MPAA Being Sued For Allegedly Hacking Torrentspy

goldaryn writes "Valence Media, the parent company of Torrentspy.com, one of the web's largest torrent search engines, has filed a lawsuit against the MPAA for allegedly hiring a hacker to steal e-mail correspondence and trade secrets. From the suit: 'The Motion Picture Association of America willfully and intentionally obtained without authority, conspired to obtain without authority, purchased, procured, used and disclosed private information that it knew was unlawfully obtained through unauthorized access to Plaintiffs' computer servers and private email accounts, in violation of United States and California privacy and computer security laws.'"

Comments

But

[Alex P Keaton in da]

But wait- How can it be wrong if the MPAA does it? laws only apply to us mortals...

Re:But

[ericdano]

Seriously. The End justifies the means. We have to keep all those great artists employed so we can get great things like a remake of Miami Vice, the Dukes of Hazzard, and other such crap....

Re:But

[IAmTheDave]

laws only apply to us mortals...

While true, the conviction of el Enron honchos gives me a bit more hope. So it appears that execs can be held accountable for financial misappropriation... what about sending them to jail for hacking the same way the Justice Department likes to sentence other hackers??

Re:But

[east coast]

We have to keep all those great artists employed so we can get great things like a remake of Miami Vice, the Dukes of Hazzard, and other such crap....

Why scoff? Not to justify the existance of the MPAA but if people think this stuff is crap why are people being caught downloading it?

While the MPAA should be facing more serious legal action than a simple lawsuit the cries of "artists who are protected/represented by the **AA are just crap and their product is crap" are laughable when you consider that the **AA wouldn't have a leg to stand on if people actually felt this way. If people are serious about a boycott they need to go full tilt, if they turn to piracy the **AA is going to get paid either way.

I agree that these movies, for the most part, are crap. But they're crap at any price, you won't be finding this trash on my HD or in my home media collection. I simply have no interest. Pirating only reinforces the concept that stuff like "Gigli" has a viable market that is being robbed by P2P and BT services.

Re:But

[stlhawkeye]

$string = qq|But wait- How can it be wrong if the MPAA does it? laws only apply to us mortals...|;
$string =~ s/MPAA/United States congress/;
print $string;

Re:But

[Overly Critical Guy]

You're right. The fact Torrentspy has filed lawsuit automatically makes it true, and the MPAA guilty.

This ties into the typical Slashdot theme:

1.) It's wrong for the MPAA to dare sue or do anything at all to prevent rampant unauthorized copying of its materials, even though it owns the copyrights to all of them.

2.) It's perfectly okay for torrent piracy groups to sue the MPAA, because it's funny and ironic! Ha ha! Take that, MPAA!

3.) It's also perfectly okay to sue when GPL code gets ripped off, because stealing GPL code is wrong. Even though we say "piracy isn't theft," we call it "stealing" when the GPL is violated. Piracy is only okay when we're stealing from a group we've been told to hate on Slashdot.

Basically, freeloaders who don't want to pay for stuff have crafted entire belief systems to justify what they do, scapegoating legal copyright holders when they do anything at all to fight back. So I'm sure we'll see a lot of cheering over this suit in the comments.

Re:But

[alexmipego]

I was expecting this. And I hope they can prove it so MPAA gets what it deserves. The best part at all is that if they prove MPAA hacked them, even if MPAA has proves that they killed Kennedy, it can't be used against them because it was obtained in an illegal way.

Re:But

[EzInKy]

Why scoff? Not to justify the existance of the MPAA but if people think this stuff is crap why are people being caught downloading it?


Because the truth is there are people who want this crap, just not at the price and/or with the conditions that the MPAA imposes.

Re:But

[Anonymous Coward]

Not to justify the existance of the MPAA but if people think this stuff is crap why are people being caught downloading it?

Because some movies aren't crap at any price. Let's see, I can do three clicks, leave my PC on overnight, and browse through a movie I wouldn't have paid 5 cents for, or I can not do it. It's just too damned easy to obtain a movie, so even people with the smallest of passing interests in it might still download it. Heck, it's so easy I'd download an entire movie I didn't care at all to see just for a single frame of a naked celebrity I've been curious about, but that's just me.

Re:But

[Rosco P. Coltrane]

so we can get great things like a remake of Miami Vice, the Dukes of Hazzard

I completely agree.

Re:But

[pallmall1]

From TFA:

... the MPAA allegedly paid $15,000 to steal e-mail correspondence and trade secrets...

THE MPAA IS SUPPORTING TERRORISTS!

How's that for a theme? Sound familiar to anyone in the U.S.?

Re:But

[Anonymous Coward]

You missed the word "allegedly," and then you make some weird, baseless tie to terrorism to distract the debate. Your opinion can be safely dismissed as uneducated.

Re:But

[Traiklin]

what about sending them to jail for hacking the same way the Justice Department likes to sentence other hackers??

MPAA: What? you want to send us to jail? *Pulls out checkbook* Here's $30 mill.
JD: Oh wait, YOU didn't do the hacking, that guy you hired did, we should be going after him. Sorry for wasting your time.

That's how they won't go to jail.

Re:But

[Don Johnson]

I concur.

Re:But

[QMO]

It's also perfectly okay to sue when GPL code gets ripped off, because stealing GPL code is wrong. Even though we say "piracy isn't theft," we call it "stealing" when the GPL is violated

I've seen this sentiment a couple of times.
It sounds very noble, but it is entirely unconvincing.
If Overly Critical Guy would give at least one example of a single person that stated both views he would be more credible.

As it is, it sounds like Overly Critical Guy can't believe that the contradictory sentiments may actually be held by non-intersecting subsets of posters.

Re:But

[HiThere]

Because they're different groups of people?

I haven't bought a CD in years ... except to burn software onto. I have a collection from before I started my boycott, and I occasionally listen to something that I used to like. It's ok. Not good.

A large part of being a part of the market for music CDs is being in the *habit* of listening to new ones. If you lose the habit, you stop wanting new CDs. So the RIAA is in a really tough position. If they implement effective controls on copying, they cut their audience, and if they don't their audience cuts them out.

The MPAA is a slightly different animal, but not much. I no longer go to see movies, and I don't miss them. My wife subscribes to NetFlix, and I don't even bother to watch them. Even though they're already paid for. It's not time pressure, either. I just lost the habit. I used to watch lots of TV, and now I don't.

Is it because they are purveying crap? Possibly. But they always were, you know. If I look at the old movies I liked, or listen to the old music, well, Sturgeon's law...only squared. There is actually some good stuff there, but slightly less than 1%. If you want "very good" it becomes much less than 1%. It's mostly a matter of habit.

Perhaps the original StarWars was as good as I remember. The second time I saw it, it still seemed pretty good, even though it was years later, the screen was an ordinary screen, and the print was pretty scratchy. The sequels? I saw the first one. It was ok, but nothing special. I've heard about several of the others...apparently there are several unexpected plot twists. It takes more than plot twists to make a movie worth seeing. In fact, plot twists aren't even necessary. The basic plot can be totally predictable and the movie can still be great (think "West Side Story" or "Camelot").

The thing is, you can set out to make a great movie, but you can't reliably get there. You can set out to make a splashy special effects movie, and you can reliably achieve it. You've got to be willing to make a bunch of schlock to make an occasional masterpiece. Some Directors are. Occasionally a producer is. A business office is never willing to do that.

If the MPAA rules, there will never be any more great movies. Don't criticize them because they produce crap, criticize them for fouling the well.

That said, lots of people like schlock. It can be watched mindlessly and without significant emotional involvement. "I Love Lucy" was one of the most successful radio shows ever produced, and almost all of it is schlock. There were occasional gems, but mainly it was schlock.

It would be nice if this suit were to bankrupt the MPAA. I don't expect it. But if every participant in both the MPAA and the RIAA caught a disgusting disease and dies slowly of the period of three years...I wouldn't weep one tear. Though I would feel a bit sorry for the janitors.

Re:But

[Solra Bizna]

Clearly, you don't live in the United States. Move here, and in a few weeks, you'll understand what GP was talking about.

-:sigma.SB

Re:But

[DougLorenz]

Because the truth is there are people who want this crap, just not at the price and/or with the conditions that the MPAA imposes.

That's really not your best possible argument here...

For example, I drive a pretty nice car, an Audi. If I was to sell it, it wouldn't be cheap. However, there are people out there that would like to drive an Audi, but do not want to pay the amount of money that they cost. Should I be required to sell my car to them for a lower price than I wish simply because other people don't want to pay the amount of money that I would be willing to sell at?

We aren't talking about air, water or food here... You don't need an MP3 to survive, so if the MPAA and the recording artists want to price their product out of the range where people are willing to buy, then it is up to them. Don't buy their product.

I agree that most people who just go and borrow a friend's CD and rip it to their iPod aren't trying to do damage to the recording artists. However, many of those recording artists have decided that it does damage them when someone uses P2P or other "sharing" software to distribute free copies of these artists work over the internet.

Seriously people, how many of you walk into a WalMart, grab a handful of stuff and just walk out the door? It isn't your property, and you shouldn't be acting with righteous indignation when the rightful property owner gets upset.

Re:But

[Anonymous Coward]

But copyright infringement is not nearly the same thing as theft.

With theft, you lose your Audi or Walmart physically loses the stuff off the shelf. With copyright infringement, the MPAA is not physically deprived of their property. Their is potential loss of profit because the demand for their product goes down, but the same could be said if people had the ability to make their own car and thus make purchasing your Audi less attractive.

Re:But

[Digital Vomit]

Why scoff? Not to justify the existance of the MPAA but if people think this stuff is crap why are people being caught downloading it?

People like to take the time to look at car accidents, but that doesn't mean car accidents are a good thing.

...unless, I suppose, the vehicles involved where ones containing chaufferred MPAA executives. But, I digress...

Re:But

[Isotopian]

Good to see we've come to an accordance on this.

Re:But

[AuMatar]

Why scoff? Not to justify the existance of the MPAA but if people think this stuff is crap why are people being caught downloading it?

For the same reason people stare at car wrecks- we know its horrible, but we can't help ourselves.

There's also the S&M community too- can you think of a worse torture?

Re:But

[Red Flayer]

HINT: Take a look at the usernames. Do Roscoe P. Coltrane and Don Johnson ring any bells for you?

If that doesn't help, then it's probably a good thing that you're unfamiliar with those two shows.

Re:But

[DougLorenz]

And that is a valid argument, even though I disagree with it.

If the MPAA did what this article claims, then they are guilty of a similar offense. Obviously, in filing their lawsuit, TorrentSpy states that they believe that the use of proprietary information can be restricted. For example, the article states:

"We have very significant proof of wrongdoing and the MPAA's involvement," Rothken said. "We think it's ironic for the MPAA to claim that they are protecting the rights of the movie studios and then go out and pirate other people's property."

The representative for TorrentSpy, attorney Ira Rothken, states his opinion that the MPAA is supporting piracy of other people's property. He isn't just making a public claim that the MPAA supports piracy, but instead he is suing the MPAA since he recognizes that piracy is unlawful.

But it can also be stated that if the accusations are correct, then the MPAA doesn't commit piracy themselves, they just facilitated it by paying someone else to do so... Yes, that would be very ironic. So if the MPAA is accused of piracy, then shouldn't we recognize that TorentSpy should also be seen as facilitating piracy in their own actions?

The whole situation is one which takes some real ethical tapdancing. I understand the feeling of schadenfreude that comes from TorrentSpy suing the MPAA. However, there is a hypocracy that is inherent in both sides of this argument. The root of the hypocracy is the concept that since an MP3 is information, and not a physical construct, then it doesn't harm anyone when you steal it.

However, the people that own the rights to that MP3 do feel that it is being stolen, and we really should be giving more respect to their point of view as well.

Re:But

[Isotopian]

Man, right over my head. I lose.

Re:But

[Red Flayer]

It took me a bit to figure it out -- the tipoff was the low-ish userid for Roscoe, I couldn't figure out why someone with that userID would post such an inane comment.

It explains the redundant mod, too :)

Re:But

[thatguywhoiam]

We have to keep all those great artists employed so we can get great things like a remake of Miami Vice, the Dukes of Hazzard, and other such crap....

While I applaud your overall point, I take umbrage with your first example. Michael Mann has made many fine films, enough that I can give him a pass if he wants to go back and try Miami Vice again as a feature.

Re:But

[greenzrx]

Your car analogy isn't a good one. Your Audi is a finite resource, and once you sell it, or it gets stolen, then you don't have it anymore. it would be more like, if someone took an exact replica of your car, and offered anyone who was going to buy *your* car, free rides. This *may* deprive you of buyers, or, it may just make people reaize that an Audi's just not for me, and I'll make do with the bus. Or, it may make someone realize that , wow, nice car, I'll go out and buy my own...

Re:But

[homer_ca]

We aren't talking about air, water or food here... You don't need an MP3 to survive

It's a little more complicated than that. I, as one person, may not need one particular MP3 to survive. However, in aggregate music, art, science and philosophy form culture, and we, as a society, need culture to survive as an advanced civilization. We need those things to inspire us with dreams and aspirations, to make us see past our own insignificant lives, to leave a legacy for future generations.

Some forms of art are expensive, like making movies, but other forms like music and creative writing are very inexpensive. A motivated hobbyist can do a pretty decent job at music or writing. What the studios have done is positioned themselves as the gatekeepers and the toll booths of culture. Sure, they do provide a service of filtering out crappy content (crappy in the sense of unpolished and poorly produced), but the value of that service is all out of proportion to their tax on culture.

Re:But

[GeckoX]

What an obviously biased and jaded pile of crap, if I may say so.

What your personal dislike of movies and cd's has to do with whether any good movies or music is made any more, and further, what the MPAA and RIAA have to do with any of that...crazy talk man, pure crazy talk.

If you like to be spoon fed crap, then yes, maybe all that exists for you is the MPAA and RIAA. If you actually enjoy good movies or music, then you obviously know that there is a heck of a lot more out there. Don't cry 'no choice so chose nothing', that's a cop out and you're lying to yourself and us.

Re:But

[Anonymous Coward]

shut in

Re:But

[size1one]

People download the movies even if they are crap because it costs them almost nothing. The cost of bandwidth is negligible because its used for other things as well. The majority of these people would probably not pay any amount to see these movies because as you said, its trash and has very little value. The only thing reinforcing the concept that C movies are viable is the idea that every download is a lost sale.

Piracy is just a scapegoat for an industry that churns out horrible products. I'd love to see piracy stopped just so the MPAA and RIAA no longer have anyone to blame.

Re:But

[EzInKy]

That's really not your best possible argument here...


Whether the argument is good or not is irrelevant, I am only stating the reality of the situation.


For example, I drive a pretty nice car, an Audi. If I was to sell it, it wouldn't be cheap. However, there are people out there that would like to drive an Audi, but do not want to pay the amount of money that they cost. Should I be required to sell my car to them for a lower price than I wish simply because other people don't want to pay the amount of money that I would be willing to sell at?


No, you aren't required to sell your car for anything less than your price. Those who want an Audi for less will go find one that is priced lower.


We aren't talking about air, water or food here... You don't need an MP3 to survive, so if the MPAA and the recording artists want to price their product out of the range where people are willing to buy, then it is up to them.


You are right, we aren't talking about food and water here. We are talking about bits and electrons though which are infinitely more abundant resources. If the MPAA refuses to sell those bits and electrons at a price people are willing to pay, people will find them elslewhere.


Don't buy their product.


Isn't the problem that people aren't buying their product?


I agree that most people who just go and borrow a friend's CD and rip it to their iPod aren't trying to do damage to the recording artists. However, many of those recording artists have decided that it does damage them when someone uses P2P or other "sharing" software to distribute free copies of these artists work over the internet.


Many of the people sharing files have decided that it does them damage not to be able to share whatever of their culture that they see fit over the internet.


Seriously people, how many of you walk into a WalMart, grab a handful of stuff and just walk out the door? It isn't your property, and you shouldn't be acting with righteous indignation when the rightful property owner gets upset.


Grabbing handfuls of stuff from Walmart leaves Walmart without that stuff. Artists, on the other hand, would only lose their creation if they lost it in which case I am sure some nice file sharer would be more than happy to provide a copy to replace it.

Re:But

[LoyalOpposition]

For example, I drive a pretty nice car, an Audi. If I was to sell it, it wouldn't be cheap. However, there are people out there that would like to drive an Audi, but do not want to pay the amount of money that they cost. Should I be required to sell my car to them for a lower price than I wish simply because other people don't want to pay the amount of money that I would be willing to sell at?

Well, your analogy hasn't broken yet, so let's see if we can stretch it a little more. Suppose Xerox made a copier that could copy cars. And suppose you made a copy of your Audi and sold it to someone for whatever price you two were able to agree upon. You might have to do a few things like filing off the VIN numbers (or report it to the Department of Redundancy Department) because Audi wouldn't want to provide warranty service for a car they didn't make. But other than that, should Audi be able to have the gendarmes throw you into gaol? Or suppose it was that medicine that prevented death due to dehydration in third-world countries?

-Loyal

Re:But

[GeckoX]

You SO twisted that comment to meet your own needs.

Pulling wanting to watch a crappy movie for whatever reason, but just not being willing to pay big bucks to see it when it's hardly worthy of being broadcast on the boob tube, to insinuating that somehow these people expect to drive audi's for free...get off the crack.

He was asked why does this problem exist if no one wants to watch this crap? And he stated that in fact some people DO want to watch this crap, just not pay more than it's worth to do so...you start by completely invalidating that even though it was right on the money given what was asked.

Then start to berade all of us for wanting to have everything for free? That's a lot of logic leaps there buddy, and bloody fucking ignorant if you ask me.

Re:But

[Skreems]

Too bad they filter out crap and really really good art as well, leaving us with the mediocre pop culture we see all around us. And it's not JUST because people want that... it's easier to find a polished but mediocre band than a true artist, so the studios advertise the mediocre to make people think they have no other options.

Re:But

[DougLorenz]

We can bounce around analogies and we will find that there is a point at which they don't work. For example, your analogy doesn't work because I don't own AUDI, I simply own AN AUDI. If someone began copying Audis and distributing them, whether for free or for profit, they are harming the company that does own Audi, Volkswagen Audi Group of Germany.

VAG spends many millions of dollars doing research and development to design a superior automobile. Audi's Quattro four wheel drive system has won numerous awards, and while other car manufacturers can also develop a four wheel drive system, they can't duplicate the Quattro, and they can't call their own system a Quattro.

In the music or video side this means that your average Joe is allowed to go and make movies or music all they want, and they can even distribute their product as they see fit. However, they cannot duplicate the work of others and distribute it, and they cannot falsely claim to be what they aren't. For example, you cannot create a Flash animated version of Star Wars and distribute it under the Star Wars name.

You can use generic terms, such as calling your music Rock and Roll or Punk or grunge, or you can call your movie an Action movie or a Drama. However, it must be your own product if you are to claim that you have the right to distribute it.

And that is the key. What is going on here isn't about people creating a product of their own and distributing it. They are taking the product from someone else, duplicating it unlawfully, and then distributing it. If it isn't your property (and remember, just because you may own a CD doesn't mean that the music on it is your property) then you don't have a right to do anything you want with it.

The real problem with this discussion is that everyone is disagreeing with the idea of what property is. Until we can create a clear definition that is understandable to everyone, this discussion will continue to be misunderstood by most the people who are participating in it.

Re:But

[honkycat]

There's a pretty substantial difference in the type of information being "stolen." (I use quotes because I am not trying to make a judgement about whether "stealing" info is the same as stealing a car.) What is "stolen" from the RIAA/MPAA is entertainment material intended for distribution to the public. What is "stolen" from Torrentspy is private, personal communications and business numbers.

There is absolutely no inconsistency in a position that only one of these is wrong. The issue Torrentspy is raising has nothing to do with the ethics of duplicating information, it's about privacy.

Re:But

[Skreems]

Movies just don't have the replay value that music has. Even movies I really like, I only watch once every couple of years. So what's the point in owning it? By the time I've seen it twice, there's a new format out. By the time I've seen it four or five times and actually broken even on rental costs, my old format may not even play anymore. If they would sell new DVDs for $5 or so, they could snatch up all the market that goes rental... who wouldn't want to own rather than rent, for the same price? But instead they price themselves out of the market for everyone but those who collect, or watch the same movies over and over.

Re:But

[DougLorenz]

And I would like to see a video of Scarlett Johannsen in the shower, but the fact is that I don't own such a video. Should I have a right to peek in her window? I'm just taking some reflected light, something which I don't see how anyone can miss...

I don't berate people for wanting to have things for free. I breate people for demanding that they have a right to have a free copy of someone else's hard work.

The whole concept boils down to property. and until we are able to define the term in a way that everyone on here can accept, this argument will go on forever...

Re:But

[falconfighter]

Indeed. Plus his sniper rifle's pretty sweet.

Re:But

[Anonymous Coward]

Breaking into your computer and taking your financial information is different than making copies of the financial information you post to Slashdot. If you cannot see that matter-of-factly then I am afraid there's no help for you.

Re:But

[EastCoastSurfer]

I agree. You have people saying how much music today sucks while at the same time downloading by the truckloads. If people really want the quality to increase then don't buy it, download it, or even acknowlege its existence.

From the xxAA standpoint, they see all the downloading and think they are producing great stuff and all they need to do is lock it down to force people to pay for it.

Re:But

[pureevilmatt]

I agree with you 100%. But if both the proponents and opponents of the various **AA's stopped using the terms harmful "theft" and harmless "copying" respectively, and started using a more accurate term, such as "devaluation", their arguments would not have as much strength. The views of "information to be free" and "intellectual property" are incompatible. Therefor the extremist views are needed, because there is a fundamental difference in ideology, and because the argument isn't nearly as interesting without the extremist POV.

Re:But

[DougLorenz]

What is "stolen" from the RIAA/MPAA is entertainment material intended for distribution to the public. What is "stolen" from Torrentspy is private, personal communications and business numbers.

And here is the problem once again, a definition issue. the MPAA doesn't believe that what TorrentSpy is helping to steal is simply "material intended for distribution to the public". Generally most movies have a legal statement on them which makes it clear that the product is NOT for public distribution, but instead is only for private viewing.

Do you believe that they do not have a right to do this?

Re:But

[sustik]

Or: methamphetamines are ruining people, but if it is so bad for them, why are they caught taking it?

You may think the analogy extreme. Yes, as far as the consequences/importance is argued, it certainly is.

However, consider that nowadays more and more movies and TV shows attempt to greatly overwhelm the sensory perception to achieve that 'high' that appears to be the *only* thing that keeps larger and larger portion of the audience watching. This applies mostly to entertainment, but also more and more to newscast as well.

The movies today better be fast paced, with stunning visuals, sound effects and tricks (with or without computer animation) with less and less appeal to the intellect which requires WORK from the recepient, including the use of imagination, reasoning etc. Classics are becoming considered slow and boring. Some films appearing on the face as intellectual films use cliches, do not really encourage independent thinking etc. You get the picture.

My point is that the crap they are pushing is addictive, while valuable entertainment (art, science, history, philosophy etc.) needs acquired taste and be nurtured by parents, peers etc. I am not surprised that addicts break the law to feed their addiction.

One may argue that some segments of the entertainment industry is just slightly better than the tobacco industry.

Of course there are still good movies, music, newscoverage out there (being produced still). But there is a frightening trend to note.

Re:But

[Anonymous Coward]

1. Because it's extremely easy and free, that's why it's downloaded. Put a 'free' sign on a pile of dung and offer free delivery and you'll find takers. 2. Perhaps, just maybe, the reason for establishing copyright has some relevance to the discussion. 'The advancement of Arts and Sciences'. Where does the Dukes of Hazard fall in that?

Your reasoning is of the most dangersous and lazy type, that if all of society just rolls over, walks away, sees nothing, hears nothing, the most oneruous legislative deformation of the society has no impact. You're dead wrong, and frankly it's a cowardly stance.

Re:But

[msuarezalvarez]

Few things make me as sad around here as the amazing fact that lots of people seem to think there is a correlation between the size of the user ID and $whatever.

Re:But

[Anonymous Coward]

What do you think makes him Overly Critical?

Re:But

[kimvette]

"Pirating only reinforces the concept that stuff like "Gigli" has a viable market that is being robbed by P2P and BT services."

I watched Gigli when it was being rerun on the cable networks ad nauseum. It's definitely worth watching if it happens to come on a channel one is currently subscribed to (I've watched worse movies - namely Police Academy 1 through 4 and both Bill & Ted movies) but I would never pay to see it in the theater, nor would I pay even the cost of a pirate DVD for it. I might consider buying a $.99 Xvid version of it, or consider spending bandwidth and CPU time to download it. Not all movies that people download are movies that people would bother buying. On the other hand, some people use bittorrent to download movies to see if they like them enough to buy the DVD. For example: I've never seen THX1138 (just a few minutes here and there the rare times I see it in the cable guide) but am downloading an Xvid version of it right now to see if I like it, and if I do I will be ordering the DVD through Amazon. *shrug* If it weren't for Bittorrent, I would not even be considering purchasing THX1138 based on the crap Lucas has produced. Every bit of his work other than the original Star Wars trilogy has, well, not been to my liking, to put it politely. If I buy THX1138, the MPAA members involved in its distribution/licensing will have Bittorrent "pirates" to thank for making the sale (of course THX1138 should be public domain by now were it not for the mickey mouse legislation but that's beside the point)

Re:But

[GeckoX]

No one was arguing that particularly troublesome point until you insisted on injecting it into the conversation, thanks.

Re:But

[Anonymous Coward]

and remember, just because you may own a CD doesn't mean that the music on it is your property I was with you up until this, if I purchase a song through iTunes with the intention to listen to it on my MP3 player does that mean I'm wrong in removing the DRM they encumber onto the download in order to listen to it with the intent I purchase said item for? Even if I delete all copies on the host machine after transfering it. What if I break the MP3 player? Do I then have to pay again for something I already "owned"? When the tape deck came out most of us copied the 33's we had onto tape so we could enjoy the music in our cars etc, should I have to pay for a copy of a single piece of original song for every location I wish to listen to it in? Hell count out driving and listening to music since you'd probably have to pay for each {arbitary distance} travelled since it would be a new location.

Re:But

[SillyNickName4me]

For all I can tell, the MPAA is being sued for breaking into a computer system (or paying someone to do so for them) with the intent of obtaining data without permission. This data is not, and was never intended for publication.

The RIAA/MPAA material being copied on p2p networks however was (intended for being) published, no (virtual) breaking into mpaa/riaa computers is taking place etc.

In other words, the 2 situations are so different that compating them as you do and claiming they are in fact the same thing is imho extremely silly.

Re:But

[Srin Tuar]

Legalities aside,
It is valid and consistent position to hold that violating copyright is moral, while violating copyleft is amoral.

The two are not identical in intention. Copyleft is in fact designed to thwart copyright.
(the names rather implies as much)

Re:But

[SillyNickName4me]

If someone began copying Audis and distributing them, whether for free or for profit, they are harming the company that does own Audi, Volkswagen Audi Group of Germany.

For the moment ignoring all the other reasons why your analogy is a bad one.. You do realize that the difference between say a movie and a car is that duplicating and transporting the first takes virtually no efford, while duplicating and transporting the second does? You also realize that the MPAA and RIAA represent companies involved in recording, producing and distributing music and movies, but not the artists who actually create those?

Re:But

[Anonymous Coward]

If people think this stuff is crap why are people being caught downloading it?

I'm pretty sure it has something to do with Jessica Simpson in a bikini. Not worth the price of admission, but worth torrenting.

Re:But

[Haeleth]

The root of the hypocracy is the concept that since an MP3 is information, and not a physical construct, then it doesn't harm anyone when you steal it.

It can't "harm anyone when you steal it", because you can't steal it. It's not a physical construct, so it can't be stolen.

It does, however, violate people's legal rights when you copy an MP3 illegally.

See? It's possible to use accurate, non-emotive language to make accurate, non-emotive statements of fact. It's not theft. And you don't have to call it something it isn't. Someone will doubtless now accuse me of trying to "justify" copyright infringement, which I'm not. Copying people's data without their permission is just as illegal as taking people's property without their permission. But it's not the same thing.

However, the people that own the rights to that MP3 do feel that it is being stolen

Yes, and often the family of a murder victim will refer to their loved one being stolen from them, and often rape victims will speak of their life being stolen from them. But nobody feels any need to refer to murder or rape as theft...

Re:But

[DougLorenz]

You are absolutely correct. A large part of this discussion is fed by the frustration that comes from a very difficult definition.

Technically, the recording companies do have the right to define in fairly rigid terms how you may use the content that you purchase on CDs or on iTunes. In many cases, it appears that the way they define their terms of use is difficult to comply with, and even inconvenient. There are laws which make that a little easier, such as fair use laws which allow some use of copyrighted material, as well as laws which allow you to make backup copies of copyrighted material.

But there are some cases such as the one you have pointed out where it is possible for someone to lose all their copies of a song, and be forced to purchase it again. I had to do that fairly recently myself when I found that my dog had damaged a vintage a-ha CD of mine, rendering it useless. I had to purchase the replacement...

And there are many people who go and copy their CDs so that they can carry one copy in their car, and leave one at home. I know the legality of that is questionable as well, but there hasn't been any desire expressed by the RIAA to prosecute those people, since they generally have bought one copy and aren't usually listening to the music at home and in their car at the same time.

The problem really comes from people who are "sharing" music, a term which I place in quotes since they really aren't sharing, simply allowing others to make copies of their music and distribute them anonymously. Sharing would probably suggest that while someone else is listening to a copy of Barry Manilow's greatest hits that you chose to share with him, you would not also be listening to that as well. The anonymous distribution being done through P2P really shows the "sharing" argument to be disingenuous.

The problem you are facing is over terms of use, and the companies are making it more and more complicated in an effort to try and deal with people who are participating in unlawful copyright violation and distribution.

Re:But

[iminplaya]

With copyright infringement, the MPAA is not physically deprived of their property.

Let's not forget that it's not their property to begin with. It's a government granted custodianship. They are the caretakers for a limited time. They do not own anything.

Re:But

[SillyNickName4me]

but the fact is that I don't own such a video. Should I have a right to peek in her window? I'm just taking some reflected light, something which I don't see how anyone can miss...

Bad analogy, she did lose privacy there.

Get to think of it, the more I read from your arguments in this discussion, the more I have to agree with those who call you ignorant. For all clarity, I believe there are some good arguments to be made for copyright, but not the ones you have been making. They sound awlfully similar to the extremely bad and intentionally misguiding statements from the MPAA and friends (think about the artists!! wtf? ever seen how much an artist gets payed by them??)

Re:But

[Anonymous Coward]

So maybe if they made the content at a reasonble price to the average consumer they'd be more willing to buy the original piece. I have seen people with a huge collection of pirates and thought "shit that must have cost a hell of a lot of money" and seen others with 7 or 8 games that's cost them 10 times more than the pirates. If the industries would accept that a lower quality content that's FREE since they can't afford the outrageous prices they charge is ok for 1/10th the price of the original then they need to review what they're doing wrong.

Re:But

[zotz]

[Generally most movies have a legal statement on them which makes it clear that the product is NOT for public distribution, but instead is only for private viewing.

Do you believe that they do not have a right to do this?]

Not quite right. They sell (distribute) it to the public for the private viewing of the public. In other words, although they distribute it to the public, they don't want the public turning around and giving public performances. (Like showing the copy at your place of business for instance as a guess.)

They may indeed have every right to do this, and making and distributing these copies may indeed be illegal, but this is indeed material which they produced for distribution to the public.

Seems like that to me at least.

all the best,

drew

Re:But

[crabpeople]

These are not at all contridictory, and i hold those two positions with no problem. While it appears that these two actions are the same thing (stealing gpl code and copyrigth infringment) they are actually quite far apart.

When you take GPL code and pass it off in your program as your own, you are taking credit for anothers work.

When you take a song and copy it, no one calls you britney spears and tries to get you to sing for them to make money.

The proper idea of copyright is to protect the SOURCE of the innovation. If i copied a bunch of indie band songs and then released them as my own, then thats the wrong side of morality. If i make a copy, giving full rights to the original authors (as evidenced in the song name or ID3 tag) i have done nothing morally wrong. I have not tried to pass off someones work as my own.

That is the real reason for copyrights. Personally i think the artist should be honored that i enjoyed their music so much that i gave it to a friend to enjoy.

Re:But

[pxuongl]

a slight clarification.... big honchos can only be held accountable if all the following apply:

1) the media unilaterally turns against said big honcho
2) a plurality of US legislators turns their back on aforementioned big cheese
3) if el queso grande isn't the current president of the US

Re:But

[honkycat]

The distinction I'm making is that the MPAA will gladly share their movies with any member of the public who will pay their price. In that sense, they are intended for public distribution.

That is materially different from, for example, my social security number. Yeah, if you go through my records and publish this, I still have my copy of that number so you haven't taken anything away. You have, however, violated my privacy and potentially caused me great harm.

This is a much deeper distinction than just definition.

Re:But

[Cal Paterson]

Your car analogy isn't a good one.

A car analogy...not good? MY....GOD.....

Re:But

[Anonymous Coward]

And car accidents have even less replay value. By the way, where can I download some?

Re:But

[espressojim]

Let's see how long Skilling and Lay go to jail for. If they get 15+ year sentences, it gives me just a little bit of hope - they spent $38M on their defense, and were still found guilty.

Re:But

[Sj0]

No, you win. The pop culture references are clearly beneath you.

Re:But

[Anonymous Coward]

It's a perfectly fine analogy. He said peek inside her window. Which would require that the photons were already free to pass out in the world through her uncovered window. That fact that there was no observer collecting those photons doesn't change her already lost privacy.

Re:But

[Fordiman]

Sheep.

Re:But

[sumdumass]

It doesn't really matter. The suite isn't really about wich form of theft or copyright violation is worse. It is about what information could be used to support evidence in court.

Thats what this is really about. It is saying that you cannot break into my home/office and find something to sue me over and then use that information you gathered from the breakin to do so. I'm betting that if the torrentspy's case will be heard first because it directly goes against evidence. If they win, MPAA case will probably get tossed out or fail miserably. Then instead of it being two people who broke the law, it would be one that broke the law and one that is accusedor suspected of breaking some law.

Now asuming that both of them are doing wrong, It comes down to simple rights of inocent unill proven guilty. As much as some would like, you shouldn't be able to break the law in order to show someone else is breaking a law. Especialy if you are the benifiter of the law that was broken. Now surprisingly, if someoen seperate breaks the law and the evidence of another law was shown because of that, then it is fair game. (IE, a plain robber breaks in and steals a laptop. When he is cought, evidence of a murder or extortion/embezelment is found but the criminal done it only to hock the laptop and not prove your murdered or embezeled.)

Re:But

[SillyNickName4me]

If what you say were true, it would be perfectly fine to use a telescope to peek into every window you could see.. You are not distributing anything there..

Last time I checked however, this is not considered legal..

Re:But

[Hentai]

Try the toothpaste analogy next.

Re:But

[Fordiman]

"It's wrong for the MPAA to dare sue or do anything at all to prevent rampant unauthorized copying of its materials, even though it owns the copyrights to all of them."

Not wrong, just annoying.

"It's perfectly okay for torrent piracy groups to sue the MPAA, because it's funny and ironic! Ha ha! Take that, MPAA!"

Different kind of suit.. This one's a privacy issue; they ring more loudly with more people.

"It's also perfectly okay to sue when GPL code gets ripped off, because stealing GPL code is wrong. Even though we say "piracy isn't theft," we call it "stealing" when the GPL is violated."

Unrelated, but here's the thing: the GPL is not a copyright. It's a license restriction that says the licensed material must have no other license restrictions. Copyright's a convenient place for it to reside, but not the basis of its workings.

"Piracy is only okay when we're stealing from a group we've been told to hate on Slashdot."

Close. Piracy is only okay when I find it convenient and not morally objectionable. And please, please say something about the feds and breaking down my doors.. those are the funniest, most mislead comments I get to see on slashdot that don't come from creationists and apple fanboys.

Re:But

[Anonymous Coward]

I find the concept of "stolen" as used by the MPAA to be rather unique. Somoeone sells you property (say a car), you can do whatever you want with that car (it's yours afterall). From the MPAA's point of view, they sell you the right to drive THEIR car. You don't actually OWN the car, you simply purchased the right to drive it, in a manner consistent with their policies.

As an interesting side note, the MPAA's outlook would have us believe that any Public Library is a den of Pirates that have cost them quadrillions in lost revenue.

I tend to hold to the old argument that: it's mine, I bought it, I can do what I please with it.

Re:But

[metamatic]

However, the people that own the rights to that MP3 do feel that it is being stolen, and we really should be giving more respect to their point of view as well.

I feel that you owe me $200. You really should be giving more respect to my point of view.

Hey, it's just as valid an opinion as the idea that copying an MP3 means it is "stolen".

Re:But

[Anonymous Coward]

lol

Re:But

[Anonymous Coward]

TorrentSpy is a tool which some use for unlawful purposes.

TorrentSpy facilitates unlawful copying as much as any home improvement store facilitates the breaking of windows by selling bricks. It's a tool. It's neither inherently good nor evil. It can, however, be used for either purpose (good or evil).

Now, contrast that to what the MPAA did: the MPAA hired someone to unlawfully access a network.

No one is arguing that unlawful copying should be made legal. What we are arguing is that you cannot sue the brickmaker for making bricks that someone else used to break a window. The MPAA did a bad thing (tm) and they got caught. Don't try to make this look like two black hats dueling in the street at high noon. There's only one black hat here and that's the MPAA

Re:But

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

Somehow, I just had a vision of a car parking on a level crossing, the door locks automatically engaging, and then someone's phone ringing, as a guy in a sling stands outside the car looking mean in a suit.

I can't think where that came from, or why it's connected to your comment...

Re:But

[joeljkp]

I just want to say that I find it humorous that torrentspy.com has this at the bottom of their site:

"Copyright 2005. All rights reserved."

Re:But

[Anonymous Coward]

There's a difference between being unlawful and wrong. I can't speak for the people at Torrentspy, but so long as the MPAA is suing for this sort of stuff, they should be held accountable for when they do it. Nobody is trying to deny that piracy is unlawful.

Re:But

[FLEB]

OTOH, the only thing that keeps seeing a movie from costing the thousands-to-millions that it cost to make it is the fact that it is copyable and time-shiftable. You might not be depriving others of goods, but you're stealing services, albeit time-shifted and distributed services.

Re:But

[maop]

Yes, it takes work to find the good stuff but frankly it is easier now than ever before. Read Ebert for movies, go to metacritic.com, and download or stream artists' freely available singles. I don't listen to radio and have 150 CDs in my collection but still buy 2 or 3 a month. I don't watch TV but can still find great movies to see by listening to word-of-mouth and reading media coverage.

Re:But

[pallmall1]

You missed the word "allegedly," and then you make some weird, baseless tie to terrorism to distract the debate.

I didn't miss the word allegedly. It was right in the original quote. You can't read and you say my opinion is uneducated.

And the "weird, baseless tie to terrorism" is exactly my point about a "theme".

Re:But

[gEvil (beta)]

Notice that my UID is pretty large? *nudge*nudge*wink*wink*

Re:But

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't buy their product

We don't. We download it for free. :-)

Re:But

[Travelsonic]

You are such an "absolute copyrights no reasonable exception"/RIAA/MPAA tool. Your false generalizing about /. posters, most of which isn't close to what was posted by the majority on this thread just proves it.

1.) It's wrong for the MPAA to dare sue or do anything at all to prevent rampant unauthorized copying of its materials, even though it owns the copyrights to all of them.

First, I am assuming that you mean any illegal copying right? Since unauthorized != illegal all of the time, otherwise we wouldn't have fair use. Yes they should do what is in their power to stop illegal (not nessecarily unauthorized) copying of THEIR work, but not the way they are doing so now - that means no suing dead people, or people without computers, suing netwroks or aksing them to do asinine and/or impossible things, and most important of all, cut the emotional bullshit!

It's perfectly okay for torrent piracy groups to sue the MPAA, because it's funny and ironic! Ha ha! Take that, MPAA!

First, Torrentspy is not a piracy group, or one that encourages piracy, TorrentSpy is just a SEARCH ENGINE! Certainly I don't think that serch engines should be illegal, do you? Second, that is a legitimate view to laugh for the itronic twist of fate, at least I feel so, so back off. ^_^ I won't deal with the rest since it is nothing but RIAA fud (Copyright infringement is COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT. NOTHING ELSE! Not rape, larceny, arson, murder, and most importantly, not theft! GET IT RIGHT!), and generalizations pulled up the wazoo.

Re:But

[azuretek]

schadenfreude

word of the day on your google homepage? cause I know I've been trying to use that word since it came up a few days ago....

Re:But

[petermgreen]

Copyright's a convenient place for it to reside, but not the basis of its workings.

copyright is the only thing that gives the GPL any power whatsoever.

with copyright you have to agree to the GPL or you can't legally redistribute the work.

without copyright you could just redistribute the code in any form you liked without ever having to agree to the GPL.

short of getting everyone who obtained a copy to verifiablly agree to a contract without copyright you would be totally unprotected.

Re:But

[cHiphead]

Because noone in the right mind would pay for that crap. And some of those same people will sit and watch any terrible made for tv Richard Greico vs. Giant Spiders movie that might be on.

Cheers.

Re:But

[DougLorenz]

If what you say were true, it would be perfectly fine to use a telescope to peek into every window you could see.. You are not distributing anything there..

Last time I checked however, this is not considered legal..

Exactly... And it is also not considered legal to freely distribute someone else's copyrighted work. I'm having real difficulty here understanding why people can't put together the facts on this issue.

Simple breakdown: (we'll use a music CD as an example)

You have a writer that pens the lyrics to the next great chart topping song. You have the performer who sings it. You have the producer that records it. You have the record label that presses it onto CDs, packages it and sells it. Together, they have created a series of rules as to how the product of their work can be used. They generally state that you can listen to their product privately, and not for profit. They have separate agreements with radio stations and other broadcasters who pay other fees for the usage.

They offer their product to you under these terms for a certain amount of money. If you agree to the terms that they offer, you give them the money, and they give you a CD which contains a copy of their work. You own the CD, but your purchase agreement doesn't give you ownership of the recorded work on the CD, just the right to use that work in a manner consistent with the agreement that you made.

Then someone decides to break the agreement by making copies of the work and giving it away for free. I understand that there are people on Slashdot who believe that they can do whatever they want simply because they want to do it, but the fact is that what is happening is violating the rights of the people who own the recording.

It doesn't matter whether you believe that it isn't that big of a deal, or whether you believe that you aren't really stealing anything. It doesn't matter that you believe that you really own the contents of the CD you purchased. You can believe that you own the Golden Gate bridge, but just try crossing it without paying the toll...

For the most part, neither the RIAA or anyone else really cares about people who are copying a CD for use in their car while leaving the original at home. They really don't care all that much about someone that gives a copy to a friend. What they have a problem with are the services out there that allow you to freely give out thousands of copies of music that they paid to produce, package, and market.

I do agree that if the MPAA did what they are being accused of, then they are even bigger criminals than TorrentSpy. And while it may be a bit cliche to state "Two Wrongs Don't Make a Right", it is the truth. Just listen to your mothers from time to time...

Re:But

[Anonymous Coward]

Why scoff? Not to justify the existance of the MPAA but if people think this stuff is crap why are people being caught downloading it?

uhhh ... 'cause most of this crap isn't worth paying for...hell, I'm often PO'd that I wasted bandwidth on it after I've seen ... never mind that it's 90minutes I'll never get back.

Here's a lawsuit: wasting my time should cost the MPAA money ... :)

Re:But

[DougLorenz]

word of the day on your google homepage? cause I know I've been trying to use that word since it came up a few days ago....

Checking Google, it appears that this was the word of the day for August 22nd, 2005, better than nine months ago... You might want to consider cutting back on the skinny cigarettes, they appear to be affecting your time sense... :)

Re:But

[azuretek]

Christ, the days seem so quick...

Re:But

[kurzweilfreak]

Last time I checked, neither was copyright infringement.

Re:But

[kurzweilfreak]

Eraser.

Re:But

[SillyNickName4me]

Exactly... And it is also not considered legal to freely distribute someone else's copyrighted work. I'm having real difficulty here understanding why people can't put together the facts on this issue.

Nicely ignoring that the example I give is NOT illegal because of distribution.. Are you capable of reading at all? or can you just post rants without ever listening..

Simple breakdown: (we'll use a music CD as an example)

You have a writer that pens the lyrics to the next great chart topping song. You have the performer who sings it. You have the producer that records it. You have the record label that presses it onto CDs, packages it and sells it. Together, they have created a series of rules as to how the product of their work can be used. They generally state that you can listen to their product privately, and not for profit. They have separate agreements with radio stations and other broadcasters who pay other fees for the usage.

No, they did not create that set of rules together, rather, society encoded a set of rules into law, believing it would help promoting progress of art. Those rules were then hijacked by the recording industry to maximize proffit.

The recording industry needs society for enforcing said rules, so society definitely has a say about what this protection is and is not.

They offer their product to you under these terms for a certain amount of money. If you agree to the terms that they offer, you give them the money, and they give you a CD which contains a copy of their work. You own the CD, but your purchase agreement doesn't give you ownership of the recorded work on the CD, just the right to use that work in a manner consistent with the agreement that you made.

No, I did not sign any agreement when buying a CD, so there is NO agreement any recording company can hold me to. I do need to keep to the local laws however. Again, it is not the recording industry who can set the rules (other then by 'bribing' politicians of course)

Then someone decides to break the agreement by making copies of the work and giving it away for free. I understand that there are people on Slashdot who believe that they can do whatever they want simply because they want to do it, but the fact is that what is happening is violating the rights of the people who own the recording.

You have two problems here:

1. Your idea about what those rights are, and who decides on what they are is pretty wrong as pointed out above
2. Some of those people at least argue that current copyright law is unfair and unjust and in fact conflicts with
      the purpose of copyright as mentioned in the constitution. 'Good men don't follow unjust law' is a founding
      principe of the USA (being an important part of the justification of rebelling against England) so this is not
      that easy to dismiss, regardless of what you believe the rights of the people who own the recording are.

It doesn't matter whether you believe that it isn't that big of a deal, or whether you believe that you aren't really stealing anything. It doesn't matter that you believe that you really own the contents of the CD you purchased. You can believe that you own the Golden Gate bridge, but just try crossing it without paying the toll...

As long as the USA is a democracy and the recording industry needs protection by law, yes it very much matters what the citizens of that country think.

Unlike you believe, copyright is not a natural right, it is a specific protection provided by society with a very specific purpose.

As long as you keep willingly ignoring how the recording industry has been abusing this protection (by withholding works from the public domain, so in effect withholding that what they have to pay for the rights they gained), you are ignoring a very important side of this discussion, and you will also never be able to understand why some people are in fact ignoring the law with a morally correct justification (while others are as you say just freeloading because they can, but that does not take away the issue I point at, it is another issue)

Re:But

[rbarreira]

Personally i think the artist should be honored that i enjoyed their music so much that i gave it to a friend to enjoy.

That's very nice and true, but people don't get fed with just honor, they need food as well. Not that most of the money from selling music doesn't go to the labels/distributors/whatever...

Re:But

[tehcyder]

The RIAA/MPAA material being copied on p2p networks however was (intended for being) published

I don't understand this argument, which I have seen before on slashdot.

Just because something is published doesn't give everyone the right to do what they want with it. "Published" does not mean "in the public domain and therefore fair game."

Re:But

[unitron]

""I Love Lucy" was one of the most successful radio shows ever produced, and almost all of it is schlock. There were occasional gems, but mainly it was schlock."

Well, see, if you'd watched it on television (especially if you had watched it in the context of being alive when it was new), you might have a greater appreciation.

I suggest you splurge and get a new picture tube for your radio.

Re:But

[tehcyder]

it's just as valid an opinion as the idea that copying an MP3 means it is "stolen"

Isn't it just playing with words to differentiate between "stealing" (physical theft) and "depriving someone of money" (through fraud, not paying royalties or whatever).

If you created (say) a piece of software that you could sell for $100,000 a pop and I just copied it and used it, surely you would not be happy and you would expect to be able to sue me?

It wouldn't make much difference whether it was called theft or software piracy or copyright infringement, I'd still have done you out of $100,000.

Re:But

[Anonymous Coward]

If someone trespassed into your yard and took a picture of some flowers you have in your garden, would you consider that the same as a person sneaking into your house and taking a picture of you spouse/child sleeping in their beds?

Both are, technically, illegal.

Re:But

[SillySlashdotName]

Isn't it just playing with words to differentiate between "stealing" (physical theft) and "depriving someone of money" (through fraud, not paying royalties or whatever).

If you throw a rock and break my window, I can not have you arrested for murder. What you did does not meet the definition of the charge.

If I leave my front door unlocked and you come into my home unwanted and uninvited, I can not charge you with rape, as what you did does not meet the definition of the charge.

If you infringe on my right to limit the copying of a work (under copyright) I can not charge you with theft, AS WHAT YOU DID DOES NOT MEET THE DEFINITION OF THE CHARGE.

If you created (say) a piece of software that you could sell for $100,000 a pop and I just copied it and used it, surely you would not be happy and you would expect to be able to sue me?

Of course, if I had a copyright on the software and you infringed that copyright, then I could sue you and expect to recoup the lost income. I just could not charge you with theft, as what you did does not meet the definition of the charge.

It wouldn't make much difference whether it was called theft or software piracy or copyright infringement, I'd still have done you out of $100,000.

If you broke into my home and took $100,000 in cash then I would be out the money and you would be guilty of theft. You would NOT, however, be guilty of software piracy or copyright infringement.

If you broke into my home and took a CD with software worth $100,000 then I would be out the CD, and out the use of the software, and you would be guilty of theft, but not of software piracy or copyright infringement.

If I were selling the software for $100,000 and you broke into my shop and took a CD with the software on it, then you would be guilty of theft but not guilty of software piracy or copyright infringement.

If you COPIED that software and distributed it without a license from me (as the copyright holder), THEN you are guilty of copyright infringement - but unless you actually took a physical item from me you ARE NOT guilty of theft. You have not taken anything of value from me, you have only usurped my POTENTIAL PROFIT MAKING ability, a monopoly granted under copyright.

You have infringed on my legal rights, and I can sue you under CIVIL law for redress, but you have not violated CRIMINAL LAW relating to theft.

Same point, in a slightly different wording: If I LEGALLY obtain a copyrighted work under a license that restricts copying of that work then there have been no laws broken or infringed. If I then MAKE A COPY (or copies) without proper licensure, THEN I HAVE NOW BROKEN A LAW OR INFRINGED ON A LEGAL RIGHT. Based on the situation as given in this paragraph, I have not committed assult, libel, slander, carjacking, theft, barratry, loitering, littering, manslaughter, or any number of other actions that are illegal. Therefore, talking about what I did and calling it assult, libel, slander, carjacking, theft, barratry, loitering, littering, manslaughter, or any of the number of other actions that are illegal is wrong. I didn't do any of those things.

Re:But

[SillySlashdotName]

...duplicating it unlawfully,...

YES! Exactly! They are guilty of unlawfully dulplicating, of copying without permission, of breaking the contract that is the license that they agreed to when they obtained the legal copy that was illegally copied (assuming the original was legally obtained, if not that is ANOTHER matter).

There are penalties under the laws for anyone conviced of unlawful copying, just as there are penalties under the laws for theft. But they are NOT THE SAME LAWS or the same PENALTIES because the actions are not CONSIDERED THE SAME under the law.

If it isn't your property (and remember, just because you may own a CD doesn't mean that the music on it is your property) then you don't have a right to do anything you want with it.

Again, I totally agree. You buy a CD, you own the CD. You can microwave it if you want. You can use it as a flying disk if you want. You can hang it from a string and make a wind chime of it if you want. You can give it away if you want. What you CAN'T (legally)do is COPY THE CONTENTS (except for legally allowed exceptions) just because you want to without permission from the copyright owner.

Re:But

[tehcyder]

Thanks, I can see that there is a significant difference between a civil and a criminal consequence. This is not made clear in most discussions I see.

Re:But

[frank_adrian314159]

MPAA: What? you want to send us to jail? *Pulls out checkbook* Here's $30 mill.
JD: Oh wait, YOU didn't do the hacking, that guy you hired did, we should be going after him. Sorry for wasting your time.

I'm afraid what you have described here is bribery and the JD has a rather dim view on that. What really happens is this:

MPAA (to JD): What? you want to send us to jail?
[Motions to passing Senator and pulls out checkbook]
MPAA (to Senator): Here's $30M for your campaigns! BTW, we're having a bit of a problem with the JD.
Senator (to MPAA): Oh my! That's terrible! Let me look into it.
Senator (to JD):My, my, my! You've been busy boys, fighting crime and all, but I've heard you've been going after innocent business organizations. Now, I can't tell you what to do, but that's some lovely funding you have sitting over there I'd hate to see you lose.
JD (to MPAA): Oh wait, YOU didn't do the hacking, that guy you hired did, we should be going after him. Sorry for wasting your time.

You see! This way there'a no bribery involved! Just your normal, upfront, legal political process in action!

Re:But

[dhh8088]

Agreed. It really makes me want to say, "is EVERYONE out there stupid as television and movies makes them appear to be?" Seriously, some of the entertainment products out there are just fancy packaging, and everyone seems to just gobble them up like there's no tomorrow. I find it disconcerting at times...

Re:But

[HiThere]

Sorry, I wasn't clear. I *DON'T* want to see movies. I'm boycotting the MPAA as well as the RIAA. It's just that I no longer even WANT to see them.

Re:But

[HiThere]

I did see it on TV. Occasionally. It was schlock. Funny doesn't keep it from being schlock.

Schlock is liked by a lot of people. It's not to be despised. But it's certainly nothing that anyone with ANYTHING better to do should shape their life around. And it's only art at the very lowest level. When you look back at schlock, you think "Yeah, that was fun.", but it doesn't change you, inspire you, challenge you, or improve you in any way.

Re:But

[Anonymous Coward]

It sure isn't critical thought.

Re:But

[ravenshrike]

Privacy issues have nothing to do with copyright.

Re:But

[SillyNickName4me]

Last time I checked, neither was copyright infringement.

Argument was that the example given would be illegal regardless of copyright, I don't see how your comment is relevant to that at all.

But just in case, you may find that copyright is governed by a different set of laws then privacy, and considering one to be invalid does not make for considering all of them invalid.

Re:But

[mojine]

What is a "hypocracy" ? Govrnment by hypocrites, perhaps ? try hypocrisy ...

Re:But

[Kaphin]

some people are just addicted to downloading shit, it doesn't matter if they watch it

Re:But

[Fordiman]

Better than most copyright licensing. You can't redistribute it at all.

Which brings us to te crux of this purile argument:

Why do piracy advocates like and rabidly protect the GPL while disrespecting others' copyrights?

Read your EULA. Do you think anyone who expects garbage like that deserves your respect?

Re:But

[Vampyre_Macavity]

TorrentSpy is a tool which some use for unlawful purposes.

. . . and the same can be said of any other tool - hammers, nails, cars, gunpowder, lengths of pipe.

The only difference here is that it's a tool for use "ON TEH INT3RN3TZ0RZ!!1!1!111!!1111!!!1eleventyone!!!1!11! 121!11!forty-two!111!11!11omg 3y3 8 j00r r4m3n n00dl3z!!!1!11! OMG 3V4L P1R4T3Z ARE USING IT TO STEAL OUR MOVIES! OMG SUESUESUESUESUESUE! CALL TEH 31337 SHOCK LAWYERS!"

TorrentSpy facilitates unlawful copying as much as any home improvement store facilitates the breaking of windows by selling bricks. It's a tool. It's neither inherently good nor evil. It can, however, be used for either purpose (good or evil).

And one good use for torrent networks (and other forms of P2P filesharing) is distribution of stuff from OverClocked ReMix and Rant Media.

Now if only the MPAA could get it through their thick skulls that they can use torrent networks to their advantage . . .

Wait a minute, am I fucking insane? The MPAA is a bunch of fucking Neanderthals. Either they evolve (doubtful) or die* (preferable).








*hey nsa and other law-enforcement/surveillance organizations - any comments made about the mpaa dying should not be construed as threats of violence. thank you for your attention, and i hope you don't get screwed over too badly by the illegal wiretapping lawsuits.

Hoisted By Their Own Petard!

[eldavojohn]

I would have preferred the headline "DMCA Bites MPAA in A$$" but I suppose the current one will do.

Now, it's only a matter of time before we see the "MPAA Sues MPAA" headline. I'm certain there's money floating all over the place inside the MPAA and those law-talking guys are going to get to thinking that they better sue first for the rights to that money. You don't know the phrase "every man for himself" until you've visited an association of lawyers.

Anyone else praying for the MPAA to implode in on itself like flan left in a cupboard?

Re:Hoisted By Their Own Petard!

[shotfeel]

And all I keep thinking is didn't Senator Hatch try to push through some legislation a couple years ago that would make this perfectly legal for copyright holders? That's about the time he made the statement about if being OK if the RIAA/MPAA "blew up their computers" and wanted to also give them amnesty in case anything bad happened (like they trashed the wrong person's computer).

IIRC though, he pulled back when he suddenly realized anyone who composed a Haiku in elementary school was a copyright holder -not just giant companies.

Re:Hoisted By Their Own Petard!

[jacksonj04]

There's a reason the collective noun for lawyers is a "prey"

Re:Hoisted By Their Own Petard!

[Yocto Yotta]

Is that Flan in it's powdered state, or are you cooking the stuff and putting it in the cupboard? I'm thinking lawsuit ala McDonald's scalding coffee. Copyright Yocto Yotta 2006.

Re:Hoisted By Their Own Petard!

[Anonymous Coward]

Anyone else praying for the MPAA to implode in on itself like flan left in a cupboard?

Is that in opposition to imploding out on itself?

Re:Hoisted By Their Own Petard!

[SubRosa]

If you're in Utah, vote for Pete Ashdown. He runs (ran?) a great local ISP, and is very much in line with many of the technology-related issues /.'ers agree with.

Even if you're not a resident, you can send him a campaign contribution to help him win.

Take down Hatch!

Re:Hoisted By Their Own Petard!

[Anonymous Coward]

You may be trying to be funny, but it almost did happen. Recently too.
clicky (last paragraph).

If just one major member leaves, the whole thing falls apart.

Re:Hoisted By Their Own Petard!

[Anonymous Coward]

But if the MPAA sues itself, how will they make any money?

Re:Hoisted By Their Own Petard!

[Anonymous Coward]

Flan and Petard in one post... a little too much french for the slashdot crowd.

Re:Hoisted By Their Own Petard!

[number11]

didn't Senator Hatch try to push through some legislation a couple years ago that would make this perfectly legal for copyright holders? That's about the time he made the statement about if being OK if the RIAA/MPAA "blew up their computers"

Yes. And about a week later, Senator Hatch got caught running pirated software on his government website.

We didn't hear much from him about blowing up computers after that.

Re:Hoisted By Their Own Petard!

[sharky611aol.com]

Would you fancy yourself an executive transvestite?

Re:Hoisted By Their Own Petard!

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, I vaguely remember that. It was the trial version of some script or other, clearly marked (in the page source) as not for production use.

Re:Hoisted By Their Own Petard!

[Anonymous Coward]

Good thing you didn't choose the title, otherwise we might have those fucking stupid dollar signs on the front page.

Re:Hoisted By Their Own Petard!

[ClamIAm]

I believe he also, at one point, used LAME to compress samples of his music. He uses Realplayer now. Is this a coincidence, or did Fraunhoefer come a-knocking for some protection money?

if the MPAA is sued and loses

[yagu]

If this happens, and MPAA loses, who will be the stewards of our movies? Who will be there to serve the movie-viewing public? Who will ensure we go en masse to the theater over an opening-weekend to recoup movie-making costs before word spreads of what a turkey that movie is (more on that in sec)?

This looks serious. Please, please, please... leave the MPAA alone! They are our shepherds.

(I saw an interview a long time ago about one of the MPAA techniques to ensure ROI on their turkeys. Multi-screen theaters were extorted into showing and advertising known turkeys to maximize viewers before word spread about how bad the movie really was. They also had to commit to a minimum number of showings. In return, they were "allowed", given the privelege, of showing true blockblosters. So, if it's a movie's first weekend, and it's getting HUGE publicity (Steve Martin's

• RV

), consider it a red flag, and wait for word of mouth about the movie's worth.)

Re:if the MPAA is sued and loses

[eln]

You're right about the movie industry advertising the hell out of crappy movies to ensure a big opening weekend, but RV is actually a Robin Williams movie, not a Steve Martin movie (not that Martin hasn't also had his share of turkeys).

Another thing they do is refuse to pre-screen movies for critics if they know the movie sucks and will get bad reviews. IIRC, they did this with RV, as well as Doogle.

Re:if the MPAA is sued and loses

[Alex P Keaton in da]

Good points, however you lose credibility when you misuse business speak. RIO is not just an acronym to mean "Return on Investment" in the sense of how the phrase is used by everyday people. ROI is a specific finance equation that is:

Average Income (Before interest and taxes) divided by average operating assets.

It is used by some companies as a benchmark to measure managers etc.
Sorry- misuse if accounting terms is a pet peeve of mine. It also contributes to communication problems, when one person who doesn't know what ROI means is using it incorrectly, and those of us who do are trying to figure out what you mean...

Re:if the MPAA is sued and loses

[sjwest]

I want to see the that Ballet Russes film, its not on, I do not want to see xmen 5078789.56 et all.

I've no idea when im going to the cinema next, the mpaa must remember there more to life than corporate crap. Like to see, but can't see - steal it well why not. - it might be the only way i see it.

Re:if the MPAA is sued and loses

[pla]

If this happens, and MPAA loses, who will be the stewards of our movies?

Don't worry - Only we mere mortal humans, who can greivously appreciate the loss of 10% of our lifespan to a metal and cement box, actually "do time" for breaking the law.

The MPAA will just get a stern talking-to and the equivalent (to the rest of us) of a parking ticket.


And people wonder how I can feel moral outrage that we allow incorporation to entities which exist solely for the purpose of making a profit. Silly me.

Re:if the MPAA is sued and loses

[CyberNigma]

"Good points, however you lose credibility when you misuse business speak. RIO is not just an acronym to mean "Return on Investment" in the sense of how the phrase is used by everyday people. ROI is a specific finance equation that is:"

I'm guessing you meant ROI in both instances (not RIO). Spelling something incorrectly normally doesn't bother me unless someone does it while correcting someone else. If I am incorrect, then I apologize. It goes with an old saying about making sure your shit doesn't stink before you complain about someone else's.

Re:if the MPAA is sued and loses

[Malakusen]

They also did it with Ultraviolet, Gigli, Aeon Flux IIRC...

Re:if the MPAA is sued and loses

[Alex P Keaton in da]

No it was a typo- you are correct- And it is obnoxious when people try and correct someone else and then make an error themselves.
My point is this- there are terms that when misused cause confusion. When some guy in marketing talks about scalability, he is going to confuse a tech guy who knows what scalability really is...
I am extra irritated because my boss is a blowhard who uses the term ROI all the time, and I went along on a sales call with him and he was using the term, and the person we were calling on got all confused.
Anyhow- way to catch my typo. I need to lern to spel.

Re:if the MPAA is sued and loses

[max99ted]

Not only that but big chain renters like Blockbuster and retailers like Walmart will base their purchases on opening weekend success - doesn't do well the first weekend? Chances are good you'll never see it at Walmart and only after time at Blockbuster. Tie that in with the fact that Walmart (the largest single retailer of DVDs and CDs in the USA) only stocks the top movie titles (ie: no catalogue (old stuff) sales for studios or record/publishing companies), and you can see why profits are down and why they need to take these measures to tow the line.

The The Hollywood Economist is an excellent read.

Re:if the MPAA is sued and loses

[SydShamino]

Yeah, it bothers me when people use the word "resistance" without referring to Ohm's Law...

Seriously, the same words have different meanings when said to different audiences, and different speakers might use words in different ways based on their own background. Use the context of the speech to identify meaning. Anytime someone speaks of a "return on investment" on Slashdot, I assume they are talking in very vauge, un-businesslike terms. When I use "(E)ROI" in a project plan, I know it means something very specific.

Industry-specific terms are important; common language is the only way any industry can work. But few industries expect their terms to be well used by the lay population. (I hope the religious "industry" doesn't complain to me about the use of their term!)

Re:if the MPAA is sued and loses

[ewhac]

I saw an interview a long time ago about one of the MPAA techniques to ensure ROI on their turkeys. Multi-screen theaters were extorted into showing and advertising known turkeys to maximize viewers before word spread about how bad the movie really was. They also had to commit to a minimum number of showings. In return, they were "allowed", given the privelege, of showing true blockblosters.

That's called "block booking," and it's been illegal for over 50 years.

Schwab

Re:if the MPAA is sued and loses

[Secrity]

I am a bit confused why you had a problem with the use of the term "ROI". I don't see that the poster used the term in a way that contradicts your definition of the term. I noted that in your definition of ROI that you define the Average Income side of the equation to be before interest and taxes. Many definitions of ROI INCLUDE interest on the Average Income side of the equation.

Re:if the MPAA is sued and loses

[Anonymous Coward]

Because you can increase ROI without increasing income, silly! You just have to sell off assets. Clearly you have have no understanding of accounting. As usial, alex p keaton is over everyone's head...

Re:if the MPAA is sued and loses

[Anonymous Coward]

Being pedantic is annoying.

Being pedantic when you are wrong is hilarious.

return on investment... is a comparison of the money earned (or lost) on an investment to the amount of money invested.

What you are referring to is a special case of ROI.

Re:if the MPAA is sued and loses

[Stormwatch]

Multi-screen theaters were extorted into showing and advertising known turkeys to maximize viewers before word spread about how bad the movie really was.

Reminds me of this...

"If Coca-Cola accidentally created 100 million cans of faulty Coke, you know for sure the entire 100 million cans would be dropped in the Atlantic or Pacific Ocean, without a second thought and irrespective of what that did to the year's profits. What do we do with a crappy movie? We double its advertising budget and hope for a big opening weekend. What have we done for the audience as they walk out of the cinema? We've alienated them. We've sold audiences a piece of junk; we just took twelve dollars away from a couple and we think we've done ourselves no long-term damage."
--- David Puttnam, movie producer - GQ magazine, April 1987

Re:if the MPAA is sued and loses

[CyberNigma]

lol.. I'll take the latest ones as intentional :-) You did make your point. For some people, the point is less prominant when they encounter errors in spelling and grammer (I guess the attention shifts). I do it myself. I run into it all the time. It's just something that happens.

Re:if the MPAA is sued and loses

[Anonymous Coward]

return on investment... is a comparison of the money earned (or lost) on an investment to the amount of money invested.
ROI is more specific than than. Eat shit and die bitch.
Umm- this is a case where you are wrong:
ROI Definition
Return on Investment. A measure of a corporation's profitability, equal to a fiscal year's income divided by common stock and preferred stock equity plus long-term debt. ROI measures how effectively the firm uses its capital to generate profit; the higher the ROI, the better.

Re:if the MPAA is sued and loses

[Anonymous Coward]

As usual Alex posts anonymously to support himself when he's caught in showing he has no idea what he's talking about.

Re:if the MPAA is sued and loses

[Anonymous Coward]

Here is what is going on:
Alex P posts something-
You reply as an A/C
You then reply as an A/C replying to the first A/C, claiming the first A/C was really Alex P. You have been caught, FAG!
Fuck you! You are a worthless A/C bitch-

Re:if the MPAA is sued and loses

[JKConsult]

--- David Puttnam, movie producer - GQ magazine, April 1987

As I sit here, I'm looking at my bookshelf, which contains The Undeclared War by Mr. Puttnam. If you enjoyed that interview enough to remember it, you'll enjoy his book.

Re:if the MPAA is sued and loses

[deacon]

Yes.

The MPAA is more like Perrier.

http://www.google.com/search?as_q=perrier+water+be nzene&num=10&hl=en&btnG=Google+Search&as_epq=&as_o q=&as_eq=&lr=&as_ft=i&as_filetype=&as_qdr=all&as_o cct=any&as_dt=i&as_sitesearch=&as_rights=&safe=ima ges

Sell crap. Make light of the problem.

Re:if the MPAA is sued and loses

[richie2000]

If Coca-Cola accidentally created 100 million cans of faulty Coke, you know for sure the entire 100 million cans would be dropped in the Atlantic or Pacific Ocean, without a second thought and irrespective of what that did to the year's profits.

No, they re-label the cans "Cherry Coke" and double the advertising budget.

Re:if the MPAA is sued and loses

[Jim_Callahan]

Movies are Union/Mob deals, at least if the parent company is California based. That's why no movie has ever turned a profit, especially ones with a greater revenue than cost, if you get what I'm saying here.

It's funny because you think I'm exaggerating.

Well played

[Gorm the DBA]

(Standing and applauding) Good show!

Ironic?

[Kid Zero]

Irony, Line one!

Then again, I'm not surprised at what depth lawyers will stoop to get paid. That's all this is, a chase for cash.

Re:Ironic?

[Blinocac200sx]

We went over this earlier today http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=186626&cid =15401122

Phwew!

[iNTERcEPTOR-SdB]

Glad I only download less prosecuted television shows from there. Where do I contribute to money to help sue them?

Re:Phwew!

[brjndr]

I'm collecting all cash contributions. I'll paypal them the amount later.

Re:Phwew!

[Anonymous Coward]

Dear Sir,

My name is Yommo Watanubanwe. I was given your name as someone who is highly trustworthy in order to establish a business relationship. I am in possession of large sums of money. Unfortunately, due to legal loopholes, the MPAA is holding the money and will not release it. To release this money we require many bribes and fees. With your help I can release this money. You will receive a substantial financial reward for your help. Please contact me at 555-1-25xx1919.

Yours faithfully,

Dr. Yommo Watanubanwe

Re:Phwew!

[qsqueeq]

eff.org

But who cares about a pirate?

[Anonymous Coward]

That's exactly what they're going to say. The MPAA is, after all, practically a subsidiary of our government now. They are going to say that they had no choice but to fight fire with fire!

And, do you know what? Since people have only a rudimentary understanding of the "dark Internets," everyone will eat their explanation up, and then head to the nearest Wal-Mart to purchase a CD published by a RIAA affiliate.

Sorry to burst your bubble, Torrentspy.

Re:But who cares about a pirate?

[Lead Butthead]

The MPAA is, after all, practically a subsidiary of our government now.

Surely you mean it's the other way around.

Re:But who cares about a pirate?

[Anonymous Coward]

They are going to say that they had no choice but to fight fire with fire!

should the outcome of the lawsuit be in the direction you mention it would set an extremely dangerous precedent. No judge would go for it.

Re:But who cares about a pirate?

[Deliveranc3]

Back in the day the movie and music industry basically made a deal with the U.S. government that they would supress anti-american sentiment and promote pro-american sentiment.

Look at the U.S. film industry during the cold war, Americas media is a powerful public relations and propaganda tool and one they won't like to see challenged especially by a consortium of actual citizens who will more likely use the mediums to voice their concerns rather than downplay them.

Poor countries still think Americans live in Melrose Place/90210/the O.C. it's sad :(

celebrity jailtime

[Meeble]

Its like trying to put a celebrity in jail, won't happen. There needs to be a big swing taken first by someone who packs a lot of punch to open a wound big enough for this type of lawsuit to have more teeth. Torrentspy does not have that kind of clout to land one :\

Re:celebrity jailtime

[Anonymous Coward]

Martha Stewart

Re:celebrity jailtime

[chrismcdirty]

I raise you Michelle Rodriguez, currently serving a 60-day sentence for drunk-driving. Not much, but she's still in jail.

Re:celebrity jailtime

[Anonymous Coward]

Torrentspy does not have that kind of clout to land one :\

That'l learn them to not forget to make their Replublican Party campaign contributions.

Re:celebrity jailtime

[level_headed_midwest]

And what kind of sentences did Stewart and Michelle Rodriguez get compared to if you or I did insider trading or were DWI? My point exactly. At least Kenneth Lay and Jeffrey Skilling, even though they are well-known, are reviled enough to be up for >200 and ~40 years of jail time, respectively.

Re:celebrity jailtime

[Anonymous Coward]

And what kind of sentences did Stewart and Michelle Rodriguez get compared to if you or I did insider trading or were DWI? My point exactly.

When I was busted for DUI, I only had to spend about 6 hours in a cell. Not 60 days. I had to pay about $1,500 in fines, court fees and classes but that's better than time in county jail.

Re:celebrity jailtime

[level_headed_midwest]

Hmm. Most of the people I know that got DWI'd spent at least a few months in the pokey. One, who got DWI'd twice, spent over a year in jail as this was just after a spate of drunk-driving deaths in my community.

Re:celebrity jailtime

[Not_Wiggins]

Its like trying to put a celebrity in jail, won't happen. There needs to be a big swing taken first by someone who packs a lot of punch to open a wound big enough for this type of lawsuit to have more teeth. Torrentspy does not have that kind of clout to land one.

All hail... King of the Mixed Metaphor! Hail! Hail! :)

Re:celebrity jailtime

[Mister Whirly]

*cough*Martha Stewart*cough*

Re:celebrity jailtime

[duerra]

If you are implying that somebody should end up in jail, it wouldn't happen anyway. This is a civil suit. There are no criminal charges.

Re:celebrity jailtime

[Rageon]

I'm a law clerk in a fairly strict state when it comes to DUI/DWI sentences. And no one here is being sentenced to a "few months" for even multiple time offenders. Just today my judge sent someone away on their 4th offense for 45 days, and he figures he'll get hell about giving the guy a sentence of that amount.

Re:celebrity jailtime

[Anonymous Coward]

And as long as Presidents and presidential candidates consider it appropriate and desirable to make guest appearances on shows like SNL, it won't happen. Your country is in a celebrity death grip.

Re:celebrity jailtime

[StikyPad]

Strict by what measure? In VA, a friend of mine got 30 days for driving on suspended. Weekends only, but 30 days nonetheless.

One of the guys I worked with was there on work release, doing 1 year for his 3rd DUI in some years (5 or 10, not sure). That was in WI which, from what I've seen, is pretty leniant overall; at least until recently.

Anyway, even a small sentence can be devastating, especially at a young age. Most people will lose their jobs because of it, default on bills, possibly lose everything they own when the landlord evicts in absentia, etc. I don't think most judges (or the public) fully appreciate the damage done by a jail sentence. Not saying they're not justified in many cases, but 45 days can be a lot worse than it sounds when you factor in all the ramifications.. it can utterly ruin someone if they don't have very good friends, or family nearby. And if it's over a moving violation, they've probably lost their license for at least a year, which means they're relying on someone else for transportation, or risking more jail time by driving anyway. Nobody considers all of that stuff when they jump in the car after having 1 too many, so the deterrant effects are minimal, and the correctional effects for the person prosecuted are debatable.. Maybe they'll reform themselves and bounce back, or maybe they'll crumble or become embittered and end up being an even larger burden on society.

What did Gandhi say about an eye for an eye?

[dada21]

This is a tough one for me. As an anarcho-capitalist, I believe that the MPAA's power comes not just from bribing and lobbying, but directly from the entire implementatin of copyright and patents -- any law that offers the use of force and legalizes a monopoly eventually creates distribution cartels and really powerful political cronies.

Here we see an eye-for-an-eye. Gandhi said if we followed that rule the whole world would be blind. I think it's appropriate here as in the long run, it isn't consumers who will "win" if this case continues, it is the lawyers and the law itself that wins. As cases are won and lost and precedents are set, we don't see the market of sellers and buyers made easier, instead we see more laws and legal precedents that put more power in the hands of those who can afford the legal costs.

So what happens if the MPAA loses? Can you or I use the same case tactics to defend our own information? What happens if the MPAA wins? They only get more powerful. In the end, someone else is enhancing their power (through the State), rather than a market that really doesn't need any more powerful players in the game.

I'd rather see someone sue the LAWS that are bad rather than take advantage of other bad laws to try to fix the system in their favor.

Re:What did Gandhi say about an eye for an eye?

[shotfeel]

Yes, but in this case, I say we go with Buffy's impersonation of Gandhi.

Re:What did Gandhi say about an eye for an eye?

[podperson]

I'd rather see someone sue the LAWS that are bad rather than take advantage of other bad laws to try to fix the system in their favor.

You can't sue laws. Even if you could, they have no money to pay damages. You need to VOTE to change laws.

This is a tough one for me. As an anarcho-capitalist, I believe...

Ah well, that explains it.

Re:What did Gandhi say about an eye for an eye?

[drinkypoo]

An eye for an eye leads to the law being changed before everyone goes blind. Of course, usually, a lot of people are blinded first, but that just seems to be typical where living beings are involved, except maybe mushrooms and bonobo chimps.

Re:What did Gandhi say about an eye for an eye?

[eln]

You can't sue laws, but you can sue people who break laws in a way that damages you. If they can successfully argue that the law is itself unconstitutional, then the law will go away. Either that or vote in lawmakers who will repeal the law. Both options will cost a lot of money.

Re:What did Gandhi say about an eye for an eye?

[Pantero Blanco]

"Gandhi said if we followed that rule the whole world would be blind."

If I'm going to get blinded anyway, I'd rather the guy who does it be in the same boat. Otherwise he'll keep tormenting me and I won't be able to do anything. Taking away power from those who misuse it isn't mindless revenge; it's pretty well grounded in logic.

Re:What did Gandhi say about an eye for an eye?

[mcmonkey]

I say we go with Ghandi II.

"Give me a steak. Medium rare."

Re:What did Gandhi say about an eye for an eye?

[Professr3]

Unfortunately, only those with big campaign budgets get noticed. So, it's usually a choice between guy #1's "keep this law" and guy #2's "keep this law".

Re:What did Gandhi say about an eye for an eye?

[dada21]

So taking away power from your enemy to give it to your friend is ok. What about me? How is it fair to me? We're a Nation of Independent States that are required to focus on individual liberties, not liberties of any group.

Re:What did Gandhi say about an eye for an eye?

[Anonymous Coward]

All laws should have a limited length of time. No more than 10 years. If its not important enough to be renewed, it is not important to keep around.

Re:What did Gandhi say about an eye for an eye?

[Professr3]

I agree, and the public should be involved in the process directly if they so choose, not limited to an elected oligarchy of "representatives" who rarely represent anything other than themselves or campaign contributors.

Re:What did Gandhi say about an eye for an eye?

[fitten]

Heh.... I guess you haven't seen how many laws there are on the books... and that's not even considering the ones that would probably be considered "unimportant". I don't think they could be reviewed in 10 years' time.

Re:What did Gandhi say about an eye for an eye?

[Mitaphane]

Here we see an eye-for-an-eye. Gandhi said if we followed that rule the whole world would be blind.

You know that when Ghandhi said that he was talking about the endless cycle of violence that killing for causes(e.g. Israel's and Palestine's seemingly endless violent squable over territory). I doubt even the fiercest MPAA/RIAA hating slashdoters would advocate violence for something as petty as this. With that in mind, using the MPAA's own tactics against them is perfectly fine; it might be the only way to stop their underhanded tactics.

Re:What did Gandhi say about an eye for an eye?

[QMO]

I LOVE that movie.
Non-80s people will miss a lot of the humor, but it still a GREAT movie.

Re:What did Gandhi say about an eye for an eye?

[hackwrench]

Taking away power from your enemy to give to yourself and to your friend is the primary feature of power. As for fair, it would be completely fair if we were all incinerated, so I don't want to have anything to do with fair.

Re:What did Gandhi say about an eye for an eye?

['nother poster]

Good. Suits me just fine. About 70-80 of the laws need to go away. I wish that our elected officials would learn that just because we elect them it doesn't mean that many don't expect them to pass another 200 laws this session, just a few that actually benefit the citizens of this country.

Re:What did Gandhi say about an eye for an eye?

[dada21]

I'm the original poster, otherwise I'd mod you +1 Funny. I'm sorry to say that I own TWO copies of the DVD (one to loan to friends) and that I still quote it regularly.

Re:What did Gandhi say about an eye for an eye?

[h4rm0ny]

Um, Ghandi was a lawyer. And not a half bad one, either. I don't think he had a problem using the law against his opponents, it was violence that he renounced, not litigation.

Re:What did Gandhi say about an eye for an eye?

[dada21]

Actually, I am starting a series on Gandhi and Freedom where I am looking into his Anti-State life. People called him a socialist, but that is completely untrue. He had strong anti-government beliefs and realized MANY times that the law would not help him. In fact in many trials against him he offered no defense and no legal manipulations. He stood firm and said the law does not cover him, so if they plan on convicting him to just go ahead and do it.

Gandhi did NOT preach non-violence, either. It seems the socialists love the guy when he was one of the biggest seditionists in history. I'm happy to model myself after him as much as possible in terms of sedition against tyranny.

Re:What did Gandhi say about an eye for an eye?

[0x0000]

I'd rather see someone sue the LAWS that are bad rather than take advantage of other bad laws to try to fix the system in their favor.

I consider the process of turning the bad laws back against their perpetrators every bit as important to the process of getting those laws stricken, modified, or differently interpretted as e.g. civil disobedience. This is the part where the whole scenario may start to develop some entertainment value - watching MPAA squirm - maybe just a little bit, this time, but there will be more. They wanted the Midas Touch - they will find out why no one else did.

Re:What did Gandhi say about an eye for an eye?

['nother poster]

Ack. Scratch the don't between many and expect.

Re:What did Gandhi say about an eye for an eye?

[BTG9999]

It is not the movie he is quoting but the first episode of Season 3 of the TV show.

Re:What did Gandhi say about an eye for an eye?

[Beryllium Sphere(tm)]

>So what happens if the MPAA loses? Can you or I use the same case tactics to defend our own information?

The same tactics, here, means asking a court of law to assess damages for breaching the security of TorrentSpy's property and invading their privacy.

Why do you consider the privacy and security laws to be "other bad laws"?

Re:What did Gandhi say about an eye for an eye?

[Descalzo]

My wife has absolutely no appreciation at all for that movie.

Re:What did Gandhi say about an eye for an eye?

[Anonymous Coward]

The movie is "UHF".

Re:What did Gandhi say about an eye for an eye?

[h4rm0ny]

Gandhi did NOT preach non-violence, either.

Ghandi frequently preached non-violence. It is absurd to say that he didn't. In Johannasburg he led non-violent protests in which he and his followers were severely beaten whilst refusing to retaliate, either then or at a later time. It was explicit that there should be no retaliation but only passive non co-operation. After the Amritsa massacre incensed India, Ghandi repeated and vocally denounced not only the actions of the British, but also the retaliatory strikes of the Indians.

There are many many instances where Ghandi preached non-violence but pulling my biography of Ghandi from the shelf next to me here (Rediscovering Gandhi by Yogesh Chadha), I open it at one of my favourite passages and find the following:

I believe that non-violence is infinitely superior to violence, forgiveness more manly than punishment... Non-violence is the law of our species, just as violence is the law of the brute. I am not pleading for India to practice non-violence because she is weak. I want her to practice non-violence being concious of her strength and power.

-Ghandi, from an article in 'Young India,' a paper that he edited.

Non-violence was at the centre of Ghandi's beliefs and is central to his movement.

He had strong anti-government beliefs and realized MANY times that the law would not help him.

For a considerable part of his life (until the Amritsar massacre), Ghandi quite vocally wished to remain a part of the British Empire and Ghandi quite frequently argued his case in the law courts at various periods in his life. It is your own assumption that he was against law.

I've read numerous posts by you here dada21, and you have expounded your ideas about anarcho-capitalism in threads on just about every sunject imaginable. Do me a favour, if you wish to study Ghandi's beliefs and life, then I whole-heartedly encourage you to do so. He was a very great person. But please do not presume to use him name as some sort of figurehead for your own beliefs. He wont fit them and you'll dirty his name by trying to make him fit them.

Re:What did Gandhi say about an eye for an eye?

[Salamander]

Here we see an eye-for-an-eye. Gandhi said if we followed that rule the whole world would be blind.

You're in luck, then, because this isn't really eye for an eye. It's poetic justice - "hoist by their own petard" - which is a bit different. Consider the agents involved. "Eye for an eye" would be someone else initiating an action against the MPAA using their own tactics. This is someone else drawing attention to an action that MPAA themselves initiated. The MPAA, not someone else, is violating some of the very same laws that the MPAA has rammed down our throats.

Re:What did Gandhi say about an eye for an eye?

[dada21]

The laws and patent-coercion that the MPAA uses are all forms of violence. The definition of violence is an act of aggression. Aggression would be the use of force to accomplish one's tasks, rather than using persuasion to get someone to concur to consent to the act. Copyright is aggression, and it is violent. Patents are aggression, and they are violent. Stealing someone's physical CD or invention is aggression, making a mimicry or copy with your own labor, capital and tools is not.

Re:What did Gandhi say about an eye for an eye?

[j0eshm0e]

You alluded to something that gives this lawsuit a silver lining...

*IFF* the case goes to court and *IFF* the facts we are being told by Torrentspy are correct then either the MPAA wins or loses.

If they win, the DMCA becomes diluted.
If they lose, the MPAA becomes weakened and perhaps seen in a more criminal light.

I think good things could happen if Torrentspy can prove this and the case goes before a judge. Thoughts?

Re:What did Gandhi say about an eye for an eye?

[ultranova]

This is a tough one for me. As an anarcho-capitalist, I believe that the MPAA's power comes not just from bribing and lobbying, but directly from the entire implementatin of copyright and patents -- any law that offers the use of force and legalizes a monopoly eventually creates distribution cartels and really powerful political cronies.

All property laws create monopolies. Remember, a monopoly is an exclusive right to something; well, guess what, that's what property is. I have exclusive rights to this patch of land, the clothes my mortal shell is wrapped on, the contents of my wallet, and so on.

I'm not commenting on whether monopolies are good or bad; but I am saying that a capitalist, anarcho or otherwise, arguing against monopolies is a contradiction in terms, since capitalism cannot exist without private property, and private property is a monopoly on whatever it is you own.

Re:What did Gandhi say about an eye for an eye?

[ultranova]

If they win, the DMCA becomes diluted.
If they lose, the MPAA becomes weakened and perhaps seen in a more criminal light.

c) The court decides that the MPAA was justified in breaking the law in order to protect its business interests, since they have billions of dollars on the stake. Since you or I don't have billions of dollars on the stake, we aren't ever justified in breaking any laws. Consequently, MPAA (and other large corporations) get a legal right to break laws that bind us mear mortals.

You underestimate the power of the Dark Side. Just because it seems that the MPAA is going to get burned badly now, doesn't stop them from returning as an armored monstrosity and laying waste to entire peacefull, unarmed civilizations.

Re:What did Gandhi say about an eye for an eye?

[dada21]

I'm not commenting on whether monopolies are good or bad; but I am saying that a capitalist, anarcho or otherwise, arguing against monopolies is a contradiction in terms, since capitalism cannot exist without private property, and private property is a monopoly on whatever it is you own.

This is a really good point and something I want to get in deeper (on my anarcho-capitalist blog).

I think where I disagree is that I _do_ believe in the use of monopoly to declare physical property rights rather than ethereal or intellectual property rights. Intellectual property monopolies are basically telling other people how they must think and act on their own property, and I am against these sorts of monopolies that restrain others from using their physical property and bodies and minds as they wish, as long as it does not violate the physical properties, bodies or minds of others.

Re:What did Gandhi say about an eye for an eye?

[Mitaphane]

The word violence has many definitions, "an act of agression" is one of them, but "an act of aggression" is not the most relevant one in this case. The reason I included the wiki linkwas for the context of Gandhi's quote. From the article:

An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind. There are many causes I am prepared to die for but no causes I am prepared to kill for.

Under the context of his quote, the "eye for an eye" sentence makes much more sense when we're talking about violence as a "physical force exerted for the purpose of violating, damaging, or abusing"(like killing) not as an "act of an agression".

Patents(something MPAA isn't concerned with BTW) and copyrights are not violence; they are laws. Laws can be used violently but they are not violence. If we used your reasoning we could say laws against murder are violent because they are an "act of agression" against murders.

Re:What did Gandhi say about an eye for an eye?

[FLEB]

OTOH, imagine if every single law were brought up for a popular vote. After all the noise, the only people who would care enough to vote would be the zealots. At least, in the current system, the zealots only get to apply pressure to a representative who has independent responsibility to weigh the options, instead of the zealots themselves actually flipping the switch.

Re:What did Gandhi say about an eye for an eye?

[Professr3]

The solution is to make voting insanely easy to do for everyone... Perhaps pressing a button on their cellphone, or clicking a button on the news story talking about the law.

Re:What did Gandhi say about an eye for an eye?

[alphakappa]

The spelling is Gandhi, not Ghandi. Ghandi is an offensive word in North India. (Means Ass... not the animal) :-)

Re:What did Gandhi say about an eye for an eye?

[dada21]

From an anarcho-capitalist viewpoint, the definition I provided makes the most sense. It also makes the most sense from a general viewpoint -- the most basic definition possible.

In terms of Gandhi, his view of violence was well beyond just physical damage. He was against the salt regulations that created monopoly. He was against the tax base that destroyed small villages. Go back to his early work in Pretoria and you'll see how he was against the laws the segregated the dark skinned people from the light skinned people. He was against the local tariffs and controls that prevented his own people's cloth from being sold to the Indus. He was against the idea of central government as Mother India was composed of hundreds of individual villages that cared not for others but cared for their own survival. He was against the bifurcation of faiths even though he was Hindu -- he said he was a Christian, a Muslim, a Hindu and a Jew.

If you look at his life, he was anti-State because it was always the State that harmed his people. Early on he supported the Empire's war but later in life he realized that true power came from the individual's ability to withstand great tyranny and it was only when individuals performed acts of peace against coercion, then the tyrants had to stop. It wasn't just groups that were peaceful, it was unanimous decisions of individuals that made the difference. His death fasts were performed until every individual assumed a peaceful motivation -- not just groups.

Re:What did Gandhi say about an eye for an eye?

[FLEB]

Still, though, enough people don't know or care about every issue. I'm just reminded of stories of small council or PTA meetings where nobody cares for 364 days, then some "action group" flash-floods the meeting when their particular pet issue comes up. You'd just end up with more pork and more fringe legislation if it was "all voting, all the time".

Re:What did Gandhi say about an eye for an eye?

[Anonymous Coward]

Ghandi was not anti-State, he simply opposed imperialist exploitation and oppression. You keep making claims that have absolutely no basis in historical fact without substantiating them. I have no idea where the need for you to evoke Ghandi in your laissez-faire capitalist drivel comes from, but it makes very little sense. You might as well lay claim to Alexander Hamilton while you're at it.

Re:What did Gandhi say about an eye for an eye?

[Mitaphane]

Unfortunately for your position, Gandhi was not an anarcho-capitalist. Look, I do not claim to an expert on Anarcho-capitalism or Gandhi(I did a report on him once in high school), but I do know that he never claimed a anarcho-capitalist. Throughout your multiple posts on Gandhi and Anarcho-capitalism you have provided no research, no refrences, only opinions. That's nice that some of the stuff Gandhi said and did fits in your grand scheme of anarcho-capitalist philosphy. He did a lot of great things that many people agree with. But you're attributing a philosphy to him--and his actions-- that, as far as I can tell with a little research, he wasn't even aware of.

If you want to discuss the definitions and meanings of another word I suggest we start next with revisionism.

Re:What did Gandhi say about an eye for an eye?

[Anonymous Coward]

My big problem with this is that the MPAA allegedly hired someone to 1) intentionally hack into a secure, private system to 2) steal both personal and business information 3) from a company that was not actually hosting pirated content (to my knowledge).

Torrentspy is a search engine. It's a tool. If the MPAA had directly attacked those actually distributing the content, I'd have more sympathy. But to violate laws to attack a tool that pirates happen to use is not really defensible to me.

So if you're asking me if it's okay to try to trash the highway system to keep people from finding military installations, I'm going to say no. (Okay. Kind of stupid analogy, but hopefully you get the point.)

Re:What did Gandhi say about an eye for an eye?

[jdavidb]

Monopolies are fine when they occur on the free market (if and when they do). It is when they are granted by government privilege that they become a problem.

Re:What did Gandhi say about an eye for an eye?

[anandsr]

No that would be 'gand'. I did see someone use Gandi before. The problem is that everybody is trying to transliterate the word Gandhi without understanding that there are far more consonents in Hindi than most of the European Languages. They don't understand that gh is not the same as g, and dh is not the same as d in Hindi. So any other way of writing Gandhi would not be correct. They just don't understand how that h changes everything for us.

Well there is also 'Gandiv' the bow of Arjun, so you couldn't say that Gandi is a bad word ;-).

Re:What did Gandhi say about an eye for an eye?

[Daerr]

As a socialist-libertarian I agree. Putting restitution for wrongs in the people's hands in the form of civil law suits sounds good on the surface (by decentralizing authority, pushing power out to the edges) but economic realities can easily disenfranchise all but the wealthy (and the wealthiest are, without fail, corporations).

No way.

[Anonymous Coward]

MPAA being sued? Pigs have flown.

Isn't this legal yet?

[statusbar]

I thought that the MPAA/RIAA were campaigning for the government to give them special exemption status with regard to the anti-hacking laws in the Patriot Act so that they could hack with impunity, even in the case of causing lost data, on the suspicion of copyright infringement.

--jeffk++

Re:Isn't this legal yet?

[voice_of_all_reason]

You are demonstrating a surprisingly keen knowledge of the Law, citizen. Only terrorists need to know information like that!

Re:Isn't this legal yet?

[jandrese]

They tried, but the law got bogged down in committe and never made it onto the floor. Don't worry, it'll show up as an 11th hour rider on some war appropriations bill at some point.

Re:Isn't this legal yet?

[Anonymous Coward]

You are demonstrating a surprisingly keen knowledge of the Law, citizen. Only terrorists need to know information like that!

Exactly! Now:
- go to your nearest phone
- clearly and loudly state your name
- wait

We'll send someone to pick you up in a minute.

Re:Isn't this legal yet?

[Anonymous Coward]

Wouldn't it be a trip to learn that the whole *real* reason for the current occupation of Iraq was to provide appropriations bills onto which 11th-hour riders could attach?

d00d

[packetmon]

Torrentspy's complaint includes claims that the man whom the MPAA allegedly paid $15,000 to steal e-mail correspondence and trade secrets has admitted his role in the plot and is cooperating with the company.

MPAA: How much to get us information on this evil company
h4x0r: d00d 3y3 c4n pwn3rfy th3m f0r ch3ep w1f my 0d4y j3etsp34k to0lbar!

Re:d00d

[VickiM]

I'm so glad I can't read that! :)

Re:d00d

[forkazoo]

MPAA: How much to get us information on this evil company
h4x0r: d00d 3y3 c4n pwn3rfy th3m f0r ch3ep w1f my 0d4y j3etsp34k to0lbar!

You missed a hyphen between the 0 and the d4y. Heck, can't you even spell and use proper punctuation in your 'leet?

Re:d00d

[joe 155]

'leet?

I think you mean l33t... can i see your geek card please?

Re:d00d

[Jim Hall]

h4x0r: !f j0o c4N r34D f15, jo0 n33d 2 g37 L41d.

Re:d00d

[c0d3h4x0r]

h4x0r: d00d 3y3 c4n pwn3rfy th3m f0r ch3ep w1f my 0d4y j3etsp34k to0lbar!

Yep, that was me, I admit it :-P

Re:d00d

[Anonymous Coward]

Is that an offer?

Wink wink, nudge nudge.

Useful defense tactics

[HPNpilot]

Perhaps their army of high-priced lawyers will come up with some great defenses, ways to beat back the various laws.

Then we can all use them.

Very clever, let the MPAA pay for attacking these insane anti-citizen's rights laws.

Two wrongs don't make a right

[carou]

No proof is in the article - presumably not wanting to prejudice the court case. The MPAA deny it, of course:

"These claims (by Torrentspy) are false," Kori Bernards, the MPAA's vice president of corporate communications, said in an e-mail to CNET News.com. "Torrentspy is trying to obscure the facts to hide the fact that they are facilitating thievery. We are confident that our lawsuit against them will be successful because the law is on our side."

Conceivably both lawsuits will succeed, both parties allege (different) illegal activities. The question is, whose suit will attract the most damages - one stolen spreadsheet or a few million stolen movies?

Re:Two wrongs don't make a right

[shorgs]

I thought torrentspy was just an indexer. They don't host any of the material do they?

Re:Two wrongs don't make a right

[Red Flayer]

" We are confident that our lawsuit against them will be successful because the law is on our side."

I'm confused. I thought the law was supposed to be on the side of the public?

Oh well, I suppose when you pay for a law, you should expect it to be on your side.

Re:Two wrongs don't make a right

[mausmalone]

If Torrentspy wins their suit and it's adjudicated that the MPAA unlawfully obtained infromation from within the group, would that also make that information inadmissable in the MPAA's suit? I don't really know anything about the rules of evidence for a civil case.

Also, torrentspy's claim (that they in no way validate or transfer any illegal material) might actually hold up. Heck, they don't even run the trackers... they just host the .torrent files.

Re:Two wrongs don't make a right

[192939495969798999]

Yeah, but look who stole the spreadsheet. It's one thing if you catch a known criminal engaging in the activity they're infamous for. It's quite a different story to catch someone denouncing said activity engaged in the very same proposition they stand against. Back in the Wild West(tm), "them was (gun)fighting words".

Re:Two wrongs don't make a right

[Stachybotris]

The MPAA says that Torrentspy is facilitating thievery, but then turn around and say that downloading movies is actually copyright infringement. Well, which is it? At this point, the penalties for actually stealing movies or music are almost nonexistent compared to copyright infringement. Consider that if you steal a CD or DVD from, oh say Tower Records, you get a veritable slap on the wrist (read: a fine and probably never being allowed in that store again), but if you 'infinge on copyrights' you face a multi-thousand dollar fine and possible jail time.

So again, I have to ask, which is the actual crime here? I'm sure that I'm incredibly naive (and a poor speller to boot), but shouldn't copyright infringement cover something more along the lines of wholesale idea theft like copying a movie's plot and characters for your own film? Please explain this to me...

To answer the parent's question, the MPAA suit will obviously attract more damage, as they have the money and clout with congress to get their way. The problem is that we're trying to apply old standards to a new media/frontier/world, and they just don't work well.

Re:Two wrongs don't make a right

[coolcold]

and I am also curious, what would happen if the downloader admit to thievery? Would he be charged thievery (like from tower record and such) or would he be charged as copyright infringement?

Re:Two wrongs don't make a right

[Arramol]

Actually, if Torrentspy's suit succeeds, couldn't it potentially invalidate some of the MPAA's evidence against them? Granted they should still be able to win the suit, but if they didn't need the evidence, why the hacker?

Re:Two wrongs don't make a right

[RingDev]

Their is a clear difference between theft and copywrite violations. For it to be a copywrite violation there has to be non-trivial distribution.

For example:
  5-finger discount from BestBuy: Theft
  Watching a DVD you purchased: OK
  Loaning your DVD to a friend: OK
  Viewing a DVD with 5 friends: OK
  Showing a DVD to 50 paying customers: Copywrite Violation
  Burning a copy of a DVD and giving it to a friend: Copywrite Violation
  Burning 100 copies of a DVD and selling them: Copywrite Violation
  Sharing (in part or whole) the content of the DVD online: Copywrite Violation

So yes, copywrite violations should be more severe than theft. If you only download and do not upload, than the provider is guilty of a Copywrite violation. But if you are sharing a download on bit torrent, then you too are sharing and can be held accountable for a copywrite violation.

-Rick

Re:Two wrongs don't make a right

[ketamine-bp]

copyright, not copywrite.

it's something else.

Re:Two wrongs don't make a right

[Pantero Blanco]

"For it to be a copywrite violation there has to be non-trivial distribution."

"Trivial" or "Non-trivial" don't even come into play, except when damages are figured, and maybe when the owner decides whether it's worth it to sue. Whether or not the infringer was profiting, and whether he was claiming ownership or merely copying, may affect damages and the sentence as well, but the name of the charge is the same.

Re:Two wrongs don't make a right

[Anonymous Coward]

Talk about completely missing the point...

Its not about which copyrighted material is worth more!!! Thats not whats important in this case. Think about it.

The MPAA is alleging that torrentspy makes copyright infringment easier. NOT that they actually commit copyright infringment. Torrentspy is not actaully breaking ANY laws or copyrights themselves by just cataloging people who do have it avaliable.

THe MPAA on the other hand, is accusaed of paying someone to steal confidential information from torrentspy.

Re:Two wrongs don't make a right

[RingDev]

My bust, you are correct. I should have caught that before I posted. Thanks for the correction.

-Rick

Re:Two wrongs don't make a right

[Anonymous Coward]

Torrentspy is alleging that the MPAA induces people to hacking. NOT that they actually commit computer misuse. The MPAA is not actaully breaking ANY laws or security themselves by just paying people who do it.

Re:Two wrongs don't make a right

[RingDev]

I used the word trivial because so far as I know the line between fair use and copyright violation is still somewhat shady. In that you can have 20 people over for a party, kick back and watch a DVD and it's fine. But you can't show the DVD to 30,000 people (say on closed cicuit TV). Also, if you have 5 guests over, you can't charge them $5 to watch the movie. You can charge them a popcorn fee, an electrical usage fee, a bathroom use fee, or what ever for $5, but you can't charge them for the movie itself.

-Rick

Re:Two wrongs don't make a right

[Maxo-Texas]

Actually,

You can't do that either.

Stores don't charge for background music but they have to pay for it anyway.

If you charge and even play copyrighted material incidental to your activity, then the music business wants to charge you a fee. One example would be the barbershop that got sued-- others would be numerous small bars that had the radio on.

Of course as recently as 20 years ago this wasn't the case (it was very common to for places to have a radio tuned in and not pay a music fee)- so the music business has really expanded the definition of what people have to pay for a lot in the last couple decades.

Even fairly reasonable sites like Magnatune have specific liscenses for playing music this way.

Re:Two wrongs don't make a right

[Anonymous Coward]

If this suit succeeds and they are proven to have acquired the evidence through illegal means I THINK they might be able to move to suppress the evidence. In which case the suit against TorrentSpy will likely fail.

But IANAL.

Re:Two wrongs don't make a right

[Anonymous Coward]

The question is, whose suit will attract the most damages - one stolen spreadsheet or a few million stolen movies?

If the spreadsheet was the only link to the stolen movies, and the spreadsheet was stolen, the evidence is void; ergo no movies were stolen according to the logic of the law.

Re:Two wrongs don't make a right

[Malek the Damned]

"We are confident that our lawsuit against them will be successful because the law is on our side."

That bit actually gave me pause for thought. They're not saying "we didn't do this", or "we're right", they're saying "the law is on our side". Nowhere do they state that they're not engaged in illegal practises.

And the law is probably on their side because that's what hired protection rackets are for.

Re:Two wrongs don't make a right

[KwKSilver]

And the law is probably on their side because that's what hired protection rackets are for.

I take it you mean Congress and/or the DOJ?

Re:Two wrongs don't make a right

[Malek the Damned]

Yah - was referring to the law and the lawmakers, rather than the county sherrif's department...

Re:Two wrongs don't make a right

[Aussie]

The MPAA is not actaully breaking ANY laws

Try conspiracy.

Re:Two wrongs don't make a right

[Hektor_Troy]

I have seldom seen a more apt signature for a post.

Good.

[pair-a-noyd]

Three words come to mind. Burn baby burn!

Yeah!

Re:Good.

[Overly Critical Guy]

Absolutely! Only the groups we like should be allowed to sue people! When the MPAA or the RIAA sues, it's bad, but Torrentspy is okay in my book, so we'll allow it.

The law according to Slashdot. *shudder*

Wait wait wait

[MrSquirrel]

So the MPAA gets all "That's illegal!!!" when people commit grey-area "crimes" (i.e. filesharing), but they don't have a problem with full-blow black-area hacking? But... the MPAA are our friends, right? Why would they do something bad...

Corporate Vigilante

[GillBates0]

vigilante n. 1. One who takes or advocates the taking of law enforcement or moral code into one's own hands.

This is what happens when a corporate consortium declares itself a vigilante in the fight against pirrracy. What makes it worse is there own twisted view of what is morally right and what isn't (suing students into bankruptcy and hacking into people's computers to justify there ends most certainly isn't).

Re:Corporate Vigilante

[Codename.Juggernaut]

Copyright infringement falls under the realm of civil cases (the owner of the copyright must push the case, not the state)

However, if they're hacking systems to get information, the state can prosecute against them along with the owner of the violated property.

Even the state agrees with one of your points.

Re:Corporate Vigilante

[Bryansix]

vigilante n. 1. One who takes or advocates the taking of law enforcement or moral code into one's own hands. This is what happens when a corporate consortium declares itself a vigilante in the fight against pirrracy. What makes it worse is there own twisted view of what is morally right and what isn't (suing students into bankruptcy and hacking into people's computers to justify there ends most certainly isn't).

You can say that again!

Re:Corporate Vigilante

[ScentCone]

This is what happens when a corporate consortium declares itself a vigilante in the fight against pirrracy.

Declares itself a vigilante? How about, "declares itself to be doing exactly what all of its member recording companies and their artist business partners pay it to do?" They're not declaring themselves to be vigilantes, as much as that would make all of their idealogical oppoonents happy. And whether or not the accusation in the suit has any merit whatsoever... it's not possible for you to know that (unless you're participating in the litigation... are you?).

What makes it worse is there own twisted view of what is morally right and what isn't (suing students into bankruptcy and hacking into people's computers to justify there ends most certainly isn't).

I think you'll probably hear them say something more along the lines of, "If all of those same students didn't have a complete sense of entitlement to entertainment paid for by someone else, and didn't carry on in a morally bankrupt way by ripping off the artists they claim to like, who produce the entertainment they seem to demand for free, then none of this crap would even be an issue."

I can see, though, how you'd be sympathetic to the plight of students. I'm guessing you were tied up in court the day the teacher went over the difference between "their" and "there." Seriously, using the actually correct words in a sentence goes a lot farther towards persuading people you have a point. Not being able to demonstrate command of a simple thing like the difference between two similarly pronounced words isn't helping you. It immediately suggests (to any audience worth the rhetorical work) that the writer isn't really thinking all that clearly anyway, and it takes away from any impact your message - however convoluted or inaccurate - might otherwise make.

See, even large corporations support vigilanteism!

[rob_squared]

Which is a good hint that good people don't.

Anyway, back on topic. Ever since the RIAA started providing corrupt or malformed songs on P2P networks[1] it was only a matter of time before the MPAA started futzing with things too. However it is surprising that the MPAA would outdo the zealoutry of even the RIAA.

[1] I don't condemn all file sharing, only the illegal kind.

Doubtful

[Khammurabi]

I'm willing to bet that the MPAA can claim ignorance on this one. While I have no doubt that the MPAA execs greenlighted this project, I also don't doubt that the MPAA will scapegoat the executive in charge. I expect a press release to be forthcoming stating that the executive in charge of the project undertook this act on his own accord, without the knowledge or approval of MPAA.

Unless the hacker has more direct contacts than one or two people inside the MPAA, I'd expect this to be swept under the carpet fairly quickly. I really hope the MPAA gets some bad press because of it, but I'm not going to hold my breath.

Re:Doubtful

[ZachPruckowski]

Does it matter if they only get one exec? If they committed a crime to get the evidence, it is inadmissable. Then they have virtually no evidence, and a very shaky legal theory to go on (hosting torrents != hosting copyrighted files)

good point

[free space]

If "the law is with them" as they say, why did they resort to hacking and stealing information to obtain evidence instead of using the normal legal channels?

Re:good point

[xstonedogx]

Perhaps they are citing the same law the executive branch is citing in defense of its warrantless spying on American citizens.

Re:good point

[Kuukai]

That's a sealed law. You're not allowed to talk about it, even if you make it up.

Re:good point

[Maximum Prophet]

When they say "The law is with us", they mean the appropriate politicians have been paid off. No district attorney will file criminal charges, no matter how much information they've stolen, or how may systems they paid someone to break into. Conspiracy charges are right out.

Re:good point

[Anonymous Coward]

If "the law is with them" as they say, why did they resort to hacking and stealing information to obtain evidence instead of using the normal legal channels?

Cause it's easier, cheaper and faster than getting a warrant from a consciencious judge. They don't come cheap anymore, you know...

this is funny.

[DoctorDyna]

The MPAA is like OJ. Even when they win, they will still be a loser. I still don't understand how they could have such a low understanding of technology that they would attack torrent sites anyway.

Besides, there is still the old idea that you can't call downloading "theft" because there really is no proven loser. We should all of us contact a lawyer and have legal documents drawn up, and notorized that say something like "In the event that any digitally copyrighted material is found on this hard drive, let this document serve as a legally binding guarantee that said materials would never have been purchased otherwise and therefore no loss of revenue can possibly be proven solely based on the posession and or existance of these materials."

See, the problem is they have managed to convince too many judges that ALL of the material you or I may have on a hard drive would have absolutely been purchased had we not had the opportunity to download it.

I call bullshit. Who's with me?

Re:this is funny.

[GodaiYuhsaku]

Does this mean I could use the reasoning. I'm not downloading anime that has been liscensed by Cartoon network. I am meerly timeshifting it 6 months into the past? Sorta offtopic from original post but probably just as valid as the click-through via hacking idea.

Re:this is funny.

[Churla]

I'm not with you. Here's why.

I don't really like root beer. But if I really want a soda and I'm in a pinch I'll drink one.

Does this mean that if the place I fill up my car has one of those displays with stacks of root beer 12 packs at the gas pump I steal a 12 pack from the convenience store I'm not stealing cause I wouldn't have bought it anyways?

If you make illegal copies of copyrighted material you are in fact breaking the law, accept that fact and stop trying to make yourself look innocent. The point here is actually the ways and means they are using to go about enforcing said law.

If you don't like the fact that downloading movies in a certain fashion is illegal press to get the laws changed.

Re:this is funny.

[Toba82]

I'm with you. I don't like paying for ANYTHING.

Re:this is funny.

[John Hasler]

> Besides, there is still the old idea that you can't call downloading
> "theft" because there really is no proven loser.

Downloading is not theft (it may or may not be copyright infringement) because that is well-established law in the US. Theft implies that someone has been deprived of possession of his property. Making a copy, authorized or not, does not deprive anyone of possession of any property and so is not theft.

Re:this is funny.

[Toba82]

Does this mean that if the place I fill up my car has one of those displays with stacks of root beer 12 packs at the gas pump I steal a 12 pack from the convenience store I'm not stealing cause I wouldn't have bought it anyways?

No. That's stealing - for the sole reason that the owner no longer has the product. Media piracy is copyright infringement, not stealing. Learn the difference - crimes have different names for a reason.

Re:this is funny.

[JustNiz]

No thats not the same.

If you take the rootbeer, you've deprived the store-owner of his property, . If you copy a file, the owner still has the original.

tha analogy would be a better one if you took a photo of his rootbeer.

Re:this is funny.

[Overly Critical Guy]

The MPAA is like OJ. Even when they win, they will still be a loser. I still don't understand how they could have such a low understanding of technology that they would attack torrent sites anyway.

Torrent sites track torrents and provide a means of exchanging copyrighted materials. It's pretty cut and dry.

Besides, there is still the old idea that you can't call downloading "theft" because there really is no proven loser.

Then you can't call GPL violations "theft," but Slashdot does all the time. The loser is the person who owns the material who would normally have been compensated, but will not be because you downloaded without paying. Your downloaded files will be uploaded to other individuals who will also not pay. It's facilitation of copyright violation and withholding of revenues owed.

We should all of us contact a lawyer and have legal documents drawn up, and notorized that say something like "In the event that any digitally copyrighted material is found on this hard drive, let this document serve as a legally binding guarantee that said materials would never have been purchased otherwise and therefore no loss of revenue can possibly be proven solely based on the posession and or existance of these materials."

*rolls eyes* Yeah, that'll work.

It doesn't matter if you wouldn't have purchased something. How does that magically give you the legal right to have it? Do you understand capitalism and economies at all, or are you another dorm room kid with head-in-the-cloud ideals about how the real world works?

See, the problem is they have managed to convince too many judges that ALL of the material you or I may have on a hard drive would have absolutely been purchased had we not had the opportunity to download it.

It doesn't matter if you would or wouldn't have purchased the material. You ended up getting the material without paying for it when you had no right to, legally and ethically. You're essentially saying in that statement that you have a ton of stuff you would have never purchased, but you downloaded it anyway, which just bolster's the MPAA's position that the sites you got the material from should be shut down, so that the MPAA members' rights aren't being violated. The judges have to agree, because it's against the law to violate creators' rights and steal their stuff so you don't have to pay them for it. What gives you the right to do that?

I call bullshit. Who's with me?

Probably every other freeloader who has created an entire fictional belief system that scapegoats copyright holders so they don't feel guilty for pirating the fuck out of everything. "The MPAA made me do it! The RIAA made me do it!"

Why don't you ask John Carmack sometime if it's okay that people download Doom 3 without paying him for the years of work he put into it? Carmack's a Slashdot hero around here...would be interesting to see people's reactions to his response.

Re:this is funny.

[Dog-Cow]

If you don't understand the difference between copying a work you would have never paid for and stealing a physical object, there is no hope for you. Please kill yourself and save everyone around you.

Re:this is funny.

[DemonThing]

If you steal some root beer from a store, the store directly loses, in this case, a case of root beer. If you're downloading, whoever you are downloading from doesn't lose anything at all, per what DoctorDyna said.

Re:this is funny.

[Stalyn]

Why don't you ask John Carmack sometime if it's okay that people download Doom 3 without paying him for the years of work he put into it? Carmack's a Slashdot hero around here...would be interesting to see people's reactions to his response.

Before or after he GPLs the Doom 3 source?

Re:this is funny.

[Lendrick]

Along the same vein, one of the RIAA folks said a while back that file-sharing isn't "sharing" because when you share something, you don't have it anymore.

In doing so, he made the point better than I ever could. Copying files isn't "stealing" because when you steal something, the owner doesn't have it anymore. Go figure.

Re:this is funny.

[Anonymous Coward]

The judges have to agree, because it's against the law to violate creators' rights and steal their stuff so you don't have to pay them for it. What gives you the right to do that?
Nothing yet, that's what needs to change. The internet is here to stay, and so is downloading. The solution has nothing to do with complicated DRM laws or forced compliance from the entire population.

You want people to buy music? Then take advantage of the internet, cut out retail and advertisement costs and charge 30 cents for a song that will play anywhere a normal mp3 would.

You want people to pay you for producing movies? Then keep the theater interesting, give them formats or experiences you can't find sitting in front of a monitor at home. Charge $3 for a DVD, that's impulse shoppice price people will be picking them up like candy. Who wants to wait hours downloading and burning a DVD when they can get a perfectly good copy for less than the price of a cheeseburger?

The RIAA and MPAA have got it in their heads that their way of business is an absolute, that our entire culture needs to revolve its copyright laws around their vision of artists rights. They're unable to face becoming obselete but too entrenched in their own propaganda to revive their industry with something out of the box. The rest of the world adapts to changing technology, maybe it's time for them to do the same.

Lastly, your 'this is the way the world works' attitude is driving our civilization into the ground. People need to stop living in the past and realize the present, what worked 40 years ago will not necessarily work today.

Or would you rather we sacrifice our culture to the slow march of facism to safeguard our all-important entertainment industry?

Re:this is funny.

[Volante3192]

Why don't you ask John Carmack sometime if it's okay that people download Doom 3 without paying him for the years of work he put into it? Carmack's a Slashdot hero around here...would be interesting to see people's reactions to his response.

Except, after playing Doom 3 I realized I'd never want to purchase it even after it's been tossed into the bargain bin. (Didn't even beat it, made it to the Monorail and that was only on willpower, I got bored like halfway to that point.)

So, in fact, I would like to ask him that. "Hey, I tried out your Doom 3 game, it sucked donkeys. Freaking glad I never bought it. Get my money by making something worth playing next time." Ok, that's not a question, but still...

Re:this is funny.

[duerra]

*sigh* For the bazillionth time. The MPAA doesn't bring lawsuits against users for DOWNLOADING. They bring lawsuits against people who UPLOAD. Parent argument has no merit!

Re:this is funny.

[TubeSteak]

See, the problem is they have managed to convince too many judges that ALL of the material you or I may have on a hard drive would have absolutely been purchased had we not had the opportunity to download it.

I call bullshit. Who's with me?

I'm not with you.

What you seem to be forgetting is that the law(s) are written to allow the copyright holder to get damages.

To calculate damages, the law assumes an arbitrary value for each infringement.

Nobody convinced Judges of anything. The Judges are merely applying the law as it's written.

Re:this is funny.

[Anonymous Coward]

what about theft of service?

for instance if I plug something into an outlet at your house, you are not deprived of anything yet I have stolen, have I not.

How about unused bandwidth on an open wifi spot. (open by stupididy, not on purpose). Again you are not "deprived" of anything yet it is still "stealing"

Re:this is funny.

[Maxo-Texas]

Not the same-- you are taking a physical item there.

"It's a Wonderful Life" is a better example. While free, it was a huge and growing event every christmas. It was on several stations- sometimes on the same night.

Once someone figured out some slimy backhanded way to gain copyright over it (and this is what-- almost 50 years old now?) and charge for it, it has almost completely vanished from TV in less than 8 years.

Basic fact is.. there is more entertainment than we can consume now. So entertainment is becoming a commodity and commodities just get cheaper. Riaa will fight this- but we can do our part by not buying riaa products. There are more non-riaa products out there than you can watch or listen to in your lifetime these days.

Spread them to your friends-- and now you still have the watercooler buzz-- just over non riaa stuff.

Re:this is funny.

[Anonymous Coward]

So are you saying by the smae logic that anyone who buys bargain bin CD's is in copywrite violation and should be in trouble for damages caused? After all they are not paying the whole price that others have for the same item.

Re:this is funny.

[jxyama]

>tha analogy would be a better one if you took a photo of his rootbeer.

No, that still doesn't work because a photo of the root beer does not have comparable value to someone wanting a drink.

No clever analogies work in these cases since we can't clone physical objects. In the same vain, the use of words like "steal", "pirate", etc. should be regarded differently because these are not physical objects.

Infringement is the technically correct description, but I think a lot of argument about "stealing" and "pirating" being incorrect description is just semantics - infringement sounds rather "soft" compared to stealing.

**AA would argue that they are just as damaging as theft, so they use that word instead of the technically correct one. If "infringement" carried the same tone of damage as "theft", at least to the degree agreable to **AAs, then they would be using "infringement." Their aim is not to be technically correct, but spread their idea of the damage involved in a way understandable by the public.

Re:this is funny.

[max99ted]

Yep, and the Canadian equivalent, the CRIA spouts the same drivel. You can laugh along watching this - there are clips of the CRIA president, Graham Henderson.

Also, I think the GP's root beer analogy can be somewhat more accurate - you walk into the store (maybe stand oustide the store?) with a device that can make an (almost) exact copy of a chocolate bar, except no packaging (maybe you get a .jpg of the wrapper so you can print it yourself) and no recourse if your copy is covered in mold and you get sick.

Re:this is funny.

[Anonymous Coward]

1: You are stealing energetic waves of electrons (aka watt-hours) which are lost to the outlet owner and will show up on the power bill.

2: You are not "stealing" WiFi. Perhaps trespassing, like hopping the turnstile to the subway.

Re:this is funny.

[MoonBuggy]

As another poster said, it wouldn't be comparable because you can't use a photo of rootbeer for the same purpose as rootbeer (that purpose being some kind of industrial cleaner, I assume, but I digress...). What may be comparable is taking a photo of a piece of artwork or a poster and then hanging the photo on your wall - you get near enough the same product (arguments over original art aside) and use it for the same purpose without paying and without depriving anyone.

Re:this is funny.

[DoctorDyna]

And if everybody who downloaded from me had that document? Or was forced to agree to it?

What now?

Re:this is funny.

[HnT]

Yea, I can totally picture this...

But, ladies and gentlemen of this supposed jury, I have one final thing I want you to consider. Ladies and gentlemen, this is Chewbacca. Chewbacca is a Wookiee from the planet Kashyyyk. But Chewbacca lives on the planet Endor. Now think about it; that does not make sense! Why would a Wookiee, an eight-foot tall Wookiee, want to live on Endor, with a bunch of two-foot tall Ewoks? That does not make sense! But more important, you have to ask yourself: What does this have to do with this case? Nothing. Ladies and gentlemen, it has nothing to do with this case! It does not make sense! Look at me. I'm a lawyer defending a major motion picture company, and I'm talkin' about Chewbacca! Does that make sense? Ladies and gentlemen, I am not making any sense! None of this makes sense!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chewbacca_Defense

Re:this is funny.

[duerra]

Well IANAL, but I'm sure there's shaky legal ground there, though online porn always had those "18+ agreement" type things, too. Either way, it's a "what if" scenario that doesn't exist yet as far as I know. I don't know that **AA's arguments would change though - you're still distributing their content with the legal authority to do so (only the legal owner of copyrighted content is allowed to decide who can and can't distribute their works). And that is what they sue for in the first place.

Re:this is funny.

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm not with you. Here's why.

I don't really like root beer. But if I really want a soda and I'm in a pinch I'll drink one.

Does this mean that if the place I fill up my car has one of those displays with stacks of root beer 12 packs at the gas pump I steal a 12 pack from the convenience store I'm not stealing cause I wouldn't have bought it anyways?

If you make illegal copies of copyrighted material you are in fact breaking the law, accept that fact and stop trying to make yourself look innocent. The point here is actually the ways and means they are using to go about enforcing said law.

If you don't like the fact that downloading movies in a certain fashion is illegal press to get the laws changed.

no dip shit, becasue that stolen rootbeet actualy COST the gas station product tehy are now unable to sell that to someone else.

but say you went to that same gas station (lost becasue you are obviously low on the IQ side) and for what ever reason could not afford to buy a road map of the area. if you photo copied that map, or scanned it onto a PDA or something you now have a COPY of that map created from nothing, the store is not out there map so did not lose money (though a greedy bastard may be mad he couldnt chrage you money for it)

see the differnce? if not go back to AOL for your own saftey

Re:this is funny.

[gnasher719]

'' We should all of us contact a lawyer and have legal documents drawn up, and notorized that say something like "In the event that any digitally copyrighted material is found on this hard drive, let this document serve as a legally binding guarantee that said materials would never have been purchased otherwise and therefore no loss of revenue can possibly be proven solely based on the posession and or existance of these materials." ''

Great idea. At the end of your month, your boss won't give you a paycheck. Instead he will give you a legally binding guarantee that he never, ever would have paid you for any work you did this month. And it's not theft, because he doesn't take anything away from you.

Re:this is funny.

[Cyno]

Makes sense..

If enough good people prefer sharing there would really be no reason to pay for anything, I mean, its not like money is really based on anything anymore. And a lot of products are valuable because of their intellectual property, whatever that is..

Hrmm, I believe in The Abolition of Work.

This is also interesting..

Re:this is funny.

[petermgreen]

infringement sounds rather "soft" compared to stealing.

Exactly and thats the point

most of the public have very little reason to care about copyright infringement. They do not directly own any copyrights of significant value and have little hope of doing so.

OTOH most of the public do have experiance about being a victim of theft, either first hand or from close friends. They think of stealing as a nasty crime that must be severely punished.

So the media conglomerates run a massive FUD campaign to try and convince people that copyright infringement=stealing=very bad. Those who belive copyright is a system of temporary monopolies to encorage creation thats been badly abused (retroactive extentions anyone) rather than a fundamental right rightly try to counter this FUD campaign.

Re:this is funny.

[Deliveranc3]

But in our disposable society:
researching the rootbeer .5c
Making the rootbear 1.5c
Can 5c
Transporting 4c
Marketing 30c
Can $1.25.

So you're still stealing an idea, people haven't really sold a product for about 50 years in the U.S. ever since planned obsolesence took over in the 60s and 70s thats where your car is designed to break in 5 years your fridge as well and products aren't released until they've already planned what will supplant them.

When companies spend 3 times as much on marketing as on design and production you KNOW they don't care about their consumers...

The MPAA and RIAA are some of the worst offenders of this and that's why they're being called to account... not just the idea that people should have access to beauty and ideas regardless of their income.

Re:this is funny.

[Eivind Eklund]

"Economy" is the science of optimizing scarce resources. Bits are not scarce.

Copying is creation of wealth. In some cases, it is illegal, in an effort to reward the use of scarce resources (time of people doing writing/editing/acting/etc) in invention of bit patterns. However, wealth is not created at this point. Wealth is created when the invention is USED - in other words, when the bits are copied, or even better, read.

Oh, and your basic statements would work against the existance of public libraries, too.

Eivind.

Re:this is funny.

[hausmaus]

Torrent sites track torrents and provide a means of exchanging copyrighted materials. It's pretty cut and dry.

You said it right there, bud: the only damn reason RIAA is doing this now is because it can be TRACED. By God, you don't see them going down on people copying CDs, do you? When is the last time you heard anyone get busted for having a hot CD? Because it's tracable, they're doing it.

There's a lot of other fun ways to trade stuff that are pretty untraceable (not that I know this from personal experience, mind you). It's an old-school thing, I'd gather. It's like the saying "It used to be smart people using dumb computers. Now it's dumb people using smart computers."

I read a story recenty that said something akin to half or more of the Internet traffic currently is from torrent transfers. If you use a torrent, you're just ASKING to be nailed to the wall and hung out to dry. I chuckle reading these "they shouldn't be spying on torrents" comments. It's built into the very backbone of the technology. From what I understand, it's pretty easy to hack too.

That's why you'll never, ever, EVER catch me using a torrent. Baaad idea. Traceable? Not for me, thankyouverymuch.

Why don't you ask John Carmack sometime if it's okay that people download Doom 3 without paying him for the years of work he put into it? Carmack's a Slashdot hero around here...would be interesting to see people's reactions to his response.

I'm glad you said what this guy did because *gasp* I didn't know who the hell he was until you said something.

Spy

[tgpo]

So in this case it's Spy vs. torrentSpy

Re:Spy

[Aladrin]

Some days I REALLY wish I had mod points. That's hilarious.

Re:Spy

[Anonymous Coward]

Which one wears the black hat though?

Re:Spy

[tgpo]

The Hacker wear the black hat. I've always imagined the MPAA wears the white pointy hat...with holes cut out for them to see rest of the clan, I mean Association with.

Investment Advice...

[Digital_Mercenary]

Law firms look like a good place to invest money for the next 10-20 years. The entertainment industry seems to determined to grow that segment of the market.

Re:Investment Advice...

[brjndr]

You can't just invest in a law firm, professional licensing regulations prevent lawyers from being in a partnership (where law is practiced) with any non-lawyers.

There is a group advocating that lawyers and accountants should be able to join partnerships together where they each do their part but offer the services as a whole to clients.

Re:Investment Advice...

[Anonymous Coward]

They call it "government".

It's Doogal

[DanTheLewis]

philistine.

Win Win Scenario

[Anonymous Coward]

The way I see this it's a win win scenario. If the MPAA looses, they get humilated and have to pay some of the $ they strong armed with their lawyers to some other lawyers and perhaps a few pennies to TorrentSpy. Sure the public wont care since they're too busy feeding the families of poor movie-set back hands. On the other hand, if the MPAA wins, they set a great legal precedent in California should I ever get busted for some of my uh, extra curricular activities. I'll just have to Incorporate myself and get a nice **AA style name.

Sued ... why no FBI raid?

[Bob Loblaw]

Why are the authorities not involved in raiding the MPAA offices in this case? That seems to be the *first* step when the MPAA are after someone else.

Re:Sued ... why no FBI raid?

[JustNiz]

Heh hell yeah...
If I was Torrentspy I'd have found some way to get the FBI to do a surprise raid on the MPAA, involving "kick down the door" entry and confiscation of all their computers and files as evidence.

Re:Sued ... why no FBI raid?

[Overly Critical Guy]

Uh, because it's a lawsuit filed by Torrentspy and not a federal crackdown?

I'll never understand why Slashdotters get so upset that the FBI does its job and enforces the law in this country. That includes busts of the big piracy rings. You may think you're magically entitled to download everything on the planet with paying a dime to anybody ever, but the law (and common ethics) says otherwise, especially if you're a larger group with a widespread infrastructure facilitating the spread of piracy. The FBI will beat down your door and stop you from your economic sabotage.

Re:Sued ... why no FBI raid?

[Ulrich Hobelmann]

You can bet your ass the MPAA has insiders in various government positions.

If there was a raid being planned, the MPAA would know about it and take protective action on time.

Re:Sued ... why no FBI raid?

[Anonymous Coward]

Ouch, they *really* modded you down.

Insensitive bastards. I actually found your comment rather insightful, even though I'm all in favor of some privacy rights.

Re:Sued ... why no FBI raid?

[Anonymous Coward]

How is this "flamebait?" Because it disagrees with the grandparent poster? Seriously, that's an abuse of the moderation system. If you disagree with someone, reply and tell them why instead of censoring them with a downmod.

Re:Sued ... why no FBI raid?

[demonbug]

I hear the FBI is using all of its resources to raid legislators' offices right now; I'm sure they'll get back to doing other things once the legislative branch is securely under the thumb of the Executive branch like it's supposed to be.

Re:Sued ... why no FBI raid?

[djmurdoch]

Uh, because it's a lawsuit filed by Torrentspy and not a federal crackdown?

I'll never understand why Slashdotters get so upset that the FBI does its job and enforces the law in this country.

I think the question was why it needs to be a lawsuit. Why isn't the FBI enforcing the law in this case?

Re:Sued ... why no FBI raid?

[joe 155]

Sued ... why no FBI raid?

because they'd use the Chewbacca Defense and force the FBI to pay them a million dollars

Re:Sued ... why no FBI raid?

[level_headed_midwest]

Because the FBI is busy looking for Jimmy Hoffa.

Re:Sued ... why no FBI raid?

[pureevilmatt]

it's flamebait because you grouped all "slashdotters" to one opinion. if all 'slashdotters' felt the same way about anything, there would be no discussion. personally, i wouldn't have modded it flamebait... but that's why it was.

Re:Sued ... why no FBI raid?

[pembo13]

I kinda find it funny how worried all those "legislators" got. Kinda makes you wonder how much they have to hide.

Re:Sued ... why no FBI raid?

[Kaenneth]

I think, generally, in a Civil case in order for the Judge to order a seizure like that you have to have proof of ability to pay counter-damages, generally in the form of a bond/escrow account.

As an example, a guy I know who was a lawyer was going to class-action sue a utility company, but the judge required a million dollar bond to proceed, so the case stalled.

Again, a case where the law favors those with money.

Re:Sued ... why no FBI raid?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, maybe one or two of them don't fully support Bush in everything.

Why isn't this a criminal investigation?

[internic]

I'm confused as to why this is a lawsuit brought by a private company and not a criminal investigation conducted by the FBI. IANAL, but I would have assumed that breaking into a company's computer systems to retrieve this information would violate criminal law, and I would have assumed that paying someone to do this would also violate criminal law. What's going on here?

Is paying someone to break into a computer system not a criminal act? Are the FBI knowingly ignoring a criminal act (perhaps because the MPAA is rich and politically powerfull)? Is Torrentspy just misrepresenting the situation to make it sound worse than it actually is (and, therefore, sound criminal)?

Re:Why isn't this a criminal investigation?

[Anonymous Coward]

Absolutely.
They should report the break in to FBI and any other law enforcement organisation dealing with cyber crime.
If they found guilty, people who conspired, authorized the action should go to prison - like other hackers did in the past.
Civil lawsuit can follow criminal investigation.

Re:Why isn't this a criminal investigation?

[Anonymous Coward]

Perhaps the FBI is too busy chasing down NSA false positives.

Re:Why isn't this a criminal investigation?

[chooks]

Mod parent up. Excellent article on the NSA wiretapping travesty.

Keeeeeeeeeelllllllll Dem!!

[Anonymous Coward]

The world doesn't need Hollywood movies anyway...just lots of uploaded amateur porn torrents.

They're the worst place to invest.

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, law firms are likely the worst place to invest any money. You have to keep in mind that lawyers produce very little. In many cases, they even prove to hinder production a great deal. The more production is unnecessarily hindered by legalities, the slower the economy grows. The slower the economy grows, the slower society's standard of living increases. In some cases, it may even decrease.

While lawyers may be able to do well financially in the short run, their actions are often quite detrimental to the economy as a whole. If American lawyers continue to waste the resources of various companies in petty lawsuits and other legal matters, eventually these companies will just plain leave America. They'll go to places like India, where they can actually focus on their business (at least until the lawyers show up again). That's a big boost for the Indian economy, but at the same time quite harmful to the American standard of living.

Re:They're the worst place to invest.

[Digital_Mercenary]

That sounds more like the system rather than the Laywer isn't it.
That is to say, the involvment of Law Firm is the result of two parties not being able to resolve a conflict on their own.

(Rather than deal with a complaint 1 on 1 to resolve an issue I'll ignore it and see if you'll spend resources on a lawyer)

Plus Law Firms seem to be invloved in mergers, bankruptcy, contracts and aspects of business designed to keep firms out of legal trouble.

If I could earn a percentage of the fees paid to lawyers over the past 20 years..."whew!"

My issue with this...

[east coast]

IANAL! Ok, now that's out of the way...

Can someone tell me why this is a matter of sueing the MPAA? I would think that if there was solid evidence of the MPAA being caught up in this activity that the cuffs would come out and some suits would be hauled off to the klink.

That, in and of itself, makes this seem like something that may be hard to attack in a court of law. If you have a legal conviction it would make the civil suit seem solid. A civil suit on it's own seems weak.

Re:My issue with this...

[John Hasler]

> If you have a legal conviction it would make the civil suit seem solid.
> A civil suit on it's own seems weak.

You've got it backwards. A criminal conviction requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Winning a civil suit requires preponderance of evidence. OJ Simpson was found not guilty but nevertheless lost a subsequent wrongful death suit.

Besides, there's no money in filing a criminal complaint.

It's sad really

[porkThreeWays]

It's quite sad that people get to hide under the laws that protect individuals in that corporation. They basically do horrible illegal things, and the answer to everything is a small fine. A non-human entity doesn't make these illegal decisions. _People_ do. I understand why the government seperates a corporation from individuals, but when people make knowingly illegal decisions, they shouldn't be able to hide under that umbrella.

Re:It's sad really

[jesuscyborg]

In situations such as this, what you're saying makes sense; however, the law is so complicated, extensive, and silly that it can be difficult for someone who isn't a lawyer in the business world to NOT break the law. Of course this truth applies more to certain types of businesses than others. The question is, where do you draw the line and put the officers of a company away for what the company did? (For example, if I incorporate as Murder, Inc. and start pumping lead through the streets of my New York under the authority of my corporation, I'm obviously going to jail.)

Re:It's sad really

[IAmTheDave]

I understand why the government seperates a corporation from individuals

Well, only in crime. In rights, it assumes a corporation has the same constitutional rights as a person. When it comes to crime, however, they get a pass.

Re:It's sad really

[peterfa]

Hence the rediculously unlikely event known as, (Thunderous Voice) "Peircing of the Corporate Veil." (/Thunderous Voice)

Re:It's sad really

[rawtatoor]

So true So true. Oh how right you are.

The way that I see it is that the World Economy that exists right now was built on the backs of people like my father and my grandfathers. (2 steelworkers and a coal miner btw.)

What I see now is that the massive and not so massive corporations alike raping and plundering those who got them rich.

But you know what? If you spend 1 dollar, one fucking cent buying corporate goods or if you work for one of them then you are part of the problem. Obviously this problem won't go away easily. How many of us can really say we don't suckle at the teat?

I really don't see any way other than what I have inferred. Do you expect the government to do anything about it?
You and I may truly be the last hope to save what our fathers built from the plunderers.

Re:It's sad really

[ruud]

In rights, it assumes a corporation has the same constitutional rights as a person.

So after a corporation has been in business for 18 years, it can vote and join the army?

Re:It's sad really

[iocat]

So wait, by your logic, your father and grandfathers are part of the problem? Because they worked for the Man, right?

Re:It's sad really

[ureshii_akuma]

So after a corporation has been in business for 18 years, it can vote and join the army?

Even better, it can directly buy votes from congressmen, and get the government to use the army to protect its interests.

Re:It's sad really

[Beryllium Sphere(tm)]

>When it comes to crime, however, they get a pass.

Indiana vs. Ford Motor Company, early 70s, Ford prosecuted for reckless homicide over a Pinto crash.

Peabody Southwest Inc. and Sabine Consolidated Inc, 1986, criminally negligent homicide prosecution over trench caveins at construction sites.

Film Recovery systems, 1985, three executives convicted of murder.

Re:It's sad really

[RobertLTux]

how about creating a JEJ tag? (being the initals of James Earl Jones)

hmm how about a whole class of people tags
RMS (GNU fanatic)
SCO (corporate scumbags)
L?T (Linux)

Re:It's sad really

[Anonymous Coward]

A non-human entity doesn't make these illegal decisions. _People_ do.

I think you just came up with a slogan for Chevron's next ad campaign!

Re:It's sad really

[StikyPad]

Even better.. It can override votes and it can run the Army.

-D. Cheney

Re:It's sad really

[peterfa]

wtf are you talking about?

bad...

[infimo]

The money they spend hiring a hacker they could make a sales promotion of discs or offers some of then.

what about criminal charges?

[ohzero]

going after money in a lawsuit is one thing. crossing state lines while breaking into the computers of a corporation is criminal... is anyone going to something simple like call the FBI/ local law? jesus....

fight against pirrracy

[goofyspouse]

Arrrrrrrrr!

Anarcho-capitalist? (off topic)

[MrNougat]

Anarchy and capitalism are somewhat at odds with one another, no? Without a governing body of some sort, who determines the legitimacy and value of currency (which capitalism certainly requires to thrive)?

Re:Anarcho-capitalist? (off topic)

[MoneyT]

The market generaly. Currency in it's simplest form is just another form of trade, but where trade often directly involves one service or product for another, currency involves exchange of a universaly desired product for another good or service. It's universaly desired because people see the need for a a way to obtain shoes from the shoe maker when they don't have any product or service the shoe maker requires. It's not to difficult to see working though without a governing body of some sort, it has potential for extremely sudden and dangerous flucuations of currency values. There is no real need for a governing body though, no government sets the exchange rates, but they exist, so it would be with currency.

Re:Anarcho-capitalist? (off topic)

[LunaticTippy]

OK, wikiman, MrNougat, since you like the paedia so much try this

I think it's all bullshit, but that's just an opinion.

Re:Anarcho-capitalist? (off topic)

[MrNougat]

There is no real need for a governing body though, no government sets the exchange rates, but they exist, so it would be with currency.

I figured someone would bring up the market, and that's fair. That doesn't address legitimacy or (come to think of it) uniqueness. Counterfeits of widely accepted currencies would be everywhere and everyone would be printing up their own "brands" of bills, for which there would need to be an insane web of exchange rates.

In fact, the US experienced this in its earlier days of currency. The gov't decided to allow banks to print their own currency, and it was a complete mess. The US gov't finally had to step in and take over all minting itself.

Lastly, without some kind of backing of the currency, its worth remains very low. US currency is backed by the economic and military power of the US gov't. I would argue that any sufficiently valuable and stable currency, in the absence of government, would make whatever group produces that currency into the gov't, ipso facto.

Re:Anarcho-capitalist? (off topic)

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh, anarcho-capitalism works, after a fashion. For example, it's just what was in place in Somalia right before the U.S. went in to try to help all those starving people. You don't really need a currancy, in a conventional sense, because, of course, when anarcho-capitalism exists in real life the main pieces of currency are the bullets that the various warlords and gangs use to kill others and take all they have. But then, the "anarcho-capitalists" that sit around preaching in affluent western democracies generally focus more on imaginary senarios than these stark realities.

Re:Anarcho-capitalist? (off topic)

[LordKazan]

anarchocapitalism doesn't recognize the fact that government is required to regulate and mantain a fair and equitable market for capitalism to thrive - anarchocapitalism is unlimited laissez-faire

IE something that would last about 1 week before you have an oligarchy run by business interest

Re:Anarcho-capitalist? (off topic)

[MrNougat]

And here I figured it was just a made up word.

Re:Anarcho-capitalist? (off topic)

[dada21]

That doesn't address legitimacy or (come to think of it) uniqueness. Counterfeits of widely accepted currencies would be everywhere and everyone would be printing up their own "brands" of bills, for which there would need to be an insane web of exchange rates.

I disagree. When gold is money (as it has been for almost 8000 years until 1913), people use it as a store of wealth and a unique article of barter. When paper was redeemable for gold, we had a VERY strong and stable currency (the dollar of 1790 was only devalued about 5% by 1912). From 1913 to 2006 the paper unbacked dollar has devalued almost 96%.

In fact, the US experienced this in its earlier days of currency. The gov't decided to allow banks to print their own currency, and it was a complete mess. The US gov't finally had to step in and take over all minting itself.

Again, I disagree. Check out Rothbard's What Has Government Done To Our Money, a free e-book. Rothbard explains what happened with banks -- they were nationalized after Lincoln tried a central bank (it failed). Nationalized banks fell under a national charter that let them loan out more money than they had reserves for -- causing the historic runs. This was NOT free market banking. In fact, Lincoln (and Greenspan and now Bernanke) all believe in the monetary policy that is generally called the "real bills doctrine" which repeatedly has been found to be false.

Lastly, without some kind of backing of the currency, its worth remains very low. US currency is backed by the economic and military power of the US gov't. I would argue that any sufficiently valuable and stable currency, in the absence of government, would make whatever group produces that currency into the gov't, ipso facto.

Untrue. Government backing of the dollar through faith has caused the dollar to fall 96% in less than 100 years. Before this time, currency backed by gold has held value for thousands of years. The only time gold faltered was during gold rushes which was quickly corrected by increased buying power in one market that shipped gold elsewhere to equalize. Before that, gold standards fell apart usually when _government_ debased gold with cheaper metals.

You can't (easily) counterfeit gold, and you can use gold in an economy much larger than the one we have today. It might instill a small soft and beneficial deflation, but this would be good for every economy as it encourages savings and smart investing.

Everything we see negative in society today can be attributed to fiat currency -- wars, socialism, powermongering and wage destruction. Housing bubbles, tech bubbles and even the Great Depression occured due to fiat currency. Faith comes from a hard money standard (gold), not from war and power which require more money devaluation to occur.

Re:Anarcho-capitalist? (off topic)

[graystar]

Check out www.freedomainradio.com for a good anarcho capitalist podcast.

What evidence do you have of an oligarchy forming without some form of government interference?

Re:Anarcho-capitalist? (off topic)

[LordKazan]

What evidence do you have of an oligarchy forming without some form of government interference?

go take a history course

Re:Anarcho-capitalist? (off topic)

[Anonymous Coward]

"Everything we see negative in society today can be attributed to fiat currency..."

Clearly that's a justified, well balanced world view with no room for argument. Teen pregnancy? Fiat currency! Racism? Fiat currency! Substandard literacy rate? You guess it, fiat currency. Lack of critical thought? ...anarcho-capitalism?

In Soviet Russia, cents make you!

Re:Anarcho-capitalist? (off topic)

[dada21]

Clearly that's a justified, well balanced world view with no room for argument.

Throw your arguments here and I'll explain. Or visit my anarcho-capitalism forum and I'll be happy to answer quicker.

Teen pregnancy? Fiat currency!

Fiat currency has created a massive State expansion that in the long run created savings devaluation (even your stocks that look like they're going up in dollars are going down in value!), which has created an atmosphere that seems to require both parents working. When one parent is home and focusing on their children, teen pregnancy decreases greatly.

Racism? Fiat currency!

Fiat currency creates inflation, which is used to transfer wealth from the lower class and middle class to the elite in control of the money market. Many minorities have found it hard to get out of the ghettos and out of the social stereotyping because their savings are quickly thrown in the toilet. Put $1 a day under the bed, and in 20 years you have nothing. In a gold standard, your money gets more powerful over time, so even the poorest minorities can break free of their stereotypes. Racism often happens out of stereotypes that sometimes breed true because the minorities can't break away from the stereotypes, so they embrace them.

Substandard literacy rate? You guess it, fiat currency.

Absolutely. Fiat currency caused massive problems in educating privately because of the large expanse of the State as inflation robbed residents of wealth to support the State expansion. As inflation increased, public educators expected more money to compensate for the increasing costs of living, which accelerated taxation and inflation (savings devaluation) which forced both parents to work rather than educate their children properly. Now the State educated, of course the kids can't read.

Lack of critical thought? ...anarcho-capitalism?

I used critical thought there. How about you, friend?

Re:Anarcho-capitalist? (off topic)

[Anonymous Coward]

Argument and critical thought are not one in the same. Politicians and pundits spend most of their time arguing for or against things, but few of them are capable of critical thought. Thinking critically entails not just making some argument for your point but asking yourself, "Is this actually true?" and then seeking the best counter-arguments you can come up with. Then you can make your claim with confidence it's actually true. You have offered some arguments for your assertion, but you have not yet demonstrated much critical thought.

But now I should admit that what you said was simply, "Everything we see negative in society today can be attributed to fiat currency..." That is manifestly true. One can attribute everything in society to fiat currency, just as religious people might attribute all ills of society to lack of (correct?) religious belief, or socialists might attribute them all to the class struggle and capitalism. You have ably demonstrated that given any ill of society one can some up with some (possibly quite circuitious) argument of how it might be related to fiat currency.

How I interpreted your statement was, "Everything we see negative in society today can be correctly attributed to fiat currency..." Now this statement would be difficult in the extreme to justify. You'd first have to actually enumerate every "negative" in society, show some sort of relation to fiat currency, and then actually rule out every other conceivable influence. Because, of course, fiat currency may have actually had a negligable effect compared to other factors, or it may have had the opposite effect of the one you expect, because society can be complicated. All these considerations are of course, only a concern if you want to think critically. If you just want to make an argument, they're no problem at all.

Case in point: Racism. It has existed in many places and times where there was no fiat currency, even in places where there was not a token economy at all. Therefore, to claim it can be attributed to fait currency (as a sole or significant cause) is dubious at best. You make an argument that inflation may inhibit social mobility, but offer no evidence to show that this is actually true in the real world. And, of course, there are myriad other factors that limit social mobility, so it's by no means clear that inflation (even if it is a factor) is significant when compared to other factors. Furthermore, Racism has existed against minority groups that are largely middle-to-upper class, e.g. jews in europe, which suggests that social mobility may not even be that important a factor. Also note that socialists make very similar arguments (that presumably you do not accept) that attribute racism to social stratification caused because workers do not own the means of production.

As I said, if all you want to do is make an argument, it's not hard, but thinking critically requires a lot of work. Making an attribution is not hard. Just look how easily the anarcho-capitalist and the socialist can both make different attributions on on the same issue. Making a correct attribution, on the other hand, is very tricky.

Re:Anarcho-capitalist? (off topic)

[espressojim]

You, my friend, deserve a bucket of mod points for that answer. Why post an anonymous coward.

Re:Anarcho-capitalist? (off topic)

[Anonymous Coward]

Without a formal State there will evolve a series of ad-hoc States. The emergence of the State is a natural phenonema. This stems from the scarcity of resources and the limited ability of individuals to meet all of their requirements of living, which only increase as the standard of living rises. There is no "obey some abstract philosophy because I believe it's right" switch that can be activated in the minds of the masses, meaning that regardless of what your ethical beliefs happen to be there will be someone that rejects them. If for example it is your belief that you own a piece of land and the results of your labor on it, and that no one has the right to take this from you, there will be someone that cannot do the same or simply doesn't want to, but can come over and crack your head open and take the fruits of your labor. So then you pay someone to protect you, your land, and the fruits of your labor so that you can spend your time producing goods. The more people around you that do the same, the more people that become paid to guard all of you. In case you're wondering why you don't protect yourself, trained fighters are more efficient than laborers. At first you may simply band together into agreements to protect each other, but then groups of people that don't care about your philosophy will simply band together, train in the art of war, and take your things. All of the time you spend training is less time you have to produce goods, so the more time you spend toward being a trained fighter the less work you have to show for yourself. Over time there will become a warrior profession and a worker profession. The warrior will fight off intruders in exchange for a percentage of everyone's labor. But then the warriors can realize, hey, we're better fighters than the workers and we can just take their things and make them work. So they enslave the workers. There's your ad-hoc State. The fuedal lord now dictates what you do, or else you get your head cracked open.

Whenever you have a stark contrast in power you have a State. Even if you external violence and instead look toward ownership of goods, the people fortunate to control the resources necessary for life decide who gets them and under what circumstances. They will employ people to defend their control of those resources, or the masses would simply kill them and take them for themselves. If you have all of the hard wood in the area and everyone wants hardwood tables, but you are selling it for a pound of gold per ten pounds of wood, people are just going to say "Fuck you and your 'you cannot use violence on me, it is immoral!!' bullshit, we're going to take your hard wood." So those that control the valuables will employ others to protect those valuables. If you want some of those valuables, you'll do whatever they want. Becoming defacto serfs to those that can convince others to defend their property rights the longest.

It is the anarcho-capitalist wankfest that has no evidence supporting its tenants. It doesn't even make sense, because it will always fall into feudalism. People just don't care about anarcho-capitalist values. They aren't going to starve to death for them. They aren't going to become slaves for them. At some point the threat of force and the scarcity of resources will be used to control populations.

The United States mixed-economy and separation of powers exists to find equilibrium between all of the parties with power, instead of consolidating them. The Republic exists so long as it placates the masses that on average have little, and placates those that own the various forms of property. Favor the property owners too much and the masses elect a new government. Favor the masses too much and the property owners buy a new government. Favor one to an extreme and the Republic falls into Civil War. Favor anarcho-capitalism and you obtain feudalism, which will turn to revolution, and the cycle will repeat until some equilibrium is reached.

Re:Anarcho-capitalist? (off topic)

[h4rm0ny]

Somebody mod this AC up out of the 0's please. His is a very good post.

Re:Anarcho-capitalist? (off topic)

[lobsterGun]

Teen pregnancy is a complex issue, the link to fiat currency is tenuious at best.

The America of the 21st century is a far less racist place than that of the 19th or 20th century.

The current American literacy rate is 99% (per CIA world fact book). As a point of comparison, in the late 1700s in New England it was around 90%. From that data point it _could_ be inferred that fiat currency has helped the cause of literacy...but I wouldn't make that inference there are too many other factors in play.

Re:Anarcho-capitalist? (off topic)

[Anonymous Coward]

Gold was not the primary currency for very long, though it's been used in coinage for about 2500 years on-and-off because it was particularly common. For the majority of early human development the amount of gold in circulation was insignificant and it largely aggregated into the hands of those at the top of power structures. Silver, more common than gold, served as an abstract store of value that could be traded earlier as a result of this. People have been paid in very many things. Salt for example was a currency for centuries if not thousands of years because it actually had utility. More wars have been fought over salt trade than gold, with much of the power of Venice, the Hanseatic League, and the Persians stemming from control of salt trade. Many large Western cities are the result of the salt trade. More wars have been fought over spice trade than gold, while we're at it. Slaves too. It wasn't until the industrial revolution that the value of salt became inconsequential because then it was ubiquitous. Slavery became passe in the West in the 19th century. Modern wars are fought over sources of energy first, then other natural resources second.

When gold is used as an abstract form of trade as well as treated itself as a valuable commodity, like with consumables like salt, you have a problem of the manipulation of the supply in circulation by individuals. Lots of economic problems and exploitation result from this. Without a fiat currency people would just game the gold (or any other commodity) market in cycles because the supply of gold cannot be regulated. That's exactly what happened and why fiat currency was invented. You could replace gold with any element you see fit and it would be not more suitable. A helium standard is no more or less useful than a gold standard. Both are relatively scarce on Earth.

Re:Anarcho-capitalist? (off topic)

[Mitaphane]

I second that notion, they're are a lot of good points made in this thread getting ignored compared to the overrated original post.

Re:Anarcho-capitalist? (off topic)

[Eivind Eklund]

The last number I saw for effictive literacy (ability to read and utilize the instructions for how to use a washing machine) was 87%. The International Adult Literacy Study, a functional test, place 20.7% of the US adult population in the lowest literacy bracket.

Based on this and many other sources I've seen over the years, I'm sceptical of the CIA world factbook number - it is way higher than most, and the only case I've seen that was in the ballpark (a 98% somehwhere) has defined "literacy" as "ability to recognize letters".

Eivind.

Re:Anarcho-capitalist? (off topic)

[Karma Farmer]

Everything we see negative in society today can be attributed to fiat currency -- wars, socialism, powermongering and wage destruction. Housing bubbles, tech bubbles and even the Great Depression occured due to fiat currency.

Thank God. I thought I'd never read another dada again. Your trolls restore my faith in humanity.

The ultimate irony...

[Kwesadilo]

The MPAA, in an attempt to fling mud about TorrentSpy as far as possible, could torrent the information that they took from TorrentSpy and distribute it along with their bogus movie torrents. The .torrent file could even end up on TorrentSpy. Then TorrentSpy could sue themselves for "facilitating thievery." Or they could become party to the MPAA's suit already in progress. I for one would find this side-splitting.

Re:The ultimate irony...

[Anonymous Coward]

Ummm, not really.

Fruit of the poison tree

[doodlebumm]

If TorrentSpy is successful in their lawsuit against the MPAA, then the evidence that the MPAA has against TorrentSpy will be thrown out, thus destroying the MPAA's lawsuit. If I were TorrentSpy, that is exactly what I would have done to fight the MPAA lawsuit. Even if TorrentSpy wins, it will not be much of a victory for anyone but TorrentSpy. Well, maybe it will be a big thorn in their side for a while. :)

But there's "dirty hands" involved...

[Svartalf]

If the MPAA broke the law (Criminal or Civil) in the process of trying to enforce their rights with regards to Copyright, they loose the right to pursue that defendant- if you're guilty of a violation in the matter yourself, you can't go running to the government to help enforce the rights when you're infringed upon.

Doesn't matter if Torrentspy is "pirating" things. If they obtained things illictly about that fact
from Torrentspy, the MPAA doesn't really have the right or ability to pursue the case at that point.

what a bunch of.....

[Anonymous Coward]

DoctorDyna is absolutely right. the reason why I would download a movie or whatever isn't because it's free and they are loosing track of reality if they thing anything I might have on my drive would have been paid for if I only didn't download it first. The reason why I would download something is cause it isn't worth my time let alone the astronomic prices they expect me to pay for it.

I think torrent spy will loose. Besides the whole david and golliath senerio. we are talking about a technology where 90% of people who use it, use it to steal other people's work. and now the person who hands this to them on a silver platter is crying foul... give me a break!

I think what we should do is stop downloading... and then maybee after nobody buys the thing to rip to get onto the internet they may put out something that's worth half of what they expect me to pay for it instead of putting out crap for the sake of making more money.

Re:what a bunch of.....

[Anonymous Coward]

DoctorDyna is absolutely right. the reason why I would download a movie or whatever isn't because it's free and they are loosing track of reality if they thing anything I might have on my drive would have been paid for if I only didn't download it first. The reason why I would download something is cause it isn't worth my time let alone the astronomic prices they expect me to pay for it.

Okay... but if it is such crap that it isn't worth your time or your money, why waste the time and bandwidth to download it for free?

Or do you just enjoy wasting your time? :-)

Oh the humanity!

[wtansill]

'Nuff said...

Donations..

[crossmr]

So can we donate to help the legal battle?

read the lawsuit

[theCat]

Looks like TS are going after MPAA. They are throwing the book at them. If they get any traction with the courts, they'll likely have someone's head on a plate. It would be so sweet if the courts found the MPAA guilty conspiracy as well, as that would haunt them for EVAR.

Is it just me?

[gilbert64]

If the hacker only makes a copy of the trade secrets he isn't really stealing is he? At least that's what people keep telling me when they try to justify illegal file sharing. Well right after "I don't have enough money".

I'm not saying the MPAA doesn't deserve to be sued, just pointing out something I found rather hypocritical.

Re:Is it just me?

[Anonymous Coward]

GAH. It *ISN'T* stealing. It's lots of illegal things: unauthorized access of a computer system, wire fraud, et cetera. It *ISN'T* theft, because theft includes (by definition) the deprivation of the item for its owner.

It's equivalent in the non-digital world would be sneaking into a business office and photocopying all their internal documents. It could only be construed as theft if it was copied onto the hacker's computer, then deleted on torrentSpy's, and even then it would just be a combination of tresspassing and such and destruction of property.

By definition, information can't be 'stolen', because when you take information, you are duplicating it, not depriving the 'owner' of it.

Re:Is it just me?

[adam.dorsey]

Maybe, if the trade secrets had been released in your local WalMart on DVD for 20 bucks.

But as far as I know, people who torrent movies don't attack the RIAA website to get said movie.

The issue wasn't "stealing", it was unauthorized access of a computer system. Or at least that's what it sounds like to me.

Re:Is it just me?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's equivalent in the non-digital world would be sneaking into a business office and photocopying all their internal documents.

But then you're depriving the owner of paper, toner, and electricity?

=P

To me, the crucial thing is

[Swift2001]

that the MPAA represents a small number of mega-businesses that are trying to control our images. A similar cartel exists in the News business, which is why we have had an increasing amount of crap, and less and less journalism, since about 1990, when the mega-mergers started happening.

In a less cartelized world, bittorrent would be seen for what it is: an alternate means of distribution that is enormously powerful, and incredibly cheap for the distributor, since they wouldn't have to invest in much storage or bandwidth. SOMEBODY would be offering their product for download at a reasonable price. Say $5.00 for a full DVD9 movie that you'd have to burn yourself. A couple more bucks, and they remove the copy protection. Piracy, which is inevitable, would be seen as wastage and free publicity for the studio, the director, the actors and so on. It would be prosecuted only when done for resale.

But since there are only a few studios, they band together in the RIAA and MPAA, and no real competition is required.

Re:To me, the crucial thing is

[QX-Mat]

You may have missed the point that a lot of copyfighers are trying to preserve.

We dont want to licence or pay a "little extra" for something we own. $5 for a movie is a movie. If you dont own that movie, how can you justify paying for it?

A few years back I went to one of the local networking and linux expos in birmingham. it was mightly impressive. Everytime a i saw a peice of software with a tiered licencing system I told them out right (often quite loudly) that they could not justify the difference in price simply because some coder has added a counter and exclusion. This is cripple ware.

I dont want to start a fight but every time I read about DRM I see how companies are just trying to push us into a less libral model that we already have.

I got very frustrated when I called MS to complain that I wasnt able to put my copy of XP from my dead laptop on to my newly built system. I brought that goddamn laptop, and paid their price once already. Sadly I didnt buy the software - no, I licenced it for a use on that one laptop. What a waste.

I want to own my own house. Even now I dont own certain parts of my car, computer, and from what I've been told, OS.

Matt

Re:To me, the crucial thing is

[Anonymous Coward]

At least one studio is going to be releasing torrent movies and TV shows with fairly low costs. I'm assuming that it will be supported by ads as well. But one can hope.

Not everyone in the entertainment industry is as short sighted and ignorant as the MPAA and RIAA.

Oh, and they are going to use a modified BT system that includes some kind of DRM. Developed by mister BT himself as the word has it. Yeah, like that won't take 20 minutes to crack.

Re:To me, the crucial thing is

[Swift2001]

Well, that's my preference, too. I guess the thought of paying a "premium" for a file without copy protection was first, an instinct to compromise, since a lot of actual friends within the industry need to take something to their boards to make them stop spluttering. The other fact is that a non-copy-protected file IS worth more than one with DRM. If the pricing model was low enough (not the $20 or so that Warner's wants you to pay for a DVD file that could only be played on your computer!), then a non-copy-protected file could command a slight premium.

But if they just wanted to sell you a DVD9 file for $5, no copy protection, I'd be happy.

Re:To me, the crucial thing is

[QX-Mat]

I think in the mean time its important not to comprimise. When we start comprimising we'll start seeing DVDs out there fore $10 with DRM all over them (you can't stop and industry trend easily)... then they'll release the HD version with DRM for $15... $20 and you get DVD with out crippleware, but not 1080 def. for $25 you get the "bonus no DRM 1080 def" dvd...

but wait.

I can already get that. NOW! For much less.

They're making markets of cash out of the restriction of what we already have. Look at Sony trying to stop the resale of games so they get more sales! Valve with Steam have prevented the resale of their games... My game is no longer the game I brought - its now the game I'm allowed to use.

All the restrictive IP method (licening and DRM) destroy the secondhand market that people dont seem to know exist. Without carboots, town markets and fairs - what kind of local economy would we have?

(btw, im not ecomomist!)

Matt

Conspiracy

[nuggetz]

Ever think that maybe the torrent people cooperated and created the lawsuit just to make people believe that they didn't stab the warez kiddies in the back?

Tao Was Right

[InsomniacMK5]

Karma is a b!$@&.

If Torrent Spy wins the lawsuit

[Anonymous Coward]

Even if they will the MPAA will barely get a hand slap, and probably have to offer people 1$ movie credit coupons or something akin to the Sony Rookit Agreement. Big Business does bad, barely a slap on the wrist, individual does bad, pay us thousands and thousands of dollars or we go to court and ruin you.

Woah!

[stormcoder]

\me Checks for emerging simians with wings.

Nope

[Darkman, Walkin Dude]

Its like trying to put a celebrity in jail, won't happen.

Nope, its not. The RIAA etc. are what celebrities hide behind in order to prosecute pirates and the like. That same dissociation is now going to be a serious liability here. They aren't the rock stars, they are the bouncers. If I was the injured party in this case I would take the inevitable seven figure out of court settlement and tell them to shove it somewhere south of the border sans lube, and request the heads of the execs on a silver platter. These yahoos are out of control, and as they are so fond of pointing out, an example needs to be made.

The trouble is...

[Anonymous Coward]

In the US (and many other places, NOT the UK) downloading is legal. In the US it was specifically legalized by the "No Electronic Thieft Act" which says it's legal to download $2000.00 worth of stuff from the internet in any six month period, any more and you're breaking the law.

The problem is that all the download clients download into a "shared" folder, so as soon as you download a file, you are allowing it to be uploaded. Uploading copyright content without the CR owner's permission is illegal.

With a torrent, you're breaking the law as soon as you start downloading.

This is bad. There's no way for a downloader to know what files are legal and which files aren't. Do a search on any music P2P for "scatterbrain" - there must be a thousand different songs with that name, surely not all are illegal.

You may be looking for Posamist's "Loom Up", which IS legal (you can get an MP3 from their web site). What if you're trying to get Posamist's song and it turns out some hack like Britney has a song named "Loom Up?" Well, your intentions were legal, but you're busted anyway.

One of you kind fellows PLEASE (I'm too lazy) write a P2P app that does not place downloaded files an a shared directory? Because it would be bad enough if I was subjected to a Britney Spears song, horrible if I were to be sued for it. Talk about insult to injury! ...at the very least, steer me to the source to an OS P2P app so I don't have to reinvent the wheel.

hrm

[Darkman, Walkin Dude]

What makes it worse is there own twisted view of what is morally right and what isn't

You misspelled profitable, there, I think...

RIAA Repeat?

[tonyr1988]

If I remember correctly, something similar happened to the RIAA. (Note: This is based on my memory and may not be perfect) But this is what I remember reading about:

Kazaa (or Sharman, if you want to be "right") sued the RIAA because they used Kazaa Lite when finding people's IP addresses. Kazaa Lite was totally and completely illegal to use, and Kazaa said something about it in one of their terms. Kazaa lost, though, because the courts said that they didn't enforce the "non-pirate" clauses of their terms well enough, so this other part shouldn't be enforced either.

They're going to find some stupid excuse to let the MPAA go. I have no doubt in my mind about it.

Re:RIAA Repeat?

[rbarreira]

If Torrentspy is telling the truth about the hacker story, the two cases aren't even remotely comparable...

If you put it like that...

[BigGar']

The Motion Picture Association of America willfully and intentionally obtained without authority, conspired to obtain without authority, purchased, procured, used and disclosed private information that it knew was unlawfully obtained through unauthorized access to Plaintiffs' computer servers and private email accounts, in violation of United States and California privacy and computer security laws.'"

It almost sounds like they did something bad.

This isn't really true

[kcurtis]

I think convicted felons Ken Lay and Jeff Skilling might disagree with your assumptions. These are just today's examples, but the US has done a job on individuals who are responsible for corporate malfeasance. (sp?)

Re:This isn't really true

[mpeisenbr]

The real problem is corporations are structured to put profits ahead of all else. If the officers don't perform they're replaced. So you get Lays and Skillings. Check out the Documentary _The Corporation_. They analyze the 'personality' of a typical corporation, and conclude that it has a psychopathic behavioral disorder.

DUDE!!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't start a sentence with while true!!! Got stuck there.. had to reboot brain!! >:[

New Film Association

[nsmike]

I say citizens angered over the dictatorial control of the MPAA over the film industry ban together in a digg/slashdot style of movie ratings. Maybe it'll get popular enough to earn a place among national MPAA ratings of movies, and perhaps even supercede them on major turkeys.

Rotten Tomatoes is kind of like that already, true, but you won't see any movie touting "This film is rated "Rotten" by Rotten Tomatoes.com. This needs to be a little more objective, a similar rating system to the MPAA, with a corresponding web evaluation that includes basic reviews, and perhaps even a feed of the Rotten Tomatoes rating.

How to do this, I'm not 100% sure... How do we supercede the MPAA rating system and gain that kind of clout? How do we justify that we're dissatisfied with the current system and want a new one? Once we do this, how do we prevent it from becoming another MPAA?

If we can solve those problems, I'd say it's worth a try.

The Internet is the **AA's problems!

[Newer Guy]

And I don't mean downloading, either.

It's a fact that the Internet is a great entertainment medium. Much better then CD's or movies or TV. I can tour the world, get an education, shop for most anything....and then there's the free pr0n!

Maybe that's the **AA's plan - to sue the Internet completely out of existance.

Re:Sued ... why no FBI raid? (Gross Mod abuse)

[Maxo-Texas]

Gross abuse by the Mods.

You may disagree with parent post but it is not flamebait.

Everything can go back to Southpark

[Anonymous Coward]

It's like in Episode 213 "Cow Days" where at this crappy carnival, the boys declare "shenanigans" and the whole town attacks said carnival.

It's funny though because what you say is so TRUE. I do however don't believe that this would be a legitimate defense. However let me point out a few things for anyone who would argue against it's validity.

1. The poeple who are pirating on p2p usually aren't spending $5000 on a machine to only hold britney spears songs.

2. In the Case of software, if you actually pay for Office, Photoshop, Bryce, Quake4, Dreamweaver, Visio, Visual Studio .3000, 3dstudio Max, Mya, SuperSequelServer 3300,not to mention all the small utilities we use every day like say.. Remotely Anywhere, Quicktime, etc. you would be in the poor house anyway.

300
600
75
50
400
180
500
1700
2000
50-1500
30
$5835 for a few pieces of software. I could build 4 really nice computers for that price.

Now, I know that there are many Free & OSS Solutions, but people use what they are comfortable with. So in this case, if they use office @ work, they are more likely to want it at home. Maybe they don't need the full features of the 3D developing environment all the time, but the handful of times they do need it doesn't justify the hundreds of $'s to get it. I personall don't agree with pirating games. If you don't see enough from the demo, or a review, it's probably not worth purchasing.

As a student I understand the drive to pirate 3D & development software. You learn on the best environment at school, but when you go home and want to try something you find out that your "version" is not complete enough to do it.

Sometimes, it really just comes down to people wanting the software, but not really using it, or hording. Who listens to the 600Mb of BubleGum Pop on their drive anyway?. Same thing with movies.

parent company?

[kaptron]

Anyone else find it interesting that Torrentspy.com has a parent company (Valence Media)?

Bah, ZDnet is teh suxx0rz

[Anonymous Coward]

Try this one. No "click to continue reading", no flashing ads, plus you get that neat-o vulture logo. And, they speak British and use words like "Boffin", "shag", "sprog", and "wanker".

The hacker was supposedly promised he would never be held accountable for actions, which allegedly came as part of a wider "dirty tricks" campaign. According to the lawsuit, the MPAA's agent told the hacker that the MPAA planed to pay private investigators to rummage through the garbage of TorrentSpy founder Justin Bunnell and leading executives at Valence Media.

Value, sure, but *how much* value?

[nobodyman]

Not to justify the existance of the MPAA but if people think this stuff is crap why are people being caught downloading it?

I see your point: Economics 101 tells us that the demand on these so-called "crap" movies is proof that it indeed has value. And I would even agree that piracy is proof that there is a viable market even for crap movies. Hell, I'll sacrifice my karma (both kinds) and say that there is a viable market for Gigli.

But here's the rub: the MPAA opposes the only viable market for crap movies: digital downloads at low prices. The MPAA claims that the viable market is their current distribution system.

• Having me pay $20 to watch a movie one time only at the cineplex along with two hundred other people
• Having me wait 3-9 months for the $20 DVD that has ads that I cannot skip through (GODDAMN YOU DREAMWORKS)

So, yeah, Gigli has value, but not enough to make me (and apparently anyone else) pursue either of the above options. But as a $1.00 download that I can burn to a DVD? I bet you'd get alot more money than what they pulled in the old-fashioned way.

What the MPAA still does not get (and what the RIAA doesn't want to admit that they just now starting to get) is that most consumers would rather pay than steal. But you can't claim that you need to defend a viable market when you have not provided one.

Re:Value, sure, but *how much* value?

[Anonymous Coward]

But you can't claim that you need to defend a viable market when you have not provided one.

Are the clients of the MPAA making a profit? That sounds like a viable market to me. Simply because it's not a "name your price" game doesn't mean that the market is not viable.

They might not download for the movie, per se

[smellsofbikes]

My girlfriend bought copies of Tomb Raider I and II and Gia not because they were good movies -- they're complete and utter crap -- but because each one had a scene or two that showed off some of Angelina Jolie's, uh, assets. My gf bought them all at a used store, not caring that one was scratched ("as long as it's not scratched during the money shot") and says they're utter crap, would never buy them for full price, blah blah blah.

The point being: just because something is utter, mindless tripe doesn't mean that a bit of it might not have value to someone. However, if you think something is mindless crap, it's really hard to convince yourself to pay full price for it.

I think one of the reasons ITunes is so popular is it allows you to winnow. I like MC 900 Foot Jesus, but there's only one song of theirs I'd actually pay for. As weird a thought as this may seem, it's quite possible that people might buy scenes from movies, where if they can only get the whole movie they can't bring themselves to pay for it, so they acquire it. Look at Windows: no way in hell I could convince myself to pay retail price, but I have a copy so I can run Photoshop.

Note that I'm not saying it's right, or that it's any justification whatsoever for copyright infringement. It's not. All I'm talking about here is the psychology of the situation, and why people might have stuff they, themselves, consider worthless, in violation of copyright.

From the American Heritage Dictionary

[SlimFastForYou]

Copyright infringement is to stealing as cp is to mv.

Definition of theft:
1. The act or an instance of stealing; larceny.

or from the Thompson & Gale Legal Encyclopedia:
A criminal act in which property belonging to another is taken without that person's consent.

Definition of steal:
1. To take (the property of another) without right or permission.

Definition of take:
To get into one's possession by force, skill, or artifice, especially:
      1. To capture physically; seize: take an enemy fortress.
      2. To seize with authority; confiscate.

So...

"for instance if I plug something into an outlet at your house, you are not deprived of anything yet I have stolen, have I not."

My electic bill would be greater because of you. As a direct result of your action, I have to pay more money. You have taken something of value that wasn't yours.

"How about unused bandwidth on an open wifi spot. (open by stupididy, not on purpose). Again you are not 'deprived' of anything yet it is still 'stealing'"

I can see people mistakenly calling it 'stealing'. But as long as it's an unmetered connection (in other words, not charged per kilobyte or whatever), the owner is not suffering any loss. Of course there may be laws against unauthorized access, but those are generally for security reasons. I have an open wifi connection, and don't see why I should get angry if people use it. If people abuse it, I'll secure it.

Re:From the American Heritage Dictionary

[Anonymous Coward]

Even the open wifi is a limited resource - not in transfer amount perhaps, but definitely in speed. If some guy jumps on your connection for a few days downloading Torrents, you browsing will be slow and your games will lag.

Your connection can be metered and given a value.

That's why the laws regarding copyright suck in most countries. Before computers, everything cost something. Now, to make fifty copies of a digital document and then delete them all costs nothing. Fifty albums? A million? It still costs nothing. The whole idea of copyright is to apply cost to something which has no cost. It works as well as dividing by zero -- all that needs to be done for it to happen is to force everyone into believing that it can be done.

Re:From the American Heritage Dictionary

[SlimFastForYou]

Well, the GP did say "unused" :-).

To be honest, I really don't like the copyright system. However, if both software copyrights and software patents were abolished everywhere tomorrow, what consequences would it have?

I know this discussion is about copyright as it relates to the movie/recording industry associations. I think that artists would continue to be successful, because people would go to concerts, buy t-shirts or whatever, even if copyright were to be repealed. And we'd be better without the *AA's

However, if copyright were to be repealed, would most software companies die due to legalized piracy? Would it become economically infeasible for someone to write software for a living? Or, would people still be able to write code all day?

If you think so, what system do you suggest we have? Copyright seems to me to be a necessary evil (unless anyone has any better ideas).

The RIAA/MPAA should be hit with RICO

[fudgefactor7]

They're a (semi) corrupt organization using illegal methods to further their own wealth. RICO the SOBs!

Hmm...

[Xichekolas]

I hope TorrentSpy saved a lot of money to fight what is sure to be a loooooonnnnnnggggggggg drawn out court battle. I can't imagine the ad revenue of every torrent site on the planet since the beginning of torrenting even approaches the yearly legal budget of the MPAA.

Of course, the brilliant and slap-in-the-face method of winning this would be to take it far enough to get a nice huge settlement out of the MPAA, and then use that money to defend TorrentSpy users in future court cases. Or fund a trip or two to the Supreme Court.

Re: Valance Media should be hit with RICO

[Anonymous Coward]

They're a (semi) corrupt organization using illegal methods to further their own wealth. RICO the SOBs!

Re:Sued ... why no FBI raid? (Gross Mod abuse)

[Anonymous Coward]

Gross abuse by the Mods.

You may disagree with parent post but it is not flamebait

It's not only flamebait, it's an off-topic troll. The GP said "I'll never understand why Slashdotters get so upset that the FBI does its job and enforces the law in this country."

We don't, that's what makes it flamebait. We're not in this instance upset because the FBI busted somebody, but because they didn't bust somebody - the MPAA.

When the FBI (or the NSA) break the laws themselves (NSA with wiretaps, FBI last century with Waco and Ruby Ridge) then we get pissed at the NSA or FBI.

When the FBI busts someone who has broken an unjust law, we don't blame the FBI, we blame the corporate-owned Congress.

Why do I suspect that you are a pseudonym for the grandparent poster? Or do you both work for the same film studio?

(AC so nobody will know what a karma whore I am. MRC="bastards";)

new motto

[TRRosen]

Don't Steal Movies - Steal Private Information!

He had a "change of heart"

[mythandros]

Does anyone else but me think that the individual that hacked TorrentSpy for the MPAA had ulterior motives from the start? If they asked me to do it, I'd gladly hack someone's network with the intention of logging everything and everyone I touched. Then, I'd drop all my evidence in the lap of the network's owner and watch the MPAA sweat. At the very least, they would think twice about enlisting the aid of folks like me again.

Differences..and the face of it.

[RobertKozak]

On the face of it, it looks as though what **AA did was only (allegedly) break in and steal some emails while TorrentSpy is (allegedly) facilitating copyright infringement (but not actually infringing themselves).

But the act of breaking into a computer system breaks CRIMINAL laws while copyright infringement breaks only CIVIL laws. BIG difference.

Where are the FBI Raids? This country is so turned around now that, if you are big and powerful, you can get away with criminal acts while if you are a small timer you get the book thrown at you for minor offences.

I am very disappointed!

Re:Sued ... why no FBI raid? (Gross Mod abuse)

[Maxo-Texas]

The GP post by Bob was...

"Why are the authorities not involved in raiding the MPAA offices in this case? That seems to be the *first* step when the MPAA are after someone else."

The parent post's -answered- bob's question:
"Uh, because it's a lawsuit filed by Torrentspy and not a federal crackdown?"

and -was- on topic.

The parent's post then continued with the opinion:
I'll never understand why Slashdotters get so upset that the FBI does its job and enforces the law in this country. That includes busts of the big piracy rings.

We both know this is true... we've seen it many times. It's not off topic to this conversation.

Then he gets a bit hot and (and possibly flamebaitish but not off-topic) but I think it is legitimate since he's continuing and concluding from his base statements:

You may think you're magically entitled to download everything on the planet with paying a dime to anybody ever, but the law (and common ethics) says otherwise, especially if you're a larger group with a widespread infrastructure facilitating the spread of piracy. The FBI will beat down your door and stop you from your economic sabotage.

And concluded with the ironic predictive signature:
If you're against piracy on Slashdot, you will be modded down.

Then you try to disparage *my* opinion by saying that I'm an alternate id for the parent poster. This is incorrect on the face if you just look at my account and see 871 Comments going back over a year. If you took the time to review them, you would find many anti-RIAA/MPAA comments in them.

However, I do typically despise cowardly modding down somoene to silence them when I think they said something unpopular. In this case, I read his post and saw the modding and felt he was being nuked unfairly.

Just because I disagree with you doesn't mean that I'm a shill.

THEY'RE DOING A REMAKE OF MIAMI VICE?!

[inKubus]

I can just see it now. White suits, Ferarris, Cubans on coke. Shakira's belly button.

Now if they'd just do a Magnum P.I. movie, we'll be set.

Stop calling me Shirley.

[MS-06FZ]

You mean the MPAA is a government of our subsidiary now?

Easy Answer

[phorm]

but if people think this stuff is crap why are people being caught downloading it

Two scenarios:

a) Go to theatre, see good movie, enjoy. Benefit from the experience.
b) Go to theatre, see an overhyped piece of crapulance. Waste time off your lifespan in addition to the cost(s)

or, download the movie, determine whether it's good or not, and buy it on DVD if you like it (even see it on the big-screen, if you deem it worthy).

Re:Easy Answer

[Anonymous Coward]

Question is, if you've already downloaded the movie, WHY THE HELL WOULD YOU BUY IT? To support the makers? Uhh....no.

Re:Easy Answer

[Anonymous Coward]

This is true. This isn't like music where an band makes a certain type of music and normally one song gives you an impression of what their catalog may be like. A single movie is a single movie. End of story. So many try to compare this to music downloading to get a taste of the music but the truth is that once you've seen the film it's over. As for the grandparents concept of "waste money, waste time" you're wasting the time anyway. Don't act like this is a noble effort to culture yourself. I wish I could go and eat a meal at a restaurant and decide if i should for it. The excuses people come up with why movie theft is OK is nothing but bullshit and those people are little more than fucking thieves.

Re:Easy Answer

[Anonymous Coward]

Two easy answers:

Better quality

DVD extras (director's commentary, deleted scenes, etc)

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Here's why there was no raid

[tacokill]

Because it's a CIVIL case. As opposed to a criminal case. Criminal cases are the "break down the door" guys. Civil cases are, generally, person(or corp) to person(or corp). More here

When it's a criminal case, you hear from the police and District attorneys (County, city, state, federal). That's why there was no raid.

A) That'd be separate, B) It wouldn't help them

[Anonymous Coward]

> I'm confused as to why this is a lawsuit brought by a private company and not a criminal investigation conducted by the FBI.

Disclaimer: IANAL. I have read absolutely none of the legal filings in this case.

That aside, I *suspect* that TorrentSpy will use this evidence to raise a defense of "unclean hands"--in other words, that due to the illegal or unethical behavior on the part of the MPAA, the MPAA's lawsuit should be thrown out as a sanction.

Please note: they can still file a *separate* criminal complaint. I don't really know how the two cases would interact, but I know that they *have* to use some kind of counter-claims (unclean hands, or perhaps some others I don't know of) to thwart the MPAA's current case against them. The criminal complaint, in and of itself, won't do that.

So basically, they're doing this because they have to. They can *also* file criminal complaints (and I hope they do), but they pretty much have to use these as some kind of counter-claim. I hope they have good lawyers who know how to probe deeply in discovery--I'm made to understand that they can request *anything* "reasonably calculated" to *lead* to admissable evidence (even if what they request isn't, in and of itself, admissable evidence).

What does *that* mean? They could force the MPAA to turn over *all* documents concerning *any* anti-P2P activities, illegal or otherwise. So they could find out about all the hacking they've been doing... given that they asked congress for the "right to virus" (as congress termed it), I have little doubt that they've been considering if not engaging in suspect, if perhaps not illegal, activities.

Maybe they were looking for...

[NeuroManson]

Anyone who pirated Gighli? Anything they can use as an excuse for it tanking?

Felony Violation

[KwKSilver]

If the MPAA did what is alleged, it is a felony violation of 18 U.S.C 2701, Chapter 121Stored Wire and Electronic Communications and Transactional Records Act. Please dont take my word for it here's a link to an official government site. As they contracted for it a conspiracy may have taken place.

Actually, I agree that piracy is wrong. Be that as it may, two wrongs do not make a right, just two wrongs. Why isn't the FBI investigating alleged felonious conduct by the MPAA? As a champion of the law, I trust you would support such an investigation, let the chips fall where they may? If pirating movies is wrong (agreed), why aren't GPL violations wrong? Do you agree?

You forgot Rentals

[Namarrgon]

But you can't claim that you need to defend a viable market when you have not provided one.

You make a good point, but there's another distribution method you've not mentioned: rentals. Now you can watch Gigli for only $3-4. Yeah, you have to wait, but that's not so hard, it's Gigli we're talking about. Wait a bit longer and it'll be even cheaper.

Another option that might work for less-popular movies is to auction them. Then people only have to pay what they're prepared to pay, the studios make more sales on B-grade movies, everyone's happy (until they see how bad the movie really is of course).

Actually I'm in the Same Boat

[Anonymous Coward]

I have almost completely gave up watching TV due to the same ol' same ol' plots, scenes and such being on. Hell it's gotten to the point that I don't even watch the news except for the weather report.

As to movies, they priced themselves out of my market almost 20 yrs ago. That's right I haven't been to the theatre in 20 yrs nor do I even bother renting videos simply because there's been little that's worth the money spent.

Instead I've turned my attention more fully to books and using of my local library and all the stories I can find online. Cost is minimal other then my ISP connection and I can enjoy reading porn/mysteries/Sci-Fi/Fantasy and anything in between till my eyes rot in my skull.

Re:Sued ... why no FBI raid? (Gross Mod abuse)

[djmurdoch]

And concluded with the ironic predictive signature:
If you're against piracy on Slashdot, you will be modded down.


That's not "ironic". It's just whining. Whenever I have mod points, and I see a whiny "I'm so special I know you'll mod me down" comment, I oblige.

If the Overly Hypocritical Guy wants to improve the quality of discourse on Slashdot, he should start by addressing the points in the posts he responds to, and treating others with respect.

Re:THEY'RE DOING A REMAKE OF MIAMI VICE?!

[ericdano]

SHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!! Don't GIVE Hollywood anymore BAD ideas. My GOD, a remake of Magnum PI. You should be stoned. Or flogged. Or BOTH.

I can't believe they sunk so low as to do the Dukes Of Hazard.

In related news, Adult Swim was running "Saved by the Bell". Thankfully they STOPPED.

Re:Sued ... why no FBI raid? (Gross Mod abuse)

[Maxo-Texas]

Of course, why whine against something that's not happening right? That would be silly.

inflation

[Descalzo]

"Fiat currency creates inflation, which is used to transfer wealth from the lower class and middle class to the elite in control of the money market."

I read somewhere that the purpose of inflation is to slowly-but-surely move us all in to higher tax brackets, thus taking a higher percentage of our income without tax increases (or rather on top of tax increases).

Plead

[Punch-Drunk Slob]

The MPAA pleads insanity, your honor.