Thirty-second rundown of bottorrent related news
Posted: Sat May 31, 2008 4:51 pm
A Swedish hip-hop artist who the IFPI used as leverage in their legal battle against The Pirate Bay wants nothing to do with the case. Without consultation, the IFPI were claiming damages on his behalf. AWESOME. I've been waiting for something like that for YEARS. The fact that they don't even own the rights to his music is just a particularly suptuous cherry on this cake, it's nice to know that the IFPI has grown used to owning absolutely everybody.
Speaking of that case, it turns out that not one, but TWO key players in it work for Warner Brother's. One of them, a former police officer, is going to go right back to being that after this six-month temp job of his closes. Nothing suspicious about that, nosirreeeebob! The other person working for them, their ONLY "expert" witness, worked for two years at a law firm that lists the IFPI as a client and who currently works at an antipiracy organization. This information is of course... nowhere to be found in the court documents, even though it's a legal requirement. Even the fuckin' lawyer representing the Pirate Bay's ISP had no idea. Hmm... maybe Michael Jackson will have better luck suing them.
What is this lawsuit about? Well, it appears that the MPAA is demanding lost revvinue from the pirate bay for the movies Harry Potter, Syriana, The Pink Panther and Walk the Line, as well as the first 13 episodes of Prison Break. MPAA demands $37 for each download. For Harry Potter, $43 and for the first season of Prison Break $68. So... it costs about 4 dollars on amazon unbox, but if you get it from a torrent site, it's magically worth 40? Nice markup, fuckbrains. I still dont' get why they're only asking for judgement against a small handful of movies when tons of them are pirated every day but I guess this is why I'm not a high priced lawyer. Speaking of high priced lawyers: when Monique Wadsted, MPAA’s lawyer and a talkshow host, was asked whether the MPAA really thinks every download is a lost sale, she said: “We don’t know that, but the copyright law doesn’t care about that. It says that if you have downloaded something illegally, you must pay regardless, if you would’ve bought it or not.” Wadsted expects the worst now she has announced the claims: “I know that they have an increased interest in my person and that they try to ridicule me. I also count on having my computer hacked. As a business lawyer, I’m not used to these kinds of reactions.” A lawyer is unused to outraged friends of the people or companies she prosecutes against wanting revenge... uh huh... sure.
Okay, let's move to another famous tracker case! Cleveland police initially stated that the charges against Oink site founder Alan Ellis would be announced December 2007, but this was soon postponed for two months due to a lack of evidence. They did return OiNK’s servers though, after they erased the hard drives. In February the bail date was extended for the second time, only to be moved for a third time back to July. Maybe they're holding out for him forgeting to pay the bills on his cell phone they're inexplicably keeping in police custody. I hear those unauthorized data charges can be expensive!
At the end of 2005 a small-time bit torrent tracker owner was served with a CD notice, had his site taken down by a process server, and was fired from his new job. More than two years have passed and he has heard nothing new. “The last thing I had was a letter from the lawyers with a copy of a motion for a default [judgment]." The hearing in question would have been around the middle of December 2005. “I haven’t even received anything from the court about that hearing – which I should have done – so I am sceptical as to whether or not it actually went ahead” Fair enough! Why bother, really, after the guy lost his job? This is the same industry that's been quoted as saying "“It doesn’t matter if we win or lose, we will still bankrupt you.”
Viviane Reding, EU Commissioner for Information Society and Media: “The new guide is a very good example of an initiative that offers simple, practical advice to parents and teachers to keep young people safe and legal while enjoying music on the Internet." I tried the first 6 sites advised by IFPI. 4 didn’t sell any music, the fifth only listed a few songs, and the sixth website I tried advised me to install LimeWire or Kazaa. Interesting! It gets even worse further down the list where the kids end up at sites that sell hardcore pornography, although that phrase will no doubt raise the hits on this thread thanks to the load of people googling "hardcore Harry Potter kid porn prison break Michael Jackson lawyer fuckbrains." So everything evens out, in the end.
In an interview with the Royal Television Society’s Television magazine, Virgin Media’s CEO Neil Berkett - who joined the Board just a few days ago - said “This net neutrality thing is a load of bollocks,” He added that Virgin was already in the process of doing deals to speed up the traffic of certain media providers. Berkett then turned on the BBC and their iPlayer service, telling them - and other public broadcasters like them - that if they don’t pay a premium their service would be put into “bus lanes”. LOL, nice. I really do have to appreciate that kind of sincerity. At least this guy's up front and honest about the fact that he's a giant douche who has no interest in upholding the rights of his customers. Unlike their American counterparts, Comcast, who after filling the FCC hearing room with their own employees to keep the public out decided that they needed one more ace in the hole. Hense, a blatant lie to the government, claiming that they only filtered traffic at peak times when they in fact filter all the time and are continuing to do so. Incidentally, Cox is also jumping on the filter BT bandwagon; subscribers, take note.
My thoughts on net nutrality aside, I fail to see the use in making new laws to appease people who are breaking existing laws with impunity. If hiring out Media Defender to create new video sharing sites with the soul purpose of ensnaring copyright violaters wasn't bad enough, we now have proof that they were also DDOSing bit torrent providers... and apparently it doesn't seem to matter if it's content that they own or not, or even if it's content being distributed legally or illegally. Revision3, a somewhat popular webcast network that distributes its files through bit torrent, noticed that there were a whole crapload of files on their network that weren't theirs. These were in fact Media Defender fakes that were abusing R3's tracker for their own profit in an attempt to make their files get higher search results. Deauthorizing these files caused Media Defender to respond by flooding their servers with syn packets, taking down everything up to and including their internal email server. Media Defender's response was to, again, lie, claiming that there was only one request every three hours; the truth being closer to eight thousand requests a second. MD? We'll see your ass in court.
This has been, Lysander's 30 second roundup of the filesharing world! Thank you for your patronage.
Speaking of that case, it turns out that not one, but TWO key players in it work for Warner Brother's. One of them, a former police officer, is going to go right back to being that after this six-month temp job of his closes. Nothing suspicious about that, nosirreeeebob! The other person working for them, their ONLY "expert" witness, worked for two years at a law firm that lists the IFPI as a client and who currently works at an antipiracy organization. This information is of course... nowhere to be found in the court documents, even though it's a legal requirement. Even the fuckin' lawyer representing the Pirate Bay's ISP had no idea. Hmm... maybe Michael Jackson will have better luck suing them.
What is this lawsuit about? Well, it appears that the MPAA is demanding lost revvinue from the pirate bay for the movies Harry Potter, Syriana, The Pink Panther and Walk the Line, as well as the first 13 episodes of Prison Break. MPAA demands $37 for each download. For Harry Potter, $43 and for the first season of Prison Break $68. So... it costs about 4 dollars on amazon unbox, but if you get it from a torrent site, it's magically worth 40? Nice markup, fuckbrains. I still dont' get why they're only asking for judgement against a small handful of movies when tons of them are pirated every day but I guess this is why I'm not a high priced lawyer. Speaking of high priced lawyers: when Monique Wadsted, MPAA’s lawyer and a talkshow host, was asked whether the MPAA really thinks every download is a lost sale, she said: “We don’t know that, but the copyright law doesn’t care about that. It says that if you have downloaded something illegally, you must pay regardless, if you would’ve bought it or not.” Wadsted expects the worst now she has announced the claims: “I know that they have an increased interest in my person and that they try to ridicule me. I also count on having my computer hacked. As a business lawyer, I’m not used to these kinds of reactions.” A lawyer is unused to outraged friends of the people or companies she prosecutes against wanting revenge... uh huh... sure.
Okay, let's move to another famous tracker case! Cleveland police initially stated that the charges against Oink site founder Alan Ellis would be announced December 2007, but this was soon postponed for two months due to a lack of evidence. They did return OiNK’s servers though, after they erased the hard drives. In February the bail date was extended for the second time, only to be moved for a third time back to July. Maybe they're holding out for him forgeting to pay the bills on his cell phone they're inexplicably keeping in police custody. I hear those unauthorized data charges can be expensive!
At the end of 2005 a small-time bit torrent tracker owner was served with a CD notice, had his site taken down by a process server, and was fired from his new job. More than two years have passed and he has heard nothing new. “The last thing I had was a letter from the lawyers with a copy of a motion for a default [judgment]." The hearing in question would have been around the middle of December 2005. “I haven’t even received anything from the court about that hearing – which I should have done – so I am sceptical as to whether or not it actually went ahead” Fair enough! Why bother, really, after the guy lost his job? This is the same industry that's been quoted as saying "“It doesn’t matter if we win or lose, we will still bankrupt you.”
Viviane Reding, EU Commissioner for Information Society and Media: “The new guide is a very good example of an initiative that offers simple, practical advice to parents and teachers to keep young people safe and legal while enjoying music on the Internet." I tried the first 6 sites advised by IFPI. 4 didn’t sell any music, the fifth only listed a few songs, and the sixth website I tried advised me to install LimeWire or Kazaa. Interesting! It gets even worse further down the list where the kids end up at sites that sell hardcore pornography, although that phrase will no doubt raise the hits on this thread thanks to the load of people googling "hardcore Harry Potter kid porn prison break Michael Jackson lawyer fuckbrains." So everything evens out, in the end.
In an interview with the Royal Television Society’s Television magazine, Virgin Media’s CEO Neil Berkett - who joined the Board just a few days ago - said “This net neutrality thing is a load of bollocks,” He added that Virgin was already in the process of doing deals to speed up the traffic of certain media providers. Berkett then turned on the BBC and their iPlayer service, telling them - and other public broadcasters like them - that if they don’t pay a premium their service would be put into “bus lanes”. LOL, nice. I really do have to appreciate that kind of sincerity. At least this guy's up front and honest about the fact that he's a giant douche who has no interest in upholding the rights of his customers. Unlike their American counterparts, Comcast, who after filling the FCC hearing room with their own employees to keep the public out decided that they needed one more ace in the hole. Hense, a blatant lie to the government, claiming that they only filtered traffic at peak times when they in fact filter all the time and are continuing to do so. Incidentally, Cox is also jumping on the filter BT bandwagon; subscribers, take note.
My thoughts on net nutrality aside, I fail to see the use in making new laws to appease people who are breaking existing laws with impunity. If hiring out Media Defender to create new video sharing sites with the soul purpose of ensnaring copyright violaters wasn't bad enough, we now have proof that they were also DDOSing bit torrent providers... and apparently it doesn't seem to matter if it's content that they own or not, or even if it's content being distributed legally or illegally. Revision3, a somewhat popular webcast network that distributes its files through bit torrent, noticed that there were a whole crapload of files on their network that weren't theirs. These were in fact Media Defender fakes that were abusing R3's tracker for their own profit in an attempt to make their files get higher search results. Deauthorizing these files caused Media Defender to respond by flooding their servers with syn packets, taking down everything up to and including their internal email server. Media Defender's response was to, again, lie, claiming that there was only one request every three hours; the truth being closer to eight thousand requests a second. MD? We'll see your ass in court.
This has been, Lysander's 30 second roundup of the filesharing world! Thank you for your patronage.