BitTorrent Site Admin Sent to Prison

The 23 year old Grant Stanley has been sentenced to five months in prison, followed by five months of home detention, and a $3000 fine for the work he put in the private BitTorrent tracker Elitetorrents.

This ruling is the first BitTorrent related conviction in the US. Stanley pleaded guilty earlier this year to "conspiracy to commit copyright infringement" and "criminal copyright infringement". He is one of the three defendants in the Elitetorrents operation better known as "Operation D-Elite".

Operation D-Elite (they love word tricks) was orchestrated by the FBI with a little help from the MPAA in May 2005, and resulted in the shutdown of one of the largest private BitTorrent trackers at that time.

View: Full Article @ Torrent Freak

Report a problem with article
Previous Story

Google goals: more ads, less spam, go green

Next Story

Apple Secretly Implementing 802.11n Wireless Standard

52 Comments

Commenting is disabled on this article.

Operation D-Elite (they love word tricks)

Those who cannot spell or pronounce English cannot claim to have made a "word trick". Sreiously, how the hell is that pronounced? Delight (in which case they don't know how to pronounce "elite" )? Dee eleet (what word is that meant to be)? De elight (same)?

3 words

The elite (as referred to the 1337's)
De-elite (as in makign them non elite)
Delete

they don't have to be perfect to be a word trick, the point is still there.

Software deployment amongst other things have moved on, but software publishers have not moved quite so fast.

We killed the Tape cassette with CD's relatively quickly. CD's with MP3's or software downloads has managed to drag on for quite some time. I personally think there is room for both, but that's not my point.

My point is that people look at a CD costing £13 quid (Audio Album for instance), and think, some of that is production of the actual media. they are of course right. Only recently have files been available on the Net cheaper due to downloading rather than packaging in retail outlets.

That's one of the issues^^

I think the issue is that it's SO easy to get copied software/music on the internet now. I don't think that it's a snowball that can easily be stopped. Music industry cannot necessarily just drop their prices like that (as many think) - I accept that. They have ties with lots of other industries and are symbiants with many as well. Dropping prices would effect artists, manufacturing, retail blah blah blah. But it's true something needs to be done, firstly to make music and software more accessible to people in a legal way (and at a half decent price)

well as long as it's not a "federal pound-me-in-the-ass prison"...


Squash one and 20 more come to life. It never stops. BitTorrent will thunder on.

What really got the FBI's attention was the release of the last star wars Film. It got released there before anywhere else i believe. I use to have an account there long before it got shut down. They started releasing warez before it got to top warez sites to get people to join and pay for VIP status. They screwed themselves when they started drawing that kind of attention to themselves. When you have top site access don't flaunt it.

No what got the FBI's attention wa the fact that they used American servers and where Americans. they where able to actually get them.

There are several other distro sites, but after Tb and ET they mvoed outside of the states.

I have to laugh at people who point their fingers and say copyright infringement is wrong. If that was the case, everyone who has ever recorded a song off the radio, videotaped a tv show with their VCR or photocopied a page from a book should be in jail (which would mean every American would be in prision). Any person who claims they never used a piece of copied software or hasn't done any of the stuff I mentioned above is a bold face liar.

I have to laugh at people who are too stupid to know the difference between personally copying a few movies, music tracks or games, and sites which mass distribute millions of copies of such material with no benefit at all to the original author of such works.

I didn't read the article, but if its not a felony or anything serious that can result in his permanent records that can affect his future, then I think $3000 and 5 months in home detention is a slap on the wrist. I never been to the torrent site he was running, but if its like TPB, then he's must generated more than enough money from ads to pay for all his legal fees, unless the court took that away also. And this just push more downloaders to places like TPB, which they can't do anything about. So while this is deterring people in the US from running a torrent site, it doesn't stop people in other parts of the world.

I think you missed the 5 months in prison part. Also, it will show up on his permanent record. He will never be able to put on his job applications "Never been to prison."

The problem with the whole "You shouldn't get in trouble for only hosting the torrents" is that you're being an accessory to piracy. Those people can't pirate stuff from the D-Elite tracker without the guy who maintains the site. It's far different than giving someone a VCR and getting in trouble because they make copies. The primary purpose of torrenting is to promote widespread filesharing. It's not like SoulSeek or Limewire where you download something off a user and then you go on your way. It's meant to be a web of everyone collaborating together to spread it.

Quote - Davo said @ #16
It's far different than giving someone a VCR and getting in trouble because they make copies.

Nope, it is exactly like that and the people behind the push to criminalize filesharing where the same ones that wanted to ban the VCR because it would "promote widespread" copyright violations (aka piracy).

The content providers predicted their demise when they lost the Sony Betamax case... but now look at how much money they have made in the video market. If the *AA/BSA would embrace this technology and do a little research, they will find a way to make money.

Quote - Davo said @ #16
The primary purpose of torrenting is to promote widespread filesharing.

So what?!? The primary purpose of copy machine is to promote widespread copying. Neither the technology nor the person who owns the copy machine can always control what is copied.

I might be able to understand bringing certain civil charges against some people in some extreme cases, but criminalizing this is nothing but ****ing nuts.

Yet when there are like thousands if not tens of thousands of torrent tracker sites, the imprisonment of 1 BT admin, is really nothing in the long run.

Actually lbmouse you're wrong. you can't compare it to the VCR issue.

not when he's the owner/admin of a large BT tsite with the SOLE purpose of hosting 0-day torrents. maybe you dont' know what 0-day is, but I doubt it. And even you have to see the moral and ethical implications as well as legal in this.

A site with rules specifically as to what torrents can be hosted... and guess what, those rules didn't really include anything legal.


As for thousand of BT sites. There are few High quality 0-day sites, When TorrentBit dies, a lot of peopel, in fatc the majority of heavy BT users where without a place to get files. ET and that other one, grew up on the ashes of Tb. Both of these sites where in turn kille. leaving the same problem for the heavy torrent users. Face it the people using Tb, ET and the latest incarnation of this series of sites. They are NOT using it for legal purposes, and they are heavy downloaders and uploaders as they are ration locked sites with very strict rules. You are not doing legal stuff if you're a member of these sites.


There are more sites now true, but they're mostly target specific sites or region specific sites, and the content is rather lame in comparison as is the amount of stuff there, since thei're regional. the third incarnation of Tb, ET still lives. and sure if this site goes down, we'll end up just where we where. leechers and uploaders all looking for the next place and name for the phoenix to arise. but in the meantime, the hardcore of the BT world is without a home.


As for The Pirate Bay. you can say what you want, but the majority of the content, but a margin of WAY over 50% and closer if not over 90% IS illegal. And the truth is, when TPB went down, there was a VERY distinctive marked reduction in internet traffic, especially in Sweden(with reductions up to 50%) for the whole period it was down.
The large majority of peopel just use the easy to use sites that are accessible and easy to find, this is TPB. There are other TPB like sites around, but they're slower and harder to find, peopel just don't bother. so yes, there can be an effect from closing sites.

Quote - HawkMan said @ #16.3
Actually lbmouse you're wrong. you can't compare it to the VCR issue.

You never proved your case. I'm interested.

What percentage of TV shows, movies, sport events, etc., do you think that users of VCRs have copied where they didn't get consent from the content owner? I bet you the percentage is higher than the percentage of "illegal" (I use that term lightly) material on BT sites. Also, how many librarians have allowed users access to copy machines where copyrighted material was copied? Maybe 100% of them? Should we start throwing librarians into jail for 5 mos? How about the inventor of the copy machine and maybe a few Xerox executives and assembly line workers?

I'm not defending piracy or the violation of IP ownership rights, I'm just stating, A) Neither the technology nor creator/owner/admin of the technology should be held liable for how it is used by other people, and B) Violation of IP ownership rights should be handled civilly between the parties involved and not criminally... seems that many people here have been brainwashed by the powers-that-be into believing that IP law is the same as regular law -- I don't have the time to go into full detail but please remember that intellectual property theft != physical property theft -- they are different for many reason and used to be handled by the U.S. courts differently (that is what I'm really mad at).

Now you and I both know that this guy is probably not a "nice" guy and he knew what he was doing was "wrong", but where do you draw the line? And does the penalty fit the crime? There is a difference between morality and criminality.

Quote - lbmouse said @ #16.4

You never proved your case. I'm interested.

What percentage of TV shows, movies, sport events, etc., do you think that users of VCRs have copied where they didn't get consent from the content owner? I bet you the percentage is higher than the percentage of "illegal" (I use that term lightly) material on BT sites. Also, how many librarians have allowed users access to copy machines where copyrighted material was copied? Maybe 100% of them? Should we start throwing librarians into jail for 5 mos? How about the inventor of the copy machine and maybe a few Xerox executives and assembly line workers?

I'm not defending piracy or the violation of IP ownership rights, I'm just stating, A) Neither the technology nor creator/owner/admin of the technology should be held liable for how it is used by other people, and B) Violation of IP ownership rights should be handled civilly between the parties involved and not criminally… seems that many people here have been brainwashed by the powers-that-be into believing that IP law is the same as regular law -- I don't have the time to go into full detail but please remember that intellectual property theft != physical property theft -- they are different for many reason and used to be handled by the U.S. courts differently (that is what I'm really mad at).

Now you and I both know that this guy is probably not a "nice" guy and he knew what he was doing was "wrong", but where do you draw the line? And does the penalty fit the crime? There is a difference between morality and criminality.

You aren't automatically makign multiple copies of that VCR tape and distributing to yoru friends at near 1:1 quality of the show.

Torrents in and off themselves are nice, fast reliabl downloads, at least if it is a ratio enforced place(legal sites rarely are). But when it comes to sites like Tb, ET, TB.... and even TPB ... there's hardly any questions wether their quilty, granted TPB isn't because of Swedish law... that doesn't make them innocent morally and ethically but.. who am I to judge.

please everyone!

stop pulling numbers out of your arses!

If you knew anything about The Pirate Bay, then you wouldn't mention what they make in advertising in a day. It's right that they have made a lot of money trough advertising, but you forgot to mention that a lot of that money goes back in to the Pirate Bay servers, advertising agencies and etc.. The Pirate Bay is a Non Profit organisation.

I would like to give a big applause to lbmouse who mentioned brain-washing!

Where was I when the earth went stupid? I had a profound thought, that most of the people on Neowin had held on to they're personal judgement, but i guess i didn't sidestep that "landmine".

please educate yourself a little in the whole downloading/uploading industry, before you post something idiotic...

and let's consider the whole P2P problem... It's just sharing. Sharing is good. Sometimes you should think about what your mother/father teached you, and reflect on that. Is it any different? And please stop with all these "copyright rules" These are just they're so the industry can make even more money.

We downloaders are starting a revolution! and everyone whom is not a part of this revolution will be left out from society. You will become social outcasts... I welcome all the new downloaders and I still have an endless love for the old SOB's who still keep's on truckin'. Viva La Revolution!


Insanity - Check!
Confusing - Check!
I do have a valid point and everyone who doesn't understand me shold go on the lamb - Check!

What kind of job do you do? do you work ? are you still in school living with yoru mother?


What would you say, when you get yoru paycheck, and it's only a fraction of what it's supposed to be. so you go to your manager and ask him. He then tells you, Nah, I didn't really feel like paying you for it, you know.. I just didn't want to, waste of money.


The difference here is that in this case you quite and he gets sued, well if you're in a union anyway.

So you have artists that work hard to make an album, but an artist no matter how good, don't get recognized for free, you may think the Internet woudl allow this,a nd to some degree it does. but I have yet to see a world famous free internet artist. So anyway the artist goes to a studio, they listen to his demo, They take himt o a recording studio. They then clean up fix the album art actually make the CD and all that. The CD isn't even in print yet, but allready the artist woudl have cost the record companies a LOT of money. think of all the peopel involved. Add pritnign costs, Advertisingall that crap on top of that, AND the commision that the record company gets for making the artist famous, and you get why so little of the CD price goes to the artist.

No you're going to say that the record company and the execs and all those peopel rungnin the business makign him famous don't deserve such a big cut, well maybe they don't. BUT the fact is, because of this, the Artist becomes wolrd famous, he sells tons of CDs plays on hundreds and thousands of live performances bringing him the majority of the cash.

Without the Marketing and services provided by the record company he never would have reached this level, he wouldn't have been known, he wouldn't have been famous, and at best he woudl have been the popular underground artist with a small and short lived faithfull following. That doesn't make him much money.

The CD in itself is just a service bought fomr the record companies along with marketing, a Service to promote their concerts, where the real money is, a service to the fans so they can hear them in professionally recorded media, even when they're not performing live.


Now he income from the CD's is minmal to the artis, but it still adds up. And you want to justify your actions by sayign that they barely get any money from CD sales, it all goes to the big label record companies. But you fail to see that because of this, pirating only hurts the artist themselves even more. especially artist that don't tour much and relies entirely upon CD sales.


No there is no revolution, it's the same age old theft. You steal, and if you get caught you pay for it. If you run a private 0 day warez site, in fact at the time the biggest one, you pay BIG. You can not justify downloading music illegally. it doesn't work in the real world, it won't work in yoru future revolution.

The Revolution is here, yes, and it's digitally downloadbale distribution of music. it's not freely leeching music of the artists. The future is that record companies are afraid they'll be obsolete, wich they very might well be, threathened by small recording studios, recording for a small percentage, and music distirbuted(not for free) through Music services provided by sites that would only take a minimal percentage of every sold song. and word of mouth rumors on the net.

Unfortunately no really popular and decent such site exist yet, only some small minor ones, and most of them follow the "music for Free" ideology. and good private recording studios aren't makign deals like that yet, probably because it's not a very safe way to make money.

And that is the underlying point, everyone is int hebusiness to make money, even the artist, they aren't making music for free. they make the music to make money, otherwise they'd sit at home and play for their friends.

So no, you do NOT have a point, try again. but first, grow up or start making your own money with a real job. Try makign a living of coding small apps, and see how well you fare when instead of buying the only thing you live of, peopel just download it for free and crack it.

Quote - HawkMan said @ #15.1

So you have artists that work hard to make an album, but an artist no matter how good, don't get recognized for free, you may think the Internet woudl allow this,a nd to some degree it does. but I have yet to see a world famous free internet artist. So anyway the artist goes to a studio, they listen to his demo, They take himt o a recording studio. They then clean up fix the album art actually make the CD and all that. The CD isn't even in print yet, but allready the artist woudl have cost the record companies a LOT of money. think of all the peopel involved. Add pritnign costs, Advertisingall that crap on top of that, AND the commision that the record company gets for making the artist famous, and you get why so little of the CD price goes to the artist.

HawkMan, after reading your response, the only question that comes to mind is...Do you work for RIAA or MPAA? You sure sound like one.

Quote - Andrey said @ #15.2

HawkMan, after reading your response, the only question that comes to mind is...Do you work for RIAA or MPAA? You sure sound like one.

So because I think the artist deserves to get paid for his work, because I think the Record label deserves to get paid for the work they have done, because I think programmers deserve to get paid for the work they do and so on and so on. You think I work for the RIAA or MPAA... what kind of world do you live in.

OMG you think people deserve to getpaid for their work, you must be one of them evil RIAA people, totally against free sharing of information, duuuude....


Riight..

Quote - HawkMan said @ #15.1
What would you say, when you get yoru paycheck, and it's only a fraction of what it's supposed to be. so you go to your manager and ask him. He then tells you, Nah, I didn't really feel like paying you for it, you know.. I just didn't want to, waste of money..

If this happened, the only thing that could be done would be a civil trial to try to reclaim the owed money. The boss wouldn't be charged with a criminal offence.

"OMG, He conspired to drink beer with someone who intends to commit copyright infringment sometimes next year! ARREST HIM!"

Really, They are so ridiculous its stunning.

A lot of people do a lot of stuff, doesn't make it right, doesn't mean we should encourage them. Those same laws that protect you from having someone carjack you on the street are also being applied to this guy right here. If you're makin money from something that's not yours, expect to go the big house. We're not talking about a guy making a few copies of a DVD for his friends, we're talking about a professional pirate making thousands if not millions (The Pirate Bay makes $22,000+ a day in advertising alone). It's become a criminal matter because it's beyond a small-time hobby now.

Quote - 7Dash8 said @ #11
If you're makin money from something that's not yours, expect to go the big house.

You obviously missed the significance. He wasn't making money. Laws were changed recently that means non-profit copyright infringement is a criminal act. Profiting from copyright infringement has been a criminal matter for ages, and many people have been arrested and prosecuted for it.


It's become a criminal matter because it's beyond a small-time hobby now

No, under US laws (almost) all copyright infringement is a criminal matter. The legality of it has nothing do with the scale. Stealing $10 from someone is no less illegal than stealing $1 m.

WOW, I can't believe the number of people on Neowin that have been brain-washed by the MPAA/RIAA/BSA. Just look at the number of times 'illegal' is used in the posts. Boys and girls, until recently, copyright infringement in the U.S. was a very minor civil matter and not criminal. The changes in these laws were just plain stupid. Do you think we should start sending store managers of Kinkos to jail for providing customers with copy machines that might be used to violate copywrited material? It's basically the same thing that this guy was convicted of. What's next? Are we going to start sending people to jail that own anything that *might* be used to violate a law?

"Boys and girls, until recently, copyright infringement in the U.S. was a very minor civil matter and not criminal."

Until relatively recently, the buying, selling, and trading of other human beings wasn't even a minor offence in many parts of the world: it was perfectly legal. Does this mean that civilized societies shouldn't have outlawed slavery because it created a financial hardship for those who wanted the free labor that slavery provided?

In any case, what was is irrelevant. It was a minor civil matter because copyright infringement was infrequent and casual, and the cost of such infringement to copyright owners was inconsequential. The punishment fit the "crime." Are you now suggesting that the massive infringement of hundreds of millions of dollars worth of copyrighted material through file sharing still rates as a minor offence??

While I personally don't give a damn one way or another about file sharing or what the MPAA/RIAA/BSA does about it, I still get tired of people like you who incessantly try to spin the fact of thievery into the appearance of victimization. If musicians, movie producers, and software developers wanted to give away their work, they would freely post it online for all to download – as indeed some do. But the fact that most of these people offer their work for sale is prima facie evidence that they don't want it given away – or taken away – by people like you.

You can spin this until you pass out from dizzines, but it still doesn't change the fact that you are quite simply trying to justify stealing other people's intellectual property by making yourself out to be the victim. Maybe you'd care to explain exactly how it is that you're entitled to take someone else's property without paying for it? Or how it is that you become the victim when the property owner tries to prevent you from stealing that property?

One thing's for sure: if you spent a ton of money cutting a CD or making a movie or developing a computer game, you'd be screaming bloody murder if people started sharing your work on the Internet without your knowledge or consent and without paying you for it.

Tell me I'm wrong!

Quote - Octol said @ #9.1
Tell me I'm wrong!

OK, you are wrong.

I'm not supporting copyright infringement. I'm supporting that action against this type of behavior should be handled civilly and not criminally. We are talking IP law here (my ex-wife is an IP attorney) and it is a whole different animal and needs to be treated differently. I'm also incessantly trying to get the point across that the technology and the owner/provider of the technology should not be held liable for the possibility that it might in some cases be used to violate IP law. That is all. I'm tired of people like you who don't give a damn one way or another about file sharing... you will when it is too late.

Quote - Octol said @ #9.1
One thing's for sure: if you spent a ton of money cutting a CD or making a movie or developing a computer game, you'd be screaming bloody murder if people started sharing your work on the Internet without your knowledge or consent and without paying you for it.

In my spare time I've been writing shareware applications since the mid 80's (helped put me through college). I do understand your points on IP ownership rights, I just don't agree with how the system defines and treats violators.

Here come the politically corrent mob rushing to the rescue.
Whether people will ever admit it or not, alot of people even here on neowin will be using either pirated xp or a pirated photoshop. Of course its illegal, you dont need to patronise people about it. Drugs are illegal but its a massive business. Yea in the eyes of the law he should be jailed, but I couldnt give a **** either way and I wont be protesting for more people to be jailed. Its the world we live in.

This guy was a true hero, fighting for freedom of speech and championing the cause of peoples' justice!

No wait, hold on - he was just some guy trying to make himself popular and spin a buck off other peoples' work. Sharing games and movies without paying for them is illegal, and he rightly deserves to go to jail. Anyone who kids themselves into thinking torrents are not for almost exclusively sharing copyrighted material without permission needs their head examined. Ever been to a torrent site recently? Why is the biggest torrent site in the world called "The Pirate Bay"?

Just like everything else...it will just be moved out of the USA...until there is nothing left there but the Thirld World.

With things happening like that, like it or not, the message is clear. DON'T SHARE ANYTHING or else....

It's not a question of "free" speach or nothing like that. It's copyright violation, on software and tunes.

Who in their right mind would want to create somthing to help sharing? We all know now where it can lead you....

And that is the real shame of it. File sharing of all kinds is being viewed as illegal, when it is perfectly legal to share some files. As a Linux user, there is an important distinction that should be made, but the media (with RIAA/MPAA influence) has it all glossed over.

Quote - markjensen said @ #2.1
And that is the real shame of it. File sharing of all kinds is being viewed as illegal, when it is perfectly legal to share some files. As a Linux user, there is an important distinction that should be made, but the media (with RIAA/MPAA influence) has it all glossed over.

Yeah, but lets get real... 95% of file sharing IS illegal.... From Torrent to Limewire/Bearshare or whatever...

So, it's like finding a needle in hay stack, when so little sharing is legal, it's safer and faster just to kill everything.

Quote - TruckWEB said @ #2.2

Yeah, but lets get real... 95% of file sharing IS illegal.... From Torrent to Limewire/Bearshare or whatever...

So, it's like finding a needle in hay stack, when so little sharing is legal, it's safer and faster just to kill everything.

heh would love to know how you came to a number of 95% of file sharing is illegal , how do you know this ?

Quote - TruckWEB said @ #2.2
Yeah, but lets get real... 95% of file sharing IS illegal.... From Torrent to Limewire/Bearshare or whatever...

So, it's like finding a needle in hay stack, when so little sharing is legal, it's safer and faster just to kill everything.

That kind of thinking would have killed the VCR back in the Sony vs Universal days.

Quote - TruckWEB said @ #2.2

Yeah, but lets get real... 95% of file sharing IS illegal.... From Torrent to Limewire/Bearshare or whatever...

So, it's like finding a needle in hay stack, when so little sharing is legal, it's safer and faster just to kill everything.

Source for your 95% stat?

Yeah, I agree where is the 95% stat? I assumed it would be even higher than that.

Just a quick browse of a popular torrent site, I looked at the current top 20 torrents being seeded and all were illegal material.

20 is just a small sample, but I imagine the rest of the population of torrents is similiar.

Just because Linux distros are being distrubted using torrent, don't fool yourself into thinking that torrents arn't being used for the vast vast VAST majority by people looking for copyrighted content.

Quote - TruckWEB said @ #2.2

Yeah, but lets get real... 95% of file sharing IS illegal.... From Torrent to Limewire/Bearshare or whatever...

So, it's like finding a needle in hay stack, when so little sharing is legal, it's safer and faster just to kill everything.

Yeah. Ok... lets kill the internet. 70-80% of traffic is file sharing, who cares about the rest.

Let's see what things wouldn't exist without file sharing.

- itunes. No way the music industry would enter into internet distribution. It's going to make them 10's of billions in the next five years alone. The people spoke, they wanted to have single mp3's and for a cheap price. File sharing is also going to make it possible to have drm free music in a few years, once the major labels get told they are losing LOTS of cash because drm puts people off from moving over. itunes has been making chump change compared to what's possible.
- The MP3. The uptake of MP3's and digital music players would have been MUCH slower without file sharing. The slowing would hold back the ipod. Apple would have made less money. That new Macbook you have been eyeing wouldn't exist. Flash memory would be smaller and slower.
- Internet TV. Want to have be able to watch HD video streamed live over the internet in a few years? That would be nice wouldn't it? Shame, Bittorrent and related software, developed by the filesharing community, is the only way to do it...... but you can't use it. That would make you a hypocrite.
- Online Movie distribution. There are 100's of companies which right now are using bittorrent to distribute big movie files over the internet to their customers. The cost to them is a fraction of what it would be NOT using bittorrent. In fact, you might say, bittorrent GAVE them a new market and a viable business opportunity. A new market which will make Many Many Billions!
- Broadband internet? Like that? Do you really think that the internet would be as fast as it is today if there wasn't for the MASSIVE amount of file sharing traffic that uses it. That might sound the wrong way around. But file sharing has effective PUSHED the internet forward for the past 10 years. I wouldn't have much need the fast connection I have if I had nothing to download. I would there-fore start giving less money to my isp. Now "legal" video services are just starting to be able to make use of all that speed. P2P effectively jump-started the internet.

There are countless other examples, each having a knock on affect in the tech world and society in general. To say, "it's bad, get rid of it" (something which will NEVER happen by the way - there is too much money at stake for content providers and copyright holders. Why would they want to give that up. ) is the most backward view to have on something.
I have yet to see some one go out of business or loss money because of filesharing. In most cases popularity in the file sharing sites has led or followed popularity for that product in the real world. If something is free a lot more people are willing to give it a chance than if it's a £10 cinema ticket. If they like it, they tell their friends. The technical know-how required to use bittorrent means that most of the population would never both with it. It most likely has already levelled off. And that small percentage tell the rest what is good.
So the law is in the wrong in this case. I don't think the solution is to give everything away. It's makes more sense to compete on quality and price, then people will go for the better, more morally acceptable option. People WANT the creators of music and film to get their money. They DON'T like spending too much money on overpriced crap products flogged by faceless corporations. They just need to be given the choice.

lol, let's see the FBI arrest 50% of the American population...

This is just one of those example setting things...

Wow. way to see the connection...


Does half the american population run and manage large very active 0-day torrwent tracker sites?


I somehow doubt half theAmericanpopulation even runs bittorerent or any filesharing progs.

you can probably remove any peopel aboe 70 at least from that, probably 60. then everyone below hmm well 10 I suppose woudl be good enough. thoguh they may do it through parents. but that's still the parent.

and not everyoen in between uses filesharign you know. not evenclose.

lol, yeah I agree, I was just exaggerating :p

But seriously there are a large number of people out there who do download illegal stuff by a variety of means... example setting is great but it doesn't stop the fact that people will do anything if they can get away with it.

If the FBI really want to stop this they have to do two things: catch more site admins & arrest potential site admins before it happens! i.e. the normal bittorrent user.

It would be interesting if someone did the numbers on how many people use bittorrent, for instance Azureus says 1,100,000 users currently online now that is a lot at one time and this is just with Azureus....

Quote - HawkMan said @ #1.1
Wow. way to see the connection...


Does half the american population run and manage large very active 0-day torrwent tracker sites?


I somehow doubt half theAmericanpopulation even runs bittorerent or any filesharing progs.

you can probably remove any peopel aboe 70 at least from that, probably 60. then everyone below hmm well 10 I suppose woudl be good enough. thoguh they may do it through parents. but that's still the parent.

and not everyoen in between uses filesharign you know. not evenclose.

Does 50 percent of america know how to spell as good as you?

Quote - jb23fan said @ #1.3

Does 50 percent of america know how to spell as good as you?

I'm neither American nor English.

But according to my experiences ion the internet, no, no they don't.