Anti-Piracy Outfit Threatens ShareConnector Admin at his Front Door
 

Having failed to encourage massive punishment against the administrator of eDonkey link site ?ShareConnector? in a criminal trial, anti-piracy outfit BREIN has once more resorted to traditional bully tactics - by turning up on his doorstep and threatening him, face to face.

ShareConnectorBack in 2004, ShareConnector was an eDonkey force to be reckoned with. As purely a link site (like the vast majority of BitTorrent sites), ShareConnector carried no copyright materials. However, this didn?t stop Dutch anti-piracy outfit BREIN from pressurizing the FIOD-ECD - Fiscal Investigation Unit of the Dutch Police - to investigate and eventually shut down ShareConnector.

Initially, ShareConnector?s host had refused to shut down the site stating correctly that offering links is not a crime. However December 2004 saw ShareConnector and another site, Releases4U, raided by the FIOD-ECD, resulting in the seizure of equipment and the arrest of 8 people. At the time, BREIN director Tim Kuik explained they were done waiting: ?Our patience was up, after which we went to the authorities? he said.

According to P2PNet, Kuik, going for the jugular, asserted that the ShareConnector admin, Adi, should get up to 4 years in jail as he hid behind ?false reasoning that illegal files are actually hosted on different servers and that the actual exchange doesn?t take place on their own servers?, which is, of course, a completely and utterly false assertion on Kuik?s part.

Eventually, after taking nearly 2 years to come to court, the result for BREIN and the FIOD-ECD was a disaster. The admin of ShareConnector was found completely innocent and just a couple of small fines of approximately $350 were handed out to the admins of Releases4U for uploading copyright material. The FIOD-ECD failed to provide any evidence to prove ShareConnector was involved in copyright infringement nor enough to prove that either organization was criminal in nature.

December 19th 2006 saw the triumphant return of ShareConnector, around 2 years after it was shuttered by the police but the return was not to be permanent. Not content with accepting that a criminal trial had taken place at which Adi and ShareConnector were found to be completely legal, BREIN resorted to the tactics it knows best and has had most success with - common bullying.

On Monday November 5th 2007, representatives from BREIN knocked on Adi?s door and threatened him face to face with potentially financially punishing civil action. On November 12th 2007, ShareConnector shut down for good.

The sad message on the site?s homepage now reads:

Last Monday the guys from BREIN visited me at home to convince me to close ShareConnector or else they will start a civil proceeding with a claim. Of course, this does not mean I agree with their point of view, it?s just that I can?t afford taking any risks.

As of today, November 12, 2007 I decided to close down. If there is anything new to report, you will be informed.

Thank you for all your support and understanding.

Next on the FIOD-ECD hitlist are OiNK?s seized servers. They?re likely to find that the situation is exactly the same as it was with ShareConnector, i.e no copyright materials were stored on it, so it?s not easy to see where they will succeed against OiNK where they previously failed. There is no offense of ?facilitation? under UK copyright law.
http://torrentfreak.com/anti-piracy-...nector-071114/

wow turning up at someones house is not cool

Well giving away things that are not theirs to give away is not cool also.

I think it's a great idea, fuck them

Good story:thumbsup

But stealing from someone is?

The file sharers like to play the "it's legal" game. So is showing up at someone's door to chat.

:thumbsup:thumbsup

Actually tony404, it is not considered theft... software was bought legally and was shared with others... It is highly unlikely someone stole a software package then just posted on a share site... also when people buy software in the stores or on the Internet they are allowed 3 backup under law... I live in Canada and the software companies try to enforce laws and threaten legal action where they are not entitled as to do such...

When you have a company who puts copy protection as to prevent you making your legal backups then the only option is to use file sharing service as to have a backup copy on hand.... now the thing is the serials and activation, people say right off the bat that such is theft... however its not for them to say... it's for the courts in the country the software is being used and of course other unseen factors that make such legal.

As far as I understand copyright does not fall under law, however in the US it is not what is right, but rather who has the money at prove who is right.

.

If you bought a piece of software you dont have license to post it on a file sharing site with a key gen or post music because you have the cd or rip a whole fucking adult site and post it because you bought a membership. Its theft,please stop playing the word game its insulting.

File sharers know they are providing the tools for illegal activities. Please send me the address for BREIN, I want to send them baseball bats for their next home visit.

Good for them. The real world is the real world, and they should consider themselves lucky that more mobbed up members of the entertainment community haven't moved on to contracting hits.

These torrent site owners are all vicious keyboard warriors that wet their pants the moment they get a knock on the door.

:thumbsup

My IQ is considerably higher then yours tony404...

Perhaps you should stop playing the word games yourself; and it's you who are an ignorant ass...

What I had said was for the purpose of legal backups... Perhaps you have a hard time with your comprehension ?

.

This needs repeated again! :thumbsup

You are a clueless idiot who has obviously never produced anything that has been illegally "shared" ..... :321GFY


.

no its not and you know that.

Yet this has been the argument of many "I bought and paid for the membership so it's mine to share.. I don't see what is wrong with it" - then someone responds.."Yeah, why would someone get my stuff deleted? Who would do such a thing?".. I want to reply to these idiots so fucking bad but that would out my nick on that board..

You are right.

L-Pink well you must be a legal expert... O tell me more great God...
 

You must have a background in law and deal with such people daily right ?

You never hear about people who buy software having their original software package get errors on the media and could not install their bought software package suing the software companies for not allowing them to make a backup copy... Such individuals bought the "right" as to use the software to begin with, however file corruption does occurs very often... So under copyright it is common practice for companies to write into their user agreements that you cannot make a copy for backup never mind 3 copies...

Under Canadian law from what I can remember you are entitled to make 3 copies regardless what the US companies are trying legally...

For some strange reason the practice of using copyright in the US as to represent a legally binding contract is somewhat... misleading...

Even if a person went to a "Illegal" bittorrent site and downloaded whatever they wanted to for personal purposes the courts may not press criminal charges... it is copyright for god sake... besides you cannot prove that an individual had not bought the program to begin with being new or even used...

So get of your high horse... L-Pink


.

And you make your living selling porn?

lol... you are fucking kidding me, right? This isn't about some poor dumb fuck backing up his precious software purchase. lol ..... It's about theft of property. Sharing copyrighted property with others without their paying royalties. Downloading (stealing) property that someone has spent time and money producing.

You are much smarter than this! WTF? ..............

Look tony404, believe it or not I understand where you are coming from...

Of course it is in your interest as to get paid for those who use your materials, however once you put such out in the real world people will make copies...

As to answer your question tony404, yea I promote porn and yea... I do take a loss or I should say not a gain, but that still does not make my point any less relevant...

.

Copyright does not full under law.... Perhaps you should get some legal help.

.

Translated: Once you wear your Rolex watch in public anyone is entitled to mug you for it.

LOL ...... WTF?


.

:1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh
:helpme:helpme
:1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh

So is shooting them if they threaten you and don't leave when asked to.

Wow L-Pink what a mouth... check it at the door ...
 

I checked into it here in Canada... I asked about how copyright was handled and I was passed on the info, from an practicing attorney, that copyright did not full under law and that you could not find if you had looked, because it is not written into law...

As far as I understand it is the same in the US, however such is ignored and for some reason is just a standard method of doing business...

Show me proof L-Pink where it is written into US law... also what make you think that such laws, if found, are enforceable in other countries? like Canada.

.

Sure they are .........

You can make as many copies as you like in Canada. But those copies are only for your own use, one at a time, never at the same time, etc. So you can buy a DVD and make a few backup copies, but you cannot give them out to your friends or such.

The question of number of copies has nothing to do with torrents or filesharing, because it isn't the point at all. What you do for yourself inside your own house does not spontaneously create the right to give away copies to everyone in the world.

A <> B.

Well L-Pink... I waiting... :1orglaugh

.

The only reason "copyrights" exist is to legally protect the copyright holder from illegal use. Honestly, what the fuck are you talking about? How do you not grasp the whole concept?


.

For what ? Lighting to strike your dumb ass?

Hi RawAlex
 

Under Canadian law regarding what you are talking about, such does not say how you can backup your materials... it is even legal to backup to a torrent site.

Yea I know strange... and at the very same time cool!

^^

.

L-Pink you want to make this personal ?

.

What? ... Obviously there is a language problem preventing you from understanding there is such a thing as "copyright law" let it go at that.

S/he/it is too busy posting dumb replies to my post.

Yea ok L-Pink... what in the hell is minusonebit talking about ???
 

You had not answered my simple question L-Pink, such was: "Show me proof L-Pink where it is written into US law... also what make you think that such laws, if found, are enforceable in other countries? like Canada."

What is you educational level at ??? You can understand my sentence, should I simplify it for you further?

And what is minusonebit going on about ??? posting dumb replies to your post ???

LOL, signs of intelligent people...

.

Nevermind, you are right ... there is no such thing as copyright law, happy now?



.

Yes, and the purpose of backing up something, is for the person who backed it up to retrieve it later (personal use), not back it up for the purpose of letting someone else store a copy at another location.

Backing up and distribution are not mutually exclusive.

Your playing games and you know it. Distribution is not covered under the backup for personal use clauses for any software in any country, laws are being changed to support that statement right now.

You are wrong, as I was, there is no such thing as copyright laws .....

And apparently in Canada, judgement had passed that argues P2P sharing is legal:

Actual case law source: http://reports.fja.gc.ca/en/2004/200...88.html?tag=nl

welcome to the new world order

Perhaps you will under stand it this way...
 

Copyright law is intended to protect the creators right of saying that he or she had written such materials, like lets say a book or even a computer program. Such copyright law is intended to protect intellectual property, which is not covered under law... now when a person makes a copy of materials not for republication like scanning a book or a computer program code then there is no new claim to the content... now when you copy someones else's work and claim it as your own then you are plagiarizing yourself...

Now when you make a copy of a program you are not plagiarizing yourself, because you are not claiming that you had created it... within many user agreements there are section within as to define how such programs can be used and such touches on contractual law, but this is not copyright law.

I can understand if for example someone took computer code or writings that someone came up with and used their concepts and passages and wrote a new book or a computer program then claimed it as their own... but making a personal copy of a software program is not the same.

Just to clearify my point of view.

.

Lol ......

again you are equating seeding with giving away your content and it it not the same thing/

In the case of torrents you give a small piece to hundreds of people

As i have pointed out you can create 254 copies and never give a single person a single working copy.

when still begs the question which you keep ducking, how is giving 254 non working copies of your video hurt you commercially.

I bet this tactic will work on &#37;95 of all torrent sites on the net!

neither canadian or US law talk about personal use. The fair use provision which defines rights outside the scope of the exclusive rights granted by the act (your backup example) talks about non commercial use.

for the scope of fair use you have no copyright protections whatsoever, so distribution is legal. That why it is perfectly legal for a friend to lend me his vcr copy of smallvile when the power goes out in my house.(as long as he does charge money == non commercial)

I am wrong.. your all right :) I couldn't edit my original post after I found the caselaw source... anyways.. i'm going to go back and make more galleries now and shut up! Have a nice day!

"Copyright law is a creature of statute and it does not assist the interpretive analysis to import tort concepts.

Under Act, subsection 80(1), the downloading of a song for a person's private use does not constitute infringement.

There was here no evidence that the alleged infringers either distributed or authorized the reproduction of sound

recordings. All they did was place personal copies into shared directories accessible by other computer users. The

judgment of the Supreme Court of Canada in CCH Canadian Ltd. v. Law Society of Upper Canada is authority for the

proposition that the provision of facilities that allow copying does not amount to authorizing infringement. How is

what was done here different from a library placing a photocopier in a room full of copyrighted material? In either

case the element of authorization is missing. McLachlin C.J. wrote in her CCH opinion that courts "should presume that

a person who authorizes an activity does not only so far as it is in accordance with the law"."

"Nor is there distribution absent a positive act by the owner of the shared directory, such as sending copies or

advertising the material's availability for copying. While the exclusive right of making available is covered by the

World Intellectual Property Organization Performances and Phonograms Treaty of 1996, it remains to be implemented by

Canada and so forms no part of our law of copyright. Again, secondary infringement had not been made out since

knowledge on the infringer's part, a necessary condition under subsection 27(2) of the Copyright Act, was not

demonstrated."


". . . copyright law is neither tort law nor property law in classification, but is statutory law. It neither cuts

across existing rights in property or conduct nor falls between rights and obligations heretofore existing in the

common law. Copyright legislation simply creates rights and obligations upon the terms and in the circumstances set

out in the statute. This creature of statute has been known to the law of England at least since the days of Queen

Anne when the first copyright statute was passed. It does not assist the interpretive analysis to import tort

concepts. The legislation speaks for itself and the actions of the appellant must be measured according to the terms

of the statute."


Taken from: http://reports.fja.gc.ca/en/2004/200...88.html?tag=nl