SuprNova Gone

[graller]

Help! I need to track down last week's OC episode and SuprNova is a goner...any got advice for me on how to track this stuff down now?

[Wholly Schmidt]

Oh snap! Anybody got any secret trackers they've been going to for TV shows? I'm going to need something quick for when JLU gives us more new episodes.

[Ranulf]

http://www.btefnet.net/ for tv stuff.

[zabuni]

From a cursory web search, it appears that tracker sites are within the RIAA/MPAA crosshairs:

Anyway, a link to some links:

http://www.blizzhackers.com/viewtopic.php?t=220190&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0

[zabuni]

Ah double snap!!

http://www.metafilter.com/mefi/37972

They are also halting work on exeem, which was going to solve this whole large corporate organization closing tracker site problem.

Darn

http://www.badmovies.org/movies/planetapes/planetapes7.jpg

YOU MANIACS. YOU BLEW IT UP. DAMN YOU. GOD DAMN YOU ALL TO HELL.

[TrodKnee]

http://www.lokitorrent.com/torrents.php Your Chrismikka fix is 4th from the top.

[chet]

I thought suprnova didn't even host any trackers itself, just pointed to the files.

[Sean Hargraves]

Typing OC filetype:torrent (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&safe=off&c2coff=1&q=OC+filetype%3Atorrent&btnG=Search) in Google nets these results. If there's a scheme for labeling filenames with Season and Episode you can narrow your search.

[Ranulf]

http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=04/12/19/1712258&tid=95&tid=123

[Alan Dunkin]

Torrent sites are definitely in the crosshairs now.. torrentbits and Youceff are now gone as well apparently.

--- Alan

[Derek Meister]

I was always amused at how The Pirate Bay (http://trackerwww.prq.to/frame.html) keeps a running list of their legal threats (http://trackerwww.prq.to/frame.html).

[Warning]

I was always amused at how The Pirate Bay (http://trackerwww.prq.to/frame.html) keeps a running list of their legal threats (http://trackerwww.prq.to/frame.html).

No action (except ridiculing the senders) has been taken by us because of these. :-)

Nice graphs for the law firms who don't get the hint above:
http://static.thepiratebay.org/tpb-legalthreats.png
http://static.thepiratebay.org/tpb-torrentsdel.png

Pretty bold. But funny.

Edit: Their response to Dreamworks (http://static.thepiratebay.org/dreamworks_response.txt) is pretty funny too.

[Euri]

How ARE they closing these sites down? None of them are hosted in the US.

[Anders Hallin]

How ARE they closing these sites down? None of them are hosted in the US.
I'm guessing people are not very inclined to take the fight.

[stusser]

Sweden isn't a police state. It isn't illegal to link to questionable material there, just to host it.

Unlike here.

[Mike Hussey]

How ARE they closing these sites down? None of them are hosted in the US.

Copyright and trademarks are international. Some countries, like China, aren't too hot on enforcing them, but if you want to pursue a copyright claim in, say, Germany, you just hire German lawyers.

[graller]

That PirateBay reply was priceless and thanks all for restoring my OC to me. I hate traveling and missing episodes of my fav shows.

[stusser]

Copyright and trademarks are international.
Suprnova and its ilk are not violating copyright. They are not hosting illegal material, they are simply linking to others who are. They're at one degree of separation from violating copyright. By linking the pirate's bay, you're at two degrees. When the feds knock down your door, I do hope you go quietly.

This stuff is only illegal in Rev. Ashcroft's america.

[chet]

Whatever happened (I tried searching on google and got no updates) with the 2600/DeCCS case? At least originally they were convicted of linking to an item, just linking not hosting the item.

[chemdem]

http://www.2600.com/news/view/article/1233

[Nick Walter]

Copyright and trademarks are international.
Suprnova and its ilk are not violating copyright. They are not hosting illegal material, they are simply linking to others who are. They're at one degree of separation from violating copyright. By linking the pirate's bay, you're at two degrees. When the feds knock down your door, I do hope you go quietly.

This stuff is only illegal in Rev. Ashcroft's america.

Suprnova isn't violating copyright? I doubt a judge will be very impressed with the technicalities of trackers and torrents. Suprnova is no different than the servers of Napster and Napster got in legal hot water so I imagine Suprnova will too.

[Wholly Schmidt]

Is it time to send another thread spiraling out of control as we search for the perfect real-world metaphor for what downloading music on the internet is like and therefore how it should be dealt with legally?

"No no, Napster was more like the Burlington Coat Factory at the other end of the mall that sold you the bulky jacket you could slide CDs into down at Sam Goody's..."

EDIT: Typo

[Nick Walter]

Is it time to send another thread spiraling out of control as we search for the perfect real-world metaphor for what downloading music on the internet is like and therefore how it should be dealt with legally?

"No no, Napster was more like the Burlington Coat factor at the other end of the mall that sold you the bulky jacket you could slide CDs into down at Sam Goody's..."

Sorry, Sorry, that was my fault.

Wild copyright claims are a pet peeve of mine. I can't resist that "reply" button when people start talking about it :D

[Squirrel Killer]

Suprnova isn't violating copyright? I doubt a judge will be very impressed with the technicalities of trackers and torrents. Suprnova is no different than the servers of Napster and Napster got in legal hot water so I imagine Suprnova will too.

But those technicalities are exactly what judges are supposed to look at. I remember researching a case for a college class regarding soldering flux formulations. The decision went on for pages upon pages detailing the complex details of flux formulations and their developmental histories. Unless, linking to illegal content is itself illegal, that is exactly the technicality that is supposed to get the linkers off.

[Nick Walter]

Suprnova isn't violating copyright? I doubt a judge will be very impressed with the technicalities of trackers and torrents. Suprnova is no different than the servers of Napster and Napster got in legal hot water so I imagine Suprnova will too.

But those technicalities are exactly what judges are supposed to look at. I remember researching a case for a college class regarding soldering flux formulations. The decision went on for pages upon pages detailing the complex details of flux formulations and their developmental histories. Unless, linking to illegal content is itself illegal, that is exactly the technicality that is supposed to get the linkers off.

I would fully expect a judge to examine the technicalities of trackers and torrents in detail, but not be impressed with them. Technologically speaking, the relationship between the napster server and the napster peers/clients is the same as the relationship between the suprnova server and the torrent seeders/clients. Napster got burned and suprnova would too in a U.S. court.

[Kalle]

The Pirate Bay is probably legal in Sweden, if I am to believe what they write in this reply (http://static.thepiratebay.org/adv_response.txt), and others, on their 'legal threats' page.

Considering that several of their legal cease and desist letters are from Swedish companies with lawyers at their disposal yet no action has been taken the Pirate Bay is probably right in the clear legally.

[Derek Meister]

Technologically speaking, the relationship between the napster server and the napster peers/clients is the same as the relationship between the suprnova server and the torrent seeders/clients.

It would only be "technologically the same" if you were talking about a 3rd party service that ran a website providing a listing of songs on Napster and allowed you to click through and immediately connect to Napster for that song.

If you took down the Napster server, the clients will not function. When you take down Suprnova, the torrent trackers still continue on perfectly fine and people who know where they are can connect to them just as easily as before.

[extarbags]

Man, those Pirate Bay letters are hilarious.

[Bob Cherub]

the Yahoo story said a suprnova mirror is still up.. anyone know the link?

[stusser]

I think we're exposing a fundamental lack of understanding in this thread...

Suprnova is absolutely equivalent to napster. Both services link to illegal content but do not host it themselves. Napster also wouldn't be illegal anywhere but the united police states of america. Suprnova is very clearly illegal under current US law.

The proscecution's case against napster was an obscenity against freedom in our country. It was unconstitutional, and hopefully will be proven so when the DMCA makes it to the highest court.

The RIAA's case against millions of people sharing britney's latest hits, on the other hand, is entirely legal and ethically sound. If people are jacking your goods from 18-wheelers, you go after the thieves, not the trucking company. It shouldn't matter that the thieves are harder to nail down; the trucking company just isn't responsible.

[Nick Walter]

I think we're exposing a fundamental lack of understanding in this thread...

Suprnova is absolutely equivalent to napster. Both services link to illegal content but do not host it themselves. Napster also wouldn't be illegal anywhere but the united police states of america. Suprnova is very clearly illegal under current US law.

The proscecution's case against napster was an obscenity against freedom in our country. It was unconstitutional, and hopefully will be proven so when the DMCA makes it to the highest court.

The RIAA's case against millions of people sharing britney's latest hits, on the other hand, is entirely legal and ethically sound. If people are jacking your goods from 18-wheelers, you go after the thieves, not the trucking company. It shouldn't matter that the thieves are harder to nail down; the trucking company just isn't responsible.

Doh, oops. I misunderstood your first post stusser. I thought you were claiming that suprnova would be legal in the U.S. My bad.

[Jamie Madigan]

strusser, your post confuses me. How can the two be equivalent yet one be " obscenity against freedom in our country" and the other be "entirely legal and ethically sound." They both did the same thing (more or less), but with slightly different technology.

In fact, Napster did more to facillitate copying. They offered search and community tools that let people find specific files in others' collections.

[Squirrel Killer]

stusser is saying that the prosecution of Napster (who was just linking file sharers) "was an obscenity against freedom in our country." It's the RIAA prosecution of individual sharers that is "legal and ethically sound." The difference is that Napster can be used in a way that doesn't infringe on copyrights, whereas if you're sharing copyrighted works without permission, as the individual sharers are, you're automatically infringing. The key difference is linking vs. sharing.

The bind that the RIAA is kinda in (but one they choose to live with) is that PR-wise, it's much better to go after a company like Napster than it is to go after grandmothers.

I'm not really convinced that supranova is automatically illegal. As Derek mentioned, Napster was a situation where their service was so centralized that even though they weren't doing the actual sharing, the sharing went hand-in-hand with the Napster service. supranova didn't host the files or the trackers, it just linked to the trackers. Much as google can (http://www.google.com/search?num=100&hl=en&lr=&safe=off&c2coff=1&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&q=arrested+development+filetype%3Atorrent&btnG=Search). (Dear Entity: let me know if you want me to edit this post to remove the preceeding link.) It's a fine line, to be sure, but that's just what legal technicalities are.

[Jamie Madigan]

Ah, I see. The focus of the statement was on the target of the prosecution, not the innocence (or lack thereof) of the violators. Thanks.

[Derek Meister]

Suprnova is absolutely equivalent to napster. Both services link to illegal content but do not host it themselves.

Actually, no.

When you're connecting to the Napster server, you request a particular search string to be run. The Napster server keeps track of every Napster user and what they're sharing and downloading at any given second. From the search string you give the Napster server, it returns a number of file names. From there, the Napster server will tell your client which user IPs to connect to to get that file. The Napster server is always part of the process and is directly involved every step of the way.

Suprnova and the like never actually link you to the illegal content. They link you to a privately run tracker that then links you to the illegal content. The individual bittorrent tracker can be said to be similar to the Napster server, though.

In the end, it ends up allowing you to do the same thing, which is get access to illegal content, but there is still a technical difference between Napster and Suprnova.

[Mike Hussey]

Copyright and trademarks are international.
Suprnova and its ilk are not violating copyright. They are not hosting illegal material, they are simply linking to others who are. They're at one degree of separation from violating copyright. By linking the pirate's bay, you're at two degrees. When the feds knock down your door, I do hope you go quietly.

This stuff is only illegal in Rev. Ashcroft's america.

IANAL and all that, but the MPAA didn't just announce their intention to go after sites like Suprnova in the US, they did it here in the UK too, with full blown publicity on TV and Radio news. I'm not certain but I wouldn't be surprised if they did the same in other contries too.

[Wholly Schmidt]

Man, I wish someone hadn't just used the "In Russia" joke so recently in another thread. "In Russia, SuprNova comes after you!" would've worked well here.

[stusser]

Yes, of course they plan on going after both individual filesharers and distibution centers everywhere they have influence. The MPAA and RIAA essentially represent all mass media conglomerates in the united states, and the US creates the vast majority of media and pop-culture for the world. In other words, they have significant monetary and cultural influence in every civilized nation on planet earth. It isn't illegal in europe yet-- but if they get their way, it will be.

[zabuni]

Exeem not dead? Can it be true?

From our favorite xplody star site:


Greetings everybody

It has been more then a week since SuprNova.org went down. We are sorry that we have not updated the site with more recent news, but we have been very busy.

Anyway, we will soon be making an announcement. Announcement will be made on NovaStream.org radio on 30th December around 10 PM CET (9 PM GMT, 4 PM EST).

Also, everybody is still welcome to join us on irc (irc://irc.suprnova.org/suprnova.org) or on forums (www.suprnovaforums.net), but please remember, we are no longer offering torrents. You will not find any on IRC or on our forums.

Thanks,

Sloncek & the rest of the SuprNova team.

[Donald L.]

NewNova (http://www.newnova.org)

[Euri]

Hm, this one is coming from Singapore. The last was Latvia or something right?

[Alan Dunkin]

I thought it was Scandinavian.

--- Alan

[Kalle]

SuprNova was Slovenian or Slovakian, can't really remember which.

[Marcus]

mininova.org
ftw

[Methedrine]

I thought it was Scandinavian.

--- Alan

That would be Pirate Bay, right ?

[Kalle]

I thought it was Scandinavian.

--- Alan

That would be Pirate Bay, right ?

Right.

[Igor Muravyev]

The question is will New Nova be as good as Pirate Bay, and will crummy copyright laws leave NewNova untouched?

[Kalle]

The question is will New Nova be as good as Pirate Bay, and will crummy copyright laws leave NewNova untouched?

To answer your first question: No, they don't have a category for porn.

[soondifferent]

The real story:

link (http://www.suprnova.org/?op=showLong&aID=80)

I'm surprised he got his computers back.