MPAA Caught Uploading Fake Torrents
It is no secret that the MPAA and other anti-piracy organizations track down alleged pirates by uploading fake torrents. Up until now it was always unclear where those files came from, and how to identify them.
The MPAA and other anti-piracy watchdogs try to trap people into downloading fake torrents, so they can collect IP addresses, and send copyright infringement letters to ISPs. They hire a company to put up fake copies of popular movies, music albums, and TV series. They even use pirate like filenames such as “Battlestar Galactica S03E07 REPACK DSR XviD-ORENJi” and “Miami Vice[2006]DvDrip[Eng]-aXXo“.
One of the btjunkie admins has found a unique way to identify trackers that host these fake files, which makes it easy to efficiently remove them.
Virtually all the servers that spread these fake files are located in Southern California and Las Vegas. The administrators of these servers follow patterns that make it easy to identify them. The content of the trackers and seed amounts make them stand out. There are more unique characteristics, but we wont reveal all the tricks because they could take counter measures. Here are some examples of servers that host and track fake torrents:
Tracker 1, Tracker 2, Tracker 3 & Tracker 4. (Screenshots: One & Two)
All the information was provided to me by one of the admins of btjunkie, who works together on this with other torrent site admins. He says that the MPAA and friends use a variety of tactics. The tracker will either stall everyone at around 90% or the content will just be a blank monochrome screen.
“I really think this is being done by professionals with a budget, that’s a lot of servers to setup and it takes some expertise to setup in the manner that they did it,” says the btjunkie admin. “I don’t think I really need to say who would spend money on something like this.”
Here are some good examples of how these fake torrents clutter up the search results. Virtually all of those X marked torrents are coming from the ip-ranges we mentioned, and are fake files. The good thing is that Torrentportal’s report system is well used by their users.
The server boxes that host these torrents fall in serveral ip-ranges. Here are a few of the ranges that were discovered recently. You can easily add these to the blocklist of your torrent client (if it supports one), filewall, or blocklist manager.
The anti-piracy servers use hostnames like 101tracker.dhcp.biz, aplustorrents.qhigh.com, bitnova.squirly.info, bittorment.ocry.com, and pirate-trakkrz.leet.la. All these hostnames can be traced back to the same IP Ranges, these ranges contain possibly hundreds of fake trackers, so feel free to block them:
A list of infohashes of fake torrents can be found over here.
Note that it’s not only MPAA material that is hosted on these fake trackers. It is more likely that the servers are owned and operated by an organization that logs IP addresses for several copyright owners and or anti-piracy organizations.
Update: according to one of out readers these ip-ranges belong to “Media Defender“, a company that is hired by copyright owners, to log IP-addresses. This reader, who worked for Media Defender until recently, confirmed that some of the torrents that were mentioned, are indeed on the MPAA’s list.
Previously: The Pirate Bay: Sponsored by Wal-Mart
Next: The Pirate Bay Wants to Buy Sealand
201 Responses (Add yours or TrackBack)
Here at mininova we blocked over 260 trackers (some of which are complete ranges) and way over 2600 ip’s of the submitters, and have been doing so since when it started about 1,5 year ago.
And about finding them; just look for tracker announce like http://bittorrent-relatedname-here.free-dns-service.com:6969/announce (also quite allot of real trackers use these services, but they often use different tracker software so they don’t have the :6969/announce part).
I must admit they are quite creative with the names sometimes, for example one was http://b00bs.hobby-site.com:6969/announce (if I remember correctly). Furthermore they have many of those free dns services point to the same ip (also quite an effective way to find them).
“The MPAA and other anti-piracy watchdogs try to trap people into downloading fake torrents, so they can collect IP adresses, and send copyright infringement letters to ISPs. They hire a company to put up fake copies of popular movies, music albums, and TV series.”
I don’t understand? If the stuff they “offer” is not the copyrighted content the downloader is seeking, how can they claim that some copyright infringement has took place? I don’t believe the MAFIAA applied for copyrightregistrations for some junkfiles!
So your claim that they sent letters to ISP’s for Downloading fakes makes IMHO no sense, please Ernesto explain further.
[quote comment="37856"]”
I don’t understand? If the stuff they “offer” is not the copyrighted content the downloader is seeking, how can they claim that some copyright infringement has took place? I don’t believe the MAFIAA applied for copyrightregistrations for some junkfiles!
So your claim that they sent letters to ISP’s for Downloading fakes makes IMHO no sense, please Ernesto explain further.[/quote]
A great part of their job is to scare people. Most of the time they try to settle before these things are played out in court, so they don’t need that much info. The MPAA (or other anti piracy lobbies) has proof that IP xxx tried to get file yyy. The name is enough to send out a letter that alleged copyright infringement has taken place.
Of course it is unsure how this will hold up in court.
You might want to check out this post by New York lawyer Ray Beckerman
It’s about the RIAA litigation process.
Ernesto is right, this is exactly how they do it, regardless of how legally sound the idea is. About a month ago my roommate downloaded what he thought was the Star Wars: Empire at War computer game. When the file completed it turned out to be comple junk data. A few days later however, my internet connection mysteriously cut out. I called my ISP (Cox) and they said they had received an infringement notice regarding that exact file. I played dumb and said someone was using my wireless connection to download files and I got my internet back up but the point is it doesn’t matter if the file is real or not, even if I’m not breaking any copyright laws by downloaded junk data, the file name is enough to scare the ISP when it receives a letter and that is enough to get my account banned which is bad for me. So regardless of if it could ever hold up in court it’s just a crappy situation for the person who doesn’t want to lose their internet connection.
No being a lawyer or other form of blood sucking life… here’s my 2¢ ;
I’ve been watching Dateline NBC and they have this sting operation where they get adults to chat with ‘teens’.
The adults ‘THINK’ they are typing to 13 year old girl/boys and the adults describe all the nasty things they want to do to these ‘13′ year kids. Who are actually NOT kids but adults pretending they were kids.
The pretend kids then setup a meeting with the real adults and Dateline is there to interview the adults to ask them why they are there, what are their plans are etc., etc. Of course none of them planned to do anything, they were just here to make sure the ‘kids’ were alright etc. Then when the adults leave, the police are there to arrest them for their actions against a minor, even though there is NEVER a minor involved! The online chat people are adults, the person they meet at the door is a young looking over 19 year old adult, yet they still get arrested because they ‘thought’ it was/is a 13 year old kid.
So I suspect that if you downloaded a planted movie, if you buy oregano and thought it was pot, you’ll still be arrested for attempted whatever the charge is…
In one state, just chatting with the person you thought was 13 gets you arrested and put on the sexual predator listings…
thanks for the info and the link
“Here are some good examples of how these fake torrents clutter up the search results.”
torrentportal should put up the red-cross and the green check mark in the icon legend, as there is no tool-tip which comes up on mouse-hover over these icons.
If the file is junk, it is not copyrighted - therefore they shouldn’t be able even to suggest to the ISP that you are downloading copyrighted stuff.
If they actually give something that is copyrighted, then they could be also sued for copyright infringement, isn’t that true?
Is that kind of like a pedophile hooking up with a teenager to have sex which turns out to be officers setting up a sting?
“Well, ossifer, technically, I didn’t have sex with a 10 year old since there was no actual 10 year old that was present.”
Long long time ago, I had a Hotline server which hosted movies, music, tv eps, software, whatever. I got a letter from Time Warner saying the RIAA had contacted them and I had to pull the music off or legal action would be taken. So I took down the mp3s and no one said anything. Of course this was around the Metallica days when no one cared about bootlegs dvds. Im talking about movies like gladiator! Good work guys!
heres a tracker for those ip’s. My friend made it and i placed it on my server.
http://digg.com/security/PeerGuardian_2_MPAA_Fake_Torrents_Tracker
Movie Companies have been paying millions for this to happen for years, there are people out there who make a killing by having servers located all over the world seeding and sharing blank files etc, not just for logging at all, but more to flood the market with so many fakes that users end up having to try several times and waste a lot of time/bandwidth.
doesn’t matter that the content is not real (copyrighted material) it’s the “intent” that would stand up in court. The “intent” of downloading, what was perceived as the copyrighted content by the individual downloading, which constitutes the alleged infringement or crime.
Example: a police woman can pose as a prostitute, the potential customer solicits her for services, hands over the cash, then is arrested for the intent. The police woman is not a real prostitute, nor did she perfomr the service. So, it’s the “intent” of accepting something illegally/illegal, even though the product/service is a fake.
Made PeerGuardian file with all these address ranges Ernesto posted. Save this text to a file, name it FakeTrackers.p2p or something similar (the .p2p extension is important) and then you can add it to PeerGuardian :
FakeTrackers:66.172.60.1-66.172.60.255
FakeTrackers:66.177.58.1-66.177.58.255
FakeTrackers:66.180.205.1-66.180.205.255
FakeTrackers:209.204.61.1-209.204.61.255
FakeTrackers:216.151.155.1-216.151.155.255
Thanks for the good post!
thanks for this very informative post. i will block those ip’s with PG2. so i guess if a torrent has way to many seeds, just be suspicious and think twice.!!
Well, there are laws that include “intent” such as solicitation of sex, attempted murder, intent to distribute… but those are specific laws. If you’re carrying around an ounce of splenda that you think is coke, you won’t get arrested for attempted drug possession. Even though there may not be a law against attempted copyright infringement, the scare tactic is what works.
I think it would be a good idea if admins of dumps like Mininova and Fenopy do not demonstrate they have such control or knowledge of the content listed on their sites ;)
But this is a good article. It is also a shame that 95% of torrent downloaders do not even look which tracker is listed in the torrent they are leeching. I’m afraid this majority is a sitting duck
Also with this technique they are trying to delay your download. With this, they are hoping that ppl will try to download the file 5 times and wont get it and they will just say, hey this sucks. I will rather buy it on iTunes :).
But most of my friends actually do call me after they download a blank file and ask me whats wrong with their comp…
No, not just intent. I saw that show too…
When a policewoman pretends to be a prostitute, the exact crime they are searching for is “soliciting”. It is illegal to offer money for sex, or sex for money. (In public, only, in Canada. A few years ago, it was ruled that when a hooker stuck her head into the car, she was in a private place and therefore not soliciting in a public place). Similarly, if the decoy cop mentions money first, it’s entrapment.
Many states have a law that “soliciting a minor” (enticing, with or without money) is a crime. If you entice what you believe is an underage person, you are committing a crime, due to “intent”. But that’s intent to solicit, not intent to have sex. Their action online provided the crime. There’s no doubt you asked for sex with a minor if (a) you thought they were underage, and (b) you said things that were reasonably intended as “wanna do it?”. Showing up at an assignation is just icing on the cake - it simplifies proving that yes, you were the one on the keyboard, not the neighbour using your Wi-fi. Especially if the conversation after “hello” indicates you know the details of the online chat.
Of course, in the catch-all state laws, even soliciting sex with a minor is “put-me-on-the-perv-list” material.
Similarly, selling oregano is covered because offering to sell drugs is a crime, even if the drugs aren’t real. Possesion of oregano (oddly enough) is NOT a crime. Heck, in Canada, offering to sell information on where to find someone who can sell you drugs is also a crime. (In a bust a while ago, they cops rounded up 10 dealers and a loser buddy of one who said to a guy at the bar, “for $20 I’ll tell you who to ask for a good score…” What are friends for?)
What about downloading a fake file, or one offered by agents of those representing the copyright holders? Unless the law of the state is well written to cover this, I doubt it. Either (a) the bozos don’t have permisson and should face the same penalty as you (joint and severally liable?) or (b)they do have permission, and so by implication do you since they offered it. they have to prove that you KNEW (or really ought to have known) it was copyright, or they told you “this is not for you”. Of course, they need to show intent, because you could have an automated random file picker. (”I’ll download torrents then delete, to help others”) Also, now that we know legitimate agents of the owners are offering files by that name, where’s the intent to breach copyright?
Considering the MPAA has never actually tested their claims in a fair trial, I doubt any **AA lawyer would want to touch this with a 10-foot brief. They’re just trying to scare everyone and their ISP.
Maybe someone should copyright a file of all 0’s?
btw, this is nothing new. it was reported back in 2005
[quote comment="37919"]btw, this is nothing new. it was reported back in 2005[/quote]
That story never linked it to anti-piracy organizations though
Could you clarify the article a little more regarding the fact that the MPAA is taking advantage of aXXo’s excellent reputation in the filesharing community?
Otherwise, it may lead newbies to think that aXXo is somehow connected to the stupid people at the MPAA which he certainly is not. I just wouldn’t want my speeds to go down on the real aXXo torrents - thank you! ;)
( aXXo’s true home is http://www.DarkSideRG.com/ )
I believe a number of the IP addresses mentioned here belong to NetSentry (I’m not sure if or how they might be related to Media Defender though). Some of those addresses are well known about by some, as they are known operators of fake files dissemination on some other networks, in particular FastTrack and WinMX, and quite possibly others too.
I know of methods of identifying them though am not going to mention it here (I wouldn’t want to give them the heads up ;)).
There’s a well-maintained list by some good people @ http://www.winmxworld.com/files/block_list.txt that cover some of those addresses. It could be worth while looking into, particularly the ‘NSC’ ranges.
[quote comment="37897"]doesn’t matter that the content is not real (copyrighted material) it’s the “intent” that would stand up in court. The “intent” of downloading, what was perceived as the copyrighted content by the individual downloading, which constitutes the alleged infringement or crime.[/quote]
And since we have read this article, we can always claim to have known that it was a junk file and were intending to download a junk file we knew was mislabeled as something copyrighted.
You’re conflating a lot of legal concepts.
There is no intent requirement for copyright infringment. None. Not a bit. Innocent infringment might lower damages but it’s not a defense.
The reason they want to tell your ISP that “so-and-so’s IP address tried to download a movie” is to that your ISP will give them the ID of the person behind the IP. (Most ISPs actually have some shred of customer respect and will not do so without, at the least, a subpoena.)
Then when they know you, they sue you and a whole new process begins. Examining hard drives, etc.
This does leave some questions unanswered, like “how can your ISP be compelled to give up your IP if you didn’t infringe anything?” (guess: b/c the standard for disclosure is low and if you’re downloading fake movies a reasonable inference is that you’re donwloading real ones) and “how can they sue you if all you’ve downloaded is fake movies?” (answer: see below + guess: they monitor that IP’s downloads that they know they can compel revelation of identity on and try to find you downloading any actual file anywhere).
And even the fake file is likely copyrighted (the standard is low–what you’re reading right now is copyrighted), although they’re probably not going to pursue you over that.
The music industry has taken advantage of both the artists and the consumer for a long time.
They lived high on the hog as parasites.
Technology both reduces the cost of expands music promotion and delivery.
Their days are numbered.
But they will go down kicking and screaming ( and trying to intimidate others) in their quest to retain their perks.
[quote comment="37897"]doesn’t matter that the content is not real (copyrighted material) it’s the “intent” that would stand up in court. The “intent” of downloading, what was perceived as the copyrighted content by the individual downloading, which constitutes the alleged infringement or crime.
Example: a police woman can pose as a prostitute, the potential customer solicits her for services, hands over the cash, then is arrested for the intent. The police woman is not a real prostitute, nor did she perfomr the service. So, it’s the “intent” of accepting something illegally/illegal, even though the product/service is a fake.[/quote]
There’s a difference though. In the case of prostitution, Solicitation, aka, the act of acquiring, is illegal. Same with drugs. Normally you’re arrested for solicitation of drugs when you’re caught in a sting. Same goes for the dateline things on pedophiles, solicitation of a minor is the normal charge.
However, there is no solicitation of copyrighted material on the books AFAIK. Yes, they can show that you intended to download a copyrighted file, but, the fact is, unless they can prove that you did, they have no case.
Typically, what this allows them to do, is this allows them to go to a judge and get a warrant to search your computer. If they find that you have downloaded illegal movies/music/games/etc then they charge you with copyright infringement and sue you. However, if the only thing you ever tried downloading was their junk file, you make a summary motion to dismiss given that no crime was committed. There’s no such crime as “Attempted Copyright Infringement.” You either do it, or you don’t.
To my knowledge, you can’t copyright “0’s” or the alphabet… but seriously…
Other than protecting the the author’s creative rights, I certainly don’t subscribe to the tactics at subject here. And I question as to who is being protected here… I would suspect the “record/publishing” firms. I think an artist should decide whether their “works” are to be distributed for fees or without fees. Personally, I’ve always felt that all this has been prompted by nervous record firms/middle men, who’s role and importance in the music business has been diminished by the low-cost recording technology currently available to producers and artist, not to mention low cost distribution, promotional (the web) and duplication methods.
Whether this agency is representing the music/movie industry “officially” or has been “hired”, and what legal rights do they have to act as “law enforcement” agents to enforce the law, is what needs more clarification. It’s under this premise that I question the legitimacy of their tactics.
Regarding “intent”, at least in the US, it varies by state, county and local communities as to the variences in the law.
Not in all jurisdictions is “soliciting” the crime they are searching for, because, again, dependent on the jurisdiction, “soliciting” takes on varied definitions relative to what “action” it constitutes. State and local authorities may grant themselves the right to legally “pretent” to solicit in their attempts to curb crime, just as local authorities can decide what type of internet “material” can be viewed in their community. Examples of such autonomy with local jurisdictiona are; whether a decoy prostitute “sticks her head in the window” of an auto is irrelevant in many communities… in the state of Illinois, in certain communities, if you are involved in a “prostitution” solicitation/intent case, your car is impounded, on the spot, and is no longer yours (for a period of time) as you were on public property, the street, when engaging in the “act” of soliciting, or the intent have, sex for hire. In many juriisdictions, as long as the “client” offers money, the decoy can respond with a “price”, once the cash changes hands, it becomes similar to a “binding contract”… a transaction has been made, the crime of “intent” to have sex with the prostitute has been confirmed and proven by the transaction of money.
“intent to commit a crime” and “intent to solicit” are 2 different things… there is the “intent to comit a crime”, and intent relative to “motive”… again, too lengthy to write about the differences here. Be assured that an “intent to solicit” to a minor carries a much lighter sentence than an “intent to commit the crime” you were soliciting for… in other words take action of what one would be soliciting for.
But relative to the subject matter here, whether the “agent”, be it government or private, is offering a download, whether “real” or “fake”, but labeled as “real”, you do not have the right to download the material. And, depending on the circumstances, they do not have to prove that you knew, or didn’t, whether the material was copyrighted in cases where they are labeling, or “promoting”, the material as the copyrighted material (there are many instances where ignorance of the law doesn”t hold up) The intent to breach copyright is when you download or posses or use (or any combination of the 3) the material… read any software user license agreement… it’s pretty clear. I can assure you, that if MS or Adobe assumes you have illegal copies of their apps, they’ll at least send you a stern letter, whether you knowingly have the material or not.
Another reason “intent” is the key here, is because it can eliminate in some cases (for the most part, hopefully!) someone inadvertantly downloading illegaly a copyrighted file. Hence the term… did you do something illegaly “with intention”. That’s why there are different degrees of “murder”/”manslaughter” and corresponding sentences (although, unfortunately, that’s not always ultimately the case!)
I agree, it’s more of a scare tactic, and most lawyers will shy away from these cases as we’re, to a certain degree, in “fuzzy” regions of the law as technology is outpacing the ability of our legislators to think!
Why don’t the big release groups (like ORENJi or aXXo) just sign content that they release with a digital certificate? That way, it would become much easier to identify fake files. It would also kill the old problem where some sleazy script kiddies would copy a release and insert a trojan and re-release it.
Of course, the MAFIAA could always host the real thing from a group with a good reputation and do the 90% thing, but it’d still be a great step to end the ability to put out fake releases.
[quote comment="37951"]
There’s a difference though. In the case of prostitution, Solicitation, aka, the act of acquiring, is illegal. Same with drugs. Normally you’re arrested for solicitation of drugs when you’re caught in a sting. Same goes for the dateline things on pedophiles, solicitation of a minor is the normal charge.
However, there is no solicitation of copyrighted material on the books AFAIK. Yes, they can show that you intended to download a copyrighted file, but, the fact is, unless they can prove that you did, they have no case.
Typically, what this allows them to do, is this allows them to go to a judge and get a warrant to search your computer. If they find that you have downloaded illegal movies/music/games/etc then they charge you with copyright infringement and sue you. However, if the only thing you ever tried downloading was their junk file, you make a summary motion to dismiss given that no crime was committed. There’s no such crime as “Attempted Copyright Infringement.” You either do it, or you don’t.[/quote]
Solicitation is usually the charge because in a “sting” operations typically the crime never occures, consequently, the charge is “solicitation” Sting operations are more of a “preventive” measure of law enforcement, before the real/actual, consequential, crime (damage) occurs.
They can, in most cases, prove a download… that’s not difficult, the “intent” is the trick.
Again, irrelevant whether the content is the real thing or junk, as long as it was advertised, labeled, described, etc. as the “real thing”, and you donwloaded it based on that premise, your “intent” was to download what you thought was “the real thing”, just because you got duped doesn’t mean you’ll get “off the hook” for it. Could you say to the judge “I really wasn’t looking to buy sex from a prostitute, even though I solicited and gave her money, because I didn’t know she was a decoy”? If you purchase “non-licensed”/counterfeit designer labeled clothing, in most jurisdictions you are held, to varrying degrees accountable for possession, as is the merchant for selling.
I assure you, I’m not on the side of MPAA, but having been an artist, both in music and film, I can appreciate some of the concerns.
[quote comment="37873"]No being a lawyer or other form of blood sucking life… here’s my 2¢ ;
I’ve been watching Dateline NBC and they have this sting operation where they get adults to chat with ‘teens’.
The adults ‘THINK’ they are typing to 13 year old girl/boys and the adults describe all the nasty things they want to do to these ‘13′ year kids. Who are actually NOT kids but adults pretending they were kids.
…
So I suspect that if you downloaded a planted movie, if you buy oregano and thought it was pot, you’ll still be arrested for attempted whatever the charge is…
In one state, just chatting with the person you thought was 13 gets you arrested and put on the sexual predator listings…[/quote]
I’m not a laywer either, BUT… There are a few problems with this analogy.
First, it is clear from their conversations with the “children” that there is INTENT to commit a criminal act. The authorities also encourage the perpetrators to ‘bring something along’ to the meeting that further demonstrates their intent to violate one ore more criminal laws.
Second, while recent additions to the copyright laws seek to enforce criminal penalties for ‘willful’ infringement, this area is still pretty much a civil action. (It’s highly doubtful that the MPAA or RIAA will be able to convince law enforcement to take you into custody and charge you with a criminal act just for a single download of what ‘could’ be a copyrighted work.)
Third, downloading a file that contains “Battlestar” in its title, doesn’t necessarily prove intent on the part of the user to commit willful copyright infringement.
I would think that the copyright holders would have to convince the courts that the downloader KNEW they were downloading a copyright work WITHOUT the copyright holder’s permission. (Copyright owner’s frequently place previews of the work up for download (movie previews, webisodes, etc.)
Of course, if you don’t have the time nor the financial fortitude to confront these bullies in a court of law, most of these points are rather moot. More often that not, it is cheaper and easier for the individual to pay the extortion fee, disconnect their internet access, and beat their children within inches of their life for committing such a heinous crime.
Don’t misunderstand me, I make my living developing creative works and find it extremely dispicable for someone to steal something that I’ve put forth much effort into simply because they can. But I find it just as dispicable for our lawmakers (Not just limited to the US, anymore) to grant these bullies what essentially amounts to a free pass for extortion.
“Why don’t the big release groups (like ORENJi or aXXo) just sign content that they release with a digital certificate? That way, it would become much easier to identify fake files.”
nforce.nl
Listen Kids:
It’s simple.
Until something like TOR on STEROIDS is perfected and we have true anonymous p2p, you’re going to have to go ()L|> sk00| — and that is this: NEWSGROUPS.
Yep. They’ve been around and functioning since before most of you peeps probably were out of diapers, and they’re going to likely be around when most of you have your first peeps in diapers.
That being said, go edumacate yourself on what NZBs, Newsgroups and news hosting accounts are. You’ll be (pleasantly) surprised.
Let’s just say I have friends who can get absoutely ANYTHING they want, any time they want, as quickly as they want (surpases torrent speeds, doh!) and it costs them a measley $20 a month for a paid (and legitimate) news account.
Sigh.
If it weren’t for the RIAA and MPAA, you guys would think Kazaa was still the way to go. I hope this has forced you to understand and go BACK to your internet roots. Port 119 for eva, niccas!
This is ridiculous. Lookup who actually owns these addresses: Comcast, PacificNet (Canada), and yes (eek!) some hosting companies in California.
Would you be so paranoid if you weren’t doing something illegal?
You people are stoopid!
Why do you sit here and discuss all the ways that you can track fakes…your just giving your secrets away and allow them to build better fakes.
Stop telling them how your detecting them, you wouldent tell an enemy how you found them would you?
ping #30. the first rule of usenet: don’t talk about usenet. kthxbye.
[quote comment="37888"]Is that kind of like a pedophile hooking up with a teenager to have sex which turns out to be officers setting up a sting?
“Well, ossifer, technically, I didn’t have sex with a 10 year old since there was no actual 10 year old that was present.”[/quote]
Its called entrapment, and very illegal.
[quote comment="37998"]ping #30. the first rule of usenet: don’t talk about usenet. kthxbye.[/quote]
usenet people are idiots.
and it’s a pain in the ass to use and it’s NOT free.
Bluetack have had most of these ranges blocked for a while now.
umm.. I’m just thinking, if you put up a file named “starwars” and it’s just a blank file, aren’t you committing wire fraud?
Getting back to the fake file/real file vs. adult/minor discussion, the law looks at INTENT.
What was the online chatter’s intent? Did he intend to have sex with a minor? Of course. So he is arrested.
What is the bitTorrent downloader’s intent? Did he intend to download a junk file, or was he trying to score BattleStar Galactica Season 3 Episode 2?
The answer is obvious.
Hey, if copywriting a file with all 0s works, and is good enough to sue, then why don’t I just make a piece of music called “1″? Any CD anybody else made with 1 (on the track listing!) on the packaging would be illegal, and I could sue the RIAA to oblivion!
Ok, here’s a thought. What if you download one of the MPAA-torrents and you KNOW it’s junk? Can they then take you for the ‘intent’ to download copyrighted material?
look at the source code of mediadefender’s home page.
Catch 22 for the MPAA.
- If the files were real and not fake, then the MPAA is offering the movies for free, and would not prevail in court over a defendant who downloaded them.
- As the files are fake and not real, no copyright infringement takes place. The argument that the dummy file is itself copyrighted is moot, as they are offering it for free download, see above.
Therefore the real reason to upload dummy torrents is to annoy torrent users.
I’m sorry, but where exactly do you get around to proving any of the above story? Like with actual evidence? Cos all I’m reading is wild conclusions, unfounded jumps of logic, unnamed sources and paranioa.
Sorry guys but its places like these that are eventually going to make movies and mainstream entertainment obsolete, i mean how do you expect ppl to want to go out and make more movies for you to download if they can’t even make the money back they spent on making them, prepare for the end of mainstream entertainment as we know it.
[quote comment="38105"]I’m sorry, but where exactly do you get around to proving any of the above story? Like with actual evidence? Cos all I’m reading is wild conclusions, unfounded jumps of logic, unnamed sources and paranioa.[/quote]
I don’t. You’re free to think of it whatever you want.
For some people it’s never enough anyway.
@G - so you guys over at MediaDefender read /. too ? :)
What lengths thieves go to keep steeling.
[quote comment="38126"]What lengths thieves go to keep steeling.[/quote]
Dad? I taught you how to use the spelling checker, didn’t I? Tell Mom I’d like spaghetti for dinner.
To Kirt:
Sorry man sexual preditors and copy rights do not swim in the same pool. Copy rights are only there to ensure that something someone produces gets them the recongnition the deserve. So what I don’t get is how can the RIAA and MPAA try and bully their customers? Move to Canada if you want to live without copyright, we have no copy right laws, regarding downloading music and such and the RIAA has nothing north of the border, or in any other part of the world. I will start buying CD’s if 2 things change. One lower costs (for everyone) including lower recording prices, and lower royalties. And 2 if they pay the artists more!! Artists are ultimatly the one’s who get screwed, they only make at max a buck a cd, and then they still have to pay back the hundreds of thousands of dollars they owe due to recording costs. No on likes you RIAA go home.
LOL…
MPAA stinks, thats all
If the movie industry is successful in making it too difficult for your average non-technical user, then they will get what they want, which is to marginalize the distribution out of their control. Maybe I am being over-optimistic, but I think this is more about anti-marketing P2P (making it suck to the average joe who was lucky enough to get Azureus to work) than it is about entrapment.
Of course it is easy to block IP address ranges and it will always be possible to filter out the bad trackers, but most people are too lazy or ignorant to bother. They’ll follow the path of least resistance and go watch it on Netflix or iTunes or something.
[quote comment="38106"]Sorry guys but its places like these that are eventually going to make movies and mainstream entertainment obsolete, i mean how do you expect ppl to want to go out and make more movies for you to download if they can’t even make the money back they spent on making them, prepare for the end of mainstream entertainment as we know it.[/quote]
Is that a promise? Movies in 2006 were shite!
>”doesn’t matter that the content is not real (copyrighted material) it’s the “intent” >that would stand up in court. The “intent” of downloading, what was perceived as the >copyrighted content by the individual downloading, which constitutes the alleged >infringement or crime.
>
>Example: a police woman can pose as a prostitute, the potential customer solicits her >for services, hands over the cash, then is arrested for the intent. The police woman is >not a real prostitute, nor did she perform the service. So, it’s the “intent” of accepting >something illegally/illegal, even though the product/service is a fake.”
What all these ‘real world’ examples of conviction based on intent have in common that is arguably not there in the case of torrenting, is that there is an instance where law enforcement creates an explicit moment of intent… for instance, a police woman posing as a hooker must get verbal confirmation that the person is willing to exchange sex for money. Without the explicit intent expressed by the individual, there is no ‘intent’. This type of interaction doesn’t happen in the process of file sharing ’stings’ - If one went to download one of these fake torrents and was accused of attempting to illegally access copy-written material, the accuser has no ‘real’ knowledge that you thought it was copy-written material because there was no explicit expression of intent… Are you attempting to download the Warner brother movie, “Happy Feet” without payment?… No, I’m trying to download a fake file with a similar name that I can use to learn about an interesting facet of the interweb culture!… hmm.
Think about the dateline crap - If some dude was chatting to screen-name “tinybabe13″ and she never mentioned her age, they would have an impossible time trying to get a conviction against anyone except a court appointed moron. They not only state clearly the age that they are pretending to be but also surely try to get the subject to confirm his understanding… “I’m 13. Do you want a 13 year old? Yes>>> done - admission of understanding.
The litigation (and simple scare tactics) of the MPAA and RIAA are completely out-of-bounds when one compares the procedures that undercover operations typically have to follow. If the US government wasn’t beholden to these corporations they would have shut down these fear-mongering, harassing tactics.
Wouldn’t offering fake files be a form of entrapment? After all they are the ones making the files available online. If the files were not there, then copyright infringement would not take place.
“If the officer mentions money first…”
Amazing article and reactions, time for the forum to go public ;)
A lot of people are reasoning that the **AA want your IP address. C’mon, thats a lot of people to have to go through don’t you think? It’s much more effective for them if they convince the ISP they will prosecute versus convincing the average customer. Why? The point at which the provider is willing to pull the plug on you to avoid legal wrangling is much lower (and takes a shorter time) than the point of getting you to realize that downloading isn’t worth the risk.
And, while pressuring your ISP they have probably gotten you (an average customer)to assess the risks quite a few times enough for you to think about stopping or curbing your torrent downloading.
Because the ISP knows who you are, they will (un)wittingly play apart being able to pressure you directly, thus contributing to the pressuring tactics of the **AA.
correction — that the ** want to know who you are (your address, etc)
[quote comment="38074"]Hey, if copywriting a file with all 0s works, and is good enough to sue, then why don’t I just make a piece of music called “1″? Any CD anybody else made with 1 (on the track listing!) on the packaging would be illegal, and I could sue the RIAA to oblivion![/quote]
yes! sue them to hell where they belong!
…wonder why they do all this work…how much is to keep such companies like **AA??…it is all about loosing profit for people that created the product…lets pay the copyright fee to you monthly bill from ISP :-)
Interesting this with MPAA & Anti Piracy orgs. tracking the IP-number. So what are they gonna do with it?
For sure that will Not stand in Swedish court of law. Furthermore, an ISP in Sweden can only give out an individuals name and adress to the Police (after a court order) and only if the crime comitted can be sentenced to two years’ imprisonment at minimum. And we don’t have that hard punishement in Sweden for downloading a copyrighted movie or a game etc. for a non profit, privat entertainment. It is a whole different case if one does it in a large scale, making a lot of money out of it. But still No crazy decade imprisonment…
But it is of cource annoying with the fake uploads.
Sorry for my poor english and grammar.
/Best Regards
Well, I am no either from those countries, it was interesting how this turned up. I just finishes my studies in finance and economics, please let me say that ‘piracy’ (how the call it) has helped to balance economies, at least in third world markets. When internet appeared for mass-use it was surprising for me at least that the same movie (and with better quality if I may add) It was sold for a lot less in US, UK or Canada than in my country this so-called piracy has forced the industry to lower their prices because the profit margins where offensive to the end-up consumer and also their forced to offer quality movies. Besides this I’m die-hard cinephile who’s planning in the near future to study filmmaking and this rip release has helped me first to acquire a wide vast criteria of the movie industry plus it helps me to spend my money more wisely. Because let’s face it we’re up against a mass-media control phenomena, aimed in most case to mark tendencies for consuming products, to desire a specific type of women (causing women to die, like the models in Brazil due to anorexia) and even to disseminate certain convenient foreign policies. So you can admit you downloaded movies, deleted them and then went out to buy it confident that what you buy is really what you like, and not to be entrapped by a movie wich its main goal was to be able to gather money for the new house or anything else for the actors and producers because that work didn’t come from a true and honest intention to contribute to Art.
PS: Pardon my english if I wasn’t clear enough.
We are bunch of cock smokers and want lots of money to purchase trans sexuals for medical experiments. We make heaps of money anyway but want more for more shitty over priced crap.
Buy teh movie of we will cry lots. Mum said she will spank you!!!
[quote comment="38156"]Wouldn’t offering fake files be a form of entrapment? After all they are the ones making the files available online. If the files were not there, then copyright infringement would not take place.
“If the officer mentions money first…”[/quote]
No, they need to trick or coerce you into it for it to be entrapment. Otherwise you could never have Drug or Vice sting operations which I am sure you know are legal.
[quote comment="38154"]
What all these ‘real world’ examples of conviction based on intent have in common that is arguably not there in the case of torrenting, is that there is an instance where law enforcement creates an explicit moment of intent… for instance, a police woman posing as a hooker must get verbal confirmation that the person is willing to exchange sex for money. Without the explicit intent expressed by the individual, there is no ‘intent’. This type of interaction doesn’t happen in the process of file sharing ’stings’ - If one went to download one of these fake torrents and was accused of attempting to illegally access copy-written material, the accuser has no ‘real’ knowledge that you thought it was copy-written material because there was no explicit expression of intent… Are you attempting to download the Warner brother movie, “Happy Feet” without payment?… No, I’m trying to download a fake file with a similar name that I can use to learn about an interesting facet of the interweb culture!… hmm.[/quote]
No, then that would be like someone buying a white substance from a cop and then claiming that he realy wanted baby powder they got. People have tried that defense - they get laughed out of court. It doesn’t work that way, common sense dictates that if you use a p2p network and you try to download something with the title of a copyrighted movie, song or whatever, then you are trying to get that copyrighted material not some fake file.
RIAA, MPAA… all these “Companies” are fucked up criminals paying corrupt cocaine sniffing lawyers & politicians to take control over planet earth. We have chance to say no to all that shit. We must say no and get organised to have strong power against the criminals!
Thoughts. If a show (copyright material)is broadcast on national tv and I record it on tape to watch at a more convenient time, am I showing intent to breach copyright? Or does this only take place if I pass on the tape to someone? Does simply OWNING a video recorder show intent to piracy? If any of these are true there are an awful lot of pirates around - rich pickings for the MPAA etc(!) I have downloaded episodes of US series simply because UK are always behind on airdates (I’ll watch them again when they finally do make it over here), it’s just more convenient. Finally there could be a plus side for copyright owners anyway, much of the material I’ve downloaded I have subsequently purchased so look on it as an advertising/promotion service!
ur all ghey
stop bitchin
ur all thieven kunts
fuck the hollywood bitches
they won’t win
thieven forever
p.
Fuck the Police
The MPAA could not ever do anyone for intent to infringe copyright. Why? Because of something called “Specific Intent”.
See, some crimes are covered by Specific Intent, in other words merely intending to commit the crime is a crime in itself. Murder is a good example here - an attempted murder isn’t a murder but the INTENT to commit murder makes it a crime.
The day that copyright infringement becomes a specific intent crime is the day I execute my leaders.
Registrant:
MediaDefender
11965 Venice
Venice CA 90066
US
310-306-9110
Domain Name: MEDIADEFENDER.COM
Administrative Contact:
Saaf Randy info@mediadefender.com
11965 Venice
Venice CA 90066
US
310-306-9110
Technical Contact:
Saaf Randy info@mediadefender.com
11965 Venice
Venice CA 90066
US
310-306-9110
Record last updated 12-11-2003 07: 45: 20 PM
Record expires on 07-13-2011
Record created on 07-13-2000
Domain servers in listed order:
MPAA and the rest… Welcome to my world. they think its ok scaring people with viruses, and some actually put viruses in them . FUCK NO not while im alive. this is war, and im starting it if no one else does. sure it may be illegal to some degree what is going on with torrents, but what they are doing is messing up peoples computers, and casuing much more major damage in data. FUCK NO . MARK MY wORDS. “i DECLARE A WAR” it starts now
i hope the pirates win and actors only get £200 a week like every one else
I don’t believe any judge has ordered a defendant to hand over his/her hard drive. The act of inspecting the hard drive is a voluntary measure by innocent defendants. Besides, I’d be in my car driving to Best Buy with cash in hand to buy a fresh new disk within five minutes of receiving notice from my ISP… wouldn’t do them much good in that case. lol
I’m sure it would be quite easy to knock these IPs offline with a DDoS if the pirates really wanted to. I don’t see why the MPAA are trying so hard, it’s a position from which they cannot win.
So I suspect that if you downloaded a planted movie, if you buy oregano and thought it was pot, you’ll still be arrested for attempted whatever the charge is…
i saw this a mile above and laughed, just had to comment, because a 6 yr old girl was charged with possesion when she brought a bag of oregano to school and was playing around with friends…. the charges were eventually dropped but they were made in the first place…. it was in the states somewhere ill have to look it up….
fucke ‘em
he whole thing is entrapment and is legal- if he MPAA fake a file and put it forwarded as copyrighted- they are BREAKING the law too and it would be thrown out of court if they tried to prosecute themselves the downloader. All they can do is worry ISP’s and get you banned!
Regarding Paedophiles different kettle of fish entirely since they are sexual predators of minors and even if entrapped by an adult posing as a child their dialoque or chatroom replies would prove their intent to do/guilt had it been so, despite no minor being present. Still entrapment though! With films if you know it is fake you just do not carry on to download, so MPAA is actively encouraging you to commit a crime by lying to you just as if you know the film is genuine! Touche!
No matter what you do or what you download. You know that its not right if its something your downloading for free like music or a movie. Obviously Im talking about copyright material here. The ISPs are notified first and they notify you. However, the ISP will cut you off because they are babies… so if you have no internet, then the mpaa wins. I agree that these corps and businesses and even artists and actors make WAY TOO much money. Thus I hope, and know, that the general public will win the battle and always have a free solution to “pirate” copyright info. If I have to pay 12 to see a new movie at a theatre, or pay 22.50 for a dvd, somethings wrong. Maybe Jack Sparrow should only make 20 million for the movie instead of 28. I mean Jesus people… 1 million is ridiculous. our “stars” need to get a grip on reality. let alone the business and ceo’s that run the entertainment world.
guys, forget the legal issue, that’s what they are trying to get everyone focusing on, the MPAA attention whores
we need to focus on a *solution*
torrent search engines need to add some filters and designate few trustworthy individuals to report fake torrent so they don’t clog the result sets and get everyone pissed off
lets take their billion dollars solution and flush it down the toilet
it’s that simple
I should add that I was once warned by my ISP about accessing a shared file
I told them to go f*ck themselves and terminate my account if they had a problem
guess what, they stopped harrassing me instantly and I have an awesome contract with
do let them intimidate you show them who’s paying and who’s privacy they are violating !
HEY!
lets get some modified torrent clients going (that only download from mediadefendur), and lets cost the mpaa some bandwidth!
get to it!
Basically this is entrapment. no crime has been committed, because there is no illegal files actually being downloaded, attempting to download is NOT a crime, but entrapment is. This organisation is breaking the law and none of the evidence against users downloading torrents will hold up in British or American courts.
Also, i may be wrong, isn’t it illegal to collect personal information on web users without their permission?
I haven’t read the whole thread so I might state something already stated, but I would use the same defence as the hypothetical pedophile. You see I am a computer science student studying defences against the menace of illegal downloading. I don’t actually listen to the tracks, I run algorithms on them. Heaven forbid…
No I don’t have to show you the algorithm, you have to prove there is none. We have a very good legal system in this country, where I am not guilty untill proven innocent.
Any vile allegations that I am raised by a crime lawyer are obviously discrimination and prejudice that must be acted upon immediately. How close and actualy the truth they may be.
^^Y
And that persecution for intent, scaaryy, takes me right back to 1984. If I am still allowed to think that.
And by the by, isn’t it possible to make a sort of dating torrent for our dear and beloved MPAA torrenteers. Sort of bring them together…
The basic idea is that you take a torrent peer from the MPAA and stream it right back to the torrent peer, but after some tampering with its identity. That way the MPAA will be quite occupied with itself…
Though there are probably hundreds of people working on it already…
He he he…
Here’s an idea.
If the MPAA contacts my ISP, and manages to get my personal info to sue me, i’ll counter-sue my ISP for breach of the user privacy act.
If that doesn’t work, which it would, I could always sue for discrimination. Heck, i’m a white guy, and there must be millions of other people that would download, so why pick on me? It’s not ironclad, but the first one is.
[quote comment="56532"]Here’s an idea.
If the MPAA contacts my ISP, and manages to get my personal info to sue me, i’ll counter-sue my ISP for breach of the user privacy act.
If that doesn’t work, which it would, I could always sue for discrimination. Heck, i’m a white guy, and there must be millions of other people that would download, so why pick on me? It’s not ironclad, but the first one is.[/quote]
Yeah… good luck with that. Lol
[quote comment="52045"]Basically this is entrapment. no crime has been committed, because there is no illegal files actually being downloaded, attempting to download is NOT a crime, but entrapment is. This organisation is breaking the law and none of the evidence against users downloading torrents will hold up in British or American courts.
Also, i may be wrong, isn’t it illegal to collect personal information on web users without their permission?[/quote]
This is NOT entrapment, it is perfectly legal. Oh and collecting personal information on web users w/o consent is perfectly legal as well (And if you’re doing something illegal it makes it all the harder to cry to the judge on how the MPAA infringed upon your rights…)
This is stupid!
It’s like having a shop.. have a big label “Get them for free” above some stuff and then after some guy gets it , accusing them for theft!!
The MPAA and their kin apply aggressive tactics in their pursuit of the ‘elimination’ of copyright infringement. The goal of their IP collection system (fake trackers, etc), is to punish, intimidate, and ultimately to deter any entity that interferes with their profitability.
It’s simple. If Steve and his 50 friends are all running around downloading files illegally, and the MPAA knows all of their information (IP->ISP->Personal Info), they can sue for infringement. If they followed legal procedure, about half of Steves friends would settle out of court, but the rest wouldn’t. While the infringer’s themselves would lose several thousand dollars each in legal fees and settlements, the MPAA itself would end up LOSING at least a million dollars, if not more.
Instead, the MPAA (and its agents)report the IP addresses to their respective ISPs, and then back off. What good does this do? Instead of solving the problem within the constraints of the legal system, they instead take advantage of ISP usage policies. Many Isp’s will send two warning letters, then begin shutting of the users internet access for incrementally longer periods of time, before finally “alerting the authorities”; although, in most cases, copyright infringement is a civil dispute between the infringer and the copyright holder, and not a criminal offense (unless said material was reproduced in volume, and sold for profit, I think).
This tactic is far cheaper, more efficient, and much more effective than any more ‘ethical’ technique, without the costly legal proceedings.
When you look at it,every man and his dog are illegally downloading something,mp3s,movies,software,ect.using all sorts of ways to do it.Now if the ISPs were to cut every body off they’d go fucking broke within a week,so it ain’t gonna happen,the MPPA,or whatever can go fuck themselves.
If these are fake torrents with nothing to download and this is being used against an individual to show intent haven’t we just had our very own minority report?
Someone needs to come up with an anonymous way of downloading a torrent.
doesn’t matter that the content is not real (copyrighted material) it’s the “intent” that would stand up in court. The “intent” of downloading, what was perceived as the copyrighted content by the individual downloading, which constitutes the alleged infringement or crime.
Example: a police woman can pose as a prostitute, the potential customer solicits her for services, hands over the cash, then is arrested for the intent. The police woman is not a real prostitute, nor did she perfomr the service. So, it’s the “intent” of accepting something illegally/illegal, even though the product/service is a fake.
Thats the point, these people ARE NOT LAW ENFORCEMENT. If you sell me drugs then tell the police that you sold me drugs you have broken the law too just like me.
No matter what they (MPAA) does, it doesn’t stop anything and it’s just a scare tactic, because right now there are no legal laws about using p2p.
I’ve been p2p for over 2 years now, and on average, I’m downloading 10 movies per day. In other words, in the last 12 months, my torrent client wasn’t used for a total of 30-45 days. I torrent every-single day. Be cautious, but don’t feed into the fear they’re pushing out.
Legally, there is nothing they can do to prosecute you for downloading anything, provided you take these steps to help insure your privacy.
Although none of the below is 100% guaranteed, but it’s been working well for me.
no#1. NEVER sign up on any site and use the email address your isp assigns to you. ONLY use your isp email address to check emails that they send you. I’m on 2 isp’s and both of them send me spam every day. Since I never in my life used those email addresses, they have to be the culprits of me getting spam. Big deal. As long as you don’t get any infringement letters, you’re fine.
no#2. Use ip blocking software. I use PeerGuardian 2, and have been using it for 2 years. The groups behind it are constantly adding those ip addresses to the blocked lists, saving you time of having to research them. You can get PeerGuardian 2 at http://phoenixlabs.org
no#3. Use a proxy tool, like Tor.. You can get it at http://tor.eff.org. Tor is good for surfing. While you’re surfing, your ip addresses changes from site to site, and at the same time, your isp can’t track where you’ve been while you’re surfing.
no#4. Unless you’re absolutely sure of the torrent/uploader… NEVER, EVER download a torrent that has only 1 seeder. That’s where you are likely to get accused. Let me explain what the RIAA/MPAA doesn’t want people to know, and especially your isp.
a. If you download a file from 1 seeder, you are in fact in violation of copyright infringements, and they will have a case against you.
b. If you download a torrent from more than one seeder, you’re in no violation at all because in order for you to infringe you will have to get the complete file from any one source, and since every torrent is broken into data bits, and distributed amongst many people, you are not violating any laws. You’re getting data bits from numerous locations and sources, and it’s just recompiled to create the file. The fact is that you never downloaded any copyrighted material. You just downloaded bits from numerous people… and that’s what the RIAA/MPAA doesn’t want anyone to know.
So, point and case?… Stay away from torrents that has only one seeder, because you can’t deny that.
no#5. The computer you use to download torrents should NOT have any personal or identifying information about you on it. Invest $40 or so, and get another hard drive.. install your os on it, then your torrent client. Use that hard drive for your torrents, and when you’re done, dump the data from that hard drive. The point is this… no matter what they suspect, or ip address they log, they still have to prove you did what they claim, and if you were to get a knock on your door, at least it won’t have all your torrent downloads on it (hopefully if you dump the data often).
These things have kept me in the clear so far. At one point on my isp service I’m on, I’ve downloaded 106 movies in 6 days :)… Sooo, if they’re as aggressive as they claim, they would definitely be catching more people than they do now… and the people they do catch, those people settle out of court.. which they should fight them to the end, because as of now, they’ve lost more cases than they’ve won. They are the ones hurting the Industry, it’s not us,, it’s them.
And another thing to keep in mind…. there isn’t enough man power on planet earth for them to monitor every-single torrent out there. They can only monitor their own, and a few others…. but if every site owner that hosts links to torrents use ip blocking lists, they will ensure the great reduction of those groups from even uploading to the trackers, because their ip’s will be blocked.
I have a few torrent sites, and I block them from even entering my site, and that’s what all of these torrent sites need to practice. It’s all about the quality, not the quantity.
But whatever you do, at least get PeerGuardian 2, and load all the lists that they have (21 of them) and your torrenting will go so much smoother, and less worrying about if they’re connecting to you. I block MediaSentry, Media Defender, and a host of others groups every day for the past 2 years, and nothing has ever happened to me, nor my isp accounts.
Hopefully the information I provided will help many of you out and help make your torrenting much safer and more pleasant.
Way to turn the internet against you, MPAA…
Amazing post Jasontor
good informative article
I have a friend created some friggin hard drive that will destroy itself upon the push of a button. Not really destroy but erase and scramble. It will mirror your primary hard drive but erase traces of music, video, and non-critical .exe files. I cant’t tell people how it works exactly but it is the neatest friggin thing in the world!!!
Good thing that entrapment (even by the authorities) is forbidden by law where I live.
Yey to the U.S., the “land of the free”. NOT!
Im increasingly tempted to download every fake torrent from the MPAA/RIAA out there, on a brand new HDD, then just epically shit myself with mirth when my stuff gets raided only to be found ive only EVER downloaded the fake torrents
XD
[quote comment="38106"]Sorry guys but its places like these that are eventually going to make movies and mainstream entertainment obsolete, i mean how do you expect ppl to want to go out and make more movies for you to download if they can’t even make the money back they spent on making them, prepare for the end of mainstream entertainment as we know it.[/quote]
That’s kinda the point I think…
most mainstream media is absolute garbage.
Why do you think people are so quick to steal it…it’s not worth the $10 ticket price (usually).
I think people know enough to support the artists they REALLY like…the simple process of weeding out.
This is why the entertainment industry is kicking and screaming…
they’re becoming obsolete as the best artists are going DIY with their own computers…all they need is a distributor.
But then, I suppose your a big Shrek fan…
If somebody downloads a fake torrent, it’s NOT ILLEGAL, because the user hasn’t downloaded any copyrighted material, just it’s name! So there can’t be anything to scrare if they get you ;)
why dosent the mpaa
just stop all the torrent sites if the are working on stopping all of this, or is it because its not illegal to use torents
does peer guardian automatically update these IPs or do I need to take care of this manually?
Quote “The “intent” of downloading, what was perceived as the copyrighted content by the individual downloading, which constitutes the alleged infringement or crime.
”
Maybe my intent was to download this junk torrent I have heard so many talking about! :-)
The “intent” of downloading, what was perceived as the copyrighted content by the individual downloading, which constitutes the alleged infringement or crime.
Maybe my intent was to download this junk torrent so many people have been talking about to see what all the fuss was. :-)
[quote comment="37951"][quote comment="37897"]doesn’t matter that the content is not real (copyrighted material) it’s the “intent” that would stand up in court. The “intent” of downloading, what was perceived as the copyrighted content by the individual downloading, which constitutes the alleged infringement or crime.
[/quote]
My defence would be, My intent was to download this junk torrent that so many people have been talking about to see what all the fuss was about. :-)
My ISP would lose a shit load if disconnected me considering I also have 2 phone lines with them.
Here’s an idea, why don’t the MPAA (or whatever they are called) just open up a download site or buy them all out. They would make shit loads with all the advertising revenue.(Hmmmmm or maybe they would shut them down if they bought them) Maybe I didn’t think about that enough :-)
if you can’t beat em join em’
I just finished my degree in music business for which I was required to take several copyright law courses. The laws for sex crimes (as many have suggested) are not the same as copyright laws. I know the argument seems logical but it isn’t factual. If a copyright was NOT infringed upon, then no law was broken, regardless of intent. If the MPAA or RIAA are actually trying to trick you into downloading fake files (which there is no real proof of) then it is most likely a scare tactic. Also the people arrested for soliciting prostitution and the men on “To Catch a Predator” are not arrested for intent. The crime was the solicitation itself. They say repeatedly on “To Catch a Predator” that having a conversation of a sexual nature with someone who is believed to be a minor is illegal. They can be arrested even if they never go through with it, or even show up at the house (but it makes for much better TV when they do), but the point is that the crime already happened it wasn’t the intent of a crime that they are arrested for.
copyright is a shame
share everything and when they come to your door, blow a hole in their head!
The cases all are handled on a intent basis. The real question the courts ask when seeing if a user is guilty or not, is are they TRYING to get the material described in the name, OR are they just downloading it to see if it’s junk or not?
A few things would alter the course of the trial.
-Date of accessing the site
-Dates of prior access
-Which OTHER files have they gotten?
However, a lot of you are assuming that they’re just putting fake files up. This is untrue. MPAA and RIAA put real files on the net, and then when users download them, they really do have a case, because copyright law has been violated.
If you live in the U.S.A, and the police take your storage devices and computers, it’s likely that you’ll be found guilty if you have any other files besides the “faked” files.
I strongly urge those of you who are taken in by the police about this to take a close look at their search warrant. It likely will read to look for the files that they faked - which of course, ANYTHING else they find while looking for that files MUST be thrown out of the lawsuit if it’s not explicitly written in the warrant.
The real kicker that they can still do to you is contact your ISP. Depending on the ISP, it is more than likely that they will side with MPAA