Piracy site uses extortion with copyright holders

One of the most common myths surrounding piracy sites is that they are non-profit, that they are just “sharing” with others and that they aren’t money motivated like those dirty capitalists.

Recently, we sent a fully DMCA compliant notice to a large torrent site.  While our notice was accurate and fully DMCA compliant…we did forget one thing.  The lump of money the piracy site demanded.

Here’s their takedown policy: (Click to enlarge)

So not only does this site profit by selling ads using other people’s hard work, but in the event you want your property removed from their website, it’s going to cost you $50 for EACH instance of copyright infringement.  The process of removing URLs is something many piracy sites simply automate.  Now I know the piracy apologists out there (and you know who you are) like to tout the myth that piracy sites are just some non-profit freedom fighters fighting against the evil corporations, but how can you guys defend this?  Something tells me we won’t see TechDirt, ArsTechnica or TorrentFreak doing an article about this, since it conflicts with the narrative they like to push.

And since the pirate apologists love to trump up made up stories ($72 trillion dollars anyone?), let’s play that same game with them.

Takedown Piracy is closing in on our 7 MILLIONTH infringement removed.  So how can we twist that around to make up a scathing headline against piracy?  Oh yeah:

7 million infringements

x

$50 per infringement removed

=

TORRENT SITE DEMANDS $350,000,000 TO REMOVE MATERIALS

 

That was fun!

This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

158 Responses to Piracy site uses extortion with copyright holders

  1. Krosos says:

    So what? Copyright holder extort their customers by asking 150,000 dollars for every song shared.

    • Nate Glass says:

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitol_v._Thomas

      It’s a funny thing…when juries hear these cases, you lose.

      Now do what you’re told and reply how the juries and the judge were bribed by the ‘MAFFIAA’.

      • DarkStarr says:

        Too bad you linked a really poor example since the record labels refused the reduced $2,250/song (that being the 3rd time it was reduced) and instead indicated that they plan to appeal the decision. Maybe not 150,000 a song but not exactly that far off with such figures of $1,920,000 ($80,000/song) and $1,500,000 ($62,500/song). Also since your not asking H33t to remove 7 million links your figure of $350,000,000 is moot. Another thing is, websites in the US are forced to bear the costs whereas other sites in other countries do not have to since its at their discretion, I mean H33T could have very well have easily said k thx bai to removing anything. I mean Google is a company, they have to pay workers to remove the links so why shouldn’t they be compensated in exchange. Anyways to the point of H33t and its so called “US Business” its not really, it could be said its DIRECTED at US users but that’s it.

        • Nate Glass says:

          I think you missed the point of my $3.5 million thing. Clearly my intent went right over your head.

          • Moose says:

            Was the intent to say that the MPAA aren’t money grabbing bastards? Lol, when I live in a posh mansion in hollywood ill start paying my fellow richies royalties.

  2. Derp says:

    A childishly-worded post like this doesn’t really make your business look like the best choice for rightsholders.

    • Nate Glass says:

      Thanks Derp. I’m glad Derp was here to give me business advice.

      In actuality, getting h33t’s scam more attention was my whole point, and TorrentFreak helped that. I know Andy is going to write his story to make me look bad, that’s their slant and they are entitled to it as opinion pieces.

      Thanks for the tips!

      • Johnny G. says:

        That slant you mentioned? It’s facts. Why do I know? Because I can check them! And you blog post?

        “Takedown Piracy is closing in on our 7 MILLIONTH infringement removed.”

        So you feel entitled to this business while h33t are extorting? You seem to forget that DMCA does not cover non-US based webpages.

      • Danny says:

        h33t’s ‘scam’ is not a scam, they are simply trying to recoup their costs associated with take-downs. They are not a multi million dollar company that you seem to portray them as.

  3. blackbeard says:

    I got here from reading torrentfreaks article, they linked directly to this page… so that’s 1-0 :p

    You present it as self evident that everyone else should bear the financial burden of dealing with your copyright trolling. I don’t see why that would be self evident. If you are asking for 7 million infringements to be dealt with by innocent third parties (such as google or youtube) then surely you should be paying something for the service these third parties are providing you. One way or another these processes cost money, IMHO you should be paying for it yourselves.

    • Nate Glass says:

      Hmmmm…how is “everyone else bearing the financial burden”? Last time I checked no tax dollars were spent helping my business. In fact I paid in quite a bit of taxes last year. Something those Pirate Bay boys were pretty keen to avoid, the whole paying taxes thing. But don’t let logic get in the way of your slam on me.

      This is a new one. You are actually saying that we should pay criminals to clean up their sites. That’s a pretty slippery slope my friend. I’d love to see you apply that across the board since you believe in it. Try thinking of the precedent you’d be setting. I’ll wait.

      • Johnny G. says:

        First of all – why should any tax dollars be spend to help your business? Or any business? Also – where did you get the information that “pirate bay boys” aren’t paying taxes? Those guys aren’t even living in Sweden and how would you know if they pay taxes? Ad hominems, anyone?

        Second – h33t aren’t criminals – no charges brought, no convictions, no crime. If DMCA doesn’t cover their country – libel laws probably do; that’s a pretty slippery slope my friend.

        Luckily not all law systems are precedent based.

      • Danny says:

        Lots of Tax dollars were spent when the DMCA was created which your business model relies upon.

        The Pirate Bay are not a company and nor are their under the jurisdiction of US law so why would they pay taxes to your government? They are a website that offers a perfectly legal service to their users.

        Criminals? Don’t make me laugh. You are saying Google and Youtube are criminals? Please show the court case which proves that Google are criminals in regard to copyright infringement. They spend lots of money taking links and videos down for the likes of you and yet digital ‘piracy’ is always on the increase. Maybe your system doesn’t work.

        On the comment of your 7 millionth take down, how much money do you predict you have saved the right holders? I would say $0.

      • Andrew says:

        There are huge tax subsidies given to movie studios as incentive to film in certain locales that typically don’t pay for themselves. Then they do some hollywood accounting and show to not be profitable, paying even less taxes.

        Maybe you don’t cheat the taxes but your employers do.

      • Bob says:

        People at Google and youtube are criminals?

  4. Pianogamer says:

    $50 to stop $150,000 infrigments seems pretty cheap to me. Also maybe it will reduce those 30+% falselsy reported infrigments, that never seem to bear the consequnses of perjury breach.

    • Nate Glass says:

      So if, as YOU say, 30% are false, then YOU are saying 70% are legit. So by your logic, you’d have no problems with h33t being charged the $150,000 for each of those 70% right?

      Of course you wouldn’t. Because you don’t want there to be ANY penalty for copyright infringement…but you are surely in favor of penalties for false positives.

      That’s fair right?

  5. Elliott Clark says:

    If the site in question (I believe it’s h33t.com) is outside US jurisdiction then surely the DMCA doesn’t apply, so they have no obligation whatsoever to comply with a DMCA takedown? And even if it did, why should a third party like h33t be spending time and money on removing material that they themselves haven’t actually uploaded?

    Besides, I’m informed that you yourself take a fee from rightsholders to do their bidding (correct me if I’m wrong) so this complaint seems rather hypocritical to me.

    • Nate Glass says:

      So if h33t doesn’t remove it, then who does? I’m sure you would prefer no one removes it.

      Unfortunately, they are doing business in the United States, using US-based advertising networks.

      If you think me charging a fee where clients seek me out and are under no obligation to procure my services – and h33t charging a fee everytime THEY infringe the rights of my clients – are the same thing, well then we can’t really have a good debate here because you’re not really being honest with the situation.

      • Elliott Clark says:

        Firstly, thank you for publishing my comments, you have proven me wrong in that respect.

        It is my belief that the responsibility for infringing links lies with the uploaders, not the site. Until today I had never heard of h33t, so in fact I have no preference as to whether or not you choose to issue a takedown notice for any infringing url on their site and see no reason why you might think I would.

        The second part of your answer seems unclear to me – are you saying that the owners of the site are US citizens? If not, I really don’t see how you can expect them to comply with US law. In fact, if the DMCA really does apply here, and $350,000,000 were really at stake as you suggest, I’d expect you’d be taking legal action rather than simply putting together a whingeing post on wordpress.

        At least this site seems to be at least semi-compliant with takedown requests, whereas sites like TPB refuse point blank to remove a single link. I see this post as hypocritical due to the fact that you give the impression of being strongly opposed to piracy, despite your business model being entirely dependent on it.

        • Nate Glass says:

          My business model is about as dependent on piracy as saying the police are dependent on rape and murder.

          If there was no piracy, I wouldn’t need this business that’s pretty obvious, but then you’re taking it another step implying that I benefit from piracy and thus should appreciate it? Obviously this is a pretty weak argument which you could use to call for those fire profiteers over at the fire department. And they’re getting your tax dollars! Boo! Whatever.

          If the responsibility lies with the uploaders then why isn’t h33t charging the UPLOADERS $50 every time they upload copyrighted materials instead of putting into the h33t.com bank account? You decry me for as you claim “basing my business on piracy” but you’re more than willing to give actual piracy sites a pass for some reason that remains unclear.

          As to the second part of my answer, h33t is using advertising services based in the United States. That means they are doing business in the United States. They are not filtering US traffic and they are taking US money. This has been seen as enough by many courts to make the case for complying with US law. Much in the same way Yahoo had to filter Nazi materials from French sites and the way Google filters content for Communist China. Furthermore, what h33t is doing probably isn’t even legal under Canadian law where they are operating out of. Since they are the only ones employing the extortion scheme, no one else has been sued for this, but I would love to see them defend this in court. Something tells me even Gary Fung would facepalm this move.

          • Elliott Clark says:

            I think it’s pretty feeble to compare piracy to murder and rape. I don’t condone piracy but there’s a broad line between taking somebody’s life and watching one of your clients’ porn films without paying for the… er… privilege. Also, the Police in my country receive a salary that is minimal to say the least, whereas you’re clearly making a tidy profit out of what appears to be a successful business.

            It’s quite clear that you see yourself as the freedom fighter which you claim the torrent sites are not. Rest assured, I am under no illusions when it comes to the money these sites make through advertising. I draw the comparison, however, that neither them nor you make money by COMMITTING piracy, but both make money as a result. So what separates you from them?

            Having h33t charge their users for infringing material seems like an easy answer, but it doesn’t take a genius to work out that attempting to implement such a scheme would be utterly nonsensical – do you think they ask each user for credit card details before each upload, just in case?

            Of course Google and Yahoo! are subject to US law – they’re US companies! Given that you are in the US and I’m in the UK, I don’t think either of us can base our arguments on what “probably isn’t legal” in Canada.

          • Nate Glass says:

            You just made my point on the Google and Yahoo example. They were made to comply with the LAWS of FRANCE and CHINA.

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LICRA_v._Yahoo!

            re: h33t….so you admit that charging users who abuse the system would be a better answer but since you don’t think they could implement it, you’re fine with charging the damages to the victim and not to the perpetrator. Brilliant!

            Just out of curiosity what are you basing this claim on:
            “whereas you’re clearly making a tidy profit out of what appears to be a successful business.”

            That’s pretty easy to set me up as some wealthy businessman enriching myself off piracy when you in reality, have no actual basis for this claim. You’re simply jumping to that in order to paint the picture of me that you want me to be. Facts be damned!

          • Elliott Clark says:

            Well you can’t stop talking about your upcoming 7 millionth removal, even at 10 cents per link we’re talking quite a lot of money, certainly in comparison to the Police salary I was referring to. Forgive me if this assumption was irrational.

            I think the fundamental issue we disagree on is whether or not the service provider (h33t) is the “perpetrator”. In an ideal world we can both see where the axe should fall, but certainly the way I see it, that should neither be on you nor the site. You’ve been put in one situation where you’ve had to pick up the slack instead of the site and run squealing to the blogosphere about extortion and organised crime. Everything’s fine when it goes your way, isn’t it?

            We’re clearly not going to be friends so I shall go to bed (it’s late here) and you go back to deciding whether or not it’s worth negotiating with h33t over the ‘bulk deal’ they’re offering,

          • Nate Glass says:

            Charging people by the link is a terrible way to deal with customers. Not to mention a headache and would rightfully be an area for clients to be skeptical of your business.

            If you think h33t will ever get a penny out of me, you are mistaken.

            My whole goal was to shine the spotlight on their racket and that was accomplished. The Trademark violations just sweeten the deal.

            h33t didn’t want to play ball, now they can feel some real ‘h33t’. See what I did there? Pretty witty!

          • Aussie Bob says:

            Your argument that saying you profit from piracy is like saying that police profit from crime and firemen profit from fires is ridiculous. Both firemen and police are paid a salary to be on stand by in case something happens, where as you are paid commission when you take an “infringing” link down. (the inverted commas because the link may or may not be infringing, it may be fair use but what do you care.) It is far better to compare yourself to a real estate agent, but wait that destroys your point oh well it was feeble anyway.

            Furthermore the way you argue a point is like a child yelling at another child: “I’m right because I/Mummy/The TV says so”, which to put another way is you say that any point of view that doesn’t agree with your own is wrong and therefore should be dismissed.
            learn to argue.

      • Martin Stanfield says:

        you are mistaken if you think h33t are doing business in the states, 5 seconds on their site and you can see that their ad’s are being provided by Adperium.com, a business based out of the Netherlands… so how does the DMCA apply?

  6. Elliott Clark says:

    I highly doubt that either of my comments will make it past censorship, but to satisfy my curiosity, please at least explain the grounds on which you make the assumption that the RIAA’s $72 trillion lawsuit story is untrue – I would put very little past an organisation who tried to use the DMCA to blacklist the entire electro-pop section of last.fm due to one allegedly infringing track. You have my email. Thanks.

  7. mr man says:

    TorrentFreak did do an article.

    • Nate Glass says:

      Yay! I have to thank them for getting h33t’s scam more attention.

      • Adam says:

        Not really a scam. You realize that H33T is outside the U.S, therefore your DMCA notices are nothing more than toilet paper right? They have no legal obligation to act on those notices. They can, however, agree to act on those notices for a fee.

        Maybe instead of a DMCA notice, you should try an actual personal email (Not a template) where you explain the links that are infringing on your clients rights, and explain in a mature manner what you hope to accomplish and try to work with them?

        I’m a Canadian who used to host his sites in the states. I now host them in Canada due to better cost (I know, strange). I have an iOS and Android game I developed, and a support/community forum hosted on said server. Someone posted a picture of someone elses copyrighted material. I received a DMCA notice followed up minutes later by a guy threatening to sue me out of business if I don’t remove his copyrighted material.

        I printed out the notice, took a shit, and wiped myself with the paper. I then sent a video of the entire thing to copyright owner explaining next time he wants something removed from my sites to ask nicely, and not expect me to follow another countries laws.

        Was it immature? Sure. But if i had just gotten the DMCA I would have educated him on the fact that I’m not bound to follow the DMCA, but as a curtesy would remove the offending image and work with him on a personal level in the future. But the second you threaten to “sue me out of business” I’m doing nothing for you. The post is now protected so community mods can’t delete it and global stickied.

        Some common decency goes a long way.

        • Nate Glass says:

          Cool story bro. Tell it again.

          • Adam says:

            Well, you can continue with your current business model, which is only affective within the U.S (And you should certainly continue doing that for legitimate requests in the U.S), but when you are dealing with someone outside of the DMCA jurisdiction, I suggest trying to work with them on a personal level.

            Kindness goes a long way in getting what you want.

          • Nate Glass says:

            The funny thing is, I actually get along quite well with many torrent site operators. Because I have found it easier for me as the middle guy to get results where my clients might take things a bit more personally.

            This site is the exception. Because they’re the only site that told me they wouldn’t process a simple takedown notice unless we sent them a bag of money.

            Call me crazy but I don’t think that’s kindness at all.

  8. seventytwotrillion says:

    What 72 trillion dollars? Oh, you mean this one:

    “So the RIAA is quite correct, they did not ask for a specific number and they did not ask for $72 trillion. However, they did at one point seem to be asking for statutory damages not for each file that was shared but for each copy of each file: multiply that up and you get the $72 trillion figure. So that’s not actually what they asked for although it is implied in one of the detailed legal arguments that they tried to use.” (from forbes.com)

    Yup, seems quite made up indeed. Of course, they did end up getting $105 million settlement out of it, so all is well.

  9. Kodabar says:

    Well you were asking a non-US site to comply with a US law that doesn’t apply to them; they’re entirely free to ignore you. If, as the copyright lobby asserts, every download is a lost sale, then fifty bucks is a bargain isn’t it?

    Your own site says:
    “We also work closely with several attorneys with a successful track record in prosecuting copyright infringement. Regardless if you are based in the United States or not, you can be prosecuted and you will in all likelihood lose.”

    And goes on to say:
    “To not comply means you are forfeiting your Safe Harbor protections and can now be sued by our client with a penalty of up to $150,000 per infringement.”

    You certainly make it sound as though you’re very successful in prosecuting sites (even non-US ones) and getting huge payments for doing so. $50 to net $150,000 still sounds like a heck of a deal, unless your claims for prosecution levels are as dissembling as using the word “extortion” in the title of this article.

    I realise you’re narked off at the suggestion of having to pay to enact a takedown, but it seems surprising that you’ve fired off 7 million notices without sending one to that site before.

    • Nate Glass says:

      Actually, the site in question is running ads using US-based companies. Thus they are “doing business” in the United States and should someone wish to, they can be taken to court. The fact that their policy requests money for removals will not get them any friends in the justice system. And now, thanks to me….and THANKS TO TORRENTFREAK…their scam is out there for everyone to see.

      You’re welcome man!

      WE don’t prosecute websites. We are not a litigation company. We are a removal company. If a client wishes to pursue litigation against a website we will help in whatever way we can. We have never gotten $150,000 out of anyone. If you were aware of the copyright laws of the United States, standard statutory penalties are up to $150,000. Therefore we think it’s only right to let people know that this is what statutory damages are, it’s a huge amount. It’s not worth it to take the chance.

      We sent a bunch to that website before and they weren’t complied with, probably because we didn’t send over a big bag of money for them. They are a criminal outfit. If you sell stolen cars you don’t get to charge the police a fee to give each car back.

      This is extortion. I’m sure the next step for h33t, like all organized crime, would be to start a protection racket, ie. ‘We won’t allow your torrents to be uploaded if you just pay us a fee’.

      And the big difference between us charging a fee and h33t charging a fee lies in whether you agree with the UN’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Our clients seek us out, they created a product and they want our service. If they want to go with another service, they are free to. If they want to give their product away for free, they are free to. If they want to handle takedowns in-house, they are free to. The decision of what to do with their property rests with them. h33t takes that right away and charges a fee to do it. That’s just wrong.

      • Steve Jobs says:

        How is it wrong for H33T to do this but it’s right for you to do this? You’re a hypocrite!

        You profit from piracy even more so than most of the torrent sites. Without piracy you’d be out of business. You gain thousands (millions?) in cash for taking down pirate links and when a website outside of the USA recieves one from you you expect them to be OK with that? USA doesn’t own the world. Infact, USA owns the USA. As is Russia who owns Russia. Asia is Asia etc. Dude, if it takes them time and money to take these links off their website and also to reduce fake takedowns charging $50 sounds great considering people like you claim thousands and sometimes millions in damages for them publishing these links. $50 is close to nothing in that regards.

        • Nate Glass says:

          I can always count on freeloaders to paint everyone in a group with the same brush.

          Steve, can I call you Steve, you see…unlike what I see day after day from the TorrentFreak cultists…not everyone thinks alike. I know it’s easier to compartmentalize every pirate believes the same thing and every anti-pirate believe the same thing but that’s not reality my friend.

          If you think for a second I profit more than The Pirate Bay then they have really pulled the wool over your eyes my friend. You have bought into the myth that sites like those are just free and ad supported “just to cover costs” and those guys are laughing all the way to the bank at your gullibility.

          Huge difference between what it is I do and what it is h33t is doing. I know after TF’s article this is the argument you guys are going to try and make, but man…it’s a weak one and the only people who won’t have the reasoning to see through it are the rest of the folks in the echo chamber with you.

          I don’t infringe my clients rights. That’s kinda a big difference. Nay, that’s a huge difference. But in order to make your argument you have to employ cognitive dissonance and just ignore that little nugget.

          h33t is doing business in the United States using a US-based advertising service. However, whether or not they have to comply with the DMCA is beside the point. What they are doing is not legal even under the current laws of Canada, much less when the Canadian DMCA-style law is eventually passed.

          I find it funny that a process that most other torrent sites can do perfectly fine with automated is something that h33t has to charge money for. Man you guys are such suckers. I thought the pirate community used to have one of it’s tenants that it was wrong to profit from piracy. Boy have you guys sold out. Now you’ll give any for-profit pirate a pass without the slightest bit of scrutiny. You’re so blinded by your cause that you can’t even dare criticize anyone in your group even when they do things clearly against the foundations of your movement. That’s really sad.

          My goal was to get h33′s scam more attention. And we did just that.

          Thanks for playing!

          • AlexH says:

            Proof of The Pirate Bay “millions”? There are a lot of rogue sites out there that profit from IP theft – which is what I disagree with, using someone elses work for commerical purposes. I do, however, think individuals should be allowed to engage in filesharing and a “new” market be made in licensing, merchandise etc.. but that’s not for here – but TPB at least in it’s original incarnation was not about profit from piracy. TPB also have a huge, huge network that probably costs an untold amount monthly but can’t be disclosed for obvious safety reasons.

            Yeah, i’m aware TPB is owned by a commercial entity.

            I follow your posts, Nate. And in general, I respect you most among the anti-piracy crowd – I don’t agree with what you do, but at the end of the day you’re a business operating within the law – but please don’t resort to tactics like lying and exaggerating to try and villify pirates. This is a MAFIAA tactic and undermines all the work you do to arve yourself in a positive light.

        • noman says:

          >(millions?)

          He runs a service business, but he has advertising on his site. He’s not making millions, or anywhere close to it. I’m sure he thinks he’ll be a millionaire some day, but he’s just another Righthaven waiting to happen.

          • Nate Glass says:

            I have no ‘advertisements’. I have links to Colt Cabana’s page (I get zero dollars from this), I have a link to a good book by Robert Levine (using the same link the author provides so he gets any referral money), I have an image up for Artists Bill of Rights (again…I derive ZERO dollars from this)…and FreshBooks, which I credit with really helping me streamline my business. And to date that has brought me in ZERO DOLLARS. My website is not where I make money. I mean I’m not an advertising whore like h33t.com pushing “get laid tonight in Reseda” ads am I?

            But your post is soooooo sweet because you mention Righthaven. Did ya bother to see who it was that eventually destroyed Righthaven? Why Mr. Marc Randazza….whom I happen to also link to, because he’s such a badass.

            Oh it burns doesn’t it????

          • Nate Glass says:

            You guys can’t decide whether you want to portray me as a wealthy evil businessman or a smalltime nobody. I think it’s hilarious. You just don’t know what to do. Can’t get your stories straight.

            Look you guys want to make me out to be the bad guy, at least ya gotta tell me what character ya want me to play. I’ll play along. But ya need to get it together and figure out how you want to portray me in order to justify your actions. I’ll wait.

      • gideongallery says:

        “Actually, the site in question is running ads using US-based companies. Thus they are “doing business” in the United States and should someone wish to, they can be taken to court. ”

        you might want to look up some info about a failed law SOPA. The whole point of that law was to extend the blacklisting process to revenue sources BECAUSE THE CURRENT LAWS DON”T ALLOW THAT.

        Your using the current laws which is the point.

      • Master says:

        >Actually, the site in question is running ads using US-based companies. Thus they are “doing business” in the United States and should someone wish to, they can be taken to court.

        How do you know that the ad company is based in the US?There are a bunch of ad companies outside the US. We’re not the only country in the world.

        >The fact that their policy requests money for removals will not get them any friends in the justice system. And now, thanks to me….and THANKS TO TORRENTFREAK…their scam is out there for everyone to see.

        It does require time to remove links, and to check whether the DMCA request is valid or not. Also, you act like h33t is wrong and you are “right.” Hell, I’d charge for link removal too.

        >If you were aware of the copyright laws of the United States, standard statutory penalties are up to $150,000. Therefore we think it’s only right to let people know that this is what statutory damages are, it’s a huge amount. It’s not worth it to take the chance.

        Copyright law in the US needs reform, badly.

        >We sent a bunch to that website before and they weren’t complied with, probably because we didn’t send over a big bag of money for them. They are a criminal outfit. If you sell stolen cars you don’t get to charge the police a fee to give each car back.

        They don’t have to comply, because they’re located outside the US. Therefore, they don’t have to do anything for you. Also, your analogy doesn’t apply to this situation; it’s irrelevant.

        >This is extortion. I’m sure the next step for h33t, like all organized crime, would be to start a protection racket, ie. ‘We won’t allow your torrents to be uploaded if you just pay us a fee’.

        Like the RIAA and the MPAA extorts people everyday for thousands of dollars? This isn’t organized crime, and they would never charge for uploading torrents (which are NOT illegal) to their website.

        >And the big difference between us charging a fee and h33t charging a fee lies in whether you agree with the UN’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Our clients seek us out, they created a product and they want our service.

        The whole idea behind piracy is that you don’t get to see what you’re getting before you get it. For example, buying a ticket to a new movie. You don’t get to see what it’s about before you see it, and if it sucked, you wasted your money. If you provide a crappy product no one’s going to buy it.

      • “Thus they are “doing business” in the United States and should someone wish to, they can be taken to court.”

        Actually, legally, the advertising company is ‘doing business in Canada’, since it’s the US company that is being employed to work for a canadian company, on canadian servers.

        Interacting with a US business doesn’t submit you to US jurisdiction automatically. The US company still has to, but a Brit buying a Ford isn’t subject to US law, Ford there is subject to UK (and EU) law. It’s the provider-providee relationship.

        It’s pretty basic employment and contract law, really.

  10. DrKillPirates says:

    All take downs need to be validated, why would someone remove a url from just anyone requesting it?

  11. mr man says:

    You wont let this comment pass moderation
    It doesn’t fit your agenda of rational debate.
    You could attempt to crush my argument , but you wont.

    Your math
    $350,000,000 and…. That’s only 2333 files.
    1 file = $150,000 right ?

    but the cost of 7 million files saved
    at the price of $150,000 per file
    7,000,000 X $150,000
    $1,050,000,000,000. ( $1 trillion, 50 billion )

    That seven million dollars investment looks like a good deal… no ?

    More money than sense ?
    Just pay the $50 for imaginary property do be unlisted from the index.
    It will work , because then all the computers in the world (internet) , will remove the files.
    Point being , DMCA works for hosting sites , not networks , unless you can DMCA the world with American law.

    Don’t like “piracy sites” profiting ?
    Why go after file sharing networks with no centralized sites ? ( eg..gnutella)
    Why not make a network free from “piracy sites” ?
    or….
    The industry could set up filesharing sites , all the profit then goes to the artists.

    Rational debate , where ?
    The technology today has made many old business models obsolete.
    Care to discus ? rationally, without being a protectionist of the old business models ?

    I look forward to this comment not getting through moderation.
    I have recorded video to keep as proof.

  12. AlexH says:

    It’s great you’re running this service out of pocket and not charging to send takedown requests on behalf of others.

    Oh, hold on a sec… you are. so what is this bullshit?

    • Nate Glass says:

      Since our service charges a fraction (and I’m talking one of the fractions where the bottom number is waaaaay bigger than the top number here), I don’t have a problem with what it is I do.

      So if you think me charging my clients (although I have what many would probably say is an unwise number of pro-bono clients) a fee is wrong than you must also agree that this piracy site’s extortion is wrong. Or are you saying that 2 wrongs make a right, which in that case, you must not have a problem with me at all.

      Logic baby.

      • Steve Jobs says:

        He is calling you a hypocrite for saying one is right yet you say the other is wrong.

        If it’s right for you to do this, why is it so wrong for H33T or any other website to do this?

        H33T isn’t within the USA and therefore you can’t expect them to follow the USA’s laws. Send DMCA takedowns to sites within the USA and you wont have anything to complain about.

        • Nate Glass says:

          The difference is producers aren’t held hostage to assert their rights if I charge for my service, and my service isn’t compulsory unlike h33t’s policy.

          I get paid for adding value to a producer’s product and the producer has the decision whether or not they feel it is worth it to them. They aren’t forced to send me a penny. This is different than h33t’s policy.

          I’m able to recoup a fee for my service because my clients are more than willing to pay for it. They own the property and they are paying me to watch over it. They aren’t wanting to pay the guy who comes to their property and destroys it. This is a pretty common scam that h33t is employing. It’s like the roofers who mess up your roof and then offer to fix it for you for a fee. I didn’t destroy the content market, pirates did.

          Of course pirates don’t want people like me around. They want producers to have to do everything in-house instead of paying for specialization. Because under that system, the pirates would have carte blanche ability to pilfer content, pad their wallets and trample the rights of others with very little recourse. So in their attempt to enrich themselves off the backs of others they want to demonize anyone who would provide friction for their plans.

          Now we can certainly have a debate about how some piracy companies GROSSLY overcharge their clients. I’m more than happy to have that debate because I’ll look like Mother Theresa compared to some of my competition.

          • AlexH says:

            Yes, I think H33T is wrong to do this… however, I can see this is kind of a back handed, sarcastic “yeah, right – you want us to take down your content? $50.” although obviously they have intentions of taking the money if offered.

            My position, as explained above, was that you are simply charging for the same service although you can not garuntee any acknowlegement or takedowns from the websites you contact. $50 to the site in question however is sure to grab their attention.

            I do think the $50 fine should be standard in legitimate cases, such as Google recieveing many, many false takedown requests all the time.

  13. topper says:

    Well, if you follow that logic, then what about the $150,000 you people charge for each download? What about the theory you people hold 1 piracy download equals 1 lost sale?

    THAT was fun!

    • Nate Glass says:

      “you people”?

      Please show me where I have EVER charged anyone $150,000 for a download because if I have, I am seriously misplacing my money. And I realize it’s easy to just lump all anti-piracy people in one big group, but in actuality there are people with differing opinions. I don’t take my marching orders from the MPAA anymore than you should take your marching orders from the EFF. I don’t believe all downloads equate to a lost sale. I like to consider myself and independent thinker, and I would hope you would as well.

  14. Gunni says:

    Well, you get money from rights holders to have content removed, just move the money forward.

    If *insert rightsholder here* thinks he’s losing hundreds of millions of dollars in lost sales, then $50 is a drop in an ocean…

    Pay it or shut up…

  15. Have you lost your mind. Large corporations pay you “Take Down Piracy” to perform a service whereby you get links to infringing content removed from Torrent sites, Cyber-lockers, etc.. Why is it wrong to think that it Doesn’t cost these sites Time and Money to meet your requests..?? Isn’t it a tad hypocritical to think you should get paid, but the other guy (who is doing as much, if not more work) shouldn’t get paid..??

    Also, if millions of potential sales are lost by each link available on a specific Torrent Site (which is claimed by the MPAA on a regular basis), who gives a damn if they have to pay $50 to have that link removed. Isn’t $50 a legitimate and minuscule amount of money to save potentially MILLIONS of dollars in revenue…?? Oh wait, all that bitching and moaning that Torrent sites loose the Movie and Record industry MILLIONS of dollars on a weekly basis couldn’t be nonsense, could it..??

    Isn’t it funny how a $50 charge per takedown request puts the real statistics on the table for all to see..?? Now you guys actually have to prove (to your accountants anyways) whether or not it’s worth the money to file all those DMCA requests. It must suck to be faced with that level of accountability for your actions, something I suspect you guys are not used to.

    later!

    • Nate Glass says:

      1. Most piracy sites automate the removal process. This is the only piracy site out of the 1000s and 1000s we’ve dealt with that has EVER claimed to need to be financially compensated for removals. This policy’s only intention is to discourage removals, and to financially enrich themselves off the backs of people who created content. That’s who you are defending, make no mistake about that.

      2. As I don’t work for the MPAA, I will not defend anything they do, have done, or might do. I know it’s easy to try and blur the issue by attacking me for something another person has done, but I refuse to play that game.

      3. Being faced with accountability for actions is something the freeloader society fears more than anything. I find it pretty funny that you cite that in defending the criminals you are defending.

      • I find it amusing you see your post as defensible Nate. How much do you charge for each takedown Nate? Because essentially you’re the middle man here. In actuality the site is being very reasonable at charging for labour costs at such a low level for determining the request is valid before carrying out the removal.
        Yes, the removal process itself is pretty straightforward, but why should the site (which isn’t obliged to comply with DCMA requests) take the validity of your takedown requests at face value without proper investigation first? Why should they do this work for free, when you certainly don’t. DCMA requests have a long history of being abused to take down things the complainant had no rights to, just look at YouTube. In fact, if YouTube started charging for DCMA removals (they can’t, but humour me), some of the more frivolous removals of lawful content would stop instantly, even without any work on their part.

        Basically, the crux of your complaint is that you don’t like the idea of this service provider cutting into your profit margin for providing you with a labour intensive service. You’ve finally come across a company that refuses to be bullied or extorted by copyright trolling firms and you feel outraged, because your quick win past strategies now don’t work and you’ve actually got to do some work to get your money out of it.

        Well I’m sorry, but what did you expect? You argue that they make money off this service selling advertisements, but in most cases advertising revenue is sought simply to support an otherwise free service. The adverts are the product, not the allegedly copyrighted goods and it’s not those goods making them any money. Your argument is tenuous at best.

  16. George (spoiler: not my real name) says:

    Rights holders pay you to send lots and lots of C&Ds.
    You run a script that scrapes various sites and emails abuse@domain.
    Site admins presses delete or (here comes the actual work!) checks what should be deleted.

    Correct?

    • Nate Glass says:

      1. Basically correct.
      2. We don’t ‘run a script’ but in a general sense you are correct.
      3. Since I don’t work for those sites I can’t tell you exactly how their operations work. But MOST (read: nearly all) sites automate this process. Their system takes the reported URLs and removes them. In many cases, no one at the target site even sees the URLs, they are all handled by automated services.

      The issue here is h33t is demanding $50 per URL for something most sites do for free. (I thought pirates were all about adapting business models to modern times?)

      There’s nothing to stop h33t from re-indexing the same torrents or to stop a ‘user’ (employee) from uploading torrents they know we would report in order to extract $50 each time.

      h33t is not offering to return the $50 if our claim is found to be true. They want to pocket the money. We ID’d over 1000 torrents for one client alone. If this were nearly any other torrent site, they would be deleted via automation. h33t wants $50,000. That’s extortion.

      • Elliott Clark says:

        So because h33t wants to charge for doing the sensible thing and verifying that each link is a genuine infringement before censoring (and lets face it – some pretty silly requests were exposed by Google’s Transparency Report, so who can blame them?), you have a problem? Because they refuse to be bullied into taking every request at face value?

        I’ll add that h33t’s policy (as given in the image you posted above) clearly states that they are willing to negotiate a bulk discount if you have more than 500 links. 1000 > 500.

        • Nate Glass says:

          Ok so we’re never going to agree on this since you’re just going to give h33t a free ride.

          So I’m going to really challenge you here.

          Ever look at h33t’s category images? Those look to be a LOT of trademarked images and logos in there.

          Would you support h33t being taken to court for Trademark Infringement?

          Canadian Trademark Law – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_trademark_law

          • Elliott Clark says:

            Well that’s an easy one, Harley Faggetter (below) has already pointed out that your background is a stock image – very good of you to have changed it in the last half hour, but doesn’t that go to show how easy it is to miss something like that?

            I would hope that such a case would never reach court – neither in yours or h33t’s case, and would imagine that the images would simply be changed, as you have kindly demonstrated. If they were stupid and stubborn enough to refuse such a compromise, then of course I would support a court case where Canadian law permits.

            Still, nice nit-picking, BTW.

          • Nate Glass says:

            What’s really funny to me is that h33t’s policy for uploaders states that ALL uploads are moderated to ensure they adhere to h33t’s standards. And I mean clearly, how would h33t know that The Avengers isn’t the copyrighted property of some dude in Russia. They can just play dumb right? Comparing that to me using a Creative Commons free licensed image, yeah they’re soooooooo similar. Riiiiiight.

            But that’s not the funny part. The funny part is that in the TF article there are comments from former h33t.com moderators saying they never got paid jackshit for moderating by Henry and h33t.com. So apparently the undue burden that responding to a DMCA notice would put on h33t is enough that they feel that have to charge $50 per URL to remove (and you don’t get your $50 back if your claim is valid)..HOWEVER those same moderators are expected to do a nearly equivalent job for no compensation from h33t.com.

            Might it be because if h33t.com were to actually respond to notices they would have fewer pages, thus fewer ad imprints, thus fewer dollars in their pocket. They are hiding behind this “it takes time” excuse, when dozens of other torrent sites don’t seem to have that same problem. In reality h33t.com is trying to protect their ad revenue and keep users from going elsewhere. And instead of being responsible, they are hiding behind a bullshit excuse and trotting out the tired “MAFIAA” crap.

            Put you gotta love the fact that irony is lost on h33t.com decrying the ‘Mafia’ when their stated policy is “give us money or we’ll continue to jack your shit”….the Gambino’s would be proud of h33t.com.

      • WildTurkey says:

        What you do for living is basicly extortition to normal people.

        Taste your own medicine…….is it feeling good?

  17. Out of curiosity, you’ve placed your website under copyright, but parts of the website don’t belong to you. You’ve used a stock picture for your background (I can tell because it even has the same blemishes), which you’ve certainly not attributed to the original artist, nor is it therefore clear you’ve actually sought the right to use it. I would have done a reverse search on it, but unfortunately it’s too ‘simple’ for my site of choice. It’s also debatable if the WordPress label is proper copyright attribution for usage of the WordPress API.

    My goodness, picking holes in things is fun.

    • Nate Glass says:

      Wow…you guys must be pretty desperate if the best you can come up with is claiming I don’t have the right to use WordPress.

      Besides, why would you care? Aren’t you and your ilk copyright abolitionists?

      If I used copyrighted images blatantly you’d love me and send me flowers for fighting for your cause.

      Desperation is a stinky cologne Harley.

      • Anons Know Things outside 9-5 hours says:

        $6.99 Don’t be a freetard.

        naveenvverma seems like a nice guy. ( i just donated and I don’t pirate his photographs)

        $6.99 or you are a freetard.

      • You have our attention ( U principled or faux ? ) says:
          • Roger Wallace says:

            The background image of this website is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License. You have violated the terms of this license by not providing attribution, and are therefore in violation of U.S. copyright law. The original work, a link to its license, and the original copyright owner can be found here.

            The clipart site you link to also appears to be in violation.

            (Unlike some of your other commenters, I am pro-copyright — not that this fact is at all relevant to the fact of your hypocrisy. The adage about glass houses works both ways.)

          • Nate Glass says:

            See my replies to Anons.

            The image I used was uploaded a year before the DeviantArt one.

          • General_Payne says:

            So something available to buy, is on another website which allows anonymous uploads available for free with no indication if the material is owned by the uploader.

            Isnt that how piracy sites work? :P

          • Nate Glass says:

            it’s a tangled web

            did you check to see if clckr demands $50 to remove images?

      • Given the other comments and your deliberate evasion, I’ll take that as a no.

        And for your information, PPUK aren’t copyright abolitionists, merely copyright reformers. The difference may be subtle but it’s certainly important.

        It is, however, irrelevant in this context. What my Party does has absolutely no relation to your company’s practices. If you’re in the business of enforcing copyright it pays to actually respect it yourself. It is galling that PPUK has more respect for copyright (Our twitter feed’s background is properly attributed despite it making the image look particularly ugly) than someone in the business of enforcing it.

        • Nate Glass says:

          Wow…you are so full of yourself it’s laughable. You guys provide a proxy to TPB…telling me (telling ANYONE) you respect copyright is I hope sarcasm.

          You are copyright abolitionists, you just know you can’t come out and say that and get any support. You want to abolish copyright by making it so weak and unenforceable that no one will notice when you finally drive the nail in the coffin of that human right.

          For your information, I used a service that cooperates with Creative Commons. The person abusing the system was not me, even your fellow detectives erroneously attributed the image to a person who uploaded it nearly 3 years after another person.

          If this is the best you got Harley…wow…are you guys desperate. No check that. It’s pathetic.

          Now don’t you have to go pick up Lawrence Lessig’s dry cleaning or something?

          • Daniel Jonsson says:

            The problem with your reasoning regarding the background, isnt about if you did or did not… But the fact that you did obviously not investigate the matter and trusted the uploader. You then turn around and ask that others do, what you did not bother doing… There is really only one single thing that anyone need to do, to be worthy of listening to… And that is to actually do what you preach… The fact that you’re NOT actually living the way you preach, is the sole reason you’re currently being rediculed all over the net by pretty much everyone on “both sides” too at that… It’s sad really and you really should either start thinking about what it is you preach, or the way you act… Either way is fine by me, but someone preaching about what people should do, while not doing it… Is nothing but a whiny little kid that seriously needs to grow the fuck up….

          • Nate Glass says:

            What I LOVE about the copyright abolitionists is that you’re so determined to defend each and every pirate that it forces you to defend the indefensible and only weakens your position.

            I used a site with a Creative Commons license where I, in good faith, had no reason to believe anything was suspect. If you think that’s the same thing as h33t charging $50 to remove The Avengers because they think Hackulous MIGHT JUST own the rights to every movie currently in release well then I’m impressed with the logical gymnastics you gotta do to make that work out in your head. No one has been able to convincingly prove who the hell owns the desk texture and even still, it’s still entirely possible it’s completely legal to use it since we don’t know who it belongs to. The website in your email is using Apple and Samsung logos, do you have permission to use those? Are you an authorized reseller of those brands. I tried checking the Terms and Conditions of your website, but it’s blank. Hmmmmm.

            You want sites to trust the uploader, in fact h33t is doing that exact thing. They are trusting the uploader, even when it’s obviously wrong, they still trust the uploader. Ok fine. But then when someone comes along and makes a valid claim showing you who owns the content, and mind you – the only thing missing from our notice was the big bag of money that h33t demanded, h33t wants to play dumb so that they don’t have to remove anything. You guys really just make your side look soooooooooooooooooooooooo bad by defending these guys. But you’re consistent, no matter what pirates do, no matter how much money they make, no matter what they do – you’re right there to defend them every step of the way. It’s equally admirable and sad. Like I said, your abolitionist approach isn’t helping your cause and defending the extortion scheme of h33t.com only makes it worse.

        • Nate Glass says:

          Actually Harley, it’s time to go to school.

          The Party Party website is using the Twitter logo in a way NOT ALLOWED by Twitter.
          https://support.twitter.com/articles/77641-guidelines-for-use-of-the-twitter-trademark#
          https://twitter.com/about/resources/logos

          The PP is not using any of the logos described by Twitter in it’s official usage guidelines.

          Let’s move on to YouTube
          I’ve looked through:
          http://code.google.com/intl/en/apis/youtube/branding.html
          http://www.youtube.com/t/press_room_image_files

          I have yet to find an example where YouTube allows the image PPUK is using with the ‘You’ on top of the ‘Tube’.

          Flickr requires you to get permission before using their logo. You did that right? Right?
          http://www.flickr.com/help/forum/29904/?search=pressing

          Also YouTube’s guidelines are that you attribute any videos to include the name of the person who uploaded the video, this is clearly NOT being done in your embedded video regarding the UK extradition case that is featured on your front page.

          Am I wrong here? Please tell me I am, otherwise you seem to be pretty hypocritical yourself.

    • Anons Know Things outside 9-5 hours says:

      “”unique fingerprint”" , no need …. lurk smarter Harley.
      Just call me the cyber trace guy. You’re welcome.

      —-Original source—-

      http://naveenvverma.deviantart.com/art/Desk-Texture-192263198

      Submitted: January 5, 2011
      Image Size: 453 KB
      Resolution: 1600×1200

      —-Image data—-

      EXIF IFD0
      Camera Make {0x010F} NIKON
      Camera Model {0×0110} E3200
      Picture Orientation {0×0112} normal (1)
      Last Modified Date/Time {0×0132} 2004:06:24 08:47:57
      EXIF Sub IFD
      Exposure Time (1 / Shutter Speed) {0x829A} 10/900 second ===> 1/90 second ===> 0.01111 second
      Lens F-Number / F-Stop {0x829D} 28/10 ===> ƒ/2.8
      ISO Speed Ratings {0×8827} 200
      Original Date/Time {0×9003} 2004:06:24 08:47:57
      Exposure Bias (EV) {0×9204} 0/10 ===> 0
      Flash {0×9209} Flash did not fire, compulsory flash mode
      Focal Length {0x920A} 58/10 mm ===> 5.8 mm
      Image Width {0xA002} 1600 pixels
      Image Height {0xA003} 1200 pixels

      • Nate Glass says:

        Only problem is I found it here:
        http://www.clker.com/clipart-63817.html

        Which by the terms of clker state:
        ” The person who associated a work with this deed has dedicated the work to the public domain by waiving all of his or her rights to the work worldwide under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights, to the extent allowed by law.

        You can copy, modify, distribute and perform the work, even for commercial purposes, all without asking permission. See Other Information below.

        Other Information
        In no way are the patent or trademark rights of any person affected by CC0, nor are the rights that other persons may have in the work or in how the work is used, such as publicity or privacy rights.
        Unless expressly stated otherwise, the person who associated a work with this deed makes no warranties about the work, and disclaims liability for all uses of the work, to the fullest extent permitted by applicable law.
        When using or citing the work, you should not imply endorsement by the author or the affirmer.”

        http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/

        Nice try though!!

        • Anons Know Things outside 9-5 hours says:

          aoesora
          User since Sat, 05 Jun 10 11:51:17 +0000
          He uploaded the photo without permission.

          The first time the EXACT image in question was available online was on January 5, 2011

          Now we can upload movies to clker and the copyrights are rewritten ?
          No
          Pay the guy $6.99 for his image…freetard
          http://naveenvverma.deviantart.com/art/Desk-Texture-192263198

          • Nate Glass says:

            The image you are linking to was:

            Submitted: January 5, 2011

            The clckr images shows:
            Shared by: aoesora
            since Saturday, 05-Jun-10 04:54:13 PDT

            So unless my math is wrong the clckr image was up first. Look I don’t know if Naveen or aoesora made this or not. I’m not opposed to paying Naveen if he’s the one who really made it, hell I’ll pay him regardless.

            This is really grasping at straws.

        • Peter Overspray says:

          You should investigate who owns the copyright before accepting on good faith a third-party website’s claim that the work is in the public domain.

          I don’t think you’re going to last long in your chosen profession.

          • Nate Glass says:

            Should piracy sites investigate who owns the content they are trasmitting before taking an uploaders word?

            Hmmmmmm

          • Deacon Blues says:

            Should piracy sites investigate who owns the content they are trasmitting before taking an uploaders word?

            Poor attempt to deflect the argument, which is that you, in your capacity as professional copyright enforcer, have an ethical duty to abide by the very rules you seek to enforce.

          • Nate Glass says:

            And that’s a poor attempt to deflect my counter to your question.

            I do abide by the rules and nowhere in the rules does it say a piracy site gets to take content and use it as their personal cash cow to extract money from legitimate copyright holders.

            Nice try Deacon but ya failed.

        • Anons Know Things outside 9-5 hours says:

          Touche pirate foe.
          Had to have a go. (you would too , wouldn’t you)
          At least you are not as stupid as the average anti-pirate arguments.
          The joy of copying and sharing is in you.

          • Nate Glass says:

            Honestly, I don’t mind you for looking for that. I’m very wary of stuff like that and the last thing I want to do is make a rookie and dumb mistake like that.

            Anyone who knows me knows I’m all about compensating people for their work. I’m still going to make a donation to Naveen as he has some other really cool works up there.

            Feel free to call me out on my bullshit, trust me, I can be a complete asshole at any given time.

          • Nate Glass says:

            Actually just doing a reverse image search on that texture, man it’s all over the place. So it might be a little tricky figuring out who owns this sucker. I took clckr at their word since I would have no reason to suspect differently.

            :/

          • Anons Know Things outside 9-5 hours says:

            Many make those “rookie mistakes”, as you know.
            Playing with “pretending to be principled” people is easy.
            You obviously live it (to an extent), that I can respect. I disagree with with your principles but at least, on this occasion you seem legit.

            That dead silence pic is really good.
            http://naveenvverma.deviantart.com/art/Dead-Silence-255853360

            Don’t worry I have no conscience in upsetting people by calling them out on their bullshit.
            We are all assholes to someone, it can be fun.

          • Nate Glass says:

            Hey you’re preaching to the choir.

            You know how SICK it makes me that we take the time and care to file accurate takedown notices and other anti-piracy companies cut corners and are sloppy and yet we have to try and compete with them without pointing out all the bullshit they do?

            We have competitors who file false DMCAs to inflate their numbers then use those numbers to try and show they are better than us. I’m ALL FOR competition, but fair competition.

            If you believe in your principles it should be fairly easy to live it, unless you believe in some shit nearly no one else would ever consider. Then I imagine it’s a little awkward socially.

            I do what I do because I believe it’s the right thing. We can disagree on that, no problem there, but I do take it personally when I’m lumped in as just a piracy profiteer. I really want to change the perception people have about anti-piracy companies, which is why I engage my critics on here. You don’t see most other anti-piracy company owners taking that approach.

            I donated 800 points so Naveem could get his premium membership and I think I’m going to purchase this print:
            http://www.deviantart.com/print/20303721/

            That’s where I hope to see myself one day.

          • Nate Glass says:

            So I just donated the 800 points Naveem needed for his donation drive to get a premium membership. At least with all this silliness, Naveem ends up as the big winner. So it ended well at least.

          • Anons Know Things outside 9-5 hours says:

            ohhh … we pirates call ???? : )

            Uploaded: Nov-27-08
            License: Copyright – Personal Usage Only
            http://www.kaneva.com/asset/assetDetails.aspx?assetId=5208943&communityId=0
            It might go further back. Will keep going.
            It’s fun.

            Your principles are now……
            ( i don’t know who made the Avengers movie , guess I can upload it to YouTube then )

          • Nate Glass says:

            Hahaha…so are you telling me Naveem @ DeviantArt is full of shit too?

            Cuz I just bought that guy a premium AND one of his prints.

            I doubt this guy on Kaneva is the creator as well unless he also created the Dallas Mavs and Apple logos.

            Down the rabbit hole we go!

          • Anons Know Things outside 9-5 hours says:

            You unknowingly funded piracy.
            The rabbit hole sure is a murky place….Where will it end.

            I can imagine the headline in TorrentFreak now.
            You might get Ernesto’s attention after all.
            Although enigmax tends to write better tabloid style headlines.

          • Nate Glass says:

            yeah I’ve found Ernesto’s mentions of me to be more matter-of-fact, where as Enigmax excels in the National Enquirer style sensationalism. Thus I knew the “extortion” would appeal to him.

            You encouraged me to pay Naveem…you’re my co-conspirator man! :P

            Andy/Enigmax if you quote me, please quote this:

            “Will whomever created this fucking desk texture please come forward?”

            I think I’m just going to take a picture of my own damn desk and be done with it.

          • Anons Know Things outside 9-5 hours says:

            :) but you are the one who paid him.
            Bet you steal all the time.

            You seen this next bit coming.
            ( took screens/cached/google has it too)
            What would Nate do ?
            _______________

            Thanks!

            Thank you for using our online DMCA complaint form. You should receive a confirmation email shortly.

            _______________

            You should give me a job. :)

          • Nate Glass says:

            I’m not at all opposed to hiring you. :)

            What are your qualifications? Now mind you we don’t have the big bucks of The Pirate Bay or h33t.com to offer.

            Can’t believe I was duped into paying Naveem. I have to admit I was skeptic that a young dude from India could apparently take pics all over the world, but I gave him the benefit of the doubt. Naveem!!! TSK TSK TSK!

            Needless to say, until we can unravel the JFK-esque mystery of who created the desk texture, I have changed the background. I dare someone to try and claim that my new background is the property of anyone else!

          • Anons Know Things outside 9-5 hours says:

            I am qualified at internets : level 7.

            I can’t sell out my beliefs, not when a war on people has been implemented, to serve businesses struggling to adapt and governments trying to control.

            I do get it. (you)
            DMCA , you’re onto a winner.
            Payed, to play perpetual whack a mole. A game you can not win, even if people think you can.
            That , I could do with clear conscience,
            but the accompanying propaganda and lies being pushed creates laws prohibiting people having the best invention ever made at their fingertips, preventing them from ever seeing a “mole”.
            I honestly don’t know how you can do it.

            finally, using your words…. “That was fun!”

      • You are at one with the search-fu brother, my thanks.

  18. BillyBob says:

    This nate guy is the most self righteous hypocrite i’ve ever had the displeasure of seeing rant on a message board, i wish no hurt on you personally but i hope for nothing but epic fail on your parasitic business model.

    • Nate Glass says:

      That’s fine, you can wish all the ill-will on my business that you like.

      I look forward to many years of you wishing ill-will upon my business Billy Bob.

      Cheers!

      • Steve Jobs says:

        You’re such a arrigant troll. You’ve deleted my previous comments and several other peoples comments which were the comments you dare not answer. Yet you kept the dumb comments just so you can troll them and use it as a way for propaganda for future people to see this post.

        Go on, delete this comment too! -__-

        • Nate Glass says:

          Nice try but I have approved every single comment. I take all kinds of heat on this blog but no one can ever criticize me for not approving comments or not replying. Nice try but fail.

          The only time I EVER delete comments are when people comment on my static pages, ie. /stats. I really just need to disable comments on those pages but it happens so rarely. And often times it’s from copyright holders trying to contact me who for some reason fail to see the Contact page.

          If you’re claiming only ‘dumb’ comments are here than that’s more of an indictment of your fellow commenters than it is me.

          • So tell me says:

            So tell me, where are the original comments? I can no longer see them.

          • So tell me says:

            So tell me, where are they?

            I defenately saw several comments above the “So what? Copyright holder extort their customers by asking 150,000 dollars for every song shared.” comment which have not gone.

            You removed it, face the facts.

            Approving this comment? or are you pro-censorship?

            Whilst I post this comment, were you pro-SOPA or not?

          • Nate Glass says:

            I’ve approved every comment. I don’t know how I can prove this to you but I’ve approved every one.

  19. Sean says:

    Be a good boy Nate and tell us how much u make off *piracy* websites ;)

  20. Michael says:

    Nate Glass you are one sad individual. Here you are slamming sites for charging you to take down what you wanna take down while you get paid to take it down.

    But you got even more pathetic by responding to everyone comments! Maybe you should be doing your job instead of sitting around replying to comments.

    • Nate Glass says:

      I’m actually taking it easy today, since I didn’t take the holiday off yesterday. Plus today I had to take my cat into the vet for treatment so there wasn’t much else to do while I waited. Sorry Michael that I actually took the time to respond to my critics. I guess I should be more aloof and distant. Then you’d criticize me for that no?

      • CatManDo says:

        Stop having sex with your cat and you won’t have to take it to the vet for treatment.

        • Nate Glass says:

          In all seriousness, my cat (she’s quite old – 18 years) was diagnosed with kidney disease, which is becoming more common in older cats.

          The scary part is that the warning signs are not obvious and they are the kinds of things cat owners would dismiss as usual.

          So the only way to catch it (and early detection is VERY important) is to get your cat checked out regularly for things like kidney disease. So while we’re ripping each other on piracy issues, can both sides agree to at least let’s all get our cats to the vet at least twice a year for checkups?

  21. Sean says:

    Nate you can pretend to hate us but we are the reason you get a paycheck! ;) ur welcome

  22. rah rah says:

    Nate, get a job. A proper job. You’re embarrasing yourself and your kids. Jeez. Way to go h33t. Hope more sites start charging these no value leeches for their time.

  23. rah rah says:

    Nate, you cannot have kids. That was a joke. Seriously, get a proper job though. Nobody likes a corporate whore. I’m really embarrassed for you. I see your site suffering downtime due to this. Give it up and work in a supermarket adding value by packing peoples bags. You won’t regret it!

    • Nate Glass says:

      Oh if only I had $50 for every time I heard the whole “they’re going to hack your site” thing…I could at least then pay h33t to act within the law for one instance.

      I’ll just have to take your word for it that bagging groceries is as awesome as you say it is. I’m glad you’ve found a way to make yourself useful.

      Which reminds me, do you get training that outlines what you put in each bag? Because the guy the other day put my milk in the same bag as my bread and that seemed like something you’d avoid doing.

      • I have to say this, but are you sure h33t aren’t acting within the law? I must say it seems to be a somewhat American phenomena that they believe their civil law extends beyond their own jurisdiction. If they’re not in the States, US law doesn’t apply to them.

  24. Anony-mouse says:

    You know what? If you’re such a hot-shot paladin and crusader of DMCA’s why not take down PirateBay? No, seriously, I’d like to see you try. Why the hell not? A nice point in CV Nate “I personally took out TPB”. I dare you.

  25. rah rah says:

    If it’s a decent shop, you should get training. Milk and bread in the same bag??? Never! I can see you’d be a natural in the packing industry.

    I’m not saying I want you to be taken offline, it’s just not advisable to be in the enemies camp nowadays. The tide is turning and your post confirms that. Expect your ‘job’ to get harder from now on.

    Anyway, although I disagree with your views, you seem like an entertaining fella so I wish you all the best.

    • Nate Glass says:

      The feeling is mutual, I don’t mind a little trash talk, as long as it’s in good spirits. :)

      If my “enemies” as you say wish to silence me for having a dissenting opinion from their own, then I think that speaks more to their lack of respect for free speech than anything anyone could say about them. If your response to dissent is to silence your enemies then they’d be right at home in Syria, Iran or China where free speech is questionable at best.

  26. WS says:

    Nate I think you should give up on this.
    $50 per takedown????
    Nobody will bother sending dmca takedowns from your service anymore cuz they will just replace whatever you took down and with 100000s of takedowns u send this will cost u and ur customers a shitload of money.

  27. X says:

    Thanks for pointing out what h33t was doing. Don’t you hate when you read about something so simple yet genius and kick yourself in the ass for not thinking of it first.

  28. Jay says:

    So Nate earns his bread and butter from ‘capturing’ pirates and his main target right now is h33t.

    Good luck being a copyright crusader, but at the same time, being caught out infringing copyright. Then *NOT ONLY* did you infringe copyright, you *GAVE MONEY* to a pirate.

    that would be like me donating a million dollars to h33t for premium access and speeds, even though it’s coming from leechers. I seriously hope all companies paying you money see you for being the filthy charlatan that you are. Kill yourself, scumbag.

  29. MC says:

    So its bad that h33t “earns” money off piracy (which only happens when outfits like you get stuck in), but its ok that this is EXACTLY what you do with this scheme youve got going?

    Come the fuck off it Nateboy. You just dont like the idea of h33t charging an admin fee cutting into your profits. After 7 million takedowns, you may just have earned more from piracy than the likes of h33t. And you would be the first sobbing a pirates lament if the battle was won and there were no more takedowns to issue.

    There is a reason Dante placed the ring of hell for hypocrites near the bottom of the pit.

  30. SueDesNimes says:

    Nate,

    I assume from your post that you are doing this work for rights holders pro bono? I mean, you wouldn’t be extorting them, sorry I mean charging them for your time would you?

  31. MeMe says:

    Maybe if content providers weren’t ripping off customers piracy wouldn’t be as rampant? After being ripped of by porn companies with unauthorized charges,having to cancel credit cards when they kept charging after i canceled,fake content..paying for content and having a working password and no customer support..i have no empathy for their content being pirated

  32. Hal says:

    I personally have no problem with the infringing party paying the cost for the removal of infringing material. Of course, i don’t think that H33T, ISOHUNT, THEPIRATEBAY, etc are the infringing party, they are just cataloguing stuff on the internet, none of it is hosted on their servers. Do they make it easier, sure. Do they profit from it, sure. Does a bar profit from the drug dealers hanging out there looking for clientèle, certainly. Have we closed any bars because a drug dealer hangs out in them, not to my knowledge. Now as for paying, as I said, i’m all for the copyright infringer paying, but at the same time, I’m all for every false request being charged back to the requester punitively. For example, the recent request by the “crack team of copyright enforcers” who put in a request to youtube to removing some infringing content than NBC didn’t own and that in fact NBC was the infringer – http://www.geeksaresexy.net/2012/05/28/nbc-claims-copyright-over-youtube-content-they-dont-own/

    So Nate, by all means, go after the pirates, just don’t screw the pooch and a) go after something that is in fact legal where it is or b) not owned by your client, just because something is named the-avengers-mp4.torrent, doesn’t mean it actually links to a copy of the movie. Better download and check every one of those links

  33. Person says:

    CLEARING IT UP FOR EVERYONE:

    Takedown Piracy leeches off companies wanting their piracy problems solved without them solving the problem. They know this, and that their work don’t cut off the evil of the roots.

    In practice, the truth is that the involved companies lose as much money from piracy whether they choose to hire Takedown Piracy or not. The involved companies might not realize it, but the one(s?) behind Takedown P. are more than aware of this. And so they profit off, selling an illusion of a service.

    Please, everyone, make it known Takedown Piracy’s scam.

    • DWB says:

      You are incorrect.

      Companies do not expect Nate and others like him to “solve” their piracy problems. “Piracy” itself can not be solved. They simply pay Take Down Piracy a fair price to help them manage a problem that is not going away but does have to be managed.

      Piracy is a never ending game of whack-a-mole. It was here before the internet and it will be here long after the internet is gone. Guys like Nate help keep a few of those moles occupied, or in some cases, down for good. As someone who uses such services and owns intellectual content, that is all we can ask for until some real laws with real teeth are put into place that can take many infringing sites offline for good. That day will eventually come. Until then, every little bit helps.

  34. Kay says:

    Nate, you have to be the most short sighted moron in the history of the internet. Given the fact that you almost certainly earn a living “fighting internet criminals & serving IP justice” by extorting, threatening and sending “legal claims” to various torrent sites,an approach to a “problem” so moronic as only to be rivaled by someone trying to put out a fire by yelling at it, and then billing whatever company owns that particulare IP; do you think the owners of those IP’s would rather pay you to “yell at the fire” or pay the arsonist 50$ not to start the fire? I whish you all the best in your future career at McDonalds.

  35. Worried says:

    Can you prove, that people who downloaded something for free, would buy that digital product, if no one uploaded it on the internet?

    If you can prove that every download=one lost sale, by same equation, we can get the numbers of legitimate advertised sales, which is equal to numbers of people seeing something on non-official site, and later purchasing same thing in legitimate way, right?

    It’s the same abstract number.

    So, in this case, number of views of certain digital product on some ‘warez’ site implies that every view was = legitimate sale.

    I am sure, that ‘warez uploaders’ that you hunt down are making more money to those same people paying you, so, basically, you are not doing them any favor at all, and they should fire you.

    :|

    See how logic goes weee, when you start with abstraction?

    I mean, just because there is law for something, that doesn’t mean it’s written with brain, it’s written for lobbyist groups. Who gives more money to presidential election campaign, get his own laws written, and pushed.

    Human society is lead by greed, instead of being lead by mutual prosper, it’s driven by certain individuals and their own prosperity.

    So, next time you report your links, make a question to yourself:

    Ok, I need money, but, does working for loobyist, who are ruining our society in so many ways, makes my moral norms correct? Am I their instrument, am I helping them ruining humanity?
    Am I on the right side? And who’s side is right? The side of majority, or minority.
    Am I properly informed? Am I being deceived?

  36. Jesus says:

    Nate maybe you should let the students and the social outcasts enjoy this little victory.

    They’ve had a hard time of it since their piracy business model began to crumble in Jnauary. With so little good news since then so this is a beacon of light for them and straw to cluth to.

  37. CamTata says:

    Nate, I don’t know how you deal with the constant drivel from the sanctimonious, logically challenged hordes.

    Continue the fight for the natural, inherent, inalienable individual rights that exist independently of government. Private property rights are essential to individual liberty.

  38. Hugh Myron says:

    How is this extortion? The people who run the torrent hosting sites don’t procure the material themselves, they just provide server resources for people to use. If you want them to do work for you, you should have to pay.

    Also, this forces companies to be careful with their requests rather than throwing out takedown notices. A lot of times, you’ll find that a link to the new Game of Thrones is actually a Colbert Report episode.

  39. Sheilah says:

    As a content provider, I’ve seen both sides of the coin. I’ve had people steal my recordings and sell them online but that is minimal to the amount of damage I’ve had from false DMCA takedown requests. I get them at least once per month from companies like Muso.com, Dtecnet.com and LeakID. They always false flag multiple pieces of my work as their own and I’m always threatened with the loss of my web hosting. Yesterday, I had fourteen files removed…Fourteen!

    I’m a hypnotist. I do everything on my own. These are my files. Muso.com removed several of them because they had the word “Accept” in the tags. Accept? Seriously? The tags they use are far to generalized.

    Yep…

    The problem is the abuse of the system. People abuse the system because it is profitable to do so. Companies take down work that doesn’t belong to them and equate each false take down as proof that piracy exists. Each takedown counts as piracy in that little world view, even if it wasn’t pirated at all.

    We need to cut into the profitability of false DMCA takedown requests.

    I hate to say it Nate, I wish more ISPs would charge for take down requests, it would make my life easier. Better yet, I wish congress would let me sue these hole in the wall abusive companies for $500 per false take down, I’d have quite a bit of money coming my way.

    Nate, if you don’t like the backlash tell companies like Muso.com, Dtecnet.com, and LeakID to play fair.

    I used to be on your side but I’ve been abused a tad bit too much, now I prefer piracy to being silenced.

  40. Jack Benny says:

    wow $350 million and you still live in that rat trap? Damn, son, you should negotiate a better deal from your benefactors. You’re being USED.

  41. Kirk o'Field says:

    Love that all the people who just want stuff for free try to hide this with pseudo intellectual hypothesis based on abstract theories and arguments metered out by the warez community earning big bucks from advertising etc. So kiddies, here’s some home truths for ya

    I create digital content and have had dialogue with crackers and their arguments over the years but the truth is they all fail and it’s ultimately about getting shit for free.

    1. If it’s expensive, we’ll crack it
    A total lie as there’s no differentiation in the warez ‘community’ between low cost/high value software and high cost/high value software. File this argument under “I just want shit for free”

    2. If it’s buggy we’ll crack it
    Again, there’s no differentiation between buggy and non-buggy software in what the ‘scene’ release. It’s simply abut the kudos in getting that release out first.
    Once again, we can file this argument under “I just want shit for free”

    3. If it uses intrusive copy protection, we’ll crack it.
    Yea, right…that’s why you take CDs, music, talking books, none of which have any copy protection, and post it for all to download.
    So..yet again, we can file this argument under “I just want shit for free”

    4. I wouldn’t have bought it anyway
    This is always the last fallback of the freeloaders and is akin to the super religious saying “prove there’s no God” when the onus is on them to prove there is.
    The truth is there’s so much good freeware/shareware out there that you don’t need to steal other people’s creative efforts. Instead, be a man and work with the software that’s being given to you by benevolent developers who enjoy writing freeware or creating free songs. The whole world respects people who do good work and overcome limitations so you don’t need to resort to ‘stealing’
    So..finally, we get back to the truth that is “I just want shit for free”

    All the other romantic arguments such as “I’m a low paid worker in a 3rd world country” are shot down in flames when you see where the majority of warez traffic comes from. All the arguments about information being free immediately halt when you ask for a copy of the freeloader’s hard drive. Warez sites make money from advertising based solely on other people’s work and they are guilty of grand larceny and a PR offensive that is designed to evoke a response from all those who “JUST WANT SHIT FOR FREE”

    Of course the worst thing about all of this is that all the freeloaders, like brainwashed religious jihadists and zealots have thus far manage to convince themselves of their own bullshit and still behave like they’re on some noble cause when we really know that….

    they just want shit for free

    So, grown up, take responsibility and just admit it. We might respect you more in the morning

  42. BOB'NWEAVE says:

    I’M A PIRATE(AND YES I’M SHOUTING!)
    I DOWNLOAD 500GB OF SERIES, MOVIES, AND WHATNOT A MONTH.
    I CAN FIX YOUR PIRACY PROBLEM IN 2 SECONDS
    DROP THE PRICE OF ORIGINALS!!!!
    HOLLYWOOD IS TO GREEDY!
    THEY HOPE TO SCARE THE IDIOTS WHO DO THIS AS A PASTIME (TORRENTS AND DIRECT DOWNLOADS) BY SENDING CEASE AND DESIST LETTERS TO TORRENT OWNERS,ISP’S AND INDIVIDUALS!
    YOU WILL NEVER STOP THE PRO’S…. (more later about this)
    THIS ALREADY, (THE LAWS,THE ATTORNEY’S,WANKERS LIKE THIS SITE,) ALL HAVE AND WILL CONTINUE TO COST THE FILMMAKERS AND TAXPAYERS.
    I TRACK 149 SERIES PER DAY AND SINCE MOST OF THE MOVIES ARE COPIED IN CINEMA’S WITH CAMS THE SOUND AND PICTURE IS CRAP, SO I WAIT A BIT FOR THE BL OR DVD RELEASE TO BECOME AVAILABLE BEFORE DOWNLOADING.
    BESIDES THE POINT THAT ONLY ABOUT 20 MOVIES A YEAR ARE WORTH WATCHING FROM HOLLYWOOD (THE ACADEMY ONLY HANDS OUT 1, YES ONE! BEST PICTURE AWARD AND NO SHIT SHERLOCK- THERE IS NEVER A TIE!) SO THE REST IS CRAP FODDER FOR VIOLENCE, SEX OR KIDDIE JUNKIES.
    THE CHINESE ACQUIRE, COPY, PRINT AND CLONE TO MAKE IT LOOK LIKE THE ORIGINAL PACKAGING AND SELL (RETAIL) IT VIA LEGIT AND ILLEGIT OPERATIONS TO VIEWERS FOR +/- $10 OR LESS. IF THEY CAN DO IT AND MAKE A PROFIT, WHY CANT HOLLYWOOD?
    CAUSE THEY ARE TO FUCKING GREEDY!
    IT’S LIKE HAVE TO BUY A FUR COAT FOR YOUR WIFE EVERYTIME YOU HAVE SEX, BUT THE NEXT DOOR NEIGHBOUR WILL BANG YOU JUST FOR BRINGING HER A FLOWER PICKED FROM HER OWN YARD!!!!!!!!!!!
    THE COST OF A DVD DISK AND PACKAGING COSTS WITH DISTRIBUTION $1.14 PER 100 000 MADE, LESS IF OVER THE 1 000 000 PRODUCTION RUN.
    THE MOVIE “WHITE HOUSE DOWN” DVD ON AMAZON PRE ORDER COSTS
    Buy new: $21.69 PLEASE TELL ME WHO ARE THE CRIMINALS HERE?
    The Chinese pump 100′s of 1000′s of these disks A DAY!
    WAKE UP! FIRE THE ATTORNEYS AND THE MPAA AND DROP THE RETAIL PRICE, FRY THE CHINKS AT THEIR OWN GAME AND MAKE MORE MONEY THAN YOU ARE MAKING NOW AND GIVE THE PUBLIC WHAT THEY WANT!

  43. DERP says:

    Quite funny to see the panic driven antipiracy company owner – Quite obviously you can smell the end of your business, if the other companies involved seek to have the cost of complying with a DMCA takedown notice covered (quite reasonably) by the parasitic company making the request, it quite obviously spends the end for you.

    Pure LMAO.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


*

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>