TorrentSpy Ordered To Pay $110 Million to MPAA

By Jane McEntegart, published on May 8, 2008 at 2:20 PM
Source: Tom's Guide | Keywords: , , | Themes: Business, The Internet
Syndication: Add to your Google homepage Add to My Yahoo!

A Los Angeles federal court has ordered BitTorrent indexing web site, TorrentSpy, to pay copyright infringement fines of just over $110 million to the MPAA.

The MPAA filed the suit against the website in February of 2006 accusing TorrentSpy of supporting copyright infringement by allowing its users to share pirated files. In an attempt to cover their tracks, TorrentSpy moderators destroyed evidence and lied under oath about the existence of users IP addresses. As a result of these discrepancies, in December 2007 the court was forced to terminate the lawsuit against TorrentSpy for false testimony and destroyed evidence. Shortly after, the website blocked US users from accessing the site.

In March 2008 TorrentSpy shut down for good citing “the ultimate method of privacy protection” as the reason for taking the site offline. While TorrentSpy claims it had nothing to do with December’s ruling, the MPAA claims it was because of the December 2007 ruling.

The $110 million is divided up into $30,000 for each of the 3,699 incidents of infringement it proved in the case against TorrentSpy, which makes it one of the biggest copyright judgments ever handed down.

Aside from the more than hefty fine, the court also issued a permanent injunction which further prohibits TorrentSpy’s parent company, Valance Media from engaging in any activity that encourages, promotes, solicits or knowingly facilitates, enables or assists copyright infringement.

Valance Media and TorrentSpy owners Justin Bunnell and Wes Park have filed for bankruptcy and TorrentSpy has said it will appeal the judgment.

Comments | Print | Send to a friend
Google Ads
Comments

Deleted profile 08/05/2008 08:59
Hide
Insert quote. | -2+
If this is what the movie industry is doing with the $10 I give each trip to the theatre, I just won't go anymore. How about, movie studios put a leash on the MPAA and invest into other forms of distibution? The RIAA is learning this lesson the hard way, so why is hstory repeating itself with the MPAA, and probably next with the game industry? All these DRM, copy-infringment, and filesharing conlficts seem to have no resolution anytime soon...
Deleted profile 08/05/2008 10:33
Hide
Insert quote. | -1+
I would like to thank TorrentSpy for deciding to fold up shop instead of rolling over on everyone that used the site. I'm sorry you didn't win.
Deleted profile 08/05/2008 10:51
Hide
Insert quote. | -1+
This is exactly why I do not buy or rent movies anymore. And I haven't been to a Theater in over 3 years. The entire entertainment industry is stained with greed. The future I would most like to see is one where the key players of the entertainment industry are ones filing bankruptcy. Why should a brain surgeon spend half of his entire life learning his profession only to make a tiny fraction of what some airhead actor makes in 20 minutes of film? Same thing goes for professional sports...
Deleted profile 08/05/2008 11:17
Hide
Insert quote. | --1+
"The entire entertainment industry is stained with greed."

So stealing copyrighted material isn't greedy, These guys turning a profit by facilitating said infringement isn't greedy?
No the real reason you don't buy or rent movies anymore is because you're stealing and don't want to part with your money that is greed.

Deleted profile 09/05/2008 12:59
Hide
Insert quote. | -2+
You are an idiot paying customer. No I don't steal them. I just don't watch them. I have learned to live without them.
aroth 09/05/2008 03:13
Hide
Insert quote. | -1+
aroth
"The $110 million is divided up into $30,000 for each of the 3,699 incidents of infringement"

Yes, because $30,000 is what it costs to go out and buy a DVD. Wtf was that judge smoking???
kutark 09/05/2008 03:43
Hide
Insert quote. | -1+
kutark
Honestly, i disagree with anything involving the RIAA, because they truly are greedy. But as for the MPAA, and the movie industry in general, i have to agree with this. Here is why. CD's generall sell for $14-20 USD. DVD's at most are $22, but mostly 16-20. Movie producers invest usually 10's, sometimes 100's of millions into the creation of the movie. Music companies on the other hand, have stupendously low operating costs. Music companies have operating rations better than 10:1. I dont mind paying 20 dollars for a movie, because all the actors are generally paid accordingly, they're not getting screwed like the artists are. Why do you think so many artists support digital distribution, it eliminates the middle man, allows them to actually make the money they deserve for creating the product. Anyways, im rambling.

On a side note, this particular incident of making torrentspy pay is a bit ridiculous. If torrentspy touted itself as a "Movie Torrent Site" then i could see it. But where do you draw the line, are they gonna start suing comcast and cox, and all the other internet providers because they are enabling pirates? Seriously, where do you draw the line.
Deleted profile 09/05/2008 03:45
Hide
Insert quote. | -0+
Society will make a choice. Will we allow a means of free and open exchange of any and nearly all information to flourish on its own popular support? Will we crack down on the grass-roots created information sharing networks in the fear that copy-right infringement will cut into profits and diminish the quality of human culture produced?

If we pick profits/freedom then we will have an unpleasant crackdown on average people sampling the vast information pool.

If we pick freedom for any information then the old businesses around the distribution of information may go out of business and regular people may take a more active role in creating our culture.

The way I see it is that its a war we can't win completely. If they do have a crackdown it will be as effective as a crackdown on the drug trade has been. The enablers of the behavior simply adapt. We will end up with new software that adds annonymity with extra bandwidth cost. The load would go up more than 100% for each file you get, but it could truly be anonymous. The software simply would act as a inter-proxy for peers. The downloaders' IP addresses replaced by the proxys' and each downloader acts as a proxy for others.

Its time to choose what we believe in and how we want our future to be.

Note You are going to post a comment as anonymous.



  •
Submit my comment
Google Ads