Slashdot Log In
Was the Lokitorrent Suit a Hoax?
Posted by
CmdrTaco
on Thu Feb 24, 2005 04:31 PM
from the put-on-your-foil-hat dept.
from the put-on-your-foil-hat dept.
kamhp writes "Recently earthreactor.com published an article
stating that the whole Loki Torrent suit was a fraud and that it was all staged to collect donations toataling in the tens of thousands then sell the domain.
"It seems that the owner of LokiTorrent decided to take the donation money and run, and to cover his tracks, scare the hell out of the entire p2p community. The scare tactic was probably nothing but a decoy to convince intelligent people not to ask the right questions" "
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
Simple solution (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Simple solution (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:Simple solution (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
example of capitalism (Score:5, Funny)
Does anyone bother checking facts? (Score:5, Insightful)
"The MPAA's efforts to date have resulted in a 40 percent reduction in the number of servers that continue to operate. One such site that will no longer exist is LokiTorrent?one of the largest BitTorrent host servers. The operator of that site, Edward Webber, agreed to not only pay a substantial settlement with even greater financial penalties for any further such actions, but by Court Order must provide the MPAA with access to and copies of all logs and server data related to his illegal BitTorrent activities, which will provide a roadmap to others who have used LokiTorrent to engage in illegal activities."
The premise of the article is based entirely on the fact that there is no documentation from the MPAA--but indeed there is such documentation. I know we'd all love to believe the MPAA created that release to capitalize on this so-called hoax but no doubt that would be subject to legal action for such blatant lies.
The article also states "If LokiTorrent.com had been sued in Dallas Federal Courts, then some type of public record would appear. NO ONLINE RECORD APPEARS WHATSOEVER!"
So...if it's not on the internet, it must not exist right....right!?
Did anyone bother contacting the MPAA for a comment on the Lokitorrent case rather than providing more fire to the rumor mill?
21st century existancialism (Score:5, Funny)
I can be googled, therefore I am.
Parent
Re:21st century existancialism (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:21st century existancialism (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:Does anyone bother checking facts? (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Does anyone bother checking facts? (Score:5, Informative)
I'm looking at the docketing sheet right now.
3:04-cv-02642
Columbia Pictures Industries, Inc et al v. Edward Webber
Someone didn't check their facts.
I would provide linkage but you need an account to view it.
https://ecf.txnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/login.pl [uscourts.gov]
Parent
Re:Does anyone bother checking facts? (Score:4, Interesting)
It orders him to pay 1 million dollars in damages and he has to turn over all the logs.
It also states he isn't allowed to sell the source code for loki torrent.
Though he wasn't required to turn over the domain name or servers to the MPAA just the logs. So the notice on the website looks to be his own doing?
If anyone wants me to email a copy to them so they don't have to pay the 64 cents to download and can post it some where let me know.
Parent
Re:Does anyone bother checking facts? (Score:5, Informative)
http://www.joegratz.net/archives/2005/02/24/lokit
Parent
Re:Does anyone bother checking facts? (Score:5, Informative)
3:04-cv-02642 Columbia Pictures Industries, Inc et al v. Edward Webber
David C Godbey, presiding
Date filed: 12/14/2004
Date terminated: 02/16/2005 Date of last filing: 02/16/2005
Case Summary
Office: Dallas Filed: 12/14/2004
Jury Demand: None Demand:
Nature of Suit: 820 Cause: 17:501 Copyright Infringement
Jurisdiction: Federal Question Disposition: Judgment - Judgment on Consent
County: XX US, Outside State Terminated: 02/16/2005
Origin: 1 Reopened:
Lead Case: None
Related Case: None Other Court Case: None
Def Custody Status:
Flags: CLOSED, COPYRIGHT, RAMIREZ
Plaintiff Columbia Pictures Industries, Inc
(followed by contact info and list of other movie studios, presumably all the MPAA members).
The last document filed in the case is a "Consent Judgment and Permanent Injunction", signed and dated February 8th 2005. The guy's attorney signed it on his behalf, and apparently Mr. Webber *AGREED* to pay a million dollar judgement to the plaintiff - there was no trial ever held. I have to assume there is some side agreement that waives the financial agreement if he complies with their terms and plays nice or something like that, as I'm presuming this guy doesn't just have a million dollars to throw at the MPAA.
Oh yeah, and the Consent Judgment states that the defendent waives any and all right to appeal the Judgment, to have it set aside, or to obtain a new trial. So I don't understand how this guy claims he was going to put up a legal fight when it sounds like he rolled over like a fifty cent whore.
Parent
Meta-hoax (Score:5, Insightful)
Side note from the MPAA's war-cry page: "By deeply cutting into revenues, movie piracy limits the choices for consumers at the box office. Sixty percent of all movies never recoup their production and marketing costs which average well over $100 million."
Sigh. The fact that most movies didn't recoup production costs in the decades before p2p, the Web or VCRs ever existed seems to have slipped under the radar.
Parent
Re:Meta-hoax (Score:5, Interesting)
What this really comes down to is "We don't have the control we're accustomed to, we're not making as much money as we feel entitled to, and we don't care who we hurt as long as we get what we want." You'd get a similar line of reasoning from your average Mafioso, I'm sure.
The movie studios will get little sympathy from me, and anyone that bothers to understand the damage that has already been done at the hands of the motion picture industry would be hard-pressed to defend it.
What continually amazes me is the degree of arrogance these people exhibit, the remarkably high regard in which they hold themselves and their products. Jack Valenti exemplified this sort of "we are an international treasure that must be preserved at all costs" attitude that belies the fact that what they are selling are "luxuries" that all of us could easily do without. Regardless, if by some miracle the MPAA and all of its' member organizations disappeared overnight, it really wouldn't take long for a new business model to take over and the flow of movies to continue.
The idea that a good movie has to cost a hundred million dollars is a bit extreme anyway. Take the TV series' Stargate SG-1 and Stargate Atlantis. The production team for those shows produces cinematic-quality special effects week after week on a fraction of the budget of a typical third-rate movie. Sure, the actors don't command the same prices that the big boys do, but so what
Parent
Re:Does anyone bother checking facts? (Score:5, Interesting)
Mmm...
Too sneaky for the MPAA...
In any case... I think the reverse would be fun. A honey pot for the MPAA. name a bunch of linux files after celebrities names and movie titles. So that they will sue for Independece_Day.exe, Madonna.c, and Eminem.class, bittorented all over the internet.
Actually, no. I think what needs to happen is that people stop bying movies and music for a month. Pick a month, like July, and advertise the "NO MPAA PURCHASE MONTH", and buy only independents and so on. The press will eat that up as "Public Decries MPAA Tactics, Boycotts DVDs!"
That, or send letters (on paper) to the President, hum, to your local representative... No, to his political party headquarter, and tell them that the situation is untenable and that you will... Hum, nothing... They don't CARE about you.
So I guess P2Ping is an Act of Civil Disobedience and thus the Voice of the People calling for Redress from an Oppressive and Corrupt Government!!!
whew, need to catch my breath...
Ok, that's better.
And now, [with my finest british accent:]
"Gentlemen, synchronize your servers. We attack at oh-six-hundred."
Parent
What did you expect? (Score:5, Funny)
Where can I find these intelligent people? I have a bridge to sell to them...
OMG! (Score:4, Funny)
of course he could cover his tracks (Score:5, Funny)
Article Text (Score:5, Informative)
Written by: SharePro
At the end of December 2004, the RIAA and MPAA began an international rampage in efforts to close down major bit torrent and ed2k file sharing sites.
Some sites like Suprnova.org, Youceff.com, ShareTv.com, and others went down without a fight while other sites, including ShareConnector and Releases4U were closed down by authorities.
The lawsuits set off a wide spread of panic and dismay within the p2p community as many of the veteran ed2k and torrent contributing societys soon found themselves "homeless" and their works "confisquated" by investigative authorities.
During the turmoil, one such MPAA targeted Bit Torrent site claimed it was willing to stand up against the evil powers of motion picture media thugs by fighting the legal issues in a court of law. LokiTorrent.com began accepting donations from the p2p community to support what they called "necessary legal fee's".
According to a Slyck.com - January 3, 2005 (Slyck.com promoted people to donate to Loki Torrent), within two weeks (5 days public) of announcing their fund raising campaign, Loki Torrents was only $710.00 dollars away from reaching their initial goal. At the time of writing Slyck.com's initial article, Loki Torrent claimed to have raised an impressive $29,290.00 from the p2p community.
Today, just weeks after the initial Slyck.com interview with Edward Webber, owner of LokiTorrent.com, the entire p2p file share community is back in turmoil.
Quote:
A) Are the logs of Lokitorrent.com in the hands of the MPAA?
B) Where is the money that was donated to the legal fund?
C) Can P2P'rs who uploaded / downloaded torrents be tracked down via the logs.
The above and more were the initial questions most p2pr's had in mind when news broke that the MPAA had gained control of Loki Torrent.
As the writing of this article began to gain momentum, many inconsistencies began arising that clearly show that Lokitorrent is not in the hands of the MPAA (At least not because of a court order), nor we're the owners fined a million dollars.
1) LokiTorrent never provided the name or details of any lawyer representing the internet site. No federal judge's name has been listed anywhere throughout the so-called proceedings. Texas courts have no record of any filed judicial proceedings on behalf of the MPAA against Loki Torrent and/or Ed Webber.
2) During the same period of time that Loki was making tens of thousands of dollars monthly via donations, the owners of Loki Torrent were also actively trying to sell the domain. LokiTorrent.com for Sale
In effort to convince p2p'rs to continue donating and not to believe Loki's intent to sell, this is what the owner published in his defense:
Loki Torrent's Selling on Sedo.com
Quote:
If some guy offers me $75K for the domain name, he's more than welcome to it, and I'll simply move the site to a different domain. Selling the entire site will never happen. I have way too much of myself in this site to sell it for any price (well, 2 million could get me to part with it, lol.. but let's live in reality).
3) The only reports of this so-called "law suit" are based entirely on the front page of the LokiTorrent.com internet site. The MPAA and Texas Federal Court list no public record of a lawsuit nor is the MPAA or the courts willing to back up Lokitorrent claims of being ordered to hand over webserver ip logs and pay a 1 million dollar penalty. J. Borland of News.com (and other related news resources) apparently based their entire news articles by information received directly from Mr. Ed Webber (the owner of LokiTorrent.com). This information was received by calling Mr. Webber directly at telephone number (207) 752-3481.
4) Was LokiTorrent ever actually sued by the MPAA? According to the initial reports published via various websites, most people were led to have believed that the
The MPAA will be interested + 3 steps to profit! (Score:5, Funny)
Step 1) set up torrent site
Step 2) claim MPAA takedown
Step 3) collect money from torrent downloaders, then run away and PROFIT !!!
The process probably can't be repeated too many times, though... do you figure they made more money than they would have through advertisements ? I'm guessing they did...
Anyone got a copy? (Score:5, Funny)
Lokitorrent + PayPal + Illegal Downloads + Hoax (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Lokitorrent + PayPal + Illegal Downloads + Hoax (Score:5, Funny)
My most esteemed colleague,
I find myself so grateful in the knowledge that such persons as yourself exists and are willing to add such value to group conversations. I myself have been such a man, and it warms my hear to deal with a fellow man of honor.
It grieves me to say that such conversations are threatened by those who would profit from misfortune. I speak specifically of the president of my country who has forbidden the same. It is not easy in these troubling circumstances, but rest assured that I have powerful friends who are in a position to help. They lack on the means to a vast sum that can free up all such conversations. I know a professional man such as yourself will be in a position to help free my country from such dire matters, and reap a huge reward for your troubles.
I am contacting you because of a business concerning a huge sum of money from a deceased deposit in the Security and Finance company where a colleague of mine works in the Netherlands. Though I know that a transaction of this magnitude will make any one apprehensive and worried, but I am assuring you that all will be well at the end of the day. I actually decided to contact you due to the urgency of this transaction.
I shall be compensating you with 30% of the total money while 10% will be for any expenses incurred the rest will be mine on final conclusion of this project. Please note that your share stays while the rest shall before me for investment purposes.
If this proposal is acceptable by you, do not take undue advantage of the trust I have bestowed in you, I await your urgent mail. Please reply to my private and confidential email.
Parent
slashdot gets pwned again... (Score:5, Informative)
"The MPAA's efforts to date have resulted in a 40 percent reduction in the number of servers that continue to operate. One such site that will no longer exist is LokiTorrent -- one of the largest BitTorrent host servers. The operator of that site, Edward Webber, agreed to not only pay a substantial settlement with even greater financial penalties for any further such actions, but by Court Order must provide the MPAA with access to and copies of all logs and server data related to his illegal BitTorrent activities, which will provide a roadmap to others who have used LokiTorrent to engage in illegal activities."
took all of like 3 seconds to find this.
in keeping with the usual
Hmmmm... Loki..... (Score:5, Funny)
Hmmmmmm....
On Lokitorrent's side they did have other revenue (Score:5, Interesting)
Donate X amount or more and win some prize. It was innovative and I may use it in the future myself. As to the hoax? I got nothing.
The countersuit was a hoax, but... (Score:4, Informative)
So unless the MPAA is also in on this hoax (which wouldn't really surprise me), there are some issues with this story.
Slashdot sued for fraud and slander (Score:5, Insightful)
To link to a article about someones opinion is one thing but to support and spread lies and slander is just plain wrong
Trusting the source? (Score:4, Informative)
Story is a troll (Score:5, Informative)
Hold on for a second... (Score:5, Informative)
This article is written by SharePro of ES5 -- the same fellow who was threatening to post pictures and personal information about the bloke who found the 'remote file deletion' utility in the ES5 p2p program awhile back.
Take whatever this man says with a grain of salt and call me in the morning...
Re:Hold on for a second... (Score:5, Interesting)
Parent
No, it wasn't. (Score:5, Informative)
Court documents (Score:5, Informative)
Remember what LokiTorrent was? (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Clairify that comment,plz (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:Clairify that comment,plz (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Claims against what exactly? (Score:5, Interesting)
"Your Honour, I used this website to knowingly violate copyright law, and then gave the owner of said site some money in the belief it was in order to defend a case against him, and therefore keep the site up. I want my money back, because no such case existed".
Response:
"So, you gave money in exchange for the possibility of continued use of an illegal service"
It would be very, very hard to argue that you gave money without previously using the site to download illegal material, or that when you parted with your money you had no hope at all it would result in the continued usage of the illegal service LokiTorrent provided.
Parent
Re:Claims against what exactly? (Score:5, Insightful)
Many people believe that the law is wrong, or poorly written or poorly executed -- and noone has followed a legal battle from beginning to end -- except maybe napster. Even they settled in the end, no? They didn't go 'all they way'.
I believe copyrights are being abused -- by those downloading copyrighted materials, but also the copyright holders, too. There is NO logical reason why Mickey Mouse isn't in the public domain now. The 'bittorrents' and p2p in general are just a symptom of a much larger problem...
Parent
Re:Claims against what exactly? (Score:5, Funny)
man mount will tell all
Parent
Re:The lawsuit is not a hoax... (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm working on a library called Uso designed to send encrypted data from fake source IPs/ports to fake dest IPs/ports (faking as much as physically possible while still allowing the information to make it; it does various network probes to determine what it can and cannot do). You use libnet to write raw packets to the network and use pcap to sniff them back off; clients don't recognize each other by the source and destination IPs, but by codes contained in the UDP headers. The codes are unique per client, but not across the system, making recognizing the packets to firewall them quite a challenge (easily recognizable content is inside the encrypted section). I'm about half-done (I've got my encryption classes (Blowfish and RSA - both wrappers around openssl) done and tested, and have sent basic packets back and forth with part of the probing done; I need to do remote probing and implement the full protocol spec - plus some arp flooding and cache poisoning would be nice options). It should be able to tunnel through most NAT setups, although I won't know for sure until I get the full protocol spec implemented.
Another option is limited proxying. If you proxy a small but significant percentage of your traffic, you can't tell who was requesting the content and who was just being an unwitting proxy. It makes mass lawsuits unfeasable. Plus, proxying can confer some advantages on its own, especially if you use a "smart" target selection method.
Parent
Re:The lawsuit is not a hoax... (Score:5, Informative)
You clearly did not read the relevant documents the article's author didn't bother to look for [mpaa.org].
Don't believe everything you read on the internet.
Parent
Re:Class-action lawsuit, anyone? (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:Class-action lawsuit, anyone? (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
RTFA's Comments (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re:I have a hard time trusting people (Score:5, Interesting)
MPAA, you are wrong. It is possible to hide. And your idiotic attacks on the general public will only make the systems where this is possible more popular. I have said this numerous times, users want to use simple peer to peer system to acquire movies. This is because divx is the preferred format, p2p is the preferred way of delivery. If there was a way to just enter the movie title of any movie and pay $5 or something for the right to do so, then most p2p users would pay that sum. Allow free distribution, allow fair use, and most importantly: Provide ways of paying for your products...
Parent
I hear that. (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:This is disgusting (Score:4, Insightful)
As you and many of your preceding posters are testament to, you will fly half way around the world with a lie or rumor before bothering to check to see if it's actually true.
It appears this rumor is false, but you
Parent
Re:Doesn't make sense! (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent