Torrentz.eu Domain Name Suspended 226
First time accepted submitter S37Rigor Mortis (1601271) writes "Torrentz.eu, the largest torrent search engine on the Internet, has had its domain name suspended following a request from the Police Intellectual Property Crime Unit in the UK. The site continues to operate under two alternative domains, and is hoping to move the .eu domain to a new registrar." Update: 05/27 12:53 GMT by T : That was quick; the site is back, "after the owners pointed out that its suspension was illegal."
Brits still think they own the world... (Score:2, Interesting)
The Fascist Police of London had a .com domain pulled from a Ukrainian website the other day...
Re:Brits still think they own the world... (Score:5, Insightful)
Really, from what I've been able to read so far the City of London Police "made a request" and the registrar agreed to that request.
Not saying this is right or wrong, just questioning the fascist bit.
Re:Brits still think they own the world... (Score:5, Insightful)
Fascists very seldom use violence, or even direct threat of violence. They create an environment where they don't need to.
When you say "made a request", what exactly do you mean. "Made a request" means that it was implied that the registrar somehow would be held accountable or that they otherwise would be given a hard time if they didn't comply then it is perfectly fair to claim that the police has fascist tendencies.
With the right intonation and in the right environment "It would be unfortunate if you didn't comply" or "I would be disappointed if you didn't comply" is far more threatening than "I will hit you if you don't comply"
Re:Brits still think they own the world... (Score:5, Insightful)
Really, from what I've been able to read so far the City of London Police "made a request" and the registrar agreed to that request.
Not saying this is right or wrong, just questioning the fascist bit.
Let's say you live in an apartment. What if they "made a request" to your landlord to lock you out of your own apartment, and the landlord dutifully complied. Perhaps you might feel differently if your stuff was taken in such a manner.
Re: (Score:3)
The City of London is a defacto city state and an actual corporatocracy.
The City of London police are their hired thugs.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Brits still think they own the world... (Score:5, Informative)
As I understand it, the Police of London is a very small, mostly corporate controlled entity with much less impact than they purport to have.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C... [wikipedia.org]
Now a redirect (Score:5, Interesting)
I got redirected to torrentz.ch and I can't tell if this is blocked by British ISPs like torrentz.eu was...
So no service problems. Good job internet.
Re:Now a redirect (Score:5, Informative)
hate replying to myself, but after proxying through my home server (on BT infinity), torrentz.ch is certainly not blocked. Way to go UK!
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Thank you for reporting this problem. Our engineers our still working out some implementation details. This should be fixed shortly.
-- BT Infinity
Do we have a better file sharing solution? (Score:5, Interesting)
Granted, this whack-a-mole game with individual torrent sites makes for a fun show sometimes. But I find it embarrassing that the online community has to work around these issues time after time, and that some good people get caught up in legal battles.
Are there any good alternatives to bittorrent for private, anonymous file search and exchange? I heard about several "darknet" projects, but they never seem to gain traction for some reason. Given a huge number of hobbyist hackers who support free exchange of information, I am surprised.
Is there a fundamental reason why we cannot have free, anonymous file exchange? Or is everyone just happy with the status quo?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Most people have things they don't want to have freely available (child porn, for example) and prioritize suppressing them over free availability of other things, thus they shy away from free, anonymous file exchanges.
That's the problem with anarchy in general: everyone's free to do what they want, including things I don't want them to do.
Re: (Score:2)
This sounds like one of plausible reasons. I imagine this would keep me from joining one of those networks where everybody must store and share a bunch of encrypted file fragments without knowing what's inside. I would not like to facilitate in distribution of certain content in any way, nor to be potentially liable.
But is this so fundamental? Perhaps we could develop some system where everyone can self-moderate what they share. Maybe also some sort of voting and commenting system could help.
Building su
Re: (Score:3)
bittorrent is not a scheme for file search. It's a data transfer protocol. How you find torrents is not within the realm of bit torrent. If your aim is to suck down huge amounts of data, there is no competitor.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, I know. I was referring to the bittorrent community in general, including the index websites, forums with links, seeders, etc.
In fact, it makes me wonder even more. When we already have a great data transfer protocol, and even a distributed database for hashes that makes "magnet links" work, why is there still no mainstream distributed keyword search system on top of that?
Part of the reason could be people disappointed with spammy eDonkey experience. Another part, as one poster here mentioned, is t
Re:Do we have a better file sharing solution? (Score:5, Insightful)
Because the software market would completely tank if large file sharing was legal.
There is so much wrong with this post:
1. File sharing in general is legal. Sharing certain specific files may be illegal in certain jurisdictions.
2. The legal side of the problem is separate. In many spheres of life there is an area of untracked relations between people. Small cash transfers, personal presents, favors, discussions, meetings. I understand that the governments want to control, censor and tax all of this as much as possible, and at least ask for voluntary self-reporting in many cases. But I feel this "breath room" is important to keep the society sane, and we should have an equivalent in the digital world.
3. The software market would not tank even if file sharing became easier. There are risks in downloading software from untrusted sources, and people who can afford it (or cannot afford the risk) normally buy it. Then there is also support, upgrades, special deals and so on. Media market has more to worry about, but also not as much as they claim.
Mod parent interesting (Score:2)
I also noticed the spam/"poisoning" problem with p2p networks. Using BitCoin-like algorithmic approach to solve that is a new idea to me, which I need to think more about to understand it, but it does sound interesting.
Another decentralized system where spam problem was somewhat mitigated is email. For me, SpamAssassin with its bayesian filters was a 90% fine solution, and GMail with its power of scale solved the problem for 99.9% of cases. There may be 1 in 1000 slipped spam or a false positive, but that
Re: (Score:2)
So spam and poisoning is a real problem, but not an unsolvable one.
Email spam is a very different problem from p2p file sharing spam. With email, the spam filter has the luxury of getting to see the entirety of the message before deciding if it's spam. On the other hand, a p2p file sharing client only gets a filename + hash. With better heuristics it could conceivably rank the filenames based on relevance to your search term, but that is unneccessary in most cases. What's more important is to decided whether the filename actually describes the content identified by 'hash'
Re: (Score:2)
So maybe this community screening/flagging could be decentralized?
And maybe we could still find a meaningful set of heuristics for the spam filter? Signals from users, file type, file size, first uploader location and software stack, known file checksums in the package, etc. - maybe if there are 100 carefully calibrated input signals, the detection rate would keep it usable.
Also, AC in this thread made vague suggestions about using PGP authentication (for trusted uploaders?) and some bitcoin-like algori
Mod parent interesting (Score:2)
Another useful idea, probably from the same AC as above:
PGP has incredible potential as a decentralized authentication system, and once you have one of those, you can have consensuses that are highly resistant to interference (i.e. censorship).
There aren't many situations where anonymity is particularly useful
Now this is ironic in an AC post. Also, I don't understand your point about anonymity working against you in preventing the monitoring. Are you talking about "circle of friends" type networks?
Criminal scum (Score:3, Insightful)
These criminal scum need to be stopped. The City of London Police are abusing their power to enforce civil matters and shut down legitimate search engines. Apparently no-one is watching the watchers.
Re: (Score:2)
City of London top brass also in cahoots with Scientology as well from what I understand. Theyre an honest bunch
Re: (Score:3)
The City of London Police are abusing their power to enforce civil matters and shut down legitimate search engines.
And what's really odd is that this domain is blocked in the UK by the big ISPs anyway. It was blocked along with a bunch of others back in October 2013 [independent.co.uk].
If I try to access it on my current ISP, I get redirected here: http://assets.virginmedia.com/site-blocked.html [virginmedia.com].
So the City Police are trying to take down a domain that you can't even access directly in the UK.
Re: (Score:2)
These criminal scum need to be stopped. The City of London Police are abusing their power to enforce civil matters and shut down legitimate search engines. Apparently no-one is watching the watchers.
Copyright infringement is a criminal matter, not a civil one. Our duly elected governments have passed various (albeit baddly concieved) laws making this the responsibility of the police to enforce as a criminal matter. Therefore the police are kind of forced into doing this sort of stuff. I agree with some of your sentiment, but factually you are utterly incorrect.
If you are going to post about what a stupid move this sort of thing is, and how ineffective it will turn out to be then fine, that is correct.
Re: (Score:2)
One of the residents of the City of London needs to challenge the voting arrangements (specifically, the allocation of votes) for the City of London through the EU courts. I expect that the current system would be deemed illegal.
Re:Criminal scum (Score:5, Insightful)
Try googling "harry potter torrent" and see what links you get. It indexes content, legitimate or otherwise.
Re:Criminal scum (Score:4, Insightful)
Try googling "harry potter torrent" and see what links you get. It indexes content, legitimate or otherwise.
No, there is a big difference because Google's main intent is not to promote piracy.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I think a lot of Slashdot users can't cope with the fact that the law and software algorithms work differently.
Ah, Pirates (Score:2)
Re:Criminal scum (Score:4, Insightful)
Wait, this search engine located at youtube.com - is that not primarly used for pirating music and videos? At least that is what I use it for, almost to 99%. And youtube.com is a service run by Google.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
On the other hand, they do remove content based on complaints
Which of torrentz.eu cannot do even if they wanted to, as they don't host any content.
Re: (Score:2)
Don't they host the metadata that allow the download of the disputed data? Would not removing the torrent (search result) upon request be sufficient to keep torrentz.eu unblocked?
Re: (Score:2)
On the other hand, they [Google] do remove content based on complaints
Which of torrentz.eu cannot do even if they wanted to, as they don't host any content.
Google does not host the content either.
Re: (Score:2)
Google does not host the content either.
So YouTube is just a collection of pointers to data held on non-Google servers?
Then, too, there's Google's cache of web crawling, which has sometimes allowed me to access something when the site is down for whatever reason, including a DMCA-style takedown. Google hosts a lot of content, and a lot of it is infringing. Google has had lawsuits claiming that their search crawler is copyright infringement by itself, even if results aren't returned for that site.
Re: (Score:2)
Googlebots index web pages automatically and users can post any kind of content to YouTube. Google simply does not have the time to manually check if any item is copyright-infringing or not. That's why they have to rely on deleting data on copyright violation complaints sent by the authors.
Look, I know that a lot of pirated material slips into Google's indexes, but that does not justify a service like Torrentz.eu or The Pirate Bay, which deliberately have their main focus on pirated stuff.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Why would linking to links be any safer, legally? Is it not the criminal [sic?] intent that is the differentiator here. Google lacks it, torrentz.eu has [1] it.
[1] I actually don't know. torrentz.eu cannot be reached right now, so I cannot gauge their attitude. Who knows, perhaps they also have a take-down notice page?
Re: (Score:2)
Wait, this search engine located at youtube.com - is that not primarly used for pirating music and videos? At least that is what I use it for, almost to 99%. And youtube.com is a service run by Google.
Google gives copyright holders the option to collect any advertising revenue from infringing content.
Torrentz.eu... not so much.
Re: (Score:2)
Google gives copyright holders the option to collect any advertising revenue from infringing content.
That's fairly recent. Less than a year? For a decade, they did not. Also, any sort of decency requires that one asks the copyright holder first, before starting to distribute the copyrighted material...
Torrentz.eu... not so much.
So if torrentz.eu would offer ad revenue to the copyright holder, all would be ok? The copyright holder has no say in the matter?
Re: (Score:2)
Wait, this search engine located at youtube.com - is that not primarly used for pirating music and videos?
Disney's Frozen ''Let It Go'' Sequence Performed by Idina Menzel [youtube.com]
Licensed by Disney for distribution through YouTube.
239.7 million views.
Searching YouTube for all things Frozen will return 23 million hits, a quarter million hits for the music and lyrics alone, again, all licensed content or "fair use."
Re: (Score:2)
No, there is a big difference because Google's main intent is not to promote piracy.
I think what torrentz.eu promotes is simply the sharing of digital content, with or without the copyright holder's consent, not robbery and violence at sea. I could be wrong though.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Really? So all torrentz.eu has to do is a dual search engine ("search for torrents or cat pictures!") and force users to do one cat picture search before they can do a torrent search. This way only 49% of searches are illegal and the service won't be shut down.
Re: (Score:2)
You'd have to be a complete idiot to think that the users actually want those cat pictures rather than the copyright infringing files. This is why the law uses a human element. We can use our judgement. You'd also have to be a complete idiot to believe that torrentz.eu isn't primarily interested in facilitating copyright infringement.
Re: (Score:3)
You are talking like a law and order person who never questions whether copyright is good, fair, and balanced. You just jumped right to an examination of whether torrentz.eu aids others to infringe on copyrights as if its beyond question that that's Bad, and declared that its so obvious that torrentz.eu does so that anyone who tries to argue otherwise is being stupid, and that there's no doubt torrent sites are Guilty Guilty Guilty.
Of course they link to pirated material! But is that so bad, really? It
Re: (Score:2)
I have no doubt that torrentz.eu would be seen as infringing copyright material.
I'm not so sure. Torrent sites merely link to material that may or may not be mostly copyrighted; they do not host it themselves.
If it were to go to court, based on the law as is written
Possibly even here, they would be declared innocent. But the law may have clauses that declare activities like merely linking, or not responding to takedown requests in a timely fashion, are infringing, and they'd be found guilty. Or the legal system may feel pressured to find them guilty even if the law doesn't have any such clauses. Hard to guess how a court case would turn
Re: (Score:2)
You'd have to be a complete idiot to think that the users actually want those cat pictures rather than the copyright infringing files.
Those cat pictures are also very likely copyrighted, and might even be infringing themselves.
Seriously, don't people understand that essentially everything returned from a search is copyrighted, and there is absolutely no way to know for sure if similar content at one link is infringing while another link is not. For a good example, look at all the bogus DMCA takedown requests based on simple keyword searches. Many times the content isn't infringing, and in some cases takedown requests have been issued by
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
"possibly more thqan 99% of users- use torrentz.eu purely for copyright infringing uses. I know I do, and so do most of my friends. I'd also estimate that less than 5% of Google users are looking for infringing files."
But if looking at absolute numbers the amount of people searching for infringing files in Goole is way larger than in torrenz.eu. Basically you are saying the corner dealer has to go to jail because he sold drugs to 99 people and his sandwich to one, where Walmart is ok because they sold drugs
Re: (Score:2)
'Legitimate? The site clearly promotes piracy.'
As legitimate as BBC and other media companies openly supporting terrorists in Syria. Why not shut them down too on some kneejerk?
Re: (Score:2)
And how many times does youtube get sued and gets copyrighted content pulled? Why don't you be a hero and try uploading a recent movie onto youtube and see how long it stays?
Most copyrighted content on youtube is music, which is usually a very low quality reproduction, which is probably why it survives being taken down. Plus the song enjoys free publicity being on youtube.
Re: (Score:2)
And how many times does youtube get sued and gets copyrighted content pulled? Why don't you be a hero and try uploading a recent movie onto youtube and see how long it stays?
Most copyrighted content on youtube is music, which is usually a very low quality reproduction, which is probably why it survives being taken down. Plus the song enjoys free publicity being on youtube.
Exactly!!
I this case the police actually try and engage with the site owners first and help them become legal. That means honouring take down requests from rights holders and such. Google quite happily do that, so they are fine even if in some cases they do enable people to find pirated work. Torrentz.eu on the other hand probably do not honour take down requests :)
It is not about whether your site enables copyright infringement, it is about whether you make even the slightest attempt to take stuff down whe
Re: (Score:2)
They could not if they wanted to, they do not host any content, remember?
Re: (Score:2)
So, would it be legal to have a website that posted contact details (name, contact phone #, email) of assassins for hire? The site owners/creators are not involved in killing anyone, so it should be legal, right?
This "not hosting pirated content, only the location of it" argument is complete lawyeristic bullshit, akin to finding legal loopholes.
Re:Criminal scum (Score:5, Informative)
I did a search and if you are looking for copyrighted materials you can find them. But you find a lot of other stuff as well. Linux distributions, freely distributable music. Public domain materials etc. this is a search engine.
Re: (Score:3)
that doesn't matter.
google is largely geared towards finding copyrighted porno.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Can you prove that? The site is geared towards torrents, but it doesn't imply the legality of those torrents.
If the site happens to have mainly illegal torrents, that is not a fault of the site.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Why aren't google blocking these dodgy torrent sites?
That would be shooting the messenger. Google indexes everything.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Show your math, please.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Piracy or not, last time I checked copyright violations were not in the CRIMINAL code. So what's the police doing there? Enforcing the interest of a PRIVATE party?
Re: (Score:2)
I think it's about time we stop pretending mega-corporations are "private". I propose a threefold model: there's the "official" sector, composed of the institutions that are officially the part of the government structure, the "public" sector, composed of various non-governmental institutions (corporations, nonprofits, religious organizations, etc), and the "private" sector, composed of individuals.
Among other things, this would le
Re: (Score:3)
You mean like this?
https://torrentz.eu/525245e5e3... [torrentz.eu]
Or this?
https://torrentz.eu/156b69b864... [torrentz.eu]
Or this?
https://torrentz.eu/4d75347442... [torrentz.eu]
Or that one maybe?
https://torrentz.eu/e67f4ebb4c... [torrentz.eu]
Hey, what do you know? They actually distribute some legal content! Amazing!
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, if you search long and hard enough you might even find some legitimately freely distributable content.
Until Google caved to big media, adding "filetype:torrent" to your Google search gave you pretty much the same results at Torrentz gave. There is no difference between Google and Torrentz except that Torrentz specializes in searching for .torrent files.
I expect that Google will shortly have to cave about image searches, since basically everything returned from a Google image search is not freely distributable, and much of it is already infringing. As an example, I use Google image search to find better cov
Re: (Score:2)
How are they not real police? They have been given police powers.
Since when... (Score:5, Insightful)
I should like to point out that I, a registered voter and taxpayer, have never been asked whether I want my taxes spent on something so monumentally stupid as a Police Intellectual Property Crime Unit. And I suspect that its creation was an idea planted, bought, and paid for by You-Know-Who.
Re:Since when... (Score:5, Funny)
...does City of London police have any jurisdiction outside City of London? Registrar should not have caved in.
I should like to point out that I, a registered voter and taxpayer, have never been asked whether I want my taxes spent on something so monumentally stupid as a Police Intellectual Property Crime Unit. And I suspect that its creation was an idea planted, bought, and paid for by You-Know-Who.
Voldemort? Already?
Re:Since when... (Score:5, Interesting)
City of London Police are a very strange entity, since the Corporation of London isn't really a democratic body, and their police force should be viewed as serving the interests of their corporate masters, rather than the people at large. As such, I wouldn't obey any instruction from them without a court order.
http://www.theguardian.com/com... [theguardian.com]
Re:Since when... (Score:5, Interesting)
their corporate masters
In case anyone reading this believes this ios hyperbole or some left wing rant, it is literally true. The companies in the City get to vote in proportion to the number of employees and so vastly out vote the citizens.
Re:Since when... (Score:5, Informative)
In case anyone reading this believes this ios hyperbole or some left wing rant, it is literally true. The companies in the City get to vote in proportion to the number of employees and so vastly out vote the citizens.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C... [wikipedia.org]
civilian votes: 7.000
corporate votes: 32.000
Basically, corporations determine what the City of London Police's policies and priorities are.
Re: (Score:2)
That's just madness.
Re:Since when... (Score:5, Interesting)
I should like to point out that I, a registered voter and taxpayer, have never been asked whether I want my taxes spent
IO take it you don't really know much about the City of London, then. Since I now walk through it daily I thought I'd do a bit of reading. It is a very, very strange place (and the police are an arm of it). To refer to it as "well dodgy" is a massive understatement.
So firstly, it's older than the England you know: the administrative system (known as the Corporation of London) predates the Normal conquest of 1066, though they had their charter re issued after since it was lost at some point. The Corporation of London is some weird hybrid between a local council, an ancient government, a company and a secret society.
This means it's embedded in the legal system in weird and woderful ways. For example, they have a representative in the house of commons (not an MP) to make sure that parliament is acting in their interests. Also, the registered voters not only include humans, but businesses too and in proportion to the number of employees within the city. This means that bisuness vastly out vote the local residents. And for part of this you're only eligible to run for office if you've already been given the freedom of the city, making it a massively closed system.
The dodgyness continues. The manifestation of this in the dody dealings of the City of London police is only the tiniest tip of a very large iceberg. About the best thing you can say about the City of London police is they sometimes wear those rather anachronistic Policeman's capes which look kinda cool.
Re:Since when... (Score:5, Informative)
Going on... The City of London is often also called "the square mile" because it's a really very small part of the blob of the UK called "London". All of the London councils dwarf the City in both number of people resident and square miles covered. The rest of london has somewhere between 6 and 10 million residents.
The City has a population of something like 7000 people, yet has something like >5,000,000 visitors every working day. To some extent, it makes sense not to let 7000 people define the local government policy for so may visitors (just about all of whom work for one of the areas employers).
However, by the same token, those employers shouldn't be defining local government (or in this case, local police) policy. The City Police have asked for things like this before, and mostly been rebuffed, as seems reasonable, given who/what they represent.
As the GP notes, We the People have never been asked if we'd like this sort of thing to go on - but then we actually don't pay for the City Police directly, as it is really paid for by the Corporation of London, who are paid for by the businesses within it. Hence we have this fscked up setup where there's a (small) police force for hire by whomever pays the most. That wouldn't be so bad if they just stayed in the square mile, but sadly they're starting to see their remit as "the Internet" as well. We the People could argue that the actions of the City Police brings the actions of the wider police force into disrepute though, I guess (not such a bad idea actually, now I think of it).
The moral of the story is: If you receive an "official" communication from some police force or other, politely decline to do what they ask unless they can provide a court order. This will keep you out of trouble for longer than trying to be "helpful". Our judges might not be perfect, but for the most part they won't furnish the City Police with a court order for something as flimsy as this.
Re: (Score:2)
I should like to point out that I, a registered voter and taxpayer, have never been asked whether I want my taxes spent on something so monumentally stupid as a Police Intellectual Property Crime Unit.
Yes, you have. It's called an election.
Re: (Score:2)
...does City of London police have any jurisdiction outside City of London? Registrar should not have caved in.
I should like to point out that I, a registered voter and taxpayer, have never been asked whether I want my taxes spent on something so monumentally stupid as a Police Intellectual Property Crime Unit. And I suspect that its creation was an idea planted, bought, and paid for by You-Know-Who.
Yes you were, just like I was. We both got the opportunity to vote in the last general election where we got to pick which bunch of toerags we wanted to rule us. The fact that not one single party that had loosening copyright law in its manifesto stood any chance of being elected simply means that most of the UK population do not give a toss about this either way unfortunately.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
> That just isn't how it works. However, you probably should make your MP aware of what is wrong
https://www.writetothem.com/ [writetothem.com]
> and Boris too
https://www.london.gov.uk/cont... [london.gov.uk] (includes an email address)
You can also contact the Lord Mayor (City of London) spokesmen.
http://www.cityoflondon.gov.uk... [cityoflondon.gov.uk]
> It can't be much harder than posting to Slashdot can it?
Not much harder but you have to sacrifice anonymity and supply a UK postal address.
> Obviously I didn't read the article. And am just rambling.
Bes
It's Back ... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Really? (Score:2)
I just now went there and it looks up to me.
Re: (Score:2)
ditto \(o_O)/
Torrents? Ew! (Score:2)
fuck ibtimes (Score:2)
Random video auto-plays with sound, nattering about some cellphone bullshit.
Re: (Score:2)
I was previously unaware of torrentz.eu (Score:2)
But now, thanks to the Metropolitan Police, I've been made aware of it. That's the police having the -exact- opposite effect of the one they wanted!
Thanks, Mr Plod.
NOT the metropolitan police! (Score:2)
City of London Police paid by (Score:2)
Is the City of London Police paid now by ProMusic, Music Matters, FindAnyFilm, TheContentMap, and by BPI, ifpi, and Publisher Association?
I always think the first country to have a private police force would be the USA and not the UK, but here you have it.
Re:City of London Police paid by (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, I was reading about that. Does the Police have any jurisdiction outside of the old City of London? If not, Torrentz can sue them for damages.
Re: (Score:3)
It's taken from Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged. The Conservopedia people worship this book.
Re: (Score:2)
So... does that mean we'll be seeing an Conservative Atlas Shrugged Rewrite Project [conservapedia.com] soon?