RoTS Piracy leads to EliteTorrents.org Shutdown

[Darth Fanboy]

I swear I looked for this on the forum before posting it.

linky

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. law enforcers said on Wednesday that they have shut down a computer network that distributed illegal copies of "Star Wars: Episode III - Revenge of the Sith" before it appeared in movie theaters.

Federal agents executed 10 search warrants and seized the main server computer in a network that allowed people to download nearly 18,000 movies and software programs, including many current releases, the FBI and Homeland Security Department said.

The Elite Torrents network, found online at [wwwelitetorrentsorg~Link disabled by DF], relied on a technology called BitTorrent that allows users to quickly download digital movies and other large files by copying them from many computers at once.

The network signed up 133,000 members who collectively downloaded 2.1 million files, according to the Immigration and Customs Enforcement division of the Homeland Security Department.

Visitors to the Web site on Wednesday saw a notice that read, "This site has been permanently shut down by the Federal Bureau of Investigation and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement."

The raid targeted administrators of the network and those who provided movies and other copyrighted material. Similar cases in the past have found that such "first providers" are typically entertainment-industry insiders, rather than outside hackers.

Agents executed search warrants in Arizona, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Kansas, Texas, Virginia and Wisconsin. No arrests have been made, but the investigation continues, ICE spokeswoman Jamie Zuieback said.

Elite Torrents offered a "virtually unlimited" selection of material, ICE said. The latest Star Wars movie was available on the network more than six hours before it was first shown in theaters, and within 24 hours it was copied more than 10,000 times.

The Motion Picture Association, an industry group, helped with the investigation, ICE said. Movie studios are trying to avoid the fate of the music industry, which claims it has lost hundreds of millions of dollars worth of sales due to online file sharing.

Digital movies are about 50 times larger than music files, which makes them more cumbersome to download. New technologies like BitTorrent, however, and increased high-speed Internet use are closing the gap.

The MPAA has managed to shut down at least five BitTorrent networks through lawsuits and has also sued individuals who use them.

BitTorrent networks have caused headaches for software makers as well. Apple Computer Inc has sued three men for posting the latest version of its OS X operating system on a BitTorrent site six months before it was commercially released.

A few thoughts from myself:

-Isn't it nice that we have that shiny new Homeland Secuirty department looking out for the rights of the MPAA? The terrorists must be trying to pirate the infidels' finest movies in an attempt to drain us of our will to fight.

-It's because of fucking morons like Omega-13 that we can't have nice things like Torrents.

-And despite Star Wars Episode III shattering almost every box office record possible up to this point, we're still seeing the "We're losing hundreds of millions of dollars" BULLSHIT. (insert a rant about how you're losing millions because Hollywood makes shitty movies here.)

[/url]

[Stravo]

I wouldn't know what bit-torrent was - never used it wouldn't know how to but I do have my $5 ROTS disk purchased from a nice African in China Town. If the people want it they will find away whether you down load it or not.

The industry needs to look to a new way of handling how movies are distributed. I walked out of ROTS and said "I want this fucking movie NOW." My friend suggested we hit Chinatown and so we did.

Now, if ROTS were available on DVD in Best Buy that's where I would have gone and GL would have my Box office money and my DVD money in one day. Instead, using this outmoded system the pirates get their cash and I get my product anyway. You might say $5 vs. $15 for a wide release DVD some people might still go for the pirated edition. Nope. The pirate DVD will always have qualitative limitations vs. a professionally produced DVD pluys you don't get extras and the like so the $15 in my opinion are definitely worth it.

While I guess we're supposed to poo poo piracy you have to wonder what would make a bigger impact on piracy - having ROTS on DVD the same day it comes out in theaters OR waiting 6-8 months for the movie to come out on DVD giving Pirates that window of oppurtunity to sell the movies for $5.

There will ALWAYS be that cheap ass no money having asshole that will pirate what he can no matter what but you will see an impact if someone walks out of a movie and says you know what lets go get the DVD or conversely the person that says - let's rent the DVD instead of going to the movies because of the crowds or because its cheaper and I'm not sure I want to spend the money on a theater ticket.

Anyway just my minirant on this issue.

[Chmee]

I wouldn't know what bit-torrent was - never used it wouldn't know how to but I do have my $5 ROTS disk purchased from a nice African in China Town. If the people want it they will find away whether you down load it or not.

The industry needs to look to a new way of handling how movies are distributed. I walked out of ROTS and said "I want this fucking movie NOW." My friend suggested we hit Chinatown and so we did.

Now, if ROTS were available on DVD in Best Buy that's where I would have gone and GL would have my Box office money and my DVD money in one day. Instead, using this outmoded system the pirates get their cash and I get my product anyway. You might say $5 vs. $15 for a wide release DVD some people might still go for the pirated edition. Nope. The pirate DVD will always have qualitative limitations vs. a professionally produced DVD pluys you don't get extras and the like so the $15 in my opinion are definitely worth it.

While I guess we're supposed to poo poo piracy you have to wonder what would make a bigger impact on piracy - having ROTS on DVD the same day it comes out in theaters OR waiting 6-8 months for the movie to come out on DVD giving Pirates that window of oppurtunity to sell the movies for $5.

There will ALWAYS be that cheap ass no money having asshole that will pirate what he can no matter what but you will see an impact if someone walks out of a movie and says you know what lets go get the DVD or conversely the person that says - let's rent the DVD instead of going to the movies because of the crowds or because its cheaper and I'm not sure I want to spend the money on a theater ticket.

Anyway just my minirant on this issue.

I'm afraid to ask where you went to get a stolen Ferrari after seeing 'Fast and the Furious' ....

The lawlessness of the 'I want so gimme' culture really scares the shit out of me.

And on the OT, as I mistakenly posted in my own thread ... I guess the only way the HSA will capture Osama is if he pirates RoTS and it becomes a vital national priority.

[Spanky The Dolphin]

Well, at leas the MPAA is at least attempting to combat Internet piracy in a much more logical and sensible manner than the RIAA is doing: going after the sources rather than the users...

The RIAA also treats their customers as if they are all potential criminals.

[Stravo]

I'm afraid to ask where you went to get a stolen Ferrari after seeing 'Fast and the Furious' ....

Cute but not really indicative of what happened now is it? Pulling quite the slippery slope when you equate getting a $5 movie that I will purchase when it is officially released anyway is lightyears beyond Grand Theft Auto for fuck's sake. Should I feel guilty for copying freinds' mix tapes back in the 80's of my favorite bands even though I didn't own the albums?

The lawlessness of the 'I want so gimme' culture really scares the shit out of me.

Once again we have a question of scale and a criticism of models of distribution.

Scale wise, wanting a movie that you enjoyed certainly doesn't equate to the larger issues of people doing anything to obtain a thing like stealing a car or burglarizing a house. Its the difference between hopping the turnstyle on the subway and knifing people on your subway for cash.

Lucas created a need to want more of his product. So what does he do? Make it avilable in a better format for people to use and see it half a year down the road. A nearly artificial constraint on the product. What's the point of waiting a year down the road for a DVD if point in fact your demand suggests that people want it now?

The only reason why it's more rampant now is technology. Technology will force this industry to change the way things are done and generally change is a good thing. I look foward to the day that a movie is released and afterwards I can trot down to Circuit City or Best Buy and bring the movie home with me.

And on the OT, as I mistakenly posted in my own thread ... I guess the only way the HSA will capture Osama is if he pirates RoTS and it becomes a vital national priority.

HSA's mandate isn't to capture OBL but to protect us from another 9/11. Otherwise I agree that video piracy is hardly terrorism - unless you're going to make that lameass argument that "Video piracy helps fund terroriusm!!!1!11!!"

[Chmee]

I'm afraid to ask where you went to get a stolen Ferrari after seeing 'Fast and the Furious' ....

Cute but not really indicative of what happened now is it? Pulling quite the slippery slope when you equate getting a $5 movie that I will purchase when it is officially released anyway is lightyears beyond Grand Theft Auto for fuck's sake. Should I feel guilty for copying freinds' mix tapes back in the 80's of my favorite bands even though I didn't own the albums?

Apples & oranges ... in one scenario you patronize a thief and a black market sub-economy, in the other you don't.

The lawlessness of the 'I want so gimme' culture really scares the shit out of me.

Once again we have a question of scale and a criticism of models of distribution.

Scale wise, wanting a movie that you enjoyed certainly doesn't equate to the larger issues of people doing anything to obtain a thing like stealing a car or burglarizing a house. Its the difference between hopping the turnstyle on the subway and knifing people on your subway for cash.

Lucas created a need to want more of his product. So what does he do? Make it avilable in a better format for people to use and see it half a year down the road. A nearly artificial constraint on the product. What's the point of waiting a year down the road for a DVD if point in fact your demand suggests that people want it now?

Lucas has a clearcut and traditional marketing rationale for delaying the DVD availability. He wants you to see the movie at the local cineplex a second and third time when you're jonesing to see it again, *then* buy the licensed DVD down the road.

Do I feel sorry for a zillionaire like GL when somebody black-markets his IP? Not particularly. I feel sorry for the hourly-wage guys making the legal disks and selling them through retail, because I think that the vast majority of people who tell me they'll buy the legal product after happily using the pirated product for a year will only do so if the quality of the pirated material is crap, and like you say, the technology to get around that gets better every day.

[General Zod]

Apples & oranges ... in one scenario you patronize a thief and a black market sub-economy, in the other you don't.

i've noticed people who are against piracy always seem to never be able to distinguish the difference between theft and actual piracy. they're not even really the same thing, as one deals with something that can be copied and relatively cheaply distributed. the other one deals with physically stealing an object, thus depriving its owner of that object.

for the most part though, pirated media doesn't really hurt the market. if a show or album is good, they're going to buy it regardless of how many free copies are available on the internet or elsewhere.

[Chmee]

Apples & oranges ... in one scenario you patronize a thief and a black market sub-economy, in the other you don't.

i've noticed people who are against piracy always seem to never be able to distinguish the difference between theft and actual piracy. they're not even really the same thing, as one deals with something that can be copied and relatively cheaply distributed. the other one deals with physically stealing an object, thus depriving its owner of that object.

for the most part though, pirated media doesn't really hurt the market. if a show or album is good, they're going to buy it regardless of how many free copies are available on the internet or elsewhere.

A high-quality pirated DVD of a movie in current release is probably the product of theft, not infringement -- they had to steal a master to copy.

No, I don't draw a line between an unlawful taking of physical and intellectual property -- in both cases you know it's not yours and you're taking it because it's cheaper to take it than pay for it, and yes I'm familiar with all the intellectual hoop-jumping people are willing to perform to rationalize their unlawful taking. That's exactly what scares me about it, the whole 'little thefts aren't really bad' attitude.

I come from a different generation, I acknowledge. I was raised with a pretty simple moral code on this -- if you can't afford it, then you do without it, you don't steal it. You earn the money to pay for it if you really want it that badly. Whether the item has an 'unreasonable' price tag is irrelevant to this morality ... Ferraris cost a ridiculous amount of money, that is *not* a sufficient basis for me to rationalize stealing one.

I'm not saying that file-sharers are evil, I don't want their hands chopped off, I'm not trying to be holier-than-thou here ... I am just personally not comfortable with the 'I want it so I'll take it' approach, whether that taking is more properly defined as theft or infringement ... in both cases it's an unlawful use and I'm not comfortable with it.

[Darth Wong]

If someone offered me a ROTS pirate DVD I would take it, but I wouldn't pay money for one because that supports the unlawful activity in question. And I will buy the legitimate commercial DVD when it comes out.

[General Zod]

A high-quality pirated DVD of a movie in current release is probably the product of theft, not infringement -- they had to steal a master to copy.

i will conceed to that, though blatantly labeling all file sharing as theft is a gross overgeneralization. If someone legally buys the dvd or cd after it's out, and decides to share copies on the internet, how is that theft? nothing is taken from the owner of the copyright, and if anything he's gaining free publicity. imo, i'd be much more willing to pay for a good album after listening to it first than i would if i couldn't hear anything on it before hand.

how many older records do you know that you can go into a music store and listen to in advance? probably not many. and i'd feel much more secure purchasing something i know i'd be satisfied with.

No, I don't draw a line between an unlawful taking of physical and intellectual property -- in both cases you know it's not yours and you're taking it because it's cheaper to take it than pay for it, and yes I'm familiar with all the intellectual hoop-jumping people are willing to perform to rationalize their unlawful taking. That's exactly what scares me about it, the whole 'little thefts aren't really bad' attitude.

most people that argue in favor of file sharing don't use that argument, fortunately. typically it goes along the lines of, "i bought the album, and i recorded it to my computer legally. what's wrong with letting me share it with other people?"

[Chmee]

most people that argue in favor of file sharing don't use that argument, fortunately. typically it goes along the lines of, "i bought the album, and i recorded it to my computer legally. what's wrong with letting me share it with other people?"

Besides violating the agreement not to do exactly that, which was printed on the original you bought? (Yes, your bargaining position on that agreement was not equal with MCA, I agree.)

In the digital age, the 'sharing' you propose is a complete pre-emption of the artist's ability to sell his work. You're not distributing fuzzy cassette copies with a high distribution cost, but perfect digital replicas with a distribution cost of almost zero ... your cost of sharing with a million people is pretty much the same as sharing with one -- you think the artist shouldn't fear that? You just took away a million customers, as far as the artist (or record label) is concerned.

To me, that's what's wrong with it. The artist is free to put up their work on a website or on an original CD and give you a license to re-distribute, and some artists do that ... but when they choose not to, facilitating the unlawful taking of their IP by an unlimited pool of people around the globe is not something I'm comfortable with.

As for the 'I don't know whether I want to buy it yet, so I should be able to unlawfully take it to decide' .... please, that doesn't pass a laugh test. Streaming internet radio, broadcast radio, partial sampling at purchase sites like Amazon, MTV .... media gives you FAR more options to evaluate their product before purchase than most goods .... you don't get to take a Reese's out of the package and nibble at it before deciding if you like Reese's enough to buy one.

[Darth Fanboy]

As for the 'I don't know whether I want to buy it yet, so I should be able to unlawfully take it to decide' .... please, that doesn't pass a laugh test. Streaming internet radio, broadcast radio, partial sampling at purchase sites like Amazon, MTV .... media gives you FAR more options to evaluate their product before purchase than most goods .... you don't get to take a Reese's out of the package and nibble at it before deciding if you like Reese's enough to buy one.

Devil's Advocate:
Reese's don't cost $15-$18 per cup, MTV limits its content to crap, Amazon doesn't let you preview entire songs

[Chmee]

As for the 'I don't know whether I want to buy it yet, so I should be able to unlawfully take it to decide' .... please, that doesn't pass a laugh test. Streaming internet radio, broadcast radio, partial sampling at purchase sites like Amazon, MTV .... media gives you FAR more options to evaluate their product before purchase than most goods .... you don't get to take a Reese's out of the package and nibble at it before deciding if you like Reese's enough to buy one.

Devil's Advocate:
Reese's don't cost $15-$18 per cup, MTV limits its content to crap, Amazon doesn't let you preview entire songs

There's always that ultra-high tech thing called 'FM' you could try. Or streaming Internet audio will let you choose from hundreds of format stations and break out of the monopolistic Clear Channel crapfest that broadcast radio is turning into ... if you have enough broadband to fileshare, you have enough to stream live audio.

A good bottle of wine costs $15-$18 (easy), and you know what, I won't know if I like it until I try it and I'm gonna have to buy the whole bottle to find out. Of course, if I do like it, the bottle will be empty and I'll have to buy it again ... you get a better deal with a CD you like, you can listen to it a thousand times. Dirt cheap.

[aerius]

The industry needs to look to a new way of handling how movies are distributed. I walked out of ROTS and said "I want this fucking movie NOW." My friend suggested we hit Chinatown and so we did.

If I were a movie industry guy I'd adopt the Apple iTunes model and movies ready to download as soon as they're released in theatres. It would not be DVD quality since that would cut into DVD sales, but for approximately the cost of a movie ticket you can download a watchable copy of the movie.

So the movie comes out and if you like it you can get a copy to tide you over until the DVD release.

[Chmee]

The industry needs to look to a new way of handling how movies are distributed. I walked out of ROTS and said "I want this fucking movie NOW." My friend suggested we hit Chinatown and so we did.

If I were a movie industry guy I'd adopt the Apple iTunes model and movies ready to download as soon as they're released in theatres. It would not be DVD quality since that would cut into DVD sales, but for approximately the cost of a movie ticket you can download a watchable copy of the movie.

So the movie comes out and if you like it you can get a copy to tide you over until the DVD release.

Pearl Jam does something like this for concerts ... right after they do a show, you can buy an unmastered digital copy of the concert for about the price of a CD, and when they finish mastering the tapes from the concert, your purchase entitles you to download the fully mastered version.

[Darth Fanboy]

There's always that ultra-high tech thing called 'FM' you could try. Or streaming Internet audio will let you choose from hundreds of format stations and break out of the monopolistic Clear Channel crapfest that broadcast radio is turning into ... if you have enough broadband to fileshare, you have enough to stream live audio.

Find me one FM radio station anywhere that carries the generes of music I like on a regular basis. I live in a metropolitan area so I'll give you the benefit of the doubt when it comes to that, if I still lived in the midwest i'd tell you that FM radio for anything other that 'mainstream' music is almost impossible. Streaming Live Audio doesn't let me select the content in the way file sharing does.

A good bottle of wine costs $15-$18 (easy), and you know what, I won't know if I like it until I try it and I'm gonna have to buy the whole bottle to find out. Of course, if I do like it, the bottle will be empty and I'll have to buy it again ... you get a better deal with a CD you like, you can listen to it a thousand times. Dirt cheap.

Yes but if you don't know what kind of wine you like, any respectable wine dealer happily offers samples, usually by inviting patrons to sample selectionsat the store during specific time and hours. He/She doesnt make you spit it back in the cup after you are done either. then you know whether or not you like it.

The CD is dirt cheap after you've listned to it 1,000 times. But I still have to spend that money to get it, its an investment. If the CD sucks then unless I can resell it or return it for full price (good luck doing that) Im out money.

[Chmee]

[/i]

There's always that ultra-high tech thing called 'FM' you could try. Or streaming Internet audio will let you choose from hundreds of format stations and break out of the monopolistic Clear Channel crapfest that broadcast radio is turning into ... if you have enough broadband to fileshare, you have enough to stream live audio.

Find me one FM radio station anywhere that carries the generes of music I like on a regular basis. I live in a metropolitan area so I'll give you the benefit of the doubt when it comes to that, if I still lived in the midwest i'd tell you that FM radio for anything other that 'mainstream' music is almost impossible. Streaming Live Audio doesn't let me select the content in the way file sharing does.

In other words, your gratification isn't instant ... conceded. I don't find that a compelling argument in support of illegal taking.

A good bottle of wine costs $15-$18 (easy), and you know what, I won't know if I like it until I try it and I'm gonna have to buy the whole bottle to find out. Of course, if I do like it, the bottle will be empty and I'll have to buy it again ... you get a better deal with a CD you like, you can listen to it a thousand times. Dirt cheap.

Yes but if you don't know what kind of wine you like, any respectable wine dealer happily offers samples, usually by inviting patrons to sample selectionsat the store during specific time and hours. He/She doesnt make you spit it back in the cup after you are done either. then you know whether or not you like it.

Hate to break it to you -- most wine is bought at the supermarket, not Chez Paul's. You choose based on word of mouth, something you read, or because you have always liked wines from that winery .... in other words, about the same way most people buy music. Specialty shops that let you taste are pretty much the same thing as going to a record store with listening-stations that let you listen before buying ... I have no problem with either one.

The CD is dirt cheap after you've listned to it 1,000 times. But I still have to spend that money to get it, its an investment. If the CD sucks then unless I can resell it or return it for full price (good luck doing that) Im out money.

Exactlly how most consumer purchases work. Shop carefully.

[Spanky The Dolphin]

If wishes were horses, then rainbows would fly in through my window and give me free handjobs.

Sometimes you just have to throw your hands up and learn to live with the phrase "tough shit."

[Superman]

Goddamnit. I only used those torrent sites to download Howard Stern on the days that I missed his show so I could hear him at the gym on my Ipod. Howard himself even said he doesn't mind people doing that.

[HemlockGrey]

I really hope they go after Pirate Bay, because I would love to see Pirate Bay tell HSA to go fuck itself with a baton.

[Ace Pace]

I really hope they go after Pirate Bay, because I would love to see Pirate Bay tell HSA to go fuck itself with a baton.

Where is Pirate Bay hosted that they can tell HSA to fuck off?

[MKSheppard]

Date: Fri, 24 Sep 2004 17:11:44 -0100 (GMT)
From: anakata
To: nopiracy@advfilms.com
Subject: RE: Electronic Notice of Infringement - thepiratebay.org

Hello, my dear sir(s)!
We all like Evangelion a lot. This, however, does not mean that we like
YOU. So instead of mindlessly acting on your notice of so-called
infringement, I took the liberty of forwarding it to our legal counsel:


On the subject of thepiratebay.org's supposed infringement of your
intellectual rights. I have been given the authority, as legal consel,
to reply to your kind letter.

We understand that you are familiar with Bit Torrent technology. Then you
may, or may not, understand that none of the data that you hold the
copyright to reside on thepiratebay.org's servers.

This raises the question of the reach of Swedish and European copyright
law. It is the opinion of us, and the Swedish Supreme Court, that
information about WHERE to obtain copyrighted material, which is the
case with Bit Torrent, is not illegal. The '.torrent' files that are
offered for download at the site in question contain nothing more than
hash and checksum information. How this information could, in itself,
possibly be an infrigement of your copyright is beyond us and apparently
the Swedish legal system agrees.

As to this date the third paragraph of the Swedish copyright
legalislation does not criminalize information exchange. You may also
wish to rewiev the 'Lag (1998:112) om ansvar för elektroniska
anslagstavlor'. It is stated in the fifth paragraph that under certain
circumstances an administrator of a site might be required to remove
certain 'messages' entered by the users. However it is our opinion that
'.torrent' files is not of the nature stated here. The subparagraph in
question is aimed at stoping people from quoting whole literature
works or posting copyrighted pictures.

In your e-mail you state three demands. The first two are obviously
completley void since The Pirate Bay in no way store any of your
copyrighted data on their servers.

As for the third demand: We have no intention of removing anything as
long as our actions are not violating Swedish law and to our knowledge
this is not the case.

For your convience we took the time to review European law on this area.
Considering that it takes several years, in some cases almost a decade,
to get an answer from the European court on an inqury about how a law is
to be interpreted, the question whether the european copyright law also
includes bittorrent is less interesting. You may return in about 5 years
when there is a ruling from the European Supreme Court. Until then we
have no choice except respecting Swedish copyright law. And as we have
explained the information contained in our servers is clearly not of the
nature required of Swedish law, to be considered an infrigement of
intellectual property. This would be similar to outlawing a map outlining
where to find the library or the local video-rental store.

Our guess, since you did not provide us with adequate information on
which laws and regulations that you feel are violated, is that you are
referring to 'Directive 2001/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the
Council of 22 May 2001 on the harmonisation of certain aspects of
copyright and related rights in the information society'. Whether or not
this act does indeed state that the information contained in '.torrent'
files is a violation of the authors' intellectual rights or not is of
little importance in the case at hand. The act does not have direct
effect and calls upon the member states to take appropriate action in
order to protect the rights refered to in the directive.
Obiously the Swedish government, to this date, considers that it has done
so and that all rights are protected under the current Swedish
legalizlation. And as stated above our activity on the site in question
and on our servers are not in violation of Swedish law. As law-abiding
good upstanding citizens we do not question our wise government's policy.


Sincerely
/Judas, on the behalf of The Pirate Bay

[MKSheppard]

Date: Sat, 21 Aug 2004 18:21:43 -0100 (GMT)
From: anakata
To: KMWLAW@flash.net
Subject: Re: Unauthorized Use of DreamWorks SKG Properties

On Mon, 23 Aug 2004 KMWLAW@flash.net wrote:

> Dennis L. Wilson, Esq.
> KEATS McFARLAND & WILSON, LLP
> 9720 Wilshire Blvd., Penthouse Suite
> Beverly Hills, CA 90212
> Tel: (310) 248-3830
> Fax: (310) 860-0363
>
>
> August 23, 2004
>
>
> VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL
> AND U.S. MAIL
>
> ThePirateBay.org
> Box 1206
> Stockholm 11479
> SWEDEN
>
> tracker-40-aa-5f-03-412675c8@prq.to
>
> Re: Unauthorized Use of DreamWorks SKG Properties
> http://www.thepiratebay.org
>
> To Whom It May Concern:
>
> This letter is being written to you on behalf of our
> client, DreamWorks SKG (hereinafter ^ÓDreamWorks^Ô).
> DreamWorks is the exclusive owner of all copyright,
> trademark and other intellectual property rights in
> and to the ^ÓShrek 2^Ô motion picture. No one is
> authorized to copy, reproduce, distribute, or
> otherwise use the ^ÓShrek 2^Ô motion picture without
> the express written permission of DreamWorks.
[...]
> As you may be aware, Internet Service Providers can
> be held liable if they do not respond to claims of
> infringement pursuant to the requirements of the
> Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA). In
> accordance with the DMCA, we request your assistance
> in the removal of infringements of the ^ÓShrek 2^Ô
> motion picture from this web site and any other sites
> for which you act as an Internet Service Provider.
> We further declare under penalty of perjury that we
> are authorized to act on behalf of DreamWorks and
> that the information in this letter is accurate.
> Please contact me immediately to discuss this matter
> further.

As you may or may not be aware, Sweden is not a state in the United States
of America. Sweden is a country in northern Europe.
Unless you figured it out by now, US law does not apply here.
For your information, no Swedish law is being violated.

Please be assured that any further contact with us, regardless of medium,
will result in
a) a suit being filed for harassment
b) a formal complaint lodged with the bar of your legal counsel, for
sending frivolous legal threats.

It is the opinion of us and our lawyers that you are fucking morons, and
that you should please go sodomize yourself with retractable batons.

Please also note that your e-mail and letter will be published in full on
http://www.thepiratebay.org.

Go fuck yourself.

Polite as usual,
anakata

[Ubiquitous]

It always amuses me how the little guy says that they will sue the government for harassment, as if the government give a shit!

[Sir Sirius]

It always amuses me how the little guy says that they will sue the government for harassment, as if the government give a shit!

What are you talking about?