I can legally download movies and view them on my Linux-based entertainment system) they simply encourage peer to peer systems who allow users to participate free from prosecution threats.

    MPAA, you are wrong. It is possible to hide. And your idiotic attacks on the general public will only make the systems where this is possible more popular. I have said this numerous times, users want to use simple peer to peer system to acquire movies. This is because divx is the preferred format, p2p is the preferred way of delivery. If there was a way to just enter the movie title of any movie and pay $5 or something for the right to do so, then most p2p users would pay that sum. Allow free distribution, allow fair use, and most importantly: Provide ways of paying for your products...

  34. Re:The lawsuit is not a hoax... by halivar · · Score: 4, Informative

    You clearly did not RTFA. The lawsuit was a hoax, start to finish.

    You clearly did not read the relevant documents the article's author didn't bother to look for.

    Don't believe everything you read on the internet.

  35. Earthstation 5 revisted by microbrewer · · Score: 3, Informative

    Eathreactor is Run by Sharepro the same sharepro who Ran the dubious Earthstation 5 forums so no news here if you go look at Slyck you will threads about this got closed of flamed out of existence.

    Loki has a out of court settlement that was notarised by the federal court judge .The Million dollar settlement was potetial losses the record caompanies claim he wasnt fined 1 millon . /. is getting bad if they post this crap