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."

120 of 523 comments (clear)

  1. Re:That's all? by DustyShadow · · Score: 3, Informative

    Hmm, wasn't this a civil case?

  2. nice while it lasted by Pres.+Ronald+Reagan · · Score: 5, Funny

    If only there were other sites to use. Oh well, BitTorrent was good while it lasted.

    --

    Abortion is advocated only by persons who have themselves been born.
    --Ronald Reagan
    1. Re:nice while it lasted by tzot · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Abortion is advocated only by persons who have themselves been born.

      Nice quote. I had no idea RR had such mastery of subtlety.

      Neither did he, nor his advisors. I don't know about the guys who write the presidential speeches, though.
      --
      I speak England very best
    2. Re:nice while it lasted by badasscat · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Nice quote. I had no idea RR had such mastery of subtlety.

      Makes you wonder if he also said anything to the effect of "wars are advocated only by persons who have not been killed in one" or "capital punishment is advocated only by persons who have not been executed." Somehow I doubt it.

      Goes to show that eloquence and logic don't always go hand in hand.

    3. Re:nice while it lasted by electrictroy · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Does this verdict have any relevance to the ISOHUNT.com search engine?

      Or is this a non-related case? I would really hate to lose isohunt, since it's such a useful resource.

      --
      The government is not your daddy. Its purpose is not to raid middle-class neighbors' wallets and give it to you.
  3. Congrats MPAA... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    You won $110 million from a site that doesn't even exist anymore.

    1. Re:Congrats MPAA... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

      Internet Money FTW!

    2. Re:Congrats MPAA... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

      So they just absorbed any liability I have for infringement for using their site. If 4 people rob me, and steal $100, can I get verdicts against *each* of them for $100?

    3. Re:Congrats MPAA... by piojo · · Score: 2, Informative

      Yes. That's typical, in the US legal system. For example, if a patent is infringed upon, the owner of the patent can sue the the inventer/owner, the manufacturer, and the organization that is selling the infringing product.

      (At least, this is my impression, and I don't remember where I heard or read this.)

      --
      A cat can't teach a dog to bark.
    4. Re:Congrats MPAA... by jimicus · · Score: 4, Interesting

      And, according to Microsoft, the customer as well. Not sure how well that stands up in case law... Which has always struck me as a rather mob-handed way to do business.

      "Buy our product or we'll sue you!".
    5. Re:Congrats MPAA... by Rockoon · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Corporation: An ingenious device for obtaining individual profit without individual responsibility.
      -- Ambrose Bierce (Also, quoted in a Civ4 soundbite by Leonard Nimoy)

      --
      "His name was James Damore."
  4. LOL by afxgrin · · Score: 5, Insightful

    What're they going to do? Confiscate their pencils and sell them on eBay for 5 cents?

    I'm sure the defendants have no where near $110 million, and if they have to keep paying it out of income they receive in the future, what's the point of even working?

    Might as well squat an abandoned building in New Orleans instead. Move to some remote wilderness area and live off the land. Sounds like much better options than paying that kind of debt down.

    1. Re:LOL by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Id prolly just assassinate the judge and all of the MPAA people and their attorneys.

      What do you have to lose if you are already wrecked financially for life as you have that on your credit history preventing you from even renting a dump apartment?

      Its not just that you have to pay 2/3 your income the rest of your life to the bastards, you will never have one again.

      And all this for hosting torrent files? This is bloody insane.

    2. Re:LOL by JFitzsimmons · · Score: 5, Informative

      They didn't host them; they indexed other sites that did.

      --
      Beware he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart he dreams himself your master. -Anonymous
    3. Re:LOL by BiggerIsBetter · · Score: 2, Interesting

      They didn't host them; they indexed other sites that did. So, like Google or a myriad of other search sites then? Maybe this was the small fry MPAA wanted to use for precedent, but extorting/suing bigger fish...
      --
      Forget thrust, drag, lift and weight. Airplanes fly because of money.
    4. Re:LOL by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      And the $110,000,000 is just for infringements on movies belonging to 5 MPAA members.

      Wait until the lawsuits roll in from every other movie studio, tv producer, music studio and porn maker that they held torrents for. They're going to end up owing more than the GDP of the world as a whole.

    5. Re:LOL by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

      If he tries to move into the wilderness to live off the land, the MPAA will follow him and send an accountant to keep track of the value of each handful of berries and mushrooms in $USD, two security guards, a lackey for the accountant with a clipboard, a fifth guy trained to take the guy's stash of food and leave little sticky notes informing him of how much debt he's paid off, and a sixth guy to drive the mini-van and operate the cameras.

    6. Re:LOL by LrdDimwit · · Score: 2, Insightful

      No, they won't. From a cost/benefit point of view, there's no point in getting an eight or nine figure judgement from someone who's already under one and hasn't got any money to pay THAT one. You'd be throwing bad money after good: your firm would personally be spending a huge amount on legal costs, only to get a worthless judgement (worthless because they will have already been picked clean by the people who won the first time). No, that would only happen if something ridiculous were to transpire (like some crazy people buying TorrentSpy and paying off the judgement) and they somehow paid it all off and reopened for business.

    7. Re:LOL by easyTree · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Don't get depressed, get even.

      If you are screwed-over by the corporations-and-courts system, wouldn't it make more sense to direct your angst away from yourself and towards the source ?

      --
      Requiem for the American Dream
    8. Re:LOL by geniusj · · Score: 4, Informative

      This really shouldn't be all that crippling for the individuals involved. It appears that it was a corporation. The corporation is therefore liable, not the individuals involved. Corp goes bankrupt, liquidates, and everyone goes on with their lives. It's not a financial death sentence for the officers, etc.

    9. Re:LOL by fishbowl · · Score: 5, Informative

      >Imagine it like giving someone more than one life term. What's up with that anyway?

      1. Usually this is a result of being given separate sentences for individual counts. It means
      the convict is being sentenced for each victim. If somebody kills three people and only gets one
      sentence, they are getting two "free crimes" from the victim's / survivor's point of view. If the
      sentence is something like a max of 20 years, and the convict does not get sentenced twice for two crimes,
      which of the two victims is not getting justice?

      2. A life term has eligibility for parole. Multiple sentences affect this eligibility in a profound way.
      Plenty of people with life sentences are out in the world in 15-20 years on parole, sometimes less. Consecutive sentences make it much less likely to happen.

      3. When multiple sentences are made, an appeal may overturn one of them, but not all of them, because an appeals court may find error in one case or problems in one jurisdiction. If a sentence is suspended while an appeal is pending, another concurrent sentence can keep the convict locked up.

      --
      -fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
    10. Re:LOL by arkhan_jg · · Score: 5, Informative

      Vicarious copyright infringement is actually a specific offence of indirect copyright infringement in the US. It's where someone has a direct financial interest in the infringing actions being committed by another and has the ability to control it, even if they do not know that the infringement is taking place and do not directly take part in it.

      The other form of indirect infringement, contributory infringement, requires (1) knowledge of the infringing activity and (2) a material contribution -- actual assistance or inducement -- to the alleged piracy.

      These are the laws that were used to bring down napster. In the US, because of these laws, running a tracker is actually pretty illegal. It's assisting others to breach copyright even if you yourself don't, and the tracker itself has no copyrighted material.

      And yes, google should be worried. By indexing the content of sites such as torrentspy, they potentially open themselves up to the same charges. They bought youtube specifically to get in on the lawsuit by viacom, so they could help affect the judgement.

      Note, one of the big differences with the piratebay is that sweden does not have offences of contributary or vicarious copyright infringement, so running a tracker is legal there.

      --
      Remember kids, it's all fun and games until someone commits wholesale galactic genocide.
    11. Re:LOL by cyber-vandal · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Google remove stuff on request.

    12. Re:LOL by Paradise+Pete · · Score: 5, Insightful
      And one might argue that the world would be a slightly better place to live in if it was not so... Imagine. A company actually taking responsibility for its actions.

      What would happen is that nobody would be willing to go into anything but the most mundane businesses. Who in the world would put their entire life's assets constantly at risk, especially in the Sue S.A., where misfortune is looked upon as a stroke of good luck.

      For example, I was witness to this conversation:

      Person #1: "...and they had to amputate his arm."
      Person #2: "Oh man he's going to get millions! I'd let them chop off my arm for a million."

      Also, the corporate shield is not magically impenetrable. If there's gross negligence, for instance, or fraud.

    13. Re:LOL by monxrtr · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Except that every single word and every single image on every single webpage is copyrighted by whoever originally created that material.

      This post I just wrote right now is *exactly* as copyrighted as any Hollywood movie or RIAA song. There's absolutely no difference linking to posts or webpages versus linking to copyrighted movie files. Therefore, Google links are exactly as infringing as any torrent links. I think a lot of people might be very interested in suing for the vast sums the MPAA and RIAA are suing for on an individual basis.

      On the basis of this ruling, Google could be bankrupted from a small percentage of the population copying the MPAA lawsuit formula.

      Actual damages are immaterial, as statutory damages are set at $150,000 maximum per violation.

      How nice of Google to be doing all that work and making all that money so that they can pay the little man content creators.

      Get your lawsuit in early, cause it's not likely Google will have enough money to go around to pay more than a couple percent of everybody for linking to their copyrighted content.

      --
      "From DNA to P2P, we are all Copycats now. Go Go Copycat Power! Copycat Powers activate! Form of, a Copycat." --monxrtr
    14. Re:LOL by Em+Adespoton · · Score: 2, Funny

      Sounds like Fox's next reality TV show. Wait... that would enable them to pay off the debt in 3 seasons!

  5. Perspective by abscissa · · Score: 5, Insightful

    To put this is some perspective, the US has offered Burma (Myanmar) $3m in aid.

    1. Re:Perspective by icedevil · · Score: 5, Insightful

      TFA mentions that the MPAA was awarded $30,000 per infringement. So following your lead the US thinks the people of Burma are worth $30 per person (assuming the 100,000 figure is somewhat accurate.)

    2. Re:Perspective by DAldredge · · Score: 4, Informative

      That isn't the complete picture as you most likely know. "WASHINGTON (AFP) -- The White House said Wednesday that Myanmar had still not answered its offers of aid for cyclone-ravaged areas, and warned that such a silence risked hampering relief efforts. "Everybody can understand that there is no substitute for being there on the ground to help people directly and trying to do so remotely is going to be impossible," said spokeswoman Dana Perino. "Our understanding is, not only have we not heard anything about our disaster team being allowed to go in to implement the help we have offered, but no one has been granted access to go in," she said. The United States has asked Myanmar to grant visas to a US disaster relief team now in neighboring Thailand, so that they can come in and assess aid needs, with about 60,000 people dead or missing in a tropical cyclone's wake. "We are increasingly concerned about the desperate situation that many people are facing there after the cyclone and we stand ready to help," Perino told reporters. "And we will try to help as best we can if we can't get into the country, but not being able to be there to help directly is going to hinder our efforts to help," she added. The White House announced Tuesday that it was offering three million dollars more in aid to the secretive and impoverished country, on top of an initial emergency allocation of 250,000 dollars. It also said that it was prepared to send four US Navy ships, laden with emergency relief supplies like blankets and water purification tablets, to Myanmar. The vessels were off Thailand's coast in a disaster-response exercise. "

    3. Re:Perspective by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You're an asshole. We don't have to offer ANY aid, and the Myanmar government won't let us come in to help anyways. Even France is limiting direct monetary aid because the miliary junta will just use it for themselves, not to help the people.

      The US does plenty of stuff to be criticized for. That's not one of them. Way to go for cheap karma farming on slashkos though.

    4. Re:Perspective by Original+Replica · · Score: 5, Insightful

      the US has offered Burma (Myanmar) $3m in aid.

      To put that into perspective, that is about 24 minutes worth of war in Iraq.

      --
      We are all just people.
    5. Re:Perspective by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Or it's another half day of the war in Iraq...

    6. Re:Perspective by Bragador · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You know, if we remove "You're an asshole." and "Way to go for cheap karma farming on slashkos though.", your comment is quite insightful. Why not try to be more civilized next time? So much hatred...

    7. Re:Perspective by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      So much hatred...

      It's not his fault ... he's just been playing GTA IV for the last 8 hours straight.

    8. Re:Perspective by c6gunner · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It is sad to think of it like that. I guess ensuring copyright laws are enforced is worth more than human lives.
      Go for a walk through any third-world ghetto, dressed as you are now, and you'll find exactly how much a human life is worth. The best damn teacher I ever knew got killed in Mexico over his shoes and his wife's purse.

      Copyright laws help bring about all the things in life which you take for granted. Take a look around your room - I guarantee that every item you see at least partly owes it's existence to intellectual property laws. Those laws helped encourage people to invent and create, which in turn enriched out culture and our society. Without them, chances are that you wouldn't give a damn about the "value" of human life. You'd be too worried about where your next meal would come from.
    9. Re:Perspective by Anpheus · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The era of perpetual copyright was brought on by a few individuals that refused to invent and create any longer, and instead sought to make money indefinitely off the nostalgic value of their works.

      I'm looking at you, Disney.

      And to you, c6gunner, I'm not saying that copyright shouldn't exist, but perhaps... the original 14 year timeframe was adequate. The film, Iron Man, made $100,000,000 in three days of sales, in 14, 50, or well over one hundred years can Hollywood justify why it needs to retain the sole distribution rights to something that was envisioned by someone who has already died? (Referring to the 100+ year copyright terms most countries have these days.)

    10. Re:Perspective by Lumpy · · Score: 4, Insightful

      $3m to Burma will feed everyone and build them all new houses.

      $110m to the RIAA/MPAA is caviar lunch on thursday.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    11. Re:Perspective by Lumpy · · Score: 3, Insightful

      And everything in my room was created by STEALING those intellectual property. How the hell do you think Compaq and Dell came to be? STEALING IBM's Intellectual property.

      All cars outside of FORD are also based on STOLEN intellectual Property.

      so we either play by your rules and roll back to the dark ages, or we play sane and copy the crap out of everyones idea and actually move foreward in technology.

      I'm for copying the every living hell out of everything.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    12. Re:Perspective by Crayon+Kid · · Score: 3, Insightful

      First of all, there's no such thing as "intellectual property" no matter who insists upon it. You can't own information and to pretend anyone does is stupid. You can control where information gets, yes. You can award people certain rights for original creations, yes (that is what copyright is). But you can't treat pieces of information like potatoes, no matter how some people and corporations would like to.

      Second, I think you're confusing copyright and patents at least on some level. Most physical inventions are protected by patents, not copyright. As for the incentive argument, it's questionable. There's free software as well as all kinds of content out there available for free. People who create it don't have any incentive in the sense you imply, yet they keep doing it, and they can do so because of copyright.

      So I have to disagree to your attempt at putting copyright and patents together as if they were both nothing more than making money for the authors. It's a misrepresentation of both.

      --
      i ate crayons when i was a kid and now i have two braincells and the blue ones taste nicer
    13. Re:Perspective by jedidiah · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The ability to milk warmed over 500 year old and 3500 old folk tales
      does squat for my current standard of living. This is ENTERTAINMENT
      we're talking about here and copyright. Even if we were talking about
      the right sort of IP (IOW, PATENTS) you're still wildly off the mark
      as most of human advancement in the sciences is done through academic
      cooperation rather than cut-throat capitalistic competition.

      If 100 years ago, patents were like modern copyrights then all of the
      cushy conveniences YOU take for granted wouldn't exist.

      They would be sued out of existence.

      Tivo is a nice case in point here.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    14. Re:Perspective by Grimbleton · · Score: 2, Informative

      That would imply that Ford invented cars. Which he didn't.

    15. Re:Perspective by Lemmy+Caution · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The point is how ridiculously inflated the award is, not how meager aid to Myanmar is, you bilious twat.

    16. Re:Perspective by NewsWatcher · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Your caricature of third world life is laughable.

      I have travelled extensively through poor African and Pacific nations. I have dressed in many different ways, although usually in clothing similar to what I wear down the street in the first world nation I live in.

      Not only have the people in the ghettos valued human life highly, they are not afraid to show it.

      I have epilepsy and after having a seizure at a slum in Nairobi I found that while unconscious I had been collected, taken to a taxi and the fare paid to take me to a hospital. My passport, wallet etc was safe and sound.

      If you are too scared to explore some of these countries yourself, I don't think you should paint their people as blood-thirsty tyrants.

      --
      If the pattern goes 9am, 10am, 11am, why isn't noon 12am?
    17. Re:Perspective by Archonoid · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Copyright laws help bring about all the things in life which you take for granted. Take a look around your room - I guarantee that every item you see at least partly owes it's existence to intellectual property laws. Those laws helped encourage people to invent and create, which in turn enriched out culture and our society. Without them, chances are that you wouldn't give a damn about the "value" of human life. You'd be too worried about where your next meal would come from.

      Bullshit. The printing press wasn't created with intellectual property laws. The wheel wasn't created to be patented. Houses were not created with IP. The greatest poems, stories, and music in history were created by authors with no concept of copyright. Medical and scientific breakthroughs - penicillin, radiation, relativity, electromagnetism, chemistry, gravitation - were not made for IP, but for the use of all - the exact opposite of IP. Man's greatest achievement, his ascent to the moon - and the myriad technologies that quest created - was not fueled by a search for patents.

      What keeps me safe and secure is not copyright, it is the society I live in and the value placed on human life and liberty by those who surround me, along with the willingness of the government to protect me with police and military force. What allows me to make money and provide for myself and my family is my intelligence, education and ability to solve problems that people want solved, not laws about what I can or can't do with knowledge and information.

      Copyright has jack shit to do with how I am able to secure my lifestyle, except insofar as it prevents me from fully enjoying the cultural heritage that has been created over the last 70 years. The other major form of IP, patents, have encouraged some people to create some things - and at the same time have locked away the best technologies of the century behind proprietary bars, in many cases not even being used by the companies that "invented" them, and have wasted countless time and money from government, corporations and individuals that have to deal with the bureaucratic abomination of the patent system.

    18. Re:Perspective by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      the US thinks the people of Burma are worth $30 per person

      No, the US thinks the people of Burma will cost $30 each to save. Big difference. Since many of them could be saved just by properly burying the dead, there is some plausibility to this low figure.

    19. Re:Perspective by jd · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I was unaware that ethics()-class functions were tail-recursive and could not be called from outside. How do you bootstrap them?

      --
      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)
    20. Re:Perspective by Curtman · · Score: 3, Interesting

      So following your lead the US thinks the people of Burma are worth $30 per person (assuming the 100,000 figure is somewhat accurate.)

      Meh, Burma... Israel is where it's at. 3 Billion a year or so ought to do it.
    21. Re:Perspective by jd · · Score: 2, Insightful
      "have to" is an interesting choice of words. Nobody is compelled to be ethical, civilized or compassionate, that is true. The thing is, you cannot be enlightened, rational or progressive if you are not ethical, civilized AND compassionate, and no nation on the scale of America can hope to remain functional or even a country if it is not enlightened, rational AND progressive. Civilizations that will themselves into uncaring, xenophobic and irrational mindsets collapse. The Soviet Union did not fall because of America, it fell because you cannot sustain an organization on such a scale with a mindset of selfish greed and contempt. Selfishness and paranoia are self-destructive. This is not a political possibility, it is a mathematical certainty, inescapable, merely delayable.

      But no civilization (or individual) "has" to survive. That is a choice. It is a choice reflected less by that civilization's attitude towards itself as it is reflected by that civilization's attitude towards others. That is why civilizations with a poor attitude decay, wither and die. It may take a while - the fall of the Roman Empire was spread over 800 years - but if rot is what you give, rot is all you'll have. It may seem a paradox that it is in the giving that you gain, but it is the unmutable truth.

      --
      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)
    22. Re:Perspective by Pig+Hogger · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Go for a walk through any third-world ghetto, dressed as you are now, and you'll find exactly how much a human life is worth. The best damn teacher I ever knew got killed in Mexico over his shoes and his wife's purse.
      This happens in societies where the law allows a small handful of people to suck all the wealth of a country, leaving nothing to the majority of people. This is the norm for turd-world countries such as Mexico, where people are forced in such abject poverty that all too often, their only way out is through crime.

      Copyright laws help bring about all the things in life which you take for granted. Take a look around your room - I guarantee that every item you see at least partly owes it's existence to intellectual property laws. Those laws helped encourage people to invent and create, which in turn enriched out culture and our society. Without them, chances are that you wouldn't give a damn about the "value" of human life. You'd be too worried about where your next meal would come from.
      Copyright laws have nothing to do with insuring that purses are not stolen and shoes unkilled. Copyright laws also have nothing to do in insuring investment either. All copyright laws do is divert precious public ressources into protecting intangible "property" that is still used to suck more wealth from the people.

      Copyright laws have nothing to do with the clothes I am wearing.

      Copyright laws have nothing to do with the chair I'm sitting on.

      Copyright laws have nothing to do with the light on my desk.

    23. Re:Perspective by rhakka · · Score: 5, Funny

      I was walking down the street today and I had skipped lunch. That hobo I passed that didn't buy me a sandwich was a real asshole, eh?

      Now that would be an appropriate analogy, but only if the hobo were a quadriplegic schizophrenic crack addict and if I were, say, the sole owner of ConAgra foods. And we were standing in one of my Peter Pan Peanut Butter factories.

      asshole hobos.

    24. Re:Perspective by LonghornXtreme · · Score: 4, Insightful
      I have to disagree that there is no such thing as 'intellectual property.' There certainly is IP. However, you and I likely agree that the IP laws aren't satisfactory.

      IP protection to creators and inventors are important because of the need to balance creation with production. In an ideal world, IP laws would only allow the creators enough protection to produce enough (or sell enough software if you don't consider duplicating software as production) product to recoup the costs of creating the success, the costs of creating previous and future failures and make some damn profit.

      Without IP laws preventing a 3rd party from immediately taking a creators idea and producing it, you would have little incentive to create because you couldn't make any money off of it. Not only that, you'd find that the most powerful companies would merely be copy cat manufacturers without RnD budgets that would beat the little guy with their economies of scale.

      I think copyright should be until the creator's death, and maybe a +10 years from creator's death for creator's assigns. Not this in perpetuity crap.

      I think the patent durations might be a touch too long however, the real issue is the frivolity of many patents, not their durations.

    25. Re:Perspective by wall0159 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You're absolutely right. Also -- if they don't have bread, why don't they eat cake?

    26. Re:Perspective by dangitman · · Score: 4, Funny

      I was reading along, came across your post and thought; "Hey, why is this guy injecting a non-sequitur post about copyright infringement into a discussion about Burma?" but then I remembered to look at my browser window's title bar.

      --
      ... and then they built the supercollider.
    27. Re:Perspective by mr_matticus · · Score: 2, Informative

      You can't own information and to pretend anyone does is stupid. And anyone who believes (or disingenuously argues) that the 'property' in Intellectual Property is the information is dumber still, to the point of being what my neighbor from Texas calls a slack-jawed idjit.

      As for the incentive argument, it's questionable. It's really not. Protections in place protect a creator's ability to choose to reap the rewards of his invention in whatever manner he sees fit, not the manner a greedy bystander with entitlement issues and an Internet-connected computer chooses.

      I don't care that this is Slashdot. People need to grow up and face the simple reality that IP is the only thing that secures an information-based economy. It's a mechanism that needs to be tweaked and maintained, but it's absolutely essential to the first world staying the first world.

      If you create something and go through the effort of making something that has commercial value, it's yours to control, exclusively, for the duration of the patent or your life as a copyright. Nothing that is copyrighted is needed by anyone else to advance human society. There is no penalty and no loss by giving authors lifetime control of their creative works. If they want to share it with everyone, they're free to do so. If they want to squeeze every last penny out of it, they can do that too.

      It's not yours. It's as simple as that.
    28. Re:Perspective by WeirdJohn · · Score: 5, Insightful

      In other words, Ford did for the car industry what Bit Torrent did for electronic Media...

    29. Re:Perspective by Trogre · · Score: 4, Funny

      Your analogy might have made sense, if the hobo was a crazed military dictator. And your factory was on fire.

      --
      "Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife
    30. Re:Perspective by fishbowl · · Score: 5, Informative

      >No, the US thinks the people of Burma will cost $30 each to save. Big difference. Since many of them could be
      >saved just by properly burying the dead, there is some plausibility to this low figure.

      Now this is something I hear repeated after each disaster. But the biological/epidemiological basis for the claim is not there! Dead bodies, at least those killed in a natural disaster, are not inherently dangerous, and the risks of the spread of contagions is *much* higher with the living survivors than the corpses. As long as you isolate the fresh water supply from the corpses, it is better to not try to "properly bury them" right away. The labor involved in doing that can be put to far better purpose. If you hastily start burying the dead, you fail to document the victims and you make it impossible to ever get accurate counts. 24 hours after the flood or whatever, all the bodies are the same temperature as the surrounding environment, and the bodies start decaying, but the organisms that cause the decay are not really dangerous.

      Unless a particular corpse was a person with a highly contagious disease to begin with, it's not really the biggest problem, and it should not be the survivor/rescue worker's first priority to try to bury the dead. And this is exactly how disaster relief personnel are trained, and I can put you in touch with professionals in health care, including several MD's and one MD/Ph.D. epidemiologist who will confirm what I'm saying in much more detail than I can.

      Dead bodies smell bad and are demoralizing and frightening in a primal way, but they DO NOT inherently cause the spread of disease.

      --
      -fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
    31. Re:Perspective by fishbowl · · Score: 2, Insightful

      > We don't have to offer ANY aid, and the Myanmar government won't let us come in to help
      >anyways.

      From their point of view, they see permanent risks of letting the camel's nose under their tent in response to a temporary crisis. And the value of all this "aid for Burma" is somewhat limited, and coming from nations that are bitter enemies of their very system of government. The dead can't be helped. Nothing is going to bring back the season for the agricultural sector. No amount of "aid" is going to suddenly create an infrastructure that can deal any better with millions of refugees than they can do at this moment themselves. But from the perspective of the Myanmar government (totalitarian asshole dictatorship that it is), it's quite insulting for all these wealthy nations to assume that they can't handle the aftermath of this storm.

      I'm not defending them, but I can see why it's difficult for them to accept foreign aid, especially from some of the countries that are offering it, in the amounts being offered. They realize (correctly!) that leaders of some of the countries offering aid would very much like to see the Myanmar government replaced. Why should they be expected to let their guard down when they are weakened? The country will recover from the storm one way or another.

      Politics aside, after seeing how the US dealt with New Orleans would *you* invite them to YOUR disaster?

      --
      -fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
    32. Re:Perspective by jd · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Ethics is unconcerned with the actions of others. Ethics is concerned with the actions of the individual person or group deciding on how to act. A decision based on others is a decision based on cowardice, because it must result in the ultimate decision being made by the greatest coward. It is also a decision based on foolishness, because it must result in the ultimate power being granted to the greatest fool. The wise do not concern themselves with the folly of others, their concern is with the result of what ends up being done. What ends up not being done, or who ends up not doing it is of no importance. Even the youngest child has wisdom enough to know a copy-cat is worthy of nothing more than a sneer, and to copy another's decision because they neglect their duties to another is the most pathetic copy-cat of all.

      But what are those consequences? A deprived society consumes more than it produces, it is a drain on the economy of the world and a burden to all. A reconstructed society produces more than it consumes and will regenerate the cost of the reconstruction. A society that can pay for itself and more is a society that has repaid those who invest in it being such. A fool might argue that others could benefit too. They probably won't. You tend to receive what you put into other's lives. (You gain almost nothing from what you put into your own life. Hedonists tend to have empty lives and emptier pockets.) An optimal life is therefore one that gives much and gives appropriately. (There are fascinating charts on the different forms of giving and how useful they are. Many forms of giving are not giving at all and are quite useless.)

      This is mathematically provable, but it has also been the cornerstone of many a social awakening throughout history. The earliest philosopher-scientists tended to be ascetics, which is going a bit too far, but their underlying principle that all things are linked and that you cannot attain insight or wisdom through the exclusion of a part of life, is sound. That same underlying principle can be found in all social efforts to develop progressive, compassionate societies with minimal suffering.

      I've chosen those words carefully, and a few might recognize what becomes the first step. All of life is suffering, and that includes the suffering of fools and idiots. Pomposity, grandiosity, nationalism, copy-cat-ism - they feel great, but ultimately stem from deluded thinking. They are a way of hiding suffering or blaming our actions on others, rather than take responsibility for ourselves. If you believe yourself responsible for your decisions, then the decisions of another are merely the scenery passing by. It is analogous to a full-information scenario. Your strategy, if fundamentally correct, is determined only by the scenario - although the reverse is not true. Not everything determined only by the scenario is correct. It is strictly a one-way function.

      If wisdom is ever found in the mouths of children, it is because those adults have lost sight of what matters. Think more like a child, not in their stupidity but in their wisdom. They're smart enough to recognize that many of the things you attach so much weight to just don't matter. They're chimera, impermanent details of the moment, the illusions of ignorance, and have nothing to do with an optimal life.

      If you prefer, look at it holistically. A healthy world is like a healthy body. It doesn't matter where a cancer starts, or what mechanisms in the body ignore it, if you fail to treat it, it will kill you. It is of no importance if the spleen fails to pull its own weight, you do what is needed and benefit yourself, or you punish your body to punish the spleen and you will die. If you do what you need to do in the first place, though, the odds of that cancer ever forming are greatly reduced and the odds of you overcoming the harm quickly are greatly increased. That must be your concern, not what some insignificant bunch of cells somewhere decides. (Of course, they do help, it greatly simplifies your task, but the effective cure must be independent of who does what, and be solely dependent on what needs doing getting done.)

      This is neither left nor right, neither karmic or non-karmic, it simply is.

      --
      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)
    33. Re:Perspective by mr_matticus · · Score: 2, Informative

      You want coherent and logical? Simple. If you've got at least half a functioning brain, it's not that complicated.

      Property at law, in its simplest definition, is an exclusive right. Intellectual Property is a term of convenience, just like "Family law". The property is the copyright, the patent, the trademark, the contractual instrument, etc. Hell, it says right in the Copyright Act that information isn't owned, and spending a little time with how the law has evolved would confirm the distinction between what is and is not property.

      Likewise, your real property isn't the land (because no one has the authority to give you, and you don't have the power to own, land itself). It's your legal rights to control the land, which may or may not be comprehensive, depending on what sort of title you have.

      Metonymic extension by the laity is regrettable, much like your attempt at humor.

    34. Re:Perspective by houghi · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I like that: X minutes of war in Iraq. Fits nice into the libraries of congress measurement.

      --
      Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
    35. Re:Perspective by aussie_a · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Not only that, but the US thinks the people of Burma will cost $30 plus all the money others have donated each to save

    36. Re:Perspective by tsm_sf · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I thought the whole point of setting up Israel after WWII was to bring about the rapture.

      - displace an entire people
      - foment decades of unrest, misery, and death
      - attempt to force the hand of god

      sounds like something we'd do on a weekend, really.

      ((btw, I think you meant 'wahrgeld', weregild sounds like something that becomes gold-plated during the full moon which, admittedly, is a cool concept))

      --
      Literalism isn't a form of humor, it's you being irritating.
    37. Re:Perspective by gordo3000 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      uh.... this is why copyright law was invented in the first place, because things we value could be copied freely thereby removing the incentive to create.

      copyright law allows the free market to decide which types of art get funding(i.e. everyone gets to vote) rather than how it used to be, a few very wealthy patrons + the government determining a large body of artwork out there.

      In the case of art works, the original has no value without some type of restriction of reproduction.

      This, in the end, is just one of those funny verdicts that makes me think of Dr. Evil. Torrent Spy did break the law as it has already been interpreted. It would have taken a great case and no shady actions by them to pull off a victory(though it was possible). But then, who cares if it's a 110 mm dollar verdict or 1mm dollar verdict. The company doesn't have 7 figures of money... I doubt it has 6 figures of money even after taking into account the value of all it's assets. They have probably been draining most cash and assets to pay for lawyers for the last 2 years so the MPAA really gets absolutely nothing in the end.

      The debate shouldn't be about what the courts ought to have done(the interpreted the law as is). The debate should be about what copyright law needs to be modified to in the 21st century. of course, as long as it remains just this easy to break copyright laws, I doubt anyone will expend the energy or political clout to tackle this issue. It's just not worth it for the vast majority of people. The RIAA has probably not even gotten around to suing 10,000 people. That is against probably 80 million people in the US committing infringement (and countless more around the world). Really, what kind of political movement can be started by 10,000 people who had to pay a 3k fine? We have bigger problems (really, we do in this country) to worry about what kind of fine you should pay for breaking a long standing law.

    38. Re:Perspective by boyko.at.netqos · · Score: 2, Funny

      The wind picked up

      The people cried

      The cyclone came

      And millions died.

      Burma Save.

      --
      I used to work for NetQoS. I no longer do, but want to keep the excellent karma attached to this account.
  6. *shrug* by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    they've spent a fortune on litigation, to obtain a judgement they can't collect on & a worthless injunction, against a site that was never any good in the first place and shut down a few month ago anyway.

    More fool them.

    1. Re:*shrug* by InlawBiker · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It only shut down when the legal threats began. Meanwhile how many new torrent trackers have popped up? This is the definition of "hollow victory."

    2. Re:*shrug* by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      No not fool, because now they have a judgement on record that is stupidly broad in the favour in defining 'infringement'.

      They've made INDEXING files illegal, please note they got nailed despite setting up services that let copyright holders take down stuff they owned.

      The Legal team over at google is looking at this and going 'oh fuck no'.

    3. Re:*shrug* by DesScorp · · Score: 5, Insightful

      they've spent a fortune on litigation, to obtain a judgement they can't collect on & a worthless injunction, against a site that was never any good in the first place and shut down a few month ago anyway.

      More fool them. They never expected to collect any money. This was all about sending a message to other Torrent sites and P2P networks. "We've got legal precedent and unlimited resources. We're coming after you."

      --
      Life is hard, and the world is cruel
    4. Re:*shrug* by Slawshdork · · Score: 2, Informative

      Yes. I explain.

      --
      IANAL.
    5. Re:*shrug* by Slawshdork · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Please note that parent is not legal analysis and does not at all represent how federal courts in the United States work. See my post on precedent for an explanation. For the most part, it doesn't seem that the issues in this case are even related to the interpretation of "making available." According to News.com, "The studios originally sued TorrentSpy in February 2006, alleging that the site promoted and contributed to online copyright infringement by helping people locate illegally copied films and television shows on the Internet." Contributory infringement != making available. Thanks for playing.

      --
      IANAL.
    6. Re:*shrug* by xenobyte · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The Legal team over at google is looking at this and going 'oh fuck no'.

      Exactly, and yet no. Google is simply too big for MPAA/RIAA to go after. Googles lawyers can keep a case like this tied up in courts for decades and the MAFIAA knows this.

      But in reality it is exactly the same thing. The court actually said that despite efforts to remove copyrighted materials, despite inplementing a tool that made it easy for rights owners to remove their IP, TorrentSpy are still liable for the stuff they index. Google indexes millions of pages containing illegal stuff, from kiddie porn, over terrorist manuals to IP in all its forms, and they've made no effort to make it easy to remove these things from the index (which would be censorship, but still), so if TorrentSpy is liable, so is Google and to a much higher degreee.
      --
      "For every complex problem, there is a solution that is simple, neat, and wrong." -- H.L. Mencken (1880-1956) --
  7. What is the method of determining damages? by LockeOnLogic · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The movie companies lost money due to torrentspy's activities, but what is the basis for such a monstrous monetary judgement? Magic eight ball? Numbers out of a hat? How on earth did the movie companies prove this level of loss? Gotta love hollywood accounting, astounding how movies can make nothing and everything at the same time.

    1. Re:What is the method of determining damages? by Gewalt · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The only way to semi-accurately calculate their losses is to look at their declining profits year to year, which I would consider a real value partially accountable to piracy. But... Their profits have been rising... Year over year, their blockbusters are increasingly more profitable. And its the blockbusters that get pirated the most. So by your logic (and most sane peoples logic), piracy is actually helping their sales. What's killing their profits is the movies they produce that aren't any good.
      --
      Modding Trolls +1 inciteful since 1999
    2. Re:What is the method of determining damages? by i_b_don · · Score: 3, Funny

      You know... the REAL question is why was the figure so low?

      The RIAA went after AllofMP3.com for 1.6 trillion (with a T). And here the MPAA could only get a 110 million judgment? What's wrong with them? The MPAA has only 1/15000 of the muscle of the RIAA??? Pishya, amateurs....

      d

      --
      all language nazi's will burne in heil!
  8. Future News, MPAA raids isoHunt by dukeluke · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Just because isoHunt is in Canada, we can't expect the MPAA not to try and cross the border. I mean, the RIAA has been bad enough about operating in states in the U.S. - why should we expect the MPAA not to do the same?

    1. Re:Future News, MPAA raids isoHunt by Shadow-isoHunt · · Score: 4, Informative

      That'd not be a good idea on their part. isoHunt is hosted in Toronto right now, and Gary's a Canadian citizen that'd battle it out in a Canadian court(possibly while relocating to another country). We also comply with DMCA takedown notices(even though we don't have to) - assuming they follow our copyright policy - and current legal proceedings in California aren't going as planned for them.

      --
      www.isoHunt.com
  9. Re:That's all? by Weaselmancer · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Why start playing by the rules now?

    --
    Weaselmancer
    rediculous.
  10. And next week... by Xeth · · Score: 2, Interesting

    ...there's another site doing the exact same thing, located in a different country.

    Attempting to fight these sites is entirely ineffective, and won't even scare the populace like suing individuals does. As for the $110 million, well... good luck? I wouldn't bet on getting more than 1%.

    --
    If your theory is different from practice, then your theory is wrong.
  11. How is this even possible!!?!?!?!!! by Z-Knight · · Score: 5, Informative
    For the love of GOD and all that is mighty how the heck is this even possible?!?!?!! Are we electing complete idiots to the courts these days?!?! Oh, wait, don't answer that one.

    Torrentspy contained ZERO copyright material...ZERO, NIL, NADA, NOTHING. It contained no songs, no movies, no books, no videos, no nothing. It simply provided a search functionality that I could do on google (money grubbing bastards) today: searchword filetype:torrent

    Why isn't google or microsoft or yahoo or any other site stopped from doing this...geezus krist, the Music And Film Industry Association of America (MAFIAA) can go MAFUCKthemselves.

    1. Re:How is this even possible!!?!?!?!!! by SYSS+Mouse · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Exactly, Google index Pirate Bay results. Is the MAFIAA going to sue Google?

    2. Re:How is this even possible!!?!?!?!!! by tepples · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Torrentspy contained ZERO copyright material Neither did Napster. Is there a difference?
    3. Re:How is this even possible!!?!?!?!!! by nurb432 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Knowledge transfer is forbidden in this society.

      This is just the beginning..

      --
      ---- Booth was a patriot ----
    4. Re:How is this even possible!!?!?!?!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Except, theres no such crime as accessory to copyright infringement, or 'contributory infringement'. It doesn't exist, the RIAA/MPAA wants there to be one very badly, but such a thing doesn't exist yet.

      You are, as an individual, either personally infringing, or your not.

      Telling you a drug dealer lives down the street does not make me 'contributing to narcotic distribution' (or whatever the fuck we'd call it) anymore than telling you theres an illegal copy of a movie at www.torrentsite.com/illegalshit.torrent makes me responsible with what you do with that information.

      Information, and acting on that information are two different things. Thats why you can download the specs for building a goddamn H bomb off the net.

      Knowledge truly is free, thats not some open source feel good slogan, its true. What is done with that knowledge is the important part, and the only part thats actionable.

    5. Re:How is this even possible!!?!?!?!!! by Gutboy · · Score: 4, Informative

      Except, theres no such crime as accessory to copyright infringement, or 'contributory infringement'. It doesn't exist, the RIAA/MPAA wants there to be one very badly, but such a thing doesn't exist

      Time for you to read the DMCA. Contributory infringement is alive and well.

    6. Re:How is this even possible!!?!?!?!!! by mrbcs · · Score: 3, Informative

      Google does its best to remove pirate sites from being indexed, does it not?

      Have you ever even used Google? Search for "something" Torrent ok?

      --
      I'm not anti-social, I'm anti-idiot.
  12. No crime, but still punished. by joocemann · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Did they not have a posting that says "We are not responsible for the torrents we index" ??? From my understanding it is not illegal to refer instructions for things that may be illegal. For example, I can go buy books with instructions on producing illegal substances, bombs, and weapons. Does that make borders a criminal? If the torrent indexing site was not directly providing illegal property, but only directions on how to get it, they should not be penalized. Oh... And a thought I had today: Lawyers are adults that act like children; trained to help adults that act like children.

    1. Re:No crime, but still punished. by Carnildo · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Did they not have a posting that says "We are not responsible for the torrents we index" ??? From my understanding it is not illegal to refer instructions for things that may be illegal.


      When you're operating as close to the edge of the law as they were, you need to be extremely careful about what you do. A simple statement of "We are not responsible" isn't sufficient if, by your actions, you demonstrate that you are encouraging illegal behavior.
      --
      "They redundantly repeated themselves over and over again incessantly without end ad infinitum" -- ibid.
    2. Re:No crime, but still punished. by joocemann · · Score: 5, Insightful

      So if you ask me where to buy a gun, I say "go to walmart". You go to walmart buy it, then kill someone.... That means I coordinated the murder?

    3. Re:No crime, but still punished. by Dan541 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      So is the users ISP

      --
      An SQL query goes to a bar, walks up to a table and asks, "Mind if I join you?"
    4. Re:No crime, but still punished. by urcreepyneighbor · · Score: 4, Interesting

      For example, I can go buy books with instructions on producing illegal substances, bombs, and weapons. Delta Press? Paladin Press?

      The days of Ragnar Benson have almost faded away into memory.

      The companies that used to publish "action books" have almost completely abandoned that genre.

      Does that make borders a criminal? You don't have to make something a "crime" to get rid of it. Read up on the Paladin Press / Hit Man incident.

      Can you imagine the firestorm if a company started publishing Paladin Press-style books today? In our post-9/11 world? Ha!
      --
      "The fight for freedom has only just begun." - Geert Wilders
  13. Seems like a fair judgement by kipin · · Score: 5, Funny

    Dr. Evil: Shit. Oh hell, let's just do what we always do. Hijack some nuclear weapons and hold the world hostage. Yeah? Good! Gentlemen, it has come to my attention that a breakaway Russian Republic called Kreplachistan will be transferring a nuclear warhead to the United Nations in a few days. Here's the plan. We get the warhead and we hold the world ransom for... ONE MILLION DOLLARS!

    Number Two: Don't you think we should ask for *more* than a million dollars? A million dollars isn't exactly a lot of money these days. Virtucon alone makes over 9 billion dollars a year! Dr. Evil: Really? That's a lot of money.

    [pause]

    Dr. Evil: Okay then, we hold the world ransom for...

    Dr. Evil: One... Hundred... BILLION DOLLARS!

    --
    If I can not smoke in heaven, then I shall not go. -- Mark Twain
  14. And people wonder... by hairyfeet · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Why the USA is looked at as total idiots. Betting the entire economy on imaginary property that can be easily copied for $0 while gutting our factories and even outsourcing our jobs at home through H1-B visas. Hmmm-I wonder where the flaw in THAT plan is? The simple fact is just as the automobile has forced those in the horse buggy business to adapt or die so will ever more powerful broadband and MP3 players force software and music companies to change or die. Instead of seeing that change is a part of progress and looking for ways to make capital on this new business model the *.AA along with their lackeys in congress will try to put the genie back in the bottle with ever more draconian laws.


    Meanwhile the rest of the world will adapt while we sink further and further into a third world fascist state. While I really hope that we'll see the writing on the wall and our leaders will realize granting themselves and their big business buddies ever more increasing powers over our lives is a dead end road, after watching this march as it continues its dance of failure for the past 20+ years I sincerely doubt we're in for anything other than more of the same: More of the same bad leadership, more of the same bad laws,and more of the same police state crap to protect us "from terrorists and those evil child predators" which is of course a smokescreen for more business and government control over our lives. But that is my 02c,YMMV

    --
    ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    1. Re:And people wonder... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I believe the same thing. Cisco is a prefect example. They hire cheap labor and manufacturer overseas. When the cheap labor makes some "counterfeit" overruns, the local police officers and the FBI, step in to lend Cisco a hand under the cover of national security issues [1]. That enforcement is our tax dollars. Companies like Cisco get it good from two angles. Cheap labor and tax payer dollars to fight the clone/overrun non official parts. Think about it, Cisco could manufacture the devices in an area that they have more control which would cost Cisco more, or choose China and let the taxpayers foot the bill for the control.

      [1] If the government was so concerned about the national security from using non licensed Cisco products, why are they not worried about using the "real" Cisco approved products made in the same plant by the same people?

    2. Re:And people wonder... by TheRealMindChild · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Your whole rant was redundant. No one, even you, would throw your business and your key to lifelong wealth, in the toilet, simply on moral ground. I call it the "Jerry Springer Syndrome". It is easy to make fun of those on the stage until you are one of them

      --

      "When life gives you lemons, don't make lemonade. Make life take the lemons back!" -- Cave Johnson
  15. Judge is Awarded $? million in TorrentSpy Case by RiotingPacifist · · Score: 3, Interesting

    That's the real question

    --
    IranAir Flight 655 never forget!
  16. Finally! by DanWS6 · · Score: 5, Funny

    Those poor crew members will get reimbursed for the piracy that has hurt them and their families dearly. You know, the ones in the clips the theaters used to show before previews came on, where some older black guy was claiming how piracy hurts him and his family and every one involved in making a movie. It's quite possible they still show that clip but I wouldn't know since I stopped going to the theater last year because I was tired of the ridiculous ticket prices and lack of original movies the past few years.

  17. I'm guessing that... by actionbastard · · Score: 5, Interesting

    The judge in this case, obviously, didn't have time to read this:

    http://recordingindustryvspeople.blogspot.com/2008/02/default-judgment-denied-in-atlantic-v.html

    Chances of the judgement being overturned on appeal: 100%.

    --
    Sig this!
  18. someone forgot to tell the immigrants by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    that we are a delapidated, third world country. i guess those millions of people from mexico, africa, asia, etc, who come here must be under some delusion. but once they find out you cant set up a website to help people get movies for free, i guess they will figure america is, truly, a third world country, and head back to a mequilladora to make 3 dollars a day

    1. Re:someone forgot to tell the immigrants by hairyfeet · · Score: 5, Interesting
      Actually, I know some of those whom you are speaking of. They live 6 to an apartment down the haul from me. Nice bunch of guys. When I asked them why they were living 6 to an apartment when they were making good money,they said "We're just going to stay here a few years and spend as little as we can while we sock our money away. Then we'll go back to Mexico and live like kings!",which is of course one of the problems we have right now. All our money is being sucked out like a black hole away from this country and without any tangible goods to sell it won't be coming back.


      And as for the software programmer who posted earlier? Just because you write a program doesn't mean you should get paid for 100+ years(or whatever the copyright is right now). There are plenty of ways to make money WITHOUT needing the government to support your business model with ever more draconian and intrusive laws. You can do work for hire,you can be paid to add features or do maintenance and support,etc. There are ways to make money out of the new business economy-it just takes work and smarts. But too many businesses with really big checkbooks would rather buy our laws rather than have to actually compete and innovate. Which is why IMHO we'll end up another third world fascist state while the rest of the world passes us by. But that is my 02c,YMMV

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
  19. Whack-A-Mole by the+eric+conspiracy · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Nice but rather empty victory. Of course the MPAA is going to take little home from this except the realization that under current law there is little they can do that effectively enforces copyright. I imagine that any half-bright executive in the movie industry will quickly come to the conclusion that there are only two avenues open to improve copyright enforcement.

    1. DRM
    2. Congress

    Expect to see both. Heavier use of elaborate schemes like those used for Blu-Ray recordings and downloadable media. Branding the owner's ID into the media so copies are traceable. Real use of certificates to manage keys, mandating only online playback.

    More stringent use of legal remedies, and criminalization of copyright infringement. WIPO treaties allowing international cooperation in pursuing violators. Tying government aid to enforcement initiatives.

    Enjoy it while the fun lasts.

  20. United States by Swampash · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Hear that sound, that enormous wash of white noise like the mother of all surf on the mother of all beaches?

    That's the whole world laughing. At you.

  21. They proved a point or two. by gnutoo · · Score: 5, Insightful

    You can't do business in the US because there is no free press there. It's the Napster case all over again and the courts have learned nothing in the last decade. Their lust to protect what they perceive as a big US business interest has them reaching these absurd rulings for tenuous secondary encouragement of copyright infringement. The fact that it's impossible for anyone to tell who "owns" a digital file is reason to rethink copyright not destroy people's ability to share things they have every right to share. Decisions like this will leave the US a broadcast backwater in a world that's bursting with free culture.

    1. Re:They proved a point or two. by ravenshrike · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The only reason they even got in trouble was because they started to delete the actual forum logs and such after the trial had started. At that point they were boned, seeing as it was a civil case and pretty much all the time destruction of evidence = guilt in such cases.

  22. Open-source it! by DigitAl56K · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Maybe TorrentSpy should open-source their entire system and upload it to TPB...

  23. One Hundred and Ten MILLION Dollars by rlp · · Score: 2, Funny

    I bet the MPAA would have settled for ONE MILLION DOLLARS and a couple of sharks with laser beams.

    --
    [Insert pithy quote here]
    1. Re:One Hundred and Ten MILLION Dollars by freedom_india · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Of course not one single cent would go to the arists and actors.
      All the money would goto lawyers who would buy two more resorts in Panama.
      And the actors and directors would be none-the-less-wiser.
      I say the actors guild should sue the MPAA now and ask the Judge to hold the money in an Escrow account until accounting is resolved.

      --
      "Doing what i can, with what i have." ~ Burt Gummer
  24. A wicked idea to pay them back by Weaselmancer · · Score: 5, Funny

    Give them three pirated Britney Spears albums. Apparently that's worth about $110 million according to the RIAA.

    --
    Weaselmancer
    rediculous.
  25. I can't believe that! by jd · · Score: 4, Funny

    The US (or any other) Government believing that people have worth? That can't be right.

    --
    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)
  26. And do you know *why* we're not invited? by Weaselmancer · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Watch the video of our "offer".

    Bush turned this from a humanitarian offer to help into part of his "exporting freedom" routine. He wants to have our Navy set up there. He mentions political change.

    With what we've been up to lately, can you blame these people for saying no? I can't.

    --
    Weaselmancer
    rediculous.
    1. Re:And do you know *why* we're not invited? by jd · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I would have to say that skepticism of the US' intent is probably well-deserved. It's probably not the whole story, but given the limited value of destroyers in preservation - guns don't save people, people do, to misquote a popular phrase - and given that the "best" exit strategy at the moment seems to be a bigger crisis somewhere else, it's probably quite sufficient to make a great many people nervous.

      --
      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:And do you know *why* we're not invited? by easyTree · · Score: 2, Funny

      The iraqies seem happy enough to be helped... Oh, wait..

      --
      Requiem for the American Dream
  27. If they can't collect, what happens? by Ihmhi · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Even if it is not turned over on appeal, it is not like they are even going to collect 1% of that money in the forseeable future.

    What I wonder is what happens in a situation like this? If a person has $50,000 in assets and makes $20,000 a year, and they get, say, a $10,000,000 judgement rendered against them, how the hell is it paid for? Debtor's jail doesn't exist anymore, does it?

    --
    Random Thoughts From A Diseased Mind (Not For Dummies)
  28. This is a difficult issue. by jd · · Score: 3, Insightful
    Arguably, since the cyclone/wave damage was only severe because the mangroves were all cut down, the human suffering from nature was a direct result of the natural suffering from humans. Was this their own decision (which could be considered a Solomonesque consequence), a decision of their Government (a remarkably foolish one, if so, and only a fool would deny the needy of aid on the advice of a fool), or commercial pressure from countries like the US (which is the primary cause of rainforest destruction)?

    If outside commercial pressure is the root cause of the devastation, then the blood price (as the Celts referred to it) should be a function of the gain from that pressure, not simply a function of the need ultimately caused by it. To deprive others of environmentally-provided protection from the inevitable is a crime against society. Indirectness is no excuse if the chain of events is pre-determined and inescapable. However, nobody at this point has identified that that was the reason the mangroves were cut down, so this is no more than an if/then.

    If this was an internal political decision, then I fail to see the importance of the politicians. America has never respected sovereign status on any other issue, when it has been convenient, so why recognize it when it is not an issue of convenience but life itself?

    If this was a local decision, made in the knowledge that it was completely suicidal, well, if we are now recognizing the right of individuals to terminate their own lives of their own free will, and societies are merely the product of the consensus of individuals, what right do we have to deny soieties the right to terminate themselves? Again, this is an if/then, not a judgement or an opinion of whether this was in fact what happened.

    --
    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)
  29. $30,000 per infringment? by capologist · · Score: 2, Interesting

    $30,000 per infringement? Do our Congressmen honestly think this is reasonable?

  30. move to a foreign country? by Travoltus · · Score: 5, Funny

    If they did that, the US would somehow find Al Qaeda there and start bombing.

    --
    --- Grow a pair, liberals... stop letting the Republicans bully you!
  31. The court's order... by crankyspice · · Score: 3, Informative

    ...is online here: http://www.packetlaw.com/documents/public/MPAA_vs_ValenceMedia_final_judgment.pdf

    --
    geek. lawyer.
  32. O, Canada by theleoandtherat · · Score: 2, Funny

    This is the end of BitTorrent. But, I doesn't have to end. If only someone would make a torrent index in another country, we could keep torrents alive. Maybe we could use this new thing called a search engine to find another torrent index outside of the US, away from co-op states ran by movie stars.

  33. You guys should read the post above! by mrmike37 · · Score: 5, Informative

    This judgment was a SANCTION, and was not adjudicated on the merits: "having terminated this case as a sanction for Defendants' misconduct and having entered default, now renders final judgment as to all claims of Plaintiffs against Defendant Valence Media LLC."

    --
    Really, I'm not trying to be clever with my signature.
  34. The RD test by phorm · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I believe that there were several different tests done by "Reader's Digest" and various other magazines. One was to drop a cellphone(or in others, a wallet, etc) in a public location, and see whom collects it and if they try to return it.

    Several people kept the phone. Some, when approached, vehemently denied acquiring it (though they were on camera doing so). Many of those who acted this way were at the least middle-class citizens, and in a good portion of the cases semi-upper-class or even rather rich citizens.

    The poorer people, on the other hand, actually put forth the effort to returning the phone/wallet/etc. The RD crew would ask why they didn't keep it. I remember that the refrain from the poorer citizens was pretty much the same: "I may be poor, but I'm honest, I want my children to be honest, and even having no money I still have my self-respect."

    Sometimes poor leads to desperation, and terrible things happen. But in groups, being poor often seems to lead to a policy of community-support, and watching out for your fellows.

    If I become rich, I think I'd have a joy in life by visiting "poor" places, and engaging in random acts of generosity. Unfortunately, that mentality means I'll probably never become rich, unless I win the lottery or something to that effect.