dslreports logo
 story category
MPAA Torrent Suit Letters
Cease and desist (and save the evidence)
We've obtained copies of the MPAA lawsuit letters being circulated to Bit Torrent websites and their hosts - in this case to Torrent website "Demonoid" (Pages: 1,2,3,4,5,6,7). In it, lawyers warn the host they've sued the operators of a Torrent site on their network, but currently don't know their identities. The letter to the website owner claims they face "severe sanctions" should they delete any pirated material or usable evidence in the case against them. As noted by users below, the IP address for the website cited by the letter (66.250.450.10) doesn't/can't exist, a mistake repeated throughout the letters.
view:
topics flat nest 
page: 1 · 2 · 3 · next

CPM
Broadband, DSL, cable
join:2001-08-24
Denver, CO

1 recommendation

CPM

Member

Never.

I would personally never download those movies or shows. They really suck and not worth the download.

starstuff
Fly By Wire
Premium Member
join:2001-12-05
Mcallen, TX

1 recommendation

starstuff

Premium Member

Re: Never.

said by CPM:

I would personally never download those movies or shows. They really suck and not worth the download.
Actually, I'm willing to pay the tv networks to remove those shows from the air
EternalCobra
join:2004-07-03
Chicago, IL

EternalCobra

Member

Re: Never.

Hell yeah i wouldnt watch those shows, i would DL dodgeball just because i got a late charge at Blockbuster that i dont want to pay.
newyorkslick
join:2001-12-19
Rosedale, NY

newyorkslick to CPM

Member

to CPM
Not exactly. A lot of shows that are now being ripped from the TV are ripped from High Def Channels. Hell . . . it looks a lot better on my PC then it ever did on my TV.

With movies I understand though. The quality does suck, unless its a screener. I only download TV shows using BT anyway, thats where i get the most benefit out of it.
weedahoe6
join:2003-09-14
Duluth, GA

weedahoe6 to CPM

Member

to CPM
obviously you are downloading the right stuff, try getting DVD-r and HDTV-r and audio over 192k
jimcrackcorn
join:2004-12-24
Canada

1 recommendation

jimcrackcorn to CPM

Member

to CPM
I started using Bit Torrent and SuprNova.org about 3 months ago to download music. I'm in agreement with Atari 400 in that I can't stand most of the shows mentioned in the lawsuit and besides, if you want to watch "Friends" all of th episodes are on constant rerun on a dozen channels... yawn! However, music... that's a different story! I'm 52, I purchased 45s and LPs by the 100s in the '60s, 8 tracks by the 100s in the '70s, cassettes by the 100s in the '80s, in most instances I was buying the same album in each period (augmented by new music... The Police, Tom Petty, etc.) as they came a long trying to keep up with the changes in the format. As an example, I have all of Bob Dylan's music in just about ever freakin' format... so the question I'd like answered by the music industry is how many bloody new formats am I suppose to buy my favorite albums in?? As far as I'm concerned they have ALL of the money they'll ever get from me! Besides, the Canadian government (I'm in Canada) has had a hidden tax in place on blank recording medium for about 10 years now. This tax was supposed to go to the artists so that they would be protected from the pirates. I'd like to see the music industry go after the Canadian Government for the money they took from us on behalf of the starving artists!

CPM
Broadband, DSL, cable
join:2001-08-24
Denver, CO

CPM

Member

Re: Never.

I'd like to see the music industry go after the Canadian Government for the money they took from us on behalf of the starving artists!

Well that tax is only going in to greedy politicians hands. You don't really think it goes for a good cause do you? I never seen a government yet, that is on the up on up.
jimcrackcorn
join:2004-12-24
Canada

jimcrackcorn

Member

Re: Never.

Of course not, but you get my point... right?

CPM
Broadband, DSL, cable
join:2001-08-24
Denver, CO

CPM

Member

Re: Never.

yeah

tomkb
Premium Member
join:2000-11-15
Tampa, FL

tomkb

Premium Member

ha

don't delete the evidence, ya right.
The Antihero
join:2002-04-09
Enola, PA

The Antihero

Member

Re: ha

That reminds me of the Simpsons episode where Homer got a hold of an autodialer, and used it to call everyone in town and try to get them to send him money.

When "Springfield's finest" came to arrest him, they told him to "make sure you bring the autodialer with you to the trial. Without it, we don't have a case against you."

I really didn't think anyone was that stupid in real life, but apparently I was wrong.
Kip patterson
Premium Member
join:2000-10-23
Columbus, OH

Kip patterson to tomkb

Premium Member

to tomkb
Well, I think these attorneys are far more clever than folks give them credit for.

These are civil actions. There is no fifth amendment protection against self-incrimination. If they lie on the stand they can be jailed for contempt of court. No jury trial.

If they destroy evidence, the plaintiff can ask for sanctions. Typically, they will ask for the judge to bar the defendant from presenting a defense. Again, a ruling from the judge, no jury trial.

SRFireside
join:2001-01-19
Houston, TX

SRFireside

Member

Re: ha

You sure a judge can bar a defendant from putting on a defense? That sounds completely anti-due process. Civil case or not you should always have a right to defend yourself from accusations in court.
Kip patterson
Premium Member
join:2000-10-23
Columbus, OH

Kip patterson

Premium Member

Re: ha

Absolutely. That "right" can be lost through misconduct.

SRFireside
join:2001-01-19
Houston, TX

SRFireside

Member

Re: ha

I can't see how a situation such as this would constitute misconduct to the point representation is taken away. Erasing "evidence" would have to be proven I would gather, and I don't think they can get that beyond a reasonable doubt. And in this case the facts just don't support the plaintiff's case. Especially with blatantly inaccurate IP address info. Seems to be the lawyers started off on the wrong foot from the get go. Can't see it as a clever ploy.
Kip patterson
Premium Member
join:2000-10-23
Columbus, OH

Kip patterson

Premium Member

Re: ha

You may well be right. The IP address blunder, although correctible, sure makes them look stupid.

The risk that the defendant runs is that the judge may be offended by what he sees as an affront to his/her court. This kind of misconduct does not have to be proven - it never goes before a jury so far as I know. Just a bench ruling.

In any case, game over. The ISP apparently evicted the site, and site (at a new host) is effectively shut down.

SRFireside
join:2001-01-19
Houston, TX

SRFireside

Member

Re: ha

said by Kip patterson:

In any case, game over. The ISP apparently evicted the site, and site (at a new host) is effectively shut down.
You think a countersuit would be an option? Or maybe I should say a plain old lawsuit since it didn't seem this went to court.
Kip patterson
Premium Member
join:2000-10-23
Columbus, OH

Kip patterson

Premium Member

Re: ha

A countersuit for what?

SRFireside
join:2001-01-19
Houston, TX

SRFireside

Member

Re: ha

I dunno. Slander? Damages? If the web site got pulled because of this inaccurate information I would think the site owner would be a bit pissed at the accuser. Even if damages were minimal maybe .... dang I can't remember what it's called... that award where you charge an amount to teach them a lesson. I don't think a lot, but something to make sure the MPAA has their act together before pressing forward.
SRFireside

SRFireside

Member

Re: ha

Punitive!! Is it punitive damages?

No such luck
@cooley.com

No such luck to SRFireside

Anon

to SRFireside
The people operating the site would be foolish to sue the MPAA for malicious prosecution.

1) Demand letters like the ones they received are privileged in many states. Sending a demand letter can't be a basis for a suit, especially one for libel or slander.

2) The way the law works now, these folks were on the hook for contributory copyright infringement (at least). The MPAA may be willing to let them slink away if they just disappear. If they file a claim for something like malicious prosecution, the MPAA will counterclaim for multiple instances of copyright infringement. The Bittorrent tracker hosts will almost certainly lose on those claims; that's put paid to their malicious prosecution claim and expose them to massive statutory damages.

3) Destroying evidence can expose the recipients of the demand letter to civil and criminal sanctions. It can also be contempt of court. A judge can impose a whole set of sanctions against a party that destroys evidence, up to and including entering a default judgment against that party.

4) These demand letters are well-crafted. If you get one, take it to a lawyer and get advice tailored to your situation. DO NOT RELY ON ANY ONLINE LEGAL ADVICE, INCLUDING ANY SUBSTANTIVE ADVICE IN THIS POSTING. You may think that clerical errors like the IP address discrepancy in this case will protect you. That's a terrible risk to run. Jenner and Block are as good at this game as any programmer is as programming. If you take them on without knowing what you're doing, you WILL lose and you WILL thoroughly screw your life up.

5) Again: If you get one of these letters, consult a lawyer. Don't assume you handle things for yourself.

AudaciousFSD
@139.169.x.x

AudaciousFSD

Anon

Re: ha

This is correct. If you are going to be sued by a lawyer or lawfirm you should always consult another lawyer/firm. Fight fire with fire not hot air. Remember that many lawyers will at least look at, if not comment on, whether or not there is something they can do to help as well as to advise you on what you can expect. A good lawyer (and not one out to mess you around) is very useful to have.

As for "destroying evidence", that is a catch-22 phrase. Like the Spanish Inquisition, that is in there to make your life hell. You are damned if you do destroy the evidence and damned if you don't. Further, even if there is no evidence to be destroyed you are torqued around. Think about it. The conversation will go something like this:

Them: Do you have the evidence?
You: What evidence?
Them: The evidence we know you have. Did you bring it?

If, at this point you say either yes or no - you've just screwed yourself over. Because if you say "Yes" then you've admitted you did something wrong. If you say "No" then they can say you are obstructing justice. It is one of the typical legal trip-ups lawyers pull. Which is why people go to school to learn how to deal with these things. Which is why you should hire a lawyer. So the lawyer can deal with these people in the manner in which they deserve.

As for the mis-named IP address? Who cares. They probably put the same address on all of the letters and then the ones who give them trouble they simply get their computer jock to ping the address, get the real IP address, and then send in an AMENDED filing. You can do that. Look at the SCO vs IBM case. How many times has SCO amended their court filings? At least ten if not twenty or thirty times. And that was while the case was in court already. So they don't really care. It is more of a place marker than real data. In this way they can hand these things out like candy and those people who respond and give them a hard time they actually go after. Those who just roll over they just go "Ok, got that one!" and go on down the line. It cuts cost (since the letter is so generic) all they probably had to do was to make a Microsoft Mail Merge document which was created by having a program monitor the bitTorrent flow and gobble up site names. You would think that whoever did this would have gobbled up the IP address too but maybe the guy was paid fifty bucks to come up with a program or maybe the guy is on the payroll at one of the MPAA places. I don't know or care but that is what it looks like from the documents. Anyway, they probably just ran the program, generated the Mail Merge stuff, and out pops the paperwork. Put a scanned copy of the person's signature at the end and off you go. (I did something similar for my Christmas cards this year only it was people's snail-mail addresses and me and my wife's signatures.)

LordVetinari
@xs4all.nl

LordVetinari

Anon

Re: ha

Where to start, because the Nonsense is piling up fast.

First of all, courts are not involved yet, and probably never will be involved. These letters should be considered cease & desist notices. The aim is to get the site offline. The can be no contempt of court because there is no court involved yet.

Furthermore your not to destroy any evidence. Which is quite cute, but without evidence can't be proven anyway. The most likely aim is to get you to delete everything.

The fake ip (non existent) is also a sign that this is mere hot air. But also very useful because I have absolutely no evidence relating to Ip address 62.234.450.24 (or whatever non existent ip), furthermore i deny any involvement with any activities on said ip address....

Your thinking about Spanish inquisition... Since god planted doubt in our minds, you must be guilty.

However plaintiff should show some evidence. The mere fact that there is no evidence will not do. Not even in civil court.

DooD
join:2002-02-10
O Fallon, MO

DooD to AudaciousFSD

Member

to AudaciousFSD
said by AudaciousFSD:

As for the mis-named IP address? Who cares...
I may be an idiot, but I remember reading an article in my local newspaper where a case what thrown out because the original search warrant had the wrong address. Something about Lane instead of Drive. There were in fact 2 roads, "Street" Lane and "Street" Drive. So what's the real difference here? And if you can just have it amended, then are the local authorities where I last lived just lazy?
Kip patterson
Premium Member
join:2000-10-23
Columbus, OH

Kip patterson

Premium Member

Re: ha

This is a notification in a civil action, not a search warrant. I honestly do not know how the court will view the mistake, but one would have to have a lot of reassurance from an attorney before relying on the error.

assasino1
@dsl.cambrium.nl

assasino1 to AudaciousFSD

Anon

to AudaciousFSD
Well you are right 'bout some of the things, Jenner And Block are one of the top 20 Law firms I Wouldn't like to face them in court. However This oppenheim dude, Thats a different case, he's a real bum. This guy is in fact stupid as hell, let me explain: Apparantly The MPAA moniters and tracks IP Adresses, once they suspect that a user is downloading copyright protected content I have had an E mail from my ISP with the same kind of crap I was downloading there movies and if i did not cease to do so I would be in serious trouble. however, and this is funny:
!) in the Netherlands you are allowed to download as long as you dont upload, and we all know that there are clients which do not require people to upload
2) My ISP adviced me to take legal steps against the MPAA for the following reasons: apparently the MPAA (or a third person working for them) did not just make a note of my ip adress they actually monitered all my surfing, downloading, bla bla bla behaviour. And this in the Netherlands is Highly Illegal, we don't have separate rules for the internet yet and it still is under the privacy legislation that is also used for phones. In short YOU CANNOT MONITOR THIS, and the punischment for doing this aint some kind of fine, Its doing some serious jailtime. I know that this also applies for some other countries as well. I would like to see the face of the judge when this oppenheim dude says "how do I know all this, well we monitored his IP adresses" the reaction of the judge would most likely be "YOU DID WHAT" So i will hope I WILL SEE THIS OPPENHEIM IN COURT.

And by the way i would have expected from a dumbass like oppenheim to put this ip adress in his letters 192.168.0.1

phraud
@tcc.on.ca

phraud to Kip patterson

Anon

to Kip patterson
Yeah all it does is talk about forking over logs etc. Well, do you keep logs? No? Well then, there is nothing to give them except the torrent files which equals nothing. Do you keep apache logs about who accesses the site? Maybe? Well then, all that does is point to who (which IP) downloaded the torrents... they very well might have done nothing with the torrents once they downloaded them. Also, can they prove that these torrents contained copyrighted files or that they are just named after famous movies/shows? Perhaps its just crap data...

eat_it
@aon.com

eat_it to SRFireside

Anon

to SRFireside
There is no reasonable doubt in civil court, just a preponderance of the evidence. In other words, if the jury or judge sees the plaintiff 51% correct then they win. Offer course the opposite is true as well.

tpillon
@tel-ott.com

tpillon to SRFireside

Anon

to SRFireside
They could probably get around this by "accidentally" having some sort of electrical fire in or around the server... or by "accidentally" opening an email attatchment that deletes their hard drive... Could they not?
Kip patterson
Premium Member
join:2000-10-23
Columbus, OH

Kip patterson

Premium Member

Re: ha

No, they could not. Stand up in a federal court and lie? And folks here think the MPAA is stupid.

fuzzy_sumpin
@e-nt.net

fuzzy_sumpin to SRFireside

Anon

to SRFireside
Erasing "evidence" would have to be proven I would gather, and I don't think they can get that beyond a reasonable doubt.

Ah, but this is a civil suit. The standard is not "beyond a reasonable doubt", as in criminal law; the standard is "preponderance of evidence". Much easier to meet.

Teechur 007
@comcast.net

Teechur 007 to SRFireside

Anon

to SRFireside
...they only have to prove "on a preponderance of the evidence." (a.k.a. -- Is it more likely than not...)

joako
Premium Member
join:2000-09-07
/dev/null

joako to SRFireside

Premium Member

to SRFireside
said by SRFireside:

I can't see how a situation such as this would constitute misconduct to the point representation is taken away. Erasing "evidence" would have to be proven I would gather, and I don't think they can get that beyond a reasonable doubt. And in this case the facts just don't support the plaintiff's case. Especially with blatantly inaccurate IP address info. Seems to be the lawyers started off on the wrong foot from the get go. Can't see it as a clever ploy.
I can think of it in two ways, 1) Removing the site would be deleting evidence 2) Their defense could be "but we didnt touch anything on the server located at xxx.xxx.450.xxx"

BonezX
Basement Dweller
Premium Member
join:2004-04-13
Canada

BonezX

Premium Member

Re: ha

said by joako:

said by SRFireside:

I can't see how a situation such as this would constitute misconduct to the point representation is taken away. Erasing "evidence" would have to be proven I would gather, and I don't think they can get that beyond a reasonable doubt. And in this case the facts just don't support the plaintiff's case. Especially with blatantly inaccurate IP address info. Seems to be the lawyers started off on the wrong foot from the get go. Can't see it as a clever ploy.
I can think of it in two ways, 1) Removing the site would be deleting evidence 2) Their defense could be "but we didnt touch anything on the server located at xxx.xxx.450.xxx"
well in the letter they told them to take down the site, and get rid of their trackers, then at the end of the letter they said to keep the evidence. now the thing is,1 they haven't been sued yet,2 they allready said to take it down and ditch the trackers so their basically telling them to do somthing then to not do it later.
The Antihero
join:2002-04-09
Enola, PA

The Antihero to Kip patterson

Member

to Kip patterson
said by Kip patterson:

If they destroy evidence, the plaintiff can ask for sanctions. Typically, they will ask for the judge to bar the defendant from presenting a defense. Again, a ruling from the judge, no jury trial.
But how can they prove that you destroyed the evidence, unless they actually saw me do it, which is unlikely. If I simply deleted the files, maybe they could resurrect them (although after seeing the whole IP screwup, I question their techical ability), but if I popped a brand new hard drive in my machine, and "lost" the old one, how could they tell?

••••

tomkb
Premium Member
join:2000-11-15
Tampa, FL

tomkb

Premium Member

Deny everything.

Derch
Premium Member
join:2004-10-16
Hanahan, SC

1 recommendation

Derch

Premium Member

To MPAA

My present to the MPAA, Merry Christmas!

•••••••••••••••••

Transmaster
Don't Blame Me I Voted For Bill and Opus
join:2001-06-20
Cheyenne, WY

2 edits

Transmaster

Member

How Stupid do you think people are?

RE:letter to the website owners claims they face "severe sanctions" should they delete any pirated material or usable evidence in the case against them.

Oh right save evidence to get slam-dunked by your lawyers. If I drop my hard drive into a 400 foot deep lake just what are you assholes going to do about it, just how are you going to know. What are you doing hiring Lawyers who got their law degrees in a cracker-Jack box. ^%@#&^^)(@%$^IDIOTS

••••••••••••••

BodyBumper
join:2004-06-21
Beverly Hills, CA

2 edits

BodyBumper

Member

Desperate House wives and friends?

WTF does the MPAA have to do with TV shows?

»/r0/do ··· paa5.jpg
manifest4
bitches
join:2004-08-14
Hartford, CT

manifest4

Member

Re: Desperate House wives and friends?

Disney Studios is a member of the MPAA.
MonkeyPox4
join:2004-12-21
Lafayette, LA

MonkeyPox4

Member

Pfft. Too little, too late.

Hate to tell the MPAA's lawyers this, but everything is likely loooooooong gone, unless the guys running the bittorrent sites are completely clueless. They're not stupid.

MTBikerChris
Premium Member
join:2001-08-28
Erie, CO

1 edit

MTBikerChris

Premium Member

Has any1 called that number?

has any 1 called that lawyer? i want to. I don't download movies at all because i have had some bad ones so i gave up a long time ago. but still why have a 5000 or 10,000 pipe if u cant

AbBaZaBbA
Premium Member
join:2002-07-10
Wildomar, CA

AbBaZaBbA

Premium Member

wait

has everyone overlooked the fact that .torrent files do not contain any copywrighted material? How is hosting an index file that does not contain anything copywrighted illegal?

•••••

SND2005
Premium Member
join:2001-09-15
Im Over Here

SND2005

Premium Member

Hmm

I'd like to see a MPAA lawyer prove in a court that vts_01_1.vob is actually 'intellectual' property. I don't see how a directory or file listing proves any violation. The files could be anything. Of course, we will have to wait and see if the WI based ISP rolls over and gets its belly scratched.

•••••••

MoviePhreak9
.
join:2002-07-17
India

1 edit

MoviePhreak9

Member

Think you're safe eh?

This has little to do with this topic, but this NFO (that goes with The.Scene.Episode-XviD - an episode rls'd on the scene that is sponsored by Sony) shows how the MPAA is going after site rings and not just BT:
icup2
join:2002-09-03

icup2

Member

Re: Think you're safe eh?

and MovePhreak9, what danger does a show about some kid pirating a show that is 1/2 BS...how could a channel have only +nt....how could he be so harmful that he randomly clicks firefox and goes the the sponsors websites?
icup2

icup2 to MoviePhreak9

Member

to MoviePhreak9
it was always like that....who wants to take down the peasants when u can take down the kings..

Anon users
@dsl.milwwi.ameritech

Anon users

Anon

M$

This is in follow up to our take down notice sent on November 9 , 2004. The links hosted on your servers contribute to the infringement of Microsoft's copyrights by materially assisting P2P users in downloading infringing copies of Microsoft's programs. The person or persons responsible for creating and posting these links have done so with full knowledge and the specific intention of helping people download copies of Microsoft programs from other P2P users without authorization.

Even if a website does not distribute the copyrighted work itself, one who “with knowledge of the infringing activity, induces, causes or materially contributes to the infringing conduct” of another party is liable for contributory infringement. A&M Records, Inc. v. Napster, Inc., 239 F.3d 1004, 1020-22 (9th Cir. 2001) (Napster enjoined for operating server indexes that allowed network users to identify and download infringing files from each other). The links we have asked you to remove contain automated code that initiates a search of the internet for other P2P users offering a specific Microsoft program and results in a download of a file containing that program to the user's computer, all without further action of any kind by the user. This kind of “direct linking” meets the "material contribution" element necessary for contributory infringement liability on the part of the person or persons creating and posting the link. See, e.g., Intellectual Reserve, Inc. v. Utah Lighthouse Ministry, Inc., 75 F. Supp. 2d 1290 (D. Utah 1999) (holding that defendants could be liable for contributory infringement for “actively encouraging” viewing of the copyrighted work by posting the URLs), Arista Records, Inc. v. MP3Board, Inc., 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16165 (Aug. 29, 2002 S.D.N.Y.) (holding defendant could be liable for contributory or vicarious infringement for providing an automated system for searching, aggregating, and organizing links to infringing files). DMCA Section 512(d) clearly addresses the instant situation, given that these links are "referring or linking users to an online location containing infringing material" by connecting them to infringing files offered by other P2P users over the internet. 512(d) provides an ISP with immunity for hosting such links, but only if "upon obtaining knowledge or awareness [it] acts expeditiously to remove, or disable access to, the material." We therefore repeat our request that you immediately disable access to these links in order to prevent further infringement of Microsoft's copyrights.

We request that you take expeditious action to remove or disable access to the material described above, and thereby prevent the illegal reproduction and distribution of this software via your company's network.

Sincerely,

Peter Anaman
Internet Investigator

•••••

nekkidtruth
YISMM
Premium Member
join:2002-05-20
London, ON
Netgear R7000
Asus RT-N66
Hitron CODA-4582

nekkidtruth

Premium Member

Unknown Identities...

Did I read that incorrectly or did they state they do NOT know the identities of these people they're supposedly suing? That being the case....how are they going to know if you "deleted evidence"? LOL Wow...are the lawyers these guys are hiring becoming more stupid by the dozen? Was there a discount or something at the local law firm? LOL

•••••

Oxygen
Times Square can't shine as bright
Premium Member
join:2001-12-04
Huntington Station, NY

1 edit

1 recommendation

Oxygen

Premium Member

Dear Mr. Oppenheim

Dear Mr. Matthew Oppenheim, you are a complete IDIOT.

You keep boasting that an IP that can not exist on the internet is violating something... you should go over your documets before you mail them out.



66.250.450.10? You have to be kidding me. A 14 year old can tell you that an IP address such as that can not exist.

I am currently writing an e-mail to moppenheim@jenner.com to tell him what an moron he is.

Get a clue and get a different job. Herb.

••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
KillingTime2
join:2001-01-03
Orlando, FL

KillingTime2

Member

Lawyers

My best guess is, they have no clue who the traders are, so they figure if they shut down the indexes no one will know what files are out there. I see this as a scare tactic aimed squarely at average joe user than more knowledgeable users who can find the files somewhere else. Unfortunately, the index operators are now stuck in the middle and will most likely find themselves sued as being a party to loss of revenue

NNOTAZ
Im Not A Guru.. Im Just Here To Help
Premium Member
join:2004-02-03

NNOTAZ

Premium Member

Re: Lawyers

450*, thats the most funniest thing ive heard. I Take networking in school and are learning about IPv4 and im 16 and i know that 450* is not possible max is 255, minus one for boradcast, etc.. but thats hilarous. They shutdown Napster.. but there are 1,000,000 other programmes...

anonpornman
@snet.net

anonpornman

Anon

OK more Bullsh$% from the mpaa

Do they know how a torrent works?

If they can sue the torrent tracks.. can't they sue google?
JadenXBP
join:2003-12-17

JadenXBP

Member

Demonoid.com

Demonoid.com takes you to Google now. LOL

Very td off
@168.143.x.x

Very td off

Anon

Bah!

Coal is too good for these people. They might be able to use it for something.

We all should gather up these phone numbers and start prank calling them. A celebration party claim with 30 pizza's ordered to their door might be a good idea for starters.

How the hell can little shortcuts be illegal? The court threw this out if my memory serves me right.

Isn't not respecting a judges decision illegal? maybe they need a copy of that ruling maled in a box to their door too.

_

sinaz
C-Note FBC
join:2000-10-14
Encino, CA

sinaz

Member

notice

how they changed it from 66.250.450.10 - 65.250.450.10.....

look at page 1 and page 3

•••••••

Pole883
Premium Member
join:2004-01-27
Schenectady, NY

Pole883

Premium Member

My take............

ass over teakettle............

ctceo
Premium Member
join:2001-04-26
South Bend, IN

1 edit

ctceo

Premium Member

Thanks all

Special shouts out to Mr. O.

I haven't had such a laugh in a long time.

ROTFLMFAO!!!!!

P.S.

Besides what if these file names are only that, and the actual content is a video dissertation of the movie for a class project, or an archive of movie clips and a review or parody flick in the works???? (far shot I know, But still how do they have a legal leg to stand on against such general things, heck they didn't even get the IP address right... What a bunch of morons.

••••••••••
page: 1 · 2 · 3 · next