Bittorrent site files charges against media companies

[HoreTore]

I doubt they ever imagined this would happen...

TPB files charges against media companies

Thanks to the email-leakage from MediaDefender-Defenders we now have proof of the things we've been suspecting for a long time; the big record and movie labels are paying professional hackers, saboteurs and ddosers to destroy our trackers.

While browsing through the email we identified the companies that are also active in Sweden and we have tonight reported these incidents to the police. The charges are infrastructural sabotage, denial of service attacks, hacking and spamming, all of these on a commercial level.

The companies that are being reported are the following:

* Twentieth Century Fox, Sweden AB
* Emi Music Sweden AB
* Universal Music Group Sweden AB
* Universal Pictures Nordic AB
* Paramount Home Entertainment (Sweden) AB
* Atari Nordic AB
* Activision Nordic Filial Till Activision (Uk) Ltd
* Ubisoft Sweden AB
* Sony Bmg Music Entertainment (Sweden) AB
* Sony Pictures Home Entertainment Nordic AB

Stay tuned for updates.

EDIT: Oh, and do remember the forum rules... No posting of links to pirate sites, encourage piracy etc... Now can I have my cookie, mods?

[TB666]

I'm not surprised that they are doing it really but I bet that they are surprised that they got busted.
But I doubt anything will happen, their lobby groups are too powerful.
Still kudos to TPB for fighting the good fight.

[Papewaio]

It will be interesting. Considering even if the Bittorrent site was being used for criminal purposes by some members it does not allow the corporations to use criminal attacks on the sites. It would be the equivalent to a concert having stalls and some of them bootlegged variants, with the media companies sending in heavies to rough up all the stall owners... not allowed. IF the media companies have an issue they still have to go through legal means. Taking the law into their own hands should invoke heavy penalties from the state as it is a basic matter of sovereignty.

[Beirut]

Fight the Machine!

I love it when big corporations get whacked.

[Watchman]

While I must admit my take on the whole P2P thing has always been somewhat uncomfortably conflicted, I've never been a fan of vigilantism. Doubly so when practiced by fiscal entities motivated mainly by their concern of the almighty Bottom Line, and here quite likely also a fair bit of petty spite.

[Uesugi Kenshin]

I'm a big fan of seeing corporations taken down a notch and very paranoid about corporations getting too much power, so yeah they should get smacked for this.

[FactionHeir]

Now they just have to prove that this email is real and and the contents valid.

Still, its good to see that the media giants are being hit. Especially the producers of SecuROM (albeit the Swedish branch)

[HoreTore]

The statement above was taken from a blog-like article on the site, and the users could make comments on it... 500 replies, didn't read through much of it, but this one was pretty good:

Actors, producers, directors, musicians, entertainment corporations...if they actually were losing money from torrents, maybe they'd be a little more economical with the money they have left and stop producing rehashes of the summer and holiday filler movies and the crappy bands that write formula money making music. Maybe we'd have more quality product coming out...the stuff that really can only be found in independent circles anymore. Maybe they'd stop trying to raise prices just to save their asses. Maybe they'd adapt to today's society and actually listen to their consumers. Me, I'll actually pay for anything that's fairly priced, isn't going to invade my privacy and is of high quality. Otherwise, it's just garbage anyway and the corps don't deserve to make a penny from garbage.

They think they can play by old rules and slam the people into submission, but they need to learn the new rules of economy if they want to survive. If they were really worried about money, they'd all take a paycut and move to Kentucky.

[Mikeus Caesar]

Having download those MediaDefender emails when they were first released, i can backup TPB's claims.

Good luck and god speed to TPB in fighting the corporate giants.

[Geoffrey S]

Just goes to show how ineffective current anti-piracy laws are considered to be by companies losing money due to illegal downloads.

[Fragony]

Owwwwwwwwww I like

[HoreTore]

Just goes to show how ineffective current anti-piracy laws are considered to be by companies losing money due to illegal downloads.

If they actually are losing that much money, I can't really see how they can afford to pay Tom Cruise 20 million dollars for a movie...

[Geoffrey S]

If they actually are losing that much money, I can't really see how they can afford to pay Tom Cruise 20 million dollars for a movie...

No, I agree that they really need to work on where their finances go. But is that ever a good excuse to steal, that someone's got enough money anyway?

[HoreTore]

No, I agree that they really need to work on where their finances go. But is that ever a good excuse to steal, that someone's got enough money anyway?

Stealing from the rich and giving to the poor is the best excuse ever.

Worked wonders for Robin Hood.

[KukriKhan]

Careful. We were doing fine, until we started advocating theft as social justice.

[Slyspy]

Praise of Robin Hood is not allowed?

Breach of copyright is theft?

[drone]

Careful. We were doing fine, until we started advocating theft as social justice.

Well, technically piracy is not theft. But I agree that artists should get paid for their work, and blatant piracy isn't the way to go.

I'm not sure about movies (they cost more to make and finance), but the old way of selling music needs to change. I'd be more than happy to see the artists themselves distributing their work and marketing themselves. With online digital distribution, this should be easy to do, and some bands are taking this step. Cutting out the middleman should have artists getting more of the profits. If a few music execs have to lose their jobs because of it, well, I don't really have a problem with that. There is no law stating that a company has to be profitable, if the series of tubes can make a business model obsolete, so be it.

Considering the extortion campaign currently being run by the RIAA here in the States, it's nice to see them getting nailed for their indiscretions elsewhere. Hopefully, the Swedish police/courts aren't bought out yet.

[TB666]

Considering the extortion campaign currently being run by the RIAA here in the States, it's nice to see them getting nailed for their indiscretions elsewhere. Hopefully, the Swedish police/courts aren't bought out yet.

Not yet. Their attempts to change our constitution so far has been denied.
Hopefully our goverment will resist them.

[Watchman]

Worked wonders for Robin Hood.

The surprisingly widepsread amount of popular support bandits have at times enjoyed has historically really stemmed from a simpler source - the commoners usually hated their overlords enough to be willing to root for about anyone opposing the authorities, whatever his reasons, which pirates and bandits obvioously do sort of by default. (Except of course if they came and murdered *him* on the side...)
That they also tended to pay their assorted contacts, supporters, fences etc. quite well of course didn't hurt.

[Papewaio]

Breach of copyright is theft?

Breach of copyright certainly can cover theft. Photocoping an entire book, copying a chip layout etc. I don't know of anywhere that condones stealing another's work just because it is made by the sweat of invention. What I do know is that there are worse things then stealing, one of which is corporate sabotage (destruction of information) and vigilantism.

Bittorent in and of itself is an infrastructure for P2P it is no more guilty of copyright theft then a highway can be found guilty of drunk driving.

As for Robin Hood he is more myth then fact... which King signed the Magna Carta after all (and what political pressure was he under to do so?).

[Watchman]

As for Robin Hood he is more myth then fact...

Albeit one well established early on.

[Slyspy]

Breach of copyright certainly can cover theft. Photocoping an entire book, copying a chip layout etc. I don't know of anywhere that condones stealing another's work just because it is made by the sweat of invention. What I do know is that there are worse things then stealing, one of which is corporate sabotage (destruction of information) and vigilantism.

Bittorent in and of itself is an infrastructure for P2P it is no more guilty of copyright theft then a highway can be found guilty of drunk driving.

As for Robin Hood he is more myth then fact... which King signed the Magna Carta after all (and what political pressure was he under to do so?).

I don't know about Sweden (or Australia) but generally breach of copyright is not theft for the simple reason that you are not denying the copyright owner use of his property.

Corporate sabotage of this sort should, if true, be dealt with extremely harshly. But I look at that list and it makes me doubt that the case will get anywhere, though Sony for one has been in trouble over copyright protection before.

Discussion about whether Robin Hood was real or a myth has no bearing here, except to prove that said discussion is, in fact, allowed! John signed Magna Carta because he had to, I'm not sure what you mean.

[Papewaio]

Robin hood was brought up as a good reason to steal.

I was hinting that the facts don't match the reality... King John ended up doing a lot of good by signing the Magna Carta and as such should be remembered as a good guy in history... I also alluded that it wasn't done purely out of altruism... just the barons wanted a bigger cut... but they did allow more freedoms for the rest of the people in the process (I suppose they wanted as much support as possible... maybe this is the first example of pork barreling).

[HoreTore]

Robin hood was brought up as a good reason to steal.

If it was me you were referring to, then no, it was not... I said it was a good excuse to steal, no a good reason to steal...

And that does not imply that doing it is right either. For example, if someone is annoying the hell out of you, then that's a good excuse for kicking his arse. But it doesn't make it the right thing to do...

[Geoffrey S]

I don't know about Sweden (or Australia) but generally breach of copyright is not theft for the simple reason that you are not denying the copyright owner use of his property.

That's what I mean. Current copyright laws are archaic and ineffective, not suitably geared up to mass distribution and the presence of internet. While I can't condone corporate sabotage, that they resort to it is to some extent an illustration of why the relevant laws need a lot of improvement.

[Blodrast]

That's what I mean. Current copyright laws are archaic and ineffective, not suitably geared up to mass distribution and the presence of internet. While I can't condone corporate sabotage, that they resort to it is to some extent an illustration of why the relevant laws need a lot of improvement.

Your comment seems kinda one-sided to me, Geoffrey. Do you feel that the extension of copyrights, potentially to an indefinite term, is "fair" ?

Please do note the distinction between "fair" and "legal". Hopefully many of you are aware that laws today are, in a lot of cases, passed in the favor of corporations, who more or less "own" the law-making politicians, and many things that were legal yesterday are suddenly no longer legal today, just because the nice corporations managed to buy yet another batch of politicians who then passed laws in their favor.
You want me to support my claim ? Sure, here you go:Canadian Heritage Copyright Policy Rocked By Conflict of Interest Concerns (summary: The infamous C-59 Bill got through the Parliament with an amazing speed... and perhaps that is not unrelated to the fact that Patricia Neri, the Director General of Copyright Policy at Canadian Heritage has been removed from her position to become a special advisor to Assistant Deputy Minister Jean-Pierre Blais, because of her intimate personal relationship with "one of Canada’s leading copyright lobbyists. ").

Some more ? Why, certainly: Oda Funding Controversy May Derail Broadcast and Copyright Policy (summary:

With Oda installed as the Conservative Canadian Heritage critic, her riding association last year reported contributions from a veritable who's who of broadcast and copyright lobby groups and companies. These include broadcasters (Corus, Vision TV), cable companies (Rogers, Shaw, and Cogeco), record companies (Sony, Universal, Warner, EMI), and copyright lobby groups (Canadian Recording Industry Association, Canadian Motion Pictures Distributors Association, Entertainment Software Association).

Moreover, as the odds-on favourite to become the Minister of Canadian Heritage, Oda accepted thousands of dollars from broadcasting and copyright interests during the most recent election campaign, with her two largest contributions coming from individuals linked to two industry giants - Rogers and Standard Radio.

).

And the list goes on... so the fact that something is "law" does not particularly impress me, or mean anything.
I'm not advising that we should all break the law here; I'm saying that there is plenty of proof that many laws are simply passed by corrupt politicians to satisfy various lobby groups who practically own them, and that we are all familiar with absurd, ridiculous or unjust laws (whites-only places anyone ?). So the fact that something is law does not make it right, and you can ask Rosa Parks to explain that better.

[Geoffrey S]

That seems to me a gross misrepresentation of what I actually said. No, I find such an application of copyright laws thoroughly counterproductive, and no, I don't believe the laws right now are correct. What I said is that current laws, and I quote:

...are archaic and ineffective, not suitably geared up to mass distribution and the presence of internet.

There is too little clarity, too little account taken of modern technology, and the laws are thoroughly un-enforceable. They need changing, since as things stand now it's clear both the consumer and the corporations lose, the consumer if laws were strictly followed and the corporations in practical reality. I don't favour one or the other side myself since I view access to goods like cds and movies as a luxury rather than a right, but the fact that people download media illegally in large amounts and the lengths that corporations appear to go to in order to prevent that show how flawed current copyright laws are.

Your post implies I'm in favour of giving the corporations virtually unlimited power and time when it comes to copyright. I'm not, I don't see where you get that from, and I find it a curious attempt to project such a view on me. And then you suddenly bring civil rights into it...

[Blodrast]

That seems to me a gross misrepresentation of what I actually said. No, I find such an application of copyright laws thoroughly counterproductive, and no, I don't believe the laws right now are correct. What I said is that current laws, and I quote:

There is too little clarity, too little account taken of modern technology, and the laws are thoroughly un-enforceable. They need changing, since as things stand now it's clear both the consumer and the corporations lose, the consumer if laws were strictly followed and the corporations in practical reality. I don't favour one or the other side myself since I view access to goods like cds and movies as a luxury rather than a right, but the fact that people download media illegally in large amounts and the lengths that corporations appear to go to in order to prevent that show how flawed current copyright laws are.

Your post implies I'm in favour of giving the corporations virtually unlimited power and time when it comes to copyright. I'm not, I don't see where you get that from, and I find it a curious attempt to project such a view on me. And then you suddenly bring civil rights into it...

Oh well, that was what I had inferred from the context, seeing how virtually all the copyright-related laws are laws that restrict rights of the user, and empower the corporations, practically (although a lawyer could argue that the laws empower the "content owners", but for all practical purposes, those are the corporations in most cases).

Also, this is one of the commonly waved arguments of these corporations: the laws are obsolete (they don't consider the Internet as a cheap and efficient distribution medium), and they need to be fixed. It's exactly the same phrasing.

So you can see how I took it to be in the same spirit...

So if I misinterpreted it, my apologies.

The civil rights part: is only partially in reply to you; earlier in this thread people mentioned the laws and all that, and my point was that laws don't always make sense, and sometimes it's not a bad thing to break these laws. And I gave the Rosa Parks example, where she broke the law - which was a stupid and unjust law - much like I consider some of these copyright and IP-related laws (DRM forced upon you, no rights to private copies, etc).
I can understand, for example, that Kukri has to enforce the rules of this forum, but we should still be aware that the fact that something is passed into law does not make it right.

I hope I managed to clear a bit of the confusion...
Also, I wrote that _very_ early in the morning, sorry if it wasn't coherent enough.

[Caius]

I cant believe this.

So, they steal and claim to be attacked? I cant believe this.

[Watchman]

What part of "taking the law into your own hands" you missed ?