Comments on: MPAA to get LokiTorrent info

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Sat, 19 Feb 2005 02:56:03 +0000

Why was Low Kee even keepiong server logs? There was no need to keep this information at all – and the trackers can always purge old IP info. The idea of P2P is to share accurate files anonymously. P2P information sharing promotes efficiency and happiness of the whole human race – something the copylockers are preventing.

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Tue, 15 Feb 2005 00:47:38 +0000

anybody stupid enough to register with sites using their real information deserves to be sued! bugmenot for ever!!

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Mon, 14 Feb 2005 09:26:44 +0000

When it comes down to it, there is a simple solution. If they want us to buy their products so they can make money all they need to do is make some “quality” products. This last year I bought less music than ever. Not because I was downloading but because there just wasn’t much good music out. I hate to burtst their bubble but thanks to file shareing I have more music and movies than I would had if not for the downloading. I must thank p2p sharing for the great music it has given me.

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Sun, 13 Feb 2005 12:00:55 +0000

http://www.2mediarelations.com/px/loki/

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Sat, 12 Feb 2005 17:24:59 +0000

Companies should learn to package their stuff better and lower their profit margin to attract consumers. Shuting down bittorrent websites and sue every downloader is only a temporary solution.

How many of you are sick of DVDs that is only single disc with close to NO directors extras? With only language selection and 5.1 sound effects, is it enough to attract consumers? Look at Lord of the Ring trilogy collection set! It is selling so well because of the vast amount of extras. No one is bothered with the bootleg or .avi version.

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Sat, 12 Feb 2005 14:05:04 +0000

All i have to say is watch that one southpark episode. These are greedy people using weak excuses for their troubles. They claim this and claim that and no matter how many words they put into their excuses it all revolves around “money”. They can sue all they want but p2p is global and the more the companies push the more the cosumer will resist which results in less sales. Instead of stoping p2p why dont you match is by lowering the prices and worry more about the consumer and their needs rather than trying to control us like a flock of sheep.

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Sat, 12 Feb 2005 08:36:28 +0000

How to stop the RIAA and MPAA.

Hi there
I have yet to see this opinion posted anywhere on the net but feel this is a good place to start the thought. A few if not all of us reading this have financial resources. Those reading this that do not yet have financial resources will some day.

If the financial resources are applied correctly then we could force out the management that does not like p2p software.

As most of you are aware all of the big music labels and movie studios are publicly traded companies. They have market capitalization in the billions most likely so this will take time unless we find some big investors that agree with us.

The board/executives of a company have a duty to satisfy their shareholders. Presently their shareholders only demand profit and nice dividends from the corporate managers. However if a small percentage of well publicized share holders start to publicy, and through the shareholder voting system, demand that the corporations stop harrassing the customers then they would start to feel pressure to stop.

If that percentage of p2p friendly shareholders got large enough to vote executives in who do not believe there are losses due to P2P then the threat to this community is greatly reduced.

For example you can find a list of all labels under the RIAA at their website http://www.riaa.com/about/members/default.asp and we could locate the company with the smallest market cap.

Now as shareholders of the company we could define that companies policy regardless of whether it is perceived as good or bad for the company. If the executives act recklessly and allow us to do what we see fit then the shareholders can sue them for damages if the share price goes down. If the people reading this owned all the stock then this would cease to be a problem. Also since we own all the stock then we wouldn’t have market flucuation due to concern about file sharing as we are not concerned.

So find a small publicly held label and buy up their stock. Make it nice and puclic so the world can see what we are doing. Make it a good market thing to be P2P friendly so the executives that are screwing us have to start kissing our asses so their share price goes up!

That is how you change the government. The government is the slave of large corporations. If the shareholder stops the spending on the policticians all the better. Less corrupt politics. For our little corner here though we just want the labels/studios to realize that we have maney to spend on stock and once we start buying with our purpose to change the way they think they will bend.

Now if we could just get Bill Gates to start buying stock for this purpose we could pretty much take care of them. I somehow doubt that will happen as he is probably on their side.

Anyway I have spoken far to long. May you all have success in the future!

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Sat, 12 Feb 2005 00:37:11 +0000

Well said.

Thats how the US legal system allows it to be.

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Sat, 12 Feb 2005 00:36:26 +0000

We will ….

Cheers!

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Sat, 12 Feb 2005 00:15:17 +0000

Some news stories are claiming that the MPAA got a court order to shut down LokiTorrent and sieze its servers and domain. Others don’t mention this, and imply that it was a private settlement between the operator of LokiTorrent and the MPAA. Which is correct?

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Fri, 11 Feb 2005 23:26:28 +0000

my sentiments exactly. that was one of the first things that popped into my head when i saw that. I’m formulating a nice legal counter-attack that will annoy the piss out of them. I’ll send it to P2Pnet as an email as soon as i get some of the details worked out and set up a webpage. keep your eyes on some forums, as i will be posting more details in all the right spots. Time for some good ole fashioned civil disobedience. A few volunteers and a little time is all thats needed to get them a headache. Stay Tuned.

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Fri, 11 Feb 2005 22:25:34 +0000

I never heard of a court case on an issue that is in higher courts regarding other sites and p2p software being ruled on by a lower court… have you?
name one case that was open and shut so fast!
napster even lasted in courts for years with no $$ before getitng a backer.
also it didnt strike you as funny that inspite of the courts ruling that a website or ISP cant be forsed to turn over IP addresses yet in this case it happen? Actually if I remember it was even the same Texas court that made that ruling…
There are several good articles over at http://www.torrent-news.com
I agree that somethings dont add up. alot more than they even posted!

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Fri, 11 Feb 2005 21:58:06 +0000

On top of that, it takes a lot to stand up to one of the entertainment industry enforcers. How many of the 8,500 ‘approached’ by the RIAA have done so?

Lowkey was out for all he could get, and it’ll be interesting to learn what’s going to happen to the cash he collected.

In the meanwhile, there aren’t too many people with the balls (not to speak of the resources) to go up against a multi-billion-dollar opponent.

And said multi-billion-dollar opponent is very well aware of that.

Cheers!

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Fri, 11 Feb 2005 21:01:52 +0000

Before we decide to lynch this guy, we should first know how much information he has available to turn over. Just as many anonymous proxy services promise users that they keep no logs, hopefully Lokitorrent also had set up his operation to ensure the privacy of members.

It’s still possible that he has little or nothing in the way of server logs to turn over to the enemy. … But just don’t hold your breath.

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Fri, 11 Feb 2005 19:58:15 +0000

Try google ……

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Fri, 11 Feb 2005 19:43:19 +0000

which is that bc i’ve never heard of it.

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Fri, 11 Feb 2005 19:07:25 +0000

These IP numbers in Lokitorrent logs won’t do any good unless the ISP cooperates. Last I heard, SBC was not complying with RIAA requests for IP number IDs. But the lawsuit is ongoing, apparently.

Anyone know how long SBC keeps their logs? A year? 3 months? Forever, as Verizon apparently does?

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Fri, 11 Feb 2005 18:14:10 +0000

There’s still one that the Fucking MPAA can’t get because it’s located in Russia and it becomes bigger everyday

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Fri, 11 Feb 2005 16:39:35 +0000

Ok, no more mister nice guy: I guess I told you so, just doesn’t quite sum this up. While the MPAA-RIAA is at it, they can go after http://www.f*cktheinter.net and all those paid-for-use and add-supported sites and apps. Yes, this is a rant and here’s why:

Loki sold out and all its loyal users with it. Lowkee is Jim Jones.

Get the focus of P2P away from money and more on ideology and technology.

Money has never been and will never been an incentive to create or innovate something meaningful for mankind. It’s only an incentive for the bottom-line.

If they have a family to support or need that Jaguar in their garage, let them go do something else but lay of P2P.

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Fri, 11 Feb 2005 12:30:21 +0000

With their ad revenue estimates so high in that article.. why would they even need to bother requesting donations? The “keeping face” part doesnt seem to make sense to me.

Other than that it seems like a stable theory.