Slashdot Mirror


Feds and Hollywood Seize Domains of Movie Pirates

adeelarshad82 writes "The federal government and Hollywood teamed up to seize domain names of seven sites that allegedly trafficked in copyrighted movies without due payment. The so-called 'Operation in Our Sites' sting targeted TVShack.net, Movies-links.tv, Filespump.com, Now-movies.com, PlanetMoviez.com, PirateCity.org, zml.com, NinjaVideo.net, and NinjaThis.net. The operation was run by the US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and the US attorney for the Southern District of New York, in conjunction with several Hollywood studios. Unlike past anti-piracy efforts, the sites did not actually offer the movies for download, but instead streamed the movies and TV shows against ads. Previously, movie crackdowns had concentrated on sites that distributed movie files, most recently using the BitTorrent protocol."

181 comments

  1. Errr... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    ... put your sword away, no use you getting beat again ...

    - Jack Sparrow

  2. Great Win for HollyWood and the Feds by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Lets take down domain names no one knows about, hasn't ever heard of, and claim a great victory. For as we know when the big man steps on the little justice is served. If piracy is really an issue lets find ways to make it stop. Quit writing crappy "security" enforcement, such as DRM or "no network connection/no play", and other forms of stupidty. Make high quality games for a great price.

    1. Re:Great Win for HollyWood and the Feds by thijsh · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Shit, they took down a pirate and *two* ninja's man! Think about the unholy alliance of ninja pirates who will take their revenge and seize what is erRRRrrrrrrightfully theirs. :)

    2. Re:Great Win for HollyWood and the Feds by AHuxley · · Score: 1

      A site that has the bandwidth to share 600mb to ~x gb clips in whole or part on demand?
      Or are they are going after the link sites under cover of the "streamed" term?
      So where are the magical streaming servers?

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
    3. Re:Great Win for HollyWood and the Feds by jaggeh · · Score: 5, Informative

      90% of tvshacks content was hosted on megavideo, its still there, just go to another link site.

      no news here as there was no accomplishment from the feds.

      --
      I would give everything i own for a little bit more.
    4. Re:Great Win for HollyWood and the Feds by JohnBailey · · Score: 1

      Shit, they took down a pirate and *two* ninja's man! Think about the unholy alliance of ninja pirates who will take their revenge and seize what is erRRRrrrrrrightfully theirs. :)

      They only took down the Ninjas because there was two of them. Never forget the inverse Ninja rule.

      --
      It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his job depends on not understanding it.
    5. Re:Great Win for HollyWood and the Feds by AHuxley · · Score: 1

      So a link hunt for the indexing and compiling of external links.
      If the sites that point to the files dont exist then the files cannot be found?
      To what link depth will they go until they rise up to the search engines level?
      Physical file ~search engine~ link site ~search engine~ forum ~search engine~ search engine cache.

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
    6. Re:Great Win for HollyWood and the Feds by thijsh · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Yes! They can never defeat the last Ninja. I propose we only keep Ninja.com, it is also useful for searching for torrents: Google Ninja

    7. Re:Great Win for HollyWood and the Feds by jgagnon · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      I beat The Last Ninja 2 on my Commodore 64 in a Saturday morning. I was so upset. I think I also beat Impossible Mission 2 that same morning.

      On an unrelated note, lucky for the folks involved that they didn't meet any Lumberjack Commandos.

      --
      Remember to maintain your supply of /facepalm oil to prevent chafing.
    8. Re:Great Win for HollyWood and the Feds by camperdave · · Score: 4, Insightful

      They won't stop until all your bits are the right color.

      --
      When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
    9. Re:Great Win for HollyWood and the Feds by Zaiff+Urgulbunger · · Score: 1

      Good thing you didn't actually link to megavideo there -- we'd be certain to loose slashdot if you had!

    10. Re:Great Win for HollyWood and the Feds by shnull · · Score: 1

      what else can one say but ... LOL ? i'm glad this isnt done with my tax-euros but it feels like the shitstorm is heading our way, theres too many oldworld in governments everywhere and i'm afraid we need another generation to breed it out, if by then it won't be 1984 instead of 2084

      --
      beware he who denies you access to information for in his mind, he already deems himself to be your master (SMAC-ish)
  3. You Americans don't need to fear "terrorists". by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It's the corporations that are most harmful to your freedom.

    1. Re:You Americans don't need to fear "terrorists". by captainpanic · · Score: 5, Informative

      It's the corporations that are most harmful to your freedom.

      If you want to learn something about corporations, and why you should fear them, then watch "The Corporation". It's a movie-documentary... and at least when I last watched it, it said it was a free download... so the fact that the 7 websites were taken down at least shouldn't affect your education :-)

      Since the late 18th century American legal decision that the business corporation organizational model is legally a person, it has become a dominant economic, political and social force around the globe. This film takes an in-depth psychological examination of the organization model through various case studies. What the study illustrates is that in the its behaviour, this type of "person" typically acts like a dangerously destructive psychopath without conscience.

      source: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0379225/plotsummary

    2. Re:You Americans don't need to fear "terrorists". by mcgrew · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I saw this yesterday evening and submitted it, but my emphasis was on something that really pissed me off. The Department of Homeland Security was in one it! Pirates are terrorists now, it seems.

      I fear for my country; the corpofacists are ruining it for the actual human beings that live here, and with corporations allowed to donate to both major party candidates, I see no way this will ever change. The government "of the people, by the people, and for the people" has perished from the earth. We now have a government of the corporations, by the corporations, and for the corporations; voters be damned.

    3. Re:You Americans don't need to fear "terrorists". by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's the corporations that are most harmful to your freedom.

      Like the Democrat National Committee Incorporated.

    4. Re:You Americans don't need to fear "terrorists". by ndavis · · Score: 1

      It's the corporations that are most harmful to your freedom.

      If you want to learn something about corporations, and why you should fear them, then watch "The Corporation". It's a movie-documentary... and at least when I last watched it, it said it was a free download... so the fact that the 7 websites were taken down at least shouldn't affect your education :-)

      Since the late 18th century American legal decision that the business corporation organizational model is legally a person, it has become a dominant economic, political and social force around the globe. This film takes an in-depth psychological examination of the organization model through various case studies. What the study illustrates is that in the its behaviour, this type of "person" typically acts like a dangerously destructive psychopath without conscience.

      source: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0379225/plotsummary

      I agree this was a terrific movie and even my wife who seems to side with corporations most of the time realized that many of them act only in the interest of themselves without a care for anyone else including those they hurt (physically or financially).
      This is especially true with the current BP leak that is destroying the lives of those living on the gluf coast.

    5. Re:You Americans don't need to fear "terrorists". by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Where are the feds or ANY type of assistance for crimes in my local neighborhood? No where to be found. I find it frustrating the lobbyists have enough clout to get the government to spend so much of my tax payer money fighting an unmeasurable and exaggerated "loss of income" on behalf of these businesses. This "crime" does not involve a loss of property or harming an actual person.

    6. Re:You Americans don't need to fear "terrorists". by JWW · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You know, I can't shake this suspicion that I have the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) people might possibly have something better they could be doing with their time than taking over websites.

      It is interesting to note that when corporations don't want a federal agency to enforce the laws then that's what happens.

      And when corporations do want a federal agency to actually enforce law's then they get their way there too.

      You're absolutely correct, in modern America the rights of the corporation, the banks, the unions are upheld and the rights of the individual are too much to pay attention to.

    7. Re:You Americans don't need to fear "terrorists". by delinear · · Score: 1

      They've been pulling the piracy == terrorism crap for a good few years now. It seems like it finally got government backing, that's all.

    8. Re:You Americans don't need to fear "terrorists". by westlake · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      It's the corporations that are most harmful to your freedom

      The pirate distributor is also a corporate enterprise.

      The only difference is that he pays nothing for the product he sells.

      The geek's notion of "freedom" intriques me.

      The budget for Star Trek was $140 million. The Dark Knight $185 million.

      High School Musical $4 million.

      The instant franchise product for amatuer production, theme parks and ice shows. Money in the bank for Disney and not a penny spent on fan service for the geek.

      It never occurs to the geek that each dollar he spends at the Red Box gives him a vote on what films will be produced.

    9. Re:You Americans don't need to fear "terrorists". by TheLink · · Score: 1

      Guess what, I bought movie tickets to the latest Star Trek and Batman Begins. And I'm living in Malaysia - one of those infamous pirate countries. Over here the cinemas are packed for some movies, but not others. LOTR, Titanic, Avatar, and yes High School Musical and Twilight.

      So IMO if Hollywood does stuff right, they can make money and keep making money for quite a while yet. Stop making shit people don't watch.

      BTW High School Musical is cheap stuff LOTS of people watch, so it's very profitable. If I were Hollywood I'd be making more stuff that the whole family can watch, but Hollywood for some reason/agenda seems to like to push films with gratuitous sex and violence - those films don't sell as well.

      --
    10. Re:You Americans don't need to fear "terrorists". by troll+-1 · · Score: 1

      Like it or not corporations have made America into the economic giant it is today. And we all benefit from them. Only a corporation could take a product (like an iPhone for example) and turn it into a billion dollar industry overnight. I recommend "The Company, A Short History of a Revolutionary Idea" http://www.amazon.com/Company-History-Revolutionary-Library-Chronicles/dp/0679642498 by the editor the The Economist. He makes the point it wasn't England that colonized the world, it was companies, The Dutch East India Company, The Hudson's Bay Company, The Royal African Company, The Virginia Company, etc.. What's more companies today are relatively tame in comparison.

    11. Re:You Americans don't need to fear "terrorists". by mike1210 · · Score: 1, Insightful

      The key word here is 'Feds'. No corporation on Earth has a monopoly of violence that governments do.

    12. Re:You Americans don't need to fear "terrorists". by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Figured i'd put this as close to the top as possible,

      http://www.watch-movies-tv.info/ ------ same site as http://www.movies-links.tv

      They can try to stop us but it will never happen for we are the many and they are the few.

      PASS IT ON!

  4. Great priorities by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Glad to see that ICE is focusing on really important stuff like stopping movie downloads, rather than the really trivial matters like deporting the 12 million+ illegal aliens.

    1. Re:Great priorities by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Moderators: Just because you disagree, doesn't make this a troll.

    2. Re:Great priorities by 2obvious4u · · Score: 1

      Why do you got to drag immigrants into this? We are all from the planet earth they have just as much right to be in this country as you do. What needs to be fixed is how we distribute welfare and how we tax those who live here. If we switched to a sales tax from an income tax then immigration status wouldn't matter anymore since everyone who lives here would be paying the same taxes. Unless you are a Native American, then you have no more right to be here than they do.

      Let me guess, next you're going to say that ICE should be spending their time looking for drugs.

    3. Re:Great priorities by wronskyMan · · Score: 1

      Not until we have a one world government. Look up the concept of national sovereignty and how not everyone has "just as much right to be here".

      --
      --- You shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you mad- Neal (not Cowboy) Boortz
    4. Re:Great priorities by haruchai · · Score: 1

      The current Western Hemisphere is the result of an invasion and genocide of the New World by European powers. Is that more legitimate than purportedly illegal immigration?

      --
      Pain is merely failure leaving the body
  5. That figures by sheph · · Score: 2, Informative

    No wonder ICE doesn't have time for dealing with our border issues. They're too busy helping Hollywood. I guess Obama kind of owes them since it was their endorsement that helped put him into office.

    --
    I don't believe in karma, I just call it like I see it.
    1. Re:That figures by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Oh, give it a rest. You think Obama carried Indiana because Hollywood told us to vote for him?

    2. Re:That figures by Rogerborg · · Score: 2, Funny

      I guess Obama kind of owes them since it was their endorsement that helped put him into office.

      .

      See? He is an honest politician - he stays bought.

      --
      If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
  6. Method Comparison by Zephiris · · Score: 3, Informative

    BitTorrent sites do not have the movie files on them. Users share them at their own expense and risk. They use blockable advertising to offset hosting costs.

    Streaming sites obviously do have the files on them, and by using ads embedded into the stream, they were presumably attempting to directly make a notable profit off of the movies and TV shows.

    So why were BT sites traditionally the main target instead of profiteering streaming sites? Nevermind how numerous and over-the-top most of the streaming sites seem.

    --

    "A Goddess rarely smiles for she is forced by others to be an island unto herself." - Zephiris
    1. Re:Method Comparison by Random2 · · Score: 3, Informative

      Streaming sites obviously do have the files on them

      No, they do not. They embed the video from another site that does contain the file. Hence why every streamer hates the megavideo limits, because it applies no matter what streaming site you visit.

      If you want to kill streaming, go after the base that supports them.

      --
      "Our goal each year should be to increase the number of goals we set for ourselves!"
    2. Re:Method Comparison by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't think e.g. NinjaVideo had the videos either. They where just linking/embedding videos from e.g. megavideo.com (which is still online).

    3. Re:Method Comparison by AHuxley · · Score: 1

      It will be the link sites next, compile links to external files and expect a visit?

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
    4. Re:Method Comparison by jbonomi · · Score: 1

      Ninjavideo did seem to host the files somewhere. They even provided download links. They provided links to megavideo as well though, as a back up.

    5. Re:Method Comparison by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The files, that you could download via their applet, was hosted on e.g. 2shared.com.

    6. Re:Method Comparison by DoofusOfDeath · · Score: 4, Funny

      If you want to kill streaming, go after the base that supports them.

      You want to prosecute screenwriters???

      Man, you're hardcore.

    7. Re:Method Comparison by mrogers · · Score: 1

      You want to prosecute screenwriters???

      No, but you just gave me a great idea for a movie.

      In a time... of persecution.
      (Long panning shot of writers slaving in the irony mines.)
      In a world... ruled... by cliches.
      (A single drop of ink falls from a fountain pen onto a concrete floor.)
      One writer... showed that the pen... is mightier than the sword.
      (Tribal drums, montage of a man scribbling in a darkened room and the usual exploding buses and such.)
      Jerry Bruckheimer presents: Enemy of the Plot
      This summer... get ready... for the end... of happy endings.

    8. Re:Method Comparison by oldmac31310 · · Score: 1

      That was my first reaction. The factual incorrectness of "Previously, movie crackdowns had concentrated on sites that distributed movie files, most recently using the BitTorrent protocol" is just plain annoying. When will people get this right?

      --
      http://www.acetonestudio.com
    9. Re:Method Comparison by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yea, you mean link sites like google :-)
      I would LOOOOOOOOOOVE to stand before a jury and explain the technical difference between a site that compiles links and google.......there are none. :-)

      Shut down every search engine in the United States, shut down all hosting, shut down all connections, throw the Internet Kill Switch, and the Internet will still be lit outside the United States, routing around the US as it was designed to do.
      Throttle up, aim at the ground and kiss your ass good bye. The US is PAST the tipping point, enjoy the show.

    10. Re:Method Comparison by shark72 · · Score: 1

      If I understand you correctly... BitTorrent sites use advertising to offset hosting sites, and streaming sites use advertising to generate a profit?

      This seems like a broad and arbitrary generalization. It also contradicts conversations I've had with BT site operators, who've claimed to make a profit on ads. Not much -- maybe $1 or $2K a month -- but enough. In fact, many BT site operators get into the business to make a profit -- it's not entirely about making information free and/or sticking it to the man. Do you have data that indicates otherwise?

      "So why were BT sites traditionally the main target instead of profiteering streaming sites?"

      The financial success of the infringer does not come into play in US copyright law. And, again, I believe you're making a gross generalization about sites' profitability. There are many, many factors relating to how much of a profit a site makes; traffic is almost certainly the biggest one. The exact technical details of how the infringement occurs (and whether it's direct, contributory, or vicarious) aren't an intrinsic factor in estimating profitability.

      --
      Sitting in my day care, the art is decopainted.
  7. Come again? by Meriahven · · Score: 5, Insightful

    A venal government of a single country hijacked multiple domains with ease? Surely this should not be possible.

    1. Re:Come again? by Kylock · · Score: 4, Informative

      It was unclear whether or not the federal agencies actually seized and confiscated the servers hosting and streaming the pirated content, although the ICE said that it had worked with officials in the Netherlands to execute search warrants for some of the domain names and content.

      This article is completely silly. It sensationalism based upon speculation. Do real journalists exist anymore ?

    2. Re:Come again? by AHuxley · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Re Do real journalists exist anymore ? Not if they want access to stories and the top officials it seems.

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
    3. Re:Come again? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do real journalists exist anymore ?

      No, they all got sued for copying what other people said or wrote for their own commercial gain.

  8. You Americans *do* need to fear terrorists. by thijsh · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Corporation and Terrorism are not mutually exclusive. The effect of terrorism is that by harming a few people you hurt the majority by creating fear and thus terrorizing them, reducing their quality of life and freedoms. This also does not require blowing yourself up (hence the reason the term 'terrified' does not mean 'blown to bits'). If people stick to this proper definition (instead of modern sensationalism) it becomes very clear this applies to the media corporations tactics. They sue a few (actually thousands, more than have been blown up by Al Qaida) to terrorize others, and nobody knows if they will be sued (the little fact of downloading is not even relevant, anyone got sued by them).

    So you Americans *do* need to fear terrorists (and thus some corporations), it's just that your idea of what terrorism means is all FOXed up.

    1. Re:You Americans *do* need to fear terrorists. by Pojut · · Score: 4, Insightful

      In our defense, we are, for the most part, reactionary lower-level mammals.

      I kid, I kid. But seriously...fellow Americans, stop being so terrified of anyone that looks lightly tanned, stop believing everything the government tells you, and for all that you think is holy, stop watching mainstream news. Remember: just because you agree with it doesn't make it unbiased.

    2. Re:You Americans *do* need to fear terrorists. by PopeRatzo · · Score: 2, Funny

      The effect of terrorism is that by harming a few people you hurt the majority by creating fear and thus terrorizing them, reducing their quality of life and freedoms.

      If the purpose of this seizure was to frighten people into not pirating movies, I can tell you with some certainty: It did not work.

      Personally, I think this was just blowback for all the terrible reviews of Twilight Eclipse.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    3. Re:You Americans *do* need to fear terrorists. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

      Remember: just because you agree with it doesn't make it unbiased.

      Agreed.

    4. Re:You Americans *do* need to fear terrorists. by nedlohs · · Score: 1

      Removing the requirement of violence or the threat of violence from any definition of terrorism is just dumb.

      Sure the root word doesn't require violence, but that's irrelevant since words have meanings on their own.

      Use a different word, terrorism has been taken for 200 years to mean something else.

    5. Re:You Americans *do* need to fear terrorists. by Pojut · · Score: 1

      ... .. ...

      I think you just divided by zero.

    6. Re:You Americans *do* need to fear terrorists. by mcgrew · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I find it disturbing that yesterday I saw this in an AP story at Yahoo News, where they said "Immigration and Customs Enforcement officials worked with the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York, the FBI, and the Department of Homeland Security".

      I went to link it in this comment today, and it's been edited; it now reads "Immigration and Customs Enforcement officials worked with the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York and other government agencies."

      I agree with you; DHS is on the wrong side here, and the entire government as well, in all liklihood. Obviously the corporate press says whatever the government wants them to say, and the corporations are the ones who pay for elections, so they effectively own our government.

      It really pisses me off, and I can't see anything I can do about it.

    7. Re:You Americans *do* need to fear terrorists. by thijsh · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It really pisses me off, and I can't see anything I can do about it.

      Others say that, and then become 'terrorists'... The phrase is used so loosely it is used often instead of: revolutionary, guerrilla's, resistance fighter, or plain old heroes. It depends completely on perspective... the Germans called the Dutch who blew up their trains and transports 'terrorists', but we now call them heroes. And the patriots who fought in the civil war would also have been called terrorists, and they would have gone down in history as such if they would have lost...

      The point is you *can* do something about it, just speak out loud (and keep last resorts for times so dark you can't see any light from a spark of hope around you). But you have to become immune to the people who completely miss the point and try to label critical people as 'unpatriotic'... When you criticize your countries wrongdoings you are the greatest patriot there is, because you love your country so much you will fight against all odds to improve or preserve it's values.

    8. Re:You Americans *do* need to fear terrorists. by camperdave · · Score: 2, Informative
      It really pisses me off, and I can't see anything I can do about it.

      Write a letter to the editor. Put in a freedom of information request. Bring up discrepancies like this at political debates. Take out ads. Make noise. Run for office.

      That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

      --
      When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
    9. Re:You Americans *do* need to fear terrorists. by orasio · · Score: 2, Insightful

      How is seizing a domain not violence?
      It's government backed, legal violence, but it is.
      And there are threats of jailing people also. Jailing someone is physical violence.

    10. Re:You Americans *do* need to fear terrorists. by Nadaka · · Score: 2, Informative

      Removing the requirement of plundering ships at sea for hostages and wealth from any definition of piracy is just dumb.

      Removing the requirement of depriving another of their property from any definition of the word theft is just dumb.

      That hasn't stopped the copyright cartels from doing just that.

    11. Re:You Americans *do* need to fear terrorists. by mcgrew · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Write a letter to the editor.

      I do, frequently. Oddly, the corporate State Jorrnal-Register has never printed a single one, while the independant (and free as in beer) Illinois Times almost always prints them. Writing a letter to the editor does no more good than writing your corporate-owned congressman if it isn't printed.

      Run for office.

      I'd lose.

    12. Re:You Americans *do* need to fear terrorists. by Mister+Whirly · · Score: 2, Funny

      I know. I was pulled away from my illegally downloaded copy of Sex and the City 2 to read this stupid article? What a waste of my time.

      --
      "But this one goes to 11!"
    13. Re:You Americans *do* need to fear terrorists. by nedlohs · · Score: 1

      And if you have the media resources of the copyright cartels you might manage to as well. But I'm assuming you don't.

    14. Re:You Americans *do* need to fear terrorists. by nedlohs · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Sure and then you make the term completely meaningless.

      Mrs Brown is a terrorist, she threatened to confiscate my pocket knife if I kept carving my name in the desk.

      Office Smith is a terrorist, he threatened to put me in jail if I threw a brick through the bank's plate glass window.

      My mother is a terrorist she threatened smacked me scratched pictures into her car with the keys.

      Ticket Inspector Jones is a terrorist he seized some of my money (via a fine) when I was riding the train without a ticket.

      But go ahead, no one will understand what you are talking about but that doesn't matter.

    15. Re:You Americans *do* need to fear terrorists. by cdrudge · · Score: 1

      I'm confused. So is the stupid article a waste of your time? Or Sex and the City 2? Either way, I think your time was already long wasted.

    16. Re:You Americans *do* need to fear terrorists. by Mister+Whirly · · Score: 1

      Hey congratulations, you are starting to appreciate subtle humor! And the answer to your question is - yes.

      --
      "But this one goes to 11!"
    17. Re:You Americans *do* need to fear terrorists. by troll+-1 · · Score: 1

      Media corporations out to get ya, huh?

    18. Re:You Americans *do* need to fear terrorists. by dave420 · · Score: 1

      That's not what terrorism is. Nearly, but not quite. Terrorism is the use of, or the threat of the use of, force against a population in order to coerce them. Fear is not the end goal, but a means to that end - namely that people listen to the terrorists. That's why talking to terrorists, instead of fighting them, is the only way to end their violence. Terrorists couldn't care less about the freedoms of their target population - they just want said population to listen to their (often just) grievances.

    19. Re:You Americans *do* need to fear terrorists. by dave420 · · Score: 1

      Terrorism is an act. Revolution and resistance are causes. Do not confuse the two.

    20. Re:You Americans *do* need to fear terrorists. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Stopped watching mainstream news after Obama was elected. Haven't seen CNN or anything like it sense.

      Best thing I've ever done. I also don't understand why Obama is being blamed for everything... Probably because I'm not watching the news.

      I mean, people are complaining on my wife's facebook page that Obama is at fault for their kids not being able to get in on a desired appointment date and the appointment was instead made a day later.

      WTF? Someone was driving with a bumber sticker that said, "don't blame me, I voted republican".

      WTF does that even mean? Blame for what?

      There's something seriously wrong with these people.

    21. Re:You Americans *do* need to fear terrorists. by Mister+Whirly · · Score: 1

      All it takes to confuse the two is the perspective from which you are viewing them. One man's "terrorist" is another man's "freedom fighter". Do you think when the American Revolution started that the British were calling them "freedom fighters" or "treasonous rebels"? Whether or not you are a "terrorist" can depend on whether your side won or lost.

      --
      "But this one goes to 11!"
    22. Re:You Americans *do* need to fear terrorists. by schwit1 · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Run for office.

      I'd lose.

      It's funny how being honest with the voters and deep pocket campaign contributors has that effect.

    23. Re:You Americans *do* need to fear terrorists. by dave420 · · Score: 1

      You are confusing being a terrorist and being called a terrorist. Terrorism has a very strict definition. Your "freedom fighter" and "treasonous rebels" analogy is completely not comparable as the two terms have nothing to do with terrorism. What's so hard to understand about a word that is completely defined and without ambiguity?

    24. Re:You Americans *do* need to fear terrorists. by Kjella · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You are confusing being a terrorist and being called a terrorist. Terrorism has a very strict definition. Your "freedom fighter" and "treasonous rebels" analogy is completely not comparable as the two terms have nothing to do with terrorism. What's so hard to understand about a word that is completely defined and without ambiguity?

      Please enlighten us, as the definition of terrorism has its own wikipedia page with over 70 citations that we've never been able to agree on a concrete definition of what is a terrorist act. The UN has a political definition that is more fuzzy than a kitten, and comprehensive studies show there's very little common ground except violence or threats of violence.

      For example, to pick apart the UN definition: "Criminal acts intended or calculated to provoke a state of terror in the general public, a group of persons or particular persons for political purposes are in any circumstance unjustifiable, whatever the considerations of a political, philosophical, ideological, racial, ethnic, religious or any other nature that may be invoked to justify them."

      War is usually enough to send people in a state of terror, and armed resistance is no exception - particularly not fighting in or around the the civil population. Laws and so criminals acts are very often defined by an oppressor or occupant, so what makes them legitimate? Particularly if you read "state of terror in (...) a group of persons" where the group of persons is the occupant - which again is very much in the eye of the beholder, then it becomes nonsense. Not to Godwin this post, but during WWII Norway was occupied by the Nazis and we capitulated. The Nazis installed a puppet government, which passed laws. With a sufficiently biased reading you can find that "Criminal acts (as defined by the puppet government) intended or calculated to provoke a state of terror in a group of persons (the German occupation) for political purposes (to free Norway) are in any circumstance unjustifiable". Or if you insist they were, then I support some of the terrorists...

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    25. Re:You Americans *do* need to fear terrorists. by tompaulco · · Score: 2, Informative

      I'd lose.
      You are probably right that you would lose eventually, when you got high enough up, unless you take on money from corporate sponsors. But you can still have an effect at the local level, and it is easy to get involved in local politics. For one, it doesn't pay well, so often you would find yourself the only man for the job, and for another, a lot of people in local politics are just using it as a stepping stone.

      --
      If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
    26. Re:You Americans *do* need to fear terrorists. by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      When George Ryan ran for Illinois Governor against a retired schoolteacher, he outspent the teacher ten to one. He barely won, but he did still win, despite the bad publicity over the bribery scandal that ultimately put him in Federal prison.

      Give me Bill Gates' money and I might have a chance, even being honest. But that's just not going to happen.

    27. Re:You Americans *do* need to fear terrorists. by dave420 · · Score: 1

      As I already said, the definition of the word terrorism is rather straight-forward: the use of force, or the threat of force, against a people in order to coerce them. It's not difficult to understand. Whether certain acts are classified as terrorism has nothing to do with the definition.

      Fighting a government has nothing to do with terrorism - it's fighting the actual people themselves. Your Norwegian example is rather specious. By your definition any act of war is terrorism, which is clearly bullshit.

    28. Re:You Americans *do* need to fear terrorists. by Kjella · · Score: 1

      the word terrorism is rather straight-forward: the use of force, or the threat of force, against a people in order to coerce them (...) Fighting a government has nothing to do with terrorism - it's fighting the actual people themselves.

      I know I'm getting awfully close to trolling now, but... Granted the WTC towers were civilian, but the plane attack on the Pentagon and the final plane - bound for either the White House or the Capitol building - was squarely aimed at the government. I take it then by your definition that you don't consider these acts of terrorism?

      I'm not trying to be facetious here, it really is hard. For example you might say use of force, I say poisoning a water supply. Pretty clear case of terror. You say all criminal acts, I say sedition laws that neuter free speech. Not terror. What about killing UN Peace Corps? They're clearly not an actual people, but you know the purpose is to politically destabilize the country and profit from the chaos. Assassinations of leaders that refuse to cooperate and wow to fight terror? You think that's not part of a campaign of terror? Finding a way to define terror that covers everything that is terror and excludes everything that isn't is not easy, maybe you think you got one but the world doesn't agree with you.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    29. Re:You Americans *do* need to fear terrorists. by Mister+Whirly · · Score: 1

      So crashing the 911 phone systems, not an act of force, would not by your definition be terrorism? I would say that would cause quite a panic. Or taking down all of Wall Street computer systems. Again not using force, but would sure cause terror in the population. I would say any act deigned to cause terror, through use of force or any other means, is also considered "terrorism". The goal of terrorism is not to harm or kill people, but to cause terror in the population, which then will cause harm. The use of force and killing is just one method of terrorists, and is used to get to the end result and is certainly not the end result itself.

      --
      "But this one goes to 11!"
    30. Re:You Americans *do* need to fear terrorists. by yuna49 · · Score: 1

      I hate to break it to you, but Immigration and Customs Enforcement is part of the Department of Homeland Security.

    31. Re:You Americans *do* need to fear terrorists. by dave420 · · Score: 1

      No, crashing 911 lines would not be terrorism. It'd freak people out, but terrorism isn't just being in a panic, but being scared of being hurt. You can use the word "terrorism" to describe whatever you want - 911 phones being jammed, a kitten precariously perched in a high branch, tasty pancakes - whatever. The problem is that words usually have an agreed-upon meaning, and unfortunately your idea of terrorism doesn't gel with the accepted definition of the word. The goal of terrorism isn't to cause terror in the population, but to get people to listen to their grievances by terrorising the population. Terrorists are never mindless. They have a cause, and it's always one that is not listened to by the people who could affect it.

    32. Re:You Americans *do* need to fear terrorists. by dave420 · · Score: 1

      There were civilians in the airliner that hit the pentagon. That is enough for most rational minds to label it terrorism. What's so hard to understand? If the target of an act of violence isn't the actual people the attackers have a problem with, but merely others that control those who the attackers have a problem with (ie the voting general public), then it's terrorism. This isn't difficult. There is a very concise definition of terrorism. The problem you seem to be having is this definition, since 9/11, has been perverted by the US media and government to include seemingly anything, leading you to ignore the actual definition and try to apply it to anything that might cause even simple unease in government, to full-blown nuclear war on Ohio. It is easy. Terrorism is the use of, or the threat of, force against a population in order to coerce them into acquiescence with the terrorists' political goals. There. Simple. Concise. Accurate. Only in the US does it mean anything else, and even then only among the government, various media outlets, and those who blindly listen to either.

    33. Re:You Americans *do* need to fear terrorists. by Mister+Whirly · · Score: 1

      A kitten in a tree or tasty pancakes will not cause terror in the population in general. 911 not working could cause a large panic in the population. If the crash was caused by teenagers just to see if they could, that isn't terrorism. But what if the 911 phone system was crashed by Al Queda, or another fundamentalist group? Then is it an act of terrorism or not? What about anti-abortion fundamentalists bombing abortion clinics and killing doctors? I would think that the reason behind doing these acts would be to cause people to have fear of getting abortions and to get people to listen to their grievances, the very definition you gave for terrorism. The destruction of the Twin Towers wasn't to kill people, or to cause people to think they would be killed. The aftermath of what happened to the US economy was the goal. Not to mention the loss of freedoms in the knee-jerk reactionary laws passed soon after. I believe these were the true goals, and killing people was just a way to accomplish that.

      --
      "But this one goes to 11!"
    34. Re:You Americans *do* need to fear terrorists. by aradnik · · Score: 1

      The federal government and Hollywood teamed up...

      I didn't know Hollywood is into law enforcement now as well... I mean I heard about the mpaa and their likes, but for f'sake is your gov that desperate?! I wouldn't trust them to make me coffee...

    35. Re:You Americans *do* need to fear terrorists. by brit74 · · Score: 1

      I'm tired of this nonsense about "terrorism" not having any decent definition. Creating a "state of terror" (as you say) is *NOT* sufficient to be considered terrorism. If it was, then every schoolboy chasing girls in the schoolyard with a spider in his had is guilty of terrorism. Terrorism has some very important attributes - it has to include violence or the threat of violence against a civilian population. This is why war is *NOT* terrorism. Killing soldiers or creating fear among soldiers is not and cannot be considered terrorism. When a bunch of muslim extremists went to the pyramids in Egypt and started killing unarmed civilians a number of years back - that was terrorism. I'm sure we can all agree that, regardless of the "terrorism" label, killing enemy soldiers is generally considered more morally acceptable than killing unarmed civilians. Do you agree or not agree with that statement? Are you going to slink into some kind of amoral framework where killing soldiers is the same thing as killing civilians?

      Also, I'm not surprised that the UN can't agree on a definition of terrorism. Many of the nations involved in those kinds of talks want their version of terrorism to be considered morally acceptable. Many Middle Eastern countries are going to build loopholes so that the Palestinians can blow themselves up among Israeli civilians - and they don't want those acts categorized with a negative label like "terrorism".

    36. Re:You Americans *do* need to fear terrorists. by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      But it had nothing to do with either immigrations or customs.

  9. The US economy is saved! by niftydude · · Score: 5, Informative

    The piracy "reportedly resulted in billions of dollars in losses to the U.S. economy," Preet Bharara, the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York, said in a statement.

    No. It didn't.

    --
    You can never know everything, and part of what you do know will always be wrong. Perhaps even the most important part.
    1. Re:The US economy is saved! by yamfry · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It most certainly did. The key word is "reportedly". Incidentally, I reportedly have a massive sex organ and 2 Ferraris.

    2. Re:The US economy is saved! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      no. you don't.

    3. Re:The US economy is saved! by BlackHawk-666 · · Score: 1

      And I am allegedly the greatest lover the world has ever seen.

      --
      All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain.
    4. Re:The US economy is saved! by tomknight · · Score: 4, Funny

      Whereas I reportedly have a massive Ferrari and two sex organs. I'm available for weddings, church fetes, funerals and bar mitzvahs.

      --
      Oh arse
    5. Re:The US economy is saved! by kj_kabaje · · Score: 1

      How about something actually insightful. I may agree, but the mods... oh wait. This is /.

    6. Re:The US economy is saved! by niftydude · · Score: 1
      Except I wasn't modded insightful, I was modded informative. TFA had misinformation in it which I corrected.
      Whilst both you and I may think that it is common knowledge that 6 or 7 relatively unknown sites couldn't have caused billions of dollars worth of losses to the US economy, apparently that knowledge isn't common enough to reach the rarefied heights that the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York inhabits.

      I considered it an important point to correct because I'm certain that these imaginary billions of dollars were used to justify what was a major operation involving no less than 13(!) government agencies:

      The ICE did not work alone; it was joined by a number of U.S. law-enforcement and other agencies: U.S. Customs and Border Protection; the FBI; the Department of Commerce; the Food and Drug Administration; the Postal Inspection Service; the General Services Administration, Office of the Inspector General; the Naval Criminal Investigative Service; the Defense Criminal Investigative Service; the Army Criminal Investigative Division's Major Procurement Fraud Unit; and the Government of Mexico Tax Administrative Service.

      --
      You can never know everything, and part of what you do know will always be wrong. Perhaps even the most important part.
    7. Re:The US economy is saved! by kj_kabaje · · Score: 1

      See--that's what I was hoping for and what should be modded insightful/informative. That's what I used to expect from /. mods. Thanks for going a bit further.

    8. Re:The US economy is saved! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ..but how many brit milahs have you had?

  10. Is crime really so low.. by hilather · · Score: 1

    That the US can have the FBI spend so much time shutting down domains and movie sites.

    1. Re:Is crime really so low.. by AHuxley · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Exactly and its the index sites, sites that create lists, not the hosts.
      Using the 'internet' to link is now a crime, not hosting the file or selling physical media?

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
    2. Re:Is crime really so low.. by shark72 · · Score: 1

      Taking your question at face value: yeah, link sites have been busted for over a decade now.

      In these cases the infringement isn't direct; they're typically charged with contributory infringement or vicarious infringement (Google can supply the nuances of each if you're interested). This site explains it well:

      http://www.chillingeffects.org/piracy/faq.cgi#QID268

      It's a recurring meme that simply linking to infringing material without actually hosting is a loophole that will allow you to avoid prosecution. As popular as this belief is, it's false.

      --
      Sitting in my day care, the art is decopainted.
  11. Overseas? by Alwin+Henseler · · Score: 1

    From the article:

    (..) the ICE said that it had worked with officials in the Netherlands to execute search warrants for some of the domain names and content. (..) Joe Biden, who said that the U.S. would crack down on piracy, even overseas.

    (emphasis mine).
    Hey, most of the 'pirates' here are below sea level, you insensitive clod!

    And on a side note: we even had some real pirates recently (captured off the coast of Somalia)... Don't think they had any movies or 19" servers on them - good movie material, though.

    1. Re:Overseas? by Krahar · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Don't think they had any movies or 19" servers on them

      You should have checked their pants.

    2. Re:Overseas? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      we even had some real pirates recently

      Yes, they boarded the Ship To Gaza vessels on international water, guns in hand.

      Strangely enough, those pirates are getting support from the US.

  12. Where's the pirate bay? by erroneus · · Score: 2, Interesting

    This particular site, while I'm glad it's not, is conspicuously missing from the list. Was it omitted for some reason? If so, what reason(s)? Could it be its high profile and popularity? Could it be the matter of international relations? It is not outside of the range of possibility for the U.S. to inflict its will on the .ORG tld.

    1. Re:Where's the pirate bay? by daid303 · · Score: 1

      RTFS. Piratebay doesn't host movies, as these sites did.

    2. Re:Where's the pirate bay? by Archon-X · · Score: 1

      Incorrect. These sites LINKED to sites that had episodes / movies on them.
      Just like google links to youtube that has full TV episodes split up on it.

    3. Re:Where's the pirate bay? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      TPB isn't based in the U.S. so U.S. law enforcement, which did this operation, can't really do anything about TPB.

    4. Re:Where's the pirate bay? by Dashiva+Dan · · Score: 2, Informative

      Don't you mean 'Where's megavideo?' it's the one hosting all the movies, right?

      --
      "lt;dr" is the correct response to most of my posts.
  13. An interesting difference by Tetrarchy · · Score: 3, Informative

    The thing about ninjavideo that I always found interesting (and what i had thought would keep them online), was that the site did not actually host the files it was streaming, but only provided links which used some sort of weird java popup that you had to keep running in the background which acted as some sort of intermediary to actually start the stream from files with obfuscated addresses hosted on 3rd party hosting sites (think megaupload).

    I guess it all comes back to the question of if whether having a link to somewhere else that hosts copyrighted material is itself infringement, and unless the ninja admins manage to beat the MPAA lawyers, it would seem we have our answer to that.

    The real shame is that the site was super useful for finding archived tv shows (especially documentaries from nat geo and the bbc and the like), but i suspect linking to the big name movies is what got them shut down. Such a waste - I don't even understand why people would want to watch the cams in the first place.

    1. Re:An interesting difference by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I agree. Ninja had been my one stop shop for TV shows, while I left the few movies alone. They were the best site I've seen for listing and getting up any shows that aired each night. They had even gone to HD recently, unlike a lot of the other sites which only offer real crappy quality. I can't think of a single other site that will let me know exactly what shows have aired in a day, ranging from broadcast to cable to British to even anime. Most of the shows will still be relatively easy to get ahold of, but just knowing they're out there to get will become a problem.

      I also have a problem with just how many government organizations were involved here. Since when did streaming video become the greatest threat to our country's borders? I find the claims of "billions of dollars in losses" rather suspicious and inflated, and am curious in return how much taxpayer money went into this operation. According to the ICE report, most likely hundreds of employees from many organization working for months...that's going to be multi millions of dollars in cost. This is at the same time we're slashing budgets and cutting back the armed forces. I'm a bit disturbed how much hold Hollywood/companies seem to have according to this report. The government is supposed to work for the people, not just for a few companies. The term "tail wagging the dog" comes to mind.

    2. Re:An interesting difference by BlackHawk-666 · · Score: 1

      Actually, I don't think it really matters if the sites hosted files or linked to them. This is clear use of a combination of fear, battery and good old fashioned bullying. They don't even have to win the cases since they can take the sites down straight away, confiscate the equipment, reclaim the domain names, etc. They can then use their significant resources in a war of attrition on the pirates.

      Sites that link to torrents are treading a very thin line, and it's only the fact that Google and every other search engine as well as many smaller players on the web require the use of links to potentially illegal sites that protects them. Certainly the government can simply ignore the act that a google search will happily return the same torrent files as the pirate sites but it will still seem duplicitous.

      --
      All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain.
    3. Re:An interesting difference by Late+Adopter · · Score: 1

      If you knowingly abet someone committing a crime, that itself is a crime. Similarly if a court judges that your actions knowingly aid the commission of an actionable civil tort, that itself can be actionable.

    4. Re:An interesting difference by gumbi+west · · Score: 1

      This was an open question until it was decided in the courts. Now, linking is also not allowed either.

      I'm not really sure I see why so many slashdotters are so worked up about this. This is US property that is having its IP rights violated--it's a valid case, it is settled law. While you might disagree that it is possible to take down every site with ripped content, there are a million other laws that are that way too and still we prosecute offenders. Murder isn't going to go away because we prosecute it, but we still do it.

      I'm confused as to what you might loose? What is the offense against you?

    5. Re:An interesting difference by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      gotmovies.net is even better

    6. Re:An interesting difference by shark72 · · Score: 1

      Nope -- DMCA safe harbor. The same concept that got them out from under the Viacom suit would protect them in instance. You could say that DMCA allows the government to "ignore" sites like Google that play by the rules.

      Safe harbors, just like the real-world locations from which they get their name, work both ways. They'll protect you if you use them -- Google knows this. But if you know it's there and you don't use it, you're asking for trouble.

      If you're not sure what I mean, consider the hypothetical situation of sending Google a DMCA takedown request for links to a hundred torrent files, or to 100 infringing videos on YouTube. Most likely they'll remove the links quickly and professionally. Now, say you send that same list to your favorite pirate torrent site. They'll downright ignore you, or claim that it's too difficult to remove them. Of course they'll do that -- if they honored DMCA requests, they wouldn't have a reason to be in business.

      In short, Google takes advantage of the DMCA safe harbor. Your favorite pirate torrent site does not. This is why the government "simply ignores" Google (and others who play by the rules) and goes after those do not. This is not duplicity. This is prosecuting people who break the law, and leaving the law abiders alone.

      I break the speed limit. You do not. The cop pulls me over and ignores you. This is not duplicity, either.

      I know that the "it's just like Google" meme is a popular one. I'd hoped that with the recent Google/Viacom decision, it would finally die. It looks like it may take a while longer.

      --
      Sitting in my day care, the art is decopainted.
  14. Huh? by X.25 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    So, it's easier to get US government to shut down some domains pirating movies, than to shutdown domains used by phishers, scammers and all the other types that are actually hurting 'ordinary' people (no matter how dumb those people are)?

    I see.

    1. Re:Huh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Pirating directly hurts *publishers*. They are *specific* entities with financial interests so they go after *pirates*, *ninja's* etc. Phishers and scammers however, go after YOU. The large corporations are not affected by idiots that send their lifesavings to a clever fucker(s) in Nigeria—and neither is your government. Besides, the government doesn't work for you (contrary to what you may think).

      Americans lost control of their government years ago. It's now operated by corporations that will always work against the wishes of the public. So if you're felling shafted it's because you are.

    2. Re:Huh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is no money in shutting down scammers, but plenty of lobby money for stopping movie downloads.

    3. Re:Huh? by MrNemesis · · Score: 1

      Follow the money. It's amazing how fast you can get things done when your campaign contributions depend on it. Where's the money in shutting down fraud, spam and everything else?

      Whoops. Forgot to take my anti-cynicism pills today. I'm sure our politicians and lawmakers are doing the very best they can, and after all piracy costs the economy eleventy trillion bajongas a year.

      --
      Moderation Total: -1 Troll, +3 Goat
    4. Re:Huh? by rajafarian · · Score: 1

      Yeah, X.25, we are talking about a government that would cheer on a corporation attempting to get $1,000,000,000.00 from a person making $17,000 a year.

      Something is seriously F'ed up, man!

    5. Re:Huh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      eleventy trillion bajongas a year.

      Co-workers around me are wondering why I burst into laughter! Nice

    6. Re:Huh? by kjshark · · Score: 1

      Did you mean Fed up as in had enough or Federally screwed, or both ?

      --
      The difference between truth and fiction is that fiction has to be plausible.
  15. Advertisers by Lorien_the_first_one · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I wonder if they are pursuing any of the advertisers that were advertising on those sites. If not, that's sort of like busting the illegal immigrants without going after the business that hired them.

    --
    The diversity and expression of human opinion is essential to human survival.
  16. Wow, Feds loose by anupokritos · · Score: 5, Interesting

    One, Movies-links.tv doesn't stream video, nor does it embed any movies in their site. What they do is provide links to where you can stream videos around the web and give the users the ability to report if the stream is working or not so that finding streaming video is easier. They confiscate the domain for that? That's like arresting me for telling you to go to the crack house down the street if you want to buy crack. Maybe it's not cool to give you that information but I don't think it's illegal. Really? It's illegal to let people know where they can find video streams? Anyhow immediately after the Feds seized the domain a replacement one was created: http://www.watch-movies-tv.info/ and you know how I know this? Because when I googled Movies-links.tv it was the second link that popped up. So wait a second? Why is it okay for google to tell me where I can find Movies-links.tv but not okay for Movies-links.tv to tell me where I can find video streams? Whatever. Who knows how long it took for this "operation" to get approval, pass the paperwork around, select a operational task force, come up with an action committee, decided on a communication strategy and plan the concerted effort.... I'm pretty sure it only took the people at Movies-links.tv about 5 minutes to register a new domain though. Nice work Fed's.

    1. Re:Wow, Feds loose by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      What you are describing is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accessory_(legal_term)

      And yes in many states it is illegal to do so. The reason being to go after mobster like tactics. Things like "I was not there when Benny committed the murder." Yet he instructed Benny to do so and not only to do so how to do so. And he could say it like "now Benny there is a box with a picture in it (I do not like this person) and there is some money in it and a gun, if the person pictured were to disappear I probably would not be too upset if this money was gone". While at bit of a extreme example and probably a bad comparison. It shows why accessory is usually considered part of the crime. You are knowingly helping to facilitate a crime.

      In this case it is *UNDER LAW* a major felony to do copyright violation. So yes you could could be tied as an accessory to every single person that downloaded something running a site like that.

      Now there is other law that comes into play here of safe harbor for ISPs. Google will take down the link *IF* asked to do so. Did the movie linking site have a take down system in place? In this case Google is not knowingly facilitating a crime they just index *EVERYTHING*. Everything includes things that are criminal and not. This would be like trying to prosecute the guy who makes phone books for providing the address where Benny went to because he also used a phone book. These sorts of sites are like 'nudge nudge wink wink we are like google we just index things'. No they are sites that facilitate in indexing pretty much exclusively copyright violations.

      I am honest about it. If I go to these sites it is because they have free stuff. I do not try to rationalize it like you do.

    2. Re:Wow, Feds loose by Jaysyn · · Score: 2, Insightful

      That's like arresting me for telling you to go to the crack house down the street if you want to buy crack. Maybe it's not cool to give you that information but I don't think it's illegal. Really? It's illegal to let people know where they can find video streams?

      Which would be "Conspiracy to sell a controlled substance" & could end up giving you 5+ years in a state prison. Welcome to the police state, have a nice stay.

      --
      There is a war going on for your mind.
    3. Re:Wow, Feds loose by McDozer · · Score: 1

      Which is sad because here in Georgia in Dodge county a sheriff was prosecuted for buying votes with 'money, alcohol, and drugs' and only got 18 months but regular people can get 5+ years for 'Conspiracy to sell a controlled substance'. The sheriff would buy absentee ballots off people and fill them out himself and send them in.

    4. Re:Wow, Feds loose by Snowtred · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Wait, this is very confusing.

      So is it illegal for you to tell me that Google tells me that Movie-links.tv tells me where the links to tv and movie streams are?

      Prob should close this thread before the fed's charge in.

    5. Re:Wow, Feds loose by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And tvshack has setup shop at tvshack.cc already as well...

      Feds and movie studios fail to comprehend the internet - again.

    6. Re:Wow, Feds loose by anupokritos · · Score: 1

      I don't think so. Me telling someone where the crack house is isn't conspiracy to sell a controlled substance. Conspiracy means two or more people conspire/agree to commit a criminal act AND they take some kind of overt act in furtherance thereof. You might be able to charge a person for conspiracy because they said, "Crack house? You mean the one around the corner with the bathtub in the backyard?", but for them to be found guilty you have to show that the person that told where the crack house was had previously agreed with the crack dealer to help him/her sell crack.

    7. Re:Wow, Feds loose by anupokritos · · Score: 3, Informative

      Wow, and you think these foreign companies should care about what's legal in your state? Why should they? The internet isn't American. These companies have every right to operate legally based on the laws of the country they live in.

      Why didn't they just confiscate the servers that have the data? Why didn't they arrest the people commiting these crimes? They had to have known how easy it is to put up another domain. They didn't because they can't. They know they don't have a legal basis to prosecute them based on the laws of the country they reside in. So they strongarm the Registrars who don't have the same protections under the law.

      But it's pointless. It takes less time to get a new domain than it does to talk about how you cleverly confiscated the old on. But what really bothers me is that they waste tax payer's money on trying to prevent something that is entirely unpreventable.

      If every video sharing site on the planet was shut down today, next week there would be ten more to replace them and the week after that a hundred more. And there is nothing anyone can do. It's a waste of money, and money that can be better spent helping people that really need it.

       

    8. Re:Wow, Feds loose by Jaysyn · · Score: 1

      And vehicles can't sell drugs either, but they are seized everyday for that very thing. You are the one that is incorrect. You are enabling the crime of purchasing crack by telling someone where to get it from. That will get you conspiracy charge if the cops can prove you did it or have enough witnesses that say you did it. Thanks to our War on Some Drugs, conspiracy no longer means that you actually have to conspire with someone.

      Sorry if that messes up your world-view, but you are wrong.

      --
      There is a war going on for your mind.
    9. Re:Wow, Feds loose by anupokritos · · Score: 1

      What does vehicle seizure have to do with anything? It doesn't. I already said you could be charged, but you can't lawfully be convicted unless they can prove you conspired to sell the drugs. You may be convicted of being an accessory but not of conspiring.

      If you've been unlawfully convicted that doesn't change the law or what should have happened.

    10. Re:Wow, Feds loose by Joe+Snipe · · Score: 1

      They announced the piracy crack down last month, so I'm gonna say it took them 4 weeks to set this up.

      --
      Sometimes, life itself is sarcasm...
    11. Re:Wow, Feds loose by mounthood · · Score: 1

      Wait, this is very confusing.

      So is it illegal for you to tell me that Google tells me that Movie-links.tv tells me where the links to tv and movie streams are?

      Prob should close this thread before the fed's charge in.

      Oh snap! I just read your comment and now there's a copy in my brain. I just thought of it again and it's still there! Maybe if I just keep reading slashdot...

      --
      tomorrow who's gonna fuss
    12. Re:Wow, Feds loose by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      "Loose" is a verb meaning "to set free". Is that what you really meant? If so, what, exactly, have they loosed? Or did you mean that the feds were not tight?

    13. Re:Wow, Feds loose by anupokritos · · Score: 1

      They're on the loose with our cash (or loose with our cash) trying to stop the unstoppable.

    14. Re:Wow, Feds loose by Joe+Tie. · · Score: 1

      Is a law that's not enforced even really a law anymore?

      --
      Everything will be taken away from you.
    15. Re:Wow, Feds loose by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "That's like arresting me for telling you to go to the crack house down the street if you want to buy crack. Maybe it's not cool to give you that information but I don't think it's illegal. Really?"

      No really it is illegal, turn on COPS and you will see a couple episodes where they setup drug busts.

      The crack houses work in teams, one dude will collect the money from the driver and give a hand signal, the driver will drive down to the guy he gave the hand signal to and give him the amount of drugs that were shown in the hand signal.

      Stop being such materialistic bitches and move on in life, Hollywood is not holding a gun to your head forcing you to download these.
      It's like the red light cameras now, people know they are there and don't run them or stop long before once they realized how big the fine is.
      Common sense doesn't work these days and everyone thinks it should be served up on a silver platter to them, that or some socialist countries think it is their right to leech off of other countries creativity. No wonder the Swedish have no creativity whatsoever.

      A lot of hypocrisy coming out from the pirate community.
      Would it be ok if MS took the Linux code, closed source it inserted their ads into the OS and started distributing it on The Pirate Bay?

  17. Warrants against domains ? by Kylock · · Score: 2, Insightful
    Quoted from http://www.ice.gov/pi/nr/1006/100630losangeles.htm

    In the first action carried out as part of the initiative, authorities executed seizure warrants against nine domain names of Web sites that were offering first-run movies

    A seizure warrant against a domain includes what exactly ? The host, the registrar, the technical contact's residence ?

    I understand warrants for physical locations, but this seems a bit wrong. Maybe its just a poor choice of wording by the original author....

  18. Search and seizures? do process? by xmorg · · Score: 1

    Search and seizure? due process? The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and Warrants shall not be issued, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. Whatever happened to innocent until proven guilty? Robert byrd dies and all of a sudden everyone forgets there is a constitution!

    1. Re:Search and seizures? do process? by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      I didn't RTFA, but I assume (perhaps incorrectly) that they at least got a warrant from a judge. If they did that, then it wasn't an unconstitutional act.

  19. Why ICE? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ICE is wasting our resources stopping streaming videos when their mission is to stop the gushing borders. Since when is it their duty to do the bidding of Hollywood? I smell payoff...

    1. Re:Why ICE? by delinear · · Score: 1

      Maybe its quid-pro-quo payment for James Cameron consulting them on border control issues?

  20. This must mean a few things... by thatskinnyguy · · Score: 2, Insightful

    If ICE, the FBI and a bunch of other alphabet soup agencies are doing this, whether it is within their jurisdiction OR NOT, it has to mean a few things in order to make sense:

    1. Nobody is killing anyone in the US. Murder is a thing of the past.
    2. Illegal immigration is a thing of the past.
    3. Pedophiles are all behind bars where they belong.
    4. Terrorists are all where they belong: the afterlife.
    5. What drugs on the streets?

    Agree with it or not, the whole idea of a government takeover of a website at the flip of a switch just gives me the heebie jeebies.

    --
    The game.
    1. Re:This must mean a few things... by Pandrake · · Score: 1

      "Agree with it or not, the whole idea of a government takeover of a website at the flip of a switch just gives me the heebie jeebies."

      Haaaaaaay... wasn't there just a story about that now being legal for the government to do? A flip swi... no, a kill switch or something?

      Man, that was quick (both the implementation and the abuse thereof).

    2. Re:This must mean a few things... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because the police and other investigative authorities only pursue crimes in order of magnitude.

      They do the murders first, then the robberies, then the burglaries, then the other crimes.

      Why they hardly have time to do Traffic patrol ever..

      Wait, no, that's just your bad logic there, with the assumption that you know, the police don't just have different assignments based on their own skills and training.

    3. Re:This must mean a few things... by gumbi+west · · Score: 1

      If the police used your logic, I could beat the crap out of people (but not kill them) with carte blanche until all the more serious criminals were behind bars. Then I could downgrade to something like property damage until all those criminals were behind bars...

      Law enforcement... enforces laws. They really shouldn't be responsible for picking which ones to enforce.

    4. Re:This must mean a few things... by 2obvious4u · · Score: 1

      Another one of you with a to long list of what the government should be putting as a priority.

      Murder - check they should protect us from this.

      Illegal immigration - there is no such thing, if you can afford to live somewhere you should be allowed to, where you were born shouldn't matter. Unless you're a Native American, what right do you have to call anyone else illegal?

      Pedophiles - might want to work on this definition some more, but once they get it nailed down that would be good. Arresting people for Henti and for putting Miley Cirus picture on a sports illustrated magazine body isn't it.

      Terrorists - That goes back to #1 Murder. We've gone a little overboard, we are no safer now than we were before 9/11 if anything we are less safe because we've pissed off more people. And at what cost? You used to be able to go to the bahamas with just your birth certificate, those days are long gone. Now everything in the US is "papers please" while they do a full body scan and a cavity search. Way to cave people...

      What is wrong with drugs? What since you can afford prozac, oxicotin, zolof, etc you're better than the people who can't? So they want to smoke a joint they don't deserve a life? Well a life outside prison? How does that effect you in any way? You'll take away their freedom for 5 years to life because you think you're helping them? Well you're not and you're butting an undo burden on the rest of us.

      So for you the last straw was them shutting down a website. Heebie jeebies just doesn't begin to describe where we are now.

    5. Re:This must mean a few things... by thatskinnyguy · · Score: 1

      I just so happen to be Native American.

      --
      The game.
  21. Immigration needs to do round ups and not movies by Joe+The+Dragon · · Score: 0, Troll

    Immigration needs to do round ups and not movies. People from mexico are taking our jobs for under min wage. So us citizens don't have to money to buy / rent movies.

  22. Right, because no 'ordinary' people by wiredog · · Score: 0

    are in the industry. No one works in the cafeterias, cleans the offices, works on the sets, or does any other kind of ordinary labor.

  23. Re:Immigration needs to do round ups and not movie by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Reason to be educated I guess

  24. Re:Immigration needs to do round ups and not movie by hercubus · · Score: 4, Interesting
    The government, hence immigration, does what corporate interests want, which is not roundups.

    If you're a Hollywood exec, illegals mow the lawn, clean the house, clean the pool, service the wife - all good things. Those illegals are not going home, brother, not going home.

    Meat processing plants use immigration as part of the HR process. They feed names of activists, malcontents, injured workers to the immigration office and then the roundups begin. Immigration gets to pretend publicly that they're doing something and the meat plants maintain a well-behaved slave-labor force.

    And because slave labor helps keep prices low, you can afford meat sometimes on your Wal-Mart salary.

    Everybody wins!

    --
    -- How I want a drink, alcoholic of course, after the heavy lectures involving quantum mechanics.
  25. Sounds familiar... by GatorMan · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Similar to the War on Drugs, the small fish and the users get pinched while the root of the issue goes ignored.

  26. Re:Immigration needs to do round ups and not movie by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yeah. I remember a part of the film Food Inc, apparently a sugar factory or something had hired illegal workers, and the INS wanted to deport them. I have no problem with that.

    The problem was that the INS didn't deport all of the workers, they did them in small groups, which allowed the factory to train replacement workers without serious impact to the production.

    THAT in particular pissed me off.

  27. Hmm... by mea37 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    When I hear a subset of the /. crowd claim that individuals should be allowed to "share" music files for free without fear of copyright lawsuits, I respectfully disagree (in general), but at least I get where they're coming from.

    But I see a lot of people here wanting to defend sites that provide a means for anyone to watch movies on demand, taking a profit and not passing any compensation on to the rights-holders... which I guess makes sense if you think there shouldn't be copyright at all, but in that case my disagreement with your position is perhaps a bit less respectful.

    Particularly intersting since any site that isn't engaged in copyright infringement gets screamed at if they dare make you look at an ad.

    Seems to me taking the position against the rights-holders has become a knee-jerk reaction.

    1. Re:Hmm... by Dashiva+Dan · · Score: 1

      If only the movie studios would throw full support behind hulu or similar and provide us free streams of old TV shows and movies supported by ads (the new ones, sure, keep those back or add more advertising to them).
      We have TV/basic cable with it's shows supported by ads. This includes on-demand, with a very small subset of only the very recent shows and movies that is ad-supported (and subscription channels that are not ad-supported).
      If they could just get with the times, and take an approach similar to ninjavideo (Which had a ton of TV series, and the entire series, from years back) in an easily navigable format, supported by ads (not so much like ninjavideo here, adblock killed it's ads dead - something more like hulu) And i think they'd kill piracy dead, and still make their profits.
      The problem is that they're too greedy. They want to make more money than the market supports, thus the piracy.
      The thing is, if they did embrace ad-supported delivery of all the tv shows and movies like ninjavideo did, they would probably end up coming close to their same profits, if not beating them.

      --
      "lt;dr" is the correct response to most of my posts.
    2. Re:Hmm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The problem is that Ninja Video only has to worry about lining its own pockets, it has far lower actual costs. The TV and Movie studios have to worry about compensating the people involved who often have contracts that dictate how much money they get. Guess what? It may even be MORE than the studios can get from advertising.

      Do you expect the advertisers to just blow money away without consideration of the returns? Do you expect the studios to just piss money away for no reason? To make you happy?

      Sorry, but that's greed on *your* part. Yes, it is. Start admitting it and we might get somewhere with a discussion.

    3. Re:Hmm... by mea37 · · Score: 1

      Yeah, it would be nice if they did that. It might even be profitable.

      But here's the thing: You do realize, don't you, that their rights are not contingent on your approval of their product offerings? Either copyright is valid (in which case it is still valid even though they don't offer the product in the form you want) or it isn't (in which case it would remain invalid even if they offered the option you want).

    4. Re:Hmm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, we can realize that, but the industry must also realize that reality doesn't support their position. There is really no other way for them to stop/slow piracy and make their money without offering their content in this way. The government doesn't fight for the people, but the people have spoken, and they want and will have these options whether the industry wants it or not.

    5. Re:Hmm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But we are talking about the studios making money the same way they do now... airing shows with advertising. It isn't that much of a change from their normal business model; they just don't have to deal with the whole distribution chain and limited broadcast times per show. If they can't find a way to make that work, they might as well get out of the business.

    6. Re:Hmm... by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      If these sites were actually hosting the infringing content, I'd agree with you, but they're not. They're only hosting links. Rather than busting these sites, why not bust the sites that are actually serving the content?

    7. Re:Hmm... by Dashiva+Dan · · Score: 1

      Well, obviously this was inspired by greed on my part.
      I'm greedy for a product, greedy enough that I'm willing to watch a certain amount of advertisments to get it. Also greedy enough to pay for it on DVD a lot of the time (I have ~5,000 DVDs, if you include TV series DVDs).
      There's some shows I'm not greedy enough to buy, but I am greedy enough to watch advertisments through, and these I will either watch on public TV (if available), if not, I'll watch on HULU (if available) and if not, I'd watch on ninjavideo (if available) or download.
      Thus, the best method for the studoes is to put them all into on-demand, but unfortunatly there's only very recent shows there. I'm sure there is some reason they have for this, I just don't know what it could be. Can't be space consideration can it? Not with todays storage costs.
      Anyhows, I'm talking about them marketing their shows just as they always have, but marketing all of them, not just the most recent.
      On the flip side, due to this, I'll be switching from blockbuster online to netflix, as it seems to have a few of the shows available for streaming, and So blockbuster losing another customer, netflix gaining one, and I'm going to spend $10 a month to stream what I expect will be over 200 hours a month of tv and movies ad-free (yeah, I'm a couch potato, and while I'm at work, my wife and daughter are couch potatoes, bigtime).
      Pretty sure that after netflix takes it's cut they're going to be making less than they would if they gave it to me for free and stuck it full of commercials. (Especially as they would be able to offer all their shows, giving a larger range of choice, and probably thus more of it watched)
      But that's just me. I suspect the majority of the 'expected custom' they were losing to the shut down sites will just go to other sites/megavideo/torrents/find something else to do (videogames, etc).
      They could have been making money this whole time just by following the same kinds of business plans the pirates (pirate suppliers/direction givers/robin hoods/whoevers) have been using.

      --
      "lt;dr" is the correct response to most of my posts.
    8. Re:Hmm... by luther349 · · Score: 0

      the point is hear movie studios do not what such sites at all. weather they pay them or not. look at the little support they give sites that try to go legit. what if surf the channel said ok we will give you a cut of are ads so we can link all movies.for free the movie studios would tell them to burn in hell. they what control of all there media and do not what there monopoly broken. what if itunes went ad supported and said ok all movies and music is free couse the ads pay for it. the riaa and movie studios would have a fit. its all abought keeping a broken business model alive and they will fail at it but they gonna go down kicking and screaming and eventually accept it.

  28. WTF do employers have to do with immigration? by Sloppy · · Score: 1

    I wonder if they are pursuing any of the advertisers that were advertising on those sites. If not, that's sort of like busting the illegal immigrants without going after the business that hired them.

    Or it's like busting illegal immigrants without going after the grocery stores that they shop at, or busting the manufacturers of the processors in the illegal immigrants' mobile phones. Or it's like busting pedophiles or red-light-runners without going after their employers (and their grocery stores).

    Hey, if you're going to hold third parties responsible for the activities of other people who were not acting at their direction, you might as well go all-out. You only want to bust illegal immigrants' employers?! You are thinking way smalltime and not taking your idea to its logical conclusion. We can use government force against a lot more innocent people than that.

    Lorien, if you ever run for evil overlord, I'm not voting for you. You've got the right evil impulses, but you lack vision.

    --
    As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
    1. Re:WTF do employers have to do with immigration? by Thuktun · · Score: 1

      By and large, Illegal immigrants are coming here because there's work for them ("they're stealing our jobs!") and there are more opportunities here than where they came from. How does this not apply to the employers who illegally employ them?

  29. Immigration? by tdisalvo · · Score: 1

    So we need to put the national guard at the borders because our immigration officers are working for Hollywood. AMERICA FUCK YEAH!

  30. Re:Immigration needs to do round ups and not movie by gumbi+west · · Score: 1

    ICE raids places all the time, try using google for like five seconds.

  31. No News Here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We're supposed to be shocked to discover that the MPAA and the "U. S. Government" are thieves?

  32. Domain names by ZERO1ZERO · · Score: 1
    The so-called 'Operation in Our Sites' sting targeted TVShack.net, Movies-links.tv, Filespump.com, Now-movies.com, PlanetMoviez.com, PirateCity.org, zml.com, NinjaVideo.net, and NinjaThis.net

    And NinjaThat.net, NinjaThem.net and NinjasAreAwesome.net.

  33. Crap... by mcgrew · · Score: 1

    I hit submit when I wanted to hit preview.

    Busting sites that only link to content is a violation of their free speech rights. I should (and think I do) have the right to say <a href="http://www.thepiratebay.org">the pirate bay</a>.

  34. Corporations owns you by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What makes you think that governments act for the interest of the population? Democratic nation states are gone, welcome to the allmighty MARKET STATE !

    1. Re:Corporations owns you by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And the reason that they do nothing about drugs, crime or illegal immigrants is because they make money from drugs, jails are profitable and illegal immigrants = cheap labor pressing down salaries.

      All of that makes sense from a MARKET STATE perspective, is doesnt from democratic perspective but everyone believes in myths the same stuff is going on all over the world

  35. And this is why you don't use a US registrar by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Probably all GoDaddy registered domains too. Look folks, if you are gonna do something that's going to piss off the US or it's corporate interests, for the love of the spaghetti monster, register the domain outside the US where it can't be seized/redirected. Servers can be in the US if you pay from abroad, and jump ship to another host, but keep the servers as clean as possible and avoid using backups to restore the site to another server (if the federales have your backup, they know your configuration's weaknesses). If nothing else, keep you, your registrar, your dns service, and your servers (preferable each type of service/action they do) in different countries. Nothing pisses off the corporate led police thugs more than national jurisdiction boundaries. Oh, make sure your credit card is also registered to a bank account that is in none of the previous countries. 5 Flags folks. Live by it.

  36. ICE? Seriously? by Doug52392 · · Score: 1

    If you ask me, ICE should be securing America's borders, not being the Internet Police.

  37. Re:Immigration needs to do round ups and not movie by Dunbal · · Score: 1

    People from mexico are taking our jobs for under min wage

          Lies. You wouldn't scrub my toilet even for minimum wage + health insurance. You want to work in a nice air conditioned office, or drive a nice air conditioned piece of heavy machinery, or work in a union factory or retail job, earn $30k+ a year and pay your mortgage. I can't see you picking crops at $10k a year you lying fuck.

    --
    Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
  38. Write the President by StillNeedMoreCoffee · · Score: 1

    It seems like this is a very bad precedent to set, and probably violates some international agreements. It would give cover to other countries like China or Iran for blocking sites and domains. We could complain about it before but now were screwed. And we did it for corporate profit reasons. I guess that is becoming this counties Ideology. I for one protest this move and see the dangers internationally, like the long term detention of combatants and the torture of prisoners. So I suggest if you have a strong opinion on this issue that you email the White House and let them know what you think.

  39. Go after Megavideo instead by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In my opinion they should have gone after Mediavideo and not the linking sites. As some users mentioned, sites like tvshack embed videos from Megavideo for most of their "content".
    Building a crawler that finds all the embedded videos on such a linking site is quite trivial. I mean, even checking the referer of the browser loading the player would point you to those sites! That way discovering illegal uploads would become quite easy. However Megavideo didn't bother to take down videos embeded on those sites, probably because they make up a great amount of their views and ad revenue.
    And even though this is wild speculation, it seems that Megavideo is secretly making a profit from those illegal uploads by not taking all possible measures to delete them.