Hollywood to Sue Server Operators

[Papagayo]

Hollywood to Sue Server Operators.


" The lawsuits are aimed at disrupting the unauthorized distribution of movie files through BitTorrent and eDonkey, two popular online file-swapping services, the source associated with the effort The Associated Press on condition of anonymity."

Watch out People!!

 

[MercenaryForHire]

R

 

[Falloutboy]

I don't think this will lead anywhere since the servers don't have any copyrighted files on them.

 

[Bulldog13]

Originally posted by: Falloutboy
I don't think this will lead anywhere since the servers don't have any copyrighted files on them.

Uh, didn't napster not have any on them ?

 

[Mayfriday0529]

I think someone should send a message to the music industry top people,on how they will never win... you know some guy like ready to break their arms and legs.

Send Jason Bourne

 

[Gothgar]

Originally posted by: Papagayo
Hollywood to Sue Server Operators.


" The lawsuits are aimed at disrupting the unauthorized distribution of movie files through BitTorrent and eDonkey, two popular online file-swapping services, the source associated with the effort The Associated Press on condition of anonymity."

Watch out People!!

do they have a movie clip abou this, if so I am downloading it tonight.

 

[Lonyo]

And with Suprnova's up and coming de-centralised system of BT, they may be screwed.

 

[ggnl]

Originally posted by: MercenaryForHire
R

E

 

[AnyMal]

Originally posted by: Jnetty99
I think someone should send a message to the music industry top people,on how they will never win... you know some guy like ready to break their arms and legs.

Send Jason Bourne

They ARE winning. File sharing is way down since they started the crackdown.

 

[Falloutboy]

Originally posted by: AnyMal

Originally posted by: Jnetty99
I think someone should send a message to the music industry top people,on how they will never win... you know some guy like ready to break their arms and legs.

Send Jason Bourne

They ARE winning. File sharing is way down since they started the crackdown.

no its just been pushed more underground a recent study showed something like half of the nets bandwaidth is being taken up by BT traffic

 

[Anubis]

Originally posted by: Falloutboy

Originally posted by: AnyMal

Originally posted by: Jnetty99
I think someone should send a message to the music industry top people,on how they will never win... you know some guy like ready to break their arms and legs.

Send Jason Bourne

They ARE winning. File sharing is way down since they started the crackdown.

no its just been pushed more underground a recent study showed something like half of the nets bandwaidth is being taken up by BT traffic

exactly, its bigger then ever you just need to know where to look,
granted its harder for the average idiot, who uses kazaa or used napster, but its there its HUGE and its better then ever

 

[jagec]

Originally posted by: Bulldog13

Originally posted by: Falloutboy
I don't think this will lead anywhere since the servers don't have any copyrighted files on them.

Uh, didn't napster not have any on them ?

yes, but Napster was set up SOLELY for the purpose of sharing copyrighted songs. BT/eMule could presumeably be sharing legit material.

 

[Papagayo]

Why aren't they going after the people that has the movies on their machines? Just like Napster users..

 

[rh71]

Originally posted by: AnyMal

Originally posted by: Jnetty99
I think someone should send a message to the music industry top people,on how they will never win... you know some guy like ready to break their arms and legs.

Send Jason Bourne

They ARE winning. File sharing is way down since they started the crackdown.

That's not considered winning. I don't think they actually see it getting shut down altogether... just trying to deter it and they're only partially successful at that thus far...

 

[Mayfriday0529]

I feel bad for my uncle. If indeed they really start to sue people, i hope they don't sue my uncle because his kids are always downloading music and movies 24/7.
they have like 40 gigs of MP3's on there hard drives.

 

[ReiAyanami]

Here is a legal conundrum:

Suppose the connection were being shared by multiple roomates behind a router which effectively masks the identity of which actual person is doing the file sharing.

1) Is the person whose name is on the bill legally responsible for all activities? Because if they are, I don't see how they can monitor all activity without invasion of privacy.

2) The movie execs can't sue everyone in the household because they can't prove which person actually downloaded/uploaded, its like barging into a house and charging everyone with murder even though only 1 of them is an ax murderer (exceeds reasonable doubt)

So as long as you have a router, a roomate, and enough money to pay a lawyer you're "safe".

They however do have the right to seek a warrant to confiscate all computers on premises to determine who did the downloading, but by then the files are long gone. Other than that, what they're doing can be classified as racketeering.

 

[ReiAyanami]

Originally posted by: Jnetty99
I feel bad for my uncle. If indeed they really start to sue people, i hope they don't sue my uncle because his kids are always downloading music and movies 24/7.
they have like 40 gigs of MP3's on there hard drives.

the question is are they sharing it? if they move it to a different folder, then they're safe. it was ruled that downloading is not illegal but uploading is. but then when you get to bittorrent, that brings up another issue: them participating in uploading/distributing the file. they hold the copyright which gives them the authority to upload/download, but if they do participate in uploading, then doesn't that make the file legitimate? (because it is the equivalent of broadcasting it)


what will most likely happen is that an more secure alternative to bittorrent will form. and then Patriot Act IV will imprison 50 million teens in labor camps and re-education centers.

 

[rh71]

Originally posted by: ReiAyanami

Originally posted by: Jnetty99
I feel bad for my uncle. If indeed they really start to sue people, i hope they don't sue my uncle because his kids are always downloading music and movies 24/7.
they have like 40 gigs of MP3's on there hard drives.

the question is are they sharing it? if they move it to a different folder, then they're safe. it was ruled that downloading is not illegal but uploading is. but then when you get to bittorrent, that brings up another issue: them participating in uploading/distributing the file.

Isn't it an argument that they are only uploading bits (technical term here) of a file and not actual files ? What's the law state exactly ?

 

[DaFinn]

Originally posted by: ggnl

Originally posted by: MercenaryForHire
R

E

C
T
U
M
?

 

[Mayfriday0529]

Originally posted by: ReiAyanami

Originally posted by: Jnetty99
I feel bad for my uncle. If indeed they really start to sue people, i hope they don't sue my uncle because his kids are always downloading music and movies 24/7.
they have like 40 gigs of MP3's on there hard drives.

the question is are they sharing it? if they move it to a different folder, then they're safe. it was ruled that downloading is not illegal but uploading is. but then when you get to bittorrent, that brings up another issue: them participating in uploading/distributing the file. they hold the copyright which gives them the authority to upload/download, but if they do participate in uploading, then doesn't that make the file legitimate? (because it is the equivalent of broadcasting it)


what will most likely happen is that an more secure alternative to bittorrent will form. and then Patriot Act IV will imprison 50 million teens in labor camps and re-education centers.

I dont know how much they are sharing, but when i told them about it to you know take it easy they said. "doesnt matter they can't see our ip address through bit torrent"

I was are you kidding me, if by any change you get sued, my uncles name is on the bill.

they dont even go to the movies anymore they just download all the movies on bit torrent.

 

[Fritoz]

The real question is: Do the folks behind suprnova, etc. have the cash/resources to fight back? My guess is that unless the EFF or someone else takes up their cause they'll be going bye-bye.

 

[rh71]

Originally posted by: ReiAyanami
Here is a legal conundrum:

Suppose the connection were being shared by multiple roomates behind a router which effectively masks the identity of which actual person is doing the file sharing.

1) Is the person whose name is on the bill legally responsible for all activities? Because if they are, I don't see how they can monitor all activity without invasion of privacy.

2) The movie execs can't sue everyone in the household because they can't prove which person actually downloaded/uploaded, its like barging into a house and charging everyone with murder even though only 1 of them is an ax murderer (exceeds reasonable doubt)

So as long as you have a router, a roomate, and enough money to pay a lawyer you're "safe".

They however do have the right to seek a warrant to confiscate all computers on premises to determine who did the downloading, but by then the files are long gone. Other than that, what they're doing can be classified as racketeering.

Think about wireless... the kid across the street from me could hack in (since he's got all day and night) and use my connection for some activity... and who'd be responsible ? Not him.

 

[metalmania]

They can see your ip address if they use bittorrent.