Slyck.com
 
Slyck Chatbox - And More

DVDR-Core Owner Plans to Fight MPAA

Discuss Slyck's latest news
Forum rules
PLEASE READ BEFORE POSTING: Slyck Forum Rules

DVDR-Core Owner Plans to Fight MPAA

Postby SlyckTom » Wed Mar 16, 2005 5:04 pm

Let us introduce Alexander Hanff. Mr. Hanff is the owner of DVDR-Core.com. Currently, the site is not necessarily P2P related, but is more of a hangout for DVD and movie enthusiasts. However, as early as December 2004 it also functioned as a BitTorrent tracker.

Considering the BitTorrent climate during December of 2004, Mr. Hanff decided to take his site off line. All was quiet until one Saturday morning last week, when a representative of the MPAA served him with a lawsuit. According to <a href= http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/03/15/mpaa_hanff_suit target=”_blank”>The Register</a> he was server at him home, which happens to be in England.

The MPAA decided to use a clever scare tactic in this circumstance, by not only significantly delaying the delivery of the lawsuit, but by also suing a UK resident. The MPAA claims it can sue someone outside the jurisdiction of the United States because Mr. Hanff's web server is situated in California.

But have no fear, BitTorrent fans. Mr, Hanff will not allow the MPAA to step all over him or his members. Unlike many other BitTorrent site owners, Mr. Hanff has decided to fight back against the MPAA,

"I am certainly not going to settle for anything that will compromise my integrity or the integrity of our members," Hanff said. "They can bankrupt me. I don't own a house, so they can't take it. I own a few guitars that they can have and an old inkjet printer. It's a waste of their time and of my time."

Mr. Hanff readily admits that support will be difficult due to the LokiTorrent situation. Many feel that Mr. Ed Webber, owner of LokiTorrent, has destroyed the credibility of many BitTorrent site operators. During December of 2004, Mr. Webber was sued by the MPAA. Revealing the impression he was not giving in, he decided to raise money on the LokiTorrent website (which totaled over $40,000.) However, all of the money disappeared after he instead decided to settle.

However, what Mr. Hanff lacks in financial funding, he more than makes up for with ignorance.

According to Hanff’s statement he made to The Register, he never actually administered the website. That responsibility was left to “online friends.” Mr. Hanff simply owned the site and paid for the bills. That gets him off the hook, right?

Perhaps in the end, Mr. Hanff simply did not understand what he was getting himself into. However, being ignorant of who is ultimately responsible for one’s website will not save him from the hot seat.

"Torrent files don't contain any data," Hanff said. "This is a search engine scenario. Why aren't Google, Yahoo or Microsoft getting sued?"

Maybe his “online friends” can help him with that one.
Last edited by SlyckTom on Wed Mar 16, 2005 5:18 pm, edited 1 time in total.
SlyckTom
 
Posts: 5713
Joined: Fri Jul 26, 2002 7:22 pm
Location: New York City

Postby Psycho Ced » Wed Mar 16, 2005 5:10 pm

I was hoping this was a joke, but too bad for him, it is not! This guy needs help, maybe he'll try to get off on an insanity plea :lol: :!:
User avatar
Psycho Ced
Psycho+
 
Posts: 5892
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2003 2:52 pm
Location: Relative to where?

Postby johngalt » Wed Mar 16, 2005 5:21 pm

whether he tries or not, he certainly *deserves* one.

One word - Mo-ron.
__________

I am I.
User avatar
johngalt
 
Posts: 2112
Joined: Fri Oct 31, 2003 11:32 pm
Location: 3rd Rock

Re: DVDR-Core Owner Plans to Fight MPAA

Postby _eAgLe_ » Wed Mar 16, 2005 5:54 pm

SlyckTom wrote:"Torrent files don't contain any data," Hanff said. "This is a search engine scenario. Why aren't Google, Yahoo or Microsoft getting sued?"


He does make a decent point here though....
Another good article SlyckTom.
Last edited by _eAgLe_ on Wed Mar 16, 2005 6:02 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
_eAgLe_
 
Posts: 1190
Joined: Wed Dec 22, 2004 2:06 am

Postby codgod04 » Wed Mar 16, 2005 5:55 pm

According to Hanff’s statement he made to The Register, he never actually administered the website. That responsibility was left to “online friends.” Mr. Hanff simply owned the site and paid for the bills. That gets him off the hook, right?

Perhaps in the end, Mr. Hanff simply did not understand what he was getting himself into. However, being ignorant of who is ultimately responsible for one’s website will not save him from the hot seat.


if only life were that simple....... it's like saying to a police officer "oh! i didn't know i had drugs stashed away in a safe in my bedroom! honestly! i gave some house keys to my friends......" yeah, right.

don't get me wrong, i feel for the guy, but it was HIS PROPERTY that the files were stashed on, not his "online friends". and THAT is the way that both the courts, and the MPAA will look at it. everything else is just trivial details.
codgod04
 
Posts: 292
Joined: Sun Jan 02, 2005 10:24 am
Location: Location: Location

Postby johngalt » Wed Mar 16, 2005 6:12 pm

And we'll see how much longer those online friends stick around too.

So far I ain't heard one gd peep that they want to step up and shoulder the responsibility for it, nor do I see any of them coming out into the light and saying "We're going to fight with you until the end"
__________

I am I.
User avatar
johngalt
 
Posts: 2112
Joined: Fri Oct 31, 2003 11:32 pm
Location: 3rd Rock

Postby clockwatcher » Wed Mar 16, 2005 6:18 pm

I think you guys are being too hard on the guy! Come on haven’t you guys ever loaned someone a car when they’ve needed it? Something to that effect maybe the people that he rented the server for had bad credit or there was a good legitimate reason for what he did. Just because Loki was an __________. Doesn’t mean you should be that judgmental over this guy! Face it Loki ruined it for the Bit torrent community as a whole.
clockwatcher
 
Posts: 3
Joined: Tue Feb 15, 2005 2:52 pm

Postby johngalt » Wed Mar 16, 2005 6:23 pm

Loaning a car for a one time use - only 3 times in my life - and 2 were to my g/f.

But I sure as hell didn't go out and buy a car, pay for the insurance and give it to someone I had never met before face to face and said "Here, use it all you want in any way that you want."

He's a moron for that, but also a moron for trying to cop out with "I didn't administer it" plea - If he wants to take a stand on torrents not being direct links to anything, just search material, why make the cop out? Sounds like he *knew* it was quasi legal and he allowed it to go forward, confident that he wouldn't get tagged by the **AAs and thus made no provision in case exactly that were to happen.

And that to me is moronic.
__________

I am I.
User avatar
johngalt
 
Posts: 2112
Joined: Fri Oct 31, 2003 11:32 pm
Location: 3rd Rock

Postby mcpeterson » Wed Mar 16, 2005 6:24 pm

Is it just me or after the fanfare a lot of sites gave Loki (and in doing so ended up looking foolish), anyone who says they are going to fight the MPAA are show as "damaged" people and not given any kind of support?

Your right though, in that ignorance is not a defence, but is belittling the guy gonna help in any way, IMHO by doing so your doing half the MPAA's work for them (see he's a retarded, deviant criminal).

_________________
A few things that were mentioned on other news sites regarding those being served in the UK.

They first have to convince a US court that he has enough ties with the States to give a ruling.

No-one has ever been extradited over a civil matter.

The ruling would have no effect unless a UK court backed it up.

Are those things wrong (honest question)?
mcpeterson
 
Posts: 13
Joined: Fri Feb 11, 2005 12:00 pm

Postby johngalt » Wed Mar 16, 2005 6:31 pm

you got one out of three.

I never said deviant nor criminal. I said he was a moron.

And I stand behind my reasons. If I were to start hosting a torrents site you better believe I will have made sure my ass is covered first - and since I live in the US and my servers are in the US, you can see that I am *not* hosting anything that *might* get me caught / sued.

I definitely support the guy if he decides to make a stand against the suit, arguing that torrents are legal and search material only - but he is already on record attempting to deny any involvement *while* trying to say that it is legal - so that is a major strike on his credibility as it is.

Plus, I have a feeling that the long arm of the law is going to pressure him to give up the names of his cronies in exchange for dropping the suit - and I think to save his own ass he very well may do that.

Perhaps I am being too harsh on him - perhaps he will shape up now and clamp his mouth shut prior to consulting with counsel. At any rate, I wish him the best.
__________

I am I.
User avatar
johngalt
 
Posts: 2112
Joined: Fri Oct 31, 2003 11:32 pm
Location: 3rd Rock

Postby mcpeterson » Wed Mar 16, 2005 6:34 pm

That wasnt actually directed at anyone in particular.
Representing filesharers as retarded, deviant criminals is the MPAA's job. It just seems to me that a lot of sites are helping out with the retarded part.
mcpeterson
 
Posts: 13
Joined: Fri Feb 11, 2005 12:00 pm

Postby johngalt » Wed Mar 16, 2005 6:39 pm

Well, to be honest, I didn't take it as a personal attack, b/c regardless of what you say I am stating my own opinion - then again, I am a bit more cautious with my things than some people might be.

I do have to say, however, that there is a reason you always see in the movies and such people saying "No comment" to the media when being questioned about legal action. Even Lawyers and judges get counsel from other lawyers. It is just common sense.

The other side of it is that the ones who get *caught* obviously did something wrong / stupidly, as compared to those who do the same and *don't* get caught....
__________

I am I.
User avatar
johngalt
 
Posts: 2112
Joined: Fri Oct 31, 2003 11:32 pm
Location: 3rd Rock

Postby Psycho Ced » Wed Mar 16, 2005 6:40 pm

Right now, this guy does not seem to have a plan, he does not know what he is up against, and does not really appreciate the consequences.
He thinks he is safe cause he has nothing to lose. He does not know that they can garnish his wages (for the rest of his life), or put him in jail. He also seems to think that because he did not directly handle his site; that he is immune! What is he thinking? Just get up in the moring, walk into court, defend himself (or use a government appointed attorney), and win? This is foolish! Whether or not you want to call him a name; his statements speak for him!
Last edited by Psycho Ced on Wed Mar 16, 2005 6:45 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Psycho Ced
Psycho+
 
Posts: 5892
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2003 2:52 pm
Location: Relative to where?

Postby SlyckChuck » Wed Mar 16, 2005 6:44 pm

It is a good story Tom. Somehow the responses make me think of recent events where a promise to fight the MPAA was reversed and caused a panic by some here.


If this person follows thru, I salute him. On the other hand if he caves in after a short time the fallout would be more distrust in those who vow to make a stand.
The 80's Still Rule
User avatar
SlyckChuck
 
Posts: 7025
Joined: Sun Jan 18, 2004 12:57 pm
Location: On Earth

Postby lookin11 » Wed Mar 16, 2005 6:54 pm

One thought strikes me about this and all of the MPAA/RIAA tactics. That is that without even winning any cases, they are slowly convincing people that trackers are violating their copyrights. As we know, but the public (& media) seems to be forgetting, this has not been adjudicated.

On one point I don't agree with some of the other comments about the guy's intelligence or credibility. I'm not saying this dude's brilliant, but in one of my college classes, we discussed how lawsuits are fought and there are three main concepts of defense that are usually employed:

1. I didn't do it / it's not illegal.
2. If I did do it, it was an accident and I'm sorry.
3. If I did do it, I'll never do it again.

Sometimes these can be mutually exclusive but a good lawyer will use them all to see which ones might stick.

Our friend in the UK hasn't done anything wrong by trying to deny culpability. That's the first step and it doesn't preclude him from using the second half of his first defense line which is "it's not illegal". When you're being sued, you have every right to throw what ever you can up as a defense. Maybe it won't work, but in law, there is less science and more art, so who knows?

Even though he'll probably cave in, I hope he wins.

Just my 2 cents.....
lookin11
 
Posts: 14
Joined: Wed Mar 16, 2005 6:36 pm

Postby Spywhere » Wed Mar 16, 2005 7:55 pm

...I'm sure he's going to go the whole way :)
Spywhere
 
Posts: 68
Joined: Thu Jan 20, 2005 11:23 pm

Postby Psycho Ced » Wed Mar 16, 2005 7:58 pm

Yeah, right over the cucu's nest!
User avatar
Psycho Ced
Psycho+
 
Posts: 5892
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2003 2:52 pm
Location: Relative to where?

Postby hellosiso » Wed Mar 16, 2005 8:01 pm

johngalt wrote:Well, to be honest, I didn't take it as a personal attack, b/c regardless of what you say I am stating my own opinion - then again, I am a bit more cautious with my things than some people might be.

I do have to say, however, that there is a reason you always see in the movies and such people saying "No comment" to the media when being questioned about legal action. Even Lawyers and judges get counsel from other lawyers. It is just common sense.

The other side of it is that the ones who get *caught* obviously did something wrong / stupidly, as compared to those who do the same and *don't* get caught....



I must agree with this
User avatar
hellosiso
 
Posts: 33
Joined: Mon Mar 14, 2005 10:32 pm
Location: uk

Postby Wham » Wed Mar 16, 2005 8:59 pm

All one needs to say is to hang in there at least until the Supreme Court of the U.S. rules on the subject this summer. I think a lot of people will be supprised at the ruleing that they hand down. I myself don't think the ruleing will be in favor of the RIAA or MPAA. If what I think is correct, these kind of sites will be off the hook as well as p2p sites/programs. That only leaves the consumer that can and will continue to be sued. The only other thing that the MPAA/RIAA will be able to do in the U.S. is to get their paid off buddies in Congress to write a bunch of new laws, that, as long as they are constitutional will be upheld if taken to court.
Wham
 
Posts: 1193
Joined: Sat Mar 27, 2004 1:28 am

Postby bean999 » Wed Mar 16, 2005 9:52 pm

Is it just me or after the fanfare a lot of sites gave Loki (and in doing so ended up looking foolish), anyone who says they are going to fight the MPAA are shown as "damaged" people and not given any kind of support?

No, not just you.

Maybe, as I understand it anyway, Alexander Hanff's 'stated' belief that running a bittorrent site is comparable to other p2p services is inaccurate. Seems a bittorrent site operator can be considered to be committing indirect copyright infringement through vicarious liability or contributory infringement. I imagine the grokster case has more bearing on the bittorrent protocol than bittorrent sites. Course all this is US law.

Re his complaint that he didn't administer the servers, what I understood was that he was just wondering aloud why he is being sued, & nobody else who had responsibility for the site.

But he has other reasons to feel confident:

- He, bairdoid & hawthy of bds-palace (the other thread) all received the same vague "BitTorrent activities" letter. While up in Scotland the authors managed to get court sherrifs to deliver the letter to bairdoid, lending a veneer of legal formality, Alex Hanff had his delivered by "a movie studio functionary". Wow.

- As I posted in the other thread the original sites no longer exist, site logs no longer exist.

- In the case of dvdr-core no complaint was even received. The site was down before Hanff heard from the mpaa.

- These are 3 cases, and noone seems clear that in any of them will the mpaa be successful. So personally I doubt that they will simultaneously take on 3 cases on that basis. From a PR point of view they can just obtain judgements in the US & pat themselves on the back. Also from a PR angle it may piss people off hugely in the UK to have a US trade organisation suing UK citizens. Afaik they've prevailed upon other agencies to do this work elsewhere in europe, alleging criminal copyright activity. This wouldn't wash in this case. Imo this leaves them with a pretty limp argument.

If I were Alexander Hanff, however I chose to express it, I'd be feeling pretty determined. And as he says I'd also be dismayed with comparisons with lokitorrent. Seems to me that's exactly the undermining effect the mpaa intended the lokitorrent case to have.
bean999
 
Posts: 471
Joined: Mon Apr 19, 2004 7:51 am

Postby SlyckTom » Wed Mar 16, 2005 9:56 pm

I dont know if anyone really is saying that Hanff doesnt deserve support. I would bet most people, including myself, on this thread support him.

Where we differ, however is his argument that he is not responsible because he didn't administer the site. Sorry, Im not buying it.
SlyckTom
 
Posts: 5713
Joined: Fri Jul 26, 2002 7:22 pm
Location: New York City

man

Postby Mikay D » Wed Mar 16, 2005 10:37 pm

First off ilike to say that as a downloader ( I like to call myself the download king) Man im All with him if he wants to fight i send him some money hey $10 is all he gets . We need to stick together man what there doing is take us apart one by one lets stick with him.

But on the real he got to get his game right he fucked up saying he just owned it hey my ass if i loaned my friend my car and he killed his wife and the police found my car with her in it. there gonna come at get my ass and put me in jail if i dont give up my friend ill rott in jail for ever man he has to have his game tight.


well im with him hell dont give in man fight the man
Mikay D
 
Posts: 28
Joined: Fri Jan 21, 2005 12:45 am

Postby Psycho Ced » Wed Mar 16, 2005 10:48 pm

It doesn't matter where your heart is if your head ain't in the right place. Who would you rather follow through a maze? A blind man or someone with a map; who says "leave the blind guy behind for the minator"?
(:roll: not exaclty what I wanted to say but...)
Last edited by Psycho Ced on Sun Mar 20, 2005 3:05 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Psycho Ced
Psycho+
 
Posts: 5892
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2003 2:52 pm
Location: Relative to where?

You all are ignorant assholes

Postby CopyCounslr » Wed Mar 16, 2005 11:12 pm

This has got to be the funniest thing I've read in a while.

But to all: look at the facts we have here.

1.) We have this poor ingorant bastard out there running a site in which he and his online buddys are posting on.

2.) Now wham. He gets a lawsuit from the damn MP<\

3.) He's already stated that he's ready and doesn't feel he has anything to loose. (don't critize for this. he wants to help, right?)

4.) He believes in his mind that he is running a decent site (like google, av, etc) that should not be sued. (you get the point)(So let him think whatever god blesses him with, don't judge him)

OK. So we all know loki went down his own way. No one had say in it. Everyone had an idea of what he SHOULD HAVE DONE but now you could help this guy get whatever way it takes to fight the MPAA. It's not money that's going to save him, its facts and ideas to present to him for the judge or jury.

So why not help this poor bastard. Lets all give him ideas and influence him instead of watching an idiot(loki) collect donations. Lets all be involved because this guy's our scapegoat... But he has chosen what shoes to wear, I just label it as I see it.

So why not give this guy some support. Who knows, maybe this guy could make a fight somehow. I don't know how to beat the lawsuit, but someone's got to be able to provide some clue to have a favorable conclusion, and community-wide support's the way I see this one.

I SUPPORT H.E.S.E.F.K.D.
Hanff Embrasing Search Engines For Knowledge Defense.

-Copy

P.S. Comedy, pure comedy. Computers are so fun, aren't they Vern?

P.P.s. what's his site addr anyway...
CopyCounslr
 
Posts: 25
Joined: Thu Feb 10, 2005 11:42 pm

Postby bean999 » Wed Mar 16, 2005 11:26 pm

@ Mikay aka 'the download king' :wink:

I agree totally, we should stick together, and he should get his game right. And get a map, or get out of the maze, I know what you were saying PC :) .

In the UK it shouldn't cost him a fortune to get all of that from a lawyer, hopefully he's done that by now.

Seems he's also been in touch with bairdoid & hawthy, or they with him, whichever (other thread).

And things look v encouraging over at dvdr-core right now, looks like others agree with mikay & the rest of us:
I just want to say thank you to the people who have donated so far, and also another thank you for SVP Communications who have very generously offered to pay double the standard rate for their banner clicks for the first 10 000 clicks in order to help raise money for the defense fund.


Cool :)
bean999
 
Posts: 471
Joined: Mon Apr 19, 2004 7:51 am

Next

Return to Slyck News

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

© 2001-2008 Slyck.com