Pirate Bay Sports-Content Uploader Faces $32m Lawsuit

As reported by TorrentFreak, a New York man's large-scale pirating of Ultimate Fighting Championship videos via The Pirate Bay and KickassTorrents has landed him on the uncomfortable end of a $32 million lawsuit. From the article: "Known online as Secludedly, the man uploaded at least 124 events. As a result UFC parent Zuffa is hitting him with everything from copyright infringement, to fraud, to breach of contract. ... The lawsuit, which includes two other doe defendants and an unknown company Zuffa refers to as XYZ Corp (“a business entity, the exact nature of which is unknown”), centers around the unlawful recording (“capping”), uploading and distribution of more than 120 UFC events via two of the world’s biggest torrent sites. ... Also receiving a prominent mention from Zuffa is the fact that Secludedly allowed people to donate via a PayPal in order to help with the financing of future ripping and uploading activities."

Comments

Happy to see it.

[ThisIsSaei2561]

Content creators going after the uploaders rather than the torrent format or site? Good. That's doing it right.

Re:Happy to see it.

[brainnolo]

In principle, yes. But $32m? This means ruining this person's life forever, and all because he uploaded some sport shows. Sorry no, murderers have it easier, fraudsters (especially very big ones) have it much much easier, etc. Uploading shows, well it is somehow wrong, but it shouldn't cost you your life.

Re:Happy to see it.

[Anonymous Coward]

Why don't we see the same thing happening when companies are found guilty of some crime? Microsoft being fined 50000000 billion would be similar.

Re:Happy to see it.

[Anonymous Coward]

In principle, yes. But $32m? This means ruining this person's life forever

There's still the PayPal option. ;-)

Re:Happy to see it.

[skovnymfe]

That's just the risk inherent in doing something illegal. Sometimes someone gets caught, and that person needs to be made an example of to scare others away. Blame your government for cultivating a culture of fearmongering and backwards thinking.

But let's be honest. If he actually does get the $32m fine then that just means he'll be paying a small sum every month until he hits the statute of limitation.

It's not like they take all his money forever.

Re:Happy to see it.

[Anonymous Coward]

That's just the risk inherent in doing something illegal. Sometimes someone gets caught, and that person needs to be made an example of to scare others away.

No, no, no. We're supposed to have a justice system. The punishment should always fit the crime, and people shouldn't arbitrarily be given harsher punishments just to deter others from committing the same crimes. That's unjust, and even if it is effective, we should reject it.

Blame your government for cultivating a culture of fearmongering and backwards thinking.

Not only the government, but the "Tough On Crime" morons.

Re:Happy to see it.

[Anonymous Coward]

Our implementation of "justice" is overrated. Psychology repeatedly shows that punishment is not effective. Criminology suggests that recidivism does not become less likely as the punishment increases. A "rehabilitation system" is what's needed, and what's always been needed: if someone harms society, do what's needed and humane to discourage them from harming society again. Anything else is primitive, knuggle-dragging moronism.

Re:Happy to see it.

[kthreadd]

Microsoft has more money to begin with so they can affort a higher fine. Any form of damages has to be weigted to be effective.

Re: Happy to see it.

[kthreadd]

There is nothing open source about sharing a binary copy.

Re:Happy to see it.

[Anonymous Coward]

Murders will get 20 to life in the United States or the death penalty. If they get out early, they will be branded as violent convicts for the rest of their life. The time that they do spend behind bars will lead to a kind of emotional castration that many, if not most, former inmates do not fully recover from. No, murderers certainly do not have it easier. $32M is definitely painful, but the final amount the uploader would pay will be a fraction of that amount. The high dollar value is there to maintain the perspective that the content is worth everything to the "victim" and also to scare people from doing similar uploads. The amount itself is tactical. I do agree with the root of your argument. I still remember that young kid and the whole RIAA/Napster thing.

Re:Happy to see it.

[Anonymous Coward]

This is a lawsuit, and this is the amount of damages the plaintiff is asking for. This isn't a settlement amount or an award. Maybe wait to see what the final judgment in the case is before you whine about miscarriages of justice.

Re:Happy to see it.

[ledow]

Let's say that one pay-per-view cost, say, $32 (for ease of the maths).

Let's say that a thousand people downloaded it (likely MUCH more). That is a direct loss of $32,000 to the content creator (without even needing to fabricate things, because that content was pay-per-view).

Let's say he did a thousand torrents (likely not much less). That's $32,000,000. Direct, provable, accountable loss. Without any form of exaggeration.

The fact is that he won't end up paying $32m. If he is asked to, he'll have to declare himself bankrupt after paying the court what he can prove he can reasonably afford. He's destroyed his credit-line, and cost himself a lot of money and luxuries.

But he's not going to lose his freedom, or be mentally scarred for life, or be likely to go out and murder because he has been punished so harshly that his life isn't worth living etc. or be stopped from getting most jobs, or anything else.

I think it's proportionate to be honest, and almost certainly he'll get off lighter than I'd expect him to.

Re:Happy to see it.

[Bert64]

If it has not been licensed here, it is still copyright infringment, and is certainly harmful.

And arbitrarily deciding that particular groups of people cannot gain access to content is not harmful?
There are MANY people in the world who are unable to access certain content in any legal way, and yet they can still read about it online.

Is it fair that i shouldn't be able to watch the UFC PPV events but i can read the results all over the internet, so that when/if they are finally made available here i already know whats going to happen?

Also the fact people made donations to this guy shows that many are willing to pay for the content but that they are either unable to, or the price is too high.

Re:Happy to see it.

[TWX]

The only issue that I take with what you say isn't with your numbers of downloaders of the pirated content, rather that the availability of the pirated content has a 1:1 relationship with lost revenue.

As has been rehashed over the years, there are lots of people that will download content that is free to them that would never have paid for it in the first place. There are also lots of people that will download content and never really play that content.

So basically, if one wouldn't have paid for the content had it only been available for-pay, then it's not really lost revenue.

Re:Happy to see it.

[Anonymous Coward]

That was the point. They too can be given a fine that simply is impossible for them to pay. I don't think they could pay 50000000 billion USD and this guy can probably not pay 32 million USD either.

Re:Happy to see it.

[Aereus]

I'm unaware of if Horriblesubs asks for/gets donations. But as far as (at least their initial reasons) reasoning for going after Crunchyroll specifically is "revenge". CR built their "brand name" on a mountain of infringing content uploaded/maintained by others/volunteers/call them what you will (Even had a subscription offering). Then after they reached a certain level of popularity, they leveraged that for venture capital to "go legit" and scrapped the original site. This, as you might imagine, garnered a lot of ill will amongst the fanbase that knew about this.

Of course, its merely lipservice today, since they don't restrict themselves to CR rips.

Re:Happy to see it.

[kthreadd]

Which is exactly why they shouldn't have to face a fine that high.

Re:Happy to see it.

[Anonymous Coward]

Let's say he did a thousand torrents (likely not much less). That's $32,000,000. Direct, provable, accountable loss. Without any form of exaggeration.

What are you, a moron?

If 1000 people downloaded it, that does not mean all those 1000 would buy it in the first place.

Re:Happy to see it.

[obreiro]

Intimidating the rest of us, that's the word.

Re:Happy to see it.

[bruce_the_loon]

Given the number of peers I see on fresh UFC and WWE torrents, 1000 people is probably around 10% of the actual downloaders. Even though he assumed 100% uptake, his numbers work with a 10% uptake which I would happily argue is a fair count of downloaded-instead-of-purchased viewers.

Re:Happy to see it.

[bloodhawk]

It isn't a fine. It is a business suing him for loss of income due to his practises. I am all for punishments fitting the crime, but I am also all for business seeking retribution for damages to their business, that isn't about punishment but about restitution. Whether the 32 million claim is ridiculous is up to a court to decide, but given it was 124 events it really doesn't take a lot to add up to that much.

Re:Happy to see it.

[AK Marc]

If he is asked to, he'll have to declare himself bankrupt after paying the court what he can prove he can reasonably afford.

Oh, have the laws changed again? I thought you couldn't wipe court ordered debts with bankruptcy. Those and student loans are with you to the grave.

Re:Happy to see it.

[cascadingstylesheet]

A "rehabilitation system" is what's needed, and what's always been needed: if someone harms society, do what's needed and humane to discourage them from harming society again. Anything else is primitive, knuggle-dragging moronism.

You're so right!

I too, burn with the desire to punish those "tough on crime" knuckle dragging morons!

Re:Happy to see it.

[countach]

Come now, it wasn't some teenager uploading his music collection. It was someone systematically ripping an entire series of works and taking paypal donations. That's the moral equivalent of duplicating the latest movie and having a network of sellers flogging the movie outside all theatres on DVD for $1 a pop.

Re:Happy to see it.

[Opportunist]

If you tried this with me, wear some bulletproof clothing.

What? You fuck up my life, I will do my best to fuck up yours. 32m is something you will never get from me. 32 bullets, maybe, but 32m, never.

Re:Happy to see it.

[Type44Q]

A "rehabilitation system" is what's needed

The guy isn't that warped; it's not as if he was uploading Pro Wrestling.

Re:Happy to see it.

[resfilter]

Let's say that one pay-per-view cost, say, $32 (for ease of the maths).

Let's say that a thousand people downloaded it (likely MUCH more). That is a direct loss of $32,000 to the content creator (without even needing to fabricate things, because that content was pay-per-view).

Let's say he did a thousand torrents (likely not much less). That's $32,000,000. Direct, provable, accountable loss.

just in case you're curious how THEY calculate it (i'd say RTFA and call you names, but since there's no link in the summary....)

"The company is seeking statutory damages of $18.6m (150k * 124 instances) for copyright infringement, up to $13.64m (110k * 124 instances) plus $60,000 for breaches of the Federal Communications Act, plus sundry damages on the remaining counts."

funny, if i use your method, i come up with 124 infringements * 10000+ downloads * $32 = about 400 million dollars. he's getting off easy!?

i'd love to see how they actually end up trying to explain a loss of revenue in this court case, that's where the ground gets a bit shakey...

Re:Happy to see it.

[Paradise Pete]

If he actually does get the $32m fine then that just means he'll be paying a small sum every month until he hits the statute of limitation.

What? What is this "statute of limitation"? And why do you think he'll be paying a small amount each month? If he can't pay he'll be forced into bankruptcy, unless the winner is willing to accept some other arrangement. But they won't. They want to break him.

Re:Happy to see it.

[tomhath]

This is a civil suit, not criminal.

Re:Happy to see it.

[Mashiki]

We have a "rehabilitation system" in Canada, it doesn't work. For people who are serious offenders aka dangerous offenders, we usually end up locking them up forever anyway.

Re:Happy to see it.

[Opportunist]

So far I did not come into the situation where it was necessary. I don't see a good reason, though, why I should allow someone to continue his life when he makes it his business to ruin mine.

Re:Happy to see it.

[westlake]

A "rehabilitation system" is what's needed, and what's always been needed: if someone harms society, do what's needed and humane to discourage them from harming society again.

What form of "rehab" has ever proved more effective than hard time and the fine that bites --- hard?

Re:Happy to see it.

[matbury]

What they really need is a webcam on everyone's TV (at their own expense or the taxpayers', it doesn't matter which) to record who's watching which shows so customers can't invite neighbours around to commit copyright infringement/breach of contract. We also need to divert more law enforcement and legal resources away from frivolous crimes like robbery, murder, and rape to stopping/preventing these heinous copyright infringement crimes that are dragging society down into immorality and depravity. Perhaps we could offer some kind of incentive to the police/courts by offering them a cut in any fines/damages awarded, something like the way they make money handing out traffic tickets. That'd definitely provide a stronger incentive to prioritise copyright infringement. If that doesn't work, we could reduce state/federal funding to those agencies to make them more dependent on their cut of fines/damages.

Re:Happy to see it.

[mark-t]

The punishment should always fit the crime, and people shouldn't arbitrarily be given harsher punishments just to deter others ...

So should I take it from this that you disapprove of the notion of speeding fines being doubled during daylight hours inside of school zones? That is, after all, creating a harsher punishment to act as a deterrent.

Re:Happy to see it.

[ThisIsSaei2561]

I hear that, and it's a good point. Although one should take note that the $32M is only alleged damages, and not the actual ruling. You can sue for any amount, but that doesn't mean the court will see merit in it.

Re:Happy to see it.

[SlayerofGods]

That makes sense IF the person made some sort of mistake. For example if someone posts 'hey guys check out this crazy punch from UFC' and uploads short clip of it to you tube. The probably helps the company as free advertising more than any sort of copyright infringement.
Someone who uploads 124 full fights to several different sites knows exactly what they're doing and are just give the finger to Zuffa; they deserve the full fury of the law upon them.

Re:Happy to see it.

[Anonymous Coward]

Exactly. Look at prisons in say, Norway, as opposed to prisons in the USA.

It's basic psychology that rewarding good behaviour is far more effective than punishing bad behaviour.

Re:Happy to see it.

[mark-t]

Clearly, the only proper way to oppose such unjust penalties then would be to disregard the law in that context.

Let me know how that works out for you.

Re:Happy to see it.

[ArmoredDragon]

Judgements are usually the first category to get discharged. It has always been this way. The only exception is if the lawsuit is over something that cannot be discharged even if it was outside of a lawsuit, such as student loan debt awarded by judgement.

http://www.nolo.com/legal-ency...

This *may* be something he can't discharge, given that their allegations include fraud. However copyright infringement in and of itself...I imagine it could be discharged, but IANAL.

Re:Happy to see it.

[sjames]

Pretty much any that engages the criminal with society under supervision and guidance rather than locking them away from it.It's not 100% effective, but arguably hard time and unpayable fines have a negative effectiveness.

Re:Happy to see it.

[sjames]

Arguably, speeding is one thing, but speeding even when notified that children will be likely to be crossing the street adds an endangerment element. Thus, it's not just adding more deterrent, it's punishing a greater offense.

Re:Happy to see it.

[AK Marc]

debts owed to government entities (fines, taxes, court costs, restitution in criminal cases, etc.)

So if it's a civil suit (as it is so far) then he has a chance to discharge it, but the criminal cases would be 100% non-dischargeable, as everything is either costs, fines, or restitution. But yes, looks like the non-fraud civil suits are more dischargeable than I thought.

Re:Happy to see it.

[sjames]

Let's say that a thousand people downloaded it (likely MUCH more). That is a direct loss of $32,000 to the content creator (without even needing to fabricate things, because that content was pay-per-view).

You can't assume that. Of those 1,000, how many saw the $32 pricetag on the PPV and decided they would rather do without? Or, put another way, for practically ANYTHING, how much more popular is it if it is free? How many own a Ferrari? Now compare to how many would accept a Ferrari if you gave them away with no strings attached. There are none in my neighborhood now, but there would be quite a few if they were giving them away.

Re:Happy to see it.

[fredprado]

It is not 100% effective and it isn't even proven to be better at all than a hard punitive system. All you have are the wild theories of some sociologists based on data and statistical methods that cannot be verified or adequately checked and even if they could do not point to this conclusion.

Re:Happy to see it.

[fredprado]

It is basically psychology that doing both works better than doing either separately. It is your own brand of ignorance thinking that punishing bad behavior can be avoided if you want to have laws that are respected. Norway does punish bad behavior by the way, Breivik, for example, will stay in jail for the rest of his life. Even though theoretically he was charged with just 20 years or so of prison, his release is subjected by the approval of a committee.

That brings another point. Personally I prefer a system that is clear about the consequences than another that can keep people in jail for as much time as bureaucrats wishes.

Re:Happy to see it.

[fredprado]

As long as the retribution reflects the loss of income it is OK. Unfortunately nobody was able to prove to this day if there is a loss of income associated with this kind of piracy and much less how much it accounts for.

Re:Happy to see it.

[sjames]

Actually, the Nordic countries (particularly Sweden) are considered almost luxurious by U.S. standards and include prisoners going to a 9-5 job and returning at night. Their recidivism rate is well below the U.S. rate. So there it is, a practical example.

Re:Happy to see it.

[BiIl_the_Engineer]

Taking random guesses is fine and all... when someone isn't in court. But can they provide hard proof of their claims? Why are copyright thugs not held to the same standard other people are? It seems like they just whine, "Real justice is hard! Make it easier for me to just accuse people of infringing upon my copyrights and win based solely on my own claims!" and then they get what they want.

I guess that's what happens when our worthless 'representatives' are so easily bribed.

Re:Happy to see it.

[mark-t]

Nope... you pretty much nailed what I was driving at.

Re:Happy to see it.

[fredprado]

Sure, crime rates are better there. On the other hand crime rates are even lower in the Emirates, Japan, Hong Kong and Singapore, for example where justice is punitive, much less interested in rehabilitation, and considerably harsher than in US.

In short you have no data to back up your assumption that rehabilitation produces better results.

Re:Happy to see it.

[sjames]

And you none that the punitive approach works best. So I suggest defaulting to not treating people with needless cruelty, we're supposed to be civilized.

BTW, it seems that you are incorrect about Japan. They seem to have had a problem of prisoner abuse but also appear to be attempting to reform the reformers. I don't know how successfully.

Re:Happy to see it.

[fredprado]

Japan is currently a punitive system just like US. There is about the same worry with rehab than there is in US, as happens with most of the countries with very low crime rates. Oh and although Finland and Denmark are relatively well regarding crimes, Sweden is one of the most violent countries in Western Europe, with one of the highest crime rates and Norway is at the top of rape statistics. And all Nordic countries have higher crime indexes than other Europeans countries which are more punitive and give less focus to rehab, as Germany, Austria and even Romania,Croatia and Estonia.

But my point is not that. My point is that you stated that punishment does not work and that rehab is the way. You can't prove the truth of this assertion, empiric data points the other way, and still you stubbornly states it as a fact.

Re:Happy to see it.

[sjames]

And you change your stance constantly and dodge the point.

Notably, Sweden's crime stats are distorted because some of the things taken quite seriously there are not even considered to rise to the level of crime in the U.S. For example, a simple spanking is a criminal assault in Sweden.

Given that the U.S. has a world leading rate of incarceration, it is clear that what we do here is a failure.

Re:Happy to see it.

[fredprado]

Sorry, my friend, you are the one dodging the point. Sweden violent crime rates, especially murder rates are equally high.

US system has a lot of problems, but rehab is hardly a solution and the lack of rehab is certainly not the reason of US problems.

Re:Happy to see it.

[sjames]

Actually Sweden has a low murder rate which is why people started wondering why assaults would be higher.

There's no point in having a discussion if you're just going to make shit up.

Re:Happy to see it.

[fredprado]

Sweden Murder rate is higher than Germany's, Spain's, Austria's, Slovenia's, Japan's, Singapore's, Hong Kong, The Emirates, Saudi Arabia, oh, and China`s. All countries that have at least the same posture than US regarding rehab. So basically, again, you have no argument.

Re:Happy to see it.

[sjames]

I know neither Germany nor Japan operate prisons the way the U.S. does. I suppose in the bizaro world in your head, nothing short of skinning litterers alive will do.

Re:Happy to see it.

[fredprado]

Again trying to deviate from the point. Those countries do not focus on rehab and do not have more or better rehab programs than US. You can cherry pick as much as you like, but Sweden is in 31st position regarding homicides, there are 30 countries that are better than it, and most of those do not give a damn about rehab, and therefore your theory that rehab actually helps to combat crime is simply not supported by facts.

It is far more likely that rehab is completely orthogonal to crime control, and should be treated as such.

Re:Happy to see it.

[sjames]

As is a punitive system.

Re:Happy to see it.

[fredprado]

Really? Then find me a single country that do not use punishments as crime control, a country that does not have jails and where crimes are well under control? The punishment part is present in ALL countries. The rehab part is missing from most inclusive from most of those that are at the bottom of the list of crime index.

Re:Happy to see it.

[bloodhawk]

Give me a break? 124 events. Do you even watch or care about UFC events, or realize over half of those were aired over standard cable? Were not talking pay-per-view, he didn't feed the events live for free over the internet. And even the pay-per-view events are aired over standard cable after a few months. If I'm a lawyer I would mention this and keep it simple. Zuffa is going to stand there with a delusional amount 'we lost revenue, here look at this chart or project sales from these events that we didn't get because it was free to download'

They are still making their money from pay-per-view and the minutes of advertising during standard cable airing time, regardless of whether you watch it or not, or if you pirated the events. This is what pisses me off about these type of companies, if you don't like it stop putting out dvd's and or airing events/specials [which are the dvd's] on standard cable.

The way to protest their appalling behaviour is to NOT WATCH their shows. Not to pay a pirate to provide you with copies of them. This is a clear example of someone that crossed the line way to far by accepting payment for the pirated events. zero sympathy for him.

No link to TFA?

[Sqr(twg)]

Why is there no link to the f* article in the summary?

Re:No link to TFA?

[concertina226]

Well the story it came from is here, which tells you who secludedly is - Torrent Freak is the only site online that doesn't want to name him: http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/pirat...

Breach of Contract?

[thegarbz]

Seriously can you throw out court cases because the plaintiff accuses of too much bullshit? Copyright infringement, yeah I get that. But fraud? How is torrenting a video fraud unless the man's username was OfficialUFCDistributor or some other misrepresentation like that.

But breach of contract? That should be a simple one. Show me the signed contract and THEN we can talk about how it was breached. Given that the person is going by username, and a company called XYZ corp I'm willing to bet Zuffa doesn't have a legally binding contract unless they routinely make contracts without any identities.

Re:Breach of Contract?

[Sqr(twg)]

They were targeting the individual who ripped their shows from a cable TV broadcast. It probably seemed logical to them that someone who has cable TV signed a contract in order to get it.

As they found out, people who make a career out of torrenting tend to live in their parents basement (and thus use their parents' cable subscription) so the "fraud" and "breach of contract" will likely be dropped.

Re:Breach of Contract?

[ledow]

That person almost certainly agreed to a contract when they agreed to receive the copyright content into their devices that they subscribe to.

Thus, breach of contract is EASY, and the contract will be written (or at the very least, legally enforceable - e.g. an online purchase contract).

Additionally, if you are doing things in the contract to misrepresent yourself (e.g. a business rather than a personal, rebroadcasting rather than personal use), or even just modifying cable / satellite systems to illegally receive channels (and thus receiving contracted content WITHOUT a contract), then you could easily see fraud-related charges too.

Don't fuck with the lawyers, because you'll be caught coming AND going, and that's what they've gone for. When between a rock and a hard place like that, the copyright infringement is almost a given, and the extras are going to get you whichever way things happen to go (you did have a contract, or you didn't), even if one of them happens to be dropped later.

To be honest, if the case is as stated, the guy knew EXACTLY what he was doing - it's hard to record and then upload thousands of videos to a torrent site accidentally - it's just now a question of the lawyers not letting him escape on a technicality, hence the extra charges.

Re:Breach of Contract?

[thegarbz]

Well damn it I'm going to sue him too. I mean he breached someone else's contract. I want my cut of that!

Re:Breach of Contract?

[thegarbz]

The only person/company who can sue him for breach of contract is his content provider. He has no contract with the content producer (unless they are one and the same which is unlikely for a small sports promotion company like Zuffa).

Now if Comcast owned the UFC rights, and Comcast was the cable company from which he ripped his service *that* would be breach of contract. Or if Comcast wants to sue him on behalf of Zuffa that too could be a breach of contract.

Re:Breach of Contract?

[m00sh]

They were targeting the individual who ripped their shows from a cable TV broadcast. It probably seemed logical to them that someone who has cable TV signed a contract in order to get it.

As they found out, people who make a career out of torrenting tend to live in their parents basement (and thus use their parents' cable subscription) so the "fraud" and "breach of contract" will likely be dropped.

He probably torrented it after downloading it from somewhere else. Turning a TV broadcast into a torrentable file takes some work.

UFC can kiss my ass!

[Anonymous Coward]

$60-70 per event PPV. Seriously? Ain't no frickin' way. I hope all their shit gets uploaded into public domain!

Re:UFC can kiss my ass!

[jones_supa]

Even if the price seems ridiculous, you are not entitled to just grab the content for free if you can't or won't pay for it.

Re:UFC can kiss my ass!

[Anonymous Coward]

Who's to say what anyone is "entitled" to, anyway?

The people with the firearms.

Re:Happy to see it - Gonna sue for $ 14 Trillion..

[ami.one]

Yeah, Right. And I am gonna sue people providing free drinking water for $ 14 Trillion. Otherwise all the world's 8 Billion people would have bought my lemonade for $1 per bottle, 5 times everyday.
Plus my costs for launching this MMSS (massively multi lawyer silly suit).

Obviously, filesharing needs better anonymity...

[gweihir]

These people will never reign in their greed. The upside is that they do not keep silent when they have identified somebody. So this can be used as a benchmark for a general anonymity level. Now, the distribution problem for filesharing is solved. Time to tackle the anonymity problem for distribution of large files. TOR is not going to cut it, at least not in its current form. Too slow and the only way to do anything would be via hidden service. Any bright CS PhD candidates out there that do not fear the media industry? Of course, the real utility will not be copyright infringement, but showing media to the world that "they" do not want us to see.

Here is link missing from the article...

[wjcofkc]

http://torrentfreak.com/pirate...

Re:In other words...

[gweihir]

Indeed. "Follow-the-money" is a thing that has been solved for a long time. And PayPal is really trivial to trace ...

huh?

[cascadingstylesheet]

is the fact that Secludedly allowed people to donate via a PayPal in order to help with the financing of future ripping

What the heck is "a PayPal"?

Is it a really cool?

Re:huh?

[Opportunist]

I think he's the guy that is usually already so drunk when you arrive at the bar that he keeps paying for your drinks.

Awesome dude, really, but ... not much of a conversation buddy.

Re:huh?

[cascadingstylesheet]

Nicely done.

Re:I want to care...

[Anonymous Coward]

but it's about sports... I just can't seem to care no matter how hard I try

UFC is not a sport.

Re:Wrong people being sued

[Opportunist]

Uh-oh... how much do you think would be appropriate for MS, considering they called Win8 an "operating system"?

Re:Calling it theft

[Opportunist]

No. Sorry, but no. No government in existence tried that. The reason for governments to exist has always been to protect those in power from the mob.

Re:Obviously, filesharing needs better anonymity..

[Opportunist]

Well, it mainly depends on what side you root for. If getting caught breaking the law is the problem, and if you consider the law unjust, then the obvious solution for you is a better way to circumvent the law.

For reference, see prohibition.

Re:Happy to see it - Gonna sue for $ 14 Trillion..

[ami.one]

Thanks for the Lemons analogy. Just one correction:

Consider that the lemonade was COPIED (recipe..)

Your turn.

Following the money

[Technician]

He probably go caught by having a money liik to him through his paypal account. He would have been much harder to find without it.

Doe defendents?

[wonkey_monkey]

two other doe defendants

They're suing a deer? A female deer?

Re:Doe defendents?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm gonna be super-pissed if they sue Ray, he's a drop of golden sun. But don't worry about me and Egon, we can take care of ourselves.

Re:Happy to see it - Gonna sue for $ 14 Trillion..

[S.O.B.]

Thanks for the Lemons analogy.

Hey, hey hey! This is Slashdot. No lemon analogies allowed.

Only car analogies and the more twisted the car analogy the better.

How WWE's tackling the problem

[Anonymous Coward]

WWE knows that a lot of their PPVs and DVDs get pirated, so how do they deal with it? They start selling access to everything for only $10 a month. Monthly PPVs cost $40-$60 typically, and DVDs cost $10-$20. Now, fans can get all of that, with no work, on pretty much every platform, for only $10 a month on a six month commitment. I know many people who have subscribed when they would've used other means to obtain the content before.

How is MMA not a sport?

[tepples]

Professional wrestling in the style of WWE or TNA I can understand not being a sport, as it's more of a scripted dance. But how is mixed martial arts any less of a sport than boxing?

So start your own with blackjack and hookers

[tepples]

If you don't like UFC's policies, you could always start your own local MMA club instead and release match videos to the public under a CC license.

Re:Obviously, filesharing needs better anonymity..

[tepples]

Federal prohibition of alcohol got repealed about a decade later as it was found to be unworkable. State prohibition of cannabis is getting repealed as well, with federal executive orders to respect state decriminalization. But in this case there's no prohibition: you could always start an MMA club and release your own videos to compete with UFC.

Use a VPN

[Anonymous Coward]

Seriously, downloading from a torrent site without using a VPN located in another country is stupid. Being a high profile content ripper / seeder without using a VPN or seedbox is jaw droppingly dangerous, especially if you live in the US. (Personally very happy with AirVPN BTW.)

sad to see it.

[bzipitidoo]

if someone harms society

This is an important point that should not be lightly passed over. Do uploaders harm society? Your comment appears to take it as a given that the answer is "yes". All your points about punishment and rehab may be relevant, if that's true. You say that punishment is not effective. Why isn't it effective? I suggest it is because in this instance the deed for which punishment is being meted out should not be a crime.

If uploaders do not harm society, then the situation is very different. In that case, the law is outdated, wrong, cruel, and a tool of evil oppressors. Those who are sowing confusion and preventing the laws from being reformed have their own obvious agenda of maintaining a status quo that unfairly enriches them at the expense of everyone else. Where is our digital public library? And punishment looks not like justice, but mere brutality, and will not convince anyone. As arguments go, punishment is one of the weakest. Certainly exposes the establishment as ideologically bankrupt. Their other arguments, that artists will starve and we'll not have any more art, and that copying is stealing, are being seen more and more as plain wrong. All they have left are threats. Threats and punishments don't make Christians out of unbelievers and heretics, they just drive heresy underground.

Re:Obviously, filesharing needs better anonymity..

[RuffMasterD]

My first guess was the close working and financial relationship between PayPal and rent-a-spy Palantir with all it's NSA, FBI, and other government investors/customers. It would be way to easy for one of Palantirs 'customers' to make a few phone calls and pull a few strings to get this guys details.

I remember trying a fully anonymous P2P client years ago, but it was WAY to slow to be practical. Perhaps TOR + a file hosting service like megaupload could work. Megaupload was shut down, but iteration 2 (MEGA) has survived a year so far thanks to its encrypt-before-upload plausible deniability technique. Just don't ask for cash by PayPal, jeesh!

Re:Wrong people being sued

[AK Marc]

It should be sued for passing it off as a "sport" but "entertainment" is determined by the number of idiots wanting to watch, and of those, UFC apparently doesn't have a shortage. So it is "entertainment" even if you don't find it entertaining.

Baseball, horse racing, and boxing

[tepples]

Before American football and basketball were adapted from rugby and team handball, the big three sports in the United States were baseball, horse racing, and boxing. So for people who deny that MMA and boxing are sports, I have two questions: What is a sport in the first place? And under your definition, why do MMA and boxing not qualify

Re:Obviously, filesharing needs better anonymity..

[Opportunist]

What the ... who said anything about drugs? Can you dopeheads not let one discussion go by without steering it towards your pet illegal substance?