# Torrent Users



## AKSkirmish (Jun 24, 2005)

Enjoy

http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2011/05/biggest-bittorrent-case/


----------



## Johnny_Zanni (Nov 8, 2009)

Good thing I didn't download that movie.


----------



## AKSkirmish (Jun 24, 2005)

Johnny_Zanni said:


> Good thing I didn't download that movie.


It gets alot deepers than 1 movie

All told, more than 140,000 BitTorrent downloaders are being targeted in dozens of lawsuits across the country, many of them for downloading B-rated movies and porn.


----------



## Guest (May 11, 2011)

lol


----------



## r1dermon (Mar 9, 2005)

I always get the hard copy from hong down at the flea market for 3 bucks.


----------



## sadboy (Jan 6, 2005)

I stop downloading from torrent a few months back. I got a message from the motion picture of America telling me to stop downloading movies. The way around this is by saying that you have a wireless network and that it got used by someone outside of your home. They cant prove that you downloaded something unless you hand over your PC. I would trash my PC that I use to d/l if I got a subpoena.


----------



## Smoke (Sep 8, 2010)

sadboy said:


> I stop downloading from torrent a few months back. I got a message from the motion picture of America telling me to stop downloading movies. The way around this is by saying that you have a wireless network and that it got used by someone outside of your home. They cant prove that you downloaded something unless you hand over your PC. I would trash my PC that I use to d/l if I got a subpoena.


You need to write zeros to your HDD like 30 times I believe... trashing your drive, even burning it wouldn't help much, as the data can still be recovered.


----------



## sadboy (Jan 6, 2005)

/\ 
trashing will help if you dump it and not leave it at home. Also putting in in the microwave oven could help.


----------



## Smoke (Sep 8, 2010)

It's funny because the world has long since evolved from torrents IMO. Nowadays, just google what you're looking for and there'll be a rapidshare link to get it. No annoying torrents or seeders needed


----------



## Guest (May 11, 2011)

Oh no, please don't get me Mr police man for downloading a shitty movie. lol


----------



## sadboy (Jan 6, 2005)

rapidshare can still be targeted.


----------



## Piranha-Freak101 (Dec 8, 2010)

r1dermon said:


> I always get the hard copy from hong down at the flea market for 3 bucks.


Hahahahaha


----------



## Da' Manster! (Sep 1, 2009)

nude nuns with big guns!......


----------



## bob351 (Oct 23, 2005)

spin on my c**k









this article gave me a nice laugh


----------



## Scrappy (Oct 21, 2004)

Anyone know of a way to keep your ip private?


----------



## Orracle (Feb 7, 2008)

www.peerblock.com ?


----------



## Trigga (Jul 1, 2006)

good thing i dont use public torrent sites


----------



## ZOSICK (May 25, 2005)

Trigga said:


> good thing i dont use public torrent sites


Ignorance is bliss Trigga...We are probably using the same site if you got you're invite came from member here.


----------



## diddye (Feb 22, 2004)

if the feds are reading this, I dont know what bit torrent is and stealing makes baby Jesus cry.


----------



## lament configuration (Jun 22, 2003)

i thought there was a recent court ruling where a judge stated that IP addresses does not equal a person. therefore ISPs cant give info on the person associated with the IP.


----------



## Trigga (Jul 1, 2006)

ZOSICK said:


> good thing i dont use public torrent sites


Ignorance is bliss Trigga...We are probably using the same site if you got you're invite came from member here.








[/quote]
yep thats one of em... its not that well known compared to bit torrent,pirate bay etc...

if the feds are reading this blow me


----------



## rchan11 (May 6, 2004)

Here's a lawsuit checker.

http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2011/05/bittorrent-lawsuit-checker/


----------



## greenmonkey51 (Aug 16, 2004)

I stay away from movies. Netflix is to convenient. I generally only download tv shows from a private site and thats only if they're not streaming online already.


----------



## rchan11 (May 6, 2004)

I don't see how they can sue 23k people at the same time. They'll need a lawyer to argue each case individually in the city or county which it was filed.


----------



## primetime3wise (Sep 28, 2003)

Traveller said:


> Oh no, please don't get me Mr police man for downloading a shitty movie. lol










i know, i know. i can't believe they are looking for more money for "the expendables". it sucked.


----------



## ChilDawg (Apr 30, 2006)

rchan11 said:


> Oh no, please don't get me Mr police man for downloading a shitty movie. lol










i know, i know. i can't believe they are looking for more money for "the expendables". it sucked.
[/quote]

I'm guessing they'd like to eventually turn a profit...and since nobody's going to be buying the 10th Anniversary edition with director's cut and Stallone's retarded mushmouthed commentary...


----------



## primetime3wise (Sep 28, 2003)

i see they are makind a sequel, which is even more "glorious". they must of turned a profit somewhere on the 1st. maybe that's their plan now. make a shitty movie and only turn profit by suing people far beyond $$$ what they would make via the movie itself.


----------



## r1dermon (Mar 9, 2005)

lol...this is corporate oligarchy at its finest. boycott holywood. that movie sucked anyway, and i actually paid to see it in the theater. funniest part was when stallones old ass was running (if thats what you could call it) on the dock when all the explosions went off in the background. i was thinking to myself "they must've only done 1 take of this, because stallone probably threw out every leg muscle and tendon that he had in that short sprint". there's a point where you're just too old...stallone is far beyond that point to be a badass action guy.


----------



## 0S1R1S (Aug 29, 2010)

I've been downloading at least one torrent, everyday, for the past 5 years, on at least two different ISP's, from multiple torrent sites..


----------



## philbert (Mar 8, 2007)

rchan11 said:


> I don't see how they can sue 23k people at the same time. They'll need a lawyer to argue each case individually in the city or county which it was filed.


uhhh no. they can name multiple defendants on one lawsuit. they will file one suit with all the defendants. in one court where they think they have the best chance of winning.


----------



## sadboy (Jan 6, 2005)

lament configuration said:


> i thought there was a recent court ruling where a judge stated that IP addresses does not equal a person. therefore ISPs cant give info on the person associated with the IP.


I thought I read the same thing a while back... Dont remember were.


----------



## Steelrain (Apr 22, 2006)

I've been downloading everything from comicbooks to movies to music for more than 4 years or so (over 1.5TB downloaded from iptorrents alone) using torrents and haven't been "identified" in the 18months or so I've been using IPtorrents. before that, once from demonoid (although an external link) and a few from piratebay.. each time was for a movie and my ISP asked that I stop sharing the material, they also forwarded me the complaint from the movie comapny and a statement saying they would not give the movie company any info about me unless subpoenaed(sp?). I'm not overly concerned using membership sites... public access site like pirate bay or worse yet direct peer to peer like limewire or the like.


----------



## bob351 (Oct 23, 2005)

why download when you can find anything you need streaming online


----------



## Domelotta (Apr 25, 2007)

A possible landmark ruling in one of the mass-BitTorrent lawsuits in the U.S. may spell the end of the "pay-up-or-else-schemes" that have targeted over 100,000 Internet users in the last year. District Court Judge Harold Baker has denied a copyright holder the right to subpoena the ISPs of alleged copyright infringers, because an IP-address does not equal a person.

In the last year various copyright holders have sued well over 100,000 alleged file-sharers in the United States alone. The purpose of these lawsuits is to obtain the personal details of the alleged infringers, and use this information to negotiate a settlement offer ranging from a few hundred to a few thousand dollars.

Lawyers, the public and consumer advocacy groups have compared these practices to extortion, but nonetheless new cases are still being filed every month. This week, however, an interesting ruling was handed down by District Court Judge Harold Baker that, if adopted by other judges, may become a major roadblock for similar mass-lawsuits.

In the case VPR Internationale v. Does 1-1017, the judge denied the Canadian adult film company access to subpoena ISPs for the personal information connected to the IP-addresses of their subscribers. The reason? IP-addresses do not equal persons, and especially in 'adult entertainment' cases this could obstruct a 'fair' legal process.

Among other things Judge Baker cited a recent child porn case where the U.S. authorities raided the wrong people, because the real offenders were piggybacking on their Wi-Fi connections. Using this example, the judge claims that several of the defendants in VPR's case may have nothing to do with the alleged offense either.

"The infringer might be the subscriber, someone in the subscriber's household, a visitor with her laptop, a neighbor, or someone parked on the street at any given moment," Judge Baker writes.

Although the above logic applies to all BitTorrent lawsuits that are currently ongoing, the matter becomes especially delicate when the alleged offense is sharing rather explicit adult titles.

"Orin Kerr, a professor at George Washington University Law School, noted that whether you're guilty or not, you look like a suspect. Could expedited discovery be used to wrest quick settlements, even from people who have done nothing wrong?" Judge Baker writes.

Judge Baker further notes that "the embarrassment of public exposure might be too great, the legal system too daunting and expensive, for some to ask whether the plaintiff VPR has competent evidence to prove its case."

Baker concludes by saying that his Court is not supporting a "fishing expedition" for subscribers' details if there is no evidence that it has jurisdiction over the defendants.

Although the ruling is definitely a setback for the copyright holders in mass-BitTorrent lawsuits, it has yet to be seen whether other judges will reach the same conclusion in future cases. If that happens, the end of this type of lawsuit in the U.S. may be near.

Texas lawyer Robert Cashman, who represents several defendants in similar lawsuits, agrees that the ruling can be a potential game changer.

"We may have just seen the order that may end all future John Doe lawsuits," he commented in a response.

Source: http://torrentfreak.com/ip-address-not-a-person-bittorrent-case-judge-says-110503/

Good news for once. ^^


----------



## Smoke (Sep 8, 2010)

Interesting...


----------



## rchan11 (May 6, 2004)

It is good news indeed.


----------



## lament configuration (Jun 22, 2003)

yup, just like i said on page 1


----------



## Piranha Dan (Nov 11, 2007)

Can't blame them really. If I was losing millions (?billions?) of dollars to a bunch of assholes stealing my stuff I'd sue them too.
Why people go the trouble to pirate stuff is beyond me......let's see I can do something illegal, risk infecting my computer with viruses/spam/etc, violate my ethics by stealing something.....or I can pay $10 a month for a netflix subscription......


----------



## r1dermon (Mar 9, 2005)

the industry needs better safeguards. Sharing information has always, and will always happen. Instead of suing everyone over it to gain a cheap easy buck, why not make more safeguards...

oh wait, I know why...because if nobody steals it, you can't sue them and turn a profit. These studios have an interest in people stealing their movies because they profit off of the lawsuits. That's bs. They don't want to fix the problem, because to them it's not a problem...its a business plan.


----------



## Trigga (Jul 1, 2006)

Maybe movies should adapt like the music industry has to pirating, artists are making most if not almost all of there money doing preforming rather than physical record sales. I dont know how they would do it but I think thats why the whole 3-D craze started again, to get people in the theatres but with 3d-tvs coming out now and bluray burners soon be as common as dvd burners the cards are definitely stacked against them

I still go to the movie theatre if the movie is worth seeing,theres rarely one i feel that is but i do go


----------



## Piranha Dan (Nov 11, 2007)

r1dermon said:


> the industry needs better safeguards. Sharing information has always, and will always happen. Instead of suing everyone over it to gain a cheap easy buck, why not make more safeguards...
> 
> oh wait, I know why...because if nobody steals it, you can't sue them and turn a profit. These studios have an interest in people stealing their movies because they profit off of the lawsuits. That's bs. They don't want to fix the problem, because to them it's not a problem...its a business plan.


Could you make an "Unpiratable" DVD/Blue Ray? Yea probably. However, each layer of security you add increases the cost of manufacturing the media and guess who bears the burden of that cost? Yea, you and me. Why should we have to pay more and more to be honest and actually buy stuff when you can catch the assholes stealing it and make them pay instead?


----------



## Guest (May 13, 2011)

It wouldn't cost that much to do it given new technology.

Hollywood is a monopoly, so they charge extortionate prices anyway for movies, the cost of production is small if compared to gross profit of most box office hits. If large production companies gave way to smaller companies the range of commercially available films would increase and lower the prices as it would be cheaper to make them, but they don't. 
Another thing is, the people who actually work hard making the film are already paid so they often don't profit anything from people getting sued. It's the companies that own the rights that do, and you know that money doesn't trickle down to the stakeholders other then majority share holders and board members.


----------



## r1dermon (Mar 9, 2005)

exactly...it's like the music industry. once the actual producer of goods (the laborer in adam smiths economic structure, whom creates goods and services) is paid up front, all additional remaining proceeds go to the copyright holder.

why should the government (who works on behalf of the people, not the businesses) make it easier for a large corporation to sue and extract money from people...the company, in the interest of self preservation, should have to look into safeguards. just the fact that they dont, or wont, is proof that the system is flawed. if they can win and profit off of lawsuits, then the federal government is not really working on behalf of the people is it? this is why we have consumer protection agencies, and attorneys general. the PEOPLE run the government, not the businesses. (well...in a perfect world anyway).


----------



## r1dermon (Mar 9, 2005)

i stopped going to the movie theater when it became 12 dollars a piece, 7 dollars for a popcorn, 5 dollars for a large fountain soda, 4 dollars for a candy bar...etc...it's a total rip off, and the movies aren't that good. the movie theaters are going the way of the dinosaur. a few more years and everyone will have a 60" flatscreen with 10 million colors pumping out super high definition programming off of the internet. i can cook a bag of popcorn for about 50 cents as well.

perfect example of adaptation is radiohead's album a few years ago. they released the entire album as a free download on their website. the average purchaser paid 5 dollars at their option! some paid nothing, some paid more...5 dollars sounds like what a CD should cost. i went to FYE to look for a good CD to pickup...couldn't find a "new" CD for less than 14 dollars. thats unrealistic, so i didn't buy one. simple as that. unless there's a CD on uber discount in the used section, i generally wont buy it. bullmoose is normally where i shop for CDs though, and they have a huge selection of used CD's for cheap.


----------



## sadboy (Jan 6, 2005)

you got a good point there rider. 
Some people in Hollywood are already seeing that point of view. I have heard that they are thinking about releasing new movies on pay-per-view for like $30 to $40 bucks. I am so in to that idea cause I already have a huge as TV and sound system.

but it is not a for sure thing yet.


----------



## Piranha Dan (Nov 11, 2007)

sadboy said:


> you got a good point there rider.
> Some people in Hollywood are already seeing that point of view. I have heard that they are thinking about releasing new movies on pay-per-view for like $30 to $40 bucks. I am so in to that idea cause I already have a huge as TV and sound system.
> 
> but it is not a for sure thing yet.


Watch a brand new movie in the comfort of my own home, on my own high end AV system, with no f*cking asshole with a screaming baby or ringing cell phone to piss me off? I am f*cking THERE!!!!


----------



## sadboy (Jan 6, 2005)

I heard that they are thinking about releasing them about 60 days after it comes out. But it is at a stand still right now since Theater owners and other people are fighting against the idea. I really hope they do this because coming from a person who use to go all the time to now only going maybe once or twice a year. I would be really willing to pay $40 to watch it at home.


----------



## r1dermon (Mar 9, 2005)

I'd still pay hong 3 bucks for the DVD at the flea.


----------



## sadboy (Jan 6, 2005)

careful, I've see the LAPD rid some of those places and bust people buying them in dowtnown LA>


----------



## r1dermon (Mar 9, 2005)

they raid people for fake designer purses up here...not the DVD's. i've got the hookup.


----------



## Guest (May 13, 2011)

lol
Nice to hear law enforcement are hard at work catching the people who bought alvin and the chipmunks 2 on illegal dvd instead of putting the man power towards catching the murderers and rapists.


----------



## RedneckR0nin (Nov 5, 2008)

I downloaded the Expendables in 720 and bluray today just cause......then I erased them. Thank god for Canada very limited liability laws!!


----------



## sadboy (Jan 6, 2005)

About two years ago I was going to my guy for some DVD's and he told me he got busted and was facing like a $20k fine for selling bootlegs. That was f'ed up man.


----------



## RedneckR0nin (Nov 5, 2008)

If it is for your own personal use though....who cares...I spend a hundred bucks twice a year going to some let down of a major motion picture...that price should include a blowjob too. I think I earned my right to have free downloads as long as I am not selling them. If not then oh well f*ck them I am doing it anyway!


----------

