Neowin.net

The real question would be more: How much of that money will go the artists/actors/producers that the MPAA is suppose to represent.

Altough there are no chance they get any of it. TorrentSpy filed for bancruptcy and they have no asset.

I am sure that Dick Cheney will get 10%.

don't trust Rlslog ???

here's the story's source

http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2008/05/t...ntspy-ding.html

and sorry to correct you , but Rlslog isn't full of warez and pirated movies , it's a similar site to torrentspy , doesn't actually hold the files anywhere , just 'points you in the right direction' kinda like google ....

In fact it links to a site with links to torrents (although it is it's sister site)

mmm, No. Google doesn't index your Warez for you, you go search for them.

It's not that I trust rlslog or don't, I only find it strange that it's a allowed to be linked to, while any discussion remotely connected with pirated material is forbidden.

Guess the judges in Arizona aren't particularly bright are they? What a maroon of an opinion.

There are many differences two of which...

The intentions of many file sharing sites is primarily for illegal use, nothing else. Google does not have intents.

A torrent site is a primary source to the download file.... google is a secondary source linking to the primary sources... thereofore their involvement is less.

That's what I would call splitting hair in four.

So now we're gonna start suing people based on what we think their intentions are?

Isn't it what the MPAA and RIAA are doing ?

Last edited by Captain555 on 09 May 2008 - 21:36

That's business as usual......

Yea this part about the case disturbed me...what happened to needing a warrant or at least to be suspected of being a terrorist?

OH U....Didn't you know that piracy helps the terrorists? Therefore, no warrant is necessary.

Only the goverment needs a warrent to search, if a private citizen or company breaks into your house/apt/etc that's b&e, which is a crime. But in that situation you have to find a district attorney to procecute the offence, or a civil case against the person.

I THOUGHT you could not use evidence gained illegally for a case.... interesting. (and sad)

exactly! ... cause it's like someone said above... 'i wonder how much of that is going in the Judges pocket' from the MPAA. lol

cause it would almost seem for sure he (the judge) was paid off... especially when it's $110million lol

Just because you get a judgment agansted someone doesn't mean anyone will ever see a dime.... you can't get water from a stone.

The MPAA would love that.

Hey, that's Elton John's idea.

http://www.neowin.net/index.php?act=view&id=41752

Agreed. This is 100% illegal.

Sorry, but the site is neither legal or illegal. The usage by the end-users is what determines the legality. If we are to get into the idea that a site or company should be held responsable for the actions of their customers, well then I would agree that this company should be held responsable. But under that process we would also have to hold Google/Yahoo liable for linking to torrents. Or to put it another way we would have to hold alcohol companies liable for the car crashes caused, in part, by their products.

I *FEEL* that the correct issue here is personal responsability. If *I* did something wrong, then it's my fault. Not TorrentSpy, Google, or Smirnof.

Just food for thought.

Peace,
James Rose
New York City

Abso-freakin-lutely. Another one bites the dust. I can't help but wear a smug grin of satisfaction when yet another door to piracy slams shut.

I don't believe "stealing" is a good synonym for pirating something.
When people think of stealing, when I think of stealing, they think of taking someone's physical property without their consent. It's very simple, very just, very illegal and it ought to be so.

Piracy isn't so clear on everything, however. Those laws are very virtual since no physical property is actually "taken away". MPAA, RIAA,... may say that for every download thousands and thousands of dollars are lost, but if I can't gay, take for example, Adobe Premiere Pro that way I won't get it at all, considering the cost. They wouldn't have lost a client on me, on the contrary, as years go on and I grow older I might save enough money to buy the damn thing and devote more time to certain video-editing hobbies. (We're talking hypothetically, of course!)

I live in Europe and, say, I want to watch the latest Lost, Grey's, Ugly Betty, Battlestar Galactica, ... Should I be such a fanatic, I would download them the second they're released. (These "virtual boundaries" of not being able to download episodes here, while they're out in the US, is very "Web 1.0" - not the way it should be, but anyway) ABC, NBC, SCiFi, ... wouldn't have lost a viewer, because I don't live in the US and I'd probably buy the DVDs anyway.

Going on to music then, which is the grayest area of them all. Should I like a song on the radio, I'd might like to play it whenever the hell I want, so I'd download it. Should I feel like supporting the artist, I'd buy the album - preferably from their own personal website, that way I'll know my money is going to them, and nowhere else.
If anyone has any problems with this, I'll do what I used to do before I first had an internet connection, or like my parents did before me many years ago, and tape the damn song on a cassette. It's impossible to keep up with the evolution of music, so many songs getting released every week, it's crazy!

Anyway, what I'm trying to say, I can understand pirating software is illegal, but when you hit the artistic scene (music, tv, ...) everything becomes very muddy. Should you have to pay for everything you actually want to see or hear, you'd be out of money in no time, so a better solution must be found!

So the utopian solution would be to tax everyone 20 dollars a year and to divide it over the different artists, departments, producers, actors, ...
Something like music, stories, tv, ... are part of our culture, who we are ourselves, and it's unfair to put a limit to how much music you can listen or how much movies you can see, which is being done now.

That's just what I firmly believe in.

Just stick your favourite software and the word "crack" into Google and see how many hundreds of thousands of hits come up. But of course you would always pay royalties. George Bush managed to become president because of patriots who think like you. America, the land of the free (unless you happen to live in Iraq)

You didn't agree with what he said.. so you just blamed Bush. Wow. Really. WOW.

Of course not, Google has money.

America will declare war as they did when they wanted to steal Iraq's oil. But killing brown people isn't a crime like stealing a movie, of trashy pop song.

They wont give up because the companies that they are attempting to protect have billions in product. I agree that going after torrent sites and other tactics by the MPAA and RIAA are only going to get, at best, the tip of the iceberg. I don't believe that any of the processes that these orginizations take are going to resolve the problem they are having... however the issue here is that the MPAA doesn't realize this, or it seems they don't realize this issue. After a decade the RIAA still thinks they can stop illegal trading by sueing users.

Let's look at this another way: the US goverment has been trying to stop the use of marijuana for over half a century. Billions of dollars have been spent and yet the issue still exists. The problem in either case is the person/company/goverment cannot get themselves out of the habit of doing the same thing over and over and over, reguardless of the previous results.

The answer? I don't know. I do know the current process will have limited results that the MPAA would like.

A good analogy would be that they are trying to put the toothpaste back into the tube.

Fact of the matter is that both, the movie industry and the record industry, have completely missed the boat of the digital age. They still want to cling to their old way of doing thing because they are so far behind, they will never catch-up. Their business is going down the drain and they can't stop it. So they are going down kicking and screaming.

10 years ago they should have taken the lesson from Napster and be the first one out there.

That's missing the point. If you can't afford it in the first place, they don't want you anywhere near it. However their argument of potential loss of sale is completely bogus.

I think they should sue mpaa for 110 million and all the legal fees they had to pay thus far, for what mpaa did to them since they obtained the evidence illegally to begin with.

yup nothing ever changes

Was. It then got crap.