If the social media conversation is so huge please give me one example of a musical artists that has become a large, worldwide known act simply off of social media and torrents. I don't mean someone like Gideon has pointed out that got a record deal or got some views on Youtube. I mean a musical act that sold out 3,000+ seat venues world wild.

I don't deny social media power, but it isn't everything that people make it out to be. Maybe that will change, maybe not.

My point in all of this (and I posted this in my response to gideon) is that music and to some extent TV and movies are an art of convenience. People hear it on the radio, like it and go buy it. People see a commercial for a show or a trailer for a movie and they think it looks good so they watch it. When that group of shows, bands, movies or whatever grows in size 1000 fold the job of sifting through it to find something you like will get much more difficult. Those shows/movies and musicians will have a much harder time attracting an audience and without that audience they will have trouble getting the money to produce a good show/movie or album.

I have said all along to everyone I know, if you like a TV show, watch it. Watch it when it is on. Don't Tivo it, don't download it, watch it. If the studio can't get enough viewers to make enough off the commercials they will cancel it no matter how good the show it. If you like a certain type of movie go see it, buy the DVD or rent the DVD when it comes out. If you don't support it, they will stop making it. If you like big action, big budget, big special effects movies, you better shell out the $10 for a ticket and go watch it. As more and more people download them it chews away at some of the profits and when those types of movies become unprofitable to make, they will stop making them. If you like a band, buy their CD and go see them when they come to town. If you don't support them, it doesn't matter how big of a fan of theirs you are. At some point every band has to decide if they want to continue traveling and recording and if they don't have the support they will just call it a career and get a normal job or go play back up for Miley Cyrus.

When you demand it free and you get it free eventually you will get what you pay for.

You bring this guy up every time this argument comes up. The guy has carved a niche for himself out, but there are dozens of people who did similar things before he did this long before the internet ever existed so it's not just the gift of this technology that is responsible for his success.

Marie Digby signed with Hollywood Records which is owned by Disney.

Sick Puppy signed with Virgin records, one of the largest record labels on the planet.


I remember you talking about these guys and how they said they got made more money with you than the record label.

So if small success is so freaking fantastic why are all of the internet darlings who are reaping the benefits of 90% profits and total freedom not to mention world wide exposure they are getting on the internet racing to sign with major labels?

but the only way to stop that is to kill the technology

the independent artist who don't get a good record deal will release their stuff for free in the hopes of getting that fan base

every new established artist will have to compete against this free substitutions.

the established artist who took the ass raping and paid for their own branding out of their 10% to get access studio distribution will break away and do it themselves. (ala radio head)

the industry is trying to kill the technology and the alternatives that it produced.

cover songs were/are legitimate but the record companies are trying to classify them as stealing.

doing a unique cover by an unknow artist trying to promote herself



will no longer be a valid form of self promotion if the record companies get their way.

I for one like the cover better then the original, and the market would be denied that version if the record company get their way.

I'm not saying kill the technology. I am saying make people responsible. Call me crazy, but asking people not to steal shouldn't be too big of a thing to ask. If an artist wants to control how their art is distributed, they should be allowed to do so. If they only want paying customers to have their music, they should be allowed that right.

Many torrent sites facilitate theft. It is that simple. You can shut down torrent sites that do this and still keep the technology alive.

You can make a gun and use it for law enforcement or to protect yourself, but you can also use it to rob someone. If you choose to use the gun to commit a crime you are punished for it, the same should go for those that choose to steal music/movies and those that facilitate that theft.

Now is where you give me the explanation of how the torrent sites aren't giving the product to the person and that each seeder is only giving a small piece of the product so they aren't breaking the law. It is all technicality bullshit that thieves are hiding behind. If I give you a bullet knowing you are going to put it in a gun and shoot someone, I didn't shoot them. I didn't drive you to the scene of the crime. I didn't give you the gun. I only contributed a tiny little piece of the puzzle but I still bear some of the responsibility.

marie digby was in development hell until she covered her way into a full record contract, it was the best she could do after signing the commitment letter

sick puppy had a similar problem, so arguing that it proves your point is not a valid arguement.


i was there when the reps were promising the guys all the stuff they could do i believed them too, that why i agreed that to help them get signed. I found out how much of a screw job the record companies do when they did stupid shit like replacing the seo html site with flash site that was pretty. Either they were totally clueless (which i doubt) or they wanted to cut the source of free traffic so the band would be dependent on chargable promotion services (which they controlled).

do you think they are taking the same screw job contract offers. record companies are giving exclusion for youtube and myspace /bit torrent so they get the best of both world, 10% of the market they can't reach, and 100% of the market they know how to establish.

You would be stupid not to take that kind of deal, because the 10% is free money.

granted there are still artist who get suckered into the lie that the record company way is the only way (your arguing that now btw) and will give them the complete control they want without any contract reversal points, but the smart artist are learning how to negotiate those points into the contract.

but that you reason the smart artist are negotating better deals leveraging their success to use the record companies to get free money they would not normally be able to get.

The stupid ones are suckered into believing the bullshit arguement you keep spouting as justification.

Your argument has all along been that record labels screw people over. You said it yourself in this post that you were at the table with the band when all this stuff was promised and they were screwed. Isn't that THEIR fault just as much as the record labels? Didn't they read the contract to see what they had control of and what the didn't have control of? If life was so good with out the record company why even bother listening to a record company?

These other artists might then be in the same situation. If you sign a contract, you sign a contact, you can't suddenly then just leave because you aren't happy.

Still, it doesn't change a thing. You rail against the record labels and talk about how fantastic torrent traffic is and how you can promote yourself and create a great career for yourself and keep 90% of the profits and make way more money than you could if you were on a record label, yet for some reason all of these internet people seem to end up at major labels. Life must not be as bad as you seem to think it is or these people realized that they can't get to where they want to be via the internet alone and went to where the real money is. How good or bad their contract turns out to be is all in their hands. If they are dumb enough to sign a bad contract why should I feel sorry for them?

but your solution to make them responsible is designed to kill the technology

if you don't make sure 100% (no safe harbor) that the content is authorized you get hit with 25k is statutory damages.

well there are examples of companies going to that extreme and it results in artist getting censored.

http://torrentfreak.com/copyright-dr...yspace-091007/

That what the safe harbor is designed to protect

you keep saying it not a big deal and it can easily be done, but it just as hard to get absolute proof without making mistakes like this as to guarrentee that you never sell porn to minors (including when little jim steals his dad credit card).

let me ask you a question if laws were changed so that YOU got convicted for distributing porn to minors every time little jim abused your signup process (with his dads stolen credit card) how would you run your paysite.

Could you make money under that restriction

if the answer is no, you have proven the point i was making, the new restriction is designed to kill the technology.

right and walmart is partially responsible for every death because if they didn't sell the gun no one would have got shot. Going after the trackers who provide a techology (torrent) that can be used for both legitimate (timeshifting, back up recover etc) and illegitimate (piracy) is the same as going after walmart

mc hammer said it best

Here is what you do. If you want to run a torrent site you check with the copyright holders before you put a torrent to their product up. It is that simple. If the copyright holders give you permission to post their work and don't care who downloads it you put it up on the site. If they don't give you permission, you don't. Problem solved. This way if a band wants to put its album up online they can give every site in the world permission to have it on the site. If a movie studio doesn't want their movie on those sites they aren't put up.

It is apples and oranges. These torrent sites are making money by giving away stolen content. A minor getting his dads credit card and using it to join a porn site is a completely different thing. One is profiting off of copyright violation, the other is a person committing credit card fraud. If the world were different and you had to be 100% sure that every single person that ever visited your site was of age I would imagine there would be some way for that to be facilitated. But here we are now talking about free speech issues. It has been ruled that adults should be allowed to have access to adult material if they want it, so any law that prohibited their access would have to have some kind of system in place to allow age verification that was 100% accurate. In reality that could never happen unless you required every person to have a fingerprint scan or something crazy.

But again, these are two different things and you can't really compare the two. One is constitutionally protected form of free speech and the supreme court has even ruled that there are plenty of filters out there for those that want to block access from their kids and the other is a site that builds its business allow people to steal copyrighted material.



If I walk into Walmart and I say to the clerk I want to buy a shotgun and a box of shells because I am going to go home and shoot my wife and they sell me the gun and bullets and I go home and kill my wife you can bet your ass they will probably be sued.

They are not partially responsible for every death that occurs because most of their guns are sold under the understanding that they are going to be legally used. While a torrent site operates under the understanding that much of what it has on the site is being illegally download by people who have no right to take it. You can't deny that most of the users on torrent sites are taking stuff they have no rights to take. Hell you go to torrent freak and any time they post an article that is anti torrent news the users rail about how they will never pay for another thing and how they are proud to be pirates. They love the idea that they are taking all this and not paying for it.

couple of points

1. you keep ignoring all the examples i give you independents who made it without the label (JC for example)

2. many established artist who took it up the ass for years, are now trying to use the technology to break away but when every i mention them you argue they "owe" the record company for their success (as if taking it up the ass with the 90/10 split is not enough)

when eagles and other artist file copyright revokation notices to put their songs in the public domain so they can compete against the record companies selling their own music

you bitch about

when artist like radio head gift their music to their fans authorizing their downloading activities (hell their is an entire organization of some 250 major artist including the bare naked ladies who have made similar offers)

you bitch about.

the record companies signed the contracts that way, they knew the artist had a right put their music into the public domain by revoking the copyright, why should we feel sorry for them.



The new technology creates opportunities for the artist (who would have believed that an artist could make more money voiding their copyright and competing with everyone to sell their music) and the record companies are trying to change the LAWS and there for the conditions of the contract they agreed too. Technology usurped their power, and granted the artist a new opportunity and the record companies want to put the yoke back on the artist.


the arguement cuts both ways why should i feel sorry for them since the market has changed.

record companies can hold a band hostage to a deal for years, so while you claim that most artist keeping quiet are doing so because they don't want to piss off their fans (which should be considered a basic principle of marketing) i think they are keeping quiet because they are afraid of being stuck in development hell (think about if you were afraid of pissing of your fans, and you could make a pro filesharing statement get tons of good press and good will why would you be stupid enough to not make the statement)

The only established artist who make such statements have either sweetheart (my own studio does the production ) deals or are truely independent now.

And I point out that all of them (except for maybe that nerd rock guy, are all on major labels now. They used the internet to get signed to a major label. If their internet success was so fantastic why not just stay there.

My complaint has never been with artists who decide when their contracts are up to go their own way and dsitribute their music however they see fit. I actually give Radiohead credit. They could have gotten tens of millions in advance money from any number of record labels, but they decided they wanted to be independent. That is cool and it take courage.

All I have pointed out in the past is that these types of people are not good examples of the internet allowing success to happen for music acts. These acts are world famous. It is fame their earned during their time with the major labels when millions of dollars and enormous staffs of people were used to get them exposure. They now have that big name and they can capitalize on it if they want. They paid for it, if they want to go their own way, so be it. But you can't compare Radiohead to someone singing cover tunes on Youtube. One is a world wide famous band and the other is someone with some Youtube videos. The playing field is not fair nor is it balanced. Head to head Radiohead is going to destroy that person in downloads and no amount of keyword stuffing or seo will change that.


If you sign a contact you should have to stick to it. I have said it a million times and I will say it again and again and again and again. If it is a bad contract for either party, that is their fault. They entered that contract of their own free will, they have to deal with it.

There have been big names that have come out against file share. Kid Rock is one, Sheryl Crow is another. When the Red Hot Chili Peppers put out their last album Flea mad a statement saying how he was pissed off that the album was online and being illegally downloaded before it was even for sale. The very next day he went on MTV and said he mis-spoke and the doesn't care, feel free to download it. Why did he say that? Not because he was worried about development hell, because he didn't want backlash from the fans. There are a ton of artists who don't care one way or the other.

If an artist wants to use the new technology to market themselves, I don't care. All I want is for those who don't want their stuff downloaded in mass by anyone who wants it to have the ability to stop that.

you make it so simple so until you actually think about it
so i have to track down the copyright holder send them a letter wait month/years for a response and then only then put it up.

So say good bye to using torrent for timeshifting (who would wait months to see the episode of heroes they missed last night)

your solution guarrentees that technology can't be use for it actual legitimate purpose.




again as above, it not that much harder to do that type of check, call the guys home make sure he was the person who signed up. tell him it is being recorded so that if he disputes the charge it will be played in court for charges of fraud.

the kid will never pretend to be the father in that case.

oh wait that would basically put you out of business because everyone would be afraid to signup to such a site. (kill all impulse sales).


bullshit

fair use is a law granted right too, free speech also apply to things like parodies and commentaries. the copyright act never intended to make copyright exclusive rights to be an absolute monopoly, it was and has always been a conditional monopoly., those sites serve both the legitimate purpose (fair use) and the illegitimate purpose at the same time.

Going after the people who don't have a fair use right only fair solution.
Reclasifying the entire site as "allow(ing) people to steal coprighted material" just because some people use the site in that way is just plain bullshit.

name one torrent site that explictly says on their terms and conditions that they are there to steal copyright material

show me one torrent site where you have the ability to tell torrent site that you are putting up the torrent specifically to steal

You can't

your rationalizing your justification to keep a false analog.

Your analog justifies going after the murder who uses the gun to kill someone which is exactly what i am advocating when i keep saying
leave the seeder alone
leave the tracker alone
leave the leacher with fair use right alone
go after the leacher without fair use rights.

and trying to justify going after the tracker (walmart) by creating a situation which has no bases in reality at all.


50% of all torrent traffic is tv shows,

timeshifting is a right that was established some 24 years ago.

most of the movies on trackers are older aired on tv movies (again covered by timeshifting)

every seeder (50% of the transactions) can argue based on the technical specs that they are creating a back up

when i download heroes from the torrent sites i am timeshifing the show from monday to tuesday

when i seed dr who blink i do so with the intent of being able to get it back when i want to watch that episode again (backup and recovery)

add it content covered by piracy tax and authorized by the intrinsic conditions of a binding contract (offer acceptance and consideration) and a majority of torrents traffic are taking content they have a right to take.

The only way you can make the arguement is to ignore the fair use as a technicality that people are hiding behind.

Which by it very nature eliminates the legitimate use of the technology. IT denies me the ability to use torrents as the perfect pvr (infinite storage, never misses a show, never cut out becuase of power outages, always available).


you keep pointing to sites and argue that the vocal few represent the majority, bullshit
many people are just like me, using the torrents for what they should be used as timeshifting/back up and recovery.

Who don't take a single file that they have not bought a right too.

i don't condone either mistaken opinion

and again you are drawing an a +b = g conclusion

the examples i have given are those that publically available success stories.

that represent 1/10 of 1 percent of the "successes" specifically because you don't have to get anywhere near the exposure to eclipse the success of a major label push when you don't have to give away 97% (90/10 + cost comming out your end) of the money from your sales.



btw it two examples

for every 1 artist that make it thru the record system, 347 make lose money (record companies number used to justify the 90/10 screw job)

when i praised radio head for agreeing to testify on behalf of the college student accused of file sharing authorizing the behavor
you argued against it, with not fair to the label bullshit
and how they owed the label for their success and cutting the value of the catalog was unfair
but the contract allowed them to do that

are you reversing your statement



but changing the laws to deal with the new technology does change the contract for the record companies. They signed a contract which gave their artist gifting rights before such rights could authorize file sharing.


but your talking about putting restrictions that would eliminate all the fair use benefits of the technology

how many people do you think would have bought a vcr if you could never know if it would take your favorite show because the content producers would have to give permission before the recording could happen.

if those people had not bought the machine, the home viewing market would never exist (biggest money maker for the movie industry).

kill the traffic generated from the fair use uses and you kill the marketing benefit of the technology too.

Hey Einstien box office is higher because tickets cost more. Try looking at the site and see TICKETS sold. They peaked in 2002 when 1.575 billion tickets were sold. Number has been going down steadily and in 2008 only 1.341 billion were sold. That's the lowest amount since 1996.

The actors salaries is a SMALL % of a movies cost and if less movies get made it isn't the Hollywood millionaires you despise that are going to be hurting financially it's thousands of regular joes that work behind the scenes that don't get paid millions that are going to get hurt. But I suppose you think movies make themselves as if by magic. Also just because a movies makes $400 million doesn't mean the studios makes that much. The studios split the money with the movie theaters.Now you'd think a movie like Transformers 2 which made $400 mil actually made lots of money for the studio, well not really. First of all it cost $200 mil to make. Then you typically add in 15% for promotion so that's $230 mil. Now is made $402 million in the US. Studio gets half, so that's $201 million. So actually in the US that movie LOST $29 million If it wasn't for foreign box office the movie wouldn't have made ANY money.

That's a load of crap and you know it. Recording a TV on your DVR is TOTALLY different than sharing it on a torrent site. Your "right" to time shift doesn't give you a right to share that content. By the way ther are 2 great site to watch Heroes online LEGALLY they are called Hulu.com and NBC.com. If you want a copy to keep and you don't have a DVR or whatever then you pay purchase a comercial free digital copy from many places including amazon, itunes, XBL and PSN for $2, $3 for HD. Or you can go to wally world and buy the DVD of the whole season.

ZERO excuse to go to a torrent site.

To be fair... we have peaks and valleys going all the way back to 1980.. just because they are down a little for a few years, means nothing.

2009, we already beat last year, we already passed 1996, and are on par to beat the previous 5 years... end of the year releases will make or break it.

The number of increased releases is re-released shows, even only showing in one theater, it's marked as a release. The growth in $1 theaters, those are releases that make far less average income and really add to the numbers of off crap movies to watch.

As you stated WOW can't be pirated and you have to pay for subscription kind of explains why it's not hurting. Also games systems like the PS3 and XBOX 360 are basically hack proof. Sure you could mod your system to play illegal games then look what happens, MS kicked off a million XBL users. Now those people are forced to buy new consoles. Hollywood and the music industry doesn't have that option of rendering your TV, DVR computer, MP3 players useless for using pirated material.

Wow. The US must be way cool if they can track every TV in the land and figure out accurate viewing figures!

I always thought you guys used Neilson boxes to do viewership of a tv show, which is a tiny teeny sample. Boy do I feel stupid not knowing about this amazing technology.

Do you have a link to it, because all I can find about how viewing numbers work in the States is about Neilson. How wak and out of date!

But...as more movies were made, then surely the regular joes you mention are getting more work?

Or are these other movies being made done by magic?

REALLY?

Tickets sold in millions

2009 1,239.3
2008 1,341.3
2007 1,404.6
2006 1,406.0
2005 1,379.2
2004 1,510.5

1996 1,338.6

I find it ironic how many people use the excuse that a movie is "crap" as a reason to pirate it. Ok if it's "crap" why would one want to watch it in the first place? Because you got it for free? If I gave you a plate of dog shit would you eat it as long as I said it was free? Of course not. If you want to watch a movie and especially if you want to own it then you just gave it VALUE. Since it has VALUE then it's worth PAYING for.

They tried. But consumers told them to fuck off.

http://news.cnet.com/2100-1023-255144.html

And do you remember the Trusted Platform Module?

Yeah really... from the MPAA directly..

Tickets Sold (billion) (1995) 1.22 1.26 1.42 1.44 1.44 1.39 1.44 1.58 1.55 1.49 1.40 1.41 1.40 1.37 1.38 (2009)


You're an entire page late.. go back to page 2 and catch up.


I'm sorry... I said it was okay to pirate crap movies? Could you quote me on that?

I was showing why more releases have taken place and the money hasn't grown that much for them, or the viewings. Because, they are crap, by the studio standard... thus they can sell them for $1.

Nobody said shit about pirating anything.

This back and forth is pointless. You guys will never alter the other's opinion.

So, how about we turn this into what COULD be done?

Obviously you can't stop copyright infringement.

So how can you make your content uninfringable?

a) live services. One of my clients is a UK TV station. They make free to air live softcore tv shows. (yes you can get free boobies on the telly in England). The money is made from guys ringing up to talk to the onscreen girls. This interaction is not possible to pirate. (We will be launching a hard online stream of the girls you can use as a free members' area plugin for US sites with a freefone US number to call in on next week!).

b) Tangible goods. With the site membership you get x tangible good that is again not pirateable. Limited edition. Etc. Could be as simple as personally signed pair of panties included in site membership.

Anyone else got any positive suggestions, given that we all know you can't stop people sharing your content.

If you understood even the basics of statistics you'd understand you don't need a HUGE sample to get accurate stats. For example a CNN exit poll of 18,000 voters in the 2008 election showed that 53% of the people responding voted for Obama. Overall Obama won 53% of the vote. Hmmm. Funny how just 18,000 votes exactly predicted the results of 125 million votes. That's 1/7 of 1%

That's why I said they don't have that option. With games systems it's closed system. They can do what they want.

Do you actually read the topics at hand before you post?


Your post, is not related to the quote or the quoted, quote... at all.

Fuck you I'm not reading through all those posts. I do WTF I want.


I never said YOU said that. I was speaking in generalities. People DO in fact use that excuse. That's the gist. Next time quit thinking everything is about YOU. YOU are not the topic of this thread. Sorry if that offends you.

Back to the ignore list for you. So next time you'll be posting to yourself. Good luck loser.

Oh... I thought you said, You to me....

Oh did Daddy hurt your little feelings? Hahahahaha...

If it's all garbage why are people pirating movies? Would you take dirty diapers out of someone's trash can just because you can get them for free? Of course not.

And how exactly are we supposed to go after that leacher if his IP address is the only proof we have to show in court? He can always say "my dog did it not me" and get away with it.

Well if we believe the numbers - the adult industry should buy MGM - that should put a twist to the 2257 lawyers

The first thing is regular people don't care about copyright. Now it doesn't help to get them to care when content producers constantly lobby Congress to make it difficult for people to enjoy the content they purchased and keep getting copyright rights extended to ridiculously lengthy terms. Copyright was never meant to be perpetual. In fact originaly it was 14 years. Now it's 95 years or 70 years after the death of the creator if it's a person and not a coproration. Should I seriously have to wait until 2059 to use a Irving Berlin song from 1923 without having to ask permission and pay compensation because the fucker decided to live to 101? Why should I have to compensate his great great great grandchildren that weren't even born before he died?

Back in the 70's copyright was a max of 56 years. It was 28 years then you could get it extended another 28 if you informed the copyright office before the original 28 years was up. That MORE than enough time to make money off your work. Honestly I wouldn't make it more than 50 years.

If a buy a movie should I have to buy a copy for every device I might have? If I have 3 TVs each with a DVD player why shouldn't I be able to make 2 copies for the other 2 players without having to get some software to break encrytption? I have a PSP so why can't I make a copy so I can watch the movie on that? I've already paid for the movie must I HAVE to purchase an additonal copy at FULL PRICE just to have one for my PSP? Come on.

See it's stuff like that that turns normal people into pirates because once they have to do all that shit just to get full use of purchased content it's not that far of a leap for them to think "Hey why should I pay for it at all". Even movies that come with a digital copy limit the number of devices it can be on. What if I get a new computer? Listen I've already paid for your content now you are just going to have to trust me that if you remove the restrictions I am not going to make 1000 copies for all my friends out there. Because seriously if I wanted to do that I could do it anyways DRM or not. It's not a coincidence that much more legal digital music is being purchased since the record lables removed DRM

Fuck me sideways. You are Captain Straw Man, aren't you?

Who said small samples of stats were irrelevant? No one.

You said this:

And I said that is a silly thing to say, because unless you have a Neilson box it will make no difference whatsoever to viewing figures. Will it?

Sigh.

1. hulu and nbc don't work in canada
2. there is no justification to force me to pay for the content twice

i bought a right to view on monday, and the court gave me the right to move that viewing to tuesday if i cant.

your arguement is an attempt to deny me the rights i currently have, to be forced to use an inferior technology to aquire those rights.

OH and btw i am never giving anyone a single working copy of the file, so even that act is covered by cache fair use.

hire a good lawyer
subpoena his computer
actually find your file on his machine

pay the fine if you don't for the privacy violation (assuming you go after a canadian or any other country with good privacy laws)


repeat until you find an actual infringer

I have always said that I don't care if people download TV shows, just understand that if you do download a TV show and it get canceled, you can't complain. If you like the show, watch it and support it.

This will be my final reply to all of this, clearly we aren't going to change each other's minds.

Here is your proof.

go tohttp://www.mininova.org/ and select movies (http://www.mininova.org/cat-list/4 is the url) Sort by number of leechers.

In the top 25 results every movie listed there is either still only available in theaters or it is out of theaters and not yet on DVD. The top movie on the list, 2012, just opened this weekend. That means that every one of the 80,000+ leechers is breaking the law. Every one of them is illegally downloading the movie. All the owner of the site has to do is look at this page and know that his site is being used for illegal activity. If someone uploads that torrent to the site they know they are doing so illegally.

Do you really think that somehow these 80,000 people have gotten an option to early purchase a copy of this movie on DVD and are just backing it up?

again it depends on the jurisdiction the court case that established the foundation of access shifting has happened in the EU, mininova is covered by those laws, so no they are not

many countries don't have an anti camming laws so their is no restriction in the recording which means timeshifting rights could be extended.

sure some countries have a problem and again
you should go after the leechers in that case, but an international organization like mininova has to care about servicing the rights of all potential views (including those that live in a country where access shifting has been established and the movie was not shown = no lost sale)

and let not forget some countries have piracy taxes for all media not just music so for those countries that download is not a violation but simple a contractually paid for distribution. (offer acceptance and consideration)

Lol that kind of non-enforceable copyright laws is exactly what we need, so you worthless dumb motherfucking leeches who cannot create anything original could keep on running your godawful torrent sites stealing other people's work and yet having an excuse "we're covered go after the bad leecher".

Not going to happen. Sooner or later you'll get what you deserve and go back to flipping burgers, the only thing you're good for.