Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

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!

cancel ×

442 comments

Another ZDnet Story? (-1, Troll)

TheComputerMutt.ca (907022) | more than 8 years ago | (#13403592)

There's loads of them, and they're often of poor quality. There's more than one news site available, eh?

Re:Another ZDnet Story? (4, Insightful)

Yehooti (816574) | more than 8 years ago | (#13403646)

The Sneaker Net may still be alive. Except it's now on DVDs instead of floppies. Is Blu-Ray next?

Not this time GNAA (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13403594)

Sorry, you're gonna have to find somewhere else to get a hard on.

Oh goody. (4, Interesting)

DMouse (7320) | more than 8 years ago | (#13403609)

Let's sue the customers. Because that so worked for the music industry. Instead of accepting that networked transfer of information is the new reality and going with it. There are so many ways of making money here. But no, have to defend the old way. Man, they have NO VISION. No wonder Hollywood is addicted to creating formulaic movies. Risk aversion is fatal in creative industries, ya'know.

*face desk*

Re:Oh goody. (2, Insightful)

adam.conf (893668) | more than 8 years ago | (#13403639)

Well with theater profits plummiting, the movie industry has few methods other than movie sales to generate a profit; and just because it is easy to do something illegally does not> mean that it is legitmate to do so, or that it is in some way unacceptable to defend yourself against these illegal actions. And just so you know, customer generally implies people who paid. These people did not.

Re:Oh goody. (5, Interesting)

DMouse (7320) | more than 8 years ago | (#13403704)

Yes. Because the world is neatly dividable into those good people who buy everything, and the bad people who pirate everything. Yes. Really. The world is that simple.

Did I mention that the last three computer books I have purchased, I read a chunk of them online before hand? Or that I buy cds based on what i have listened to off the web? Or that the movies I go to in the cinema are influenced by the recomendations of my friends, some of whom are downloaders?

Moron.

Re:Oh goody. (3, Interesting)

LiquidHAL (801263) | more than 8 years ago | (#13403707)

the movie industry has few methods other than movie sales to generate a profit that would be correct if only they didn't make huge amounts of cash on DVDs, soundtracks, merchandising, promotional tie-ins, and TV/Cable showings. there is simply no evidence to correlate a decrease in theater tickets sold to pirating. There are too many unmentioned variables to consider.

Re:Oh goody. (1)

EzInKy (115248) | more than 8 years ago | (#13403877)


Well with theater profits plummiting, the movie industry has few methods other than movie sales to generate a profit; and just because it is easy to do something illegally does not> mean that it is legitmate to do so, or that it is in some way unacceptable to defend yourself against these illegal actions. And just so you know, customer generally implies people who paid. These people did not.

Well, there's a problems here. How is a person supposed to know that a file is copyrighted before he downloads it? It's not like these files show a big (C) on the them. Besides, even if they did, how is downloading a copyrighted file any different from picking up a copyrighted book lying in the street?

Re:Oh goody. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13403643)

Congratulations. You've rehashed everything already said on this subject here on Slashdot.

Next up: Why Apple should give OSX86 away for $40/$20/$10/free and several rebuttals as to why it's a bad idea.

Re:Oh goody. (0, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13403674)

Reality check. Providing copyrighted material for upload without explicit permission by the publisher is illegal. They are violating copyright law over which Federal government has full jurisdiction as provided by the Constitution. The proper course of action is to present suits against the infringers directly. Whether or not you think this is a valid medium or transmission is entirely irrelevant, the intent is clear.

If the publishers wish to utilize the medium to provide subscriptions to material which is DRM protected, so be it. Don't expect them to throw you free or cheap bones because you're a cheap shit. They don't owe you a damned thing. If the publishers wish to cover their ears and cry, "lah, lah, lah," so be it. It's their loss entirely and you have absolutely no legal or ethical recourse to make that decision for them.

You don't not arrest someone for stealing a car because they may have purchased a car in the past. The claim that these people are customers is bullshit; they are infringers, plain and simple. May the law smack them down accordingly. I'd love to see one of these law suits make it to the criminal courts just to watch you fuckwits get hit with the full extent of what copyright affords the publishers. You simply don't have a leg to stand on.

Re:Oh goody. (1, Insightful)

aussie_a (778472) | more than 8 years ago | (#13403715)

They are violating copyright law over which Federal government has full jurisdiction as provided by the Constitution. The proper course of action is to present suits against the infringers directly.

Then arrest them, and allow hollywood to sue them for actual damages done (not theoretical damages over people who may have theoretically bought a movie). How much money/physical goods did Hollywood have, that was then taken away by the filesharers? Allow them to be reimbursed for that.

If it's against the law, then charge these people.

Re:Oh goody. (0, Flamebait)

jarich (733129) | more than 8 years ago | (#13403794)

Then arrest them, and allow hollywood to sue them for actual damages done (not theoretical damages over people who may have theoretically bought a movie). How much money/physical goods did Hollywood have, that was then taken away by the filesharers? Allow them to be reimbursed for that.

When we catch shoplifters we don't just ask them to pay for the stuff they stole right? When you catch someone in your house stealing your stereo, do you just ask them to pay for it?

Stealing content online feels anonymous and somehow ~okay~. But it's not. It isn't civil disobedience. It's illegal and it's wrong. The penalties will exceed the cost of the unsold movie ticket to help impress upon people that it's a Bad Thing to get caught stealing.

And it's most certainly not anonymous.

Re:Oh goody. (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13403807)

U.S. Copyright Law {Title 17 U.S.C. Section 101 et seq., Title 18 U.S.C. Section 2319} Federal law protects copyright owners from the unauthorized reproduction, adaptation, performance, display or distribution of copyright protected works.

Penalties for copyright infringement differ in civil and criminal cases. Civil remedies are generally available for any act of infringement without regard to the intention or knowledge of the defendant, or harm to the copyright owner. Criminal penalties are available for intentional acts undertaken for purposes of "commercial advantage" or "private financial gain." "Private financial gain" includes the possibility of financial loss to the copyright holder as well as traditional "gain" by the defendant. Under U.S. copyright law, "financial gain" includes bartering or trading anything of value, including sound recordings. The definition of "financial gain" includes receipt of anything of value, including the receipt of other copyrighted works. This language ensures that criminal liability will not turn on the technicality of whether the infringing copies were sold for money, as opposed to other valuable benefits.

Where the infringing activity is for commercial advantage or private financial gain, sound recording infringements can be punishable by up to five years in prison and $250,000 in fines. Repeat offenders can be imprisoned for up to 10 years. Violators can also be held civilly liable for actual damages, lost profits, or statutory damages up to $150,000 per work.

Two important legal concepts, especially pertaining to the Internet, should be kept in mind--contributory infringement and vicarious liability.

Contributory infringement may be found where a person, with knowledge of the infringing activity, induces, causes, or materially contributes to the infringing conduct of another. For example, a link site operator may be liable for contributory infringement by knowingly linking to infringing files.

Vicarious liability may be imposed where an entity or person has the right and ability to control the activities of the direct infringer and also receives a financial benefit from the infringing activities. Vicarious liability may be imposed even if the entity is unaware of the infringing activities. In the case of a site retransmitting infringing programs, providing direct access to infringing works may show a right and ability to control the activities of the direct infringer, and receiving revenue from banner ads or e-commerce on the site may be evidence of a financial benefit.

Re:Oh goody. (5, Insightful)

Mad Merlin (837387) | more than 8 years ago | (#13403767)

Illegal does not imply morally wrong. Not all laws are justified or "correct".

Re:Oh goody. (1)

CriminalNerd (882826) | more than 8 years ago | (#13403901)

Yet those laws are the basis of how society runs AND how it's supposed to run. Nothing is perfect and laws are no better but they try to be as fair as possible. If you read the book "Utopia," you would know that lawyers and other people in the legal profession are considered to be one of the biggest bugs/scum (Was that too harsh? =P) of the world because they make money off of the LAW. That's exactly what the MPAA is doing (suing people about movies that just about doesn't hurt them in any way) and it isn't doing them any good. As far as I'm concerned...Hollywood should just die and independent film makers should just take over. It really is boring to see sequels for the same movies and almost no creativity these days. They complain about revenue loss? They should just put a sock in it and make new movies.

Also, maybe it's just me but when I used to download movies, I would download movies that I would have never paid for anyways (just to sample it/them). I'm not sure if that's the case with the rest of the populace, but if many people download like I did, then the MPAA has absolutely nothing to worry about "loss of income." Besides...I wouldn't waste space AND bandwidth on movies that I don't want to touch with a c foot pole. =P

Re:Oh goody. (1)

balthan (130165) | more than 8 years ago | (#13403787)

They are violating copyright law over which Federal government has full jurisdiction as provided by the Constitution.
 
Life of the author + infinity doesn't quite seem like "limited Times" to me.

Re:Oh goody. (2, Insightful)

Raul654 (453029) | more than 8 years ago | (#13403792)

"Providing copyrighted material for upload without explicit permission by the publisher is illegal." - no, actually, copyright infringment is a civil tort (notwithstanding the ludicrious new laws congress has been considering lately)

Re:Oh goody. (1, Insightful)

Seumas (6865) | more than 8 years ago | (#13403688)

Well, if you're downloading the movies from BitTorrent, you're not exactly a customer anymore than a shoplifter is a customer at a store. I mean, he might buy stuff now and again just like we might watch a movie now and again, but . . .

What I don't get is, since they have said they couldn't (or wouldn't) go after downloaders, exactly how is this going to work? Has it been deemed that downloading via torrents is inherently the same activity of UPLOADING, even if you terminate your connection before you've fully uploaded the file? or rather, how can they be at all sure that you have ever uploaded the entire file back to the community? I could have a 500:1 upload ratio on a file, but that doesn't mean i haven't just been uploading the same 30 seconds worth to everyone.

Re:Oh goody. (-1, Troll)

Adult film producer (866485) | more than 8 years ago | (#13403730)

copyright infringement is not theft.

Re:Oh goody. (1)

DMouse (7320) | more than 8 years ago | (#13403750)

you're not exactly a customer anymore than a shoplifter is a customer at a store


If you are going to astro turf, at least come up with a new line. That line was old the first time i heard it over decade ago.

It saddens me that you guys are fighting a pointless rear guard action here, instead of coming to the community and asking how we can work together on building new business models.

Hint: Long Tail.
Hint: Filtering.
Hint: Time poor internet professionals.
Hint: Your movies suck. We have gotten used to the industry lying to us. Now you are reaping what you sowed.

Re:Oh goody. (2, Funny)

shmlco (594907) | more than 8 years ago | (#13403814)

Your movies suck.

Well, that's certainly a valid reason for spending a hour or so downloading them off a torrent and then a couple of hours watching one. I mean, time poor internet professionals really need to waste MORE of their time, right?

And just out of curiosity, what new business model (paid content) works when people think that they're entitled to it for free?

Re:Oh goody. (0, Troll)

sleeper0 (319432) | more than 8 years ago | (#13403843)

If you are going to astro turf, at least come up with a new line.

[...]

Hint: Your movies suck. We have gotten used to the industry lying to us. Now you are reaping what you sowed.


For someone who is claiming someone else's argument is tired and worn out you sure don't waste much time spitting out the same tired and worn out lines that make you feel better.

What you are saying is that because you don't like the product instead of paying for it, you copy it and watch it for free - because it's terrible? Or that you download a DVD from a torrent because your busy high stress life doesn't allow you enough time to go to the store like the people of the carefree 90's who mostly didn't have to work and lived off trust funds?

Just admit to yourself (and others) that you like copying things you would otherwise have to pay for. It's freeing, honest with yourself which is healthy, and best of all doesn't make you look like a moron while you rabidly try to defend yourself in public as some kind of modern day digital robin hood.

Re:Oh goody. (1)

damiam (409504) | more than 8 years ago | (#13403853)

Being old doesn't make it wrong. And not everyone who points out the stupidity of statements like "they're suing their customers" is astroturfing.

Re:Oh goody. (1)

damiam (409504) | more than 8 years ago | (#13403841)

IANAL, but I don't believe you have to upload the whole file. Fair use lets you reproduce a small sample for review purposes, and anything after that is infringement. Even if you only upload a couple minutes of a movie, you're still legally liable.

Oh yeah? (1)

humberthumbert (104950) | more than 8 years ago | (#13403723)

Why don't you share some of your VISION with us? If you're one of those whining on about buggy-whip makers and new business models, I would like to invite you to come up with a business plan, or, just a simple outline based on one of the "...so many ways of making money here..." that you seem to be hoarding.

    Don't be mistaken, I'm no MPAA supporter. In fact, I fly the Jolly Roger flag (wink wink). You want the MPAA to change their ways and back off?

    Simple. Quit buying their shit. That means no DVD purchases, no movie tickets. Nada. I read all the complaints about crappy movie theaters in the earlier article but guess what? Slashdotters still swallow that shit up anyway. We're supposed to be smarter than that right?

    And no hypocrisy please. Movies cost money to make. Music cost money to make. You either want to pay for them or you don't. I don't. But I don't whine about how I would give them my money if only blah blah blah.

    I say fuck them all to hell.

Re:Oh yeah? (1)

dmaxwell (43234) | more than 8 years ago | (#13403791)

iTunes show a little bit of the Vision the parent poster mentioned. Convienient, correct, sanely tagged downloads from fast easily searched servers for a reasonable price. In time, such a thing could be more ubiquitous that DVDs are now. Of course, they'll have to rein in this urge to make it as obnoxious, hostile to the customer, DRMed to dogs and back if the intention is a product people will actually fork over money for. Come to think of it, just enough DRM to appease the control freaks but removable by those with a little time and savvy might be a bit of Vision as well.

Re:Oh yeah? (1)

BewireNomali (618969) | more than 8 years ago | (#13403892)

but dude, Apple isn't making money off downloads. They use iTunes to sell iPods. Forget about downloads... the studios would get killed.

They need some kind of DRMed bit torrent client to kill bandwidth issues - and serious download penetration into the living room for there to be money in it now.

Imagine... (5, Funny)

DrifterX79 (824302) | more than 8 years ago | (#13403615)

that after all this time they figured out how to use log files to their advantage

My Next Venture (1)

ndtechnologies (814381) | more than 8 years ago | (#13403680)

After I revolutionize the music industry....movies are my next goal...

Re:Imagine... (5, Insightful)

epiphani (254981) | more than 8 years ago | (#13403762)

Dear MPAA:

Please explain how the logs you cite prove I downloaded your movie. The logs show a 28k ".torrent" file. I was unaware that your movies could be compressed to such a degree! I would now like to direct you to my large DVD collection.

Fuck You,
Your Customer.

suprnova? (1)

MikeSty (890569) | more than 8 years ago | (#13403618)

When did it come back!?!!

Thanks hollywood schmoes for alerting me of this!!

I hate to say this about IP lawsuits... (4, Interesting)

amalcon (472105) | more than 8 years ago | (#13403619)

GOOD!

BitTorrent is all but DESIGNED to be traceable. Maybe this will make people finally notice. That would (hopefully) do a lot to legitimize it.

Re:I hate to say this about IP lawsuits... (2, Interesting)

Alex P Keaton in da (882660) | more than 8 years ago | (#13403648)

From the article... "BitTorrent creator Bram Cohen has warned in the past that using his technology to distribute material illegally is a "dumb idea," because the file-swapping tool is not designed to hide the identity of anyone using it."
So it is sort of like waving to the camera while robbing a bank. Don't be surprised if you get caught. I doubt these were slashdot posters of computer people, likely frat boys and jocks that didn't know any better....
My favorite stories, which happen a lot up here (Ohio) in the winter, are when the police catch thieves by following their tracks in the snow, from the scene of the crime, right to their house. Seems like the MPAA is doing a high tech version of this...

Re:I hate to say this about IP lawsuits... (1)

scenestar (828656) | more than 8 years ago | (#13403660)

No offense, but you sound like someone who does the suing.

fuck google. (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13403621)

fuck google. what ...this wasn't a google related story ? anyways, how much has google given back to open source:

- None of their products/services are open source.

- They have built on open source software, but haven't contributed the code back to the community.

Fuck Google.

Usenet? (4, Funny)

Neo-Rio-101 (700494) | more than 8 years ago | (#13403629)

So, um, when is Hollywood going to go after Usenet?

*crickets chirp*

Re:Usenet? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13403669)

So, um, when is Hollywood going to go after Usenet?

SHUTUP SHUTUP SHUTUP!!!!!!! They probably didn't know about it until now...

Re:Usenet? (1)

jcnnghm (538570) | more than 8 years ago | (#13403740)

Yes, please don't tell that about the safe haven.

Re:Usenet? (2, Funny)

AndroidCat (229562) | more than 8 years ago | (#13403882)

Could they grab the chickenhead posting his entire Star Trek video collection to alt.binaries.scooter ("pictures of scooters and related items") first? That would make me very happy!

Legal? (3, Interesting)

wlan0 (871397) | more than 8 years ago | (#13403632)

In what ways is it legal for them to use the logs of Suprnova and Lokitorrent?

Re:Legal? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13403663)

In what ways is it illegal to use those logs?

Re:Legal? (1)

wlan0 (871397) | more than 8 years ago | (#13403684)

Where did they get them? Are they not property, intellectual property of the owners of both these sites?

Re:Legal? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13403718)

Where did they get them?

From a court order, of course. All legally approved.

Are they not property, intellectual property of the owners of both these sites?

I would assume, given the above, that they have the express permission of the authorities/courts to use said logs as they see fit.

Next question, please.

Re:Legal? (1)

LupusUF (512364) | more than 8 years ago | (#13403671)

"In what ways is it legal for them to use the logs of Suprnova and Lokitorrent?"

the article says that they got the LokiTorrent server logs via a court order. Though, this case does not involve the use of these logs...they may/will use them in the future. Since the courts gave them the logs, I doubt they would find it to be illegal to use the logs.

Re:Legal? (5, Interesting)

Muerte23 (178626) | more than 8 years ago | (#13403713)

One thing though, would this be admissible with regards to hearsay laws?

If I make a list of random IP addresses and add random movie titles, can I be subpoenaed and those logs used to sue people?

It's not like the police came to someone's house and found a movie on their computer - an internet lowlife had that person's IP address on their server. Was it created by a bot?

Where's the proof? Does there need to be any? I understand that civil cases have a lower standard of guilt, but does anyone know for sure?

m

Re:Legal? (3, Informative)

cpt kangarooski (3773) | more than 8 years ago | (#13403865)

One thing though, would this be admissible with regards to hearsay laws?

Without getting into the details of what hearsay is and isn't, I'd say that your typical everyday logs will likely fall within the business records exception to the hearsay rule, and be admissible for the truth of their contents. Depends on the circumstances surrounding their making, of course.

If you're in a situation to make logs of this sort of activity, however, you might want to reconsider whether or not you want to do so.

Where's the proof? Does there need to be any? I understand that civil cases have a lower standard of guilt, but does anyone know for sure?

Well, evidentiary issues (such as whether the logs are inadmissible hearsay) deal with whether the jury ever gets to know the logs exist, and gets to know what they say. If they're inadmissible, the jury doesn't get to know about them, and can't make a decision based on them.

If they are admitted, however, the jury gets to decide for themselves whether or not they trust them. They can always disbelieve them.

However, the burden of persuasion in civil cases (i.e. any case brought by RIAA, MPAA, etc.) is one of a preponderance of the evidence. If it is at all more likely that something is true than it is false (a 51% rule) then it's considered to be true.

Re:Legal? (4, Insightful)

slavemowgli (585321) | more than 8 years ago | (#13403686)

For that matter, why did those sites keep logs, anyway? That seems like a pretty dumb idea to me really; there was at least one case in the past where a site (Cryptome?) was subpoenaed for httpd access logs but came back saying that they didn't keep any.

I don't want to advocate copyright infringement, but if you do it, then you at least shouldn't do it in a blatantly amateurish way...

Re:Legal? (1)

epiphani (254981) | more than 8 years ago | (#13403775)

As someone who has intentionally turned off access logs because 800 megs of daily logs is stupid, I agree. I cant exactly imagine that suprnova kept consistant logs for very long - its a huge data warehousing project.

distributed (1)

PhYrE2k2 (806396) | more than 8 years ago | (#13403862)

Suprnova if I understand was distributed amoung many mirrors... I'd imagine these weren't kept and merged nicely.

-M

Re:Legal? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13403763)

Even if they have your IP, how long do ISPs that assign dynamic IPs keep track of who had what IP at what time. You wouldn't think that they would keep logs indefinetely.

A few points (5, Interesting)

the_macman (874383) | more than 8 years ago | (#13403638)


From TFA: Hollywood lawyers are hoping that the fear of exposure will dissuade more people from trying to download movies for free online. "Internet movie thieves be warned: You have no friends in the online community when you are engaging in copyright theft,"

I love how the MPAA resorts to terrorism to get it's point across.
Terrorism - n. The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.

As with previous lawsuits filed by the MPAA and the Recording Industry Association of America, this round of cases is aimed at anonymous "John Does" identified only by their Internet addresses. The defendants' true identities will be sought through a later court process.

Translation: We really have no proof of who downloaded the material but we're gonna goto court anyways

Re:A few points (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13403742)

While your post contains quite a bit of incendiary rhetoric and a ill-placed definition, you still come across as an asshat.
What they are doing is not terrorism; they're simply going after people that are illegally distributing copyrighted movies, AKA thieves.

This is entirely legal, just like it would be legal for you to call the police to look for the guy that stole your car, or robbed your house.

Re:A few points (0)

Wehesheit (555256) | more than 8 years ago | (#13403755)

except in those 2 cases someone was actually measureably deprived of something.

Downloading Torrent Links against the law? (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13403642)

Links are all you can download from those sites.

Re:Downloading Torrent Links against the law? (2, Insightful)

gaurzilla (665469) | more than 8 years ago | (#13403678)

Agreed. Downloading a torrent file isn't proof that you actually used it. Maybe you're just some strange strange guy who likes to collect .torrent files. Maybe you're mirroring the website for your friends in China who may not have direct access to it. Maybe you're .. er .. out of ideas.

Solution: Offshore all Torrent sites to Asia (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13403656)

The simple solution would be to offshore all Torrent sites to Asia, in countries such as China, India, Malaysia, Thailand, Sri Lanka, etc. Such sites don't require that much bandwidth so they can even be hosted in backwards African countries such as Chad, Niger, Congo, etc.

Re:Solution: Offshore all Torrent sites to Asia (2, Funny)

marlinSpike (894812) | more than 8 years ago | (#13403682)

Finally... something nobody will get pissed off about when it's offshored!

Re:Solution: Offshore all Torrent sites to Asia (1)

imboboage0 (876812) | more than 8 years ago | (#13403697)

Actually, they do require bandwidth. I know that http://demonoid.com/ [demonoid.com] Demonoid stopped public signups, due to a lack of bandwidth. Now, you have to be invited by someone with a username there.

Re:Solution: Offshore all Torrent sites to Asia (1)

briancurtin (901109) | more than 8 years ago | (#13403855)

i just registered via the register link on the front page

What the fuck? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13403848)

I hate to be the priorities guy, but you want to offshore Torrent sites to Chad, Niger, Congo, etc, so we can (semi-legally) get our jollies in free music/movies/whatever while the locals are starving in the streets? Corporations are not the only entities capable of being greedy...

Oy! (5, Insightful)

marlinSpike (894812) | more than 8 years ago | (#13403667)

And I was so looking forward to offset my higher fuel prices by downloading the summer's blockbusters (have there been any?)...

Log files? (2, Insightful)

imidan (559239) | more than 8 years ago | (#13403668)

The article is a bit sparse on technical details. Are they talking about using log files from web servers that distribute .torrent files? Because downloading the .torrent file, itself, isn't proof that a user has gone any further than that, which means no infringement is demonstrated.

Or is there a log file, somewhere, like the tracker, that keeps track of who's connecting and what they're getting? What if you don't succeed in downloading the entire movie? Are you still infringeing, even if the data that you've got is unuseable without the parts you haven't got?

Maximum age for logfiles 24h ? (4, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13403672)

How about the logfiles, are they really there,
and how old were they ? 24h, 2d or what.

Dear former admins of supr.nova or else who got raided,

please publish your policy how you dealt with the logs, and even if they really exist,

so that your former users can start saving money for a good lawyer or spend the money for a glass of champagne.

From TFA (4, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13403681)

The group previously said in February that a Texas court had ordered that the server logs of one big site, called LokiTorrent, be turned over to Hollywood investigators. An MPAA spokeswoman said that none of Thursday's suits were related to that action, however.

OP didn't RTFA in the first place.

This is stupid. (3, Funny)

Spy der Mann (805235) | more than 8 years ago | (#13403683)

If people only downloaded GOOD movies from the net, they'd have much more free time and wouldn't be caught so easily.

RTFReviews.

Re:This is stupid. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13403825)

If people only downloaded GOOD movies from the net, they'd have much more free time and wouldn't be caught so easily.

Of course they wouldn't be caught - they wouldn't be downloading anything!

Actually, I'll have to admit that I found "Batman Begins" to be quite good - for once I didn't feel ripped off when I walked out fromo the cinema.

Question and answer time! (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13403693)

Q: Why do trackers keep logs?

A: Because they want their users to go down with them!

Lawsuits (4, Interesting)

erica_ann (910043) | more than 8 years ago | (#13403698)

So let's see here...
Guns kill people, we sue the gun maker

The coffee is too hot, we sue McDonalds

We eat at fast food and we sue the fast food chains for making us fat.

We record music off the radio onto a cassette tape, it is ok to listen to in the car.
We download it off the internet, we get sued.

We watch a movie off a DVD and resell the DVD a place that sells used DVD's we get our money back from buying it and the Motion picture people don't get a second dime.
We download it and we get sued

So, does that mean that the ISP's connection we used should get sued too since we used that ISP's connection to get to the internet to Download what someone else put up there?

Does that mean we should sue Microsoft for making a majority of the operating systems used to DL the files we get sued for?

Does it ever end or have we just turned into a lawsuit happy world?

Re:Lawsuits (1)

gaurzilla (665469) | more than 8 years ago | (#13403725)

Does it ever end or have we just turned into a lawsuit happy world?

Make that a "lawsuit happy" bunch of developed nations. We don't find much of this happening in India.

Re:Lawsuits (1, Offtopic)

RembrandtX (240864) | more than 8 years ago | (#13403748)

Just a few facts about the McDonalds case that everyone LOVES to cite as a friviolous law suit:

There is a lot of hype about the McDonalds' scalding coffee case. No
one is in favor of frivolous cases of outlandish results; however, it is
important to understand some points that were not reported in most of
the stories about the case. McDonalds coffee was not only hot, it was
scalding -- capable of almost instantaneous destruction of skin, flesh
and muscle. Here's the whole story.

Stella Liebeck of Albuquerque, New Mexico, was in the passenger seat of
her grandson's car when she was severely burned by McDonalds' coffee in
February 1992. Liebeck, 79 at the time, ordered coffee that was served
in a styrofoam cup at the drivethrough window of a local McDonalds.

After receiving the order, the grandson pulled his car forward and
stopped momentarily so that Liebeck could add cream and sugar to her
coffee. (Critics of civil justice, who have pounced on this case, often
charge that Liebeck was driving the car or that the vehicle was in
motion when she spilled the coffee; neither is true.) Liebeck placed
the cup between her knees and attempted to remove the plastic lid from
the cup. As she removed the lid, the entire contents of the cup spilled
into her lap.

The sweatpants Liebeck was wearing absorbed the coffee and held it next
to her skin. A vascular surgeon determined that Liebeck suffered full
thickness burns (or third-degree burns) over 6 percent of her body,
including her inner thighs, perineum, buttocks, and genital and groin
areas. She was hospitalized for eight days, during which time she
underwent skin grafting. Liebeck, who also underwent debridement
treatments, sought to settle her claim for $20,000, but McDonalds
refused.

During discovery, McDonalds produced documents showing more than 700
claims by people burned by its coffee between 1982 and 1992. Some claims
involved third-degree burns substantially similar to Liebecks. This
history documented McDonalds' knowledge about the extent and nature of
this hazard.

McDonalds also said during discovery that, based on a consultants
advice, it held its coffee at between 180 and 190 degrees fahrenheit to
maintain optimum taste. He admitted that he had not evaluated the
safety ramifications at this temperature. Other establishments sell
coffee at substantially lower temperatures, and coffee served at home is
generally 135 to 140 degrees.

Further, McDonalds' quality assurance manager testified that the company
actively enforces a requirement that coffee be held in the pot at 185
degrees, plus or minus five degrees. He also testified that a burn
hazard exists with any food substance served at 140 degrees or above,
and that McDonalds coffee, at the temperature at which it was poured
into styrofoam cups, was not fit for consumption because it would burn
the mouth and throat. The quality assurance manager admitted that burns
would occur, but testified that McDonalds had no intention of reducing
the "holding temperature" of its coffee.

Plaintiffs' expert, a scholar in thermodynamics applied to human skin
burns, testified that liquids, at 180 degrees, will cause a full
thickness burn to human skin in two to seven seconds. Other testimony
showed that as the temperature decreases toward 155 degrees, the extent
of the burn relative to that temperature decreases exponentially. Thus,
if Liebeck's spill had involved coffee at 155 degrees, the liquid would
have cooled and given her time to avoid a serious burn.

McDonalds asserted that customers buy coffee on their way to work or
home, intending to consume it there. However, the companys own research
showed that customers intend to consume the coffee immediately while
driving.

McDonalds also argued that consumers know coffee is hot and that its
customers want it that way. The company admitted its customers were
unaware that they could suffer thirddegree burns from the coffee and
that a statement on the side of the cup was not a "warning" but a
"reminder" since the location of the writing would not warn customers of
the hazard.

The jury awarded Liebeck $200,000 in compensatory damages. This amount
was reduced to $160,000 because the jury found Liebeck 20 percent at
fault in the spill. The jury also awarded Liebeck $2.7 million in
punitive damages, which equals about two days of McDonalds' coffee
sales.

Post-verdict investigation found that the temperature of coffee at the
local Albuquerque McDonalds had dropped to 158 degrees fahrenheit.

The trial court subsequently reduced the punitive award to $480,000 --
or three times compensatory damages -- even though the judge called
McDonalds' conduct reckless, callous and willful.

No one will ever know the final ending to this case.

The parties eventually entered into a secret settlement which has never
been revealed to the public, despite the fact that this was a public
case, litigated in public and subjected to extensive media reporting.
Such secret settlements, after public trials, should not be condoned.
-----
excerpted from ATLA fact sheet. ©1995, 1996 by Consumer Attorneys of
California

Re:Lawsuits (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13403856)

great copy'n'pasting.

if only there would be some relation to the topic.

Re:Lawsuits (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13403907)

So the lady spilled the coffee on herself, due to her own stupidity/negligence.

The coffee is hot. Anyone with half a brain knows this.

Are you going to sue Gilette becuase you scraped a patch of skin off your face, causing pain and suffering (and disfigurement), due to incompetent use of a razor?

This lawsuit is frivolous. Just becuase she wasn't as greedy doesn't make it any less of a frivolous lawsuit.

Be responsible for your own fucking actions!

I hate cold coffee and slimeball lawyers.

Re:Lawsuits (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13403751)

"The coffee is too hot, we sue McDonalds"

I know we all hate stupid lawsuits but this one was legit. They made the coffee more hot than It had to be, so hot in fact it produced 3rd degree burns if i remember it correctly. It was the plantiffs right to sue cause the company should have made more reasonable precautions.

and btw the some of these captchas are a royal pain to figure out. I can hardly tell what the word is

Re:Lawsuits (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13403896)

Um.. Many people want their coffee hot.

The lady spilled the coffe on herself.. Why should McDonalds be responsible. What if the coffee was cooler but still burned her?

This is idiocy. No one wants to be responsible for their own actions.

A frivolus "i'm not responsible for my own actions" lawsuit.

MOD PARENT UP (0)

suitepotato (863945) | more than 8 years ago | (#13403771)

Dead on absolutely correct. It isn't just that this is the way these creeps at the *AA have always behaved, it is that they and their abuse of the legal process only encourage it. I believe I once heard that there's a saying in South America that goes that corruption proceeds from the top down. Basically, the people learn to think it okay from the actions and examples of those above. Why shouldn't we sue when it has become a way of making money, a business method and tool, of major companies?

No wonder SCO thinks what they do is perfectly sane and rational.

Holy analogy, Batman! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13403809)

Guns kill people, we sue the gun maker.

Comparing guns and gun-related deaths to file swapping doth not a good analogy make.

The coffee is too hot, we sue McDonalds.

That woman lost her case, and got a fraction of what she was asking for in "damages".

We eat at fast food and we sue the fast food chains for making us fat.

In this case, the consumer is doing something and then suing for a perceived bad "result". In the MP/RIAA case, the "consumer" (user) is doing something, and the "victim" is suing. Completely different scenarios.

We record music off the radio onto a cassette tape, it is ok to listen to in the car. We download it off the internet, we get sued.

In most cases, the RIAA sues the uploaders, not the downloaders. However, you're closest on this one. 1 point for trying.

We watch a movie off a DVD and resell the DVD a place that sells used DVD's we get our money back from buying it and the Motion picture people don't get a second dime. We download it and we get sued.

Of course, if you're selling the DVD, chances are you (or someone) bought it in the first place for $N. If you download it, chances are -- though someone will cry "I downloaded it because ripping it is too hard/time-consuming/costly!" -- you didn't own it to begin with. $N - $N = $0.

So, does that mean that the ISP's connection we used should get sued too since we used that ISP's connection to get to the internet to Download what someone else put up there?

No. And clearly, they're not suing the ISPs, are they? They're suing the people who are swapping movies, not the channel providers.

Does that mean we should sue Microsoft for making a majority of the operating systems used to DL the files we get sued for?

There is lobbying to prohibit P2P programs, not OSes. See the ISP argument above.

Does it ever end or have we just turned into a lawsuit happy world?

It never ends. Welcome to America.

Re:Holy analogy, Batman! (1)

EvanED (569694) | more than 8 years ago | (#13403880)

That woman lost her case, and got a fraction of what she was asking for in "damages".

Um, no. While the final terms were sealed, the latest public ruling was over $500K paid to her. It's safe to assume that the sealed settlement was at least most of that. Even if her lawyer took most (unlikely, I think 40% is fairly standard if the case was pro bono) she still made out quite nicely finanically.

(And all this ignores the fact that she at least originally only wanted medical expenses, and only refused because McDonald's didn't give. She didn't ask for suffering or punative damages until the suit.)

A way out? (5, Interesting)

gaurzilla (665469) | more than 8 years ago | (#13403699)

You could download the torrents from a public computer (no login) at your school/library, and then actually perform the downloading at home. How can that be traced back to you?

Re:A way out? (2, Funny)

imboboage0 (876812) | more than 8 years ago | (#13403729)

Well now that they know YOU do it.....

Re:A way out? (2, Informative)

wk633 (442820) | more than 8 years ago | (#13403823)

Your IP address is available to anyone you're in the process of sharing with.

Walk softly and carry a big lawyer (3, Interesting)

imunfair (877689) | more than 8 years ago | (#13403709)

I don't think the issue for them is the file sharing anymore - they've just figured out that it's a cash cow to go around suing people who most likely can't/won't mount a successful defense.

I wonder if someone could counter-sue them for defamation of character or whatever if they were mistakenly sued by the RIAA...

I bet they'd think twice if they started losing money on suing people. I think if they do goof up they should have to award the person 100 times as much as the person would have had to pay them. You'd see them get real careful about who they sued real fast.

They don't really have anything to worry about except making money anymore, the government is doing all the dirty work running around strong-arming other countries into cracking down on piracy (Don't crack down.. we won't trade with you...) ... sorry just had to throw that in :)

Copyright theft (5, Funny)

P0ldy (848358) | more than 8 years ago | (#13403745)

"Internet movie thieves be warned: You have no friends in the online community when you are engaging in copyright theft," MPAA Senior Vice President John Malcom said in a statement.
Someone stole your copyrights? Maybe that person's running a few trackers and is distributing the works as [s]he sees fit!

Re:Copyright theft (0, Offtopic)

dratox (894948) | more than 8 years ago | (#13403832)

And at first glance, "copyright theft" merges to look like "copyleft"

Copyright Violation - NOT THEFT (1)

craznar (710808) | more than 8 years ago | (#13403754)

I'm getting really pissed off at these record/movie companies misrepresenting the truth.

The simple fact is - it's called copyright violation, not theft.

And when they bloody wake up to the new technology, then people will start giving them money for the stuff.

I'm still waiting to pay for 50 or more songs that they WILL NOT LET ME BUY.

Don't give in... (4, Insightful)

spiritraveller (641174) | more than 8 years ago | (#13403782)

This new approach makes it a lot harder for them to win at trial. All they have is a file that lists some IP addresses.

In the previous cases they hired people who connected to p2p filesharers and observed what exactly was being shared.

Not a single one of their previous cases has gone to trial. It's not cost effective for them to go to trial even when they can win!

The formula is simple...

1. Send threatening lawyer letters to people you believe to have violated your copyright...
2. Wait for a response...
3. Look for an admission of guilt...
4. Profit!

mpaa (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13403783)

Movies suck anyway.

Oh Man... (2, Interesting)

thunderpaws (199100) | more than 8 years ago | (#13403795)

It will be such a shame to give up watching super compressed ripped video with 2 channel stereo sound, and be forced into paying for a full home theater expierience. Of course Hollywood would never get any cash from me for so many of the movies available anyway. There are quite a few films that do poorly at the box office, but are popular as rentals and downloads. Maybe if Hollywood looked at the download stats along with rental figures, they might find they could generate interest in moving some product sooner onto commercial cable TV. I would enjoy watching something like "With Out a Paddle" with commercial interuptions, rather than paying cash to rent or buy it. Hollywood needs to broaden their customer based rather than push customers away.

Let me be the first to say... (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13403797)

Oh Shit.

and /. is next (2, Funny)

jspectre (102549) | more than 8 years ago | (#13403810)

congratulations! every one of you who complains about hollywood's ingenious move to sue their own customers will find yourself at the end of a lawsuit when they sue /. for their log files!

enjoy your freedom of thought while it lasts!

knowledge is power (4, Interesting)

circletimessquare (444983) | more than 8 years ago | (#13403818)

here's circletimessquare's method for defeating riaa/ mpaa AND be an upstanding member of the p2p world:

caveat emptor: this recipe assumes you are in a jurisdiction and dealing with content that is only illegal to UPLOAD (music files, for example, in the usa)

1. use emule, great program
2. load it up with porn, gigs of it. you don't even have to look at it. the point is to have something, anything, lots of it, that other people want to download and that you won't get in trouble for sharing (heh, sorry porn makers)
3. share the porn all the time. you'll have hundreds downloading from you in no time and be greatly appreciated
4. now, you've suddenly found a strange desire to download hillary duff (!?), so go ahead, search for it (assume you're getting it from someone in sweden and not hurting whoever is making it available)
4. find the the hillary duff file with the most sources (for quick download)
5. stop all of your other downloads
6. suck down hillary duff in a minute or two (heh)
7. get it out of your shared file immediately

why does this work?

the file you are snarfing is so fleeting, and you've crowded it out with a long queue of people waiting to download jenna jameson gone wild volume 2 and other such sleaze, that you're simply never going to wind up being the source for anything on the mpaa/ riaa's radar. it's a drop in a sea of masking porn

knowledge is power, use it wisely

Re:knowledge is power (1)

cpaluc (559921) | more than 8 years ago | (#13403888)

grep -i duff logfile

Re:knowledge is power (1)

idlemachine (732136) | more than 8 years ago | (#13403893)

it's a drop in a sea of masking porn

For a human manually reading through log files, yes.

But don't you think they'd automate this process? A script generally isn't going to be distracted by titilating filler material and miss that single tell-tale line in a massive log.

Oh man- (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13403894)

6. suck down hillary duff in a minute or two (heh)

In Soviet Russia, Hillary Duff sucks down you!

Re:knowledge is power (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13403897)

Wouldn't hillary duff porn be illegal since shes still under 18?

Re:knowledge is power (1)

EvanED (569694) | more than 8 years ago | (#13403898)

load it up with porn, gigs of it. you don't even have to look at it. the point is to have something, anything, lots of it, that other people want to download and that you won't get in trouble for sharing (heh, sorry porn makers)

Hate to break it to you, but that porn is just as copyrighted as the music. I don't think I've ever heard of someone suing over sharing porn, but nevertheless you should be aware that from a purely legal standpoint, what you're doing is no more right than if you were sharing the latest song or movie. It's just that you're far less likely to be called on it.

Unsecured WAP (5, Insightful)

quokkapox (847798) | more than 8 years ago | (#13403847)

How on earth are they going to prove that the "John Doe" who was using a particular IP address was actually doing the downloading? There have to be countless apartment buildings nowadays with clueless, naive, rich grannies who got a wireless router to go with their spiffy new laptop which they actually only bought to get online and read emails from the grandkids.

Surely some of these WAPs are located in buildings where the neighbors are leeching free broadband using granny's DHCP server and downloading all sorts of copyrighted torrents.

I wonder how many of these innocent granny types are going to be getting nice subpoenas from the MPAA. If they are senile and ignore them they might get default judgements when the case goes to court. Is the MPAA going to take away their money/home/valuables when they win by default?

Hell, my own home WAP was temporarily wide-open and unsecured for a while when I first set it up. Do I deserve to get potentially sued for being temporarily clueless?

Re:Unsecured WAP (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13403879)

granny fetish?

Re:Unsecured WAP (1)

quokkapox (847798) | more than 8 years ago | (#13403909)

granny fetish?

I was trying to name the most innocent-sounding person who might be accidentally sharing their wireless connection.

I had forgotten about all the free access points at coffee shops, etc. If you only run bittorrent when you are online at starbucks, are you impervious to MPAA/RIAA legal threats?

Waiting for this to happen ... but - (1)

bizitch (546406) | more than 8 years ago | (#13403859)

Now what can they do with the logs?

Due to the nature of bittorrent - where everyone uploads a little here and a little there - are they going to name everyone (by IP address)in one massive slap suit?

Unless they can nail (and prove) who the initial seeder is, they would have to go after EVERYONE who participated in the torrent - no?

Of course, lawyers are total pond scum and can come up with something for sure - but I dont get how they can nail me for uploading segment 3415, 1298 and 8129 out of 8902 of any particular file
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...