Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
The Internet Your Rights Online

Feds Shut Down Elite Torrents 738

Posted by samzenpus
from the stop-sharing dept.
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.""
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Feds Shut Down Elite Torrents

Comments Filter:
  • by SoCalChris (573049) on Wednesday May 25, 2005 @06:10PM (#12639073) Journal
    I take it those dirty terrorists were trading copies of Star Wars again?

    I definately feel safer knowing that DHS is tackling major problems like downloading movies.
    • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 25, 2005 @06:12PM (#12639103)
      maybe they misread it as Elite Terrorists??
    • by Quasar1999 (520073) on Wednesday May 25, 2005 @06:13PM (#12639112) Journal
      If we don't protect the few people at the very top of society so that they can continue to rip off the common folk to make billions upon billions of dollars in profits, then by God, the America I know no longer exists. ( disclaimer: I'm a Canadian so I'm biased. )
      • by gordon_schumway (154192) on Wednesday May 25, 2005 @06:19PM (#12639182)

        You missed the punchline, dude.

        If we don't protect the few people at the very top of society so that they can continue to rip off the common folk to make billions upon billions of dollars in profits, then by God, the terrorists have already won!

        • Ripoff? (Score:4, Insightful)

          by jfengel (409917) on Wednesday May 25, 2005 @06:41PM (#12639411) Homepage Journal
          I know you're just making a joke, but I'm curious: in what way was Revenge of the Sith ripping people off? They made a movie, and they were hoping to sell tickets to it, and eventually sell DVDs. Are you saying that the price for a ticket is too high?

          George Lucas sure will make a profit off that, but is all profit-making a ripoff?
          • Re:Ripoff? (Score:3, Funny)

            by Anonymous Coward
            Stop making people think here! You can't think and jerk your knee at the same time!

            Come on, get back into the /. groupthink:

            corporations = evil
            profits = evil
            US government = evil
            Microsoft = evil

            Just keep saying it and pretty soon you'll feel a lot better!
          • Re:Ripoff? (Score:5, Insightful)

            by Dr. Evil (3501) on Wednesday May 25, 2005 @07:21PM (#12639846)

            Mass produced media has all but killed small theatres and live entertainment. Even the local jobs from Cinemas are near-minimum wage mcjobs, and even those are being replaced by machines. The Cinema operations are franchised so as to lock in who can operate the enterprise and how they operate it, and the distribution of film quality is even monitored to keep cinemas on their toes.

            It's a vertical monopoly where studios own the cinemas and the distribution. Worse, the studios and cinemas collude to ensure minimum competition and maximum revenue from their films.

            Blockbuster cinema houses starve out independent cinema houses, then for the mostpart refuse to air local content which might not fill the seats. It's a rape of our culture and funnels money out of the local economy and right into Hollywood.

            The revenues are used to empower legal teams to change copyright legislation so as to artificially protect their intellectual property. The rights which copyright gave them to make their bililons of dollars is just not enough for them.

            In a world of six billion people, we should see more films and creative content than ever in the history of the earth, but for some reason, all we care about is the production of a few films from these big corporations.

            In other words, George Lucas is a role model for Americans to screw the little guy.

            • Re:Ripoff? (Score:5, Insightful)

              by BasilBrush (643681) on Wednesday May 25, 2005 @07:47PM (#12640065)
              Fair comment. The trouble is that I'm not sure what people downloading the latest Hollywood blockbusters on Bittorrent, burning a DVD and then spending the night at home watching it are doing to help those local independant cinemas.
              • Re:Ripoff? (Score:5, Interesting)

                by mesach (191869) on Wednesday May 25, 2005 @08:48PM (#12640582)
                How about removing the brats that talk on thier cell phones, or throw things, use laser pointers, get up and leave, then come back and mess with thier friends.

                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, Insightful)

                  by thynk (653762)
                  You just stated all the reasons why I still love my local drive in and continue to support it as best I can. I don't even sneak food into the place because I know that they stay in business by thier food sales.

                  Oh, that and when it's the just the wife and I, she thinks it's kinky to play around or get busy in the back seat like we're a couple of teenagers.
            • Re:Ripoff? (Score:3, Interesting)

              by Ubergrendle (531719)
              This is of course COMPLETELY different from the studio system pre-WWII that persisted from silent to talkies to colour. Oh wait, no, its always been this way.

              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.
            • Re:Ripoff? (Score:3, Insightful)

              by emcmanus (887069)
              No, you're wrong. Production houses don't have a vertical monopoly on the industry, as you state.

              Yes, it used to be true that houses owned all of the theaters in which their movies were shown, but that ended in 1948 when an antitrust case was brought against paramount (U.S. vs. Paramount Pictures, et. al) causing them, and others in suit, to divest their theaters.

              I'd like to also point out that all of your examples of the movie industry "robbing america of its right to culture" are not the result of an ev
            • Re:Ripoff? (Score:3, Funny)

              by Sj0 (472011)
              HEY! Who do you think you are? This is slashdot, where you're supposed to make a short, vague, insubstantiated claim about how the man is trying to keep you down, or company X is evil! How are we supposed to bicker amongst ourselves like the spoiled children we are, happily ignoring the sinister truths of this generation and it's overlords, while you deliver well thought-out and incisive jabs at a new culture which says only juggernaughts which can provide bland goods and services without any particular pos
          • Re:Ripoff? (Score:5, Insightful)

            by KingSkippus (799657) on Wednesday May 25, 2005 @07:38PM (#12639981) Homepage Journal

            ...in what way was Revenge of the Sith ripping people off?

            I actually liked Revenge of the Sith, so I let others argue over whether the ticket price was a ripoff to see that particular movie. :-)

            However, I don't need to argue about that. I can think of a few other ways we're being ripped off pretty quickly:

            • The studios diligently working to illegally take away my fair use rights [eff.org] of the movie.
            • The studios screwing movie theaters by making unreasonable monetary demands of the theaters that show their movies during the opening weeks. (Thus forcing theaters to pass the cost on to us by making us finance popcorn [cnn.com] if we actually want a snack.)
            • The studios undermining my Constitutional freedom [usconstitution.net] to copy the movie after a limited time.
            • Imposing excessive fines and punishment [geek.com] on a minor crime when copyright violators are caught. (I can't dig up the link offhand that I saw comparing the punishment for downloading a movie vs. stealing it from a store. Can anyone else help?)
            • The corporate executives at the studios screwing the vast majority of the people who worked on the film to keep most of the profit in the hands of a very small minority of people who did nothing to contribute to the film. (A big problem in big corporations, not limited to the film industry.)
            • The studios working together to keep the prices of DVDs artificially high.

            That's just off the top of my head. Anyone else care to add to the list?

            So no, not all profit-making is a ripoff. But that doesn't change the fact that some of it certainly is. And no, illegally downloading and/or sharing movies isn't legal or ethical. But in the grand scheme of things, I think it's a hell of a lot less serious an offense than what the movie studios and especially the **AA are doing.

            • by KingSkippus (799657) on Wednesday May 25, 2005 @08:01PM (#12640223) Homepage Journal

              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:Ripoff? (Score:3, Insightful)

            by Surt (22457)
            It's a ripoff when the advertising misleads you into paying to see a movie that turns out to be nothing like the clips, and in some cases not even to contain the clips. When you're dissatisfied with the product, there is usually no recourse, you can't get any of your money back.
        • The dissidents in (insert your favorite African nation experiencing genocide here) should setup a huge rack of servers dedicated to hosting pirated movies and music. Then all they have to do is sit back and wait. Within a couple weeks I'm sure the Marines would arrive to "liberate" the country.

          If genocide isn't enough to get the good old USA to act, "stealing" a few bucks from their VERY wealthy citizens should do it.
      • Not only are you Canadian, you're a loon.

        Just how is anyone selling anything ripping off anyone? No one is forcing anyone to buy anything.

        Since most of the /. crowd really only cares about movies and throwaway music and other luxuries, maybe they ought to get a clue and realize that the way to thwart the Big Evil Corporate Bogeymen is to stop buying the stuff.

        Smacks more than a bit of the obese bitching that Big Macs cost too much.
        • Well if they are downloading the stuff the they HAVE STOPPED BUYING THE STUFF. Mission Accomplished.
    • You joke, but most people don't even blink about this misuse of terrorist fighting powers. I swear lobotomies are being covertly administered VERY frequently or something.
      • by Morlark (814687) on Wednesday May 25, 2005 @06:18PM (#12639169) Homepage
        Yes, it's been said many times, both here and elsewhere, but US government agencies are getting uesd to having these 'anti-terrorist' powers, and they seem perfectly happy to apply them to situations where they really shouldn't be applied.
      • by Marnhinn (310256) on Wednesday May 25, 2005 @06:24PM (#12639233) Homepage Journal
        True - to most people this isn't a misuse of terrorist fighting powers, but then again most people don't know what a torrent even is.

        Average Joe American, is not savvy / educated enough to understand the mechanics of torrents, Hollywood (for instance that - Star Wars was an insider leak) or that this is a misuse of the DoH's resources. To them, pirates, downloaders and terrorists are one and the same.

        Why? Because somewhere along the last couple of decades, peoples' knowledge of their own laws, (especially laws involving quickly changing technology) took a significant downturn. Simply try asking people on the street about the USAPatriot Act or the DMCA. Most - know nothing. Some may have a different perception of the act due to propaganda and only a few will care about it.

        Unless it is directly affecting the person, it's not important to them for the most part...

        Democracies, in order to be effective, require active and INFORMED citizens - something that is slowly dissappearing (for a multitude of reasons).
        • by Orgazmus (761208) on Wednesday May 25, 2005 @06:30PM (#12639301)
          Democracies, in order to be effective, require active and INFORMED citizens - something that is slowly dissappearing (for a multitude of reasons).

          Maybe the old impulse cannon you target at your heads all day long has something to do with this?
          Fair and balanced, my ass!

          Dear Americans:
          Stop letting TV control your view, and check things out for yourselves. It might be interesting to see what is going on outside of the living room.
        • by Olix (812847) on Wednesday May 25, 2005 @06:35PM (#12639349)

          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.

          • by PseudononymousCoward (592417) on Wednesday May 25, 2005 @07:00PM (#12639591)
            that patriot act of yours is darn scary. does anyone know if there is an equivilant in Britain?

            Are you kidding me? You guys don't even have a Constitution to provide an foundation to object to laws like PATRIOT. Have you ever checked out the UK's anti-terror laws? Check out the "Anti- Terrorism, Crime and Security Act of 2001" (which, BTW I'm unclear whether its anti terrorism, crime, and security, or only anti terrorism and crime; I would presume that it is pro-security, though the title is a bit ambiguous on that point.) Its chock full of fun bits.

            Better yet, check out the laws in the UK in the 1970's and 80's to deal with the IRA--I'm not defending any group or act here, just pointing out that many of those laws make PATRIOT look benign. Just a hint: indefinite detention without any trial, and there's more where that came from.

            Far from what the rhetoric of /. would lead one to believe, the civil liberties in the US are quite extensive, and quite well-protected. It is only because they are so extensive, that we notice when they are diminished.
          • 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...

            Are you even listening to yourself? To translate: no one should have power over anyone else... except for the UN, which is made up of people, who would then have power over other people?

            That would be the
      • by Anonymous Coward
        Terrorist fighting powers - funny! You didn't read the article, did you?

        It was immigration and customs, by the way, and nobody but the magoo who started this thread made any connection to terrorism. What a bunch of lemmings.
    • Terrorent (Score:5, Interesting)

      by EnronHaliburton2004 (815366) * on Wednesday May 25, 2005 @06:17PM (#12639163) Homepage Journal
      I suggest a new word:

      Terrorent: A terrorist who uses bittorrent to illegally distribute American Freedom ©.
    • by johnhennessy (94737) on Wednesday May 25, 2005 @06:26PM (#12639257)
      Not wanting to appear to side the RIAA and the MPAA but with the amounts of money involved its not surprising that the law is after these sites.

      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.

    • by TrappedByMyself (861094) on Wednesday May 25, 2005 @06:36PM (#12639371)
      Yeah, more FUD.
      I really think you people take pride in your ignorance.

      I say this in another post, but Immigration and Customs, which handles copyright infrigement, is part of Homeland Security.

      Homeland Security was created partly to battle terrorism and partly to combine the domestic agencies into one group. This issue has nothing to do with terrorism, even though it adding the word makes it all juicy and gets everyone all riled up.

      Someone broke the law, and the government did its job by shutting them down.

      Please get a grip and focus on the real issues of the day.
  • infinite? (Score:5, Funny)

    by Travelsonic (870859) on Wednesday May 25, 2005 @06:10PM (#12639080) Journal
    I wonder if it is possible to have a near infinite number of copyrighted works available. I think it isn't.
  • Curses! (Score:5, Funny)

    by funny-jack (741994) on Wednesday May 25, 2005 @06:11PM (#12639083) Homepage
    Dangit guys, how come I only find out about these great torrent sources after they get shut down?
  • Had copies? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Luigi30 (656867) on Wednesday May 25, 2005 @06:14PM (#12639123)
    How can a bittorrent tracker have copies of something?
  • Hydra (Score:4, Insightful)

    by 1967mustangman (883255) on Wednesday May 25, 2005 @06:14PM (#12639133)
    Bittorrnt is a hydra-headed deal. THey will never be able to lop off enough heads to make a difference. Torrenters will just adapt.
    • Re:Hydra (Score:5, Insightful)

      by gosand (234100) on Wednesday May 25, 2005 @06:30PM (#12639298)
      Torrenters dealing in illegal wares should be shut down. If more and more sites use it for legitimate uses, then Bittorrent will survive. If it is only used for illegal stuff, then there are better chances that it will be attacked.

      So they shut down a site that was trading in illegal stuff. What is the big deal? (other than the fact that the feds are concerned with THIS and not so much things that really hurt human beings)

      • Re:Hydra (Score:5, Insightful)

        by maxpublic (450413) on Wednesday May 25, 2005 @07:58PM (#12640178) Homepage
        So they shut down a site that was trading in illegal stuff. What is the big deal? (other than the fact that the feds are concerned with THIS and not so much things that really hurt human beings)

        Torrents wouldn't be so bloody popular unless the current distribution model for media was a source of widespread dissatisfaction. Despite a plethora of laws passed to uphold aging business models, the number of Americans (just Americans) engaging in illegal downloading activity passed more than an estimated *70 million* last month. When a quarter of your citizens consistently and repeatedly break the law despite the imposition of relatively harsh (even ludicrous) prison sentences then there's something seriously wrong with the law - by definition. The citizens supposedly define the law, and if a good chunk of them ignore it (with the numbers rising every month) it's a fair bet that the law they're dismissing doesn't reflect their own interests or goals.

        The RIAA and MPAA refuse to adapt to changing market conditions. Just plain, flat-out refuse. Probably because they know that in this case while adaption might very well preserve or even increase profits, it'll almost certainly strip them of the non-economic power they've acquired over the last fifty years - power that the tin-pots in the industries love more than money itself. So instead of adapting and avoiding this whole mess they buy laws and send Americans to jail over COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT, which is just fucking stupid.

        And yet despite this, the increasingly stiffer penalties, and the crackdowns, the number of Joes and Janes breaking these laws is climbing faster than at any other time in history since the Prohibition! That should tell you something right there about how well the law reflects the will of the people it supposedly serves.

        Max
  • by Pacifix (465793) <zorp AT zorpy DOT com> on Wednesday May 25, 2005 @06:15PM (#12639136)
    ... The RIAA and MPAA heads can sleep easy tonight on their piles of money with their many beautiful women. Seriously, spend money on fixing the outdated media distribution channels and piracy will stop being worth it.
    • Seriously, spend money on fixing the outdated media distribution channels and piracy will stop being worth it.

      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 thes
      • You are correct, and here's my $.02 on the issue:

        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
  • Footage (Score:5, Funny)

    by asadodetira (664509) on Wednesday May 25, 2005 @06:15PM (#12639140) Homepage
    Assuming there's video footage of the shutdown please someone post a torren... ...never mind
  • RTJKJAS? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by christose (866872) on Wednesday May 25, 2005 @06:16PM (#12639150)
    What on earth is the hidden "RTJKJAS" that appears on the bottom of http://elitetorrents.org/ [elitetorrents.org] ?

    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 ?
    • Re:RTJKJAS? (Score:5, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 25, 2005 @06:22PM (#12639209)
      dude did you try clicking on it? i instantly got catapulled into a secret network of spy computers that had access to every mainframe all over the world!!!

      then i had sex with sandra bullocks and my day was complete

      • Re:RTJKJAS? (Score:3, Funny)

        by mpcooke3 (306161)
        It's so sad. I saw those hidden chars and tried a few url variations before realising that in fact I wasn't sandra bullock.
    • Re:RTJKJAS? (Score:4, Funny)

      by Ralph Yarro (704772) on Wednesday May 25, 2005 @06:31PM (#12639305) Homepage
      What on earth is the hidden "RTJKJAS"

      Return of The Jedi King, Jar-Jar Against Spiderman.

      It's the next epic hollywood blockbluster which was leaked early and led to the site being taken down.
    • Re:RTJKJAS? (Score:3, Insightful)

      by str8 (28028)
      I suspect the 'web developer' just put some garbage on the end of the word doc to prevent the fine Microsoft product (I'll tell you where you want to go today!) from deleting the blank lines.

      Psst... Hey buddy, can you spare a .sig?
  • by osewa77 (603622) <{naijasms} {at} {gmail.com}> on Wednesday May 25, 2005 @06:18PM (#12639171) Homepage
    May be linked to the Release of Star Wars 3, any action against movie download sites at this time could be. Very great the financial impact of piracy on this particular film could be, therefore criticize the Feds for doing this now, we cannot. Open source principles on Open source movies should be applied. A commercial movie Star Wars is, and benefit from the Piracy is cannot, because knows about it everyone does already.
  • How long before (Score:3, Interesting)

    by ShatteredDream (636520) on Wednesday May 25, 2005 @06:18PM (#12639174) Homepage
    They bust hundreds or even thousands of users and take this to Congress to justify funding and manpower increases? This could be a big profile bust and they're going to exploit it to their advantage.
  • by pjammer (90700) <`pjammer' `at' `livejournal.com'> on Wednesday May 25, 2005 @06:19PM (#12639177) Homepage
    OMFG! 5-0 PNWS L33T T0RRNTZ! LOL!!!

    Perhaps they should have been using an artifical intelligence content-authoring program [autoblogger.net]?
  • It seems unreal... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by jZnat (793348) on Wednesday May 25, 2005 @06:20PM (#12639198) Homepage Journal
    Why the FUCK would the FBI (who's purpose is to prevent communism) even get involved in copyright infringement? This seems to be in the **AAs' field to send cease and desist letters, or even the FTC to step in and bitch at ET, but not the FBI...
    • by Anonymous Coward
      Umm, where the hell did you get any of that from? The FBI was founded in the very early 1900's as the first official Federal police force. It has nothing to do specifically with Communism, except as much as its jurisdiction includes domestic espionage.

      The FBI's jurisdiction covers all Federal laws not primarily handled by another branch (for example, counterfeting is handled by the Secret Service). Copyright infringement has long since moved from a purely civil to a criminal matter and therefore falls u

  • seems to be fake (Score:3, Interesting)

    by ChoGGi (522069) <slashdot@ChoGGi.org> on Wednesday May 25, 2005 @06:23PM (#12639220) Homepage
    from the irc channel

    SithLord changes topic to 'Site Status : Down : ET Was DNS Hacked'
    ET thanks everyone for there patience ... we are trying to get ionfo as fast as we can
    info*

    also at the bottom of the page it says RTJKJAS
  • The Cost of Idiocy (Score:5, Insightful)

    by CristalShandaLear (762536) on Wednesday May 25, 2005 @06:25PM (#12639241) Homepage Journal
    Movie Tickets in my area $9.50
    Amount of downloads: Aprox 10,000
    Amount Star Wars grossed in just the first weekend: $158.5 million

    I suppose that somehow, somewhere that extra $95,000 that they may or may not have made anyway is worth all this.

    I'd bet that 9K out of the 10K downloaders actually paid to see the movie anyway.

  • by donnacha (161610) on Wednesday May 25, 2005 @06:40PM (#12639399) Homepage
    Damn, I had a great ratio at ET!!

    If they bust Empornium next, they'll completely ruin my sex life.

    How difficult would it be to host these trackers in China or any other country that the neo-cons in Washington don't have against the wall?

    Latency shouldn't be such a problem, all the tracker has to do is hook the users up.
  • MM... looks strange (Score:4, Interesting)

    by xtracto (837672) on Wednesday May 25, 2005 @06:41PM (#12639416) Journal
    Some questions, why does the DHS and FBI signs are from the elitetorrents.org site??

    FBI:
    http://elitetorrents.org/Shut%20Down%20By%20FBI%20 AND%20ICE_files/image002.gif [elitetorrents.org]
    http://elitetorrents.org/Shut%20Down%20By%20FBI%20 AND%20ICE_files/image006.gif [elitetorrents.org]

    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?
  • by Orcspit (600792) on Wednesday May 25, 2005 @06:45PM (#12639448)
    I find the specific words the author of that article used to be kinda interesting.

    "Federal agents launched a crackdown on users of a popular new technology used to steal the latest "Star Wars" movie..."

    Download instead of "steal" would have worked fine in that sentance. I guess steal just conveys a more sinister idea. Like roaving bands of junky Bit Torrent users are going to break into your home at any moment. The will "steal" anythign to get their fix!

    "Within 24 hours, more than 10,000 copies of the "Star Wars" film had been swiped."

    Ahh yes "swiped" the files were swiped from the servers, depriving the poor innocent children of their Star Wars!

    I really hate CNN, they are getting as bad as Fox News.


    -Orcspit
    • You're surprised a media company, i.e. a major owner of copyrighted material, uses verbiage consistent with the positions of copyright owners' lobbyists (RIAA/MPAA)?
  • by EvilStein (414640) <spamNO@SPAMpbp.net> on Wednesday May 25, 2005 @07:03PM (#12639609) Homepage
    (NO, I didn't download it. Friend did and had it on his laptop.)

    Bunch of us watched the first 10-15 minutes. Everyone said "Ok, so far it doesn't suck. Let's go see it." .... and off the group went to the next showing.

    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.
  • by nurb432 (527695) on Wednesday May 25, 2005 @07:03PM (#12639617) Homepage Journal
    Might make you feel better, but you dont make a dent..

    The entire structure of copyright laws need to be revamped.

    Of course i know that will never happen as long as the large corporations are in control of the government.
  • by millennial (830897) on Wednesday May 25, 2005 @07:05PM (#12639639) Journal
    a selection of copyrighted works ... described as virtually unlimited

    So this is virtually unlimited, but selective. As there are an infinite number of positive integers, but there is a larger infinite set of real numbers, EliteTorrents had a virtually unlimited selection, but they still didn't have everything.

    I agree with what some others have said here - this looks like a DNS hijacking and fake warning. The Department of Homeland Security, Immigration and Customs Enforcement have absolutely nothing to do with copyright enforcement.
  • by isorox (205688) on Wednesday May 25, 2005 @07:06PM (#12639650) Homepage Journal
    First-time offenders convicted of criminal felony
    copyright laws will face up to five years in federal prison, restitution, forfeiture and a fine.


    5 years, isn't that a bit extreme. Still, kiddnapping gets 10 years, and that's only slightly worse than downloading copyrighted works
  • first off, p2p piracy IS wrong.

    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
  • Think of it this way (Score:3, Informative)

    by jonwil (467024) on Thursday May 26, 2005 @03:05AM (#12642480)
    If I go and post an ad in the paper (for example) telling people where to go and buy illegal drugs from, I am breaking the law.
    By the same token, the newspaper would probobly also be breaking the law because they published the ad (knowing full well the ad was for something blatently illegal)

    All a .torrent file is is a note saying "talk to to machines x,y,z to download this file" (or something like that anyway, I dont know the techincal details of bittorrent). And, like the hypothetical newspaper ad, a .torrent file for an illegal copy of a movie/song/program/game/etc serves no other purpose than to aid people in breaking the law (downloading the item without permission from the copyright holders).

    As for the sites themselves, the sites being shut down tend to have only (or almost only) torrents for illegal files so its quite within the rights for them to be shut down (depending on what country they are in)

UNIX was half a billion (500000000) seconds old on Tue Nov 5 00:53:20 1985 GMT (measuring since the time(2) epoch). -- Andy Tannenbaum

Working...