Brave US terrorist hunters end stand off against BitTorrent web site

Bit Torrent News ^ | 5-27-05 | Anonymous Bit Torrent News Author

[America_Right]

Brave US terrorist hunters end stand off against BitTorrent web site Comment (0) Trackback (1) Published: May 27, 2005 05:20 GMT A massive collection of highly-skilled, dedicated, brave law enforcement officials managed yesterday to shut down a Bittorrent web site alleged to facilitate the illegal trade of the latest Star Wars movie and other content. Yes, it took the FBI and the Homeland Security Department to pull off "Operation D-Elite" - an action directed at BitTorrent hub Elite Torrents. The Feds, working off 10 search warrants, seized control of the bittorrent site's central server in a quick, decisive maneuver and obtained information from the bittorrent site's alleged administrators. More than 17,800 movie titles were shuffled about by 133,000 Elite Torrent members, according to a statement from the US DoJ (Department of Justice). "Our goal is to shut down as much of this illegal operation as quickly as possible to stem the serious financial damage to the victims of this high-tech piracy-the people who labor to produce these copyrighted products," said Acting Assistant Attorney General John Richter. "Today's crackdown sends a clear and unmistakable message to anyone involved in the online theft of copyrighted works that they cannot hide behind new technology."

And later.

"Internet pirates cost U.S. industry hundreds of billions of dollars in lost revenue every year from the illegal sale of copyrighted goods and new online file-sharing technologies make their job even easier," said Assistant Secretary Michael Garcia. "Through today's landmark enforcement actions, ICE (Customs Enforcement) and the FBI have shut down a group of online criminals who were using legitimate technology to create one-stop shopping for the illegal sharing of movies, games, software and music."

And later.

"The theft of copyrighted material is far from a victimless crime," said Assistant Director Louis Reigel of the FBI. "When thieves steal this data, they are taking jobs away from hard workers in industry, which adversely impacts the U.S. economy. The FBI remains committed to working with our partners in law enforcement at all levels and private industry to identify and take action against those responsible."

The Feds always use almost comical language to describe P2P and BitTorrent sites, portraying them as the work of evil, swollen-brained mad computer scientists. This time we find that Elite Torrent was a "technologically sophisticated P2P network" and not just a bittorrent link hub or bittorrent search engine like you might find in myriad forms on the internet.

One gets the feeling that such language is meant to cover the P2P operations with a very sinister aura in the hopes that this will explain why the Homeland Security department is wasting time making sure George Lucas receives all his cash instead of protecting citizens from actual danger. Not to mention that Silicon Valley churns out far more cash for the US economy than Hollywood, meaning that jobs taken away from Disney might end up at Intel or Microsoft because of a P2P breakthrough. But such foresight would be asking a bit much of bureaucrats, especially ones greased by pigopolist pork.

We digress.

The Feds were especially pleased that visitors to the hijacked Elitetorrents.org would see the message "This Site Has been Permanently Shut Down by the Federal Bureau of Investigation and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement." That message, however, seems to have been quickly replaced by the "Coming Soon" note that is up now. Have the Feds been bested so soon?

"The content selection available on the Elite Torrents network was virtually unlimited and often included illegal copies of copyrighted works before they were available in retail stores or movie theatres," the DoJ said. "For example, the final entry in the Star Wars series, 'Episode III: Revenge of the Sith,' was available for downloading on the network more than six hours before it was first shown in theatres. In the next 24 hours, it was downloaded more than 10,000 times."

Kinda makes tapping phone calls seem more worthwhile, doesn't it?

[America_Right]

Good thing we have the DOHS looking out for us, and protecting us from those terrorists!

[2banana]

They were seduced by the dark side...

[AzSteven]

Wah wah wah - they broke the law, they got caught, they got shut down. Whining "hey, there's more serious criminals out there, leave me alone" is basically crap.

[newsgatherer]

Ok. You lost me, what is this all about in just plain ole english for us publix skool gradjewates.

[LongsforReagan]

Along with the gestapo like "Click it or ticket" roadstops all over the eastern seaboard, I feel so safe now!

F-EM!

[lugsoul]

A better analogy would be shutting down Glock because some folks used their guns to commit a crime.

Bittorrent software and trackers have lots of legitimate uses, and some that are illegitimate. Just like almost every other technology in existence.

[KarlInOhio]

"Internet pirates cost U.S. industry hundreds of billions of dollars in lost revenue every year from the illegal sale of copyrighted goods

Hundreds of billions from illegal sales? That implies at least $200 billion just from sales on top of free downloads.

$200 billon / 300 million people = $667 of illegal sales for every man, woman and child in the coutry. Those numbers sound more inflated than a scared blowfish.

[Tempestuous]

Its not just Americans you know. There are billions of people in the world.

[proxy_user]

If they just need to exchange brief messages with links, you would think they would just post to Usenet.

[Sthitch]

I have a feeling you would react differently if they were stealing your property.

[No Longer Free State]

Intellectual property piracy has become a major source of funding for international terrorists. What's the problem with enforcing the law here?

[Starwolf]

How so? Other than MPAA propaganda, I have never seen any proof that anyone is making money from online rips of films and music.

[Starwolf]

The rips are quite a bit better than that these days.

[Starwolf]

If they just need to exchange brief messages with links, you would think they would just post to Usenet.

Usenet is the sewer of the Internet, not that I don't swim in it a bit too.

[theBuckwheat]

>>One gets the feeling that such language is meant to cover the P2P operations with a very sinister aura ...<<

Yes, and for the same exact reason a private collection of classic hunting rifles becomes an "arsenal" even if police raided the home for some issue totally unrelated to a violent crime.

He who controls the meaning of words, also controls how people think. Only if the press disagrees with the goal of the speaker do they find ways to object to the words he has chosen, often by thowing in the "so-called" warning.

[America_Right]

How many people actually know what Usenet is? NONE of my customers has ever known what it is. These are people who want to download free music with Kazaa, and end up ruining their computers with the spyware they get from it.
Anyway, Usenet isn't well known. A very small percentage of Internet users actually knows it exists.
By the way, I love Easynews! Yeah, shameless plug, but they deserve it.

[proxy_user]

That's why I suggest it. They'd fit right in.

The all-text groups are not actually too bad. There are some very innocuous discussions of crossword puzzles and classical music. But the opera groups are infested with trolls....

[proxy_user]

But I thought the BitTorrent guys were tech wizards. They could probably even get I2P or Freenet to work and use that.

[Starwolf]

Usenet can be a pretty brutal place, and is clearly not a place for noobie and those with thin skins. Every group has a troll or two. Treated properly they provide some amusing entertainment value. I always wear my armor and carry a sharp stick.

Its interesting to note the the new Starwars movie cited as the reason they went after EliteTorrents was actually put out on Usenet first and then moved to Torrents.

[Idisarthur]

I'm sorry, but I have to say that the rips are horrible. I've listened to "burned" products that my friends have and it's annoying and bad quality. I recall a a Movie that had this annoying banner across the bottom - throughout the entire movie. Songs often have sharp beeps at the end.

A problem that I have on the other end is the commericals of all the Hollywood Stars and the lowly Janitor.

Hollywood is finally being ripped off. They have ripped off for so long -- starting with their barrage of cocaine influenced political messages.

The Serf and the thief proletariat has grabbed the attention of the land owner.

Hollywood stars never addressed the people as they are in these commercials. They only addressed people when giving a political statement at one of the 30 Awards ceremonies they created for themselves.

One might say, stop paying Tom Cruise and others vast amounts of money and you will be able to pay the Janitor's $20,000 Salary.

Come on, Tom Cruise will agree to a movie only if the contract reads, $10 Million.

[Ragnorak]

The Constitution says Congress has the power to:
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

Without debating the term "useful arts" as it applies toward Hollywood, I would like to ask about this "for limited times" phrase. Do the copyright laws need to be changed? When you start having hundreds of thousands or millions of people breaking a law, you need to take a look at that law. I don't mean scrap it, but quite probably change it.

For example if copyrights expired after 5 or ten years do you think people would be more respectful of the intellectual property of the creator and thus the law? Should "fair use" be expanded? Is it proper for "limited time" to be interpreted to mean never in your lifetime?

Personally I'm still thinking about it, but I'd be curious what everybody else thinks.

[proxy_user]

I did't realize they put current movies on Usenet.

Was it a 700-meg DIVX-encoded VCD-style file?

[agitator]

Copyright has been extended from 17 years or whatever it used to be to virtual perpetuity because Disney doesn't want to give up Mickey Mouse.

[Starwolf]

Saw the comment of several torrent sites that it had been. None of my news servers go back that far for binaries.Not sure how that copy Episode 3 was done. There are several different rips available as torrents currently.

There us still lots of media, esp music in Usenet.

[WildHorseCrash]

For example if copyrights expired after 5 or ten years do you think people would be more respectful of the intellectual property of the creator and thus the law?

I can't see how. If these scumbags are willing to steal this property when the copyrights are long, why would they suddenly grow morals if they are reduced to 5 or 10 years? If any laws need to be changed, it needs to be the criminal laws, to insure that these filthy pieces of shit spend many, many years behind bars for both setting up these theft networks and for using them to steal other people's property on them. Both the owners and the users of these network should be precluded from ever coming near a computer again, and they should be required to pay back every penny they stole the people they ripped off, plus the costs, like lawyer fees and administrative costs, that they spent in catching these asses.

The next problem is that if copyrights were reduced to 5 or 10 years, it would mean the end to motion picture entertainment as we know it. Why would you spend money to make a movie that will be freely stolen in five years? You slave for years to put together a decedent product and 5 years later every sleeze ball comes out from under his rock to put out all kinds of sequels, merchandise, etc., and you get stiffed.

Should "fair use" be expanded?

In what way? It now covers just about every legitimate use. You can comment on something, discuss it, use it for teaching, view it non-commercially...

Is it proper for "limited time" to be interpreted to mean never in your lifetime?

Sure. So long as the "time" isn't unlimited, then the text of the Constitution isn't violated. And in this day and age where corporations own many, many copyrights, viewing it in terms of anyone's "lifetime" doesn't exactly fit, because corporations don't have natural lifetimes.

What we need to do is to teach the people who steal this property to understand that just because you want something, and just because you don't want to pay for it, and just because the technology exists to make it easy for you to steal it, doesn't somehow make your crime not criminal. They're still stickin' thieves, and they should do the time. They have to be taught that just because they use a computer, that doesn't make them any different from some lice-infested crack head sticking people up to steal their wallets.

That's my take on it, for what it's worth.

[Ragnorak]

I remember thinking that was an awful change when it happened. Anything that is not infinite is for a limited time, but somehow I don't think our current expirations are in the spirit of the Constitution.

Technically if a garage band performs a song in a local bar they're breaking the law. The letter of the law for copyrights would shock most people.

I'm inclined to think the copyright duration should be shortened and the noncommercial use restrictions should be lessened. I also know that I haven't thought this one through enough.

[kezekiel]

Hundreds of billions from illegal sales? That implies at least $200 billion just from sales on top of free downloads.

In their tortured logic, every time somebody downloads a song or movie the copyright holders lose a sale. Star Wars is downloaded 50 million times? That's 50 million times $9.50 a ticket! Or 50 million times $19.95 for the DVD! Ridiculous. I'm not defending theft, but the truth is they have no idea what the ultimate impact on their commerce is. Maybe it is overall better, maybe it is overall worse. But fooling yourself that every download is a lost sale leads to blunt-instrument enforcement and hysterical legislation.

[WildHorseCrash]

Technically if a garage band performs a song in a local bar they're breaking the law.

Yes, but most legitimate establishment have paid the appropriate fees (I guess to ASCAP and BMI) to pay these songs. It would not be breaking the law at that point.

[Golden Eagle]

Sounds so similar to the guy in the back of a squad car being taken downtown for DUI.

"Don't you have more important criminals to find? I can't believe you would do this to ME! Do you know who *I* am! You better let me go, and go find some REAL criminals! I'LL HAVE YOUR JOB FOR THIS!"

Sure you will.

[kezekiel]

Sure. So long as the "time" isn't unlimited, then the text of the Constitution isn't violated. And in this day and age where corporations own many, many copyrights, viewing it in terms of anyone's "lifetime" doesn't exactly fit, because corporations don't have natural lifetimes.

Interesting perspective, given that the entire purpose of copyright is not to promote private property in the intellectual arena, but to *increase* the amount of quality material in the public domain. It was felt that by providing artists *limited* protection, they would produce more material. It was never intended to provide long-term protection.

[WildHorseCrash]

In their tortured logic, every time somebody downloads a song or movie the copyright holders lose a sale. Star Wars is downloaded 50 million times? That's 50 million times $9.50 a ticket! Or 50 million times $19.95 for the DVD! Ridiculous. I'm not defending theft, but the truth is they have no idea what the ultimate impact on their commerce is. Maybe it is overall better, maybe it is overall worse. But fooling yourself that every download is a lost sale leads to blunt-instrument enforcement and hysterical legislation.

You do make a good point. However, when the choice is between giving the benefit of the doubt to the person doing the stealing or the person suffering the loss, I would opt for the later.

Perhaps there is a difference between, I guess, the amount that was lost (i.e., figuring out how many of these represent actual lost sales as opposed to people who wouldn't buy it, but are willing to steal it) and the value of what was stolen (i.e., how much this number of illegal downloads was worth.) They are different, but both are useful in different situations.

[Sir Gawain]

How exactly is this a Homeland Security matter? Oh yeah, slippery slope.

[WildHorseCrash]

Interesting perspective, given that the entire purpose of copyright is not to promote private property in the intellectual arena, but to *increase* the amount of quality material in the public domain.

I disagree about the public domain portion of your analysis. because the Constitution's text does not support this understanding. The text calls for copyrights and patents, "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts..." So I believe it is "Progress" that the text is promoting, not the amount of material in the public domain. If you don't have the exclusivity to capitalize on your intellect, you are less likely to use it creatively.

[Not_Who_U_Think]

"Fair Use" works great if you're Diane Sawyer and have a legal staff to handle the paperwork. For the rest of us, try getting fair use permission from any media company. It won't happen for free, and just how many threatened lawsuits do you need before you stop? Best example I've heard was a documentary that had a scene with a TV showing the Simpsons in the background. Less than 15 seconds of audio / video, shot from across the room. $10k for usage, or cut it out. So, you cut it out rather than risk a case of "fair use" you might lose. For the little guy, there is no fair use.

[Golden Eagle]

How exactly is this a Homeland Security matter?

They have access to the data that was used to nab them.

[Ragnorak]

In principle I agree with you. If we were talking patents I would have the same emotional reaction you do. I don't have the same emotional response when it comes to entertainment copyrights. That's why I'm asking questions. Unlike other kinds of property, intellectual property is only yours for a limited time according to the Constitution. How much does that difference matter?

If I made a modern myth like Star Wars and when my copyright expired I found out that Michael Moore was doing a sequel I'd flip. I understand there can be severe ramifications to making changes.

I thought the idea behind having copyright and patent laws was a desire to reward creativity and innovation but also to have them expire to encourage more creativity and innovation.

There also seems to be something different when it comes to the entertainment industry. Movies, TV shows and songs become popular because we talk about them around the water cooler at work. Their assimilation into the cultural discourse is a huge factor in their market success. My gut tells me this should matter but I haven't come up with a decent rational reason as to why yet.

[WildHorseCrash]

"Fair Use" works great if you're Diane Sawyer and have a legal staff to handle the paperwork. For the rest of us, try getting fair use permission from any media company. It won't happen for free, and just how many threatened lawsuits do you need before you stop? Best example I've heard was a documentary that had a scene with a TV showing the Simpsons in the background. Less than 15 seconds of audio / video, shot from across the room. $10k for usage, or cut it out. So, you cut it out rather than risk a case of "fair use" you might lose. For the little guy, there is no fair use.

I sympathize, but how would expanding fair use law change that? You're still going to have arguments about when the new law applies. Plus, if you have a legitimate fair use situation, you don't need permission. If you don't have that situation, then you should have to get permission. If you aren't sure, then the question is how much do you want to risk it? Life's a risk. The law shouldn't bend over backwards, in my opinion, because some people are risk averse.

I do, however, think that is something to your comment about the threat. Perhaps there should be some type of first-line mandatory non-binding arbitration in which, if the person claiming fair use isn't sure, but they lose, they have the opportunity to correct the matter with no additional penalty. But, I've not really thought this through, so it may have practical problems.

[monkeywrench]

I'm sure the theft in china and russia is much higher. They aren't doing much of anything about that.

[WildHorseCrash]

If I made a modern myth like Star Wars and when my copyright expired I found out that Michael Moore was doing a sequel I'd flip. I understand there can be severe ramifications to making changes.

And it wouldn't be just Michael Moore. You'd have a dozen or however many out there doing it. (Plus, they'd probably end up suing each other, each claiming the others are stepping on the copyrights on the new works.)

I thought the idea behind having copyright and patent laws was a desire to reward creativity and innovation but also to have them expire to encourage more creativity and innovation.

I think this theory really works with patents, but not copyrights. Creativity and advances with patents is, I think, often a matter of modification of existing technology or additions to existing products. I don't think the same holds for copyrights. You can advance the art of filmmaking, for example, by being inspired by Star Wars without ripping it off.

There also seems to be something different when it comes to the entertainment industry. Movies, TV shows and songs become popular because we talk about them around the water cooler at work. Their assimilation into the cultural discourse is a huge factor in their market success. My gut tells me this should matter but I haven't come up with a decent rational reason as to why yet.

I think this is the "Star Wars is so popular that it isn't George Lucas's property anymore" syndrome. When things become generally beloved, especially things designed to get you emotionally like films and music, you feel they are part of you. I think people get a sense of disconnection when they are reminded that that thing that is so emotionally a part of them is actually someone else's property.

[No Longer Free State]

They get downloaded then duped onto CD/DVD and resold on the streets of every third world street in the world at huge profit to those doing the copying.

Since you asked.

[UnbelievingScumOnTheOtherSide]

Non-commercial copyright is dead. Those 133,000 users will just make another board or boards and move to it. And it is getting easier.

Laws don't change in advance of popular action but as a response to what people are doing anyway. Nobody cares what some politicians with a bunch of Hollywood cash in their pockets has to say about it, the occasional highly publicized pathetic bust notwithstanding. The only reason we the people let them pretend DMCA still matters is because they don't enforce it. Go after those other 133,000 "scofflaws", one small tip of a very hugh iceberg. Oh, yeah, and tax the internet too ;-)

[Starwolf]

As I understand the vast majority of the illegal disks being sold are dups of the professional studio ones (commercial, projection, or preview copies).

[kezekiel]

I disagree about the public domain portion of your analysis. because the Constitution's text does not support this understanding. The text calls for copyrights and patents, "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts..." So I believe it is "Progress" that the text is promoting, not the amount of material in the public domain. If you don't have the exclusivity to capitalize on your intellect, you are less likely to use it creatively.

Exclusivity was granted as an incentive to increase the amount of material that would ultimately end up in the public domain. I assure that, most decidedly, the purpose of the exclusive was to encourage the generation creative works, not to secure property rights for the creator. See http://www.conlaw.org/patent_copyright.htm.

[kezekiel]

I disagree about the public domain portion of your analysis. because the Constitution's text does not support this understanding. The text calls for copyrights and patents, "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts..." So I believe it is "Progress" that the text is promoting, not the amount of material in the public domain. If you don't have the exclusivity to capitalize on your intellect, you are less likely to use it creatively.

Exclusivity was granted as an incentive to increase the amount of material that would ultimately end up in the public domain. I assure that, most decidedly, the purpose of the exclusive was to encourage the generation creative works, not to secure property rights for the creator. See http://www.conlaw.org/patent_copyright.htm.

[Stentor]

But fooling yourself that every download is a lost sale leads to blunt-instrument enforcement and hysterical legislation.

As well as hysterical posts.

[WildHorseCrash]

And these 133,000 pieces of shit will still be 133,000 pieces of shit.

[WildHorseCrash]

Exclusivity was granted as an incentive to increase the amount of material that would ultimately end up in the public domain. I assure that, most decidedly, the purpose of the exclusive was to encourage the generation creative works, not to secure property rights for the creator. See http://www.conlaw.org/patent_copyright.htm.

Of course, granting anything less than permanent rights means that material will eventually end up in the public domain and that availability is a spur to further progress. But the purpose of the provision was not to amass material in the public domain for its own sake.

The purpose of the act was to insure progress in the arts and sciences, which required securing property rights for the creator, in the short term, "to help an individual to profit from his work and invention."

In the end I think we are looking at the same thing from two different perspectives. Progress is the purpose; that's what the text says. Progress comes by rewarding creativity in the first instance, by providing a limited exclusivity; and in the second instance, by letting it fall to the public domain where others can unleash their creativity. Both are necessary.

Finally, I was singularly unimpressed with The Constitutional Law Foundation article. It certainly does not assuredly or most decidedly establish that which it attempts to argue. It's policy argument is rather amateurish, by attempting to address twentieth century challenges to intellectual property concepts and law by quoting Jefferson's early 19th Century poetic horseshit. Jefferson is no more relevant to the question of database patents, for example, than he is to the question of transatlantic aviation.

(Furthermore, on one of the key issues in this area, whether 95 years is too long of a "limited time," the article makes little argument beside the conclusory opinion: "And 'limited times' is surely not 95 years." Adding "surely" does not make a conclusory statement any less conclusory.)

[WildHorseCrash]

As well as hysterical posts.

And if these thugs steal from you, you'll get "hysterical," too, I'm sure.

[UnbelievingScumOnTheOtherSide]

The law and the lobbyists who got it passed are pieces of... what you said :-)