Take that you no good dirty pirates!

[Elixer]

http://thenextweb.com/insider/2015/07/23/hahahahahahahaha/

NBC Universal asked Google to take down a lot of links from its own machines apparently sharing 47 Ronkin:

They should sue themselves immediately, and pay triple damages.

 

[Zee]

could be traps to see who the downloaders are?

 

[cbrunny]

I liked Jurassic World. Good flick.

I always think Jurassic is spelled wrong though. I want to spell it Jurrassic.

 

[TwiceOver]

I liked Jurassic World. Good flick.

I always think Jurassic is spelled wrong though. I want to spell it Jurrassic.

Tony the Tiger: "They'rrre Jurrrrrrrrassic!"

 

[poofyhairguy]

Tony the Tiger: "They'rrre Jurrrrrrrrassic!"

thats funny

 

[Phoenix86]

could be traps to see who the downloaders are?

If the legally authorized distributor is providing seeds for downloads...

 

[smackababy]

If the legally authorized distributor is providing seeds for downloads...

Now, I'm no lawyer, but if I were giving the keys to my car to strangers, I don't think I could claim it was stolen when someone accepts them.

 

[Lean L]

I have been trying to make sense of this story since I heard about it.

Presumably all those links came from some sort of google search? Google will never return 127 results? How would they do that?

 

[ImpulsE69]

No, the IP's came from the movie industry cronies scanning their own systems and sent to Google to have them remove the links. It's an automated process.

The first part is why it is so funny. My guess is someone hacked their systems and put bittorrent on them.

 

[Phoenix86]

I have been trying to make sense of this story since I heard about it.

Presumably all those links came from some sort of google search? Google will never return 127 results? How would they do that?

They could have collected them from a number of methods (could be multiple methods at once) which may or may not show their own IPs regardless if they are hosting the file or not. It's not proof they were hosting/seeding, but it's interesting because it does make sense to setup a honeypot and generate a list that way.

I don't think any of these cases make it to court these days do they? If the suspicion was true and exposed in court it could set precedence against the distributor.

 

[Lean L]

They could have collected them from a number of methods (could be multiple methods at once) which may or may not show their own IPs regardless if they are hosting the file or not. It's not proof they were hosting/seeding, but it's interesting because it does make sense to setup a honeypot and generate a list that way.

I don't think any of these cases make it to court these days do they? If the suspicion was true and exposed in court it could set precedence against the distributor.

It's kind of lazy to just send google a list of URLs that are have not been crawled and therefore not showing up in searches in my opinion.

Also, why would the honeypot be the same computer that serves the content? Can they not afford servers?

This is sloppy either way you look at it.