TorrentFreak

The place where breaking news, BitTorrent and copyright collide

Major Book Publisher Demands Jury Trial Against BitTorrent Pirates

John Wiley & Sons, one of the world’s largest book publishers, is continuing its efforts to crack down on BitTorrent piracy. The company has now named several people who allegedly shared Wiley titles online, and is demanding a jury trial against them. If these actually go ahead it will be the first time that BitTorrent-related evidence is tested in a US court.

dummiesLast fall, John Wiley and Sons became the first book publisher to go after BitTorrent users in the US.

By filing a mass-BitTorrent lawsuit the company followed mostly in the footsteps of several movie studios, who together have sued more than 250,000 people in the US since early 2010. And the publisher didn’t stop at just one.

In recent months Wiley has filed more than a dozen mass BitTorrent lawsuits involving a few hundred John Doe defendants in total. The Does are all accused of sharing digital copies of titles including “WordPress for Dummies,” Hacking for Dummies” and “Day Trading for Dummies.”

Talking to TorrentFreak, Wiley’s attorney William Dunnegan said previously that one of the main goals of the legal campaign is to obtain the personal details of the alleged infringers and offer them the opportunity to solve the matter through a settlement.

“Our intention is to stop the infringement and let individuals know that they are violating the law and depriving the creators of the works of rightful compensation. Our preference is to educate, settle, and prevent further infringement,” Wiley’s attorney William Dunnegan told us.

However, this strategy doesn’t always work. While the courts and Internet providers have been cooperative in assisting Wiley to obtain the personal details of the alleged book pirates, a new filing suggest that some defendants are not taking the publisher’s settlement offer.

In a one of Wiley’s cases four defendants have now been named in an amended complaint.

New York residents Jeff Ng, Ralph Mohr, Robert Carpenter and Xiaoshu Chen are no longer anonymous Does. Wiley is proceeding to call for a full jury trial against the quartet in which they will face accusations of copyright infringement and up to $150,000 in penalties for each offense.

Contacted by TorrentFreak, Wiley’s attorney William Dunnegan declined to comment on the recent developments in these specific cases. “We are proceeding with these cases as a part of Wiley’s overall copyright enforcement and education program,” was the comment we got instead.

If one or more of the three cases indeed proceeds to a full trial it will be the first time that actual evidence against BitTorrent infringers is tested in court. This is relevant because the main piece of evidence the copyright holders have is an IP-address, which by itself doesn’t identify a person but merely a connection.

In a past RIAA court case experts described the evidence gathering techniques “as factually erroneous”, “unprofessional” and “borderline incompetent.” In addition, academics have shown that due to shoddy technique even a network printer can be accused of sharing copyrighted files on BitTorrent.

If the evidence is indeed tested in court, it should be a case to watch for sure.

That said, there’s also the chance that the lawyers are using the threat of a full trial by jury as a pressure tool to convince the defendants to settle. After all, the RIAA’s litigation campaign against individual file-sharers has shown that even when a jury awards hundreds of thousands of dollars in damages, lengthy trials cost more than they bring in.

Related Posts

Previous Post | Next Post

  • Dfdf

    Never buy “for dummies” book again.

    • Guest

      You don’t have to. They all suck

    • Anyone

       download them instead

      • Anon

        Was it called …..

        Downloading torrents for dummies ? 

      • Unit

        Jeah apparently they’re are all on the internet. Thanks for letting us know :)

    • Anonymous

      my neighbor’s step-sister brought home $20864 a week ago. she has been making cash on the internet and bought a $519900 home. All she did was get lucky and apply the advice exposed on this link>>> http://dealincash.blogspot.com/

      • Blue

        Yeah….FLAGGED FOR SPAM :)

      • Guest

         I hit Flag button by “mystake”. ;)

    • http://www.cheapassfiction.com/ Aelius Blythe

      Careful.  
      Like most big publishers, Wiley & Sons has a ton of imprints including a lot of cooking, business, and lifestyle-type books. Also, sadly, Cliff Notes and Websters.   For all Wiley brands and imprints:http://eu.wiley.com/WileyCDA/Section/id-302256.htmlWhile it may be specifically the “For Dummies” people throwing a tantrum now, the ones at the top need to feel the pressure.  So let them.  Mark their books off your list.  Remember their brands and find alternatives.  Don’t give them a cent.  Even by accident. 

      What we need is to find the AUTHORS of the titles (not in the Demand for Jury Trial doc above…)  They don’t have any rights to their books (“Dummies” books are copyrighted in the name of Wiley & Sons, not the authors,) they need to be put on the spot.  A decision against the BitTorrenters could be significantly more difficult to get if the authors themselves were speaking out against the trial.  

      Otherwise, they need to know that those who stand by while their readers are attacked will soon have no readers left.

      I wrote to the authors that I could find from the original list of titles the John Does downloaded, but I don’t know which ones are involved here.  Anyone……?  At any rate, the authors I talked to seemed apathetic at best.  Not okay.

      • http://www.cheapassfiction.com/ Aelius Blythe

        Crap.  Link fail.  Trying again…..       http://eu.wiley.com/WileyCDA/Section/id-302256.html

      • Lord of the Files

        I’ve only ever downloaded one. It was back in 2009, but I never read it. It’s for Photoshop CS4 so I think I’ll delete it today. My local library has tons of “For Dummies” books so if I ever feel the need (which is highly doubtful) I’ll just get it for free from there. If they don’t have the one I want, all I need to do is put in a request and they’ll get a copy. No need to spend a single dime, unless I actually want people to see one of these titles in my own book case. Not gonna happen lol. :-p

        • Lord of the Files

           Oops, that was supposed to be a reply to tonyj123′s comment below about libraries. Must have hit the wrong button. :-/

      • http://profile.yahoo.com/RMBISPDDFZ7ZBYO6XKAFFAJ35I robert

        Aelius - Have you ever written a book?  Do you know how long it takes to write a decent book?  90% of every author you have ever heard of was loaned money by a publisher so they could work full-time on writing a good book.  Your philosophy will only reduce publisher’s ability to take risks on tens of thousands of author’s potential book.  Publishers are the venture capitalists of books. 

        • Camilo

          There are good publishers and bad publishers.

          If a publisher is a bad publisher, it deserves losing its authors to a good publisher who does not try to sue random people.

        • http://www.cheapassfiction.com/ Aelius Blythe

          Hi Robert, I know you’re probably not still around, but for the record, I’m a writer and aspiring novelist.  I work full time, blog, and write so I’m well acquainted with the labor involved in producing a book.  

          I know it’s tempting to use the old standby of “You just don’t know what it’s like!” But as more and more authors emerge from the pool of file-sharers, that is becoming less a much less reliable argument.

    • tonyj123

       don’t be lazy, just hit the library. They got plenty of ebooks to loan, music and videos as well. Also audio tapes. So what the hell people, you pay for the Libs with your taxes, might as well put them to use.

    • Audree

       since they started these censorship of the “dummies ” books, I have been sharing them so they are still available and as we should all  share (ban together) as censorship has no rights on the internet in pirate philosophy 101.

    • Anonymous

      my buddy’s half-sister made $16109 past month. she works on the computer and moved in a $490100 home. All she did was get blessed and put to use the directions laid out on this web page… http://onlinemoneycampaign.blogspot.in/ 

  • Anonymous

    Here’s what John Wiley and Sons will do:
    -Take them court
    -Rinse the defendants for money via lawyer fees
    -Make defendants settle out of court via installments (like a plea-bargain)

    Defendants thought they were pulling the bluff-card on John Wiley & Sons lawyers…Clearly not.

    Let’s see how this turns out as it could mean that future rulings will refer to these current cases. I feel for the defendants. It’s just a f****ng e-book!

    • Anonymous

       Another possibility for two of the defendants is that they are already back in China (Jeff Ng and Xiaoshu Chen) and can give the lawyers the middle-finger.

      • Anonymous

         Ng is Vietnamese. Try again…

        • UK

           Another possibility for one of the defendants is that they are already
          back in Vietnam (Jeff Ng) and can give the lawyers the
          middle-finger.

        • Nitpickers Anonymous

           Cantonese, actually.

        • WAT

           I think you’ll find that “Ng” is in fact a well known Finnish name. But nice try.

        • Anonymous

          Vietnam?…..Especially BIG finger!!  Make the honerable China finger look small!

        • harry krishna

          witty repartee’.  what were we talking about?

        • Anonymous

           It’s not Vietnamese you mong. Try again and look it up instead of misinforming the rest of the board.

    • King

      an e-book they should not have stolen…….

      • UK

         Nothing has been “stolen”

      • http://gene-poole.tumblr.com Gene Poole

        What are you fucking retarded? Where did the original copy go that they managed to steal it? Haven’t you heard the jingle? Copying is not theft.

      • Guest

        Hey your comment there occupies… that’s mine space.

      • Diarrhea Spatters

        Nothing was ever stolen!

        “Know thy internetz”

      • http://www.facebook.com/remccainjr Edward McCain

        I took a picture of your car.  Sorry I stole it, bro.

        Oh, and I took a picture of your wife too. She’s a real freaky slut, let me tell you ;)

        • Vkka

          I took his wife’s dna and experimented with it. Tell you… she’s more than just a freaky slut. You want a copy?

        • Anon

          Pics or it didn’t happen lol

        • Guest

          Insulting a person’s wife…you must feel be feeling like a “real man” now.

        • Guest

          Correction: Insulting a person’s hypothetical wife.

          His comment is not personally directed at his wife. He’s just making a point by using the status of “your wife”.

      • Fredrika

        > “an e-book they should not have stolen…….”

        Only items that have an inherent scarcity can be stolen, and stolen means it disappeared from the previous possessor. Judicially, only property can be stolen.

        An intellectual work does not constitute property(intellectual property does not refer to the intellectual work in itself, it refers to the copyright monopoly), it has no inherent scarcity, it can not be owned, it can not be sold or bought, and it can not be stolen.

        Manufacturing copies with your own property, property that you alredy own, as people filesharing does, can never be stealing or theft.

        There, now i have educated you, sort of an IP for dummies lesson, so that you won’t have to post such ignorant comment ever again.

        • Tom

          “Only items that have an inherent scarcity can be stolen, ”

          Are you serious? 

          “and stolen means it disappeared from the previous possessor. Judicially, only property can be stolen.”
          Well that’s judicially. I’m sure that he wasn’t talking about the law he was probably talking about the colloquial use of the word. Regardless, even in law we have terms such as Data Theft and Theft of Service and Identity Theft all of which do not require an item to be removed from a persons possession. ”An intellectual work does not constitute property(intellectual property does not refer to the intellectual work in itself, it refers to the copyright monopoly), it has no inherent scarcity, it can not be owned, it can not be sold or bought, and it can not be stolen.”What are you going on about here? Can you please reread what you wrote?”Manufacturing copies with your own property, property that you alredy own, as people filesharing does, can never be stealing or theft.” Says who… you? The subject is far more complex than you are making it out to be. Theft or not, it is still considered unethical. I’ve been wondering… You seem to be a huge propaganda machine with a substantial ego. Are you really Rick Falkvinge?

        • Fredrika

          > “I’m sure that he wasn’t talking about the law. He was probably talking about the colloquial use of the word.”

          And for the colloquial use of the word something with inherent scarcity still has to go missing for it to be called stolen.

          For it to be judicially stolen, it must be property.

          > “Regardless, even in law we have terms such as Data Theft and Theft of Service and Identity Theft all of which do not require an item to be removed from a persons possession.”

          The term discussed was stolen. That some crimes where property is not stolen unfortunately are called theft, does not mean that something has been stolen in this case.

          Regarding identity theft, something scarce has gone missing, the identity’s unique identifying function. The core function of an identity is to uniquely identify only one person. When identity theft has occurred, that scarce uniqueness is gone.

          > “What are you going on about here? Can you please reread what you wrote?”

          Maybe you should reread it yourself, and then tell me what you don’t understand.

          > “Says who… you?”

          No, the law and the dictionary. Performing an intrusion into a legislative monopoly through manufacturing gods or services with your own property is not theft. The law and the dictionary can verify this fact for you.

          > “The subject is far more complex than you are making it out to be.”

          Please explain what complexity you refer to, and i will explain to you why none of this complexity changes the fact that nothing is stolen when you manufacture copies with your own property.

          > “Theft or not, it is still considered unethical.”

          By who? You and your personal subjective moral? Others might not share your moral. And the norm in society does not share your opinion on that, that non-profit copyright infringement is unethical. That’s why hundreds of millions of people perform it on a regular basis. Psychologically healthy people do not go against their own moral, and perform actions they feel are unethical. This is something you learn very early on when you attend an education on human psychology.

          > “I’ve been wondering… You seem to be a huge propaganda machine with a substantial ego.”

          So just because you are wondering things, you feel it’s ok to resort to logical fallacies and perform personal attacks?

          The fact that one points out misconceptions among ignorant anti-filesharing trolls does not mean one has an huge ego. Secondly, you don’t seem to understand what propaganda means in the first place.

          Propaganda is when you make claims with the intention of influencing people emotionally, rather than rationally. For instance like when someone calls filesharing for theft, a negatively charged word, to influence them to believing filesharing is negative, without actually arguing for why filesharing is negative in the first place. This is dishonest propaganda behaviour that most copyright trolls resort to on a regular basis.

          Pointing out facts about what filesharing actually constitutes, and that it isn’t theft, is not propaganda.

          > “Are you really Rick Falkvinge?”

          Another personal attack, trying to connect a signature to a real life identity. My real identity has no relevance whatsoever to the discussion, and it will never be a relevant topic of discussion, therefore i will never comment on it.

          But i do feel flattered by the fact that you compare me to a person which the magazine Foreign Policy named one of the Top 100 Global Thinkers in 2011, a person who was awarded the Swedish Guldmusen award as IT person of the year 2010, citing his successes in bringing the Net and its consequences to the political table, a person who has been listed as one of the 100 most influential people in Sweden by Fokus magazine, a person who started a political movement that has spread to parties in around 60 counties of the world and already has had candidates elected to many political assemblies.

        • Anonymous

          “Only items that have an inherent scarcity can be stolen, ”

          Are you serious?

          “and stolen means it disappeared from the previous possessor. Judicially, only property can be stolen.”

          Well that’s judicially. I’m sure that he wasn’t talking about the law. He was probably talking about the colloquial use of the word. Regardless, even in law we have terms such as Data Theft and Theft of Service and Identity Theft all of which do not require an item to be removed from a persons possession.

          “An intellectual work does not constitute property(intellectual property does not refer to the intellectual work in itself, it refers to the copyright monopoly), it has no inherent scarcity, it can not be owned, it can not be sold or bought, and it can not be stolen.”

          What are you going on about here? Can you please reread what you wrote?

          “Manufacturing copies with your own property, property that you alredy own, as people filesharing does, can never be stealing or theft.”

          Says who… you? The subject is far more complex than you are making it out to be. Theft or not, it is still considered unethical.

          I’ve been wondering… You seem to be a huge propaganda machine with a substantial ego. Are you really Rick Falkvinge?

          Sorry for the double post.

        • Anonymous

          “And for the colloquial use of the word something with inherent scarcity still has to go missing for it to be called stolen.”

          So you are basically saying that if I go into a supermarket and take a chocolate bar, one in thousands, I’m not actually stealing anything?

          “The term discussed was stolen. That some crimes where property is not stolen unfortunately are called theft, does not mean that something has been stolen in this case. ”

          I hope that you understand that during theft something, tangible or not, has to be stolen.

          “Regarding identity theft, something scarce has gone missing, the identity’s unique identifying function. The core function of an identity is to uniquely identify only one person. When identity theft has occurred, that scarce uniqueness is gone. ”

          So, If I’ve had my identity stolen by say 500 thieves does that mean that the 501th thieve isn’t really partaking in identity theft? You can of course increase those numbers till your hearts desire.

          Regardless, let’s assume that what you said is actually true… Now try applying that same reasoning to describe how Theft of Service and Data Theft require that something that is scarce to have been stolen before it is considered theft.

          “No, the law and the dictionary. Performing an intrusion into a legislative monopoly through manufacturing gods or services with your own property is not theft. The law and the dictionary can verify this fact for you.”

          What do you mean by “Performing an intrusion into a legislative monopoly”?

          “Please explain what complexity you refer to, and i will explain to you why none of this complexity changes the fact that nothing is stolen when you manufacture copies with your own property.”

          The complexity arises by the way in which we use words. The link below should give you a better idea.

          http://www.copyhype.com/2010/09/is-copyright-infringement-theft/

          Also, it’s not a case of “manufacture copies with your own property”. You aren’t actually manufacturing anything when you download something.

          The producer of such property would like compensation before you make use of that property, copy or otherwise. This is where the ethics of the issue comes into play and the use of words such as theft. They are based on how the producer of said property would view your actions.

          “By who? You and your personal subjective moral? Others might not share your moral.

          Usually, by the people whom have spent time and money producing the content that you are illegally using for free. A simple test to determine the ethics of the situation is to imagine that the producer of the content is sitting in the room with you. Ignoring the law for a moment, would you still then download said content. If so, how do you expect that person to react?

          “And the norm in society does not share your opinion on that, that non-profit copyright infringement is unethical. That’s why hundreds of millions of people perform it on a regular basis. Psychologically healthy people do not go against their own moral, and perform actions they feel are unethical. This is something you learn very early on when you attend an education on human psychology.”

          Humans have an amazing talent for justify their wrong doings to themselves.

          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rationalization_(making_excuses) A little psychology lesson for you.

          “Propaganda is when you make claims with the intention of influencing people emotionally,”

          Not entirely true…

          “Propaganda is a form of communication that is aimed at influencing the attitude of a community toward some cause or position”

          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda

          “But i do feel flattered by the fact that you compare me to a person which the magazine Foreign Policy named one of the Top 100 Global Thinkers in 2011, a person who was awarded the Swedish Guldmusen award as IT person of the year 2010, citing his successes in bringing the Net and its consequences to the political table, a person who has been listed as one of the 100 most influential people in Sweden by Fokus magazine, a person who started a political movement that has spread to parties in around 60 counties of the world and already has had candidates elected to many political assemblies.”

          Now… now… no need to puff up your chest: P It’s funny what a bit of influence will get you these days.

        • Fredrika

          > “So you are basically saying that if I go into a supermarket and take a chocolate bar, one in thousands, I’m not actually stealing anything?”

          No. Obviously you are, because a scarce piece of property went missing.

          > “I hope that you understand that during theft something, tangible or not, has to be stolen.”

          Yes, and that’s why it’s unfortunate to label crimes as data theft and theft of service, because no tangible or intangible property goes missing as a result of it.

          > “So, If I’ve had my identity stolen by say 500 thieves does that mean that the 501th thieve isn’t really partaking in identity theft?”

          The judicial system decides whether or not he committed a crime. The word theft in identity theft is used semantically, and refers to that the unique identifying function, which is scarce, has gone missing. The fact that the crime can be committed several times by several individuals has no relevance to that fact.

          > “Now try applying that same reasoning to describe how Theft of Service and Data Theft require that something that is scarce to have been stolen before it is considered theft.”

          Again you confuse stolen with theft. The initial discussion was about what criteria that needs to be fulfilled for something to have been stolen, judicially or colloquially.

          > “What do you mean by “Performing an intrusion into a legislative monopoly”?”

          Do you not understand what copyright infringement is? It’s an intrusion into a legislative monopoly.

          > “The complexity arises by the way in which we use words. The link below should give you a better idea.

          Nothing in that article changes the fact that the act of manufacturing something with your own property can never be theft or stealing.

          > “Also, it’s not a case of “manufacture copies with your own property”. You aren’t actually manufacturing anything when you download something.”

          You most certainly are, you are manufacturing copies on your harddrive, according to the information that someone else freely has shared with you, information describing the patterns of his physical property, that he owns.

          > “The producer of such property..”

          As has been explained to you before, an intellectual work does not constitute property. Property is something that is scarce in supply, that can be owned, sold or bought. Neither of those criteria applies to an intellectual work. The misleading term intellectual property does not refer to the intellectual work in itself, it refers to the copyright monopoly, which is scarce and a piece of intangible property, that can be owned, sold or bought. That you own a copyright monopoly does not mean that you own the intellectual work, or that the intellectual work constitute property.

          > “..would like compensation before you make use of that property, copy or otherwise.”

          You seem to be confused. Creators or monopoly holders have never been compensated when you make use of an intellectual work. They are compensated when they sell goods or services.

          > “This is where the ethics of the issue comes into play and the use of words such as theft. They are based on how the producer of said property would view your actions.”

          How the producer of an intellectual work views one’s action, as in manufacturing something with one’s own property is irrelevant to the fact that it isn’t theft or stealing.

          Secondly, it’s not their property. So the ethical question that should be asked goes in the other direction, if it’s ethically defensible to privilege the creator with a legislative monopoly that intrudes into people property rights and forbids them to manufacture copies with their property.

          Obviously it is unethical if it can not be proven that society benefits from the use of such legislative monopolies. Proof that society benefits from letting the copyright monopoly regulate non-profit use has never been proven. Therefore it’s completely unethical to privilege a monopoly holder with control over other peoples use of their own property.

          > “Usually, by the people whom have spent time and money producing the content..”

          Their moral values does not decide other people’s moral values.

          > “..that you are illegally using for free.”

          It’s not illegal to use content. Some manufacturing, distributing and selling of goods and services is illegal. The price for manufacturing copies with your own property can never be anything else than free. That price is not up for discussion, and it has no relevance for what’s illegal.

          > “A simple test to determine the ethics of the situation is to imagine that the producer of the content is sitting in the room with you. Ignoring the law for a moment, would you still then download said content. If so, how do you expect that person to react?”

          If his reaction is troubling, i’ll simply have to educate him on the fact that it’s my property that i use, and that it is non of his business if i manufacture something with my property.

          If that doesn’t help, i’ll remind him that creators hasn’t had any say on others use of property not belonging to the creators, when in a non-profit manner making available and accessing copies of copyrighted works on a commercial scale, for the last 150 years. So if it helps his ignorant mind, maybe he can imagine that we’re sitting in a library. Remember that we should ignore the law, so the fact that libraries is legal and that filesharing in some countries is illegal, is irrelevant.

          Secondly, what’s ethical is not based on ignorant imaginations and delusion of grandeur among creators, regardless of what room they sit in.

          > “Humans have an amazing talent for justify their wrong doings to themselves.”

          The fact that rationalisation exists does not mean that non-profit copyright infringments is a wrong doing in the first place.

          Secondly, rationalisation is a defence mechanism aimed at others moral projections of what’s right and wrong. It does not change the fact that you wouldn’t do it in the first place if you didn’t feel it was ok.

          > “The fact that you actually think you are doing that is demonstrating your ego.”

          Every claim i put forward is verifiable in the law, a dictionary or a physics book.

          > “Propaganda is a form of communication that is aimed at influencing the attitude of a community toward some cause or position”

          Which i’m not doing when i refute false propaganda from copyright trolls, by pointing out the facts about what filesharing constitutes, or that is isn’t stealing. People’s attitude is not of my concern, pointing out actual errors in false propaganda from copyright trolls is.

        • Anonymous

          OK to make this easy, seeing as your whole argument is based on some strange made up definition of theft. Please provide me with some type of evidence that theft can only occur on items that are scarce. Then we can move on from there.

          I will not allow myself to, once again, get drawn into the distractions you disguise as arguments.

        • Fredrika

           > “OK to make this easy..”

          For yourself i assume? Since you weren’t able to answer any of the argumentative threads in the previous comment.

          > “..seeing as your whole argument is based on some strange made up definition of theft.”

          None of my arguments are?

          > “Please provide me with some type of evidence that theft can only occur on items that are scarce.”

          I have not made such claim. But if you’re so interested in theft, start here:

          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theft

          Notice that the action theft is something that can only happen to someone’s property, so to understand the concept of theft, you have first have to understand the concept of property, something which you don’t seem to grasp, since you
          referred to an intellectual work as property.

          Property is something that is scarce.

          > “Then we can move on from there.

          It has no relevance to any of the argumentative threads in my previous comment?

          Regarding something you wrote to another person, but posted as a reply to me(please stop doing that!):

          > “I believe that to say that you are manufactoring say “Windows 7″ when you download it is to missuse the word.”

          In this sentence you for some reason confuse the intellectual work, as in Windows 7, with the copy, which is the item that is manufactured with a persons property. The intellectual work is something which is created by the creator. The copy is a piece of goods that is created by the person manufacturing the copy, which is something that can take place in for instance a CD pressing plant, or at home on a persons computer or CD burner. A copy is physical patterns located on property, like for instance pages of paper, an optical disc, a cassette tape or a harddrive.

          When people fileshare, they manufacture a copy on their harddrive, that they own. All property involved in filesharing is owned by the people filesharing.

          Manufacturing something with your own property is never theft, because no property has been stolen.

          There is no misuse of the word manufacturing by neither the other person you replied to or me. There is however a clear misuse of the words theft and stolen, when describing a copyright infringement. It is in fact completely wrong to use those words to describe the act of a person manufacturing something with his own property, that he owns, as people filesharing does.

        • Danny

           @JordanKratz:disqus Dirty_Bear

          You seem to have a problem understanding the English language. You also seem to not understand what ID theft is, ID theft is usually done to commit further crime like stealing somebody’s money or getting a loan in someone else’s name (this is also known as fraud).

          This:
          ‘Also, it’s not a case of “manufacture copies with your own property”. You aren’t actually manufacturing anything when you download something.’
          Made me face palm.

          What do you think your PC does when you download something? You are producing (manufacturing) a copy of a file on your hard disk, in other words you are manufacturing a copy with your own property (duh?).

          > ‘Performing an intrusion into a legislative monopoly’

          (I will spell this out for you)
          Copyrights give you a monopoly on the distribution of a created work, in this example the dummies books, no body else can produce copies of these books without the permission of the owner of said copying rights. This copying monopoly is enforced by legislation, when you produce a copy of a product you are intruding on this copyright monopoly which is backed by legislation (it really couldn’t be simpler).

          Like many trolls on here you fall into the trap of saying that this is all for the content creators. Unfortunately for you we all know the truth. When any unknown author or artist wants to get published they have to sign their copyrights away and as a result get no money in return. The only people benefiting from copyrights are the distributors of physical products, who in the world of the internet have lost all ability to compete with free digital distribution. The public realise that it costs nothing to make a digital copy so why should a digital copy cost as much (or even more) as the physical product?

        • Anonymous

          @danwood76:disqus 
          “You seem to have a problem understanding the English language. You also seem to not understand what ID theft is, ID theft is usually done to commit further crime like stealing somebody’s money or getting a loan in someone else’s name (this is also known as fraud).”

          You used the word “usually”. So I’m guessing that you already understand that this isn’t always the case. This kinda invalidates the point you are trying to make. 

          ‘Also, it’s not a case of “manufacture copies with your own property”. You aren’t actually manufacturing anything when you download something.’
          Made me face palm.

          What do you think your PC does when you download something? You are producing (manufacturing) a copy of a file on your hard disk, in other words you are manufacturing a copy with your own property (duh?).

          I believe that to say that you are manufactoring say “Windows 7″ when you download it is to missuse the word. But hey if you feel that that’s the most appropiate word then go ahead and use it.    

          > ‘Performing an intrusion into a legislative monopoly’

          (I will spell this out for you)
          Copyrights give you a monopoly on the distribution of a created work, in this example the dummies books, no body else can produce copies of these books without the permission of the owner of said copying rights. This copying monopoly is enforced by legislation, when you produce a copy of a product you are intruding on this copyright monopoly which is backed by legislation (it really couldn’t be simpler).

          Even simpler would have been to say Pirate. Not to use some convoluted statement to replace the word. And I didn’t ask “you” specifically for the meaning.    

          “Like many trolls on here you fall into the trap of saying that this is all for the content creators. Unfortunately for you we all know the truth. When any unknown author or artist wants to get published they have to sign their copyrights away and as a result get no money in return. The only people benefiting from copyrights are the distributors of physical products, who in the world of the internet have lost all ability to compete with free digital distribution. The public realise that it costs nothing to make a digital copy so why should a digital copy cost as much (or even more) as the physical product?”

          Seeing as you rant had nothing to do with what I actually said I’ll ignore it.

        • Danny

          @Dirty_Bear:disqus

          Just because you didn’t ask me doesn’t mean I cannot answer, this is an open forum. I assume you belittling the point is an acceptance of defeat on the matter. Pirate is a lovely word, reminds me of Jack Sparrow…..

        • Anonymous

          @flphpp:disqus 
          OK to make this simple, seeing as your whole argument is based on some strange made up definition of theft. Please provide me with some type of evidence that theft can only occur on items that are scarce. Then we can move on from there. I will not allow myself to, again, get drawn into the destractions (straw men)  you put up as arguments. 

        • Cyclical

          @Dirty_Bear:disqus 

          “Even simpler would have been to say Pirate. Not to use some convoluted statement to replace the word. And I didn’t ask “you” specifically for the meaning.”

          No, I think you’ll find that the dictionary definition of ‘pirate’ says something quite different to what you’re suggesting it means. The ‘intrusion into a copyright monopoly’ description is factually accurate. You may counter that ‘pirate’ is now an accepted term to describe such an intrusion into copyright monopoly, but its initial intent was to frame these actions as criminal by association with genuine criminal actions. The ‘Pirate’ parties of the world using the term is simply a means to take back the word from the detractors (much like African Americans took back the word ‘nigger’) to remove any power from its negative use.

          I think you’re probably just better off leaving this argument for now – your ass has been well and truly served several times over now and you’ll never win by basing you prejudice, assumptions and beliefs against facts and truth. But if you’d like to continue to entertain us all, it’s been funny watching you get repeatedly shot down so far ;p

        • Anonymous

          “Only items that have an inherent scarcity can be stolen, ”

          >”Please provide me with some type of evidence that theft can only occur on items that are scarce.”

          “I have not made such claim. ”

          Really? Once again. Please provide me with some type of evidence that theft can only occur on items that are scarce.

          This time with less mantra please.

        • Fredrika

          >> “Only items that have an inherent scarcity can be stolen, ”

          >>”Please provide me with some type of evidence that theft can only occur on items that are scarce.”

          > “Really?”

          Again you seem to confuse stolen with theft. Those are two different claims, one is mine the other is one that i have never made, which i clearly stated.

          The initial discussion was about what can be stolen. Not about theft. And as i said, it has no relevance for any of the argumentative threads you now refuse to comment on.

          > “Once again. Please provide me with some type of evidence that theft can only occur on items that are scarce.”

          I gave you a link to Wikipedia, which clearly stated that theft is what can occur with —> property <—. Property in turn is always scarce. That's an absolute required premiss for something to constitute property. Since you previously claimed that an intellectual work is property, the problems seems to be that you do not grasp the concept of property in the first place, and therefore your attempt to understand the following concept of stolen will be useless.

          The fact that some other crimes unfortunately are partly labelled as theft, as in computer theft, theft of service or ID theft, does not mean that anything has been stolen, as in disappeared from it’s possessor, when those crimes have taken place.

        • Anonymous

          >> “Only items that have an inherent scarcity can be stolen, ”

          >>”Please provide me with some type of evidence that theft can only occur on items that are scarce.”

          > “Really?”

          “Again you seem to confuse stolen with theft. Those are two different claims, one is mine the other is one that i have never made, which i clearly stated.”

          A thief is a person that steals or has stolen.

          Theft is the act of stealing

          A person that has carried out an act of theft is called a thief.
           
          If only oranges can be stolen then theft can only occur when someone steals an orange. 

          if only items of scarcity can be stolen then theft can only occur when someone steals an item that is scarce.

          Do you understand? Can you now see how those two words are related?

        • Fredrika

          > “Can you now see how those two words are related?”

          I have never claimed otherwise regarding the relation between the words. And again, this has no relevance for any of the previous argumentative threads.

    • Guest

      I don’t understand why this Wiley & Sons of a bitch bother even trying this considering the massive failure  of the music industry in doing just this.

      After having spent ten of million of dollars and took significant risks in corrupting a judge and an entire jury this idiots did not got a penny and will never do.

      Remember Jamie Thomas and Joel Aplebraun cases? The RIAA is still stuck with this with no hope to get even a penny. Not only it is ridiculous and unconstitutional to have an individual condemned to pay million of dollars but it is also useless because they can never pay this.

      The ultimate response to this  is simple: If you have no asset bankrupty chapter 7 will get ride of the million dollars judgement. You can keep  you home your car your retirement and your bank acpte (unless you have 100 of thousand on it.)

    • http://profile.yahoo.com/RMBISPDDFZ7ZBYO6XKAFFAJ35I robert

      No its not just an ebook, its millions of ebooks.  Just one seeder active for 60 to 90 days can distribute 100,000+ plus ebooks.  That is why Home Video sales in the US are down 25% since 2006 and music is down 50% from 2000.

  • UK

    up to $150,000 in penalties for each offense

    Well, I’d pay that for a non-pirated copy, so it’s no way excessive / extortion / coercion

    • MadAsASnake

       Proportionality is definitely lacking… but then the US courts are known for that

    • Guest

      I love the British Sarcasm.

      • Danny

         We do too!

  • Jrstar96

    I find the idea of one of the books being “Hacking for Dummies” to be humorous.  While I’m not familiar with the title, I wonder if it includes instructions that could be used in a malicious way.  The lawyer will argue “they broke the law by downloading our book instructing people how to break the law!”

    • Guest

      Haha, good one! “Facilitating cyber attacks” if that’s not jail time I don’t know what is. It could even be considered as (facilitating) high treason — because if someone is not really guilty, you just add ‘facilitating’ these days and he is. I wonder why that doesn’t apply to Heineken, or Colt… curious indeed.

  • Arya

    Or, how about: “You give me my phone call, and I give you the finger!”

    • http://gene-poole.tumblr.com Gene Poole

      Alright, Amo, it’s just you, and me, and your balls, and…this drawer.

      Sorry. If you weren’t quoting Dragnet, you came damn close.

    • Anonymous

      What use is a phone call… if you are… unable to speak?

    • Danny

       Correction:
      “How about I give you the finger and you give me my phone call!”

  • Thom

    Just go to trial, drag out the appeal with endless motions, and commit suicide after all appeals have been exhausted.

    If I was a defendant I would openly tell the lawyer for the opposing side that I’ll intend to slit my throat or end my life regardless of the outcome, and never pay anything. If just one defendant commits suicide after draining the plaintiff of money during a lengthy trial, the lawsuits suddently become unworkable.

    If I ever get a terminal condition like cancer, I can just tell the lawyer that I am judgment proof. In particular elderly, disabled and people suffering from terminal illness should just continue file sharing.

    • Anonymous

      “Just go to trial, shoot the publishers in their fucking faces, then commit suicide.”

      FTFY

  • ROFLMAO
    • UK

      “This book not only shows you how to acquire BitTorrent, but also how to use it without picking up worms, viruses, and ___lawsuits.___”

    • Kicking K

       They are hypocrites… tell you how to use something which they sue you for -_-

      • Danny

         Entrapment?

    • http://www.sensibilium.com/ Sir Oblong of Orange

       Funny how they don’t provide it in eBook format. Well, if they want to throw away potential sales, that’s their business. But to sue people for getting an eBook that they don’t provide? Now that’s a scam.

  • Amused

    Isn’t it funny that one of wiley’s books is entitled “BitTorrent for Dummies” which explains in great detail how to go about downloading his ebooks illegally…….a case of you reap what you sow.

  • http://www.facebook.com/orphicdragon Trisha Lynn Dragon

    Lol, go fuck yourself douche wad. You won’t get a dime. 

  • Jay

    Call there bluff and if they file court papers counter sue them for harassment, libel/slander, false evidence against yourself and demand 10x the amount there suing you for or 1x if they want to settle.

    They will have to pray that there evidence holds up in court cos if it does not your suit wins against them then jackpot.

  • Pingback: Dummies Ebook Publisher Looking For Jury Trial For Piracy | I Self Publish

  • Anonymous

    It must make us very angry that JW & Sons is one of the publishing conglomerates who along with Apple Corp was cited in the DOJ’s recent indictment for colluding, in violation of Anti-Trust law to “Fix” the American market in E-Books. 

    JW & Sons wants to educate us?  That’s exactly the disgrace of current Copyright law.  We should be educating them! 

    More to the point, the legislators we can vote in or out of office (and the Federal Prosecutors whose settlement practices are an endles buffet of sweetheart deals for monopolists) should be educating them. 

    What’s necessary is citizens ANGRY enough to abolish perpetual corporate monopolies, whether in Banking, Healthcare, Insurance, Media, or Copyrights.

    • Lord of the Peasants

      What’s more, legislators can be shot in the fucking head.
      Again and again.

  • Sjococo

    The defendants really should obtain the book “Bittorrent for Dummies”. In the e-book I see no disclaimer, thus opening for a counterclaim asking the publisher for full compensation of all damages :-)

  • Anonymous

    There’s certainly a torrent of interest in BitTorrent! But while it enables you to download all kinds of cool files and to distribute your own creative efforts, it also carries some risks. This book not only shows you how to acquire BitTorrent, but also how to use it without picking up worms, viruses, and lawsuits.

    - BitTorrent for Dummies October 2005

  • Anonymous

    so, not only is a music track worth $150,000, an e-book is as well? does that mean an e-book written about a music track is worth $300,000 per copy? fuck me, have i been working in the wrong game or what??

  • Pingback: News: US publisher demands piracy trial | News Aggregator for you

  • Pingback: US publisher demands piracy trial | Zahidi News Center

  • MadAsASnake

    Well, a proper hearing on the evidence might actually be a good thing – a defence asking a real jury how an IP address can positively identify the infringer would be fun. They would also have to reveal their IP collection methods,  which are unlikely to pass muster in any court. Getting a jury to understand $150000 might be challenging as well… though it’s a hellish situation for the defendants.

  • Pingback: US publisher demands piracy trial - LATEST NEWS – LATEST NEWS

  • Pingback: US publisher demands piracy trial | Manchester IT Services Blog

  • Pingback: Major Book Publisher Demands Jury Trial Against BitTorrent Pirates « Kopimism Church of New Zealand

  • Lord of the Peasants

    Java for dummies?
    An absolute heap of shit.
    Didn’t buy it by the way.
    Had to download it to find out.

  • Pingback: Tech News Online » US publisher demands piracy trial

  • Anonymous

    John Wiley & Sons for Dummies !!!

  • Chotla99

    The wan*ers need to rethink their pricing policy so that no-one needs to download them. Also, I don’t know of many people who would cart their laptop or in my case, the desktop around reading sections while I try a feature out. If I like the book, I would buy it, albeit on amazon or ebbay at a hugish discount!!

  • Anon

    haha more rich fascists complaining about people saving money by not buying their books

  • Nasty

    Fine. Let’s hang these John Wiley and it’s Sons and let put their bodies in a trash can before the next trash collection.

  • Pingback: US publisher demands piracy trial | euronewsweek

  • Pingback: US publisher demands piracy trial | Technology News

  • Somebody

    They must have bought the judge in advance this time!

  • Mwhahaha

    They seriously have ‘Hacking for Dummies’?

    If they have that then try to sue other people for illegal activities then they’re utterly nuts.

    Still having said that I find the piracy of books pretty sad (and the very existence of ebooks) and a worrying step towards a destination where all books will look like blogs, the only reference material in the world comes from Wikipedia’s light smattering of knowledge, and all ‘research’ is done not for academic purposes but to sell more fizzy drinks.

    Still suing people for sharing is kinda lame.

    • Apexdigit

      Yes they sell such a book. And a quick check of the book reviews at The River shows that the book is pretty much worthless. It doesn’t tell how to hack anything and tells almost as little about how to protect your system. Apparently a real dummy wouldn’t understand this material anyway so they sell 400 or so pages of chit-chat worthy of the best regional weekly newspaper. That they should be so outraged when their useless tome is passed about might indicate that they didn’t like it being exposed for what it is.

    • Dooolesmcpooh
  • astroboi

    Ironic that it is Wiley that is persuing this rather than a more…..respectable…..publisher. In the pre-internet days, Wiley ran a mail order scheme that tops anything BT users do; they bought up the mailing lists of every computer oriented magazine they could find. Then they sent the subs thick packets of 50 or so pre-paid reply cards, each touting a Wiley book. The books were sent on approval. If you didn’t return the book in a few weeks they sent a bill….ONE bill. If you ignored it nothing happened. But the card packs continued. You could nick them for dozens of books and the cards kept coming.

    A quick look at the titles indicated why they did this. Some were obvious textbooks, no doubt obsolete. Some were terribly written rubbish often by an “expert” who had never been heard of other than for the worthless book. Some were on topics so exotic that the intended market must have been a few hundred souls that had any interest in, say, “Free-Standing Underfired Boiler Construction in the Iron Curtain Countries”. The few interesting titles were old editions.

    Clearly they were emptying their warehouse. Perhaps they were able to profit by claiming vast losses at tax time. They certainly made no attempt to collect the purchase price or to delete those persons who didn’t pay. Maybe the few who paid actually made the thing profitable for Wiley considering the books probably had a negative value. They did cost money to store and they certainly were not selling in bookstores.

    After a few years the cards stopped coming. Perhaps the tax code changed. Maybe increases in postage costs killed the scam. Maybe they ran out of people who would take these things, even for free. But whatever the deal, this operation, like the dodgy “record clubs” of the period was a legal scam. An attempt to squeeze a bit of money out of stuff destined for the dustbin. Anyway, I find it ironic that a company that did stuff like that is now losing 150K for each copy of each title that somebody, somewhere, maybe got to read for free. Even if the books are wretched.

  • Danxdan

    ive been using torrents for years with no vpns or anything and ive never gotten any letters or anything.  mostly dl tv shows.
    should i get a vpn or just keep going, cuz even if you get letters you can get several correct?

    • http://profiles.google.com/zerianis10 Christopher Kidwell

      Seems to me that they don’t send out as many things as they try to BS you that they do. I personally haven’t gotten any of these letters either and I have been downloading movies, music, and TV shows for years.

      Maybe it’s only certain people they go after?

  • Qoaa
  • http://profiles.google.com/zerianis10 Christopher Kidwell

    This guy is going to find out that an IP address is simply not enough in this day and age. As soon as people point out that does NOT mean that it was their computer doing it, but only someone on their network (could be a hacker) the cases fall apart like wet toilet tissue.

  • Pingback: US publisher demands piracy trial | Top digg everyday

  • IHaveAhugePENIS

     Then perhaps some of you people here with knowledge on these matters should get in touch with these guys named and give them some real advice

    Should not be too hard to trace them rather than bullsh1tting about what ‘you would do’

  • Pingback: US publisher demands piracy trial » Pickersleigh Community Watch

  • Pingback: US publisher demands piracy trial « Mad Computers

  • Pingback: US publisher demands piracy trial | Best Web Consulting company in Nashik, India with Creative and Professional Website Design, Content Management Systems, Wordpress Experts, Ecommerce SEO, and more..

  • Pingback: US publisher demands piracy trial | Alliance LTD Business Blog

  • Anom

    I look forward to the trail and I will personally donate to support the legal team for any case that makes it to trail. To test in court the validity of a IP address to an individual is something that is long over due and will put a stop to these copy trolls “pay up or else” scams. 

  • http://www.facebook.com/origen.adamantius Origen Adam
  • Pingback: US publisher demands piracy trial | andybundy.com

  • Anonymous

    Heck yeah dude, let the Kangaroo Courts decide lol.
    Gimme-Anon.tk

  • Pingback: US publisher demands piracy trial | Phone and Gadget

  • http://twitter.com/JerkfaceMcGee Jerkface McGee

     Ineffectual lawsuits for dummies, coming to a bittorrent site near you.

  • Pingback: US publisher demands piracy trial | Backtogeek's Technology Journey

  • foff

    These book publishers are double fucking nuts.  Anyone who downloads a book was never ever going to buy it.  Unless someone sells a download I do not see how any damages could apply.   This lawyers is a piece of shit.  He knows the service he is doing for his client is useless.  He is nothing but a whore, doing work for money and no other reason.

  • Pingback: US publisher demands piracy trial | ai:consortia

  • Pingback: 'For Dummies' guide publisher, Wiley, seeks piracy trial | CYBERSEECURE

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/AFF3QCYMHIRUAGDKWJFHOUEOPQ Willard

    my friend’s mother-in-law made $18031 last month. she has been working on the computer and moved in a $553600 home. All she did was get fortunate and try the tips revealed on this link  (Click on menu Home more information)  http://goo.gl/Bd1RO  

  • Pingback: A New Copyright Lawsuit May Result in the Prosecution of Educators & Students Who Share Digital Materials | A2Politico

  • Pingback: makin257 - Major Book Publisher Demands Jury Trial Against BitTorrent Pirates

  • Pingback: US publisher demands piracy trial | BussinessTree NewsBussiness Tree

  • http://twitter.com/opaqueentity opaqueentity

    If they say 74,000 people have downloaded it then they can chase those 74,000 people, charge them the $28, maybe another $5 for admin, and that is all they are entitled to.
    Making something available doesn’t stop the person downloading it have to take responsibility for what THEY do. Nobody makes you download something, that is is there isn’t the point.

  • Pingback: Publisher demands trial against BitTorrent “book pirates” – CAT ON THE ROCKS

  • Pingback: BlogDesign - US publisher demands piracy trial - BlogDesign

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/RO5EGOTJISJJHQTGOK2CKJ5QOU Claudette

    my buddy’s sister brought in $14330 past week. she is working on the laptop and bought a $534400 home. All she did was get fortunate and use the clues leaked on this web page  (Click on menu Home more information) http://goo.gl/4TH0X   

  • Pingback: Copyright Trolling For Dummies – John Wiley & Sons Threaten to Actually Sue People in Court | DieTrollDie

  • Pingback: Uitgeverij Wiley start rechtszaak om piraterij Dummies-titels | | Ereader NLEreader NL

  • Pingback: Major Book Publisher Demands Jury Trial Against BitTorrent Pirates

  • Pingback: John Wiley BitTorrent Litigation Not for Dummies LegalBlogger

  • Guest

    test 2

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/BXQDLZXFVJDQ5D2PIYZ7LAYLS4 Eileen

    my roomate’s half-sister got paid $16529 a month ago. she been making cash on the computer and bought a $364700 home. All she did was get lucky and work up the directions uncovered on this website  (Click on menu Home more information)   http://goo.gl/zg659  

  • Pingback: Hurt Locker Makers Return to Sue 2,514 BitTorrent Users | TorrentFreak

  • Pingback: Hurt Locker Makers Return to Sue 2,514 BitTorrent Users | We R Pirates

  • Pingback: Hurt Locker Makers Return to Sue 2,514 BitTorrent Users | Best Seedbox

  • Pingback: Hurt Locker Makers Return to Sue 2,514 BitTorrent Users | Zombie Torrents - Ultimate Torrents Downloads

  • Pingback: ?????????????????????Bit Torrent???????? | Film Goes with Net

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/F35BDR3RED44GHYQVZ5HQH2YGA Marisol

    my roomate’s mom got paid $20634 past week. she is making an income on the laptop and moved in a $535900 condo. All she did was get blessed and put into action the advice reported on this website  (Click on menu Home more information)   http://goo.gl/tMpSy 

  • http://twitter.com/WilliamsonKyle1 WilliamsonKyle

    my buddy’s aunt brought home $20695 a week ago. she been making cash on the computer and bought a $443700 condo. All she did was get lucky and apply the information reported on this website  (Click on menu Home more information)   http://goo.gl/wEQ57 

  • Pingback: Hurt Locker Makers Return to Sue 2,514 BitTorrent Users | Emmashare

  • Pingback: Notrackingme | Proxy » Blog Archive » US Music Pirates Face New $150,000 Damages Claims

  • Pingback: Notrackingme | Proxy » Blog Archive » Hurt Locker Makers Return to Sue 2,514 BitTorrent Users

  • Pingback: Libros Para Dummies En Espaol Taringa | Taringa!

  • Anonymous

    Imean Shaheed was working last Sunday when federal agents rushed into the Patapsco Flea Market, announced over the loudspeaker that the bazaar was closed for business and shut down vendors selling  Cheap Louis Vuitton Handbags and Tiffany & Co. jewelry.”It was like the movies,” the 20-year-old Shaheed said Saturday after the Cherry Hill flea market re-opened. Some booths were empty, but the parking lot was full and customers flocked to vendors such as Shaheed who were open for business via Louis Vuitton Outlet Store.

  • Not

    I just download to read the couple of comics that they put in there. Five seconds with google gives me a much better answer than what’s in their books.

  • BTGuard - BitTorrent Anonymously

NewsBits

Even more news...

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

    An anti-piracy system present in all official Blu-ray players since 2012 has received a fresh update...

  • Foxtel Breeds Pirates by Locking Up Game of Thrones

    One of the main reasons why people turn to piracy is the lack of legal alternatives....

  • UK Student Admits Breaching Sony Copyrights With Leak of PS3 SDK

    Last year an Internet user known as El Nomeo leaked version 3.70 of Sony’s Playstation3 SDK...

  • Pirates Can Be Identified Despite Sharing IP Addresses, ISP Claims

    Carrier-Grade Network Address Translation is a network mechanism through which many Internet subscribers can share the...

  • Feds Seize Cash from Major Bitcoin Exchange’s Dwolla Account

    The U.S. Government has taken a significant action against the web’s top Bitcoin exchange by seizing...

MostDiscussed

Below are TorrentFreak's most discussed articles of the past month. Join the discussion if you like.

CopyQuote

Left Quote

“The Pirate Bay has been one of the most important movements in Sweden for freedom of speech, working against corruption and censorship.

Peter Sunde Left Quote

PopularArticles

A selection of some TorrentFreak's classics dug up from our archives.