Why didn't Oink, Elitetorrents etc. users get mass sued?

Â

~â?¥LadyLindaâ?¥~

New member
I've been reading a load of old torrent news/history recently and I've noticed that a number of private trackers have been taken down, many captured intact by the authorities and often by industry associations like the RIAA, IFPI, etc.

So why haven't the users of all these sites been sued en masse, if all their details were captured along with IPs attached to accounts? As far as I'm able to tell, no one has been sued from any of these famous private tracker take-downs. A few admins and pre-releasers got arrested and some convicted, but why do RIAA who sue randoms for downloading a couple of things from public trackers seem indifferent to a massive database of potential law-suit victims who are all at least moderate infringers, and many heavy? Even a "pay up or else" letter-writing scheme would rake in substantial sums even if there was no follow-through for non-payees.

Can anyone shed any light on this?
 
:/

If I were working for anti-filesharers then why would I be asking uninformed randomers about my own actions?

I'm trying to work out if public or private trackers are safer. Articles like these tend to say that public gives a greater chance of being caught by IP trawlers, but are far less vulnerable to the server being seized because they don't keep records. But there are a number of incidents when private trackers did get seized and (apparently) nothing happened to the rank and file members, only staff and a couple of particularly egregious uploaders. So that would indicate that private trackers a whole lot safer. But I don't quite understand why they didn't try suing everyone on the OiNK database (for instance), so if anyone can shed some light on that, it would be very helpful.
 
Well yes, but don't these sites keep extensive records? They log all account IPs and that is attached to a list of downloads and uploads. Maybe it's not enough for a criminal prosecution (which is fine, because file-sharing is not generally criminal in UK), but civil damages only require a preponderance of evidence.
 
[My last post didn't show up, but I seem to be able to post elsewhere so I'm not sure what's going on. Apologies if this turns out to be a double post in a couple of hours.]

Polarbear said:
Because they need to prove that you uploaded copyrighted material. Stay away from public trackers.
Click to expand...
I'm not at all suggesting people use public trackers. That article suggesting private trackers have a safety downside was based on the notion that private trackers that get closed down would have their database used to track down all the users. But, we know from experience that this doesn't actually happen. So what I was wondering is why the various rights holder organisations don't seem interested in these databses.
 
haslingdene said:
[My last post didn't show up, but I seem to be able to post elsewhere so I'm not sure what's going on. Apologies if this turns out to be a double post in a couple of hours.]
Click to expand...

Some of your posts were triggering the anti spam filter. Not exactly sure why, but I've approved the posts for you.
 
haslingdene said:
So what I was wondering is why the various rights holder organisations don't seem interested in these databses.
Click to expand...

I can only speak for my country. Different countries different laws. The databases aren't evidence. I didn't upload any files and I don't care what some database on an illegal torrent site says. They have to catch you red handed. They have to tell you exactly when, what and with what IP you uploaded a copyrighted file. Of course they can easily do this by logging into a BT swarm and log your IP. They have software that does that automatically. But it's too much hassle to become a member of a private site to catch a few IPs. Public trackers are much easier and you can collect much more data. Even if they log my IP they have to be fast, because my provider only saves it for seven days.

In Germany thousand of C&D letters have been sent to filesharers. All of them were caught on public trackers or Emule etc. I don't know a single case where someone received a law firm letter because he shared on a private tracker.

Even if you get one of these pay or get sued letters, it'll cost you 300€ for a lawyer and you're done. As long as you don't run a huge FTP server or sell warez on a professional basis there's nothing to be afraid of.

Again, that goes for my country only.
 
It becomes a cost/reward problem for RIAA/MPAA/etc. Why bother paying someone to go through the trouble of registering on a few private trackers and tracking a few dozen peers max on most torrents, when you could instead join a public tracker and log thousands in one shot on a fresh movie or music release?

The companies which track down users may know about private torrent sites and may even be members, but the people who hire these companies do not. All they care about are numbers. As big as some private trackers are, none compare in size to public trackers like the pirate bay.

There will always be a certain amount of piracy, but the media companies primarily target the source (people releasing the movies, music, etc.) and the most public piracy (public trackers and p2p apps).
 
haslingdene said:
Well yes, but don't these sites keep extensive records? They log all account IPs and that is attached to a list of downloads and uploads. Maybe it's not enough for a criminal prosecution (which is fine, because file-sharing is not generally criminal in UK), but civil damages only require a preponderance of evidence.
Click to expand...
It is because the evidence on the site is hearsay making it not admissible in court:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hearsay
 
its not easy to sue any member using torrents or any p2p network

because their are people from different countries and any country cannot interfere in any other countries constitutional rights

more over their are many places where p2p stuRAB are not a crime.

no one can do anything to them.
 
DanielleD87 said:
It is because the evidence on the site is hearsay making it not admissible in court:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hearsay
Click to expand...
Hearsay is admissible in the UK, where OiNK was based.

Furthermore, I doubt that server logs constitute hearsay: the server does after-all have 'direct experience' of who is connected to it and what they're doing. While they may be unreliable, I'm not sure there is even reasonable doubt that if you have a tracker account, and a load of stuff logged as downloaded, and the tracker primarily or exclusively deals with copyrighted content, that you didn't in fact download copyrighted content. Let alone the far far weaker "preponderance of evidence" standard required in civil cases. It's certainly no less reliable than a policeman's observations written in his pocketbook, which are perfectly admissible and often the sole evidence even in criminal trials.



I mean, I'm not entirely sure what the servers even log, so perhaps there's just not the information there, but I don't see how they can't attach an IP to it.
 
Back
Top