MPAA still stricking BT sites hard!

By Andrew Lyle
in Back Page News

 Share

Recommended Posts

Collaborator

Monkeys4me

Posted
Posted
Wrong, Loki is like the newspaper's movie listings. A drug dealer directly provides the drugs, Loki doesn't.

All it will take eventually is a class action suite against groups like MPAA and the RIAA to expose them for what they truly are since they work to circumvent the law. What they are doing is like having sex to protect one's virginity. They say that it is wrong when people break the law by downloading yet they ignore the law themselves when they work to circumvent it in order to get what they want. If Loki's case goes to court the MPAA's case will be thrown out because it has no legal merit since Loki isn't doing anything that is actually illegal. The MPAA hopes that this will never actually get to court because of this and that they can bankrupt Loki before it even gets to it. Court is the last thing they actually want.

585200955[/snapback]

It?s more than the listing? it provides the user with direct access to the torrent.

The MPAA actually has a compelling argument here? the torrent search sites are directly facilitating an illegal activity, and it?s entirely possible that a court will hold them legally accountable for it.

It?s no different than if people came to you looking for illegal drugs, and you not only told them where to go, but arraigned transportation directly to the dealer. You would be held accountable for conspiracy.

Your contention that ?All it will take eventually is a class action suite?? clearly demonstrates that you have no concept of what ?class action? status means to a lawsuit. In fact the rambling nonsensical nature of your legal ?theories & opinions? compels me to go out on a limb here and surmise that you have no legal training what-so-ever.

If you HAVE received legal training then you?ve been taken? you would definitely have a case against the institute that took your money. Just do yourself a favor? don?t represent yourse:blink:!!

:blink:

Grand Master

Gowcra

Posted
Posted
It?s more than the listing? it provides the user with direct access to the torrent.

The MPAA actually has a compelling argument here? the torrent search sites are directly facilitating an illegal activity, and it?s entirely possible that a court will hold them legally accountable for it.

It?s no different than if people came to you looking for illegal drugs, and you not only told them where to go, but arraigned transportation directly to the dealer.  You would be held accountable for conspiracy.

Your contention that ?All it will take eventually is a class action suite?? clearly demonstrates that you have no concept of what ?class action? status means to a lawsuit.  In fact the rambling nonsensical nature of you legal ?theories & opinions? compels me to go out on a limb here and surmise that you have no legal training what-so-ever.

If you HAVE received legal training then you?ve been taken? you would definitely have a case against the institute that took your money.  Just do yourself a favor? don?t represent yourse:yes:3;!:yes:

:yes:> :yes:yes:p; :yes:yes:p; :yes:yes:p; :yes:yes:p; :yes:yes:p; :yes:yes:p; :yes:yes:p; :yes:  :yes:  :yes:  ::blink:sp; :yes:

:blink:

585201172[/snapback]

Grand Master

Andrew Lyle Global Moderator

Posted
  • Author
  • Global Moderator
Posted
I personally stopped downloading illegally a long time ago, just because i didnt want to get sued. Now i do something which is far more illegal *cough* blockbuster* and i'll never get caught!!!! they cant track what isnt connected to the web! heheheh!

GIVE EM HELL!!

585201104[/snapback]

join the club...

honestly, join the club, blockbuster has a rewards program, every 6th movie is free.... i wonder how i know that *caugh*

or you can always do both like me :D

Grand Master

FiB3R

Posted
Posted
you got to give it to the mpaa there doing a better job than the riaa, if you want to download movies/wares either move to another country or vote communism :p

585194053[/snapback]

Sorry to go off topic but I'm lovin' that sig bruv.

My thoughts on this topic?.................. I don't know, I keep changing my mind.

On the one hand, I can see where their coming from, and on the other?

I wish they'd just F*&K off and die.

I wouldn't have payed a penny for 50% of the crap that I've downloaded over the years, could NEVER have afforded another 40% of it. Which leaves 10% of my media that would probably have got on tape/cd off me mate anyway.

I really don't see where they've lost a pound note out of me (but I'm just a tight arse anyway).

There making millions as it is, just leave us kids alone.

Veteran

Foub

Posted
Posted (edited)
It?s more than the listing? it provides the user with direct access to the torrent.

So is the listing, one is real world the other is virtual.

The MPAA actually has a compelling argument here? the torrent search sites are directly facilitating an illegal activity, and it?s entirely possible that a court will hold them legally accountable for it.

They haven't been able to make any of their cases actually stick in court. Those, like Loki, are only as guilty as the telephone company or post office would be for wire fraud and the like. Is the telephone company guilty as well if someone uses their listings to call people to see if they're home or not so that the caller can rob them? How about an obscene phone call? The phone company made both possible.

It?s no different than if people came to you looking for illegal drugs, and you not only told them where to go, but arraigned transportation directly to the dealer.? You would be held accountable for conspiracy.

Loki isn't actually tell anyone anything, it is those who are using it that do this. The same as someone using the telephone would.

Your contention that ?All it will take eventually is a class action suite?? clearly demonstrates that you have no concept of what ?class action? status means to a lawsuit.? In fact the rambling nonsensical nature of your legal ?theories & opinions? compels me to go out on a limb here and surmise that you have no legal training what-so-ever.

And you happen to be full of it. Your's is a case of the forest fore the trees. From some of the other replies to your postings I see that you're a "known" quanity on here for being this way. Why am I thinking of a bridge?

Debating the criminally stupid is a frustration endeavor I have come to expect. (At least come up with something original.)

If you HAVE received legal training then you?ve been taken? you would definitely have a case against the institute that took your money.? Just do yourself a favor? don?t represent yourself!!!

Like you are? Why do you think that they don't actually make it to court with these cases? They don't have a legal foot to stand on and they know it. They are circumventing the law. Theory and practice are not usually the same thing in the real world and far too many have trouble telling the difference because they've had too much theory and no real world practice.

You are wasting time here because like the MPAA you don't have a real case. Be a lawyer and continue this. I find that most of them would rather win than see actual justice. What can one expect since the US has around 30% of the world's lawyers and is a nation of suers (In both senses of the word.)

Yes, I am not a lawyer, but I still know that one doesn't have sex to protect one's virginity. Guess what, jurers aren't lawyers either.

Can you guess which quote in my signature applies to you?

Edited by Foub
Grand Master

[hxc]

Posted
Posted
Why is it that everyone says it's the media companies being greedy when they expect to be paid for their property?  Isn't it GREED to want to posses the property of others without having to pay for it?  IMHO the downloaders are every bit as greedy as they claim the media companies are...  probably more so.

It's pretty arrogant for someone to think that they have to right to steal something not necessary for survival just because they disagree with the price and/or distribution system.

585194847[/snapback]

completely true and well written, thank you.

the downloaders are problem. the mpaa is going after sites that have a huge userbase. when you have 75,000+ registered users on a site downloading movies and software illegaly, its going to be noticed. its the downloaders greed and unwillingness to actually purchase a movie that is forcing these sites to close. i say if you enjoy a movie enough to download it and watch it more than once, the people that acted in / directed / helped produce the movie definitely deserve your money. thats just my opinion though.

Grand Master

ZZOOzzoo

Posted
Posted

I don't see what MPAA is doing wrong here.

People are expected to pay money to watch movie, and communities like Loki's are violating that law, thus deserve to be sued.

For those who donated for Warez websites, why don't you spend your money to BUY things?

Grand Master

[hxc]

Posted
Posted

lol, i was just thinking. isnt it a bit hypocritical to spend money or 'donate' to a site so that you dont have to spend money on things you can illegaly download?

then again, its your money and not mine, and you are supporting something you believe in, whether it be illegal or not.

Grand Master

+M2Ys4U Subscriber¹

Posted
  • Subscriber¹
Posted

You can't sue every single file-sharer in the world, no matter if you are the MPAA, RIAA, G. W. Bush or Gordon Freeman.

the only way to effectively decrease the pircay market, is to lower their prices. they are so used to ripping people off, that they can't not rip people off anymore.

Collaborator

Monkeys4me

Posted
Posted
So is the listing, one is real world the other is virtual.

The last time I checked, the theatre listings in the newspapers do not include those for illegal showings, and they do not provide direct transportation to any showing (legal or otherwise).

They haven't been able to make any of their cases actually stick in court. Those, like Loki, are only as guilty as the telephone company or post office would be for wire fraud and the like. Is the telephone company guilty as well if someone uses their listings to call people to see if they're home or not so that the caller can rob them? How about an obscene phone call? The phone company made both possible.

I not aware of any cases involving the MPAA & torrent sites which have actually reached a court room? What I see is the MPAA learning from the mistakes & failures of the RIAA. Just because these types of organizations haven?t enjoyed much success yet doesn?t mean they won?t eventually find a way.

Your analogies here are so ridiculous that they aren?t even worth addressing.

Loki isn't actually tell anyone anything, it is those who are using it that do this. The same as someone using the telephone would.

You appear to live in a strange delusional world? these torrent sites take no action to prevent access to illegal files, and will take the user to them at the click of a link. I have never seen a case where a telephone company has provided a service where they facilitate people looking for services they knew to be illegal? can you provide evidence of such, or will you just continue to parrot your low-watt talking points?

Debating the criminally stupid is a frustration endeavor I have come to expect.

So you're saying that you spend a lot of time engaging in debates with yourself???

Like you are? Why do you think that they don't actually make it to court with these cases? They don't have a legal foot to stand on and they know it. They are circumventing the law. Theory and practice are not usually the same thing in the real world and far too many have trouble telling the difference because they've had too much theory and no real world practice.

You are wasting time here because like the MPAA you don't have a real case. Be a lawyer and continue this. I find that most of them would rather win than see actual justice. What can one expect since the US has around 30% of the world's lawyers and is a nation of suers (In both senses of the word.)

Yes, I am not a lawyer, but I still know that one doesn't have sex to protect one's virginity. Guess what, jurers aren't lawyers either

Your contention that they have no legal footing to stand on is worthless, seeing as you freely admit to having no legal training, and you are unable to provide any substantive argument to support your position. Placing faith in your legal opinion is akin to taking financial advice from the counter person at McDonalds.

The icing on the cake is your gibberish opinions on lawyers, the USA, lawsuits, protecting your virginity (whatever the hell THAT means? personally I don?t think you have anything to worry about there champ). Here?s an idea? how about you invest some time in developing a cognitive thought!

Can you guess which quote in my signature applies to you?

I normally don?t waste my time with the quotes that a someone like you includes in their signatures? but in this case I?ll make an exception, because I know it makes you think that "Any fool can justify their right to steal - and most fools do."

- Monkeys4mefools do."

- Monkeys4me

Did I ge:cool:ight???

:cool:

Grand Master

Kushan

Posted
Posted

Didn't record companies throw a ****y fit when Cassets were released?

And then Movie companies did the same when VHS was released, allowing people to record whatever they like at no benefit to the company?

This kind of thing is just a rerun of it all.

The way I see it, if I want to buy their stuff, I'll buy it. They can't force me to buy it, all they can do is offer it for a fair exchange of money. If I think what they're asking for is reasonable, I'll buy it. If not, I wont.

Like with computer games, I dont like playing demos, they don't give you an idea of what you're really getting, so I download the game. If I feel it's worth the ?34.99, I'll buy it. If it's not quite that good, I'll wait until a sale or whatever and get it for ?20. If it's an ok game but nothing great, I'll get it and 2 other similar games in the 2 for ?20 offers at game.

If it's absolute pants I probably wont even play it much and just delete it. Rather that than me wasting ?34.00 on a game and then vowing never to buy another game from the same company ever again *glares at the EA logo on his Generals Case^.

But anyway, I think the big companies are taking this all the wrong way and too far at that.

Mentor

Daybreak

Posted
Posted

Have to agree with Monkeys4Me here. The argument that LokiTorrent serves merely as a directory falls totally flat on its face when you consider the facts that

(I) about a good 95% of the content available infringes on copyright

(II) that is no effort per se to hide said content. In fact, its quite openly and painly advertised in various neatly divided categories

(III) there are even links offering removal options for developers/authors who find that their products have been made available without consent.

Any analogy to Google falls flat on its face when you consider that Google doesn't go all out explicity to offer illegal content, nor is that its main purpose.

Grand Master

[hxc]

Posted
Posted

i keep hearing the arguement: "they're making millions already, so what does one person matter"

what if everybody just adapted this attitude? ( and more than a couple hundred thousand people feel this way already ), that does mean that they would be losing out on a lot of money. so in the end the collective of illegal downloaders are definitely impacting the movie industry and as a part of a collective, the individual should be held responsible as well.

this argument just doesnt make sense to me and seems to be a very ignorant excuse.

Veteran

Foub

Posted
Posted
Didn't record companies throw a ****y fit when Cassets were released?

And then Movie companies did the same when VHS was released, allowing people to record whatever they like at no benefit to the company?

And the ironic thing is that they are both making record profits which actually proves that P2P is not the problem.

Instead of going after the real pirates they go after the file sharers instead. It is like when Bush invaded and occupid Iraq instead of going after bin Ladin.

Veteran

Foub

Posted
Posted
Have to agree with Monkeys4Me here. The argument that LokiTorrent serves merely as a directory falls totally flat on its face when you consider the facts that

(I) about a good 95% of the content available infringes on copyright

(II) that is no effort per se to hide said content. In fact, its quite openly and painly advertised in various neatly divided categories

(III) there are even links offering removal options for developers/authors who find that their products have been made available without consent.

Any analogy to Google falls flat on its face when you consider that Google doesn't go all out explicity to offer illegal content, nor is that its main purpose.

585203537[/snapback]

Neither does Lokitorrent go out of its way. The MPAA still doersn't have a case.

Veteran

Foub

Posted
Posted
,Dec 31 2004, 11:49]i keep hearing the arguement: "they're making millions already, so what does one person matter"

what if everybody just adapted this attitude? ( and more than a couple hundred thousand people feel this way already ), that does mean that they would be losing out on a lot of money. so in the end the collective of illegal downloaders are definitely impacting the movie industry and as a part of a collective, the individual should be held responsible as well.

this argument? just doesnt make sense to me and seems to be a very ignorant excuse.

585203655[/snapback]

The problem isn't P2P. And there are many independent studies which actually show that it isn't. In fact many of them show that P2P actually increases sales. The problem is the pirates in Asia which sell this on the street. The MPAA is acting like the Bush Whitehouse and going after Saddam instead after who they should be going after which is bin Ladin.

Grand Master

pimpshiznid

Posted
Posted
Have to agree with Monkeys4Me here. The argument that LokiTorrent serves merely as a directory falls totally flat on its face when you consider the facts that

(I) about a good 95% of the content available infringes on copyright

(II) that is no effort per se to hide said content. In fact, its quite openly and painly advertised in various neatly divided categories

(III) there are even links offering removal options for developers/authors who find that their products have been made available without consent.

Any analogy to Google falls flat on its face when you consider that Google doesn't go all out explicity to offer illegal content, nor is that its main purpose.

585203537[/snapback]

No, that isn't right. Loki doesn't host the material. It just provides links to a service. If you choose to use that service, then you are at fault, not Loki's service.

It's like the government going after companies who make zip-lock baggies, rolling paper companies, and syringe companies because they can hold drugs. In Loki's case, the server, website, and trackers are paraphenelia to the drugs, which are in this case, the illegal content. Loki doesn't host it, thus, no case at all.

I'm actually surprised a lawyer hasn't came forward to offer his services for free, as this is going to be a high-profile case.

This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.