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."

54 of 181 comments (clear)

  1. 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 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.

  2. 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.

  3. 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. :)

  4. 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.
  5. 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 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.

  6. 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"
  7. 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 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.

    5. 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.

    6. 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!
    7. 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.

    8. 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.

    9. 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.

    10. 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!"
    11. 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.

    12. 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.

    13. 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
    14. 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.
  8. 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 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
  9. 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"
  10. 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.
  11. 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 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.
  12. 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.

  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.

  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.

  15. 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

  16. 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.
  17. 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 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.

    4. 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.

       

  18. 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....

  19. 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.
  20. 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!
  21. 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.
  22. 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.

  23. 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.