‘We’re not settling out of court’
p2pnet.net News:- ‘ MPAA’ stands for Motion Picture Association of America. There’s no mention of England or the United Kingdom.
And yet the bully organization, wholly owned by the seven major movie studios and operating largely out of the US, is brazenly victimizing UK citizens ——- without a word of protest from the British government.
UK residents Kevin Reid, owner of the BitTorrent tracker Bds-Palace, and Alexander Hanff, owner of BitTorrent tracker and filesharing community DVDR-Core, have both been targetted by the MPAA.
But as p2pnet’s catflap reveals, both men are vigorously defending themselves.
Read on>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
On March 29th, the MPAA members Paramount, Fox, Universal and Warner Brothers filed a civil action lawsuit in the United States District Court, District of New Jersey, USA, which, as we’re all aware, is nowhere near the United Kingdom.
Named in the suit are British citizen and resident Kevin Reid and Ian Hawthorn, also a UK resident and co-admin of Bds-Palace.
Both men have asked me to make an exclusive public announcement on p2pnet regarding new developments and to dispel rumours of an out-of-court settlement.
Reid and Hawthorn started Bds-Palace together, but Hawthorn is an admin (basically a ‘hall monitor’ with a very large badge and certain duties and privileges) who doesn’t own any part of the site. It’s therefore very strange indeed that he’d be named in this, or any other, lawsuit.
As far as can be discerned, Hawthorn has been singled out simply because he set up and ran the cafepress online shop for Bds-Palace – a shop which didn’t sell a single item.
He’s currently unemployed and, “I spend my days either searching for work or using my computer”, he told me. “I live in a rented flat above a shop with my wife and two of my four children from a previous marriage.”
Copies of the summons can be found using the links at the end of this article:
Here are some tid-bits from the papers filed in New Jersey, USA, and what’s wrong with them:
- This is a case of willful infringement of copyright over the internet. Defendants knowingly enable, encourage and profit from massive online piracy – piracy Defendants could stop but refuse to.
WRONG!
“We were only interested in freely available items and tried to keep copyrighted material off the site altogether, but as you now know, we weren’t successful,” Hawthorn told me. “When Kevin got the first letter from the lawyers acting for the MPAA (mid-December I think it was), we deleted all torrents and closed the tracker, as we realised it was getting heavily abused. Shortly after that we closed the site completely.”
When the tracker was online, there was the usual disclaimer about posting torrents for so-called “copyrighted materials”, warning that if any were discovered, they’d be removed.
And as we all know, no judge or jury anywhere has ever found anyone guilty of file sharing, which has never, ever been classed as a crime.
- Specifically, Defendants operate a computer server and a website as part of an online computer network known as “BitTorrent”.
…and
- BitTorrent is a “peer-to-peer” network
WRONG!
Do the people who run the MPAA really still not understand?
Or are they in fact deliberately disseminating information they know to be completely inaccurate?
Reid and Hawthorn didn’t operate a server of any kind. They PAID an ISP in New Jersey, USA, to host the website and tracker on the ISP’s server. The ISP operated the server. That’s how it makes its money.
Bds-Palace made no money whatsoever.
BitTorrent is neither a “computer network” nor a “peer-to-peer” network.
It’s a software program.
- Defendants actively solicit donations…in order to obtain a financial benefit
…and
- Defendants profit from the infringement they make possible. They run a fundraising “lottery” and an online shop to earn a profit based on how many users are attracted to their site.
WRONG!
As Hawthorn told me, the shop earned $0.00. Nothing was ever sold.
And, “fundraising lottery”.
What the hell is that? There are no descriptions of this “lottery” anywhere in the court documents.
- Kevin and Ian’s conduct is causing Plaintiffs great and irreparable injury that cannot be fully compensated.
WRONG!
There’s absolutley no proof of this. As p2pnet points out repeatedly, current and past analyses of file-sharing have consistently disproved this claim, as do sales and distribution figures from the MPAA and RIAA (Recording Industry Association of America)
File-sharing hasn’t deterred people from going to a cinema or renting or buying a CD or DVD. Nor does a downloaded film translate into a lost ticket sale or DVD purchase or rental.
In fact, the only way it could be argued that sharing impacts the movement of ‘product’ would be if someone decides against seeing a movie or buying a CD on the strength of what they’ve seen, or heard, from a downoad.
In the meanwhile, the reality is: because of the overblown price of cinema tickets and DVDs, many people have no interest in buying or renting a retail DVD, or going to the cinema anyway.
And in any event, many people who download a film from a p2p network still go to the cinema, and buy or rent the same film they downloaded. Whether or not these people always intended to do this isn’t the point.
These allegations are false.
The ONLY person we know of who has ever earned a profit from a BitTorrent tracker is Ed Webber, the LokiTorrent scam-artist who ripped-off over $40,000.00 from members.
- The summons also states that the films downloaded in BitTorrent are “perfect digital copies”.
WRONG!
How is a CAM, TS or TC considered a perfect digital copy? It isn’t. In fact, these are notoriously inferior-quality files.
How is a DVD-ripped .avi or .mpg a perfect digital copy? It isn’t. Anyone who has ever downloaded one can tell you many stories of corrupted frames, out-of-synch audio, and many other types of defects they can encounter. If these errors can be repaired, the final version is even further away from being perfect than it was before it was “repaired”
These are also reasons why many people do go to the cinema or buy a DVD of a film they downloaded.
The same types of arguments – irreparable injury, etc, etc – are mentioned in the summons regarding TV shows “owned” by Paramount, Fox, Universal and Warner Brothers”.
- “great and irreparable injury that cannot be fully compensated.”
Yet they demand $150,000.00 “per infringement”.
But be all of the above as it may, you’ll be glad to know Bds-Palace website and forums are back online.
From the website:
- “… this site is here for you to get updates on what is going on and also to get feedback from ppl on what they think on what is happening.”
- “As of today we got delivered letters naming us in them instead of last one John Does these are now mine and hawthys names.
- “This tells you we are not backing down we are not running scared we intend to fight to the very end and win. We hope the filesharing community and everyone else will stand by us in our time of need. Now you know we are not out to scam but stand up and be heard that site operators alike are not breaking any laws of any land by allowing a binary be on his site.”
Go, Kev and Ian! Don’t let them stop you. p2pnet and the rest of the filesharing community are with you all the way.
I love this last bit from the summons:
- Plaintiffs pray for judgment against Defendants…
Yeah …
… and keep on praying.
http://bds-palace.co.uk/summons/img003.jpg
- http://bds-palace.co.uk/summons/img004.jpg
- http://bds-palace.co.uk/summons/img005.jpg
- http://bds-palace.co.uk/summons/img006.jpg
- http://bds-palace.co.uk/summons/img008.jpg
- http://bds-palace.co.uk/summons/img009.jpg
- http://bds-palace.co.uk/summons/img010.jpg
- http://bds-palace.co.uk/summons/img011.jpg
- http://bds-palace.co.uk/summons/img012.jpg
- http://bds-palace.co.uk/summons/img013.jpg
- http://bds-palace.co.uk/summons/img014.jpg
- http://bds-palace.co.uk/summons/img015.jpg
- http://bds-palace.co.uk/summons/img016.jpg
==================
Something you think we should know? tips[at]p2pnet.net
See:-
Kevin Reid – p2pnet interviews Kevin Reid, p2pnet, March 25, 2005
Alexander Hanff – Interview with Alex Hanff, p2pnet, April 22, 2005
It isn’t- RIAA sues more people, p2pnet, November 22, 2004
April 24th, 2005 at 3:37 pm
http://www.bds-palace.co.uk/
No such web-site. Invalid link. Et cetera, etc.
April 24th, 2005 at 3:54 pm
The site is currently being moved to a new server. Things should be working again soon.
Alexander Hanff
April 24th, 2005 at 3:56 pm
Bds-palace moving servers – please be patient
April 24th, 2005 at 4:11 pm
Please stick with it i am moving servers and waiting on dns to update the amount of hits it took meant i had to imediatly move and site should be up within 6-12 hrs i aplogise its down but will be worth the wait.
Standing tall for all filesharers alike we have not broken any law as when you get to read the full summons be on a good chair as there claims are unbelievable hilarious in there accusations.
Once again sorry for site being down im working as fast as i can
April 24th, 2005 at 5:04 pm
Get it sorted mate, everyone you know is behind you, kb
April 24th, 2005 at 6:16 pm
BDS-Palace should be up within the hour… The site’s being relocated to a new server. One hour and it should be up… Thanks for your patience.
_eAgLe_
April 24th, 2005 at 6:44 pm
Sites up thanks for patience
April 24th, 2005 at 10:07 pm
It sounds to me that you should take a page right out of the major music’s defense. Whenever there is a lawsuit against the majors one of the first things you hear is “You are out of your jurisdiction”, meaning that they will quite readily use the being out of country defense to thwart any legal proceedings against them.
April 25th, 2005 at 6:05 am
BHAHAHAHAHA
“Plaintiffs *pray* for judgement against defendants as follows:”
Good one.
http://bds-palace.co.uk/summons/img013.jpg
April 26th, 2005 at 6:24 pm
I have an active interest in this subject, so i will be watching you guys all the way.
This will be a big hit for the MPAA when they get their ass kicked in court
April 27th, 2005 at 9:58 pm
On the subject of the MPAA trying to receive reimbursement for TV shows that they allege have been dowloaded through this phantom server they claim Kevin and Alexander have allowed, I thought I’d add this little tidbit of factual knowledge from U.S. Law.
The United States Federal Communication Commissions has stated since the 1950’s that the airwaves are public domain, and that any and all sounds and images transmitted through these public airwaves are the domain of the public, not the original broadcaster. Therefore anyone that records such broadcasts through a legal receptor, such as an antenna, VCR, tape recorder, etc. have violated no such laws. Since the broadcasts may later be converted to a recorded computer format and shared with others does not constitute a violation of the law, since they are not profiting from the sharing of the files.
Neither the Production companies, Radio Stations, nor the Television Networks, can claim ownership to the airwaves since it has been decreed by U.S. Law that these are owned by the public at large. So where is their basis for suggesting that just because someone recorded a broadcasted show and then created a computer file from it that they own the rights to it? Especially when it was freely and legally taken from a source that is technically owned by the individual that recorded the broadcast to begin with.
Isn’t it amazing how far the MPAA and RIAA will go to violate the legal rights of people, not just in the United States, to illegally take money that isn’t due them in the first place?
April 28th, 2005 at 2:14 am
thanks for that.
could you cite where you got this info from please?
you can also send it to me at catflap001[at]hotmail.com
thanks.