digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

TorrentSpy Loses Case Against MPAA

torrentfreak.com — A Los Angeles court decided against TorrentSpy in their ongoing legal battle with the MPAA and terminated their case. According to the ruling TorrentSpy was sanctioned for destructing evidence.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • Sammiboi, on 12/19/2007, -4/+125They wanted the IP addresses of users.
    What about the users who haven't actually downloaded or uploaded, just simply joined to be a member of the forum?

    The MPAA needs to learn that it will be impossible to learn what the users have done.
    • sockpuppets, on 12/19/2007, -4/+42"In August, a federal judge ordered TorrentSpy to log all user data stored in RAM."

      Um, there was a power outage?
      • andycr512, on 12/19/2007, -8/+15Any time I hear about a site being ordered to log all data in RAM, I have to ask, "Is the government going to pay for the insane amount of hard drives needed to do that?" It's an insane amount of data.
        • Matt2k, on 12/19/2007, -9/+11Except that's not what they were ordered to do.
          They were never ordered to log EVERY OPERATION THAT OCCURS IN RAM. Do you know what a strawman argument is?
          http://www.news.com/8301-10784_3-9727965-7.html
          They were asked to record visitor visitor activty. This is not an unreasonable or unwieldy request.

          > Any time I hear about a site being ordered to log all data in RAM,
          Yes, certainly YOU hear about sites being asked to log all data in RAM every other day.
          • andycr512, on 12/19/2007, -1/+2I hadn't read the article yet, but judging from the comments I thought that was the case.

            "Yes, certainly YOU hear about sites being asked to log all data in RAM every other day."

            I recalled hearing about this happening before. Perhaps it was something else, as in this case, and I simply remembered incorrectly.
        • jacobsor, on 12/20/2007, -1/+2Ditto to Matt2K. There were asked to turn on their FREAKIN' IIS SERVER LOGS. Not store everything in RAM. Most companies already do this, and they certainly don't need an infinite supply of hard drives to do so. Stop making stupid assumptions.
        • lengau, on 12/20/2007, -0/+3So just log it to /dev/null. I mean, that's still logging it, right?
      • OwdenBowden, on 12/19/2007, -0/+2It is obvious that the MPAA and RIAA are out to destroy the existence of their current and potential customer base - all because they were too lazy to fix holes in their systems before they were exploited. This is a full fronted attack on us all and we should rise up against this and tell them that "WE ARE MAD AS HELL AND WE ARE NOT GOING TO TAKE IT ANYMORE". Then we follow up this DECLARATION of INDEPENDENCE with our own Tea Party in the form of (1) Boycott (2) DOSA and whatever else it takes before they surrender.
    • Matt2k, on 12/19/2007, -5/+10> The MPAA needs to learn that it will be impossible to learn what the users have done.

      Right. Because that's simply impossible. I can't even imagine how something like that would be approached. Oh wait.
    • houndeyex, on 12/19/2007, -7/+17The judges really don't know the lingo. (When they should have to learn) They just try to make decent decisions off what the lawyers say. "RAM" and "IP Address" means "technology hoobeldygoobeldy" to them. Clearly it's all too new-fangled for them.
      • Matt2k, on 12/19/2007, -24/+11Who the ***** invented "RAM" and "IP Address"es. It certainly wasn't university-generation students on campus. Because you're 50 doesn't mean you're stupid, you ***** *****.
        • venom8599, on 12/19/2007, -7/+14No, but it may mean that you're ignorant of newer technologies.
        • Matt2k, on 12/19/2007, -18/+10> No, but it may mean that you're ignorant of newer technologies.

          Or maybe it doesn't. Wow, this new fangled mode of argument comes naturally!
          • Nossie, on 12/19/2007, -7/+12You know, I dont normally bait trolls... but YOU are being a dick.
          • themastersb, on 12/19/2007, -7/+12Here's a classic for you: ***** YOU!
      • zongamin, on 12/19/2007, -4/+8I agree with Matt 2k - you're an idiot if you really think they wouldn't use lawyers who knew what they were talking about.
      • nastajus, on 12/19/2007, -0/+2it appears we will suffer years of judges unfamiliar with technology, using rules unrefined for technology, suffering until some fresh judges come in. maybe many years...
        • insllvn, on 12/19/2007, -1/+2And then, the new judges will know RAM from ROM and HDD's fro IP's, but they will have no idea about the new *****, quantum computing, etc. The law will always be behind technology.
      • jacobsor, on 12/19/2007, -0/+2Did you read any of the judges opinions? Or are you just assuming that the judge is an idiot, because that's what you want to believe?

        The judge was very technologically sophisticated. Read the opinions before you criticize. I find it ironic that everyone here always bashes on the judge for "not understanding the technology," while they also feel perfectly comfortable playing armchair lawyer without understanding the legal issues.
    • fkr3, on 12/19/2007, -24/+5That's the defence now? People were going to a popular torrent site to use the forum.

      Why not just take responsibility for your actions, you all seem to think piracy is good and beneficial and whatever else right up until there's some consequences on the horizon.
      • bobdigi, on 12/19/2007, -5/+20God, shut up.
      • Aensland, on 12/19/2007, -4/+15Uh, some people just join random forums because we have a tangential interest in the subject matter. And many of these forums have a 'general chat' and 'offtopic' area.

        Generalizations != proof.
        • fkr3, on 12/19/2007, -19/+4Right .... and people go to a bar for the peanuts. People with peanut allergies no less!!!
        • betterth, on 12/19/2007, -1/+3@fkr Nah but a lot of people go to bars to hang out and meet people, not necessarily to drink. Your analogy fails with extra epic, just like you.

          What's it like doing everything you're told without question and without thought? I could never imagine such a mindless life of obedience. I suppose ignorance is bliss, though.

          So, follow on good sir. Us independent thinkers will need followers one day, and your type is perfect.
      • IADTatami, on 12/19/2007, -1/+4Not really. Civil disobedience doesn't just entail ignoring ***** laws outright, it means not cooperating in any way with those who seek to enforce those ***** laws. It means making the enforcement of those ***** laws as expensive and tedious as possible.
    • zongamin, on 12/19/2007, -0/+8What are you talking about - they can log if you downloaded the torrent file rather than just browsed the site you know.
      • anononon, on 12/19/2007, -2/+2Downloading the .torrent file is not proof that you actually downloaded the data that the .torrent file points to.
    • smergs, on 12/19/2007, -2/+2What if you don't have a static IP? They are wasting their time.
      • shredswithpiks, on 12/19/2007, -0/+5then they subpoena the ISP to see who held the IP address at the given timestamp.
        • Infinite84, on 12/19/2007, -1/+2Would they really go to all that trouble & is it even legally possible for them to do that?
        • silent, on 12/19/2007, -0/+3Yes and yes. If they want you bad enough they will get you.
  • omghax, on 12/19/2007, -8/+30*sigh*
    • roosterjm2k2, on 12/19/2007, -2/+7*sigh* is right.

      The problem with these cases is that the fight is business vs technology. The judges know business well, its how they got where they are, they understand the terminology, the phrasing, the ideas.... With the technology, they don't. They don't know much of anything. They cant understand the tech side.

      In essence, their lack of tech knowledge renders them incapable of hearing both sides of the arguments...and that should be (it wont be) grounds for retrial/dismissal in these cases.
      • fkr3, on 12/19/2007, -7/+2There is no "other side of the argument". There is intellectual property owners, and people trying to exploit their rights.
        • redxxx, on 12/19/2007, -2/+3uhh... no. In this case the other side is arguing that the court forcing them to being tracking information for the sole purpose of allowing a third party to gather information on their customer's, is an undue burden on them, from the POV of cost in time, resources and the effects on their ability to do business.

          The court found that the burden is not undue, and now companies can be forced to track what their customers do online, and turn that information over to a third party. That's not great, but doesn't come from judges not knowing about technology, it comes from them being dirty ***** from East Texas that don't care about anything other than their kickbacks and maintaining their office.
          • fkr3, on 12/19/2007, -3/+2People going to torrentspy to pirate ***** are not the same as customers......
          • redxxx, on 12/19/2007, -1/+3They use a service. Because they use that service, the company generates revenue. When they use that service, they agree to implicit and explicit contracts.

            You're wrong, but that's fine cause it is not like you are going to contribute anything other than 'Rah, rah Piracy Bad." Please choke on a ***** and die.
          • HentaiJeff, on 12/19/2007, -1/+1Hey I'm from Northeast texas and that hurt :P
  • leffunov, on 12/19/2007, -4/+54Torrentspy, I hope you will be like Obi-Wan Kenobi.
    • dagamer34, on 12/19/2007, -5/+2and sacrifice itself?
    • sockpuppets, on 12/19/2007, -3/+10...and get the droid out of here?

      I guess I'm not very good at this.
      • dicklogan, on 12/19/2007, -1/+16It's LEAVE, you idiot! "Make like Obi-Wan and leave." You sound like a damn fool when you say it wrong!
        • nastajus, on 12/19/2007, -0/+4oi, idioms, pop culture, bleah, it makes my head spin in circles and separate from my body sometimes.
    • latrosicarius, on 12/19/2007, -1/+55Strike me down and I will become more powerful than you could possibly imagine.
      • ben_nushmut, on 12/19/2007, -1/+23Thank you! I was starting to worry about the geek cred on this thread!!
  • merdiesel, on 12/19/2007, -3/+65This John Malcolm sounds like a real ***** douche bag.
  • pokemonfan4eva, on 12/19/2007, -11/+10TorrentSpy had too many ads. I never liked it.
    • 1randomguy08, on 12/19/2007, -2/+2Yeah it use be better most, sites spammed to the ***** once they get popular, spikedhumor.com,yahoo.com, shoutwire.com,myspace.com and now possibly digg will be next. Sites like these I won't use.
    • Dustmuffins, on 12/19/2007, -3/+14What are ads?
    • Fungyo, on 12/20/2007, -1/+1Ads ? did torrentspy have ads ? does any site have ads ? Oh wait, Firefox + Adblock = Very little to no ads. The ads that appear, you can kill with a right click.
  • carterbaldwin, on 12/19/2007, -15/+46I feel safer already, now that there's one less shifty-eyed torrent-thug skulking about, trying to steal my music.
    • sockpuppets, on 12/19/2007, -7/+15Just because you work the cutout bin doesn't mean the music in it is "yours."
    • Xizer, on 12/19/2007, -3/+12Why are people digging this guy down? I thought the comment was funny.
      • nastajus, on 12/19/2007, -1/+1funny doesn't always transmit properly. missing body language, missing tone of voice, people skip ahead losing context...
  • silentphoenix, on 12/19/2007, -3/+48quite sad, but the fact that we have thousands of alternatives makes the case quite useless
    • SIRBERUS, on 12/19/2007, -7/+4http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precedent
      • venom8599, on 12/19/2007, -1/+6No precedent. They were not proven guilty. It's almost like a default judgement, because the judge ruled they had destroyed evidence vital to the case such that it was no longer possible to have a fair trial. Most likely they didn't log the RAM like they were ordered to do, since it'd be pretty much impossible.
        • CodeCobalt, on 12/19/2007, -1/+4the case is by absolutely NO MEANS over. Hate to admit it but they have lost the battle by destroying evidence.

          I applaud them for not disclosing the IP's of their users... They could defend that saying they wanted to protect the privacy of their users, but destroying more than that is asking for trouble.

          I sorta wish they had the money to settle out of court to just avoid setting a precedent, due to the fact that they've already lost. Maybe someone else could do things better.

          Either way P2P and torrents are all here to stay.

          Utopia would be if everyone in entertainment wasn't so greedy. Demanding millions for a month or two of work. I do believe they should be paid well, and collect a portion of sales. But really, I mean they make enough money in 1 film or CD to live happily ever after. They can afford to spread the millions out over a few years.

          Then audio and video may be cheaper, therefore consumers will be more likely to purchase it. Who knows the stars may even still make millions per film or CD, due to the percentage they earn from sales.

          The execs really are just greedy at this point. Theres plenty of movies out there that show you don't need millions to produce a hit.
          • fkr3, on 12/19/2007, -5/+3Taking everything and paying nothing is also greedy.... and that's what many people want. Or they want to make some token payment - I went to a concert so it's okay that I've got a 500gb drive full of movies and music!!
        • SIRBERUS, on 12/19/2007, -1/+2http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/My_Bad
          • venom8599, on 12/19/2007, -0/+7*wonders why the Hell that redirects to the First Season of the List of Scrubs Episodes.*
        • nastajus, on 12/19/2007, -0/+2is this evidence that was destroyed the same as the smoking guns mr bush found?
  • demonsnake69, on 12/19/2007, -2/+112I'll bet that "destructing evidence" refers to destroying evidence. Why is it that CIA is allowed to destroy evidence without repercussions, but Torrentspy isn't?
    • strictnein, on 12/19/2007, -0/+4Not that you're interested in specifics, but it was because the court order only specified that evidence of interrogations be kept that took place at Gitmo. The tapes were of interrogations that took place elsewhere, thus no requirement for them to kept.
    • Motodog, on 12/19/2007, -0/+21Because the CIA is above the law, duh.
    • floridiot2, on 12/19/2007, -1/+7Do you really want that question answered?
    • 1randomguy08, on 12/19/2007, -0/+6Because its the good ol' USA Yeahhhhh!!! HA!
  • okthxbai, on 12/19/2007, -27/+2pwned!

    USENET FTW!!
    • Roryking, on 12/19/2007, -2/+27People who brag about using usenet are the same people who brag about owning a fleshlight, and should be ashamed of themselves.
    • okthxbai, on 12/19/2007, -15/+0umm whats wrong with owning flaslights?
    • silentphoenix, on 12/19/2007, -4/+7usenet = lame
    • TotalCarb, on 12/19/2007, -1/+3First rule okthxbai.
    • hansk, on 12/19/2007, -1/+1Everything about you irritates me.
  • skaspud, on 12/19/2007, -6/+44torrenting hurts the global economy and causes death of numberous innocents!
    • sockpuppets, on 12/19/2007, -1/+64I'm downloading an endangered turtle as we speak!
    • zerhynn, on 12/19/2007, -8/+16numberous!
    • Crisender111, on 12/19/2007, -2/+5True man! By spendin its valuable energy in shuttin down torrents n the like US is actually adding to the noble cause its already doing round the world.
    • RJGONZO, on 12/19/2007, -0/+1Change that last word to "incumbents" and you have the true reason why they claim to care. Election time is a coming!
    • harobikes333, on 12/19/2007, -0/+0It is NOT hurting the economy......

      lol at the hurting of numberous innocents
  • bingobongony, on 12/19/2007, -18/+5I love how whenever these idiots lose, they blame it on judges not understanding technology, when the reality is, it is because THEY don't understand laws.
    • venom8599, on 12/19/2007, -1/+14They weren't proven guilty. The judge ordered them to log their RAM, which is next to impossible, and they couldn't comply with that and other things, so the case was "terminated". Think of it like a default judgment based on their "destroying evidence."
      • Matt2k, on 12/19/2007, -4/+1I'm no "computer scientist", but I'm pretty sure all computer logging utilities log activies which occur in RAM.
        • venom8599, on 12/19/2007, -0/+7They log data from ongoing activities that reside in RAM, but they do not log every single bit of data that resides in RAM, which is what they were ordered to log, IIRC.
        • Matt2k, on 12/19/2007, -5/+2> but they do not log every single bit of data that resides in RAM, which is what they were ordered to log, IIRC.

          Source?

          Point made. They were asked to log visitor addresses and activity which previously resided only in RAM. Hardly an Olympian task.
        • venom8599, on 12/19/2007, -0/+4>They were asked to log visitor addresses and activity which previously resided only in RAM

          As far as I know Torrentspy claimed they never maintained logs of their visitors' IP addresses, and if they only resided in RAM previously as per your sentence, there's no way to look back at what was previously in your RAM, because of the volatility of RAM itself.
        • Matt2k, on 12/19/2007, -4/+2> As far as I know Torrentspy claimed they never maintained logs of their visitors' IP addresses

          Ok. That's why they were asked to log it to disk. Thats part of what logging means.
        • venom8599, on 12/19/2007, -0/+5Yeah, but you can't retroactively go back and log things that you didn't previously log. Unless time travel exists now. Does it?

          Instead of logging their US traffic from that point on they did decide to just block IP addresses from the US though, so I can see the judge getting irritated from that, but that's not destroying evidence.
    • spikes, on 12/19/2007, -3/+9Why should I choose to understand laws bought, wrote by and paid for by the very same companies that are doing the suing? Civil disobedience FTW.
    • strictnein, on 12/19/2007, -0/+9If a judge ordered you to log every molecule of air that you breath in order to prove that you aren't smoking pot, would you think this a reasonable request, or that the judge is an idiot?
  • digitallysick, on 12/19/2007, -3/+22I am glad that torrent spy wont give them *****. I love how the courts just bend over and take it in the ass from the mpaa & riaa
    • N3M3515, on 12/19/2007, -1/+8To be fair they are just interpreting the law, they don't make the laws they just have to hand down sentences. The people that have made our great laws like DMCA probably never would have done so if they were not being lobbied and given vast amounts of money. So if you are really looking to point fingers point them at the RIAA, the MPAA, record companies, and the like. Look at foreign countries that dont arent producing much in copy rightable material, they more than likely don't give 2 ***** about creating laws punishing copy right infringers.
      • zongamin, on 12/19/2007, -0/+1Exactly - the court has no right to not enforce a law it doesn't with. What the funk do you think the court will do?
  • Bazhenov, on 12/19/2007, -3/+35The ***** is "Destructing Evidence"?
  • OG1502, on 12/19/2007, -12/+4OMG!!! I was a member. Do they have my IP????
    • rkzda, on 12/19/2007, -3/+6No
    • Dokument, on 12/19/2007, -1/+18Just post your ip on here and ill check for you.
      • OG1502, on 12/19/2007, -11/+1okay. 01.001.00.01
        /sarcasm
      • venom8599, on 12/19/2007, -4/+3Check mine too.
        192.168.254.85


        /sarcasm
      • houndeyex, on 12/19/2007, -1/+19Well mine says 127.0.0.1? Is something wrong?!?! WILL MY INTERNET SLOW DOWN?!?!!!11!eleven
      • floridiot2, on 12/19/2007, -9/+3You retards don't have to put /sarcasm. 192.168 is ***** local IP. WE KNOW.
        • venom8599, on 12/19/2007, -2/+18This is Digg. As soon as I didn't put the /sarcasm tag, some retard would say "192.168.x.x ADDRESSES ARE RESERVED FOR LOCAL USE DUMBASS."
    • 1randomguy08, on 12/19/2007, -0/+1I'm a member too but i'm Australia. AUS FTW
      • allisonaxe, on 12/19/2007, -0/+5ever hear of extraordinary rendition?
    • skyteria, on 12/19/2007, -1/+1x
  • Crisender111, on 12/19/2007, -8/+2Torrentz rule! US shud try takin as many sites down as possible, but we all know more will spawn. Mayb of inferior quality...but the job nonetheless will get done.
  • D3koy, on 12/19/2007, -5/+18What did they destory? A list of numbers, with litle to no significance? OH NOES!
    • uncommonsmoke, on 12/19/2007, -0/+5Well to the courts it's the fact that they destroyed "evidence" not a bunch of numbers but the MPAA doesn't prove ***** with this case anyway, yeah...you guys got them on a technicality but the jurys still out on whether or not what TorrentSpy was doing was illegal or not. BIG WIN! Hope you guys can win every case like this.
  • Abominous, on 12/19/2007, -0/+19The war is not over.
    • ronaldinho, on 12/19/2007, -0/+4You know we will win......there is just too many of us and too many ways to download. And the privacy issue will emerge again, and we do know some judges are smart and savvy enough to be on our side simply on that regard. Unless the MPAA and RIAA find a way to completely infringe on OUR privacy, they can't win completely
  • dtele, on 12/19/2007, -1/+42Interesting and valid point: "This is not the 1970s, where the basic underpinnings and mechanics of technologies were readily understandable by the layman, but require significant knowledge in the technologies involved. Perhaps it is time we had specific courts with jurists who are kept upto date on technological progress, so that justice can be sought, rather than judgments based on which side has the most lyrical attorney.”"

    • staeiou, on 12/19/2007, -2/+3They were ordered by a judge to keep logs when the lawsuit was first filed; TorrentSpy claimed it was impossible. The judge called B.S. and argued that because the user data was stored in the RAM of the server during the course of a session, it could be logged to disk. As much as I disagreed with the MPAA's initial lawsuit, I don't think that this is an issue of a judge misunderstanding the technology.
      And I really don't think I can simultaneously condemn the CIA for destroying evidence of prisoner interrogations when someone starts asking questions while defending TorrentSpy for doing the same thing.
      • darkphenox, on 12/19/2007, -1/+8Ok try logging everything that goes through your ram in a day and see how much data get recorded.
        • madm0nk, on 12/20/2007, -0/+1We have server logs at work that goes back about 3 years. Of course not EVERYTHING is recorded.
      • nastajus, on 12/19/2007, -0/+1keeps logs yes is possible, small easy to manage data, there's capacity. record everything as i believe the judge said occurs in the ram, that's supposed to be impossible given today's average technology.
    • RichLatherX23, on 12/19/2007, -0/+2Intelligent jurists? Bah, if you've got a paying job it all but excuses you from being a jurist when called to duty. Most jurists, from what I am led to understand, are little better than potted plants in the brains department.
  • Felix57, on 12/19/2007, -2/+6i can't wait for the pirate party in the united states hopefully by then torrentspy will be back i liked then
    • whyufail, on 12/19/2007, -1/+8It's here, just in unofficial form. Realizing that any official organization of the pirate party here would result in mass tazings and waterboarding.
  • ninjajaja, on 12/19/2007, -1/+19"and to ensure the privacy of their users"

    You gotta admit it's hard finding that anywhere nowadays
  • deose, on 12/19/2007, -3/+16What ever happened to sealand or whatever it was called. When will Piratebay buy it's own country so we can finally live in peace.
    • ThreeDee912, on 12/19/2007, -1/+10Whatever happened to that $200,000+ that people donated in order to buy Sealand?
  • rebelphoenix, on 12/19/2007, -4/+16when will the MPAA learn that they are fighting a loosing battle?
    • jedediah, on 12/19/2007, -0/+7Maybe when they actually lose a case?
    • zongamin, on 12/19/2007, -2/+6Your interpretation of losing= winning a case?
      I'm really sick of you idiots trying to justify piracy - you know its wrong and the law is NOT going to change. Carry on doing it if you like but don't try to justify it. (Yes I do download torrents but I fully accept that that I am in the wrong in doing so).
    • localzuk, on 12/19/2007, -1/+4losing...
    • blademanx, on 12/19/2007, -0/+2When you learn how to spell losing?
    • RichLatherX23, on 12/19/2007, -0/+1And all this time I thought the MPAA was fighting a tightening battle!
  • jumblies, on 12/19/2007, -3/+7Summary judgement without any presentation of evidence or testimony? Is this really how the great Americka operates? LOL. You're right, they must hate you for your freedoms. LOL.
    • nealpolitan, on 12/19/2007, -5/+1Idiotic statements without understanding what you're commenting on? Is this really how the internet operates? LOL.
  • CaviMike, on 12/19/2007, -1/+3The last sentence is the only important one

    dot dot dot
  • skinturtle, on 12/19/2007, -3/+5Why doesn't someone just go and grab one of these mpaa guys and punch them in the face?
  • clpo13, on 12/19/2007, -19/+6Anyone who thinks that downloading music is a right...should be shot. Seriously. I don't care if you do it, but don't claim that you should be able to without any repercussions. That's like saying "I'm hungry, so I should be able to rob all the pizza places I want!"

    Torrents = lame.
    • Uranium118, on 12/19/2007, -3/+8theft ≠ alleged copyright infringement, etc, etc...
      • tlgjames, on 12/19/2007, -6/+3How is it not the same thing? Just because there aren't material goods being stolen, it's the same damn thing and (most) judges aren't retarded. As much as I'd like to see the MPAA and RIAA rot and burn, it just isn't going to happen.
        • roodammy44, on 12/19/2007, -3/+3It's not the same thing because making a copy of something for no cost isn't the same of depriving someone of their property.
          If you want to argue that we're profiting off someone else's work which they don't receive as much money for - that's exactly what our employers and landlords do everyday and I don't hear many people complaining.
          Besides - some true artists create music and video because they enjoy it, not for the money
          • tlgjames, on 12/19/2007, -2/+1Listen, I'm not saying that it doesn't happen elsewhere, but millions of people downloading albums are going to hurt their sales, irregardless if they are going to buy the album or not. I would love if they would actually attempt to fight this buy lowering album prices to realistic levels, but all they are doing is scaring the consumer out of downloading their crap.
        • madm0nk, on 12/20/2007, -0/+1..... wrong article oops
      • brandon215, on 12/19/2007, -0/+2 Uranium118..theft ≠ alleged copyright infringement, etc, etc...

        Right and you still believe in Santa Claus as well?
    • joshuaer, on 12/19/2007, -9/+5WOW the only other person on digg with the same views as me, Now i am not saying i have never downloaded a song from limewire or a torrent but at the same time I new it was stealing. I just can not wait to see what happens when the wild west days of the internet get shutdown.
      Torrents, youtube, 5min video and others like them are all breaking laws and sooner or later they will all get hit hard.
      • nextyoyoma, on 12/19/2007, -3/+8copyright infringement is not a crime, it is a civil matter...
      • joshuaer, on 12/19/2007, -1/+2really have you ever watched a movie at home what is that thing at the start that says

        FBI warning and talks about jail time!!
    • tatinthehat, on 12/19/2007, -2/+5@ Uranium
      Right. Theft != copyright infringement. THEFT = THEFT however.

      Seeders and leechers should know the risks to downloading torrents. Don't act suprised if you're seeding millions of music/MPAA torrents and suddenly the RIAA/MPAA a lawsuit (albeit usually a ridiculous one) down your throat.
    • CaptMonkey, on 12/19/2007, -3/+4No, it's not the same as stealing. Stealing deprives someone of material. When I use my own material (in the form of electricity and drive space in this case) to reconstruct something, no stealing is occurring. Copying is going on, but that's completely different than stealing. It would be the same as if I had the means to build a car on my own that is exactly like a brand new car made by a major automotive company. It would be ridiculous to consider that stealing, just as it's ridiculous to consider downloading music/movies stealing.
      • joshuaer, on 12/19/2007, -1/+3So by following your method no one should every have to pay for music, Movies, Cable TV, eBooks, Video games, Software and porn as long as it is digital it is ok.

        Your idea of building a car would violate many patents, trade marks and other things that are copy righted.
      • brandon215, on 12/19/2007, -1/+2Dude put the pipe down, you have had too much.
    • ronaldinho, on 12/19/2007, -0/+4innocent until proven guilty, and their way of proving it is often sketchy and unconvincing in the first place
    • s0nicfreak, on 12/19/2007, -1/+1It's more like you have a pizza, and your friend is hungry, but there's a law against giving him a slice of yours; he has to buy his own.
    • brandon215, on 12/19/2007, -0/+2Right on man. Its cool that you were honest in the face of an unpopular position. Downloading is stealing.
  • drakethegreat, on 12/19/2007, -0/+3Does this really matter? I thought Torrent spy was based in Canada so this really doesn't matter or am I missing something?
  • RbLcK, on 12/19/2007, -2/+1I hope the pirate bay takes them under their wing.
  • Mistlefoot, on 12/19/2007, -2/+0So basically they have been found "guilty" without a trial because they have destroyed logs from their servers. I thought they were maybe using Bush and Cheney as examples. But then this might not be a very good example because the email that Cheney destroyed were required by law. I've yet to see a law that indicates you must keep server logs of people who visit your website.
  • drunkenoaf, on 12/19/2007, -0/+1What the hell is "destructing". Is that the opposite of "instructing"? Or perhaps they meant "destroying". Or am I missing a commonly used US-English word because I speak English-English?
    • Haecceity, on 12/19/2007, -0/+1Nope, just common or garden illiteracy.
  • shinigami052, on 12/19/2007, -0/+2This is the most blatant and obvious example that the court systems, lawyers and judges are out of date. Use some technical jargon, and make the judges see what you want to see and you'll dance circles around these judges and finally win. This is the tactic the RIAA and MPAA are using to exploit our out of date court system.
    • solid12345, on 12/19/2007, -0/+1This has nothing to do with jargon, torrentspy was deleting forum threads, file listings and all sorts of evidence.
  • Cambo, on 12/19/2007, -2/+7so mr Kevin Rose when are we getting a digg torrent section :P *joke
  • OceanSoul619, on 12/19/2007, -1/+3The underground is always 3 steps ahead of idiotic law enforcement(read: fat cat protectors). We are already far into the next step beyond torrent.
    • striker1211, on 12/19/2007, -1/+1shhhhh! Now they might find out about Napsterer....
  • captaindh00m, on 12/19/2007, -1/+9when I see things like this it makes me want to start pirating and defecating on anything they "protect"
  • weightman, on 12/19/2007, -0/+3Wait, they deleted infringing torrents/threads, and thats bad? So, they are supposed to keep infringing material available to the public? Thats what they want? I'm confused now.
  • brandon215, on 12/19/2007, -2/+2A loss for all of the music theives. How will all the diggers spin this one as a win?
  • omgitsmit, on 12/19/2007, -1/+3The MPAA has *NOT* won this case yet.

    Buried for misleading title...
  • solid12345, on 12/19/2007, -1/+3The law is the law. Enron and Worldcom went down for shredding documents, what makes torrentspy immune from such thing?

    If anything I would respect them more if they did come to court and showed them everything instead of trying the weasely route which is no better than what the MPAA does.
    • nutsakharry, on 12/19/2007, -2/+1uh, Enron and Worldcom were responsible for billions of other peoples' dollars. that's the difference, dumbass.
  • cocacola39, on 12/19/2007, -1/+0***** the MPAA.
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.