Lokitorent OWNED by the MPAA

Lokitorrent.com ^ | February 10, 2004

[Dont Mention the War]

There are websites that provide legal downloads. This is not one of them.
This website has been permanently shut down by court order because it facilitates the illegal downloading of copyrighted motion pictures. The illegal downloading of motion pictures robs thousands of honest, hard-working people of their livelihood, and stifles creativity. Illegally downloading movies from sites such as these without proper authorization violates the law, is theft, and is not anonymous. Stealing movies leaves a trail. The only way not to get caught is to stop.

[Dont Mention the War]

I believe the technical term for this is PWNED!!!

[jmc813]

How gay are those graphics?

[Dont Mention the War]

Zeropaid Extra: Lokitorrent has Turned out the lights!

posted by moneoa on February 10, 2005 @ 01:37pm

In a case that will send a buzz through the P2P world Lokitorrent the indexing site that had stood up against the machinations of the MPAA has fallen, a message on the site reads as follows:

There are websites that provide legal downloads, This is not one of them.

This website has been permanently shut down by court order because it facilitates the illegal downloading of copyrighted motion pictures.
The illegal downloading of motion pictures robs thousands of honest,hard-working people of their livelihood, and stifles creativity.

Illegally downloading movies from sites such as these without proper authorization violates the law, is theft, and is not anonymous.

Stealing movies leaves a trail.

The only way not to get caught is to stop.

Lokitorrent had recieved mass support from the P2P community in it's fight against the trade groups but in the end my friends it appears that P2P activisim lost the fight this time, this is after a reported tens of thousands the indexing site had recieved for their legal battle.

Do not forget this is a war coming beyond copy infringment as the goal is nothing less than the regulation of ALL information IMO.

It's important to government so they can shape propoganda as the net is too open natured for them and their propoganda runs the risk of being countered from an unexpected sources.

The internet in the future if the Corporations have their way will be nothing more than an over glorified T.V/Radio where instead of seeking information we just sit down and eat whats given.

In the brave new world the greedy industries envision even owning a flash drive would be illegal as it would assist in the infringment of copyright (such loose general bull$hit but thats what they argue) While this is another trying day for P2P life goes on and as I have stated before, education and persistance are mighty tools that we can use just as well as they can.

Good night Loki, your image is now passed on the way of SN.

Check back to Zeropaid News for more Details as they develop.

Bryan M. (Moneoa)

~Lead Zp News Admin

[RobRoy]

pretty funny!

[reagan_fanatic]

How gay are those graphics?

Those are Metrosexual hands!!!

[RobRoy]

I am in a band. We are learning 60 new songs. When one of the guys said we would try to get the guy with the Ipod to make us all cd's (copy the music he has) I said, "that's OK, I'll just Kazaa them."

One of the members told me we should stay legal and keep from copyright infringement. I told him about the battles we have here about downloading. I had to explain that downloading is completely legal if doing it for personal use only. It is uploading that is illegal and then only because of a loophole. Specifically, because you don't know who you are making your files available to, it is conceivable that you could be making them available to someone who will make copies for sale, which is absolutely illegal.

Don't matter though. They let me sing songs in the shower becuase they don't have the technology to monitor and fine me. Same with P2P.

Buying pre-recorded music is soooo 20th century.

[atomicpossum]

No wonder I've been sitting at 74.7% complete all day.

[Paladin2]

Illegally downloading movies from sites such as these without proper authorization violates the law, is theft is copyright infringement, and is not anonymous.

There now it's correct. It's good they didn't mention the "P" word as they know that the Internet really has nothing to do with boats or ships and the boarding of same, though there may actually be booty on the 'net.

[unlearner]

"Do not forget this is a war coming beyond copy infringment [sic] as the goal is nothing less than the regulation of ALL information IMO."

"It's important to government so they can shape propoganda [sic] as the net is too open natured for them and their propoganda [sic] runs the risk of being countered from an unexpected sources."

"The internet in the future if the Corporations have their way will be nothing more than an over glorified T.V/Radio where instead of seeking information we just sit down and eat whats given."

The ability to own a creative work is a fundamental constitutional right. The right to own property is a right given by our Creator. Stealing is a violation of the laws of our land and God's laws.

For those worried about governmental policies affecting freedom on the Internet, let me make a suggestion. Don't abuse that freedom by stealing.

The problem here is not with the "government" because we are self-governed.

The problem is not with "Corporations" that want their way. Corporations are not living things, they are legal entities operated by ordinary people. Some corporate owners / officers are good, some are bad - just like any other category you might want to examine.

Our form of government is good, and the ability to incorporate to protect assets is good. Let's not get the issue confused here.

(P.S. Spell check is our friend.)

[Dont Mention the War]

Hey, I didn't write it. I'm just the cut-n-paste guy. (Oh no, I bet I just violated his intellectual property! *grin*)

[unlearner]

"I didn't write it."

Noted. Thanks for posting it.

[no-s]

The ability to own a creative work is a fundamental constitutional right.

The only thing I see in the Constitution is a protection on the order of ...promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries...

Since the WIPO mafia have hijacked our law into an effectively unlimited copyright (long after the creator dies) and the granting of patent for speech (software patents), and lobbyists are diligently co-opting congress into criminalizing "fair use" and "reverse-engineering"...I'd say Brian M. is right on target. If you support the concept of "intellectual property" without qualification and limitation, you are an enabler of the unfolding information tyranny.

Look what the MSM has done to us at FR! We must now comment on articles in a fashion (e.g. excerpting) which lets the propagandist (e.g. NYT, AP) "disappear" embarrassing information and disavow public speech (including slander!). The negative consequence to the public good is very high, and the benefit to the copyright holder is not worthy of protection.

[unlearner]

"The only thing I see in the Constitution is a protection on the order of ...promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries..."

Correct. And that is all there needs to be.

The Congress has authority to pass laws based on this provision. If Congress does a bad job of this, it is up to us to replace Congress.

By the way, software is more than speech. It is a tool. It can be an invention. Protecting it legally creates a profit center that allows progress (a fact specifically mentioned in the Constitution).

I think what is being addressed here is not free speech but businesses circumventing the law to profit from the promotion of theft, which is what copying copyrighted movies, games, software and music is.

Do I think MPAA exerts an unfair amount of influence? Probably, but that is because consumers buy for convenience and cheap thrills before they think of politics or morality. If Americans quit showing up for garbage movies, quit buying them, and quit buying garbage video games, music, cable television, etc. the marketplace would change rapidly. Quality would go up, price would come down, and community values would be more respected. (I guess community values are respected to a degree, but they are pretty low right now.)

Yes, it makes me laugh to hear some gangster rapper whine about his songs being stolen (songs glorifying crime). Yes, I laugh at Hollywood stars complaining about this while regularly putting out heist movies where the thief is the "good guy". But it does not make stealing OK.

That is what we are discussing. And property rights are among the main reasons we are the richest most powerful nation in history. Many other nations have more resources, but their ideologies get in the way. Investment capital goes where it is treated well, and property rights are critical to the future success of our economy.

[no-s]

If Congress does a bad job of this, it is up to us to replace Congress.

Were it so easily done. At some point we will no longer have a constitutional republic, will you then decide which of your legs is in the pot and which is out? I think it will be too late by then. So I think you are changing the subject to avoid confronting the fact that specific people are engaged in wholesale subversion of freedom in order to benefit would-be oligarchs.

If these guys (MPAA, RIAA, etc) want screw up our legal system, co-opt Congress, convert civil offenses into criminal in order to sidestep a reasonable dialogue regarding the legitimate assignment of copyright and patent, I'm all for whatever subverts the plan of these rent-seeking whores. Changing the copyright into a property right doesn't make it right.

You have to understand, the critical genesis of my opinion originated somewhere around the time Madonna started getting $.85 for every backup tape we bought for our datacenter...I guess there were Lyrics in Life/70 policy masters...

BTW, Software is about writing. The invention is the machine which understands the software. Yes, I know there are software patents. There are also patents on perpetual motion machines, business methods, and patent filing schemes. There are software patents on ideas described 30 years prior to the invention date described by the patent. There are patents which duplicate other patents.

[unlearner]

If you read my other posts (some current), you will find that I support civil disobedience when it is appropriate.

What you are advocating in the context of this discussion is THEFT plain and simple. You justify it the same way that any thief justifies stealing. I am not trying to be judgmental as I have stolen before. (I have made restitution for what I stole.)

If you do not think that the protection of movies, books, software, etc. are fair, then just do not buy them. I do this for many things.

Further, I have written software and know that it requires training and hard work to do this job.

You ought to spend some time somewhere that does not have property rights and look at the consequences. You have no idea what you are wishing for and contributing to.

You are basically justifying theft because you feel MPAA and others are stealing. That is no justification. That is self-condemnation. If it is wrong for them, it is wrong for you.

If you steal you will get caught and you will be punished. And you will have no one to blame but yourself because you have received ample warning. What I am telling you is not my idea. I am telling you what God has said.

"Be not deceived; God is not mocked: For whatever a man sows, that shall he also reap." (Galatians 6:7)

[no-s]

Why do you think copy right is the same as property right? Do you think anyone who sings Happy Birthday without compensation to entertain a live audience of more than ten persons deserves a $250,000 fine and 10 years in jail? Asserting the singing of "Happy Birthday" is a theft doesn't make it so. You say I'm justifying theft? I want my birthright back, and I want the government to stop helping these people abuse all of our rights.

You are wrong to say I think the MPAA and others are stealing. I'm accusing them of wrecking our system of justice so as to make it easier to do business. I'm accusing them of trying to enslave me and others like me, people who appreciate the benefit of sharing thoughts and ideas as a path to higher civilization. They want immunity from fair competition, and they think that changing the law so every possible creation belongs to them is the way to riches.

I see a future where someone who thinks he owns my thoughts and experiences will get the government to force me to pay royalties, silence me, or jail me. Pardon me for speaking up. Better now while I still can. You call me a thief, but what did I steal?

[unlearner]

"Why do you think copy right is the same as property right?"

Because it is. It is intellectual property. Protecting it is fundamental to innovation.

I did not intend to name call. Whether you are a thief or not is between you and the state, and between you and God. As I said, I have stolen before and have no right to judge others. (Again, I have made restitution, which is what I advocate.)

You are certainly right that the protections of intellectual property should not be unlimited and are currently out of line with basic fairness as well as the interest of the marketplace.

While your example of "Happy Birthday" may be extremely unfair, it is equally unfair for people to bootleg movies, music and software that is brand new. People who make these products have a right to be compensated. They should be able to set the price. Just because people want it cheaper is not grounds for stealing it.

This article is about the theft of movies mainly, not singing birthday songs. Remember, Lokitorent was taken over by MPAA.

In another context what you say has a point, but it seems as if you are saying it is OK to download the latest blockbuster movie (while still in theaters) because current copyright law is unfair. Maybe I misunderstood your point, but that is how it comes across.

[MarkL]

One of the members told me we should stay legal and keep from copyright infringement. I told him about the battles we have here about downloading. I had to explain that downloading is completely legal if doing it for personal use only

huh? Does that mean that I can go into a music store and steal a CD if it's only for personal use?

Mark

[Mad Dawgg]

"Don't abuse that freedom by stealing."

This is the crux of the matter.

Please understand I do not advocate stealing but where is the boundary?

When I was a kid I could (and did lots of times) copy albums onto cassettes. My friends and I used to share albums. Was I stealing? I now share CDs with my friends, am I stealing?

I noticed the other day that Rush Limbaugh has a piece of electronics that he wears on his hip, it is the controls to his bionic ears (I am not joking here, he really does have this). How far away are we from having the ability to have digital implants in our heads that hook directly to the hearing centers of our brains? If someone comes up with a way to directly record what we hear into those digital implants and store them for later playback will it be considered stealing if we do?

Not trying to be contentious, I am really interested in how people view all of this cause I believe this technology will be available in my lifetime.