torrent spy owes 111million dollars!

[j.o.s.h.1408]

Torrentspy Dinged $111 Million in MPAA Lawsuit | Threat Level from Wired.com

this is shocking. on a side note

Does google also have to pay this money for linking to copyright material?

what makes torrent spy any different to google?

good quote:

"If I go to target, slip a copy of Harry Potter V into my jacket, and walk out [...] If I come home, open up Limewire, and download it [...] It's the same exact thing."

Absolutely NOT. A good analogy would be that downloading a book online and printing it out is akin to finding a copy in a library and photocopying it.

When you steal it from the book store, you are *taking away* their copy. For instance, if the book store paid $15 for a book that they sell you $25, and you steal that book, the store loses $15. They've also lost a potential $10 profit, but it's not a definitive loss. No one can say for sure they would have sold that book. Maybe it would've just gathered dust on their shelves.

On the other hand, when you download the book, you're *copying* someone's book, meaning that they get to keep their own. No one loses money in the transaction, but like the book store lost the potential $10 profit, the book's publisher lost a *potential* sale. It's not a definitive loss: if downloading wasn't available, does that mean that people who have downloaded it automatically buy the material? Of course not. Most would simply opt to do without.

Take Photoshop, for instance. A vast majority of people who use Photoshop recreationally (ie, not for business purposes) pirate it. If pirating Photoshop wasn't possible, non-business users still wouldn't buy it, because it costs too much. People would simply use another graphic software, like the GIMP, which is free (legally so). And if Microsoft ever comes up with a perfect, unbreakable way to insure that pirated copies of Windows can't run, you'll start seeing a lot more computers running Linux, let me tell you.

[kalniel]

Is this topic a discussion on the rights and wrongs of warez? Or a discussion on the recent court ruling that Torrentspy have been ordered by a court to pay $110m for their illegal activity?

[j.o.s.h.1408]

has the title says

[Salazaar]

The actual ruling makes little difference to the issue since they lost by default and not summary judgement. One of two things will happen now though, either Torrenspy's owners will run out of cash and fold or they'll fight against the ruling in another court and (probably) get the fine very heavily reduced if not overturned altogether.

[TiG]

They've filled for bankrupcy, the $111million is never going to be recovered.

TiG

[kalniel]

has the title says

Then why are you going on about side notes and quoting some idiot who thinks piracy isn't theft? If the court had no problem with it they wouldn't have found against Torrentspy.

[Spud1]

Well, while i'm not too sure that the ruling is justified in law - morally this is a great victory, as it closes down one of the many torrent sites out there. Of course I realise that there are many many many more, and loads appear daily..but that doesn't mean that taking down one of the big ones isn't an achievement

Staying clear of the rights/wrongs shades of grey w/r to warez (as that has been argued many times on here in the past), torrentspy were providing information about how to download copy protected software/media, and therefore its a good thing that they will hopefully vanish.

[Marcos]

this is my biggest argument with the piracy thing, when they claim you are "stealing".

like those f****** daft "You wouldn't steal a car, would you??" adverts


like copying a piece of software is anything like taking someone's car away from them so that they can no longer use it

bah! this kind of thing gets me fuming

[Rosaline]

I'm sure someone else will detail in greater depth, but the main flaw in the arguments against file sharing is the claim that each given download is a lost sale.

As for this case, the ruling has nothing at all to do with the legality of such sites, and shame on anyone who attempts to trumpet it as such. The ruling was made because TorrentSpy failed to comply with court orders and appeared to have destroyed evidence, and as such no defence was allowed.

[TheAnimus]

There is a reason the phrase freetards has slipped in to common vocabulary.

Whilst working at a bank, a former fellow developer, who must of been on at least 40k (hardly bad for a starting wage now) who lived with his parents, wanted to pirate the peep show DVD i'd just bought, it wasn't even £5 at tesco, and they had some left on the shelf.

If you've got tight fisted blunts like that, you've got no hope of stopping piracy enless you make it tricky.

[j.o.s.h.1408]

the thing is, torrentspy is just has bad as google. type in any music artist with the word torrent attached to it and bam instant links to where that same torrent can be downloaded. whats the difference?

[Skii]

this is my biggest argument with the piracy thing, when they claim you are "stealing".

like those f****** daft "You wouldn't steal a car, would you??" adverts


like copying a piece of software is anything like taking someone's car away from them so that they can no longer use it

bah! this kind of thing gets me fuming

especially as the only time I ever have to sit through those damn annoying and patronising adds is on DVDs that I have legitimately bought and paid for

[Marcos]

especially as the only time I ever have to sit through those damn annoying and patronising adds is on DVDs that I have legitimately bought and paid for

exactly!

[mooreslaw]

The difference between Torrentspy and Google legally speaking is that Torrentspy were considered to be participating in or unlawfully authorising/facilitating the sharing of copyrighted material. Google is more of an Internet intermediary, i.e. a mere conduit for information. Google links people to all kinds of information, not specifically copyrighted material as Torrentspy did. Now I'm not saying I agree with that classification, but it's the way that the law looks at it.

On a side note - it amuses me how it seems to be just the American media industries who are bringing actions against so-called 'authorisers' of copyright infringement. There has yet to be a case bought in the UK against a torrent site or file-sharing software producer for copyright infringement. I wonder why...?!

[kalniel]

There has yet to be a case bought in the UK against a torrent site or file-sharing software producer for copyright infringement. I wonder why...?!

There aren't any torrent sites based in the UK?

[mooreslaw]

There aren't any torrent sites based in the UK?

They don't have to be based in the UK. You can bring an action against someone pretty much anywhere in the world thanks to the various international copyright treaties and EU law.

I think its more to do with the sheer power of the US media industries and how they can throw their weight around to get the results they want - and all in the pursuit of one thing only....profits.