TorrentFreak

The place where breaking news, BitTorrent and copyright collide

Sharing 7 Movies on BitTorrent = $1.5 Million Damages

Uploading just over a handful of movies to a BitTorrent site has turned into a financial disaster for a man from Upper Marlboro, Maryland. A federal judge entered a default judgment in favor of adult company Flava Works this week, awarding the company $1.5 million in damages. Anwar Ogiste, who failed to defend himself, shared a total of seven “clips” putting the damages at more than $214,000 per infringed movie.

pirateBitTorrent piracy is widespread and some copyright holders in the United States have begun to aggressively enforce their rights via legal action.

In most instances the resulting lawsuits end in a settlement of a few thousand dollars. However, over the past few weeks several judges have awarded monstrous damages claims to a maker of adult movies.

Earlier this month Kywan Fisher from Virginia and Cormelian Brown of Delaware were ordered to pay $1.5 million each for sharing 10 movies, the maximum statutory damages possible under copyright law.

Yesterday there was another default judgment due to another defendant failing to defend himself. However, in this case the infringer, Anwar Ogiste from Maryland, must pay $1.5 million for sharing “just” 7 movies.

The order handed down by Illinois District Court Judge George Lindberg is by far the largest file-sharing related damage award in U.S. history.

As with the other two cases, this is not one of the classic mass-BitTorrent lawsuits. All defendants had paid accounts at the website of Flava Works where they could legally download movies. However, they were explicitly forbidden to share the movies with others, and this is where things went wrong for them.

Ogiste was accused of sharing seven movie “clips” on a popular gay torrent site, and Flava had more than just an IP-address as evidence. The company was able to trace the illicit copies directly back to his paid account through a unique code embedded in the videos.

“In this case, every time the Defendant downloaded a copy of a copyrighted video from Plaintiff’s website, it inserts an encrypted code that is only assigned to Defendant. The encrypted code for Defendant is: ‘oxfglyrf’,” Flava explained to the court.


The screenshot

Since Ogiste failed to respond to the accusations the copyright holder asked for a “very reasonable” default judgment of no less than $1.5 million, or $214,000 per infringed movie.

“Plaintiff seeks total statutory damages of $1,500,0000 for the infringements of its copyrights. Plaintiff, Flava Works, Inc.’s request for an award of $1,500,000 is very reasonable given that Plaintiff’s copyrighted videos were downloaded — or infringed on – thousands of time by third parties on gay-torrents.net,” Flava informed the court.

According to Flava the amount is fair because the movies in question were downloaded a total of 6,632 times. Although it’s debatable whether statutory damages can be demanded for every infringement, the movie studio believed that they could potentially have asked for nearly a billion dollars.

“$150,000 times 6,632 infringements is well over $1,500,000. Thus, Plaintiff, Flava Works, Inc.’s request for an award of $1,500,000 is very reasonable,” they write.

And Judge George Lindberg agreed.

The verdict will be welcomed by Flava and the many other copyright holders involved in BitTorrent lawsuits in the United States. It’s the ultimate pressure method to convince defendants to settle, and as we witnessed last week these verdicts are already used as such.

For Anwar Ogiste the ruling most likely means paying off a debt for many years.


The order

Related Posts

Previous Post | Next Post

  • Guest

    How can we know that the watermark was genuine and not made up?

    A watermark is no more proof of individual liability than an IP address. The computer or storage media containing the copyrighted work may have been stolen or a third party may have had joint access to the media, computer or account data. This is a very compelling reason for never buying any legal
    media with watermarks.

    What about the download server? How secure is it? And has the copyright holder an opportunity to modify the database of watermarks after completion of the purchase?

    There are so many assumptions which must be validated in order for this outcome to be correct that a default judgment due to a watermark seems problematic.

    • glomzz

      I guess the judge doesn’t like gay porn. lol

      • Tmv

        exactly opposite, if we look at punishment…

      • http://twitter.com/MarioGo42549782 MarioGomez

        what Peggy answered I’m blown away that a single mom able to make $6071 in a few weeks on the network.

      • http://twitter.com/MarioGo42549782 MarioGomez

        ……goo.gl/Hl7g5 (Click on Home)

    • Guest

      Every single movie you have ever watched on your computer have had a watermark. So, not buying a legal media with watermarks is kinda impossible.

      These movies were downloaded only by him. If someone uploaded a movie he downloaded, then that someone can only be him.
      Watermarks were added on the file when he used his account to download it. It has nothing to do with the security of the download server.

      YOU are the one making all kinds of silly assumptions.
      I’m a pirate. And in my opinion this guy is guilty as hell. But the 1.5 mil fine is not fair.

      • Glib

        Yes, they all have watermarks. However, the watermark is the same for everyone. Very clever on Flava’s part, I’m surprised.

        However, the lawsuit is a joke. The guy could have went to court and said his laptop was stolen; done and done. No need for a lawyer.

        • Steve Smith

          I don’t think this qualifies as a watermark, but is more so a DRM. Watermarks most commonly seen is something encoded in the video. THis is a small set of numbers which since EVERYONE knows about them now makes it very easy to remove from the video.

        • lakawak

          He could try that. But the burden of proof would be on HIM. This is a civil case and the plaintiff just needs to make REASONABLE people think that it is more likely than not that he did it.

      • Anonymous

        Agreed. Guilty as he may be, this court decision means the guy has to choose between poverty and exile. It’s a slap in the face of what is just and fair.

        • MAFIAA

          Death by exile!

      • Guest

        @Guest
        “These movies were downloaded only by him. If someone uploaded a movie he downloaded, then that someone can only be him.”

        Prove it.

        My better half subscribes to an video rental club And to scare potential pirates, the club has announced that all copies have a unique watermark embedded. It’s probably a lie, but maybe it isn’t.

        The media is delivered by postal mail.

        If a copy ends up on a file sharing network, the watermark matches a subscriber, but unless you can prove that there was no break in custody over the media and no third party had the possibility to intercept and copy the contents, it’s not proof that the subscriber was the uploader.

        “Watermarks were added on the file when he used his account to download it. It has nothing to do with the security of the download server.”

        You bet it has, and unless you know something about the security of the download server and the watermark encoding others don’t know – namely was it tamper proof and audited by a qualified third party, much could go wrong in the identification.

        “YOU are the one making all kinds of silly assumptions.
        I’m a pirate. And in my opinion this guy is guilty as hell. But the 1.5 mil fine is not fair.”

        You could claim you was a pirate, and appeal to supposed moral authority does not strengthen your argument but rather makes you look stupid.

        If I sell a dvd to you containing a random text string, and the dvd later ends up on a file sharing site, is my claim that your watermark is found in the movie proof that you are the uploader?

        No it isn’t because a watermarked file can be copied by anyone with joint access to the storage media and computer.
        And that’s even barring the possibility that the claimed watermark is fraud and the copyright holder is lying.

        • danielravennest

          It’s easy enough to defeat this. Compare two copies downloaded from the rental club by different people, and look for any differences. Then set those bytes to all zeros and you are good to go.

        • Jim

          1. Prove it? Well, how about you prove that he is Not Guilty.! cmon, then..

          2. He downloaded! It is not a physical media that can be copied by someone else while it is on its way.

          3. So you think someone hacked into the server, used guy’s account to create a watermark, then downloaded the watermarked file, and uploaded it to torrent? You really have a wild imagination.

          4.I’m stupid. Fine. But you still haven’t made any relevant argument.

          5.If you sent me a picture of yourself naked, and it ends up on the
          internet for the world to see, would you blame “me”? Or would you think “Oh, anyone could have uploaded it. Probably not the guy I sent it to.”

          6. If it was a fraud, the money they get from this is not worth the risk they are taking. They will go to jail for fraud. And especially for fraud in front of a judge. Not exactly a sound business plan.
          Cheers, mate.

        • unu’

          @Guest:
          1. the burden of proof is on the Flava Works entity.
          2. A download is delivered over the Internet. If the connection was not secure, there is no proof that nobody could have intercepted the download.
          3. Or someone stole it. How hard is that?
          6. If you believe that justice is served in the courts of law I’ll have to agree with your point 4.

        • lakawak

          1. Nope. This is a civil case, and just having that code is more than enough preponderance of evidence. So the defendant has to prove it was not him at that point.
          I realize ignorant children like you think that all court cases are like criminal cases, and even more ignorantly think that “reasonable doubt” means ALL doubt” but that is just YOUR incredible stupidity.

        • lakawak

          They don’t have to prove it, ignorant little bitch. It is a civil case, and that is more than enough proof to reach the preponderance of evidence threshold.

      • Pelham123

        “These movies were downloaded only by him. If someone uploaded a movie he downloaded, then that someone can only be him. ”

        I see why you jumped on the guy, but do you see why this sentence of YOURS is seriously flawed?

        Once it’s purchased and on his computer, it can be uploaded by anybody with access to that file, now and forever.

        What if he sells the computer at a garage sale and forgets to wipe? What if a douchebag comes over for a party? What if, god forbid, his laptop is stolen and he doesn’t report the theft?

        He can be potentially liable for the file being uploaded long after the file and computer have passed out of his possession.

        Purchasing digital downloads is no longer legally safe. There’s a reason the MAFIAA isn’t celebrating these decisions.

      • Masau Fuku

        “These movies were downloaded only by him. If someone uploaded a movie he downloaded, then that someone can only be him. ”

        Actually, no. Anyone using his computer, or with access to his computer or his account (i.e. a hacker or phisher) could have uploaded it. Or if he had it in a shared folder or network harddrive, anyone on his network.

        But yes, it is likely that this man is the one who uploaded it. And yes,the amount of damages is too much (any amount is too much in any case that doesn’t involve the “infringer” making a profit imo) especially since approximately 0 of the people who downloaded it would have paid for it instead. Oddly enough, Flava or w/e is not the only source for porn – gay or otherwise. And I doubt the quality is better than most other porn (gay or otherwise). And certainly not all of them – especially at $225 per video (1.5m/6.6k).

    • Bum from the street

      I hate that judge

      • Violated0

        It is not the Judge to blame here but bad law.

        Since Anwar Ogiste did not defend himself then the only voice was that of Flava which as result led to the default judgement. The Judge always has to accept the stated damages claim as long as it is lawful. A Judge can only follow the law and cannot take sides meaning he could not try to defend him.

        So the three faults here are Anwar Ogiste for not being there, Flava for being greedy, then worst of all is bad law allowing this.

        • GuesterHonor

          This was completely ridiculous. Considering it was $214,000 per movie, all movies were only downloaded 6,642 times. This means that even if all of them bought a DVD for $20, it would just be over $100,000 the company would have made from the movies.

          Saying they could have charged over $1billion for that, is completely why these laws are corrupt and support big companies instead of the individuals that support them.

        • Calamoludimus-tf

          You let the judge off too easily.

          “I, George W. Lindberg, do solemnly swear that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as judge…under the Constitution and laws of the United States. So help me God.”

          That is the oath that Lindberg took when he became a federal district judge.

          Note that Lindberg swore to observe the Constitution, and the Eighth Amendment of the Constitution says that excessive fines shall not be imposed. The defendant’s failure to appear and claim his constitutional rights doesn’t mean that the judge can ignore them.

        • http://www.facebook.com/people/Devon-Black/1818284304 Devon Black

          Yep – this is definitely an 8th amendment issue. 1.5 million is an excessive fine when directed at an individual for sharing only 7 movies… And the company arrogantly thought it could fine him billions. Lol. The average individual makes what, a few million in his lifetime – if he’s lucky. Good luck on collecting billions from the average joe.

        • Violated0

          You are correct that a Judge needs to consider both law and the US Constitution including the Bill of Rights.

          However, higher US Courts have stated before that lower Courts should not make Bill of Rights rulings to avoid making a mess, but to defer such cases to higher Courts.

          Also on the subject of millions in fines for non-commercial infringement then this is already a hot topic subject to many appeals, but the latest ruling did say that such a high fine is not “cruel and unusual”, but more appeals to go there before the Supreme Court give the final conclusion.

          So what did the Judge do wrong?

          This case can only get somewhere when Anwar Ogiste awakes from his coma and launches an appeal. Hearing both sides then allows a Judge to determine some balance.

    • OneEyedWillie

      You know what I learned from this? Never buy any legal
      media as it will have watermarks. Thanks For the information.

      • lakawak

        Or…don’t upload it to torrent sites.

        It s funny…worthless pieces of shit whose mother raised them TERRIBLY…like you, always said that you only pirated because it was easier…not because you wanted to share. And here this is, very easy, and the ONLY restriction on it (no DRM whatsoever) is that if you share it, you will be identified. And you are STILL whining like a bitch.

        Your mother wishes you were dead. It kills her to have to admit you are her child.

        • Milkshake Man

          LOL, u mad little man?

    • Guest

      Where exactly does a normal gay sorry guy get that kind of money! Even after busting out all his assets they won’t even get 1% of it.

    • Xxoaltyl

      All above are good defenses, but he chose to just lay down and get rolled over. Lawyers are expensive. Don’t make much of the huge judgement against him though, it’s just paper- the plaintiff has to COLLECT the money- and you can’t get blood from a stone. People hide assets every day to avoid paying judgements.

    • lakawak

      Oh give me a fu**ing break…Guess what, ignorant idiot…the legal system is NOT “Prove beyond ALL doubt.” it is REASONABLE doubt. As in, would a REASONABLE person (of which you are not one) think that this guy did it. And actually..for civil cases, it is not even that. It is “it is more likely than not that this guy did it.”

      Going through pathetic convoluted “B-b-b-but what if a unicorn came in, and secretly created that encrypted code no the file” WILL get your laughed out of court by every single person who possesses a brain. So possibly, you could get the Scarecrow from the Wizard of Oz to agree with you.

  • Nn

    Does anyone know how they embed the code in movie clip? Presumably the code can be erased …

    • Midimaker78

      You worried?

      • N_Mailer

        Anybody who has ever purchased media should be worried.

        • PelouzeTF

          Why ?

        • Anyone

          because someone can use their watermark to frame them, that’s why

          best not to buy anything

        • Scary_Devil_Monastery

          “Why ?”

          Let me see…a movie ends up on a torrent network. Knowing about watermarks the uploader has cunningly embedded ones at random in the rip. Or on purpose some he knows belongs movies purchased by whoever he wants to frame.

          Now some completely innocent person has to prove that he is innocent of distributing goat-humper porn on filesharing networks because he managed to piss of some hacker with a ‘tude. Or for that matter, the guy next door he gave a trashing for getting fresh with his daughter. I’m sure you see how far this can go.

    • Glib

      DOS command TYPE would do this (assuming it can handle files of video size, which I doubt). Pretty simple to tack on some data to the end of a file.

      • Guest321

        So even after encoding the video this so called code remains? If there’s a way to incorporate it, there’s also a way to remove it.

        • Anyone

          it depends how you reencode it

        • Masau Fuku

          @Guest321 You don’t necessarily have to remove it – just alter it enough that the company can’t determine what the assigned “key” is.

          @Anyone Unless they encode it using a proprietary codec that only their “custom” video player can understand (which only works until someone takes the time to understand the codec enough to make a converter for it), there isn’t a way to reencode the video that isn’t easily thwarted – not that I can think of at least. If you have something, please share so we can get to work solving it before it’s in use XD .

  • http://torrentfreak.com/ Rob8urcakes

    The judges in these US Courts have lost the plot.
    Someone seriously needs to bring them back to reality.

    • BuddhaFacePalmed

      Lost the plot? I think they’re completely off the reservations

      • Guest

        Maybe they lost the plot, then hired Michael Bay to write a new one for them?

  • Kevin Grech

    So,
    He paid $150,000 to download or play a movie?

    I don’t think so. The damages are exagerated.

  • Pingback: Sharing 7 Movies on BitTorrent = $1.5 Million Damages – TorrentFreak | GAMERSSPIN

  • L34

    The kicker is: He probably has no means to pay, and this ruling means nothing.

    • Jim

      But it does mean that he will have to serve jail time as he cannot pay the fine. And that he will be repeatedly fucked in the ass by some guy called big bob. And once, he returns, he will have to work for the rest of his life to make payments to the company..

      • Guest

        No. We no longer have debtor’s prisons. They were abolished in 1869. You can’t go to jail for owing someone money.

        • Caleb

          Exactly, worst case, he’ll file bankruptcy and have bad credit for 10 years.

        • The Ghost of Common Sense

          Apparently, debtors’ prisons still exist in 15 states in america. Somewhat for child support(seen as contempt of court), but mostly so they have somewhere to put you while they liquidate all of your possessions. Lucky for this guy, his state is the prior.

          They’ll just end up taking 25% of every dollar he makes for the next rest of his life.

          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debtors%27_prison#Modern_Debtors.27_Prison
          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wage_garnishment

        • The Ghost of Common Sense

          Also, bankruptcy doesn’t cover criminal fines, those follow you till they’re paid(or you die).

      • The Ghost of Common Sense

        Debtors prisons are not a popular thing in america (anymore). If he cant pay the fine its unlikely to result in automatic jail time.

        • GuesterHonor

          Debt is until you pay it up or you die, but if he had kids, they would inherit it too.

        • disown everyone

          unless his family disowns him… lol

    • Masau Fuku

      He can’t pay, but the Trolls will use this ruling to try to scare others who they manage to connect to an IP address (or claim they did) into paying.

  • Jim

    Pirates, please stop talking big while sitting behind your computers. You can argue about copying isin’t stealing and all that crap. But the simple truth is that although unfair and exaggerated, downloading and using copyrighted work is a crime. Imagine you own a store. If someone sets up a tent outside your shop and starts giving free products to everyone, what will happen to your store? Remember. The guy didn’t take anything from your store. But will you ever be able to sell anything?. That is what is going on. So, STFU and open your closed minds.

    • Andrew Lee

      What do you expect to happen? None of these people stand behind their products one bit. If they did they would offer refunds to people that view their products as shit.

      Secondly sharing is part of human nature and don’t tell me you’ve never loaned anything. “tools,cars,household appliances ect.”

      • Guest321

        Exactly. In case of physical products, if you sell a rip off item, you are liable to refund the customer or else you can be sued in court for selling a product that doesn’t match the description or work according to promised specs.

        But in the case of digital media, you go to the DVD store, buy a movie after reading an interesting plot at the back of the DVD. You pay full price as usual and then come back home to find the movie is total shit. However, there’s no option for refund. Why would customers want to buy products.that manufacturers won’t stand behind and guarantee quality?

        • You’re an idiot

          Bullshit.

        • Jim

          LOL!! Again, more closed-mindedness. When a physical product is considered a “rip off”, then it means that the quality of that poduct is lower than than of the original.
          So, when you bought the DVD, were there other copies of the DVD that was better than yours?

        • Guest321

          No, when a product is a rip off, it doesn’t mean it has to be the duplicate of some original product. It can be a unique product and still be a rip off if it didn’t work according to the specs and description. When you pay money for a product you expect it to be good, work according to specs and you want the manufacturer to stand behind their products if its not satisfactory.

        • Scary_Devil_Monastery

          @Guest

          “So, when you bought the DVD, were there other copies of the DVD that was better than yours?”

          Actually, yes.

          For any computer game, the cracked and DRM-free version obtained via bittorrent is actually a lot better than the copy you buy from a store.

          Indeed, in many cases, the storebought copy can actually harm your computer, whereas a casual screening of the well vetted pirated version will weed out most of the potential malware included.

          Now, mind you, that means of course that the legal copy is far worse than the illegal one. In itself a problem.
          But even if you leave the legal status aside, digital products have no warranty!

          Now, if you do purchase a physical item and said item causes harm there is no court in the land which will not provide – instantly – the right of a refund, and possibly damages.

          No digital “product” exists where even the minimum consumer rights are de facto upheld. You can not return, you can not refund, and even if the product actually causes HARM to your hardware you are, barring a very expensive suit, SOL.
          See the Sony rootkit scandal for what it takes to get even your most basic consumer rights through on digital goods.

          Want an example of where direct fraud is done to the consumer? See Sony when they revoked their “other OS” functionality, stripping the customers of functions which were plainly stated on the box the item shipped in.

          Again you use the expression “close-mindedness” in a way that can only describe people who haven’t had their skull opened by blunt trauma.

          You need quality time with a dictionary. Then you need to start checking why your comparisons fail even the most basic test of logic.

      • Jim

        The media is “DIGITAL”. Once you download it, you can copy it. You cannot copy it to a stove which you buy from a store. You wont be able to copy/create a stove at home.
        You just compared sharing physical items to digital media. You are either stupid or have a closed mind.

        • Scary_Devil_Monastery

          “You just compared sharing physical items to digital media. You are either stupid or have a closed mind.”

          Ah, good, you agree then, that digital media are not physical. That’s a new one from the pro-copyright faction.

          In that case, “fair use” renders your argument completely and utterly invalid. If digital media is not in those aspects equal to physical then a media copy is nothing other than communication and falls under “free speech”

          And just as a case in point on the other side of that argument. Yes, we can indeed copy physical goods. Most people do so on a daily basis, using nothing more than a recipe and some raw materials in order to create a picture-perfect copy of what is sold at the local wal-mart shelf.

          And I can use a soda streamer to replicate, in perfect detail, most brands of bottled water.

          Once again, the one demonstrating both a closed mind and a serious lack of facts is you. The one and only way you can “open” a mind to accept the basic tenets of “copyright” in the first place is by indoctrination, hard drugs, or frequent lying.

      • Guest

        @You’re an idiot

        Cool argument, bro.

    • Guest

      Non-commercial copyright infringement is mostly not a crime but only civilly actionable. And it’s not theft. Theft is never legal, but copyright infringement is always subject to many exceptions which aren’t applicable to simple theft. And in many countries, non-commercial copying among friends and family is expressly legal.

      In Sweden, Netherland, Germany and other countries I can legally make a copy of my neighbor’s cd, and in some countries downloading for personal use is legal.

      So stop the bullshit. Copyright infringement is not a crime.

      • http://nejtillpirater.wordpress.com/ Nejtillpirater

        “In Sweden, Netherland, Germany and other countries I can legally make a copy of my neighbor’s cd, and in some countries downloading for personal use is legal.In Sweden, Netherland, Germany and other countries I can legally make a copy of my neighbor’s cd, and in some countries downloading for personal use is legal.”

        At least for music and movies. But it’s not legal to share it with the world, only with a limited number of friends/family. And legal copying does not include software, it’s even illegal in Sweden to make a back-up copy of a software CD unless you can prove that this is necessary for using the software, which is almost impossible.

        “Copyright infringement is not a crime.”

        Indeed it is.

        • Silliness

          Its not the fact that copyright was infringed that people have a problem with, its the fact that something so simple has become so insanely enforced. If you copy your own cd to take camping because you’re worried about scratches you just got a jail sentence if someone stole your camping bag with it in and the thief gets caught and the police check the bag contents. Just having a copy of something is enough to get you in serious trouble and thats when it gets idiotic. making money from selling counterfeit copied movies? np with that guy going to jail, sharing your movie collection on your ftp for you to watch from anywhere? hello jail.

        • http://nejtillpirater.wordpress.com/ Nejtillpirater

          @Need more than just that

          “Its not the fact that copyright was infringed that people have a problem with, its the fact that something so simple has become so insanely enforced. ”

          Simple or not has no significance. Stabbing someone with a knife is extremely simple but not legal due to the simplicity.

          “If you copy your own cd to take camping because you’re worried about scratches you just got a jail sentence if someone stole your camping bag with it in and the thief gets caught and the police check the bag contents.”

          Not very likely that you’ll get a jail sentence for that, unless the copy has been made by you in violation of the user agreement that you’ve signed. In that case – don’t copy it.

          “sharing your movie collection on your ftp for you to watch from anywhere?”

          Then you must protect it with password, encryption etc.

        • Fredrika

          > “Simple or not has no significance. Stabbing someone with a knife is extremely simple but not legal due to the simplicity.”

          Have you ever heard of the concept of guilt by association?

          > “Not very likely that you’ll get a jail sentence for that, unless the copy has been made by you in violation of the user agreement that you’ve signed.”

          The penal law sends you to prison, Not breach of user agreements between to private parties.

          > Then you must protect it with password, encryption etc.”

          Must according who or what law?

        • Fredrika

          > “But it’s not legal to share it with the world..”

          In many countries in the world it actually is. Do you remember when you refused to believe that it was legal in Spain?

          > “And legal copying does not include software..”

          Please stop commenting on what the copyright laws around the world says, you don’t even know what your own says.

          > “Indeed it is.”

          Still haven’t learned the difference between a civil offense and a crime?

        • Guest

          @Nejtillpirater

          “At least for music and movies. But it’s not legal to share it with the world, only with a limited number of friends/family. ”

          Yes, and I have a limited number of friends, and these have a limited number of friends.

          The result is that I can buy a cd copy it to my neighbor, and he can make a limited number of copies travelling around the world.
          This is actions which would subject me to harsh civil penalties in the US, but which are perfectly legal in several European countries. It is not even a civilly actionable cclaim for copyright infringement.

          I could be the original source (buyer) and as long I only make a limited number of copies, I would not be liable for further copying. Only those outer in the chain who exceeded the limited copying requirement would be liable.

          I mention this because some argue that making copies even for non-commercial personal use is criminal or even akin to theft But his is not always the case.

          “”Copyright infringement is not a crime.”"

          “Indeed it is.”

          It must be on a commercial scale. If copyright infringement was always criminal, the IPRED law wouldn’t be necessary, since the rights holders could just file a complaint with the police.

          How many criminal prosecutions have we had in Sweden for non-commercial copyright infringement? And how many convictions?

          It’s as far I know very few, because the threshold for what constitutes criminal copyright infringement is very high.

          Simply downloading/uploading some mp3 files is not criminal.

        • http://nejtillpirater.wordpress.com/ Nejtillpirater

          @Guest

          “The result is that I can buy a cd copy it to my neighbor, and he can make a limited number of copies travelling around the world.”

          In Sweden you’re only allowed to copy from a legal original, not from a copy.

          “It must be on a commercial scale.”

          No it must not.

          “It’s as far I know very few, because the threshold for what constitutes criminal copyright infringement is very high.”

          More and more cases recently. The threshold is actually not high.

        • 1hhh1

          point to note is that the move is towards the common purpose/association laws,ie it’s a crime to point a person in the direction where they can download copyrighted material.

        • Wallace

          “Copyright infringement is not a crime.”

          Indeed it is.”

          Did you really not know what he meant when he said it wasn’t a crime, or are you just pretending to be dense?

        • Guest

          “Must according who or what law?”

          According to the laws Nejtillpirater makes up in his head.

        • Scary_Devil_Monastery

          “At least for music and movies. But it’s not legal to share it with the world, only with a limited number of friends/family.”

          Actually, that means I can share roughly a million copies. Handing a copy of my entire library to a casual aquaintance in a bar does count, you see.

          In real fact the “legal limitation” ensures that you can legally and without effort share a copy of a song with more people than you could, were you to run a bittorrent client seeding said song for years on end.

          And this is why the restrictions on digital distribution makes NO sense.

          “And legal copying does not include software…”

          Wrong. That varies, and is usually more the subject of ToS. You really need to learn the difference between penal/criminal law and civil law.

          “”Copyright infringement is not a crime.”

          Indeed it is.”

          Where? A spaniard is quite within his rights to make a copy and share online. A dutch and swiss are quite legal in downloading that copy.

          And then to adress the absolute insanity you spout below in “justification” of your views:

          “Simple or not has no significance. Stabbing someone with a knife is extremely simple but not legal due to the simplicity.”

          An archetypical straw man – and completely irrelevant. Stabbing someone with a knife is assault. The harm construed by society can be the death of an individual. Hence attempting to kill someone with a knife is not a valid comparison to the act of making a copy of a media file.

          Copyright infringement is in both simplicity and proportionate harm rather comparable to jaywalking. Jaywalking actually is a crime, like assault with a knife, and falls under the penal code.

          However, due to the proportionate harm Jaywalking is actually a crime which has no prescribed penalty.

          So yes indeed – Copyright is enforced in a way which can only be described as sheer insanity. Proportion has already gone fully out the window. Especially given that copyright is a civil offense – unlawful behaviour – rather than a criminal one.

          “Not very likely that you’ll get a jail sentence for that, unless the copy has been made by you in violation of the user agreement that you’ve signed. In that case – don’t copy it.”

          You mean to say it’s ok to have a law insane enough that jail time – or a stiff fine – is even an acceptable possibility for a person who makes a backup copy. No matter the circumstances, that leaves reason by the roadside.

          “Then you must protect it with password, encryption etc.”

          Why? By a very similar argument, then, I am according to you held legally responsible for using a Wifi router in my home or allowing people inside to peruse my library without first frisking them for recording devices? Indeed, I borrow my neighbor my car, he runs someone over, and I get jail time instead of him?

          In the world you are painting us all a vivid image of, the golden rule “Trust No One” seems to be the catch phrase.

          In the real world, one where fundamental basic freedoms are observed, responsibility for some other person’s actions is SEVERELY restricted. Normally, you see, you are responsible only to take special caution with machinery where the direct misuse can cause harm. Guns and Cars, for instance, which you yourself must already prove that you can handle safely.

          According to your arguments, every living citizen needs to take precautions worthy of a paranoid system administrator every time an ordinary and normal computer-related task – such as taking a backup – is performed. We have now left sanity by the roadside as well.

      • Anon

        It may be illegal but it’s not wrong

      • You’re an idiot

        “Copyright infringement is not a crime”

        Are you fucking insane? What the fuck?

        • Anyone

          it is not

        • Fredrika

          > “Are you fucking insane? What the fuck?”

          In almost all countries in the world of those that have a copyright monopoly copyright infringements doesn’t fall under penal law, but civil law, which makes it a civil matter, and as such it’s not a crime.

          But i guess you knew that, so you based your question about Guest’s sanity on other criteria?

          Interesting signature btw.

        • Wallace

          “Are you fucking insane? What the fuck?”

          He’s right, but you’re funnier.

        • Scary_Devil_Monastery

          Crime = Subject to penal law. I.e. murder, theft, perjury, arson. Violating penal law makes you a criminal, and the perpetration of violation of penal law is called a crime.

          Civil law on the other hand, when it is violated, does not make you a criminal. And the activity in violation is called “unlawful conduct”.

          Copyright infringement is always a civil matter, not a criminal one. Hence it is not possible for a “pirate” to be a criminal, unless the “piracy” performed involves cutlasses/guns and ships.

    • Fredrika

      > “You can argue about copying isin’t stealing and all that crap.”

      Facts are crap?

      > “But the simple truth is that although unfair and exaggerated, downloading and using copyrighted work is a crime.”

      And that something currently is a crime is an argument for what exactly?

      > “Imagine you own a store. If someone sets up a tent outside your shop and starts giving free products to everyone, what will happen to your store?”

      The store will increase sales, because of the increased attendance next to the shop.

      > “Remember. The guy didn’t take anything from your store.”

      Why do we have to remember that?

      > “But will you ever be able to sell anything?”

      If you are a good salesman that sells products that people believe holds an economical value, of course. If those criteria aren’t met, he obviously don’t deserve to make any sales?

      > “That is what is going on.”

      No. The culture industry is currently selling more than ever before in perfect working symbiosis with on-line non-profit piracy, That’s what’s going on.

      > “So, STFU and open your closed minds.”

      Why don’t you open your mind to actual facts?

      • Jim

        1. Arguments are not facts
        2.The store wont have any sales because some guy is giving away the same products for free.
        3. He doesnt deserve sales because of what someone else is doing? Same products, but free. According to you, what can the store owner do? Change jobs?
        4.A few years ago, I used to go to the theater every week. Nowadays, I only go when a big blockbuster comes out. The rest, I download and watch. It is the same with the rest of my friends. The movie industry has reduced sales because of the culture industry.
        This is an argument. There are no facts, yet. You think everything you say is a fact and that everything i say is wrong. i.e, you have a closed mind.

        • Anyone

          2. so what?

          3. yes, if he can’t make a living with his current job he should change jobs
          or maybe offer a service in addition to the product
          often it will be enough that his store is empty while you have to wait in line for the free product

          4. the movie industry has increased sales
          the MPAA posted a record year almost every year in the last decade

        • Fredrika

          > “1. Arguments are not facts”

          I never said that. The fact that copyright infringements isn’t stealing however is a fact. You can verify this fact in the law, a dictionary, a physics book or a book that explains logics.

          > “The store wont have any sales because some guy is giving away the same products for free.”

          If the store is selling a product at a price that doesn’t correspond with the products economical value, of course he won’t have any sales. That’s the way it works on the free market. This is one of the most basic fundamentals of economics.

          > “He doesnt deserve sales because of what someone else is doing? Same products, but free.”

          That’s not what i said now was it? I’ll repeat the statement:

          If a good salesman sells products that people believe holds an economical value, of course he will sell products. If those criteria aren’t met(which they weren’t in your revised example), he obviously don’t deserve to make any sales.

          > “According to you, what can the store owner do? Change jobs?”

          If he is seeking revenues, of course? He has no right to demand to be able to make sales with a certain business model, when the products he tries to sell holds no economical value? That’s how the free market works, but you seem to have a problem with that. Are you advocating communism or a planned economy?

          > “The movie industry has reduced sales because of the culture industry.”

          Incorrect, the movie industry currently has higher revenues than ever before. This is another well known fact that you seem to have missed.

          > “This is an argument.”

          Your misconceptions and ignorance regarding the facts are not an argument.

          > “There are no facts, yet.”

          Prophesying from someone who can’t get the facts correct?

          > “You think everything you say is a fact..”

          Those parts of my comments that are facts are facts. I do not believe that everything i say are facts.

          > “..and that everything i say is wrong..”

          I don’t think that, but i know that a lot of what you have said is wrong.

          > “..i.e, you have a closed mind.”

          Knowing what the facts are and being able to identify when someone else makes incorrect claims does not mean one has a closed mind.

        • Scary_Devil_Monastery

          “This is an argument. There are no facts, yet. You think everything you say is a fact and that everything i say is wrong. i.e, you have a closed mind.”

          This is an argument, yes. Facts or claims verifiable facts will always win over arguments which have no basis in observed reality.

          “2.The store wont have any sales because some guy is giving away the same products for free.”

          Actually there have been market studies and serious scientific studies performed in trying to quantify this so-called “lost sale”. Science agrees completely in all such studies that the “lost sale” you describe does not exist.
          Your argument is thus disproven. By facts.

          “3. He doesnt deserve sales because of what someone else is doing? Same products, but free. According to you, what can the store owner do? Change jobs?”
          Either he makes it work – As Microsoft windows have seemed to manage despite fighting Linux and FOSS with a paid product contra a free one.
          Or even better, like bottled water versus tap water and soda streamers.

          Or he has no place in the market, no. If you try to launch a business in any free market model, success is NOT guaranteed. The same way numerous people have obtained an M.Sc. in one field but end up having to re-school into another, because there are no jobs in their chosen field.

          “4.A few years ago, I used to go to the theater every week. Nowadays, I only go when a big blockbuster comes out. The rest, I download and watch. It is the same with the rest of my friends. The movie industry has reduced sales because of the culture industry.”

          Once again a statement completely disproven by actual market research. Whatever slack you and your friends brought to the table, others appear to have picked up. Real sales numbers of the wider market do not reflect your personal experiences.

          However, there has indeed been a corresponding shift of physical sales towards digital ones. Subscription-based models such as netflix are gradually replacing older outlets. So that “Roadside Store” you were referring to earlier is already threatened by extinction. Not by the guys giving away things for free but by the source eliminating the middleman and going directly to the consumers.

          In short, there is only one argument you bring to the table which hasn’t instantly been disproven by empirical facts and research. Multiple times.

          And that is whether you are fine with Netflix and similar online retail services outcompeting that store you are talking about. Because physical sales are indeed hurting and all the market numbers point to digital sales replacing them.

          And this is why the entertainment industry can – time after time – display rising sales numbers and revenue streams at record pace, while you and your friends may see physical stores failing.

          And now we come to your definition of a “closed mind”. If by your definition of “closed” you mean “sharp, sceptical, and partial to facts” then yes. Closed.

          However, I feel very strongly that your personal definition of “open-minded” is best characterized by the person so loved by P.T. Barnum – who will give good money gladly in order to be shown the “Egress”.

        • Masau Fuku

          By this reasoning, my store should be able to charge $1000 for a pen, and then when it doesn’t sell, blame (and collect from) all the people selling pens cheaper (or worse, giving them out for free).

          If the guy in the tent is able to give products out for free, the fact that the store owner can’t compete is not our problem.

    • SomeYahoo

      “So, STFU and open your closed minds.”

      holy fuckarony! the irony, it’s CHOKING ME

    • BuddhaFacePalmed

      Well in that case, i would offer more services compared to the guy giving out free stuff, i.e; pre-ordering new products, maybe lower my price a little, offer advice and free customer support for using my product. Sooner or later, people waiting to get products for free may think its too much of a hassle to wait for free stuff and come into my store to sit down, have a cup of hot tea/coffee, and look around and see what im offering is better than the guy outside.

      And if the guy still able to give out tons of my product at no cost for free, why the fuck im i still selling this shit? ;)

    • Guest

      @ Jim: so I guess, according to you, open source software should be illegal, right?

      Remember kids, it was never about piracy or even lost profits for the copyright maximalists and the MAFIAA. It was always about control. Over you.

      • Jim

        Open source products does not depend on independent sales for profit. Dont compare apples to oranges.

        • RIAAtarded

          You don’t know much about open source do you. Cononical, Novell and Red Hat all have a commercial grade product with a pay for support system for both server and desktops that does extremely well. The free version of the same software are bleed edge and a testing ground for futures changes so they are well versed in what is popular and what will and won’t work before it is implemented into their paid version. It is a symbiotic relation that works extremely and to be quite frank has pushed linux developments beyond the closed source alternatives.

        • Scary_Devil_Monastery

          I guess, like RIAAtarded explains, you missed the entire part of where numerous corporations do fairly well selling the same product they also coincidentally offer for free (or which anyone else can offer for free).

          Here’s another one. The water company supplies, in many cities, a product available cheap which is equal or superior to that offered by many bottled water brands. Not to mention almost free in comparison.

          And yet they sell.

          No, seriously, Guest…by now your “arguments” are turning observed reality upside down. And then you claim anyone observing the naked state of the emperor needs to have an “open mind”.

          Opened by what particular drug of choice?

    • Spencer greff

      If my products could be offered for free I would adapt to the market and sell something people paid for. Instead of standing in the way of progress and being an ignorant bitch about it.

      • Jim

        It doesn’t matter what you sell. Whatever new products you plan on selling, the free product shows up outside. That’s how it is with digital media.
        They sell a copy to 1 person who makes it free for everyone else.
        Your turn..

        • Anyone

          so?

        • Scary_Devil_Monastery

          BSD? Darwin? Android? Linux? ALL of frigging FOSS?

          Bottled water? Every brand name in existence thriving despite no-name cheap ripoffs?

          Seriously. No. Irrespective of digital versus physical your argument holds neither logic nor does it survive comparison with established reality.

          Do you want a link to the market research commissioned by the Dutch government disproving your little hypothesis on how the market works digitally? Or to any of the other studies solidly burying that hypothesis?

        • Spencer greff

          Yes it does matter what you sell. Your analogy can only be shoved so deep within the confines of your butt hole. Because it’s people like you who can’t differentiate the difference between the physical and digital realms that make progress so difficult to achieve “Guest”. There is a reason Hollywood still makes money, there is also a reason why independent films are making more and more money. There is a reason why my media collection is worth over 4000 dollars, yet I download media on a regular basis. It’s because people are still willing to part with money in order experience things that they appreciate. That will never change.

          People will pay money for services, which provide content. Advertisers will pay for space within these services that provide content. The potential for new products is huge, it’s just not available due to lack of adaption. The guy outside isn’t a competitor, he is the stimulus package.

    • ScrewEwe2

      I don’t know about the rest here, but I’m sitting in front of my computer. If I was sitting behind it, I couldn’t see the screen or type, so there Mr. know it all.

    • 2BC805F3

      “Imagine you own a store. If someone sets up a tent outside your shop and starts giving free products to everyone”

      For starters, if something like that was possible, say for grocery stuff, this would mean hundreds of millions of hungry people the world over could avoid to starve even though being too poor to afford to pay for food.

      And don’t argue that giving it away for free would cost society or something, copying a file is essentially free, its price at most a hundredth of a cent. The same process for food would be hailed as one of the most humane inventions ever.

      Yet you’d propose that people forfeit such a technology because a handful of grocers would not make money afterwards? This means we could never have any technology that would lower production and purchase cost ever, as this would hurt the sales of someone. The logical conclusion of your opinion is that we should never have left the stone age, because the moment we invented agriculture hunter gatherers could not make a living anymore.

      Sorry but you’re a moron.

      • Jim

        You just took my to take my metaphorical example literally, simply to make an argument. See how moronic you are?

        • Scary_Devil_Monastery

          “You just took my to take my metaphorical example literally, simply to make an argument. See how moronic you are?”

          In other words you set up a metaphor you knew was nonsense, argued in order to uphold it’s comparison to reality, then try to claim people who noticed it was bogus and argued against you are “morons”?

          That’s a very roundabout way of confessing yourself to be a troll.

      • Mind Blown

        That was a very, well written replay. It put everything into perspective for me. You are 100% correct, because if someone invented a way to copy food at zero cost, then the MAFIAA would say the food replicator would need to be destroyed so MAFIAA can continue to turn a buck selling starving people food. It all makes sense now.

    • Pelham123

      “But the simple truth is that although unfair and exaggerated, downloading and using copyrighted work is a crime.”

      I know you’re just a troll who came here to fart about, but just for the record, you downloaded and used copyrighted work when you read this article.

      Infringement is only a crime if, in addition to being infringement, it is criminal. Most of what PR guys and trolls call infringement is legal. Even actionable activity (stuff that gets you sued) is legal, and if don’t lose the case, you did nothing wrong.

      I did what I could. Good luck with the Netwit.

      • Jim

        I’m not a troll. if you think that thinking about both sides of the coin makes someone a troll, then so be it.I am a troll.
        But what does that make you? A double troll?

        • Guest

          You are a troll. You always evade whichever arguments prove you wrong, and always repeat the same incorrect, flawed ideas even when you -know- people disagree, and have valid arguments to sustain their points.

          You are like, a paid troll (how much btw?), and a moron to boot.

        • Scary_Devil_Monastery

          The problem is that you are thinking about one side of a coin – and then make up theories about the other side.

          The rest of us, having turned over the coin, beg to differ with your inferred theories.

          Mainly because your arguments have in turn been disproven rather steadily by the scientific community in actual market studies for the last ten years and more.

          Hence when empirical fact and observed reality differs with your assertions we can make the claim that you are either an ignorant person – or a troll out to trawl. Most people have – thus far – assumed that you simply misinformed and cocksure.

          Your theories about the lost sale, for instance – the one study created which tried to support that view failed instantly as the only facts not directly destroying the desired outcome tried to point out that the entertainment industry’s “lost sales” was 46 times of the global GNP.

    • Guest

      “the simple truth is that although unfair and exaggerated, downloading and using copyrighted work is a crime.”

      It’s not a crime, it’s a civil offense. Of course it isn’t even illegal at all in several parts of the world. Try to get your facts straight before you hit the keyboard.

      “But will you ever be able to sell anything?”

      Yes, I will still be able to sell things. And pirates will be my best customers.

      http://www.google dot com/search?hl=en&source=hp&q=filesharers+buy+more

      You shouldn’t have a problem accepting any of this since you’ve got an open mind, right?

    • watfordjc

      Downloading and using copyrighted work is not a crime.

      Giving away free products outside a store is not a crime.

      Perhaps you should open your closed mind, or be a LOT more specific when calling something illegal.

      I downloaded and use Google Chrome. I haven’t been arrested yet.

      The Nescafé reps weren’t dragged away by the police because they were giving away free coffee outside Tesco.

    • Renob

      I’d look at what the dude outside the store has to offer and then go into the store to see if there’s anything different or of higher quality to buy. That’s just me, tho’, and something tells me there’s a lot of people like that.

    • Ophelia Millais

      Well first of all, the guy with the tent has added value, like no unskippable commercials, no region restrictions, no copy protection, no device restrictions, and for music often better quality than available via legit digital stores. And he has added some conveniences and peripheral value-adds like forums for each title, quality ratings, respect for privacy, etc. He’s probably raking in money from ads, although much of that probably is reinvested in hosting.

      Instead of calling up my lawyer to try to make an example out of him and alienate potential customers, I’d think, “that clever bastard, now I gotta get creative for once in my pathetic, money-chasing waste of a life. How can I convert some of his ‘freeloaders’ into revenue for me?”

      I would start by dropping my prices and looking for ways to add value. Probably I’d just copy his ideas to start. And if I can come up with ways to make getting and using the product more convenient than him, I know people will pay a premium for that. If that weren’t true, nobody would pay for downloads or streaming services; the iTunes Store, Amazon, Netflix, Spotify, etc. would all be dead in the water.

      If my strategy still was not profitable enough, I’d seek to outdo him at his own game…give away the product for free in a much more robust environment, get big-name sponsors on board, really get creative with marketing, leverage sharing to your benefit, and make sure people feel like they are really getting something better.

      But hey what do I know, I’m just someone you despise, sitting at my computer.

    • Scary_Devil_Monastery

      “If someone sets up a tent outside your shop and starts giving free products to everyone, what will happen to your store?”

      You mean like city charities bankrupt cheap restaurants by handing out free soup?

      Or did you mean the way soda streamer manufacturers are bankrupting bottled water companies?

      Were you thinking of the way actually baking cookies at home and giving them away to your neighbors robs your local baker of business?

      “That is what is going on. So, STFU and open your closed minds.”

      We are supposed to call it “opening our minds” when you ask us to accept the sort of illogical nonsense you just spewed? How? With a jackhammer to the skull?

      No, seriously, in the above example, the store either competes just fine because it offers better service and a wider array of goods…due to brand, just like why people somehow keep buying bottled water even when and where tap water is both significantly cheaper and better…

      Or the store has no business operating in a capitalistic paradigm.

      The entire problem about “copyright infringement” is a crime is because “Copyright” is a con game to begin with. One with the same legal and moral status as the fact that black people had designated seats in a mississippi bus.

      “Copyright” must change. And civil disobedience has always been the best way of getting unreasonable laws to change.

    • Masau Fuku

      So long as the guy in the tent isn’t on the your property, he is doing nothing wrong. The fact that you can’t sell anything is not relevant. The guy can give away whatever the fuck he wants from his tent, even if that means my store suffers because he happens to be giving away for free everything I sell.

  • noko

    Greed.

  • Anonymous

    and until there is a mass ‘standing up’ against the entertainment industries by everyone, including ISPs, these ridiculous rulings are just going to continue to get even more ridiculous! there is no way in Hell that the company concerned lost anywhere near that amount of money! there is no way in hell the guy made anywhere near that amount of money (i assume he made nothing, just shared the files?) there is no way in Hell this verdict can be called ‘JUSTICE’ under any stretch of the imagination! and the biggest issue is, the company concerned always had the ORIGINAL files. the guy didn’t STEAL’ the originals, he COPIED them. this is exactly the sort of twisted verdict people can expect from the US courts! they dont serve justice any more. they serve out revenge!

  • tom bell

    So the lesson we take home from this boys and girls is……..

    Don’t download your movies from legal sources.

    • ChodeMcBlob

      Or if sharing, re-encode the shit out of it. It’s really not that hard. Handbrake or something. Remove all watermarks.

    • s~Cat

      lol That’s exactly what I got out it! Stupid assholes and their Hollywood accounting! What difference would it have made if they had asked for, and been rewarded, a billion instead of the million-five? They’re both insane figures no normal person will ever be able to pay. The judge is as nuts as the rest of them. Is it ‘reasonable’ to take everything he has and works for, forcing him into poverty… then the government(tax payers) have to keep him up for the rest of his life, furthering the downfall of the economy. Brilliant thinking of the 1% looking out for their friends.

    • Yep

      yes but we learned this back in the ls and other loli sites where u signed up and paid then later got arrested.

  • Anon

    He failed to defend …

    • MadAsASnake

      He might even have failed to exist…

  • The Ghost of Common Sense

    Armed Robbery: ~5years in jail
    Sharing Gay Porn: $1,500,000

    I ask you, which is more likely to ruin your life forever?

    • Revolution Peasant

      If my life was ruined like this I would hold people responsible.

    • downunder

      why do arm robbery when extortion
      under copyright law makes more money
      under the law legally LOL

      the real robbers are the people claiming the fines

  • JimBobTing

    How about a nice Middle Finger Salute to that kangaroo court judge and the horse he rode in on?

    http://www.Anon-Gots.tk

  • http://nejtillpirater.wordpress.com/ Nejtillpirater

    Use of individual digital watermarks is the future, making it possible to trace the spreading of illegal copies.

    • Need more than just that.

      Unless your friend uploaded it after legally borrowing it off you. Or your family, or the computer store guy that fixed your laptop and grabbed a copy, or your workmate who stayed over when you were having a drink. Watermark shows source, not infringer.

      • http://nejtillpirater.wordpress.com/ Nejtillpirater

        Denpends on the user agreement. If you buy a digital copy of a movie, signing an agreement of not being allowed to copy it, you’re not allowed to share it with your friends or family by making it possible for them to have a copy of their own.

        • Silliness

          Which is the problem, if someone has access that’s all it takes to copy. Short of setting up full corporation security policies on everyones computer around the world. Also, i have my movies and music on a samba server which styreams to the whole house. So i can watch anything from anywhere in the house at will. If it gets hacked (it does have an internet connection) then what? I get taken to court?

        • Anyone

          those user agreements have no basis in actual law
          they are basically worthless if they would ever come up in court because they have so much crap written in them that it is easy to void them

        • ScrewEwe2

          You must have been the coolest, most popular guy in school, amongst hallway monitors and teachers pets who would squeel on the other kids who might say “skit” or “knulla” while the teacher is out of the room taking a big nasty dump.

          Nej: “Sven said a bad word to Lena while you were out of the room Miss Skitgård.”
          Teacher: “No one likes a tattletale Nej, now stop pretending to be a Troll and get back to your studies”.

        • Whatever

          “If you buy a digital copy of a movie”

          You cannot buy what you cannot own.

          Otherwise there wouldn’t be an user agreement telling you that you don’t own it.

    • Fredrika

      > “Use of individual digital watermarks is the future, making it possible to trace the spreading of illegal copies.”

      Why would anyone buy a product that opens you up to these kinds of liabilities?

      • Guest

        Because if you don’t buy the product, you get taken to court anyway ;-)
        So what is the safest thing to do for an average citizen without millions to spend on legal insurance: Download everything you can from anonymous source hoping you’ll never get caught, or give the nice copyright holder your credit card number and get sued if your licensed copy gets leaked?

        I’ll never buy any watermarked media which can be traced back to me.

      • Whatever

        For those that do, the cost goes up a little so you just need more people to share with. If you have 2 copies, you just need to logically AND them together. It’s one of the fastest operations any CPU can perform.

        And if in doubt then run it through an xvid encoder.

    • downunder

      not if they rent it from a different store and copy it and upload

      darn those stores will have to pahy millions cos its traced to them

      hard to trace also when you re-code it.. must change the digtial info

      I bet someone ill have fun working it out and put your name and address on it before upload

      • Guest

        Unfortunately not all watermarks can be removed by simple transcoding. I think the only safe method is buying two identical downloads through different user accounts and use a bitwise comparison to null out the difference. If there is a difference, it’s likely the watermarks and other meta information identifying the buyer.

        If courts start to enter judgment against defendants on the basis of watermark matches, more effort must be put into watermark removal.

        But let’s not forget the cental problem: A watermark no more than an IP address does not identify the infringer.
        Watermarks could be used as a grieving tool. If I want to ruin someone, I would just have to leak his legal media purchases onto file sharing networks. His computer could have been in for repair, his children could have copied his media collection or he could have allowed a guest to use his media server. These possibilities are even more difficult than the IP != person.

        • Scary_Devil_Monastery

          Yup. Watermarks do nothing but add magnitudes of expense and verification procedures to the license holders while presenting a very minor once-only speed-bump to pirates. And for the common consumer they add nothing but a great deal of legal risk.

          Nejtillpirater, however, bought the marketing speak hook, line and sinker, honestly believing that “digital watermarks” will provide anything usable.

          The same way he’s probably halfway convinced they’ll cure cancer, remove bald spots and toilet train the house cat. Just as believable scenarios, strictly speaking.

      • Eatmybark

        I would download as a poser with store bought card but there shit is gay black latino disgusing not wrth the repulsion it would cause to upload.

    • Anyone

      so you are advocating not buying anything from official sources, so it doesn’t have a watermark

      excellent

      • ThumbsUpThumbsDown

        Absolutely. Everybody with an account should consider that watermark and cancel immediately…..

      • Eatmybark

        I want to be the one that can destroy watermarking and share it with the world :)

        • Sense

          Watermarking can take different form, it’s not just code that you put there. Everything that you can think to make a product unique. It was one of my courses in university.

          First, you need to find it. Is it in the sound, images or in the file format? You can hide a picture in the movie sound lol…
          Second, how do you remove it? Simple technique are rescaling, move some bits, remove the less dominant bits, etc. Security by obscurity is never the best security but sometimes it difficult to find.

          It’s like a game of cat and mouse, techniques are evolving. How do you know that the product is watermarked when you buy it?

        • Scary_Devil_Monastery

          @Sense

          “It’s like a game of cat and mouse, techniques are evolving. How do you know that the product is watermarked when you buy it?”

          Easily enough. Obtain two copies, compare the code. You find any differences, null them out – or in those places, start exchanging things, if you’re of a sadistic bent. Anyone savvy enough to rip has no problem doing that either.

    • Guest

      @Failtroll

      As somebody else pointed out, all somebody need to do to remove the watermark is download the samevideo from two different user accounts and compare the differences between them, which will reveal where the watermark information is stored.

      Then you erase that and boom, no more watermarks.

      Try again.

      • Fredrika

        > “Try again.”

        He will try to trick people again tomorrow with the same fallen arguments over and over again, he has repeated this troll behaviour for the last four years now, which is one of the reasons why has has been banned from several political blogs and forums.

      • http://nejtillpirater.wordpress.com/ Nejtillpirater

        ©Failtrollpirate

        Sure, but most criminals do mistakes. How come that the TPB guys got caught if it’s so easy to avoid it?

        If you do remove watermarks or take other measures to avoid getting caught and actually get caught anyway, all your measures taken will strengthen the proof of your guilt when you end up in court.

        • Eatmybark

          Its the thrill of the game, now go away.

        • Anyone

          the TPB got “caught” because when TPB started it was completely legal under swedish law, so no need to hide

          because of US pressure they raided TPB and put on a mock trial

        • Eatmybark

          The real criminals are the ones with the most money to buy power. The majority of folks dont even have a clue as to what is going on even though it will effect there basic rights of freedom. Not so amazing not much of this makes it into mainstream media.

        • http://nejtillpirater.wordpress.com/ Nejtillpirater

          @Eatmybark

          “The real criminals are the ones with the most money to buy power.”

          The real criminals are the ones that causes the most damage, and that’s the sum all pirates. You can’t hide by just doing what others do, each person must take responsibility for his/her own actions.

          The illegal downloading done by millions of pirates are like participating in an enormous riot against the copyright owners. When participating in a riot your responsibility goes further than your individual actions since you’re contributing to a result that’s much worse than the result of your own actions.

        • Fredrika

          > “The real criminals are the ones that causes the most damage, and that’s the sum all pirates.”

          Non-profit piracy causes no damage. A fact you are fully aware of.

          > “You can’t hide by just doing what others do, each person must take responsibility for his/her own actions.”

          How is this opionin of yours relevant to the argumentative thread?

          > “The illegal downloading done by millions of pirates are like participating in a enormous riot against the copyright owners.”

          A riot is something completely different than manufacturing copies and performing non-profit piracy.

          > “When participating in a riot your responsibility goes further than your individual actions since you’re contributing to a result that’s much worse than the result of your own actions.”

          Another irrelevant opinion of yours? Judicially people are never responsible for the actions of others.

        • http://nejtillpirater.wordpress.com/ Nejtillpirater

          @Anyone

          “the TPB got “caught” because when TPB started it was completely legal under swedish law, so no need to hide”

          No, it was illegal even before TPB started. And the persons behind TPB were fully aware of it as can be read in the court sentences. They had discussed moving the servers to another country than Sweden exactly of that reason but got raided before doing that.

        • Fredrika

          > “No, it was illegal even before TPB started.”

          The Swedish judicial system considered operating a non-moderated torrent site fully legal before, and still does.

          > “And the persons behind TPB was fully aware of it as can be read in the court sentences.”

          The sentences does not decide what the former operators actually believed, it was however clearly stated during the trials that they believed it was fully legal.

        • Fredrika

          > “Sure, but most criminals do mistakes.”

          According to your own admittance, most criminals never get caught.

          > “How come that the TPB guys got caught if it’s so easy to avoid it?”

          What does that have to do with this argumentative thread?

          > “If you do remove watermarks or take other measures to avoid getting caught and actually get caught anyway, all your measures taken will strengthen the proof of your guilt when you end up in court.

          Which by your own admittance most pirates never will do, and those who take correct precautions most certainly never will.

        • Scary_Devil_Monastery

          “How come that the TPB guys got caught if it’s so easy to avoid it?”

          Because when law changes retroactively it’s hard to dodge?

          It certainly wasn’t because the TPB guys were making mistakes. Or rather, they did make one mistake – they were running a completely legal service when the law rather suddenly changed.

          The only point your chosen argument brings home is that legal online services had better hide from government as the law may turn legal operation unlawful very suddenly.

        • Scary_Devil_Monastery

          “The real criminals are the ones that causes the most damage, and that’s the sum all pirates.”

          Really?

          1) They idea that piracy causes harm at all has been conclusively disproven a number of times. In short, you are lying.

          2) The CRIA alone spent 20 years stonewalling thousands of artists while commercially selling 300,000 of their works and denying them restitution. On top of it also stealing the artists name in the process. And you would state that non-commercialized filesharing (where harm is disproven) even comes close?

          3) You are also stating that compared to corruption of the political process, filesharers are more criminal? A pirate, in your book, is more harmful than a high-level bureaucrat in the EU offering to lift or implement a blanket prohibition of tobacco products in exchange for a few million euro in his pocket?
          Just to name one example.

          4) Filesharers are not criminal, but at worst, unlawful. This has been explained to you before.

    • Scary_Devil_Monastery

      That you don’t know the delicious irony of what you just said…

      Suffice to say, any decent video encoder can – easily – either remove the watermarks or overwrite them. In fact these are vastly easier to deal with than their predecessors – the “copy-proof” VCR.

      That being the case, all it takes is for one single troll to provide an altered version of a file and the MPAA has to face the fact that the “leak” was that of the public copy residing in a library – or that used by SFI.

      By now I would have thought you knew better than to cry applause over what saner and more knowledgeable heads gleefully know to be yet one more magnitude of trouble and overhead for your side.

  • Mr. F.

    wow this will encourage people to pay premium access to adult websites in the future for sure!!!))

    • Eatmybark

      Yeah right you will have that extra paranoia.

  • Koneill45

    How does the judge think he’s actually going to pay that amount its mostly setting an example to warn others. Personally I don’t really give a rats behind as the old saying goes cant get blood from a stone.

    • Eatmybark

      Its a hollow victory those guys have no money. If anything it tells flava customers what scum they are as well as the gays they rip off making there shit.

  • KhalidX

    start renting movies use anydvd share .

  • Guest

    Can the debt be discharged by filing for bankruptcy?

    • Guest

      Short answer…

      If it’s a civil judgement, then yes.
      If it’s a criminal judgement (even in a civil case), then no.

    • asdf

      Civil, yes.
      Criminal, no and you end up in prison until the debt is paid off by the determined cost of housing 1 inmate each day. So let’s say you are in debt for $1,500,00 and say it costs $1,000 per day to house an inmate in prison, you’ll be in prison for little over 4 years.

    • Eatmybark

      No thats a stipulation you cant discharge it. But on the bright side they will Flava will never get nearly as much as they wont, poor scum

  • Guest

    @Nejtillpirater

    “Denpends on the user agreement. If you buy a digital copy of a movie, signing an agreement of not being allowed to copy it, you’re not allowed to share
    it with your friends or family by making it possible for them to have a copy of their own.”

    This is a variation of your discredited claim that an IP address = internet subscriber = legal liability., enforcing such an agreement is impossible and oppressive.

    You are essentially advocating a legal change treating internet access and custody over computers and legally bought media like firearms and dangerous chemicals.

    Everything must be locked down, and the owner must be 100 % responsible for any break in custody, unless he has around the clock logging and surveillance
    in his home and is capable and willing to spy on his family, friends and coworkers.
    No one would want to bbuy or consume legal media if they had to sign an agreement stipulating that they are responsible for making unauthorized copying or use impossible.

    I don’t think you have thought through the implications of your argument, because it’s the vbest argument against copyright enforcement.

  • Szchifo

    These porn companies are pursuing these cases cos the industry is in crisis.
    its more profitable to sue someone than to make quality products people want to buy.

    if you share gay porn then you deserve to get fucked in the arse by the rights holder

    • ScrewEwe2

      Schizo, $1,500,000 is probably 80 times as much as each of Flava’s fuck films cost’s to produce, although you may be more knowledgable about the production cost’s of gay porn than me, cuz I ain’t got a clue, but $1,500,000 for 10 “clips” is ludicrous.

    • Guest

      Crisis? Have you seen how bloody huge the residences of these rightsholders are? That’s supposed to be “in crisis”?

  • polsenpol

    @ Nejtillpirater :

    who’s paying you for all the time you spend here ??

    • Scary_Devil_Monastery

      NTP claims he isn’t being paid.

      Which means that he’s spent the last four years proving to anyone who reads a single passage of his that he is clueless, ignorant, and in willful and utter denial of observational reality.

      If he had similar conversations with a psychiatrist as he has on forums such as these he would be on very heavy medication.

  • polsenpol

    Article I, Section 8, Clause 8 of the United States Constitution, known as the Copyright Clause, empowers the United States Congress:

    “To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.”

    Is porn a ‘science’ ??
    Is it a ‘useful art’ ???

    “With the exception of child pornography, the legal status of accessing Internet pornography is still somewhat unsettled, though many individual states have indicated that the creation and distribution of adult films and photography are legally listed as prostitution within them.”
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_status_of_Internet_pornography

    Did you understand that ?
    You are claiming ‘copyright’ .. FOR PROSTITUTION !

  • downunder

    so has he got 1.5million dollars then

    how ridiculous… I bet the judge takes it up the arse

    sure we all have millions lying around.. oh right only if your a bullywood producer LOL

    so what happens when he dont and cant pay that then?

    perhaps the judge will let it slide if he sucks his cock

    • MadAsASnake

      He didn’t respond to the claim? Does he exist? We had one in the UK like that [Barwinska] that was lauded by the trolls as a fully defended case. It was neither defended, nor did they ever find Barwinska. Chances that she paid? zero.

  • Guest

    @Nejtillpirater
    “”The result is that I can buy a cd copy it to my neighbor, and he can make a limited number of copies travelling around the world.”"

    “In Sweden you’re only allowed to copy from a legal original, not from a copy.”

    Fine, and this is something which can’t be proven or disproven one way or the other.

  • The_Strawbear

    They might as well ask him to buy them the moon if they’re going to claim such ridiculous damages.

    I think common sense dictates that most people who pirate don’t have a huge amount of cash.

    What actually happens to the ‘pirate’ in these cases? Do they lose homes? Do they have to pay a % of their wages for life? What’s the repayment plan look like? Can they declare themselves bankrupt and avoid paying? Can they be jailed if they don’t repay?

    What are the actual real life repercussions of such a stupid ass ruling?

    Can TF find this stuff out?

    • Cystfc

      If he is homeless he should stay in the court and the front of the company that wrecked his life.
      Forever. So they can watch him waste away.
      Beg them everyday for change.
      Take his own life in front of them eventually.

  • Leyroy Washinton

    If you download a movie that has a watermark, then re-encode the movie, wouldn’t the watermark disappear?

    • Dfdsfs

      or just make a program with regex which finds Unicode/ASCII (non symbol, readable code)

  • fuckflava

    Flava is so full of shit..

    Now we know why i ony torrent from NON PORN

    if i want my porn ill use HTTP downloads through VPN.

    • ThumbsUpThumbsDown

      FuckFlava is right! With these headaches, if I want porn I’ll get a camera and watch myself in action. I’ll title it, ThumbsInThumbsOut……

  • Guest

    watermarked gay movie clips = $1,5

    LOL

    • LETMEBECLEAR

      Allot of money to watch dudes suck cock!

  • Pingback: In the News.. | TorGuard.net Blog - Anonymous VPN Services

  • dorkhero

    As always, part of the comments section devolves into a debate of the moral and ethical aspects of sharing. “You wouldn’t download a car, would you?” Well, yes, I would. I like free. It’s my favorite price, and if that’s the price for something I want, then I’m quite happy about it. I’m one of those who falls into that category of “You would not have made that sale anyway.” Not because I’m not interested in the product, but because I figured out years ago how to get what I like and want for free. When I’m asked if I’d steal from a store, I say “Of course not!” I lack the skills to successfully shoplift even a candy bar. But if there is a new book, comic, game, CD or DVD that I want… I have skills. Skills that I have developed over many years. Skills that make me a nightmare to media companies. I will look for it, I will find it, and I will download it. I have no more guilt than I have for exceeding the speed limit on a public road.

    • Guest

      “You wouldn’t download a car, would you?”

      Can you post a download link when you get that worked out… The first thing I’d really love to have is a Lamborghini Sesto Elemento.

      • Anyone

        3D printing isn’t advanced enough yet
        give it 10-20 years and you can do that

        • Guest

          Do you think by then we’ll be able to print replacement hearts? Because I foresee an epidemic of cardiac arrest cases among the MAFIAA once the tech advances far enough for people to download and print cars and other goods.

        • Anyone

          that’s already somewhat possible
          they print the “skeleton” of the heart and let your own heartcells grow on top of it

          then they transplant it with no chance of rejection, because it is all your cells

          it might take a few more years to perfect, but the principle is already working

      • ThumbsUpThumbsDown

        Think of the Irony…. If a Lamborghini Sesto Elemento could really be produced on demand by 3D Printers at the touch of a button at a cost of say $500, do you realize that the Copyright and Patent guys would STILL demand a million for it on the basis that the Ideas were “their” ideas. What’s unbelievable is that such a scam can be presented as Legal.

        • Guest

          do you realize that the Copyright and Patent guys would STILL demand a million for it

          That’d still be a deal since they cost over 2 million from Lambo!

    • ScrewEwe2

      I can only download motorcycles because I’m stuck with DSL. Last time I tried shoplifting was 40 years ago when I got caught trying to boost about a dozen LP’s. I was 17 at the time and realized that when you turn 18 things tend to get real, so I gave up on that idea. This was after I had succesfully shoplifted Abbie Hoffmans “Steal This Book”.

  • chronoss

    NOT INCANADA IT DONT
    5000 MAX FOR EVERYTHING
    MAKE SURE FELLOW CANUCKS YOU GRAB AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE

  • Gargamel

    The Judge is gayer then then the movies.

  • MadAsASnake

    I think it is time the statutory damages was removed. Every single time statutory damages are used to work out damages the result is incredibly ludicrous. About the only think more stupid is the judges who don’t appear to be able to see how idiotic it is.

    • Anyone

      they should only apply to corporations (that can actually pay those ludicrous sums) not individuals, and certainly not for misdemeanours like filesharing

      • asdf

        Filesharing isn’t a misdemeanor, it can barely even be called petty theft.

        • Fredrika

          > “Filesharing isn’t a misdemeanor, it can barely even be called petty theft.”

          i’m not sure what point you are trying to make, but intrusions into a legislative monopoly can never be called theft of any kind in any correct manner, provided one has the slightest understanding for the law, logics or proper use of language.

          Using the word theft about an infringement only proves that one is either ignorant regarding the facts, or an dishonest person who resorts to logical fallacies, as in trying to project a pre-determined negative value on an act without actually arguing for why it’s negative in the first place.

          If someone tries it, you should educate them about that.

        • Scary_Devil_Monastery

          The problem, as Fredrika states, is that copyright infringement isn’t criminal pehaviour, but at most unlawful.

          Meaning you can’t compare any actual crime – such as theft, petty theft, or for that matter even jaywalking – to filesharing.

          Pro-copyright maximalists love to try to make the link, however, and the only reason they succeed is because the instance the general public realizes that filesharing is less serious than jaywalking, the maximalists lose.

    • ScrewEwe2

      Don’t know if you saw my Props Post yesterday about some of our more gifted commentors, but I was dog tired and left you out by mistake. Have alway’s found your post’s to be framed very intelligently. :-)

      • ThumbsUpThumbsDown

        Am very happy to second that motion…..

  • Hamnammer

    Wise up people. Download, watch and then secure-erase with DBAN or some other good wiping program. Don’t leave evidence on your computer!

  • Vim

    For Anwar Ogiste the embedded “client code” was “oxfglyrf”.
    For Kywan Fisher the code was “xvyynuxl”.

    If you look at the Fisher case:
    http://dietrolldie.com/2012/11/01/1-5-million-default-judgment-against-kywan-fisher-flava-works-inc-112-cv-01888-ndil/

    And the evidence:
    http://dietrolldie.files.wordpress.com/2012/11/analysis_01888il.pdf

    You will notice the “Vim” editor logo on the evidence submitted to the court.
    You can download the free editor softwsre here:
    http://www.vim.org/

    Good free software to have to prevent further Troll Entrapment.

    • I Was Framed

      Very easy to remove the code or just change it.

      “Your Honor, I did not upload that file!”
      “But your ‘client code’ is embedded in the file.”
      “But your Honor. Anyone can edit that code.”
      “Someone is trying to frame me!”

      • Vim2

        Dang! My post was deleted by “The Dark Lord” Disqus.

        Go to http://www (dot) vim (dot)org/
        to download the free editor used by the Flava Works Trolls.

        I’ll try to recreate my post assuming Disqus does not strike me down again.
        What a PITA!

      • Vim2

        Hey Ernesto! Did you remove my comment?
        Does TF hate hyperlinks?
        Are you paranoid?

        What’s the deal?

        • Ernesto

          Your post was deleted because it showed how to defeat Flava Works embedded client code. We at TorrentFreak DO NOT want a lawsuit!

      • Twisted

        I had originally posted a comment on this TF article:
        http://torrentfreak.com/sharing-7-movies-on-bittorrent-1-5-million-damages-121201/

        But TF DELETED it. I guess they were scared or paranoid or something. The article describes how Flava Works embeds a “client code” in their video files. The article points out that Anwar Ogiste was “busted” because of his embedded client code “oxfglyrf”.

        I researched this issue and came across this lead:
        http://dietrolldie.com/2012/11/01/1-5-million-default-judgment-against-kywan-fisher-flava-works-inc-112-cv-01888-ndil/

        And the evidence submitted by Flava Works:
        http://dietrolldie.files.wordpress.com/2012/11/analysis_01888il.pdf

        That case was about Kywan Fisher, his “Flava” code was “xvyynuxl”. I noticed the ‘Vim’ logo on the screenshot of the evidence. And found the Vim webpage with their FREE editing software.
        http://www.vim.org/

        Obviously Flava Works used Vim editing software to present the evidence against Kywan Fisher. They did the same thing with Anwar Ogiste. TorrentFreak clearly displays the screenshot of that evidence.

        I simply point out that the Vim software can EASILY remove this code. Just open the video file and edit out Flava’s bogus client code.

        Just a million dollar clue for whomever cares to heed it.

        But TF DELETES this information.
        WHY?

        • Anyone

          the answer is above, they don’t want to get sued

        • HaHa

          Anyone. I like you.

          But I posted that “fake” Ernesto post.
          LOL. I Love TF.

          BUTT FUCK FLAVA BRADA!

          Information is FREE.

        • Anyone

          @HaHa
          I’m way too trusting ;)

        • ScrewEwe2

          Downloaded and gave it a try on a few files without making any changes, but how do you locate and decide which part of the 1,000′s of lines of code to remove?

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

    Default judgments don’t mean anything in the real world. Enough said. This guy will appeal or simply ignore the judgment and move on with his life.

  • Someone

    Was the judge a gay?

  • Guest

    Hold on. Isn’t the maximum statutory damage awarded per work supposed to be $150,000?

    How is it that the judge was allowed to exceed it?

    Of course, it’s not helping that the defendant didn’t turn up; otherwise he could call bullshit on this.

    • ScrewEwe2

      10 x $150,000 = $1,500,000. 7 x $150,000 = $1,050,000. Maybe the judge flunked math class or is dicklicksick?

      • Curious_Aint_It

        ROFL… Good point! Of course for the common person, a judgement in the millions may as well be a judgement in the quintillions. In other words, absolutely ridiculous.

  • Dude

    $1.5 million for some gay porn. the fuck is wrong with judges these days. For this guy to pay this off, he would have to be selling major drugs on the street.

    • ThumbsUpThumbsDown

      Nah! He can pay it off in forty five minutes in Bankruptcy Court.

      • asdf

        It’s a criminal case, you can’t file for bankruptcy for criminal cases. He either has to pay or goto prison until the debt is paid.

        • Anyone

          why the fuck is this a criminal case?
          that’s just fucked up

  • Pingback: DD Tech Solutions - Dude shares 7 porn flicks on Bittorrent, is charged $1.5 million in federal court

  • Pingback: Dude shares 7 porn flicks on Bittorrent, is charged $1.5 million in federal court - Daily Small Talk

  • Vince

    $1.5 million. That’s probably more profit than the films ever pulled in legitimately.

  • KeyBeast

    u can take my bullets but not my money

  • Freedom of Speech

    Awesome article over at Ars Technica…
    ———
    http://arstechnica (dot) com/tech-policy/2012/11/how-four-microsoft-engineers-proved-copy-protection-would-fail/

    How 4 Microsoft engineers proved that the “darknet” would defeat DRM
    And how they nearly got fired for it.

    • Scary_Devil_Monastery

      Oh, i recall reading that paper. They stated more or less the same we do today. Only trouble is, they were experts and predicted a future no one on Microsoft wanted to hear about.

  • Gogogo

    usa needs new anders breivik, who will make some cleaning in flava works and mafiaa xD
    not to mention you can easily buy weapons in usa :D

  • Mary Hairy Minge RHS.JJIP

    they”ll never see the money, but just in case, i must not look at gay porn i must not look at gay porn

  • Yeah Right!

    America – ‘Home of the idiot land of the ignorant.’ Will the citizens of the USA please wake up and delete yourselves

    • asdf

      You do realize how tightly the world is connected to the USA, right? Just imagine what would happen worldwide if the USA were to shutdown the servers that run almost 80% of the internet.

      • Anyone

        the internet would just route around it

      • Guest

        I think you just described one of the MPAA’s wet dreams.

      • Scary_Devil_Monastery

        Simple. The US would then turn into China. An isolated community relying on sporadic intrusions into the greater internet for fresh inflow of ideas.

        Your question much resembles the one “What if ICANN were to start shutting down domains én másse” and with a similarly predictable result.

        What happens is that the internet staggers for a bit, then works around the speed bump it just hit.
        Leaving the idiot with the switch screaming “But….I PULLED THE PLUG!!” in vain, looking shocked and desperately sad.

        Either that or he comes around the european forums bragging about “how he killed the internet” under an alias such as “Anon”.

    • Curious_Aint_It

      You just shot yourself in the foot…

      If the “idiots” and “ignorant” control the rest of the world like puppets, what does that make the rest of the world?

      QUESTION -> What’s less than an idiot?

      ANSWER -> You and the rest of the world that allow it…

  • Pingback: Corte condena a hombre a pagar un millón y medio de dólares... - FayerWayer

  • ThumbsUpThumbsDown

    In the lower courts the Porn Companies can run roughshod over victims; and, if they find themselves in the quicksand, walk away from their accusations, having suffered nominal costs; or, if they’re lucky, find themselves facing someone who walks away from all defenses and takes a Default Judgment.

    What does any of this have do do with what happens when a different kind of victim takes his arguments to the Appellate Courts for a full review on the merits?

    Answer: Almost nothing.

    Why?

    Because a default judgment has no value as precedent.

    For the Porn Companies it’s a case of laugh today and cry tomorrow.

    In the meantime, what’s that default judgment worth in actual money?

    The Porn Company will invest the cost of a trip to Bancrupcy Court, only to rediscover the true mathematical meaning of ZERO.

  • NGN

    Ya, I’m sure people with1.5 million dollars laying around spend all their time sharing porn. Here’s the part Flava doesn’t want you to know.

    Since the judgment awarded is so high it would leave the defendant penniless, it’s not collectible meaning the plaintiffs get nothing. Even if it were collectible the defendant would declare bankruptcy and the award would be discharged. Even if the award weren’t discharged, bankruptcy prevents the seizure of assets not disbursed by the court so…get ready for it…Flava gets nothing.

    Also, it has yet to be appealed and the judgment will likely be reduced to a few thousand dollars on appeal, but you won’t here Flava bragging about that in a press release.

    Source: The Seven Years Of My Life I Wasted In Law School

    • asdf

      As I said above, it’s a criminal case therefore the defendant is unable to file bankruptcy. He either pays or goes to prison until the debt is paid off.

      • ThumbsUpThumbsDown

        You sound pleased that it might be a criminal filing; but, all that means is that it is almost certain that the default judgment will eventually be set aside; and, that the defense will be very
        pugnacious through all Appellate levels.

        Guess what? The Appellate Courts is EXACTLY where knowledgeable File Sharers want these cases.

        Why? Although those Due Process standards (like adequacy of legal representation; adequacy of proof; rights against self incrimination; freedom from arbitrary seizures and warrant-less searches) are too often trampled in the lower courts, where powerful Corporations tower over under resourced individual citizens, Appellate Courts Live for the consistency of just those Constitutional principles that protect the weak against the mighty.

        In the Supreme Court it matters whether the Swat Team that invaded Kim DotCom’s house had a valid Warrant.

        In the Supreme Court it matters whether the the DOJ Prosecutor
        of Mega-Upload publicly encouraged the destruction of exculpatory evidence under his custody or control after having cherry-picked through it for incriminating evidence.

        In the Supreme Court it matters whether a Watermark or an IP Address actually connects a specific “acting and knowing” individual to a specific criminal act; or, whether that criminal act is being simply attributed to a person whose only connection to the allegation is that he signed a TOS fifteen years prior the act.

        Conclusion for you and for the DOJ Prosecutor of Mega-Upload: Enjoy your time in the lower Courts. When you get to the Supreme Court, you might not like what you hear when you get there.

        • Freedom of Speech

          TF’s best comment of the month!!! You have it exactly right!

  • Jim

    Nope. Filesharing is fun and easy. And I do it all the time. but you But I also believe and know for a fact that me and most of my friends no longer spend money on media as much as we used to when there was no file sharing.

    • Fredrika

      > “..But I also believe and know for a fact that me and most of my friends no longer spend money on media as much as we used to when there was no file sharing.”

      Why would anyone spend money on something that holds no economical value?

      What’s relevant however is that the public currently spends more money on culture than ever before(and the pirates are the biggest spenders), so there’s definitely money to be made in the culture industry, provided that one sells a product that holds an economical value.

      • Karin Sjöström

        What about software? Pirating professional commercial software is as easy as pirating media, once it’s been cracked. Does it hold economical value? Most companies/developers as far as I’m concerned aren’t willing to do non-profit open source development since they have to get their income from somewhere and software is what they do.

        If a digital copy holds no economical value, doesn’t that pretty much destroy the entire software industry as it is?

        Note that I’m talking about commercial use of software, not personal non-profit use.

        • Anyone

          a digital copy holds no value
          but if you are using software for profit (like most companies do) they can’t easily get away with pirating it, because they get audits and whatnot, so they have to buy a “legal copy”

          Microsoft vastly profits from piracy, if you couldn’t pirate Windows it wouldn’t be anywhere near 90% market share and they would get much less corporate clients that actually buy Windows licenses

          but if I pirate Photoshop to fool around with it doesn’t mean that Adobe “lost” thousands of dollars in “potential sale”, I would never spend that kind of money on it.
          so there is no harm

        • Karin Sjöström

          You are essentially saying however that an individual professional can pirate commercial software and get away with it because he/she doesn’t get audits. I fully support non-profit piracy, but if you are making money out of it, you should pay your license.

        • Fredrika

          > “What about software? Pirating professional commercial software is as easy as pirating media, once it’s been cracked. Does it hold economical value?”

          Copies and the service of selling copies on-line holds no economical value, because those goods and services people can manufacture themselves for free. Software is not a good or a service, which are the only things that can be sold. Software is the same thing as a creative work, and creative works in themselves holds no economical value, because they can not be owned, sold or bought.

          What holds an economical value are some of the goods and services that are built up around the use of the creative work. There are many more such than only the good of copies and the service of selling copies on-line.

          > “Most companies/developers as far as I’m concerned aren’t willing to do non-profit open source development since they have to get their income from somewhere and software is what they do.”

          They have gotten their revenues from the sales of certain goods and services.

          > “If a digital copy holds no economical value, doesn’t that pretty much destroy the entire software industry as it is?”

          No. It would if the only possible product that could be built up around the software was copies, but that’s not the case.

        • Karin Sjöström

          > “They have gotten their revenues from the sales of certain goods and services.”
          Can you please elaborate on the nature of these goods and services?

        • Fredrika

          > “Can you please elaborate on the nature of these goods and services?”

          Well mostly it has been the good of copies, and the service of support.

        • Karin Sjöström

          Exactly, and you just stated that “Copies [...] [hold] no economical value”. And support is only offered on licensed copies anyway. Which leaves nothing =(

        • Fredrika

          > “And support is only offered on licensed copies anyway. Which leaves nothing”

          Support is a service which can be sold to anyone, and no, those two products are not the only one’s that can be built up around a creative work. There are others, some already existing, and some not yet invented.

          It however is not the responsibility of the pirates or the politicians to help the self chosen entrepreneurs to come up with those or make them generate revenues. That’s their own responsibility, and asking others for help with that is a weak free mentality that no normal entrepreneur would ever dream of displaying.

        • Karin Sjöström

          Customers aren’t paying for a copy of the software, they are paying for a license to use that software. This license is bound to a machine or a series of machines, and doesn’t restrict you from copying the software, it restricts unlicensed use – meaning it can’t be used somewhere else.

          Some companies like Microsoft offer free licenses for educational and non-profit purposes on some of their software. Some don’t, which is why I pirate their stuff.

          License fees on commercial use is a model that’s supposed to work, but that is where cracking comes into play. Because no algorithm is crack-proof, you are essentially saying that entrepreneurs should come up with a different way to generate revenues because people can get their cracked software for free?

        • Fredrika

          > “Customers aren’t paying for a copy of the software, they are paying for a license to use that software.”

          Consumers can buy one of two things, goods or services, check consumer legislation if you don’t believe me. The software companies would like us to believe we are buying something else, but we aren’t. No higher court sentences corroborate their claim. Eula’s are not the law.

          > “This license is bound to a machine or a series of machines, and doesn’t restrict you from copying the software, it restricts unlicensed use – meaning it can’t be used somewhere else.”

          Eula’s are not the law, they restrict nothing.

          > “..you are essentially saying that entrepreneurs should come up with a different way to generate revenues because people can get their cracked software for free?”

          No, the laws of economics say that if the product they sell don’t generate them revenues, they have to come up with different business models, if they want to continue generate revenues.

        • Scary_Devil_Monastery

          Commercial use of software always means that some company is receiving gagging bagfuls of cash for the maintenance.

          This is why a number of software companies such as Canonical are pushing Ubuntu onto anyone who will accept to download a copy – they know full well the more people use the software, the more people want customization and maintenance.

          So as answer to your question:
          “If a digital copy holds no economical value, doesn’t that pretty much destroy the entire software industry as it is?”

          Nope. I once tallied the maintenance we pay for tech support and found that outsourcing or not, the people we actually pay for licensed software are getting the table scraps.

  • diogio
  • ItsTheSasquatch

    Judge George Lindberg: for the good of all mankind, please commit suicide. If possible, please kill a few lawyers first. It’s really the only way to redeem yourself at this point, and it will set a valuable precedent for years to come, ultimately making the world a better place.

  • Jimmy

    I say we should take this to the absolute extreme: Make the penalties much more absurd than they already are – death or life time in prison, and see what happens. I predict enslavement and the end of mankind, since copyright would exist on everything and everybody would be guilty of some sort of copyright infringement – everybody would be in prison or dead, ‘cept of course for the folk running the show – they would then have the ideal world they really want, with the kind of democracy that they like :P

    • SomeYahoo

      “with the kind of democracy that they like”

      none?

  • JustaGuy

    Well someone got f*cked

  • Pingback: Sharing 7 Movies on BitTorrent = $1.5 Million Damages - Webmaster Marketplace Forums

  • Guest

    @Guest
    “1. Prove it? Well, how about you prove that he is Not Guilty.! cmon, then..”

  • Shogunreaper

    Legal justice system at work here.

  • Guest

    @Guest
    “1. Prove it? Well, how about you prove that he is Not Guilty.! cmon, then..”

    No, you are dishonestly moving the goalposts. It’s you who claim that the watermark proves that he is guilty.
    You are demanding that I prove he is not guilty. This is not justice – not even in a civil case.

    Do you also think that an IP address = guilty person and that the owner of the account is guilty unless he can prove his innocence? This logic is flawed and wrong.

  • http://openid.anonymity.com/dk3th2 Stiffmeister

    First does this Anwar Ogiste from Maryland even exist ? (It’s a question that needs asking)

    Second did Flava Works produce the way the can watermark the videos ?

    And third did the judge even stop to pondered that even if the watermark is attributed to a spefic account the account might be stole or hacked or even fake created and that the actual video file itself might surfer the same problems in the users PC

    Other them that downloading Gay porn seriously ???? Just use that money and find a real live Gay partner (I’m sure there plenty in the world)

    Finally before some asks the stupid question; No I’m not gay but having nothing against them unless they try jumping me

  • chronoss

    ask yourself this
    look at the eye colours of your favourite actors and know they slipped for magento WHOM regularly had blue eyes but in one slip that leaked had this weird yellow colour….
    NOW go look at your movies….
    note this eye colour started appearing when….

  • ScrewEwe2

    A lot of these extortion attempts and lawsuits come from gay film producers. Just stay away from musicals or anything with a gay and festive theme, with Judy Garland or Liza Minnelli in it, like “Meet Me In St. Louis” or even “Rocky Horror Picture Show”. Problem solved.

  • Nasty

    George Lindberg is an asshole and deserve to be raped.

  • Pingback: Corte condena a hombre a pagar un millón y medio de dólares por compartir películas para adultos | SONSEMAR NOTICIAS

  • Eatmybark

    I was going to go out of my way to upload flava works but there shit is so vile and repulsive it isnt gonna happen. TO flava if you read this you scum you would have been in jail not long ago for the filth you produce hope you enjoy your minutes of hollow fame.

  • icec0ld

    Judge may as well have demanded a Unicorn with the sum the courts are demanding. They won’t see near a fifth of what they’ve asked for.

  • Pingback: Ethics of Piracy

  • ScrewEwe2

    I would have to say that Anwar Ogiste get’s a fail for piracy techniques. When you go to any website like Adobe for example, to download a 30 day trial of CS6 because you’ve allready acquired a good crack, I’m sure there is identifying code added to each individual download, and when you download something like CS6 you have to give them an email address and name + contact and location info. That’s a problem if you didn’t use a proxy (or chain of proxies) and false but accurate info. If you want to see what sort of identifiable trails you leave everywhere download and install the Belarc Advisor, because many websites can gather more info about you and your computer than you may realize.

  • Pingback: Sharing 7 Movies on BitTorrent = $1.5 Million Damages

  • Fake

    First, were 6,200 copies downloaded from the defendant? I’d venture a guess that the defendant’s internet connection is not that fast.

    Second, if the porn companies were smart, they’d force people to work it off.

  • Freedom of Speech

    http://arstechnica (dot) com/tech-policy/2012/11/tor-operator-charged-for-child-porn-transmitted-over-his-servers/

    An Austrian operator of Tor servers—that were used to anonymously route huge amounts of traffic over the Internet—has been charged with distributing CP. This comes after police detected illegal images traversing one of the [exit] nodes he maintains.

    “Sadly we have nothing like the EFF here that could help me in this case by legal assistance, so I’m on my own and require a good lawyer,” he wrote in a blog post seeking donations.

    Weber told Ars he typically ran about five to 10 nodes at any one time, from locations in the Czech Republic, Poland, Ukraine, Austria, and Hong Kong. He estimated that in all they carried about 30 terabytes of data each day.

    • Freedom of Speech

      Weber’s blog is here: http://raided4tor.cryto (dot) net/

    • ThumbsUpThumbsDown

      To the extent that this is a criminal accusation, there is a high probability that some public resource exists to help this guy get before an Appellate Court were the Civil Liberties aspects of his defense would be fully vetted. After all, most functioning democratic jurisdictions are loathe to inflict the severe sanctions that attend criminal indictments without affording the accused the benefit of a fully vetted defense.

      In respect to a strictly Civil Jurisdiction complaint, however, there is not normally a presumption that either the plaintive or respondent is entitled to expect public or third party financing in the litigation.

      This matters greatly, because it creates a system in which huge Corporations (say monopoly Copyright Distributors) tower over private citizens who lack the wherewithal to reach Appellate level review. Copyright dissidents rightfully have the sense of being trapped in the lower courts. EFF is a Godsend in this context.

      Why? Because Constitutional rights can be abused in a civil context just as completely as they might be abused in a criminal jurisdiction.

  • Charliehorse

    Nejtillpirater.. KILL YOURSELF CUNT.

    • Fredrika

      > “Nejtillpirater.. KILL YOURSELF..”

      Do you see any indications that he would succeed?

  • Pingback: Court condemns man to pay a million and a half dollars per share adult movies | Tech News Pedia

  • Just sayin

    His mistake was in subscribing to the service to begin with… He should have just grabbed it from on-line if he wanted to watch it… They actively punish people who pay them… So why would you want to pay them???

  • shimeijiejie
  • Pingback: Condenado a pagar millón y medio de dólares por compartir siete películas en BitTorrent

  • Pingback: Homem é condenado a pagar US$ 1,5 milhão por compartilhar 7 filmes adultos em BitTorrent | Limbotech

  • Pingback: BitTorrent, milioni per il copyright a luci rosse | infropy - information entropy

  • Pingback: Man moet 1,5 miljoen dollar betalen voor delen 7 pornofilms | Webinteresse

  • Pingback: The Geek Life » Episode 177: How Much Is That In Shekels?

  • RayZ fox

    7 Movies * $30 per movie = $210 Plus legal fees. Is what I believe he should pay. Ordering somebody to pay 1.5 million dollars when in their entire lifetime they will never earn 1.5 million dollars and having it carry over past bankruptcies is cruel and unusual punishment. Its a clear violation of the 8th Amendment. “Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.”

  • xpmule

    I take it that figure includes shipping and handling of the physical dvd’s ?
    oh there was no physical products at all ..i see
    ya the cost is the same how ???

  • voice of logic

    Wow; that’s embarassing as hell. A REALLY expensive lawyer could maybe even make a case for defamation of character. Good lord… YOUPORN! come on, now…

  • Spr.

    Bloody hell, this is just getting beyond stupid.

  • Noway

    After all this garbage, why on earth would anybody support anything from the USA? Stop buying their crap, stop downloading their shitty hollywood movies and music, stop giving those criminals in the USA any attention and Let them rot in hell and then and finally then the world can have freedom it truly deserves.

    • Youarecorrect

      I stopped supporting these criminals long ago. There is not one company or corporation in united states that is not criminal. Everything there is corrupt and criminal. You would be better off doing business with the mafia, because at least you would know what you were dealing with. usa is pathetic.

  • Pingback: Sharing 7 Movies on BitTorrent = $1.5 Million Damages – TorrentFreak | Torrent Download

  • Pingback: Sharing 7 Movies on BitTorrent = $1.5 Million Damages | The Illuminati

  • BTGuard - BitTorrent Anonymously

NewsBits

Even more news...

  • The Pirate Bay Isn’t Down Completely, Just Having a Few Issues

    Twitter and Facebook, not to mention the TorrentFreak inbox, are currently alive with complaints that The...

  • Pirate Bay Founder Gottfrid Svartholm on Freedom of Speech

    Freedom of speech is a highly valued commodity, but should people be allowed to say whatever...

  • 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...

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.