"The demise of TorrentSpy is a clear victory for the studios and demonstrates that such pirate sites will not be allowed to continue to operate without facing relentless litigation by copyright holders."

Uh-uh, did somebody say The Pirate Bay? "relentless litigation" HAHA, yeah okay.

MPAA you guys can suck my d i c k and go ahead sue me... i swear for my mother's grave that i will punch all of y'all in the mouth!

Justice done on illegal files, loss for the legal files - if they offered them

What these corporations need to do is get with today's Internet. The only thing the MPAA is doing with lawsuits and accusations is fueling the flames instead of offering realistic policies and prices to download movies.

Bittorent for example, offering movies is a great idea, however, reading the TOS is rather disturbing; terms like 'Usage Restrictions', Temporary Storage, Authorized Playback Software, and so on. To quote: "We do not permit transfer or download to portable devices such as iPods, Zunes, PlayStation Portables, or similar devices at this time." I realize this is not Bittorent some much, rather the studios imposing these restrictions. However, what happens if the service or device becomes obsolete? I for one do not want to find out.

On the other hand, articles such as 'DRM-free music outsells protected tunes four to one': http://arstechnica.com/n...d-tunes-4-to-1.html?rel
This points to where we should be headed.

A default judgment means that TorrentSpy's lawyers didn't show up. If they have lawyers to file an appeal, why didn't those lawyers show up?

I believe in this case it is because TorrentSpy did not provide some documents the court asked them to.

Do you think the MPAA will take down IRC next? Or are they too stupid for that? It's not easy P2P...takes slightly more skill. Or knowledge. Whatever. Any thoughts?

They still have Usenet / Newsgroups to deal with. IRC seems so 1995 to me.

Judge Cooper already knows such a preposterous judgment will be overturned on appeal, even in the nutty Ninth Circuit. One must wonder if she just wanted to get her name in the papers in an election year.

Napster? Not overturned. $36 Million.

Grokster? Not overturned. No Fine, but Supreme Court ruled liable, forcing shutdown.

Kazaa? Settled. $100 Million.

Doesn't look hopeful for the entitled twats of the world.

It may not, or it may, look hopeful for the twats of the UNITED STATES ... The World? No, the WORLD is another thing ...

*LAUGHS*

Not doing quite so well in the rest of the world either.

Demonoid's been kicked out of so many countries it's laughable.

30,000 for each ? Another laughable decision from an overreacting judge. When are these idiots going to realize that the reason the music and film industry is down is because they are putting out a crap product and over charging to boot. These people are going to lose their jobs and pointing their fingers at sites like this can insure their job security for only so long.

The key point is, in market economy, the s*** that those big studios produce is not worth that much money anymore. Wake up, MPAA! The era of easy money is gone. you have to work harder to earn a paycheck.

The facts simply don't back any of that up. They still rake in millions (hundreds of millions on opening weekends).

If it wasn't worth anything...people wouldn't be lining up in droves to go see them, now would they?

Sure, you can argue the quality is poor, that the stories are contrived, whatever, but saying it's not worth anything in the face of a billion-dollar industry just doesn't make any sense.

Who are you kidding PC_Tool? There's maybe a handful of good and original movies that come out of Hollywood every year. Just because the American sheep will go blow their money on any turd Hollywood throws their way, it doesn't make it good. It's not like Americans are suddenly going to boycott movie going because there's nothing good coming out. There will ALWAYS be block busters just about every opening weekend, no matter how atrocious the overall quality of movies gets. Your movie only has to be slightly above the other heap of dung in order to rake in big bucks. Like the saying goes, in the land of the blind, the one eyed man is king!

Then there's this thing about a supposed $18 billion dollar annual loss due to theft including online sharing. Where do they get this number? There is absolutely no basis for it in reality. First, there's no way to know how much is actually stolen, and I'm not just talking about global internet piracy, but physical copying and theft. Second, it's only a loss if the people stealing it would be willing to pay for it if they couldn't take it for free. Sadly, most people who do steal it or buy pirated copies, would NEVER pay full price for it. Thus, it's not an actual loss for the studios. Frankly, I wouldn't want most of these movies for free, let alone pay a red cent for them.

There's maybe a handful of good and original movies that come out of Hollywood every year. Just because the American sheep will go blow their money on any turd Hollywood throws their way, it doesn't make it good.

*laughing*

Sorry. Raking in millions=good, at least in the eyes of those spending the millions to go see it. Your opinions on the quality apparently don't mean squat to them.

Your movie only has to be slightly above the other heap of dung in order to rake in big bucks.

Yeah, Gili did *so* well... Get a grip, man, you're starting to talk nonsense.

Like the saying goes, in the land of the blind, the one eyed man is king!

Ok, scratch that. You've lost it. ;)

Then there's this thing about a supposed $18 billion dollar annual loss due to theft including online sharing. Where do they get this number?

The same place the BSA gets their numbers. Take a guess. I never defended the numbers, just some dude with a god-complex who apparently think his taste is the bar by which all things are judged. Seems you're trying to get into that category as well.

Just because you think the likes of Juno, I am Legend etc all suck doesn't mean the rest of the world shares your elite sense of quality. (I tried to put that as nicely as I could...how'd I do?)

"About $18 billion is lost annually due to movie theft, the MPAA claims, with $7 billion of that total as a result of online file sharing."

They're not worried about losing the s*** off their back they only care about taking the s*** off yours. How can be people not see who the true criminals are. Hopefully waging a constant and un-winable war against online file sharing will drag on long enough to destroy those greedy execs.

They're not worried about losing the s*** off their back they only care about taking the s*** off yours.

How are they taking the s*** off of yours?

Truely funny if they believe taking down torrentspy was such a large impact to the community of file sharing... tsk tsk... one giant goes down, and five replace it. Best go after the ones who invented the internet and sue them.

"About $18 billion is lost annually due to movie theft, the MPAA claims, with $7 billion of that total as a result of online file sharing."

They are not "losing" $18 billion, they are "earning $18 billion less". If they can afford not earning all that money and still operate with huge profits it's clear something's not right with their price structure.

>They are not "losing" $18 billion, they are "earning $18 billion less".

I can't believe I'm saying this...

The law is the law. To make illegal copies of material you do not own the rights to and distributing them is illegal...period. People who argue this fact are just too cheap to pay the cost of a DVD or go see the movie.

If the product is "crap", then why are so many people wanting to download it? Need a better argument than that in court.

I agree that most of the product the MPAA is putting out isn't worth the amount they spend to make it, but the truth is that people line up to see the movies or buy the DVDs. People line up to download it illegally. It must be worth something.

"People line up to download it illegally. It must be worth something."

That's true...but the $18 billion figure is completely inflated. I might be lining up to download a movie because it's free...but had the movie cost even $5, I wouldn't bother, and the movie actually costs $20. So by me downloading the movie, is the MPAA losing $20? No, because I never would have bought it. I might have broken the law by downloading it, but if there was NO piracy, there is no way in hell they would be making $18 billion more.

Agreed. The $18 billion figure is inflated.

> So by me downloading the movie, is the MPAA losing $20? No, because I never would have bought it.

Not sound logic. They didn't give you permission to download it, and the fact that you make the decision to never purchase it legally is irrelevant. It's not about your "demand" for the product, but how it's "supplied". The fact that you downloaded it for free (your "demand" for the product) means that you will probably never legally purchase the product. You are using a product that is NOT free for free. They get nothing for you using the product, which obviously you had a demand for. There is a legal way for them to supply you a product to satisfy your demand. They lost the $$$ they should have gotten from you for your use of the product. They lost $$$.

Nice try though. :)

yeah.. these calculations are so absurd.. it's like they are counting every download as a sale lose.. when the reality is, I don't know, but maybe a 1% of the people who downloaded stuff would have actually bought the real deal. I've seen this for years and I can't believe they still come up with their numbers using that logic.

I don't think you understand...I actually didn't think it was that complicated...but let me try to clear it up anyway.

Lets try with x-men as an example.

I don't care about seeing it, I don't care about it, and I will never buy it, I'm not creating any demand for that movie. One day, someone comes around and says "hey, I'm going ot give you this movie for free"...ok, I don't particularly care to see it, but I'll take it for free...thanks.

So, by your argument, the movie studio just lost $20...however, had this person not given me the movie for free, I would have never even thought about watching it.

That's how the movie studios calculate it...which is how they get that insane $18 billion figure...which you even agree is inflated.

It's kind of like a person that hates starbucks...and on one of those days that starbucks gives out free coffee, the guy says "hey if it's free, why not"...now is this guy a starbucks customer? No, he'll never buy another cup, but he'll take it free.

I'm not an advocate of piracy, I understand it's against the law and I buy my music/movies...but I think the MPAA is really blowing it way out of proportion, they release poor product and complain nobody is buying it. Look what happens when a quality product gets released. GTA IV, $500 million in the first week? Where's all the piracy??

You're right...it's not that complicated...

---QUOTE---
It's kind of like a person that hates starbucks...and on one of those days that starbucks gives out free coffee, the guy says "hey if it's free, why not"...
-----------

It's like you're making my point for me.

Starbucks made the decision to GIVE AWAY FREE COFFEE. Someone didn't sneak into the store and fill a huge pot of it and start handing it out to friends who, to address the point you're desperately trying to make, may or may not have wanted Starbucks coffee.

Tell yourself whatever you want to ease your conscience. It's stealing. It's illegal. And you possession of the copyrighted material, in spite of your decision that "you don't really care if you watch it or not" means that one less person is now likely to buy the product. That's stealing. To say nothing about the person who bought it, then distributed it in direct violation of the copyright notice...then you downloaded and accepeted stolen material. Stealing equates to some loss of money from the victim.

No offence, but the argument "...the MPAA has tons of money and I hate them so I want to stick it to them..." makes more sense than the point you're trying to make. You sound like a rational person. Think rationally about it.

I'm going to stop here. :) I can't believe it. It sounds like I'm defending the MPAA, doesn't it????

Hey...thanks for the engaging conversation. Got me thinking a bit. Look forward to your response.

PS -

---QUOTE---
Look what happens when a quality product gets released. GTA IV, $500 million in the first week? Where's all the piracy??
-----------

True. People WILL spend money on quality products. I hope someone from the MPAA reads THAT. :)

"Starbucks made the decision to GIVE AWAY FREE COFFEE. Someone didn't sneak into the store and fill a huge pot of it and start handing it out to friends who, to address the point you're desperately trying to make, may or may not have wanted Starbucks coffee."

If you're walking down the street, and somebody offers you free coffee, would you take it?

What if the coffee was stolen? Would you stop to ask if it was legal coffee?

Even if you knew that it was stolen, would that stop you from taking it?

For an average person walking down the street, they would probably take it. Even if it's awful coffee - it's still free, so they haven't lost anything by taking it.

OK - now what if the same person was offering you coffee for $10 or $20 or $30? Would you still be interested?

The point here is that nobody has actually had $18 billion *stolen* off them. That would imply that they have $18 billion in possession, and somebody has come along and taken it off them.

The point here (as posted above) is that they just haven't earnt the extra $18 billion.

Like I said - if the free stuff wasn't available, then most of those people walking down the street would keep walking straight past the coffee guy without stopping.

*I* know it's illegal, *you* know it's illegal, but that doesn't stop us wanting that free cup.

But we all *know* it isn't "free". We know that this "coffee" WAS stolen and the person offering it has no legal right to do so. Our downloading copyrighted material constitutes theft, just like accepting a stolen radio, etc. It's not up to us to decide if the studio should or should not make money on the the product. In the Starbucks example...Starbucks made the decision, "We don't want to profit on this free coffee we're giving away."

It's all about the nature of a Supply/Demand economy. They (studio) supply something at a price they "think is fair". It's up to the public to purchase the product (demand) if they think the item is worthwhile and worth the cost. If *you* don't think the price if fair, wait for it to go on sale or just steer clear of it altogether.

I'm sorry. This idea that "...I wouldn't have paid for it anyway..." to justify that there is no loss just doesn't fly. If it is an illegal copy that you wouldn't have wanted anyway, why download at all? You may have never purchased it, but what about rental, or PPV? The very act of downloading signifies "demand" on some level, and demand for a product is what drives cost. Getting something illegally "supplied" for no cost that is supposed to have a "cost" means "stealing". Stealing means "loss". Your conscience decision that you would NOT have paid for it anyway doesn't mean anything, especially if you in turn make it available to someone else who did want it. You downloading is part of the illegal demand that piracy supplies at a loss to the copyright holder. I'm sorry...this is all just Econ 101.

Now...I believe that $18-B is inflated. But the truth is there is "a loss" that the MPAA, studios, theaters, distributors, rental outlets, pay-per-view providers, etc. suffer as a result of illegal downloading of copyrighted material. It's the loss of potential revenue through illegal activity...not because of fair competition, or a legal free alternative (like Open Source software provides).

You do make a somewhat compelling argument. I'd like to be able to, in good conscience, buy into it but I personally can't...nor would any court in the land and that's really what all this is about.

---QUOTE---
What if the coffee was stolen? Would you stop to ask if it was legal coffee? Even if you knew that it was stolen, would that stop you from taking it?
-----------

:grin: If I were a coffee drinker...yeah...you probably got me there. I probably wouldn't have asked if it WERE legal coffee. I'd probably make the assumption it were legal because there's not a huge illegal coffee black market out there. However, if I knew it was stolen...no...i wouldn't take it.

I'm not necessarily feeling sympathetic for Torrentspy - they probably made bagloads on ads served up on the site. It does suck that they got slapped with that ridiculous fine but let's face it....they served up copyrighted material despite many threats. Anyway, the point I'm making is that if that many people use torrents and such to download things you should show your support for similar sites through boycotting the purchase of DVDs and CDs. It sounds unrealistic but if even a million people do it, they'll know that people are taking it seriously. Don't download movies/music on torrent sites as this fuels the fire....simply wait for them to come out on DVD and RENT, not buy them OR wait a few months and buy them secondhand for cheap.

Personally I don't buy a DVD unless it's at/under the 10 dollar mark and I'm being absolutely serious. Call me cheap I guess, but it absolutely pisses me off when I buy a DVD for 16+ dollars (and I have, esp. when I started my dvd collection) and a few months to the next year see it being sold for $3.99-$7. If they can afford to sell it for $4 in a few months to a year, they can start them all off at $10 or less. But hey, any new thing costs more....not really, movies and music are sold indef. unlike other things, so they should be given a different pricing model. This is my way of boycotting. If I don't see a movie in theaters and I'm interesting in seeing it, I RENT it when it's released. If I LOVE the movie or it's a sequel to my collection, for ex. Star Wars, Xmen, etc. I wait 2 or 3 months to buy the dvd used at a price of not more than $10. By doing this, I'm not breaking my morals/ethics by stealing/downloading/not paying for them, but I'm also not supporting their artificially inflated 'new release' prices. Win/Win, at least for me. If you're ever slightly more shady but still not a thief, you could also rent it and burn it if you MUST have it to watch over and over, and buy it when it's cheapy.

Obviously those numbers are unfounded since any person downloading is never guaranteed to go see it in theaters or buy it on dvd if they weren't able to get it any other way anyway - so I don't understand how courts buy into it. I suppose when you're a massive corporation bearing down on a few people, you have some pull....or are able pull some strings.

Ouch.

What about physical media sharing? Can I still loan out my store bought DVD's or is that illegal?

Please tell me what to do MPAA and RIAA. The advertising agency already said skipping commercials with my DVR was illegal and I should not leave the room during commercials, except to go to the bathroom, but limit that kind of activity to twice an hour (no joke).

What about physical media sharing? Can I still loan out my store bought DVD's or is that illegal?

Not really relevant since only one person has it at a time, eh?

Only one person at a time has my hard drive, too, Mr. Tool.

But I bet that's not the case for your musky eager arsehole!

I seem to recall their objective is to maximize profit, not to be reasonable.

Make sense or disappear like the rest of your stalker accounts.

The entire community agrees my comments here make perfect sense. And you apparently have me confused with someone else as I have but one account.

But we're all friends here, so no worries — you're bound to have better luck with the reading thing once you wipe that jizzum out of your eye. Cheers!

The entire community agrees my comments here make perfect sense.

*laughs*

+1 for your comment making no sense...

"About $18 billion is lost annually due to movie theft, the MPAA claims, with $7 billion of that total as a result of online file sharing."

Again with the insane and completely baseless figures.

"The demise of TorrentSpy is a clear victory for the studios..."

No. Its a victory for for the ****ers at MPAA. Even though a loss, this case is still beneficial as it made MPAA spend money on lawyers and they won't get s*** back.

Unfair laws are made to be broken, whatever the costs. My sympathies go with TorrentSpy and the likes.