Judge Rules TorrentSpy Destroyed Evidence 325
Come play kdice writes "A federal judge has handed the MPAA a resounding victory in its copyright infringement lawsuit against TorrentSpy. Judge Florence-Marie Cooper entered a default judgment against Justin Bunnell and the rest of the named defendants in Columbia Pictures et al. v. Justin Bunnell et al. after finding that TorrentSpy 'engaged in widespread and systematic efforts to destroy evidence'. After being sued, TorrentSpy mounted a vigorous defense, including a counter-suit it filed against the MPAA in May 2006, but, behind the scenes, the court documents paint a picture of a company desperately trying to bury any and all incriminating evidence. TorrentSpy has announced its intention to appeal, but its conduct makes a reversal unlikely."
Man, I love living in 21st century America! (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Man, I love living in 21st century America! (Score:5, Insightful)
Regardless of anything the CIA does, TorrentSpy deserves to be punished for having destroyed evidence (regardless further of whether they initially did anything wrong). It is also true that the CIA should be punished accordingly, but the failure of the courts to deal with that yet is simply irrelevant in the discussion of this case.
If you're sued, DON'T DESTROY EVIDENCE! It eliminates any credibility, and exposes you to situations like this.
Re:Man, I love living in 21st century America! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Man, I love living in 21st century America! (Score:5, Interesting)
Oh and this is not a US company so the MPAA and the US courts cannot order them to save information that is not required by European law
America the land of the free
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
1: TorrentSpy forums openly discuss infringement
2: MPAA files lawsuit
3: Wes Parker (TorrentSpy moderator, admin, it's not quite clear) says 'we need a plan to keep piracy off the forums'
4: Another moderator suggests creating a hidden forum and moving incriminating content there. Wes agrees.
5: Some time later, they begin
Re:Man, I love living in 21st century America! (Score:5, Informative)
2: MPAA finds evidence TorrentSpy can implement and enforce bans of users by IP address [ON INTERNET FORUMS, NOT TRACKING SOFTWARE]
3: Under oath, a TorrentSpy moderator testifies IPs were logged [FOR FORUM SOFTWARE] until April 07 (more than a year after they were sued)
Fixed that for you. phpBB =/= bittorrent tracker, and no, you can't assume someone who visits the forums downloaded something illegally... MPAA apparently visited the forums...
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Perhaps dropping info out of RAM is the destruction.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm not a lawyer, but I know enough about the law to know that destroying corporate records that could be used as evidence is illegal, unless the destruction is in keeping with the company's existing policy on data retention.
I'm not a lawyer either, but I understood from early on in this case that it was less a matter of TorrentSpy destroying records than it was them deliberately not creating them in the first place. Their standard retention policy was to retain nothing.
The judge in this case was looking for a way to say the defendant was obligated to keep durable records of his misdeeds,
Re:Man, I love living in 21st century America! (Score:5, Interesting)
"The judge in this case was looking for a way to say the defendant was obligated to keep durable records of his misdeeds, practically to the point of tapping the memory bus. "
The judges actions go even further.. He ordering TorrentSpy to eavesdrop on Foreign communications. A Criminal act, especially in the EU.. As a consequence TorrentSpy collected just enough information to prove that both the request and the torrent host were OUTSIDE the USA in which NO US court has any business collecting private data.
Remember TorrentSpy stopped servicing US IP addresses when ordered to start collecting the data.
"Torrentspy Acts to Protect Privacy" [torrentspy.com]
Sorry, but because you are located in the USA you cannot use the search features of the Torrentspy.com website.Torrentspy's decision to stop accepting US visitors was NOT compelled by any Court but rather an uncertain legal climate in the US regarding user privacy and an apparent tension between US and European Union privacy laws.
We hope you understand and will take the opportunity to visit one of these other fine websites:"
Technically, if the federal judge proceeds to trial, he would be guilty of several serious crimes.
Extortion, spying, acts of war, and privacy violations among the many countries that use the Internet.
A suggestion to judge Cooper, I wouldn't go traveling outside the USA, unless you want to be locked up for a very long time.
Meanwhile the MPAA just received a meaningless victory.
No foreign court will honor any judgment against TorrentSpy that was based on it's refusal to follow court orders requiring the commission of a criminal act.
Hopefully a significantly wiser circuit court will rule the Coopers actions where inappropriate,
remove him from the case, and vacate all judgments. (Less they too want to wish to dispose of their passports as well.)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
it seems to me that these things are going
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It's difficult for the public to keep the proper understanding, because they typically don't see the entire case. They hear an article about the indictment, or the conviction or acquittal, but rarely follow all the goings-on. The burdens of proof in civil and criminal matters have, if anything, shifted in favor of defendants in the last decade or two. However, on the o
Re:Man, I love living in 21st century America! (Score:5, Interesting)
I won't be surprised if I start seeing forums close left and right due to this.
Moral: run a discussion forum, you'll get sued no matter what you do. Don't bother running a discussion forum.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
You're assuming that destroying evidence is "wrong", and that "two wrongs don't make a right".
The CIA is part of the government, and the government is elected by the people. It is an extension of the people's will. Therefore, anything the government does, if not quickly corrected, is assumed to be the people's will, and therefore "right". And if an action is OK for the government to do, as far as I'm concerned it's good enough for the rest of us too.
It's just like the police. If it's
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If you're willing to live as someone no better than the foe you hope to defeat, I am simply baffled by your sense of ethics. It is better to die a good man than to live as a wicked one.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
At the risk of feeding a troll...
Are you seriously saying that after the government beat the location of the secret operatives out of captured combatants...?
I think he's saying we shouldn't have beaten the information out of them. So far, the American people know of no actionable intelligence that was gained in this manner.
How much information gathered would be enough to satisfy you and how much would be enough to foil any advantage of knowing this information?
I can't speak for the GP, but for me there is NO amount of information that makes it acceptable to torture people. We are the good guys. We are better than that. The good guys don't need to resort to these tactics. If they do, they are no longer the good guys.
As long as we can monitor what we found, we can stop anything from happening
The point here is that we can't.
If something happens and American people are killed again, are you guys going to dance and proclaim that you were right?
N
Re:Man, I love living in 21st century America! (Score:5, Insightful)
Hey, look. We all know that the MPAA/RIAA are pricks. But the good fight isn't sticking up for people that are violating copyright in bulk on purpose. If a university were to block all of bit torrent, that's a cause worth fighting against. The right fight is to not allow the bad (or potential bad) to prevent the good. But let's not bury our heads in the sand and pretend places like TorrentSpy weren't doing anything but providing a way for people to share copyrighted material.
Like it or not, people are downloading and sharing against copyright all over. And there's no reason to support that.
Re: (Score:2)
Then *everyone* who destroys evidence should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law, not just those that are apparently above the law.
Re:Man, I love living in 21st century America! (Score:5, Funny)
It is true, TorrentSpy are dicks. Criminal dicks
But the thing is, given the level of assholery I think the **AAs are capable of, I still manage to side with the criminals.
Because we need dicks to fuck asses.
Otherwise, we're gonna be covered in shit.
But what is a criminal? (Score:2)
In other words, if you do anything against the Law (even if the law is draconian and only supports the rich and powerful), you're a criminal. But that doesn't make you a bad person.
If the Law was fair and protected the weak from the powerful, I would ag
Re: (Score:2)
I was modded funny because, in the course of making a serious point, I happened to, ahem, *accidentally* quote Team America: Word Police.
The case of Jammie Thomas is indeed horrible (as is her name. Jammie? What the fuck?), and I think it shows exactly why the RIAA deserve to be boycotted to hell.
BUT, the point the grandparent was making is that there is a difference between noble protest, and what TorrentSpy are (were?) doing. They were a company, making money from the large sca
Re: (Score:2)
I think that's cause he was loosely quoting "Team America: World Police" in the "dicks and assholes" analogy. That's the problem with being insightful and funny at the same time.
Re: (Score:2)
It's hard being me.
Re: (Score:2)
change the citizenry or change the laws? (Score:3, Insightful)
Ok, if there's a law that a large portion of the citizenry seems unwilling to obey, should we try and change the behavior of those people breaking the law or should we try to change the law? Or, to put it another way, do you really think the genie will go back in the bottle? I don't think that, short of a mandated-by-law trusted computing scenario, (and, let's face it, will TC really be "
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
In Britain, we have no legal fair use (actually, I think we are allowed excerpts for the purposes of criticism, and that's it), and so your entire list is illegal over here.
Re:Copyright law is broke. Burn it down. (Score:5, Insightful)
I pay for cable and if I record a show that's fine, but if I download a show because I forgot to TiVo it then I am breaking the law.
Ripping a DVD that I paid for is breaking the law.
Downloading a CD that got scratched is breaking the law.
IMO: I will pay for content once and only once. If you want to sell me new content bundled with old aka (movie + directors cut) that's fine but when it's identical content then I have already paid for it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Copyright law is broke. Burn it down. (Score:5, Insightful)
The MAFIAAs say that a lot. But I hope it's not true. If it is, then they really are getting an unfairly generous deal, as the GP said.
I could see arguing that one buys a license, not the physical work. In that case, if the media were lost or destroyed, replacements would be available at a nominal charge to cover plastic, postage, overhead, etc. Personal backup copies to be stored safely would be OK under that concept, or the reverse -- making a copy to play and saving the original.
I could also see making the argument that you bought a copy of a work, it's now yours to do with as you please -- "first sale" doctrine. You could give it to your friends, or sell it to someone else. Of course if you break it, tough. Buy another, just like if you broke a dinner plate.
But as you state it, they want the best of both worlds. You buy a license to to a specific copy of a work. You can play it or not. But you can't back it up, you can't transfer the work to a new medium so you can continue to use it after the original technology is no longer supported. All you own is the license to play copy # 1267888993 of "Oops, I did it again" on CD.
Kudos, though. You did get a car analogy in. It might be better to add that you need to buy a license to operate each car you own, and one for each friend or relative that might borrow your car. And each license wouldn't cost a $50 fee from the DMV, but would be sold as part of the car, and each license would cost the full price of a car. Trade-ins not accepted. So a two-car, two-driver household would need to "buy" four cars, that is, one license for each driver for each car.
I too living in 21st century America, too... (Score:3, Interesting)
The CIA's tapes were destroyed in 2005 — long before any investigations into "torture" came about. Thus it was not "destruction of evidence", but merely "destruction of tapes". CIA today does not deny, that they did use waterboarding, so it is not clear, what those tapes would be in evidence of.
For it to be called "destruction of evidence", the destroyed materials must be important to an ongoing investiga
Re:I too living in 21st century America, too... (Score:5, Insightful)
It was destruction of evidence, just because it was a 'classified' set of tapes, it was still evidence that could have been used by numerous groups and individuals in numerous cases against the government before during and after 2005. Hiding the evidence and destroying evidence are both illegal.
Cheers.
Re:I too living in 21st century America, too... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Destruction of tapes. Classic!
Re: (Score:2)
Okay so the troll mod I can kind of understand, (I think the poster made an interesting point but got carried away), but off-topic? WTF, did you hit the wrong button?
You know, it can happen. I've had a few times moderated posts. The focus stays on the drop down box, and I scroll on down the page. Somewhere else, I hit the down arrow, trying to move the screen - and I've just changed the guy's moderation.
I click on "Moderate", they show me what my moderations were, and often I look at one, and furrow my brow.
Not that I agree with the MPAA (Score:4, Insightful)
Maybe if they left things as they were they could have fared better.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
That alone should invalidate everything else the judge had to say.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Not that I agree with the MPAA (Score:5, Informative)
Obviously deliberate.
No IP logs, indeed (Score:3, Informative)
There were no IP logs
From TFA:
TorrentSpy also failed to provide the MPAA with full IP addresses of its users, testifying under oath that they were not available. Conversations on the forums between the moderators paint a different picture, however. A March 2006 conversation between a couple of moderators showed that users could be banned by IP address, and moderators testified that full IP addresses were logged until April 2007.
Care to revise that "no IP logs" statement? Or are you still arguing for the sake of arguing?
Huh? (Score:2)
I was talking about the availability of IP logs, not the utility. I don't think the judge really cares about banning users by username or IP.
Re: (Score:2)
I agree that the court order to start logging IP's was inappropriate, but in this case TorrentSpy was actively hiding logs that already existed.
Why is it inappropriate? TorrentSpy's normal business practice was to log IP addresses. They stopped logging in order to subvert the discovery process. The judge merely told them to turn logging back on, in accordance with their regular business practice.
Instead of complying, they posted a bunch of misleading blog entries about how the judge was an idiot for asking them to log RAM. Well, they aren't laughing anymore now, are they.
Re: (Score:2)
Then they go treating the Judge like she was an idiot, not up with computers and this crazy new interweb music-sharing thing like us 1337 kidz.
Guess the idiots were them and they got what they deserved.
Re:Not that I agree with the MPAA (Score:5, Informative)
In short, TorrentSpy lied to a judge, and they got caught. That was remarkably stupid, and they're being punished for it.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
I'm sorry, but that is destruction of evidence, and it is little wonder that they were sanctioned for it. TS left the judge no choice.
Re: (Score:2)
They argued that they shouldn't have to log information that normally resides only in RAM. The Judge said to log the IP addresses on the hard drive.
Although I'm not sure that discovery should be able to order new documents to be created (which is effectively what was ordered), the order wasn't so unreasonable as logging every bit stored in RAM in real time.
Re:Not that I agree with the MPAA (Score:5, Insightful)
That alone should invalidate everything else the judge had to say.
Bullshit - read it, will you? The Judge said that the IP's were available to TorrentSpy as the information was present in the RAM at some point. They required that TorrentSpy log that information. That's quite a bit different from "preserve the ram".
TorrentSpy fucked up big time on this, and got caught. Courts don't like people that destroy evidence and smack them around. They especially don't like people that destroy evidence after the case is filed, or lie what about what they can/cannot do.
I have zero sympathy for TorrentSpy. Without their actions, they would have had a chance to beat this case.
-- Ravensfire
Re:Not that I agree with the MPAA (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Which, if TorrentSpy were to be believed, would potentially require modification of the software. Merely because something "was present in the RAM at some point" doesn't imply that it's easy to log, otherwise DRM would be even more broken than it currently is.
Now, of course, we've discovered that TorrentSpy were actually lying about this, but
Re: (Score:2)
Thanks For Destroying the Evidence! (Score:5, Insightful)
This is the digital equivalent of throwing yourself on a grenade to save your comrads. Right on.
Thank you kindly,
AC
Re:Thanks For Destroying the Evidence! (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If they really were looking out for other people, they shouldn't have been keeping potentially incriminating information
Severe Penalties Make it the Best Option (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Destruction of evidence is a crime in and of itself, of course, so there will be penalties just for that. But it can also lead to the defendant being found guilty by default as well.
In other words, don't be surprised if TorrentSpy gets royally hosed.
Destroying evidence is a crime with consecuences (Score:2)
If you think you're in the right, you should try to change law. If you think the law is correct but is being wrongly applied to your case, you try to change the legal canvas around the case. Destroying evidence is directly admitting guilt, complete consciousness of that fact and simple refusal to face the consequences.
Even if you manage to be cleared of charges, you leave the environment just
5th Amendment (Score:3, Insightful)
Not preserving evidence != destroying evidence. I'm thinking the most sensible standard for courts to follow is minimalist. That is, no changes should be made to operations. Whatever information was being kept before should be preserved. And whatever information was not being kept for whatever reason (limited resources, goes stale quickly) should not be fair game for judges to order preservation of. So we have an argument over whether the info the judge was ordering TorrentSpy to keep was long term or
Re: destroying evidence = admitting guilt? (Score:2)
Destroying evidence is a willful gamble on the part of the accused. They're simply betting that without the additional information floating around, they stand a better chance of getting through the court case without incurring a huge loss.
It seems like a big leap of logic to conclude that this behavior proves the party believes they're guilty.
Just as likely, they're being realistic. In a perfect world, sure.... you should fight to "get the laws changed"
Re:Destroying evidence is a crime with consecuence (Score:2)
So in that respect, the American Colonists should have obeyed British law and not thrown the tea into the harbor?
Guess they didn't save the contents of their RAM (Score:2)
How hard is it to destroy data (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Um.
Also, even if it hasn't, you'd better hope they don't link that post to you.
Think!
Re: (Score:2)
If you do this on a regular basis (especially if it's a documented bu
If you get a subpoena (Score:2)
Illegal to destroy evidence (Score:2)
I've always thought that if I DoD wiped all my disks, obviously that would leave no evidence, but could you actually get in trouble for doing that? Do they send you documents telling you that kind of thing is illegal? What if I just took out my data drives, hid them in the attic and cleaned out my logs and MRU data with Adaware? Is it really that hard to react to these kinds of things for the average consumer or am I missing a great deal?
As a legal matter, yes if you destroyed evidence that was under subpoena, that would be a problem. As a practical matter, however, if it was just your private machine, it would be a little hard for your adversary to prove that you, say, "rm -rf /movies" and then overwrote your free space.
The problem with TorrentSpy, is that other admins knew that the log files used to be there but the logs went poof-gone! and they testified as such. So if only one admin knew of the logs, and he wanted to rm -rf them, he
Re: (Score:2)
Yes. If you are served with a lawsuit you have a duty not to destroy potential evidence. Large corporations generally have an established process called a "litigation hold" where this is done, but small companies and individuals have the same obligations.
Re: (Score:2)
However, you mentioned "what to do with the offending data?" If you nuke your disks in response to a **AA subpoena, then you are doing exactly what Torrentspy did, and you will ge
destroy data before you're sued (Score:3, Insightful)
There are two steps to the RIAA's lawsuits: the "settlement" letter and the actual lawsuit itself. If you destroy data after receiving the settlement letter, you're a wise person. If you destroy data after receiving the lawsuit papers, you're toast if they catch you (as noted in this article).
I would not make any destruction of data obvious. A wiped disk is a sure sign of intentional destruction.
If I were to destroy data, my plan would be to use the "Craftsman Hammer" hard drive data destruction tool and
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
probably has the damn thing as open as a barn door. In fact, open wireless routers are
probably the norm, rather than the exception as the number of spam bots would prove.
Re: (Score:2)
And btw, it's dumb to try
Re: (Score:2)
Also, if the hard drive *is* deleted/lost, and the time is not c
TorrentSpy = The Gun (Score:5, Insightful)
Copyright is a Constitutionally-protected power of government. I understand that. I hate copyright, I would never use it, but I accept it. To infringe on copyright, a person must take someone else's art, and make a copy. That person who paints their own version of a copyright-protected oil painting will use oils and canvas to breach copyright. The oil manufacturer is not guilty. The canvas manufacturer is not guilty. Exxon/Mobil who provided fuel for you to drive to buy the oil and canvas are not guilty. Ford, who provided the car to get to the store to buy oil and canvas are not guilty. The person selling you a book with a license to reprint that oil, is not guilty. You, the person doing the copying, are guilty.
TorrentSpy is like the gun, or the gun manufacturer. The murderer is the person actively aiming the weapon in anger, and pulling the trigger. The person selling the gun shouldn't care what the end user is going to do, other than warn them that they're buying something dangerous. The person making the gun should not be held responsible. The ACT of committing a crime comes from actually committing a crime.
If copyright is moral, and valid, then the person doing the copying should be found guilty. Hosting a torrent is not hosting a file.
If you vote, please vote against retention on every position. Judges need to be kicked out as quick as they're voted in. Vote against incumbents who enforce the law, too (police chief, etc). There's no reason to keep anyone in office long enough to abuse power. All these judges are just power-hungry. They can't understand that copyright is protected by the artist, only against someone else copying the art.
Re: (Score:2)
Also, if you think you're smarter than every judge who has ever lived, I'm wondering why you're not trying to become one yourself.
Re: (Score:2)
No, I'm saying I don't agree with criminal background checks. Criminals are in prison. Ex-criminals are those who have done their time, and are now free because the system believes they're not criminals. Pretty simple.
Also, if you think you're smarter than every judge who has ever lived, I'm wondering why you're not trying to become one yourself.
No, thanks. I don't bel
Re: (Score:2)
Are you saying there should be criminal background checks and waiting periods for persons who wish to use copyright-infringement devices?
No, I'm saying I don't agree with criminal background checks. Criminals are in prison. Ex-criminals are those who have done their time, and are now free because the system believes they're not criminals. Pretty simple.
That's a bit black and white, don't you think? Can't there be "obviously dangerous" people that still don't deserve to be in jail? What about the guy with a pretty violent history who's easily provoked, but hasn't killed anyone yet? I don't want him owning a gun, but he probably shouldn't be locked up, either.
Re: (Score:2)
As for the gun analogy, while the murderer clearly bears the final responsibility, if
Don't forget earlier stories about her. (Score:5, Informative)
Since that topic has been expounded upon, here are some articles about the judge in the case:
1. Judge dismisses trial for prosecutor's misconduct [washingtonpost.com]
Here, she dismissed a case when the prosecutors offered a plea agreement to a witness so he could not testify for the defense.
2. Notorious BIG Trial mistrial declared [sohh.com]
In this instance, she declared a mistrial when LAPD was withholding evidence from the trial.
3. Pooh Trial Thrown out [suite101.com] (heh heh)
A trial involving the Winnie the Pooh was ruled in favor of Disney after the family was found to have "tampered" with files at Disney.
The judge has a love for evidence. Torrentspy shoulda known what would happen if they messed around with it.
Re:Don't forget earlier stories about her. (Score:5, Funny)
Yeah, I prefer the ones who have already made up their mind in advance.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, I prefer the ones who have already made up their mind in advance.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
resounding? (Score:3, Insightful)
The MPAA, like the RIAA, has failed the grasp the significance of what's unfolding in the 21st century. However you feel about sharing copyrighted material (right or wrong), suing sites into oblivion will not stop what is apparently going to be the new pervasive form of distribution. Just as the horse and buggy gave way to the automobile, so the delivery mechanism of physically moving data around on DVDs in face of the industry's unwillingness to provide it's own online delivery alternative, will naturally give way to a more efficient system.
Take a hint: For about the past 70 years, advertising has fully paid for free content via broadcast radio and TV.
Other than IP addresses that caved in (Score:3, Insightful)
What they did do was clean up their forums which I believe partially what the MPAA's complaint were about. Further they didn't destroy old posted, they archived them. They removed movie clips.
When they were ordered to log IP's again they simply refused to further provide service to US citizens until the matter was resolved.
Sounds to me like another judge confused by computers.
You have two different entities here. The search engine itself and the web forums.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The difference between the GPL and regular use of copyright is that the GPL is intended to support the freedom of the individual to use his computer as he sees fit. There is absolutely no contradiction in supporting the GPL and calling for an abolition of copyright.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
C//
Re: (Score:2)
But you're confused on the actual point of this trial (which won't matter now, since destroying evidence is pretty much a forfeit), which is that Torrent Spy (claims they) didn't infringe on anyone's copyright, and are protected by the safe-harbor provisions of the DMCA, which makes service providers not repsonsable for any illegal activities of their users (and additionally claim that they are not "inducing infringement" a la the
Re: (Score:2)
I agree. The MPAA has every right to win the case.
What I think many people fail to see is that infringing on artists/musicians who are selling a creative product is actually hurting artists/musicians who distribute with a more permissive copyleft license.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I make a living from copyright. I am a writer, and the thing I sell is 'intellectual property.' In spite of this, I agree with the poster you quote. The ability to control my creations is not an intrinsic right. It is a bargain made with society. I agree to distribute my work and to permit certain uses of it under the banner of fair use, and society agrees, in return, to enforce my exclusivity.
The problem with the *AA is that they are violating the spirit of this in a number of ways. Their insistence
Re:Justice prevailed... (Score:5, Informative)
Please pay special attention to how much the artist cut is in traditional CD sales compared to the new digital distribution. You will find a huge disparity in what record companies are claiming and what is actually happening.
I don't think TorrentSpy will get much sympathy from
Re: (Score:2)
Oh hold on here. The RIAA and MPAA are not the creators. Often, unless you are a big client, your works will be disrespected regardless of MPAA or RIAA's clout.
In fact, the members of these groups (Sony, BMG, Paramount etc) aren't even the real authors and creators who use their collusion to screw the real artists out of their money.
Re: (Score:2)