Grooby Legal Action against Piracy ...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AmyDaly

All those "little guys" that you like to call them are the ones using Bit Torrent in mass amounts. Those little guys who are all using bit torrent software are also the providers and uploading content while they download. So yea...those little guys in mass can do a ton of damage.

---

What damage exactly? If someone downloads one of your sets it does not mean you have lost money. If 2000 people download your photos it does not mean you have lost the income from 2000 potential subscribers. A download does not equal a lost sale!

In the vast majority of cases you won't have lost any money at all, in fact you'll have attracted many more potential subscribers, as long as your content is of sufficient quality or fills a missing niche.

I'd actually suggest you experiment and shoot a set that you'll solely release on P2P via torrent sites. Release it (anonymously) and I gaurantee you'll see an increase in site visitors and completed subscribers. Go a stage further and do some A/B testing, using a different url watermark on the photos so you can track visitors coming directly from typing in the url they see.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AmyDaly

If anyone is greedy, its YOU. Some of us spend a lot of our own money to put in to the content that the people you support are stealing. You call it greedy because the people who steal the product that we are putting our time, money, and bodys in to are getting in trouble? You hypocrite.

---

I'm not being greedy at all. I'm not trying to make money from anyone here under the guise of combating piracy. I subscribe to pay sites.

All I'm trying to explain is that if you want to combat piracy, great. If you want to root out the causes of piracy and act on the torrent sharing sites then that is admirable. Extorting money out of people is wrong.

You have to get out of the mindset that just because someone downloaded something it means you've lost money. Whether the file was there or not, if they wanted to subscribe they would have.

I only buy my porn online. It's best to just buy it. People put money into making the product. Show some respect and pay for it instead of being a thief.

We are in a recession and Grooby's prices are terrible for single sites. Grooby's prices are what straight porn networks have for many sites into one payment of the same or lower price as Grooby. That's my only problem with Grooby's sites. The prices do not equal the amount and quality of the content.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AmyDaly

Nothing to do with stopping piracy? Take off the tin foil hat. Grooby isn't the only one suing people. Its not all shemale porn.

---

I know it's not all porn, my point carries the same no matter what the origins of the content. These legal cases are nothing to do with piracy, if you can't see that they do nothing to address the causes and providers of piracy and are only a means of revenue generation then you're missing my point entirely. These "turn-key legal solution" companies are the same that act for the RIAA and they have a proven track record for how they work, if it's not a pretty definitive example of extortion then I don't know what is.

I'm not supporting or even condoning piracy at all, although I will argue that it's nowhere near as bad as you obviously seem to think and can actually be harvested as a positive if done correctly. I'm saying that doing this, threatening to sue people unless they pay you thousands of dollars is ugly and greedy. They're not trying to get the content taken down, they're not trying to get the hosters shut down, they're not trying to do anything about the actual piracy, they're trying to make money. All this while complaining about losing money, even though piracy hasn't actually been shown to cause a loss of sales. Ever.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AmyDaly

And LOL @ Being extorted. They broke the law, deal with it.

---

So let them be charged by the police and the proper authorities then, don't pretend to be all high and mighty for the common good while actually just threatening civil cases to make money. If it's about breaking the law then fine, go for it. But I thought this was all about money, everyones losing money 'cos of piracy right?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AmyDaly

This is from the Jordan Capri site: Look like shemale porn to you?
http://main.jordancapri.com

---

Trust me, I knew very well that neither Jordan or Tawnee were shemales (Despite a few decent photoshops floating around, and my dreams).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AmyDaly

hypocrite

---

Inigo Montoya: "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AmyDaly

oh and it sounds like someone is really ashamed and embarrassed by the porn they look at by the way

---

Not at all, quite the opposite :D

http://www.hungangels.com/vboard/sho...242#post751242

Many use words like "thief" and "pirate" but when enough people feel that it’s okay to do something, that thing ceases to be wrong in their own cultural context. That's just the way it is.

In my opinion artists should be credited and paid but their ability to acquire profit doesn't trump everything else in society like privacy and our ideas of fair use.

Instead of trying to criminalize an entire generation of people they might use their creativity to develop different business models that incorporate free distribution where artists can be paid directly by consumers. Most artists though, particularly high paid ones usually come down on the side companies that exploit artists and consumers.

It is an interesting assertion, that someone would have bought a particular video if they hadn't downloaded it. I don't think that is necessarily true at all. One certainly can't just make the assertion and expect people to accept it.

In terms of music, I tend to download most of my music nowadays from Amazon. That costs me a few pounds per album. But if I hear a song I like on the radio, which is obviously free, then that doesn't mean that I would have bought that same song from Amazon. (Obviously if I didn't even know that the song had been recorded, it makes far more sense to say that I would not have bought it.) In truth, hearing a song on the radio makes me more likely to go on to Amazon and buy it, and while I'm at it, I'll take a look at other material by the same artist.

It's generally accepted, is it not, that one's music being heard on the radio leads to an increase in CD sales? In fact, getting one's music on a radio station playlist is seen by artists and record companies as desirable because it brings considerable financial benefits to both. If people listening to a free source of music leads to an increase in sales, why would porn be any different?

OK, let's look at the big picture for a moment. These copyright groups are targeting the little guys that will acquiese. How about those that don't respond? How about those that are willing to call their bluff? How about those that might pool their resources and mount a good defense with professional witnesses? Up to this point, these are small firms that aren't prepared to litigate many cases concurrently, instead are banking on a steady cash flow from automated demand letters with case numbers plugged into a website and a secured server accepting credit cards. Will they still pursue these cases at their own expense? If they don't, they are admitting to Abuse of Process and this is nothing more then a profit venture and exposing themselves to sanctions and their clients to costly litigation. Just as they were willing to lead a client on to easy profits, there's another group of salivating lawyers just looking for a juicy class action lawsuit.

Don't waste your time on Amy people. Her Kool-Aid was the strongest. Unless your name is Steven or Buddy, your opinion means shit to her.

~BB~

too heavy and complex to sort out but i can try and lighten the mood................... YouTube- Amazon Women On The Moon - Video Pirates

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BellaBellucci

Don't waste your time on Amy people. Her Kool-Aid was the strongest. Unless your name is Steven or Buddy, your opinion means shit to her.

~BB~

---

No, its just you who means shit actually. To everybody lol. Oh and +1 to IL. You just disappeared.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BellaBellucci

Wow, that statement is about as harsh as Danielle's expectations that Verizon and Comcast play Copyright Batman. If you create something, you have the explicit right to own it and profit from it, whether it's physical or intellectual property. My problem isn't with copyrighting. It's with our current methods of (attempted) enforcement.

~BB~

---

I think there's quite a difference between property and "intellectual property" which I don't even consider to be a valid concept. If you take my property then I don't have it anymore.

There may be intellectual rights but there's no property and there's no intrinsic reason that one should continue to be paid for something long after the labor they expended on it is complete. If I design a house I don't get paid every time someone walks through the door but if I make a film I expect to be paid any time someone watches it until the day I die.

The purpose of the original post is what? To serve public notice? State intent? A lawsuit is a lawsuit, let it happen in a courtroom, not the hungangels website. Outside of the suit, this thread looks like a lot of bluff and bluster. Stupid really, along with a lot of stupid posturing by copyright amateurs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SmashysmashY

I think there's quite a difference between property and "intellectual property" which I don't even consider to be a valid concept. If you take my property then I don't have it anymore.

There may be intellectual rights but there's no property and there's no intrinsic reason that one should continue to be paid for something long after the labor they expended on it is complete. If I design a house I don't get paid every time someone walks through the door but if I make a film I expect to be paid any time someone watches it until the day I die.

---

... because the house doesn't generate a profit.

~BB~

So if I sign a non-disclosure agreement about a project someone is working on and I leak it to the world it is somehow a moment of liberation for free speech? Every pay site with copyrighted material has a user agreement which is a legally binding contract where you, the user, state that you will not disseminate any material without some form of authorization from the owner of that material if even allowed at all.

And for the argument that using stolen material to promote the site is a good thing, stick that you up your ass along with your head. Every site has affiliate programs that you can join for FREE and promote the site for FREE without ever releasing actual paid-for material from the members area of the site. And the big kicker to those is you can actually get paid money instead of paying legal fees.

As Amy said:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AmyDaly

LOL @ Being extorted. They broke the law, deal with it.[/url]

---

Whether a person robs a mom & pop store with a .22 somewhere in podunk Kansas or with an AK-47 in the Mall of America it is still armed robbery. Same goes for file sharing pirates, no matter how big or small they may be they broke the law and there are consequences that go along with that.

The fact that potential customers know that pirated material can be easily found online is enough to dissuade them from actually joining a site so yes stolen material does equal loss in income for the owners of the material. So now the playing field is being leveled by letting copyright thieves know that if they steal and they get caught stealing there will be legal action taken against them. So if by letting potential customers know that you can pay a little now for access to the copyrighted material or pay a lot later in legal fines is extortion then go bitch at 7-11 for every shoplifter they ever prosecuted.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BellaBellucci

... because the house doesn't generate a profit.

~BB~

---

You never heard of anyone selling a house before?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by deepthroater

If they're being extorted, yes.

These legal procedures and suits are nothing to do with stopping piracy, nothing to do with addressing the cause of piracy or even the providers of piracy. They are simply a way of getting someone to give you money so you don't publicly drag them through the courts over some shemale porn. In fact they don't even want to go to court, it's too expensive.

If this was about addressing piracy then it would be different, it's not, it's about making money.

---

It is a tactic, but if it reduces the amount of people that share his product on file sharing sites then it will have worked. I doubt a few thousand in settlements are his idea of getting rich.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SmashysmashY

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BellaBellucci

... because the house doesn't generate a profit.

~BB~

---

You never heard of anyone selling a house before?

---

Heh, have you tried selling a house at a profit in the last 2-3 years? Also, I'm sure Bella was talking more about an ongoing, sustainable profit.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JoePitt

Heh, have you tried selling a house at a profit in the last 2-3 years? Also, I'm sure Bella was talking more about an ongoing, sustainable profit.

---

Ongoing sustainable profit like what, rent? The designer doesn't retain any copyrights at all, they certainly don't get royalties. That's not how it works.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SmashysmashY

It's a difficult question to answer because it presupposes that if I wrote a book I would charge people to read it. I would only write a book if I thought it contained important information and I wouldn't be surprised to see electronic copies of it because I would place it in the public domain.

---

Yea but you would have the choice not to charge for it, instead of the choice being made for you. There's quite a difference.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SmashysmashY

Many use words like "thief" and "pirate" but when enough people feel that it’s okay to do something, that thing ceases to be wrong in their own cultural context. That's just the way it is.

---

That's true to a point, of course there are countries where they stone you to death for having an affair, but I wouldn't adopt that as a just punishment simply because people in their culture think it is. Oh and I'm not trying to equate downloading some porn with killing someone, but just pointing out that the whole relativism argument can be quite slippery.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SmashysmashY

There may be intellectual rights but there's no property and there's no intrinsic reason that one should continue to be paid for something long after the labor they expended on it is complete. If I design a house I don't get paid every time someone walks through the door but if I make a film I expect to be paid any time someone watches it until the day I die.

---

If you design a house then you're selling the rights to your design to the person who is having the house built. Grooby is selling (or licensing would be a better term) a finished product, but retain the rights to it. By your logic, only the first customer to buy it need pay, then he's free to give it away to everyone else as he sees fit.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SmashysmashY

Many use words like "thief" and "pirate" but when enough people feel that it’s okay to do something, that thing ceases to be wrong in their own cultural context. That's just the way it is.

---

LOL So by that crazy rationale, you support widespread pedophilia in Afghanistan?

http://www.hungangels.com/vboard/showthread.php?t=49667

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SmashysmashY

You never heard of anyone selling a house before?

---

A house is a tangible item that is bought and sold only once at a time. Content is intangible and consumed en masse. How else would a content producer see a return on their investment if not for copyright laws? If they could give it away for free, it probably wouldn't be very good, would it?

It has everything to do with replication and redistribution, but to use your analogy, if someone designed, say, a pre-fabricated house intended for mass production, then yes I think they should have intellectual property rights. And what NYBURBS said.

~BB~

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JoePitt

LOL So by that crazy rationale, you support widespread pedophilia in Afghanistan?

http://www.hungangels.com/vboard/showthread.php?t=49667

---

You can whine about moral relativism all you like. The facts are undeniable. That's how people behave.

Well if Amy drank the Kool-Aid, Bella is just jealous that no one is offering her a cup. She's as thirsty as anyone else. Those pushy tweets asking Grooby about when her photo set were getting released reeked of desperation.

And I still say that Bella would keep her mouth shut if she had anything worth stealing. But she hasn't put anything into a shoot other than showing up in one of those dumpster-Diva outfits of hers. All Bella does is multi-girl site shoots anyway (burning one porn industry bridge at a time). She knows full well that those sites can repackage her bottom-shelf brand on DVD for the rest of her life, and she won't make squat. So I'm not shocked that she's just fine with Grooby, Sammy, etc getting robbed.

She'll still be destitute and licking peanut butter from a knife in a year, and no one will be able to give her pics away anyway. There's practically no bridges left for her to burn, and these forums and a handful of clubs will be the only places left where anyone will have to look at her.

Meanwhile, people will work hard and invest their money into putting out products that thieves will know are worth stealing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nicole Dupre

Well if Amy drank the Kool-Aid, Bella is just jealous that no one is offering her a cup. She's as thirsty as anyone else. Those pushy tweets asking Grooby about when her photo set were getting released reeked of desperation.

And I still say that Bella would keep her mouth shut if she had anything worth stealing. But she hasn't put anything into a shoot other than showing up in one of those dumpster-Diva outfits of hers. All Bella does is multi-girl site shoots anyway (burning one porn industry bridge at a time). She knows full well that those sites can repackage her bottom-shelf brand on DVD for the rest of her life, and she won't make squat. So I'm not shocked that she's just fine with Grooby, Sammy, etc getting robbed.

She'll still be destitute and licking peanut butter from a knife in a year, and no one will be able to give her pics away. There's practically no bridges left for her to burn, and these forums and a clubs will be the only place anyone will have to look at her.

Meanwhile, people will work hard and invest their money into putting out products that thieves will know are worth stealing.

---

Considering our personal history and the fact that after everything that was said you chose to go right at me instead of discussing the issue like the rest of the grown-ups, I don't think your opinion carries a lot of weight in this thread.

~BB~

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BellaBellucci

Considering our personal history and the fact that after everything that was said you chose to go right at me instead of discussing the issue like the rest of the grown-ups, I don't think your opinion carries a lot of weight in this thread.

~BB~

---

Ultimately you have nothing beyond theory and opinion to bring to the discussion, because you can't relate to having a pay site. And you've said countless times that some people have "too much", "plenty" and "enough" money, so of course you don't care if they're getting robbed. Why don't you just admit it? lol

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NYBURBS

Yea but you would have the choice not to charge for it, instead of the choice being made for you. There's quite a difference.

---

Agreed, there is a difference, but as I said we don't always think people should be paid. I may do many things that I believe I should be paid for, others may not agree.

Quote:

---

That's true to a point, of course there are countries where they stone you to death for having an affair, but I wouldn't adopt that as a just punishment simply because people in their culture think it is. Oh and I'm not trying to equate downloading some porn with killing someone, but just pointing out that the whole relativism argument can be quite slippery.

---

Our understanding of these things may change as technology develops. When the VCR was invented people started recording television programs even though it was considered theft at that time the fair use doctrine evolved to accommodate that.

Quote:

---

If you design a house then you're selling the rights to your design to the person who is having the house built. Grooby is selling (or licensing would be a better term) a finished product, but retain the rights to it. By your logic, only the first customer to buy it need pay, then he's free to give it away to everyone else as he sees fit.

---

No, by my logic creative work does not give one the right to be paid indefinitely. The US constitution even acknowledges this. You probably don't believe that an architect should retain copyrights and receive royalties but I'm sure they wouldn't mind. I already said that they should pursue different business models that incorporate free distribution not that only one person should pay so that is merely a straw man.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BellaBellucci

A house is a tangible item that is bought and sold only once at a time. Content is intangible and consumed en masse. How else would a content producer see a return on their investment if not for copyright laws? If they could give it away for free, it probably wouldn't be very good, would it?

It has everything to do with replication and redistribution, but to use your analogy, if someone designed, say, a pre-fabricated house intended for mass production, then yes I think they should have intellectual property rights. And what NYBURBS said.

~BB~

---

You probably don't think the best way to insure that artists are paid is to remove existing right and sue people even if you believe that it is important. Personally I wouldn't mind just being taxed for it. Artists could be paid that way. Everyone is already downloading anyway. Almost nobody thinks it's immoral. Why criminalize everyone to guarantee profit for distributors who aren't even necessary anymore?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SmashysmashY

The US constitution even acknowledges this. You probably don't believe that an architect should retain copyrights and receive royalties but I'm sure they wouldn't mind. I already said that they should pursue different business models that incorporate free distribution not that only one person should pay so that is merely a straw man.

---

I know what the Constitution says, that's why I posted earlier that I take issue with copyright going beyond the life of the author (and that was done to comply with European demands).

My other point was certainly not a straw man because I have yet to see anyone else here describe what this alternative business model might be. If you know of one then expound upon it, but right now what you have been posting would effectively create a situation where they would only make money from the first customer.

And, Bella, you still have a misleading "Ashley George blog" up, only there to snag a few affiliate bucks. You're as much of a petty thief and a pirate as anyone. It's stuff like that which puts you and your sad little agenda into perspective. You are a pariah and a leech.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SmashysmashY

I already said that they should pursue different business models that incorporate free distribution not that only one person should pay so that is merely a straw man.

---

You're talking about a model like broadcast television then? That's all fine and dandy, but then we'd all have to get into the tangible product business or take on advertisers in order to have something to sell if the content is going to be reduced to being used as promotional material and no longer generates revenue on its own. Those are two lousy models that more than likely wouldn't generate enough revenue to justify the expense and would lower content quality dramatically. That means that only Playboy, Penthouse, and a few other companies with branded product lines would even stand a chance to survive an industry paradigm shift like that.

~BB~

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NYBURBS

I know what the Constitution says, that's why I posted earlier that I take issue with copyright going beyond the life of the author (and that was done to comply with European demands).

My other point was certainly not a straw man because I have yet to see anyone else here describe what this alternative business model might be. If you know of one then expound upon it, but right now what you have been posting would effectively create a situation where they would only make money from the first customer.

---

That's not up to me. But even if there is no valid business model to adopt, then find another business and don't infringe on the right and privacy of others. Some things become obsolete, you can't punish others in the pursuit of profit when it happens.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SmashysmashY

You probably don't think the best way to insure that artists are paid is to remove existing right and sue people even if you believe that it is important. Personally I wouldn't mind just being taxed for it. Artists could be paid that way. Everyone is already downloading anyway. Almost nobody thinks it's immoral. Why criminalize everyone to guarantee profit for distributors who aren't even necessary anymore?

---

A government solution to a corporate problem? That'd be a first! :lol:

~BB~

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nicole Dupre

Ultimately you have nothing beyond theory and opinion to bring to the discussion, because you can't relate to having a pay site. And you've said countless times that some people have "too much", "plenty" and "enough" money, so of course you don't care if they're getting robbed. Why don't you just admit it? lol

---

Ashley started that blog with me. Don't act like I just decided to poach her out of nowhere. Again, you have no credibility or objectivity in dealing with me anymore.

~BB~

This is comedy. Seriously. Ashley is not happy with having this weirdo use her pics to keep that misleading piece of shit blog up. lol

You're such a fucking hypocrite, Bella.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BellaBellucci

A government solution to a corporate problem? That'd be a first! :lol:

~BB~

---

Well, maybe dinosaurs shouldn't have gone extinct and your car should tip over when the drive through waitress puts food on it like in the opening credits to the Flintstones.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BellaBellucci

Ashley started that blog with me. Don't act like I just decided to poach her out of nowhere. Again, you have no credibility or objectivity in dealing with me anymore.

~BB~

---

What are you saying? That's you have a right to poach her from anywhere? lol

And I'm sure there are all kinds of thieves who I lack "credibility" with. I guess you have to take it from where it comes. lol

But the fact is, Ashley is not cool with that blog, you thieving goon.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brittany St Jordan

The fact that potential customers know that pirated material can be easily found online is enough to dissuade them from actually joining a site so yes stolen material does equal loss in income for the owners of the material.

---

No.

Technically yes, everyone is a potential customer, but you're wrong if you think that 1 x Pirate Download = 1 x Potential Customer Getting Product Free = 1 x Loss Of Paying Customer.

Have you ever downloaded pirated porn sets from anywhere? As a delivery method it absolutely sucks! Trying to find anything relevant is difficult and disjointed, there's no real way of knowing what you're getting or previewing content to see if it's what you actually want, you have to hunt around numerous different sites and it's actually pretty hit and miss as to whether you get anything you were actually looking for. Throw in the shemale niche and relying on pirated content is hugely frustrating and pretty useless.

They isn't some bunch of secret pirate sites with a full catalogue of every photo set ever taken, ready to browse and download at your convenience. In fact a quick visit to ThePirateBay, arguably the largest torrent site on the internet, and a search for 'shemale' brings up a massive, industry bankrupting 9 pirated files:

http://img714.imageshack.us/img714/4884/picture4fn.png

The stark fact of the matter is, if someone wants shemale porn they're going to subscribe to a paysite, if they're able to. It's far easier, and actually worth the subscription fees (well maybe not ALL sites are worth the subscription fees but whatever).

Downloading a pirated file simply does not equate to a loss of revenue.

(Hypothetical explantion - Not actually my actions!)
If there was a file there called "Shania TitsMcCock - Latest Set!" I'd probably download it and have a look. But that doesn't mean Shania has lost out on a customer. If I had to pay for the file I wouldn't download it, not because I expect things for free but because I'm just not interested in her enough to pay.
(/Hypothetical explantion - Not actually my actions!)

If someone is able to pay for a product they will, they're your real potential customers and will only be convinced of paying for products by the quality of the product and their personal desire for it.

Someone downloading a pirate file is not a lost sale.

Want proof of this? I kept seeing photos of a fetish model around the net and really liked her. I wanted to see more and had a look on torrent sites to see if there was anything available. I found one or two sets, thought she was amazing and decided that I'd go and subscribe to her site.

http://www.themoshroom.com

The fact that there were pirated files of her sets available didn't stop me from subscribing to her site, in fact they actively encouraged me to find, visit and consequently give her money every month. (Should I be prosecuted for piracy after downloading her sets?)

For those who want to know the IPs and what they downloaded....

http://notatypewriter.wordpress.com/...rent-lawsuits/

http://notatypewriter.files.wordpres...6708326036.pdf

http://www.archive.org/details/gov.uscourts.ilnd.247136 <--the filing itself

:whistle:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SmashysmashY

That's not up to me. But even if there is no valid business model to adopt, then find another business and don't infringe on the right and privacy of others. Some things become obsolete, you can't punish others in the pursuit of profit when it happens.

---

I'm a bit lost as to what rights you're referring to. If this were a case where companies were unknowingly installing code on your computer to see what you browsed, then I would agree there would be a privacy issue. However, that is not the case here. There is a website open to the public with visible links to download the plaintiff's intellectual property, they are moving for disclosure of the identities of persons that used that site to download it. They can't prosecute their claim without that information, so nothing nefarious about that.

lol, for help with piracy call us now: 800 D-I-V-O-R-C-E!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NYBURBS

I'm a bit lost as to what rights you're referring to. If this were a case where companies were unknowingly installing code on your computer to see what you browsed, then I would agree there would be a privacy issue. However, that is not the case here. There is a website open to the public with visible links to download the plaintiff's intellectual property, they are moving for disclosure of the identities of persons that used that site to download it. They can't prosecute their claim without that information, so nothing nefarious about that.

---

Torrent files don't contain copyright protected material.