Live data from Hacker News

Anna's Archive loses $322M Spotify piracy case without a fight

torrentfreak.com

11–20 of 470 posts

Re: Anna's Archive loses $322M Spotify piracy case without a fight

#12
post #4

Extra problems with the copyright industry for no benefit. Hope the owner's OpSec was good enough and we won't hear about their unmasking.

Extra? I thought they were clearly violating IP law to begin with. Unless I misunderstand this is "water is wet" territory (both the judgment as well as what Anna's Archive did).

Re: Anna's Archive loses $322M Spotify piracy case without a fight

#13
post #8
post #2

this won't actually change anything right? > the operators of the site remain unidentified. The judgment [...] orders Anna’s Archive to file a compliance report within ten business days, under penalty of perjury, that includes valid contact information for the site and its managing agents

Slightly OT: How is it possible that the operators are unidentified? Surely someone must own the domain and pay upkeep for that? Wouldn't that expose at least one of them?

Yes your honor, we've identified one Big Bird of 123 Sesame St as being affiliated with the operators of the site based on the registration data.

The only reason you have to tell the truth is if you want to reduce the risk of arbitrarily losing control of the domain, such as having a chance to contest any abuse reports that might be filed against you.

Re: Anna's Archive loses $322M Spotify piracy case without a fight

#14
post #6
post #2

this won't actually change anything right? > the operators of the site remain unidentified. The judgment [...] orders Anna’s Archive to file a compliance report within ten business days, under penalty of perjury, that includes valid contact information for the site and its managing agents

Aren't they widely believed to be Russian? They've been running for long enough that they're almost certainly in a non-extradition jurisdiction and know to stay there.

[flagged]

Re: Anna's Archive loses $322M Spotify piracy case without a fight

#15
post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Aren't they widely believed to be Russian? They've been running for long enough that they're almost certainly in a non-extradition jurisdiction and know to stay there.

[flagged]

And we would be stupid to give them as access to cheese afterward. They had that chance and blew it.

There is unlikely to be any thaw within our lifetimes.

Re: Anna's Archive loses $322M Spotify piracy case without a fight

#16
post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Aren't they widely believed to be Russian? They've been running for long enough that they're almost certainly in a non-extradition jurisdiction and know to stay there.

[flagged]

> Russia after Putins fall will do everything to please other countries, to get back to good terms

This is pretty obviously not true? Russia's not going to try to please the us or most European countries, and many fugitives in Russia only angered those countries.

Re: Anna's Archive loses $322M Spotify piracy case without a fight

#17
post #4

Extra problems with the copyright industry for no benefit. Hope the owner's OpSec was good enough and we won't hear about their unmasking.

Extra? I thought they were clearly violating IP law to begin with. Unless I misunderstand this is "water is wet" territory (both the judgment as well as what Anna's Archive did).

Extra, because with the piracy of music they bought into equation members of (and implicitly) the recording industry https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recording_Industry_Association...

Re: Anna's Archive loses $322M Spotify piracy case without a fight

#18
post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Aren't they widely believed to be Russian? They've been running for long enough that they're almost certainly in a non-extradition jurisdiction and know to stay there.

[flagged]

Bold claims with no backing. Always bet on russian antagonism.

Re: Anna's Archive loses $322M Spotify piracy case without a fight

#19
> In addition to the damages award, Rakoff entered a permanent worldwide injunction

Because apparently U.S. courts and judges can do that. The more this is ignored by third-parties outside of the U.S., the better.

I'm not against international cooperation regarding common rules (I'm rather for), but the current context certainly doesn't designate the U.S. as a responsible custodian/enforcer of such rules.

Post reply on HN