PDA

View Full Version : My EXCLUSIVE interview with Alex Hanff - MPAA Victim


View Full Version : My EXCLUSIVE interview with Alex Hanff - MPAA Victim


catflap
April 15th, 2005, 09:44 AM
http://p2pnet.net/story/4528

p2pnet.net News Feature:- The only reason the MPAA (Motion Picture Association of America) and RIAA (Recording Industry Association of America) are getting away with victimizing file sharers in their pursuit of profit is because the people they're terroriziing are ordinary men, women and children who don't have a hope in hell of standing up to the multi-billion-dollar entertainment industry conglomerates.

However, p2pnet writer catflap was able to talk to one of the cartels' more recent victims - Alexander Hanff who may well be the man to go down in the history books as the first person to take the MPAA and RIAA thugs on in an open court.

Read on >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Pirate. Outlaw. Criminal. These words are commonly used by the illegal New World Order-controlled mainstream media and the monopolies of the MPAA and RIAA to describe filesharers, BitTorrent tracker owners, and owners of filesharing websites with quicklinks for other filesharing networks.

We know they’re wrong. Dead wrong.

Alexander Hanff isn't the stereotypical, Hollywood-fabricated, macho, gung-ho Bruce Willis “action man”. He’s better than that. Much better. He’s the real thing. A man of principle and conviction who’s faced adversity in his life head-on with bravery and integrity, and overcome unimaginable obstacles with dignity, against all odds.

He's a man of action with an honest sensitivity seldom written about. And now he’s standing against the MPAA’s unprecedented and unjustified attacks on honest, hardworking people who are breaking no laws.

On March 15, 2005 The Register ran an article on the then newest victim of the illegal and immoral MPAA-sanctioned terrorist attacks – Alexander Hanff, a UK citizen and owner of BitTorrent tracker and vibrant filesharing community DVDR-Core. The MPAA claims he was ‘“helping people download copyrighted films via P2P technology”.

The website’s servers were at one time located in the USA. The illegal MPAA movie cartel claims Hanff is “subject to the jurisdiction of the United States federal court by virtue of … engaging in BitTorrent activities through a US Internet Service Provider, among other reasons".

The fact he’s an English citizen doesn’t seem to bother them.

To fight these allegations, he’s retained lawyer David Harris, an expert on intellectual property and IT issues, who’s with the law firm UKITLaw.com. Harris is also representing Kevin Reid, another MPAA victim.

I recently spoke to Alex regarding his fight, P2P technology, and his life experiences which have brought him to this point. Below is our uncensored discussion.

Read On >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Alex, thank you very much for taking time out from your hectic life.

Catflap: Firstly, in your opinion, is file sharing copyright material really illegal? I've never heard of a court case or specific law regarding that. Would you say (your personal opinion) that if it’s being done, then it isn't illegal if money or services aren’t being exchanged; and, that falls under the category of "Fair Use" laws which are on the books in many countries?

Hanff: I do believe in fair use. I also believe that in many countries it's actually not illegal – it’s just that the MPAA grossly misinterpret copyright law to try and make it look illegal, as well as casting ludicrous aspersions that it's damaging their industry when they have no proof whatsoever that the individuals who download the material would never have purchased it from a retailer. This is very important, as it completely obliterates any claim for damages, since in reality they have lost no sales. Add to this that many articles/polls and studies are appearing to show conclusively that p2p only increases the profits of the companies screaming “infringement”, as people who become serious about the hobby end up spending more money on original material they have "tried" in the first place.

Catflap: Are films and audio different than TV programs, in that tv programs are free to all who have terrestrial/cable/satellite access to them, and people have been “allowed” to record and copy them for decades, whereas the ability to copy DVDs and CDs is relatively recent?

Hanff: Any audio that is played on the radio or on tv should be classed as “public domain” for personal use - or are Sony going to sue themselves for developing technology that allows people to record both music and television programs that they don't own the copyright for? The same goes for TV. My partner currently owns over $4,000.00 worth of original DVDs, as well as paying an $80 monthly subscription to cable tv. If she misses a show on a subscription service, why should she not be permitted to download it? She has already paid her "royalty" fee by paying subscriptions to the cable company.

Catflap: Are you using the "Betamax defense" or a "Google" search engine-like defense? Basically, if you can tell us, what is your defense argument?

Hanff: In the current case raised, our defense is simple: they have no jurisdiction and if they think they are going to try and tell me what to do when they have zero authority over me whatsoever, they can kiss my ass. We have elected officials to tell us what to do, so why would I pay attention to a fat cat corporation in a different country?

Catflap: I understand that your tracker's servers were located in the USA. Why did you decide to have them hosted there in the homeland of the MPAA and RIAA, when there are other locations available?

Hanff: Firstly we currently have no tracker. The site was based on a US server for approx 5-6 weeks way back in October last year. The entire site was shut down in December, at which point it was located in the Netherlands.

Catflap: You say you won't settle out of court or use any of the money from the defense fund towards a settlement. Obviously, the LokiTorrent sellout has made many filesharers suspicious of tracker owners, and made the MPAA and RIAA more courageous. And of course, it's put you in this terrible position.

Catflap: I noticed you have an online merchandise shop to help raise funds for your legal expenses. Besides that and the ads, are these the only forms of "donations"?

Hanff: We're not actively seeking donations (which doesn't mean we won't accept them). In light of the Loki sellout, we decided the most effective way to try and raise funds would be through banner ads and merchandise. That way the people who wish to help will actually get something back for their money. If anyone wishes to donate they can contact either myself or my lawyer for the details, but I must stress, I'm not pushing the donations. I completely understand why people would resent it and I sincerely sympathise with the people who got ripped off with Loki. At least by using banners linking to products and services they are interested in and merchandise they can use, they are getting something for their buck.

IHanff: I've no control over the independent donation account setup by my lawyer so I couldn't say how much has been donated so far.

Catflap: You must surely realise (since the Loki sellout and secrecy surrounding it) that if your legal expenses are not publicly shown, whether or not you settle out of court people will want - demand - to know how much money you collected and where the money went. Will you provide the relevant financial details on your website so that anyone can see it?

Hanff: I'll discuss that with my lawyer when it's appropriate. I'm not trying to be secretive and I'm sure it will not be a problem. My lawyer is working pro-bono, so the donations will go towards paying any extra costs (such as filing documents to the court and other expenses related directly to the case).

Catflap: Do you have any idea when your case might reach a court - if at all? Either in the UK or the USA?

Hanff: I've no idea.

Catflap: Would the lawyers consider some kind of "class action" type of suit to defend other UK-based trackers, filesharers, etc. in order to offset the cost for you?

Hanff: If either myself or Kevin win the case should it come to the UK, I expect we will certainly discuss a class counter-suit. I'm also looking into bringing criminal charges against the MPAA for "Money by Menace" and several other criminal offenses in the international arena, the US arena and the UK arena.

I wish the best of luck to Kevin in his case and will do anything I can to help support him. I hope others do the same.

Catflap: If you go to court and you lose, you will probably be faced with hefty fines and possible restrictions on your personal/professional internet usage. Is there a possibility of you going to prison? Will you appeal any decision against you? Will you move your servers to a different location?

Hanff: There's no chance of going to prison. I'm not a criminal, nor have I committed a criminal offense. In fact, in the UK I've not even committed a civil offence, and it's very questionable as to whether I've in the US either (remember, no judge has ever made a ruling on this issue and thus until they do, we have done absolutely nothing wrong). They cannot restrict my internet usage in any way whatsoever. If any judge tries to restrict my online activity, I'll ignore them. I'm a human being, not a pet - people don't tell me what I can and can't do with my own time, and anyone who tries will be faced with complete disregard.

Catflap: Are you going to support the boycott organized by p2punite, April 24-30?

Hanff: I don't see a boycott as a short-lived thing. I would like people to boycott Hollywood completely for an ongoing period until such time as they (MPAA/RIAA) start to respect public opinion. I'm not clued up on the p2punite boycott, but I'll look into it. I've to read so much stuff everyday I'm afraid I'll have to add it to the “to do” list.

Catflap: What facts or info is incorrect or unfairly reported or represented in the Register article, or elsewhere, that you would like to be cleared up?

Hanff: Well, the Register article was actually quite good, just some people chose to misinterpret it. I've already made clear on several forums (including our own) that I was responsible for the running of the forums and the chat room, but never had anything to do with the tracker configuration/setup or general technical administration. Everyone who knows me, knows I'm a community man. That is where my activity in DVDR-Core was concentrated.

Catflap: Alex, the mainstream media portrays filesharers and BitTorrent tracker owners as dangerous, hardened criminals. We know this isn't true. They don’t treat you like human beings. And once they've reported that, they move on to other things and never take the opportunity to interview the real victims like yourself and Kevin Reid.

Catflap: But to us, you’re not just a name on a website or lawsuit. So tell us something about yourself.

Hanff: I grew up in probably the worst of circumstances. My mother and father separated shortly after I was born, and remarried. The stepfather was a wife and child beater and a violent criminal as well as a sex offender. I've two sisters, both of whom were sexually abused, and I was severely beaten throughout my childhood. After my mother separated from our first stepfather, we had to move from pillar to post due to continued violent attacks. At one point my younger sister was even kidnapped by my stepfather.

When I was 3 years old my mother was almost killed in a car accident and spent several months in a coma, and a total of 2 years in hospital having very serious brain surgery. When she recovered and our stepfather had spent all her compensation money, she left him and life went from bad to worse. Our pets were brutally killed, our house was regularly broken into, and we lived in sheer terror.

My mother remarried again eventually, and when I was 12 I was shipped off to a government boarding school for gifted children, where I stayed until I was 17. The events that took place during that 5 year period are both too numerous and too difficult for me to discuss, but if my life was hard before I went to boarding school, it pales almost in comparison to my life from 12-20.

My entire family was ripped apart by child abuse and somehow they forgot about me. Being away at boarding school I lost everyone I ever loved, my entire family. I went from being in boarding school for 36 weeks of the year to having to fend for myself in the real world, with no job, no money and no home. Needless to say, times were hard, but I struggled on. I started to work with children and adults alike who had been sexually and physically abused, in an attempt I suppose, to understand my own life. That grew and I eventually started a non-profit organization online in the early 90’s, providing advice and information for people who had been abused all over the world. Further to this, I started to work with agencies around the world, tracking down paedophile rings and child pornography traffickers online. In 1997 I wrote an academic paper as part of a college course I was doing, based on the issues of paedophilia on the internet, outlining how serious a threat this was. I've provided evidence for several successful prosecutions (although I hope you will appreciate I cannot disclose which ones) around the world.

However, I had a serious blow to my emotional stability in 1999 when I discovered my father had died the previous year and quit my job as a teacher at the local university and moved to the US. At this point I ceased my work in the area of child abuse as I was not emotionally strong enough to look after myself, let alone other people. After six months in the US I returned to England.

I've been involved in many projects over the years, from setting up internet cafes to spearheading campaigns for social reform. In one instance in 1999 I was working on a campaign to stop companies in my city from exploiting students by paying illegal wages and working them 16 hours a day when they should have been studying. The result of this was corrective surgery on my face after being brutally assaulted by a local business owner who wanted to continue exploiting students and didn't like my campaign.

For the past 12 years I've worked in the technology field (specifically internet related) and have done everything from system testing a multi-billion pound welfare system for the government, to building hundreds of PCs, web design, programming, teaching, research, course development, technical support, and the list really is endless. I've constantly been screwed over by companies who wished to use my experience but when payday arrived, the cheques either bounced or didn't balance. To date (including interest) I'm owed around £30,000 in unpaid salary. In one instance an employment tribunal even ruled in my favour, but the company directors disappeared and I never saw a penny of the money they owed me (Cooee where are you now?).

I've seen things most people will never see. I've experienced things most people will never experience, and I've felt pain like many people will never feel.

The MPAA fight might seem impossible to win to some people, but there's nothing, absolutely nothing the MPAA can do to me that can even remotely compare to the suffering I've both experienced and witnessed in others. They are nothing. They (the MPAA) exist purely because we let them, no other reason. The only way we can take control of our own lives is to take it back from the mechanisms that manipulate them to their advantage and profit. I'm a man of conviction.

Some people would say I've been a victim all my life. I don't see it that way. I see myself as a person who has been shaped by experience. I don't dwell on my past - I live for the future, a future that as of last week now will contain my first child, and a wonderful and understanding partner who has an equally wonderful and understanding family. Without them I would be nothing, less than nothing. Heather truly is my reason for picking myself up again and going from strength to strength.

I'm a man who hates to see people mistreated and downtrodden. I'm a man who takes pride in absolutely everything he does. I'm a man who will fight for anyone should they need it. I'm a man of intelligence and I'm a man of so much love for his fellow human beings that I can't express it in words. DVDR-CORE was setup because I saw a floundering community who had been discarded by their original server owner and who wanted to continue in a safe and enjoyable environment. I was known on the forums for being the one who didn't take any shit. I told it how it was. If someone was causing problems for others, I would deal with them and no-one got in my way. I never made any money from DVDR-Core and I never downloaded anything from our tracker. In fact, I lost substantial amounts of money and dedicated around 80-100 hours a week into making sure people felt safe in our community.

The MPAA case is nothing less than an insult to everything I've ever done and everyone I've ever helped, and it's completely unfounded. I'll fight this case to the bitter end and then when it's over, whether I win or lose, I'll continue to live my life in the same fashion as before, trying to help people.

My father said to me once "it's nice to be important, but it's more important to be nice." That is my philosophy and I'll crush anyone who tries to stand in my way whilst trying to achieve it. The MPAA it off more than they could chew with me and they will regret it in the long run.

Catflap: Thank you very much for all of your time, Alex. We're certainly behind you 100%. I know p2pnet and the rest of the filesharing community will be watching the case very closely.

And now a special message from me – catflap - to the MPAA:

Pirate? Outlaw? Criminal? Hardly.

You've picked the wrong man to threaten with a lawsuit, especially since you have no jurisdiction where he lives.

You monopolies, you cartels, you New World Order megalomaniacs. You've created the situation you're in, and you dare to penalize and tear apart whole families and communities for the sake of a few extra dollars in your already-fat wallets?

What you're doing, and what you'd like to achieve, is diabolical in nature and dictatorial in concept and practice. Not satisfied with having completely morally bankrupted all of Western society with your inferior products and values, you seek to financially bankrupt decent, hardworking individuals and families, many of whom are struggling to make ends meet and who rely on the internet for affordable (legal and free) information and entertainment, because they cannot – and will not – pay the outrageous price of a cinema ticket, a dvd, or a cd.

You blatantly disregard the laws of other countries and constantly and consistently disrespect the basic tenets of civil and human rights afforded to everyone, no matter who or where they are.

You won't be able to contain the growing global dissatisfaction with your products and services. You'll not be allowed to control every, and any, form of communication. Your terrorist attacks and illegal blackmailing schemes will be stopped, and one way or another, you will be made to pay for the damages you've inflicted on society.

http://www.p2pnet.net/images/catflapcat.jpg

The Hunter
April 15th, 2005, 10:01 AM
One post is enough, and the second one was deleted.

notbob
April 15th, 2005, 10:09 AM
i'm sure the MPAA is taking notes right now thanks to your stunning article

they are looking at themselves in the mirror, and that lame kitty picture cliche and thinking to themselves, gee whiz, we were so wrong, let's throw a ticker tape parade in honor of catflap down hollywood boulevard!

a link would have been fine, instead of soiling my eyes with that tripe again

catflap
April 15th, 2005, 10:22 AM
One post is enough, and the second one was deleted.

sorry hunter ...the other post was a different article/interview which i thought would accompany this one nicely and would give more publicity to kevin. :)

moneoa
April 15th, 2005, 10:42 AM
hmmmm Now movies start to get a bit tricky when your talking lawsuits
Unless your grandma or 13 year old betty getting sued for its a small world
it is hard to fix the "victim" lable on some people.

The argument for Alex could be that he was downloading first run movies knowing that it was illegal and then got busted for it. Crying about it and calling yourself a victim is a bit of a stretch.

It's called the consequences of your actions.

If Alex claimed he didn't know it was legal then its the question of how he could not know.
It's in the theaters and everyone else has to pay for it and when he downloaded it he did not.

In the basic concept of the law that is stealing, plain and simple.

Now you might go "WHAAAAA ? How can this guy speak like this when he writes Anti MPAA and RIAA rhetoric in his articles."

The answer is simple.

The majority of us don't claim to harbour the illusion we are safe from pure righteousness in what we believe. We do what we do knowing full well the possible consequences of what we are doing. Then I offer that the argument on downloading music is different than the argument for downloading movies.

The music argument is based on the fights of fair use and DRM and the concept that if you buy their music you still don't own it.

Movies starts to get into a grey area because of the way they are released and distributed. Its not like buying a new release CD and not being able to put it on your flash player because of some bullshit that prevents you from doing so in some warped concept of "stopping the piracy problem"

My personal belief for movies is pretty straight forward.

I download, I like, I see in theaters, I buy the DVD.
I download, I don't like, the MPAA can find some other shmuck to buy the drek.

As Mark Cuban said a download does not nessisarily mean a lost sale and if it did imo
it's only in that before we had the ability to check out the movie in question you might buy the DVD and find out how shitty it is and lament your lost cash.

They lost that sale....but really they did not as it was not a movie you liked anyways. (so its a movie that now you know its bad you would not use it as a coaster)
They just lament the fact you didn't buy the move regardless.

So in my case I feel its all good because I will pay the royalties and the cost of something I DECIDE is worth buying and not what they frantically market to sell even if it is of dubious quality.

There is a fair segment of the population who do not do this at all though

They download the movie and then the divix rip and not once pay for anything regardless if they like it or not and thats where the straight up theft is.

I dont advocate the lawsuits as you all know but what I am saying here is that aside from the rare case where they are actually being victimised most of us know what we are doing is illegal and what we are involved in is the changing of laws and attitudes back to the satisfation of the customer and not corporate greed.

My point is be careful of how you use the word victim because it won't stick as readily to a large group of people.

AlexanderHanff
April 15th, 2005, 12:30 PM
hmmmm Now movies start to get a bit tricky when your talking lawsuits
Unless your grandma or 13 year old betty getting sued for its a small world
it is hard to fix the "victim" lable on some people.

The argument for Alex could be that he was downloading first run movies knowing that it was illegal and then got busted for it. Crying about it and calling yourself a victim is a bit of a stretch.

It's called the consequences of your actions.

If Alex claimed he didn't know it was legal then its the question of how he could not know.
It's in the theaters and everyone else has to pay for it and when he downloaded it he did not.

In the basic concept of the law that is stealing, plain and simple.

Now you might go "WHAAAAA ? How can this guy speak like this when he writes Anti MPAA and RIAA rhetoric in his articles."

The answer is simple.

The majority of us don't claim to harbour the illusion we are safe from pure righteousness in what we believe. We do what we do knowing full well the possible consequences of what we are doing. Then I offer that the argument on downloading music is different than the argument for downloading movies.

The music argument is based on the fights of fair use and DRM and the concept that if you buy their music you still don't own it.

Movies starts to get into a grey area because of the way they are released and distributed. Its not like buying a new release CD and not being able to put it on your flash player because of some bullshit that prevents you from doing so in some warped concept of "stopping the piracy problem"

My personal belief for movies is pretty straight forward.

I download, I like, I see in theaters, I buy the DVD.
I download, I don't like, the MPAA can find some other shmuck to buy the drek.

As Mark Cuban said a download does not nessisarily mean a lost sale and if it did imo
it's only in that before we had the ability to check out the movie in question you might buy the DVD and find out how shitty it is and lament your lost cash.

They lost that sale....but really they did not as it was not a movie you liked anyways. (so its a movie that now you know its bad you would not use it as a coaster)
They just lament the fact you didn't buy the move regardless.

So in my case I feel its all good because I will pay the royalties and the cost of something I DECIDE is worth buying and not what they frantically market to sell even if it is of dubious quality.

There is a fair segment of the population who do not do this at all though

They download the movie and then the divix rip and not once pay for anything regardless if they like it or not and thats where the straight up theft is.

I dont advocate the lawsuits as you all know but what I am saying here is that aside from the rare case where they are actually being victimised most of us know what we are doing is illegal and what we are involved in is the changing of laws and attitudes back to the satisfation of the customer and not corporate greed.

My point is be careful of how you use the word victim because it won't stick as readily to a large group of people.


You missed the point entirely. I am not being sued for infringing copyright. I am being sued for facilitating copyright infringement by pointing to sources to download material.

But I am not going to engage in yet another flame fest with notbob. Later

Alexander Hanff

DefCoN
April 15th, 2005, 12:42 PM
You missed the point entirely. I am not being sued for infringing copyright. I am being sued for facilitating copyright infringement by pointing to sources to download material.

But I am not going to engage in yet another flame fest with notbob. Later

Alexander Hanff

Dont bother man Notbob just looks for attention in anyway he can..He is a very weak hearted person with only feelings for himself as he has shown..Regardless of what i type here he will have a rebuttal to this comment with some classy words and some followers agreeing with him..So pretty much a moot point..

moneoa
April 15th, 2005, 12:43 PM
You missed the point entirely. I am not being sued for infringing copyright. I am being sued for facilitating copyright infringement by pointing to sources to download material.

But I am not going to engage in yet another flame fest with notbob. Later

Alexander Hanff
That was not a flame alex it was my take on it and my thoughts on why it gets a bit more complex.

Also I am not "notbob" I am Moneoa.
If it was posted to bring up discussion then I don't see the harm in my post.
If your set to argue with everyone who might have a different take or who offers an opinion
then you wont find many who will be interested.

Bryan M.

AlexanderHanff
April 15th, 2005, 01:07 PM
That was not a flame alex it was my take on it and my thoughts on why it gets a bit more complex.

Also I am not "notbob" I am Moneoa.
If it was posted to bring up discussion then I don't see the harm in my post.
If your set to argue with everyone who might have a different take or who offers an opinion
then you wont find many who will be interested.

Bryan M.

The first part of my post was for you, the second part was for notbob. No offence intended towards you at all. My apologies if it seemed that way.

Alex

notbob
April 15th, 2005, 05:19 PM
Dont bother man Notbob just looks for attention in anyway he can..He is a very weak hearted person with only feelings for himself as he has shown..Regardless of what i type here he will have a rebuttal to this comment with some classy words and some followers agreeing with him..So pretty much a moot point..


glad to see you taking the high road

nothing says "i'm classy and taking the high road" like posting an anti-notbob post for the sake of it

what about the article? that is what the thread is about, right?

hanff is a media whore

plain and simple

DefCoN
April 15th, 2005, 05:40 PM
glad to see you taking the high road

nothing says "i'm classy and taking the high road" like posting an anti-notbob post for the sake of it

what about the article? that is what the thread is about, right?

hanff is a media whore

plain and simple

Like i said you never dissapoint when it comes to being a attention whore..

AlexanderHanff
April 15th, 2005, 06:55 PM
I just hope he was a member on dvdr-core and is in the MPAA's download logs from when they were using the tracker to gather evidence. See how he likes it if he gets hits with criminal charges for downloading. Much more serious than the civil litigation against me.

Alexander Hanff

notbob
April 15th, 2005, 07:03 PM
I just hope he was a member on dvdr-core and is in the MPAA's download logs from when they were using the tracker to gather evidence. See how he likes it if he gets hits with criminal charges for downloading. Much more serious than the civil litigation against me.

Alexander Hanff


along with all the rest of your "customers" eh?

classy

AlexanderHanff
April 15th, 2005, 07:09 PM
along with all the rest of your "customers" eh?

classy

I never had customers. Customers pay for a service or product. Our users never paid for anything, they donated to the costs of the servers. Neither did we sell out to advertising companies for the vast profits received by the likes of suprnova and lokitorrents.

Again, talking out of your rear.

Alex

notbob
April 15th, 2005, 08:25 PM
I never had customers. Customers pay for a service or product. Our users never paid for anything, they donated to the costs of the servers. Neither did we sell out to advertising companies for the vast profits received by the likes of suprnova and lokitorrents.

Again, talking out of your rear.

Alex

again you completely miss the point

you: i hope you used my site and the mpaa busts you

me: like the rest of the people that used your site (if they were to bust one, they'd bust others

your exact words I just hope he was a member on dvdr-core and is in the MPAA's download logs from when they were using the tracker to gather evidence. See how he likes it if he gets hits with criminal charges for downloading. Much more serious than the civil litigation against me.

so you admit what you did infringed copyrights?

your lawyer really needs to have you gagged

AlexanderHanff
April 16th, 2005, 04:31 AM
again you completely miss the point

you: i hope you used my site and the mpaa busts you

me: like the rest of the people that used your site (if they were to bust one, they'd bust others

your exact words

so you admit what you did infringed copyrights?

your lawyer really needs to have you gagged

You truly are a prick, I have been trying so hard not to resort to calling you this, but I can;t stop myself anymore, you are an UTTER PRICK. I never said anything about me at all, I was talking about you. There is no dispute that our users may have been sharing copyrighted material, the MPAA have already outlined titles. The dispute is whether or not they were guilty of infringing copyright and whether or not I am responsible for their infringement.

Under british law (that state that governs me) neither is true. So just shut the f*ck up and stop trolling. Dude, if you give me your address we can discuss this face to face and I won't deny that at present I want to kick seven barrels of sh*t out of you. If you are such a man, hows about you give me your identity and we will do the face to face.

You are a waste of f*cking air.

Alex

AlexanderHanff
April 16th, 2005, 04:54 AM
My apologies to the other readers for my last post, but then there is no law against getting angry and this guy just needs to be taught a lesson. He is bang out of order, his comments are nothing less than trolling and are in breach of each of the boards rules that he is stalking me on, yet his posts remain.

If you want to work for the MPAA nb, then apply for a job, but then I doubt you are qualified to do anything useful since you seem to spend all your time talking utter tripe on forums rather than working like the rest of us.

I will no longer be responding to posts on this board by notbob nor on the other board he is trolling me.

For everyone else, thanks for the support.

Alex

notbob
April 16th, 2005, 05:03 AM
My apologies to the other readers for my last post, but then there is no law against getting angry and this guy just needs to be taught a lesson. He is bang out of order, his comments are nothing less than trolling and are in breach of each of the boards rules that he is stalking me on, yet his posts remain.

If you want to work for the MPAA nb, then apply for a job, but then I doubt you are qualified to do anything useful since you seem to spend all your time talking utter tripe on forums rather than working like the rest of us.

I will no longer be responding to posts on this board by notbob nor on the other board he is trolling me.

For everyone else, thanks for the support.

Alex


don't apologize, just do yourself and shut up and go away

being a complete asshole sure doesn't help your pr campaign

moneoa
April 16th, 2005, 08:44 AM
Alex writes his posts in infringers style, I have wondered since he fist posted if they are one and the same.

Could be this is common knowledge but I dont make my way to many other forums so I wouldnt know except by style of writing.

Could be wrong...

Unsueable Davey Brown
April 16th, 2005, 09:45 AM
I have to be honest. Usually there's a perverse part of me that kind of enjoys seeing someone getting attacked. Well usually there's some merit to it, and as long as it's not me, it can give me a bit of a smile.

On this one though, I don't know...

A couple of Brits get sued in America by media conglomerates. In this case there seems to be a possibility of success in fighting the case. The 2 decide to fight. The case is given attention on a filesharer board. One of the litigants joins the conversation, and offers information on the case. He gets attacked. I'm not sure I get that.

Personally I want the information. I'm not sure there's enough available yet to attack someone for standing up to big business. I mean are we against that now or something. Why are we supposed to be angry at this guy? I don't get it.

notbob
April 16th, 2005, 09:54 AM
I have to be honest. Usually there's a perverse part of me that kind of enjoys seeing someone getting attacked. Well usually there's some merit to it, and as long as it's not me, it can give me a bit of a smile.

On this one though, I don't know...

A couple of Brits get sued in America by media conglomerates. In this case there seems to be a possibility of success in fighting the case. The 2 decide to fight. The case is given attention on a filesharer board. One of the litigants joins the conversation, and offers information on the case. He gets attacked. I'm not sure I get that.

Personally I want the information. I'm not sure there's enough available yet to attack someone for standing up to big business. I mean are we against that now or something. Why are we supposed to be angry at this guy? I don't get it.

how about this post?

I just hope he was a member on dvdr-core and is in the MPAA's download logs from when they were using the tracker to gather evidence. See how he likes it if he gets hits with criminal charges for downloading. Much more serious than the civil litigation against me.

Alexander Hanff

he's spamming forums for "support", but he's a fucking asshole. any amount of free pr isn't enough. then when theregister posted an article, it wasn't good enough. he doesn't want his 15 minutes of fame to run out

every post he makes just makes him look worse, even with the sob story in the p2pnet article

oh how things change in a few short weeks

this is what he said in theregister

"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."

i guess nobody told him about garnishment

Unsueable Davey Brown
April 16th, 2005, 10:07 AM
I'm not sure characterising this issue as spam is a credible complaint.

It's a legitimate filesharing issue, and the guy were being asked to get angry at didn't post the thread. He responded to it. Personally if I was in a similar situation, I'd respond to a post that mentioned me too.

I'd hope that people who were reading the thread would be interested enough in the issue, to be curious for some inside information.

I'm sorry, but I just don't see the point of any kind of "flame Alex" campaign at this point. Perhaps when I know more.

notbob
April 16th, 2005, 10:15 AM
in case you didn't notice, he said this

But I am not going to engage in yet another flame fest with notbob. Later

Alexander Hanff

before i even addressed him, after which he started a flamefest with me

Unsueable Davey Brown
April 16th, 2005, 10:37 AM
But I am not going to engage in yet another flame fest with notbob. Later

Alexander Hanff

Well...I can't help noticing the use of the word, "another".

Apparently Monea is pissed at the guy too, or I don't know is he angry at the guy who posted the article?

I'm not sure it matters. Here's my point.

I'm as cynical and suspicious as the next guy. Possibly moreso. For all I know this whole business of fighting MPAA lawsuits is part of some kind of Industry disinformation trick.

The thing is though, either way, I want to know about it. I want the opportunity to examine the evidence. If this guy really is up to something, let him talk. That's the best way we'll get a fix on it. If he's not I'm going to feel bad that we didn't hear him out when he was trying to explain things to us.

moneoa
April 16th, 2005, 10:49 AM
Apparently Monea is pissed at the guy too, or I don't know is he angry at the guy who posted the article?
.
I am not angry at anyone.

Apparently that was your assumption

What gave you that idea? I was only irritated at a misunderstanding.
If you read my posts and the responses to them you'd see how not pissed and straight up I was.

I only gave an opinion to what I thought was a bit of a bias article especially how they used the word victim.

Other than that I wish no harm on the author of the article or the subject.

notbob
April 16th, 2005, 10:55 AM
Apparently Monea is pissed at the guy too, or I don't know is he angry at the guy who posted the article?




hanff wants control of his story

monoea made some good critiques of the article

if anyone strays from what he (hanff) has written on his cue cards, he flames (or his "supporters" flame) and tries to discredit them

he doesn't want to hear that he might lose, or that fighting the MPAA was a really stupid thing to do, or that he knew damn well there was danger in what he was doing (which is why he moved his servers in the 1st place)

he wants people to call him a hero. he wants a throng of supporters to tell him how brave he is. he wants articles about how unjust copyright laws are, and how he's a "victim"

like monoea said, he isn't a victim. he knew what he was doing, and got caught. the story of his life--it's someone else's fault. wicked stepdad, cooey, internet friend admins. keep passing the buck, running away

this time he can't run away

AlexanderHanff
April 16th, 2005, 11:17 AM
OK I will let people judge for themselves.

moneoa said
"The argument for Alex could be that he was downloading first run movies knowing that it was illegal and then got busted for it. Crying about it and calling yourself a victim is a bit of a stretch."

Which made me feel he was misunderstanding the case thinking I was being sued for downloading material, which I am not. So my reply was thus:

"You missed the point entirely. I am not being sued for infringing copyright. I am being sued for facilitating copyright infringement by pointing to sources to download material."

Simply making sure he understood what the suit was for. It was in no way a flame and I even apologised for the misunderstanding in the next post.

So yet again notbob is attempting to troll by misrepresenting the facts.

Mods, please remove this troll.

Alex

Further more, the servers were moved due to serious performance issues with managed.com, it was f*ck all to do with any legal worries, we were never served notice of infringement and we acted whenever our users reported a torrent. So again, typing rubbish about issues you know absolutely nothing about.

notbob
April 16th, 2005, 11:23 AM
thanks for proving my point so fast control boy

Unsueable Davey Brown
April 16th, 2005, 11:45 AM
There is one thing I'm curious about. It's the whole business of where does the money go.

At the time of the interview. The amount of money collected had not been posted. Has it been posted yet? If not when. Who exactly is this third party handling the defence fund? Who exactly has access to it. Money is being collected through the use of advertising banners, and the sale of merchandise. Does all of that money go directly into the defense fund?

It's been said at different times that excess money would go to the EFF, and also I'm pretty sure I read at his site that some of the money would go to site costs. Which one is true?

AlexanderHanff
April 16th, 2005, 11:54 AM
There is one thing I'm curious about. It's the whole business of where does the money go.

At the time of the interview. The amount of money collected had not been posted. Has it been posted yet? If not when. Who exactly is this third party handling the defence fund? Who exactly has access to it. Money is being collected through the use of advertising banners, and the sale of merchandise. Does all of that money go directly into the defense fund?

It's been said at different times that excess money would go to the EFF, and also I'm pretty sure I read at his site that some of the money would go to site costs. Which one is true?

The money being collected is not an active campaign, if people wish to donate, they maye, the total amount raised in donations so far is around 39 GBP.

The total amount of money raised through merchandise is currently $15.00

The total amount of money raised through banner advertising is currently:

Google Adsense: $109.00
SVP Communications: 41.64 GBP

Now, none of this money apart from the donations is yet in our control. The merchandise, Google and SVP money is still in the holding of the respective sponsors. Once the money has reached a value that is reasonable to transfer the money will be transferred to the UK and sent to my lawyer who will deposit it into the account.

I have no access to that account.

All the money from the defense fund will be used to help pay the costs of the case. Our lawyer is pro-bono but there will still be related costs in forming a defense. Such as submitting certain paper work, my lawyers travelling expenses etc. Any of the money left over once the case is concluded, will be given to EFF as a donation for them to use to help people in similar situations.

This has been explained several times already, I hope this finally clears the issue up.

Alex

Unsueable Davey Brown
April 16th, 2005, 12:09 PM
It's been explained, but usually in generalized terms. And I'm still waiting for the answer to the question, who exactly is the third party handling the fund. Is it your lawyer himself or is it an independent organization? What I mean is if we donate to this fund, and it pulls a Loki Torrent, who exactly should we go after?

Here's another one, if you have the time. Part of the case seems to rely on the idea that you yourself had no control over the site. If I understand you correctly you were saying others managed it. Later all offending files were taken off the site. Was that you? Is that a recognition of guilt?

AlexanderHanff
April 16th, 2005, 12:15 PM
It's been explained, but usually in generalized terms. And I'm still waiting for the answer to the question, who exactly is the third party handling the fund. Is it your lawyer himself or is it an organization? What I mean is if we donate to this fund, and it pulls a Loki Torrent, who exactly should we go after?

Here's another one, if you have the time. Part of the case seems to rely on the idea that you yourself had no control over the site. If I understand you correctly you were saying others managed it. Later all offending files were taken off the site. Was that you? Is that a recognition of guilt?

The account is handled by my lawyer.

Firstly, all the offending files? Torrent files are not illegal. The servers were wiped, they were not wiped by me, but they were wiped.

What you need to understand is under British Law I am not the owner of the database. Database ownership is specifically covered under british copyright law in which case the person(s) who compiled the database are the owners. The database was compiled by the users, not me. Under British Law, I would not be permitted to give that database to anyone firstly under copyright law as I am not the owner and secondly under criminal law (the Data Protection Act) as I am not the legal owner of the database. In order to meet the demands of the MPAA I would be forced to break both criminal and civil law here in the UK.

Alexander Hanff

Mels_Smileys45
April 16th, 2005, 12:24 PM
Who would have deleted the bad torrents from the database and who were they reported too? I'm not saying it was you BTW.

AlexanderHanff
April 16th, 2005, 12:28 PM
Who would have deleted the bad torrents from the database and who were they reported too? I'm not saying it was you BTW.

There are some questions I can't/won't answer on a public forum, that is one of them.

Alex

notbob
April 16th, 2005, 12:30 PM
There are some questions I can't/won't answer on a public forum, that is one of them.

Alex


why not? you have incriminated yourself more than enough already

that's right, keep control of the spin

Unsueable Davey Brown
April 16th, 2005, 12:35 PM
So I'm going to assume that the files were not wiped by the actual users. What I mean is if I uploaded a torrent on the site, I wouldn't come along later, and say "Hey wait a minute. Alex might get into trouble. I'm going to delete that". I'm not even sure if I could. Could I have? Either way I'd leave that to the site administrators.

I'll have to assume it was the administrators who wiped the files. It seems to be your contention then that these administrators were acting completely indepently of your knowledge. This would seem to suggest that you financed these guys to do whatever they wanted, but weren't concerned enough as to what they were doing to even drop in for a peek.

Are you rich?

Seriously is that what British law says? That the site owner is not responsible for what happens on the site, only the site administrators. The administrators were the ones who authorized and managed the compilation of the database correct? So if you beat this rap, will the site admins then become liable for legal action?

AlexanderHanff
April 16th, 2005, 12:41 PM
Databases are specifically covered under british copyright law and the data protection act. It is not my job to say who is liable for what, it is my job to prove I am not liable. I will not engage in a discussion on the liabilities of others.

Alex

Unsueable Davey Brown
April 16th, 2005, 12:49 PM
Databases are specifically covered under british copyright law and the data protection act. It is not my job to say who is liable for what, it is my job to prove I am not liable. I will not engage in a discussion on the liabilities of others.

Alex

Any possibility, you could request, and post something from your lawyer describing the exact legal ramifications on the compiler(s) of an illegal database under British Law, because personally I think that's a pretty important question.

AlexanderHanff
April 16th, 2005, 12:52 PM
No, the information is irrelevant as I do not know the identities of these people. The case in question is against me, not anyone else, so I say again, I am not willing to engage in -any- discussion about the liability of others.

Alex

Mels_Smileys45
April 16th, 2005, 01:04 PM
America, FUCK YEAH!
Coming again, to save the mother fucking day yeah,
America, FUCK YEAH!
Freedom is the only way yeah,
Terrorist your game is through cause now you have to answer too,
America, FUCK YEAH!
So lick my butt, and suck on my balls,
America, FUCK YEAH!
What you going to do when we come for you now

Mels_Smileys45
April 16th, 2005, 01:07 PM
Freedom isn't free
It costs folks like you and me
And if we don't all chip in
We'll never pay that bill
Freedom isn't free
Now there's a hefty fuckin' fee
And if you don't throw in your buck 'o five
Who will?

If you don't throw in your buck 'o five who will
Oooh buck 'o five
Freedom costs a buck 'o five

Unsueable Davey Brown
April 16th, 2005, 09:58 PM
There's a couple of things about this I'm still curious on.

Firstly does your lawyer really qualify as a "third party" to hold funds - the key word here being your. What I mean is ordinarily if you were talking about a 3rd party defence fund, I would be expecting you to be talking about a particular organization not accountable in any way to you, or subject to your particular demands. I'm not sure that calling your legal representative a third party makes him one. Speaking for myself when I think of a third party in a case such as this, I want someone I can deal with independently.

Secondly when you say

Databases are specifically covered under british copyright law and the data protection act. It is not my job to say who is liable for what, it is my job to prove I am not liable. I will not engage in a discussion on the liabilities of others.

Alex

there's a problem.

You're not being asked to reveal names here. I'm only curious about the actual, specific statute or whatever that you believe releases you from legal culpability under British law.

This addresses 2 issues that have been brought up on this thread by others. Those being winability of the case, and your right to the status of "victim".

You tell us that British copyright law releases a site owner from legal responsibility for what is put on his site, and puts blame instead on the site administrators. ( It has to be administrators, because they were the only ones physically capable of removing the files. You tell us the people who removed the files were the ones responsible for the database.)

I had occasion recently to research international libel laws. I found it interesting that if you were suing for libel across international borders you didn't sue the actual perpetrator of the libelious comment. You sued the publisher. Website owners were included in the definition of publisher.

So why do copyright laws differ in this respect? What specific part of the British copyright act, or whatever specifically releases the publisher of copyrighted files not owned by him from legal reprisal?

AlexanderHanff
April 17th, 2005, 03:59 AM
There's a couple of things about this I'm still curious on.

Firstly does your lawyer really qualify as a "third party" to hold funds - the key word here being your. What I mean is ordinarily if you were talking about a 3rd party defence fund, I would be expecting you to be talking about a particular organization not accountable in any way to you, or subject to your particular demands. I'm not sure that calling your legal representative a third party makes him one. Speaking for myself when I think of a third party in a case such as this, I want someone I can deal with independently.

Secondly when you say



there's a problem.

You're not being asked to reveal names here. I'm only curious about the actual, specific statute or whatever that you believe releases you from legal culpability under British law.

This addresses 2 issues that have been brought up on this thread by others. Those being winability of the case, and your right to the status of "victim".

You tell us that British copyright law releases a site owner from legal responsibility for what is put on his site, and puts blame instead on the site administrators. ( It has to be administrators, because they were the only ones physically capable of removing the files. You tell us the people who removed the files were the ones responsible for the database.)

I had occasion recently to research international libel laws. I found it interesting that if you were suing for libel across international borders you didn't sue the actual perpetrator of the libelious comment. You sued the publisher. Website owners were included in the definition of publisher.

So why do copyright laws differ in this respect? What specific part of the British copyright act, or whatever specifically releases the publisher of copyrighted files not owned by him from legal reprisal?

The account is not in my name and I have no access to it. The account cannot be touched by the MPAA.

Secondly, I never said anything about the site, I said the DATABASE of torrents is not mine under british law and thus I cannot be held accountable for its contents.

You can keep pushing as much as you like, I will NOT discuss these issues any further. I will check this thread next week to see if there are any more questions.

Alex

mr.stick
April 22nd, 2005, 02:30 AM
I'm a little confused.....

Does selling blank DVDs to a community of people that illegally download movies from your site not cause complications in your defense?

Just a question.

MS