Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

US Authorities Silence NinjaVideo Founder, Rush Her to Prison

torrentfreak.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 159 posts

Re: US Authorities Silence NinjaVideo Founder, Rush Her to Prison

#91

Post by murz »

droithomme wrote: post #68

The sooner she starts her term the sooner she gets out, so this is good for her. The obvious problem here is sending copyright violators to federal prison for long terms, costing taxpayers hundreds of thousands of dollars. Killers and drug dealers often get shorter sentences, and bankers that steal billions don't go to prison at all. To say this is justice is a stretch. Running a video site that hosts unlicensed cont…

> Running a video site that hosts unlicensed content uploaded by users is what youtube did for years

Comparing NinjaVideo.net to YouTube is a bit of a stretch. NinjaVideo.net's sole purpose was to host high-quality unlicensed content, they would feature the unlicensed content, and it was clearly what was driving traffic to their website. If you never saw the site, just take a look in the internet archive:

http://web.archive.org/web/20100104054215/http://www.ninjavi...

Their frontpage was basically a list of links (the administrators curated and posted these links, complete with graphic banners like this: http://web.archive.org/web/20100104054215im_/http://i47.tiny..., and captions like "the DVDRip is here!!! Enjoy" and "here's a Screener for you") to stream whatever new content was on TV that night, or whatever movies had recently been released (sometimes even before they hit theaters). By simply taking a peak at their forum it was pretty clear that the administrators of the site had a relationship with the "uploaders" and commissioned them to upload the unlicensed content to megaupload where it would then be streamed in high-quality using the "NinjaVideo Helper" (basically a java applet that pushed megaupload content to the DivX web player). I'd venture to guess any DMCA takedown notices would be forwarded to /dev/null.

The clearest difference, imo, is that YouTube allows users to upload content (content can be uploaded without the owners of the site ever seeing it). NinjaVideo did not allow users to upload content, the owners added pages which allowed you to stream content hosted on megaupload (for any video to end up on NinjaVideo, the admins had to add it).

Re: US Authorities Silence NinjaVideo Founder, Rush Her to Prison

#92

Post by mef »

nicki_easy wrote: post #46
mef wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While the motion for reconsideration is probably motivated by her calls to engage the media about her conviction, her posting that she may "shank" her fellow inmates was a great way for her to ensure she get detained as soon as possible. http://www.scribd.com/doc/78196975/Mtn-Reconsider-Surrndr

Yes, but does Neil H. MacBride or anyone working in his office have a lick of common sense? It seems like people so unable to see things in proper perspective should be prohibited from exercising the legal profession. "The government cites nothing that warrants reconsideration. Reviewing NinjaVideo’s Facebook page, and a related internet forum, the government finds a woman who is letting off some steam in her online…

I agree with this analysis that she was joking, but being at a disadvantage having recently become a convict, she's the one who would most benefit from exercising common sense.

Re: US Authorities Silence NinjaVideo Founder, Rush Her to Prison

#93

Post by szopa »

droithomme wrote: post #81
lachyg wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What she was doing was definitely not what YouTube does / did! YouTube is a video sharing website, where the intent is to share video in which you own the copyright to, obviously with such a large community you will have people that will break the rules. NinjaVideo is a site that's #1 purpose is to upload copyrighted tv shows and movies, hours after their airing. Its defined purpose is piracy. Clear difference from Y…

They sure look the same to me. When I type in a name of a movie to see if there is a DVD on amazon yet, often Google, YouTube's owner, offers to show me the version someone has uploaded to their servers. Then, Google/YouTube makes revenue from showing me ads if I or anyone chooses to go to that page. It's absurd to claim YouTube is not about unlicensed content. The vast majority of their streamed content was unlicens…

What you are saying is incorrect.

YouTube has deals with major content producers (music labels, movie studios, etc.) which work in the following way: whenever we discover a video that infringes their copyright, they can choose to either block it, monetize it or track it. What blocking means is quite obvious; monetizing means that we put ads in front of the video and share the revenue; tracking means no ads are shown, but the owner can access analytics about the video (how often it is uploaded, how many people watch it, where from, and so on). You can read more about it here: [1].

As you may imagine, this system changes the incentives for copyright owners. When they decide to block some video, all they achieve is making some YouTube uploader unhappy. If they decide to monetize, on the other hand, they start making money from the upload, and the clip becomes, effectively, a marketing tool for their product. If you, say, watch clips from a TV series on YouTube, that may be a signal that you like the series and will eventually watch it on TV or iTunes. What is more, uploaders try to select clips they find interesting and think other people would like to watch – so this in some way turns YouTube into crowdsourced advertising.

(Disclaimer: I work as a programmer at Google and I work on YouTube.)

[1] http://www.youtube.com/t/contentid

Re: US Authorities Silence NinjaVideo Founder, Rush Her to Prison

#94

Post by lachyg »

Bud wrote: post #88
lachyg wrote: post #6

My comment doesn't directly relate to the issue in the article (how she's being put in jail early) but I'll go ahead anyway. Does anyone honestly think piracy should go unpunished? People that upload movies, music, games etc should be punished, as they are doing something illegal and and the people downloading should also be punished as they are getting the content without paying the creators. I'm curious if anyone h…

Lachyg: You claim that downloaders must be punished because "they are getting the content without paying the creators". You actually don't have any idea whether this is the case. Please stop pretending that you do know. For instance, I have often downloaded or streamed content that I've already paid for in two (cable subscription, DVD purchase) or even three different ways. Who are you to assume that a given customer…

I obviously am referring to the people that have not paid ("without paying the content producers"). I'm not making assumptions, I'm not trying to take some moral high ground as you're making me out to be taking, I'm simply starting a discussion point and looking for logical reasoning.

Your point has provided none, it's just provided some moral high ground.

You completely ignored everything I said about the uploader too, the focus of my point.

Re: US Authorities Silence NinjaVideo Founder, Rush Her to Prison

#95

Post by lachyg »

dillona wrote: post #87
lachyg wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm one of those people with none of those options. Yes, it's definitely still wrong. Just because we don't have the option, doesn't mean it's morally / ethically right and or legal.

I suppose I just disagree. These are ephemeral goods we are talking about. Nobody loses anything if you download a movie. I don't see how it is morally wrong to download something if the creators refuse to take your money.

Again, like all my opinions above I'm going to get downvoted, but I still can't comprehend how you can justify that it's not wrong to download it just because they're "ephemeral" digital goods.

How does that make it any different?

How about this: famous dress maker designs and creates an extravagant dress and then you, with your fine sowing skills replicate the dress entirely and wear it. Is that not wrong in your eyes?

The above isn't the best example, but I still can't see the reasoning as to why it's not wrong.

Re: US Authorities Silence NinjaVideo Founder, Rush Her to Prison

#96

Post by OstiaAntica »

szopa wrote: post #93
droithomme wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They sure look the same to me. When I type in a name of a movie to see if there is a DVD on amazon yet, often Google, YouTube's owner, offers to show me the version someone has uploaded to their servers. Then, Google/YouTube makes revenue from showing me ads if I or anyone chooses to go to that page. It's absurd to claim YouTube is not about unlicensed content. The vast majority of their streamed content was unlicens…

What you are saying is incorrect. YouTube has deals with major content producers (music labels, movie studios, etc.) which work in the following way: whenever we discover a video that infringes their copyright, they can choose to either block it, monetize it or track it. What blocking means is quite obvious; monetizing means that we put ads in front of the video and share the revenue; tracking means no ads are shown,…

Google purchased YouTube and THEN entered into those content deals. Before that, it was very touch and go for YouTube-- they couldn't afford their bandwidth, let alone licensing deals, and many commenters said that Google was stupid to take on YouTube's copyright liability.

Re: US Authorities Silence NinjaVideo Founder, Rush Her to Prison

#97

Post by tsotha »

brudgers wrote: post #44
nicki_easy wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is that germane? "[A] decision of the United States Supreme Court rejecting the First Amendment right of prisoners to provide legal assistance to other prisoners." She was sentenced but not yet a prisoner, etc.

And still had her free speech rights. Now she doesn't. There was nothing illegal about incarcerating her sooner rather than later (this is not commentary on the justness or lack thereof of her sentence). If one says "fuck you" to the judge, instead of "thank you," one is more likely to hear "well, fuck you," back.

This. Judges have almost unlimited power in the US, and it's just not very smart to spout off like that.

Re: US Authorities Silence NinjaVideo Founder, Rush Her to Prison

#98

Post by Natsu »

tzs wrote: post #77
nicki_easy wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I did, yes. Also this one: http://prospect.org/article/ninja-our-sites And this one: http://torrentfreak.com/ninjavideo-founder-sentenced-to-22-m... And this one: http://www.app.com/article/20120113/NJNEWS10/301130030/-Quee... And here are the sentencing memo, the government's motion for reconsideration of self-surrender, and the response to the government's motion for reconsideration of self-surrender: http://www.sc…

Then why did you say "RIP free speech"? Convicts generally either lose most of their rights, or have them severely restricted. She is a convict. The only reason she was not in jail (where she would have had no access to Facebook or Twitter or other social media) was because they had a shortage of space so were letting her stay out until space opened up. There is no free speech issue here.

You're arguing that this is legal. They're arguing that this is wrong.

See also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hume%27s_Law

Re: US Authorities Silence NinjaVideo Founder, Rush Her to Prison

#100

Post by toyg »

fourspace wrote: post #49
lachyg wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oh god no, definitely not. Monetary damages, yes. Prison sentences for a non-violent crime, definitely not.

Just to play devil's advocate here, what you're saying is that folks like Bernie Madoff should not go to prison.

Madoff did irreparably harm the community, and with his connections he could probably do it again. Hence, prison.
Post reply on HN