LokiTorrent fights MPAA legal attack

The latest peer-to-peer site to come into the legal crosshairs of the motion-picture industry promised this week to fight, and put out a virtual hat to finance its legal fund.

LokiTorrent, a Web site and index of files available through a peer-to-peer technology known as BitTorrent, posted a letter from the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) on its site on Tuesday. The letter states that the MPAA has filed suit in district court in Texas against the site and demands that Loki Torrent cease linking to video files that could infringe on studios' copyrights.

"If you've ever benefited from this site or file-sharing in general, now is the time to show your support," a message on LokiTorrent stated. "We are looking at a cost of $30K per month in fees."

So far, the site has garnered nearly $18,000, or about 60 percent of the total needed for a month, according to a bar graph on the site.

The MPAA could not be immediately reached for comment.

LokiTorrent is the latest file-sharing site to run into the legal guns of the motion picture industry. Several peer-to-peer sites disappeared from the Internet earlier this month, after the MPAA filed suits against them.

Sites acting as "hubs" for BitTorrent sharing of movies, TV shows and other free downloads are the most recent focus of the copyright holders' war on peer-to-peer technology.

BitTorrent technology streamlines downloads by having a centralized server that hosts indexing information, but locates the actual data files on members' computers. Someone downloading a large file will grab the actual data from one of several members' computers that have already downloaded the file. The result is a faster download that does not overwhelm the bandwidth of any single server.

The technology has become an efficient way for companies to offer large downloads legitimately and economically. For example, Linux vendors MandrakeSoft and Xandros offer the free version of their operating system only through a BitTorrent download. By doing so, neither company has to pay large bandwidth fees when a large number of users download the software.

[hadaso]

No link to LokiTorrent in the story!

No link to LokiTorrent in the story!

Why? Afraid of the MPAA? No longer able to report the whole truth for fear of liability or just legal costs?

[mpotter28]

freedom of the press

how dare you state that cnet is chickshit about being sued after all they have freedom of the press to fall back on. The most likely reason is ....sh** i can;t think of anything you must be right.

[aabcdefghij987654321]

link to the actual cease-or-desist letter

http://img68.exs.cx/my.php?loc=img68&image=lawsuit5mg.jpg

is the link to scanned pages of the letter sent 2 loki; my heart goes out to the admin and staff of lokitorrent.com

[Al Johnsons]

staff of lokitorrent

http://www.analogstereo.com/citroen_c3_owners_manual.htm

This is a SCAM

please be very careful about all of this, this is a scam, there is no real proof that this suit even exists, the letter they are currentally posted is photoshoped

Speaking of proof....

How about proof of your allegations?

Robert

Oh For Gods' Sake.

How can you even state that something being photoshopped automaticcaly make sit a Fraud. The only things done with PS, or even another graphics app are the blurring of the names and addresses of the associated parties.

So, by your logic, Scanned Letter+Blurring=FRAUD.

It's no secret that the MPAA is scared out of their mind from losing their billions of dollars a year. Well, maybe if people didn't have to sit through commercials, on TV AND NOW AT THE MOVIE THEATER, or pay upwards of $20.00 for a plastic disc with a case and a piece of paper around it, this wouldn't be happening.

You have to look at both sides of the fence here. Don't just assume. becuase when you assume (age-old addage) You make an ass out of u and me.

[Konrad]

Columbia Pictures Industries, et. al. vs. Does 1-10

The style of the case is Columbia Pictures Industries, et. al. vs. Does 1-10, filed in the Northern District of Texas on 12/14/2004. Case No. 304CV2642-N. The plaintiff's attorney of record is Charles Babock of Jackson Walker LLP. His number is 214-953-6000.

A copy of the complaint is available on PACER (for a fee). See http://pacer.uspci.uscourts.gov/. You can try obtaining a copy with the Court Clerk by calling 214-753-2200. See http://www.txnd.uscourts.gov/

PROOF

take a close look at this picture and you will see how easy it is
http://img100.exs.cx/img100/7346/***********.gif
btw i didnt do this, so pardon the naming of the file

[Quaxanna]

How is this stealing?

Downloading movie files is no more stealing that going into the store and taking a picture of some other picture. All we do is duplicate materials when we download. Has the Mona Lisa been stolen every time someone uses a picture of it? No! So why should copying something like this be any diferent? I mean, of course going into a store and picking up a hard copy of it and running out with it is stealing. Why is creating another one of it's kind a criminal offence? Look at software you can download. People have made software and they are find and dandy to download. Why should this be any diferent because of the money hungry movie industry?

[Al Johnsons]

duplicate materials

http://www.analogstereo.com/daewoo_lanos_owners_manual.htm