Slashdot Mirror
IsoHunt Settles With MPAA, Will Shut Down And Pay Up to $110 Million
hypnosec writes "The MPAA and Gary Fung, owner of IsoHunt.com, have settled their case out of court, with the torrent indexing site closing as part of the deal. The judge presiding over the MPAA vs. IsoHunt.com case, Jacqueline Chooljian, canceled the hearing which was planned after she was informed that both the parties have settled outside court. 'The website isoHunt.com today agreed to halt all operations worldwide in connection with a settlement of the major movie studios' landmark copyright lawsuit against the site and its operator Gary Fung' reads the press release."
Only a few days after the MPAA was accosted by the judge for seeking damages several times the total worth of isoHunt: "But if you strip him of all his assets — and you’re suggesting that a much lesser number of copyright infringements would accomplish that, where is the deterrence by telling the world that you took someone’s resources away because of illegal conduct entirely or 50 times over?" Still, the settlement seems unfair: The MPAA has asked the court for $110 million, when the MPAA itself admitted that isoHunt only has $5 or $6 million. So much for the optimism for isoHunt's successor.
The more will slip through your fingers.
The best torrent search engine ever will never bow to this kind of bullying crap. Long live Google!
That certainly was a very confusing farewell message...
Wow, so he tricked them into settling for $110 million when he only has about $5 mil or so in the company. TROLLED! Correct me if I'm wrong but settlements outside of court cannot be converted to wage garnishments, right? He definitely tricked them pretty well.
And that is why you go for fully decentralized services, kids.
Ezekiel 23:20
I think the release was remiss in not naming the other sites for *cough* comparison's sake..
What is irritating is that people fold. How can others avoid this problem? A properly configured Tor hidden service run by someone who is more technically competent? Then utilize advertising and accept only bitcoins combined with donations of bitcoins? I'm not convinced silk road and freedom hosted folded because of some technical fault in Tor. What I do believe is we need a solution that is per-configured to be more secure by default with instructions on how to utilize it safely for publishing. Changes to the configuration should not result in the owner/operator of said hidden service to become compromised either.
MPAA demanding money for imaginary damage done to imaginery property? Pay them with monopoly money.
110 million might never be paid out, but I'm sure the MPAA will use it as a PR move. They will spin it as "If you run a site, you will owe 100's of millions". I'm not sure I support either side in this. As cliche as it sounds two wrongs don't make a right. We have copyright laws and whether they are ridiculous or not if you break them there's a chance you will have to pay. I'd much rather see true discussion and debate on the topic than the constant one side or the other won the battle argument. If this continues this way it will be like the war on drugs. Each side wins battles and neither wins the war.
Sent from my TARDIS
You will be missed.
If I couldn't find what I wanted on TPB, then ISOhunt was my next stop.
If I were God, wouldn't I protect my churches from acts of me?
Still, the settlement seems unfair: The MPAA has asked the court for $110 million, when the MPAA itself admitted that isoHunt only has $5 or $6 million.
The legal system does not hand out punishment on the basis of whether or not the defendant can pay for it; It hands it out on the basis of how much harm was done. If you run someone over and they're a cripple for the rest of their life, the Judge doesn't say "Well, you only got $20 and a cracker... so give me the $20 and we're even." You are fined and jailed on the basis of how much pain and suffering that person endured.
Unfortunately, the law says that every time you share an MP3, god kills $150,000 worth of kittens. Statutory damages don't allow for any discretion on the part of the judge. Thank Congress for that.
And the argument can also be made that proportional damages levied against very wealthy individuals or corporations is good practice, though it doesn't often happen. Fining people for dumping millions of gallons of toxic waste into the ocean the maximum $50,000 per infraction means they just video tape the whole thing, send in the tape and a check for $50,000 because it's cheaper than going to court, and much, much cheaper than disposing of the waste properly. But alas, that is not how the law is written.
The system is totally broken, but let's endeavor to be specific in our criticism of it... rather than simply saying "Oh that's unfair!" ... Fairness is relative. Justice shouldn't be.
#fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
You need to stop watching so much Fox News.
If someone runs you down, whatever lowlife ambulance chaser you manage to find will settle for the policy limits of the driver. Your fantasies about an Office Space style payday don't have any relation to reality.
So stay out of traffic.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
That might kind of work. Another method that's proven to work is called "Netflix", aka "Amazon Prime". You want them to spend a few million dollars making something cool for you to watch, you pony up ninety-nine cents. You get what you want, the costs are covered and everyone is happy.
Except for the little detail that the most popular stuff that gets torrented is point blank not available from those sources.
upon the advice of my lawyer, i have no sig at this time
For every site they take down, hundreds more will pop up.
This is just a scare tactic. $110 Million? The company only had $5 Million in assets. This is all show. They will never actually get $110 Million. Ever.
IANAL, and perhaps I'm missing something obvious here.
What power does a US court have over a Canadian national running a website operating in Canada?
Guess what happens after your contingency shyster wins a case against someone you can't collect from?
He sues you for his 40% because he wrote the contract that way. Collecting is your problem.
Kill all the lawyers.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
Do you think people who use an antenna are also free loading scumbags?
and then there is this:
http://theoatmeal.com/comics/game_of_thrones
99 cents per episode for a tv series is outrages.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
ISOhunt had 5-6 million dollars - presumably from hosting ads along with links?
That makes the "we weren't hosting any infringing content ourselves" defense, which I've always been sympathetic toward, somewhat inconsequential.
The fact that the site (owners) profited to the tune of multiple millions of dollars by facilitating copyright infringement kind of rubs me the wrong way. Had they done it for not much more than hosting fees I'd be more aligned with them receiving a "shut down, now" penalty.
And before I'm called a corporate shill, I fight the mess that copyright laws have become by boycotting the big content producers. They haven't made one single cent from me in many years, nor have I pirated any of their content. I've learned that I just don't need what they're selling.
The Net worth of the company is irrelevant in determining the damages. If a guy in a in a factory fresh Porsche Cayenne SUV runs you down and leaves you paralyzed, are you any less paralyzed if it had been a barely runing 30 year old Ford Econoline? No. The worth of IsoHunt might be relvant to determining punitive damages, but they didn't seem to be at that stage yet.
Except in order to claim damages for being run over by a car and left paralyzed you actually need to be paralyzed after getting run over by a car.
Unfortunately, the law says that every time you share an MP3, god kills $150,000 worth of kittens. Statutory damages don't allow for any discretion on the part of the judge. Thank Congress for that.
Not true. 17 USC 504(c):
Statutory Damages.— ... [T]he copyright owner may elect, at any time before final judgment is rendered, to recover, instead of actual damages and profits, an award of statutory damages for all infringements involved in the action, with respect to any one work, for which any one infringer is liable individually, or for which any two or more infringers are liable jointly and severally, in a sum of not less than $750 or more than $30,000 as the court considers just...
(1)
(2) In a case where the copyright owner sustains the burden of proving, and the court finds, that infringement was committed willfully, the court in its discretion may increase the award of statutory damages to a sum of not more than $150,000. In a case where the infringer sustains the burden of proving, and the court finds, that such infringer was not aware and had no reason to believe that his or her acts constituted an infringement of copyright, the court in its discretion may reduce the award of statutory damages to a sum of not less than $200....
I'd happily pay 99 cents for an unencumbered 720p or 1080p mkv file for a great many shows. Unfortunately (for them) I can't.
They mean they have agreed to declare bankruptcy.
Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
> Do you think people who use an antenna are also free loading scumbags?
No, in fact I suggested using a DVR to record shows and movies to watch them whenever you please.
I replied to someone suggesting that a good plan would be for someone to put up an ad supported site serving movies they'd ripped off.
On TV, the ads actually pay for the movie to be made. Doesn't that make a little more sense?
99 cents per episode for a tv series is outrages.
Especially if you consider that [monthly cable bill / ({# of channels * 24} / amount of hours show X is on per month)] is a helluva lot less than $0.99.
Assuming a $60/mo cable bill with 80 channels, the value to the subscriber for an hour-long show that runs once a week would be about 12.5 cents... presuming I didn't bork the math, which is quite probable.
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
> the most popular stuff that gets torrented is point blank not available from those sources
Let's check and see:
http://movies.netflix.com/WiMovie/Grosse_Pointe_Blank/1153034?locale=en-US
Oh, you said "most popular". Is the most popular movie of 2012 available on Netflix?:
http://movies.netflix.com/WiMovie/The_Avengers/70217913?locale=en-US
How about so far this year? The most popular movie of the 2013 summer movie season is "Iron Man 3":
http://movies.netflix.com/WiMovie/Iron_Man_3/70243360?locale=en-US
Assuming I valued all content the same, sure.
There's plenty of shows I'd pay $0.99/episode to watch.
The alternative is simply not to watch it. I don't feel so entitled to everything that I can so easily scoff at the content producers trying to get what they think is fair value for their work.
As such, I don't see a lot of "good" shows on premium cable. They've set their prices and distribution model, and it doesn't appeal to me. ...but that doesn't mean it's not worth $0.99 - it just means that I choose to spend my money elsewhere. [There are more reasonably priced things than I care to buy...]
Instead, download MythTV, set it to automatically record your favorite actors and shows, and watch pretty much whatever you want, whenever you want, at no cost.
As long as "whatever you want" doesn't include cable shows, overseas shows, or (depending where you live) shows on lesser networks such as the CW that don't have an affiliate in every small city, then sure, PC-based DVR is awesome and free.
Anyway, if OTA programming you can receive in your location with an antenna at your location is all you want to watch, I don't see how you're any more or less of a "free-loading scumbag" to watch it sans ads with a DVR rig (PC-based or not) or to watch it sans ads by downloading a pirated copy. One is legal, the other is illegal, but they have exactly the same effect on the content producer's bottom line.
I think you totally missed the point. The damages done have no relation to the worth of the person that did them.
Behold, this dreamer cometh. Come now, and let us slay him... and we shall see what will become of his dreams.
Do you think people who use an antenna are also free loading scumbags?
and then there is this:
http://theoatmeal.com/comics/game_of_thrones
99 cents per episode for a tv series is outrages.
All I got out of that is that Denise Milani wants to date my testicles.
I'm a good cook. I'm a fantastic eater. - Steven Brust
> As long as "whatever you want" doesn't include cable shows, overseas shows [most of which are available on cable], or (depending where you live) shows on
> lesser networks such as the CW [also available on cable], then sure, PC-based DVR is awesome and free.
Yeah, if you want cable TV, get cable TV. There are about 100 movies on cable each month, so by plugging that cable TV into a DVR you can pretty much watch whatever you want whenever you want. That's what I do.
To spend less, we're considering getting rid of cable and instead spending 90% less on Amazon Prime, or maybe Netflix, along with free services that index Hulu, the network's web sites, etc. Going that route, we can watch most any show we want, any time we want, but we'd be a season behind for many of them. I'm cool with that. My wife may want to see the shows sooner, and for her it might be worth paying for cable to see them immediately. We'll see what we decide.
How much of that $5-6 million will go to the musicians who, presumably/supposedly, have been losing income through the activities of ISOhunt ? Call me cynical, but I suspect that none of it will. The money will be used to hand out bonuses to MPAA employees & lawyers and the rest to fund future MPAA activities.
Will someone please remind me what the ultimate purpose of the MPAA is supposed to be.
Actually, Netflix and Amazon Prime don't really work that well, because they only have a limited selection. If the program you want to watch is on there, then great; Netflix is only $8/month for unlimited online viewing. But if the program you want isn't on there and requires you to get both a cable subcription and an HBO subscription, well, Torrenting is the only feasible and affordable alternative. And, MythTV doesn't work for shows like that, because of the cable+HBO deal, but also because last I heard, MythTV doesn't work for premium cable channels, so you have to spend even more money for some shitty cableco-provided DVR box that doesn't work right.
If the content companies just put all their stuff on Netflix and Amazon Prime, we wouldn't be having this discussion at all, and not many people would bother with torrenting.
I though torrent indexing was legal.
Ownership of "regular property" is just as pretend as anything else. It's based on laws we created with the protection of our legal/justice system. Without that anyone could take your home that wants to and has the physical power to do it.
LOL!!! guess what, someone registered http://www.bigtimeawesometorrentbucket.com/
This is a UDP joke, I don't care if you get it or not...
Do you think people who use an antenna are also free loading scumbags?
and then there is this:
http://theoatmeal.com/comics/game_of_thrones
99 cents per episode for a tv series is outrages.
All I got out of that is that Denise Milani wants to date my testicles.
Looks like you've got some lucky testicles, pal!
This is a UDP joke, I don't care if you get it or not...
If you had even read TFS, you'd know that *they didn't.*
Unity? Screw that: XFCE. Slashdot Beta? Screw that: SoylentNews. Australis? Screw that: Pale Moon. UX developers DIAF
I'd happily pay $5000 for a BMW, it's not available at that price so I don't buy one. I don't steal one either, though.
Jeff
Slashdot: providing anti-social weirdos a soapbox, since 1997.
I bet part of the insane figure is to punish anyone who they owe money to for daring to give credit to them.
That and the whole thing about making an example out of them.
Pay them in iDollars.
"Cats like plain crisps"
For a civil case? This I have GOT to see.
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
It's a tort. Civil, not criminal.
(Though the **AA is trying to change that and I'm not up-to-data on how much they've succeeded.)
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
If you steal a BMW, you have removed physical stock that the dealer no longer has and its absence could seriously hamper their ability to make money off of it (you can't sell what you don't have).
If you pirate a movie, nothing was subtracted, hence nothing was stolen. You've committed copyright infringement, and I can't say I'm happy about this either as it's not a sustainable method of rewarding people who make high-quality products. But it's important to understand that the outcomes between both are significantly more serious for the first case in which they no longer have the item they want to sell, as opposed to the second.
Is it wrong to have an intellectual discussion about the topic? I hope not.
Great Scott! You've figured out how to duplicate BMW's for free?!
OK, that's a bunch of nonsense. Look, copyright infringement for media has always been a case of mismatched perceptions of value.
The producers are thinking the rights to watch that DVD at-will should be worth about $19.99, to the 'pirate' that same privilege is worth about $.99. We saw this with the music industry around 1999. If those 'scumbag' 'pirates' (calling downloading a movie/song without permission piracy or theft is absurd, and frames the entire debate around those loaded terms) were simply freeloaders, iTunes would not have succeeded the way it has. Netflix would have flopped, and Redbox would not exist. People want to pay for entertainment, the failure is on the content makers to judge their market.
Further, "piracy" usually leads to a superior product, less hassle, more freedom of use. Case in point, i love Office Space. I own the "special collector's edition" watching the DVD requires me sit through about 7 minutes of anti-piracy propaganda, FBI Warnings, previews etc. The DVD rip i can download for free in 20 seconds? none of that useless garbage. I'm all for supporting the makers of entertainment, but they need to bring something to the table in terms of value. They do not get to make an inferior product (compared to "piracy"), charge 20x what their customers are willing to pay, and then complain about 'pirates'. (or worse/worst use the legal system as a cudgel to try to prop up their severe lack of business acumen).
The worst logic though is assuming that if someone downloads something, that's automatically lost revenue. The wife and I were having awful movie night, and "Simon Sez" was the chosen movie (Dennis Rodman is a noted thespian). Does downloading this movie constitute any lost revenue for the studio? I'm not depriving them of selling it to someone else, I definitely wasn't going to buy it -- so they aren't losing any revenue, and bitorrent handled the distribution... show me the victim? (other than myself for sitting through it.)
bravo, sage, or however it is done, around here.
How did lawyers track down the owner of Isohunt? I couldn't track down the owners of sites like that even if I wanted to. Is it that hard these days for someone in a sensitive position to stay anonymous, thus shielding them from the oldy worldy bully lawyers?
1) I could find you a BMW for 5 grand. Do I get a finder's fee?
2) Is someone whom builds a replica car a thief?
I was gifted Netflix streaming for 6 months, and while I enjoyed seeing some of the animated DC movies I had missed and re-watching "The Man from Earth" It was devoid of new releases or current season TV shows.
They have two of them now: Orange is the New Black, and House of Cards, both not only new releases but exclusive to Netflix (and on top of that, they release the whole season at once, instead of the archaic and idiotic practice of making you wait a week for each episode). Obvious, this is also monopolistic in a way, but that's the market they're in and that's what everyone else is doing, they're just doing it better.
Anyway, Netflix (other than those two) isn't really in the business of having current-season TV shows (probably largely because the networks won't allow it, not because Netflix doesn't want to). However, Hulu(/Plus) does have some of those.
First: sorry for the late reply :)
Your math is a wee bit iffy just because you're taking the total number of channels but divide by the amount of hours X show is on - you'd have to limit it to the number of channels that also actually broadcast show X and assume that's your only interest. Let's say that's two channels (optimistic when most premium shows are on exactly 1 channel, not counting re-broadcasts under affiliates, etc.)
$60 / (80 * 24) * 4 = $0.125
becomes
$60 / (2 * 24) * 4 = $5
All of a sudden, streaming at 4 * $0.99 = $3.96 is not all that bad.
Of course, you're not likely to watch just one show. But the earlier math would definitely not work out; The bork is in practicality.
Basically, you cannot record all 80 channels. Let's assume you pick yourself up a DVR that can actually save multiple channels concurrently. I've enjoyed a Genie before, but since there's no direct cost associated with it that I've ever seen (you 'lease' it), let's go with the Moxi.. it can record 3 channels at the same time. It will also set you back $800. ( .. though that's listed on one page, while the FAQ says they no longer actually sell them and you have to get them as part of a triple play offering from a cable provider. Whatever, let's roll with this anyway. )
So, you want to record 80 channels, let's be kind and assume you already have DirecTV with a Genie, so just 75. 75 / 3 = 25 of the Moxis. 25 * $800 = $20,000 up front cost.
Note that this is just the recorders. DirecTV claims about 200 hours of HD content for the Genie (divided by 5 gives 40 hours for each channel), Moxi claims (or claimed) 75 hours of HD content for their HD thing (divided by 3 gives about 25 hours for each channel).
So if you ever wanted to bother with storing more than a day / 2 days' worth, you'd also have to invest in additional harddisks. But since we're compariing to streaming, let's ignore that and just stick to the $20,000 up front cost.
($20,000 + $60) / (80 * 24) * 4 = $41.80. ;)
Yow. Maybe you'll come out ahead after a year, though?
$20,000 + (12m * $60) = $20,720
80c * 24h * 365d = 700,800h
12m * 4h/m = 48h
$20,720 / 700,800h * 48h = $1.42
Of course series tend to run in seasons that only last half a year at best and more likely somewhere around 16 episodes per season, so you'd be closer to paying about $0.47/episode. Congratulations, it's finally cheaper by that math, even if there's two shows you want to watch, but you did just spend more than $20,000 on recording a bunch of stuff you'll never watch, or even want to watch
( I, too, may have borked some math here! )
Personally, I don't see how people think $0.99/TV episode is 'outrageous'. As I said, a season for a year may be 16 episodes, so let's say $16. If you can't scrounge up $16 in a year to watch something that you really enjoy (why else spend the time on it?), then you probably have more worrying financial issues.
That's not to say that I don't think it'd be nice if it were only $0.125/episode - but then consider you just paid the price of a cheap hamburger or coffee, something most people don't even think twice about, on 16 hours of entertainment that perhaps will stick with you for years to come.. whereas the hamburger and coffee have done very little for you and ultimately end up down the sewer.