Another File-Sharing Site Shutdown

[HelloHockeyFans]

TorrentSpy has been ordered to pay $110M to the Motion Picture Association of America for copyright infringement.


TorrentSpy facilitated the illegal sharing of copyright files by hosting a collection of links to films and music.

TorrentSpy parent company Valence Media and its owners Justin Bunnell and Wes Park have filed for bankruptcy.

The MPAA first began legal action against the website in February 2006.
"This substantial money judgement sends a strong message about the illegality of these sites," said Dan Glickman, chairman of the MPAA. "The demise of TorrentSpy is a clear victory for the studios."

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

[J pold]

Ouch

I feel bad I have used TorrentSpy before

[Traditional_Ale]

Originally Posted by J pold

Ouch

I feel bad I have used TorrentSpy before

You should, if you downloaded something that probably needed the money.

If it had more than 10-million dollar budget, I'd say it's fair game seeing as cigarettes probably paid for it anyway (they pay for movies, basically, just to have some smoking characters. Serious; whens the last time you saw a movie over PG without a smoker?) and it's not like everyone involved didn't get paid.

Download CSI to your hearts content, but maybe pay for the Trailer Park Boys for example. I think its embarrassing they get paid to hang out in a bar and pretend to have a good time. Its so phony.

[BlackEleven]

The MPAA has only been succesful in shutting down US-based torrent sites. They've gone after Pirate Bay as well (based in Sweden) and isoHunt (based in Canada) and failed. All the MPAA will succeed in is driving torrent sites outside of the USA.

[LChoy]

If I remember correctly from last year, torrentspy was already shut down by the mods since they didn't want to hand over the Ip addresses of the users. Torrentspy is old news in the world of Torrents

[BlackEleven]

On another note, you have to wonder about what kind of prescedence is being set here. Torrentspy itself contained exactly zero copyrighted material. None whatsoever. It merely indexes it.

Google indexes pirated material as well. If you search for copyrighted material in Google, you will surely find it. In fact, you could use Google to search TorrentSpy instead of using the site itself, if you really wanted to. How is that any different? Anyone that indexes material on the Internet can't be happy about this at all.

[MarchHare]

[Hack&Lube]

Originally Posted by BlackEleven

On another note, you have to wonder about what kind of prescedence is being set here. Torrentspy itself contained exactly zero copyrighted material. None whatsoever. It merely indexes it.

Google indexes pirated material as well. If you search for copyrighted material in Google, you will surely find it. In fact, you could use Google to search TorrentSpy instead of using the site itself, if you really wanted to. How is that any different? Anyone that indexes material on the Internet can't be happy about this at all.

The wierd thing is that it sets no legal precedent because it never had it's day in court. The judge simply ruled in December that she sided with the MPAA's case. The MPAA claimed that Torrentspy deleted data so that it couldn't have a fair trial. Torrentspy says it was just protecting the identities and privacy of it's users. The draconian judge said she agreed with the MPAA on that and just terminated the case and found in their favor.

[Bobblehead]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

http://img329.imageshack.us/img329/3681/hydraia2.gif

"It's the Hydra, Herc. The Hydra!"

[llama64]

If a case like this ever sees a courtroom, it will be shot down in flames (for exactly the reason that BlackEleven points out). The MPAA isn't seeking a permanent ruling or a precedent. They are using scare tactics to combat the spread of piracy.

[BlackEleven]

Originally Posted by llama64

If a case like this ever sees a courtroom, it will be shot down in flames (for exactly the reason that BlackEleven points out). The MPAA isn't seeking a permanent ruling or a precedent. They are using scare tactics to combat the spread of piracy.

Agreed. But the real sad part about it is all the money the industry is spending on lawyers and litigation that they could instead be spending on delivering their product to their customers in a way that makes sense for everyone -- both the industry and the consumers. The internet (and technology in general) could be their friend and instead they've turned it into their enemy.

[NSFL]

Originally Posted by BlackEleven

Agreed. But the real sad part about it is all the money the industry is spending on lawyers and litigation that they could instead be spending on delivering their product to their customers in a way that makes sense for everyone -- both the industry and the consumers. The internet (and technology in general) could be their friend and instead they've turned it into their enemy.

Or at the very least, spend that money on finding ways to share their content that benefits everyone. It won't be easy, but the least they could do is experiment with different options instead of going after the sites. The reason many people go to these sites is because methods of distribution are outdated and instead of trying to move forward, the industry is fighting a losing battle defending a model that doesn't work anymore.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by BlackEleven

On another note, you have to wonder about what kind of prescedence is being set here. Torrentspy itself contained exactly zero copyrighted material. None whatsoever. It merely indexes it.

Google indexes pirated material as well. If you search for copyrighted material in Google, you will surely find it. In fact, you could use Google to search TorrentSpy instead of using the site itself, if you really wanted to. How is that any different? Anyone that indexes material on the Internet can't be happy about this at all.

Or you could just use google to search for torrents.

[BlackEleven]

Originally Posted by Azure

Or you could just use google to search for torrents.

That was my point exactly. Indexing copyrighted material is not copyright infringement, nor should it be.

[Hack&Lube]

Originally Posted by Azure

Or you could just use google to search for torrents.

But google only indexs torrent results from the actual torrent sites.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Hack&Lube

But google only indexs torrent results from the actual torrent sites.

I don't see that as any different from what a torrent site does.

Its not like they're uploading the illegal content onto their servers, and you download it from there.

Like RapidShare or MegaUpload do for example.

[Frequitude]

Too bad, I liked torrentspy. It had pretty solid participation in the comments for each torrent, which was valuable to avoiding viruses, bad files, passwords, poor quality, etc.

What are the best sites out there now?

[Prototype]

Originally Posted by torrentspy.com

Friends of TorrentSpy,
We have decided on our own, not due to any court order or agreement, to bring the Torrentspy.com search engine to an end and thus we permanently closed down worldwide on March 24, 2008.
The legal climate in the USA for copyright, privacy of search requests, and links to torrent files in search results is simply too hostile. We spent the last two years, and hundreds of thousands of dollars, defending the rights of our users and ourselves.
Ultimately the Court demanded actions that in our view were inconsistent with our privacy policy, traditional court rules, and International law; therefore, we now feel compelled to provide the ultimate method of privacy protection for our users - permanent shutdown.
It was a wild ride,
The TorrentSpy Team
"Big Brother in the form of an increasingly powerful government and in an increasingly powerful private sector will pile the records high with reasons why privacy should give way to national security, to law and order [...] and the like." - Justice William O. Douglas

Should have kept it open for the added add revenue to help pay legal costs.

Funny that the dry cleaning guy is over the top for $65 Million, but these guys are justified with $110 Million for providing links. That's like IRON MAN in 7 days.

PS - 8 of the top ten movies of all time were made in 1997 or later. The other two padded their stats by adding a little more CGI, and re-releasing themselves. (Star Wars, ET).

The $110M is a little higher than what Bruce Willis made working on the movie "The Sixth Sense" ($103M). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...st-paid_actors

According to the same page, no woman has been smart enough to add a clause to make a percentage of the box office. So, people would have to sit through "Mona Lisa Smile" 4.5 times to recover Julia Roberts' paycheque to help pay the torrent spy bills.

Give me a break Hollywood.