BitTorrent Tracker Admin Jailed for 18 Months
 

Interesting.....

http://torrentfreak.com/bittorrent-a...months-080909/

waiting for gideon.

That's fucked up...

I hope he has a huge black cell-mate that trades his thieving ass for cigarettes.

You write original content and don't agree?

Yup I hope Bubba makes him his bitch:thumbsup

Wish they would go after some porn torrent sites, way worse than tube sites.

I agree, torrents and surfer forums are way worse than tubes

lollllllllllll :) admin job is serious

:1orglaugh

I thought the exact same thing.

from the article it self

"The jury was told that Dove was responsible for managing and recruiting the crucial ?uploaders? on the site (original seeders)"

what they were getting nailed for was a pre-release screener of the star wars movie.

No purchased rights =no right to view =no fair use rights.

and the jury was convinced that this guy helped convince the person who "obtained" the screener copy to upload it.

Like i have said over 20 times, when you have a direct connection between the revenue generation, and the infringement (you upload infringing content, or you talk someone into uploading infringing content, when you know it is infringing (no purchased rights) you are guilty.


I would like to see the evidence that convinced them that he was personally involved in recruiting the uploader, if that gets discredited on appeal i think this will also go away, just like the "make available" ruling.

outside the US - the key words.

I bet he wishes he would have pled guilty like the other guys.

Bla, bla, bla ..... shut the fuck up already. :2 cents:

still need to see some seeders and uploaders that are not directly involved in the management of the sites get charged, that will send shockwaves that will bring down a whole lot of the infringement in a big hurry

not surprising at all really

torrents are done.

rapidshare and million illegal warez sites linking to RS is here to stay.

They were illegally disturbuting shit that they had no right to disturbute and they got nailed for it.

Thats what happened.

The grey areas will be painted over black before its all said and done. To many powerful corporations losing hundreds of millions of dollars will see to that.

And if they don't get it through the courts they'll get it through lobbyist.

I woudn't count on exploiting the works of others as a long-term business model not by any means. :2 cents:

your so right, i was so glad to hear that pesky timeshifting ruling was taken out

it was amazing to see the judge rule that you don't have a right to timeshift to a cloud. (oh wait the judge did rule you have a right to timeshift to a cloud)

it not like the 6 TRILLION dollar fair use economy doesn't have it own lobby groups, or legal groups fighting every infringement of fair use.


if anything new techologies are bringing new fair use rights (as it should be).

why u think it has to be a brotha could be some big ass white gay bear name bubba or chuck aka chucky the anal popper:1orglaugh

It's all coming. Just another step on the path. :)

as if seeding an entire movie or program passes the "fair use" balancing test.


Fair use is commonly misunderstood because of its deliberate ambiguity. Here are some of the more common misunderstandings with explanations of why they are wrong:

Any use that seems fair is fair use. In the law, the term "fair use" has a specific meaning that only partly overlaps the plain-English meaning of the words. While judges have much leeway in deciding how to apply fair use guidelines, not every use that is commonly considered "fair" counts as fair use under the law.

Fair use interpretations, once made, are static forever. Fair use is decided on a case by case basis, on the entirety of circumstances. The same act done by different means or for a different purpose can gain or lose fair use status. Even repeating an identical act at a different point in time can make a difference due to changing social, technological, or other surrounding circumstances.

If it's not fair use, it's copyright infringement. Fair use is only one of many limitations, exceptions, and defenses to copyright infringement. For instance, the Audio Home Recording Act establishes that it is legal in some circumstances to make copies of audio recordings for non-commercial personal use.

It's copyrighted, so it can't be fair use. On the contrary, fair use applies only to copyrighted works, describing conditions under which copyrighted material may be used without permission. If a work is not copyrighted, fair use does not come into play, since public-domain works can legally be used for any purpose.

Note: In some countries (including the United States of America), the mere creation of a work establishes copyright over it, and there is no legal requirement to register or declare copyright ownership.

Acknowledgment of the source makes a use fair. Giving the name of the photographer or author may help, but it is not sufficient on its own. While plagiarism and copyright violation are related matters?-both can, at times, involve failure to properly credit sources?-they are not identical. Copyright law protects exact expression, not ideas: for example, a distant paraphrase that lays out the same argument as a copyrighted essay is in little danger of being deemed a copyright violation, but it could still be plagiarism. On the other hand, one can plagiarize even a work that is not protected by copyright, such as trying to pass off a line from Shakespeare as one's own. Plagiarism?using someone's words, ideas, images, etc. without acknowledgment?is a matter of professional ethics. Copyright is a matter of law. Citing sources generally prevents accusations of plagiarism, but is not a sufficient defense against copyright violations (otherwise, anyone could legally reprint an entire copyrighted book just by citing who wrote it).

Noncommercial use is invariably fair. Not true, though a judge may take the profit motive or lack thereof into account. In L.A. Times v. Free Republic, the court found that the noncommercial use of L.A. Times content by the Free Republic Web site was in fact not fair use, since it allowed the public to obtain material at no cost that they would otherwise pay for.

Strict adherence to fair use protects you from being sued. Fair use is a defense against an infringement suit; it does not restrain anyone from suing. The copyright holder may legitimately disagree that a given use is fair, and they have the right to have the matter decided by a court. Thus, fair use is not a deterrent to SLAPP.

The lack of a copyright notice means the work is public domain. Not usually true. United States law in effect since March 1, 1989 has made copyright the default for newly created works. For a recent work to be in the public domain the author must specifically opt-out of copyright. For works produced between January 1, 1923 and March 1, 1989, copyright notice is required; however, registration was not required[24] and between January 1, 1978 and March 1, 1989 lack of notice is not necessarily determinative, if attempts were made immediately to correct the lack of notice. Any American works that did not have formal registration or notice fell into the Public Domain if registration was not made in a timely fashion. For international works, the situation is even more complex. International authors who failed to provide copyright notice or register with the U.S. copyright office are given additional contemporary remedies that may restore American copyright protection given certain conditions. International authors/corporations who fail to meet these remedies forfeit their copyright. An example of a company who failed to prove copyright was Roland Corporation and their claimed copyright on the sounds contained in their MT-32 synthesizer.

It's okay to quote up to 300 words. The 300-word limit is reported to be an unofficial agreement, now long obsolete, among permissions editors in the New York publishing houses: 'I'll let you copy 300 words from our books if you let us copy 300 words from yours.' It runs counter to the substantiality standard. As explained above, the substantiality of the copying is more important than the actual amount. For instance, copying a complete short poem is more substantial than copying a random paragraph of a novel; copying an 8.5×11-inch photo is more substantial than copying a square foot of an 8×10-foot painting. In 1985, the U.S. Supreme Court held that a news article's quotation of approximately 300 words from former President Gerald Ford's 200,000 word memoir was sufficient to constitute an infringement of the exclusive publication right in the work.

[25]
You can deny fair use by including a disclaimer. Fair use is a right granted to the public on all copyrighted work. Fair use rights take precedence over the author's interest. Thus the copyright holder cannot use a non-binding disclaimer, or notification, to revoke the right of fair use on works. However, binding agreements such as contracts or license agreements may take precedence over fair use rights.[26]

If you're copying an entire work, it's not fair use. While copying an entire work may make it harder to justify the amount and substantiality test, it does not make it impossible that a use is fair use. For instance, in the Betamax case, it was ruled that copying a complete television show for time-shifting purposes is fair use.

If you're selling for profit, it's not fair use. While commercial copying for profit work may make it harder to qualify as fair use, it does not make it impossible. For instance, in the 2 Live Crew?Oh, Pretty Woman case, it was ruled that commercial parody can be fair use.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use


Its a good thing that "fair use" is the defendant's burden of proof because I can't wait to see some jerk off like yourself give a jury that load of garabage when your caught stealing the latest blockbuster.

pretty soon they will be no more...

My thought exactly.

This thread will not be done justice without that piss ant troll.
:disgust

How many bankers or officials going to jail for causing losses in the hundreds of billions of dollars?

Zero.

"Private profit, socialized risk."

did you read your own quote

and the courts just ruled that we have a right to use a cloud to timeshift. If you bought a right to the content (99.5 % of the US population that owns a tv) you have a right to use a cloud to timeshift your viewing rights.

so the leaching passes the fair use test already

backup is also another fair use right (which allows you to make a complete copy)
and the fact that timeshifting has been extended to the cloud (a swarm is a distributed cloud) means other fair use rights can also be extended. Once back up is put there too, seeding content you bought would also be legally protected. The fact that seeders never give away a working copy of the file (how torrents work) is going to go a long way to making the arguement that seeding is not really a distribution of copyrighted material.

The government must provide security.

America is invaded by millions of illegals, is under permanent terrorist threat, whole neighborhoods are run by gangs, US schools need metal detectors, gated communities have never been so popular.

The US army and the White House have become a laughing stock abroad.

The FBI makes the front news for arresting a couple 65 year old mobsters in New York or a kid running a torrent site in his basement.

What the fuck.

Monkeys are more civilized than humans.

the "illegals" are a huge boost to the economy and the permanent threat you speak of is overblowing it a bit when it comes to our average day to day life..... and there have always been bad neighborhoods

"laughing stock abroad"?? if you say so, but what does that have to do with anything?

anyways, none of this is an either/or issue, there is plenty of room in budgets and time to enforce copyright issues and none of that will have any detriment on any other type of laws or enforcement, to bring them up together is silly :2 cents:

doesnt matter what they charge them, there are too many different countries where you can host your shit....i dont see this stopping anytime soon

It obvious that you're going a long way attempting to squeeze this into whatever grey areas you can.

And that space your squeezing into is going to get smaller and smaller.

Your whole argument is based on the technicality of seeding torrents not acting as a direct disturbution of the entire file. Pathetic.

I don't give a fuck about who owns a televison and what fraction of a percent of torrent users may actually may use torrents as some ridiculous form of time-shifting.

How about the vast majority of the motherfuckers using them to commit blatant acts of piracy?

Time will cure that.

Worldwide collaboration to fight copyright infringement is in effect.

That means nothing to gideon "I don't own shit" gallery. Believe me, I've been round and round with him about this. He will just keep repeating "fair use" and "time shifting" over and over and over again. That's his gig. Don't waste your time on him. I already tried, his mind is closed and he does nothing but mince and parse words. This is what he does. And I admit, he's pretty good at it. He should be a politician because he's a master bullshitter.

#1 thing wrong with the USA.... i can drive drunk and kill your whole family and get 3yr probation

yet a guy running a website gets 18mo, anyway if people cant see the irony in this i dont know what else to tell u

i'm so glad my datacenter shut down access to the bitTorrent tracker site that i purchase. it was a one of the top trackers but too many complaints were coming in

Where is that at? LOL! Where I live the fucking drinking laws are so completely ridiculous that if you drink a couple of beers you are "drunk" and lose your license. Kill somebody while drinking? Around here they throw you in prison and throw away the key.

Drive drunk and kill somebody and you're doing time for three counts of voluntary manslaughter where I live.


BTW, you get to serve it with the other violent offenders being manslaughter is a violent crime.

funny the fair use grey area keeps getting bigger and bigger
we can now timeshift to a cloud.

nope the fact that you are not distributing the file completely means the courts can finally decide if things like access shifting is another fair use (morpheous case refused to do so because each access shifting and an associated copyright infringement)

50% of all bit torrent downloads are tv shows

if even 1% of the movies downloaded are movies that aired on tv then a majority of people are using torrents to timeshift their viewing rights.

ergo the majority is using torrents to timeshift their tv viewing rights.

But what about this drunk driving controversy gideongallery?

aXXo is ok, so I'm good.