IMAGiNE BitTorrent Piracy Group Indicted, Face Years In Prison

enigmax
April 26, 2012
170
IMAGiNE,
UnleashTheNet
Print

After being busted last year following an ICE Homeland Security investigation, four alleged members of the movie release group IMAGiNE have now been indicted. The defendants, all US residents aged between 27 and 57 years old, face up to five years in prison for criminal copyright infringement. Rumors persist that they were led to the slaughter by a rival release group with a grudge.

During September 2011, TorrentFreak was tipped off that IMAGiNE, one of the Internet’s leading BitTorrent release groups, had been busted by the authorities following an Immigration and Customs Enforcement investigation.

The year before IMAGiNE had launched their own private BitTorrent tracker that failed massively in its quest to stay under the radar. The site, UnleashTheNet (also known by its acronym UtN) attracted plenty of attention and it now appears it was the group’s Achilles’ heel.

As revealed by an indictment returned on April 18, 2012, and unsealed yesterday, four individuals have now been charged in the Eastern District of Virginia for their alleged roles in IMAGiNE.

Jeramiah Perkins, 39, of Portsmouth, Va., Gregory Cherwonik, 53, of New York, Willie Lambert, 57, of Pennsylvania, and Sean Lovelady, 27, of California, are all charged with one count of conspiracy to commit criminal copyright infringement and two counts of criminal copyright infringement.

Perkins, Cherwonik and Lambert are charged with two additional counts of criminal copyright infringement, and Perkins and Cherwonik are charged with a sixth count of criminal copyright infringement of a work being prepared for commercial distribution.

The indictment lists several movie titles that were reproduced, distributed and seeded on BitTorrent prior to the U.S. DVD release data including “The Green Hornet,” “The Chronicles of Narnia: The Voyage of the Dawn Treader” and “Yogi Bear.” All films carried the group’s “IMAGiNE” tag.

According to the announcement from Assistant Attorney General Lanny Breuer of the Justice Department’s Criminal Division, U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia Neil MacBride and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) Director John Morton, Perkins, Cherwonik and Lambert were arrested Monday. Lovelady reported to the authorities yesterday.

“These four defendants are charged with serious intellectual property crimes. Through IMAGiNE, they allegedly sought to become the leading source of pirated movies on the Internet,” said Assistant Attorney General Breuer.

“This Justice Department, working with our partners at ICE, has made fighting intellectual property crime a top priority, and we will continue to bring cases against individuals and entities devoted to cheating consumers and undermining artistic pursuits.”

Given the claims in the indictment and how the group’s activities are being portrayed, the IMAGiNE defendants are in serious trouble. First, it quite rightly points out that between 2009 and September 2011, IMAGiNE obtained video and audio for the latest movies from different sources, combined them, and then released them online.

But then, presumably because of their involvement with the UtN tracker, they are blamed for the subsequent infringing actions of UtN members. According to the indictment the four are responsible for the reproduction and distribution of “tens of thousands of illegal copies of copyrighted works.”

The maximum prison sentence for conspiracy to commit criminal copyright infringement and for each count of criminal copyright infringement is five years in prison. All four defendants are scheduled to be arraigned on May 9, 2012.

As reported by TorrentFreak last year, rumors persist that IMAGiNE were led to the slaughter by a rival group with a grudge.

Previous Post | Next Post

Follow @torrentfreak

ThaMessiah

Ouch, well that blows.
- The Prophet
  
  You got that right. They will be the ones doing the blowing in prison. Hope they have a tough time in prison, they deserve it.
  - Under The Bridge
    
    Aaarrrrg…. must… not… feed… the… troll…
    
    phew, that was tough!
    - Castaneda
      
      like Edward replied I àm surprised thàt a mom càn eàrn $5895 in à few wēēks on the intērnēt. have you reàd this site..G00Glservc.notlong.com
    - Over The Hill
      
      ”“This Justice Department, working with our partners at ICE, has made
      fighting intellectual property crime a top priority”
      
      So he’s basically saying murder, rape, and a dozen other far more serious crimes are no longer the top priority I guess. It would be interesting to do a study of the type and number of arrests before and after file sharing came into being. I’m betting we’d see a decline in one set and at the same time an increase in the other. Good to know the government feels imaginary property and industry profits are more important than protecting the masses from the true evil out there.
    - harry krishna
      
      castenada, you are so bold. we know how your mom picks up spare change. here’s a flag for you
    - kAnoky
      
      Are we talking about the prophets comment?
    - http://profiles.google.com/zerianis10 Christopher Kidwell
      
      With all due respect, Over The Hill, you cannot prevent murder, rape, etc.
      
      So, making them a ‘priority’ is not going to do anything. The only thing that you can do is to investigate these crimes when they happen in order to arrest the people who do these crimes.
      
      Doesn’t make what they are doing here anymore acceptable.
    - CLL
      
      Yeah, indeed, I’m with you, Over The Hill. If they put this sort of effort behind actually trying to stop the flow of the more dangerous drugs (cocaine, meth, and the like) that flow into the US through various borders that they are putting toward fighting filesharing, imagine the good they could do.
      
      I guess that they prefer easy targets, and really don’t care about the health of the population. Not that this is really any surprise.
    - Over The Hill
      
      @ Christopher Kidwell: All I did was point out how the priorities of the justice system seem to be very screwed up and that there might be a correlation worth studying. But if you want to talk about prevention, I’ll have to point out you’re wrong in saying it can’t be done. I’m kind of surprised you didn’t follow your own logic a bit further actually. It seems pretty obvious that if you catch a predator and take him/her off the street, they can’t re-offend. And trust me when I say murderers/rapists/thieves/etc do most certainly re-offend. Prison, at least here in Canada, is supposed to be about rehabilitation. Despite that fact the majority of criminals whom get released end up right back in prison. My spouse, whose job is about to be lost thanks to those cutbacks just announced (not at all happy about that), has worked in a prison for a little over 18 years now. Thus I have firsthand knowledge on just how bad the so called revolving door can be. Anyways I guess what I was trying to get across is that resources are limited, and if the government is going to begin putting a higher priority on what barely constitutes civil disobedience, little alone criminal act, then that will inevitably siphon away resources from areas which really should be a higher priority than file sharing. The statement I previously quoted is certainly worrisome in light of that fact.
    - Anonymous
      
      just as Julia replied I am amazed that anyone can profit $7840 in one month on the internet. did you read this website>>> http://toearnusd.weebly.com
    - Anonymous
      
      just as Dawn replied I’m taken by surprise that a person able to get paid $8937 in 1 month on the computer. have you read this link http://tomakeusd.blogspot.in/
    - Anonymous
      
      just as Deborah said I am shocked that a stay at home mom able to profit $8114 in 4 weeks on the computer. have you read this page ==>> http://earn2usd.blogspot.com
  - Jmorse43508
    
    OBVIOUS TROLL IS OBVIOUS.
    
    Move along folks, nothing to see here…
    - Hugh Jass
      
      I’ve known one or two stay at home moms to earn more than that in 4 weeks giving matress rides. Don’t even need a computer for that.
- Anonymous
  
  what Louis answered I can’t believe that a person able to earn $9928 in a few weeks on the internet. have you read this web site ^^^ http://getyouralldesires.blogspot.com
- Killer
  
  And how much will I get if I kill Dod?
  - DannyUfonek
    
    *Dodd
    Watch out so you don’t miss
  - Anarchist
    
    http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Bell
    
    It’s only a matter of time before Internet = government.
  - Anon
    
    Probably less than if you pirate one of his movies.
- Laika
  
  These sound like great people. Their title on the site as shown above says “we the people want more”. Its a political statement and a consumer/people statement. Now mafiaa, instead of pissing on consumers like u love to do, couldn’t u at least said “hmm, look here, these people here (our customers) want more, how can we deliver more? Instead of, my cunts so dry its got cobwebs, lets hang these consumers of ours out to dry. Now whose got the bad attitude? Is it the consumers or mafiaa? I’ll let u decide….
  - asdf
    
    If Chris Dodd repeats ten thousand times that the MAFIAA are the good guys and will defeat all evil, then it will happen!
- Anonymous
  
  what Kyle said I am taken by surprise that a single mom able to get paid $7321 in four weeks on the computer. did you see this web link>>> http://toearnusd.weebly.com
- Anarket
  
  Shoot, I miss aXXo. He/She/They had the best movies.
- http://profile.yahoo.com/ZH3IFCBTGRQYNVBM62NIW3PWAM Kristin
  
  as Christine answered I didnt even know that someone can get paid $4858 in 4 weeks on the internet. did you look at this page (Click on menu Home more information) http://goo.gl/hEkGd
Wakeupstupid

Whats the name of the rival release group. Its pretty bad when people from you own file sharing community throw you under the bus. There is a bigger picture, and that is fighting all these anti file sharing groups that impose regulations to destroy our internet.
- Anonymous
  
  That would be EP1C who had their leader declare War on IMAGINE. Yes it is very low like two people robbing a jewellery store and one turning in the other for being an armed robber!
  
  One thing I am sure of is that IMAGINE were a much larger organization than these few defendants. The work involved to do that is VAST and no way could a handful of people manage that alone.
  
  As to EP1C then a quick search highlights that they never released that much.
  - http://pulse.yahoo.com/_IZ5BM5GNLA54OADSWGSXAMA7SY Jay
    
    So instead of a drug war, we have an intellectual property war…
    
    Beautiful…
    - Anonymous
      
      Make no mistake, there is still a huge drug war going on that will never end it seems. Now we just have one extra war to waste money on.
    - asdf
      
      The drug war is as imaginary as the IP war.
http://twitter.com/p2jack Jack

hmm.. shit..
Anonymous

if the rumour of being set up by a rival group is true and it was ever discovered which group or member of that group did the deed, i wouldn’t give much for their chances of survival in the sharing game. funny ol’ lot, the file sharing community.

had the entertainment industries took notice of what customers wanted, this situation probably would never have arisen. more important to them to get people locked up than give what is wanted. the supposed losses have never been an issue, other than to convince stupid politicians that stricter copyright laws are needed!
- Anon
  
  “had the entertainment industries took notice of what customers wanted, this situation probably would never have arisen.”
  
  Oh no, didn’t you read what Assistant Attorney General Breuer said? “This Justice Department, working with our partners at ICE, has made
  fighting intellectual property crime a top priority, and we will
  continue to bring cases against individuals and entities devoted to
  cheating consumers”, see? This about protecting consumers from those dastardly pirates who are trying to cheat them… by giving the content away for free… Poor consumers, getting cheated with free stuff.
  - A Cheap-ass bastard
    
    If it is free…… Who’s cheating who?
    - Danny
      
      (that’s what he’s getting at)
Former Scene Member

having dealt with ICE and DoJ with regards to similar issues – they will have used an insider it’s how they work.
- Anonymous
  
  And knowing how the scene works that insider would have been just as much a pirate as everyone else there. Those that are not productive are soon expelled.
  
  So thanks DoJ/ICE for bringing us infringing movies during your own hard work.
  - RIAAtarded
    
    IMAGiNE isn’t a scene group they are p2p along with EPiC just to clarify m8. I’d suspect the insider was within the latter EPiC popped up out of nowhere with very high quality audio which was very suspicious before starting their own encodes. As a result of the quality they were in bed with a lot of p2p groups supplying it. They had interaction so it would make it easier to track the end users involved. Also not surprised this happened doing all those encodes plus running a torrent site is just a bad idea they gave ICE a static target to go after. Then you got the paid VIP levels on site, selling FTP slots, etc you’re earning money off it so there is strike 2. All 4 members being in the USA is just a bonus at this point they’ve set precedent with ninjavideo and these charges look even more sinister which makes sense with them doing the actual encoding. Either way I wish them the best of luck but knowing how corrupt the system is I’d suggest they take any monies they might have made and invest in some MMA training to avoid prison rape over the next 5 years.
- Distrust
  
  wait. u been busted and u on here trying to get us all busted too? bye bye evry1 :P
I Will

EP1C was the rival group.
- Anonymous
  
  Which has also been known as Illumanati also know 26k
  - spot
    
    you know nothing then. Illuminati and 26k have absolutely nothing to do with EP1C, no connections what so ever. Get your facts straight before you try to call names out.
    - Anonymous
      
      you mean aftermath and mem100 ya dickheads cuz i too was led me to slaughter aswell so I guess you really know them then thats how i know its was illuminati which have now broken off to form 26k ya’ll no nothing or do you see indictment
  - anonymous
    
    Illumanati and 26k are both 2 diff group nothing to do with imagine i know both group members
    - Anonymous
      
      the members that form 26k are a branch from illuminati if you need to know the exact rat thats wandering leech from me waiting for the next to betray is no one other than AFTERMATH who is still a member of 26k but was working with illuminati also members from DTRG along with MISTERE so STFU if you dont know whats was happening among the groups dont speak or do ya’ll need more details to time frames of the set up to snitch a cammer from the group
  - Tru_freak
    
    No EP1C is know as digital ink and ink a few others the rat is Digital Ink.
Former Scene Member

oh and now the undignified scramble to see which of them can cut a deal for ratting out the others first … nice legal system America!
Lulz

lol
Mad Cotto

fucking pisstake they could get longer than the dick that almost killed me children’s mother
- Ouch
  
  A long dick nearly killed your childrens mother? Quit showing off.
  - Danny
    
    It was actually my dick!
Guest

How are the prosecution going to prove the four are responsible for the reproduction and distribution of “tens of thousands of illegal copies of copyrighted works.” ?

Firstly that is just a thumbsuck number which the court should not take as fact.

Secondly if for example a seeder ends with a ratio of 10:1, it means he has uploaded content only 10 times, a seeder cannot be held responsible for the actions of another person who decides to seed himself.
- Yarana
  
  Its because they operated a tracker, which is not illegal but in mafiaa’s world, and the us govt who suck mafiaas dick and give it a salad bowl, it is.
  - MelvinMeow
    
    The tracker was not illegal.
    However, they were selling VIP access to new films.
    Which makes it a money maker in the eyes of the law.
    While 2 or 3 of the people of the 4 total weren’t making any money.
    The 1 that was puts the rest at fault.
    - lol
      
      we all know who that 1 was….
- http://twitter.com/Mathew30 Mathew Lisett
  
  it all starts in the interview room, they try to gain who did what and what has been found on each persons systems. then a case of trying to find who did what on the site, then in court placing blame of certain things on each person, and by that its random guessing and up to a good lawyer to rubbish it and seeing if the judge can see through the crap. who ever is charged with distribution, that’s about £200k per title going by all other cases, and if none of them have previous records they may get away with a massive fine etc and no jail term. But as before its all to do with the information they gain from each system and each person to make the cases viable.
  - MelvinMeow
    
    In this particular case cherwonk would be screwed based on the fact he had previously been caught several times prior.
- MelvinMeow
  
  They can count up all the other releases that used their source.
  AKA encoded from Imagines release and labeled as Bobs Release, Larry’s release.. etc..
  Most p2p groups list the original source so could be linked back to them just reading former releases nfo files.
URM0M

snicthes belong in ditches, so let hope they dont rat anyone else out or we all gonna be in trouble
Ty Mitty

I wonder who the mole was?? I remember they changed the trackers name/IP a few times due to the rival bickering. That’s low of EP1C if they did indeed do this… .. . .
anon

I do remember iNK/EP1C taking claim and saying that he had done it, since they called him a snitch he did snitch but this had happened with a few groups and people all surrounding the same people so basically they have all been dealing with a snitch back to some years ago
Guest

The gulf between the Justice Department and reality is stunning.In the DoJ’s out of touch world, being or seeking to become the leading source of pirated movies on the internet is a horrific crime punishable by up to 5 years in prison.Meanwhile in the real world, it’s like, so what? IMAGiNE wanted to be the no. 1 source for pirated movies? Okay. What’s the problem? Who cares? Piracy has turned into a normal everyday fixture of life. The last time the law attempted to restrict a normal everyday fixture of life was prohibition. How well did that work out? The more the industry and its cronies in the DoJ and elsewhere struggle to ban a fixture of life, the less relevent the industry and its cronies become to people, and the further they push copyright laws to the point of being abolished because they’re just so utterly futile – like prohibition was. You can’t stop the tide. Not even with all the bribes in the world.
- Guest
  
  Oh hey, Disqus, thanks for getting rid of my paragraphs. I really didn’t want them. Thanks. You’re a great comment platform. No, not sucky at all. Really.
  - Danny
    
    Get a decent browser!
    
    Works fine in FF or Chrome here!
    - http://profiles.google.com/zerianis10 Christopher Kidwell
      
      Agreed. Never had any problems with having paragraphs appear correctly EXCEPT when I used IE to try to comment.
      
      For some reason, IE deletes the paragraphs.
- Long Term Lag
  
  It’s worse than that – “The maximum prison sentence for conspiracy to commit criminal copyright
  infringement and for EACH COUNT of criminal copyright infringement is
  five years in prison.”
  
  I read that as they all face up to 5 years for the conspiracy to commit charge, then an additional 5 years per extra infringement. So Perkins and Cherwonik facing 4 charges each could face up to 20 years. Or am I getting the wrong end of the stick there?
  
  Oh and unfortunately the real world isn’t as accepting as you seem to think I’m afraid.
  - Guest
    
    Did you see how these officials are constantly violating the US constitution?
    
    They use several wording to qualify a single alleged crime so that they can sentence citizens several time though the constitution absolutely forbid this.
    
    I believe that we should impose the death penalty to any Judge, attorney, cop or government members who under the cover of authority contribute to the violation of the supreme law of the land.
    
    We shall extend this to anyone who also usurp such authority.
  - Guest
    
    “Oh and unfortunately the real world isn’t as accepting as you seem to think I’m afraid.”
    
    Are you sure about that? Outside of the industry and its cronies, piracy appears to be a non-issue. Which is why it became as prolific and unstoppable as booze*.
    
    *Except booze is harmful, piracy isn’t.
    - Anonymous
      
      Booze is alright in moderation.
    - http://profiles.google.com/zerianis10 Christopher Kidwell
      
      Actually, booze and drugs (the other morality driven crusade) aren’t harmful in moderation.
Guester

Defending prison rape and extrajudicial punishment is evil. Imprisonment is the only punishment ordained by society. Hoping that anyone even a convicted criminal gets extrajudicial suffering proves a complete lack of humanity and disrespect for societal norms.
Pingback: IMAGiNE BitTorrent Piracy Group Indicted, Face Years In Prison | Zombie Torrents - Ultimate Torrents Downloads
Xx

Such a shame, IMAGiNE put out some quality releases.
Anonymous

http://goo.gl/ozmGX
foff

The problem with any criminal charges is intent. Normally intent is driven or motivated by rewards usually in money. I know of no one releasing movies on bit torrent that do so for money. So if no one is getting rich or paid then what is the criminal intent? The only slightly criminal thing is the idea that they may be stopping a mythical sale. The problem with that is that they are not the only source. Which means the only way there could be any damage shown is if the entire internet is shut down for a few months and see if any increase in sales result. In my case if I did not spend money on computers and internet the money would not go directly to purchasing disks. Without the net I would not watch the shows or movies or downlad anything nor would I even know about most of what I download. The net gain to Hollywood would be zero, so they are basically chasing ghosts.
- RIAAtarded
  
  well in this case they DID make money via donations. Also VIPs could buy access to the FTP where the content was stored.. Couple that with the fact there was a block on their uploads and they weren’t disseminated to other site for a preset time frame which they were enforcing at the time. This lent an exclusivity and bolstered the userbase to keep coming there for the releases. Now I have no clue on $$ values but as a torrent site it is best to look like you’re not anything profit based plus with the fact you release on your own site first now they have a very good start point for calculating damages and being p2p most don’t hide what they are doing so you can tell who encoded what. Then there was the blog, I hate to see this stuff happens but the level of stupidity here is mind boggling. It is one thing to pirate something but it is quite another to flaunt what you’re doing especially when it’s legal standing is in question.
  - foff
    
    I don’t see pirates driving around in Porches and Ferraris like drug dealers so don’t even go there. The motivation is no way related to money. The true motivation is youthful rebellion against a broken system. The Riaa and MPAA are fighting a fantasy.
    - RIAAtarded
      
      It doesn’t matter what the motivation is and I got not clue if they made , lost or broke even on the deal it has more to do with perception. Good or bad MPAA looks at this site full of their content these guy are actually facilitating piracy on by encoding it, have a blog open to the world with updates on what is available and then sells access to the encodes via their FTP server. How is it they ever expected that would not rub the rights holders wrong. This is beyond what you average pirate does. Most just share a file they found on the net. They didn’t create it, sell access to it nor are they actively publishing they have it and for the most case use it and discard it.
      Bottom line is if you’re charging for something you don’t own it is no longer sharing it is ecommerce.
  - MelvinMeow
    
    Your correct there. They were charging and TBH when they informed me prior to them making their site, I told them it was a bad idea and would attract too much unwanted attention.
    Been there and done that, so know from experience.
    They had to have had at least 100 VIP’s which even at say $15 a month adds up.
    They were lucky if they were spending even $300 a month on their servers.
    Ask yourself where the additional $1200 would have been going.
    I believe it was more than $15 also….. so do the math.
    That money got linked back to stash in one way or another.
    
    They eventually were using a proxy on stuff they were doing but Im pretty sure at that point it was already too late and they were already being monitored.
  - Guest
    
    Stop talking you manbo jambo pseudo-legal pseudo -moralistic BS.
    
    These corporate criminals and their official corrupted lackey don’t give a shit about the law.So I don’t see why we should.
    - RIAAtarded
      
      you can’t fight corruption with more corruption that is foolish. It is one thing to share and it is easy to argue that it is good for rights holders and artist as it bring both exposure, advertising and sale. It is quite another to take and sell something you don’t own. As i’m trying to change the system the only way that can happen is by a moral and legal process. All you just saying f@#ked it and dropping to the same tactics rights holders use and defending it as well they did it first. That is immature elementary school playground crap and will do 0 to solve the issue it only re-enforces the case against either side.
Andrew Lee

Well I’m not scared of jail been there done that. The best thing they can do is keep their lips sealed. The majority of police evidence against people are in fact giving to the police by them just from talking. They will bend what you say and try to snowball your ass with it.

I want a lawyer is the best line in the world. The less words you say before that line means a better deal lol.

If you are taking a fall to get someone lesser time better make damn sure their evidence is stacked hardcore first.
- A thought …
  
  ”I want a lawyer is the best line in the world.”
  
  “No comment” is the second :-)
- No1_2_u
  
  Well
  they are in the U.S. so; the BEST line is “I plead the 5th”!
  
  How’s
  that for using the U.S. Constitution; or maybe we should start calling it U.S.
  Constipation, as the Constitution looks more & more like a piece of toilet
  paper, while the entire copyright issue is pushed, & approved, by a bunch
  of old farts needing some serious prune juice & bran in their diets.
PelouzeTF

Was the risk worth it IMAGiNE ?

………of course not

……dumbasses.
- Fredrika
  
  > “Was the risk worth it IMAGiNE ?
  
  ………of course not
  
  ……dumbasses.”
  
  Another question one can ask is if it was worth it to spend billions of dollars over the last 15 years on fighting on-line non-profit piracy through dismantling civil liberties and human rights, when it hasn’t even put even a dent in the continuously growing numbers of pirates over the same amount of time(..pirates who during that time has developed filesharing protocols which today are unstoppable), when no scientific evidence even supports the thesis that such piracy constitutes a problem in the first place to society, creators, culture, the goal of the conceptual copyright or the content industries current record turnovers?Well i guess it was worth it to those not working in the creative sector, but only with fighting piracy. Which happens to be the same people who convinced the creators with false numbers that it was worth fighting piracy in the first place. One could come to the conclusion that guaranteeing their jobs is the real goal with fighting piracy.Depending on one’s perspective there could be many dumbasses, but more important, who the real bad guy is, is not that hard to figure out.
  - PelouzeTF
    
    “Another question one can ask is if it was worth it to spend billions of
    dollars over the last 15 years on fighting on-line non-profit piracy”.
    
    Feel free to expand on this and how you know that there has been no profit sought by any party in each instance of file sharing.
    
    “Depending on one’s perspective there could be many dumbasses, but more important, who the real bad guy is, is not that hard to figure out.”
    
    No its not, we naturally will have different opinions on who that is though.
    - Fredrika
      
      > “Feel free to expand on this and how you know that there has been no profit sought by any party in each instance of file sharing.”
      
      It’s pretty obvious i’m referring to normal non-profit P2P-filesharing, which by definition is non-profit. I even mentioned the phrase non-profit in the sentence you quoted.
      
      > “No its not, we naturally will have different opinions on who that is though.”
      
      Yes you, like those who support dictatorships, believe that it is those who disobey illegitimate legislation, such as the non-profit parts of the copyright monopoly, who are bad guys. For those who have a problem with dictatorships and illegitimate legislation, a person is obviously not a bad guy for disregarding illegitimate legislation, such as those several hundreds of millions of ordinary people filesharing.
  - PelouzeTF
    
    “It’s pretty obvious i’m referring to normal non-profit P2P-filesharing, which by definition is non-profit. I even mentioned the phrase non-profit in the sentence you quoted.”
    
    Yes you did mention it but, where is your proof that a website is “non-profit” …..is it just because they say so ?
    
    “Yes you, like those who support dictatorships”
    
    Completely incorrect, nice try.
    
    “believe that it is those who disobey illegitimate legislation, such as the non-profit parts of the copyright monopoly, who are bad guys.
    
    That’s “your” opinion on what I believe.
    - Fredrika
      
      > “..where is your proof that a website is “non-profit”"
      
      You seem confused. P2P filesharing is what the actual downloader and the uploader performs, and both is non-profit actions regardless of whether or not an indexing search engine is non-profit or not, as with torrent sites. That a search engine such as Google or a torrent site has intent to profit from indexing information does not mean that the actual filesharing is for profit. There nothing illegal or wrong with making money from running a successful search engine, such as Google, torrent sites or IMDb.
      
      > “Completely incorrect, nice try…//..That’s “your” opinion on what I believe.”
      
      Is it now? So you haven’t over the last couple of months again and again advocated that the illegitimate parts of the copyright monopoly is something that should be obeyed, and that those who oppose it are bad guys? Or that fully legal operations as cyberlockers and torrent sites are bad guys for offering normal free market competition to some monopoly holders?
    - http://profiles.google.com/zerianis10 Christopher Kidwell
      
      Peloser at it once again….. the fallacies in his arguments are so…… glaring that no one takes him seriously anymore.
  - PelouzeTF
    
    ”You seem confused. P2P filesharing is what the actual downloader and the uploader performs, and both is non-profit actions regardless of whether or not an indexing search engine is non-profit or not, as with torrent sites.”
    
    Taking things at face value again Fredrika ? You seriously can’t think of one way a torrent uploader might profit, its kinda obvious.
    
    “Is it now? So you haven’t over the last couple of months again and again advocated that the illegitimate parts of the copyright monopoly is something that should be obeyed, and that those who oppose it are bad guys?”
    
    What illegitimate parts ?
    
    Or that fully legal operations as cyberlockers and torrent sites are bad guys for offering normal free market competition to some monopoly holders?
    
    Actually, I don’t think they’re bad guys when they run a legitimate service….when they actually run it legitimately that is and there are so many that have a real hard time doing that ;)
    - Fredrika
      
      > “You seriously can’t think of one way a torrent uploader might profit, its kinda obvious.”
      
      The difference between profit and non-profit use when it comes to the copyright monopoly is quite clear, and P2P-filesharing is by definition non-profit. Is it because of ignorance you do not understand this, or is it because of delusions of grandeur that you believe that your subjective ignorant opinion on the matter is relevant to what constitutes use for profit of intellectual works?
      
      > “What illegitimate parts ?”
      
      The non-profit parts that forbid non-profit filesharing in some countries. They are made up of illegitimate legislation, society’s need for those prohibitions in the copyright monopolies has never been proven. That’s how legislation in dictatorships works. This has also been explained to you before. Do i need to explain it again more thoroughly? Ok then.
      
      Legitimate legislation is something that is based on documented verifiable evidence that supports the thesis that a problem exists for society in the first place with filesharing. Such evidence does not exist and has never been produced during the last 40 years.
      
      Secondly, the prohibition in the legislation must also in verifiable documented evidence be proven to be functioning and equal for all people. Again the non-profit parts of the monopoly fails. It’s completely useless, and it’s technically impossible to bring those to justice who has the least bit of knowledge of how to make themselves untouchable for copyright infringement charges.
      
      And finally the upholding of the prohibition must in verifiable documented evidence be proven to constitute a proportionate intrusion into people’s humans rights, and there it fails altogether since #1 and #2 already failed.
      
      That’s why the non-profit parts of the copyright monopoly is made up of illegitimate legislation, something that they are very keen on in dictatorships.
      
      Breaking illegitimate legislation is not something that turns you into a bad guy(although in the eyes of those supporting dictatorships it might), it turns you in to a good guy, that put society’s welfare ahead of some weak failed entrepreneurs and monopoly holders. People have always had a duty to disobey illegitimate legislation, not allowing it to cause any unnecessary harm to society.
      
      > “Actually, I don’t think they’re bad guys when they run a legitimate service….when they actually run it legitimately that is and there are so many that have a real hard time doing that..”
      
      Actually no, there exist no precedent sentences anywhere that says that the way they operate is illegal, which is the relevant point. On the contrary those sentences that does exists says that they do just that. This has been explained to you over and over again. That some weak failed monopoly holders don’t appreciate the fully legal competition they receive doesn’t mean that the operation of fully legal torrent sites like Pirate Bay or cyberlockers is illegitimate.
- PelouzeTF
  
  @Christopher Kidwell
  
  “Peloser at it once again….. the fallacies in his arguments are so…… glaring that no one takes him seriously anymore.”
  
  Really lol. Feel free to step in the ring. I honestly doubt you’re competent enough.
- PelouzeTF
  
  @fredricka
  
  “and P2P-filesharing is by definition non-profit.”
  
  Who’s definition ? Amongst other definitions for the word “profit” any dictionary is going to mention:
  
  An advantageous gain or return
  To make a gain or profit.
  To derive advantage; benefit
  
  Any of which can be applied to the downloading and therefore receiving of materials that one is not entitled to.
  
  “is it because of ignorance you do not understand this, or is it because of delusions of grandeur that you believe that your subjective ignorant opinion on the matter is relevant to what constitutes use for profit of intellectual works?”
  
  You’re free have your opinion. I simply don’t subscribe to this BS that P2P sharing is by definition non-profit.
  - Fredrika
    
    > “Who’s definition ?”
    
    The judicial definition obviously? We are discussing piracy, as in copyright infringements, which is defined by legislation, as in the copyright monopoly, and the copyright legislation has no problem whatsoever making a distinct clarification of the difference between profit and non-profit. Once again you seem to have lost track of the initial argumentative thread, something you manage to do quite often.
    
    > “Any of which can be applied to the downloading and therefore receiving of materials that one is not entitled to.”
    
    You seem confused. You can not be entitled to intellectual works, because they do not constitute property. And as has been explained to you before, people use their own property, that they own, when they manufacture copies, property which they most definitely are entitled to.
    
    > “You’re free have your opinion. I simply don’t subscribe to this BS that P2P sharing is by definition non-profit.”
    
    I have not clarified any personal opinion, i have stated a fact that according the copyright legislation and the judicial meaning of the word, piracy through P2P-filesharing is non-profit. This is a fact that can be verified in the law. Your personal semantic belief that certain use of one’s own property can constitute making profit is completely irrelevant to the initial argumentative thread.
    
    Finally, you call other people dumbasses, yet you can’t even post an answer directed at me as a reply to me, you instead post it as a reply to yourself? I’ve informed you for months that you can —> always <— post a reply in the correct place to the person who replied to you, through the Disqus Dashboard, but this seems to be something you are completely incapable of grasping.
    - PelouzeTF
      
      “The judicial definition obviously? We are discussing piracy, as in copyright infringements, which is defined by legislation, as in the copyright monopoly, and the copyright legislation has no problem whatsoever making a distinct clarification of the difference between profit and non-profit. Once again you seem to have lost track of the initial argumentative thread, something you manage to do quite often.”
      
      You seem confused Fredricka. You might be discussing piracy in general. I however, am discussing you using “non-profit” to which you claim by definition “discribes normal non-profit p2p filesharing”. You’ve lost track of the thread. Quoting your post, you said “It’s pretty obvious i’m referring to normal non-profit P2P-filesharing, which by definition is non-profit.” thats what we’re discussing – and that I am disagreeing with you.
      
      Feel free to link your source.
      
      “You seem confused. You can not be entitled to intellectual works, because they do not constitute property.”
      
      There is only one person here who would be confused by that sentance and thats you.
      
      “And as has been explained to you before, people use their own property, that they own, when they manufacture copies, property which they most definitely are entitled to.”
      
      I haven’t said that a persons own property can’t be used in a way which it was designed. Its what then happens to the copywritten material created by their property after thats the issue of the original materials creators.
      
      “I have not clarified any personal opinion”
      
      Not that I’m bothered either way but, Why ? Do you not have one ?
      
      “i have stated a fact that according the copyright legislation and the judicial meaning of the word, piracy through P2P-filesharing is non-profit. This is a fact that can be verified in the law. Your personal semantic belief that certain use of one’s own property can constitute making profit is completely irrelevant to the initial argumentative thread.”
      
      No it isn’t.
      
      “Finally, you call other people dumbasses, yet you can’t even post an answer directed at me as a reply to me, you instead post it as a reply to yourself? I’ve informed you for months that you can —> always <— post a reply in the correct place to the person who replied to you, through the Disqus Dashboard, but this seems to be something you are completely incapable of grasping."
      
      Not at all. For many users the Disqus dashboard is a complete joke. The are plenty of people on TF and other sites which use Disqus that are always complaining about it and how their replies can't be added where the want them. Google it.
    - Fredrika
      
      > “You seem confused Fredricka. You might be discussing piracy in general. I however, am discussing you using “non-profit” to which you claim by definition “discribes normal non-profit p2p filesharing“.”
      
      That’s a false quotation that does not correspond with my claim. Please stop producing false quotations. In addition to the false quote it’s hard to make out what you actually mean, because your use of the English language is constantly flawed.
      
      > “You’ve lost track of the thread. Quoting your post, you said “It’s pretty obvious i’m referring to normal non-profit P2P-filesharing, which by definition is non-profit.” thats what we’re discussing – and that I am disagreeing with you.”
      
      The discussion is about piracy. This is clearly stated in my initial comment. What constitutes piracy is decided by legislation. In addition to piracy the mentioned criteria was non-profit, as in the legislative meaning, because it was a legislative concept we discussed, as in piracy.
      
      The fact that you subjectively feel that some non-profit piracy semantically can be considered profitable is completely irrelevant. It is still non-profit piracy.
      
      > “Feel free to link your source.”
      
      Source to what?
      
      > “There is only one person here who would be confused by that sentance and thats you.”
      
      I’m not the one confused. You clearly wrote “..materials that one is not entitled to..”. With materials you refer to the intellectual work, which doesn’t constitute property, so it’s therefore impossible to be entitled to it, because nobody owns it, and since it’s impossible to be entitled to an intellectual work, the opposite, which you refer to as not entitled to is a condition that can not occur.
      
      > “I haven’t said that a persons own property can’t be used in a way which it was designed.”
      
      Nor have i claimed that you have. Another straw-man.
      
      > “Its what then happens to the copywritten material created by their property after thats the issue of the original materials creators.”
      
      Another sentence that’s completely flawed. Regardless of what you mean with that sentence, it does not change the fact that your previous claim about not being entitled was incorrect.
      
      The fact that some creators of intellectual works have an issue with what people do with their own property is completely irrelevant to that P2P-filsharing is non-profit use of intellectual works, and that all property involved in filesharing is owned by the people filesharing, not by the creator.
      
      > “Not that I’m bothered either way but, Why ? Do you not have one ?”
      
      I have not put any personal opinion forward, because i have not discussed a topic where it is relevant.
      
      > “No it isn’t.”
      
      Yes it most certainly is, because the discussion was about non-profit piracy. What constitutes non-profit piracy is decided by law, not by your personal opinion.
      
      > “Not at all. For many users the Disqus dashboard is a complete joke. The are plenty of people on TF and other sites which use Disqus that are always complaining about it and how their replies can’t be added where the want them. Google it.”
      
      I guess you don’t even know what the Dashboard is? People do not complain about not being able to reply to comments posted to them, through the Dashboard, because there is no problem with that, as you can see on this replay, which is posted through the Dashboard, despite there not being an reply button in the comments section on Torrentfreak.
      
      As i sad, it is —> always <— possible to reply to a comments posted as a reply to yourself, through the Dashboard, regardless of if the reply button is missing in the comments section. Stop confusing the Dashboard with the comment section on Torrentfreak.
    - Anonymous
      
      ”That’s a false quotation that does not correspond with my claim. Please stop producing false quotations.”
      
      It wasn’t false per-se. I pasted “describe” in error into my post while writing something unrelated. However, luckily it didn’t change your meaning. So you didn’t say “i’m referring to normal non-profit P2P-filesharing, which by definition is non-profit.” Which is exactly the post where I questioned your use of the word “non-profit” because that is simply false.
      
      “it’s hard to make out what you actually mean, because your use of the English language is constantly flawed.”
      
      My English language isn’t constantly flawed.
      
      I randomly took one of my paragraphs and one of yours and placed them both in a writing tester (both reasonably lengthy but not overly). The higher the mark, the easier it is for others to read.
      
      You scored 19 and I scored 52.
      
      I’m sure you’ll agree that 19 is a quite disappointing “read” score so in the spirit of fairness, I tried a few more of your paragraphs and I did eventually find one with a 33 read score. So, not too bad considering you’re not using your native tongue.
      
      English is my first language Fredricka, it sure isn’t yours (I’m suspecting yours is Swedish.)
      
      So in the future, If you need help clarifying something I’ve written before replying, I’d be more than happy to help you.
      
      “The discussion is about piracy.’
      
      Not entirely, I’m questioning your use of the word non-profit.
      
      “This is clearly stated in my initial comment. What constitutes piracy is decided by legislation. In addition to piracy the mentioned criteria was non-profit, as in the legislative meaning, because it was a legislative concept we discussed, as in piracy.”
      
      Source to what?”
      
      Any US legislation that says p2p piracy is by definition non-profit sharing.
      
      “I’m not the one confused. You clearly wrote “..materials that one is not entitled to..”. With materials you refer to the intellectual work, which doesn’t constitute property, so it’s therefore impossible to be entitled to it, because nobody owns it, and since it’s impossible to be entitled to an intellectual work, the opposite, which you refer to as not entitled to is a condition that can not occur.”
      
      We’ll have to disagree on that point because there certainly is a percent of internet users that do feel entitled to download materials that they know to be infringing.
      
      “Another sentence that’s completely flawed. Regardless of what you mean with that sentence, it does not change the fact that your previous claim about not being entitled was incorrect”.
      
      How can you not understand what that sentence meant ? It got a read score of 46. OTOH, your reply to it above, got a read score of 38.
      
      “The fact that some creators of intellectual works have an issue with what people do with their own property is completely irrelevant to that P2P-filsharing is non-profit use of intellectual works, and that all property involved in file-sharing is owned by the people file-sharing, not by the creator.”
      
      We’ll have to disagree with “non-profit”. The dictionary has plenty of definitions under the word “profit”, naturally, one is “gain”. So are you saying that a person downloading a file isn’t “gaining” from the transaction ?
      
      “I guess you don’t even know what the Dashboard is? People do not complain about not being able to reply to comments posted to them, through the Dashboard, because there is no problem with that, as you can see on this replay, which is posted through the Dashboard, despite there not being an reply button in the comments section on Torrentfreak.
      
      As i sad, it is —> always <— possible to reply to a comments posted as a reply to yourself, through the Dashboard, regardless of if the reply button is missing in the comments section. Stop confusing the Dashboard with the comment section on Torrentfreak."
      
      I know what the Disqus dashboard is, reply, context, edit etc and its still a joke. Mine hasn't even updated with this thread yet, so it's not always possible to reply via the dashboard.
    - Fredrika
      
      > “Which is exactly the post where I questioned your use of the word “non-profit” because that is simply false.”
      
      Incorrect, you questioned the concept of non-profit in the comment preceding that comment where i wrote that sentence.
      
      And it is not false. Your semantic belief of what constitutes profit does not change the fact that non-profit piracy is non-profit.
      
      > “My English language isn’t constantly flawed.”
      
      > “I however, am discussing you using “non-profit” to which you claim by definition “discribes normal non-profit p2p filesharing”"
      
      Me using “non-profit” to? I’m not using “non-profit” to.
      
      What you probably tried to wrote was ..am discussing your use of the term non-profit to describe.
      
      The fact that your paragraphs get scores in some test does not mean that they’re are correctly written in the context they are used.
      
      > “English is my first language”
      
      Which does not equal that you can use it properly.
      
      > “Not entirely, I’m questioning your use of the word non-profit.”
      
      In the context of piracy, where it has a very distinct meaning.
      
      > “We’ll have to disagree on that point because there certainly is a percent of internet users that do feel entitled to download materials that they know to be infringing.”
      
      Which is completely irrelevant? The fact that an act is infringing(it is not the materials that are infringing), or that people feel entitled, does not change the fact that intellectual works do not constitute property, which therefore nobody can be entitled to, and therefore the opposite not entitled to is a condition that can not occur. You wrote “materials that one is not entitled to” and that is a condition that can’t occur when discussing intellectual works.
      
      > “We’ll have to disagree with “non-profit”. The dictionary has plenty of definitions under the word “profit”, naturally, one is “gain”. So are you saying that a person downloading a file isn’t “gaining” from the transaction ?”
      
      With this semantically redefining of the word profit, absolutely everything constitutes a profit, which renders the word useless. You are aware of this? Taking a breath of air, aah, you gained oxygen, that’s a profit.
      
      The term discussed was non-profit, and that term has a very distinct meaning, that’s why we use it in our language, and non-profit is when you perform a task without intent to receive financial profit, as in money in exchange for a performed task.
      
      P2P-filesharing is by definition non-profit, you do not get any money in your hand for performing it, from someone else.
      
      The fact that you save money or gain access to intellectual works by visiting a library or by using P2P-filesharing does not mean that either of those tasks create profit, or that the gain constitutes profit, or that libraries or filesharing isn’t non-profit.
      
      > “I know what the Disqus dashboard is, reply, context, edit etc and its still a joke. Mine hasn’t even updated with this thread yet, so it’s not always possible to reply via the dashboard.”
      
      Aah, so the reason for you never being able to post a reply in the correct place(which was the discussed topic), or even to the correct person, is because you can’t wait until the possibility presents itself to post the reply in the correct place?
    - Anonymous
      
      “Incorrect, you questioned the concept of non-profit in the comment preceding that comment where i wrote that sentence.”
      
      No, in your preceding post you wrote “Another question one can ask is if it was worth it to spend billions of dollars over the last 15 years on fighting on-line non-profit piracy”
      
      I questioned “how” you knew each and every case was non-profit. Just saying something doesn’t have some type of profit (being that even the dictionary defines “profit” as “to gain”) doesn’t make it so.
      
      So I didn’t question the “concept” I questioned the validity of what you wrote.
      
      “And it is not false. Your semantic belief of what constitutes profit does not change the fact that non-profit piracy is non-profit.”
      
      Semantic ? Profit by definition means to gain. Are you saying that no-one gains anything where piracy occurs without currency exchange ?
      
      “Me using “non-profit” to? I’m not using “non-profit” to. What you probably tried to wrote was ..am discussing your use of the term non-profit to describe. The fact that your paragraphs get scores in some test does not mean that they’re are correctly written in the context they are used.”
      
      I’m not saying they are perfect, they are however, easier to comprehend than yours.
      
      When your reply contains “What you probably tried to wrote was….” you really have no room to criticize my higher scoring, easier to comprehend paragraphs.
      
      “Which does not equal that you can use it properly.”
      
      It appears I can use it better than you. Next time I’ll make sure to “wrote” something even easier for you to understand ;)
      
      “In the context of piracy, where it has a very distinct meaning.”
      
      And that meaning has no validity unless a person/organization is on the pro-piracy side of the issue. I am not on the pro-piracy side, therefore, to me it has no validity.
      
      “Which is completely irrelevant?”
      
      Is that question mark there for a reason ? If I think that “entitlement exists” why are you ending your reply with a question mark ?
      
      “The fact that an act is infringing(it is not the materials that are infringing), or that people feel entitled, does not change the fact that intellectual works do not constitute property, which therefore nobody can be entitled to, and therefore the opposite not entitled to is a condition that can not occur. You wrote “materials that one is not entitled to” and that is a condition that can’t occur when discussing intellectual works.”
      
      I suspect my point reads the same for most people either way. but, I’ll modify my sentence to “materials that persons feel entitled to”
      
      “With this semantically redefining of the word profit, absolutely everything constitutes a profit, which renders the word useless.”
      
      I didn’t redefine the meaning of profit, its in the dictionary (Merriam Websters, Roget’s, Oxford etc). You might feel it renders the word useless but, that’s merely your opinion.
      
      “You are aware of this? Taking a breath of air, aah, you gained oxygen, that’s a profit.”
      
      If used in context, one can certainly say they profited by breathing oxygen as opposed to not breathing it.
      
      Or that they need/want a copy of photo-shop but, instead of purchasing it legitimately, they downloaded a cracked copy and therefore profited by keeping the monies.
      
      “The term discussed was non-profit, and that term has a very distinct meaning, that’s why we use it in our language, and non-profit is when you perform a task without intent to receive financial profit, as in money in exchange for a performed task.”
      
      Merely saying that an act is non-profit, doesn’t make it so.
      
      “P2P-filesharing is by definition non-profit, you do not get any money in your hand for performing it, from someone else.”
      
      Just because no currency is exchanged for an act between persons, doesn’t mean that the act didn’t deprive someone. The act of downloading a cracked copy of photo-shop for example, achieved a gain for one party.
      
      “The fact that you save money or gain access to intellectual works by visiting a library or by using P2P-filesharing does not mean that either of those tasks create profit, or that the gain constitutes profit, or that libraries or file-sharing isn’t non-profit.”
      
      Ahh, the old Library and torrent debate.
      
      Even looked at simplistically. Libraries have limits to the number of physical books that can be taken at any one time and their can be charges for multimedia items. Unless donated, the vast majority of books/media are “paid” for by the library. The books/media are original “for sale” items where the purchase cost would naturally have filtered down the respective channels (publisher, creator etc) which in turn filters down their respective channels and provides the ability to publish/create more books and media. Library revenues naturally provides for workforce, business expenses and where profits are realized, purchases of more media.
      
      Torrents, well, I think the difference is obvious.
      
      “Aah, so the reason for you never being able to post a reply in the correct place(which was the discussed topic), or even to the correct person, is because you can’t wait until the possibility presents itself to post the reply in the correct place?”
      
      Yup, that is correct. Waiting up to 9 hours for the dashboard to update rarely works for me. I have Work to do you know, creating media. How about you? what do you create ?
    - Fredrika
      
      > “No, in your preceding post you wrote “Another question one can ask is if it was worth it to spend billions of dollars over the last 15 years on fighting on-line non-profit piracy”
      
      > “I questioned “how” you knew each and every case was non-profit.”
      
      Aah ok, so the problem is that you couldn’t read my initial sentence correct, or understood the meaning of it. There are two types of piracy, piracy with intent to profit, so called commercial piracy, and non-profit piracy, where you do not have any intent to profit from it.
      
      Apparently you have a semantic belief that everything in existence constitutes profit, including taking a breath of air, because you have gained something from it, in that case oxygen.
      
      When it comes to piracy however, the fact that you get access to an intellectual work doesn’t make it piracy with intent to profit. For piracy to be considered other than non-profit you have to get money in your hand. This is a well established concept that in both legislation and language differentiates between two types of piracy. The initial comment from me was about non-profit piracy, not piracy with intent to profit.
      
      So your initial reply was about something that wasn’t relevant to my comment, your meaningless semantic belief that everything in existence constitutes profit.
      
      > “Just saying something doesn’t have some type of profit (being that even the dictionary defines “profit” as “to gain”) doesn’t make it so.”
      
      The problem here is simply that you semantically believe everything in existence constitutes profit. In reality it does not when it comes to the judicial concept of piracy and copyright.
      
      > “So I didn’t question the “concept” I questioned the validity of what you wrote.”
      
      Well you did actually, because the concept of non-profit piracy is something real and well established, and that was the only type of piracy i referred to in my initial comment. If you wanna argue that everything in existence constitutes profit, the correct place to do that is a forum where the topic is “meaningless semantic belief that renders well established words useless”. Not a discussion about intellectual works, copyright and piracy, where the concept of non-profit is well established and has an actual meaning.
      
      > “Semantic ? Profit by definition means to gain.”
      
      Yes, but this discussion is about the judicial concept of piracy, and there profit means something other than everything in existence constitutes profit.
      
      > “Are you saying that no-one gains anything where piracy occurs without currency exchange ?”
      
      Of course, in the same was that you gain something from everything in existence, but that does not make non-profit piracy and piracy with intent to profit the same thing. The fact that you gain something does not mean you have made a profit, if you use the word profit in a way where it actually means something specific, instead of everything in existence, which is a use of the word that renders it completely meaningless.
      
      > “When your reply contains “What you probably tried to wrote was….” you really have no room to criticize my higher scoring, easier to comprehend paragraphs.”
      
      There’s a difference between either mistakenly punching in the O instead if the I on the keyboard, or mistakenly misspelling a word, from writing sentences that makes no sense whatsoever.
      
      > “And that meaning has no validity unless a person/organization is on the pro-piracy side of the issue. I am not on the pro-piracy side, therefore, to me it has no validity.”
      
      Whether or not a person/organization is on the pro-piracy side of the issue(whatever that means) has no relevance whatsoever to the fact that there within the judicial concept of piracy and copyright exists a distinct difference between profit and non-profit use of intellectual works.
      
      > “Is that question mark there for a reason ? If I think that “entitlement exists” why are you ending your reply with a question mark ?”
      
      Because your personal belief has no relevance to the later stated fact that intellectual works doesn’t constitute property, which therefore no one can be entitled to, so i didn’t understand why you again brought up your personal irrelevant belief.
      
      > “I didn’t redefine the meaning of profit, its in the dictionary (Merriam Websters, Roget’s, Oxford etc). You might feel it renders the word useless but, that’s merely your opinion.”
      
      No, you most certainly did redefined the word profit, because the way you use it everything in existence constitutes profit, which most certainly renders the word useless.
      
      > “If used in context, one can certainly say they profited by breathing oxygen as opposed to not breathing it.”
      
      And what would then be the purpose of the word profit if everything in existence constitutes profit?
      
      > “Or that they need/want a copy of photo-shop but, instead of purchasing it legitimately, they downloaded a cracked copy and therefore profited by keeping the monies.”
      
      Now you’re talking economics, and saving money by not performing a transaction does not equal making a profit. It means having the same amount of money that you had before = no profit. Now you use the word profit in a manner that makes the phrase saving money meaningless. There’s a reason for why we have different words in our language for describing different actions, and why we don’t use the word profit to describe taking a breath of air or saving money in a way that means you have exactly the same amount of money in your wallet afterwards as before.
      
      > “Merely saying that an act is non-profit, doesn’t make it so.”
      
      Correct, P2P-filesharing is non-profit use of intellectual works regardless of what you say or what your semantic belief is.
      
      > “Just because no currency is exchanged for an act between persons, doesn’t mean that the act didn’t deprive someone.”
      
      Whether or not someone was deprived of something(which isn’t the case with filesharing), or if they feel or believe they were deprived of something has no relevance whatsoever to the fact that P2P-filesharing is non-profit use of intellectual works.
      
      > “The act of downloading a cracked copy of photo-shop for example, achieved a gain for one party.”
      
      Which doesn’t make it piracy with intent to profit, as in the judicial meaning of profit, which is the relevant criteria when we discuss the judicial concepts of piracy and copyright.
      
      > “Even looked at simplistically. Libraries have limits to the number of physical books that can be taken at any one time and their can be charges for multimedia items.”
      
      Which does not change the fact that libraries offer a non-profit function, or the fact that when people gain access to intellectual works in libraries and save money the gain still doesn’t constitutes profit.
      
      > “Unless donated, the vast majority of books/media are “paid” for by the library. The books/media are original “for sale” items where the purchase cost would naturally have filtered down the respective channels (publisher, creator etc) which in turn filters down their respective channels and provides the ability to publish/create more books and media. Library revenues naturally provides for workforce, business expenses and where profits are realized, purchases of more media.”
      
      Which does not change the fact that libraries offer a non-profit function, or the fact that when people gain access to intellectual works in libraries and save money the gain still doesn’t constitute profit.
      
      People do not walk out of libraries saying:
      
      -Aah, i made a great profit today by not buying any books.
      
      If the did they would be laughed at, for not understanding how to use the word profit correctly.
      
      Unless of course you argue that everything in existence constitutes profit, which still renders the word useless.
      
      > “Torrents, well, I think the difference is obvious.”
      
      Your personal belief on that matter does not change the fact that there is a difference between the judicial concept of piracy with intent to profit, and non-profit piracy, which was the criteria mentioned in my initial comment, or that the function and gain that libraries and P2P-filesharing offers both constitutes non-profit use of intellectual works.
      
      > “Yup, that is correct. Waiting up to 9 hours for the dashboard to update rarely works for me.”
      
      What’s the hurry with posting a reply so quickly, that you rather post it as a reply to yourself, instead of to the person it’s actually directed at?
      
      > “I have Work to do you know, creating media.”
      
      Which has absolutely no relevance whatsoever to why it’s such a hurry to post the answer so that you choose to post the answer in the wrong place.
      
      > “How about you? what do you create ?”
      
      That has no relevance whatsoever to anything regarding this discussion.
    - Anonymous
      
      “Aah ok, so the problem is that you couldn’t read my initial sentence correct, or understood the meaning of it. There are two types of piracy, piracy with intent to profit, so called commercial piracy, and non-profit piracy, where you do not have any intent to profit from it.”
      
      No I “read” your initial sentence. Its your language that leads to multiple ways to interpret what should be a simple point.
      
      “Apparently you have a semantic belief that everything in existence constitutes profit, including taking a breath of air, because you have gained something from it, in that case oxygen.”
      
      Its not semantic. The dictionary describes profit perfectly.
      
      When it comes to piracy however, the fact that you get access to an intellectual work doesn’t make it piracy with intent to profit. For piracy to be considered other than non-profit you have to get money in your hand. This is a well established concept that in both legislation and language differentiates between two types of piracy. The initial comment from me was about non-profit piracy, not piracy with intent to profit.”
      
      You’re welcome to your opinion. I disagree with it.
      
      “The problem here is simply that you semantically believe everything in existence constitutes profit” .
      
      Incorrect and a totally false statement on your part. I don’t believe “everything” constitutes profit. Thats a something that “you” have assumed. And nowhere have I said such a thing.
      
      “Well you did actually, because the concept of non-profit piracy is something real and well established, and that was the only type of piracy i referred to in my initial comment. If you wanna argue that everything in existence constitutes profit, the correct place to do that is a forum where the topic is “meaningless semantic belief that renders well established words useless”. Not a discussion about intellectual works, copyright and piracy, where the concept of non-profit is well established and has an actual meaning.”
      
      Where does it have meaning ?? I’ve seen nothing to back up that claim.
      
      “Yes, but this discussion is about the judicial concept of piracy, and there profit means something other than everything in existence constitutes profit.”
      
      This discussion can be whatever it wants to be. And if I choose to question something, I’m free to do so.
      
      “in the same was that you gain something from everything in existence”
      
      “in the same was” ? …..what …..oh you mean “way” they aren’t even close on the keyboard
      
      anyway.
      
      Which isn’t true. You don’t gain something from everything in existence.
      
      “but that does not make non-profit piracy and piracy with intent to profit the same thing.”
      
      But it can. Because one party ultimately gains.
      
      “The fact that you gain something does not mean you have made a profit”
      
      It does according to the dictionary.
      
      “if you use the word profit in a way where it actually means something specific, instead of everything in existence, which is a use of the word that renders it completely meaningless.”
      
      It can definitely mean something specific in relation to “non-profit” piracy (whatever the heck that is) however, its obviously better for a file-sharer to accept the simplest meaning of the word profit and discard all the other meanings.
      
      “There’s a difference between either mistakenly punching in the O instead if the I on the keyboard, or mistakenly misspelling a word, from writing sentences that makes no sense whatsoever.”
      
      You need to be more careful with your I’s and O’s then, you just did it again…….”punching in the O instead “if” the I on the keyboard” .
      
      My sentences make a great deal more sense than yours. If you need help, let me know. But, don’t forget, your sentences get a low read score, you mix letters up and sometimes use the wrong tenses.
      
      “Whether or not a person/organization is on the pro-piracy side of the issue(whatever that means) ”
      
      I think you know what that means.
      
      “Because your personal belief has no relevance to the later stated fact that intellectual works doesn’t constitute property, which therefore no one can be entitled to, so i didn’t understand why you again brought up your personal irrelevant belief.”
      
      That doesn’t explain why you’re replying with “which is completely irrelevant ? ” which of course makes absolutely no sense in the context of your post.
      
      “No, you most certainly did redefined the word profit, because the way you use it everything in existence constitutes profit, which most certainly renders the word useless.”
      
      I didn’t as you say “redefined”it, the dictionary is very specific.
      
      Dictionary examples include “The book can be read with profit by anyone who wants to understand how the system works.”
      
      Just like “My business would profit greatly if I download this software for free”
      
      “And what would then be the purpose of the word profit if everything in existence constitutes profit?”
      
      Not everything in existence constitutes profit. For example, feel free to attempt a sentence where Cancer and profit is positively used and gain has been achieved.
      
      “Now you’re talking economics, and saving money by not performing a transaction does not equal making a profit.”
      
      It does mean you’ve made a gain, or valuable return (part of a dictionary definition of profit)
      
      “expense zero, return = free software I needed”…..therefore gain or valuable return
      
      “It means having the same amount of money that you had before = no profit.”
      
      That doesn’t invalidate that a person has still gained (or according to the dictionary definition profited) by way of performing the transaction.
      
      “Now you use the word profit in a manner that makes the phrase saving money meaningless. There’s a reason for why we have different words in our language for describing different actions, and why we don’t use the word profit to describe taking a breath of air or saving money in a way that means you have exactly the same amount of money in your wallet afterwards as before.”
      
      Yes there are reasons why we have different words for different actions. It just happens to transpire that profit has broader meanings than simply “financial gain”. And because of that, it is not out of context to say that broader everyday non commercial piracy can be in fact be “for-profit”
      
      “Correct, P2P-filesharing is non-profit use of intellectual works regardless of what you say or what your semantic belief is.”
      
      You’ll need to clarify that reply. You’re agreeing with me, then disagreeing.
      
      “Whether or not someone was deprived of something(which isn’t the case with filesharing)”
      
      They are deprived the ability to potentially earn revenue from the downloader(s) in a sharing transaction involving their intellectual works.
      
      “or if they feel or believe they were deprived of something has no relevance whatsoever to the fact that P2P-filesharing is non-profit use of intellectual works.”
      
      I disagree
      
      “Which does not change the fact that libraries offer a non-profit function, or the fact that when people gain access to intellectual works in libraries and save money the gain still doesn’t constitutes profit.”
      
      It doesn’t constitute profit in a fiscal sense. They can however profit from being a member of the library simply due to the broader meanings of the word “profit”. Just like filesharers can have those same definitions applied.
      
      “People do not walk out of libraries saying:
      
      -Aah, i made a great profit today by not buying any books.
      
      If the did they would be laughed at, for not understanding how to use the word profit correctly.
      
      Unless of course you argue that everything in existence constitutes profit, which still renders the word useless.”
      
      You can choose to dismiss the broader definitions of the word profit. They will exist regardless.
      
      “What’s the hurry with posting a reply so quickly, that you rather post it as a reply to yourself, instead of to the person it’s actually directed at?”
      
      I post when I’m able. If Disqus is occasionally pedestrian, I post around it.
      
      “That has no relevance whatsoever to anything regarding this discussion.”
      
      Thanks for confirming what I already knew.
    - Fredrika
      
      > “You’re welcome to your opinion. I disagree with it.”
      
      It’s not an opinion, it’s a fact about the judicial concept of copyright and piracy. The difference between profit and non-profit use of intellectual works is a well established concept that’s written in specifically in many countries copyright laws, especially those where the copyright legislation only controls use of intellectual works with intent to profit, where therefore non-profit use if intellectual works, as P2P-filesharing, is completely legal.
      
      > “Incorrect and a totally false statement on your part. I don’t believe “everything” constitutes profit. Thats a something that “you” have assumed. And nowhere have I said such a thing.”
      
      You consider gain to constitute profit, and everything in existence constitutes some gain in some way, therefore everything in existence constitutes profit according to you.
      
      > “Where does it have meaning ?? I’ve seen nothing to back up that claim.”
      
      It has meaning in all those copyright legislations that differentiates between profit and non-profit use of intellectual works, including the US one, where i believe the term is noncommercial use instead of non-profit. It also has meaning in everyday dialogue about use of intellectual works, where it’s well established to differentiate between use with intent to profit, and non-profit use.
      
      > “Which isn’t true. You don’t gain something from everything in existence.”
      
      Yes you do.
      
      “But it can. Because one party ultimately gains.”
      
      Which has no relevance to the judicial concept of copyright and piracy, where gain doesn’t make it intent to profit.
      
      > “It does according to the dictionary.”
      
      No it does not, the dictionary does not say that all gain constitutes profit. The word can be used that way, but that doesn’t mean that all gain constitutes profit.
      
      > “It can definitely mean something specific in relation to “non-profit” piracy (whatever the heck that is)..”
      
      Are you saying that you lack enough knowledge about the judicial concept of copyright and piracy, to have heard of the two different types of use of intellectual works that exists, as in use with intent to profit, and non-profit use, which most legislations judge differently?
      
      > “..however, its obviously better for a file-sharer to accept the simplest meaning of the word profit and discard all the other meanings.”
      
      How is it better? Secondly, file-sharer’s don’t use the word in it’s simplest meaning, they use it in the well established way that it’s used regarding the judicial concept of copyright and piracy. Your belief of what use of the word that constitutes simple is irrelevant to that fact.
      
      > “I think you know what that means.”
      
      I do not what being on the pro-piracy side of the issue means. It sounds as someone who purposely commits piracy out of belief that it by definition is right to commit piracy.
      
      Well that would not be me, nor most pirates, but i still find meaning in the differentiating between profit and non-profit use of intellectual works, as does most judicial systems and copyright laws, lawyers and judges(which can hardly be considered to be on the pro-piracy side of the issue), and i would find that meaningful regardless of what any law says.
      
      > “That doesn’t explain why you’re replying with “which is completely irrelevant ? ” which of course makes absolutely no sense in the context of your post.”
      
      You should have read it as Which is completely irrelevant, do you not understand this? That’s the way you normally interpret a question mark after a statement, as in do you not understand this? as in the preceding statement.
      
      > “Not everything in existence constitutes profit. For example, feel free to attempt a sentence where Cancer and profit is positively used and gain has been achieved.”
      
      A person who has cancer has gained the knowledge of what it’s like to have cancer. Because gain exists, it must be profit, according to your confused use of the word, right?
      
      Whether or not you subjectively feel a word is used positively is irrelevant to if any gain has been made.
      
      > “It does mean you’ve made a gain, or valuable return (part of a dictionary definition of profit)”
      
      It still doesn’t mean you have made a profit.
      
      > “That doesn’t invalidate that a person has still gained (or according to the dictionary definition profited) by way of performing the transaction.”
      
      Gain does not automatically equal profit, unless you argue that everything in existence constitutes profit.
      
      > “It just happens to transpire that profit has broader meanings than simply “financial gain”. And because of that, it is not out of context to say that broader everyday non commercial piracy can be in fact be “for-profit”"
      
      When discussing the judicial concept of copyright and piracy, it most certainly is completely wrong, because in that context profit has a very specific meaning.
      
      > “You’ll need to clarify that reply. You’re agreeing with me, then disagreeing.”
      
      Your claim was that what someone says doesn’t decide what constitutes non-profit use of intellectual works, and with that i agree. Non-profit use of intellectual works is non-profit use of intellectual works, regardless of what someone says or believe, and the opposite also applies, you saying that filsharing equals profit does not make it so.
      
      > “They are deprived the ability to potentially earn revenue from the downloader(s) in a sharing transaction involving their intellectual works.”
      
      They are not, the ability to do that is still there. That the likeliness of such transaction might have changed doesn’t mean that the ability has been deprived. By your illogical confused logic, if someone tells someone:
      
      -Do not buy that CD, it’s complete crap, saying that would also be depriving, because the likeliness of the transaction to take place has now shrunk. Again you have managed to make a word lose it’s meaning, this time deprive.
      
      In reality deprive is a word that is used regarding something to you actually had in the first place, and afterwards no longer had, but a possibility to sell is something that you always have, regardless of libraries, filesharing or competition from others offering the same product that you offer.
      
      Usually when an entrepreneur fails to sell something because of competition, or because the potential buyer manufactured the goods himself, the word deprive is not the first that comes to mind. But there is obviously always failed entrepreneurs that try to make up excuses for why they are so failed and don’t manage to sell anything. Usually those entrepreneurs who can’t handle themselves on the free market and believe that they out of principle should be privileged with a legislative monopoly. Ignorant idiots, blaming the consumer when they naturally, economically and with a capitalist sense don’t see any point with buying the goods or services the entrepreneur sells, instead of realizing that what they sell no longer has any value.
      
      > “I disagree”
      
      Your opinion on that matter is completely irrelevant when we discuss the judicial concept of copyright and piracy.
      
      > “It doesn’t constitute profit in a fiscal sense.
      
      Which is the way the word profit is used when discussing the judicial concept of copyright and piracy.
      
      > “You can choose to dismiss the broader definitions of the word profit. They will exist regardless.”
      
      No, they do not. The problem here is that the way you personally and subjectively interpreted what you read in a dictionary equals that everything in existence constitutes profit. Somewhere you should realize that that’s an interpretation that renders the word meaningless.
      
      > “Thanks for confirming what I already knew.”
      
      The fact that what someone does privately has no relevance whatsoever to a discussion about judicial concepts is an obvious fact. Do i really need to confirm obvious facts to you?
Samloft

Also be aware that even if the government doesn’t have a strong case against you in the beginning, you can be prosecuted for making a false statement to the government.

If the nice looking FBI agent or federal investigator poses a question, and you answer no instead of yes, the government may prosecute you for lying.

For instance, if the agent asks you if you ever have downloaded copyrighted material in violation of the law, and you answer no knowing that you have done it, you may get years in the slammer or a sentence added to your plea bargain.

Also be aware that wiping your computer, or admitting to having wiped your computer while knowing that you
might be under investigation is a federal crime.

SO the best you can do is never talking to the government.

Several terrorism suspects whom the government couldn’t prove had done anything terrorism related got convicted of lying to the government.

The false statement statute has been construed very broadly by the courts. Don’t play games but keep quiet.
- http://profiles.google.com/zerianis10 Christopher Kidwell
  
  Problem is that when they haul you in for questioning, they already think that they have enough ‘evidence’ to convict you 99% of the time.
  - Anonymous
    
    What they think and reality don’t always match which is why it’s almost always a good idea to never say a word, certainly not without decent representation present.
http://twitter.com/happyizpunjai happy

R.I.P we will remember the impact they had on the waraz scene or on the history of filesharing.
ICEWANKZ

And the cause of being a good filesharer leads to….a 4×4 cell and you guys not really giving a flying rats arse as long as it isn’t yourself. I understand why btjunkie and the whole other lot shut down. There’s no honour among thieves, and especially the “internet warriors” shouting ‘p*ssy sites shutting down FFFFUUUUU’. Try setting up a popular site and feel the heat – perhaps you will keep “fighting the cause”. Idiots.

I bow to these guys who are now remanded in custody awaiting trial. I hope they get the most lenient sentences.
- GuySmiley
  
  Im pretty sure at least 1 of these guys is not in custody.
  I have seen them browsing around somewhere as well as 1 of them spoke to me on msn as little as 20 minutes ago.
  - Mr. MoneySuit Monacle
    
    LMFAO.
    There goes tophos…
    Sabu’d, Lamo’d, School’d
    - GuySmiley
      
      Chatting is proof of nothing. We were talking in general which isn’t illegal unless your in china perhaps.
Samloft

Why do you expect file sharing to foster solidarity?

A lot of file sharers are only interested in free stuff and many of them likely subconsciously accept the premise that copyright infringement is theft.

Some are interested in the deeper philosophical arguments over freedom of information and privacy, while others don’t mind logging and government censorship as long said policies only targets child pornography and hate speech, while a smaller segment are information freedom absolutists rejecting any censorship on principle.

Even some members of the scene groups are likely guilty of other physical crimes and why in the hell should I feel any sympathy for people whose motives for being in the infringement
business aren’t ascertainable.
Not all pirates are necessarily good in the sense that they are against copyright.This is the reason why I don’t support the victims of the RIAA’s lawsuits. Some of them are likely only freetards lacking any principles.
Shocking News

Shocked, seems like only yesterday UTN went off line, now all this…boy they didn’t see this coming, thought go out to them, and as someone said above, clearly wasn’t worth it.
Pingback: IMAGiNE BitTorrent Piracy Group Indicted, Face Years In Prison | Best Seedbox
Mwhahaha

THERE’S

BIGGER
THING

TO

WORRY

ABOUT

RIGHT

NOW

Leave them alone, it was only a few films for christsake.

What did guys selling dodgy videos on the street corner used to get in terms of punishments?

I doubt it was 5 years.
- Mwhahaha
  
  *THINGS
  
  Grrr!
  - LeCochon
    
    Exactly.
    
    When there’s a 99% reduction in violent crime then I might possibly consider accepting that some types of copyright infringement exist.
    
    What they’re trying to do to these people is simply unacceptable while real crime still exists.
    
    I used to work in law enforcement and find ICE & Homeland Security a joke.
Loser

I must say.. Their NARC.. EP1C aka inK I still hope karma bites them in the ass. bastards.just like CTP, long live the memories of Imagine
YARIGHT

Rumors persist that they were led to the slaughter by a rival release group with a grudge.
and those rats are still in the scene , NOW DO YOU SEE WHY YOU DON’T WANT TO JOIN THE SCENE as it is NOT the SCENE anymore….people narcing is proof.
and the feds and cops are helping them bunch a rats just like lolsec leader that caused more crap.
Anon1

That is the lowest form of hypocrisy right there.

“Hey, MAFIAA guys! We just wanted to let you know that we provide movies on P2P networks and proudly stamp our “EP1C” title on all of them so you know who’s guilty, but, don’t worry about us, check out these other guys that are doing the exact same thing and arrest them instead!”
Darkhog

Can’t they finally learn? When one group get arrested, several next are born. There are also some projects being worked on that will put MAFIAA freaks out of business for good (though not movie makers). Details hopefully will be known by June, 1st.
Anonymous

That is to bad for these guys.And yes the Feds & Cops do arrest someone and then that person or persons will cave in and rat others out.
I was busted in 87 for Interstate Cocaine Trafficking and they got me via Wires & Controlled Drug buys.They pulled out and let me inspect a big heap of papers about 1/2 inch thick of all these Conversations I knew I did.It was bye bye for me and that lasted around 7 years.
I also refused to Cooperate.I could of walked with a year or two Probation if I had been a Rat. They are going to put on the pressure with these guys until they either Roll on someone or they get their Sentencing.
And if they really got a bone for you instead of sending you directly to the Federal Pen you were Sentenced to they will put you on a little “Prison Tour”.You will end up in Temp Cells in various Fed Prisons and you won’t have a Commissary Account or Possesions and you will sleep in Cells that have even 10 guys in it.so even in Prison they find ways to fuck with you.
Guest

It doesn’t sound like they got all the members of IMAGiNE. From memory IMAGiNE had the following members Spunky, HoD, Jason, Tank, TheStash and Spangy, all of them within the United States – which totals six, yet only four are indicted. Perhaps the remaining guys live on to fight another day
- Loser
  
  Just because they thank people in the NFO doesnt mean they are within the grp. Those prob just helped them
- GuySmiley
  
  Don’t forget STG aka Stuffies as well.
  I know he is not in the U.S. but he was a member.
  Also I am guessing you didn’t know this but spunky and spangy were in fact the same person.
  So that narrows your list down by 1 person still missing from U.S.
  Being tank to my knowledge from your list.
  Of which I am also pretty sure he’s not from the U.S. anyways.
  - Tru_freak
    
    Tank is from Australia
    - GuySmiley
      
      I know where he was from… I wasn’t saying for the sake of anonimity.
- God
  
  enough with all the nics please, unless your going to post using your real nic
Urdouchebags

and Im sure these 4 were in this in order to further the idealism of copyright freedom, and making money never entered into their minds.

You all really are the stupidest douchebags. You keep defending people WHO ARE NO DIFFERENT than the entertainment companies you despise. They are thieves, plain and simple – they stole, and then made money from it, under the guise of “freedom” or “bet-dom” or whatever.

This is NOT what we should be about.
- FuckU
  
  “they stole, and then made money from it”
  
  Prove it or it didn’t happen.
- Copy Machine
  
  NOTHING WAS PHYSICALLY STOLEN YOU ASSWIPE !
- GuySmiley
  
  I know all of the people involved in this.
  At least 2 of the 4 people never made a cent off of their role in the group so pull your head out of your ass before leaving such comments.
- Arthurconandoyle
  
  They are like modern day Robin Hood’s. Steal from the rich, give to the middle class.
motoxxx

I wish the Imagine group good luck here, I loved their releases. Lets face reality now, this is not a major crime! They will do maybe 6 months in county with probation and some fines to follow, they knew the risks. They should have stayed a little bit more low key, and to ever turned on them ROT IN HELL !!! Read the original post on Imagines problems here a few months ago, the comments by Epic are very suspicious in nature.I for one never D/L any of Epics releases, did not trust him nor were they any good.
- Desu75
  
  They were busted by the FEDS. They won’t be doing 6 months in County. They will be sent to a USP in a state over a thousand miles from the families where they will be housed in searing hot cell blocks without air conditioning. They will be doing several years.
tonyj

I wish those films had intellectual content.
HickDead

HickDead FTW
Ageist

So: “young” netizens are just sharing and caring for the good of the community?

This people average out at 44 years.

You guys can keep living the decade old lie or man up to your addictions and put your money where your mouth is.
- Octogenarian
  
  ^^^ Where’s the off button on this internet doohickey?
Ronea1

greedy goldsteins and goldmans of the world.
abraham@aol.com

Oy vey! Listen to this maven of the balebostes. Feh!
http://twitter.com/DavenportTamar1 DavenportTamara

like Andrea implied I am startled that a stay at home mom can earn $4330 in 1 month on the computer. have you read this web page (Click on menu Home more information) http://goo.gl/v0wha
http://twitter.com/sohail20 sohail

lol
http://modmyi.com/forums/iphone-4-new-skins-themes-launches/740147-neurotech-hd.html#post5637502 Jay

So, they can get 5 years for every infringement – that’s potentially 5,000 years in jail.

They wouldn’t get out until 7012 A.D.
KARIM1

All the imagine members were good peeps, but shit always goes pear shaped whn some cunt starts taking too much.

i know at least 2 of the members are still safe, lets hope the guys can bust the case.
Pingback: Jackson 5riday | Knockoff Report
Reverendmatthewhopkins

@ab03383aacb2618bfbe643e33110ae0d:disqus @ Over The Hill government crime priorities are right.
http://www.activistpost.com/2012/04/18-venn-diagrams-showing-how-corrupted.html
if there was a big business and people made money off of murders and rapes, those crimes would be high priorities. let the poor and meaningless people be raped and murdered, less people to steal from the rich.
Steve

Soldiers might die, but they fight anyway. These four of IMAGiNE are heroes to me.
Inspiral

I think the main reason this all happened was UTN was a pay site with their VIP Internals it was bound to unspiral the way it did regardless if another group helped take em down even without that sooner or later it would happen. Dont get me wrong but i know theirs server costs etc but when you make something VIP Internal and its a new release that cant be found anywhere then ur totally intention is to make money off the members to con em into donating. Just my 2 cents. And to anysite thats doing that or does that its just wrong
- God
  
  most of the “internals” now are “pay for” to get them early
Hailey Ulman

fter being busted last year following an ICE Homeland Security investigati

http://www.unclesamsnewyork.com/tours/35/new_york_city_halloween_night_club_party/
http://www.technewsplus.com/ Usman

We are witnessing tough times for torrent world. Even Megaupload case was a landmark in piracy battle
Armaniangod

They would have less jail sentences if they raped and murdered a school bus full of cheerleaders. This world is so bass akwards… only shows you where loyalties are. Hollywood has been ripping people off ever since VHS and Betamax came out. Just make sure you buy the super ultra epic 25 anniversary version of the movie.
Meredith72uk

^^^^^
u havent a clue spangy lmfao
Pingback: IMAGiNE BitTorrent Piracy Group Indicted, Face Years In Prison
Qoaa

Hope Skidrow, Reloaded and Razor911 notice and don’t pull those tactics.
chuckz

If anyone of you are reading this thanx for all the releases IMAGiNE, you are brilliant encoders. Thanx for making a lot of people happy, I wish all you guys the best of luck!
SL00FK33WT3BS1HT

Little bitch snitch iNK, you and your fat no-tits butt-ugly underaged loose internet-whore gf.
Cut off one head and three more grow back. p2p is doing phenomenal, and IMAGiNE set the bar.
Don’t stress it fellas, I’m betting(and hoping) on just probation for ya’s, espesh if it’s 1st offense.
Either way, we still love ya’s and you still have friends aRound if you reXurn. =]
http://profile.yahoo.com/3ABHMZQH6B77U2IPQGOGMDDJDE Joshua

as Stephanie explained I am dazzled that a mother able to make $6531 in one month on the internet. did you look at this site (Click on menu Home more information) http://goo.gl/Y1ijN
Bob

I’m old school scene, way retired now but I have to say if another scene group had anything to do with this I hope to god they are black listed from every FTP and group across the world. Anyone caught affiliating with any member of that group should be banned and black listed too. What a load of crap.
Pingback: Netizen Report: Follow What You Believe Edition - Global Voices Advocacy
Pingback: Notrackingme | Proxy » Blog Archive » IMAGiNE BitTorrent Piracy Group Indicted, Face Years In Prison
Pingback: IMAGiNE Member Pleads Guilty to Criminal Copyright Infringement | TorrentFreak
Pingback: IMAGiNE Member Pleads Guilty to Criminal Copyright Infringement | We R Pirates
Pingback: IMAGiNE Member Pleads Guilty to Criminal Copyright Infringement | Best Seedbox
Pingback: Notrackingme | Proxy » Blog Archive » IMAGiNE Member Pleads Guilty to Criminal Copyright Infringement
Pingback: Netizen Report: Follow What You Believe Edition – The Netizen Project
Pingback: IMAGiNE Member Pleads Guilty to Criminal Copyright Infringement | Mediafire Search Engine
unknown

the rest of the dominos are falling

http://newsroom-magazine.com/2012/executive-branch/justice-department/gregory-a-cherwonik-pleads-guilty-to-imagine-piracy-and-copyright-infringement/

TorrentFreak

The place where breaking news, BitTorrent and copyright collide

IMAGiNE BitTorrent Piracy Group Indicted, Face Years In Prison

Related Posts

Previous Post | Next Post

NewsBits

Pirate Bay Founder Gottfrid Svartholm on Freedom of Speech

Blu-ray Anti-Piracy Tech Stops Discs and Promotes Purchases

Foxtel Breeds Pirates by Locking Up Game of Thrones

UK Student Admits Breaching Sony Copyrights With Leak of PS3 SDK

Pirates Can Be Identified Despite Sharing IP Addresses, ISP Claims

MostDiscussed

Pirate Bay Takes Over Distribution of Censored 3D Printable Gun

McAfee Patents Technology to Detect and Block Pirated Content

Pirate Bay Finds Safe Haven in Iceland, Switches to .IS Domain

Copyright Trolls Threaten to Call Neighbors of Accused Porn Pirates

Game Pirates Whine About Piracy in Game Dev Simulator

CopyQuote

PopularArticles

VPN Services That Take Your Anonymity Seriously, 2013 Edition

Top 10 Most Popular Torrent Sites of 2013

Which VPN Service Providers Really Take Anonymity Seriously?

What’s The Best VPN / Proxy for BitTorrent?

BTGuard Review: How Does it Work?

Optimize Your BitTorrent Download Speed