Reply With QuoteOh 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.
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?
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.
http://www.btefnet.net/ for tv stuff.
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/viewtopi...er=asc&start=0
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
YOU MANIACS. YOU BLEW IT UP. DAMN YOU. GOD DAMN YOU ALL TO HELL.
http://www.lokitorrent.com/torrents.php Your Chrismikka fix is 4th from the top.
I thought suprnova didn't even host any trackers itself, just pointed to the files.
Typing OC filetype:torrent in Google nets these results. If there's a scheme for labeling filenames with Season and Episode you can narrow your search.
Torrent sites are definitely in the crosshairs now.. torrentbits and Youceff are now gone as well apparently.
--- Alan
I was always amused at how The Pirate Bay keeps a running list of their legal threats.
Originally Posted by Derek Meister
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:
Pretty bold. But funny.
Edit: Their response to Dreamworks is pretty funny too.
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.
Sweden isn't a police state. It isn't illegal to link to questionable material there, just to host it.
Unlike here.
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.
That PirateBay reply was priceless and thanks all for restoring my OC to me. I hate traveling and missing episodes of my fav shows.
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.
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.
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.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.
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
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
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.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.
The Pirate Bay is probably legal in Sweden, if I am to believe what they write in this reply, 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.
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.
Man, those Pirate Bay letters are hilarious.
the Yahoo story said a suprnova mirror is still up.. anyone know the link?
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.
Posting Permissions
