Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

LokiTorrent vs. MPAA

samzenpus posted more than 9 years ago | from the good-luck dept.

The Courts 909

ravenspear writes "It seems that the attack on torrent sites is continuing strong. This time Lokitorrent is being sued by the MPAA. Unlike Suprnova and most of the previous sites however, they aren't planning to just roll over and die. It will no doubt be a dificult fight, but they plan to stay up for the time being. Also, they are asking for donations to cover their legal expenses. So far they have raised $8,755 out of a needed $30,000. "

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Don't forget... (-1, Redundant)

SCO$699FeeTroll (695565) | more than 9 years ago | (#11215004)

...to pay your $699 licensing fee you cock-smoking teabaggers.

Obviously.... (5, Funny)

2.7182 (819680) | more than 9 years ago | (#11215006)

Loki is the god of mischief, so the names says it all. Now if it was Odintorrent, I'd side with them.

Re:Obviously.... (0, Offtopic)

ItsGottaBeGoatse (844031) | more than 9 years ago | (#11215069)

I prefer GoatseTorrent myself :) LOLOMG!

Update (5, Informative)

ravenspear (756059) | more than 9 years ago | (#11215008)

Since I submitted this they updated the site and have now have received $9,940 in donations.

Also, they posted an image of the of the complaint they were served with here [img68.exs.cx] .

Re:Update (2, Informative)

sconeu (64226) | more than 9 years ago | (#11215161)

warning: link has one of those fake windows messages as a pop-up. (Yes, Firefox blocked it, but I wanted to see what was blocked).

So.... (-1, Troll)

JustinXB (756624) | more than 9 years ago | (#11215009)

So now you're paying to keep an illegal site online? Just buy the damn songs and movies! Damn hippies.

Re:So.... (4, Insightful)

IdleTime (561841) | more than 9 years ago | (#11215031)

I just wonder what hippies got to do with this?

Is it some sort of a political statement from you? If you don't like hippies, well.. That is your problem, but I don't think you find many hippies among filesharers. To bad you don't have contact with the real world.

Re:So.... (0, Flamebait)

JustinXB (756624) | more than 9 years ago | (#11215045)

Oh sorry, I meant to say "criminals".

Re:So.... (1)

IdleTime (561841) | more than 9 years ago | (#11215050)

Explain how they are criminals? Are you a lawyer or a judge maybe?

Re:So.... (-1, Offtopic)

JustinXB (756624) | more than 9 years ago | (#11215060)

Well lets see.. Distributing copyrighted material without permission, for starters.

Re:So.... (1)

gonkem (532629) | more than 9 years ago | (#11215065)

Alledgedly.

Re:So.... (0, Redundant)

IdleTime (561841) | more than 9 years ago | (#11215075)

I don't think the bittorrent site is distributing copyrighted material unless you claim that someone has a copyright on the torrent's themselves

Re:So.... (0, Redundant)

JustinXB (756624) | more than 9 years ago | (#11215090)

If you'd bother to read my original post, my hippies remark was targeted at those who used the site. You then said "What does hippies have to do this" so I said "I meant criminals" which leads us to here.

Re:So.... (3, Insightful)

IdleTime (561841) | more than 9 years ago | (#11215098)

And you still don't make any sense at all....

I have never used bittorent but as far as I understand, the sites only hosts the torrent file and no contents, so you can continue to explain why that is illegal...

Re:So.... (0, Troll)

JustinXB (756624) | more than 9 years ago | (#11215106)

I don't make any sense? No, you're reading wrong. I didn't say the site was doing anything illegal. I said the users were.

Re:So.... (2, Informative)

MysteriousMystery (708469) | more than 9 years ago | (#11215124)

Some users are, just because the MPAA claims copyright over something doesn't totally validate their copyright. If I tape a movie or television show off of broadcast TV and redistribute it without profitting from it, in many countries that's perfectly legal.

Re:So.... (4, Interesting)

ryanr (30917) | more than 9 years ago | (#11215158)

You said:
So now you're paying to keep an illegal site online?

And then you said:
I didn't say the site was doing anything illegal.

So which bit is illegal?

Re:So.... (4, Informative)

Aneurysm9 (723000) | more than 9 years ago | (#11215100)

Distributing copyrighted materials without a license is not a criminal offense. It is a violation of a civil right that gives rise to a civil cause of action. And, as others have pointed out, these sites are not distributing copyrighted content, but links to information detailing ways to obtain copyrighted content, subtle difference, but nothing worse than what Grokster is doing and that has already been ruled not to be contributory infringement.

Re:So.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11215125)

And, as others have pointed out, these sites are not distributing copyrighted content, but links to information detailing ways to obtain copyrighted content, subtle difference.

1. What jurisdiction did the court have that made this decision?
2. Isn't this extremely close to what Napster 1.0 was doing?

Re:So.... (1)

Aneurysm9 (723000) | more than 9 years ago | (#11215160)

It was the 9th Circuit and, if the Supreme Court sticks to its prior jurisprudence it will uphold the decision. As for Napster 1.0, they had means to discontinue user accounts when they became aware of infringing content. If these sites allow anonymous posting or find a way to distribute the data store they can avoid the very narrow A&M v. Napster holding.

Re:So.... (3, Insightful)

Bradee-oh! (459922) | more than 9 years ago | (#11215126)

Well lets see.. Distributing copyrighted material without permission, for starters.

I don't know everything about LokiTorrent but if they are like other tracker sites, explain to me how they distribute the copyrighted material first hand? The point here is not the pirating - it is shutting down services that have legitimate uses simply because a huge organization of corporations is threatened by it.

The individuals who knowingly give away copyrighted material to unlicensed recipients are the "damned hippies" or damned criminals. The tracker sites that provide a way for a legitimate p2p network to operate are not.

Re:So.... (2, Insightful)

artifex2004 (766107) | more than 9 years ago | (#11215087)

Explain how they are criminals? Are you a lawyer or a judge maybe?


He's certainly a potential juror, anyway. Or do you think they don't count, any more? I think OJ would say otherwise.

Re:So.... (0, Troll)

IdleTime (561841) | more than 9 years ago | (#11215113)

Jury?
Only if the site in question is located in the US. Other countries don't drag in jury-people for things like this. Another flaw in the antiquated judicial system here in the US.

Re:So.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11215082)

Alleged criminals.

Re:So.... (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11215032)

It's not an illegal website. The website does not host any copyrighted material.

Re:So.... (4, Insightful)

ComputerSlicer23 (516509) | more than 9 years ago | (#11215165)

Disclaimer: I've never used LokiTorrent, or any sort of BitTorrent software. So my premise that BitTorrent has uses other then distributing movies might be flawed. However, I know several smaller Linux distributions use bittorent as a method of distribution.

It's worth standing up and fighting it, if you have legitimate purposes behind your software. Identified copyrighted material should obviously be taken down. What would you say if they showed up to taken down all of the PoP's for your local ISP's. Obviously, they are facilitating copyright infringement. They are willfully participating in it. What would you say if they started taking computers away? What would you say if they started taking away copy machines? They are targetting a particular type of software that has highly legitmate uses. I think someone should stand up and get a court case to establish what the boundaries are for what a copyright holder can accomplish against someone whom they feel is infringing. It'd be wonderful to establish boundaries. The MPAA as far as I personally know, hasn't done the willfully stupid things that the RIAA has (recently at least, Jack Valentti was an idiot about technology as nearly as I can tell).

It is appearent that some of these sites need to have fairly stringent policies about posting copyrighted material. LokiTorrent might be one that has nothing to do but distribute copyright material. However, I'd guess that there are Torrent sites out there that act as seeds/mirrors/whatever they are called in the lingo, for legitimate purposes. If Loki feels it is one of those, they should stand up and fight for themselves. Bully for them. If they aren't, I hope they get smacked around legally before any really stupid legal precedence get set. A quick perusal of their site leads me to believe, they are an obvious copyright infringer and the MPAA has a legitimate beef. At least the MPAA appears to be targetting the proper people, unlike the RIAA.

Kirby

What is there besides Lokitorrent? (1)

WizardRahl (840191) | more than 9 years ago | (#11215014)

If Lokitorrent goes down, the warez/movies community will have next to no medium for mass distribution of stuff... except xdcc which isn't that great or p2p which sucks. :P

Re:What is there besides Lokitorrent? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11215048)

Maybe they should just stop tracking movies but leave everything else. After all, movies are what the MPAA are concerned about. All the other content is someone else's problem.

Re:What is there besides Lokitorrent? (1)

WizardRahl (840191) | more than 9 years ago | (#11215074)

-1? The mod needs to get the stick out of his ass!

$30K? (4, Insightful)

Neil Blender (555885) | more than 9 years ago | (#11215016)

What'll that cover? A week?

$9940 (3, Insightful)

tyleroar (614054) | more than 9 years ago | (#11215018)

They've got $9940 now. How much do you think the slashdot attention will help them out? Personally I'd rather see people donate to help out with the Tsunami relief [google.com] .

Re:$9940 (4, Insightful)

JNighthawk (769575) | more than 9 years ago | (#11215076)

Whining because people would prefer donating to something that directly affects them while having a pyramid scheme link in your .sig. Oh, the irony. If you really cared, you wouldn't participate in the pyramid scheme.

Re:$9940 (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11215127)

Tsunamis are already against the law. There isn't any need for activism against tsunamis. MPAA, on the other hand, is a recurring problem that still has some remaining support from certain undesirable elements of society.

Here's an idea: write MPAA and tell them to spend their lawyer money on tsunami relief.

Re:$9940 (4, Insightful)

sinner0423 (687266) | more than 9 years ago | (#11215153)

This is Slashdot, my man.

Saving lives > File trading.

I may not agree with what you have to say, but I will die defending your right to say it.

What's next? (5, Funny)

mg2 (823681) | more than 9 years ago | (#11215020)

Dear AIMUser304921, It has come to our attention that on December 12th, 2004, you had an AOL Instant Messenger conversation with AIMUser201192 about how some of your buddies have a bootleg copy of Spiderman 2. To avoid legal action, you must cease and desist communicating with anybody ever again about anything possibly illegal. That, or be ready for us to sue your pants off.

Question to people who donate (0, Flamebait)

OverlordQ (264228) | more than 9 years ago | (#11215021)

Instead of donating money to people violating the law, why not just buy the software/product in the first place?

Re:Question to people who donate (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11215027)

Because we disagree with the law.

Re:Question to people who donate (3, Informative)

a8o (743233) | more than 9 years ago | (#11215037)

What's the bet a site like this takes their $9,000 and runs? Is there any onus on Loki once they receive the money?

Re:Question to people who donate (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11215049)

Thousands of people filing claims with PayPal or calling their credit card companies to chargeback the payment.

Re:Question to people who donate (1)

a8o (743233) | more than 9 years ago | (#11215092)

As if you'd be able to get money back from a non-existant entity.

Re:Question to people who donate (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11215109)

I didn't say anything about getting money back from Lokitorrent.

Credit Card companies are extremely liberal about chargebacks and usually do them with very little question.

I don't know what PayPal's policy is but if you funded it through a Credit Card you have pretty airtight security with your CC company.

Re:Question to people who donate (-1, Troll)

computerme (655703) | more than 9 years ago | (#11215043)

Because the thieving little 'tards think that donating 10 bucks will remove their guilt of stealing thousands of dollars of movies, music and software...

Re:Question to people who donate (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11215047)

That requires a little too much common sense for the average pirate.

On a serious note, though, I wonder how big the average donation is, because I really can't see anyone justifying a $1000 contribution for instance. On the other hand, that's only about 50-100 DVDs, so perhaps it's not too surprising after all.

Re:Question to people who donate (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11215059)

Because the law is wrong. Duh. Honestly, what sort of a stupid question is that?

TOTAL FREEDOM OF INFORMATION!

Re:Question to people who donate (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Luddite (808273) | more than 9 years ago | (#11215132)

>> TOTAL FREEDOM OF INFORMATION!

by all means, please start the ball rolling, AC. reply with your:

credit card numbers
banking info
social insurance number
full legal name
date of birth

It's just information, and it wants to be free.

asshat.

Re:Question to people who donate (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11215166)

If you've got it, spread it

bitch

Re:Question to people who donate (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11215174)

TOTAL FREEDOM OF INFORMATION!

Yes! Now post your Social Security and Credit Card numbers here please. Do it for the cause of Total Freedom Of Information.

Re:Question to people who donate (5, Interesting)

Senjutsu (614542) | more than 9 years ago | (#11215061)

Because this is about defending the right to say "There's a guy over there in that place illegally distributing software", not about getting access to said software. LokiTorrent wasn't distributing software, they were just hosting torrent files that pointed the way to people who were.

This is like suing Google for finding a link to a site distributing software illegally. It's silly, and it's a chilling restriction of the concept of free speech.

Re:Question to people who donate (1)

computerme (655703) | more than 9 years ago | (#11215099)

No this is like suing google because it knowingly and has not stopped providing links to social security and credit card numbers of you and me.

That would be stupid, too. (1)

Senjutsu (614542) | more than 9 years ago | (#11215115)

Why sue the index? Going after the actual credit card thief would be more effective, and having an index on which they can be found actually helps track them down.

Driving them underground and making them harder to find would be several distinct varieties of stupid.

Re:That would be stupid, too. (1)

computerme (655703) | more than 9 years ago | (#11215142)

i'm not saying sue google. unless they wave it in your face and refuse to do the right thing and take down the links.

Re:Question to people who donate (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11215064)

Loki went out of business years ago.

Re:Question to people who donate (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11215159)

hmmm, Danegeld anyone?

hosting links isn't illegal (4, Insightful)

mrterrysilver (826735) | more than 9 years ago | (#11215022)

how is hosting links to illegal files illegal? all torrents files are, are links which tell users with bittorrent where they are able to download illegal files (obviously many torrents are for legal files too). since the torrents sites aren't hosting any actual files how is this any different from google linking to a webpage that hosts pirated music or movies or images?

Re:hosting links isn't illegal (4, Insightful)

zalas (682627) | more than 9 years ago | (#11215051)

Google indexes everything. Sites which knowingly serve torrents which point to trackers that serve copyright infringing materials do not.

Re:hosting links isn't illegal (1)

the_mad_poster (640772) | more than 9 years ago | (#11215067)

Because google isn't intentionally making themself an accomplice in the crime.

Next question?

Re:hosting links isn't illegal (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11215079)

since the torrents sites aren't hosting any actual files how is this any different from google linking to a webpage that hosts pirated music or movies or images?

It isn't. That's why Google has been forced to takedown various links due to letters they've received from Kazaa and the Church of Scientology. If they receive a letter stating that they are linking to copyright material, they are required by law (the DMCA evidentially) to take it down.

Re:hosting links isn't illegal (2, Interesting)

Matt2k (688738) | more than 9 years ago | (#11215083)

The difference is an intent to facilitate a crime. In criminal law this is called , also called an accessory or an accomplice.

http://reference.allrefer.com/encyclopedia/A/acc es sor.html

"An accessory before the fact is one whose counsel or instigation leads another to commit a crime."

If I run a criminal ring, but do not actually participate directly, I am still culpable. This really isn't any different.

Re:hosting links isn't illegal (2, Informative)

Aneurysm9 (723000) | more than 9 years ago | (#11215135)

Copyright infringement is NOT A CRIME! It is a violation of a civil right. Furthermore, most torrent sites do nothing more than what Grokster et al. do, which has been held not to be contributory or vicarious infringement. If these sites are only allowing people to post information about links to torrents that provide information about how to obtain material that may or may not be copyrighted they are not vicarious infringers.

There is no equivalent concept in Civil Law (1)

Senjutsu (614542) | more than 9 years ago | (#11215150)

So that is irrelevant in Copyright infringement cases such as this.

2600.com & DeCSS (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11215171)

2600.com had a similar case [geek.com] where they were ordered not to link to any site that had decss. Never mind the fact that google and pletny of other sites did and still do.

They lost the case.

What Are The Odds ? (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11215024)

What are the odds that people who won't pay for movies or software will stick their hands in their pockets and fund a legal fight ? Not very high methinks ...

how microsoft can kill linux torrent sites (0, Troll)

bani (467531) | more than 9 years ago | (#11215025)

1) pay russian/chinese/etc criminals to post floods of warez on linux torrent sites
2) "complain" to the feds about warez on linux torrent sites
3) ...
4) profit!

Re:how microsoft can kill linux torrent sites (1)

theparanoidcynic (705438) | more than 9 years ago | (#11215178)

You've got a problem with step 1. The legit Linux torrent sites aren't gonna post links to said warez torrents.

They could post fake Linux torrent sites, which would get annihilated. I'm not sure what that would accomplish though. The feds may be evil, but they aren't stupid.

lokitorrent is still illegal (4, Insightful)

dextr0us (565556) | more than 9 years ago | (#11215026)

Basically, i don't see how their legal defense would go. "we only provide links to the torrents" would be suprnovas, but isn't loki a tracker?

"we're not the ones downloading, we're just facilitating."

thats like saying "i didn't make him shoot his younger brother, i just gave him the gun, and then told his brother to stand there for a few seconds, and i'd give him a cookie.

Anywho, someone enlighten me on a legal strategy

Re:lokitorrent is still illegal (5, Interesting)

Ieshan (409693) | more than 9 years ago | (#11215085)

The strategy is the same as if you were to sue Google for providing links to torrent files (like this: google link to search for harry potter [google.com] ).

I suppose one could make the argument that the fact that Lokitorrent is a tracker makes them very much different, but since Trackers only facilitate the exchange of information [they don't actually contain any pieces of any of the infringing works themselves], it's difficult to sue *them* for copyright infringement (since they aren't distributing or in illegal possession of any of these copyrighted works).

Now, if there *were* a law that said that if one knew about copyright infringement they would be legally obligated to report it to the authorities, Lokitorrent would certainly be illegal. I'm not sure there is such a law.

I'm not saying what Loki is doing is *morally right*, I'm just saying it might be defensible.

lokitorrent is still illegal-Test of faith. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11215108)

"Anywho, someone enlighten me on a legal strategy"'

I think the more important point is that LokiTorrent should be the proverbial "Putting one's money, were one's mouth is". There's been a certain group here who's been complaining about how they believe in principle this, and principle that. And how no one will listen, and they were Robin Hood in a previous life. In other words "Put up, or Shut up".*

*Yes mod to (-1) Troll, but I'll still be right down their, as well as up here.

Re:lokitorrent is still illegal (1)

Breakfast Pants (323698) | more than 9 years ago | (#11215167)

That they are a tracker means little. Legally though I belive this all depends on the way their site functions. Basically, do they let users post torrents through some automated system or do they manually accept each of them. If its an automated system they have a strong argument of basically being merely facilitators of communication in general which while this service may allow pirated information so might other methods of general communication, for instance the telephone. If they have received torrent requests from people and they look at it and go ok this is a copyrighted movie we'll manually chunk that in our movies section and put it on our site then you have some contributory copyright infringement problems even though they never ever touch the files themselves.

However take everything I've said with a grain of salt because in the napster case all they were doing is essentially hosting an automated database of everyone's files with not manual interaction themselves. It's really shakey legal ground and different circuits are giving someone contradictory rulings on this and numerous contradictory rulings are what usually make something go all the way up to the land of The Supreme Court. Anyway, I have my doubts about this $30,000 but we'll see if this actually goes to trial.

Paypal address... (5, Informative)

nuclear305 (674185) | more than 9 years ago | (#11215028)

Now that it's on slashdot, I'm sure they'll need that $30,000 for bandwidth bills :(

Just FYI, their paypal address appears to be support@lokitorrent.com. If you're going to post a story about a site taking donations to fight a lawsuit, at least include a way to donate AFTER you Slashdot their site to hell and back.

Re:Paypal address... (5, Interesting)

ravenspear (756059) | more than 9 years ago | (#11215056)

Probably not. I talked to a mod in their IRC channel and he said the site has around 500,000 users now. It went up to that from around 40,000 after Suprnova shut down.

Re:Paypal address... (1)

ravenspear (756059) | more than 9 years ago | (#11215107)

Also, the link to donate appears right on their main page, and I warned them that their site was about to be slashdotted before this was posted and they didn't seem too concerned about it.

Oh, they'll roll over and die (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11215029)

They are just planning on a long and drawn out life support session.

Right on the fucking torrent page (1, Insightful)

the_mad_poster (640772) | more than 9 years ago | (#11215036)

First five listings:

Half Life 2
The Grudge
White Chicks
Blade 3
Exorcist, The Beginning

Whatever, man. Boo hoo. They're getting sued. Maybe they should have thought about that before they started riding the legal fence like that.

They will not get a dime from me, and this has nothing to do with my rights.

MOD PARENT "TROLL DAT" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11215077)

That's a post with spot on truth but will get modded down by a Slashbot who thinks stealing is legal.

Re:Right on the fucking torrent page (2, Insightful)

Paradise Pete (33184) | more than 9 years ago | (#11215102)

this has nothing to do with my rights.

Nope.
Not yet, anyway.

Money to the lawyers? (4, Funny)

Matt2k (688738) | more than 9 years ago | (#11215039)

I don't know about the people that are donating, but it seems a little silly to just hand over money and actually expect them to get a lawyer. If anything I'd just as likely expect them to take the 30K and run. Thanks for the donations!

Hire a lawyer? To defend something that's blatenly illegal? People are buying this? The Internet is a great place.

Re:Money to the lawyers? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11215070)

Replace "The Internet" with "slashdot" and you've got it!

Umm, guess higher (5, Funny)

mrpuffypants (444598) | more than 9 years ago | (#11215062)

So far they have raised $8,755 out of a needed $30,000.

Actually, since they're attempting to take on the MPAA in court that really means that they've raised $8,755 out of a needed $infinity.

Good luck nonetheless, guys.

Re:Umm, guess higher (1)

Darkn3ss (812009) | more than 9 years ago | (#11215162)

Doubtful. When OJ was being tried for his murder, he ran out of money. His lawyers continued to try the case pro-bono because they knew that if they won, they would have 100x more business and settling out of court (hey, if you get OJ off, you'll settle out of court more often) is a lot cheaper than going to court because you can bill more hours. My bet is that they have a lawyer claiming (not the keyword here) that he'll try the entire case for $30,000. My guess is that after the money has gone, the lawyer will duck and run.

Give (0, Flamebait)

slumpy (304072) | more than 9 years ago | (#11215066)

Finally, I can donate money to a REAL cause and not some made-up disaster in south-east asia.

Re:Give (1)

Matt2k (688738) | more than 9 years ago | (#11215101)

South-east asia just needs a website with a little Payal button that reads "Donate now to keep this site alive!". Internet magic. Problem solved.

Here's the question... (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11215073)

If this is a site that is using BitTorrent as a method for downloading 100% legit material like public domain movies, linux distributions, creative commons licensed songs, etc., I'd be pretty sympathetic and probably throw in some financial support.

But I've never heard of Lokitorrent. Is this an example of the MPAA attacking the BitTorrent PROTOCOL, or is this as the MPAA unfairly letter [img68.exs.cx] suggests, an attempt to stop someone from illegally distributing copyrighted material? If it's the former, I think it's bullshit. If it's the latter, then, well... I'm not sure this the kind of test case I want to see setting precedent for BitTorrent's future or reputation.

Remember, copyright law, as flawed as it is (in terms of duration and other areas), is what currently gives the GPL its teeth.

Donate for an illegal site or Asian tsunami relief (1)

Stop the war now! (662586) | more than 9 years ago | (#11215089)

Wow, tough decision.

Devil's Advocate: Derived works (1, Interesting)

The Pi-Guy (529892) | more than 9 years ago | (#11215091)

Now, I know that it may be sacreligious to say this here, but doesn't the MPAA have a point?

These .torrents, indeed, point to copies of the files, and I don't think that that's illegal. But, the .torrents do have something else that is (probably) illegal: a derived work of the movie. The .torrents contain hashes of the encoded version of the movie. Regardless of whether the movie can be reconstructed from the hashes or not (and if it's a good hash, it can't be), a derived work is a derived work. If we allow violation of their copyright to take place in this form, we might as well say "Go ahead and steal the Linux kernel - as long as you compile it, it's OK." Is that what we want to be saying?

This is how copyright law works (I think). Or am I totally off base?

joshua

Re:Devil's Advocate: Derived works (2, Insightful)

GrAfFiT (802657) | more than 9 years ago | (#11215133)

Think about the purpose of the hash. It's like a title. It's a mean for identification of the material. The ISBN of a book is not a derived work of the book.

Re:Devil's Advocate: Derived works (1)

The Pi-Guy (529892) | more than 9 years ago | (#11215164)

A title in no way uses content from the book. Likewise, a title doesn't provide proof positive that the material is what it claims to be. The hash provides proof positive, but it only does that by deriving itself from the content of the book. The ISBN is not derived from the content either, so it is not a derived book.

It Seems They've Already Caved To MS (5, Informative)

Aoverify (566411) | more than 9 years ago | (#11215096)

All the sudden they want to stand up for our rights? Why didn't they do so when MS contacted them and demanded they stop tracking MS related torrents?

Any and all Microsoft software and XBOX games are "banned" from the site. Check their upload page.

http://www.lokitorrent.com/torrents-upload.php [lokitorrent.com]

Re:It Seems They've Already Caved To MS (3, Insightful)

ravenspear (756059) | more than 9 years ago | (#11215138)

They have a policy that allows anyone to have their stuff removed if they don't want links to torrents of it hosted on their site. If someone submits a request to have something taken down, they put it in a "banned files" area and after that if anyone posts a torrent to any of those files they are banned from the site.

I'm not sure how this policy will figure into their legal defense, but I imagine it will in some capacity.

The Money (4, Interesting)

dshaw858 (828072) | more than 9 years ago | (#11215097)

The fact that they've raised so much money I think will help them in their case. Why? It shows that what they're doing can be seen as a fight for freedom, whether it is or not. The donations show that people are willing to pay money, but the quality of films (and music?) is not worth paying for.

Of course, on the other hand, the MPAA can say "You fools, if you had money you should have bought the films and saved the legal expense!".

I'm sure that this case will be followed very closely by the Slashdot crowd (and definitely me). I'm really interested to see how this will turn out.

- dshaw

P.S.: Bold of them to keep the site online during the issues...

Re:The Money (-1, Troll)

computerme (655703) | more than 9 years ago | (#11215121)

>The donations show that people are willing to pay money, but the quality of films (and music?) is not worth paying for.

Don't think they are worth paying for?

Fine.

DONT FREAKIN INFRINGE THEIR COPYRIGHTS by illegal downloading it.

what a joke.

i can't afford a ferrari.

where's my lockpick?

and don't give me any of that, "its not technically stealing" bull hockey.

Profit! (1, Flamebait)

gonkem (532629) | more than 9 years ago | (#11215103)

1. Create a torrent+tracker site 2. Get a C&D from MPAA 3. Post request for legal aid to slashdot 4. Get far in excess of what you need to settle 5. Settle on the side for far less than you received 6. Profit!!!

It looks like... (1)

tektek (829733) | more than 9 years ago | (#11215110)

they're up to $9940 (or 33%) now according to their site.

My opinion (2, Informative)

Datasage (214357) | more than 9 years ago | (#11215112)

The only possible legal avenue is the fact that they are only providing means to access copyrighted material and not the material itself. INAL, but but that could possibly be considered illegal under the DMCA. I know IP is diffrent, but its like providing a key to a car someone else is going to steal. Generally that would make you an accomplice.

I think bittorrent(as well as other P2P) has the power to subvert the coporate hold on media and provide an avenue for indie media to get thier art out in the public space. But its been given a bad name when its used in copyright infringment.

Im not exactly a fan of the MPAA or DMCA but I dont think copyright infringment is the way to change the landscape of art. It sends the wrong message.

[plug]
You can help give bittorrent a better name by clicking the link in my sig.
[/plug]

Re:My opinion (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11215151)

it was also wrong for the speakeasy to serve alcohol, but in doing so they were able to change the landscape of well maybe not art, but the landscape to be sure. Consider file sharing a way of civil disobedience

Real or fake aka Niggerian scam ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11215117)

What proof this is not a Niggerian who told Loki how to make some major bucks quickly then disapear ?

Show the legal papers and everything scanned in .PDF format.

Re:Real or fake aka Niggerian scam ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11215137)

Never mind, just saw the link for the legal paper.

Sanctions..?! (1)

daeg (828071) | more than 9 years ago | (#11215144)

What kind of "sanctions" can they bring against lokitorrent for destroying evidence? (Oohhh no, we, the MPAA, refuse to sell you DVDs! HAHA, take that, lokitorrent!)

Misperceptions abound (5, Insightful)

Thunderstruck (210399) | more than 9 years ago | (#11215145)

IAAL, and darned proud of the modern justice system...

1. Everyone accused of anything in court has a right to defend themselves and make the accuser prove it. This system protects every other right you have.

2. The folks at LokiTorrent want to exercise that right. In order to do so they need financial assistancec.

3. We all benefit from NOT having a system whereby a well funded organization cannot assume it will win because it can afford lawyers, a system where the big money always wins.

4. Ergo we all benefit from LokiTorrent exercisisng its rights. Why then should we not help them out if we are able?

All your base are imagining an ad-hoc beowulf cluster of old korean overlords welcoming YOU!

Copywritten material? (1)

tyleroar (614054) | more than 9 years ago | (#11215146)

On the left side of their site you can see:
To All Commercial Software Companies If you are the author of some commercial software that was posted on this site and want it removed Please click here for easy directions on how to get it removed only after reading our Terms and Conditions. Anyone who posts a torrent listed in the banned torrents list (located on the upload page) will be banned forever from this site without warning
Have they always had this, or are they trying to appease the MPAA?

Matt Oppenheim is behind this (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11215157)

Sure they blurred the printed name in the picture
http://img68.exs.cx/my.php?loc=img68&imag e=lawsuit 5mg.jpg

but look at the signature and tell me its not him.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?