TorrentSpy ordered to pay $110m damages

[Argel]

Given the number of posts on this site giving advice on how to circumvent DRM, can it be long before they come for Mobileread?

Sauce for the goose etc.

Argel

[Steve Jordan]

Originally Posted by Argel

Given the number of posts on this site giving advice on how to circumvent DRM, can it be long before they come for Mobileread?

Yes, it is discussed among members. But there aren't as many posts "giving advice on how to circumvent DRM" as you might suggest... far fewer than the posts dedicated to finding and enjoying e-books, and discussing the state of the industry (as we are now).

And as it is Mobileread policy to prohibit direct instructions or details on how to circumvent DRM (or, by extension, to pirate copywritten works), and to remove any such posts by members where they occur, I don't think Mobileread has anything to be worried about.

[pilotbob]

Since this is a forum safe harbor rules apply. (Then again, the sites not in the US, does Canada have safe harbor rules?)

BOb

[Adam B.]

I think media companies have to get with the times and change the way they do business. This is the only real way to fight file "sharing" and whatnot. I think that reasonably priced subscription models are the best way to do this.

For example: I love movies. I have a Netflix subscription. I pay them $30 a month to rent 3 movies as a time, as many times as I can send back and forth throughout the month. I would gladly pay $20 more, to have the ability to instantly watch any movie in their catalog at a moments notice streamed from the internet. They're making progress by having "watch it now" movies, but I've yet to see an "all you can eat", high quality, movie buffet at a reasonable cost.

However, there are ways to get exactly that for free on the internet. A "less than ethical" person can go to a file sharing site, search for the movie they want to watch, and have it in a few hours. The movie studios aren't even trying to build something comparable. Give people products at a reasonable price with the convince they need, and they'll will buy.

[mores]

Adam ... are you aware of Apple's rent-a-movie feature in iTunes?

http://www.apple.com/itunes/store/movies.html
Standard-definition movie rentals are $2.99 for library titles and $3.99 for new releases. And for just a dollar more, you can rent HD movies directly from your widescreen TV via Apple TV. Rent a movie and you have 30 days to start watching it. Hit Play, and you have 24 hours to finish it — or play it as many times as you want. Rentals disappear when they expire, so they won’t take up storage space on your hard drive.

From what I could see in various presentation videos (i.e. the keynote), it loads real fast, streams properly and does not require you to wait till it's finished like when you're downloading a torrent.
(not that I'd even know what that is ...)

[Adam B.]

I get most of my movies in high def from Netflix, so at $5.99 for a new release, I can only watch 5 movies a month under Apple's pricing before I hit the Netflix price. That's why I'm a fan of the "subscription" model.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by mores

Adam ... are you aware of Apple's rent-a-movie feature in iTunes?
From what I could see in various presentation videos (i.e. the keynote), it loads real fast, streams properly and does not require you to wait till it's finished like when you're downloading a torrent.
(not that I'd even know what that is ...)

Microsoft offer a very similar service for the XBox 360.

[Ervserver]

I wonder if the MPAA offers a monthly payment plan

Originally Posted by HarryT

From the BBC News web site:

File-sharing site TorrentSpy has been ordered to pay $110m (£56m) in damages to the Motion Picture Association of America for copyright infringement.

For more information, see:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/7389485.stm

[Trenien]

Originally Posted by JAcheson

The problem is, torrent search sites aren't in the business of facilitating legal transactions, those are at best a smokescreen for their real business of facilitating piracy.

Note too that nobody is saying that BitTorrent should be prosecuted, which would be the closest parallel with the Sony VCR case. Because there are plenty of legal uses for torrents.

But, like weeding your garden, you have to put the effort into regularly stomping the major offenders in piracy, or else things will get completely out of control.

Get real! Things are already way out of control. They just haven't admited it yet, and such cases are just part of the few casualties that will occur before they do.

The cat is out of the bag, has eaten the mouse and canary and is on its way to finish the milk over in the fridge while the "owners" are screaming and running in mad circles around the broken cage.

[Darqref]

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

Wow... and another soul-crushing damages verdict is levied.

When I read about this story, what immediately comes to mind is the court case(s) against the Tobacco and cigarette industry a few years ago. At the time, the damages asked sounded astronomical but were actually quite small compared to the level of medical expenses incurred by all the addicts. However, I read several places that the court could NOT set the damages high enough to bankrupt the companies, or even seriously damage them.

Compare this to all the recent court cases against p2p companies, and you see a dramatic difference.

So, we're allowed to levy court fines large enough to bankrupt p2p companies that only cause some (possible) monetary damage to some copyright holders, but we get our fingers slapped if we try to do the same thing to companies that knowingly caused cancers.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Darqref

So, we're allowed to levy court fines large enough to bankrupt p2p companies that only cause some (possible) monetary damage to some copyright holders, but we get our fingers slapped if we try to do the same thing to companies that knowingly caused cancers.

The link between cigarette smoking and cancer has been well-established for what? 40 years now? Sorry, but if you smoke, knowing that, you're doing so through your own free choice. Nobody's forcing you to do so. It's no use smoking for 20 years and then saying "oh, these evil cigarette companies - look what they've done to me!".

[gwynevans]

Originally Posted by HarryT

As bankrupts, those people will (assuming it works the same as it does in the UK) for forever barred from being directors of companies

Just to clarify, you're missing the critical word "undischarged", i.e. it should be "As undischarged bankrupts, ...". As an aside, a bankruptcy will normally be discharged one year after the date the bankruptcy was awarded.

Certainly the effect on credit ratings, etc, is much longer term, but the "forever barred" is incorrect. See here for info, for example.

[Fitzwaryn]

The reality is that as fast as people like the RIAA shut down one source of files, another springs up or is already in place and simply handles the new load as people move to it from the one shut down.

Usenet Binaries are full of movies, games, books and pretty much everything else you might want to find only difference being Usenet requires a little bit more technical knowledge to make use of. Is the RIAA going to try to shut down all the Usenet providers in the US? And when they do... that simply means people will shift to non-US Usenet providers.

The Internet is worldwide and it extends well beyond the reach of US laws and US courts.

I don't think the silly people at RIAA even remotely believe they can shut such things down and put a stop to them.

I think what is happening is that these folks don't have a clue as to what's really happening or the imagination to come up with new ways of using the technology that exists to distribute media but are simply looking for short term ways to increase quarterly profits. I think they figure that doing so will benefit them personally and it is someone else's problem later on as to how to deal with the new "reality" of the changing technology.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Fitzwaryn

The reality is that as fast as people like the RIAA shut down one source of files, another springs up or is already in place and simply handles the new load as people move to it from the one shut down.

Should we stop trying to catch and punish criminals on the grounds that more will simply appear to replace the ones who are caught? That's what it sounds as if you're suggesting!

[Steve Jordan]

Darqref's comment about the tobacco industry is a good one. Maybe people willingly bought the product, but they did not know to what extent the industry purposely made that product unhealthy or addictive. And any other industry caught in such a guilty state, with less of the financial resources of Big Tobacco, would have found their products banned on the continent.

In that case, Tobacco money fought the courts, and the companies are still in business. In the TorrentSpy case, Hollywood was on the side of the courts, and TorrentSpy got pasted.

It just demonstrates how the people with the money are firmly in the driver's seat in America.