AfterDawn: News

Torrentspy moves to dismiss MPAA suit

A popular BitTorrent search engine, Torrentspy, has filed a "Motion to Dismiss" a lawsuit brought against it by the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA). The lawsuit accuses the site of aiding copyright infringement. Lawsuits against BitTorrent tracker sites differ because those sites host torrent files (although whether that is legal or not is still to be seen) but Torrentspy does not even do that much; it's just a search engine. Additionally, the site claims to have always removed links upon request from copyright holders.

Lawyers for the site believe that the case should be dismissed as it fails to provide any evidence of primary infringement. "Plaintiffs are attempting to steamroller defendants by means of an improper pleading. At the level of concrete specificity, the complaint is fatally defective in lacking allegations of any actual infringement. Not a single element of any cause of action is properly alleged. Allegations about defendants' supposed wrongdoing are nothing more than attempts to create impressions that are devoid of substance," the Memorandum to support the Motion to Dismiss states.



The action was brought against Torrentspy when the MPAA filed 7 suits against BitTorrent sites, ed2k sites and NZB sites at the end of February. This was the first time the MPAA targeted sites that host NZB files, which are used to download binary files from Newsgroups.

Source:
The Register

Written by: James Delahunty @ 29 Mar 2006 7:33

• Previous article

• StreamCast sued Skype, Kazaa and others under RICO Act

• Next article

• Apple Corp says case is about logos

• 59 comments

• wetsparks

  Its about time someone grew some stones and called these bastards bluff.

  29.3.2006 09:39 #1

• ker7099

  i hope they win. esp since i use this site all the time.

  29.3.2006 17:59 #2

• dubire

  They have a point
  if stopped on the street and asked where is a shop and you direct that person to a shop. upon there arrival they rob the shop and shoot some one at the same time.
  
  now here is the question is providing the information a crime??????????

  29.3.2006 22:01 #3

• gabsta69

  Thats a very good analogy dubire.... but that does mean that the MPAA will change its strategy and target the users even more so of these type of sites.

  30.3.2006 01:48 #4

• ripfuel

  The Gov't is not gonna win this one. I think this will be a win for the little guys. I love torrentspy, they have the coolest files. Keep on fighting the a$$holes, eventually we will overcome!

  30.3.2006 03:14 #5

• JimMrBass

  All those bastards meaning the MPAA care about is screwing the consumer. Dam you purchase a movie and you kid plays it in your DVD player a few times and they scratch it. Now the dam thing will not play and they want you to buy another one. That is bullshit. I have purchased brand new DVD's and the dam disc would not play in any machine. I dont give a dam what they do to me cause I will rent the dam movie and copy it anyway. What are they going to do to me I am 65 years old and 100% disabled. Let then take me to court cause I want to tell my side of the story. They let me copy VCR tapes and never said shit about that. Now tell me what the hell is the difference between copying a movie on VCR and copying a movie on DVD. The only difference I can see is using a computer. Pretty soon the assholes will want to take away your computer if you let them. All our rotten politicans are getting paid under the table to write these assinine laws. Let these bastard politicians work for a living and you would see some great changes in this country.

  30.3.2006 04:05 #6

• Logik666

  Quote:i hope they win. esp since i use this site all the time.LOL, you read my mind.

  30.3.2006 08:20 #7

• Chris1000

  The easy way to keep children from scratching DVD's, is to tell the children to be careful with the DVD's and show them how to put them into the DVD player without problems.
  
  Also, they are now selling special coatings for DVD's now, so put one of those on discs you use a lot!
  
  Though, DVD's really should have that special ridged inner circle and outer circle, to protect the data from harm.

  30.3.2006 10:06 #8

• Logik666

  It's the 21st century, I should be able to drag a knife down my media without it doing harm. some sort of clear titanium coating maybe. :-)

  30.3.2006 12:52 #9

• crystale

  I had to pay to get my Bit torrent which has my torrent Spy. Then I haven't been able to actually get a good download and burn it anyway.

  30.3.2006 13:27 #10

• Lv426

  If i had kids i would rip the DVD'd to a hard drive and then get the kids to watch from that. But back to the topic...i think the MPAA know they dont have a leg to stand on in this instance but i suspect they might just use the knowledge gained from this 'test the water'to then mount more cases. It is indeed ridiculous because what these narrow minded individuals fail to realise is we want to have better access at reasonable prices in the public domain to their material. To watch a movie here in OZ is $15 a DVD to buy ~$35.......both rip offs imo.
  
  Why not try to look at ways of benefiting both parties eg, Itunes...a roaring success..built on the back of piracy. If they keep just filing suit after suit what I think they dont foresee it makes us users angry.....end result...im gonna leech like ive never leeched before. We will always be one step ahead of you bastards...
  
  END

  30.3.2006 14:19 #11

• Logik666

  @crystale
  (off topic. ignore)
  
  What do you mean you had to pay for your bit torrent? Did you get scamed?

  30.3.2006 14:42 #12

• Kupotek

  the funny thing is so many people think the lawsuit is crazy but we all know sites like torrentspy are there to support in the illegal distribution of copywritten material.

  30.3.2006 22:43 #13

• sisph

  "the funny thing is so many people think the lawsuit is crazy but we all know sites like torrentspy are there to support in the illegal distribution of copywritten material."
  
  Well, first off, you are entitled to your opinion. Second off, 'illegal distribution' is only illegal because law makers made it so. And just becasue they all said it is illegal doesn't make it wrong. Before I get to my main point let me just say that there are many pointless laws in every society that pass for some stupid reason or another and are always subject to change. Many people advocate that what this law's real intent is to stick it to the consumer.
  
  Sites like torrentspy could be said to rebel against preconceived notions of what is 'illegal' or 'copywritten'. Not just 'pirates'. But whatever, its a matter of semantics.
  
  My point is that this case is more important because it defines more clearly what the MPAA or RIAA or anyone in general wants to make illegal. It's a case of censorship. This lawsuit wants to make it illegal to even link to information that they consider harmful without actually hosting it.
  
  I agree, you shouldn't be hosting things that are 'harmful'. You shouldn't be able to list exactly how to make a bomb or where to buy supplies for it and when is the best time to explode it. But that information for the most part is very palpable.
  
  A copyright case, on the other hand, isn't. You're talking about profits. If this passes anyone can sue anyone for hosting links or whatever to any information they don't like. The gov't can sue you for hosting a link to a website because we're at war with some country even if it has nothing to do with their military or terorrism. By just linking to a Muslim religous website you could be labeled "harmful". Examples can go on and on.
  
  In short, a stupid law case is creating a tool that serves the money hungry corporation at the expense of the civil liberties granted to American citizens. However, this can be used internationally too, I guess. It just goes downhill from there.

  31.3.2006 01:15 #14

• Kupotek

  "Sites like torrentspy could be said to rebel against preconceived notions of what is 'illegal' or 'copywritten'. Not just 'pirates'. But whatever, its a matter of semantics."
  
  Yea by ignorant morons with entitlement issues. All the copywritten applications, and books, and whatever else on TS costs money to make. And money to develop future endeavors. If youre stealing it, thats less money for future development.
  
  If you want to rebel against consumerism, dont use the stuff they make.
  
  Youre like a guy who says meat is murder so ill steal leather clothing instead of buying it.

  31.3.2006 01:31 #15

• crystale

  Well I thought the copyright was to keep you from selling and making money from it. If it is there to use and it is not harming another person physically, then it shouldn't be harmful. Making bombs etc are very serious issues and should not be accessable to the sick people that use them. This is not even comparable to that. The Government needs to be spending less time in cheating and stealing from the common tax payer with gasoline and oil prices. That is to me stealing more than downloading a movie to watch or burn.

  31.3.2006 06:15 #16

• sisph

  "Yea by ignorant morons with entitlement issues. All the copywritten applications, and books, and whatever else on TS costs money to make. And money to develop future endeavors. If youre stealing it, thats less money for future development."
  
  -Oh really? I think you need to rethink just exactly where that money you spend on movies, dvds, and etc. goes to. I'd be very surprised if the majority of profits goes to making the actual product better and not just into the pockets of investors. If more money goes into development then logically, the product gets better, right? If that were the case Windows would be the most amazing thing on earth and the James Bond series would be considered holy art amongst cinema. Or maybe they just don't have enough money yet. So in that case they should charge us a whole lot more for stuff right?
  
  "If you want to rebel against consumerism, dont use the stuff they make."
  -This is where I want to reach through your screen and slap you. But I won't, I'll be civil. Most people say this because they don't have common sense. You think that if enough people stop buying things that companies will get wise and say "hey, the customer isn't happy. I'll change." Yeah, that doesn't happen unless they start to loose profits. Cause' if they ain't losin' profit who gives a damn to do anything?
  Part of being a consumer means you should have a say what your money does (cash contract for product/service, etc). If a company is making profits for a product you don't like, then the only way to have them change is to make them loose profitability. You can support a rival company, you can buy and sell their stock at a whim, you can file lawsuits (ironic, I know) you can start petitions, and yes, you can not buy their stuff. But don't be a douchebag and act like not buying their product is the only way to voice your opinion.
  That's like saying if you don't like the state of American health care I should just let you die of a heart attack.
  
  "Youre like a guy who says meat is murder so ill steal leather clothing instead of buying it."
  
  -This I just don't understand.
  
  

  31.3.2006 07:02 #17

• kragshot

  "Yea by ignorant morons with entitlement issues. All the copywritten applications, and books, and whatever else on TS costs money to make. And money to develop future endeavors. If youre stealing it, thats less money for future development.
  
  If you want to rebel against consumerism, dont use the stuff they make.
  
  Youre like a guy who says meat is murder so ill steal leather clothing instead of buying it."
  
  May I ask what are you even doing here with being on this site if that is your philosophy?
  
  The people who come to this site are people who support concepts of file sharing and the free and unrestricted distribution of information and media.
  
  You are not going to have a lot of supporters, especially blasting this thread.

  31.3.2006 07:50 #18

• Kupotek

  @Sisph: "You think that if enough people stop buying things that companies will get wise and say "hey, the customer isn't happy. I'll change."
  
  Not true, i just think if you dont want to pay for something dont use it.
  
  You don't go into a store and start stuffing your pockets calling yourself a rebel, but people think they won't get caught because of internet anonymity so suddenly theft is okay.
  
  

  31.3.2006 08:45 #19

• tednor

  Well, seeing as how can "Google" a crack for any software you can possibly name and have it illegally registered on my machine in a matter of minutes, perhaps lawsuits against Google and Yahoo and MSN will be next. Now THAT would be interesting, eh?

  31.3.2006 09:31 #20

• tednor

  *** Not that I would ever do that mind you:) Actually most pay software SUCKS. Opensource, free as beer, that's my motto!

  31.3.2006 09:33 #21

• tednor

  And really Google should get sued anyway, 'cause if you don't know where to get Torrentspy, you Google it. So Google is telling you where to find the guys who tell you where to find the guys who give you the Hollywood schmaltz for the amount it deserves to earn in the first place (nothing). So if Torrentspy is guilty of 'hooking you up' then Google is just as much guilty because they 'hooked you up' with the 'hook up'. What I want to know is when the porn industry is gonna start suing. They have more money to make than Hollywood could possibly dream of! And a far superior product as well.

  31.3.2006 09:38 #22

• Kupotek

  "May I ask what are you even doing here with being on this site if that is your philosophy? "
  
  @kragshot - Because I am a lambchop and like to be eaten by wolves.
  
  @tednor - the point is this, if you think hollywood entertainment is junk and not worth paying for... why do you want it at all?
  
  

  31.3.2006 10:03 #23

• tednor

  Who said "I" wanted it? Certainly not me... And we all know the money goes into the pockets of the "executives" who make millions (if not billions) of dollars each year for doing nothing more than being lying raping scumbags. I'm not shedding any tears for them, sorry hon...

  31.3.2006 10:11 #24

• Kupotek

  @Sisph : "Second off, 'illegal distribution' is only illegal because law makers made it so."
  
  Exactly!
  
  
  Well, I'm his big sis....I don't really f'in like some of the stupid-ass laws on the books, but thankfully, we don't live in a fascist regime (even though you may think it is). But, illegal is still illegal. Sucks huh? So, if you don't like the law, lets f'in change it. Get it on the books. That's what the good guys do.

  31.3.2006 10:13 #25

• Kupotek

  @tednor what do you want cutie? (sorry my sister said that)

  31.3.2006 10:20 #26

• tednor

  I don't want your seestor! (Got any brothers?)

  31.3.2006 10:35 #27

• sisph

  "Not true, i just think if you dont want to pay for something dont use it."
  
  -Well, here's the rationale most people have (at least on this site): We want to pay for things we like because they are worth it. We want a high quality product to use. What 'they' churn out is the farthest thing from quality and we want it to change. Their laws
  protect a crappy product that we don't want but is the only thing we have access to. Do you want to pay for that?
  
  "You don't go into a store and start stuffing your pockets calling yourself a rebel, but people think they won't get caught because of internet anonymity so suddenly theft is okay."
  -You seem to be coming from the view that downloading is the same as stealing. Did you come up with that view using the facts you found out or just listened to what someone else said? 20 years ago no one even thought of being able to download a whole movie online. But suddenly, when profit is at hand its illegal. Theft is never ok. What I'm saying is that downloading ISN'T THEFT. You don't have a PHYSICAL THING TO STEAL. You have information. And once you start dictaing what you can and can't do with legally obtained information then you fall down a slippery slope. And most people here won't stand for that.
  
  "But, illegal is still illegal. Sucks huh? So, if you don't like the law, lets f'in change it. Get it on the books. That's what the good guys do."
  -Did blacks in the 1960s just say go change the laws and at the same time not break them? If a law is illogical or unfair then don't follow it. Do something about it. Don't just sit there and say "Go change it, but don't break it." If we followed your cue blacks would still be slaves, women couldn't vote, we would all be in the military due to the draft etc. THE LAW CHANGES AFTER THE FACT. THAT IS WHAT THE WHOLE AMERICAN LEGAL SYSTEM IS BASED ON. In an ideal world, sure. We do it your way. But good luck trying to do anything your way and getting real results.

  31.3.2006 10:39 #28

• Kupotek

  Well, I'm actually taken. Commitment ceremony and all. So, howdy family! Btw, I call everyone "cutie" in a sort of affectionate way. This topic is interesting, but small lentils....lots of other topics are more 'ouch' or tear-producing subjects...like "DWM's" which is people who are Driving While Mean :). My girlfriend and I's thing.

  31.3.2006 10:39 #29

• tednor

  Beats "Dating while mean" anyday!

  31.3.2006 10:50 #30

• Kupotek

  @sisph I agree with some of the things you said, but i disagree that downloading is not theft.
  
  You state it's not theft because it is not physical, but the fact is all this music, books, and what-have-you are made digital for distribution, and they are not legally allowed to do that which makes it theft... so yes with or without physical presence, it is illegal because that is what the law dictates.
  
  From the seestor: Finally...that's for making some very good points...I wanted to hear some logical stuff. Some people work within the system and some outside of it. We're both needed. I won't break the law, but I'll work to change it and perhaps you'll decide to break the law. In the civil war, not all blacks broke the law...Martin Luther King actually worked many times within the system, appealing to the other white pastors,politicians. These are choices we all make individually. But, the fact remains...whatever the court decides IS the law, whether inherently unethical, evil, nasty or dumb.

  31.3.2006 10:57 #31

• Kupotek

  @tednor you crack me up. Big smile.

  31.3.2006 10:58 #32

• Kupotek

  @tednor my brother had a funny analogy. Very ludicrous, butfunny. torrentspy to downloaders is like holding out a big cookie jar to a bunch of hungry youngsters, not handing them or encouraging them, but holding it there at eyelevel while you look away. Cookies will be in their bellies shortly. :) Especially the choc chip ones in my belly! And they're not theft cuz they're 'incorporeal' cookies. can you follow that.

  31.3.2006 11:07 #33

• Kupotek

  @tednor...we tried to download 'chocolate chip cookie' on torrentspy, but not there...boo hoo. Apologies for triple posting, but no edit button and seestor does not get at home.

  31.3.2006 11:10 #34

• tednor

  Now if Hollywood was involved, you would simply take out the choc chips and substitute squares of chocolate ex-lax - that's MY analogy (hey I just noticed that "analogy" has "anal" in it... huh-huh cool..

  31.3.2006 11:37 #35

• Kupotek

  Why if you don't like what Hollywood is producing do you even want it for free? Sounds like you're gluttons for punishment. It's not the only thing around, chck out indie films, it's a far better cause to support then stealing shit you don't even want in the first place.

  31.3.2006 12:06 #36

• tednor

  What does your seestor "not get" at home? (not that I'd be able to help her with it, but I could always Google someone for , say, a "sensual" massage...)

  31.3.2006 12:09 #37

• tednor

  Again, I did not say "I " want it (free or not free). I just think they have themselves to blame for the way they run their business, and suing a flipping SEARCH ENGINE just shows us how utterly INEPT they are to begin with.

  31.3.2006 12:11 #38

• sisph

  Copyrights just don't include movies (indie or otherwise) they include music, computer games, computer software, books, ideas, and technology and what you can and can't do.
  
  These are things that are somewhat more important than movies but underlie the same principle.
  
  Besides, why should you be able to limit me to indie films? If Hollywood is bastardizing movies and I don't like it, then I'm gonna do something about it. It's people like you that let Uwe Boll make films. If you don't like it, don't see it. But he's still gonna make films and he's still gonna be destroying the art.

  31.3.2006 12:13 #39

• Kupotek

  It's not for me to decide whether Uwe Boll can or cannot make movies, that's his freedom. There are no people who let him make movies, he finances them himself.
  
  And movies are protected by law for reproduction, distribution, etc... it says at the end of every film credit in large print.
  
  No one is limiting you to indie movies, you're the one who said hollywood movies suck, i just question why you keep watching them if you don't like them... honestly, if i hate hollywood movies i wouldnt want em free or otherwise. Looks to me you're just being lazy.
  
  Whether bad directors make movies isn't the debate, you're getting way offtopic. The point is you think like the lawyers that since the copywritten material has changed form it's somehow not illegal to distribute anymore... that's not the case. distribution is distribution no matter what the form.

  31.3.2006 12:20 #40

• tednor

  Are you talking to me? If so you should try actually reading what i wrote (assuming you can read that is...). If not, sorry and have a delightful evening, okay?

  31.3.2006 12:21 #41

• sisph

  Ugh...I'm getting tired of this...This has to be the only thread where I've been flaming....
  
  "It's not for me to decide whether Uwe Boll can or cannot make movies, that's his freedom. There are no people who let him make movies, he finances them himself."
  -No, you don't decide whether he makes his movies, but like I've said a million times before, if you wanted to (as many people already have) you can stand up and tell him not to. You can't force him, but you can stop him.
  
  "No one is limiting you to indie movies, you're the one who said hollywood movies suck, i just question why you keep watching them if you don't like them... honestly, if i hate hollywood movies i wouldnt want em free or otherwise. Looks to me you're just being lazy."
  
  -My point isn't that I don't want to see bad hollywood movies for free or otherwise. My point is that I want hollywood to make good movies because they are the most common venue. It's consumerism again. Because we pay money, they owe it to us to make a good product. While 'good' is subjective, ask most critics and they'll tell you the industry is in the toilet. If you don't believe them, then look at the numbers anyway.
  
  And btw, who's the lazy one here? You that advocates doing nothing, or people like me who debate the other side of the topic and organizations like the EFF who try to make a difference?
  
  "Whether bad directors make movies isn't the debate, you're getting way offtopic."
  -Fine, I just don't like Uwe Boll. But lets talk about you. This whole thread talks about the legality of what they're doing, and you refuse to even entertian the idea of filesharing of movies being legal. You're not even on topic to begin with.
  
  "The point is you think like the lawyers that since the copywritten material has changed form it's somehow not illegal to distribute anymore... that's not the case. distribution is distribution no matter what the form."
  -Well good. I do like to think like a lawyer. The only thing that doesn't sicken me about the lawyers in this case is that they're straight up saying the only reason they're doing it is for profit. I want to believe that movies and music are for the sake of the people, not profit. (idealisitc? yeah..)
  -If changing forms and all distribution being equal then why does a person have to pay $20 for a UMD, $15 for a dvd, $50 for a HDDVD, and another $50 for a BluRay if they're all the same movie? Why do I have to pay for a CD and then buy the mp3 on iTunes? BECAUSE DISTRIBUTION ISN'T THE SAME. You pay for different formats. Regardless of P2P being legal or not, your arguement doesn't hold water.
  
  

  31.3.2006 13:09 #42

• Kupotek

  Companies online sell access to their digital software for convenience to the enduser. Becuase of the format does not make legal or not theft to go download for free elsewhere. Im sorry you cant grasp that.
  
  Movies in many different formats have scaling price ranges based on the quality of the product. It's the same movie but like when you buy anything there is a wide range of qualities and prices.
  
  It's a fairly clear case. Digital media is not free simply because it's in digital format... look at stardock.com they allow digital downloads but that doesnt make it not theft to go find the software elsewhere for free. Whether you think it's bad software or not, that doesn't make it okay to steal from people.
  
  
  

  31.3.2006 18:52 #43

• Kupotek

  We all download stuff we aren't really meant to but at least be real about what it really is. You're getting for free what in the store or official site you would have to pay to acquire.
  
  It's vigillantism that makes the claim it's okay to break the law I don't like. But this is not a civil war, your life isn't at stake, only your ability to get for free that which isn't intended to be by the developers.
  

  31.3.2006 19:01 #44

• sisph

  I'm tired and I've posted way too much on this thread:
  
  "Companies online sell access to their digital software for convenience to the enduser. Becuase of the format does not make legal or not theft to go download for free elsewhere. Im sorry you cant grasp that."
  -I do grasp that. It would be one thing for me to go and steal a dvd from the store and distribute it online. But say I've bought the product. I own the product and lets just say 'fair use' comes into play. I can do what I want with it. Copy it, back it up, etc. If I choose to excercise my right to post it online, then that's my business as well.
  
  "Movies in many different formats have scaling price ranges based on the quality of the product. It's the same movie but like when you buy anything there is a wide range of qualities and prices."
  -Yes. So don't go saying that distribution is distribution is distribution. There are many differences, esp. when you go online.
  
  "Whether you think it's bad software or not, that doesn't make it okay to steal from people.
  -I never said it did make it ok. Bad software or not, you paid for it. You should be able to do what you can with it within the rights of the user. Legality of p2p or filesharing is the question.
  
  "We all download stuff we aren't really meant to but at least be real about what it really is. You're getting for free what in the store or official site you would have to pay to acquire."
  -Can you really be 100% sure about that for every case? Everyone who downloads does it to get something for free? What if I own the CD program and its copy protected, yet I want to back it via circumvent a filesharing program where someone has done it for me? You can't just make sweeping generalizations about specfic instances. Don't try to assume the motives of the millions of p2p users out there.
  
  "But this is not a civil war, your life isn't at stake, only your ability to get for free that which isn't intended to be by the developers."
  -Your rights to the internet, to do and say what you want, how you want, to look at what you want and download what you want within the scope of common sense just doesn't disappear overnight. It gets chipped away bit by bit. Bit by bit until you just realize you don't have it at all. Then what do you do? It may seem petty to fight for something like digital copyright laws, but would you fight for rights any differently in the real world? One year you can vote, the next year you can only vote for a certain party, the next year you can only vote if you make a certain income, the year after that only if you're a certain race, and the year after that you don't vote at all.
  -If you don't want your rights, fine. But don't get in the way of people who do fight for them.

  31.3.2006 20:46 #45

• Kupotek

  "If I choose to excercise my right to post it online, then that's my business as well. "
  
  Wrong. You're basically mass producing theft. If you buy it it's yours for personal use. Yes you can show it to friends in your home, but posting it online is allowing others to receive it (distribution) without doing what you did intially, going to the store and purchasing it, hence - theft.
  
  "What if I own the CD program and its copy protected, yet I want to back it via circumvent a filesharing program where someone has done it for me?"
  
  Because for every 1 person with a legitimate claim to want a backup for personal protection you have 100 leeching it as theft. The solution isn't bitorrent but manufacturers having good RMA policies.
  
  "If you don't want your rights, fine. But don't get in the way of people who do fight for them."
  
  We give up certain rights because we choose to live in a democracy and live certain laws with a certain amount of civility.

  31.3.2006 20:53 #46

• sisph

  Ughh...
  
  "We give up certain rights because we choose to live in a democracy and live certain laws with a certain amount of civility."
  -Wrong. Dead wrong. Freaking dead wrong. Because you live in a democracy you are FREE to excercise ALL of your rights. Rights are never given up. Not voting, not right to property, not right to life, not right to bear arms. You're born with them. Remember gov 101? Bill of rights? You give up freedom to do whatever you want with the laws and civility in society. But never the rights. You don't have a right to drive, you don't have a right to the internet either. But rights and ammenedments and law can be intrepreted. The founding fathers never knew about an internet, abortion (in our terms today), automobiles etc. We have judical courts for that. It's all a matter of how its intrepreted by a jury. We choose our laws by consensus. If we don't like them we can rebel against them. It's not always peaceful or pretty but it gets noticed in the real world and it get brought up to debate in courts. We judge cases by precedent not future intent. That is of course, unless the majority of the people have such a skewed view on how to interpret the Constitution like you do.
  
  And so we started with a legal case, gone through many terms and ideas, and brought it back to a legal case that needs to be decided.

  31.3.2006 21:18 #47

• Kupotek

  saying i bought it i can do what i want with
  put it online though steps over that line because it allows others to not buy it
  which means they dont have that right
  which makes the buyer an accesory to theft
  
  Good try though.

  31.3.2006 21:22 #48

• sisph

  saying i bought it i can do what i want with
  put it online though steps over that line because it allows others to not buy it
  which means they dont have that right
  which makes the buyer an accesory to theft
  
  -ugh...
  So by making something available online and allowing people to choose to not buy an object you've taken away their right to make a choice about it in the first place? That's what it means to not have a right isn't it? Good circular logic there. And so the buyer is an accesory to theft?
  
  Do Afterdawn.com a favor and become a lawyer.

  31.3.2006 21:35 #49

• Kupotek

  You say well, what if due to copy protection i cant make a copy of a dvd and i want a backup for personal use
  Well your still techincally breaking the law
  
  So they think its a bad law
  And choose to not follow it
  
  Lets look at this from your perspective
  As digital civl war rebels :D
  Sounds cool but is it at all accurate?
  
  Well, in real life you pay for what you want. On the internet you get it for free, taking money from designers, developers, makers, authors, programmers, so yes, nice name, but still wrong. Youre not a rebel, you're a thief.
  
  It doesn't matter who the money goes to. if you don't like where the money is going for product A, you don't buy it. By downloading it anyway you still encourage the development of those products by that company by proxy, word of mouth, etc.
  
  This isn't a question of rights. You have every right to go get a job and buy CD X. If you want a backup of CD X and cannot make one due to CD protection, that doesn't make it any less illegal to circumvent the restrictions in place. Wrong or right they may be.
  
  If you disagree that's fine but you still do the time because it's the law.
  
  Personally I show my appreciation for a good product by paying for it, and stay away from those which I do not like.
  
  The one thing I think bitorrent is great for though is accessing obscure things you would never be exposed to otherwise.
  
  I think hyperdistribution should be legal, but free? I love free just like anyone else but I am honest and admit it is stealing money out of the pocket of those who work hard to make a product I can enjoy.

  31.3.2006 21:43 #50

• sisph

  Ugh, I'm tired, and for the next few days I'm not gonna have internet access.
  
  I've enjoyed debating this topic with you. It's clear that we both have very different views on how internet rights and p2p technology (media in general) are being distributed. You've made some good common sense points, but I have to disagree with your modes and methods that you follow through, and I bet you're the same with my views. I still stand by my opinion that filesharing, without a clear precedent (the 5 or 6 handfulls of definitive cases we have are still hotly debated and no real true consensus among the majority is present) is subject to intrepretation. You can't just treat it the same as regular media because its not. It's different. By overlooking the few vital reasoning and logic about the nature of the subject you do a gross injustice to the people whom that techology is supposed to serve.
  
  It's been a fun few days.

  31.3.2006 21:48 #51

• sisph

  My bad, I forgot to mention the ways on which we differ about showing support to a company and what's acceptable (but not legal, if there's one thing we disagree on its that) or what's not acceptable.
  
  I guess I'm just a rebel and you have faith in the law.
  It's an admirable trait, but in my opinion, easily misguided.
  
  Kudos Kupotek, I salute you.
  (I'll get back to this thread in a few days)

  31.3.2006 21:54 #52

• Kupotek

  Mysister and I have found your thoughts to be very interesting, shining lilght on areas of this debate that are definitely in need of being questioned and most of all changed.
  
  I watched a prfesentation concerning hyperdistribution recently, it's floating around the web, that was very interesting.
  
  The truth is media has escaped the box and you cannot shove it back in no matter how hard you try, which means advertisers, manufacturers, need to jump on the bandwagon and start working the internet market angle because the internet is here to stay.
  
  Definitely enjoyed this discussion, and it is refreshing to be able to debate something so heated in a respectful manner.
  
  There's some good ideas for necessary change, especially in the law and media approach to the medium and market.

  31.3.2006 21:54 #53

• Zeos

  I love discussing this topic. If I were willing to pay for something.. Id pay for it.. I wanted Half Life 2 .. I ordered it from newegg and enjoyed giving my 50 bucks to people that worked hard on it and would otherwise recieve no reason to make half life 3.
  
  HOWEVER. If my friend tells me Jungle Crash sims 6 is a great game I may not be willing to fork out the cash to a store that doesnt do software returns, Just to find out it sucks... DOWNLOAD.
  
  and TV Shows .. what are they thinking. If you aired it on television (Broadcast, cable, satilite) you pretty much have given up all right to claim it as yours. because I can tape it Tivo it DVR it to my pc etc. So by downloading it im basically just recording it to my pc a day late. to quote ATHF
  
  "What was yours is now his, By way of our Actions." -Mooninites

  3.4.2006 11:13 #54

• Kupotek

  I understand your logic, but it doesn't change the fact that it's the law. This doesn't make it right, but it also means you can be prosecuted no squirming is going to make that not the case. You make your bed you lay in it as the saying goes.
  
  This lawsuit is a joke because TS think they deserve a dismissal, and try to squirm out of it by calling it alleged wrongdoing.
  
  Everyone knows what they're doing is against the law, so take your lumps like a man.
  
  You do the crime you do the time.
  
  We live in a democracy which means we agree to live by certain laws. If you don't like those laws, simply not living by them is fine, but it doesn't make it any less illegal.

  3.4.2006 14:07 #55

• Kupotek

  PS... in the real world pricetags don't say... $20 or if you aren't sure you don't like it, you can steal it.
  
  That's why music places let you listen before you buy, etc.
  
  More and more dept stores and other stores have try before buy options.
  
  For games there's usually trial downloads, shareware etc.

  3.4.2006 14:09 #56

• Kupotek

  This forum needs an edit option.
  
  The thing is kids on line are just greedy. They want to try the game, but they don't want to download the trial version, they want the full version. It's a give me give me mentality... and sorry but society doesn't reward entitlement spoiled people.

  3.4.2006 14:12 #57

• dubire

  i buy computer games for the ps2
  why as i feel like a get a good product that does what i want plays the game and no shitting about so i dont mind paying for it to have what i want when i want
  but i dont buy pc games even tho i have a top of the range laptop
  why as i dont get what i want i get extra programs install DRM etc i dont want this crap
  if the MPAA could only understand consumers know what they want and what they dont psp offers products without all the DRM crap and i will chose it quciker than a service with DRM its not only a issue of money but i'm the customer i buy only products i want not what the MPAA tell me i want

  4.4.2006 02:35 #58

• Kupotek

  I hear you, i mean more people would buy CDs if the price wasn't so godly through the roof. Also, the internet is an amazing way to find music you would never ever have ever heard of in a store, and that's fantastic!
  
  Tower records and other places now even, are letting people choose songs to create their own compilations, I guess itunes does this too now? And that's a step in the right direction, but people want things free and who can blame them? Life is expensive, cutting a few corners doesn't seem to be hurting anyone right?
  
  DRM, CD protection, etc.. all these security measures are there to protect the shareholders, the financiers, the money bags, but it's pushing the consumers further and further away through non convenience.
  
  I think one thing we can all agree on is something has to change. Media has escaped the box and it isn't goin g back.

  4.4.2006 03:42 #59