backtop

Print E-mail del.icio.us 90 comment(s) - last by Icelight.. on May 12 at 12:04 PM
Shuttered BitTorrent tracker sued back to the stone age

A federal judge court inflicted $110 million in penalties on shuttered BitTorrent tracker TorrentSpy.com, after the site defaulted on a court request to produce logs of its users’ activity.

The MPAA accused TorrentSpy of copyright infringement in early 2006.

The $110 million figure, one of the largest judgments ever entered for copyright infringement, was calculated by multiplying the site’s 3,669 “shown” infringements by $30,000, which is the maximum penalty available under certain conditions in the Copyright Act. U.S. District Court Judge Florence-Marie Cooper entered her ruling against the site and its parent company, Valence Media, for willfully and vicariously contributing to the infringement of copyrighted materials.

“This substantial money judgment sends a strong message about the illegality of these sites,” said MPAA chairman and CEO Dan Glickman. “The demise of TorrentSpy is a clear victory for the studios.”

It remains unclear as to whether or not the MPAA will be able to collect the $110 million: Valence Media announced that it will appeal the judgment, and court records indicate that owners Justin Bunnell and Wes Parker have filed for bankruptcy.

Before the site closed its doors last March, TorrentSpy held a legal drama with the MPAA filled with twists and turns: in addition to being unable to procure server logs necessary to the case – which Cooper, frustrated with the site’s antics, called “obstreperous” – the site blocked U.S. users last August, due to the fact that court-ordered monitoring conflicted with the site’s privacy policy. Earlier, MPAA investigators paid $15,000 to hacker Robert Anderson, a former associate and advertising partner of the site, in exchange for a large cache of TorrentSpy’s e-mail and internal data.

TorrentSpy attorney Ira Rothken argued that TorrentSpy was no more liable for copyright infringement than any other search engine, as the site merely indexed torrent files and not the infringed data itself.

“The case was not decided on the merits of copyright issues whatsoever,” said Rothken, who noted that privacy differences between the United States and Europe – TorrentSpy’s servers were hosted in the Netherlands – prevented the case from going to trial.

“If an author wrote a book on where to find things and someone went after them, would freedom of speech trump copyright authority? Are you still allowed to run a search engine when there are a lot of bad torrent files? These are issues we should have gotten to in the case.”

Comments     Threshold


Sound the bugel
By ShadowZERO on 5/9/2008 9:05:06 AM , Rating: 5
I think, on this sad day in history, I shall burn an effigy of Dan Glickman.
*sheds a tear for TorrentSpy*




RE: Sound the bugel
By theamerican on 5/9/08, Rating: -1
RE: Sound the bugel
By Ensoph42 on 5/9/2008 9:26:04 AM , Rating: 5
Mole


RE: Sound the bugel
By Ensoph42 on 5/9/2008 9:52:43 AM , Rating: 5
Sorry for the double post. But let me say that the RIAA's hubris breeds contempt. If you were to walk into a gas station and the attendant say "Hey you asshat pony up 56.50 or I'll slap the funny out of you" you'd probably be inclined not only to not pay, but apply a bit of the ultra-violence. A poor example anyway.

But while the TV, music, and software industry also suffers from piracy, it's only the RIAA that has the gull to sue the pants off of everyone and everything in an attempt to protect their I.P.

Torrenting may be theft, but it's also a positive sign of change. There is still profit to be made. Unfortunately for the RIAA they have to accept first that the days of forcing overpriced CDs of crappy pop music down everyones throats is over. The internet has empowered people, a proverbial pandoras box. Tech savvy artists are now bypassing the RIAA completely to offer their releases online, while other companies also continue to make profits by selling DRM free albums, and user's no longer have to buy 9 lousy tracks for 1 good one.

And do you think that the RIAA has been really out to protect the artist? How much does an artist get per CD? Where does the money won from the lawsuits go? Back when CD's where $20 where did that money go? Hasn't the RIAA and the recording industry abused our copywrite system for years now? I may be a theif, but the music industry is morally bankrupt for the most part.

Oh and let he who has not copyied software, music, etc, cast the first stone.


RE: Sound the bugel
By Regs on 5/9/08, Rating: 0
RE: Sound the bugel
By Ensoph42 on 5/9/2008 10:27:37 AM , Rating: 2
By forcing I was really alluding to that the price of a cd, regardless of artist or label would be the same price. I understand I have the option of 'not buying it', but I didn't have the usual consumer advantage of being able to shop around. This is a cornerstone of a free market.

I don't think your worries are founded; I can't see a business model that revolves around sueing your customers could result in anything other than a major backlash against the MPAA and RIAA.

Additionally, there's nothing we can do to kill the music industry. Musicians will continue to make music no matter what. And also I'm more along the lines of thinking they are "prideful", "greedy", "monopolistic", and "outdated" than "evil".


RE: Sound the bugel
By MrBlastman on 5/9/2008 11:04:40 AM , Rating: 2
If people stop buying music outright, will the musicians work for free?


RE: Sound the bugel
By Ensoph42 on 5/9/2008 11:39:52 AM , Rating: 3
My understanding is that musicians make their money from tours. Some bands do all their own promotions. Some bands sell posters, shirts, and hats. We'll never live in a world where good musicians can't make a living. We may see the death of certain super-mega-ultra stars that bath naked in honey and $100 dollar bills, but certainly we wont see the death of the musician.


RE: Sound the bugel
By MrBlastman on 5/9/2008 11:43:45 AM , Rating: 4
True, which is why I advocate boycotting all RIAA sanctioned outlets for music sales - be it cd's, online stores, downloadable content etc.

I would hate to see musicians dissapear outright and perhaps I did not word myself correctly but agree with what you are getting at.

I will gladly pay an artist directly for their talent so they may rightfully be compensated for their work.


RE: Sound the bugel
By tastyratz on 5/9/2008 2:32:53 PM , Rating: 3
agreed,
I haven't purchased a cd from the store in years... YEARS.
I've picked up a few used cds where the riaa wouldn't see a dime from time to time.
I recently was one of the people to go to Trent Reznor's site and purchase the Ghosts cd from him directly.

I will support an artist, but certainly not the Riaa. riaaradar.com is my friend.


RE: Sound the bugel
By just4U on 5/9/2008 2:37:34 PM , Rating: 2
<sigh> .. even there they can nab you if they had a mind to. While they have turned a blind eye to most used sales .. legally were not supposed to be selling them. We have right's to the physical media something is on but not to the media itself and are not authorized to resell it.


RE: Sound the bugel
By Alexstarfire on 5/10/2008 12:18:42 PM , Rating: 2
True, but I think that in itself is a whole other issue. To me, that's basically like saying I can't resell a couch because I didn't design it, I only own the materials the couch is made of. It's not like I'm passing the couch off as my own, and I doubt anyone is making a profit of a reselling used CDs. Yes, they make money off of it, but it's hardly as much as they originally paid for it.


RE: Sound the bugel
By Spivonious on 5/9/2008 10:49:21 AM , Rating: 2
I'll "cast the first stone" then, since I don't break laws.

The MPAA and TV studios have sued or threatened to sue many of the copyright-infringing websites (e.g. YouTube). The RIAA is the only one so far to have the gaul to sue individuals, but why shouldn't they? Are individuals no longer responsible for their actions?

I agree that torrenting is a very clever way of transferring data. The RIAA is just going after illegal activities. I don't remember any CDs being forced down my throat. I don't buy crappy pop music. Anyway, why is the RIAA responsible for artistic value? They simply produce and distribute music. There are plenty of sources to buy just the one good track (iTunes et. al).

The RIAA is out to make money. They are a business. Doing it "for the music" is an attractive bohemian idea, but you can't feed or house yourself by giving free performances every Saturday. Should the artists get a bigger cut of the profits? Sure, once the record company recovers its investment. But that's not for me to decide. If the artists don't like the deal, then there are plenty of options today for distributing music other than signing with a large record label.

Your excuse for thievery is akin to me saying "Ford doesn't pay their workers enough so I'm going to steal a few cars." It's a childish argument at best.


RE: Sound the bugel
By Ensoph42 on 5/9/2008 10:59:13 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
I'll "cast the first stone" then, since I don't break laws.


This I hardly believe. Never, ever ever, have you copied a piece of software or CD in your whole life? Not even when you were young? If you've ever owned a C64 I know you've copied software.

quote:
Your excuse for thievery is akin to me saying "Ford doesn't pay their workers enough so I'm going to steal a few cars." It's a childish argument at best.


Yes steal a few cars. Its the law so it must be right! If a law is unjust break it. In Fords case what if you found out that cars were really being made by 5 year old child slaves that were then ground into oil to fuel their hate machine woud you? I say burn the factory down.


RE: Sound the bugel
By MrPieGuy on 5/9/2008 11:10:27 AM , Rating: 2
Did you actually just compare the RIAA's dealing with artists to child labour?

What is unjust about a law that requires you to pay for a good/product?


RE: Sound the bugel
By Ensoph42 on 5/9/2008 11:15:52 AM , Rating: 2
It's called hyperbole.

The RIAA is an anachronism that is filing lawsuits, not for the betterment of the music industry, but to mearly save itself. It is artificially creating a reason to justify its own existance.


RE: Sound the bugel
By PWNettle on 5/9/2008 1:33:01 PM , Rating: 2
Don't steal intellectual property (or in this case don't create sites that facilitate stealing intellectual property) and they'd have no reason to ever go to court.

I don't see how protecting your own property can be a bad thing, which is all they're tasked to do.

The people who are against protection of intellectual property amaze me. You want a double standard. I'm going to assume you're not all volunteers - that you expect to get paid for your work. I'm going to assume that you don't like the idea of people stealing your physical property. Yet somehow you think it's ok to steal music, videos, games, and any other intellectual property? All the stuff that gets stolen is luxury items nobody needs - and if you don't want to pay for your luxury items, you don't need them.

Having alarm systems, cameras, and security guards in grocery stores, malls, and other retail outlets doesn't make the products there better - it protects the products from scumbags that want to steal it. How is what the RIAA doing any different?


RE: Sound the bugel