Repeatedly attempting to fake one’s own death becomes economically more viable than paying undeserved money back to an insanely greedy group of assholes…

So, whatever any judgement is… the overall effort will be an epic failure.

You take a site down, two pop up… eat shit and die MAFIAA!!!

no luck needed there, i’m sure you have plenty of practice…

he took down his details after you guys linked to his page lol…

Money spent on hunting Fung>amount of United States Deficit>Fung’s Net Worth

Laughing My ass off to Fabio’s doomed Career (Fabrizio): priceless

For everything else, there’s Mastercard

“But the artists should be paid still!
-No. It’s never about the artists, it’s the content providers that you hurt. Nobody ever speaks of the artists, though the word artist is overused all the time.”
This is France…

These MPAA+RIAA=MAFIAA organizations are terrorists now. They should be dissolved!
They are dangerous..

This is what it comes down to. Get educated folks. Stop the New World Order from taking over your country!

Viva el Canada! (Or “Viva il Canada” or even “Viva la Canada”, I don’t know if it comes from Spanish or Italian.)

intent does NOT matter in the copyright context, although it does in many other areas of the law (all areas of criminal law, for example).

LOL

copyright infringement can be a criminal offense! please cite the appropriate passage that dissevers mens rea consideration from criminal copyright law.

If they were really trying to do their jobs they would just take it to court and do their thing not make stupid threats.

If intent mattered in copyright, plaintiffs would be stuck with the burden of showing that the defendant had the mental intention (mens rea) to commit or contribute to copyright infringement. This would prove to be a difficult task, indeed, as there it is very difficult to prove state-of-mind.

I’ll agree with Paladin on one thing: this blog is full of misinformation, from both sides…. Let’s leave the legal analysis to those who know WTF they are talking about, eh?

In any case, some people here (like mr Paladin) insist that what the industry is doing is the right thing. I would have to disagree simply because I have bought several albums after actually downloading them ‘illegally’. Would that make me a criminal?

Furthermore, should I buy a CD because I liked a single song from it? Don’t come with the itunes blabbing as 1 dollar is not what I’d call a fair price unless you really like the artist.

What if I buy the CD because the radios are hammering that in my head and then I end up forgetting the song/CD in a few weeks and never listening to it anymore?

What if I can’t find the stuff I want for sale? I spent 35 minutes looking for a place to buy a J-POP CD in an idiom I could actually read and failed miserably. Am I a criminal because I downloaded the CD but couldn’t find it?

What if my original CD/DVD broke, got scratched or whatever? Am I a criminal because I downloaded the content again? What if I lost the serial number? What if they release new versions too fast for rape-like prices and I can’t keep up with the pace?

I could go on asking you a lot of questions. Obviously, if you have a lot of money it doesn’t matter if you throw $30 in the trash can with a crappy CD or a game with a crappy ending but for the vast majority of us it’s a money earned through a lot of sweat so we buy slowly and only what is really good from our point of view.

MAFIAA can hunt and torment people as much as they want. In the end we’ll see how deep they’ll have dug their graves.

Oh, and for the ones talking about the lawyer’s family please don’t even suggest that. You are just playing the same game, ruining a life using bankruptcy is just like ruining a life by using any other thing, including the family. I’m sure most people that download stuff are good people. MAFIAA is just displaying human traits through its actions: fear of losing, fear of uncertainty, greed……

really? you think people would stop pirating the newest releases? the newest releases are generally what gets pirated THE MOST. so how’s the weather over there in fantasy land?

True today but maybe if people knew they could see it in 2 years instead of waiting a 100 years people could wait those 2 years instead of knowing that they would never in their lifetimes see it, and in turn this could lead to less piracy an anger can you prove it otherwise?

conversely, has anyone here seen a business have to give up it’s control and profits after a number of years for the “public good?

Yep all the time bussiness are supposed to let go of their intelectual property in 14 years and don’t control distribuition channels and have zero rights from derivative works have you never seen a patent in your life?

while were at it, lets take grandma and grandpa’s house away. they’ve had it long enough, it’s time to take their property and make it into a public park for everyone to enjoy!

Funny you talk about grandpa’s house because I came to realize people don’t buy anything they lease it from the state if you don’t pay your taxes you loose your house, you really think you own land? in what world do you think you live in LoL
Besides governments everywhere already take the houses of grandpa’s everywhere to build other things like highways, shopping mals and etc, an although sad it is a reality in the U.S. is even more true if a neighborhood is considered hazardous it can be taken away from people, people don’t own land nowhere it is just an illusion to let the sheep calm and to not rebel. You think you own a car? LoL

Sorry I have to laugh, you think you can own ideas? enforce absurd laws? LMAO

Wins all around!

One has to ask why your being so victorian in your views?

for the record number 146 Free trade was against the Law 200 years ago, and i bet you see nothing wrong with free trade!
And as a matter of fact why are you taking this so personally? are you infact someone from the mafiaa??

LOL! Neither are you.

And guess what? USA IS NOT THE WORLD.

Gary Fung, seriously, if you feel threatened come to a free country.

Those dicks can cry a river until they die, at best they can ask their corporate controlled gov. to fill a complain to the WTO and hope some resolution is made in the following decades, which will either be ignored or make us leave WTO once for all.

I hate MPAA/RIAA and American corporate fed culture, but sites like ISOHUNT help promote other cultures, for example Asian entertainment, in other words stuff not controlled/made by them.

This is what you don’t like, really, losing the power to influence others. The world doesn’t want copyright? Thats it. Laws are made by man, can be changed by man. Democracy is the rule of majority, not the rule of the elite, no matter how much you try to brainwash people otherwise. People elect their lawmakers, if a law is causing more harm than good, its time to change it for good.

I know you would love to defend business models of those who built riches around slavery, but at some point those laws were abolished, and so will those. Don’t want to put sense to that Berne thing? Ok kiss goodbye to it, its your fault for being a dick.

—————————-

Yes, USA copyright law is the ISSUE.

USA copyright law is the ONLY which converts to each human being without exception on this world in a criminal, because each person on this planet has shared copyrighted material with others, independently if the persons are aware of that or not; that is mainly for this reason that USA copyright law is rejected in the MAJORITY of countries on the world. USA copyright law violates basic human rights and civil liberties.

Also, you LIE when you subliminally suggest that USA copyright laws are International laws and that all the
canadian territories should follow this. Of course, NOT. Canada has its own copyright law which
states very clearly that sharing copyrighted material with others is legal, when this is for personal use and not for-profit; and obviously Canada is not obligated to ignore its own laws for satisfying foreign laws, that nothing have to do with the laws of Canada.

Worse, Each citizen from Canada pays an unjustified and illegal levy on blank storage media for satisfying the caprices of the PARASITES copyright holders from USA, waste of taxpayer money that could be used for the benefit of the citizens of Canada instead of being stolen by copyright holders that don’t provide real benefit to the society.

Wow… just…wow.

http://www.twilightcampaign.net

Go Fung! Go Isohunt! We’re all behind you.

Wake up and smell the coffee please, let MPAA sue for 500 million, then ISOhunt declares bankruptcy, sells all their assets off for 1 buck to some company and poof, MPAA loses and the people win.

What more can you ask for?

Intentions?

Intentions count for jackshit

LOL

intent is an integral component to law. please stop pretending to know what you’re talking about. you’re not a lawyer. hell, you’re probably not even an adult.

If copyright term was 1 or 2 years long we would not be having this discussion at all.

really? you think people would stop pirating the newest releases? the newest releases are generally what gets pirated THE MOST. so how’s the weather over there in fantasy land?

No society paid its due and are receiving the shaft on the other end of the bargain. Copyright law with 120 years it is not funny, have any one here seen a contract for services last a 100 years and in the end the guy still tries to get out off of delivering the goods claiming he needs more time?

conversely, has anyone here seen a business have to give up it’s control and profits after a number of years for the “public good?

no?

should we mandate that once a successful company has been operating for say, fifteen years, the government will forcibly step in, take it away from its natural heirs and turn it into a non-profit? why should businesses be passed down through the family? that’s textbook nepotism, after all. why should someone’s offspring inherit their business that they did nothing to help make?

while were at it, lets take grandma and grandpa’s house away. they’ve had it long enough, it’s time to take their property and make it into a public park for everyone to enjoy! it’s not like they carved that land from untamed wilderness — a great many people who came before them allowed that land to be hospitable to daily life. we all stand on the shoulders of giants so should any of us really own ANYTHING given how much we owe our forebears? it’s not like your ability to to sell widgets and own physical property was developed in a vacuum. for fairness’s sake, after a time we should all repay our accrued debt to society by relinquishing our long-held businesses and properties!

“No good case exists for the inequality of real and intellectual property, because no good case can exist for treating with special disfavor the work of the spirit and the mind.”
- Mark helpbrin

Fag needs to be taken down.

Make an example of his wife and family.

what if filesharers were to make this a personal issue and decide to pay Steven Fabrizio and his family a visit before he paid them a visit

Just a warning thought to the RIAA/MPAA parasites: We don’t negotiate with terrorists, we kill them.

why not just starting killing these mpaa/mafiaa scum????

exterminate all mpaa members

look at all the BASEMENT WARRIORS! have you ever seen so much misdirected sexual frustration in one place before? is there anything more cringe-worthy, hand-over-your-mouth embarrassing than VIRGIN RAGE?

LOL

The ISOHUNT is in Canadian Territories.. We don’t follow US laws

US laws are not the issue, INTERNATIONAL laws are (as defined by numerous treaties) and all the canadian territories are required to follow various international copyright laws. please stop pretending to know what you’re talking about. you’re not a lawyer. hell, you’re probably not even an adult.

You conveniently neglected to mention which parts of copyright are a problem and exactly how they harm society.

If you insist.

In terms of filesharing, there is only one area of copyright law that is a problem: distribution. Once upon a time, distribution was a matter that was carried out by select companies, those that owned printing presses or radio stations or whatever. Copyright was a Good Thing in these times because it placed restrictions on publishers and distributors (a select and comparatively small group of people) in exchange for a public benefit: incentive to create. Nowadays it’s different because, as I have explained to you before but you so conveniently ignored, the division between publisher and common man has all but disappeared. Because of the Internet and p2p technology, anyone can publish anything, so copyright has moved to placing a big restriction on the general public, and with no change in the “benefit” side to compensate for the increase in restriction. It’s not nearly as much a public good as it once was.

Copyright is obsolete in the digital world. How can you enforce first sale when you can copy something endlessly and constantly sell the copies? In fact, to make a better point, how can you sell something online when it is endlessly copiable? Digital copies of something are worthless because of this… but I digress. Sharing is a fundemental part of our society. We share when we learn; we share because sharing is a public benefit, not necessarily a private benefit. Copyright law, and through it the Big Content organizations that so rigorously enforce it, are not only telling the world that it is not okay to share with your friends, family, or complete strangers (the latter being the most noble of these), but also that profits are more important than human rights! This is completely ridiculous and it’s unthinkable that a commercial entity can dictate such things to the world’s public.

I know that if I don’t add in how I think it should change, you will just say “Oh, you’re just saying it should change in order to justify your behavior.” (Please notice that I did not use retardspeak to discredit you when ‘quoting’ you; unlike you I have a shred of civility.) So how do I think copyright should change? Legalization of noncommercial distribution of digital media. Selling bootleg copies is still wrong. Drastically lowering the life of copyright- down to a handful of years instead of over a century. Those are the basics of it.

1) Content providers should profit from their work

Please demonstrate to me that they aren’t.

2) Pursuant to #1, Content providers should possess exclusive control of how their work is distributed

Have you ever studied copyright? Copyright is not designed this way. There is something called the “first-sale doctrine” which basically states that copyright holders relinquish control over something once it’s sold. The buyer can do whatever he wants with it- sell it, give it away, deface it, destroy it- and the copyright holder can’t do a thing about it. The exception to this is make unauthorized copies, but that part is obsolete in the digital world, where anything on a computer can be copied. So no, content holders are not supposed to exclusively control how their work is used.

If I am understanding this correctly, people have a tendency to characterize all corporate entities as evil by default,

Absolute power corrupts absolutely. Show me a big, multinational, for-profit corporation that is not evil.

Your last paragraph is full of laughs:

Bottom line is Mr Fung, like all people who run illegal torrent sites, had this coming all along.

isoHunt is an indexing site (search engine), not a tracker. How is this illegal? (In fact, how is a torrent site illegal in the first place? In fact, what IS a torrent site?)

Torrent Piracy is a crime

Torrent piracy? Torrent piracy? DAMN those pirates for stealing my torrents! Those are MY torrents! MINE! MIIINE!

(You’re confusing yourself.)

(any copyright infringement that exceeds $2000 is classified as a criminal act)

Cite or gtfo. You don’t get to throw around unsourced statements and pretend you’re right.

Come to think of it, I don’t think I’ve ever seen so much as a link from you. Funny- you act all big and righteous and then demonstrate that you’re too scared to back up your claims. Or that you simply can’t because you lie. Either one means you are wasting your time by posting here.

The fundamental ideals of copyright are :
1) Content providers should profit from their work
2) Pursuant to #1, Content providers should possess exclusive control of how their work is distributed
——————

Ohh!! .neo.styles|nvDX, I am very disappointed with you. :-)
If you go to lie with conviction as in this case, at least you could be less evident. :-).

‘Content providers’ ARE NOT ‘creators of content’, in this case; ‘content providers’ can’t profit from their “work”; because the “work” was created and made by the ‘creators of content’ (artists mainly) and NOT by the ‘content providers’.

‘Content providers’ are mainly distributors, but they don’t create NOTHING!!!. In this point, ‘content
providers’ profit for distributing the work created by ‘content creators’; and you know that ‘content providers’ (as distributors) are obsolete and redundant in this digital age, that’s a fact.

In this point, suggesting (as you did) that ‘content providers’ are the same as ‘creators of content’ is the most incredible lie that a COMPULSIVE LIAR as you have invented.

“Content providers should possess exclusive control of how “their work” (sigh!!) is distributed.”

Another BIG lie… Nor ‘content providers’ nor ‘content creators’ should possess exclusive control of
NOTHING!!!, nor having special rights above of the rights and will of the citizens who conform the MAJORITY… again, you FAILED!!!