They must have been big.

They must have been huge. I have no idea how many users Loki had, but it must have been hundreds of thousands over the years. Further, I thought IP logs were a particularly good way of identifying people - isn't it possible to use "fake" or dynamic IPs that change all the time? If you were a so-called heavy user I'm sure you'd have some kind of system in place.

You do really have to wonder though why the owner of the site was keeping logs though.

They must have been big.

They must have been backed up presumeably.

They also must have been one of the first things your caring sharing pirate site would have looked to delete.

So why keep em?

Oh wait! Duh stoopid they must have been a get out of jail free card.

Whether he "stole" the donation money or not he certainly sold out everyone using his site if he kept logs of them.

Maybe the movie industry and posters should at least get the most basic facts strait first?
Pirating is PROFITING(ie phake movies sold as orgianls), Sharing is NOT.

Bleep.com is the mp3 download arm of warp records, it delivers high bit rate mp3s (and soon FLAC apparently) at a discount over their boxed albums, DRM free and with full previews, this aproach seems to be working for them. Its also worth noting that we are all already paying a 'piracy tax' on every audio-CDR and (I think) cassette we buy, and I would imagine this will eventually extend to mp3 players and regular CD-R's internationally.

pirating freedom

There's an oxymoron.

This whole thing really rather sucks, but once that first lawsuit was won by the RIAA, it was a downhill slide from there.

I deeply disagree with how the *AA's are conducting the lawsuits, I disagree with their attempts to legislate their business model, and I think they're idiots to not have realized how profitable they could make online music.

But that doesn't make pirating (or willful copyright violation if you prefer) right or legal.

The last bastion of pirating freedom is the Usenet. I expect any day for the full focus of the RIAA and MPAA to turn to this medium. Companies like Giganews make a ton of money off of large bandwidth usenet accounts that people purchase so they can download movies.

This whole thing really rather sucks, but once that first lawsuit was won by the RIAA, it was a downhill slide from there.

No one would want to own most of them anyway - if they had to pay for them!!!!!

I guess the $15B in DVD sales (DVD sell-thru alone; that does not include VHS or PPV, nor does it include revenue on rentals) for last year is just imaginary then.

Wouldn't mind having some small percentage of that imaginary number.

Without this form of advertising (preview)- the sales will probable end up going down.

In the case of movies, I highly doubt it. The file sizes are too big and the video codec problem is too annoying for most people. This isn't Napster, where a few hundred kilobyte files could let you decide whether or not to buy the CD. And most movies have ample trailers, reviews, and other info available in comparison to music releases.

but over the last 10 years or so the quality of movies has been in MASSIVE decline.

I disagree. I think it's just that your taste has changed, you've become more discriminatory in your viewing, and so forth. There's just as much dreck out now as there was a decade or two ago, at least percentage wise. Yes, more movies are being made now -- but there's more great movies as well as more crap ones.

Personally, I've become pretty damn good at spotting massive bombs from the trailer alone.

In Europe it's possible for a movie to come out months after the US release. I used Lokitorrent for TV series and am kinda curious to see if they send me an email on the account I used to register.

-------------------
If you're a European sign the anti-software-patents petition at:
http://petition.eurolinux.org/

I used sites like suprnova and loki to download tv shows that I missed for a while now.

but I just don't really get why people download movies, not that I agree with the MPAA at all, they're a bunch of money grubbing fucktards looking to profit from imaginary 'lost revenues' Like the article says though, there is nothing that replaces seeing a movie on the big screen and since it is so easy just to rent a movie or buy one cheap, I don't get why movies are downloaded.

someone needs to turn the tide on these MPAA asswipes they tear down site after site, the hardcore pirates are never affected but the legit users like myself get shafted.

problem is, the only strong voice that ever gets heard is the MPAA pretending to be the downtrodden, wounded, angel. When do we get to hear from some strong vocal organization other than some quiet think tank, that will argue that piracy is just the cost of doing business in the digital world, and not an excuse to raise prices, and ultimately does not hurt the business?

I mean sadly, it is true, if the MPAA repeats its lies enough times, they will be considered the truth.
This comment was edited on Feb 11, 13:17.

Fuck the Movie Industry. Over the last 15 or 20 years I've gone to see 2, sometimes 3 movies a week but over the last 10 years or so the quality of movies has been in MASSIVE decline.
To me, there's still no substitue for seeing movies on the big screen but with being able to DL and have a look see first I can't even count how many bombs I've dodged that I otherwise would have spent WAY too much money too see. It's making people be WAY more selective about what they see in the theatre and that's costing them loads of cash. It's tough to sell people bags of shit when they get to see what's in the bag first. Oh, and why risk getting caught on torrent, use newsgroups.

This comment was edited on Feb 11, 12:47.

The whole thing is crazy (especially the Movie Industry). I would not use this downloading service for movies, becuse it would be a WASTE OF COMPUTER TIME. What I mean, is, 90% of the movies made today are not worth spending the time to download. I sincerely doubt that the sales will increase as a result of this - I think most people only downloaded the movies because they were "free." No one would want to own most of them anyway - if they had to pay for them!!!!! Without this form of advertising (preview)- the sales will probable end up going down.
...just my take

very interesting tidbit there Joe

so I guess there *is* a way to make money "legally" through pirating.

People are going nuts about this. They posted a picture of the owner of Lokitorrent on the web. They were talking about hunting him down for payback.

I don't know if the ARS article mentions it or not. The owner was asking for donations for a legal site. He received 40 or 50 thousand. Then he closes the site and deals with the MPAA.

People think he is a con man who planned all along to steal the donation money. There is no way to prove for sure where it went.