Feds Shut Down Elite Torrents 738
honkimon writes "Cnn Money reports,
"Government agents said the onslaught included 10 search warrants and
the shut down of a central Web site used to coordinate all file-sharing
activity on the Elite Torrents network. That Web site,
Elitetorrents.org, had a selection of copyrighted works
that government officials described as virtually unlimited.""
Possible (Score:2, Interesting)
Had copies? (Score:5, Interesting)
homeland security (Score:2, Interesting)
RTJKJAS? (Score:5, Interesting)
I guess somebody didn't like the FBI and HS insignias... Is this an indication of HS abusing the power it gained after 9/11 ?
Terrorent (Score:5, Interesting)
Terrorent: A terrorist who uses bittorrent to illegally distribute American Freedom ©.
Re:Department of Homeland Security was involved? (Score:4, Interesting)
How long before (Score:3, Interesting)
seems to be fake (Score:3, Interesting)
SithLord changes topic to 'Site Status : Down : ET Was DNS Hacked'
ET thanks everyone for there patience
info*
also at the bottom of the page it says RTJKJAS
Re:Department of Homeland Security was involved? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Department of Homeland Security was involved? (Score:5, Interesting)
But you can be sure it's not because of terrorism.
How much of California's income comes from the film industry and the industry that services it.
At this stage, the movie studios are nearly nothing more than specialised banks (do I get credit for quoting Neal Stephenson !) - and with the vast sums of money involved, its not surprising that the law appears to re-act quicker.
But the law folks need a semi-genuine excuse to pursue these cases without alienating the public.
For example, if their line was "Yeah, well we need to help the movie industry backers get richer" - how many people would be taken to their cause. As a matter of spite, people would swing the other way - anything to go "get the system".
In Britain, before the motto for pursuing these sites and pirates was "to fight terrorism" it was "to fight organised crime".
In the end, it's all down to money, and in the movie business there's loads of it floating around.
Every wonder how dangerous driving in some countries can only incur a penalty of a few hundred dollars/euros (if you are really unlucky) while recording a film in a cinema (which I don't condone) can incur an _unlimited_ penalty where I come from.
Re:Most people don't know any better... (Score:4, Interesting)
God, that patriot act of yours is darn scary. does anyone know if there is an equivilant in Britain? I hope not, I like to think that British norms are more informed than American norms (Though the results of our last election seem to suggest otherwise.)
It scares me that any body, even governments, can have such power. I like to think that in the modern age, people are protected by bodies like the UN. It pisses me off when the governing bodies of countries like America ignore UN rules because they think they are above the international law. In a perfect world, no one would have such extreme power over anyone else...
Screw it, maybe I'll just give up the real world. People are always saying that nerds like me have 'poor social skills'. What a load of crap! Sure, in their world I might be considered a bit strange, but in the world that is most important to me, the internet, I am a good member of society. But I am off topic, so I'll stop.
MM... looks strange (Score:4, Interesting)
FBI:
http://elitetorrents.org/Shut%20Down%20By%20FBI%2
http://elitetorrents.org/Shut%20Down%20By%20FBI%2
So they shut it down, and the ip is:
192.31.21.68
And although ping do not respond. Who is throws:
OrgName: San Diego Supercomputer Center
OrgID: SDSC
Address: P.O. Box 85608
City: San Diego
StateProv: CA
PostalCode: 92186
Country: US
NetRange: 192.31.21.0 - 192.31.21.255
CIDR: 192.31.21.0/24
NetName: SDSC-APOLLO
NetHandle: NET-192-31-21-0-1
Parent: NET-192-0-0-0-0
NetType: Direct Assignment
NameServer: DNS1.SDSC.EDU
NameServer: NS0.SDSC.EDU
Comment:
RegDate:
Updated: 1994-12-20
TechHandle: TH60-ARIN
TechName: Hutton, Thomas
TechPhone: +1-858-534-5136
TechEmail: hutton@sdslug.org
# ARIN WHOIS database, last updated 2005-05-24 19:10
# Enter ? for additional hints on searching ARIN's WHOIS database.
interesting domain no?
Re:Department of Homeland Security was involved? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Santa Claus was the first through the door w/ m (Score:5, Interesting)
The government underwent a massive reorganization in the last two years. 22 agencies-- including big departments like the CIA, FBI, Secret Service, Coast Guard, Customs, and FEMA; have all been moved to, or are in the process of being moved to the DHS.
This is a BIG change... it's the most signifigant restructuring of the US government in the last 50 years.
You really, really need to know this stuff.
Re:And this ended piracy for all time... (Score:3, Interesting)
Please! This isn't about piracy! This is an industry trying to save itself from DIY publishing and distribution. This piracy thing is a really good distraction, apparently. It seems to have clouded almost everybody's vision of what's really at stake. If piracy is so rampant, why is the industry making record amounts of money every year?? The new Star Wars flick is in the Guiness Book, and yet these ninnies are crying about Bittorrent. Screw 'em. We just need to build more resistant systems. This should be our unified goal, and we need to resist frivilous diversions like this.
I saw 10 minutes of a pirated version (Score:5, Interesting)
Bunch of us watched the first 10-15 minutes. Everyone said "Ok, so far it doesn't suck. Let's go see it."
Remember when Apple let the first 7 minutes of "Chicken Run" loose on their trailer site? Good move, I say. I'm fed up with biased movie reviews and trailers that show the only cool parts of the whole movie. I'm still pissed off that I wasted $30 + 2 hours of my life to see "Mission to Mars" after seeing the trailer. Bastards.
Re:Had copies? (Score:4, Interesting)
Why bother with a complex plan. (Score:1, Interesting)
A better link for the punishment thing... (Score:5, Interesting)
I was in a hurry to get the post on here, so I missed the link in the geek.com story to the original article [nyud.net] (non-Coral [usatoday.com]) at USA Today. That still doesn't change the fact that this kid got three months of a deferred jail sentence, three years of probation, 200 hours of community service (for those of you with a 40-hour a week job, that's five weeks off from work, or three months of weekends), $5,400 in fines, and he must take a class on copyright at the University (presumably at his own expense of time and money), and avoid file-sharing programs (I don't see any stipulation that the avoiding of file-sharing programs is limited to illegal downloads).
And in the article, it says that he was lucky that he was just a kid. If he had been older, the penalties would have been stiffer, including a mandatory three month jail sentence up front.
Oh, and I dug up [slashdot.org] the story from February 10 about the comparison between shoplifting and copyright infringement. Here is a link [nyud.net] (non-Coral [nyud.net]) to the original article.
Re:It seems unreal... (Score:3, Interesting)
Hollywood uses creative accounting (but not just for taxes, Winston Groom didn't earn any royalties on Forrest Gump, how much did it gross again?) to avoid them.
There are big companies that pay taxes, but you'll find out that they have little in the way of marketable intellectual property.
It is not because whoever's running Disney this week has naked photos of President Bush (at least, not that I know of) but because Disney profits help keep the government running.
You mean, they keep election campaigns running. That cash never touches the treasury. Can you really be this dense?
is when they state that this is a justification for violating others' rights.
Like my rights to not have to tolerate eternal copyright? I'll gladly trade files of steamboat willy all day, it's in the public domain, corrupt congressional acts notwithstanding.
Early home computer software becomes public domain in the next 2 years (and I make copies of it now, because it may not survive much longer if I don't). Want to sic the FBI on me?
people need to learn moral nuance (Score:3, Interesting)
but the problem is that it is a different kind of wrong than stealing in the traditional sense. it is a new kind of wrong, and those who fight it are using a moral sledgehammer when moral nuance is needed. and those who fight p2p piracy are losing the battle by overreacting in their moral determination.
to put it another way: to convince people not to download movies, you have to stop using an elephant gun to shoot gnats. you need moral nuance, because those who are downloading aren't listening to fire and brimstone, as it comically outweighs the weight of their crime.
the usual cut off point between otherwise moral people on the issue of p2p piracy has to do with the notion of who copying files on p2p really hurts in society.
some would say that "it's still usually worth shelling out the cash so that the people that worked on the movie get the money that they're owed."
but that's wrong, philosophically AND practically. this is trying to apply binary logic to a question of scale.
the determination that not paying for a movie = stealing is wrong, not because not paying for a movie is right, but because it's simply NOT "stealing" in the moral sense that is brought to bear on the situation before us.
let's say instead of downloading a movie, you sneak into another theatre after the movie you paid for, something teenagers have been doing for decades. what have you stolen? well, if you didn't sneak into that theatre, that seat would have still been empty, correct?
meanwhile, if i steal a loaf of bread, i've stolen a loaf of bread. i haven't stolen half a loaf, i haven't stolen 100,000 loaves. it's a binary determination: i stole the binary value of a loaf of bread at market prices. i need to make moral amends so that "the baker that worked on the bread gets the money that they're owed."
that logic works PERFECTLY for situations where my actions results in something physically becoming unavailable for someone else's use. but that is NOT what is happening with pirated media.
i'll put it another way: let's say someone makes a movie for $100 million, and no one wants to see it, and the movie grosses $1 million. what is the logic behind asking for what "the people that worked on the movie get the money that they're owed?" is it safe to infer then that you support the notion that those who made the $100 million bomb get paid by society $99 million to make up for their loss?
no really, what are the makers of a movie MORALLY owed?
if someone makes a movie for $100,000 and it grosses $500 million, is that what they are MORALLY owed?
what are they owed in your moral sledgehammer approach to the problem?
so what is the value of applying the old binary logic of stealing to a question of scale?
the current moral attitude of the laws on p2p simply doesn't stand up to examination, philosophically and practically. with media: movies, music, text, etc... anything that can be digitized, the binary logic of morality when it comes to theft simply does not apply.
THAT DOESN'T MAKE IT RIGHT!
again, listen to me carefully, i am not introducing a slippery slope to acceptance, i repeat: it is still WRONG to copy a movie online.
but it is not the same KIND of wrong. it is more nuanced.
so what people operating in a blind, closed minded "it's just wrong" approach need to learn is nuance. the RIAA and MPAA and the people who write the laws in this country need to realize exactly WHAT kind of wrong it is, and stop swinging their sledgehammers, and thereby doing nothing but demonstrate that they don't really understand what they are really talking about.
because refusing to play anything but hardball with a situation that requires a more nuanced moral approach does not do anything except create deaf ears by the POOR and YOUNG who are doing most of the file swapping to simple minded fire and brimstone moral determinations.
because P2P piracy IS a question of m
Re:Department of Shitty HTML involved? (Score:2, Interesting)
RTJKJAS
Re:Ripoff? (Score:5, Interesting)
People who bring baby's and toddlers to movies because they cant get a sitter that night.
The guy who translates the entire movie line by line for his spanish speaking family of 8 so they can see it in the theater.
How about removing those people, because they RUIN my $10/ticket movie going experience. Which in turn makes me download the movie and sit at home and watch in comfort. They arent losing ANY money because I didn't go to the theater and buy a ticket. I have no intention of going to theaters because of the 10% inconsiderate fucks in the world.
Re:Ripoff? (Score:3, Interesting)
Good independent work will always come to the fore. When people started getting sick of John Wayne movies and musicals and yet another damn Rock Hudson movie, along came Coppola, Scorcese, DePalma, Polanski, etc to bust it wide open.
I figure we need another year or two of ABSOLUTE DRECK before studios will start taking chances again on new work. Lucas used to be the counter-culture rebel...who is going to overthrow him? its inevitable, sooner or later 'our' generation will come out with an alternative. (Hint: Watch movies by David Fincher, Spike Jonze, and Christopher Nolan to get a sense of the new post-modern digital film future)
Re:Compulsory Buying, Eh? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:And this ended piracy for all time... (Score:3, Interesting)
It's never been about piracy ever, because we never hear about huge piracy rings in the Pacific Rim being "shut down" and thousands of bootleg DVDs taken off the streets. China and other places just give the US the finger when it comes to "tightening copyright provisions and intellectual property protections."
You see reporters walking up to vendors on the street corner in New York selling movies one week old on VHS or DVD, yet there's only one high profile bust for stuff like that in the last 5 years. (They were more interested in getting the P2P networks anyway.) Granted those vendors might not even have anything on those tapes, but the point is still there. Piracy has never been their concern. People like that and the bootleg DVD makers are what ACTUALLY rob them of their precious "revenue", yet trading online for no cash whatsoever is more important to them. Empowerment of the end user is their chief problem. Our computers are powerful enough to encode movies to watch whenever, wherever we want. So they nix the ability to copy them (or try to) with the DMCA. Our computers are connected to the internet via more than a 28.8 modem these days (some of us, I mean)... their idea is to subpoena names of users from ISPs who are "suspected" of pirating songs on Kazaa. Great strategy.. piss off the demographic most likely to buy your crap, RIAA.
When you can dictate to them when and how you want to view their content, it makes them nervous. When you have the ability to sidestep their dog and pony show for old TV shows or movies, they are pissed. (I hate to use this analogy, but here goes..) It is not unlike the illuminators decrying the invention of moveable type. The sunset on how the studios/labels do their business is rapidly approaching. This is their last gasp attempt to try and stifle progress.
ROTS was #2 all time box office leader (in terms of opening weekend gross), as well as making new records in day to day sales and ticket pre-sells, yet the only thing you hear is "Revenue is down year to year for the 3rd straight year..." We can't appear to be making MONEY after we tell them how bad piracy is to our business.
Why? Because "Monster in Law" and the 37 TV show remakes planned aren't interesting to the average movie goer? No. It's those damn P2P people. Yeah, right. Convenient scapegoat.
It's enough to make me wonder why I even go to the movies at all. (The last movie I saw in the theater was HHGTTG, but before that, I'd not been since LOTR:ROTK.) Nothing showing that I can't wait and rent for a lot less, and avoid the idiots that fill theaters. I saw HHGTTG in a theater with 3 other people. It was worth waiting until then to see it.
Sorry for the rant... it's just getting to me. The MPAA/RIAA are a bunch of whiny old crows who wish for the days long past. They wish technology wasn't leaving them behind, and if they have their way, they'll stomp it until it is leaving them behind.
Re:Ripoff? (Score:4, Interesting)
I do however respect your right to your point of view and you put your thoughts forth in an organized manner. I was able to clearly understand your point of view, and that generally is the point of communication (even on
I could go on for hours and hours with the flaws of unions and liberal philosophies, but it's really not worth the effort. Let me just say that they both had a place and a time when they were useful and needed, but that time has passed.
corporations are antithetical to values that most people consider good qualities: fairness, sharing, caring, and that other kumbaya stuff that you probably would like your kids to learn.
Sure, I'd love my kids to learn that stuff. In fact, I've been teaching them that their whole lives. However, they also are learning that they need to work for what they want, they are learning that rewards only go to those who are willing to take the risks to get them. They are also learning that it's wrong for a government to do for the people what they can do for themselves.
I have no clue to your background, nor do you have any clue to mine. I suggest that further discussions be taken offline, I'd be happy to discuss philosophies with someone as rational as yourself.
Re:I've got a plan!!!!1111 (Score:1, Interesting)
Rather tricky, as - if, as I suspect, you're referring to the USA - I've never even set foot on the same fucking continent as it.
Only on slashdot would something like this get modded "insightful."
On the contrary. It would also get modded "insightful" on any similar website run by anyone except right-wing Americans. Which is most of the world right now.
If your American military is into liberation and the spread of democracy, why are there no plans to liberate North Korea or Cuba? Why is China a "most favored nation"? Why are you openly supporting a military dictatorship in Pakistan and an oppressive monarchy in Saudi Arabia?
To put it another way - if the war in Iraq had nothing to do with oil, why was the only "evil" state selected for "liberation" the one with the largest oil supply?
Re:Compulsory Buying, Eh? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Ripoff? (Score:1, Interesting)
So let's see, I got my high school degree, graduated with honors. I got my bachelor's in computer science, graduated Cum Laude even. I was inducted into no fewer than six honor societies from diverse disciplines (how many CS majors do you know who were inducted into the International History Honor Society?) I was able to get loans and grants that covered most of my school expenses, and did regular consulting to help cover the missing amount. (Even qualified for complete financial assistance, grants, loans & scholarships together don't always pay for everything, particularly books which seem to get more and more expensive.)
I got a decent job after graduation and then two years later, about the time the dotcom bubble crashed I suddenly lost it due to cost cutting. I didn't work for a company BTW, but for the university I had graduated from as a sysadmin over an entire department. That year our state closed down for a week over the problems with sorting out the budget, and a month later (STILL having no budget for the current fiscal year) the university started laying off staff. Perhaps if I'd been faculty I'd have been ok.
So I start looking for another job. I have education, experience and should be highly marketable right? Wrong. In two _YEARS_ of job hunting in my field I was only called in for interviews at two places. I was over qualified for most of the work so I suspect they assumed I would want more than they were willing to pay and just trashed my application. Moving from this area was not a realistic option, I have some major health problems and being somewhere without friends or family reasonable close that can come to assist me could be fatal.
So after spending two years only being able to find a job at Wal-mart my bills (all medical) are sky-high. That's even with my managing to pay the full premium and keeping my former insurance under COBRA. Granted that took up nearly my whole paycheck each month, but losing health insurance was also not an option. I've had my current job for a year, it looks like it'll take me 2-3 more years just to get all the old medical bills paid down, much less to be able to save or invest.
So you can take your "The real way a person gets into an untenable position is by making poor decisions." rhetoric and shove it up your ass. Unless you're trying to say that my studying hard, working hard, getting good grades, getting a degree, getting work experience while getting that degree and getting a job afterwards was somehow "poor decisions" that led to my unexpected job loss. I seriously doubt you can do that though as your post tries to claim that the people in "untenable position[s]" are ones to fail to do all of the above.
Frankly you'll never understand this until something similar happens to you and you're forced to discover the hard way that life isn't as rosy as you think it is. I fervently hope you never get to find out though, it's not a fun experience. You _COULD_ try being a bit understanding, but apparently that's below you and your values. I think that says a lot more about you than it does anyone else.