Suprnova.org shut down

[paulw]

They do host more than pirated movies ... Of course you haven't looked have you..

[richdvd]

They do host more than pirated movies ... Of course you haven't looked have you..

No, I haven't.
My GUESS is that there are a lot higher percentage of ILLEGAL stuff on there, no?

[ViRaL1]

Some crime syndicates run legitimate businesses. But it's the criminal activity that gets them shut down.

[lordsmurf]

They do host more than pirated movies ... Of course you haven't looked have you..

I looked. And you're right.
They have pirated games, software, music, test papers, etc. 8)

[d_unbeliever]

ya i agree its illegal and they should BAN these site...but is useless really 1 down and 10 will replace it....

[ViRaL1]

They said that about cocaine...wait.

[Gurm]

Suprnova did not do anything illegal.

Whine all you want, but tracker sites aren't illegal. Never have been.

I can start a site listing where to go find illegal stuff - it's not illegal to do so.

Simple, huh? You might not LIKE the law, but that's what the law says.

It's similar to this:

Jim: Hey John, where can I go score some blow?
John: Well if you go to the combat zone in Boston, and look for the guy with gold teeth, he might have some.

John has not done anything illegal. In fact, maybe the conversation went like this:

Jim: Hey John, where can I hire a hitman?
John: If you go to the bar down the street and ask for "Carlos", he might know someone...

That's ALSO not illegal. Tracker sites are ENTIRELY legitimate because they don't have any illegal material of their own.

The MPAA/RIAA is simply counting on the fact that none of the people who run these sites can afford to defend themselves in court. And they're RIGHT. If faced with a nice letter that says "take the site down, or come fight us in court", I would personally take the site down. I don't have hundreds of thousands of dollars to spend on a defense. Would I win? Assuredly - provided my lawyer was at least competent. But it would take MONTHS or YEARS to fight, and I might NEVER recoup my court costs.

Look at LokiTorrent - they're fighting it. They've been fundraising. THIRTY THOUSAND A MONTH is what it's costing them to fight it. Their lawyers project that MINIMUM it will last four months. MINIMUM! That's $120k! One hundred and twenty f***ing thousand dollars, just to defend yourself when you haven't broken the law!

It's bullying, is what it is.

Was the PRIMARY purpose of Suprnova to spread illegal material? Quite possibly. Did they break any laws? Nope.

[bazooka]

It is funny that people think that Suprnova was solely for warez, when that is not true.

Anyone that disagrees with me needs to study the Sony Betamax case.

[rkgibbons]

I certainly don't question the legality of host sites like suprnova.org -- I feel that they're simply a tool for communication -- in the same way that a telephone is a tool for communication. The fact that they're used by criminals doesn't make them criminal.

Everyday, there are millions of crimes committed using the telephone (criminals scamming people with fraudulent contests, people buying items with stolen credit cards, nefarious companies illegally re-routing calls via very expensive long-distance carriers, people connecting to the internet via telephone lines to illegally transfer pictures for child pornography).

...but no one ever suggests banning telephones.

The crime is solely at the end-user level. The criminals are the people using these sites to transfer pirated software and movies.

The host websites are just easy targets for the MPAA and the Music industry. They're a single definable target to attack -- and they're usually run by people who can't afford to fight any long-term legal battles.

Heck...if Microsoft kept sending me letters telling me that it was illegal to remain married to my wife -- and that they'd sue the crap out of me and toss me in jail unless I divorced her...well...see you later Mrs. Gibbons.

The MPAA may not have a legal foot to stand on, but they have the money to push their legal claims far beyond the little guy's ability to defend his rights.

[smearbrick1]

It is funny that people think that Suprnova was solely for warez, when that is not true.

Anyone that disagrees with me needs to study the Sony Betamax case.

Totally agree with Bazooka.

Torrent sites only offer illegal downloads if the person downloader does not own a legitimate copy of the film in question. Example: I own a VHS copy of "Roxanne". I should be able to legally download an XVID version of "Roxanne" providing it is available. Now, the problems arise when John Q. Moronboy decides to upload his crap-ass cam copy of "The Latest Ben Stiller Movie That Totally Sucks Ass" which has not been release on DVD or VHS. Just because something can be used for illegal purposes, doesn't mean it should be banned.

[Gurm]

It is funny that people think that Suprnova was solely for warez, when that is not true.

Anyone that disagrees with me needs to study the Sony Betamax case.

Totally agree with Bazooka.

Torrent sites only offer illegal downloads if the person downloader does not own a legitimate copy of the film in question. Example: I own a VHS copy of "Roxanne". I should be able to legally download an XVID version of "Roxanne" providing it is available. Now, the problems arise when John Q. Moronboy decides to upload his crap-ass cam copy of "The Latest Ben Stiller Movie That Totally Sucks Ass" which has not been release on DVD or VHS. Just because something can be used for illegal purposes, doesn't mean it should be banned.

I'm gonna jump in before Adam does and say that it's VERY QUESTIONABLE, legally, as to whether you can download an XVid of a movie you own. But that's beside the point. The point is that the site isn't illegal, but the operators can't afford to fight the deep pockets of the AA's.

[richdvd]

Example: I own a VHS copy of "Roxanne". I should be able to legally download an XVID version of "Roxanne" providing it is available.

LMAO.......you think?

[bazooka]

I was talking about Linux.

[adam]

Actually, its not questionable as to whether you can download something you own already. This has already been specifically ruled on in the RIAA v. Napster suit. It is legal to backup a cd you own, but it is illegal to download that same cd off of P2P. There is no grey area here. As for movies, there is not currently even a right to backup your movies in the United States. All our other back up rights come via express provisions in Title 17, NOT from Fair Use which says nothing as to backing up anything. As of yet, Congress has not passed any provision which applies to movies owned by consumers.

As for tracking sites like this, you all need to read the DMCA because they are specifically made illegal. Under the DMCA and under copyright law generally, it does not matter whether you host an infringing file or provide a link to it. They are one in the same.

Under the DMCA any webhost must excersize reasonable safeguards to ensure that they do not LINK to infringing material. If you run a website, and you know that someone can access infringing material either directly or indirectly via your website you are required by law to remove that link. Failure to do so constitutes contributory copyright infringement. It doesn't matter how many legitimate files they link to, if they link to even one infringing file and have knowledge of it, they are in violation.

[bazooka]

The DMCA does not apply to the Betamax case Adam.

Judges stated as long as something has a legitimate use, then it is not illegal.

[adam]

What does the Betamax case have to do with this? That ruled that timeshifting constitutes Fair Use. That is completely inapplicable to downloading anything over the internet for any reason.

Judges stated as long as something has a legitimate use, then it is not illegal.

That is not even remotely close to what the Betamax case stands for, and like I said, its protection against contributory infringement only applies to hardware manufacturers not websites. The Betamax case has been 100% codifed into law anyway under Title 17.

[bazooka]

What does the Betamax case have to do with this? That ruled that timeshifting constitutes Fair Use. That is completely inapplicable to downloading anything over the internet for any reason.

Judges stated as long as something has a legitimate use, then it is not illegal.

That is not even remotely close to what the Betamax case stands for, and like I said, its protection against contributory infringement only applies to hardware manufacturers not websites. The Betamax case has been 100% codifed into law anyway under Title 17 and also under the Audio Home Recording Act.

Wrong

It is the same premise. You can download Linux off the net, which is perfectly legal. It is a free operating system covered by the GPL. Thus a legitimate purpose. As recently as last year, a judge ruled that as long as p2p had a legitimate use, then it should not be outlawed.

[adam]

You can download Linux off the net BECAUSE it was released under a general public license. They GIVE it away provided you abide by the license. This has nothing to do with a copyrighted file that the copyright holder has not licensed under a PUBLIC license. Hosting one legal filetype does not give you a license to host as much infringing material as you want...and as I'll explain you are applying the completely wrong standard anyway.

The Betamax case was filed against manufacturers of hardware TVRs for contributory infringement in that that they allowed individuals to make illegal copies of copyrighted material. The ruling was that VCRs and the like CAN be used for the legitimate purpose of timeshifting and that so long as a hardware recorder can be used for a SUBSTANTIALLY non-infringing purpose, the manufacturer of that device cannot be held liable for contributory infringement.

Neither P2P operators nor websites are hardware manufacturers and are not in any way covered by the Betamax case or by section 1008. What you are saying is just nonsense.

All of the suits regarding the legality of P2P have been under the DMCA, particularly under the safeguard provisions. The most recent suit (I presume the one you are referring to) simply ruled that the MPAA could not excersize the disclosure section of the safeguard provisions, requiring an isp to automatically give user account info prior to suit. This in no way implies that P2P is...well anything. Hell, there was not even a suit filed yet.

As for other P2P suits, the argument is that they run afoul of the DMCA safeguard provisions. As of yet, only the 9th Circuit has ruled on this and they said that the particular P2P operators sued did not fail to excersize reasonable protection mechanisms. Currently it is on appeal.

Read the safeguard provisions of the DMCA. SuperNova clearly falls within its language.

Once again, the Beta max case and relief from contributory manufacturers has nothing to do with P2P operators.

[bazooka]

I hate to tell you adam, but you are wrong.

Here is the court decision.
http://www.dvhardware.net/article.php?sid=2980

Court rejects piracy claims against P2P file-sharing networks
Posted on Friday, August 20 2004 @ 21:29:38 CEST by Lordrazer

federal appeals court in the US has declared that the online file-sharing software companies are not liable to copyright infringement charges.
The US 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in favour of StreamCast, Grokster and other file-sharing software companies yesterday, while saying that software companies are not responsible for what the users do with their peer-to-peer (P2P) networks. The three-judge panel reportedly said that the structure of the P2P networks made it impossible for the software companies to exert any control over the users. The court ruled that the file-sharing networks should not be outlawed because of the significant legal applications associated with them, while giving a precedent of a previous battle of the movie studios against the video cassette recorders (VCRs) in the 1980s.

Read more @ Newratings.com

[Gurm]

And it follows that if a filesharing program's manufacturer isn't liable, then neither are those who operate sites where any idiot can post a link.

[bazooka]

And it follows that if a filesharing program's manufacturer isn't liable, then neither are those who operate sites where any idiot can post a link.

Exactly, gurm

You hit the nail right on the head.

It is the action that is illegal, not the site or the program.

[sugarshine]

Supernova is back ha ha ha !!! There called exeem now the people behind Supernova have started a new p2p protocol. EXeem™ is a brand new Peer-To-Peer program, which is based on the BitTorrent idea. exeem site : http://www.exeem.com/ it's in beta now but i here it rocks. Tech tv did a nice segment on it the other day.

[bazooka]

Supernova is back ha ha ha !!! There called exeem now the people behind Supernova have started a new p2p protocol. EXeem™ is a brand new Peer-To-Peer program, which is based on the BitTorrent idea. exeem site : http://www.exeem.com/ it's in beta now but i here it rocks. Tech tv did a nice segment on it the other day.

Yes,

I was telling people about exeem right when Suprnova went down.

I do not recommend exeem though, as it has spyware.

I recommend exeemlite which has no spyware.

[shelbyGT]

Alright, I would say maybe 5% of the total downloads from p2p or torrents are legal (I won't look up facts, I just pulled a number out of my butt). Needless to say, people flock to these for the 'free' downloads of items they'd usually pay for. I'm guilty, as are probably 95% of you on this board.

However, I'm not going to try and sit here and defend my actions, nor should you. I've stopped it altogether now (only use iTunes for music and I actually buy my dvd's). I'm not trying to sound like some angel, it just annoys me when people who abuse it try to defend it.

[bazooka]

Alright, I would say maybe 5% of the total downloads from p2p or torrents are legal (I won't look up facts, I just pulled a number out of my butt). Needless to say, people flock to these for the 'free' downloads of items they'd usually pay for. I'm guilty, as are probably 95% of you on this board.

However, I'm not going to try and sit here and defend my actions, nor should you. I've stopped it altogether now (only use iTunes for music and I actually buy my dvd's). I'm not trying to sound like some angel, it just annoys me when people who abuse it try to defend it.

Who do you see defending anything?

I download linux off bittorrent. It is great in cases of when a new release of a certain distro is out and the servers are swamped.

Actually what was quoted was about 20% is legitimate.


I was just pointing out that as long as something has a legitimate use, it cannot be deemed as illegal and outlawed.

[shelbyGT]

So the few legal downloads keep the program/site/whatever going even though the majority of downloads are illegal? I can't grasp that logic, really. I could be an idiot, but I just don't see that. Yes, I've downloaded game updates off of torrent and mods off of it as well, but I'm not going to try and defend it so john q. public can get his fix of bootlegged items. And I probably am in the wrong here, if you look at VCR's. I guess I just side with the RIAA: if my shit was getting ripped off, I'd be pissed and want to stop it.

[bazooka]

So the few legal downloads keep the program/site/whatever going even though the majority of downloads are illegal? I can't grasp that logic, really. I could be an idiot, but I just don't see that. Yes, I've downloaded game updates off of torrent and mods off of it as well, but I'm not going to try and defend it so john q. public can get his fix of bootlegged items.

20% is not a few, and you misunderstand me.

I said I download linux distros off p2p.

This is an application of the betamax rule.

[shelbyGT]

I'm just giving my opinoins, I'm not trying to stop anyone's actions nor do I claim to know right/wrong. I can do that still on a message board, right? Just say what I'm thinking? hmmm..

I could give a **** less about your damn betamax rule, zooka. I don't care what rule your applying for what reason. I'm not saying you personally have done anything wrong and I'm not saying I have any fixes to anything. So who gives a hoot or a holler what you downloaded thanks to the betamax rule? Not I.

[richdvd]

Alright, I would say maybe 5% of the total downloads from p2p or torrents are legal (I won't look up facts, I just pulled a number out of my butt). Needless to say, people flock to these for the 'free' downloads of items they'd usually pay for. I'm guilty, as are probably 95% of you on this board.

However, I'm not going to try and sit here and defend my actions, nor should you. I've stopped it altogether now (only use iTunes for music and I actually buy my dvd's). I'm not trying to sound like some angel, it just annoys me when people who abuse it try to defend it.

Who do you see defending anything?

I download linux off bittorrent. It is great in cases of when a new release of a certain distro is out and the servers are swamped.

Actually what was quoted was about 20% is legitimate.


I was just pointing out that as long as something has a legitimate use, it cannot be deemed as illegal and outlawed.

It's not really a valid argument saying that Suprnova is great for getting stuff like Linux distros. Although maybe it is, there are literally hundreds (maybe thousands) of other places to get them. So Suprnova shutting down, will really only affect the illegal stuff that is on there. You don't NEED to use Suprnova to download Linux. So why do people keep using the Linux-BT thing as a reason that Suprnova should be allowed to keep going? Linux-BT's are a very SMALL part of Suprnova (probably less than 5% of what goes on there). The odds tell you what is really going on there.

Once again, the Beta max case and relief from contributory manufacturers has nothing to do with P2P operators.

I can't see how the Betamax case has anything to do with the topic at hand either.

[bazooka]

I'm just giving my opinoins, I'm not trying to stop anyone's actions nor do I claim to know right/wrong. I can do that still on a message board, right? Just say what I'm thinking? hmmm..

I could give a **** less about your damn betamax rule, zooka. I don't care what rule your applying for what reason. I'm not saying you personally have done anything wrong and I'm not saying I have any fixes to anything. So who gives a hoot or a holler what you downloaded thanks to the betamax rule? Not I.

That is fine and you are entitled to your opinion.

But your statement that I am defending it because I download warez is erroneous.