TorrentFreak

47 Responses

1 Jun 10, 2009 at 14:44 by Ireland

1st :D

This is a good idea though…. as long as they’re not biased…

2 Jun 10, 2009 at 14:45 by h33t

a non-governmental body operated by the media cartel with the co-operation of the ISPs deciding upon issues of law regardling ordinary citizens

as has always been the case. when the filesharing industry fails to regulate itself then the government will seek the next least expensive solution and go for a private industry fix

http://www.h33t.com a regulated torrent index

3 Jun 10, 2009 at 14:48 by Anonymous

sounds wierd..
ISP’s taking a neutral stance as they should was good.

4 Jun 10, 2009 at 14:55 by manky goes to bollywood

cool story bro :)

5 Jun 10, 2009 at 14:56 by Anon

They will not agree on anything those big company well there only after for there own good they don’t give a shit what other people think they get what they want.

6 Jun 10, 2009 at 15:04 by www.eZee.se

Mark my words:
a) This wont go anywhere and negotiations will break down

or

b) If they do finally agree on something, subscribers are going to get shafted

Why? simply because the industry wont agree on something unless they can have their way, it has to be a win for the industry even if its done in some underhanded way.

“People willing to trade their freedom for temporary security deserve neither and will lose both.” -BF

The solution is simple, the ISPs should simply stay within the law as “dumb pipes” and thus force the industry to come up with better business models and a much more open market (Hulu STILL does not work in the rest of the world unless you jump a few hoops (hotspotshield) which is just…plain… silly)

and finally, DONT work with the music industry – at all, those goons should just wither and die, RIAA/IFPI and the like in each country have proven time and again they are the lowest of the low and cannot be trusted.

“Pirate board” is not needed, we have a court system for a reason – no need to make up new sh!t.

Cheers!
eZee.se

7 Jun 10, 2009 at 15:32 by anon2

wont work because the copyright industry wont let it! unless they get what they want, they wont be satisfied. mininova is finding that out now. isps should remain as they are, totally out of the ‘policeing’ the internet for the copyright industry, who should do their own dirty work! net neutrality should be the order ‘of the day’ and file sharing for non-comercial use, should not only be allowed but deemed 100% legal! who is gonna subsidise the isp when they lose business, especially after adapting to technology? no one. so why should anyony subsidise the copyright industry, when they simply refuse to adapt!

8 Jun 10, 2009 at 15:34 by Anonymous

Which is the exact place this Pirate Board aims to prevent everyone ending up. Stay tuned….

Ending up what?

9 Jun 10, 2009 at 15:37 by time-goat

this wont work the copyright industry wont cooperate because they only care about getting money.

10 Jun 10, 2009 at 15:44 by anon

i don’t see the need for this, waste of money and initiative. If you’re using bittorrent, you’re guilty until proven innocent. case closed, NEXT!!

11 Jun 10, 2009 at 15:52 by Redmarine

The Danish should ask the public about what they wanted instead of what these companies wanted. Oh well…

12 Jun 10, 2009 at 16:04 by hmm

“”Pirate board” is not needed, we have a court system for a reason – no need to make up new sh!t.”

agreed

13 Jun 10, 2009 at 16:06 by J

If the copyright industry wont work with the courts and misused and abuse it what make anyone think they won’t do this here?

Seams to me this is the start of arbitration in copyright.

-J

14 Jun 10, 2009 at 16:20 by thumper

Ever notice, it’s always the other guy’s responsibility to pay for and do what the copyright holders want?

In the case of all the sue’em all, the ISPs should just hand over the data in a limited number of hours. Doesn’t matter that the ISPs don’t have extra workers, just to search logs. The copyright holders don’t want to pay the hours it takes to research 100’s of John Doe claims at once.

The idea is always to get someone else to pay for their dirty work. Someone else to be the face for the bad PR they generated as they no longer want to be painted with the brush they used.

None of this is any solution. They have never been able to stop people from sharing culture. They’ve always known this to be so, despite all the hoop-pa-la over it.

File sharing is not stealing, it never was; it’s culture sharing. All the trolls will come out on that statement because it is a direct threat to what the industry desires, that you pay for each and every play.

They are always wanting to change the rules and laws to benefit their particular stance. Never mind that the rest of the country falls into disarray because of their desires. It’s like the spoiled child that is gonna take the ball home because they won’t play by his rules. This is exactly what happens when the copyright industry hears things they don’t like, like fair treatment instead of the railroad job they are now running.

I gotta tell you, the entertainment industry has changed. It’s no longer about culture with musicians running the labels who know music. It’s now about lawyers who are in place at the senior positions running the corporations and you can see that in the solutions. It’s now about money and court if the spoiled child can’t get its’ way.

I for one have had it with them. I don’t approve of their actions, I don’t approve of their solutions. I’m on boycott and will remain on boycott, till some sort of common sense returns to them. At present, the way it is, it needs to be burned down as a business, with bankruptcy being the only solution until these yoyos can get it together that highway robbery of everyone dealing with them in any capacity is seen as being not the path to go.

The vampire industry needs to die in it’s present form.

15 Jun 10, 2009 at 16:25 by Rekrul

When I read the title, my first thought was that they were setting a board to post reviews of pirate sites. :)

Anyway, this “board” will be a joke. The “mediation” will amount to them repeating the copyright industries demands that the accused file sharers admit to what they did and pay huge fines, while the file sharers will protest their innocence and refuse to meet the demands. This will end in one of two ways; The file sharer will continue to refuse until they’re dragged into court, or they’ll give in to all the demands and settle. In other words, it will be absolutely no different than it is today except that there will be an extra organization in the mix.

16 Jun 10, 2009 at 16:27 by oooh

No this is ripe for biased decisions. Especially on the part of bribery. I can see it now.

17 Jun 10, 2009 at 16:29 by John

I bet this is so when they do eventually go to court, Sony can say ‘we tried to be reasonable’.

I mean – ‘Pirate Review Board’.

Not Piracy, but Pirate. In other words, they will review pirates. This means that straight off the bat anyone who ends up dealing with TPRB is going to be labeled a pirate!

If you can’t manipulate the courts and get away with it (which is what TBP trial has shown), then you might as well make your own court room, where you can be judge, jury and executioner.

And of course, whatever decision you land upon doesn’t make a bit of difference, because it isn’t legally binding at all.

So really, it serves three purposes –

To scare off smaller index sites without even having to pay legal fees, by serving them a non-legal-but-looks-like-it-could-be TPRB summons.

To design a panel/board/council who act as impartial mediators – however are employed by the prosecution.

To shed a favorable light on the prosecution when the situation eventually, and undoubtedly, goes to court.

18 Jun 10, 2009 at 16:42 by Anonymous

Yuckkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkieeeee what a whore-able idea. Its just like establishing another system you have to go through to get no where.

I understand they are trying to free up their resources so its not all allocated to imaginary data right’s cases.

m0l-Pirape

19 Jun 10, 2009 at 16:43 by Julien

Great news from France :
The Constitutional Council censored the 3-strikes law!!!

Here are some links in french cause the news is fresh :
http://www.lemonde.fr/technologies/article/2009/06/10/hadopi-le-conseil-constitutionnel-censure-la-riposte-graduee_1205290_651865.html

http://www.numerama.com/magazine/13112-Hadopi-Le-Conseil-constitutionnel-censure-la-riposte-graduee.html

20 Jun 10, 2009 at 16:45 by /now if only...

Good luck with that…

ISPs have got more sense & know how to deal with these unethical pieces of poo

:0)

2010 FTW

21 Jun 10, 2009 at 16:46 by antimatter.atbhost.net

I don’t see this actually going anywhere, probably another failure.

22 Jun 10, 2009 at 16:48 by deadmanamerican

looks good on paper…
here in illinois if you get pulled over by the police and they search your car, oh and they will,they will confiscate any burned/pirated c.d.s they find in your car. i just lost 26 cds the other day for speeding.
i cant believe the fate of our mental freedom from jackbooted thugs hinges on bittorrent…

23 Jun 10, 2009 at 16:54 by @all

3 Strikes law rejected by the highest council, declared unconstitutional.
http://www.lemonde.fr/technologies/article/2009/06/10/hadopi-le-conseil-constitutionnel-censure-la-riposte-graduee_1205290_651865.html

Hadopi keeps the right to alert people who are caught downloading, but a judge will be the only one to tell what to do.

So, no more 3 strikes.

FKC MAJORS !

24 Jun 10, 2009 at 17:03 by Pants

When I saw the title I hoped for just a second that someone was writing reviews of pirates. I give aXXo 5 stars.

25 Jun 10, 2009 at 17:38 by dairRIAA

It’s fairly obvious that the entire, and I mean the ENTIRE copyright system needs to completely revamped from the ground up.

This model could be also used for software and hardware (with slight modifications to reflect software/hardware). My suggestions would be:

1) Corporations and the artists that they represent should get full copyright protection for 10 years. The 10 year limit will encourage the artists and corporations to create new content. This is a win/win for everyone. The artists create new content, the corporation and the artist will always get fresh income flow, and the consumers will always have fresh art and culture. This stimulation will also help our art and culture evolve much more quickly. After 10 years the content is then open and free to anyone who wants to mix and remix it giving ONLY unknown or unrepresented artists a chance to profit, creating even newer content that will allow art and culture to shape and evolve much more quickly. They will own no copyright on anything that they mix or remix. This applies to both movies and music.

2) Artists that represent themselves (independent) should be given copyright protection for 20 years. These artists are given an additional 10 years because they earn a lot less than their signed counterparts. They most likely can not afford to legally protect their work, they should be able to profit more and a lot longer from their work so they can be encouraged to make new content that will help shape and evolve our art and culture a lot more quickly. This applies to both movies and music.

3) All consumers, artists and corporations fundamentally agree that anyone including other corporations that attempt to profit from the protected works of others are liable and are in full violation of copyrights which will be enforced by the courts and the police.

4) All consumers, artists and corporations agree that non-profit file sharing is completely legal. This is to encourage the sharing of art and culture, as well as encouraging artists and corporations to create fresh content in which they can profit from. This is a win/win situation as the artists and the corporations can gain free advertising of which they can profit from, consumers will be exposed to new art and culture, and the art and culture of the people will shape and evolve a lot more quickly.

5) Any consumer that chooses to share content agrees to encourage others to support and compensate the artists and/or corporations. All web sites and file sharing applications are obliged by law to enforce links or information on where to purchase the content. This is a win/win situation. The consumer gets to try before they buy, and are encouraged to reward the artist/corporation. This is better than the artist/corporation seeing zero profits, and the artist/corporation has paid zero dollars for free advertising.

6) An independent worldwide “whistle blowing” system will be set up so that consumers can report for-profit copyright violations to the artists/corporations. This independent body will investigate these leads, and if they deem that the violation is valid, then all full legal action will be taken. They will be given free reign to calculate the exact amount of fines that should be collected to help compensate the artists/corporations. This independent group will be by run by volunteers. This is a win/win solution where the consumers are in control of monitoring infringers and are watching out for the artists/corporations, and this will cost the artists/corporations nothing.

7) All consumers agree that they will never knowingly pay for illegal movies or music. They agree that they will encourage others to compensate artists and corporations. They also agree that they will always report copyright infringers to the international copyright whistle blowers group.

End of suggestion.

Of course this is just a very rough outline of an idea. I’m sure I may have forgot some important points, but the idea is that the consumers have a responsibility to the artists and corporations. The artists and corporations can save money, etc. I also want to encourage a “truce-like” situation between the consumers, artists and corporations so art and culture will evolve quickly, consumers win and artists/corporations win.

Anyways, rather than being critical of my suggestion/typos/grammar errors consider adding to it or modifying it so it reflects your better ideas.

;)

26 Jun 10, 2009 at 17:53 by nooo

@ deadmanamerican
since when do they automatically search your car and take burned cds?
And if this did happen to you 1 learn your rights and 2 get legal copies of those cds from your friends and family or dont and go to court over this as the officer had no right to seize thos cds unless you mabey admitted that they were illegal copies. And evan then i am not sure if they can.

27 Jun 10, 2009 at 18:11 by IHeard

To my mind the only reason for this is to save money. The entertainment industries have already said it was costing too much money to prosecute individuals. Funny how it is always one sided.

I do wish they would spend their energy on a business model that works for all.

28 Jun 10, 2009 at 18:14 by anon

” 8 Jun 10, 2009 at 15:34 by Anonymous

Which is the exact place this Pirate Board aims to prevent everyone ending up. Stay tuned….

Ending up what?
”

in court, where else

29 Jun 10, 2009 at 18:20 by Trelew

Considering the corporation’s conduct over this. I hear war drums.

30 Jun 10, 2009 at 18:34 by Anton

“If the recipients of these warnings then fail to respond, they wouldn’t be disconnected from the Internet but instead find themselves in a traditional court case.”

I will respond alright: “Fuck you!”

31 Jun 10, 2009 at 18:57 by mr frenchy

i know it’s not related, and sorry for that
but HADOPI (the evil law about downloading) got busted by the “Conseil constitutionnel ”
YAHOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

32 Jun 10, 2009 at 19:31 by Jimmy

#21 deadmanamerican-I think you got screwed by the cop. He probably wanted to keep your CDs lol. Cops can’t search your car without good cause (and speeding is not a reason). Plus how do they know the burned CDs aren’t legal? (like from an iTunes purchase)

33 Jun 10, 2009 at 19:42 by NPI

As long as the ISP’s are not forced to actively police their connections, and the board doesn’t have direct access to their data, I think this is great idea.

The copyright holders would still have to gather the evidence. The board would then go through the evidence and either dismiss the case or contact the ISP for help. The ISP would then try to verify the identity of the accused, and if the evidence is strong enough, possibly initiate some throttling.

The benefit is that the ISP’s would more or less guarantee the neutrality of the board. Which means the accused won’t have to deal with poorly written mails filled with empty accusations and outrageous damage claims. From the copyright holders perspective they wouldn’t have to fight the ISP’s for verification of the IP’s identity and every now and then get to cut some bandwidth in half (not much but at least it’ll look good on paper). The existence of a board might also save the copyright holders some money in saved legal expenses.

The board would try to negotiate a deal to the benefit of both parties, not the usual stare down competition and good-cop, bad-cop routines that we usually hear of.
If the board fails to reach an agreement the case would be returned to the copyright-holder who’ll then bring the case to court. Possibly the board could reach the conclusion of the accused being in violation of current law and have the ISP cut the connection, forcing the user to take the case to court –but I don’t see the ISP’s agreeing to that.

Under the current legislation all a pirate can hope for is a fair treatment by the copyright holder, and I’d much rather get contacted by a independent piracy board than some IFPI lawyer and his ninja monkey.

34 Jun 10, 2009 at 20:15 by CopyrightNarreSeMaSePoese

I don’t trust this. Who’s idea was this? I sense a trap of some sort.

35 Jun 10, 2009 at 20:23 by Anonymous

I wonder if the others industries are telling the entertainment industry to shut up already. You know they are making people very angry and spoiling a lot of things for a lot of others.

Apparently Harvard Law professor Charles Nesson will get back the $100 million that in his opinion was stolen from the people who was forced to settle or face bankruptcy by the hands of the RIAA and the case of RIAA vs. Jammie Thomas is starting to get interesting.

I almost feel sorry for the poor schmucks that sought it was a good idea to antagonize the people in such a public manner, well almost but not really LoL

36 Jun 10, 2009 at 21:13 by thumper

The RIAA has gotten it’s fingers slapped before the first time it tried to pass the DMCA law. It was written in such a manner that it affected nearly everyone that used the internet here in the states.

When all the other big boys jumped on it with both feet about being against it, the music industry found rather quickly, they had neither the power to push it through, nor were they as big and bad as they thought. The measley 10% GNP they represent as the entertainment industry as a whole did not match up to the power of 50-60% GNP that was against it.

They quickly had to drop it and go back to the drawing board to tone it down.

37 Jun 10, 2009 at 22:28 by Matheus Svensson

It sounds like a terrible idea. Censorship by commercial cabal is the worst form of censorship. It is opaque and based on convenience, not justice.

38 Jun 11, 2009 at 00:16 by UltraleetJ

not going to work… yet another failure… legal bulling, again! plus, how can an ISP verify my identity? sure, my modem has a mac address but my router hasa mac address clone and my ip changes every month or maybe more often than that. Accusing the wrong person, AGAIN.

39 Jun 11, 2009 at 05:28 by Hacker/pirates of the world UNITE

in related news….

Humans beings actually lost WW2 against facism, the USA just pirated hitler….

40 Jun 11, 2009 at 06:17 by msupre

New Wallpapers Added.
Visit: http://blog.bitcomet.com/9744199/

Most of the wallpapers are high resolution (HD Wallpapers).
More than 1000 Wallpapers.

41 Jun 11, 2009 at 14:58 by Ripper

@ 22 Jun 10, 2009 at 16:48 by deadmanamerican

” looks good on paper…
here in illinois if you get pulled over by the police and they search your car, oh and they will,they will confiscate any burned/pirated c.d.s they find in your car. i just lost 26 cds the other day for speeding.
i cant believe the fate of our mental freedom from jackbooted thugs hinges on bittorrent…”

Firstly, if you look up the meaning of the word ’statute’ in Black’s law dictionary (I did do this a while back but can’t remember the exact wording) it means an ACT or BILL which is given LEGAL status with the CONSENT of those governed by it. Now, if you don’t agree with the statute there is no way that you can be made to be bound by it.

The police officer who pulled you over has sworn an oath of office. It may surprise you that all police forces are in fact CORPORATIONS (this information is available on the Dunn & Bradstreet website), and when stopped, if you give your name to the officer you are entering into a CONTRACT, which means in turn that you agree to the statute that he used to pull you over.

These statutes ride on top of the constitutional laws and therefore carry no lawful weight. For example, where in the constitution (real law) does it say that you CANNOT travel at 150mph on any road after a night out on the booze? Again, where does it say that you CANNOT download any media you see fit?

The police officer’s oath of office applies to constitutional law, NOT legal law – there is a huge difference between lawful and legal, and therefore he can be made to abide by his oath, which is to protect and serve YOU. Under statute law (legal) the officer may have had a right to confiscate (perhaps because you granted him this right by entering into a contract). However under constitutional law (lawful) aka. “common law” he was STEALING from you.

All this is far too complex to explain in full on here, but those interested can visit http://www.tpuc.org/ This is a British site but also applies to the USA, Canada and Europe. Watch the 40 minute video on the left of the page entitled “It’s an illusion” by John Harris.

Another good read is “How I Clobbered Every Bureaucratic Cash-Confiscatory Agency Known To Man” by Mary Elizabeth Croft. This is freely available to download in PDF format. Just Google her name.

PS. I am not a lawyer.

42 Jun 11, 2009 at 15:59 by Am I the only one?

I’m file sharing from Japan. How, or, will this affect me?

43 Jun 11, 2009 at 16:48 by Dizzy

It’s not so hard… just let me pay my ISP extra per month so i can download my stuff.

The movie industry will have a nice way to see which movies in which countries are popular…

Games industry the same thing…
They don’t even need to press the disc or give me any support. If i want to go online, i’ll purchase a license key. That could be done through things such as Steam.

As for the music industry… same thing, although i really think artists should be the owners of their music and not some company that just buys the music and then exploits anyone else who also wants to listen to it.
Seems they are well aware of what gets downloaded a lot and what not… so from that they can figure out how to split the money among them…

44 Jun 11, 2009 at 23:28 by trancefreak

Hi ya’ll!

I’m danish, my pc has now been running for 54 days, and that means that utorrent has been running on my pc for 54 days..

I’ve uploaded 7,4 TB of nice techno music in this period!

AND FUCK THE bitchass “RIGHT-HOLDERS” !!!

I’m a member of the danish pirate party, and dont give at SHIT about copyright, copyright is outdated, and has been abused/manipulated by the industry!

45 Jun 15, 2009 at 06:50 by fight_the_tyranny

Creating a problem where one does not exist. That’s the copyright industry for you.

File sharing is only a problem to monopolistic cartels to whom the notion of freedom of choice represents the greatest peril.

46 Jun 17, 2009 at 03:28 by DouglasHYIPdreamer

Hello.
I was invited at Cherryshares, investment pool a month ago but didn’t invest with them, because my friend Jay told me that there are programs that pay more.
Such as cashtanker, geniusfunds stoic-capital. What will be better can you advice? I don’t want to get scammed.

47 Jun 18, 2009 at 07:35 by Entertane.com

Check out http://www.entertane.com for a new meta-search engine – faster, simpler – access to all your favorite torrent searches

Responses are closed

All remaining responses will continue to be archived. Use the TorrentFreak forums if you want to discuss something.