BitTorrent Gives Hollywood a Headache 694
fudgefactor7 writes "Although the MPAA and the RIAA, and practically anyone else who has an interest in protecting their intellectual property rights online, are fighting against P2P programs like EDonkey, Morpheus, and Napster, BitTorrent is coming under even greater scrutiny, albeit with less actual success so far, and that is giving Hollywood a headache, since they really don't know what to do about it and they can't go to Cohen and moan. Once he let the genie out of the bottle there was no way to put it back in. And with the likes of PeerGuardian, et. al., it only gets harder for the corporations to put the virtual, and legal, smackdown on file sharing."
Legally (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Legally (Score:2, Insightful)
It`ll be interesting to see how they deal with it.
Re:Legally (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Legally (Score:3, Informative)
On an individual basis when there's only one downloader, it's not. But given that many people will be attempting to get a file at once, it's faster because instead of ALL of them going to the original providers, they get some of their data from the other downloaders.
Specific example: You start to download, and get 50% of the file at 1 Mb/s (which is the provider's upload cap). Then a new person starts to down
Why BitTorrent is Fast (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Legally (Score:3, Informative)
It makes file transfers faster for at least two reasons. You need to understand at least a little about how it works. The file is divided into a number of hashed chunks. The torrent file contains the hash information (and the IP address of the tracker used). The bittorrent client provides chunks to other clients randomly. So no matter how much of a file a particular client has it is likely to have chunks others
if you suppress upload your download suffers (Score:3, Informative)
Bittorrent is fast as hell because it spreads big data like a virus. If one person were to offer a DVD rip of Spiderman2 on Kazaa or Limewire, how many people are going to really be able to download a 1.5 gig file before the original person decides their bandwidth would be better used by gaming or some other activity? Of those people who successfully got the original file, how many are going to also allow uploads of it and so on? Probably not a lot. In the Bittorrent model, the original host for the file o
Re:Legally (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Legally (Score:4, Interesting)
That depends on your legislation. In Canada, for example, you only infringe copyright if you intended to infringe it. The high penalties associated with infringement of copyright, ie. criminal sanctions, leads to a high burden on the crown to prosecute.
So if a tech-unsavy person is uploading while downloading as part of the protocol, s/he is likely not intending to infringe copyright in the uploading, and therefore likely not guilty of an infringement.
However, the downloading itself may be an infringement, and by virtue of clicking the link, you have shown intention (though shown, it's not proven; accidental clicking, etc.).
Incidentally, I do not know what would happen if you were downloading a copyrighted movie you already own (fair use/dealing), and you were aware of the uploading. In that case you may be infringing copyright, but at the same time exercising your right to a backup, though to exercise that right through the bittorrent protocol, the only means of acquiring a backup given the DVD copy protection, you must redistribute and inherently infringe portions of the copyright.
Re:Legally (Score:2, Insightful)
The likes of the MIAA have trouble shutting down certain file-sharing like Kazaa because they can't prove that the parent companies can control what is being served. That does not extend to you, you are making the copyrighted material available for others and you know you are.
The only reason all end users are not targetted so far is due to cost. If you keep yourself informed at all on this then you
Re:Legally (Score:5, Interesting)
That's the real problem with going after torrent users. Unless the accuser actually downloads the file from the same torrent, they have no proof that the file is actually what it says. Once they do this, though, they are distributing their material knowingly.
So,
Not! (Score:4, Interesting)
It is incredibly common for studios to offer samples of their work without compromising their rights to to it.
Wrong (Score:5, Insightful)
Is it that hard to understand? They can distribute as much of it as they want, because they OWN IT. You, however, do NOT.
Re:Wrong (Score:3, Informative)
> since you don't own the copyright!
> Is it that hard to understand? They can distribute as much of it as they want,
> because they OWN IT. You, however, do NOT.
Actually, you are allowed to quote/use up to either 30 seconds or 10% of the original work under fair use laws.
While there is no way to assure this in bittorrent, it goes to show even the pro-IP like yourself also seem to find copyright hard to understand...
An additional point to
Re:Not! (Score:3, Informative)
True. Serious suspicion is what makes the police smash down your door to take your computer, and on it's hard drive they find the proof.
There are so few other explanations of what you could've been doing connected to that bittorrent that they've easily got justification for a search warrant.
Additionally, that 30 seconds of material isn't fair use anyway- the quantity is sufficiently small to be fair, but the manner in which you use it is not.
Re:Legally (Score:5, Insightful)
Copyright law does not have any language regarding intent that I'm aware of. Anyway, if you are using BitTorrent to download copyright restricted works, I can't imagine how that's going to engender any sympathy on the part of your local judge or jury. There is already a prevailing feeling (among the people I talk to, anyway) that even downloading is not morally acceptable.
In this case, it would be wise to simply not use BitTorrent for sharing copyright restricted works without permission from the person or organization that has the copyright for the work. BT was never intended to anonymize users or be a one-way stream. The BT application works best when users share data and client and tracker software can accurately detect which IP is doing what. If no one shared while using BT, the whole process would be no more efficient than a simple HTTP or FTP transfer. Anonymity would interfere with the tit-for-tat algorithm that throttles upload and download to different clients depending on their own sharing practices.
Personally I'm done using BT for "sharing" copyrighted works. Too bad for the MPAA and RIAA, really. My latest discovery via P2P was "Penn and Teller's Bullshit!" After viewing several episodes downloaded via BT, I went out and bought the DVD set of the first season. A $45 purchase I would have never made otherwise. Oh well, there's still USENET. :)
Or for the same price I could just get cable and subscribe to a few premium channels and record all this stuff directly to digital (for now). You'd think the MPAA would learn from the RIAA and move quickly to get direct digital distribution going. I'd pay $2 for a commercial-free 1/2 hour show and $4 for hour shows. $5 or $6 for a movie. Skip all the useless DVD packaging. Of course, the files will need to be at least as good quality as the rips out there, and playable on GNU/Linux.
Re:Legally (Score:3, Interesting)
It is an infringement
Intent is codified in at least some statutes in this language or similar through the phrase "knows or should have known". That snippet is from the Canadian Copyright Act [cb-cda.gc.ca].
However, even absent the explicit statutory requirement of intention, in most civilized constutional legal regimes you can
What's the problem? (Score:5, Insightful)
The tracker is what facilitates the download, the person who runs the tracker has set it up with the intent to share the specific file being shared. The tracker site is typically also the root of all the sharing through being a base seeder as well. So, basicly this brings things back to the days of piracy over public FTP and HTTP download sites, just attack the one facilitating the downloads. While foreign hosting and such might make this trickier it sure is way simpler than trying to attack the typical P2P network where the users are also the ones bringing the content to the table.
Re:What's the problem? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:What's the problem? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:What's the problem? (Score:5, Informative)
The tracker is what facilitates the download, the person who runs the tracker has set it up with the intent to share the specific file being shared. The tracker site is typically also the root of all the sharing through being a base seeder as well. So, basicly this brings things back to the days of piracy over public FTP and HTTP download sites, just attack the one facilitating the downloads.
Man, you're so wrong. The tracker only hosts the .torrent files, if that! It's primary roll is to just keep a database of who is sharing what as that is the information the bittorrent client's request from it. This is why it's so hard for the MPAA to crack down on them, as it basically does the job of google but for a specific audience. It doesn't host or upload or share any copyright material, it just tracks those that do.
Re:What's the problem? (Score:5, Interesting)
Either way I can't say that I think it is obvious in any way that it should be legal to keep a tracker just because it does not actually hold the file. Its only purpose in existance is to provide access to the file, and also, the hashes that it keeps are generated from the file. While some people are tempted to compare the trackers information to plain linking I think it is a flawed argument. While the tracker only points out where each file fragment is available from the pointed to hosts are not there for any other purpose than to be pointed out by the tracker. They are if you will not really practically reachable in any other way. In that sense one can just as well see the tracker as an integral component in a system that as a whole is illegal.
Re:What's the problem? (Score:4, Informative)
A properly run tracker should never host any data. Just torrents. A torrent is merely a file with checksums + some info.
How do you think for instance, www.thepiratebay.org (swedish) can stay online?
Re:What's the problem? (Score:3, Insightful)
RE: hashes (Score:3, Interesting)
Might have some validity, but I think it's still a stretch. The original point (legally speaking, anyway) of concern over "derived works" was focused on people doing slight modifications to existing code and attempting to resell it as something new and original. (EG. If I have access to the source code to Outlook Express email for
Re:What's the problem? (Score:5, Insightful)
The only defense here for such a website is that DMCA-style laws and even old copyright laws provide a safe haven clause. This means that the copyright holder must inform them that the content is copyrighted and unauthorized for sharing. If you check most sites that host Bittorrent links to copyrighted content, they always have some clear language saying "if you are the copyyright holder and this is your stuff, tell us and we will remove the link". Until that kicks in and the copyright holder informs them, there is no liability.
That all being said, the newer laws (like the one just passed in Australia) lets anyone notify the site and force a reaction. No longer is only the copyright holder themself required.
Re:What's the problem? (Score:2)
Man, you're so wrong. The tracker only hosts the .torrent files, if that!
Actually, the tracker has to have the full file available to be the initial seed. So even if there are enough seeds later, I'd say there is a good argument that the person running the tracker is responsible for the initial distribution and subject to the greatest liability.
IANAL, just the paranoid founder of the world's largest video game music archive [vgmusic.com].
Re:What's the problem? (Score:3, Informative)
Off Topic: grammar critique discussed (Score:3, Insightful)
We can start by breaking down the original essay, to wit:
"Man,
Re:What's the problem? (Score:5, Funny)
This isn't nam, this is slashdot, there are rules.
Re:What's the problem? (Score:3, Insightful)
Remove the source of the high quality pirated material and you will inevitably reduce the interest in the illegal copies.
Lol doofus (Score:3, Insightful)
So basically your entire argument is wrong. Only the actual filesharers can be held to blame in bittorrent not the central tracker.
Re:What's the problem? (Score:2)
Can you give an example of a law which makes a distinction between P2P and non-P2P file transfer?
All machines on the 'net are peers, aren't they?
Re:What's the problem? (Score:2)
That assumes that the tracker has a way of knowing which files are illegal. There isn't any reliable way for it to know that; it can't be accused of knowingly facilitating illegal transfers. There is more and more quite legal content on BitTorrent (though probably not a large percentage).
The same logic would give "the only reason for FedEx to handle an illegal substanc
Re:What's the problem? (Score:3, Informative)
There is more and more quite legal content on BitTorrent (though probably not a large percentage)
That statement is very misleading and will only confuse people or incorrectly allow them to directly associate BitTorrent with other P2P apps like KaZaa and old Napster. No one including yourself has absolutely no idea what percentage of what is being offered with BitTorrent. In fact, nothing is "on" BitTorrent at all as there is no BitTorrent network in any way
Re:What's the problem? (Score:2, Informative)
As I said I don't know if it really is illegal, but the intent of the law is fairly clear, the tracker distinction is just a technicality.
The point of the argument was that I don't think it should matter what the tracker has, it should matter what the tracker is there to do. So I am saying:
The tracker has only one sing
I don't think BitTorrent will be much of a problem (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:I don't think BitTorrent will be much of a prob (Score:5, Informative)
Also there is a court ruling from the BBS-time that says that the BBS administrators is NOT responsible for what the users do on the BBS (such as trading warez). It is argued that the same reasoning can be done for a torrent tracker. However if there are copyrighted material transferred without the copyrightholders approval, people that USE the tracker is still doing something illegal.
The industry has tried to remove torrents from piratebay.org, which is the biggest torrent tracker in sweden, with limited [thepiratebay.org] success. (they have even gotten calls from Microsoft when Halo 2 was up for downloading)
Re:I don't think BitTorrent will be much of a prob (Score:2)
But how well does that really work? That has been the strategy so far with ed2k/overnet, and they're no closer to shutting that down than before they started. You kill one site, and a bunch of new ones [slyck.com] show up in its place.
Re:I don't think BitTorrent will be much of a prob (Score:2, Interesting)
Facilitating crimes? It's become a cliche, but it's worth reminding ourselves that introducing a new vocabulary to change the meaning of common and well-understood ideas is a tactic as effective as it is disingenuous, yet a tactic that demands not only tacit acceptance on everyone's part, but also a measure of credulity as that typically foun
What's the difference? (Score:5, Insightful)
Kazaa:
BitTorrent:
(The effectiveness and ethics of this method are a different story.)
Re:What's the difference? (Score:4, Informative)
You fell for a small but important trap. Just because you are downloading something doesn't mean you are downloading copyrighted material. And just because you are downloading copyrighted material it doesn't mean you are doing anything illegal. And just because you are downloading copyrighted material and at the same moment share it to other people interested in the same material you are still not doing anything illegal.
Many people distribute their own stuff with BitTorrent, because so they only need to seed the material and have maybe to handle the amount for two or three complete downloads from their site. All the other people get their data from those who already got the block in question. This is a huge bandwith saver for all involved parties. Mandrake Linux gets distributed that way for instance, and you can also get other distributions that way, completely legal.
So different than KaZaA or other file sharing networks where you have to look out to find some legitimate use, with BitTorrent it's easy.
On the other hand: The article especially points out that one of the counter technics employed by MPAA and RIAA is to put bogus files with an interesting file name up for sharing. So people searching for a special file may end up with a file with the same name but a different content. Centralized hosting of "proven" files like Napster did made them liable for copyright infringement. Calculating checksums would only help if you could compare the checksums with a trusted database, which is open to the same type of liability, because the database has to calculate the checksums by using the original files. So infecting KaZaA with bogus files and forged checksums is easy. And you know how many files everyone is actually sharing, because you can just query the client and ask. This makes KaZaA and similar systems vulnerable to two types of attacks: Tracking people distributing immense amounts of files, and poisoning the data pool with fake files.
With BitTorrent it's different. Everyone seeding a file is taking technical responsibility for the correctness of the file. But the actual data blocks are coming from other computers. The tracker keeps track of the different computers sharing exactly this file. For every other file there is another tracker. So with the tracker data you can actually find out who's sharing a specified single file, and because of checksumming you can be confident that all people listed in the tracker are sharing the same file derived from the same original data. But you don't know which files else are being shared on the same computer, because their trackers are being somewhere else. So all a copyright infringement tracking bot connecting to that tracker gets to know is information about this single file. Quite ineffective, and if you go to a judge with an IP address and tell them: "From this IP this one file was distributed" he'll probably tell you that he has more important stuff to do.
So people sharing large amounts of data don't appear any different to the bot than people just sharing a single file. And poisoning the data is also not easy, because you can't spoof someone elses seed and tracker. So you have to establish yourself as a second source, with your own seed and tracker, and if you don't provide correct data, your seed will die out soon. There may be an attack possible if you hack BitTorrent yourself (it's GPLed, after all), and if you take part of the actually ongoing BitTorrent sharing, but send fake blocks to every request you get. But then the checksumming will detect you quite soon, and you loose again.
So many legit uses (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:So many legit uses (Score:2)
Re:So many legit uses (Score:2)
The idea of allowing people with limited resources to spread (knowledge of) their stuff, never really happened the way it has with BitTorrent. Even with the possibility of inclusion of the links.
Just placing their files on a p2p network without the usage of a web page to promote it won't do much when people don't know what to search for.
Re:So many legit uses (Score:2)
Yes, BitTorrent has a lot of good uses and downloading WinXP sp2 was a very good use, but it wasn't a legal use. Just because Microsoft gives the patch away freely, that doesn't mean they include unlimitied distribution rights. I'm not sure if the same holds true for game patches or not. Just because something is highly useful and seems okay doesn't automatically make it legal.
Re:So many legit uses (Score:2)
Re:So many legit uses (Score:5, Interesting)
The article is full of quotes about film-industry people bitching about how difficult it will be to destroy bittorrent. "It's very difficult for an interdiction company to get in the middle of that system"
Uh-huh. Yes, the internet is resistant to people attempting to destroy it, that's part of the design. The worrying thing is how many people are completely open about wanting to do so.
" [John] Malcolm of the MPAA declined to say whether the trade group intends to sue Cohen" - I think that says it all really, that such options are even being considered. You may as well sue the founding fathers for allowing people to speak in public.
Re:So many legit uses-Barrel Spoling. (Score:3, Insightful)
If you wanted to do so, you could cite the percentage of internet traffic which bittorrent uses, some figures were even in the article.
Some people estimate 800,000 copies of bittorrent might be running at any one time. Download.com estimates that 1.5 million copies of the standard BitTorrent client have been downloaded from their site alone (more than firefox). I think the claim of "large sections of the internet being affe
Re:About naive, short-sighted, idiotic people (Score:3, Insightful)
Defeatist? (Score:3, Interesting)
I got an idea then, change the law so that personal noncommerical use of copyrighted material is allowed to be coppied and the 'il' will drop out of illegal. It is the peoples' law, and it will be changed if the majority of people are 'criminals' under it.
"they will simply push for still more draconian legislation"
What is your arguement, that we give in to the harm done by the idea monopolists because they might do something worse in the future? Well, Nevil
Re:About naive, short-sighted, idiotic people (Score:3, Interesting)
Trust me, when the world gets to a massive Depression Mark II, (C) will be the least of concerns to both sides, FOOD will be #1.
Now back to copying music, kids did it in the 80s, swapping mix tapes, did that hurt the industry? The industry doesnt deserve 500 billion status, they made th
As long as there is a legitimate use... (Score:5, Insightful)
As the article said, the genii is now out of the bottle, and there's no way it can be captured and contained again.
Re:As long as there is a legitimate use... (Score:2)
Ironically the first
The only way I see around it, short of simply asking other people to send you the file (since BitTorrent traffic itself is, ridiculously, not blocked) is to download it through an HTTPS proxy. I have not yet found a web-based free HTT
Private Trackers (Score:3, Interesting)
So sites like suprnova are wayyyy to open and as time goes by the smart people have moved away from such sites.
But there are private trackers as well they have.
- Alot of people
- Alot of content
- Good ratios so speeds are good
Nothing like suprnova and they are monitored carefully by the owners, so how are the MPAA/RIAA going to monitor these?
Why don't they use it instead (Score:5, Insightful)
I fail to see why Hollywood won't learn from RIAA's mistakes (and Apple's success) and start a service like this, the audience is global, there's tons of cash to make!
I live in a small nordic country (Sweden) where you have to wait 1-2 years for most "cool" shows (and even then they might get a timeslot around midnight) or get passed altogether (example, they just started running Angel Season 1, 01:00), so downloading series and buying them in DVD formats is more of a norm for me and many of my friends.
Now, a legal torrent.. that I'd pay for (and they'd even get my upload bandwidth for free).
Re:Why don't they use it instead (Score:5, Insightful)
Light DRM
Reasonable and Flexible Cost
Marketed Well
Acknowledge the Inevitable
Re:Why don't they use it instead (Score:3, Insightful)
$0.99/song to have it forever works great.
$3 for a show which, knowing how these things work, STILL HAS ADS THAT YOU CAN'T SKIP, won't.
Re:Why don't they use it instead (Score:3, Interesting)
'Light' DRM is only a temporary respite (Score:3, Insightful)
AISI, there are essentially two kinds of DRM: one that allows you to do specific things, preventing everything else, and one that prevents you from doing specific things, allowing everything else. Now, the specific things are arguable in each case, but it's that 'everything else' which ends up causing the biggest problems.
'Everything else' includes all the changes in technology which will
Simple solution. (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Simple solution. (Score:5, Interesting)
No it wouldn't. It's only illegal to break encryption if it forms an effective copyright protection measure (I forget the exact terminology, but that's close enough). In this case, it wouldn't actually be protecting anyone's copyright, so they would be legally entitled to break it.
and give out the key in a special license, so that anyone/anycorporation/anyorganization that uses the key in any way forfeits all ability to punish anyone/anocorporation/anyorganization for it's contents.
The legality of such a license is questionable, at best. First of all, can an encryption key (a purely functional item, usually automatically designed) be considered copyrightable? If not, then you do not need a license to use it. Secondly, can a license take away a person's rights to their own IP? I wouldn't have thought so.
IANAL, etc.
Re:Simple solution. (Score:2)
Contrary to popular belief, not everybody lives in the U.S. either. There are no laws against defeating encryption here, so whats to stop me from doing that, and re-sharing it with the rest of the world?
Re:Simple solution. (Score:2)
I named the file. I, therefore, own the copyright to the name of the file. Without breaking my encryption or having a license from me, you don't know the name of the file.
And the license wouldn't even have to make them give up their rights to sue.
"In order to use this key, you or your organization may not be a member of RIAA, MPAA, etc, or their subsidiaries, contractors, government slaves, etc. Furthermore, you may not disseminate the contents of any file encrypted with this key to ANYON
Peerguardian (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Peerguardian (Score:5, Informative)
collecting the IP addresses of people connected to a tracker does not ammount to proof of infringement. You have to actually recieve some data from them to prove they are illegally transmitting copyrighted material.
Joseph Farthing
Administrator & News Editor
Methlabs.org
Re:Peerguardian (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Peerguardian (Score:4, Informative)
getting a list of ips just won't be good enough without some sort of evidence
then again we have seen some stupid occasions where stupid takedown notices have been given:
http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=04/09/20
Re:Peerguardian (Score:3, Interesting)
But aren't RIAA getting a lot of their money from lawsuit by out-of-court settlements? I mean, few people have the lot of money they wish to spend on getting a lawyer and fighting in court.
Confusion on the tracing. (Score:4, Informative)
And that since all these data packets are being sent randomly from various sources, it would be much more difficult to actually point a finger at a source or destination.
It was described that sure you might be able to intercept the transmition of data, but you are not witnessing the transfer of a in-tact file.
So you could see that maybe it's some sort of mpeg stream or maybe part of a larger compressed archive, but it's just a piece of it. And once the next version of the torrent system comes along with the ability to transfer without use of trackers or servers, it becomes here-say on any legal action.
So does this packet chunk bit torrent stuff actually hold true? And if not, Why?
Legit uses (Score:3, Insightful)
I think BitTorrent users are harder to sue (Score:5, Insightful)
When you find a BitTorrent user participating in a big swarm, you can only sue them for that single infringement, not for sharing hundreds of movies or music files via programs like Kazaa. In order to make it cost effective they would have to keep track of your online BitTorrent activity for quite a while to collect multiple infringements.
Re:I think BitTorrent users are harder to sue (Score:4, Interesting)
they would have to keep track of your online BitTorrent activity for quite a while to collect multiple infringements.
They also need to:
I think many of these are the same reasons IRC and Usenet can go along without being bothered too much, plus the critial mass of people aren't there, but that's how a lot of the files get out to FastTrack or BitTorrent I'm sure.
Re:I think BitTorrent users are harder to sue (Score:3, Interesting)
Just consider that it is within fair use to distribute brief quotes and excerpts. Not that I would expect that half of the movie would count as such, but if there were a system whereby 100 users were each responsible for 1 minute of a movie and some index told them where to get each minute then I'm not sure that there is anything illegal being done by the uploaders, nor is it clear that the downloader is doing anything illegal. If bit-t
File Sharing Will Kill CD/DVD Maeket (Score:3, Insightful)
Personally, I don't believe anyone has a right to "share" the data on a CD or DVD unless that right was passed to you by the person who created the data. (I put quotes around share because use of that word is a deliberate attempt to whitewash what's really going on.)
If I don't own all rights to something I make (which , of course, I do, since it is impossible for anyone else to own those rights unless I transfer them), then I can't benefit from its production and reproduction. If I can't benefit by selling some of those rights, I'm likely to quit making things. So will almost everyone else, contrary to the naive opinions often expressed here that legitimate artists just want to give it all away and don't care about making a living.
Re:File Sharing Will Kill CD/DVD Maeket (Score:3, Informative)
Cassette tape didn't destroy the recorded music or movie business because it was a recording medium, not a distribution network. One person copying an album onto a tape poses no threat. One person copying a CD onto his server and offering it up to anyone with Internet access is a distinct threat.
I am not equating illegal copying with "zero legit sales". I am saying that, left unchecked, illegal copying will make it unprofitable to stay in the recorded music business. It is not necessar
Re:File Sharing Will Kill CD/DVD Maeket (Score:3, Informative)
And, no, it isn't ridiculous that the price of CD's and DVD's is more than the 3-5% you say the "hardware guys" accept as their profit. No one is interested in the hardware. A blank CD is no more attractive than 400 blan
The solution is easy (Score:2)
private communities (Score:2, Interesting)
but they can be found, and it easier who has access to them, and all the warez is in one place, so you can sue each user to a huge amount.
now with bittorrent, it is quite easy to setup a private webserver with a forum, torrent files, and a tracker rejecting unknown users. that does not create much traffic, as most data flows between the members directly. if the site is found and the server is taken in: it only h
Legal Threats (Score:3, Informative)
One they day will get a clue and start hunting down the users instead.
Think about this...Bootleg quality SUCKS! (Score:3, Insightful)
Think about what happens when you download music, I'd say 40% of the time. You find that there's a click or a pop or an early cutoff in the song. Not 100% recording studio quality, or maybe even the encoding rate is less than 128k.
Also, anyone who has ever seen a bootleg knows that even TELESYNCS are of worse quality than that old TV that used to be in the garage with the aluminum foil on the antenna, and whose antenna was actually a coathanger.
The answer is to make reasonable quality movies available easily to people. TiVO has the right idea, and this idea may just bury the whole theatre industry (or set it back hundreds of paces).
I've bought bootlegs on every corner of NYC, and they all SUCK, and I'm not just talking about quality. Same has been said about the quality of the music that is being released these days. The RIAA is mad that we're downloading music that isn't worth even a legit 0.99 cent download. The answer? GET MORE TALENT ON THE LABELS!
Same is true for movies. Let's do a brief history of movies that have come out recently, shall we?
Lady Killers - I fell aasleep, personally. Horrible.
Van Helsing - PUH-LEESE. Should have ended 45 minutes before it did.
White Chicks - umm...right. White Chicks.
So one could argue that buying/downloading bootlegs is really just saving us from having to spend $10 now on a crappy movie. 10 BUCKS! Maybe there wouldn't be so much downloading if tickets were still reasonable. $10!
When I buy/download a good movie, I go to the thetre and see it.
SAW is a perfect example. GREAT MOVIE, new, fresh, original. Bought a bootleg, watched 15 minutes, and went to the theatre. They DESERVED the price of the ticket.
Spiderman 2 also....downloaded it, watched it, and went ot see it 3 times in the theatre.
My advice to MPAA/RIAA...better product. Make it so that we're foolish to try and get a cheap copy of your product. Nobody is out there manufacturing BMW knockoffs, are they? THey'd be FOOLISH to.
Take a lesson, and stop complaining.
Just my
The Stuff You Can't Get (Score:5, Interesting)
My most recent downloads, for instance, have been copies of Sifl & Olly (which hasn't been released on DVD) episodes of the BBC's Spaced (which, while released on DVD, is only available in the UK on region 2 media, and I'm in the states), and the Drive-By Truckers Pizza Deliverance, which is woefully out of print. In the case of the Truckers, I already own a copy of the record, but it's beat to shit. Supposedly they'll be re-releasing it sometime in 2005, and I'll undoubtedly be buying myself a new copy. In the meantime, however, I'd like to be able to listen to it.
I'm one of those folks who would happily purchase the stuff I pull via BitTorrent... if I could. It irritates the shit out of me to be snooped online, and to read article after article about the RIAA and MPAA pissing and moaning over downloading, when they don't really seem to be paying attention to what is being downloaded.
Sure, there's a shit-ton of folks dealing in warez and publicly available media, but there are also tons of sites dealing specifically with stuff people seek that can't currently be purchased legitimately (I don't understand downloading a crappy boot of a movie destined for DVD release, or downloading a movie that can be purchased for a few bucks online or rented. Frankly, it's a waste of my bandwidth). You'd think they'd look at the popularity of, say, Sifl & Olly torrents and say "Well shit, there's a market. Maybe we should release a DVD of that stuff."
And hey; how about not pricing it outlandishly (a la Carnivale or Six Feet Under)? Nothing makes me consider downloading more than knowing that, by purchasing it, I'm voluntarily allowing myself to get screwed.
TV (Score:4, Interesting)
This PeerGuardian bs again? (Score:4, Interesting)
OK, can someone once and for all tell me how PG makes it more difficult for corporations to track down file sharers? All the have to do is use a public network, right? I just don't get it. Do some think they'll sit behind a special kind of RIAA network to scan people and have totally missed the news of PG mentioned everywhere?
Have we got any data on blocked RIAA connections?
People mentioning PG is always talking about the software like it efficiently blocks the organizations you've picked.
Re:This PeerGuardian bs again? (Score:3, Interesting)
as for the effectiveness of PG:
http://www.dmeurope.com/default.asp?from=f&Arti c le ID=2016
"Indeed, Akshay Patil, a student at MIT, whose paper, Identifying Sources of Spoof Files and Limiting Their Impact in the FastTrack Network, discusses the phenomenon, notes that spoofing has become a considerable problem for the FastTrack network - the network used by Kazaa - with downloaders of popul
http://digitalpanic.org :-0 :-) ;-P (Score:3, Insightful)
I love bittorrent - I have about forty full length jam band shows that I've obtained over the last couple of months from www.digitalpanic.org.
I have an office cable modem, a home cable modem, a girlfriend's house cable modem, a mom's house cable modem, and most of them have BSD boxes for firewalls. I'm working on a method to automate the three home boxes participating in torrents I seed so when I start distributing shows I'll come with a megabit of bandwidth. Once the process is 'cooked' I have a couple of customers that probably won't mind some torrent activity on their network, so long as I keep it between 9:00 PM and 6:00 AM.
If you worry about the RIAA the solution is simple; get interested in bands that *promote* your right to copy their live work - Widespread Panic, Grateful Dead, Phish, Moe, Jerry Joseph & Jackmormons, String Cheese Incident, Government Mule, Drive By Truckers, Southern Bitch, Star Tangled Angel Revival, and a hundred other, less famous acts I've haven't listened to yet. There *is* something there for everyone
They cheated the system (Score:5, Insightful)
There are two paths to changing the law - pursue it through petition to representatives, or pursue it through civil disobedience. Since the congresscritters appear to be bought and paid for, disobedience seems to be the only reasonable choice that remains. The file sharing folks aren't making a buck doing so. In fact, it costs them time and resources (electricity, disk space, bandwidth, etc.) to participate in the activity. The pirates who sell the materials are a different matter
Hollywood & this article misses the point agai (Score:5, Insightful)
Why can't "Hollywood" adapt to technological change instead of fighting it ? Why can an unemployed programmer sitting in his apartment out-inovate a handful of multi-billion dollar corporations ?
Why do these wealthy CEO and entertainer types think they're immune from change ? I used to be a high paid COBOL guy, I had to adapt. Do any of these people expect me to feel any sympathy or support for them ?
Why would people want to download in the first place ? Is it because ticket prices are too high, and the cost of soda and popcorn is almost offensive ? Do people in one country want to see the movie as soon as people in another country ?
Is the loss of revenue real or imaginary ? Is their existence really threatened ? Are movie industry profits really sliding ? Are American high school kids really going to start staying home instead of going to the theatre ?
Sorry if this sounds like a bit of a rant. I'm really tired of the pro-CEO slant in the mainstream media. If any journalists are reading this I hope you address these questions in your future articles. It would really make me alot more interested in what you do for a living.
Re:PeerGuardian (Score:5, Informative)
PeerGuardian is based around the idea of an open list of blocklists collected from known fake files/scaners etc.
The **AAs are not very sophisticated in their searching - man scans come from a very small number of ranges.
The ranges are found by:
1) Whois searching, If we know the name of the company we can easily find them by scanning whois databases. They *have* to give their company name (eg BayTSP) so they are easy to find.
2) Log comparison. PG collects a log of every ip you connect to against the time. If someone gets a letter we get them to cross-reference the time the infringement is said to be on the letter (this must legally be included) with the ips in their log. 9/10 it is an obvious IP doing the scanning that can be found.
see our forum on this topic here:
http://methlabs.org/forums/forumdisplay.ph
PeerGuardian is simply a low level firewall that blocks these ips. PeerGuardian 2 will be open source, and will update automatically.
We're also trying to make the database more open, by adding a system where all the ranges can be viewed on a webpage, and users can comment, report bad ranges, and vote on how useful a range is.
See the reviews of PG2 *closed beta* here:
http://www.afterdawn.com/guides/archive/peergua
http://www.p2private.org/review/
I expect PG2 to be out before the new year, but it will be out when its ready, not beforehand.
Thanks
Joseph Farthing
Administrator & News Editor
Methlabs.org
Re:PeerGuardian (Score:2)
Ahem, and what prevents these logs from being subpoenaed?
Re:PeerGuardian (Score:2, Informative)
I don't know... no one has ever tried to collect logs from us - we don't keep them
its our users who have the logs.
Re:PeerGuardian (Score:2, Informative)
if someone comes onto our forum and posts a range we don't just add it without any thought.
other lists may do this but we *don't*
Re:PeerGuardian (Score:3)
Re:Newgroups? (Score:4, Informative)
I believe Harlan Ellison successfully sued somebody who was posting copies of his stories to alt.binaries.e-books (or similar). He also tried to sue AOL, who settled out of court for an undisclosed sum.
See details here: http://www.authorslawyer.com/c-ellison.shtml
Re:Newgroups? (Score:2)
Re:Newgroups? (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Uhh.. (Score:2, Informative)
Various trackers a while ago came under a flood of DOS attacks. We dont know who, but that they did. 100MBS connections were maxxed out in minutes. The RIAA/MPAA could do something like this similar to Lycos (now scrapped) anti-spam screensaver. Just call it an "anti-piracy screensaver" and say that by using it yo
"FTP gives Hollywood a Headache." (Score:2)
Shhh, don't give them ideas.
Re:appropriate nomenclature (Score:2)
If there were no Bittorrent Protocol the *AA would have no headaches.
Re:How to poison BitTorrent for Dummies (Score:3, Informative)
discover that BT uses SHA-1 and not MD5 so you wasted all that time trying to corrupt peoples downloads while only forcing them to redownload a few hundred K at most.