It’s more than the listing… it provides the user with direct access to the torrent.

The MPAA actually has a compelling argument here… the torrent search sites are directly facilitating an illegal activity, and it’s entirely possible that a court will hold them legally accountable for it.

It’s no different than if people came to you looking for illegal drugs, and you not only told them where to go, but arraigned transportation directly to the dealer. You would be held accountable for conspiracy.

Your contention that “All it will take eventually is a class action suite…” clearly demonstrates that you have no concept of what “class action” status means to a lawsuit. In fact the rambling nonsensical nature of your legal “theories & opinions” compels me to go out on a limb here and surmise that you have no legal training what-so-ever.

If you HAVE received legal training then you’ve been taken… you would definitely have a case against the institute that took your money. Just do yourself a favor… don’t represent yourself!!!

join the club...

honestly, join the club, blockbuster has a rewards program, every 6th movie is free.... i wonder how i know that *caugh*

or you can always do both like me

they will lose, they tried the same crap when vcr's came out oh people were recording tv shows duel decks recording from movie to tape etc. after a while they lost. and they will loose this one too count on it.

go loki!

Sorry to go off topic but I'm lovin' that sig bruv.

My thoughts on this topic?.................. I don't know, I keep changing my mind.

On the one hand, I can see where their coming from, and on the other?

I wish they'd just F*&K off and die.

I wouldn't have payed a penny for 50% of the crap that I've downloaded over the years, could NEVER have afforded another 40% of it. Which leaves 10% of my media that would probably have got on tape/cd off me mate anyway.

I really don't see where they've lost a pound note out of me (but I'm just a tight arse anyway).

There making millions as it is, just leave us kids alone.

So is the listing, one is real world the other is virtual.



They haven't been able to make any of their cases actually stick in court. Those, like Loki, are only as guilty as the telephone company or post office would be for wire fraud and the like. Is the telephone company guilty as well if someone uses their listings to call people to see if they're home or not so that the caller can rob them? How about an obscene phone call? The phone company made both possible.



Loki isn't actually tell anyone anything, it is those who are using it that do this. The same as someone using the telephone would.



And you happen to be full of it. Your's is a case of the forest fore the trees. From some of the other replies to your postings I see that you're a "known" quanity on here for being this way. Why am I thinking of a bridge?

Debating the criminally stupid is a frustration endeavor I have come to expect. (At least come up with something original.)



Like you are? Why do you think that they don't actually make it to court with these cases? They don't have a legal foot to stand on and they know it. They are circumventing the law. Theory and practice are not usually the same thing in the real world and far too many have trouble telling the difference because they've had too much theory and no real world practice.

You are wasting time here because like the MPAA you don't have a real case. Be a lawyer and continue this. I find that most of them would rather win than see actual justice. What can one expect since the US has around 30% of the world's lawyers and is a nation of suers (In both senses of the word.)

Yes, I am not a lawyer, but I still know that one doesn't have sex to protect one's virginity. Guess what, jurers aren't lawyers either.

Can you guess which quote in my signature applies to you?

I donated!

suprnova RIP
they are offering torrents anymore

completely true and well written, thank you.

the downloaders are problem. the mpaa is going after sites that have a huge userbase. when you have 75,000+ registered users on a site downloading movies and software illegaly, its going to be noticed. its the downloaders greed and unwillingness to actually purchase a movie that is forcing these sites to close. i say if you enjoy a movie enough to download it and watch it more than once, the people that acted in / directed / helped produce the movie definitely deserve your money. thats just my opinion though.

I don't see what MPAA is doing wrong here.

People are expected to pay money to watch movie, and communities like Loki's are violating that law, thus deserve to be sued.

For those who donated for Warez websites, why don't you spend your money to BUY things?

lol, i was just thinking. isnt it a bit hypocritical to spend money or 'donate' to a site so that you dont have to spend money on things you can illegaly download?

then again, its your money and not mine, and you are supporting something you believe in, whether it be illegal or not.

You can't sue every single file-sharer in the world, no matter if you are the MPAA, RIAA, G. W. Bush or Gordon Freeman.

the only way to effectively decrease the pircay market, is to lower their prices. they are so used to ripping people off, that they can't not rip people off anymore.

i dont see what offensive strategy lokitorrents is gonna use against MPAA, but hey, at least there trying right?

and yes i donated

The last time I checked, the theatre listings in the newspapers do not include those for illegal showings, and they do not provide direct transportation to any showing (legal or otherwise).


I not aware of any cases involving the MPAA & torrent sites which have actually reached a court room… What I see is the MPAA learning from the mistakes & failures of the RIAA. Just because these types of organizations haven’t enjoyed much success yet doesn’t mean they won’t eventually find a way.

Your analogies here are so ridiculous that they aren’t even worth addressing.


You appear to live in a strange delusional world… these torrent sites take no action to prevent access to illegal files, and will take the user to them at the click of a link. I have never seen a case where a telephone company has provided a service where they facilitate people looking for services they knew to be illegal… can you provide evidence of such, or will you just continue to parrot your low-watt talking points?


So you're saying that you spend a lot of time engaging in debates with yourself???


Your contention that they have no legal footing to stand on is worthless, seeing as you freely admit to having no legal training, and you are unable to provide any substantive argument to support your position. Placing faith in your legal opinion is akin to taking financial advice from the counter person at McDonalds.

The icing on the cake is your gibberish opinions on lawyers, the USA, lawsuits, protecting your virginity (whatever the hell THAT means… personally I don’t think you have anything to worry about there champ). Here’s an idea… how about you invest some time in developing a cognitive thought!


I normally don’t waste my time with the quotes that a someone like you includes in their signatures… but in this case I’ll make an exception, because I know it makes you think that your “deep”.

My choice is:
"Any fool can justify their right to steal - and most fools do."
- Monkeys4me

Did I get it right???

Didn't record companies throw a ****y fit when Cassets were released?
And then Movie companies did the same when VHS was released, allowing people to record whatever they like at no benefit to the company?

This kind of thing is just a rerun of it all.
The way I see it, if I want to buy their stuff, I'll buy it. They can't force me to buy it, all they can do is offer it for a fair exchange of money. If I think what they're asking for is reasonable, I'll buy it. If not, I wont.
Like with computer games, I dont like playing demos, they don't give you an idea of what you're really getting, so I download the game. If I feel it's worth the £34.99, I'll buy it. If it's not quite that good, I'll wait until a sale or whatever and get it for £20. If it's an ok game but nothing great, I'll get it and 2 other similar games in the 2 for £20 offers at game.
If it's absolute pants I probably wont even play it much and just delete it. Rather that than me wasting £34.00 on a game and then vowing never to buy another game from the same company ever again *glares at the EA logo on his Generals Case^.

But anyway, I think the big companies are taking this all the wrong way and too far at that.

Have to agree with Monkeys4Me here. The argument that LokiTorrent serves merely as a directory falls totally flat on its face when you consider the facts that
(I) about a good 95% of the content available infringes on copyright
(II) that is no effort per se to hide said content. In fact, its quite openly and painly advertised in various neatly divided categories
(III) there are even links offering removal options for developers/authors who find that their products have been made available without consent.

Any analogy to Google falls flat on its face when you consider that Google doesn't go all out explicity to offer illegal content, nor is that its main purpose.

i keep hearing the arguement: "they're making millions already, so what does one person matter"

what if everybody just adapted this attitude? ( and more than a couple hundred thousand people feel this way already ), that does mean that they would be losing out on a lot of money. so in the end the collective of illegal downloaders are definitely impacting the movie industry and as a part of a collective, the individual should be held responsible as well.

this argument just doesnt make sense to me and seems to be a very ignorant excuse.

Here is the worse insult I can think of: Lawyer. No wonder the US is in such hard shape, too many lawyers. Enjoy your monkeys.

And the ironic thing is that they are both making record profits which actually proves that P2P is not the problem.

Instead of going after the real pirates they go after the file sharers instead. It is like when Bush invaded and occupid Iraq instead of going after bin Ladin.

Neither does Lokitorrent go out of its way. The MPAA still doersn't have a case.

The problem isn't P2P. And there are many independent studies which actually show that it isn't. In fact many of them show that P2P actually increases sales. The problem is the pirates in Asia which sell this on the street. The MPAA is acting like the Bush Whitehouse and going after Saddam instead after who they should be going after which is bin Ladin.

No, that isn't right. Loki doesn't host the material. It just provides links to a service. If you choose to use that service, then you are at fault, not Loki's service.

It's like the government going after companies who make zip-lock baggies, rolling paper companies, and syringe companies because they can hold drugs. In Loki's case, the server, website, and trackers are paraphenelia to the drugs, which are in this case, the illegal content. Loki doesn't host it, thus, no case at all.

I'm actually surprised a lawyer hasn't came forward to offer his services for free, as this is going to be a high-profile case.

Grab 'em by the nose and kick 'em in the ass Lokitorrent...

It is an ongoing cat-and-mouse game that will never end.

As much I hate to see these sites go down -- they are in a sense, redistributing content that people would otherwise have to pay for (especially movies now playing in theatres). So, I don't fault, or have ill feelings toward the MPAA for what they are doing. We would all do same given their predicament.

I am desperately waiting until they get owned by us SuperSwedes



http://static.thepiratebay.org/legal/

i always read those letters, those are absolutely brilliant. Big corportations always try to get them to remove software, and copyrighted material, and they always just fire back the swedish law.

update on Loki torrents:
$21024 in support so far, $30,000 needed
70%

that was really entertaining

File sharing will never be stopped ( Just like most of you said ) If people are that desperate to share they'll meet eachother etc.

I know of 7 markets, each that sell atleast 50 pirated cd's dvd's software cd's a day.

( Thinks back to the days when kazaa was hyped by lil children running windows ME )



Chris

I am more concerned about software myself. Music and DVDs are cheap, relatively, already. I never spend more than about $15 even on new movies, and music I usually pick up for less than that. Software though? $50 for every game out there! Listen, I used to buy a ton of software and most of that used to be about being able to pirate it first. Now-a-days I stear away from the pirating and simply buy only what I know is a good (no where near as much believe me). Too risky to pirate these days.

I know folks have made this argument before, but IMO, it's a solid argument. Pirating promotes the growth and purchase of hardware, but in the end the moral reality is clear - it's wrong to take what naturally shouldn't be yours. If software companies would drop their prices like ESPN NFL 2k5 tried, then this would be a moot point.

Excuse me but I respect the rights and properties of others. In fact, I am always glued to the TV when "24" is on but sometimes I find myself in a situation where I cannot watch the episode on TV at the current moment (test, class, etc). So what do I do? I download the episode! And you know what? Fox does not lose money by me downloading their episode because I am a fan of the show and I have all three seasons in DVD box sets (which cost quite a bit might I add). In fact, I didn't start watching 24 until I had downloaded the entire first season to watch it and see what it was about and then I was hooked. So if anything, Fox GAINED the sales of three seasons PLUS any future ones released because I was able to download the TV show online.

I would understand the argument with movies and downloading but regarding TV shows, I don't see why there should be a problem. If someone goes out of their way to watch the show on TV, why should they be punished if they miss an episode and try to catch up by downloading it on BT?

DVD's and CD's are too expensive.

it's hard to find 3 new DVD's that are less then $100 all together (In Canada.)

That still doesn't give you the right to steal. Just because you can't afford something is your problem, and you know they would probably tell you the high prises are because people are stealing and there losing revenue from it. Look at it this way, would you steal a Lamborghin Gallardo or a Porsche Carrera GT just because you can't afford them?

check out TorrentBox's one, they didn't censored it

so what you are saying is that because of bit torrent, the movie / music / software industries arent losing any money at all. i find that very hard to believe. i'd like to see your sources that say that p2p is not PART of the problem.

hey, i'm with you guys in hoping that the bit torrent technology stays around. yes i've used suprnova, yes i've used lokitorrent, yes i've used pirates bay. i'm just saying that we are responsible for what is happening also.

edit: the pirtates bay's legal responses crack me up. what a great section to add. i especially like the graph that shows the ratio of legal threats to torrents taken down. haha.

theres a HUGE difference.
also i didnt say i ONLY steal, i do buy movies and cd's all the time, but to waste $25 on a CD i only want for 1 song? what a waste.

and there is a HUGE difference between Data on a disc, and a CAR!

you can NOT compare the two.. it is insane.

People sell you a disc, with a movie on it, and they make the $20M from it at the box office, DONT GET GREEDY! not every movie must be sold... by the origional.

last but not least, people steal cars every day. same with movies.

Man, MPAA/RIAA are assholes.. Why can't they leave us alone and be happy??

how is it stealing when someone gives it to you? Don't be a RIAA or MPAA pawn.

^ money. the root of all evil, especially the RIAA and MPAA. Politicians as well, and lawyers...etc..

What newspapers do you get ? Ones from the future.

I haven't never seen a newspapers movie listing page that lets you press on the movie listing and then you get to watch it for free and keep.

thats some amazing technology.

My statement wasn't meant as any sort of attack on you... what I was trying to convey was the notion that were you ever in a position where someone violated your person or property you wouldn't "hate the legal crap", because it's what provides you the ability to make things right.

Imagine how you would feel in this scenario: You spend a couple of years creating something... a product that you've invested thousands (if not millions) of dollars to develop. Now it turns out that this product is REALLY easy to make copies of, and can be distributed over the Internet in very little time. Would you be perfectly fine with thousands of people helping themselves to your product without paying you anything at all??? Remember, YOU'RE the one who put in all the work... YOU'RE the one who's taken all the financial risk... and YOU'RE the one who could lose the rights to your product if you DON'T take any action to protect your rights to it.

I agree that, in your case, there was arguably no harm done to Fox when you downloaded the first season of "24"... but let’s look at this from a broader perspective:

1) You certainly know that in all likelihood a great number of the people that downloaded that series DIDN'T purchase the DVDs, or ever contribute anything towards Fox as a means of compensation.
2) You could have rented the 1st season DVDs to satiate your initial interest in the show... downloading them was not your only option, it was just the cheapest and easiest.
3) TV networks have legal obligations to their affiliate stations, which could adversely be affected by excessive unauthorized distribution. These same distributions could also result in lost revenue when they sell the series for international markets.
4) Even if it could be proved that unauthorized P2P distributions resulted in higher revenues overall, don't you think the owner of the property should ultimately have the right to say that they don't want it to occur? Don't you have the right to say what you want to happen with your property, or would you be fine if people you don't know were to show up at your house whenever they liked to watch TV, use your computer, or take a dump in your toilet???

I'm not saying I don't understand your situation, I just think there's more to the issue that should be considered.

yes there is lost revenue in these, we are small people who make no more then $25,000 a year if not less. the movie makers make $40M (around that) so who are they to complain?

That's how I feel. Even though people are downloading rappers are still buying tricked out Escalades and movie stars are still buying expensive fashions. Nothing is really changing for them.

It's a tough case to make when you seemed to have found a way to spend a couple thousand (best guess) on your computer, let alone the monthly cost of Internet access.

You seem to be able to come up with the money for the things you want... at least for those that you can't get for free via the Internet.

I know that it's legal for you to do this in Canada because you've already paid your tax on the blank media, but there are plenty of people in the world who use the same excuse that are not in compliance with their local laws.

The newspaper tells you where to go and get it, there are a lot of people who like to sneak into movies without paying, that is their choice and not the newspapers.

I never used BitTorrent to download movies, mostly just TV shows that I couldn't get here in the USA.

Why does the BBC & Channel4 make really good shows? I want them here!

I've also just downloaded episodes of TV shows on Discovery Channel (American Chopper, Mythbusters, just to name a few) because I missed them or some other reason... I've deleted most of them as of recent, since you can practically turn on Discovery Channel and see a rerun of what I had downloaded, and with my DVR, why should I waste space on my hard drive?

I'm not saying it's right, but for shows that don't play over here, I'll do what I have to do to get to view these shows.

Edit: Well, besides moving to England... although I would if I could.

You really don't hold the moral high ground here... the fact that you obtain copies of someone else's property without their permission or compensation is a demonstration of your greed.

See #1: http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=stealing


What a burden you must bear... what with being the last moral person on earth. And here I thought Ghandi was dead!!!

Well, for starters, they're the owners of the property.

Tell me, how many millions of dollars did you risk producing the movie?

Also, at what income level does it become OK for someone to steal your stuff? Does a homeless person have the right to take YOUR stuff? Compared to him YOU"RE rich!!!

America, oh America, the nation that sues for any given reason. What a nation. What a free country.

Heh, I remember when some fat person sued McDonald's. I'm obviously not proud of my current location.