Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

MPAA is Awarded $110 Million In TorrentSpy Case

Posted by samzenpus on from the those-who-have-the-money-have-the-power dept.

An anonymous reader writes "The MPAA was awarded a staggering judgment in its case against the BitTorrent indexing site TorrentSpy. According to Slyck.com, a judge in California rendered a $110 million victory for the MPAA, and a permanent injunction against TorrentSpy."

2 of 523 comments (clear)

  1. Re:Perspective by jd · · Score: 1, Redundant
    I think there's a justification in maintaining copyright on a case-by-case basis of something that is self-sustaining, but even then only in exceptional circumstances - say, where there's grounds for believing that the artistic value of some art (not its commercial value, only its artistic value) would be demonstrably degraded. In other words, if the copyright is actually benefiting the art for art's sake, then don't tamper with it, but the default should be to assume that it isn't unless there is evidence contemporary to the decision that clearly shows it is.

    It's very unclear to me that there's a film studio around that could remotely claim a self-sustaning existance AND a self-perpetuating artistic merit to any of their productions, with perhaps one or two exceptions for societal-changing, history-making classics. Orson Welles' "War of the Worlds" probably merited a longer lifespan in the copyright system than, oh, the movie of "Independence Day". The latter made a lot more money, but had no lasting value of any kind. As I see it, society as a whole should have the right to temporarily waive its rights to claim public domain when society as a whole benefits from doing so, but that it should neither be allowed to nor compelled to when exclusive rights become exclusive benefits.

    --
    It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
  2. Re:Perspective by DarrenBaker · · Score: 1, Redundant

    Actually, this is not entirely true... Anyone who touches a corpse which has cholera, and then touches an orifice on their person will almost certainly contract it, not to mention anyone who touches anyone else, or anyone else's food. In the devastation they are now witnessing, I'm sure that hand-washing stations are few and far between.

    Now, remember, this is just cholera - there are many other diseases that can be spread in this way: Yellow fever, typhoid fever, etc...

    The easiest and safest way to avoid this - and the scourge of insects and wild animals (if any survived) - is to bury the dead. Simple, easy.