MPAA sues six TV BitTorrent sites

[BJ_M]

MPAA has turned its attention to rapidly growing TV piracy and has sued six websites offering BitTorrent trackers for TV shows. The sites were extremely popular among non-Americans, who typically have to wait between 6 months and several years in order to have the major American TV shows aired in their home country.

Each site can be sued for hefty fines, ranging between $30,000 and $150,000 per each and every downloaded file. But, it is interesting to see how the American legislation will handle BitTorrent trackers, as the distribution of the files is done by users themselves (assuming that the sites themselves didn't "seed" the original files).

This is the first time that MPAA has attacked against TV show piracy and the reason for the move is obvious -- sales of DVD "box sets" of TV shows are huge.

MPAA said in its press release: "On these sites, anyone in the world can download entire television seasons in a single click. Every television series depends on other markets -- syndication, international sales -- to earn back the enormous investment required to produce the comedies and dramas we all enjoy, and those markets are substantially hurt when that content is stolen."

These are the sites that were sued: ShunTV, ZonaTracker, Scifi-Classics, CDDVDHeaven, Braggin'Rights and #BT @ EFnet.

While the abovementioned sites are down, at least for now, you can still search for torrents (and torrent sites) using, for instance, TorrentTyphoon. TorrentTyphoon is a meta search engine which catalogs the contents of several trackers and provides a simple, yet effective interface for searching the sites.

Source: MPAA

[dvdguy4]

Bit Torrents have virus ritten all over them.

[bbrevolt]

I love bittorent for dling tv shows. Why don't they offer a download of torrent file or full file for $1(they'd better darn well make it widescreen + hdtv). That amounts very little actual cost, only bandwidth if we'd have to dnload from the site. And they'd still make a killing off of it. Say a season is 23 episodes that is $23 of practically pure profit. No cost of box/dvds/shipping amoung the countless facilities etc.
They have the very real capability of making a killing, but instead completely flip out and garner the hate of the fan-public.
They could even make a single episode say $1.50. And if you made an agreement to purchase the whole season up front or after a season airs make it $1 a piece.
MPAA and RIAA are fools.

[RottenFoxBreath]

Bit Torrents have virus ritten all over them.

you sir,obviously know not of what you speak. 8)

old news,nearly a week old.

[dvdguy4]

Whatever. I would like to know other wise if torrents dont have viruses within them. Thats a reason why most US Universities dont allow dl's from them.

[thor300]

Its true that bittorrent sites have virus problems, i wouldnt be surprised if some of them were seeded by someone who has connections to the movie industry
From a swedish torrent site:

Please read: We've recently had some problems with torrents containing trojans (spyware). A good tip is to never open or download "movies"/"pictures"/"music" in .EXE format.

[RottenFoxBreath]

Whatever. I would like to know other wise if torrents dont have viruses within them. Thats a reason why most US Universities dont allow dl's from them.

thats utter poop.most unis dont allow it becuase of the mpaa/riaa crap,if theres a torrent with a virus or trojan in it,a quick scan by a right minded person should reveal it,and if they dont do that,then hell mend them,its there fault.ive downloaded a few torrents in my time,mostly tv episodes,and never had a problem,and ive never known a person to have a problem.
most problems i assume would be gotten with the old"keygen.exe" crap.
but i suppose,thats what they get.

[themichael]

Interesting things to note:

These are all in the US.

So far nobody can seem to find were the suits were filed.

The MPAA/RIAA have been known to "be mistaken" on some facts released to the press.

[lordsmurf]

MPAA said in its press release: "On these sites, anyone in the world can download entire television seasons in a single click.

While most of what MPAA said was stupid, this one far by far the dumbest of them all. A whole show? Give me a break. More like countless dozens of files (one per ep), each of which takes countless hours to download, even on high speed connnections. And even then, only if it's seeded well by a few dozen people (which is NOT all that common, and the life of a file is maybe 1-2 weeks before it disappears).

That fact alone turns off most people.

Whoever wrote that MPAA press release obviously has no idea what they're talking about.

They EASILY have the ability to offer a fast, high quality service that will make torrents obsolete and even more undesireable than they already are (for all but the most dedicated). But their pig-headed idiocy is all that stands in the way. Especially seeing how bandwidth cost has come down so much in recent years, at least for bulk users.

And yes, those networks ARE INDEED full of viruses, another excellent reason to avoid them.

[canadateck]

They are trackers. (Kinda like Google).

Search torrent on Google and you'll find many Torrents. These site owners dont have the money to show this in court. Google is here for another reason (I know). these guys know what they are doing..But it is very much like a search engine.

[shelbyGT]

I use it for game demo downloads... so far no virii (is that plural?) yet!

/me crosses fingers

[thor300]

Maybe these site owners will do like our beloved mr Geek and offer the mpaa their old guitars?

And i can easily agree that torrents are quite much undesirable. They are for the low end users who in general believes internet explorer IS the internet. They are the ones who after they press the submit button in a form opens Outlook Express and clicks Send and Receive to send the post.

[Sillyname]

Can't we just give them all of the money?

[DereX888]

1 how on earth .MPG or .AVI file can be a virus?
2 who is so that stupid to download anything - not only thru bittorrent p2p - and do not scan it for viruses if using windows OS?

It doesnt matter do you download an AVI or MPEG from ftp, http or any p2p network like bottorrent, it is still the same AVI or MPEG.
thor300 (smurf and others too) you just wrote exactly as you said yourself - like the "guy who thinks IE is the internet".
Dont make an opinion about something you dont know!


Anyway: since it is OK and 100% legal to record very same shows on home PC/DVDrec/DVR/PVR/VHS/whatever from any non-encrypted cable or free, off-air broadcasts, MPAA ******** should have been finally ridiculed in a US court of law by one of those "sued tv tracker" sites. Unfortunately as we all know it - the law in US is always on the side of those who have more money...

ANother question:
any of the "sued" sites don't host any files.
The torrent file itself is more like a text file containing list of IPs hosting the actual file(s). I repeat: "tracker" (site) does NOT host/contain any actual files, it works more like a google on a small scale in layman terms, kind of a 'personalized' search engine for these peers' IP who are hosting the actual file. Why isn't MPAA going after Google itself then? Anyone can use google to search for Filetype:torrent and find hundreds or even thousands more times .torrent files than all of those sued websites (trackers) ever had all together.
Example:
do a search on google.com for "star wars filetype:torrent"
You get 236 torrents for the movies of Star Wars, probably half of them are for the currently shown in theaters Episode III. It is not a tv series, but a feature movie. Why isn't MPAA suing google.com for very same crime it sued all those "tracker" websites for? With this simple search Google have just served me 236 various links (containing further links - torrent files) to the hundreds or thousands of computers that are hosting freely this copyrighted feature film!
Is it that google is too rich and MPAA is afraid to touch it?


I said it before, I say again: FU*K MPAA!


Just writing about MPAAssholes gives me sudden urge to make legal copy of anything and post it illegally anywhere Dont make mistake, not that I promote piracy here; but last time I check recording free broadcast television and sharing it with friends, family or even strangers (yes!) was 100% legal even in this sick-laws-ridden country as USofA is

[animatron]

but last time I check recording free broadcast television and sharing it with friends, family or even strangers (yes!) was 100% legal even in this sick-laws-ridden country as USofA is

No my friend. You're wrong.
You can record any TV broadcast, but it has to be for YOUR personal use.
When you have some time, go visit the FCC (Federal Communications Commission) site, and you'll see what I mean

[DereX888]

but last time I check recording free broadcast television and sharing it with friends, family or even strangers (yes!) was 100% legal even in this sick-laws-ridden country as USofA is

No my friend. You're wrong.
You can record any TV broadcast, but it has to be for YOUR personal use.
When you have some time, go visit the FCC (Federal Communications Commission) site, and you'll see what I mean

You are wrong my friend.
Any public place would be commiting a crime if it were true (bars, local malls, train stations, even my local hairstylist have free off-air broadcast stations on their publicly placed TVs). All these public places play free broadcast programming without any copyrights, and whats more: you can use your phonecamera to record any of the broadcasts if you want - and it is legal. You can bring your VCR if you want, and if your hairstylist let you hook it up to his tv - you can legally record this free off-air broadcast for your later viewing if you want. No copyright permission required.

If you call your buddy in another city and ask him to record latest episode of say "Lost" for you, would anyone of you commit a crime? No.
Same goes for all the website-trackers hosting this free for everyone, off-air broadcast recordings in digital form. When I go to the website X and download a torrent (list of IPs hosting the latest episode of "Lost") is exactly same thing as I would have sent email to these people whose IPs appear on the tracker and asked them to 'record' this episode for me.
The difference is only in the eye of MPAA.

[adam]

DereX888, everything you said is incorrect. Time-shifting allows you to record your personal broadcasts for a one time later viewing. This right is very limited and strictly construed. Your buddy can't do it for you unless he comes to your house and uses your equipment. This is all discussed in the Sony v. Universal Studio's ruling.

Under no circumstances would downloading a copyrighted television show be legal in the United States, even if you had the capability to record it yourself. This was expressly held in the MPAA v. Napster case.

As for public displays (malls, hairstylists, etc..) they are required to pay royalties to the copyright holder for such displays and any major operation like a mall most certainly does so. Smaller businesses like hairstylists probably don't do this, but that doesn't mean its legal. If you recorded a broadcast for your use, from your hairstylist's commercially used tv, you'd both definitely be in violation of the show's copyright.

As for where these suit were filed, I'm sure it was in a 9th Circuit Federal District Court just like 99% of all the other MPAA suits. Since copyrights are federal law they can file suit in any Federal court that can obtain jurisdiction over the Defendant. I won't go into all the boring procedural details but most of these P2P and torrent sites can be sued in any Federal District Court in the country. Since the MPAA is based in California they almost always sue in the 9th Circuit.

As far as the hosting vs. linking issue, this most likely does rule out copyright infringement for P2P and torrent sites but not contributory copyright infringement. Caselaw has shown that P2P has skirted by for now because it has the requisite "substantially non-infringing purpose" and because the admin have relatively limited control over the content traded, but torrent and http sites in general are completely different. The admins of these sites have full control over the links they host and a site that only offers links to copyrighted tv episodes clearly has no non-infringing purpose whatsoever. The MPAA has had no problems getting infringing torrent sites like these shut down in the past. P2P is a matter on appeal but its not looking too good for them...

[thor300]

So Derex, you like downloading torrents?

Since you already promoted for thepiratebay here, go there and read for yourself before you accuse anyone of telling lies.

[EvilWizardGlick]

Usenet, Bittorrent, E-mule, all may have virus's but usually not. Many people who release take PRIDE in their work. They aren't out to harm anyone, just share. Because these people are a community there is much feedback. This feedback limits the spread of virus's. Self policing if you want to think that way.
Speeds for any of those are all but slow, except for rare items.
You can download the new Doctor Who or Bleach episode within hours after release.
The problem isn't so called Pirates, it is rampant moneygrubbing corporatism.
Profit is fine, excessive profit is evil.
When ANY corporation makes an excessive profit they NEVER lower the price of the goods. Prices INCREASE over time.
When the MPAA/RIAA starts going after big media for NOT slashing prices after an excessive profit making year, then I will feel they are acting in the public interest.
Until then they are nothing but modern day Pinkertons acting for a bloated robber baron big media.

[DereX888]

So Derex, you like downloading torrents?

Since you already promoted for thepiratebay here, go there and read for yourself before you accuse anyone of telling lies.

I did not promote anything. Read again.
If anyone did 'promoted for thepiratebay here' - it was GOOGLE, I merely forwarded google's search result on this forum.

[DereX888]

As for public displays (malls, hairstylists, etc..) they are required to pay royalties to the copyright holder for such displays and any major operation like a mall most certainly does so. Smaller businesses like hairstylists probably don't do this, but that doesn't mean its legal. If you recorded a broadcast for your use, from your hairstylist's commercially used tv, you'd both definitely be in violation of the show's copyright.

If youre right - you know wht does it mean?
Tens of millions people, just in the USofA, are committing this 'crime' on a daily basis. Its the most widespread piracy activity known to mankind
Or is it?

As far as the hosting vs. linking issue, this most likely does rule out copyright infringement for P2P and torrent sites but not contributory copyright infringement. Caselaw has shown that P2P has skirted by for now because it has the requisite "substantially non-infringing purpose" and because the admin have relatively limited control over the content traded, but torrent and http sites in general are completely different. The admins of these sites have full control over the links they host and a site that only offers links to copyrighted tv episodes clearly has no non-infringing purpose whatsoever. The MPAA has had no problems getting infringing torrent sites like these shut down in the past. P2P is a matter on appeal but its not looking too good for them...

Again - how this stands in regard of google's search engines serving exactly same thing - torrent files - as these sites were discussing?

The problem isn't so called Pirates, it is rampant moneygrubbing corporatism.
Profit is fine, excessive profit is evil.
When ANY corporation makes an excessive profit they NEVER lower the price of the goods. Prices INCREASE over time.
When the MPAA/RIAA starts going after big media for NOT slashing prices after an excessive profit making year, then I will feel they are acting in the public interest.
Until then they are nothing but modern day Pinkertons acting for a bloated robber baron big media.

I agree 100%
MPAA is equivalent of modern day Unions.
Its sole existence is not to 'protect' or 'promote' its members (an artists), but it is to extort more money from the public, basically same way as any worker's unions do. It is not that different than any organized crime groups (aka mafia) extorting the money from the public as well. Its just that MPAA does not shoot uncooperative individuals (yet)...

[mbellot]

Its just that MPAA does not shoot uncooperative individuals (yet)...

You know, I think there is a bill in committee now...

[adam]

DereX888, yes people commit copyright infringement everyday using their vcr's, TIVO's, etc. I don't know why this would suprise you. If you don't believe what I say you can always go and read the Sony v. Universal Studio and MPAA v. Napster cases that I mentioned. I assumed you would have done this before questioning what I said in my post, but I guess not.

Regarding Google, once again the test for contributory copyright infringement is whether there is a substantially non-infringing use. Google obviously has substantially noninfringing, viable uses. A site which links you to nothing but infringing files does not and this is why many torrent sites are constantly getting shutdown. A torrent site which hosted mostly non-infringing torrents and dilligently removed infringing links, would be perfectly legal.

A site which allows you to download tv shows, or in this case a site which knowingly aids you in downloading such shows, could not be more blatantly infringing. Regardless of what anyone thinks of the MPAA, you can't argue that sites like this should be allowed to continue operating.

BTW: I really don't want to play Devil's Advocate anymore, but the motion picture industry isn't nearly as profitable as most people think. They are severely front loaded, expense wise. Only 6 out of every 1000 movies breaks even at the box office. Most movies don't become profitable for many years after their release, and its only the big blockbusters that keep the studio paying their bills in the interrum. Big revenues don't necessarily mean big profit because you have to consider that the average movie costs just under $90 million dollars to produce and market. Take a look at some of the biggest movie flops in history and you'll understand why often even good and successful movies still lose money for the studios.
http://www.answers.com/topic/list-of-films-u-s-box-office-bombs

If you think popular movie studios are just cashcows, then just take a look at MGM.

[RottenFoxBreath]

ive never had a virus off a torrent,youd have to be stupid to run a "keygen.exe",mp3.exe" or the like straight off the bat without scanning it first.
mp*a are the pits,they still cant differenciate between piracy,and copyright infringements,which even if you taped a football game and watched it with a friend,are infringing some right or'tother.
corporate bollox.

[adam]

I'm not sure how they could differentiate between "piracy" and "copyright infringement" since they are synonomous terms. They are statutorily defined.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with taping your broadcasts and watching them with friends. This is also explained in the Sony case which I referenced above.

No disrespect intended to anyone in this thread, but most peoples' gripes concerning copyright infringement would be explained away if they just read the law.

[EvilWizardGlick]

I'm not sure how they could differentiate between "piracy" and "copyright infringement" since they are synonomous terms. They are statutorily defined.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with taping your broadcasts and watching them with friends. This is also explained in the Sony case which I referenced above.

No disrespect intended to anyone in this thread, but most peoples' gripes concerning copyright infringement would be explained away if they just read the law.

They are different. Piracy is the cartel that prints up 100,000 bootleg dvd's to make a profit. I even feel that selling a single dvd of something you download for free is Piracy.
Copyright infringement is downloading a file ( film or music), then deciding afterward if you will buy that product. If you download a crappy song or movie, you will never use it again so it gets deleted.
What is really silly is if an item isn't liscenced in the US no one cares if you dld it. Doctor Who for example. Nine episodes all over the place and no one cares. Asian film, until some Hollywood studio buys the rights, no one cares about.
Clearly MPAA/RIAA is there to ONLY protect Hollywood/Big Media interest.
Which makes me wonder if you are in China and you download a US copyrighted product but it is NOT copyrighted in your country are you still breaking the law? I don't think so.
When these people quite squeezing the consumer and treat customers with respect then maybe filesharing will drop. Until then why pay a hefty price to watch a piece of crap movie in the theater? Or buy a cd with 10 crappy songs just to listen to the single good one?
Where was the MPAA/RIAA when Big Media got busted for price fixing cd's? Does anyone really think the same isn't being done with DVD's?
They can get their own house in order before asking everyone else too.
In the end we are really talking about US protectionism, nothing more.

[RottenFoxBreath]

im not talking about america,theres more to the world than the mp*a,r*aa,etc
piracy-involves money.
downloading a torrent-no money involved-infringement only,unless ya sell them.
i dont see the problem with tv torrents,as in the uk we have that tv license thing,and i think thats fundementally wrong,£120+ a year to own a device thats capable of recieving an incoming signal.

[adam]

Once again piracy is a STATUTORILY defined word. Copyright infringement is defined as any violation of the exclusive rights provided by a copyright. Piracy is statutorily defined as any violation of the express right to copy and/or authorize copying, which is one of those express rights provided by copyright. Whether or not the infringement results in a monetary loss to the copyright holder or a gain to the infringer makes no difference. It never has, not in any country in the entire world.

But even still, the fact of the matter is that it is virtually impossible to commit infringement on the internet without actually causing a monetary effect. How many protocols are there out there where you can efficiently download without also uploading? Do you also know the actual intent of all those other downloaders? Or how about the fact that in virtually no other market in the ~$10-$20 range of CDs and DVDs, does one get to try before they buy? This is especially counterintuitive with movies because most people only view them once anyway.

EvilWizardGlick:

You have no idea how annoying it is to spend ~$75,000 of your own money to go to law school, bust your ass studying for the Bar, study Copyright statutes and caselaw for ~7 years steady, and defend real clients who are paying for your legal opinion, only to be told you are wrong by people on a video forum who will not even bother read past the blogs at fuckmpaa.com.

As for your questions, if you violate a US copyright it does not matter where you are in the world. For that matter every single civilized nation is now governed by either the Berne Treaty or the Trips Treaty therefore they all respect the fundamental and universal notion that copyrights are enforced regardless of the monetary effect of the infringement. And additionally, under these treaties every signatory country must also enforce the copyright laws of all other signatory countries so the US's copyright law would still be enforced even if the movie was not copyrighted there, but in reality a major motion picture is going to be copyrighted in every major country of the world because copyrights are basically free and in most countries you gain them just by creating your work.

[Nilfennasion]

I agree with most of what you said, adam (especially the part about frustration). Even if I didn't, I don't have a solid legal background or basis to challenge it on, so we'll skip that. However, one thing came to mind when I read:

copyrights are basically free and in most countries you gain them just by creating your work.

Again, this is true and agreeable. An author such as Stephen King gains a copyright the very second he has more than 1,000 words in a file on his word processor. Although it is somewhat stronger when he reaches the 100,000th word (or in his case, the 300,000th).

However, the RIAA has bent the law in such a manner that the musician basically gets nothing, and a few wankers behind desks get everything. It might all be perfectly legal, but that doesn't make it just. There is also much that should be said about price-gouging. Not that either of these things justify piracy in and of themselves, but viva le resistance and all that.

[adam]

I don't understand what you mean Nilfennasion. The RIAA and MPAA are not labor unions. They have absolutely nothing to do with artist compensation.

I would agree that the compensation system at most music labels is fundamentally flawed, but I fail to see how this relates to copyright infringement. Downloading music for free rather than paying for it is not boycotting, its downright theft and all it does is cut the artist out of further compensation.