today, the letter "I" is bought to you by the MPAA

[dani82]

http://www.lokitorrent.com/

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/02/10/loki_down_mpaa

[nessusing]

nooooo. friend told me this over msn last night. this is bad.

web hoster should really consider moving their sites outside USA, maybe that will cost them less troubles!

[fccHandler]

Originally posted by nessusing
this is bad.
Why?

I've never seen the site, but this article (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/12/31/lokitorrent_fights_mpaa/) (at the time of writing) says they were hosting torrent links for brand new movies like "Incredibles" and "Ocean's 12." If that's true, then certainly the court had every right to shut them down.

I don't love the MPAA, but can you find fault with their actions in this particular case? According to the Register's article, the site seems to have been a legitimate target.

Or do people just hate when the MPAA wins any victory against movie piracy? Hmmm...

[E-Male]

maybe targetign the reasons that people use such sites would make more sense

[fewtch]

Originally posted by E-Male
maybe targetign the reasons that people use such sites would make more sense
It would help, but of course these bureaucratic organizations always prefer "brute force" methods. Lots of money + few brains == predictable behaviour.

Anyway, what they'll do is drive trading underground and confine it to Usenet, IRC, etc. I guess it's "out of sight - out of mind" for RIAA/MPAA since they've never gone after the 'undernet' and don't seem to care.
Originally posted by fccHandler
Why?

I've never seen the site, but this article (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/12/31/lokitorrent_fights_mpaa/) (at the time of writing) says they were hosting torrent links for brand new movies like "Incredibles" and "Ocean's 12." If that's true, then certainly the court had every right to shut them down.
I might be among the few who still believe that shutting down sites for merely hosting links sets a bad precedent. I guess the precedent has already been set, though... the links themselves are not copyrighted and ought to constitute protected free speech, but RI/MPAA still wins these cases (with a resulting "chilling effect" we even see here on Doom9 in its rules)...

[Neo Neko]

They can't succeed. Frankly the only reason they were successful this time is because of the centralized nature of those sites. No one said it had to be centralized. The lesser could serve the greater. Why not distribute torrents via decentralized P2P networks? They are good for moving smaller files rather anonymously. And once people get the torents it is rather hard to stop things.

All this will accomplish is to cause more people to distruist those companies more. Exacerbating the situation. These companies have to learn to adapt to the conditions. Not attack them. The fact that so many people are doing it should be an indicator that something is wrong. They are not as they would have you believe unaware of the implecations. But neither are they buying the sob storry from the execs about having to fire off workers to be able to afford the new status symbol this year.

[fccHandler]

Originally posted by fewtch
I might be among the few who still believe that shutting down sites for merely hosting links sets a bad precedent.
Good point. And from reading the other Register articles, apparently the site owner believes the same. But even if I accept that, the site clearly "promotes" piracy simply by offering the links, so I don't feel that they are guiltless.

Originally posted by Neo Neko
All this will accomplish is to cause more people to distruist those companies more. Exacerbating the situation.
What people? I don't follow your logic. If the MPAA shuts down a site offering links to illegal downloads, how (and in whom) does that breed mistrust? (Note: I'm speaking specifically about this incident, and not anything else the MPAA has done.)

[fewtch]

Originally posted by fccHandler
Good point. And from reading the other Register articles, apparently the site owner believes the same. But even if I accept that, the site clearly "promotes" piracy simply by offering the links, so I don't feel that they are guiltless.
The thing is -- is it (or should it be) illegal to "promote" piracy, and what does that mean?

Suppose you were walking down the street, and someone asked you directions to a nearby pub. You tell them, and they did enter the pub, get drunk and kill somebody. Would you be guilty as accessory to a murder?

Maybe that's a poor example, I dunno... these analogies are never perfect. However, I don't see how "promoting" something should be illegal (the law is simply about legality, not repentence/guilt/sin or whatever might be evil, horrible, cause hurt feelings, etc). To put it another way: What specific laws did the site violate in linking to bit torrents?

P.S. I do think piracy is (overall) a negative thing, but IMO if a person can create something once and sell it 5 billion times, different rules should be applied than physical commodities (which represent a tangible loss to the seller once it's out of their hands). The obvious solution is updating copyright laws to reflect current realities.

[Joe Fenton]

Originally posted by fccHandler
But even if I accept that, the site clearly "promotes" piracy simply by offering the links, so I don't feel that they are guiltless.

The site didn't promote piracy. They didn't advocate the ambush of travellers for the purpose of depriving them of their physical property. You need to be more clear on this point - the US District Court already slapped the Pigopolists down hard on this issue. It isn't piracy. It isn't even theft. It's copyright infringement. The court rebuked the MPAA/RIAA lawyers rather harshly on their use of inflamatory rhetoric, so don't fall into using it yourself.

[fccHandler]

Originally posted by Joe Fenton
The site didn't promote piracy. They didn't advocate the ambush of travellers for the purpose of depriving them of their physical property.
You're right! But the term "piracy" is used frequently here and I think everyone understands its use in this context. Call it what you will. (You say tomato, I say... um, tomato.) But however you slice it, the site apparently hosted torrent links to rips of copyrighted material, and I believe the court had every right to shut them down. Do you disagree? If so, please elaborate.

[mpucoder]

I'm glad the courts are trying to stop the rhetoric, as they call it. I would use a stronger term for what they are doing. They are trying to make people believe that it is theft, and therefore eligible for money damages. Last time I checked you had to prove real damages, not projected losses, to be awarded money.

As for analogies - my favorite is about going into a bar (pub) where you, and everone else, knows illegal activity such as gambling, drug dealing, or prostitution is taking place. Even though the bar owner does not gamble, deal, pimp, or participate in sexual activity, nor does he promote such activity, by being aware of the activity and doing nothing to stop it, he is commiting a crime.

And file sharing of copyrighted material with strangers is a crime. This is not fair use by any stretch of the imagination. Sending a copy to a friend is one thing, making it publicly available quite another.

[shevegen]

I strongly object the term piracy used in context, as done by
fccHandler.

[dragongodz]

hmm interesting little converstaion this has turned in to. so let me share this with you guys/gals.

I-Robot on dvd here has been released with a nice little ani-piracy advert at the start. its interesting what it compares downloading a movie to. have a look and see what you think, viewable from here
http://www.moviepiracy.org.au/

another little interesting read is to be found here
http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2002/5/2/22720/40202
hmm so not watching tv adds is now stealing aswell. now THATS a big call right ?

[Neo Neko]

Originally posted by fccHandler
What people? I don't follow your logic. If the MPAA shuts down a site offering links to illegal downloads, how (and in whom) does that breed mistrust? (Note: I'm speaking specifically about this incident, and not anything else the MPAA has done.)

1. Who's to say they were all illegal downloads? They were not. Even Supernova had some legal downloads linked.

2. These are people who try to justify their illegal downloads as retribution against price gouging etc by the companies represented by these groups. The companies attack them and their favorite sites. It's war.

I'm not saying their logic isn't flawed. It is. And sure some of them wouldn't buy if the product was sold at a loss. But there is still an underlying issue that is not being properly addressed here. Even if you don't follow that flawed logic most of us agree that CDs and DVDs seem a tad overpriced. And if that is not enough the constant whining of the same companies about staggering losses in the face of record sales/profits is at the very least annoying. If not downright mindbogling. Or at least uncannily dishonest.

[fccHandler]

Originally posted by shevegen
I strongly object the term piracy used in context, as done by
fccHandler.
Like I said, you can call it what you will. But if it makes you happy I won't use that term anymore. We'll just call it "infringement."

Originally posted by Neo Neko
1. Who's to say they were all illegal downloads? They were not. Even Supernova had some legal downloads linked.
But if they're hosting even one illegal download link, they've opened themselves up to being a legitimate target. You can't be too careful nowadays.

Going back to mpucoder's analogy, say I run a bar where everyone is engaged in perfectly legal drinking and fun. Except for one sneaky guy in the corner selling drugs. I know he's doing it, but I turn a blind eye to that activity. Aren't I still liable?

Originally posted by Neo Neko
Even if you don't follow that flawed logic most of us agree that CDs and DVDs seem a tad overpriced.
I agree about CDs, but not really DVDs. I can often pick up the movie for less than the soundtrack. That is crazy...

[dragongodz]

Like I said, you can call it what you will.
actually no you cant and thats the point. the RIAA and MPAA are using such provocative language to try and make it appear as something that it isnt. take a good look at that first link i posted. see what they are trying to say it is ? its spelled out pretty clear. the fact is that it is copyright infringement and thats what it should be called. to bad if thats not nasty enough sounding for their campaigns.

and have a read of the second link aswell. now do you still agree they should call things whatever they like ?

EDIT:
guy in the corner selling drugs. I know he's doing it, but I turn a blind eye to that activity. Aren't I still liable?
yes as the proprietor you would be liable to be charged. you would NOT be charged with dealing though would you. funny though it seems that the MPAA is acussing bittorent sites of tha actual crime(copyright infringement) and not what they are really guilty of(complicity or such ?) since they only provide links or files for links(if i understand that correctly) and not the actual copyrighted material.

[Neo Neko]

Originally posted by dragongodz
yes as the proprietor you would be liable to be charged. you would NOT be charged with dealing though would you. funny though it seems that the MPAA is acussing bittorent sites of tha actual crime(copyright infringement) and not what they are really guilty of(complicity or such ?) since they only provide links or files for links(if i understand that correctly) and not the actual copyrighted material.

BINGO! Also likely they would not force you to shut down your bar either. Just try to remove the "unwanted" illegal element. :p But the MPAA/RIAA are all powerfull and they demand no less regardless of innocence or guilt. It does not matter if you are dead, have never owned a computer, or ever used P2P. You are answerable to them. Guilty untill proven innocent or more likely paying protection money. That even gets my ire up. I have no love for the guys sharing new theatrical releases etc before they are out of theaters. But that does not justify the MPAA/RIAAs tactics.

[fccHandler]

Originally posted by Neo Neko
BINGO! Also likely they would not force you to shut down your bar either. Just try to remove the "unwanted" illegal element. :p
Well said.

Originally posted by Neo Neko
But the MPAA/RIAA are all powerfull and they demand no less regardless of innocence or guilt.
I assumed the court took them down because they found them guilty. It was their judgement, not the MPAA's (wasn't it?)

Did the site in fact host legal links too? (And more legal links than illegal links?) If that was indeed the case, then I agree it would have been better to demand they remove the illegal links, instead of taking the whole site down. Unfortunately I don't have all the facts, as I never even got the chance to see the site. :(

[fewtch]

Originally posted by mpucoder
As for analogies - my favorite is about going into a bar (pub) where you, and everone else, knows illegal activity such as gambling, drug dealing, or prostitution is taking place. Even though the bar owner does not gamble, deal, pimp, or participate in sexual activity, nor does he promote such activity, by being aware of the activity and doing nothing to stop it, he is commiting a crime.

And file sharing of copyrighted material with strangers is a crime.
Absolutely. The problem with your analogy though, is that the website shut down is not the 'bar owner'. Unless I misunderstand Bit Torrent, there is no such central owner.

Facilitating availability of activity like these websites do is not very nice, but is it really a crime? It is linking to someone else's crime, as if providing a link to another website that hosts illicit files. Maybe some people believe the latter should be a crime, but I don't: It sets a very dangerous precedent in the area of free speech... as if even talking about criminal activity publicly could be considered a crime. Sounds like old Soviet Russia.

Anyway: Doesn't hosting these links actually help the copyright police? What would be underground beforehand is now publicly advertised, and the person(s) hosting the files could get busted as they deserve. They're the criminals, not the lokitorrent website.

[fccHandler]

You're asking if a link can be illegal. That's very interesting, because the linked .torrent file itself is just another link (and not a direct link at that). So is a link to a link to [something illegal] illegal? How about a link to a link to a link to a link to... [something illegal]? This is getting messy.

Also consider that it's not hard to find links to all sorts of illegal stuff on Google. Should Google be shut down for providing links to that stuff?

[mpucoder]

Originally posted by fewtch
Absolutely. The problem with your analogy though, is that the website shut down is not the 'bar owner'. Unless I misunderstand Bit Torrent, there is no such central owner.
What is important is that the owner of a business has knowledge of illegal activity on his premises, and does nothing to stop it.

[fewtch]

Originally posted by mpucoder
What is important is that the owner of a business has knowledge of illegal activity on his premises, and does nothing to stop it.
Did illegal activity take place on the lokitorrent.com domain? I haven't read all the stories, so just asking.

Or was it just links? If it was just links, then it could be said it was knowledge of illegal activity on someone else's premises (in which case, I don't know of any laws requiring a business owner to take action).

Actually I don't like this analogy, because there are no 'premises' involved with decentralized technologies like bittorrent. Lokitorrent was probably making money from the illegal activities of others, which would be a stronger argument against them (provided this was proven).

[dragongodz]

did anyone have a look at those links i provided by the way ? thoughts ?

[dragongodz]

ok i went looking for more information on this and came up with a couple of interesting links.

http://www.earthtimes.org/articles/show/1581.html
hmm so he is fined. for what exactly i would like to know.
like the adds by google on that page aswell ? appropriate ? ;)

but then we have
http://news.com.com/Court+Hollywood+gets+P2P+giants+server+logs/2100-1025_3-5571782.html?tag=nefd.top
which says
As part of the court order, the site's operator was asked to pay a settlement fee of close to $1 million.
so he was asked to pay a settlement fee. doesnt that mean it never went to trial ? if so doesnt that make the MPAA's claim of a victory somewhat questionable ?

[adam]

Lokitorrent was not sued for copyright infringement, they were sued for contributory copyright infringement. Contributory liability is not something specific to copyrights, it applies to virtually any crime that can be committed. If you have actual or constructive knowledge of a crime being committed, at a location which you either own or have direct control over, and you consciously refrain from taking action to stop or limit that activity, then you can be held contributorily liable. The siteowner of lokitorrent took it at least one step further because he was directly making a profit through his actions via banner ads and donations. It is directly analogous to the barowner example posted before, and yes a barowner most certainly could have his bar ceized for such actions provided they were blatant enough.

Also, probably 9/10th of copyright infringement suits revolve around intent. No one could look at lokitorrent and deny that their intent was to make a profit off of illegal filesharing. I'm sure the legal links comprised well less than 1% of that site's content. Also, the site's disclaimer poked fun at the MPAA, RIAA, et al, saying that the site's users basically knew the siteowner didn't care that the site was used for illegal purposes, but that he needed the legal "mumbo jumbo" to protect himself.

Google, grokster, Kazaa, etc... cannot be held liable for contributory infringement because they all have a "substantially non-infringing purpose" which is the applicable defense to such a charge. Since lokitorrent was utterly blatant in their facilitation of illegal filesharing, and since the non-infringing files they tracked were minimul in number and really nothing more than incidental, they are clearly distinguishable from something like google.

@dragongodz

hmm so he is fined. for what exactly i would like to know.

Willful copyright infringement, including willful contributory copyright infringement, carries with it both criminal and civil liability. His fine was most likely a criminal sanction, and the subject suit is in reference to the civil liability.

so he was asked to pay a settlement fee. doesnt that mean it never went to trial

At a maximum, only about 2% of all US civil suits actually go to trial, so you really cannot judge victory by the existence of a formal trial. A settlement agreement is just as legally binding as a judgment.

Initially the MPAA only sent lokitorrent a cease and desist letter requesting them to remove any infringing links, allowing them to continue "tracking" the non-infringing links. In the end, the site was shut down entirely and the owner was forced to pay a fairly substantial amount in settlement. Strictly from the MPAA's point of view, I'd call that a victory.

[adam]

People, I hate the MPAA and RIAA just as much as the next guy. But just because a lawsuit is filed by one of these organizations, that doesn't automatically mean that an injustice is about to take place. Lokitorrent was about as blatant as it could possibly be in its intent to directly faciliate illegal filesharing, not filesharing in general. It had an entire labeling system, created by the siteowner, where you were asked to designate the style of the upload, including source designators such as "screener," "telecine," etc... and the name of the group who released it.

Nothwithstanding the handful of legal and viable links posted on the site every day, this site deserved to be shut down.

I have to admit though, when I saw the warning that the MPAA chose to replace the site with, I just had to shake my head.

[dragongodz]

Willful copyright infringement, including willful contributory copyright infringement
thank you adam. that information seems to be constantly missing from sites. all you ever get is "a win for MPAA ant-pircay" or such. that also backs up what i said about what a bar owner would be charged with. :)

At a maximum, only about 2% of all US civil suits actually go to trial, so you really cannot judge victory by the existence of a formal trial. A settlement agreement is just as legally binding as a judgment.
yes a win because they got their way but i would hardly call it a conclusive victory since it never went to trial. ok they would have probably one this case but somne of the other dubious ones against individuals ? i would like to see some of them go the distance and maybe then see whats made of the MPAA and RIAA's threaten and settle tactics.

People, I hate the MPAA and RIAA just as much as the next guy. But just because a lawsuit is filed by one of these organizations, that doesn't automatically mean that an injustice is about to take place.
of course. the problem most people have is in the tactics and methodology used. Aus ftp site gets sent a message to remove an infringing file, its not at all and MPAA accused of blind word search, MPAA say they dont do blind word search, then they say they do do word search but a human check the hits and that individual fired. not look a bit suspicious to you ? or how about suing a dead woman ? sorry these should never happen if the MPAA and RIAA were pulled in to line. they have gone power mad and think they can get away with harrasing and sueing whoever they feel like, the sad thing is they continue to be let do exactly that and by more than just the U.S.A. .

go look at the links i gave for the advert on the I-Robot dvd and tell me you honestly think thats not F.U.D. ,because it isnt the truth. copyright infringement does NOT equel physical theft. that advert should never have been allowed. yet it is on a dvd here in Aus, on dvds in the U.K. and also France and the Netherlands.
THATS the sort of thing that gets peoples backs up, not them sueing a website that,if you are correct, flagrantly promotes itself as breaking the law.

i would also like your opinion on the second link about watching tv adverts as that tries to claim it is a contract.

[fewtch]

Originally posted by dragongodz
i would also like your opinion on the second link about watching tv adverts as that tries to claim it is a contract.
My opinion is it's utterly laughable. I made no "contract" with networks or stations when I turn on my TV set, I never saw a contract, never clicked on anything, never agreed to a freakin' thing. Also, it's my TV set, in my private home, and (insert station) should feel lucky if/when they get any of my eyeball time at all for their useless adverts.

These media companies have stepped over the line, and apparently think they're the lord's holy gift to mankind and consumers (and hardware manufacturers) should bow and kiss their feet. Hopefully a nice "market correction" is in order... given the horrendous quality of programming on most commercial stations, IMO it's long overdue.

P.S. RIAA/MPAA can take a hike too. Although I don't 'do' Bit Torrent, neither do I buy new CD's or DVD's anymore. I always buy on half.com and other outlets for used medias. Not only is it cheaper, but I get the pleasure of not contributing any money to these companies.

[adam]

1st link- its propaganda, just like the public service information presented by any other organization whose sole purpose is to protect some particular industry. I wouldn't compare downloading a movie to stealing a car, but then again I wouldn't question it if someone where charged after willfully downloading a pirated movie either. The advertisement errs in degree, not in substance. Downloading pirated movies IS stealing, they just overemphasize this point to try to make it hit home. Whether it hurts or even helps the owner of that intellectual property, the fact is that you took something, even an intangible something, that didn't belong to you.

2nd link- you are misreading it. The quote is not saying that you, the viewer, has contracted for anything. It is saying that television producers contract with networks on an ad basis. Advertisers buy time from the network on the premise that if people watch the program in question, they will see their ads and buy their product. If everyone skipped the commercials then advertisers would have no reason to buy time, networks would make no money from broadcasting television, and in turn they could not pay studios to produce the programs.

If PVR's become widespread enough, and they continue to support the ability to systematically skip all commercials, then it is a fact that broadcast television as it exists today will cease to be profitable. Everything will become privatized and subscription based (its going that way anyway.) There will be plenty of other reprucussions as well. Marketing firms will struggle, commercial productions studios will die out, advertising will increase in other mediums (radio, literature etc...) and then people will start looking for ways to systematically skip those, etc...

I assume the networks/studios are thinking along the lines of these PVR's constituting tortious interference with a contract. Its an iteresting argument and might work. If it doesn't then its going to require a complete restructuring of network television.

[fccHandler]

Originally posted by adam
No one could look at lokitorrent and deny that their intent was to make a profit off of illegal filesharing. I'm sure the legal links comprised well less than 1% of that site's content. Also, the site's disclaimer poked fun at the MPAA, RIAA, et al, saying that the site's users basically knew the siteowner didn't care that the site was used for illegal purposes, but that he needed the legal "mumbo jumbo" to protect himself.
Thank you adam for that info! In fact, that is what I suspected from the beginning. But Neo Neko almost had me convinced that the site was an innocent victim of some kind of MPAA witch hunt. :rolleyes:

[fewtch]

RI/MPAA are "evil" (i.e. greedy, thug-like behavior, bad-faith intent with consumers, musicians, other companies, etc). In my opinion they deserve to be automatically assumed "guilty until proven innocent" in any action of this nature.
Originally posted by adam
1st link- its propaganda, just like the public service information presented by any other organization whose sole purpose is to protect some particular industry. I wouldn't compare downloading a movie to stealing a car, but then again I wouldn't question it if someone where charged after willfully downloading a pirated movie either. The advertisement errs in degree, not in substance. Downloading pirated movies IS stealing, they just overemphasize this point to try to make it hit home. Whether it hurts or even helps the owner of that intellectual property, the fact is that you took something, even an intangible something, that didn't belong to you.
According to them, backing up your own DVD's is "stealing" (i.e. copyright violation) too. Software containing DVD decryption can't be sold in the USA, even though there's many and obvious non-infringing uses for this.

I just can't make myself feel sorry for these rich, greedy wannabe mafioso. If anything, there's a temptation to cheer on the "little guy" who dares to stand against these thugs, even if they're clearly on the wrong side of the law.

[Neo Neko]

Originally posted by fccHandler
Thank you adam for that info! In fact, that is what I suspected from the beginning. But Neo Neko almost had me convinced that the site was an innocent victim of some kind of MPAA witch hunt. :rolleyes:

I never said they were "innocent". They were at the very least questionable. At any rate the witch/communist hunt is happening and rolls on. The companies are unquestionably abusing the system to their own ends. I am unaware of 1 of these cases that has ever made it to an actual trial. They all basically end in settlements. Unless you count the guy who had never used a P2P app, or the dead grandmother.(No rest for the wicked) And even though the settlements are as said "legaly binding" it does nothing to establish a precidence of actual legality to the methods they use or that those accused are honestly guilty. Some of em are sure. It is naieve however to think that the blanket lawsuits are apropriate or even necessary. Especially since the list of defendants was obtained using technology and the plaintifs have often proven technology and otherwise inept. :p

[dragongodz]

The advertisement errs in degree, not in substance. Downloading pirated movies IS stealing, they just overemphasize this point to try to make it hit home. Whether it hurts or even helps the owner of that intellectual property, the fact is that you took something, even an intangible something, that didn't belong to you.
sorry but i have to disagree. someone downloading a movie or whatever is charged with copyright infringement and not with theft. they are 2 different charges. that advert tries to say they are the same when the law says they are different. so its a lie and sensationalism that they should not be allowed to get away with.

you are misreading it. The quote is not saying that you, the viewer, has contracted for anything. It is saying that television producers contract with networks on an ad basis.
sorry but i have to disagree again. i quote -
Your contract with the network when you get the show is you're going to watch the spots. Otherwise you couldn't get the show on an ad-supported basis.
this is clearly talking about viewers. companies are only interested in viewers watching adverts as thats who they are trying to sell to.
and the crime if you dare to skip an advert ?
Any time you skip a commercial ... you're actually stealing the programming.
and to further show its viewers at home he is talking about
When asked if he considers people who go to the bathroom during a commercial to be thieves, he responded: "I guess there's a certain amount of tolerance for going to the bathroom. But if you formalize it and you create a device that skips certain second increments, you've got that only for one reason, unless you go to the bathroom for 30 seconds. They've done that just to make it easy for someone to skip a commercial."
so there is a certain amount of tolerance for people going to the toilet when adverts is on ? tolerance ? what are they going to come knock on my door if they think i went too many times ? :eek:
so yes he is also talking about PVR devices that skip adverts aswell but again when did i or any other user sign or agree that we will watch any adverts at all ? is there some warning before a program saying "by watching this show you are agreeing to watch X amount of advertising" ? we sure dont have that here. even if there was how would that be stealing and not a breach of contract ?

this sort of inflammatory and sensational language they are using is plain wrong at best and blatant lies at worst. this does nothing to enhance any of these people and/or companies image but just the reverse. while governments allow them to use such propaganda you will only see the divisions grow. those that are sick of the RIAA and MPAA and co lieing and abusing powers they should not have and those that are brainwashed to believe that what they say is right and they should be allowed to go to any lengths with no repurcussions.

[niamh]

I believe that if this carries on, owning a remote control will become illegal :rolleyes:


Any time you skip a commercial ... you're actually stealing the programming.
Proves absolutely how much the actual copyright issue is a contention bone for these particular people ( i.e. not at all). Watching/showing commercials in the middle of a work of art shows utter disrespect for the artists, and could be arguably construed as a breach of copyright in itself, since the work of art itself has been mangled and damaged. In my opinion if I[list=a]
go to the bathroom during ads
skip the ads with my remote by switching channels or shutting the TV up
go to the kitchen for a snack
use a software/hardware that permits me to skip ads
[/list=a]
to me it's one and the same: I'm doing the copyright holder a favour ;)

But anyway, this is a different issue than the one the thread was about, sorry for the digression :)

[adam]

fewtch I was just commenting on the advertisement in the first link, which has nothing to do with the RIAA or MPAA or their general tactics. They have no affiliation with the ad as far as I can tell. The advertisement also says nothing about backing up or otherwise copying a DVD for personal use, which may or may not be legal depending on which country you live in. The ad specifically, and only addresses the downloading of pirated movies and I agree with its general message that this is wrong and a form of stealing.

dragongodz: I think we are getting into semantics. I personally have never heard of a jurisdiction which specifically criminalizes "stealing." stealing (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=stealing) is rather a general descriptor for the act of taking the property of another, and there are a whole mess of laws which apply to stealing X under condition Y. The general legal crime for what you are talking about is theft which by definition requires the unlawful taking of physical property. Then we've got various crimes specific to intellectual property which involve the unlawful taking of intangibles. There are also a whole set of laws governing the unlawful taking of chattel papers. Or how about the unlawful appropriating of a company's goodwill (trademarks), or of someone's right to celebrity, or their name or likeness, etc... All of these are literally a form of stealing, and are all based on the common law crime of theft, they are just classified as specific laws of various names in order to make their enforcement practical.

Let's just break this down into the least common denominator. Pirating movies is wrong, and those who do it have no right to the movies they are obtaining. I think that was the main theme of that ad, it was just over the top in how it presented that message

[niamh]

I think that was the main theme of that ad, it was just over the top in how it presented that message
Yes, and MPAA and friends should really beware of creating martyrs and/or a Robin Hood effect, which is what is happening, so dislikeable are they. They are in the right, but I think a sizeable number of people are secretly cheering for the bad guys (lokitorrent or other), which should indicate the MPAA/RIAA they need to change their act and they have a major problem (nobody ever cheers for mass murderers or burglars, do they).

All in all, it's the artist losing again, because it's getting more tempting to just get back at the MPAA for the heck of it, than to think of the creators of the movie or other, needing to eat.

By the way: Stealing...not stealing....always the same debate......why not call it counterfeit? Am I getting close? ;)

[dragongodz]

I think we are getting into semantics.
not at all, we are talking specific crimes under law.

The general legal crime for what you are talking about is theft which by definition requires the unlawful taking of physical property.
exactly and they compare downloading a film (copyright infringement) to stealing a car, handbag ,tv and physical dvd(theft).

Then we've got various crimes specific to intellectual property which involve the unlawful taking of intangibles.
they are just classified as specific laws of various names in order to make their enforcement practical.
more than that. they are seperated because they are specific about the what the crime entails. so to call them the same is wrong. if it was really just to make enforcement practical a standard theft crime that covered any type of stealing/theft/unlawful obtainment/whatever would actually be simpler. by making abundant definitions its actually more complicated because you must get in to specifics to match the crime with the relevant law. these adverts make no distinction and would have people believe its all the same when under the law it is not, they are different specific crimes.

the advertisement in the first link, which has nothing to do with the RIAA or MPAA or their general tactics. They have no affiliation with the ad as far as I can tell.
i disagree. these are exactly the tactics the MPAA has used already with advertising on tv and in cinemas. no mention is made of any MPAA involvement true but then again consider that AFACT is an affiliate of the MPAA, just think of them as the Aus branch and you would not be far wrong. since this exact same advert appears in 4 different countries(that i know of) aswell i wonder who exactly would be pushing that.

anyway this has all left what this thread was started about and am tired of debating it. either people think the MPAA and RIAA etc should be held accountable for their tactics which have been shown to be questionable(thats the nicest i could call it) or people think its fine for them to do whatever they like. i wont bother to say anymore since i think there is plenty of evidence of what and how they do things already for people to make up their own minds.

[adam]

Like I said, I have no love for these organizations and I do view pretty much all of their actions with skepticism. But lokitorrent was not looking to defend consumer rights, they were out to profit at the expense of others. There is nothing wrong with shutting down an organization like this, regardless of who the plaintiff is in the suit.

As for the other links, you asked me to comment on them so I did. I didn't think they were particarly applicable to the current discussion either.

MPAA and RIAA are American corporations. I don't hold them accountable for an advertisement funded and produced by an Australian corporation which was only distributed in Australia, however like-minded the respective organizations might be.

either people think the MPAA and RIAA etc should be held accountable for their tactics which have been shown to be questionable(thats the nicest i could call it) or people think its fine for them to do whatever they like.

Either...or? Life is not black and white. The MPAA is not either always wrong or always right. There is no way an unbiased person could possibly take either of your positions.

You have to call your shots as you see them. The MPAA files plenty of perfectly legitimate suits too, this one with lokitorrent is a perfect example of one. It is easy for people to write off organizations because of their track records but the law can't be that biased. If the MPAA files a legitimate suit they should be able to recover on the merits, even if they are scheduled to sue a dead person the next day. (BTW, this happens all the time in litigation, not that that makes it ok.)

[dragongodz]

ok this really, really, really my last post on this.

There is nothing wrong with shutting down an organization like this, regardless of who the plaintiff is in the suit.
how many people do you see saying lokitorrent shouldnt have been shut down ? none. the debate went way off topic long ago.

MPAA and RIAA are American corporations. I don't hold them accountable for an advertisement funded and produced by an Australian corporation which was only distributed in Australia, however like-minded the respective organizations might be.
i quote from my previous post
no mention is made of any MPAA involvement true but then again consider that AFACT is an affiliate of the MPAA, just think of them as the Aus branch and you would not be far wrong. since this exact same advert appears in 4 different countries(that i know of) aswell i wonder who exactly would be pushing that.
where does AFACT get its funding i wonder. as for produced and only shown here...well again wrong.
1. there is actually a second add which has talking and its an English accent(as in the U.K.) so they are made there.
2. it is shown in 4 countries atleast that i know of. the only one pushing other countries than its own is the MPAA, not AFACT etc. so to think the MPAA had nothing to do with pushing these, even if just telling the local affiliate to do it, is wishful thinking.

Either...or? Life is not black and white. The MPAA is not either always wrong or always right. There is no way an unbiased person could possibly take either of your positions.
nobody said always right or always wrong. go back and read. i said they should be held accountable for their actions. isnt that infact what the law is about ? are not the MPAA sueing people/companies/corpses(;))/whatever because of their actions ? so i said either you belkieve they should be held accountable or you believe they should be able to do whatever and use whatever tactics they like. that is black and white.

[niamh]

If it's the ad that says, you wouldn't steal a handbag, you wouldn't steal a car,and so on and so forth, it's shown in Ireland too.

[XStylus]

Today, the letter "I" is brought to you by ShutDownThis.com.

It seems to be an interesting parody to the MPAA's takedown message.

[r6d2]

There is some interesting reading here (http://freenetproject.org/index.php?page=philosophy), but I'd like to particularly quote this section:
8. And what of copyright?
Of course much of Freenet's publicity has centered around the issue of copyright, and thus I will speak to it briefly. The core problem with copyright is that enforcement of it requires monitoring of communications, and you cannot be guaranteed free speech if someone is monitoring everything you say. This is important, most people fail to see or address this point when debating the issue of copyright, so let me make it clear:

You cannot guarantee freedom of speech and enforce copyright law

It is for this reason that Freenet, a system designed to protect Freedom of Speech, must prevent enforcement of copyright.

-- Ian Clarke
I don't agree with Ian's first bolded statement, so I cannot agree to the conclusion he makes either. But it is an interesting point of view.

[shevegen]

and then again i dont agree with your opinion
but hopefully we can agree that the whole Freenet project
sounds interesting, and can hopefully continue
to evolve, gaining momentum

and if not, i want a CorpNet monitoring us all

i dont want a bit of this, and a bit of that, gnaaah but just my lesser opinion here :>

[r6d2]

Originally posted by shevegen
and then again i dont agree with your opinionWell, I don't think I really expressed my opinion on my previous post, so I will clarify it here so you can disagree more properly:

I think freedom of speech is not about being able to say whatever you want anonymously. That's pretty easy anyway, it has no merit at all. It also allows you to act irresponsibly.

Freedom of speech is, IMHO, being able to express publicly what you think without fear of actions against you. If you have the right to say something, then nobody can go after you because of your sayings or thoughts. And it forces you to act responsibly.

Now you can disagree, of course. It is your right to do so. Interestingly enough, I'd love to see you come up with a good argument against that definition of freedom of speech. I have not found any so far.

[fewtch]

Originally posted by r6d2
I think freedom of speech is not about being able to say whatever you want anonymously. That's pretty easy anyway, it has no merit at all. It also allows you to act irresponsibly.

Freedom of speech is, IMHO, being able to express publicly what you think without fear of actions against you. If you have the right to say something, then nobody can go after you because of your sayings or thoughts. And it forces you to act responsibly.

Now you can disagree, of course. It is your right to do so. Interestingly enough, I'd love to see you come up with a good argument against that definition of freedom of speech. I have not found any so far.
The only objection I have is that the one(s) defining what's responsible or irresponsible, aren't always doing so responsibly themselves. Often it amounts purely to self-interest, as in the case of RIAA/MPAA. Self-interest is amoral, but often projected as an issue of morality (as in copyright violation being "stealing").

[adam]

I am very confused by Ian Clarke's logic. He seems to be talking about a right of privacy, not freedom of speech.

First of all, freedom of speech is provided by Article 1 of the US constitution. (Since we are talking about MPAA and RIAA, I'm just referring to US law.) We've got over 200 years of caselaw interpreting the first amendment and it is very clear that it only applies to state action not private action. The MPAA and RIAA are not government entities. The first amendment is completely and utterly inapplicable to them. Freedom of speech does not in any way limit the actions of individuals or private or publicly owned corporations, it only limits what the government can do. I just don't understand how broadcasting your ip to the public is even a form of speech anyway. Where is the expression of an idea? Its just a number used to trace a source.

Now monitoriing someone's communications is much more along the lines of the right to privacy which has been read into the 14th Amendment. We've only got about 125 years of caselaw interpreting this concept :) But again it only applies to state action and this right has only been held to extend to those communications which you have a reasonable expectancy of privacy in. When you are on P2P or otherwise accessing public protocols to access content, your ip is broadcasted to all to see. Anyone can open up Kazaa and see all the ips that are accessing copyrighted movie X. When you download from someone, or upload to someone, you are expressly showing them your ip address. I just don't see how anyone could reasonably expect privacy in this exchange when they are engaging in a public forum. The right to privacy does not grant you the right to mask your identity when engaging in public activity. You can do it of course, but if you are tracked and identified anway it is not a violation of your rights.

It seems very bizarre to me to suggest that copyrights cannot be enforced without limiting freedom of speech. Both are fundamental concepts in American Government and are expressly provided for in the Constitution. He is suggesting that one clause of the Constitution is violative of another. I don't see this as a very viable argument.

[r6d2]

Originally posted by adam
It seems very bizarre to me to suggest that copyrights cannot be enforced without limiting freedom of speech.I agree. It would be like saying that murder, for instance, can "only" be avoided by monitoring everyone's activities.

Anyway, I found this "jewel" dedicated to Ian Clarke, guess where? On Freenet itself!
IAN CLARK IS A MOTHERF*****.

I FU**** HIS MOTHER UP THE A** AND HE WATCHED WHILE I DID IT AND LIKED IT. HIS PE*** IS THE SIZE OF A PEA.

This site is a tribute to what Ian Clark has created: freedom of speech.PS: "French" edited from above quote.

As you may already know, Freenet works best to distribute new content when lots of people are interested on the same thing. A "regular" site can take several minutes to load. Well, this site opened in a blink.

This what I mean for responsibility for your acts online.

[fewtch]

At least everyone can agree that Freenet is an interesting concept. I see few legitimate purposes, but they do exist (e.g. allowing dissidents under repressive governments to communicate). Of course, this comes at a high price (trafficking in ch*ld p**rn, copyright violations, etc).

The concept of freedom as 'license to do anything' is interesting, if mostly fallacious. There are rare instances where being able to escape consequences of one's actions has positive value, but the point being such instances are limited to unusual situations.

[KaiserS]

Originally posted by fewtch
(trafficking in ch*ld p**rn, copyright violations, etc).

OT, but you know you can say child and porn on this website right? You can even put them together as child porn. :p