MPAA is Awarded $110 Million In TorrentSpy Case

An anonymous reader writes "The MPAA was awarded a staggering judgment in its case against the BitTorrent indexing site TorrentSpy. According to Slyck.com, a judge in California rendered a $110 million victory for the MPAA, and a permanent injunction against TorrentSpy."

What is the method of determining damages?

[LockeOnLogic]

The movie companies lost money due to torrentspy's activities, but what is the basis for such a monstrous monetary judgement? Magic eight ball? Numbers out of a hat? How on earth did the movie companies prove this level of loss? Gotta love hollywood accounting, astounding how movies can make nothing and everything at the same time.

Future News, MPAA raids isoHunt

[dukeluke]

Just because isoHunt is in Canada, we can't expect the MPAA not to try and cross the border. I mean, the RIAA has been bad enough about operating in states in the U.S. - why should we expect the MPAA not to do the same?

And next week...

[Xeth]

...there's another site doing the exact same thing, located in a different country.

Attempting to fight these sites is entirely ineffective, and won't even scare the populace like suing individuals does. As for the $110 million, well... good luck? I wouldn't bet on getting more than 1%.

Re:What is the method of determining damages?

[InlawBiker]

That is one of the ridiculous aspects of this suit, and all of the claimed losses. If you multiply each instance of a song/movie by the number of seeds + downloaders, then multiply again over time then it's possible to come up with an astronomical false value. It's false because it assumes the downloaders would have purchased it in the first place, or don't already own it, or will never purchase it.

The only way to semi-accurately calculate their losses is to look at their declining profits year to year, which I would consider a real value partially accountable to piracy.

What it all means is their business model is dead and they need to adjust it before Apple, Amazon and others become the new middle-man.

Personally I don't care who the middle-man is so long as I can buy a digital album for around $10. Are you listening, entertainment-industry L.A. fat cats? Some of you are getting it, but not very many of you are.

Re:No crime, but still punished.

[Carnildo]

Did they not have a posting that says "We are not responsible for the torrents we index" ??? From my understanding it is not illegal to refer instructions for things that may be illegal.

When you're operating as close to the edge of the law as they were, you need to be extremely careful about what you do. A simple statement of "We are not responsible" isn't sufficient if, by your actions, you demonstrate that you are encouraging illegal behavior.

Judge is Awarded $? million in TorrentSpy Case

[RiotingPacifist]

That's the real question

Re:Perspective

[Anonymous Coward]

Or it's another half day [wikipedia.org] of the war in Iraq...

Re:No crime, but still punished.

[urcreepyneighbor]

For example, I can go buy books with instructions on producing illegal substances, bombs, and weapons.

Delta Press [deltapress.com]? Paladin Press [paladin-press.com]?

The days of Ragnar Benson [wikipedia.org] have almost faded away into memory.

The companies that used to publish "action books" have almost completely abandoned that genre.

Does that make borders a criminal?

You don't have to make something a "crime" to get rid of it. Read up on the Paladin Press / Hit Man incident [wikipedia.org].

Can you imagine the firestorm if a company started publishing Paladin Press-style books today? In our post-9/11 world? Ha!

Re:*shrug*

[Anonymous Coward]

No not fool, because now they have a judgement on record that is stupidly broad in the favour in defining 'infringement'.

They've made INDEXING files illegal, please note they got nailed despite setting up services that let copyright holders take down stuff they owned.

The Legal team over at google is looking at this and going 'oh fuck no'.

I'm guessing that...

[actionbastard]

The judge in this case, obviously, didn't have time to read this:

http://recordingindustryvspeople.blogspot.com/2008/02/default-judgment-denied-in-atlantic-v.html [blogspot.com]

Chances of the judgement being overturned on appeal: 100%.

Whack-A-Mole

[the eric conspiracy]

Nice but rather empty victory. Of course the MPAA is going to take little home from this except the realization that under current law there is little they can do that effectively enforces copyright. I imagine that any half-bright executive in the movie industry will quickly come to the conclusion that there are only two avenues open to improve copyright enforcement.

1. DRM
2. Congress

Expect to see both. Heavier use of elaborate schemes like those used for Blu-Ray recordings and downloadable media. Branding the owner's ID into the media so copies are traceable. Real use of certificates to manage keys, mandating only online playback.

More stringent use of legal remedies, and criminalization of copyright infringement. WIPO treaties allowing international cooperation in pursuing violators. Tying government aid to enforcement initiatives.

Enjoy it while the fun lasts.

Re:LOL

[BiggerIsBetter]

They didn't host them; they indexed other sites that did.

So, like Google or a myriad of other search sites then? Maybe this was the small fry MPAA wanted to use for precedent, but extorting/suing bigger fish...

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:And people wonder...

[TheRealMindChild]

Your whole rant was redundant. No one, even you, would throw your business and your key to lifelong wealth, in the toilet, simply on moral ground. I call it the "Jerry Springer Syndrome". It is easy to make fun of those on the stage until you are one of them

Re:Congrats MPAA...

[Anonymous Coward]

So they just absorbed any liability I have for infringement for using their site. If 4 people rob me, and steal $100, can I get verdicts against *each* of them for $100?

And do you know *why* we're not invited?

[Weaselmancer]

Watch the video of our "offer". [youtube.com]

Bush turned this from a humanitarian offer to help into part of his "exporting freedom" routine. He wants to have our Navy set up there. He mentions political change.

With what we've been up to lately, can you blame these people for saying no? I can't.

If they can't collect, what happens?

[Ihmhi]

Even if it is not turned over on appeal, it is not like they are even going to collect 1% of that money in the forseeable future.

What I wonder is what happens in a situation like this? If a person has $50,000 in assets and makes $20,000 a year, and they get, say, a $10,000,000 judgement rendered against them, how the hell is it paid for? Debtor's jail doesn't exist anymore, does it?

Re:Perspective

[Curtman]

So following your lead the US thinks the people of Burma are worth $30 per person (assuming the 100,000 figure is somewhat accurate.)

Meh, Burma... Israel is where it's at. 3 Billion a year [wikipedia.org] or so ought to do it.

$30,000 per infringment?

[capologist]

$30,000 per infringement? Do our Congressmen honestly think this is reasonable?

Re:And do you know *why* we're not invited?

[jd]

I would have to say that skepticism of the US' intent is probably well-deserved. It's probably not the whole story, but given the limited value of destroyers in preservation - guns don't save people, people do, to misquote a popular phrase - and given that the "best" exit strategy at the moment seems to be a bigger crisis somewhere else, it's probably quite sufficient to make a great many people nervous.

Re:Congrats MPAA...

[jimicus]

And, according to Microsoft, the customer as well. Not sure how well that stands up in case law...

Which has always struck me as a rather mob-handed way to do business.

"Buy our product or we'll sue you!".

Re:Perspective

[tsm_sf]

I thought the whole point of setting up Israel after WWII was to bring about the rapture.

- displace an entire people
- foment decades of unrest, misery, and death
- attempt to force the hand of god

sounds like something we'd do on a weekend, really.

((btw, I think you meant 'wahrgeld', weregild sounds like something that becomes gold-plated during the full moon which, admittedly, is a cool concept))

Re:Congrats MPAA...

[Rockoon]

Corporation: An ingenious device for obtaining individual profit without individual responsibility.
-- Ambrose Bierce (Also, quoted in a Civ4 soundbite by Leonard Nimoy)

The RD test

[phorm]

I believe that there were several different tests done by "Reader's Digest" and various other magazines. One was to drop a cellphone(or in others, a wallet, etc) in a public location, and see whom collects it and if they try to return it.

Several people kept the phone. Some, when approached, vehemently denied acquiring it (though they were on camera doing so). Many of those who acted this way were at the least middle-class citizens, and in a good portion of the cases semi-upper-class or even rather rich citizens.

The poorer people, on the other hand, actually put forth the effort to returning the phone/wallet/etc. The RD crew would ask why they didn't keep it. I remember that the refrain from the poorer citizens was pretty much the same: "I may be poor, but I'm honest, I want my children to be honest, and even having no money I still have my self-respect."

Sometimes poor leads to desperation, and terrible things happen. But in groups, being poor often seems to lead to a policy of community-support, and watching out for your fellows.

If I become rich, I think I'd have a joy in life by visiting "poor" places, and engaging in random acts of generosity. Unfortunately, that mentality means I'll probably never become rich, unless I win the lottery or something to that effect.

Re:nice while it lasted

[electrictroy]

Does this verdict have any relevance to the ISOHUNT.com search engine?

Or is this a non-related case? I would really hate to lose isohunt, since it's such a useful resource.

Re:LOL

[monxrtr]

Except that every single word and every single image on every single webpage is copyrighted by whoever originally created that material.

This post I just wrote right now is *exactly* as copyrighted as any Hollywood movie or RIAA song. There's absolutely no difference linking to posts or webpages versus linking to copyrighted movie files. Therefore, Google links are exactly as infringing as any torrent links. I think a lot of people might be very interested in suing for the vast sums the MPAA and RIAA are suing for on an individual basis.

On the basis of this ruling, Google could be bankrupted from a small percentage of the population copying the MPAA lawsuit formula.

Actual damages are immaterial, as statutory damages are set at $150,000 maximum per violation.

How nice of Google to be doing all that work and making all that money so that they can pay the little man content creators.

Get your lawsuit in early, cause it's not likely Google will have enough money to go around to pay more than a couple percent of everybody for linking to their copyrighted content.