Thousands of Torrent Users Targeted by New Legal Action

42

Comments

+ Add a Comment
avatar

alejandra_herzig

There are many illegal things happening in this world and some illegal downloading should be our primary concern. More than that I think that they should make it legal! It's worth discussing it. I'm curious what Jonathan Dickstein would say about this. He's a very smart guy who I admire a lot.

avatar

kaori.

I never understood bittorrent, I used to be all obsessed with it, but now a days not really. Theres always other ways like server sites like rapidshare,megupload, mirc so forth.

I don't see the point in suing people, why don't they sue the websites that host the Torrent tag links. Whatever thats available over the web is free to me, it shouldnt be on the web in the first place.  Instead they're just trying to profit off of bittorrent by sending letters to each user to cough up some $$, funny how they don't go straight the to SOURCE{WEBSITES), without websites there wouldn't be any links?  TO ME THE INTERNET IS FREE WHATEVER IS AVAILABLE IS FAIR GAMe, isnt the internet supposed to be free? It might as well be policed.

 They targeted Europe so badly cause they have such NICE 100mbps connections, unlike the USA.  Imagine uploading at 12mb/s a sec? or dling at the speed, while in the USA you might get  10-800KB UL depending on state/populated city, depending on how what companies invested whatever, like verizon for example.   People in Europe can share reallllly fast, dl and ul a movie in like a few mins, now all the private Torrent sites they use, that's a lot.

Dled media doesn't last forever anyway, that's why crc errors redundancy exist.

Most music and movies, suck anyway. these days, no wonder why they're not profiting.  Well they are profiting, look at avatar for example, how many dam people do they want them to see their shitty movie over and over, they already made billions of $$, you'd think you would run out of audience by now.

It'll never end, something new will always pop up, unless isp/mpaa/ria monitor every bit of traffic, they will soon of course, little bribe money and there, just like they bribed Obama to sign that new bill :)  .  I knew took only a few millions to get their way.

 Don't really have to reply anyway, I know how most people are snoby and uptight people respond about this subject. And I dont even do anything illegal :), have showed a lot of friends how to use bittorrent, since they didnt understand it, all i said dont be crying to me if they sue your behind.

 

You wouldnt download  a Car would ya?

avatar

bachman

Suing the people who are uploading as opposed to downloading would cut off their new-found revenue stream.  Their aim isnt to stop piracy, it's to profit from it.

avatar

razamato

if you dont want someone getting your ip just get a vpn or a proxie nuff said!!!

avatar

jason_mcallister

The safest and easiest way to protect your privacy on P2P.   There is this opensource software here is the link http://phoenixlabs.org/pg2/ called Peer Guardian 2.  Identifies and blocks IP address traffic from sources that may try to spy on you.

avatar

Zazubovich

But the 4th amendment was canceled.  The internet is totally monitored as are phone/voice/text/data transmissions through the cell network.  It was the one thing our intelligence agencies could do well. 

avatar

schmag

for the most part from what I know. (I am not a lawyer) but when you send unencrypted data over public networks there is no privacy. it is like walking outside in the public anyone can take your picture or whatever it is public.

alot like wireless networks is how I look at it. it is not illegal to jump on an open wireless network, however if there is encryption enabled or any other security with the intention of limiting user access that you had to circumvent to gain access, then it is illegal.

 

what they should be doing instead of sueing every consumer they can think of. they should be setting up like movie itunes where you purchase access to the torrent. you download an image of the dvd etc. with the rights to burn it to disc etc for personal use. 

playing the I am going to sue you game, and actually treating lawsuits as revenue in the bottom line with your accountant to me is taking advantage of our legal system our judges have better things to do than to deal with this crap. like maybe putting murderers rapists drug dealers etc behind bars. 

avatar

Pball1224

I've read this several times in the comments: "ISPs shouldn't be snitching"

Are you kidding? How old are the people that are saying this?
Because they clearly don't understand how the world works.

This is
like saying if you call someone with a death threat, the phone company
shouldn't reveal where the call came from when the police hand them a
warrant for the call records.

Your ISP has no loyalties to you,
especially when given a warrant from a court, issued by a judge who
feels that perusing the issue further is worthwhile. Your ISP doesn't
"have your back". Every ISP contract I've ever looked at specifically
states that you are not allowed to perform illegal actions via the
connection they provide. I'm sure they're more than happy to comply with
the warrant, and even dump you as a customer once it's been proven that
you're ILLEGALLY downloading intellectual property.

If you are torrenting movies or music, and you get caught, YOU DESERVE IT!

avatar

Ashton2091

Apparently YOU don't know how this all works.  Cause if you did, then you would know that it isn't fair to use the Legal system to their advantage to form a revenue stream.  Also, how about the people that are actually uploading the torrent?  It's like going after a crackhead instead of the crack dealer that distributes it.  Same deal here.  I'm not going to go further (and i could) but it would FAR more effective than to sue EVERYONE.  That's just kind of ridiculous.  Do a little more research guy.  I'm not saying that it's not illegal and that nothing should be done...but I am saying that it's not as cut and dry as you make it.

avatar

snapple00

I think it is perfectly as cut and dry as he made it.

It isn't fair to use the legal system to get people that are stealing their media? Really?

Thats an interesting way of looking at things...

avatar

Saigua

It is not their media of course, or files would weigh in worse than a bunch of large fonts for print (BD-size.)  It isn't derivative enough (not counting poisoned files of one sort or another) to be much distinct, either.  (Only; 240i is distinct all right.)

Speculation of simplicity is required; sometimes it's well enough warranted to call (with police!)  Doing that by default is reflexively criminal.

avatar

Ashton2091

That's bull.  Lol, it is not as cut and dry.  Which is exactly why they have had such a hard time with this cat and mouse chase in the past.  Again, It is a FACT that it would be FAR more effective to go after the supplier.  As long as the movies are supplied, there will be people downloading.  Some of them very good people, who are just simply tempted once or twice.  AND NO, IT IS NOT RIGHT TO SUE THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE, JUST TO MAKE UP A FEW BUCKS (CAUSE TRUST ME...HOLLYWOOD IS NOT HURTING), WHEN THEY CAN GO AFTER THE UPLOADERS WHO SUPPLY THE CONTENT.  TO SUE THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE WILL NOT FIX ANYTHING.

If they really want a way to stream more revenue...umm...let's see...cheaper movies (DVDs are still $20 a pop), and better outlets to view them.  Every media technology except movies has moved forward and embraced new ways to supply content, allowing lower prices and resulting in sales at record highs, even in a down economy.

So yeah...that's a nice big bowl of Bull 

avatar

winmaster

Suing thousands of people is an effective way to help stop piracy. The reason many people pirate is because they feel that there is no way in hell that they are ever going to get caught. All it takes to make them stop is for their next door neighbor to get slapped with a huge fine, proving that you can in fact get caught.

 

Also, in online world, there are almost as many "suppliers" as downloaders.

 

Sounds like your just crabby because you might finally get caught stealing movies now. 

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 

The quick brown fox jumps over the lazy dog.

avatar

Ashton2091

Tell me how going after the uploader does NOT help fight piracy?  And how is it a proven solution when they have tried this over and over again.  Yet they are still fighting it?  Even went as far as suing a woman for 1.9 Million, and still scared no one.  In fact pirating is at an all time high.  I don't speak what I think...I speak facts.  Again...not saying piracy is right, but we have been down this road before and still...pirating continues more than ever.  Im done with ya.  Lol, I promise I won't respond to anything else u post.  Lmao

avatar

Ashton2091

and hell to the no there are not as many downloaders as suppliers.  who do u get your news from?  Lmao!  Most people that download, don't even know how to upload torrents.  Maybe in progams like Limewire and so on, simply because Limewire shares by "default".  Then...I could see that.

avatar

Thursday

Your argument might be valid in the old client-server form of peer to peer. But distributed torrent downloading means that virtually every downloader is also an uploader.

avatar

snapple00

Dude, you need to stop talking.

Prove that the
police/authorities/whoever are not going after uploaders. I can think of
a few news stories right now of some uploaders that got in trouble. People get in trouble on college campuses all the time. Google it.

You are so 2-D. "Only going after downloaders, uploaders are
clear", "Authorities need to go after suppliers, and stop hurting
regular thieves". Wow! I suppose you work with the people that go after these thieves, that's how you know exactly what they are doing and why its not working. 

I'm sure you understand this situation far
better than they do..

You speak pure BS. You don't have any proof for anything you say at all. 

And the fact that you can barely type coherently adds to the evidence.

avatar

silvershad

i agree about the warrent part. to "spy" on someone, you have to have a warrent, and even then, only certian agencies would be allowed to carrie that warrent. doing all of this violates the 4th amendment. i am worried about getting sued here. iv i get taken to court, ill counter sue with a violation of my constitutional rights. ill take this all the way to the supreme court if i have to.

 im really just worried about all of this. in the past, these companies have sued for an extreme amount of money that is no where near the correct amount. sure, ill pay the retail price back if i have to, but in no way will i be paying hundreds of thousands of dollars for a few $10-$20 movies!

avatar

Lhot

 ...and I quote from the above article:

 The US Copyright Group is using a new software technology that monitors
large Torrent swarms and logs IP addresses.

I'm no lawyer, but doesn't "spying" on people require a warrant?  I think someone should sue the US Copyright Group...it would be an open and shut case....they freely admit to using software to, in effect, SPY!!

As for the issue of the torrent users...could it possibly be that people are just sick and tired of a night for two at the movies, costing around $50.  On top of that...the MPIA is selling movies on known "not very long lasting media".

I think the courts time would be better spent, keeping an eye on the movie industry as a whole.  In all my time, I've never seen such unmitigated abuse of the consumer.  When your 12 yr old decides to pay frisbee with your movie DVD's...which happens continuously, does the MPIA send a new free copy of the movie you've already paid for....no  !!  How many times must I buy the same movie?

Both the torrent users and the MPIA are guilty of very illegal practices.  I guess if the torrent users had the money that the MPIA has, the lawsuits would be flying both ways.

In a way  this is just like when Miss Gabor slapped a police officer....she's Hollywood, she gets slap on wrist.....if I slapped a cop, after I got out of the hospital, I still wouldn't have a leg to stand on...how much longer can the courts turn a blind eye to the radical double standards in place today?

The internet has the posibility to be the greatest thing on the planet, but only if the courts start seeing BOTH sides of the story.  Instead, today, those with the largest bank accounts seem to be able to do anything they want, and are more or less above the law.

I for one am seriously glad that I have a genetic dispostion to heart attack or stroke, as I probably won't be around when the shyt hits the fan...and of course the loser will be the struggling consumer.  It's kind of a shame that those in place to make honest decisions....aren't...instead they are swayed by greed.  There's the old saying that "everyone has a price" but you'd think that an industry that can't spend the money they take in fast enough, would be above this sort of behavior.  

I'd really like to know which court is keeping an eye on the Hollywood Industry, or have they ALL been bought off already?  They arrest people who hack into others computers, unless of course, these same people can afford to buy off the courts.

The future:

... the US Copyright Group, will sue and win in about 25 cases, where people who simply can't afford the ridculous costs, will be fined into oblivion.  Some great system we have here  :/

I'm getting kinda sad, that as a species, we seem to be worse that the animal kingdom....you don't see them screwing each other over.

 

 

 

The "CLOUD" is the biggest mistake this country has made...EVER !

avatar

stradric

The movie industry has created this problem.  They've been forcing consumers to buy products that they don't want (DVD and bluray) and not offering the products they do want (hi-def digital downloads).  They've even gone backwards by locking down Netflix from offering anything decent on-demand while also stripping them of new releases -- leaving piracy as the only viable option.

Then combine that with the ubiquity of home theaters and the exorbitant prices in movie theaters (and generally gross and aggravating conditions) along with DRM on purchased media -- you really can't blame the consumer for jumping on the pirate bay and downloading the new release hi-def movies in about an hour.  The pirates are providing the consumers with a better service for FREE while the movie industry is tightening their grip on content. 

Honestly, I don't know where these idiotic decisions come from.  But I'm betting there are some bright-eyed execs waiting in the wings for their old-school bosses to die off or retire.  Only then will consumers be given a fair shake.  I for one would gladly pay a fair price for premium content instead of downloading it from pirates.

I fully DO NOT support independent prosecutions of these downloaders.   It's predatory and a violation of privacy.

avatar

dullthud

If the files are being downloaded from public trackers, why do you make an assumption of privacy? I can log the ip of anyone who is seeding to or leeching from me, if I want to, and so can anyone else. The data is not encrypted or hidden in any way. There are apparently still some people who realize that the internet exists outside their house, and that they can be identified by someone who knows how and has an interest in them.

As for these lawsuits, this is a scare tactic, plain and simple. All these court actions are. They make a big noise and a make an example out of a few people to try to frighten the majority away from filesharing. It's just a numbers game. If they don't do something, everyone will start downloading "illegally", instead of just a few "pirates". They can't possibly take 50000 people to court, the cases would take decades to clear. If it makes nervous people stop filesharing, then it has been a successful operation. Mission Accomplished.

avatar

chipmunkofdoom2

The world is changing. When many years ago one paid for and read a newspaper, now you go online and hit up your favorite online news sites instantly and for free. When yesterday we bought records to listen to the songs we love, today we needn't even pirate them to hear them for free; Youtube or radio sites like Pandora can provide us with what we want. Back in the day, you paid $20 for a hardback copy of your favorite book; now, you pop on over to Amazon or a publisher's site, pay $5, and download the book in under a minute and begin reading.

 

Movie piracy is more than leechers and theives stealing intellectual property. It's about ease of access to the content in this modern, digitized society. It's partially about the price, and it's very much so about how legitimately buying a DVD rewards you with content crippling DRM that is illegal to circumvent.

 

Not everyone who steals a movie will buy it if they can't download it, but I feel by dropping the price and making the content more fluid and usable, the movie and music industry would waste much less time trying to find pirates and would earn at least a little more money.

avatar

Thursday

I was coming to this thread to make this exact post. Thank you for saving me about 20 minutes of typing...lol.

That being said, convenience is a poor excuse for breaking the law. But it is pretty telling that the MPIA would rather sue it's customers than try to meet an obvious demand of legitimate customers.

avatar

Ashton2091

That's right on the money

avatar

spentnickles

I've never had a problem paying for intellectual property - the problem that I have is with the exorbiant amounts of money that companies charge for that intellectual property.  So here's a thought:

Movie companies and music companies are mad because they aren't making money: DROP THE PRICE AND SELL DIGITAL COPIES LEGALLY!  Lobby to have the DMCA removed and sell your own copies for $10 a pop - eliminate the middle man (disc pressers) and make 100% profit.  Track those copies and sue anyone that violates the sharing of that copy...  The IFTA, MPAA, RIAA and the rest of them are going about all of this the wrong way...  They should be using .torrents to their advantage... 

To me, its the same thing with illegal immigration: I think the US should BUY Mexico, make all Mexican's US citizens, make them pay taxes and cut the border by 75% (which is much more managable). 

If these things are such issues, lets look at how to solve the problem in a logical manner instead of taking legal action.  The US seems to thrive on lawyers today - no lacking there...let's put them out of business, but lets do it the right way - solve our problems. 

avatar

Keith E. Whisman

Heh... I gotta check my email...

avatar

logicmaster2003

ISP should be to blame

ISP fails to blocks torrent / kazaa / limewire / etc
etc.

 ISP should be the ones getting fined because they're the middle-man.

 

~ just my 3 cents

avatar

Peanut Fox

ISPs should not be to blame.  How a person uses the internet is their own business.  Making ISPs responsible would be like making gun makers responsible for shooting deaths.  If you use your internet connection to steal data you are committing the crime and are the one at fault and no one else.

avatar

winmaster

Its bad enough the ISP's have to report user's information when they receive a warrant. Its not their fault, and now their supposed to go digging in their records for John Doe's IP address at whatever o' clock on <insert date here>. And then we complain about bandwidth capping and throttling.  

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 

The quick brown fox jumps over the lazy dog.

avatar

bpstone

The Anime I watch is not available in America, so therefore I have no choice but to watch it illegally. They send me mail, fuck em’, give me a way to watch the content legally instead of benefiting your ass.

avatar

bobla90042

I'm not defending the practice of downloading illegal content, but at the same time the reality is that for some people -- given the recession, etc. -- buying DVDs, paying to download or going to movies is a luxary they can't afford. Stopping them from downloading a movie isn't going to result in increased cash for the film industry.

 

There needs to be a broader look at the process of distributing content in a way that is affordable yet allows the industry to capitle it needs to produce quality entertainment. I gladly pay $12 a month for Showtime. I'd be glad to pay as well for a subscription channel that distributes movies, if I didn't have to also pay for far too much for content that I never watch because I have to buy a whole package from the cable company! My budget has limits, as does just about everyone's (except for the stars and senior industry execs who have personal budgets in the billions). I'm just sayin'.

avatar

steakkills

I completly agree with you. torrents are just using the internet the way it was origonally designed I mean then everything would be hypotheically illegal because there is so much content being distributed over the internet movies are downloaded from 1000s of computers all of those people with those files unknowingly on there computer so they should be proscuted as well because those files are on there computer. Same with websites that you have to pay to get access but they dont care cause they know how the internet works.

avatar

steakkills

Well you think people who make independent films like documentaries and stuff would be happy that atleast people are interested in their film. They shouldn't be suing people just cause someone didn't buy their film they are suing them cause they don't make much money anyway. I mean honestly you can justify piracy by basically saying that someone had to buy it in order to copy it. Same goes with movies in theaters they make how many million and they still sue people why whats the points so you can make another 2 billion on dvds.. stupid it is all stupid and rubbish

avatar

Member2600

First I just want to say I dont advocate or encourage theft, its wrong to steal peoples hard earned work and creation no matter how great/bad a ABC movie/music/game you steal its still wrong.

Second this course of action in finding people to blame is just a blatant witch hunt, it would not be any different from going into an appartment that is known to be a home of a drug dealer and pulling out a certain number of people who may or may not be neighbors aquaintences etc to sniff out the culprit then having a public hanging.

The apartment the IP, the neighbors the ISP, the noose a sorry excuse for a legal argument, and justice watches this injustice.

People strip your privacy and hang you, its called a mob, which should also be illegal.

People should have to pay for injustices such as theft, but they will do so in a just manner and should answer to those who they have wronged and not some legal nuts who have too much time on their hands for easy money.

 

avatar

Who

This makes me sad :(

avatar

gendoikari1

Wait, the RIAA is doing the sane thing in this case? What. The. Hell.

avatar

HiGHRoLLeR038

I can understand that private film producers need their money, but ISPs shouldnt be snitching out their paying customers.  there should be something written in every ISPs contract saying something about the customers traffic privacy.

avatar

ResidentArse

I agree. Lawyers needing money = RIAA.  If the supreme court allows companies to look at IP swarms, who knows what they could do with those IPs aside from what they intend.

avatar

blackeagle0evi

my isp better not snitch me out :P

avatar

austin43

I really hope the ISP's tell these crooks to go pound sand.  The lawyers take all the money in these cases and none of the money ever gets back to the people stolen from.  The RIAA is a giant scam.

avatar

JohnP

  The ISP would be in a tough position, they would get none of the money and all of the grief from their customers.

avatar

Cooketh

"Does anyone want to play devil’s advocate and defend this practice?"

Hell no.

Log in to MaximumPC directly or log in using Facebook

Forgot your username or password?
Click here for help.

Login with Facebook
Log in using Facebook to share comments and articles easily with your Facebook feed.