Hollywood threatens to sue UK BitTorrent man for millions

Here is an extract from a story over at the register "Exclusive Alexander Hanff had no idea Hollywood was keeping such a close eye on him. Then, last Saturday morning, a movie studio functionary arrived at his door. Hanff, still in his dressing gown and not yet full of coffee, opened the door, only to be served with a lawsuit by Paramount, Twentieth Century Fox, Universal City Studios and Warner Bros.

You may have already guessed Hanff’s supposed transgression. The movie studios suspect him of running a BitTorrent hub and helping people download copyrighted films via P2P technology. The MPAA (Motion Picture Association of American) has gone after numerous BitTorrent hubs on similar charges and managed to shut many of them down. The plot here is a familiar one." link is here=http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/03/15/mpaa_hanff_suit/

My new hero! :bow:
I only hope this guy isn’t all bark & no bite, like others who claimed they’d defy the MP@$$, but when it came to the final crunch, they folded like wet paper. :frowning:

The article shows this is indeed a unique case, I think he has a plausible fighting chance. :iagree:

This part is also very interesting:

The hollywood mafiya have struck yet again in the UK this time it is one Kevin Reid and the website is “bds-palace.co.uk” the reason this site it seems uploads and downloads bit torrent files The legalise wording on the writ does not make sense given the nature of how bit torrent works. Simple extract=Kevin Reid has been accused of copyright infringement by Paramount Pictures, Twentieth Century Fox, Universal City Studios and Warner Bros. The studios filed a lawsuit in a U.S. court earlier this month claiming that copyright-protected films have been uploaded and downloaded from bds-palace.co.uk, which Reid runs." link at cnet news=http://news.com.com/U.K.+man+threatened+with+BitTorrent+lawsuit/2100-1032_3-5626029.html?tag=st_lh

A defense based on righteous indignation is only effective when council can lie convincingly. How on earth does Mr. Harris expect to defend such a clearly fraudulent claim. Personally, I think Reid should hire a smarter lawyer.

Also, the difference with this case, is that his circumstances doesn’t appear to be any different from other such assassinated BT admins, with the exception, he is from the U.K. IMO, if the U.K has decided to fully embrace the American anti-copyright tactics, he won’t stand a chance. :sad:
Alexander Hanff on the other hand, appears to have a fighting chance. :iagree: :bigsmile:

Jesus! it could be worse he could hire a halfwit like you - the amount of rubbish you post is astonishing. Hanff and Reid are doing the exact same thing on both their websites: if one loses both do. RTFA.

As for the righteous indignation stuff I guess for such a ‘smart’ guy you dont absorb much history. The RIAA has long gone after pure technology: Sony v Betamax ring any bells? duh. the Creative mp3 player case duh duh. Think Napster was an attack on copyright infringement? only in part - it was also about crushing p2p distribution 'cos they dont want artists bypassing them in the chain. Bittorrent cases are the MPAA doing the same thing.
But I guess you knew all that anyway 'cos you are so smart.

Diatribe of an irate 1 poster… :rolleyes:

I re-wrote this reply so as not to provoke this into flaming, kindly extent me the same courtesy! :cop::slight_smile:

Everything I write is a personal opinion based on my perspective of the facts presented. I have never claimed, nor given the impression(IMO) of being some all-knowing p2p guru or even “smart”! If you must insist on personal attacks, all you need do is quote my “rubbish” & reply with a counter-arguement or even display how the “rubbish” info is mis-informed, speculative, or prove it’s just plain BS.

I can honestly say, I won’t be offended at having my views scrutinized. After all, isn’t that what helps us refine, solidify or re-evauluate our own values & opinions, debate. I feel I’m quite open-minded, so for however arrogant I may have came across(unintentional, BTW), you will not find me to be obstinate. :smiley:

Are solely refering to this thread or others aswell?.. again, I don’t mind being scrutinized, but please see above. :wink:

back on topic… :cop: :bigsmile:

They are similar, but not identical. These are a few pertinant differences between the two cases, that may effect outcome, IMO.

You may be right, however, as I clearly stated, these are my opinions on what I believe makes this case unique. You appear to have presumed I was making spurious statements from some kind of insider lawyer perspective, I was not. :stuck_out_tongue:

The second paragraph you wrote - why go whizzing off on another vaguely unrelated tangent about the history of attacks on p2p technology. I’m curious, because I’ve no idea how you came to the conclusion that prehaps I contridicted this somehow, a quote would be helpful. :confused::wink:

Nothing more to add at this time…

Moses’ Muse

“Though you may currently be located in the United Kingdom, you will be subject to the jurisdiction of the United State federal court by virtue of your engaging in BitTorrent activities through a US Internet Service Provider, among other reasons.”

So the UK can request extradition for someone who sends virii from the USA when it is the general sort affecting the world? Also, with the above reasoning then I’m sure there is a contradiction in the Yahoo case, see http://pcmlp.socleg.ox.ac.uk/YahooConference/ Nice to see how people say the reasoning goes one way in their favour and not when it doesn’t!

An exhaustive read(:p), but a most interesting article. :iagree::eek:

The legality behind the first article quoted was unsettling. The second link, “Fighting Nazi & Anti-sematic material on the internet: the Yahoo case & it’s global implications”, chilled me to the bone. I wonder where this will lead in say 50, no! 20 years time… the European outlawing of dissent?:a:eek::stuck_out_tongue:

What a pity Al-Qaeda/Taliban don’t have a distinct uniform… :stuck_out_tongue: