MPAA and BREIN shut down 51 more torrent sites

By on January 31, 2011, 6:45 AM
The Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) and Dutch anti-piracy group BREIN have collaborated to disable at least 51 torrent sites, which published links to copyrighted movies. 12 of them were based in the US while the remaining 39 were from the Netherlands, according to Ars Technica.

The two groups contacted the websites' hosting providers to take them offline. Names of the affected sites was not released because the organizations want to deter P2P users from finding them elsewhere if they pop up under new domains.

"New sites are popping up, but we take these down faster and faster so they can't gain an audience," Tim Kuik, BREIN's director, said in a statement. "Our goal is to limit the availability of illegal sites so people rather use legal platforms. BREIN doesn’t publish any names because some sites relocate and start over elsewhere." The MPAA did not release a comment at all.

Last month, the two groups shut down 29 file-sharing websites hosted in the US. BREIN has been quite successful in using other anti-piracy groups such as the MPAA as a way to extend its reach beyond Dutch borders.





User Comments: 62

Got something to say? Post a comment
Guest said:

Money talks, Bullsh*t walks... this is such an example of a high profile organization, protecting actors multi million dollar salaries, even for those who can't act... if it wasnt for torrents, mp3s, etc... we'd still be paying 20-30 bucks for a CD and more for DVD.

Guest said:

Gotta love the DVD intro's

"YOU WOULDNT STEAL A CAR"

If i could download it i would have a veyron :D

Route44 Route44, TechSpot Ambassador, said:

Money talks, Bullsh*t walks... this is such an example of a high profile organization, protecting actors multi million dollar salaries, even for those who can't act... if it wasnt for torrents, mp3s, etc... we'd still be paying 20-30 bucks for a CD and more for DVD.

So because someone makes millions that is the logical reason given for stealing? It is theft no matter which way you try to paint it.

Guest said:

@Route44

If I paint it to look like the MPAA was killing puppies every time they took down a torrent site would you support torrents?

Guest said:

Oh well, nobody torrents anymore. Now anonymous fileshare download sites are in vogue. The industry is just playing whack-a-mole.

Guest said:

It's mostly stealing chris6006. You know it, I know it, we all know it. A small proportion, if any, is legal file sharing.

Wendig0 Wendig0, TechSpot Paladin, said:

And what about legal torrents? It seems that as long as the site is torrent centric, BREIN, and the MPAA don't care what content is on it. For every torrent site they take down, I foresee 10 or more popping up in its place. In the vastness that is the internet, this isn't even a drop in the bucket.

Benny26 Benny26, TechSpot Paladin, said:

Guest said:

if it wasnt for torrents, mp3s, etc... we'd still be paying 20-30 bucks for a CD and more for DVD.

Might have a good point there...I wonder where we would actually be now (price wise) if the music mogul's had a complete hold of the industry?

$5 a single track download maybe, who knows?

Cota Cota said:

So because someone makes millions that is the logical reason given for stealing? It is theft no matter which way you try to paint it.

Like if they cared about the artists, they get crap from each CD they sell, they get more money from concerts and propagandas they make, besides *cough* [link]

The big ones of music need to stop being stingy bastar*s.

Route44 Route44, TechSpot Ambassador, said:

Like if they cared about the artists, they get crap from each CD they sell, they get more money from concerts and propagandas they make, besides *cough* [link]

The big ones of music need to stop being stingy bastar*s.

So what? You have no argument. It is stealing plain and simple. If Torrent sites have nothing illegal content wise then they don't need to be shut down. You're "argument" goes like this: They're ripping off artists so it is okay for us steal from record companies. Circular, circular, circular.

@Chris6006: Go ahead and tell me the righteousness of your position as if the Torrent sites you visit and download from don't have illegal content. Do you have any illegal content, i.e. games and music that you didn't pay for but is someone else's hard work?

Guest said:

@Route44

Make no mistake...these organizations taking down these sites do not care one iota about the artists nor the other people employed to bring about the content. This is strictly a simple formula. The "industry" used to make A until the advent of digital distribution therefore now they are making B. They are not happy with B and therefore are doing what they can to get C which will not equal A however it is something right? This entire issue is about money all the way around and these sites were a method to stand up to the "industry" for raping the common man of their hard earned dollars for what is at least 80% garbage, be it filler music tracks, or terrible acting, screenplays, effects, etc. My biggest gripe is that they say you are pretty much just "renting" content from the "owners" therefore you cannot freely consume the content as you wished. Total rubbish. This would be like Toyota saying "you are renting your Camry" "you can use it on paved roads however you cannot use it on dirt roads" "if you wish to use the Camry on dirt roads you will need to pay x amount of dollars".

red1776 red1776, Omnipotent Ruler of the Universe, said:

And what about legal torrents? It seems that as long as the site is torrent centric, BREIN, and the MPAA don't care what content is on it. For every torrent site they take down, I foresee 10 or more popping up in its place. In the vastness that is the internet, this isn't even a drop in the bucket.

Yeah that sucks, the people sharing legal content are getting caught in the crossfire here.

It never fails to amaze me the depths of rationalization and compartmentalization used to justify stealing. It has been my considerable experience that the people who go through life with a 'what you got, and how am I gonna take it from you" attitude, are the loudest squealing,cry foul,"but that's mine, indignant whiners when something is taken from them, or someone arbitrarily helps themselves to the results of their efforts.

ramonsterns said:

It is stealing plain and simple.

No, it isn't. Otherwise, there'd be a whole lot more people in jail.

Leeky Leeky said:

Yeah that sucks, the people sharing legal content are getting caught in the crossfire here.

I have to say, often the best way of downloading Linux and other large ISO files for open source OS' are often by torrent - especially for those on slower connections as you can download it over several sessions on the computer.

I do hope that all these sites, torrent providers, and hosting sites for torrents don't begin to impact on the ability to still get the latest Linux distro.

I fear it will become a problem for innocent torrent users though.

red1776 red1776, Omnipotent Ruler of the Universe, said:

No, it isn't. Otherwise, there'd be a whole lot more people in jail.

If you are kidding, That is very clever satire...

if you're not, an instrument has not yet been devised that can measure the obtuseness of that statement.

Route44 Route44, TechSpot Ambassador, said:

No, it isn't. Otherwise, there'd be a whole lot more people in jail.

As they hide cloaked behind the internet... So by your "logic" I could come to your house, steal what I want after you worked hard, saved money, and purchased whatever said item it could be, but because no one was home and I didn't get caught I therefore by your reasoning didn't steal because I'm not in jail.

Right...

yRaz yRaz said:

Excuse me, nothing is being stolen. There is no physical copy so the only money lost is that of a lost sale. There isn't even a lost sale because most of the people wouldn't pay for it to begin with. If it wasn't available for free online, they wouldn't get it. Stealing a CD and stealing an MP3 are completely different. The information is simply copied, not stolen.

This is nothing more than people wanting obscene amounts of money for stuff that's worthless(district 9). I would buy CD's if it meant supporting the artist. However, that is not the case. I fail to see why people keep defending these multi-billion dollar corporations when all they want to do is hurt us. They make all this money and don't want to pay taxes on it, I will steal from them to make up for that. Consider all the songs stolen(copied) from a record company as them paying taxes like they should.

All of the evil that comes out of these corporations, how can anyone take their side? This is ridiculous, it's the same problem we have in politics. As mentioned before, they would charge ludicrous amounts of money if they could. Just look at the telecom companies, they will rip you off on data plans and unlimited text. Net neutrality is BS now, it is only a matter of time before comcast starts charging to us netflix on their internet. All this because people are too dumb to realize what is in their best interest. I don't want to pay for that stuff simply because I don't like what that business will do with my money. If my $10 for a CD goes to a lawyer for prosecuting someone then they WILL NOT get my money. They have not earned my money and they are not making a product worth the price they are asking.

/rant

red1776 red1776, Omnipotent Ruler of the Universe, said:

Excuse me, nothing is being stolen. There is no physical copy so the only money lost is that of a lost sale.

Good god, this old tired fallacy/rationalization again? Intellectual property is still property. Why do you think that something is only being stolen if you can hold it in your hand, or kick the tires? That's preposterous. Why do you think patent laws exist?...your excused.

There is no physical copy so the only money lost is that of a lost sale

yeah....whats your point?

. I fail to see why people keep defending these multi-billion dollar corporations when all they want to do is hurt us

I guess I can see your point...Microsoft walked right in my house the other day and beat up my wife and kids.

I don't want to pay for that stuff simply because I don't like what that business will do with my money

No! you don't pay for it because you don't want to part with the fruits of your efforts because you put value on it, while arbitrarily declaring others efforts worthless...Now that sounds like greed to me.

They have not earned my money and they are not making a product worth the price they are asking.

Isn't the precision of the universe amazing? I mean it always works out with you guys that the product fits neatly into that narrow window of not being worth paying for...and yet valuable enough to steal...wow, we have discovered a 5th dimension.

You are afforded every opportunity to not buy it if you thinks its not worth it, or wish to keep your moral high ground.

captaincranky captaincranky, TechSpot Addict, said:

If you are kidding, That is very clever satire...

if >> your << not, an instrument has not yet been devised that can measure the obtuseness of that statement.

OK, one more time; it's not "your", it's "you're".

Besides, how did you allow yourself to get sucked into this bizarre, periennial, self serving dogma, spouted by a bunch of sociopathic, teeny bopper, juvenile delinquents?

I'm thinking that this site should take some prophylactic action on its own to circumvent the rest of us having to listen to this BS.

For example; shut down the "Virus and Malware Removal" forum, and let them go someplace else to get their computers cleaned out, or do it themselves. That way, at least we'd gain some respite from the pathological discourse that always accompanies their posting to this type of thread.

Oh, I know, they're entitled to free malware removal, as well as free movies, programs and music. After all look who they are....nobody.

red1776 red1776, Omnipotent Ruler of the Universe, said:

OK, one more time; it's not "your", it's "you're".

Besides, how did you allow yourself to get sucked into this bizarre, periennial, self serving dogma, spouted by a bunch of sociopathic, teeny bopper, juvenile delinquents?

I'm thinking that this site should take some prophylactic action on its own to circumvent the rest of us having to listen to this BS.

For example; shut down the "Virus and Malware Removal" forum, and let them go someplace else to get their computers cleaned out, or do it themselves. That way, at least we'd gain some respite from the pathological discourse that always accompanies their posting to this type of thread.

Okay fixed...I got all worked up into a froth, I have been getting better at that however.

every once in a while I guess I feel a bit sadistic. And I was recruited into this one.

take some prophylactic action

I just thought of a new superhero!

Guest said:

To continue on from yRaz of sorts.

People in the old days would make tapes of music for one another, good ol cassettes eh. Exactly the same ol copyright law, just not on a grand scale as the internet. Its been about forever, now that its everywhere its apparently a problem.

And I dont like stealing, sure, the worlds full of tools who swipe cars, handbags, your tv when ya out, or asleep, its a crap world we live in. But... I do not believe the BS that comes out of these a-holes. They are not losing $100mil in revenue on gaming. You cant take the amount of downloads, multiply the going rate for said item, and come up with the figure you are missing.

That is unrealistic, and only for the douches that are brainwashed into believing all that they read or are told.

I like my Steam, i buy in sale, I guess I am getting old. I wont pay stupid prices like the young spoilt brats of the next generation, £40 for a game, £20 for a film, £15 for an album, are you kiddin me. I will never pay for those prices and no one should. NO ONE. And they won't. If and when they take down these sites, thats fine, I will love to see that day, when they realise, no huge revenue increase ? how come ? well ya govt is full of money grabbing weapon selling a-holes, and they hired ****** to look after the moneys, and its all gone, you owe to china who want nothing more than to see you eat yourselves, which will be when you start rioting and looting yourselves, when you find out you have no way to pay for ya medical bills and hiked taxes, coz you have no jobs, theres too many people on the planet with the increased population, of which most of it is china, waiting to pick the last few off.... the end of capatilism, the fall of man, the end of the world... end of communications....

captaincranky captaincranky, TechSpot Addict, said:

Well, Guest, nobody could argue with most of that. In truth, there is plenty of BS on both sides of the fence.

The exaggerated claims of loss by the entertainment industry= BS

The "nothing's been stolen", well, that's BS too.

I always thought that boycott was the route to lower prices. If something doesn't sell, then somebody will lower the price until it does.

But when you feel you're entitled to it, on the day it's released, for free, that's straight up sociopathy.

captaincranky captaincranky, TechSpot Addict, said:

Okay fixed...I got all worked up into a froth, I have been getting better at that however.

every once in a while I guess I feel a bit sadistic. And I was recruited into this one.

Since you full well know, that you'll never effect any change in attitude, why don't we call it, "masochistic".

"Recruited", or "subverted"? Oh well, you say to-may-to, I say "to-mah-to".

I just thought of a new superhero!
It's probably not the same one I'm thinking of. Er, that would be, "Internet Blocking Rootkit Man"....

yRaz yRaz said:

Good god, this old tired fallacy/rationalization again? Intellectual property is still property. Why do you think that something is only being stolen if you can hold it in your hand, or kick the tires? That's preposterous. Why do you think patent laws exist?...your excused.

patent laws are abused to the point where they have lost their original purpose, to protect the creator. Patents are mainly used for large corporations to sue each other now.

yeah....whats your point?

point is that no money was lost, they just didn't make any. Music, like any other art, should be free for everyone to appreciate. You can look at a painting online or barrow a book from a library, Both of those have the same effect that piracy does. I'm sure publishers would love for everyone to buy a book, but you don't see them making laws about it. The recording industry is nothing more than a middle man demanding ridiculous amounts of money. The artists work for their money by performing on stage, for the fans. The record companies pimp off the artists. THEY are the thieves.

I guess I can see your point...Microsoft walked right in my house the other day and beat up my wife and kids.

Dumb example, our rights are being taken away everyday.

No! you don't pay for it because you don't want to part with the fruits of your efforts because you put value on it, while arbitrarily declaring others efforts worthless...Now that sounds like greed to me.

It's called a boycott. I have a zune pass and a netflix account so I get this stuff close to free anyway.

Isn't the precision of the universe amazing? I mean it always works out with you guys that the product fits neatly into that narrow window of not being worth paying for...and yet valuable enough to steal...wow, we have discovered a 5th dimension.

You are afforded every opportunity to not buy it if you thinks its not worth it, or wish to keep your moral high ground.

Valuable enough to steal? It's so not worth my time that I wouldn't walk out the door to rent the damn thing. I wouldn't even walk next door and ask my neighbors for district 9 none the less pay for it at the lowest of prices. 3 clicks away? Maybe I'll watch it then. See, I'm not going to go out of my way to watch something if I'm only going to turn it off.

red1776 red1776, Omnipotent Ruler of the Universe, said:

They are not losing $100mil in revenue on gaming. You cant take the amount of downloads, multiply the going rate for said item, and come up with the figure you are missing.

Okay, so what? If they are losing $100 million....Its theft

If they are losing $1.98.. its theft.

Are suggesting that at some arbitrary point determined by you that it becomes okay?

as for the rest of that incoherent rant,

that's the furthest i have seen someone take subterfuge on the subject. Perhaps you might try laying off the Nyquil

captaincranky captaincranky, TechSpot Addict, said:

Valuable enough to steal? It's so not worth my time that I wouldn't walk out the door to rent the damn thing. I wouldn't even walk next door and ask my neighbors for district 9 none the less pay for it at the lowest of prices. 3 clicks away? Maybe I'll watch it then. See, I'm not going to go out of my way to watch something if I'm only going to turn it off.
Then why download it if you're only going to turn it off?

Wait a Minute! I know the answer to that. So you can come annoy us with some boorish, infantile post about how slick you are by doing so...!

No need to respond, I've answered my own question.

yRaz yRaz said:

captaincranky said: Then why download it if you're only going to turn it off?

Wait a Minute! I know the answer to that. So you can come annoy us with some boorish, infantile post about how slick you are by doing so...!

No need to respond, I've answered my own question.

Curiosity

I guess you're right, I over did it. I've been in an argumentative mood lately.

red1776 red1776, Omnipotent Ruler of the Universe, said:

so the only money lost is that of a lost sale

point is they no money was lost,

That one speaks for itself. ^

patent laws are abused to the point where they have lost their original purpose, to protect the creator. Patents are mainly used for large corporations to sue each other now.

i see, now the patent laws are worthless.

Dumb example, our rights are being taken away everyday.

See, Microsoft did not really come into my house and beat up my wife and kids...

It's called a boycott. I have a zune pass and a netflix account so I get this stuff close to free anyway

Great! do that, just don't steal .(directed at those who are obviously)

man you really hated district 9 huh?

Valuable enough to steal? It's so not worth my time that I wouldn't walk out the door to rent the damn thing

Again! You, I, everyone stealing, and defending theft, are afforded every opportunity to not buy it if you thinks its not worth it

.....TomSea must be unconscious or something

captaincranky captaincranky, TechSpot Addict, said:

Curiosity

I guess your right, i over did it. I've been in an argumentative mood lately.

Let's attribute it to, "cabin fever", shall we?

I have to say though, "Distric 9" was the perfect example of a movie that the MPAA should have paid people to watch, not the other way around.

.....TomSea must be unconscious or something

Yeah, where is old Tom when you need him the most, my fingers are getting tired.

(Update): As of 22 minutes ago, tom was over in the Sandy Bridge CPU thread. I too find it incomprehensible that he doesn't want a part of this gem.

yRaz yRaz said:

I think most of it should be free anyway. Yes, I hated district 9. It is the first thing that comes to mind when I think of something I don't want to pay for.

about the type-o. That post was very hard to edit because of the way it was formatted.

I have mixed feelings on movies. Music, however, should be free.

captaincranky captaincranky, TechSpot Addict, said:

Music, however, should be free.
Well no, they even paid the bands that played at Woodstock.

Besides, music is free. It's just the free music doesn't heed you're beckon call. So, the hard copy shouldn't be free, you should be happy with hearing what you want to hear, but when they want you to hear it.

Benny26 Benny26, TechSpot Paladin, said:

Captaincranky said:

I have to say though, "Distric 9" was the perfect example of a movie that the MPAA should have paid people to watch, not the other way around.

You got that right. Man, that was a bad film...90 odd minutes of my life i'll never get back.

Ahem! back to the topic....Errr yeah, i agree

red1776 red1776, Omnipotent Ruler of the Universe, said:

I have mixed feelings on movies. Music, however, should be free.

I swear to god I will never understand the mindset that rationalizes that "music should be free"

why? seriously help me understand this.

It is a product like anything else. It has commercial value,entertainment value, etc. its what some people do for a living. How on Gods green earth do you make it work in your mind that that this particular product should be free?

let me ask you something. I don't know if you are old enough to be working for a living or not, however, what if a group arbitrarily decided what you do for a living, what you produce by your labor and creativity should be free?...confiscated at anothers whim? such as you think theirs should be?

captaincranky captaincranky, TechSpot Addict, said:

I actually thought that paid digital downloads had taken away the biggest ,(legitimate), complaint that music buyers had. That would be, "there's only one track on the whole album worth listening to". Problem solved, you pay your 99 cents for that track, and voila, problem solved!

red1776 red1776, Omnipotent Ruler of the Universe, said:

I actually thought that paid digital downloads had taken away the biggest ,(legitimate), complaint that music buyers had. That would be, "there's only one track on the whole album worth listening to". Problem solved, you pay your 99 cents for that track, and voila, problem solved!

Yeah, so did I...they all said that, then showed their true colors when that wasn't good enough.

Leeky Leeky said:

@Captain,

I have to actually agree there, it does provide an excellent solution for that argument. I don't really think the cost is a problem really, considering the cost of an album in the grand scheme of things.

captaincranky captaincranky, TechSpot Addict, said:

It actually chastens the artists whose single tracks are being downloaded also, since they're not getting royalties of the entire album, just one song. Maybe they'll try harder the next time. Buy some better amps, snort some better coke, something.

Leeky Leeky said:

Or just make more of an effort?

red1776 red1776, Omnipotent Ruler of the Universe, said:

Since you full well know, that you'll never effect any change in attitude, why don't we call it, "masochistic".

That's actually what I intended. I better lay down.

Guest said:

The way that it should be looked at is this.

It is only harmful/loss of income IF i was actually going to buy it from some legal purchase means.

If i wasn't able to obtain it illegally and for free, I wouldn't have it anyways.

I won't feel guilty since no end person looses anything on an unlimited supply.

Simple.

Guest said:

i seriously think, that if we pay the internet bills.. anything on the internet is pretty much yours..you are getting what you pay for.. now.. there are lots of ppl who really dont know how to use torrent websites thats why they just check their mail and Facebook..i think if you download it.. for personal use is good.. but if u start making profit for others work.. then that is just shaddy.. unless you share it. and not sell it it.. but it really is tough in these times.. of economic struggles for those who can barely afford a dvd

Staff
Rick Rick, TechSpot Staff, said:

red1776 said:

Excuse me, nothing is being stolen. There is no physical copy so the only money lost is that of a lost sale.

Good god, this old tired fallacy/rationalization again? Intellectual property is still property. Why do you think that something is only being stolen if you can hold it in your hand, or kick the tires? That's preposterous. Why do you think patent laws exist?...your excused.

Purely hypothetical: If I had a replicator (ala Star Trek) and somehow replicated a Toyota Camry for myself, would you consider it grand larceny? I find it hard to believe anyone would answer an unequivocal YES to that without at least SOME fine print to their argument.

Perhaps this a bit pedantic, but "stealing" is NOT the proper word. The proper word is "infringing". You don't infringe upon someone's wallet. You steal it. Likewise, you don't steal someone's data, you infringe upon it (unless you actually removed it from their possession, of course).

Infringement is NOT stealing. That is a fact, supported by laws.

Does that make it ok? NO, there's definitely something wrong there. But is it theft as in robbery or embezzlement? Absolutely not.

You (ironically) are the one with the false argument. You are making the case that it is stealing in the first place and it is not. You're just spouting more of the same old rhetocial fear, uncertainty and doubt oozing from every pore of the media. You may be very passionate about copyright infringement and that's great, but you should re-evaluate the mechanics of your arguments otherwise you can't really have a good discussion about it.

captaincranky captaincranky, TechSpot Addict, said:

Purely hypothetical: If I had a replicator (ala Star Trek) and somehow replicated a Toyota Camry for myself, would you consider it grand larceny? I find it hard to believe anyone would answer an unequivocal YES to that without at least SOME fine print to their argument.
Assuming you obtained the raw materials for this "conversion" probably not. But you have infringed on Toyota's patents, and their trademark. Accordingly, it would be a felony to operate it, and certainly to redistribute it.

Perhaps this a bit pedantic, but "stealing" is NOT the proper word. The proper word is "infringing". You don't infringe upon someone's wallet. You steal it. Likewise, you don't steal someone's data, you infringe upon it (unless you actually removed it from their possession, of course).
No, it's actually the height of pedantry, when an attempt is made to float this nonsense past anyone over third grade. This is the inane portion of the program where we argue that "farting" is not the proper word, but rather "flatulence" is.

Infringement is NOT stealing. That is a fact, supported by laws.
"Infringement" is stealing, and it is the name we apply to the mechanism by which theft of trademark, copyright, intellectual property, or patent concept theft occurs, period.

"Infringement", describes those thefts, and it's criminal punishment can easily be at parity with "GTA". You all know what that means, right?

Your post here is nothing more than yet another version of "to-may-to", "to-mah-to", dogma. It is granted, a cut above, "it wasn't worth buying so I downloaded it.

Ya know, at the end of the day, I don't give a hoot who downloads what. What I'd really like, is for them to go off and "infringe" quietly, and quit running their yaps in open forum, displaying just how, slick, and important they think they are. When in actuality, they are only ignorant and mouthy. At the end of the same day, the majority of those running their mouths here, are more than likely the "leeches" of the torrents anyway, not the seeds.

And if you'll forgive me for being a "little pedantic", another word for leech might be "parasite". So, I would say it's not "leeching" from a torrent, it's being a "parsite" at a torrent.

And now Rick, how do you feel about kicking those semantics around for a while?

Darkshadoe Darkshadoe said:

Companies and their advertisers cram click ads and banners down our throats and take up valuable browser real estate without user permission. People illegally download their products without company permission. Fair trade I think.

captaincranky captaincranky, TechSpot Addict, said:

Companies and their advertisers cram click ads and banners down our throats and take up valuable browser real estate without user permission. People illegally download their products without company permission. Fair trade I think.
Yeah well, that's a cute postulation, but "Adblock Plus would get rid of the ads, then how would you justify the infringement?

Staff
Rick Rick, TechSpot Staff, said:

Accordingly, it would be a felony to operate it, and certainly to redistribute it.

Exactly. And for those reasons it would be wrong, but it wouldn't be grand theft in any way, shape or form.

captaincranky said:

And now Rick, how do you feel about kicking those semantics around for a while?

I feel just fine kicking around semantics because it *matters* here, much as it does when it comes to law. Distinction of terms counts, because the difference between manslaughter and murder are huge in regards to our laws.

Tell me with a straight face that you'd feel just as bad if you never knew someone made a perfect copy of your car while you were sleeping as you would if they had physically stolen it and you woke up to an empty parking space. You'd be full of s@#$ if you said yes. I know you aren't that stupid and I know most other people aren't.

There's a big difference between stealing a car off a lot and making a perfect duplicate for yourself (impossible of course, but file copying sufficiently mimics such magic).

Whether or not it is wrong to copy media isn't up for debate. Hell yes it is wrong and illegal, but it isn't stealing. It isn't (typically) the same severity as stealing either. That doesn't make it right, but it makes all the difference at the end of the day when you're being prosecuted for the infringement of someone's intellectual property.

Intellectual property "theft" can actually be WORSE than physical theft. When you copy the protected ideas of others (not just talking about music here), distribute it, sell the results etc... The damage can be huge. But the tired old argument of all those crybabies out there (most of which are lying) of "I wasn't going to buy it anyway!" really DOES matter, like it or not.

In a court, intent matters. Loss matters. Many things matter and the depth of that conversation is subverted by people who make this a "stealing is wrong!" debate. Of course stealing is wrong... now can we get discuss copying music again?

Guest said:

File sharing is legal in Canada Woop Woop

Darkshadoe Darkshadoe said:

captaincranky said:

Companies and their advertisers cram click ads and banners down our throats and take up valuable browser real estate without user permission. People illegally download their products without company permission. Fair trade I think.
Yeah well, that's a cure postulation, but "Adblock Plus would get rid of the ads, then how would you justify the infringement?

On the flip side, why should I have to be subject to their ads if I do not illegally download? Why should I have to download a tool to get rid of them wasting my time and bandwidth? The software, music, and movie industries want to nickel and dime the consumer to death by all these fees and licenses, why can't I be just irritating by wanting to be paid for them to display an ad on my monitor? They want all this information like email addresses and other personal data for free, why can't they expect to give something free in return?

Yes i know, this will probably never happen. Its just something to think about. I really could care less what anybody does with their internet. If you illegally download, then shut up and continue on until you get caught. If you don't, then more power to you.

captaincranky captaincranky, TechSpot Addict, said:

Tell me with a straight face that you'd feel just as bad if you never knew someone made a perfect copy of your car while you were sleeping as you would if they had physically stolen it and you woke up to an empty parking space. You'd be full of s@#$ if you said yes. I know you aren't that stupid and I know most other people aren't.
This isn't really a fair question, due to context. You're quite correct insofar as you your conclusion, but since the car doesn't represent my "intellectual property", but in fact, physical property. You can't use one, as a comparison for the other. The analog is flawed. That's why we use different nomenclature for different types of theft.

To tap into another hypothetical situation, let's say I wrote a song, you came to my house, got me drunk, and stole the only copy I had, then beat me to the copyright office with it. Should you be charged with 2 crimes, or just 1? If only one, which one?

There's a big difference between stealing a car off a lot and making a perfect duplicate for yourself (impossible of course, but file copying sufficiently mimics such magic).
Of course there is, but again the physical property, to intellectual property analog is invalid. Since you're so fond of this line of reasoning, perhaps you might find, "if a tree falls in the forest, does it make a sound", equally fraught with enough doggerel to be entertaining.

Whether or not it is wrong to copy media isn't up for debate. Hell yes it is wrong and illegal, but it isn't stealing. It isn't (typically) the same severity as stealing either. That doesn't make it right, but it makes all the difference at the end of the day when you're being prosecuted for the infringement of someone's intellectual property.

But the tired old argument of all those crybabies out there (most of which are lying) of "I wasn't going to buy it anyway!" really DOES matter, like it or not.

You're preaching to the choir here. I don't think that the entertainment industry has the right to claim $xxx.xxx.xx losses, when in reality they only suffered $xxx.xx in actual losses. And that's a point for the torrent set, I suppose. But there's the, "it wasn't worth buying so I stole it BS", coming from that side of the bathroom.

In a court, intent matters. Loss matters. Many things matter and the depth of that conversation is subverted by people who make this a "stealing is wrong!" debate. Of course stealing is wrong... now can we get discuss copying music again?
The RIAA is a bunch of Fascist looney toons who think that every time you need music you've purchased in a different format, for your own purposes, that you should rebuy it!

I buy CDs I like, because I like to have them. That said, I don't buy CDs I don't like just to have them. But, I do believe, that hardcore music down loaders, take as much as they can, just because they can. The net result of this is, they just hand the RIAA the ammunition they need to concoct the bizarre numbers regarding, "industry losses", that they need to further influence legislation.

When I was young, we smoked pot, dodged the draft, played hooky from school, and fornicated out of wedlock. That said, we knew it was wrong, and had the good taste to shut up about it, instead of standing on a soapbox and giving socio-pathological rants about it, claiming it was right, justifying it to ourselves, and whichever other juvenile delinquents who were unfortunate to have to listen to it..

And "intent" really doesn't matter that much in court. For example, "I went there to propose marriage, but I caught her in bed with another man, so I killed both of them. I didn't mean it, I just went crazy. How far do you think that would fly in a court of law? Once upon a time in a French Court maybe. But hey, as far as I'm concerned, she wouldn't shave her armpits, so he can keep her. Do you get the analog there? Or maybe I should have said, "she won't shave her armpits, smells like a cow, is flat out ugly, so I'll steal her to put her out of her misery".

One last thought: I was brought up to believe that, "two wrongs don't make a right"! Yet all the BS that comes out of the downloading set, flies directly in the face of that concept. So what do you think Rick, do two wrongs make a right?

drufense said:

Some would say no matter how you rationalize it, ''stealing is stealing'' and that is what downloading copyrighted material from torrent sites is, as long as the law exists. Others would say, if these avenues of getting some of these materials didnt exist at all, then everyone will be forced to pay unfair and insanely high prices for any material, great or crap, as long as it's been copyrighted! I do wonder: for those who say it's stealing, some of these same laws make you a criminal whenever you lend your dvd to your girlfriend, or get several music tracks via bluetooth from your colleagues or borrow your friends ps3 disc to finish the offline mode of a game since your disc got scratched, or copy your friends pc game after your computer crashed and your installation disc was no where to be found,as far as you don't ask for permission from the copyright owners.i must say that if you have never been guilty of these or anything similar, i fear you may not be human! Dont you think there's something wrong if you cant do these?? All these also result in lost revenue and according to these laws, more than half of the population may be criminals!this is what filesharing including torrents achieve, just on a larger scale(as long as no form of payment is involved). Agreed, it does get to the point where it's worrisome for those who have a stake in it, but that said,i think some of those who stand on the high moral ground of ''stealing is stealing'' are hypochrites because of reasons stated above. Sometimes, not everything in life is black or white. But one thing is sure: Good products will always sell even in a world where torrents exist and unfairly high prices for materials,especially those not worth it (eg some ps3 games or district 9 ;)), will always promote some form of piracy. If anyone is againt torrents/existence of torrent sites/filesharing because of it's tendency to be used in distributing copyrighted work then there's something wrong cos they may as well be against the computer! In life,somehow there's always a balance and i think this situation isn't any different as efforts on both sides seem to balance each other.

Load all comments...

Add New Comment

TechSpot Members
Login or sign up for free,
it takes about 30 seconds.
You may also...
Get complete access to the TechSpot community. Join thousands of technology enthusiasts that contribute and share knowledge in our forum. Get a private inbox, upload your own photo gallery and more.