MPAA sues Cinematube, Ssupload

The Motion Picture Association of America has filed a suit in the U.S. District Court of Los Angeles against Cinematube and Ssupload, saying both web sites facilitate copyright infringement. The MPAA accuses the sites of benefiting from rampant copyright infringement by identifying, organizing, posting, and indexing links to pirated videos and movies. "We will continue to scour the Internet for these illegal sites, and through lawsuits such as these we are putting illegal Web operators on notice that they are not above the law and will face serious consequences for their activities," said John Malcolm, MPAA's executive VP of Worldwide Anti-Piracy Operations.

The MPAA says that both sites enjoy "significant profits" as a result of advertising displayed on the sites, as well as user donations. The association estimates that Cinematube nets over 24,000 unique visitors a day on average, with Ssupload averaging over double that at 55,000 unique visitors per day. The MPAA notes that neither site hosts the illicit content, much of which is still in theaters, but rather contains links to other sites that do. Both sites are believed to be based in the US (Georgia and Arizona, respectively), the increase in lawsuits against sites that point to illegal movies may push them to move operations overseas as well in order to skirt litigation.

News source: Ars Technica

Report a problem with article
Previous Story

As forecasted, Apple update cripples iPhone

Next Story

New 360 Bundles For Christmas?

10 Comments

Commenting is disabled on this article.

if they spent less time suing people they might be able to spend more time making better movies and doing something good with its time...


funny thing is I've never heard of these sites.


...but soon they will sue you for saying the word "video" on the net.

If the RIAA and MPAA is concerned so much about copyright infringement then create better ways to minimize it...

you can never stop it...so don't even bother attempting that....just work on making it difficult....that's all that can be done.

I guess sue-ing left and right is their way of making people get scared of not making sites or using p2p like those.


I would love to look at the computers of the very same individuals who work for the RIAA and MPAA and I'll guarantee they have infringed copyrights some way or the other.

Members of the MPAA DID pirate a movie!!!

A movie called "This film is not yet rated", it was about the MPAA, but being an independent film the MPAA weren't given permission to make copies of it, but apparently they did.

One source

As for these sites in question that they are going after, I don't disagree with. It's one thing someone copying a rented/borrowed movie or even maybe download a torrent, but its a another thing (in my view at least) people making money off of it. I definitely do NOT agree with people making money off other people's movies and such.

Ash said,
Members of the MPAA DID pirate a movie!!!

A movie called "This film is not yet rated", it was about the MPAA, but being an independent film the MPAA weren't given permission to make copies of it, but apparently they did.

One source

As for these sites in question that they are going after, I don't disagree with. It's one thing someone copying a rented/borrowed movie or even maybe download a torrent, but its a another thing (in my view at least) people making money off of it. I definitely do NOT agree with people making money off other people's movies and such.

Actually, the filmmaker EXPLICITY FORBADE the MPAA representative from making copies.

Ash said,
As for these sites in question that they are going after, I don't disagree with. It's one thing someone copying a rented/borrowed movie or even maybe download a torrent, but its a another thing (in my view at least) people making money off of it. I definitely do NOT agree with people making money off other people's movies and such.

I think that bootlegging - the act of copying a DVD, making it look even semi-official, and then selling it purely for your own profit - is a good example of when the MPAA/RIAA should be aggressive. The bootlegs are directly competing with the legit products and diverting money away from them. Additionally, the company's reputation is on the line: some people who don't realize that they've purchased an unofficial product would think poorly of the company if the bootleg that they'd purchased were very low in quality (and they almost always are).

In this case, these sites aren't hosting the content themselves, but they're linking to them. Based off of the article, it does not seem that the sites make their money from selling the movies or even requiring payment from their services, but simply off of advertising and good-will donations from members who like the site. That's legit, in my opinion. They're riding off of the public's interest in these movies and the fact that someone else is hosting them, and that's it. If you say that they're stealing from the MPAA, or should be splitting their revenue with the MPAA, then by this logic, sites like the Internet Movie DataBase (IMDB.com) should be paying the MPAA a cut of their revenue, because people are flocking to the site to find out information on movies produced under the MPAA (among others). If IMDB already has some arrangement with the MPAA, it doesn't weaken my statement - there are likely dozens, if not hundreds, of sites on the internet that work on this principle.

The MPAA should be targeting the services that actually host the files and make them freely available. It's nothing new, but they're attacking the wrong part of the chain. At least they're not suing the end-users; I'll place them a bit above the RIAA for that.

Ledgem said,

I think that bootlegging - the act of copying a DVD, making it look even semi-official, and then selling it purely for your own profit - is a good example of when the MPAA/RIAA should be aggressive. The bootlegs are directly competing with the legit products and diverting money away from them. Additionally, the company's reputation is on the line: some people who don't realize that they've purchased an unofficial product would think poorly of the company if the bootleg that they'd purchased were very low in quality (and they almost always are).

In this case, these sites aren't hosting the content themselves, but they're linking to them. Based off of the article, it does not seem that the sites make their money from selling the movies or even requiring payment from their services, but simply off of advertising and good-will donations from members who like the site. That's legit, in my opinion. They're riding off of the public's interest in these movies and the fact that someone else is hosting them, and that's it. If you say that they're stealing from the MPAA, or should be splitting their revenue with the MPAA, then by this logic, sites like the Internet Movie DataBase (IMDB.com) should be paying the MPAA a cut of their revenue, because people are flocking to the site to find out information on movies produced under the MPAA (among others). If IMDB already has some arrangement with the MPAA, it doesn't weaken my statement - there are likely dozens, if not hundreds, of sites on the internet that work on this principle.

The MPAA should be targeting the services that actually host the files and make them freely available. It's nothing new, but they're attacking the wrong part of the chain. At least they're not suing the end-users; I'll place them a bit above the RIAA for that.

If we keep on this line of thought shouldn't any site that provides a link to these pages and also others who advertise in these sites also be liable ? let's say for example Google ? but I dont see that happening any time soon