What is Digg?Sponsored by Activision
Band Hero view!
guitarhero.com - The biggest event music event of the year is now in your living room.
127 Comments
- macbwizard, on 10/11/2007, -5/+166In the famous words of admiral ackbar.. IT'S A TRAP
- acu8509, on 10/11/2007, -5/+140Anyone else getting memories of Suprnova?
- h4mx0r, on 10/11/2007, -0/+78*wipes a tear*
We will always remember you in our hearts, suprnova. - 4DFX, on 10/11/2007, -1/+73Ah yes... Suprnova :)
Remember what happened after they closed it?
Hundereds of new torrent sites appeared. I wonder when MPAA/RIAA/etc will lean their lesson. - xerus, on 10/11/2007, -12/+73The WHISTLES go WOO WOOOOO
- ThreeDee912, on 10/11/2007, -2/+63For the paranoid, I used Tor to access TorrentSpy. Here's the announcement:
"Hello Friends of TorrentSpy,
This message is to inform you about recent efforts by the motion picture studios to shut down TorrentSpy. As you may know, in February 2006 the major movie studios and their Washington lobby, the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA), filed a lawsuit against TorrentSpy and other search engines.
We guess that hiring hackers and turning a blind eye to identity theft is not enough for the movie studios and the MPAA. Now they want to know who you are, what you search for, and what you download. In short, it is the view of the movie studios that websites should not allow anonymous use and your activity on the Internet - anywhere - is their business.
The really scarry thing is that if we lose this court battle, the movie studios will be able to go after any search engine or website and force them to collect data about YOU. It is not an exaggeration to say that losing this fight is a nail in the Internet's coffin.
We have spent the last year challenging their relentless campaign against the 1st Amendment and personal privacy laws Worldwide. We have succeeded in delaying the court order to turn on logs while we appeal it. TorrentSpy will not create logs of what you do on the site without your consent.
While we use Google Analytics for website statistics, TorrentSpy servers have never tracked your IP Address, the searches you make, or how you use the site. We are dedicated to your privacy and we are fighting for your rights!" - Genjeta, on 10/11/2007, -6/+56Even if its safe for now, you know the MPAA/RIAA is after users on torrentspy, so it still doesn't seem worth the risk to use that site.
- inactive, on 10/11/2007, -1/+41these aren't the logs you are looking for.
- steven401, on 10/11/2007, -3/+42@gamebittk
Torrentz is just an index like Google that crawls other torrent sites (for example, TorrentSpy) and just links to them to download. - samsite, on 10/11/2007, -2/+38i for one am glad that there not just folding. the have served a lot of people very well and i hope they continue
- holyskeleton, on 10/11/2007, -2/+38***** THE MPAA.
- thrallie, on 10/11/2007, -7/+39Geez...that brought back some memories. I was pretty young I think. I almost cried when it went down, and I still miss it. Even though I am part of many private trackers suprnova was something special.
- excaza, on 10/11/2007, -1/+32Explain to me how that's sticking it to the MPAA?
- Cabose, on 10/11/2007, -2/+29Ive moved on from torrentspy, but I still like what they are and what they stand for. I hope this whole thing works out and people dont get raped by the MPAA
- dhulser, on 10/11/2007, -4/+30@realitycheque
actually yeah, here's a Demonoid Key (make sure to use it before anyone else!)
09F9-1102-9D74-E35B-D841-56C5-6356-88C0 - championchap, on 10/11/2007, -1/+25@dakilla91 (#7112873)
Because obviously the MPAA monitor EVERY TORRENT DOWNLOAD EVAAR!
You know, even ones titled "***** DA MPAA LOL :P" and even Linux distrobutions.
This would ***** them right off, sign me up!! - Iconwolf, on 10/11/2007, -0/+23Let's flipped that around just a tad bit and look at an organization like Soundexchange, will has procurred for themselves a "legal" license to collect royalty revenue from ALL artist, members and nonmembers alike, without the permission of even nonmembers, whether those people want them to or not. and they get to collect "administrative fees" on top of this.
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070430/013922.shtml
Now THIS is a case of REAL copyright infringement. An organization is actually MAKING MONEY off of copyright holder's works whether those copyright holders want them to or not, which is far more "criminal" than the chance someone might be deprived of some income here or there, and is the REAL PURPOSE than copyright was intended to PREVENT (sigh, I still wish Digg would at least enable italics and bold tags, it doesn't seem so hard a lot of other sites do it, and this "shouting" to emphasis a point looks gay).
Furthermore, in order to collect the money this agency has collected in your name, you have to join their organization and *pay a fee/dues*. And if you don't wish to join, they get to KEEP YOUR MONEY. I actually know a few bands who've discussed suing them for this, but they all said it's not a serious consideration because they simply lack the financial resources to do so.
And while we're on Soundexchange let's look at their recent (successful effort) to drastically increase webcaster/internet radio royalty rates (which is not surprisingly, what the RIAA created and spun them off to collect, and which, equally unsurprisingly, will profit even more highly from). Of course there are effort to pass a bill rescinding those increases and the RIAA spin on this is it will hurt artist drastically:
http://www.soundexchange.com/documents/Press%20Release%20on%20Wyden%20Brownback%20FINAL.pdf
The claim is this is nothing but a money grab by large companies like Clear Channel and AOL, who will benefit by at least $100 million over the next several years. That's fair as far as it goes, but let's take another viewpoint.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/4/22/174145/144
The contrary argument is that if allowed to stand, the rates will drive the small braodcaster out of business. The larger networks will have to pay more, but a lot of traffic from the smaller operators that were driven out of business will flow their way which they can find ways to monetize to compensate for at least some of their loses,
This doesn't really help the smaller artist, who often still own their own copyrights, or the smaller labels, because it's these smaller broadcasters they rely on for airplay. The larger companies, most especially Clearchannel, have a well documented history of playing largely "mainstream"/major label artists (not the least of which because the major labels have an equally well documented history of payola to predominantly play those label's artists). the smaller artists and labels lose the revenue from airplay for the smaller broadcaster going out of business, and they lose the exposure those stations offered.
But the major label artists would benefit right? Not really, because most of them have had to relinquish their copyright to the major labels and they will only receive a small part of those increases. It's the major labels themselves who reap the profit windfalls. Meanwhile the smaller artists and labels will largely suffer financially, and even those who do manage to gains some benefit still have to go through Soundexchange (and I can't be sure, but I'm more than willing to bet one or more of the major labels have some form of financial stake in Soundexchange) to get their money, and many of those artists will feel increasing pressure to join a major label (and relinquish their copyrights in turn) in an effort to compete in the marketplace.
So let's see, we have organizations who (among other things);
1) Actually make money and profit off the copyright works of others whether those copyright owners want them to or not which is clearly a violation of the original purpose of copyright law (although it's perfectly "legal")
2) Commit actual crimes by hiring hackers and stealing personal data, even of people who've done nothing wrong, in the pursuit of *possible* crimes.
3) Find "legal" method for preventing honest competition.
Forgive me if I have a hard time taking anything they say all that seriously. I see a lot of rhetoric and "flag waving' from them, but very little in the way of hard data to support their claims and most of what little I do I find vastly skewed and generally easily refuted. By contrast I've seen plenty of "evidence" and hard data that refutes or invalidates most of the industries claims. In fact, five or six years ago I was very much against file sharing (I still largely am for some of the more improper uses) and a strong supporter of the RIAA and others in the entertainment industry. But over the last five or six years I've simply seen too much evidence/data to continue to support such claims. If the RIAA/MPAA want to make an active supporter out of me again they better come up with some damn compelling reasons, because so far I've seen *****. - mikemil828, on 10/11/2007, -3/+24@genjeta
The RIAA/MPAA have been after ALL bittorrent users, not just the ones who use TorrentSpy, don't kid yourself over thinking that one torrent tracker is safer than another, because all but the most private trackers are just as risky. If you really want to download something that would get on copyright owners nerves. Probably the less risky solution is to use usenet - Dumbledorito, on 10/11/2007, -1/+22This is just a guess but: Money?
- feenikz4180, on 10/11/2007, -3/+23I digress but anyone else wonder how torrentspy started off as a 'work-safe' site and now I scram to block all those babeland ads.
- Dumbledorito, on 10/11/2007, -0/+20Not only for this, but especially for their rating system.
- compgeek, on 10/11/2007, -1/+16dugg in support of torrentspy winning their case. no one can force them to log anything if they do not choose to and if they have no logs then what is the government going to do? create random logs and try to go after random people? I'd love to see them try. I live in Canada and just a few weeks ago got an email from the RIAA and MPAA telling me to stop downloading music to which I politely responded I live in Canada what I'm doing is legal here and you have no jurisdiction outside your own borders ***** you and have a nice day lol
- Dpack1, on 10/11/2007, -2/+16actorboy, by your reckoning we should ban guns, they cause murders, we should ban cars, they cause people to speed, lets ban alcohol cos thats a big cause of a lot of crimes, we can then ban matches and lighters cos they're aiding and abetting arsonists.... whats next, banning pens and pencils cos they cause spelling mistakes and pretty soon we'll make it illegal to talk in public because with a voice you might be able to spout verbal abuse at someone...
Give me a break. - RealityCheque, on 10/11/2007, -0/+13Thanks a lot! Unfortunately, I didn't see it first. I appreciate it though :)
- actorboy, on 10/11/2007, -2/+14Anyone remember punctuation?
- Iconwolf, on 10/11/2007, -2/+12"Don't they mean identity "infringement"?"
No they meant what they said. Committing a crime and stealing personal data, even in the pursuit of *possible* crimes, is still a crime. The entertainment industry claims "theft" is theft, no matter what. Their argument that the commission of a crime for the "greater good" is exactly the same argument as the people who improperly pilfer music.
If the industry wants to follow a policy, they need to be consistent in that policy and not change it whenever it suits there whims. Hell their Soundexchange organization is far more guilty of ACTUAL copyright infringement than any file sharer ever will be.
Edit: blah it went to the wrong spot - unobserved, on 10/11/2007, -1/+10"It is not an exaggeration to say that losing this fight is a nail in the Internet's coffin."
I think that's the very definition of exaggeration. - Electrobomb, on 10/11/2007, -5/+14I'm sure that multi-million dollar recording companies don't have any problems keeping themselves well-fed or paying the rent. The artists who don't get crap-for-pay either way though...
- Grouser, on 10/11/2007, -0/+8@actorboy: There are two separate issues here. First, can MPAA enforce its copyrights in court by forcing a Dutch company to log user information.
Second, can MPAA use backdoor tactics like hiring hackers to break into email accounts, or hiring private investigators to use pretexts (claiming they are someone else) to get telephone, social security, and financial records.
I can understand that, as a person whose income depends upon copyright, you'd be in support of the first issue, but surely you oppose the second? - jeremymccurdy, on 10/11/2007, -2/+10Er, it's not legal to download music in Canada, we have copyright laws too. The thing here is that the RIAA and MPAA can't enforce American copyright law in Canada, or any other country, at least not without a lot of legal mumbo jumbo and that's pretty hard to do when our government usually respects people's privacy.
- feenikz4180, on 10/11/2007, -0/+7ye well.. I guess Porn Pays.
- inactive, on 10/11/2007, -0/+6Torrentspy wants me to allow 7 websites to access my browser. Websites that torrentspy wants me to allow include google-analytics, falkag, and adbrite. Torrentspy also wants me to allow a cookie from torrentspy (fine) and modchipstore (the longest lived one expires 7/10/07). These are the defenders of my privacy?
- akinder, on 10/11/2007, -1/+7Holy crap, someone on digg that doesn't think they should have the right to steal from others. It's a Christmas miracle.
- excaza, on 10/11/2007, -0/+6sites cost money to run, and it's a pretty good guess that people who don't bother paying for their media won't help pay to keep a torrent index up
- feenikz4180, on 10/11/2007, -2/+8Looks like the re-enactment of the Suprnova episode.
- shinynew, on 10/11/2007, -1/+6@nerfdude
thats only in the mor'en. - Wetzilla, on 10/11/2007, -3/+8It's like an alarm clock.
- linkinpark342, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4@skyshock1
As long as you are restricting the use of Tor to download the .torrent files and you disable it for he actual torrents... - Piedro85, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4Maybe, maybe not. Internet freedom is not something we should take for granted.
- LordZaos, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4inertesting... did you know that 99% of those people that you say "need those revenues" are not the artists that create them. they dont even OWN the material anymore. The production company does and still holds the rights to that intellectual property. Name me an artist that hasnt been exploited and changed by thier production company. the only way you can get around that is if you produce your own music/movie/whatever and sell it directly to the public.
- BAMAToNE, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4The least they could do is spell the word "scary" correctly.
- jeremymccurdy, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4And unwarranted invasion of privacy IS okay? The whole issue is a two way street.
- drakethegreat, on 10/11/2007, -1/+5@thrallie
How old are you now? Supernova wasn't that long ago in the history of P2P... - jeremymccurdy, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4They aren't defenders of privacy, they're trying to save face so that they'll still be able to make a profit if they win in court, maybe even a larger profit since they'll come out like heroes to some bittorrent users.
- inactive, on 10/11/2007, -1/+4depends on the source. if you get these off of torrents then they will most probably be safe otherwise the torrents will be reported and taken down. If you are a dumbass and go to those crack site then you will get *****. Also Sandboxie bitchs. Allows you to run any app in windows under Sand box mode that prevents the app from physically accessing the content of your hard drive.
- jesstech, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3^^^ SUPREME.
- ar17452000, on 10/11/2007, -1/+4Anyone remember Lokitorrent oh yeah were here to help we fight for you guys give us money then they just appear one day with the MPAA logo on there site with that illegal downloading crap, whats this world coming to when you cant trust your BT sites
- jeremymccurdy, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2I'm not saying every keygen is made by a saint, but you're trying to make it sound as if every person or group that made one is really just trying to get your personal info. That's not the case, and showing video of someone downloading a fake keygen from a non-torrent site doesn't prove your point.
- nationalist, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2the judge would probably be impeached if that were true
- tehWyman, on 08/19/2009, -0/+2Unknowning to everyone: In the lawsuit, there was a clause that stated torrentspy had to post a message saying that they don't keep logs to keep the public in the dark that they were actually keeping logs. [/joke]
-
Show 51 - 100 of 131 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is